Honest question... please no flames.
It seems the arguement against having women in direct combat roles that require certain physical requirements has some merit. At least that's what the pros with real world experience are saying here. I can see how a certain amount on strength is requried to hual around a 100lb+ loadout day after day for example.
But what about women in the armored units? Is there any substantial reason they can't be a driver in a Bradley? Gunner in an Abrhams? Or vehicle commander in a Stryker? etc
(And yes, I'm guessing Strykers are not considered "armor units" per se, but the question stands for roles like that)
Thanks in advance for the civil discourse.
It seems the arguement against having women in direct combat roles that require certain physical requirements has some merit. At least that's what the pros with real world experience are saying here. I can see how a certain amount on strength is requried to hual around a 100lb+ loadout day after day for example.
But what about women in the armored units? Is there any substantial reason they can't be a driver in a Bradley? Gunner in an Abrhams? Or vehicle commander in a Stryker? etc
(And yes, I'm guessing Strykers are not considered "armor units" per se, but the question stands for roles like that)
Thanks in advance for the civil discourse.
Last edited: