>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.
>>75119970
>(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.
God soooo many words OP holy fuck
>>75120073
yeah, i got on a rant
>>75120613
gotta bump this
>>75120903
rip thread
>>75119970
The difference here is that women are, by nature, not designed for this role. Skin colour is a completelycompletely different kettle of fish when you're talking about sending people to fight.
How many things is that woman doing wrong in that photo? I know one or two that are obvious. But I'm sure there are many more I'm missing. Can someone explain?
>>75120038
If they pass the same test as the men in every sense of the word, no lowered standards, no special coaching, no quota system then sure,why not.
>get captured
>Get raped for the rest of your sorry life.
>Be a heavier bargaining chip for our enemies
Yea fuck that.
>>75119970
>genders are just a sexist meme
>DNA is a nazi myth
>>75119970
amazing how you somehow compared race to sex, jesus christ. moron
theres lots of studies
men who have not have gun training shoot better than woman who had. just think about that
>>75119970
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/09/11/marines-combat-study/
The thing is that it has been thoroughly proven that women are not suitable to military service
They cost more, have a lower maximum capacity, get injured much more and bring no additional benefit to the team
There is literally no argument to let them in at all let alone into combat positions
>>75119970
>>75120038
women much weaker than men that maybe 2% female soldiers can meet infantry standards. so it ends up 2 or 3 field matresses in a company with 120 or guys. now there is limited number of rooms in barracks. say 8 beds per room. girls get one room... nope as one of is nco... they can't live in same room as junior enlisted. that would be unnatural. so guys now have ten beds in a rooms designed for 8. wait fun doesn't stop here. there are four bathrooms in barrack, each with lets say 4 shovers, 6 shitters and 8 sinks. that will be good morale of majority.
>start war
>put every feminist on the front line
>>75123598
>heavier bargaining chip for our enemies
you do know that there was literally hundreds of POW's held by the VC in the Vietnam war for years that were being tortured in the worst ways conceivable and the US didn't budge it's war policy in efforts to procure the release of those POWs.
not to mention, all armed forces know that they may be captured, that's why they created and formalized the Code of Conduct called Code of the United States Fighting Force that dictated how us service members should act regarding POW status.
>>75122402
She has 2 guns pointing at herself and god knows how many unsecured straps hanging from her webbing and backback... all ready to snag on a random thing. Lack of glowbelts is also disturbing, one ain't enough.
>>75122090
>that women are, by nature, not designed for this role
Not all women are created equal, there are a fair bit of them that are smarter, more athletic, and more mentally determined than some men, even some men in uniform.
That's why we have standards that must be met by the service members regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex orientation, and now sex.
>>75124932
How many of them were women?
Seeing women and children being harmed effects everyone more deeply on a psychological level than seeing a man harmed, its hardwired into us
>women get raped and skinned alive by muslims while serving
>forces the jews to cover up more stories about how shit-skins are the scum of the earth
Every story they are forced to cover up is a win. Every vote they are forced to fake is a win. These women are committing a noble sacrifice to expose the sand-niggers for what they truly are by getting themselves killed and raped by them.
>>75125583
Percentage wise the extremely almost nonexistent few women that could scrape by aren't worth the cost
>>75124932
Do you remember pfc Jessica Lynch? US military had joint operation involving mother fucking Delta force, navy seals and chair force CSAR units to rescue her from unguarded hospital. That is literally brigade equivalent of troops to secure a single incompetent slut. Probably interrupted couple slightly more important missions for few SOF guys.
Vietnam war pow mess had profound impact on US public perception on POW issues.
>>75119970
This just isn't true.
The concerns of the racists were largely borne out but never recognized because of political correctness.
But black men are at least men. Women can do almost nothing, before you get to their unit cohesion destroying attitudes.
>>75123855
>Science is the most important thing, stupid fundy Christians.... except whenever it contradicts whatever new-age hippie bullshit I believe!
>>75119970
Sauce on the bullshit studies against negro soldiers?
Almost every time we've put a female in our ranks during combat oriented training they fail catastrophically. They simply cannot keep up with the men, even their physical standards are lowered. The women who passed Ranger School were given multiple do overs, extra sleep, food, and all the males had to accommodate to them.
An extremely low amount of females are actually capable of performing in combat arms on the ground, female pilots in aviation tend to be alright.
t. Army infantry SGT who has had to put up with this shit
>>75124201
I can see why this was a lawsuit. You try marching in heels, that's dangerous
>>75124201
>>75124154
>generalizing all women together
I still don't get why some of you have your panties in a knot over the fact that some women can meet the standards, and those that do should still be barred. How the hell is that not discriminatory?
>>75125636
unknown, vietnam POW's were mostly air crews and women couldn't fly until the 90's.
>Seeing women and children being harmed
>Women
You probably don't realize it but this statement is sexist. While serving in Uniform, people are no longer black, brown, white, jews, muslim, christian, straight, gay, or men and women.
They are no more, no less than Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines.
Thats why they got rid of the WM 'Women Marines' phrase, its derogatory as all hell by stating that they aren't Marines, but Women Marines instead. Some people finally realized this and unfucked themselves.
