Why the fuck is it so hard to explain to a woman that combat roles for women is generally a bad idea?
How about you convince us why it's a bad idea? I'll tell you where you fucked up.
>>75864663
wymin and lib-cucks can't comprehend rationality. One requires a form of intellect for that.
>>75864892
This is an example of how NOT to get a message across. Stupid motherfuckers need to actually make a point and be at least semi precise and detailed when attempting to get another person to understand what you're trying to say.
I hope you didn't just call this girl a stupid liberal OP.
>>75864663
It's not. Men are simply better at fighting (and pretty much any other physical activity) than women.
>>75864807
> Putting the physically wearer sex into a situation where they are liable to get their shit fucked up.
Seems like a bad idea, senpai. Unless it's one of those butch lesbian women who could potentially be strong as far as women go, but middling-weak as a man goes.
>>75864663
They'll get it when our enemies start capturing female POWs.
Give it time, it'll be hilarious.
>>75864663
> Why is it so hard to explain anything to a woman
Because they're women and think they already know everything, that's why.
>>75865267
This, plus fucking up the psychological stability of an all male unit by throwing a woman into the mix.
I tried explaining this to somebody minutes ago.
>"Why shouldn't women be in the army?"
>"Because they're not as strong as men"
>"What if they meet male fitness standards?"
>"They mess up male psychology. In a combat zone, men would instinctively try to protect the females over the functioning of the unit."
>"Prove to me its instinctive"
>mfw
>>75865267
>physically weaker sex
Generally and obviously across the board to keep thing simple women are generally weaker than men. They can exert less power and can't build as much muscle as men.
But in order to be fair you have to break things down and be precise. Real world doesn't work with solely with generalizations.
Some women are stronger than men. Some have more motivation to serve. This alone helps argue that well, if you're going to keep some women out of the service you might as well exempt some men from service too (doesn't happen) so obviously it's not just strength.
Also the combat roles in the military in recent wars aren't so physically painful that people can't handle them. We have equipment and reasonable accommodations to ensure all sorts of people can endure the mission.
The real question is how can you not understand that women in combat roles could be good for us;
>SJW culling, when they take roles unsuitable for them just to show us evil patriarchs.
>That's even if they actually do join up (Shit, they fight for equality in certain fields like stem, yet they all choose gender studies).
>Removes all potential for a gender-based draft... Something WW2 era feminists really wanted so they could cull men. Shit, they even wanted to send male children to war.
>Basically attempts to remove our status as the more "disposable" gender.
>When there is the potential for us to be drafted, we'll see a change - "b.b.b... but I want men in charge again. Let them deal with it".
Ships already sinking, perhaps letting a few drown will stop them from putting more holes in it.
>>75865621
Did you make the point of men instinctively protecting women or the other person?
>>75865659
So much greentext I can't even make proper sense of what you typed.
>>75864663
The only reason we're opening this to debate now is that we're on the cusp of foot-on-the-ground soldiering becoming all but irrelevant.
In 10 years when soldiers are glorified videogame pilots, controlling mini-planes and mini-tanks, who gives a shit if the pilot can't do as many pushups?
In 10 years the soldier is going to be a swarm of microdrones. The enemy won't even be able to shoot the damn thing, like shooting at hornets buzzing around you as they each tear a little bit of flesh off of you, death by a 1000 cuts.
>>75865630
> Fighting force makes concessions for an unreliable element.
> Not only selecting the strongest men and sharpest minds, capable of enduring hell and coming out of it unphased.
I'm just saying, I want our armed forces to be ubermenschen. If a woman is up to scratch, at least consider placing her in a segregated unit, made of women. This way, any psychological aspect is minimalised.
>>75865903
Instinctively protecting women.
>>75865630
You are, full stop, incorrect. Combat loads have only gotten heavier and we're still expected to be able to hump that shit quite a distance and for as long as it's deemed necessary.
>>75865621
This is your average female in the military.
>we want equality!
>okay, time for you to sign up for selective services.
>we want only the good parts of equality!
>>75864663
>Women are, on average less physically capable than men.
>The cost of accommodating the minuscule percentage of women who both A.) Are physically capable to be in combat arms and B.) Actually want to be in combat arms, is kind of a waste of resources.
>>75866090
Honestly I can't agree yet with the women not being able to handle the psychological aspect at all. I really do believe women might generally be stronger mentally than a man. They live with babies inside them for 9 months. I would have killed myself and the stupid fucking kid from lack of patience and women end up in relationships with men constantly that treat them like shit even abusive and shit and they still manage to force themselves to stay in. I see that as strength. Sure it's stupid and wrong for them but what I"m saying is that their mental endurance has proved over and over again just how mentally capable women are. I honestly think they have been bred that way because of having no choice but to deal with the men's shit over the entire span of the human cycle.
>>75866163
>Combat loads have only gotten heavier and we're still expected to be able to hump that shit quite a distance and for as long as it's deemed necessary.
If you did it it's because you could handle it. I went to Iraq also (in case you went to the Middle East somewhere). It was shit and hard but I do believe a woman could handle it if she had been conditioned like us. In 120 degree weather with all that gear on ANY civilian would have fucking died if they had went straight from the world to war. People who get used to being in miserable conditions adapt and get used to surviving those situations. I'm not saying women should without question be allowed to serve but I think there should be some sort of more realistic trials to see if they're as useless as many men make them out to be. We might need the help because with all these sorry as fuck piece of shit man children that join and then try bailing out when they get deployed is not helping.
>>75865630
Personally, I am less hostile to the idea of letting women who CAN pass the same fitness and mental tests as men serve alongside them, the problem is, very few women can actually pass the tests, so standards are lowered all for the sake for equality. This makes your fighting force less effective.
