Pretending to be Tier 1

[p6867]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

You really don't like women, do you? You don't want to serve with women, don't serve, but qualified combat people who happen to be female shouldn't be denied because of morons like you. That's called "discrimination". My point is that many armies around the world have allowed full service for women, and have been successful, the only reason that you are against it is because you personally have never met any woman who you think is qualified.

This is the same guy that supported those guys in Afghanistan who were running around with the SS insignia.

What makes you think i don't like women? I'm pretty much the opposite of all the internet misogynists, women are great. Me and my girlfriend do obstacle course half marathons together. She's in phenomenal strength. But not in her upper body. Every woman at those events has trouble with the upper body strength obstacles, which is a huge portion of what being a combat soldier is.

Unfortunately, women are handicapped in athletics. Find me the woman who can both physically meet the standards to do my job and wants to, and then talk to me about women in combat rolls, because in the meantime, what women in combat means is people who can't perform at the standard we expect the men who do those jobs too, being allowed to do jobs they are unqualified for.

Also, the USMC uses the ss insignia for the job of scout sniper, which is something i've explained to you already, in an entire thread about that, which you acknowledged.
So, please refute my point about women being physically unable to do this job with some form of evidence or do not bother to reply.

[TheRascalKing]

Like I said, you're relying on your own personal experiences to justify discrimination. Until you meet every woman in the world, you can shut up. Just because you think that women can't do something based on your own experience, and you proceed to jump to sweeping generalizations like "women are handicapped", that doesn't mean that you should legally restrict positions based on gender.

[General Butt.Naked]

Irregular forces whose sole purpose is to annoy and hurt the enemy in any way possible is kind of different than an organized military whose goals are to carry out specific missions and engage in direct combat.

No matter how you try to spin it, women dont lack the necessary muscle mass, the spatial understanding, etc...to be able to be involved with trained fighting men in a warzone. Theres a reason why organized militaries have certain standards- because each soldier is required to carry certain things, and need to be able to pull their own weight, figuratively and ofttimes literally. Major differences in ability mean that someone has to pick up the slack for someone else, and so on and so on... it destabilizes the whole unit.

If they want to have fighting women- fine. But they should be all-women units, so they can be uyniform in ability, and allocated to situations where they could reasonably meet the challenge...rather than thrown into a normal unit and into situations beyond their ability, and just hope that they can rise to the occasion.

Yes, women can fight. All animals can fight. Could a chimpanzee kill someone? Yes. Than can hurt you pretty badly. But are they built for it? Not necessarily. Men are built to be aggressors. Can women fight? Yes. As well as men? Absolutely not. This isnt even a debate, or a matter of political correctness. Its just physiology and psychology.

[p6867]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Like I said, you're relying on your own personal experiences to justify discrimination. Until you meet every woman in the world, you can shut up. Just because you think that women can't do something based on your own experience, and you proceed to jump to sweeping generalizations like "women are handicapped", that doesn't mean that you should legally restrict positions based on gender.

you have the entire internet at your disposal. Find a woman who wants to do a combat job in the military and can accomplish either:
49 Push-ups, 59 Sit-ups, 5-mile run in 40 minutes, and 6 Pull-ups. Test is 55 minutes.
Or a 270 on the men's APFT.
I can find lots of complaints about this from a huge variety of sources. What i can't find is a woman who can accomplish this task. When we have women who both can and want to accomplish these tasks with the same proficiency as men, we can talk about having women in combat arms. In the meantime, it's a meaningless discussion.

[General Butt.Naked]

And just because theres probably SOME woman SOMEWHERE who can outperform men in a variety of ways, doesnt mean that you ignore the prevailing evidence (and common sense) that we've accepted for hundreds of years- which pretty much says that men are decidedly better at things like making war.

[da teacha]

I was sitting on a bus in Israel, and a girl sat next to me. Pretty cute, around 17 or so. She was holding a big, fuck-off rifle with a loveheart sticker on the magazine.

Listening to Britney Spears aswell haha.

Managed to strike up conversation and get taught a bit of Hebrew, but she got off at some random stop - looked like a barracks

[tuer502gt]

Originally Posted by p6867

angry, bitter, resentful, sure. I don't mind my team surly and ready to fuck some people up. Meek, timid, depressed can do the 90% of the jobs that don't require you to run a trigger.
Also boot camp horror stories are typically bullshit. IET (Initial Entrance Training) is really, really, easy. To be completely honest, I went to more challenging hockey camps in high school.

What I was trying to elucidate was that people who say the harassment is horrid and brutal, is that they are not made for being a warrior or someone who has to take orders and live in uncomfortable situations.

It can't be as bad as they are trying to convey, especially in the most recent report.

That's what I meant.

[moron]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Like I said, you're relying on your own personal experiences to justify discrimination. Until you meet every woman in the world, you can shut up. Just because you think that women can't do something based on your own experience, and you proceed to jump to sweeping generalizations like "women are handicapped", that doesn't mean that you should legally restrict positions based on gender.

You're right, women and men are exactly the same, through and through, also there are no differences between male and female physique. Women have at least equal upper body strength and often outperform men when training for tasks such as carrying an unconscious solider to safety, making them more efficient and reliable personnel for brutish tasks and raw strength.

/jflc

[dysik]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

You really don't like women, do you? You don't want to serve with women, don't serve, but qualified combat people who happen to be female shouldn't be denied because of morons like you. That's called "discrimination". My point is that many armies around the world have allowed full service for women, and have been successful, the only reason that you are against it is because you personally have never met any woman who you think is qualified. You're a modern day MacArthur, only instead of being prejudiced and supportive of discrimination towards people of color, it's women.

This is the same guy that supported those guys in Afghanistan who were running around with the SS insignia.

dude, i hate to burst your bubble. but i don't think discrimination against color is the same as gender here. niggers are fucking bloodthirsty for one.

[TheRascalKing]

Originally Posted by moron

You're right, women and men are exactly the same, through and through, also there are no differences between male and female physique. Women have at least equal upper body strength and often outperform men when training for tasks such as carrying an unconscious solider to safety, making them more efficient and reliable personnel for brutish tasks and raw strength.

/jflc

I never said that there aren't differences, my point is that it is ridiculous and unfair to discriminate against and deny opportunities to qualified females because of males' stereotypes and discrimination. Nobody wants lesser standards, people want equal treatment and equal rights.

[Fox Paws]

Any woman who can perform to the physical standards of a well built man probably isn't gonna be in the army, they'll be in the Olympics.

And even in the Olympics, the best performing women can't hold a candle to the weakest of their male counterparts. Should they make Olympic weightlifting co-ed as well?

[TheRascalKing]

Originally Posted by Fox Paws

Any woman who can perform to the physical standards of a well built man probably isn't gonna be in the army, they'll be in the Olympics.

It doesn't matter where you think they'll be, the opportunities shouldn't be denied to qualified women simply because they are women.

[Fox Paws]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

It doesn't matter where you think they'll be, the opportunities shouldn't be denied to qualified women simply because they are women.

So you think they should make all Olypmic games co-ed? Since women should get the chance?

[TheRascalKing]

Are we talking about the Olympics? If a female athlete could meet the standard, sure.

[Fox Paws]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Are we talking about the Olympics? If a female athlete could meet the standard, sure.

We aren't talking about race segregation or fucking McArthur either now are we but you thought it was relevant enough to bring it up.

And the Olympics are a much more relevant modern parallel to this issue.

My point was, a woman could NEVER meet the same standard as a man in the Olympics. It's never happened and it never will. And these are people that train their entire lives to achieve those results. An entire lifetime of dedication and hard work, and women still fall short in comparison to men

[TheRascalKing]

Never say never, you're doing nothing but setting yourself up for surprise.

Anyways, women should be (and pretty soon will be) allowed to serve in combat.

I'll leave this thread to you sorry, soon to be obsolete fools now.

[dysik]

i think everyone has a fair point here, Tacho thinks that everyone should be given a fair go. fair enough.

other people are saying that the standards should not be lowered for female candidates, as other peoples lives depend on their performance. standards have had to be lowered in other places such as fire departments, police forces etc so that women can join up. and they don't want this to happen in the armed forces. fair enough.

i also just want to weigh in and say that the standard testing someone had described is kind of flawed anyway. it is still favored toward women and smaller people in general. if you base the testing on body weight exercises, i personally know a lot of athletic women who could pass that test (and probably flog me in the process).

but obviously when you have to put on 40kg worth of webbing and march long distances, the difference between performance of men and women becomes obvious. 40kg pack is going to effect a 60kg female a lot more than a 90-100kg male, in the same way that moving supplies/injured/obstacles etc is obviously going to be a lot more difficult for women or smaller people than most men.

maybe daily could come in and give us a bit of info on the psychological differences between men and women in high stress situations etc. . .

