Yes, and they should be integrated with the males
Yes, but keep their units seperate from male units
No, but women should be given some basic infantry skills beyond basic training
No, women should never serve in a role where they may encounter combat
Moderator's Warning: This is all off topic and gets borderline 6a to boot. So quit it. There silenced again.
What I am saying, to be clear, is that for women to be able to serve in infantry, actual standards that are the same across the board would need to be put in place. This is different from PT standards currently in place. Certain jobs do require specific standards, this would just be along those lines.
Note that if the military could not do this, I would tend to then oppose women in infantry/combat. The standards do need to accurately reflect the job required in modern combat, and should not be designed to get a specific result(ie either so easy that most women could complete it, or so difficult it is specifically designed to exclude women).
By the way, I consider a "feminist" as some one who wants what is best for women and society. Under that definition, you get to keep your feminist card. Just because we do not agree does not mean we don't both want what is best.
Having served in Airborne, light, Ranger, and mechanized infantry units, I will tell you that infantrymen in all of them require intense physicality to gain and maintain an edge in combat.
Where do we use mechanized infantry?
Well, there is certainly Korea. Whose masive mountains require infantrymen, wearing the same combat gear, to scale the mountains either in conjunction with fire from the armored assets, or to pass assets through the mountain passes to attack the enemies main forces. Does climbing mountains qualify as physical? Does the armor in support make it easier?
There is also the reality of the other extreme, open desert. Nobody walked to Baghdad or Kabul, but when the battle starts, and especially in the close quarters of Urban Combat, the battles range intense and physical. And M-4 might be a great equalizer, but you have to bring it to bear in a manner that takes advantage of your enemies positioning. You must be able to reposition faster and more effectively then your enemy, and the sheer environment of passing between floors, pushing through barricades and often hand to hand combat that result, regardless of how you were delivered to battle (Airborne, Air Assault, or Mechanized) the reality is often the same.
Not too mention, having seen a few destroyed armored vehicles, are women going to be able to reach in and carry out a an injured comrade from a turret?
That still does not address the sexual competition between the sexes. If you think that levels of discipline between infantry units and logistics units are the same you are flat out wrong. It will also not prevent the inevitable gambit from emerging, "If Johnny goes through the door first, I'll get Suzie," and when such acts become obvious they will rip a unit apart.
This is not about societal equity, this is about winning battles. Sometimes a same sex environment is necessary to help ensure that reality.
You see, Scarecrow's hypotheticals both spoke of the genders, as a group.
In both instances, you attempted to counter his assertions, with anecdotes about specific individuals. Individuals are not groups. Groups are what is under discussion here, as you can note in the thread title. You yourself, only switch back to the topic at hand, the whole group, in your end statement, which regards your preferred policy. So your policy on a group is being determined by data based on individual anecdotes.
As I stated previously . . .