If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Big Story)   HOO-HA   (bigstory.ap.org) divider line 144
    More: Hero, Special-use permit, Leon Panetta, Land warfare, Delta Force  
•       •       •

35081 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 5:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-23 06:58:25 PM  
8 votes:
I don't expect to change anybody's mind but I will throw it in...

In my experience, women in the military were an abject failure across the board. By and large, besides maybe one or two women I had the occasion to run across, virtually none performed at the same standard as men, nor did they attempt to. This could be the result of American cultural reasons, but there are surely biological factors as well.

Virtually none of the women I saw attempted to perform the same labor as men in their respective units. Women did none of the prepping of vehicles or lifting heavy equipment, usually they did not attempt to. When the mission was over the men were expected to strip down the vehicles, clean all the weapons and equipment and bring them back for storage. Bar none, virtually every woman in uniform immediately gathered up their personal belongings and headed straight back to their bee huts without bothering to offer if there was anything they could help with.

Discipline was a huge factor as well. I saw many times women servicemembers talked backed to their superiors and officers or refused orders. Often when more Infantry minded types yelled them down as is expected in military bearing it was returned with a plethora of EO complaints and their own CIC had to intervene.

Their usefulness in missions was debatable. All the women were taken out on PR missions to snap photos and deliver tylenol and cough syrup to disappointing children who were hoping to get candy. Typically it resulted in them throwing rocks at our vehicles as we lined up to leave. Yet these pogue units were happy to have the occasional outside the wire photos to upload to their facebook accounts unauthorized and pretend to their family back home that they "were in the shiat".

One of the biggest problems we had operationally was that women were constantly dehydrating. The reason was simply because they had no place to pee. Now think about this when it comes to military operations and how far you are removed from the comforts of modern conveniences and think "I can do anything!". Everywhere we went always drew a crowd, we would hope to stop at the side of the road, pull security, and allow females to pop a squat between two humvee doors with another female service member holding a sheet between the doors. The uncomfortablity of the situation led many females to the obvious conclusion that it was preferable to simply reduce drinking water. In 140 degree heat with 100% humidity this led to the obvious problem of dehydration and heat exhaustion, another reason why females always ditched their crew, equipment, and vehicles and simply headed back to their home as soon as we were back inside the wire, including officers, leaving men hours of work to deprep everything.

I've actually sat in mission briefings with females who argued to command, successfully, to reduce the time a proposed mission as they couldn't be outside the wire that long without urinating.

Luckily these pogue missions were few and far between. They were typically happy to sip coffee playing video games in the JOC until FOB fever kicked in and they decided they needed fresh smiling photos to post on their facebook accounts.

In a tactical situation, allowing this type of of a problem into combat arms I can only predict an outright disaster to military operations. That said, I don't really care. I feel bad for the next generation of army grunts sold into fighting for freedom, but maybe a few mission failures will finally lead to the deconstruction of the MIC. We can scale down to a military like the French where we send a few guys to stroll through Africa every few years and feign outrage at their chosen facial attire.  Maybe that's the point of this policy.
2013-01-23 04:03:51 PM  
8 votes:
OK I totally posted earlier than this and some funny headlines, but this....SUBBY. Funny....you're good you.....you're very GOOD.
HOTY material.
2013-01-23 06:26:46 PM  
7 votes:
As someone who wears the uniform I welcome this. I know I piss alot of my female counterparts off a lot because I am for equality....I mean ACTUAL equality not the kind they want. What they want is to be able if they want to, but not if they don't.

Years ago sea service was optional for women but not men..i was one who called for an end to that and make them serve just like we do; I was labled a sexist. Same as when they did 'girl pushups' funny how the same girls who preached equality complained the loudest at have to perform equally.

Now ladies, join me in the big, bold loud chorus of " MAKE US SIGN UP FOR THE DRAFT TOO" Ladie, anyone??
m00
2013-01-23 06:19:46 PM  
6 votes:

impaler: TheEdibleSnuggie: Cue feminist outrage that men and women in the military now playing equal roles in 3...2...1...

I don't think you are aware of what a feminist actually is.


A feminist is someone who believes in the myth of the male patriarchy, and advocates equal rights for women where it's convenient for women, but unequal responsibilities women when it's convenient for women.

Someone who believes that men and women, while inherently biologically different, should have equal protection under the law and women should not be barred from access to societal, political, or economic roles solely based on their gender is just a logical person.

Let me give you an example. In 2013 if there is a cruise or passenger ship that sinks and there isn't enough lifeboats, it's "women and children first." Steven Hawking (or any man, regardless of his accomplishments) would be demanded by society to give up his spot on the lifeboat for any high-school dropout drug addict woman, solely because he's a man. Society values women above men, and society expects men to protect women even if it means death. Even if the man is infinitely more accomplished than the woman, doesn't matter. Men in our society are disposable. Women must be cherished and preserved at all costs. There is a very good and obvious evolutionary reason for that, as had been necessary for the survival of our species for hundreds of thousands of years. This is why we send MEN to die for stupid wars, and not women. This is why sex-crimes and domestic abuse are only really recognized if the perpetrator is a man and the victim is a woman. Trying being a man and claiming you were date-raped by a woman who got you intoxicated, and see how far that gets you. Feminism is not interested in equality; if it were, it would be interested in treating every person as an individual who should be judged on his or her own accomplishment and by his or her own actions. But Feminism is not interested in equality, it is interested in promoting the well-being and comfort of women at the expense of men... just like society has always done. Feminism is a backlash to the notion that men and women are to be treated equally, and instead seeks to preserve the status quo of the disposable man who shuts up and gladly lays down his life so that women may be comfortable. Thus, Feminism and equality are fundamentally incompatible.
2013-01-23 05:53:38 PM  
6 votes:
The sad part of this is they will likely have to reduce standards so that women are equally represented in the combat arms. If the kept the standards fine but past experience says (like the Army and Navy did in the 1990s with coed basic training) they will lower them to reduce attrition and show the politicians how politically correct they are in creating opportunities for women.

First Women Fail Marine Infantry Officer Course


Of course now combat units will l be plagued by the same personnel shortages due to things like pregnancy that the support units now face.

Hell of price to pay for being stylish
2013-01-23 05:51:27 PM  
6 votes:
Really? I thought they already did, like for a while now. Shows what I know. Well as Chris Rock said about gays in the military, "Let 'em. Cause I ain't fightin'".

We know it's going to happen eventually anyway. She lasted longer than most of the men.

storiesbywilliams.files.wordpress.com
2013-01-23 05:36:31 PM  
6 votes:
Just reiterating what I wrote in a redlit thread....

The idea of not letting women participate in combat roles in the military is incredibly antiquated and sexist. This is a great step, and long overdue. As long a woman fulfills the appropriate physical and psychological requirements for a role, they should be permitted serve our country in any role they choose.
2013-01-23 05:36:51 PM  
5 votes:
Can we include them in the draft now?

Fair is fair after all.
2013-01-23 06:36:21 PM  
4 votes:

Coco LaFemme: I hope this doesn't mean I'll have to register for Selective Service.  I don't want to serve in the military, I'm scared to death of flying and of guns, and I want nothing to do with any war zones.  There are plenty of other women in this country with the figurative brass balls to do it, so let them.  I want no part of it.


So, to be clear, you only want equality when it's convenient and favorable for you?
2013-01-23 06:26:48 PM  
4 votes:
I definitely did not submit this with a better headline. Subby beats me handily. Bravo.


As far as TFA goes. About farking time.

Now, set a physical standard and require everyone to meet it. Do not provide two grading scales. Done. Evaluate combat capability by physical capability on a single standard and we have a good system. Anything less is designed around looking good, not about being effective.

/Former Sergeant
//Yes, I know, the Army is about looking good moreso than being effective fairly often
2013-01-23 06:04:28 PM  
4 votes:
As a combat vet who served with plenty of women, I have no problem with women in combat *IF* they are held to the same physical standards as men. The current gap in requirements is simply ridiculous. Those standards are in place not so that you can safely sit behind a desk, but so that you are fit enough for combat. Many special jobs carry special (increased) standards. Having requirements for women that are 1/3 the requirement for men is just stupid. That's not conjecture. I just looked up the push-up requirements for men and women in a standard Navy PRT for my age bracket. Minimum passing score for women: 9. Minimum passing for men: 27. Upper body strength is critical in no BS combat, as is overall endurance. I've served with plenty of women who could smoke a lot of guys on a PRT, so don't tell me it's not fair. Level out the standard or this is merely an exercise in politics.
2013-01-23 06:03:43 PM  
4 votes:
Why Women are weak

August 7, 2012: The U.S. military is using more women in combat support jobs (especially intelligence in Moslem countries where men talking to unrelated women can get you killed). For women to qualify for any combat support jobs they must achieve a higher degree of physical fitness. This is a matter of life and death for combat support troops because of their increased risk of exposure to combat situations. However, women suffered more injuries during this combat training and that has led to new training guidelines developed to minimize these injuries without diluting the training.

The U.S. Army has known about the higher female injury area since the 1970s, as a lot more women joined the military. Some of these lessons were learned via the experience of other nations and services. The U.S. Army responded by providing less intense training for women. Britain (and the U.S. Marines) decided that lower levels of physical fitness for women soldiers was not acceptable and, since 1998, the British women have had to meet the same high standards for physical fitness as the men. Since then the army has learned the same thing the coaches of the increasingly popular women's sports program have, women are more prone to "overuse" injury. In some sports (like basketball) women have ten times the number of certain types of injuries (knees) as men. In the British army, even before the more vigorous training program for women, the percentage of male recruits lost because of "overuse injury" was 1.5 percent, versus 4.6 percent for women.

A training program which did get the women in shape also put over ten percent of the recruits out of the service because of injuries. Thus for the last few decades new exercises and training routines have been developed to improve the strength and endurance of the female troops without the higher injury rate.

