|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jan 20, 2011 19:02:57 GMT -5
I think I was just going off on a tangent. I was in an argument about this recently.
If you're a woman, you CAN'T register for the draft. It says as much on the online form I signed up on. Oddly enough, it included a section for gender. Frankly, that irritates me too.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jan 20, 2011 19:10:27 GMT -5
Women can fight just as well as men, Except that they can't? War is a physical endeavor, and women are just not as physically capable as men. SOME women cannot. Just like SOME men cannot. So should we remove men from combat because SOME men cannot cut it? Besides, not all combat involves humping a 200-lb pack. Some of it involves flying multi-million dollar aircraft, or floating in (or under) the ocean for months. None of that requires exceptional strength.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 20, 2011 19:20:17 GMT -5
What I want to know is, if the average woman is so much weaker than the average man (I don't doubt that they're a little weaker, due to all that hormone and gender roles shit) then why were they encouraged to be homemakers for so long? Homemaking ain't for the weak, especially if you don't have the lovely modern comforts of vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, etc. there is a pretty huge hormonal difference which does have an impact on strength and mass and the like. It's one of the things impacted if you go on hormones as a TG. FTMs gain muscle faster, MTFs lose it pretty fast (Though it takes two years to be considered "on par," evidently....) However, everyone's a lot squishier than they once were, and that's a pretty big deal. I know a lot of guys who fancy themselves tough but can't churn butter because it's too intense. Both men and women are capable of much more than the norm today. Which, of course, is why it's so dumb to say women shouldn't serve frontline, period. Besides, who guns for average in the military? Escept recruiters, because nobody wants to sign up....>.>
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jan 20, 2011 20:27:49 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. Front line=/=Invaders The front line is where hostile forces clash, and until recent history, every soldier was on the front line because there was no other line.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jan 20, 2011 20:33:13 GMT -5
Okay, but they're still not exactly on the front line unless someone breaks into the city. Granted, that could have happened 100% of the time. I don't know, I'm not an anthropologist.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jan 20, 2011 20:52:39 GMT -5
What I want to know is, if the average woman is so much weaker than the average man (I don't doubt that they're a little weaker, due to all that hormone and gender roles shit) then why were they encouraged to be homemakers for so long? Homemaking ain't for the weak, especially if you don't have the lovely modern comforts of vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, etc. there is a pretty huge hormonal difference which does have an impact on strength and mass and the like. It's one of the things impacted if you go on hormones as a TG. FTMs gain muscle faster, MTFs lose it pretty fast (Though it takes two years to be considered "on par," evidently....) However, everyone's a lot squishier than they once were, and that's a pretty big deal. I know a lot of guys who fancy themselves tough but can't churn butter because it's too intense. Both men and women are capable of much more than the norm today. Which, of course, is why it's so dumb to say women shouldn't serve frontline, period. Besides, who guns for average in the military? Escept recruiters, because nobody wants to sign up....>.> Again, I know there's a hormonal difference, and it's easier for women to gain fat and men to gain muscle because of it, but unless I've been looking in all the wrong places (which I admit I might be, I'm not a great researcher) I don't see how the difference between the averages is huge. And yeah, why shoot for average when you're looking for people to, you know, kick the crap out of the other guys? That's like looking for an average person to take a huge role in government. ...actually...yeah, I'm not gonna continue that thought. I think I was just going off on a tangent. I was in an argument about this recently. If you're a woman, you CAN'T register for the draft. It says as much on the online form I signed up on. Oddly enough, it included a section for gender. Frankly, that irritates me too. What. Are you shitting me? That...okay, wow, nice. Good to know.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 20, 2011 21:09:06 GMT -5
Why are people stupid?
I just started working out. I see girls in the gym every day lifting three times what I can manage. Averages mean nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 20, 2011 21:12:52 GMT -5
Average people in Government is a good idea, Deadpan!
Edit: Also, I wasn't arguing with you. Just backing up the hormonal bit you yourself referenced.
I just didn't want to be harpooned as sexist. I've been ridden recently by someone who borders on straw feminism of late, so I'm a bit...Jumpy on gender issues.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jan 20, 2011 21:35:59 GMT -5
How I wish I was joking. I just noticed, the topic says "Woman," not "Women." Was this Fundie talking about a SPECIFIC woman?
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 20, 2011 21:42:36 GMT -5
How I wish I was joking. I just noticed, the topic says "Woman," not "Women." Was this Fundie talking about a SPECIFIC woman? If by "specific" you mean "all of them", then yes.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jan 20, 2011 21:57:07 GMT -5
Okay, but they're still not exactly on the front line unless someone breaks into the city. Granted, that could have happened 100% of the time. I don't know, I'm not an anthropologist. What do you think was being invaded?
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 20, 2011 22:00:24 GMT -5
Except that they can't? War is a physical endeavor, and women are just not as physically capable as men. SOME women cannot. Just like SOME men cannot. So should we remove men from combat because SOME men cannot cut it? Besides, not all combat involves humping a 200-lb pack. Some of it involves flying multi-million dollar aircraft, or floating in (or under) the ocean for months. None of that requires exceptional strength. Besides, does it matter if your average woman can "hump" a 200 lb pack? Long as the women who are asked to do it can do it, it shouldn't matter. I'm not the military type, I admit, but I don't care who has my back as long as they can do what they need to. Be they gay, black, female, or Brooding Sparkly Vampire. Though on the last count, I would deny it in polite company.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jan 20, 2011 22:01:43 GMT -5
In fact they mean a great deal, depending on how the data is distributed.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 20, 2011 22:19:51 GMT -5
Okay, but they're still not exactly on the front line unless someone breaks into the city. Granted, that could have happened 100% of the time. I don't know, I'm not an anthropologist. ...It didn't happen 100% of the time but it was sometimes. Like in the examples I posted earlier in this thread, their city/country was invaded which put them on the front lines.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jan 20, 2011 22:34:04 GMT -5
How I wish I was joking. I just noticed, the topic says "Woman," not "Women." Was this Fundie talking about a SPECIFIC woman? If by "specific" you mean "all of them", then yes. That is quite specific. And Vene, a lot of ancient cities were considerably more distinct. Meaning they had walls around them. So it is conceivably possible for your country to be invaded & you still don't have to fight. That said, I do acknowledge that, once it happened, it would be much the same situation. Excellent point.
|
|