Integration of women in the military

How often do you see him scratching his nuts

True, DFAC is pretty shit compared to what's offered outside.

What I mean if a person maintains a nutritionally deficient diet for a lifetime prior to service, a few months to a few years in the military isn't going to fix the shortfall short of a very thorough overhaul of their health habits.

You all can bitch and cry and complain about how terrible women are in the military but you a know very god damn well that nothing will ever change. This is how things are and we have to live with it.

>Operation fuck everyone commences
>Troops deployed to fight the good fight
>67% casualties before even reaching the Assembly Area
>Mass retreat commences due to most units being combat ineffective
>3/4 of Troops become POW's because they couldn't keep up with the retreating columns
>Russia says fuck it "Finna dab on these niggas"
>Russians invade mainland US
>Russians march unopposed straight to DC
At least we can say we were equal and tolerant.

Attached: when_women_try_to_do_things.jpg (578x373, 44K)

Supposedly my unit has a female in training right now, meaning she should be coming around in the next few months or so? When we all heard the news it was a unanimous "oh fuck" just because we have your typical military small unit culture. We make offensive jokes and tread the line, sometimes crossing it. We talk about chicks and dicks like it's nothing. We take naked showers with water cans when we're in the field. It's a SHARP case waiting to happen if she gets here and I'm really unsure how it's going to work. The best thing about the military is the bond you make between the guys and having a female in the mix throws a wrench in the system.

Gangbang her into submission so that she knows and understands her place immediately so there is no confusion.

Attached: then_rape.jpg (700x300, 96K)

Really though, do you think it's their gender that makes women so terrible in the military? Or is it the culture they've taken to and the special treatment they get? Do you think if they weren't allowed to get away with so much and werent ideologically possessed by the entitled leftist Me too phenomenon that they could at least not be a drain on the military?

>do you think if a woman behaved like a man she could be a productive member of an organization meant to do a man's job?
Maybe half-assedly. Behind the problems their personality brings they are also just physically inferior

we don't all live in Jow Forums fantasy land

>is it the culture they've taken to and the special treatment they get?
They take to that culture and get special treatment because of their gender.
>Do you think if they weren't allowed to get away with so much and werent ideologically possessed by the entitled leftist Me too phenomenon that they could at least not be a drain on the military?
You're basically asking them to act like men, which is unreasonable because they are women. The point is, they don't belong

i was going to write something up, but I think the other guys said enough. so imma just call you a fucking idiot

No its literally a result of their gender, different bone structure, different l ung capacity, chance of losing a body you already paid to train due to pregnancy and men being dumbasses around them because biology. Women can work in the military but infantry should be Male only

Women ruin everything, I have been an army combat engineer for years and after they started letting women join us there have been problems. Shit my platoon downrange got disbanded because our female LT was banging one of my Joes and one of the female SGT's was cought sucking dick in her chu. Females also generally are weak willed and quit all the time causing others to pick up their slack. In my 6 years I have only seen 2 females that could actually pull their weight and actually did better than a lot of the males but they are the exceptional minority.

If I want to join the military but avoid all women and their bullshit like the plague, how do I do this?

Go SF. Pretty much the only thing still closed to women. I am about to drop a packet once I get back from ALC.

>just graduated the first integrated company
And then, they said they're not doing it again, so this is all moot.

What if I'm not cut out for it?

then you will have to fuck with females.

Darn

then go army 11x or whatever marine infantry is. probably the lowest probability of having a female in your platoon. either way, you're still likely to have at least limited interaction with women in other jobs in some capacity or another

Question, were you with 82nd and did her last name start with an M?

I understand and respect that others may have an opposing opinion to mine, and that's fine, I'm not looking to start shit. But in my opinion, I don't have a problem with it. I firmly believe that women should be integrated fully into combat positions. However, I do NOT under any circumstances believe that their standards for training and physical fitness should be in any way, shape, or form, easier. In a combat zone, the enemy does not give a fuck if you are a woman; a bullet has your name on it, and grenades are addressed "to whom it may concern". If you want to serve in combat roles in a military, then you should be held to standard, not because it should be expected by our military or our government, but because war expects it. I think anyone who has seen combat can agree that war and death know no gender, sex, race, or religion; in the end, if you aren't up to the task of fighting back, then you are a liability unto yourself and to those who fight alongside you.

