Defensive Carry banner

41 - 60 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
38,083 Posts
Do you still cheer for equality when people's daughters come back in bags or are raped as prisoners of war? Or when they let their comrades down because they couldn't cut it? Because that has happened and will continue to. It's not something I cheer for.
Let me comment on that based on my own "non-combat" Air Force experience--
We guys were really concerned when the first woman came into our shop. As it turns out, technically she was as sharp and quick to learn as any of the guys, this one young lady more so than a lot of the guys. The one "deficiency" was that she was clueless about tools as the tech training did not involve much "hands-on training" that was given in the field.

In all my experience with woman in maintenance, their failure rate is no different than men's. Only one woman was a total disaster and still haunts my dreams. But thinking they could not perform as well as the men was soundly proven wrong. Perhaps not as many remained in the service as a career, percentage wise, opting to separate, get married, have kids, whatever they chose to do with their lives, but they did their duty well.

My wife and I talked about this a bit after a news report on the subject, and I told her my biggest dread in serving with women in combat would have been to have to pick up their parts if things went bad. Not that picking up parts of men would have been easy, but mentally it would have been worse with women--for me at least.

For myself, I think it should be left up to the women to prove themselves capable, not on the preconceived ideas and concepts of men. Let them succeed or fail on their own merits. Sons and daughters have been lost in every war at some level or other.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,481 Posts
I think we can all agree that combat roles are very different than any other roles in the military. I don't think women should go into combat roles unless they are able to qualify at the same level as men.

Most don't have the upper body strength or physical endurance to do it. Or, there are probably the exceptions somewhere out there, but not generally.

All other jobs should be on merit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,174 Posts
I am all for it. This will simplify the military. One PT standard. One height/weight/body mass standard.

If you pass the standard, you are in. One dress uniform. One latrine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,388 Posts
I am all for it. This will simplify the military. One PT standard. One height/weight/body mass standard.

If you pass the standard, you are in. One dress uniform. One latrine.
Hey now, don’t get too carried away on this equality thing. It’s only when it’s convenient...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
I accept this as your rhetorical question. It is a valid one. The obvious answer is that I take no joy in seeing any person subjected to the rigors of war.

I was fortunate to be raised by a very literate woman. As a senior in high school, in an effort to discourage me from enlisting in the Marine Corps, she gave me a copy of Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo. She also introduced me to an assortment of World War I poets. One, Wilfred Owen, authored the finest lines I have ever read in an anti-war poem, dripping with sardonic irony, "Dulce et decorum et pro patria mori" "It is sweet and fitting to die for the homeland". While I still enlisted, the messages she conveyed through literature were never lost on me.
I respect your stance. I too appreciate women. I really do.

Nevertheless...

Did you know that the fastest woman of all time is slower than the guy who came last in the 100-meter men's finals?

Did you know the strongest woman in the world would not qualify to enter the world's strongest man's competition, and if she did, she would come dead last?

Did you know that the FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team in a scrimmage?

Do you think the UFC should allow Amanda Nunes to fight Max Holloway or Alexander Volkanovski because they can all catch the same weight requirements?

My question is... even though we all want "equality"... is it even safe to expose a woman to a scenario where she will be forced to fight against strong, skilled, battle-hardened men who are trying to do her harm?

I like the idea of equal opportunity... but as someone said earlier... when it comes to war, wouldn't it be best to just have the best candidates in the role instead of pandering to inconsequential ideals which would probably do more harm than good?

Just my two cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,301 Posts
Do you still cheer for equality when people's daughters come back in bags or are raped as prisoners of war? Or when they let their comrades down because they couldn't cut it? Because that has happened and will continue to. It's not something I cheer for.

And this trans stuff adds mental illness to the mix. Not a good idea.
Don't think I agree with this mindset. Why is it better for men to be killed, abused, or put into situations they can't handle than for it to happen to women? Happens to men in the military all the time, and with plenty of mental illness to go around too.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
There might be a spot in the military for transgenders. Interrogators. They would probably make darn good interrogators. Can you imagine the look on Abdul's face after he's been cuffed to a chair in a small room for about 4 hours and some huge hairy guy in a dress and high heels walks in with a tape recorder and a jar of Vaseline? He'll sing like a canary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,703 Posts
Don't think I agree with this mindset. Why is it better for men to be killed, abused, or put into situations they can't handle than for it to happen to women? Happens to men in the military all the time, and with plenty of mental illness to go around too.
That is the progressive "victimized" view of the military, which I reject. The job of a military warrior is not to be killed, abused, or put into situations they can't handle. To paraphrase Patton, it is the job of a military warrior to do all that to the other poor SOBs we're fighting.

