Panel: Let women serve in combat roles

What about “true” combat roles? Special forces for example.

I HIGHLY advise before you get pounced on to specify what you mean more clearly. I don't think you mean "true" combat as if only special forces are in combat. I know you don't mean that but you WILL be yelled at. Specify what you mean VERY clearly please.
 
Here's a thought -- what if intelligence is more important than physical strength. So, for example (hypothetically), if women score much higher on testing to be an artillery officer, should they be given the billets ahead of males who are physically stronger but not as "smart"??

People fixate on physical strength but, in today's military, relatively few specialties depend on brute strength or speed. Some clearly do -- no argument. But, for those that don't, consider that women may bring other attributes to bear.

That's an interesting thought - however, I dont think "intelligence" and physical standards should really be considered separately while selecting officers. I think they're equally important. Sure, some branches are more physically demanding but keeping those standards the same for everyone ensures that if they do find themselves in combat, those in a support branch will be able to pull their share of the weight (no pun intended).

As for the gender integration issue...I think a better question is: how many women are actually willing to go combat? I've always wondered about this. It's sort of like comparing men who want to be "stay-at-home" dads. If I were to tell my friends and family that I wanted to babysit my kids while my wife worked, I'm sure I'd get a lot of raised eyebrows and snorts. Would women face similar reactions from their peers? I mean, its obviously not a reason to not want to go combat, but if the Army were to do a poll and find out that only 100 females wanted to join a combat branch...would the integration process be worth it? I mean, personally I think its only a matter of time before it happens, but its obviously not going to be easy. IMO I don't think it will work out but who knows.

I suggested this before on a similar thread long ago, but we could try a "test." Create a unit with females who can meet the current male standards and males, deploy them to the front lines, and see how it works out?
 
Neither of those are going into cities/villages to do “social reading” and make use of that skill that will help make arrests of suspected terrorists(that I know of, and that was poorly phrased but I think I got the idea across). Now assume they have equal intelligence for what I have stated, because that is a different(yet very similar in ways) topic.

"Social Reading" aka Forensic Profiling. Its a very valuable tool where traits and patterns of terrorists, criminals, etc. are studied and these tools are employed in order to capture these people. Since women are typically known for their intuition, this would be a strong point for them. Don't tell me you think that the Special Forces you mentioned do not do their homework before a mission...they just don't run in with guns blazing. Tracking a person's pattern, their background, how they act, is very hard to do.
 
That's an interesting thought - however, I dont think "intelligence" and physical standards should really be considered separately while selecting officers. I think they're equally important. Sure, some branches are more physically demanding but keeping those standards the same for everyone ensures that if they do find themselves in combat, those in a support branch will be able to pull their share of the weight (no pun intended).

As for the gender integration issue...I think a better question is: how many women are actually willing to go combat? I've always wondered about this. It's sort of like comparing men who want to be "stay-at-home" dads. If I were to tell my friends and family that I wanted to babysit my kids while my wife worked, I'm sure I'd get a lot of raised eyebrows and snorts. Would women face similar reactions from their peers? I mean, its obviously not a reason to not want to go combat, but if the Army were to do a poll and find out that only 100 females wanted to join a combat branch...would the integration process be worth it? I mean, personally I think its only a matter of time before it happens, but its obviously not going to be easy. IMO I don't think it will work out but who knows.

I suggested this before on a similar thread long ago, but we could try a "test." Create a unit with females who can meet the current male standards and males, deploy them to the front lines, and see how it works out?

Chockstock,

I'm not sure what planet you think military women come from, but I'll suggest that there are a lot more women who want infantry than you care to think. It actually bothers goaliegirl that she would be currently excluded from these duties. I'm sure she is not alone.

As to the "integration" of a small number of women into combat branches, I'm struggling to understand (at least most situations) where there needs to be different accommodations that currently don't exist. And even where accommodations do have to be changed (see women in subs threads), the military seems to be willing to do it.

