If women pass the same test as men could they be expected have

>>30982038
Yes, but we should move to take them to breeding pens anyways to breed supersoldiers

File: 1459244585245.png (8KB, 430x373px)

8KB, 430x373px

What great context

Yes, thats the whole point of the tests.

>>30982038
Only if the test is as difficult to pass as the role is to perform.

I could ask a random sampling men and women to pass the same test of clapping their hands 3 times. That does not mean each sex will have similar performance in running a marathon.

>>30982092
To expand on that: I can give you a piss easy test and say that now you're infantry, but that doesn't mean you won't be shit at it--and women will be shit at a far greater rate than the men.

If you have a hard as fuck test that accurately mirrors lengthy ops in field conditions, the few women who actually pass it they can probably do the job fine.

>>30982038
I'm actually gonna say no. Being able to meet physical requirements once is not the same as doing a job day in and day out. Men, almost universally, have better endurance than women and can take physical punishment for longer.

>>30982134
>. Men, almost universally, have better endurance than women and can take physical punishment for longer.

Women are more resistant to blast than men as they have a larger internal area that pressure can expand into.

There were cases in Vietnam where grenades used to clear tunnels would kill all the men and only injure the women.

>>30982258
Maybe the men threw themselves in front of the women to protect them though? Lots of variables to this kind of shit.

>>30982258
Fair enough, and I will acknowledge that there are plenty of things women are better at than men (evolution is cool like that) but humping a 50+ pound pack through rough terrain for weeks on end simply isn't one of them. If your only job in the military was to fire a rifle women could be as effective as men, but that we edge them out when stamina comes into play.

>>30982258
Interesting...

You got any sauce on that? Preferably something verifiable and not some blogger writing a story that his dad once told him.

>>30982258
Women suffer concussions more though so there are no free rides

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/10/our-effort-to-reduce-concussions-in-youth-sports-overlooks-the-biggest-victims-girls/?utm_term=.3a4a5b3d8b7f

>>30982038
No, it is not a safe assumption.
Brain and body chemistry are different, introducing a female to a squad with men will cause differences in the performance of that squad, this changes almost everything the squad does, compared to an all male or even all female squad.

>>30982337
Agreed with this. Mixed gender units are a recipe for fucking disaster.

>>30982295
I saw it in a documentary the other week, i've tried googling but every time i look up anything to do with girls, Vietnam and explosions i get napalm girl.

>>30982038
No. Even if a woman is as physically capable as man, she's still not a man. We're looking at a whole lot parameters which included psychology, physiological structure and social aspects. Females are not inherently worse at those aspects than man, but they're different- almost apples vs oranges. Since we rate, for various reasons, combat performance by male standards- females will never do as "well" as man.

For a little while, til her pelvis breaks.

>>30982134
>Men, almost universally, have better endurance than women and can take physical punishment for longer.

They are literally designed to spend hours excruciatingly trying to squeeze football sized objects out of their cunts. I'm sure the tough ones can handle it.