When I served in the Corps back in the day, one of my friends was roughly 5'-6 to 5'-8 and weighed 140-150 lbs. Another friend who was over 6'-0 had to be in the 220 lbs range. Neither (to the best of my knowledge) was the second incarnation of Bruce Lee, but they were tough enough.
Put them in a ring and who would you put money on?
There is a recurring debate about the differences between men and women. Differences that are driven by biology, genetics, science. The latest iteration of the debate was kicked off by a Tucker Carlson rant about the military services creating uniforms (including flight suits) for pregnant service members and plans to alter hairstyles for women.
For the record, I don't care about those changes. I wouldn't want a pilot to be in a dogfight performing high g maneuvers in an F-35 and 8 months pregnant. It wouldn't be safe for anyone. Take the same pilot several months later and the situation wouldn't be safe for just one person; the idiot that took their plane off the runway to engage a US pilot - any US pilot - flying our best fighter in the first place. And hair is just hair. A hairstyle is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with mission accomplishment. Women have wanted to wear ponytails and/or braids in uniform for a long while. Keep it neat, clean, and out of the way and it's fine.
I served with many women who were outstanding Marines. Tucker's rant was poorly aimed at best.
So what does physical capability have to do with uniform/hair regulations? Nothing.
But debates over uniforms and hairstyles (and a couple of other topics) inevitably wander into the physical capabilities of men relative to the same capabilities of women.
There is a difference that some people do not want to acknowledge They will deflect the issue by pointing out women at the upper end of the bell curve such as Rhonda Rousey or Gina Carano. Again, for the record, I wouldn't have wanted to climb into the ring with either of those women when I was in my prime. They are indeed at the top end of the bell curve of physical fitness for women. They individually outclass the majority of men in both physical fitness and fighting ability/preparation.
Let's start with some basics; average height and weight. Men are, on average, taller and heavier than women. That gives an advantage in most physical competitions. The following was taken from the ever-questionable Wikipedia on 16 March 2021. Note that in every country, the average for men is greater than the average for women.
 |
| Average Human Body Weight - Men vs. Women - Click to Embiggen |
 |
| Average Human Height - Men vs. Women - Click to Embiggen |
Those basic differences create an advantage for men. A longer arm reach makes it easier to get at an opponent while keeping yourself out of range. Longer legs create a longer stride for greater speed. There are other physiological differences such as the impact of testosterone on muscle development. If I were a doctor or a physiology major, I could list several biological differences between men and women that impact their relative performance in physical competitions, but I'm not either one of those.
What I can do is point you towards measurements of the peak physical performance of men and women. Judge for yourself. In almost every category, the record for peak performance is held by a man. In weight lifting competitions where there are weight classes, the nearest comparison between men and women always shows the man is, pound for pound, able to lift more weight.
[I was looking at swimming data a couple of years ago and did note that there was one category where the top competitor was a woman. I couldn't find that category recently. It is certainly possible for a woman to be the best on the planet in a straight physical competition. Where that is the case, it is an exception that illustrates the rule.]
Again, all of these are from the ever questionable Wikipedia. Go have a look.
- Swimming
- Speed Skating - short track
- Cycling
- Weightlifting
- Athletics (i.e. track and field)
A straight comparison cannot be made in every category in the above competitions. For example, in speed skating, the men have a 5k relay while the women have a 3k relay. If you adjust the times/distances to account for the difference, the men were faster over the same distance in almost every category even though they had to perform over a longer distance in actual competition.
I added the "almost" because I didn't check every category with a competitive differential and there probably is one where the women were faster/stronger over a shorter distance.
A case in point would be Serena Williams. Let's face it, she is the creme de la creme of women's tennis. She and her sister dominate the sport and have dominated it for decades. But even she knows that there is a difference between men's and women's tennis. Andy Murray once challenged her to a match. Ms. Williams declined.
“If I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose 6-0, 6-0 in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutes. No, it’s true. It’s a completely different sport. The men are a lot faster and they serve harder, they hit harder, it’s just a different game.”
Why would she say such a thing? Well she, and her sister had some experience playing against men. In 1998, they played a set against Karsten Braasch who was, at the time, ranked roughly 200 in men's tennis. He beat Serena 6-1 and then beat Venus 6-2. Serena finished the 1998 WTA season ranked 20th in the world. Venus finished the season ranked 5th.
I am well aware that my personal tennis game sucks. Don't bother going there.
The larger point is that while the bell curve of the physical performance of women largely overlaps the bell curve for men, it is not the same curve. The average of the performance curve for men is somewhat above that for women. The top-end tail of the curve for men generally extends beyond the same tail for women. Those non-trivial differences are driven by biology, genetics, science.
Physical differences do not make men smarter, more moral, better leaders, or otherwise more qualified than women. But there is a documented differential in physical performance between men and women just the same.
There are times where that difference might mean the difference between life and death.
The US Army recently created a gender-neutral combat fitness test. The result was that 10% of male US Army soldiers failed the test while 65% of female US Army soldiers failed the test. A passing score is 360 out of 600 points. The average score for female soldiers was roughly 100 points below the average for male soldiers. As the results from the test impact promotion eligibility, the US Army is now reconsidering whether or not to have different scales/tests for men and women.
The point?
Men and women are different.
Biologically.
Genetically.
Measurably.
Scientifically.
Documented.
Most of the world understands this truth. This post is for those occasions when I run into the rare person that has a tough time accepting this reality.
----
A later update. I ran across this graph a while back via the /dataisbeautiful group on Reddit.
No comments:
Post a Comment