And IMHO, I find the fact that they put women in "non-combat" branches that are in todays operations at every bit the same risk as "combat" branches (because of a lack of a clearly defined "front line") to be unfair to women. They are put in roles designed only to return fire, not seek out the enemy and eliminate it before they get to fire a shot.

As to the idea that "stay-at-home" parents (regardless of gender) "babysit" their children, you've obviously missed how much a stay-at-home parent is responsible for the congitive, social, emotional, and spiritual development of the children. Being the primary caregiver does not mean "babysit".

Chockstock, I suggest that before you get yourself contracted to serve, you might want to spend some time talking to some military women to get a feel of how they currently integrate in the military and how they feel about the situation with regards to combat. You may have to deal with them in these situations during your required service.
 
When it comes to physical standards, the issue IMO is whether certain standards are needed to perform the job or whether they are intended to demonstate physical fitness.

If, in order to perform a certain function (e.g., SEAL, fire artillery, etc.), a person needs to have a certain level of, say, upper body strength and the measure of that level is 10 pullups, then anyone performing that task should meet that requirement -- man or woman.

If, however, the goal is to be physically fit, the standards should be different, and here's why. I don't think you'll find anyone who would argue that the winner of the women's marathan or the 100m freestyle swim in the Olympics is less fit than her male counterpart winner. Yet, they don't compete against each other b/c the fastest male will be faster than the fastest female. Biology and anatomy.

The fact is that, with some exceptions, the requirement for physical strength in the military is not what it once was. Where there are such requirements, they need to be enforced regardless of gender. Where these are nice ideas but not requirements to accomplish the mission, they should be eliminated or modified.

Sorry for the late reply on this but, I actually work a real job during the day.

That said...what a convoluted argument one has to make to discuss this ridiculous point. My head hurts, it's such a waste of time! But, here in USA Academy Fantasyland, where making such argument will labled any member a bigot, here we go with the hateful facts and,.....off to reality-ville....lol

Let women go into combat and we'll see how many volunteers there are, and, how they do in real world situations against an enemy. Lets see how many enemy combatants love the idea of American women in combat.

My real world experience says: can a woman stand up to the pugil stick competition I went through in USMC Boot camp....that I was graded on?
Why have weight and height requirements?
Male applicants should only have to do the flexed arm hang instead of actual pull ups. The run times should be the same and, the weight/height requirements should be the same, screw biology and anatomy! lol That's not important in an all out fight to the death, combatants believe in fairness dammit! lol

We can go all day, unless you suspend reality. :yllol:
 
I still think the minimum requirements should be the same. If a women cant keep up with the rest of her male SEAL team, should she be kept because women standards are lower. What if there is a male keeping back the rest of a SEAL team of females (if they are allowed in SEALs) will he be kept? No, they are a TEAM, they work together and are only as strong as the weakest member. They won’t just say “I don’t want to die, keep up or you can stay behind,” they will stay and help him/her. But I do believe the purpose of minimum fitness is to weed out the truly unfit. For instance a person who can’t do a 25m under water swim, can’t be a seal. If they are going to integrate soldiers, integrate training such as BUD/S, or the Pipeline for PJ/CRO’s. If there is sexism, it is there, and will be in the field. If they cant handle being treated the same as men back home, how will they deal with it in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Mainly if she can preform her job well, she can accept her position in a male dominated world. She can join. BUT if she can’t deal with being an equal, that means taking the same mental AND physical “abuse” (for lack of a better word) in training. Why should she be let in to fight along men? If they are equal let them be truly equal, don’t just say you are allowed to serve along men, with lower standards, and easier training.

I’ll serve with a women, given she can carry the same load as every body else, and she will not hold anybody back.

Bullets won’t discriminate between the skin of a male to a female, nor should our training and standards.

According to her, you're not allowed to ask that :yllol:
 
I don't think anyone disagrees that they should be allowed to serve, but some have a reservation of being in combat with someone who has a lower fitness standard. Do you want your arse being shot at, but because she gets to run slower, you need to stay behind longer?

