Sexism

[Segamen]

Elaborate please?

I cannot off the top of my head think of any gender specific jobs or activities that couldn't be carried out by either gender in some capacity.

:\

 

Unless you're thinking of being a sperm donor or a wet nurse, in which case I understand perfectly.

Or even the more "inappropriate" ones? (dun wanna type that out just in case)

 

===

But yeah, those you mentioned worked perfectly well.

 

 

============

 

Also, I forgot... females seem to be blamed often when she only produce daughters but no sons... (maybe I am a bit too "scientific" but well...)

[Daydreamer09]

SPQR, that does make sense from that view, but it is such a small thing to change for a more accurate description, and it makes lots of other people who see 'man' as a gender neutral a symptom of very deep, very subtle sexism of society (not of the individual) happy.  They're probably right.  Not asking you to change how you say it, as I fully support everyone's right to be, it's just something to think about.

Hmm..adding my two cents to an old argument. I actually don't view individuals using "Man" in general as being as sexist as I used to.

 

Now I had to double check my German dictionary from high school on this just to be sure. But, English being a Germanic language, "man" in German (with one 'n', not two) is actually an indefinite pronoun for "one", "you" or "they". An expert is more than welcome to prove me wrong, but I see it as just an element from the old Germanic dialects that happened to carry over and lose its original meaning.

 

I think that's why we have the words, such as SPQR mentioned, 'human' and 'mankind' referring to the general population of homo sapiens.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Daydreamer09

[Kazeko]

But even "mankind"... take it apart, it's "thing like men". Not really much better.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Kazeko

[Sir Barton]

If something is truly sexist, then I would have a problem with it but I see the term of "sexism" tossed around so much in unwarranted situations that I've hit the point that I'm neutral to it nearly entirely. I find that more often then not that courtesy is taken as sexism. Seen too many women get out and out pissed off because a man dared to hold the door open for them. When chivalry is considered a "dirty word" I think we really need to take a step back and re-evaluate our thinking.

 

Fact is, men and women are not equal. That is not a sexist statement, it's a biological truth. Men do somethings better then women, mainly anything requiring upper body strength, and women do somethings better then men, excelling in lower body strength. Here's something simple difference. I am a hunter and can tell you that the difference in men and women is what makes them great hunting partners. While men tend to be better getting in and out of the woods without getting lost (without a GPS), a woman's attention to detail allows for her to be a much better tracker of wounded game. There are always acceptations to the rule but this has been tested and found accurate more often then not. Neither gender is "better" they are just different and for the life of me I don't understand why that is a bad thing.

 

I admit to not completely reading the thread (will go back and do that) but it appeared that Princess Artemis was kinda disregarding the idea of men being raped by women due to a lower frequency of occurrences. (I'll apology ahead of time if I miss interpreted that.) Because I am part of a community that deals with abuse cases, I would just like to state for the record that abuse of men is on the rise and I wouldn't be surprised if rape of men was as well. Most people are completely unaware of the number of abused men simply because a woman is more likely to report abuse then a man. I could see that holding true in cases of rape as well. There are no "safe harbor" type set up that will accept an abused male. An abused man has no where to go because on shelter will take a man in. Men are afraid to admit to being abused because it is a blow to their ego and most are fathers who are afraid of losing their children is they break their silence. So, before anyone embraces sexism as mainly a woman's plight, please do some research and take a good look around. To me, the fact that a man is forced to live with abuse because he doesn't have a fraction of the avenues to help open to him as a women does is the worse case of sexism there is; much more serious then trying to find a neutral title for a cop or worrying about stepping on someone's toes by referring to our species as mankind.

 

tl/dr? Synopsis: Get over it.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Sir Barton

[Obscure_Trash]

I find that more often then not that courtesy is taken as sexism. Seen too many women get out and out pissed off because a man dared to hold the door open for them.

 

It's 'funny' how many times I've seen this sort of statement in this thread.

 

I have never once seen or experienced anything like this.

 

I also think people use things like that as an excuse to insult feminism.

 

Don't let extremists ruin something for you. Just because WBC is crazy doesn't mean all people of religion are. Just because some feminists contradict themselves doesn't mean all do.

