|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jan 20, 2011 14:39:56 GMT -5
To be fair, what he said is that "Military should reduce role of women", and I completely agree that war is no women's business and female members of the military should be confined to non-combat duties away from frontlines. To be fair, that's totally horrible.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jan 20, 2011 15:04:32 GMT -5
The military doesn't need to fill sand bags or dig foxholes much anymore. This isn't the 1940's. There are women who are above average and can fight as well or better than they're male counterparts. There are also many other positions besides the front line or patrols. There are fighter pilots, military snipers, military paramedics, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on Jan 20, 2011 15:12:42 GMT -5
The military doesn't need to fill sand bags or dig foxholes much anymore. This isn't the 1940's. There are women who are above average and can fight as well or better than they're male counterparts. There are also many other positions besides the front line or patrols. There are fighter pilots, military snipers, military paramedics, etc... Another sandbag affirmation For the record, when I sustained my injuries I was rescued by a female Airborne Paramedic. She lept into a hot zone and Saved. My. Ass. She still gets birthday cards and letters from me every year. I have her family photo on my desk at work.
|
|
|
Post by georgebullocks on Jan 20, 2011 15:23:16 GMT -5
You see, I just watched this NatGeo Afganistan war documentary called 'restrepo' and those soldiers running around filling 'hescos'(which I assume is some kind of sandbag) and digging a hole on top of a mountain and making it into an outpost over night takes up a good part of of the show, so it probably gave me some false impressions how modern warfare works.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 20, 2011 15:33:10 GMT -5
The physical differences of women doesn't imped them from warfare. If it seems that on average, women are weaker than men in our culture, it's because they are raised to be that way. There are other cultural context in which women are full participants of war. The idea of women being meek, docile, weak, and in need of protections is just our cultural expectation of them. Despite how the overbearing gender roles shapes them, women in our society are still highly capable of being on the front-line. Like I said earlier, if given the same training a woman can be on par with a man. Regardless of body fat, muscle mass possibilities, etc., And as I mentioned earlier, they make better snipers than men BECAUSE of the lack of testosterone.
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Jan 20, 2011 16:46:30 GMT -5
Besides, even if women were physically inferior in this day and age that doesn't matter. Because guess what? You aren't hefting a sword and shield anymore. It's a gun. or lobbing a grenade. Neither are particularly heavy to need physical strength above normal every day strength. Even in the era of swords and shield, it would be erroneous to believe that women weren't capable of using them.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 20, 2011 16:58:18 GMT -5
I posted some examples of women who used swords, shields, and even hacked people to bits with axes. :3
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jan 20, 2011 17:02:07 GMT -5
Weren't Spartan women trained as warriors? They were left behind to tend to the house and children, sure, but weren't their early trainings on par with the men's?
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 20, 2011 17:09:13 GMT -5
According to my research as children and teens they were trained for hand-to-hand fighting and such. Because a strong woman gave birth to a strong Spartan man.
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Jan 20, 2011 17:10:46 GMT -5
Weren't Spartan women trained as warriors? They were left behind to tend to the house and children, sure, but weren't their early trainings on par with the men's? Spartan women were more physically fit than other Greek women. It's part due to the fact that men weren't there (and subjected to infanticide). The other Greeks sequestered their women into the home and made them hidden. Even democratic Athens did this. As for women warriors, one of the famous general of the Ming was Qin Liangyu. Many pre-colonial North American women were competent fighters as well.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jan 20, 2011 17:18:55 GMT -5
That's kind of the kicker with ancient women of war: Yes, they were usually trained as soldiers, but they were also usually left behind to defend the home. This makes it sort of an innefective way of arguing that women should be allowed on the frontlines.
An ineffective way of arguing that they shouldn't would be "dogs can track them because of their menstral blood." Oh, YouTube. We have so many memories together. Most of them just awful.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 20, 2011 17:31:35 GMT -5
Defending the home doesn't make you less of a soldier.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jan 20, 2011 17:59:37 GMT -5
No, it doesn't, but the point is, they aren't on the front lines. With the US, women can be in the military, they just can't be on the front lines. Well, in brigades of a certain size whose primary purpose is engaging an enemy. But you get my point: They aren't actually a precedent for dispelling that.
I do find it ridiculous to cite the Facts of Biology TM, though. You shouldn't base decisions like that on averages. I'd be a terrible soldier.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jan 20, 2011 18:02:18 GMT -5
Georgebullocks, stop using the results of widespread sexism to justify your sexism. Studies of recruits is only going to give you an indication of how men and women of the society they've just been recruited from compare, which is grossly affected by how they're raised. Old studies especially are horrid at this, as sexism was even more widespread and institutionalised. If you really want to compare how men and women differ in strength you'll have to look at how they far after years of training (and possibly actual combat), not how they do on initial assessment.
Also, while the differences from the amount of testosterone in the body does affect muscle mass, you'd still only be looking at averages, not absolutes. There is still a very large amount amount of overlap, so while fewer women than men would meet the physical requirements there is still a large number of women who meet said requirements.
Oh yeah, and another thing: your bringing up old studies to justify your sexism is like people bringing up studies on the average IQ of different races, in that you're not taking into account other factors like socio-economic status, manner of upbringing, access to resources, and other important stuff like that. Yes, there are differences in the physical capabilities of men and women, but it's incredibly disingenuous to not figure out what is actually an innate difference versus what is an environmental difference.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jan 20, 2011 18:50:46 GMT -5
No, it doesn't, but the point is, they aren't on the front lines. With the US, women can be in the military, they just can't be on the front lines. Well, in brigades of a certain size whose primary purpose is engaging an enemy. But you get my point: They aren't actually a precedent for dispelling that. I do find it ridiculous to cite the Facts of Biology TM, though. You shouldn't base decisions like that on averages. I'd be a terrible soldier. I wasn't trying to argue that Spartan women = precedent proving that women should be allowed on the front lines, I just remembered that they were raised essentially the same as the men and were just as capable. I think it was gyeonghwa's latest post that triggered that thought process. And yeah, you should hear my mother ranting about only young men being required to sign up for the draft.
|
|