Gi Jane, if you please

[birch]

You people truly are bizarre and laughable but amusing.

Some of the craziest shit tests they put you through in special ops such as bare-chested breaking through ice to swim across a half-frozen lake, for example. Very few men get through it and make it. They want the best of the best in toughness.

You people think they are putting women or children through such tests just for the hell of it to enter some elite core in a country desperate for help and war-torn?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

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.

You're only demonstrating what I've said is correct.

Man you're dumb.

 

[pjdude1219]

Has anyone noticed how either strained or evasive or desperate the rebuttals are?

no because there not

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.

nice dodge trying to get around a flat out lie, being truthful matter. claiming a woman can't through a 14 ounce object more than 10 feet is a lie. also its should be interesting to note that the moment you decided i was female(I'm not. I'm male), for calling you out on a blatantly sexist statement, your first instinct was to infantilize the term equating feminity with childishness. but your not a sexist right. there is no way an adult or male could have any reason to disagree with you. jokes on you though, some of the strongest people i know are female. so your attempts to insult me fail, i'll wear it like a badge of honor.

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.

which if you'd think rather than attack would admit defeats your main point of your argument.

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.

your not being accused of misogyny for stating truths or facts. your being called a misogynist for making openly misogynistic statements.

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.

no die hard conservatives hate all liberals( there are very few extreme ones though you acting as if there are is telling) because conservatives hate not having control.

See? Again nothing to say except im sexist.

what else is there to say. your entire argument is rooted in sexist dated gender roles.

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.

nice job trying to cover your ass but it doesn't hold water. your first post called women in combat roles outlandish. made the blatantly sexist and misogynistic statement you were whinying about getting called on early when you decided to call me girl. and than making the ridiculous claim that most(ie the vast majority) would still be physically weaker than even the weakest man which is just not true. do men max out and have a higher baseline. but to claim the weakest male out there would be able to over power most women is just false. if you took the average strengths of men and women and did one standard deviation down for men and up for men. they would overlap to a high degree. so the idea they couldn't qualify is not true. if you don't think women should be banned from combat why have you spent the entire thread trying to build an argument just for that?

but only a few women qualify for infantry and special ops with the bar set by men.

why are you linking to completely different standards?

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.

what your saying isn't truth, your the only one i see being immature(attacking people based on their perceived gender is not mature), your just trolling a typical conservative past time.

 

[birch]

Every single post of yours, no matter what subject, is confrontational. The true signature of an in-house troll.

So says the one who also trolls threads. Like right now. Again, nothing to add. Do you think people are that dense to not know?

Can only criticize me. Classic

 

[birch]

You're only demonstrating what I've said is correct.

Man you're dumb.

Lol. You have had not a single valid point to add to this entire discussion.

 

[birch]

what your saying isn't truth, your the only one i see being immature(attacking people based on their perceived gender is not mature), your just trolling a typical conservative past time.

absolute bull.

All this negative projection towards me is just avoidance of the truth.

Yes, i did in the other thread but i was not serious. It was just humor.

This is not attacking people based on gender: few women qualify for infantry and special ops with the bar set by men.

Its called the truth. Take it up with the military, i didnt write the rules. Lmao

 

[sculptor]

Long ago I had a lover. We were both at Southern Illinois University, and came from northern Illinois. So, I drove her home for the holidays. When I stopped by her fathers house to pick her up for the return trip, her father said: "I'm really glad you're here". "Why?" I queried, to which he responded: "That woman really needs to get laid!".

Curious that these interchanges should remind me of that.
Maybe, now I know how her father felt?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Lol. You have had not a single valid point to add to this entire discussion.

Well, it is pretty normal to criticize someone who is always wrong.

True, a child having a temper tantrum deserves more respect. But you, you're just an idiot.

 

[birch]

nice job trying to cover your ass but it doesn't hold water. your first post called women in combat roles outlandish. made the blatantly sexist and misogynistic statement you were whinying about getting called on early when you decided to call me girl. and than making the ridiculous claim that most(ie the vast majority) would still be physically weaker than even the weakest man which is just not true. do men max out and have a higher baseline. but to claim the weakest male out there would be able to over power most women is just false. if you took the average strengths of men and women and did one standard deviation down for men and up for men. they would overlap to a high degree. so the idea they couldn't qualify is not true. if you don't think women should be banned from combat why have you spent the entire thread trying to build an argument just for that?

So basically you're just going to use that to keep evading.

Keep on with your flow-charts and standard deviations, okay?

Again: Few females qualify for infantry or special ops with the bar set by men.

The military is not summer camp. Having a softball arm, excellent with a pellet gun, was a long-distance runner in high school etc is not all infantry and special ops is cracked up to be. Lmao

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Uh, goal posts... Straw Man...

 

[birch]

Well, it is pretty normal to criticize someone who is always wrong.

True, a child having a temper tantrum deserves more respect. But you, you're just an idiot.

Why are you such a coward? Still no point? ok.

I'm the only person on this thread NOT having temper tantrum and that is very plain to see.

