Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

mattyrm wrote:
I'm not so tough really.. people think I am thanks to my qualifications, but physical fitness, stubborness and a rub of good luck earn you green berets, but they don't make you a fist fighter.

I'm fit but I'm a shade under 5 foot 9. If your tall you could put your hand on my skull and then boot me in the bollocks at arms length like your fighting a midget.

Matty you are next level, that's for sure

Matty woldn't go for a shotgun. Not enough rounds in it....well...maybe...if it was beanbags...it does look like a superhero punched someone on impact.

All I have here is the question, what would Saxton Hale say?

Nothing...just a snap of his fingers and females oogling over him magicaly appears.

Serious note however. The one thing blocking females in the US ARMY from serving in a combat line unit is Sexual Harrassment and Sexual Assualt risk at the platoon level.

Lynata wrote:
Indeed, women have been fighting in wars ever since war was invented. Their role has simply been played down again and again as military service is still defended as being a "manly thing", and introducing women to this would apparently diminish it. From native tribes conquered by the Roman Empire being forbidden to have their women armed, to knightly orders that included women being banned by the Pope, to women being forbidden to join the crusades, all the way to both World War I and World War II and the Soviet Union disbanding its units of female soldiery (and I am not referring solely to those snipers) in spite of them having acquitted themselves well in battle. The massive resistance against women testing themselves for the same positions as men in the US military is just one example in the long list of inequality.

Okay, I'm on board with women who meet standards being allowed to do combat arms and all... but that is because they have guns. During the ages of muscle powered warfare, women were at an even greater disadvantage than now. There are valid, legitimate reasons why there are no nations with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century. It is not misogyny. We just happen to live in times where technology and proper nutrition can level the playing field.

This is also why I find anti - gun feminists hilarious.

Bromsy wrote:

Lynata wrote:
Indeed, women have been fighting in wars ever since war was invented. Their role has simply been played down again and again as military service is still defended as being a "manly thing", and introducing women to this would apparently diminish it. From native tribes conquered by the Roman Empire being forbidden to have their women armed, to knightly orders that included women being banned by the Pope, to women being forbidden to join the crusades, all the way to both World War I and World War II and the Soviet Union disbanding its units of female soldiery (and I am not referring solely to those snipers) in spite of them having acquitted themselves well in battle. The massive resistance against women testing themselves for the same positions as men in the US military is just one example in the long list of inequality.

Okay, I'm on board with women who meet standards being allowed to do combat arms and all... but that is because they have guns. During the ages of muscle powered warfare, women were at an even greater disadvantage than now. There are valid, legitimate reasons why there are no nations with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century. It is not misogyny. We just happen to live in times where technology and proper nutrition can level the playing field.

This is also why I find anti - gun feminists hilarious.

Just about any weapon with greater reach than a knife, save perhaps high draw weight bows largely negate the advantage provided by a difference in upper body strength between the combatants. A spear doesn't kill you because the person on the other end is strong, it kills you because sharp metal punches through soft fleshy people like a hot knife through butter. Contrary to what D&D would lead people to believe any sharp length of metal is going to do about the same damage in the hands of a noodle-armed whimp as it would wielded by an '80s Arnold type strong man.

Then as today what really matters is the ability to keep up with pace of the war, and having skill with the weapon. Hell even the "Skill" part of it could be largely negotiable in some cases, with some types of engagements simply hinging on the soldiers ability to hold the pointy stick in the right direction and not run away.

Chongara wrote:Contrary to what D&D would lead people to believe any sharp length of metal is going to do about the same damage in the hands of a noodle-armed whimp as it would wielded by an '80s Arnold type strong man.

It isn't about damage so much as speed and endurance. You also have to consider that, at least in medieval Europe, even bladed weapons were effectively bludgeons; which means the more power you can put behind an attack the better.

Actually, I think a woman who knew how to use a knife placed against a man with the same skills is probably about as close to even as you'll get, at least as melee weapons go.

