Post: #26

(07-28-2015 05:42 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  I am still waiting for women only platoons. I mean, we have yet to match the idiocy of the Children's Crusade

How about an all trannie platoon in pink camo

Give me a break with all this shit. Women belong behind a desk filing meaningless paperwork like God intended.

Post: #27

(07-29-2015 04:26 PM)Saga Wrote:  

jesus christ what the fuck

Post: #28

(07-29-2015 03:14 PM)Aenigmarius Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 12:06 PM)Troll King Wrote:  Yeah, I had heard about that before. But really, what is the fucking point to that? I don't even understand any reasoning for why it might be beneficial in the military.

What makes you think "beneficial in the military" has anything to do with it? It's just the exercise of SJWs of their social power.

The point is that the SJWs forced Army drill instructors (quintessential archetypes of masculinity) to wear "empathy bellies" and fake breasts so they looked like women and felt like idiots.

The point is that it is a victory for the SJWs that they have such influence and control that they can publically shame Army drill instructors and diminish their masculine image.

Well, from what I remember reading/hearing is that this happened in the 90s or something. Along the time the whole GI Jane thing was being pushed.

I was just curious what the reasoning was behind it. I would assume, but I haven't served so I don't know, that there would at least be some bullshit need spouted and banded about to convince the higher ups to push it.

In the above post we have the military guys walking in red heels. In that case it was pushed because progressives and SJWs have been harping on the "outrageous amount of rape in the military" theme for years now. So, the walk a mile in her shoes can be used by the higher ups to at least appease those political attackers.

I fail to see how empathy bellies could ever be used in a similar way. I thought getting pregnant in the military got you benefits and put back into the civilian world, or at least behind a desk after birth, for awhile.

Post: #29

(07-28-2015 10:26 AM)MKDAWUSS Wrote:  Worked out well for the Soviets in the Great Patriotic War...

When the casualty rate is 50%+> for the front line and the war is entering into your actual civilian living space you take all volunteers and draft every able bodied man. Even then women didn't excel because they were equal in combat but out of sheer necessity when both sides were severely depleted. Old men and young children were also sent to the front lines too.

The women of that generation also saw most of their male relatives annhilated in the war and suffered incredible hardship. Their mental and physical toughness was borne out of that specific environment..something you can't replicate with a coddled millenial with blue hair who grew up with power puff girls, female action hero hollywood shit, and tumblr activism.

Post: #30

(07-28-2015 10:26 AM)MKDAWUSS Wrote:  Worked out well for the Soviets in the Great Patriotic War...

The Soviets had a 90:1 numerical advantage over the Axis (which was also fighting on the Western front with a 10:1 disadvantage), yet it still took the Soviets years to get to Berlin (with US aid via Alaska-Siberia) and they suffered a huge casualty rate in so doing.

Post: #31

(07-29-2015 05:57 AM)TheMaleBrain Wrote:  From Green-On-GO :

Quote:I've also lived in Israel which is the most chauvanistic country I have lived in.Israeli woman laughed at me when I asked them if they were in infantry..They asked if I was mad......no shit...they said without them there was no state of Israel as they made the little Israelis.The IDF use women to free up the men to fight..

Not always true.
Not sure who you talked to.
Girls in the IDF do not engage when it is combat time, and are not used to free men. They join the army (not all of them - a lot don't) and do what they are told. Most do clerical work, but some train infantry, tanks and so on. There are even a few who fly fighter jets.
However - it is a very small minority.

And yes - women have a critical job - giving birth to the next generation.

I was there for 7 months and talked to alot of people.And I totally agree with you ,what you say is what I learnt.The girls I met told me they would be pulled out first during a fight and it was the IDFs nightmare if they got captured.Brazilian Jews training to become soldiers told me their instructors were mostly female.I met one tank instructor and the other girls I met were clerical.....and all fucking blonde South African or English guys I knew.
I got electrical work using the world wide Paratrooper brotherhood plus a paratroop gave a job because the best sex of he's life was in Australia with a Brisbane girl.
Israeli guys were the best I've witnessed at picking up women.

