Which is what I am against.

These aren't separate issues, by solving one, you get closer to solving others. The moment woment are treated equally to men, gay rights will be easier to accept as it doesn't matter whether you are male or female. And common concept of women being unable to fight in army is adding to gender inequality issue.
Well perhaps it comes from a guy who dreams of a world where only he alone will be able to restore the human race with women of his choosing, for all males will die in war :-P

And dolphins.

Good reply!

:>

But anyway about the topic...

I have no problem with a woman in the army aslong as they meet the same requirements as the men.
As the example someone said above about carrying 250pound man. If i was in the army would i want to be in the same group as a woman if she cant carry/drag me away if i get wounded? Who would want to be in a group where they refuse to do that? I would not (note im not saying ALL women are like that).

But like i said aslong as they dont lower the requirements i have no problem if its a man or woman.

But like the person i quoted said... Best case would be if we did not need a army in the first place :)

It not fun, that's for sure. We used to do stuff like this as "partner assisted" exersices. We would go for a 5-6 mile run with another person and we would switch off who got carried every half mile. One time I got partnered up with a guy who was about 265lbs to my 140 at the time. He was also about a foot taller than me so that made it even more awkward. As to women in combat you must also factor in hygiene in battlefield conditions. For a guy to sit in a fox hole for six months without a shower it is unpleasant, for a woman it can cause certain feminine issues that would take them off the line. When we did training manuvers the guys would stay out in the field for the duration but the women would get picked up and taken back to the barracks for showers. Somewhere there was a regulation requiring they be given the opportunity every 3 days. Men and women are different in a lot of ways so there is a biological limit to the amount of equality that anyone should reasonably expect.

Real Life. It was on the news a few days ago (maybe a week)

Now that is jolly. :3

No exceptions should be made for women where men don't have them. If they want equality, then that's exactly what they should get.
But shit is holding 250 pounds on your back while running hard. I remember I had to do something like that in football, we were being punished for losing. I've always had back problems, and couldn't do it.

An identical argument arose in Belgium some 20 years ago when the state police would not allow women within their ranks. So after a lot of pressure, women were allowed in the ranks but turns out that almost none could pass the exam (written and physical). In practice, this meant a lot of funds had to be spent on allowing time for these exams, for training (since you would get free training by the police before you could take the exam) and a lot of wasted time and with no pay-off. And what did they do? They lowered the bar. Except because of European law, they couldn't lower the bar for just the women - so the bar for the men got lowered too which meant less qualified males being allowed in.

Bottom line: screw the whole argument. Equality should be true equality. Can't meet the standards? Tough luck, move on, find another job. Don't whine, don't cry, suck it up. THAT is equality. It's not because you have breasts that you can demand to be let into a job and claim the bar is too high for women on the whole. If the bar is too high, go bitch at nature for making genders have different weaknesses and strengths. It's another thing when you realise that you can't find enough people that meet the standards - as long as the standards remain high enough, that's fine. But to simply lower the standard because of some wrongly perceived "sexism"? Oh, please!

Personally I dont have any objection to women in combat, but then I have never been in combat or anywhere near it either. There is a huge psychological aspect to this beyond just the physiological requirements. People die in combat. Hard enough to have your friend eviscerated, how would it be to watch Mary Jane 'Girl Next Door' lose her lower half? That, which in the mind of many young men, is the point of the protection you provide. Rhetorical question for sake of argument.

While I am not purporting this argument per say, personally I dont feel there should be a restriction, to boil this down to "if she can carry dead weight, let her in" is a massive simplification of the issue and a complete disregard for morale considerations.

I have no issue against women in army or any other field - as long as they meet the same requirements. Its really up to the individual.

However, in RL I have once seen certain woman qualifying to peacekeeping forces specialist officer position despite failing the physical tests. She was seriously overweight and didnt manage running test, which should have dropped her off immediately - but no. More than a few guys were thrown out though.

Well, this didnt affect me in anyway - but I would be seriously worried, if I had to do -any kind of dangerous work- with person, who isnt up to the qualifications.

Am I the only one who keep thinking about God Emperor of Dune each time this debate comes up?

No but thanks to you I'm now thinking about that movie.

There goes my good mood. Thanks for nothing!

Sting! Yeah that was brilliant casting!!! Oh and lets make 90% of the movie inner-monologue; that won't be too confusing or boring!

It's another reason not to try to become a Marine, I suppose.