The quotes in the article are more extreme than what you imply in this comment. You're drawing a false equivalence between every possible reason someone could be against women in the military, and writing an article about how even though women could serve, they shouldn't, because it would destroy "exclusively male intangibles" about men fighting to protect "feminine images".
If you watch it, you will find that the "exclusively male intangibles" in that article were, at the time, messages brainwashed into every soldier during boot camp. In every service, in every military. This had been true for generations. The concerns in that article were mainstream concerns about how integrating women into the military could go wrong.
You probably find it brutish and offensive. That was by intent. It was part of a package of beliefs that was intended to turn young men into soldiers who kill at the right command. Whose use of force stops when it is supposed to. We want soldiers who take the town by force, but don't continue on raping and murdering for pleasure. We don't always get this package right. Graveyards are littered with the consequences.
As it happens, the generals were wrong in their concerns. We have been able to integrate women without losing military culture. However I guarantee you that if you scratch a soldier today, you'll find lots of beliefs you don't like. Beliefs instilled during boot camp for the same job - to turn young people (mostly men) into controlled lethal weapons.