What about reflexes in that scenario?
It's a given that men are significantly stronger than women (assuming training), I think endurance would be fairly close, but you also have to factor in speed and load. I don't know if there is any data supporting one gender having superior reflexes to the other though.

Bromsy wrote:Okay, I'm on board with women who meet standards being allowed to do combat arms and all... but that is because they have guns. During the ages of muscle powered warfare, women were at an even greater disadvantage than now. There are valid, legitimate reasons why there are no nations with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century. It is not misogyny.

These "valid, legitimate reasons" are that society thought a "good woman" needs to belong in the kitchen and raise children, and you know it.

Also, there actually was "a nation with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century". Have you ever heard of the Mino regiment? They seem to have fought pretty well.

There may be more examples throughout history if one were to look carefully. I'm not even committing much of an effort into investigating this stuff and I still stumble upon things that were new to me from time to time. Like last month, where I heard of that girl Claude des Armoises, who became captain of a mercenary company in medieval Europe. We actually only know of her because she also tried to impersonate Jeanne d'Arc, so her life's story was on some city's court records - else we would know nothing of a woman ever having been in such a role. How many more like her were there? How common were onna-bugeisha in Japanese warrior units? What about the stories of Viking shield maidens? There's so much still hidden behind the veil of the ages, somewhere between suppressed/forgotten knowledge and sheer exaggeration or folklore.

It didn't help public perception much that the nations of the world kept disbanding their units of female fighters when they weren't needed anymore, regardless of their actual performance in battle. And who even learns about them in school? Ask any person on the street if there were ever such a thing as female knights or female soldiers in medieval times and see what answer you'll get. People not being aware of the many exceptions from what we consider the rule is part of the problem; this, as well as the ongoing cultivation of an objectified image, creates a bias that will haunt society for generations to come. There is, however, a light at the end of the tunnel - it just takes people some time to get used to women flocking into traditionally manly jobs, just like men are now flocking into traditionally womanly jobs. I think if you give it a few decades, people will look back at today's situation and scratch their heads at the illogical barriers in place, just like we today are looking back at stuff like black people not being allowed to sign up. It's a sad fact of life that humanity as a whole likes prejudice and dislikes change. Look at various contries in Europe who already had female combat infantry for decades.

Amaya wrote:I don't know if there is any data supporting one gender having superior reflexes to the other though.

And now you've got me doing research when I should be sleeping.

Some research says that there is no distinction, but it may vary by muscle group.

Women are most likely better in certain muscle groups then men and the reverse is also true.

Women have better peripheral vision while men have better focused vision(meaning better distance vision)


Of course standard deviation will put a portion of men below what women can achieve and women above what men can achieve.

Lynata wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Okay, I'm on board with women who meet standards being allowed to do combat arms and all... but that is because they have guns. During the ages of muscle powered warfare, women were at an even greater disadvantage than now. There are valid, legitimate reasons why there are no nations with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century. It is not misogyny.

These "valid, legitimate reasons" are that society thought a "good woman" needs to belong in the kitchen and raise children, and you know it.

Also, there actually was "a nation with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century". Have you ever heard of the Mino regiment? They seem to have fought pretty well.

There may be more examples throughout history if one were to look carefully. I'm not even committing much of an effort into investigating this stuff and I still stumble upon things that were new to me from time to time. Like last month, where I heard of that girl Claude des Armoises, who became captain of a mercenary company in medieval Europe. We actually only know of her because she also tried to impersonate Jeanne d'Arc, so her life's story was on some city's court records - else we would know nothing of a woman ever having been in such a role. How many more like her were there? How common were onna-bugeisha in Japanese warrior units? What about the stories of Viking shield maidens? There's so much still hidden behind the veil of the ages, somewhere between suppressed/forgotten knowledge and sheer exaggeration or folklore.

