Many women soldiers have been put into situations beyond their physical abilities b/c of the "leadership" listening to the like of DACOWITZ. Most of these women soldiers did not want to be put into those situations, BELIEVE ME! [sauce, experience.] But the feminists demanded opening jobs to females, which most did not want, and those females had no choice, GET THAT feminists! Because some women wanted to fly in combat, other women were put into the combat arms, whether they wanted or were fit enough or not.
When I was a company commander, DACOWITZ visited me. I told them we already had enough women. They asked why. I said, have you ever lugged a mechanic's tool box? Or put up maintenance tents in the field? They were CLUELESS! For every woman assigned to my company who literally had not the strength for common tasks, other men had to pick up the slack. And then they fought for the attention of the females! As God is my Witness.
Israelis had that problem which women on the front line. As soon as the live fire exercises started. The women panicked and the men were trying to protect them instead of focusing on the fire drill.
Women have NO place in any combat MOS. Bio-mechanically and physiologically women are built differently than men, and do not have the upper body strength that men have that is crucial for those roles. There are a host of logistical issues as well: "Time of the month", inevitable sexual activity, pregnancy, ad nauseum ad infinitum. The only way that women could "qualify" is if the standards are lowered. He is entirely correct.
Bio-mechanically and physiologically women are built differently than men, and do not have the upper body strength that men have that is crucial for those roles.
Also, equally as important, PSYCHOLOGICALLY women are not cut out to be war fighters. In general their psyches are built for empathy, nurturing, loving, relationships, feelings, caring beyond understanding. You can't bring that mindset to a battlefield and think you're going to get anything but chaos and attrition.
On top of that, MORALLY a society is failing if it sends its womenfolk off to do its fighting and killing. Only narcissistic sissy boys want to cower at home while the women go out and put themselves in harm's way for them. If a man is physically unable, an able-bodied MAN should take his place.
Women need (and most want) to keep the home fires burning. If they die in combat, their men are ill-equipped to do the nursing and child-rearing at which women naturally excel. Flame all you want, but we are not cut out for domesticity and predominantly nurturing roles. They erode our natural God-given masculinity and the sheepdog's defender mindset, which must be ready at a moment's notice to kill threatening wolves without the slightest mercy or hesitation.
Try working in an all women group for a while and you might just lose those ideas of "caring, empathy, nurturing..."
Well, maybe towards males and children a bit more. But I doubt any men can be as vicious and cruel as women can. Kipling was right when he wrote the poem "the female of the species."
Yes they can be psychologically cruel and verbally vicious, and no less so to other women than to men.
Yet (and this is why we love them anyway) when they want to turn on the nurturing and handling children, nobody does it better as long as they feel appreciated and protected by the man
Seriously. You can even see it with chickens and their pecking order. Nasty hens fighting each other to the death sometimes, but when you introduce a rooster, they all fall in line.
I'm a woman and 100% agree with him. I'm 5'2", and there's no way in hell I could carry a comrade out of battle. Therefore, I shouldn't be in combat. Women do, however, make damned good snipers.
Amen brother. Any woman who thinks being a sniper is some sort of "safe" combat role is also too stupid and lazy to be on the battlefield, endangering the war-fighting men.
I don't see why anyone would take it to heart. It is what it is. Like you said, we complement each other, and have our own strengths and weaknesses.
There are women who could lift a 200 lb man over their shoulder and carry them out of a war zone, but I think they are few and far between. I mentioned the sniper thing because of Lyudmila Pavlichenko... for anyone who doesn't know who she is, look her up. It's a pretty cool story.
I wish that they never did that. I was in during the incorporation of women into the combat units and is was always "down play the men's abilities to make the women look more capable".
That's all women - or anybody else for that matter - should be asking for. If somebody qualifies, then they can get the job. If no woman does, then no woman gets the job. And that's it, no playing with standards or anything. Either you can do it or you can't.
Sure there can be other reasons to keep women out of certain positions, like the likelihood that especially if a woman who might be able to do something happens to be younger, or even somewhat attractive, that might turn out to be a problem with at least some of the men in the group - sexual escapades, rivalries and so on - but let's ignore those for the moment. The basic should just be "does this person fulfill the physical requirements to even do what that job requires?" and start from that.
1986 Aliens "Hey Vasquez (michelle rodriguez, doing pullups), anyone ever mistake you for a man?" VASQUEZ: "No, how about 'chu?"
Angelina Jolie in SALT
Countless examples of tiny women punching men 3-5x their size across the room, defying angular momentum
"we carry babies all day so clearly we're stronger" man with 80lb rucksack and accessories carrying a 10 lb rifle nods in agreement, because americans are cucked and/or he doesn't want to be womansplained
I totally agree with him. The same should be for police officers and firefighters. The weakest link puts the whole group at risk.
End the Humiliations.
I 100% agree fren.
If the UK implemented this then zero arrests would be made over social media likes!
YES!
HOO AH!
Common sense 101.
Many women soldiers have been put into situations beyond their physical abilities b/c of the "leadership" listening to the like of DACOWITZ. Most of these women soldiers did not want to be put into those situations, BELIEVE ME! [sauce, experience.] But the feminists demanded opening jobs to females, which most did not want, and those females had no choice, GET THAT feminists! Because some women wanted to fly in combat, other women were put into the combat arms, whether they wanted or were fit enough or not.
