Gi Jane, if you please

Im so glad the op started this thread. I had no idea you all could be this bigoted, biased, immature or irrational with whatever pet ideals you harbor. The exact qualities you like to look down your noses at others and pretend you dont have but have them in spades just as well. Just takes the right catalyst to bring it out.

Which goes to show higher education, status or even supposed higher intelligence doesnt change the fact you are also just as capable of being shitty, stupid, lowlife human beings.

Thank you for showing those colors. lmao
 
My real views are rather moderate. Im neither ultra-liberal or conservative but since you've already let me know what hits your nerves since you are irrational liberals, i can keep slamming you with the facts. Just for the hell of it and i dont agree with extreme leftists just as much as die-hard conservatives.

Would you like me to link to the year-long study where they found that mixed unit performance was inferior to the all male unit? Or how female infantry was slower, weaker and had more injuries? Would you like me to post the exact figures since you like 'evidence' and 'statistics' so much you claim my opinions had no basis upon?

That wouldnt go over very well. You will just get redder in the face in front of the screen and go right back to how im sexist, stupid poopoo head ad nauseum.
 
Last edited:
birch said:
...
Would you like me to link to the year-long study where they found that mixed unit performance was inferior to the all male unit? Or how female infantry was slower, weaker and had more injuries? ... .
Click to expand...

Ok so are you saying that as combat soldiers, women are as worthless as tits on a boar, and likely more of a danger to their unit than a remf.

From that, what is the purpose of the women's army core, beyond offering sexual release for the real soldiers?
 
birch said:
You could look at this from several angles including socially and politically.

Why should families only send their sons off to war? Thats harrowing enough for parents. People should have to send their daughters too. That part is equality.

The 51% female gender of the population is untapped for combat.

And especially if they are capable and that is what their choice job is, why stop them? Something in them is calling them in that direction.

Also, it does make a progressive positive movement as well as statement that no field or position should be based on gender and it allows people to develop skills, abilities or think in a new way they otherwise wouldnt.

If fish didnt take to water, they wouldnt have fins. If birds didnt take to air, they wouldnt have wings. If you dont try or are not allowed to push yourself in a certain direction, you will never develop abilities in that direction.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, birch
This seemed rational and fairly well thought out.
And, most likely a better approach.(are we trading the t in for an r?)
 
birch said:
i am the only one who has contributed any worthwhile or thoughtful posts on the subject.
Click to expand...
We all think our own thoughts are worthwhile and thoughtful. It is when we go out an interact with others, such as, say, in a forum, that we realize we are socially naive.

birch, you set the tone of the thread. If you want serious, civilized discussion, next time consider setting an example.
 
DaveC426913 said:
We all think our own thoughts are worthwhile and thoughtful. It is when we go out an interact with others, such as, say, in a forum, that we realize we are socially naive.

birch, you set the tone of the thread. If you want serious, civilized discussion, next time consider setting an example.
Click to expand...

First of all, i dont have to answer to you.

I am not responsible for other peoples unwillingness to accept the facts either.

The whole thing started when i said there wouldnt be many females. That was in fact what set everyone off and the reason. I was the only one who came out and said what i could clearly sense they wanted glossed over.

Thats really what made everyone angry but they couldnt discredit that which is why they kept coming back in here to discredit me instead.

So cut the crap.
 
sculptor said:
In all fairness, birch
This seemed rational and fairly well thought out.
And, most likely a better approach.(are we trading the t in for an r?)
Click to expand...

No asshole. You people dont faze me. What do you think this is? Do you think im trying to conform or wanting your acceptance? I dont care about any of you. This wasnt the first post like that but ALL of you only backed off when it was way too obvious for you to deny the facts. So you can stop pretending ive satisfied your party line.

I dont respect people at all who, regardless whether they like the poster their tone, style or whatever, is unwilling to acknowledge facts for what they are. Then harasses them for it because they dont like how or what the info is. No one is obligated here to make anyone feel good.
 
sculptor said:
Ok so are you saying that as combat soldiers, women are as worthless as tits on a boar, and likely more of a danger to their unit than a remf.

From that, what is the purpose of the women's army core, beyond offering sexual release for the real soldiers?
Click to expand...

This is the bizarre ignorance of the military on this thread that is the real cause of the degeneration. You and several posters. Where do you people live or grew up???

The military is just like society but a large organization. There are many specialties (professions). Every field and job imaginable in the civilian sector is also available in the military including combat.

