comment: >
  
  Simple solution.
  Set physical standards for military service. 
  Accept the ones who meet the standard. 
  Reject those who don’t.
  There. Happy?
context: I believe this statement because studies prove that men are physically stronger then women on average.
  
  We don't send the abstract concept of averages into combat. We send individuals. We set the bar where it should be set and then we accept any and all individuals who meet that standard. >
  
  Yes but that’s not the case if it was it would not have two different tests so why is there different tests and requirements for each gender >
  
  Your position is that women shouldn't be in combat. It isn't that there shouldn't be two different standards.
  I addressed your position and I ask that you stay on that topic. Do you acknowledge that the abstract concept of an average person has fuck all to do with your argument against women being in combat roles since we don't send the abstract concept of averages into combat? >
  
  Yes that is my position >
  
  Good job abandoning your irrelevant tangent.
  Now, for the rest of the post that you didn't respond to:
  Do you acknowledge that the abstract concept of an average person has fuck all to do with your argument against women being in combat roles since we don't send the abstract concept of averages into combat? >
  
  You want evidence that those who serve in the military are individual humans rather than abstract concepts? >
  
  Sorry, I was trying to ask OP. >
  
  Ah, got it. >
  
  
  They have lowered the standards in the military to accommodate women so that they can join the military.
  
  They haven't lowered the standards for combat roles.
  It makes sense to lower the standards for non-combat roles. The military has those standards because they want all their personnel to be fit and healthy. But my ex-girlfriend flew cargo planes for the Navy. It simply didn't matter, at all, whether she could do 100 push-ups or only 10. She was a glorified FedEx pilot.
  In combat roles, the standards are the standards. And yes, there are some exceptional women who can meet them.
  17% of the U.S. miliary is women. But when it comes to Marines in combat roles... there are 53 women who made the cut. A vanishingly tiny percentage.
  But these women actually made the cut. They are not weaker than their male counterparts. They are some of the strongest women in the world. >
  
  What ur advocating for is a higher standard of physical capabilities in combat roles. Because a lot of cops including male ones don’t fit your standards either. Many men are shorter, weaker, or fatter. At the end of the day, I see combat itself as less of an issue with weapons. When guns, tasers, batons, pepper spray, etc are involved it closes the gap significantly in terms of combat.
  Also for every video you find of a female cop being overpowered by a regular dude, I can probably find just as many if not more male cops being outrun simply because of their weight. Males are more susceptible and more likely to be obese and this is reflected in the police force.
  50% of male police officers are obese  while only 20% of female police officers are obese
  I can confidently say if I had to choose between trying to escape the average male officer vs the average female officer im gonna pick male. Cause there’s a higher chance I’ll be able to outrun him.
  Male police officers generally tend to be much less athletic and more unhealthy than female police officers. And sure an obese or overweight male police officer will probably be able to overpower me in a fight but with the amount of weapons they have available such as guns, tasers, batons, pepper spray, etc I doubt it would matter much anyway. If I resist I’ll get taxed or shot pretty quickly anyway.
  Women also tend to be better at diffusing conflict rather than exasperating it which is one of the most important skills a police officer needs >
  
  Yes higher standards in general too >
  
  So do u believe that the standards should be so high that no female could possibly reach them. Because I hate to break it to u but men who reach those standard are too busy playing professional sports or training for the olympics for them to consider being a police officer or any combat role. >
  
  No not that no one can reach them but that the person is fit enough to do there job effectively and not have to rely on guns and other means to stop the person >
  
  Well that’s not a good policy to have especially in a country where the average person can easily access a gun or a taser. Police officers rely more on their weaponry and authority more than they do on their physical fitness. The reason why the majority of people being arrested end up in the police car isn’t because they’ve been wrestled to it in 1v1 hand to hand combat.
  And even when considering physical fitness, the average female officer is still more capable than them. Brute strength means nothing if u can’t run a block without collapsing. Or you can’t duck or dodge a projectile or attack quickly enough.
  Most women do do their job effectively your just focusing on anecdotal evidence and the few videos online where they failed. I’m which case I can find many more for men >
  
  
  women should not be in combat roles
  
  I believe this statement because studies prove that men are physically stronger then women on average.
  
