# Women in the military



## Tranhuviya (Sep 8, 2016)

What is the Kiwi opinion on the issue of women in our armed forces, and more specifically, women on the frontlines?


----------



## Major Asshole (Sep 8, 2016)

Mine is simply that if a woman wants to serve on the front line, she should be free to do so, given that she follows the same standard protocol as a man would.


----------



## Jan_Hus (Sep 8, 2016)

Don't particularly care one way or another.


----------



## Inquisitor_BadAss (Sep 8, 2016)

As long as someone can meet the standards set then it's all good.


----------



## Takayuki Yagami (Sep 8, 2016)

If they can pass the exact same hurdles that a man would have without the requirements being lowered(which I think is the point of concern), sure. The issue is that the current climate may force the issue in a way that will cause terrible results. Military work theoretically requires high levels of skill and cohesion to make sure people don't fuck up and die. If there's even an illusion that they don't belong in their position; then people are going to be exposed to uneeded risk. At least, that would be my fear.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 8, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> What is the Kiwi opinion on the issue of women in our armed forces, and more specifically, women on the frontlines?



I don't want to see soldiers, women or otherwise, die for bullshit political correctness.  Women are also more likely to be treated extremely horribly if captured.

But if they can meet the same standards, they should be allowed to serve.  Lowering standards either just for them or across the board will get people killed, though.


----------



## Some JERK (Sep 8, 2016)

As long as they can pass basic training and AIT for combat jobs, and of course, as long as they don't serve in mixed-gendered units.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Sep 8, 2016)

The number of women who are even close to being as capable as the average man, let alone the average soldier on the front lines, is minuscule. Women are not as strong as men, or as fast, and do not have the same spatial awareness. Letting women into combat roles in the military _is _going to lower standards and will just be an all around catastrophe.


----------



## ScrewTheRules (Sep 8, 2016)

I think you guys are seriously overestimating the requirements for military service. FYI, at 16 years old (not even legally old enough to serve as a woman), I could meet the naval fitness requirements without too much trouble, which I proved in the middle of the 6th form common room when me friend questioned whether I could really do 50 sit ups in 2 minutes. When my stepmom was in the RNR she met every fitness criteria at the men's level. Other than special ops and the Royal Marines, which the vast majority of men cannot meet, the requirements for the military aren't all that high. It's just that the denzions of this forum are so fat and lazy that it seems like a huge challenge.
The concern that most people bring up is, as @AnOminous said, the way women would be treated if captured, but given that Al Quaida (sp?) aren't exactly following the Geneva Convention they aren't actually that much safer in non-combat positions, and aren't going to be treated any better for being medics. Plus, I should really hope the military has more sense that to admit people who don't understand the potential risks of serving, and if somebody wants to get themselves blown up for queen and country then I don't think sex/gender should be a valid reason to stop them.
As for @Corypheus 's concern about cohesion, that could be used against literally anything else. Hell, it has been! It was the argument about racial integration and the repeal of DADT in the US, and for permitting gay people to serve openly over here. And I will say the same thing about this as I would about those - if somebody is so butthurt about there being a women on the front line that they fuck up, then that is on them, not the woman. Last I checked the only positions currently barred to women in the Royal Navy are submarines, recon, and the Royal Marines, and funnily enough the Navy did not collapse when the Royal Navy and Women's Royal Navy were merged, despite the fact that we do indeed put men and women aboard the same warships. There is minor differences in fitness criteria for men and women - women need 10 less push-up and 10 less sit-up in 2 minutes, and get an extra 2 minutes on the 1.5 mile run - but it isn't as much as you'd think, and you'd be surprised how many women can meet the men's requirement. As I said, it really isn't all that high.

TL;DR: every commonly used argument for not letting women into combat is bullshit, and can be easily proven thus by the fact we've been unofficially letting women into combat since Lord knows when. It's worked out just fine for the Israelis, and while OFFICIALLY, every position in the Royal Navy baring the Marines is non-combat, in practice every position in the Royal Navy is combat, and funnily enough teh wimmins have not yet burnt all of out navel vessels to soot.


