Why does /k/ think women should not be in the army? Men are

>>33895562
Because reality.

>>33895562
>Men are stronger
>implying physical strength matters when modern weapons shoot over 9000rpm

Because you're not carrying a gun that mystically shits out bullets and that weighs less then a pound

>>33895562
>women should not be in the army?
Do you mean frontline firefights?
They are good for supporting not combat.

>Why does /k/ think women should not be in the army?

If I really thought that, then nobody would be in the army.

>>33895562
Unit cohesiveness.

From minor things like personal hygiene (try pissing in a cup in an MRAP) to men giving into basic instinct to protect the female under fire.

Also doesn't help that there are different physical standards for males and females.

>>33895562
I think the issue is with how women get promoted without merit to fill affirmative action than anything else

What if we segregate the men from women, and then use women as shock troops when their platoons synchronize their periods?

File: IMG_0223.jpg (155KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1024x768px

>>33895562
Because the first time one gets captured the government will have to pay to kill the half arab mongrel before its born, then pay for the years of rape therapy afterwards. Thats even if they manage to rescue the cunt. Do you know how embarrassing itd be to have ISIS parade around a harem of American sex slaves? Can you imagine the horror of some muzzies releasing a vid of themselves gang raping American service members for hours on end?
Theres a reason men have always been the sole warriors of a nation.

>>33895562
>Why does /k/ think women should not be in the army?
the best semen ejaculation systems out there.

>>33895562
>why do you believe women cannot be good soliders?
probably all the stories about them being the complete opposite: horrible soldiers. competent women do not join the military. if a woman is in the military she's probably a huge fuck up to begin with.

>>33895562
Does the average female soldier have the strength and stamina to be capable of fighting at an acceptable level after a 10 mile march while carrying her 100 pounds of gear?

>>33895562
They can serve as auxiliary. Desk jobs, cooks, guard duty at the base. No frontline.

>>33895646
this, sad truth

File: 1492974692262.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

Because shit like this:

>>33895562
all evidence suggests its a bad idea

File: 1493725425879.webm (783KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 480x360px

Fuck... wrong file

>>33895599
>From minor things like personal hygiene (try pissing in a cup in an MRAP) to men giving into basic instinct to protect the female under fire.
>>33895856
>They can serve as auxiliary. Desk jobs, cooks, guard duty at the base. No frontline.
>>33895862

/thread

>>33895562
too dependent on social media

>>33895562
If you honestly think that when someone talks about strength in the military they're referring to shooting, you're a god damn retard that's beyond hope or help. If you can't run 5 miles with 80lbs on your back, you should not be infantry. If you can not drag or carry a wounded soldier or his gear, you should not be in the infantry. If you lack the explosive strength to pull yourself and gear over cover or obstacle, you should not be infantry.
>Women handle stress better
In the military they handle stress by getting pregnant intentionally so they avoid deployment.

>>33895562
women need to try harder because of physical strength.
The only women who don't need to try harder, are the physically superior who are strong from years of trying hard.

There is no reason a woman can't do anything a man can do with determination, short of things requiring physical power, which only comes from training.

And any moderately fit woman can do 90% of the workload required on them (relative to size/weight/strength) as any man.
As in, they probably won't be able to fireman carry a man, but they probably will be able to fireman carry a woman or man of similar size/weight.

Most woman who are interested in the military do like to be engaged and challenged physically, which is usually one of the many reasons for pursuing a military career.

In short, I don't believe there is no reason any woman couldn't be a GREAT soldier as long as her heart is in it, but the reality is most woman don't want to pursue a military career, and although heaps of woman do partake in strength/power sports, the total percentage of woman that actual train strength at all is actually quite low (not that it isn't low for all humans

>>33896036
Nah lies, been watching women go down with fractures in their hips and other severe injuries attempting to become rifleman for the past few months now. Many have tried, none have passed.
Their bodies are simply not suited to the requirements of the infantry.

>>33895562
If we're talking infantry, ask yourself this one question: How many women have I met and thought "I'd like to have her around in a firefight."?

File: BGdpXEgCAAEnE3W.jpg (64KB, 600x420px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x420px

>>33895562
because Russian women

File: 775 confirmed kills in one picture, 1945.jpg (269KB, 916x1425px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 916x1425px

>>33896050
775 confirmed kills in one picture, 1945

File: 1372949465196.jpg (641KB, 677x2422px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 677x2422px

>>33896036
>There is no reason a woman can't do anything a man can do with determination, short of things requiring physical power, which only comes from training.
Wrong. Women receive stress fractures on routine marches. They are completely unfit for combat.
>And any moderately fit woman can do 90% of the workload required on them (relative to size/weight/strength) as any man.
No. Any moderately fit woman is still notably weaker than the average man.
>As in, they probably won't be able to fireman carry a man, but they probably will be able to fireman carry a woman or man of similar size/weight.
So they won't be able to carry another combatant out of harms way, then.

>>33895562
they should be in the army.

just not as combat arms.

I am fine with them being in selective service style barrel scraping programs but I don't think they should be the first choice for front line infantry positions. Probably fine for tankers and truckers though.

>>33895562
Because you haven't served with women, fag.
Although they are fine for paper pushing positions, just dont use them for combat

>>33895571
Why not? Haven't we gone through twenty main rifle replacement research programs already?

>>33895562
Stop asking this fucking question

>>33895562
i agree. white men should be banned from combat roles in the military and confined to leadership positions and the combat roles should be delegated to women and the lesser races.

>>33895562
>>actually women are shown to do better in high stress situations and recent studies have shown that women are less likely to have PTSD

because they are in less combat situations to begin with you retarded faggot.

I don't have a problem with womyn in the army, I have a problem with them having different fitness standards.

