- 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 10:37 pm to RFK
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:37 pm to RFK
quote:
Standards for Ranger school aren’t different. Standards for the SF Q course aren’t different standards for Marine infantry officer school aren’t different. This is the point I’m making.
You have no fricking idea what you're talking about.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:57 pm to RFK
quote:
I challenge anyone to provide evidence where standards have been dropped or reduced in combat arms billets based on sex.
Dude, you are a damn moron if you think the standards haven’t changed. When I went through IOC you had to run the trail fyou saw in the beginning of Silence of the Lambs for a time. However, it was with 60 lbs of gear and an M16. Included in that run was the Marine Corps obstacle course. You didn’t have to run it once but twice back to back with that 60 lbs of gear. Sorry but there is no damn way a female could accomplish that task. I would say also I can not see a female completely a 25 mile hump with a combat load and crew served weapons. I also can’t imagine a woman being about to go longer than a month in the field with no shower and only MREs like I did in Turkey. I don’t have any friends in still that supervise training but it only takes a slight bit of common sense to see that the standards have changed like they did for the Rangers Course.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 3:37 am to Lutcher Lad
Unless the enemy is going to lower their war tactic standards to accommodate the women who are on the front line due to lowered military standards then the answer is a "Hell No".
I have been against this since it first began. I shudder to think of all the men and women, and warriors, injured, maimed, or killed because of unqualified women not up to the challenge and demands of being in a war zone.
I have been against this since it first began. I shudder to think of all the men and women, and warriors, injured, maimed, or killed because of unqualified women not up to the challenge and demands of being in a war zone.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 3:46 am to monsterballads
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
There is no level playing field in a war zone and war is no game.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 3:52 am to Rza32
Nope. As with other political hot buttons, "their body" has a direct impact on the lives, safety, and well-being of others.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 3:57 am to Lutcher Lad
I served with one or two that I wouldn’t have minded sharing a foxhole with. Most of em, nope.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 4:07 am to TigerChick2018
quote:
Now what?
Now the little pusswah will go into hiding. That's what. The unfit for combat women would probably run circles around his fat arse, but that is about the lowest bar any organism ever had to hurdle.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 5:25 am to 4x4tiger
quote:
They don't belong in combat. Hell, they shouldn't even be voting
As a veteran, I 100% agree on them not being in combat.
As a conservative human being, I 100% agree that they should not be allowed to vote. Too many "feelings" involved in their votes, vs weighing the actual policies and impacts on our country.
I also believe they should not be President/Leaders in large institutions.
Yes, there are exceptions, and for those women my apologies and appreciation...but as a whole, I think it is clear that they should not be voting, unless your political beliefs align with the radical left.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:06 am to RFK
quote:
The trope is standards to assess to combat arms have been reduced or altered.
So you are saying women who want to be in combat arms have to meet a lower standard than men, it’s just the same lower standard they meet in the rest of the military?
You don’t have to go to ranger school to be infantry, artillery or armor. In fact the vast majority don’t.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:10 am to RFK
quote:
I challenge anyone to provide evidence where standards have been dropped or reduced in combat arms billets based on sex.
it's already happening.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:10 am to Mandtgr47
quote:
As a conservative human being, I 100% agree that they should not be allowed to vote.
I have a better idea, maybe men should stop being simps and propping up average chicks while empowering them.
They act insane because simps reward them for it.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:13 am to Lutcher Lad
What the MOS number for sandwich maker?
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:29 am to GnashRebel
quote:
Men and women use the same scoring standards in the Army infantry for fitness tests?
no. they are different based on if you identify as a man or woman
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:35 am to GnashRebel
quote:
You don’t have to go to ranger school to be infantry, artillery or armor. In fact the vast majority don’t.
I imagine women could do OK with artillery, drones, etc...
I think the military is actively recruiting nerds for the higher tech stuff.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 7:45 am to Lutcher Lad
There has to be standards.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:09 am to Lutcher Lad
I heard women are crack shots. If they get a crack in the door, they'll be in. Not to good with vehicles though, too many crack ups. No more cracks about women in the military, this shite cracks me up.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:40 am to greygoose
I used to see them fail all the time during basic on-shore damage control exercises, particularly dealing with the various types of shoring.
Popular
Back to top



0



