On the issue of female physical strength and combat...
The discussion over the physical strength of women vs. men is a dead-end argument over who can wreak the most destruction using their two arms.
There are really only two logical responses I can find for such a "debate."
The first is to give into the argument for violence and simply admit that women on average are less strong than men, although the measure of difference is subjective and thus arbitrary (and I think contains fewer real world consequences than most want to admit), and then go on to say that this simply calls for the greater reenforcement and militarization of women. In other words, the answer to an all male fighting force is an all female fighting force with better weaponry. I like this idea only insofar that it is an argument for a group of women outside the role of the subordinate. However, I don't like this argument because it is an appeal to the basest of human shortcomings and emotions. Although, as is evidenced by many resistance forces over the course of human history, sometimes violence is necessary in response to the threat of destruction. We can see this in the French Resistance during WWII. What we can also see in the French Resistance are female soldiers fighting along side male soldiers. So, again, I think the real world consequences of lesser strength are overblown.
The second response is to deny the relevance of physical combat to an intelligent world. In other words, we can simply refuse to participate in the discussion because it reenforces violent and destructive ideologies. I am not a pacifist. However, I do see the benefit of denying the discussion in that it helps shift the argument towards something constructive.
Ultimately, though, I see the underlying message of these "discussions" which is to simply shore up resistance to female liberation by trying to emphasize irrelevant measures of what it means to be a human being.
= new reply since forum marked as read
