Army recruitment has introduced the OPAT, which is an attempt at more rigorous physical selection before initial enlistment. The requirements for an aspiring infantry recruit top out at a deadlift of 220 lbs, which can be understood as a soft bar against the majority of untrained individuals, both male and female.Originally Posted by Seika
Suffice to say that on the question of temperament, I find myself unwilling to have an opinion, other than that Mattis has been to war, and also lived a long while, and I have not.
The distinction applies because combat roles have the highest physical standards associated. These are standards that most men do not meet, for whatever combination of reasons. Let's not discount effort here, but even after training it's easier for a male to reach that standard than a female, and thus you have an exceptionally small fraction of females who can perform at that physical standard on par with an average male (In the infantry.)The middle paragraph is utterly irrelevant when we've acknowledged that sexual dimorphism exists and that women can pass the standards anyway, because you don't have to be an international-level athlete to serve in the infantry. (I also note that the Williamses at 16 and 17 were hardly yet among 'the best tennis players of all time', while the top three male players right now are 30, 29, and 31, so Braasch's age was clearly less than an impediment; the entire example is not only irrelevant but also dishonest).
In fact, what this question has revealed is that some infantry units are bogged down with male soldiers who don't meet the standard. Failure to perform makes life difficult for the other soldiers in the unit, who now get to carry an 80 pound bag of gear and in the worst case, a downed soldier.
Take in injury rate, bone and muscle density, and general bone structure, and that means the ideal female candidate is one who has all the physical traits of a male. And yeah, there are those who can blow 99% of males out of the water, somewhere, but that is quite exceptionally rare.
Standards have been artificially lowered in many cases, which is the prevailing issue. Anecdotes from the army's ranger school state that female candidates received assistance, had rucksacks carried, etc. Political pressure on the military to achieve gender equality produced that problem.Finally, if you don't like people who pass your standards serving, then raise your standards. Don't whine about the fact that they've gone and done it; it's your fault, not theirs. And if you don't think the statement "Women deserve equal treatment to men" is worth making, then you can go fuck yourself.
That's the central issue. Not that the .001% of top female performers isn't getting to go out and play shooty, but that unrealistic political goals demand integration beyond reasonable limits, and I see our stances on that former issue already align.