To prove my point, there are several countries that do have plenty of women that serve in combat roles that are very effective, most notably Israel. At least, that's my observation, but I have never served in their military, so I cannot say for certain, but from what I've heard, they're very effective.

There's also the fact that any open opposition to the integration policy will lead to you getting fired pretty much instantly.

>t. company commander

>However, I do NOT under any circumstances believe that their standards for training and physical fitness should be in any way, shape, or form, easier.

Cool well guess what, there won't be any women in combat specialties unless standards are lowered. The DoD wants women in all combat specialties. Do the math.

>To prove my point, there are several countries that do have plenty of women that serve in combat roles that are very effective, most notably Israel

Israel experimented with mixed and all-female combat units about ten years ago, which is where you heard BASED ISRAEL WOMEN INFANTRY. They performed poorly, and the IDF consolidated female combat personnel into two mixed units, the Caracals and the Lions of Jordan. These units are intentionally assigned light duty, something not acceptable in the US military where all active-duty combat formations are considered "front line" units.

Exactly. It wouldn't be half as bad if the women were held to the same standard as men, because in combat everyone needs to be up to a standard, male or female. I still don't like the idea of women in the armed forces because of how it breaks up squad dynamics. Having a gender and idea homogenous unit makes cohesion easier. Having one or more people that they can't do the normal deployment shit around, and lets be honest men and women don't mesh that well, breaks up the bonds. Plus stds. And I really don't think the armed forces need more rape awareness classes.

Well I disagree that the DoD wants lowered standards; it's bullshit. Like I said; war does not give a fuck if you are a woman. It does not give a fuck about who or what you are, period. If you can't handle the fight, then you have no business being in a combat zone or a combat role. I didn't know that about the IDF, thanks for the input. I still stand by my position that they should have women in combat roles. I mean quite frankly, if we really want to get into the whole "equality" debate, the advocates of women in combat roles make a good point; why the fuck should only men be able to serve in those roles? As a man, I view it as misandrist; what, I get the honor of potentially going to die for my country just because I have a dick between my legs while all the women don't need to worry? Nah fuck that! DoD needs to get their heads out of their asses and figure the fuck out how to train women to standard.

I fucking hate the rape awareness shit. They made all the boys in my high school go through it, before we graduated, and it's always the most condescending shit. And I don't know why they always have women talking about it to boys. By nature, women and men don't understand each other.

So the Obama-era officer corps is still firmly in charge, eh?

Did you see any changes for the better, in any respect, while Mad Dog was there?

If they can meet the standard, then maybe. But there should never, ever be lower combat standards. And yes, the standards are lower in all positions for women. They don't have the same standards, they lower them so more women can get into combat roles. I still think they really shouldn't, complicates things way too much. They should at least be in gender homogenized units if they are in one.

that, and the abortions costed too much

Sorry, I didn't word that sentence well. What I was trying to say was that I disagree with DoD on the subject that standards for women should be lowered; I'm aware that the standards are in fact lowered. My bad.

hi there! would you like a quick explanation of BIOLOGY?

>Well I disagree that the DoD wants lowered standards; it's bullshit.
You must also disagree that grass is fucking green, then. It's a done deal.

Don't belong, except maybe as clerks and nurses.

>Did you see any changes for the better, in any respect, while Mad Dog was there?

Frankly, no. The one thing Trump tried to do was cut out the tranny shit, and guess what James "MAD DOG" "CHAOS" Mattis opposed that (it's still a shitshow, fortunately I haven't actually run into any trannies). I have no doubt that things would have gotten worse had Hilldawg been in charge, but in terms of reversing anything? No.

>The Obama-era officer corps is still firmly in charge

Of course. It's important to keep in mind the mechanism by which Obama's admin installed a "friendly officer corps": basically, they vetted prospective GO's for political correctness and fired existing ones for getting out of line (McChrystal being a high-profile example). In order to reverse that, Trump's DoD would have to do the opposite: promote the careers of O-6+s who publicly speak out against e.g. gender integration. But they haven't and they won't.

Fuck off boomer

>Well I disagree that the DoD wants lowered standards; it's bullshit.

