Agreed. Entirely agreed. If said woman is the most qualified person to do the job in question, then by all means, the job should be hers, and screw the Arkansas farmboys for all I care, thank-you-very-much.
I’d just like for people to stop comparing extended frontline infantry combat to climbing Mt. Everest or running a marathon, because it’s entirely disrespectful of the men (and women!) who willingly subject themselves to the unimaginable physical and mental toll it takes. They’re not even remotely comparable to “simple sport”, and equating them is beyond silly.
Yes, we get that combat takes an “unimaginable physical and mental toll”. So do lots of things. They are not meant to be a direct comparison, but more of a benchmark. If you can meet the physical requirements and have the mental toughness to do the job, then you need a reason to exclude someone besides that it’s “too hard”.
A funny thing about excluded groups is that the bar for admittance seems so much higher. Why would a woman have to be “the most qualified” as opposed to simply “qualified”? If you are looking at a specific position, sure, you take the best person available. But there shouldn’t be some “Tuskegee Airmen movie” standard where they have to prove that they are the best soldiers ever.
“I don’t understand! Why are we under attack?!!”
“You KNOW why!”