The only thing worse than everyone agreeing on a topic; (Which makes for a very boring thread); is when everyone agrees, yet they argue about it any way!!!
1. All jobs should have standards to meet, in order to be allowed to perform in that job/career field. Might be academics, physical fitness, height/weight limits, physical capabilities, etc... Whatever the requirements/limitations are, they need to be set. If a person passes those requirements/limitations, then they can perform in that job/career field. Doesn't matter if they are white/black/male/female/gay/straight. If they CAN'T meet those requirements/limitations, then they CAN'T perform in that job/career field.
2. There's a difference between physical capabilities and being physically fit. If a job requires a certain amount of upper body strength, and they deem that 10 pull-ups is required, then 10 pull-ups is required. If speed and endurance is important, and they deem that the 5000m (3 mile) run must be done in 14 minutes, then that's that. MAN or WOMAN. No different standards for each. If requirements/limitations aren't required to do a job, then no requirement/limitation will be imposed.
3. It use to be said that if you didn't go to the academy, then you'd never make general or the highest rank/position possible. We all know that to be false. There are plenty of generals, admirals, positions, etc... held by military personnel who didn't attend the academy.
4. The military is not a job corp. There's also no right for a person to be in the military. Arguing that a person is being held back in their "career" because they aren't allowed to be in a particular job/career field is NOT an argument. It's an excuse. There are plenty of men who couldn't get into certain jobs/career field because they didn't pass the requirements. That didn't end their career. Not everyone can be a seal, para-rescue, TACCOM, etc...
There's nothing more that needs to be said. If people want to argue that women shouldn't be in combat/war type jobs because of the "Social" implications, then that is a totally different subject all together. But it seems that some people are arguing that: "You get certain points, credit, awards, decorations, etc... for being in combat roles. And these points/credits/etc... contribute to promotions and assignments. Therefor, if you aren't allowed in combat roles; because of your gender; then you are being held back unfairly from being promoted and assigned with your peers. Well there's only 3 things I can say about that. 1. Not everyone has served in combat zones. Men and Women. So it isn't just women who aren't getting points/credits/awards/etc... Those who haven't been in combat roles, have to make up for it in other areas. 2. Because of diversity in the military, most promotions and assignments are not 100% based on merit. (Welcome to the real world). So people have to work around the politics of the military every day. 3. If a person's main reason to want to be in a combat role/career field is to get promotions and assignments,,,, well; I personally don't want to even know or meet that person. I've met "THOSE" people. "THOSE" people, get people killed.