muckles:
I don’t think there is a difference man or woman, it is horrific, I’ve worked with wounded soldiers from recent conflicts, and it’s quite obvious that what happened to them was horrific and that doesn’t include the ones affect just by what they saw, I can’t even begin to imagine what they saw, heard and had to deal with and often many of them were barely out of school.And in modern warfare, injuries are not just restricted to combatants, WWII we had civilians (young, old, men, women and children) getting bombed and in the occupied countries they were tortured and killed merely on the suspension of working for the resistance and then getting caught up in the fighting for the liberation of Europe. In recent times there have been no boundaries as to who gets caught in an act of terrorism suffering horrendous injuries or who dies in the war zones.
As for feminists, well if they want equality, that means they should also accept equal risks as men have to accept.
A random civilian casualty caught up in total war/terrorism isn’t really the same thing as conscription of women to face a soldier’s death in a deliberate act of war.Unless of course the government makes the clear statement that women will not be considered for conscription,for front line war service,in any potential future state of emergency requiring the imposition of it.
Which leaves the obvious question related to the sinking ship scenario.Would you stand back to provide a woman with the time to board a life boat on a fast sinking ship thereby probably removing your own chance or would you view that situation as equal rights and survival of the strongest ?.Or the de Caprio scenario of the giving up your place on the floating wreckage on the basis of a similar instinctive protective view of women.While I obviously see keeping women out of the military combat environment as being no different.