I'm a social scientist (yeah, yeah, I know) studying female

What country?

>>29889736
problem is, women don't know if they want to be treated differently or equally

......NO.

Why? We already have all the facts needed to know they hamper the war effort and spirit de'corp*

>>29889748
>>29889736
Yeah, what country?

>>29889750

So how long is it going to take you to come to the revelation that no group of people is a monolith and that different individuals hold different views. Do you literally look at two different opinions of two different women and then act like all women just hold conflicting opinions?

testosterone is usually necessary to be aggressive and a killer

the reason there are so few female murderers isn't because there aren't women out there that would like to do it

>>29889748
>>29889763

I'm kind of paranoid about something that can pretty much end my career, so I'll just go with "a smaller one".

>>29889761
Well, someone might have some questions, and getting some other points of view I might had more to what I'm doing.

If my company ever goes to [real] war with your country, will my country likely go lax on the whole "No raping the enemy soldiers" thing? Because I'm pretty sure that my country would go lax on that if the idea was to take over your borders.

>>29889780
what section of europe?

>>29889790
>The only thing stopping rape is the law

>>29889780
>a smaller one
Switzerland it is
Anyhow, why do so few women want to join the army? Do they hate freedom?

>>29889790

Rape is one the things that doesn't really occur in the mind of those in charge of the armed forces, weirdly enough. When asked about that possibility, the most common answer was along the lines of "well, there might be an added risk, but nothing that can't be handled". So, unless you're a savage, you're not supposed to rape females. But then again, you're not supposed to shoot POWs and we all know how that goes.

>>29889808
>Switzerland

I wish.
My country only takes part in some peace keeping operation, and other than that, only does stuff like rescuing foreign nationals. Most people that join (men and women) only care about getting paid for some time, and maybe build a career. Nobody expects to actually need to fight. Fuck me, just look at our admission standards and you'll understand why.

>>29889829

Stuff like rescuing nationals stranded in foreign countries*

>>29889799
In war? Pretty fucking much. The genetic makeup of former east Germany is irrevocably stained with vodkanigger semen.

>>29889769
While this isn't /k/ related and I just woke up, that guy is right. Women ALL want to be the one who gets asked out. Women all want to see they're man as an alpha which means that they have a subordinate quality to them, they want to be dominated, "chase me". No, before some retard misunderstands, I don't mean abused or trapped or micromanaged but they do all of them want a man that can be the king of the house.
Hell, I can't even tell you how many housewives I know of with masters degrees because, "I'm just as good and equal but I just want a man to take care of me."
Men are all the same on many levels and so are women it's ingrained.

>>29889750
This

>>29889846
t. 13 year old basement dweller

>>29889852
You sound like a sexless retard

>>29889852

You realize you are claiming to know half the world's population hopes and desires right? Let me guess, you are basing this on anecdotal evidence? Not very convincing m80.

>>29889866
>the Russians didn't rape in WWII
Ivan plz

>>29889877
Jokes on you, they always throwing themselves at me. It would be nice to find one who actually is an equal is all.

>>29889736
I'd like to know if female fighter pilots are as skilled and performant as male ones.

>>29889852
Here's a tip: the second you say you know what all women think is the instant everyone knows you don't have a clue what you're talking about and have probably never seen a woman besides when your mother leans into your room to ask how the job hunting is going

File: 1461646164298.jpg (116KB, 648x816px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 648x816px

>>29889736
Any opinion on these?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9823312/Army-has-dropped-fitness-standards-to-allow-more-women-to-join.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marine-corps-study-women-in-combat-at-disadvantage-men-perform-significantly-better/

>>29889736
Does any of this research into 'female integration' involve scissoring?
If so, post relevant pics.

>>29889885
Not really. Women want:
>confidence
>security
>novelty
Men want
>a nice ass

It applies everywhere.

>>29889908
I didn't realize there were so many women on /k/. I'm sorry if I offended you ma'am but you I'm know I'm right.

Unless we fix the grounds for sexual harassment, EO complaints, and possible STD increases. It wouldn't be a bad idea to add a few bitches so long as they can keep up.

>>29889902
My study is army only, sorry bro. But IIRC there are next to no woman fighter pilots in my countries' air force.

>>29889909
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9823312/Army-has-dropped-fitness-standards-to-allow-more-women-to-join.html

Same thing happened here. 5 push ups, 20 crunches in a minute and 2 kms in 12 minutes gets you in. It was purely political: if women are as good as men, why do they need lower standards? Well, let's make them the same!
(We'll just use the lowest common denominator because reasons).
Only height requirements are still different, now.

>
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marine-corps-study-women-in-combat-at-disadvantage-men-perform-significantly-better/

Yeah, I've read the entire study. One thing I'd like to know is why mixed gender units performed better with the M2, though. But despite the conclusions (women are less fit for combat, added costs, decreased combat readiness and efficiency, etc) the results were pretty much dismissed. Thank you gender politics!

>>29889914
Add literally no results for lesbianism in any unit I studied.
feelsbadman.jpg

>>29889973
Well, if you don't mind an increase in injury and casualties and a decrease in combat readiness and capability, sure.

>>29889908
I'll have you know lady pants, I've had deeper conversations with literal retarded men than I ever had with any woman. Don't for a fucking second assume we're equal. You're brain isn't even capable of understanding "brother hood." Now fuck off talking shit to someone who I don't even know who is your better.

>>29889761
If you're gonna try and use fancy word shit to sound smart, at least don't butcher the phrase

>>29890001
Had literally no results*
I need to start proof reading before I post.

>>29890001
well do the women affect the quality of the men? Because if they don't consider it this way...


100 men in a unit.
100 men in a unit and 5 women.
Is the 5 woman enough to jeopardize the readiness of the 100 men? or are they just statistically less capable but add an overall combined readiness?

>>29889829
Ireland it is.

Fellow potato here.
What is superior in terms of increasing fighting ability; having men and women integrated and fighting together, or to have them fighting separately?

>>29889736
What exactly are your goals? Are you doing any official studies or why exactly do you mean by you are studying female integration in whichever army?

File: 1457105758775.jpg (50KB, 504x864px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 504x864px

>>29890012

Neither you, nor him, are worthy enough for me to Google search the correct spelling.

>>29890022

To slightly mitigate the inferior capability of the women, you need to:
- redesign the combat uniform and most equipment (from the position of the name tag, to the shoulder width, to the backpack)
- accept that women will carry less payload, and that translates into less rounds, less water, less food, less equipment, and thus you need to either have units that can stay out in the field for less time or you need to have the cargo that those 5 women can't carry be transferred to the men;
- navigate terrain at a slower speed, and more carefully as to prevent injury.
Amongst other things.

