Served 27 years in the American Navy. Another difficulty that was discovered in the deployment of women on ships was that they have a much lower tolerance of heat. My understanding of this is due to less muscle mass (have to work harder under the stress of heavy work) and extra fat which both acts as insulation and is extra weight that must be carried around. On my ship, women in hot areas of the ship (usually ratings that work deep in the bowels of the ship) were constantly coming down with heat exhaustion. The CO talked to the Personnel Officer on the ship. Quietly, without fanfare, women were not assigned into these areas of the ship.
The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps is already speculating that the few women who make it into combat roles face the greater likelihood of injury and recommendations have been made for force planning that many women will have to be medically retired before age forty--just as they reach levels of training and experience that would lead to mid-level, and more senior level responsibility as enlisted personnel.
One last practical problem at sea is the average difference in strength. Everything on a ship is heavy, e.g. watertight hatches. If I am injured in a fire and need evacuated, I want people around me who can carry me out. The Navy's solution to date has just been to increase the number of women during drills or to put four women on a fire hose instead of two men. So, depending on the circumstances, where one or maybe two men can evacuate one man, it may take three or four women to do the same. This means other injured may not get evacuated. Women can be valuable assets in the military. But they need to be deployed in areas that make sense and best utilize their skills. So far the American Navy's approach has been to lower qualifications for women and then rig the promotion system with affirmative action. If the balloon goes us, it will needlessly cost lives. But by then the current Generals and Admirals will be working for Gov't contractors and their successors will have to clean up the mess.
I was also a sea service veteran. I liked it better without women aboard ship. The cause problems with the men, each other, the command; mental, moral and legal jeopardy that did not exist when they were not there. Women operate in a bubble of hubris from the commissioned and dread from the enlisted. Women work at a 30% lower physical level than men. They should go into the Merchant Marine if they want sea duty and stay off combat ships. Navy women demand that the men assist them for things they are supposed to do themselves. They take advantage of men at every level and remove them from service whenever they wish. Women and girls out rank every male rank by de facto. Women have all the power including false accusations of sexual impropriety real or unreal. We had it right when women occupied their own services. The demands of front line combat and law enforcement requires field alterations that promote left-wing law suits to the extinction.
This is why I never thank women for their service. My son was a Marine and he chose to leave as he saw the promotion, protection & enabling of women at the sacrifice of men. They are evil dark sinister creatures. Women of these last 3 generations do not have the qualities of loyalty or sacrifice. It is always about "what have you done for me today?"
I Spent many years in Naval Aviation where the women used up almost the entire "sea duty" billets in the non sea going squadrons of aircraft that were too big to be carrier based; leaving only the sea going squadron billets for the men. Advancement scores and standards were numerically lower for the women enlisteds than the men for the exact same rate (job or MOS). I got out for that same reason; it was blatant and systemic discrimination all the way around.
Women are animals. Full of hubris and conceit. How many men out there have been physically assaulted by a woman that thought she was going to kick your ass? That is hubris my friends. American Women are the absolute worst to them.
I was an armor crewman in the Army in the mid-1970s. At the time, and as-is usual today, a tank crew had four members, all men. It took all four men, and sometimes more, to conduct some types of maintenance in the field (like breaking a track and replacing a torsion bar, often under adverse environmental conditions). Some of these actions become problematic for a three-man tank crew (as in some modern tanks that have an auto-loader). I really don't know what they do to get things done in the field with a crew like that. Now, make one of those crew persons a female, or make the whole crew female, and you'll have serious problems just maintaining the vehicle in the field, never mind operating it in a fight.
If women ruled the world, men would have no rights except those women allow them. Men would wear skirts and long hair and never eat red meat, only vegetables. Men would lose their virality and not have children or marry and the ones that are non compliant, be drunk and take drugs all the time. Hey! Wait a minute! We may be on to something here.
