Are women really weaker than men?

[Holly3278]

I think in general women are not as physically strong as men. Now, granted, there are women out there who can out lift a man any day of the week and there are women who could easily win a wrestling match with a man but I think in general, women are not as physically strong as men. I don’t think we are meant to be. Men are meant to do hard physical work while women are meant to do lighter work.

 

[Portrait]

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

Dear lunaLovecraft,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response to my post.

Whilst I do not doubt for one moment, dear friend, that there have been heroic women who have historically served in many battles, the fact remains that no amount of recorded evidence could ever vindicate their part in these battles which was, nonetheless, unnatural and uncivilised. Women were not intended to be warriors and being such is incongrous with them being “the weaker sex”, as well as being a shameful denial of their God-given femeninity.

Apart from not having the raw physical strength required to clear battlefield obstacles, storm trenches and bayonet troops to death, women fighting on the frontline would only make their male comrades more vulnerable, since most decent chaps are naturally protective towards women. It seems, dear friend, that not even radical femenist ideology can expunge this innate fixed pattern of behaviour put there by the Creator.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Women were not intended to be warriors and being such is incongrous with them being “the weaker sex”, as well as being a shameful denial of their God-given femeninity.

St. Joan says hi.

It seems, dear friend, that not even radical femenist ideology can expunge this innate fixed pattern of behaviour put there by the Creator.

Following this dude’s logic, I’m sinning because I’m trying to ‘expunge this innate fixed pattern of behaviour put there by the Creator’ with my refusal to have a pro-wrestler’s bod.

 

[Crescentinus]

watches with popcorn

 

[Portrait]

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?

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.

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.

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.

That is not synonymous or even a superset of chivalry.

Please post where the Church espouses this position.

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.

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

Women in the US only pass military training because, as I understand, it has been ‘gender normed’, which means that the academies over there have different standards for women than for men, which is surely, dear friend, confirmation from the military that women are wanting in the necessary physical prowess to be frontline soldiers. Thus I would say that the American military have been put under enormous pressure by the radical femenists to ensure that women are not rejected for active service and to comply with gender equality propaganda.

The fact is, my dear friend, that the magisterium has made no official pronouncement upon the issue of women fighting on the front lines, thus we have no option but to be guided by a well-formed conscience, based upon biblical and traditional roles of women as understood by our most holy religion.

Most decent chaps have a desire to provide for a women and protect her, and we do not need special studies to verify that. Not *everthything *requires proof, I think that is unique to CAF, my dear friend!

Chivalry was something that was understood by a whole generation of people at one time, when the social graces were much more in evidence than they are today.

The question which needs to be addressed in this whole matter of women fighting in war zones is not so much whether a few women could adapt to the brutal environment of a war zone, but rather whether it is morally acceptable that they should do so. If we are thinking with an authentic Catholic mind we will surely look at the issue fro this perspective, dear friend.

First, turning a member of the ‘weaker sex’ into the sort of person who views the horrors of war without blinking an eye, or who participates in the wanton killing that close-combat requires, is surely a step down to pagan barbarianism and cultural sucide. Have we really allowed ourselves to plummet to such depths?

Second, allowing women to fight on the front lines, dear friend, requires training men and women to regard the brutalization of women and, indeed, a woman’s brutalization of others, as something normal and acceptable. To do this one would have to erase from the minds of men everything they have learned about chivalry (probably not much these days), especially the God-given instinct to want to protect a woman from all harm. Instead, they must be indoctrinated to look upon a woman in the same way as a man and not make any distinction that would regard them as the ‘weaker sex’, contrary to what is taught authoritatively in Sacred Scripture. Men would effectively have to be deprogrammed and desensitized so that they would not make these ‘outmoded’ distinctions. This would surely result, at length, in the dehumanizing of both men and women, which is a jolly worrisome thought old chap, don’t you think?

Third, assigning women to combat, purposely subjects them to trials and tribulations for which by nature they are ill-equiped to deal with. Such ill-advised assignments endanger not only women themselves but also the chaps around them, who will *naturally *redirect their attention from fighting toward protecting or helping the women. This should tell us that a war zone is not the natural place for a woman to be and the very thought ought to be most distasteful to those who profess godliness.

A modern civilsed country should never send women and mothers to fight on the front lines in war zones, to do so demonstrates that we have become slaves to anti-Christian radical femenist ideology and have utterly lost our moral sense.

Baelor, my dear brother, I do not wish to become involved in a protracted discussion of this topic as we have already discussed it at length on a previous thread last week. There is really nothing further that I can add to what I have already said on this matter. We are just going to have to amicably agree to differ and move on, as they say.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[thewanderer]

Do we really need to rehash this debate again? Portrait believes what he believes and he is not going to change his mind. I thought this was a very interesting thread and it would be nice if it could stay that way instead of turning into anothe debate with Portrait that changes noones minds and simply upsets people.

 

[Baelor]

Women in the US only pass military training because, as I understand, it has been ‘gender normed’, which means that the academies over there have different standards for women than for men, which is surely, dear friend, confirmation from the military that women are wanting in the necessary physical prowess to be frontline soldiers.

