equality in the capacity to do violence?

The title for this comes from Andrea Dworkin's book "Scapegoat" where on page 126 she contemplates women's relationship to violence, arguing
"equality may be found in the capacity to do violence if not in the doing itself. Women appear to experience social coercion into so-called good behavior and want to break those bonds by so-called bad, or brazenly sexual behavior; but this is not an either/or system"
I bring this up here with regard to a recent article titled "A uterus is no substitute for a conscience" whose author I cannot remember though the title alone kept me thinking, of course it isn't. Why should it be?

I remember the argument against women in combat was chiefly two-fold:
First, that women would be more likely targets of sexual violence that "naturally" occurs during war (i.e. rape and assualt) and second, that women, because they are "naturally more nurturing" would make lousy killers, thus lousy soldiers who by the nature of war, must at the very least be ready, willing and able to kill. So bring this argument up to the present torturing of Iraqi prisoners by female soldiers. Both men and women argue that these incidents are isolated acts carried out by a few "sick" individuals (this is also the official stance of the military) and yet I can't help but wonder if the actions of these female soldiers was at least in some small part inspired by their desire to be seen as one of the boys, equally capable, ready and willing to participate in the "usual business of war." Think about it.
In Iraq alone you have the aforementioned argument (however stupid it sounds): you have the woman as target in Jessica Lynch, now the celebrated iconic "soldier/hero" nevertheless rescued by a man but you also have the female torturers who turn the idea of the naturally nurturing thus less violent woman on its head: the women who went out of their way to prove their toughness and their willingness to "obey orders" and brutalize the enemy. Either way, neocons are trying desperately to use this as "proof positive" that women should not be in the military thus averting our collective gaze from the question that needs to be asked: why are such images and stories shocking? Is it because torture and sexual objectification is shocking to see (though considered, despite the Geneva convention, the usual business of war)or is it because it disturbs us to think of or witness women as torturers and voyeurs? Torture and sexual objectification is nothing new in war or pornography for that matter. Why should atrocities committed by women (whether it be killing ex-boyfriends out of "jealous rage" or abusive husbands out of "self-protection", their children, or torturing prisoners and killing as soldiers in war) be any more shocking than that committed by men in similar circumstances? Or to put it another way, when do we get to differentiate between murder, murder, and murder or torture as a crime against humanity and state sanctioned torture for the purposes of "interrogation" and the protection of "national security?"

Dworkin offers several stories of women's violence against women (female SS guards torturing and murdering women to the point of "shocking" their male collegues for example)and cites specific witness accounts of the violence perpetrated by women to be "worse than that of the male wardens" (129). Yet we do not get to the answer of why.
Dworkin suggests that this is women's attempt at becoming equal with men, of one-upping other women and even men through the convienent outlets of racist scapegoating. So, DOES violence offer women the opportunity to be at least at the time, perceived as equals to men? Should it? Can it? Why? Why not? Maybe we need to ask not if it does, but who gets to determine this,in what ways will the context vary, and why?

Sorry, this is a heavy issue I know, but these questions has been on my mind alot lately. Feel free to respond with any opinions or enlightenment. The purpose of this post is certainly not to dredge up or excuse the gross actions committed but to argue that the framing of the questions surrounding these issues has been manipulated yet again to avert our gaze and thus contemplation on the more pressing questions, those that if asked, could potentially undermine the "logic" of war itself.

peace!