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.
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.