Different Military Training Requirements For Men And Women

[CrossCuT]

Too bad, reading is fun. Because it can at times help correct false notions such as Chivalry being sexist. Which is a bitter lie too often and mistakenly repeated that has no real basis in fact.
 

 

 

ps you posted a blog of someones opinion. not facts

[KnightofChrist]

 

 

ps you posted a blog of someones opinion. not facts

 

You wouldn't know that as a fact, you didn't read'em. :p

[CrossCuT]

I clicked your link saw that it was blog post about a priests response to a question. Thats his personal opinion not fact. 

 

Also the link isnt working anymore so I cant go back and read it even if I wanted to. :(

 

Chivalry started in the medieval times as a knights code of conduct. A small portion of it was to protect the weak such as women. However modern understanding of Chivalry is no the same as the original and it was not created as some form of Catholic identity. It was a social code of conduct.

[CrossCuT]

 

 

In the gender discourse of the late 20th century, chivalry became a technical term for men's (and society's) tendency to lend more attention to protection of women than men. For example, criminologist Richard Felson writes "An attack on a woman is a more serious transgression than an attack on a man because it violates a special norm protecting women from harm. This norm --chivalry -- discourages would-be attackers and encourages third parties to protect women.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry#cite_note-17

 

Edited December 31, 2013 by CrossCuT

[KnightofChrist]

The link works for me, right now at least. Though it was a bit slower than other pages at loading.

 

I only wished to correct the false statement that "Chivalry exists because of sexism", which simply isn't true. I do agree false, twisted or perverted forms of it that were created after it's original intent may exist because of sexism. But those mutations of chivalry aren't true forms of chivalry. Chivalry is an extension of Christian charity and virtue. Sexism is a form of bigotry and as such is opposed to Christian charity and virtue. True chivalry does not exist because of sexism, but rather honor for God and one's neighbor.

 

[CrossCuT]

 

The link works for me, right now at least. Though it was a bit slower than other pages at loading.

 

I only wished to correct the false statement that "Chivalry exists because of sexism", which simply isn't true. I do agree false, twisted or perverted forms of it that were created after it's original intent may exist because of sexism. But those mutations of chivalry aren't true forms of chivalry. Chivalry is an extension of Christian charity and virtue. Sexism is a form of bigotry and as such is opposed to Christian charity and virtue. True chivalry does not exist because of sexism, but rather honor for God and one's neighbor.

 

 

Being nice to anyone is an extension of Christian virtue.

 

What is your definition of Chivalry? I think that we can clear up some things if that is clarified. I dont want some more huge blog post ish, I want it in your own words pls. :)

[mortify ii]

I'm personally against the wars and conflicts America engages in. If women participating in the military means that they also will be drafted and therefore decrease the chance of myself ever being drafted in an armed conflict, then I really don't mind.

[mortify ii]

Furthermore I think it would be prudent for Catholics to resurrect the ancient practice of abstaining from any military involvement.

[KnightofChrist]

Being nice to anyone is an extension of Christian virtue.

 

What is your definition of Chivalry? I think that we can clear up some things if that is clarified. I dont want some more huge blog post ish, I want it in your own words pls. :)

 

But I agree with the posted words in the post and links in the post I posted, that's why I posted them in that post. :| If you don't have time to read them fully I understand. I doubt putting it in my own words would really make any difference of your opinion on the matter. I would rather not continue to derail the thread further. We've already had what your first point which I countered, which you countered and which I countered again, etc. That's really enough for me right now, others can decide which position they will or will not take on the matter. They can choose to view Chivalry in a positive light, or in a negative light. Hopefully it will be positive, because true Chivalry is a positive.

[KnightofChrist]

Moving on to something I'm not sure has really been a main focus in this thread...

 

If women are to be in the arm forces should they be held to the same standards and requirements as the men? Or should they be lowered to allow for more women to be able to join and actively serve?

 

 

[CrossCuT]

But I agree with the posted words in the post and links in the post I posted, that's why I posted them in that post. :| If you don't have time to read them fully I understand. I doubt putting it in my own words would really make any difference of your opinion on the matter. I would rather not continue to derail the thread further. We've already had what your first point which I countered, which you countered and which I countered again, etc. That's really enough for me right now, others can decide which position they will or will not take on the matter. They can choose to view Chivalry in a positive light, or in a negative light. Hopefully it will be positive, because true Chivalry is a positive.

 

[Semper Catholic]

Frankly, I don't think that it matters a smidgeon whether women are physically able to fight in the military; what matters is whether they ought to, and whether it's in accordance with the way that God created them.

This business of women trying to do all of the things that the men have traditionally done is just messed up. God created man to protect women. This doesn't mean that women are inferior or weak just because the men are doing the heavy lifting.

Women have their own responsibilities, just as men do, and the women's responsibilities are NOT the same as those of the men. Just like it is woman's responsibility to bear children, and not man's, so it is man's responsibility is to protect women and children, and not woman's. How tragic it would be if women decided that the responsibilities of both sexes were one and the same and that women had just as much of a right to be in the army as men! There would be no one at home to raise the children, and to bring them up as good Catholics.

(On a somewhat separate note, the Devil wants more than anything to attack the woman. That is why he came and tempted Eve rather than Adam, and this is why he is behind abortion and artificial birth control. Our society today rejects the idea that women are sacred, and they want to say that women are "equal" with men.)

Well, there's my two cents. Just thought I'd throw it out there for you all to peruse. :)

Lol ever hear of Joan of Arc?

[Ice_nine]

Lol ever hear of Joan of Arc?

 

Ironically I was just about to say the same thing.

 

 

 

They did burn her alive tho. Whoops.

[PhuturePriest]

I don't see what women are complaining about. I'd pay for a social rule dictating that you can't hit me simple because I'm me. You get that social rule free of charge.

Pfft. Women... You just can't please them, am I right, guys?

[Norseman82]

Pfft. Women... You just can't please them, am I right, guys?

 

With the can of worms you just opened, we can catch enough fish to feed every Catholic for Fridays in Lent for the next few years...