>Unpopular opinions about Women in LE/Military
>(Part 1 of 2)
I honestly think women in law enforcement or military roles are in the same exact situation blacks were in before Truman desegregated the Armed Forces via E.O. 9981 in 1948.
In WW2 and even before, we used blacks and minorities mostly in supply/logistics, and combat arms support roles.
>The military establishment supported this via bullshit studies saying black were colorblind at night, or that they were more susceptible to fear so they wouldn't be able to hold bearing during combat, etc.
>However, we all know that this^ was bullshit, especially since limited front line units that saw action during WW2 and wars before performed similarly to the whites (Tuskegee airmen, 92nd infantry div., Buffalo Soldiers 10th Cav., 54th Mass. Infantry, etc.)
I will admit that in the 50's, we went through some major growing pains with integration. Many highly skilled officers and NCO's were against this so either they got out or were defiant, which means the military had to wait 10-15yrs for them to be phased out.
But by the time the Vietnam started up (17yrs later), literally nobody really cared about blacks or minorities being in the same unit so as long as they meet the standards and performed their duties as expected.
If you compare this to today, it's almost identical with various "Studies" that may or may not be fair saying that Combat units who have integrated women into their units, who have indeed passed the training standards are considered inferior to all male units which honestly is to be expected as the integrated unit of course has a lower percentage of actual experience due to new females bringing down the average versus all male units who have higher percentage of combat experience since we've been at war for the past 10 years.
>>30240876
>(Part 2 of 2)
This would be happen regardless of gender as every military minded person knows a units success is determined by...
>Training (Knowledge/Skills)
>Assets (Weapons)
>Experience (combat and years of training)
If the first two are equal, which they would be in any study US armed forces conducted, then of course the unit with higher percentage of collective experience will perform superior until such time that women acquire years of training and combat experience to restore the average.
Lastly, I'm not saying that women should be perfectly 50% representation in the Armed Forces, that's silly especially since quota systems are dangerous as all hell. We really should disregard percentage representation, even if you look at Armed Forces ethnic demographics, they are still hella skewed compared to US Citizens demographics.
>Ethnic minorities of any kind really aren't Officers
>Blacks make up nearly 30% of the Army despite being ~14% of the US
>Asians don't serve
>Why the hell does the USMC look like a Latin American country's Marine force?
However, women should have a right to serve and try for any role, including combat roles, same as men with equal and fair standards that men must meet for that role, doesn't matter if its 1% or 25% representation. People should be glad that any amount of women volunteer to serve.
Not all men meet the requirement to be cops (civilian)
Even fewer women can meet the requirements
Less than half of men can meet the requirements to be rear-line military
Even fewer women can meet the requirements
very few men can meet the requirements to be combat infantry
Even fewer women can meet the requirements
Almost no men can meet the requirements to be SOF/Delta/MARSOC/SEALS
There may be NO women who can meet these standards.
I'm fine with women serving if they face exactly the same standards, including mental/emotional stresses. Otherwise GTFO.
>>30240876
>literally nobody really cared about blacks or minorities being in the same unit
what fuckin' planet are you referring to?
>>30240890
>Right to serve
No one has the right to serve, you fuckwit.
Does some paraplegic brain dead retard have a right to serve? Fuck no. Serving is a privilege, and not one everyone qualifies for.
>Minorities added to military.
>It becomes a hive of welfare queens.
>Now women want in on it.
OP here's my $.02, I'm 23 and looking at the muhreenz cuz I'm bored AF. So I know a recruiter who tells me to come by their pooloo PT program and workout with him and about 50-60 high school kids looking to join. I went expecting to be last in everything, I'm 23 who has smoked for the last 5-6 years , worked multiple hard labor blue collar jobs. The only joint of my body that doesn't have a constant ache is my left knee, and my toes.
Surprisingly I did pretty damn decent, and even carried a female track star because she hurt her hip when we were running while passing 15 pound ammo cans.
If you're female and cant outrun my out of shape ass you have no business doing anything military related besides suck dick. Alternatively if you're in great shape, then join. Idgaf, but I'm sick of them after 4 hours of lax PT.
>>30241107
I'm >>30240912 and I totally get you. I did 6 years as a chair force cop, and saw every kind of female. Everything from fantastic NCOs (one of my two favorites, actually) to slutty, lazy, and out of shape trash fires.
>B...but aren't there out of shape men too?
Of course, but even the out of shape ones can drag someone if they have to, or hump an MG.
Moral of the story is that the downsides to a shitty female troop are the same as the downsides of a shitty male troop, just amplified. Plus they poop out at least 1 kid per enlistment.
This isn't a strange taboo America needs to surmount like we did with racial prejudice. Men of all races have always been turned to because of their physical capabilites generally being above that of a woman.
