Sheesh Killarney, at least TRY to make sense...

Killarney,

You are obviously a strong supporter of women and their rights, so, do you think that it is fair that women in Australia, given that they are physically weaker than men, should not be allowed some means of defending themselves?
Something that might give them a chance?

Is Mise

Some women favoured the war, some didn't, with passionate opinions on both sides. You may have heard of the School of Arts riot in Brisbane in 1917, in which a huge fight broke out between pro- and anti-conscription women. The police had to be brought in to break it up - twice.

The WWI white feather issue is vastly overblown. This is because the campaign was funded and organised by very well-connected members of the gentry in Britain and Australia and, because the establishment in both countries was fiercely pro-war, the campaign received a lot of publicity at the time and a central place in all historical accounts of the war in the decades since.

By contrast, women's considerable and active role in the WWI anti-war and anti-conscription movements is rarely acknowledged, even on the left. This is partly because women in war are rarely acknowledged, except as nurses and sock-knitters, and partly because peace and anti-war movements have been all but surgically removed from the official accounts of all wars throughout history.

In 1915, 1200 women from 12 different countries, including Australia, attended the International Congress of Women for a Permanent Peace held at The Hague in the Netherlands. There was also The Women's Peace Army, also established in 1915, which drew large numbers to their rallies, even though the War Precautions Act cracked down on all forms of anti-war activity.

----
As for your query re whether it's fair for women to carry a weapon for self-defence ... as the law stands, a woman can be convicted of assault, grievous bodily harm or murder if she uses a weapon to defend herself from a rapist. She can also be arrested for even carrying a weapon for self-defence.

So, no, it's definitely not fair. However, the law will never change, because men will never let it happen. Not only will they scream 'discrimination', men have an irrational fear of women rising up and killing them - good old retribution. (It comes out all the time in OLO gender threads.

you wont stop rape in war.

although I must say the Americans have done a
remarkable job in restraining their troops in recent wars
in their attempt to win hearts and minds, they were prepared
to jail their soldiers for this kind of thing.

This is only because of mobile cameras and satellites recording
everything.

Males must find a female who will agree to have their offspring.
Females dont have the same problem of getting males to mate with
them. Especially in time of war, where death is ever close,
soldiers may see this as a last opportunity to leave their
genetic mark on the world. Plus, it does help to secure
territorial control, population wise, even if the individual soldier dies.

And of course, there is just, plain selfish cruelty, by many males
when the rule of law is absent.

The law of nature dictates that the males must compete for the
females. And so it is. They grab any opportunity to do so.

CHERFUL

'you wont stop rape in war'

No. But men's impunity against ever being convicted of rape in war CAN be stopped, or at least minimised. It's rare for men to be tried for war rape, especially if they are on the winning side. In virtually all wars, rape victims are deliberately ignored, unless there is political mileage to be gained. For example, rape committed by Serbian soldiers in Bosnia received worldwide publicity and was vastly exaggerated, but rape committed by Bosnians against Serbian women officially 'never happened'.

Two US studies 11 years apart have shown that 1 in 3 college men say that they would rape if they were sure they'd get away with it. The main reason men rape in war is because there is a very high chance they'll get away with it. And soldiers continue to get away with rape, because soldiers are glorified as heroes in most countries.

Also, your justifications for rape as being all about men 'leaving their genetic mark on the world' before they die is poppycock. Do civilian rapists need to leave their genetic mark on the world too, in case they get run over by a bus the next day? Do men diagnosed with a terminal illness need to rush off and rape the nearest woman?

If rape were so evolutionarily 'correct', then why do women find the experience so catastrophically traumatic, living the rest of their lives with PTSD? Why don't they just beatifically lie back and be glad that some nice rapist is helping them to leave their genetic mark on the world?