Quote:Quote:

Col. Ellen Haring, on the staff of the U.S. Army War College, says commanders need to downplay obstacle courses and judge a service member’s ability to stay calm and think quickly.

Quote:Quote:

“Perhaps it is time to take a hard look at what really makes a competent combat soldier and not rely on traditional notions of masculine brawn that celebrate strength over other qualities,” Col. Haring says in the current issue of Armed Forces Journal.
She cites World War II hero Audie Murphy and North Vietnamese insurgents as examples of small people who came up big on the battlefield.

(So to argue her point about female´s strength not being an issue she uses examples of smaller male soldiers to make her point? I guess she doesnt realize smaller men biologically still have far more upper body strength than women.)

Quote:Quote:

To date, all six female Marine officers who have tried the course have flunked or withdrawn due to injury.

Quote:Quote:

In focusing only on physical strength in violent situations, she said: “We diminish the importance of what are probably more important traits in soldiers: the ability to remain calm, focused, creative and quick-thinking in times of extreme duress. These are the traits that we should be measuring as we assess soldiers for combat specialties. Physical strength is important, but it shouldn’t be the most important trait that we assess, and it certainly shouldn’t become a way to filter out the Audie Murphys of our population.”

article here

In full disclosure I have never been in the Military but I don´t think it takes first hand Military experience to say that a minimum level of physical strength is necessary for combat positions which require soldiers to carry large packs/ammo/ heavy guns while walking miles day in and day out.

Below is the male soldier she cites to argue her position that the military should look the other way on strength requirements for combat positions.

Yeah, because when the shit hits the fan and there's a life or death situation, it's always women who stay calm and think quickly.

Sort of like those two women from that recent story who drove into the water and pulled out their cellphones instead of escaping.



Her entire argument is also a false dichotomy. There's no reason we should have to choose between strength and calmness/decision making under pressure. Men can do both of these things. Women can't. And that's just one reason among many that women shouldn't be soldiers.

Also note that this is exactly what critics of the female combat arms integration decision said would happen: that there would be a push to lower standards for women to enable them to pass the course. There were assurances that the standards would be keep intact, but we see here they're already making an effort to re-write the standards with women in mind.

It's fucking despicable that a bunch of women who want to play G.I. Joe Barbie are going to end up getting themselves and good male soldiers killed on account of their uncontrollable penis envy. I really don't blame them, however. The real blame I lay on our civilian and military leadership, who must have backbones made of boiled spaghetti and brains made of pig shit for breaking with thousands of years worth of history, tradition and common sense just to appease feminist pressure. Their cowardice, stupidity and lack of moral fortitude is truly appalling.

Quote:Quote:

We diminish the importance of what are probably more important traits in soldiers: the ability to remain calm, focused, creative and quick-thinking in times of extreme duress.

Yes, women are known for those traits

Quote: (08-12-2013 05:02 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Yeah, because when the shit hits the fan and there's a life or death situation, it's always women who stay calm and think quickly.

Sort of like those two women from that recent story who drove into the water and pulled out their cellphones instead of escaping.



Her entire argument is also a false dichotomy. There's no reason we should have to choose between strength and calmness/decision making under pressure. Men can do both of these things. Women can't. And that's just one reason among many that women shouldn't be soldiers.

Also note that this is exactly what critics of the female combat arms integration decision said would happen: that there would be a push to lower standards for women to enable them to pass the course. There were assurances that the standards would be keep intact, but we see here they're already making an effort to re-write the standards with women in mind.

It's fucking despicable that a bunch of women who want to play G.I. Joe Barbie are going to end up getting themselves and good male soldiers killed on account of their uncontrollable penis envy. I really don't blame them, however. The real blame I lay on our civilian and military leadership, who must have backbones made of boiled spaghetti and brains made of pig shit for breaking with thousands of years worth of history, tradition and common sense just to appease feminist pressure. Their cowardice, stupidity and lack of moral fortitude is truly appalling.

May you live forever Scorpian. I really do mean it, that last paragraph was gold, worth it own fucking weight in gold.

I won't even get started on how women can barely do anything correct because everyone on this forum knows that. What can you really ask women for? Honestly. All they can do is just create our offspring and make the occasional sandwich in our complex male society.

The second sentence in your last paragraph made me extremely angry, because of how true it was. A clear example is the Japanese, look at their history. The Japanese men were truly a example to follow and now look how they turned out. I can't even tell you how sad it makes me that a empire that great got churned inside out by a bunch of bitches with forked tongues.