----------



## millais (Sep 8, 2016)

Conscription is bad, but so long as it exists, women shouldn't get a free pass.


----------



## Enclave Supremacy (Sep 8, 2016)

Ideally, I wouldn't mind if anyone can pass the tests. However, I pay for the military with my taxes and I want it running at peak-efficiency for my money. If introducing women into the group will diminish efficiency, especially if it's just being done for political expediency, then no.

Irrespective of both, there's far more pressing concerns in the military than spending money on this issue, it's purely for scoring political points so it can fuck off.


----------



## Oh Long Johnson (Sep 8, 2016)

All for it, myself. 

That said, military service's appeal to your average American woman is usually viewed optimistically. The subject of draft registration usually bears this observation out.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 8, 2016)

millais said:


> Conscription is bad, but so long as it exists, women shouldn't get a free pass.



It doesn't exist in the U.S., unlike Israel, where having compulsory service for both sexes has not caused any disasters, and unlike the U.S., Israel faces existential threats right across every border it has.

People conscripted should be given assignments they're actually suited for and not everyone is suited for combat.


----------



## Lachlan Hunter McIntyre (Sep 10, 2016)

There's also the issue of 'revenge anger' or something to that effect. When women on the front lines get killed in the line of duty, the men have a tendency to go let their revenge emotions gain control of them and try to charge the enemy to retaliate. Forgetting protocol. It's been shown to happen fairly frequently in militaries where women serve in the front lines. If we can teach male soldiers not to do something stupid because a female soldier gets killed, then it shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 10, 2016)

Harakudoshi said:


> There's also the issue of 'revenge anger' or something to that effect. When women on the front lines get killed in the line of duty, the men have a tendency to go let their revenge emotions gain control of them and try to charge the enemy to retaliate. Forgetting protocol. It's been shown to happen fairly frequently in militaries where women serve in the front lines. If we can teach male soldiers not to do something stupid because a female soldier gets killed, then it shouldn't be an issue.



The other issue is something similar.  When women are captured or otherwise threatened, men tend to let their protective impulses take over and, similarly, do things that are not strategically valid.

My opinion remains the same, though, that we should look to countries who have actually done things like this successfully, like Israel, and emulate how they have dealt with these emotional issues.

It's a fairly simple logical issue that if you had two identical national powers, but one of them refused to use females for any military purposes, and the other utilized them with any degree of efficiency at all, that the one where all the population, including the women, had the ability to fight, the latter nation would win.


----------



## Ravenor (Sep 10, 2016)

I'm all in favor of having women serving in full combat roll's, what I don't like the idea of is giving them special requirements for fitness and such, having said that I'm not really aware of that happening at least in the UK and most of the women in the British army tend towards the officer corps anyway (from my experience).



AnOminous said:


> People conscripted should be given assignments they're actually suited for and not everyone is suited for combat.



That's a interesting issue that's always came about with conscription, back in WW2 when we lost a good chunk of our army and equipment at Dunkirk and conscription kicked into high gear there was some talk about how to use the recruited men correctly, I think it was around that time the phrase was coined "_Every Man is a Infantryman_"  the sentiment was every man in uniform should be capable of using a rifle and understanding orders after that everything is a specialism - but there was some effort made to match your skill's even if they were not considered professional at the time to the kind of position you'd be in during your service, i.e. if you woked in a shipping company you where put into logistics, if you where a butcher you where in the Catering Corps, Photographer you where placed with signals etc etc.

The thing is in the modern western world if your conscripting people you are already fighting a war you should have given up long ago, at least that's the current thinking about the issue. There is a a term I think it's Wartime Weariness, that describes the modern civilian mindset to a fault - that being we are so used to a smackdown quick victory over a enemy if a war drags on it will be unpopular especially when a enemy is hard to understand from a operational point of view, and this is something we are seeing more and more in the populations mind.

