Latest Posts

Feminists with the help of the epicentre of feminist hypocrisy, the BBC, tries to include women as being frontline combatants. Now to my way of thinking and everyone else's, frontline combat is where you look down the sights of your rifle and shoot at the enemy, duck the occasional bullet and hit the deck to avoid that grenade. It does not mean that being in the country at a time of war indicates that you are on the front lines even though feminists would like everyone to think that as they clearly demonstrate in those feminist wet dream movies and series. They constantly dish out to the public these days with a "female warrior" as standard inclusion, who is capable of smacking a 150 kilo trained SEAL to the ground without so much as raising a single bead of sweat.. These examples are so far fetched that one could declare themselves to be a deep sea diver after snorkelling in the kiddies pool. But propagandise it, they will, until they ensure that women can be seen to do anything a man can without even actually doing it. The entire object of the exercise is to belittle the natural heroic tendencies of men and align that same effort to women. The other side of that same coin is to demonstrate and also to convince women that being attached to a male is not a goal one should aim for as in their mind, women can do what any man can and therefore he becomes useless and irrelevant..It really is a sick turn around but it is part of the feminist doctrine to destroy the relationship between the sexes and encourage hostility between the sexes as it really is only feminists who are promoting that, it's only feminists who keep that vitriol active..
Rewriting the Iraq herstory 
There is this BBC article. It rewrites Iraq history to fit the politically-correct narratives. This board have discussed claims of rewriting history to herstory. Some notable quotes from the BBC article and a little commentary (emphasis may be added):

Today 14.5% of active duty members of the US military are women.
And even though they're not strictly in combat roleswomen are experiencing warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan just like the men do. 

Women are not in combat roles. The entire premise of the article is summarised by the word "strictly". By adding the word 'strictly', BBC insinuates that being in combat or not is just a matter of definition. And BBC appears set to 'deconstruct' that definition. To BBC, women roles in the army equates to men's combat roles (who wants to bet that in future articles women's role will outplay the men's actual combat roles?). Some quotes / text from the BBC article (emphasis added):

"I experienced fear on a daily basis," says Ms Moss, who drove a sergeant major into Baghdad for meetingseach day in the turbulent period after the invasion.
"There were explosions all the time, shootings overhead," she says. "We [women] were travelling with tanks while they [men] cleared the road of bombs. ...
Then, women were nurses...
"We [women] couldn't walk anywhere without thinking we might be hit by IEDs [improvised explosive devices]," says Ms Jones, a single mother ...
How's that 'not combat'?

"Combat" is not real or absolute. It is the patriarchy un-defining it to suppress the women

For many women, the contrast between the battlefield and the home front is especially stark. They must reconcile their military role with a mothering one.

Of course, fathering is equal to combating. Men won't notice the difference between warzone and home. NOT!!!