Post: #32

(07-28-2015 05:35 AM)TheMaleBrain Wrote:  It get's worse:

Quote:Army drill instructors were required to wear “empathy bellies” and fake breasts to better empathize with pregnant women.

I would have had an amazing time with that...

Post: #33

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/.../30931093/

Two female Ranger students move on to Swamp Phase


I feel like I've heard this story before, but the date says otherwise.

Post: #34

(07-29-2015 06:06 PM)Troll King Wrote:  In the above post we have the military guys walking in red heels. In that case it was pushed because progressives and SJWs have been harping on the "outrageous amount of rape in the military" theme for years now. So, the walk a mile in her shoes can be used by the higher ups to at least appease those political attackers.

That last bolded section is the common assumption, and it's complete bullshit.


It is not about appeasement to them. It is not even about moral signaling.

It is about POWER. SJW causes were never about equality, they were about power and you exercise that power by forcing others to make public expressions of compliance. Failure to publicly signal assent is met with swift retribution, with the endgoal of increasing their power.

It is not for the common good. To quote a famous work on the matter:

Quote:The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others;we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'

Post: #35

Just read the interesting article. It's refreshing to see this discussion coming up. Rest assured that even in Europe developments are similar.

When I left (German) army in the late 90s, the discussion started. Some long-term officers were against women serving on equal terms. Yet, they knew they could harm their career when talking too openly. So they complied, and things took its course.

And you know, it's not only army and war. Think about the police. Should women do the same thing as police men do, wearing riot gear and go after extremist riff-raff? How long will they endure that, since the data for "closed-combat-operations" is so clear? Truth of the matter is that they will not be able to handle the same challenges the same way as men do.

And I have heard about complaints of police officers about that. Women, as it is stated, are simply not capable of enduring the same things as men could. This is not to say that women are bad. But it is to say that "fitness entry tests" can veil a problem. This is not about a brief period of time, but it is about a long-term situation.

As long as politicians demand equality for political reasons, men and women will face the consequences. One could argue it is rather surprising to see that occuring in military. A somehow naive person would think that at least there has to be some kind of objectivity, since this is where the existence of the system might depend on the most.

PS: I guess the posters of the pin ups in our former shooting range shack are not there anymore. Danger of sexual harassment, you know...

Post: #36

Simple way to stop this nonsense.

They want to be equal then shave your head when you show up at bootcamp.

Post: #37

Please no... There are enough bald bitches running around.

Post: #38

delete

wrong thread

Post: #39

Quote:A recent study, for instance, by Britain’s Tri-Service Review found that mixed-gender combat units have “lower survivability,” a “reduced lethality rate” and reduced deployability. This study, along with countless others done over the last 40 years, demonstrate that combat capabilities are so heavily weighted toward men that the gap cannot be closed.

Male privilege! Pass a bill to decrees male survivability by whatever means it takes. We need to break down this glass survivability ceiling for women!

Post: #40

Become preppers and join a militia. That's all I have to say about this

Post: #41

(07-28-2015 06:10 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  "A recent study, for instance, by Britain’s Tri-Service Review found that mixed-gender combat units have “lower survivability,” a “reduced lethality rate” and reduced deployability. This study, along with countless others done over the last 40 years, demonstrate that combat capabilities are so heavily weighted toward men that the gap cannot be closed."

What the hell must be going through the brains of the government officials who sanction these "mixed-gender" (gag) disasters?

"Look, we don't care if they die -- so long as we can achieve equality! See all those soldiers over there, dead on the floor? Well, they might have died, but they died EQUALLY -- and that's really the most important part. Better to die while equal than survive in a world of...of...sexism!!!"

^ Liberalism is a mental disorder

Post: #42

Hey if it works to the YPG/YPJ and PKK kurds (With ample US airstrikes) against IS it must work for us. Right? Right?????

Post: #43

(08-14-2015 04:22 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  Hey if it works to the YPG/YPJ and PKK kurds (With ample US airstrikes) against IS it must work for us. Right? Right?????

