Do Women make better soldiers than men

File: 1479856102168.webm (873KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 500x500px

>>2260683
Because....

>>2260685
well in the video there looks to be a woman on the far right doing it at least

>>2260691
>having to be helped up

>>2260693
how is it that a man with a prostetic leg and a missing arm is stronger in 1 arm than those women with both functioning arms and legs?

>>2260691
With lot of help
While the one-leg one-arm dude does it alone

>>2260685
Give that man a augmented prosthesis and he'll be unstoppable.

Women are not as calm and disciplined as man

>>2260683
They're weaker.

>>2260683
Studies show men have superior hand eye coordination. For the record

>>2260685
Roasties BTFO

>less mental fortitude
>less muscle density
>less militant mindset

>>2260683
>>superior hand eye coordination compared to men
That sounds like bullshit.

>>2260685
I don't get it. The video cuts out before she even attempts it.

>>2260697
He's also stronger than you.

If youve never been shot at in a combat setting you really dont have much to say about this subject.

No.

>>2260683
In the grand scheme of things, women are more valuable to the nation's survival than men. Without them, the population base falls of a cliff, so wasting their lives in war would be very unreasonable.

>>2260683
>It's good for a soldier to be smaller

>>2260853
You watch her walk up to it all girly floppy arm style and start girlishly fumbling with the support beam. She was clearly going to get all the help she can get.

>>2260697
Limbs weight quite a bit and men are biologically superior to women when it comes to upper body strength and the most useful trait of a warrior, aggression.

>>2260944
Supposedly my father back in the day has a girlfriend who's mother was a feminist
She was claiming that women make better warriors because they "would be more likely to cut off a guy's head"
Literally said they'd be better not because of fighting ability, but they'd be emotionally out of control enough to commit war crimes.

>>2260963
There is no doubt the can be as cruel as any man. Cherokee women were in charge of torturing their captives and they easily matched the brutality of the Spanish inquisition.

Put toe to toe with a man however and they are simply outmatched, it doesn't matter what you would do with a prisoner if you are the prisoner. Which is why it was the Cherokee men who did the fighting.

>>2260984
Kek.
Agreed, a torturer is just a cunt. A fighter is a champion.

>>2260984
>Cherokee women were in charge of torturing their captives and they easily matched the brutality of the Spanish inquisition.

Except everyone expected them

>>2260683
Because most women are cowards with no sense of honor. Female soldiers work well in Asia though.

>>2260900
This is what resulted in traditional gender roles thousands and hundreds of years ago. Modern wars, modern societies and modern economies are much different. This no longer applies.

>>2260683
>Men are better in spatial coordination and have a better sense of direction (usually!). They excel in math and are great at interpreting three-dimensional objects. They have a better hand-eye coordination and more precise control of large muscle movement.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/jakabovics/mf2.html

File: 1484141684683.jpg (1MB, 1860x1880px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1860x1880px

Today, i will remind them

>>2260683

>superior hand eye coordination compared to men

Where are you getting this idea from? I've read that they are marginally better with fine motor skills, but this doesn't translate to something like the spatial ability to track and shoot a target, men are demonstrably better at that. Especially under pressure.

>superior multitasking ability

Complete facebook mom meme

>smaller, can camouflage better, less of a target

True, but that isn't everything, and you could just as well get a small man to do it. I think 5'9 or 5'10 is the ideal male soldier size in terms of balancing strength, endurance, physical ability, and target size.

The truth is that women are physically 13 year old boys with minds that aren't typically as challenged through their formative years, are more prone to a nurturing or empathetic attitude that has no place in war, and were quite simply not evolved for warfare like men were

well if that question needs to be asked, then no

>>2261516

infantry Marines and especially Special Forces Rangers are already peak males

why on Earth would anyone think there are any women who can match a peak male naturally when peak females only match average males, it's a statistical impossibility

Don't trained women actually have more powerful kicks then trained men, because women have stronger legs?

>>2261864
>Don't trained women actually have more powerful kicks then trained men, because women have stronger legs?
No they don't, especially if the male is trained to the same level. Watch any track cycling event and you'll see the difference as track cycling is purely leg power and the cardio to support the legs.

>>2260683
The only real point is size.

I can see women only tankers or submariners being better, as you can make the internal spaces smaller.

>>2260683
Imagine having your period/period pains while trying to hard scope some scrub 700m away.