Your body, my choice. A question for women.

Status
Not open for further replies.
oslooskar said:
While it’s true that women are resourceful and capable of adapting to challenging circumstances, suggesting that women could fully replicate the current standard of living without men overlooks the practical realities of society. Fields such as heavy construction, engineering, energy production, and transportation remain heavily reliant on male-dominated labor. The absence of men would create immediate and severe workforce shortages in these critical areas, leading to a significant and likely prolonged decline in quality of life. Furthermore, the example of abandoned wives adapting to their circumstances is not entirely analogous. These women still lived in a world where men existed, maintaining infrastructure, building systems, and contributing to essential sectors that allowed society to function. They were not navigating a reality devoid of men entirely, and their ability to adapt was supported by male contributions that continued to underpin the society they lived in.



I don't know why you're telling me this because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I've written. My original point was about the standard of living and the role men play in maintaining modern society. What you’ve written here is addressing something entirely different. So, if you want to respond to what I actually wrote, I’m happy to have that discussion. But let’s stay focused on the topic at hand rather than straying into unrelated arguments.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that women can't learn to operate heavy equipment???? Several years ago, a community college near where I lived, had a job fair for people considering what course of education to follow. Interestingly, one of their offerings included bringing in an excavator and allowing interested people to give it a shot behind the levers. The newspaper quoted the teacher as saying that 'inexperienced young women who tried it, actually managed better than the inexperienced guys who did because they had a lighter touch'.

I also used to know a woman who was a welder and a woman who was a guard in male prisons. And currently I know a young woman who worked with an all male crew on fabricating street lights and other stuff that cities use before she moved on and is now learning to do repair and servicing on fitness equipment alongside the guy who is teaching her. My point is, those industries are only male dominated out of tradition. But given a situation where the men were 'gone', we'd pick it up and do just fine.

I'm not saying it would be easy or that things wouldn't go downhill for a bit(?)due to the necessary lag of needing to bring the education of replacements up to speed. But it could be done. And for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure it was your comment, 'the number of women with the specific mechanical and technical skills required to keep civilization running—producing gasoline, maintaining infrastructure, repairing vehicles, and so on—would be too limited to sustain these systems effectively on their own.' which suggests that for whatever reason, men were not around to fill those traditional occupations and that we woman wouldn't be able to keep civilization running. It'd strictly be a case of numbers and that could be rectified.
 

Last edited:
Debrah N. said:
Are you suggesting that women can't learn to operate heavy equipment???? Several years ago, a community college near where I lived, had a job fair for people considering what course of education to follow. Interestingly, one of their offerings included bringing in an excavator and allowing interested people to give it a shot behind the levers. The newspaper quoted the teacher as saying that 'inexperienced young women who tried it, actually managed better than the inexperienced guys who did because they had a lighter touch'.

I also used to know a woman who was a welder and a woman who was a guard in male prisons. And currently I know a young woman who worked with an all male crew on fabricating street lights and other stuff that cities use before she moved on and is now learning to do repair and servicing on fitness equipment alongside the guy who is teaching her. My point is, those industries are only male dominated out of tradition. But given a situation where the men were 'gone', we'd pick it up and do just fine.

I'm not saying it would be easy or that things wouldn't go downhill for a bit(?)due to the necessary lag of needing to bring the education of replacements up to speed. But it could be done. And for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure it was your comment, 'the number of women with the specific mechanical and technical skills required to keep civilization running—producing gasoline, maintaining infrastructure, repairing vehicles, and so on—would be too limited to sustain these systems effectively on their own.' which suggests that for whatever reason, men were not around to fill those traditional occupations and that we woman wouldn't be able to keep civilization running. It'd strictly be a case of numbers and that could be rectified.
Click to expand...

