Eh, we live in a meritocracy so if they can meet the standards that males have to pass, then by all means they should be allowed to join. If a disproportionate amount of females fail to the meet the requirements however, it isn't sexist, it's just tough shit. Lives are more important than some bullshit arbitrary quotas.

Quote from: Luciana on May 30, 2015, 09:56:52 PM

Quote from: challengerX on May 30, 2015, 09:32:53 PM

Quote from: Luciana on May 30, 2015, 09:31:22 PM

Quote from: challengerX on May 30, 2015, 09:18:09 PM

Nope. I would not trust a woman on the front lines of any war. There's nothing sexist about it.

There is everything sexist about it without providing some logic behind it.

"I can't trust black people on the front lines of any war. There's nothing racist about it."

Nothing's wrong with black folks though. I'm not being racist.

Women don't have the killer instinct, stamina, physical and mental strength etc.

I'm well aware women aren't as physical strong as males. That's just common sense and biology.

And that's extremely important if you need to carry your buddy out of the shit so he doesn't get captured.

Quote

But killer instinct and mental strength? You're sounding little sexist. You say this like a woman can't fight or kill as like a man, but they easily can.

LOL

Sorry, but no. That's how this species is. The females would stay back and the males would go out and kill for food. Now that we're a little more civilized, a lot of males don't really have that killer instinct anymore and females sure as hell aren't tough enough to be on the frontline.

Quote

Lots of women could easily kick anyone's asses here. Stop being so ignorant, mang.

Because everybody here is a fucking dweeb excluding like 3 or 4 people.

Kicking someone's ass =/= Killing someone

Taking a life is not easy. It's even less easy for a female. I don't trust a female to not be tricked by a little kid crying then turning out to have a grenade because her motherly instincts kick in and she let her guard down.

"I don't trust a female to not be tricked by a little kid crying then turning out to have a grenade because her motherly instincts kick in and she let her guard down."

That's the shittiest example you could've given, conisering the fact that the military is male dominated already and people still fall for it all the time.

Do not lower or make separate standards for them. There are women tough enough to endure and should have every right to fight alongside brothers.

Quote from: Sandtrap on May 31, 2015, 11:04:49 AM

Quote from: challengerX on May 31, 2015, 06:18:53 AM

Quote from: Luciana on May 30, 2015, 09:56:52 PM

Quote from: challengerX on May 30, 2015, 09:32:53 PM

Quote from: Luciana on May 30, 2015, 09:31:22 PM

Quote from: challengerX on May 30, 2015, 09:18:09 PM

Nope. I would not trust a woman on the front lines of any war. There's nothing sexist about it.

There is everything sexist about it without providing some logic behind it.

"I can't trust black people on the front lines of any war. There's nothing racist about it."

Nothing's wrong with black folks though. I'm not being racist.

Women don't have the killer instinct, stamina, physical and mental strength etc.

I'm well aware women aren't as physical strong as males. That's just common sense and biology.

And that's extremely important if you need to carry your buddy out of the shit so he doesn't get captured.

Quote

But killer instinct and mental strength? You're sounding little sexist. You say this like a woman can't fight or kill as like a man, but they easily can.

LOL

Sorry, but no. That's how this species is. The females would stay back and the males would go out and kill for food. Now that we're a little more civilized, a lot of males don't really have that killer instinct anymore and females sure as hell aren't tough enough to be on the frontline.

Quote

Lots of women could easily kick anyone's asses here. Stop being so ignorant, mang.

Because everybody here is a fucking dweeb excluding like 3 or 4 people.

Kicking someone's ass =/= Killing someone

Taking a life is not easy. It's even less easy for a female. I don't trust a female to not be tricked by a little kid crying then turning out to have a grenade because her motherly instincts kick in and she let her guard down.

"I don't trust a female to not be tricked by a little kid crying then turning out to have a grenade because her motherly instincts kick in and she let her guard down."

