That would really only be relevant if you fought in WW2, or at least some armed conflict. And even then- what did they do to the people attacking them? What weapons or tools did they have? I don’t think this is advocating women shooting men if they feel threatened. So I mean- while it’s a vague and ignorant statement that she makes, the reply isn’t really any better. It should be hopefully obvious to anyone reading and actually trying to understand that she means that men haven’t been attacked in society all the way to the institutional level based on their gender and to the extent or duration women have.
It appears that guest_ was suggesting that defending the country in armed combat is only needed because they must have done something to provoke the attacker.
.
I think Pear Harbor was an example that contradicts the above theory. I was also being very sarcastic.
That’s.... um... no. That’s literally nothing near what I’m saying..... In my opinion that is complete nonesense that I can’t imagine a sane person saying with a straight face.... I was saying that if a woman in 2019 says to you that you don’t know what it feels like to be attacked- referencing WW2 would only make sense if you had actually been in WW2. Comparing her “being attacked” to being in combat would only make sense if you had actually been in combat. My point was that the comparison between the two is total nonsense, and that she didn’t mean “attacked” in a literal sense- and despite her use of absolutes in language, didn’t mean that men do th know what it is like to be figuratively attacked so much as she meant most men do not know what it is like to be attacked in the way women often are.
And to be even more clear- I’m not saying you are full of complete nonsense and or not sane. I’m saying that honestly it is a little bit insulting that you would assume- especially without asking for clarification if any doubt existed- that I would say something as off the rails as “Only jerks need armies...” Armies defend from jerks. We owe our way of life to past, present, and future service personnel who risk everything and often put their own lives asides or on hold by voluntarily giving up many freedoms so that we can enjoy our own. So long as even the possibility of evil exists, only a moron would have no defense. Violence is a tool. Not the first tool that should generally be used, but often the best or only tool we know how to use, and where survival is concerned you survive first and moralize later.
well yeah, except..... IT'S A JOKE! literrally no one would say "Um YeAh MeN KnOw WhAt It'S LiKe To Be AtTaCkEd We FoUgHTeD In Ww2." as a responce to that statement.
I am very happy that you’ve been so lucky in life that you wouldn’t think a person might actually say such a thing. Sadly, I suspect as you spend more time on the internet and around humans, experience might tell you otherwise. As for it being a joke- of course it is a joke. That doesn’t mean one can’t analyze it. If analyzing it beyond the surface does not interest you, the scroll function is an excellent tool to avoid comments that don’t interest you.
She says "White Men" not current middle aged white men. A broad general White Man. While men are not "attacked" the same way as women, men are definitely attacked too. Gang, police how about the gays!! They are always under attack by society!
.
I think Pear Harbor was an example that contradicts the above theory. I was also being very sarcastic.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!
-Hillary Clinton