In principle, it sounds good to make women bear the same responsibilities that men have for the power to vote, but in practice I think integrating women into the armed forces will actually decrease their effectiveness and get more men killed.
(Also, if we’re being realistic, while giving women the vote probably has some bearing on how we got to this point, at this point, I’m not convinced that the votes of men or women have any real impact on what wars we will fight).
True enough, if they kept them to admin—or maybe trained them as nurses—I don’t think there would be an issue with that. Of course, that’s counting on them to make a rational decision about sex differences and interactions between women and men….
No. That is the slippery slope that let them into "leadership" roles. I have seen admin go female, then everything go feminist in the workplace. Secretaries, and all other roles, have to be male. Except for prostitutes and wives. Which, in the military at least, are the same thing.
If you look at some of those data maps for elections without X, without women its usually a near solid Red across the entire country. If you limit it to just white men, then its basically only Washington/Oregon that go Blue ever.
So it comes down to what do you think a basically unquestioned Republican government over the 1900s into now would have done to both our home politics and globally, which would then lead to which wars we fight.
I think we'd still have most them, and especially Israel related ones constantly, so you are probably right in that it wouldn't have much change on what wars we fight.
In principle, it sounds good to make women bear the same responsibilities that men have for the power to vote, but in practice I think integrating women into the armed forces will actually decrease their effectiveness and get more men killed.
(Also, if we’re being realistic, while giving women the vote probably has some bearing on how we got to this point, at this point, I’m not convinced that the votes of men or women have any real impact on what wars we will fight).
The army needs secretaries though.
True enough, if they kept them to admin—or maybe trained them as nurses—I don’t think there would be an issue with that. Of course, that’s counting on them to make a rational decision about sex differences and interactions between women and men….
There have been hundreds if not thousands of unnamed female pilots since Kara Hultgreen. It's the only combat job that they're decent at.
No. That is the slippery slope that let them into "leadership" roles. I have seen admin go female, then everything go feminist in the workplace. Secretaries, and all other roles, have to be male. Except for prostitutes and wives. Which, in the military at least, are the same thing.
If you look at some of those data maps for elections without X, without women its usually a near solid Red across the entire country. If you limit it to just white men, then its basically only Washington/Oregon that go Blue ever.
So it comes down to what do you think a basically unquestioned Republican government over the 1900s into now would have done to both our home politics and globally, which would then lead to which wars we fight.
I think we'd still have most them, and especially Israel related ones constantly, so you are probably right in that it wouldn't have much change on what wars we fight.
we were isolationist and nearly jew-free until women got the vote. if anything we would have joined WWII on the German side.