panda-pistols asked: The problem with women serving on the front lines is not that they are incapable of doing so, they are. The prime example of this was during the Siege of Leningrad where the majority of women fought to prevent the Germans over running the city. However the Russians found that the units who had women serving in them had incredibly low moral and were unable to preform their duties well. You cannot ignore male instinct to protect women and that instinct well get men killed.

There is no “male instinct to protect women.” Men are socialized from birth to see women as weaker, more vulnerable, more emotional, and less capable. For some men, I suppose, this exhibits as “protectiveness,” but only in a condescending and paternalistic way. Often, it presents as jealousy and possessiveness, manifesting itself in abusive behavior.

In the US military, some 35% of female service members are raped. What “instinct” is that attributable? Sure doesn’t sound like “protectiveness.”

Additionally, the Siege of Leningrad was, you know, a siege that lasted 872 days. I don’t suppose that high casualties, constant bombardment by the Germans, starvation, and disease could have had anything to do with lower morale. Must have been the presence of women, right?

1. always-tete liked this
2. goestoeleven liked this
3. karmean liked this
4. scudmissile liked this
5. mquester liked this
6. buenasnachas liked this
7. obscureferences liked this
8. loveclaire liked this
9. gynocraticgrrl liked this
10. tamaraleach liked this
11. rebelwithoutaclaus liked this
12. greaterthanlapsed posted this