 

EDIT: I just have to add, that with my earlier statement I don't mean to make it sound like that [what was quoted] never happens. People have brought it up here, and I have no reason to believe you're all liars. I'm sure it does happen, it just shocks me how much this example is brought up everywhere, because I've never actually seen a woman yell at a man for showing a common courtesy like holding a door up. =o

Edited September 7, 2011 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Princess Artemis]

I can say with assurance I was not disregarding it in the least. Too much experience as an outlier to say just because something is not common that it isn't a problem or that it doesn't happen. If how I said it made it sound as if I was disregarding it, then my words were poorly chosen.

 

I do have to point out that equality does not mean the same. Men and women are equal. They are certainly not the same, and as in all things, results may vary. Equality of personhood does not guarantee equality of results, after all, and certainly doesn't mean all people are equally intelligent or equally skilled.

[Sir Barton]

To SPS...

 

I have and I was stunned. She had her arms full and he ran up to open the door only to be told that she could do it and didn't need his help. I've talked with several women who get angry when a man does that because they don't see it as him just trying to be helpful. They feel that he must have an ulterior motive to do something helpful. These were also the young ladies who I have seen get angry if a guy would punch another man but not a woman because they should be treated equally. Honestly, no one should be punching anyone but those statements were just ludicrous. Listening to those women talk not only shocked me but angered me.

 

To Princess Artemis...

 

I'm sure it was simply my misunderstanding. I've been known to miss context sometimes. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

I don't understand how equal doesn't mean the same since I was taught that was the definition of equal.

I see men and women as quite different with various strengths and weaknesses allowing to their physical gender. I do feel that for the most part both can do the same jobs and if they can they should be awarded the same pay; which is sadly, rarely the case.

 

Edit: Read that as equal instead of equality but still in looking up the definition I see "the quality or state of being equal." That still says "the same" to me. Yes, I do feel that socially we should share the same rights and privileges but still find it very silly and nitpicky for people to take offense in gender specific terms like policeman and view the person using it as sexist.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Sir Barton

[Anarya-Ameana]

Hrm... I'm not sexist in the least, but this is how I take the whole 'guy/guys' thing:

 

Most men refuse to wear anything considered 'girly' (dresses/skirts/etc. color doesn't count because color is based off mood/feel etc.)

 

Until a couple hundred years back or so women weren't allowed to wear pants. They had to wear blouses/skirts/dresses/etc. Now women can wear pants which used to be considered 'mens' clothing.

 

So I have absolutely no problem calling a whole lot of people 'guys' do to this one simple thing. But I do call police officers who are women policewomen, etc.

 

And I don't get angry when men hold doors for me, although I've had some men get angry at me when I had full arms and didn't hold the door open for them... x_x

 

Gender issues and gender 'equality' is something that's pretty new to most of the world. It's not as old as we make it seem to be. It's gonna take some time before everyone is truly 'equal'.

[Princess Artemis]

I don't understand how equal doesn't mean the same since I was taught that was the definition of equal.

I see men and women as quite different with various strengths and weaknesses allowing to their physical gender. I do feel that for the most part both can do the same jobs and if they can they should be awarded the same pay; which is sadly, rarely the case.

 

Edit: Read that as equal instead of equality but still in looking up the definition  I see "the quality or state of being equal." That still says "the same" to me. Yes, I do feel that socially we should share the same rights and privileges but still find it very silly and nitpicky for people to take offense in gender specific terms like policeman and view the person using it as sexist.

Think of equality != sameness as an equation. Just as an example, the quadratic formula is set equal to zero. The equation and zero are not the same at all, but they are precisely equal. One has a certain function while the other has many more, but equal they are.

 

I don't know if people get really deeply offended about terms like policeman as used about women, or that using words like that makes a person sexist. I think it's rather more irritating than anything else. Something can have shades and feels of sexism in it and be used by people who aren't sexist. Personally, I don't care for it because it's inaccurate and I'm very sure most men would balk if they were called women by huge swaths of society.

 

Do you think it was nitpicky to replace the general catch-all term 'stewardess' with 'flight attendant'?

Edited September 8, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[Sir Barton]

Yes, I do find that nitpicky. I have a friend who was a stewardess for Delta and its the term I've always used. I rarely fly so it's not something that comes up often in my normal speech but I do believe that I did use "stewardess" on a flight once when both genders were working.

 

Personally, the only time I use titles is in conversations with a third party, so someone who takes care of my needs on a plane is a "stewardess" when I'm relating a story to my friends and they accept it as fairly gender neutral unless I specify that I had a male stewardess. Same holds true when speaking of the police. Of course they are also mainly cops around here. Now, if they stop me my response is simply, "Yes, sir/ma'am". Firemen are all firemen even though we have a couple of women on the reserve. It has just not ever come up as an issue.

