- 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
re: Women in Combat: What say you?
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:31 am to Toomer Deplorable
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:31 am to Toomer Deplorable
I heard a caller on Andrew Wilkow's show who said that the studies showed some areas where women performed better, such as radio comms.
Overall, the units were less effective.
Overall, the units were less effective.
1
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:33 am to MMauler
quote:
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.
The Marine Corps proved that integrated units performed worse than all male units…..yet Biden’s Secretary of the Navy ordered the Marines to allow women into the Ground Combat Element.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:36 am to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
Inconvenient truth number two is that men and women have been each other’s most consistent distraction since the beginning of time. To pretend that we don’t know what will happen when men and women are thrown together for prolonged periods in emotionally intense situations defies common sense. Being overly academic and insufficiently adult about adult behavior isn’t just irresponsible but imperiling, and belies the deadly seriousness with which we should want combat units to perform.
quote:
Anna Simons is a Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School. She is the author of Networks of Dissolution: Somalia Undone and The Company They Keep: Life Inside the U.S. Army Special Forces, and is most recently the co-author of The Sovereignty Solution: A Commonsense Approach to Global Security. The views expressed are the author’s and do not reflect those of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, or the Naval Postgraduate School.
link to article
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:38 am to SixthAndBarone
quote:
As long as they meet the male standards without lowering the standards, let them fight.
How much do you want to bet that Biden's DoD passed this woman and said that she met all the same requirements as her male counterpart?
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:38 am to TigersnJeeps
quote:
radio comms
So women have an inborn aptitude at communicating? I don’t doubt that.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:43 am to Lutcher Lad
No.
They mostly become morale gear when deployed.
They mostly become morale gear when deployed.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:45 am to Lutcher Lad
I’m okay with it, as long as there is no lowering of standards.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:47 am to Lutcher Lad
This is very, very simple, and yet we on the right allow the left to craft the message.
Simple Answer:
The fitness qualifications are _______.
The Strength qualifications are _________.
The mental toughness qualifications are ______.
The intellectual qualifications are _______.
The mastering of the principles of combat are _______.
Man or woman may apply. Meet the qualifications and you are fit to serve in combat roles.
Don't cry that you have a vagina so there should be different qualifications.
Next question.
Simple Answer:
The fitness qualifications are _______.
The Strength qualifications are _________.
The mental toughness qualifications are ______.
The intellectual qualifications are _______.
The mastering of the principles of combat are _______.
Man or woman may apply. Meet the qualifications and you are fit to serve in combat roles.
Don't cry that you have a vagina so there should be different qualifications.
Next question.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:49 am to Penrod
As a woman I say NO! Women don’t belong in Combat, shouldn’t be police officers or fire fighters. Sorry not sorry! I want a strong he-man in those roles. People can lie to themselves all day long but women are not as strong as men. And we let emotions rule, so in bad situations we can’t act right. Period
This post was edited on 1/16/25 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:52 am to PorkSammich
So a female captain is the team leader of a special forces team. 24 months is her command time. 3 months in she gets pregnant. So for the next 12 months (15 months into her command, 9 months left on her command) she and her SOF team are useless to the army. She will compete against all the other captains for company and bn commands.
Those SF teams are on constant deployments and training and she did not serve equally during her command time and it is not right to her team or to the army mission.
Not even mentioning if she could pass the qualification course with equal standards. Get the respect of foreign enemies who sometimes don't want to communicate with females. Can she drag my 200 pound husband out of a battle if he is injured.. so many things that can go wrong just so a female can die on the front lines along side a man
Those SF teams are on constant deployments and training and she did not serve equally during her command time and it is not right to her team or to the army mission.
Not even mentioning if she could pass the qualification course with equal standards. Get the respect of foreign enemies who sometimes don't want to communicate with females. Can she drag my 200 pound husband out of a battle if he is injured.. so many things that can go wrong just so a female can die on the front lines along side a man
This post was edited on 1/16/25 at 9:57 am
Posted on 1/16/25 at 9:54 am to JSUSouthernermom
quote:
I want a strong he-man in those roles
That would be best, but have you taken a look lately at our boys in blue?
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:02 am to Penrod
quote:
I’m okay with it, as long as there is no lowering of standards.
quote:
All the services have lower physical standards for women than for men. The U.S. Military Academy has identified 120 physical differences between men and women, not to mention psychological ones, that result in a less rigorous overall program of physical training at West Point in order to accommodate female cadets.
quote:
Military physical standards for men and women differ because their bodies are intrinsically designed differently. The different standards are designed to create a level playing field for qualification.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:04 am to Lutcher Lad
I'm fine with them on the front lines but only if they can meet the men's physical standards, which overwhelming vast majority don't. The military has lowered the standards so that it appears as though women are meeting the same standards as their male counterparts. But the truth is, they've made the physical standards for men, easier to achieve. I was only in for 5 years, but during that time, I never came across a female who could meet the men's physical standards. My Dad retired after 26 years as an infantry COL. He completed Ranger School, he was a jump master, air assault, SERE school graduate and he also said feels the same way as I. There may be a unicorn here and there, but physically speaking, women can't compete and they'd be better served serving in the rear and not the front lines
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:04 am to monsterballads
the problem with different standards is, it's NOT EQUAL.
why does this matter? you want everyone to be able to do the job. not exclusions.
another reason: your physical readiness tests factor into your evaluation for promotion. so women can do less, earn better scores, and be promoted faster than men in the military.
this is frickED up and has been for decades.
why does this matter? you want everyone to be able to do the job. not exclusions.
another reason: your physical readiness tests factor into your evaluation for promotion. so women can do less, earn better scores, and be promoted faster than men in the military.
this is frickED up and has been for decades.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:05 am to AgSGT
quote:
women can't compete and they'd be better served serving in the rear and not the front lines
but politically, it's bad when someone says these very true things.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:09 am to Lutcher Lad
the snap judgement is, if they can pass the high standards of combat, they should be able to fight. However, I understand what the presence of a handful of females can do to the heads of a majority of young males deeply embedded in the shite.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:12 am to Scruffy
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.
this doesn't account for the sexual tension that they bring into the unit which divides cohesiveness.
a MINISCULE amount of women can meet male standards on a consistent basis, so we're talking about a very small amount of women regardless. Why allow them into the unit when the only thing they'll do is frick up combat readiness when they inevitably start fricking multiple guys in the field?
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:14 am to AgSGT
quote:
I'm fine with them on the front lines but only if they can meet the men's physical standards,
Yep. Which means it would be extremely rare.
But if they earn it, they earn it.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:15 am to RogerTheShrubber
Roger wrong again, not surprising
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:15 am to monsterballads
quote:
but politically, it's bad when someone says these very true things
Politically speaking you may be right, but the people that are offended by this mindset aren't volunteering to serve. It is refreshing for the war fighter to hear this line of thinking rather than the politically correct bs we've dealt with for decades
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News