Women in Ground Combat

largepaycheckaddict · 2019-04-12T23:17:49+00:00

I’m ok with women who are actually strong and have grit being in combat over a soyboy tbh.

heronmarkedblade1984 · 2019-04-12T23:11:08+00:00

The first causality I treated during the iraq war was a female MP who had a chunk of RPG cut her ass open from top to bottom. I was a medic in an infantry company, she wasn't supposed to be in the fighting but they drove straight onto an active fire fight between my guys and some of Muqtadas rejects. She should have been born a man, tough as shit, turned down morphine and got back behind her belt fed machine gun as soon as I got her ass lashed back together. Not once in the rest of the time I was in the Army did I meet another female that I wouldn't think twice about fighting beside.

leftajar · 2019-04-12T23:41:24+00:00

Women in combat is obviously retarded clown world shit. It's asking for unit cohesion issues, joint injuries, and the rampant rape of POW's if we ever lose a battle.

DeusVictor · 2019-04-12T22:42:29+00:00

Honestly I don’t give a shit they can be in combat if they want. It’s obvious their are strength differences in the sexes but if they can pass the test I don’t give a flying fuck.

FereallyRed · 2019-04-13T03:27:25+00:00

Point One - Women are not as physically strong as men.

I was a paramedic in a past life. We needed to pass a physical test, which simulated carrying a body around.

Two women in my class, they both failed miserably. Both got the pussy pass.

So, your life is now dependent on who is driving the trucks at any given minute.

Point Two - women are not as used to dealing with traumatic situations.

Again, instead of doing what needs to be done, there is a pervasive need for women to be the counsellors during an emergency.

You can talk about it later. Lets get everybody out alive, first.

Point Three - Women are not warriors. That's a basic premise. Which means you can't count on them to have your back. And that is paramount in combat.

Point Four - They have cunts. Which means if they're captured, they're raped. No sugar coating. You will be raped if you have a cunt and are captured. Period. Strangely, not many women are ok with that.

[deleted] · 2019-04-13T00:00:47+00:00

If you want to talk the talk, you have to be ready and able to back it up. If a guy is expected to carry a 70lb backpack on a 10 mile hike, the bitch has do the same. What....she gets 50lb, and some guy carries the other 20lb for her? Screw that! If a fireman has to be able to throw a unconscious guy over his shoulder, and pack him down the ladder, so should a bitch....otherwise, the gal should be relegated to cleaning the firehouse, cooking, etc., like an honorary fireman.

PS2Errol · 2019-04-13T14:01:23+00:00

Men have on average 3 times more muscle and 3-4 times more upper-body strength. Put a man v a women in ground combat and it will be a slaughter.

Are they trying to make the job of the enemy easier?

RPLawyer · 2019-04-13T13:27:50+00:00

I fully support women on the frontline at two conditions: it has to be women-only units and when one of these units gets inevitably captured by the enemy and turned into sex slaves, only other women-only units will be sent to try to rescue them, as men will be busy with importants things, like winning the fucking war like they have done since the first war of humanity.

TheStumblingWolf · 2019-04-12T22:58:08+00:00

Another way of illustrating how mother nature made us:https://www.dropbox.com/s/81t42hujuf1b90s/physical%20differences.png?dl=0

If there are physical differences, I'm sure there are other differences too (for example our respective hormones shaping some part of how we think and what's important to us). This isn't a bad thing. Male and female are 2 sides to the same human coin. To me it's like communism - it's most appealing to people who have nothing, and so for lack of competitive ability it seems somebody's trying to level out that advantage artificially/culturally.

Also I found this to be important:

Any time a job’s ~~physical~~ testing parameters have been altered to determine anything other than the most successful objective ~~physical~~ performance of that job, the job's ultimate successful outcome has become secondary to the hiring agenda.

I have nothing against women. They're part of nature like everything else and they probably have their strengths like we have ours, but I am against delusion to feed a female ego.

Feminism used to be about them choosing their own destiny. Now it's become a useful tool to pry power (women aren't up in arms about the lack of female sewage workers) from the hands of people who worked their asses off to be where they are. And they compare you to a nazi while doing it.

