4 ms·

I don't know, I've been told anything a man can do, a woman can do - often better. Also, I dont know if we can use "willing" when talking about people who are

by dudul 4y ago

I don't know, I've been told anything a man can do, a woman can do - often better. Also, I dont know if we can use "willing" when talking about people who are forced to do it.

lazide 4y ago
I’ve gone some unusual places, and been lucky enough to meet some very interesting and unusual people - many of them women. One of them is currently a full bird Colonel in the army, another is one of the strongest and fearless big wall climbers I’ve ever seen. Are there women out there who could best your average man, or even an exceptional man in any of the areas I listed? You bet. But there aren’t enough of them to make an army. They’re outliers. And frankly, each of them had to sacrifice so much of what most women value to be that, and have such painful circumstances behind why they chose that path, that it isn’t surprising that is the case to me. And physically, each of them has had to struggle far more than their male compatriots to do it, because there are differences. As to willingness or not - just because someone is drafted, doesn’t mean they won’t own their circumstances and do what needs to be done for the better outcome, even if they don’t like that they are there, or wish they were somewhere else. Frankly, unless you’ve been called upon to do that, you’ll never know if you have that in you. Not everyone does. But running away from it doesn’t help either.
Manuel_D 4y ago
Carrying heavy loads over long distances and tolerating great risks of physical injury are two things where there are indeed significant sex disparities universal across cultures. Exceptionally few women serve in frontline roles, historically it's been a fraction of one percent and only employed because male manpower was exhausted. That's not to say women joining the military bring large benefits. The significant majority of military personnel, men and women alike, aren't in combat facing roles. The Womens Army Corps in WWII was a big success, and the military wanted to recruit even more women than joined to the point that selective service among women was considered: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Army_Corps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Army_Corps
- lazide 4y ago
  Also, willingness (and propensity) to use direct violence, and open aggression. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281200287X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281... 95% of convicted murderers are male, and it’s not the only place with an obvious skew like that.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    This is actually a factor I'm less convinced is relevant. A relatively small proportion of casualties are due to small arms fire. Artillery and mortars are the main killers on the battlefield. I doubt willingness to commit criminal homicide is correlated with willingness to lob HE shells to enemy positions kilometers away. I'm not sure if this inspired your post, but On Killing by Dave Grossman was widely influential but not highly regarded among military people. The combat veterans I've talked to reported little to no hesitation among them or the men they led to use lethal force against the enemy. They reported not only an absence of hesitation, but an eagerness to claim credit for dispatching the enemy (to the point of getting into arguments over who killed which enemy).
    - lazide 4y ago
      Indeed! Modern artillery and mortars are indeed widely lethal. As are air strikes, missiles, tanks, IFVs, etc. Boots on the ground are still what hold it though, and that still requires the willingness to do what I was describing, even if they usually aren’t called to do it because other, more effective means do it first. Being able to handle being in reach of artillery and mortars, also required, once you know the above is true. Additionally, someone willing to bayonet a stranger is going to really have no issues pulling a lanyard on a howitzer.

by dudul 4y ago

I don't know, I've been told anything a man can do, a woman can do - often better. Also, I dont know if we can use "willing" when talking about people who are forced to do it.

lazide 4y ago

I’ve gone some unusual places, and been lucky enough to meet some very interesting and unusual people - many of them women. One of them is currently a full bird Colonel in the army, another is one of the strongest and fearless big wall climbers I’ve ever seen. Are there women out there who could best your average man, or even an exceptional man in any of the areas I listed? You bet. But there aren’t enough of them to make an army. They’re outliers. And frankly, each of them had to sacrifice so much of what most women value to be that, and have such painful circumstances behind why they chose that path, that it isn’t surprising that is the case to me. And physically, each of them has had to struggle far more than their male compatriots to do it, because there are differences. As to willingness or not - just because someone is drafted, doesn’t mean they won’t own their circumstances and do what needs to be done for the better outcome, even if they don’t like that they are there, or wish they were somewhere else. Frankly, unless you’ve been called upon to do that, you’ll never know if you have that in you. Not everyone does. But running away from it doesn’t help either.

Manuel_D 4y ago

Carrying heavy loads over long distances and tolerating great risks of physical injury are two things where there are indeed significant sex disparities universal across cultures. Exceptionally few women serve in frontline roles, historically it's been a fraction of one percent and only employed because male manpower was exhausted. That's not to say women joining the military bring large benefits. The significant majority of military personnel, men and women alike, aren't in combat facing roles. The Womens Army Corps in WWII was a big success, and the military wanted to recruit even more women than joined to the point that selective service among women was considered: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Army_Corps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Army_Corps

lazide 4y ago
Also, willingness (and propensity) to use direct violence, and open aggression. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281200287X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281... 95% of convicted murderers are male, and it’s not the only place with an obvious skew like that.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  This is actually a factor I'm less convinced is relevant. A relatively small proportion of casualties are due to small arms fire. Artillery and mortars are the main killers on the battlefield. I doubt willingness to commit criminal homicide is correlated with willingness to lob HE shells to enemy positions kilometers away. I'm not sure if this inspired your post, but On Killing by Dave Grossman was widely influential but not highly regarded among military people. The combat veterans I've talked to reported little to no hesitation among them or the men they led to use lethal force against the enemy. They reported not only an absence of hesitation, but an eagerness to claim credit for dispatching the enemy (to the point of getting into arguments over who killed which enemy).
  - lazide 4y ago
    Indeed! Modern artillery and mortars are indeed widely lethal. As are air strikes, missiles, tanks, IFVs, etc. Boots on the ground are still what hold it though, and that still requires the willingness to do what I was describing, even if they usually aren’t called to do it because other, more effective means do it first. Being able to handle being in reach of artillery and mortars, also required, once you know the above is true. Additionally, someone willing to bayonet a stranger is going to really have no issues pulling a lanyard on a howitzer.