It basically boils down to this: with women serving, men see their role as the protectors of their kin under attack itself: If we (used to) fight to protect our women, but they learn to and fight, then what are we good for? If women can defend themselves, just who do we defend?

It won't be easy to overcome such prejudice but overcome we will. So, take it easy, it all will come in time.

If what you say it true about Americans than that is very sad. This men as protectors BS is the core reason the Islamic nations are so backwards. In the name of protection women are treated as third class citizens. That is a point of view right from the Taliban playbook.

For westerns nations to call themselves civilized the time is NOW!

Of course are job can have physical requirements and whoever get the job gets it but women should be granted equal access if they meet said requirements.

Full_Metal_Pizza:

It basically boils down to this: with women serving, men see their role as the protectors of their kin under attack itself: If we (used to) fight to protect our women, but they learn to and fight, then what are we good for? If women can defend themselves, just who do we defend?

It won't be easy to overcome such prejudice but overcome we will. So, take it easy, it all will come in time.

You fight to protect the civilians of your country (both male and female, young and old), and your country itself. At least, that's what I've always thought. Am I mistaken?

We don't always agree, Jazz, but in this instance, you're spot on.

If only for one thing: Respect. Which hardcore muslims don't have.

Besides that, the weight of the prejudice is different for other countries: For Tsahal, the Israeli Army, everybody is subject for conscription and women serve in the line of fire, while others would die before having a woman carry a weapon (whereas those same people do send hapless women as walking IEDs, see what I mean about respect?), while still others let women serve only in the medical staff, and the US, which can't still make up its mind.

What fun would it be if we always agreed! To me this so called issue being raised here is a DUH.

There are requirements and if you meet them your in, but the requirements should NOT be changed to ensure certain groups get in, if lowering the requirements compromises the ability to do the specific job.

Western culture still lacks actual respect for women in many area. I don't believe the Catholic church has respect for women. No, they view women as second rate and this is very clear. Actual respect would be allowing women to do what men do IF they have what it takes.

Thus I have no issue with physical requirements for physical jobs and those that cannot meet them don't get the job.

But the point of view that men and women have certain roles is NOT showing either gender respect. Just define the requirements and those that meet them get the jobs. Of course there will be natural gender breaks (as well as others) because there are natural differences but let nature takes it course instead of making laws to exclude groups.

If the point of your reply is fundie Islamic nations are worst than western ones, well, DUH, but this is only true because the west is more secular.

What is the difference between the Fort Hood shooter and Timothy McVey? And the guy who just killed a doctor because he provided abortions (among his many patients he treated for free was a 10year old girl raped by a family member), or the guy who recently shot up the people in a synagogue in the US (no he wasn't a Moslem but a Christian fanatic), what is the difference between Moslem and Christian fanatics? Answer: all fanatics think and act alike, they might just use other languages and other justifications, but actions will always speak louder than words.

PS: "Fundamentalist" is not the same as "fanatic" even thought fanatics usually hide behind some sort of "fundamentalist" label.

Yeah, we could be all day discussing all the finer points, if latter-day christians are better than catholics and whatnot, but my point was what I stated before, that we men were accustomed to defending our women and we're (in various degrees depending on the country and/or culture) at loss over what to make of women taking up arms.

FullmetalPizza: " Which hardcore muslims don't have"

Is a "hard core Muslim the same as a hard core Christian"?

Full Metal Pizza,

PS: if you mean that religion is like a drug, you're in good company: remember Karl Marx statement: "religion is the opiate of the masses" ? Is that what you're trying to argue by using the term "hard core"?

Ok, my d'oh! Strike muslim from my "hardcore" xxxxx and substitute for your favorite foe. Sorry to all moderate believers out there, allright?

Still, I think my basic point still stands.

what is the difference between Moslem and Christian fanatics?

REAL ANSWER: The muslim (not moslem) fanatics out-number the Christian fanatics 50000 to 1. That's the difference. What an imbecilic analogy to draw...

Please don't say 'we men' because you are NOT speaking for all men but only yourself.

Thus I'm NOT 'at loss over what to make of women taking up arms'. All I ask is that they meet the same requirements as men, are well trained, and do a professional job.

Yes, it is true that today muslim fanatics out-number Christian ones by a very large margin.

What other real answers to you have? Really can you be honest here. Are you saying the US military should discharge all muslims? Should the US government round up all muslims and place them in camps? Hey, I'm not being a smart-ass I just want to understand what actual policies you feel the US should take to deal with muslim fanatics.