I believe the article in American Thinker (linked below) is right, even if it makes many uncomfortable. Women should not serve as front-line police officers or in combat roles in the military (all other roles are fine), and society would be healthier if we restored meaningful adultery laws. This isn't about hatred of women or nostalgia for the 1950s. It's about acknowledging biological reality, human nature, and what actually works for a stable, high-functioning civilisation.
Let's start with the obvious physical differences. On average, men possess significantly greater upper-body strength, grip strength, speed, and aerobic capacity. These are not social constructs, they are measurable facts rooted in testosterone, muscle mass, and skeletal structure. Policing and military work often involve split-second life-or-death situations: subduing violent suspects, carrying injured comrades, or engaging in close-quarters combat. Lower average strength and higher injury rates among women in these roles create real risks, for the women themselves, their colleagues, and the public they are meant to protect.
We have seen this play out in practice. Standards have been lowered repeatedly to achieve "diversity" targets. The result is not empowerment but reduced effectiveness. Male officers and soldiers end up compensating for female colleagues in physically demanding situations, increasing overall risk. Pretending biology doesn't matter doesn't make it disappear. It just transfers the cost onto everyone else.
Beyond the physical, there are psychological and social realities. High-stress, high-violence environments affect men and women differently. The male psyche is, on average, wired for greater aggression and risk tolerance, traits that, while dangerous when unchecked, are often necessary in policing and war. Introducing large numbers of women into these fields changes unit dynamics, cohesion, and focus. Standards of discipline and merit inevitably come under pressure. The integration experiment has produced enough data to be honest about the trade-offs.
On adultery laws, the case is moral and civilisational. Marriage is the foundation of stable families and, by extension, stable societies. When the state treats adultery as a purely private matter with no legal consequences, it weakens the institution at a time when family breakdown is already contributing to social decay: higher crime, poorer child outcomes, and greater welfare dependency. Restoring adultery as a factor in divorce proceedings (particularly regarding custody and asset division) would not be draconian. It would simply reassert that marriage is a serious public commitment with real stakes, not a temporary emotional arrangement that can be discarded without consequence.
Critics will call this regressive. But look at the data on fatherless homes, divorce rates, and declining birth rates in the West. The sexual revolution's promise of liberation has delivered higher rates of loneliness, mental health struggles, and societal fragility. Traditional restraints on sexual behaviour, including social and legal disapproval of adultery, existed for good reason. They protected children and channelled human sexuality into productive, stable outcomes.
I don't want a society that pretends men and women are interchangeable in every domain. And I want marriage to mean something again, something worth defending in law as well as culture.
The modern experiment of total equality in all spheres has been tried. The results are visible in strained institutions, broken families, and declining social trust. It's time to stop lying to ourselves about what men and women are built for, and start building institutions and laws that work with human nature rather than against it.