But you're still a grunt, you haven't fought next to women or against them, and most of all you lost the war.
You are a dinosaur and so is the military you fight for.
Women are fighting now in full combat rolls and have done so progressively since WWII. The argument against warrior women (especially as technology progresses) will progressively occupy less and less ground until it is not a valid argument.
The display of warrior women imagery will continue to be as fantastical as all imagery of warriors is in support of the warrior ethos.
Traditional militaries can continue to march up mountain sides, trudge through swamps, and do everything they feel gives them command of the land while insurgents run circles around them. More and more women will fight in the cities, on the back of pickup trucks, and in sniper nests. More women will hold lines, set ambushes, and yes, march countless miles. More women will kill and be killed. Whatever differences we like to anoint between the sexes will falter in the complexity of modern combat.
Whatever man thinks a woman can't kill him as easily as any man is quintessentially a joke.
I can't tell if you're stubbornly arguing with dumbasses or you're somebody starting these threads in order to become one. It's Veeky Forums, I'd want to see some people talk about fucking sisters of battle at the least.
I really wish I'd saved that pic where a Kurdish female soldier is taunting ISIS, and then the follow-up pic where an ISIS fighter is holding her severed head.
Matthew Anderson
fag hope she shot a few fascists before she clocked out
Can we use this to talk about ladyknights, Amazons and girl abs? Making the sexual intimidation explicit cuts down on like half of /pol/.
Levi Collins
Europe seems happy enough to support ISIS, didn’t Sweden recently announce former fighters are allowed to settle in Sweden and not face charges?
Landon Gray
Nazimod wouldve deleted this thread
Evan Jackson
Nazimod came to us too early ;_;
Ryan Perry
Guerilla tactics vs being nukes from orbit by organized military in a futuristic setting.
The biggest hurdle of this setting is women, who don't like fighting let alone being part of an organized military.
Brayden Thomas
Well then you get into questions of whether the army is volunteer only, or if there’s a draft.
Isaac Robinson
Anons, I tend to be an optimist about Veeky Forums's ability to discuss a variety of topics in a way that at least can end up interesting. But I've seen absolutely nothing ruin Veeky Forums threads more than the invariable discussion of if women make good warriors, if they have a place in the modern military, and so on and so forth. There is no good answer, no one will accept your logic either way.
The fact that this is apparently the second thread - there was one before this! - scares me. All I can do is sage and hope that this thread ends soon, before people think it truly should be a regular thing.
Can I make a proposal to the lads in this thread in regards to the idea of women in combat? I see no reason why they should be barred from Frontline service if they can handle it desu, my issue lies in the fact that integration, at least in america, is being carried out all wrong. Quota's and shit ain't really a good way to go about it. I think that the female PT standards should be raised to the o es that males currently meet. Yeah that'd probably cut out more than a few of the women currently serving, but there are some that have shown they're capable of passing hard physical tests, like the 2 that passed Ranger school in 2015 or the one that passed the Marine officer candidate school last year. As far as I can see the issue isn't in Biology or genetics, but Will. It's sorta indisputable just based on evidence that most women don't have the stomach to make it through, but if they can then by all means they should be able to fight on the Front. Is that fair?
Parker Ward
>I see no reason why they should be barred from Frontline service if they can handle it desu
That isn't how it works. You don't put people out there and see if they can handle it. You put them out there and they make it or they get themselves and others killed. While there certainly are 'some' that can handle it, the truth is that the vast majority cannot.
>Yeah that'd probably cut out more than a few of the women currently serving
No, that would cutout all but a very few. The more likely outcome is a lowering of general standards.
>like the 2 that passed Ranger school in 2015
Now go look up how the school was pressured and changed in regards to them. Yeah, they passed a hard thing. But the Ranger school before and after them is a different animal. And it will always have to be that way.
>Is that fair?
Fair belongs in your genders studies class. On the battle field it is about what is most effective. That evaluation takes in a great number of things. From physical to mental and yes to cultural. In the greater scheme of things adding a few individuals is not going to greatly enhance combat power.
>As far as I can see the issue isn't in Biology or genetics, but Will.