To a civilian IED's and Militias are understood through a idea that they work like a conventional army, this isn't the case as anyone who's been to war in the last 15 years can tell you it's not that simple and they wish it was, the public while showing support for the guy's in uniform for the most part are fed up with seeing kids come home missing rather important bit's and the media saying X number of people where killed at a wedding etc, they are expecting a big dramatic strike that will end it all in short order and we can go back to business as usual.


----------



## WW 635 (Sep 10, 2016)

Women are and have been on the frontline of modern wars for decades now. Wouldn't need to be that way if modern men weren't being such pussies and stepped the fuck up to fight.


----------



## DNJACK (Sep 10, 2016)

All the great modern men now fight internet wars, where it really matters.


----------



## Pepsi-Cola (Sep 10, 2016)

If they can meet the standards, sure. But if you have to give them easier training, that's a good way to get people killed.


----------



## WW 635 (Sep 11, 2016)

DNJACK said:


> All the great modern men now fight internet wars, where it really matters.


Ah, yes, I forgot about the great ISIS Twitter account hack and gaying battle of 2016. Well fought, men, well fought indeed.


----------



## ScrewTheRules (Sep 27, 2016)

Innocuous Banter said:


> People will change their minds about women in combat roles when the U.S. gets an ISIS rape video.



1. This entire argument is based on the belief that women need somebody else to determine what risks they should and shouldn't take with their own safety, and are themselves incapable of understanding the risks of active service - a 'we must protect women from freedom of choice' argument. If I have to explain to you why this is sexist I will straight-up pimp-smack you through the internet I will make it possible.
2. You are aware that women are just as likely to be captured in non-combat roles as combat roles, right? ISIS don't give two fucks about the Geneva convention. The only way this argument counts is if you're arguing not to let women serve in any capacity, and given how severely the male death toll in WWI impacted the British economy I think it's pretty safe to say that's a bad idea.
3. ISIS are already raping left right and centre. People know this. People don't give a shit because it's happening to somebody else. If you only care about protecting white American women who can simply choose not to go to war then I shouldn't need to explain why you're a cunt.



Innocuous Banter said:


> There's also the problem of piss stops. You think women will just piss themselves while on a convoy



1. It's called a she-wee, they aren't expensive. Failing that you can cut the end off a freaking bottle.
2. How often do you think women piss? They don't need to pee every five minutes; they don't need to pee any more than a man does.
3. You are aware that men pee too, right? In my Dad's case it really is every five minutes, and he managed military service just fine.



Innocuous Banter said:


> Plus there's the problem with men naturally wanting to protect the opposite sex. That's the kind of shit that gets people killed.


1. No they don't. Men don't 'naturally' want to protect women any more than they want to protect other men. It's beaten into them as children and it can just as easily be beaten out.
2. You don't hear about bodyguards abandoning a client to protect th  female neighbour, do you? Or nightclub bouncers letting a guy get beat to shit because they were protecting a woman from a creep. Fuck, I've never heard of bouncers protecting women from creeps, period. You are literally holding trained soldiers to a lower standard than the guy who stops underage kids getting drunk.
3. "We can let women in combat because men might do something dumb"
"We can't let women drive because men might not pay attention to the road"
"We can't let women out without a burka because men might rape them"
4. No, seriously. This entire argument is trying to make women responsible for the actions of men. This is not only offensive to men, since it implies they can't be sensible, rational people on their own, but is EXTREMELY dangerous to women. If I have to explain how I will pimp-smack you twice.



Innocuous Banter said:


> Oh yeah, pregnancy is a problem too


1. It's called birth-controll. You should try making it easily and readily available.
2. Women are just as easily capable of becoming pregnant in non-combat roles as combat roles.
3. This was literally the argument for not allowing women _to have jobs._
4. We shouldn't let men into the military; they can get like, testicular cancer and shit.


----------



## Ntwadumela (Sep 27, 2016)

Certain events in history have proven that women can do just as well in war as men even if most of them are weaker than men. Need I remind you of Mademoiselle Jeanne D'Arc for example?

Though, also, you don't see bodybuilders serving in the military. It's more to do with the individual and not necessarily gender.