 

Please also understand that I am not in favor of political correctness and feel that it causes more problems then it solves. I'm not interested in walking on egg shells in fear that I will offend someone. I believe people should have thicker skin then to take offense over statements that are clearly not meant to be offensive.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Sir Barton

[Gsea]

My thoughts on sexism...

 

I dare to launch into the topic of "men or women: who's stronger?" When speaking in scientific/medical terms, men are physically stronger- or have the ability to become stronger- due to higher testosterone levels. That does not make females weak. Everyone is strong in one way or another, and women have our strengths as well as men. Physically, it depends on what you do with your strength- a man/boy who isn't athletic and doesn't do anything to increase his strength/muscular-ness (just making up words wherever I go) can be far weaker, in terms of physical strength, than a girl who is very athletic and puts effort into how strong, fast, etc. she is.

 

I disagree with the blatant statement "Men are stronger than women." Yes, males have more testosterone, so they can be stronger than us. But if you're going to boast about it, be more specific. Strong how? Strong as in mental capacity, strong as in how you handle emotions, or strong as in your muscle power?

 

Also, another topic entirely, equality. My response to the whole "women do the same jobs with lower pay" thing?

-__________________________-

That is all.

 

And I notice many of you mentioning women getting upset with men holding the doors. Wait....what? When someone goes out of his way to be polite, why be so....sensitive about it? When a man, instead of just barreling through the door and making you hold it for everyone else (wouldn't that make you more ticked off?), holds the door for you, you should be flattered that there are still people out there who have manners. I'm not saying people don't, but the use of manners, and politeness in general, has significantly dwindled over the past years.

[SPQR]

I believe people should have thicker skin then to take offense over statements that are clearly not meant to be offensive.

Hats off to you, kind sir!

 

This is the main issue I have with supporters of extreme political correctness and extreme anti-sexism. Every little phrase or habit is taken as offensive or potentially offensive, and we have to change it because it might hurt someone's feelings. They focus too much on the little nitpicky things, instead of trying to solve the real problems.

 

ETA: Also, adding on to the 'man as a gender-neutral word' thing, look at 'guys' or 'dude'. Many people say 'guys' to a group of both men and women, and I'm sure we've all heard the word 'dude' or 'man' (as in 'great job, dude/man!') used for women.

Edited September 8, 2011 by SPQR

[Princess Artemis]

I'm actually not in favor of political correctness either. PC terms are usually ones not chosen by the people they refer to, and then people are taught them and told this is what you must say, when no one has actually asked the people being described if they like the description or not. In that way, it's just as thoughtless as anything else.

[Sir Barton]

Just to add to the scientific....

 

Men are physically stronger (muscular) but, not sure if this has changed but see no reason why it would, female babies then to have a higher survive rate then male babies so health wise females seem to make out better. Men tend to die at a younger age then women. Another difference is that on the whole, women can take a greater level of pain then men. Not talking child birth, just pain from injuries in general. We actually are pretty darn different.

 

Edit: It's nice to see that we are all basically in agreement about the whole PC bit. Thanks for that because I very often feel alone when it comes to my pet peeve.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Sir Barton

[Kestra15]

There are also those who use sexism as an excuse. Ie, 'it's not right to hit a lady', but it seems perfectly fine for that lady to hit whomever she wants.

 

And trust me. Those ladies hit hard :/

Hence my approach; if you hit me, I hit you back. Doesn't matter what gender you are. Now, how can someone call that view 'sexist' given it is one of true equality? :~)

 

This is funnily something I feel at odds with with the Contra-Mestre that now leads my home group in Capoeira. He believes that girls have to learn more technique and trickery to overcome male players, as he feels that a female Capoeirista who plays like a man - so aggressive, dominate, big kicks and throws - is somehow a 'worse' player than a girl who plays a much more fluid, smooth (in my opinion, 'meek') game, that people would play less against such girls.

 

Personally? I've had my ass handed to me by guys and girls alike. I don't really notice if a girl plays like a guy - because how do you define that? What is the 'male' and 'female' ways of playing Capoeira? Each person has a unique style and way of playing, which is what attracts and keeps me to the game. Yes, you can have aggressive players, passive players, players who are overly offensive or defensive, some who are acrobatic or light on their feet or grounded of martial...but I've yet to see a definitive 'girl style' or 'boy style.'

