Women Do Not Belong on the Front Line

[Anonymous]

It has been said that women should be allowed to join infantry. Some go even further to say that the military should stop recruiting men in favor of women in order to increase the low numbers of women in the military.

So for those who think allowing women to join infantry would be a good move, perhaps you should consider the truth.

1. This is war, not a playground for feminism.

Taking part in war is not something you should wish upon anyone. It is a bloody and brutal affair where there is no equality or compassion. You think men shouldn't hit women? Well, tell that to the enemy in war. The enemy will identify women as a weak link (whether true or not) and attempt to kill women first. This is war, this is life or death.

Millions of soldiers have died in war, and even more have gone home with severe physical and mental disabilities. Some of these soldiers, these men, have had to go to war against their will. This is something that women have never had to face, a privilege that women have had.

2. Do women compete against men in sports like football, boxing etc?

I hear no person arguing that women should be allowed to compete against men in these sports which are relatively safe, so why on earth would you argue for women to compete against men in war zones, where there are no rules, where the punishment for losing is...Death

3. Women are not as strong or physically capable as men

Let's be honest. Women are on average less strong and less physically capable than men. It's just the way things are. Now of course there are women out there who are stronger than some men.....But these men aren't soldiers. You will not get women out there who are more physically capable than the fighting elite of the infantry, it just doesn't happen. A man's strength and endurance potential is always going to be greater than a women's. This is only just scratching the surface when you consider other possible factors such as periods that women may have to endure in the field that can disrupt their ability to perform.

4. It will bring unnecessary costs for NO benefit

As has just been discussed, female candidates will not be as strong as their male counterparts. In fact, many women have already tried and failed at selection - leaving thousands of dollars in wasted training. It will also become necessary for separate facilities in the field to separate sexes, which is not always possible.

In order to justify the cost, there must be a benefit. In this case there is no benefit, in fact there's a disadvantage.

5. Infantry is a brotherhood

Women are not brothers. Infantry is a hostile, testosterone filled environment. Where brothers unite and fight under common values and mutual respect. Women would not fit into this dynamic. Women would provide nothing more than a distraction.

I'll draw your attention to this video, where an over zealous female made the extraordinary claim that she could 'whoop' any male marine on base.

As you can see, the result wasn't very surprising to say the least. You might notice how the Marine wasn't punching to his full potential because he knew she was a woman. She wasn't a brother. If he'd been fighting a man, he wouldn't have held back. Brothers don't hold back with each other.

Also note that in the end, she doesn't even have the respect to touch gloves with him after he went over to her. A clear lack of mutual respect, something that would never be tolerated in the brotherhood. Now that's not a slight on women, I'm sure some women would have had more respect, however a man wouldn't dare act like that to a brother. As I said, the military is a hostile environment. You disrespect your comrades, life isn't going to be easy for you, let's just say that.

6. What experience do you have in infantry in order to say women are capable and improve capability?

It would be incredibly ignorant and foolish of someone to tell people that they can do something if they themselves haven't even done it. Are you a woman who's been on the front line? Or do you have no experience whatsoever? Well if that's the case, then I ask you to listen to views of Capt. Katie Petronio, who's an officer in the Marines and has been in war zones.

She is of the very well experienced opinion that women should not be in infantry. She completed rigorous military training alongside men and struggled to maintain weight. In addition to that she experienced muscle problems, stopped producing estrogen and developed Polycystic ovary syndrome, which lead to infertility. Her experience should not be taken lightly or dismissed, these are serious things she is saying and people should be giving her views some respect before jumping onto their agendas.

This has been 6 main points for why I believe women do not belong on the front line. I fully support women being in the military, many women have contributed a great deal for their country and they should be proud. However not all roles are fit for women and it's important that this is understood. Thank you for reading.

[Anonymous]

A lot of what you say isn't gender specific. Women are just as physically capable if not in some cases, more capable than men (just take a look at Ronda Rousey, who is easily one of the best professional wrestler. Many men professional wrestlers say they wouldn't want to go up against her (and yes, I am aware that wrestling and fighting is battle are different, but it shows that woman could hold their own against men physically) If a solder discovers any weak link, whether is a young, inexperienced male soldier, or an inexperienced woman soldier, they won't hesitate to strike. People aren't on the battlefield thinking "Hmm, are there any women over there?" they are thinking "All I need to do is hit my mark and not die in the process." If you say women shouldn't fight because they might die and it'll be a waste of money in training is not considering the fact that many men will die in combat and that money has been spent on them too. Finally what experience do YOU have in infantry to say women shouldn't serve.

