# Why women should breed



## daniel h. (15 Nov 2005)

I seem to recall reading on the www.dnd.ca site that "women were underpresented" as "they make up 51% of Canadian society" but only __% of the military.

When will the madness end? Sure, there could be roles for women, but why should women be forced and or encouraged to do jobs like solider or construction worker that men have done better for thousands of years? This political correctness has run amok.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Nov 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> When will the madness end? Sure, there could be roles for women, but why should women be forced and or encouraged to do jobs like solider or construction worker that men have done better for thousands of years? This political correctness has run amok.


why should they be discouraged? 
And ask Boudicca if men did it better. Or Grace O'Malley. Or the hundreds of women who fought for their nation during the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Or the dozens of women I have served alongside over seas.
Or ask me. I'll tell you "No."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Nov 2005)

Quote from danielh,
_When will the madness end? Sure, there could be roles for women, but why should women be forced and or encouraged to do jobs like solider or construction worker that men have done better for thousands of years? This political correctness has run amok._

Hmm, maybe I'll ask my sister the 24 year Veh. mech who has about[estimate on my part] 7 tours and I have zippo.......and even have trouble opening up the darn hood.

...and when you find those men who are thousands of years old, please introduce us.


----------



## daniel h. (15 Nov 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from danielh,
> _When will the madness end? Sure, there could be roles for women, but why should women be forced and or encouraged to do jobs like solider or construction worker that men have done better for thousands of years? This political correctness has run amok._
> 
> Hmm, maybe I'll ask my sister the 24 year Veh. mech who has about[estimate on my part] 7 tours and I have zippo.......and even have trouble opening up the darn hood.
> ...




Presumably it doesn't make a difference as most of the "60,000" CF is really a papered number, most not actually people ready to defend us but support staff, but in a time of war, it is ridiculous IMO to suggest that women on average have the ability to be equal soldiers. They are on average weaker and less aggressive.

Notice I did say there could be some role for women, but if our birth rate were higher and more wanted to join, why choose people who are on average less able? Is it in our interest to lose women in battle? Seeing as women can reproduce and men can't, I hardly think it is worth it.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Nov 2005)

hey danny-boy. Go answer the door. There's a clue knocking, and it wants to come in.

Explain to me, please, how being female makes someone "less able". Edify me.


----------



## daniel h. (15 Nov 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> why should they be discouraged?
> And ask Boudicca if men did it better. Or Grace O'Malley. Or the hundreds of women who fought for their nation during the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Or the dozens of women I have served alongside over seas.
> Or ask me. I'll tell you "No."




I think having families is a more valuable role for women than spending their prime years of fertility in an underfunded army that can barely afford enough bullets for training. But that's just my opinion.

Women can reproduce--men can't. Therefore, even if women were equal physically, which they aren't, their most valuable contribution is not in a military where they might be killed in action. This does not mean women are not capable--simply no needed. 

That does not mean I think we should treat women like a middle eastern country would, but to suggest a women's greatest asset lies elsewhere is common sense, not sexism.


----------



## Britney Spears (16 Nov 2005)

Heh, that's exactly the argument that Nazi Germany used to ban women from the Wehrmarcht. 

I love how threads about women or homosexuals always brings out the civvy asshats in their true colors. Apparently they just *know* that allowing women or gays into the army will  mean the end of us, even when those of us who are actually *gasp* IN the army seem to have no problem with them.  :


----------



## armyvern (16 Nov 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> I think having families is a more valuable role for women than spending their prime years of fertility in an underfunded army that can barely afford enough bullets for training. But that's just my opinion.
> 
> Women can reproduce--men can't. Therefore, even if women were equal physically, which they aren't, their most valuable contribution is not in a military where they might be killed in action. This does not mean women are not capable--simply no needed.
> 
> That does not mean I think we should treat women like a middle eastern country would, but to suggest a women's greatest asset lies elsewhere is common sense, not sexism.



DanielH:

Please fill in your sadly lacking profile. Apparently you and I have never met, thus your earlier comment:


> They are on average weaker and less aggressive.


 would never have been made.

As your ghost profile exemplifies all your vast lack of experience in any areas relating to actual capabilities of females and their abilites to serve hounourably, professionally and in many cases better than their male counterparts, I feel the overwhelming need to question your intelligence with such an obviously ill-though out dumbass remark. 

I'm so glad that you, with all your non-existant experience and expertize in any area, as evidenced by your profile, have taken it upon yourself to determine that I should be spending my life bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen. And doing what else? Serving the likes of you to go forth and multiply while I avoid an underfunded military? I think NOT!! I'd rather die serving my country that doesn't need the likes of me thank you. You are a LOSER. Big shiny capital "L" on that one my gigantic sexist pig you.

