| DeadNotSleeping said: So now there's dispute on a woman's potential as a soldier? Nope, there isn't. No one never said women couldnt pass as a great soldier. I said men were better build for war and combat than women. Alright, so yes, men for the most part have more muscle mass than women. They also have much better knowledge of overall modern warfare, not to mention more interest, which are both MUCH AND MUCH bigger advantages than ''pain threshold and flexibility'' Also, higher endurance and stamina also favour male gender. 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. If this military fact was true (the italic part) than you would think that women would have a higher position in military and on world - leading scene (politics). And yet how many females make it to the general, liutentant, commander, major, colonel... Yeah, not even remotly compareable to the males. And how many women are presidents today (because apperantly they have major advantiges in teamwork, communication and most importantly leadership) Im sorry, but the italic part of your parahraph is wrong. Even if you count warfare with fire weapons,(WW2-Today) men still showed better performance overall on the battlefield than females (Battle of Stalingrad is a honorable exception) 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. <----- Agree on this 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.<----Agreed, as well 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. Woman can perform as efectivly as man, yes, i never denied this. But a male soldier is a lot more likrely to perform better results than a female one. Thats what ranks and modern history are saying. 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. Yet almost all (just all?) of them got defeated. 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. They didnt colapse because of smaller numbers. Europe is actually 2nd smallest continent in the world, with smallest countries in the world and yet they ensalved 2/3 of the world. As for superior technology, it really depends on what time line are talking about. because i wouldnt call eurpean fire arms from 14 and 15 century superior to bows and arrows. Sure, they were more powerfull, but they were a lot heavier which effected the soldiers movement and required constant reloading which effected the speed of the attack.Western fire arms sucked pretty bed until early 19th centry/late 18th centry. It makes a difference. Just ask any Browncoat.Well, i dont know one, but if i do meet one, I'll be sure to ask him :) 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.I cant argue here, fair enough 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. |
I agree on most of your post except for italics part in your first paragraph and some parts on historical department. Read my first response to your post above. I dont deny that women can be just as good (or better) soldiers than men, just than GENERALLY SPEAKING men are better choice when it comes to war.
