There is no reasonable argument for the universal exclusion of women in the military. Though, on average, men are stronger than women, the physical difference in strength between the sexes is not of considerable concern in most posts in modern-day warfare. More important attributes are average intelligence, mental and physical agility, and dexterous skillfulness, which are required for the proficient use of contemporary weaponry in present-day combat and supporting roles.
In situations where hand-to-hand combat is a likely possibility, considerations of exclusion are pragmatic; however, they should not be universally decided. Since direct physical altercations are exceptionally rare in the Navy and Air Force, exclusion of qualified women is discriminatory. Similarly, not all positions in the Army are likely to experience hand-to-hand fighting and should universally allow for women participants.
When arguments against female inclusion only focus on unit cohesion and male perceptions of females’ ability and how men behave as a result of women’s presence, the claims are founded in male prejudices.
(Claims of women as distractions is as ridiculous as arguments for the separation of the sexes in education and the non-military workplace).
Ability should be grounded in tested strengths and weaknesses as opposed to presumed ones; female involvement should be on a case-by-case basis as it is with men. And if male service people have trouble working with women, they should be educated on how to work alongside humans.