It didn't help public perception much that the nations of the world kept disbanding their units of female fighters when they weren't needed anymore, regardless of their actual performance in battle. And who even learns about them in school? Ask any person on the street if there were ever such a thing as female knights or female soldiers in medieval times and see what answer you'll get. People not being aware of the many exceptions from what we consider the rule is part of the problem; this, as well as the ongoing cultivation of an objectified image, creates a bias that will haunt society for generations to come. There is, however, a light at the end of the tunnel - it just takes people some time to get used to women flocking into traditionally manly jobs, just like men are now flocking into traditionally womanly jobs. I think if you give it a few decades, people will look back at today's situation and scratch their heads at the illogical barriers in place, just like we today are looking back at stuff like black people not being allowed to sign up. It's a sad fact of life that humanity as a whole likes prejudice and dislikes change. Look at various contries in Europe who already had female combat infantry for decades.

That is all nice and dandy, but you did not really make any points as to why women should fight in the same combat roles as men. I believe the "valid, legitimate reasons" reasons that bromsy was referring to have more to do with the fact that men are bigger, faster, and stronger, on average, than women, and thus are better suited to combat. Sure, there will be exceptions, but as a rule, men are better fighters than women. You can rage all you like about society and prejudice and sexism, but you can't fight your biology.

rubiksnoob wrote:That is all nice and dandy, but you did not really make any points as to why women should fight in the same combat roles as men.

Oh, the discussion is about that?

Well then, I believe "equality" is a good enough reason. If a woman fulfills the very same physical requirements demanded of a man in that certain role, why shouldn't she?

Might as well ask why men with black hair should fight in the same combat roles as men with blonde hair. Assignments such as these shouldn't focus on hair colour, eye, colour, skin colour, religion, sexual preferences, or gender - but on the one thing that matters: That person's physical capabilities. Anything else simply shouldn't play a role. Either you can do it or you can't, and until a given female recruit has taken these tests any claims like "that woman can't do it" are nothing more but mysoginist bias.

rubiksnoob wrote:I believe the "valid, legitimate reasons" reasons that bromsy was referring to have more to do with the fact that men are bigger, faster, and stronger, on average, than women, and thus are better suited to combat. Sure, there will be exceptions, but as a rule, men are better fighters than women. You can rage all you like about society and prejudice and sexism, but you can't fight your biology.

This has nothing to do with biology but all with society. You said it yourself, "there will be exceptions", so why bar these from service?
This barrier is about as arbitrary as the now-defunct one about skin colours. Humanity has always been prone to segregating certain groups of people into lower classes so that the upper classes can feel superior. If women wouldn't exist, people would now probably go around claiming that men with a certain body height are, on average, better suited to combat, and campaign that guys shorter than 1.70m should be exempt from infantry MOS.

Look, it's real easy. If you truly believe that women are so massively hindered by their biology, just open up the tests on equal levels and let them filter themselves out. I put forward the claim that any reluctance to this is simple fear that more women might pass than you'd like to believe. For some people, that number might even be zero. It's a barrier that other nations have already broken, and it is, I think, only a matter of time until the US (hopefully) follows suit.

Oh and by the way, women are - on average - also better suited than men for the role of attack fighter pilots, because of biology. Guess we should bar all men from this job then.

Okay, point out any serious offensive military that relied in any major part on female soldiers in a pre gunpowder era. You can't because it never, ever happened. A regiment here or there created for bodyguard or religious purposes does not matter, because they never determined anything except a historical footnote.

Once again, I am all for women who can lug a ruck alongside a guy and match him for accuracy.

But deluding ourselves to think that the desire for men to have a subservient class to make sandwiches for us is the only thing that relegated women to a second fiddle role historically is just bogus. Especially when you are talking military history. Men can do more with less, when you are talking calories to muscle building. That is just the way it works.

When it comes to pointing an M4 at commies and pulling the trigger, the 6.9 pounds that that rifle and it's magazine weighs isn't all that crazy a difference taking women and men into account.