It is encouraging to see more and more people willing to speak directly about these issues. However, does anyone have the courage to talk about racial differences?
Find another venue Rod. We are not interested in your race. We are talking about women that men need a good relationship to achieve happiness and create a family. Suggest you may be happier at BLM.com.
I watched for 35 years more and more women become cops. And I saw more and more male officers get hurt either defending the women cops because they couldn't defend themselves or not getting backed up by women cops. They really can't do the job, but we are not allowed to say that. I watched female sergeants and officers drive around fight scenes in circles until someone on scene called code 4 and then they would swoop in a pretend to get there for the fight and talk all tough. The male officers usually know what they did, they just can't talk about it. We watched as most female officers couldn't make the minimum 70% on the range without the range officers bumping up their score with extra shots...its a mess that will get worse, just like the military will. These jobs are not fit for women.
Watch any video of a cop fighting a bad guy and you will see the males jump right in while the females flitter around the edges and grab for the feet if even that. It never fails.
Women should be raising children, tending to the home, looking after the household, shopping, cleaning, laundry, cooking, gardening, canning and other lost crafts. the loss of the family unit was the biggest contributor to the degradation of our society. Let's stop cucking ourselves to woke political correctness and call it like it is.
I agree that young mothers have no place in the military or law enforcement. They should be totally focused on raising their children and being there for them. Being gone long months and possibly being killed make a woman a bad mother.
This is a hot button issue for me. There are absolutely NO advantages to having women in the military. Even if one could imagine one or two, they're completely offset by the hundreds of others costs and liabilities.
The rise in clown world observations are in direct proportion to the thirty year intentional decline of testosterone in western men. It's only going to get so much worse.
This article stretches things a bit. While there are some overall differences in things like spatial rotation, that's not really what is at play in maritime navigation, use of radar and similar instrumentation removes all need for ad hoc spatial rotation.
At the same time there have been a number of US naval ships involved in embarrassing collisions over the past few years, with male commanders and navigators.
More likely these navigators were rushed into service for diversity reasons, without acquiring the years of experience necessary for the task.
Sure, and then they get stuck paying child support to a flabby ex-sailor momma who wants to stay home while they go on deployment so they can hit the enlisted club and sleep around.
I did 20 years in the US Navy and retired in '99. I saw many good female sailors - but only ONSHORE. Women on ships was and still is a huge liability. They aren't as strong, get tired more easily, are more emotional and lack wartime attitude. Mostly the ones who knew there was a 6 month cruise coming up got pregnant on purpose so they could stay ashore.
Like I said, females in the Navy are an asset in administrative and shore billets - but for GOD's sake keep them off ships and subs!!!
it is done on purpose. why? to degrade the manned armed forces to such a point that a transition to robots becomes preferable. the robots are nearing production as tech advances at an exponential rate.
Way back in the 1990s, the female "ombudsman" for sex discrimination in Sweden demanded lighter dummies for female firefighters to carry out of smoke-filled buildings. They couldn't lift dummies with real weights. In the U.S. military, the "first female marines!" got to redo practically everything on the obstacle course until they succeeded - for men this is very unusual and only done for rare reasons. In the air force male mechanics have to carry female mechanics' toolboxes out on the runway. And so on. And all over Western Europe "refugees" are extremely privileged. In Sweden, "refugees" get 70% of their wages paid by the government if you hire them for a year. So that they can outcompete better qualified Swedes. Women and "refugees" get extra money from the taxpayers when they start a new company, in order to outcompete better qualified Swedish men.
Ditto the first and nearly all female Rangers in the Army, the first several got a year of practice and then as many recycles as necessary to get the tab. Then a 38 year old female Major got her tab but everyone at Ft Benning knew full well she was a fake and called her "Mommy Ranger."
Women can get into unforgiving total feuds where they shut each other out completely. The USS Fitzgerald was center-rammed by a slow cargo ship, causing seven fatalities, all because Natalie and Sarah weren't talking to each other. The female damage control officer never left the bridge. Of course, it was covered up.
