- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 1,764
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Obviously women are not as big or strong or fast as men on average. You guys aren't providing any profound input when you tell us that. But when you put these qualities on a graph, it's a bell curve for men and women that overlap. That means there are some women who are stronger and faster than the average man. And some men who are weaker than the average woman. So what we need to do is set minimum requirements that EVERYONE needs to pass. A lot of men won't meet the standards, and fewer women will. But for anyone who can prove they are physically capable of performing the job, there is absolutely no reason to exclude them. Every other reason I've seen men post on here to exclude women are due to weaknesses of men. You think women will be raped? Guess what, that means we have a problem with the MEN in these units. You think men's morale will break when he sees a woman injured? Again, an issue the men will have to get over. Really guys, if you wanted to join a group and fight for your country and it was something you were capable of doing, would you really accept that you weren't being let in because the existing members would be uncomfortable with it?
The curve is extremely small - not to mention those men too physically weak will fail boot camp anyways or will fail the physical...
I suppose my point is that physically fit men will always be stronger and faster than physically fit woman.
The truth is that woman are just not physiologically built to do difficult physical tasks that are routine for men. This is why woman cant compete with men in sports at the professional level (or generally most levels).
IMO, putting a woman in a combat zone as an infantry specialist would be about as smart as allowing a woman to play in the NFL or NHL... They wouldn't be able to keep up...