Women in infantry when sports are still gender segregated?

I mean I don't really get it. Both sports and combat requires alot of physical strength. People now these days say that women are just as strong as men so they should be able serve in any role in the military including highly physically demanding jobs like infantry.

So if women have the physical strength to fight men on the battelfield why are sports still gender segregated? Yes I am aware that guns are the ultimate equalizer but hand to hand combat still happens today. Not to mention the fact that infantry soldiers carry sometimes up to as much as 130 pounds of equipment. Being able to carry that much for serveral miles requires alot of physical strenght.

So could anyone enlighten me as to why women can appearantly beat men on the battefield but not in say basket or boxing?

So? Why should women have access to every male group? Why can't men just have groups for men? Is there a reason that gender segregated things are wrong by default? If I want to deny access to women to my club I shouldn't get a bunch of **** for it.

You should however be aware that the government going PC retard doesn't mean the policy is a good idea. If you looked at studies that Obama ignored you would know that women on the battlefield make everyone less safe and make the units less effective overall. You also never really get much of anything from a lot of this stuff as these women are almost always on the bottom.

terryacer said:

I mean I don't really get it. Both sports and combat requires alot of physical strength. People now these days say that women are just as strong as men so they should be able serve in any role in the military including highly physically demanding jobs like infantry.

So if women have the physical strength to fight men on the battelfield why are sports still gender segregated? Yes I am aware that guns are the ultimate equalizer but hand to hand combat still happens today. Not to mention the fact that infantry soldiers carry sometimes up to as much as 130 pounds of equipment. Being able to carry that much for serveral miles requires alot of physical strenght.

So could anyone enlighten me as to why women can appearantly beat men on the battefield but not in say basket or boxing?

Click to expand...

Well obviously the girl is going to have to show she excels at making choices, maybe even better, during extreme stress. Then they can be squad leaders or commanders. If they cant make good deciscions they will just be some grunt holding a gun waiting to be directed. I think its going to take a while for men to catch up to the fact that maybe a few women out there are way more ruthless and calculated than them, and perhaps an efficient combat leader.

I think "super hero" soldiers will always be thought of as "manly" but if a chick can keep the vibe calm and hang in with everyone else then why not let um?

I think that loyalty and sacrifice are far more important for war than it would be for sports. Its a totally different honor.


The futre will be interesting when man and woman BOTH have the same robot to fight with. And they are hooked up to these robots. And when the robots are perfectly 50/50 equal we can see EXACTLY how much speed, quick thinking, strength and endurance play. I have a feeling most women actually think quicker than most men. When comfortable.

I guess you could almost do a splash test with female vs male fighter jet pilots. Or video games and lots of monitorization.

terryacer said:

I mean I don't really get it. Both sports and combat requires alot of physical strength. People now these days say that women are just as strong as men so they should be able serve in any role in the military including highly physically demanding jobs like infantry.

So if women have the physical strength to fight men on the battelfield why are sports still gender segregated? Yes I am aware that guns are the ultimate equalizer but hand to hand combat still happens today. Not to mention the fact that infantry soldiers carry sometimes up to as much as 130 pounds of equipment. Being able to carry that much for serveral miles requires alot of physical strenght.

So could anyone enlighten me as to why women can appearantly beat men on the battefield but not in say basket or boxing?

Click to expand...

I was cadre in the Airborne Training Battalion when women first became candidates for parachute training. I, with the other males, all sniggered. Those ladies wiped the smiles right off of our faces.

The best light machine gunner I ever knew was a 5'6" female of 150 lbs who could walk all day with a pack and gear, then set up a fighting position on the flank that was by the book.

Women make excellent fixed wing and rotor pilots.

Don't ever think a woman can shoot a hole through your head.

Firing a rifle, or carrying a rucksack, or flying an Apache are skills in their own right, but you don't need to be as strong and solidly built to do them as you need to be in order to fend off a 350 lb line backer in an NFL game. Hell, your average Navy SEAL couldn't even handle that. Of course, your average 350 lb linebacker also wouldn't last long against a SEAL in combat.

Completely different skill sets.

I went through Marine School of Infantry. USMC that is not British Royal Marines etc.

Anyone that has ever taken physical (as in biological) anthropology courses, not social anthropology courses, is aware of scientific facts about the typical differences between the human male and female skeletal builds.

