I'm no expert on war but don't they use weapons not fist fights? If the strength comes from the weapon which is more powerful than any man, apparently it's as simple as teaching anyone how to use it that matters most.

The reason why we "allow" women to fight in wars is because wars are now fought with guns. It doesn't matter who's pulling the trigger as long as they're reasonably accurate and learn to take cover when appropriate. The bullet's gonna kill you either way. This is also the reason why militaries have gotten so much bigger since the Renaissance - you don't need to be the well-fed, muscular elite (i.e., nobility) in order to be trained to shoot a gun.
From what I have learned about the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. from my uncles (two in the Marines, one in the Army) is that while they train in hand-to-hand combat, the odds of surviving to get close enough to an enemy to use your hand-to-hand training are low, and means you've done something wrong. They are trained to take enemies out fast and early, and that means guns. Most hand-to-hand training is exercised in formal sparring matches, to keep in shape and keep the skill fresh. I seriously doubt an Army soldier in bodyarmor, a backpack, and a helmet could do his kung-fu as effectively as someone in a robe and colored belt. That goes for any soldier wearing that kind of gear.

TL;DR
Estelle just said the same thing while I was writin' this.

and during training with the other men, without weapons,, are they not yet 'equal'

or does the military need to be gender segregated for training purposes?

if a woman had access to a knife and the man hit her,, would the public not be as outraged?

if he thought she might go for the weapon,

does presence of weapon make it 'equal'?

I think in a domestic setting (non-military), the law comes down more to who is the aggressor than who has a weapon. "Self-defense" is a strong and easy claim to make as long as you don't actually kill the supposed aggressor.
But there is an important difference between the law and public opinion/outcry.

For (military) sparring with martial arts, with the proper training (so I hear), the strength of your opponent doesn't count for nearly as much. You can out-maneuver and out-fight them with quickness and skill. Once both parties have been fully trained, it shouldn't matter which genders are competing.

I'm not sure I'm answering your question in the manner you asked it but,

I think men are physically stronger, isn't it why most sports are segregated, men and women's teams or individual events.

However, in my experience women are certainly emotionally stronger, much stronger than I'll ever be anyway, child birth being a case in point with all the emotions that carries.

I do believe this is where men and women compliment each other and the frog agrees with me.

I agree, but should we assume in a domestic setting who has the better 'training'?

or that a woman cant possibly cause harm to a man or that potential harm should not justify a man meeting force with force?


,,,,just things I ponder,,,


I believe women can be a mans equal, even physically, depending upon their INDIVIDUAL experiences and strengths ,, so that they can be equal physically ON or OFF of a military field or sports field,,,

This was never an issue in the Bruce Lee and Rambo movies.

Hi, David.

I love you Estelle
And you are the only woman on this thread- other than the OP.
* All women, 15 & up, should be issued semi automatic weapons ... jk*

Hmmm, it must be my baggy pants. They make me look manly...

lol, kewl frog

Sorry New York Diva ...We were typing simultaneously & I was laughing my a** off , at the time

Hi, Iam!

Let's pretend I haven't actually seen all the Bruce Lee and Rambo movies... Are they anything like Duke Nukem? (THE Man's Man AND Woman's Man - all women want him, all men want to be him kinda stuff.)

--------

In a domestic setting, I don't think either party counts as "trained". If it's a domestic disturbance, say, like you read about sometimes, I think it comes down to who is more vicious and who gets the first strike in.
And to be honest, I think females of any species tend to be more vicious than the males. One of the reasons I only say these things with the protection of the internet between me and you.

Oh yes, women are extremely vicious. They taught me how to become vicious with all the jealous cat fights I've had to endure all my life.

Nice to see you, babe.

So do you have any plans for dinner tonight?

To me men and women are design different but when you put the right pair together you get a great team

I agree annie, and I believe any ADULT who puts their hands on another ADULT in aggression , should EXPECT to have hands put back on them,,

The OP statement is so ignorant on any level I'm without words. And women don't need to be "issued" semi auto weapons. They can go out and buy them! I have a few myself. Know how to use them and practice.

actually the op asked questions

which comes down to the simplest of debate 'are women equal or not?'

I dont believe its ignorant in a public forum to do such a thing

,,,but that comes back to that silly notion of 'balance'

people are sharing a nice 'balance' of answers/opinions to the post'



..those who arent resorting to posting insults instead,,,,,that is

Sorry, me bad. Didn't mean you MS. Still meant what I said about the rest of the post though. When people demoralize and minimize what our combat/infantry military does and their expertise they need to be called out on it. They are not just "shooters". Now, that is an insult!