And it is not only better for men to go in harm's way than women, that has been our gender's anthropological and social role since humans have been on Earth. We are better at being warriors. It is as God intended. I don't buy into the progressive notion of the "new" semi-neutered male and the "new" superwoman.

That doesn't mean that some women can't have important roles in combat. But the brunt will always fall on men.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,128 Posts
I'm okay with it if they are held to and perform at the same standards as the rest of us. As long as they are there when I need them and don't try to hit on me then I don't really care. We were/are all there to do a job and do it well. This goes for females, blacks, other nationalities and sexual orientation. In the military we should all see green.

I remember when I was in basic training our company (Alpha Co. 10th MP Battalion) had only 9 women in it. Bravo company was about 50% women. Our ladies trained (ran) in fatigues and combat boots while Bravo Company all wore gym shorts and running shoes. We should never lower our training standards to accommodate others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,388 Posts
I respect your stance. I too appreciate women. I really do.

Nevertheless...

Did you know that the fastest woman of all time is slower than the guy who came last in the 100-meter men's finals?

Did you know the strongest woman in the world would not qualify to enter the world's strongest man's competition, and if she did, she would come dead last?

Did you know that the FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team in a scrimmage?

Do you think the UFC should allow Amanda Nunes to fight Max Holloway or Alexander Volkanovski because they can all catch the same weight requirements?

My question is... even though we all want "equality"... is it even safe to expose a woman to a scenario where she will be forced to fight against strong, skilled, battle-hardened men who are trying to do her harm?

I like the idea of equal opportunity... but as someone said earlier... when it comes to war, wouldn't it be best to just have the best candidates in the role instead of pandering to inconsequential ideals which would probably do more harm than good?

Just my two cents.
Women’s sports are being destroyed by all the equality/transgender etc people. Look at Fallon Fox in the UFC. Boys in school who suck at sports are suddenly having an identity crisis so they can compete as girls, where they can go break records with ease. Girls can not compete in girls sports simply because they are girls.


I'm okay with it if they are held to and perform at the same standards as the rest of us. As long as they are there when I need them and don't try to hit on me then I don't really care. We were/are all there to do a job and do it well. This goes for females, blacks, other nationalities and sexual orientation. In the military we should all see green.

I remember when I was in basic training our company (Alpha Co. 10th MP Battalion) had only 9 women in it. Bravo company was about 50% women. Our ladies trained (ran) in fatigues and combat boots while Bravo Company all wore gym shorts and running shoes. We should never lower our training standards to accommodate others.
If women were ever held to the same standard, it would be the new, lowered, err umm, excuse me, “updated” standards.

People will say how the women, and trannys that would be filling these roles make up such a small portion of the billets that it’s not a big issue, but what gets missed is how the changes affect the standard that everyone else is held to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,301 Posts
That is the progressive "victimized" view of the military, which I reject. The job of a military warrior is not to be killed, abused, or put into situations they can't handle. To paraphrase Patton, it is the job of a military warrior to do all that to the other poor SOBs we're fighting.

And it is not only better for men to go in harm's way than women, that has been our gender's anthropological and social role since humans have been on Earth. We are better at being warriors. It is as God intended. I don't buy into the progressive notion of the "new" semi-neutered male and the "new" superwoman.

That doesn't mean that some women can't have important roles in combat. But the brunt will always fall on men.
Well, you're the one who pointed out how terrible it is if "people's daughters come home in bags". I agree, and point out that it's no better for their sons to do so.

As for social roles and what God intended, I don't buy it. Go back far enough, and the roles had warrior men good for nothing but killing; defeated surviving men living as slaves that did most of the work; and women as breeding stock and domestic servants claimed by the conqueror. Pretty confident those "natural roles" are not God's intent.

Sure, on average, men and women are better at different things and have different motives. Probably there will always be more male soldiers and more female nurses. But there are some women who can fight better than the average man, some men who make better nurses than the average woman, and when they show up they should be utilized for what they can do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
But there are some women who can fight better than the average man
That's not the point though... do you think there is any woman in the world who can fight better than the average SOLDIER? We're not talking about the average man here. We're talking about the average soldier. Fit, athletic men who are trained to kill. Elite male athletes have higher oxygen-carrying capacity than women, which allows them to reach their maximum training peak earlier.

