First, they should match the men in every score, number, measure, exercise, distance, weight and time. There should be no fudging the standards down for women.
Second, why would a woman want to do this?
Don’t worry they will fudge it. /sarc
Any society that sent its women into combat would have historically died-out.
Because it takes nine months for a woman to bear a child, with half of such children growing to be warriors.
While it only takes one man to impregnate an entire tribe of women.
Therefore any tribe that lacked the genetic, inborn distaste of sending its women into battle, would have died out in a very few generations at most because of the declining birthrate brought about by having fewer mothers.
Meanwhile, those tribes that had genes that influenced a dislike of sending women to war, would have continued to exist.
It drives me crazy to see people trying to rationalize their inborn, genetic, dislike of sending women into combat—you cannot rationalize not sending them. But you can simply understand that it is against human nature and so against the happiness and strength of a society.
Meanwhile I say men should not joint the armed forces in protest.
Let the armed forces be peopled only by women and foolish men who swallow the Kool-Aid about women’s equality.
Penis envy.
You know that ain’t gonna happen. They will either lower the requirements or have special provisions for the manly women.
I’m not a “spring chicken” any longer but I’ll bet I can do more physical lifting than any female that graduates from the new “sissy” ranger camp that will be established to ensure the women can pass the test.
I just can’t help but wonder how many male troops have been killed simply due to the lack of physical (and emotional) strength of women in combat roles and their inability to actually “fight like a man.”
The sad fact is that the truth will never be known.