Mrs Vache Folle and I were speculating about whom Obama might choose as his running mate, and I reckoned Jim Webb might be a good choice if he could take back some of the stuff he said about women in combat (the "C" word, get it? Ha Ha made you read the post) when he was a Defense Department official in the Reagan regime. I remember that the issue was pretty controversial back in those days with older military folks dead set against it and younger folks figuring it was just a matter of time before women were fully integrated into all aspects of the military. Even back then, we pretty much reckoned that it wasn't fair to put the load of deployments entirely on males and that we were going to need every willing hand, without regard to whether it had last manipulated a penis or a vagina, when demographics changed and there came to be a shortage of cannon fodder. For my part as a soldier. I was of the opinion that if the average woman couldn't carry something easily, then I didn't want to have to carry it, either.
I think Webb can plausibly argue that the military and society weren't ready back then but that he has changed his mind.
Odds are that not a lot of women are going to opt for combat jobs what with women being on average less homicidal or dumb than men. But murderous or stupid women should not be denied the chance to murder for the state to which they are subject solely on the basis that they are female. There are ways to weed out those of any gender who might be unsuitable for combat, and the disqualification of women right out of the chute is simply irrational especially now that it is getting harder and harder to dupe young people into enlisting in the armed forces. If you can find some women desperate enough or murderous enough to sign up, then you'd better take them.