But there's more: even if physically those 5 women can accompany the men, you need to overcome things like pissing and shitting in front of one another, sleeping bundled up to conserve heat, you have to overcome the "hero complex" and avoid the formation of relationships.
Even then, there are somethings that can't be mitigated:
- menstruation, which translates into an increased logistical burden, and without proper hygiene can get you those 5 women in deep trouble.

So to look at it from a physical perspective only is not enough.

>>29890035
>What is superior in terms of increasing fighting ability; having men and women integrated and fighting together, or to have them fighting separately?

If you want a "lesser of two evils" thing, mixed gender units.

>>29890061
>What exactly are your goals?

To understand the reasons behind integration (from gender politics to societal view of women in the military), to understand women's impact on the combat capability of the army, how to mitigate it if it is negative, and possible benefits of said integration.

File: unimpressed.jpg (2MB, 2272x1712px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2272x1712px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCVHw5yJEJc

File: 1460246060869.jpg (31KB, 938x477px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 938x477px

>>29889897

Ha ha ha ha

File: rk95 on a girl.jpg (693KB, 3700x2467px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 3700x2467px

>>29890110
>To understand the reasons behind integration
simple: true gender neutrality and equality.
If people want true equality, same rights and obligations need to apply to both genders.

Finland allowed women to volunteer for military service in early 90s, and after that some few hundred females have gone to army each year. They use the same gear and do the same tasks as men, with the only real special treatment being a separated female-only room and toilets at the barracks. Innawoods, there's no fancy treatment whatsoever though.

>all that jazz about carrying less and moving slower
you'd piss off a lot of mil-chicks with that bullshit.

>menstruation
can be dealt with pills, and pure guts.

I will have almost first-hand knowledge of this matter in couple months, as my wife's starting her service in July.

>>29890145
Her combat readiness after that must have been great.

>>29889769
That's a simple thing to understand, but I wonder why why so many ideological groups (such as feminists) want their beliefs forced on those who don't share them in spite of this.

>>29890197
Oh I hope you stick around to debate op, he seems pretty well informed

Have you looked into any studies on the matter?

>>29890145
Whatever that was she did do it.
I'm proud of her.
I don't want to go into battle with her that still a cool video, good for her.

>>29890209
Out of service or in the hospital for two weeks iirc

People see that as impressive and inspirational, they say it took guts but I don't think they understand the goal isn't the finish line, the goal is to get to the finish line and be capable of carrying out a mission

>>29890197
>true gender neutrality and equality

Yeah, not only, no. Politics and political discourses are very, very powerful. In fact, women in the army is more about equity than equality, being provided different standards and with the need for (sometimes) different equipment.

>you'd piss off a lot of mil-chicks with that bullshit

Irrelevant. Data speaks for itself, and as it stands, women do carry less and move slower. On the instances that they don't, you can expect a huge percentage of musculoskeletal injury, and that is not good for combat effectiveness, readiness and capability.
And although I'm also very interested in interpersonal relations. Despite noticing a trend to minimize the impact of women amongst the men, most still say they would prefer a man to fight alongside. Now, you can obviously attribute this preference to some sort of underlying sexism (and that's what's done nowadays) but when you factor in all the data... It seems that despite men defending women every chance they get, they still understand that men are better suited for combat operations.

>can be dealt with pills, and pure guts.

I have looked at that option, and yes, it exists, but no, it's not the preferable one. And pure guts wont help all that much with mood swings, pain (and remember, while some women are almost unaffected by menstruation, that is not the case with all, and some need to take medication to ease the pain, for instances) and sub par higiene standards (not to mention urinal infections, for instances). This is one of those things that must be looked at on a case-to-case basis.

>I will have almost first-hand knowledge of this matter in couple months, as my wife's starting her service in July.

Well, good luck to her.

>>29890288
I'm looking at her case right now, I'll see what I can find.

>the goal is to get to the finish line and be capable of carrying out a mission

Exactly, but most don't understand that.

>>29890288
Can't find a single source that backs up that claim.
BUT funny thing is I just found the passing rates for the EFMB. Whilst everyone seems to tout around the "17 to 25% approval rate", the 12 mile march has from 86 to 91% passing rate. I'll see if I can find the passing rates divided by genders.
Thanks for that one, didn't know about that specific case.

>>29889736
How much do they actually pay you for that?

>>29890418
Less than I'd like, more than I can complain about.

>>29889736

That caption is retarded. And written by a neverserved. And why is her PC on indoors? Fucking PV2 trash, typical.

>lol I am army so army
>hooah hooah Gluck Gluck


All throughout my military career, the hundreds of women I've served with, maybe one out of fifteen could make a pimple on the ass of a mediocre male soldier.

I don't think women would do well as combat arms soldiers, many of the tasks we do seem too difficult for women.

I was a tank crewman and I can't imagine a 5'2" woman being able the 40lb to 50lb+ main gun rounds repeatedly in combat, she would not be able to carry the .50 caliber machine gun up to the commanders cupola by herself either which is a major liability in combat as well.
She would not be able to carry 20 tank rounds from the reloading station to the tank when we are at a fob/cop which would limit our effectness.
She would not be able to do her share of maintenance on her tank when many pieces of equipment weigh 70lbs plus.
She would not be able to remove a wounded 175lb man from the tank by herself no matter how much adrenalin she had.
I doubt she could push up the loaders or commanders hatch on the turret as those are very heavy and women have weaker upper bodies.
I don't think a woman can go weeks without bathing spending most of her time holed up in a cramped hot tank without getting infections in her genital area.

If anyone has proof to the contrary I'd love to see it.

File: 1461574669670_kindlephoto-562156760.jpg (184KB, 1294x1230px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1294x1230px

>>29889799

>>29890463
>Why is her PC on indoors

She's a private taking a selfy m8, I disagree with women being soldiers but like 99.995% of dumbass privates do that shit.

>>29890501

True, and I did my fair share of stupid shit as PV2 Anon, but now that older, ranked and wiser I find that the good old service autism takes hold.

