Women in combat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combat is a lethal exercise.

Males are better at combat as a sex.

Period.

They evolved or designed for it or whatever argument you want. Male v. Female hand to hand combat results in female losing 95% of the time.

Great cite some sources HE-MAN. I've seem some incredible strong women and I have seen scrawny men....you sound stupid

Do you need a scientific journal article telling you men are stronger than women? Infantry/combat arms breaks even strong men. I work in military medicine. Infantry men generally lose an inch of height if they are in several years due to vertebrae compression from carrying such heavy loads over a long period of time. The physical toll is real. It isn’t for women. Even strong women

You are a f’ing idiot. Seriously oh people shrink from wearing a pack! How many days a year does B11 carry a pack over 2-4 year enlistment?

Here is something for you. Vietnamese soldiers were significantly smaller than American soldiers with the typical Vietnamese soldier being around 5 inches shorter and weighing roughly 43 pounds less than an American soldier. Yet they were able to defeat an all male American military. It was the same in WW2 with the Japanese. The US got its a$$ kicked fighting the Japanese.

Women are more than capable of fighting in the US military. The Russian had 800,000 women in combat during WW2. Some how they were able to pull the trigger.

Is male and female bone density the same?

Are the injury rates the same?

Could larger men carry larger loads than smaller men? Including more rounds? Could they cover further distances with equivalent loads? Is this advantageous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combat is a lethal exercise.

Males are better at combat as a sex.

Period.

They evolved or designed for it or whatever argument you want. Male v. Female hand to hand combat results in female losing 95% of the time.

Great cite some sources HE-MAN. I've seem some incredible strong women and I have seen scrawny men....you sound stupid

Do you need a scientific journal article telling you men are stronger than women? Infantry/combat arms breaks even strong men. I work in military medicine. Infantry men generally lose an inch of height if they are in several years due to vertebrae compression from carrying such heavy loads over a long period of time. The physical toll is real. It isn’t for women. Even strong women

You are a f’ing idiot. Seriously oh people shrink from wearing a pack! How many days a year does B11 carry a pack over 2-4 year enlistment?

Here is something for you. Vietnamese soldiers were significantly smaller than American soldiers with the typical Vietnamese soldier being around 5 inches shorter and weighing roughly 43 pounds less than an American soldier. Yet they were able to defeat an all male American military. It was the same in WW2 with the Japanese. The US got its a$$ kicked fighting the Japanese.

Women are more than capable of fighting in the US military. The Russian had 800,000 women in combat during WW2. Some how they were able to pull the trigger.

Small men are not analogous to women. Tall women are not analogous to men. You really need to get that through your thick skull. Sex-based physical differences are immutable and salient across height and weight. Short, slim men are nonetheless stronger across many, many measures of strength, athleticism, and power than tall, heavyset women. I'm sorry if this activates your inferiority complex.

Sincerely,

Woman who doesn't need to pretend women are physically equal to men in order to feel comfortable as a woman

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure why in a day and age when most Americans are in bad shape and the military struggles to recruit as it is, it makes sense to have gender-based restrictions on jobs. surely there are many, many combat jobs where a fit woman can do just as well as many men (well enough) and the need for competent soldiers outweighs the reduction in the amount she can physically carry. This is the armed forces of the richest country in the world - I think we can figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Combat is a lethal exercise.

Males are better at combat as a sex.

Period.

They evolved or designed for it or whatever argument you want. Male v. Female hand to hand combat results in female losing 95% of the time.

but who said that the army has to be made up exclusively of “the best”? We wouldn’t be able to have an army of that was the standard. I can believe obviously that women have physical disadvantages compared to men but where’s the proof that this endangers our readiness for combat? As opposed to per se shutting out 50% of the population to serve in combat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misogyny persists, as evidenced by this thread. Why are MAGA so fearful? I’ve never seen so much collective anxiety borne as hatred.

strong women scare them.....Dumpy has this issue too. Look at him with the bishop~highly offended that a strong woman spoke up to him....he little ego couldn't handle it.

You’re a good troll.

Instead of talking about the reasons why or why not a woman would make a good combat soldier, you deflect and mention MAGA or Trump.

Keep up that's why we are here.....because you MAGA are trying to eliminate women from certain jobs even is they are capable like many are because yes you are scared of women. Sorry if this irks you....perhaps I think you are a troll deflecting like a true MAGA does.

Do you have a number for the % of women who can meet or exceed the male standards for those jobs, particuraly in combat arms?

