392 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. In the pre-invention warfare of breech-loading rifles, it took physical strength to fight. Before de facto the firearm was an option, with the blade. With the invention of breech-loading rifles by the French (the Chassepot rifle, mod. 1866), the firearm became the main weapon of war. The firearm eliminates the notion that it takes physical strength to fight. Anyone can fight. This was demonstrated by the Russians in the Second World War, in units such as the 1077th Soviet anti-aircraft artillery female regiment that fired at zero elevation with anti-aircraft guns and put out 83 wermatcht panzers and destroyed 33. In the same way 300,000 women Soviets managed the Russian anti-aircraft. The anti-aircraft of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad is almost entirely governed by them. Three female air regiments were created (586th IAP, 587th BAP and 588th GBAP) which carried out over 30,000 war operations during the Second World War. These regiments use a wood and canvas biplane, the Polikarpov U-2 (Po-2), a single-engine, two-seater, dual-control, which was designed, in the late 1920s, by Nikolai N. Polikarpov, for training operations. , reconnaissance and liaison (the Germans called it corn plane). They became famous as witches of the night. The young Soviet pilots become specialists in night attacks, demonstrating strategic ability and great audacity in order not to be intercepted by German fighters. One of the techniques adopted in the attacks is that of the low flight up to the proximity of the target and the lifting at height, with subsequent swoop on the target, only when it is now impossible for the enemy to intervene. In the ranks of the Red Army, 2000 female snipers are trained (500 of whom survived the war). Pavličenko was the most famous of these, amassing 309 Nazis killed (the figure attests to those confirmed, but there could be many more, up to 500) by her rifle (including 36 snipers and 100 officers of various ranks). Ultimately, in the Second World War, the Soviets employed about one million female soldiers in the Red Army, of which 320,000 were front-line fighters. They have been awarded 150,000 decorations including 91 Heroes of the Soviet Union Gold Stars. Their contribution was undoubtedly decisive for the final victory. Israel also has a large proportion of women in its army where there is compulsory conscription for both sexes. 34% of the Israeli military is made up of women. Until now, the Israeli army has never lost a war. The evidence is high enough to provide evidence that women should not be treated differently in expendable jobs than men. They must be conscripted as men are conscripted.
20 Reply
Most Helpful Opinions
- 6.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
u +1 yI am sure this woman could kick your ass 37 times in a row
" For the first time, a female sailor has successfully completed the grueling 37-week training course to become a Naval Special Warfare combatant-craft crewman — the boat operators who transport Navy SEALs and conduct their own classified missions at sea.
Navy officials said they would not identify the woman or provide more details on her — a routine military policy for special operations forces. She was one of 17 sailors to graduate and receive their pins on Thursday. She is also the first of 18 women who have tried out for a job as a SWCC or a SEAL to succeed. "16 Reply- +1 y
but I am sure she's no match to you... at an eating-donut-at-the-couch-while-posting-nonsense-online contest
- +1 y
In what way am i saying women can't do anything? I actually said that if women wanted to join special forces they shouldn't alter the course. They should keep it the way it is so that when women do try out for it they can prove they are just as capable. Also i said women should be in the marines, army, air force and navy. I never once said that a women couldn't do it. I also said that police need all the help they can get so women should be on the police force you. So what is the point your trying to make other than you being a idiot.
- +1 y
so you really can't see the nonsense you come up with it...
you're too young to be this kind of tragedy... get out of your parents basement once in a while, experience the real world a bit - +1 y
Is not just about the sexist premise which of course is there... "belong" is not the right choice of words here..
but it's also about who you just don't understand the complexity of everything in the military and how it actually works nowadays... these are no longer the days of the beaches at Normandy... it's almost 2022
and in the quoted post I got you... clearly states that one of the most demanding training tests in the military has not been altered to be inclusive with women... the difficulty of it is the same for all regardless of genders, and that's why only one woman out of 18 completed the test
the special forces do not need hundreds or thousands of recruits every year... they just need a lot fewer every year, and they are after the exceptional people out there... whether men or women, at this point, makes not so much of a difference because again... it's 2022 pretty much
500 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Anyone who is qualified and wants to can join.
There are plenty of men who are not able to pass requirements for combat roles. Same goes for women.