The basic problem is that less muscle mass and lower bone density puts 39 percent more stress on women during vigorous physical training. Research found that some of these injuries could be greatly reduced if the physical training for women was done over a six month period, rather than the standard three month course men and women used. But the injury rates will probably always be higher because of the fundamental gender differences.

Britain was also faced with demands that women be allowed to join combat units and responded by conducting tests with volunteers to see if women could meet the physical demands of ground combat. One test required the volunteers to carry 41 kg (90 pounds) of ammunition over a measured distance. In combat this is a common chore, bringing ammo and other supplies up to front line units that cannot be reached by vehicles (because of enemy fire and/or terrain).

Eighty percent of the men were able to accomplish this chore but only 30 percent of the women. Another test involved making a 20-kilometer march, followed by a live firing exercise (to simulate the combat that would often follow such a march). Everyone carried 27.3 kg (60 pounds) of weapons and equipment. For the men, 83 percent were successful, for the women, only 52 percent were. Many other tests were "gender normed" (lower standards for women) and still the men outperformed the women.

This is hardly the first time an attempt has been made to put women in ground combat units. Since the development of lightweight firearms about a century ago, it suddenly became possible for women to handle weapons as effectively as the men. Before that the weapons depended too much on upper body strength, leaving women at a large disadvantage. But attempts at using women as infantry have nearly all failed. Infantry operations involve more than just firing your weapons effectively, there's also all that running, jumping, and carrying heavy loads (of weapons, ammo, body armor, water, and so on).

Then there's the Political Correctness problem. Too many (or just any) injuries during training can get the media and politicians demand that the problem go away. During the 1990s, there was a major flap over the problems female trainees had keeping up with males. It wasn't fair. It was made "fair", making basic training easy enough so women were not injured. This resulted in all those troops being inadequately prepared for combat. That began to change after September 11, 2001. By now everyone is getting pretty strenuous training but that will change one peacetime returns.
2013-01-23 05:47:18 PM  
4 votes:
I'm ok with this, providing they don't change the standards for Ranger/Sapper or even SFAS. Better yet, since we're all equal now, lets do away with the dual-PT standards in the Army. EQUALITY!
2013-01-23 05:46:42 PM  
4 votes:
shoeblogs.com

You say Ukraine is weak?
2013-01-23 05:34:08 PM  
4 votes:

Triumph: So, does this mean Farkettes will soon have to acquaint themselves with this webpage?
http://www.sss.gov/default.htm

/hope not


Why not? I've registered and I'm a chick. It takes like 30 seconds and only makes sense.
2013-01-23 05:33:21 PM  
4 votes:

Triumph: So, does this mean Farkettes will soon have to acquaint themselves with this webpage?
http://www.sss.gov/default.htm

/hope not


Don't like equality?
2013-01-23 04:22:34 PM  
4 votes:
Completely juvenile, sophomoric and crass.

+1
2013-01-23 10:17:18 PM  
3 votes:

phrawgh: These are minimum Army PT test standards for male and female soldiers in the Army.

MALE STANDARDS:
Age Push-Ups Min Sit-Ups Min Two Mile Run Min
17-21 42 53 15:54
22-26 40 50 16:36

FEMALE STANDARDS:
Age Push-Ups Min Sit-Ups Min Two Mile Run Min
17-21 19 53 18:54
22-26 17 50 19:36

Equality. How the fark does it work?


Are you also suggesting that the maximum weight limit for men be reduced to the one for women?

Hypocrisy. How the fark does it work?
2013-01-23 09:16:32 PM  
3 votes:
Fantasy
2.bp.blogspot.com

Reality
ww1.hdnux.com
2013-01-23 06:37:14 PM  
3 votes:

Dwindle: Fail in Human Form: Unless there's ONE physical standard for both men and women then this is going to be a huge clusterfark.

There is. That's why women weren't allowed in combat.


...Um. No. There was an actual ban. There was  one position in the Marines that had that problem, but that doesn't mean they'll have it now--since this made the news, women who can hit those standards might show up.

Also, you might want to RTFA where they actually say they aren't changing the standards...
2013-01-23 06:29:49 PM  
3 votes:
As long as they are required to meet the same physical standards, I am not opposed. All other standards are already the same.

This will also make women more promotable within the forces (soldiers with current/former combat MOS's are more often chosen for higher leadership positions, particularly in the officer ranks).

Mr. Jihadi doesn't care if you run slower. Bullets/IED's don't discriminate between sex, age, creed, sexual orientation, or race. We are all required to move fast and slower/weaker people (of either sex) are a liability.
2013-01-23 06:22:40 PM  
3 votes:

NINDroog: Ok, as long as they don't drop the minimum requirements. You can walk 20 miles in 100+ lbs. of gear, that's great, welcome to the club.

I just don't see this happening. Instead, we're going to get political correct nonsense about how the system is chauvinistic because too many women are falling out.


/yep. Women generally can't compete on a physical level with men. So, they would have to lower the standards. Much like my local police department did due to pressure to hire minorities. They lowered the test scores and qualifications for any minority, so they could get in. The white guys still had to score the same as before. So, you, as a white guy, could be passed over for employment by a guy who scored lower, even much lower than you, but due to his skin color got it, and you didn't . Despite former training / experience. And yes, i've seen it first hand.
2013-01-23 06:15:46 PM  
3 votes:

Coco LaFemme: I hope this doesn't mean I'll have to register for Selective Service.  I don't want to serve in the military, I'm scared to death of flying and of guns, and I want nothing to do with any war zones.  There are plenty of other women in this country with the figurative brass balls to do it, so let them.  I want no part of it.


You're expressing a lot of concerns that we've burdened our male citizens with for a long time.
2013-01-23 06:00:41 PM  
3 votes:
Ok, as long as they don't drop the minimum requirements. You can walk 20 miles in 100+ lbs. of gear, that's great, welcome to the club.

I just don't see this happening. Instead, we're going to get political correct nonsense about how the system is chauvinistic because too many women are falling out.
2013-01-23 05:58:42 PM  
3 votes:

Supes: The idea of not letting women participate in combat roles in the military is incredibly antiquated and sexist. This is a great step, and long overdue. As long a woman fulfills the appropriate physical and psychological requirements for a role, they should be permitted serve our country in any role they choose.


Served in a mixed regiment for 4 years including combat (yes, women do that in my country) roles.
Bottom line from my experience: women are able to do every role a man can (sometimes better) besides front line face to face combat. Sorry but biology is a factor. Also sexual tension is problematic. Very.
2013-01-23 05:47:15 PM  
3 votes:
Thank you all for the lurve.

And yes, it's about goddamned time.  Equal rights across the board for everyone, please.

/subby
m00
2013-01-23 05:42:35 PM  
3 votes:
Finally. If women want equality, they should have to die for stupid wars just like us men. :)
2013-01-23 04:58:31 PM  
3 votes:
Make 'em shave their heads too!
2013-01-23 11:19:36 PM  
2 votes:

USP .45: As long as they don't reduce the physical standards for infantry, this is mostly a non-issue.

However, since the libs always like to guilt trip America into what he rest of the western nations are doing, can we list which countries allow woman in infantry positions?

I know Canada doesn't.


Sooooo, it's ok to look to other countries for leadership now?  Whatever happened to American exceptionalism?
2013-01-23 10:54:21 PM  
2 votes:

saturn badger: ChuDogg: I don't expect to change anybody's mind but I will throw it in...

In my experience, women in the military were an abject failure across the board. By and large, besides maybe one or two women I had the occasion to run across, virtually none performed at the same standard as men, nor did they attempt to. This could be the result of American cultural reasons, but there are surely biological factors as well.

Virtually none of the women I saw attempted to perform the same labor as men in their respective units. Women did none of the prepping of vehicles or lifting heavy equipment, usually they did not attempt to. When the mission was over the men were expected to strip down the vehicles, clean all the weapons and equipment and bring them back for storage. Bar none, virtually every woman in uniform immediately gathered up their personal belongings and headed straight back to their bee huts without bothering to offer if there was anything they could help with.

Discipline was a huge factor as well. I saw many times women servicemembers talked backed to their superiors and officers or refused orders. Often when more Infantry minded types yelled them down as is expected in military bearing it was returned with a plethora of EO complaints and their own CIC had to intervene.

Their usefulness in missions was debatable. All the women were taken out on PR missions to snap photos and deliver tylenol and cough syrup to disappointing children who were hoping to get candy. Typically it resulted in them throwing rocks at our vehicles as we lined up to leave. Yet these pogue units were happy to have the occasional outside the wire photos to upload to their facebook accounts unauthorized and pretend to their family back home that they "were in the shiat".

One of the biggest problems we had operationally was that women were constantly dehydrating. The reason was simply because they had no place to pee. Now think about this when it comes to military operations and how far you a ...

This actually makes sense. How did that happen in a fark thread?


Shame it's false. Or rather, his "reason" is false. It wasn't "simply because they had no place to pee" but because they couldn't go someplace private and not get raped:
Professor Helen Benedict of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University is an author of two books on sexual assault and sex crimes. She has spent months interviewing more than 20 women veterans of the Iraq war for up to 10 hours each in preparation for a new book about them.
According to Benedict, sexual harassment is almost unilateral throughout the military and it is something very few men in the military have to endure. Sexual assault and rape is a real and ever present danger from their own comrades, male comrades. This is a well known fact amongst the military in Iraq. All the women Benedict spoke to told her that their officers in Iraq routinely warned them they should never go to the latrine or showers without another woman for protection.

