Here’s What Happens When Male Marines Go Up Against Mixed-Gender

a reply to: PaddyInf

Your argument is removing all women from the military because there is a chance some of them will get injured... read that to yourself a few times until you understand how dumb it sounds.

No wonder the American military is so f#'d up, the amount of people on here who claim to be involved (you can tell because they just MUST MUST create a username that lets everyone know) in the military past or present are some of the most backwards thinking people I've seen.

a reply to: RedDragon

Why would you waste the resources testing 100 women to find the 25 who still would still perform worse than the 10 worst men out of 100?

Because the military need those people? If you don't want people who perform to that standard then raise the standard required.

You target gender because of your own personal insecurities. So why stop there? African-americans perform better than white males on average in military testing... so why not ban all white males?

Stop trying to make out this is a numbers or resource issue... if you the military didn't want personnel they wouldn't be hiring. What you are really scared of is being outperformed by someone from the other gender, its your masculinity that is at threat.

The common theme from the outspoken attention seeking military members on ATS is that they want everyone to know they served... every other post they make is about serving. They are desperate for everyone to see them as "alpha" or see the role as extremely manly.

Once they are told transgender or female military members can outperform them they get defensive. Suddenly they aren't happy with anyone serving their country, only them... only they are allowed.

Because deep down they are not in it for the good of the country or its civilians, they are doing it for their own low self-esteem.

That's why the military prey on the weak and work teens egos to get recruits.

a reply to: SudoNim

I see you have an opinion on thinking that is insulting to vets.
Puerrille if uninformed at best.
I joined to fight not for ego,but because I'm PISSED about human life and how they act.
You haven't THE intellect to grasp the majority thoughts of warriors anyway.
Seem Alpha?
I would DOUBT any defense yours could devise would save a kindergarten.
WE are no fail,and OUR OWN demographic you CONSTANTLY strive to insult for your religious politics.
 Now RUN along and play victim, while adults discuss how we kill and keep your F**kin social experiments to yourselves.
I HAVE a transgender friend serving who just joined.
I DOUBT she wanted to join the SEALS in order to transfer her sex.
WHAT all the BRILLIANT intellects have MISSED is: if this bullsh#t had continued the idea was to be able to draft WOMEN TOO.
AND some how I really DOUBT all women are behind THAT idea at all.

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: PaddyInf

Your argument is removing all women from the military because there is a chance some of them will get injured... read that to yourself a few times until you understand how dumb it sounds.

Re-read my post. I specifically state that there are many jobs in the military suitable for women. The infantry is not one of them. My point is that if you introduce people who are not physically suited yo a role you will break them. This means fewer people available to carry out tasks and reduces combat effectiveness. We do the same thing with males - If they have a medical condition which increases chance of injury they are not allowed to work in the Infantry. They are still employed in other parts of the support arms.

No wonder the American military is so f#'d up, the amount of people on here who claim to be involved (you can tell because they just MUST MUST create a username that lets everyone know) in the military past or present are some of the most backwards thinking people I've seen.

I'm not American. My user name is based on where I was born (Paddy) and my last name. Not that user names have anything to do with the topic in question. I make mention of my military background as it has bearing to the subject. I have a vested interest in the effectiveness of the military.

Putting people into a role unsuited to them for the sake of 'diversity' puts the effectiveness of the deployed force at risk. Is that what you want?

Thanks for the insightful remarks though. If you can't have an informed debate, throwing a few broad insults about will surely strengthen your point.

You guys are mistaken. I watched G.I Jane...and women kick ass !!!

Also...if you've seen what Charlize Theron or Scarlett Johansson can do on screen...it's obvious to entire Hollywood...that they are more then equal. They are better.

Oh yeah...and Intel also...

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: mOjOm

there is great rolls for women, such as recon

women can collect data way easier than men in fact they already do that in the CIA and in Army SF

There are literally only a handful of women in US military special forces. Why is that?

What I got from this, is that men tend to get distracted when they are around women. I only read your snippets from the article, and not the article itself so correct me if I'm wrong.

Now what I would like to see, is two groups of 200 men and 200 women given the same training and sent on the same simulated mission. I'd like to see the results of that. Perhaps men come out on top, maybe women. Could be both, but it's something I'd like to see.

a reply to: Aegeus

Now what I would like to see, is two groups of 200 men and 200 women given the same training and sent on the same simulated mission. I'd like to see the results of that. Perhaps men come out on top, maybe women. Could be both, but it's something I'd like to see.

you honestly cant guess the result ?

in a simulated mission that tests combat readiness, precision and strength ?

wow...sometimes it feels like a parallel reality out there...

a reply to: KnoxMSP

Why isn't it all male?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: SudoNim

I see you have an opinion on thinking that is insulting to vets.
Puerrille if uninformed at best.
I joined to fight not for ego,but because I'm PISSED about human life and how they act.
You haven't THE intellect to grasp the majority thoughts of warriors anyway.
Seem Alpha?
I would DOUBT any defense yours could devise would save a kindergarten.
WE are no fail,and OUR OWN demographic you CONSTANTLY strive to insult for your religious politics.
 Now RUN along and play victim, while adults discuss how we kill and keep your F**kin social experiments to yourselves.
I HAVE a transgender friend serving who just joined.
I DOUBT she wanted to join the SEALS in order to transfer her sex.
WHAT all the BRILLIANT intellects have MISSED is: if this bullsh#t had continued the idea was to be able to draft WOMEN TOO.
AND some how I really DOUBT all women are behind THAT idea at all.