The way I see it, if a woman wants to server and she can, then she will server. Woman have had the right to server since 1917, a year before the end of World War 1 (over 100 years). Women do and will always have the right to serve and no amount of whining and complaining will ever change that. This whole thing just feels out of place in today's day and age, especially when there are much bigger social issues such as abortion and LGTBQ+ that make this all feel like this has less to do about you're feeling of women serving in infantry, and more on just you being sexist.

I am sorry if I have offended you, but my father has served on the front lines and the only reason anyone in his brigade (including him) are still alive today is because of the help of women soldiers who fought alongside him, so I have pretty strong feelings on this subject.

[myTake Owner]

There's additional costs associated with facilitating an additional gender on the front line and there is no need for this cost. It has nothing to do with sexism, You must not disregard the opinions of people who know a lot more about this than you, including women who have served.

The enemy will be targeting any perceived weak link in their mind, a woman would be one of the first things they'll spot. If I was on the opposing side and I was reporting enemy status back to a section commander and I told them that the enemy was mostly comprised of female soldiers, you can guarantee we would be attacking the female enemies first on the notion that they would be the easiest to eliminate. Is that true? Not necessarily, however it's a common fact that women are on average less physically able than men, therefore on the balance of probabilities it would be the right tactic.

[oOsecret_starlandsOo]

No, not frontlines, women should be utilized for other aspects of military, like medical, IT, and other supportive functions.

It irritates me that women keep trying to assume we are equal to men in this regard - WE ARE NOT.

We are slower, weaker, and have less stamina which can negatively impact efficiency on the battlefield. Maybe a tactical females team would be proficient?

Not certain there.

This is what men are built for honestly. Their biological edge and drives make it natural to take this kind of self sacrifice on.

I mean, everyone would be upset if a husband didn't stand up to an armed robber breaking into their home -

I love. how nature keeps slapping feminism in the face.

[myTake Owner]

Well said, I agree. Thanks for the input.

[Red-Blaze]

I agree with some points you make here, but really not with the way you put it, that make it look like the idea behind it is not of pure type
What do I mean? well lets go with these line:
"Now that's not a slight on women, I'm sure some women would have had more respect, however a man wouldn't dare act like that to a brother."
That is basically a "I am not racicet, but i hate black people" type of line

As you say its impossible a man will have not done the respect, that is quite honestly BS, you will have also man that will not touch gloves with him in the end, also you will have woman that will be able to hold ground with him without holding back

Over all I agree that "Women Do Not Belong on the Front Line" but il also say that Man do not belong on the front line earthier
No one is suppose to be there, been there can mean kill or be killed

So Do i think woman are not suppose to be in the fighting area on the army, no i think they are more then fine there, as long as they are selected as they are the best for the job, not as they have a vagina and same about some that have a penis there

Sex is not suppose to matter really, what is suppose to matter is how fit they are for the job, nothing less nothing more

And for some short replys:
1. Agree, and as for that take the best not the man or the woman
2. I can beat some man in basketball, some man can beat me, and some man can beat outer man and so on..
3. The average dose not matter here, its the single vs the single if you have 20 people joing the army you need 5 and the best 4 are woman, god dammit take them, if they are stronger and better and think faster then the man they be better
4. Same will be in taking the man that fail the training, sex again has nothing to do with it
5. "Where brothers unite and fight under common values and mutual respect. Women would not fit into this dynamic. Women would provide nothing more than a distraction."
So woman can't fight under common values and mutual respect? geez thanks
6. And one can say you can't do something before they done it them self? or will that be just as foolish?
I have friends that where in active battle servies

Its not about sex, its about what one can do
And from your post, i think its more about sex, then about what one can or can't do

[myTake Owner]

No sex does have something to do with it. Additional costs will be needed for separate sleeping facilities, bathrooms etc. Men are more likely to succeed in training, therefore including women provides no benefit.