When you have to carry a 12 pound sarissa at a precise angle for eight hours, it starts to add up. And that is a pike that you basically just point at the enemy and walk. When you start getting into melee combat, say swinging a six odd pound sword around while lugging around armor... If you can't understand the difference between that and firing a rifle, then you need to go grab a hefty chunk of wood and swing it around for a bit.

Then you have the fun field of archery - the lowest draw weights estimated for British longbows are around 80 lbs - which is pretty goddamned tough, even for modern bowmen, and the estimates go as high as 185 lbs draws which is frankly ridiculous for all but the strongest or best trained men, and pretty much impossible for women of the time.

dogma wrote:

Chongara wrote:Contrary to what D&D would lead people to believe any sharp length of metal is going to do about the same damage in the hands of a noodle-armed whimp as it would wielded by an '80s Arnold type strong man.

It isn't about damage so much as speed and endurance. You also have to consider that, at least in medieval Europe, even bladed weapons were effectively bludgeons; which means the more power you can put behind an attack the better.

Actually, I think a woman who knew how to use a knife placed against a man with the same skills is probably about as close to even as you'll get, at least as melee weapons go.

Well I was kind of grouping in "Speed" as a part of "Skill" there, fair point. However those aren't really things that are differentiated strongly by sex so point remains, even ancient warfare isn't dominated by upper body strength being "muscle powered" as the poster I was quoting I was saying. I also wasn't really limiting things to medieval Europe (but again, fair game given my D&D reference), really any period you may be conducting warfare by stuffing some variety of sharp metal, wood, stone and/or bone into someone to do damage really counts.

As for knife fights, I suspect that like in fist fights reach is going to play a big role (any knife fight experts wannna confirm/deny) and with such a small weapon that's going to come down to who has the longer arms, typically the bigger person. Of course first strike wins too, so it's more about getting the drop on someone and less about it being an actual "Fight"... but now I'm drifting way, way, way off topic.

Bromsy wrote:Okay, point out any serious offensive military that relied in any major part on female soldiers in a pre gunpowder era. You can't because it never, ever happened. A regiment here or there created for bodyguard or religious purposes does not matter, because they never determined anything except a historical footnote.

Have you read the entire article? That regiment ended up forming 1/3 of the entire Dahomey army. Just because its original role was a small bodyguard does not change that fact. That'd be like claiming the current UK Army's Grenadier Guards "doesn't count" because it was originally raised as a bodyguard for King Charles II.

Bromsy wrote:But deluding ourselves to think that the desire for men to have a subservient class to make sandwiches for us is the only thing that relegated women to a second fiddle role historically is just bogus.

Eh, I'd say you are deluding yourself if you think that a widespread religion which propagated the role of women as being inherently inferior and the source of all sin had nothing to do with the suppression of females that have evidently shown they can fight. If what you claim would be true, they would never even have reached those positions in the first place.

Hell, one of the accusations levied against Jeanne d'Arc in her trial was that she had dared to wear a man's clothes. Gasp!
It's a fact that especially in medieval Europe there was an active suppression of female fighters going on, and I have provided examples in an earlier post.

Bromsy wrote:When you have to carry a 12 pound sarissa at a precise angle for eight hours, it starts to add up.

Considering that the sarissa wasn't all that popular outside ancient Greece, that's not exactly a good example. Other, lighter polearms were way more prominent in the battlefields of medieval Europe - and if you want to delve into ancient history, there are a load of accounts (and historical evidence in the form of various tombs) of women as archers and mounted archers. In fact, it is perhaps the latter which led to the amazon myth in the first place.

