NationStates

Haktiva wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I'm pretty sure you and everyone else who thinks that way would agree.

here's a question, is it a problem that women aren't on this forum that much?

No, it just means the women that are in this forum enjoy the community for what it's worth.

Although, considering how the community has been lately it's making even me reconsider why the hell am I here at times.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

The 502nd SS wrote:I agree with part of this opinion

Why is it not?

Its been traditionally job for men. Also women aren't as strong as men and with them being around each other in combat zone there are increased risk of sexual assault.

They can be combat pilots but they should never be in infantry, armored, or artillery roles.

The 502nd SS wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Why is it not?

Its been traditionally job for men. Also women aren't as strong as men and with them being around each other in combat zone there are increased risk of sexual assault.

They can be combat pilots but they should never be in infantry, armored, or artillery roles.

I believe the correct response would be bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The kind of woman who wants to join the military will be capable. "Increased risk of sexual assault" would be indicative of some catastrophic lack of morale that has resulted in the FOB turning into a fiefdom of the CO, largely unbound by conduct. Especially since it's already full of women, combat roles or no. The existence of more women will not turn the male troops into frothing, uncontrollable sex addicts.

What the fuck is wrong with artillery, of all postings?

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Haktiva wrote:here's a question, is it a problem that women aren't on this forum that much?

No, it just means the women that are in this forum enjoy the community for what it's worth.

Although, considering how the community has been lately it's making even me reconsider why the hell am I here at times.

yeah I have to wonder that too, though for very different reasons, obviously.

The 502nd SS wrote:

Coreyea wrote:No, not the job of women to fight wars. They shouldn't even be working, should just stay home to cook and clean.

I agree with part of this opinion

An attitude which I'm sure will stand to you if your plan to join the US Army pans out and you find yourself working alongside and under the command of women. Make sure to share it with the first lady you find with more stripes on her arm than you. Let us know how it goes for you.

---

Haktiva wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I'm pretty sure you and everyone else who thinks that way would agree.

here's a question, is it a problem that women aren't on this forum that much?

I'm sure Max Barry would prefer that his books be advertised to a wider demographic than teenage boys. Debate and discussion certainly isn't improved by having fewer people to share their experiences and insight.

---

The 502nd SS wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Why is it not?

Its been traditionally job for men. Also women aren't as strong as men and with them being around each other in combat zone there are increased risk of sexual assault.

Only if you allow rapists to enter and remain in the military. Do you want to serve alongside rapists? I wouldn't.

They can be combat pilots but they should never be in infantry, armored, or artillery roles.

Please find women in these roles and say that to them. Please, please, Mr. Teenage Civilian, find professional soldiers, preferably those who have seen combat, and tell them that they should not be doing the jobs that they have trained for, that they are doing and have done under fire, and that you have no knowledge of or experience with. Maybe you'll learn something.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

The 502nd SS wrote:Its been traditionally job for men. Also women aren't as strong as men and with them being around each other in combat zone there are increased risk of sexual assault.

They can be combat pilots but they should never be in infantry, armored, or artillery roles.

I believe the correct response would be bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The kind of woman who wants to join the military will be capable. "Increased risk of sexual assault" would be indicative of some catastrophic lack of morale that has resulted in the FOB turning into a fiefdom of the CO, largely unbound by conduct. Especially since it's already full of women, combat roles or no. The existence of more women will not turn the male troops into frothing, uncontrollable sex addicts.

What the fuck is wrong with artillery, of all postings?

Exactly.

When you hear '''women in the military'' you should not imagine Marilyn Monroe types...

You should think: Brienne of Tarth

When it comes to women in the military, I'm on the fence because of how they mess with unit cohesion, who gender dynamics come into play, and the whole sexual dimorphism thing(physical and mental)

Haktiva wrote:When it comes to women in the military, I'm on the fence because of how they mess with unit cohesion, who gender dynamics come into play, and the whole sexual dimorphism thing(physical and mental)

Have some peer-reviewed academic papers to demonstrate how women break the military?

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Haktiva wrote:When it comes to women in the military, I'm on the fence because of how they mess with unit cohesion, who gender dynamics come into play, and the whole sexual dimorphism thing(physical and mental)

Have some peer-reviewed academic papers to demonstrate how women break the military?

Well, their boobs getting in my line of sight is enough for me to lose my shit, dontchaknow?

Haktiva wrote:When it comes to women in the military, I'm on the fence because of how they mess with unit cohesion, who gender dynamics come into play, and the whole sexual dimorphism thing(physical and mental)

Having served in a mixed sex unit, utter bollocks.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Haktiva wrote:When it comes to women in the military, I'm on the fence because of how they mess with unit cohesion, who gender dynamics come into play, and the whole sexual dimorphism thing(physical and mental)

Have some peer-reviewed academic papers to demonstrate how women break the military?

It's too politically incorrect to be studied

Mostly what I'd show you would be anecdotal. Legitimate, but honestly not empirical enough to be fair(if that makes any sense).

