*ducks and runs for life*

Originally posted by FreeMason
Yeah yeah we all know the gun greatly reduces the need for "physical prowess", but not really.
In WW2 the average usage of the gun was at 300 feet or closer.
Speed and strength is still very necessary as the average distance of engagement has not changed.
Women in logistics (based on my opinion) is no better, but that's at least more acceptable.
But Women in combat rolls should never come to pass.
www.auburn.edu...
1) A study of lifting ability conducted by the Navy revealed that only the top 7% of Navy women scored better than the lowest scoring Navy man (NCPA 1)
2) Studies also show that " jobs which entail fixing a tank, carrying a stretcher, or throwing a hand grenade far enough for safety are beyond the physical capacity of nearly all women"(NCPA 2).
Fixing a tank especially, the most common problem with a tank will be the treads, when a tread needs mending, each kleet weighs over 20 lbs, and takes several strong men to wrench the tread back into place.
In the battlefield, a woman growing too tired to help fix a tread, could cost the Army the use of that tank.
Maternity leave is also a problem in the Military (to all those women who seem to think they can keep their legs closed).
Pregnancy becomes a problem especially in the combat zone. An article in Stars and Stripes reported that one women was evacuated from Bosnia for pregnancy every three days (Gutman 21).
Interesting tidbit:
A 1992 Army study about requiring women to serve in combat found that, if compelled to serve in combat, 52% of women soldiers claim they would "probably" or "definitely" leave the service all together (Donnely 18)
"Women offer little to the readiness and effectiveness of ground combat units. Lowering standards and conducting sensing surveys to prove women will be successful in combat will be worthless when the bullets are flying over their head. It is unfortunate that the military is so dominated by the politically correct mentality that it has succumbed to promoting blind equality. War is not and never was about equality. It has always been about survivability, and to survive on the battlefield you must have the strongest, most efficient army, not the fairest and most diverse." -- From source.
I have met no one in the military yet that approves of the "lowering of standards" that is going on.
My friend and I were already past 100% on the physical test for acception to Airborne, and neither of us even worked out through all of high school...
That was a shocker.
There are more than "moral reasons" to not have women in the military, all you need to do is look.
Stop denying the studies because a girl can shoot...wars are not won by shooting alone...it's won by speed, by strength, by sacrifice. (The latter a chick can perform completely theoretically, if they're mentally up to it.) And the others women and men share (Courage, love for country) and so forth.
Yeah, I hope anyone who wishes to retort this, can do so without "flaming".