As mentioned, the poll is very silly. You've got various branchs without occupations, and then occupations without branchs.
Anyway, what does "The armed forces" mean? It seems a very US centric poll, is this if we were US citizens, or is this in our own nations military?
A US Marine is very different from a UK Royal Marine which is different again from a Royal Tongan Marine.
Oh, and I'd go for a RFSU. You are never deployed overseas, you spend all your time running around the top end looking for invaders and/or customs infringements. On the other hand, the top end isn't going to be much fun to run around in.
Cazza said:
The Australia Defence Association (ADA) says it is concerned there will be a disproportionate number of female casualties if women are allowed to serve in all frontline combat roles.
The standards wouldn't be lowered. Defence Minister Stephen Smith said "no diminution of standards".
Thats seems to only major reason against females in the frontline. Which doesn't make sense. If no standards are lowered that wouldn't be an issue.
It's just an excuse for not letting women in.
Mind you, there needs to be some changes of standards, just not in the obvious ways. The female body is proportioned slightly differently, so the way equipment is handled has to be as well. Women won't be doing the "run X ks carrying Y kgs in Z minutes" thing using the same backpacks as men, for example, and vice versa.
Apparently the standard issue boots are designed solely (no pun intended) for male feet as well, have to change that.