  
  A tank driver is a combat role; are women too weak to drive tanks? An artillery crewmember is a combat role; are women too weak to serve as targeting computer operators? A drone operator is a combat role; are women too weak to hold a joystick? 
  Combat roles are not just front line infantry. And, front line infantry isn't that dependent on strength these days. Can you carry a rifle? Can you shoot it? 0300 Infantry. You made it >
  
  Oh dear. I am seriously concerned if you believe a woman will fare as well as a man in most any combat situation. 
  Human males have evolved to be the fighter and physically superior one. This will also lend to their psychology which is more suited for combat and high-stress situations. 
  You think infantry isn’t dependent on physical strength? You are marching for indefinite distances. You are carrying gear that has a substantial weight.
  And for any of these situations you have to take into account if things go wrong. Examples include but are not limited to having to carry a wounded war-buddy. Your tank gets damaged and unusable as a tank driver. These things will happen.
  Edit: for all the people downvoting me, you’d think they’d be able to explain how I’m wrong. >
  
  
  I am seriously concerned if you believe a woman will fare as well as a man in most any combat situation
  
  I have been in combat situations with women, and they fared just as well as the men. >
  
  Obviously, what I said was a generalized statement.
  For every woman that meets the standards for combat situations there are 100 men.
  And I can only take your comment with a grain of salt because I don’t know what you mean by “combat situation,” how you quantify “faring as well” or if you are even telling the truth for that matter. >
  
  
  I don’t know what you mean by “combat situation,” 
  
  Three combat deployments. Two as infantry (both Iraq and Afghanistan) and one as Signal in Iraq.
  
  how you quantify “faring as well”
  
  Maintaining composure, returning fire in a rapid and accurate manner, relaying information to reinforcing units effectively, providing first aid that saved lives... Just basic soldier shit. 
  
  or if you are even telling the truth for that matter.
  
  I'm not going to dox myself, but here is a picture of my Hummer.. How's that float your goat? >
  
  Again, what I said is a generalized statement. Women that are capable of meeting the standards that even an average male could meet are few and far between. Nor did I say women couldnt be in a combat role, just that men are better suited.
  No disrespect to you or the people you served with. I am absolutely aware that there are badass military chicks that are very capable.
  But this doesn’t mean that men aren’t better suited for combat roles. >
  
  
  I believe this statement because studies prove that men are physically stronger then women on average
  
  That's why there are things like strength and endurance requirements, which women pass
  Therefore, there is no such issue.
  
  There been many instances where a female officer was trying to arrest a a share sized male.
  
  Your example could easily be a short man and a tall man; therefore, it has nothing to do with sex or gender. >
  
  
  studies prove that men are physically stronger then women on average
  
  So everyone should just pass the same test?  You said it, on average women are less strong than men.  This means that there are women who are stronger than men.  So the sex of a person isn't relevant, just if they're strong enough.
  
  They have lowered the standards in the military to accommodate women so that they can join the military.
  
  200+ countries in the world, most with several branches to their military, could you be a tad more specific which military has lowered their standards and can you show some proof that it was to accommodate for women?  Could they not have lowered their standards because otherwise they didn't get enough volunteers?  And can you show that the lowering of these standards has had any detrimental effect?
  
  women are still failing at a higher rate then men
  
  So?
  