Nitpick: in racing there are physical stresses, e.g. it is typical to have lateral g-force ~6 in formula 1 passing thought corner. Maybe this also reason why there aren't many East Asian drivers too.
Women belong into NATO militaries, because it enables our rulers to abuse us more without risking rebellion. They don’t need a strong army. They need a compliant army.
A ruler faces two risks:
a) enemy militaries
b) a rebellion
Since rebellion is more likely than invasion for NATO countries, women are put into the military to prevent men organizing against a hostile elite.
A: Build 100 ships, man them with women, 50 ship sink.
B: Build 100 ships, man them with men, 0 ship sink, but you have a coup.
-> A is obviously better
Imagine a ruler funding gain of function research. Or supporting demographic replacement of the native population. Or breaking up families. Or picking and choosing when and which laws to enforce = Anarcho-Tyranny. This ruler would fear his subjects revolting against him.
Served 27 years in the American Navy. Another difficulty that was discovered in the deployment of women on ships was that they have a much lower tolerance of heat. My understanding of this is due to less muscle mass (have to work harder under the stress of heavy work) and extra fat which both acts as insulation and is extra weight that must be carried around. On my ship, women in hot areas of the ship (usually ratings that work deep in the bowels of the ship) were constantly coming down with heat exhaustion. The CO talked to the Personnel Officer on the ship. Quietly, without fanfare, women were not assigned into these areas of the ship.
The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps is already speculating that the few women who make it into combat roles face the greater likelihood of injury and recommendations have been made for force planning that many women will have to be medically retired before age forty--just as they reach levels of training and experience that would lead to mid-level, and more senior level responsibility as enlisted personnel.
One last practical problem at sea is the average difference in strength. Everything on a ship is heavy, e.g. watertight hatches. If I am injured in a fire and need evacuated, I want people around me who can carry me out. The Navy's solution to date has just been to increase the number of women during drills or to put four women on a fire hose instead of two men. So, depending on the circumstances, where one or maybe two men can evacuate one man, it may take three or four women to do the same. This means other injured may not get evacuated. Women can be valuable assets in the military. But they need to be deployed in areas that make sense and best utilize their skills. So far the American Navy's approach has been to lower qualifications for women and then rig the promotion system with affirmative action. If the balloon goes us, it will needlessly cost lives. But by then the current Generals and Admirals will be working for Gov't contractors and their successors will have to clean up the mess.
if it had any merit or redeeming benefits,..., you don't think some civilization in the last 4000 years would have made the women join their military?
Not one!
amazons someone will say, hahahahhaha.
comic books now.....but that's the left.....they live in a fantasy land searching for some Utopia(greek for No Where)
I was also a sea service veteran. I liked it better without women aboard ship. The cause problems with the men, each other, the command; mental, moral and legal jeopardy that did not exist when they were not there. Women operate in a bubble of hubris from the commissioned and dread from the enlisted. Women work at a 30% lower physical level than men. They should go into the Merchant Marine if they want sea duty and stay off combat ships. Navy women demand that the men assist them for things they are supposed to do themselves. They take advantage of men at every level and remove them from service whenever they wish. Women and girls out rank every male rank by de facto. Women have all the power including false accusations of sexual impropriety real or unreal. We had it right when women occupied their own services. The demands of front line combat and law enforcement requires field alterations that promote left-wing law suits to the extinction.
This is why I never thank women for their service. My son was a Marine and he chose to leave as he saw the promotion, protection & enabling of women at the sacrifice of men. They are evil dark sinister creatures. Women of these last 3 generations do not have the qualities of loyalty or sacrifice. It is always about "what have you done for me today?"
I Spent many years in Naval Aviation where the women used up almost the entire "sea duty" billets in the non sea going squadrons of aircraft that were too big to be carrier based; leaving only the sea going squadron billets for the men. Advancement scores and standards were numerically lower for the women enlisteds than the men for the exact same rate (job or MOS). I got out for that same reason; it was blatant and systemic discrimination all the way around.
