http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/female-officers-break-down-myths-about-women-at-war Forget even most women, do you even think most fit women can do this? Did you think the job requirements was a one-trick pony? In real combat, you have to have more than one ability as there are many scenarios. Like i said its not some ragtag makeshift military force making provisions based on strength/weakness. You have to be able to carry out all these tasks as they could inevitably happen. If you cant and another man can plus your skillset, why do you deserve the position because of gender? Lmao. You people have the same tendency of bias or ignorance as anyone else. GI jane was a movie and even in the film she said she couldnt go through the shit (training) a second time. Her point was a woman can make it which is different than actually flourishing not straining yourself if it fits. Well, infantry and special ops are a way of life. It doesnt end just after training. There are women who can do it and do everything equally a man can do in the same position but its miniscule. They do exist though. Of course it could be argued its biased as the rules and standards have been set by men. But thats stupid because its the military, not a swiss finishing school. I said i see no problem with women in infantry or special ops ( combat) if they actually qualify yet strangely this caused an uproar just because i said most women would not. Because pretending is so much more polite or something for what? Equality means having equal opportunity.
You're very much the female. Ya know, the common passive-aggressive, shallow, vanilla type. Typical cannon fodder.
Really? The thousands of female soldiers who die in active combat would probably disagree with your assessment. These women sign up to fight because they have to and because that is what they have always done. And they are damned good at it and frankly, the fight against ISIS would be much worse if it were not for their contribution in keeping them at bay and actively fighting against them. That may be a small grenade launcher she has, but they are out there, fighting and doing what you keep saying they are not able to do because they are women. They are neither weak, nor are they physically unable to take up the challenge to fight. That was but one picture. There are hundreds more where these women are fighting and dying in a war that Americans are fighting only from the air because they don't want their soldiers to die. You know, those physically strong male soldiers, that you keep reminding us of? These women are doing what the US Government does not want to do and that is fight in a ground war against ISIS. There are over 10,000 women fighting in this particular war. On the ground and out in the desert. And the battle for Kobani would not have ended as it did were it not for the influx of these women joining the battle. One of them even managed to save many other soldiers by holding the ISIS fighters back while the injured were removed until she ran out of ammunition and then she blew herself up, taking out the ISIS fighters who were approaching, to allow the Kurdish forces to retreat to safety. And you keep harping on about how women are weak and will be treated 'special' and given special treatment? Please. Is that what you think they do or are? Their training, or those who get training, is probably just as harsh, as what the US military put their soldiers through. You keep talking about rape. These women don't fear rape. They don't even fear death. And these women, these over 10,000 brave souls, are not vigilantes. They are soldiers. And they are fighting on the front lines, in a war against a brutal regime and they have fought in wars like this for decades. But that isn't what you have been arguing. You have consistently complained that women are too weak to enter combat roles. The reality is that women have been in combat roles for decades and they are not weak. They are simply different. Where men tire earlier, women last longer. Scientific research proves it. What? You think because you believe women don't have the body strength to carry heavy packs into combat, they can't fight in a war? The female Kurds who have fought in wars for decades have to carry all of their equipment in and out of their combat zones and they do not have the luxury of freeze dried food and sleeping bags that Western soldiers enjoy. I would imagine, most men, even the "strong" ones, would not survive the conditions these women endure on a daily basis. You stand by it because you have this view of "women" that is not supported in reality. Then it is clear you have no knowledge of the history of the Peshmerga fighters.
How misongynist is the military on a scale from 1 to 100? It would be interesting if more women joined the military organisations to see how things would develop. What do you think? If it were 50/50 for example, what is it now?
You know your rebuttal is continually very evasive. You are talking about everything BUT allowing women into combat positions in the US military. They have certain standards to qualify and your statement that the training for women in other countries is just as stringent to qualify for ground combat and special ops is complete fantasy. I mean Total BS. Anyone who has an inkling of common sense or knowledge of the military knows very few women can pass formal infantry/combat/special ops standards. Otherwise they would not be allowed to fight in those countries. Their circumstances are different. We are talking about US MILITARY and their requirements unless going by your logic women in other countries somehow are a genetic mutation. Your fantasy. Everyone knows women have been in combat and still are including children. When in war, it gets messy and people pitch in however they can for the cause. In war-torn desperate countries, they dont have the luxury to be extremely picky. You keep equating the fact women do have skills and can fight (who cant unless you're invalid), have done so and are doing so to passing very stringent standards of the US military. Two totally different points. To put it plainly, if those women and children were in the US. The military would not allow them in combat. The children for obvious reasons and most of the women wouldnt qualify.
wow just wee bit misogynistic in your portrayal of women's physical capabilities, really most woman can't through the M67 frag grenade more than 5 or 6 feet? despite the fact most bowling balls women use are 12-14 pounds and can be thrown that far and the M67 only weighs 14 ounces.
