binary solo said:
Clearly not. If men take fewer risks without women in the squad and take more risks when women are in the squad and in danger it's not biology that is driving the behaviour. It's the stupid hero, white knight complex. Call it a "protective instinct" for a euphemism if you like, but the origin is a culturally sexist attitude that women are in need of male protection. These guys aren't to blame for that affecting their decision-making, and indeed having a strong protective instinct is a good thing in general. But when you have to make life and death decisions on the battlefield every soldier needs to be seen as genderless in order to make the right decisions for the squad. If your thnking is being influenced by the fact that the soldier on your right is a woman and the soldier on the left is a man, and you are influenced by a subconscious belief that owmen need your protection more than men, then you are not making proper battlefield decisions. That's not an argument for keeping women off the battlefield, that is an argument for fundamentally changning the way we think. |
Or maybe women introduce more weak links in the squad and therefore cause the other squad members to take even more risks.
Sexual division of labour was not a random thing, it was required for survival.
