Over the last century, the stigma that women can’t accomplish the same things as men has slowly faded.

Women’s right to vote. The Equal Pay Act. Title IX. History is littered with events that continue to inch women closer to men in terms of gender equality.

The next thing on the list: the U.S. military. Starting Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must open all combat positions to both genders or ask for exceptions.

And for those saying this is nothing more than a social experiment and asking why this is happening, female members of the ROTC program at Idaho State University offer this rebuttal: Why not?

“The standards shouldn’t drop, but we should be given the right to do it,” said Adrianna Tucker, a sociology major and ROTC cadet at ISU. “There’s no reason why we shouldn’t be able to.”

It’s a daunting debate, and Charlie Neaman and Paige Tarr — who serve in ISU’s ROTC program with Tucker — believe the question asking why women should be allowed in combat roles is a hard one to answer. For them, if a woman can meet the same expectations as everyone else, there shouldn’t be an issue.

It’s not about lowering the bar or crafting exemptions for women who want the opportunity to engage in combat alongside their male counterparts.

It’s about a woman’s freedom to decide if she wants to fight. And if she goes through the rigors of training and is turned away, that’s fine.

But at least she was given the chance. And that’s what Tucker, Neaman and Tarr believe is right. It’s what they think is fair.

“I don’t think women should have privileges,” Tarr said. “I think we should still have to meet the same requirements as men.”

But not everyone agrees. Several military officials believe women’s entrance into combat would do more to hinder ground forces than it would to help.

In a column published in the Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Army Capt. Julie Pulley says she doesn’t support integrating women into the infantry.

“Should women in an all-volunteer Army serve in infantry positions in equal numbers alongside men?” Pulley wrote. “If so, how would this affect American military families and morale? Would such changes dissuade women from voluntarily joining the Army? And most important, would significant numbers of women in the infantry serve to strengthen or weaken national defense?”

Other questions that arise include women’s physical limitations, psychological concerns and inclusion into the Selective Service System.

Those questions can’t be fully addressed until women’s integration in the military takes place, but Tucker believes some answers lie in the countries — including Israel and Canada — whose armed forces allow women to serve in infantry.

“So far, it hasn’t been a problem for them,” she said.

In a document leaked Sept. 23 to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Brig. Gen. George Smith Jr., director of the Marine Corps Innovation Office, says there are benefits to the inclusion of women as well as perils. Smith’s assessments concluded that bringing female troops into ground combat situations will add some risk of reduced performance. The potential benefits, however, include enhanced decision-making and fewer disciplinary problems.

Tarr says she isn’t sure how many women would jump at the chance once all combat positions become available. But Tucker believes women bring a lot of potential that has yet to be tapped. And if the recent graduation of two women from the Army’s demanding Ranger School is any indication, women will bring plenty to the table.

“I honestly believe that they can bring the same thing as men,” Tucker said. “They can make it physically, and I believe that if we can meet the same requirements as any man can, then why shouldn’t we be allowed to do the same tasks they can?”