Would /k/ be alright with women in the military if they meet

No. The military is a bunch of 18-35 year old horndogs desperate for poon. Making women available to them as coworkers does nothing good.

>>31689297
Well yeah but in make believe world there wouldn't be a need for militarizes.

>>31689297
Sure.

>>31689297
Yes

>>31689297
>they meet the same standards
Yes. It's when standards get lowered that there's problems.

>>31689297
no

their mere presence will fuck everything up.

>>31689297
except the logistics issue of tampons

>>31689297
As long as they have a Y chromosome, a penis, and fuck women, they should be allowed the same rights as men.

>>31689297
yes

>>31689297
Women in the military are fucking attention whores that just boss the military beta males around and get desk jobs.

Women are destructive to a productive military force

>>31689297
Well assuming if they could meet the same standards, they wouldn't exactly be normal women so sure I guess.

>>31689390
Nobody will lower the standards

>>31692121
>nobody will lover the standards
What is affirmative action?

>>31690093
>Women in the military are fucking attention whores that just boss the military beta males around and get desk jobs.
>Women are destructive to a productive military force

That sounds exactly like men in the military.

File: bullshit.png (191KB, 468x347px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 468x347px

>>31692121
Except that's wrong and you know it.

Hell, it's already happened. The two females who went through ranger school failed multiple times even with special training, and then suddenly "passed" when a general showed up to "observe" the training.

Political correctness is destroying our military's combat readiness, and everyone who believes in it or is complacent with it is in for a very rude awakening the moment a traditional conflict kicks off.

>>31692121
good fucking luck finding anyone who is female, able to meet standards, and actually wants to be in the military

yeah there's women out there who can do the work but they are smart enough to realize that they can have an easier life not joining the military.

>>31689297
Absolutely not. They cause men to act differently, and have a hardwired biological compulsion to create drama. In our hunter gatherer days it was useful to cause men to fight, so the ladies could assess the abilities of potential mates, but it's a bad idea to have this nonsense play out in such a serious profession.

>>31689297
only if we lower the standards a little, whats the point of doubling potential recruits, and not taking advantage of pure weight of numbers.

>zerg rush

File: mr spiderman.jpg (54KB, 400x375px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 400x375px

>>31692166
Also, I would like to add this:

According to current Army regs (I don't know which one specifically and I don't care enough to look it up), units are required to give females an opportunity to shower once every three days, if possible. This regulation is in place because women can get some pretty nasty infections if they aren't able to wash their delicate lady parts every so often.

Now consider the following:
>conflict
>people getting shot
>things getting blown up
>3rd world fighting conditions even in 1st world areas
>potential severe lack of clean running water

And now your female troops are getting serious infections at a higher rate than the male soldiers, in addition to being generally weaker and more susceptible to stress-induced fuck-ups. Oh, and everyone would have to put up with the absolutely horrendous smell of infected pussy that hasn't been washed in weeks... that alone is grounds for not having female infantry, because it would be absolute torture for the male grunts.

File: coast guard.png (12KB, 598x204px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 598x204px

>>31692121
You're right, they won't lower them any more than they already are.

Until too many bitches get even lazier and platoon #69 doesn't meet the diversity quota.

>>31689297
I am not even going to be bothered to research the claim I am about to make but I vaguely recall reading that this is what south africa does and they have like 1 girl that made the cut

File: the fug.png (11KB, 211x246px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 211x246px

>>31692442
>29 push-ups
>38 sit-ups

>>31689297
I might just say that people here are looking at the problem from a first world and more or less american perspective.
That means wars are neatly overseas and not in your own country.
If your country is in danger and your civilians are not safe there is no reason not to use woman in combat roles.
There are many options for women to serve effectively and /k/ should drop their hard on for "muh infantry" already.

>>31692501
we'd draft the men into combat jobs long before we started using women as fodder
if you got to the point where the women were being shoved gun in one hand ammo in another then your country is wayyyyyyyy too fucked for the females to do anything

oh and women were the ones bitching about not being let into combat jobs. no one gives a shit about the women doing the other jobs, well, besides the fact that a lot of them aren't worth the air they breathe because they underperform in backoffice jobs

>>31692501
If you feel so strongly about this subject, then stop shitposting for the Democratic Party and enlist as infantry in either the Army or Marines.

