I'm not happy about it either.
The fact is, a petite, 110 lb woman CANNOT hump a pack the way her 200 lb, 6'2" male counterpart can. Nor can she handle some of the same equipment he does.
The thing to do might be to train the gal to be a pilot if her hand/eye coordination is good. Or put her on a sub with other small gals.
We're going about it DUMB.
My point has always been, let them. But they have to be able to pass the same rigors and tests as men. If they can't hack it, they can't do it. How would you like to be an injured 240lb man whose only hope of salvation is being carried out by a 145lb woman? And men are naturally going to be protective of women in combat situations. They need to be put in all female units.
The problem with the above is that your argument is predicated upon size and strength rather than gdender. When I joined the military I was 5'1" (still am) and 105 pounds (I wish). However, I happen to be male. My wife on the other hand is an amazon at 6'.
If we take your objection above seriously, it would be more logical and consistant to place serious size and stature requirements rather than gender requirements.
Well, along the lines of what I said, if it is proven that women in some instances exhibit better skills in certian jobs, then it would stand to reason that they should be given those jobs. My main goal is fielding the best possible force. IMO, the well trained and physically honed man being best to stand the rigors in the field, takes nothing away from a women who may be able to multi-task better than men in another sector of the military. Anotherwords, this isn't purely a 'keep them home where they belong' issue for me.