The bullshit thread

[Nicole]

Brian talking shit again. Lolz.

[brian ross]

Have you ever been on the front lines in mortal combat Brian? No I didn't think so!

Immaterial, Black Orchid. I have been far closer to that situation that you will ever have been. I served in the Australian Army for 10 years. Your military service has been what, exactly? How long did you wear a baggy green skin? How long did you carry a service weapon? Wear webbing, carry a pack, Mmmm? Now, when you have done that and studied military history for over 40 years, you might be able to offer an opinion. You know diddly squat about military service. Bugger all.

If a 120 kg team member was severely wounded do you think a woman could carry him on her back for 20 miles? No matter what idiocy you spout the answer is no.

Very few Australian males weigh in at 120 kg. Why? 'cause that would be, with the exception of men over 2 metres tall, grossly obese. Nor would any one single person be expected to carry any other single person for more than a few hundred metres. That is why soldiers work as a team, why they are members of a Section. They work together. They are taught how to lash a stretcher together and to share the load, until a dustoff can be arranged. Once more we see your inexperience showing, Black Orchid. It is embarrassing. I'd suggest you shut up before you put your foot deeper into your mouth.

Hitch up your skirt and go back to the monkey bars you rude little twat.

Women and men are NOT equal in many situations.

No one is suggesting they are. "Equality" does not mean "equal". It means equal opportunities. Women who are physically fit for combat do exist and have existed throughout history - as much as you appear to want to deny it. Women have fought in wars since the beginning of time. Female warriors do exist. I suggest you look up the women soldiers of Africa. You'll get quite a surprise. Western sensibilities are exactly that, just something dreamed up by Westerners.

[brian ross]

Brian talking shit again. Lolz.

Really? Are you able to prove I am, "Nicole"? How long did you spend in uniform again? Oh, that's right, bugger all like Black Orchid. Not only are you ignorant, you're fucking rude.

[The4thEstate]

I have an idea.

How about, right down the back, as far away from any entrance, at the furthest point of the car park.
We put a "MEN ONLY" parking area.

You know, somewhere, where men can park heir cars and not get them scratched by shopping trolleys, bad women drivers, disabled wheelchair bound car scratchers and old farts who scratch cars with their walkers.

Exclusively male, no exceptions.

My bet is that within hours of this being posted, women will converge on the spot demanding that they be allowed to park there.
For equal rights, of course.

You have a point. Nothing makes me shake my head harder than women complaining about not being allowed to serve in combat. Check out this idiocy:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/combating-gen ... attlefield

To which I say: "Really? You WANT to serve on the battlefield? Then by all means, gather your sisters together and take your place on the front lines."

I'm sure a great many men -- and teenage boys -- would have gladly given up their space in the boat during the invasion of Normandy.

The point is, 4E, not all women want to serve in combat but some do and they are denied. American attitudes towards women are quite inexplicable. They claim they believe in equality but when faced with actually allowing women to be equal, such as in the military, they only allow it after a lot of court cases and a lot of angst.

No, you're missing MY point: If women want to serve on the front lines and die like men, I'm more than happy to let them fulfill that desire. Especially considering that I was once assigned a draft number near the end of the Vietnam War. (I'm not opposed to serving my country for a good cause, but Vietnam certainly wasn't one.)

Anyway, I just think it's pathetically amusing how current left-wing politically correct culture has convinced so many fair-minded females to do things against their own best interests.

Look at the controversy surrounding transgender athletes. Anyone who spent 5 minutes in a biology class knows that biological males possess certain inherent physical advantages that make them stronger, faster and more successful in certain sports (sprinting, weightlifting, etc.). Undergoing surgery and hormone treatments doesn't guarantee they'll have biological equality with females.

It's also obvious to anyone who's ever heard of chromosomes that simply "identifying" as a member of the opposite sex doesn't make you so. Don't get me wrong: If you want to put on a dress every day and call yourself Gertrude, I couldn't care less. But that doesn't mean I'm going to call you "she."

