Women in an infantry unit will be specifically targeted and abused in ways a male counterpart in the same situation will not. Women and men in an infantry unit will not share the risks equally, so until there is a need for some soldiers to suffer the worst excesses of cruelty when plenty of soldiers not so targetable are volunteering for the same combat role, simple gender equality will not be sufficient reason in the United States. Israel is not in nearly the same position, however.
Being shot and killed, captured, tortured and beheaded, that's less worse than being raped?
Our whole conception of risk to females is predicated on our need to protect them, specifically. In reality, while they might face being raped by the enemy, it's the ability of other service members to deal with that, not the women themselves, that prevents us from allowing them to accept the risk.
But seriously Nikov. If a woman is willing to put herself at risk, what is your problem? Why is her willingness to sacrifice any different than a man's willingness to sacrifice? Because it makes
you uncomfortable?
And saying Israel is trying to save itself from annihilation, so they don't count, is absurd. They're the best example of women in combat and why most of the objections to women serving are fallacies. But you've cut to the heart of the issue. It's a
social and cultural issue with Americans about women in combat, not a
logical, factual or efficiency issue. Other than what Strife said about all the bureaucracy that comes with it, which AGAIN is a direct result of our whole American conception of sexuality.
Edit: Ninja'd by Sowelu and Leaf.