A Polish Feminist Found in a Forest

Good idea...

Feminists are Marxists. Their agenda is to divide and conquer. A weak, single woman is their prime target. She needs all the gov support and is ready to vote for every sick and unaffordable program. She is also agreeable and politically stupid. When told men can be women, she cheers...The more, the merrier...Go, girl...until she meets one of those in her shower or in prison and gets raped...

Bottom line: Women are 15-second morons. That's how far ahead they think...If it feels good, do it ...Men will deal with the consequences later...and be blamed for the mess...

@Paulina
The point of drafting women would be for support roles allowing more men to engage the enemy. Not too difficult to figure out.

This discussion is hilarious. Can men can have a period? And can women inseminate other women?

Novi, you keep asking these stupid questions resulted from the left's idiocy; why keep adding energy to that. The answer is obvious and you can take a printed encyclopedia published before 1990 to get an answer which is "no".

Did you notice how nobody here wants to answer my sanity test questions?

Hey, Paulina, what is a woman?

Oh, shlt...I am pregnant...Who was that guy?


I know the answer so I don't need any books.

This is the sanity question I want answered to decide if I am dealing with a total moron or just partial...

BTW, I will never stop...one poster at a time...which is legit since they know everything else...

Of course not, what a load of bullsh1t lol


From what I've noticed that's not what anti-feminist men want though - they want women to die in the battlefields like men. If they didn't then those men would complain that it's not "full equality", because women are getting "lighter roles". 🤷 So, on one hand they say women are unfit for those "heavier roles" in the military, but they want women to perform them anyway? Why? Out of spite? Stupidity?


I guess the simplest answer is - someone who was born a woman.

@Paulina
Men, real men that is, know women cannot compete on the battle field and would be cannon fodder. Only feminist women are arguing for more integration. No men belive that women are equal physically, and one that does is probably a fag.

Close but still not good enough because it includes "a woman". Like what is a table? A table is a table ...

Woman - an adult human female.

This immediately excludes freaks with dicks and Y and that is why "progressives" don't want to answer that question.

Women fighting alongside men are a drag on men.

An average man can take his wounded buddy to safety. The average woman can't. They can't carry as much ammo or weapons, either.

The best they can do is yell go, guys like in those stupid women empowerment movies. They should hand out barf bags before the movie starts...

Depends which feminists. I am for applying common sense, logic and just being realistic. This doesn't mean I think there should be no women in the army, obviously. There are roles they can take or maybe even branches in which they can serve without putting anyone in danger, so to speak, where physical strength doesn't matter that much - like airforce and the navy maybe. Btw, how are women doing in the US infantry? 🤔 Are there any complaints about them "underperforming"?


Well, I don't know what you want to hear then. "Being born a woman" is pretty self-explanatory for me. And a woman is the same as "an adult human female".

A definition cannot include the word it defines.

@Novichok, by "self-explanatory" I meant that fragment "being born" which I think should be enough of an indication whom I consider to be a woman. Because that's what you wanted to know, right? What's my stance on transgender issues?

Well, in case you're still in doubt - I don't consider men who identify as women to be really women, because biologically they simply aren't. I don't hate them though and I don't have any ill feelings towards them. I may address them as "Kate" or "Susan" if that makes them feel better, but that's as far as I can go.

After this explanation, I am proud of you. I would do the same the same thing but draw a line at restrooms and sports.

@Novichok, sports - yes, for reasons I've explained on the forum before already. As for restrooms - as a woman I wouldn't be bothered by sharing a restroom with fully transitioned transgender (hormones + d1ck chopped off).

The standard today - at least at the epicenter of this madness aka America - is merely a declaration. No surgery is required.

You are what you say you are. A boy got a sandbox in his classroom because he said he was a cat. No, I am not making it up. You know...feelings are now facts.

I thought the UK had gone nuts, but it seems, as always, the USA like to outdo us!

