Unpopular opinions about Women in LE/Military

>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.

Other urls found in this thread:

washington.cbslocal.com/2015/09/11/marines-combat-study/
fdrlibrary.marist.edu/education/resources/pdfs/tusk_doc_a.pdf
www3.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Laner-who-is-worth-helping.pdf
telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9823312/Army-has-dropped-fitness-standards-to-allow-more-women-to-join.html
birpublications.org/doi/abs/10.1259/bjr/42380498?journalCode=bjr
fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml
washingtonian.com/1979/11/01/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>(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

yeah, i got on a rant

gotta bump this

rip thread

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?

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.

>genders are just a sexist meme
>DNA is a nazi myth

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

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

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

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

Percentage wise the extremely almost nonexistent few women that could scrape by aren't worth the cost

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.

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.

>Science is the most important thing, stupid fundy Christians.... except whenever it contradicts whatever new-age hippie bullshit I believe!

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

I can see why this was a lawsuit. You try marching in heels, that's dangerous

>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?

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.

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.

r a r e

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

>LE Military
back 2 reddit

>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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

>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

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.

>Women can do almost nothing, before you get to their unit cohesion destroying attitudes.
here comes another generalizing fallacy. yawn.

fdrlibrary.marist.edu/education/resources/pdfs/tusk_doc_a.pdf

i think this is it, but there might be others.


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.

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

>they meet the standards and performed their duties as expected.
big expectation and assumption.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Reasonable accommodation, user. 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.

another sweeping generalization.

>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

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.

again with sweeping generalization, thanks for speaking for the 150+ million women in the US.

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)

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 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

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.

Holy fuck. The look on their faces is priceless.

>most women being more capable than average men

Pro female soccer players play against highschool boys and get beat

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.

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.

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

They were lowered at ranger school

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.

www3.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Laner-who-is-worth-helping.pdf

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, telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9823312/Army-has-dropped-fitness-standards-to-allow-more-women-to-join.html

>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.

>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.

>sweeping generalization

You mean science and biology are generalizations?

>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

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

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

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.

>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.

>sweeping generalization on all women


>You fight to prevent childs and women dying
no, you fight to accomplish the mission.

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.

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.

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...

Not an argument.

>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

Top kek. Figures.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

>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?

>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 .

>sweeping generalizations

Facts, why do you need to disregard facts to try to make your argument?

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

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.

no.
>niggers in the military are fine
They are still niggers and they still suck dick at shooting.

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:

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:

washingtonian.com/1979/11/01/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

This is not how it is in the States.

Yeah, women are great at pulling their weight

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.

Op said this is about the us military, miniature security forces need not apply

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.

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.

>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.

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

>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

finally somebody else on this board see's the core of the problem

>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.

Still doesn't disprove what was said about some women being able to meet many combat role standards.

>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.

>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.

>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.

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

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.

It might, but war is hell. If your male buddy screams in agony, your morale might take a similar hit tho.

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.

>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.

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.