Women can be valuable in the army and not necessarily in a combat role. They need nurses, doctors, cooks... not just canon fodder. I have no problem with women serving their country
Women in Israel are there for show. What I can tell you becomes of women in the US military is that they end up with a body count (not the kind a soldier is supposed to rack up) longer than an encyclopedia. They'll also often be assaulted by black soldiers and afraid to report it. So, no. Not a good idea. The only women that belong with an army are camp followers
Funny since Iraq they have all the data to show not only are women physically incapable of performing male duties when injured they also die faster to to their FRAIL physiology. Not to mention they often refused to do anything remotely dangerous. Look up Pugil Stick fight to see what I mean they've known this for centuries.
Ngl lie but this sounds pretty sexist but it is actually true, a retired SF guy from India said the same thing very clearly that females are not built to fight, their biology doesn't allow that.
Hello caveman. Literally 95% of men disagree and are married and have families in mass with working women , includibg military women who later have kids. Insecure boy?
Ywt vast majority of women still laughs at you and your comments here. You project thoughts into women's heads. Exceptions aside. Most men also disagree with you
Racist and sexist yes. As for proof, if you think tossing your daughter in as an enlisted surrounded by higher ranking blacks is a good idea go for it.
I agree, this is the logical outcome of feminism and a moral good according to the value system of the West now. Maybe this will highlight the insanity of the current system to women. It's easy for a woman to think there should be more female CEOs while she herself is a nurse or teacher. It's harder to think mothers should be drafted and sent away from their young families to die in a foreign war (It's sad with fathers too, but bravery is a mark of a good father so the heroic elements of the narrative offset the tragedy. Obviously it's actually tragic in real life. We are talking about the minds of women.) I think women still need to have the discrepancy politely pointed out to them, because women are flexible and are fully capable of holding conflicting beliefs if society asks them to. And it has.
biology.. men and women are not the same, men have evolved to better deal with conflict and injury.. from having greater bone density, tougher ligaments, to larger muscle mass.. and lets not forget the differences in natural psychological responses to many of the situations encountered in conflict.
countless..? each individual soldier is a counter to each individual apposing soldier. this is why their should be no difference in training requirements, or set ability.
females in the military, and police forces, do not match the physical training standards of their male counterparts.. (unless those standards are uniformly reduced to accommodate them) because they are not physically equal, or able, to do so.
countless is not an option, as countless isn't a provision, nor is it ever guaranteed. females are a liability, in any front line, combat focused station, where they have replaced a male.
this isn't simply because they are not physically equal, but also because most men they fight beside, will have a natural predisposition, to assume a greater sense of responsibility for their female squad members wellbeing, than that of their primary function.
all this is readily available information, is well researched, heavily documented, and peer reviewed. these are simple facts, it isn't sexist to point them out, nor is it an attempt to glorify 1 group, or demean another. ignoring reality is bad, people get hurt as a result.
when physical conflict can be as lame as fighting over the last sandwich in the plate. even when a dispute is upscaled to required armies, it can still be over something as lame.
military conflict is largely broken down in 2 categories.. defense of held resources, or expansion for desired resources.. either by main force, or by proxy. with saber rattling, and the threat of conflict, being used as a political tool, too 'fortify' diplomacy, or sell arms.
its all a terrible waste of life for us common folk, we never start these conflicts, we just die from them. misanthropic elites love to play their games, we are chattel to their murder machine, a means to their ends.
i am only in agreement with female conscription from philosophical necessity as a life lesson, not from any moral position.. can women do war.. certainly! should they have to when men are better suited.. certainly not!
to understand reality, you have to experience it.. just try and find a women, who has lived through direct conflict, and would choose to do so again, as a soldier, fighting with only other women at her side? i would be amazed if you could do so.
The only women that belong with an army are camp followers
females in the military, and police forces, do not match the physical training standards of their male counterparts.. (unless those standards are uniformly reduced to accommodate them) because they are not physically equal, or able, to do so.
countless is not an option, as countless isn't a provision, nor is it ever guaranteed. females are a liability, in any front line, combat focused station, where they have replaced a male.
this isn't simply because they are not physically equal, but also because most men they fight beside, will have a natural predisposition, to assume a greater sense of responsibility for their female squad members wellbeing, than that of their primary function.
all this is readily available information, is well researched, heavily documented, and peer reviewed. these are simple facts, it isn't sexist to point them out, nor is it an attempt to glorify 1 group, or demean another. ignoring reality is bad, people get hurt as a result.
when physical conflict can be as lame as fighting over the last sandwich in the plate. even when a dispute is upscaled to required armies, it can still be over something as lame.
military conflict is largely broken down in 2 categories.. defense of held resources, or expansion for desired resources.. either by main force, or by proxy. with saber rattling, and the threat of conflict, being used as a political tool, too 'fortify' diplomacy, or sell arms.
its all a terrible waste of life for us common folk, we never start these conflicts, we just die from them. misanthropic elites love to play their games, we are chattel to their murder machine, a means to their ends.
i am only in agreement with female conscription from philosophical necessity as a life lesson, not from any moral position.. can women do war.. certainly! should they have to when men are better suited.. certainly not!
to understand reality, you have to experience it.. just try and find a women, who has lived through direct conflict, and would choose to do so again, as a soldier, fighting with only other women at her side? i would be amazed if you could do so.