The day after you give birth to a simple baseball, please send me a PM, then I will have 1/2 an ounce of respect for you as you tell me how weak and un-needed I am in your opinion. At the same time, please provide your very own mother's e-mail address so that I may forward a copy of your comments to her. I am sure she will be deeply dis-appointed in the attitude you display and a well-deserved spanking will soon follow. Grow up, it's time move out of the cave. IMHO of course.


----------



## jonsey (16 Nov 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> I think having families is a more valuable role for women than spending their prime years of fertility in an underfunded army that can barely afford enough bullets for training. But that's just my opinion.
> 
> Women can reproduce--men can't. Therefore, even if women were equal physically, which they aren't, their most valuable contribution is not in a military where they might be killed in action. This does not mean women are not capable--simply no needed.
> 
> That does not mean I think we should treat women like a middle eastern country would, but to suggest a women's greatest asset lies elsewhere is common sense, not sexism.



What about all the women "spending their prime years of fertility" working an office job 50-60+ hours a week? Or those in other carreers that give them little time for raising a family? What about those women who choose to not have children, or wish to do so at a later time? 

From what I'm reading into your post, your opinion is that women are little more than baby machines.


----------



## TCBF (16 Nov 2005)

"..Seeing as women can reproduce and men can't, I hardly think it is worth it."

- If men can't reproduce, why do we have succesive generations of both men and women, and exactly who the heck is knocking up all of those broads, anyway?

- Inquiring minds want to know.  My Grade 13 Biology was a long time ago.

Tom


----------



## daniel h. (16 Nov 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Heh, that's exactly the argument that Nazi Germany used to ban women from the Wehrmarcht.
> 
> I love how threads about women or homosexuals always brings out the civvy asshats in their true colors. Apparently they just *know* that allowing women or gays into the army will   mean the end of us, even when those of us who are actually *gasp* IN the army seem to have no problem with them.   :



What do the Nazis have to do with this????


----------



## daniel h. (16 Nov 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> DanielH:
> 
> Please fill in your sadly lacking profile. Apparently you and I have never met, thus your earlier comment: would never have been made.
> 
> ...




My comment is not ill thought-out at all and it is you who is being disrespectful. I never said women cannot serve well, I said what's the point? I was responding the the DND.CA web site whose goal it is to turn the CF into a multicultural, gender-equal institution. If that is how they plan to defend Canada, frankly I'm terrified. "Be afraid of Canada--we're defended by cultural marxists". 

I have no profile because I am not in the CF and have never denied that. Nothing I said was a personal attack against anyone.


I would rather avoid a debate about the merits or mostly lack thereof of contemporary feminism and the gender chaos, utopianism, low-birth rates, lesbianism and masculinization of women it promotes.

Men can father children until after age 65 as long as their heart is sound. Women have a 25 year window--and their fertility peaks in their late teends, early twenties. If you think women of child-bearing age should be put in harms way then I deeply disagree with you. Veterans of W.W. II would scoff at the idea of their female relatives dying in battle--women contributed very nicely by working in the munitions factories and in other jobs.

The 1960s counterculture was evil. It was cultural distortion, plain and simple.


----------



## daniel h. (16 Nov 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "..Seeing as women can reproduce and men can't, I hardly think it is worth it."
> 
> - If men can't reproduce, why do we have succesive generations of both men and women, and exactly who the heck is knocking up all of those broads, anyway?
> 
> ...




I meant men can't carry a child. :-[


----------



## daniel h. (16 Nov 2005)

Jonsey said:
			
		

> What about all the women "spending their prime years of fertility" working an office job 50-60+ hours a week? Or those in other carreers that give them little time for raising a family? What about those women who choose to not have children, or wish to do so at a later time?
> 
> From what I'm reading into your post, your opinion is that women are little more than baby machines.




I am absolutely just as concerned about women who spend their prime years working office jobs, either because they want to or because they need the money--thanks to outsourcing of goos jobs, insourcing of cheap labour, inflation etc...

There have always been women who chose not to have children or have them later, the problem is now the MAJORITY of people are doing this for literally dozens of reasons.

I don't see women simply as baby-machines, and think some shouild work, but that reproduction is their most important distinct function. We have plenty of effemenized, underpaid, or unemployed men to work.