From the Marine Corps Force Integration Plan:

"At the Infantry Training Battalion (ITB), the graduation rates for females range from 36%
(including DORs) to 46% (excluding DORs), compared to the male graduation rate of about 98%. For the other combat arms schools (e.g., artillery, tanks, Amphibious Assault Vehicles [AAVs]), graduation rates range from approximately the same (excluding DORs), to somewhat lower for females (with DORs).
Further, a more careful examination of some of the physically demanding tasks, such as artillery projectile lift/load and tank ordnance handle/load, showed significantly higher initial completion rates by males."

Let me see if I can get the exact figures.

>>29889736
So basically after a quick glance over everything you're basically saying women are inferior at combat and when you strip all bullshit political correctness out of the equation, it's far more sensible to just not let them into combat roles.

File: fem-sissi.jpg (155KB, 640x617px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 640x617px

>>29890267
>Have you looked into any studies on the matter?
I've never even heard of any. The best I've got so far are some totally anal Amerifats yapping on /k/ how all the gurls in boots are either bitches or whores, trying to live a luxury life with what ever the hell they pay for the troops over the pond.

>>29890290
>In fact, women in the army is more about equity than equality
No such thing around here. So far, women can only volunteer to the military, and those volunteering obviously tend to have the motivation and fitness to get through it as well. Can't show any numbers, but in Winland, it's pretty unheard of women quitting their service halfway through (at least voluntarily), while some good ~20% of males seem to do so each year.

>Data speaks for itself
GJ using "data" to describe something as organic and unpredictable as mankind.

I've seen super fit muscle monsters get early withdrawal from service thanks to some minor neck damage that developed over time, and some picture-perfect men having to quit thanks to crap like flat feet.
During my service time, we had some literal stick figure nerds and some 140kg fat-balls lumped into same company, to do same tasks. We also had people ranging from quiet but obedient to loud and constantly whining jerks. And even then, people got the job done.

It helps that these days the higher ups actually do listen to and take into account the personal wishes and character traits when choosing people for specific tasks and roles.

>I have looked at that option, and yes, it exists, but no, it's not the preferable one
According to my better half, it's definitely THE preferable and only valid option.
The pills not only allow you to control the cycle, but also in most cases help to make them more "even", and less agonizing. Worked for her, at least.

>moodswings

What comes to the hygiene crap, same stuff applies to men. Innawoods, we had hand sanitizers everywhere, and washed our hands, faces and cocks whenever we could.

>>29890583
Well, not at every single task, but for the most part, yes. In the Marine Corps Force Integration Plan that I mentioned, for instance:

"Combat Effectiveness
Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews. Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events."


And I have to leave now, I'll be back in a couple hours if the thread is still up.

>>29890615
Sad that in the fact of the facts these morons still want to push for this trash.

>>29890606
>>29890615
Can't wait for the conclusion of this one

>>29890606
>No such thing around here.
I meant as integration, not as women choosing to enter the military life. When they are inside, they MIGHT be coddled, and in fact, a lot of the times, are, even if it's not obvious at first glance.
I don't really know about Finland, so i can't really comment a lot.

>GJ using "data" to describe something as organic and unpredictable as mankind.

Are you seriously implying that data on performance across the board is not a good indicator of combat effectiveness and general soldier's aptitude for combat?

Taking the case of the MCFIP that I've quoted before:
"28 tasks showed >30% performance degradation. The majority occurred in the infantry
and provisional infantry and consisted largely of the most physically demanding tasks"
"A UK review highlighted that military females perform 11-38% slower than males on loaded
marching tasks. The heavier the load carried, the greater the decrement."
"All-males squads were faster than integrated squads on hikes, gorge crossings, and cliff
ascents during the assessment in different environmental settings at MWTC"
"Depending on the unit, male GCEITF volunteers perceived that combat effectiveness
declined with female Marines presence, and that the GCEITF performed worse than their
previous units"
"Recruit Training: Female injury rate of 6% vs. a 3.6% male injury rate
• MCT: Female injury rate of 3.17% vs. a 0.4% male injury rate
• ITB: Female injury rate of 13% vs. a 2% male injury rate
 27% of ITB female injuries were attributed to marching under load vs. 13% of male
injuries
 28% of the female hike-related injuries resulted in a course drop
 ITB females shipping weight – female 95th percentile = male 24th percentile"

Every single one of my claims is based in hard data, collected through rigorous means and based on hard evidence, such as speed while performing a task, completion rates, injury rates, etc. It's not "something as organic and unpredictable as mankind."
Continued

>>29889736
soo hows finding a job coming? did your parents laugh when you told them

>>29890606
You don't expect women to get away with the same hygiene techniques, do you?

Men don't have anywhere close to the same risk when it comes to utis as women

>>29890684
this kek

>>29890606
>It helps that these days the higher ups actually do listen to and take into account the personal wishes and character traits when choosing people for specific tasks and roles.

That wont minimize the fact that some traits CAN'T be trained or bettered.

>According to my better half, it's definitely THE preferable and only valid option

Tell your better half that she has an increased propensity for several types of cancer and several other health problems.

>What comes to the hygiene crap, same stuff applies to men.

Men have a lesser propensity for developing incapacitating infections due to poorer higiene. Unless you consider that "something as organic and unpredictable as mankind" too.

>>29890606
Are you denying that women often have mood swings while menstruating? That's like saying"No, regular coffee drinkers don't often act different when deprived of caffeine."

>>29889937

Its the middle of the day/morning all over the US, women don't have jobs, just like us.

>>29890709
>everyone with a job works Monday through Friday, 9a-5p.
Whew... Well I'm salaried and off today.

>>29889877
you sound like youve never met a woman

>>29889908
who cares if theres exceptions? Do you need a disclaimer in front of every generalization?

File: cutie fdf gurl eatin.jpg (234KB, 573x879px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 573x879px

>>29890675
>I meant as integration, not as women choosing to enter the military life.
Quite utopian speculation, to be honest. At what point would they be "integrated" into military against their wills, to tasks not fit for their personal skills and interests?

>you seriously implying that data on performance across the board is not a good indicator of combat effectiveness and general soldier's aptitude for combat?
The problem with "studies" tends to be their focus on fairly outdated training methods / view on warfare. Yeah, there's still some long distance marching in full gear, and certain units are generally more mobile on foot at all times, but overall the gear troops wear, how they move around and what they do greatly differ from the stuff that was still a norm 15 years ago.

Not every "soldier" is going to be a LMG carrying "born to kill" grunt waltzing in bush and mud, and rightfully so. Heck I'd say that whole view is greatly antiquated. I just recently saw articles about these new "cyber soldiers", whose job is to tackle potential cyber attacks against the country. They also seem to create new videogame content for the army's simulators and such. Sounds silly and prolly not as "glorious" as "muh real soldurrs!", but that's just how things work now.

