General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: On the Reality of Combat [View all]Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...police in patrol cars who might get into a gunfights, or politicians, the proof is in the pudding. You open up combat to them and see if they can do it. If they can't qualify because they can't match the minimal body strength requirements for such, then they won't be in combat. If they CAN qualify, they will be.
And that will be that. Like men, some women who qualify will be awesome at it, and some not. But gender will have no more to do with whether they can do that job they're qualified to do than it did for women going into space. Where they have to shit into a bag and live in very close and immodest quarters with men. Not the same as facing combat, I know, but in every war that ever was, women have been in combat zones. They've seen the horrors of those zones--and often been fighters in those zones. So saying that women will face such-and-such horrors in such-and-such zones proves nothing--except that we should stop making war and creating such horrors for any man, woman or child to have to experience.
In the end, all your arguments against women in combat mean nothing and prove nothing. All that proves whether women should or should not be in combat is putting them into combat an seeing how they, and the men they fight beside, do. Same as with allowing openly gay men and women in the military. You can predict all kinds of things and reasons why they shouldn't be allowed, but the only proof of whether it will be okay or not is allowing it and seeing what happens.
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)