Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Good luck, kid.
Gi Jane, if you please
- Thread starter sunnevershines
- Start date
Sure, this coming from someone who believes most women in the military are stronger than the average male which is simply untrue. Passing a pt test every six months is easy.
I just dont get why the military has not seen fit to recruit the top COD online players. Surely they got some skillz.
None of this should even need explaining as if you cant see that men are just generally physically stronger and more athletic than females just by life experience. Do men go around asking females to lift things or open jars?
Do any of you know any drill sergeants that have told you the inside scoop?
First of all, a male platoon completes a 25 mile road-march with a full 70lb rucksack (this does not include the 30lbs of cavalier equipment such as weapon, helmet, full canteens etc) and generally all can do so with the occasional one or two that falter. Whereas the female platoon is supposed to but its 10-15 max and 0-30 lb rucksack (plus equipment) with the opposite results where most falter (require breaks) and maybe the odd one or two is physically strong as males and dont break as much a sweat.
The reason why they pass is the standards are different and most are going into support positions and never go into combat.
These same women had no problem with the m-16 (point and shoot) but most fail the grenade test (must throw very, very far which requires more physical ability if you dont have a softball arm, ok?) but still are passed as its unimportant, they are not going into combat. Ok?
So to believe men and women (generally) have equal physical strength is ridiculous.
Maybe in the future because evolution is not static, it will change and equalize due to the fact males are not actual hunters and women gatherers today. But for now, the evolutionary effect of the past is still evident today. Ok?
Do any of you know any drill sergeants that have told you the inside scoop?
First of all, a male platoon completes a 25 mile road-march with a full 70lb rucksack (this does not include the 30lbs of cavalier equipment such as weapon, helmet, full canteens etc) and generally all can do so with the occasional one or two that falter. Whereas the female platoon is supposed to but its 10-15 max and 0-30 lb rucksack (plus equipment) with the opposite results where most falter (require breaks) and maybe the odd one or two is physically strong as males and dont break as much a sweat.
The reason why they pass is the standards are different and most are going into support positions and never go into combat.
These same women had no problem with the m-16 (point and shoot) but most fail the grenade test (must throw very, very far which requires more physical ability if you dont have a softball arm, ok?) but still are passed as its unimportant, they are not going into combat. Ok?
So to believe men and women (generally) have equal physical strength is ridiculous.
Maybe in the future because evolution is not static, it will change and equalize due to the fact males are not actual hunters and women gatherers today. But for now, the evolutionary effect of the past is still evident today. Ok?
Last edited:
Why don't you hope for an ever regress while technology constantly develops?
You do believe the world is less than 10 000 years old, don't you?
You do believe the world is less than 10 000 years old, don't you?
Speak english. Just because it bursts your bubble that most women including you dont actually qualify for combat, therefore your illusions of actual equality, dont pout at me.
Since when is life actually equal. Equal opportunity doesnt mean droves will qualify. Its just that, everyone deserves to try if they wish.
Amusing. Bowser and i seem to be the only people on this thread that have any real experience with the military. Ya know, as in actual veterans! People who have served in the military in the nation's defense? Some people here with the delusion that women qualify for 'infantry' just based on some 'training'. Then you've got a 'sculptor' who cites 'snipers' and a stupid biatch who thinks military personnel are just expendable cannon fodder (disrespectful toward veterans) when it takes both support and front-line to complete the task. Like they know and not speaking out their arse.
The military is a very tough and rough organization especially marines and army. The air force and navy not so much except for special ops.
The physical training is very hard. The insanity workout is the only civilian take ive seen come close but still not. You are literally running from sun-up to sun-down in combat boots if your arse isnt sitting in a chair or asleep which is less than four hours, that still doesnt include daily pt and drills. I know that even taking the average male and female through basic, the male will still come out stronger physically. Its just the way they are built. There are always exceptions to the rule but there are reasons why men better qualify for infantry. End of story.
