Post: #1

Here is a nice article which basically sums it all up:

Quote:Putting women into close combat roles isn’t fair to the men who will be relying on them, and isn’t fair to the women who will find themselves continuously at a deadly disadvantage

Why?

Well, here is one:

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.

You need more? Here is another:

Quote:But the last 40 years of aggressive integration efforts by the U.S. military have shown that women cannot meet the same rigorous standards as men — and the answer has been to implement different standards for women, while lowering the standards for men, too

That wasn't enough, wasn't it?

Quote:“Women soldiers are challenged by some field combat duties — carrying five-gallon cans of fuel and water, changing armor vehicle track and heavy truck tires, carrying 100-plus-pound loads of ammunition and fighting gear on extended dismounted operations, carrying stretchers of wounded soldiers, and the brute labor required to dig in fighting positions,”

It get's worse:

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

We are not done yet:

Quote:Another common argument is that women are already dying in combat zones, so it’s only fair to formalize what they are doing...
The women who have died in service to their country need to be honored, but they should not be honored by increasing the chances that other servicemen and women will die as well

As an Israeli, I can somehow relate to the next section:

Quote:In particular, modern-day Israel is often cited as an example of women successfully fulfilling combat roles...women no longer participate in front-line IDF combat units

Yes, you have heard it. Almost no female went inside the Gaza strip last year, or has served inside Lebanon in the 2006 war.

Read more about actual difference in performance between male and female:

Quote:Men are not simply bigger women with different plumbing. Men’s blood carries 10 to 12 percent more oxygen per liter than does a women’s; and men’s VO2 max, a measure of the top rate of oxygen consumption, is 40 to 60 percent greater than that of women. An average fit man will weigh about 23 percent more, have 50 percent more muscle mass, and carry 10 percent less body fat than an average fit woman. Pound for pound, men have thicker skulls, bigger, stronger necks, hearts that are 17 percent larger, and bones that are both bigger and denser. Despite being much heavier, men’s vertical leap is nearly 50 percent greater than that of women.

So, we are physically stronger. How about mentally?

Quote:For the kind of violent events and situations found on the battlefield, women are far more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder and experience the symptoms for a longer duration than men. Despite the gender-specific ability to handle the pain of childbirth, “study after study” conclusively shows that men have a much higher overall tolerance for pain than women

Wait. Did someone just say that females are "less tolerant" than males?


Surely having that second X chromosome will help the female...Wouldn't it?

Quote:One Army study focusing on Operation Iraqi Freedom found women are almost twice as likely to suffer from non-combat related disease and injuries and are twice as likely to be medevac’d out of the theater of operations. Historical non-deployment rates for women are three to four times than that of men. Women suffer many times the rate of stress fractures and ACL injuries

Well, at least unit moral will be high, having girls around...wouldn't it?

Quote:platoon commanders in co-ed units already deal with a tremendous amount of drama, pregnancies, and sex in the co-ed unit barracks

So, just to sum it all up:

Quote:What we have is a modern-day case of the emperor’s new clothes. But over the decades, so many compromises to the truth have been made and careers advanced by hiding or glossing over gender-integration issues in the military that it will take more than one small voice standing athwart the road yelling “stop!”

Post: #2

I am still waiting for women only platoons. I mean, we have yet to match the idiocy of the Children's Crusade

Post: #3

"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!!!"

Post: #4

(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!!!"

I think this is just the end result of women getting the right to vote. It is how a woman's brain works. Harsh realities rarely existed for women, to them everything should be fair no matter what the criteria for fair is, other than their feelings.

The govt. is run by women. And it isn't so much that women want front line soldiers. For the most part, most women probably don't care either way. Hell, most women probably don't even care about the male soldiers, other than putting a yellow ribbon on their car and paying lip service in the company of others.

