Quote: (08-17-2015 02:50 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:
@Male brain
Could you point to any sources specifically about kurdish women soldiers being detrimental? All the news and sources that I know of out there that I know are praising them as the 2nd coming of the amazons.
I think part of the point, and what Male Brain might be getting at, is that putting women in combat is really the final sign of a dying civilization. The point, historically, is that men are expendable and an individual woman is far more valuable to the longevity of a given society than any individual man. In a healthy society, then, women are at home having babies, producing strong children who grow up to be the future warriors and mothers of that society. A single woman can produce 5-10 (or more) babies over the course of her lifetime, making a net gain for a society. A single man cannot 'produce' any additional lives, all he can offer is better genes than some other men, and probably less good genes than others. Given that every single excellent warrior who survived a conflict could impregnate multiple cave hunnies, there was no need to stress too much over the loss of any single man, regardless of his prowess (at least not from a societal continuation perspective).
Because of this, any society that needs to put women into battle has failed on multiple levels: Firstly it is not producing enough males to protect that society from aggressors, secondly it is fielding a second rate military due to the reduced physical standards, and thirdly (most importantly), it is placing the machines for its survival, women, in a position where they are not having babies during their most fertile years, AND losing them as casualties when they cannot afford for a single one to be killed without reproducing.
Men are replaceable in a healthy society, women are not. Once women are in combat (unless it is some seige situation/niche conflict), your society is doomed.