Anyone able to complete the requirements can go ahead. Its as simple as that.
They don't need to lower the requirements solely for both the men and women who cannot complete them.
The military is a whole lot more than combat.
And plenty of women in the army, including my mother, kill it. Ruck marches suck.
Yes they have to carry a lot of heavy shit in shitty weather, but that goes for both males AND females. And guess what? At the end of their day.. at the end of their service BOTH of their backs, knees, and joints are fucked up. Regardless of gender. You're going to have both sexes bitch and complain. It's not just a woman thing.
And marines are more hardcore than army so I don't know why you think it'd be a problem for women to join the army and not marines.20 Reply
Anonymous(30-35)+1 yYes but they should be separately trained from the men. It can be the same training for all i care, but should be grouped strictly with the same sex like in athletics. I know once they go on the battlefield, they may have to face some consequences but thats better than risking getting raped by certain hornballs on base. And i say this because i know some who’ve had bad experiences. Also, its gonna suck regardless because female dikes may still try to rape other females with a strapon or some shit. All you can do is pray for the best
20 Reply
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
76Opinion
- 9.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
u +1 yIf we ever reinstate a draft, I don't think women should be subject to a draft. If they want to volunteer and they can do the job as well as a man, then give them the position.
18 Reply- +1 y
I don't feel the draft should ever be reinstated, but if it was, then women who meet the same health requirements as men should be registered. Keep in mind that someone who's forced to do something is not likely to do as good of a job as someone who wants to do it, as there are plenty of ways to turn even the simplest tasks into something absurdly far from the end goal.
- +1 y
@Qdbrown Double standards are not inherently evil. Do you have an argument about why double standards are inappropriate in this situation?
- +1 y
@haphazard did you not read what I said? I literally said that women should be registered. However, I don't support the draft, for men or women.
- +1 y
@haphazard if you're calling older and wiser a feminist, which I won't say he isn't, maybe you should take note of the fact that he's male not female. Therefore, as a female, my words should hold more weight in this situation as it applies to females and the draft, not feminists and the draft. not all feminists are female, and not all females are feminists, although, that's generally because of upbringing and oppression.
- +1 y
@MoonStalker Wtf are you talking about? I wasn't referring to anyone on this post, I was simply stating a fact. As a side note, I don't support the draft or feminism.
- +1 y
@MoonStalker I understand that you did not call me a feminist. I should note that the only people who have ever called me a feminist either did not know me whatsoever, or they're were simply damned liars.
3.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Obviously they wouldn't get the job if they weren't fit for it. Which means all ones that are hired and will be hired are fit for it.
Therefore there is no issue, and people just trying to say nah they shouldn't be allowed in are just bringing up a pointless debate. Let the ones who actually train them and hire them decide I think they know if there troops are more fit for there role than some random who seems to have a problem with it.
So honestly my opinion is unless your ranking officer who is training these women who know what they are capable of. You don't get a say. Just like how you don't get a say over what males they train.22 Reply- +1 y
Interesting are you high ranking officer and train women? And do you know all the stats of women proficiently in the army. I can tell you one female is the most impressive for the russia army with 200 confirmed kills and lived in harsh conditions the whole time. And that's just one out of the 50 i can name of the top of my head and that's just for russia.
But i am sure you insight and vast knowledge on this topic will be insightful so please tell me these 90% that ain't.
5.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. There's no question that the overwhelming majority of women are not physically up to the demands of military combat units. Unfortunately, that has led to having greatly reduced physical standards for even the same jobs, and attempts to raise the standards even a bit have resulted in a greatly increased number of injuries, and typically lowering male standards in an attempt to make the demands neutral. As far as the military is concerned, retaining a trained soldier is generally more beneficial than recruiting a new one, especially for positions that require long training cycles.
That said, I would've taken a self-motivated female soldier over an unmotivated or conscripted male soldier into my unit (were that ever my choice to begin with) 100 times out of 100.20 Reply8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. I dont see a problem with it. The whole thing about physical abilities is basically all bullshit in the first place and having women would not change things in any meaningful manner either on a tactical or a strategic level.
