President Obama confirmed his support for sending women into the line of fire in a pre-Super Bowl interview, saying that because they sometimes sustain casualties in their current position they are already essentially in combat.
First, that’s a bogus argument. Civilians get killed in war all the time, and they are not combat soldiers. Same goes for journalists, doctors and others who are close to the action. Being a combat soldier is a distinction, but not necessarily a desirable one: it simply means that in a war zone you are always a legitimate target.
But whatever the rationale, women will now be officially equal to men on the battlefield, which brings me to an amusing revelation:
Barack Obama is an MRA.
When you say you will not hesitate to order women into a position that may well harm them or get them killed, you are violating the core principles feminists demand that men adhere to. Furthermore, you are embracing a kind of radical gender equality that is, in fact, a feature of much of the men’s rights movement.
I don’t happen to adhere to it myself; I find the idea of absolute gender equality to be short-sighted, counterproductive and, in the end, more harmful than reality based thinking. Some MRAs disagree very strongly with me on that point.
However, Obama is apparently on their side. Barack Obama wouldn’t hesitate to put women in harm’s way just the same as men. I think for feminists, this is going to be a confusing moment. It will be like what happens when you’ve got a particularly nasty, aggressive woman who gets up in a guy’s face and says “go ahead and hit me, you coward, I dare you!” and rather than back down like most men would, the guy gives it to her as though she were a man and lays her out.
This radical equality Obama is pushing is going to be the end of feminism as we know it for a couple reasons. First, the pedestal is effectively gone. White knighting has been erased from law, and the effect will be similar to what happened in the USSR, where women’s “liberation” eventually ended up giving them more work and responsibilities than they had before. This is going to be a major blow to women’s exclusive prestige and the end of chivalry as we understand it.
One could say it’s funny that the result of feminism will be that women end up losing the special status they used to have and find themselves looked upon as merely weaker, slower and more emotionally difficult versions of their male counterparts, but in the end we won’t be better off for it. No, it’s just going to make society somewhat more crappy for most of us — we’ll be a little more like China and Eastern Europe, and a little less like Switzerland.
Sometimes I wonder whether women will end up cursing the feminists who put them in this position. Unfortunately, I doubt many will. I think this whole feminist episode will be entirely forgotten, and the lesson forgotten with it.
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Parodically, Welmer said : “Barack Obama is an MRA.”
No he is not.
Obama merely selects and chooses whatever strengthens his mandate whilst simultaneously discarding as nothing, all other attendant and patent contradictions. Just like every patronizing socialist passing before him did.
Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.
True equality for women would be an ENORMOUS demotion from their current status in Western culture. Let’s do it!
Imagine if women actually had to sweat it out in a coal mine or in a foxhole or on an oil rig to earn the money to pay for diamond rings and Manolo Blahnik shoes and perfumes named after female singers.
Imagine if men demanded and received gifts of equal monetary value to those of the ladies on Valentine’s Day (“Where’s my rifle, honey? You know I had my eye on that AR-15. No sex for you tonight!”)
Imagine no gender quotas, no alimony, equal taxation, equal rights to government goodies, equal “shared” custody of children, etc. The mind boggles at how much society would need to rearrange itself to create true equality.
His phone call to Sandra Fluke and other actions made me think he panders to women. Now I’m a bit puzzled.
Calling him an MRA might be a bit optimistic.
@crella
I think everyone’s a little puzzled at this point, including Obama. The Obama MRA thing was a bit tongue in cheek, but I was making a straightforward point, too: I don’t think we could find a standard definition of what “MRA” means, exactly, so it’s perfectly plausible that someone could identify Obama as an MRA at least on some issues.
The sound of one whizzing buy you is just different being close and up front it sort of stays with you . Lets Just fuck it . Im feeling that shame now but, Its not for me .Yep Its shame . Is this what they feed on . It feels like it .
Barack Obama will send women into the front lines to be captured by jihadists, gang raped and then beheaded–all on video–so that our military will become the laughingstock of the planet.
He’s an MRA.
