[caseysoftware]

> Nobody in the mainstream media is talking about the low representation of women in positions that require lots of physical strength because we have evidence of such differences.

The hundreds of articles about lack of women in combat positions and in the special forces tend to disagree with you. In both of those areas, pure physical strength is one of the first requirements.

[rayiner]

The articles about women in combat positions are almost all about the military's removing explicit bans on women in combat positions and instituting gender neutral physical requirements.

[scottlocklin]

Which we all know means "lower physical requirements" -which is, as some people like to say, "problematic."

[aninhumer]

What paranoid nonsense is this?

Gender neutral physical requirements just means you change "men who can lift Xkg" into "people who can lift Xkg". If that still happens to exclude most women, so be it.

[caseysoftware]

Except that's not how it works:

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/marine-corps-fitnes...

For example: To get top scores, men are expected to run 3 miles in 18 minutes, while women only have to do it in 21.

[scottlocklin]

That isn't what happens. What happens is women can't do it, so they change the physical requirements. Which is why for years, "lady marines" or whatever you're supposed to call them didn't have to do pull ups, and when they gender normed it, the standard went from 10 to 3 chin ups (which 55% of women failed).