- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 15,998
- Reaction score
- 3,962
- Location
- Tiamat's better half
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Your assumption is that women are inherently less physically suited to combat conditions than men. But combat involves more than carrying gear, and those kinds of responsibilities are assigned to those who are best suited for it. Even among males, guys can vary greatly in how much gear they can carry.
Beyond that, the NAVY Seals routinely recruit men of small physical stature, which suggests that women, with their smaller, more dexterous hands which leads to greater skilll in weapons firing, could fill these jobs.
Again, it's only for women who WANT to do the job. And the vast majority DON'T. But, women, for instance, could serve as snipers, and do the job well. The Russian army used women as snipers in WWII.
Here's a corresponding situation - women in SWAT:
L.A. SWAT Unit on Verge of Accepting First Woman : NPR
Women In SWAT, What Does It Take? - cbs13.com
My assumption is that yes in a general way when you're talking optimum fitness women aren't as strong as men.
My assumption is also that sexual relationships on the battlefield would serve as a distraction. Women getting pregnant serves as an even bigger one. Should the military put much resources into a woman preparing her for combat only to send her home when she's knocked up by someone in her unit. :roll: And then there is definitely the matter of men getting caught up in petty b.s. - which is their fault I'll grant you that - when dealing with sexual tensions.
Men and women are different. Women IMO are not made for battle. These differences are clear when it comes to size, shape, etc. Then there's the sexual manipulations and games. How many men do you know have legs as their avatar? There's just no room for that stuff on the battlefield. It wreaks havoc both on deployment and on the home front and the negatives out weight the positives.