Do you have a number for the injury rate for women when they have a combat load compared to men?

The second is a pretty large concern for those women that meet the male standard. If women who meet the standard are more likely to get injured, then as a military planner how do you address training their replacements (be they male or female), and build that into the training schedule such that the misson of that unit can be carried out without reduced effectivness?

I mean … this all sounds doable? You make modifications and projections to account for the things you can account for while of course still being able to function. The alternative is cutting eligible combat troops in half - and I don’t think we can afford to do that. To put it bluntly 18 year old boys aren’t that fit as a class anymore and aren’t exactly interested in enlisting. I don’t think we can afford to eliminate a huge swath of soldiers. This is what people forget about D.E.I. - it wasn’t just about preaching but also about making sure an organization isn’t overlooking human capital just because of characteristics that are not necessarily reflective of ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do Israeli women serve in combat roles?

Np. The Israeli army are very sexist. I heard the women soldiers who were kidnapped didn't have guns and no one believed their reportings befor the attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misogyny persists, as evidenced by this thread. Why are MAGA so fearful? I’ve never seen so much collective anxiety borne as hatred.

strong women scare them.....Dumpy has this issue too. Look at him with the bishop~highly offended that a strong woman spoke up to him....he little ego couldn't handle it.

You’re a good troll.

Instead of talking about the reasons why or why not a woman would make a good combat soldier, you deflect and mention MAGA or Trump.

Keep up that's why we are here.....because you MAGA are trying to eliminate women from certain jobs even is they are capable like many are because yes you are scared of women. Sorry if this irks you....perhaps I think you are a troll deflecting like a true MAGA does.

Do you have a number for the % of women who can meet or exceed the male standards for those jobs, particuraly in combat arms?

Do you have a number for the injury rate for women when they have a combat load compared to men?

The second is a pretty large concern for those women that meet the male standard. If women who meet the standard are more likely to get injured, then as a military planner how do you address training their replacements (be they male or female), and build that into the training schedule such that the misson of that unit can be carried out without reduced effectivness?

I mean … this all sounds doable? You make modifications and projections to account for the things you can account for while of course still being able to function. The alternative is cutting eligible combat troops in half - and I don’t think we can afford to do that. To put it bluntly 18 year old boys aren’t that fit as a class anymore and aren’t exactly interested in enlisting. I don’t think we can afford to eliminate a huge swath of soldiers. This is what people forget about D.E.I. - it wasn’t just about preaching but also about making sure an organization isn’t overlooking human capital just because of characteristics that are not necessarily reflective of ability.

It is cutting combat troops in half, it would be a phase out. We have plenty of men currently in the military to support combat. Plenty of combat support positions for women to fill. It’s just a redistribution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misogyny persists, as evidenced by this thread. Why are MAGA so fearful? I’ve never seen so much collective anxiety borne as hatred.

strong women scare them.....Dumpy has this issue too. Look at him with the bishop~highly offended that a strong woman spoke up to him....he little ego couldn't handle it.

You’re a good troll.

Instead of talking about the reasons why or why not a woman would make a good combat soldier, you deflect and mention MAGA or Trump.

Keep up that's why we are here.....because you MAGA are trying to eliminate women from certain jobs even is they are capable like many are because yes you are scared of women. Sorry if this irks you....perhaps I think you are a troll deflecting like a true MAGA does.

Do you have a number for the % of women who can meet or exceed the male standards for those jobs, particuraly in combat arms?

Do you have a number for the injury rate for women when they have a combat load compared to men?

The second is a pretty large concern for those women that meet the male standard. If women who meet the standard are more likely to get injured, then as a military planner how do you address training their replacements (be they male or female), and build that into the training schedule such that the misson of that unit can be carried out without reduced effectivness?

I mean … this all sounds doable? You make modifications and projections to account for the things you can account for while of course still being able to function. The alternative is cutting eligible combat troops in half - and I don’t think we can afford to do that. To put it bluntly 18 year old boys aren’t that fit as a class anymore and aren’t exactly interested in enlisting. I don’t think we can afford to eliminate a huge swath of soldiers. This is what people forget about D.E.I. - it wasn’t just about preaching but also about making sure an organization isn’t overlooking human capital just because of characteristics that are not necessarily reflective of ability.

It is cutting combat troops in half, it would be a phase out. We have plenty of men currently in the military to support combat. Plenty of combat support positions for women to fill. It’s just a redistribution

Do we? https://www.ausa.org/news/paper-recruiting-crisis-national-security-threat

[Anonymous]

Fear mongering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Israeli women serve in combat roles?

