Are women fit to be soldiers?

>>138991423
Sometimes? Yes

Most of the time? No

>>138991423
That is the wrong question.

Society is based on the premise "women and children first."

A woman (or a man) should be able to fight because they might have to. But a society that forgets why we have a society in the first place is in trouble.

women are too intelligent to participate in war

Can you shoot a gun and die drowning in mud? You can? Perfect, here's your rifle, go grab some ammo off a corpse.

>>138991425
If a society is facing utter annihilation, then quite frankly if you're not throwing everything you have into its defense then you deserve to be destroyed.

File: 1503012528655.jpg (21KB, 356x413px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 356x413px

>>138991423
Fit for military service? I suppose so. Fit for front line combat roles with the infantry and special forces? No. Men, on average, are bigger, stronger and more aggressive. If women fought in combat roles they would be fighting men. Women athletes do not compete against men, sportswomen do not play against sportsmen, there is a gender divide for a reason. You cannot go against simple biology and put lives in danger for the sake of furthering women's rights. For a perspective on this, last year the British Army came to the conclusion that only 5% of the current 7000 women serving in the Army would be physically fit enough to join the infantry (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36746917)

Men are also more likely to settle into the military hierarchy and accept things like comradeship, BANTER and unquestioning loyalty/following orders. For a lot of women I think this would prove difficult. If mixed units were introduced, we would be facing problems of privacy, discrimination and possible sexual tension and doubtless the numbers of sexual assaults would sky-rocket.

I think the very best woman who serve can maybe fill a limited number of slots for woman allowed in frontline service, but only in a woman's only squad or unit or whatever, yes.

That said, desperate times would change things.

>>138991423

SOME WOMEN ARE FIT TO BE SOLDIERS, OTHERS ARE NOT; SOME MEN ARE FIT TO BE SOLDIERS, OTHER ARE NOT.

SOLDIERLY APTITUDE IS NOT CONTINGENT ON SEX.

>>138991431
kys

hahahahhahaha
no
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html

>>138991426
>tfw to intelligent to fight

File: e20.png (75KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x600px

>>138991431
>SOLDIERLY APTITUDE IS NOT CONTINGENT ON SEX.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhit is though

>>138991431
I guess strength and endurance isn't a deciding factor in who should be a soldier

>>138991423
If they get captured by the enemy then they will probably get raped.

>>138991436

HOW SO, ACCORDING TO YOU?

>>138991429
Biology doesn't exist. Stop memeing

>>138991438
Why do you type in all caps, ray?

File: 1490263689378.jpg (253KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1280x853px

>>138991438
Women in the armed forces is a good idea. Women on frontline duty is also a good idea.

HOWEVER, any woman that wants to serve in combat should have to be physically and psychologically fulfill any requirement a man can. That is to say, if a male soldier must lug his combat buddy weighing 260lbs in full gear out of a firefight, then a woman must also be able to do the same. You can't pair up people who can't carry each other out of a combat situation. One of them will have to be left to die when push comes to shove.

All female regiments/battalions/divisions/what-have-you are a bad idea in general if it is to alleviate the physical requirements of the former issue. You can't have any combat group unable to take care of another combat group if need be. This includes and is not limited to carrying the wounded off the field during combat.

There are no special snowflakes in the military. If you can't meet the requirements for front line duty, man or woman, you should and will not be allowed into active combat duty. There should be ZERO exceptions to this simple rule.

>>138991423
>Are women fit to be soldiers?
Some women can make fine soldiers, but not many, and the portion of women fit for combat is so much lower than the portion of men that it doesn't make strategic sense for a country to incur the additional logistical and organizational costs of accommodating female soldiers.

>>138991441
>... any woman that wants to serve in combat should have to be physically and psychologically fulfill any requirement a man can. That is to say, if a male soldier must lug his combat buddy weighing 260lbs in full gear out of a firefight, then a woman must also be able to do the same.

HERE, YOU ARE EVINCING YOUR SEXBASED BIAS; YOU ARE ATTRIBUTING TO SOLDIERLY APTITUDE AN A PRIORI "MALENESS", THEREFORE, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.

SOLDIERLY APTITUDE SHOULD BE DETERMINED VIA UNIVERSAL STANDARDS APPLYING TO ALL CITIZENS, REGARDLESS OF SEX; THOSE WHO MEET THE STANDARDS BECOME SOLDIERS; SEX IS NOT A FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHO IS FIT TO BE A SOLDIER.

>>138991441
>women in frontline combat is a good idea
>>138991433

>>138991442
this

>>138991444
They specifically said under the condition that they are able to do everything a male soldier can.

>>138991446
The only difference in female fitness standards was that they did flexed arm hangs instead of pull ups, everything else was the same. And even if they are of the same physical standards, the study shows that they were at an increased risk of musculoskeletal injury anyways, meaning that they're more expensive to keep and are capable of less time in the front lines.