The difference between the respect thing is if a man steps out of line, those around him will have no hesitation in punching him for it, they wouldn't do that to a woman. Women do not fit into the dynamic, rather they provide a distraction.

[Red-Blaze]

But why even cut it on sex? again men are more likely to succeed but why do we need to test it on the over all of the sex, and not on the spastic of each one
Some woman can do better then some man just as much as some man can do better then woman

And why is that? I don't think its true over all, it depends on how you teach them, and if a woman go in there, she needs to know she will need to have it like every one else will have it
If anyone steps out of line and needs a punching, they need to simply be punched, no matter man or woman

About the separate bathroom and so on... no? ya i mean they maybe not shower on the same place, but over all they dose not need to be that much of an issue, beyond if you create it, the issue really is non-existent, beside who ever said there will be maybe only 2 woman there, maybe you have enught to make a full unit of woman that each one of them are more fit for combat then the man that try in the same time?

About the wasted time in training (more)

[Red-Blaze]

First you test, just like you test the man, same level and all one vs one, as in the battle you can't just fight the same to you
Second of all will you say cut out any ginger guys, if we find out there is a higher chance of them to fail? i dont think so right? i mean spending that time to test for training is just a cost that come in looking for the best, be it man or woman

[myTake Owner]

There will be additional costs associated with it. In addition to that 3 out of 4 women fail to meet combat standards in Marine bootcamp. These roles have been traditionally male only, unless you're gaining an actual advantage in allowing women in, there's no point in spending the money.

[tek555_pessimist]

I disagree.
If they can pass the tests (and the tests are of the same difficulty), why not? Probably means they are more driven to achieve than males of a similar fitness level, which can be a good thing. Lots of males probably fail and cost money too. Find areas where they excel, everyone has different good points. I have not been in the military but I imagine that driving a tank does not require you to have a heavily build (though loading it may be another matter), someone else mentioned they make good snipers. As for infantry, again if they are physically capable of it, go ahead. The argument about a 'boys club' is not a good one, would you rather have that than extra troops (although you seem to disagree, I'm going to assume they are capable) at your back. Also, most modern militaries have a lot more support troops than combat roles anyway.
As for competing in martial arts, in my one although most competitions are split by sex, practice certainly isn't. I constantly get done in by females who are way better than me (if they have years of experience on you it can make a huge difference).

[myTake Owner]

The majority of women can't pass the tests and often end up with long lasting/permanent injuries in attempting to do so. There will also be additional costs leaving no need for it when considering we already have sufficient quality within the ranks.

Many of the elite infantry ranks are a 'boys club' if you want to call it that. It's what's proven over thousands of years of combat. It's a hostile environment and only the people who will fit in will make it.

[tek555_pessimist]

From what I heard from a friend in the military, permanent injuries can occur regardless of gender. As for elite infantry, that is a rather different story. As they are often required to be the most fit etc. I suspect it would be rare for a woman to have the physical capabilities required. Doesn't mean its impossible, just very difficult, I would also add that for many the tests are often also bonding experiences (as are most highly brutal situations with a team), and so may help integration if passed. As for the 'thousands of years of combat', historically the reasons for not letting women go to war were that they were required to bring the population back up after a large percentage of the males were killed. It is much easier to do that with a few males and many females than slightly more males and drastically less females.

[myTake Owner]

Much higher percentage of injuries in women. Traditional male only infantry roles have standards that are set for men, many women have to push their bodies too hard and stress themselves in attempting to reach these standards.

But that's true, there are women who are serving in tank crews who have managed to get through, like you said and it would seem feasible for more women to get into combat roles like that. There are many women who serve in air combat roles.

However with infantry, it's just it's a very masculine environment. There might only be one or two women who could reach the standards and make it in, they'll be surrounded by many men, in a very traditional, testosterone filled environment. It can be quite hostile at times and I don't believe women would successfully integrate into this environment and not prove a distraction.

[AlphaGhost]

Tank crew and the female,
Dude are you idiot, tankers have very Huge pressure on their shoulders and lives are dependent upon them in the war cuz tanks provide support to infantry. Modern MBTS are almost the same and a little mistake by you,
Say good bye to 5 member crew and the brothers on ground, you are supporting or even say good bye to the battle.
Tank battles require extreme mental endurance to begin with.

