And you obviously missed my point.
I am not the one advocating prohibiting women from certain positions solely based upon their gender. All I did was show you what is included in those gender stereotypes.
Nonsense.
You disingenuously cherry-picked the worst of gender-stereotyping, to evoke emotions designed to advance your cause.
Does advocacy for a continued barring of women in Infantry roles represent a form of gender-stereotyping?
Yes.
Absolutely.
But only with respect to physicality; not with respect to overall worth or merit of abilities or parity or subservience.
A great many folks who oppose such a proposed role for women in the Infantry are every bit as committed to egalitarianism and parity as you are; quite possibly more so, in many instances.
It's just that they have a better grip on reality and future prospects, with respect to Nature, and the Average Man and the Average Woman and their inherent physical nature and abilities.
And don't waste our time asking that 'what is an Average Woman' question again... you know damned-well what is meant, in both a metaphorical and a statistically and medically quantifiable sense.
Not everyone who opposes women in Infantry roles is a 'go get me a beer, *****' type, eh?
And it's bullshit, dragging-out that redneck persona as a counterpointing tactic, in a debating context where no such manifestations are present, either explicitly or implicitly.
The Russians tried women in combat. Didn't work.
The Israelis tried it. Didn't work. They have the Caracal Battalion but they're nothing more than a Border Patrol Unit. If any real hostilities begin, they'll be pulled back, out of the way.
You act like women in combat has never been tried. And you're a moron.
Women in combat goes all the way back to the Druids. In fact, there's two posters in here who use the Queen of the Iceni's name as their handle.
Women in combat doesn't work. It just doesn't work.