Then prove me wrong instead of asking me questions not related to anything I posted about. Only future history can prove you wrong. That's unfortunate because then it will be too late. We must depend on past history, and many are ignorant of it.
I asked three questions that cetainly were related to your posts.
1. Have you ever been in a war, that is to say, actually patroling, ambush sitting and firefighting?
You presume to judge that women are not in any more danger in war than at home in time of peace. To clarify your competance to judge, you will need to have experienced war.
2. When you drive or fly, are other drivers and flyers purposfully trying to kill you?
Accidents happen, flying along at 60+ mph in a ton and a half metal box has always had its dangers. Living on Earth is dangerous. The difference is, are intelligent, armed people purposefully trying to kill you. There is danger in accidents, but danger greater by order of magnitude when there is intention to harm.
3. Being married is a dangerous as being in armed conflict?
I'm still trying to figure this one out. You seem to be saying that if women can be married, they can be placed in combat. I think a clarification by you is called for here.
Your whole orientation seems to be that since domestic dangers to women exist as a result of just living on Earth and being human, we should be happy to increase the danger by placing them in more than they already face. This does not compute.
You didn't answer any of these questions, each of which relate specifically to what you are saying. So, let me ask another: why should we put women in armed conflict or even allow them to "volunteer", who are not physically or psychologically suited for it except for a vanishing tiny percentage, when there are far more than enough men, who are uniquely suited to it except for that same small percentage?
For what purpose?
Future history will prove me right.
Let's look for a second at the "women can't handle it physically" argument for one second.
Is there a shortened course for women in the triathlon?
The answer is of course, no there isn't.
How about the Marathon?
Again men and women run the same course, 26 miles if memory serves me, the last big marathon run was the London Marathon. The top male finisher finished in 2 hours 7 minutes in a literal sprint to the finish, The top female in 2 hours 15 minutes. That's a difference of only eight minutes over 26 miles, and yet there are those that believe women can't compete on a man's level and can't meet the same standards men in the military. Ten years ago a two hour fifteen minute time was a man's time, possibly even a world's record time for any man that could run that fast. That tells me that women have the potential to meet the standards we expect of men, given the chance or held to a higher standard.
It should be obvious to anyone with a mediocre knowledge of military equipment that I derive my nick from AH-1 type Cobra attack helicopters of the Marine Corps variety, so asking me if I served as a grunt is almost dumb. However I'll let it pass, instead I'll give you a link to the autoboigraphy of a woman that did all those things you ask me if I did.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/velazquez/velazquez.html Only she did them under the name Lieutenant Harry T. Buford before either of us were born. and she wasn't the only one either. Want to talk cannon fodder, which war coined that term? The one she fought in.
I don't presume to judge anything but the facts, this country can be a more dangerous place for women then this war has been. On my ride home tonight I saw proof of that as a young woman was pried from minivan, hopefully she survived the crash, but I know this much, mischance, karma, or fate found her. She didn't have a chance, the same can't be said of an armed female trained in the use of weapons, she stands a better chance survival then the woman in the minivan because she knows someone is out to kill her and she has something to fight back with.
And I was talking about spousal abuse not marriage, perhaps you have trouble seperating the two, one has to wonder if Laci Peterson had been able to defend herself would the results have been the same.