----------



## OwO What's This? (Oct 2, 2016)

ScrewTheRules said:


> 1. No they don't. Men don't 'naturally' want to protect women any more than they want to protect other men. It's beaten into them as children and it can just as easily be beaten out.


Oh, but they _definitely_ do, it's just completely moot since the military has a 'no man left behind' mentality in the first place.


----------



## AlanRickmanIsDead (Oct 2, 2016)

OwOwhatsthis said:


> Oh, but they _definitely_ do, it's just completely moot since the military has a 'no man left behind' mentality in the first place.


"No man left behind" doesn't include women.


----------



## OwO What's This? (Oct 2, 2016)

AlanRickmanIsDead said:


> "No man left behind" doesn't include women.


Shit, you're right. The patriarchy strikes again...


----------



## AN/ALR56 (Oct 2, 2016)

This equal rights shit will stop when American women get raped and the video leaks out.
America went apeshit when like, 40 men died in Fallujah, can you imagine when 10 women get captured and raped on liveleak.
Although thankfully most of them won't pass the physical tests, unless for political reasons they are lowered, which sadly has a good chance of happening.


----------



## OwO What's This? (Oct 2, 2016)

AN/ALR-56 said:


> This equal rights shit will stop when American women get raped and the video leaks out.
> America went apeshit when like, 40 men died in Fallujah, can you imagine when 10 women get captured and raped on liveleak.
> Although thankfully most of them won't pass the physical tests, unless for political reasons they are lowered, which sadly has a good chance of happening.


The physical requirements you need to be on the front lines pale in comparison to the discipline and fortitude that's expected of you.

We're all well aware women don't have the upper body strength that men do. But that's nowhere near the most important factor. Of course, it's all people seem to talk about.


----------



## AN/ALR56 (Oct 2, 2016)

OwOwhatsthis said:


> The physical requirements you need to be on the front lines pale in comparison to the discipline and fortitude that's expected of you.
> 
> We're all well aware women don't have the upper body strength that men do. But that's nowhere near the most important factor. Of course, it's all people seem to talk about.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units


> "The Marines created a battalion of 100 female and 300 male volunteers. During the past year, they trained in North Carolina and California, taking part in realistic combat exercises.
> 
> "All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed gender units across the board. The males were more accurate hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries.
> 
> "The Marine study says its main focus is maximum combat effectiveness, because it means fewer casualties. The Marines have not said whether the study's results will lead them to ask for a waiver that bars women from ground combat jobs.


----------



## OwO What's This? (Oct 2, 2016)

That study literally means nothing and doesn't surprise me in the slightest. They took volunteers, not women who met the standards required for these ground combat jobs.

Yes, of course on average more men will meet the standard than women. A-doy.


----------



## AN/ALR56 (Oct 2, 2016)

OwOwhatsthis said:


> That study literally means nothing and doesn't surprise me in the slightest. They took volunteers, not women who met the standards required for these ground combat jobs.
> 
> Yes, of course on average more men will meet the standard than women. A-doy.


So, a marine corps study is not valid?
Are you for real?
The us armed forces don't draft, they use volunteers, and the women passed the entrance tests.


----------



## OwO What's This? (Oct 2, 2016)

AN/ALR-56 said:


> So, a marine corps study is not valid?
> Are you for real?
> The us armed forces don't draft, they use volunteers, and the women passed the entrance tests.


Let me rephrase then: It means nothing in the sense that it doesn't prove what you're trying to argue.


----------



## AN/ALR56 (Oct 2, 2016)

OwOwhatsthis said:


> Let me rephrase then: It means nothing in the sense that it doesn't prove what you're trying to argue.


Yes, you are right, strength is not the only thing that is important, but on the front lines it can mean life or death.
Women on the front lines is a waste of their other resources since strength is a very important thing in combat, they can be and have been great at leadership roles and other immense responsibilities like logistics and communications.


