Replies

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.

See my post at 125.

This is one (the physical aspect) that I (and many others, both in and out of the military) base our opinions against this on. I am sure there are men who just “hate” women and believe they should be barefoot and in the kitchen, and even some of those on this thread.

This isn’t about respecting or disrespecting them. It is about seeing “A” and calling it “B”, knowing full well (or rationalizing to yourself) that it is NOT.

I wish we could stop with the idea of calling people “haters” and “unbelievers” as the author did, because they may (as I feel I do) have an opinion based on an understanding of biology, human behavior, and logistics.

I have said time and again that this battle is lost, because this foolishness is liberalism, which is a creeping cancer that is a one-way ratchet that never returns lost ground. If we don’t put an end to social experimentation and other foolishness in the combat units of our military, we are going to pay a price in blood, and that note will come due at the worst possible time.