>>75126137
The real reason was that they feared that unit cohesion would history. Nigger in your battalion sends a message to men that military considers them to be niggers as well. Segregation was usually done at battalion or regimental level.
>>75123855
r a r e
>>75119970
>>75120038
TL;DR
all i know is that you are FOR women in the military, which is a stupid fucking idea simply because they are biologically inferior
>>75119970
>LE Military
back 2 reddit
>>75125583
>there are a fair bit of them that are smarter, more athletic, and more mentally determined than some men, even some men in uniform.
do you have a sauce on that or are you just pulling numbers out of your ass
>>75125787
doesn't matter, it's unconstitutional to discriminate based on anything, even cost. You don't think 'no child left behind' hasn't costed the US billions of dollars since it's inception? It has, but we keep it since it's constitutional to enforce such polices to stop discrimination at any cost.
>>75125897
i do, I can't help it that people in the highest positions of authority do not realize that they are being sexist by valuing female service members over male service members. I can only hope that people in positions of authority in the future will look pass sex when making judgement calls like this.
>>75126703
Its because the few who can cost more than ten times the average male soldier while underperforming him at every level, why pay more for so much less?
>>75127484
Then why do they discriminate against people with minor medical conditions?
The majority of the people excluded would be better than the majority of women that can make it
>>75120038
It's basic biology dude fuck. Women are not as physically capable of working in a harsh combat environment under pressure, their frames are just not as durable.
There are loads of other issues but that alone should be the only deciding factor, holy shit.
>>75127484
>I can't help it that people in the highest positions of authority do not realize that they are being sexist by valuing female service members over male service members. I can only hope that people in positions of authority in the future will look pass sex when making judgement calls like this
Tldr, yes its a bad situation for the men that put up with it but that's fine as long as I get my privilege
>>75127484
The army is not a private workforce. It is a group made specifically to combat enemy forces, it is nowhere near the same as something like a law firm or a business. The military should do everything it can to make sure that our nation is protected in the best quality possible.
>>75125912
>Women can do almost nothing, before you get to their unit cohesion destroying attitudes.
here comes another generalizing fallacy. yawn.
>>75126137
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/education/resources/pdfs/tusk_doc_a.pdf
i think this is it, but there might be others.
>>75126168
Ranger school is different than your typical infantry or combat arms school. The failure rate is like 2 out of 3 who enroll. Personally, i don't think women will ever be apart of Special Forces for your above stated reasons, but I believe that many can meet regular combat role standards without problem, and there is certainly tons of data that supports that.
>>75119970
They need to be let in so as many as possible can die. Once this ruins enough families public backlash will call for a reversal
>>75119970
>they meet the standards and performed their duties as expected.
big expectation and assumption.
>>75126570
They are all, men and women, marching in heeled dress shoes, you dingus. The issue was that the physically shorter women were having to overstride to keep up with longer legged male counterparts.
>>75128225
How are statistics a fallacy?
>personally I don't think
More baseless uneducated guesses, there is a long standing precedent of standards being lowerd or ignored so woman can pass, it will even work its way into the sf
>>75128519
Except short men are able to keep up
I'm sure the teenage girl screaming her lungs out for daddy as she desperately tries to cram her guts back inside her mangled torso will be great for morale.
Unless of course the rest of the squad is already dead because they ran out into the street to help her.
The actual physical ability of women is mostly irrelevant compared to this concern imho.
>>75125583
The standards are lowered for women, though, dipshit. Men and women are literally held to different standards in military because female bodies are literally not designed for the same things male bodies are, fucking duh.
>>75119970
Mixed gendered squads perform worse than men in the marine tests. They should stay out. It's embarrassing to even consider allowing women in combat jobs.
>>75127484
Reasonable accommodation, anon. For certain things like pubic schooling, we accept that the skills learned are so important we need to spend and do whatever we can to make sure as many kids can stick it out and get the education they need. Do we have this same attitude with college, law school, or med school? Hell no.
We accept that these are difficult things that some people, for whatever reason, are not cut out to do. Much in the same way, it's likely that engineers at Lockheed could design a plane that could be flown by a quadriplegic, but the cost would be such that, for the number of disabled people otherwise qualified to be fighter pilots, the unit cost would be enormous. Instead we accept the tough fact that not everybody is fit or entitled to be a pilot.
When you serve, it's not about me me me. It's not about proving something about yourself to others. It's about serving something bigger than yourself in the way you are best fit to serve, be that SOF or degreasing engines. This isn't discrimination. It's a model of how society should function, with people being valued for doing the work they are fit to do, counting on other people to do the same and make it all work.
>>75126883
another sweeping generalization.
>>75127107
>there are 320+ million people in the US alone
>half of those are women
>some of those women are really smart, really athletic, and highly determined mentally
>just look at how more women attend uni than men here
>just look at how the US dominates athletics with women being more capable than most average men.
>just look at how many women are in high senior executive positions in wallstreet and government. Do you realize how much extra shit they have to put up with by just having different body parts?
