There are three claims people make in objection to opening all combat roles to women, as far as I know:
1) That males are generally better-suited for certain combat tasks (for example, carrying large amounts of weight over long distances)
2) That mixed-gender units are less effective than single-gender units
3) That women can and do get pregnant on duty

I don't have much knowledge of the issue myself, but I wanted to get that out there so people who know more can weigh in.

A big hindrance to women serving in combat that isn't talked about much has been the potential treatment of our women if they become POWs. I have heard it discussed outside of military circles, but given the past treatment of male POWs by our enemies, particulary in East Asia, we would expect much worse treatment of our females.

Basically it boils down to no one is comfortable putting our women in a situation where they would or could face rape on a constant basis. That's a big psychological barrier the males in charge of the military have been wrestling with as I understand it.

They could take testosterone to make building muscle easier, but i guess there are other effects in the long term with T.

More women fighter pilots.

You do understand that women understand the risks of being taken prisoner when they sign up for the military right? There is no need deny them the right to serve their country on the basis that they "might be treaten worse in an already terrible situation". Honestly, the issue with rape and the military has less to do with being taken POW and it's much more of an internal issue.

The military is one place where "equality" should not be the rule of law. The rule of law should be effectiveness and keeping people alive. Therefore, if they have to lower standards for females (which in some cases they already do) in order for them to serve, they should not allow that. I am all for women entering if they are held to the same standards as men. I also think it should go through a trial period to see if there are more incidents/deaths/etc. If the rate is stable or goes down, welcome to the force. If not, in order to protect our service members, and everyone else's, lives, the status quo should be maintained.

I would like to say that there is no "right" to join the military. The needs of the Navy/Army/AF/CG trump all. If it is more effective for females to not be put into combat positions, they should absolutely not be placed in them. The high standards *must* be maintained.

Demon, I'm talking about the discussion that's been going on since at least the 80's, not the current internal sexual assault issues with the military. Two separate things.

If women aren't serving on the front lines, and I don't mean 'not serving' but actually not serving, ie, in support positions outside the theater of war, then they have near zero chance of becoming a POW. The soldier guarding the gold deposits at Fort Knox have no chance of being captured. The soldier on the front line sitting in a fox hole has a much higher chance of being captured. Risk of capture is not naturally endemic to signing your name on the dotted line.

Hence, the source for some of the hesitancy to put women in higher-risk positions that has been going on for the last 30+ years (that I know of).

If you want to have conversation about sexual assault in the military, that's another topic and we can have that, but let's do it another thread.

Why seperate it to another thread when it is a serious ongoing issue associated with women serving in military units.

Less likely to be raped by a fellow souldier in fort knox than serving in a forward base in Afghanisan.

Maybe I'm just a patriarchal neanderthal, but I kinda thought the purpose of nation states and their armies was to protect women (and children), not put them in the line of fire.

Tolstoy, you patriarchal neatheral you.

Grrr *neanderthal

@Tolstoy, i can't even...

At least you recognize that you're a patriarchal neanderthal, and we can go about disregarding everything you say.

can't tell if Demon and orathaic are being serious or playing alone with Neanderthals

@KingCyrus sure, don't have lower standards, but to bar women as a whole to even try for those standards is wrong and should not be acceptable. I'm not one to advocate for a heavily military, but there is no excuse to deny women who are capable of meeting the set standards a position in any division.

@Private OK, so like, don't put anyone in front lines because god forbid they become a POW. I also don't think most people sign up for the military thinking "yo I'll just chill as a guard at some fort"

I mean like, inb4 giant death robots.

@KingCyrus - The military already lowered its standards back in Gulf War II in order to have enough ground troops. Then their lowered standard recruits were dishonorably discharged for crimes committed while in the military. Its what happened when the pool of available male candidates that want to volunteer shrank.

As long as the women meet military standards, then they should be allowed to serve. After all there is no guarantee that they will serve in a war, but can be assigned to front line positions like Europe where they might be needed. At least that way all of them would be qualified.

Back when I was in college 30 years ago, people did sign up planning to get safe easy posts. I got to hear doctors that got through medical school in the military now finding out that they were being called back to service in Gulf War I from private practice. Then there were all the ones that joined to get into a specific group like special forces that didn't make it.

@Demon, Random,

Exactly my point. They ought to be allowed if and only if standards are not lowered. Also, various studies have showed that a fighting force with females is less effective, a grave concern of the current JCSC. If that is true, at least in some cases, then in those cases it should not be allowed.