But if Candidate A is against women having the opportunity to do something, even if it is something 99% of women would never want to do, then Candidate B can exploit this, call them sexist, and go on to win the election. Obama and his "war on women" mantra didn't work with men, men didn't vote for Obama. But the women did and the women got their say in 2012. The war on women has been stopped by Obama, at least this is what many women voters think.

Post: #5

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

#Cuckservative isn't just about Whites allowing foreigners to fuck their wives (or countries), it's a broader conservative ideological shift in opposition to everything from gay marriage to immigration to women in combat. The underlying problem is a result of "normal" people compromising and selling out on core moral beliefs to placate a political opposition that will always hate them.

The moment is coming when all this nonsense is tossed in the garbage bin where it belongs. Promoting dangerous policies, especially as an officer, will soon be a career liability rather than asset. From the creation of right-wing and red pill forums (the Bavarian beer halls of 1930's Germany) to the rise of Donald Fucking Trump as a populist political candidate, we're headed in the right direction. Change doesn't happen overnight.

For the record though, an embarrassingly high proportion of American men are either unwilling or unable to serve in combat units.

Post: #6

I wouldn't be shocked if in an extended combat situation, female members of mixed gender units just start 'disappearing' or having 'accidents'.

Post: #7

Human biodiversity. The powers that be want to weed out younger fertile women and younger upcoming alpha dudes. As long as you stay in power and aren't losing wars, it's simply a political battle. Lives be damned.

Post: #8

I just hop from the thread discussing the similarities of the fall of the roman empire and the decline of America.

First it started with the weakening of the military, then the invasion of foreign forces, then the useless army now weakened falling to pieces, then the fall of the Empire.

I just gotta say: "Holy shit its happening! Again"

Most bitches can't even fucking properly drive and would get lost in a supermarket. Most still need a man to open the spices jars in the kitchen for them. Most turn into suicidal beasts once a month. And now you are putting that into the military?

I actually wonder how many women really DO want to be in frontline combat? Other than the daddy issues, strong independent types I can't really imagine a girl wanting to be deployed into a suicide bomber street on night patrol everyday.

This will only get more women killed just to advance the left's agenda. I actually feel sorry for the girls who enlisted thinking they re gonna do great then come back in body bags. That female pilot girl...

Post: #9

After this, I don't see how anyone can claim women are as capable of combat as men. The debate is over: in combat, women are catastrophically worse across the board.

Women are keenly aware of how inferior they are to men. How long until the men wake up and realize this whole thing is just so much wishful thinking?

How long until we debunk the equality myth in the office? In the grade school classroom?

Post: #10

Consider also that more and more young men are being raised with a feminine mindset, and the physical requirements for the military are being lowered. So, not only do you have the biologically female soldiers, you have males that are weaker physically and mentally such that they are unable to do the job as well as the masculine male soldier of the past.

Post: #11

Feminism kills.

Post: #12

In the Australian army, our fitness tests were pretty damn basic to get into the infantry. 40 pushups, 100 sit ups and 2.5km run in less than 11 minutes. This is not the fitness standard, this is just the bare minimum to start. To be combat ready you have to pass a separate fitness test which is more like 60 pushups, 12km 45kg pack march in 3 hours, swim tests, run tests etc etc. Again, this was just the bare minimum. It was easy and just something you had to do to tick the boxes with all the paper work.

Then when they started talking about introducing women to the combat rolls, it all changed (after we finished laughing of course).
Now the minimum fitness tests are a lot harder. Sometimes you have to train for them even. The sole reason for this is to weed out any women trying to join.

There is no way women can do the job. Plus I couldn't imagine all the sexual harassment claims.

If a woman can physically do the job, then fine, I wouldn't have a problem with letting her try. But I seriously doubt any woman would make it through any pre-depoloyment training without having a meltdown.
Guys need guys around to fuck-ass-about with and joke around to keep morale up. How the fuck are you going to do that when there are woman constantly complaining that the men used the word Cunt and joked about rape for 3 hours straight.