File: Women in the military.jpg (1MB, 1860x1880px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1860x1880px

>Why shouldn't women be in the army?

Women should absolutely be in the army, in logistics. They just shouldn't be in combat MOSs.

But since that's what you meant, let's go down the laundry list.

First and foremost, the US military emphasizes hauling herniatingly heavy amounts of gear (100 lbs, jesus christ) and rucking that gear retard hard and long enough to destroy your joints. It even destroys the joints of men, it just takes long enough to do it that the army gets their five or six years before all the cartilage gets worn completely away and they have to be put into non-combat roles with ruined knees and spinal injuries.

This idiotic training regimen is so hardcore it literally breaks women, even when they aren't held to the standards of men - which we'll get to later.

So physically, no. Women are, on average, incapable of handling even the training. They need to be way off the end of the physical bell curve to manage that, let alone actual combat and doing things like dragging some other 200 pound motherfucker in his 100 pounds of gear or - god forbid - carrying him.

Then you're going to get in unit fuckery because the woman has the holy grail of built in attachments - she has an automatic promotion device that happens also to do all her communicating for her, and she has an automatic I-wanna-go-home device where all she needs to do is jump one of the deployment-goggles grunts and then she's pregnant and can go home. As if that wasn't enough, both of these are automatic get-rid-of-people-I-don't-like devices because if she's malicious enough all she has to do is spend some time alone with them somewhere and then accuse them of trying to make use of those devices without her consent and their careers are permanently marred.

This is going to destroy any kind of unit cohesion or morale or really faith in the system, which is also what happens when what has actually been done to get them in.

>>33896277
Because they are incapable of meeting the physical standards, the standards are especially lowered for them. Which isn't gonna make the rest of the guys happy because holy shit, even with those lowered standards they still can't meet them without special handholding that ruins any sense of achievement anyone who completed training on their own might feel! Why the fuck should you bother when the goddamn dependapotamous who decided she was gonna join her hubby in the field literally got to ride in a fucking truck instead of rucking it like you did and she passed anyway?

In conclusion, I hope all of the people who are so rabid about equality get what they're jonsing for because there are non zero odds that we might be wrapping up the Korea conflict soon and that's going to involve a draft - which women are now part of as a result of this new policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HmT5jqy-iE

File: 1369929689107.jpg (293KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 800x534px

>>33895562
AMERICAN women should not be in AMERICAN military.

In all the other, cultured countries, there's way less bullshit and drama around the mil service in general, such as the whole idea of "wellfare queening" via serving being unfamiliar, even impossible thing.

>>33896277
if some bitches showed up outta nowhere while im sleeping in mud and having to huff my burning shit fumes and then demand i dig them a piss hole, id tell them to dig it them fucking selves

cramped space? i can deal with that for a period of time, id be pissed but it wouldnt ruin me, but if they want special shit they can make it for themselves

if i showed up to a PB and wanted modifications made to the literal shit hole id be told to get fucked and to do it myself and get an earful of "who the fuck do you think you are"

>>33896048
You a combat instructor my dude?

Right now the army does not have parallel units for women.

But given enough steroids, and a support, all-women units could function with minimal issues. They would suck at warfighting, but it could be done.

>>33895646
Men get raped when captured as well and they get PTSD as well

>>33895562
Guys need any excuse to complain and not do any actual work themselves

>>33895562
>replying to this obvious and retarded bait

OP is a tremendous faggot and nothing we say can change that

>>33895562
>actually women are shown to do better in high stress situations and recent studies have shown that women are less likely to have PTSD
Rightttt, women can't even handle managing the bills on the dock I moonlight at without breaking down at the first sign of things going unexpectedly. Would love to see them handle trying to figure out how to keep their buddy alive long enough to get to the hospital or making a questionable kill and living with it. Not to mention my first hand experience with female soldiers on training exercises. t. ex-army fag

>>33895562
>>actually women are shown to do better in high stress situations and recent studies have shown that women are less likely to have PTSD

Studies performed during... what, exactly? Female combat rolls are nonexistent. So how is it that they've measured PTSD response here?

The majority of PTSD cases come from front line and combat deployments, which I would say 98% of women do not see outside of a medical setting.

Along with that, some basics to list off:

Women are physically incapable of hauling 100 pounds of gear 25 miles in the worst conditions.

Someone would need to design a system to allow them to piss in the field without compromising potential mobility, i.e. no squatting to piss for 5 minutes. unbutton your dickhole and let fly the piss of war. etc.

It's not feasible.

File: 23472347234.jpg (74KB, 864x180px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 864x180px

>>33895571
>when modern weapons shoot over 9000rpm

>>33896303
This.

>>33896446
By a woman (combatant) perhaps.

>>33896054
Confirmed by Russian ministry of truth.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1489428373094.jpg (37KB, 396x382px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 396x382px

kys

>>33896303
Also helps when you don't actually have to fight anyone.

>>33895562
>actually women are shown to do better in high stress situations
i will believe this when hell freezes over
if you call a bitchfest at work a high stress situation then sure maybe if a firefight then i call bullshit.

>>33895562
>the only thing that matters in war is how many bullets you can send out of a tube

>>33896673
also helps that instead of being shipped to Wherethefuckanistan to shoot armed goat fuckers, you stay in your homeland and defend it from hostile forces.

>>33895562
>women
>high stress

yeah they deal with it by screaming and crying

>>33895562
Strength matters cunt, you know, to pitch tents, fast march with full gear, DRAG a wounded comrade to safety under sniper. Shut the fuck up, your only as strong as your weakest link, and bitches are FUCKING WEAK

>>33896551
>Someone would need to design a system to allow them to piss in the field
l....like...a.catheter? that's science fiction anon! you can't!

