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.

(Slate)   Family Research Council says women can't serve in combat because they can't pee outdoors. No, seriously, they said that   (slate.com) divider line 301
    More: Silly, Family Research Council, foreign policy  
•       •       •

9326 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jan 2013 at 3:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



301 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-28 04:09:02 PM
Lest we forget -- Newt Gingrich on women in combat, 1995:

"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."
 
2013-01-28 04:09:18 PM

FloydA: Karac: Anyone else ever notice how every single one of these objections to women serving in combat has already been proven wrong by the decade or so that we've let them be shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan?

At least when they were objecting to gays serving openly they could point to something that was actually going to change. They may as well be arguing that we can't take the chance on letting women drive or vote.

Don't give them any ideas.


Too late.
Free Republic link.
And another, from a woman, no less.
 
2013-01-28 04:09:30 PM

treesloth: HotIgneous Intruder: One word: PREGNANT.

That is all. Carry on.

That makes me wonder... I'm sure that's a problem that's been encountered at least once in the history of the US military... How do they deal with a servicewoman in a critical post that becomes pregnant, intentionally or not, and thus unable to continue in that post? Are there posts that basically come with an order, "you will not become pregnant for the duration of this post"? Can they punish someone for that? Does it create a different form of "shoot yourself in the foot" for women?


Navy's been dealing with this for the last decade or so, and yes it DOES cause some problems, but as you point out, it ain't like men haven't been goldbricking themselves out of deployments for a very long time
 
2013-01-28 04:09:34 PM

mark12A: One time I was bicycling home from work, under I-95, through the Philly sports complex. I saw one women, behind one of the I-95 support coluums, pants down, butt hanging out, squatting and peeing like a horse there on the tarmac.

Sorry Farkies, but women trying to pee in combat surroundings is a hell of a lot more complicated than guys whipping it out and squirting.

Women and gays in combat is monumentally stupid, but the PC brigade will get its way for now, and it will be goofy, scandalous, constantly newsworthy, will wreck countless military careers, and go on until we get into a real war, at which point women/gays in combat units will go away overnight as we get serious at fighting for national survival in what ever serious conflict we get into in the future.....


You bicycle to work? What are you, some kind of communist?
 
2013-01-28 04:10:19 PM
I'm Canadian, so I'm getting a kick out of this.

Canada has allowed women to fill combat roles for 20 years. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/25/women-filled-8-3-of-canadas-co mbat-positions-in-afghanistan-study/
 
2013-01-28 04:10:59 PM

cig-mkr: A quick trip to Youporn would set them straight.


Indeed. I have it bookmarked under "reference".
 
2013-01-28 04:11:05 PM

MBooda: /back to the shadows again
//where an indian's always your friend
///where the vegetables are green
////and...


Am I the only one to recognize this quote from Firesign Theater's We're All Bozos On This Bus?
 
2013-01-28 04:12:22 PM
Dear FRC, I peed outdoors for seven years. I also dug foxholes, shared tents with men and women (and even, occasionally, officers), got shot at, sweated and shed blood, marched countless miles with about half of my body weight on my back, gave up holidays, missed important events in loved ones' lives such as my father's 50th birthday party and funerals of several relatives, and only narrowly made it to the funeral of the grandfather with whom I lived and who raised me for several years, and due to the nature of my job, once saved an entire farking battalion because I was the only one who happened to notice the precarious situation they were about to find themselves in and quickly recommended to the COL that he consider giving orders to remove them from that situation while there was still time, before they were all slaughtered.

When you, FRC, do that as a "non-combat soldier," then you can tell me whether or not I should be serving my country in an official combat role--because news flash: we've been serving in combat for years, whether you decide to acknowledge it or not. But until you do even a fraction of what we women have done for our country in a "non-combat" role, FRC, shut the fark up you sniveling douchetards.
 
2013-01-28 04:12:48 PM

There's Always A Bloody Ghost: I'm Canadian, so I'm getting a kick out of this.

Canada has allowed women to fill combat roles for 20 years. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/25/women-filled-8-3-of-canadas-co mbat-positions-in-afghanistan-study/


Yes, yes. You Canadians are always so more civilized than we lowly United Statesians.
 
2013-01-28 04:12:58 PM

Joelogon: Lest we forget -- Newt Gingrich on women in combat, 1995:

"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."


There's not much call for hunting giraffes in today's military.
 
2013-01-28 04:13:39 PM
Just yesterday I was standing in line for the ATM at the corner of University and San Pablo in Berkeley, and looked over to see a giant ass thrust in my general direction.

There was a huge woman, with her "pants" pulled down to her knees, bending over a little, pissing on the side of the bank.

Gotta love San Pablo Ave.
 