At any rate, we now have high school girls' track stars in the U.S. finally waking up to the fact that political correctness doesn't grant females greater rights, but fewer opportunities. After all, losing to boys who think they're girls denies actual girls the chance to achieve victories, advance to the next level of competition, and attract college athletic scholarships. To wit:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... y-n1019306

"High school athletes file complaint over transgender policy"

Instead of pretending that biological boys are girls (and vice versa), it'd be better to create separate transgender categories of athletics. Or simply break the news to "transgender girls" that they were born male and can't become female just because they "identify" that way. ... just as white people can't receive minority scholarships just because they "identify" as black (see Dolezal, Rachel). Life can be tough that way.

It was the same for men of colour. The same excuses we saw trotted out against the integration of black and white soldiers are today trotted out against women.

Actually, men of color have been serving in the U.S. military since the Civil War in 1862. Now let's consider the military history of Australia with regard to "men of color":
https://www.awm.gov.au/about/our-work/p ... us-service

The Defence Act of 1903 stated that all males aged from 12 to 25 would receive military training; as Aboriginal Australians were not of European descent, they were exempt from military service. (It was not until 1949 that all restrictions were lifted, enabling Indigenous Australians to join the Australian military forces.)

Hmmm ... that's pretty late in the game compared to America.

Downunder, we have allowed gays, women to serve equally in all ECN (Employment Classification Numbers) in the defence forces for over a decade (gays much longer). No one really cares. Of course there are some sexist/homophobic hold outs but in reality, it hasn't meant the end of civilisation as we know it. I remember serving back in the 1980s with women and gays. While the gays weren't acknowledged, they were there and often were known to be gays. No one cared. If they kept their mouths shut and got on with the job, it worked. Women were the same - they were barred from many ECNs but as long as they worked and did their job, lines were blurred and they often did what were appropriately male only jobs.

So let me get this straight: You're bragging about how open-minded the military is in Australia, yet in the next breath you admit that as recently as the 1980s, "Women were the same - they were barred from many ECNs."

Obviously, Australia has had its share of reckoning to do with regard to equality in the military, and not all that long ago.

And anyone who suggests that women and gays are incapable of being aggressive or deadly has no knowledge of history but that is typical for most sexist and homophobic bigots.

If I should happen to meet anyone who fits that description, I'll give him your message.

[Black Orchid]

Have you ever been on the front lines in mortal combat Brian? No I didn't think so!

Immaterial, Black Orchid. I have been far closer to that situation that you will ever have been. I served in the Australian Army for 10 years. Your military service has been what, exactly? How long did you wear a baggy green skin? How long did you carry a service weapon? Wear webbing, carry a pack, Mmmm? Now, when you have done that and studied military history for over 40 years, you might be able to offer an opinion. You know diddly squat about military service. Bugger all.

If a 120 kg team member was severely wounded do you think a woman could carry him on her back for 20 miles? No matter what idiocy you spout the answer is no.

Very few Australian males weigh in at 120 kg. Why? 'cause that would be, with the exception of men over 2 metres tall, grossly obese. Nor would any one single person be expected to carry any other single person for more than a few hundred metres. That is why soldiers work as a team, why they are members of a Section. They work together. They are taught how to lash a stretcher together and to share the load, until a dustoff can be arranged. Once more we see your inexperience showing, Black Orchid. It is embarrassing. I'd suggest you shut up before you put your foot deeper into your mouth.

Hitch up your skirt and go back to the monkey bars you rude little twat.

Women and men are NOT equal in many situations.

No one is suggesting they are. "Equality" does not mean "equal". It means equal opportunities. Women who are physically fit for combat do exist and have existed throughout history - as much as you appear to want to deny it. Women have fought in wars since the beginning of time. Female warriors do exist. I suggest you look up the women soldiers of Africa. You'll get quite a surprise. Western sensibilities are exactly that, just something dreamed up by Westerners.

Get off your shetland pony before you fall off.

Yes 120 kg was stretching the point but I never said that female warriors have not existed but they are by far a very small minority. The Defence force is not the place to play your PC identity politics.

Sometimes you can't just conjure up a makeshift stretcher in the desert you fool and Black Hawk rescue helicopters are not always just a hundred metres away. You live in a fantasy world full of dresses and lipstick.

