IGX

What kind of training did you do, Proto? Did you avoid blueberries when you were up river in country? What about bananas? Did you ever see a man naked when training in showers or a gym situation?

protobuilder wrote:
The problem isn't that women are somehow inferior or genetically ill-equipped for combat.

Actually, the VAST majority of women are ill-equipped for combat. A very few are able to hack it over any period of time.

Case in point: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/arti ... ated-equal

protobuilder wrote:But don't blame the women that sign up, although I'm sure that's easiest for most of you.

Go fuck yourself, smug little prick. I feel sorry for the women who smash themselves against the Darwinian Wall, trying to overcome nature. And I feel even sorrier for the troops who will suffer or die in this misguided experiment.

johno wrote:

protobuilder wrote:
The problem isn't that women are somehow inferior or genetically ill-equipped for combat.

Actually, the VAST majority of women are ill-equipped for combat. A very few are able to hack it over any period of time.

Case in point: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/arti ... ated-equal

protobuilder wrote:But don't blame the women that sign up, although I'm sure that's easiest for most of you.

Go fuck yourself, smug little prick. I feel sorry for the women who smash themselves against the Darwinian Wall, trying to overcome nature. And I feel even sorrier for the troops who will suffer or die in this misguided experiment.

I feel sorry too for the pussy men who smash against the Darwinian Wall, signing up to get college money and finding their ill-suited asses thrown into war. There are plenty of them. PUre shit bags that shouldn't be on the front lines and probably shouldn't even have a loaded weapon. But because they've got balls and a penis, they can go 11B. Makes perfect sense. After all, being men, they are well-equipped for war, eh Johno?

Why is it such a threat to you that SOME women can, and could, do your damn job (assuming you are or were a combat arms soldier)?

Again, you completely miss my point. The problem isn't the women who CAN, it's the system promoting the ones who CAN'T.

protobuilder wrote:The problem isn't that women are somehow inferior or genetically ill-equipped for combat. The problem is coddling and promoting anyone that isn't ready and cant' carry his or her own. There are shitbags, pussy men in the Army too. They should'nt be there. They can't carry their own. They drag down their unit. They should get kicked out. And the same standard should apply to everyone.

If the military is so fucked up that it is promoting anyone that doesn't deserve it, that's a much bigger problem. But don't blame the women that sign up, although I'm sure that's easiest for most of you.

Combat arms is different. Time for you to pull out your stress card.

signing up to get college money and finding their ill-suited asses thrown into war. There are plenty of them.

They signed for a stupid reason then and overlooked what an Army does.

tough old man wrote:

signing up to get college money and finding their ill-suited asses thrown into war. There are plenty of them.

They signed for a stupid reason then and overlooked what an Army does.

IMO most people who sign up for the college money don't tend to go combat arms.

tough old man wrote:

signing up to get college money and finding their ill-suited asses thrown into war. There are plenty of them.

They signed for a stupid reason then and overlooked what an Army does.

Perhaps, but the point was that if men can't hack it then they shouldn't be promoted and coddled. Women shouldn't be either. I don't see the example back a page or so of a few women being babied throughout training being a problem with the women as much as it is with their commanding officers who decided to let them go along for the ride.

Nobody is going to argue that genders are equal nor that equality exists within the genders themselves. However, are women really asking for special treatment or simply the same opportunities as men? One you can argue against, especially when the lives of others are in harm's way. However, arguing against the other is the reason that we have to endure various affirmative action legislation.

However, are women really asking for special treatment or simply the same opportunities as men?
One you can argue against, especially when the lives of others are in harm's way.
However, arguing against the other is the reason that we have to endure various affirmative action legislation.

Like a darfku, merely lacking entertainment or sensical value.

Turdacious wrote:

However, are women really asking for special treatment or simply the same opportunities as men?
One you can argue against, especially when the lives of others are in harm's way.
However, arguing against the other is the reason that we have to endure various affirmative action legislation.

Like a darfku, merely lacking entertainment or sensical value.

Are they asking for special treatment? Does the legislation say that they are able to bypass basic training and physical preparedness standards? If a soldier is unfit for duty does the military have any sort of methods for determining this to be the case? Is it simply that American women are inferior to men, being that women serve in combat roles in many other nations? So far, the best argument has been tossed up here has been that they may not be comfortable taking a dump in front of guys and that they have mood swings.

Terry B. wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

However, are women really asking for special treatment or simply the same opportunities as men?
One you can argue against, especially when the lives of others are in harm's way.
However, arguing against the other is the reason that we have to endure various affirmative action legislation.

Like a darfku, merely lacking entertainment or sensical value.

Are they asking for special treatment? Does the legislation say that they are able to bypass basic training and physical preparedness standards? If a soldier is unfit for duty does the military have any sort of methods for determining this to be the case? Is it simply that American women are inferior to men, being that women serve in combat roles in many other nations? So far, the best argument has been tossed up here has been that they may not be comfortable taking a dump in front of guys and that they have mood swings.

Have you even read the points brought up in this thread?

The following chart shows examples of the minimum requirements for the Army Basic Training PFT:

Gender Push-Ups Sit-Ups 2-Mile Run
Male 35 47 16:36
Female 13 47 19:42

http://www.military.com/military-fitnes ... aining-pft

I'll give you two guesses where meeting the minimum standard gets you in a combat arms unit...

Terry B. wrote:Are they asking for special treatment? Does the legislation say that they are able to bypass basic training and physical preparedness standards? If a soldier is unfit for duty does the military have any sort of methods for determining this to be the case? Is it simply that American women are inferior to men, being that women serve in combat roles in many other nations? So far, the best argument has been tossed up here has been that they may not be comfortable taking a dump in front of guys and that they have mood swings.

No, it isn't like that at all. And folks like Johno are more right than wrong.

Basic training isn't the SF and you can't weed out 85%. There's no way in hell command will let that happen. When measures like this get pushed through, it's assumed a priori that the premise is true and you damn better find a way to make it happen. The feminazis are on an ideological crusade and to question them at all is to hate all women because you're a rapist anyway. Didn't you know there's a "war on women"?

So when command says women are part of the mix, the best examples will pull their weight, the worst examples will wash out as profiles but the rest will make it through because those of us men strong enough to do even more will be forced to take up the slack. This didn't happen with the weak men cause the drill sergeants harassed them until they quit. But guess what that's called when you do it to a female? Sexual harassment.

Chessman wrote:Basic training isn't the SF and you can't weed out 85%. There's no way in hell command will let that happen. When measures like this get pushed through, it's assumed a priori that the premise is true and you damn better find a way to make it happen. The feminazis are on an ideological crusade and to question them at all is to hate all women because you're a rapist anyway. Didn't you know there's a "war on women"?

I wondered about the politics of having a high number of enlistees drop out in training and was hoping that you would reply.