In the military you need negotiators, infiltrators etc. In Afghanistan, females were vital to be able to go into homes and talk to families and gather intelligence.
Same for police forces. Women would generally be better at talking to people, helping victims, helping with domestic type situations.
For the actual fighting, violence and physical tasks, obviously the men are much much better suited.
I met an Iraqi woman who worked for the U.S. military. She lied to her family the whole time she was working, and took great pains to get to and from her workplace - at great risk to herself and family if caught. Don't know what she did for the U.S. but I admire her greatly. She's not a big woman so it wasn't combat-related but perhaps logistics. And I agree with whippeat.
Women are better when negotiating with other women. Throw a woman into a negotiation with a man in a warzone? Especially the middle east? LOL that is funny stuff.
Reminds me of that Romancing the Stone scene where she starts mouthing off and he slaps her. All the old Muslimg patriarchs nod and approve. Can't find it on youtube.
I didn’t say negotiation. But in Afghanistan, the friendly locals wouldn’t allow men to enter homes where their wives and daughters were present. But female soldiers could. Thus they were vital in gathering intelligence and building relationships with the locals.
And for spying, well, women have obvious advantages.
Yup. Recruiting posters are such bullshit. They will show a woman in a grunt's uniform with rucksack and a rifle, or driving a fucking tank. News flash: no women want to do this. No woman wants to hump a 90 pound rucksack over the Hindu Kush and get her legs blown off by a landmine. They do, however, want to be dental technicians, doctors, lawyers, PSOs, Admin clerks, etc. All trades that the Armed forces need. But no. The Armed Forces will keep pushing all the combat trades image, and wonder why the Armed Forces are just 12% women.
They have sensible roles for some of those
In the military you need negotiators, infiltrators etc. In Afghanistan, females were vital to be able to go into homes and talk to families and gather intelligence.
Same for police forces. Women would generally be better at talking to people, helping victims, helping with domestic type situations.
For the actual fighting, violence and physical tasks, obviously the men are much much better suited.
I met an Iraqi woman who worked for the U.S. military. She lied to her family the whole time she was working, and took great pains to get to and from her workplace - at great risk to herself and family if caught. Don't know what she did for the U.S. but I admire her greatly. She's not a big woman so it wasn't combat-related but perhaps logistics. And I agree with whippeat.
Translation
Women are better when negotiating with other women. Throw a woman into a negotiation with a man in a warzone? Especially the middle east? LOL that is funny stuff.
Reminds me of that Romancing the Stone scene where she starts mouthing off and he slaps her. All the old Muslimg patriarchs nod and approve. Can't find it on youtube.
I didn’t say negotiation. But in Afghanistan, the friendly locals wouldn’t allow men to enter homes where their wives and daughters were present. But female soldiers could. Thus they were vital in gathering intelligence and building relationships with the locals.
And for spying, well, women have obvious advantages.
Yup. Recruiting posters are such bullshit. They will show a woman in a grunt's uniform with rucksack and a rifle, or driving a fucking tank. News flash: no women want to do this. No woman wants to hump a 90 pound rucksack over the Hindu Kush and get her legs blown off by a landmine. They do, however, want to be dental technicians, doctors, lawyers, PSOs, Admin clerks, etc. All trades that the Armed forces need. But no. The Armed Forces will keep pushing all the combat trades image, and wonder why the Armed Forces are just 12% women.
I think you are over selling how useful those alternate rolls are fren.