PHILOSOPHICAL SPEED RUN | feat. Education & Warfare? (Also women) [Do I seem like a YouTuber?] {Good} (I'm sorry, I'm tired and hungry, sue me. Actually, don't, 'cause I'm broke)
So, one of the main parts of Book V is the structure of marriage. Well, from the looks of it, there doesn't seem to be any. Since the "best" are trained and educated together, separated from the "lesser," the men and women are allowed to... "fulfill their erotic needs(?)" however they please. However, there is no status of wife or husband, nor are children the children of their actual parents, but simply children "of the city." The nursing of the infants are done so that the child gains as little a bond with any mother as possible, because "it's bad for people to have any possessions belonging to themselves only. The list of conceptually logical, yet inherently reprehensible suggestions goes on...
Those suggestions clearly show what my thoughts of them are, but there are other suggestions that I believe I may have to go into more detail to defend my stance on, as a general statement is probably not adequate, nor would it be wise or gentle to put it in a small statement of simple terms. While I do accept the availability for women to participate in the military, I do not think it would be wise for them to be included as much or necessarily in the same positions as men, simply for the purpose of having an "equal representation" of women in the military just by having an equal number.
I believe that it is foolish for the military to have lower standards for acceptance into the military than the men. This is not a job that is simply "do it and then go home." The military is where you sign up to say "I am more than willing to fight, and if needs be, die for my country to be safe, or possibly for the benefit of whoever the leader deems worthy to protect." The military is a place where you need to learn how to survive and complete your objective.
I believe there are women, lots of them, that can meet the same requirements as men in the military. I am certain of that fact. However, the standards are lower, simply for the greater availability for women. Not many seem to realize this puts military women at a greater risk, as they are not held to the same standard, so may actually not be as strong as their male counterparts. Besides this, they are at greater risk even with the same standards in a firefight, because while a male may be tortured or whatnot when captured, the enemy may act horrendously to the women.
An a sidenote, women in all actuality can be a distraction form the task at hand, especially in war, as adrenaline is pumping and the body is going into overdrive, along with the semi-instinctual idea of protecting the female, whether or not they need it, which places the male at greater risk because he is thinking a little less about himself, which is pretty much a necessity in a survival encounter.
None of this is to be degrading at all toward women, it simply is how I have understood the world at this point.
If I misinterpreted the text in my first paragraph, I'm open to corrections; and I welcome interaction on other matters, in a sensible and kind manner.
-- Isaac S. Wilson
PostScript: I left comments on the posts of Eliza and Sydney
Those suggestions clearly show what my thoughts of them are, but there are other suggestions that I believe I may have to go into more detail to defend my stance on, as a general statement is probably not adequate, nor would it be wise or gentle to put it in a small statement of simple terms. While I do accept the availability for women to participate in the military, I do not think it would be wise for them to be included as much or necessarily in the same positions as men, simply for the purpose of having an "equal representation" of women in the military just by having an equal number.
I believe that it is foolish for the military to have lower standards for acceptance into the military than the men. This is not a job that is simply "do it and then go home." The military is where you sign up to say "I am more than willing to fight, and if needs be, die for my country to be safe, or possibly for the benefit of whoever the leader deems worthy to protect." The military is a place where you need to learn how to survive and complete your objective.
I believe there are women, lots of them, that can meet the same requirements as men in the military. I am certain of that fact. However, the standards are lower, simply for the greater availability for women. Not many seem to realize this puts military women at a greater risk, as they are not held to the same standard, so may actually not be as strong as their male counterparts. Besides this, they are at greater risk even with the same standards in a firefight, because while a male may be tortured or whatnot when captured, the enemy may act horrendously to the women.
An a sidenote, women in all actuality can be a distraction form the task at hand, especially in war, as adrenaline is pumping and the body is going into overdrive, along with the semi-instinctual idea of protecting the female, whether or not they need it, which places the male at greater risk because he is thinking a little less about himself, which is pretty much a necessity in a survival encounter.
None of this is to be degrading at all toward women, it simply is how I have understood the world at this point.
If I misinterpreted the text in my first paragraph, I'm open to corrections; and I welcome interaction on other matters, in a sensible and kind manner.
-- Isaac S. Wilson
PostScript: I left comments on the posts of Eliza and Sydney
Removing labels from a covenantal relationship and sexual bond that should only be found in that kind of relationship just turns people into baby making factories rather than actual people who want to create something special within a family. Plato had this part very wrong in the real world, as he sought to build this just city he lost sense of truest humanity.
ReplyDelete- phillip
Delete