>I don’t think there’s anyone out there who can deny that there were some Russian women who were extremely effective as snipers during WW II. Some of them, such as Lyudmila Pavlichenko (”Lady Death”) were as deadly as they come.
I can. Only idiots believe Soviet propaganda. The fact that they never used female snipers again indicates it was a lie.
It wasn’t a lie. They did use women snipers, they also used women in tank crews, artillery crews, infantry unit medics, infantry unit radio operators, they used them as fighter and bomber pilots and crew members. The fact that they did not use them after WWII shows how desperate the Reds were during the War. After the war ended and the Red army demobilized, there was enough manpower to meet the military needs of the post war Soviet Army, so women were no longer assigned to these rolls.
False. The fact of female snipers is no lie. Was it "Soviet propaganda" when Deborah Samson enlisted in the Continental Army during the American Revolution, was wounded twice, and ultimately received a soldier's pension due to her honorable service?
And the fact that there were Soviet women snipers—who were effective at their job—can't be legitimately dismissed as "Soviet propaganda". The evidence is too strong.
The actions of these women are documented well enough, and if they were killed at higher rates, that doesn't change a thing. Nor does the fact that the Soviets didn't see the need to use women snipers again.
Joan of Arc led armies and fought. The French Resistance also had women who served in guerilla roles. That's combat, sir. Women serves as snipers in WW II, as infantry in the American Revolution, Kurdish women are right now fighting against ISIS, etc., and though their contributions may have been "minor", they have doubtless saved lives in numerous cases. I dare you to go and tell any of these brave and capable women that they aren't fit to be doing what they're doing.
So only idiots believe outdated male chauvinist propaganda.
Nobody is saying "women in combat" should be the norm. But becoming unhinged about the rare exceptions is ridiculous. In a world where men and women are supposed to be treated equally, when a woman wants to serve, and can meet the physical demands dictated by the parameters of her service, then let her. A woman has as much to lose as a man, so who are men to dictate whether they can fight or not?
I've read many anecdotes from male soldiers who were proud to have served alongside women, and who considered them indispensable to their units.
The days of hysterical dogma insisting that women can't fight are gone. If women want to fight, and can do their job, then let them fight. It'll obviously still be a rare thing, but men don't have a monopoly, and never did...