Men who fail the tests are not accepted, just like women who fail the tests.
Then there is the physical aspect of it. Women on average are weaker than men, on average. Concessions like redesigning packs or making them lighter have to be made, which is a pain in the backside and a logistical and R and D issue which can simply be avoided.
And then there is the issue of being in extremely close proximity to women 24/7. Men can just laugh about shitting anf farting everywhere but I definetly dont want to sleep right next to an unwahsed woman whos having her period, and I dont think many of them want that either. It would be even worse for armoured crews.
In the end, women in cobat roles are just a burden.
>>75865934
>we're on the cusp of foot-on-the-ground soldiering becoming all but irrelevant.
No we aren't, and you're stupid for thinking that
>>75865934
No, not even close.
>>75866864
>>75866972
He's got a point. First off with nukes so readily available a ground war is almost pointless to superpowers. Second of all the United States isn't getting invaded by Russia or China so we really don't need to fight them unless we make a major offensive which I doubt would happen because then nukes are going off which brings me to point a again.
Vietnam and the Middle East have tough that bottom line is ground forces don't guarantee victory and certainly guarantee waste of resources and time. Now in the Middle East we're doing a lot better with just planes.
>>75864663
Read this OP and learn to summarise the points that are mentioned.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262626.pdf
>>75865630
>I've never spent a day in the military, even as a POG: the post
>>75864663
Because women today can't not shit up a good thing. They think Infantry's a good-ol'-boys club who only want to keep "strong," "independent" women out because they're insecure or afraid of being beaten by a girl. They see this last bastion of masculine solidarity and they're compelled to join it to show that they can be just as rough and tough as the boys because they've been fed that nonsense their whole lives and only been rewarded for challenging the notion of female exclusion. They completely ignore every test like this:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/
... because it terminates their echo-chamber world view. It doesn't even compute to them that their presence is a hindrance at best and a catastrophic liability in most cases.
Because you're wrong, while British men were hiding like little bitches in their island women of the red army fought successfully to keep you safe.
>>75865621
I went to an all-boy high school, had a lot of friends in all-girl high schools and co-ed high schools.
male HS: superior academic performance, better friendships, no cliques, no bullying, no problems besides the 5 niggers that went there, better relationships with women
girl HS:superior academic performance, better friendships, but cliquey and catty as fuck because they all gossip and look for drama
co-ed:bullying, males acting like animals towards each other, fights, worse academic performance, shitty atmosphere, poorly developed individuals
Women are useless cunts in general and are rarely interested in greater-good outcomes, and they fuck up how men behave with each other. Women all hate each other to begin with.
Men and women only belong together in private (courtship and family life) and in recreational scenarios, i.e. going out with other couples or on dates.
>>75866822
No women can actually pass the test without lowering the standards.
It's not possible.
>>75867502
I did a little over three years in the Army. Including a year in Korea and a year in Iraq as a cav scout so...
>inb4 you're lying anon
>>75864663
yes goy put the future of your country in harms way
when you get low or become useless well just replenish with imports
>>75864663
>Why the fuck is it so hard to explain to a woman that combat roles for women is generally a bad idea?
You're a shitty debater?
>>75867357
Yeah I´d say he does have a point, but certainly not in 10 years. There are no plans for drone fighters or tanks. Maybe in 40 years or so but definetly not in the near future.
>>75865659
No. We wouldn't see a change, we would see women demand to be put in leadership roles because B-B-B-BUT ITS NOT FAAAAAAAIR
>>75867617
lol k
>>75865934
Go back to Black Ops, you fucking absolute nigger.
Life isn't a video game and it's not going to turn into one in 10 or even 20 years you fucking twat.
>>75866822
>Personally, I am less hostile to the idea of letting women who CAN pass the same fitness and mental tests as men serve alongside them
I used to think like this, but the problem is to get those few capable women, you have to train and reject a lot. If 75% of men can pass the physical tests, but only 5% of women, then the cost of finding a female soldier is 15x that of a male soldier.
>>75867502
no i think they view being a soldier as a job, and want to opportunity to compete with the men.
anyhow i find it amusing that men like to go on and on abt how DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HAPPENS TO MEN and A TRAINED WOMAN WITH A WEAPON IS VERY DANGEROUS but no you can't serve in the armed forces.
If they want to go get themselves blown up by an IED, I say let 'em! Fuck put them on the front lines. . .their own little Womyn Brigade.
See how many come back.
That'll fix that right quick.
>>75867877
ENTRANCE EXAMS
>>75867655
oui exactamonte, they cant.
>>75867700
Anecdotal evidence means almost nothing, anon.
>>75867877
Pretty sure the military CAN give them a basic PT test at MEPS before they hit basic if they wanted to filter OUT women. I think they get men into basic is because by then men done fucked up and the military wants you even if you have 3 feet.
>>75864663
Every woman I know who is either still in or recently left, two of which had three Herrick tours between them, is against woman as infanteers.
The only people I have come across who support it are equality cum-gargling feminists and white knights who don't have the first clue what the culture and the role entails.
It's not just the rather unfeminine throwing a hand grenade, emptying the magazine on full auto and then bayonetting what is left - it's the other elements of the culture. Unit cohesion will be a thing of the past.
And the old charade of 'they will have to pass the same tests as anyone else'? No one buys that. On the occasions we have put women through arduous courses - first the All-Arms Commando Course and then the RN Minewarfare & Clearance Diving Officers Course, the timings were altered to allow the women to pass.
>>75867967
this may actually be an option , an all women unit that would in turn be expected to perform to the same standards as a male unit would be treated the same by the superiors and the problem of fucking up the male mindset in a combat situation would mostly be removed .
