Why is Congress doing this?
Women are not as physically capable as men and do not make as good front-line soldiers (they are more biologically keyed into sniping as a combat role).
A prime examples of this is with the decreasing of fitness standards as to allow females to be able to pass.
What is Veeky Forumstory's thoughts on the issue?
Source: (militarytimes.com
Other urls found in this thread:
scribd.com
npr.org
mca-marines.org
twitter.com
let them fight
Women simply should not be in any combat role, ever.
See: Periods.
Are you just meant to take them off of active duty when their periods begin?
And get torn apart by, Russian soldiers, for instance? Isn't that just very irresponsible?
Also, aren't males of the human species keyed into the 'defence role' more than women, simply because of innate biology?
Has there ever been a successful all female combat unit in a modern war?
You're right but its not really Veeky Forums material
you know 43% of russian frontline is female right?
Je ne sais pas? Though, I doubt it.
Sorry, I was debating if it should put it on /weaponry/ or not, I just didn't see any similar threads and thought /pol/ might be lacking (as it were).
I didn't.
Two things:
1) Source?
2) That still isn't a majority though, therefore, they are more likely to meet with a male combatant.
Maybe that's why their military sucks...
>you know 43% of russian frontline is female right?
Think about that for a second.
Even IF it is correct. It speaks abasing the usefulness of women, not for them. They are literally fodder.
I'm okay with it as long as they are in all female units. If they are so eager to die, at least they won't drag the men down with them this way. If we lived in a society without rampant SJWism I would be totally against it though.
>It speaks abasing the usefulness of women
Against*
At least they are past the firearm shortage issue?
True, an army marches as fast as its slowest member.
25 years
25 years?
I think it should be allowed but don't have lower fitness standards for women or lower fitness standards overall to allow them in. if there are a few unusually strong amazonian women that wanna fight let them fight
Being drafted doesn't mean you'll serve in a combat role. American negros drafted in WW1 for example were almost entirely confined to manual labor & support roles because they were thought to be poor soldiers.
That isn't what a draft is though, a draft in a time of emergency would force all 'able-bodied' women to report in.
In other words, you'll have your average female up against a probably well-trained male combatant.
So you figure they'd do the same thing with women?
They should not be fighting. In 250% honesty, they should be staying on the homefront, having children to replace the war dead and taking the non-essential jobs.
>if they want to fight let them fight
Is there anything else more retarded in the sense of war? Ever?
War is not to be fought, war is too be won. It's a literal game were you try to win as 'nicely' as possible.
Having women in the picture simply doesn't fit the meta. Women in the military sure, women in combat roles? No.
Precisely, this risks causing serious population decline.
>Could be a Bilderberg plot to start the culling of mass population. :^)
I would be suicide to have a majority of females as 49%-50%+ of your front-line troops against a predominantly male force.
shouldn't you have stay at home men too? they can have a fuck squad in the military just trained to fuck as much as possible.
Does it really matter that much in modern warfare thats heavily mechanised?
>does it matter that much when your whole front line can be obliterated by a single missile?
>43% of the front line are women.
Nope.
Holy shit fuck off with this already, I know plenty of females who are capable of front line combat.
t. innaarmy
t. shill
scribd.com
npr.org
Women fighting historically meant times were utterly desperate.
During my conscription there was one chick who was hard as fuck, i honestly believe she could do well, the other 80% were low tier. Also, field menstruation is a fucking sad sight to behold.
Christ there are a lot of women who'd be more useful in the military than the average shitposting NEET.
Besides, it's not fucking 1914 - plenty (the majority?) of roles in the military are not frontline combat.
The US wants to swell their army numbers as much as possible before WW3 to compete with the inevitable Chinese human wave tactics.
Except theyre already allowed in non combat roles you fucking idiot. Don't post if you have no idea what you're talking about.
The contentious issue is women in combat roles, especially when they struggle to perform tasks men are expected to perform such as dragging wounded comrades (almost all women are incapable of doing this).
mca-marines.org
>Christ there are a lot of women who'd be more useful in the military than the average shitposting NEET.
Judging from personal experience, most are about the same.
>Besides, it's not fucking 1914 - plenty (the majority?) of roles in the military are not frontline combat.
OP specifically mentioned frontline roles.
>they don't want feminism to come to its logical conclusion and have millions of roasties die and get raped in the next major war
you're all cucks
My brother graduated from West Point and he hated it so much
Do you think USMA grads are the most insufferable cunts in the Army?
>wanting to lose a war to prove a point you made on the internet
sad!
Who says we would lose?
Millions of roasties getting fucked because of their own ideaology would be top tier
war is no longer an exercise of brute strength; it hasn't been since we stopped fighting wars against states and started fighting guerrillas and non-state actors. The nature of warfare is now precise and clinical, more suited to special forces if ground operations are required, so even if women were required to sign up for selective service, and even if they weren't as physically capable as men, there would likely not be as large an impact as there would be at any earlier time. It just doesn't make a difference.
You could also take a look at states like Israel that require male AND female conscription, and see that women are equally effective as men when given combat roles.
>Does it really matter that much in modern warfare thats heavily mechanised?
You do know that despite the mechanization of the armed forces, soldiers are still expected to be able to carry heavy shit for days?
@2058647
You are honestly so fucking wrong I'm sure you're baiting
>You could also take a look at states like Israel that require male AND female conscription, and see that women are equally effective as men when given combat roles.
But Israelis keep female soldiers AWAY from the front line units.
You're fucking retarded. Infantry are routienly carrying 80+ pounds of gear into battle. Mech units MUST be able to do their own maintenance and fix tracks, which means easily lifting 50+ pounds and holding it for extended periods, over and over.
Infantry gear in particular is the heaviest it has ever been in human history.
>You could also take a look at states like Israel that require male AND female conscription, and see that women are equally effective as men when given combat roles.
They don't give them combat roles. The female battalion is literally known as the pussy battalion, and it has ALL the connotations it would in an English speaking country.
A "light" load on an infantryman is 25+ kilos, in any actual combat scenario, nonemounted infantry will have to carry much more, soldiers are expected to carry this shit for days, likely with little sleep and possibly with limited food, and still remain tactical and do their job.
If anything, warfare has only become more physically demanding.
Because most of the jobs in any functional military do not involve shooting.
I think that would be the case with the overwhelming majority of women. There might be a few genetic freaks who pass the bar but by and large, women would serve non-combat roles, and both men and women would prefer that.
If we hit the point of needing a draft, anyone within 100 miles of a fight is going to need to be able to shoot. Breaking through opposing lines to ravage rear areas is what cavalry DOES.
We need a draft if we can't fill positions, regardless of the size of a conflict.
And the answer here is obvious: do not put women in the role of "cavalry".
That wasn't so hard, was it?
Jesus fucking Christ you're retarded.
>We need a draft if we can't fill positions, regardless of the size of a conflict.
You're talking about a military that is actively looking for excuses to get rid of personnel, even if they have combat experience.
One which had ZERO issue fighting two wars and maintaining global commitments while still growing in size, without a draft.
A force which outnumbers almost every other fucking military on the planet.
The only way the US will need a draft is in the event of an absolutely massive conflict.
>And the answer here is obvious: do not put women in the role of "cavalry".
You're retarded and don't understand what you are being told.
>armored or airborne cavalry exploits breach in lines
>proceeds to move into the backfield specifically to destroy Supply and C&C units
>people who can't handle the fucking kit are going to be slower at evacuating and worse at fighting
>more of them will die
There are precisely zero "safe" places in a theatre that is seeing combat.
what really gets my goat are feminists who pushed for opening all combat roles to women and are now acting like it's some kind of moral outrage that the logical conclusion of their own efforts is for women to be drafted too.
>b-but muh equal rights! women shouldn't be forced to do dangerous labor!
many of the rights of American men hinge on them registering for the draft, including federal college aid and loans. if those fuckers want equal rights, they have to give all that men do.
It's also one that had a draft for vietnam of all conflicts. A draft ain't nothing special, bruv.
I can't help it if english isn't your first language, user. I can only understand its structure as taught, without informal modifications to such.
>people who can't handle the fucking kit are going to be slower at evacuating and worse at fighting
In general, retreating units do not do so on foot if they can help it. The US army can help it. If it comes to pass that the US army is in a situation where it has no air or land transportation equipment at a point when its frontlines are broken, there's probably a greater problem than the role of women. May as well have women, bring up some children, give em all stens, cuz we'd obviously be scraping the bottom of a barrel as it is.
Unless they can pass male tests, women should certainly NEVER fight in the battlefield.
Some non-combat roles may be OK though, and I hope that this is what the whole thing amounts to.
this desu, for that small (tiny) minority of women who can and want to serve, I can only wish them the best but they better damn well carry their weight
TWENTY
FIVE
YEAR
RULE
FUCK OFF /POL/SHITTERS
The Discussion is about women in combat roles, in particular infantry
>Women are not as physically capable as men and do not make as good front-line soldiers
are you saying that men and women are NOT EQUAL?
could you say that a little bit louder, please?
Women can fight and have fought historically, especially during defensive sieges.
Do women get raped? Usually, yeah. You also had cases, such as Vietnam, where women played essential roles in beating the shit out of an all-male military force in America.
Having women capable of filling rear line and other non-combat roles means freeing up males for combat roles.
As for women as infantry, they have done well in the afghanistan and iraq conflicts. Not because they particularly excel at combat, but because there are roles other than combat that infantry in such conflicts are faced with, and women are just as equipped as males for these particular tasks.
WOMEN AND MEN ARE NOT EQUAL!!!
They decrease enemy response time. This should never be underestimated. Or else.
>My mom used to carry the grenade launcher, back her old duty days. Just saying.
Read the sticky
Thats just a straight death sentence though.
Might as well send them to a slaughterhouse.
You know the real solution: remove political right of women. I might reconsider giving them the right to vote if they did their duties, marry, and give birth to at least 2 children/capita.
They will keep the same standards, or decrease tiny bit.
Women that fail would be drafted into clerical side of the job. Meanwhile, men who would otherwise be in the clerical side would see front lines.