Are women really weaker than men?

[Luna_Lovecraft]

…notwithstanding the fact that women lack the necessary emotional and physical make-up to engage in close-combat in war zones…

There are a some books you might be interested in on this topic:

• They Fought Like Demons: Women Soldiers in the American Civil War, by D. Blanton
• I’ll Pass For Your Comrade: Women Soldiers in the Civil War, by A. Silvey
• They Fought for the Motherland: Russia’s Women Soldiers in World War I and the Revolution, by L. Stoff
• Soviet Women in Combat: A History of Violence on the Eastern Front, by A. Krylova
• Women in War and Resistance, by K. Cottam
• Red Sky, Black Death: A Soviet Woman Pilot’s Memoir of the Eastern Front, by A. Timofeyeva-Yegorova
• For the Common Defense, by A. Millet
• Readings in American Military History, by J. Morris
• Flying for Her Country: The American and Soviet Women Military Pilots of World War II, by A. Goodpaster Stebe

In these books you’ll find the documented information about the tens of thousands of 19th- and 20th century women soldiers who fought and died in American and European battlefields. They were not nurses, spies, or soldiers working in behind-the-lines support or supply chain duty units, to take nothing away from the women who did that work, too. These soldiers were forward combat warriors. They were snipers (Roza Shanina had 54 confirmed kills as a Soviet sniper in WWII), bombers, artillery gunners, even hand-to-hand combatants.

That’s the recent past. Today thousands upon thousands of women fill active combat roles (i.e., they fight) in the militaries of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Sweden, Switzerland, and India, countries I can think of off the top of my head, but there may be more.

To make the blanket statement that women don’t have the physical or emotional wherewithal for combat is to deny the existence of tens of thousands of actual women soldiers who fought and died just in the past 175 years alone.

Luna

 

[Portrait]

Which falls right into the plans of the evil one.

Dear Mickey,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Jolly well said, old chap, you are bang on target with that observation.

The Devil has certainly invaded our social structures, as the destructive influence of radical femenism bears ample testimony. Christians must steadfastly refuse to become imbued with this impious ideology, but rather must denounce it in the strongest terms for the lie that it is.

God bless, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Havard]

Women can fight, and from a personal standpoint, I am actually MUCH more attracted to women who work out, and who have good protective and survival skills. Linda Hamilton in T2 was awesome! That said, I think that there is a lot to be said for traditional gender roles when it comes to physical conflict.

I’m not gonna quote all the Scriptural passages that promote gender roles in combat, because they’re plentiful and easy to look up. I will say that it’s also easy to write them off as “part of the culture of the time”, but… and here’s the key part, imho… evolutionary biology and natural law seem to confirm Scripture on this. From the scientific and natural law standpoint, men do appear to be adapted (designed) to hunt and kill, and women adapted (designed) to engender a protective response in men. From the male standpoint, it’s evidenced by, for example, our hip placement and size (faster/more efficient locomotion), heavier skeletal structure, denser and more developed musculature, and more developed spatial awareness.

As to my comment about women engendering a protective response… I’m sure anyone who’s taken a Psych 101 course has read about “cuteness”, that is, about how certain traits makes us want to scoop up and protect babies, kittens, puppies, etc. In humans, these traits include smoother, hairless skin, rounder features (more bodyfat), and smaller and more delicate frames. Not surprisingly then, men don’t engender a protective response in women (esp. not the Geico caveman guy) much at all, but women do engender that response in men.

Also, I definitely recall reading that women adapted to be more averse to mortal threats than men did, because (from a procreative standpoint), it was much more important that women survive than it was for men. In pre-industrial civilization, and especially so in pre-historic times, human fertility was 99% about women’s health. Men on the other hand, well I hate to be crass here, but “the male contribution” in procreation was relatively easy to procure. So it seems there’s another bit of basis for women adapting in such a way that they’d naturally prefer men hunt and protect.

 

[LucyLight]

Dear PumkinSeed,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Notwithstanding the godless radical femenist model of aggressively trying to eliminate or blur all the differences between men and women, men are, generally speaking, physically stronger than women. There is the muscle structure of the male and men are usually broader and more muscular in the upper body. In the N.T. St. Peter refers to women as the “weaker sex” (I Pet. 3: 7), which does not mean that women are intellectually inferior, or anything of that sort, but that as regards natural physical strength they are weaker than men.

However, dear friend, it is frequently asked nowadays whether women being the ‘weaker sex’ is an issue of any continuing importance, given the advent of industrialization and the phenomenal advances in technology, when work is no longer such a demanding physical pursuit.