...Colonel Janis Karpinski has been an outspoken critic of how female soldiers are treated in Iraq. Last year she testified at the Bush Crimes Commission Hearings, a mock trial. Below is an excerpt from her testimony:
"Because the women, in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the portatoilets or the latrines, were not drinking liquids after 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon. And in 120-degree heat or warmer, because there was no air conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep. And rather than make everybody aware of that, because that's shocking -- and as a leader, if that's not shocking to you, then you're not much of a leader -- so what they told the surgeon to do was, "Don't brief those details anymore. And don't say specifically that they're women. You can provide that in a written report, but don't brief it in the open anymore.""
According to Professor Benedict, Karpinski had told her there were male soldiers lying in wait out there for the women soldiers. They would pull them into the latrines, abuse them and rape them. When word of this spread, the women became afraid to go out.


So if his troop had its "biggest problems" with women constantly dehydrating, then really, he's saying his troop had its biggest problems with raping their comrades.
2013-01-23 09:58:38 PM  
2 votes:
Great, now the army can spend millions training women so that most of them can fail out. Definitely should have a pre-test for women so that money doesn't go down the tube. And before you liberal feelgood farkers come running, stfu, women are built differently than men, most of them aren't up to snuff for infantry work. Not to mention how many men will die because a women can't drag their 200lb + 100lb of gear body. That's also not counting the pregnancies that will happen. For all of you non-military farkers out there, you don't get a replacement for a pregnant member of your team. You just have to run a man down because that slot is filled. Only amazons on birth control will work out, and its not even worth it for the amount of hacks the army will have to wade through to get them.
2013-01-23 07:50:46 PM  
2 votes:
Oh, just want to be clear...

I'm a-ok with women wanting combat roles and getting them. But I'd insist on the following.
1. Female candidates for combat role MUST meet the same physical requirements as male candidates
2. That female candidates not be given special dispensation because of being female
3. That female candidates be able to shoulder carry a male soldier for the same distance that a male candidate can carry the same soldier in the same amount of time (extracting a fallen soldier from combat)

If she can meet the reqs, I see no reason why a woman can't do a combat role. The greatest sniper of all time was a woman. Can''t argue with results.
2013-01-23 07:41:32 PM  
2 votes:

paulseta: Given that women have proved themselves in combat in other countries for many, many years, this should be fine.


Women in other countries don't have the same attitude that women in the U.S. do. I can see all kinds of legal issues and headaches for combat arms commanders in the future because of this. The women will get into these positions and then complain about the working conditions and the way that they're treated. If they manage to succeed at some of this, then the press will start publishing articles about how women are outperforming men in these roles, pandering to their female audience and distorting the truth in the process.

And what happens when women in combat arms roles are being raped and killed in combat situations? Look at all the fuss that occurred with Jessica Lynch's vehicle crash injury and eventual rescue, and she was in a maintenance company -- she never even fired a shot. Are we going to have to put up with that beating-the-dead-horse type of coverage every time a female infantry soldier gets hurt/killed? Jessica was made out to be a hero, when in fact she simply got hurt while she was doing her job.

I'm also curious how this is going to work in practice. Is the Army going to lower its physical requirements for entry and completion of Army Ranger school? Sapper training? Is the Navy going to lower its standards for SEAL training? It's bad enough that the military already has to spend so much time and energy dealing with sexual harassment and sexual assault issues concerning female members -- now we're going to put women right into the middle of combat, as active participants, and then -- what? -- punish everyone who even looks cross-eyed at them or dares to tell a crass joke in front of them? I'm all for women being able to pursue the careers and opportunities they want... as long as they don't insist on changing the rules or conditions to accommodate them, and as long as they're not just doing it to make some kind of statement. Combat is serious, brutal business. It's not going to change because your daughter has decided to get her infantry badge.

One can use the argument that women serve in combat arms positions in other countries, but historically that was more a matter of practicality than out of some altruistic women-are-equally-capable nonsense. The U.S. isn't faced with a shortfall in male recruits for the combat arms, and we're not running low on people to defend our own homeland against attack. At this point, adding women into the combat arms -- while a seemingly noble idea -- is destined to be more trouble than it's worth. I do not envy the commanders who are going to have to deal with the consequences of this decision.
2013-01-23 07:31:34 PM  
2 votes:

Dwindle: Fail in Human Form: Unless there's ONE physical standard for both men and women then this is going to be a huge clusterfark.

There is. That's why women weren't allowed in combat.


Equal physical standards are fair, if performing the job requires those physical standards. It may be harder for most women to meet them, but there is no reason to ban all including those who CAN. Let the standards eliminate weaker women and men alike.

/female firefighter
2013-01-23 07:28:25 PM  
2 votes:

Marine1: lennavan: Marine1: lennavan: Marine1: So, other than to pat ourselves on the back as a "progressive" society, what's the real purpose behind this?

Being slightly less sexist?

Sexist? What's sexism have to do with war?

Nothing. Presumably that's why they stopped being sexist.

So you're introducing new individuals into the system to fight wars. These individuals (on average) have half the upper body strength of their male counterparts. They suffer ACL injuries at a rate four to six times higher than men when partaking in strenuous physical activity. Current weapons are tailored around male bodies, which have larger hands and longer arms... this makes a difference in length-of-pull and other things that make a person more or less capable with a weapon. Women present challenges with birth control that weren't there before... could the military really mandate that female soldiers receive it? I'm not seeing much benefit here.

The goal of the United States military is not to reduce sexism or be this paragon of equality. Its mission is to kill as many people and blow up as many things as efficiently as possible with the minimum number of lives lost on our side. Allowing LGBT meant letting in a bunch of soldiers who were otherwise qualified to serve, but were denied on grounds that had nothing to do with combat effectiveness or survivability. This, on the whole, is not the case with women. I have yet to see a solid example of how adding women to the military makes it any more able to accomplish its mission.


Wait what? WTF color crack are you smoking?

M-4/M-16 - Unless you have extremely short arms, it won't make much of a difference.
M203, same thing.
M-249,M-240B may be a little on the heavy side for some women, but arm length and hand size don't matter much.
Any of the hand held anti-vehicle weapons may have weight as a factor, but that's a strength issue, not arm length or hand size. Same goes for any of the vehicle mounted systems like the MK-19 or the .50 cal. Strength issues but not arm length or hand size unless you're really tiny. The only time I could see an argument like arm length coming into play would maybe be sniper rifles or some of the longer shotguns in use.
2013-01-23 07:24:00 PM  
2 votes:

Pincy: But what about birth control???


Yes, that pesky birth control. The Achilles heel of my argument.

Obviously women need to sit at home baking cakes and vacuuming all day so they don't get in trouble because of their birth control.
2013-01-23 07:19:36 PM  
2 votes:

Marine1: Why don't they let people like me scream around in an F-15? Because I'm a liability and can get myself or others killed. In combat, you can't have people who are especially susceptible to knee injuries running around with a hundred pounds on their backs


You do realize that males have stress injuries too, yes?

And that you wouldn't get into a F-15 because you wouldn't meet the performance standard set forth for that position, not because you are arbitrarily denied as a result of being male, gay, or whatever, yes?

'Have a penis' is not a performance standard. It's an arbitrary standard. Plenty of people with penises should not be in combat positions because they are prone to physical injury. I was in the Army for six years, if I had been infantry I would have suffered major hip problems and been shipped out of the war zone post haste. As it was in the job I was in in the Army I did my six just fine without significant hip problems because I didn't have to ruck all over. I didn't meet the combat role physical requirement. I'm fine with that.

Set a standard, let Soldiers test vs that standard, those that pass can go to combat roles. Those that can't, can't.
2013-01-23 07:15:35 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: Bell-fan: Fail in Human Form: Unless there's ONE physical standard for both men and women then this is going to be a huge clusterfark.

This post NAILS the point in one clean clear statement.

That point being neither of you read the article before commenting? Yeah I think you two NAILED that one pretty well.


No I did read it. Unfotunately for us you're a little more ignorant than you think you are. You see, here's how it works, pal.

Currently the Army, the air force, the marines, and the navy all have standards for males, then they have standards for females which are lower.

If they are keeping status quo, then that means that females only have to meet female pt requirements for fitness for combat.

If you'd READ what was said and thought about it for a second... you'd realize that what we're saying is that there needs to be a SINGLE unified standard that both males and females meet to be able to go into combat.

Let me guess... you're not a vet, right?
2013-01-23 07:08:20 PM  
2 votes:

Marine1: Read the post above this one.


You mean this one:

brantgoose: American woman, stay away from me!

American woman, said get away
American woman, listen what I say
Don't come hangin' around my door
Don't wanna see your face no more
I don't need your war machines
I don't need your ghetto scenes

Goodbye American woman

My cousin's in the Armed Forces. I don't know what happened in Afghanistan but she's a little bit jumpy as a result.

Footnote: The Canadian Armed Forces opened all occupations, including combat roles, to women in 1989.



if so, what's your point? Welcome to war, PTSD doesn't care if you have a dick or not.


If not, and you mean your most recent post before that one:

Marine1: So you're introducing new individuals into the system to fight wars. These individuals (on average) have half the upper body strength of their male counterparts. They suffer ACL injuries at a rate four to six times higher than men when partaking in strenuous physical activity. Current weapons are tailored around male bodies, which have larger hands and longer arms... this makes a difference in length-of-pull and other things that make a person more or less capable with a weapon. Women present challenges with birth control that weren't there before... could the military really mandate that female soldiers receive it? I'm not seeing much benefit here.

The goal of the United States military is not to reduce sexism or be this paragon of equality. Its mission is to kill as many people and blow up as many things as efficiently as possible with the minimum number of lives lost on our side. Allowing LGBT meant letting in a bunch of soldiers who were otherwise qualified to serve, but were denied on grounds that had nothing to do with combat effectiveness or survivability. This, on the whole, is not the case with women. I have yet to see a solid example of how adding women to the military makes it any more able to accomplish its mission.



