So a women goes into a combat unit, takes birth control and hormones to regulate her period. Spends two or three years and then files for a disability because of the effects the birth control and hormones had on her. Good deal!
And create further medical problems for the taxpayers to fund.
They can BE men.
How did Kayla Williams become an expert on battlefield conditions? Where has she fought?
Interesting, I’ve never heard of birth control that eliminates a woman’s period, just ovulation.
Well anyway, long term use of such a method must be extremely dangerous to the woman’s health. Yikes....
I am not politically correct.
Women are weaker than men, physically and emotionally, and should not be in combat. Yeah, I know, go find me that one woman who is 5’11”, 190 and can do more physically than a 5’8”, 160lb man. I’ll show you 10,000 men who can do more than her.
The US military is not a social experiment. It is the defender of our country.
No front-line sex babies!
How do they propose to make up for the difference in physical strength? Steroids? They do not care for women or our troops, just grinding everything down until all is ‘equal’.
just get that addadicktome you’ve been hankerin’ for, there Maxine.
Oh, swell. Then you have a lot of female soldiers who are constantly depressed and overweight. Just great.
Probably won’t be an issue. I figure most women will go in for the training and then just get pregnant before being deployed anyway
[...female urinary device, or FUD...]
Now they did it, it won’t be long before a lesbian activist appears before a Senate committee demanding their FUDS.
That's what she said.
I guess we can assume that the hormone pills will be issued with their C rations and if they are captured the enemy will supply them.
I agree that most guys arent interested in watching a woman pee, but exposure of that Vagina we all know about does give them some horny ideas once in a while.
Fred On Everything - Women In Combat
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993):
"The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."
Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:
"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."
From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:
"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.
"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."
Also from the Commission's report: "Non-deployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more non-deployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead's testimony before the Commission, 'the primary reason for the women being unable to deploy was pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the women who could not deploy.'"
From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the Pentagon's library:
(p. 690): "One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that they experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and field training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was probably that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly while participating in field exercises." Because peeing was embarrassing.
Or, (p. 661): " Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the United States was twice as high among women…" Depression, says MilMed, is far commoner among women, as are training injuries. Et cetera.
Why not slice their breasts off too and while their at it give them male hormones and have a penis sewn on.
Then we can teach male soldiers to be nurturers.
Utter madness.
AFAIK it was mandatory in former Soviet and Red German military since 1960s. Contributed to their birth and cancer rates greatly.
There is nothing quite like taking a military that is nearly 100% effective and turning it into one that is, oh, roughly 70% effective, if that.
No doubt the Chinese and the Islamists are licking their chops imagining the wealth and pleasures which await them when they finally crush our economy and destroy our military and take over a pussyfied America. The first thing they will do after purging our population of all but their necessary remaining slaves will be to drill and frack our immense riches of oil and gas for their economies.