Alright, I can at least avoid the "women are weaker because of bone structure" argument as, from past experience, that tends to go nowhere, but for the sake of argument I'll look at the other points to see if they hold water or not (they ought to just eat massive amounts of protein or something if it's really a bone structure problem~ 
).
"Also, women in a combat scenario have an adverse effect on men psychologically. Besides there being multiple fraternization charges on the first class alone, white knights are useless on the battlefield."
Oh, so because some men can't handle there being women around them, those women are supposed to be excluded? Train these "white knights" in some equal opportunity treatment instead of having them remain internally misogynist. Is it really a woman's fault if a man is retarded enough to take preference based on the fact that one portion has boobs and another doesn't?
Are you against gay soldiers for the same reason?
"Also feminine hygiene isn't exactly abundant when you're outside of base in the desert for a couple weeks."
...from my experiences of meeting women, that's a societal construct, one that could be trained out of them. There is such a thing as smelly women. 
"I've met tough women in the military, my MCMAP(Marine Corps Martial Arts Program) instructor was a woman, but they aren't ready for infantry yet."
What would have you say would be required for them to be ready for it? Attempting to find articles that aren't either overtly feminist or overly misogynist in nature is proving pretty difficult. One goes "women are just fine if not better!" while another states that "only savages make women fight their battles".
"Yeah, imagine a woman gets hit out in the open. There's going to be at least one guy who's going to put on his cape and try to outrun a bullets to go get her."
That's not really her fault, and there's still opportunity for a woman to run to a man who got shot, a man to run to another man who got shot, or a woman to run to another woman who got shot. Come on now.
"Women definitely stir up tensions in the middle east."
Why is that our problem exactly? Why should we cater to their insecurities?
The arguments over physical problems are worth their weight, since it's based on if they can or can't achieve it on their own instead of purely on assumptions (kudos to them for letting them try), but saying that a man's heterosexuality will make for combat problems thanks to their shlongs is a poor argument. If they really are "weaker", then let the men be in front ready to get shot while the women who didn't make the cut do something else, but making it about their libidos is outdated. Catering to that sort of thing makes them that much less prepared for if there ever happens to be women in an enemy army.
10
posts
(Transferred from SC 1.0...)
BUTTERED TOAST:
We get past "don't ask, don't tell" and we still have restrictions on women in military positions? Although, it's dubious whether or not we should be that enthusiastic about this particular area of dichotomy in our society. Equal-opportunity governmentally-funded murder and Manifest Destiny feels like a step sideways instead of forward (or backward, really).
SYSTEMATIC:
You dont want women on the front lines.
My infantry class was the last all male class to graduate. We got to see the first female marines scrape through training. It was a 2 month course that started with 50 of them, only 3 made it after they cut the workouts essentially in half. Usually, you'd get maybe 2-3 men that wouldn't make it. Female anatomy just isn't ready for that sort of work, during the hikes they had to lower the weight requirements because a girl's pelvis actually broke. Some of them were stronger mentally and physically than the men, but you need a rigid bone structure for that sort of thing. To incorporate women in infantry would mean to severely lower the standard at which our front line troops are expected to be at. I don't think its worth it.
Also, women in a combat scenario have an adverse effect on men psychologically. Besides there being multiple fraternization charges on the first class alone, white knights are useless on the battlefield. Also feminine hygiene isn't exactly abundant when you're outside of base in the desert for a couple weeks. I've met tough women in the military, my MCMAP(Marine Corps Martial Arts Program) instructor was a woman, but they aren't ready for infantry yet.
BUTTERED TOAST:
I don't disagree with any of your points. I was being a little facetious. The way things are I think -- like you alluded to with White Knights -- their welfare could turn liability in some kind of hostage situation, of course. Would also the fact that there are many cultures abroad that have a less-than-equal view and treatment of women affect peaceful relations or diffusing hostile situations?
I'm all for women being in the military, but from first hand experience I cannot say I want them on the front lines.
"Oh, so because some men can't handle there being women around them, those women are supposed to be excluded? Train these "white knights" in some equal opportunity treatment instead of having them remain internally misogynist. Is it really a woman's fault if a man is retarded enough to take preference based on the fact that one portion has boobs and another doesn't?"
C'mon, you know distressed and endangered women have a pull on men. It's a part of human nature that's been reinforced by society for thousands of years. It's present everywhere from a man risking his life to save a damsel in distress to more subtle variants like opening doors for random women. Sure in a average day, civilian lifestyle it isn't a big deal and can be overlooked/ignored. In a combat scenario, not so much it's amplified exponentially. In combat the effects of the chemical cocktail override everything, mainly rationality and judgement. It's a time where the main things that drive you are instinctual behaviors and muscle memory, the individual can barely function let alone make clear decisions. The military sees it as pointless to try and negate or avoid the chemical rush that comes with those scenarios, so it builds around them. Using stressful situations to induce the combat scenario to a much smaller extent in hopes of preparing you for it. The training is simply for you to function while underneath the effects of the chemical cocktail and while underneath instincts and urges become that much harder to resist. It'd cost more lives to put up an under-performing soldier/marine in hopes of achieving equality, otherwise I'd have no issue with men being trained specifically on how to avoid those instincts.
"Are you against gay soldiers for the same reason?"
No, other men dont trigger that response.
"..from my experiences of meeting women, that's a societal construct, one that could be trained out of them. There is such a thing as smelly women. "
It becomes more of a health concern than just a societal construct. You can easily go months without a shower while in the same clothes on a deployment. Having a operator with a raging yeast infection for weeks on end is just another factor that contributes to women not being suited for modern day warfare.