As a side note, one of my younger cousins, also a female, is a fighter pilot. She's a tad smaller than me and all, but still at much higher rank and fancier role than I will probably ever be.

>>29890686
>You don't expect women to get away with the same hygiene techniques, do you?
I don't, but this day and age? You can easily prepare for, and later on also treat those problems effectively.
It's funny that we've lived some thousands of years without all the fancy medical care systems and hygiene items, but now people freak out about the idea of spending couple weeks in a forest, without plumbing and toilets?

...damn letter limits.

File: when u see it - ponnari.jpg (608KB, 640x899px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 640x899px

...cont from >>29890997 :

>>29890703
>That wont minimize the fact that some traits CAN'T be trained or bettered.
True, but that's why you do preemptive elimination and task assigning.
Accidents also happen, but that's just the way of life.

>Tell your better half that she has an increased propensity for several types of cancer and several other health problems.
Better that, than bleeding painfully from your crotch at semi-random intervals for random periods of time. Also greatly reduced chance of getting babies.

And if you wanna bring up the cancer-card to the table, the average conscript smoke like a pack of cigarettes a day during service. Some guys who'd never even touched smokes started half-way into the service. Not out of peer-pressure or something, but rather to calm their weak nerves, or to do some superficial "bonding" with the others.

>Men have a lesser propensity for developing incapacitating infections due to poorer hygiene.
sure, but women also tend to know this fact, and take necessary precautions to prevent such shit from happening.

Ultimately, though, if a /k/'s wet dream SHTF conflict would ever unfold, and last for a prolonged period of time, just about any and all modern luxuries like hygiene would be soon jeopardized, at which point everyone would just have to bite the bullet and make do what they have.

>>29890707
Not denying, but I say people are exaggerating these things. You gotta be one very expressive, extravert person to let your mood caused by little things like lack of caffeine control your behavior (trust me, I'm a total addict).

In the FDF, there's this term, "hajotus", that roughly translates to "breaking up". It's used to describe the (stereo)typical conscripts, who've gone past their mental- and physical stress capacity, and are demonstrating signs of fatigue, lack of motivation, and/or increased aggressive behavior. In a pack of these "broken" troops, a bit emotional female would be literally like pissing into an ocean.

>>29889829
that's a good idea
"Well, you know, we're supposed to protect our soldiers from being executed or raped as POWs, but I guess you ladies will just have to live with the political hacks who don't care about that."

Finally, USA will nuke some more countries after some shithole denies chick soldiers makeup or tampons, or slaps them a little.

Thanks, I feel better.

>>29890606

>Finland
>real army

Sorry, some of us have to conquer the world with emperialism and don't have time for fag shit.

You're a fucking cuck, taking advice from a woman.

File: 1455883819165.png (1023KB, 1080x719px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 1080x719px

>>29891303
sorry, some of us have to fight the fucks trying to conquer the world, and don't have time for fag shit.

You're a kissless virgin, and not even in military. Enjoy your hand.

>>29889920
Most people Want
>confidence
>security
>novelty
>a nice ass
both for themselves and their partners.

>>29890997
>As a side note, one of my younger cousins, also a female, is a fighter pilot. She's a tad smaller than me and all, but still at much higher rank and fancier role than I will probably ever be.

Pics please.

File: no.jpg (31KB, 478x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 478x480px

>>29891457

>>29891348
>Most people Want
>most women want
ftfy

A man wants a nice ass, sandwiches and sexual fidelity.
A woman wants someone who can take care of them, emotionally and financially, who can provide them a sense of direction (someone who "tries") and similar to that point, who helps them not be bored by providing them novel experiences.

When there is a woman around it's hard for a man not to flirt. Also I'm all for equality so co-ed showers like in the movie Starship troopers be awesome.

Personally, I don't care what women want or do in the military as I prefer to be the guy controlling the drones to kill shit. It won't affect me. Men and women are truly equal when both are shot dead after all.

>>29890997
>uite utopian speculation, to be honest. At what point would they be "integrated" into military against their wills, to tasks not fit for their personal skills and interests?

I'm talking about when women are already in the military, how they integrate and how they perform. Not really getting what you're saying.

>The problem with "studies" (...)
That's why different roles and such are evaluated. I don't really understand your problem with that.

>Not every "soldier" (...)
So you are saying that women don't perform as well in combat roles and therefore they should be assigned some other roles?
Also, by your logic, you can have disabled soldiers.

>I don't, but this day and age? You can easily prepare for, and later on also treat those problems effectively.

At an expense of bigger logistical footprint and you're assuming that medical care will be promptly available during a war. And if you remove one soldier from the unit, the unit's combat effectiveness is reduced.

>True, but that's why you do preemptive elimination and task assigning.
You'll have to up the standards, and that wont happen in the current political climate of Europe.

>Accidents also happen, but that's just the way of life.

They happen a lot more to women, and you need to remember that every accident reduces a unit's combat effectiveness and costs you money and increases your logistical footprint.

>cancer-card to the table
If women get cancer and they can "prove" that it was related to forced consumption of oral contraceptives in the military, you just earned yourself a pr crisis and you'll have to pay them big money.

>take necessary precautions to prevent such shit from happening

Not really possible when you're outside of a camp for weeks on end. And if you want to do your best, you have an increased logistical footprint. 100 kgs of tampons, cleaning products and baby wipes or 100 kgs of food and water? Your choice.

>>29889736
Hey op, do you have any interesting links/stats/reading material on this?

File: 1462826302474-932623598.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>29891329

Your move, faggot.

File: table 1.png (62KB, 513x545px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 513x545px

>>29892405
A lot of what I have is classified/non-disclosure. And a lot of what is free information, is just legislation, integration plans and such. But I can get you some cool links, sure.

>http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/grads/Sell/(2012)%20Importance%20of%20physical%20strength.pdf

Full article for pic related.

Assuming you're american, here's stuff about the marines and the study a lot of people bring up on /k/:

>http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/wisr-studies/USMC%20-%20Center%20for%20Strategic%20and%20International%20Studies%20Red%20Team%20analysis%20of%20Marine%20Corps%20research%20and%20analysis%20on%20gender%20integrat-1.pdf

Heavily redacted version, but it's what I can give you. Go to the bibliography, plenty of material there.

>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html

Summary of the above link. Only 4 pages and a lot of data.
Anything else, ask away.

