Personally, I have zero problems with women in any role in the service, so long as they can do the job and meet the standards. Doing otherwise really doesn't make much sense...
I have a problem with women in
most roles in the service, even if they can do the job and meet the standards. Doing otherwise doesn't really make much sense to me.
Women, in general, are not able to meet the physical standards set to weed out unfit men. There are a very few number of women who can still meet the same standard.
Now I know this is a VERY controversial thing to say, and it can be very hard to accept, but, in my experience (and a significant number of scholarly studies)
men act differently when they are around women. Thus, I would prefer just one sex be involved in a military setting. Since, on average, men are more physically capable, I prefer that sex to be men.
Sometimes men acting differently is a good thing. Men can be less violent when a woman is around. Men can be less boorish when a woman is around.
However, men can also be jealous, petty and distracted by the fairer sex. They also have a tendency to drop other considerations (even the primacy of the mission) to respond to a female in distress. Some studies think this is biological programming.
For that reason, women should not be in the military,
especially not combat. Combining the sexes creates significant distractions that make our men and our units less capable.
Now, as to Micro's point, yes, we would likely still have the greatest military in the world and still be capable of dealing with any threat. We would simply be trading a few more soldier's lives for greater diversity.
And, given that the most important value of any culture is diversity, isn't it worth it?