[InfiniteNature]

I think in today's military it is little problem, in the pretechnological military though it was simply a question of strength. Men in general are stronger physically then women are (in terms of actual strength not emotional strength), technology such as swords, or blocking, hacking something's heads of lends itself to that. Women do in general have greater endurance, but warfare isn't about endurance its about a short battle, with lots of little long waiting periods in the interim.

I'll say it hasn't been proven to absolute certainty what women are capable of on the battlefield, they might be a asset or not; there is a lot of ideas that they are quite capable and its all a example of male predujudice. But the examples used just do not happen often enough to make a certainty, they are exceptions to the rule not rule, at least as yet anyway. Not to say it shouldn't be experimented with, but I would like to see more tests first to have a opinion.

It might be that because of technological innovation, women are now on par on men, or it also might be that combat is not in general for women (maybe women have not often fought in history for a reason). Even if this is true, there will be exceptions to the norm, so it still doesn't invalidate ALL women, just most.

On the other hand women still would be useful for combat logistics, and I know I know some are going to say stupid, sexual agression. Paired men women soldiers might fight better, rather like the old Theban soldiers in Greece, except those were men you might argue, yes but the concept still might be applicable.

Or it might be that feminists are right and that there are absolutely no significant differences in combat between men and women, and that every reason why men fight more often in combat is just predujudice, that there is no practical reason why, Maybe but can you explain the majority of history as just predujudice.