Perhaps you should go out and find some real warriors who have fought in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and ask them if women or
trannys would benefit their extreme missions. Continue reading your fantasy novels but you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

No I have never been in a war zone, and neither have you, but I know plenty of people who have been and you would be the type of person they would gladly take on a long flight and drop over the desert without a parachute.

In some roles women are fine in the defence force but in other roles they are just NOT suitable.

[billy the kid]

I think this thread is aptly named...and the resident moron provides most of the bullshit....10 years in the military...probably spent most of them as a blanket folder...a fkn pogue...

[Neferti]

I think this thread is aptly named...and the resident moron provides most of the bullshit....10 years in the military...probably spent most of them as a blanket folder...a fkn pogue...

Peeling potatoes? Do they actually do that, or is it just in the movies?

[billy the kid]

[brian ross]

No, you're missing MY point: If women want to serve on the front lines and die like men, I'm more than happy to let them fulfill that desire. Especially considering that I was once assigned a draft number near the end of the Vietnam War. (I'm not opposed to serving my country for a good cause, but Vietnam certainly wasn't one.)

Oh, I agree. Few of America's military adventures have been worth while. 4E, very few. My own brother had his number pulled but opted to serve for six years in the CMF (roughly equivalent to your National Guard) on our father's advice. My entire family didn't believe Vietnam was worth the cost in human lives and lucre.

Anyway, I just think it's pathetically amusing how current left-wing politically correct culture has convinced so many fair-minded females to do things against their own best interests.

That is your opinion. I disagree with it. I do not believe anybody is pressured to do anything, 4E. Maybe in the US but not here in Australia.

It was the same for men of colour. The same excuses we saw trotted out against the integration of black and white soldiers are today trotted out against women.

Actually, men of color have been serving in the U.S. military since the Civil War in 1862. Now let's consider the military history of Australia with regard to "men of color":
https://www.awm.gov.au/about/our-work/p ... us-service

The Defence Act of 1903 stated that all males aged from 12 to 25 would receive military training; as Aboriginal Australians were not of European descent, they were exempt from military service. (It was not until 1949 that all restrictions were lifted, enabling Indigenous Australians to join the Australian military forces.)

Hmmm ... that's pretty late in the game compared to America.

Like anything there were exceptions to the rules. Indigenous Australians did serve as far back as the 2nd Boer War, in WWI and WWII and after. Indeed, I served with an aged WO who had served in Korea with the first indigenous commissioned officer. While they were exempt, that didn't many that many didn't serve. The experience was good for both groups, most particularly the white soldiers who encountered all too often, indigenous Australians for the first time. Unlike the US, black Austalians have always been a tiny minority of the total population.

Downunder, we have allowed gays, women to serve equally in all ECN (Employment Classification Numbers) in the defence forces for over a decade (gays much longer). No one really cares. Of course there are some sexist/homophobic hold outs but in reality, it hasn't meant the end of civilisation as we know it. I remember serving back in the 1980s with women and gays. While the gays weren't acknowledged, they were there and often were known to be gays. No one cared. If they kept their mouths shut and got on with the job, it worked. Women were the same - they were barred from many ECNs but as long as they worked and did their job, lines were blurred and they often did what were appropriately male only jobs.

So let me get this straight: You're bragging about how open-minded the military is in Australia, yet in the next breath you admit that as recently as the 1980s, "Women were the same - they were barred from many ECNs."

Obviously, Australia has had its share of reckoning to do with regard to equality in the military, and not all that long ago.

You are focusng on one sentence in isolation, whereas the surrounding sentences refute it, 4E. I was there, women served often unofficially in ECNs which were reserved exclusively for men. They did an excellent job usually as good as and occasionally better than men. The problem is all too often that women are thought of as shy, retiring creatures, weak physically and mentally. Reality is somewhat different. A great deal of the world's economy relies on strong, forward women to undertake hard, physical labour. Not all women are able to compete in Ms. America contests, nor do they want to. Not all men are Mr. Universe material either. What is required is for enlistees to be trained to have their bodies built up and then to be tested.

