a large number of jobs in the military do not require extraordinary endurance or power. We have always had less-physically-capable soldiers who did jobs that needed to be done, and in the modern army, these jobs sometimes make up the majority of the “fighting force”.
The suggestion that a female shouldn’t be the secretary that handles a commander’s work schedule because other soldiers will assault or kill her seems off, and I don’t think you are suggesting that only a muscle-bound 6-foot male could answer a telephone.
I may be an anachronism, but I use the word "soldier" in it's traditional sense of meaning someone who fights with weapons.
Yes, nowadays people say "soldier" if you are simply part of the great machine, but this usage never resonated with me. For most of my life, when someone said "soldier", they meant someone who carried a gun and shot at enemy soldiers, or someone who fired cannons at the enemy.
My dad was a Marine in the South Pacific during WWII. "Soldier" to me means "one who fights."
The suggestion that a female shouldn’t be the secretary that handles a commander’s work schedule because other soldiers will assault or kill her seems off, and I don’t think you are suggesting that only a muscle-bound 6-foot male could answer a telephone.
No, not at all. Let me walk back my point a bit. I have no objection to women doing tasks at which women can excel. I just do not think they should be in any combat arms group. I do not think they should be aboard smaller naval ships or submarines.
The benefits, if any, are trivial, and the downsides, which are all but guaranteed, are huge.
Medics, doctors, logistics, clerical, and so forth. No problem. Combat "soldiers"?
No.