comment: >
  
  Right? Not like women in combat is some weird modern invention. “Woman King” just reminded the world the all female Agojie were not only capable, but fearsome and highly effective warriors. Israel mandates a minimum of 24 months of service from female citizens. My tiny Jewish friend from Israel served and knows Krav Maga and how to use an uzi. There’s historical evidence of female Vikings. There’s the legend of the Amazon’s. There are plenty of examples where women can be trained to be a capable military force and commanders with the side benefit that they don’t sexually assault the population they’re deployed to. 
  So yeah, I’m impressed India permits women to serve in the military, has an all female contingent, and has deployed them to an active combat zone. I don’t view that as a bad idea.
context: This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  In 2007, India became the first country to deploy an all-women contingent to a UN peacekeeping mission.
  India is set to deploy a platoon of Women Peacekeepers in Sudan's Abyei region today as part of the Indian Battalion in the United Nations Interim Security Force.
  This will be India's largest single unit of women Peacekeepers in a UN Mission since it deployed the first-ever all-women contingent in Liberia in 2007, stated the Permanent Mission of India to the UN press release.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: peacekeeping^#1 Indian^#2 Women^#3 mission^#4 Abyei^#5 >
  
  Sending them to Sudan? Best of luck. >
  
  Armed women though. >
  
  Operation Pink Shield >
  
  I can get behind that >
  
  Reddit has existed for a decade and the knee jerk reaction for seeing anything about women is still, “waman bad!”