While I understand your optimism, it’s important to address the stark practical realities here. The idea that women could seamlessly step into all the roles currently dominated by men and maintain the same standard of living is simply unrealistic. The physical and technical demands of industries like heavy construction, energy production, and aircraft manufacturing require not just individual competence but a workforce of sufficient scale, experience, and capability. This workforce doesn’t currently exist among women, nor could it be built quickly enough to avoid a catastrophic decline in societal infrastructure.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about whether individual women can learn to weld, operate heavy machinery, or fabricate complex systems. Some undoubtedly can, and a few already do. But the percentage of women who choose these fields, excel in them, and have the physical strength and endurance required is minuscule compared to men. This is not a matter of tradition or prejudice—it’s a reflection of biological differences and career preferences, which cannot simply be willed away.

The reality is that modern society, with all its conveniences, is underpinned by male-dominated industries that women, on their own, would struggle to sustain at the same level. Producing and maintaining aircraft, for example, is not just about training; it demands an ongoing supply of highly skilled professionals who can work under grueling conditions to uphold safety and efficiency. The infrastructure, logistics, and expertise required are overwhelmingly maintained by men, and their absence would lead to an unavoidable collapse of these systems.

Even if women stepped in to fill the gap, the time required to train enough of them, combined with the physical toll and sheer scale of the work, would result in a standard of living far below what society currently enjoys. Simply put, the easy life many women take for granted today would not exist without the contributions of men in these critical sectors.

It’s fine to argue that women can adapt, but adaptation doesn’t mean parity in outcomes or standards. The world we live in today was built largely on the back of male labor, ingenuity, and sacrifice. Removing that foundation would leave an irreplaceable void that cannot be filled overnight—or perhaps at all.
 
oslooskar said:
While I understand your optimism, it’s important to address the stark practical realities here. The idea that women could seamlessly step into all the roles currently dominated by men and maintain the same standard of living is simply unrealistic. The physical and technical demands of industries like heavy construction, energy production, and aircraft manufacturing require not just individual competence but a workforce of sufficient scale, experience, and capability. This workforce doesn’t currently exist among women, nor could it be built quickly enough to avoid a catastrophic decline in societal infrastructure.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about whether individual women can learn to weld, operate heavy machinery, or fabricate complex systems. Some undoubtedly can, and a few already do. But the percentage of women who choose these fields, excel in them, and have the physical strength and endurance required is minuscule compared to men. This is not a matter of tradition or prejudice—it’s a reflection of biological differences and career preferences, which cannot simply be willed away.

The reality is that modern society, with all its conveniences, is underpinned by male-dominated industries that women, on their own, would struggle to sustain at the same level. Producing and maintaining aircraft, for example, is not just about training; it demands an ongoing supply of highly skilled professionals who can work under grueling conditions to uphold safety and efficiency. The infrastructure, logistics, and expertise required are overwhelmingly maintained by men, and their absence would lead to an unavoidable collapse of these systems.

Even if women stepped in to fill the gap, the time required to train enough of them, combined with the physical toll and sheer scale of the work, would result in a standard of living far below what society currently enjoys. Simply put, the easy life many women take for granted today would not exist without the contributions of men in these critical sectors.

It’s fine to argue that women can adapt, but adaptation doesn’t mean parity in outcomes or standards. The world we live in today was built largely on the back of male labor, ingenuity, and sacrifice. Removing that foundation would leave an irreplaceable void that cannot be filled overnight—or perhaps at all.
Click to expand...
This is so hypothetical I can't think of this ever happening. How could the males disappear? It is not a good way to compare our labor needs. Women can do most anything a man can do, and visa versa. It could happen if men continue to believe that attitude of "Your body, my choice" meme. The women might just kill all the men. :)
 
oslooskar said:
While I understand your optimism, it’s important to address the stark practical realities here. The idea that women could seamlessly step into all the roles currently dominated by men and maintain the same standard of living is simply unrealistic. The physical and technical demands of industries like heavy construction, energy production, and aircraft manufacturing require not just individual competence but a workforce of sufficient scale, experience, and capability. This workforce doesn’t currently exist among women, nor could it be built quickly enough to avoid a catastrophic decline in societal infrastructure.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about whether individual women can learn to weld, operate heavy machinery, or fabricate complex systems. Some undoubtedly can, and a few already do. But the percentage of women who choose these fields, excel in them, and have the physical strength and endurance required is minuscule compared to men. This is not a matter of tradition or prejudice—it’s a reflection of biological differences and career preferences, which cannot simply be willed away.

