I am not sure what you mean by a "decision made by a culture" here.
If you mean that there is a Natural Law that says not to put women in harms way, and that both practices are in violation of it, then that is a plausible position.
But, your original comparison seemed to imply that there is not a more serious violation of Natural Law in using the reluctance of an enemy to hurt innocent civilians on either side as a weakness to be exploited. I hope you are not really meaning to imply that?
we would be putting women in front to protect whoever is behind.
What you said:
a more serious violation of Natural Law in using the reluctance of an enemy to hurt innocent civilians on either side as a weakness to be exploited.
You could make the case that, as a military doctrine, having babies in strollers as your shock troops, with which you seek to make the enemy pause, paralyzed by his conscience as you shoot him, is worse than presenting the enemy with what I would term "female human shields with weapons," at whom the enemy is free to shoot.
What I'm saying is that they're both human shields. With the strollers, you're trying to make him stop shooting to save your butt. With the GI Janes, you're letting him shoot at the girls, to reduce your chances of getting shot.
The moral culpability differs in degree, because in the first case, we're manipulating any good conscience the enemy possesses. But within our own society, the crime is the same. It's offering virgins to the dragon. It's cowardly and evil to take the things that God gave us to protect, and throw them before the enemy.