Tuesday, August 25, 2015

#LikeAGirl Part 2: Perception vs Reality

The commercial sparked a social media movement with many people proclaiming the need to change the perception of what it means to be "Like A Girl". However, is this truly a beneficial thing for girls or is it harmful?

While there are many differences between males and females, one of the most debated is the fact that men are stronger than women. There are plenty of areas where women are benefitted over men. Physical strength is not one of those areas. Men are 50 percent stronger than women in brute strength. This is just one example of an area where men have benefitted over women. The greater muscle mass of men is the result of testosterone-induced muscular hypertrophy. Men also have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments. This doesn't mean that women can't be strong, just that men are stronger on average. Likewise, certain activities are just better suited for the way men are built compared to the way women are built.

The prime examples that show case this physical difference is in sports and the military. For decades now women have tried to change the perception that woman are just as capable in sports and military than men but this is not true and many women are now suffering the fate of learning it first-hand.

If you don't believe that then just take a look at the women who actually have joined the military themselves. They will tell you "All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs. heavier than her with their gear on." The military is a rigorous physical obstacle for men but it is even worse for women. As one female veteran said "No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment." How can a woman going through PMS symptoms handle a battlefield where she is facing all male opponents? In addition to this, women who join the military face a much higher risk of sexual assault than civilian women. There is also concern about some women making false accusations to try and ruin someone's career over personal disputes.

The fact of the matter is, America is lucky to still be the superpower that it is and even entertain the idea of "women in combat" let alone imploring it. Other countries however are not as PC as we are and will never send their women to fight ours. We are sending our women against men who will absolutely want to rape and kill them, they are the enemy. The military exists not only to protect our country's freedoms and rights but also our women from getting raped. How can we protect our women from getting raped when they are being offered in the first lines of war? It only makes logical sense that the enemy would take advantage of this to humiliate us and fulfill their carnal pleasures as well. A great example of this is Jessica Lynch, a US Army veteran who was captured in Iraq in 2003 at just 19yrs old and still suffers from nightmares of her rape and torture while captive. “I met the man of my dreams, and I wanted this family. I wanted this life. I didn't want to be just a broken soldier with nothing,” she said. She also admitted that she was afforded opportunities that were based on her gender; opportunities that men couldn't get. Feminists tried to push her as a "Female Rambo" which actually insulted her and caused her to speak out. She doesn't understand why feminists would try to push her as the hero when she did nothing and the real heroes died, according to her own testimony. She credits men like Joe D. Dowdy, who picked up soldiers in harm's way, and Sgt. Donald Walters, "who actually did fight until the very end". In an interesting side note, there were also 2 other women with her in the attack who were far less embraced by the media. Both of the other women were non-white single mothers with one deceased and one a second-generation veteran who had been captured and held longer at a different location.

In sports, the situation is no different as these girls end up wasting millions of taxpayer money to sue a school to let them play a sport with boys and then turn around and sue them when they get injured. One example: "Tawana Hammond, her lawyer says, was just entering her senior year and was the fastest runner at Francis Scott Key High School, on the northwestern fringe of Baltimore's suburbs, when she tried out for the football team. Three years later, she is missing half her pancreas, has amassed what her mother says are medical bills exceeding $200,000. And she is suing the Carroll County Board of Education because, she contends, no one told her "of the potential risks of serious and disabling injury inherent in the sport," according to a lawsuit filed in the county's Circuit Court last week." This woman had the nerve to give such an argument as "'They don't tell the stories on TV,' said Peggy Hammond, Tawana's mother, in a brief telephone interview today from her daughter's Baltimore home. 'You hear about a football player getting a knee injury. They don't tell you about nearly dying.'" Well one of those reasons is because men just don't get as injured as women do playing sports and when they do, they don't blame the sport or company that provides it. Plenty of NFL players have been injured with out suing even when they could/should have. Additionally, this is just another example of not taking self-responsibility and making society pay for it. While some of these cases get thrown out by the judge, it doesn't change the tax money already spent on it's failed pursuits. Also, these girls sue for improper equipment despite the fact that the equipment is bought in bulk and there were never enough women who wanted to play these sports before, to order special equipment for them. Ironically enough, with all of the suing to "be allowed" to play there are also girls who sue for being "forced to play".

So we've seen how much girls struggle when they try to join the boys in sports. What about when boys want to join the girls in sports? When the exact same scenario occurs with a boy suing to join a girls team, how does society respond? They ban that team from competition because 1 boy is too much of an advantage in an all-girls league as it creates a "competitive imbalance". As one parent of a competing team put it, "It's a girls' sport and we played them in the last game and he's a goal tender - it's a key position. It made a difference in the game." One argument against the boys playing on the girls team was actually that it "sets a bad example for girls". "What is this teaching our girls? ... It's okay to break the rules?" asked one mother. Apparently no one thought girls were breaking the rules when they tried to play with the boys. Eventually though, "society" wins and gets the boy to quit the team so the girls won't have to miss out on the play-offs. After all, girls shouldn't be denied, right?

No comments:

Post a Comment