>>Guess what, men and women aren't the same. They both have their weaknesses and strengths and the military makes the best use of each.
>
>I'm sure that wasn't meant to be as sexist as it comes across. If it really came down to competence I think there would be a lot more female generals and an equal number of grunts.
>
>I'll ask you the same thing I asked John B. Which branch of the service were you in and what unit?

You are right, it isn't sexist. Men are infinitely better at being men than are women, and vice-a-versa. Men are naturally stronger, bigger, etc. and are more apt to be used for the type work that spec ops needs to do. When females were allowed into the "combat" areas of the service they got a less rigorous pt test than men. We have had the same in law enforcement. When a buddy gets shot and has to be picked up and carried, there aren't a lot of females who can carry a 200 pound man on their back to safety.

I was never in the service. I hired out as a cop when I was twentyone and was in college up until that time. I did my fighting though and many times trained with the SWAT team. Even though, I could out shoot most of them, I never seriously wanted to be a member of that team. It was more a political thing here anyway.

Anyway, your point is what? Are you saying that we are all the same and that there should be a representative sample of females in the special forces? I guess you'd like to have half the Chicago Bears be female too? The bottom line is it isn't sexist, it's realist. There are tasks that women do better because of their uniqueness and there are those that men do better for the same reason. I'm just not afraid to say the politically incorrect thing. The truth of the matter is - it is what it is.