[tek555_pessimist]

@AlphaGhost Yes, but mental endurance is not a physical trait. I would assume that individual from both sexes are close to equally capable of developing that to the necessary level. If you have information to the contrary I would love to hear it. Please note that I am not saying that tanks do not play and essential role, rather that their usage does not depend on physical fitness.

[AlphaGhost]

Dude, Who told you that females are mentally strong?
I am student of Medicine (MD or MBBS, whatever you called it) and only thing science projects is that, female are emotionally and mentally weak. There is also plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that,
Male gender is more intelligent due to higher amount of grey matter and Woman history of doing anything significant for science speak for itself too
Nobody want a emotional and crying shit to command a tank, that can't make judgements in the seconds.
WAR is extremely emotional thing, you think its easy to see a brother die.
Brother that you used to live, eat, drink and smoke cigarettes with.
Whole world is not idiot dude, everybody would love to force woman to work cuz they use o2 and eat Food, everybody would love to have a return but its not just feasible.
I support "equality" not feminism cuz both are different things.
If you want equality then say goodbye to female rights cuz you have to earn them and pave the way forward.

[AlphaGhost]

Male use to oppress cuz females are too weak to stand up for themselves and it will always be like this.
You can't just hire males to stop male from preying on weak.
They were weak, that's why they were oppressed and still are but now Politicians use them for their shit by the word of feminism.
Why the black woman are not allowed in feminism?
cuz its white thing idiot, Try to see the world for what it really is.

[Wwwyzzerdd]

A lot of these are not good reasons as to why women shouldn't serve combat roles. I am a veteran and I served alongside women that were just as capable of fulfilling those roles.

I agree with the first point, combat is a matter of life and death, there is no time for contemplation over moral dillemmas.

Women compete against men all the time and win. Many of the women I served with had no problem physically overpowering the majority of the men they served with. The responsibility lies in the command to place only those women who are physically capable of performing that duty, some (just like their make counter parts) are unfit for duty.

Gina Careno would kick the shit out of you and wouldn't break a sweat. Talent and control of the martial arts is more important in a combat role than sheer physical strength.

5. Fuck your brotherhood this is AMERICA, you don't like it you can git out.

6. Fuck you I'm a veteran take that cyclical logic and shove it up your flaccid asshole you ignorant civilian twatwaffle fucktard.

[TadCurious]

I agree with you that it makes no sense to have women in direct combat roles. That's not a reflection on their bravery, but just common sense. If you had a brother (or yourself) who was wounded on the battlefield, who would you want to go get him and carry him back to a medic aid station? A 135 pound woman (no matter how fit) or a 190 pound guy? And with women on the front lines of combat you're going to have the entire dynamic change. The male soldiers will change what they do because of the female presence, even if it's only subconsciously. They will be covering for the deficiencies in physical capability of the women soldiers, and that will impact the mission. But I do believe women should be subject to the draft because they fill other vitally important roles in the military.

[myTake Owner]

Well said and very true, appreciate the input. Thank you.

[Jaximus-Lion]

I have no idea where you people come up with such things! I worked as a translator for American troops in Iraq and there was few female soldiers and they saved lives including my life. They have heavy equipment, they run, they kick ass and they save lives and they are women. I don't give a damn what people say, women can be as much as men are, fire fighters, MMA. sports, body builders, instruction workers, doctors, engineers , what ever they want. I worked with females troopers or any kinda of military they are awesome, heroes

[myTake Owner]

Never said they weren't heroes, but you haven't actually countered the reasons I've given.

[Jaximus-Lion]

Because you have no idea what you are talking about. copying from Dr google doesn't mean you know all the things about female soldiers. You have no idea what kinda of physical strength or the mental strength. I've been there, seen it, fought by they side. One person says women shouldn't blah blah blah and blah blah blah , guess what! They don't give a fuck, the go front lines, they do the best they can and i dare you you say this to a female soldier face to face ;)

[castratedwhiteguy]

And our country would be much better served if these kick ass women soldiers served in their own all female division. Enough with the gender bending! These failed bullshit social experiments have no rightful place where something as important as national defense is concerned. I rest my case!

[Jaximus-Lion]

@castratedwhiteguy There is no case here when you don't know what you are talking about.