 

Then again Brasil does still come across as a very male-dominant society, and this is coming from someone who has been immersed in a lot of Brasilian culture over the last few years. So I can understand the Mestre's point, as he was taught and raised in Brasil. But over here in the UK and Europe, I feel this is one aspect of the tradition and culture that should not - and can not - be enforced.

 

I've heard men say women shouldn't be permitted to carry firearms because they're "too emotional."

The best shots in my (military) school for the whole seven years I was there were all females. One of the best was a left-handed female who had a prosthetic right arm. You should have seen the fuss the guys made over that - every single rifle-based manhood was simply deflated over the years.

 

One thing has always bothered me about the definition of "sexism" used in many activist circles that I come across is that it involves a power dynamic.

 

For instance, a man hating a woman is sexist, but a woman hating a man is not "sexist" as the power dynamic isn't "going in the right direction."

 

I'm curious what people in this thread think of this idea. Is "power" a necessary part of any definition of sexism?

Interesting...it seems to important for perceptions. In an equally-valid example, if I make a derogatory comment about a black man I'd be considered racist, and yet if a black man made the same style to me they'd not held accountable for it. Prejudices work both ways, but it feels that those who are in the minority, or lacking in the power, are able to get away with a higher level of discrimination than those in power - and I suppose the reason being that those in power are able to be more heavy-handed with their discrimination and make it more than just words.

 

Look at scientific fields. Where are all the women? Physics and math in particular, as those are the fields I'm most familiar with. It's getting better now, but women are still forced to be significantly better than their male counterparts to get the same job. Back when my mom was in grad school, she got 'forced' out of the Ph.D. program simply because she's female.

I don't think that's such a problem nowadays; in my Maths course it was an equal split of men to women, and everyone had to work to the same standards regardless of gender (anonymous marking for the win). There were several members of staff who were female, and a larger percentage of PhD students were female than male.

 

As for my partner's Pharmacy course, it was an equal split and given my g/f's girls-only group of friends were often considered some of the brighter and better achievers - and certainly some of the most popular in the school for the lecturers.

 

And come to think of it, the only female employees in the town tend to be waitresses, cashiers, and nurses...I can't think of any other jobs I've seen women in there O_o

 

I am not okay with this.

To be fair, nursing is (and has been for oh, a century and more) an honourable and skilled profession that takes a lot of hard work to achieve - three years university and a year of pre-reg training as a minimum. So for you to have a lot of female nurses actually says a lot about their abilities and achievements in a positive manner, not negative.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Kestra15

[philpot123]

Sexism... lol...

 

That said...

 

 

I think sexism can go both ways. A common mentality today among girls (especially teen girls) is that all guys are *s who use girls for sex and then leave them. Well, hate to break it to you, but that's simply not the case. I've been the subject of ridiculous amounts of gender stereotyping by girls throughout highschool, even though I am NOTHING like a typical guy.

 

Also, I don't understand why a girl would be upset that a guy would do things for her like holding doors open, etc. MY GOSH we have a hard enough time trying to please you without being berated for doing things that we think are just simple, sweet gestures. Seriously!? Take it at face value, a guy doing something very VERY small out of politeness, not a condescending sexist stereotype of your gender.

[philpot123]

Oh, on the female side of it, I don't agree with gender stereotyping in the workplace. If a woman can do the same job as a man, pay her the same or hire her if she's better qualified. Of course, that only goes so far. The simple fact is the vast majority of women can't handle being front line combat soldiers, which is why special forces and most combat MOS's are still closed to women. I'm all for that. Sure there are some women who COULD handle it, but reworking an entire system for those few is totally impractical. At least, that's how I see it.

 

*prepares flame shield*

[Danse]

Oh dear, I always told myself I wouldn't argue on the internet....oh well.

Philpot123, actually the women on front lines, isn't that simple. If it were only about woman ability I'm sure it would have been changed long ago, but there are other problems with that. All throughout life men have been taught that women are precious, and fragile, that doesn't change in war. I personally like that feeling of almost reverence, to be honest. But back to my point, another reason women aren't allowed on the front lines is because officials worry that it will be too "emotionally scarring" for the men. A man is much more likely to risk himself, unduly for that woman, instead of following protocol. Men watching women get hurt all around them undermines their confidence, their will to fight. Now, that isn't an opinion, that is an official reason why they don't want to allow women on the front lines. And, as you can see, it hardly has anything to do with the women herself, but much more to the way men view women.