>>75867938
It's not a proper occupation or something to battle the patriarchy in.
It can easily be life and death when a roadside IED goes off next to your groups hummer and your buddy is pinned inside and the woman can't move him.
>>75868034
Cool. Listen to Wikipedia then.
>>75868268
Low quality b8 m8.
See >>75867655
How can women even compete?
>>75864663
TOP FKN KEK
women can do combat roles it depands on the role itself,you realy think every unit in the miltary is a navy seals spetznaz unit??!?!
the US marine is nothing realy they have a short course and are considerd battle meat in combat like many other units in diffrent countries.
>>75868268
women can serve in combat roles BUT not in commando roles cause in those units their physical limitations are too much compared to men.
>>75868598
the Isreali military is pretty much on par with the UK military IMO in terms of its attitude towards the use of infantry with the limited resources available.
What is Russia's stance on women in the military?
>>75869076
They think men in the military is degenerate. Women only.
Women would only be good for executing mudshits because if they get killed by a female they don't get their 72 virgins, it's the ultimate morale killer for them
I feel like women in a firefight would start crying and hiding to protect themselves specifically where a man would be more likely to return fire no matter the risk.
Is that a bad assumption?
>>75869347
A lot of men try weaseling their way out before they even touch the warzone. We had a guy shoot himself in the stomach because a Seargant chewed him out.
>>75869570
Again, anecdotal evidence.
Ive got a question for the American anons here, do you have female armoured crews? I havent seen any but I dont know.
>>75869688
Not when I was in.
We had a female mechanic that worked on our Bradley's though. She was pretty fucking tough. She lasted through our morning PT runs when half the men would fall out.
>>75869847
And she was only like 5 foot 4
>>75865903
>Did you make the point of men instinctively protecting women or the other person?
This is what happened in the IDF. When women would be injured in a firefight the males would act differently and destroy the cohesion of the unit
>>75869347
Have heard cases of that happening.
Honestly? I feel like it should be one of those trial by fire dealios where we need to build up a culture or mentality where they can fight, if not as well as a man but still good fighter/shooter.
Not super well-versed in military training or experiences, but Russia may had had something when they started using women for combat roles in WW2. Alot of them were shit but there came a shit ton of improvements (especially snipers) when the dust cleared and provided actual productive soldiers.
Alot of people like to point at the Starship Troopers dealio where in the movie, people really didn't give a shit if you were male or female as long as you were willing to fight and didn't make a big deal out of being a girl. The big problem here nowadays is the "One death is a tragedy" mentality and the issues when a woman soldier gets captured or killed. I would like to see all woman combat units just to throw the "men will get distracted in combat" variable out the window and to finally get shit going and see what works and doesn't work.
On the flip side. I remember BMT at Lackland AFB (washed out ;_;) and all the girls there were fighting 24/7. I don't know how combat actually works out, but hopefully that infighting doesn't carry on into combat.
>>75869847
Im dont think any military in the world today has female tankers, the SAA might have a few female crews on their T-72s, but I think thats out of desperation and a lack of manpower, a bit like with the Soviet Union in WW2.
>>75864663
My women are irrational due to their constant periods they suffer from.
>>75867626
This, segregation doesn't just work with race
>>75870106
Oh and for the record, the male AND female training instructors HATED being put in charge of the female flights. Once again, so much fighting with the girls.
>>75864663
This practice will end as soon as ISIS starts posting rape videos.
>>75866754
I understand your point but I don't think you are grasping how physically weak females are compared to males. The difference between a physically fit and strong man compared to a physically fit woman is massive.
Sure there are women who are stronger than an average man, however if you train both a woman and a man the man will be stronger, faster and better in the same time frame.
Put it this way, why would the military waste money training women when men have better performance across the board? When they have access to tens of thousands of physically fit motivated men to chose from? There is no reason
>>75870149
This is the only serious answer so far that I can justify not letting a single woman in.
Periods and the fact that they can get pregnant. Women literally have the choice to not go to war if they so desire by simply getting pregnant. That makes it just too easy to be able to get out and as much research as the military has in learning about itself is that in times of war (at least in this generation) is that motherfuckers WILL try to get out. Men still go anyways. A lot of guys ended up doing drugs to try getting dishonorably discharged but said fuck it you're going and we'll punish you when you get back.
>>75866754
You deployed? In what role? There was a female marine officer leading a company of combat engineers that wrote a scathing article about how women simply can't keep up. She saw combat in the limited way a support unit does and noted that she was breaking far faster than even her weakest male subordinates.
It's titled something like "we're not all created equal" by a usmc captain. I'd find it for you but am on mobile.
>>75866754
>really do believe women might generally be stronger mentally than a man
And that is where you can spot the lib-cuck thinking that women can be strong as men when they are not. Stop watching action movies, so you can remove the propaganda from your brain. Men have over a 40-60 percent more body mass than a women. Women are not fit for combat, and I hope when we put them in the front lines, they will die in mass. It is gonna be fucking great.
>>75864663
Well I wouldn't have a problem with it if there were one physical fitness test by which to select good candidates, rather than one for men and a much easier one for women. And they have to shave their head.
>>75866163
That's not how a telegram works you retard.
>>75865630
Strength is not the only factor here.
Men instinctively protect females. This alone lowers the social cohesion in an unit whenever a female is introduced in a previously male unit. Females are also different from males, which increases heterogeneity and thus lowers homogeneity, which in turn lowers social cohesion of the unit, allowing for less trust to be between members of the unit, making the unit less effective.
