/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

if they can meet the same requirements as the male recruits without the standards being lowered I'd still be bothered by it because men treat women differently than they treat men and the converse which potentially complicates military scenarios. I do think though that, while I'd prefer that every suffrage including universal suffrage for men was reversed, if women are to vote they should have to sign up for the draft by principle of equity

I don’t know how I feel about that picture makes me feel sort of angry

>>91614
Agreed. The women in combat would put unneeded psychological pressure on the troops which may get them killed. As for the draft, there are always non-combat roles.

>>91609
>Female recruit puts tip of rifle next to male recruit's ear.
>If not for the lack of a magazine (and presumably no round in the chamber), her squadmate would be at risk of EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE



I don't think that women should serve in combat roles. Psychologically men respond differently around wounded women than wounded men. It would fuck with the cohesion of the fighting force.

That said, I believe that we can probably find plenty of jobs for women in non-combat roles like logistics.

>>91617
women are terrible at office work and other tasks I'd really rather they didn't sign up for the draft, but more than that I'd prefer they didn't have the right to vote in the first place. If they insist on having the latter they should, like men, be required to sign up for the draft

>>91609
No. Females have never, and will never, meet the rigorous physical, mental, and emotional demands of combat. For example, those two female "Rangers" of last year were accepted only when the Ranger minimum standards were reduced by 50%. Yes, a grand total reduction of half was necessary to make them "pass". Females do not perform logically under stress, have vastly decreased reaction times, and cannot be trusted to maintain social cohesion without fucking the chain of command.

Mares, however, are loyal, proud, strong, honest, and most of all will never retreat without an express order. We should return to the combined hoof-and-hand tactics of the Old World.

There's no reason for them to. The military isn't some testing ground for liberal social experiments, it's the military. The only objective of the military should be to fight and win wars. It depresses me that we're even having this conversation.

>Decreases fighting ability
>Researcher at the Norwegian Armed Forces College, Harald Høiback, believes it should be researched more about the effects of an increasing proportion of women in the Armed Forces.

>The fact that we want more women in the sharp end of the Armed Forces is quite ok, but then we must also accept that fighting ability falls, writes Harald Høiback, Lieutenant Colonel of the Armed Forces College.
>We Norwegians value good sports performances. Of course, we are most concerned with Norway's top positions, but some of us also noted that the Polish cross-country skier Justyna Kowalczyk in 2015 made the best of 71 overall in the Vasaloppet. There were only 70 top-rated men who journeyed the 90 kilometres faster than her. The previous best of a woman was number 91. The reason why this is noted is of course that women and men have different physical prerequisites for high-end endurance. That Kowalczyk was 71 was thus far more reportable than who became number 70.
>For common people, such physical differences are the sexes between them completely obvious. That's why the best boys isn't allowed to play football on girl-teams when they are 18 years old, while we think the opposite is great and impressive. If a girl plays junior football with the boys, we think she's going to be a good future national team player.
>Armed combat and combat actions can also be an extremely powerful endurance activity. It may require his man to shoot out for a few hours long ambush. A combat department's combat ability will therefore decline if recruiting well-trained women at the expense of well-trained men. As we have seen with Kowalczyk, there are some women who are better at high endurance activity than most men, but most women are not.

The whole article http://archive.is/csDZZ (Norwegian text)

This is a harsh question.
The army got softer afther women got in, but a lot of women have proven to be as good and even better than a lot of soldiers I have met, in fact the best shooter I know is a woman.

I do admit a lot of women in the army end up using their pussies to get into a comfortable position, but not all of them are that way.

>>91656
>the best shooter I know is a woman

Because you don't know any better shooters? Or is she some actually-good olympic-tier "I can get a bullseye from 500 whatevers"? I went to a lasertag place once, and the women on the field were hilariously tactically incompetent. Slow reflexes, idiotic moves, forgetting other people also had guns, badly sneaking up on a group and ignoring the ones that noticed her and shot at her, then shouting "Hello boys!" and getting shot by everyone(rendering their own guns useless for a few seconds, not that they noticed with their rapid idiotic constant firing, giving them all laughable accuracy rates) it was a fucking mess. I literally had mostly children on my team, and after 2 minutes of confused zerging I started giving quick orders to them like "You, you, go around and shoot their backs, you, you, charge!" while sniping so they can get in close and open fire like crazies, and the wimmin team just wasn't prepared for basic tactical concepts like the pincer attack and the idea of flanking. They didn't adapt their tactics, they just kept "Laying down surpressing fire" at my location because myself and two kids were behind one wall, unaware that some kids were loudly running around the mazelike wall segments to fire at their backs. It's like the brains of women were designed to focus on only one task when they actually care about it, be it cooking or cleaning or fucking, and focus on it at the expense of all else. "Shoot at that commander guy waiting behind a wall" became their new goal, because abstract ideas like "Win this game" aren't instructions you can repeat in your head like "Walk, walk, walk, breathe".

Yes, my team of mostly children(Kid's birthday party, aged around 10-13) plus myself(17 at the time, I believe) beat a team of mostly women(late teens to late twenties) and whatever boyfriends brought them here.