Whenever science does not confirm politically correct views it is time to toss science out the window. But just imagine if forensic anthropologist did that, particular when loved ones are still searching for vanished children, siblings, or spouses.

What I am about to say will anger the Politically Correct to the moon. If Kaitlyn Jenner vanished, was murdered, corpse buried and decomposed and one day someone or some people stumbled upon the skeletal remains and called cops. Well... forensic anthropologist would be called upon to examine the bones, and even if a woman's dress and purse were found among the skeletal remains the forensic anthropologist would scientifically identify the skeletal remains as that of a male in x approximate age range.

I'm saying all of that to say this. Once through puberty males usually have more "robust" (stronger, thicker) bone structures. Females usually more "gracile" (slender, fragile) bone structures. And females bones are more prone in that sense to injuries in certain activities.

I use the word "usually" because their are exceptions, outliers, and the sexual distinction between human males and females is not as great as it is between male and female gorillas.

Before human children go through puberty there is very little physical difference between the two, skeletal anyways, perhaps not physiologically.

The difference between human male and female physiological systems exists too. Doctors can only prescribe x dosage of y drug to a female because an equal dosage a male would take could be harmful or lethal depending on the drug. Has to do with physiological differences between the two sexes.

(And no, "sex" is not in the mind in science. Gender is psychological and social. But biological sex is more specific and is critical criteria in understanding via the Theory of Evolution how sexually reproducing species procreate. In other words "sex" is linked logically and coherently to the concept of the propagation of the species and not to what someone "feels like they are" nor what Americans sociologically associate with female and male.)

Skeptic Bob said:

Firing a rifle, or carrying a rucksack, or flying an Apache are skills in their own right, but you don't need to be as strong and solidly built to do them as you need to be in order to fend off a 350 lb line backer in an NFL game. Hell, your average Navy SEAL couldn't even handle that. Of course, your average 350 lb linebacker also wouldn't last long against a SEAL in combat.

Completely different skill sets.

Click to expand...

You need to be pretty damn strong to carry 130 pounds of equipment for miles in the jungle, mountains, forests, desert ect. You would also have to be pretty strong to beat an opponent in hand to hand combat who is probably just as well trained as you. Even a well trained woman would most likely loose against a well trained man in hand to hand combat.

terryacer said:

I mean I don't really get it. Both sports and combat requires alot of physical strength. People now these days say that women are just as strong as men so they should be able serve in any role in the military including highly physically demanding jobs like infantry.

So if women have the physical strength to fight men on the battelfield why are sports still gender segregated? Yes I am aware that guns are the ultimate equalizer but hand to hand combat still happens today. Not to mention the fact that infantry soldiers carry sometimes up to as much as 130 pounds of equipment. Being able to carry that much for serveral miles requires alot of physical strenght.

So could anyone enlighten me as to why women can appearantly beat men on the battefield but not in say basket or boxing?

Click to expand...

I can't answer that with the assumption that soldiers are athletes.

Women should be able to serve in whatever capacity they are capable of doing so. However for combat arms roles (namely infantry), the physical fitness standards have to be uniform regardless of sex.

terryacer said:

I mean I don't really get it. Both sports and combat requires alot of physical strength. People now these days say that women are just as strong as men so they should be able serve in any role in the military including highly physically demanding jobs like infantry.

So if women have the physical strength to fight men on the battelfield why are sports still gender segregated? Yes I am aware that guns are the ultimate equalizer but hand to hand combat still happens today. Not to mention the fact that infantry soldiers carry sometimes up to as much as 130 pounds of equipment. Being able to carry that much for serveral miles requires alot of physical strenght.

So could anyone enlighten me as to why women can appearantly beat men on the battefield but not in say basket or boxing?

Click to expand...

Sports are ran by privately owned companies who know their business and are therefore not subject to idiotic social experimentation and other idiocy by leftists loons. This is why we don't see a all female football team going against a all male football team or an all female basketball team going against a all male basketball team.

The military on the other hand is a government ran entity that is occasionally ran by those with little to no military experience and are liberal loons.


I am not saying there are not any females who can't do infantry stuff. Most women are not physically able to do that.And those same liberal loons who thought it was a great idea to allow women in the infantry will lower the standards and physical requirements in order to ensure more women get into the infantry. One only has to look at the current APFT standards to see that they would lower the standards for women getting into the infantry in order to boost numbers.

terryacer said:

I mean I don't really get it. Both sports and combat requires alot of physical strength. People now these days say that women are just as strong as men so they should be able serve in any role in the military including highly physically demanding jobs like infantry.

