Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 30:
Line 30: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Dinsdale, if you have time ...
Proves that women can be just as MEAN as men, anyway. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:20, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
Proves that women can be just as MEAN as men, anyway. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:20, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:...and that stupidity is gender-neutral ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
:...and that stupidity is gender-neutral ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
==Liberal opinion==
I deleted a section and a paragraph, because
#Lack of parallism in the "myths" section. I couldn't tell whether it was meant to be a list of assumptions found to be false, or what.
#It read like a lawyer's brief: completely one-sided, intended to support the feminist desire to put women in combat.
However, as Dinsdale suggests above, we can improve the article by dividing it into:
*How woman do help men win wars - and historically have helped them.
*Why women ought not serve in combat
Anyone (say, Dinsdale) with a keen appreciation for women's service to their country could write the "women helping men" article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:58, 2 May 2008 (EDT)