"Through the flower" means that you talk about something but not bluntly. Stupid example: Birds & Bees = Sexual intercourse. It basically means: You need to be old enough to get the actual meaning.
It's more worldliness than age, I would say. I'm sure there are some 11-year olds who understand what "retiring to the bedroll" really means.
Anyway re my original post: your party is being propositioned by a prostitute. That qualified as blunt in my book.
Oh no, the original games never made references to sex.
Now, would ye like to take a look at me diddies?
Oh god, I was wading through all this equality debate which I stumbled on by accident from the previously much more interesting discussion about romance-able single mothers in videos games only to stumble onto this gem that made me spit my tea out all over my computer screen.
Oh god, I was wading through all this equality debate which I stumbled on by accident from the previously much more interesting discussion about romance-able single mothers in videos games only to stumble onto this gem that made me spit my tea out all over my computer screen.
I too was interested in getting in on the single mother romance discussion, but as per the norm, people started throwing out stereotypes and other inflammatory comments which pissed off all the otherwise-reasonable folks.
What happens when her child is retrieved? She rides off into the sunset with child in tow.
That could be the games goal. And oh glob, I just realised: While he is not romanceable, Cernd is a single dad Oo After rescuing his child, he simply gives it to the druids. Ah, Baldur's Gate is full of horrible fathers ~
Rieltar, Bhaal, Keldorn, Cernd, Angelo ~ Just to name those I can spontaniously think of.
Bioware games are full of characters with 'daddy issues'. I actually did a detailed analysis about how every single character in Mass Effect is the result of or the cause of 'daddy issues'. Even the main plot-line is arguably a result of 'daddy issues'. AI's revolting against organics with the AI's being the children and organics the parents. Wrex killed his father, Grunt has fudged up memories from a father that cloned/created him, Legion and the Geth against Tali and the Quarians, Tali and her own father, Miranda and her father, Ashley and her father, Liara and her mother and father, Thane and Kolyat, Samara and her daughters, Jacob and his father, Mordin and his protege, Jack and her lack of a parental figure and childhood exploitation, Garrus even mentions in ME1 that the reason he joined C-Sec instead of being a Specter was do to his own 'daddy issues' though his problems seem much more normal and less overt or severe as the other crew members. EDI and Cerberus/Illusive Man. James is the only character in the series that never seems to mention his parents though he does speak about an uncle once if I remember correctly making him an exception to the others.
Hmmm, this is just a speculation, but maybe "daddy issues" are just more relatable than "mommy issues". I myself know tons of people in real life who have daddy issues (myself included) but only one or two persons with mommy issues. Maybe it has something to do with that mothers and her children are usually closer to each other than fathers and their children (since it's usually the mother who takes care of the children, especially in the early years). And since it's just natural for a writer to write about things they themselfs can undestand the best, we end up with a lot of characters who have daddy issues of some sort.
And the main plot of Baldur's Gate are daddy issues, too. Quite literally xD
(Also, @Reaper331, could you maybe formate your post so that it shows the stuff that I wrote actually as the stuff I wrote? Now it looks like you wrote it ^^' )
PS: Another thesis: Mother figures are traditionally allways depicted in a positive light in media exept from the trope where we have the "nagging old housedragon". But they usually love their children (which are usually sons) and their sons are depicted as classic losers. All for comedy purposes.
Sorry just need to outline something regarding women in the military, atleast from the British standpoint that i have had personal witness to, and that regardless of common opinion, social equality or any other factor being drawn into discussion. One of the leading reasons that female soldiers are generally kept off of the front lines is a psychological study conducted (i believe during the early nineties, you will have to forgive my vagueness as it was a considerable length of time ago that i read the study, or had any affiliation with the military period) that conclusively indicated that a male soldier was much more likely to abandon a position or task, or risk their own life (even in a pointless act of sacrifice) to rescue a female soldier over a male one, it also indicated that with soldiers serving within a civilian populace the same results were shown, although to a less extent with soldiers more likely to assist a female than a male, whether you conclude that it comes from social opinion and "conditioning" or from a biological imperative (possible as many subjects of the study were unaware of their separate reactions) you will surely agree that it posses a considerable risk to tactical procedure and endangers operations as a whole, so until an adequate method of preventing such behaviour can be implemented i would assume that as a rule inequality in military roles amongst the gender's will continue.
