By “more religious parts of the world”, I also meant the United States.
Thanks for the input, you can go back to your cave now.
How do you account for the fact that this has already happened?
Regards,
Shodan
Given that we aren’t talking about paleolithic societies, how is this relevant?
I rather suspect you know what my point is; women are perfectly capable of soldiering in front line combat and even excelling at it. Having a vagina doesn’t keep one from being a highly effective sniper. Having an upper body strength requirement for specific roles may exclude some, possibly even the majority of women, but not all of them. Saying the Nazis were more ideologically driven than the Nazis is highly debatable, and the Soviets wasted man and rail hours sending suspect populations to Siberia during the war. Further, the Nazis lost the war shortly after being invaded because they had been bled out fighting in and then retreating through the USSR and Eastern Europe. They were throwing those 60 year old men and 14 year old boys into the front lines because they had run out of manpower in the normal spectrum of military age.
Nonsense, the Germans could have mobilized the female work force for the war effort far earlier tan they did, they just choose not to (and had slave labor as well). The Western Allies and made use of the female work force for war industry both by choice, not out of desperation, and before the Germans did. The Soviets used female snipers from the beginning of the war, not once they were starting to run low on manpower. Perhaps I started my last quote on Lyudmila Mykhailivna Pavlichenko one sentence later than I should have which would have cleared this up:
I would say that they are sexist views being expressed and are wrong. I could have (and can now) pass the fitness test for males in the Marine Corp, but females don’t have to do pullups because of our upper body strength. Doesn’t mean we can’t for be conditioned for it. Also, the standards for men in the military in general are not as strenuous as it is for the men in the infantry. Maybe the military needs to change it’s views of women. No, not all women would qualify for grunt work, and most don’t care to put the work in to get qualified, but some are. Let them do it.
Thats a small minded view and law enforcement is much more than physical. Without the right personality, the willingness to treat all people with respect and ability to control ones emotions, it can cause a lot of issues. If they are respected less on average, it is because law enforcement is still so riddled with macho sexism.
Right, and those are seen as backward and small minded. If you still think “your” women should be barefoot and in the kitchen, you probably beat her too. This is hardly the part of the US that is pictured or used as an example of an American principle.
If men and women believe that it’s improper for them to work in too close proximity with the opposite sex, they may be a bit primitive, but they’re not necessarily sexist.
What religion has these beliefs but still treat the sexes equally? And why do they believe it’s inappropriate for them to work too closely to the opposite sex?
They are useful for at least one thing! BOOYA!!
Seriously. One, you are making yourself sound like a dumbass. And two, most young men are by and large useless these days as well.
The US military has a long and outstanding tradition of excluding blacks, gays, women and other minorities based on nebulous issues related to “combat readiness” and “unit cohesion”. I suspect that most of the concern is due to those groups being offensive to the military’s core recruiting demographic - rural young white men with at best a high school education.
Much of modern warfare is extremely mechanised and high-tech. Clearly many front line combat roles still benefit from having soldiers built like Spartan warriors. But many roles seem like they only require the upper body strength to aim and fire an 8 lb rifle at shapes 300 m away.
That is actually the definition of sexist.
I have no idea where you are getting that. One thing that Afghanistan has shown is that the role of the grunt walking the ground is far from over. If anything the army has moved away from being overly mechanized and back to a light mobile force.
Which once again goes back to: if a woman is capable of doing that ‘grunt’ work, then she should be allowed to serve on the front lines.
Is refusing to shower with members of the opposite gender sexist? If not, how those that differ from refusing to share a tent with them, except as a matter of degree?
It differs in the fact that I often share a tent with my fellow troops, but only shower (sometimes, when the mood takes us) with my husband. What kind of insane logic is that?
We are different, but entitled to the same rights, therefore if women make the cut, they should be allowed to serve in front lines combat.
How is fucking someone different than being platonic friends, except as a matter of degree? Are you serious?
In Europe, in quite a few places, no one would object to common shower facilities for men/women. That would be quite unacceptable in the US. Would you call that sexism?
No, but if it’s not for you, don’t shower there. There are many cultural and social mores that are different in other countries and regions, but excluding women from a job just because they are women, is sexist.
Last time I checked, joining the military (in the US and Canada) was still voluntary. If you don’t want to sleep in a tent, or in the dirt with members of the opposite sex, don’t join.
This is getting silly and wildly off-track. I am a female, in a military that allows women to serve in front-line combat and think if a woman has the desire and ability to be in that role, then she shouldn’t be excluded because she has a vagina.
How does that differ from refusing to share the planet with them if we take your argument to its logically absurd conclusion?
That’s not what I meant. In the olden days, men did the fighting because all fighting was hand to hand with melee weapons. Winning depended on physically being able to swing a sword. Nowadays, most fighting is done with lightweight firearms. IOW, you probably aren’t going to get killed simply because you may be half as big or half as strong as the average soldier.
Where strength and stamina does come into play, however, is in the tactical meneuvering of a unit. How much geer can they carry and for how far and how long? A unit can only travel as far and as fast as its weakest member.
But women climb to the top of Mt Everest and run marathons, so unless you can convince me the average American soldier is some sort of athletic superman, saying women “can’t” do it is a tough sell.
Let’s clear up a common misconception here. Modern guns are not lightweight - in fact, the average modern infantry primary firearm (as represented by the standard-issue M4 Carbine) weighs in excess of 6.5 pounds loaded. “Light” machine guns such the M240, in use by US armed forces, weigh, depending on the exact model, anywhere between 22 and 28 pounds. Also contrary to common belief, swords and the like aren’t particularly unwieldly (cite: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm ), most weighing, in fact, appreciably less than the modern infantry firearm. From a pure strength viewpoint, women might in fact be better suited to medieval combat than modern combat.
These are heavy things we’re talking about, and I think people are gravely underestimating the physical requirements of grunt work. As a previously-cited article by a combat-experienced female marine states very clearly, physical deterioration during combat is rapid and severe to the point of significant muscular atrophy, and I would presume it even more severe for special-weapons soldiers such as machine gunners. If we’re going to discuss this matter, lets stop pussyfooting about the actual physical toll of combat as if guns were made of plastic and all that’s required of a grunt is some stamina and a bit of fleet-footedness when that’s clearly not the case.