>>33896054
Combat load = rifle and ammo......... not helping the case for them being unsuited for modern warfare with 80 pounds as the entry level combat load bro

>>33896054
>I'll take "What is propaganda? For $500, Alex"

>>33895562
I spent 2001-2004 in the Australian Infantry , I personally believe that women have a place in the military , but that place is not in the field.

>>33896692
Buddy I am gonna get in trouble laughing at the idea of a bitch with a catheter trying to ruck or fight thank you that just brightened my day

>>33895646

If you flip it and imagine a gang rape video of captured male service members, I'm not sure which would be more demoralizing for the US.

>>33895862
T-T H I C C

>>33896050
>>33896054


Yeah this ^

These threads are all the same: blah blah stress fractures blah blah pregnancy blah blah distractions blah blah carrying capacity etc. etc. Ad nauseum.

I have not seen one single explanation of why Russian women seem completely suited and even excel when it comes direct combat.

There are women that can hack it why can't you MRA shits admit it?

>>33895562
Bait, 11th thread, more efficient, et cetera. Also >soliders

With that out of the way; As covered earlier women are not going to make good infantry at the current moment. The average infantryman carries more weight in armor, gear, and ammo than a 15th century mounted knight did. On foot. The weight is more poorly distributed too. Throw in the absolutely ruinous requirements for things like US Ranger courses, Marines, hell, basic Army infantry even, it gets worse.

Most importantly: The US military is not helping them succeed. Before I get deluged in replies calling me a massive faggot, hear me out; The military is coddling women and giving them participation medals as a political circus show. What it is not doing is channeling these women into more suitable roles, or building up the few capable of actually being half decent infantry. There are plenty of opportunities for women that aren't as PBI, even in combat roles. There will always be a need for pilots, for tank crew (though working in a tank presents a few issues too), and for support roles like artillery and intel.

Tldr as much as we all dig Vazquez, until something changes, never gonna happen.

>>33896743
Fine; let them. See if I care. We're not fighting any wars that matter at the moment.

File: female soldier.webm (2MB, 613x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 613x360px

>>33895562
> "I'm on profile!" : the gender

females have no fucking place with men. I highly suggest reading /r/mgtow

>>33896743
>Russian snipers
>Direct combat

2/10 made me reply

>>33896767

Are you saying that shooting people in a sieged city and being shot back at, is not combat?

What pray tell is your definition of combat? Let me guess, it's calling in A10s when a half blind 73 year old Afghani takes a potshot at you with a rusty Mosin with iron sights at 800 meters.

File: 51PdVolyGHL._AC_UL320_SR210,320_.jpg (21KB, 210x320px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 210x320px

War's Unwomanly Face
by S. Alexiyevich (Author)

This book is a confession, a document and a record of people's memory. More than 200 women speak in it, describing how young girls, who dreamed of becoming brides, became soldiers in 1941. More than 500,000 Soviet women participated on a par with men in the Second World War, the most terrible war of the 20th century. Women not only rescued and bandaged the wounded but also fires a sniper's rifle, blew up bridges, went reconnoitering and killed... They killed the enemy who, with unprecedented cruelty, had attacked their land, their homes and their children. Soviet writer of Bychorussia, Svetlana Alexiyevich spent four years working on the book, visiting over 100 cities and towns, settlements and villages and recording the stories and reminiscences of women war veterans. The soviet press called the book"a vivid reporting of events long past, which affected the destiny of the nation as a whole." The most important thing about the book is not so much the front-line episodes as women's heart-rending experiences in the war. Through their testimony the past makes an impassioned appeal to the present, denouncing yesterday's and today's fascism...

>>33896446
>>33896725

Muslims regularly rape Americans and drag their corpses through the street. It it terrible? Of course.

But implying that the American collective will respond in the same way to women is incorrect. The second a squad of female soldiers is captured, raped and beheaded, I guaran-fucking-tee you the media and political shitstorm will be so great that all military goals of said conflict will instantly be disregarded and the troops pulled out.

If I was a sandnigger and I knew my opponent deployed female troops, I'd go out of my way to only ambush the squads/platoons/etc with women in them, and completely disregard other combatants, even at the expense of my own tactical/strategic goals, because the psychological effect on my enemy's home-front will easily outweigh any physical gains.

>>33896788
>The second a squad of female soldiers is captured, raped and beheaded, I guaran-fucking-tee you the media and political shitstorm will be so great that all military goals of said conflict will instantly be disregarded and the troops pulled out.

source?

>>33896798

What do you mean source? It's common sense.

In a military where both genders serve, you attack the weakest link. There's a reason why the IDF cuddles its female troops. They know what will happen if Hamas gets their hands on one.

>>33896798
>implying we won't go nuclear
women on the front line will start ww3

File: 1489033542698.jpg (321KB, 861x1280px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 861x1280px

>>33896784
As a Russian, it's almost frightening how powerful the Soviet propaganda machine was. Imagine it: 25 years after the state and ideology ceased their existence, people on the other side of a globe who never been to Russia and most likely wasn't even were alive when USSR still existed honestly believe the lies forged by the long-dead people who were serving the long-dead regime.

That shit is mind blowing and really makes me think how many historical lies I believe in myself.

>>33896788
>muslims regularly rape Americans
Source.

>>33895562
You made the same fucking thread in /pol/, fuck off you shitter

>>33896840

Americans raped muslims in Abu Ghraib =^)

>>33896849
>Americans being homosex
No surprise

>>33896834

What evidence do you have that women didn't serve in combat for the USSR? There's overwhelming evidence that they did. I have read first hand accounts in Churchill's biography where he discusses it. You are a moron.

>>33896869

And let's be clear noone hated the USSR more than Churchill.

