It's really simple. If a woman successfully meets all the requirements of a direct combat role, you don't deny her. For the ones that don't, nobody is telling you to kiss their asses, you can deny them. Yes, some women aren't capable of fulfilling direct combat roles, that doesn't mean you ban all of them. Some men aren't capable of such fulfillment either.

I'm aware that the "ban on women in combat" has recently been lifted, but there is still lingering ignorant resistance.

Thoughts?

Hasn't really been an issue for me since Chun-Li.

That we still have a long way to go until gender equality is widely accepted. Funny thing is that only after people finally accept equality of both genders and throw away their prejudices, they can start exploring gender inequalities in a proper manner (because, let's face it, males and females are quite simply different)

I present to you, women in war:

Let's Rock!

You're the last person I expected to be a crusader for gender equality. :P

Most people I see debating the other side seem to think once we allow women to have direct combat roles they will inevitably campaign to lower the bar to obtain those roles. There was a woman on the news the other day who said all they wanted was a fair shot, but when the other pundit told her you have to carry a 250 pound man on your shoulders for 3 minutes to be a marine she seemed to insist that shouldn't be required.

So there you go.

As long as the requirements are kept the same though I have no problem with women who qualify succeeding.

That would be tough! It's hard enough to lift someone, carrying them is another matter! 250 pounds is around 18 stone in english weight. Ridiculous amount.

Are we talking about real life women in combat, or videogame characters who show more skin the better the equipped armor is?

Yes, but it is so they can carry wounded soldiers. Same thing with firefighters, so they can carry people out of burning buildings. They should not change these requirements.

If women can meet them, awesome.

The ability to carry a fellow soldier can often be important. I wouldn't call it "ridiculous." That's probably just about what one weighs in all of his gear.

If she's suitable for combat and willing, then let her.

I do not understand the reluctance to let women fight, I really don't.

At the risk of hijacking the thread, shouldn't this kind of take a back seat to civil rights and gay rights? Women are not allowed to fight because of who they are, which is silly and obscene, but there are a lot more people who aren't allowed to simply live with freedoms most of us take for granted just because of who they are. Sounds a little more pressing than who should be allowed to blow shit up.

The problem is, very few women can meet the requirements, so they reduce them until they can.

Just to include all the people who use proper systems of measurement (yes, that was trolling I admit), 250 pounds is about 113,4 kilograms.

I'm totally against bringing women to the army, ... and men.