Male athletes have longer and larger bones, which provide a clear mechanical advantage over female athletes. The increased articular surface and larger structure of male bones provide them with greater leverage and a wider frame on which to support muscle.

Similarly, the ligaments of female athletes are generally more lax and fragile than those of their male counterparts. This gives male athletes an advantage in sports that involve throwing, kicking, and hitting, and explains the higher incidence of musculoskeletal injuries among female athletes.

Male athletes have a higher ratio of muscle mass to body weight, which allows for greater speed and acceleration. This explains why female speed records in running and swimming are consistently 10 percent slower than men's, and why, on average, they have two-thirds of the strength of men.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,573 Posts
For anyone who actually has experienced the lessening of critical skills for the sake of "equality" this discussion is mute.
I was a city fireman when we "needed" more women and the physical standards were lowered to accommodate this political correctness. We were no longer required to be able to lift a 200 pound person and carry them 30 yards.
The need for this critical skill did not go away just the ability of fireman to actually be able to do it.
So, what happened with unconscious or injured public or fellow fireman? Well, you had to find another fireman who could do it which caused the patient delay and put more work on firefighters who could do it.
Remember that lowering the standards also gave us more weaker men as well not just weaker women. I left when the margin of safety went away and the job became more dangerous so politicians could score points.

I saw the exact same thing happen in wildland firefighting and law enforcement. We are less protected for the sake of PC. You may not like the truth but, it doesn't change the truth.

I would not work with someone so mentally unstable as to believe they were a woman when they were born a man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,342 Posts
There might be a spot in the military for transgenders. Interrogators. They would probably make darn good interrogators. Can you imagine the look on Abdul's face after he's been cuffed to a chair in a small room for about 4 hours and some huge hairy guy in a dress and high heels walks in with a tape recorder and a jar of Vaseline? He'll sing like a canary.
To Abdul, it wouldn't look much different than the real women in his homeland anyway. There is a reason why boys and goats are not safe in those countries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,342 Posts
What idiot thought up sending women into space was really something special (or men for that matter), when dogs and monkeys were first?
Lol, I was thinking the same thing last night! Hard to brag about something that a dog did 20 years earlier.

edit to add: Actually 25 year difference from a dog in space before a woman broke the Purina ceiling and did the same thing. The Soviets gave the dogmonaut Laika a solo mission however.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,388 Posts
Well, you're the one who pointed out how terrible it is if "people's daughters come home in bags". I agree, and point out that it's no better for their sons to do so.

As for social roles and what God intended, I don't buy it. Go back far enough, and the roles had warrior men good for nothing but killing; defeated surviving men living as slaves that did most of the work; and women as breeding stock and domestic servants claimed by the conqueror. Pretty confident those "natural roles" are not God's intent.

Sure, on average, men and women are better at different things and have different motives. Probably there will always be more male soldiers and more female nurses. But there are some women who can fight better than the average man, some men who make better nurses than the average woman, and when they show up they should be utilized for what they can do.
to the bold- you don’t have to buy it. Biology and psychology have already settled it.
To the underlined- how many below average men are we going to allow into the ranks, resulting in the new average being lower, possibly making it even more difficult for women due to the increase in newly eligible people
For anyone who actually has experienced the lessening of critical skills for the sake of "equality" this discussion is mute.
I was a city fireman when we "needed" more women and the physical standards were lowered to accommodate this political correctness. We were no longer required to be able to lift a 200 pound person and carry them 30 yards.
The need for this critical skill did not go away just the ability of fireman to actually be able to do it.
So, what happened with unconscious or injured public or fellow fireman? Well, you had to find another fireman who could do it which caused the patient delay and put more work on firefighters who could do it.
Remember that lowering the standards also gave us more weaker men as well not just weaker women. I left when the margin of safety went away and the job became more dangerous so politicians could score points.

I saw the exact same thing happen in wildland firefighting and law enforcement. We are less protected for the sake of PC. You may not like the truth but, it doesn't change the truth.

I would not work with someone so mentally unstable as to believe they were a woman when they were born a man.
yep! When it actually comes time to do the job, all that equality stuff goes out the window. Your life depends on everyone’s abilities, not being inclusive or whatever.
 
41 - 60 of 76 Posts
Top