So your argument starts with "On average females get hurt more often", yep, and with a unified single physical standard for combat arms positions, that's not a problem. Males get hurt too, and are shunted away from combat. That isn't an argument against allowing those women who can meet the standard and are healthy to participate. It's an argument against hurt people participating.

You then say that we have equipment tailored to male bodies. Which is not relevant, we can make new equipment that isn't if it is of true concern.

You then oddly transition to birth control, which is hardly relevant to anything.


So far you aren't doing so hot there, not-actually-a-marine guy.


Let me help you understand something about what the Military really is on about in a social sense. Soldiers are Soldiers. Airmen are Airmen. Marines are Marines. Sailors are Sailors. I don't care if you're black, white, asian, gay, straight, male, female, or anything. If you can do your job and meet the standard, you're a good Soldier. You'd be wise to stop arm-chair generaling it up and listen to those of us with actual service under our belts, instead of making yourself look like an idiot with arguments that don't hold up to the smallest bit of scrutiny.

If a female can pass the physical standard set as a requirement for a Soldier to be in a combat role, then they should be able to be in that role. That is that. Period. Can the Soldier meet the standard, yes no, pass fail, end of discussion.
2013-01-23 06:48:43 PM  
2 votes:

Coco LaFemme: sillysillysilly: Coco LaFemme: sillysillysilly: As someone who wears the uniform I welcome this. I know I piss alot of my female counterparts off a lot because I am for equality....I mean ACTUAL equality not the kind they want. What they want is to be able if they want to, but not if they don't.

Years ago sea service was optional for women but not men..i was one who called for an end to that and make them serve just like we do; I was labled a sexist. Same as when they did 'girl pushups' funny how the same girls who preached equality complained the loudest at have to perform equally.

Now ladies, join me in the big, bold loud chorus of " MAKE US SIGN UP FOR THE DRAFT TOO" Ladie, anyone??

FARK no.  I want no part of any military service.  I have neither the physical, nor mental strength for it, and I don't think anyone should be forced to join their country's military against their will.  Forced service sounds absolutely barbaric.  If you want to serve, serve.  You're a better person than me.  However if you don't want to, that should be seen as a valid response as well.  This goes for men and for women.  Save military service for those who truly want it and have a passion for it.

Signing up for the selected service is not a draft; but gives the names and addresses of those who can be conscripted in severe emergency. Something even bigger than WWII would have to happen for it to kick in. So you would not be required to serve until such time.

I think all have an obligation to serve in such instances; so hiding behind a skirt weather your a female or gay now is not a shield, its time to "man up Nancy pants"

I will gladly be the cowering, whimpering girl in the corner.  I'm proud to be a complete pussy.

 remus: Coco LaFemme: I hope this doesn't mean I'll have to register for Selective Service.  I don't want to serve in the military, I'm scared to death of flying and of guns, and I want nothing to do with any war zones.  There are plenty of other women in this count ...


Fark that.

A nation that can go to war without the majority of its citizens feeling the consequences for it leads to the kind of stupid shiat we see today with Iraq and Afghanistan.

We should institute a draft EVERY time we go to war, it should be mandatory and an amendment should be passed to make it happen.

Bonus? It would pretty much guarantee the utter and complete destruction of the Republican Party.
2013-01-23 06:43:34 PM  
2 votes:

Fail in Human Form: Unless there's ONE physical standard for both men and women then this is going to be a huge clusterfark.


This post NAILS the point in one clean clear statement.

Ladies and Gents... combat doesn't give a flying fark about your political correctness factor.
If women want combat roles, then meet the same standards that the men can meet. Why? because your buddies in combat are relying on you to be just as tough and strong as they are so that if you're wounded you can be certain you can be carried out, and can carry your buddy out if he or she is wounded.
2013-01-23 06:43:02 PM  
2 votes:

doyner: Marine1: PsiChick:

Also, you might want to RTFA where they actually say they aren't changing the standards...

Yet.

Dude.  Really?


Back when police and fire departments were first letting women in, they said they would keep the admissions standards the same. Then a bunch of women couldn't meet those standards, and ta-da, they were lowered.

My skepticism doesn't come from some far away land of misogyny. It comes from history.
2013-01-23 06:36:17 PM  
2 votes:

Coco LaFemme: sillysillysilly: As someone who wears the uniform I welcome this. I know I piss alot of my female counterparts off a lot because I am for equality....I mean ACTUAL equality not the kind they want. What they want is to be able if they want to, but not if they don't.

Years ago sea service was optional for women but not men..i was one who called for an end to that and make them serve just like we do; I was labled a sexist. Same as when they did 'girl pushups' funny how the same girls who preached equality complained the loudest at have to perform equally.

Now ladies, join me in the big, bold loud chorus of " MAKE US SIGN UP FOR THE DRAFT TOO" Ladie, anyone??

FARK no.  I want no part of any military service.  I have neither the physical, nor mental strength for it, and I don't think anyone should be forced to join their country's military against their will.  Forced service sounds absolutely barbaric.  If you want to serve, serve.  You're a better person than me.  However if you don't want to, that should be seen as a valid response as well.  This goes for men and for women.  Save military service for those who truly want it and have a passion for it.


Signing up for the selected service is not a draft; but gives the names and addresses of those who can be conscripted in severe emergency. Something even bigger than WWII would have to happen for it to kick in. So you would not be required to serve until such time.

I think all have an obligation to serve in such instances; so hiding behind a skirt weather your a female or gay now is not a shield, its time to "man up Nancy pants"
2013-01-23 06:30:30 PM  
2 votes:

rindeee: As a combat vet who served with plenty of women, I have no problem with women in combat *IF* they are held to the same physical standards as men. The current gap in requirements is simply ridiculous. Those standards are in place not so that you can safely sit behind a desk, but so that you are fit enough for combat. Many special jobs carry special (increased) standards. Having requirements for women that are 1/3 the requirement for men is just stupid. That's not conjecture. I just looked up the push-up requirements for men and women in a standard Navy PRT for my age bracket. Minimum passing score for women: 9. Minimum passing for men: 27. Upper body strength is critical in no BS combat, as is overall endurance. I've served with plenty of women who could smoke a lot of guys on a PRT, so don't tell me it's not fair. Level out the standard or this is merely an exercise in politics.


This is very true, it's not some whine about women either. It's really damaging on cohesion and morale when the soldier next to you not only has less physical PT requirements but also can't perform the functions of their job so the other people have to pick up the slack.

If scoring X pushups means you are combat ready then that should apply to all.
2013-01-23 06:25:09 PM  
2 votes:
i47.tinypic.com
2013-01-23 06:24:57 PM  
2 votes:

mahuika: knbwhite: chopit: knbwhite: I got no problem with women and gays serving in any job they qualify for, but I do have one comment. When my mom informed me I should have no problem with gays in the field with me because they weren't interested in me because I am afflicted with teh straight. I told her to head on down to the college and shower with the football team, because hey, they aren't interested in her.

Any farkette's/mom's have a comment?

I have a comment. You're an idiot.

You know why I suspect you're gay?

Oh! I know! Because you're homophobic and think that's still an insult?


Uhmm, how bout because he right away went with an insult instead of actually considering a point of view. I get it though, straight white males don't get to have their feelings considered.
2013-01-23 06:22:42 PM  
2 votes:

Supes: And now there will still be one standard (can't have soldiers who aren't able to hike far enough, carry their packs, fire their weapons, etc.), but women who qualify will be permitted to fight.


Currently, Army standards are different for men and women.

For instance:
To score a 100, men age 17-21 need to do 71 pushups, women the same age need only do 42. In the 2 mile run, men get 13:00 to score 100, females get 15:36.
Hell yes some women can do it. But if we're going to be equal, let's be equal.

/which is physically impossible, for various reasons
2013-01-23 06:09:55 PM  
2 votes:

knbwhite: chopit: knbwhite: I got no problem with women and gays serving in any job they qualify for, but I do have one comment. When my mom informed me I should have no problem with gays in the field with me because they weren't interested in me because I am afflicted with teh straight. I told her to head on down to the college and shower with the football team, because hey, they aren't interested in her.

Any farkette's/mom's have a comment?

I have a comment. You're an idiot.

You know why I suspect you're gay?


Oh! I know! Because you're homophobic and think that's still an insult?
2013-01-23 06:08:26 PM  
2 votes:

rindeee: As a combat vet who served with plenty of women, I have no problem with women in combat *IF* they are held to the same physical standards as men. The current gap in requirements is simply ridiculous. Those standards are in place not so that you can safely sit behind a desk, but so that you are fit enough for combat. Many special jobs carry special (increased) standards. Having requirements for women that are 1/3 the requirement for men is just stupid. That's not conjecture. I just looked up the push-up requirements for men and women in a standard Navy PRT for my age bracket. Minimum passing score for women: 9. Minimum passing for men: 27. Upper body strength is critical in no BS combat, as is overall endurance. I've served with plenty of women who could smoke a lot of guys on a PRT, so don't tell me it's not fair. Level out the standard or this is merely an exercise in politics.


Unfortunately that's not gonna happen. We already have female firefighters that can't make the cut but sued to be let in. Hope you don't need one to carry your ass out of a fire cause they can't.
2013-01-23 05:59:46 PM  
2 votes:
One step closer to reality:

www.afterelton.com

Would you like to know more?
2013-01-23 05:50:12 PM  
2 votes:

TheEdibleSnuggie: Cue feminist outrage that men and women in the military now playing equal roles in 3...2...1...


I don't think you are aware of what a feminist actually is.
2013-01-23 05:49:04 PM  
2 votes:

Druid5: I'm ok with this, providing they don't change the standards for Ranger/Sapper or even SFAS. Better yet, since we're all equal now, lets do away with the dual-PT standards in the Army. EQUALITY!


Don't stop at the Army.