Barack Obama demands VAWA, the “Dear Colleague” letter for boys in college, Title IX to push girls into STEM courses over more qualified boys, overfunds the Presidential Commission on the Status and Welfare of Women and Girls, and God knows what else to promote the greedy interests of Marxist feminists nationwide.
Barack Obama is a what?!
Enjoy signing-up with Selective Service “womyn,” equality… liberals, be the first one on your block to have your daughter come home in a box! (C’mon, what’re you waiting for? Have ‘em enlist today!)
“Barack Obama is an MRA.”
Hoo boy, this is going to set some sparks a-flying. Let’s see what the phlegminists have to say about this.
He panders to leftist feminist females. Nobody else matters to him.
@Price:
“Sometimes I wonder whether women will end up cursing the feminists who put them in this position.”
Unlikely. Remember, if they end up not liking what they get, it’ll be the men’s fault because they let the “feminists” get away with all they got away with.
Ill believe it when women actually start dying on the battlefront.
I get what you are trying to say, but it doesn’t fly.
The combat issue, like every other “feminist” issue, is about power vs responsibility. It’s about selective “equality” while the real obligations remain with men.
I will bet my left nut that women will not have to register for the selective service—there I said it. Only men will be obligated to die, whereas women will have the option to do so when saying they were in combat could advance them up the career ladder. All the rights, none of the obligations—same as it ever was.
I agree that feminism will likely decline in strength in the coming decades but I ‘m not sure it’s because of stuff like this. I think it’s more likely to wane because of the individual choices men and women are making these days.
“Barack Obama is an MRA.”
Yeah, um, I do not believe this one. Even if his only concession to the MRM is to have identical selective service responsibilities for both males and females, one concession does not an MRM make.
*One concession does not an MRA make.
Maybe barney is just acting on financial realities. It is a mathematical impossibility that the US will not go broke at some point, simply because they can not pay even the interest on their ridiculously huge loans.
But what, bammy, what if, just imagine, if women worked as much as men did! Think of the extra taxes we could get! Maybe… possibly, somehow, even enough to just about keep our debt where it is instead of constantly increasing. The possibilities! But in order to do that, we must first make women truly equal to men in actual fact. hmm where to start…
There were enough women who opposed the Equal Rights Amendment that it didn’t get enough votes in the states. The reason these women cited was that they would lose all of the special privileges that they enjoyed under the law, and they wanted to continue being treated special, i.e., pedestalized.
What Obama is proposing is that women not receive special treatment, and if this is applied in the military it’s only a matter of time for it to be applied throughout goverment, which is notorious for its useless female employees. Federal standards tend to trickle down to state bureaucracies as well.
Be careful what you wish for, grrlz.
May I go off topic?
I can’t imagine that Mr Price will be writing about this, but you may find it both predictable and amusing.
Chris Huhne was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the present Coalition Government. He resigned his position as The Essex Police were keen to prosecute him and his (ex) wife for Perverting the Course of Justice – a Common Law offence. It was alleged that ten years ago (yes you read that right – 10 years ago), returning from Stanstead Airport to London by car, he had exceeded the speed-limit for which three penalty points are added to ones licence (you can incur up to twelve points before losing your licence to drive). It was also alleged that in an agreement between husband and wife, who was with him at the time of the speeding, that she would pretend that she had been driving thus taking the points on her licence, thus the pair of them are accused of perverting the course of Justice. Usually a Gaol sentence is involved for such deception. In 2011 Chris Huhne, ditched his wife for a divorced woman aged 44. The new woman may be younger than his wife by thirteen years but certainly not hotter as she looks like a butch lesbian – and there was I being led to believe that Alpha males can have their pick of hot-chicks. The ex-wife alleges that it was by reason of marital duress that she agreed to the deception – as they always do. The wife however has a high-powered job in the city and according to Huhne earns far more than he does – and as a cabinet minister must earn in excess of £100K which makes her utterly predictable claim of marital duress surely entirely implausible – for she is a strong independent woman. The only reason this ancient and trivial matter ever came to light was because of the affair and the wife seems to have tipped off The Sunday Times who surrepticiously taped the pair of them discussing the matter (the evil bitch). Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned in favour of a younger, uglier, woman, it seems. I feel sure that the Judge when sentencing will exonerate the wife, but not Huhne.
