Just heard on the radio that the Pentagon is now allowing female soldiers into combat. I don’t have all the details but that’s what I heard.
What do you all think about this? Men and women fighting side by side.
The word of the day is “Männerbrust”
In contrast, in Germany…
German Soldiers Are Growing Boobs On One Side of Their Bodies, Oh, Okay
Caity Weaver
Are you there, God? It’s me, German Soldiers. I’m growing breasts on one side of my body. Let’s rap about that.
According to a report in the Cologne Express (link in German), soldiers from Germany’s elite Wachbataillon military unit have found their bodies changing in ways many of us have not experienced since Girl Scout camp: they’re growing boobs on the left side of their bodies.
The condition is called gynecomastia. Doctors believe the condition is developing due to a drill that requires them to slam their rifles into their chests, thereby stimulating unusual hormone production.
In other words, German soldiers are growing man-boobs (“Männerbrust”) because they can’t stop hitting themselves.
Stop hitting yourselves, German soldiers. Stop hitting yourselves. Stop hitting yourselves.
According to the German Herald, Professor Björn Krapohl, director of plastic surgery at the Military Hospital of Berlin, has proposed modifying the battalion’s exercises to alleviate the problem:
"There is a very significant link between the activity in the Guard Battalion and the development of the breast on the left side. They need to change the way they drill. The constant slamming of the rifles against the left hand side of the chest is clearly a significant factor."
The military reportedly plans to research the condition further and alter the drills if necessary.
No trips are planned to Victoria’s Secret because that place is for fast girls.
…is this the opposite of Amazons cutting off one of their breasts so it wouldn’t interfere with their archery? 
[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1207771]Just heard on the radio that the Pentagon is now allowing female soldiers into combat. I don’t have all the details but that’s what I heard.
What do you all think about this? Men and women fighting side by side.[/QUOTE]
The reason I LOVE this change is now women can meet combat requirements for higher positions requiring critical thinking and prowess. I think some women will make amazing generals.
Interesting article, Gene. Men and women are not the same. They should be able to complete the same tasks but how they do it should be tailored for their physiological differences.
[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1207771]Just heard on the radio that the Pentagon is now allowing female soldiers into combat. I don’t have all the details but that’s what I heard.
What do you all think about this? Men and women fighting side by side.[/QUOTE]
Bad idea! Some women are in combat teams but they play a limited role within the area of operations. Translators, health care, vaccinations, etc by female medics in Afghanistan were all positive but they do not actively partake in battle.
A few are/were pilots like Tammy Duckworth.
What’s the argument against women fighting, if they are physically capable?
[QUOTE=mawali;1207839]Bad idea! Some women are in combat teams but they play a limited role within the area of operations. Translators, health care, vaccinations, etc by female medics in Afghanistan were all positive but they do not actively partake in battle.
A few are/were pilots like Tammy Duckworth.[/QUOTE]
But why? What can you do that no woman can do? If they can do the job, what other possible reason could there be? And please, don’t come with that misogynistic rape angle. I’m not saying you would, but just don’t.
[QUOTE=pazman;1207841]What’s the argument against women fighting, if they are physically capable?[/QUOTE]
The problem I see is that they will have to lower the physical standards like they did with police and fireman. Otherwise they will be labeled “sexist” for not “letting” women in.
[QUOTE=Syn7;1207853]But why? What can you do that no woman can do? If they can do the job, what other possible reason could there be? And please, don’t come with that misogynistic rape angle. I’m not saying you would, but just don’t.[/QUOTE]
Logically and syllogistically yes (BUT (yes, the Big but) the women who have went through such training washed out! I have no doubt that there are women out there who are tough and yes, also, some men have washed out of the same training. There are women generals but none to my knowledge, have been from combat units. Would I send an all woman combat unit (team) to capture the worlds’ baddest terrorist? I don’t know.
[QUOTE=Syn7;1207853]But why? What can you do that no woman can do? If they can do the job, what other possible reason could there be? And please, don’t come with that misogynistic rape angle. I’m not saying you would, but just don’t.[/QUOTE]
isnt army combat gear over 100 pounds
[QUOTE=mawali;1207863]Logically and syllogistically yes (BUT (yes, the Big but) the women who have went through such training washed out! I have no doubt that there are women out there who are tough and yes, also, some men have washed out of the same training. There are women generals but none to my knowledge, have been from combat units. Would I send an all woman combat unit (team) to capture the worlds’ baddest terrorist? I don’t know.[/QUOTE]
No, no, I just mean let em try. Hold them to the same standards and if they wash they wash. Treat everyone as people and keep the requirements the same. If they can’t carry gear and handle whatever is expected to be handled, then they wash. Many will fail, many will pass. Look, I don’t think anyone wants to see like some “positive action” thing here where sub par soldiers are thrown into the mix to send the appearance of equality. I mean real equality, everyone has the same opportunity to pass or fail. It’s on them, if they can’t cut it, bye bye.