No, it does not mean that, because you are asserting a priori that the test that the men have to pass constitutes the “necessary physical prowess,” something that you are not qualified to do.

Thus I would say that the American military have been put under enormous pressure by the radical femenists to ensure that women are not rejected for active service and to comply with gender equality propaganda.

Sources citing the history of this and the desire of the military to eliminate women from their ranks on the basis of lack of qualification?

The fact is, my dear friend, that the magisterium has made no official pronouncement upon the issue of women fighting on the front lines, thus we have no option but to be guided by a well-formed conscience, based upon biblical and traditional roles of women as understood by our most holy religion.

That is not the case. First, the Church has not condemned women soldiers even when speaking about them, which clearly suggests a particular moral position. Second, that is not how morality works according to Church teaching.

Most decent chaps have a desire to provide for a women and protect her, and we do not need special studies to verify that.

You have no evidence. That is all that matters to me.

The question which needs to be addressed in this whole matter of women fighting in war zones is not so much whether a few women could adapt to the brutal environment of a war zone, but rather whether it is morally acceptable that they should do so.

You stated that women should not serve in the military because they are unqualified. Now you are saying that that is not the issue. Make up your mind.

First, turning a member of the ‘weaker sex’ into the sort of person who views the horrors of war without blinking an eye, or who participates in the wanton killing that close-combat requires, is surely a step down to pagan barbarianism and cultural sucide. Have we really allowed ourselves to plummet to such depths?

Do you mean the depths of anyone viewing the horrors of war without blinking an eye? Clearly, the answer is yes. The fact that you think that women specifically viewing war this way is deeply saddening.

Second, allowing women to fight on the front lines, dear friend, requires training men and women to regard the brutalization of women and, indeed, a woman’s brutalization of others, as something normal and acceptable.

This is not normal for anyone regardless of gender.

Instead, they must be indoctrinated to look upon a woman in the same way as a man and not make any distinction that would regard them as the ‘weaker sex’, contrary to what is taught authoritatively in Sacred Scripture.

Viewing men and women the same in combat is not inherently against Catholic teaching, no matter how often you point to one line in a Bible of thousands of words.

Third, assigning women to combat, purposely subjects them to trials and tribulations for which by nature they are ill-equiped to deal with.

Empirical evidence?

You can believe whatever you want. I am just surprised that you are so willing to disagree with the Church with so little evidence, especially given that your claims fall decidedly into the realm verifiable by the scientific method.

 

[EasterJoy]

Do we really need to rehash this debate again? Portrait believes what he believes and he is not going to change his mind. I thought this was a very interesting thread and it would be nice if it could stay that way instead of turning into another debate with Portrait that changes no one’s minds and simply upsets people.

This is an extremely sensible post. I think the various opinions have been articulated, and that it is unlikely that this thread will take a turn based on new facts, someone’s subtle exposition, or the addition of a novel point of view.

At this point, either you see what people are getting at, or you don’t. Call it a thread.

 

[JacarandaPurple]

St. Joan says hi.

ROFLMBO!! My beloved patroness does confound so many…

 

[Mickey]

The fact is, my dear friend, that the magisterium has made no official pronouncement upon the issue of women fighting on the front lines, thus we have no option but to be guided by a well-formed conscience, based upon biblical and traditional roles of women as understood by our most holy religion.

Indeed. We care for…and protect…and love our women.

1Peter 3:7
Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered.

 

[GEddie]

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.

Not to argue in general but ISTM that labyrinth walking is far older than the new-age stuff.

ICXC NIKA

 

[chevalier]

I’m reading a Christian book on the role of men. In it, it claims that women are weaker than men. Is that really true in a Catholic context? If so, in what respects are women weaker? I don’t buy into all of the feminist propaganda, but to me, the claim sounded a bit sexist. I’m more of the opinion that men and women are equals, and of equal but different strength. What’s your take on this topic? Thank you.

Depends, and on many things. I had an acquaintance, actually one I was almost dating. She was with a uniformed service, could legally drive a military truck and probably handle some other big bad hardware. I’m pretty sure I’d be on the floor under 30 seconds in case of a major disagreement, not like I’d let that get to her head.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Do not think that support for abortion and abortive contraceptives come only for women. A great many women are pressured into abortions and contraceptives by men who want sex without responsibility. Let’s not put all that totally on the feminist’s plate, because that isn’t quite the whole story, is it?

My point is not that radical feminists are right. My point is that radical feminism, though in error on a *great *many things (and I do agree that it is a great many), sprang up as a reaction to what were real injustices against women. That some have attempted to address these injustices in wrong-headed ways does not make an injustice into a just situation.

It is wrong to put gender roles in place with falsehoods as reasons for them. That doesn’t make gender roles wrong. It means that even if you’re talking about a proper gender role, it would be wrong to try to defend it with falsehoods. It is never OK to misrepresent the truth, even towards a good end.

For instance, I believe there are just reasons to avoid having women in combat, even when this means that women are kept from piloting airplanes that drop bombs while other women are allowed to work in medical positions that are far more hazardous in terms of the chances of death, injury or capture. I’m only saying that the contention that women are not physically capable of running the equipment of modern warfare isn’t one of them. It just isn’t true.

