Used to be:

A job required you to carry 200 pounds 200 feet.

There was no, are you male or female, are you over or less than 120 pounds, are you over or less than 5 feet tall.

It was, Simply can you do that job !

It is the coddling, and the ‘WOKE’ ,
socialists, that are changing things.

So today a 120 pound, 5 foot tall person has to carry 50 pounds.
While a 6-3 tall, 250 pound has to carry 200 pounds.

It is the same mentality, that pushes  the,
          “Participation Trophy”


So my answer/opinion is:
NO if you can't do the job.
YES if you can do the job.

No and that has nothing to do with why no is the correct answer.

 Isn't that kind of like saying humans who ride motorcycles wouldn't know who is qualified to ride motorcycles more than humans that have never been on a bike before?

 If infantry soldiers are ok with women who meet the same standards and only the same standards with zero lowering of any standard at any time at any point in known time or space, if those soldiers and their operational command are getting the acceptable results is it still unacceptable?  

 If so then it is due to a psychological reason of some kind correct?  Since the physical performance outcomes are the same without detriment to success, then the issue is ethical maybe?

 Similar to child labor, it works, often times better, but it is typically ethically challenged.

 Again this only applies to infantry only, not the standard definition for front line performance.

Gettin Stuff to the front lines is a challenge. The more Stuff the troops need makes it more difficult. Just Men need fewer line items. The Rare female that passes the Physical tests still doesn't make her a warrior. Females don't belong on the front lines. The entire history of the world agrees. Finding an exception doesn't erase the Normal.

Gettin Stuff to the front lines is a challenge. The more Stuff the troops need makes it more difficult. Just Men need fewer line items. The Rare female that passes the Physical tests still doesn't make her a warrior. Females don't belong on the front lines. The entire history of the world agrees. Finding an exception doesn't erase the Normal.


 I understand the logistics of it.  So far it hasn't been an exceptional issue getting supplies for women, but then again front lines isn't only infantry, so in that regard maybe if they somehow isolated modern infantry supply chains we could get a more accurate number.

 I also have seen examples on this forum where one or two events are supposed to supersede the Normal, so I'm not sure math is the deciding factor.  This appears to be a combination of cost, ethics, and emotions.

It has nothing to do with performance or supplies or anything like that.

Women should not be on the front lines, as we’ve previously described front lines.

Men and women are different. I'm pretty sure in the entire history of the world If women had been discovered to be equally able to hunt,fight,do it all, Like a Man, evidence of that would already exist.
It doesn't.
Sometimes just looking at how things have been, is a clue.

[quote author=1A2F3C243F383C2F395D0 link=1733236815/15#21 date=1733494175]Gettin Stuff to the front lines is a challenge. The more Stuff the troops need makes it more difficult. Just Men need fewer line items. The Rare female that passes the Physical tests still doesn't make her a warrior. Females don't belong on the front lines. The entire history of the world agrees. Finding an exception doesn't erase the Normal.


"Women have fought in combat roles in different societies throughout history"
WIKIPEDA