2013-01-28 04:14:06 PM
I've figured it out. These people have never met, talked to, or interacted with any woman in any way shape or form.

Explains a lot, really.
 
2013-01-28 04:14:11 PM

mark12A: Women and gays in combat is monumentally stupid, but the PC brigade will get its way for now, and it will be goofy, scandalous, constantly newsworthy, will wreck countless military careers, and go on until we get into a real war, at which point women/gays in combat units will go away overnight as we get serious at fighting for national survival in what ever serious conflict we get into in the future.....


Because there has never been any gays in combat units before now, ever.
 
2013-01-28 04:14:57 PM

HeartBurnKid: Magorn: namegoeshere: Of course they can! Just start making these in camo.

Or make Cammo Utilikilts standard BDU for both sexes:
[farm6.staticflickr.com image 275x320]

I'll back that as long as woad becomes part of the military uniform, as well.


i105.photobucket.com
Approves
 
2013-01-28 04:15:03 PM

Aigoo: Dear FRC, I peed outdoors for seven years. I also dug foxholes, shared tents with men and women (and even, occasionally, officers), got shot at, sweated and shed blood, marched countless miles with about half of my body weight on my back, gave up holidays, missed important events in loved ones' lives such as my father's 50th birthday party and funerals of several relatives, and only narrowly made it to the funeral of the grandfather with whom I lived and who raised me for several years, and due to the nature of my job, once saved an entire farking battalion because I was the only one who happened to notice the precarious situation they were about to find themselves in and quickly recommended to the COL that he consider giving orders to remove them from that situation while there was still time, before they were all slaughtered.

When you, FRC, do that as a "non-combat soldier," then you can tell me whether or not I should be serving my country in an official combat role--because news flash: we've been serving in combat for years, whether you decide to acknowledge it or not. But until you do even a fraction of what we women have done for our country in a "non-combat" role, FRC, shut the fark up you sniveling douchetards.


Well, I guess we're done here.
 
2013-01-28 04:15:19 PM

stevetherobot: Joelogon: Lest we forget -- Newt Gingrich on women in combat, 1995:

"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."

There's not much call for hunting giraffes in today's military.


Goes to show what you know about "today's military" and the Long Necked Yellowish Brown Menace.
 
2013-01-28 04:15:23 PM

sigdiamond2000: mark12A: One time I was bicycling home from work, under I-95, through the Philly sports complex. I saw one women, behind one of the I-95 support coluums, pants down, butt hanging out, squatting and peeing like a horse there on the tarmac.

Sorry Farkies, but women trying to pee in combat surroundings is a hell of a lot more complicated than guys whipping it out and squirting.

Women and gays in combat is monumentally stupid, but the PC brigade will get its way for now, and it will be goofy, scandalous, constantly newsworthy, will wreck countless military careers, and go on until we get into a real war, at which point women/gays in combat units will go away overnight as we get serious at fighting for national survival in what ever serious conflict we get into in the future.....

You bicycle to work? What are you, some kind of communist?


Sounds about as hard as pooping in a combat situation. Which happens all the farking time, really.
 
2013-01-28 04:15:27 PM

Lenny and Carl: Just what do you Christian fundamentalists think Jewish women did during the 40 years they supposedly wandered in the desert? You know, like in that story? It's near the beginning of that book you guys like to hold while you yell at gay people heading to a club or women going to the ob-gyn.


Not sure there are many Christian fundamentalists on Fark, but while I yell at women heading to the obgyn I'm usually holding a copy of "Black Tail" magazine. You should check it out.
 
2013-01-28 04:16:10 PM

bluefox3681: Joe Scarborough made an interesting point the other day. He mentioned to Mika that she is in much better shape then him. However, in a firefight, he would be able to carry her around in need be. However, even though she was in better physical shape, there is no way that she could carry Joe out of dangers, since he weighed so much more than her.

That is what this debate should be about. If women are going to (and it sounds like they already are) on the front lines, then they need to have the same PT standards that the men have. Creating a lower standard of physical requirements for women to serve reeks of political correctness and will make for a weaker military.


History shows again and again how women can be effective soldiers. And that was back before internal combustion engines. Banning women because of something so trivial as an arbitrary deadliftvis just grasping at straws.

They're already deployed. They're already in danger. This will just recognize it.
 
2013-01-28 04:16:50 PM

mark12A: One time I was bicycling home from work, under I-95, through the Philly sports complex. I saw one women, behind one of the I-95 support coluums, pants down, butt hanging out, squatting and peeing like a horse there on the tarmac.

Sorry Farkies, but women trying to pee in combat surroundings is a hell of a lot more complicated than guys whipping it out and squirting.

