Probably, but it's a well documented fact that their familes and society as a whole are not as vulnerable than if they were female. This is why women aren't allowed in combat in our military, it's not to enforce some antiquated old anti women prejudice, it's to keep the fabric of our civilised code from ripping. It's called humanity.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ September 23 2012, 11:38 AM BSTLast time I checked, men were just as vulnerable to random gunfire as women.
By the way, Alf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat
You understand most things with ease, but this very simple statement of fact that you being a female are quite rightly afforded more protection in life than a an adult male (in principle) really seems to irk you or confuse you. May I ask what you don't like about it?
Your opinions don't come across as wanting to keep women safe (although I'm sure you think they do), they come across as wanting to keep women down. Which is a very different thing.
And that's all I have to say on the matter. I can't be doing with this discussion going on all day. (You're welcome to carry on though, of course.)
P.S. Have you read the link? You are wrong about women not being allowed in combat.
Ah, I see. No this merely your misreading of me. It's purely that I don't see that giving a young woman the right to die in a bloody mess at the hands of savages as a good thing for women, or for our society, and definitely not for their families, whether some equailty fanatics do or not.
The link, okay just looked. It's NOT combat, it wrongly suggests they are at the top and then explains why they aren't underneath! Our laws are very strict about their usage for UK. A lot of women now serve in the army and they carry guns at checkpoints but this doesn't make them combat troops. The article explains why they aren't to a degree but our history gives a much better general overview which is what the our govt adheres to, the chivalric code.
Your view of me and such men is even flawed, your logic is all wrong. So if I were to save your life in a sinking ship by letting you rightly have the last lifeboat berth, then by your logic you'd be cursing me for not giving you the equal right to drown! Is this sane?
Astonishingly enough Alfred you're argument is so assinine I can't even argue with it.
Just hope you are surrounded by people who care for you and perhaps pray for you.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 23 2012, 12:31 PM BSTYour view of me and such men is even flawed, your logic is all wrong.
The view I have expressed is purely of you, no other men have been mentioned. And I've based it only on what you've said.
So if I were to save your life in a sinking ship by letting you rightly have the last lifeboat berth, then by your logic you'd be cursing me for not giving you the equal right to drown! Is this sane?
You tell me, that little reality is nothing to do with me, it's something you just made up.
But if anyone offered me a place on a lifeboat I'd be very grateful. But why would or should they just because I'm female? I wouldn't expect anyone to do that. Seems very strange to base a person's worth on what they keep in their pants.
Have I entered a reality free zone where others here only exist who are alien to to all that our civilisation stands for? It's supposed to be the main excuse FOR going to war, or certainly used to be, Sooty. Where exactly do you stand on this issue then, you'd be happy for your daughter to go from playing with her dolls to firing a machine gun at civilians in a short space of time, would you, as they do in Israel/Palestine? Allegedly. Just doesn't seem right to me somehow!
Zoo, I know you get it, but just don't like it maybe, but if it wasn't this way then females here would be in a far worse position, you wouldn't have the luxury of not wanting a man to open a door for you, you'd be forced to be subservient to every overdominant male in your society. Our way in the west works best, I wouldn't knock it myself but you do have the freedom to if you wish, here, thanks to Western men. It won't stop men instinctively wanting to protect you in times of danger though. The feminist's great gripe should be with Nature or God if you believe, not with men.
Lol. The freedom women have is thanks to the women who fought for it, not 'Western men' as you so obliviously put it. Some parts of England's history kind of passed you by didn't they? Maybe you were off school those days.
I knew this bollocks would last all day... 
Don't kid yorself one little bit there. It was men that made sure you got treated decently in the west way before anywhere else, decent civilised men who like and respect women, whether your lot feel patronised by that or not. The right to vote thing was coming anyway, again it was more advanced here than in most countries, yes some women bravely campaigned for it but you relied overwhelmingly on the common decency of anglo saxon men to get the laws passed, saying anything else is a bizarre fantasy of untruths.
Okay Alf. You're the expert!
Not at all. Just a misunderstood female liking man.
I think he's saying that if men weren't in favour of women getting the vote, it wouldn't have happened? Might be true. If so it was still women campaigning that got it started, so I wouldn't say it was just down to men like I got the impression Alfred was implying.
About women in combat... my immediate emotional reaction was similarish to Alfred's, that I wouldn't be happy with it. There's no rational reason for this, if the women are physically up to the job, as lots of women are. And seeing Alf try to make a logical case for it rather confirmed that there's no logic to it. But I still get an emotional urge to keep women out of combat situations, as patronising as that sounds/definitely is.
The rest of my logic relies on the axiom that most men feel this way. Maybe it's an evolutionary thing or something. But perhaps if most or a lot of men do feel this way, that in itself becomes a rational reason not to have women in combat situations. Simply because the other men wouldn't feel comfortable with it, and they have to be on their toes and keep their mind on the job. Plus the women might be fit and the men will be running around dangerous situations and dodging bullets with a boner. The men having the boner, not the bullets.
I see that a four year old got assaulted in the men's toilets at an Asda. I can't understand why anyone would think it safe to send a four year old into any 'unknown' zone. My mother would always take me in to the women's toilets if my father wasn't there to accompany me into the gents. I'm sure his Mother had some reason for sending him in there on his own, but I doubt it was worth the risk in any circumstance.
Women got the vote because women fought for it, not because decent thinking 'Western Men' gave it to them. Even progressive politicians like Lloyd George weren't keen on the idea. But after the first world war it became inevitable, with pressure building through the suffragette movement and the fact women had shown themselves just as capable as men on the homefront, taking on many male only occupations. It wasn't gifted them by benevolent men but by hard bloody struggle.