Why does /k/ think women worse at serving in the military than men?

>>31365604
Because its true

Do you believe gravity is real?

>>31365604
Sexual Dimorphism

>>31365640
/thread

Because women are worse at the Olympics than men. Always have been, always will be.

>>31365604

80% of women is not suitable for military service. Much like 50% of men isnt.

Some women is better than some men, but men is more likely to be suitable for service.

We live in a time when wars are won and lost more by public opinion and PR than the actual battles.

Imagine if a woman soldier was captured by ISIS. Imagine if videos like the Jordan F-16 pilot emerged, but with a woman. Imagine before every execution video it showed the prisoner being gang raped.

File: 1467574072546.gif (698KB, 555x666px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 555x666px

>Why does /k/ think women worse at serving in the military than men?
Because I inhabit the realm of reality and know that real life is no armchair supposition by feminists and politicians.

I've also been inna infantry a few years now.

>>31365604
a menstrual cycle alone would impair their performance. though if an entire battalion of raging bitches on their period were assembled, that might be scary.....

>>31365691
Any competent PR person would be able to spin that in favor of continuing the war.

>>31365909

They kill each other for showing up to the fight in the same outfit

>>31366266
kek

>>31365604

Because I believe in evolution.

>>31365949
and a competent pr person from opposition would rip you a new one ....

>>31365604
//k/ is full of basement dwelling neckbeard lard-operators who masturbate to "habbening" dreams, while cursing the fact that creatures called "girls" actually may do and survive through a military service, which they would not even allowed to participate in.

>why does /k/ believe facts

>>31365640
There are plenty of jobs in the military that don't require strength that women can do better than men

File: image.jpg (34KB, 419x419px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 419x419px

>>31366266
Fuck that would be a great comedy sketch.

>>31368353
A: like what, nurse?

B: no combat mos would benefit from allowing women to serve


Honestly, all of these bullshit arguments can be shut down by simply comparing what the military has to gain from women to what it has to lose. It has nothing to gain, and basically everything to lose.

>b-but my equal opportunity!

The military does not exist to please feminist ideology. It is NOT an equal opportunity employer, nor should it be.

I hear that troops often piss and shit into jugs inside of vehicles while they're out and about. That can't be easy for females.
Special ops teams that are out in bumfuck no-where can't leave literal blood trails of tampons while on secret missions, and carrying them around is out of the question.
A woman recently gave birth on a ship out at sea, not even knowing she was pregnant. You can't just squat and give birth to a small human in the middle of a firefight.
Women would be better suited to support roles, where some of their positive traits can come in handy.
They require less food and take up less space than we do, maybe we could stick them in tanks and planes. Tanks could be smaller because they would rarely have to accommodate someone over 6' tall.

Then again, i'm just a civilian. I could be dead wrong.

I'm sure there are some who might be very good soldiers, but the for the vast majority, no.

It's the same for firefighters; it's anecdotal, but I know some who are great at their job.

If a woman can do the training and keep up with the men, then that's fine. I'm all for equality but not when it put lives in danger.

>>31365604
They all break their pelvises.
They all fuck the other soldiers.
They bleed out of their cunts.

File: image.jpg (693KB, 2091x1067px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 2091x1067px

They are manipulators not fighters. They are better served as spies and support staff

>>31365604
I actually don't believe in that. A gun is good at killing no matter who holds it. Being petite may actually be preferable because the target is smaller. As long as they can endure stupid long patrols women are fine.

>>31365604

Women are biologically inferior to men in (almost) all of the ways that give a person advantages in combat.

Since women would naturally have to fight men, they'd be at a permanent disadvantage.

This is why we've always had men do this job, rather than women.

They should consider it a blessing

they'll never be drafted and sent off to some stupid war to die for nothing

Men are physically stronger on avg. If the military actually kept the same physical requirements for men and women (they don't) there would be a very, very small amount of women who would be able to join.

>>31368616
lucky 95% of all military members are support staff who never leave firm bases

File: 20160916_135342.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1836px

>>31367127
Wew lad

Because you people start all these wars so you can finish them. I'm not interested in your phallus-obsessive, testosterone driven drama queen nonsense.

File: Lyudmila_Pavlichenko.jpg (44KB, 540x360px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x360px

>>31365604
bcoz butthurt by Lyudmila

>>31365604
Military did tests in this and mixed units performed worse on most challenges.

