Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Iannis_sl said:

I don't think pregnancies would be a consideration. Not because lol lesbians, but because even in basic training many women will stop cycling. It's the same with professional female athletes. It's a little odd, but if a woman becomes too fit she becomes less fertile. Systemic stress, the body reacts. Now rape/assault I can see. Not necessarily from the goonsquad they're serving with either. Then again sexual assault is a danger that male soldiers face as well. Remember Abu-Graib.

But pelvic stress fracture. If they really do suffer that at an unacceptable rate then they really do. That's exactly the sort of thing that the service should have the exact data on and it isn't a political matter.

I would personally think that fitness is more relevant. But I might be wrong.

Click to expand...

"fitness" is not remotely all there is to performance. Just ask Clemens, Bonds, Lance armstrong, etc...
Blood packing:extra red blood cells=more oxygen in the blood stream.
Testosterone:increases muscle mass, recovery and endurance. Andriol is testosterone undecanoate.
hGH: human growth hormone. increases strength and lean muscle mass, and bone density. (from pituitary gland.) Peaks at puberty, women have 5x as much for childbirthing.
Coritsone: reduces inflammation.

etc, etc.
Hormones are pretty important to performance.

Barraco Bisi_sl said:

Woman who lost Silicon Valley bias suit is dropping appeal

raughs

Click to expand...

get rekt pleb

fanaskin_sl said:

Dem Rep: Expel Accused Students, Even if 80% Are Innocent | Mediaite

Click to expand...

At least I can sleep well knowing our elected representatives have learned absolutely nothing from society's historical fuck-ups.

Lejina_sl said:

Pretty much every time I've had to pull myself thru a window. A buddy can help for the initial push, but realize in combat gear you're a lot heavier than at the gym when you do the test (I'm 170 naked and 250-300lbs in full gear). Shoulder/back strength also helps a lot to stabilize your rifle when shooting other than prone and you need quite a bit of it to evac someone.

Click to expand...

Still seems narrow, especially when someone who went through the window first could lend a helping hand, but I suppose expecting a helping hand to be available is accepting a double standard. Maybe the answer is to have separate fitness standards for combat specs.

Eidal_sl said:

Women in theater (Iran/AFG) are attrited at over 2x the rate of men due to "non-combat injuries". Pelvic stress fracture being the big culprit; an affliction almost non-existent in men.

Click to expand...

I'd be curious to know how much of this could be accounted for by the lower fitness standards for women? Seems like less fit people would be more injury prone in general compared to more fit people.

Gavinmad_sl said:

how much of this could be accounted for by the lower fitness standards for women?

Click to expand...

So make sure they're not as well prepared to fight and die out in a battle field than their male counterparts. I like your thinking, that's a good way to get women out of gaming once and for all.

Barraco Bisi_sl said:

Woman who lost Silicon Valley bias suit is dropping appeal

raughs

Click to expand...

"Principled Stance" my ass.Fucking LOL.

Bloomberg_sl said:

Pao?s announcement that she was dropping the case came one day after her husband, Alphonse ?Buddy? Fletcher Jr., lost an appeal in New York federal court related to the 2012 bankruptcy of his hedge fund?s master fund.

?Pao made a principled stance but we don?t know if a couple more zeros after the dollar sign might?ve increased her willingness to settle,? said Deborah Rhode, a Stanford Law School professor. ?She continues to want to be a spokeswoman for the issues that she raised, and that will have a positive effect on workplace culture.?

Click to expand...

Maybe she can be a cheerleader for a bunch of Chinese brogrammers.

Hoss_sl said:

Really Bro? How do you have babies without a woman? Are you from the future?

Click to expand...

I guess you're back to being stupid again.

Just something to keep in mind about the military, they're all conservative by nature because if they try something and get it wrong, people die.

I'll just leave my usual anecdotal story as I always do when this topic comes up. During my Team Week (last week) at USMC boot. We went over to 4th Bn and spread several tons of recycled tire mulch on their O course. Having done so we realized that we didn't lower the bars, just raised the floor. Also fuck them and their low impact track surface. Was always a bad day at 3rd Bn when you turn the corner for morning pt and the tractors are out there churning up the sand track.

Hoss_sl said:

You're saying females aren't the throttling factor in reproduction, and I'm being the stupid one?

Click to expand...

In the strictest academic sense, yes, the ability of the human race to continue is limited by the female gestation period.

In the real world there are tons of factors beyond the actual process of reproduction, and in the modern world we certainly don't need to treat women like property to ensure that they're still fit to birth children. The falling fecundity rate in western nations indicates that more and more women are choosing to have fewer or no children in the first place. I'd also hazard a guess that the women who were both interested in and fit for combat duty would predominantly be women less interested in having children. Regardless, the fact that women are the ones with a uterus does not justify denying them the right to serve in combat if they had the option, or denying them the ability to choose in the first place.