>>138991443
HERE, YOU ARE EVINCING YOUR SEXBASED BIAS; YOU ARE ATTRIBUTING TO SOLDIERLY APTITUDE AN A PRIORI "MALENESS", THEREFORE, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.

No I'm not? Men must already live up to a standard. Women, having never had a standard for serving in active combat duty, must also live up to such a standard.

>SOLDIERLY APTITUDE SHOULD BE DETERMINED VIA UNIVERSAL STANDARDS APPLYING TO ALL CITIZENS, REGARDLESS OF SEX; THOSE WHO MEET THE STANDARDS BECOME SOLDIERS; SEX IS NOT A FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHO IS FIT TO BE A SOLDIER.

Men must already fulfill these requirements to be able to serve in active combat duty. Saying that women must ALSO fulfill them is hardly sexist, and is in fact setting a universal standard based on a successful preexisting one.

You're not presenting a good argument by restating what I say. You actually just seem to agree with everything I have to say.

>>138991448
>No I'm not [ARGUING WITH A SEXBASED BIAS]? [SIC]
>Men must already live up to a standard. Women, having never had a standard for serving in active combat duty, must also live up to such a standard.

...

>>138991423
I think men are unfit to see women as soldiers.

>>138991449
How is it at all sexist to imply that men and women must pass the same standard to be allowed to serve in active combat duty?

Furthermore, how is it logical to set a new standard when the current one works and is required anyway? You would just set the standard at the same mark again if you tried to redo it to be universal.

>>138991451
>How is it at all sexist to imply that men and women must pass the same standard to be allowed to serve in active combat duty?

NEITHER MEN, NOR WOMEN, MUST MEET STANDARDS; CITIZENS MUST MEET STANDARDS.

I REITERATE: SEX IS NOT A FACTOR; APTITUDE IS.

>Furthermore, how is it logical to set a new standard when the current one works and is required anyway? You would just set the standard at the same mark again if you tried to redo it to be universal.

CURRENT MILITARY STANDARDS ARE NOT UNIVERSAL, BUT PARTIAL TO THE MALE SEX, HENCE, CREATING AN ARTIFICIOUS AND SUPERFLUOUS DIVIDE BETWEEN "MALE, AND FEMALE" APPLICANTS.

NEW MILITARY STANDARDS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY WHICH THE CRITERIA ARE PURELY FOR SOLDIERLY APTITUDE, WITHOUT REGARD FOR SEXUAL BIOPHYSIOLOGY; IF SOMEONE MEETS MILITARY STANDARDS FOR BECOMING A SOLDIER, HOW IS THE INDIVIDUAL'S SEX RELEVANT? IT IS NOT.

>>138991449
You're just mad because you've got no ammo against this flawless argument.

The small number of women who are fit for frontline combat do not outweigh the costs of trying to integrate them into combat units, or the additional medical costs that they incur. Unless shit is extremely fucked, that is, but if shit hits the fan so bad that we need women in the front line it will probably be a nuclear war anyways.

>>138991423
Most of them are too neurotic.

>>138991452
>NEITHER MEN, NOR WOMEN, MUST MEET STANDARDS; CITIZENS MUST MEET STANDARDS.
Speaking for biology, all citizens are either male or female, with a minuscule percentage of exceptions. So this does, in fact, apply to all citizens, male or female.
>CURRENT MILITARY STANDARDS ARE NOT UNIVERSAL, BUT PARTIAL TO THE MALE SEX, HENCE, CREATING AN ARTIFICIOUS AND SUPERFLUOUS DIVIDE BETWEEN "MALE, AND FEMALE" APPLICANTS.
Grammatical and spelling errors aside, you are objectively wrong. If you must say that the current standard creates a divide based on the sexes, then you are already saying that women are somehow disadvantaged by it, implying that men are more capable of active combat duty. (I assume you mean to say the physical standards, as men and women experience no disparity on intellectual standards as a whole)

>BY WHICH THE CRITERIA ARE PURELY FOR SOLDIERLY APTITUDE
Physical aptitude is an essential part of being a soldiers, in any case.
>WITHOUT REGARD FOR SEXUAL BIOPHYSIOLOGY
And you propose to what? Lower the physical standards? Whatever new standards would be created with no gender in mind, they'd be equal to the ones that currently exist. Perhaps the bar would be even higher.

> IF SOMEONE MEETS MILITARY STANDARDS FOR BECOMING A SOLDIER, HOW IS THE INDIVIDUAL'S SEX RELEVANT? IT IS NOT.
That's exactly right. You're agreeing with me.