 

[birch]

Long ago I had a lover. We were both at Southern Illinois University, and came from northern Illinois. So, I drove her home for the holidays. When I stopped by her fathers house to pick her up for the return trip, her father said: "I'm really glad you're here". "Why?" I queried, to which he responded: "That woman really needs to get laid!".

Curious that these interchanges should remind me of that.
Maybe, now I know how her father felt?

Run out of your needle in a haystack exceptions? So you've resorted to doing what everyone else is doing.

Straining themselves to avoid what any rational person knows. Hell, i even posted a link where military personnel even know and say so, direct from the horse's mouth.

Wtf is wrong with you people? Very strange. This is just shocking news to you that very few females can qualify for combat set by us military standards, training and guidelines?

Are you that out of touch? This should have been obvious not surprising. Lol

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Why are you such a coward? Still no point? ok.

I'm the only person on this thread NOT having temper tantrum and that is very plain to see.

Unfortunately, you are lying to yourself.

Cannon fodder.

 

[Oystein]

Wtf is wrong with you people?

A sure sign of mental illness . . . when you think there is something wrong with everyone else.

 

[sculptor]

Actually, Birch baby, I agree-----------by and large women are smaller and not as strong as men, but they have better endurance.
If they can't hurl a hand grenade more than 10 feet----they'll likely only hurl one(5 meter kill zone is average)-----------"one and done"
In Nam, we needed tunnel rats and the smaller guys got to do that---------some(small) women would've found it easier.
Combat is rarely hand to hand, mostly, it takes the ability to be aware of your surroundings, think fast and react well, and (walking softly)stealth is a real plus when you are on a seek and destroy mission.
I'm an expert marksman(maybe in the top 1-2 percent?), but was too damned introspective for the infantry, so they put me in stratcom. I'll never know if I would have made a good combat soldier(not really something I wanted to find out)-----I am certain that I never could have(nor wanted to) become one of the killer elite. 4 kinds of people---those who are apprehensive before battle(timid like me) --- those who are afraid during battle(cowards)---and those who are afraid after battle(fools)---and the truly well prepared (almost fearless) ones---the killer elite.(when the shit hits the fan[tet] if your really lucky, you get to follow one of them)
What the hell is in a 70 pound pack anyway?
OK
so
You don't want to read the story of Sweeny, Queeny, Cherry and the mp?
Stateside(Fort Richie/site r), women(wacs)(of whom Cherry was one) were a little over 1/3 of our compliment, ops(me) company a few more, and the rest were post support and mps.

My basic premise is that if women want to volunteer for combat duty--(and, they're reasonably sane)-------let 'em have a shot at it.
Maybe it's an attitude thing above all else? If you're doing what you want to do/living the dream, maybe you get good at it? Mostly, I think that that is for young people who haven't come to grips with their mortality.

 

[birch]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...ale-marines-women-combat-were-ready/76726914/

Brown and Preston were two of roughly 100 women who left their units to participate in the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force experiment. They worked alongside about 300 men in infantry, weapons, artillery and mechanized units in North Carolina and California, where Marine officials and scientists carefully studied their performance.

A number of female Marines were dropped or sidelined during the experiment due to injury. Data released by the Marine Corps after the experiment wrapped up in July indicated that male Marines far outperformed the women in a variety of tasks. Women were slower, fired their weapons with less accuracy and were more susceptible to injury, the data showed.

Since no women have yet passed Infantry Officer Course — 29 female officers attempted it, but none graduated — Marines like Brown and Preston who want to join previously closed fields have male leaders. But Preston said that doesn't bother her.

"I’ve seldom have female higher-ups," she said. "A leader is a leader. If they’re good, that’s all that matters."

These women dont have a problem with it. So whats the problem with the rest of you? You know, not being able to admit another is better at something is just as weak, biased or prejudicial. So is pretending you are equally deserving or adept because of gender, that includes women of course.

The long-term value that i do see is this is their passion and what they want to do which goes a long way as they will put in more effort. Also, women cant become more skilled or adept in certain fields or positions unless they are given the opportunity to develop in them if its not open or completely barred. Even if (at least initially for now) there are fewer women who qualify, who knows that may change one day. The important issue is maintaining the standards.

 

[birch]

Actually, Birch baby, I agree-----------by and large women are smaller and not as strong as men, but they have better endurance.

Wtf. Where the hell do people get this endurance bullshit from? Some test in a lab?

Real life results trumps it. I was in the military and in no way did women have more endurance. Men not only could run faster but longer distance, same with any strenuous task they tire less frequently and able to withstand greater stress level for much longer.

 

[birch]

Unfortunately, you are lying to yourself.

Cannon fodder.

you either have two nickels to rub together for brain matter or you are trying your best to appear as dumb as shit. You've just been trolling the entire time with nothing even slightly clever or funny to say.

 

[DaveC426913]

The facts are ...

But you're not stating facts; you're stating opinions.

Really believing your opinions doesn't make them any more factual.
Neither, incidentally, does being in the military.

If you had facts at your disposal you would be pointing us at them, since they would be independently published and independently verifiable.

 

[birch]

A sure sign of mental illness . . . when you think there is something wrong with everyone else.

A sure sign of a troll is consistent one to two liners. Look in the mirror.