Maybe the meme of how wimpy men have become today is a thing. But I've been in the army now for almost thirty years and am still serving. It is all of the above. There are exceptions, sure. But the vast majority of women are only marginally suited to even combat support roles. You have no idea what a nightmare it is having women in your unit, especially in a combat zone. As we say, 90% of your time is taken up with 10% of your troops.
Elijah Parker
We had this thread yesterday. Please stop posting it over and over again
Samuel Jones
I found the OP hard to understand. At first it sounded like it might be a background setting for a campaign. Then it went in to more modern sounding SJW'ish sort of language.
My guess is that the OP doesn't really believe what he is writing and is just mimicking SJW language. This honestly belongs over on k or pol. Either would be fine.
If you wanted it here it should go back to the painful meme of 'women get -5 str'. Or some other such thing.
Julian Butler
Good thing that guns are the great equalizer, its not like women have been part of literally every gurilla insurgency post WW2 right, that would be crazy. idiot
Brayden Wright
There is a saying: God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal. Same basic principle. Physicals strength and endurance will matter less and less as technology takes over.
Christopher Gonzalez
>supporting commies over fascists But why? That's how the west ended up in the mess we're in today.
now that qualifies for the congressinal medal of ugly.
Luis Richardson
Just curious here
Your post seems to indicate that you're exasperated by OP continually remaking this thread, so I'm wondering why you think replying with "B-but men are stronger!", which is exactly the reply OP is fishing for, will cause OP to stop continually remaking this thread.
Hunter Williams
Kek I'd pay good money for me to be able to match a female MMA fighter
Joshua Morgan
Who the fuck do you think you are lecturing me from the catalog? Sage.
Brayden Jackson
These threads are shit on /k/, and they're shit2 on Veeky Forums. I'd rather be discussing Veeky Forums stuff instead of RL politics, for which we also have a board.
Josiah Jenkins
>I see no reason why they should be barred from Frontline service if they can handle it desu,
They CAN'T.
Kevin Reyes
>Good thing that guns are the great equalizer
Guns go a long way, but they are not a complete equalizer. Certainly not on the battle field.
You still have to move. The reality is that women cannot move their own bodies as well as men can. That is true when we compare peek individuals of each class and when we compare average individuals of each class. When you add equipment it becomes an even greater issue.
When people put women in to the battle field, such as insurgencies, it tends to be under a few specific conditions. Most commonly, because they are losing. They tend to deploy young children in the same numbers, but I doubt you would argue for their inclusion. Telling, they tend to employ older children more frequently than women. But it points to one simple fact, when you are losing anyone will do.
Another reason that females may be employed is because of subterfuge. The reality is that women can often go places without being challenged, this can have great value to an insurgency.
One thing that gets overlooked though in the reason why women are not typically deployed to combat is that it isn't just about physical abilities. The reality is that men are considered disposable in nearly any conflict. While women may hold less power in a society/culture, they are typically value more by those cultures than young men. This is often multiplied when we consider that age is often an indicator in most cultures - the older you are the more valuable you are. Young men get the short end of the stick, sending them to die is perfectly acceptable.
I don't think the physical issue should really show up in most games. But I do think that the age issue should show up more often. Young adventurers not being taken seriously or having to show respect to elders. It often seems to be a bit missing. But for most cultures, certainly given the setting of most RPG, it would likely be expected.
Ayden Jenkins
You guys are funny. Pretending like either sex is preferential to dying like dogs in the sand. Also dutch amazons were a thing
Cooper Wilson
At least link the previous thread if you're going to continue a discussion:
Easton Lewis
There's only been a few cases in history of women participating in warfare (individual cases don't count). Pretty much > They suck at melee combat > Worse at carrying equipment and marching long-distance with it > They can't draw high-poundage bows > They are less disposable than young men > They get pregnant Training warriors takes time and money, why would society choose women due to the above? Early societies tend to have strong divisions of labor, and untrained men who've been presumably doing some hard labor are always better than untrained women. An example of one society which was the exception to these rules were say, Eurasian Sarmatians: > Each warrior was mounted, with about 4-6 extra horses. No marching. > Warfare was almost entirely horse archery on plains, with some lancers > Bows were not extremely high-draw. Women's bow were likely weaker (we can't tell draw from the archaeology), but in 200BC, 50lbs is enough to kill, and women can easily be trained for more than this. > Women had to hunt anyways. There were no organized armies, and warriors were trained largely by hunting and raiding. Women would accompany the nomadic tribe as it marches, so the capable ones fighting if needed isn't unreasonable. > Low population density means any warriors are probably useful This solves most of the problems, except the fact that women are still needed for producing children. Only about 20% of warriors graves of the Sarmatians were women, and honestly this is the most one could expect from any culture, regarding "warrior women". Nomads didn't really have "warrior castes" in the same fashion as agricultural societies, pretty much everyone could fight to some degree.