Audie Leon Murphy. My dad spoke highly of him. I rented "To Hell & Back" on Netflix, the movie where he played himself in those WW2 battle scenes. I give him a big salute as well.

I think that in general, women have less brute strength and endurance than men. Though it takes a lot more than either to pass boot camp. "Smarts" can be a make or break difference.

However, I highly doubt any women would have the bravery & courage that Audie Murphy had. I mean, that man singlehandedly killed 50 or so hardened German nazi soldiers in a span of an hour. A woman would have ran the other way. To be fair, there have been instances of women as resistance fighters, but in a formal military structure, they're better suited for support roles.

The Army is going to lower standards to accommodate females.

It's funny that she mentions smaller men.

The "prototype" for an Army Ranger is 5'8" and 155 or so pounds. Leaner guys have way better endurance. Combat soldiering is about carrying heavy loads over long distances.

Anyone who has served in the military knows that "Sgt. Rock" or Arnold types do not fare so well.

Her article is a total fraud and she has no integrity.

On a similar note to the point above here in the UK they've lowered the physical, height and actual training requirements to allow for more women to be able to become firefighters, the only reason for this is to allow the service to be more "diverse". The lunatics really are in charge of the asylum in the west.

Meanwhile, a male solider is expected to be able to accomplish all of that while being physically superior to a woman.


'All animals are equal but some more equal than others'.

Quote: (08-12-2013 05:32 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

The Army is going to lower standards to accommodate females.

It's funny that she mentions smaller men.

The "prototype" for an Army Ranger is 5'8" and 155 or so pounds. Leaner guys have way better endurance. Combat soldiering is about carrying heavy loads over long distances.

Anyone who has served in the military knows that "Sgt. Rock" or Arnold types do not fare so well.

Her article is a total fraud and she has no integrity.

That is truth. The big, bodybuilder types always fell out of runs and hikes. During my physical prime for when I was training for the MARSOC assessment and selection I was about 160 lbs with a 2.5x BW deadlift and a 3 mile runtime of 19 minutes and some change.

The military prefers lean, small soldiers for a myriad of reasons. Rations, fighting holes, cover, all kinds of shit.

Lets do a study. Field a squad of exclusively female combatants, send them to a hostile combat zone, and lets see what happens.

I predict captivity and gang rape.

Of course, then we will have to send many male soldiers to rescue them due to public outrage. Many male soldiers will die in the process.

Upon return home, the women will be lauded as "heroes" for their bravery, and awarded Medals of Honor, the highest military honor there is.

Feminists rejoice that female soliders are just as good as male soldiers, citing the many highly decorated female war heroes as proof.

Quote: (08-12-2013 08:10 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

Lets do a study. Field a squad of exclusively female combatants, send them to a hostile combat zone, and lets see what happens.

I predict captivity and gang rape.

Of course, then we will have to send many male soldiers to rescue them due to public outrage. Many male soldiers will die in the process.

Upon return home, the women will be lauded as "heroes" for their bravery, and awarded Medals of Honor, the highest military honor there is.

Feminists rejoice that female soliders are just as good as male soldiers, citing the many highly decorated female war heroes as proof.

Damn.

That is exactly what would happen.

If you really want to grade them on a curve then they should be judged on their knowledge of popular culture and celebrity gossip.

Quote: (08-12-2013 08:10 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

Lets do a study. Field a squad of exclusively female combatants, send them to a hostile combat zone, and lets see what happens.

I predict captivity and gang rape.

Of course, then we will have to send many male soldiers to rescue them due to public outrage. Many male soldiers will die in the process.

Upon return home, the women will be lauded as "heroes" for their bravery, and awarded Medals of Honor, the highest military honor there is.

Feminists rejoice that female soliders are just as good as male soldiers, citing the many highly decorated female war heroes as proof.

Would be a great recruiting tool and justification for invading more oil and resource rich countries. Stand by for this in the next few years.

Quote: (08-12-2013 08:10 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

Lets do a study. Field a squad of exclusively female combatants, send them to a hostile combat zone, and lets see what happens.

I predict captivity and gang rape.

Of course, then we will have to send many male soldiers to rescue them due to public outrage. Many male soldiers will die in the process.

Upon return home, the women will be lauded as "heroes" for their bravery, and awarded Medals of Honor, the highest military honor there is.