You hit the nail on the head.
Theyve created generations of narcissist women.
Unable to sacrifice for anyone but their own hedonistic cravings.
Women are animals. Full of hubris and conceit. How many men out there have been physically assaulted by a woman that thought she was going to kick your ass? That is hubris my friends. American Women are the absolute worst to them.
They been told...taught....engrained that anything a man can do... so can they.
This is where this hubris stems from.
I was an armor crewman in the Army in the mid-1970s. At the time, and as-is usual today, a tank crew had four members, all men. It took all four men, and sometimes more, to conduct some types of maintenance in the field (like breaking a track and replacing a torsion bar, often under adverse environmental conditions). Some of these actions become problematic for a three-man tank crew (as in some modern tanks that have an auto-loader). I really don't know what they do to get things done in the field with a crew like that. Now, make one of those crew persons a female, or make the whole crew female, and you'll have serious problems just maintaining the vehicle in the field, never mind operating it in a fight.
If women had ruled the world, the only things ever invented would be the cellphone and spanks!
If women ruled the world, men would have no rights except those women allow them. Men would wear skirts and long hair and never eat red meat, only vegetables. Men would lose their virality and not have children or marry and the ones that are non compliant, be drunk and take drugs all the time. Hey! Wait a minute! We may be on to something here.
wrong. Both invented by dudes.
It is encouraging to see more and more people willing to speak directly about these issues. However, does anyone have the courage to talk about racial differences?
Courage? Why should it take courage to type words?
This is my take on the matter:
A mule will NEVER win the Kentucky Derby!
Because men are all snowflakes now.
Find another venue Rod. We are not interested in your race. We are talking about women that men need a good relationship to achieve happiness and create a family. Suggest you may be happier at BLM.com.
Racial difference on the tasks under discussion would actually favor dark skinned people, but not dramatically so. What is your point
Only if a White man has a dark tan! You are delusional.
Mark you off topic. If you can't focus on the subject at hand go somewhere else.
I watched for 35 years more and more women become cops. And I saw more and more male officers get hurt either defending the women cops because they couldn't defend themselves or not getting backed up by women cops. They really can't do the job, but we are not allowed to say that. I watched female sergeants and officers drive around fight scenes in circles until someone on scene called code 4 and then they would swoop in a pretend to get there for the fight and talk all tough. The male officers usually know what they did, they just can't talk about it. We watched as most female officers couldn't make the minimum 70% on the range without the range officers bumping up their score with extra shots...its a mess that will get worse, just like the military will. These jobs are not fit for women.
Watch any video of a cop fighting a bad guy and you will see the males jump right in while the females flitter around the edges and grab for the feet if even that. It never fails.
http://dawn.whatbox.ca:11665/f/bankstown-female-cops-attacked_australia.webm
Women should be raising children, tending to the home, looking after the household, shopping, cleaning, laundry, cooking, gardening, canning and other lost crafts. the loss of the family unit was the biggest contributor to the degradation of our society. Let's stop cucking ourselves to woke political correctness and call it like it is.
I agree that young mothers have no place in the military or law enforcement. They should be totally focused on raising their children and being there for them. Being gone long months and possibly being killed make a woman a bad mother.
This is a hot button issue for me. There are absolutely NO advantages to having women in the military. Even if one could imagine one or two, they're completely offset by the hundreds of others costs and liabilities.
The rise in clown world observations are in direct proportion to the thirty year intentional decline of testosterone in western men. It's only going to get so much worse.
This article stretches things a bit. While there are some overall differences in things like spatial rotation, that's not really what is at play in maritime navigation, use of radar and similar instrumentation removes all need for ad hoc spatial rotation.
At the same time there have been a number of US naval ships involved in embarrassing collisions over the past few years, with male commanders and navigators.