The reality is that modern society, with all its conveniences, is underpinned by male-dominated industries that women, on their own, would struggle to sustain at the same level. Producing and maintaining aircraft, for example, is not just about training; it demands an ongoing supply of highly skilled professionals who can work under grueling conditions to uphold safety and efficiency. The infrastructure, logistics, and expertise required are overwhelmingly maintained by men, and their absence would lead to an unavoidable collapse of these systems.

Even if women stepped in to fill the gap, the time required to train enough of them, combined with the physical toll and sheer scale of the work, would result in a standard of living far below what society currently enjoys. Simply put, the easy life many women take for granted today would not exist without the contributions of men in these critical sectors.

It’s fine to argue that women can adapt, but adaptation doesn’t mean parity in outcomes or standards. The world we live in today was built largely on the back of male labor, ingenuity, and sacrifice. Removing that foundation would leave an irreplaceable void that cannot be filled overnight—or perhaps at all.
Click to expand...
American women did it well enough during WWII. And, we won the war.
 
chic said:
American women did it well enough during WWII. And, we won the war.
Click to expand...
..and british women were doing it for 2 years before American women.. and we won the war....:D(y)


c_iwm_q_27881.jpg

Munitionettes.jpg

factory-staff-men-and-women-making-parts-for-the-bristol-hercules-14-cylinder-two-row-radial-aircraft-engine-designed-by-sir-roy-fedden-and-produced-by-the-bristol-engine-company-starting-in-1939-it-was-the-first-of-their-single-sleeve-valve-burt-mccollum-or-argyll-type-designs-to-see-widespread-use-powering-many-aircraft-in-the-mid-world-war-ii-timeframe-WFXXJY.jpg

BLOG-NFS-dispatch-riders-head-on-c-london-fire-brigade.jpg

wwii-women-working-on-an-assembly-line.jpg
 
Last edited:
oslooskar said:
While I understand your optimism, it’s important to address the stark practical realities here. The idea that women could seamlessly step into all the roles currently dominated by men and maintain the same standard of living is simply unrealistic. The physical and technical demands of industries like heavy construction, energy production, and aircraft manufacturing require not just individual competence but a workforce of sufficient scale, experience, and capability. This workforce doesn’t currently exist among women, nor could it be built quickly enough to avoid a catastrophic decline in societal infrastructure.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about whether individual women can learn to weld, operate heavy machinery, or fabricate complex systems. Some undoubtedly can, and a few already do. But the percentage of women who choose these fields, excel in them, and have the physical strength and endurance required is minuscule compared to men. This is not a matter of tradition or prejudice—it’s a reflection of biological differences and career preferences, which cannot simply be willed away.

The reality is that modern society, with all its conveniences, is underpinned by male-dominated industries that women, on their own, would struggle to sustain at the same level. Producing and maintaining aircraft, for example, is not just about training; it demands an ongoing supply of highly skilled professionals who can work under grueling conditions to uphold safety and efficiency. The infrastructure, logistics, and expertise required are overwhelmingly maintained by men, and their absence would lead to an unavoidable collapse of these systems.

Even if women stepped in to fill the gap, the time required to train enough of them, combined with the physical toll and sheer scale of the work, would result in a standard of living far below what society currently enjoys. Simply put, the easy life many women take for granted today would not exist without the contributions of men in these critical sectors.

