I have written extensively on why placing women in combat is gravely wrong, but I didn't consider the angle embedded in this title: Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat (written by Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and West Point graduate). While sometimes women do best critiquing women, men have the right to call out other men, and to posit that it's cowardly for men to be pressured into changing military policy is an interesting charge. More so, because if it's cowardice that makes men back down in the face of a relentless radical feminist attack, then what are we to say about their chances with a real enemy?
This entire piece is excellent, pointing out the compelling reasons to keep women out of combat, for instance:
The necessity for imposing diversity metrics/gender norming was revealed at a September 2011 briefing before the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Armed Services. A Marine colonel revealed the sobering statistics the diversity mavens are determined to ignore, noting that “on average, women have 47% lower lifting strength, 40% lower muscle strength, 20% lower aerobic capacity (important for endurance), and 26% slower road march speed.” He further noted that “both female attrition/injury rates during entry level training and discharge (break) rates were twice those of men, and non-deployability rates were three times higher.”
The CMR further reveals that 30 years of studies conducted by Great Britain and America, “have repeatedly confirmed physiological differences that would put women at a severe disadvantage in the combat arms,” and that there is no study they can find indicating training can overcome such differences. Thus, the study concludes that attempting to train women like men will either lead to a lowering of standards, or high attrition rate among female trainees.
Ah well, water under the bridge now. Pray for peace, and this monstrously deficient plan won't be tested.