I've recently started my class "Culture and Armed Conflicts", which is already shaping out to be one hell of an interesting class. The lecture yesterday dealt with the role of women in warfare, specifically female combatants. The main issue was that they destroy the notion that women are instruments of peace while men are instruments of war. The fact that someone actually said that was a refreshing idea and a punch in the face of all feminazis. The examples of female combatants she presented all had personal reasons for fighting, while the men had political reasons. The lecturer alleged, though admitted she did not have any real evidence, that women in war can act on political motivations. Now, I know for a fact that women do have strong political beliefs, so politics doesn't seem like such an unlikely motive to me.
Supposedly, the men fighting alongside the female soldiers, as well as those who fought them, say that they are more cold-blooded and brutal than the male soldiers. The argument there is that they might be acting just as violently the male soldiers but the dichotomy between the idea of a loving nurturing woman and a merciless fighter makes them seem worse than they actually are. So if the idea of women being able to fight and kill as effectively as any man is so shocking, are phrases like "Hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn" meant in jest?
Towards the end of the lesson, the lecturer mentioned that women were not normally placed on the front lines but relegated to guard duty and other such things. One such example also highlighted the demonstrable cruelty that the female combatants were known for. Many of the women, often between the ages of 16 and 20, were in charge of shooting unarmed prisoners. One of the other teachers then asked rhetorically if killing helpless people is really "macho," suggesting it isn't as shocking for a woman to be an executioner as a front line soldier.
Personally, I don't consider female fighters to be so shocking, especially after witnessing and experiencing the swift ass kicking that women at the dojo can administer. As for cruelty, are people shocked by the people who commit the atrocities or the atrocities themselves? Now I suppose if I saw a soccer mom gunning down a row of people I'd be more shocked than if I saw a burly commando doing it, but that has more to do with social roles than gender. If violence and cruelty committed by females is more disturbing than male violence, then are movies like Kill Bill and Sin City banking on that shock for their success? Or is it the violence itself that is the main attraction, not the gender of the perpetrator?

I asked a Swede today if politics is something that one can discuss at any time with anyone or if there are rules of etiquette associated with the topic. She at first had difficulty explaining the parameters of the etiquette, saying it's not the first thing you would ask someone. I'm guessing it's roughly the same as in the US, which means the people I've been running into lately are just jerks. It's really annoying when you're ordering a pizza and the guy behind the counter asks "American eh? So do you like Bush?" Do I not get the pizza if he doesn't like my answer? I'm willing to have political conversations, just not with complete strangers and not when I'm ordering food. Time to bust out the CCCP shirt.