----------



## OwO What's This? (Oct 2, 2016)

AN/ALR-56 said:


> Yes, you are right, strength is not the only thing that is important, but on the front lines it can mean life or death.
> Women on the front lines is a waste of their other resources since strength is a very important thing in combat, they can be and have been great at leadership roles and other immense responsibilities like logistics and communications.


This is about women who WANT to be on the front lines. Hold them to the same standards as men, that is only fair since it's our safety we're talking about.

Stopping them on the basis of possible public outcry from the consequences of them being captured is just... reaching.


----------



## AN/ALR56 (Oct 2, 2016)

OwOwhatsthis said:


> This is about women who WANT to be on the front lines. Hold them to the same standards as men, that is only fair since it's our safety we're talking about.
> 
> Stopping them on the basis of possible public outcry from the consequences of them being captured is just... reaching.


I think the media and the public are oversensitive as hell.
After years of media brainwashing via patriotic propaganda disguised a movies showing how great the us military is, they don't expect losses.
It's quite real that there is a bias in our society towards "protecting the women", like it or not people will just react this way.
And yes if they pass the tests they have every right to serve, what I fear is that some political lobby tries to force a lower standard.


----------



## tarni (Oct 13, 2016)

Pepsi-Cola said:


> If they can meet the standards, sure. But if you have to give them easier training, that's a good way to get people killed.



I think a motivated and fit woman will beat the modern male McSoldier soon enough

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/0...ry-obesity-rates-rise-for-us-service-members/


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 13, 2016)

tarni said:


> I think a motivated and fit woman will beat the modern male McSoldier soon enough
> 
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/0...ry-obesity-rates-rise-for-us-service-members/



I don't think you'd see this rise in obesity without a general lowering of standards.


----------



## AA 102 (Oct 13, 2016)

I'm for women in the military, someone has to cook the men's MRE's.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 13, 2016)

dannyfrickenp said:


> I'm for women in the military, someone has to cook the men's MRE's.



>cooking MREs

lol


----------



## Male Idiot (Oct 13, 2016)

As long as they can pass the tests that men need to pass*, I got no problem with this at all.

* And not some light version of tests, but the very same ones.


----------



## ChuckSlaughter (Oct 15, 2016)

I think they should be held to the same physical standards as men.  I would accept that there may be some jobs where their chances of action are zero but I can't think of anything like that.  Maybe in the airforce, nothing in the marines since each one is supposed to be considered combat ready.   Nothing in the Navy that deploys on a ship. 

As it is now there *are* lower general standards and things are ok.  I don't want to see women getting a break for admission in any sort of direct combat roles but would like them to be able to qualify if they pass.  I also think that birth control should be mandatory on combat deployment for both periods and unexpected pregnancies because dudes will be fucking almost all of them I don't care what anyone says.  Also all the pads in the world won't have you healthy a week without a shower.
Although I didn't serve with women I encountered a few who smelled of hard work and menstruation and it was truly foul I can't imagine what it would be like to sleep next to such a person as they disrobed.  I know it's totally unPC for a guy to comment on a woman's period but there simply is no time for that shit in a direct combat role.
Would it work out?  I don't honestly know, I wish that it was possible to say we could give a politics-free test run but it's not.  I guess some countries have special women only units that are highly selective and used for interacting with women in places where women will not talk to men and I have heard nothing bad about it.



ScrewTheRules said:


> . No, seriously. This entire argument is trying to make women responsible for the actions of men. This is not only offensive to men, since it implies they can't be sensible, rational people on their own, but is EXTREMELY dangerous to women. If I have to explain how I will pimp-smack you twice.


Your principles are good here but it's overlooking the fact we're talking about a generally unprincipled activity no matter how much we try and dress it up and make it civil.

It doesn't matter who is getting held responsible for what.  If it turns out that there is some male/female dynamic and the net outcome is undesirable then it shouldn't be done.  Right and wrong do not matter it is war.


ScrewTheRules said:


> 2. Women are just as easily capable of becoming pregnant in non-combat roles as combat roles.


Yes but there is no room for a pregnancy in direct combat.  It could lead to an undesirable outcome.   Birth control is the solution here but I can see people saying it's unfair, which it is.  But tough it's the unfair military.