[myTake Owner]

" i dare you you say this to a female soldier face to face " No point in commenting if you're incapable of reading what I've said. This is exactly why I mentioned that you haven't countered any of the reasons I've given, all my reasons are reasons well known within the military. My last point was based on a female officer who, so I wouldn't dare to say it to her face, even though she has even stronger views on the topic than I do? Pathetic..

[castratedwhiteguy]

I never said that women shouldn't be allowed to serve, just not in a men's unit. Many of our top generals have resigned over these gender issues. by the way, rape and sexual harassment are off the charts thanks to our gender blind military. The 1991 Tailhook scandal was a national embarrassment played out over the national news media where more than 100 United States Navy and U. S. Marine Corps aviation officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted 83 women. So maybe you need to learn something about basic biological gender differences. Just because a women happened to have saved your ass on the battle field doesn't change the big picture! Speaking as a taxpayer, I demand reform!

[ladsin]

Have you been in the infantry?
I think the viking, gaul, and Kurdish women would disagree with you.

I personally don't have much of an opinion on the matter. If a person can perform just as well as another person I don't see any value in denying them.

[myTake Owner]

We're talking about modern advanced fighting forces here. Highly trained units. There is an issue when considering the additional costs involved and changes to a group dynamic that does not need to be changed.

[ladsin]

The Kurdish women are currently a fighting force, they were instrumental in the rescue of thousands of Yazidis when fighting against ISIL

[myTake Owner]

How does their selection, training and overall capability compare to Navy Seals, Delta Force, SAS etc?

[ladsin]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Protection_Units
Just start here.

[myTake Owner]

Just a simple answer from yourself is all that's necessary.

[ladsin]

I don't know. I know that they have been instrumental in several conflicts. I also know that as a matter of rights women should be able to defend themselves just as much as men. I see no reason to deny them the right to defend their country as well. Particularly if they are able to perform to the same standards.

[myTake Owner]

It's not about defending 'yourself', it's about defending your country. Individuals who enter the military forgo their idea of 'self' and work as a team and if adding women to the infantry doesn't improve capability, there is no point. Particularly when considering the costs associated with it.

[ladsin]

What costs are you aware of?
I don't know which country you're from, but in America we spend about 85 million a year for Erectile Dysfunction medication for our soldiers/ retired.
The Kurdish women have demonstrated that they can do both, and in antiquity some of the strongest societies allowed women amongst their ranks.

[myTake Owner]

Additional costs associated with sleeping and bathroom facilities for women. Additional costs in training that results in no return when considering 3 out of 4 women fail to meet Marine combat standards in bootcamp. Not to mention medical concerns which many women will face if they attempt to stress themselves trying to meet standards that have been set for men.

In regards to that 85 million, you should have emphasized the 'retired'. The vast majority of that money is going to veterans. Any veteran, man or woman has earned their right to receive benefits such as that when they retire. It is NOT an inherent expense that must be paid in order to put men on the front line, it's irrelevant. Putting people on the front line is about capability, women won't improve it. Simple as that.

You keep referring to these Kurdish women, put them through an SAS selection course and then we'll talk.

[castratedwhiteguy]

I disagree with you here. I'm all for women in combat, women being drafted and women in the military. The only catch is that they should only be allowed to join and all female military force with equally proportioned funding. Our present unisex gender neutral military has turned national defense into a laughing stock and this madness must stop. Right now we have women's basketball, women's tennis women's soccer and women's colleges. So why can't we have an all women's military?

Also, here's another good reason why we don't need women in command positions in a men's military. This is disgraceful! Enjoy!

ARMY PRIVATE (PFC) Chokes Out Female CAPTAIN (CPT)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nldh_QQORE

[myTake Owner]

Fair play. Women's corps used to be more common and it would allow missions to be better suited to them and they can be held to a female standard rather than having to reach standards designed for males.

[castratedwhiteguy]

Glad you liked!

[CT_CD]

I agree.

The primary cause is biology, not sexism. Women have biological challenges to fighting in battle that cannot be trained away. Women in combat get hurt more easily and cannot sustain fighting for as long as men, simply because their bodies are different. Even physically gifted women are profoundly physically less capable than men.