America is just in declining empire mode and resorting to a new source of strength similar to the way the Egyptians did with the Nubian archers. The Egyptians brought young men into their fertile lands in interest of defense and conquest. America brings in women to appease the interest of liberals and have defense. Egypt soon after was ruled by the nubians. America won't be hurt that bad but could worse case scenario make ourselves look silly when PFC rottencrotch gets captured by isis.
>>30240876
>it's bait, the thread
>>30240912
This is correct
>>30241164
One kid per DEPLOYMENT
>female in my battalion got pregnant everytime her mane appeared on a deployment roster
>oops now I can't deploy
>>30240876
Let me texll you a small secret. Only a few people here dont want women in the army(with justified reasons) the rest just dont want to see how they drop the standards for women when they have to break their ases without any right to whine about that.
Its neither equality nor fair, but if you keep the same requeriments before and during service then no one will say much
>>30241201
Well he wrote 2 lenghty posts of bait, at least he took some effort instead of just shitposting as usual
>>30240876
If women want to die I'm alright with that. What I'm not alright with is women getting men killed in the name of equality. Let them in to combat but keep them in segregated units so they're only risking eachother with their poor performance.
Segregated units really fix a lot of the potential problems. Less chance of sex/romance and little of pregnancy. Training can be better tailored to them (women would fall behind trying to train with men, who can develop much faster), they can carry eachother easier because they're lighter. The issues of logistics, restrooms and such becomes a lot easier. Most importantly, it won't reduce the effectiveness of our existing units, just add new, sub par ones.
It's just better. Putting women in combat with men, even in some alternate reality where they can perform as well as men (which is physiologically impossible), will cause all sorts of problems, and there is absolutely NOTHING to gain.
>>30241302
This is correct as well.
>>30241563
Segregation is discrimination and its illegal
Anyone who meets the same requirements is equally capable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta6MQNz9e-0
>>30240920
The integration problems were all largely imagined, nobody cares about the skin colour of the person fighting next to you
>>30241662
>segregation is discrimination and its illegal
Is St. Mary's School for girls illegal
Are men's and women's bathrooms illegal
fucking idiot
>>30241318
This hot pile of shit has literally been posted word for word already.
>>30241302
The Marines didn't want women in combat though, that's not really just a few
ITT: Liberals who have never researched anything about the military besides top gun and the "articles" in huffpost telling them the army has automated rape factories for women.
>>30241662
So we should put lives at risk for muh duscriminationz?
>>30242685
Just like schools and society huh? Oh wait
>>30240876
do you guys ever stop and think about how much of an unusually large amount of time you spend thinking and talking about this subject
>>30242685
And on the level of the individual soldier, I'm sure 9and have heard many times) that they don't care about the gender of the person fighting next to them. But there's a reason infantrymen don't make policy decisions. Where the problems really start to show is the bigger picture, things beyond who's shooting next to you, things that infantrymen shouldn't be focused on.
>>30245144
>coastguard requirements being remotely challenging in any way
Don't flatter yourself
>>30241695
LOL, muzzle in the dirt, using her weapon as a crutch. Good going, ma'am.
>>30245183
I've heard a female Navy reservist actually argue that. It was revolting to hear.
When the fuck did you go so wrong, America?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhwjYhxK26o
From another video, talking about her period, her "roommate" casually mentions it might be a lost child:
>nahhh, miscarriages are pink and watery.
>I've had one before.
Fucking wow. What an absolute fucking waste of tax payer's money.
>>30245454
It all started with letting women vote
>>30240876
I'll let you in on a little secret, OP...
>woman are weaker and smaller, except in rare cases, to men
Yup. There you have it. Men are stronger and undoubtedly taller/heavier than most women. If you have a woman who needs to carry 80 lbs of gear, plus ammo, plus enough water to get her through a patrol, and she can't, that adds extra weight to the people who can around her which slows down the unit as a whole, making the unit not as efficient as the unit next to them.
Lets stop for a second though. If you truly did have an integrated military, where woman and men fought side by side on foreign soil, what would realistically happen? Who knows? There's not a single country, with a few exceptions, that does this. And the ones that do have the exact same problem that I'm talking about in this post. What good does it do for unit coercion and reliability if 4-5 people a unit cannot perform simple tasks, like carrying 80 lbs of gear plus for 5-6 hours at a time, for 3-4 days? It does nothing good, I can tell you that. And what about feminine needs? Such as pads for their periods? Or tampons even? That adds extra weight. Not to mention their long hair getting in the way of stuff.
Having women in the military is like having them in the kitchen, some are reaalllyy good at cooking, and some would kill you if they even stepped foot in one. Women in the military is the exact opposite. Most shouldn't even be allowed to hold a gun, but some are just as good as their male counter parts.
And honestly, I didn't read all of your posts to know which side you're on. I was just responding because I felt like it.
>>30245622
>there's not a single country
>with a few exceptions
>can't perform simple tasks
If they pass the same standards they will be able to do anything a man can