Do this and you'll see for yourself why it's a bad idea for women to serve in combat roles.

Sure, why not. The problem is that they do actually have different standards.

i have a feeling the presence of a woman will break unit cohesion.

men will vie for her attention, creating jealousy and rivalry. they'll also go out of their way to defend her.

>>31693547
This doesn't really happen in practice.

>>31692577
>no draft
Still american perspective. Looking at Isreal might help a bit here. Or at the Kurds.
>>31692589
>implying I'm murrican

>>31689297
Yes

>>31689310
Sure it does
They Relief their sexual frustations and can be better soldiers again

>>31693432
But sadly this

>>31689390
A lot of military jobs don't need standards tougher than burger flipping at McDonalds. Standards ahould fit each job.

>>31693672
Yeah, but they shouldn't be lower for certain people just because they happen to be female.

Fuck no, cunts ruin everything they touch.

>>31689297
Fine with me. Females fight just as hard as anyone else

>>31693748
>citation needed

>>31689297
>Earrings

Probably just going to be a staffing clerk or something.

no.

i've had women in my company and let me tell you, 99% of women CAN NOT meet the male standard.

99% of females can't drag a casualty off the battlefield, let alone carry one.

WOMAN do. it belong in the military except for medical and cooking.

let the men go fight while the woman stay home and care for the families...

LIKE ITS BEEN FOR 5000 years of recorded human history...

woman in the military is a liberal meme to help woman feel worth more because they aren't as physically strong.

I would rather be dis-honorably discharged than ever serve with a woman again...

fuck that...

>>31689297
Yes
but then there wouldnt be any women in the military- correction, in combat corp's
because they cant meet the standards
hence why it was dropped in the first place
and they wouldnt get the attention

hell id allow snakes and cows to enlist if they can do the same but now were just talkin crazy

>>31689297
>women
>meeting the same standards

i suppose it could happen, but highly unlikely

Ever been mistaken for a man Vazquez?

>>31694007
That remaining 1% is still tens of thousands of women in most countries and much more than that in some larger ones.

>>31694215
No its not, that one percent is less than one percent of the overall female population

Its one percent of the women young and healthy enough to apply for the military

>>31689297
It depends on your culture. It works in some european militarys but americans and 3rd worlders are too autistic to get over themselves.

>>31694313
>it works in militaries that never have to fight

Wow, never would have guessed

>>31694313
Did you Europeans forget that everyone with even a hint of ambition and self reliance left your shit continent for the new world at least a hundred years ago, or do you just ignore it so you can sleep at night? Your gene pool is made up of subservient peasants and aristocrats so inbred they can't see straight.

It's so adorable how you're always ready and raring to baselessly criticize Americans when you lot of prattling retards can't even run your own economy, muster anything even close to a competent military, or even preserve your own culture in the face of the hordes third world rejects you let stream into your continent.

You can keep clinging to the false sense of superiority you've somehow fashioned yourselves from the ruins of empires that stopped being relevant before your parents were even born and blaming the Americans for all of your problems right up to the day when you finally pull your head out of your ass and look around to see the shambling corpse of European culture for what it really is. Most likely right after Russia gets done shit stomping you back to the bronze age, or the Muslim hordes tear down the Vatican and put up a mosque.

>>31689297
and who insures the standards doesnt get lowered to let them get in?


soooooooo

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>31694307
The exact number doesn't matter. The point is that out of the millions of women in every country, a few individuals are perfectly capable soldiers. The most important thing to consider here is that the military absolutely needs to be as efficient as it possibly can, because tons of human lives depend on how well the military can carry out its various missions, and that, by far, outweighs any other factors here. If the military can be made more efficient by hiring the most suitable woman and kicking out the least suitable man, it needs to be done, and this "lower standards for women" bullshit needs to be not done.

