I honestly have no intention to join a combat role if I ever was given the choice. So I have no right to say whether they should or not. I think that if the women can pass all the same standards as a male than sure. That's what equality is, right? Yet some women think they can have that AND the special rights they had being women at the same time. That's not equality, that's just misandry. You either stay as a "women", or you become one of the "men", but with boobs and different private parts. That's my opinion.

Why not? I didn't know you were ISIS.

Excellent idea, those men fighting out there deserve good meals.

Believe it or not their are actually reasons that women have been restricted from serving in the military under a combat roll. The main one is actually hygienic. Combat arms guys tend to spend a lot of time out in the field. Sometimes weeks or months on end and often showers and such aren't a option. Women have different equipment in their pants and it can be very susceptible to infection if they cannot maintain proper hygiene and they could become seriously ill or even succumb to toxic shock. The second issue is the difference in physical attributes namely strength. You see in a firefight if we take a casualty I must be able to carry my battle buddy to safety if necessary meaning I could have to fireman carry a guy whose 200-300 lbs+ gear if necessary. Many women simply lack the physical prowess to do that. However that of course wouldn't be an issue if the women were required to meet the same Physical training requirements as men. Unfortunately however that's usually not how it goes. Usually they lower the requirements to accommodate females rather then requiring them to meet the same physical standards as men. If a woman can meet the standards and carry me for 4 miles then fine give her a shot. But they shouldn't lower the standards to accommodate her. The final issue is a tough one and I'm probably gonna catch flak for it but I say it because it's true, it's about fraternization and unit moral. We all know what happens between men in women. Now imagine that in a combat unit. Imagine the female is involved with one soldier but decides to move on to another guy within the unit. Don't you think their is going to be resentment, animosity and jealousy going on? How are you going to trust the man to your left and right with your life when there's all this resentment built up. What about crimes of passion in the war zone? It destroys unit morale and morale is one of the most important thing to maintain to keep the unit working like the well oiled machine it is. Not to sound like a misogynist either but there are a lot of loose women in the military. I'm not saying it to degrade women, but I am speaking from experience. Honestly I feel their behavior degrades women and not all of them are like that but it only takes one to cause some pretty major issues within a unit. On top of that military sexual assault is already a huge issue within the military and I don't see that getting any better by allowing women to go combat arms. Men in a combat situation get a combat high off of their own adrenaline and testosterone. Combat erections are a very real thing, I could easily foresee soldiers riding that combat high getting carried away and going to far. Especially when they are on a long deployment and there is only a handful of women around. I'm not justifying it but it's a very real danger these women may face. Now imagine what that would do to unit morale and efficiency. This is war, the unit has to be working at optimum efficiency at all times, and no amount morally politically correct justification can make up for the fact that if the unit isn't at its best it could cost lives. I'm sorry I'm all for women's rights and equality, but if it could mean losing one of my brothers in arms lives then it's not a good idea.

Period + guns = unstoppable

They could be infantry in a female unit only because most girls wouldn't be able to haul a geared up male to safety.

Bottom line, women should at least be given the opportunity to join infantry if they want/can meet the exact same standards as the men. I served for 8 years, did my tour in Iraq in a support role because that's all that women could do, regardless of the incoming mortars, or running convoys through Baghdad, and no, I didn't take that stupid CAB, because that thing is for pussies who want to feel special about their wartime service. If you believe that because you are/were/still are infantry in a war zone, and you just want to play the "I had it harder than you" game, by all means, you had it harder than me, lots of people did, and lots of people had it easier than me, too. This argument is about equal opportunity. I knew men who were total pansies, and I knew women who could crush those men with their bare hands. The point is, women need to be given the opportunity to try out for combat roles, and if they can make it, more power to them. If they can't, oh well, there are men who don't make it either. I am not, nor was I ever, a woman who could have made it as infantry, even in my prime, but women should at least be given the option.

It doesn't really matter what [i]you[/i] think. Women already can serve in many combat roles and they are performing admirably. Many have already made the ultimate sacrifice while you sit here and talk about how they [i]shouldn't be allowed to[/i]. Exclude women from the military and you're only going to further promote an environment where sexual discrimination/assault is tolerated. What do you gain from not allowing a women to serve and potentially die from her country? In boot, they have to meet certain standards for combat roles, and if they don't meet those in boot, they don't make it until either they do meet the standards or they reclass. You're telling me that a child knows better then a military organization on who is combat ready? Try again.