Another good example is how during war time those high standards for recruits suddenly dont appear to matter that much anymore any just about anyone can contribute to the army. But that is assuming there is even that much of a physical difference between women and men in the first place. Last time I checked there has already been women who qualified under the male standards of physical abilities so its sort of a mute point.10 Reply
+1 yIt's never been about belonging. The ultimate fact is if they can do the job as well as a man with the same qualifications that individual should be considered for it. Wether it's a woman or not does not matter at all.
Now notice I said 'if'. That is there shouldn't be lowered standard, there shouldn't be any special treatment wether positive or negative in regards to gender. No accommodation. Because frankly I don't give a toss what a person in charge of my safety is of what gender AS LONG AS they are the QUALIFIED person for the job. Now this has not been the case a lot of time which is why we have made compromises when it comes to women in the military. at the risk of being called a sexist for wanting competency, that is NOT a good thing to me.10 Reply
+1 yYes, open all branches of armed service to men, women, trans etc. on the following conditions...
1) Zero changes to requirements, the physical training / testing is the same for all, IE, No lowering of standards for anyone, no discrimination either.
2) No reinstatement of the draft, service is open to all citizens of age but is strictly voluntary.
3) All service members are Soldiers first, and foremost BEFORE and ABOVE any other aspect of their individuality such as gender, race, age or origin.10 Reply
+1 yWomen in combat roles?
No.
You would basically be sending them to their deaths
Remember that scene from the beginning of Savings Private Ryan?
Close your eyes and image a landing boat pulling up to a beach. The door drops and a squad of 18 year old girls charge out into machine gun fire and get torn to pieces.
It's bad enough that young men do that let's not start doing that to girls.
Women in combat is a cool idea for science fiction movies like Aliens and Starship Troopers. In the real world not so much.10 Reply1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. I certainly think women belong in both , and the more the better quite frankly , these forces should mirror society as much as possible , the only criteria being that those who sign up , genuinely want to be there.
Women have much to offer these services.20 Reply
+1 yWait a minute, don't you people in the West now believe that gender doesn't exist, that it's all just a "social construct"? That's what I've heard. Trying to keep up with your insanity is really difficult and tiring.
74 Reply- +1 y
Aw, four people couldn't handle the truth :D
- +1 y
Yep cognitive dissonance at it's finest... Because ultimately any man in that military unit could just be a woman if he decided it tomorrow by their logic lmao
- 371 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yI don't have a problem with women being in the armed forces or the police.
I do have a problem with those women who complain about the standards being too much for them to bear and petition to have it watered down to make it easier for them. The standards we had were there for a reason: physical readiness. You make the committment to joining the armed forces, you are to he held to the same standards as everyone else. If you think its too hard for you, then it was never for you to begin with.00 Reply
+1 yI support full equality, so I say anything men can do women should have the option, so long as there is no special treatment, must pass the same requirements as the men.
I used to be against it a bit, cause if a woman is caught by the enemy we know she'll get it worse than men, but then I changed my mind as it is her choice and SHE knows what could happen.
Some area's like the middle east would say its not rape if its a infidel. Others would just flat out do it without an excuse.20 ReplyNo. That said I think there should be one set standard for men and women to meet so the women who qualify should have the opportunity, rather than having a lesser standard for women.
Keep the police and military strong. As for police the standard needs to be higher in general for men and women lol. Have you ever looked at their basic exams and PFT? It's stupid easy if you're just not obese af. They need a higher physical, mental, and moral standard for police10 Reply
Anonymous(25-29)+1 yI served (not in the US) so I would definitely say that YES THEY CAN. I was actually a commander and I was a combat soldier. I will agree that not all girls can do it, but if they have training and at the end of it they can do what men do, than what’s the problem?
33 Reply- +1 y
Anon. Women have no business in combat. I think women do have a role in the military in support roles, but not in front line units.
Opinion Owner+1 yWere you in the army?
- +1 y
Opinion owner. I was in the Navy.
+1 ySure, that's what equality means doesn't it? They get to die with the men? They can also take out the trash and fix their own car. They can also take shitty hard labor, low paying jobs like 'Sanitation engineer' or landscaper or ditch digger or brink layer or mover. I want to see that equality in the crappy jobs, then I will be a believer.
