OK, it was tearing apart and asking questions about your silly statement :"" ESTT said: ↑ I would have no issue with that if it weren't for the biological disadvantage women have as far as physical strength. Though ideally I'd rather have all females be eligible for a draft regardless of whether or not they are a mother. After pregnancy of course, though. I think genetic modification would be required to put women on equal footing as far as strength. An increase in muscle density could also, for the most part, allow the feminine shape to remain while providing strength equal to a male. A neurological change as well because most other women are simply too far in mentality from their male counterparts.""""""""" Then I replied : "" Guess you chose to ignore the Olympics...or the history of women ....or the history of women in combat.... Now, swear it 's true : EVERY man is stronger than EVERY woman and EVERY man in the military is exactly as strong as EVERY other man in the military. You: ""A neurological change as well because most other women are simply too far in mentality from their male counterparts""" Yes, MEN should have a neurological change so they're closer in mentality to women ...and maybe we'd have less need for the military....or wars would end more quickly with the minds of women determining strategy..."""""" Your sentence bolded in blue above is especially sexist so I straightened it out in the next bolded blue sentence.....I think you know what I meant and just can't respond to facts.....or don't like them
I honestly did have difficulty understanding the post because of the way it was worded. Not that I blame you, I wasn't reading it carefully enough. Thank you for explaining. I'm aware women can perform in combat as well as in sports. Unfortunately, many may not be capable of going up against males on average. Strength level can vary between people, but what I see as the problem is that the number of physically strong women is significatly lower than the number of physically strong men. I didn't specify the mental traits of other women that I dislike. I won't go into detail about my own opinion for now, but I will say that it has nothing to do with military strategy, but rather more psychological/emotional matters. In fact, I believe women are just as capable as men in strategy, as well as anything to do with academics, engineering, etc. It was my fault for not clarifying that I see the current male mentality as also flawed. Males are, in turn, far too different from females in terms of mental processing. I'm interested, what neurological improvements do you think can be made to males?
First, most wars aren't fought hand to hand anymore. Second , women have fought in wars since there were wars. You: ""A neurological change as well because most other women are simply too far in mentality from their male counterparts""" That implied that women were flawed and need to be improved by being more like men ... Third, the differences between women and men are not all "neurological"....most of that crap is taught to kids from the moment the poor little newborn girl gets her pink hat in the hospital and the newborn born gets his blue hat their lives are one big pig fest of sexism...... But IF MEN should have a neurological change so they're closer in mentality to women ... maybe we'd have less need for the military....or wars would end more quickly with the minds of women determining strategy..."""""" Women would be more interested in ending wars and saving lives than promoting their own ego...not all, but most.. If MEN were more like women there'd be less wars , less rape , less children being molested and less women being sexually harassed and less murder , less domestic abuse, and less government corruption... But you want women to be more like men? Why?
I won't give details at the moment. I can speak to you about this later, though. There are many reasons why I want women to think more like men in addition to men thinking more like women. A new mentality that works for both genders "across the board". All I can say for now is one example. It has to do with what you've mentioned above. Of course like the majority I am against rape, child molestation, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, and government corruption. But it's the lack of aggression in females and excessive empathy that I see as a weakness. Perspective purity isn't something that can realisticly be achieved by peaceful means. No matter how much anyone tries to convince others to agree with them. If everyone thought as women do now, we would still have a mentally pluralistic society. But you do have a point. If males thought more like females, there would likely be no "Uncyclopedia Dramatica" or the concept of "Cringe". Then maybe my life could have turned out differently. If you look on YouTube for example, males are almost always the ones responsible for negative, mocking comments.
] I guess not everyone has progressed mentally past the 18th, 19th and early 20th century....they long for the "good old days" of women as house/sex slaves and nothing more....it's their easy way out, don't have to think so much. See, how easily what women do is dismissed and and what only some men do is blown out of proportion : "" Let's see her willing to take those duties. Men have to sacrifice their lives in the name of protecting the lives of others, why shouldn't women?""" Your total lack of respect for women, especially the women who all VOLUNTEERED to serve our country and did to heroic proportions, is quite disgusting... Did you note how the women who served our country, were wounded and died for our country, were ALL VOLUNTEERS, no one had to force them...... YOU: """Let's see her willing to take those duties"" DUH, they did! AND DO, and always have ....
Might I recommend you take a few moments from your strenuous military duties and terrorists pursuits to present your proposal to this fellow soldier.
Oh my God this is fallacious nonsense. Are you arguing against abortion or against equality or for the draft? Talk about a convoluted cacophony of non sequitur.
No, they haven't so far...and why don't they take responsibility for their own actions and stop being insufferable prats all on their own without needing women for a crutch?
Clearly you missed the sarcasm. Neither gender has a monopoly on being "insufferable prats". People in general are nasty, self serving, arrogant, ignorant, foolish and so on. Women are people too.
