Of course nobody will address the elephant in the room that women really shouldn't be first responders or, at the very least, not for situations that might require physical confrontations.
I would tend to agree, in many cases they do not react well to stress and injury. Not that many men don't either, however per capita there is a difference.
Absolutely correct. And then of those cool and collected women under pressure, can also wear 100 lbs of gear and drag a 200lb guy wearing 100lbs of gear to cover after walking 5 miles in the desert? the number is greater than zero I will admit but barely. I'm addressing of course the women in the infantry thing. that's only looking at technical ability however. It's also a known fact that womens hips do not respond well to heavy loads over time and you can expect female infantry to med-board out at a much quicker rate and require VA disability at a higher level. and that isn't taking into account the male psyche and how a squads effectiveness is going to be if they have one female member. Are they going to truly think and treat her like a guy? or are they going to be protective? thus opening them up to bad decision making and manipulation by the enemy? sorry. ranting.
Here's my take on this: we know that cars get people killed - tens of thousands every year - but we don't outlaw cars because they are viewed as a core pillar of our transportation and, therefore, critical to our way of life.
That's how feminists view the role of women in first response. Yes, having female cops and female fire fighters gets people killed, but that price in lives is worth paying so that we can maintain the equality of the sexes.
If you told a feminist that she has to choose between 10,000 fire deaths a year with an all-male force or 15,000 deaths a year with a more inclusive force, she would choose the latter without missing a beat. Because propping up the blank slate illusion is worth more to her than those lives.
Of course nobody will address the elephant in the room that women really shouldn't be first responders or, at the very least, not for situations that might require physical confrontations.
I would tend to agree, in many cases they do not react well to stress and injury. Not that many men don't either, however per capita there is a difference.
Absolutely correct. And then of those cool and collected women under pressure, can also wear 100 lbs of gear and drag a 200lb guy wearing 100lbs of gear to cover after walking 5 miles in the desert? the number is greater than zero I will admit but barely. I'm addressing of course the women in the infantry thing. that's only looking at technical ability however. It's also a known fact that womens hips do not respond well to heavy loads over time and you can expect female infantry to med-board out at a much quicker rate and require VA disability at a higher level. and that isn't taking into account the male psyche and how a squads effectiveness is going to be if they have one female member. Are they going to truly think and treat her like a guy? or are they going to be protective? thus opening them up to bad decision making and manipulation by the enemy? sorry. ranting.
I'm just thinking that I'd rather have some 6 foot duded be my officers than a woman who I could easily beat up on..
Imagine you're a rapist and your in the middle of the act and this 5 foot 1 girl comes and tries to arrest you.
The only time a criminal looks at the cops, and says "hmmm, yeah, call for backup, I could go for a couple more of you."
Yea agreed. the female thing generally only works in cartoons tom and jerry
Here's my take on this: we know that cars get people killed - tens of thousands every year - but we don't outlaw cars because they are viewed as a core pillar of our transportation and, therefore, critical to our way of life.
That's how feminists view the role of women in first response. Yes, having female cops and female fire fighters gets people killed, but that price in lives is worth paying so that we can maintain the equality of the sexes.
If you told a feminist that she has to choose between 10,000 fire deaths a year with an all-male force or 15,000 deaths a year with a more inclusive force, she would choose the latter without missing a beat. Because propping up the blank slate illusion is worth more to her than those lives.
Pure female hubris. They believe in progressivism, fundamentally. Their emotions are their reality.
If they want to do it AND they have the capability, I think that it would be fine.
However I don't want to see any bullshit 50/50 quota or "diversified" training and selection process.