If we were to talk polearms, how about the naginata?
"The naginata was considered one of the weapons most suitable for women, since it allows a woman to keep opponents at a distance, where any advantages in height, weight, and upper body strength would be lessened. An excellent example of the role of women in Japanese society and martial culture is Itagaki, who, famous for her naginata skills, led the garrison of 3,000 warriors stationed at Toeizakayama castle. Ten thousand Hōjō clan warriors were dispatched to take the castle, and Itagaki led her troops out of the castle, killing a significant number of the attackers before being overpowered. The naginata saw its final uses in combat in 1868, at Aizu, and in 1876, in Satsuma."

Bromsy wrote:And that is a pike that you basically just point at the enemy and walk. When you start getting into melee combat, say swinging a six odd pound sword around while lugging around armor... If you can't understand the difference between that and firing a rifle, then you need to go grab a hefty chunk of wood and swing it around for a bit.

I actually happen to own an exhibition fight bastard sword. That's not to say that my own dabbling in this pastime is comparable to actual medieval warfare (and I haven't touched it in years) - just that I know the weight of a chainmail and weapon.

And just for the sake of raising awareness, the Royal Armouries National Museum of Arms and Armour happens to have a relatively well-preserved muster roll of a medieval draft - that of the town of Bridport in 1457. About 3% of the still-legible names on that list are women, and they were armed with swords and bows. Yeah, yeah, not much - still noteworthy, considering these were ordinary people and common perception still holds the idea that women in that day and age were not fighting at all.

Also rather interesting is the appearance of a female character in this medieval fighting manual: http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/i33/i33.htm

Bromsy wrote:Then you have the fun field of archery - the lowest draw weights estimated for British longbows are around 80 lbs - which is pretty goddamned tough, even for modern bowmen, and the estimates go as high as 185 lbs draws which is frankly ridiculous for all but the strongest or best trained men, and pretty much impossible for women of the time.

As long as you realize that there were different types of longbows, and that the longbow was not the only weapon used for archery, I don't see the problem.
There's scores of historical accounts on female archers throughout the ages, not to mention the various graves where women were interred with such weaponry (thus presumably their belongings), or the sculptures and illustrations featuring them.

Now, this has little to do with the topic at hand ... but I feel if more people were aware that female soldiers isn't that new an idea, the resistance against it might be smaller. The way it is, however, this just isn't common knowledge. Fortunately, in this age of the internet, it is comparatively easy to look this up, but as long as we grow up being taught this false image, there will always be a tendency to a bias. Even with evidence, it's harder to change an existing opinion than to influence its original creation, after all.

But even if we assume that all these women in history were allowed to fight only to add to the numbers of all those allegedly superior male fighters - this is an argument to be made for the contemporary military as well, isn't it? I was under the impression that the US has difficulties recruiting troops, at least I vaguely recall reading an article about this. So there's also a choice to be made between a smaller army (and, with this, a reduced potential for global power projection) or one with gender equality.

Now, this has little to do with the topic at hand ... but I feel if more people were aware that female soldiers isn't that new an idea, the resistance against it might be smaller

That, and if people stopped trying to point an arbitrary line of masculinity versus femininity. The world doesn't work that way, and neither do we human beings.

Lynata wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I believe the "valid, legitimate reasons" reasons that bromsy was referring to have more to do with the fact that men are bigger, faster, and stronger, on average, than women, and thus are better suited to combat. Sure, there will be exceptions, but as a rule, men are better fighters than women. You can rage all you like about society and prejudice and sexism, but you can't fight your biology.

This has nothing to do with biology but all with society. You said it yourself, "there will be exceptions", so why bar these from service?
This barrier is about as arbitrary as the now-defunct one about skin colours. Humanity has always been prone to segregating certain groups of people into lower classes so that the upper classes can feel superior. If women wouldn't exist, people would now probably go around claiming that men with a certain body height are, on average, better suited to combat, and campaign that guys shorter than 1.70m should be exempt from infantry MOS.

Look, it's real easy. If you truly believe that women are so massively hindered by their biology, just open up the tests on equal levels and let them filter themselves out. I put forward the claim that any reluctance to this is simple fear that more women might pass than you'd like to believe. For some people, that number might even be zero. It's a barrier that other nations have already broken, and it is, I think, only a matter of time until the US (hopefully) follows suit.