It’s fine to argue that women can adapt, but adaptation doesn’t mean parity in outcomes or standards. The world we live in today was built largely on the back of male labor, ingenuity, and sacrifice. Removing that foundation would leave an irreplaceable void that cannot be filled overnight—or perhaps at all.
Click to expand...
I never said seamlessly did I? Also never said it would be an instantaneous transition, nor did I imply that it would only be a matter of weeks. I think what bothers me is the inference that women just lay around waiting to partake in the 'blessings' that come from men's presence without any acknowledgement that a goodly part of society's need for women is that it's our presence that keeps society from crumbling entirely into a Lord of the Flies scenerio. Men and women are two different, but equally necessary parts of society, each relying on the other for the different strengths that they bring to the table.

While you might be an older man, I can't help but think that some of your thoughts seriously mirror the attitudes of the 'your body, my choice' cadre of young men who are chortling over the sudden down turn in women's rights in America and who seemed to have forgotten that they have mothers, wives, sisters and daughters, upon whom their existence depended on, at one time or whom they would not want to be interfered with by other's who share their attitude.

But it's been an interesting discussion so thank you for it, and I think it's time for me to move on to something else. Have a good day.
 
Last edited:
Tish said:
Hence why I am and will remain single.
I am not in the mood to train another male, I just can't be bothered.

It angers me to see a woman controlled by a man, just because they were born male does not make them God.
They need to stay in their own lane.
Click to expand...
I feel so sorry for you. You obviously have not met the wonderful males that are out there - who are good men, kind men, supportive, etc.
 
You know...I was going through these posts-the 6 pages of them-, and see a lot of hatred towards men. Somehow we are to blame for everything wrong in a womans life. I personally am really tired of being told-I don't want to hear from a man, men have no business an no opinion here, no opinion on my body or my life-and so on.

Well I got a couple of questions here then if you will indulge me;
Funny how women allowed govt and institutions to define what a women is. Sports, govts, businesses allowed a MAN to say hes a women, and take a womens position on a sports team or a job or anywhere else. I didn't see the backlash on that! Where was nationwide protests?

Matt Walsh did a documentary on 'What is a woman?', and after watching that film, was appalled at the fact no one could answers that. Either they were afraid to speak up, speak out or simply didn't know. Sad. My wife can tell you what a woman is. I can tell you what a woman is. My kids can tell you what a woman is. A dog can tell you what a woman is.

My wife and I assumed that film would trigger a womans movement...nope. Seems women didn't care that pretty much everyone was dismissing what a woman is, and was ok with being demeaned, insulted and degraded by pretty much everyone in govt, sports and business world.

When it comes to the dreaded and sensitive ab*#@ion issue, its my body my choice. All the lies about this party or that party takes a way a womens right, etc. You know 2 min into a US govt search shows it is perfectly legal in all 50 states for a women to get one if it meets the criteria of-Injury or death of the woman if going through with birth, injury or death of the child continuing in the pregnancy, if you were raped or incest...So there is nowhere that would deny you that choice if those circumstances are present.

So what does it leave? Well using it as a form of birth control is whats left. What else is there? Oh you don't want it? Relationship over, or one night stand created this issue for you? Well keep em closed! Well also, what about the mans choice? He made it with you after all. Yes your body, but 'our baby'- you didnt walk around and all of a sudden 'immaculate conception'! What about the babies choice?

Then, I also was reading about some interesting statistics that I was not going to post because I thought it might be too much of a shot towards woman. But then I read some posts from people telling me that men are responsible for the majority of domestic violence. Someone said 99 percent. Lol, give me a break. Its another case of 'your mind is made up and despite govt stats saying different' you still believe what you want. I will concede that men make up the majority of DV numbers. I will agree with the 70-30 ratio if you want.
But...the numbers below show something terrifying;

Data from U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services “Child Maltreatment” reports, 2001-2006*
Victims by Parental Status of Perpetrators

Child abuse and neglect Child fatalities
2001-20062001-2006

Mother Only 1,452,0991,704
Mother and Other 222,836565
Mother (with other-not father) 1,674,9352269
Father Only 661,129859
Father and Other 37,83677
Father (with other-not mother) 698,965936
Both 2,373,9003,205

The Child Family Community Australia reports, “A British retrospective prevalence study of 2669 young adults aged 18-24 (May-Chahal & Cawson, 2005) found that mothers were more likely than fathers to be responsible for physical abuse 49 per cent of incidents compared to 40 per cent).”