Post: #13

Worked out well for the Soviets in the Great Patriotic War...

Post: #14

(07-28-2015 10:01 AM)Aenigmarius Wrote:  Consider also that more and more young men are being raised with a feminine mindset, and the physical requirements for the military are being lowered. So, not only do you have the biologically female soldiers, you have males that are weaker physically and mentally such that they are unable to do the job as well as the masculine male soldier of the past.

This problem, as you and Blick Mang have alluded to it, is compounded by the fact that amongst those who are able to handle the rigour of combat, fewer and fewer see the merit of serving. A moral and political bankruptcy at home, a populous the majority of whom are not worth defending, a string of failed foreign campaigns, and some shameless and embarrassing international policies (the latest of which appears to be that NATO will be supporting Turkey in its new war on the Kurds (who I feel would be justified in despising the West for its cowardice and reticence to help arm and fund them)), means that it is very hard to see what exactly you are fighting for by signing up to serve, and being deployed according to the half-baked whims of a capricious government.

Post: #15

I believe the SAS also proved that a significant number of men will go to tremendous lengths such as endangering themselves, the platoon they're with and the mission itself just to protect a woman or go out his way to try and impress her.

Post: #16

So basically we'd have a much harder time invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, and I guess Iran.

That's what a weakened military means in 2015, right? That "enlightened" countries will face more casualties when invading backwaters?

WIA

Post: #17

(07-28-2015 02:32 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  So basically we'd have a much harder time invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, and I guess Iran.

That's what a weakened military means in 2015, right? That "enlightened" countries will face more casualties when invading backwaters?

WIA

WIA don't underestimate insurgencies.

Consider this: A technologically superior military invades the land of less advanced people for whatever reason.

It normally plays out like this:

1. Dramatic series of battles where the first line of defense usually gets rolled over by the advanced technology of the invading forces.
2. Defensive forces reevaluate tactics of superior force, regroup, and mount an offensive targeting their weaknesses.
3. Offensive forces start to take casualties but ultimately roll the defense again.
4. Defensive forces issue a command to their forces: take your weapons and leave, hide, regroup into small units, harass the invading forces.
5. Offensive force enjoys the total control of the land, but casualties start to mount from the harassing forces targeting softer targets such as supply routes.
6. Offensive forces evaluate the new tactics of the defensive, and slowly you start to see a shift where the invading forces have to constantly adapt to changing tactics from the insurgents. Thus, the roles start to swap.
7. It becomes a war of attrition at this point. The goal of the defensive country is to cause enough casualties and destroy enough equipment that the advanced invading forces realize its not worth their time.
8. Offensive forces leave, licking their wounds and countless case studies are done as to how the technologically advanced forces lost.

In the case of the computer simulations, researchers have discovered this: Given a short length of time, the technologically advanced civilization wins in almost every case. However when that time frame is expanded to years or decades, the insurgencies win in almost every case. History has verified this.

Simply put, a lesser skilled opponent only needs to cause enough pain for the attacker to realize it's just simply not worth it anymore. Hence, total war is the only type of warfare worth engaging in.

So women in combat reduces our ability to fight similar technologically advanced foes and it does nothing to enhance our ability to fight less technologically advanced foes. Its a lose lose situation.

Politicians that support women in combat fall into two categories:
1. Illogical or simply not competent enough to grasp biological truths and past historical data
2. Uncaring or willing to cause bloodshed in order to secure more votes.

Either case is an example of a person that should not be in a position of power in the first place.

Post: #18

While laying on my guts behind the gun ,I stood my platoon too...why because I smelt something coming down the track.I never saw or heard it I smelt it.
This was at Canungara Jungle warfare center or close country as we called it then.

The smell was from an All arms Course consisting of truck drivers.It was from the females of that Course..Fuck did they stink..
You have no idea how something as innocent as smell gives you away.And get all those around you killed.
After 3-5 days men start smelling like the jungle.Your senses are fucking keen almost animalistic.
Women however they'll give your whole position a way because of smell..I could even tell who had shit in the grass male or female when I was in East Timor.