It surely admits of no doubt that work patterns have changed and that the world of work is a very different place now. However, the psychological need for men to achieve and provide through work is still very present one. Moreover, whilst much work may have changed from being manual to being more cerebral, nonetheless manual labour is still required in industries and in such tasks as furniture removals and the repairing or building of roads. In any case, even with more cerebral occupations, very often the pressures and stresses of the modern workplace, frequently coupled with the exhausting and frustrating business of commuting to and from work, still require a jolly good deal of physical energy. Thus that women are the ‘weaker sex’ is not a wholly irrelevant issue in our contemporary world, as some secular femenists are wont to insist.

As a marginal note, the radical femenist claim for all-round equality with men (including a de-emphasis upon women being the ‘weaker sex’) has, I believe, made a very significant contribution to the extinction of what we use to call ‘gentlemanly behaviour’. Thus it is becoming increasingly less common for chaps to offer their seats on a crowded tube or bus to a woman as woman, open the door for her, or treat her with any special consideration as a member of the fairer sex. Indeed, what is so deeply lamentable is that your modern women, with very few exceptions, actually feels insulted by such acts of chivalry, as she deems them to be an affront to her newfound equality with men. Such is the impact of secular radical femenism and its warped thinking upon our modern world and, I regret to say, upon some modern Catholics as well.

As Christians, dear friend, we should resolutely refuse to embrace the godless and misguided ideological world-view of radical femenism, more than that, we should denounce it unreservedly as being strange and erroneous teaching contrary to our most holy religion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Those feminists again . I do agree with you that men have a psycological need to provide for women which is definitely a good thing. And it probably has to do with, as Havard said, the childlike features that women have. I disagree with you about the chivalry thing though. I can’t even think of a time that a man hasn’t opened a door for me if he was right next to me. It would stick out in my mind if it happened. I would also be shocked if I dropped a bunch of papers or something in front of a man and he didn’t immediately help me pick them up. Also you said that women would be insulted by this with very few exceptions. I’m a woman I know a lot of women and I have yet to meet a woman that is insulted by a man opening a door. Seriously, it’s not as bad as you think.

 

[mcrow]

I wasn’t suggesting it was a mirage, but don’t you think the high suicide rates among men indicate that those men have emotional and mental illnesses that aren’t being dealt with?

Sure but suicide cases are a very small % compared the number mental illness cases among women.

 

[JoeofCupertino]

Not only are women weaker than men, they have small brains. A third the size of a mans brain. Its science.

 

[Havard]

Not only are women weaker than men, they have small brains. A third the size of a mans brain. Its science.

Uhhh… if that’s “science”, as you say, then would you mind providing evidence? I’ve heard the differential being anywhere between 5-15%, depending on the source. And when measured as relative to body mass, the gap is even smaller.

 

[Baelor]

For example, notwithstanding the fact that women lack the necessary emotional and physical make-up to engage in close-combat in war zones,

Women in combat pass training. Are you saying that the US military is a worse judge of whether people are capable of entering the US military than you are?

A well-formed conscience should tell us that such a brutal environment is clearly not the place for the ‘weaker sex’, no more than it is for children.

No, well-formed consciences do not tell us that. HH John Paul II has not spoken out against women soldiers in addresses where he has mentioned them.

As Kate O’ Beirne has well said, “A woman being brutally killed along side men is a long-awaited femenist dream of equality”.

This is moronic and offensive. That is clearly not the motivation for women joining the military. It may be inconceivable to you that women would want to serve their country through the military, but it does happen.

No proof is needed, dear friend, for the God-given natural instinct for a man to want to achieve and provide through work.

Then psychological studies should corroborate this by establishing that every single man on this planet has a “natural instinct for a man to want to achieve” etc. Please post them, or post where the Church espouses your position.

Any honour that is worth its salt will surely not exclude chivalrous and considerate behaviour because it rightly recognises that women are physically weaker with than men.

That is not synonymous or even a superset of chivalry.

Moreover, by both nature and constitution she is weaker than a man and gentlemanly behaviour always takes this into account and that is why men, in better times, would gladly offer their seat in a crowded bus or open a door for a lady.

Please post where the Church espouses this position.

It is, I think, a sad reflection of the times in which our lot is cast that men ask for evidence to prove that gentlemanly behaviour towards a women is necessary and proper.

You do not understand. It is not the issue of acting kindly toward others, it is rather the determination of what that entails.

Please post supporting Church documents.

Giving special consideration to a woman as a woman, dear friend, is the most natural thing in the world to those who are not strangers to the social graces.

Yes, social graces as determined by you, to be distinguished from behavior that falls along a moral scale. Please post supporting Church documents.

All you have is words. Your words are useless because they are not justified with anything but more words, and furthermore are not in line with Church teaching. How can you post this bona fide?

 

[cjmclark]

Uhhh… if that’s “science”, as you say, then would you mind providing evidence? I’ve heard the differential being anywhere between 5-15%, depending on the source. And when measured as relative to body mass, the gap is even smaller.