Even when women are physically and psychologically capable as soldiers it's been shown that their male compatriots will compromise missions and their own safety to protect them. It's a tough question because equality is a great goal and all, but you have to draw a line somewhere when clear harm is being caused by it. Same goes for female firefighters etc.

>>138991456

I ALREADY EXPLICATED HOW SEX IS NOT A FACTOR, AND HOW APTITUDE IS NOT CONTINGENT ON SEX.

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT ANYMORE —NOT EVEN AN ERRONEOUS ONE —YOU ARE JUST OBSTINATELY REAFFIRMING YOUR ERRONEOUS NOTIONS.

I asked my dad who was a sergeant about it. He said it was not worth it honestly, too much of a hassle with too many risks and the only benefit of a moral satisfaction in society.

>>138991458
not the same guy but can you read or just smash your face onto the keyboard?
listen you fucking mongoloid the guy said that all "citizens" must meet the requirement for active service irrespective of gender, and any female who could meet them should be allowed to apply for active service. you seem to believe that the requirement should have no bias toward man or woman, which it does not it is merely a fitness test, the guy your arguing with agrees with this notion. the difference is the guy your arguing with acknowledges the inherent biological differences between sexes and that the vast vast majority of women will fail this test. you seem to think that the fitness test arbitrarily prefers males, maybe because males are physically more fit for service? but to fix that bias you'd have to lower the bar for soldiers. as it stands most American soldiers aren't even that fit or well trained so to lower the bar any further would be completely retarded and turn the military into a fucking clown fiesta

>>138991458
>I ALREADY EXPLICATED HOW SEX IS NOT A FACTOR, AND HOW APTITUDE IS NOT CONTINGENT ON SEX.
As did I. Both sexes must meet the same standard. Those of either sex who cannot meet this standard should not be allowed into active combat duty. The current standard is bother adequate and desirable for this outcome and is not geared towards being easier for men than women. That is my point.

>YOU ARE JUST OBSTINATELY REAFFIRMING YOUR ERRONEOUS NOTIONS.
That the current standard is adequate and that women must be able to pass it, the same as men must be able to pass it, for women to be considered for active combat duty in addition to the men that already are. This has been my argument from the beginning.

For the record, you are either too stupid to understand that I have been arguing for all applicants to meet the same standards, and that the current standards are more than fair for everyone, or English is not your native language.

File: 1488423831303.jpg (389KB, 1920x872px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1920x872px

>>138991460
Thank you. At least someone understands what I'm trying to say. I'd let you be my battle buddy on the internet any day.

>>138991459
sergeant gutter

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

783KB, 480x360px

>>138991423

File: 1499018047465.webm (873KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 500x500px

>>138991464

>>138991423
>can women be trained to fight?
Yes.
>is it efficient for modern armies to send women to the front?
Fuck no. There are plenty of men volunteering, and the peak of female performance is nowhere near better enough than the male average to warrant the greater costs of fielding women.

>>138991462
>>138991460
Anons, if you hadn't noticed already, you're arguing with a retarded tripfag who believes typing in ALCAPS makes him more right, somehow.

>>138991452

>standards should be established by which the criteria are purely for soldierly aptitude without regard for physiology

That is already what we have. They were using these same standards before women were allowed to serve in combat roles. You can't possibly argue that the standards unfairly favor men when women weren't even a factor when they were formulated. If men more easily meet these standards, it's because in aggregate, men have higher aptitude as soldiers... which ought to be obvious, but I guess we have to take this step by step here.

Also, turn your fucking capslock off.

File: 4085597.jpg (66KB, 750x644px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 750x644px

>>138991423
lol no. There's no reason to enlist weaker soldiers unable to live with the others. It only lowers the standards for absolutely no advantage.

Pic related were asked to conform to the law and accept women in their ranks. They said "no, fuck off", and the case was closed because everyone knows it's a stupid idea that doesn't match with the crude reality of the combat.
i.e those who advocate for equality in the military are hypocritical who perfectly know how wrong they are.

>>138991424
/thread

>>138991423
Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milunka_Savi%C4%87

File: MilunkaSavic.jpg (100KB, 452x570px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 452x570px

>>138991471
That's a man, baby!

>>138991471
>1 woman who fought 100 years ago
no

>>138991431
fuck off you dirty arab, you're lucky im phone postung or i'd grab your paki mug from the /fa/ archive right now

>>138991468
>>138991469
>>138991423

Males and Females through out history have been valued differently. A lot of what we are seeing stems from those differences. Males have been worthless from 16 to 30, where as females are at their peak value to the species from 16 to 30. Undoing this programming is not as simple as memes. It does more to highlight massive physiological difference inherent between the sexes. Are there any historical examples of this happening in the past?

This isn't a matter of right or wrong if we can't even identify the differences in perspective. Females gained the right to vote prior to males 18 to 21 in the US. Service during The Great War was compulsory for a lot of young men who did not have suffrage. In this case rights trumped responsibilities.

