Unpopular opinions about Women in LE/Military

>Unpopular opinions about Women in LE/Military
>(Part 1 of 2)
I honestly think women in law enforcement or military roles are in the same exact situation blacks were in before Truman desegregated the Armed Forces via E.O. 9981 in 1948.

In WW2 and even before, we used blacks and minorities mostly in supply/logistics, and combat arms support roles.
>The military establishment supported this via bullshit studies saying black were colorblind at night, or that they were more susceptible to fear so they wouldn't be able to hold bearing during combat, etc.
>However, we all know that this^ was bullshit, especially since limited front line units that saw action during WW2 and wars before performed similarly to the whites (Tuskegee airmen, 92nd infantry div., Buffalo Soldiers 10th Cav., 54th Mass. Infantry, etc.)

I will admit that in the 50's, we went through some major growing pains with integration. Many highly skilled officers and NCO's were against this so either they got out or were defiant, which means the military had to wait 10-15yrs for them to be phased out.

But by the time the Vietnam started up (17yrs later), literally nobody really cared about blacks or minorities being in the same unit so as long as they meet the standards and performed their duties as expected.

If you compare this to today, it's almost identical with various "Studies" that may or may not be fair saying that Combat units who have integrated women into their units, who have indeed passed the training standards are considered inferior to all male units which honestly is to be expected as the integrated unit of course has a lower percentage of actual experience due to new females bringing down the average versus all male units who have higher percentage of combat experience since we've been at war for the past 10 years.

Other urls found in this thread:

washington.cbslocal.com/2015/09/11/marines-combat-study/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>(Part 2 of 2)
This would be happen regardless of gender as every military minded person knows a units success is determined by...
>Training (Knowledge/Skills)
>Assets (Weapons)
>Experience (combat and years of training)
If the first two are equal, which they would be in any study US armed forces conducted, then of course the unit with higher percentage of collective experience will perform superior until such time that women acquire years of training and combat experience to restore the average.

Lastly, I'm not saying that women should be perfectly 50% representation in the Armed Forces, that's silly especially since quota systems are dangerous as all hell. We really should disregard percentage representation, even if you look at Armed Forces ethnic demographics, they are still hella skewed compared to US Citizens demographics.
>Ethnic minorities of any kind really aren't Officers
>Blacks make up nearly 30% of the Army despite being ~14% of the US
>Asians don't serve
>Why the hell does the USMC look like a Latin American country's Marine force?

However, women should have a right to serve and try for any role, including combat roles, same as men with equal and fair standards that men must meet for that role, doesn't matter if its 1% or 25% representation. People should be glad that any amount of women volunteer to serve.

Why the fuck aren't they in the kitchen, the Battle of My Stomach needs her to fight there.

Don't women have lower requirements to join though? I'm not against women in combat if they actually perform just as well

>if they actually perform as well

They objectively don't

washington.cbslocal.com/2015/09/11/marines-combat-study/

yes but if the odd woman can lift as much, run as fast, and perform all the other duties just as well as a man, who cares? if they have to meet the same requirements as men do it shouldn't be an issue.

...

>yes but if the odd woman can lift as much, run as fast, and perform all the other duties just as well as a man, who cares?
This is not biologically possible unless the woman in question is some kind of mutant, or she has been pumping roids since childhood. Testosterone plays a HUGE role in muscular and skeletal development. Females will suffer more muscular and skeletal injuries than men, and they will take longer to recover from them. In addition to this, they cannot possibly build muscle at the same rate that a man does, which means they need to spend more time training.
This is ignoring the fact that women have a uterus, and they'll have a monthly period where they are potentially rendered combat ineffective due to cramping etc*.

*"Just give them drugs"
This is not a valid argument. Males are frequently disqualified from service due to easily treatable medical conditions. The military does this for a reason. In a real war they cannot guarantee a steady supply of pharmaceuticals to the front lines. They cannot have soldiers that are reliant on drugs.

Dude, ive met chicks stronger than many of the male soldiers i know. Not many, but ive met a handful that could easily out-run, out-lift, and out-fight the generic 4 year service army infantryman.

Your anecdotes don't really matter. The reality of the situation is that a female is more likely to suffer injuries from regular soldiering than a man is. If your supergirl friends spent 15 hours in the gym she would be easily outmatched by a male who spent the same amount of time working out.
It's not sexist, it's just reality.

Read though the image I posted. It provides cited statistics from a government study on the subject.

>37% of male recruits experienced a lower limb injury during basic training
>female recruits experienced a 60% (!) injury rate

>This is not biologically possible
Go read your bell curve conspiracy book and get back to me.

They'll be fine in the Chair Force

I think there are strong evolutionary reasons not to allow mixed sex in combat units, at least. Women can be in combat units for all I care but then they should be all-women units. The presence of a woman in a group of men fundamentally changed the social dynamic, and for good biological reasons. Allowing mixed sex combat units is just choosing appeasement over reason, and increases the likelihood the military will choose more nonsensical policies in the future.

A bad trend.

mother of god what has become of the military since I got out. This makes me sad.

>yes but if the odd woman can lift as much, run as fast, and perform all the other duties just as well as a man, who cares?

Imagine all the gender specific equipment, procedures, and admin now required.

Also, white knighting.

A few exceptions should not change an overall rule.

From a 2009 thread.

>as long as they meet the standards

This is "fair" and all, but it completely ignores the fact only 1% of 1% of 1% actually can. Now you've created a special minority in the active duty combat military that you have to accommodate and care for.

Women in these active combat positions cost more. New bathrooms, new health services, new logistics, etc. They also increase the chance rape is used as a torture tool, ruin male-only team cohesiveness, and lead to white knighting.

Just because I cut off my dick and can complete the standards to be a "female", does not mean all women are going to be okay letting me walk into their changing room. Sometimes you just gotta be unfair and not pander to a very very small minority at the cost of the vast majority.

One big problem that people seem to ignore is the fact that shit costs money. Sending recruits off to basic (only to have them wash out) wastes thousands of dollars. Why the fuck should the military waste time and money shipping females off to basic training when the vast majority of them will fail?
There is no logical reason to support the peacetime recruitment of females.

>literally ruining the last safe space for men
Why? You NEED to not just catch the unicorn, but it has to he a shiny too? Ridiculous

Periods.
Also pregnancy potential.
You can get BC pills shipped over to prevent this, but the moment your supply lines get disrupted, a female front-line soldier becomes more of a burden than an asset.

I read an article from a female marine explaining why even if that was true it would still cause issues due females making them a bigger target, and if a female got captured and raped, it would completely destroy US morale and cause mixed squads to not operate effectively due to white knighting, more or less, and it just not being worth the effort when only like 1% of females would be fit enough anyways

>join the military as a woman
>permanently lose the ability to have children