Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • Will they get a purple heart once a month for bleeding?
  • -1. Cheap, old, tired, boring, sexist half-joke.
  • Subby, I dare you to tell one of the women filing this suit to their face that they should be making sammiches

    /any one of them
    //double dog dare
  • They want the same jobs, they should have to sign up for selective service at age 18. You want the opportunities, you have to take the possible downside as well.
  • No.

    There's a very simple reason why, obviously these females are too ignorant and self righteous to see that.
  • knbber2: They want the same jobs, they should have to sign up for selective service at age 18. You want the opportunities, you have to take the possible downside as well.


    Women HAVE sued to be included in the draft. And the Supreme Court turned them down. So your argument is completely and utterly invalid, just like this asinine headline.
  • No. I'm sorry. I think this would be far more trouble than it's worth.

    /former military
    //not taking this position to be mean
  • I'll paraphrase Chris Rock here by saying, women wanna fight? let 'em fight, 'cause I ain't fightin'.
  • Rincewind53: So your argument is completely and utterly invalid


    Absolutely wrong, that was in 1981 when NO combat arms jobs were open to women. That decision was based on not needing women for COMBAT, because they were not eligible. Many combat arms jobs are now open to females, including being a fighter pilot, a helicopter door gunner...etc. They now want all combat arms positions open, so they are now eligible to be drafted for combat. New times, time to readdress that decision.
  • Why would anyone sue for the opportunity to kill another person?
  • Eh, whatever. I don't care anymore. I used to care, but if you want to go experience combat then you go right ahead. History has shown that you can do it and you're just as capable.

    I'm old enough and with enough health problems that I likely won't ever get called up to do anything, we're volunteer now. So I won't have to fret over the incoming mortars the enemy decides to shoot out of your captured, tortured vagina.
  • Just give the bleeders what they want. They want rifles give them farking rifles what do I care I'm too old. I'm not holding the farking door open for them anymore though. They can do it on their goddamn own if I want to interact with them, I will give them money for sex otherwise, que sera sera.
  • stevegarbowski: Why would anyone sue for the opportunity to kill another person?


    Women. Duh did you not read the article?
  • If they're physically and mentally able to fulfill the role, they should be allowed to serve in combat. End of story.
  • violentsalvation: Eh, whatever. I don't care anymore. I used to care, but if you want to go experience combat then you go right ahead. History has shown that you can do it and you're just as capable.

    I'm old enough and with enough health problems that I likely won't ever get called up to do anything, we're volunteer now. So I won't have to fret over the incoming mortars the enemy decides to shoot out of your captured, tortured vagina.


    fiver5: Just give the bleeders what they want. They want rifles give them farking rifles what do I care I'm too old. I'm not holding the farking door open for them anymore though. They can do it on their goddamn own if I want to interact with them, I will give them money for sex otherwise, que sera sera.


    Uhh, I ... *backs out of thread, holds own door*
  • knbber2: Rincewind53: So your argument is completely and utterly invalid

    Absolutely wrong, that was in 1981 when NO combat arms jobs were open to women. That decision was based on not needing women for COMBAT, because they were not eligible. Many combat arms jobs are now open to females, including being a fighter pilot, a helicopter door gunner...etc. They now want all combat arms positions open, so they are now eligible to be drafted for combat. New times, time to readdress that decision.


    vossiewulf: If they're physically and mentally able to fulfill the role, they should be allowed to serve in combat. End of story.




    Again, NO.

    Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

    THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

    Like I said, simple reason.
  • Rincewind53: And the Supreme Court turned them down.


    So they been tole already? They need tole twice?
  • fiver5: Just give the bleeders what they want. They want rifles give them farking rifles what do I care I'm too old. I'm not holding the farking door open for them anymore though. They can do it on their goddamn own if I want to interact with them, I will give them money for sex otherwise, que sera sera.


    That may be the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on Fark. Congratulations!

    PreMortem:

    Again, NO.

    Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

    THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

    Like I said, simple reason.


    Huh. Women having been serving and fighting and dying in various roles in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade, and yet somehow this magic army of eunuchs you speak of has not come to pass. Maybe.... and I'm just throwing this out there, you know.... Maybe your "MEN STRONG. MEN AM PROTECTOR. MEN AM LOSE MIND POWER IN FACE OF PRETTY LADY IN DANGER!" view might be a little ill-informed? Just a thought, you know.

    /P.S. They also used to say that having gays in the military would cause biological problems when men ran in to save their lovers. That hasn't worked out like that. Give our troops some common damn sense.
  • coco ebert: Uhh, I ... *backs out of thread, holds own door*


    That is what it's about though. Men act differently, stupidly, around women. And the expectation is that the stupidity would be exacerbated in combat. I'm sure men put this rule in place, but there is probably some reason for it, beyond blatant sexism. I don't agree with it, logically, but men are men, and we are wired differently.
  • I have no problem with this.

    /Robots, on the other hand...
  • Let the ladies have a gun and point them towards the enemy, I'm all for it. Why? I have seen women fight, they're good at it, and we need all the capable soldiers and sailors we can get our hands on right now.
  • Rincewind53: PreMortem:

    Again, NO.

    Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

    THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

    Like I said, simple reason.

    Huh. Women having been serving and fighting and dying in various roles in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade, and yet somehow this magic army of eunuchs you speak of has not come to pass. Maybe.... and I'm just throwing this out there, you know.... Maybe your "MEN STRONG. MEN AM PROTECTOR. MEN AM LOSE MIND POWER IN FACE OF PRETTY LADY IN DANGER!" view might be a little ill-informed? Just a thought, you know.


    I'd like to see the story of a woman who died "fighting". Those various roles you speak of do not include front-line infantry/combat troops. That is what these women are suing for.

    Also, assuming you are a male and you have a choice of letting your wife or your daughter die, which do you choose? Through evolutionary processes this decision is a no-brainer. Unless you don't believe in evolution and that certain behavioral traits are not still embedded in our DNA. Can it be overcome? Obviously, but I'd argue that wiring is still too embedded and would cause more lives.

    I think the decision to allow women in combat roles should be left up to the generals, not some civilian court. There is a reason the military has it's own set of rules and that some constitutional rights are not extended to military members.

    /P.S. They also used to say that having gays in the military would cause biological problems when men ran in to save their lovers. That hasn't worked out like that. Give our troops some common damn sense.

    I'm not sure who the "they" is you speak of, but I would guess the likes of Pat Robertson...and common sense, damned or not, has no place in combat.
  • FTA: Hunt and the other three women said the policy unfairly blocks them from promotions and other advancements open to men in combat.

    Promotions are competitive in your own career field. A female Intel Sergeant doesn't compete against a male Infantry Sergeant for promotion to Staff Sergeant; they compete against other intel troops. A male intel soldier is as equally unlikely to see combat as a female intel soldier.

    The promotion cut-off scores for Combat Arms tend to (on average) have slightly lower promotion point requirements, but the point values fluctuate year-to-year based on the Army's manning requirements. There are Service & Support jobs that have lower cut-off scores than infantry, armor, or cavalry.
  • Women shouldn't be fighting...neither should men.
  • Load 25 of 359 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.