Chris Huhne has now pleaded guilty and (as it is forbidden for an M.P. to resign) has been moved to the fictional constituency of Walpole’s Britches – I’m not making this up, my imagination is not that great. There will be a by-election to elect a new member of Parliament. How quickly the mighty fall, and you can be pretty sure that not withstanding his wealth the new woman’s interest in Huhne will wain pretty quickly, and probably even before he is released from prison.
But won’t women in the military just avoid service by getting pregnant?
A bit OT, but interestingly I stumbled upon the fact that Ex-President Ronny Reagan signed into law the first No-Fault Divorce Law in California in 1969.
I hear some in the MRM suggest Conservatives are our friends, I think not.
Barry, and his band of thugs certainly are no friend of men and boys either. Women as fodder just keep whole warfare-welfare state grinding up more human beings to sustain the evil enterprise.
The premise is a still a concern with female safety and opportunity, which is completely feminist. A MRA perspective would be whether Obama would send women to the front lines…to get the job done! Obama knows that female soldiers will never face the same dangers as the males, but he is compensating them as if they were equal at the expense of male productivity.
The next step is to bring the issue of the Male-Only Draft back to the supreme court. In 1980, they ruled that the needs of the military (the fact that only men were actually put into the meat-ginder) made the discrimination Constitutional. “Constitutional” being a magic word any judge can use to brush aside things like equal protection under the law and such.
So yes, Obama is, at least in this case, an MRA, albiet a weak one. He did so from the viewpoint that “it’s not fair to weeeemeeeeen”, and did not say “Men should not have to be the only ones drafted and loaded into landing craft…”. I’ll take what I can get.
I cannot wait for the issue of Female Selective Service is back on the table. When Sarah Palin runs against whatever Dem clown they roll out in ’16, the circus will be ON!
Sometimes I wonder whether women will end up cursing the feminists who put them in this position. Unfortunately, I doubt many will.
They will not. Women don’t understand cause and effect very well.
And yet at the same exact time he questions whether he’d want his sons to play football, because of the “danger”, while his daughters getting shot at in a foreign land is perfectly reasonable (not that any Elitist’s children would sully themselves by serving amongst the rank and file).
One could say it’s funny that the result of feminism will be that women end up losing the special status they used to have and find themselves looked upon as merely weaker, slower and more emotionally difficult versions of their male counterparts, but in the end we won’t be better off for it.
This is why Phyllis Schlafly and her band of angry sisters fought so hard against the ERA 30 years ago. She admitted women would lose this “special status”, and be exposed as blatantly inferior when compared “equally” to men. Eventually feminists started realizing this as well and backed off of the whole idea.
I don’t think this is something Obama really wanted, but rather was dragged along by the momentum for this from the Pentagon which had been stewing for decades. There was a small active contingent of military women and their commanding officers pushing this. (He was also against gay marriage until Biden forced his hand.) Our military is OBSESSED with diversity, quotas, affirmative action and disparate impact. It’s where we experiment with social engineering before it becomes federal laws and regulations.
Feminist Inc. wanted nothing to do with it, and refuses to comment on it. That’s because ideally Feminist Inc. wants to end ALL military spending and have those funds directed towards social programs for women. This is not viewed as a positive development anymore than Waste Management announcing aggressive recruiting programs for more female garbage handlers.
But rest assure they WILL NOT openly criticize Obama (or any Democrat) for it. That’s the difference between MRAs and Feminist Inc. MRA’s blame everyone for everything, while feminists wisely ally themselves with political operatives. IOW most MRAs are left-leaning and perish the thought of supporting anyone on the right…’cause it’s an “apolitical social movement”. An oxymoron if ever there was one.
