Call me utopian, but I struggle with the idea of soldier in general, and I see military service being open to women as a step back wherever that means that women too will be forcefully sent to...
Call me utopian, but I struggle with the idea of soldier in general, and I see military service being open to women as a step back wherever that means that women too will be forcefully sent to war. The least people forced to kill and be killed, the better.
From that standpoint I would agree, too. I don't think there's such a thing as a just war, but that's a different and quite complex issue. If I thought there are just wars, I would agree that...
From that standpoint I would agree, too. I don't think there's such a thing as a just war, but that's a different and quite complex issue. If I thought there are just wars, I would agree that women should be able or even required to take part.
I suspect the causes are much less abstract. Men are, on average, physically stronger, faster, and therefore more effective fighters, and also far more prone to risk-seeking behavior and...
I suspect the causes are much less abstract. Men are, on average, physically stronger, faster, and therefore more effective fighters, and also far more prone to risk-seeking behavior and aggression. (Again, on average; not saying there aren't individual exceptions.) These facts have made it so that even in matriarchal societies, men are usually the ones doing most of the fighting. While what you're saying makes sense in a way, it seems very abstract. "Men are stronger and more prone to aggression and risk-seeking behavior" is an explanation rooted in facts that all societies could observe directly, whereas "men are biologically more expendable than women" is more of an abstract leap.
From my anthro readings I've read about exceptions to pretty much every cultural norm but I can't recall a society that sustainably practiced egalitarian warfare.
I don't know about "sustainably", but the one real-world example that is not entirely speculative are the so-called (by the colonists) Dahomey Amazons of Benin. Apparently this all-woman unit existed for 150 years and at times made up 1/3rd of the army. Of course, once the French came knocking, they got crushed, but so did the men; the army of Dahomey was simply not equipped or trained to deal with modern Western militaries.
Well, the physical characteristics are reinforced by cultural norms. Men are typically warriors, so over time this becomes "women can't/shouldn't be warriors". Even if they are bigger and stronger...
Well, the physical characteristics are reinforced by cultural norms. Men are typically warriors, so over time this becomes "women can't/shouldn't be warriors". Even if they are bigger and stronger than some men.
If what you're saying is true (societies that draft large amounts of women for war die out), then we'd expect to find some evidence in the archeological or historical record, wouldn't we? But while there are women warrior graves, they probably correspond pretty well with that 1% figure cross-culturally.
Call me utopian, but I struggle with the idea of soldier in general, and I see military service being open to women as a step back wherever that means that women too will be forcefully sent to war. The least people forced to kill and be killed, the better.
From that standpoint I would agree, too. I don't think there's such a thing as a just war, but that's a different and quite complex issue. If I thought there are just wars, I would agree that women should be able or even required to take part.
What of women voluntarily choosing to enter military service?
Nothing against that per se, it's more against that even being a choice for anyone. But admittedly that's a whole different topic.
I suspect the causes are much less abstract. Men are, on average, physically stronger, faster, and therefore more effective fighters, and also far more prone to risk-seeking behavior and aggression. (Again, on average; not saying there aren't individual exceptions.) These facts have made it so that even in matriarchal societies, men are usually the ones doing most of the fighting. While what you're saying makes sense in a way, it seems very abstract. "Men are stronger and more prone to aggression and risk-seeking behavior" is an explanation rooted in facts that all societies could observe directly, whereas "men are biologically more expendable than women" is more of an abstract leap.
I don't know about "sustainably", but the one real-world example that is not entirely speculative are the so-called (by the colonists) Dahomey Amazons of Benin. Apparently this all-woman unit existed for 150 years and at times made up 1/3rd of the army. Of course, once the French came knocking, they got crushed, but so did the men; the army of Dahomey was simply not equipped or trained to deal with modern Western militaries.
Well, the physical characteristics are reinforced by cultural norms. Men are typically warriors, so over time this becomes "women can't/shouldn't be warriors". Even if they are bigger and stronger than some men.
If what you're saying is true (societies that draft large amounts of women for war die out), then we'd expect to find some evidence in the archeological or historical record, wouldn't we? But while there are women warrior graves, they probably correspond pretty well with that 1% figure cross-culturally.
Am I crazy? Who are these people, I mean I have problems with the need for soldiers in general, but not with the female varient.