>>31694406
Oh wow, a brown pilled /pol/ denizen...
Protip: You can't experience the world from you moms basement.

>>31694424
Excellent rebuttal. A fine product of European education you are.

>>31694417
>military absolutely needs to be as efficient as it possibly can

If that were the case you realise that they wouldn't allow women to ever apply right?

Women, as a gender, have around twice the injury rate as men on average and, even on the current reduced female standard for non combat roles, have a much greater failure rate then men

It costs more to train, supply and retain the average female soldier than male soldier every step of the way and yet they will ALWAYS underperform the male soldiers

>>31694476
>averages
>rates

I'm not saying we should let the average woman in the military. I'm saying we should let only the absolute best women in the military.

File: 6482a42e67cbae35ba3bc986354546a2.jpg (44KB, 564x708px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 564x708px

>>31689297
Absolute. TBQHFAM every female that I've seen take a PT test did exceptionally well. Often maxing their scores. With that said, their standard is lower, but they would've easily passed the male standard. There's guys that can't even maintain a passing PT score and that's more of a concern.

The military is about killing up bad guys for your country. If your primary goal is not fucking up other human beings in armed and unarmed combat, you need to find something fucking else to do. And PT is pretty fucking mandatory for combat.

We need more Rambo and Sarah Connor and less powerpoints about how to not offend girls and bois.

File: 13431431524.jpg (186KB, 679x960px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 679x960px

>>31689297
Yeah, pretty much.

>>31693634
>They Relief their sexual frustations and can be better soldiers again
You idiot! That's what keeps men violent and full of testosterone! Having available sex makes you lazy you dummy!

>>31694406
>everyone with even a hint of ambition and self reliance

Puritans, paupers and starving irishmen making a country? I can't see that going wrong

>>31694502
But it cost so much more to screen them than it does to screen men, women are a disproportionate drain on the militaries budget and even the absolute best woman ever will only be capable of performing about as well as the average man,while requiring special logistics, supplies, and considerations that men don't

File: image.gif (1MB, 400x400px)

1MB, 400x400px

>>31689297
Yes.

>>31694579
Why would it cost more to screen women, and what are the special logistics, supplies and considerations that women need and men don't?

>>31694510
>they would easily passed the male standard

Literally every study done on that proves ypou wrong

>We need more Rambo and Sarah Connor and less powerpoints about how to not offend girls and bois

Have you ever been to one of those PowerPoints? They don't talk about not offending "bois" they only talk about how all men are rapist and you shouldn't rape women, its the women that necessitate those meetings so that the military can't face bullshit lawsuits when women get offended by common banter

>>31694599
It cost more because even on a reduced standard, their failure rates are much higher than men, if they are all held to the same standard as men then maybe one in one thousand would pass, as compared to the 80-90% of men that pass so you are automatically paying insane amounts more to get a woman that at her utter best, may head capable as an average male soldier

Then you have medical bills, women have much much higher injury rates than men. From skeletal injuries to concussions and everything else, during service and especially as veterans you will be paying more for the treatment of females than males. Then add in birth control, feminine hygiene products and an increased need of proper hygiene and the cost of replacing women who get pregnant and pre/post natal care and you have incredibly expensive soldiers who have incredibly low performance expectations

>>31689297
Fuck ya I would. They bring so much morale.

>>31694662
>They bring so much morale
and thats were youre wrong

File: e98f7bb398ed12c35ab0c100ca48d30a35a4d346003a8434306f6d4bb613e78b_1.jpg (121KB, 701x820px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 701x820px

>>31694608
>Literally every study done on that proves ypou wrong
Good thing they didn't ask for my testimonial in those studies.

Source >10 years in and I just signed on for 6 more. That 12.5K bonus yo.

Believe it or not, girls can pass the male PT test.

>Have you ever been to one of those PowerPoints?
On a terribly regular basis.

>They don't talk about not offending "bois" they only talk about how all men are rapist and you shouldn't rape women, its the women that necessitate those meetings so that the military can't face bullshit lawsuits when women get offended by common banter
Maybe that's what your chain ofcommand is focused on. But all the SHARP shit I have to go to is all encompassing for the homosex crowd too.

