So 1 and 2 are quantitative arguments which I don't know the actual numbers about. Read the thread though - kleinbl00 has made some fine posts with his take on this stuff. The story in 1 is still referring to technology and events from Vietnam, and I wish they'd pick something slightly more... relevant. 2 is salient but consider the physical feats of women athletes in professional leagues and things like the Olympics. I question whether the author wants to imply that the best women can't match the average male serviceman or what but I think it's grossly underestimating how much the bell curves of men and women's physical strength overlap. I'd like to see numbers on that but I can't provide them yet. I won't dismiss these points out of hand, and they may be reasonable, at least in some cases.

After the physiology part of point 2 is where things start to take a turn for the offensive. Again, the author seems to ignore the fact that all men and all women do not react to the same stimuli as two monolithic groups. There is, in fact, a range of psychologies and emotional reactions for both men and women. The author suggests that the presence of testosterone is enough to drive machismo across the board - as though much of the macho attitude our writer seems to think all men have by nature isn't pretty heavily socially constructed. Frankly, I'm offended as a man that I'm being told how I act, and that if I don't "risk death rather than be seen by my peers to be flinching from a fight" then I'm somehow less of a man? Do I need to turn in my badge and my penis?

But considerably more bothersome is the line "Women's courage takes very different forms," followed by nothing but stories of women being weepy and scared. Nothing about women, for example, in the Soviet military during WWII often being extremely highly-decorated and a vital part of the war effort. Or the successful role of women in the Israeli Defense Forces? But no, the best he comes up with is two truck drivers crying. As if men are somehow immune from emotional issues as a result of being in a combat zone. As for the point that the military seems to have different rules for men and women... Institutionalized sexism? Does this surprise anyone? That's a change that needs to come from within - if women are going to be able to be equal, they need to be allowed to be equal, rather than having "unwritten rules" about showering or court-martial. Why should the systemic sexism stop women from being able to serve in combat?

Point 3 I will dismiss out-of-hand for reasons I'm embarrassed to have to explain. Do you remember that other military policy? The one that was around for a few years, made a few people pretty upset? The policy barring openly gay servicemen on the basis that it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability". That people would be uncomfortable because of the feeling of "someone watching" in group shower situations, or that "Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous". Saying men and women are not able to serve together because of sexual attraction is like saying gay men shouldn't be permitted because they can't contain their sexual urges. Yeah, I think that assuming that the men who are serving our country are so unable to contain their sexual lust that they will devolve into a pack of "snarling primates" is insanely offensive to everyone. The idea that women shouldn't be permitted into combat roles in the military because men might coerce (or rape, which is a serious, real problem in the military ) them is like telling women that they aren't allowed to walk in the bad side of town because they'll get raped - maybe instead of telling women they're not allowed, how about telling men to consider not raping?

Point 4 is very similar. It is blaming women because men have been socially conditioned (had their brains naturally "hardwired", says Browne) to not be able to take orders from women. If a male soldier will not take orders from a female superior officer, it is the fault of the subordinate for not following orders, and it is the fault of the military system for failing to teach them proper respect for the chain of command. The thing is, I don't think that men are hardwired to react negatively to women superiors. Those who won't are prejudiced. It's that simple. Would we not allow a black CO because there might be some racists who won't take orders from or trust them? No. Will I accept this as an argument against women being able to serve in combat, as officers, and up into the highest ranks of the military? Fuck no. Any woman who can perform as well as a man should be allowed to advance all the same. I would really like to see what the article refers to when it offers

A battery of studies cited by Browne confirms the reluctance of men to accept female leadership when the shooting starts. This reluctance actually increases the more that male soldiers experience female leadership, for reasons hard-wired into the male brain.

Sadly none of the details are linked to, otherwise I'd be able to make a cogent statement. This article certainly doesn't.