Well, I am not all to familiar with the rating overseas. I just always got the impression that anything bedroom related is a big no no in north america when it comes to ratings.
You should give Mass Effect 2 a play through and let us know what you think, haha.
Sorry just need to outline something regarding women in the military, atleast from the British standpoint that i have had personal witness to, and that regardless of common opinion, social equality or any other factor being drawn into discussion.
It's cultural. Lots of countries have had women serving on the front lines, both historically and in modern times. The Soviet Union, to name one very notable example, had hundreds of thousands of females in combat positions during World War II, including tank gunners, machine gunners and snipers (as well as medics and nurses). You may be aware that the Soviet Union won World War II, defeating the vast majority of the German military by themselves (90% of German forces were on the Eastern Front). Over 200,000 Soviet women were decorated for combat in that conflict. Obviously the huge amount of females in their military didn't overly hamper them.
Also, it's pretty silly to go "Women shouldn't serve on the front lines because our men are too paternalistic and sexist to avoid flipping out if they get killed." Obviously the problem is with the culture that makes your men act that way. What would those self-same men do when fighting female soldiers from another country? Try to find other targets to shoot? Try to take them prisoner even when this isn't militarily advisable? They're the actual military liability here.
There are also notable advantages to having women in front-line combat units - for instance, in the current occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, female soldiers have had notable successes in being able to talk with female civilians who clam up around male soldiers, and search them without the civilians (male and female) reacting badly.
You may be aware that the Soviet Union won World War II, defeating the vast majority of the German military by themselves (90% of German forces were on the Eastern Front).
By themselves, no. There were still other fronts that Germany had to fight on simultaneously. But more importantly, the allies, namely the US, fed massive amounts of resources into the USSR. Germany had to fend for itself, with it's tradelines and manufacturing constantly disrupted by the allies. Not to mention that logistically, they were far into enemy territory for much of the critical fighting.
It's not a great example using the USSR in WW2 for women's effectiveness in combat, their care factor for human life was zero. Just look at the military casualties, the USSR suffered military deaths that dwarfed any other nation, Germany included.
But I feel myself being sucked back into the debate lol, so I'll stop at that
As I said, "the vast majority by themselves". The fighting on other fronts was an irrelevant sideshow compared to the Eastern Front. That may hurt the ego of Americans/Canadians/Brits/etc, but simple numbers tell the story. Russia beat Germany. And the United States beat Japan. In both cases, there were other combatants, but their contributions were relatively minor.
And yes, they did take horrific casualties, of both genders. But they still won. And women acquitted themselves just fine. If Britain's men can't handle themselves around women in combat, the problem doesn't lie with women. Nor is it some sort of throw-up-your-hands "natural" problem that can't be overcome, any more than units of mixed ethnic/racial backgrounds were (and they were once considered unthinkable, I might add).
As I said, "the vast majority by themselves". The fighting on other fronts was an irrelevant sideshow compared to the Eastern Front. That may hurt the ego of Americans/Canadians/Brits/etc, but simple numbers tell the story. Russia beat Germany. And the United States beat Japan. In both cases, there were other combatants, but their contributions were relatively minor.
a) "other fronts were an irrelevent sideshow" is not even close to being correct. Without the allies, the USSR very likely would've lost
b) the US did not beat the japanese by themselves. Much like the european theatre, there were 2 major fronts, and you just totally ignored the chinese front, which sapped massive manpower and resources from japan
And yes, they did take horrific casualties, of both genders. But they still won.