20 Reply- 411 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yHaving served in the military and as a Corrections Officer, I believe they do belong in these fields. However, they need to be able to pass all the tests (physical, mental, etc.) required. If they can pass the training then they deserve it. Neither Law Enforcement nor the Military gives out jobs like candy. They are tremendously difficult positions to pass the training for. Nothing given, only earned.
10 Reply 1.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. As long as they don't change any standards, yes.
If they can do everything physically without exception, sure. Why not.
The Yazidi women formed militias and slaughtered ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
But, for example, if the guys are carrying 120 lbs of gear for 12 miles (just one of many tests) then whoever passes should advance.
If she's a fit 5' but can't pull me out of harm's way then she's not helping much.12 Reply- +1 y
@Qdbrown
True.
A girl passed ranger school. They gave her exceptions.
A girl passed US Special Forces training. They changed the standards for her too.
I'm all for women doing every job a man can do as long as they pass without exception and special favors.
A warrior's job isn't easy.
A woman can pull a trigger just as well as a man.
But she can't get TO the battlefield as easily nor exfil as easily as a man can.
So my first statement stands: if they do everything a man can do without exception then I'll support them.
The rest is implied.
- 5.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yabsolutely. women fight so hard for equality in white collar jobs... i'm all for equality. so if we want equality, we have to make sure, that more women die in wars, more women die in dangerous jobs and more women are homeless. only then can men and women truly be equal. cheers.
10 Reply 2.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. no they dont. it should be illegal for women to apply for jobs that require masculinity. they can't do anything right and immediately use the radio to call for help exactly as they do with their white knights off duty. And yes, I exclude the 6ft lesbian who can beat the crap out of me.
20 Reply
+1 yNo i don’t think women have the stamina, endurance nor strength to be able to properly compete against men. Are they able to work various jobs in military and police? Yes. But frontline work they fall behind to the point were the bar is lowered in order to allow them to complete training. It’s the military and police, you don’t want one or more of yours squadmates being undertrained in your platoon when shit hits the fan.
20 Reply
+1 yI've served alongside women in both professions when I was in the army and when I was with my local sheriff's office...
Women are often overlooked and I know some that aren't to be underestimated, they can do pretty much anything a man can do and sometimes more...20 Reply
+1 yIf they’re qualified I don’t see the problem. Having multiple perspectives is very beneficial to any organization, and women bring things to the table than men can’t (and vice versa).
41 ReplyYep, everyone is useful in some way. This was especially stressed in the Navy when I was in bootcamp, diversity is very important. People of all backgrounds, genders, and skill sets are all valuable assets in their eyes.
30 Reply18.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Society has had an effect on women, making them more likely to be weaker, meeker, etc. But I wouldn’t be surprised if both traits fall away next few gens.
That said, training can overcome negative traits in both men and women. There are ethical questions of lowering standards for women, if that’s fair to men, etc. But yes they should be in the military.10 ReplyHonestly law enforcement And military has no place for women. But I can’t say that all women shouldn’t join because I myself am a very strong naturally muscular woman. I am wayy stronger than the average woman. But very few women are like me
20 Reply
+1 yYeah the army don’t have drivers, engineers, intelligence office, logistics, bomb disposal, list goes on.
That and of course in modern warfare such as Iraq and Afghan, it’s all about a long front with it all manned by infantry only.25 Reply- +1 y
Plus you need someone to do the ironing and cooking
- +1 y
@purplepoppy exactly, and running vacuum cleaner around the trench every Thursday
- +1 y
I am sorry but i never once said that women don't belong in the military plus i was talking about the parts where you would require using more than your hands and your brain. Which in any case women would be far more suited to because their hands are smaller and they pay attention to detail more. Also i am talking about heavy lifting which is also apart of the army if you hadn't notice. but yea of course that don't matter sense ya gonna be in a safe zone right?
- +1 y
When you say The Army, you are including every trade.
If you say Front Line combat troops, then you filter it a bit.
Yeah in a safe zone….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13153527
For the US article from 2013.
www.cmrlink.org/.../grim-toll-of-military-women-killed-in-war
Explain where the safe zone is?
We have female valour operators and medics operating with infantry such as the rifles, marines etc.
- +1 y
Must be embarrassing getting killed by a girl, bet they never live it down
- 402 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 ySure, why not? if they pass the requirements just like men do, I don't think there should be a problem with it
60 Reply 1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Well we will soon have only machines at the front lines so they will just be sitting in front of screen playing real war games. So I don't see why gender would matter.
