Kill the women first.

[An archy]

The claim that women have less muscular power shouldn't have any sway as long as the strength requirements are the same. If most women do have less muscular power, then most women won't be able to make it into the combat divisions. Problem solved.

[Unchecked Expansion]

The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.

I assume those are statistical averages? So would you be opposed to a woman who could pass the standards for men's strength being in the armed forces?
Besides, how important is strength in the modern soldier? Endurance and athletic ability are important, but since we use guns killing power is not based on strength. I know there's a lot of gear to carry, but how about women armour crewmen?

You can tell these(those who question this statistic) are either women them selfs or really love women. The truth is that in the army, statistics are life and if a country attacks the U.S. women would get in the way, I say let the men fight and women hold the home front, why not military police?

So I call your statistics all BS and you just call me a girl?
If statistics are life and death in the army, then try this one - EVEN IF (hypothetical) 90% of women are always weaker than men, then, STATISTICALLY, 10% are going to be as strong or stronger. Ball's in your court

[Buffett and Colbert]

Do you think women are physically equal to men?

Many are.

[Grave_n_idle]

Do you think women are physically equal to men?

Equal? Sure. The same? No.

[The Tofu Islands]

Do you think women are physically equal to men?

Some aren't, some are.

Do you think that women who are as physically able as male soldiers should not be allowed to be in the military?

[Gimmadonis]

The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.

I assume those are statistical averages? So would you be opposed to a woman who could pass the standards for men's strength being in the armed forces?
Besides, how important is strength in the modern soldier? Endurance and athletic ability are important, but since we use guns killing power is not based on strength. I know there's a lot of gear to carry, but how about women armour crewmen?

US soldier in full kit carries 90 lbs. in full kit. That's 30lbs. more than most medieval armor.

That's not that much. Hell, my mom lifted me when I was 110 pounds (before she broke her back, anyways), and she sure as hell wasn't in the military.

Good, now have your mom carry you while jogging or at march through miles of 100 degree Fahrenheit and being shot at for several hours.

That's where the whole "military training" thing comes in. Which my mother did not have.

Do you think women are physically equal to men?

Perhaps not, but the difference is SO minute, it probably doesn't matter in most situations anyways.

[Maurepas]

The claim that women have less muscular power shouldn't have any sway as long as the strength requirements are the same. If most women do have less muscular power, then most women won't be able to make it into the combat divisions. Problem solved.

Prettymuch the way I see it, they should have all the same requirements, and any who pass it get through...

[Grave_n_idle]

The claim that women have less muscular power shouldn't have any sway as long as the strength requirements are the same. If most women do have less muscular power, then most women won't be able to make it into the combat divisions. Problem solved.

Warfare is basically guns and technology in the modern era. The idea that bulk of muscle-mass is the most important concern... is frankly laughable.

[The Rifle Brigade]

Women are physically weaker and have a significantly lower pain tolerance than men, it's a much bigger problem than "squatting to piss".

The "physically weaker" bit has been addressed and refuted. As to "lower pain tolerance", you should broaden your own reading on the subject.

[Ryadn]

Do you think women are physically equal to men?

Of course they are.

[Gimmadonis]

Also this: http://www.badassoftheweek.com/joanofarc.html

[Ryadn]

Do you think women are physically equal to men?

Equal? Sure. The same? No.

This, exactly.

[Maurepas]

The claim that women have less muscular power shouldn't have any sway as long as the strength requirements are the same. If most women do have less muscular power, then most women won't be able to make it into the combat divisions. Problem solved.

Warfare is basically guns and technology in the modern era. The idea that bulk of muscle-mass is the most important concern... is frankly laughable.

Its not the most important concern, but, as long as it is a concern, as it obviously is or there wouldnt be a requirement for it at all, then there should be an equal footing and everyone who passes should get in, regardless...

[HairyHares]

It's fine for the pongos I suppose. But nobody has yet refuted the results of a Royal Navy inquiry in 1872 that scientifically proved what people had long suspected: women are bad luck at sea.

So I would object to their presence in Her Majesty's Senior Service.

How exactly to you prove any thing is bad luck . Sounds very useful if you can do it

[The Aeson]

New Nicksyllvania, you can, of course, source your claim that it has been 'proven' that armed forces 'fight harder and [are] less likely to surrender' when facing females.

[Maurepas]

There are numerous problems besides simple physical differances, where the average man is much more physically fit then the average woman. Averages are important here as modern warfare are about mass manpower.

If this is true, then having the same requirements would mean that the averages work themselves out, no?

[An archy]

The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.

I assume those are statistical averages? So would you be opposed to a woman who could pass the standards for men's strength being in the armed forces?
Besides, how important is strength in the modern soldier? Endurance and athletic ability are important, but since we use guns killing power is not based on strength. I know there's a lot of gear to carry, but how about women armour crewmen?

You can tell these(those who question this statistic) are either women them selfs or really love women. The truth is that in the army, statistics are life and if a country attacks the U.S. women would get in the way, I say let the men fight and women hold the home front, why not military police?

Explain what is wrong with being a woman or really loving women?
Or were you trying to win the prize for most misogynistic response?

[Gimmadonis]

Any nation that allowed women into frontline duty en masse, have proceded to overturn the idea quickly. Russia and Israel have barred women from frontline service, despite conscripting them to military service.

There are numerous problems besides simple physical differances, where the average man is much more physically fit then the average woman. Averages are important here as modern warfare are about mass manpower.

Those whom think strength has no baring in the modern military are thus uneducated about the modern military. Infantry carry around more shit then ever, and firearms require a certain amount of strength and weight in order to shoot due to things called recoil.