This is nothing. Wait until Obama emasculates American technical prowess by mandating Title IX on our engineering schools, one of his many promises to the ladies last year.
Off-topic but I am getting into “3D Printing” in a big way. Have been designing a mechanical contrivance using “CAD” and tole my boss we could get it 3D printed to test the concept before having the parts fabbed in metal. He thinks that’s brilliant. I showed him a 3D Printer Buyer’s Guide, which featured a lot of nerdy guys obsessed with the technology and 1 token female acting like she was interested.
In that vein, a recent ForbesWoman essay :
Lauren Bush, Yoko Ono And Gloria Steinem Design Jewelry For New Online Marketplace
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lynndouglass/2013/02/02/lauren-bush-yoko-ono-and-gloria-steinem-design-jewelry-for-new-online-marketplace
elmer warns them :
While women were complaining about the lack of women in “tech”, men created another revolutionary technology : 3D Printing.
It will render this feminist “jewelry” initiative impotent as people across the globe are now able to design jewelry while sitting at home in their underwear, send it to a 3D print shop, and have it arrive in the mail a couple days later.
Why, I could make an “elmer” bracelet and sell it to millions of “MRAs” through the internet. We live in amazing times.
I think we just need to label our self’s different . As strong ,good Men , Honest and without any fault.
Instead of MRAs we call our self’s .Human rights investigators. Giving us grand title like court workers do . Titles that no sane person would attribute with The other side ( Evil ).
Have you ever tried to track down statistics that are not favorable to HHS or family courts You get redirected to a favorable thread .
One stat is Violence in courts court room violence and violence aimed at HHs .
See the problem is If one person reacts violently its a oddity , If two react violently its a trend , If 100 react violently ,Its a movement in say 200,000 american mainly males react violently towards Family courts its a revelation . because every single one of those men are American’s , Or Human rights investigators that have been jailed or politically imprisoned as political prisoners.
Yes political prisoners in the USAa Is something that needs to be investigated .
Picking More favorable Titles and Identification is easy . Hello I’m Joeb Human right Investigator . We need to document story on Human right Violations of Political Prisoners in The USA see how that works .
The aim here is to get some bull dyke chairman of the joint chiefs so all the usual freaks can bask in the insane equalist narrative. End of story. No chick is going to be captured and gang raped, the wars are being wound down and besides only a handfull of guys were captured over the last ten years anyway. This is happening because the USA will never face a serious foe like the krauts, japs or soviets ever again.
Barack Obama is an MRA…because he said something along the lines of “I would send women into combat”. Not that this would be the first time he lied, but that statement should be interpreted as “I would send women into combat, as long as this is hypothetical and there is no combat to send women into”.
Obama has proven over and over again that he’s nothing more than a feminist lapdog when it comes to gender ‘equality’. Now that the fighting in the middle east is mostly over, feminists have been whining about women being considered combat soldiers, so that they can secure extra pay and easier promotions, and Obama complies as a matter of course. As soon as women might actually have to face combat head on, the new feminist mantra will be that the military isn’t doing enough to protect female combat soldiers because of institutional sexism, and if Obama is still in office by then, he will again comply and issue an order that no female combat soldiers end up on the front lines, pretending all the while that he always advocated keeping women safe.
As far as I know, he hasn’t said anything about forcing women to sign up for the draft, joining the silence of every other feminist in America.
To add, Obama also hasn’t said anything about equalizing standards on military women, allowing for punishment of women that get pregnant to avoid deployments, tackling the false rape accusation epidemic, or alleviating some of the more draconian measures imposed on military men in terms of divorce or child support (which the military enforces wholeheartedly, by order of congress and the president).
The idea is clearly not equality, it’s about making women more equal than men.
The purpose of giving women “combat positions” is not to put them in combat. That will not happen. It’s to give them paper titles, which may be used to promote them faster and higher than they would otherwise deserve.
A woman who says to a man “go ahead and hit me, you coward, I dare you!” feels perfectly safe doing so, because in the unlikely event he hits her he’s going to jail, which may have been her plan all along.