>Some of those women want to serve in combat roles
>combine all of those things together and you have potentially thousands of women who can serve same as men
>>75127722
medical condition's apply to both men and women dumbass. The limited amount of discrimination the gov. allows is only valid if it applies to everyone not just a specific group.
like a business's right to refuse service to anybody, not just one particular group.
>>75127776
again with sweeping generalization, thanks for speaking for the 150+ million women in the US.
>>75128124
naturally, thats why we have standards. Doesn't matter who you are so as long as you can meet those standards, then you can serve.
That is also why the DOD hasn't budged on creating a separate standard for women in combat roles. Same standard for men.
To say that women should be barred from those roles despite reaching the same standard would be discriminatory (unconstitutional)
>>75129811
women's bones are weaker and this leads to higher injury rates, it a medical condition just like any other
If a man had osteoporosis he wouldn't be allowed in, women's bone strength isnt !much above that
And what does it matter if >>75126883 is a sweeping generalization when it is objective fact?
Seeing a women getting rekt in combat low morale.
You fight to prevent childs and women dying
>>75129811
Say what you will about Israel but they have researched this and it has shown that gender mixing in combat is catastrophic which is why women are put on the Jordan border for guard duty and not allowed in front line jobs. It's a very bad idea. We should think about the safety of our soldiers above all else.
>>75119970
Holy fuck. The look on their faces is priceless.
>>75129811
>most women being more capable than average men
Pro female soccer players play against highschool boys and get beat
>>75128498
then you should have faith in SNCO's and officers to maintain equal and fair treatment. That's how my father served for 25 years despite him personally not liking most women in the service due to high amounts of bad experience because other higher ups wavered on maintaining equal and fair standards.
>>75128692
so you're blaming the 19 year old women for the standards being lowered rather than holding the 35-60 year old men accountable for their sexist position on lowering them?
makes sense.
And to date, no standards in any combat role position in any service has been lowered for women to pass.
>>75129811
You're point about female athletes being more athletic than the average man is funny because I just got done reading about the Australian national female soccer team getting beat by a boys under 15 team
>>75130418
They were lowered at ranger school
>>75128926
There's surprisingly little research on this, but, people's tendency to help other people has been shown to depend on characteristics of the person in need of help.
This study, surprise surprise, found that women were more likely to step in and help children, while men were more likely to help a woman. It's insane to think this wouldn't impact group dynamics in an active combat situation and it's almost sad someone needed to do a study to demonstrate something as common sense as this.
http://www3.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Laner-who-is-worth-helping.pdf
>>75130418
Yes because the 19 year old female is expected to march like a man, to a mans standard, then because she is biologically inferior she is injured. Soon after she sues the military and receives $100,000 dollars plus a lifetime of medical care on the taxpayer dollar
The 35-50 year old men are then forced to do something to avoid this situation so what do they do? Make things easier for the women
>no standards have been lowered
Except in Canada when they went to gender neutral tests and, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9823312/Army-has-dropped-fitness-standards-to-allow-more-women-to-join.html
>>75129811
>just look at how the US dominates athletics with women being more capable than most average men.
Lack of upper body strenght. Women literally have to train like top level atheletes meet infantry standards.
>combine all of those things together and you have potentially thousands of women who can serve same as men
All that for couple thousand girls... Will make lives hundreds of thousands infantry soldiers bit more miserable and hurt efficiency countless battalions.
t. >>75124473
>>75131096
>it's almost sad someone needed to do a study to demonstrate something as common sense as this
That's the worst part.
We operated on common sense just fine for thousands of years, then a bunch of harpies scream "th-there just oudated stereotypes! Show us hard facts not your opinion!"
So they presented hard facts. A lot of them. All gathered from a lot of effort and expenditure.
And then the progressives promptly ignored them.
>>75129811
>sweeping generalization
You mean science and biology are generalizations?
>>75130418
>bad experience because other higher ups wavered on maintaining equal and fair standards
This. No superior wants to be at the tip of a congressional inquiry designed to ensure somebody's reelection by pandering to token issues more complex than most would care to get into. The fact that women in the military is a hot button issue invites all manner of superficial political muckraking. It's an easy thing to pitch a fit about and find sympathetic ears. Bureaucracy has always impeded the efficient fighting of wars and training of militaries. This is no different.
Sage this op is a redditor
>>75119970
This is why military cucks shouldnt be allowed to post here
You havent won a single war since integration
What makes you think allowing women in will help you?
Also the problems with niggers in the military continues
the 1970s were hell because of racial violence
Once again hope you get blown up "protecting democracy" for sandniggers
>>75129195
not in combat roles, which is what this thread is about.
It's somewhat understandable that for any other position that there may be a different standard due to the fact of biological differences. The military has accepted that it really isn't necessary to hold women to the same standard as men to be a fuckin admin clerk or intel that sits behind a blue screen all day nowhere near the likely battle space
>>75129770
female aviators and NFO's have to meet the same standards as men. It has always been like that, the only problem with the first batch of female pilots is that many of them didn't reach the cut and higher ups pushed them through regardless for political reasons rather than maintaining ethics to can them if they don't meet the standards same as men.
again, this is another example of how higher ups falter to pressure and compromise equality.