So change tatics ,SOPs because of 2 % of woman ...fuck off

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..

Yes I know the Canadians do it but I've talked to Canadian infantry they were scornful.."yeah we got 2 but they ain't no women".The Canadians fought in Korea then went peaceful...the US UK and Australia kept fighting wars...The common denominator being heavy packs/rucks..when I jumped out of C130s my body weight was 74kg..the equipement I carried weighed 78kg..In light Infantry I'd carry in my pack 35-40kg..If I carried the F89/SAW we are talking 20kg in my webbing/LBE alone....this was before every fucker had body armour..and we never wore helmets..The helmet drives up your body heat even more..All that equipment means more water which then equals more weight again.....this is Infantry as I knew it 15 years ago...bla bla bla, light equipment equals carrying more shit...

And the best machine for the job is a male killbot 18-25..The back ,knee and hip problems of older ex infantry types is a fucking horror story.
Oh and don't forget you lose a man out in the bush..you carry he's shit..

Post: #19

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

Yeah, people always drag this one out.

What they miss is that bringing in women to actually pick up weapons invariably happens in one situation, and one situation only: when you're losing so many men that you have no choice but to start pulling in women. It's a desperation tactic, no different to how the German Army started putting 11, 12 year olds into frontline units towards the end of the war as well. Female pilots and tank commanders had no specific advantage or kill ratio compared to men, and there were plenty of men out there who fought better than them.

Post: #20

Hats off AntiTrace.

That's a great analysis.

WIA

(07-28-2015 07:20 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 02:32 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  So basically we'd have a much harder time invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, and I guess Iran.

That's what a weakened military means in 2015, right? That "enlightened" countries will face more casualties when invading backwaters?

WIA

WIA don't underestimate insurgencies.

Consider this: A technologically superior military invades the land of less advanced people for whatever reason.

It normally plays out like this:

1. Dramatic series of battles where the first line of defense usually gets rolled over by the advanced technology of the invading forces.
2. Defensive forces reevaluate tactics of superior force, regroup, and mount an offensive targeting their weaknesses.
3. Offensive forces start to take casualties but ultimately roll the defense again.
4. Defensive forces issue a command to their forces: take your weapons and leave, hide, regroup into small units, harass the invading forces.
5. Offensive force enjoys the total control of the land, but casualties start to mount from the harassing forces targeting softer targets such as supply routes.
6. Offensive forces evaluate the new tactics of the defensive, and slowly you start to see a shift where the invading forces have to constantly adapt to changing tactics from the insurgents. Thus, the roles start to swap.
7. It becomes a war of attrition at this point. The goal of the defensive country is to cause enough casualties and destroy enough equipment that the advanced invading forces realize its not worth their time.
8. Offensive forces leave, licking their wounds and countless case studies are done as to how the technologically advanced forces lost.

In the case of the computer simulations, researchers have discovered this: Given a short length of time, the technologically advanced civilization wins in almost every case. However when that time frame is expanded to years or decades, the insurgencies win in almost every case. History has verified this.

Simply put, a lesser skilled opponent only needs to cause enough pain for the attacker to realize it's just simply not worth it anymore. Hence, total war is the only type of warfare worth engaging in.

So women in combat reduces our ability to fight similar technologically advanced foes and it does nothing to enhance our ability to fight less technologically advanced foes. Its a lose lose situation.

Politicians that support women in combat fall into two categories:
1. Illogical or simply not competent enough to grasp biological truths and past historical data
2. Uncaring or willing to cause bloodshed in order to secure more votes.

Either case is an example of a person that should not be in a position of power in the first place.

Post: #21

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.

Post: #22

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

Post: #23

(07-29-2015 06:03 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

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

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.

Post: #24

(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.

Post: #25