Actually - it doesn't work for the Kurds very well.

Post: #44

@Male brain

Could you point to any sources specifically about kurdish women soldiers being detrimental? All the news and sources that I know of out there that I know are praising them as the 2nd coming of the amazons.

Post: #45

(08-17-2015 02:50 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  @Male brain

Could you point to any sources specifically about kurdish women soldiers being detrimental? All the news and sources that I know of out there that I know are praising them as the 2nd coming of the amazons.

I think part of the point, and what Male Brain might be getting at, is that putting women in combat is really the final sign of a dying civilization. The point, historically, is that men are expendable and an individual woman is far more valuable to the longevity of a given society than any individual man. In a healthy society, then, women are at home having babies, producing strong children who grow up to be the future warriors and mothers of that society. A single woman can produce 5-10 (or more) babies over the course of her lifetime, making a net gain for a society. A single man cannot 'produce' any additional lives, all he can offer is better genes than some other men, and probably less good genes than others. Given that every single excellent warrior who survived a conflict could impregnate multiple cave hunnies, there was no need to stress too much over the loss of any single man, regardless of his prowess (at least not from a societal continuation perspective).

Because of this, any society that needs to put women into battle has failed on multiple levels: Firstly it is not producing enough males to protect that society from aggressors, secondly it is fielding a second rate military due to the reduced physical standards, and thirdly (most importantly), it is placing the machines for its survival, women, in a position where they are not having babies during their most fertile years, AND losing them as casualties when they cannot afford for a single one to be killed without reproducing.

Men are replaceable in a healthy society, women are not. Once women are in combat (unless it is some seige situation/niche conflict), your society is doomed.

Post: #46

The uniques cases I cite put women in combat for ideological reasons you know the usual bullshit about gender equality. And it seems to have begun in the 19th or 20th century in kurdish history.

Post: #47

I was a SERE instructor in the navy in the early 90's. great job.

what we did was run guys through a hands on scenario of what they could expect if they were captured. best way to train is on the job so thats what they got.

i was there when we started accepting females through the training. It was quite a concern from an instructors point of view to make sure that we didnt water the training down any more then we needed to to accomplish the mission. Not that we backed off on the brutality any but there are situations where we would strip the students naked and humiliate them so obviously we had to factor that stuff in. plusm once then women get into that stressful situation they would start their periods so that sort of stuff had to be factored in.

of course right away we used white knight exploitation against them, They wont comply, drag the prettiest smallest female out and put a gun to her head. Now lets repeat the request and with non surprising ease, we got compliance. Of course you would expect them to do this as we used this same tactic with the little weasly looking guys too before the women started in the class.

For the most part, thanks to alot of hard work on our part, the women did just fine and the training stayed tough. I cant recall any stand out female students but they all did pretty good. Just sort of tried to blend in for the most part.

Their resistance to interrogation wasnt that good because its just too easy to overpower them when you really want the questions answered. They would answer whatever you wanted if enough pressure was applied.

Never had to resort to waterboarding any females because of their tough guy type stance like you had to do with some bull headed big marine types. But in the end that is a pretty good thing. The big guy getting waterboarded will be the first one the bad guys get rid of. The object is not to get waterboarded but to give enough to where they leave you alone then reset and resist again for the next question. make yourself such a pain in the ass they just go to the next guy.

Not writing this to proclaim how great females are in combat but just giving a bit of insiders perspective on the issue. Wasnt all bad but of course it was a very controlled evolution even though they might not feel like it is at the time.

Post: #48

(08-17-2015 03:59 PM)crupiea Wrote:  I was a SERE instructor in the navy in the early 90's. great job.

what we did was run guys through a hands on scenario of what they could expect if they were captured. best way to train is on the job so thats what they got.

i was there when we started accepting females through the training. It was quite a concern from an instructors point of view to make sure that we didnt water the training down any more then we needed to to accomplish the mission. Not that we backed off on the brutality any but there are situations where we would strip the students naked and humiliate them so obviously we had to factor that stuff in. plusm once then women get into that stressful situation they would start their periods so that sort of stuff had to be factored in.

of course right away we used white knight exploitation against them, They wont comply, drag the prettiest smallest female out and put a gun to her head. Now lets repeat the request and with non surprising ease, we got compliance. Of course you would expect them to do this as we used this same tactic with the little weasly looking guys too before the women started in the class.

