Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Sorry, Oonj, I wasn't clear enough. The first sentence was directed at you; the second sentence was both agreeing with you and directed at those arguing against allowing women in combat. I'm not going to bother going back to see who wrote essentially "it's always been this way...", but that was what I was responding to.

---

I didn't know. Thank you.


Here is my notion of a primitive (apes thru humans) society defending their village.

The females will form a ring around the children. The males will form a combat line around them
or in front of them. If the males lose the fight and things begin to look hopeless, the mothers
will probably grab their kid(s) and run like hell. Any females without kids will join what remains
of the male line in order to give the moms a headstart and the clan a chance to survive. In some
societies, females would not fight at all if they know the enemy means to capture, not kill, them.

I suspect that this behavior would be instinctive due millions of years of inter-tribal wars. (Yes,
I also suspect that inter-tribal war is not nearly as prevalent with apes as it is with the human
tribe.)
i.e., Genentically, males are built to fight. Females are built to protect the young. Females will
fight only if they have to.

For this reason, I assume that most women are not attracted to life in the military. And those who
are might be quite well suited to it.


P.S. "If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose
to save the infant's life without even considering if there is a man on base." --Dave Barry

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
. You don't think African Americans in the military was a helluva distraction back when there were MANY in the military who were aggressively racist?

---

I considered the comparison, but it does not hold water. The African-American military legacy of good and faithful service in the front lines predates the founding of our country. Truman merely recognized what was common fact. African-Americans proved themselves time and again on the battlefield. By 1945 the Army, though segregated, had acknowledged as an institution that segregation was not necessary.

While homosexuals have a claim to a similar (if less obvious) legacy, woman have instead a long history of being shielded from combat (notable exceptions exist...Russia and Isreal are among them). Its practical and cultural, but those things don't carry the weight they once did. Modern medicine and birth rates eliminated the practical distinction and this has eroded the cultural one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Women warriors predate the founding of this country, too, y'know. You may have heard of the Amazons before?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Women warriors predate the founding of this country, too, y'know. You may have heard of the Amazons before?

---

You can't learn history from watching Xena...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Women warriors predate the founding of this country, too, y'know. You may have heard of the Amazons before?

---

You can't learn history from watching Xena...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:


Frem: "Yeah" to pretty much everything you wrote. I'm surprised to learn the focus has receded from marksmanship, tho', it would seem like that would be a very useful tool to have! Certainly moreso than any hand-to-hand, it would seem to me. But what do I know?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

But Xena may get some of its ideas from History.

There is Historical precedent for female warriors and warrior queens.

---

Quote:

---

Hero wrote:
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 14:44
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

But Xena may get some of its ideas from History.

There is Historical precedent for female warriors and warrior queens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not since the Middle Ages.

You find me a woman who hears the voice of God, maybe we'll let her fight.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

I am hearing voices. But they are nice voices. They say, "Hero is well read in history, and a lover
of books in general. Has excellent objectivity." They say nothing of his manhood.

I will meditate on this.


"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
I was warned, but the reality of it took years to sink in. We are thick. See my signature.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Were Joan's voices from angels or from sz? It isn't my place to say. Either way she inspired many and did what no man could seem to do at the time, does it really matter which they were from?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Were Joan's voices from angels or from sz? It isn't my place to say. Either way she inspired many and did what no man could seem to do at the time, does it really matter which they were from?

---

Actually it matters a lot. If its a miracle it matters more then if it was all in her head.

You see, if it's just her it means a lot to the French at the time, and less over time. If God was speaking to her it means a lot to all of humanity...because there is a God and he practices direct intervention.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Oonj: "Military Intelligence"...your oxymoron for the day.

---

It was I'm a foxy moron for the day.

Quote Hero: "Actually it matters a lot. If its a miracle it matters more then if it was all in her head.

"You see, if it's just her it means a lot to the French at the time, and less over time. If God was speaking
to her it means a lot to all of humanity...because there is a God and he practices direct intervention."

Exactly!

Anthony, Rionaeire, What matters to me is often totally irrelevant, even frivolous, to others.

If there is a God and He practices direct intervention, I'd think only an atheist could say "it doesn't matter."
In fact, I'd have to regard that view as intellectually lazy -- or someone who's just tired of hearing about God.
But here is a clue: Religion is rarely about God. And God is not about religion.


"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

Quote:

---

If there is a God and He practices direct intervention, I'd think only an atheist could say "it doesn't matter."

---

Quote:

---

Religion is rarely about God. And God is not about religion.

---

Quote:

---

I'd think only an atheist could say "it doesn't matter."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Give in to your anger, you don't know the power of the dark side.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


As for Joan, she wouldn't be the first crazy person to inspire multitudes, nor even the first peasant crazy person to do so. The part of her story I find interesting is not so much her rise to lead an army.

Rather, it's her persecution, prosecution, abuse, and murder by those who felt she was threatening the status quo.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Quote MagonsDaughter: "Nothing like a visionary to inspire awe in your followers and despair in your enemies."

Very true. But if she was a fake, there was no reason to kill her when they were done with her.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

There's this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

"The classical period of witchhunts in Europe and North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1750, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 executions.[1]"

If she was a fake prophet, then she'd be a witch or other instrument of Satan. At the time, this was a guaranteed way to be invited to a fireside chat.

ETA: Though technically, Joan was a few decades ahead of the curve...

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

There's this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

"The classical period of witchhunts in Europe and North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1750, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 executions.[1]"

If she was a fake prophet, then she'd be a witch or other instrument of Satan. At the time, this was a guaranteed way to be invited to a fireside chat.

ETA: Though technically, Joan was a few decades ahead of the curve...

--Anthony

---

She wasn't burnt for being a witch, she was burnt for the crime of heresy which was quite common practise. It was all politically motivated of course, as she was handed over to the pro English Burgundians, probably for cash. the trial was a bit of a farce and then eventually everyone apologies but it was a bit too late.

Oops. Poor Jeanne. Only 19.

---