 

Another thing I don't agree with is the whole equality issue, somewhat like Sir Barton. I don't see why the two sexes have to be so homogenized. Women are different than men, and not just physically. When I say that I don't mean that one is inferior to the other, simply that they cannot even be compared. This is anecdotal evidence, but take this scenario, for instance. My boyfriend is a welder. Lets say he can get through 8 jobs in a day. Now why should the company pay a female, who only gets through 4 jobs a day, the same pay? Why is she equal to someone who can get more done? Why does she have job security just because she fills in a niche? And of course this can be vice versa. This might be controversial, but I don't think a woman should get any special privileges just because she is female. There are exceptions to that, but none I can see in the working environment. I think sometimes women fight so hard to be equal to men, they forget what strengthens themselves, as women. They fight so hard to be raised to the same regard (or higher) that they almost become haters of women. Sure, fight for your job, fight for your rights to vote (though that's no longer an issue), fight for your "equality". But don't take away my femininity while you're at it. Don't tell me I'm less of a woman because I enjoy being demure, and I like male protectiveness. Sure, I can take care of myself, but I still like to be cared for, and cared about. So, while I don't question your fights, and struggles, don't make them out to be all women's struggles. Also this was kind of more ramble-y than I hoped, so sorry for the times I strayed from the argument.

[philpot123]

Oh dear, I always told myself I wouldn't argue on the internet....oh well.

Philpot123, actually the women on front lines, isn't that simple. If it were only about woman ability I'm sure it would have been changed long ago, but there are other problems with that. All throughout life men have been taught that women are precious, and fragile, that doesn't change in war. I personally like that feeling of almost reverence, to be honest. But back to my point, another reason women aren't allowed on the front lines is because officials worry that it will be too "emotionally scarring" for the men. A man is much more likely to risk himself, unduly for that woman, instead of following protocol. Men watching women get hurt all around them undermines their confidence, their will to fight. Now, that isn't an opinion, that is an official reason why they don't want to allow women on the front lines. And, as you can see, it hardly has anything to do with the women herself, but much more to the way men view women.

 

Another thing I don't agree with is the whole equality issue, somewhat like Sir Barton. I don't see why the two sexes have to be so homogenized. Women are different than men, and not just physically. When I say that I don't mean that one is inferior to the other, simply that they cannot even be compared. This is anecdotal evidence, but take this scenario, for instance. My boyfriend is a welder. Lets say he can get through 8 jobs in a day. Now why should the company pay a female, who only gets through 4 jobs a day, the same pay? Why is she equal to someone who can get more done? Why does she have job security just because she fills in a niche? And of course this can be vice versa. This might be controversial, but I don't think a woman should get any special privileges just because she is female. There are exceptions to that, but none I can see in the working environment. I think sometimes women fight so hard to be equal to men, they forget what strengthens themselves, as women. They fight so hard to be raised to the same regard (or higher) that they almost become haters of women. Sure, fight for your job, fight for your rights to vote (though that's no longer an issue), fight for your "equality". But don't take away my femininity while you're at it. Don't tell me I'm less of a woman because I enjoy being demure, and I like male protectiveness. Sure, I can take care of myself, but I still like to be cared for, and cared about. So, while I don't question your fights, and struggles, don't make them out to be all women's struggles. Also this was kind of more ramble-y than I hoped, so sorry for the times I strayed from the argument.

I fully agree with you on both counts. I didn't delve into my full argument for women not being in combat situations, and you basically expounded on another area of it. I completely agree with that you said.

 

And I also completely agree that women are different. I don't like feminism, in fact I hate it. My point was that if a woman can fulfill the requirements of a job TO THE SAME EXTENT that a man can, there should be no gender DISCRIMINATION. There's a large difference between discrimination based on gender and special treatment based on gender. I don't agree with either. I agree with equality to the point that a woman can, in fact, fulfill the requirements as good or better as a man. And that she should not NECESSARILY be judged by gender but by ability. Obviously (as with combat soldiers) there are exceptions.

 

Femininity is a very good thing that should be retained, I agree. Girls who act/talk exactly like guys are pretty disgusting. But as I said, discrimination purely based on gender isn't good either. Discrimination based on skills and ability to fulfill the prescribed task IS.