Women have menstruations, one week every three weeks, their hormones go wild, they bleed, they're uncomfortable, and as a result of that, they might be more irritated, more emotional, more requiring of privacy, all of which are inherently bad for a combat situation. There's simply no option for privacy in a combat situation and emotions increase intragroup tensions, again, lowering social cohesion and mutual trust, making the unit less effective.
>>75870612
>>75870106
So would all woman units be okay with you? I think we're at least both in agreement of seeing SOMETHING happen.
>reasoning with women
Maybe pouring acid on them has something going for it.
>>75867357
You guys are forgetting something:
I N S U R G E N C Y
The infantry will always be necessary, there is no way drones, strike aircraft, or anything else will be able to replace infantry as an effective occupying force. All attempts to make the Infantry obsolete have failed, utterly.
>>75866822
>the problem is, very few women can actually pass the tests, so standards are lowered all for the sake for equality.
This is what will happen eventually. Not now, but eventually the bar will be lowered. I truly, truly, truly believe it.
The not washing part of your argument is based on feels though, please don't.
>>75865028
>This is an example of how NOT to get a message across. Stupid motherfuckers need to actually make a point and be at least semi precise and detailed when attempting to get another person to understand what you're trying to say.
>I hope you didn't just call this girl a stupid liberal OP.
>>75864807
>How about you convince us why it's a bad idea? I'll tell you where you fucked up.
How about this then...
Women are not supposed to take on combat roles in the army because they have evolved to be nothing but sexual objects for the male's pleasure and to take care of children and household chores.
LEARN YOUR PLACE WOMAN!!!!
>>75870958
>
Women are not supposed to take on combat roles in the army because they have evolved to be nothing but sexual objects for the male's pleasure and to take care of children and household chores.
LEARN YOUR PLACE WOMAN!!!!
check. Nothing wrong with that. Not sure why she didn't get it. How's Halo 4 going?
>>75870542
Found the link:
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/blog/2012/07/05/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
>>75867617
so why couldnt you beat us?
>>75864663
Because 9/10 have all the intellectual capacity of a beligerent child.
>>75864663
It's ok to me, a women can fight and be brave too.
I respect the womens that give their live to die.
More balls than most of men.
>>75865934
Um no infantry will always be the backbone of the miltary for ground work.
>>75864663
Because strong independent womenz don't need no man and dey be equal and sheeeeiiiiittttt
>>75871023
They are currently re writing the tests in Brtian to make sure more women get in, its already too late.
How efffective do you think you wuld be if you were stuck in a metal box for 3 days straight with 2 other women having their period, unwashed and generally being catty? On top of that, one of those women has to frequently lift heavy tank rounds into the gun. They are almost certainly going to be less effective than a male crew.
On an unrelated note, all the smaller/less tall females I know are much better at camping, hiking and generally doing physical stuff than the men, and they generally complain less. Its weird.
>>75870843
yes because the SJWs will go to war and die during the process, and then the SJW survivors will bitch that war is too hard for them; therefore, women should be excuse from war, but their right to vote will be attach to it, so it becomes a win-win situation. They cant vote if they cant defend the constitution
>>75871529
>More balls than most of men.
You are aware more than 75% of men have beaten at LEAST one game of Call of Duty or Battlefield?
That doesn't say you have balls?
>>75864807
How about I punch you right in your little fucking mouth and we'll see if you're fit for combat
>>75871148
>check. Nothing wrong with that. Not sure why she didn't get it. How's Halo 4 going?
Never played Halo 4, videogames are for children, have not played many of them since I got into university. I guess I just can't find them to be fun anymore or something, all I do all day is work out at the gym, study, look for a job in this shitty economy and fuck my girlfriend hard.
Anyway, women are not supposed to take on combat roles for the same reason the men on prehistory used to be the hunters while the women stayed at the tribe taking care of children.
>>75871741
I'd love to but I got my DD214 already. I'm fit.
>>75867938
>men complain that women are generally more willing to stoop to physical violence like slapping or attacking boyfriends/husbands for whatever reason
>men complain that women are generally more willing to fuck around with guns and knock their own teeth out with recoil or accidentally shoot someone in the ass
>"but why do they also think women can't be in the army?????"
You answered your own fucking question, faggot.
There are plenty of women who can serve and be successful, but they are the exception. There are probably also 12 year olds who know ROTC shit and can fire a rifle better than most grown men. That doesn't mean they should be in the armed forces.
>>75871780
>videogames are for children
>Literally half of /pol/ Blown the FUCK out by one of their own.
>>75871720
They learn to just deal with it. You see this alot in agriculture especially, where alot of guys originally did not women getting involved with for similar reasons to the military. Know there's tons of girls who life more then I do (although i way out of shape) with hay bales and saddles.
My mind is, another pair of hands is another pair of hands and just fucking put women in combat roles already rather then speculate. Rather do it now and work things out then a draft actually happens and we have zero clue what to do with the female recruits.
>>75872243
>another pair of hands
Yeah, I agree.
But when it's:
>smaller hands
There's no reason for them to be there.
>>75872243
>you just have to deal with lowered standards
are you retarded?
>>75872620
>implying standards aren't getting lower anyways with boys nowadays getting less fucking exercise fucking with electronics and shit, eating just as unhealthy, and doing more drugs than ever while attending the same dumb fucking schools as women.
The military is sorry as fuck compared to the military of the past and it has nothing to do with women wanting to join.
People are looking at this the wrong way. It is a privilege to have the opportunity to fight for your nation in a volunteer force, not a right, and allowing women to serve in the military needs to be beneficial to the military. There are a number of arguments for this:
*Allowing women to serve in combat roles would (in theory) double the number of potential recruits into combat roles, assuming that women enlist at the same rate as men (they don't).
