- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:05 pm to biggsc
quote:
Women having PMS would scare the crap out of jihadists
muslims believe if they are killed in combat/jihad by a woman they won't go to heaven.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:46 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Den we fukked. They raced to be the first one to integrate
By the time Obama got around to this little item on the social justice list, the military leadership had been neutered.
There were very few generals or admirals left with any backbone, just yes men for Obama's liberal agenda.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:48 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
So no #draftourdaughters?
Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:55 pm to Seldom Seen
quote:
So no #draftourdaughters?
Honest question, was that a real thing? Did people really advocate for drafting women?
Odd, since we don't currently draft men.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:56 pm to AbuTheMonkey
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:06 pm to Monday
quote:
Do women have the same requirements as men?
Not in line units.
And, it doesn't matter. Even if we made exceptions for the 1% of 8% or whatever, it isn't worth the expense and effort of making separate latrine facilities, separate quarters and all that other shite for a handful of gals to be in combat units.
And, women are physiologically unsuitable for combat over any length of time. Hell, not all men are. So, even if held to the same objective standards for entry, acceptance and evaluation, these same (and I admit, they're exceptional) exceptional women will break down more quickly and more predictably than will men. They have female issues. Women have "shy" bladders, meaning they develop more UTIs under austere living conditions. They also develop infections and have downtime due to monthly cycles. They are weaker per pound than a comparable man, and their bone density is lower. Their bones are weaker and more brittle than men's bones at the beginning and don't repair as fast under high physical stress conditions.
About the only thing they have going for them is a higher threshold for pain, in that respect and that simply isn't worth the effort.
Why do SJWs hate science?
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:18 pm to DarthTiger
quote:
Can you elaborate more based on your experience?
For the record, I'm fine with women not serving in certain areas of the military such as combat. It's just a fact of life that men are physically superior to women. And if you don't meet the physical requirements to perform your duty, then you shouldn't be allowed in.
While the physical aspects are enough, there is also something to be said about the bonds that men form in a line unit. If you have never served, it is difficult to explain, but try to imagine living with a bunch of men where you are in the field for weeks, sometimes months on end. Warriors have understood it for centuries. Shakespeare nailed it in Henry V with the "band of brothers" speech. That is what it is, a band of brothers. In the infantry, in my case the mechanized infantry, you share everything. You piss right next to your buddies, you sleep right next to them, you stink together, you strip down next to them for a quick "bath" using baby-wipes in the back of a track, because you haven't showered in days, and this is the only chance at hygiene you are going to get for a while.
Inserting women into that environment does nothing to make it better, it simply makes that warrior culture less.
I am probably not explaining it that well, because it really is hard to explain.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:20 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
I think Trump will consider him. DJT is not an ideologue (which is why everyone is underestimating him). He is a a pragmatist who wants to win at all costs. He will choose the best person for the job.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:22 pm to King Teal
quote:
Besides, the people who think this is a world-ending decision are the same ones who thought we'd never win another war if gays were allowed to serve openly.
No one cares.
lulz.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:26 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Just those pussies over at SOCOM. The Marines at least put up a fight.
fact.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:28 pm to Vito Andolini
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:29 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
I think as long as the women can drag/carry the heaviest man with full equipment over 200 yards in a combat situation, they should be able to fight alongside the men.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:39 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Proof?
Such an intelligent rebuttal.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:45 pm to Aristo
quote:
Such an intelligent rebuttal.
To your post, it was more than adequate.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:46 pm to Aristo
quote:
Such an intelligent rebuttal.
Your initial statement displayed some the most shallow reasoning possible. You don't deserve some of the novels that have been written about this topic, one which many here know a great deal about. Pardon me for not posting a treatise rejecting your incredibly insightful statement that women who "drag 200 lb mannequins" around should be in combat arms.
This post was edited on 11/16/16 at 6:47 pm
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:55 pm to MrCarton
Where does it say mannequins? If a woman can pass the same exact physical fitness tests as other combat troops, why shouldn't they be able to be in combat?
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:59 pm to Monday
quote:
Do women have the same requirements as men? Serious question
No. Womens PT qualifications are way lower than men.
Popular
Back to top



0





