Access to the means to project force is necessary for equality. Without it equality only lasts as long as those able to project force allow it. War is terrible, but when the Iranian revolution occurred a womens’ army would have likely been far more effective than the mass protests were.

[–] Kalothar@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, most military jobs are support regardless, I met plenty of weak men in the army while I was in. Women make great soldiers if you understand what the functionality of being a soldier is.

It’s not all spec ops and crazy missions, the majority of the military is planning and execution. No matter the make up of the platoon.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm sure it's highly context-dependent. I've just never viewed the "equal access to exploitation" school of gender equality as quite the social victory others seem to.

To frame it another way - we've historically sent men to war partly because their relative disposability is understood. The strength to swing a sword and the strength to bear a child are not necessarily fungible.

I remain conflicted on the issue.

[–] randombullet@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

I would reckon that for a volunteer force, it's on the individual's perception of valid goals. Of course not withholding anyone coerced into the volunteer force.