*Allowing women to serve in combat roles could add a unique perspective to those combat roles, and bring in new interpersonal skills as a result.
Just as there are reasons for, there are a number of reasons against:
*Capability: Only a small number of females can pass the male fitness standards. In the Army, for a 17-21 year old the standard for a male is 42 push-ups, 52 sit-ups, and a 15:54 2 mile run. The female standard is 13 push-ups, 52 sit-ups, and an 18:30 2 mile run.
*Unit strength: Due to this lower average physical strength, allowing women into combat units would lower said unit's combat strength.
*Unit cohesiveness: It has been shown in other co-ed units, such as the IDF's combined gender units, that co-ed units lose unit cohesiveness, which is essential over long-term ops.
*Physiology: This ties into the next reason but is distinct on its own, females have a unique physiology that requires unique items to deal with, and skills that combat units have never had to have before. This would present a new challenge to combat units for the sake of a minority of soldiers.
*Logistics: Currently women are required to have their own showers, their own changing areas, their own sleeping areas, and so on. The logistics challenge is difficult to maintain in peacetime, and is therefore an undue and unnecessary challenge to place on a combat unit at wartime.
I find it much more compelling an argument that allowing women into combat roles is simply not beneficial enough to the military to justify it.
>>75872392
>>75872620
Could say the same for all the frigging manlets I was with in BMT.
>But anon, they'll distract the guys!
Then make all female units and let them blame themselves for what happens. The problem I'm seeing here is that people aren't willing to even see attempts at this and dealing with things accordingly.
And yes, did hear a story of a convoy driver being a woman and completely folding up underfire from my own buddies and tons of other stories. But if you're a fucking convoy driver with zero (relative) prep for being in a combat situation, I'd imagine that's alot worse then being a women completely psyched-out for combat.
Also this does not include special forces. Why the fuck would you lower standards for what is suppose to be the best of the best?
>>75864663
It's not.
You just ask them why they segregate men and women's olympics.
>>75871529
Agreed, if a female can develop the same amount of physical and mental durability as the standard requires then I believe they should be able to serve in the military
>>75873020
Manlets are good for sitting in jets all day.
Women are good for taking care of children and the house.
>>75872149
>Literally half of /pol/ Blown the FUCK out by one of their own.
I care not for those manchildren, if they want to be taken seriously they should man up themselves.
But seriously, women have no place being in the army, much less in a fucking combat role. You bitches go to war, get captured by the enemy, and then we will have a major scandal as a female POW gets raped and tortured by sandslimes.
Your place is in the kitchen, be it at home or at the army. Women should be limited to household-like chores when serving in the army, like cleaning toilets and cooking food, cleaning the floor and doing the soldiers laundry.
>>75864663
Because most women are retards.
>>75873193
Should they be allowed to be cops?
>>75873308
There's lots of women in the Security Forces for the USAF.
>>75865630
>ensure all sorts of people can endure the mission.
thats not the point we dont want all sorts of people we want the best people who will work together flawlessly to carry out an objective
and that doesnt include women because they are weaker, more emotional, psychologically different from men, and will fuck with the men's psyche
>>75873308
No, and women are horrible cops, or any EMS really. Hell they had to sue the NYFD to allow women into that, since they couldn't past the NYFD standards:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/08/fdny-insider-black-female-firefighter-allowed-to-graduate-academy-despite-failing-strength-and-running-tests/
>Court-ordered priority hire
kek
>>75873357
There are also women in the Marines aren't there? and that's harder than the fucking army. Might as well get rid of the ARMY because they probably couldn't handle the Marines. Might as well kill the Marines because they can't handle Special Forces or Navy SEALS.
>>75872922
>In the Army, for a 17-21 year old the standard for a male is 42 push-ups, 52 sit-ups, and a 15:54 2 mile run. The female standard is 13 push-ups, 52 sit-ups, and an 18:30 2 mile run.
>Literally less capable
KEK
>>75871809
being able to run a mile in 5 minutes isn't gonna save your ass from the concussive blast of an IED
>>75864663
It is hard to explain because most people have never been in a combat role.
They are basing their opinion that women can handle it, and should be in combat roles, on some ideal.
>>75873308
>Should they be allowed to be cops?
Yes, it is very different for a woman to be a police officer and to be a frontline trooper. Being a cop might require physical strength and endurance, but not nearly as much as a soldier.
>>75873020
>>75872922
>The problem I'm seeing here is that people aren't willing to even see attempts at this and dealing with things accordingly.
Mate you can only truly attempt this in warzones, are you in favor of toying with people's lives?
>B-but we won't lower standards for this special unit :^) then it's ok right?
retard.
I don't give a shit at this point. The US Military is so overrun with PC and magical thinking that the best outcome is we get involved in a major war, lose with tons of casualties, and ditch all the PC bullshit.
>>75873551
>concussive blast of an IED
funny you'd say that. I've seen ied's go off. My vehicle was targeted four times. I've seen even more go off on other vehicles and even more go off from a distance and heard even more that I didn't see.
The IED doesn't knock you unconscious or deaf. You either get killed or are alive. Shit if anything would make your ears ring it's the sound of a Howitzer from directly underneath the barrel.
>>75871741
>>75873664
U.S. military is an all volunteer force. The female units would be all volunteers. Forcing some corporate/educational style diversity bullshit into combat role units would be retarded.
>>75873188
Boy, I just got out a year ago. Let me tell you this, the best female soldier I ever came across was still a total shit bag and a coal burner. She could PT well but was awful at the parts of her job that actually mattered. Lazy, indecisive, immature, kind of stupid and physically incapable of a lot tasks and needed to crutch on dopey males hoping to get a taste of her nasty pussy. It breaks my heart knowing the flood gate has opened to make people like her a more common occurrence in my Army.