You're just wrong.

>I mean quite frankly, if we really want to get into the whole "equality" debate, the advocates of women in combat roles make a good point; why the fuck should only men be able to serve in those roles?

"advocates of women" (feminist ideologues, cynical careerists, and clueless dupes) want this because combat service is high status. Probably the ideologues want to destroy the existence of an all-male organization as an end in itself.

>>Well I disagree that the DoD wants lowered standards; it's bullshit.
>You're just wrong.

Let me expand on my original point: Sure, in a counterfactual world, "the DoD" would prefer to have integrated combat units without lowering standards. However, in the world we actually live in, they have to choose between integration and lowering standards. So which one do they want more? Integration, obviously.

So we're going to continue to have embarrassing accidents and embarrassing rates of readiness and an increasing difficulty in finding people to serve in a fucked environment and very possibly get our shit shoved in in the next major war.

Wonderful.

>this thread again
Daily reminder that women should stay in the home.

Readiness and doctrinal problems are not, in my opinion, the fault of either Trump or Obama's policies, although it might be fair to blame them for not fixing what's broken.

It was a little before my time and the historiography is difficult, but as far as I can tell it's GWB's fault, specifically Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was a visionary, even if his vision was whack, and nobody else has come along since then to set a new course. Mattis, whatever his positive traits, wasn't the man to do it.

Carter was an empty suit whose only job was to serve as the Obama admin's bagman for "cultural change" (PC) in the military. Gates had some potential but was too focused on unfucking Iraq to look ahead.

By Carter I mean the three interchangeable SecDefs under Obama, I had to look up who they were.

how's high school going

Gates helped put faggotry in the Boy Scouts, nevermind the Army.

Where do we go from here? Why won't the Trump admin take action on this?

USMC has a colossal advertising budget and shill program so it makes sense they’d pull movie tier bullshit like this

You mean equal and tolerant to our new new overlords.

It'll continue until the unit fucks things up during a traditionalist presidential administration that's willing to wade through a sea of feminist menstruation that results from saying "no more female combat roles".

>I disagree that the DoD wants standards lowered
Guys. I mistyped. I've already explained that I meant to say that I disagree with their decision to lower standards. I know that it's a fact that they have...

Attached: how i look at most people pepe.jpg (250x242, 7K)

>Gates helped put faggotry in the Boy Scouts, nevermind the Army.
Gates wrecked the BSA, but he probably didn't wreck the military. The effects of open fags are bad but relatively marginal in the big scheme of things.

>Where do we go from here? Why won't the Trump admin take action on this?

The biggest problem is in the Navy. The other services have pretty much bifurcated into conventional units training to fight another big war (this changed under Mattis, but I don't think it was his doing) and SOF forces conducting tribal-skirmish-tier warfare in places no one cares about.

I don't know what, exactly, is wrong with the Navy. If I had to guess, it's that surface warfare has become a dumping ground for third-rate officers, but either way it clearly involves a lot of senior leaders being bad at their jobs. As a result, they're highly motivated to explain away problems.

Not to let the other branches off the hook: there doesn't seem to be a clear vision of what, exactly, a "big war" would look like, where and why it would be fought, etc. But at the tactical/operational level that units train at, it doesn't matter too much. You can just posit a generic pseudo-Russian force with Chinese characteristics or whatever and fight it out.

The Navy got fucked the worst during Dumbya's time, surface navy in particular, since it didn't contribute much to his little sandniggertown excursion. That retarded "Leaner, Meaner Navy" meme meant that undermanning ships became the new standard, and money for training and refits was scarce. Add to that Rummy's phenomenally retarded procurement policies, ending up with a bunch of white elephant projects like the Zumwalts and the so-called LCS.
Worst of all, Dumbya didn't give a shit about China's ballooning ambitions. After Hainan Island in 2001, they were mostly left to their own devices. When Obama came in, he wanted the whole Asian pivot thing, and demanded that operational tempo be increased. Unfortunately, increasing operational tempo when your ships are undercrewed, and repair/refit lists are longer than Jenna Haze's 'filmography', isn't exactly the most prudent move, but admiral-tier officers are political creatures and saying 'no' is a great way to get your career iced.

going pretty fine actually.