Replies

I didn't say they had roles in the military that placed them in combat danger. I said they had roles in the military. There a difference and I'd appreciate it if you didn't change what I said just to make you right. Now historically there are a handful of very limited examples of women in combat roles (ala Joan of Arc) but it's pretty rare. Even now we aren't putting women in direct combat roles, we're putting them in areas that are supposedly support but might wind up in combat.

You're assuming there's an overabundance. I reject that assumption. If you have proof provide it, I'll listen to proof I ignore unfounded assumptions.

We're all being used by those that hunger for political power, get used to it. Or become a hermit. Your choice. Although I've heard there are a few members of the Libertarian party making eyes at hermits, be adviced. As for women in political roles what's the problem? Didn't like Maggie Thatcher. Politics is the art of compromise and manipulation, as is rearing 3 year olds, I think parenting skills directly apply to careers in politics. This probably explains why Hilary is so bad as a senator, she thinks it takes a village to raise a kid way to advertise one's bad parenting skills.

Problem with your math is who's going to train the women for combat duty when there's no men for the job? If it gets to the point when all secretaries must now become soldiers we've already lost. If a woman is suited for combat duty there is no logical reason to not let them do it. There's a good bet that a woman suited for combat duty isn't suited for a lot of other things we associate with womanness. Forcing them to be something they're not is a waste of their talents.

There isn't any history contradicting it. There's no large based historical example period. Nobody's tried it before in a large scale. You're arguement is akin to people in the 19th century saying that if man was meant to fly they already would be. America is, at its heart, a grand and noble experiment, many of the things we do (like representative democracy, like building democracy in the mid-east) have failed miserably before, and yet we try. Fear of bucking historical trends is contrary to the American dream.

People keep saying there's evidence, and yet nobody has provided any proof. Pony up the proof and I'll read it.

BTW thanks for being polite and interesting. You've elevated the quality of conversation on this thread and I appreciate it.

I didn't say they had roles in the military that placed them in combat danger. I said they had roles in the military.

We're talking about women in combat. In your posts on this thread you have been talking about women in combat. Women in support roles, even though dangerous from time to time, has not been an issue among the posters on this thread. Services and support roles of women in the military have a long and distinguished history.

You're assuming there's an overabundance. I reject that assumption. If you have proof provide it, I'll listen to proof I ignore unfounded assumptions.

All you have to do is walk around anywhere and note all the healthy young men who are not presently serving in the armed forces. Do you consider that proof?

As for women in political roles what's the problem? Didn't like Maggie Thatcher. Politics is the art of compromise and manipulation, as is rearing 3 year olds, I think parenting skills directly apply to careers in politics.

Political leadership is a direct extension of the role of protector in a healthy culture. Political leadership is a direct extension of nurturing and empathy in a socialism.

There isn't any history contradicting it (women in dangerous roles when there are enough men to do the job). There's no large based historical example period. Nobody's tried it before in a large scale.

Nobody's tried it on a large scale for a reason. That reason is the well settled maxims of the difference in natures of men and women. The difference is profiled very well in the statement of a news commentator who junked his support of man/woman equality inherent in feminism. He said that, from his personal experience, if you give a ball to a little boy he will throw it; if you give a ball to a little girl she will paint a face on it.

You're arguement is akin to people in the 19th century saying that if man was meant to fly they already would be.

You are using an example of the advancement of technology as an analogy to overturn the obvious and observed, for thousands of years in every culture and all times, natures of men and women.

America is, at its heart, a grand and noble experiment, many of the things we do (like representative democracy, like building democracy in the mid-east) have failed miserably before, and yet we try. Fear of bucking historical trends is contrary to the American dream.

There many areas in human interaction with reality that have yet to be defined and maxims therefor refined. The physical and psychological realities of men and women are not among them. The human being has been split into male and female as long as we have had knowledge, and no change has been noticed that deviate from nature's mandate.

You want "proof". If you are surrounded by holes in the ground, do you need a geologist's report to believe they're there? Most of these truths are things that most people know before they pass puberty, and the rest after they pass puberty.

It's not your fault, I suppose. We have all grown up un in a place of high population, a high standard of living and security because of that population. Many of us have forgotten many harsh realities. One harsh reality is is indicated by the question, what happens when a villiage of 500 members feel that a villiage of 50 has what they need? Another is highlighted by the question, what group has a better chance of survival: 100 women and one man, or 100 men and one woman.

Mother nature is not sweet, kind, compassionate, fair and understanding. Neither does she deal with natural lawbreakers instantly; it ofter takes decades for such to be "brought to justice" in the court of the Earth creatures.

She operates on the "natural resting place" doctrine of creatures and objects, that from whence they start, to that they will return. The natural resting place for a pencil is flat on a table top. It takes not energy to maintain it there, and it can stay there forever with no energy expended. To suspend that pencil a foot off the surface of that table top takes a constant expenditure of energy, and within a short time that energy must be exhausted and the pencil return to it natural resting place.

To suspend the natural order of things in creatures requires an expenditure of energy and resources as massive as the distance of removal from the natural resting place. When that energy is finally used up that fall can be great, even lethal.