>>75873742
Were you a Bradley crew member?
>>75873889
Yup. Half the times we'd roll in Humvees though. Until our Lieutenant got scared and only went out in Bradleys.
women are just shit and physical activity
>>75873811
What does this have to do with lowering standards and not being so retarded to send male-female-units to warzones to test their efficiency?
>>75874026
Got any pics I can add to my Bradley folder?
>>75874026
What, did you guys just snatch the vehicles you needed from the motor pool? I'm with a Bradley unit now, and we've not got nearly enough Humvees to run even a platoon out there, and all the ones we do have are command/logistics shits. What missions were you guys doing anyway that gave you the option to choose? I've never heard of that.
>>75874197
You know what, you got me. Russia was retarded when they used women in combat roles for sure. Israel especially. They learned nothing from that. You win.
>>75864663
OK heres how it works.
WOMEN should be allowed into the military, front lines, w.e its their choice. do with it what you will.
HOWEVER, you do not lower the standards for fitting the role. if the woman can bench 250 and fucking run down a bus full of children, be my guest, join the frontlines. but dont complain when the standards are too high for a woman to achieve, and thus unfair.
>>75874234
I certainly do. I'll start with about four or five that I think are pretty nice. Hold up.
>>75874260
Well, Our Platoon had four Bradley's. I think we ended up usually borrowing from third Platoon and others. A lot of times our Bradley's would go deadlines so we didn't have a choice but most times we did roll out in Bradleys. They were to hard to maintain though. And when it started getting real hot it was just better to go in Humvees. Yeah, we just switched though. Not sure how our Platoon leaders would get it organized.
>>75874234
I've got two from training. They're a bit shit though.
>>75874234
Here's one
>>75873818
Where did you serve?
Another
>>75874541
Cheers mate. I love muh armoured vehicles, and even though we clearly disagree on women in the military, I am still insanely jealous you were a bradley crew member.
>>75874651
and this.
I used to have more but then I deleted everything to make space on my phone.
>>75874541
Yeah Brads are a bitch to keep together. Always something going wrong with them. I love the things as support but hate to be on crew, so of course I've been stuck on crew the majority of my time.
>>75866754
>women can do the thing they're biologically designed to do
Wow, so strong. Let's give them all guns and point them towards the enemy.
Women
>more prone to injuries and infections (muh vagina)
>weaker and slower
>decrease combat readability
>logistical nightmare
>fucked esprit de corps
Benefits of women in infantery
>
This too
>>75874935
How different is firing the TOW from inside the turret as opposed to firing it off the tripod like they are doing in Syria at the moment? Do you have to be more careful you dont break the wire?
>>75865267
Women still have to pass the same requirements as men. So we are taking the stronger 10% of the women population that are just as strong as men.
Next issue
>>75874837
Out of curiosity, why? Don't you brits have the Warrior IFVs that are essentially the same thing?
>>75875092
Well, honestly not too sure because we didn't use the TOWS. We only used the 25MM barrel to shoot. We didn't even load or keep the TOW prepared. Not even sure why we just didn't.
I can't even remember if we ever used them in Korea. I don't think so though.
>>75875188
They are still women, no matter how stronk they are
>>75874381
>implying I came here to win
I came here to learn, faggot, now tell me where I am wrong, or fuck off.
Using women for combat purposes will negatively effect the unit which performs said combat. For this reason women should be excluded. If you want to create an all female unit, sure be my guest, it should theoretically work and unit effectiveness would theoretically not be impeded.
>>75875285
That's called unable to substantiate you argument my little baguette
If women can pass the same physical exams that are given to men, then the "womyn r weaker" argument fails.
>>75875416
Because it will be shit in the first place
>>75874837
It's not that fun man. Have you ever seen them break track?
>>75875220
The Warrior currently has a 30mm gun and you can fit 7 soldiers in there with the crew. It doesnt fire TOWs though and I dont think ERA armour was ever fitted onto it in large numbers like it was with the Bradley.
I think they are about to upgrade them with the 40mm telescoped ammo tyrret.
>>75875541
Probably but atleast it'll allow women in combat roles without destroying unit cohesion, as they'll have their own seperate unit cohesion. If they fail, and are worse than male units, then we should call it quits and give up on including women in the army.
>>75875530
>>75875188
>implying that strength is the only factor at play
Look through the thread instead of arguing with a frog.
>>75875188
They're women.
That's the issue, you fucking white knight.
>"oh, this chick can run faster than this male solider, she can do 30 pull ups! she can do this and that!"
>she's still shorter
>she's still not as strong
>she can't jump as far
>she can't carry a wounded man back to a safe zone
>she can't shit and piss in front of other men
>she can't listen to the men's jokes without feeling disgusted or ashamed
>she'll get preferential treatment both from allies (women and children first!)
>she'll get targeted more severely by the enemy (literally raped to death whereas a man would just get beheaded)
>she'll have to deal with her period
Good luck, cunt.
>>75875530
Most men pass the requirements by a margin, womyn barely pass them.
They are women, they have different needs and they are indeed more frail.
>>75875596
Yeah I´ve heard tracks are ridiculously heavy.
>>75875188
Women do not need to pass the same requirements. They have to pass the standards set for women (generally 80-85% that of a male the same age)
Other requirements are "modified" For example an Army Ranger must put a soldier over their shoulder and run 100 yards while keeping their rifle pointed down range. A female has to do the same, but instead of a "soldier" it is changed to "a female soldier"
The idea that a female soldier is in any way passing the exact same tests, under the exact same conditions, and are held to the exact same standard, is laughable at best
>>75866163
That's not how english works you retard.