When I was a company commander, DACOWITZ visited me. I told them we already had enough women. They asked why. I said, have you ever lugged a mechanic's tool box? Or put up maintenance tents in the field? They were CLUELESS! For every woman assigned to my company who literally had not the strength for common tasks, other men had to pick up the slack. And then they fought for the attention of the females! As God is my Witness.
So human nature
Israelis had that problem which women on the front line. As soon as the live fire exercises started. The women panicked and the men were trying to protect them instead of focusing on the fire drill.
7 years in the Infantry
1/9 Infantry Regiment - 7th Infantry Division Light
5/20 Mechanized Infantry
1/507 Parachute Infantry Regiment
Women have NO place in any combat MOS. Bio-mechanically and physiologically women are built differently than men, and do not have the upper body strength that men have that is crucial for those roles. There are a host of logistical issues as well: "Time of the month", inevitable sexual activity, pregnancy, ad nauseum ad infinitum. The only way that women could "qualify" is if the standards are lowered. He is entirely correct.
Also, equally as important, PSYCHOLOGICALLY women are not cut out to be war fighters. In general their psyches are built for empathy, nurturing, loving, relationships, feelings, caring beyond understanding. You can't bring that mindset to a battlefield and think you're going to get anything but chaos and attrition.
On top of that, MORALLY a society is failing if it sends its womenfolk off to do its fighting and killing. Only narcissistic sissy boys want to cower at home while the women go out and put themselves in harm's way for them. If a man is physically unable, an able-bodied MAN should take his place.
Women need (and most want) to keep the home fires burning. If they die in combat, their men are ill-equipped to do the nursing and child-rearing at which women naturally excel. Flame all you want, but we are not cut out for domesticity and predominantly nurturing roles. They erode our natural God-given masculinity and the sheepdog's defender mindset, which must be ready at a moment's notice to kill threatening wolves without the slightest mercy or hesitation.
Roger that. Glad you brought that up.
Yes! Let women BE WOMEN and men BE MEN!
Vive la difference!
YES!
The military has one job and one job only. Return to the warrior ethos - our best and brightest.
And strongest.
True that.
Try working in an all women group for a while and you might just lose those ideas of "caring, empathy, nurturing..."
Well, maybe towards males and children a bit more. But I doubt any men can be as vicious and cruel as women can. Kipling was right when he wrote the poem "the female of the species."
https://www.poetry.com/poem/33429/the-female-of-the-species
Yes they can be psychologically cruel and verbally vicious, and no less so to other women than to men.
Yet (and this is why we love them anyway) when they want to turn on the nurturing and handling children, nobody does it better as long as they feel appreciated and protected by the man
Seriously. You can even see it with chickens and their pecking order. Nasty hens fighting each other to the death sometimes, but when you introduce a rooster, they all fall in line.
💯 AGREE!
A sudden outbreak of common sense
Refreshing, isn't it?
I'm a woman and 100% agree with him. I'm 5'2", and there's no way in hell I could carry a comrade out of battle. Therefore, I shouldn't be in combat. Women do, however, make damned good snipers.
Women likely do make a good shooters, but there is more to sniping than shooting a gun. Just sayin...
Amen brother. Any woman who thinks being a sniper is some sort of "safe" combat role is also too stupid and lazy to be on the battlefield, endangering the war-fighting men.
Thank you for understanding this and not taking it to heart. Just biology.
Don't disagree with last statement 1 bit btw.
Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses and common sensers know btw.
It's why we compliment each other and by God's design a man and woman is the only right way.
I don't see why anyone would take it to heart. It is what it is. Like you said, we complement each other, and have our own strengths and weaknesses.
There are women who could lift a 200 lb man over their shoulder and carry them out of a war zone, but I think they are few and far between. I mentioned the sniper thing because of Lyudmila Pavlichenko... for anyone who doesn't know who she is, look her up. It's a pretty cool story.
Not male-only. Single standard.
The standard is what is important. The fact that women can't cut that standard, oh well.
This is the way to frame it diplomatically
"Male-only" can be used when the intention is to provoke or troll feminists
Which they're always provoked, so it is ultimately unnecessary.
Well, he actually said “merit only”. But if it means that females cannot compete for these jobs, so be it.
Sounds like "true equality" with an equal standard everyone is held to
That was an amazing speech. Not many people can prowl a stage and deliver with conviction like that, seemingly without any prompting
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1973006531961692402
We protect our women, we don't send them to the front lines.
Don’t call it men standards, call it soldier standards. - jobs fit for men.
I wish that they never did that. I was in during the incorporation of women into the combat units and is was always "down play the men's abilities to make the women look more capable".
About time
That's all women - or anybody else for that matter - should be asking for. If somebody qualifies, then they can get the job. If no woman does, then no woman gets the job. And that's it, no playing with standards or anything. Either you can do it or you can't.
Sure there can be other reasons to keep women out of certain positions, like the likelihood that especially if a woman who might be able to do something happens to be younger, or even somewhat attractive, that might turn out to be a problem with at least some of the men in the group - sexual escapades, rivalries and so on - but let's ignore those for the moment. The basic should just be "does this person fulfill the physical requirements to even do what that job requires?" and start from that.
Hollywood did this to us
So the women will steal all the backline office work while men can only get roles that gets then dead?
There are plenty of males who aren't cut out for combat also, so no, there will always be dudes in the back office positions.