Perplexed #fundie

Perplexed #fundie abcnews.go.com

The physical standards will have to be lowered regardless of claims that they won't. Women simply are not stronger and don't handle constant exposure to violence as men. That is a reality that all of the political correctness in the world won't change. Don't expect any truth coming from the military about its failure. We have finally managed to allow the elites to have their way that will result in our failure in combat.

45 comments

old comment by SpukiKitty

Yeah cuz you need beefy muscles to pilot MACHINES *eyeroll*!

Are these guys always under the impression that warfare is still done medieval-style?

And even so...Joan d'Arc, Queen Boudicca, Mulan and countless others...they didn't have tanks, machine guns, drones, atom bombs....

(Granted, Boudicca was eventually defeated but she was pretty darn kick-ass & won a slew of battles & totally flattened a few Roman settlements. If anything, her defeat was a fluke & she got the last laugh in the end, Rome began to fall apart, soon after...)

Say that jazz to those lady kickboxers, cage-fighters, bodybuilders, bounty-hunters, etc....I DARE YA!

You'll be more than Perplexed...you'll be Pulverized!

When a woman in touch with her inner Shakti, she can do anything...size weight & physical strength differences be damned. Just ask any random momma-bear, she can take down a much bigger, brawnier male bear! Human females have this too, it's just been greatly suppressed over centuries societal conditioning. It's mother nature, mommas protect their young.

old comment by Noneofyourbusiness

A) Men have greater upper body strength than women in general (and women can work longer before tiring than men can in general), but it's not universally true of all men and all women.

B) There are ways, in the art of unarmed combat, of defeating opponents whose upper body strength is greater than your own. That's one of the big reasons people learn martial arts.

C) Most modern warfare has nothing to do with upper body strength, which has no effect on the ability to use a gun, a tank or a fighter plane.

D) It's completely untrue that women are less able to handle exposure to violence than men are, even as a generalization. That's a psychological trait that varies between individuals, and has no connection to gender, despite stereotypes.

old comment by Hertzyscowicz

Just to get the facts straight, the US Army does have different physical standards for men and women. For example, ages 22-26, women's push-up scores max out at 46 versus the men's 75. For further comparison, the men's passing grade is 40 push-ups. Similarly, women's max score time is 15:36, compared to the men's passing grade at 16:36.

So no shit female soldiers in the United States are weaker, weaker women are being let into the military. I'm half tempted to suspect that the sexist elements in the military rigged it this way.

Of course, the day any special forces outfit issues lower fitness standards for women is the day I sue them for gross negligence resulting in fractures in my forehead and carpals.

EDIT: Apparently, the above is not true for USMC.
RE-EDIT: Except that they substitute flexed arm hang for pull-ups for women.

old comment by Old Viking

When this subject is raised, the assumption -- quite rightfully -- is that we're talking in terms of front-line combat, however loosely front-line may be construed nowadays. You know explosions, automatic weapons firing, running and dodging, rescuing the wounded when possible. Not electronic warfare. Let the women do that. They are good at it. Keep them out of the shitstorms, they are not good at it. Do not offer me lame contrary examples. They are rare. I've been around a lot longer than any of you, and know more military history than most of you. If you still think women should be in combat, re-watch the first 15 minutes of Saving Private Ryan and get back to me.

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

@1557326, Neith

@Jimbo, do you seriously not see the difference between a trained soldier with a deadly weapon or a trained pilot flying a jet, and an unarmed person who isn't trained in hand to hand combat?

I see the difference, but that does not solve the ~~paradox~~ lawgic trap you've got yourself into.

According to orthodox feminists: women (considered as a class) are oppressed and threatened by men and thus merit special protection such as VAWA and safe spaces. You can't seriously argue that women need protection because they're more vulnerable to violence and that they need equal opportunity to serve in the infantry because they're equally capable of violence. You could maybe sell me the former claim but not both.

Of course, if you judge women on an individual basis rather than as a class things might be different, but in that case it'd be difficult to get legislation enacted on their behalf. Besides, feminism - like all forms of leftism - is based around judging people on their class; though seen through the theory of oppression and privilege (i.e. outcomes) rather than their ontological qualities as right wingers tend to.

Welp, that was a long and serious post, I should get back to trolling.

old comment by NonProphet

@Old Viking: For once, we disagree.
On average, women may not be as physically strong as men. That does not make them less fit for modern combat.
See the Night Witches reference earlier.
Not only that, but where do you get the idea that a woman trained in exactly the same way as a man will not perform as well in combat? The entire population of Finland seems to prove that wrong (as well as the "rare" bit).

I like you, OV, but I think you're the victim of gender bias here.

------------------------
@Jimbo: So, you're basically stereotyping feminists, and expecting those of us who do not fit the stereotype to defend a point from the stereotype's POV?

Furthermore, you're twisting the question.
Women are not "more vulnerable" to violence, they are more likely to be targeted for violence purely due to their perceived weakness.
However, any woman who completes combat training is just as capable as a man in combat situations, and there is NO evidence whatsoever that they are more likely to run from a violent situation than men. Again, there are entire batallions of female soldiers who prove this time & again.

old comment by Angua

@ Jimbo:

According to orthodox feminists: women (considered as a class) are oppressed and threatened by men and thus merit special protection such as VAWA and safe spaces.

1.) The fact that women as a class are marginalized and oppressed does not mean that every woman if going to be worse in combat than every man.

2.) There's more to misogyny than the threat of physical violence.

3.) I doubt that the average person of color is weaker than the average white person. But that hasn't stopped white people from oppressing and threatening people of color.

4.) Believe it or not, it is possible to recognize that certain classes of people are privileged over others AND to recognize that people are individuals.

5.) The current Violence Against Women Act is actually gender neutral. We changed it because we realized that men can be victims of domestic violence and sexual assault too. And male victims deserve just as much protection as female victims.

Perplexed #fundie abcnews.go.com

45 comments

Confused?