Np. The Israeli army are very sexist. I heard the women soldiers who were kidnapped didn't have guns and no one believed their reportings befor the attack.

Israeli women serve in combat roles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t want to go into combat with women, it would be a burden and liability. It’s not fair on the guys.

You know, women have been c
In combat for years and it doesn't matter what you want. Lots of men have done it and most of them have been totally fine. what the f***?

Yes, I know that, but they are weaker and slower. Plus you’re would feel like, ok I have to bail her out if she’s in trouble even more so than a guy. I’m just saying I wouldn’t want to go into combat with women, but I know it happens.

Sigh. I feel like this argument came straight from the last century. Men who have trained alongside women just don't have these Hang-Ups

Last century men were still bigger, stronger and faster than women.

And that’s ok because biological realities are nothing to be ashamed of.

+100

Even if you ignore the biological realities (which are real and significant) then you are left with the behavioral reality that men are much more likely to engage in acts of physical violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combat is a lethal exercise.

Males are better at combat as a sex.

Period.

They evolved or designed for it or whatever argument you want. Male v. Female hand to hand combat results in female losing 95% of the time.

but who said that the army has to be made up exclusively of “the best”? We wouldn’t be able to have an army of that was the standard. I can believe obviously that women have physical disadvantages compared to men but where’s the proof that this endangers our readiness for combat? As opposed to per se shutting out 50% of the population to serve in combat?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35253041/

https://www.nata.org/press-release/071320/sport-specialization-elevates-risk-lower-extremity-stress-fractures-female

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/05/18/nearly-1-3-female-recruits-were-injured-army-basic-training-last-year.html

Female runners and military recruits suffer stress fractures at a higher rate than their male counterparts (5x according to the second link).

According to the third link 1/3rd of women were injured in basic training compared to 12% of the men.

If you have stress fractures, you can't train for about 6-8 weeks and are less effective in the field. Many combat related jobs involve carrying heavy loads over long distances. When you have someone injured in the field, not only are you down a soldier, but now someone has to help them off the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t want to go into combat with women, it would be a burden and liability. It’s not fair on the guys.

You know, women have been c
In combat for years and it doesn't matter what you want. Lots of men have done it and most of them have been totally fine. what the f***?

Yes, I know that, but they are weaker and slower. Plus you’re would feel like, ok I have to bail her out if she’s in trouble even more so than a guy. I’m just saying I wouldn’t want to go into combat with women, but I know it happens.

You want female soldiers for the same reason you want female cops. Female soldiers were valuable in the middle east to deal with female population. I expect they would be valuable in dealing with female illegal immigrants.

If we're back to fighting in trenches or walking through pig trails in the jungle, then I can see why you don't want different physical standards based on sex but if the woman meets those physical standards.

"Hey Vasquez, anyone ever mistake you for a man?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t want to go into combat with women, it would be a burden and liability. It’s not fair on the guys.

You know, women have been c
In combat for years and it doesn't matter what you want. Lots of men have done it and most of them have been totally fine. what the f***?

Yes, I know that, but they are weaker and slower. Plus you’re would feel like, ok I have to bail her out if she’s in trouble even more so than a guy. I’m just saying I wouldn’t want to go into combat with women, but I know it happens.

You want female soldiers for the same reason you want female cops. Female soldiers were valuable in the middle east to deal with female population. I expect they would be valuable in dealing with female illegal immigrants.

If we're back to fighting in trenches or walking through pig trails in the jungle, then I can see why you don't want different physical standards based on sex but if the woman meets those physical standards.

"Hey Vasquez, anyone ever mistake you for a man?"

No one is saying no women in the military. Of course women can have valuable roles in the military throughout all branches. But it shouldn’t be in combat arms- where the main mission is to physically seek out and engage in combat against armed enemies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think women already have a very hard time balancing a military career and a family. To pressure them to also go into combat is a stretch.
Perhaps there are some women who would voluntarily go, the majority would not due to family commitments.
Women in this country do not even have paid maternity leave, so a lot would need to change for the military to be able to be a friendly workplace for women

Women in the military have paid maternity leave. They have for decades.

Newborn don’t belong in daycares.

My SIL is an officer in the Air Force and received 16 weeks of fully paid maternity leave with her last pregnancy. I work for a contractor and received 4 weeks at 60% of my salary, after having exhausted the 2 weeks of PTO i was allowed to save beforehand. And that was considered "generous". She wasn't the one in the situation of having to put a newborn in daycare.