>>29890606
>J using "data" to describe something as organic and unpredictable as mankind.
You're an idiot
and no one you use anecdote to support your opinionated argument
>'ve seen super fit muscle monsters get early withdrawal from service thanks to some minor neck damage

>>29891139
>And if you wanna bring up the cancer-card to the table, the average conscript smoke like a pack of cigarettes a day during service. Some guys who'd never even touched smokes started half-way into the service. Not out of peer-pressure or something, but rather to calm their weak nerves, or to do some superficial "bonding" with the others.
Congratulations you're wife is probably gonna get lung cancer as well

>>29890606
>What comes to the hygiene crap, same stuff applies to men. Innawoods, we had hand sanitizers everywhere, and washed our hands, faces and cocks whenever we could.
>ballsweat
vs
>unwashed vagina
it's almost like you're suffering from brain damage youre so stupid

>>29892597
>>29892599
>>29892603

No need to insult people, that tend not to get you anywhere. It's better to simply prove them wrong, or understand why they say what they say.

Why is there such a concentrated effort on the elimination of white people?

File: gurl.jpg (113KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 612x612px

>>29892243
>I'm talking about when women are already in the military, how they integrate and how they perform...
OK. What you said just sounded something a lot bigger scale thing at first.
To this, I'd say majority of women seem to accept the "it's men's world" attitude, and sort of "become" ones themselves. I've heard handful of "war stories" from reservists around the country, and the ones with female squad mates pretty much all had the similar tale: even on their evening breaks or days off, their female companions didn't exactly *feel* as females anymore, but instead "one of us guys!".
>That's why different roles and such are evaluated. I don't really understand your problem
I don't have problem with it. Just saying that overall generalization is bad, and the generic view of what is a "soldier" is changing rapidly. Not even men are all equal.
>So you are saying that women don't perform as well in combat roles and therefore they should be assigned some other roles?
No. I am saying, that even some males literally suck at combat roles, and thus are not assigned to ones.
>Also, by your logic, you can have disabled soldiers.
We kinda already do. Color blindness is often overlooked, though it can have a major effect some cases. I doubt anyone's putting wheelchair Downs people to army.
>At an expense of bigger logistical footprint and you're assuming that medical care will be promptly available during a war
The basic personal needs are always taken care of by the person him/herself. And like I later stated, a major conflict would obviously shake the foundation of all modern luxuries, at which point the matter of getting to shower your vag becomes kinda secondary.

...cont

>>29892599
>Congratulations you're wife is probably gonna get lung cancer
nah, she's one of the types to certainly never smoke.
Also while people usually relate lung-cancer to smokes, it's the "Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease" that's the bigger devil. Shit literally eats your lungs out.

>>29890002
>>>/r9k/

>>29890606
>No such thing around here. So far, women can only volunteer to the military, and those volunteering obviously tend to have the motivation and fitness to get through it as well. Can't show any numbers, but in Winland, it's pretty unheard of women quitting their service halfway through (at least voluntarily), while some good ~20% of males seem to do so each year.

Hahaha oh wow. When I was in service 1/14 and K244 we had few girls in the course in FOs. One was absolutely useless pain in the ass and got thrown out from the course, 2 were meh and last one was okay. And those were "best of the best".

I was glad that we didn't have no girls back in the home unit, but I have heard horror stories from neighboring units.

>>29890255
Because liberals.

>>29890197
My story of seving with a girl in the Norwegian army:
>had to carry her backpack AND weapon up a fucking mountain in - 20 C
>constantly complained about her equipment being too big/heavy, and how she couldn`t carry it
>literally unable to field strip her weapon, or any squad weapon
>ran slower then the guys would march
>failed every single PT-test, yet nothing happened to her
>constantly complained about being cold when in the field, yet doing nothing about it
>accidently filled her weapon with snow, ran inside and poured water on it so the snow would melt, ran back out into freezing temperatures, and then didn`t understand why it wouldnt fire when the entire gun was frozen solid
>wanted to carry my SAW, then simply dropped it in the snow when she got tired
>almost shot the sargeant in the foot while on range
>refuse to leave the vehicle during training because it wa could outside, while I had been sitting topcover in the same conditions for hours
>shoot two POWs while training because she "didn`t know what to do with them"
>ate all the fucking waffles that was meant for the ENTIRE FUCKING PLATOON on a field exercise

And that was just the one girl on my team, we had four more like this in our platoon
There are probably women who can outlift/outrun/out-operate me, but my personal experience say hell no

File: fdf_m05_fem.jpg (501KB, 1181x1772px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1181x1772px

>>29892720
...

>You'll have to up the standards, and that wont happen in the current political climate of Europe.
Luckily, the Europe still has very few shared standards. Finnish system still works fine, and it seems that many foreign counties are constantly interest in our ways these days.

>They happen a lot more to women...
Could it be that the percentage is automatically higher on the women's side, because there's notably less of them serving than men?

>If women get cancer and they can "prove" that it was related to forced consumption of oral contraceptives in the military, you just earned yourself a pr crisis and you'll have to pay them big money.
Ah yes, the good ol', blackmailing-tier "sue everyone!" yank mentality... that shit just boggles our minds around here.
And no, our military does not "force" consumption of anything else than food and water while on duty. And just like some 18yo conscripts choose to kill their lungs with cancer-rolls just to calm their inexperienced nerves, girls are allowed to "poison" themselves with their legal prescription drugs to avoid that "logistical nightmare" you mentioned.

>Not really possible when you're outside of a camp for weeks on end. And if you want to do your best, you have an increased logistical footprint. 100 kgs of tampons, cleaning products and baby wipes or 100 kgs of food and water?
in FDF, we have this unit that's literally called "the Maintenance". Their job is to provide food, supplies and even clothing to troops while they're on duty outside the fence, AKA literally "innawoods" in our case. If every one of us got a new roll of TP, mosquito repellent and handwash from these guys alongside our 3 meals a day, I sure think they can bring a week's set of basic toilet supplies for women too.
In all seriousness, only some more SF-like units (rangers, special border yagers...) literally live off their backpacks for prolonged periods of time when on a mission.

>>29892800
That's... amazing.

>>29892820
>In all seriousness, only some more SF-like units (rangers, special border yagers...) literally live off their backpacks for prolonged periods of time when on a mission.

Never heard of HAJP or situations without the tender care of spades making food? In shtf situation, there is no certain that supply can get that stuff through, so we learned to have always our own food packages with us.