>>75129770
>Do we have this same attitude with college, law school, or med school? Hell no.
yes, you have no idea how many law suits have been fought and won over discrimination whether it be sex, race, socio-economic background, learning disabilities, etc.
>>75130148
>sweeping generalization on all women
>>75130194
>You fight to prevent childs and women dying
no, you fight to accomplish the mission.
>>75130401
>>75130428
i'm a college track athlete and played a game of softball with other males against female college softball players and I worked my ass off to lose just barely. They are more than competent athletically speaking. Can you run a 5min mile? I can't but some women can. Can you complete an ironman? I probably can't, but some women can.
This is all about giving those "some" women the chance to try and if successful, serve.
>>75130510
If they were, it was not official and sanctioned by the US Army, DOD, or President.
^these higher ups can only hope that instructors at the ranger did not take matters into their own hands and hold women to a different practice of standard.
>>75131510
Kek. I just realized as well that the authors of that study I cited, who are women, didn't even ask for peoples' attitudes regarding their willingness to help a man. They literally were more interested in knowing peoples' willingness to help a dog than their willingness to help a man. I bet it didn't even occur to them to consider it.
And they say men are the ones who marginalize and disregard the other sex...
>>75132071
Not an argument.
>>75132256
>an you run a 5min mile? I can't but some women can. Can you complete an ironman? I probably can't, but some women can.
That's nice an all but all the males who do compete in those fields are leagues better than women at them.
OP is a faggot
>>75132414
Top kek. Figures.
>>75131127
this thread is about US Armed Forces.
men also sue the military all time and win. What the hell do you think service related disability is about? My father is a disabled vet and receives just compensation for it. Don't act like women are special to receive that too. It's pretty normal.
and nobody is forcing them to lower the standards, actually, they are defying orders by applying different standards to women when official orders say to have one single standard. And if the service finds out that they have done this, they will be held responsible in a military court of law where the punishments are quite severe.
>>75131354
>hurt efficiency
still ambiguous at best, see OP's post about how those studies are run. I even showed that official report the US army used to say about blacks being inferior despite reaching the same standards. Same shit. Different year.
>>75119970
Just because your single mo tells you women are just good as men doesn't make it reality, I hope they let them into the front line so we can finally crash like Rome.
>>75119970
The old assumptions about blacks were bullshit, but the fact is that women are on average weaker than men.
I think it's fine for them to apply for combat roles if they're some butch ass lesbian type woman, but they shouldn't have to be drafted into the army in wartime.
>>75119970
The women are great as snipers. Some women are great leaders too, like that chinese prostitute that made a pirate fleet with 10 or 15 000 men. If there is war, you'll need everything you can get. Especially low population countries like mine. When I served, they were obviously weaker, but a female or 2 in a group of 20-30 men makes the morale skyrocket. It probably won't in countries like Afghanistan or Kongo, but in countries where men are used to women.
>>75133459
>a female or 2 in a group of 20-30 men makes the morale skyrocket
That's the problem, they care so much more about the woman because she's a woman.
How are they going to react when she's lying in two halves in the middle of a killzone, begging for help?
>>75132256
>you have no idea how many law suits
I really do. In all those cases, the argument is that criteria immaterial to the person being a suitable candidate was used to categorize them as being inferior applicants. The burden is to demonstrate that the criteria used is not a valid predictor of success for the position to which the person applied. This is sometimes true, many other times it is not.
For example, if you have an anxiety disorder, it is absurd and perhaps even ethically immoral to offer you affordances and accommodations throughout med school and your residency to be a trauma surgeon. Anxiety and stress isn't something that, otherwise managed, allows you to do your job. To a great extent, anxiety and stress is your job. Expecting that you can accomodate somebody's shortcomings in a job that hinges on people being exceptional in exactly those things is a category mistake. It is the worst kind of willful refusal that sometimes certain people are not cut out to do certain things for obvious reasons.
Most individual men can accept this. They don't pitch a shitfit when they don't get handpicked for Delta. They accept that there are concrete reasons why that are frequently beyond their control. I don't understand why it is that complicated regarding women understanding this. Try to stick it out in combat arms. You'll probably hurt yourself badly enough to get pulled before you deploy >>75131510.
>>75132256
>sweeping generalizations
Facts, why do you need to disregard facts to try to make your argument?
http://www.birpublications.org/doi/abs/10.1259/bjr/42380498?journalCode=bjr
>As expected men had greater bone mineral content and bone area at all sites (p<0.0001) and were taller and heavier (p<0.0001) than women. Men also had significantly higher BMD than women. Men also had significantly higher BMD than women at all regions (p<0.0002), except at the femoral neck or lumbar spine.
>some
That the thing, its not some its a very few that will have large negative impacts on performance and budgets without bringing anything to the table
If you are a college athlete go and find some highschool kids and challenge them to whatever you are best at
>If they were, it was not official and sanctioned by the US Army, DOD, or President
It was an order from the government, not a choice on the militarys part to let women into combat arms, Obama was set to watch the females graduate before they knew if they would pass or not
Its the higher ups that are pushing ALL of it, look at the other military thread that where everyone is talking about all the sjw shit that they have to put up with, the military should not be spending hours on end hearing about how hard it is for women and how you shouldn't rape, that's not what you pay soldiers to learn
>>75133459
This is not true.