  There been many instances where a female officer was trying to arrest a a share sized male. They were not able to and struggled with this
  
  And there have been 0 instances of male officers trying, and failing, to arrest a suspect because of a size mismatch. >
  
  I am talking about the USA and yes there’s always exceptions to the roles but yes they where changing it to accommodate women because they where failing at less rate then the men and exactly a men has never struggled to do it because they are physically stronger and capable and there is much research to show that this is the case >
  
  So you have no problem with women being in combat roles as long as they're able to pass the same test as men? >
  
  Yes if anyone is able to pass they should be able to be in whatever role they want and not change because one gender was failing more then the other >
  
  Your title clearly states that you believe women should not be in combat roles.  You now state that you have no problem with women who pass the same test as men being in combat roles.  Has your view been changed or am I missing something? >
  
  Averages matter when we have to make blind inferences about an unknown, not when we already have a way of testing individuals. The abstract concept of a woman isn't going to show up in a recruiter's office. If a given woman passes all the same tests a man would need to pass, why does it matter that some other woman would fail? >
  
  Is louder with crowder not a good source for this where I got my info from >
  
  Crowder himself is irrelevant to the equation. I'd say skip the middleman and go straight to whatever primary source he's quoting. >
  
  Why specifically women, and not just any person who cannot complete the fitness requirements?  
  For example - a 140 lb man and a 140 lb woman - should either be in a combat role? >
  
  All other things being equal the 140lb man probably has much stronger muscles. Weight and strength certainly have some correlation. But the gap between men and women is pretty big. >
  
  Very true, but that 140 lb man is likely weaker than his 200+ lb male counterparts.    
  But if both can pass the test, what does it matter? >
  
  In WW2 the Germans were terrified when they realized the Soviets had female soldiers as all their predictions on the amount of troops the Soviets could muster had only counted the men.  Those soviet women were famous for being extremely capable and vicious fighters, snipers, pilots, etc.  
  Standards mean little compared to total combat numbers.  If you can have a 1000 strong men fight for you or 1000 strong men and 1000 women too you pick the later.  It doesn't matter that the women can't bench press as much if they can aim a rifle and follow orders. There is practically no hand to hand combat that's going to happen in a modern war. >
  
  Obviously when guns are involved it’s different but the physical stamina endurance and strength with hand to hand combat is the thing that I am talking about >
  
  Why are you focused on what is I would bet less then 1 percent of combat scenarios, like a lot less then 1 percent, versus the sheer amount of sit here with your rifle and shoot at the enemy when you see them.  Modern warfare isn't knights squaring off for duels its using night vision to blow their brains out and call in artillery.  A women sighting in artillery will do just as good a job as a man.  A women shooting you will kill you just as surely as if a man shot you.  Ukraine has 60 year old men still fighting, not because they are beasts in hand to hand combat but because they can use a rifle , drive a truck, use the radio, etc. >
  
  What amount of strength does someone need to be in a combat role?
  That seems to be the only standard you provide - strength. 
  If a woman meets that level of strength, why shouldn't she be in a combat role?
  Obviously there are some women who are stronger than many men. If they can meet the physical standards for combat, what else remains of your view? >
  
  So if the military standard hadn't changed, should they women who met it have been allowed in?
  
  The women that say they want equality get it. This is good but when they men beat them in the sports they say that it’s not fair.
  
  This 'they' is it women collectively, because it sounds like your accusing half of all people of being hypocritical because some of them express one opinion and some express a different opinion. >
  
  In a civilised country the police force is not a combat role.
  A football game is also not a combat role.
  Do you have any actual studies from warzones or military statistics to demonstrate whether or not women are pulling their weight in active situations?
  From what I've seen in Ukraine and Iran women handle themselves just fine whether that's with a gun in their hand or a pair of scissors.
  As the quote goes - God made man, Colt made man equal.
  And in case of ambiguity, man here means mankind, not the gender. >
  
  
  women should not be in combat roles  
  ...  
  men are physically stronger then women on average
  
  My man. After serving 7 years and spending time in some real shit-hole conflicts - I've taken away a few truths about war.
  One, war sucks for everyone, there are no winners. And two, if you have an index finger - you can kill me.
  I'll never intentionally relive some of what I've seen - but I can tell you this - you don't need muscles to fire a RPD. It's got a bipod. >
  