We could got all Starship Troopers and just let everybody fuck and not give a shit. Or just forcefully purge this childish highschool level bullshit and replace it all with willing killing machines, which is what it should've always been.

>>31694707
>good thing they didn't ask about my anecdotal evidence for their long scientific study

Kek'd

File: 0d99062cfd81c58b9e36bc06ae10d1d9.jpg (64KB, 382x597px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 382x597px

>>31694723
>anecdotal
Purposefully ignoring first hand accounts. That's some pro science right there.

>>31694654
>if they are all held to the same standard as men then maybe one in one thousand would pass
Do you seriously think that women would apply at such high rates that only one in 1000 would pass?

>Then you have medical bills, women have much much higher injury rates than men. From skeletal injuries to concussions and everything else, during service and especially as veterans you will be paying more for the treatment of females than males

This is true for women regardless of whether they are in the military or somewhere else.

>Then add in birth control, feminine hygiene products

There isn't necessarily a need to provide those for free.

>increased need of proper hygiene

I don't see a reason for there to be lower standards of hygiene for men than there are for women.

>and the cost of replacing women who get pregnant and pre/post natal care

Again, this would be an issue even if those women were doing something else instead of being in the military.

>>31694579
>I can't see that going well

Well a bunch of people who left their homes and risked everything to create a new life created the greatest economic, military, cultural, and scientific superpower the world has ever seen. What exactly have to one's who stayed behind accomplished? Ikea?

>>31689310
>this

They would be better served contracting civilian hookers instead.

No, they are bad for morale, for logistics, and are much better fit at baby-making i.e. more soldiers.

>>31695389
Neither New World or Old World employed women in combat roles.

That's the trick.

>>31689297
no. they're cancer.

also, you can see the lowering of the standards.

>>31695410
I totally quoted the wrong thing. My bad.

I meant to quote
>>31694568

>>31694739
Uh, yeah that's correct

>>31692121
You're right anon, they'll just completely abolish the standards and replace them with something so fucking simple an 8th grader could do them. Which is exactly what the Canadian Army did, and now other countries are getting the same idea.

File: laughing airborne.jpg (54KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1024x576px

What's really funny is the short women that are like 5'7" saying they could easy drag any fully-kitted man into cover, when the men easily have 80-100 pounds over them.

>short girl says she can fireman carry me easily during PT test
>amazingly she can carry my 220lb ass without collapsing
>Sgt says to kit up and try it again on the mats
>she barely gets 2 steps forward before she falls forward and face-plants with my weight pressing her face into the mats

>>31694739
Personal accounts are literally the least credible scientific sources.

>>31694969
Those cost wouldn't be on the militaries head though, so what I said stands

>>31689297
>be 5th place FIFA girls team
>lose to under 16 boys team
Back to the kitchen when?

"It all relative," he said. "It's no different from [the sort of result you'd expect] from a female tennis player or a female swimmer against a 15- or 16-year-old boy who's maturing and starting to develop physically."

"They have to be looked upon as two separate entities."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/05/25/matildas-beaten-7-0-by-newcastle-jets-under-15-boys-team/

Problem is women can't meet the standards for men unless you dramatically reduce the standards. The few that can meet the standard are going to destroy their bodies trying to keep up.

I don't have a problem w/ setting the standards for what the job needs and letting anyone in that can meet the standard and do the job. The problem is that some people see that women aren't in there and decide it's sexist so they lower the standards which will get people killed.

File: IMG_8818.jpg (80KB, 670x461px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 670x461px

What are the opinions about the women who fought for the soviets during ww2? Did they suck, did the men not like them?

>>31694739
>just because I happened upon 3 bull dykes means that every female in the military is equal to them

>>31698025
Often times their performance was exaggerated for propaganda reasons

>>31689297
The world is not a fiction, anon, where many women can meet this same standards. They will not and standards will be lowered.
And physical standards are not all that is necessary to be a good soldier. Female mindset is inherently disruptive as you can see from thousands of years ago all the way to modern day. There might be occasional female with the correct mindset but end result would be achieved better and cheaper just from prevent females from military, workplace, and voting booth.

