Advertisement
by Imperial City-States » Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:41 am
by Wallenburg » Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:41 am
Imperial City-States wrote:Ones masculinity, or if they're compensating for something. Is entirely illrelevent to if a female can preform the task at hand.
People such as yourself don't seem to understand the concept that females, generally, in this profession, will be significantly weaker than men.
If i am bleeding out on the ground in full gear, and a female soldier is unable to move me to a position where I can get proper care I die.
It's not about if people are sexist or not (not denying that some sexism does exsist ) it's about surviving.
I have no desire to have my Children grow up without a father because some politician wanted to put 'fairness' over effectiveness.
If she's a complete beast and as proven she is capable of adhering to the male standard.
War isn't about being 'fair' or 'equal', it's about how effective you can be at killing the enemy. Boo-fucking-hoo if someone's feelings get hurt. I have no desire to die because of someone's feelings, and I am by no means sexist.
by Imperial City-States » Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:50 am
by Allanea » Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:53 am
If i am bleeding out on the ground in full gear, and a female soldier is unable to move me to a position where I can get proper care I die. [/quote[
Except that is completely untrue.]
There is an extensive military history of using military medics to carry wounded soldiers. Not "handfuls" or even "thousands". Hundreds of thousands of women medics fought in WW2, saving literally countless soldiers' lives.
And of course the situation where you're wounded and the only way for you to be rescued is for a single soldier to bodily carry you on their backs is rather unusual. (Why do you think the IDF trains soldiers to carry their injured comrades on stretchers?).
War isn't about being 'fair' or 'equal', it's about how effective you can be at killing the enemy. Boo-fucking-hoo if someone's feelings get hurt. I have no desire to die because of someone's feelings, and I am by no means sexist.
by Allanea » Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:55 am
Imperial City-States wrote:
You should go to a military installation during PT hours. You might be extremely disappointed at what you find.
by Immoren » Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:56 am
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Wallenburg » Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:56 am
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. This is all in reference to females in Combat Arms. Not military as a whole.
You should go to a military installation during PT hours. You might be extremely disappointed at what you find.
by Wallenburg » Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:59 am
Allanea wrote:What a completely unbiased site too.
by Eastern Equestria » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:00 am
by Immoren » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:02 am
Eastern Equestria wrote:Women should be able to apply for combat roles if so they wish, but these positions will remain primarily occupied by males. Sexual dimorphism is still a thing, folks.
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Immoren » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:04 am
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Imperial City-States » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:04 am
by Imperial City-States » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:09 am
Allanea wrote:The SteadyHealth site is rather biased. It's not a scientific source by any means.
by Allanea » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:12 am
by Uxupox » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:14 am
Ceterius wrote:Imperial City-States wrote:
In the military, and especially the Combat Arms side of the house. Respect is not given (beyond rank) it's earned. For a woman to be respected she needs to earn it, and by that i mean she has to be on top of literally everything and be the best at everything, that is the only way she will gain respect.
Remember how I said that the military is evidently full of sexist fraggers?
You just gave me more ammunition.
Why does she have to be the best? Why can't she just be as good as everyone else, the answer is because sexist fraggers feel threatened.
Evidently they have very fragile masculinity, or maybe they're trying to compensate for something.
Allanea wrote:I was in the Israel Defense Force ground forces. Not a combat MOS. Earlier in this thread I posted about this in detail.
40% of the Soviet Union's field medics in WW2 were women
Here's how it worked:
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3.
Female snipers in WW2 set records that no US male sniper has beat yet.
by Allanea » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:14 am
Uxupox wrote:Ceterius wrote:
Remember how I said that the military is evidently full of sexist fraggers?
You just gave me more ammunition.
Why does she have to be the best? Why can't she just be as good as everyone else, the answer is because sexist fraggers feel threatened.
Evidently they have very fragile masculinity, or maybe they're trying to compensate for something.
Jesus fucking Christ. To be respected in the combat arms you literally have to embody the best of the best, not average level. Average level is already beyond normal standards when compared to a NON-combat arms branch. "Good as everybody else" is pretty getting on average a minimum of 270+ on a PT score, being able to do a 15 mile ruck march in under 3 hours with 45 lbs of gear at the minimum with possible additionional equipment to the standard if your PSG, PL or 1SG decides you get to be the equipment bitch of the day. And this is just nominal standards, now in combat in downrange its a whole new ball game.
by Uxupox » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:16 am
Allanea wrote:Uxupox wrote:
Jesus fucking Christ. To be respected in the combat arms you literally have to embody the best of the best, not average level. Average level is already beyond normal standards when compared to a NON-combat arms branch. "Good as everybody else" is pretty getting on average a minimum of 270+ on a PT score, being able to do a 15 mile ruck march in under 3 hours with 45 lbs of gear at the minimum with possible additionional equipment to the standard if your PSG, PL or 1SG decides you get to be the equipment bitch of the day. And this is just nominal standards, now in combat in downrange its a whole new ball game.
So you don't respect your fellow soldiers?
by Wallenburg » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:17 am
Imperial City-States wrote:Allanea wrote:The SteadyHealth site is rather biased. It's not a scientific source by any means.
Additional sauce.
sauce for the sauce god.
by Allanea » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:18 am
Imperial City-States wrote:Allanea wrote:The SteadyHealth site is rather biased. It's not a scientific source by any means.
Additional sauce.
sauce for the sauce god.
by Wallenburg » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:18 am
by Eastern Equestria » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:19 am
Allanea wrote:What's sexist is the idea that a woman, to be respected, needs to be 'best at everything' - i.e. to perform above and beyond males.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: British Arzelentaxmacone, Evpolitia, The Xenopolis Confederation
Advertisement