>>33896763
>I highly suggest reading /r/mgtow

>Actually directing somebody to fucking reddit

Die.

>>33896781
Huh. I didn't realize Stalingrad was the only battle in the Eastern front

>>33895562
Because women are cowards, really.
When facing danger, unlike men, they just spread their legs to get fucked.

Best example - Islamisation of UE.

>>33896781
guess what the combat load for a typical russian conscript was in WW2?
I'll give you a hint; it was close to fucking nothing. Maybe 30lbs of gear, MAYBE.
Modern infantry? easily 80lbs of shit which you need to be able to function in. If women can hack the same standards as men do, then there's no problem, the problem comes from lowered PT requirements for women, for a job where you literally put the lives of those around you AND yourself on the line daily

>>33896781
Defensive battles for territory in an established battle space is a thing of the past with the rise of asymmetric warfare.

The russians were fighting defensively out of necessity in order to wear down the german spear head with use of hostile terrain and a better lay of the land considering the sprawling territory.

The current GWOT consists of patrolling unstable territory and conflict zones for peacekeeping operations which means mounted and dismounted infantry deployment across all forms of terrain. Factors such as supply line disruption, the necessity of extending patrols beyond logistical reach due to situational developments and the increase in kinetic pace due to the massive leap in communications technology we've seen in the past 6 decades essentially means that on a geopolitical level, the U.S role as the 'global policeman' places combined U.S forces in a similar position to that of Nazi Germany invading the Soviet Union.

TL;DR: Isolated battlespace conditions cannot extrapolate to justify strategic overhaul to personnel recruitment, training and retention standards that do not directly improve combat effectiveness.

File: 1485657960212.png (3MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x2000px

>>33896869
>What evidence do you have that women didn't serve in combat for the USSR? There's overwhelming evidence that they did
There was also overwhelming evidence in the USSR that the communism is the next step in evolution of the human species and capitalism is a broken, inherently oppressive system that can't do anything but exploit the workers. It even was a mandatory course in any university (and USSR had one of the best scientists, remember?)

That's what I'm talking about. This guy doesn't even realize that he was brainwashed, just like the millions of people who lived under the Soviets. The censorship and propaganda was so overwhelming that even now some Westerners believe the "overwhelming evidence". What's even more sad, most of my compatriots do believe the fairly tale of "The Great Life in Soviet Union (as told by KPSS)" too.

>>33896869
They served, but not in the traditional roles you'd find men in. Women were always alternative roles such as snipers, bombers, and other shit. Never front line infantry.

>>33896926
Fake it till you make it huh.

>>33896743
because nobody with a brain actually believes those women snipers actually did the things that the russians claimed they did

>>33896050
Anyone that unironically posts this picture has never actually lifted anything remotely heavy in their life.

>>33896074
>Implying women can quickly and efficiently load rounds and fix tracks.

>>33896863
>What are Female MP's?

Because the whole point of war is protecting your women from being raped by the other tribe while simultaneously trying to rape the other tribe's women. If 8/10 men die, the remaining 2/10 can get the population back in one generation, if 8/10 women die, they're stuck for at least like a century.

>>33895562
>implying physical strength matters when modern weapons shoot over 9000rpm

You think that carring kit does not matter?

>A 2007 study found Marines typically carry 97 to 135 pounds of gear

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/weight-of-war-gear-that-protects-troops-also-injures-them/

I do beleive that we have improved that number a down to around 87 pounds these days, or 39.5 Kg for you Europeans.

Trying carrying that for days in a hilly area.

>>33897168
That shouldn't be the issue
It should be about the fact you may have to carry one of your wounded, who may happen to be a big fucking guy, who will also be wearing a bunch of kit

File: 1458043869394.webm (3MB, 568x320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 568x320px

>>33896863

arabs meanwhile are perfectly hetrosexual

>>33896798
If it was swedens military you would instead have a surge of female volunteers for combat roles ;)

File: 3318448-E.jpg (128KB, 686x385px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 686x385px

Come on, even Queen Elizabeth II joined Auxiliary Territorial Service in WW2.

File: 1494166226651.jpg (55KB, 258x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 258x360px

>>33896685

>>33895562
>so why /k/, why do you believe women cannot be good soliders?
Because they're shorter, weaker and less intelligent than men. That's why they earn 27% less than men.

>>33895562
I am 6'3 and 215lbs, with all my kit on i weigh 285,
If i get fucked up, a strong man wearing all his kit will have trouble dragging me very far, a strong woman in full kit just wont be able to do it

I'm shipping out for OSUT next week and i really hope we won't have any women in our unit because i know we'll have to carry their shit. Maybe there's 1 woman in a million who has worked out all her life and able to perform like the average male but it's unlikely. Women won't be able to build the muscles needed to be an effective combat arms soldier in just 18 weeks of training.

So they're just too slow and weak and will drag the whole unit down risking all of our lives.

When i was at MEPS a couple of months ago there was a tiny pudgy mexican chick who was shipping out as 19D. There's no way she could be an effective scout doing long range patrols and recon.

>>33895562
I generally don't care, there's some pretty good reasons as to why it's typically less ideal, but if they want to try to qualify (under same requirements as males), then sure, let them try, it's not as if every male infantryman is an elite fighter.

I think they probably would be better suited for rear echelon, support and just about everything but frontline infantry combat, there's plenty of jobs in the military like that, communications, driving, office work, kitchens, storage, armory, etc, I mean not even half of all US military personnel are infantry.

You just gotta weed out the GI Janes who are looking for something to prove (that they then fuck up), and find the ones with actual competence and the ability to provide manpower for whatever, the ladies who are there to do work and earn a paycheck.

>>33895562

because they belong in the navy with all the other steers and queers that watch my little pony

>>33897287
and you will have as many males in your unit as females, males drag males females drag females no problem. we have been sharing the workload to each ones abilities since the dawn of civilization.