The military force with frontline women in it had the worst ratio for military casualties and this somehow supports your point? Even though I don't think that that was the cause for the large USSR losses. Major causes being the purge that occured in the military just prior to the opening of the eastern front, the poor industrial capacity of the USSR (initially) and the general disregard for human life held by the soviet leadership
If Britain's men can't handle themselves around women in combat, the problem doesn't lie with women. Nor is it some sort of throw-up-your-hands "natural" problem that can't be overcome, any more than units of mixed ethnic/racial backgrounds were (and they were once considered unthinkable, I might add).
Again, not correct. 2 of the largest empires the world has ever seen massively utilised irregulars drawn from populations not of the parent nation; British Empire & Roman Empire. I can't think of a major war where there weren't mixed ethnic/racial fighter's involved
a) "other fronts were an irrelevent sideshow" is not even close to being correct. Without the allies, the USSR very likely would've lost
No, militarily the other fronts were indeed a sideshow, and them not existing would not have stopped the Soviets from winning. Lend-lease was important (whether it was essential or not is very hotly debated and I wouldn't dare wade into it), but that doesn't change the fact Russia beat Germany militarily almost by themselves, comprehensively defeating the vast majority of the Wehrmacht. If the Western allies never invaded Europe, then the USSR would just have ended up with all of Europe rather than half of it.
b) the US did not beat the japanese by themselves. Much like the european theatre, there were 2 major fronts, and you just totally ignored the chinese front, which sapped massive manpower and resources from japan
Didn't ignore it - I said it was a sideshow. It was. The US would have crushed Japan in a war regardless of what was going on in China. They dwarfed them economically and militarily, were impregnable strategically, and the Japanese never had a chance of comprehensively defeating them. The British fought the Japanese in Burma, too, but that didn't make the Burmese theatre important to the overall course of the war. Win in China, lose in China, stalemate in China, Japan still loses to the US.
The military force with frontline women in it had the worst ratio for military casualties and this somehow supports your point? Even though I don't think that that was the cause for the large USSR losses.
Since even you admit that's not a relevant point, why bring it up? Incidentally, the lopsided ratio of kills between German and Soviet forces was highest earlier in the war and came down to near parity by late in the war. The amount of women in the Soviet military grew over the course of the war, meaning that if you wanted to find a statistical correlation, then more women = better performance. Of course, that has nothing to do with it either, for the reasons you mentioned (amongst others).
Again, not correct. 2 of the largest empires the world has ever seen massively utilised irregulars drawn from populations not of the parent nation; British Empire & Roman Empire. I can't think of a major war where there weren't mixed ethnic/racial fighter's involved
Mixed-race units (that is not the same as using native troops under the command of British officers) were not historically common for the empire until the Victorian period (to the best of my knowledge and I might be incorrect; information is scanty compared to the preponderance on the US military), and the United States didn't desegregate army units until after World War II.
In any case, while the British were somewhat more progressive on that front, at the outbreak of World War I the 1914 British Manual of Military Law specifically excluded "negroes" and "mulattos" from becoming officers (despite this, the first black British officer was promoted in 1917). If you think it wouldn't have been considered unthinkable by many people to have such men commanding white soldiers, you're incorrect.
As for the Romans - honestly, the matter isn't comparable. Roman concepts of "ethnicity" are actually fairly alien to modern ones, particularly to the English-speaking world.
I know this is off-topic, so I'll refrain from replying further. To sum up and get back to the point: women have served in front-line combat positions in many countries in many parts of history. It is quite possible for them to fight alongside men without it harming "unit cohesion". Any difficulties Britain has in the matter are culturally British problems, and many other countries are far ahead of them on the matter (Denmark, for instance, has allowed women to serve in front-line combat roles since 1978).
