My daughter was in the Marines. She made the point that there are women who can do very demanding things, who lift weights, work out, and can pass tests. But she says the real test is when you have to keep passing that test, day after day, for months and years. She thinks the women will break down because it already stresses male bone structure to the breaking point - her 200 lb husband has shoulders and knees like a man 3 times his age after 2 tours in Marine infantry.
Like you, I think some small percentage of women can do it. I’m not convinced that means it is a good idea. My experience deploying with women is that sex causes lots of problems that are not there with an all-male force...at least, that were not there when homosexuals couldn’t openly serve.
I’m also reading a book now about the Marines in WW2. Given that the Japanese held up to the rigors of combat, and many of them were no larger than women here, the physical “Can you move X in Y time” part is probably OK. But going on patrols and bayoneting men, or trying to haul a 200 lb guy with his gear out of an open area after he’s injured? I don’t buy it.
As I said in a previous post, if physical capability is graphed on a curve, it will be some variant of a bell curve. I just created this graph below to illustrate the point, because I think it is easier to visualize rather than explain.
I want to stress this is only one aspect of my objection, the simple, average physical capability disparity. I don't even mention the unit cohesion or logistical issues, which have been shown in fact to play out in the US Navy, which is "ahead" of the Army and USMC in this regrettable aspect. If they are tested the same way as men, the curve will look different. Here is what I think it would look like (below) Note that there are assumptions I have made such as the placement of the graphs which I guessed at, but the following assumptions are codified by reputable, main stream medical studies that treatment and assessment can be based on (male vs female muscle mass (40%>torso, 33> greater lower extremities), male vs female bone structure (15%> in men, male vs female individual muscle strands (15% greater in men, and male vs female strength which is on average, 25-35% less for women when normalized for age and weight)
I just created this graph in Adobe Illustrator, and I readily admit I guessed at the placement of the curves, but in a population of normalized men and women where mens highest volume occurs at 50% on a uniform strength test between men and women, women are going to have their highest volume on the same strength test at 25% less than the men.
You will see that the women's curve stops at 75% of the max mens strength, which reality tells us is true. I don't care what physical specimen of a woman can be found somewhere, if you put her up against a prime athlete such as NFL players like JJ Watt or Rob Gronkowski, there will be no contest whatsoever. That is the reality.
So my objection to women in combat roles in the military is based on the red striping in the graph above. When the outcome of a battle or ultimately a war can come down to one person doing what is required, I believe we should ALWAYS be putting our armed forces into the absolute 100% best fact and statistically based advantage we can give them.
This has zero to do with respect or disrespect for women, and has everything to do with individual, unit, and overall capability of our armed forces.
“But she says the real test is when you have to keep passing that test, day after day, for months and years. “
I don’t know the rules, but I don’t think you ever have to re-qualify, and if these women aren’t assigned to The Regiment, they most likely never will have to perform as Rangers, at least not to that degree.