10 ReplyNo, women are not strong enaugh.
As a regular foot soldier or a police officer.
For tanks, planes, drones, ships, medical team, lab works etc etc would work well. Periods and pregnancy issues wouldstill cause problems.21 Reply- +1 y
Fork you. Do you really think someone heavily pregnant would be allowed on the battlefield to fight, let alone want to? As for periods, I'm a hell of a lot angrier and fight a hell of a lot harder when I get mine even if I get horrid cramps. You do know there's this thing called maternity leave for a reason, right?
+1 yYes but they shouldn't be put to the same standards as men. Women are physically weaker than men across the board, we shouldn't employ them for their strength when we have men for that.
111 Reply- +1 y
False. I might have weaker arms, but I sure as hell make up for it with my legs. I don't get to work out at a gym. But if I did, I'm sure I'd have just as much, if not more arm strength than you. We aren't physically weaker. We just don't start with the same physical capabilities and opportunities.
- +1 y
You are comparing your own body strength against itself. You may have excellent strength in your legs but you don't have a pair of testicles to autoproduce muscle growth accelerant. I'm not making some generalized out of the blue "women are weaker"argument on nothing. Its a fact that testosterone is the key factor in why and how men have a larger body mass and strength than women.
How tall are you by the way? It's rhetorical but it's also fair to mention that men on average are taller than women as well. Longer muscles means more strength, as well as more potential strength growth.
We don't start off with the same capabilities or opportunities, but just the same we don't start out with the same potentialities. Testicles and testosterone are definitively why and how men are stronger than women and why they generally make better soldiers when it comes to the physical requirements. - +1 y
Also the back does more muscle work than your arms. You don't recognize someone who has been in the military by their arms, it's by the size of their back muscles.
- +1 y
I got upper body strength, and if I elbow you it'll hurt. But if I punch you in the face, it will not have the same effect. I'm considered short. I also happen to be a child still. And I've had to defend myself from full grown men. I might not have size, or speed on my side, but I'm physically strong, and flexible, and I see what others cannot. Nobody should be drafted. But gender shouldn't have any effect on who would be.
- +1 y
I have plenty of back muscle, as well as upper arm strength. My lower arms and my fingers are where I'm lacking.
- +1 y
I'm sure you have plenty of strength, women aren't weak they just aren't as strong as men flat out period.
You don't have the organs to produce testosterone like men do. Simply put a woman fighting a man is likely to lose because of strength.
Women are kickass and can be as strong as ever, but they don't have the testosterone that men do.
You can take any non combat trained man and they will win 80% of the time against a woman off strength alone. It's why rape is a problem, an average woman doesn't have the muscle to contend with an average man in a physical altercation.
You can throw elbows all you want but that won't matter if your opponent can just bear hug you and pick you up off the ground no problem. Or crush your ribcage, break your arms, dislocated your joints, or any other strength driven fighting technique. Most guys would probably be able to pin and hold you down without you having the strength and endurance to get them off of you, which is why we shouldn't employ women in direct combat. When it's combat training vs combat training strength plays as much of a role as technique and experience.
I don't know why your so upset about the idea that we should use our strongest fighters for potentially physical confrontations while holding the weaker ones for intellectual positions. Everyone puts their best foot forward, it would be moronic to ignore that sentiment when dealing with hostile enemies to our country. - +1 y
Outliers are outliers of course, there are obviously women who could best most men in a fight because of their physicality and aptitude for fighting. But its no good to plan your military off of the outliers. Most women cannot outstrengthen most men, and their bodies don't have the chemical production to keep up with a normal man's muscle growth rate.
