I have a problem with women in most roles in the service, even if they can do the job and meet the standards. Doing otherwise doesn't really make much sense to me.
Women, in general, are not able to meet the physical standards set to weed out unfit men. There are a very few number of women who can still meet the same standard.
Now I know this is a VERY controversial thing to say, and it can be very hard to accept, but, in my experience (and a significant number of scholarly studies) men act differently when they are around women. Thus, I would prefer just one sex be involved in a military setting. Since, on average, men are more physically capable, I prefer that sex to be men.
*blink*
I was in a mixed MOS, Commo is not a combat arms specialty. Never mind you can get attached to any unit in the US Army. And of course, the radio geek is never targeted by enemy forces. So I have six years of experience with combat and non-combat units. It's not discussed, but we already have women in combat roles. Just not on paper. Medics, MPs, commo geeks, mechanics, etc tend not to work entirely in garrison in modern warfare. Only way to keep women out of combat is to bar them from military service.
Short story long, some hack it. Some don't. Blue falcons are blue falcons.
I had two officers I remember that were worth a damn. One was a female Lt. Yes, once in a while, stuff happened. A very young enlisted soldier made a very crude comment about her appearance, and began enumerating certain thoughts that were illegal and not very polite. Could have written him up, but I provided him counseling that gave him a better understanding of military courtesy. I hit him at the base of the skull with the butt of an M16, loaded a mag, loaded a round, switched to three round burst and then put the muzzle against his eye. I then calmly explained that what was and was not appropriate conduct of junior enlisted personnel with reference to verbal comments towards officers, period. He assured me he had learned his lesson and would not be disrespectful towards superior officers in the future. AFAIK, he did not repeat it afterwards.
Bad behavior. Senior personnel correct. Life moves on, Makattak. Believe it or not, this has occurred since the Roman Legions. Officers and NCOs failing to proper instruct and LEAD their troops is a failure on their part. I will concede that the military has often binded the hands of officers/NCOs with rules written by bureaucrats with no field experience, often as extreme reactions to officers/NCOs doing something stupid.
On the flip side...
Is that a standards problem? It looks like a lying problem and a lack of due process problem. 
The trouble with stories like that becoming an argument against women in the military is that when you use it to argue against women in the military, it's less "women aren't capable" and more "women are perfidious bitches." The trouble is that there's never a shortage of perfidious bitches. They are hardly universally female, though. And females are far from universally perfidious bitches.
Of course, it's mostly the women who leverage the "due process doesn't apply here if I use the magic words" gambit. That's a procedural problem and a definitional problem. It is one that tends to crop up mostly where women are involved, but hey, drowning mostly crops up where is water. Still think we should keep the stuff around.
No, it is the same issue. Respectfully, the "due process doesn't apply here if I use the magic words" is not due to the military more often than not. Their civilian masters set the tone on that. Short story long (again), some people in the military did some dumb things and civilian brass basically told the military to override due process as the default option. Because the civilian population often weighs social engineering over near term military effectiveness.
Yes, it likely will get folks killed. That is entirely acceptable to those that support social engineering. Honestly, they're probably right but only the long term will bare that out. I would prefer folks that support social engineering own up to it, however.
I personally believe that women should be allowed any job they bloody well please. As long as they do the job, to the same exact standard. Problem is, that will not be allowed, and there will be a dual standard. This is doubly damning. Because the competent females are (and should be) viewed with suspicion until otherwise proven. And you have blue falcon females that get significantly more leeway than should be allowed. These are the natural consequences, which social engineering supporters should acknowledge if they are pushing for inequality.
In the long run, it'll mostly sort itself out. You'll always have people doing stupid things.
The issue, I think, is that something is clearly wrong with how WE train our men AND women in the military.
Because (and these are FACTS)
A.) OUR military men act differently in the presence of women
B.) MANY military women can not and do not perform to the same standard as men.
One is false, the other is vague.
"Our military men" means all males in the military act differently in the presence of women. Uh, yea, if one male doesn't, you statement is false. (Metaphorically raises hand) There. False. "A percent of males that I cannot accurately describe act differently in the presence of women" would be accurate, but I wouldn't see the point unless you alleged (or somehow proved) it was a sufficiently high number to be problematic. Or that is it problematic. You may or may not be right. However, calling something "fact" or "truth" does not make it fact or true. That requires proof, preferably with rigor.
The second is I'm gathering intentionally vague. Many is any number more than one, and entirely subjective. If two military women were unable to perform to the same standard as men, you'd be factually correct and entirely dishonest. Are you trying to allege that the majority of females in the military are unable to meet the standard? A rough guess would be 5-10% of soldiers, male or female, are extremely good, 80+% are "good enough" and a 5-10% should be canned. Difference is, if it's a dude, he's seen as incompetent. If it's a chick, females are seen as incompetent.
Plenty of males don't meet the standard either, dude. Hell, I thought roughly a quarter of my class in Basic should have been weeded out.
