Women in the Army

Why the fuck is it so hard to explain to a woman that combat roles for women is generally a bad idea?

Other urls found in this thread:

dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262626.pdf
marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/
mca-marines.org/gazette/blog/2012/07/05/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
twitter.com/AnonBabble

How about you convince us why it's a bad idea? I'll tell you where you fucked up.

wymin and lib-cucks can't comprehend rationality. One requires a form of intellect for that.

This is an example of how NOT to get a message across. Stupid motherfuckers need to actually make a point and be at least semi precise and detailed when attempting to get another person to understand what you're trying to say.

I hope you didn't just call this girl a stupid liberal OP.

It's not. Men are simply better at fighting (and pretty much any other physical activity) than women.

> Putting the physically wearer sex into a situation where they are liable to get their shit fucked up.

Seems like a bad idea, senpai. Unless it's one of those butch lesbian women who could potentially be strong as far as women go, but middling-weak as a man goes.

They'll get it when our enemies start capturing female POWs.

Give it time, it'll be hilarious.

> Why is it so hard to explain anything to a woman

Because they're women and think they already know everything, that's why.

This, plus fucking up the psychological stability of an all male unit by throwing a woman into the mix.


I tried explaining this to somebody minutes ago.

>"Why shouldn't women be in the army?"
>"Because they're not as strong as men"
>"What if they meet male fitness standards?"
>"They mess up male psychology. In a combat zone, men would instinctively try to protect the females over the functioning of the unit."
>"Prove to me its instinctive"
>mfw

>physically weaker sex

Generally and obviously across the board to keep thing simple women are generally weaker than men. They can exert less power and can't build as much muscle as men.

But in order to be fair you have to break things down and be precise. Real world doesn't work with solely with generalizations.

Some women are stronger than men. Some have more motivation to serve. This alone helps argue that well, if you're going to keep some women out of the service you might as well exempt some men from service too (doesn't happen) so obviously it's not just strength.

Also the combat roles in the military in recent wars aren't so physically painful that people can't handle them. We have equipment and reasonable accommodations to ensure all sorts of people can endure the mission.

The real question is how can you not understand that women in combat roles could be good for us;

>SJW culling, when they take roles unsuitable for them just to show us evil patriarchs.
>That's even if they actually do join up (Shit, they fight for equality in certain fields like stem, yet they all choose gender studies).
>Removes all potential for a gender-based draft... Something WW2 era feminists really wanted so they could cull men. Shit, they even wanted to send male children to war.
>Basically attempts to remove our status as the more "disposable" gender.
>When there is the potential for us to be drafted, we'll see a change - "b.b.b... but I want men in charge again. Let them deal with it".

Ships already sinking, perhaps letting a few drown will stop them from putting more holes in it.

Did you make the point of men instinctively protecting women or the other person?

So much greentext I can't even make proper sense of what you typed.

The only reason we're opening this to debate now is that we're on the cusp of foot-on-the-ground soldiering becoming all but irrelevant.

In 10 years when soldiers are glorified videogame pilots, controlling mini-planes and mini-tanks, who gives a shit if the pilot can't do as many pushups?

In 10 years the soldier is going to be a swarm of microdrones. The enemy won't even be able to shoot the damn thing, like shooting at hornets buzzing around you as they each tear a little bit of flesh off of you, death by a 1000 cuts.

> Fighting force makes concessions for an unreliable element.
> Not only selecting the strongest men and sharpest minds, capable of enduring hell and coming out of it unphased.

I'm just saying, I want our armed forces to be ubermenschen. If a woman is up to scratch, at least consider placing her in a segregated unit, made of women. This way, any psychological aspect is minimalised.

Instinctively protecting women.

You are, full stop, incorrect. Combat loads have only gotten heavier and we're still expected to be able to hump that shit quite a distance and for as long as it's deemed necessary.

This is your average female in the military.

>we want equality!
>okay, time for you to sign up for selective services.
>we want only the good parts of equality!