No, militarily the other fronts were indeed a sideshow, and them not existing would not have stopped the Soviets from winning. Lend-lease was important (whether it was essential or not is very hotly debated and I wouldn't dare wade into it), but that doesn't change the fact Russia beat Germany militarily almost by themselves, comprehensively defeating the vast majority of the Wehrmacht. If the Western allies never invaded Europe, then the USSR would just have ended up with all of Europe rather than half of it.
Comprehensively? No, not at all. It was the single bloodiest conflict in human history. Russia's population was set back an estimated 45-50 million as a direct result of the massive losses sustained by its young child bearing demographics. A comprehensive victory was the Battle of France, at the beginning of world war 2, in which france lost 2,260,000 (killed or captured) compared with 160,000 on the german side.
Just no. If it was Nazi Germany without any conflict in other theatre's, I couldn't see soviet Russia taking over Europe, sorry. Inb4 you see post world war USSR versus US and can't imagine a world in which they weren't all powerful....oh
Didn't ignore it - I said it was a sideshow. It was. The US would have crushed Japan in a war regardless of what was going on in China. They dwarfed them economically and militarily, were impregnable strategically, and the Japanese never had a chance of comprehensively defeating them. The British fought the Japanese in Burma, too, but that didn't make the Burmese theatre important to the overall course of the war. Win in China, lose in China, stalemate in China, Japan still loses to the US.
In both instances, the eastern and pacific theatre, you totally ignore/relegate to a minor role the fact that both Japan and Germany had massive manpower and resources wrapped up in not only maintaining hostile territory, but also fighting other world powers. Hint hint, Britain was pre AND immediately post war a super power...how is it that a super power could be at war with germany since the start of conflict and have ZERO impact on the war? How can having millions of troops and resources tied up in china not have a massive impact on the japanese war effort in the pacific? I suggest you go read up about the second Sino-Japanese war. I suggest you go read up about naval warfare during WW2; in particular the atlantic (in which russia effectively had no impact). I suggest you go read up about the north africa campaign. I suggest you go read up about south east asia some more, and maybe realise just how critical these theatre's were to the Japanese and German war effort; hint hint, one of the resources they were being cut off from was fuel for their bloody tanks/ships/planes/trucks.
Since even you admit that's not a relevant point, why bring it up? Incidentally, the lopsided ratio of kills between German and Soviet forces was highest earlier in the war and came down to near parity by late in the war. The amount of women in the Soviet military grew over the course of the war, meaning that if you wanted to find a statistical correlation, then more women = better performance. Of course, that has nothing to do with it either, for the reasons you mentioned (amongst others).
LOL!! Oh aye, it was women coming into the fight that staved off the losses! haha Had nothing to do with the fact that the Russian army was finally becoming experienced, recovering from the purge that killed all it's old revoultionary red army officers. It had nothing to do with the fact that they were finally geared up industrially, finally supplying their units with weaponry, tanks and artillery. It had nothing to do with the fact that Germany had been fighting Britain since the start of the war, and it's tradelines and manufacturing were massively suffering. Do you even realise that the war was going on for years before the eastern front opened up? That Germany had been fighting on mutliple fronts for years? Nazi Germany versus Soviet Russia, without any other combatants, does not end in the USSR taking over Europe. Nazi Germany nearly defeated the USSR, and that's while fighting 2 other powers, one of them the largest empire that the world has even seen. Ask yourself this, if Britain was fighting on the side of Nazi Germany against the USSR, who wins? ...oh
Mixed-race units (that is not the same as using native troops under the command of British officers) were not historically common for the empire until the Victorian period (to the best of my knowledge and I might be incorrect; information is scanty compared to the preponderance on the US military), and the United States didn't desegregate army units until after World War II. In any case, while the British were somewhat more progressive on that front, at the outbreak of World War I the 1914 British Manual of Military Law specifically excluded "negroes" and "mulattos" from becoming officers (despite this, the first black British officer was promoted in 1917). If you think it wouldn't have been considered unthinkable by many people to have such men commanding white soldiers, you're incorrect.
