Started By
Message

re: Women in Combat: What say you?

Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:40 am to
Posted by MMauler
Primary This RINO Traitor
Member since Jun 2013
24445 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:40 am to
quote:

If they can meet the exact same standards as their male counterparts and the standards aren’t lowered to allow for this.



The truly disturbing part was listening to these Democrats pretend that the standards haven’t been lowered for women. That is a known f*cking fact. But they want to pretend like women are meeting those same standards. Proving once again that to be a Democrat you have to be severely f*cking retarded and living in FantasyF*ckingLand.. See, e.g., SloF*ckingPinhead.
This post was edited on 1/16/25 at 9:29 am
Posted by Rtowntiger
Member since Dec 2012
2623 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:40 am to
If they can fit all the physical requirements, they can, but they don't have the temperament or aggression. The problem is women were not made to be warriors. They are not war dogs. It is an inherent psychological makeup that most women don't have. God made us different for a reason. It will always try to fit a square peg in a round hole. It is forced and defies the set purposes of our creator. It just checks off some boxes for the virtue signalers.
Posted by TigerPlate
North Dallas
Member since Dec 2023
623 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:40 am to
If you consider the average male vs the average female, I kind of think it is obvious that the male is going to have a physical advantage. In combat is a broad term. Needs to be better defined. If piloting and aircraft or being a member of a naval vessel in combat well female with the same skill or better is a good choice. If we are talking about hand to hand fox hole shite not so much in favor of a women against a man.
Posted by Evolved Simian
Bushwood Country Club
Member since Sep 2010
23260 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:41 am to
Any woman who meets the same physical requirements as a man can be in combat. That is my stance.

Based on the fact that less than 1% of women can meet that requirement and men are more likely to enlist, you'll probably never see more than a handful ever make it.

Posted by Mac Power
Member since Jul 2019
463 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:41 am to
I work in a selection only military unit right now and there are some women that could do it.

The military needs to set the same standard for men and women. Everyone above the line is good to go, below the line isn't. No exceptions.

A combat force would still be 98% men, but lets not pretend that there aren't some worthless males in the ranks as well.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
138766 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:41 am to
quote:

Women in Combat: What say you?
Define combat.
E.g., Is operating a joystick and confirming kills on a video screen "combat"?
Posted by newmexicotiger
Member since Sep 2017
4409 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:41 am to
My wife served. She was a Russian translator. She's proficient with firearms. However, the only way she's shooting another human is if they are hurting our dog. I don't want her having my six. So...negative on in combat.
Posted by anc
Member since Nov 2012
20600 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:42 am to
I don't believe they belong in high level sports, much less combat.

Men allowing women to die for them is a curse on society.

This post was edited on 1/16/25 at 8:44 am
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
17959 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:42 am to
My wife (no pics) who served for quite a while agreed with the bulk of Hegseth’s statements from the podcast in November that the AP quoted.

quote:

“I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated,” he said in a podcast hosted by Shawn Ryan on Nov. 7. Women have a place in the military, he said, just not in special operations, artillery, infantry and armor units.


She also brought up the point that men beyond a certain age wouldn’t be allowed to serve in some of those combat roles.

It should be about preparedness, plain and simple.

ETA: She agreed with having the same standards across the board and that having women in combat does make it more complicated. She doesn’t have an issue with the physical standards being the same and acknowledged the complications.
This post was edited on 1/16/25 at 8:45 am
Posted by FLTech
he/won
Member since Sep 2017
28160 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:44 am to
When I hear this argument /

Let’s have a female running back in the NFL play an entire season and see how she is doing at the end of the season - if she hasn’t quit or been killed then perhaps woman can be in physical and tough environments
Posted by ColonelAngus
Huntsville,AL
Member since Aug 2023
855 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:46 am to
Put 1 in full battle rattle for a day. Idk any I served with that wouldn't tap out.
Posted by TheDonald
Washington DC
Member since Dec 2024
546 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:51 am to
No
Posted by Tigerfan4545
Member since Oct 2024
309 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:52 am to
No….women do not belong in combat. A vast majority of them would represent the weakest link in the chain and could ultimately pose a threat to the safety and security of an outfit primarily made up of men.
Posted by JiminyCricket
Member since Jun 2017
6576 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:57 am to
I think many women that are complaining about this are more interested in the ability to be in combat more so than they want to be in combat. Combat is hell. If you WANT to be in combat, you don't understand combat.
This post was edited on 1/16/25 at 8:59 am
Posted by JiminyCricket
Member since Jun 2017
6576 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:58 am to
quote:

Define combat.


I'd define it as boots on the ground carrying a weapon.
Posted by Lutcher Lad
South of the Mason-Dixon Line
Member since Sep 2009
7563 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:58 am to
quote:

Let’s have a female running back in the NFL play an entire season and see how she is doing at the end of the season - if she hasn’t quit or been killed then perhaps woman can be in physical and tough environments


That's a fair statement. The standards for women has been severely lowered as compared to men. Read Pete's book, "The War on Warriors" and you'll see what's real in our military today under the Biden error.
Posted by beachdude
FL
Member since Nov 2008
6488 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 8:59 am to
11B MOS here. One year in an infantry battalion in 1969 in Vietnam. I find the idea of women in a combat environment and doing what I did and what I saw done ludicrous.
Posted by Toomer Deplorable
Team Bitter Clinger
Member since May 2020
24857 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:00 am to
quote:

The veterans and the active military members are the ones who give the best prospective, not the fake, phony politicians.



Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted by SixthAndBarone
Member since Jan 2019
11145 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:01 am to
As long as they meet the male standards without lowering the standards, let them fight. The only real issue I see is the fear of them being captured then raped.
Posted by PeleofAnalytics
Member since Jun 2021
5378 posts
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:05 am to
quote:

If they can meet the exact same standards as their male counterparts and the standards aren’t lowered to allow for this.

That is the only way I would even consider it.
.

All that is great but the enemy still uses the rape of female soldiers as psychological warfare, especially if they are eventually released from captivity pregnant. Men are more capable of unemotionally doing their job if they are not worrying about their female counterparts being captured and violated.
This post was edited on 1/16/25 at 10:38 am
Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 10Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram