There seems to be a repeated argument in this thread that doesn't make any sense to me.
On one hand, you have those arguing that women being allowed into certain aspects of the military will lead ot reduced standards. The response from the other side is that there shouldn't be reduced standards, and that the women should have to meet the same standards minus the current gender qualification.
The rebuttal to this is that NOW and other groups would protest that.
This makes no sense, because the proposed alternative by those who are fearful of this feminazi protest believe the best solution is to ban women from these aspects of the military... which will, of course, lead to NOW and Feminazi protests.
How in the world does that make sense to anyone?
It's possibly the silliest argument I've ever heard.
It essentially boils down to: "We don't want protests about unfairness for women, so we should be as unfair to women as possible."
The simplest solution is to remove the gender qualification only. Keep all of the other standards equal and as they currently are.
You'll have protests either way, but the protests in this scenario will have less impact as there are no disqualifications based on an arbitrary measure.