The physical training is very hard. The insanity workout is the only civilian take ive seen come close but still not. You are literally running from sun-up to sun-down in combat boots if your arse isnt sitting in a chair or asleep which is less than four hours, that still doesnt include daily pt and drills. I know that even taking the average male and female through basic, the male will still come out stronger physically. Its just the way they are built. There are always exceptions to the rule but there are reasons why men better qualify for infantry. End of story.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I doubt that pure physical strength has much to do with soldiering in the modern military, frankly. Perhaps a more relevant intrinsic disadvantage for women in the armed services is that they tend to lack the macho-shithead characteristic that makes men more at ease with the idea of killing people.
Sometimes, they do. You certainly learned the mythology of gender very well.
But nobody said this. You are imagining that the people who disagree with you say this. You do not lack imagination. The problem is that you substitute your imagination for reality.
There is no real evidence that men were the only hunters in human evolutionary history and there is no evidence that women were the only gatherers in human evolutionary history. Nor is there evidence that human evolutionary history ended. Bigots like to try to use evolutionary arguments, but they have no basis in fact.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Edont Knoff
Registered Senior Member
This.
A second thought: The average female body runs slower, jumps shorter, and can carry less weight, compared to the average male body. This are drawbacks in some sorts of combat, but the overlap between the sexes is so large, that many females still score better than some males in these aspects.
So even if we take this into account, there is no clear answer, and it's left to the individual.
Dito, firefighters. Hard job for females, but no reason to deny them. And all the other body-straining jobs. You don't want a male wimp as a firefighter. Better have that female powerhouse. The overlapping region is big.
Same rights. Individual skill still set people apart, but the basic rule is "same rights".
Bells
Staff member
Do you think all women are weak little petals who cannot do anything?
As for rape, she is no more likely to be raped in "real combat" than she is to be raped in her own home by someone she knows. You are aware of this, yes?
For all of your complaints about women being physically weaker than men, are you aware that studies conducted several years ago found that while women may be physically weaker, they have much better endurance then men and they do not tire as fast as men do because their physiology is different?
Do you think the standards, as they currently stand, are not equal? Do you think it should be based on an individual basis? That it shouldn't be just about their physical strength, but a bigger focus needs to be placed on their mental stability and capacity? Because right now, for all of those physically strong men in the armed forces, the suicide rate among those physically strong men is abnormally high.
What, exactly, are you basing this on? Do you have anything of a scientific nature to support these arguments? Because the science clearly states that women have much better endurance then men do. As for who can shoot what weapon, have you looked at the armed forces around the world, where women are in active combat in warzones?
Or better yet, why don't you ask the many many Kurdish female Peshmerga fighters, who are in active ground combat against ISIS, how they go handling their weapons because they don't have the upper body strength compared to their male fighting counterparts. And these women do not have the luxury or benefit of combat training that the military would provide in the US. Oh no. These women sign up to go into active combat in a ground war against ISIS because they believe it is their duty to defend their people, country and others from ISIS.
You best be quick and tell her that she's not supposed to be fighting in a ground combat war against ISIS, because she simply does not have the upper body strength to do so.. And really, she must have a problem with these weapons because she is a woman. For your information, women have been in direct combat roles in military's around the world for a very long time. The Kurdish Peshmerga female fighters is direct proof of that. So perhaps you should stop being so disrespectful about what women can and cannot do and stop projecting your own ideals onto others. Your attitude is deeply sexist and insulting to the thousands of women who died fighting in wars, in combat zones and fulfilling combat roles and continue to do so on a daily basis as they have been doing for decades.
Do you think all women are weak little petals who cannot do anything?
As for rape, she is no more likely to be raped in "real combat" than she is to be raped in her own home by someone she knows. You are aware of this, yes?
For all of your complaints about women being physically weaker than men, are you aware that studies conducted several years ago found that while women may be physically weaker, they have much better endurance then men and they do not tire as fast as men do because their physiology is different?
Do you think the standards, as they currently stand, are not equal? Do you think it should be based on an individual basis? That it shouldn't be just about their physical strength, but a bigger focus needs to be placed on their mental stability and capacity? Because right now, for all of those physically strong men in the armed forces, the suicide rate among those physically strong men is abnormally high.
