Boy, I am hesitant to chime in on this issue, particularly with the abundance of political correctness, and frankly I like the concept of a diverse military and men and women working together successfully and productively, as they do in any other work force. That being said, the question may be, "would some of the women who are being admitted, or who are receiving LOA's, be receiving the same if everything on their application was exactly the same, except that they we men? And conversely, would some men who are not being admitted or receiving LOA's, but with very competitive applications, be admitted if they were women with the same application? If there is a systematic, or nonsymptomatic, process which takes some over others for no reason beyond gender, OK. Some may believe however, that we should call it what it is; something other than an equitable methodology. Do the ends justify the means?
I have a son who is seeking appointment. If I had a daughter who was interested I would tell her that now is a great time for a young lady with a great résumé to seek appointment since there seems to be an affirmative push to admit women. I would tell her there is no shame to take advantage of the circumstances of the day. But I have a boy who has a very solid application, and I see numbers of others being admitted early which appear at least on the surface to be far less impressive than the kid in my house who watches his portals daily. And while I understand that there is a lot more to the evaluation than what gets posted on this forum, it take more than a thin skin to avoid scepticism about the objectivity within the process. Jaded? No, not really. But there is a tendency to question, at least during the weak moments.
No process is perfect, and I am certain all those who have and will receive appointments are deserving. Sincerely. It's just that there are many others who may be at least equally deserving and will not end up with a spot.