>>75875188
This is a lie.
>>75865630
HAHAHAAHAHAH found the cuck
Look bro, just google it instead of relying of /pol/ for sources. I will post one, and there are countless by the Army and Navy. Only ones ignoring the fuckery that will happen is the PC government and dumbasses like you.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/
>>75875811
Yeah, they're fucking heavy. When we were in Iraq in the heat. In the summer time we would have to change the ENTIRE set (both sides) out like every five days (if my memory serves me correctly). It was a LOT. The rubber pads on the bottom would wear out and started falling off so we needed to replace them. This was like a three-5 hour project on average in the blazing sun.
>>75875616
>40mm gun
muh dick
In all honesty we don't use the TOWs that much. They're there as a last-resort anti-tank measure since the 25 can't hope to pen actual armor, and they're too expensive to waste on buildings or infantry targets, but you probably know as well as we do how much of a pipe-dream it is to engage a tank with a TOW and win.
>>75875811
Yes. Yes they are. Actually, relevant to this thread, in 4 years I've only seen one individual throw track, and that was a female driver for an 88 (a wrecker used to retrieve disabled Abrams and other armored vehicles). She also snapped off, just before that, one of the towing arms that the 88s use to drag the tanks. I'm not too familiar with 88s though, so my terminology might be shit.
>>75875760
That's why I said next issue. I was arguing one point at a time pseudo russian flag
>>75875188
Bullshit, women do way less in terms of physical testing. Fun fact, when I was in BMT in the Air Force our sister flight had only two females that were on par with our men.
>>75875810
Which is why the army only accept the most physically fit women, throwing that argument out the window.
Next
>>75876194
There is also one from 2 years ago by the british army that was quite interesting.
Still retards will believe that it is all about muh envy and that physiological differences are not that bad
>>75864663
because you have no legitimate argument beyond "muh feelings"
>>75876469
>Army only accept the most physically fit women
lol, do people actually believe this? Of any service?
>>75876279
Here's a nice one
>>75876469
You are fucking dense aren't you
It's not all about physical capacity
>>75875188
our 'Soldier of the Cycle' in my BCT platoon was a female who refused to climb the warrior tower because it was 'too hard'
kiddy gloves doesn't describe it
>>75876261
>>75876279
Yeah I doubt an armoured vehicle has any hope of destroying a tank and getting away with a TOW, but people hidden in a forest with a TOW could very well work, rebels in Syria used to have great successes with their TOWs but I think the SAA and Russians wised up.
Do you guys know the actualy weight of a single track link on the Bradley?
>>75876588
I had a 88 tow my Bradley back to base. I was in the drivers seat and sitting RIGHT behind the FUCKING exhaust of that thing for about 45 minutes at LEAST. I drank like a gallon and a half of hour in that time. I thought I was going to die from over hydration.
>>75876558
Have you been listening to the news fellow American? Womyn were crying for the requirements to be lowered but the army didn't budge an inch
>>75876693
Each four probably weighs like 50 pounds give or take 10 pounds. There's about 168 or so on each side. One side has slightly more than the other side. Forgot which side it was though.
>>75876645
Holy shit, are you retarded or pretending to be?
I was only arguing the point of physical strength. Bring your next point instead being a butthurt loser
>>75867655
>mixing lbs and kg
NO
>>75876653
Brits don't count. They have women fucking firefighters who can't carry an old lady down the stairs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK39VIUyNqg
start from around 5 min
>>75876939
>One side has slightly more than the other side. Forgot which side it was though.
kek I didnt know this. How on earth dd the designers manage to let that happen?
Thanks for answering all these questions btw.
>>75871323
>leftist reply: "A man forced her to write this otherwise he would not promote and/or rape her. No woman would talk down to herself and others! Grrrrll power!"
>>75867655
http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1698/womens-soccer/2016/05/26/23954642/australia-womens-soccer-team-faces-unfair-global-backlash
> 1st division female soccer team
> lost 7-0 to underage boys
mfw
> unfair
>>75876729
Oh fuck that. I hate just sitting in the hatch when the brad nexts to me decides to start up in the fucking motor pool. We decided to stagger-park our brads at one point to avoid this, and it was like fucking heaven to be able to do a PMCS in the motor pool without choking to death on smog. Then someone decided it looked ugly and put a stop to that and it was back to hell. I have developed a keen hatred of the motor pool as a result of this.
I can't even imagine how much of a bitch it was being that close to the 88. Did you get to hatch-down at least?
>>75876693
That's true, though you could, in theory, do an ambush with a fucking Dragon, so I'm not too sure it's applicable. Humvees with TOWs are swag as fuck though. I can't tell you about the actual weight of the track-links myself.
>>75876810
>wanting even lower standards
I don't want to believe. Link?
>>75877075
summarize it for me. I'm not reading all that
>>75877161
I think it's intentional. Forgot the reason if we ever knew. We just knew the count because we had to change it all the time.
shit, I also messed up with my count. The count I gave was all TOGETHER instead of each side heh. Sorry.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=378626
Here's a thread where someone asks the same question.
>>75865934
Let's entertain the notion that what you're saying is true.
All that is required to be a "soldier" is to be able to control a drone.
EVEN THEN, women still perform worse than men.
Take any e-sports/competitive video-game community and you'll soon realize that even here you need segregation by the sexes.
>>75877282
Yup. Hatchet was closed. Shit. I couldn't touch the inside walls of the tank because it was so hot i'd get burned.
>>75865934
> if we just could do womyin into man cybernetically
> it totally happen in 10 years
Lets discuss it in 10 years then, no?