As for the Romans - honestly, the matter isn't comparable. Roman concepts of "ethnicity" are actually fairly alien to modern ones, particularly to the English-speaking world.
...you're clutching at straws. You keep trying to change what you originally asserted. Throughout history, militaries have utilised mixed ethnic/racial soldiers; whether it be the persian empire, the roman empire, the british empire, or many other militaries in between. Don't select a few periods or select a few militaries and claim that they represent thousands of years of military history. The Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire lasted for a couple of thousand of years, utilising races/ethnic groups not native to Rome, the italian peninsula or the Greek city state of Constantinople (hang on, greek? Italian?). The British Empire definitely utilised colonial troops, ie native forces, as did most of the other colonial powers. Read up on colonial India or the Boer Wars, better yet, google 'colonial troops'.
Did you know that there are nations other than the US? That history is longer then post WW2 US? That there are 100s of ethnic/racial groups, not just african americans and anglo americans?
I know this is off-topic, so I'll refrain from replying further. To sum up and get back to the point: women have served in front-line combat positions in many countries in many parts of history. It is quite possible for them to fight alongside men without it harming "unit cohesion". Any difficulties Britain has in the matter are culturally British problems, and many other countries are far ahead of them on the matter (Denmark, for instance, has allowed women to serve in front-line combat roles since 1978).
They also have a small population, with relatively small and/or no involvement in major conflicts. Israel also utilise female soldiers, but they also have a small population, and are surrounded by millions of muslims who are openly hostile (whether justified or not). There is no denying that for thousands of years females have not featured in most militaries, whether that be beause of cultural or biological reasons. All I can say is that there are indeed biological traits that seperate a female and a male that generally make them either larger/smaller or aggressive/caring. That in the english speaking world, gender equality is being (has been?) broken down, and perhaps it is indeed at a biological level that men are preferred over women in a frontline combat role. Is that wrong? Do you really want to be in the trenches lifting your limbless friend back to safety?
go watch some youtube footage on the syrian war and ask yourself if you could really see your mother/daughter/wife/sister stepping over a fallen comrade, out into machine gun fire, to let loose with an RPG. Maybe you're right, maybe it's just a cultural phenomenon that I recoil at the image
go watch some youtube footage on the syrian war and ask yourself if you could really see your mother/daughter/wife/sister stepping over a fallen comrade, out into machine gun fire, to let loose with an RPG. Maybe you're right, maybe it's just a cultural phenomenon that I recoil at the image
I think its a cultural thing that you don't recoil at the thought of *anybody* doing that regardless of biological sex, which is really the reaction people should be having.
I think its a cultural thing that you don't recoil at the thought of *anybody* doing that regardless of biological sex, which is really the reaction people should be having.
Oh aye, it's horrible stuff. But it would be a 100x worse to see women being blown apart
go watch some youtube footage on the syrian war and ask yourself if you could really see your mother/daughter/wife/sister stepping over a fallen comrade, out into machine gun fire, to let loose with an RPG. Maybe you're right, maybe it's just a cultural phenomenon that I recoil at the image
It's absolutely a cultural phenomenon. Think about the history you learned in school, which likely either glossed over the ways women have fought throughout history or presented them as isolated incidents rather than a regular occurrence. Think about how rarely movies, games, television, and novels present women on the battlefield as anything other than innocent bystanders or maybe medics. This is why representation is important: it's these stories which determine what is considered "normal" or a matter of course and what's considered "unrealistic" or "unthinkable."
Comments
Anyway re my original post: your party is being propositioned by a prostitute. That qualified as blunt in my book.
After rescuing his child, he simply gives it to the druids. Ah, Baldur's Gate is full of horrible fathers ~
Rieltar, Bhaal, Keldorn, Cernd, Angelo ~ Just to name those I can spontaniously think of.