So if women have the physical strength to fight men on the battelfield why are sports still gender segregated? Yes I am aware that guns are the ultimate equalizer but hand to hand combat still happens today. Not to mention the fact that infantry soldiers carry sometimes up to as much as 130 pounds of equipment. Being able to carry that much for serveral miles requires alot of physical strenght.

So could anyone enlighten me as to why women can appearantly beat men on the battefield but not in say basket or boxing?

Click to expand...

Women's sports have to be segregated from men, or women will have nowhere to compete. Women's Olympic records, some of them, are about equal to high-school boys records.
That said, any woman who can pass the physical tests should be allowed any role in the military she qualifies for. Otherwise, it looks like protecting men's fragile egos. Which, come to think of, the fragile ego part should probably disqualify you for service.

jamesrage said:

Sports are ran by privately owned companies who know their business and are therefore not subject to idiotic social experimentation and other idiocy by leftists loons. This is why we don't see a all female football team going against a all male football team or an all female basketball team going against a all male basketball team.

The military on the other hand is a government ran entity that is occasionally ran by those with little to no military experience and are liberal loons.


I am not saying there are not any females who can't do infantry stuff. Most women are not physically able to do that.And those same liberal loons who thought it was a great idea to allow women in the infantry will lower the standards and physical requirements in order to ensure more women get into the infantry. One only has to look at the current APFT standards to see that they would lower the standards for women getting into the infantry in order to boost numbers.

Click to expand...

It's gonna be a surprise for Israelis to learn the IDF is run by liberal loons.

Transgender athletes could make your sports question moot.

Grand Mal said:

Women's sports have to be segregated from men, or women will have nowhere to compete. Women's Olympic records, some of them, are about equal to high-school boys records.
That said, any woman who can pass the physical tests should be allowed any role in the military she qualifies for. Otherwise, it looks like protecting men's fragile egos. Which, come to think of, the fragile ego part should probably disqualify you for service.

Click to expand...

I have forgotten when or her name, but I am sure the NHL had a woman goalie for awhile


I understand she had a problem with the 5 hole.

PerfectStorm said:

Transgender athletes could make your sports question moot.

Click to expand...

Already has.

Two lawsuits in the US and issues in sport in three provinces in Canada

terryacer said:

I mean I don't really get it. Both sports and combat requires alot of physical strength. People now these days say that women are just as strong as men so they should be able serve in any role in the military including highly physically demanding jobs like infantry.

So if women have the physical strength to fight men on the battelfield why are sports still gender segregated? Yes I am aware that guns are the ultimate equalizer but hand to hand combat still happens today. Not to mention the fact that infantry soldiers carry sometimes up to as much as 130 pounds of equipment. Being able to carry that much for serveral miles requires alot of physical strenght.

So could anyone enlighten me as to why women can appearantly beat men on the battefield but not in say basket or boxing?

Click to expand...

Did it ever occur to you there just isn't that many women interested in playing football, hockey, or any other contact sport?

Most women, including myself are not interested in building our biceps and triceps to be equal size with our thighs. Most of us are very happy with the conclusion we are not equal physically to most males.

As far as military goes there are very few who can muster the same level as a male.

There has been for years woman fighting women in boxing. I don't get it but some women seem to like it. Not my thing.

Tennis, swimming, golf, track etc. sure woman can compete in such things equally. But the fact that the physical difference remains in many sports is real.

You know,........with all this gender stew going on thanks to progressives, will sports be the next affirmative action group to make way for those who do not really qualify?

Infantry women are excellent killers because they have no choice in the shoes they have to wear.

There are outliers in every population. But the issue is not being willing to direct women to play to their strengths for political reasons, when they physicality of infantry is definitely not 98% of most women's best choice of occupations.

Competing with men is not what the military is about. Just because one out of a thousand women can hump the boonies with the men doesn't mean it should be done. What is the benefit other than to the God of Equality? We have lots of kill assisting machines to put women in - aircraft, artillery, etc. and therefore easily putting them on an equal footing with the men doing what a military does - Kill people and break things.

terryacer said:

I mean I don't really get it. Both sports and combat requires alot of physical strength. People now these days say that women are just as strong as men so they should be able serve in any role in the military including highly physically demanding jobs like infantry.