It is hard to get a clear perspective on the subject without truthful understanding. The push for females in combat roles tends to come from promotion requirements in line positions. These requirements made logical sense as they have very strong roots in what is believed to have enabled successful militaries for centuries. Having senior leadership that have never been in the units that are the central purpose of a military can be damaging to moral and experience. Undoing this idea has been the downfall of many. This has not occurred in the past for these reasons to my knowledge.

If equality of opportunity is central to our beliefs this causes some major concerns. Since we are opening all MOSs to females this brings into question the draft. Is equality of responsibility to our society the same between the sexes? If it is we have to say the responsibility females have to our species has changed. We would have to ignore the responsibility of bearing children that has determined worth of females in society from the beginning. I don't know if many will accept this idea.

>>138995279
> Copy paste I accidentally left out the real question:

Do responsibilities to our species trump responsibility to our society?

>>138995897
Responsibilities to make the most effective fighting force possible trump responsibility to society.

File: 1503273045778.jpg (43KB, 514x601px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 514x601px

>>138996195
I hate our education system.

>>138996636
I'm sure the feeling is mutual, but my point still stands.

>>138997113
Military readiness is a responsibility historically shoulder by males that enables a society/culture/country to exist.

>>138991423
Women are a bit weaker than men, but that's not why they don't fight. They're too valuable. If your men die, their widows can raise their children into the next generation. If your women die, your nation dies with them.

>>138997403
If equality of opportunity is central to our beliefs this causes some major concerns. Since we are opening all MOSs to females this brings into question the draft. Is equality of responsibility to our society/country the same between the sexes? If it is we have to say the responsibility females have to our species has changed. We would have to ignore the responsibility of bearing children that has determined worth of females in society from the beginning. I don't know if many will accept this idea.

>>138991423
I've never seen a woman solder anything

>>138991447
This. Also:
Stress-based incontinence
Insistence on modesty in the field
Menstruation
Pregnancy
Lack of cooperative psychology
Cowardice
Increased training times
Effect on male soldiers

It's an endless laundry list that reads "Don't conscript me!"

>>138991423
its kinda cool getting a chance to see actual communist propaganda

typically its just jew shit masquerading as communist, but that is some legit soviet propaganda right there

>>138997596
Modern technology can let us ignore a lot of the old rules. If our soldiers turn into robot pilots, they might not even risk death directly, any more. Sperm and egg banks allow reproduction after the death of both parents. We can make new rules, that take our current reality into account. Just don't forget that the old ways had their reasons.

>>138991431
Oh look its the fag from /fa/ who always types in caps

>>138998335
We are not there yet. We can't even have a discussion in regards to reality.

Females since the advent of fly by wire physically have and advantage over males on average for the same reasons they are disadvantaged in the infantry. So I can see and agree with part of your point. However we are a long ways away from Starship Troopers.

>>139000178
We aren't all the way there, but there are drone pilots now who take part in combat without ever leaving the base.

why was this thread moved?

>>138991423
>receive slap
>disband battalion
What the fuck? Didn't she get any funny questions from her boss? Like "yeah we're just going to go home and be housewives now" wasn't met with any objection?

>>139003013
because it was on /his/

>>139002859
Yeah and we are encountering issues with this idea. These pilots were looked at as having cush jobs and we're not treated as combatants. This proved to be a mistake as many went home knowing they had killed people that day and did not deal with it at all.

>>139003989
Should of stayed there but people can't stay on topic.

>>139003994
It beats being dead. Anyway, the overall point is that we don't fight wars any more by handing every able bodied man a spear and marching them at the enemy. Our soldiers are elite professional specialists. Some of the old problems are gone, replaced by new ones.

Gr8 OP, but why are there so many "Unknown" flags?

>>138991423
The "Battalion of Death" existed to die, to shame the men into suicidal action, and was a major argument against the morality of Tsarist society. It was an equivalent to last-ditch actions by the Japs. There are no military successes you can credit to the Battalion of Death.

>>138997674
He hasn't seen the picture! Who has the picture?

>>139005644
Because this thread was moved from /his/

File: beautifulwomansoldering.jpg (64KB, 658x1000px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 658x1000px

>>138997674
Real techs don't wear gloves.

What board was this moved from?

Anyway, I think women soldiers is only a thing in degenerate countries. If women's role was to fight, they would be as strong and athletic as men and they would be able to detect motion as well as men and they would be able to suppress emotions as well as men. They isn't the case though. Using women for combat should be done as the absolute last resort.

>>138991423
nice its settled then

>>138991426

The reason we send young men to war isn't because they are fit, it's because most 50 year olds aren't dumb enough to throw their life away as cannon fodder so two leaders can have a pissing contest.