>Women are, on average less physically capable than men.
>The cost of accommodating the minuscule percentage of women who both A.) Are physically capable to be in combat arms and B.) Actually want to be in combat arms, is kind of a waste of resources.

Honestly I can't agree yet with the women not being able to handle the psychological aspect at all. I really do believe women might generally be stronger mentally than a man. They live with babies inside them for 9 months. I would have killed myself and the stupid fucking kid from lack of patience and women end up in relationships with men constantly that treat them like shit even abusive and shit and they still manage to force themselves to stay in. I see that as strength. Sure it's stupid and wrong for them but what I"m saying is that their mental endurance has proved over and over again just how mentally capable women are. I honestly think they have been bred that way because of having no choice but to deal with the men's shit over the entire span of the human cycle.

>Combat loads have only gotten heavier and we're still expected to be able to hump that shit quite a distance and for as long as it's deemed necessary.

If you did it it's because you could handle it. I went to Iraq also (in case you went to the Middle East somewhere). It was shit and hard but I do believe a woman could handle it if she had been conditioned like us. In 120 degree weather with all that gear on ANY civilian would have fucking died if they had went straight from the world to war. People who get used to being in miserable conditions adapt and get used to surviving those situations. I'm not saying women should without question be allowed to serve but I think there should be some sort of more realistic trials to see if they're as useless as many men make them out to be. We might need the help because with all these sorry as fuck piece of shit man children that join and then try bailing out when they get deployed is not helping.

Personally, I am less hostile to the idea of letting women who CAN pass the same fitness and mental tests as men serve alongside them, the problem is, very few women can actually pass the tests, so standards are lowered all for the sake for equality. This makes your fighting force less effective.

Men who fail the tests are not accepted, just like women who fail the tests.

Then there is the physical aspect of it. Women on average are weaker than men, on average. Concessions like redesigning packs or making them lighter have to be made, which is a pain in the backside and a logistical and R and D issue which can simply be avoided.

And then there is the issue of being in extremely close proximity to women 24/7. Men can just laugh about shitting anf farting everywhere but I definetly dont want to sleep right next to an unwahsed woman whos having her period, and I dont think many of them want that either. It would be even worse for armoured crews.

In the end, women in cobat roles are just a burden.

>we're on the cusp of foot-on-the-ground soldiering becoming all but irrelevant.

No we aren't, and you're stupid for thinking that

No, not even close.

He's got a point. First off with nukes so readily available a ground war is almost pointless to superpowers. Second of all the United States isn't getting invaded by Russia or China so we really don't need to fight them unless we make a major offensive which I doubt would happen because then nukes are going off which brings me to point a again.

Vietnam and the Middle East have tough that bottom line is ground forces don't guarantee victory and certainly guarantee waste of resources and time. Now in the Middle East we're doing a lot better with just planes.

Read this OP and learn to summarise the points that are mentioned.

dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262626.pdf

>I've never spent a day in the military, even as a POG: the post

Because women today can't not shit up a good thing. They think Infantry's a good-ol'-boys club who only want to keep "strong," "independent" women out because they're insecure or afraid of being beaten by a girl. They see this last bastion of masculine solidarity and they're compelled to join it to show that they can be just as rough and tough as the boys because they've been fed that nonsense their whole lives and only been rewarded for challenging the notion of female exclusion. They completely ignore every test like this:

marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/

... because it terminates their echo-chamber world view. It doesn't even compute to them that their presence is a hindrance at best and a catastrophic liability in most cases.

Because you're wrong, while British men were hiding like little bitches in their island women of the red army fought successfully to keep you safe.