DHHS data in the UK shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6 per cent were abused by their mothers, 29.4 per cent were abused by their fathers.

So what do we say here? The numbers are quite telling, so should we paint all women the same? Hell no. But it seems all men are painted the same.

I thought on a forum of wise, experienced individuals, we could have conversations, discussions, nice arguments or friendly postings about things. But clearly certain topics trigger certain people to lump us all in to one category. Also so tired of the victim mentality. Something happened to you, so what. Something happens to all of us. Some probably worse than happened to you, but we deal with it. You think us vets have no issues, stories, memories, trauma and so on. We deal with it, get help, don't whine about it for 20 years, and move on.

This forum is mostly full of single minded people that have their mind made up about one topic or another no matter what. There is very little open mindedness. All is fine with posting about what you did today, what you baked, talking about medicare, pics, family etc.

That's all great and wonderful. I believe conversing, sharing and talking about things especially in our better years is helpful and since it makes you use your mind. Keeps you mind young. But when people have no flexibility, no openness to other peoples opinions, or as in this case just outright attack some people because of their gender, well, the world is where it is today with all the problems there is because we created them.

We cant blame anyone else. It was our generation that created or failed to stop the issues of today. This new generation are too young to know better, too lazy to do anything. We are supposed to be the wise ones, yet by the derision, hatred and comments seen on here in certain topics, its a wonder how humanity survived this long!
 
Tazx said:
You know...I was going through these posts-the 6 pages of them-, and see a lot of hatred towards men. Somehow we are to blame for everything wrong in a womans life. I personally am really tired of being told-I don't want to hear from a man, men have no business an no opinion here, no opinion on my body or my life-and so on.

Well I got a couple of questions here then if you will indulge me;
Funny how women allowed govt and institutions to define what a women is. Sports, govts, businesses allowed a MAN to say hes a women, and take a womens position on a sports team or a job or anywhere else. I didn't see the backlash on that! Where was nationwide protests?

Matt Walsh did a documentary on 'What is a woman?', and after watching that film, was appalled at the fact no one could answers that. Either they were afraid to speak up, speak out or simply didn't know. Sad. My wife can tell you what a woman is. I can tell you what a woman is. My kids can tell you what a woman is. A dog can tell you what a woman is.

My wife and I assumed that film would trigger a womans movement...nope. Seems women didn't care that pretty much everyone was dismissing what a woman is, and was ok with being demeaned, insulted and degraded by pretty much everyone in govt, sports and business world.

When it comes to the dreaded and sensitive ab*#@ion issue, its my body my choice. All the lies about this party or that party takes a way a womens right, etc. You know 2 min into a US govt search shows it is perfectly legal in all 50 states for a women to get one if it meets the criteria of-Injury or death of the woman if going through with birth, injury or death of the child continuing in the pregnancy, if you were raped or incest...So there is nowhere that would deny you that choice if those circumstances are present.

So what does it leave? Well using it as a form of birth control is whats left. What else is there? Oh you don't want it? Relationship over, or one night stand created this issue for you? Well keep em closed! Well also, what about the mans choice? He made it with you after all. Yes your body, but 'our baby'- you didnt walk around and all of a sudden 'immaculate conception'! What about the babies choice?