OwO What's This? said:


> The physical requirements you need to be on the front lines pale in comparison to the discipline and fortitude that's expected of you.
> 
> We're all well aware women don't have the upper body strength that men do. But that's nowhere near the most important factor. Of course, it's all people seem to talk about.



Some women can pass the direct combat tests.  Maybe some women are capable of special combat roles.  I just say give them the test and see who passes.  Not even all men have the same genetic potential for strength but nobody will cut them a break for trying hard enough.

As a matter of fact people fail out of programs all the time because their body simply breaks and they aren't allowed to continue even if they wanted to so the mental fortitude is only half of what they're testing.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Oct 15, 2016)

The question is, would they bitch if they got drafted?


----------



## ChuckSlaughter (Oct 15, 2016)

ICametoLurk said:


> The question is, would they bitch if they got drafted?


Everyone will bitch if they get drafted.


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Oct 15, 2016)

ICametoLurk said:


> The question is, would they bitch if they got drafted?



I remember reading an article on this question a while back. 

According to the feminists, drafting women is misogyny--even if the draft gets men and women on an equal basis.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 15, 2016)

ICametoLurk said:


> The question is, would they bitch if they got drafted?



Israel conscripts both men and women, although the duties and obligations differ somewhat.


----------



## Ahffline (Oct 15, 2016)

IwegalBadnik said:


> I remember reading an article on this question a while back.
> 
> According to the feminists, drafting women is misogyny--even if the draft gets men and women on an equal basis.



Whereas to classical feminists, this would exactly be the goal. If women want true equality, then we must be willing to shoulder the same responsibilities. This 'infantilization' of women is one of the things I find most annoying about the 'Third-Wave Feminists' that pollute college campuses and the Internet today.


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Oct 15, 2016)

OfflineCyberBully said:


> Whereas to classical feminists, this would exactly be the goal. If women want true equality, then we must be willing to shoulder the same responsibilities. This 'infantilization' of women is one of the things I find most annoying about the 'Third-Wave Feminists' that pollute college campuses and the Internet today.



Yes. When feminists say things like this, it makes their opponents' criticisms that "they just want superiority" much more robust.

I laugh at them over it myself, because it does debunk the notion of "wanting equality."


----------



## HG 400 (Oct 16, 2016)

We should let women serve in the US Infantry, they can't possibly be any softer or weaker than the men already in it.


----------



## Savryc (Oct 17, 2016)

1) Point gun at sub-human.
2) Pull trigger.

If they can manage that then who cares?


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 17, 2016)

Savryc said:


> 1) Point gun at sub-human.
> 2) Pull trigger.
> 
> If they can manage that then who cares?



Infantrymen are generally expected to carry 100+ pounds and be able to do that without slowing down and marching 15-20 miles or more if needed.  Anyone who's consuming food and resources without literally "carrying their own weight" is putting that on their fellows, tiring them out faster and increasing chances of injuries and, essentially, weakening the ability of the unit to carry out what it needs to do.


----------



## Savryc (Oct 17, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> Infantrymen are generally expected to carry 100+ pounds and be able to do that without slowing down and marching 15-20 miles or more if needed.  Anyone who's consuming food and resources without literally "carrying their own weight" is putting that on their fellows, tiring them out faster and increasing chances of injuries and, essentially, weakening the ability of the unit to carry out what it needs to do.



So stick em in their own units or some shit. Or put them in other roles so more oo rah, semper fi, my-wife-is-slutting-around-while-I'm-being-shot-at manly men can enjoy sand nigger hunting season. Either way more bodies + more guns = success.


----------



## Gothicserpent (May 20, 2017)

I believe they can join if they want to.


----------



## Arse Biscuit (May 21, 2017)

If a woman can meet the same physical standards for an MOS as are required for men, go for it.


----------



## KillaClown1488 (May 21, 2017)

Gothicserpent said:


> I believe they can join if they want to.


I hope you feel proud performing thread necromancy with 9 lazy words.