"What would have you say would be required for them to be ready for it?"
Once we have the technology to lower the weight of combat gear, lose a ton of gender bias(i think its happening already) they'll be okay for frontline work. I don't ever think they'll ever have the potential to have as much muscle density as men. Other than that they're perfectly suited for every other aspect of the military, I've been under a couple female superiors that lead just as well if not better than men have. They all are aware of the gender bias and the majority tend to become more aggressive because it haha.
"That's not really her fault, and there's still opportunity for a woman to run to a man who got shot, a man to run to another man who got shot, or a woman to run to another woman who got shot. Come on now."
You're compelled to run after your marines no matter what gender but with women there's an obvious and stronger urge to do so.
"Why is that our problem exactly? Why should we cater to their insecurities?"
It is completely with how we handle things in the middle east, working within a culture that discriminates against women. The US government goes into communities to weed out insurgents, attempting to work with the community to find them. A very big issue was with female mps(military police) being in charge of possible detainees. Men would absolute refuse to speak and felt their cultural/religious ways were being encroached upon. However, women did prove very useful in the same aspect when searching other women. That a lot of cultures over there had issues with foreign men searching their wives and were okay to let another woman do it.
"The arguments over physical problems are worth their weight, since it's based on if they can or can't achieve it on their own instead of purely on assumptions (kudos to them for letting them try)"
The USMC was very helpful in trying to push them through training, literally cutting some of the harder events in half by length. I was impressed by the support they gave.
"but saying that a man's heterosexuality will make for combat problems thanks to their shlongs is a poor argument. If they really are "weaker", then let the men be in front ready to get shot while the women who didn't make the cut do something else, but making it about their libidos is outdated. Catering to that sort of thing makes them that much less prepared for if there ever happens to be women in an enemy army."
I mean the USMC has a huge problem with sexual harassment and rape. I had to take a mandatory 10 hours of rape prevention classes because of it. The media was all over this first female class and you'd think the instructors would lay low for at least 2 months but yet fraternization classes still came up. You spend 15+ hours a day around your unit, you shower with your unit, you eat with your unit, you sleep within arms reach of someone else. Adding women inevitably means cases like that are going to happen.
The main issue is really physical performance sadly. I couldn't rely on a woman to carry me to a medic if I caught a round. It just isn't happening with a 60lb+ combat load on both of us and then my weight on top of it. The core lesson of the military is to function as one unit and you are only as strong as your weakest link. It's simply impractical to incorporate them in that one field and accept lower standards plus causality costs in hopes to seem equal.
BUTTERED TOAST:
I'm going to transfer this thread to the new forums, in the off chance things remain stable over there and the transformation is complete...
SYSTEMATIC:
"their welfare could turn liability in some kind of hostage situation, of course."
Yeah, imagine a woman gets hit out in the open. There's going to be at least one guy who's going to put on his cape and try to outrun a bullets to go get her.
"Would also the fact that there are many cultures abroad that have a less-than-equal view and treatment of women affect peaceful relations or diffusing hostile situations?"
Women definitely stir up tensions in the middle east.
Nice bump.
Agree with sys on this one for the same reasons that we know make men better runners and spear chuckers. Pelvic girth, bone density, muscle mass, length of limb and enhanced testosterone levels. These are facts of nature we can't talk our way out of. Besides, what woman wants to get herself blown up for posterity? Idk why men would want that either, with so many other jobs in the military. But to each his own, if his own is qualified for the position. Women just aren't built for it.
However, my views on war DO NOT extend to policing, fighting fires, MMA fighting, sports or any other pursuit that was traditionally male. War is the exception to my leftish views. I understand that a state of Hobbesian brutishness requires a much firmer hand than my usual to set things right bc a good liberal knows the difference between fairness and wishful thinking.
The only real debate here is how much women should be allowed to do while serving. Kitchen wench/ secretary doesn't cut it. But if we give the penis creatures the proverbial inch, we all know how the story will unfold. I'm not sure how I feel about seeing the first batch of idealistic dreamers blowing themselves up for my right to voice an opinion on other matters, tho.
Beyond that, thinking about my sisters getting killed in war hits me in a visceral place I can't quite find the words to describe. Is that irrational? Probably. But so are the front lines in battle. It's all ear shattering noise and mayhem and gore. I doubt there's much room for reason or thought or words. From what I understand from my years of study, people's instincts take over when the sky is falling and the bodies are piling up in the streets. That's why our military personnel are put through such rigorous training. Instincts are difficult to override.
(Edit: missed Sys' more recent post. I think this thread is being dragged over one post at a time? ^ Sys has already elaborated on these points. I'll leave that paragraph alone, tho. It expresses my feelz and acts as a nice segue for my summation.)
In this case, so are my own instincts. Boobies are for snuggles not killing dammit :&
Gays I'd say for the most part are integrated very well into the military. Had 3 gay guys in my unit and though they got some really insensitive treatment at times(being called faggots, fudge packers and other hilarious names by the chain of command) they were treated as equals. You still showered, shaved and hung out with them like anyone else, never would I say they weren't treated with the same respect(or disrespect) as the other men in the platoon.
"Having a operator with a raging yeast infection for weeks on end is just another factor that contributes to women not being suited for modern day warfare."
O.O Trench crotch. I never would have thought... but yeah. I can see it now.
Ew.
10
posts