RE: RE: "Male" and "female": is there no difference?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: "Male" and "female": is there no difference?

Words
457
Reading
3 min
Listen
Play
7y

You mischaracterized my intended will for communication,

What does this image show exactly? The dominators? The conquerors? or just people who were/or enlisted by necessity to defend their country and families? Do you think these two women were happy about the situation?

I didn't discuss the role that women played in WW2 even though official statics from all countries that suffered casualties during WW2 show clearly that the number of death is extremely high among men compared to women but this information is pointless and don't mean a thing. Women played mostly auxiliary roles and provided excellent medical support, isn't this honorable? or you think that women need to be in the front lines and die just to fill a gender quota? I personally like the idea that women played a major role in the workforce during and after WW2, far from the front lines. But again, instead of highlighting the key roles that women played during and after the war to rebuild the society and economy of many countries, people are still focusing on trivialities.

War is and will always be the domain of men, sending women to the war out of extreme necessity is understandable, but I prefer to die over subjecting women (mothers, sisters, wives, ...) to the savagery of war. This isn't a victimization competition, you used "dominators and conquerors"as if it's something good, something that only men enjoy. What I tried to show you with that image is that it isn't. Nature didn't favor men, it's a burden that men need to bear, same as with women for other things in life.

Women trying to behave as men is the most disgusting thing that men can see in their life, the same with men trying to be feminine. The funny thing is that even women who endured WW2 and fought for their country were statistically happier and probably more feminine compared to women in modern times, why is that? The answer is quite simple I think, it's the fulfillment, luring women far from their innate qualities will only harm them.

Keep in mind that a man can fall in love with a woman just because of the way she moves her hand or plays with her hair, even a small infinitesimal thing can move the hearts of men. This is femininity, beautiful patterns of behaviors that only healthy women would do/express innately, and believe when I say that trying to act manly isn't one of them.

In the end, I doubt very much that the elegant Mariya Oktyabrskaya decided to go to war just because she felt women were underrepresented in the army. She did it because she loved her husband. Love, something that modern feminism wants to annihilate completely between men and women.

@dr-frankenstein: You mischaracterized | Ecency