I'm talking about conscription. The state grabbing women who want nothing to do with war and forcing them into the army. That's what happens to men. They say it's necessary, I guess they're probably right in various contrived scenarios, but historically it has very often not been necessary and a lot of good men were murdered by politicians for no good reason. I don't know how to fix this problem, but why would you ever advocate for deliberately dragging more women into it?
Why does the gap matter if the floor is adequate to complete assigned tasks?
There exist gaps between men as well; not everyone in a corp has to be a special forces operator! There's nothing physically grueling about pressing buttons, welding, driving, operating machinery or pushing on a joystick.
But why? Do drone controllers require massive amounts of grip? The keys for the transport coordinator keyboards require 20 pounds of pressure?
Few things in the military require brute strength. And those women who have that strength shouldn't be rejected simply because they are women.
Pragmatically, the main reason that has been true throughout all of history is that women are more valuable reproductively. A country can lose half its men in a war and still recover. The same is not true if it loses half its women.
Pragmatically, most of the military is far from the battlefield - or the battlefield is on home territory, in which case everyone is involved anyway, so train 'em all and let the Night Witches fly, as the Soviets did when they needed more fighting forces against the Germans. "Some 400,000 women fought for the Red Army on the front lines"[1], and were not saved for later potential reproductive use.
Pragmatically, women are much more more than a baby gestation machines.
Since you have no problems with sterile women (tubes tied, no uterus, etc.) in the military, there's really no need to jump into a thread about rejecting ALL women from the military based on hand group strength.
[1] https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/document... linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Raskova .
Grip strength is a proxy for general strength, and I think it’s safe to assume strength is important in combat.
Again, if strength is important, then use strength as the draft criteria, not gender.
And, you do realize that the vast majority of the military aren't combat troops, right? Drone operator duty doesn't require high grip strength. Logistics managers don't require high general strength.
Is your sexism blinding you to the female soldiers who served in the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan? What do you think they were doing if not being soldiers?
You have no idea what their grip strength was. You have no idea what their overall strength was. You have no idea if their duties required that strength, or if endurance, focus for long periods of time, ability to work in a group, were more imports.
Did you learn your grip strength factoid on some men's rights podcast?
I do have a good idea what their grips strength were, the US armed forces do such studies all of the time, sometimes they publish them. The statistics around this are well known. Grip strength is used as it's a good proxy and easy to do in an informal setting.
I'm very interested in health and resistance training is a part of that. I'm also interested in the social phenomena of certain ideological groupings of thought, such as 'healthy at any size' and 'women are exactly equal to men'.
The US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are no more due to women than the US failure in Vietnam was due to men.
If grip strength is so important, then test for that. The military can easily do that at the recuitment center.
Otherwise it's the social phenomena known as sexism. That means rejecting a professional lumberjack simply because she's a woman, while accepting a less capable man because you've got a recuitment quota to meet.