TLDR: women participating in conventional warfare just never happened, this is one exception, but the Sarmatians didn't have an organized military, nor had infantry.
Nolan Clark
Why have female soldiers over men in the first place?
Parker Allen
See . A civilization only conscripts women if they are desperate.
Nathaniel Ortiz
>ego That's not it sweety. We don't like watching girls get blown to pieces.
Zachary Powell
>Women are fighting now in full combat rolls and have done so progressively since WWII >asia-ramazan-antar
You fell for war propaganda. The worst type of propaganda there is.
I did full-contact karate for 8 years. There were occasionally girls and women who also tried to join our dojo. Thing is there were no different standards. Yes, sensei would not give an impossible task but he also would push you to the limit. Sparring was between all people. See that guy that's built like a truck and weights more than 100 kg? Yeah, you are going to spar with him no matter who are you.
Most women would leave pretty soon. So in the end we had only 2 permanent female practitioners. That's out of around ~90 people in three groups of different experience levels.
Physically the biggest advantage they had was their flexibility. They did stretching exercises look so easy that many guys were green with envy. But by upper body strength (lifting) they were around a guy 15-16 years old. Though in sport karate even full-contact having very flexible body gives you a nice advantage - they could whack your with a kick to the face from almost any position. When I only moved the advanced group I eat probably 2-3 dozens of leg slaps to the face and head before my defence got to appropriate level.
Henry Young
This isn't exactly RL politics, though it tends to devolve into that.
Can youse cunts keep this shit to /pol/ Stop fucking sucking up to women OP, you're not going to get over the "I play dipshit nerd games" hurdle by worshipping the ground the Woke Bae Fobbits walk on Cunts fucked
user, you seems mistaken. Nobody is arguing against female warrior in fiction. They are arguing against female warrior IRL. It's literally a repeat of the thread we had yesterday. Which is why this thread should belong to /k/ or /pol/.
I'm not disagreeing but Sarmatians and all Nomads did have military organization, we just don't know the details besides what the Chinese give us.
Nathaniel Torres
So what you're saying is you would step into the ring with any female MMA champion?
Thomas Davis
This is total bullshit. I'd love a woman who was strong enough to play the protector role and willing to do so. One of the reasons I like succubi is that they're supernaturally strong.
The problem is that women just don't like the idea of protecting a man. It displaces the foundation of their ego (i.e. that *women* are the ones who deserve to be protected and pedestalized). It also displaces their view of men as expendable assets.
Leo Hughes
Infinity has baby Zakus?
James Bennett
>You are a dinosaur Wait seriously!? Aw fuck yeah this is gonna be great!
See this is what I'm saying. Those two ladies deserved to be there because they actually had the will to try and hang with you guys and the way it sounds, they were at least sort of capable of it, but the rest didn't belong.Thanks for the annecdote my dude
Sebastian Adams
>It displaces the foundation of their ego (i.e. that *women* are the ones who deserve to be protected and pedestalized). It also displaces their view of men as expendable assets. This. On a related note, do you think that this, as well as the attitude of some men (not all, as you mention) is due to socialization? I think that would change to some degree, if social structure was different. Not that a society in which women are seen as protectors is viable, but rather, a society in which women do not need to rely on one particular man for resources/safety, and hence don't seek this out in a partner.
Dominic Howard
>On a related note, do you think that this, as well as the attitude of some men (not all, as you mention) is due to socialization? Absolutely.
Matthew Rodriguez
You're the only one who says this. Give it up, dude, it's never going to catch on.
John Ross
>army of dinosaurs vs army of women What hopes do you have, little girl?
Aiden Hill
Cool story bro.
Seriously, who makes these delusional Tumblr threads?