An equally skinny boy and girl will absolutely not build muscle at the same rate. Testosterone is why a man can do bodybuilding for 8 months and go from stringbean to toned muscle. Women just don't have that ability to bulk up in 8 months. - +1 y
You do know that women do have testrone too, right? We also have estrogen. Which YOU don't. And small doesn't mean weak. Nobody's ever tried to restrain me with a bear hug before, but I have been choked, and pinned. But they always focus on my arms and my mouth. And that's why they fail. I can kick, and once they listen their grip inevitably, I can elbow and punch if need be, although I mostly need my arms to not lose my balance completely. If I can kick, then I will. And let me assure you that most people can't believe how much weight I can push on a leg press without a demonstration. And I don't even know the full extent, as the leg presses I've used have had a max of 405 pounds at the most, and that wasn't very hard. Brute strength isn't everything. I don't have to knock someone out and possibly kill them in the processes when I can get away. I'm extremely flexible, and taking my size into account, I can get into plenty of places I doubt you would be able to. Gender doesn't affect that.
- +1 y
And as for getting picked up off the ground, I can pick up people off the ground with a hug. Sure, none of those people I did it to (was to prove a point in fifth grade) were hostile enemies, but none of them were the same size, let alone smaller. And when someone picks me up, it actually makes it much easier to land a good kick or elbow jab on them.
- +1 y
If you were fighting military trained soldiers they would know to restrain your shoulders, not your arms. Whoever got you didn't know what they were doing (thank God). Men do have estrogen as well, it's part of human endocrinology to have testosterone and estrogen in any given system. The reason why I keep bringing testosterone up is because testosterone is what encourages your brain to build more tissue rather than store energy. Women have a little testosterone yes, but its balanced with estrogen so that women are able to develop things like breasts. Its why women have softer, curvier bodies than men do, it has to do with the natural sex hormones that govern their body.
Small doesn't mean weak, but exactly like I said the longer a muscle is the higher potential it has for strength, you can't get that potential without practicing relaxing that muscle then expanding it though. The longer arms, legs, and torso you have the stronger you are able to get, there is literally more material to work with than in a shorter individual.
405lbs is awesome for you and your body, just take a look at this though.
strengthlevel.com/.../lb#standardsMale
My point is that women can be as strong as a woman can be, but a man as strong as a man can be will always be stronger in every category. Why? Because their brains are encouraged to grow more tissues than their counterpart's are.
You add military training, fighting ability, and martial training and women have little advantage over men besides appearing weaker than they are.
A bear hug is when someone grabs your arms and waste in a squat then uses their legs and an arm lock to pick you up. From there it's very easy to throw someone from 5 off the ground with force onto their spine.
Example is here: https://youtu.be/tOgSOXSjthE - +1 y
Their goal was to rape, not to kill. And it's happened on multiple occasions.
- 427 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yYeah absolutely, as long as they can pass the requirements, I see nothing wrong with it.
72 Reply- +1 y
@Subarugirl. I have no problem with women in the military but not in direct combat units.
The Israelis tried women in front line units, but they fought poorly, would get slaughtered, and the morale effect of having young women killed was very detrimental. - +1 y
@KrakenAttackin Like I said, if they can pass the requirements, it shouldn't be an issue. Israel is a poor example, just ask @yofuknutz
Anonymous(36-45)+1 ySince women are demanding everything without earning it the hard way then they should have to fight and die like men. We used to protect women from the horrors of battle but they should have to endure everything that men do. I long for the day when I see just as many one legged female veterens as males. There is no reason that they should be protected from war. They can pull a trigger just like a guy can.
15 Reply
Opinion Owner+1 y@MoonStalker Most women have expressed a disdain for having children so that means that they contribute nothing. Women are weaker than men in every way but they insist that they aren't so they should fight i9n the front lines and take their chances. Facial scars, lost limbs, lost breasts and death. Why shouldn't women contribute the same as men? How hard is it to pull a trigger?
Opinion Owner+1 y@MoonStalker by your own admission you are as capable aS any man and should be forced (like men) to fight and die for your country. If you chose not to then you should be imprisoned and your right to vote revoked and your right to any government money should be denied.
Opinion Owner+1 y@MoonStalker You don't get to decide who gets drafted. You are a small insignifcant cog in a large wheel. You can't even vote, so you will be subject to the laws of the nation. If you don't serve then you should be imprisoned (like males are). It is your schoice to conduct a hunger strike. I see that as the desperate act of a weak individual who can't competwe in society but do what you have to
Opinion Owner+1 y@MoonStalker You are intentionally being offensive so I am going to remove your posts
Opinion Owner+1 y@MoonStalker fork off
As a army vet. I can tell you now there have been females that make some rangers look like just grunts. And to say they can't hold there own is sexist and wrong. I get that it's your opinion. But, they can carry babies. Which means they can indure a lot. There are female rangers right now that would mop the floor with and guy out there.
