So why shouldn't women be allowed in combat roles? End of the day we are all equal

So why shouldn't women be allowed in combat roles? End of the day we are all equal.

The first female Ranger passed the three-week long selection course designed for staff sergeants and above, as well as officers. She will wear the legendary Ranger scroll and the distinctive tan beret and when she reports to the regiment.

The bare minimum requirements include:

A score of 240 on the Army Physical Fitness Test, with 6 chin-ups completed.
A five-mile run in 40 minutes or less.
A 12-mile ruck march in three hours or less with a 35-pound pack.
Completion of the Ranger Swim Ability Evaluation.
A full psychological screening.
A Commander's Board screening.


time.com/4005578/female-army-rangers/

Attached: image.jpg (1143x752, 137K)

Yes yes, give your enemy more motivation...

>A score of 240 on the Army Physical Fitness Test, with 6 chin-ups completed.
Female standards or male? For female that is like 25 push ups or something.
>A 12-mile ruck march in three hours or less with a 35-pound pack.
They make it heavier than that and they usually don't give you food or let you sleep the night before.
>A full psychological screening.
>A Commander's Board screening.
Like they would really fail the one candidate they have.

ONLY women should have to fight for the ZOG.

>or male?

Male, face it they passed.

yo if a woman can pass the same tests a man can i don't see any reason she should be prevented from serving.

if the dyke can pass on male standards then whatever. im sure theres a couple of exceptional carpet munchers out there capable of larping as men without dragging their team down

I'm a woman and I have no problem with this. HOWEVER, I was told by someone in army that women in combat is a problem because men will instinctively want to help them.

So....

"In the rare cases when women approach genius, they also approach masculinity"

>2
Wow, such number, so much.

sage

Attached: 1512724874862.jpg (3056x3483, 803K)

If you want your soldiers more focused on fucking each other than fighting, add women, if you want an irrational soldier add women. If you want men to do stupid shit trying to protect the weak links (women) add women. If you want your fighting force split up into two different parts that lose cohesion, add women.

Women in combat roles is just fucking stupid, unless it's an all female unit, in which case it's still less effective than an all male unit, but by like a lot.

you best start believing in aussie threads. yer postin' in one.

Attached: 1516526450265.png (1200x600, 624K)

This, plus the fact the person in OP is quite obviously a bloke.

this thread is reserved for countries who have a military thanks

There is nothing wrong if they pass the same standards. Unless the standards are set with the specific intention of being passable by females, in which case they would be compromised and not very good standards.

Outlying females who can pass them are fine in theory. Understanding what kind of effect mixed combat units have however might bring up other issues. Perhaps collect enough females to have a female only unit.

6 chin ups? Is that fucking all?

Why should they be allowed? Are we running out of manpower? Even the Germans in 45 didn't field female troops in combat, just AA.

There's literally no reason to train female soldiers. They're supposed to be reproducing and men are supposed to be doing hard work (that's why we have testosterone).

When do we get pensioners in the army? 14 year olds? Physically disabled? Women? When we're dredging the bottom of the barrel.

5 mile run at 8 minute miles... Holy fuck these standards are nothing.

>End of the day we are all equal.
We certainly are not. Women in the military choose easy jobs for themselves and spend most of their time in an office or on medical leave from their many pregnancies

Someone post that lawsuit where women literally broke their hips trying to keep up with male soldiers

she menstruates and has a vagina and fragile bones

if they want to be a real soldier (not a baggage train accessory or a clerk) they are lesbians anyway

They should as long as they meet the same standards as men, only kike a handful of women actually can and I say try them out.

Those are just the minimum requirements to even get into the door. If you show up to RASP with the ability to only do six chin-ups there’s no way you’re going to make it unless you’re really resilient to injury and you happen to be a mental Ronnie Coleman.

Menstruation alone should disqualify women from being in combat. The enemy can smell that shit.

Weaker than men, emotionally unstable, and prone to a slew of health conditions that men don't even have to worry about such as yeast infections and their periods. Women are worthless as an extended vanguard force and belong in defensive positions or armored deployment only.

it's a waste of time looking for them, and they will never be 100% male.
Women need to be at home running the factories and protecting the children.

So why are you talking? Everything you have belongs to Israel, you colony.

This guy gets it. You guys are getting too focused on the physical requirements— the bare minimums mind you while completely disregarding the psychological and logistical impacts of having women in combat roles on an actual battlefield.

>In b4 muh Russian woman sniper hunter killers.

Stop believing bad Soviet propaganda.

>So why shouldn't women be allowed in combat roles?
making babies is the single most important job ever

lady soldiers are getting killed instead of making babies

therefore women should not be soldiers

i colonized your wife last night can i have my shoes back? they're under your desk

Attached: women military.jpg (4571x3411, 1.46M)

inb4 kurdistan literally happening right now

>2018
>thinking anyone in civilized world is dumb enough to marry
well flag checks out, anyway stop sliding mutt

so sassy coming from not russia appreciate your spunk bro just kidding it's my spunk leaking out of your wifes vagina got ya

When their only options is to either fight or get rape/killed, which do you think sounds slightly better?

Protip: American women aren’t in a comparable situation.

She should be at home, raising 2+ future soldiers who would inherit her physical prowess and resolve and be just as effective (since we are still equal) but there would be more of them now.

gorgeous, thank you

they lower the standards for women (just like they did with that firefighter chick) and even then they still have to cheat to let them pass it then they make a huge fuss about how "women™ did it by themselves :^)" so they fill out the vagina quota and get more gibs plus good publicity


the reality is that by lowering the standards they are lowering the overall quality of their soldiers.
go over to /k/ and ask anyone who has served with women and they will tell you exactly how fucking cancerous it is


>hurr women, who just started fighting in wars a few decades ago are just as good at fighting as men who have been fighting in them for the last 9000+ years

>End of the day we are all equal
Stopped reading there.

sage

so self defense is bad now? why not get every swinging vag dick and tail in there?

If they pass then I don't see why not. Only dumbasses sign up for combat roles anyway.

I don’t even understand how you came to that conclusion. I’m saying women soldiers are fine when they’re two seconds away from getting raped with a bayonet by a hadji.

This is not something the US military has to be concerned about. We are not the Kurds. We are a professional military and should conduct ourselves as such. I can tell you never had the pleasure of pulling security for a USMC FET (female engagement team) while they were taking their time braiding each other’s hair in the middle of fucking Afghanistan.

Even when they pass the standards (which are just that - STANDARD, not exemplary. and women have to be exemplary to meet them.) they still have to deal with the fact that their bodies are softer, more susceptible to injury, and their minds work differently, are more susceptible to depression afterward. they also menstruate and attract bears. (no but really they attract guys and need their support)

Women don't have to be warriors to be valuable. It's not meant to be an insult. Only when they try to enter this world are they shot down with these facts - it's a needless shame that doesn't just weigh on them, but also the men who have to tell them.
Vilifying men and shaming women, for no reason.

this thread has lessons
no need for sage

>kurdistan
>women actually helping at all

Attached: isis bringing the heat.png (624x416, 394K)

Male ranger standards are not 6 pull-ups. Either they were changed for the female or it's a different standard.

When the USMC did that integrated battalion experiment there were two startling conclusions:

1). Fireteams with female Marines were slower to deliver effective fires on selected targets

2). Something stupid like 65% of the female marines that participated in that study developes hip injuries to varying degrees as a result of carrying weight over long distances.

Doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that grunts need to be able to kill stuff and hump heavy shit for a long time over difficult terrain.

>End of the day we are all equal.
No we aren't. Your performance is the only thing that dictates that. If you have different standards, we are not equal.

You start sliding on standards, and you start raising existential questions on what the point of the military actually is. It doesn't make rational sense to willfully reduce quality in your fighting force.

Men and Women are equal. Women belong in the home and men belong in the field. Men and Women are not the same. Almost all men are stronger than almost all women.

Like pottery.

>End of the day we are all equal
Found ur problem buddy

>End of the day we are all equal
No.
Sage

If you compare a healthy man and women of the same weight a man still has about 40% more muscle mass. Add in that men are typically larger and you have a pretty significant difference in strength. In reverse of what most people seem to think modern soldiers carry more weight than at almost any time in history, so physical strength is important. I am too tired to find the links (just did an all-nighter) but reports from Afghanistan found that male soldiers where commonly going on patrol with as much as 70% of their own bodyweight on their backs. For female soldiers, this came to 100%

There a number of combat tasks that require weight but an example is pulling a comrade to safety. All soldiers are expected to be able drag a wounded comrade to safety. Can you imagine many women being able to drag and 85kg man plus kit to safety? that's multiples of her own bodyweight. Forcing women into combat roles would really just mean that men where forced to do even more work than is normally expected just to run the unit at the same level of capability.

Sure you are probably going to say that some women would be capable of doing that and why shouldn't you let them serve their country? Because the proportion of women who are capable of that level of fitness is very small and military training(in professional militaries) is very expensive. The number of female soldiers who fail basic would be higher than male and of those who pass basic a larger percentage then men would be unavailable due to injury at any one time. It costs roughly £34k ($47k, Aus$60k) to put a new recruit through a basic 6-month infantry course not including wages. Much more after that as they pass through more advanced training.

