Oh my god stop pretending to know anything about biology. This is like listening to New Age people talking about quantum mechanics. You seriously can't in the same sentence use the phrase "strictly from an evolutionary standpoint" and then talk about evolution having a "purpose". Evolutionary biology is about how traits came to be, and how they change within populations. It's not a just-so story, it's not prescriptive, it's not an indicator of "how things should be" or "what our purpose is". What you're saying is about as scientific as Social Darwinism. Or phrenology. Tossing in a couple scientific terms you learned doesn't legitimize it.
Idg why anyone would have a problem with this. Do people imagine female soldiers as ninety-pound Victoria's Secret models running around the battlefield in heels? Pretty sure these chicks can take care of business.
Sexism always cuts both ways. That's the problem with seeing people first and foremost as belonging to one gender rather than as a unique individual with their own set of strengths and weaknesses. There are women who are stronger than most men and there are men who are more nurturing than most women. That's the problem with making these broad categorizations -- they force people to conform to gender stereotypes. Take the concept of alimony, for instance. It's based on a discriminatory system against both men and women. For men, very often, it forces them to support their ex-wives who are fully grown adult women capable of getting jobs. Yet the concept of alimony reveals deep biases against both genders: forcing men to be the breadwinner and, at the same time, devaluing equal female work and relegating women to the home. An individual with a bachelor's degree in biology, for example, can expect to be paid more if he is male rather than female because of this bias. Men have the range of $42,955 - $81,832 Women, on the other hand have the range of $39,133 - $70,544 Which is quite a chunk of change (a difference of over $11,000 on the high-end scale) and thus both genders suffer from societal expectations. It just plays out in different ways. In terms of the draft, to be honest, I'd be more in favor of abolishing it than forcing women to register since it's highly unlikely that men will ever be called. Plus, a conscripted military force brings a whole host of issues that a volunteer force does not. In regards to women in the military, I believe that any individual should be able to have any position as long as they are qualified for the rank and meet requisite standards, regardless of gender.
What. The. Hell. Ever heard of Laila Ali? Ever checked out Serena Williams's abs? These are women, who, like the dude pictured, have trained for decades and are some of the strongest athletes and best fighters in the world. I'd call it a fair fight.
Hey guys remember when people were talking about how women shouldn't be burdened with the vote because they already had to care about the house and children and besides men were to relieve this terrible civic burden from them??
Um Cain Velasquez would destroy Leila Ali in seconds. It's just a matter of ridiculous size advantage. Of course against a military-trained martial artist who would probably know techniques that don't adhere to the rule system he fights in may be a different story. Besides which, put both of them in a uniform and give them M4s and I don't see how his size helps him there. Physical size doesn't have anything to do with modern combat (other than the ability to carry your required equipment) that I can see.
Thanks for the tag, harps . My day would have been so much less entertaining without this post. lol lol (turn on subtitles!) lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
I'm going to take this as an opportunity to post pictures of a hometown hero, Holly Holm of Albuquerque, New Mexico. I am a man. I am also fairly certain that were I to attempt to engage her in hand to hand combat, I would have my ass handed to me.
I'm surprised the GOP hasn't attempted to take that away with their various voter ID laws, but that's a topic for the US Politics thread.
So will this mean women will now have to sign up for Selective Service? Also I know plenty of women who I feel would easily be able to kill me in hand to hand. If women can match what the male soldiers do then by all means let them.
Congress will have to amend the Selective Service law to include them, so it depends, especially with the kind of Congress we have now.
I agree with @LandoThe CapeCalrissian. Women have been scientifically shown to have smaller brains and less composure under fire than men (see the work of Kazakh scientist Dr Yamuka, who proved women have brains sized roughly the same as a squirrel's brain). As soldiers, they would be marginally more useful than having nobody in the platoon, however they would always be late to combat as they'd take hours getting ready in the morning. They would also be too girly to dive into a foxhole if they were under fire. God forbid you let a woman drive a humvee or a tank. No, women would be best employed in the mess hall serving meals; or in a nursery where their delicate feminine nature works best. Great post, Lando!
Well Russia has been invaded what 5 times in the last 200 years? they simply couldn't afford to be choosey, the USA has not been under the same pressure. I am actually surpised this passed officaly.
Tears. I'm in tears. I'm having a hard time typing this right now. My response was pretty much the same as ASO's. I'm glad you made this thread, Juliet.
Certainly less times than you fantasize ways to troll them. Okay. I was just wondering as I heard the reason they weren't already was because of the combat rule.
I think this a great achievement. Until I remember that I am anti-war. My best bet is to jump off of the bridge spanning both idealogies.