I for one believe that if they want to be in combat than they should perform at the same level. Bullet flew a 2 seater fighter, women fly fighters. Here's the rub, when you have a 6'4 210 lb guy, it is not easy for a 5'6 130 lb girl to pull them out of the wash unconcious. Both members must pass fitness tests, but that 5'6 guy will be expected to pass at the same level as the 6'4 guy. The 5'6 girl is not required to pass at that level.

This is wrong to me because others lives may depend on you performing that physical act.

If you want to play with the boys, than you should be allowed to play with them, but you shouldn't say I still want you to think of me as a girl when I need it for my advantage.

You're spewing hateful reality dammit! :biggrin:
 
I have several hundred hours of flying at sea with women in the cockpit with me. Never once did the thought cross my mind that if we went in the water that my copilot would not be able to rescue me. Ditching procedures are to get oneself clear of the aircraft as quickly as possible. One is lucky if they can save themselves, much less anyone else. I suppose just as valid an argument would be that I would have a much better chance rescuing a 5'4" 120lb female than a 6'4" 250lb guy. It's just not a factor. Fixed wing aircraft crash on an airfield. There are a bunch of weird looking guys in asbestos suits running around to rescue these aircrew. Probably, again, the smaller the rescuee the better the odds of survival. I therefore propose a new standard, all military aircrew personnel must be 5'6" or less in height and weigh less than 140lbs.

Overland helo ops is the only place where this argument contains any merit whatsoever and there are usually enlisted crewmen in the aircraft to assist in this effort.

Apples to oranges and you know it. Try stepping back out of that comfortable flight suit and think about being on the ground fighting tooth and nail with strength as your advantage to you, and your buddies.

I'm all for women flying, that's easy, let them keep up with the grunts, I doubt they can. That's my world, yours is the cockpit.
 
Sorry for the late reply on this but, I actually work a real job during the day.

That said...what a convoluted argument one has to make to discuss this ridiculous point. My head hurts, it's such a waste of time! But, here in USA Academy Fantasyland, where making such argument will labled any member a bigot, here we go with the hateful facts and,.....off to reality-ville....lol

Let women go into combat and we'll see how many volunteers there are, and, how they do in real world situations against an enemy. Lets see how many enemy combatants love the idea of American women in combat.

My real world experience says: can a woman stand up to the pugil stick competition I went through in USMC Boot camp....that I was graded on?
Why have weight and height requirements?
Male applicants should only have to do the flexed arm hang instead of actual pull ups. The run times should be the same and, the weight/height requirements should be the same, screw biology and anatomy! lol That's not important in an all out fight to the death, combatants believe in fairness dammit! lol

We can go all day, unless you suspend reality. :yllol:

Yeah, I hope you can go all day, because when you send men into houses to check for insurgents/ordinance after securing a village in Afghanistan, you will have created enemies throughout the entire town and will need to kill them all. If you leave the homes unsearched, the bad guys will hide behind the burquas. Right now, women are often injected into these infantry units (while technically being part of another branch) to do this work. They still fight with the boys in taking the village, but don't get the credit for serving in a "combat" branch. Let's get away from this disticntion without a difference, get the women "officially" doing the things they are actually doing and acknowledge that in today's operational environment, you need a variety of skill sets which come from people who can't be all things to everyone.
 
We are saying the same thing -- I think. If a standard is needed to be a SEAL, everyone should meet it. However, if the standard is arbitrary and unrelated to mission accomplishment, then it shouldn't be set so as to disenfranchise women.

I fully agree that, if a SEAL needs to be able to run 4 miles in combat boots in the sand in 30 mins (I'm making up a time here) and a woman can't do it, she shouldn't be a SEAL. And it may be that so few women can meet such a criteria that SEALs shouldn't be open to women.