Even if it was true, you build an army out of minimums and worst-efforts and people trained for one thing but forced to do something else.
>>75119970
no.
>niggers in the military are fine
They are still niggers and they still suck dick at shooting.
>>75119970
OP, what do you think about this article outlining the specific obstacles preventing women from performing adequately in combat roles, written by former US serviceman Fred Reed? He gives a few examples (with proper citations) of the notable discrepancies between male and female physical performance while taking fitness tests in the military:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml
Furthermore, consider reading this article written in 1979 by republican senator, Jim Webb. It's lengthy, but I think it provides a very interesting perspective on some of the less often observed reasons for excluding women from the military:
https://www.washingtonian.com/1979/11/01/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/
>>75122470
Because they would still be too emotional and every man would naturally risk the mission to save the women. On top of that just wait until a bunch of female soldiers get torture raped to death.
Its not a good idea. Women and men are not equal and they never will be. Never.
>>75126703
Who gives a shit if its discriminatory. Remind me again why we should let women in?
If it ain't broke don't fix it. Men have been the only ones fighting since the begining of human kind.
>>75133549
Exactly. It's almost as if people don't think we're tapping into any larger truths about the psychology of horny 20-something dudes when some chick flashes tits on here and manages to derail a thread and get 20 replies in 5 min. Yeah, fucking disregard that. That shit only happens on Congolese jenkem aficionado boards.
>>75132958
But women are going to face massively higher injury rate in the same positions, the percentage of them who do sue is going to be far greater than men
And did your father have to sue because of some bullshit female injury he received while doing simple training exercises?
>nobody is forcing them to lower standards
The women are, why you have people being constantly injured and costing hundreds of thousands of dollars while they play soldier then something has to be done
The obvious and correct thing to do would be to identify high risk individuals and excluded them, women are by definition at a high risk of injury. But because some people are massively retarded that's not am option, so the only thing to do is not make them do the things that will inevitability get them injured
>>75133549
No, we didn't help them much compared to the other guys. If someone is a soldier, you treat them as one too, you get manipulated and brainwashed almost every day until the team works perfectly. I was surprised, since I had the idea that women were mostly shit in everything. They were great snipers and divers. I don't know if they are good pilots, but I guess? Women come in all shapes and sizes, so our 1.75-1.90m tall women weren't holding the troop back at all. They just had to handle carrying a backpack, waterbottle, 3 clips and a AG3. I liked it actually. I thought we'd have to hold their hands or some shit when we were in the gas chamber, but they did great. They were in it the same amount of time as the men. My respect for women went up several notches during that time.
>>75134372
This is not how it is in the States.
>>75134372
Yeah, women are great at pulling their weight
>>75133786
Every country doesn't run the military like america, burger chan. Everything I said was true when it comes to my country and how we run things. I don't know jow you do it tho.
>>75134530
Op said this is about the us military, miniature security forces need not apply
>>75132958
Would those women meeting the standards willing sleep in same rooms as men? Use same bathrooms? Probaly not. Men in units would just have to deal with shit like queues to shitter and shovers, while girls get two personal shovers, three shitters and 4 sinks at bathrooms. Live in overcrowded rooms. While girls get pretty much private rooms designed for 8 or 12.
All that because there might be couple women in company with 120 men.
Lots of fun when you return from innawoods and have couple hours to clean yourselves and all the junk like radios, tents and squad weapons.
Shit like that will hurt morale. That will hurt how efficiently unit works.
Your sports example was retarded you don't play softball or football with ATGM carrying frame, missile tube, couple antitank mines, couple LAWs and all the junk riflemen humps on your back.
>>75134372
I never said you'd help them while everything was going as planned.
I said you'd help them when they're bleeding to death in the middle of some middle eastern shithole after an IED blew their legs off.
Have you ever heard a woman scream in pain/terror? They sound exactly like children. Can you imagine that brief, high-pitched wail of imminent horror as the metal treads of a tank grind them into the concrete feet first, leaving behind a splattered stain of blood, organs and half-digested shit?
I don't care if your Norwegian, British or American, that will absolutely destroy morale.
>>75119970
>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.
agreed on this point but u have not at all addressed lower physical requirements for women. either lower it for everybody or make it the same.
>>75131510
I happen to live in a country established by a constitution that we hold dear and if you ever ventured to study womens movements, you would know that men have always been behind it. Who the hell do you think passed womens suffrage? it sure as hell wasn't the women who couldn't even vote
>>75131541
>You mean science and biology are generalizations?
yes, they don't speak for the individual. An individual volunteers to serve, not the entire female of the species
>>75131736
finally somebody else on this board see's the core of the problem
>>75132071
>You havent won a single war since integration
Iraq, kosovo, persian gulf, vietnam, and korea don't count? Cause we certainly didn't lose any of those.
>>75132558
Still doesn't disprove what was said about some women being able to meet many combat role standards.