>>91609
>glasses
Aren't they a liability?
>>91654
>woman was fastest cross-country skier
That makes sense, since she should be lighter

I say no. The army is supposed to be like a well maintained machine. Throw women into the mix and you're basically getting your parts from two different sources that aren't designed to work with each other.
The army should have men who were basically wiped clean of all their emotions and can think logically at any given time. Women have too many emotions for this on average, and you shouldn't be willing to conform to except the rare chance that a women is fit for it.
tl;dr. No. For the same reason gays shouldn't marry, it wasn't designed for them.

>>91645
this

>>91609
Should we care? Accepting womans won't change a thing if that doesn't help rise the number of dead enemies around you.
Just like accepting homosexuals or partially dissable people: unless they can prove they are army material, they better don't think of even sign the papers.
But if they can prove they will be cold mean killer machines on the battlefield, i don't care what race/sex/sexual path you are. I need a soldier, nothing else

>>91675
You are describing a warrior, not a soldier. In small-scale warfare it's better to be warrior, which is a fierce, independently-minded "cold mean killing machine." Such warfare is characterized by individual prowess and by behavior the individual can make a name for himself, like the Spartans and the knights of yore.

Larger-scale warfare, as used by the Romans and by European armies since the 17th century, demand soldiers, not warriors. Soldiers do what they're told: they don't have to be physically stronger than their comrades, only match them, and they fight in unison which makes them stronger than the individual.

For warriors it is okay to be different from the rest; in fact it will make you stand out and add to your allure. For soldiers uniformity is needed as differentiation from the group will ultimately weaken it as a well-oiled machine.

>>91714
The meaning of the word "soldier" is basically "completely expendable and useless human being that we expect to die at the end of this battle". Which is basically most amerifats anyhow.

>>91743
it's a volunteer army; if you're not willing to die don't sign up.

>>91659
>Because you don't know any better shooters?
Because despite all the well trained personnel that went into the competition, she was literally the best both in short and long weapons, there where 3 battalions competing.
I know a lot of female officers; While one or two might be lacking in some areas, most of them do their jobs just right.

>>91743
Man what the heck do you think the army even is, no soldier is expendable, with that mindset the only thing one may accomplish is losing.

>>91743
IF you expect everyone to die, then you expect to lose.
The government doesn't want to lose any soldiers because it's costly to train another. Do they care about the individual? No. Do they want to lose a soldier? No.
They might not care about you personally, but they care about you as a number.

>>91714
>>91760
This is what i meant in >>91675
It's true that the army works at best when there's almost no difference between a man and another, but in these crazy times we must do what we can with what we got.
A number always add to your force, but before we can work together as one force, we must reach to the individual.
After that, we must check their advantages and weakness, and put it with a similar but (somehow different) group of people.
Then you guide them with a basic but educative goal: one that teaches to best to help their fellow man to become better, and give spirit to the weak man so he can reach beyond his own limits.
Finally, the group will move like a rowing team: if one is too strong/weak, the row will fall behind/suffer turbulence until it flops. If the team trained and learned from one another, everyone will push accordingly, making the row going straight and forward.
We must make sure the row moves straight and forward, and that can only be done if we make sure the individual has the same goal as us, regardless of sex, race, or sexual path.

>>91746
Then why are all soldiers expendable? Why are they paid basically nothing in most of the "first world countries" when the average fuckwit union nigger gets paid 60k a year minimum? Why does the VFW and similar associations offer virtually no post-service treatments? Why are waiting times from 60-144 days? A brilliant Ruskie tactician during the Napoleon Wars once said: "We shall send the first wave, the second wave, the fourth wave, the fifth wave, then the sixth wave. The seventh wave will win this battle."

>>91760
Why use the word "soldier" then if they are not disposable? It's called doublethink.

>>91864
That is a problem with the system, not the philosophy that our troops are expendable. Furthermore, soldiers are a different kind of expendable than bullets. To win battles and to win Wars an army must be willing to sacrifice its soldiers. Soldiers have value both on the ground fighting and to the morale back home. Armies do not like losing soldiers. An Army has no problem expanding bullets though. Unless there's a supply shortage there is no need to even consider the expenditure of bullets. Soldiers and bullets are both expendable but one has more value than the other.

>>91816
>A number always add to your force, but before we can work together as one force, we must reach to the individual.
I agree with the values behind this, but I must disagree with the mindset that has stuck around in this thread, and that is the military needs to meet a number quota or increase in size. In regards to America's military, it has already expanded in such scale to that of a reach of a quasi-empire, large enough to make Theodore's Roosevelt's then radical departure from foreign policy look isolationist in pale comparison. For other countries, perhaps they may need to bulk theirs a bit, but only according to need, and it could be that need has already been met. But, in the case of Europe maybe and the US, I see a misallocation of resources in both ways (US spends too much and Europe spends too little.) However, it should be noted that most of this military might is only practically used in foreign proxy wars. Then, with all factors in play, would it not be beneficial to thin the military force to become more elite? I get the meritocracy stance, however by generalisations (which are practical than not), it should be considered that women would take the largest reduction in number in broad strokes, then the rest. Sure, it would be a loss of an industry with a reduction of the military, however we should take in consideration of Eisenhower's words long ago.
There's also another angle that men are more expendable than women. The common average ratio of male to females means there's a slight, greater amount of males. A man releases sperm by the millions whereas females only have one egg to fertilise. Take in account most Total Fertility Rates. And, I know that the expendable agrument is a rather twisted one that serves to be as a disadvantage when take to heart as tactics. However, this expenability difference is far more nuane, and less pronounced. Also, yes. Higher female employment leads to lower fertility rates.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4376695/

>>91609
If they can meet same physical AND psychological requirements then yes.