>>31367127

>projecting this hard

>>31365604

Because some of us have actually served in the military alongside women and seen firsthand that their performance, as a collective, is much worse than that of the average male soldier.

Don't get me wrong--there are some badass females that I know in the Army. Three of my classmates from West Point are at the Infantry Basic Officer Leader's Course right now. All three are tremendous athletes. They also hover around 100 lbs each. They'll get through IBOLC just fine, but Ranger School is going to destroy them unless the RIs intercede to make sure that their packs aren't too heavy, they don't have to carry the M240, etc.

The problem is that a reasonably in-shape male will be able to perform soldier skills like buddy carries, ruck marches, and bounding better than a female soldier that dramatically exceeds the performance of her peers. Women have to be high-speed af just to be an average infantry grunt.

>>31371858

The USMC study on female combat units was surprisingly thorough and scientific.

File: 1472945791128.gif (978KB, 308x289px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 308x289px

>>31369506

Not sure if fap material or loss of human faith.

File: 1469353146666.png (141KB, 950x750px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 950x750px

>>31370619

File: 1443397253048.jpg (22KB, 635x477px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 635x477px

>>31369506
Pic related. Also,
>Petaling Jaya
Goddamn I'm glad I'm white.

>>31368616
Wynmyn can't load tank shells as effectively as men. It's a very physical job.

>>31365691
This.

Remember the Jessica Lynch debacle? Women are a liability on the battle field. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to do POG jobs though.

>its the male supremacy thread that's in every single board
wtf i look down on women now!

>>31372712
That's not what anyone has said here

>>31372712
>its the white knight that's in every single thread

>>31372712
(You)

>>31368616
>Tanks could be smaller because they would rarely have to accommodate someone over 6' tall.
lel no
tanks are already built around smaller-than-average soldiers. the "average" soldier apparently is somewhere around 5'6.
same with submarines. I'm 6'2 and I have a BAD time moving around in those - as a visitor, because I would never actually be considered to be assigned to either.
armed forces WANT you to be short.

>smaller hitboxes too

>>31365604
Because they're women. DUH

Also for proper English, you lacking a verb.

>>31372569
The slightly shameful faps are always best

>>31369506
>Teenage guy gets sexually assaulted by his sister.
>Gets advice on how to come out as gay.
And that's why rates of depression and suicide are skyrocketing among men.

It's just common sense; men are bigger, meaner and tougher, we are evolved over millions of years to be the hunters and killers.

Ever seen an 5 fest girl with round about 115 pound Gatting an MG3 (MG42) ready :-D i've been there :-D it's kind oft cute and extreme rediculous at the same time

It's a load of shit that men and women can now do the same job but women have lower physical standards.

>Army PFT
>Min. push-ups to pass as male: 42
>Max. push-ups a woman is scored for, getting a 100%: 42
>Same for run time (approx. 16:00min is slowest allowed for males, fastest counted for females)

Not to mention I wouldn't trust any woman in the military that I know (despite being close friends with) in a combat scenario.

File: Feminist in the Army.webm (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>31365604

File: Sniper.jpg (65KB, 608x406px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 608x406px

>>31377442

File: 1368125331341.gif (2MB, 400x253px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x253px

>>31377449

>>31377301
Makes me angry.

women have no place in the workforce much less anywhere near the military.

they should be raising children.

>>31365604
From an unbiased perspective, I would assume less potential due to the fact that they have about half the muscle mass on average

>Women bleed before they even get shot.

Have you ever lived with a women?
They always want someone to do stuff for them.
Where a man finds a way, a woman finds a man.

>>31377459
I love how he just tosses her in the foxhole.
>Bet she even bitched about it afterword.

>>31377449
Why though.

>>31365604
Men have been biologically and psychologically designed for combat for hundreds of thousands of years. Modern combat is not different enough from prehistoric combat to justify allowing women to do it. Can they be cooks or whatever? sure. In a wwiii scenario, let women do stuff like that to free men up for combat. But you cant say for certain a cook will never have to see combat, and the mlitary is already trying to downsize. No reason to let women in.

>>31372712
What you autists dont understand is that difference=/=superiority. Women are more empathetic and caring and make objectively better nurses. You, by saying women can do everything a man can if you disagree you hate women, are debasing women by implying feminine traits are inherently lesser than masculine traits.

>>31377524
>They always want someone to do stuff for them.
>Where a man finds a way, a woman finds a man.

