Lazs, why should the woman not be near the combat zone?
Because she is a woman? What part of her anatomy makes her unable to fiunction well as a soldier? She is as capable as any man in doing most tasks; only when extreme physical strength is needed is where a woman may come in short. Then again, I know of women that are stronger than me.
And in a survival situation, women are better off than men. Bigger fat reserves and less muscles means less need for energy through food. More fat means better insulation against heat and cold.
Ah, she might get raped if captured. Men can get sodomized with broomsticks, so I don't see how that is different. And men can be shot, too, just as women. Or blown to pieces.
There are enough women in extreme or adventure sports to show that they have the courage. And I've seen enough regular fist fights downtown to know that some women can be as aggressive as men, despite having less testosterone.
I realize that this is one of the last domains where a man can be a man. And I know that one of the gendr roles of a man supposedly is to be the strong protector. But the real reason why women aren't integrated into the armed forces (hell, here they don't even have to do anything with regards to conscriptiion; not even civilian duties or anything, they're let off the hook alltogether) is because it is a cultural thing, not because of something physiological or mental. It's the old school and a mind meme that propogates itself through culture.
Maybe I am wrong. Show me why women shouldn't be in armed forces. I can prolly show you reasons why men shouldn't
.
So, try to get over the macho thing and look at the practicalities involved, and then give me a compelling reason. Possibility or higher likelihood of rape if captured isn't one; getting killed is worse. PMS is also a very weak argument, because women can function also in this time of the cyclus, and invariably it also comes down to just how severe that issue is, which is individual for each woman. What else is there? Pregnancy. Can be avoided and/or a contract can be created in which the woman agrees not to become pregnant/have an abortion if that happens (I know some of you cringe at that word, but if you do it, then think what you should do when you hear the word 'war', which is many times worse).
So the problem is men not being able to contain their urges and biological drives and therefore raping or sexually molesting their female comrades in arms. That I suppose is a very valid concern, especially in units where discipline is low or non existant. It sure is better than the 'modesty' argument which suggests separate facilities for men and women is too much of a hassle.
The biggest issue would be the potential tension caused by having females as armed buddies, for example aboard a nuclear submarine. But all in all, these are small cultural issues that can be overcome. It wasn't that long ago women weren't considered important/worthy/whatever to have the right to vote.
And no. Am not a feminist. In fact, I dislike feminists in general, because it shouldn't be an issue at all, and taking on that feminist shirt is like preparing for confrontation. I just try to look at it rationally and logically, and despite me having an almost instinctual feeling that women should not be soldiers, I must say that there ´logically aren't any real reasons why they shouldn't. Sure, there are obstacles, but none that cannot be overcome. As the last two hundred years have shown, gender roles have dramatically changed. And will continue to do so.
Hah, soon some special forces tough guy macho SEAL dude will get his bellybutton kicked by an equally macho SEAL GIRL.
'A girl kicked your arse! Hahahahaha!'. 'A girl killed you in a war! hahahahaha!'. Seems to be the issue here.