"Marine teams with female members performed at lower overall levels, completed tasks more slowly and fired weapons with less accuracy than their all-male counterparts. In addition, female Marines sustained significantly higher injury rates and demonstrated lower levels of physical performance capacity overall"

[CT_CD]

A female mixed martial arts fighter named Ronda Rousey refused to fight transgender fighter Fallon Fox because of these differences in bone structure and build.

Tamikka “Boom Boom” Brents, who did face Fallon, noted: “‘I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.’ Fox’s grip was different, ‘I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch.’”

[myTake Owner]

That's a well informed and well educated opinion, appreciate it.

[SnowHearth]

"Women are not as strong or physically capable as men" its both true and fake. That depends on the culture.

There are cultures where women have been allowed to perform the same activities and have the same jobs as men, and in those cultures women are as strong and capable as men, and even some are stronger.

There are cultures where gender roles are strongly diferentiated, and in those cultures women are weaker.

Do not generalize.

I agree that women from cultures that have made them weaker should not join the armed forces, as they aren't capable of performing such tasks.

[myTake Owner]

No, it's a biological fact. It has nothing to do with culture. And I only generalized in the title, if you refer to what I said underneath, I said women are less physically capable on average - which is 100% correct.

[SnowHearth]

I said it's about culture, because culture and traditions dictate how human body adapts.

It's has to do with sociobiology, and biocultural anthropology

[myTake Owner]

Name one culture where women are on average equal or stronger than men.

Then look at testosterone, which men produce much higher levels of as it's a male sex hormone, much like estrogen is for women. Explain why the MALE sex hormone is one of the leading hormones in the development of strength, endurance and muscle mass.

Then explain why when looking at ALL of our closest ancestors, just like us, it's usually the males who are bigger, the males who are stronger, the males who do the hunting. The fact females have to give birth for a period of time and therefore being unable to hunt during that time, should be enough proof that the male's role is to be physical, hunt and provide for her and the child during that time. Or is female pregnancy cultural as well? Were men told they couldn't have babies in certain cultures and that's why men don't have babies?

[Kawabanga1]

@SnowHearth you went full retard bro, never go full retard...

culture? lol are you serious or you're just trolling? women have 40-50% less muscle mass than men on average, its a fact and that is not up for debate, you can go sit in your safe zone now.

[SnowHearth]

@Kawabanga1 it seems you didn't get why I wrote it has to do with culture.
Culture and traditions define paterns, that when repeated affect our biology, and it's passed through generations if continued. It's micro evolution. That's why some people adapt better to different kinds of weather than others. Of course it will take generations to take full effect.

Traditionally women have been in charge of taking care of children, doing chores, while the men have been tasked with hunting, going to war, working... gender roles are what caused the biological pattern you can see in both genders. That's why I wrote culture has something to do with it.

[Deathraider]

Look, if a woman can pass the test, let her through. If a man can't pass the test, then he's not allowed in. It's about ability and performance, not biological sex.

[myTake Owner]

We've already got a system that works and there is no need for the additional costs associated with allowing women in the infantry.

[Deathraider]

Yeah, but a more efficient system is abilities. You'll get more out of it with this system.

[Deathraider]

BTW: If we have equal rights and opportunity, shouldn't we also make sure womans get drafted also? I mean men are the only ones drafted.

[myTake Owner]

How is it a more efficient system? What's your experience in military systems?
This is war, it isn't about rights and opportunity. It's about executing the mission and reaching objectives.

[Deathraider]

And it's obvious it's more determined on abilities, not biological sex.

I think it's a given fact that a system basing on abilities generally have better outcomes.

[myTake Owner]

So why are men's and women's sports separate do you think?

[Deathraider]

They shouldn't be. But there is a difference. These sport organizations are privately owned and could do that [legally, though I think it's wrong]. But when you have the US government and a group not about entertainment, but about warfare, you should have the people with abilities, not only based off of biological sex.

[myTake Owner]

So you'd like to see male boxers fight female boxers, would you? You think men should hit women? The reason there is separation because female ability is not on par with male ability and it would not be moral or fair. The same applies in combat.

[Deathraider]

Yeah, but you're using an average and assume it applies to everyone, which is a false assumption, which is why I propose it's based off of abilities.

[myTake Owner]

I didn't say it applied to everyone. You're taking that out of context. In the context of top boxers, the top male boxers will be at an advantage compared to the top female boxers.

