In response to:

Soldier Girl Blues

Doug3370 Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 9:58 AM
At their peak, the average woman has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year old male??? This is hogwash on steroids. Women runners at any local 10K will come in minutes ahead of the 50-year-old men. Aerobic capacity is women's strong point. Women do relatively better at endurance sports (distance swimming, marathons, etc.) than at, say, weightlifting. Giving specious and ill-informed reasons why women should not serve in combat works against the needed cold realism that should inform our decisions about how to fight our wars. If there are good reasons why women should not be integrated into line infantry positions, say, they will be lost in the flap that will arise over the bad reasons.
Kodiak5 Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 1:48 PM
Check your science, Doug. Just because the sex-related performance difference for aerobic capacity is not as great as the difference in upper-body strength doesn't make aerobic capacity a "strong point." There are some women who can probably handle the physical stresses of combat better than some men, but that is a foolish argument. The question shuold be, "How does the Obama Administration's screening of 'G.I. Jane' make our military more effective?"
DuaneUrban Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 10:31 AM
Doug, the author mentioned the average woman not the average trained female athlete.

What if, during the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney had accused President Obama of wanting to let servicewomen serve in combat? After all, Obama had hinted as much in 2008. What would Obama's response have been?

My hunch is that he would have accused Romney of practicing the "politics of division" or some such and denied it.

In any case, wouldn't an open debate have been better than putting women into combat by fiat? You'd think the folks who are always clamoring for a "national conversation" on this, that and the other thing would prefer to make a sweeping change after, you...