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Pretty much every leftist guerilla army has had equal service for women.

Comparing guerillas with actual uniformed, disciplined and trained military forces again be Anastasia? Women and children are especially useful as guerillas, but they are typically physically inferior to men in regards to physical strength and fitness.

Were women allowed in combat roles one of two things would happen; fitness grades for combat occupations would have to be lowered significantly for women to actually pass them, or the grades would be kept the same and very few women would actually pass the grade, essentially making combat units unisex in name only. The first would be horrible for military effectiveness and the second is still impractical.

Why? one might ask Rolf. Because there are also the issues of sexual fraternization, pregnant infantrymen that can't do their job, lack of perceived reliability by male counterparts and over protectiveness from male soldiers (which is why the Israeli's are not fond of mixed combat units).

Rolf also wonders if women would be indifferent to shitting and showering in presence of men and to go without hygiene products if required.

[TheRascalKing]

Originally Posted by Rolf

Were women allowed in combat roles one of two things would happen; fitness grades for combat occupations would have to be lowered significantly for women to actually pass them, or the grades would be kept the same and very few women would actually pass the grade, essentially making combat units unisex in name only. The first would be horrible for military effectiveness and the second is still impractical.

Why? one might ask Rolf. Because there are also the issues of sexual fraternization, pregnant infantrymen that can't do their job, lack of perceived reliability by male counterparts and over protectiveness from male soldiers (which is why the Israeli's are not fond of mixed combat units).

Rolf also wonders if women would be indifferent to shitting and showering in presence of men and to go without hygiene products if required.

Lol, Rolf has never heard of contraceptives. Again, the reliability and over protectiveness should be addressed by the men, since they're the ones with the problem. Either way, it's going to happen sooner or later.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...reg_story.html

Overall, 73 percent of respondents support giving women direct combat roles, and 25 percent oppose the move. Seventy-three percent of women and 72 percent of men favor extending formal combat roles to women, as do 80 percent of self-described Democrats, 62 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of independents.

Women account for 14.5 percent of active-duty service members (203,000 of about 1.4 million) and 18 percent of National Guard and reserve forces, according to the Pentagon. About 25,000 women are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, accounting for about 10 percent of U.S. forces there.

Since 1994, the Pentagon has barred women from serving in any unit below the brigade level (about 4,000 troops on average) whose primary mission is direct ground combat. But it allows women to serve in units that might engage in combat-related action.

“The nature of today’s conflicts is evolving; there are no front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said in an e-mail. “While women are not assigned to units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct combat on the ground, this doesn’t mean they are not assigned to positions in combat zones that could place them in danger.”

Last week, a congressionally mandated commission recommended that the Pentagon end the ban in order “to create a level playing field for all qualified service members.”

The Military Leadership Diversity Commission, chartered by Congress as part of the annual defense authorization bill in 2009, issued 20 recommendations designed to prepare a higher percentage of women and minorities to serve in top military leadership positions.

Verna Jones, director of veterans affairs and rehabilitation issues for the American Legion, said a change in policy would help female veterans gain quicker access to medical and mental-health benefits related to combat experiences. Women often have difficulty proving combat experience because they lack formal combat assignments, she said.

Any change “would definitely help women who suffer these types of injuries and better help them gather data on the injuries so they can get the benefits they deserve,” Jones said.

Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for AMVETS, said his group supports the Pentagon review. “Women fly helicopters on combat sorties, women man turret guns on tactical patrols, and we see female engagement teams attached to line units for kinetic operations,” he said.

Don't you love the smell of progress?

[dysik]

ahahah i would like to see an all women unit kick in the doors on some taliban. imagine their reactions!

[p6867]

So will female special ops be forbidden from getting pregnant? It costs about a million dollars to train a ranger or marine force recon, more for a seal or army SF. I remember something along the line of 50% of females in the service don't finish their contract or lose over a year of the active portion of it to pregnancy.

[p6867]

Girl Bench Press 300 lbs TN State Record set 9/10/11 by Denise (Equipped) SLP - YouTube

Girl Bench Press 300 lbs TN State Record set 9/10/11 by Denise (Equipped) SLP - YouTube
Video: click to display

this isn't even a qualifying entry in a men's bench press comp

[The Pat-Man]

HA you gotta love faggots' unwavering support for progress for the sake of progress.

