The Original Internet Political Quiz.

[sapphi_snake]

DeadNotSleeping said:

So now there's dispute on a woman's potential as a soldier? 

Alright, so yes, men for the most part have more muscle mass than women.  This is true present day and has been true for pretty much all recorded history.  However, women possess a higher pain threshold, are more flexible, more agile, require less nutritional intake to survive, are capable of withstanding greater G-Force, have a greater empathic awareness (which makes for major contributions in teamwork exercises, leadership, communications, interrogation), tend to plan ahead a little further, think faster in stressful situations and can detect subtle differences in color and texture better than men.  That is a military fact.

For an army to be effective, it must utilize the strengths of every individual within its ranks while safeguarding their weaknesses.  Men are biologically superior in some respects, women are biologically superior in others.  In times long ago, women by and large had no opportunity to fight because muscle mass meant being able to endure the burden of chainmail and swing heavy metal objects and leaders lacked the imagination to dream up alternatives for combat.  Nowadays, thanks to considerable advances in technology, front line soldiers perform pretty much equally regardless in differences in strength.  Firearms are light, easy to wield, and explosives kill everybody equally. The idea that women cannot perform as effectively as men is not only ignorant of reality, but symptomatic of the real problem--attitudes towards women have not changed as drastically as their role in the armed forces.

Historically speaking, most societies were of the patriarchal variety, which meant that the men called the shots and armies tended to be composed exclusively of them.  However, matriarchal societies have existed as well, and their armies of female warriors were not to be trifled with.  Sapphi_Snake is right on the money; culture is a determinant for gender roles, biology...not so much.  In some cases, they were more savage and brutal than the male forces that composed the troops for rival territories.  These matriarchal societies didn't collapse because their warriors were genetically inadequate; they collapsed because of the following: superior numbers and/or superior technology of invading forces.  It makes a difference.  Just ask any Browncoat.

What's more, excessive muscle mass is actually more dangerous when one gets injured.  Broken bones can shred through muscle, and high-velocity rounds render surrounding tissue hamburger.  Slender folks bounce back from injury faster than bulky muscular folks, and for those with massive muscles, a simple broken bone can be life threatening.  Not only is that a military fact as well, it is a medical one, too.

If any of you still think that female soldiers aren't just as capable male ones, well, you're entitled to your opinion.  In the real world though, women are valuable soldiers and perform admirably.

Great comment! Hope it wasn't for nothing.