So to summerise by letting women in combat roles you end up paying more money for less manpower and have reduced combat effectiveness.

There is a place for women in the military, and they can be good at it. But not in combat roles.

>2015
>she failed out in swamp phase
Women are better at Intel positions or logistical positions. If you want a war fighter, get a man.

>End of the day we are all equal.

Attached: 1409155072551.jpg (500x500, 18K)

i don't get it

>find the 0.1% of females who can serve in the front lines
>all women can now serve in the front lines

Who wouldn't want to capture this brave soldier, though?

Attached: Annex my heart.webm (696x528, 2.94M)

citation

They can’t do shit in combat. That’s why.

Tfw that shits easy.

they flunked but still graduated
literal failures, but still get to graduate

The thing that they don't talk about is that women suffer massively higher rates of physical stress related "sports type" injuries. Combat roles literally break them. It's kinda like the trannies thing. If you take the right and wrong moral projection out of the equation. It's still way too goddamn expensive in the near and long term for the negligeable return. The 1% of women who are capable and willing to pass the standards don't justify themselves logistically.

Attached: women in the military.png (846x480, 610K)

Read: Because once we redpill the normies they too will understand that OP is a massive faggot that will get the rope too.

see
They do better in intel than in combat.

I like how people commentate on these topics without any actual military experience.

That's the fucking standard to be a Ranger?

We did harder fucking shit in the Airforce.

Should this be impressive? My brother did most of this shit when he was 16 with some friends of his to last longer on the football field.

Explain all the gays please

oh wow

Attached: so-embarrassed-567181366x76856718.jpg (1366x768, 108K)

If she can beat me in hand to hand combat, she is welcome to it. Spoiler alert: she could not.

Aww that's adorable.
She needs to go on inside and make some proper homemade soup, a huge ploughmans roll and keep it all ready for me when I get back.

>we are all equal

Attached: 1452554067728.webm (480x360, 783K)

Attached: 1504567487607.webm (320x240, 2.83M)

>End of the day we are all equal.
Absolutely retarded.

If you want to spend literally billions of dollars retrofitting ships for women to have separate berthing and heads, add women.

If you want the JSF program to go even drastically more over budget, because the ejection seat and helmet have to be redesigned for 95 pound women, add women.

Attached: 1451175205893.webm (613x360, 1.85M)

the standards are ALWAYS lowered to accomadate women

Attached: 1517605055246.jpg (477x640, 48K)

LONDON

good meatshield, she'll serve well

Even Rosie the Riveter's going "Woman, what the fuck are you doing."

This

Because screw your shitty ideas. Frankly, a lot of women probably deserve to witness the horrors of war, but the frontline is no place for a chick. Men have historically done the fighting and the only reason women want to get in on the action is due to these fucking retarded notions of equality and this stupid girlpower shit that’s infested everything. Use them as nurses and secretaries where they belong and to hell with anyone saying women should be fighting along side men when they don’t absolutely need to.

Smells like bullshit. I can easily do all of that. Can do atleast 10 chin ups. Run 5 miles (8km) in 32 mins. Can swim a mile in 36 mins etc.
Is there is a different standard for men and women, because I cannot believe that this is the standard for Rangers.

Really. My untrained ass is leisurely running 5 miles in 50 minutes. If I gave the slightest effort in getting serious about it, I could be running that in 40 minutes for sure.

Rosie the riveter only "worked" at the plant she posed in the picture for for three weeks before she quit. It was pure propaganda.

Attached: 1441930283056.webm (362x480, 2.89M)

>6 chin-ups completed.
so we aren't going by male standards then? fucking hell, women are not really built for infantry roles also their participation fucks with the unit cohesion of the soldiers.

Attached: 583.jpg (600x1311, 72K)

The worst part of this video is that she's laughing and giggling the entire time. Imagine what this woman would be doing if there were men with guns trying to shoot her.

I too like to lie to strangers on an anonymous Internet forum

>impyling the marines wouldn't keep her around as a slampig

>impyling marines wouldn't keep her around as a slampig

Attached: 1519287731039.jpg (477x530, 58K)

/Thread

The requirements aren't meant to be superhuman. A decent college athlete could easily do all that shit too. There are other things Rangers go through in training that contribute to the dropout rate.

This desu

>impyling the marines wouldn't keep her around as a slampig

Three week? Sounds more like the EMFB than Ranger. Didn’t Ranger used to be three 6 week phases in 3 environments? With like a 75 mile ruck at the end?