- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Time for the Secretary of War to take the bold step... no more females...
Posted on 12/19/25 at 10:54 am
Posted on 12/19/25 at 10:54 am
In anything other than support roles. Time to roll this sucker back.
The President is enjoying a resurgence in military service & recruiting.
They already agree, no trannies [with fake monthly periods]. I should state... Women should be in the service, but only in support roles, behind the scenes.
No more lowering of standards to allow females to serve, in any rank/rate for roles which are separated. I want this for a couple of reasons.
1- It helped usher in DE&I, which ultimately led to that amazing pentacle of embarrassment during the Biden Administration. My hope, is we only remember this as a Follie 25 years from now. I've stated this before, when serving... males were required to scale 9 ft walls, females, 5 ft. No required rope climbing for women, they didn't have the upper body strength. Are there females who are exceptions... absolutely. You don't make policy on exceptions.
2- As a nation, we shouldn't want using our sisters, wives and mothers in that roles to begin with. We were always better than this. In the video below, Andrew reminds the young lady [it really wasn't a fair debate] of what happens with females on the front lines of any military engagement.
By making the military increasingly more competitive, you will make it more desirable to serve. It will not fail you.
Andrew Wilson a few weeks ago with some, young feminist, who believes the opposite of this.
The President is enjoying a resurgence in military service & recruiting.
They already agree, no trannies [with fake monthly periods]. I should state... Women should be in the service, but only in support roles, behind the scenes.
No more lowering of standards to allow females to serve, in any rank/rate for roles which are separated. I want this for a couple of reasons.
1- It helped usher in DE&I, which ultimately led to that amazing pentacle of embarrassment during the Biden Administration. My hope, is we only remember this as a Follie 25 years from now. I've stated this before, when serving... males were required to scale 9 ft walls, females, 5 ft. No required rope climbing for women, they didn't have the upper body strength. Are there females who are exceptions... absolutely. You don't make policy on exceptions.
2- As a nation, we shouldn't want using our sisters, wives and mothers in that roles to begin with. We were always better than this. In the video below, Andrew reminds the young lady [it really wasn't a fair debate] of what happens with females on the front lines of any military engagement.
By making the military increasingly more competitive, you will make it more desirable to serve. It will not fail you.
Andrew Wilson a few weeks ago with some, young feminist, who believes the opposite of this.
11
Posted on 12/19/25 at 11:02 am to captainFid
Hasn't the policy always been no women in front line positions?
Posted on 12/19/25 at 11:03 am to captainFid
It should happen.
It won't. Hegseth is full of piss & vinegar but I don't think Trump wants that sort of heat.
You could do it with very little political pain with changing standards, but that will take time and the next admin can reverse it.
It won't. Hegseth is full of piss & vinegar but I don't think Trump wants that sort of heat.
You could do it with very little political pain with changing standards, but that will take time and the next admin can reverse it.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 11:18 am to lowhound
quote:
Hasn't the policy always been no women in front line positions?
I have always been a fan of Rush Limbaugh's idea of the Amazonian Brigrades. You have 4 ready platoons of synced up women and send them to front lines of combat once a month during their period.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 11:32 am to captainFid
Posted on 12/19/25 at 11:49 am to captainFid
The world was a much saner place when women were teachers, nurses, secretaries, stewardesses and waitresses only.
I am all for younger women working, but once they get married they need to concentrate on keeping house and raising children.
I am all for younger women working, but once they get married they need to concentrate on keeping house and raising children.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 11:52 am to lowhound
I thought infantry but the AF has female fighter pilots, no?
Posted on 12/19/25 at 11:57 am to captainFid
I don’t see the need to ban the entire gender.
Why wouldn’t we accept all the dude looking broads who can perform at the same level as men, and might even outperform some barely eligible men?
Let the process filter out physical and mental inferiority. If some of them happened to have been born with vaginas, but are capable of performing valiantly with a team of like minded soldiers, let’s roll with them.
Why wouldn’t we accept all the dude looking broads who can perform at the same level as men, and might even outperform some barely eligible men?
Let the process filter out physical and mental inferiority. If some of them happened to have been born with vaginas, but are capable of performing valiantly with a team of like minded soldiers, let’s roll with them.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 12:13 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
I thought infantry but the AF has female fighter pilots, no?
I wouldn't call pilots "front line". I'm talking grunts and crayon eaters, house to house, slow-moving self-propelled pop-up targets, strong enough to pack out wounded soldiers, front line.
This post was edited on 12/19/25 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 12/19/25 at 12:15 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
I thought infantry but the AF has female fighter pilots, no?
Yeah, they been flying for Navy and AF for a few years... Don't go looking at some of those incidents / accidents. [I'm not ragging on the individuals], just the policy.... best of the best (+ women) sort of thing.
Same as ... .I'm pretty certain they have them in the Silent Service now... on subs, the last bastion of male-only crew succumbed to this around 15 years ago.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 12:20 pm to BrodyDad
quote:You think the world of WWI was "saner" than now?
The world was a much saner place when women were teachers, nurses, secretaries, stewardesses and waitresses only.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 12:20 pm to captainFid
quote:I don't want to ban females. I just want the standards to be the standards - and whoever qualifies, qualifies.
Time for the Secretary of War to take the bold step... no more females...
Posted on 12/19/25 at 12:25 pm to captainFid
Melt!
Posted on 12/19/25 at 12:51 pm to Big Scrub TX
Here in the US with clearly defined, biblical gender roles? Absolutely.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 1:42 pm to lowhound
but…
Why i distinguish between infantry and AF. And fighter pilots do deliver live ordnance on targets that don’t want it delivered on them.
Why i distinguish between infantry and AF. And fighter pilots do deliver live ordnance on targets that don’t want it delivered on them.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 2:08 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
I don't want to ban females. I just want the standards to be the standards - and whoever qualifies, qualifies.
Isn’t that what Hegseth did?
LINK
Posted on 12/19/25 at 2:09 pm to captainFid
I am okay with women in combat roles provided they can pass the same physical fitness requirements as men without lowering the standards to help them pass. The reality is almost no women could pass via the old standards, so they lowered them.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 2:15 pm to captainFid
This was a healthy debate. Both made great points. It’s a far cry from his other video with her when he absolutely crashed when she pointed out his hypocrisy. Glad to see they moved on.
This post was edited on 12/19/25 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 12/19/25 at 2:57 pm to captainFid
What is all this "if they can do it" business? Of course some women can meet physical requirements and some men can't. As Rudyard Kipling wrote, "The female of the species is more deadly than the male." But the fact is that they are women and there doesn't need to be any other reason to exclude them from combat roles. Women have babies and men don't. That is really all there is to it.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 3:02 pm to captainFid
quote:
In anything other than support roles.
You don't even have to say it. Just make all standards the same and an extremely low number, potentially zero, will qualify anyway.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News