Bioware games are full of characters with 'daddy issues'. I actually did a detailed analysis about how every single character in Mass Effect is the result of or the cause of 'daddy issues'. Even the main plot-line is arguably a result of 'daddy issues'. AI's revolting against organics with the AI's being the children and organics the parents. Wrex killed his father, Grunt has fudged up memories from a father that cloned/created him, Legion and the Geth against Tali and the Quarians, Tali and her own father, Miranda and her father, Ashley and her father, Liara and her mother and father, Thane and Kolyat, Samara and her daughters, Jacob and his father, Mordin and his protege, Jack and her lack of a parental figure and childhood exploitation, Garrus even mentions in ME1 that the reason he joined C-Sec instead of being a Specter was do to his own 'daddy issues' though his problems seem much more normal and less overt or severe as the other crew members. EDI and Cerberus/Illusive Man. James is the only character in the series that never seems to mention his parents though he does speak about an uncle once if I remember correctly making him an exception to the others.
I myself know tons of people in real life who have daddy issues (myself included) but only one or two persons with mommy issues.
Maybe it has something to do with that mothers and her children are usually closer to each other than fathers and their children (since it's usually the mother who takes care of the children, especially in the early years). And since it's just natural for a writer to write about things they themselfs can undestand the best, we end up with a lot of characters who have daddy issues of some sort.
And the main plot of Baldur's Gate are daddy issues, too. Quite literally xD
(Also, @Reaper331, could you maybe formate your post so that it shows the stuff that I wrote actually as the stuff I wrote? Now it looks like you wrote it ^^' )
PS:
Another thesis: Mother figures are traditionally allways depicted in a positive light in media exept from the trope where we have the "nagging old housedragon". But they usually love their children (which are usually sons) and their sons are depicted as classic losers. All for comedy purposes.
Counter example: Lois from Malcom in the Middle.
Also, it's pretty silly to go "Women shouldn't serve on the front lines because our men are too paternalistic and sexist to avoid flipping out if they get killed." Obviously the problem is with the culture that makes your men act that way. What would those self-same men do when fighting female soldiers from another country? Try to find other targets to shoot? Try to take them prisoner even when this isn't militarily advisable? They're the actual military liability here.
There are also notable advantages to having women in front-line combat units - for instance, in the current occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, female soldiers have had notable successes in being able to talk with female civilians who clam up around male soldiers, and search them without the civilians (male and female) reacting badly.
And yes, they did take horrific casualties, of both genders. But they still won. And women acquitted themselves just fine. If Britain's men can't handle themselves around women in combat, the problem doesn't lie with women. Nor is it some sort of throw-up-your-hands "natural" problem that can't be overcome, any more than units of mixed ethnic/racial backgrounds were (and they were once considered unthinkable, I might add).
b) the US did not beat the japanese by themselves. Much like the european theatre, there were 2 major fronts, and you just totally ignored the chinese front, which sapped massive manpower and resources from japan The military force with frontline women in it had the worst ratio for military casualties and this somehow supports your point? Even though I don't think that that was the cause for the large USSR losses. Major causes being the purge that occured in the military just prior to the opening of the eastern front, the poor industrial capacity of the USSR (initially) and the general disregard for human life held by the soviet leadership Again, not correct. 2 of the largest empires the world has ever seen massively utilised irregulars drawn from populations not of the parent nation; British Empire & Roman Empire. I can't think of a major war where there weren't mixed ethnic/racial fighter's involved
In any case, while the British were somewhat more progressive on that front, at the outbreak of World War I the 1914 British Manual of Military Law specifically excluded "negroes" and "mulattos" from becoming officers (despite this, the first black British officer was promoted in 1917). If you think it wouldn't have been considered unthinkable by many people to have such men commanding white soldiers, you're incorrect.
As for the Romans - honestly, the matter isn't comparable. Roman concepts of "ethnicity" are actually fairly alien to modern ones, particularly to the English-speaking world.
