View Single Post
Old 24-01-2013, 15:37   #28
Anonymouse
RIP Tigger - 12 years?!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bolton
Age: 59
Services: EE Superfast Broadband
Posts: 1,561
Anonymouse has a bronzed appealAnonymouse has a bronzed appeal
Anonymouse has a bronzed appealAnonymouse has a bronzed appealAnonymouse has a bronzed appealAnonymouse has a bronzed appealAnonymouse has a bronzed appealAnonymouse has a bronzed appealAnonymouse has a bronzed appealAnonymouse has a bronzed appealAnonymouse has a bronzed appealAnonymouse has a bronzed appeal
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat

I recall reading somewhere - damned if I can remermber where - that there is at least one practical reason for not having women soldiers. It has nothing to do with pregnancy issues, PMT, periods or - oh, please - makeup.

It is, rather, a purely physical issue. No, not upper body strength; women are just as capable of acquiring that. No, it's a hip issue - I read that a study had been done on the effects of long marches (surely a soldier's stock in trade) while carrying heavy equipment (again, it goes with the territory). Specifically, it tends to wear womens' hip bones away because of the way they're built. I submit that a soldier with deteriorating hips is a danger to herself and her comrades in combat.

On the other hand, I also read somewhere that when women and men were fed and trained together, as in ancient Sparta, archaeologists find it very difficult to distinguish male from female skeletons, so maybe the study (I can't even remember who conducted it, or where - very sloppy of me, I know...) was wrong.

So I'm in two minds on the issue.
__________________
"People tend to confuse the words 'new' and 'improved'."
- Agent Phil Coulson, S.H.I.E.L.D.

WINDOWS 11, ANYONE?!
Anonymouse is offline   Reply With Quote