Even from this very short clip, you can tell by the delivery that this is a skit.
It is true though, quite literally.
Female soldiers suffered more than twice the number of bilateral stress fractures than men. The week of onset of stress fractures during basic training varied directly with the sex of the soldier.
This is something normies have totally failed to grasp. Even my most staunch conservative friends agree that "Women can serve as long as they meet the standards." They don't understand that they are essentially saying women shouldn't serve. Women cannot meet the standards, plain and simple.
It also treats women as blank slates who bring nothing into the equation but the exact physical capabilities on paper.
Because no woman will ever get pregnant on duty, have emotions on duty, influence men using her womenly wiles on duty, or have a single other aspect of womanhood beyond her PR on the obstacle course.
The actual dirty little secret is that women will never serve in combat not because they aren’t fit to do so - and they aren’t - but rather because they will all get pregnant before they ship out.
Yep. If you have any kind of upper body strength standard, something that would filter any percentage of men, then 0% of women will pass it.
Here are results from navy damage control drills: https://i.imgur.com/9SDAOXd.png
The only task where some men fail, no women pass at all.
Here's a graph of grip strength: https://i.imgur.com/uC0IJRs.jpeg
It shows essentially two separate groups. Shoutouts to that one guy rocking 160kg.
Results indicate that untrained men have greater upper and lower body strength than trained women athletes in terms of both absolute and relative strength.
Even when I was in the Army waaaaaaaay back when (late '80's early '90's) that was the argument. Counterpoint was that the PT standards had to be lowered for women otherwise they would fail.
Funny, one of my dumb bitch exes broke her whole fucking hip in basic.
Imagine that shit in the field because she barely made it thru basic with hairline fractures instead, and then falls apart in the first combat scenario.
Even from this very short clip, you can tell by the delivery that this is a skit.
It is true though, quite literally.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1565519
This is something normies have totally failed to grasp. Even my most staunch conservative friends agree that "Women can serve as long as they meet the standards." They don't understand that they are essentially saying women shouldn't serve. Women cannot meet the standards, plain and simple.
It's not worth the risk of opening the door for the 1 in a million who can meet the bare minimum. Don't give an inch.
It also treats women as blank slates who bring nothing into the equation but the exact physical capabilities on paper.
Because no woman will ever get pregnant on duty, have emotions on duty, influence men using her womenly wiles on duty, or have a single other aspect of womanhood beyond her PR on the obstacle course.
The actual dirty little secret is that women will never serve in combat not because they aren’t fit to do so - and they aren’t - but rather because they will all get pregnant before they ship out.
Yep. If you have any kind of upper body strength standard, something that would filter any percentage of men, then 0% of women will pass it.
Here are results from navy damage control drills: https://i.imgur.com/9SDAOXd.png The only task where some men fail, no women pass at all.
Here's a graph of grip strength: https://i.imgur.com/uC0IJRs.jpeg It shows essentially two separate groups. Shoutouts to that one guy rocking 160kg.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7253873
Even when I was in the Army waaaaaaaay back when (late '80's early '90's) that was the argument. Counterpoint was that the PT standards had to be lowered for women otherwise they would fail.
Funny, one of my dumb bitch exes broke her whole fucking hip in basic.
Imagine that shit in the field because she barely made it thru basic with hairline fractures instead, and then falls apart in the first combat scenario.