Uhm, that's not really related to the lack of women in their military, is it?

Also: Dude? How long has some nation or empire to exist and what does it have to achieve before you say that it did pretty well? :P

I would imagine anyone with women in their rank & file would say the same thing. In the U.S. anyway people are more upset by what 'might' happen rather than what 'will' happen. When the subject of gays in the military came up everyone screamed, "It won't work! It will be a disaster!" When it started to actually happen NOTHING happened; no one cared! I would imagine that if you are in a foxhole clinging to life under heavy bombardment, the gender of the person next to you is going to be the LAST THING ON YOUR MIND!

Reminds me of the (minor) case of the military band prerequisites. To get into the band, you'd have to run 2800 metres in the Cooper test (I think) in addition to knowing how to play an instrument and what have you, regardless of gender. This was reported to the tasa-arvovaltuutettu, a kind of civil servant whose job is to make sure gender equality is excercised where necessary. Apparently the people who filed the report failed to understand that equality means the same requirements apply to both genders.

Also, 250 pounds is not a ridiculous amount of weight. Even a fairly basic set of combat gear - weapons, ammunition, loaded combat harness, protective equipment, water, food and whatever else your specific task requires you to lug around, such as a radio, batteries, GPS, rangefinders or crew weapon parts - can easily tip the scale at 50 pounds and above. Add a fit man on top of that and you're golden.

My statement was not to be taken seriously; it was meant to be tongue in cheek.
As I said, I could have done better.

Thanks for the laugh! I haven't seen that in a while! Good stuff!

Would that really be such a bad thing? If the deaths of women in combat makes us think twice about entering combat in the first place, that might be a good thing in the long run. After they cancelled the draft in the 70's, there was really no consideration for the lives lost in combat, since all of those lives are volunteers. It seems to me regaining some of that back might make us a little less likely to glorify war and violence.

EDIT - Then again, the deaths of some American women at the hands of our "heathen enemies" might have the exact opposite effect and drive us further into a warlike state, out of some mis-directed sense of vengeance.

In the book (not movie) Starship Troopers all the pilots were women by law. Then again Heinlein was an imperialist and an A1 asshole so maybe we should only take that with a grain of salt.

It's this thing called patriarchy.

Closer to 500 years actually. The exact duration of the Empire is heavily debated though.
I personally think the Empire died when it lost Rome (so 500 years), but it could be argued that the Empire truly died after the fall of the Eastern Empire (so about 1500 years).

And no, the fall of the Empire had nothing to do with the gender of its armies. That would be ridiculous.

which is women and men can never work in the same environment. Dam our hormones. Those men have to careful so they do not get raped by any women in the barracks, yes.

...did anyone hack into OP's account? Fvcking upvoted.

God, you're purposefully ignorant, aren't you? The military is a unique kind of institution, combat is a unique kind of situation. I'm not even saying that women should be banned from any military in the world, I'm just saying that most people asking for equality in the military have no fucking idea what they are asking for and what implications it has.

it is only unique because you say so. Tradition, I guess? There is no reason why women who have the physic and mental abilities to be soldier should not be one. The same reasons as you give has been given why women can't be lumberjacks, wielders, play soccer, be in the police and so... but military is not like them, it is unique - just like they was...

Well, the Roman Kingdom was founded before 700 BC, so if you incorporate that time, and the time of the republic (500 years), you get more than 1000 years. Yes, technically, the 'Empire' only lasted 500 years, but Rome as a state lasted much longer.