Women on the battlefield make men do irrational things, as it is simple male instinct to protect women, moreso then men. This is not solved by segregation, as no battlefield is segregated as it is between a multitude of divisions, and eliminating men from the military means that the average soldier is much weaker due to physical differances between a man and woman.

Also, it has been proven in Israel that women in the frontline make the ENEMY fight harder and less likely to surrender. No male soldier will allow himself to be beaten by a female combat brigade, he will never live it down.

Hence why the Russian experiment into female frontline soldiers were focused on shaming the men in the frontlines by having women charge in front of them.


In any case, there is no valid reason to include women in the frontlines besides the asinine reason for equality. Moreover, when the war is over, we will need as many women as possible to repopulate the nation. Men don't give birth, women do. That is why Nature made men stronger and hardier, as men are the expendable gender.

You seem to forget the factthat most modern countries *coughthataren'tdirtycommiescough* have less than 1% of their population in military service at any given time. Repopulation won't even freaking MATTER, even if by chance 1% of ALL women died.

[Ryadn]

In any case, there is no valid reason to include women in the frontlines besides the asinine reason for equality. Moreover, when the war is over, we will need as many women as possible to repopulate the nation. Men don't give birth, women do. That is why Nature made men stronger and hardier, as men are the expendable gender.

The first part of that sentence directly contradicts the second.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

I follow the OP's reasoning. A woman who can put up with pee on the toilet seat, the grunting and humping motions of sleeping men, and is willing to take the risk of being accidentally shot by male comrades for not putting out, has more than enough balls to serve in combat.

Furthermore, women make the best prisoners of war. If things get tough and the unit is captured, the well-known preference of ragheads for pussy protects at least some of the men from behaviour contrary to the Geneva Convention. With a bit of luck they may even escape to carry on the fight, while their female comrades distract the guards!


Satire, folks, satire. "No man left behind" means "no woman left behind" too.

[Aelosia]

Those whom think strength has no baring in the modern military are thus uneducated about the modern military. Infantry carry around more shit then ever, and firearms require a certain amount of strength and weight in order to shoot due to things called recoil.

While I give you something with the weight department... Forget about the second. I have fired several firearms, and I have been able to handle recoil. You look like the one uneducated about infantry.

Do you think women are physically equal to men?

Of course not. We are superior.

Women on the battlefield make men do irrational things, as it is simple male instinct to protect women, moreso then men. This is not solved by segregation, as no battlefield is segregated as it is between a multitude of divisions, and eliminating men from the military means that the average soldier is much weaker due to physical differances between a man and woman.

Is that a women's problem or a men's problem?

Also, it has been proven in Israel that women in the frontline make the ENEMY fight harder and less likely to surrender. No male soldier will allow himself to be beaten by a female combat brigade, he will never live it down.

More likely, they will do stupid mistakes based on that fact.

Again, wars are not fought with flails and hammers and pointy things anymore.

Hence why the Russian experiment into female frontline soldiers were focused on shaming the men in the frontlines by having women charge in front of them.

In any case, there is no valid reason to include women in the frontlines besides the asinine reason for equality. Moreover, when the war is over, we will need as many women as possible to repopulate the nation. Men don't give birth, women do. That is why Nature made men stronger and hardier, as men are the expendable gender.

50% of the population wasted in a state of total war looks like a hell of a difference.

[Justice for Mankind]

Do you think women are physically equal to men?

Some aren't, some are.

Do you think that women who are as physically able as male soldiers should not be allowed to be in the military?

Yes

[The Rifle Brigade]

Any nation that allowed women into frontline duty en masse, have proceded to overturn the idea quickly. Russia and Israel have barred women from frontline service, despite conscripting them to military service.

There are numerous problems besides simple physical differances, where the average man is much more physically fit then the average woman. Averages are important here as modern warfare are about mass manpower.

Those whom think strength has no baring in the modern military are thus uneducated about the modern military. Infantry carry around more shit then ever, and firearms require a certain amount of strength and weight in order to shoot due to things called recoil.

Women on the battlefield make men do irrational things, as it is simple male instinct to protect women, moreso then men. This is not solved by segregation, as no battlefield is segregated as it is between a multitude of divisions, and eliminating men from the military means that the average soldier is much weaker due to physical differances between a man and woman.

Also, it has been proven in Israel that women in the frontline make the ENEMY fight harder and less likely to surrender. No male soldier will allow himself to be beaten by a female combat brigade, he will never live it down.

Hence why the Russian experiment into female frontline soldiers were focused on shaming the men in the frontlines by having women charge in front of them.


In any case, there is no valid reason to include women in the frontlines besides the asinine reason for equality. Moreover, when the war is over, we will need as many women as possible to repopulate the nation. Men don't give birth, women do. That is why Nature made men stronger and hardier, as men are the expendable gender.

We'll hardly be fielding enough women to lower the birthrate, lad, and if it got to the point where we needed that many soldiers, we'd need everybody.

And if your motivation to win would be greater to avoid being "beaten by a girl" than it would be simply for survival, duty, and devotion to your side, then you have a problem that perhaps not all men have.

[Aelosia]

I follow the OP's reasoning. A woman who can put up with pee on the toilet seat, the grunting and humping motions of sleeping men, and is willing to take the risk of being accidentally shot by male comrades for not putting out, has more than enough balls to serve in combat.

Furthermore, women make the best prisoners of war. If things get tough and the unit is captured, the well-known preference of ragheads for pussy protects at least some of the men from behaviour contrary to the Geneva Convention. With a bit of luck they may even escape to carry on the fight, while their female comrades distract the guards!


Satire, folks, satire. "No man left behind" means "no woman left behind" too.

Wow, My anger was growing so much when I read this. You got me.

The raghead and pussy part were specially offensive.

[Justice for Mankind]

Of course not. We are superior.

Sexism