Feminists rejoice that female soliders are just as good as male soldiers, citing the many highly decorated female war heroes as proof.

dude, that won't happen. To give you some example, only 13 medals of honor have been awarded in the past 40 years, 9 of them were done posthumously when a brave soldier sacrificed himself by throwing himself on a grenade to save other soldiers or some similar heroism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pos...recipients

It is possible women might get captured and tortured and get purple hearts I guess.

As for women wanting to serve, I really don't want to go into the military and risk getting killed for wars I don't believe in. If someone else, man or woman, wants to volunteer, they can be my guest.

Should women be admitted to the army rangers or navy seals or other elite force just because they are women even though they can't do the job physically? Of course not, but that doesn't mean we can't find a place for them in the military.

Quote: (08-12-2013 06:57 PM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:  

'All animals are equal but some more equal than others'.

Very appropriate. The pigs tie ribbons on their tails while Boxer the horse does the heavy lifting.

Any man who has served a day in his life knows that chicks don't pull their own weight in the military. This is true of any branch, combat arms, intelligence, logistics, engineers. You name it. It's merely annoying when you're in a support unit but dangerous when you're in combat arms.

Even chicks who max out their pt test (girl standards are a joke), I wouldn't trust to be able to pull or carry me to cover in a firefight. This will fail spectacularly when girls in combat units actually find themselves in firefights. When their male comrades die because they can't perform physically, it will be covered up by military brass.

Quote: (08-12-2013 09:29 PM)cool Wrote:  

Any man who has served a day in his life knows that chicks don't pull their own weight in the military. This is true of any branch, combat arms, intelligence, logistics, engineers. You name it. It's merely annoying when you're in a support unit but dangerous when you're in combat arms.

Even chicks who max out their pt test (girl standards are a joke), I wouldn't trust to be able to pull or carry me to cover in a firefight. This will fail spectacularly when girls in combat units actually find themselves in firefights. When their male comrades die because they can't perform physically, it will be covered up by military brass.

I once went to a school that had a mix of male and female marines. Whenever we had to do a movement to a range the gear the female marines were carrying quickly got spread loaded to the other males because they couldn't keep up or didn't want to. Corporal's Course was such a shit show.

Quote: (08-12-2013 09:37 PM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:  

Quote: (08-12-2013 09:29 PM)cool Wrote:  

Any man who has served a day in his life knows that chicks don't pull their own weight in the military. This is true of any branch, combat arms, intelligence, logistics, engineers. You name it. It's merely annoying when you're in a support unit but dangerous when you're in combat arms.

Even chicks who max out their pt test (girl standards are a joke), I wouldn't trust to be able to pull or carry me to cover in a firefight. This will fail spectacularly when girls in combat units actually find themselves in firefights. When their male comrades die because they can't perform physically, it will be covered up by military brass.

I once went to a school that had a mix of male and female marines. Whenever we had to do a movement to a range the gear the female marines were carrying quickly got spread loaded to the other males because they couldn't keep up or didn't want to. Corporal's Course was such a shit show.

Not to mention their ability to drag a wounded male soldier to cover. I'm 165 lbs, and in shape, and its still a pain in the ass to drag or fireman carry someone in full kit for any more than 25-50 yards.

The biggest problem is that for a female soldier to be effective she has be in a female only unit, where her size and strength matches the size of the strength of the others, only then can she come close to performing adequately as a soldier. And for the female only unit to be effective it needs to fight a female only enemy otherwise it would face a significant disadvantage in strength and wouldn't stand a chance in hand to hand combat.

The idea simply boils down to us wasting resources to develop a weapon that no enemy force will ever give us a chance to use.

Quote:Quote:

LMAO! Those are almost my exact measurements. I don't know how I'd fare in a war, but I certainly wouldn't claim that it makes strength irrelevant.

That said, my small frame often makes girls turn into bullies and start claiming out of nowhere that they are stronger than me or some kind of hamsterrific projection, and even try to prove it by wanting to arm wrestle with me. I have never lost, of course.

Quote: (08-12-2013 05:53 PM)tylerdurden1993 Wrote:  

On a similar note to the point above here in the UK they've lowered the physical, height and actual training requirements to allow for more women to be able to become firefighters, the only reason for this is to allow the service to be more "diverse". The lunatics really are in charge of the asylum in the west.

The most infuriating thing about lowering standards and accepting women, whether its in the military, fire of police forces is that (although this is quite hypothetical) it can unnecessarily cost people their lives (whether its civilians or probably even more likely their fellow force members).

The chances of some civilian losing their life, a fellow who doesn't receive the help he needs or a fellow who has to pick up slack in dire circumstances (and subsequently dies or is seriously injured) is all increased as part of social experimentation. Why doesn't that get through these peoples thick skulls, that others will almost certainly have to needlessly die so that they can 'have a go'.