And anyone who suggests that women and gays are incapable of being aggressive or deadly has no knowledge of history but that is typical for most sexist and homophobic bigots.

If I should happen to meet anyone who fits that description, I'll give him your message.
[/quote]

Do so, please. I find sexism and homophobia distasteful and rather foolish.

[brian ross]

Have you ever been on the front lines in mortal combat Brian? No I didn't think so!

Immaterial, Black Orchid. I have been far closer to that situation that you will ever have been. I served in the Australian Army for 10 years. Your military service has been what, exactly? How long did you wear a baggy green skin? How long did you carry a service weapon? Wear webbing, carry a pack, Mmmm? Now, when you have done that and studied military history for over 40 years, you might be able to offer an opinion. You know diddly squat about military service. Bugger all.

If a 120 kg team member was severely wounded do you think a woman could carry him on her back for 20 miles? No matter what idiocy you spout the answer is no.

Very few Australian males weigh in at 120 kg. Why? 'cause that would be, with the exception of men over 2 metres tall, grossly obese. Nor would any one single person be expected to carry any other single person for more than a few hundred metres. That is why soldiers work as a team, why they are members of a Section. They work together. They are taught how to lash a stretcher together and to share the load, until a dustoff can be arranged. Once more we see your inexperience showing, Black Orchid. It is embarrassing. I'd suggest you shut up before you put your foot deeper into your mouth.

Hitch up your skirt and go back to the monkey bars you rude little twat.

Women and men are NOT equal in many situations.

No one is suggesting they are. "Equality" does not mean "equal". It means equal opportunities. Women who are physically fit for combat do exist and have existed throughout history - as much as you appear to want to deny it. Women have fought in wars since the beginning of time. Female warriors do exist. I suggest you look up the women soldiers of Africa. You'll get quite a surprise. Western sensibilities are exactly that, just something dreamed up by Westerners.

Get off your shetland pony before you fall off.

Better view from up here than down in your ditch, Black Orchid.

Yes 120 kg was stretching the point but I never said that female warriors have not existed but they are by far a very small minority. The Defence force is not the place to play your PC identity politics.

No is suggesting they should. DoD doesn't. What it wants is to have the best soldiers who are willing to serve in the defence of Australia, Black Orchid. What Defence has discovered is that there are many more females than males willing to volunteer to do so. Why? I have no idea but Defence has long limited the number of women they will accept in each successive group of volunteers to about 15%.

Sometimes you can't just conjure up a makeshift stretcher in the desert you fool and Black Hawk rescue helicopters are not always just a hundred metres away. You live in a fantasy world full of dresses and lipstick.

Nope. I have lived very much in the real world where people get taught how to "conjure up something from basically nothing," Black Orchid. Dustoffs fly in from tens to hundreds of kilometres away. Black Hawks have a range of approximately 300 km. They are not stationed on the front line. Indeed there is nothing like a "front line" and hasn't been one as far as the ADF is concerned since Korea.

Perhaps you should go out and find some real warriors who have fought in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and ask them if women or trannys would benefit their extreme missions. Continue reading your fantasy novels but you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

You seem to assume I haven't, Black Orchid. I am good friends with many who have. How many do you know, hey? None at all, I'd assume. I know many people who have served or are still serving.

No I have never been in a war zone, and neither have you, but I know plenty of people who have been and you would be the type of person they would gladly take on a long flight and drop over the desert without a parachute.

Yeah, yeah. Yet they would still expect me to protect their backs, Black Orchid, just as I would expect them to protect mine. I have served. You haven't. QED.

In some roles women are fine in the defence force but in other roles they are just NOT suitable.

Name one. I am sure I could find a woman in that role. You are thinking like a middle-aged, white, Australian woman who lives on the North Shore of Sydney, safely ensconced in your living room. Until you have actually carried a service weapon for over a hundred kilometres with webbing and pack, as part of an infantry section, you're just whistling dixie as far as I am concerned. You know bugger all and you show that in every post on this topic, Black Orchid. You denigrate your own gender. You denigrate your own defence forces. Tsk, tsk.