I went to an all-boy high school, had a lot of friends in all-girl high schools and co-ed high schools.

male HS: superior academic performance, better friendships, no cliques, no bullying, no problems besides the 5 niggers that went there, better relationships with women

girl HS:superior academic performance, better friendships, but cliquey and catty as fuck because they all gossip and look for drama

co-ed:bullying, males acting like animals towards each other, fights, worse academic performance, shitty atmosphere, poorly developed individuals

Women are useless cunts in general and are rarely interested in greater-good outcomes, and they fuck up how men behave with each other. Women all hate each other to begin with.

Men and women only belong together in private (courtship and family life) and in recreational scenarios, i.e. going out with other couples or on dates.

No women can actually pass the test without lowering the standards.
It's not possible.

I did a little over three years in the Army. Including a year in Korea and a year in Iraq as a cav scout so...

>inb4 you're lying user

yes goy put the future of your country in harms way

when you get low or become useless well just replenish with imports

>Why the fuck is it so hard to explain to a woman that combat roles for women is generally a bad idea?

You're a shitty debater?

Yeah I´d say he does have a point, but certainly not in 10 years. There are no plans for drone fighters or tanks. Maybe in 40 years or so but definetly not in the near future.

No. We wouldn't see a change, we would see women demand to be put in leadership roles because B-B-B-BUT ITS NOT FAAAAAAAIR

lol k

Go back to Black Ops, you fucking absolute nigger.

Life isn't a video game and it's not going to turn into one in 10 or even 20 years you fucking twat.

>Personally, I am less hostile to the idea of letting women who CAN pass the same fitness and mental tests as men serve alongside them
I used to think like this, but the problem is to get those few capable women, you have to train and reject a lot. If 75% of men can pass the physical tests, but only 5% of women, then the cost of finding a female soldier is 15x that of a male soldier.

no i think they view being a soldier as a job, and want to opportunity to compete with the men.
anyhow i find it amusing that men like to go on and on abt how DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HAPPENS TO MEN and A TRAINED WOMAN WITH A WEAPON IS VERY DANGEROUS but no you can't serve in the armed forces.

If they want to go get themselves blown up by an IED, I say let 'em! Fuck put them on the front lines. . .their own little Womyn Brigade.

See how many come back.

That'll fix that right quick.

ENTRANCE EXAMS

oui exactamonte, they cant.

Anecdotal evidence means almost nothing, user.

Pretty sure the military CAN give them a basic PT test at MEPS before they hit basic if they wanted to filter OUT women. I think they get men into basic is because by then men done fucked up and the military wants you even if you have 3 feet.

Every woman I know who is either still in or recently left, two of which had three Herrick tours between them, is against woman as infanteers.

The only people I have come across who support it are equality cum-gargling feminists and white knights who don't have the first clue what the culture and the role entails.

It's not just the rather unfeminine throwing a hand grenade, emptying the magazine on full auto and then bayonetting what is left - it's the other elements of the culture. Unit cohesion will be a thing of the past.

And the old charade of 'they will have to pass the same tests as anyone else'? No one buys that. On the occasions we have put women through arduous courses - first the All-Arms Commando Course and then the RN Minewarfare & Clearance Diving Officers Course, the timings were altered to allow the women to pass.

this may actually be an option , an all women unit that would in turn be expected to perform to the same standards as a male unit would be treated the same by the superiors and the problem of fucking up the male mindset in a combat situation would mostly be removed .

It's not a proper occupation or something to battle the patriarchy in.
It can easily be life and death when a roadside IED goes off next to your groups hummer and your buddy is pinned inside and the woman can't move him.

Cool. Listen to Wikipedia then.

Low quality b8 m8.
See How can women even compete?

TOP FKN KEK
women can do combat roles it depands on the role itself,you realy think every unit in the miltary is a navy seals spetznaz unit??!?!
the US marine is nothing realy they have a short course and are considerd battle meat in combat like many other units in diffrent countries.

...

women can serve in combat roles BUT not in commando roles cause in those units their physical limitations are too much compared to men.

the Isreali military is pretty much on par with the UK military IMO in terms of its attitude towards the use of infantry with the limited resources available.

What is Russia's stance on women in the military?