Women and gays in combat is monumentally stupid, but the PC brigade will get its way for now, and it will be goofy, scandalous, constantly newsworthy, will wreck countless military careers, and go on until we get into a real war, at which point women/gays in combat units will go away overnight as we get serious at fighting for national survival in what ever serious conflict we get into in the future.....


And there's where you tip your hand,  your arguments against women in combat have no substance to them but are convient "facts" cobbled together to support a forgone conclusion. How do I know?  Your incusion of gays gives the game away seeing as how Gays have served, with distinction in combat since the dawn of time.   The Spartans?  Boy-loving sodomites to a man,  it was a required part of their military training.   The Theban "Sacred Ban", the first military unit to defeat the Spartans in infantry combat and the only military unit Alexander the Great ever boasted of defeating?  Paired fighters who were also required to be lovers.   Alexander himself? a screaming bender.  I could go on, and on, and on, but you sir, whether you like it or not, are on exactly the same wrong side of history as those who swore that black lacked the mental capacity to be fighter pilots and tank-drivers and that integrating the troops was bound to lead to disaster.
 
2013-01-28 04:17:16 PM

Marshal805: Want to drive these morons ballistic?


Point out how many of their beliefs sync up perfectly with the Taliban and watch the meltdown.


Oh! I do  that all the time, but I play dumb while I'm doing it. "You really need to give up your false pagan moon god Allah and find Jesus. He respected women." I can only do  it online though, because I can't keep a straight face while trying to say it in person.
 
2013-01-28 04:17:59 PM

Cythraul: There's Always A Bloody Ghost: I'm Canadian, so I'm getting a kick out of this.

Canada has allowed women to fill combat roles for 20 years. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/25/women-filled-8-3-of-canadas-co mbat-positions-in-afghanistan-study/

Yes, yes. You Canadians are always so more civilized than we lowly United Statesians.


It's true, we'll pee on anything, anytime.
 
2013-01-28 04:18:03 PM

Cythraul: There's Always A Bloody Ghost: I'm Canadian, so I'm getting a kick out of this.

Canada has allowed women to fill combat roles for 20 years. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/25/women-filled-8-3-of-canadas-co mbat-positions-in-afghanistan-study/

Yes, yes. You Canadians are always so more civilized than we lowly United Statesians.


We try. :)
 
2013-01-28 04:20:52 PM

KatjaMouse: Isn't this the same group that said gays couldn't serve in the military at one point because they eat poop?


No. Different group. And it's that they eat the poo-poo. And smear it on their face, but definitely they eat the poo-poo.
 
2013-01-28 04:21:27 PM

bluefox3681: Creating a lower standard of physical requirements for women to serve reeks of political correctness and will make for a weaker military.


Yes. But conversely baring people from serving even if they meet the physical requirements reeks of gender discrimination and will make a for a weaker military. And that's what we're currently doing, so it's probably worth a second look.

/ Also, having standards actually related to the job seems worthwhile
 
2013-01-28 04:21:33 PM
When are they going to stop segregate genders in the Olympics?!

If women are equal they won't mind competing fairly!
 
2013-01-28 04:21:58 PM

AirForceVet: MBooda: /back to the shadows again
//where an indian's always your friend
///where the vegetables are green
////and...

Am I the only one to recognize this quote from Firesign Theater's We're All Bozos On This Bus?


YOU CAN PEE INTO THE STREAM.
 
2013-01-28 04:23:25 PM
I can sort of understand why the FRC is having a hard time understanding how women can pee outside - afterall, many people at the FRC still wet the bed when frightened.
 
2013-01-28 04:24:25 PM
Obviously, the FRC has never watched any Japanese porn.
 
2013-01-28 04:24:43 PM

FloydA: HeartBurnKid: Magorn: namegoeshere: Of course they can! Just start making these in camo.

Or make Cammo Utilikilts standard BDU for both sexes:
[farm6.staticflickr.com image 275x320]

I'll back that as long as woad becomes part of the military uniform, as well.

[i105.photobucket.com image 300x249]
Approves


according to a few amatuer apothecaries I know, that would actually be a decent idea.  apparently Woad is mildly astingent so it restricts bleeding, topically anisthetic, and a mild stimulant.  It's only also hallucineogenic if you added some secret herbs and spices.
 
2013-01-28 04:25:07 PM

larrylboberry: When are they going to stop segregate genders in the Olympics?!

If women are equal they won't mind competing fairly!


When will oranges start giving me apple juice when I squeeze them?
 
2013-01-28 04:25:42 PM

Bathia_Mapes: *facepalm*

Women can't pee outdoors? Really? You really believe that, Family Research Council?


Well obviously Adam and Eve didn't need to pee in Eden. Toilets were totally unnecessary before the fall.
 
