Yes only feminazis can argue in that kind of ‘logic’. The societal structure of male disposability says that a male’s death is not to be worried about because:
👉(Read Online eBook): Alimony and Maintenance under Hindu Law👈
- In case he was a criminal he only got what he deserved. It is no one’s consideration to figure out how he got to become a criminal in first place.
- In case he died in line of duty as police or soldier, then again he died for family, society, country and so on. So we can pay respect to the martyr and move on.
It is not bad that a 100 men die, but a woman must not die. It is up to men to wake up to the stupid propaganda.
my eye immediately focused in on a single-sentence paragraph in the middle:
“In Iraq, women serving in the military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire.”
No mention by Valenti that that deaths of American military guys in the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has outnumbered female military deaths 4,754 to 116. That’s right: guys have been in more than 95% of the body bags.
Vallenti’s ludicrous comparison, which among other flawed logic equates rape with being killed, prompted my comment to the Post: “Of course, if the military had been using women in hand-to-hand combat, those stats would surely have more than evened out. Somehow I don’t think that’s [Valenti’s] point.“ I went on to again propose that our military become all female, in fairness to the women who were not allowed to get killed and maimed in wars for the past 200 years.
Apparently, the Post pulled my comment.