They think men in the military is degenerate. Women only.

Women would only be good for executing mudshits because if they get killed by a female they don't get their 72 virgins, it's the ultimate morale killer for them

I feel like women in a firefight would start crying and hiding to protect themselves specifically where a man would be more likely to return fire no matter the risk.

Is that a bad assumption?

A lot of men try weaseling their way out before they even touch the warzone. We had a guy shoot himself in the stomach because a Seargant chewed him out.

Again, anecdotal evidence.


Ive got a question for the American anons here, do you have female armoured crews? I havent seen any but I dont know.

Not when I was in.

We had a female mechanic that worked on our Bradley's though. She was pretty fucking tough. She lasted through our morning PT runs when half the men would fall out.

And she was only like 5 foot 4

>Did you make the point of men instinctively protecting women or the other person?

This is what happened in the IDF. When women would be injured in a firefight the males would act differently and destroy the cohesion of the unit

Have heard cases of that happening.

Honestly? I feel like it should be one of those trial by fire dealios where we need to build up a culture or mentality where they can fight, if not as well as a man but still good fighter/shooter.

Not super well-versed in military training or experiences, but Russia may had had something when they started using women for combat roles in WW2. Alot of them were shit but there came a shit ton of improvements (especially snipers) when the dust cleared and provided actual productive soldiers.

Alot of people like to point at the Starship Troopers dealio where in the movie, people really didn't give a shit if you were male or female as long as you were willing to fight and didn't make a big deal out of being a girl. The big problem here nowadays is the "One death is a tragedy" mentality and the issues when a woman soldier gets captured or killed. I would like to see all woman combat units just to throw the "men will get distracted in combat" variable out the window and to finally get shit going and see what works and doesn't work.

On the flip side. I remember BMT at Lackland AFB (washed out ;_;) and all the girls there were fighting 24/7. I don't know how combat actually works out, but hopefully that infighting doesn't carry on into combat.

Im dont think any military in the world today has female tankers, the SAA might have a few female crews on their T-72s, but I think thats out of desperation and a lack of manpower, a bit like with the Soviet Union in WW2.

My women are irrational due to their constant periods they suffer from.

This, segregation doesn't just work with race

Oh and for the record, the male AND female training instructors HATED being put in charge of the female flights. Once again, so much fighting with the girls.

This practice will end as soon as ISIS starts posting rape videos.

I understand your point but I don't think you are grasping how physically weak females are compared to males. The difference between a physically fit and strong man compared to a physically fit woman is massive.

Sure there are women who are stronger than an average man, however if you train both a woman and a man the man will be stronger, faster and better in the same time frame.

Put it this way, why would the military waste money training women when men have better performance across the board? When they have access to tens of thousands of physically fit motivated men to chose from? There is no reason

This is the only serious answer so far that I can justify not letting a single woman in.

Periods and the fact that they can get pregnant. Women literally have the choice to not go to war if they so desire by simply getting pregnant. That makes it just too easy to be able to get out and as much research as the military has in learning about itself is that in times of war (at least in this generation) is that motherfuckers WILL try to get out. Men still go anyways. A lot of guys ended up doing drugs to try getting dishonorably discharged but said fuck it you're going and we'll punish you when you get back.

You deployed? In what role? There was a female marine officer leading a company of combat engineers that wrote a scathing article about how women simply can't keep up. She saw combat in the limited way a support unit does and noted that she was breaking far faster than even her weakest male subordinates.

It's titled something like "we're not all created equal" by a usmc captain. I'd find it for you but am on mobile.

>really do believe women might generally be stronger mentally than a man
And that is where you can spot the lib-cuck thinking that women can be strong as men when they are not. Stop watching action movies, so you can remove the propaganda from your brain. Men have over a 40-60 percent more body mass than a women. Women are not fit for combat, and I hope when we put them in the front lines, they will die in mass. It is gonna be fucking great.