----------



## Lackadaisy (May 22, 2017)

Eh, I wouldn't mind being eligible for the draft. Not like they'd pick me anyways. Besides, it'd be hilarious for Muslim terrorists to get picked off by female snipers.


----------



## Broseph Stalin (May 22, 2017)

If a woman is like Vasquez from Aliens, Brienne of Tarth, Furiosa, etc. then I say yes, let them serve in combat roles. Otherwise, keep them out of combat roles.


----------



## idosometimes (May 22, 2017)

Biology says no combat or sports for women.

Women get more concussions and exhibit more severe symptoms than men.  Female no checking ice hockey players get more concussions than male full checking players.  Some studies find female ice hockey has higher concussion rate than American/gridiron football.  Military has a concussion--and cover-up--problem as well, so it is relevant.

Women are more prone to other injuries as well.  Knee injuries are more common in women.  Overuse injuries, like stress fractures, are more common for the ladies  (audio clip).  They also deal with female athlete triad when it comes to training (seen in military as well), which only increases injury rates.

Pushing more women into dangerous situations for the sake of equality is idiotic, but it is mostly supported by people who don't understand science so it is not unexpected.


----------



## DNJACK (May 22, 2017)

whats wrong with women getting concussions and knee injuries? if anyhig it makes them easier to rape.


----------



## ZeCommissar (May 23, 2017)

Khorne doesn't care about which gender the blood flows from! ONLY THAT IT FLOWS

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

But in all seriousness, if they WANT to serve in combat then let them as long as they meet the training requirements that are required by men. If a woman can keep up with the men, then she can stay, but if she cannot she does not serve in combat and has to do something else within the military.

Drafting? Yes

It's not that hard.


----------



## Brandobaris (May 24, 2017)

idosometimes said:


> Biology says no combat or sports for women.
> 
> Women get more concussions and exhibit more severe symptoms than men.  Female no checking ice hockey players get more concussions than male full checking players.  Some studies find female ice hockey has higher concussion rate than American/gridiron football.  Military has a concussion--and cover-up--problem as well, so it is relevant.
> 
> ...



As idosometimes already said.  Biology simply doesn't equate evolutionarily to Women being in combat roles.  They have on average, smaller skeletal frames, smaller muscle mass, injure more often, if on the front lines for long periods, far more prone to UTI's and thrush than Men.  Something like 99% of Women who have applied have not passed the Standard Commando training course, which is required to serve on the front lines.  The ones who did pass were found later to be using steroids and other growth hormones. Which would be a problem taking into the field.  
Some other studies conducted in other countries found that Male soldiers tended to linger near the bodies of their dead Female comrades, resulting in higher risk taking from the Males.

Until something from science fiction like Power Armor becomes available, I don't see any reason to allow Women in combat roles, because they are a danger, to their unit and a a liability combat wise.  Those are simply the biological facts of the matter.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (May 29, 2017)

Broseph Stalin said:


> If a woman is like Vasquez from Aliens, Brienne of Tarth, Furiosa, etc. then I say yes, let them serve in combat roles.


Now you make me think of it, the widespread praise of these kinds of characters as strong feminist role models seems like a good argument that women should indeed be subject to the draft so long as men are. Otherwise they're just saying "being a warrior is glorious but only other people should be forced to do it".


----------



## Takayuki Yagami (May 29, 2017)

Ntwadumela said:


> Certain events in history have proven that women can do just as well in war as men even if most of them are weaker than men. Need I remind you of Mademoiselle Janne D'Arc for example?


You misspelled Jeanne.


----------



## gumboman (Feb 12, 2018)

Tranhuviya said:


> What is the Kiwi opinion on the issue of women in our armed forces, and more specifically, women on the frontlines?


a civilisation whose men are so fallen that women have to pick up arms, is not a civilisation worth defending .