After spending several years working almost exclusively with women, I can say this is completely true in most cases. I work in hospital administration, the field is overwhelmingly female. My current team is literally me and 18 women. At my last job, it was me, one other guy, and 28 women. In both cases, I was recognized and promoted rapidly despite being one of the least experienced on the team because virtually all of my coworkers had zero problem-solving skills. The same issues that I would routinely troubleshoot and solve would stop the majority of my team in their tracks.

Education and experience ARE factors to some extent, but most of these people don't even try. They immediately give up and next thing I know, there's a Skype message asking me to come fix it for them.

File: time to fap.png (267KB, 540x572px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 540x572px

>>31365691
>imagine

>>31369667
>A gun is good at killing no matter who holds it.
>A tool is good at its job no matter who holds it.
You realise now how fallacious that remark was?

A human being naturally inferior for the purposes of combat is not suitable for military service.

>>31369667
>As long as they can endure stupid long patrols women are fine.
Exactly.

File: 141412321.webm (3MB, 696x528px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 696x528px

>>31365604
/thread

>>31372621
Autoloader you fag, you've obviously never seen the cock of a tank.

>>31365604
Not a military man myself, so I've never seen women in the military to judge for myself.

BUT, historically, militaries were all male because men are expandable to the tribe. One survivor can impregnate all the women who stayed home during a particularly violent campaign, so protecting women from violence just makes sense from a tactical standpoint.

Therefore, militaries have been organized to make use of males primarily or exclusively, so of course they would require things women aren't as good at. For example, a lot of women who qualified for combat roles could carry a standard set of equipment. But where the men could do that with no adverse effects, it wrecked the women's backs. The equipment packs had been made with men in mind, and even those women with the will to carry them didn't have the physical capability for it.

I think the Kurds are onto something by separating the sexes for their armies. Women have other capabilities that men don't, like being better swimmers and more willing to kill. I expect a military by and for women would be reasonably effective, the problem is when women try to play in a playground designed for men.

File: 1474007370843.jpg (31KB, 505x479px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 505x479px

>>31377914
I'll review this
>Better swimmers
No. Not in my experience, Not on the high end (Olympics) not on the average. That's the same as the pain tolerance myth.
>More willing to kill
Any sort of evidence needed. Plenty of women won't speak to me after they find out I killed someone. Even when they find out it was a rapist. Even when they find out he raped me. Women are very small minded, and with the present SJW climate, I'm betting you can't justify that remark, even anecdotally.

>>31371180
Weren't most of her kills unconfirmed? Her whole record sounds like Soviet propaganda.

>>31378017
I'm against women in infantry, I'm fine with women snipers. She was a sniper, most of their kills go unconfirmed.

>>31378038
As you can probably guess, I am too. It just seems extremely ludicrous that someone could kill over 300 people, despite being engaged in an almost constant combat situation. The fact that the Soviets liked to inflate people's achievements doesn't help either.

File: image.png (2MB, 1195x814px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1195x814px

Not that I care but I've always heard that women couldn't carry the weight plus other soldiers if they incapacitated. So why not make them light infantry or something. Then again I don't really know anything about it.

>>31365604
I think women should be fine in certain roles. I don't see why women couldn't be oper8ors or snipers. Assuming they can pass the physical requirements, why not?

Look at the raid on Bin Laden's compound. Drop in, wreck shit, dip. I think a women would have been physically capable of that.
I also think women would be fine in support roles, helicopters, mortar teams, etc.

I just don't think women are capable of the hard life of day to day soldiering. Women aren't as physically capable as men and a military needs to push the physical capabilities of their soldiers. Most women can't complete a 12 mile light infantry march with a fully loaded pack, and the ones that can probably wouldn't be able to do it as well as the men. Basically, the issue of women being in the military isn't that they aren't as combat effective. It's that they wouldn't be able to carry out many of the other duties a soldier is expected to do. A woman can probably fire a rifle as well as a man, but can she lift the .50 to adjust the firing position?

I say open the draft up to women so that in a time of war you can have more men on the frontlines and let the women do the support work.

>>31378136
>So why not make them light infantry or something.

Nigger what? Light infantry is the ones carrying all the heavy shit.

>>31377831
>maximum pog achieved

>>31378258
*lighter infantry

>>31378320
Light infantry refers to "light support", not "light load on their back"

>>31378320
Vehicle bourne rapid dismount could work

>>31378337
Why though? How could a woman perform that job better than a man?