Anything to say? Thats right my truth telling is highly unpopular especially if we're not going to pretend women will qualify in droves for the infantry. Because otherwise its not equality. Lol Yes, women are even more capable than the terminator. She can not only shoot just as well as a man (small weapons, larger only grounded) but can carry a wounded man twice her size over shoulder like a sack of potatoes with his equipment (less than 1-2%) and hers. Right. Sure. If anyone believes most women can do this, then you will believe there is waterfront property in arizona. Im kinda befuddled at the lack of honesty of something so obvious. I had no idea sciforums was full of head in the clouds feminazis.
Okay maybe a bit too conservative. Say 10-20. And your point? Bowling ball? Is this a joke? You roll it, not throw it and the density is what helps carry its distance. Your granny can bowl.
Lack of honesty? You're the one moving goal posts and making Straw Man. It's either you are the one being dishonest, or, you are a total idiot (cannon fodder) that no one should pay attention to. :EDIT: Oh sorry, maybe some words were to big for you.
As if no one reading this thread can notice no one has a legitimate reply. Because i am right. You are just making it more obvious. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with us military. Even with military personnel admitting most females cannot pass infantry requirements, it just flies right over heads. In your case, you are too scared and have absolutely no point so you can only insult. Then there are wildly outrageous ideas that women just because they are fighting wars means the same as qualifying to be an navy seal, for example, which is laughable. Thats like saying a woman thats a victim of a home invasion and gets her 357 magnum to defend her home and family qualifies for ranger school. Or the housewife in a burka in the middle east sporting an m16 and a good shot qualifies for special forces. Or the kid who is part of a guerilla outfit qualifies as a marine cadet. Uh no, you've got that totally backwards. I am the only one making any sense on this thread.
.................. a few years ago, the fastest pitcher in little league was girl. When asked why she had the fastest pitch, she responded: "I guess it's because I throw like a girl." ................ Have I recounted the story of Sweeny, Queeny, Cherry and the mp? (really funny army story that goes to the power of women)
your dishonest and fairly misogynistic. my point is your entiure view point is based on a highly sexist and misogynistic viewpoint that has very little relationship to fact. yes a professional or someone who learned good form. a lot of untrained people throw them. a not unlike you i didn't pull things out of my ass. i didn't say during bowling they were thrown. i said that a woman could through it that far.
no your not your just lying again. which even if we accept your statement here it is still not a point in favor of your argument that women should be banned form serving in combat. says the guy repeating the same bad premises and insulting everyone who disagrees with him no body claimed that. nice strawmanning again no one is saying that. what people are saying is the fact that women have actually functioned in the field as infantry shows they can. which you have refused to admit and keep posting strawman arguments. also it should be noted the m-16 is no longer the standard rifle for the US army the m-4 carbine is. the marine core is getting ready to switch over as well. no your not. you only think your making sense due to your sexism
Has anyone noticed how either strained or evasive or desperate the rebuttals are? One girl is upset i moved the 'goalposts' from a few more feet when it even doesnt matter. The point is men still throw farther than women generally. Talk to any drill sergeant. Oh, thats right no one has any military experience. Then comes sculptor again with an exception of an example. As if no one knew there arent female softball players and athletes of all sports that some exceed men. And basically, just accused of misogyny because they cant refute the facts or the truth. The facts are not only most but few women can pass infantry, ranger, navy seal, special forces etc. This is why die-hard conservatives think extreme liberals are idiots or unrealistic. Not because of being barred opportunity but because you cant even admit something you dislike just like them.
See? Again nothing to say except im sexist. I never said women should be banned. I just dont see the practicality aspect but for the fact no position should be based only on gender so women should be allowed to qualify. but only a few women qualify for infantry and special ops with the bar set by men. Im just saying it because this truth seems to really piss some people off here which is also immature. Whats really stupid is even if i wasnt saying it doesnt change the truth of the matter anyways.
Every single post of yours, no matter what subject, is confrontational. The true signature of an in-house troll.