Also check the link. I know ot is from Ylilauta, but most of the stories relatede quite well to stories I heard from people I have met.
http://ylilauta.org/sota/50411707

>>29892800
the frozen gun and waffles are by far my favorites

File: fdf gurl 1238689428291.jpg (134KB, 640x432px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 640x432px

>>29892867
>In shtf situation, there is no certain that supply can get that stuff through, so we learned to have always our own food packages with us.
All true, and we had our own 72h packs with us in the "end war" as well. Some guys even had fishing kits with them, though those were never really needed in the end. Obviously a real, full-out war scenario would rewrite every single thing and make people act totally different as well. But in the ideal scenario, there is always a maintenance providing backup and care for the troops, and the units fighting in front lines are constantly cycled and swapped in order to maximize battle efficiency.

>the ylilauta link
you could swap the "tytys" with guys, and get almost exact copies of my typical army-time stories. Kids were fishing for VMTL every fucking morning, and those who got it were usually doing pullups and running between the smoking area and barracks all the time.

Similarly, some whole boxes of chocolate bars and milkshakes meant for the entire unit used to mysteriously disappear during innawoods camps if you were too slow or not watching. No girls in sight.

integration is not a real thing
It either happens naturally on its own, or it never will

Pandering to women is a nation wrecking disaster: See the results of womens suffrage

>>29889829
slovakia/slovenia

called it

>>29892957
Really only problems came in my guys from immigrants. They were useless pieces of shit. While the guys in my platoon weren't super soldiers we didn't have "movetus kulttuuria". Even the more out of shape people did their duties as well as they could.

And may I ask what unit, it helps me the imagine what kind of people you had in.

>>29890197
Chicks in FDF are useless and only get in the way.

>>29893000
>And may I ask what unit
Mortar, which also included signaler battery.

>>29893001
nice generalization, m8

>>29893040
Yeah, maybe for some homoshit like signals or such. In everything else they can't do shit. Gladly our company didn't have any females after basic.

>>29893040
Kaarti? Because no chicks in KarPr Boo Ya! God bless our fantastic former battery CO.

>>29890691
shit she understands it why cant other females understand it
i had to work with f.e.t (female engagement team) units and them pissing or shitting was really bad and on top of that they had to go back to the main base every thirty days.

>>29889736
you should call your self a social engineer
after all some elements of a system can be problematic

>>29889736
>yurop
>army

>>29892687

Divided societies are easier to control. Don't think of it as elimination of white people, but as a way to ensure better control.

>>29892720
>Not even men are all equal.

Yes, but men tend to perform better at physical tasks. I really don't know what else to say when I already provided proofs of my claims, and sources. Overall generalization might be bad, but hey, it's how things work. In general, cigarettes increase your probability of cancer, but you can smoke for decades and not have it. But you will suffer from other health problems. Same as with women in the army, they might not turn your unit completely combat ineffective, but your combat effectiveness WILL decrease (according to every single study ever made). Plus, you should always be prepared for the worst, not think "oh, we'll just send women off to a hospital when/if they get UTIs" since that might not be an option.

>even some males literally suck at combat roles, and thus are not assigned to ones.

Irrelevant, statistically a men is better suited than a woman. And even if they are on par, you can expect women to have up to 6 times the injury rate of men.

>Color blindness is often overlooked

Not in my nation's army.

>doubt anyone's putting wheelchair Downs people

By your logic, it'd be fine. I'm sorry, but women drag combat effectiveness down. There is literally no evidence to the contrary.

>The basic personal needs are always taken care of by the person him/herself

With materials. How do you propose women wash their vaginas in the middle of the woods with limited water/supplies?

>a major conflict would obviously shake the foundation of all modern luxuries

Yes, maybe. But that's hardly a reason to decrease a unit's combat effectivness simply in a "maybe" case.

>Their job is to provide

Try doing that outside of Finland, or in a war scenario, and things get messy fast.

>>29892999
Two things.
Slovenes actually fought a war in last two decades.
Slovakia doesn't have armed forces, just few thousand career officers with nobody to command.

>>29892820
>Europe still has very few shared standards

And they are being lowered across the board, in accordance to european directives to integrate more women. as I said, political interests play a huge roll in this sort of thing.

>percentage is automatically higher on the women's side, because there's notably less of them serving than men

Is this a serious question? Do you know what percentages are?

>blackmailing-tier "sue everyone!" yank mentality

I'm not american. And that already happened.

>our military does not "force" consumption

You said that pills can deal with menstruation. And the only way to do so across the board is to make it mandatory. Ergo, forced.

>>29889736
How does it feel knowing that if you tell the truth, they'll just say it's sexist and bury your work?

>>29893128
>social engineer

kek, I never really understood why some people say they are "social engineers". but since I don't have a degree in Social engineering, I wont.

Where do they shit in the field?

>>29893280
for training there not really out there with infantry units and if they are there a porta pady near by
if there out side the wire where its safe and no guys can look at them

>>29893280
On a hole in the ground, away from the men, usually.

>>29893331
>>29893367
thats what's wrong with chicks

>>29889866
>>29889877
>>29889885
>>29889908
Go away roastie and go away timbler

>>29893383
That they don't shit on your mouth?

>>29893383
theres more i would read this>>29893305
and if you want some of other questions pop up ill be happy to help

>>29893411
No, they have to drop what they are doing, go away from everyone else just to drop a deuce

>>29892794
and conservatives. Don't lie to yourself butternuts.

>>29893059
nah, it was the now dead Poh.Kar.Pr.
We did have female medics and some Ups.Koks. Nothing really wrong with 'em, but didn't really get to know them either.

>>29893180
>tend to
>by that logic
>no evidence
Typical biased bashing attitude right there. Your place sounds like some America-style shithole on top of that.

>try doing that outside Finland
why would they? It's not FDF's job.

>>29890287
she had to walk 12 miles in 3 hours.with a ruck that had like a towel and wet weather gear, no ammo, or frags, and a unloaded rifle. It wrekt her.

>>29894100
>It wrekt her
Yeah she's weak but I'm still proud of her.
I mean maybe you've never really pushed yourself but seeing her make it is nice.
It's like a retard version of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTn1v5TGK_w
Maybe all her competitors who ran over the line before her think of her the same way you think of that video.

>>29893898
What biased bashing atitude?
I've provided sources, and you have provided guesswork, poor arguments, and anedoctal evidence as some sort of end-all be-all argument.