File: 1476663329552.jpg (22KB, 540x527px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 540x527px

>>33895562
>over 9000 rpm
>not citing the study
>soliders

>>33896718
i'm just saying if female can go to space i bet they can handle a little creative toileting on the battlefield.

>>33895562
>Implying physical strength doesn't matter when evacing wounded
>or carrying a shit ton of weight all day
>or when working with heavy equipment

>>33896896
Shit even Vietnam's combat load was nothing.

My standard combat load in afghanistan was my m4, 210 5.56 rounds, Plate Carrier with front, back, and side E-Sapi plates, med pack, Shoulder carried ECM Jammer, and 2 Frag Grenades. That was just my patrol load. When we moved into our FOB I had all that plus my ruck sack with all my stuff in it.

My knees, back, and ankles are forever fucked now. There is no way a female could lift all that plus move an injured man that weighs close to 300 pounds. Oh and I was 170 lbs during deployment.

>>33895615
Yeah, affirmative action actually does more harm than good for both the military and the women in question, fucking terrible concept.

>>33896446
1) Media and the general public give little of a fuck about male victims of rape

2) Radical muslims already engage in plenty of gay rape, but they don't like to make noise about it because it's in some kind of strange gray area where "It's not gay, effendi" when they hold down and fuck little boys, but proceed to throw grown up homosexuals from a building for trying to have a healthy relation with another man with mutual respect and consent.

They'd probably like the idea of the shock and terror aspect but they'd be fucking *terrified* of the world calling them "Pansy ass faggot homos" and laughing at them, it would not be what they wanted.

>>33897477
You don't get to pause combat so you can call a female over to evac a femal or a male to evac a male. Who ever gets there first is the one to treat and move the casualty out.

>>33897453
There's like a million reasons why this is a terrible idea.

>>33896784
>WW2
>Unprecedented cruelty
They don't know anything about historical cruelty.

>>33896784
>unprecedented cruelty
>has never heard of Ghengis Kahn

>>33897523
>>33897606
>Communist propaganda is full of lies

Who would have thought

>>33897453

How are you supposed to compete with an enemy unit comprised entirely of men?

>>33895562
>Why does /k/ think women should not be in the army?
Because it's barbaric and uncivilized.

>>33896798
God willing SJW's will finally let us go nuclear
>reeeeeeee, nuke the lot of them

I wonder if I'll ever come to browse /k/ and not see a thread about this.

>>33895562
You just listed the reasons right there my man.
Cant get around any of the things you just tried to argue isnt true,
Irrefutable facts sorry OP

File: Based Bat Bro.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>33895562
Women have no place in the military period. Fort Sill has the worst female Drill Sergeants I think I have ever come across from my time in the Army. Fuck you drill sergeant Trent.

>>33897651
SJWs would prefer to nuke themselves
>THEY ONLY DID THIS BECAUSE WHITE MEN WERE OPPRESSING THEM!

>>33896283
didn't she have a stress fracture in the pelvis area? I mean, trying to finish the march while being in what I imagine to be some pretty horrible pain is commendable and all, but if you get that fucked up in training, you probably shouldn't see combat.

>>338966902
>Combat Catheter™
yea right...

File: hahah.png (265KB, 366x440px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 366x440px

>>33895562
>actually women are shown to do better in high stress situations and recent studies have shown that women are less likely to have PTSD
objectively wrong. women are much higher than men in neroticism, a fundamental personality trait that, amoung other things, measures the inability to deal with stress

>>33897737
What the fuck am I looking at?

>>33897961
women losing their shit over a character being killed in a TV show

>>33897961
Normies freaking out over a shitty series that should've stopped airing a very long time ago

>>33896661
Look up Lawrence of Arabia.

>>33897080
good point on fixing tracks and loading, but they could serve as radio operators or drivers (which they actually did in USSR during WW2, but that was probably out of desperation). On the topic of fixing tracks, I think they would do a terrible job hammering heavy metal back into place, but then again, the does the whole crew leave the vehicle to fix a detrack? Someone would have to keep watch. But hey, this is just me going through some mental gymnastics while playing devil's advocate. imho they should be barred from all combat roles and should be satisfied with logistical support roles and staff positions (idk about pilots, though).

>>33895562
>actually women are shown to do better in high stress situations and recent studies have shown that women are less likely to have PTSD

This is the kind of shit that female school teachers tell their students to make women look less retarded.

>>33897265
keyword: auxiliary.

>>33898087
Women have a zero stress tolerance in reality. They'll shut down mentally at any sign of hardship. The first thing women do when being accused of not doing something properly is to try to shift the blame to someone else and make them look worse than themselves. They won't ever own up to failures, just blame others.

I REALLY don't give a fuck

File: 1492450721122.jpg (3MB, 3056x3483px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3056x3483px

>>33895562
Be my guest.

>>33895562
God I wish my issued rifle shot at over 9000rpm. Unless I had to carry ammo for it

>>33896896
This
The idea of lowering standards for women should be considered unacceptable, there are a number of women who can keep up with the standards set for males and only those who can meet those standards should be allowed to serve in a front-line role.

>300 replies later.
If you people just talked about guns instead, this place would be so much better.

>>33897945
I'm not sure that using Outsider in a "women should not fight" argument is a good idea. Patrician tastes, tho.

>>33898164
>source: they don't want to go to prom with me

>>33898259
Source: being married

ftfy

You clearly don't know what it's like to spend any lengthy period of time with a woman.

