For some of you, my little diatribe about women in combat may look familiar.
Women have a vitally important role to serve in defending their nations - giving birth to boys. Female in the armed forces are inferior to men in every regard and are held to much lower standards. They’re just there to LARP at being soldiers. Ironically, in Western nations, women would rather play military LARP than actually do something which will protect their nations and culture, which is having babies.
I don't think that they should let women in. The problem with holding women to lower standards than men should be obvious. If they hold women to the same standards then barely any would get in (presumably, if the standards are high enough no woman could pass them) and so you would only have a tiny number of additional soldiers for the massive added headache of a sex integrated military. Where women are going to get butthurt because they overheard some guys talking about sex, guys hit on a girl or date her and all the drama that entails, the girls get pregnant, they need two sets of bathrooms and medical care to accommodate women. Speaking of medical care, the women who pass will likely be on the low end of passing and women in the military are far more likely to have physical ailments such as injuries during training, women's bodies just aren't as tough and are less likely to hold up to the physical demands.
So what are you getting for all of those problems? A tiny handful of subpar female soldiers who can just pass the minimum standards.
Some claim that women have superior G-force tolerances. This is not correct. Men actually have greater tolerances to G-forces, especially when correcting for height.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3753357
Also, men have significantly better spatial reasoning abilities than women, which would help with piloting. If we're concerned about G tolerance, we should have short male pilots, not women.
Also, women aren't as physically capable for non-infantry roles. How do I know? Because the physical standards are so much lower. If non-combat roles had the same physical requirements for men and women in the U.S. Military, I'm confident that most of the women wouldn't be there. Does the military really need so many more people that they should lower physical standards so much? If they do, why not lower male physical standards too? Then you'd have that many more recruits to choose from.
Look at the increased injury rate for women during training. This is despite the lower standards.
http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/ArmyMonographonInjuriesinMilitaryWomen.pdf
Now, what about this little fact?
Unplanned pregnancies may be on rise in military - CNN
Every year 11% of active duty female service members have an unexpected pregnancy.
11%! These are women who need to be shipped home and given pay and free medical care for a year while their bodies get fat and out of shape. 11% every year. How much is this costing our military in money and preparedness?
I could go on if you like.
The military has women because of political correctness, not because they are a benefit.