----------



## carltondanks (Feb 12, 2018)

AnOminous said:


> It doesn't exist in the U.S., unlike Israel, where having compulsory service for both sexes has not caused any disasters, and unlike the U.S., Israel faces existential threats right across every border it has.
> 
> People conscripted should be given assignments they're actually suited for and not everyone is suited for combat.


isreali conscription really is a fucking joke


----------



## Ahffline (Feb 12, 2018)

If a woman wants to serve on active combat duty in the military, I've no problem with it. As long as she achieves the required fitness standards and is willing to face the risks associated with her choice.

There have been exceptional female warriors throughout history. Besides Jeanne, there were Onna-Bugeisha (female samurai). Recently, archaeologists discovered the grave of a Viking warrior who was confirmed through DNA analysis as female.


----------



## Gus (Feb 13, 2018)

I believe the only discrimination against volunteers should be for those who are legitimately unable to fight and don't meet proper medical standards. My only real strong stance in so far as joining the military goes is a fierce opposition to conscription. I hold the philosophical opinion that it is a human rights violation for a nation to force its people to lower their lives for the political interests of whatever powers that be.

Volunteer as you please, but I believe in the citizens' rights to form a picket line around the U.N. Building and throw draft cards into a burn pile if we should so choose.


----------



## Zaragoza (Feb 13, 2018)

Most of my friends who have served in the military (US Army & Marine Corps) don't agree with woman being in the frontlines with men, all the stories involving female soldiers from my Army friend were almost all negative. I don't know about the Marine Corps one since he was in MARSOC.


----------



## bargen (Feb 14, 2018)

OfflineCyberBully said:


> If a woman wants to serve on active combat duty in the military, I've no problem with it. As long as she achieves the required fitness standards and is willing to face the risks associated with her choice.
> 
> There have been exceptional female warriors throughout history. Besides Jeanne, there were Onna-Bugeisha (female samurai). Recently, archaeologists discovered the grave of a Viking warrior who was confirmed through DNA analysis as female.


That Viking warrior story is bullshit:
http://norseandviking.blogspot.no/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html?m=1

And having served with female conscripts Im opposed to it. They could do the jobs well enough, but everytime after we'd done a march or an excersise they needed a fucking week of medical leave to rest and recover. Even the fucking sergeant got it, leaving the rest of us to pick up the slack.


----------



## Piss Clam (Feb 14, 2018)

In a time of war you should be allocated to where you best serve your country. I would have never seen the front lines the same as a skilled doctor or truck driver.

The only reason to put women on the front line is if you are in a meat grinder.


----------



## Ahffline (Feb 14, 2018)

bargen said:


> That Viking warrior story is bullshit:
> http://norseandviking.blogspot.no/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html?m=1
> 
> And having served with female conscripts Im opposed to it. They could do the jobs well enough, but everytime after we'd done a march or an excersise they needed a fucking week of medical leave to rest and recover. Even the fucking sergeant got it, leaving the rest of us to pick up the slack.



The author of the blog admits to not being a scientist and thus being unable to comment on the test themselves. The DNA proved that the body in the grave was female.  The question is whether or not that female was actually the original person the grave was prepared for is valid, but the fact remains that the body in that grave was that of a female. Was that woman a warrior? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? Still, it's an interesting result.

As to your second point, that's why I mentioned the required physical abilities and attributes. LMAO.


----------



## bargen (Feb 15, 2018)

OfflineCyberBully said:


> The author of the blog admits to not being a scientist and thus being unable to comment on the test themselves. The DNA proved that the body in the grave was female.  The question is whether or not that female was actually the original person the grave was prepared for is valid, but the fact remains that the body in that grave was that of a female. Was that woman a warrior? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? Still, it's an interesting result.


The author is Judith Jesch, a professor of viking studies. Finding a woman in a grave with a sword doesnt mean she was a warrior, the reason everyone immidiatly jumped to that conclusion is current cultural bias. Swedes have a tendency to do that, just recently they found some islamic coins from the middle ages and a swedish academic concluded a significant portion of vikings mus have been muslims.


> As to your second point, that's why I mentioned the required physical abilities and attributes. LMAO.


Thats just a different way of saying women shouldnt be in the infantry.


----------