Perhaps you have read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, by C.S. Lewis. In the book, Father Christmas gives three of the children special gifts, with which they are to carry out Aslan’s plan for them in Narnia. Susan is given a bow and arrows, which she is occasionally called upon to use against their foes over the course of the stories. Lucy is given a small dagger, which, if memory serves correctly, she never used in either battle or self-defense.

First Susan, then Lucy is told by Father Christmas she is not to be in the battle. To Lucy, he says:

*"…And the dagger is to defend yourself at great need. For you also are not to be in the battle."

“Why, Sir,” said Lucy. “I think–I don’t know–but I think I could be brave enough.”

“That is not the point,” he said. “But battles are ugly when women fight.”*

Grown women are not prone to solve their differences through physical conflict. When women are called upon to fight in a societal battle, it is symbolic of a situation when there are no civilians left out of the battle. I think it is disturbing because it shows that all of civilization has been drawn into the conflict. And this may be why it is harder to hold women out of the fight: because those who make war now attack civilian targets. Wars are not confined to a battlefield any more. Modern wars strike directly at the hearth, and this may be why modern women have far less reservations about preparing to fight in those wars directly. When the hearth is attacked, women will fight, if they alone have the means to defend their homes and children. This has always been so. IMHO, that is how we know the battle has gotten particularly ugly.

IOW, I think there is a lot more wrong with modern warfare than the problem that women have been drawn into it. The bigger problem is that when war breaks out in our times, women and even children cannot keep themselves *off *the battle field, even if they want to. The old and the infirm are attacked, too, as are the unarmed. War in our times has become a nastier business than in the whole of human history, and gender roles are hardly the worst of the casualties.

 

[EasterJoy]

Not to argue in general but ISTM that labyrinth walking is far older than the new-age stuff.

ICXC NIKA

This is true. There are labyrinths on the floors of many of the great cathedrals of Europe. It is a sort of a mini-pilgrimage.

Religious fads are rampant now. In the course of looking for new ways to worship or pray, however, there are some real gems being drawn from the rich store house of the faith. We can’t reject something just because the wrong person pulled its box off of the shelf. We need to look into whether this thing or that is worthy, and not reject it outright just because we have honest suspicions about the messenger.

“The messengers”, after all, are members of the Body of Christ as much as we are. It is best to oppose them only when they do something worthy of opposition. If they are on good ground, we ought to want to live in peace with them. We can’t afford to fight over trivial things. Strife over nothings is a triumph for the devil. And it goes both ways: it is a tragedy when there is strife between women because one woman wants to wear a veil, a perfectly sound and long-standing spiritual practice out of our tradition, and another opposes the other doing it because she fears she’ll be forced to do it. Very bad.

 

[Mickey]

Not to argue in general but ISTM that labyrinth walking is far older than the new-age stuff.

Is labyrinth walking promoted and supported by the Vatican? That would be news to me. It has been added to the new age repertoire…inspired by the radical feminist movement.

I remember listening to Fr Groeshel a few years ago warning Catholics to stay away from such nonsense.

 

[Mickey]

Do not think that support for abortion and abortive contraceptives come only for women.

That evil spirit comes from many places…but it has been especially embraced by the radical feminists.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

ROFLMBO!! My beloved patroness does confound so many…

People like to insist that she was more of an armchair tactician than a fighter but who are they kidding? The woman’s become her own fantasy/religious archetype! She’s had to have some significant contribution to the battlefield.

I’d certainly like to have her as a rival.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Personally if the draft is ever used again I hope women are drafted alongside men. It would give us a greater ability to avoid ripping apart families because we would have a larger pool to choose from. I would rather a single woman be drafted than a husband and/or father.

 

[EasterJoy]

Is labyrinth walking promoted and supported by the Vatican? That would be news to me. It has been added to the new age repertoire…inspired by the radical feminist movement.

I remember listening to Fr Groeshel a few years ago warning Catholics to stay away from such nonsense.

Goodness, you do see a radical feminist behind every tree, don’t you? Who was the first radical feminist in your opinion? Lenin, maybe? Good grief, honestly, you sound like you’ve gone paranoid on the whole business.

One of the Popes had a labryinth laid down in Castel Sant’Angelo, so there is still at least that one at the Vatican; it is on some of the Rome tours. The most famous and well-preserved, though, is at Chartres Cathedral in France. Apparently, the patterns were originally invented as just as interesting decoration by the Romans, but Christians eventually took up the practice of using them as a sort of a pilgramage. The practice fell out of popularity in the 17th and 18th century, but it wasn’t because of opposition by the Church. It was just a popular piety, and so it had its time and then was replaced by other things.

 

[EasterJoy]

Personally if the draft is ever used again I hope women are drafted alongside men. It would give us a greater ability to avoid ripping apart families because we would have a larger pool to choose from. I would rather a single woman be drafted than a husband and/or father.

I think the draft was only accepted by the husbands and fathers in our country because it didn’t include their daughters. The ones I know would rather be drafted at 45 than see their 19 year old daughter sent off in their place!