Darken12 said:
All this is a consequence of arbitrary social mores. Men get stressed out or make risky decisions when women are in danger because society keeps insisting that women are helpless and fragile and need to be protected by men. This is patently false, but it shows up everywhere all the same.
Similarly, only 1% of women fit current male standards because we, as a society, insist that women must be thin, willowy and that anything that would give them physical strength (such as fat and muscle) are terribly undesirable. When it becomes socially desirable for women to have muscles (just like men), we'll start to see that 1% becoming 100%. And likewise, the bit about women needing more provocation and fearing the consequences of aggression have to do with the fact that women are socialised to be demure and quiet, and traits such as loudness, aggression and assertiveness are discouraged in them. Furthermore, women learn to avoid confrontational attitudes and play peacekeepers with men, something that wouldn't be necessary if they were socialised to be aggressive and value physical strength (just like men are socialised).
In short, change current societal mores and this problem disappears.
Oh god, am I getting involved?
Yes, Yes I am getting involved.
Bull to the shit.
Sorry. I get this enough from my sister. I get this enough from some of my classmates. I get this enough from society in general. The most important thing humans need to remember is that we are animals. We are predisposed to be certain ways. There are differences in male and female biology, BAR WHAT FUCKING WEDDING TACKLE YOU HAPPEN TO BE ROCKING.
Now, on to your fitness point. To a degree I can see that, you are making a validish point. Yet... Nope. Sorry. Its the Military. It is a high stress environment. It is an environment where the strongest survive. Everyone is encouraged to put on the muscle, to beef up, to increase their general levels of fitness and stamina. Etc etc etc. This overrules your arguments that it is down to society that these differences are present. Its just reality. Sorry bro. Again, with the aggression and everything, the military fosters that kind of stuff...
Fuck it, why am I even bothering?
Look, Gender equality is a good thing. And it should be fostered. And hell, Women make fucking good killers, there are plenty of women who could kill me rather easily. And plenty of men. But we are biologically different. So let the women continue manning the big guns, let them keep working in tanks and choppers, let them keep blowing people into little meaty chunks with planes.
But do not, in the name of equality, put them in situations which will kill them. We are animals. Men are more suited for killing. We are built to be aggressive SOB's. Its in our nature.
Ok, I am starting to go in circles...
Just... Yeah. I think your argument does not apply. Certainly, it can apply. Bits of it are logical. But the fact of the matter is men are better suited to the kind of aggression that is needed in a frontline unit and adding women to that unit would complicate things. Not due to them being any less competent then men, just down to the differing levels of fitness and the fact that us men are hardwired to protect women.