When a starved enemy infiltrator jumps into a foxhole in the middle of a pitch black night while brandishing a bayonet, the ability to withstand mastitis and thrush are going to factor heavily into that outcome.
The author is pointing out the obvious differences between men and women, but I suspect that while she may understand those differences as well as some freepers on this thread, she doesn't see the issue the same way.
There are a lot of Freepers, male and female, who readily acknowledge the difference in physical ability between the sexes, but do NOT have an issue at all with women being promoted to various duties and positions they are clearly not the most qualified for. They believe it is WORTH it.
That is where I think this author is. She sees the difference, but pooh-poohs the downside of putting unqualified people in position where you need the best person, not the one who is 67% as good but has the correct anatomy.
She states near the end of her article: "...The problem is that we are all supposed to pretend that men and women are identical. It doesn’t help men, women, children or the institutions they inhabit to pretend natural differences don’t exist. And here, it’s actually dangerous. We may have forgotten in our rush to drone warfare what actual combat entails. It’s grueling and requires tremendous physical and mental strength and discipline..." but it is clear to me, that what she is saying here is: "...The problem is that we are all supposed to pretend that men and women are identical. It doesn’t help men, women, children or the institutions they inhabit to pretend natural differences don’t exist. And here, it’s actually dangerous. We may have forgotten in our rush to drone warfare what actual combat entails. It’s grueling and requires tremendous physical and mental strength and discipline...BUT..."
It is clear she sees the folly in it, but she thinks the downside is outweighed by what she sees as an upside for females.
Did we read the same article?
I don't see that at all. I was with you in your reply until that last comment. The author is talking to people who think women, as a whole, can meet the physical requirements to be line infantry. I don't see the author agreeing with that idea at all. She clearly states that men and women are strong in different ways, but that it is male strength (in this case, upper body strength) that is required to fight and win our nation's wars, according to those who fight and win them.
I don't see a single thing in the article that implies that the author thinks we should ignore that for some greater good.