I Do Not Care about anyone's career progression, male or female. If we are forced to fight a war, I want to win it as quickly and decisively as possible. No more of these 20 year never ending conflicts. Violence and death should not be something to check off on your resume to get promoted.

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.

Never change, leftist extremists, who suggest that not wanting our daughters drafted for combat is somehow hatred. So convincing!

But what about voluntary service? That’s the issue.

No, it’s not. If you have women in combat and then we have the draft then by definition women are forced into combat. Most of us do not support that. Sex differences are real even if the left refuses to acknowledge that.

Here is a link showing the effort by the left to forcibly draft women:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4730560-senate-democrats-require-women-draft/amp/

So shocking how Democrats became the warmongers. And now they demand that our daughters be included in their draft.

Sick, sick, sick.

FFS. Calm down. Dems aren't war mongers. Look at Bush.

I'm a feminist Dem and if we are going to draft men, we need to draft women. I thought the GOP is frothing at the mouth for Israel rn and they require both sexes to join the military. Many of the women hostages were in the military.

If we want equality, that's the solution. MAGA would rather women stay home and birth babies, many unwanted. What happens when all the men are away at war, who is protecting the women, amirite?

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.

Never change, leftist extremists, who suggest that not wanting our daughters drafted for combat is somehow hatred. So convincing!

But what about voluntary service? That’s the issue.

No, it’s not. If you have women in combat and then we have the draft then by definition women are forced into combat. Most of us do not support that. Sex differences are real even if the left refuses to acknowledge that.

Here is a link showing the effort by the left to forcibly draft women:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4730560-senate-democrats-require-women-draft/amp/

So shocking how Democrats became the warmongers. And now they demand that our daughters be included in their draft.

Sick, sick, sick.

Anonymous wrote:Border patrol isn’t the military or combat

…not yet…

But who knows what will happen?

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread about what “women in combat” means. In efforts to clear it up for a more accurate discussion here is what it means:

It means women in combat arms roles. Those roles are such that their primary mission is to engaging in combat with armed enemy forces. These roles are primarily infantry, artillery, armor, special forces, and specific aviation areas.

It does NOT mean women in the military can’t be deployed to a war zone. It does not mean women can’t be promoted unless they work in combat areas. Women in the military have been deploying to war zones for decades. Women in non combat arms roles can and do see and sometimes engage in combat when deployed in various other support roles.

But the argument is whether or not women should be allowed in roles where the specific primary mission is combat/engaging an armed enemy.

Anonymous wrote:So, isn’t the solution that not all women should be allowed in combat roles, but that those that can meet the thresholds are? I mean, not every male who seeks to join the military is accepted or placed in a combat role, so should we say no men should then be allowed? Use some logic here, people. It’s not an all-or-nothing approach for either women or men.

You use some logic. Meeting training standards and being able to do a very physically demanding, laborious job for 4+ years are entirely different animals. Even if a woman passes the same training standards the odds of her maintaining that physical load for her entire contracted time are low. Injury is high among men in combat arms. They carry 100+ lbs around all day, for months at a time during deployments. Women do not have the bone density or proportional muscle mass that men do. Odd of injury with some portion of lifetime disability pay off would be very high and disrupting to the combat missions. From a mission, readiness, and cost standpoint, it makes zero logically sense to have women in combat arms roles. This isn’t the place to fight for equality.

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.

Never change, leftist extremists, who suggest that not wanting our daughters drafted for combat is somehow hatred. So convincing!

But what about voluntary service? That’s the issue.

No, it’s not. If you have women in combat and then we have the draft then by definition women are forced into combat. Most of us do not support that. Sex differences are real even if the left refuses to acknowledge that.

Here is a link showing the effort by the left to forcibly draft women:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4730560-senate-democrats-require-women-draft/amp/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s worth it to have women in combat. Sure, some awesome women could do it, but I think on average the men are stronger and can take the rigors of combat deployments for a longer period of time.

on average the men are stronger OK, if we're talking hand to hand combat
on average the men can take the rigors of combat deployments for a longer period of time No way, women outlast men in any stressful situation including deprivation, physical pain, psychological stress, etc.

You think men outlast women during psychological stress? Cite?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Border patrol isn’t the military or combat

Except when trump declares an emergency on the southern border to allow military personnel to perform additional functions how is that not a war zone?

Because it’s not a war zone and it’s not military combat. It’s like saying when we bring the national guard in to help with a hurricane that somehow that becomes war service. It’s not.

Walt so we aren't being invaded?

Border patrol and combat are both valuable roles but they are not the same thing. This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp. If the congress declared war at the border, you might have an argument here.

So, isn’t the solution that not all women should be allowed in combat roles, but that those that can meet the thresholds are? I mean, not every male who seeks to join the military is accepted or placed in a combat role, so should we say no men should then be allowed? Use some logic here, people. It’s not an all-or-nothing approach for either women or men.

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?

Plus the disability that will be payed out for the rest of their life.

There's truth here.

The military itself says that women are injured at 1.1-10x the rate of men (with most sources saying 1.5-2.5x) largly due to bone and joint/tendon injuries in the lower body, as men tend to have thicker bones and tendons resulting in less bone fractures.

https://ph.health.mil/PHC%20Resource%20Library/MiltaryWomenInjuryPrevention_FS_12-021-0319_Final.pdf

It's madness to ignore the differences when lives are at stake.

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.

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

I know this is shocking, but not all women want families. If a woman wants to do it, she should, but they should not be required.

Some do, some don’t
There is no way that the military could ensure that a mother would not face combat.
Military deployment is hash enough on the families. It is even harder on women who have to leave young children behind.

^that has nothing to do with allowing women in combat roles. Women can/do/and always have been deployable to war zones in other military roles and still do see combat. But that isn’t the same thing as being in combat arms roles.

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

I know this is shocking, but not all women want families. If a woman wants to do it, she should, but they should not be required.

Some do, some don’t
There is no way that the military could ensure that a mother would not face combat.
Military deployment is hash enough on the families. It is even harder on women who have to leave young children behind.

So should only single non-parents be allowed to deploy?

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

I know this is shocking, but not all women want families. If a woman wants to do it, she should, but they should not be required.

Some do, some don’t
There is no way that the military could ensure that a mother would not face combat.
Military deployment is hash enough on the families. It is even harder on women who have to leave young children behind.

Do you not think it’s hard on men who leave young children behind?