USASOCRanger

Men and women are not equal. There are things that men are intrinsically better at doing and there are things that women are intrinsically better at doing; I should think that is obvious. It really has nothing to do with social and status equality, it has everything to do with physical and psychological differences. There will be some women who are able to meet the standards required of a competent and functional combat arms unit and, if the motives and intent of leadership is pure, then they should be encouraged. There are many men, both in and out of combat arms, who are also unable to meet those standards. If women want to be in combat arms, then let them, but make them meet the same standards as male combat arms soldiers and place them in formations that are effective instead of formations that are "socially acceptable". People in general are not "equal"; there are varying degrees of intelligence and aptitude. In the interest of equality, do I blunt the sharpest of minds and atrophy the strongest of muscles? Yes, and those arguments were silly, but they have nothing to do with differences in gender. Like most reasonable people, I don't see any inherent problem with homosexuals in the military. I have found the many arguments against them to be senseless and it still has nothing to do with gender differences. It's a bit different in the US Army/military; at the time of enlistment/commission, we relinquish all constitutional rights and privileges and instead, accept the rights and privileges granted by the Uniform Code of Military Justice; this fact is made aware to all enlistees and, I assume, all future officers as well; if not then, well, it is hardly uncommon knowledge. At any rate, a military is a dictatorship and needs to function as one. For physical fitness standards, we vary by age group and by gender. The standards that a female between the ages of 18-21 is significantly lower than those required by a male in the same age group. Unlike some people who believe it is "unfair" I recognize that it is a standard based on the physical differences in a female's body. Individually, of course, there are some females who can outperform many males, but I am not personally a fan of expecting an exception to become the rule. We also have similar issues with the M240b, but as it is a weapon mostly found in combat arms formations, females do not typically find themselves carrying it. Exceptions occur, of course, but it is not the norm. Our media is atrocious and what we can do is, as a group, demand better.

I didn't say "separate but equal." Men and women are not equal and the military does not acknowledge them as being equal. What I said is that if you want women in combat arms and you want it to be functional and effective and not simply a public relations thing, then they have to be kept separate.

That's a silly argument since, upon enlistment/commission, we volunteer to give up our constitutional rights for the duration of our military service. Females in combat arms would work if the units are kept to separate "Female only/Male only". As much of a proponent of females being allowed in combat arms as I am, I am realistic enough to know that it would become some politicized and PC thing. As it is, the easiest way to destroy unit cohesion is to drop a single female into a company; suddenly, guys who have been best friends for years are at each other's throats and the solitary female finds herself the subject of special treatment and essentially receiving a free paycheck. Xenonauts wise, I think this is a good addon. Real life need not interfere with gamelife. I also think, artwise, that you're on the right track.