He’s joking. It’s a quote from the movie Anchorman.

 

[Mickey]

Are you saying that the US military is a worse judge of whether people are capable of entering the US military than you are?

No. He is saying that women should not be participating in such activities.

HH John Paul II has not spoken out against women soldiers in addresses where he has mentioned them.

Did he support it?

This is moronic and offensive…

These insults have no place on this forum. I will be compelled to report you if I see this gross lack of charity again.

Please post supporting Church documents…

Are you asking him to show documents which instruct that a man should give up his seat on a bus for a woman?

All you have is words .

In my opinion, his words ring true.

Your words are useless

Your continued insults do not bolster your argument.

 

[Havard]

He’s joking. It’s a quote from the movie Anchorman.

Oh… silly me.

 

[Baelor]

No. He is saying that women should not be participating in such activities.

Please do not mislead. It will not work. He said exactly what I said he said:

Portrait:

For example, notwithstanding the fact that women lack the necessary emotional and physical make-up to engage in close-combat in war zones,

i.e. they are unqualified. Thus, my question:

Baelor:

Are you saying that the US military is a worse judge of whether people are capable of entering the US military than you are?

is entirely relevant, because he is saying that the US military is unable to do its job, part of which includes picking people who have a certain “emotional and physical makeup.”

Do not waste my time asking me to demonstrate that which is visible to everyone; it is tiring.

Did he support it?

He did not call for women soldiers, just as he did not call for men soldiers. Thus, one naturally concludes that his position is consistent with the Church’s: neutrality.

These insults have no place on this forum. I will be compelled to report you if I see this gross lack of charity again.

You are more than welcome to. My guess is that it will have no effect for two reasons:

1. I did not insult Portrait, only his position.
2. Portrait’s statement was as moronic as it was offensive. My post explained why.

Are you asking him to show documents which instruct that a man should give up his seat on a bus for a woman?

Yes, that giving up one’s seat for a woman qua woman and such behavior more generally is a moral imperative.

 

[Mickey]

Please do not mislead.

Not at all.

he is saying that the US military is unable to do its job

He did not say that.

Do not waste my time asking me to demonstrate that which is visible to everyone; it is tiring.

Then perhaps you should leave the thread.

Portrait’s statement was as moronic as it was offensive.

There ya go again. That is against forum rules. I warned you.

 

[Baelor]

He did not say that.

Okay.

Portrait:

For example, notwithstanding the fact that women lack the necessary emotional and physical make-up to engage in close-combat in war zones,

Women lack the necessary make-up to engage in combat
The US military accepts women who pass their requirements

Reconcile those two statements in a better way and I will agree with you.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Women can fight, and from a personal standpoint, I am actually MUCH more attracted to women who work out, and who have good protective and survival skills. Linda Hamilton in T2 was awesome!

I have to agree with you here somewhat. Whilst I do not find women like that ‘attractive’, I do have a strong respect for anyone who can fight be they man or woman… so as long as they don’t have me in a headlock or stepping on my back and threatening to crush my spine.

From the scientific and natural law standpoint, men do appear to be adapted (designed) to hunt and kill, and women adapted (designed) to engender a protective response in men. From the male standpoint, it’s evidenced by, for example, our hip placement and size (faster/more efficient locomotion), heavier skeletal structure, denser and more developed musculature, and more developed spatial awareness.

Okay I know I was half-joking before but I really think this is on the base assumption that the male in question even strives to achieve those physical stats. Somehow, I can’t say that’s the case for every male in society. Just because we have the potential for a stronger body doesn’t mean our bodies are already or even if we want them to.

 

[Havard]

I have to agree with you here somewhat. Whilst I do not find women like that ‘attractive’, I do have a strong respect for anyone who can fight be they man or woman… so as long as they don’t have me in a headlock or stepping on my back and threatening to crush my spine.

Okay I know I was half-joking before but I really think this is on the base assumption that the male in question even strives to achieve those physical stats. Somehow, I can’t say that’s the case for every male in society. Just because we have the potential for a stronger body doesn’t mean our bodies are already or even if we want them to.

Oh, I’m just speaking in generality. One of my friends is hopelessly outclassed by his younger sister in almost every physical feat imaginable.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Oh, I’m just speaking in generality. One of my friends is hopelessly outclassed by his younger sister in almost every physical feat imaginable.

Tell your friend he has a kindred spirit right here… right here… sniffs TwT

 

[EasterJoy]

…For example, notwithstanding the fact that women lack the necessary emotional and physical make-up to engage in close-combat in war zones, you have many (including some Catholics) vociferously contending that it is downright discrimination to debar women from the front line. A well-formed conscience should tell us that such a brutal environment is clearly not the place for the ‘weaker sex’, no more than it is for children. However, this is where asinine and warped femenist ideology, which aggressively seeks to eliminate all real differences between the sexes, will eventually take us, whatever will be next? As Kate O’ Beirne has well said, “A woman being brutally killed along side men is a long-awaited femenist dream of equality”.