With over 7 billion people on the planet and steadily increasing life expectancy, the human race could survive a massive population contraction over the the next several decades and be in absolutely no danger. Falling fecundity rates pose a potential demographic crisis for individual nations, but they aren't even close to a crisis for the human race.

Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat

from 2013

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...60132111473150

Women get injured faster than men for a myriad of reasons. They weigh less, bones are less dense, and repair damage slower. Don't get me wrong, we have a fine fighting force and if the civilian overlords say "make it so" then the USMC will find a way to integrate women. Then, they'll all get busted to pieces during workups (the training prior to a deployment) and tax-payers will be paying a couple grand a month forever to every single woman that thought she could be an infantryman.

My sister enlisted in the USMC, had a string of medical issues starting from MCT (the quasi-combat training all non-infantry Marines receive) and was ultimately medically separated 2 years later. I can't even fathom how much she's costed in total, and she draws 100% disability and has a PTSD dog from stress she suffered while stationed in Camp Pendleton. Absurd.

Eidal_sl said:

I can't even fathom how much she's costed in total, and she draws 100% disability and has a PTSD dog from stress she suffered while stationed in Camp Pendleton. Absurd.

Click to expand...

Heh.

Jais_sl said:

Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat

from 2013

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...60132111473150

Click to expand...

Most of his arguments are based on the same premises that were explored in that GI Jane movie, that the problem mainly lies in the inability of men to adapt and focus with women present, and that it's unfair to subject a woman to prolonged field conditions in the company of men. The second premise does not stand up to the least bit of scrutiny. For starters, women aren't being conscripted into combat duty, they're volunteering. Second, I'd be no more embarrassed to shit explosive bloody diarrhea into an mre bag in front of a woman than I would be to do it in front of a man, and I imagine that a woman would probably feel the same.

The other premise stands up a little better. While the military in general should be as equal opportunity as is realistically possible, when it comes to combat units most of that should take a back seat to ensuring that our forces are as combat effective as possible. If it can be demonstrably proven that mixed gender units continually perform worse than all male units in combat, then women should no longer be permitted to serve in combat. It certainly doesn't seem to be a problem for the mixed Kurdish units fighting ISIS.

Studies of injury rates between male and female athletes have shown about the same level of injury. In a study of 1874 sports injuries in 7 sports between 1980 and 1995 at a division III college, 856 injuries were sustained by women and 1018 by men. The sports were basketball, cross country, soccer, swimming, tennis, track, and water polo, so it's not like they were comparing football and wrestling to badminton. So I don't think existing injury statistics for women currently in the military under a lower PT standard would necessarily be indicative of injury rates among women who are fit for combat duty under the same fitness standard as men.

Equity feminists were right again.A new study shows that people who consume more porn hold more feminist views than non-porn users, like, say, the sort of 3rd-wave radfem puritans who inhabit tumblr. SJW headsplosions imminent.

Kohut_sl said:

According to radical feminist theory, pornography serves to further the subordination of women by training its users, males and females alike, to view women as little more than sex objects over whom men should have complete control..

Taken together, the results of this study fail to support the view that pornography is an efficient deliverer of 'women-hating ideology...While unexpected from the perspective of radical feminist theory, these results are consistent with a small number of empirical studies that have also reported positive associations between pornography use and egalitarian attitudes.

Click to expand...

That "small number of empirical studies" includes several other studies that came out this year, including one thatfailed to find any links between porn and sexual assault, which infuriated the rape-culture hags to no end.

Journal of Aggression and Violent Behavior_sl said:

The effects of pornography, whether violent or non-violent, on sexual aggression have been debated for decades. The current review examines evidence about the influence of pornography on sexual aggression in correlational and experimental studies and in real world violent crime data.

Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates.

... it is concluded that it is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to increased sexual assault behavior.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's time to revisit that freakonomics idea of providing free porn to reduce rape rates.

Gavinmad_sl said:

So I don't think existing injury statistics for women currently in the military under a lower PT standard would necessarily be indicative of injury rates among women who are fit for combat duty under the same fitness standard as men.

Click to expand...

You can't compare injury rates for athletes to a combat deployment. It's repetitive stress injuries that drop women. I don't have a bone to pick here, but every single data point I've seen indicates that any woman that can tolerate the perpetual stress of a deployment to the same degree as a man may as well be a mutant.

Keep in mind that the women failing IOC (USMC Infantry Officer's Course) are almost assuredly in the top 1 percentile across the country. They aren't "being held to a lower fitness standard"... they just don't have testosterone.

LOL - supports double standards then claims

"For the women that volunteered, probably there should have been a higher bar to cross to get into the experiment," he said.

Click to expand...

LOL