20 Reply
Anonymous(30-35)+1 yYeah.
Females for females.
Men for men
Same with the prison system.
I don't like the fact women have sex with men prisoners. You should get life for that.
Also women have a fear of men so that might impair judgement.10 Reply
Anonymous(25-29)+1 yI think yes they are. If men are obliged to go so are the women. Yeah women and men bodies are different but there can be works that women can do. So all humans should be in the military in my opinion.
24 Reply- +1 y
The idealistic version better than reality. There are a lot of cons with women serving.
Women tend to run from frightening things. It's not unheard of that a woman police officer simply hand odd her service pistol and run off. Or overcompensate and more likey to shoot first and ask questions later.
Men also tend want to protect women instinctly, and will slow down to help a woman far faster than a man. That has been studied extensively. That is not conditioned, and some men will die trying to save female partner.
There is also a trend when deployed, some women get pregnant and get to step out of the deployment. As a group, they train together, but at the time when needs to be together, many women show up pregnant and get sent home. This is not fair for group.
Opinion Owner+1 y@Qdbrown yeah of course everything has pros and cons. So maybe women can go to the military service which contains just women. But i think it is possible to find a way to do that.
- +1 y
@Qdbrown Those "cons" don't apply for just women. "Women tend to run from frightening things" Lol. The men and women who do this usually don't jump at the chance to serve. Some may have anxiety disorders and were deamed deployable regardless after evaluation. Plenty of men have "shot first and ask questions later". Please don't try to make that into a female thing.
"Men tend to want to protect women instinctly". Regardless of sex airmen, soldiers, seamen.. we're not taught to just leave your wingman or battle buddy behind. So regardless of your "partner's" sex you'd save them. Our culture is different. It's never "every man for themselves". If we notice someone is slower or getting left behind we help them male or female because it does happen with both sexes.
"Some women get pregnant" Of course some women get pregnant. That's a medical concern. Some men malinger and pretend to hear voices. Some men purposely hurt themselves to avoid deployment as well. You don't know if those women purposely got pregnant or not. You just assume. And having a few women do that doesn't mean it's common. Because it's not.
- +1 y
@Dinklex3 when I say men will protect a woman, he will focus all his attention on her. This is not dog fighting. This is she's hurt. Big difference.
I use to be a fan of women cops. Then men cops started posting body footage and videos made, that never make it to the news. Nearly every week there was some new video of a woman cop doing weird things. Throwing their pistols at the perps. Fleeing the scene. This is not an isolated deal to certain people or women. In cop world, it's generally a known thing. And why many cops refer to them as token hires. And then there is the occasional deal where a woman holds her service pistol and during a skuffle, start shooting in all directions. A lot of it stems that many men can overtake a woman, and when he does she tries to shoot him at times, and rounds are flying all over the place. I saw one video where the woman cop made many shots hitting pictures on the wall,. a fireplace, a couch while struggle on the floor. She couldn't control the gun because the guy she fought could keep it pointed away. Which is understandable, but it was the fact that she kept firing.
And as with getting pregnant during a deployment, the exception there is she gets sent home. If a man hears voices, shoots himself days before deployment, he is getting court marshalled and likely sent to Leavenworth. And it not that, a dishonorable discharge. It's a huge double standard.
590 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. If they're qualified for and interested in the work then they should have the opportunity to go into those fields
20 Reply
+1 ywhy not? They receive the same training in every military and police branch - some do it to keep the family tradition alive, some do it to better themselves. When I wore the uniform, I had a female do it to keep the family tradition alive. she was hard as nails like her brother and her father.
10 Reply301 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Yeah. Police officers and soldiers get hungry and horny too.
jk it’s literally 2021 I wouldn’t want to do it but I’m not going to protest it20 Replyif they are willing and capable, sure. There is no reason to stop them.
31 Reply
+1 yI dunno, things seemed to be all okay in the Starship Troopers' time so it should all work out here, no?
Also Blue Bloods chick is hot.10 Reply- 692 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yI say absofuckinglutely & if anyone wants to serve in the military or join a police force or do any other job more power to them.