>why would they? It's not FDF's job

You're a fucking idiot.
See? This is bashing.
When you get away from your supply depots, or bases, you have a harder time securing logistical lines. Even during war time, logistical lines are the most important part of an army's fighting ability. And you'd need to accommodate very specific needs for several supplies only to KEEP WOMEN OUT OF HOSPITALS. And that's assuming you'd have hospitals even close to you. In return, you'd have a unit that's less capable of combat, more likely to fail at meeting mission requirements, and more prone to injury.

So, are you going to present an argument, or are you gonna talk about your father's uncle's cousin twice removed and how she once totally wrecked an MMA world champion?

File: 1459728097503.jpg (64KB, 640x636px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x636px

>>29894154

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxzd7kKm91c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1jCOkyuzCs

>>29894321
Both those videos piss me off.
Not because the man won but both times he's treated like the bad guy.
In the boxing video he's booed.
In the pugile sticks he's grabbed.
>Don't treat a woman equal and you're a misogynist.
>Treat a woman equal and you're an asshole.
and there in lies the problem.

>>29894100
15 minute mile for 12 miles.. Bretty sure a kid with cerebral palsy can do it faster and not be a trainwreck.

Integration is a subversive marxist agenda to destroy the west/family/society/civilization

Women are supposed to be married and having children, this is how a Nation and a civilization survives.

Integration ANYWHERE always involves a double standard, women are not men, they are not mentally or physically capable of combat.

>>29889736
Bump

>>29894321
hey, cut that shit out. chihuahuas are mexican terriers, they were bred to kill vermin including snakes hence the high levels of aggression, which people mistake for hysteria. unlike women they are brave and actually have a high level of utility.

File: 1456793606418.gif (463KB, 350x300px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 350x300px

>>29894509
this lol

>>29889736
Are you for the integration of females into the Army (For combat roles) Have you looked into the differences between male and female anatomy? Are you worried that the female anatomies inherent weaknesses might be more of a burden for a modern army? Are you being pressured at all into find data that supports letting them in?

>>29889736
How long have you browsed /k/?

>>29893898
>Your place sounds like some America-style shithole on top of that.
You mean one with a functioning military?

File: 1460432752216.png (130KB, 260x284px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 260x284px

Has your mind ever been so clouded by pictures of women in uniforms that you completely abandoned all logic and thought integrating women into combat roles was a good idea?

>>29889852

The second I hear the term "alpha" I realize that the person using it has a third-world mind.

Femanon here, thinking of going army. Don't think I'd be much use in your study though 'cause I'm a bit of a an outlier freak of nature. Can literally not perceive stress or sadness.

>>29896312
>Are you for the integration of females into the Army (For combat roles)

The way my study is performed, I can't answer that in there, but in my conclusions you can read that integration will cost money (a lot), and you'll get a lower combat effectiveness, with reduced unit readiness and increased casualties, even before combat.Therefore, if women are to stay in the army, tasks were they are successful are to be found. So, in my personal opinion, yes, women should not be allowed into combat roles. But this is a purely statistical observation.

> Have you looked into the differences between male and female anatomy?

Yes. I wasn't allowed to perform measurements with scientific equipment (so no body fat %, no Vo2 levels, etc), so I had to base myself in previous studies, like the one I quoted on >>29892566

>Are you worried that the female anatomies inherent weaknesses might be more of a burden for a modern army?

In the ways that women are currently employed? No, for a very simple reason: they aren't employed as front line, "combat infantry" anywhere. The problem is if a major war does break out, or if retarded politicians push for women to go outside the wire in real, prolonged, combat operations. That ties up with your next question:

>Are you being pressured at all into find data that supports letting them in?

I wouldn't say pressured a in "find good things, or else", but I can surely feel pressure and people breathing down my neck. As I stated before, politics take huge roles in this sort of thing, and in today's political climate, every single statement you make regarding topics such as gender will be questioned mutiple times by multiples people. And then there's the problem of people that are, honestly, either lazy to check what they're saying, or downright stupid and that will ignore you. For instances, I hate it when gender integration in Israel is brought up, or when they mention russian women in WW2.
continuing

>>29898854
Gender integration in Israel actually was problematic, and nowadays most women you'll find are in the Caracal and Lions of Jordan battalions. Those are stationed in the borders of Egypt and Jordan, countries that Israel is at peace with, providing more of a border guard type work. And in the 60s, when women did see combat, it was just like in the russian case: desperate measures for desperate times. And in the russian case (and in the israeli, but to a lesser extent), their effectiveness and combat prowess was greatly exaggerated for propaganda reasons.

>>29896984
>How long have you browsed /k/?

Several years, but I'm still noguns. In my defense, getting even a .22 pistol is hard as fuck (and expensive), and a .38 is considered a sort of WMD. And I really don't have a lot of interest in any other weapons aside from historical rifles that are impossible to find here ;-;

>>29897407
>Has your mind ever been so clouded by pictures of women in uniforms that you completely abandoned all logic and thought integrating women into combat roles was a good idea?

Women in uniforms don't look that good, mainly because they have to use men's uniforms here. BUT I met a woman that was a solid 9/10 even in a uniform, and was 100% waifu material. She was in health services, so I did/do spend quite a long time with her, talking about women, their injuries vs the ones in men, and her experience (won't confirm nor deny that she was chosen as an informant based of how she looked).

>>29898266

Best of luck to you.
Are you interested in what role? Do you think that you'll be pressured in a negative way, positive way, or none (sexually, physically, emotionally, etc)? Do you fear that you wont be accepted? Do you think sexual/romantic interactions (harassment, willing sexual/romantic relations, or even just flirting) will be common place? Do you think they will happen at all? Do you have family members in the military? What's your motivation?

>>29898880
BTW I'm joining German Bundeswehr.

>what role?
Well, I plan on going in for a combat role. (I'm not fazed by danger and the BW is doing jack shit ATM anyway). If it works out, great, but I will try to keep my options open, maybe go to Uni if I need to then reapply as a pilot or weapons designer.

>pressured in a negative way
Not really. Europe is in the vice-like grip of progressiveness right now, but I'm not sure it's going to last. I want in while I still have a shot at it, because I think they're gonna change their mind about the whole female soldiers thing. I ignore slander (got it all the time in school). Physically? Last thing I'd expect.

>fear that you wont be accepted
By peers? I don't really care (although it would be nice).
By superiors? I want to excel, I want to be noticed as someone with real potential - a female who isn't an incompetent fuck. I've always been aggressively competitive, and very hard on myself. Guess I have a major inferiority complex.