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Lol, Rolf has never heard of contraceptives.

Considering how many women in the military deliberately fall pregnant, Rolf would be supportive of any nation that makes mandatory contraception for female soldiers. However, doing this could lead to mindless "progressives" screaming discrimination, not to mention backlash from other screaming minorities such as the extremely religious.

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

ninenine prsent ov miltarie 4ces combatt toops shuld subjec 2 wun prsent ov combatt toops becuz soshal pogressin z mor portant dan efektivnes agenst bad guy, inskinks r bad, hrp. Womyn ca b shottd genst bu u no hrt felins ov womyn, yay!

Ok.

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Don't you love the smell of progress?

At the cost of military effectiveness .

[TheRascalKing]

Originally Posted by p6867

So will female special ops be forbidden from getting pregnant? It costs about a million dollars to train a ranger or marine force recon, more for a seal or army SF. I remember something along the line of 50% of females in the service don't finish their contract or lose over a year of the active portion of it to pregnancy.

That would be smart.

[p6867]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

That would be smart.

but a man can start a family when he's in, that's discrimination!!!

[TheRascalKing]

Now you're just asinine. I know, believe me, progress is hard,for people like you. There were people just like you saying the same type of shit against letting black people into the Marines and overturning DADT. "Decreased military effectiveness", "unit cohesion will be bad, "they're inferior", "decreased effectiveness". It's going to happen sooner or later though, might as well get used to it instead of staying stuck in 1945.

[Fox Paws]

Stop bringing up race for five minutes

You've mentioned it about a dozen times in this thread already. You're black, WE GET IT

[TheRascalKing]

Originally Posted by Fox Paws

Stop bringing up race for five minutes

You've mentioned it about a dozen times in this thread already. You're black, WE GET IT

The only thing different now is that instead of discriminating based on it, they're discriminating based on gender, and they're using the exact same bullshit excuses to justify that discrimination.

Shut up, instead of getting upset about me drawing legitimate parallels between people like MacArthur and p6867, you should be getting upset about the bullshit in your military.

[dysik]

difference between races is a few tenths of a percent of dna.

difference between men and women is a chromosone.

[p6867]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Now you're just asinine. I know, believe me, progress is hard,for people like you. There were people just like you saying the same type of shit against letting black people into the Marines and overturning DADT. "Decreased military effectiveness", "unit cohesion will be bad, "they're inferior", "decreased effectiveness". It's going to happen sooner or later though, might as well get used to it instead of staying stuck in 1945.

But it will be bad for unit cohesion, it will decrease military effectiveness. This doesn't make it 1945.
As for being asinine, that is seriously how you sound to me. Have you ever read anything on this website that made you think i'm a bigot, racist or misogynist? Maybe, just maybe, I know slightly more about this than you do and think it's a bad call for the reasons i've mentioned and not because 'women suck'. Your 'accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of being a bigot' argument doesn't work on me tach. Also i'm surprised it took you as long as it did to turn this to racism. I think the 3rd page has to be some kind of record for you.

[TheRascalKing]

Wow, it's like I'm listening to the past.

Also, you forget that we aren't fighting in trenches anymore, combat is becoming more and more high tech.

[Irukanji]

Originally Posted by p6867

she'd be awful at the things a soldier needs to do.

Die [X]
Shoot gun [X]

I think these women might have a chance. Body armour is getting expensive, after all.

Duct tape them to tanks/buildings for protection?

[moron]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

I never said that there aren't differences, my point is that it is ridiculous and unfair to discriminate against and deny opportunities to qualified females because of males' stereotypes and discrimination. Nobody wants lesser standards, people want equal treatment and equal rights.

This isn't about stereotypes- it's about physiological differences, specifically skeletal and muscular structure.

Honestly I don't give a shit if females serve but p87687686 has been there and done that, so I feel he's making a more educated argument than the wheelchair-bound cripple-thief.

[moron]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

it is ridiculous and unfair to discriminate against and deny opportunities to qualified females

also, this is the point you don't seem to appreciate- there is a significant gap in physical performance between men and women, that has nothing to do with stereotypes and everything to do with muscular structure

the military needs strong bodies that can perform up to par, and if the standards are lowered to allow women onto the battlefront, a country will seriously risk the effectiveness of their military force- especially when facing an all-male enemy

this is just numbers and statistics, the amount of gear one can carry has little to do with stereotypes