That's the shittiest example you could've given, conisering the fact that the military is male dominated already and people still fall for it all the time.

A woman would fall for it easier than a man.

That's one example out of hundreds where women come up short, apart from how physically inferior they are.

Most likely, yes. But, I did just think of something. Suppose that there are women that could qualify for the physical standard of military. How would you feel about if if they were organized all together. As in, not mixed units of men and women, but cohesive units, men and men, women and women?

You can't actually really say that some of them aren't fighters, because some of them have to be. For example, Kurdish soldiers. In the first and second world wars, there were women fighters. On the frontier plains of the US and Canada, there were women fighters.

They're a rarity. And, although they may be less apt at physical gritty things then guys, it does not excuse the fact that some of them possess fighting ability. And some of them, especially, really, really don't fuck around, as much as guys.

Hot damn this may be the stupidest shit I've ever read in my entire life.

Women were typically the caretakers because, in the past, the necessary tools to care for an infant child were not at hand. Breastfeeding one's child and taking care of them by hand was all but absolutely required, and so the men would hunt in order to gather food. This was mostly necessary because BEFORE THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION there was no way to sustain food. In societies such as African and North Asian nomadic and tribal styles of life, egalitarian and matriarchal attitudes were much more common. Tribes such as the Xiongnu and Mongols typically gave women fairly equal treatment within their societies because each gender was seen as being fairly equal.

Yes, men did usually keep more official positions (and women were given names such as 'Sorqaqtani' or 'Oghul-qaimish' which showed that men were typically much more desirable), though this was based entirely on the fact that, during this time, pure physical strength and brawniness was a key factor in how good you were, and meritocracy-based militaristic societies such as the mongolians put a very heavy focus on how good you were at killing things.

Saying that it's less easy for a woman to kill someone is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. 'Maternal instinct' is just as common for someone to say as 'parental instinct'. Do you really think it's any more likely for a father to kill their son than for a mother to kill their son? Because I could link you just as many articles citing the second one as I could citing the first. It's insulting to women because you're spouting "redpill" bullshit about women being driven by emotions whilst men are driven by logic, and it's insulting to men because it's insinuating that anyone borne male would have a more difficult time connecting with their child or being a caretaker for the household.

Men are, on average and at high, near-olympic-levels, more athletic than women, yes. That can't be disputed as it's simple fact. Luckily, military life doesn't need olympic sprinters or pole-vaulters, so I don't think those statistics have any weight on whether or not a woman can be in the military. Saying that a woman is less-likely to kill or more likely to act on empathy or emotions is just blatant sexism that isn't supported by any facts save for douchey men that either don't know any women or only do so biblically.

TL;DR: You're a sexist piece of shit that basically knows nothing about how people in general work. Plenty of females throughout history have proved just as effective as men at killing, the military shouldn't be based on your ability to kill, and the fact that men have a higher "peak" for physical effectiveness has no bearing on whether or not women can be just as effective from a military standpoint. Lionesses are the typical hunters in lion prides, but I'd trust a lion with a mane to kill me just as easily.

Quote from: Sandtrap on May 31, 2015, 11:54:35 AM

Quote from: challengerX on May 31, 2015, 11:46:35 AM

Quote from: Sandtrap on May 31, 2015, 11:37:28 AM

Quote from: challengerX on May 31, 2015, 11:12:00 AM

Quote from: Sandtrap on May 31, 2015, 11:04:49 AM

Quote from: challengerX on May 31, 2015, 06:18:53 AM

Quote from: Luciana on May 30, 2015, 09:56:52 PM

Quote from: challengerX on May 30, 2015, 09:32:53 PM

Quote from: Luciana on May 30, 2015, 09:31:22 PM

Quote from: challengerX on May 30, 2015, 09:18:09 PM

Nope. I would not trust a woman on the front lines of any war. There's nothing sexist about it.

There is everything sexist about it without providing some logic behind it.