File: Female Cop Magazine Backwards.jpg (255KB, 1257x718px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1257x718px

>>31365604

>>31378366
More women could fit inside and/or the vehicle could move faster due to reduced weight

>>31377999
>Plenty of women won't speak to me after they find out I killed someone.
Men just shrug it off. They respond in some small way, even, but it's not going to bother most.

>>31378320
>>31378136
Anon, pls, light infantry is not a bunch of skinny dudes with Nike bags instead of bergens.

>>31378398
I always lose to the *knife hands internally* Master Sgt standing there. Glorious.

>>31377426
Feels bad, my man. Maybe the OPAT will be different...

>>31378411
>tfw you know that dumb bitch ended up on a 'no standing' profile for the next three months and skipped morning PT.

>>31378400
I'm just saying.

>>31378425
I always feel bad for that guy with the shield. Even with ears in, a 12g right next to your head is loud as fuck

File: 1473455137148.png (172KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 501x585px

*hiss*

Why, we obviously *hiss* think women are capable warriors.

>>31365661
Cant believe they let the tranny run as a girl lol

>>31378038
>implying any of the soviet war heroes who did anything other than spend the rest of their lives in gulag were anything more than propaganda pieces

wew

>>31378542
What ever happened with that transwoman MMA fighter? Did he ever lose to a woman?

>>31378556
No idea

>>31365604

It isn't like our military wins anymore anyway, so who cares?

This is only an issue in a country where the federal government isn't just pissing away soldiers to advance the interests of globalists and corporations. So long as the politicians aren't actually trying to use the military for its intended purpose, it really doesn't matter what happens. Soros cares not from whom the blood flows, so long as it flows.

>>31365604
You know how in elementary school, you sort of kept away or actively bullied girls because they were "icky."

/k/ never really grew out of that stage.

File: soviet wymen training in the soviet army hours.png (1MB, 1084x1468px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1084x1468px

>>31378129
Lyudmila pavlichenko have 309 recorded kills for the whole war.

Vasily Zaytsev have 225 kills in Battle of stalingrad alone.

What makes lyudmilla special is that she is a woman and there were extremely few female as snipers compared to males and she supposedly did a good job. Now how many good male snipers did the soviets have? Even here where we got a excellent female sniper she is a minority of a minority.

Regardless of what memes you have heard before, most females soldiers in the soviet army served in non combat roles such as medics, radio operators, truck drivers etc. After the war women were taken out from the army since there was no need for them to stay there and there was a massive demobilisation anyway.

Women that did have combat roles or did see combat in interviews mostly stated that they did not enjoy what they did but they did it for patriotic reasons and out of necessity. The motherland was in danger and they had to do their part for the defence of the motherland.

Even further back into the cold war there is a clear distinction of what males and females are supposed to do in the soviet army. In 1967, changes to the soviet constituition included the addition of mandatory and universal pre-induction military training. This applies on both sexes and it starts at the age of 9 and there they will see some form of military training. It get more advance when they are at the age 14 and older.

Even tho women are not gona get drafted they are still included since experience from world war 2 says they migth be needed in future wars. Women get more medical training and males get more weapons/tactic training. Why?
Current views of women roles and what women did in world war 2. 60% of the medics in the soviet army were females. The peak strength of women serving in the Soviet armed forces during World War II is estimated at 800,000 to 1,000,000, or 8% of the total number of military personnel.

File: 1391495109368.png (80KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x550px

>>31378859
So if we ever are gona be serious about having females in the army then we should do as the soviets.

Out of necessity, patriotic reasons and have the majority in non combat roles. If we do have some in combat roles and some of them do pretty good then use their deeds greatly in propaganda to motivate your people and mock the enemy.

File: 1453360988053.png (71KB, 482x428px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 482x428px

>>31365604
Whether or not they are equal to men doesn't matter and shows how far off our society is from sanity.

Women are any civilization's most precious resource. They are the vehicle in which any civilization propagates and expands itself. You essentially fight a war for the survival and well-being of your women. If you are sending them you your front lines to die there is no point in fighting anyway. Your civilization will just shrivel and die.

>>31365604
The 17.000 female peshmerga troops of Kurdistan seem to br succesful against ISIS.

>>31365691
That would be the hottest porn.

>>31379038
Yes because women can propagate without men.