Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My discussion here has nothing to do with lifeguards or Navy seals. And I would appreciate it if you would please refrain from misquoting comments that I made in other threads in order to assail my character.
Assail your character? Nice try, but all I am doing is pointing out your lack of knowledge and false statements you have made in related threads. So it is your credibility on this subject, not your character that is in question.
For some unknown reason you want to defend women and minorities that are hired despite not being as qualified. Yet we have not heard you even once acknowledge any of the examples we have brought up about unfair and discriminatory hiring practices all to create more "diversity".
If you are an NBA fan or an USA Olympic Track fan, I doubt you'd be defending whites being hired over more qualified blacks, correct?
So how on earth can you type with a straight face and claim facts showing women being less suitable for combat are not real?
Thats cute. Also included in the study was the fact that female shooters were less accurate. At rest I imagine men and women shoot the same, the issue tho is that combat shooting is not at rest. The comment about injury and wrestling is just LOL worthy.
It is so cute seeing what someone who has never served in the military thinks is important. Thank you for the laughs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tairos
There is no reason at all to even consider this silliness when there is no shortage of eligible men willing to do the job. The burden of proof as to its benefits should be on the equalists. But of course, they're somehow entitled to the moral high ground by default.
I am not sure there is not a shortage of men now but I know in the past there has been a shortage of men willing to serve, especially in Infantry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seagrape Grove
If you can carry a 150 lb. pack for 20 miles in nasty weather, do 100 push-ups, shoot like Annie Oakley, don't mind peeing and pooping and changing your tampon in front of guys who were strangers until you became comrades-in-arms with them and a few other activities that are best not mentioned--go for it.
Stop complaining about the f35 civilians! Government spending is none if your concern!
Nice deflection but you seem to have a lot of misconceptions about the military. Having never served I can see why, but I find your viewpoint refreshing and comical.
Nice deflection but you seem to have a lot of misconceptions about the military. Having never served I can see why, but I find your viewpoint refreshing and comical.
Could you explain to me what it is about the study I seem to be missing?
You are aware I brought up other spending programs to illustrate a point? Often these things boil down to omg you cant question womens efficacy SJW nonsense. Placing women into combat arms should be questioned in the same manner any other asset acquisition is.
What role do women serve (beyond social services) in which they make the forces more effective?
Reality is harsh. But don't worry your sleepy little head over it.
It's really not necessary to make nasty little snide remarks. My husband was a Vietnam vet (USMC) and when I read him these comments about how men just get so sexually excited in combat that they can't control themselves and that rape is just part of war and that 'reality is harsh', he thought I was joking and asked to read the thread himself. His remark - "I bet not one of those guys ever saw combat because I did and it sure never turned me on"
Could you explain to me what it is about the study I seem to be missing?
You are aware I brought up other spending programs to illustrate a point? Often these things boil down to omg you cant question womens efficacy SJW nonsense. Placing women into combat arms should be questioned in the same manner any other asset acquisition is.
What role do women serve (beyond social services) in which they make the forces more effective?
Please illustrate the point between spending on the F35 fighter and females in the military. Females that have served where you yourself did not.
The study is just one piece of an overall reality. You do not address the fact that women have been recruited to the military way before civil rights and that the government cannot discriminate.
You also have a very cute view of the accuracy of the average infantry soldier, which I guess comes from watching too many movies and playing too many video games.
Please illustrate the point between spending on the F35 fighter and females in the military. Females that have served where you yourself did not.
They are both assets with costs and benefits. The female soldier diminishes capabilities at a higher cost.This study conveniently demonstrates that for us. If the female soldier were an airplane it would not be purchased en masse.
point #2 is irrelevant to anything at hand and is ad hominem, you dont have anything better than that?
It's really not necessary to make nasty little snide remarks, but I guess with a failed argument that's all you have left. My husband was a Vietnam vet (USMC) and when I read him these comments about how men just get so sexually excited in combat that they can't control themselves and that rape is just part of war and that 'reality is harsh', he thought I was joking and asked to read the thread himself. His remark - I bet not one of those guys ever saw combat because I did and it sure never turned me on.
Women's bodies have become part of the terrain of conflict, according to a new report by Amnesty International.
Rape and sexual abuse are not just a by-product of war but are used as a deliberate military strategy, it says.
The opportunistic rape and pillage of previous centuries has been replaced in modern conflict by rape used as an orchestrated combat tool.
And while Amnesty cites ongoing conflicts in Colombia, Iraq, Sudan, Chechnya, Nepal and Afghanistan, the use of rape as a weapon of war goes back much further.
Spoils of war?
From the systematic rape of women in Bosnia, to an estimated 200,000 women raped during the battle for Bangladeshi independence in 1971, to Japanese rapes during the 1937 occupation of Nanking - the past century offers too many examples.
I am not sure there is not a shortage of men now but I know in the past there has been a shortage of men willing to serve, especially in Infantry.
Infantry is the hardest branch to get for officers; everyone wants it because its the career fast track and because hooah. I'm not as sure about the enlisted side, but I've never gotten the impression that the core demographic of 19 year old high school high school graduates who were weaned on Call of Duty were shying away from combat roles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK
