The question of whether women should be given the right to serve in a combat position is one that has been left unanswered. Direct combat roles have always been closed to women. However, many supporters have believed in the past that with the proper training, women could be turned into military machines. On the other hand, opposers have said that women have not possessed the ability and strength to be launched into a hand to hand combat situation. A large number of studies have concluded that women simply have not the skills and physicality that have been needed in combat positions. Overall, hand to hand combat roles should be left to primarily men or any woman who has passed the same rigorous physical tests that men are held to.
"Combat is not primarily about brains, or patriotism, or dedication to duty (Catherine L. Aspy)." There has been no question raised over whether or not women have had the same intelligence level as men. Women generally outscore or score as high as men on written tests (Komarow). However, combat situations, in most cases, have called for physical strength, which has been a life and death issue during hand to hand warfare (Catherine L. Aspy). This and many other reasons have been why the physical gap between men and women can not be put aside or ignored.
The strength factor has been apparent when it has came to comparing the average male solider to the average female solider. The United States Navy studied the upper body strength in 38 men and women. Overall, it was discovered that in many cases women had approximately only half of the lifting power of men. Another United States Navy study reported that the top seven percent of women out of 239 had the equivalent upper body strength as the bottom seven percent of men. Approximately 46 women in an Army study were given a 24-week training session that was supposedly supposed to improve their lifting abilities.