Except that it's men who prevent women from serving in combat in the first place. Your attempt here might make sense if that were not true. It would still be wrong, since you're comparing two entirely separate and unrelated situations, but it would at least make a little sense.
I would support a national service...remember it was men who passed the draft laws. Take it up with them
Actually the current registration rules to which I refer, was done via proclamation by Carter using his authority from Military Selective Service act ( remember when USSR invaded Afghanistan) after Ford signed Proclamation 4360 eliminating the registration requirements from the Vietnam era. Just one man did both. I have always opposed being the only gender to register.
Well as long as you think a zygote is a human life you will be stuck in your position. Oh if only you cared about born children as much as you do about zygotes
I have an Idea....everyone who wants to force women to give birth must put their names on a special list and agree to pay for, adopt and raise the born child.
I suspect this will actually happen. And there will be women getting pregnant like crazy to receive the exemption.
The Olympics proves you are wrong. Olympic athletes are at the top of the pyramid, they represent the pinnacle of the human body if nearly unlimited resources are applied to their training. The result is that men lift more, run faster, swim faster. Women soccer teams and women tennis players train against college varsity men who are not good enough to be at the male Olympic level, and the men generally win over the Olympic level women. Last year, in friendly soccer game, the FC Dallas U15 boys (boys under 15 years old) team beat the US National Womens Team. The US Womens team plays U17 boys teams regularly, and they regularly lose. Other nations have similar training regimens, the Australian National Womens Team lost to the U16 boys Sydney team. Womens tennis is the same, the Olympians and professionals train against men. Even Venus Williams, and she often loses to these men. Google it. <> The history of women in combat is poor. Nations such as Israel and Russia used women in combat because they needed every person possible or they would be overrun. In WW2, Russia conscripted old men, children, women, because they needed as many people as possible on the front lines. Some of these women were superior, most were not. As soon as the crisis was over, the need for people to work in factories and farms and transportation became important, and the women and old men and children left the front lines and worked in industry and agriculture. After WW2, no women in combat units. Same for Israel. The used women in combat because they had to, but no longer. There is only one combat unit with women and it is a border security unit, even there the women carry a lighter load than the men. False argument. Its not about the individual, its a numbers game. The US military has limited resources. It cannot afford to dump $billions into giving all women a chance just to find that 0.1% that can meet the requirements. When the Army determined there would be a female Ranger, they started with 200-500 candidates and put them in a special training camp (not available to men) which simulated Ranger school. Of those, 18 went to the actual school. None passed. Several were recycled. None passed. Three were recycled yet again (men don't get a 3rd chance, many don't even get a 2nd chance), and after a 2-star General declared that "there will be a female Ranger", 2 got to the end of the program and were given Ranger tabs. That's a <1% success rate for women when given a lot of preparatory training and special treatment, versus 50% for men. The military cannot afford the women's program. Its that simple. The vast majority of men are stronger and faster than the vast majority of women, even after going through basic military training. That's been shown repeatedly.
OK, men in general are bigger and stronger than women in general. Now how does that equate to having equal rights, it doesn't because it doesn't make men better just makes some bigger and stronger. They make great cavemen and hunter/ gatherers...but most people have been out of the cave for a long time ... And you conveniently ignored: You: ""A neurological change as well because most other women are simply too far in mentality from their male counterparts""" Yes, MEN should have a neurological change so they're closer in mentality to women ...and maybe we'd have less need for the military....or wars would end more quickly with the minds of women determining strategy...
That shows a complete lack of understanding of the military job. In many jobs a person have to have the intelligence to plan the mission and assess the situation, and the physical ability to actually do the mission. Equal rights does not mean equal outcome. And equal rights also has to face reality. When there are not the resources to allow equal rights, or the penalty is national security, then you have to make a choice - the nation dies satisfied you have been true to your equal rights agenda, or the nation survives by a rational application of equal rights. Yes, I did not respond to that because that's a ridiculous comment. Your answer is to change all of society and human genetics. Not going to happen.
Your total and complete disregard of the lives and sacrifices made by our troops throughout history simply because they were female is noted. Your inference that females do not have the brain power that men do is total sexism and misogyny.....but I bet it makes you feel better about yourself... YOU brought up "neurological change"...YOU.....and when it's thrown back at you , OK, time to ignore it … ...and here's something YOU didn't do : A small snippet from history and what just one woman did: (not you) Hedy Lamarr, actress. Lamarr is also credited with being an inventor. At the beginning of World War II, she and composer George Antheil developed a radio guidance system for Allied torpedoes, which used spread spectrum and frequency hopping technology to defeat the threat of jamming by the Axis powers.[5] Although the US Navy did not adopt the technology until the 1960s, the principles of their work are arguably incorporated into Bluetooth technology, and are similar to methods used in legacy versions of CDMA and Wi-Fi.[6][7][8] This work led to their induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2014.[5][9]