>>31698025
Ivanya a cute

>>31693593
Yes it does.

>>31698025

The Soviets used them as a propaganda tool but their contribution was nothing to scoff at. Soviet female pilots were brave and proved to be rather successful, while Marksmen did their part well.
Most Soviet women who were "combat arms" were actually medical officers (nurses), spies and anti-aircraft gunners, while the majority of Soviet women freed up men in administration and clerical work to fight.

The propaganda value however was worth a huge amount just as same as the female contribution to force was.

>>31692494
There are people who can't do this. It's mind boggling. I saw 3 dudes fail out of A school because they couldn't pass the PFT after knowing for over a year that they were going to have to do it.

Once you make E-4 you apparently never have to do it again since there are a million fatties in support roles.

>>31689297
If they serve in separate units

>>31698439
>the propaganda value however was worth a huge amount

This is what women have to tell themselves to justify their continued objectification

> be Grunt inna army National Guard
> Be told today we are getting our first female in our platoon.
> told that we can no longer talk the way we talk and act the way we act.
> realize all the bullshit big army is dealing with is coming our way.
Feels bad man

>>31699603

I mean it was objectively a massive boost to Soviet moral and individual contribution.

It's still funny but yeah.

>>31689297
Anyone else reminded of Hillary Clinton when you look are her face? It makes my peepee confused since I like girls with blonde, short hair.

>>31700680
You are seeing things, I don't think there is a resemblance

there are already women in the military though

>it's the daily male supremacy thread
wtf i love being a man now!

Not infantry, so we sometimes have female officers telling us what to do. They are usually power hungry, make poor decisions and crumble under pressure. I wish I could say that I'm just a horrible sexist pig and I hate all women, but honestly, my CO is just a bad CO. NONE likes her, she is under investigation because nearly 80% of the unit has applied to leave the military while under her command.

The infantry I work closely with laugh at my misfortune, they ask why I even bother listening to her, and if they were me they would simply refuse to follow her orders, and she would be too weak to do anything about it. In a way I think they are right.

>>31704440

>build empires
>build modern medicine
>build modern science
>the greatest names in the annuals of history will always be men

I don't hate women, none dose. I just really don't want them in my military because they have proven time and time again to be weak, emotional and bad for unit cohesion.

Do you think women should serve in combat rolls? Please explain why?

>>31699606
don't worry anon, I doubt she will even ship, proly make one or two drill weekends and then say fuck this.

>>31704512
i dont get whats wrong with having them in noncombat roles like they already are

>>31689400
Don't give them tampons. We all know the kind of bitches that are suitable for combat roles are big bertha fucks that dont care about hygiene anyhow.

>>31704512
Sure they can serve in combat roles. Not necessarily the most physically challenging roles though.

Does the military allow beta males?

>>31704512
annals senpai

>>31689297
It wouldn't be that bad if they'd take care of the administration or field medic stuff. Just don't give the gun in their hand.

>>31704675
God I hope so Anon. Thankfully we are going to make drill fucking horrible the upcoming months.

Bleeders get out!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

File: sovietgirleatskratwurst.jpg (30KB, 585x389px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 585x389px

>>31698025
notice that her spotter is also a female, if you make a fully segregated female unit it can work for infantry, and females can perform the job on a vehicle crew, but not in mixed dismounted operations. see>>31695811

could they be in armored unit or artillery?

>>31707877
The Marine Corp study shows that they are significantly slower than male counterparts

>>31707901
i meant inside tanks and doing artillery stuff bro i would say no to having them as infantry though

>>31707912
They are slower on crew served weapons, all the weaknesses you see when they are in the infantry remain when they are crewing weapons

>>31707931
oh ok i just thought that maybe infantry was too much for them i do not want people to needlessly die for pc bullshit male or female

>>31694424

This would have had more punch if >>31694406 wasn't correct on every level.