So yeah, if it was an elite crew of women that excelled alongside their male counterparts and were experts in their fields, sure, why not? Send em in.
[QUOTE=bawang;1207878]isnt army combat gear over 100 pounds[/QUOTE]
A pack, rifle and gear is about 65lbs on a Canuck regular.
Dunno about anyone elses crap though.
As for women in combat, the psychological stress will likely be more on the men, but I’m just guessing.
I believe it is a given they make better fighter pilots due to the virtue of being able to sustain more G force than a male pressure suit or not.
On the ground, I think a properly trained individual, male or female benefits from the shmuck effect as far as killing power goes. the gun introduces the shmuck effect. It just doesn’t take a lot of skill like blades and such and so, most anyone can be an equally dangerous combatant when it gets right down to it.
This is modern times after all. Good luck ladies.
now, when are they going to be introduced to the selective service requirement?
[QUOTE=Syn7;1207880]No, no, I just mean let em try. Hold them to the same standards and if they wash they wash. Treat everyone as people and keep the requirements the same. If they can’t carry gear and handle whatever is expected to be handled, then they wash. Many will fail, many will pass. Look, I don’t think anyone wants to see like some “positive action” thing here where sub par soldiers are thrown into the mix to send the appearance of equality. I mean real equality, everyone has the same opportunity to pass or fail. It’s on them, if they can’t cut it, bye bye.
So yeah, if it was an elite crew of women that excelled alongside their male counterparts and were experts in their fields, sure, why not? Send em in.[/QUOTE]
Most women will not get in and the feminists will rally like they did with the police force and firemen. My friend was fdny and he had to carry a person weighing over 200 points up and down stairs for his test. Women couldn’t do his so they made the test easier to not look sexist. Now anyone, weak little boy or female, can pass the test and put our loves at risk.
In the nypd there are statistics that never make it into the public domain. These statistics are about how often female officers’ guns get taken away by criminals. The feminists keep these facts suppressed to perpetuate the belief that men and women are equal in strength. Everyone knows these things deep down but never talk about it for fear of sounding sexist.
If women can pass the same combat tests a man can then let them in.
I know I sound like a women hating pig but hate not true. I want true equality between men and women. Both take and pass/fail the same physical exams without any b!tching about unfairness. I want women in combat but only the ones that are as tough as their male counterparts.
i think a lot of these women dont know what theyre getting themselves into. the military is a separate society.
selective service
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1207901]now, when are they going to be introduced to the selective service requirement?[/QUOTE]
It is only a matter of time now David.
not hateful
[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1207904]I want true equality between men and women..[/QUOTE]
Totally agree SavvySavage.
don’t have a clue.
[QUOTE=bawang;1207905]i think a lot of these women dont know what theyre getting themselves into. the military is a separate society.[/QUOTE]
Totally agree bawang. Literally overnight, women are no longer a protected class.
A protected class? Isn’t that the problem? All this sheltering bullshit?
You wanna do something to help women have an easier time? Address the rape problem in the military. The statistics are freaking unacceptable. Clean house and maybe women won’t feel so alienated. I think there are many jobs women are better suited for. Like lawyers, but that doesn’t mean a man shouldn’t have a crack at it. Just so happens that women make better lawyers, but it’s only an average. I know some women that would do just fine as combatants.
I love it when people don’t know what they’re talking about, and keep talking like they do. 
I reckon it’ll be much like the Marines’ experiment. You’ll have a handful who try it, decide it’s awful, and the interest will peter out. Infantry is hard enough on males, and even many of them either don’t make it, or get through by the skin of their teeth, hating life.
As for female generals… we have had them for years. I don’t even get how that makes sense to assume that will be a new thing.
I’m a strong supporter of allowing all people the chance to realize how much combat arms sucks. A lot of folks in combat arms eventually reclass to a softer MOS after a few years of damage to the knees, feet, and the rest of the body.
The physical standard for these jobs IS harder, and I imagine that for most females, the limitations may be very, very difficult to overcome. They have a number of physiological differences that make it very hard for them to be successful in that field. Going back to my original point, it’s hard enough for men.
So what? If they can pass, they pass. If they can’t, they can’t? What’s wrong with that?
So you can go into any position as a general w/o combat experience?
[QUOTE=Syn7;1207933]So what? If they can pass, they pass. If they can’t, they can’t? What’s wrong with that?
So you can go into any position as a general w/o combat experience?[/QUOTE]
It’s not required. Besides, females have been having combat experience for the last 11 years. Our reserve partner unit lost a female to an IED in 2005 while she was out on patrol, and one of our females on our transition team in 2012 engaged the enemy with a machine gun and walked away with a CAB. The change is simply that women can now enter any job, such as infantry. You don’t have to be infantry, however, to operate in a combat role.
Goes back to my point that people don’t even understand the present reality enough to even begin talking about what’s happening now.