Its not like they're fighting for the right to play the lottery, I'm sure most members of the board who've served in some capacity will say that its often an underpaid, overworked and under appreciated lifelong choice.

I also find interesting their lack of bio-mechanical and biochemical knowledge. A 5'5'', 110 pound man and woman simply aren't physical equals. The man could still cause problems for and dominate a larger man and certainly any woman quite easily; because of the physiology and chemistry of a man's body.

The same can't be said for even a physically imposing woman; just watch a street fight/attack video between men and women, its like watching a fox amongst newly hatched chicks.

Quote: (08-12-2013 08:10 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

Lets do a study. Field a squad of exclusively female combatants, send them to a hostile combat zone, and lets see what happens.

I predict captivity and gang rape.

Of course, then we will have to send many male soldiers to rescue them due to public outrage. Many male soldiers will die in the process.

Upon return home, the women will be lauded as "heroes" for their bravery, and awarded Medals of Honor, the highest military honor there is.

Feminists rejoice that female soliders are just as good as male soldiers, citing the many highly decorated female war heroes as proof.

Anyone remember Private Jessica Lynch?

At the start of the Iraq war the stories out were that her caravan was ambushed, and she fought off the Iraqis as long as possible until she was captured and her fellow soldiers were killed. She was then supposedly raped and tortured but gave up no information. All before she was rescued.

She was then called a hero and signed a $1,000,000 deal to write her autobiography.

If I remember correctly it was later revealed that the caravan of trucks got lost and off path because she read the maps incorrectly. They then got ambushed and she was allowed to live because she was a female. The Iraqis thought it was sad and cowardly we let women fight, so they protected her and got her to a hospital where she was treated to the best care possible until being located.

Letting women in the military is just like letting women in a steel mill or on a construction site, their utility is limited, they make the exact same job more difficult for every other man in their team because they are dead weight and can only do the easy shit, and amazingly still they get paid the same and have the same benefits. There's nothing a woman can do physically that a 14 year old boy can't do the same or better, and we wouldn't dream of letting children work in a steel mill or fight for our country.

My experience working with female Marines is half and half. Half were proficient in their job, worked hard, didnt use their pussy pass to get out of work and genuinely cared about their responsibilities. The other half were lazy, uncaring, and probably fucking a staff NCO or an officer in their shop to get out of work and be treated like the princess should believed herself to be in her head.


The coolest female in the military I knew was a medic in the army. She was always busy at her clinic during the week. On the weekends she'd call me over to her barracks room to feed me and fuck each other each stupid.

I wouldn't trust them in my infantry or directly supporting us but I think for sure if they have a proper work ethic (this is key, and rare) a woman that truly wants to help can be a fantastic pogue

I was talking to an Iraq infantry vet. He said "we need to get rid of these women [in the military]"

So I asked him why, thinking that he would state the usual reasons -- lack of strength, drama, using sex to get out of work.

He gave me a totally unexpected reason - "they're killers." He said females in the turret of a HMMWV or on guard duty were prone to lose their cool and go full auto on innocent civilians who got anywhere near, making more enemies for the USA.

In other words, no judgment, no courage in not using deadly force.

Quote:Quote:

In focusing only on physical strength in violent situations, she said: “We diminish the importance of what are probably more important traits in soldiers: the ability to remain calm, focused, creative and quick-thinking in times of extreme duress.

There already is an indicator for this - Neuropeptide Y. Doesn't matter if you can't get around the battle field (the obstacle course) in the first place.

As for her 'losing potential Audie Murphys' argument:

Quote:Quote:

World War II infantry privates had to make their way through some tough obstacle courses as part of their training and PT, so the very idea that Audie Murphy was too weak just because he was short is f'ing ridiculous. If he was too weak, there wouldn't be an Audie Murphy, they would have washed him out.

...

Precisely because he was a man, Audie Murphy had far more upper body strength per pound of muscle than a women of his height and weight would have had. The ladies wouldn't have had anywhere near his stamina, agility or physical strength. But he ALSO had brains, had a cool head and was able to think clearly. LT Murphy didn't think himself to the top of that tank or think that belt of ammunition into the feed tray and pull the charging handle; he used his muscles, which even in his shorter stature, he had more of than any woman and he had something to go with it, the ability to think clearly under fire and be focused on his mission. He was the whole package.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2013/08/ar...eless.html