Oh and by the way, women are - on average - also better suited than men for the role of attack fighter pilots, because of biology. Guess we should bar all men from this job then.

Oh, please. I never said that women shouldn't be allowed to serve if they can meet the same standards of men. In fact, several times, in this thread and another, I've said that they should be allowed. I'm all for wimminz in the military. All I'm saying is that if they were held to the physical standards there would be way fewer women in the military than there are currently.

rubiksnoob wrote:Oh, please. I never said that women shouldn't be allowed to serve if they can meet the same standards of men. In fact, several times, in this thread and another, I've said that they should be allowed. I'm all for wimminz in the military. All I'm saying is that if they were held to the physical standards there would be way fewer women in the military than there are currently.

And I never said something like the average woman being as physically capable as the average man, did I?

I don't get your criticism, given that we are basically saying the same thing (with exception to the history bits). Fewer women in the military is actually good, if that means they would be accepted as equals. "Smuggling" female troops into the service by basically cheating with the requirements imposed on them only creates an air of double standards - something under which they will all suffer, even those who would easily manage to meet male standards.
Also, it is my understanding that the most pressing need for new troops is in frontline combat roles, where in the US they are currently still banned entirely. At least officially - meanwhile in reality, female soldiers end up fighting again and again, but this is conveniently ignored in favour of the bias.

This is the truth: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002.html

Jihadin wrote:Example..only an example. I'm a insurgent sniper thats been around the block for awhile (few and far inbetween thank Gawd).

*snip for length*

Not that everyone hasn't said this before, but I've seen the old 'wound one for bait' trick work without a woman involved at all.

Jihadin wrote:I just trashed a female and caused multiple casualties I also got the medic. I also got maybe 2-3 more troops wounded.

No, if you really want to feth up Marines, get into a low visibility situation, where it's dark and maybe got some fire going on, a marine body, and a frag. Yell 'corpsman!' and relocate. Used to get marines pretty regularly, and not a skirt involved. (And as old a trick as it is, you'd think they'd get wise to it after .... 50 years. But , no, I heard about some idiots falling for it in Iraq to this very day.)

Jihadin wrote:Matty woldn't go for a shotgun. Not enough rounds in it....well...maybe...if it was beanbags...it does look like a superhero punched someone on impact.

AA-12 with 32 round drum might fit the bill. (Personally, for short range work, I still prefer a Thompson, though. As long as you use jacketed rounds to avoid jams since leading is a bitch.)

dogma wrote:I'm willing to bet there are some female Israeli soldiers that would have your misogynistic head on a pike.

Agreed.

Personally, if anyone wants to be a footslogger, more power to em, and let em try it.

Personal opinion, women at the front would be better suited to armor, for pretty much the same reasons that one would think they'd be good in submarines (smaller build). A crew taht can more easilly get around thier tank is going to perform better, whatever genitalia they have.

Chongara wrote:
Well I was kind of grouping in "Speed" as a part of "Skill" there, fair point. However those aren't really things that are differentiated strongly by sex so point remains, even ancient warfare isn't dominated by upper body strength being "muscle powered" as the poster I was quoting I was saying.

Strength and speed pretty much go hand in hand, at least when you're moving a significant mass around (which may simply be your body).

A good comparison is bat speed in softball. You can see 85-90 in amateur men's, and the same in professional women's. For context, professional baseball players are usually 105-110.

BaronIveagh wrote:AA-12 with 32 round drum might fit the bill.

And FRAG-12. Closest you'll get to a real life boltgun!

Lynata wrote:And FRAG-12. Closest you'll get to a real life boltgun!