>>75133458
>>75133458
>I think it's fine for them to apply for combat roles if they're some butch ass lesbian type woman
basically what most of them will have to be to meet the same standards.
>>75133459
>If there is war, you'll need everything you can get.
this, I'm sure the men who were having their position bombarded by artillery during the American revolutionary war didn't mind it when molly pitcher picked up the ramrod and started loading cannon balls along with the men who were undermanned.
>>75133702
>It was an order from the government, not a choice on the militarys part to let women into combat arms
The military's wishes are the president's wishes. To believe otherwise is ignorant. All SM's serve at the leisure of the President and carry out all orders as if they were their own.
>>75133991
military fitness tests are subjective as all hell. push ups and pull ups really aren't that conducive for knowing the physical ability of a SM as it relates to direct combat roles.
the truth of the matter is we don't know how to evaluate accurately physical fitness, and many higher ups know this which is why they keep changing fitness tests
>>75134601
Ah, didn't catch that. Thought he meant military in general. Since I don't know anything about the american military, I can't add anything but assumptions, so I'm out.
>>75134794
It might, but war is hell. If your male buddy screams in agony, your morale might take a similar hit tho.
>>75134530
One of the best cases for women in the military is Danish Mary, put forward by contrarian and must-read author Chris Hernandez.
It still fails on several counts and in real life Danish Mary left the service as soon as she could to have a traditional marriage. Hernandez concludes that his only point was a kind of possibility argument.
All these one-in-a-million Amazons are the opposite of a strong case. It's like demanding that a bridge be built out of pieces of inferior steel that had not broken yet.
>>75126703
>I still don't get why some of you have your panties in a knot over the fact that some women can meet the standards
A child could meet these standards.
>>75134520
Their squad leader should be punished safety violation. Those guys humping their backbacks also took their glowbelts and they are at back formation. That is like asking for corpses.
>>75134958
But you yourself said that the presence of woman raised morale higher than it would ordinarily be with men alone.
Ergo you care more about the women than the men, just like damn near every other 1st world society on earth.
But let's hear it from our aspiring heroes and defenders of our proud nation: What are their thoughts on service? Are they ready to lay down their lives and take those of the enemy?
>>75134822
>the militarys wishes are the presidents wishes
Not only did you word that poorly you moved the goal post
The Marines wished to be exempt from the forced integration and have studies that prove it will negatively affect the military, studies that weren't countered or reconducted to address the validity of the concerns, they were disregarded
And don't pretend its only men making decisions, there are a lot of women in the military pushing their agenda, compounded by women in the government and Obama doing these things to improve his legacy
Your only argument is that women are individuals but they are still women, you can generalize them because the generalization is correct
>>75134101
>Remind me again why we should let women in?
to do otherwise is unconstitutional.
>>75134003
>Because they would still be too emotional
guess you aren't familiar with the thousands of men who are nervous wrecks from the iraq war?
>>75134003
>every man would naturally risk the mission to save the women
Then they wouldn't be very good service members. The best SM's know that mission success reigns supreme over everything else.
>>75134003
>bunch of female soldiers get torture raped to death.
men get raped and tortured to death as well, guess you aren't familiar with POW's in vietnam as well.
>>75134245
being a service member is inherently dangerous, that's why you sign a contract saying the worst thing that can possibly happen to you is that you die.
as for my father's and other disabled vets injuries, it's compensation for their service. The military tries to keep it's SM's out of harms way but sometimes things just happen and thats why the VA exists.
>>75134520
If I was the officer in charge of this platoon I would hold the NCO's responsible for defying standing orders that women should be held to the same standard as men. These motherfuckers are who is compromising the unit's capability.
>>75134713
>Would those women meeting the standards willing sleep in same rooms as men? Use same bathrooms?
if they are ordered to, then yes. Coed facilities aren't big in the USA due to cultural norms ontop of the fact that a ridiculous amount of males in the military rape fellow female military at concerning rates which is fucked up beyond belief.
Remember: Just go on to any video about the armed forces and you can find many of the inspiring thoughts of veterans. This job asks more of you than any other job in the world, and I believe our girls in blue not only know the risks, but would gladly march into enemy fire to save their comrades. We wouldn't expect anything less.
>>75135861
>>75135734
>>75135514
Why are these funny? They're just women who are happy to have graduated from training
>>75134822
The article written by Fred Reed only mentions push-ups a single time. Did you actually read it? The physical fitness tests used in the military are usually utility-oriented i.e. modeled after some type of activity often required during the line of duty. Examples of these exercises would be manually rotating engine bolts, carrying full-sized soldiers up and down ladders and staircases on stretchers, and controlling the flow of an industrial grade fire hose. Women almost unanimously fail these tests, which (sensibly) prevents them from entering combat positions which requires these utility-exercises to be performed during times of crisis. If you're not willing to at least spend five minutes of your time reading the articles I've posted which strongly pertain to the basis of your argument, I'm going to have to assume that you're just a troll.
You are wrong op. African American units had a long established history and tradition by the time of racial integration in the military.
This meant that there was already a large number of proficient black SNCOS and Officers in every MOS. This was paramount to success.
