I don't think those guys weigh 175 lbs. :
Especially with their kit.
If a woman can survive through SEAL training without any special needs, then she should be a SEAL. It should be that way with any job in the military. If a woman can throw a 175 pound man over her shoulder and carry him out of danger, more power to her.
Demi Moore did it!
No, she shouldn't. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of military training and standards, confirmed by the team-oriented testing the Marine Corps did. In addition to other problems.
A military combat unit is not composed of a bunch of people who met the minimum standard. What you really have for most combat units is a distribution, with a few making the bare minimum, a few much better than everyone else, and then the bulk of males usually sitting well above the minimum requirements. And having those people who are way above the minimum helps elevate the unit as a whole.
The ability of a few women to meet the minimum standards lowers the overall distribution. You'll have a higher proportion of people right at the minimum, and that isn't good. And that's inevitable when you introduce a recruiting cadre -- females -- whose overall performance distribution will overlap that of males only at the highest female performance, and the lowest male.
A related issue is that study after study has shown that even when women can pass higher-intensity physical tests over a short period, that they subsequently incur a much higher injury rate than do men over the longer haul. The durability at high levels of weight-bearing, etc. simply is not there.
So great -- they pass the test, get assigned to a unit, and then spend a much higher proportion of time with the docs. Wonderful.
Another major issue is pregnancy. The military doesn't talk about this because it is un-PC, but as of 2013, over 10% of women in the military reported an unplanned pregnancy. And over 11% of women who were scheduled to deploy could not because of a pregnancy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/pregnant-military-unplanned-women_n_2534873.html
And that's only those who were scheduled to deploy but didn't. I didn't even try looking for the numbers who become pregnant while already deployed, but that is not uncommon either.
We simply cannot afford to take 10% casualties before even entering combat. And what makes it even worse is that pregnancy is essentially a "golden ticket home" for anyone who wants to get there. Sure, there are a lot of guys who get to the point where they'd like a ticket home, but biology doesn't give them that option, so they're stuck. Not so with women.
You cannot field effective, reliable combat units when troops have a golden ticket home in their pocket that they can cash in at any time.
There are other reasons relating to esprit d'corps, etc., that I'm omitting for the sake of brevity. But I will point out that this change in policy means that young 18 year old women will have to begin registering for the draft as well, and if drafted, could be assigned involuntarily to ground units just like men.
I think a lot of Americans may think the idea of women in combat is nice in the abstract. Not sure daughters signing up for the draft is going to be equally popular. There are other issues such a esprit d'corps that will be affected adversely by letting women in combat units. Service in combat units is a traditional male right of passage going back thousands of years, and many young men are attracted to that today because of a desire to demonstrate manhood. Gender-integration will adversely affect that mystique. Sure, it's not like no men will want to do it any more, but you will end up chasing away some guys you'd want to have, and replacing them with less capable women.
Then there is the whole issue of sexual/romantic tension and potential for infighting that inevitably occurs when you mix young men and women. Commanders don't need that headache.
I don't think those guys weigh 175 lbs. :
Especially with their kit.