If that's untenable, then let's just mandate that standards are equal for members of combat units.
2013-01-23 05:47:49 PM  
2 votes:
War is one of the worst things that mankind does to each other. I do not find any joy in encouraging women to be full participants in this activity.
2013-01-23 05:37:40 PM  
2 votes:
The enemies better give up now. You have no chance against our women!! They are going to kick your ass and you will thank them for it.
2013-01-23 05:37:30 PM  
2 votes:
Unless there's ONE physical standard for both men and women then this is going to be a huge clusterfark.
2013-01-23 05:34:20 PM  
2 votes:

Triumph: So, does this mean Farkettes will soon have to acquaint themselves with this webpage?
http://www.sss.gov/default.htm

/hope not


Hope so.

/Farkette
2013-01-23 04:21:59 PM  
2 votes:
Stupid.
2013-01-23 04:07:28 PM  
2 votes:
THIS BETTER get the green.
2013-01-25 03:38:11 AM  
1 votes:

untaken_name: Rent Party: I'm perfectly happy to have the women meet a separate PT standard, as it reflects separate physiologies. What a "strong" woman can do is different than a "strong" man, from a callisthenics standpoint.

So, the weight of the soldier they're trying to drag out of the line of fire will change based on their sex?


No dumb ass, the standard goes from "Gotta do a bunch of pushups... huuuuurrrr" to "Must be able to drag 240lbs up an inclined grade."

One is relevant to being a soldier. The other is relevant to threatened little men.
2013-01-24 07:37:21 PM  
1 votes:

Keizer_Ghidorah: GF named my left testicle thundercles: Keizer_Ghidorah: hasty ambush: Keizer_Ghidorah: So, hasty ambush and Marine1, are you guys only internet-sexist or are you also real life sexist?

Sexist because I am concerned about he eventual lowering of standards that will result? Anybody who has seen government knows that wil be what happeneds. As I stated earlier if they keep the standards the same it would be less objectionable. You would still have to deal with the inevitable manpower shortages becuase of pregnancy though.

But they will not keep the standards the same (except maybe for the special operations types). To keep the attriition rates/costs down and to satisfy the polticians that this is working they will have to lower standards. This will be the ony way to get enough women through things like Infantry training to satisfy those higher that woman are being given more opportunities.

One need look no further than the 1990s when the Army was turned ino a job corp for single moms and went to co-ed basic training for those going to to non-combat arms (infantry, armor, artillery) MOS's. They ended up lowering standrads and turned basic into a summer camp. The Army (along witeh Navy which also went co-ed) issued recruits stress cards so they could take a time out if things too tough. The enemy of course does recognize stress cards.


I along with many others are convinced that t e performance of the 507th Maintenace Company when it was ambushed in Iraq was a direct result of these lower standards. It is worth pointing out htat every service except the Marine Corps,which never went co-ed in basic training, had to lengthen and toughen up their recruit training to meet the demands of the war.

If it is sexist to point out the physical differences between men and women then yes I am sexist.

Immediately assuming that standards are going to be lowered for everyone because women make everything weaker sounds pretty sexist to me, along with your blanket stateme ...


you are going to have to produce an argument. calling me a sexist or misogynist to render your position immune to criticism is not going to work.
2013-01-24 01:06:25 PM  
1 votes:

Rent Party: I'm perfectly happy to have the women meet a separate PT standard, as it reflects separate physiologies. What a "strong" woman can do is different than a "strong" man, from a callisthenics standpoint.


So, the weight of the soldier they're trying to drag out of the line of fire will change based on their sex? Or if there's a wounded 6'2" 250lb guy in full battle gear, he's just dead if the closest to him's a woman? I'm really trying to understand why separate standards would make any sense at all. You're testing for whether every soldier can perform the hardest task likely to be expected of them in a combat situation, not whether they can perform the hardest task possible for them specifically. Almost isn't good enough. Halfway doesn't cut it. I have no problem with women fighting on the front lines; indeed, I say make them the only front-line troops. Men have been the only front-line troops exclusively for many years. It's time to reverse that disparity.
2013-01-24 08:50:39 AM  
1 votes:

Moquary: hasty ambush: Moquary: hasty ambush:hasty ambush: And I am not convinced you have seen many women carry 120lbs 12 miles.

I know it contradicts your expectations/experience. But it is, honestly, my experience. I have seen many women hump 120lbs, including one who carried the 18lb SAW instead of the 9lb M16, various distances including and exceeding 20km.


Sorry, going to need citation

Hahahahahahahahaha. Okay. Personal experience in the military. I predict that that doesn't meet your rigorous standards of scholarship (phrase used with tongue-in-cheek, in case there is any confusion on this point). But it's what I've seen with my own two eyes.


I'm going to call BS as well. I don't believe you. 2nd I'm guessing you don't understand combat because you were in a unit with women. Combat is being on your feet with 120 lbs moving all day. Being alert for the enemy, not staring at your boots and putting one foot in front of the other. Combat is going over walls and through windows with your gear. Combat is sprinting with 120 lbs bc your taking fire. Combat is hitting the deck, getting back up, hitting the deck, getting back up. Carrying wounded men while in full gear. My combat load was a m-16, 203, 40 hedp 40 mm, 240 tripod, extra radio batteries, 300 extra SAW rds, nvgs, I comm, 6 smoke grenads, a frag, a flash bang, water. And I took turns humping at4s, 240 rds, mortar base plates, smaw rockets, and laws. The shiat is heavy, you wear it all day, and most tiring you have to fight in it. It is exhausting. No shiat exhausting. You've never done anything like it ever. Hiking 20 miles is a farking walk in a park, literally.
2013-01-24 08:02:15 AM  
1 votes:
Knew some tough chicks in the service
knew a lot of ones who weren't
lots of surprise pregnancies when deployments happen
lots of sexual harassment charges (very little of it real)

The biggest problems are
A) guys naturally look out fer a gal
B) you gotta bring 'em in and wash 'em up every few days

sorry gals, genetics just aren't on your side
but
go for it, pass the tests,be strong, keep yer hole clean,
and kick some ass for your rich politicians
thousands of miles away in their warm leather chairs
2013-01-24 12:18:03 AM  
1 votes:

weiserfireman: War is one of the worst things that mankind does to each other. I do not find any joy in encouraging women to be full participants in this activity.


This.
2013-01-23 10:09:44 PM  
1 votes:

phrawgh: These are minimum Army PT test standards for male and female soldiers in the Army.

MALE STANDARDS:
Age Push-Ups Min Sit-Ups Min Two Mile Run Min
17-21 42 53 15:54
22-26 40 50 16:36

FEMALE STANDARDS:
Age Push-Ups Min Sit-Ups Min Two Mile Run Min
17-21 19 53 18:54
22-26 17 50 19:36

Equality. How the fark does it work?


It works with the average male infantryman dying so that some extreme leftists like so many farkers here can feel good and pat themselves on the back for making an average females day.
2013-01-23 10:03:07 PM  
1 votes:
These are minimum Army PT test standards for male and female soldiers in the Army.

MALE STANDARDS:
Age Push-Ups Min Sit-Ups Min Two Mile Run Min
17-21 42 53 15:54
22-26 40 50 16:36

FEMALE STANDARDS:
Age Push-Ups Min Sit-Ups Min Two Mile Run Min
17-21 19 53 18:54
22-26 17 50 19:36

Equality. How the fark does it work?
2013-01-23 10:03:04 PM  
1 votes:

Jegred2: Great, now the army can spend millions training women so that most of them can fail out. Definitely should have a pre-test for women so that money doesn't go down the tube. And before you liberal feelgood farkers come running, stfu, women are built differently than men, most of them aren't up to snuff for infantry work. Not to mention how many men will die because a women can't drag their 200lb + 100lb of gear body. That's also not counting the pregnancies that will happen. For all of you non-military farkers out there, you don't get a replacement for a pregnant member of your team. You just have to run a man down because that slot is filled. Only amazons on birth control will work out, and its not even worth it for the amount of hacks the army will have to wade through to get them.


Waahhhhhh!!!

I can just taste the delicious con tears. Cry for us, Rethuglican baby!
2013-01-23 09:42:41 PM  
1 votes:

Mike Chewbacca: That's because only an idiot would create a crew for this particular job with 3 women who are 5'3" and weigh 110 pounds. Would anyone make a MALE crew like this? Fark no.

Don't be disingenuous. Nobody is saying women are physically the same as men. We're saying that there are plenty of combat jobs that women can do just as easily as men (and in many cases, better). There's no reason a woman couldn't be a sniper. There's no reason my 6'4" female cousin couldn't load those missiles


I would be glad to have her on my crew (all else being equal)!

But the number of 5'3", 110 lb guys is far fewer than the number of 5'3", 110 lb women.
And then we get into the issue of having to structure load crews based on size. Only one woman to a crew, or something like that. I fully agree that some women can do it, and maybe better than me. I worked with some of them (Hi, Donna D!).
Also realize this was many years ago. Women have been in that job for a loooong time. Add in the combat situation, and things get even dicier.

I'm not saying that some women can't do it. Just like some men can't do it. But let's have the same requirements for the job, be they male or female. Which is currently not the case.
2013-01-23 09:41:38 PM  
1 votes:
pjmedia.com
2013-01-23 09:11:13 PM  
1 votes:

YouPeopleAreCrazy: YouPeopleAreCrazy: My old job as a USAF armament specialist required loading missiles by hand. The 210 lb missile is not lighter if you are a female.

to continue, this is what I was talking about:
USAF
[www.lakenheath.af.mil image 340x226]

Navy
[themellowjihadi.com image 448x320]

I'm not a big guy, but I could, and did, do this all day long. Some of the women could as well. But the percentage of capable women was, in my personal experience, far less than the percentage of capable men who could do it.
Get a crew of 3 women the size of my daughter (5'3", 110), and they'd last about once, if that.

