Anonymous asked in Social ScienceGender Studies · 1 decade ago

Most men and women, even the rabid feminist types agree that overall men are better suited for frontline?

combat roles, not only because of their muscles, but mostly because of their brains. Why is it so politically incorrect then, to point out that there are other roles men on average are better suited for than women, like desinging CPUs, cars leadership etc. and all the other areas where feminists scream TOO MANY MEN QUOTAS SMASH !!!

Is the only thing men are better suited for than women only something where you risk limbs and life ? Really ? That cant be, can it ?


Trevor what you just said did not make any sense whatsoever.

My point is if society can aknowledge that men have the better mental and physical capability to deal with frontline combat, how can it be that it is the only thing men can deal better with on average ? Wouldnt that be quite a coincidence ?

Isnt it more likely that there are other areas where men excel over women on average and vice versa due to physical and mental differences in men and women ?

Update 2:

knowitall actually firefighting is the only area where there is only one standard, for men and women.

Update 3:

java, tell that the feminists who go like QUOTA SMASH !! when too many men and women make the "wrong" decision.

Update 4:

Blonde limbo, agressiveness and keeping concentrated and focused in the face of incoming fire, yes, the brain.

Update 5:

RoVale no it does not mean they should not be trained, is also does not mean they should be beaten raped stabbed or whatever you want to add to "does that mean"

10 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    When it comes to generating cannon fodder, it seems like men are more dispensable, but when it comes to recruiting weaklings in the military/Firefighting/SWAT, standards have to be lowered to get more weaklings in the military/firefighting/SWAT, which in turn compromises the security of that country and/or lives of the citizens, because weaklings got into the military/firefighting/SWAT because of lowered standards...I don't see an easy way out of this conundrum.

    "firefighting is the only area where there is only one standard" -- Nope. Last I checked, here in the US, women carry lighter dummies to pass tests.

  • 1 decade ago

    In all the cultures around the world and in the history of mankind, it has always been this way. Just because it has always been this way doesn't mean it isn't right or isn't wrong, it has just been. Now people stand up and speak out, Man and Woman. Personally, I think that there are women out there that can do almost anything a man can (the butch kind, ya know) but there are also men that can do anything a woman can. Ultimately, I think you have to stop eventually and say at what point do we draw the line. Do we want child bearing age women fighting wars? Do we want men doing jobs that usually only women do? I don't know; I'm sure we all could answer that but each of us would have a different answer.

    I don't think it's politically incorrect for men to be better suited for certain jobs or careers. Personally I think its okay. I know that if I was given the choice between sitting at a desk all day or picking up a gun and protecting my country, that I would durn well sit at the desk. Not because I can't fight but because I have female aspects that would cause me to think twice before shooting the bad guy even if he was hurting someone. I just don't have it in me, maybe other women do. I think most men have that survival mode, were they can do anything to protect their home, country, children, its ingrained in their mental walls. It comes out when things get tough. Women have it to just in a different way. Like we stay home and take care of things while the man is at war. We can fight when it comes at our door, but we don't go chasing it on purpose. I don't know if that makes sense. I'm sure someone would think different than me. Thats just it, everyone is raised differently, brought up with different beliefs, traits and behaviors. There is no real set line.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think women should never be forced into the military, and if they volunteer for it, they should meet all the requirements a man would in order to join.

    Personally, I'd prefer if women never were in the military, and my reasoning isn't because I don't think they can hack it (although, the percentage of women who could would be much smaller than the percentage of males) - the reasoning is because of the potential for atrocities by the enemy.

    Look at the POW camps from WWII or Vietnam... The men in there sufferred greatly - basically it was hell on Earth.

    Now look at what happened to female civilians during those wars/conflicts - raping, murdering, etc....

    Now fastforward to modern times - imagine sending women into enemy territory to kill men in a culture where women are second rate citizens - a culture where a woman can be killed to restore a familys honor because she thinks "too independently" or doesn't cover her face... now imagine men from that culture capturing an American woman who has killed their comrades...

    If you thought that Japanese or Russion POW camps were poor, they would pale in comparison to what some people would put a female POW through. Forcing women to potentially put themselves in that situation is wrong - if a woman wants to put herself there, I'd rather she didn't, but there's also nothing that could stop her.

    For me, I am not concerned about a woman doing the job - I am more concerned about what would happen in these types of scenarios, which are bound to come up eventually.

  • Jas B
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    As a non rabid feminist (I hope) I would say that men are more suited for frontline duty has nothing to do with their brains, if you are referring to intellect but because of evolution which has made the human male physically stronger and more aggressive. Males and females across all sexually reproducing species display gender-specific behavior in many areas, including mating, territorial marking, aggression and parental care.

    The higher level of testosterone in the brain of the male is critical to developing and activating brain circuits that control male territorial behavior and aggression. This has been necessary to ensure that the male could protect the female and children to ensure survival of the species. Which is why men are even today far more likely to commit violent crimes than women.

    Evolution has also given men better spatial and mathematical skills, rank-related aggression, and other characteristics. This may account, scientists say, for the fact that there are many more male mathematicians, airplane pilots, bush guides, mechanical engineers, architects and race car drivers than female ones.

    In comparison evolution has developed the human female so they tend to be higher than males in empathy, verbal skills, social skills, a more acute sense of smell and security-seeking, among other things,

    While I will agree that these differences make men better suited for frontline duties I fail to see how these differences can make men better adapted as leaders or any of the other careers you refer to, that more men go into these areas does not mean that they are better at the jobs any more than saying a female nurse or a woman in any of the other traditional women's jobs can do the job better than a man could.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    What SANE people realize is that men aren't identical to each other; women aren't identical to each other; men and women aren't completely unlike each other.

    Thus, what SANE people say is that idividuals should be judged based on THEIR abilities, not the "average" of those who wear their reproductive organs in the same part of their body.

    I know of no feminist who says "Quota SMASH" -- but then, I'm sane and not delusional.

    It's simply untrue that ALL men are suited for any one thing, or that NO women are suited for any of the things you list.

    It's not true that all men are more muscley than all women; it's not true only men have the apptitudes for building CPUs.

    But then, a person would have to have a functioning brain and respect for truth to grasp these obvious facts.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes, men are better suited for combat because they are stronger, and also because they don't get their periods.

    Women can serve in the military in non-combat roles: intelligence, flying planes, as a doctor or nurse, etc.

  • 1 decade ago

    We're better at combat because of our brains? That's absolutely ridiculous. Muscles, sure, usually. But do you know how you fix that? Just don't lower physical endurance standards for combat roles. Then, only those women who w ant it enough, and can handle the physical aspects of it will go.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Basing a debate regarding gender differences and similarities on the atrocity of war is meaningless.

    War is a whole other show and needs to be debated independently of gender.

  • RoVale
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    So, does that mean that women who are put into combat support positions should not be trained to fight? That basically makes them sitting ducks.

  • 1 decade ago

    Nope, I agree with you. Men are better suited for car dealerships and things like that.

    But women are also better suited for some things than men, such as clothing stores and what not.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.