Armies are for the most part, and specially when it comes to the soldiers on the frontline, made by men.


Men are the ones who go to war, sacrificing their physical and mental well-being.

Society expects men to go fight in a war. It is seen as normal. What would happen if armies were made by women? People would rise and tell “How dare we send women to die!?”

If you notice it, this is never brought up as a gender issue. Men going to war is seen as normal, never questioned, an established expectation. And it’s been this way for all through history, even now.

Don't worry, they're working on it. Few dozen women /w ranger tabs now. Before too long, we'll be as callously indifferent to the spent lives of female infantry as we have been towards infantry for all of history. I doubt that we'll suddenly change our minds on account of female.

Is this your first time recognizing that the genders are unequal?

It's a grey example too. Societal expectations and the like are easily criticized, but the heart of the issue of men in combat has boiled down to sexual dimorphism (and still does).

It's comparatively less likely for a female to be able to sling a male over her shoulder, both of them in full battle dress, and run under fire to cover. We breed our boys big, and we prefer our girls small or supple. In a very real and biological sense male human beings have adaptations to violence. I'd go so far as to say we're the most dangerous animals on earth and the only thing close is dead heat close, with females in second place. The two of us together, forget about it. We're a mobile murder factory that can make newer younger and better murder factories on the fly. Death's perpetual replacement.

Societal expectations and the like are easily criticized, though. We breed our boys big, and we prefer our girls small or supple. There hasn't been a ton of room in society for a female that fits the ground pounding bill and has the sorts of interests required to make that a professional reality. That probably has alot to do with the disparity - I suppose we could pick that apart. As far as modern nations go (and it hasn't escaped the notice of our fellow modern nations) we're uncharacteristically militaristic. Martial prowess is an organizing and stratifying principle for male youth under any number of peace-time guises. It's not particularly surprising, in that, that we end up producing alot of male soldiers. The real surprise is that we produce so few female soldiers. That, as we see, though, is changing. Whatever advantage adaptations to violence may have once had are rendered mostly irrelevant on a battlefield full of drones and assault rifles and at's and mech medics. Where the job is mostly to get shot at without causing an international incident. Less backstep kick to the skull - more hearts and minds.

I suspect that, should we ever return to the aow model, gender will be deemed irrelevant to compulsory service. This is one where the remnants of a patriarchy help to do some good for at least some people, even if by accident - but..not for long.

Actually, male dominance in military forces is an example of gender inequality towards women, not men.

Boru

(February 15, 2021 at 6:13 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Actually, male dominance in military forces is an example of gender inequality towards women, not men.

Boru

Back in 1970 I was advised to shoot the women first, they had something to prove. I really didn't have time to be that discriminatory.

The primary complaint I've heard about female soldiers is that don't have the same strength as men (all else being equal). The new exoskeleton system might resolve this. It's called, and I shit you not, HULC. My first thought was "HULC SMASH!!"

(February 15, 2021 at 6:13 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Actually, male dominance in military forces is an example of gender inequality towards women, not men.

Boru

I dunno.

When that tank is just about to run over your bleeding, broken ass - the thought might occur to you that the women finagled the better end of the deal....

(February 15, 2021 at 3:19 am)Macoleco Wrote: Armies are for the most part, and specially when it comes to the soldiers on the frontline, made by men.


Men are the ones who go to war, sacrificing their physical and mental well-being.

Society expects men to go fight in a war. It is seen as normal. What would happen if armies were made by women? People would rise and tell “How dare we send women to die!?”

If you notice it, this is never brought up as a gender issue. Men going to war is seen as normal, never questioned, an established expectation. And it’s been this way for all through history, even now.

Where shall I begin with the stupid?

Women creating armies? Darling, you're confusing reality with the fantasy of Paradise Island in connection with DC comics.

Besides, there are women who do join the armed services along with men.

Therefore, you haven't made a single valid point. Congratulations on that, I guess.

(February 15, 2021 at 5:16 am)Angrboda Wrote: Is this your first time recognizing that the genders are unequal?

Um no, they are equal. I don't mean in a PC sense, I mean simply in the fact that it takes female and male DNA to reproduce. And all human beings regardless of gender die eventually.

But from a global perspective, it is absolutely true that gender roles still exist and that men are seen as far more expendable than women.