Any man who would willingly deploy female soldiers into combat is not worth whatever is in his scrotum.

I do not believe women (or children) should be placed in scenarios where combat could be involved, even as nurses.

One reason why there's a smidgen of value in the "No Women Soldiers" position (not that I embrace it personally) is that the peak years of performance as a combat soldier (or aviator) are also the peak childbearing years, and there's really no denying the population value of the "best and brightest" young women getting hip-deep in the gene pool and gestating the next generation. 

 

There are powerful disincentives causing trained (and well-paid) female technical specialists, aircrew, medical personnel, etc. to defer pregnancy or avoid childbearing altogether.  It also takes them out of the "mommy" business during the critical first years of each child's life, and there' no argument about that not being good for that up-and-coming generation.  

 

I'm not going into discussion of Kornbluth's "Marching Morons..." (1951) premise, but how many reading here have seen that crappy movie - Idiocracy (2006) - plagiarized therefrom?

 

In the Western ("developed") countries especially, the STEM types haven't been making replacement numbers in reproduction for decades, and I don't think it's possible to doubt that we're getting a "dumbing down" effect - exacerbated by the government "education" systems - in the population because of it.

women bring more social problems than benefit. I remember when I was a sgt in the marine  corps  if you had 11 marines 2 female it was easier  and faster to just have the 9 guys. for many NCO's this was the case.    I  know that violates the femine imperative you all live by but you can't fake reality. But now days laws and rules are in place to stamp out such thoughts.

The problem is not that Islamist believe that women are not capable. Quite the opposite, they know that women are capable and they are trying to stop them.

 

Deployment of women might cause some problems, but they are citizens just like men. They have right to defend their country.

 

DG

 

"Deployment of women might cause some problems, but they are citizens just like men. They have right to defend their country."

 

Let's give a moment's consideration to the way the average American's thinking about military service has changed since we ended conscription and began to make military service wholly voluntary. 

 

When our military manpower levels were dependent upon utterly unwilling young men who emphatically did not want to get that "Greetings" letter from their neighbors down at the Draft Board, the "defend their country" job was an onus imposed upon entirely unwilling Americans, most of whom sought to avoid or even criminally evade the obligation.  All reading on this site know well enough that these "citizen-soldiers" were low in quality (as a rule, only the poorest, the least intelligent, the most ingenuous got scooped into the net) and high in hatred.  They almost uniformly adapted poorly to their roles as cannon fodder, sullenly resisted regimentation, and degraded the performance of the volunteers unfortunate enough to serve alongside them.

 

So the all-volunteer military has gained our republic a marked improvement in the quality of our forces, enabling our federal government to field the equivalent of legions rather than the modern version of peasant hordes chivvied into battle with whips.

 

Decades after that transition, we tend to view military service as an opportunity to be sought rather than an imposition to be avoided. A young American woman might well see the military as a career option in itself, or at least an excellent step toward the attainment of an economically rewarding civilian career.  Skills to be gained, valuable experience to be had, a gold star on your resume. 

 

But is this true in all nations?  In Pakistan, or India, or Egypt?  Different cultures, different economic set-ups, not the same conditions as obtain in Great Britain or Israel, Germany or America.  Third World, not first, where not even the "citizens" are citizens as we in the Western countries define them.