I've read a few post on here about women in the military and it clicked with other stuff I have read. With the rise of women demanding the right to take up Front line posts in the military a lot of discussion has been about their physical ability and psychological suitability for fighting in a war zone. I have not read so much about their reasons to want this.

Most of my information has been hearsay rather than studies conducted and was wondering if other TRP'rs could direct me to more substantial work that supports or critiques my theory which has been running around in my head:

So the theory is due to the lack of violence within modern western society many women are denied the opportunity to use physical prowess and warrior superiority in their sexual selection process. One way they use subconsciously is to be drawn to men who are naturally violent or risk takers within those confines (The bad boys that give them the tingles). Another way would be to position themselves as close to violence and warriors as possible, from the school yard and boxing rings where girls are always in the front row right thru to the battle field. In the past nursing was a way to accomplish this but today to be so close to the front line with a lower risk than actually fighting and its risk to their own well being and child bearing ability this is harder. This is due to the much more asymmetrical form of warfare practised by western powers. I have read anecdotal references to women throwing themselves at victorious soldiers from Vikings to Berlin 1945. Without trivialising the fact that undoubtedly rape did occur and does occur during warfare the fact these stories exists would support the theory that women deliberately put themselves as close to victorious warriors as they can in order to be impregnated by the victor whichever side they are on.

This also leads to the question, is this demand by modern western woman to be allowed on the battlefront a deliberate if subconscious effort by them to place themselves in a position where this may happen ? and most controversially of all, when their actions have a negative personal impact such as a reversal in war fortunes and they are impregnated by a warrior from the losing side could some of them reinterpret the conditions that led to coupling ?

I finish off with a hypothetical situation who's outcome would be pertinent to this theory. A woman is on the front line, all the soldiers are told to hold to the last in order to save their colleagues as they withdraw. The single woman is the last one in her trench alive. She knows her enemy are known to kill male prisoners but are also known to rape their captured female enemy's and sell them. Would she give up her life for the good of the ones retreating ?

It would be interesting to have any links to documents relating to the second world war where the Soviet Union had many female combatants which may shed light and disprove or prove my little theory.

Edit Clarification after some discussion

My theory alludes to a subconscious desire to be close to the action where mating choices can be more clearly defined and acted upon for them. I'm not saying other social and ideological imperatives play no part in their actions and cannot overcome or affect their choices. I am just examining it as part of the make up of the decision to demand access to the front line".