HansCapon · 2019-04-13T00:55:14+00:00

Everyone here is talking about physical standards. Don’t forgot about combat psychology. An athletic/masculine girl is still a girl, with all of the irrational and emotional aspects that come with being a woman. Men are biologically predisposed to war. We’re expendable, and mentally prepared for it. Women are not, it’s as simple as that.

Blackphish88 · 2019-04-13T01:20:58+00:00

They're willingly giving themselves to the foreign invaders. What's the worst that can happen at this point for them?

Yakatonker · 2019-04-13T10:52:39+00:00

Specific to Mark Rippetoe's points, nothing really new here for those of us here. He rightly points out the inherent problems with lowering qualifications for inferior candidates who would create worsened outcomes, including death.

Getting yourself and other people killed is not a game. And it should also not be the unintended consequence of politically-motivated employment policy. Once again: if the job has quantifiable physical requirements, then the job should have quantifiable hiring criteria based on objectively assessed levels of required physical performance.

Any time a job’s physical testing parameters have been altered to determine anything other than the most successful objective physical performance of that job, the job's ultimate successful outcome has become secondary to the hiring agenda. Or the job wasn’t really important anyway; the appearance of importance has become the primary concern, along with other agenda items.

“Equality,” and yet at the same time “Diversity” (the old Orwellian term “doublethink” applies here) have become the primary concern within some military organizations. The most important thing in the world is diversity, even when some of those super-valuable differences mean an unequal ability to do things. (“Good news! Your salary has been increased from $4000 to $3500!)

OmegaMan2 · 2019-04-13T21:58:47+00:00

There is another reason for not allowing women in combat and that is when a "sister" is killed in action, the men tend to take it very badly.

In the beginning when Israel was fighting for it's very survival, both men and women served on the front lines. The problem was that when a woman was killed, the men went berserk and became utterly uncontrollable. The officers completely lost control of the men as they devolved from a disciplined unit to a raging and furious mob. One wins wars with disciplined troops and not a wild gaggle of angry men. The Israeli high command was in effect left with no other choice than to pull the ladies out of harms way.

big_snips · 2019-04-12T23:41:06+00:00

Imagine.. being born a woman and potentially dying in combat is what ends up taking first priority in your life.

TheH1dd3nFear · 2019-04-13T04:27:32+00:00

Can't the fats, women, and trannies be used as quick cannon fodder for the US army? ?

BluBlac59 · 2019-04-14T16:37:28+00:00

If women could handle fighting, getting hurt and hurting others, there would be no need for domestic violence laws. Let know if you ever see a woman win in an all out bar fight.

chazthundergut · 2019-04-14T20:09:21+00:00

I've had a couple friends go through the navy, army, and marines within the last ten years.

From what they've told me, the problem with our military isnt women.

The problem is a lack of combat-ready men.

themanbat · 2019-04-13T00:31:28+00:00

Does anyone have a link to the article where they were testing women in combat situations and one hid crying while the other actually dropped her rifle and ran? I can't remember where I saw it. I think it was the Canadian armed forces.

ELMasTurbo · 2019-04-13T01:25:06+00:00

If people want to die for the state let them. Who cares if its men, women, or both being given the option to be the meat in the grinder of the military industrial complex? As long the government doesn't come trying to draft me or forcibly conscript me I don't give a fuck who wants to go die in some third world shit hole.

thewrecker8 · 2019-04-16T15:19:27+00:00

If women could compete with men with regards to physical strength then why do we separate them in sports? Why not have women play in the NFL or the NBA?

SnowMonkeyCracker · 2019-04-16T03:31:45+00:00

If male and female soldiers were equal it wouldn't be called diversity.

LynetV · 2019-04-14T14:32:53+00:00

Nothing against phemales in military as long as they pass through the same physical tests and requirements as men, which would accomplish just very few of them and that's percetly okay. There is no space for some fuckin double standards and equality shit in military.

_quote · 2019-04-13T00:02:05+00:00

Last time I checked, Mark Rippetoe hasn't served our country for shit so he can go fuck himself.

Title	Women in Ground Combat
Author	Denver_Luv
Upvotes	68
Comments	93
Date	April 12, 2019 10:38 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/bcjtns/women_in_ground_combat/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/women-in-ground-combat.225816 https://theredarchive.com/post/225816

Comments