[Ben Mugged]

This of course implies that women warriors must be protected by male warriors. Not a concept the women I served with would agree with.

[Zack Nguyen]

This of course implies that women warriors must be protected by male warriors.

Call me a chauvinist if you like, but I see no reason why my wife or daughters should (conceivably) be called away to fight for me. The very idea is is offesnive. I am supposed to fight for them.

[Steel Wolf]

This of course implies that women warriors must be protected by male warriors. Not a concept the women I served with would agree with.

First off, it speaks badly of our culture and civilization that we can't scrounge enough male volunteers to defend our women.

Second, women warriors do need to be protected by male warriors. That's why units are integrated, with low numbers of women and high numbers of men. You'd never see an all female infantry unit, for example, perform well against an all male infantry unit. Even a platoon of female mechanics wouldn't perform well against an all male one, because of the physical attributes required in the job. Ground operations require different strengths than most women possess. While they are adequate to fill out the ranks, they're simply not on par with males.

Women, of course, make good medics, analysts, and similar skill based MOSs. I've worked with many, and learned a lot from them as far as technical skills. They're just not ground pounding trigger pullers, by natural design.

[albee]

Equal opportunity means equal pay, equal rank and the equal opportunity to get killed in combat zones.

Isn't this what the Women's Movement was all about?

[arthurus]

Not protected, and not put deliberately put in harm's way either.