Tensions between ‘difference’and ‘equality’have shaped and continue to shape women’s integration into the Canadian Forces (CF). While women’s presence has increased and taken new forms such as combat, the standard of soldiering against which women must prove themselves has remained masculine, especially in the combat arms. The recent war in Afghanistan illustrates some of these tensions through competing representations of women as ‘equal warriors’ and ‘female warriors.’When it comes to women and combat, Canada is both typical and exceptional. Like most other countries, the military has a long history of excluding women from the combat arms, while selectively incorporating them into non-combat roles. The CF leadership historically resisted the full integration of women, citing fears that their presence would disturb the cohesiveness of fighting units. Operational effectiveness, it was argued, required discrimination on the basis of sex. Up until 1989, the CF maintained a gendered quota policy that determined a ‘minimum male requirement’for each military occupation, ranging from 100% in the combat arms to 0% in the dental trades. But Canada is also exceptional when it comes to women and combat. It was among the first tier of Western countries to permit women into combat positions–as a result of social and legal changes, and pressures from a strong feminist movement. A significant turn occurred in 1970 with the publication of the report of the Commission on the Status of Women. Six of its 167 recommendations concerned the military, one of them calling for the complete opening of all positions to women. The Canadian Human Rights Act (1978) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1985) resulted in further pressure to end discrimination against women by the CF. The 1970s and the 1980s saw an expansion of women’s military roles. While the air force lifted all restrictions on women’s employment in 1987, the army and navy continued to exclude women from combat positions. However, in 1989, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the Canadian military to move toward the full integration of women over the next decade. While the CF used implicitly gendered arguments about cohesion and operational effectiveness to support its case against women’s employment in the combat arms, the Human Rights Tribunal concluded:‘Emphasis on equality… can strengthen the cohesion which is so highly valued by the Forces. Operational effectiveness is a gender neutral concept’(CHRTD 1989, 34). The Tribunal ruled that ‘there is no risk of failure of performance of combat duties by women sufficient to justify a general exclusionary policy’(CHRTD 1989, 31). This 1989 decision led to the immediate opening of all military occupations to women,