More likely these navigators were rushed into service for diversity reasons, without acquiring the years of experience necessary for the task.
And what about those female sailor pregnancy rates during deployment. Sailors can get some a-- on the Nimitz class.
Sure, and then they get stuck paying child support to a flabby ex-sailor momma who wants to stay home while they go on deployment so they can hit the enlisted club and sleep around.
Stated as truth seen first hand, Scott. Amen, brother you are spot on.
except the male sailor is transgender... so only lesbian love allowed on Nimitz class boats
I did 20 years in the US Navy and retired in '99. I saw many good female sailors - but only ONSHORE. Women on ships was and still is a huge liability. They aren't as strong, get tired more easily, are more emotional and lack wartime attitude. Mostly the ones who knew there was a 6 month cruise coming up got pregnant on purpose so they could stay ashore.
Like I said, females in the Navy are an asset in administrative and shore billets - but for GOD's sake keep them off ships and subs!!!
I am retired Army. What happens on a sub cruise when a female gets pregnant? Does the sub have to surface or return home to get her on shore?
it is done on purpose. why? to degrade the manned armed forces to such a point that a transition to robots becomes preferable. the robots are nearing production as tech advances at an exponential rate.
Way back in the 1990s, the female "ombudsman" for sex discrimination in Sweden demanded lighter dummies for female firefighters to carry out of smoke-filled buildings. They couldn't lift dummies with real weights. In the U.S. military, the "first female marines!" got to redo practically everything on the obstacle course until they succeeded - for men this is very unusual and only done for rare reasons. In the air force male mechanics have to carry female mechanics' toolboxes out on the runway. And so on. And all over Western Europe "refugees" are extremely privileged. In Sweden, "refugees" get 70% of their wages paid by the government if you hire them for a year. So that they can outcompete better qualified Swedes. Women and "refugees" get extra money from the taxpayers when they start a new company, in order to outcompete better qualified Swedish men.
Ditto the first and nearly all female Rangers in the Army, the first several got a year of practice and then as many recycles as necessary to get the tab. Then a 38 year old female Major got her tab but everyone at Ft Benning knew full well she was a fake and called her "Mommy Ranger."
One set of physical standards cant pass you are out
The US Navy with male navigators has managed some impressive crashes in the last years too.
And it would have been many more crashes with more female navigators on board.
Diversity hires and women seem to perform at about the same level.
There was a bit of a coverup during one of the investigations when it became apparent women were involved.
Women can get into unforgiving total feuds where they shut each other out completely. The USS Fitzgerald was center-rammed by a slow cargo ship, causing seven fatalities, all because Natalie and Sarah weren't talking to each other. The female damage control officer never left the bridge. Of course, it was covered up.
https://theothermccain.com/2018/06/17/tip-pentagon-covering-up-fact-that-female-officers-nearly-sank-navy-ship/
Also by quota hires.
I agree with your general point, but the navigator of KNM Helge Ingstad was in fact a man.
Nitpick: in racing there are physical stresses, e.g. it is typical to have lateral g-force ~6 in formula 1 passing thought corner. Maybe this also reason why there aren't many East Asian drivers too.
Counterargument:
Women belong into NATO militaries, because it enables our rulers to abuse us more without risking rebellion. They don’t need a strong army. They need a compliant army.
A ruler faces two risks:
a) enemy militaries
b) a rebellion
Since rebellion is more likely than invasion for NATO countries, women are put into the military to prevent men organizing against a hostile elite.
A: Build 100 ships, man them with women, 50 ship sink.
B: Build 100 ships, man them with men, 0 ship sink, but you have a coup.
-> A is obviously better
Imagine a ruler funding gain of function research. Or supporting demographic replacement of the native population. Or breaking up families. Or picking and choosing when and which laws to enforce = Anarcho-Tyranny. This ruler would fear his subjects revolting against him.