And until a few lost lawsuits, a female with 10,000 hours wouldn't get the time of day at UAL.
So now the pendulum must swing in the other direction?
My junior year at high school, the FEMALE vice principal of the school pulled me out of a math class because "girls don't need math". She refused to allow me to take any science, as "girls don't need science classes, you've already met the graduation requirement". I was supposed to take 'home ec' and 'child behaviorism'. This wasn't thirty years ago. Discrimination against each other is alive and well, and females are far more vicious to other females than men have ever been.
I've got 2 daughters and a son, and my wife is of your mind (trust me), and in the end the two girls want to play with dolls, baby animals, and watch princess movies (from their infancy they've shown these traits), while the boy loves science, numbers, shapes, cars, planes, trains, etc.. all on his own. SURE, there are going to be the occasional statsistical outlier female and male where they have non-typical gender type behaviors and they should be allowed to do what they want.. so if it means a that little girl who likes science, physics, etc wants to be a pilot, then she should be allowed to without obstacles. But I've flown with at least 10 women in my career (from students, to captains) and I can say that at least 1/2 of them were completely non technical, with little mechanical knowledge and it made me wonder how they got thru their systems classes..but then I actually realized that the problem lies in how we teach and test on aircraft systems... it's all rote memorization anyway.
Women still are not allowed into certain combat positions in the military. There are a whole bunch of excuses behind this, including the guys will put themselves at risk to protect the females. Yet, reading the Medal of Honor stories, there are a bunch of guys putting themselves at extreme risk to protect their male buddies. 'The public doesn't want to see their mothers and sisters getting killed in war' is another excuse. Like any of us want to see our fathers and brothers getting killed -- that's okay??!! Everyone in Switzerland serves in the military -- male or female, it doesn't seem like that country is falling apart because the females serve in combat.
The Swiss don't have women in the infantry or armor or ground combats unit, this is pure fiction, and only the males in that country must maintain a weapon at their home, as all men are a part of the national militia.
Just as Israel doesn't and neither do most countries that people "think" employ women into combat (these are false stereotypes that some try to use to dispel our ban here in the US with the ill-informed general public). All of these countries have at one time or another as a part of their liberal cultures experimented with these things, and with the exception of Norway and France (but not their Foreign Legion), none have kept these programs, not even Israel which is always short of man power.. They do have females in close ground combat support and air combat roles, but those don't require the same physical readiness. Currently, Norway is the only military I know of (and possible soon France) that will employ women into ground combat positions, and if a real war broke out the French rely on their Foreign Legion (which has 0 women, period).
Having been an armor crewman myself and knowing the tremendous physical demands of this position I can speak with some authority on this. Additionally, and being a hobbiest war historian, I can tell you the very idea of putting physically weaker women into combat based on a false or gender normed physical equality is science fiction. Many a battle has hinged on pure physical strength of it's soldiers. Carrying a .50 Cal machine gun into a nest to use to defend a position requires pure physical strength, and pound for pound a man is 30% stronger than a women, and most men weigh 50% more which further compounds this difference. Battles have been won or lost based on simple movements of men into positions and being battle ready at a certain time. Study everything from Dunkirk, the Buldge, Stalingrad, or even Gulf War I, Infantry is still Infantry.. and the only difference isn't that technology has mitigated the need for strength, it's that we've yet to fight a truly tough opponents, ala China.
Furthermore, over and over it's been shown (now in the Navy with their mixed gender ships vs single gender ships/subs and in Airforce - can we say Kelly Flynn) that their effect on unit moral and cohesion, battle readiness and disciple would be far worse than any positive it could bring in terms of "man power". Today's Navy doesn't have the physical demands of yesteryears.. gone are the ship to ship battles, close ship to air battles, etc.. the dire need for fire/damage control is now secondary with the automated fire/damage control systems, and most Navy sailors hardly get their uniforms dirty during an engagement anymore; and as anyone who served will tell you that any truly physical jobs left on a ship are still done by the men, as the rest are sitting inside a air-conditioned room and pressing buttons to lob guided missiles to a place 200 miles away. So sure, you can now "safely" employ women on ships (not subs).. the moral issue can be dealt with after all.. the Officers just have to add to their already busy workload and fit time in for it.
Only the political correctness of our society makes it so this is not headline news, but rather information one has to get from face to face or direct contact with the commanders of these units.
There is one small side benefit to the gay rights movement. Now guys are getting the offer of flying right seat in whatever jet with the condition of having to sleep with the 50 y/o, fat, balding, captain.
and here we have it... The feminists favorite ally, the Gay man.
Now you know why I picked my Avatar..
we Cavemen can't fly! 
