{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/7/2015 6:46:51 PM
5
I don't see why people are salty about this. They clearly state "as long as they meet the standards"
If someone passes the tests, why would you care if it's a man or woman on the battlefield with you?
English
-
Max, you're getting closer and closer to my top 5 bnet users
-
Edited by OurWildebeest: 12/7/2015 9:09:13 PMDoor number one: 1 - So few will meet standards that this will be a disruption with no actual effect. 2 - Washington DC will not like this, and will find ways to get more to meet standards. This means overall watering down, or grading on a curve. "Hey everybody, we read some books and crunched some numbers and decided carrying 97-135 pounds of gear in combat is bad for your back! We are going to help! From now on, 50lbs max! See your CO for how the weigh-in will work. To healthy backs!" 3 - Result will be more dead and disabled troops and higher odds of losing battles. 4 - Number of female troops will drop as women avoid the risk of being put into combat roles. Door number two: 1 - So few will meet standards that this will be a disruption with no actual effect. The end. And the upside is ...? Somebody's feelings?
-
Well, some people claim that a male soldier will go out of his way to save a female soldier. I am not saying this is not noble, but the enemy will know this and use this against their enemies.
-
Edited by car15: 12/8/2015 9:20:00 AMUnlikely since they'll resent them too much to care, if the military response in this thread is any indication.
-
It's a biological reaction within the human subconscious. The females are the ones who have always been the child carriers, as well as being generally more fragile which over thousands of years has caused a protective reflex to be ingrained within males.