Even then, racial divides were terrible in 60's-70s, reflecting the national problems.
There are no female combat arms leaders. Forcing females leaders from other jobs (they are doing this) is wrong and will lead to low morale.and poorly led units. SNCOS rely on their experience and occupational skills. An 8 year administration SSGT will make a terrible infantry anything, let alone adding a different gender as well.
It's a huge " feel-good" policy decision that weakens our military. One that will be quietly changed during the next war.
Setting aside all the other issues that come with females in the combat arms, let's focus on the physical (not with the dumb women are inferior stuff).
All studies show that women are on average weaker, slower, and injure faster then men.
>>You make steel Bolts. You've always used Steel A. You know it's strength, it's performance capabilities, and it's failure rates in both manufacture and in service. It has always served well. It is plentiful.
>>you are now required to use steel b. Steel B is a fine metal. It's strong , tough, nothing morally wrong with it. But it's not steel a. It's failure rate in manufacture is almost 99%. It's service life is much less. It will cost your company millions in waste, to make more of them and to replace them.
>>why use steel B?
Open up higher combat leadership positions to women. There will one day be a female Alexander the great. If you want females in combat, you have to use them like they did historically- in segregated, Female only units, and usually only for indirect combat positions. Opening up combat roles to women is waste. Female soldiers can be great, but even they know this is a dog and pony show.
>>75135675
>being a service member is inherently dangerous
And its much more so for women, so much so that they need and are given special protection, signing a paper won't stop them from causing all the consequences listed ITT, all the things you choose to avoid talking about
>Remind me again why we should let women in?
to do otherwise is unconstitutional
Its not, you aren't discriminating against them because they are women, you are excluding them because they are categorically a liability just like asthmatics or anyone else that could pass the test but has some small but persistent risk associated with them
>>75135734
I don't want or need women to fill roles men already fill quite nicely. It's a waste of prime reproduction and child rearing resources.
Women have their own roles to fill and when each side makes up for the weaknesses of the other, it makes a stronger whole. What you want is helping to destabilize civilization and society.
>>75135675
>The best SM's know that mission success reigns supreme over everything else.
>>Remind me again why we should let women in?
>to do otherwise is unconstitutional.
Pick one you dumb nigger
>defying standing orders that women should be held to the same standard as men.
There is no branch of service where the fitness standards for women is the same as men.
> ridiculous amount of males in the military rape fellow female military at concerning rates
You mean the girls proposition sex, get found out, still want the easy veteran money and benefits, and blame the guy, then yes.
You're one of those fags that think when a girl regrets having a one night stand it's rape, aren't you?
>being a service member is inherently dangerous
>lol why should we try to limit casualties and make our troops safer
I mean this in the nicest way possible, I hope you get captured as a POW and they make vietnam look like a tea party for you.
>>75135935
I don't know, why are they funny to you?
It's a waste of your tax dollars.
>>75136094
I was being sarcastic.
>>75134819
>greed on this point but u have not at all addressed lower physical requirements for women.
see my first point here >>75132256
>>75135124
well the coast guard isn't even really military tbhh. lol
>>75135527
look at Douglas Macarthur when you defy the President's orders. Doesn't matter if you are hot shit war hero from WW2, All officers take this oath.
>"...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..."
>Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution states that the POTUS is commander in chief and that inferior officers may submit their opinions on the matter relating to their office but in the end, the POTUS has the final say. Executive Order 9981 wasn't a very popular opinion among the officer corps.
>>75135527
>And don't pretend its only men making decisions, there are a lot of women in the military pushing their agenda, compounded by women in the government
lmao, you couldn't be even more wrong. There are almost no women in Senior Executive Service which is the higher up's in Gov. As for the Military, only O7's and up have any power.
I believe 1 star admirals and generals are equivalent to the lowest SES level.
so women in the military of higher up authority to make impact decisions account for 7% despite the total percentage of women in the military being 15%.
The same can be seen in SES, Women don't have an easy time getting into positions of authority in this country despite whatever fox tells you
>>75135959
I skimmed it, I'm not sure what he's talking about carrying stretchers up and down ladders and rotating engine bolts. I'm not familiar with those ever being part of the normal standard of fitness testing.
>>75136077
>they are categorically a liability just like asthmatics or anyone else that could pass the test but has some small but persistent risk associated with them
if they can pass the test and meet the standards then they aren't a liability.
My brother has asthma as kid/teen but he still was able to work his ass off and become a Marine Corps Infantry Officer by meeting those standards. That's whats known as a waiver. A friend of mine was also finally able to join the air force despite having leukemia as a kid. He also did high school sports so was clearly more than able to meet the fitness standards but he had to wait several years until he was finally granted a waiver so he could join.
You shouldn't need a waiver saying you're female to join. Thats pretty fucked up.
>>75136320
constitution equality gets them into the door, it's up to them as individuals to meet the standards and ensure that the officers appointed above them do not skew standards.
Mission success is based upon the fact that the units tasked with whatever objective will be able to meet that objective because they meet the standards required of them. The military isn't in the habit of tasking units with objectives that are outside of their capabilities.