10 Reply No I do not, nor do they belong in politics. I refer specifically to Omar Talib, pelosi, Feinstein, Harris, Jackson lee and that little cunt bartender what’s her name.
12 Reply
+1 yOf course, men and women have differences therefore there will be certain things women are better at than men.
10 Reply- 382 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yWomen who want to be there are more valuable than men who don't.
Not saying the average woman can take on the average man, but the strongest women can beat the living hell of out weak men. So let those strong women join.20 Reply
+1 yThere are some manly women, if they can pass the test then yes,
50 Reply
+1 yIt honestly depends on the woman. I almost went for Coast Guard myself.
20 Reply3.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. I see no reason that they should not be allowed. As long as they can pass the same tests as men.
The only exception would if a woman would intentionally get pregnant to get discharged early.20 ReplyYes but don't lower the physical standards so that women can be included. If they can pass cool but women don't usually make good soldiers. However there's way more to a military than the frontline soldiers so sure.
10 Reply
+1 yIf they can pass the requirements I don't see why not. I know I couldn't
20 Reply471 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. In Canada our military force is roughly 15.7 percent women. Be it combat roles or not.
23 Reply- +1 y
Yeah, that's 'cause we're fuckin' Canadians. We're the best, damnit.
- +1 y
No one gives a fuck, that whole country will be a crater in 15 years anyway.
+1 yYes. As 'honey pot' spies :) We have our talents, you have yours.
10 Reply- 7.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yyes in separate force not integrated. and never reporting to a male... too much risk of abuse.
10 Reply
Anonymous(25-29)+1 yNo, they aren't qualified. On long marches almost none of the females finish, unless a simp volunteers to carry her rucksack.. And you just know when a war actually happens that they'll want office jobs or seek civilian life.
113 Reply
Opinion Owner+1 y@doopayo wouldn't be an issue at all to whop her, except all the simps to tell me how she's just a girl
- +1 y
That what you’re saying isn’t even true.
When it comes to their experiences in the field, women are less likely than men to say they have physically struggled with a suspect who was resisting arrest in the past month
www.pewresearch.org/.../
www.pewresearch.org/.../
Opinion Owner+1 yOf all the thing you could get offended and debate over you have to pick the most delusional one. Do you have delusional personality disorder?
Opinion Owner+1 y@doopayo women dont have a fight or flight instinct. They have a unite and flight instinct. Theyre horrible fighters. Women are too egotistical to make for good fighters. The fact that they think they deserve respect says it all. In the military officers get respect, combat soldiers dont get saluted. They go out and risk their lives too. Women will eventually fuck the whole military up. Theyre a cancer in any organisation. Only fools would employ women. And there are many fools
+1 yWhy is this even a question. They belong wherever the fuck they wanna be. Just like you and me and everybody else.
10 ReplyI don't think that we should have any goddamn cops or the military! So no. Neither should men lol... I am not interested in hearing any oppositional views on this either so if "you people" could keep that " in mind" that would be great!
01 ReplyYes they have a role to play particularly in law enforcement
31 Reply- +1 y
Wouldn't mind seeing you as a bobby. ;-)
- 3.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 y"but since were no longer at war with anyone, you shouldn't have to worry about anything too bad."
HA. Haha. Hahahahaha. Good one.20 Reply
+1 yYes, there are plenty of women I know who have a nursing and dental hygiene degree from being in the military. There's a lot of perks
20 Reply- 1.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yI dont like the word “belong” but they should be able to freely choose these professions if they so wish
20 Reply 686 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Just ask this simple question. Would putting a women in a squad actually make the squad more efficient and effective in the name of political correctness or would it hinder the squad?
20 ReplyYes if they can meet the same physical requirements for the assigned position.
10 Reply- Show More (40)
Do you believe women shouldn't serve in the military or be in law enforcement?
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior
Guy's Behavior
Flirting
Dating
Relationships
Fashion & Beauty
Health & Fitness
Marriage & Weddings
Shopping & Gifts
Technology & Internet
Break Up & Divorce
Education & Career
Entertainment & Arts
Family & Friends
Food & Beverage
Hobbies & Leisure
Other
Religion & Spirituality
Society & Politics
Sports
Travel
Trending & News