Study: Army women hurt more in combat training + more mental issues

[SP33Demon]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/17/army-women-hurt-more-often-in-combat-training-expe/

(Warning: autoplay video from that link)^

Yeah. Nobody saw this one coming, lmao.

And I love the we-want-equal-rights-and-can-do-anything-a-man-can-but-we-don't-want-jobs-beyond-our-strength-though quote at the end:

Elaine Donnelly, who runs the Center for Military Readiness, called the results a “scandal” because the Pentagon knowingly is increasing physical risks for women who now will be less, not more, likely to join the military.

“This is a major scandal in the making,” Mrs. Donnelly said. “Here you have United States Army, with its own medical study pointing to the injury rates at least double compared to men. This is a consistent finding across the board. And they are proceeding anyway. And there is no indication that young women considering military service will be informed of the additional risk they will face over and above what men do. Once you sign up, they are going to be assigned to jobs beyond their strength anywhere the Army wants to send you.”

So which one is it, women? Do you want to be accepted into jobs "beyond your strength" because "gender equality", or was that all just BS? Can't have it both ways now that studies confirm what we knew all along - women are physically weaker and should never be in these positions to begin with. Yet it's an Army conspiracy that they are being placed in jobs beyond their strength to make a point. Riiight. More like we had to touch the stove and get burnt to realize the stove was hot.

 

[Schmide]

Speaking of mental issues?

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/elaine-donnelly

I wouldn't trust a word that woman says and certainly not from that moonie rag.

 

[SSSnail]

Let me file this under my "No Shit!" category.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, feminism.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Something tells me their instructors tell them exactly this repeatedly when they begin training. If they are too naive to figure it out beforehand, that is on them.

I'm not against the idea, but there is some common sense that goes with all of this. Just because I am 5'11" and want to play pro basketball doesn't mean I can no matter what my momma told me.

 

[Phanuel]

Let's be honest, most of them will just use their get out of jail free card and get pregnant before deployment.

 

[Blanky]

How dare you say women are not as fit as men at something?! Ban OP for misogyny!!

 

[HamburgerBoy]

When you consider the number of men that leave the military suicidal and/or homicidal, doesn't seem like such a big deal.

 

[Brainonska511]

I didn't realize you fire a gun with your penis.

If someone can meet the physical qualifications for the position, I don't see why they should be barred from doing that job just because they don't have a penis.

 

[ImpulsE69]

So you're saying you really have no clue what the discussion is about?

 

[Ns1]

The IDF has hot ass army girls. I think the US should too.

 

[LegendKiller]

I didn't realize you fire a gun with your penis.

If someone can meet the physical qualifications for the position, I don't see why they should be barred from doing that job just because they don't have a penis.

Gotta love liberals.

 

[master_shake_]

Once you sign up, they are going to be assigned to jobs beyond their strength anywhere the Army wants to send you.”

yep that's a career for ya.

 

[ViperXX]

Women have children, men don't. We are physically different. Stop trying to be a man.

Men are not trying to shit a watermelon. We don't train for watermelon shitting, we don't aspire to shit a watermelon. We are men, we know our roll.

Hint.

 

[Kelvrick]

I don't see why we should exclude every woman from being able to prove they can past the same tests as men just because women overall have more issues.

Taking statistics for anything where you can compare sexes, races, religion, etc, and just because one category has more than the other, doesn't mean there aren't members of that group who can't be just as good as anyone else.

 

[LegendKiller]

I don't see why we should exclude every woman from being able to prove they can past the same tests as men just because women overall have more issues.

Taking statistics for anything where you can compare sexes, races, religion, etc, and just because one category has more than the other, doesn't mean there aren't members of that group who can't be just as good as anyone else.

The problem is that time and again you hear about how women pass, only to later find out that the metrics weren't the same. I had heard (but did not confirm) that the women who passed the Army Ranger program were actually allowed to train on the course prior to the exam, something men don't get, and even then couldn't pass. The guy in charge was going to fail them but then was replaced and they passed.

I do agree with you that there might be women that can deal with the rigors. However, now you're going to create a massive amount of extra infrastructure, requirements, and basic problems with them being there, in very small numbers, just to what? Prove they can?

And no matter what, the best of the best of males are still going to be faster/stronger/more stamina than the best of the best of the best of the females. Denying that is denying basic biology. If it weren't true then women Olympians or Triathletes would have the same times.

This is forcing a social agenda down the military's throat in the name of social justice, liberalism, and feminism. People who have disagreed are quietly shuffled off. From what I understand, those elite teams are TEAMS. You throw a woman in there that can't keep up and suddenly you have a problem.

