Why men should be barred from the Army and Armed Forces in general?

[Brenus]

Why men should be barred from the Army and Armed Forces in general?
Facts:
Men can’t sustain pain. Women deliver babies so evolution made their body able to coop with it.

Men are clumsier than women. When warfare was just throwing, bashing and slashing each other, men were at it. But modern warfare demands less strength and more subtlety. Women, after generations and generations of female work are better in handling modern technology and computerised weapons. Needles and netting created the future computerised soldier…

Men have no protective instinct as proved by how many single mothers have to stay alone to provide to their children. So men will not sacrifice themselves for the community and will leave the battlefield to save their own life. This biological behaviour is a problem for units’ cohesion on the battlefield as inherent selfishness will take over in front of dangerous circumstances.

Men compete for the females. A male soldier will not go to rescue an injured male comrade if he considered him as a potential rival. And he will not save a weaker comrade as he has no mercy for lesser men (Law of nature).

Women in giving birth to children have a natural sense of community and an instinct for protection. Females will fight with more ferocity for the extended family (e.g. countries) than men who will just follow their instinct and leave the off-spring of others males to be killed in order to get the females fertile faster.

Modern wars demand a Darwinist approach. The last 2 WW saw the fittest/strongest and the most able men slaughtered on the battlefield when the weakest and not able to fight survived them.
Females were prevented of these weakening as they participated only marginally to theses 2 wars. Evolution of the warfare was followed by the Darwinist demands of adaptation: So, when the “alpha” males were killed, the “alpha” females remained.

PS: I decide to write this rant after having read some comments on Youtube on why women are not good to be soldier. Please feel free to add other “biological” or “cultural” proofs explaining why men are not fit to join the army

[Hax]

Women are already engaged in wars. Have you ever witnessed a saturday afternoon sale?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Please feel free to add other “biological” or “cultural” proofs explaining why men are not fit to join the army

Men are more likely to ignore orders since taking orders makes them look beta.

Men generally need a higher calories intake to stay alive, so they are more likely to starve if supplies are running out.

Men are more aggressive and testosterone-fuelled and so they might make rash attacks that put themselves in unecessary danger.

EDIT: As a rule of thumb, never read YouTube comments.

[Fragony]

Works out pretty good for Norway but these chicks are vikings

Our minister of defence, not so sure. She is kinda cute though http://www.google.nl/search?um=1&hl=...mg.gCdiFUFX6Bk

[HopAlongBunny]

The proposition is no more absurd than its alternate. Historically and culturally men have been barred from warfare in some societies. The rationale is often the same we use to argue women are not fit for warfare.

[The Lurker Below]

PS: I decide to write this rant after having read some comments on Youtube on why women are not good to be soldier. Please feel free to add other “biological” or “cultural” proofs explaining why men are not fit to join the army

Men are awful at cooking for themselves. When ordering out they provide themselves poo like MREs. /shudder

[Montmorency]

Because men would spend all their time raping the women in the military.

[Ja'chyra]

Seriously?

[Husar]

Men have more muscles, making them bigger targets. Women can hide better, are harder to hit and can crawl into smaller spaces, further allowing for smaller vehicles that are harder to hit/detect.

Women look better, making men on the other side hesitant to shoot right away, seconds that can win a battle.

[Brenus]

A short analyse of the incoming social and natural (and scientific) field observations:

“Women are already engaged in wars. Have you ever witnessed a saturday afternoon sale?” So women are from young age trained to reach their objectives at all cost. They show at an early age more determination and willing to engage, dedication to the mission and fearless.

“Men are more likely to ignore orders since taking orders makes them look beta.
Men generally need a higher calories intake to stay alive, so they are more likely to starve if supplies are running out.
Men are more aggressive and testosterone-fuelled and so they might make rash attacks that put themselves in unnecessary danger.
Because men would spend all their time raping the women in the military.” The conclusion of these field observations is men show no discipline and can’t control their natural instinct. Therefore they are a liability and a danger for the unit’s cohesion. Due to biology, men are competitors to other men and have to settle the hierarchy by violence, and the chain of command can always be challenged. And men are not cost efficient in term of logistic.
So, pushed by biology, men can show aggressiveness that could turn internally, creating antagonism within the unit and challenging authority of their commanders (males and females). The lack of males’ self-control turning against their own comrades at arms, males and females (for different natural laws), is a source of big concern for future armies.

“Men have more muscles, making them bigger targets. Women can hide better, are harder to hit and can crawl into smaller spaces, further allowing for smaller vehicles that are harder to hit/detect”
“Muscles don’t float”: As shown, muscles are tools that are not anymore so relevant items in the battlefield. Speed, learned and controlled aggressively, adaptability (learned by female through generation under the yoke of male oppression) are nowadays the skills needed by modern armies.

“Women look better, making men on the other side hesitant to shoot right away, seconds that can win a battle.” Due to male ego, where women would'nt hesitate to shoot at males enemies, men will not engage females enemies with the same determination, lives will be lost by this male weakness. Again, males’ inabilities to overcome nature will endanger friendly lives and put jeopardize military operations.

[Raz]

This is ridiculous, the Screeching Women in RTW are terrible!

[Sarmatian]

My entire infantry platoon played world of warcraft. The internet has doomed our gender!

1970's and 1980's:
- Grandad, what was like in the army?
- It was tough, my boy. We were cut off, we didn't have anything to eat and the temperature was -20. We were freezing... The enemy came at us from all sides, tanks were rolling and enemy planes bombed us all the time. Only three of us made it back alive

2020's and 2030's
- Grandad, what was like in the army?
- It was tough, my boy. Only half of my platoon got Wrath of the Lich King expansion, so we couldn't play WoW together. Only three of us reached end-game content.

[HoreTore]

Conscription without Football Manager would be hell.

Nothing beats alternating between checking the radio and buying a new striker for Southampton on a frozen mountaintop during the nato-excercise...

Edit: heck, in the division HQ, even some of the officers joined raids... Not WoW though. Can't remember which game it was, some older mmo still popular back in 2006...

Also, the excercise lead by the Intelligence battalion was called Ghost Recon.

[Vladimir]

The Turks used mares in heat to distract European stallions. (right?)

Men should be banned from the army because sweet-smelling premenstrual women would cause enough disorder in their ranks to render them combat ineffective

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kipling was correct.

Therefore, women in combat should be prevented as unfair/inappropriate in terms of the Geneva protocol. Some weapons are simply too deadly to be countenanced.