Barring women from the military makes not a lick of sense

I'm currently reading John Man's Amazons. Female warriors are neither new nor somehow inferior to men. It's blindingly simple : set everyone the same entry requirements and if they meet them, let them join. Equal opportunity must be the goal, not equal numbers (which would be daft).

The Royal Air Force has become the first branch of the British military to open up every role to men and women. From Friday it will accept applications from women to join the RAF Regiment - its ground-fighting force. The Army and Navy will open also roles to all genders over the next 12-18 months.

The main role of the 2,000-strong RAF Regiment, which sustained casualties in Afghanistan, is to patrol and protect RAF bases and airfields. Women make up 14% of the air force as a whole - compared to 10% for the whole military.

BBC Defence Correspondent Jonathan Beale says it is a significant moment because it means women can now apply for any RAF role, from fighter pilot to ground support.

The former head of British forces in Afghanistan, Colonel Richard Kemp, told BBC Breakfast he "vehemently disagrees" that women should be serving in close combat roles - because of their physical capability. He said: "Once you have got through selection, you are subjecting yourself to a minimum of four years of intensive physical training, day in and day out, in barracks and out of barracks, which puts enough of a strain on a man's body."

Quoting statistics that women sustain around twice as many serious injuries as men do during training, Colonel Kemp added: "I think the reality is we will find many more women than men suffer injuries… and we will then undoubtedly see very significant compensation payments being made out of the defence budget.

Because women are totally incapable of understanding that, I suppose.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41119863