>>33897637
well women can be quiet good at shooting. in fact their average is better than mens. something to do with fine motor skills and less shaky hands. it was hard to believe the data until i finally convinced my gf to come with me shooting. first she couldn't hit the fucking target paper while i did solid 7-8s and a few 9s. then she got fed up and propped the gun and fuck that shit she was hitting 10s with a few 9s. i was like what the fuck is going on? she was too weak to hold a rifle properly standing up but that much i believe military training could take care of.

File: f2d.png (82KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 625x626px

>>33898248
Women in the army bait always riles up /k/. Why? I dunno. Maybe because it's a bad idea through research, maybe it is something that is against fundamental human nature, maybe it's a boys only club and should stay that way.

In all honesty, if everyone just left sage in the options bar, shit like this wouldn't be around.

>>33898164
>Women have a zero stress tolerance in reality. They'll shut down mentally at any sign of hardship.
that's not exactly true, it depends on the situation and the type of hardship. women can tolerate inconvenience pain tiredness sickness way better. their capacity to keep on going and do their duty i amazing at times. obviously not all women are aware of this some princesses throw a tantrum immediately if they have to do something. but the ones that are willing to do the crap are endurant as hell. especially mentally. i couldn't do the shit they can do all day for 20 minutes i would kill myself because of boredom and being irritated to the point of insanity.

they are not very good at physical danger and physical conflict on average i will give you that. it's probably more of socialization thing tho than biology.

>>33898446
You don't know the first thing about the armed forces if you think that using a gun is the main task of combat arms. It's a tiny part of our jobs, the majority of the time on deployments is walking fast around on patrols carrying heavy shit. Something women are insanely bad at.

File: 1488857567327.jpg (14KB, 324x451px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 324x451px

>>33896283
>pointing the barrel at your face to help yourself stand up
oh my fuck

>>33898231
I'm pretty sure men have that whole battle buddy thing aswell, although those results from the navy are troubling .

>>33898473
If you can't be bothered to use the shift key why should I be bothered to read anything you write?

>>33897453
You are an idiot.

>>33895562
>fucking up simple greentext format
faggot

>>33898552
t. redditor fresh off the boat from reddit

>>33898334
Spoiler alert. You were the one holding the rifle improperly. If you are shooting for accuracy and using muscle to hold your weapon you are wrong.
Bone Support
Bone Support
Bone Support

Standing with your hips and shoulders square to the target is for combat and not refined shots. Using the bitch hip is proper standing position for bone support.

>>33896788
Same, though I probably wouldn't be thinking about any sort of grand strategy.

I just like rape.

>>33895562
http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/439246978/marine-corps-release-results-of-study-on-women-in-combat-units

>>33895562
Need to carry the guns and run when necessary. Strength matters when your vehicles shot. Shouldn't have to carry a squadmate because she's tired and has aches.

Women are also irrational and act on emotions. There was that one dumb bitch who called an actual airstrike on top of her unit during a training exercise because she panicked. I don't trust your studies, OP.

Also women will sleep around and fuck up the comradery of the Unit, fucking morale in the process. See all the whores upset that marines share their nudes they take and send to specific marines. Women are fucking dumb.

I'm not saying no women whatsoever, but they need stricter vetting processes, and by that I mean have them at least compare equally to the men getting in.

>>33895562
Higher injury rates, lower bone density, not able to run as fast or as long (generally lower fitness levels), not able to drag wounded soldiers, etc

File: Untitled-2.gif (11KB, 565x409px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 565x409px

>>33898552
rofl do as you wish faggot.

>>33898631
it's not the point. i have been shooting for way longer than her. she has proved herself a better shot with airgun before but i was like meh, she practiced a shitton with that particular toy and it's not even a real gun, but apparently any gun works so long she doesn't have to hold it up.

>>33898887
but the other end of the equation men are faster shots. they can put out more rounds with reasonable accuracy. just not as accurate even if they take their time. which is also my personal experience.

>>33898887
What does it matter if women are slightly better shots? If they can't drag one of their wounded fireteam partners to safety because she's not strong enough to haul a guy who is 6'2" and weighs 320lbs with his gear, she could be the best shot in the world but it won't matter because she'll still get people killed.

>>33899124
like i said mixed teams will have enough guys to do the hauling. it's not an issue it's a bullshit argument made by people ignoring the fact that women are successfully waging war on isis as we speak.

>>33898482
I never said any of that, did I? No, no I did not.

>walking fast around on patrols carrying heavy shit
>something women are bad at

No kidding, lower muscle content, lower weight, higher body fat percentage, lower lung capacity, poor bone density, high incidences of injury.

Women are smaller and weaker then men on average, in terms of strength, agility, and endurance. Most NATO countries "had to" lower standard for women.

File: cf on us military.png (413KB, 589x581px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 589x581px

>>33895562
>implying physical strength matters
You do realize soldiers carry more than just a rifle, right?

>
>actually women are shown to do better in high stress situations and recent studies have shown that women are less likely to have PTSD
Post the studies? Also, this contradicts the common known fact that female and gender-integrated units underperform across the board when compared to all-male units.

>>33899250
>carrying heavy shit
lol and why exactly is that a necessity btw? seems to me it's purely a logistics issue some things have to be organized differently maybe tactics have to be adopted to their limitations but that in no way proves they can't be an effective fighting force.

put lighter load on them, mechanize them put them on machine gun positions which they seem to be pretty good at.
i mean it would suck ass for them if they had to carry the machine guns themselves but that's not even near a real necessity. the kurds are doing okay by men carrying heavy shit setting it up and leaving women to "man" them crewed weapons and sniping while taking the front.

File: russians btfo.jpg (13KB, 220x316px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x316px

>>33896054
>you can totally trust the USSR to tell the truth

Meanwhile, this ACTUALLY confirmed sniper rid the world of over 500 Russian scumbags over the period of a few months.