However, if you said that, to be submariner you need to run 4 miles in combat boots int the sand in 30 mins, that would appear to be arbitrary. Submariners, like all members of the military, need to be in good physical shape. They don't generally have to endure the same physical demands on a daily basis as SEALs.

In my view, the standard should be based on the mission and everyone should meet that standard. If the standard is one of fitness, the way that standard is implemented may well be different for men and women.

Now I'm on-board with you, standards for each job.

The only thing that will change with this position is the designation combat, the designation of hand to hand combat.

BTW, once that's done in the military, watch how fast the standards change for the missions. Do we want the strongest people or do we want politically correct "warm fuzzies" guarding this Nation? How far will we go to weaken our forces to appease a small minority of people in our Country. I'd love to see a national poll on this question.
 
Yeah, I hope you can go all day, because when you send men into houses to check for insurgents/ordinance after securing a village in Afghanistan, you will have created enemies throughout the entire town and will need to kill them all. If you leave the homes unsearched, the bad guys will hide behind the burquas. Right now, women are often injected into these infantry units (while technically being part of another branch) to do this work. They still fight with the boys in taking the village, but don't get the credit for serving in a "combat" branch. Let's get away from this disticntion without a difference, get the women "officially" doing the things they are actually doing and acknowledge that in today's operational environment, you need a variety of skill sets which come from people who can't be all things to everyone.

Do you have any experience on the platoon or unit level?
 
Now I'm on-board with you, standards for each job.

The only thing that will change with this position is the designation combat, the designation of hand to hand combat.

BTW, once that's done in the military, watch how fast the standards change for the missions. Do we want the strongest people or do we want politically correct "warm fuzzies" guarding this Nation? How far will we go to weaken our forces to appease a small minority of people in our Country. I'd love to see a national poll on this question.

Well Maximus, in this post and all the others you have made in this topic you have taken all the points I would have made lol. Just felt that I should say I support everything you said*
 
Okay. But..... the US Military cannot be arbirtary and capricious when determining who is eligible to serve and who is not and at what rank.

For instance, they can't decide that black men can't be officers because white enlisted men would not accept their lead. They can't decide that black men can't acheive a rank of O-6 or higher because there are enough white men that are very capable of holding those ranks.

What the panel is saying is --- all the prior arguments for denying females combat roles are out. They no longer hold water. Therefore, the service is arbitrarily denying females promotion opportunities (as a group) simply because they are female.

To take this one step further - by denying females promotion opportunities there is talent lost. Talent lost from significant group that could make the military better. Therefore - denying females combat roles based on their gender could actually be hurting the military.

OMG! lol, how does anyone respond to this! :yllol:
 
The only thing worse than everyone agreeing on a topic; (Which makes for a very boring thread); is when everyone agrees, yet they argue about it any way!!!

1. All jobs should have standards to meet, in order to be allowed to perform in that job/career field. Might be academics, physical fitness, height/weight limits, physical capabilities, etc... Whatever the requirements/limitations are, they need to be set. If a person passes those requirements/limitations, then they can perform in that job/career field. Doesn't matter if they are white/black/male/female/gay/straight. If they CAN'T meet those requirements/limitations, then they CAN'T perform in that job/career field.

2. There's a difference between physical capabilities and being physically fit. If a job requires a certain amount of upper body strength, and they deem that 10 pull-ups is required, then 10 pull-ups is required. If speed and endurance is important, and they deem that the 5000m (3 mile) run must be done in 14 minutes, then that's that. MAN or WOMAN. No different standards for each. If requirements/limitations aren't required to do a job, then no requirement/limitation will be imposed.

3. It use to be said that if you didn't go to the academy, then you'd never make general or the highest rank/position possible. We all know that to be false. There are plenty of generals, admirals, positions, etc... held by military personnel who didn't attend the academy.

