{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/24/2013 4:02:35 PM
5
I'm honestly shocked it took this long. Aside from cosmetic/reproductive differences, they're exactly the same as men so there's not really any reason for rejecting it.
English
-
Edited by A Good Troll: 1/24/2013 4:08:42 PMNot true at all. Women's physiology is different. Women do not build as much muscle as men do and also do not have the cardiovascular system that men do. There is a reason why men can on average lift more weight, run faster, run farther, and hold their breath longer than women do. Because of these facts, women in military academies have lower physical standards for passing than men do.
-
This is an average, as long as the individual meets the standards required they shouldn't be refused.
-
Then the standards need to be gender neutral in the military no matter the role. Until then, it is a bad idea.
-
Its the military/government that has reduced standards, they aren't forced to by anyone and so they're still responsible for the restrictions put in place.
-
I acknowledge that. I'm just saying that if you're going to make the genders equal in roles they can be in, it would be wise to make the qualifications for that role the same. There are plenty of women in service who think this is a bad idea.