2013-01-28 04:26:31 PM

ronaprhys: KatjaMouse: Isn't this the same group that said gays couldn't serve in the military at one point because they eat poop?

No. Different group. And it's that they eat the poo-poo. And smear it on their face, but definitely they eat the poo-poo.


Wait... actually... I think it was about them drinking urine now that I think about it.
 
2013-01-28 04:26:37 PM
As long as women have to be held to the same standards as men, it shouldn't matter. Only one in 500 will be up to par though.
 
2013-01-28 04:27:32 PM
[you'reseriousletmelaughlouder.jpg]
 
2013-01-28 04:28:37 PM

larrylboberry: When are they going to stop segregate genders in the Olympics?!

If women are equal they won't mind competing fairly!


It's not a question of competition. Combat service isn't determined by the top X% of physical performers. It's a single bar. If you're above it, you can serve in a forward area. If you're below it, you can't. Of course there will be less women that make that bar. Just like it's less common for someone who is Chinese to play in the NBA. But for those who have the natural gifts, or the skills and determination to overcome their initial disadvantages and make the grade - let them serve.
 
2013-01-28 04:28:40 PM
The Family Research Council is in a weird spot on this one. On one hand, their BFF Israel has allowed women in combat roles since, like, forever, and nobody has ever faulted the IDF for being too soft. On the other hand, Jesus gets sad when women are empowered to the point where they're not subservient and barefoot in the kitchen. On the third hand (this metaphor has a genetic mutation) their menstruation will attract bears, killing the women outright, and this problem rights itself.
 
2013-01-28 04:31:34 PM

jehovahs witness protection: As long as women have to be held to the same standards as men, it shouldn't matter. Only one in 500 will be up to par though.


what exactly are these standards that are so tough?
 
2013-01-28 04:33:32 PM
FWIW, this is the same Family Research Council who bet me I couldn't shiat in the backseat of a taxi.

Easiest $4 I ever made.
 
2013-01-28 04:34:18 PM
Family - America - Freedom


Once again, we see that any private organization with these words almost always per-determines that they are moronic assholes.
 
2013-01-28 04:34:54 PM
This contraption allows women to pee standing up.

www.jpattitude.com

And here it is in use.

otoh.org

I also noticed that women smile a lot when they pee.
 
2013-01-28 04:35:46 PM

Teufelaffe: Ever notice that the biggest hand-wringing ninnies that spout off about women in combat are men religious people?



FTFY
 
2013-01-28 04:37:59 PM

Brick-House: This contraption allows women to pee standing up.

[www.jpattitude.com image 750x350]

And here it is in use.

[otoh.org image 252x381]

I also noticed that women smile a lot when they pee.


It's a reflex needed to actually get the flow going.
 
2013-01-28 04:39:28 PM
Gen. Boykin's argument boils down to this: you have to have a penis to be a combat soldier. Women don't have penises, therefore, women can't be combat soldiers.

Ironically, Gen. Boykin's very existance disproves his argument.
 
2013-01-28 04:40:31 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: On the third hand (this metaphor has a genetic mutation) their menstruation will attract bears, killing the women outright, and this problem rights itself.


Yes, and land sharks. For this reason, blood should not be introduced into a combat area. Anywhere that there is active combat must remain entirely blood free. For safety.
 
2013-01-28 04:40:34 PM
I sadly read the whole article, and their 8 points boil down as follows:

Women can't serve because they are hot, distracting, delicate flowers.
 
Xai
2013-01-28 04:40:43 PM
girls can't pee outside? have you BEEN on the internet?
 
2013-01-28 04:41:08 PM

jehovahs witness protection: As long as women have to be held to the same standards as men, it shouldn't matter. Only one in 500 will be up to par though.


I hear a lot of guys say that, but I wonder how many of them have something even approaching a realistic idea of A) what kind of shape you have to be in for combat and b) how womefully short they themselves personally fall short of that standard despite having a Y chromosome.

  Yet strangely history proves that on several occasions in our history we've been able to turn hundreds of thousands of desk workers and clerks and factory workers into the most feared combat force on the planet.   However did we do that I wonder?

Did we simply go through the population hand-selecting all the hidden Adonai among us and giving them guns, or, as crazy as it sounds, does the human body possess some heretofore unguessed ability to grow stronger and gain more endurance through repetitive physical activity?  And is it maybe just possible that we could somehow TRAIN this strange  human super-power through a specifically designed series of physical exercises?   Sorry, I know that's crazy-talk, I just got carried away
 
2013-01-28 04:42:13 PM
 
2013-01-28 04:42:22 PM

mark12A: Sorry Farkies, but women trying to pee in combat surroundings is a hell of a lot more complicated than guys whipping it out and squirting.


You think dudes whip it out and pee during combat? LOL
 
Displayed 50 of 301 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report