>>33899314
that guy was pretty special tho. and he hunted stupid as shit russian zerglings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOgXcffC3ow

>>33899169
altho when i try to search for vids of kurdish women fighting i only find vids showing them training talking about fighting and very very few of them shooting awkwardly in an obvious not fighting situation.
https://youtu.be/5qyJUK2Sof4?t=16m1s
wtf am i looking at here for example?

File: women-shooting-gun.jpg (108KB, 1064x599px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1064x599px

>>33899558

>>33899558

That's because these units exist solely for propaganda purposes and see very little combat. Having "based" female fighters battling the ultimate misogynist organization helps rally support from r/teh_Donald and western feminists.

>>33899625
seems that way yeah

File: _78567388_78567387.jpg (36KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 624x351px

I don't know, Conscription is mandatory for both sexes in my country.
However, our army doesn't see much combat except for internal security and UN peacekeeping missions.

>>33895562
unit cohesiveness, mental condition. Also they physically can not lug a male counterparts knocked out body

>>33896054
Execution of unarmed Christian civilians don't count. Try again, NKVD.

Unrelated but why the fuck do civilians always think that the collar is supposed to be worn that way? eGay sellers do this too when they sell milsurp, drives me fucking crazy. It only takes a single image search to realize that that isnt how they're supposed to be worn.

>>33895562

what's up with that US Army tape?

File: pepe.jpg (14KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 306x306px

If you've never been in the military, please don't argue for women in the military. Thanks.

>>33899904
dumbass stock photographers
see >>33899876

>>33899267

>E1
>recruit cut

this nigga proposing to his bf on family day lmao

>>33897737
kek wtf is this from?

>>33897737

We had pretty good female DS at Fort Jackson. Well, maybe I'm just saying that because Jackson was really easy. My senior DS and 1SG thought I was CID for the whole cycle too (long story) so I didn't really get messed with either.

But I liked the female DS we had, they were competent at least.

>>33899988

If you're not in the military, shut the fuck up

>>33900000
if you aren't a woman, and have to endure the oppression and hardships of one, then shut the fuck up

File: 1441931154429.jpg (7KB, 203x255px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 203x255px

>>33899955
>>33899977
>>33899988
>>33900000
>>33900022

>>33900022

I don't know if you're trolling or not but this isn't about anyone's hardships, this is about having the most combat effective and motivated military possible. Women can barely function in support roles, they should absolutely not be allowed in combat arms positions.

Also, you're not a woman, dummy.

>>33900022
I don't give a shit about whatever hardships a person has before joining the armed forces, only their effectiveness. I don't give two shits if your dad didn't hug you enough as a child, if your mom was an alcoholic or if people said mean things to you because you're some bitch nigga from the hood. If you can't do the job properly then you don't belong in a combat MOS.

>>33900000
nice

File: kek.jpg (58KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 604x453px

>Women are slower when it comes to loading guns (not talking small arms here)
>can't climb as high or as quickly
>up to 50% weaker than a man of the same height (when most men are likely to be taller anyway)
>bleed of their own accord once a month without actual injury
>will require different cut/fit of uniform for everything
>are vulnerable to impregnation by comrades
>can't piss out in the field
The only advantage of having female soldiers is that they might be harder to hit due to smaller size.
Other than that, they are less combat effective in almost every way, more expensive to employ, and contribute to make their male heterosexual comrades (don't worry, the Navy is therefore unaffected) less combat effective via distraction.

>>33896036
>any moderately fit woman can do 90% of the workload required on them
Will they work for 90% pay, the rest can go to the men taking up their slack.

I am in the military. Women are not combat capable. One out of 10 (usually the ugliest) will actually try to do their fair share of the work. Even something like doing paperwork, a set of tits will reduce their work load by 10%.

>>33900120
>One out of 10 (usually the ugliest) will actually try to do their fair share of the work

lol so true

>>33900000
SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP

>check'd

>>33896050
>>33897077
seriously that image is retarded carrying something on your shoulder is way harder than overhead

>>33900080
USS Acadia (AD-42)

Tell me why women should be down range?

File: religion_of_peace.png (853KB, 1118x766px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 1118x766px

>>33899988
This is not a political issue.

>>33899307

>have men carry machineguns to set up for women to sit on their ass

Whats the point then? Not everyone can be in a vehicle to patrol around streets or actually clear buildings and engage people.

File: bluce.png (495KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 450x600px

>>33900000

>>33900250
different roles for different abilities.a woman can drive and man the machinegun just as well. only needs help with the parking and reloading.

File: 1423122454514.gif (160KB, 236x285px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 236x285px

>>33900000
confirmed roasties BTFO by the god of gets

>>33895562
>>implying physical strength matters when modern weapons shoot over 9000rpm

Physical strength absolutely matters when you are expected to carry around 100lbs of gear on patrols

>>33899314
>Meanwhile, this ACTUALLY confirmed sniper rid the world of over 500 Russian scumbags over the period of a few months.
>Implying Simo isn't as exaggerated as Rudel or similar

>>33895868
fucking kek. That deserves a discharge

>>33900000
neverserved fags BTFO

>>33900431

nah, she wouldn't even get artied for that if it was a training grenade

>>33900413
>100lbs of gear on patrols
what you actually need on patrols is your gun 2-3 spare mags a knife a sidearm, sun glasses, radio, and a canteen. you don't need to carry the rest of the crap.

fucking gear queens...

File: sweating.png (54KB, 248x248px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 248x248px

>>33895862

File: angry pepe.jpg (40KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 900x900px

>>33900583

You don't know shit civvie, shut the fuck up

Politics have no place in the military. Demand military policy reformation to pre-Obama standards.

