Nothing against women, but there are considerations that make this a bad decision. Over time perhaps the stigma of the 'weaker' sex and the protectionist attitude of many men would recede to a different level, but currently I think these are liabilities to women serving in combat.
Next would be the size issue. Many women are physically strong, but typically not as strong as most men. If a soldier is down and needs to carried, drug or lifted out of harm’s way and he is 200+ pounds, can she do it? If an enemy soldier attacks in hand to hand and is of a large size, can she win that battle, keeping in mind it is not some fat, lazy punk on the street attacking her but another well-trained soldier.
While I understand the quest for equality, there are some physical issues that make this decision questionable. I am sure that many women have the mental capacity, perhaps even and emotional edge on some men, but the physical issue still concerns me. I would have no problems with either of my daughters serving in the military, but being in combat would be a major concern.
The other issue is that there wasn’t much discussion or public debate about this issue, the SOD just ‘decided’ to change the rules.
"Over time perhaps the stigma of the 'weaker' sex and the protectionist attitude of many men would recede to a different level, but currently I think these are liabilities to women serving in combat"
This is just funny. Women can't serve in combat because winholder is old and has outdated ideas.
Women are already in combat, right now, as you read this. I don't think we should limit the capability and flexibility of our soldiers overseas just to keep from disturbing the weak sensibilities of some of those back home. Do you?