What, exactly, are you basing this on? Do you have anything of a scientific nature to support these arguments? Because the science clearly states that women have much better endurance then men do. As for who can shoot what weapon, have you looked at the armed forces around the world, where women are in active combat in warzones?
Or better yet, why don't you ask the many many Kurdish female Peshmerga fighters, who are in active ground combat against ISIS, how they go handling their weapons because they don't have the upper body strength compared to their male fighting counterparts. And these women do not have the luxury or benefit of combat training that the military would provide in the US. Oh no. These women sign up to go into active combat in a ground war against ISIS because they believe it is their duty to defend their people, country and others from ISIS.
You best be quick and tell her that she's not supposed to be fighting in a ground combat war against ISIS, because she simply does not have the upper body strength to do so.. And really, she must have a problem with these weapons because she is a woman. For your information, women have been in direct combat roles in military's around the world for a very long time. The Kurdish Peshmerga female fighters is direct proof of that. So perhaps you should stop being so disrespectful about what women can and cannot do and stop projecting your own ideals onto others. Your attitude is deeply sexist and insulting to the thousands of women who died fighting in wars, in combat zones and fulfilling combat roles and continue to do so on a daily basis as they have been doing for decades.
I am not insulting anybody and its not sexism. Thats a small grenade launcher shes got. As i said before anyone can pick up a weapon they can handle and become familiar with it. In those countries you can join in as in fight at your discretion. Thats is the point, you dont have to qualify at all.
You say they have no benefit of formal military training but it is also because they do not have to meet any requirements when its akin to vigilante justice in war-torn countries.
I just stated as for meeting equal standards as in qualifying for infantry with the same standards, more men than women would qualify. I stand by that because its true, that may disqualify some good female sharpshooters but thats how it crumbles because still there will be males that can do the same and vice versa. Moot.
I really doubt these women who pick up a weapon to join the cause are packing 70-100 lbs on their back, following orders to traverse thirty miles of jungle etc because they dont have to. they fight based on opportunism, playing to their strengths not weaknesses and at their own individual discretion. And i never said women cant fight if given the opportunity or have no ability or skills. That was not the point at all.
Last edited:
Your willingness to buy into untruths should be greeted with sadness, not condemnation. You are sexist, however.
That would be untrue; you said much, much more than that.
Yeah it sure is sad. I said the truth and its just soo horrible. Puleeze
Are you going to write a Ph.D. thesis: Men have more muscle mass than women.
You must be really, really smart. I mean like, you'll never have to think again about anything. Just say "Men have more muscle mass that's why". Akin to saying "God did it" when it's too laborious to try and learn something. You're much too smart to just be cannon fodder. You must be Captain Obvious in the military.
You must be really, really smart. I mean like, you'll never have to think again about anything. Just say "Men have more muscle mass that's why". Akin to saying "God did it" when it's too laborious to try and learn something. You're much too smart to just be cannon fodder. You must be Captain Obvious in the military.
I guess a better analogy would be if the shtf in america then they would activate the reserve forces and worse comes the inactive reserves which would be those no longer affiliated (including those who were in non-combat specialties) and one could be out of shape etc doesnt matter, you know what to do with a weapon at least. If it truly became a desperate war-torn country, the government is not going to piddle about what you cant do but what you can because assistance wherever and however you can get it is still helpful. In those situations a makeshift military can be just as effective as long as you use your forces strategically for their strengths. For instance, would it matter if a female isnt as strong physically in that situation? Just place and utilize people where they are best effective and what they can contribute at the moment. And honestly, one can teach anyone to use a weapon in five minutes. take apart, clean and re-attach in ten or fifteen. Most of the formalities and rules of the military would be trivial and impractical in this situation.
This had nothing to do with my point which was strictly us military infantry requirements though.
This had nothing to do with my point which was strictly us military infantry requirements though.
Last edited:
And your ass has absolutely nothing to say because you cant think of shit on the matter or dont know.
Please show us you actually have an thought.