Is your caps lock broken?

I just find it funny that these macho lad lads seem so desperate for everyone on a conspiracy website know they served.

They are either lieing or are desperate for attention.

a reply to: PaddyInf

Believe it or not I can tell you aren't American(it says under your name ) so that comment was aimed at "troopers" from America.

I specifically state that there are many jobs in the military suitable for women. The infantry is not one of them. My point is that if you introduce people who are not physically suited yo a role you will break them.

If they are not physically suited then they won't pass the standard? Right? The same as men?

What is it that makes them not-suited? The military set the required physical tests... yet your not happy even if they pass them?

So do you believe that every male infantry member is better than all female members?

a reply to: SudoNim

I'll say it again - passing entrance tests is not the same as serving in a unit. It is a starting point, not a target. They are bare minimum standards to build on. Absolutely there are women who pass entrance tests. It is the ability to sustain this long term which is my point.

Women in the Army have much lower physical selection and annual tests than males, yet are still 7 times more likely to be discharged due to physical injury. They may pass the tests, but the longer term impact of military training breaks them at a higher rate than males. I have indicated a few studies in a previous post that supports this.

Can you provide any evidence which show that men and women in the military are equally prone to injury? I can provide plenty which demonstrate a higher injury rate despite being subjected to lower levels of physical stress.

Are you suggesting that we subject the unit to a potential risk by allowing someone with a physically higher propensity for work related injury to deploy in a combat role? All for the sake of public opinion or diversity virtue signalling?

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: KnoxMSP

Why isn't it all male?

They pretty much are.

There are no female SEALS or Green Berets.
2 women have attempted the Army Special Operations Assessment and Training course. Both failed.
3 applied for MARSOC, but all failed the initial entrance tests.
Several have applied for Air force Para Rescue (generally regarded as the soft option for entry to US SOF), but all failed the course through injury or failure to meet standards.

3 female officers have gained Ranger tabs as part of a specially designed course in 2015, but only 1 has served with the Regiment and that was in a support role, not in a fighting unit. Rangers shouldn't really count anyway as they're not part of JSOC but it makes them feel better if you mention them.

All of the above is in the public domain.

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: KnoxMSP

Why isn't it all male?

Political correctness, and appeasement.

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: PaddyInf


So do you believe that every male infantry member is better than all female members?

The statistics do seem to show roughly that.

a reply to: RedDragon

That statistics roughly show that? Which statistics? This is another example of making BS up to try and fit your point.

Men have had to leave the military because they failed certain criteria... there are currently women serving. Those women were better than those men. Understand? Or are you still feeling emasculated?

a reply to: PaddyInf

They pretty much aren't then.

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: RedDragon

That statistics roughly show that? Which statistics? This is another example of making BS up to try and fit your point.

Men have had to leave the military because they failed certain criteria... there are currently women serving. Those women were better than those men. Understand? Or are you still feeling emasculated?

Well, how much better do you think you would perform if you were 5 inches taller and on steroids? There's your answer.

The stats exist. I'm just too lazy to find them.

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: RedDragon

That statistics roughly show that? Which statistics? This is another example of making BS up to try and fit your point.

Men have had to leave the military because they failed certain criteria...

So have women, at a lower physical fitness requirement than men. Point being?

Has nothing to do with feeling emasculated. Has everything to do with women accepting reality.

a reply to: dragonridr

You must miss the part about it already having been exhaustively proven very nearly with unimaginably tragic results multiple times in the last 30 years where "mixed units/complements/crews" have failed miserably in the real world....

It doesn't actually matter if she can do the job if by her simply being there the unit's ability to DO IT'S JOB is heavily compromise!

This is why i hate the stupid Army of One marketing Slogan!

Frankly, it's rank and dangerously deluded bull#!

Take a look at the USS cole incident, not the OFFICIAL REPORTS though... rather do some sniffing around and investigation into everything those reports did not say and indeed covered up!

What you will find.... It's bad man, really bad! It's frightening, disturbing, and frankly it will make you seriously question our ability to fight a real and competent enemy!

People should've been summarily executed in the seconds minutes hours and days following the blast for mutiny derelection of duty and etc. Command discipline and authority was essentially completely nonexistent, huge numbers of crewmembers were "rendered combat ineffective" by the psychological trauma of the event (essentially most of the female crewmembers as opposed to a statistically normal and very small number of male crewmembers)...

That wouldn't have even been an issue, BUT multiple male crewmembers per single female "combat ineffective" essentially abandoned their stations refused to acknowledge or obey orders and instead dedicated their full efforts to ministering to the female "combat ineffectives"!

We very nearly lost the ship due to an amount of damage which was frankly... Insignificant and pitifully minor compared to other instances where much more damage and far more actually physically injured and killed crewmembers throughout history!

This, by the way, fits with what various unbiased studies found was likely to be the case if mixed crews units or etc were mandated!

There's other incidents etc which show this same pattern time and again, but the Cole incident the coverup and whitewashing of the incident and the continued INSANE push for integration in the face of clear evidence that it SEVERELY COMPROMISES OUR ABILITY TO FIGHT as well as JEOPARDIZING THE LIVES OF EVERYONE forced to go to war in an organization with unacceptably compromised effectiveness and survivability!


The women pushing this are narcissistic psychopaths who put their own self interest over all else...

They need to grow the f*** up and realize it's NOT ABOUT THEM!

It's completely unacceptable and insane to cave in to such craven selfishness and disregard for anything but their own self interest!