They aren't?
Posted on 01/26/2013 2:34:33 PM PST by NKP_Vet
Since delusional liberals think that there is no difference in men and women, that women can do anything a man can do, and they want them in the army infantry, Navy Seals and other Special Forces, here is what REAL EQUALITY is........
The NFL will now be 50% females, at all positions.
The WNBA will be abolished, women will have to play in the NBA.
The NHL will be 50% female. They will play with men.
Professional boxing will be for both men and women.
The MMA (extreme fighting) will be for men and women, they fight each other.
All professional FEMALE teams will be abolished and they will be either compete against men, or go they will not compete in professional sports.
Let me be the first to say there is a reason why women and men do not compete in this contact sports. Women would get killed without anyone shooting at them. No women could compete in any of these sports.
Let me also say that Navy Seal training and Army Ranger training is harder and tougher than any of the above mentioned sports. But for some reason there are liberals that actually think women could compete the special forces training and be the same as their male counterparts. What planet do these people live on?
I have just given any liberal that can think straight the reason why WOMEN CAN NOT BE IN ARMY INFANTRY OR ANY OF THE SPECIAL FORCES. It's called a very fast death.
On another thread last night, I pointed out that the Soviets had this same brain fart in the early days of WWII.
Marxism and some such nonsense about ‘equality’.
When the bodies started to pile up, they did the commie pig thing: say nothing, just very quietly “phase out” the stupid policy and pretend it ‘never existed’.
I’m confused, why is she a “troll” or a “fool?”
Please explain yourself!
In the entire history of humans, what nations have tried this cute little social experiment and are still around to set an example of how it’s done and why it works?
However, even if there are a few females out there who can meet the standards to be a combat infantryman and think they might want to try it, would their addition to a combat unit improve the combat effectiveness of the unit, or would it detract from its combat effectiveness?
Why do we need to find out? It seems we know the answer. Your "story" not withstanding.
There are some areas in which some women will do surprisingly well. They are capable of hard work and endurance. they can also be fierce when protecting their children.
On the other hand, they are not capable of competing with men in areas which require brute strength, or power. They cannot chuck heavy rocks or throw javelins (in modern times hand grenades) They cannot carry really heavy loads etc.
I will say every now and then you run into one who will surprise you. In 1966 I was riding a bus to a job in the N.C. mountains and discovered two girls were going to the same place. One of them was a strikingly pretty blonde. I later found out that she had grown up on a farm with 5 sisters, not very far from where I live.
Several days after we got to the Summer retreat, she and I were on a fairly short hike up one of the nearby mountains. I had told her that I could run really fast. To my surprise she challenged me to a foot race of about 100 yards.
Now I knew I could beat her as I could beat the women’s world record in the 100. I decided I would just stride along side of her then pull ahead near the finish line. When we started, she took off like a rocket. I immediately fell behind and had to run as fast as I could to catch then pass her.
As I said, sometimes they can surprise you. BTW she was later crowned queen of our staff of around 450 college students.
Why do liberals think that women are just guys with different plumbing?
They aren't?
You think Israel, surrounded as it is by hordes of bloodthirsty, Jew-hating Muslim savages, is the aggressor? REALLY?
BTW good post.
Agree....once you put males and females together you have all the social training come to the fore...men protecting women, the sexual dynamics, the years of “modesty” with the other sex...etc.
The physical requirements and mental issues are irrelevant becuase SOME women could meet those..its the social and psychological issues that are key.
We were op-conned a couple of time with mech inf and armour. I can tell you that, while we were on the perimeter cooking our charlie rats and writing letters home, those poor bastards were working their asses off fixing each others ‘tracks’. Those b!tches were always craving attention.
Then, again, they had coolers with iced beer and coke, and didn’t have to hump 85 pounds.
Still, I hated riding on the things...too big of a target for a ground-pounder.
Always appreciated a little defilade or other cover.
I dunno guys, I mean I guess if Marine Lieutenant Colleen Farrell had to swim butt naked across a river, I don't think it would be such a bad thing seeing her come out the water after having been in the field for 20+ days. :p
Wait for the answer to your question until it happens.
countless stories in history how women survived horrible conditions and men did not... they have less muscle mass, and and bone mass, and can survive hunger and thirst for longer than men...
okay, so we're against women in combat...lets stop making ridiculous arguements.....
why not just make the main arguement...its men's job to be in combat and to fight and protect their country and women and children....
‘I do believe our soldiers were sent to war as a sort of blood sacrifice as some sort of sinister plot. If Israel wants war so badly, send THEIR guys over! Not ours. Our men have been brainwashed into this bizarre untruthful idea that we are being “attacked” and “must fight for democracy” along with other jingoistic buzz words that just don’t make any sense.’
Sentiments like this are more appropriate to Lew Rockwell.com and this poster’s very recent sign up date combined with these offensive comments leads me to believe whoever it is is some sort of troll, either libertarian or some DU type.
It had to be you I briefly heard on the radio the other day.
You may not have been brief, but I did not have on the radio to have heard everything.
Since then - only days ago - I have told your story many times to friends. . .
Gives me a chance to thank you for your service - our family of 11 g-kids thank you.
Notice the tag line . . .
Like these two:
As far as I know there has never been a military objective met by having a baby. So the fact that women can and men can't is irrelevant. If men could have an 8# baby, I'm sure it would suck as much as a woman doing it, but it would come out anyway.
countless stories in history how women survived horrible conditions and men did not... they have less muscle mass, and and bone mass, and can survive hunger and thirst for longer than men...
No one is talking about spending their four year enlistment avoiding the chow hall. The fact that they can skip food is admirable, but nobody has won wars by not eating the available food. There is usually an abundance of crappy food and water (for drinking)in the US armed forces so this is a non-starter. Having less muscle mass doesn't help when an enemy needs killing by hand. While I don't disagree with your main argument, the fact is that women are not and will never be the equal of men in the requirements of war. Thank God it is so.
Was listening to a radio show today. A caller said for some strange reason there are alot more soldiers passing Ranger school than ever passed it a couple of years ago. This caller, a former Ranger, said he has heard where standards have already been lowered, that rumors of women coming into the special forces have been heard for a couple of years now. He had no way to prove it, but he absolutely believed it, saying it makes no sense that a higher percentage of soldiers are passing training now that passed it in the past.
It makes sense to me.
“The announcement I heard the other day (which could certainly be wrong) was the the inclusion of women did not include Special Forces and similar units.”
Incrementalism.
Sure they do. They are demanding that the USA never use its military in combat again, to make up for its legacy of racism and imperialism. The military is to become a government Peace Corps, to distribute aid to the Third World. They think the idea of sending women into combat will horrify the Archie Bunker conservatives enough to make them hesitate when military action is required, allowing their little brown Islamist brothers time to complete their military objectives in solidarity with World Socialism against the forces of fascism.
Disguise it all as "fundamental fairness" in government employment, and you've done another fine job of knocking Whitey back on his heels.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.