/One standard, period or no period


That's because only an idiot would create a crew for this particular job with 3 women who are 5'3" and weigh 110 pounds. Would anyone make a MALE crew like this? Fark no.

Don't be disingenuous. Nobody is saying women are physically the same as men. We're saying that there are plenty of combat jobs that women can do just as easily as men (and in many cases, better). There's no reason a woman couldn't be a sniper. There's no reason my 6'4" female cousin couldn't load those missiles.
2013-01-23 09:07:11 PM  
1 votes:

rickycal78: DesertMP: What a horrible idea.....this isn't to say that women aren't capable, what I'm saying here is that in my company in the first gulf war we had 14 women (Combat Military Police). Of the 14, 4 actually pulled their own weight and were worth having along side of us men. Also the Isrealis tried this back in the 1970's and found that they had higher casualty rates because men were putting themselves at greater risk trying to protect the women from getting killed. I am all for female combat helicopter pilots or fighter pilots or even armored crews but the idea of female infantry seems like a really BAD idea. Oh well, we'll see how the American public likes seeing their daughters come home in body bags. And don't tell me it's the same as seeing their sons come home in one, because it isn't no matter how you spin it.

Because no female service members died in any of the conflicts we've been involved with over the last few decades right?


They have, and the government used them as war boosters.

4.bp.blogspot.com

Until they run for Congress, and they should STFU and get back in the kitchen

upload.wikimedia.org
2013-01-23 09:03:05 PM  
1 votes:

YouPeopleAreCrazy: My old job as a USAF armament specialist required loading missiles by hand. The 210 lb missile is not lighter if you are a female.


to continue, this is what I was talking about:
USAF
www.lakenheath.af.mil

Navy
themellowjihadi.com

I'm not a big guy, but I could, and did, do this all day long. Some of the women could as well. But the percentage of capable women was, in my personal experience, far less than the percentage of capable men who could do it.
Get a crew of 3 women the size of my daughter (5'3", 110), and they'd last about once, if that.

/One standard, period or no period
2013-01-23 08:51:23 PM  
1 votes:
What a horrible idea.....this isn't to say that women aren't capable, what I'm saying here is that in my company in the first gulf war we had 14 women (Combat Military Police). Of the 14, 4 actually pulled their own weight and were worth having along side of us men. Also the Isrealis tried this back in the 1970's and found that they had higher casualty rates because men were putting themselves at greater risk trying to protect the women from getting killed. I am all for female combat helicopter pilots or fighter pilots or even armored crews but the idea of female infantry seems like a really BAD idea. Oh well, we'll see how the American public likes seeing their daughters come home in body bags. And don't tell me it's the same as seeing their sons come home in one, because it isn't no matter how you spin it.
2013-01-23 08:50:42 PM  
1 votes:
Every time the military has tried "social engineering" --eg integration of African Americans-- it seems to have worked out pretty well, from both social justice and combat-readiness standpoints.
2013-01-23 08:49:11 PM  
1 votes:
Now make them register with the selective service.
/'bout time.
2013-01-23 08:36:43 PM  
1 votes:

Xetal: Marine1: Sexism was a perfectly working system, I don't see why we had to change it.

Fixed that argument for you.


You have this idea that the military is there to extend rights and opportunities to communities. It is not.
2013-01-23 08:36:17 PM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: Well good for them - the military is a great place for social experiments!

Couple questions.......

1. What are the rules on sexual harassment? Mating and attempted mating will be happening. On both sides. The girl blowing her way to the top and blocking promotions is just as guilty as the cad who can't take a hint.

2. More importantly, how do you train a 20 year old guy to respond to a 19 year old girl who is shot up and irretrievably lost and screaming for help. That tends to happen to soldiers in combat with some regularity.


Ask Israel.
2013-01-23 08:26:37 PM  
1 votes:

WordyGrrl: The unit I was stationed with at Ft Bragg required us to do PT 2 or 3 times a week wearing 50-pound rucksacks (yes, they weighed them). The 110-pound female admin specialist ended up carrying almost 50% of her body weight while the 200-pound former football jock carries only 25% of his body weight. Didn't make sense from a medical safety standpoint, but rules is rules and that unit was run by idiots at every level. And tradition seems to be that a woman has to work twice as hard as a man to be considered as working "just as hard."


If the load of stuff you need to carry weighs 50 lbs, ten the load of stuff you need to carry weighs 50 lbs, no matter who you are.

My old job as a USAF armament specialist required loading missiles by hand. The 210 lb missile is not lighter if you are a female.
2013-01-23 08:19:34 PM  
1 votes:
Of course, all of this will make it easier for everyone to accept a female Commander in Chief a few years down the road. This was only ever a matter of time.
2013-01-23 08:18:11 PM  
1 votes:
It's about damn time! All this time, I've been arguing that allowing gays to shower and bunk with the gender that they prefer, but denying the same right to heterosexuals is clearly discriminatory, on the basis of sexual orientation. If Caesar is free to ogle Steve, why should Francine enjoy a different level of privacy from Steve's eyes? Now the military can truly say they don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Thanks, Obama!
2013-01-23 08:10:25 PM  
1 votes:

IP: Oh for farks sake subby...


/so simple, so perfect
/HOTY material


Omahawg: much better than what I submitted


Thank you, thank you.  This was #3 of my submissions.

I know this probably sounds pretentious, but I think inspiration is just what's left after you've exhausted the obvious.

/Almost 10 years on Fark, and this is my first winner.
2013-01-23 08:08:33 PM  
1 votes:
Once again, woman are a generation behind in their struggle to join the ranks of power brokerage.

Saying women are different than men isn't the same as "separate but equal" Jim Crow laws. Feminists don't seem to realize this, and believe that doing terrible jobs in harms way will earn them respect, when in fact it accomplishes the opposite.
2013-01-23 08:01:28 PM  
1 votes:

gordian: ChuDogg, you have mail and time-wasteage ahead. I've had you farkied as a good human since the Diane Tran thread, and you keep impressing me. While I don't think your personal account should lead to a blanket statement of 'women in combat is wrong,' it's an excellent argument for thoughtful implementation and hard-core standards, both physically and non. Hope everyone involved is up for the task of doing it right.

Thanks for taking the time to write that out.

/big fan of 'Accidental Education' on Fark


Because insulting sexist-tinged speculation in a discussion is to be touted as arguments for "thoughtful implementation."

Who knew?
2013-01-23 07:59:21 PM  
1 votes:
I wonder if the leftist hippie losers will actually spit on women returning from service now.
2013-01-23 07:54:28 PM  
1 votes:

doyner: Marine1: doyner: Marine1: My eyesight is now 20/40. I'm a college student studying IT instead. Admittedly, C# and PHP would disappoint the shiat out of 10-year-old me.

RK is allowed now, FWIW (Navy anyway).

A high school buddy of mine had that surgery to get his eyesight up to par for that very purpose.

He sat in his dimly-lit basement for a few days in extreme pain after the surgery. Eh. I'll pass.

Small price to pay for one's dreams.

The passion with which you speak implies you'd be of the mettle to take such a risk.

No no military for you?


Dude.

Please stop quoting this moron.

I can honestly say that before I put his dumb ass on ignore I never ONCE read anything but mindless drivel from him.

Yet another reason I can't stand this state, it's filled with mouth breathers like him.
2013-01-23 07:49:44 PM  
1 votes:

Fark Me To Tears: Women in other countries don't have the same attitude that women in the U.S. do.


Then I guess women in the United States will just have to grow the fark up, then, huh?
2013-01-23 07:48:43 PM  
1 votes:

wingedkat: Equipment, however, needs to be reevaluated and redesigned for women. A woman's pack fits better and lets her carry more than a man's, and she may require different shoes and equipment to prevent stress fractures.


Is there that much difference between 50th-percentile female (Average Jane) and 5th-percentile male (Little Joe)? I don't think there's going to be a huge need to redesign all that much all that quickly.
2013-01-23 07:40:56 PM  
1 votes:
Ok, I definitely thought this thread was going somewhere else when I clicked it. But, the man is a fan anyway, so it works.

i48.tinypic.com
2013-01-23 07:38:54 PM  
1 votes:

ZogDog: anyway, just some food for thought. The military isn't in the business of being P.C, but if women want to be in combat arms I say let in, only to the same degree as men are now, in segregated units performing similar functions... thats equality and it would offset the problems that are likely to arise.


No segregation.
2013-01-23 07:33:54 PM  
1 votes:
As someone who has served I welcome this if its handled correctly. I've seen the problems that plague P.O.G units such as pregnancies, sexual harassment cases (both warranted and unwarranted at times), higher rank sleeping with lower rank, favoritism, sexism, and all the drama that a typical Co-Ed workplace consist of only amplified by ten because of the influx of men and the small quantity of women actually serving. Combine that with prolonged deployments and you have just that... a lot of drama. Most of these Co-Ed units can function however because their jobs don't require as much of the kind of discipline, dedication, commitment, and unit cohesion that an infantry or combat arms unit requires. Biologically speaking, while it sounds good from a P.C perspective and looks good on paper, when you put young men and young women together your going to have more drama and sexual issues that can cause fractures and make for some complications. I'm all for segregating combat arms units. Creating strictly female combat arms units in comparison to their male counter-parts.

While I was in the Marines (btw a little more chauvinistic than the other branches) were experimenting with all female patrols, and for the most part they were a success, they bridged cultural divides and were able to perform tasks that an all male unit could not for fear of disrupting local cultural norms. It would be unwise however, to immediately begin opening up all male infantry units to the inclusion of a few women and while it wouldn't be crippling, it would make for some very nasty complications among said units.

anyway, just some food for thought. The military isn't in the business of being P.C, but if women want to be in combat arms I say let in, only to the same degree as men are now, in segregated units performing similar functions... thats equality and it would offset the problems that are likely to arise.
2013-01-23 07:29:42 PM  
1 votes:

scubamage: I'm torn about this one. While in a small military campaign having women would be helpful on the battlefield. However, there is a major issue in a protracted military campaign or a state of total war. See, women have the biological ability to do something that men cannot - have children. If something were to ever place us in that sort of situation, women would NEED to carry children or we'd end up losing via attrition because we'd lose the capability of making more fighters. For now? I think it's a good thing. It's just an issue we'd need to figure out down the road if we ever get into a really bitter conflict.


