During more honourable times, she would not have even been allowed to go. A Patton, an Eisenhower, a MacArthur, would not have allowed it - whether she misguidedly "volunteered" or not. Of course, there are few true men of honour around nowadays.
I disagree.
While there are many things that men are more capable of doing than women, on average, and while hand-to-hand combat, which relies so much on upper-body strength, is one of them, that form of combat is the least-frequently encountered form of cambat in todays hi-tech military.
Secondly, the natural physical differences between men and women are not ignored by the military in the aptitude qualifications and training and testing for military roles. Thus, women are, by aptitude, training and testing, found in much higher frequencies than men in support and combat-support roles, and not very often found in jobs like infantry or tanks, for instance.
I know that does not address your belief that men should actually deny any military roles to women, for their own good and as part of fulfilling the man's role of protecting the womenfolk.
At least in the present all-volunteer US military, that decision is made by the women themselves. And, in fact, it probably reflects the fact that most women agree with you, as do most of their "men folk" and thus women continue to enlist at lower rates than men.
I do not see anything "dishonourable" in that.