Cbbmtt said:It's not about equal rights in my opinion. We are built differently. From my understanding the Infantry are trained to go in and take out the enemy. If it came down to hand to hand combat to the death, who are you putting the money on? The 6'3 220lbs guy who completed an obstacle course or the 140lb 5'4 woman who completed the same course. That's not being sexist, it's reality.
Just because a girl can fight in ultimate fighting, it doesn't mean they are going to let the girls fight the guys. Why do you think that is? Are they being sexist? That's not to the death. Sure passing an obstacle course is a test of your grit, endurance, upper strength and so forth and if you pass it like everyone else you have the right to be in that role. The only thing is, if I or any guy over 200lbs was ever going to be in trouble of falling off a wall, roof and or cliff and my partner was a girl with barely enough upper body strength, I could die. Hypothetical as it may be, these are my views and my views only.
I can say the same thing about the 140 lb, GUY. The reality is that women have been fighting, killing and dying for years. The US just hasn't caught up. Look at Russia in WW2, The Israelies, us. If they meet whatever standard exists and pass the training that determines what makes them a marine officer then they meet that standard. Same as the 140lb guy.
Here's another hypothetical. You need to send someone for help. Do you send the 140lb girl that can run like the wind or the 220lb lummox? How about the 140lb girl that can put 10 rounds into a dime sized area at 200 meters? You can come up with all the fight to the death mortal combat scenarios you want but it doesn't mean much in the grand scheme.
Here's a side note. Google Philp Konowal and look at how big he was and then tell me who you want in your ring of death.
Size matters some of the time, not all of the time. I know plenty of wiry little guys (and girls) I wouldn't want to tangle with.