Anonymous
01/27/2025 20:01
Subject: Women in combat
Do Israeli women serve in combat roles?
Anonymous
01/27/2025 19:38
Subject: Women in combat
I'm fine with women in combat roles. There are many ways they can serve every bit as effectively as men in combat, as pilots, mechanized armor and artillery and so on. And if you've been paying attention to Ukraine an ever increasing amount of frontline combat is being conducted via drones and robotics which don't care whether a man or a woman is driving them.
I just see the comments from people like Hegseth as straight up misogyny.
I just see the comments from people like Hegseth as straight up misogyny.
Anonymous
01/27/2025 19:29
Subject: Women in combat
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-in-marines-infantry-experiment/
Woke military crazies wasted 36 MILLION dollars to see if women could throw their military bags as high as the men can.
News Alert:
Females can’t throw their military bags to the required height.
Only forever Democrats and RINO warmongers want weak soldiers on the front lines.
AUDIT every single organization/institution getting my hard earned tax dollars!
The daughters of conservatives are tougher and more masculine than liberals son’s. That’s why libs want women in combat. So in case there’s a draft, their sons will have someone to hide behind.
Anonymous
01/27/2025 19:20
Subject: Women in combat
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$$ kicked fighting the Japanese.
Women are more than capable of fighting in the US military. The Russian had 800,000 women in combat during WW2.
You are comparing things that aren’t comparable. Clear you haven’t spent a day in the military, let alone combat arms, and have no idea what you are talking about
Anonymous
01/27/2025 19:01
Subject: Women in combat
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Combat is a lethal exercise.
Males are better at combat as a sex.
Period.
They evolved or designed for it or whatever argument you want. Male v. Female hand to hand combat results in female losing 95% of the time.
Great cite some sources HE-MAN. I've seem some incredible strong women and I have seen scrawny men....you sound stupid
Do you need a scientific journal article telling you men are stronger than women? Infantry/combat arms breaks even strong men. I work in military medicine. Infantry men generally lose an inch of height if they are in several years due to vertebrae compression from carrying such heavy loads over a long period of time. The physical toll is real. It isn’t for women. Even strong women
You are a f’ing idiot. Seriously oh people shrink from wearing a pack!
Here is something for you. Vietnamese soldiers were significantly smaller than American soldiers with the typical Vietnamese soldier being around 5 inches shorter and weighing roughly 43 pounds less than an American soldier. Yet they were able to defeat an all male American military. It was the same in WW2 with the Japanese. The US got its a$$ 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.
DP
Your grasp of WWII history is tenuous. Especially after the battle of Midway, and culminating in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I’d say our fight with Japan was decisively sorted out.
And yeah those Russian women loved being boss babes! I’m sure their entry into combat had nothing to do with the slaughter of 27 million of their countrymen, as the Wehrmacht laid waste to their country.
You are simply not a person to be taken seriously.
That poster is hopeless, too angry to see or talk sense. Save your fingers.
Anonymous
01/27/2025 18:44
Subject: Women in combat
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!
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.
DP
Your grasp of WWII history is tenuous. Especially after the battle of Midway, and culminating in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I’d say our fight with Japan was decisively sorted out.
And yeah those Russian women loved being boss babes! I’m sure their entry into combat had nothing to do with the slaughter of 27 million of their countrymen, as the Wehrmacht laid waste to their country.
You are simply not a person to be taken seriously.
Anonymous
01/27/2025 18:02
Subject: Women in combat
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.
Anonymous
01/27/2025 17:58
Subject: Women in combat
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.
Anonymous
01/27/2025 17:16
Subject: Women in combat
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
Thank you for the truth.
Only evil people want women in combat.
Anonymous
01/25/2025 08:27
Subject: Women in combat
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
Anonymous
01/25/2025 08:21
Subject: Women in combat
Woman veteran who was in the Army when they opened combat arms branches to women. Was against opening the MOSes then. Would support closing them again. However, the Army would need to stop closing opportunities to women based on MOSes being required - like aides de camp and all GO positions (other than special operations). Women should continue to be able to go to any schools. Chaplains could go to Ranger school before women could, that was wrong.
Anonymous
01/25/2025 08:16
Subject: Women in combat
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
Weight classes exist for a reason.
Anonymous
01/24/2025 23:32
Subject: Women in combat
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?
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.
Depopulation agenda at work here.
Anonymous
01/24/2025 23:31
Subject: Women in combat
Anonymous wrote: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.
NATO isn’t interested in winning war. That’s not their goal. Forever wars is the goal.
Anonymous
01/24/2025 23:29
Subject: Women in combat
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