  A 'combat role' is increasingly becoming a desk job as drone warfare becomes more popular. 
  Also, all women should not be in combat roles because women are weaker on average? Really? >
  
  Milunka Savić. Any woman willing to fight alongside me is welcome to do so. >
  
  Can you expand a little bit about what you mean by "should" in the headline view?
  Is it a "it would be nice if" or is it a "combat troops would be more effective if" or is it a "in a world with justice" or maybe something else?  (I might have included "in a perfect world," but I doubt that most people's ideas of a perfect world include combat in the first place.)
  As Rumsfeld famously said, "You go to war, with the army you have, not the army you want."  Today, Ukranians are defending themselves against a Russian invasion, and are marshaling all the forces they can muster.  That includes putting willing women in combat roles.  Do you think that the Ukrainian authorities are wrong for allowing that to happen?
  Ukraine also has a prohibition on men in a certain age range from leaving, but no analogous prohibition on women leaving.  Do you think that Ukraine is wrong for setting policies like that? >
  
  
  There have been teens that played against the women pro soccer team and beat them 7 to 1. 
  
  Ah, this example again.  Are you thinking of this 5-2 game where the boys team was likely actually trying, while the woman were focusing on working together?
  Also, honestly, for the Army, the question really should be "can you carry your stuff, shoot a gun and drag a person out of danger".  Like, really, what is the likelyhood of hand-to-hand combat nowadays? >
  
  If they didn't lower the standards, things would be fine, and the few woman that would pass would be as trusted and respected by their team mates as any other.   
  Equal rights would be great, but they seem to go for "equal outcomes" instead.   
  I like to see the statistics on woman getting pregnant just before they are send to a war zone...  From anecdotal evidence this seems to be a thing, wonder if it's really true. 
  Even if this isn't really a thing, it will still happen a lot more with woman than with man. 
  Also heard from military guys that woman can certainly have an important role in the army, but when it comes to combat and your life depends on your team mates, ideals quickly go out of the window and you only want the strongest guys at your side, who are able to drag you out of there when your legs are blown off. >
  
  Yes would u rather have an army of 20,000 women go and attack a county or an army of 20,000 men and this is what I’m saying that women are more emotionally intelligent >
  
  This would entirely depend on which 20,000 women and which 20,000 men we're talking about. People aren't monoliths by gender, and there absolutely are situations where I'd choose the 20k women over the 20k men. >
  
  I think his point is if you know nothing about them. And the sensible choice in that case would be the 20k men. >
  
  I know. And my point is people aren't a monolith. There are absolutely women who can pass the same standard as men. Are there as many? I'm sure not. But our military isn't created by choosing 20k of one sex at random for enlistment. So I can absolutely imagine 20k women I'd prefer to have over 20k men. >
  
  
  I believe this statement because studies prove that men are physically stronger then women on average.
  
  How much military combat is arm wrestling?
  
  Another example would be women In the police force. There been many instances where a female officer was trying to arrest a a share sized male. They were not able to and struggled with this
  
  Source? I don't know what share sized is but I've seen WAY more videos of male cops struggling to arrest or control people.
  
  There is also a lot of injuries with women and the police force.
  
  Source?
  My tiny little 100-lb, 5'isn relative could, I pretty much guarantee, put you in the hospital before you could say boo. It's not about size, and the only people who think it is are people who can't fight.
  
  . There are other ways women can help in police they are more emotionally intelligent 
  
  But they can't hear about bad things, or they become hysterical and their uterus might fall out, didn't you hear?!
  This is some ludicrous, sexist pablum.
  Btw, if you made standards based on, say, men who were 6'5, because that was what you used to mandate, and then allowed men from, say, 5'10 in, so you had to change the jump height in your physical testing, would you bemoan how "standards were lowered and it put everyone at risk!!!":
  Or would you recognize the not hard concept that standards in a random physical activity based on a very particular group are not actually necessary for anything, and changing them to suit a wider group of participants isn't dangerous, because no one won a war doing repetitive pull-ups.