We'll separate the men from the women in world competitions on swimming, basketball, and everything else but on the battlefield we'll pretend the sexes are the same. Makes sense, right? :doh
From beginning to end funny.
Sense is over-rated, you need Faith, Faith in the god of Political Correctness.
I prefer to put my faith in cops. :wink:
You keep using that phrase. I do not think you know what it means.Well, that is two posts in a row of ad hominem baiting.
Thanks so much for gracing us with your presence, I wonder how forlorn PF is knowing they have to do without your valuable services.
You keep using that phrase. I do not think you know what it means.
Many tears have been shed. :wink:
Strenhgt of arm has lost much of its importance in modern combat. Accuracy and the ability to function under stress are much more important.
And in case you are wondering, with the proper training, women outperform men in stress tests hands down.
I do not think you know what it means.
I put mine in me and my training. Police, are most often historians, come to document the carnage. :wink:
Do you think there is a single woman on earth who ISN'T aware of the possibility of being raped, AS A CIVILIAN?
You've never served in the infantry have you? There are individuals of all different sized, shapes, and characters in the infantry. Ultimately it's not about coarse hairy goons at all.1) The friggin' thread is about "infantry", got it? The infantry consists ultimately of those coarse hairy goons who are willing to bust someone's head with a rock if that's what it takes to survive the battle and win the war.
Unfortunately we're not talking about unarmed combat in a stadium. The M16A3 is a great equalizer even in the most fragile of hands.2) Take a hundred average men of military age. Take a hundred women average men of military age. Throw them naked in the Rose Bowl and tell them that the side that incapacites the other side completely will earn five million dollars apiece, and say also that there's no rules. Wanna bet which team wins?
I wouldn't rush to chastise someone about babbling given your priors here.Of course the men will win, so quit babbling about relative differences.
I know some women who could do that. I know some men who could not. What's your point? Not every soldier can qualify to be a Ranger, airborne, of hang in the light infantry. But they could potentially serve in a mechanized infantry unit.Don't like that comparison? Take the same teams, give them 100 lb packs with field rations and rifles, and tell them to start marching, that anyone who sits down or even leans against a pole is disqualified, and see which team wins the money.
I know women who could do this and men who could not. You're not helping your argument here.Remember, we're talking infantry here, and those guys march all over the damn place at times. (Sometimes the trucks run out of gas.)
I put mine in me and my training. Police, are most often historians, come to document the carnage. :wink:
I know women who could do this and men who could not. You're not helping your argument here.
I'm under the impression that the job changes at the drop of a hat. It's not neatly as outlined as most other jobs. Going into ground battle is wildly unpredictable. So IMO talking about the "job" and the "job requirements" is a little absurd.
I'm aware that when men and women are in peak condition the vast majority of men are stronger than the vast majority of women which is why men and women rarely compete head to head in the Olympics.
In ground battle I would think optimally unless we're highly outnumbered we want the absolute strongest infantry we can find. Since men are naturally stronger than women and this is obvious when both sexes are in optimum condition the strongest infantry possible is an infantry of men.
The pregnancy issue is two fold. The first part is the distractions, the sexual relationships, the mess it inevitable creates that there is no room for IMO. The second is the actual pregnancies and being "battle ready."
You are trying to change the context from generalities to anecdotes about specific individuals.
You're not helping your argument here.
So you support the right to carry concealed weapons to protect the innocent?
Proof?The risk increases in the military.
The battlefield simply is not the place for women.
Men's roles are to protect them... and most civilized men do it instinctively.
Speak for yourself, man.Then there is the sexual aspect... those tensions are not needed.
For one moment let's say women should be... then they should have to meet the standards men have to achieve. No watering down the entry level.
If you say so. You are the expert, after all.Watering them down will surely get people killed.
You've never served in the infantry have you? There are individuals of all different sized, shapes, and characters in the infantry. Ultimately it's not about coarse hairy goons at all.
You apparently don't even know what my argument is there Sparky.
:2wave:
don't mind voidwar, if he thinks you are pro-police, you must be the gestapo.
hell to the yes.
Proof?
NOTED.
I've always preferred the uncivilized ones, myself.
Speak for yourself, man.
Works for me.
If you say so. You are the expert, after all.
I am actually proposing improving that, as with actual strength standards(remember, the PT standards currently used are not a measure of strength but overall physical fitness) that are uniform, this would weed out weakling men.
And that's the ball game.
Catz, you have some of these boys all wrapped around the axle. Methinks they really don't know how to react here. What was it you said, kick you in the shins then ask you to play kickball?
Yeah, this one has already been sorted between us. :wink:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?