Then, I also was reading about some interesting statistics that I was not going to post because I thought it might be too much of a shot towards woman. But then I read some posts from people telling me that men are responsible for the majority of domestic violence. Someone said 99 percent. Lol, give me a break. Its another case of 'your mind is made up and despite govt stats saying different' you still believe what you want. I will concede that men make up the majority of DV numbers. I will agree with the 70-30 ratio if you want.
But...the numbers below show something terrifying;

Data from U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services “Child Maltreatment” reports, 2001-2006*
Victims by Parental Status of Perpetrators

Child abuse and neglect Child fatalities
2001-20062001-2006

Mother Only 1,452,0991,704
Mother and Other 222,836565
Mother (with other-not father) 1,674,9352269
Father Only 661,129859
Father and Other 37,83677
Father (with other-not mother) 698,965936
Both 2,373,9003,205

The Child Family Community Australia reports, “A British retrospective prevalence study of 2669 young adults aged 18-24 (May-Chahal & Cawson, 2005) found that mothers were more likely than fathers to be responsible for physical abuse 49 per cent of incidents compared to 40 per cent).”

DHHS data in the UK shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6 per cent were abused by their mothers, 29.4 per cent were abused by their fathers.

So what do we say here? The numbers are quite telling, so should we paint all women the same? Hell no. But it seems all men are painted the same.

I thought on a forum of wise, experienced individuals, we could have conversations, discussions, nice arguments or friendly postings about things. But clearly certain topics trigger certain people to lump us all in to one category. Also so tired of the victim mentality. Something happened to you, so what. Something happens to all of us. Some probably worse than happened to you, but we deal with it. You think us vets have no issues, stories, memories, trauma and so on. We deal with it, get help, don't whine about it for 20 years, and move on.

This forum is mostly full of single minded people that have their mind made up about one topic or another no matter what. There is very little open mindedness. All is fine with posting about what you did today, what you baked, talking about medicare, pics, family etc.

That's all great and wonderful. I believe conversing, sharing and talking about things especially in our better years is helpful and since it makes you use your mind. Keeps you mind young. But when people have no flexibility, no openness to other peoples opinions, or as in this case just outright attack some people because of their gender, well, the world is where it is today with all the problems there is because we created them.

We cant blame anyone else. It was our generation that created or failed to stop the issues of today. This new generation are too young to know better, too lazy to do anything. We are supposed to be the wise ones, yet by the derision, hatred and comments seen on here in certain topics, its a wonder how humanity survived this long!
Click to expand...
It was NOT our fault or the fault of our generation or younger people. but I'm not going to discuss politics. Men are not worthless. but those who say your body my choice are.
 
rgp said:
But I will say that , I am 75 yrs/old and other than my 1/2 sister and her hubby I have never known anyone .... anyone that says or has said they are happily married.
Click to expand...
Well now you know 2... I woke up this morning, kissed my lovely wife and wished her a happy thanksgiving for the 40th time, and snuggled up with her till she fell back asleep before I got up @530. Its not always been paradise, but wouldn't change a thing.
 
Paco Dennis said:
This is so hypothetical I can't think of this ever happening. How could the males disappear? It is not a good way to compare our labor needs. Women can do most anything a man can do, and visa versa. It could happen if men continue to believe that attitude of "Your body, my choice" meme. The women might just kill all the men. :)
Click to expand...

Paco, while your reply adds some humor, it sidesteps the core issue: whether women, on their own, could sustain the high standard of living they currently enjoy. The simple answer is no—they could not. This isn't a matter of opinion or a slight against women; it’s a matter of hard facts rooted in biology, occupational trends, and historical precedent. Let’s take heavy industries like construction, energy production, and transportation infrastructure as examples. These sectors are the backbone of modern civilization, and they are overwhelmingly dominated by men—not because of societal prejudice, but because of the physical demands, endurance, and risk tolerance required. Even with training, the number of women capable of meeting these demands on a large scale is minuscule. These are not jobs where 'most anything' can be done interchangeably by either gender. To maintain the societal infrastructure that underpins everything from electricity to clean water to transportation requires not just individual competence but a workforce of sufficient size, skill, and stamina. Women, as a group, have not historically stepped into these roles in significant numbers, and there’s no evidence to suggest they would do so now—or even want to—if men disappeared. The reality is that the comfortable, modern life many take for granted exists because of the contributions of men in these critical fields. Without them, the time, effort, and resources required to train and recruit enough women would result in a steep and unavoidable decline in living standards. It’s not a matter of whether women can adapt; it’s that the adaptation process would be slow, incomplete, and insufficient to sustain what we currently have. Your comment about women killing men is clearly facetious, but it highlights a deeper issue: there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge the interdependence of the sexes and the fact that men’s labor and intellect has been indispensable in building and maintaining modern society. Instead of leaning on hypotheticals or politically correct platitudes, let’s focus on the facts: the world, as it is today, could not function without men
 
chic said:
American women did it well enough during WWII. And, we won the war.
Click to expand...