We should have tax breaks and other goodies for people who reproduce--women can work later as people are living longer than ever.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Wow, talk about "opening your mouth and removing all doubt", hey Daniel?   :

The bottom line is that Canada has created an environment which allows any person, regardless of gender, to serve their Country in a capacity in which their capabilities make them suitable for.   Despite your obviously screwed up view of the world, women do not have to run their lives by their biological clocks and the "Daniel H road to Success" which sees women existing for the sake of popping out Ubermench doesn't really appeal to anyone else.   As well, I'd challenge you to prove that a women can't serve and have children - there are many members here who have carried a child (or children) and still continue to put in more service then you've managed to muster up.


----------



## daniel h. (16 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Wow, talk about "opening your mouth and removing all doubt", hey Daniel?   :
> 
> The bottom line is that Canada has created an environment which allows any person, regardless of gender, to serve their Country in a capacity in which their capabilities make them suitable for.   Despite your obviously screwed up view of the world, women do not have to run their lives by their biological clocks and the "Daniel H road to Success" which sees women existing for the sake of popping out Ubermench doesn't really appeal to anyone else.   As well, I'd challenge you to prove that a women can't serve and have children - there are many members here who have carried a child (or children) and still continue to put in more service then you've managed to muster up.




I resent you. In case you were wondering if I was a Nazi--I voted NDP last election. I like zero political parties in Canada.

My view of Canada is 50,000 more thoughtful and refined than your own. 

Why don't you go to a Remembrance Day ceremony, and ask 50 veterans this question: "Were the Canadian values you fought for in W.W. II multilculturalism, abortion, feminism and gay marriage?" Behind closed doors, you'll be lucky to find 1 in 50 who would spout such nonsense.

I would never serve in the CF these days because I refuse to fight in foreign countries for IMO no benefit to Canada unless forced to. That being said, the fratricidal conflict known as W.W. II was not noble and was just as much of a waste. I feel sorry for veterans who still believe that fighting their German blood brothers for Britain and France and international bankers was worth it, but at least they aren't feminists.

Canada the way it is structured currently is not worth defending--it is one-world socialist. There is no sovereignty to defend as foreigners can simply come here legally. They don't need to bring guns.


----------



## Troopasaurus (16 Nov 2005)

The fact is that women are just as capable at doing the job as most men... don't get me wrong women tend to not be able to scale buildings in a single leap and cant lift 300lbs oh wait either can I! In my very short time in the army thus far I have met some women that are just as or more aggressive and fit than I am. To me anyone who can do the job is good to go.

And from what I see civvy side women can handle jobs and a family just fine.

you have a wierd and twisted view of the world... maybe this would help.







im a noob at posting pictures here's the full size  :-X http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/8455/cluefinder3to.jpg


----------



## DJ (16 Nov 2005)

Not that I'm one for censorship but is a lock in order?  This is getting a little insane.  Emphasis on _insane_.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> I resent you.



You're an asshat, plain and simple.   I'm glad my military isn't good enough for you because quite franky, I don't need to babysit loonie conspiracy theorists.   Judging from the garbage you've posted around here, I'm pretty sure you're just around for abject trolling - since I'm already engaged, I'll let somebody else take out the trash....


----------



## armyvern (16 Nov 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> My comment is not ill thought-out at all and it is you who is being disrespectful. I never said women cannot serve well, I said what's the point?


Well what is your point? That I am only here to breed apparently. That is the distinct impression that your posts have left with me and others I see. You are wrong. Full stop. I would argue Sir that you should look in the mirror and sort yourself out if you think you are not being disrespectful to anybody here.


			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> I was responding the the DND.CA web site whose goal it is to turn the CF into a multicultural, gender-equal institution. If that is how they plan to defend Canada, frankly I'm terrified. *"Be afraid of Canada--we're defended by cultural marxists".*


Well another quotable quote from yourself. Wink wink nudge nudge...it's not funny. And, I have absolutely no problems with working and solidiering along side ANBODY of either SEX as long as they can get the job done. Why do you seem to be the one with the problem in this respect? After all, it's not you doing the job is it?


			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> I have no profile because I am not in the CF and have never denied that. Nothing I said was a personal attack against anyone.


Except any females who are not currently in breeding mode apparently.


			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> I would rather avoid a debate about the merits or mostly lack thereof of contemporary feminism and the gender chaos, utopianism, low-birth rates, lesbianism and masculinization of women it promotes.


Buddy, listen up well, because no-body brought that up except you. I have 2 kids (that's enough for me) 1 husband, a dog, 3 cats, a turtle, a bunny, a hampster and some goldfish out in the pond...I also have a lovely garden. I do the domestic thing and I do my job...and I do it darn well thank you. Feminist?? Not I!! If a chick can't do the job...she shouldn't be there just to allow someone to meet a quota. But if she can do the job, no-body the likes of yourself should have any say whatsoever in whether she is allowed to or to ask why bother...Why bother? Because she has earned it!! That's why. 