I know this is off-topic, so I'll refrain from replying further. To sum up and get back to the point: women have served in front-line combat positions in many countries in many parts of history. It is quite possible for them to fight alongside men without it harming "unit cohesion". Any difficulties Britain has in the matter are culturally British problems, and many other countries are far ahead of them on the matter (Denmark, for instance, has allowed women to serve in front-line combat roles since 1978).
*finds argument about WWII*
*backs away slowly*
Although, I'm certain that Germany would have won over Russia if they didn't split their army up.
Immediately makes unsourced statement.
:P
Just no. If it was Nazi Germany without any conflict in other theatre's, I couldn't see soviet Russia taking over Europe, sorry. Inb4 you see post world war USSR versus US and can't imagine a world in which they weren't all powerful....oh In both instances, the eastern and pacific theatre, you totally ignore/relegate to a minor role the fact that both Japan and Germany had massive manpower and resources wrapped up in not only maintaining hostile territory, but also fighting other world powers. Hint hint, Britain was pre AND immediately post war a super power...how is it that a super power could be at war with germany since the start of conflict and have ZERO impact on the war? How can having millions of troops and resources tied up in china not have a massive impact on the japanese war effort in the pacific?
I suggest you go read up about the second Sino-Japanese war. I suggest you go read up about naval warfare during WW2; in particular the atlantic (in which russia effectively had no impact). I suggest you go read up about the north africa campaign. I suggest you go read up about south east asia some more, and maybe realise just how critical these theatre's were to the Japanese and German war effort; hint hint, one of the resources they were being cut off from was fuel for their bloody tanks/ships/planes/trucks. LOL!! Oh aye, it was women coming into the fight that staved off the losses! haha Had nothing to do with the fact that the Russian army was finally becoming experienced, recovering from the purge that killed all it's old revoultionary red army officers. It had nothing to do with the fact that they were finally geared up industrially, finally supplying their units with weaponry, tanks and artillery. It had nothing to do with the fact that Germany had been fighting Britain since the start of the war, and it's tradelines and manufacturing were massively suffering. Do you even realise that the war was going on for years before the eastern front opened up? That Germany had been fighting on mutliple fronts for years?
Nazi Germany versus Soviet Russia, without any other combatants, does not end in the USSR taking over Europe. Nazi Germany nearly defeated the USSR, and that's while fighting 2 other powers, one of them the largest empire that the world has even seen. Ask yourself this, if Britain was fighting on the side of Nazi Germany against the USSR, who wins? ...oh ...you're clutching at straws. You keep trying to change what you originally asserted. Throughout history, militaries have utilised mixed ethnic/racial soldiers; whether it be the persian empire, the roman empire, the british empire, or many other militaries in between. Don't select a few periods or select a few militaries and claim that they represent thousands of years of military history. The Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire lasted for a couple of thousand of years, utilising races/ethnic groups not native to Rome, the italian peninsula or the Greek city state of Constantinople (hang on, greek? Italian?). The British Empire definitely utilised colonial troops, ie native forces, as did most of the other colonial powers. Read up on colonial India or the Boer Wars, better yet, google 'colonial troops'.
Did you know that there are nations other than the US? That history is longer then post WW2 US? That there are 100s of ethnic/racial groups, not just african americans and anglo americans? They also have a small population, with relatively small and/or no involvement in major conflicts. Israel also utilise female soldiers, but they also have a small population, and are surrounded by millions of muslims who are openly hostile (whether justified or not). There is no denying that for thousands of years females have not featured in most militaries, whether that be beause of cultural or biological reasons. All I can say is that there are indeed biological traits that seperate a female and a male that generally make them either larger/smaller or aggressive/caring. That in the english speaking world, gender equality is being (has been?) broken down, and perhaps it is indeed at a biological level that men are preferred over women in a frontline combat role. Is that wrong? Do you really want to be in the trenches lifting your limbless friend back to safety?