Come on. Are you really wallowing in this kind of ignorance. They had to lower the standards precisely to keep women from dropping out at astronomically higher rates than men.
My point was that many men also drop out, yet they are not looked down upon for doing so or for not meeting the set standards.
"Reduced standards" have also been used for police and fire fighting work. Does this mean that women aren't - and can't be - good police officers or fire fighters?
What about men in these jobs that are injured and have to do reduced duty? They don't meet the set high standards, but they stay on the payroll. If they can do the job without being "totally fit," why can't a woman?
Other arguments against women fighting carry some weight (eg, the post about them being tortured, raped, etc.), but to restrict them strictly on their physical abilities when many men don't have those abilities either is not valid.