You're right. Poor phrasing. There is no 'have to'. We can only make decisions, and we should decide how far we're prepared to debase ourselves in no-win situations.
I would argue it isn't evolution at all. It's directed social engineering, which would snap back to the default biological position as soon as pressure is removed.
I think I can live with that
And ISIS represent the pinnacle of human evolution, do they?
Humans will stoop to anything given the right incentives. My point was that someone, somewhere, has to say: thus far and no further. Whether some violate that line in the sand doesn't negate the principle; if anything, it reinforces the need to draw that line.
The ROC army has never actually fought a hot war since WW2: just because those women are nominally in combat positions is a bit of a moot point if there's no actual combat going on.
Well, I agreed with you earlier that it's pointless to force someone to learn something they're incapable of or unwilling to do. Waste of time and money. I don't see anything inherently wrong with putting a bit of pressure on young people (men or women) to learn self-defence skills. I seriously considered joining up in my 20s before I got too old; not because I wanted to go swanning off defending, um, whatever it is the army defends these days, but for the same reason I like learning how to fix the plumbing. Might never need it, but I'll be glad of it if I do.
My beef is only with the idea of placing women (or people who look like women) on the front line during an actual war. If we can write (completely arbitrary) rules about chemical weapons into the Geneva accords, I don't see how this idea could be any more contentious.