I'm not saying that a unit would forsake a man completely; I'm saying that men are much more likely to do stupid things for a woman than for another man. They're more likely to take a greater risk for a woman.
I have not seen anything any where that supports that.
I don't agree with you that the novelty will ever wear off completely. Sure, when a woman first joins a unit there might be all baying and whooping but even in a year's time, there'll always be that little niggle.
It does, trust me. Perhaps the manner in which they interact might be slightly different but they are simply part of the team. If not you don't wan tthem there
I know women CAN be as strong as men, but on average they're not. By quite a bit. It's all in our genetics that men WILL almost always be stronger than women. Sure there are scrawny men and there are buff women, but there's a reason we separate male and female boxing, weightlifting and even tennis. Men hit harder, jump higher and run faster.
What makes men "stronger" is that all of the benchmarks are set relative to men. It is actually very difficult to make a direct comparison between the two.
As for the event in the UK, I'm not sure which one you're talking about but I think you mean the one in Woolwich. I doubt it would have been exactly the same scenario had a woman been involved. Male troops taken as prisoners of war might be beaten just as bad as any female POW, but they're not going to get raped. Especially when we're fighting religious groups where homosexuality is a sin. Rape would be a lot more taxing on the individual on top of everything else.
Rape's a sin too last time I checked. Again all you are saying is simply considered more horrific because of our current frame of reference.
We are all members of a sexually dimorphic species and we have to recognise that there are differences in males and females which make a difference in scenarios just like this one.
Yes there are differences which is why we need to put a lot of effort in determining how we compare their levels of fitness
Most backpacks load their weight upon the hips anyway, so if anything the military equipment should be much better for women than for men. Women have higher lower-body strength than upper-body strength and for men it is the other way around (Correct me if I am wrong here). Despite this, men have a higher lower-body strength on average than women. If you took a man and a woman of the same height and weight, the man would most likely out-perform the woman in physical activity because that's just how our species works. Women carry a child on their hip because of their shape as well as their LBS being higher than their UBS; women are curved for a reason.
Back packs do distribute a percentage of their weight onto the hips, not all of it. Points is military equipment designed over centuries for men should not be expected to serve a woman as efficiently, like you say they are different.
Again you are using the male frame of reference and expecting a woman to fit it.
What the military are seeking to do is find a female frame of reference and seeing if that will fit the tasks at hand.
Time will tell if they are successful on either count.