Like I've said, allowing women in infantry will mean additional costs that are not needed. We already have enough men who are competent and meet the standards in infantry. There is no need to spend more money in order to open recruitment to a pool of people who, on the balance of probabilities, will be LESS ABLE to fulfill the role than what we've already got.

[Deathraider]

Well if you ever need more people, don't just draft men in. The best is a screening test to find individuals that are actually fit.

And honestly, any help in the military would probably be wanted. If a female can perform just as well, go right on ahead.

[myTake Owner]

Issue is it's not necessary, like I've said numerous times. There are enough men who already fulfill the standards. There is no need for additional money spent in order to include a pool that on the balance of probabilities, will be less successful. I'm repeating myself.

[Deathraider]

Well if you ever need more troop, don't be so hesitant to leave the ladies out.

[myTake Owner]

I wouldn't, I'm sure if we were invaded and situations became dire, civilians would arm themselves and fight if they so choose. It would be every man or woman for themselves. However we're not in that situation, thankfully.

[guyfrmuk]

Well war is stupid to begin with. If someone wants to risk their lives for 'their country' then it's their choice. The physical requirements for women are less than men, so they will be at a disadvantage in a war zone. Some women are mega fit but are a minority and have to work harder than the average man to achieve the same level of fitness. Take this - a man and women of the same size, the man will be stronger. Biologically men have a higher ratio of muscle to fat when compared to women and men's muscle is stronger pound by pound. Then there is 'female time' which puts women at a disadvantage in more ways than one in that environment. If a woman wants to risk her life being as a soldier, then she should be able to if it doesn't put other soldiers lives at risk. A weapon is just as deadly in the hand of a woman. Though the average man is more capable than the average women physically.

[Jmcmanning]

If a woman wants to the opportunity to prove herself in this situation, she should be allowed. If they pass the physical test, the boot camp, and intensive training - then she is capable of fighting a war, It takes more than physical strength, a person has to be mentally capable as well. (FYI: There hae been some sports where females do compete with males - football included). We should not judge who should do what - that's not our choice, that's there. If a man has free will to try and go into the military and fight for their country, then a woman should have that same freedom as well. Both males and females have to go through the same training to earn that right. Women have been serving in the frontlines for over 10 years (just a couple years ago, officially allowed to). Have you heard of any compliants that they are no capable?

[DJZest]

You are obviously completely out of your mind, flying around in the clouds with it. There are hard facts - I am talking about physical/physiological differences. No amount of your so-called "mental capability" is going to help. Did you look at the video? That girl obviously was mentally capable, according to your opinion. But it took just a single one of the marine's punches to get her back down on the ground. Unfortunately, she was too stubborn to realize and stayed in for the rest of the... "fight".

[Izumiblu]

Well actually there is a study done by the military that shows in great detail that all female military units and mixed male female units perform at a much less efficient standard than all male units.

Even though each female met the standard to act in those roles an all male force typically achieved higher average entry standards than any randomly selected group of females.

Now I suspect of course that you could pick higher performing females and get similar results to male units but then you are basically saying that women need to have higher entry standards at the individual level to compose a force with entry standards equivalent to that of males. Which on paper won’t fly.

[Jmcmanning]

@DJZest There are also pently of males out there who would not have been able to handle that as well - so your point doesn't stand us with your example. I don't care what you think is acceptable or not, it's a person personal choice to have the opportunity. We choice to succeed or fail. That's what physical training is for, to make us stronger physically. I am not a femist by any means, but I do support anyone (male or female) to pursue their dreams, even if that means being on the frontlines (which women's have been there for over 10 years now).

[Jmcmanning]

@Izumiblu my point, is if that is what they want to do they should be allowed. Anyone who wants to fight for their country and serve should be allowed to. If they pass basic training and all other training, let them do it. It's their lives, not yours - let them be in control of their own life.

[DJZest]

Nobody gives a damn about who or what you support. There are overlying principles that are decided on by high-ranking military officials.

Besides that, it is clear that woman cannot perform on the level of men - physically, and no matter the amount of training.