Well I wouldn't have a problem with it if there were one physical fitness test by which to select good candidates, rather than one for men and a much easier one for women. And they have to shave their head.

That's not how a telegram works you retard.

Strength is not the only factor here.
Men instinctively protect females. This alone lowers the social cohesion in an unit whenever a female is introduced in a previously male unit. Females are also different from males, which increases heterogeneity and thus lowers homogeneity, which in turn lowers social cohesion of the unit, allowing for less trust to be between members of the unit, making the unit less effective.
Women have menstruations, one week every three weeks, their hormones go wild, they bleed, they're uncomfortable, and as a result of that, they might be more irritated, more emotional, more requiring of privacy, all of which are inherently bad for a combat situation. There's simply no option for privacy in a combat situation and emotions increase intragroup tensions, again, lowering social cohesion and mutual trust, making the unit less effective.

So would all woman units be okay with you? I think we're at least both in agreement of seeing SOMETHING happen.

>reasoning with women
Maybe pouring acid on them has something going for it.

You guys are forgetting something:

I N S U R G E N C Y

The infantry will always be necessary, there is no way drones, strike aircraft, or anything else will be able to replace infantry as an effective occupying force. All attempts to make the Infantry obsolete have failed, utterly.

>the problem is, very few women can actually pass the tests, so standards are lowered all for the sake for equality.
This is what will happen eventually. Not now, but eventually the bar will be lowered. I truly, truly, truly believe it.

The not washing part of your argument is based on feels though, please don't.

>This is an example of how NOT to get a message across. Stupid motherfuckers need to actually make a point and be at least semi precise and detailed when attempting to get another person to understand what you're trying to say.
>I hope you didn't just call this girl a stupid liberal OP.
>How about you convince us why it's a bad idea? I'll tell you where you fucked up.
How about this then...

Women are not supposed to take on combat roles in the army because they have evolved to be nothing but sexual objects for the male's pleasure and to take care of children and household chores.

LEARN YOUR PLACE WOMAN!!!!

>
Women are not supposed to take on combat roles in the army because they have evolved to be nothing but sexual objects for the male's pleasure and to take care of children and household chores.

LEARN YOUR PLACE WOMAN!!!!

check. Nothing wrong with that. Not sure why she didn't get it. How's Halo 4 going?

Found the link:
mca-marines.org/gazette/blog/2012/07/05/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

so why couldnt you beat us?

Because 9/10 have all the intellectual capacity of a beligerent child.

It's ok to me, a women can fight and be brave too.
I respect the womens that give their live to die.
More balls than most of men.

Um no infantry will always be the backbone of the miltary for ground work.

Because strong independent womenz don't need no man and dey be equal and sheeeeiiiiittttt

They are currently re writing the tests in Brtian to make sure more women get in, its already too late.

How efffective do you think you wuld be if you were stuck in a metal box for 3 days straight with 2 other women having their period, unwashed and generally being catty? On top of that, one of those women has to frequently lift heavy tank rounds into the gun. They are almost certainly going to be less effective than a male crew.


On an unrelated note, all the smaller/less tall females I know are much better at camping, hiking and generally doing physical stuff than the men, and they generally complain less. Its weird.

yes because the SJWs will go to war and die during the process, and then the SJW survivors will bitch that war is too hard for them; therefore, women should be excuse from war, but their right to vote will be attach to it, so it becomes a win-win situation. They cant vote if they cant defend the constitution

>More balls than most of men.

You are aware more than 75% of men have beaten at LEAST one game of Call of Duty or Battlefield?

That doesn't say you have balls?

How about I punch you right in your little fucking mouth and we'll see if you're fit for combat

>check. Nothing wrong with that. Not sure why she didn't get it. How's Halo 4 going?
Never played Halo 4, videogames are for children, have not played many of them since I got into university. I guess I just can't find them to be fun anymore or something, all I do all day is work out at the gym, study, look for a job in this shitty economy and fuck my girlfriend hard.

