A certain amount of chauvinism resides in most men, whether or not admitted (women, too, but never remarked). The most open-minded, polite combat-vet might feel a bit awkward taking orders from a lady whose most important decision of the day centered on eye-shadow. The distaffers have been cleared for combat by the prez, whose most important decision of the day might be lobster or goulash on Air Force One, but since he knows nothing about combat, give him some slack.
A concerted attack of chauvinism is another matter, wherein the attacked might insist that this nation is not ready for a female president. That ultra-politically-incorrect charge so disconcerts the social engineers and diversity-mongers that they scream “J'accuse,” regarding bias, gender-discrimination and even (gasp) racism, the latter because women themselves have identified their “discrimination” with that of minority African Americans though they form a majority of the population in both races and can vote any abuse of men they want – enough to make one wonder if suffrage was all that great nearly a hundred years ago. Or, one might even wonder if the nation is ready for a male president...would a female orangutan be better, for instance? The recently reelected president (having “evolved,” his term) has okayed marriage for homosexuals, personally attempting to rescind laws of nature and laws/constitutions of the majority of states. An executive order is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands, legislating when Congress allegedly won't. Just talking about marijuana, as Obama did recently, was a mistake, but claiming it less damaging than alcohol...WEIRD! Second-generation boomer and former user by his own account.
Women are gradually taking over some of the nation's most important institutions such as in education, the military and the courts. Not long ago, the naïve claimed that as they enter national leadership women—with much higher moral standards than men—would make everything “all better.” However, they are seen now as corrupt as men, if not more so. Hillary Clinton, for instance, is a compulsive liar and opportunist, a bad bet to answer that famous “3:00 a.m. call.” Think Benghazi. Concerning the sexual peccadilloes well-documented vis-a-vis men, people seem to forget that “it takes two to tango” and that the “oldest profession” was/is/will be operated by the distaff side. Selling the body is as low as it goes.
Women are being placed in combat not because they are or will be good at breaking things and killing people but in order for them to attain the highest ranks, in which they can do real damage. Studying in war college is not the same as confronting the enemy eyeball-to-eyeball. Putting fighting men at risk because female colleagues, collectively physically weaker, can't cut it in battle is to make political cannon fodder of both genders.
No one—male or female—should be president if lacking in actual military experience, not necessarily combat though that would be preferable. With the exception of Clinton, all the presidents back to FDR had military experience, much of it in battle. Former Defense Secretary Gates and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen strongly objected to Obama's “Libya adventure” in 2011. Obama didn't listen and the rest is history—bloodshed of innocent Libyans over seven months and the ruthless terrorizing/destruction of a sovereign nation, not to mention the Benghazi Massacre in 2012 in which four Americans died needlessly, occasioning the BIG LIE by Obama, Clinton and UN Ambassador Rice, now head of the NSA.
One risks the charge of bigotry or racism or gender discrimination or just plain meanness when insisting that the president should be a man with military experience, if for no other reason than that he is mean enough to act militarily when necessary and is more likely to have the proper knowledge in doing so successfully. It is not intellectually elitist to suggest that the nation is what it is primarily due to male leadership over hundreds of years under the auspices of the elements of what some call “Western Civilization.” That's “just the facts, ma'am.”
None of this denigrates women, who are substantially smarter than men in many areas. They already out-populate men in universities and have distinguished themselves in the fields of medicine, sciences and the arts, while matching male corruption/ignorance in politics. It's merely to remark that there's no such thing as unisex. There are differences in the genders—biological, mental, emotional. Leadership is too important to squander on either the uninitiated or the physically/mentally weak.
And so it goes.