[Anonymous]

i was in the army (infantry, but for obvious reason i'll avoid details) for 8 years and did 2 tours of afghan. we lost a lot of blokes...

during build up training you practice casualty evacs and its fucking hard work. no joke, it takes 4 fit blokes in their prime to carry a casualty that distance... even then you have to add the weight of the gear you're carrying, plus the fact you're already hanging out your ass because you have been on patrol and advancing to contact.

I actually have no problem with women serving front line roles and im sure some women could handle it, but those who apply would need to pass the exact same test as their male counterparts. we simply cannot allow physical standards to drop to accommodate for this stupid PC culture.

[AlphaGhost]

Battlefield is a extremely harsh environment and woman are not fit for it.
There is plenty of scientific evidence supporting it and anyone want it, he can ping me to let me know.
,
,
.
but still woman must be used in battlefield otherwise, their population will increase :)

[shephardjhon]

My question is WHY DO YOU WANT TO JOIN?
Is femininity useless? It is something I took away watching Black Panther.
Sure there are tons of women in it but all seem to be doing men's jobs, while men are still doing their own jobs. So is everything women traditionally did completely useless? Are women useless unless they become men? Does femininity have no place in the modern world?

Men still aren't allowed to be house husbands/stay at home fathers. For that to even happen, some woman would have to find a jobless guy attractive and then marry him. Men are still expected to be the providers, they are still expected to earn more than their wives.

So in both men and women femininity and feminine traits are being killed off or at least it looks like modern "feminists" want to kill those traits off.

[PrincessPie]

i completely agree, and i don't care if its politically correct or not but i won't change my opinion on this no matter what anyone says, women just aren't as physically strong or able as men.

[Good_Behavior]

Women make excellent snipers though and that is a frontline position.

www.businessinsider.com/lyudmila-pavlichenko-female-sniper

Or maybe it's just Russians in general. Northerners are just ridiculously tough.

[myTake Owner]

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that, but there's no denying that Pavlichenko was a magnificent sniper.

[Good_Behavior]

She wasn't the only sniper but I'm just using her as an example. There are famous female snipers in every army really. Some people are built for different front-line tasks as women tend to have better vision than men when it comes to distinguishing colors while men are better at tracking items. So in real-time combat men will prevail not due to strength along but genuinely improved reaction time but when it comes to targeting and gunfire women are better with stationary targets, such as what snipers tend to deal with at long distances. Also the physiological differences in women and men make for easier marksmanship to a degree such as center of gravity.

rivetermagazine.wordpress.com/.../

However you are correct that women are not suited for all roles.

www.washingtonpost.com/.../?utm_term=.e537935b986f

It is without a doubt true that women do have greater problems with basic infantry weaponry and strength is a limitation when it comes to closer range combat scenarios.

[myTake Owner]

That's quite interesting, we do see a lot of women who are great competitive shooters. Thanks for the input.

[MayBlythe]

Everything in the first sentence seems like retarded sjw talk but anyway 2, 3 and 6 are the points I agree on and don't agree with 1 4 or 5 (and I'm not gonna get into the ones I disagree on cause it would only start an argument), but I do see where you're coming from with this. There are some jobs that women shouldn't have and there are jobs that men shouldn't have, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have the choice to be able to do it if they want to

Great MyTake though

[VIP-2B]

That is the smartest answer I can recall. However a woman must have the strength not to slow down other troops. And then their is the recent news. A Marine was sharing a fox hole with a female soldier when he could not release the empty magazine and reload his M-16. The enemy was advancing so he yelled "SHOOT, SHOOT". "Oh do I have too? His tush is so cute".

[RationalMale]

Putting female soldiers in front line is a high cost low benefit maneuver...

Women might be less inclined to vote to send troops to save Syria or Libya or some other third world hell hole if they've seen crippled or disfigured women coming home from the last conflict.

Of course, the active duty troops will pay for that. And sending your women to die in conflict is about as desperate and barbaric as it gets.

[Anonymous]

A select few are probably perfectly capable but those would be the ones who already live with little emotion in life due to their upbringings. Biggest reasons having a bunch go aside from them being too emotional, their entire train of thought is way different than a guys. Guys deals with situations differently naturally that make them more accustomed to brutal realities.. (before millennials anyways) I'm pretty sure a big reason why they are being pushed into a combat situation is so they can't have a double standard. More of a Ok you want to be treated equal? then you have to drafted like everyone else.