I really don't know. I guess it's up to them?
I mean the ancient Celts did have the mighty Boudicca, then again that was a Pagan society. Where did I read that the Romans had thought that the Celtic woman had fought fiercer than the men?
Well, that society was so scary that the Romans, who conquered virtually the entire known world, built a wall across the entire island to protect themselves. Some of my ancestors were TOUGH.
That said, doesn't mean women should typically be in combat situations.
Fair points, PureX. There is an argument that one of the reasons that women would be particularly targetted for abuse is society's tendency to put them on a pedestal, *snip
Actually, it was God that made women different. Some years back, waslistening to a Smalley audio on the roles of men and women. One thing he pointed out was the terms used back in genesis. God made the first man from dust. The term there for "made" is like, well, what Smalley described as making a mudpie. The term "made" for women, though, was more like sculpting a fine vase. So, I would say this is part of us that we should not try and change.
But some of us ARE more expendable.
I am not married, for example, and have no children. So in an extreme situation, where life sacrifices have to be expected, I am more 'expendable' than the fathers and husbands among us would be. That doesn't mean I'm any less valued, appreciated, or loved. But if I were to be lost, my loss would be less hurtful for those left behind. That's just the way it is.
That's a case of being willing to place ones self before others, and that's an admirable trait. True that some are more able to do this, because of circumstances.
*snip*
Survival of the species is paramount, instinctively. Men protecting women is part of that instinct. For many of us, we have no way (or desire) to change this human instinct.
See above comment on how God made us all. You are right that this should not change.
*snip*
Incidentally, our social expectation of (relatively) monogamous child-bearing relationships is a rather neat illustration of the suppression of natural instincts for the benefit of society.
*snip*
Nope, again, that is something that God decided in the beginning. He didn't tell Adam and Eve, and a group of others, to be fruitful and multiply; He told a couple, that He placed together in the first marriage, to do that.
*snip*
Perhaps that is the social expectation of some people, even a majority, but it's not my expectation. From what I've seen, it appears more like an expectation of serial polygamy and divorce than monogamous child-bearing relationships. And it appears to be an expectation of having few children instead of many. That is the suppression of natural instincts for the detriment of society, imo.
Indeed! The more liberal, and against traditional marriage and family things become, the fewer children people are told they should have. There is even a very serious, and very evil, movement around that treats children as parasites, or worse.
I've always thought that it would be interesting if a woman was the one in charge of making a call over that 'red phone'.
Her reasoning might go like this:
What, go into an outdoor camping situation (either too hot or too cold) where there are no private toilets and no where to bath... fight street battles with high powered weapons where we equally might either kill or be killed... or finally fight in hand to hand combat?
Let's just win this war against our enemy quickly and efficiently ... where's that red phone?
:rotfl:
*snip*
No, I just think the people should be taught how to be soldiers. In case they need to be someday. Needn't even necessarily be assigned combat roles or spend any actual time in the military (beyond basic training) for that matter. I just like the idea of an invading army facing a city full of civilians who've at least been through basic training. And are armed, since I'm a big supporter of the second amendment.
THAT sounds like one of the DIs I had in basic. He stated that he didn't think women belonged in the military, but since they were, he would make "darn" sure that we were trained and able to defend the country in case of an attack on our soil. My Glock and I agree completely!
God made women with an innate maternal instinct, to nurture, not to kill (unless it's absolutely necessary, and in today's day and age, it isn't).
Let's not forget where we're currently fighting and the Muslim outlook towards women in general. To be more specific:
Fatwa Permits Muslim Soldiers to Kidnap, Imprison, and Rape Infidel Women
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/...o-kidnap-imprison-and-rape-infidel-women.html
Very true!
Actually, the Navy was forced to change the policy so she could fly. She could not pass the standards, so the standards were changed. Just like they do with women in the Army. Two sets of standards because they can't do 42 pushups. That is all you have to do. Well, sit ups and two mile run also but only 42 pushups.
That is a HUGE issue. Different standards have always been in place, for men and women. Different PT standards, etc. Longer running times, fewer pushups, etc. Different weight standards, even. A pack than a man could carry could drown a woman, if she tried crossing water with it. That is true for most women. Yes, a FEW that are stronger, but they are far from the norm. Women are strong in other ways. Doesn't make us lesser, just different.
The point is, women can easily serve in SOME roles in the military, but they cannot serve as well in others, and those tend to be combat areas. it isn't about who can shoot better (I can outshoot a LOT of people), but about who can do ALL of the tasks. Unless a woman can meet the same physical standards as the men, she has no place in some of those jobs.