>sexual/romantic interactions
lol Nope. Not me. I tend towards total professionalism. Guys have flirted with me before, but quickly stopped - I have a kind of prickly aura, thinly veiled by fake cheerfulness. I can't help it, really.

>family members
Just my grandfather. Was a German pilot in WWII. Died when I was very young, though.

>motivation
My Dad worked in a ton of different countries around the globe (I sometimes went with him) and we'd do adventure sports and shooting together. He'd always tell me stuff about his PMC friends and close encounters with guerrillas and wild animals etc. I always wanted to be a mercenary.
I'm supposed to be doing Physics in an English Uni but I realized what a massive scam it all was. I can learn on my own I don't need their stupid piece of paper and debt. Army's more fun IMO.

Hope I was some help.

>>29898042
So you don't think generalizations are valid?

>>29894403
They were clapping when he knocked her ass on the ground.

They were booing when they said Marine Corps.

Both of these were the appropriate response.

File: Lyudmila-Pavlichenko.jpg (70KB, 655x433px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 655x433px

>>29889736
>>29889750
>>29889761
>>29889776
>>29889852

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little Hitlerite bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class from Soviet sniper school, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on German lines, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in partisan warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire 25th Rifle Division. You are nothing to me but just another fascist. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the NKVD and your location is being traced right now so you better prepare for the Katyushas, maggot. The Stalin Organ that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my PPSh. Not only am I extensively trained in urban combat, but I have access to a Tokarev SVT-40, and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking Nazi tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>29899804
There are many specialized areas where women demonstrate equal, if not superior, performance to men. Sniping & espionage are the obvious examples.

However, where women underperform the strongest is in the most basic, entry-level positions that play 100% to all their biggest weaknesses. This means a woman that can't make it as the lowliest of grunts isn't ever going to have the chance to earn a specialized role, unless we just allow women to skip basic training and bottom-tier tasks completely and start training them for specializations based on no particular criteria whatsoever.

>>29899984
>There are many specialized areas where women demonstrate equal, if not superior, performance to men. Sniping

No data that I have access to supports that women have better marksmanship, on the contrary. For instances, men vs women (and it's male provisional infantry vs 0311 females) hit rate with M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%.
Plus, mixed gender units were slower to react and fire.

>>29899153

Thanks for the answers. You do seem like the exception that confirms the rule. Best of luck!

All the pics with "woman in combat" are girls doing bootcamp home and saife in their own countries. Especially the scandinavian ones that are seen so many of. they spend their 4-6 months taking cute pics of themselves in uniform and then they return to their normal lives without having done anything else than entry level training.

How about we get some pics of girl inna sandbox instead, that is at least remotely relevant when it comes to women in the military

>>29890475
The reason noone else responded to your post is because your post is correct

If a female soldier can carry a male soldier on her back for 10 miles, then I'll welcome her with open arms

>>29889780

You mean you are lying.

>>29889736

Thank god my army is not stupid and only allows women to join the signal corps and propaganda units like the navy and air force the last thing I want is women in the military when I am about to get in the military academy.

>>29901119
What country, if I might ask?

>>29901083
I mean I don't want my career to be over just because I was identified on a web forum.

>>29901313

Romania.

>>29901313

>I mean I don't want my career to be over just because I was identified on a web forum.

First off you are probably not the only one in a whole fucking country, secondly this is the internet most people don't care and unless you post pics and info we don't know. Also 4chan delets stuff after a while.

>>29901001
If money fell out of Indians asses their streets would be paved with gold

>>29901313
Wait, how would that destroy your career?

>>29903713
Could you imagine how /k/ would look to a normie? Especially to a European normie

>"What is this, some kind of ultra-racist gun worshiping forum where everyone is gay, attracted to cartoon children and sexually identify as attack helicopters? You post there?"

>>29890288
If that was true they would have made the course longer, or made you do some kind of hard thing at the end to simulate a mission.

Are you saying that people who get to the finish line still fail if someone thinks they're breathing too hard at the end?

>>29903888
Which is why we wouldn't tell anyone, right? Gotta look out for fellow /k/ommandos.
Nice trips btw

>>29904079
So you think being a casualty after every hike is acceptable?

>>29890606
>but in Winland, it's pretty unheard of women quitting their service halfway through (at least voluntarily), while some good ~20% of males seem to do so each year.

Are you actually fucking retarded or just trolling for laughs?

All able-bodied men are conscripted. I don't know how many choose sivari or get C-paperit, but if ~20% quit during their service, that just means nearly 80% of our male population is fit for military service.

And women? We get only a handful of them each year. Like what, few % of their age group? And even STILL some of them can't finish their service. Shit they volunteered to do.

Sure enough, the very few physically fit and well-motivated females can perform equal to unmotivated and/or physically weak males. Voluntary female service is a pragmatic solution for Finland, but it's not a fucking argument for female army integration in general.

The one use I can see for women in the military is government-paid prostitutes.

>>29904468
Yes, if your superiors told you "Your mission is to get across this finish line, under the time limit, with a heartbeat"

If they wanted something else they should have said so

>>29889750
>>29889852
Term is "Internalized Misogyny".
When you are raised in a world, and live in a world, where everyone tells you the sky is blue, you eventually just nod. Some sooner, and some later.

File: bearded vulture's e is kicking in.png (2MB, 1173x705px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1173x705px

>>29905332
>almost every major force on earth has at least some women in it
>including in tight quarters and low privacy environments like naval vessels
>shit goes fine

>americans still insist that it's literally impossible to have a functioning unit with women in it

I think the problem with letting women into the US military is that it lets ANYONE into the US military

>>29905366
I want you to find me an example of a combat arms infantry force in a volunteer military that let women in.

>>29905378
canada

source: i'm in the naval reserve and there's tons of chicks in the deck department. and while there aren't many women at army units ive visited, there's a few.

>>29905378
everywhere with conscription lets women stay after the mandatory part is over

>>29905378
p sure JSDF has wimminfolk in it

>>29905402

>combat arms infantry force in a volunteer military

>i'm in the naval reserve
>tons of chicks in the deck department

What is reading comprehension

>>29905366
No, the problem is that these agendas are being pushed by people who hate the US and want to undermine the military/country

>>29905242
That's retarded though, when you ruck its training for when you have to march during an operation

If you watch the video you'll see a man casually stroll across the finish line in good health, that's what the goal is

>>29905332
Fair enough.