Women in combat roles? Its a done deal AF gen says go on panel.

I believe in equality.

If a woman passes all of the tests that a man has to pass, then why shouldn't she be go on the front line ?

The fact of the matter is, that - due to the physical and psychological differences between sexes - a meritocratic recruiting process for the infantry will probably still end up 95%+ male.

I only have two problems with ''PC'' recruiting processes (not necessarily the military, and not necessarily male/female based):

1. When tests are weighted to be ''inclusive''. eg. someone of a particular race/gender/sexuality have the bar lowered to pass, and gain a job at the expense of a more valid candidate who doesn't tick all the PC boxes.

2. Following on form point #1, when some movements, organisations and employers want their workforce to mirror the demographic of society, as a whole.

In this case, it would be the Feminazis calling for a 50/50 male/representation in all realms of the armed forces, despite the fact that - as mentioned earlier - the front-line, meritocratically, will always be, at the very least, 95/5 male dominated.

Wait i guess im not getting this

So your not against women taking on a combat role? Or are you?
If so then why not? whats so wrong with them allowing women to fight for there freedoms to?

Only because women can does not mean they will. Female bodybuilders are still a rare sight although they are allowed to join a gym. To me one female combat soldier out of 100 is a non issue.

I think the answer to this is simple; they pass certain physical strength tests, let them go. If they are briefed on certain possibilites, like rape, and they still want to go, let them. Perhaps if they recieved certain types of martial arts training, the physical strength thing could be overcome, I really don't know. Just put out some standardized physical strength testing, and I suspect most women still would not pass. (Of course I know a few men who would not pass either...)