>>31694164
No, have you?

>>31704512
>build empires
Elizabeth I of England comes to my mind

>>31695402
not having compulsory service for all fit females 17 to 22yo with one year training for optimal performance and career paths with specialized fields. civilian hookers be nasty

File: 1442104683368.jpg (315KB, 1500x753px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1500x753px

>>31689297
Yes

>>31693786
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko
309 confirmed kills.
Citation given.

>>31709548
Come on m8

>>31709548
>a fucking un protected wiki article
>one fucking person
>sniper

(you) are quite the retard

How in the fuck does this mean that women are a remotely sensible choice for combat roles?

>>31694739
>be us soldier
>retarded as fuck

File: 1476486078132.gif (405KB, 359x371px)

405KB, 359x371px

>>31709548
>Soviet Union
>confirmed kills

>>31707989
I wondered if anyone would do it

>>31710676
Atleast it's not German or Finnish confirmed kills.

File: Navy-PRT-Standards-Female.png (131KB, 1469x950px)

131KB, 1469x950px

The standards have been so low for so long that most women in the military now would be kicked out if they actually had them brought up to male standards.

>>31694007
>op asks if we were willing to accept females in combat if they met male standards
>anon answers with a tirade about the "99%" of women that cant meet male standards.
>99%
>100-99=1
>1% meets his criteria
>still no
I thought this only happened in the summer.

>>31711814
The 1% that do meet the criteria still drag down the overall performance of the unit, so still no

File: 1459720446681.jpg (80KB, 620x446px)

80KB, 620x446px

>>31689297
Yeah. But time and time again they don't, and they are in there anyway

>>31693701
True dat

My penis was perfectly fine before I had my first hand job, then all of a sudden my penis becomes one of the smallest she's seen.

Women, not even once

>>31694707
of course the faggot with the helmet and 600$ ear protection is going to be operating in a environment that was make your fucking ears bleed

there is a god damn reason he has a pained expression on his face and his hands over his ears


whoever made that has autism

>>31692442
You're kidding, in primary school we had to do over 40 sit-ups to pass.

>>31689297
Sure, in separated companies.

>>31692121
The UK armed forces have already been weakened with essential kit removed to allow women in

Gender segregation at the company level for combat units.

Once they meet the same physical standards, that should solve the quarantining the drama (sexual harrassment/assault/rape) which is the next problem.

The remaining problem is the general public treating the two different as casualties/prisoners, aka, the "Jessica Lynch" effect. No idea how to solve that.

>>31711627
Except hayhas kills were fucking CONFIRMED

>>31694406

Underrated post.

>>31716849
>primary school
Shit is easier when you weigh 50 lbs.

>>31689297

No because that shit don't matter.

>>31717359
ikr? i remember when i could climb so easily on shit...

>all these people saying yes and posting images of fantasy gurls
Spotted the nonmils.

>>31717251
Really? What don't they have to carry?

>>31694417
And people who will change the social dynamics of a unit, require extra supplies and drag the efficiency down have no place in the military.
Get your head out of your ass

>>31698439

After the war, the Soviets started putting their women into the signals corps as clerks. Informally, several generals started using them as their personal harems.

>>31718248
As has been stated numerous times, there is no reason to believe that women would change the social dynamics, require extra supplies or drag the efficiency down.

>>31689297
It's not possible for women to meet the same physical standards as men. They break too easily, it's just how they're put together.

I saw a shitload of injuries just in BCT, by AIT most of the women in the company were some flavor of broken, and this was a cake POG MOS. Thinking they can be infantry is pure fantasy.

Some light reading:
http://www.ais.up.ac.za/med/sport/lifestylefactors.pdf
http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7

>>31689297
In short, yes but I don't think they should be in the same units. Men and women get funny ideas when in close proximity.

>>31689297
No

2 things.

1. Women will never be as strong as men. Put together the strongest adult women into a Rugby or Football or Soccer team... and have them face off against an average high school male team.

