If a woman wants to be a protector, or fight, or whatever, why should she not be allowed to do so?
I agree with this. My one condition for it is that, to be a soldier or firefighter, or any other profession that requires a certain amount of physical strength to do the job properly, women must pass the same tests as a man. There should be no "fudging" of the numbers. There's a reason that men on the frontlines are required to be able to fireman carry a 200 lb comrade, and the same holds true for firemen.
For the former, you need to be able to move one from your group off the battlefield, should they be injured. If you can't do that, you're a detriment to the group and I can see any man refusing to fight with that person by his side.
For the latter--firefighting--if you can't rescue the people you've signed up to save because you lack the upper body strength to do so, you have no business being in that position. People's lives are more important than your ego. I'm 5'2" and damned strong for my size (though a lot of men my size are still stronger than I am because biology!). I can lift 200 lbs, if it's a weight or a small box, but trying to fireman carry a 200 lb man is all but impossible due to the size of my limbs and torso. That's just how it is. Therefore, I have no business being a fireman.
Instead of things working like above, though, everyone wants special considerations. "Well, I'm a woman, so I shouldn't have to do that." No, that's the job. Either you can do it or you can't. If you can't, quit whining and go elsewhere.
As for the MMA fighting... it's a sport. Some women like it. They don't want to play basketball or softball, they want to fight. And there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is putting a man in the ring with a woman, just like it's wrong to put a man up against a woman in a weightlifting competition. I don't give a flying fuck if that man claims to be a woman, he's still a man and doesn't belong there, as shown by this asshole in MMA.
What I'd like to see is a decent man come in and, for one match, claim to be a woman, then kick the everloving shit out of this motherfucker. Either that, the friends of the women who had their skulls crushed should catch him somewhere and throw a blanket party for him--hit this prick with a baseball bat enough times and maybe the SOB won't be able to get his rocks off beating up women anymore.
I agree with this. My one condition for it is that, to be a soldier or firefighter, or any other profession that requires a certain amount of physical strength to do the job properly, women must pass the same tests as a man.
Yes and no. Not all jobs require the same strength. If you are strong enough to pick up a gun and carry it around all day, do you need to be stronger to be a sniper? Yet to be a Seal sniper, you need to go through Seal training. A woman could be more than strong enough endurance wise, and more than strong enough to carry all the gear required, and more than strong enough to lift her gun. Does she really need to be strong enough to lift an ox?
If a person isn't strong enough for a job, then they aren't strong enough for the job, but some jobs can be done with more brains or skill or finesse than others, and yet those things may not be tested for, rather the barrier is physical strength. Our "standardized testing" regimes are fundamentally flawed. It's not even controversial that they are flawed in school. I have seen such flaws in many other places as well, both in my own life prior to "waking up" and since, in other investigations. People have strengths and weaknesses. I'd rather have a 150 IQ woman who could barely lift the 100 lbs that might be required for some job, than a 100 IQ man who can easily lift 500 lbs for a job that only requires lifting 25 lbs 99% of the time, but requires brains 100% of the time (like firefighter, or police officer).
For the former, you need to be able to move one from your group off the battlefield, should they be injured. If you can't do that, you're a detriment to the group
What if you are instead smart enough that your presence reduces the chance of that happening 99% of the time?
Once you start standardizing things, making sure everyone fits perfectly into the box, you miss out on the potential for outside of the box thinking and action.
What's wrong is putting a man in the ring with a woman
This is a separate issue entirely, and addressed as part of the contrivance of "two sides" that was the main point of my post.
I agree with this. My one condition for it is that, to be a soldier or firefighter, or any other profession that requires a certain amount of physical strength to do the job properly, women must pass the same tests as a man. There should be no "fudging" of the numbers. There's a reason that men on the frontlines are required to be able to fireman carry a 200 lb comrade, and the same holds true for firemen.
For the former, you need to be able to move one from your group off the battlefield, should they be injured. If you can't do that, you're a detriment to the group and I can see any man refusing to fight with that person by his side.
For the latter--firefighting--if you can't rescue the people you've signed up to save because you lack the upper body strength to do so, you have no business being in that position. People's lives are more important than your ego. I'm 5'2" and damned strong for my size (though a lot of men my size are still stronger than I am because biology!). I can lift 200 lbs, if it's a weight or a small box, but trying to fireman carry a 200 lb man is all but impossible due to the size of my limbs and torso. That's just how it is. Therefore, I have no business being a fireman.
Instead of things working like above, though, everyone wants special considerations. "Well, I'm a woman, so I shouldn't have to do that." No, that's the job. Either you can do it or you can't. If you can't, quit whining and go elsewhere.
As for the MMA fighting... it's a sport. Some women like it. They don't want to play basketball or softball, they want to fight. And there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is putting a man in the ring with a woman, just like it's wrong to put a man up against a woman in a weightlifting competition. I don't give a flying fuck if that man claims to be a woman, he's still a man and doesn't belong there, as shown by this asshole in MMA.
What I'd like to see is a decent man come in and, for one match, claim to be a woman, then kick the everloving shit out of this motherfucker. Either that, the friends of the women who had their skulls crushed should catch him somewhere and throw a blanket party for him--hit this prick with a baseball bat enough times and maybe the SOB won't be able to get his rocks off beating up women anymore.
Yes and no. Not all jobs require the same strength. If you are strong enough to pick up a gun and carry it around all day, do you need to be stronger to be a sniper? Yet to be a Seal sniper, you need to go through Seal training. A woman could be more than strong enough endurance wise, and more than strong enough to carry all the gear required, and more than strong enough to lift her gun. Does she really need to be strong enough to lift an ox?
If a person isn't strong enough for a job, then they aren't strong enough for the job, but some jobs can be done with more brains or skill or finesse than others, and yet those things may not be tested for, rather the barrier is physical strength. Our "standardized testing" regimes are fundamentally flawed. It's not even controversial that they are flawed in school. I have seen such flaws in many other places as well, both in my own life prior to "waking up" and since, in other investigations. People have strengths and weaknesses. I'd rather have a 150 IQ woman who could barely lift the 100 lbs that might be required for some job, than a 100 IQ man who can easily lift 500 lbs for a job that only requires lifting 25 lbs 99% of the time, but requires brains 100% of the time (like firefighter, or police officer).
What if you are instead smart enough that your presence reduces the chance of that happening 99% of the time?
Once you start standardizing things, making sure everyone fits perfectly into the box, you miss out on the potential for outside of the box thinking and action.
This is a separate issue entirely, and addressed as part of the contrivance of "two sides" that was the main point of my post.