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Have some peer-reviewed academic papers to demonstrate how women break the military?

Well, their boobs getting in my line of sight is enough for me to lose my shit, dontchaknow?

depends on the job. I don't imagine women holding it together very well in a firefight, plus they're all usually pretty weak compared to men and don't have the endurance. This is a generalization, of course, and all generalizations are false, including this one.

In all seriousness though, it probably depends on which types of women we're talking about. Russian women? I can imagine it. Kurds are doing fairly well too I think. Western women?

The 502nd SS wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Why is it not?

Its been traditionally job for men. Also women aren't as strong as men and with them being around each other in combat zone there are increased risk of sexual assault.

They can be combat pilots but they should never be in infantry, armored, or artillery roles.

TO the first, so what. To the second, depends how you define strength. To the third, prove it.

Haktiva wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Have some peer-reviewed academic papers to demonstrate how women break the military?

It's too politically incorrect to be studied

Mostly what I'd show you would be anecdotal. Legitimate, but honestly not empirical enough to be fair(if that makes any sense).

Considering how important it is to have unit cohesion, I doubt there is a lack of studies on this.

Neutraligon wrote:

The 502nd SS wrote:Its been traditionally job for men. Also women aren't as strong as men and with them being around each other in combat zone there are increased risk of sexual assault.

They can be combat pilots but they should never be in infantry, armored, or artillery roles.

TO the first, so what. To the second, depends how you define strength. To the third, prove it.

2.) Physical strength, like carrying a wounded comrade on your back while both of y'all are wearing a full combat load. 3.) I'm going off what my teacher said, who was military police for twenty years.

I'm friends with a Army Ranger, several infantrymen, and a few tankers and they all say the same thing; women shouldn't be allowed to be in those roles

Neutraligon wrote:

Haktiva wrote:It's too politically incorrect to be studied

Mostly what I'd show you would be anecdotal. Legitimate, but honestly not empirical enough to be fair(if that makes any sense).

Considering how important it is to have unit cohesion, I doubt there is a lack of studies on this.

there's a lot of biased research. one study will say there's no problem with surveys and statistics that are really generalized, the other will say there is a problem with mostly anecdotal stuff.

Haktiva wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Well, their boobs getting in my line of sight is enough for me to lose my shit, dontchaknow?

depends on the job. I don't imagine women holding it together very well in a firefight, plus they're all usually pretty weak compared to men and don't have the endurance. This is a generalization, of course, and all generalizations are false, including this one.

In all seriousness though, it probably depends on which types of women we're talking about. Russian women? I can imagine it. Kurds are doing fairly well too I think. Western women?

I think there's plenty of Western women who could hold their own.

No one should

Margno wrote:No one should.

^The better idea.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Haktiva wrote:depends on the job. I don't imagine women holding it together very well in a firefight, plus they're all usually pretty weak compared to men and don't have the endurance. This is a generalization, of course, and all generalizations are false, including this one.

In all seriousness though, it probably depends on which types of women we're talking about. Russian women? I can imagine it. Kurds are doing fairly well too I think. Western women?

I think there's plenty of Western women who could hold their own.

think or know? I think Bigfoot is real but I don't know where he is.

Haktiva wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I think there's plenty of Western women who could hold their own.

think or know? I think Bigfoot is real but I don't know where he is.

I know Western women who can hold their own in a firefight, at least from the women I know.

From that, I can conclude that I think there's plenty of women who could hold their own, because I don't know the entire population of women who:

1) Have firearms in their possession
2) Know how to handle a gun

So that's just a hypothesis and not an actual claim when extrapolating to the general population.

Haktiva wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I think there's plenty of Western women who could hold their own.

think or know? I think Bigfoot is real but I don't know where he is.

know. not every western woman is a teenage girly girl.

Alyakia wrote:

Haktiva wrote:think or know? I think Bigfoot is real but I don't know where he is.

know. not every western woman is a teenage girly girl.

I know my mom can handle a revolver, and my sisters can too.

I also know plenty of women in my social circle who are not scared of guns, but they just don't like to own one.

The 502nd SS wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Why is it not?

Its been traditionally job for men. Also women aren't as strong as men and with them being around each other in combat zone there are increased risk of sexual assault.

They can be combat pilots but they should never be in infantry, armored, or artillery roles.

Nice sexism bruh.
Instead of wiping away the atrocities of women being sexually assaulted by men in uniform, why don't you fucking punish the people who assault others?

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

The 502nd SS wrote:Its been traditionally job for men. Also women aren't as strong as men and with them being around each other in combat zone there are increased risk of sexual assault.

They can be combat pilots but they should never be in infantry, armored, or artillery roles.

Nice sexism bruh.
Instead of wiping away the atrocities of women being sexually assaulted by men in uniform, why don't you fucking punish the people who assault others?

Because that'd make too much sense.