Are women fit to be soldiers?

hahahahhahaha
no
documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html

>tfw to intelligent to fight

>SOLDIERLY APTITUDE IS NOT CONTINGENT ON SEX.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhit is though

I guess strength and endurance isn't a deciding factor in who should be a soldier

If they get captured by the enemy then they will probably get raped.

HOW SO, ACCORDING TO YOU?

Biology doesn't exist. Stop memeing

Why do you type in all caps, ray?

Women in the armed forces is a good idea. Women on frontline duty is also a good idea.

HOWEVER, any woman that wants to serve in combat should have to be physically and psychologically fulfill any requirement a man can. That is to say, if a male soldier must lug his combat buddy weighing 260lbs in full gear out of a firefight, then a woman must also be able to do the same. You can't pair up people who can't carry each other out of a combat situation. One of them will have to be left to die when push comes to shove.

All female regiments/battalions/divisions/what-have-you are a bad idea in general if it is to alleviate the physical requirements of the former issue. You can't have any combat group unable to take care of another combat group if need be. This includes and is not limited to carrying the wounded off the field during combat.

There are no special snowflakes in the military. If you can't meet the requirements for front line duty, man or woman, you should and will not be allowed into active combat duty. There should be ZERO exceptions to this simple rule.

>Are women fit to be soldiers?
Some women can make fine soldiers, but not many, and the portion of women fit for combat is so much lower than the portion of men that it doesn't make strategic sense for a country to incur the additional logistical and organizational costs of accommodating female soldiers.

>... any woman that wants to serve in combat should have to be physically and psychologically fulfill any requirement a man can. That is to say, if a male soldier must lug his combat buddy weighing 260lbs in full gear out of a firefight, then a woman must also be able to do the same.

HERE, YOU ARE EVINCING YOUR SEXBASED BIAS; YOU ARE ATTRIBUTING TO SOLDIERLY APTITUDE AN A PRIORI "MALENESS", THEREFORE, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.

SOLDIERLY APTITUDE SHOULD BE DETERMINED VIA UNIVERSAL STANDARDS APPLYING TO ALL CITIZENS, REGARDLESS OF SEX; THOSE WHO MEET THE STANDARDS BECOME SOLDIERS; SEX IS NOT A FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHO IS FIT TO BE A SOLDIER.

>women in frontline combat is a good idea

this

They specifically said under the condition that they are able to do everything a male soldier can.

The only difference in female fitness standards was that they did flexed arm hangs instead of pull ups, everything else was the same. And even if they are of the same physical standards, the study shows that they were at an increased risk of musculoskeletal injury anyways, meaning that they're more expensive to keep and are capable of less time in the front lines.

HERE, YOU ARE EVINCING YOUR SEXBASED BIAS; YOU ARE ATTRIBUTING TO SOLDIERLY APTITUDE AN A PRIORI "MALENESS", THEREFORE, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.

No I'm not? Men must already live up to a standard. Women, having never had a standard for serving in active combat duty, must also live up to such a standard.

>SOLDIERLY APTITUDE SHOULD BE DETERMINED VIA UNIVERSAL STANDARDS APPLYING TO ALL CITIZENS, REGARDLESS OF SEX; THOSE WHO MEET THE STANDARDS BECOME SOLDIERS; SEX IS NOT A FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHO IS FIT TO BE A SOLDIER.

Men must already fulfill these requirements to be able to serve in active combat duty. Saying that women must ALSO fulfill them is hardly sexist, and is in fact setting a universal standard based on a successful preexisting one.

You're not presenting a good argument by restating what I say. You actually just seem to agree with everything I have to say.

>No I'm not [ARGUING WITH A SEXBASED BIAS]? [SIC]
>Men must already live up to a standard. Women, having never had a standard for serving in active combat duty, must also live up to such a standard.

...

I think men are unfit to see women as soldiers.

How is it at all sexist to imply that men and women must pass the same standard to be allowed to serve in active combat duty?

Furthermore, how is it logical to set a new standard when the current one works and is required anyway? You would just set the standard at the same mark again if you tried to redo it to be universal.

>How is it at all sexist to imply that men and women must pass the same standard to be allowed to serve in active combat duty?

NEITHER MEN, NOR WOMEN, MUST MEET STANDARDS; CITIZENS MUST MEET STANDARDS.

I REITERATE: SEX IS NOT A FACTOR; APTITUDE IS.

>Furthermore, how is it logical to set a new standard when the current one works and is required anyway? You would just set the standard at the same mark again if you tried to redo it to be universal.

CURRENT MILITARY STANDARDS ARE NOT UNIVERSAL, BUT PARTIAL TO THE MALE SEX, HENCE, CREATING AN ARTIFICIOUS AND SUPERFLUOUS DIVIDE BETWEEN "MALE, AND FEMALE" APPLICANTS.

NEW MILITARY STANDARDS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY WHICH THE CRITERIA ARE PURELY FOR SOLDIERLY APTITUDE, WITHOUT REGARD FOR SEXUAL BIOPHYSIOLOGY; IF SOMEONE MEETS MILITARY STANDARDS FOR BECOMING A SOLDIER, HOW IS THE INDIVIDUAL'S SEX RELEVANT? IT IS NOT.

You're just mad because you've got no ammo against this flawless argument.

