|
I DO think that women can be just as effective in combat, but not in western armies.
We've crippled ourselves with the sexually based roles in our society.
Women have served with distinction in many wars and national armies, yes, even in combat.
Has no-one heard of the mythological Amazons?
Seeing as most of the objections are based on sexual tensions arising, I'd say the fault is more of the inadequacy of the American public to deal with sexual freedom as a whole. (I use USA because it seems the discussion is revolving around women in YOUR armies.)
My other point of contention is to ask why women fel the need to be permitted in combat. Why feel the need to prove yourself equal to men in one of the most base acts we can commit. No, I'm not aying that those who fight are base, but that the act of war is undesirable, although sometimes unavoidable.
I can see it being a case of wanting the chance simply because it's denied to you, but would expect enlistment number not to rocket up if the combat restrictions were lifted.
And if they were lifted, I would sincerely expect to see a single qualifying standard. Purely for their survival. If troops have to run distance x in time y to evade an enemy and it's over the basic entrance requirement for the women, it'll look awful bad if only the men return.
Bullets, bombs and Death are not sexually biased and won't hold women to a lower bar.
|