You're just trolling for the laughs, right? Nobody would really be serious about this, right?
2013-01-23 07:28:41 PM  
1 votes:

Prank Call of Cthulhu: impaler: Bell-fan: Currently the Army, the air force, the marines, and the navy all have standards for males, then they have standards for females which are lower.

Aren't there standards based on age as well?

Hush. You'll demolish all those disingenuous arguments about, "Ah doesn't have a problem with it, iffn they has the same standards as men."


Don't be a troll. The PT reqs for men of all combat capable ages still exceed the female ones.
2013-01-23 07:28:24 PM  
1 votes:

Prank Call of Cthulhu: impaler: Bell-fan: Currently the Army, the air force, the marines, and the navy all have standards for males, then they have standards for females which are lower.

Aren't there standards based on age as well?

Hush. You'll demolish all those disingenuous arguments about, "Ah doesn't have a problem with it, iffn they has the same standards as men."


Hardly disingenuous. You just misunderstand and assume that we argue for an age-scaled combat standard.


Meet X standard to pass your PT test and be able to stay in the Army and be rated for promotion on your physical ability. I don't care if there are separate standards for males and females and an axis for age.

Meet Y standard to be in a combat role, PERIOD. You need to carry some weight over some distance in some time, do some number of pushups, a run in some amount of time, etc. Flat standard. You age out and are unable to meet the standard, you don't get a combat role anymore.
2013-01-23 07:27:10 PM  
1 votes:

lantawa: Vietnam War American male casualties: 58,185
Vietnam War American female casualties: 8

//just sayin'
/means sumptin



Yeah, it means like almost a half a farking century ago we did not allow women in combat.
2013-01-23 07:26:02 PM  
1 votes:

NkThrasher: Pincy: But what about birth control???

Yes, that pesky birth control. The Achilles heel of my argument.

Obviously women need to sit at home baking cakes and vacuuming all day so they don't get in trouble because of their birth control.


No no no, you got me wrong, that marine1 dude keeps bringing it up and I have no idea what he's talking about. I was poking fun at him, not you.
2013-01-23 07:22:15 PM  
1 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: Part of me says...why the hell not? If they can do the physical tests and pass them, why shouldn't they be allowed to fight? Russia does it, so do many other countries. My only objection is that male soldiers would be more prone to watch out for the women soldiers, then the men. Not saying that's a bad thing, but if i was a soldier, and there were 300 people in my company, and one woman that was fighting, i would try to keep a eye on her more than the others. I think that it's a male inherent desire to protect their women, or any women, that would cause this. Again, not saying its a bad thing, just saying.


Don't you know White Knighting never gets you laid?
2013-01-23 07:13:14 PM  
1 votes:

hasty ambush: Eighty percent of the men were able to accomplish this chore but only 30 percent of the women. Another test involved making a 20-kilometer march, followed by a live firing exercise (to simulate the combat that would often follow such a march). Everyone carried 27.3 kg (60 pounds) of weapons and equipment. For the men, 83 percent were successful, for the women, only 52 percent were. Many other tests were "gender normed" (lower standards for women) and still the men outperformed the women.


Only 83% of males could carry 60lbs over 20 clicks? I would be happy to carry that little weight!

I've seen women carry twice that weight on humps. I'm not convinced that this argument was written by someone who has actually served.
2013-01-23 07:00:00 PM  
1 votes:

Coco LaFemme: No, I don't think anyone should be required to sign up for Selective Service. When you're 18 years old, if you want to sign up, sign up. If you don't, I don't think there should be anything wrong with that.


Lots of people will agree with this sentiment. But, as long as we are requiring all men to register with the Selective Service, I'm finding it hard to think of a reason why we shouldn't require all women to do this as well.
2013-01-23 06:57:37 PM  
1 votes:

computerguyUT: I'm not a chauvinist, I was in the Army in a combat unit and I have seen females tear tight knit groups of men to pieces.

This is a bad idea that is only going to make things MUCH worse.

Sigh.....hang on, it's going to get bumpy.


I just wanna know how one woman can have so much control over a group of guys who were supposedly "tight knit" until the whore of babylon came along
2013-01-23 06:54:09 PM  
1 votes:
For years I was opposed to women serving in combat. I finally realized I couldn't come up with a reason that wasn't sexist. As long as a woman can pass the same standards as a man, than let her serve in combat.
2013-01-23 06:50:56 PM  
1 votes:

iq_in_binary: Fark that.

A nation that can go to war without the majority of its citizens feeling the consequences for it leads to the kind of stupid shiat we see today with Iraq and Afghanistan.

We should institute a draft EVERY time we go to war, it should be mandatory and an amendment should be passed to make it happen.


Not a bad idea really.

But define "war." We haven't declared war since 1941.
2013-01-23 06:47:19 PM  
1 votes:

Marine1: lostcat: Marine1: So, other than to pat ourselves on the back as a "progressive" society, what's the real purpose behind this?

Well, the military hasn't had as many units avaiable to deploy as it needs. This might help solve that problem.
...

The US military is a finely-tuned war-making machine. If you introduce women into the equation, you will encounter more issues with war fighting. That is simply fact.

I'm being totally serious when I say that this is news to me. It seems like it's a constant scramble to keep everything from falling apart most of the time. And by definition, would a finely-tuned anything require massively overpriced "contractors" to get involved in nearly every aspect of its operation?
2013-01-23 06:46:41 PM  
1 votes:

Bell-fan: Fail in Human Form: Unless there's ONE physical standard for both men and women then this is going to be a huge clusterfark.

This post NAILS the point in one clean clear statement.


That point being neither of you read the article before commenting? Yeah I think you two NAILED that one pretty well.
2013-01-23 06:44:18 PM  
1 votes:

Coco LaFemme: No, I don't think anyone should be required to sign up for Selective Service. When you're 18 years old, if you want to sign up, sign up. If you don't, I don't think there should be anything wrong with that.


The result of this is poor, less educated, minorities end up risking their lives for the rest of us. I imagine we'd use our military slightly less if everyone might have to serve.
2013-01-23 06:43:33 PM  
1 votes:

Marine1: The US military is a finely-tuned war-making machine.


And if you hadn't admitted to not being in the military before, this would have tipped me off.
2013-01-23 06:37:29 PM  
1 votes:
Can we finally see an end to the different physical requirements, too? And mandate women are legally required to sign up for the draft?

And will it now be illegal to publish, or even talk about, the future stories of female combatants getting raped by the enemy or raped by fellow soldiers who are being jerks?

Equality means the females are now able to fully defend themselves, right? Because if they're in a bad situation, they're equal to men, so we don't have to hear about how difficult it is for them when something uniquely horrible happens to their gender. Because equality.

In fact, when those stories start getting publicized I'm coming to these "B-b-b-b-b-but equality" threads and laugh with hearty "told you so".
2013-01-23 06:37:27 PM  
1 votes:

gadian:
Are our fighting men soldiers or high school boys?


Trick question?
They recruit in high schools and in colleges and have been known to waive the age requirement if they think they can get away with it.
2013-01-23 06:37:08 PM  
1 votes:
Maybe, just maybe, since the top leadership positions come from combat arms/line/etc., this opens the pipeline for women to finally have positions of top leadership in the DoD.
2013-01-23 06:35:20 PM  
1 votes:
We had 30 out of 300 women deploy with our cav unit as a pilot program. It worked out as expected that everyone was banging everyone. About 10 or 1/3 of the females were lesbian/bi and the other 20 were mostly whores (they would bang guys on rotation from the OPs). About 9 months into the deployment IG was all over us because the officers and high ranking enlisted were banging the lower enlisted and being drunk too often. We did manage to get a meritorious unit award interestingly enough. All together I think women in some combat roles is a mistake ie line infantry and cav scout, but they could be the armorer or admin in those units.

/end csb
2013-01-23 06:33:01 PM  
1 votes:
So, other than to pat ourselves on the back as a "progressive" society, what's the real purpose behind this?
2013-01-23 06:28:02 PM  
1 votes:

mazzz: Ok, I don't get the headline. I know the term is a euphemism for the holiest of holies, but what's the term's relevance to the military?

Please enlighten a brother.


"In the Army, we say Hooah and we say Hooah for lots of different things. It's a good thing. How are you Smith? Hooah! Smith, go take that hill. Hooah First Sergeant! Hey where's Smith? Hooah Sir! So, I gotta start off by asking: Is this a Hooah day at Athens State University or what?"

-- Flag Day speech as presented by LTG Richard P. Formica on 14 June 2011 at Athens State University (WARNING: PDF)
-- http://www.smdc.army.mil/CG/FlagDayRemarksAthensState27June0930.pdf
2013-01-23 06:20:45 PM  
1 votes:

evoke: Females are not sent to the front lines in Israel


They are stationed in highly dangerous borders in Gaza and Lebanon, during wars and major operations. Also Egypt when there is a high alert of terrorist attacks. I would call it pretty much "real".
2013-01-23 06:19:44 PM  
1 votes:

cman: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: How about we just get rid of the draft instead? I find that to be more of an anachronism and source of ire than prohibiting women from combat roles.

We dont have a draft...


Then there's no need for SSS registration. Get rid of it.
2013-01-23 06:18:14 PM  
1 votes:

mazzz: Ok, I don't get the headline. I know the term is a euphemism for the holiest of holies, but what's the term's relevance to the military?

Please enlighten a brother.