4. The military is not a job corp. There's also no right for a person to be in the military. Arguing that a person is being held back in their "career" because they aren't allowed to be in a particular job/career field is NOT an argument. It's an excuse. There are plenty of men who couldn't get into certain jobs/career field because they didn't pass the requirements. That didn't end their career. Not everyone can be a seal, para-rescue, TACCOM, etc...

There's nothing more that needs to be said. If people want to argue that women shouldn't be in combat/war type jobs because of the "Social" implications, then that is a totally different subject all together. But it seems that some people are arguing that: "You get certain points, credit, awards, decorations, etc... for being in combat roles. And these points/credits/etc... contribute to promotions and assignments. Therefor, if you aren't allowed in combat roles; because of your gender; then you are being held back unfairly from being promoted and assigned with your peers. Well there's only 3 things I can say about that. 1. Not everyone has served in combat zones. Men and Women. So it isn't just women who aren't getting points/credits/awards/etc... Those who haven't been in combat roles, have to make up for it in other areas. 2. Because of diversity in the military, most promotions and assignments are not 100% based on merit. (Welcome to the real world). So people have to work around the politics of the military every day. 3. If a person's main reason to want to be in a combat role/career field is to get promotions and assignments,,,, well; I personally don't want to even know or meet that person. I've met "THOSE" people. "THOSE" people, get people killed.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any experience on the platoon or unit level?

You know the answer to that question. I'm sorry your challenge of my credentials is avoiding the argument.

I'm sure you've read the stories about how women are seemingly turning up in situations where they are deployed with a "combat" unit doing "combat" operations because they have a specialty needed to perform the task at hand. The fact that they end up performing "combat" operations (and subsequently re-assigned when this is discovered) doesn't change the facts on the ground that they perform necessary "combat" duties without the recognition they deserve.

I have yet to read a story about the actual men in these combat units complaining because these "women" are not carrying their weight. In fact, they are quite thankful that they can handle the duties that culturally the men cannot do in Afghanistan.

Please do not discount a forum poster's contributions because of his/her lack of actual field experience. It will not get you points.
 
The only thing worse than everyone agreeing on a topic; (Which makes for a very boring thread); is when everyone agrees, yet they argue about it any way!!!

1. All jobs should have standards to meet, in order to be allowed to perform in that job/career field. Might be academics, physical fitness, height/weight limits, physical capabilities, etc... Whatever the requirements/limitations are, they need to be set. If a person passes those requirements/limitations, then they can perform in that job/career field. Doesn't matter if they are white/black/make/female/gay/straight. If they CAN'T meet those requirements/limitations, then they CAN'T perform in that job/career field.

2. There's a difference between physical capabilities and being physically fit. If a job requires a certain amount of upper body strength, and they deem that 10 pull-ups is required, then 10 pull-ups is required. If speed and endurance is important, and they deem that the 5000m (3 mile) run must be done in 14 minutes, then that's that. MAN or WOMAN. No different standards for each. If requirements/limitations aren't required to do a job, then no requirement/limitation will be imposed.

3. It use to be said that if you didn't go to the academy, then you'd never make general or the highest rank/position possible. We all know that to be false. There are plenty of generals, admirals, positions, etc... held by military personnel who didn't attend the academy.

4. The military is not a job corp. There's also no right for a person to be in the military. Arguing that a person is being held back in their "career" because they aren't allowed to be in a particular job/career field is NOT an argument. It's an excuse. There are plenty of men who couldn't get into certain jobs/career field because they didn't pass the requirements. That didn't end their career. Not everyone can be a seal, para-rescue, TACCOM, etc...

There's nothing more that needs to be said. If people want to argue that women shouldn't be in combat/war type jobs because of the "Social" implications, then that is a totally different subject all together.

Remember, there are no infantry-specific physical standards, just Army specific standards. If the powers that be decide that the "man" standard is required for infantry, (also debateable because "man" standards are age specific and the combat bullets don't check your ID), make that the requirement and allow all comers.

Really, if the military decides to have a higher physical standard for all combat MOS soldiers they should not be age-specific (IIRC special forces are not handicapped on age). I think that it will give the Army more problems as it will screen out many older officers who will struggle to make that absolute standard.