The small number of women who are fit for frontline combat do not outweigh the costs of trying to integrate them into combat units, or the additional medical costs that they incur. Unless shit is extremely fucked, that is, but if shit hits the fan so bad that we need women in the front line it will probably be a nuclear war anyways.

Most of them are too neurotic.

>NEITHER MEN, NOR WOMEN, MUST MEET STANDARDS; CITIZENS MUST MEET STANDARDS.
Speaking for biology, all citizens are either male or female, with a minuscule percentage of exceptions. So this does, in fact, apply to all citizens, male or female.
>CURRENT MILITARY STANDARDS ARE NOT UNIVERSAL, BUT PARTIAL TO THE MALE SEX, HENCE, CREATING AN ARTIFICIOUS AND SUPERFLUOUS DIVIDE BETWEEN "MALE, AND FEMALE" APPLICANTS.
Grammatical and spelling errors aside, you are objectively wrong. If you must say that the current standard creates a divide based on the sexes, then you are already saying that women are somehow disadvantaged by it, implying that men are more capable of active combat duty. (I assume you mean to say the physical standards, as men and women experience no disparity on intellectual standards as a whole)

>BY WHICH THE CRITERIA ARE PURELY FOR SOLDIERLY APTITUDE
Physical aptitude is an essential part of being a soldiers, in any case.
>WITHOUT REGARD FOR SEXUAL BIOPHYSIOLOGY
And you propose to what? Lower the physical standards? Whatever new standards would be created with no gender in mind, they'd be equal to the ones that currently exist. Perhaps the bar would be even higher.

> IF SOMEONE MEETS MILITARY STANDARDS FOR BECOMING A SOLDIER, HOW IS THE INDIVIDUAL'S SEX RELEVANT? IT IS NOT.
That's exactly right. You're agreeing with me.

Even when women are physically and psychologically capable as soldiers it's been shown that their male compatriots will compromise missions and their own safety to protect them. It's a tough question because equality is a great goal and all, but you have to draw a line somewhere when clear harm is being caused by it. Same goes for female firefighters etc.

I ALREADY EXPLICATED HOW SEX IS NOT A FACTOR, AND HOW APTITUDE IS NOT CONTINGENT ON SEX.

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT ANYMORE —NOT EVEN AN ERRONEOUS ONE —YOU ARE JUST OBSTINATELY REAFFIRMING YOUR ERRONEOUS NOTIONS.

I asked my dad who was a sergeant about it. He said it was not worth it honestly, too much of a hassle with too many risks and the only benefit of a moral satisfaction in society.

not the same guy but can you read or just smash your face onto the keyboard?
listen you fucking mongoloid the guy said that all "citizens" must meet the requirement for active service irrespective of gender, and any female who could meet them should be allowed to apply for active service. you seem to believe that the requirement should have no bias toward man or woman, which it does not it is merely a fitness test, the guy your arguing with agrees with this notion. the difference is the guy your arguing with acknowledges the inherent biological differences between sexes and that the vast vast majority of women will fail this test. you seem to think that the fitness test arbitrarily prefers males, maybe because males are physically more fit for service? but to fix that bias you'd have to lower the bar for soldiers. as it stands most American soldiers aren't even that fit or well trained so to lower the bar any further would be completely retarded and turn the military into a fucking clown fiesta

>I ALREADY EXPLICATED HOW SEX IS NOT A FACTOR, AND HOW APTITUDE IS NOT CONTINGENT ON SEX.
As did I. Both sexes must meet the same standard. Those of either sex who cannot meet this standard should not be allowed into active combat duty. The current standard is bother adequate and desirable for this outcome and is not geared towards being easier for men than women. That is my point.

>YOU ARE JUST OBSTINATELY REAFFIRMING YOUR ERRONEOUS NOTIONS.
That the current standard is adequate and that women must be able to pass it, the same as men must be able to pass it, for women to be considered for active combat duty in addition to the men that already are. This has been my argument from the beginning.

For the record, you are either too stupid to understand that I have been arguing for all applicants to meet the same standards, and that the current standards are more than fair for everyone, or English is not your native language.

Thank you. At least someone understands what I'm trying to say. I'd let you be my battle buddy on the internet any day.

sergeant gutter

...

...

>can women be trained to fight?
Yes.
>is it efficient for modern armies to send women to the front?
Fuck no. There are plenty of men volunteering, and the peak of female performance is nowhere near better enough than the male average to warrant the greater costs of fielding women.

Anons, if you hadn't noticed already, you're arguing with a retarded tripfag who believes typing in ALCAPS makes him more right, somehow.

>standards should be established by which the criteria are purely for soldierly aptitude without regard for physiology

That is already what we have. They were using these same standards before women were allowed to serve in combat roles. You can't possibly argue that the standards unfairly favor men when women weren't even a factor when they were formulated. If men more easily meet these standards, it's because in aggregate, men have higher aptitude as soldiers... which ought to be obvious, but I guess we have to take this step by step here.

Also, turn your fucking capslock off.

lol no. There's no reason to enlist weaker soldiers unable to live with the others. It only lowers the standards for absolutely no advantage.

Pic related were asked to conform to the law and accept women in their ranks. They said "no, fuck off", and the case was closed because everyone knows it's a stupid idea that doesn't match with the crude reality of the combat.
i.e those who advocate for equality in the military are hypocritical who perfectly know how wrong they are.

/thread

Yes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milunka_Savić

That's a man, baby!

>1 woman who fought 100 years ago
no