Is there anything wrong with women serving in the armed forces and in combat IF they're segregated into all female units?
>>80723553
Cost efficiency of filtering women for service are higher than that for men.
We are not in total war, we are not desperate for more personnel.
It hurts the feelings of inbred conservashits and some might consider that wrong. Not me though.
>>80723553
When I was in the army, we fucked the females... Some dumbasses fell in love and would fight over them... If they're bull dukes it might be alright, but females who suck cock will fuck up a unit...
>>80723879
What if fitness and entrance standards would be tailored to a more achievable level for women? This would result in poorer soldiers than their male counterparts, of course, but wouldn't water down the effectiveness of said male units and would allow for greater tactical flexibility altogether.
>>80723553
Women out the militery
They are pathetic hokes in uniform.
>>80724227
>having entire units of substandard troops
Why?
If they want to help just put them in support/office roles
>>80723553
Fuck yes. A female only unit would operate at unacceptably low efficiency and would be worthless on an operational or strategic scale.
>>80723553
Only if their units serve as a "Whore Corps".
It's 2016. We should have segregated wars for women to fight in already.
>>80724708
Pls no. Us supply folks need proficient people to keep shit working and rolling forward even when we're undermanned due to doctrine. The entire battlegroup depends on us getting our work done.
>>80723553
Why bother, when men make better soldiers, readily sacrifice themselves for their brothers in arms and men are simply faster stronger etc.?
If you have to conscript women, youve already lost the battle.
Even fascist shitholes like Israel only use female soldiers for propaganda.
>>80723553
Why even bother?
It's been proven that women are physically and mentally inferior in the realm of warfare to men.
Under what circumstance (outside of desperation) would any country want to field an inferior force comprised solely of women?
That would be a complete waste of resources.
>>80724708
Because then they'll keep bitching and moaning. Besides even substandard troops can be of some use. In any case anyone equipped with military equipment and the training to use it is going to be able to pose something of a threat.
>>80723553
They would all get jealous of whoever had the biggest breasts and send them out on suicide missions.
As long as you're ok with petty shit like that reducing the efficiency of your military then no, there is nothing wrong in that case.
What about the soviet women serving on the eastern front?
>>80725643
What about the squads in the rear lines waiting to machine gun any deserters?
>>80725643
>what about total war and desperate measures
If I recall correctly, they were mostly crewmen, pilots and snipers.
Women infantry should be last line of defence.
>>80725826
OP asked about serving in the army, serving doesn't mean infantry roles
>>80723553
Yes and no, it really depends on what they are doing.
If they are running logistics that is fine, field hospital staff is fine too, intel and comms would be fitting. They may even be fairly capable drone operators...
However front line roles would be problematic, and they MUST always be kept away from the men.
Imagine the infighting in the film platoon and multiply that by every woman in the company.
The saying "bro's before hoes" may be true and in the minds of every soldier but they'll find a way to excuse any sexual interest from "hoe" tier.
>>80723553
>>80723553
A jihadi killed by a woman does not go to paradise, so I say bring all the women you can
