I don’t think women realize just how much different (ie stronger) the average guy is to the average gal. I was just reading something here last week about the average woman in her twenties at the height of strength and such has the aerobic capacity of an average guy who’s 50. I didn’t even know it was that markedly different.
And if they were ever really in a “fight,” once it got to the ground it is game over, against any male. Teaching females to try and fight males is cruel and repulsive.
Tell it to the DoD, before they do something crazy like approve putting women in combat. Oh, wait...
Perhaps you refer to the following finding from an actual government study.
You can read more at this link:
Fred On Everything - Women In Combat
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993):"The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength…
An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."
Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:
"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."