Until one knows what requirements are needed in order to fulfill the demands for combat, it is best not to assume that women can do just as well as men in general.

First, even a fit woman is not as strong as a weak/average man. A 20 year old fit woman’s lung capacity is the same as an average 50 year old man’s.

It has been argued that when women are allowed to compensate their lower body strength into their training (to undo male’s upper body strength advantage), they end us as strong as men. The problem with that is that in combat, one does not have time to figure out how to efficiently coordinate this. What is needed in combat is long periods of endurace with the strength to carry your battle buddy to safety. If a woman has to coordinate her lower body strength to do this to equal a man, it is an impediment to the unit and could endanger lives. There is no suitable replacement for upper body strength during combat. Maybe in the gym or in some of these men/women’s strength studies, but not in combat.

Unless one can somehow change men’s instincts, favoritism is a danger in intense combat situations. Mixing males and females in this could cost unit cohesion and endanger lives. I am talking about overcoming natural urges and instincts of men to protect women when there is danger. As a woman currently in military, I can attest that this is very difficult if not impossible to train out. While one can argue that this may only happens sometimes, it only takes one time to destroy a mission. Unit cohesion is essential and many who have not been in the military do not understand this and think that men and women will operate flawlessely in this regard with the snap of a finger. They wont and it will cost us.
The potential for favoritism will go up when men and women mix in combat and that can create resentment which would affect unit cohesion and effectiveness.

These are the issues that are routinely ignored when discussing mixing men and women in combat. They cannot be taken lightly and if people want to keep experementing, it could cost more lives than necessary.

It is what it is, and thinking we can just change this is not as simple as we think.

Look, I understand that there are downfalls. I do. But men have downfalls too (ego, excessive agression, etc.)I can even look back at myself and say that I can see my own potentially damaging quality. I happen to be quite pretty. I can understand how that might be a challenge in an arena that is male-dominated. I will also say that the more men become used to having me around, the less likely they are to focus on the fact that I am attractive, and the more likely they are to notice that I am bright, and kind and strong and useful in a pinch. It all comes down to respect, whether it be in an office or in combat.

However, in saying that, they most certainly do have their uses. They’re usually extremely funny (whether laughing with them or at them), often times brave to a fault, they are absolutely indispensable as fathers both physically and emotionally, and they have a natural urge to protect. They are much stronger than women physically, which is helpful when moving houses, opening jars, needing protection when someone tries to break into the house, but most notably, they never seem to hesitate when defending their country.
If God forbid my husband was at war, and was injured, I would find a little more comfort in knowing he was surrounded by strong men who could carry him to safety, cause I know that most women can not do this. But this does not mean that if a woman can pass the proper testing, that she should be denied the chance to fight on the front line simply because, statistically, women have not been able to physically measure up in the past.
There are exceptions to EVERY rule…. i.e. my husband not being a typical neanderthal.

Look at it this way, you can have a few one-off’s with women being strong enough for combat, but you will NEVER have a one-off of men having babies. But just because men will never have babies, does not mean we should just write them off after the deed is done.

Test everyone equally, find their strengths and use their strengths in the appropriate roles. It really is that simple.

The cold hard fact is that the basic role of men is to fight and protect that which he loves. Hence he was given the physical attributes to fulfill this task. Men are without comparison stronger than women; it is not even debatable. This is proven by the very fact that the U.S.physical fitness standards for women are drastically lowered than for those of men. I am not denying that there are women out there who are stronger or faster than some men, that would be naive and foolish of me. However, to base a decision as crucial and deadly as women in combat over a few rare exceptions is also naive and foolish. Men were created to fill their role effectively, far more effectively than women.

As to my second point, the very presence of women in combat alters the warrior’s mindset into a protector’s mindset towards the woman. This is not the man’s fault. We were created this way, once again, to fulfill our role as protectors. The man cannot be blamed for how he was wired, just as the woman cannot be blamed for how she was wired. This is why little Johnny is blowing up dirt with his J.I. Joe while his sister Sally is playing family with her dolls.

Women were naturally created to fill a specific role just as men were, and this is by no means a bad thing. It is how we were made to operate. Women should not be in combat because men are physically more capable of getting the job done, and men’s attitudes are altered by the presence of women during combat. May God bless all who fight and die for our great country.

Don’t be a sexist pig dude~ Women can “handle” anything men can. So I’m going to shove that gun we “can’t handle” up your ass \m/