This is the same stuff as the Affirmative Action lawsuit in the USSC right now. Shoving a square peg into a round hole only screws up the square peg. Liberals have denied this for 20+ years now and have potentially screwed up tens of thousands of people, all in the name of social justice.

 

[Brainonska511]

Gotta love liberals.

I see the big dick has arrived.

Is there a problem with my statement?

 

[Sonikku]

\Stop trying to be a man.

Alright, I've had it with these damn feminists! I'm going to throw them a curve ball and do the inverse.

 

[SP33Demon]

I don't see why we should exclude every woman from being able to prove they can past the same tests as men just because women overall have more issues.

Taking statistics for anything where you can compare sexes, races, religion, etc, and just because one category has more than the other, doesn't mean there aren't members of that group who can't be just as good as anyone else.

You must be kidding. So efficiency be damned? 5% or less that can pass the tests isn't about efficiency and cost reduction, it's about pushing an agenda down our throats. For example, why don't we fully subsidize janitors into a program of doctors? Sure, 5% may make it but we just fully subsidized that experiment to prove a point that a janitor could be a doctor if they (err 5%) *really* wanted to. The money we spent on those other 95%, fuck it, we'll just charge it to the gubment b/c they're rich, amirite? lol

Or, how about our society plays to its physiological strengths to become leaner, meaner, and more efficient? Which involves putting the sex that is more suited to physical rigors into the positions that require physical rigors. FFS liberals/equalists/egalitarians are so fucking oblivious to reality it hurts. Repeat after me boys and girls. We.are.not.equal.Not.in.strength.Not.in.intellect.and.we.never.will.be.exactly.equal.

 

[LegendKiller]

I see the big dick has arrived.

Is there a problem with my statement?

Yes, the problem most liberal statements have, it is devoid of logic and focuses on feelings.

 

[Brainonska511]

Yes, the problem most liberal statements have, it is devoid of logic and focuses on feelings.

Just like I thought, you've got nothing of substance.

 

[LegendKiller]

Just like I thought, you've got nothing of substance.

The OP is substance, the statistically significant study that you have conveniently ignored. Why? Because it doesn't fit your liberal narrative.

If the best men and women were equal, then why aren't their olympic times equal?

Dodge that logic again.

 

[Brainonska511]

The OP is substance, the statistically significant study that you have conveniently ignored. Why? Because it doesn't fit your liberal narrative.

If the best men and women were equal, then why aren't their olympic times equal?

Dodge that logic again.

Clearly, you have a reading problem. If people can meet the same physical standards required to do the job, why does their genitalia matter? We're training soldiers to kill other people, not Olympic athletes to get gold medals. If someone meets the standards to load artillery, or drive a tank, or man a turret, why does it matter if there is a penis or a vagina?

And the OP needs a new source: a right-wing rag spouting crap from a right-wing nut. Seems reliable...

 

[LegendKiller]

Clearly, you have a reading problem. If people can meet the same physical standards required to do the job, why does their genitalia matter? We're training soldiers to kill other people, not Olympic athletes to get gold medals. If someone meets the standards to load artillery, or drive a tank, or man a turret, why does it matter if there is a penis or a vagina?

Because they can't meet the same physical standards. Most times the standards get watered down in a sexist version of Affirmative Action. The study clearly shows that women are a burden and are hurt more often and cannot sustain the strain. But ignore that and just keep on with your social agenda.

 

[SP33Demon]

Clearly, you have a reading problem. If people can meet the same physical standards required to do the job, why does their genitalia matter? We're training soldiers to kill other people, not Olympic athletes to get gold medals. If someone meets the standards to load artillery, or drive a tank, or man a turret, why does it matter if there is a penis or a vagina?

And the OP needs a new source: a right-wing rag spouting crap from a right-wing nut. Seems reliable...

Oh man, you're so cute. The source was from the U.S. Army, dipshit.

The statistics come from a study conducted by the Army surgeon general last summer in conjunction with a bevy of analyses and experiments to judge women’s suitability for direct ground combat roles.

Learn to read next time before posting about something that may threaten your liberal beliefs. Or continue to stick your fingers in your ears yelling lalalalalala. I don't give a shit, you've been brainwashed to think men and women are physiologically equal which means that they'd have equal levels of testosterone and estrogen. Which is hilarious, given the fact that now women are getting injured twice as much as men. Guess what genius? As a competitive powerlifter, I'm a little more qualified on the subject which states the fact that testosterone will help muscle recover faster. To ignore this basic premise with women in the armed forces is a spectacle to behold.