[Aussiebabe]

I don't how this is exactly on topic, but my husband (ex-military) tells me frequently that our military should only allow women to join --he believes that with an all-women only military, Australia could easily take over the world. ( I am not listening that closely, but it has something to do how "mean" women can be).

[camle]

if you study ancient history, you'll know why women were disuaded from combat - and it ain't why you think.

[BibChr]

I am not listening that closely....

Typical.

(c;

[RepoGirl]

Your comment actually reminds me of something my Dad told me once. As a 90 year old who'd worked a few years in the Texas oil fields, he's been in a lot of seedy bars and road houses and has seen (and been in) a lot of brawls and fights. Now here's the tricky part that might get people yelling at me, let me see if I can paraphrase him correctly: Men fight more often, and sometimes its sort of half hearted and full of bluster and posture.

However, the scariest fight he'd ever seen was in New York City. This was back sometime in the 50s, and he was working in the Bronx. He passed a vacant lot where some girls were having a cat fight and he said it was the most blood thirsty, viceous thing he'd ever seen. These women weren't posturing, they were going for the throat.

His thesis being that men, being the hunter gatherer- caretakers, can almost fight for sport. Whereas, since women are hardwired to be nurturing care givers, it takes extreme circumstances to motivate women into a state of violence--so when they do fight, they go for the kill.

Granted, he's from a different generation and has a lot of disdain (as do I, actually) for the women's movement, but I wonder if there's actually some truth to his observation.

I know from personal experience, I'm a she-wolf when it comes to protecting my little girl (as are most Moms, I think--save for the crazy ones.)

[television is just wrong]

He is right. I have very few women friends, because they are so darn hard to get along with. Men are a lot more logical, and enjoyable as well.

Some of the women I have met in my lifetime are hideous and I don't know how some men can put up with them.

[Cacique]

The natural reason for not having women in combat is quite simple. It has to do with nature and biology. One man can impregnate 100 women easily but it does not work in reverse. A society survives if it's population is able to expand. The fact of the matter is that women posses the womb and men do not. We could lose 90% of our male population and still have enough of a gene pool among the remaining 10% to progress, polygamy of course would have to be adopted. But even there it would be difficult to recover. In the war of the Triple Alliance in 1865 Paraguay lost most of it's male population. its prewar population of approximately 525,000 was reduced to about 221,000 in 1871, of which only about 28,000 were men. Paraguay has never recovered. However, if we lost 90% of our female population we would be at an even worse disadvatage. There is always the Roman solution and seek out Sabine women.

There is a reason why civilized societies frown on the idea of killing women and children. It is also no accident that Palestinians and muslims specifically target women and children as they view them as the future potential of their enemies.

We should be opposed to women in combat for that very reason. Yes they may be quite capable in combat, but their loss is much greater than that individual.