>>75136320
>There is no branch of service where the fitness standards for women is the same as men.
i'm goin stop responding because this is an obvs troll.
>>75137159
>The same can be seen in SES
just looked this up, it's roughly 30% women which is higher than i'd expect but still low. For US Federal Congress, i believe it is roughly 20% women.
>civilian telling the military how they should behave
i dont go around telling you to stop being a fat slut, now do I?
>>75137414
No those arent part of fitness test, but those are part of normal military life. Even infantry, as shit like vehicles break down. You might have change tires to APC, basically truck tires with solid rubber run flat inserts... and lift those tires to all terrain truck bed with not that many guys. Those weight fuckton.
Casualty evacuation something everyone might have to participate in combat arms. People get shot at, get wounded and might even die. Someone has to carry 'em to evacuation point... also their gear. There might be a big guy in your squad 4U.
>>75120038
>Training (Knowledge/Skills)
>Assets (Weapons)
>Experience (combat and years of training)
You are forgetting a big thing, physical capability. There is a reasons soldiers, run and march constantly, so in battle they don't sprint 50 feet and have to take a 30 second breather. Even assuming women have the same strength and endurance as male soldiers (and that is a huge if) there is the face that what you can carry is based heavily on your weight, carrying too much weight will fucking ruin your joints. This is already observed in male soldiers who age like fucking shit from a physical lifestyle for years or decades, women are generally smaller and simply lack the ability to carry the same weight.
I'm an infantry officer (meaning my opinion would probably piss off most members of my platoon) but I honestly don't give a shit. If some 6'5" 220 lbs Brienne of Tarth like monster joined the infantry and could keep up with or surpass her male counterparts than fine by me. The problem is that the vast majority of women aren't flesh monsters designed to kill and the vast majority who enlist simply will not be able to meet the physical demands of training and combat. Letting them join is effectively sending them and dozens of men to die in battle alongside them for the sake of diversity.
I guess they could work in tanks, those things are cramped as shit, and I don't see why pilots couldn't be women but maybe I am just being an asshole to other branches and combat roles. However women are completely unsuited for infantry in general and letting them in as a whole is a horrible idea. If you want to let them in make it a case by case basis for those unfortunate beasts that were born as men with ovaries.
>>75119970
I served in the Air Force for six years (SF).
Female troops were often the biggest whiners, attention whores, and an neverending source of drama.
There was on time in Japan where the female members of our flight were either on leave, or were on deployment. It was the best month ever. No drama, no bullshit, and great teamwork everyday.
>>75141539
>There is a reasons soldiers, run and march constantly,
Agreed, wheen it comes to building up fitness.
>so in battle they don't sprint 50 feet and have to take a 30 second breather.
You put rather nice numbers there. 50ft is pretty typical distance between covered position in typical forest or urban terrain. 30s is also quite typical time you either hug the cover or cover others so can advance more or across street or alley or something.
Spirinting more than that at any single time is probably more rare. Disembark from vehicle. Jog 200 or 300 meters, sprint 10 to 20m x times, then jog another 100m, endless wait, rince repeat y times.
But my opinion probably doesnt count as I was over encumbered anti-tank guy who merely pretends to run or sprint.
>>75143004
10% competent normal people.
10% incompetent normal people.
30% bitches.
50% will give blowjobs to squad, platoon or section leader for light duty assignment and later on make rape accusation about said superior.
>>75119970
The performance of the Tuskegee airmen is bullshit. Take it from a WW2 pilot: http://www.amren.com/news/2012/01/facts-about-the-tuskegee-airmen/
Apparently, everything about them is a blatant lie, and when compared to other fighter groups, their performance was at the very bottom.
>>75119970
>worked at a navy hospital as a navy hosptial corpsman
>work with female corpsman in the ER
>as a team leader i was in charge of 4 other corpsman
>only one was a female and at that point had been removed from two of the four teams so they put her on mine
>shes one of the newest people in the ER and has only been in the military for 7 months at this point and is only an E-2
>everyone else on my team outranks her
>one day I'm doing inventory in the supply room
>she comes in crying
>i tell her to stop crying and ask what happened
>thought maybe she finally had someone die on her people react differently to their first time with that
>no she says shes crying because everyone always tells her what to do and they're all men.
>tries to hug me
>stiff arm her in the face and keep her at a distance
>tell her yeah everyone outranks her and shes the new person the fact that we're all men doesn't mean anything when half the doctors and nurses were female.
>says shes going to bring it up to our LPO (person in charge of corpsman in the ER)
>i say lets go talk to him right now
>he recently came from a marine infantry division(corpsman go with marine units because marines are a branch of the navy)
>go to his office and have her explain
>he looks at her like shes retarded and says the same shit i told her
>shes gets pissy and he asks if we can finish the shift without her
>yes we can easily
>removes her from the ER within a few hours
>mfw
Even being one person short once she was gone we functioned better without her. Working in the hospital with other women around was the worst work experience of my life they always made excuses to why they couldnt do even the simplest tasks of our job. Eventually i went to the 1st Marine Division with an infantry unit where there were no women and ahit always ran smoothly. Environments where teamwork is key working with women sucks.