"I can't trust black people on the front lines of any war. There's nothing racist about it."

Nothing's wrong with black folks though. I'm not being racist.

Women don't have the killer instinct, stamina, physical and mental strength etc.

I'm well aware women aren't as physical strong as males. That's just common sense and biology.

And that's extremely important if you need to carry your buddy out of the shit so he doesn't get captured.

Quote

But killer instinct and mental strength? You're sounding little sexist. You say this like a woman can't fight or kill as like a man, but they easily can.

LOL

Sorry, but no. That's how this species is. The females would stay back and the males would go out and kill for food. Now that we're a little more civilized, a lot of males don't really have that killer instinct anymore and females sure as hell aren't tough enough to be on the frontline.

Quote

Lots of women could easily kick anyone's asses here. Stop being so ignorant, mang.

Because everybody here is a fucking dweeb excluding like 3 or 4 people.

Kicking someone's ass =/= Killing someone

Taking a life is not easy. It's even less easy for a female. I don't trust a female to not be tricked by a little kid crying then turning out to have a grenade because her motherly instincts kick in and she let her guard down.

"I don't trust a female to not be tricked by a little kid crying then turning out to have a grenade because her motherly instincts kick in and she let her guard down."

That's the shittiest example you could've given, conisering the fact that the military is male dominated already and people still fall for it all the time.

A woman would fall for it easier than a man.

That's one example out of hundreds where women come up short, apart from how physically inferior they are.

Most likely, yes. But, I did just think of something. Suppose that there are women that could qualify for the physical standard of military. How would you feel about if if they were organized all together. As in, not mixed units of men and women, but cohesive units, men and men, women and women?

You can't actually really say that some of them aren't fighters, because some of them have to be. For example, Kurdish soldiers. In the first and second world wars, there were women fighters. On the frontier plains of the US and Canada, there were women fighters.

They're a rarity. And, although they may be less apt at physical gritty things then guys, it does not excuse the fact that some of them possess fighting ability. And some of them, especially, really, really don't fuck around, as much as guys.

It's such a rarity I wouldn't have women on the frontline.

Well, tough shit partner!

It's not your call to make. You wouldn't have them on the frontlines. But history says otherwise despite the supposed rarity of good women fighters. And the people in charge who are still all up and deciding about things. It's, like, your opinion man.

And you know what we do with opinions?

Spoiler

"Well it's not your decision LOL so it doesn't matter if I'm wrong"

Sick rebuttal. Whether or not it's anybody's decision here is irrelevant. We're discussing whether it's a good idea or not.

In my opinion, it isn't. Judging from the statistics in the OP, it isn't. Women can't cope. Deal with it.

Isn't my place to care chally. I don't have to deal with it because I don't live in a country that enjoys sending troops into the meat grinder at such a phenominal rate. In my own opinion the current way the military is used is rather unjust, and if you take a look at the history of it, rather poorly.

However, if somebody wants to sign up, and can meet the standards? Who am I, or you, to stop them?

Regardless of either of our opinions, things will move onwards anyway. And, I'll make a wager with you. At some point, women will show up on the front lines. At which point, I expect a thread from you bitching about it so I can call you an old outdated dinosaur.

And if they don't? You can send me a pair of sunglasses in the mail.

I'm personally opposed to women serving on the front-line, for both the sake of unit cohesion in the army and the disproportionate  danger women would face against our enemies.

Or you could get a grip and realize they have no place on the frontline.

Na. Not my call to make. Not my decision to judge. And it's not my field to take much of interest in. I'm never going to vote on a decision that explicity states, "should women be allowed on the front lines?"

After all this is just banter. I'm not required to get a grip. If somebody wants to do something, you won't stop them. If a woman wants to serve and can meet the manly man standard?

Well, there you have it. Fair and square.

You know I was gonna type out, like, a whole response, but then I realized I'd be typing "lmao" to half your points so I didn't bother.