>>91886
The problem here is in the fact that on average, they don't though. So you're just wasting time/effort by allowing them to even attempt the process.
>>91864
>>91866
They're not "disposable" it's more of we know there will be losses. You try your best to minimize the loss, but it will always be there.
If you had the mindset of "We won't lose any soldiers" then you would never go into the war in the first place, and you would just lose everyone at a later date.

>>91893
>on average, they don't
Average man doesn't meet requirements too. If males and females have same standards most would be stopped at the very beginning, and those who actually go through first phase are good enough to waste resources on them.

>>91901
I have nothing against female soldiers (if I have a daughter in the future I'll train her in martial arts, marksmanship and athletics to be prepared), but physiologically women are weaker than men and there's no way around that. Women can bear children and are far better nurses, so it's not like they lack strengths.

Also, it's more an issue than just women meeting physical requirements. Men are far more likely to risk their own and the unit's safety for a woman in danger, as that's how we work. In off-time horny male soldiers will try to sleep with the females, which is bad for a number of reasons.

So no, beyond false ideas of equality and political correctness, or a truly desperate attempt to inflate enlisted numbers, there is no purpose to letting women in the army. At most there could be a dedicated women-only division which keeps the sexes separate, and otherwise women could have a role out of the field of battle.

>>91901
I'll give you that, but see >>91903 and >>91664 women introduce new things to worry about that could otherwise be avoided.

>>91903
Women do not belong in combat roles period, or at least when pitted against a male combat unit. They're pretty much inferior at most military roles that require either physical strength or logical thinking, and even those roles in a society at large. Their only use is when putting their strengths to good use, such as their empathy and emotional faculties, and I wish I could say that they, on the whole, had these strengths today.

Women have just become more and more of a burden on society since suffrage, and their eagerness to abandon what made them useful, child rearing and emotional support.

Oddly enough, mares make ideal war mounts because of the aggression in some breeds.

As a soldier right now I don't think that they should be allowed. I will say there are many competent and strong female soldiers but its too small. Here is the truth. Most women in are sluts, ask any enlisted soldier and he would say he wouldn't want his daughter serving at all. They are held at a lower physical standard and are given many special treatments. The culture of a support unit verses an infantry unit is massive. The support units are often times very incompetent and as there are more women in support units the men also become shitty and faggots.
I think I could accept them more if they were held to the same physical standard. That alone would probably fix most of the problems. But the brother hood of the actual fighters is extremely important, you have to act like brothers or you will die and very very few women can fit into this brotherhood.

Also anyone that says soldiers are expendable either has a vast army to throw away or will lose.

>>91609
If the women are able to complete the same requirement as male recruit without any complications or help, and able to work as a team, work under pressure, have enough endurance and physical capabilities to endure military life, able to think logically, and know where her vagina's lies. I see no reason to restrict women in joining the army.

Of course it's another thing to lower the fucking bar so that even childrens can enter the military, which is likely what will be done because feminist want a full commie nation where everyone can get drafted(See USSR)

Personally, I don't think women should be in combat roles, if they couldn't meet the required standard and require without the bars being lowered, then clearly they don't actually want to be in those positions. But me being a reasonable person, I'll gladly accept it should they prove themselves, which likely won't happen anytime soon.

TL;DR - Women are Equal So They Need Special Treatment - case video on female firemen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrxEnQPgouc

short answer no
long answer also no

in average untrained males perform better in all military tasks than professionally trained female soldiers. it is a waste of economic and human resources. furthermore the unintentional sexual tension females bring in disrupts troop morale and causes infighting and distraction. if a nation has the luxury to not be forced to draft women, it should be avoided at all costs for the sake of efficiency.

>>91609
In a war situation? You use whatever men or women you have, you dont discriminate. A pair of hands holding a rifle is always a plus. I fought in Bosnia when I was just 15.

But americans dont want women in the army because of national security, they just want it because of muh equality. For you guys, military is just another business, and therefore needs diversity for brownie points, not out of desperation.

Not just the fact that the average woman is severely outclassed physically and psychologically by the average man, if a giant war started and a nation drafted a lot of women with the men and they get killed in combat, that will hugely damage the population growth since the nation wouldn't have as many women to get impregnated meaning the population would be smaller meaning less productive output and less manpower for the next war.

In nearly all tribes and nations in the past thousands of years in human history, there is a good reason why all the wars were fought with men instead of women. If a nation just threw women in the mix, that would endanger the nation since the opposing nation would have a massive advantage since they have more manpower while the nation is outnumbered.

>>91609
#DraftourDaughters