But since you already were in the military, you should be aware of that, no? And anyone who doesnt live in a cave all their life should be aware of this too.

Its very obvious we are talking specifically about infantry where BRAWN is the main pre-requisite and therefore females would be generally weaker and slower. Hello?????

There are tons of other positions available to both males and females in the military than combat arms.
 
birch:

For what it's worth, I'm willing to take at face value your claim to be a veteran.

It looks to me like you're arguing that what you found to be true from your experience in the military can readily be generalised to be true for all women in the military. I'm not convinced.

This would be a better discussion if all participants - yourself included - could restrain themselves from lashing out personally at each other. You never know, you might even learn something from your different life experiences. It just might be that people who haven't been in the military aren't quite as informed about it as they think they are. It might also be that feminists and ivory-tower academics arguing for equality of opportunity in the military have a valid point.
 
I think I will agree with Birch on the point that there will always be many more men than women in combat roles. I also believe that fewer women are attracted to the life of combat soldier. If you're interested in the MC study regarding mixed combat units, you can probably find, at the very least, a summary of it online.
 
birch said:
Im so glad the op started this thread. I had no idea you all could be this bigoted, biased, immature or irrational with whatever pet ideals you harbor. The exact qualities you like to look down your noses at others and pretend you dont have but have them in spades just as well. Just takes the right catalyst to bring it out.

Which goes to show higher education, status or even supposed higher intelligence doesnt change the fact you are also just as capable of being shitty, stupid, lowlife human beings.

Thank you for showing those colors. lmao
Click to expand...
you remind of my spoiled brat of a cousin. no one likes me they won't do what i say. we get it your pissed off i called you out on your blatant sexism.
Bowser said:
I think I will agree with Birch on the point that there will always be many more men than women in combat roles. I also believe that fewer women are attracted to the life of combat soldier. If you're interested in the MC study regarding mixed combat units, you can probably find, at the very least, a summary of it online.
Click to expand...
that wasn't his first argument. that was what he retreated to and tried to pretend was his argument after he got called out on his blatant sexism.
birch said:
First of all, i dont have to answer to you.

I am not responsible for other peoples unwillingness to accept the facts either.

The whole thing started when i said there wouldnt be many females. That was in fact what set everyone off and the reason. I was the only one who came out and said what i could clearly sense they wanted glossed over.

Thats really what made everyone angry but they couldnt discredit that which is why they kept coming back in here to discredit me instead.

So cut the crap.
Click to expand...
more lies. the whole thing started off when you made a blatantly sexist comment got called on it and than attacked me because you thought i was female. you discredit yourself
James R said:
birch:

For what it's worth, I'm willing to take at face value your claim to be a veteran.

It looks to me like you're arguing that what you found to be true from your experience in the military can readily be generalised to be true for all women in the military. I'm not convinced.

This would be a better discussion if all participants - yourself included - could restrain themselves from lashing out personally at each other. You never know, you might even learn something from your different life experiences. It just might be that people who haven't been in the military aren't quite as informed about it as they think they are. It might also be that feminists and ivory-tower academics arguing for equality of opportunity in the military have a valid point.
Click to expand...
someone who thinks calling someone a girl is an insult isn't really likely to be capable of that level of self reflection
birch said:
Its very obvious we are talking specifically about infantry where BRAWN is the main pre-requisite and therefore females would be generally weaker and slower. Hello?????
Click to expand...
and yet you keep using that claiming they can't do all combat roles. you have repeatedly used the term US military and not shrinking it to infantry roles in the army and marines.
 
Not everyone in the military buys into the Marine Corp study of mixed units. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/12/marines-study-women-in-combat-all-male-squads

There was a study of actual women in combat unit roles that showed a higher incidence of stress fractures and joint pain in women than in men, but a lower 3-year attrition rate. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/572953/abs/

Some of the problems experienced by women in combat roles may be because of the difference in physical activity that women may have throughout their lives and throughout their training.

A meta-analysis of the physical differences between men and women found that training reduced the muscular strength difference between men and women, but increased the cardio-vascular endurance difference. (Whether or not this is enough to be important in the military is an open question.) http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/98/4/623/
 
I see he already flipped.
Why do I have to miss all the fun? o_O

People should be more careful on the net who they are arguing with, you never know what psycho lies behind a username. We think/hope that most of them are harmless and rejoice in the teasing when noticed it hits home. Fanatic misogynist militaries with a short temper, is that what we want to aggravate? Well, we should not fear them either. Often it's someone who just pretends, created a persona for this purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top