Women are too weak physically to serve in combat

The average man and average woman both trained in the military arts will do equally well. The technology and required mastery of it have changed much of the dynamics. She won't have to stick a knife in you and saw away, MikeK, she will merely shoot you in the back of the head at night using a sniper infrared scope.

Heck, my 22-year old Marine niece can take you hand to hand if that is how you want to go out.
I will agree with you that females can perform well as snipers, as was amply demonstrated in the defense of Stalingrad. But while I've never been in combat I have heard enough about it from those who have, beginning with my own father, to know that women are neither physically nor psychologically adaptable to the the rigors of sustained engagement in typical ground warfare.

In the Marine Corps of the fifties our Women Marines were trained in the use of light infantry weapons, which they were perfectly capable of using and using well under last resort circumstances. But it was commonly known they were in no way capable of enduring the hardships of even peacetime field maneuvers (forced marches, high-ground assaults, etc.) because they'd been put to the test more than once. They were our lady Marines ("BAMS"), we respected them, and they did their jobs very well. But in the Marine Corps of the fifties the notion of assigning women to combat line companies would not be taken seriously -- by either gender.

What I see happening to this generation of Americans is an effective feminization of the male. The very notion of having women serve in armed combat while there are able-bodied men lounging in the safety of home is extremely offensive to me, and I am sure to most if not all men in my age category.
 
IF they can pass the same standards that Males have to, then they can serve in combat jobs.
IF we make it mandatory for every female to register for selective service, then they can serve in combat jobs.

American males are pussies. Look how many in here post about how their "girlfriend" "niece" "some women I know" is a complete badass and could beat up any male around. Just because you are a pussy and can get taken by a woman does not mean you should project your pussiness onto the rest of us.

Less than 1% of the able-bodied female population (and I'm being generous with that) could take on most average sized able-bodied men and have any sort of chance. Too many hollywood movies, too many fake martial artist blowing sunshine up your collective ass, too much wishing it were true so it must be true pie in the sky "feelings" masquerading as real life.

How many females will volunteer and pass the training? Who is pushing this? I'm all for it, the unintended consequences of this will be outstanding. And, it will be fun to see women in an infantry unit. I don't want to see staged videos of some female running an obstacle course, or shooting a rifle. I want to see her after a 25 mile forced march carrying a combat load. I want to see her after 10 days in the field eating only MRE's and sitting on an ammo box over a hole dug in the ground to shit in. I want to see her get into fights with other soldiers in the infantry (because that is what we do in infantry units when we are bored). I want to see her be on her period and continue on as normal in any of the above situations.

Woman are different than men. And, unless you are gay this is a good thing. Men like women because they are soft, intelligent, feminine, sweet and caring. If I wanted to spend time with a badass muscle bound lunk head who smashes beer cans on their head I'd just be gay. Quit trying to be something you are not ladies. You have value other than being as much like a guy as is possible (especially since most just try to cherry pick the good stuff and ignore the negatives of maleness).

Let 'em serve. But quit taking your special case of the one-off "badass" chick you know and multiplying her times a million and saying most females are like that.
 
Last edited:
All women are just too weak. Everyone knows that.

tina-chandler-interview_bsm.jpg


Bodybuilding.com - Tina Chandler: Female Bodybuilding Interview Of The Month, September 2011
 
We know women don't have the upper body strength. It's a given and it's the way God made humans. The question is why liberals think it's only fair that American women get the same chance to be killed, maimed in combat or be taken prisoner as men? I don't get it.

maybe on an average you are right.

I have always had upper body strength that blew people away.

Its an average NOT a set in stone rule.

Ask Mohamad Alis daughter about it.

I agree with you on this.... not all women can be judged with a "broad" brush...sorry. :tongue:

I do however think they should not be on the battlefield where they can possibly be taken as a POW. The fact that there is a girl or should I say woman being held will affect us guys differently than if it is a guy being held. We as men (most of us anyway) want to try to protect the females amoung us, and it may affect the decisions made to get them back.