For the most part, thanks to alot of hard work on our part, the women did just fine and the training stayed tough. I cant recall any stand out female students but they all did pretty good. Just sort of tried to blend in for the most part.

Their resistance to interrogation wasnt that good because its just too easy to overpower them when you really want the questions answered. They would answer whatever you wanted if enough pressure was applied.

Never had to resort to waterboarding any females because of their tough guy type stance like you had to do with some bull headed big marine types. But in the end that is a pretty good thing. The big guy getting waterboarded will be the first one the bad guys get rid of. The object is not to get waterboarded but to give enough to where they leave you alone then reset and resist again for the next question. make yourself such a pain in the ass they just go to the next guy.

Not writing this to proclaim how great females are in combat but just giving a bit of insiders perspective on the issue. Wasnt all bad but of course it was a very controlled evolution even though they might not feel like it is at the time.

I went through similar training in the Army. Good stuff, I know what I can endure thanks to you evil sumbitches.

Post: #49

(08-17-2015 02:50 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  @Male brain

Could you point to any sources specifically about kurdish women soldiers being detrimental? All the news and sources that I know of out there that I know are praising them as the 2nd coming of the amazons.

Here is one example:

Quote:She says that several Kurdish soldiers have been killed and wounded, though she does not know the details. She adds that the YPJ Kurdish women’s militia, to which she belongs, is gradually driving Isis towards the west. She and the other women appear remote and detached from what they are saying, possibly because they are exhausted from days on the front line

Quote:Rojna, leader of the YPJ women’s fighters, was buying material for uniforms in the bazaar, when she and her guards were attacked by al-Nusra militants infuriated by the sight of a female military leader.

Read between the lines:
- The female soldiers, tired or not, have no idea what is going on.
- The leader of the women squad was was attacked during the day at their stronghold
What does that tell you?

Another one:

Quote:To an ISIS militant, one of the worst things that could transpire in combat is not just being killed, but being killed by a woman. If this happens, ISIS members believe that they will go directly to hell

Who is now motivated more to fight?

And yet another one:

Quote:En route, it became clear how fluid the battle lines can be. The Kurdish fighters, for example, command this main highway but ISIS positions are just 400 yards away at that hilltop.

If they are so good, how come it is so fluid?

Quote:Women fighters accounted for 40 percent of all Kurdish fighters battling ISIS in the border town of Kobani

That sound impressive, right? 40% is a lot. However, the total number of female Kurds are estimated to be a force of 80,00-200,000 people. That means that females are less than 5% of the fighting force.

Post: #50

I don't have a problem with this specifically as long as standards aren't reduced. From my understanding it makes no sense in a modern military not to allow women in certain combat roles as long as we don't diminish the standards. The Ranger/SF candidates running through the gauntlet are required to meet the same requirements. This debate has long been argued. Firefighters for instance are required to be able to lift and carry someone for a specific body weight and back in the late 90's there was a leftist pull by feminists to allow women to pass the course if they could just drag someone. This was obviously not allowed and it stopped being an issue.

The few women that do pass that ranger course under the standard are going to be some burly strong women. And as a OIF veteran in IRAQ I saw a lot of women take on combat roles and adapt without issue. For instance Military Police is a cross gender role but in IRAQ MP's had the very dangerous job of convoy security. A lot of women were in direct ambushes/ied attacks and served with distinction. These instances are actually what led to the discussion of allowing women.

On the FLIP side though I rather enjoy the idea that women now will required to sign up for selective service and may be drafted or forced into combat if the US finds itself in subsequent conflicts. The grass may not always be greener for women.