The Army likes to yell "HOO-AH" to voice agreement, excitement, etc.  It was meant to represent this as both agreeing with the policy change, having women around, and as a nod to the Army, even if it was submitted by a sailor.
2013-01-23 06:17:41 PM  
1 votes:
Fark yeah!

i215.photobucket.com
2013-01-23 06:16:21 PM  
1 votes:

meat0918: Can we include them in the draft now?

Fair is fair after all.


Actually, it does seem like we should be requiring women to register with Selective Service as well.
2013-01-23 06:15:59 PM  
1 votes:
As long as they can meet the physical requirements, cool.

The second they get their own standards... fark no.
2013-01-23 06:14:01 PM  
1 votes:
Link

pciszek: Druid5: Better yet, since we're all equal now, lets do away with the dual-PT standards in the Army. EQUALITY!

Others have been saying that that is already the case. Which is it?


The current APFT standards are a joke, and this is a big reason reason why others are saying that the standards need to be kept the same for women seeking combat roles. Take a look at some the Female and Male standards and you'll see, Link
2013-01-23 06:13:44 PM  
1 votes:

Marine1: How long before they have to sign up for the SSS?

/or figure out that a baby is a good way to get out of shooting at some beady-eyed motherfarker in the Afghan wastes?


Oh wow. I can see that happening too. "We're instituting a draft." "That's cool, we're going to be pregnant starting tomorrow." Though, I guess in some twisted way that has a population balancing effect.
2013-01-23 06:13:39 PM  
1 votes:

rickycal78: I've also seen how squad or platoon morale can suffer if a hottie in the group favors one guy over another. I can't imagine how the grunts will react to having women in their midst like that.


Are our fighting men soldiers or high school boys? We can't make them stop raping and comments like these make me think we can't make them just stow their crap and fight. I think the problem here is not the women, but the men who just can't deal.
2013-01-23 06:13:24 PM  
1 votes:
Another mass social denegration of the great republic. I am done with chivalry.

No more door-opening or deference to you, ladies. I won't call you ladies anymore, I'll call you sows or child carriers, biatches if you like. Congratulations! I won't stick up for you if I see someone physically abusing you, or outraging your modesty. You can handle it on your own.

If you outrank me, I'll now call you "Sir".

/You can thank "President" Basilisk Chumpstain 0FUK0: the Kenyan communist arugula eating Presidential usurping paperclip using birth certificate forging tax loving dijon mustard spreading gun-running college transcript cheating cigarette smoking baby killing 200 million dollar a day vacationing job regulating gun taking teleprompter reading czar appointing christmas tree taxing death panel instating wealth redistributing terrorist pal'ing inexperienced foriegn leader worshipping vacation-taking deficit spending incandescent lightbulb banning jalapeno ordering secret muslim Nazi American...

...the Communist Nazi Muslim Socialist Peacenik Elitist Dhimmicrat Man-Child Egghead Celebrity Jihadist Appeaser Usurper Dictator Manchurian-Candidate Community-Organizer Cult-Leader Empty-Suit Tyrant Bureaucrat Hypocrite Non-Citizen America-Hater Arugula-Muncher Marxist Terrorist Liberal Leftist Stalinist Welfare-Statist Narcissist Plagiarist Pottymouth Murderer Islamofascist Sleeper-Cell Ghetto-Trash Blame-America-Firster Fearmonger Racist Atheist Kenyan Keynesian Militant Flag-Burner Child-Molester Drug-Lord Gun-Grabber Gun-Runner Lightbulb-Outlawer Union-Thug Anti-Semite Media-Darling Fifth-Columnist Ponzi-Schemer Vacation-Abuser Lazy-Ass Flip-Flopper Black-Liberationist Abortionist Antichrist Coward Traitor Liar Trickster Death-Panelist Affirmative-Action-Case Evolutionist Fraudster Pothead Coke-Dealer Alinskyite Taxaholic Spendthrift Job-Killer Puppetmaster Soros-Minion Subhuman Illegal-Alien Reptoid Silver-Spoon Monarchist Teleprompter-Addict Chain-Smoker Hip-Hop-Barbecuer Stutterer Non-Tipper Binder-Clipper Pizza-Cheese-Eater Face-Blocker Havel-Snubber Malware-Propagator Greenie-Weenie State-Miscounter Mom-Jeans-Wearer Grey-Poupon-Supremacist Long-Legged Mackdaddy Socialist Marxist Arab Fascist Kenyan Muslim Blah Usurper Reptoid currently defiling the White House.
2013-01-23 06:09:33 PM  
1 votes:
Well, I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, this is a good thing for equal rights. On the other, having spent times in both combat arms units and support units in the Army, I could see things going real badly, mostly as far as unit morale goes. I've seen the resentment some soldiers have over the women who end up pregnant when the rumors of a deployment start cropping up, and I've seen the resentment that women have a different/lower standard when it comes to things like fitness tests. I've also seen how squad or platoon morale can suffer if a hottie in the group favors one guy over another. I can't imagine how the grunts will react to having women in their midst like that. One thing I've noticed during my time in is that the kind of guys that go combat arms can tend to be more than a little sexist and caveman like. (No offense to combat arms folks) I realize this won't always be the case, but it's territory that has to be tread carefully.
2013-01-23 06:09:28 PM  
1 votes:

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: You think this is bad? Wait until some woman gets the Medal of Honor.


upload.wikimedia.org
ORLY?
2013-01-23 06:03:45 PM  
1 votes:
t2.gstatic.com


Women! What can you say? Who made 'em? God must have been a farkin' genius. The hair... They say the hair is everything, you know. Have you ever buried your nose in a mountain of curls... just wanted to go to sleep forever? Or lips... and when they touched, yours were like... that first swallow of wine... after you just crossed the desert. Tits. Hoo-ah! Big ones, little ones, nipples staring right out at ya, like secret searchlights. Mmm. Legs. I don't care if they're Greek columns... or secondhand Steinways. What's between 'em... passport to heaven. I need a drink. Yes, Mr Sims, there's only two syllables in this whole wide world worth hearing: pussy. Hah! Are you listenin' to me, son? I'm givin' ya pearls here.
2013-01-23 06:02:47 PM  
1 votes:
thirtytwothousanddays.com

"You aint got time to bleed."
2013-01-23 06:02:05 PM  
1 votes:

knbwhite: I got no problem with women and gays serving in any job they qualify for, but I do have one comment. When my mom informed me I should have no problem with gays in the field with me because they weren't interested in me because I am afflicted with teh straight. I told her to head on down to the college and shower with the football team, because hey, they aren't interested in her.

Any farkette's/mom's have a comment?


I have a comment. You're an idiot.
2013-01-23 06:01:13 PM  
1 votes:
And, once we start seeing perfectly good women with missing limbs and stuff, enough Americans will think twice about blindly supporting their illegal wars to finally stop it all and vote out those ass-clowns.
2013-01-23 06:01:12 PM  
1 votes:
dreamdogsart.typepad.com

"And some rights for you..."
2013-01-23 05:58:07 PM  
1 votes:
As long as they can eat 3 pizzas I say let 'em fight.

farm2.staticflickr.com
2013-01-23 05:54:58 PM  
1 votes:
I'm ok with more of this:

farm9.staticflickr.com
2013-01-23 05:53:58 PM  
1 votes:
People are taking this story as some victory for equality or something but I'm sure not.
They have been lowering the standards for a long time now to meet recruiting goals and such.

Women now join criminals, the obese, the handicapped, and so on in our never-ending wars. Welcome.
2013-01-23 05:53:49 PM  
1 votes:
Women should make combat rolls and sell them to support the soldiers.
2013-01-23 05:48:00 PM  
1 votes:
"There were hatchet wounds all over the battlefield."
2013-01-23 05:47:21 PM  
1 votes:
This helps eliminated one of the biggest propaganda points for the right wing in pushing its wars for profit, "protect the women and children, blah, blah, blah..."
2013-01-23 05:47:12 PM  
1 votes:
This isn't about equal rights for women in the military.

It's about needing more cannon fodder. Seriously.

I'm not anti-military by any means, but let's not kid ourselves. The United States needs more soldiers to fight the wars we're in.
2013-01-23 05:46:53 PM  
1 votes:
Given that women have proved themselves in combat in other countries for many, many years, this should be fine. Of course, it won't stop a massive argument and flame war, but then again, anything knocking the status quo around tends to do that.

I suppose this will be positioned by certain political elements as another example of the Obama administration's attempt to ursurp Carter's as "history's greatest monster" :-)
2013-01-23 05:44:14 PM  
1 votes:
The first time some gash has to face some goat rapist in hand to hand she's going to either tear his farking head off or get herself raped. I'm betting on raped.
2013-01-23 05:41:22 PM  
1 votes:

Nabb1: Completely juvenile, sophomoric and crass.

+1


Welcome to Fark, heh heh heh

I give +2 for our gallant submitter. Goddmannit man, that actually made me laugh out loud when I read the real headline.
2013-01-23 05:39:55 PM  
1 votes:
About time they get recognition for fighting (fyi women have been in combat for almost a decade now, just not "technically" in combat positions)
2013-01-23 05:38:00 PM  
1 votes:
About time, women deserve the right to make the same terrible decisions men can.

Also definite HOTY material, well done subby.
2013-01-23 05:35:49 PM  
1 votes:
Bout damn time.
2013-01-23 05:27:41 PM  
1 votes:
So, does this mean Farkettes will soon have to acquaint themselves with this webpage?
http://www.sss.gov/default.htm

/hope not
2013-01-23 04:35:27 PM  
1 votes:
This is the one that needs to go green & also needs to be in the HOTY finals.

Spectacular job subby
2013-01-23 04:10:08 PM  
1 votes:
Get ready for intergender global thermoemotional breakdown war.
 
Displayed 144 of 144 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report