(07-20-2021 09:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 09:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 08:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 08:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 08:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If your thesis is the opposite, what has genetically changed in women in the last 60 years? You plant your stick on 'culture has changed our view on the ability of women to fight. Thus we can dismiss the past issues with not having women fight.'

Funny, in all your statements re: systemic blahbitty blah blah blah, how does that statement hang? Let's give it a whirl. 'Culture has changed our view on the ability of blacks to fight'' It has, even in the same timeframe mind you. Given your first excuse, then the second portion that you apply to women should also follow. that is 'thus wa can dismiss the past issues with not having women to fight'. Strangely that isnt the case.

We can even change the subject matter --- 'perform high finance', 'run a company', 'run a sports team', 'be a lawyer'. Does your escape hatch of 'we can excuse the past because they didnt know' actually hold water for any sub-group or activity?

Sorry, your comment on how we should excuse the exclusion of women from the armed sevices 'simply because historically we were wrong' runs right into the same stuff that you rail against on a continuous basis when you stop and think about it.



When was the last war decided on primarily on 'hand to hand' combat? I guess that occurred in your mind in the last 30 years? The last true 'hand to hand' was around the turn of the 19th century. The long rifle and artillery erased that aspect for the greater part even at the war of 1861.

So no, the success of women due to 'culture' is due to the blinders of culture. Your thesis again is that those blinders should be ignored because of the 'history' and 'culture'. But your stance on refusing to let blacks serve in combat is rooted in the same misperceptions.

That same root is the same issue why blacks and women were excluded from business, advanced schooling, and pretty much while women were shoved into 'mommy role' as opposed to being a lawyer, much less the Head Partner in a firm, and why blacks were isolated from executive roles.

Yet somehow you are firmly in the camp of 'women were thought not to be able to fight in the culture, so I am going to give culture a pass', which is what your consistent and continuous recitation of 'systemic racism' is, yet you come to the opposite stance for judging that cultural bias. That is quite interesting that you firmly use cultural norm and bias that had no basis as an excuse, and at the same time firmly attack the use of that same cultural norm and bias of history as being 'no excuse'.


They absolutely could have. The Soviets, when strapped for manpower, used women in combat quite extensively. That didnt turn out so bad for them, did it?


Again, the issue of sheer muscle mass of a soldier hasnt been a deciding issue for combat since the development of artillery and long guns. I am saying that women were quite capable in combat in WW2 -- just look to the Soviet use there.

But you are stuck in a rather perverse situation since you give a sheer out excuse and pass for a wrong cultural outlook in women in the military (i.e. we cant judge women in the military at that point because of cultural norms) but fail to realize those are the same overall cultural norms used to justify barring women from the legal profession, professional trades as engineering, math, accountancy, executive positions, etc. The same ones that were used in regards to blacks.

So the other funny thing is that it is OO that said 'you really shouldnt judge the treatment of blacks in the 1940's by today's cultural standards'. And you went off the rails at him for that.

Now, your stance is 'you really shouldnt judge the treatment of women, but only in the military, in the 1940's by today's cultural standards'. And, I really have to laugh at that turn by you.

Lots of typing but you skirted around my question around an all-female fighting force in WWII. Care to answer?

Do you think an all-female fighting force in WWII leads to the same victorious outcome? Do you think an all-female military in WWI/WWII/Korea would have been just as effective as an "all-male" military (recognizing that our we did not have an ALL-male military during those times)?

Dont know the answer to that question. Here are some corresponding questions for you: Can women, of any era fly a plane? Can they drive a tank? Can they load and fire an artillery piece? Can they fire a long rifle? Hate to tell you that is the story of combat in the 20th century for the most part. Not much jumping into a foxhole and bayonets since WW1. Interesting that, isnt it.

By the bolded I will take it that you don't necessarily think an all-male fighting force in WWII would have been superior to an all-female fighting force. I wonder who else agrees with you?

I certainly think there was enough hand-to-hand fighting in the Pacific to give an edge to men.

WW2 was won by American production. Period. You would be fundamentally remiss in not recognizing that.

Please do tell the rundown on the number of enemy body counts due to hand to hand vs bombing, machine guns, artillery, and all other long range methods.

By the way, I should have been specific that I was answering the first of your two questions. "Do you think an all-female fighting force in WWII leads to the same victorious outcome? "

The 'culture' at that time in the United States would have led to a better male US force. The 'culture' at the time in the Soviet Union showed that women could fight as effectively as men.

I am looking forward to your answers to the questions *you* have been skirting. Doubt you will have the chops to answer them, the oily way that you do that.

Which question specifically? What have I skirted? I'm responding despite the bolded.

About discrimination? I don't agree that the situation was simply sexual discrimination. I believe that military leaders at the time had some practical reasons for drafting men (while certainly there was gender bias as well).