There is a need for them to serve though... just not out on the battlefield.

This is just one mans opinion and I mean no disrespect toward our fighting women. They are braver than I was.... I never joined, so big props to you gals!

Your last sentence is the most telling. You never joined, so you really don't have any idea of what women are capable of on a day to day basis in the military.

Me? I've served 20 years in the U.S. Navy, and during my service, I saw many women who were just as fit, and just as strong as many of the men around them. Shit, when I was PRT coordinator in Newport RI, I saw many of the women score just as well as the men when it came to pushups and situps, but then again, my command made PRT one of our top priorities and did it for 2 hours/day, 3 days a week, with members being encouraged to work out on their own.

My personal opinion? If a woman can pass her PRT (Physical Readiness Test) with an excellent or better, she should be allowed to serve in combat. If she wants to do a "G.I. Jane" and join the SEALs like Demi Moore did in the movie? I'm all for it, but she has to be at the SAME level of fitness as those around her. If she washes out, she washes out, just like many of the guys do.

I joined the military in 1982, and a few years later, they were not only allowing women on things like sub tenders, but they started to integrate them onto full fledged warships (Aegis cruisers, destroyers, carriers, etc), by the mid 90's. Strangest thing I ever saw on a training cruise was seeing a female pilot walking down the passageway (first time I saw one), and now? Squadrons and carriers have a significant amounts of females on their muster lists.

If a woman can deploy on a carrier or a full fledged warship, why shouldn't they be allowed in combat as well?
 
OOWEE Female Martial arts so tough...
I am pretty sure the bad guys have weapons.
A bullet through her head is whole new mind fuck for the grunt who fell in love with her.

You know..................most women in the military won't date the guys from their own commands, because they're smarter than that.

Most military men (if they're smart) won't date the women in their command either, too many chances for bullshit that could hurt morale.

And................in the Navy at least, if 2 people from the same command do happen to fall in love and get married, one of them has to transfer to another command within 24 hours. You can't have a husband and wife serving in the same command.

Never served, did ya?
 
Shit, when I was PRT coordinator in Newport RI, I saw many of the women score just as well as the men when it came to pushups and situps - Note that you said "score" here. Of course they can score as good as the males, they have lesser standards. In order for a male to max out the PRT they need: 105 Curl-ups, 87 Push-ups, and a 8.5 minute mile and a half run time. Females only need: 48 Push-ups, and a 9:47 minute mile and a half run time. I do give the Navy credit since females have to do the same amount of curlups as the Males.

If a woman can deploy on a carrier or a full fledged warship, why shouldn't they be allowed in combat as well? - As a Marine I've never been on a full fledged warship but I was on the USS Belleau Wood and having served as a machinegunner during our current conflict(s) I can tell you that there is a pretty big difference between being on a ship and serving in combat as an infantryman.

Despite what I said above, I think that woman should serve in any combat MOS they want to as long as they pass the exact same standards. That's it.

I just want to see how many actually want to do it, and actually can do it.
 
Objectors are not worried women will fail. They are worried women will succeed and best them.
 

THAT'S what you consider a woman? Sure, that is very natural...again taking a .001% female and multiplying by a million does not make most women like that.

Gross.

The military never said they would take ever women nitwit. Just like they wouldn't take you. And a quick peek explains why:

tumblr_m8cbhgc8nD1qasthro1_400.png

Hahaha, that is a goddamn funny picture. I don't have that much hair on my chest but you got me pretty close.
 
My personal opinion? If a woman can pass her PRT (Physical Readiness Test) with an excellent or better, she should be allowed to serve in combat. If she wants to do a "G.I. Jane" and join the SEALs like Demi Moore did in the movie? I'm all for it, but she has to be at the SAME level of fitness as those around her. If she washes out, she washes out, just like many of the guys do.


^^ Agreed!
 

Forum List

Back
Top