>>33899928
>frogposter

>>33900413
>Physical strength absolutely matters when you are expected to carry around 100lbs of gear on patrols
you do know that we have workable exos that will be standard equipment in a decade right? soon western soldiers loadout will be doubled and they won't even feel it.

File: e553fa79114ca89c4cb2261f448ada47.jpg (69KB, 620x792px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 620x792px

>>33897420
I'm sure it's more than a million but a lot of women do work out to reach or exceed the average male US soldier, the problem is most of them don't normally go for the army, although there were a few female Olympians from the UK who served but I can't remember their names, they got silver in rowing or something.

>>33897420

you talk too much boot

>>33900683
>resorts to namecalling

>>33900769
Incorrect, i'm typing.

>>33900643
You're not wrong, but pre-Clinton standards would be much better. It was under him that this sort of thing started getting out of hand.

>>33900760
>I'm sure it's more than a million but a lot of women do work out to reach or exceed the average male US soldier, the problem is most of them don't normally go for the army, although there were a few female Olympians from the UK who served but I can't remember their names, they got silver in rowing or something.

Please see: >>33898231

Only about the 95th percentile of women can even meet the male standard for fitness in the military, let alone exceed it. Quite honestly, even slightly out of shape men are more often than not a match for in shape and active women when it comes to strength and cardiovascular fitness.

>>33900794

do pushups you

>>33900835
>Quite honestly, even slightly out of shape men are more often than not a match for in shape and active women when it comes to strength and cardiovascular fitness.
that's nothing new we known this for thousands of years. doesn't change the fact that a woman with a gun is just as lethal, let alone if she is driving/piloting.

the standards were obviously set to men it's not much wonder women can't make them. but thinking that alone is some impossible obstacle for women to enter combat roles is plain ass stupid.

>>33900885
>a woman with a gun is just as lethal

if she fatigues more quickly, she's not at all

>>33900885
>doesn't change the fact that a woman with a gun is just as lethal, let alone if she is driving/piloting.

Yes.. it really does.

Unless you think that fitness has no bearing on combat effectiveness, which is fucking laughable.

>>33900835
These threads remind me listening to Stern years ago and they had Artie Lange play basketball 1v1 against one of the top female college players in the country, and she only beat his middle-aged obese heroin addict ass by one shot.

>>33900885
>the standards were obviously set to men it's not much wonder women can't make them.
That's the point though, they can't meet the male fitness standard, and that fitness standard is put there for a reason. You need to be strong to be a soldier.

>>33900928
It's like those stories of Women's Olympic soccer (or similar top ranked teams) playing against 15-16 year old boys and losing fairly regularly.

>>33900927
fitness and power two entirely different things.
i could crush pretty much any women on the planet but any women athlete could run rounds around me easily.

>>33900986
>You need to be strong to be a soldier.
not anymore dude not any more.
face it the entire reason for the fitness standards and the doctrine and equipment list is because it was a male only occupation. if it was mixed gender from the get go it would be very different and it would still work. humans are a very adaptable species.

>>33900143
And also those guys have been getting the shit smoked out of them for hours beforehand.

Having seen the after effects of women in military they suffer more long term injuries from rucking 100 plus pounds of gear.
Chick i knew had fucked up her lower spine her knees were shot and had tons of stress fractures.

They will have much higher post retirement injury costs.

>>33901061
maybe when exos are issued to infantry, but until then the inability to patrol for 40 miles in 118 degree heat while weighing at least 240+ lbs while still being able to shoot straight and then do it again everyday for the rest of the month is detrimental to everyone involved.

File: 1492325599790.jpg (19KB, 410x424px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 410x424px

>>33895562
Oh, look it's this thread again.

>>33900998
Or that tennis player that was ranked around #200 and beat both Williams sisters.

File: Blood Mushrooms.png (405KB, 2200x968px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 2200x968px

>>33895562
>ctrl+f blood mushrooms
I am disappoint.

Depends.


POGs- Yes, for sure. No doubt about it.
Grunts? Sure, why the fuck not. Most of the males are out of shape as fuck anyway. Perhaps unit cohesiveness or something, but thats about it.


Special Forces/SOF? NO, NO NO NO. Simply put, women are not strong enough, this is where the athletes go. Men struggle, females simply cannot recover to pass through training, unless they are taking steroids.

Routinely during road marches in my unit the women fall out. On top of which I got yelled at by the CO for being too aggressive with a female during a gear showdown after an FTX in which she didn't have even half her shit. Bunch of weak over circle jerked fucks.

>>33896685
the ethics of unilateral armed intervention aren't what's being discussed here.

The discussion is about whether the stresses of being in combat exceed the stresses of being in a garrison force. On that there is a single obviously correct answer.

>>33900560
those males instruct raping / mansplaining her would though

>>33895562
ffs sage

>>33899169
What if I'm a woman and I'm the only person nearby to drag one of the males out? The fuck do I do then?

>>33898887
>I have been shooting way longer than her
That doesn't mean jack shit if you have been shooting with improper form.

The number of fudds who think being able to hit printer paper with their .243 is good shooting because they've never outright missed a deer in their 20+ years of hunting and shooting is staggering. That is not acceptable accuracy and the long track record of shitty shooting does not justify it.

That said, women do have an INHERENTLY higher performance ceiling for precision shooting (note: not speed) than men because of lower testosterone levels, greater fine muscle control, and less disruptive heartbeats due to lower heart volume.

The only person who has ever been able to outshoot me reliably since I was a kid was a woman, but she was an extreme outlier. Very few people approach, let alone attain their precision shooting performance ceiling and the simple reality is that even though women have inherent advantages in shooting for precision the inherent disadvantages they have in terms of other soldiering skills make them unsuitable for use in conventional front line fighting units.

t. benchrest shooting anon

>>33896672
We don't tho