>>75877517
Goddamn your BC fucked you. Did you tell anyone about that after the fact, at least?
>>75877451
yes. the best 'female' moba player in the world is a transsexual
did you guys know at the Rio Olympics they're easing restrictions on transgenders being able to compete? I look forward to a year where most female records are smashed. The news will be full of 'why the male decathalon is sexist for being too hard on women'
>>75877282
I remember once in Korea at night when a bunch of us parked at a site. It was cold as fuck and I remember a friend of mine had told me how hot the Abrams exhaust got so I saw an Abrams closeby start up and went behind it for about 5 seconds. I was like FUCK THIS, because I started burning up.
>>75877303
Women tested were way more prone to injuries, they were slower and weaker, their presence decreased combat readability and efficiency.
I'm also adding that they need special cares to avoid urinal/vaginal infections, which means a strain on the logistical line.
>>75877642
That's typical shit we'd go through. Wasn't much worse than typical daytime activities. That's why I left the ARMY. Left a bad taste in my mouth and wore me out.
>>75877670
Didn't know the same shit was happening in the moba-scene.
In Starcraft the only 'girl' that can/and does compete with the men is also transsexual.
There was a hilarious outrage after "she" joined an all female competition and absolutely wrecked everyone.
>>75865934
I know you guys think this guy is fucking crazy but the U.N just a little while ago banned killer robots.
Which means that the governments are probably seriously considering this sort of thing. We already have plenty of drones, that technology isn't going to go full sci-fi but its going to change for sure. There's fucking no one that can tell you what the future will hold for warfare, and I'm betting we might even see things far more insidious and less obvious than this. For those of you who don't know its not like autotargeting systems where if you don't broadcast a code you get iced exist, and the same goes for a lot of similar technology. Its a matter of time and economics until we're talking about a whole different game entirely.
In addition, women are actually quite fit as fighters pilots because of the distance from the heart to the brain, same with shorter men. The issue you all have with them doing the same physical shit as men fucks me over because there are plenty of men that don't qualify for the army, why would you lower the standards just so women can apply for the army?
Either way the liberal point is just womens lib nonsense anyways. They don't care about the army. Thats why Obama can appoint so many unqualified women to military posts, its a political point and not a reasonable one and will continue to be democrats doing insensible things to make their feelings feel good.
How is that any different than any other liberal policy?
>/pol/ wouldn't remove Kebab with a Peshmerga QT
>>75878014
Because they've bought into the women are just the same as men meme.
We can into combat roles if it's administrated well. That means not allowing feminist whining and pressuring to dictate standards or...anything else really. Those women who can perform to the same physical standards as men can serve as men do. Those who don't make the cut can't. Simple as. Yes there will be a massive disparity in "representational diversity" or whatever with regard to gender. Femtard starts claiming facts are sexist and bitching about wanting some affirmative action methods to be enacted for the sake of unfair "equality"? The nearest person - man, woman, civilian, whoever - ought to fucking slap her, and tell her if a man had been hysterically carrying on like that and spouting complete bullshit, he'd have gotten punched. Then ask if she'd have preferred closed fist because muh equality. Half the shit feminists get away with is thanks to the fact they don't shut the fuck up and people will eventually start making concessions just to get some fucking peace and quiet restored. I'm not saying it's better if women are treated as property to their husbands or any of that nonsense. I'm only saying we're allowed to get away with too much because it's inappropriate to smack some sense into us if we start going off the rails. Getting that sorted would go a long way toward stuff like women in combat roles being handled properly and efficiently.
>>75878294
>kid sized BDUs
must have gotten them the same place eastern europe gets the kid sized lingerie
>>75878613
> Those women who can perform to the same physical standards as men can serve as men do. Those who don't make the cut can't.
But then
> muh sex gap
>>75878613
That is not yet possible
>>75878653
> BDU
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Feet-Fleece-Pajamas-Sleeper/dp/B0092U5JN2
>>75878955
>29 bucks a pop
be cheaper to cut off parts of old BDUs. have to give something the women to do in between prayers, cooking and rape-beatings
>>75873993
>This
I was looking for this. If anyone took the time to read this, the thread would be over, but /pol/ can't be bothered
>>75878294
Wanna take bets on how much dick they get?
>>75878772
Yes, that's when you smack them.
>>75878880
>yet
Think it could be??
>>75880905
Jesus Christ
Our military is fucked
>>75864663
Because you cant have true socialist equality unless women die beside men.
Learn the soviet model and you can predict the future of Europe and America. They are doing it to you, just as they did it to us.
Why not let them on the front line, but in women only groups
>>75883016
because if they wanted to rape white girls all they'd have to do is 'migrate' up to europe. we don't need to ship them to them
>>75880986
So much make-up for battlefield, i seriously think that's a sketch joke.
Women only toilets is a good idea in the same way as women only regiments. Women know how to motivate other women. Women officers won't go easy on other women like men instinctually will. Also, less pregnancies.
Also, give them different weapon and equipment layouts. different bodies would get different equip because of different stats. just like the vidya-games yo.
I like the idea of mass grenadiers.
>>75880905
>Tried to look up the video
>It's been blocked due to copyright
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>75883320
She's a reporter iirc.
>>75867357
>Now in the Middle East we're doing a lot better with just planes.
This alone shows you know shit all about military strategy, current events in Middle East and the capabilities of an air force against a ground force. In every war its always the ground forces who take and hold territory. If you believe that you can win a war with air power alone then you are as blind and deluded as the American thinkers who devised the strategy of search and destroy in Vietnam. The opposing force will adapt and become fluid. Bodycounts don't win major modern wars and never have. Kill yourself.
>>75883989
Why do that when you have enough men as manpower though
It's useless