@Paulina
There are a total of 601 women in the Army Infantry for the US. This includes officers and support personnel. A female officer or NCO is required to be involved in any company that has a female enlisted soldier in it. The women in these positions are mostly in support roles. They wont be leading the charge for the US Army at any point. Only 16% of the entire US military including evey branch is female. That said, I think women can make fine soldiers in support, especially technical roles. Faced with hand to hand combat or close quarters fighting, I dont think any rational thinking human being really believes women should be put in that position against men.

The points I try to make about todays feminsts are those that expose the differences of what feminism was founded on. Todays movement is nothing like its origins, and I think many of those originators would be displeased to see how the movement is today.

Wow, so few? Where the rest serves then?


I've just read that the ban on women serving in front-line combat positions in the US military was lifted only in 2013. I've got to say that I'm surprised that it happened only so recently.


Here's a short, but interesting Polish article about women in the army:

polska-zbrojna.pl/Mobile/ArticleShow/12836?fbclid=IwY2xjawEdfpNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZsdjJ8xEPR8ZHbAKYoVEF9kjVDjaXxQjhfWdZOvakx7FW8xiO931jazxQ_aem_b9oBKkuZg-FD90ngeg90fA

A big war seems to be a big "reality check" situation. During World War II at first the British command thought that it would be too "manly" for a woman to pull a trigger and take down an airplane (=kill someone), so they allowed women to be in charge only of control devices. But since fights intensified women had to start taking down airplanes too. The first kill by a woman happened in April 1942. In 1943 already 56 000 women served in British air defence forces (including Winston Churchill's daughter).

Another interesting fact - apparently commanders were more concerned about women being captured by the enemy (we all know why), then about them getting killed and that's why women were being given positions where there was zero risk of getting captured (even if the risk of getting killed was high).


Well, firstly, of course it's different, because in the past women had to fight for the most basic rights. Secondly, feminists aren't some kind of monolith. They have different views, different goals in different parts of the world, etc. As for originators being displeased - I think that would depend on what you have in mind.

I did some googling and...


...it turnes out I'm a genius ;D Percentage-wise the most women in the US military serve in airforce and the navy is in second place - this is also reflected in the number of female generals in each branch :)

British WAAFs :):

• 
  
  

@Paulina
There are also a lot in the US Coast Guard. A branch of the military not often talked about. Again, I think women can and should serve, just not on front lines. That said, the US military does "equal pay" perfectly as there is zero difference in what any soldier is paid when they are the same rank. That in itself should make the military more attractive to feminists.

Only 1 in 100 completes the Ranger school.

In the Navy, at any time, 10% of them are pregnant.

Of course, the Air Force is a completely natural choice for women.

...except when they menstruate...or are pregnant...
But since men can get pregnant as well, all is even and fine...

And all of that suddenly happens to them so they can get out of having to deploy to a war zone or other place you will never find in tourist brochure.

@Poloniusz, plenty of women were deployed to war zones for months (and that means they menstruated). Those women have more balls than you ever will.

You've never heard of Norethisterone? It's been around for decades.

Maybe you really are a man pretending to be a woman as others on here have suspected.

...and become an additional burden for men when the bodies are falling left and right.

Now, if you mean being a general's secretary, then you are absolutely right. He is in a war zone, too...

Well, there you go, problem solved! lol


Not all women are on pills, "genius".


Tell that to Soviet female veterans (quote from Wiki):

"Soviet women played an important role in World War II. While most worked in industry, transport, agriculture and other civilian roles, working double shifts to free up enlisted men to fight and increase military production, a sizable number of women served in the army. The majority were in medical units."

So, you're saying that those women in medical units were a "burden"? Who needs people who save lives, right? lol 🙄

As medics - no. In the trenches or as commandos - yes.

There are lots and lots of videos on twitter of russian soldiers getting killed. Now imagine women in those videos.... is that progress?

Most men are hard-wired to respond to distressed women (under thirtyish) differently than distressed men.

Women around combat have usually been in supporting roles away from the front line. Even Israel found it necessary to not deploy women in fighting grunt roles.

Women and men are, at time, not interchangeable and direct combat is one of those times.

I'd much rather have men as cannon fodder than women (it would be nice if no one had to be cannon fodder but until then....).