Females in military combat roles?

I am in the Canadian military, and there are no restrictions based on sex for any trade or profession, except RC padre, where women have to be "pastoral associates" rather than priests due to church rules. Everything else, including all combat roles, is totally open.

So far, so good. Women don't seem as interested in the "fighting" jobs, but, those who do it are really good at it, so.. no problems for us that I've ever encountered.

The women in my unit are all pretty much tougher than me! :)

Personally, I don't understand it. I had a conversation with a close male friend about it (I'm female), and he made the point that if they meet the physical and mental requirements, then 'let'em go!" I think it could be a problem in several ways, including fellow soldiers not feeling as confident or safe as they would with a male back-up, that could affect how they behave and react on the front line. This is a reality, whether you agree with it or not. I've never been in that situation so I don't know what it might be like. I agree about the concern with them being captured also, but they would know the risks going in, so that isn't a valid argument against it. This might sound sexist (and possibly it is), but as much as I think that women are equal to men with most things (and sometimes better), there are some things that women are not 'designed' for, combat being one of them. Men are designed that way, they a physically built for it, and I think to a certain extent, mentally built for it. Women, by nature, usually are more nurturing (usually), that is their design. Call me sexist, but men are men and women are women.

Since when is there an innate instinct* within men to protect women? All throughout history, and probably for the hundreds of millennia of prehistory, men have abducted, raped, beaten, and abused women, treating them like chattel and slaves. Look at Afghanistan under the Taliban to see what the male instinct toward women is. The only reason we aren't so bad is because we're trained not to be. When the innate instinct to dominate rears itself up, we label that person a criminal and imprison them. But don't confuse social norms with instinct.

As long as we're talking about instincts, what about the innate instinct to run away when shooting starts? Or the innate instinct to stay out of crapholes like Iraq? Or the innate instinct to wear your own clothing instead of a uniform that looks like upholstery? Or the innate instinct to walk away from a job you don't like or a task that's difficult? You get my point? Military training is 90% the elimination of innate instincts. If some soldier turns into weeping papa bear when he needs to be putting rounds downrange, that's a failure of training, and that same failure will be expressed in other situations, even those where women are absent.

* A repetitive redundancy.

That one guy talking about male instinct to protect woman is half right.I'm in the Canadian army I been deployed 3 times and every time I had a girl in my playtoon well we really didn't see her as a girl we trained together we fought together and we slept togather (not in a sexual way) Canada has let woman in combat roles since the 80ds there has not been one count of rape are beaten are anything like that there's probaly a few Canadian men alive because of woman I was saved by one On my last tour she pulled me outta a burning G wagon that was hit by an IED

I'm an old fashioned hunter/protector kind of guy. I don't like the idea of women being killed in violent ways, specifically on the front lines of a war.

Actually your information is incorrect. That isn't the only arguement. There are multiple arguements as to why they should be in direct combat.

Men have fought the wars for thousands of years. Yes thousands, let's keep it like that....