Edited September 8, 2011 by philpot123

[St. Jimmy]

Girls who act/talk exactly like guys are pretty disgusting.

Um, excuse me? How is this disgusting? I talk like a guy most of the time, and no one I know has ever been disgusted by it. Not everyone fits the gender norms; there are feminine guys and masculine girls.

[RheaZen]

Maybe they mean more guy-ism things like the crotch grab.

 

I dunno. But yeah, wha?

[dragon_mando]

Girls who act/talk exactly like guys are pretty disgusting.

And how does a guy act? How does a girl act? How do they talk? And how is it disgusting in any way? Both speak the language of their culture and country so have the right to use all the same words and phrases.

 

Now why should the company pay a female, who only gets through 4 jobs a day, the same pay?

Try this on for size: I'm biologically female and I grew up on a farm. In a single working day I could singlehandedly buck twelve tons of hay onto the tractor's trailer, unload it, and stack it, the guys on the crew gave up at ten. Should I be getting paid the same or less because I've got the wrong plumbing?

 

"The simple fact is the vast majority of women can't handle being front line combat soldiers, which is why special forces and most combat MOS's are still closed to women. I'm all for that. Sure there are some women who COULD handle it, but reworking an entire system for those few is totally impractical. At least, that's how I see it."

 

And the way I see it, the military needs every capable, willing body they can get. The military used almost identical logic to keep gay men out of the military, but DADT was still overruled for those "few".

 

Sure, I can take care of myself, but I still like to be cared for, and cared about.

And I don't, despite being a biological woman. To have to owe anything to anyone makes me feel less than human, so having someone 'take care of me' makes me feel like I might as well live in a stall like a cow. It's fine for others, but psychologically damaging for me.

 

A common mentality today among girls (especially teen girls) is that all guys are censorkip.gif*s who use girls for sex and then leave them.

Many of those girls have good reason. I've lost count of how many "committed" relationships I was in that fell apart soon as I opened my legs. I was even engaged to two of them.

 

To be fair, nursing is (and has been for oh, a century and more) an honourable and skilled profession that takes a lot of hard work to achieve - three years university and a year of pre-reg training as a minimum. So for you to have a lot of female nurses actually says a lot about their abilities and achievements in a positive manner, not negative.

Yeah, I have nothing against the position, kudos to everyone willing to work it, but the simple fact that those are the only employment opportunities women seem to have there is a bit saddening.

Edited September 8, 2011 by dragon_mando

[philpot123]

Um, excuse me? How is this disgusting? I talk like a guy most of the time, and no one I know has ever been disgusted by it. Not everyone fits the gender norms; there are feminine guys and masculine girls.

From a guy's perspective, a manly girl isn't exactly attractive. There are things that guys do, things that girls do, ways they act that are just gender specific. I'm not talking about interests, that kinda thing. There's nothing hotter than a girl who's good with cars but there are reasons certain things are masculine and feminine. This is kinda off topic anyways, that's just my opinion.

[RheaZen]

Ey, who are you to speak for all the guys?

 

What are the reasons, anyhow?

 

This is totally on-topic.

[philpot123]

And how does a guy act? How does a girl act? How do they talk? And how is it disgusting in any way? Both speak the language of their culture and country so have the right to use all the same words and phrases.

 

 

 

And the way I see it, the military needs every capable, willing body they can get. The military used almost identical logic to keep gay men out of the military, but DADT was still overruled for those "few".

See my last post in response to the first part of your message. be offended if you wish, it's just one guy's opinion.

 

 

And not necessarily. There's a lot of reasons women ARE allowed in the military but AREN'T allowed in combat situations. 1st, the physical. Simple fact is the vast majority of girls cannot physically handle the training, much less the missions of a Spec Ops solider. Sure there are some women that could, but they are few and far between. Try a SEAL workout on for size hmm? Or try and get a perfect 300 on the MEN'S version of the Marines physical. 2nd, practicality. This is not as simple as DADT. An entire training system, entire barracks, entire stations would have to be reworked for housing for women. SEAL, ranger, green beret, Marine Spec Ops, all of these are in place and set up exclusively for men. All of those would have to change. That's not a little thing. 3rd, in the US and in the world there is still some semblance of that "outdated" "sexist" thing called chivalry. Women and children should be safe, the men protect them. Women on the front lines would have very... interesting effects on the psyche of both the male soldiers they are fighting WITH and AGAINST.