2. Women and men in high stress environments will fuck up unit cohesion. EVEN IF women were as strong and capable as men in combat (they aren't, by any objective measure) they still shouldn't be in combat units due to the insane disruption to unit cohesion that has been observed. All female units should be the only way to go if Politicians ram rod through the stupid fucking idea of sending the weaker, more vulnerable sex into the horrors of war for the sake of PC fantasy

>>31718699
The opposite has been stated and is for the most part verifiable, not to mention obvious

>>31689297
In Norway, women born in 97 or later have to be tested and evaluated just like guys. In theory, both guys and girls have to serve at least 12 months, but since the military is so small (nato pls), you can skip if you want to.

There's even a special forces for just women.
NRK made a TV-series about it. Here's an article (use google translate).
https://www.nrk.no/ho/xl/etter-et-ar-i-jegertroppen-1.13156070

File: 1473269692636.jpg (227KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 960x1280px

>>31689297
Thread needs more Carcano-Chan

>>31689297

Of course.

File: zzzzzohyesssss.gif (2MB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x400px

>>31694406
10/10

>>31724675
>special forces just for women
>let's lower the requirements and exclude men, we special forces now!

>>31689297
>same standards as men
As I recall it's not that they can't keep up that can be a deal breaker, it's that the men can't stop falling over themselves and each other to make allowances for female service members even when it isn't necessary. Not true for everybody but it was a noticeable trend and made mixed deployments hairy depending on the disposition of the servicepeople involved (both men and women). Been quite a while since I read about it...

File: 1474655662053.jpg (274KB, 709x516px)

274KB, 709x516px

>>31694406

They bleed regardless of whether they get shot.

File: rusrsnigga.jpg (29KB, 500x244px)

29KB, 500x244px

>>31726534

>>31689297
I dont give a flying fuck who joins the military

>>31692312
We need this to happen
Sucks for the guys that are racked in with them though

>>31694969
>This is true for women regardless of whether they are in the military or somewhere else.
Yeah, but the discussion is about the costs the military has to bear. Who pays for their healthcare when they're outside the military is irrelevant.

>There isn't necessarily a need to provide those for free.
You're right that they're not free, and guess what organization is going to be paying for it?

>I don't see a reason for there to be lower standards of hygiene for men than there are for women.
Then apparently your knowledge of the female anatomy leaves something to be desired. Here's something to start you off: Ever heard of menstruation?

>>31689297
Nope.
Pussy causes problems. Ive seen it even with females not even in our unit around

>>31727262
Well that's informative

File: FB_IMG_1465846859657.jpg (25KB, 480x220px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x220px

>>31694406
YUROPOORS BTFO

>>31689297
If they can meet the male physical fitness standard, pass all the written evals and not behave like idiots? Fuck yeah. Anyone who can get in on their own merits and do their job should be able to do so. Fuck diversity/equality quotas. But if a woman, man, tranny or faggot can hold themselves up high and match or beat the standards for physical fitness, drill, dress and deportment, by God, let them serve. I don't care what's between someone's legs or what they like the people between their legs to have. If they are capable of doing the job at or above the set standards, are not a danger to their unit and don't completely fuck everyone up by being shitty team members, FUCK IT.

File: 1430179357708.gif (246KB, 180x280px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 180x280px

>>31689297
Please point me to a point in history where a commander said, "You know what'll make my unit better? MORE WOMEN!"

Pro-tip: You can't because literally no military would ever want women soldiers over men soldiers unless they were trying to fill a political correctness quota.

File: 1460006124713.png (144KB, 594x340px)

144KB, 594x340px

>>31694406

>>31727328
>Yeah, but the discussion is about the costs the military has to bear.

The military is government-funded in most cases.

>You're right that they're not free, and guess what organization is going to be paying for it?

The women, for instance.

>Then apparently your knowledge of the female anatomy leaves something to be desired. Here's something to start you off: Ever heard of menstruation?

I don't see why menstruation is a reason to have shitty hygiene for men.

>>31694406
tl;dr

>>31692442
>tfw i cant pass the female CG standards as a 20 y/o male