So if women have the physical strength to fight men on the battelfield why are sports still gender segregated? Yes I am aware that guns are the ultimate equalizer but hand to hand combat still happens today. Not to mention the fact that infantry soldiers carry sometimes up to as much as 130 pounds of equipment. Being able to carry that much for serveral miles requires alot of physical strenght.

So could anyone enlighten me as to why women can appearantly beat men on the battefield but not in say basket or boxing?

Click to expand...

The standards were lowered so that women could make it through infantry school. You can't expect men's professional sports to do the same thing.

apdst said:

The standards were lowered so that women could make it through infantry school.

Click to expand...

As concerns the US Army Ranger training where two women were passed, is there proof that standards were lowered for the women? just as there would be proof that standards were raised for men?
Just get the daily test report cards. If any single man has his daily test report card let him speak up and show it. That would be tough to do since just like college teachers tests are thrown out at the end of a semester and so too are Ranger tests after the class is over.
I am not saying your statement is wrong I am just requesting that men prove their training through documentation that showed exactly how they performed every day of training. If they can do that then so can the women. Otherwise it remains a rather sexist argument by Congressman Russell.

garf said:

As concerns the US Army Ranger training where two women were passed, is there proof that standards were lowered for the women? just as there would be proof that standards were raised for men?
Just get the daily test report cards. If any single man has his daily test report card let him speak up and show it. That would be tough to do since just like college teachers tests are thrown out at the end of a semester and so too are Ranger tests after the class is over.
I am not saying your statement is wrong I am just requesting that men prove their training through documentation that showed exactly how they performed every day of training. If they can do that then so can the women. Otherwise it remains a rather sexist argument by Congressman Russell.

Click to expand...

Shaye Haver and Kristen Griest who passed Ranger School 'were given extra training' | Daily Mail Online

The APFT standards are lower for women than men. That's an undisputed fact. I am personally in favor of MOS standards versus gender standards.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Grand Mal said:

It's gonna be a surprise for Israelis to learn the IDF is run by liberal loons.

Click to expand...

Actually most women in the IDF don't actually engage in full combat.

"In the infantry, virtually all of Israel’s female combat soldiers are confined to two light battalions — the Caracal and the Lions of Jordan — which are assigned to guard the borders with Egypt and Jordan, the only Arab countries that have peace treaties with Israel." (Women's combat roles in Israel Defense Forces exaggerated, military traditionalists say - Washington Times)

See this as well: Despite some progress, most combat roles are closed to women in the IDF - TRENDING STORIES - Jerusalem Post

Aberration said:

The APFT standards are lower for women than men. That's an undisputed fact. I am personally in favor of MOS standards versus gender standards.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

There's been talk of this actually. I'm for it. You don't need a toned stud to handle paperwork, but you need a strong person to ruck and heave around a 240B.

terryacer said:

I mean I don't really get it. Both sports and combat requires alot of physical strength. People now these days say that women are just as strong as men so they should be able serve in any role in the military including highly physically demanding jobs like infantry.

So if women have the physical strength to fight men on the battelfield why are sports still gender segregated? Yes I am aware that guns are the ultimate equalizer but hand to hand combat still happens today. Not to mention the fact that infantry soldiers carry sometimes up to as much as 130 pounds of equipment. Being able to carry that much for serveral miles requires alot of physical strenght.

So could anyone enlighten me as to why women can appearantly beat men on the battefield but not in say basket or boxing?

Click to expand...

the military did a test mixed units did worse than all male units.
even guys can't handle the impacts from football.

the average DB can hit a person with 1600-2000 pounds of force. that is for a 190 pound db back running a 40 at 4.6 seconds.
now you add another 100 pounds and you get into the 2000-3000 pound range.

there are very few guys that can handle those hits. a women isn't built like a man. they aren't supposed to be.

look at the last heavy weight fight?
Anthony Joshua broke a punching machine power indicator with 1 punch.
his warm up punch calculated in at 797 pounds of force punching.

if he is at full force it jumps to about 5k newtons.
the boxers they have sampled have about 3k newtons.

if Anthony Joshua was to actually hit a women like that he could possible break her neck.