			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> Men can father children until after age 65 as long as their heart is sound. Women have a 25 year window--and their fertility peaks in their late teends, early twenties. If you think women of child-bearing age should be put in harms way then I deeply disagree with you.


I am a woman of child-bearing age, but just to piss you off, I'm not gonna have anymore. And further, I volunteered for this job...don't forget that. Canada is not land of the conscripts. So we'll deeply disagree with each other here. 


			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> Veterans of W.W. II would scoff at the idea of their female relatives dying in battle--women contributed very nicely by working in the munitions factories and in other jobs.


Another assinine comment from yourself. Must be your WWII experience speaking now...I refer you to this link: you will be surprised to find some WWII vets (of my very own family at that!!) who totally disagree with the latest comment from yourself. As would the Vets that I had the honour to parade with as the Vigil Party Commander on Nov 11th. Once again, your lack of knowledge in this arena is vastly tainting my respect for you. Oh...you will also find out that all women didn't work in munitions factories! Go ahead...educate yourself.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32011/post-279302.html#msg279302



			
				daniel h. said:
			
		

> The 1960s counterculture was evil. It was cultural distortion, plain and simple.


You saw the 60s? How did they heat cave's in the 60s?

Final thoughts from me to you? I think you are out trolling...be warned...I have now officially placed you on my "Ignore" list.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Nov 2005)

Well speaking for myself and probably many other men and not to mention the thousands of women that served and have served in the CF, we make it possible for people to make choices.Just think of it daniel, during WW2 thousands of women joined up just so you would not have to join the CF and so you would have the freedom to spout your nonsense on this forum. They could have stayed home and produced babies for your Chauvinistic Utopia but they chose otherwise. Think of their sacrifices. Oh and since you brought it up, on Remembrance Day, if you looked hard enough a lot of those WW2 vets were women. :


----------



## Gramps (16 Nov 2005)

daniel h. I would love for you to show up one day and, to her face, tell my Grandmother that she and the many female friends she knew and lost in London that they were not fit to serve. No, they were not "combat veterans" unless being bombed and strafed makes one a veteran, or working in the emergency room of a hospital in a war zone makes one a veteran, how about doing bomber watch on top of an aircraft hangar as well? Does that make one a veteran or fit to serve? No, I would not say you are a Nazi but I would love to tell you to your face that you are a fascist (trust me on this one, I'm an in your face sort of person). I would love to see you tell the many women that I have served with both in Canada and abroad that they are not fit to serve in person instead of hiding behind your keyboard.


----------



## winchable (16 Nov 2005)

haha..he resents you infanteer, I found that cute.

Don't know why we kept you around for so long danny boy.
Cheerio.

Everyone wave goodbye to our friend.


----------



## COBRA-6 (16 Nov 2005)

What a bizzare thread!  ???

I agree with Infanteer and armyvern, someone's out trolling... wrong site for that I'm afraid, bye bye Daniel!  ;D


----------



## Strike (16 Nov 2005)

Wow, look what happens when I'm sleeping.  Little miffed I missed joining in on this one.


----------



## Monsoon (16 Nov 2005)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> What a bizzare thread!  ???


I gather it was motivated by Daniel H's inability to find good "breeding stock".  36 years without sex will do that to a guy...


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I gather it was motivated by Daniel H's inability to find good "breeding stock".   36 years without sex will do that to a guy...


You probably hit the nail on the head.....May have a Second Career going there.   ;D


----------



## Thirstyson (16 Nov 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> I resent you. In case you were wondering if I was a Nazi--I voted NDP last election. I like zero political parties in Canada.
> 
> My view of Canada is 50,000 more thoughtful and refined than your own.
> 
> ...



I rate this troll 10/10, simply brilliant. I've read some strange comments in my life but wow...


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Nov 2005)

You have to jump through hoops to get a firearm, but any butthead can walk in off the street and buy a computer... :


----------



## midgetcop (16 Nov 2005)

Geez. Buddy really seems out of step with the party he claims to have voted for.


----------



## BSmith12 (16 Nov 2005)

He's a tool, nothing more.
I was going to argue with him, but the thread was on fire... I didn't want to get involved.
Let's all go back to our original routines, shall we? How about those Sens, eh? :blotto:

(Just for the record, I'm a Habs fan.)  :


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Yup, nothing more to see here folks; move along.


----------

