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.

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.

In order to judge how women will behave in one type of military unit we can expand from what's gone on in other units. I refer to the long history of women in non-combat forces as they are the example we can extrapolate rom there.

Just because there are healthy young men running around not in uniform doesn't mean we have more able bodies combatants than we need. We have no idea how many of those people have any desire to be in the military much less in combat roles within the military. Proof would be coming from the military in stating they are turning qualified people away en mas.

Now you're saying Maggie Thatcher was a socialist?! I think Reagan might take issue with that.

Nobody had tried giving women the vote either, guess that was a mistake. I've never seen any kid paint a face on a ball, they all throw them, unless they have sticks then they usually hit them, big bouncy balls get kicked. The human mind also progresses over time, as our cultural knowledge increases our mind must change, else we wouldn't be able to comprehend these computing devices we use.

No changes have been noticed to deviate from natures mandate?! Let me introduce you to sex change operations.

But history shows that women CAN rise up to protect their society, we don't have them do it in an organized way but it does happen. The natural order of things is that BOTH genders protect their sociey, often in different ways sometime not.