Anyway, women are not supposed to take on combat roles for the same reason the men on prehistory used to be the hunters while the women stayed at the tribe taking care of children.

I'd love to but I got my DD214 already. I'm fit.

>men complain that women are generally more willing to stoop to physical violence like slapping or attacking boyfriends/husbands for whatever reason
>men complain that women are generally more willing to fuck around with guns and knock their own teeth out with recoil or accidentally shoot someone in the ass
>"but why do they also think women can't be in the army?????"

You answered your own fucking question, faggot.

There are plenty of women who can serve and be successful, but they are the exception. There are probably also 12 year olds who know ROTC shit and can fire a rifle better than most grown men. That doesn't mean they should be in the armed forces.

>videogames are for children

>Literally half of Sup Forums Blown the FUCK out by one of their own.

They learn to just deal with it. You see this alot in agriculture especially, where alot of guys originally did not women getting involved with for similar reasons to the military. Know there's tons of girls who life more then I do (although i way out of shape) with hay bales and saddles.

My mind is, another pair of hands is another pair of hands and just fucking put women in combat roles already rather then speculate. Rather do it now and work things out then a draft actually happens and we have zero clue what to do with the female recruits.

>another pair of hands

Yeah, I agree.

But when it's:

>smaller hands

There's no reason for them to be there.

>you just have to deal with lowered standards
are you retarded?

>implying standards aren't getting lower anyways with boys nowadays getting less fucking exercise fucking with electronics and shit, eating just as unhealthy, and doing more drugs than ever while attending the same dumb fucking schools as women.

The military is sorry as fuck compared to the military of the past and it has nothing to do with women wanting to join.

People are looking at this the wrong way. It is a privilege to have the opportunity to fight for your nation in a volunteer force, not a right, and allowing women to serve in the military needs to be beneficial to the military. There are a number of arguments for this:
*Allowing women to serve in combat roles would (in theory) double the number of potential recruits into combat roles, assuming that women enlist at the same rate as men (they don't).
*Allowing women to serve in combat roles could add a unique perspective to those combat roles, and bring in new interpersonal skills as a result.

Just as there are reasons for, there are a number of reasons against:
*Capability: Only a small number of females can pass the male fitness standards. In the Army, for a 17-21 year old the standard for a male is 42 push-ups, 52 sit-ups, and a 15:54 2 mile run. The female standard is 13 push-ups, 52 sit-ups, and an 18:30 2 mile run.
*Unit strength: Due to this lower average physical strength, allowing women into combat units would lower said unit's combat strength.
*Unit cohesiveness: It has been shown in other co-ed units, such as the IDF's combined gender units, that co-ed units lose unit cohesiveness, which is essential over long-term ops.
*Physiology: This ties into the next reason but is distinct on its own, females have a unique physiology that requires unique items to deal with, and skills that combat units have never had to have before. This would present a new challenge to combat units for the sake of a minority of soldiers.
*Logistics: Currently women are required to have their own showers, their own changing areas, their own sleeping areas, and so on. The logistics challenge is difficult to maintain in peacetime, and is therefore an undue and unnecessary challenge to place on a combat unit at wartime.

I find it much more compelling an argument that allowing women into combat roles is simply not beneficial enough to the military to justify it.

Could say the same for all the frigging manlets I was with in BMT.

>But user, they'll distract the guys!

Then make all female units and let them blame themselves for what happens. The problem I'm seeing here is that people aren't willing to even see attempts at this and dealing with things accordingly.

And yes, did hear a story of a convoy driver being a woman and completely folding up underfire from my own buddies and tons of other stories. But if you're a fucking convoy driver with zero (relative) prep for being in a combat situation, I'd imagine that's alot worse then being a women completely psyched-out for combat.

Also this does not include special forces. Why the fuck would you lower standards for what is suppose to be the best of the best?

It's not.

You just ask them why they segregate men and women's olympics.