Eh... not really. The MK 19 is the closest you can get to a boltgun.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Following that logic though, wouldn't it be the same? (A woman with decent strength has less mass to move, and therefor higher speed)

A woman with decent strength also has more mass, muscle has mass. A woman can, theoretically, be just as strong and fast as a man (And there are examples.), its just that its harder for them to match the same marks.

The distinction is entirely genetic. Men simply have a predisposition for building muscle (and mass in general), and are generally larger.

dogma wrote:
A woman with decent strength also has more mass, muscle has mass. A woman can, theoretically, be just as strong and fast as a man (And there are examples.), its just that its harder for them to match the same marks.

Not necessarily. You're conflating muscle strength with muscle hypertrophy. Oddly, increasing muscle 'mass' does not actually increase the number of muscle fibers present. This is why bodybuilders who are equally strong are not necessarily equally massive.

Why the feth does the chick in that article have the white tree of Gondor on her helmet?

BaronIveagh wrote:Eh... not really. The MK 19 is the closest you can get to a boltgun.

MK19 = heavy weapon, belt-fed, 40mm explosive rounds
AA-12 = infantry weapon, magazine or drum, 19mm explosive rounds
Boltgun = infantry weapon, magazine or drum, 19mm explosive rounds

I think I'll stick with my comparison, thanks.

mattyrm wrote: Why the feth does the chick in that article have the white tree of Gondor on her helmet?

I didn't even notice that at first...

BaronIveagh wrote:
Not necessarily. You're conflating muscle strength with muscle hypertrophy.

Because they're basically the same thing.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Oddly, increasing muscle 'mass' does not actually increase the number of muscle fibers present. This is why bodybuilders who are equally strong are not necessarily equally massive.

No, that's wrong. The reason for variation in gross mass in people is either genetic, or composition; generally intramuscular fat.

When I use the word "mass" I mean "mass," not "size."

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
Following that logic though, wouldn't it be the same? (A woman with decent strength has less mass to move, and therefor higher speed)

A woman with decent strength also has more mass, muscle has mass. A woman can, theoretically, be just as strong and fast as a man (And there are examples.), its just that its harder for them to match the same marks.

The distinction is entirely genetic. Men simply have a predisposition for building muscle (and mass in general), and are generally larger.

Being a soldier I dont know the exact science behind it, cos its more practical knowledge as opposed to studying sports science or biology, but seriously... It is physically impossible for a woman of equal weight to be as strong as a man. I told you guys, a PTI once told me that if a man and a woman are the exact same height and weight, then the man will be 20% stronger.

Women really have a much tougher time than us, you cant fight your gender.

They had 4 women down at CTC for a trial when I was there, they really struggled with the strength work, things like log runs and rope climbs with kit on.

Women should be able to try out and if they pass the exact same tests as men then they should be in. But where as 1 men in 20 passes out of RM training, I reckon you would be looking at 1 woman in 200.

They can have the speed and the agility, but seriously.. top level stuff is difficult because you have to be good at everything. Some guys whiz through running and speed marching but struggle with yomping, some guys are great at yomping but struggle with heaves, some guys are particularly good at that, then they struggle with the 500 metre swim in kit, or the aerial stuff or what have you. The fact that nobody is ever good at EVERYTHING is why so many people fail to make the grade. You might be the fittest guy in the world, but you will struggle with something during that 32 weeks of gak. Getting to the top of that 30 foot rope gives most men pause, Its a free hanging 30 foot climb, and you have to get to the top before you are allowed to tackle the tarzan assault course.

I have always been good at the strength gak and less good at long loping runs being a powerfully built 5 foot 9, for example I can do a solid 20 chin ups, but I was literally blowing out of my arse getting to the top of the rope. Another 3 feet and I wouldn't have been able to get up the fether.. So, if certain things are based not on speed, or endurance, but on nothing at all but power, as some things inevitably are, then it will take a rare woman indeed to crack it.

Before we go into the top tier military units lets keep at the the basic level (infantry line unit) shall we. Matty right. Everyone is built different. I'm