There are some several aspects to consider with these two issues.Help me out here, folks. I am confused with some liberal thinking, on one side they think football is too dangerous, violent, whatever, and Obamam wouldn't want a son, if he had one, to play. Then, in another breath, we are now going to allow women to fight in the front lines...couldn', no, shouldn't we consider that to be dangerous and a violent circumstance for them? Why is one okay, and the other is not? Do these people even know what they really want??? Would Obama feel comfortable with his daughters going to war?
In playing football, we are initially talking about young people, young brains, still forming and at highly susceptible to the high incident of brain injury in a collision sport like football. The science on football in recent years has determined that players are experiencing far more incidents of damage than previously recorded.
First off, in the case of females participating in combat situations, we are talking about adults engaging in the service to their country. Yes it's dangerous, but it's not a game and in my opinion, the higher risk is for a higher purpose. While the physical curve still exists between a male and a female it is not the equivalent to competitive football.
Football is a sport that relies heavily and constantly on speed and power that would put most females at an immediate physical disadvantage.
While in combat, there is always the potential for encountering situations where speed and power may be required, it involves a much wider range of skills and training with weapons and overall survival. It's not like in a football game where the entire emphasis is on speed and power where women would constantly be at a physical disadvantage.
Women with the proper training can be just as lethal as a man perfectly capable of defending themselves but in reality, there's little comparison between a football game and combat.