It’s true that American women played a crucial role during World War II by stepping into industrial jobs while many men were away fighting. Their efforts were commendable and absolutely vital to the war effort. However, comparing this temporary wartime measure to the permanent and comprehensive labor demands of maintaining a modern, complex society is misguided. During WWII, women stepped into roles such as manufacturing and munitions production, often under highly controlled, pre-structured systems designed for wartime efficiency. They worked in factories, but they did not dominate fields like construction, large-scale infrastructure maintenance, or other grueling industries requiring sustained physical endurance and technical expertise over decades. Moreover, men were still present in significant numbers in supervisory, technical, and combat roles, ensuring the overall system functioned. The war effort was a short-term mobilization under extraordinary circumstances, supported by a massive, centralized government effort to organize and train the workforce. Once the war ended, many of these women left these industries voluntarily, often returning to traditional roles, while men resumed their pre-war jobs. Winning the war wasn’t solely about women taking up manufacturing jobs. It was also about the collective contributions of male soldiers, strategists, and the existing industrial infrastructure primarily built and maintained by men. Women’s contributions were vital as a supplement, not a wholesale replacement of the male workforce.The point remains: women’s invaluable contributions during WWII prove their adaptability and resilience but do not demonstrate the capability to sustain the same level of societal infrastructure indefinitely without male participation. The scale, duration, and complexity of sustaining modern civilization are far beyond what was required in this temporary and highly controlled wartime scenario.
 
hollydolly said:
.and british women were doing it for 2 years before American women.. and we won the war....:D(y)
Click to expand...

I appreciate your enthusiasm in highlighting women’s contributions during WWII, but as with Chic’s argument, this comparison oversimplifies the realities of sustaining modern society versus responding to a temporary wartime crisis. You mention British women working in factories two years before American women and that 'we won the war.' That’s true—they contributed significantly to the war effort, as did women across Allied nations. However, their roles during the war were, by and large, supplemental rather than foundational. Women stepped into jobs temporarily vacated by men, working within systems, machines, and processes that were overwhelmingly designed, built, and maintained by men before and after the war. The photos of women working with machines don’t undermine this point—they reinforce it. Those factories, tools, and production systems existed because of decades of innovation, infrastructure, and labor dominated by men. Women operated the machines, often under strict instructions and supervision, but they didn’t create the infrastructure, nor did they sustain it long-term. Once the war ended, most women left these roles, and men resumed the positions that required ongoing physical endurance, technical expertise, and risk tolerance. Winning WWII was a collective effort, no doubt, but it hinged on a military-industrial complex largely built and maintained by men. Women’s contributions were critical in supporting that complex during a temporary crisis, but they don’t demonstrate the ability to sustain a modern society entirely on their own, especially in industries requiring long-term physical and technical labor.The point stands: women’s adaptability in stepping into these roles during wartime is admirable, but it doesn’t prove that women could, on their own, maintain the standard of living we enjoy today. It simply isn’t a like-for-like comparison.
 
carouselsilver said:
I wonder why the concept of a self confident, empowered woman strikes such fear and revulsion into some people?
Click to expand...
Does it?
carouselsilver said:
I wouldn't label myself as a feminist; not really sure what that entails. But I do know for sure that I don't take sh*#t.
Click to expand...
In order for you to decide whether to label yourself as a feminist you'd first need to procalim what a feminst is. If you represent what you think a feminist is then I guess you are a feminist. But if you represent somethng else then I guess you're not.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top