Radical femenism is actually caricature of true womanhood, which says, “be aggressive, be assertive, be a contender with men, taking them on in everything. Don’t focus on being gentle and femenine and avoid getting tied down in marriage as that is to fail as a woman and to loose your right to self-determination”. This is, my dear friend, a most irrelgious and impious world view if ever there was, but more importantly it is doomed to failure. The experiment to eradicate the differences between men and women has been tried many times before and it has not brought lasting happiness to women. One such ‘experiment’ was the kibbutz system in Israel. Following WWII the kibbutz system was established in the newly founded state of Israel. These were communities where men and women lived and worked together - and which set out to do away with sex roles. The ordinary nuclear family in some of these communities was eliminated. However, a half a century later, that kibbutz system has greatly dwindled. Why the decline? I understand that it was chiefly the women folk who got rid of it. They led the way back to insisting that they wanted particular roles within the home. Clearly the ‘women are the same as men’ system failed because they did not find it fulfilling.

Radical femenist visions of womanhood do not result in women finding lasting fulfillment because they are caricatures that end in disillusion and they lead to this because they are unnatural and at variance with the divine providential intention of the Creator.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

The brutal environment of war is ill-suited to anyone. It is understandable to get a taste for the adrenaline or for the camaraderie or for having carried out a task well when lives depended on it, but anyone who really likes destroying still-usable infrastructure and killing other people or who finds warfare is his cup of tea needs to take some stock of himself and get a grip on what he’s really doing. Shooting guns is fun, explosives are exciting, gaining skill with the weapons of war is rewarding, but allowing oneself to become fond of war itself is not a spiritually healthy place to be.

In my experience, when women fight as mama bears do, you will not find a more unyielding opponent. This is true from the time we are little girls. When women decide to fight–again, this is my experience–you have a real fight on your hands. It is not for fun, and there will not be any stinking “chivalry” or “rules”. If it were time for rules, there would not be a fight in the first place. To ask women to fight according to the way men fight, with all this “glory” and “booty” and getting all wound up in rank and whatnot, that is not a woman’s fight. Quite ironically, when women fight, the niceties seem as out of place as at an actual tea party.

Women are not averse to fighting when it is up to them to fight, but ideally they do it as readily as they pursue martyrdom. It is not something you do for the glory of it. It is something you do because there is not a virtuous choice to do otherwise. Again, this is just my experience, and I was brought up among women who live according to all the old gender boundaries.

But let’s look back: in World War II, the war could not have been successfully waged without enlisting women in roles previously reserved for men, or women wouldn’t have been enlisted. They were used because they were needed, there wasn’t any choice, and they were found to be valuable. It was found, because it was necessary to try, that many of the boundaries on what women “couldn’t do” were actually artificial.

Do you blame women for feeling lied to? Do you blame “radical feminists” because they found paying women less for performing the same job at the same level was unjust? Oh, you say, but the men had families to support. Well, some of these women had their men buried in Europe. They had families to support, too. That isn’t the way they were paid.

I propose that a good deal of these problems come because the boundaries drawn were either false boundaries or the reasons given for them were false. Now there are women who won’t believe that any of the boundaries are real. They have come to believe they will be lied to. Are they alone to blame for that? Even if you think they are sorely misguided, please realize that their wariness didn’t drop out of thin air. There was a caricature in place when they got there; don’t put all the blame for today’s caricatures at their feet.

 

[EasterJoy]

To answer the OP’s question, women are not typically as physically strong as men, but the Bible does not base the submission of women on the idea that men deserve to dominate because they’re typically physically strong enough to make their importance felt. The Body of Christ does not live and breathe like that. Remember what the Lord said: “The greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” Matt. 23:11-12

Read Ephesians 5. While it says quite famously, “Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord”, it also says “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Read Mulieris Dignitatem (On the dignity and vocation of women) the Apostolic Letter by Bl. Pope John Paul II. As for the rest of the stuff out there on the topic of relationships between men and women, read it with a truckload of salt. There are authors out there who are not above making stuff up out of thin air that the Church simply does not teach, but who treat these fabrications as if they are dogma.

 

[Mickey]

Do you blame “radical feminists” because they found paying women less for performing the same job at the same level was unjust?

Radical feminism attempts to destroy the Church from the inside out. It has led to tragic paradigm shifts such as : support for abortion and abotive contraceptives. It has led to the support for abortion mills such as planned parenthood. It has a led to new age movements within the Church such as: reiki, enneagram, labyrinth walking, eco-spirituality, and geneder neutral language in the Liturgy.

Why do you think that the Vatican is cracking down on the LCWR and their “radical feminist” themes.