My point, much like USNA1985's is that the military's current fitness standards are more about a physical discipline level that is expected more than a minimum measurement for infantry duties. Let's not confuse the two.
 
You know the answer to that question. I'm sorry your challenge of my credentials is avoiding the argument.

I'm sure you've read the stories about how women are seemingly turning up in situations where they are deployed with a "combat" unit doing "combat" operations because they have a specialty needed to perform the task at hand. The fact that they end up performing "combat" operations (and subsequently re-assigned when this is discovered) doesn't change the facts on the ground that they perform necessary "combat" duties without the recognition they deserve.

I have yet to read a story about the actual men in these combat units complaining because these "women" are not carrying their weight. In fact, they are quite thankful that they can handle the duties that culturally the men cannot do in Afghanistan.

Please do not discount a forum poster's contributions because of his/her lack of actual field experience. It will not get you points.
I not trying to score points with you, or anyone else here. I have experience at the enlisted man's level and don't need a "story" about how "culturally" a woman will add something that a man can't in Afghanistan. I'm sure you've heard stories about how the males put their life in danger, to save a woman in combat as instinct. That's something you get on the platoon level and with the experience. Remember, lets make no mistake, JAM is talking about "Officers" here, as are others and, there are real people below them, mainly males, that volunteered to fight in a war without a big carrot (SA education or ROTC Scholarship) or promotion promise to entice them.

Oh and besides, how many times have I been told here that the "troops" need to have a peer leading them, that's why we have diversity? Remember? It's why we have the "Whole Person Concept" to even out the odds. I notice that USNA1985 wants to eliminate those odds even though she has championed that the last Class at Annapolis, as being the most "Diversified" last year, due to the leveling of the playing field. That same playing field that she wants to use in reverse against males, because they might have a lower score on their SAT's score now? lol

Now I've read everything here !!!
 
Last edited:
The only thing worse than everyone agreeing on a topic; (Which makes for a very boring thread); is when everyone agrees, yet they argue about it any way!!!

1. All jobs should have standards to meet, in order to be allowed to perform in that job/career field. Might be academics, physical fitness, height/weight limits, physical capabilities, etc... Whatever the requirements/limitations are, they need to be set. If a person passes those requirements/limitations, then they can perform in that job/career field. Doesn't matter if they are white/black/male/female/gay/straight. If they CAN'T meet those requirements/limitations, then they CAN'T perform in that job/career field.

2. There's a difference between physical capabilities and being physically fit. If a job requires a certain amount of upper body strength, and they deem that 10 pull-ups is required, then 10 pull-ups is required. If speed and endurance is important, and they deem that the 5000m (3 mile) run must be done in 14 minutes, then that's that. MAN or WOMAN. No different standards for each. If requirements/limitations aren't required to do a job, then no requirement/limitation will be imposed.

3. It use to be said that if you didn't go to the academy, then you'd never make general or the highest rank/position possible. We all know that to be false. There are plenty of generals, admirals, positions, etc... held by military personnel who didn't attend the academy.

4. The military is not a job corp. There's also no right for a person to be in the military. Arguing that a person is being held back in their "career" because they aren't allowed to be in a particular job/career field is NOT an argument. It's an excuse. There are plenty of men who couldn't get into certain jobs/career field because they didn't pass the requirements. That didn't end their career. Not everyone can be a seal, para-rescue, TACCOM, etc...

There's nothing more that needs to be said. If people want to argue that women shouldn't be in combat/war type jobs because of the "Social" implications, then that is a totally different subject all together. But it seems that some people are arguing that: "You get certain points, credit, awards, decorations, etc... for being in combat roles. And these points/credits/etc... contribute to promotions and assignments. Therefor, if you aren't allowed in combat roles; because of your gender; then you are being held back unfairly from being promoted and assigned with your peers. Well there's only 3 things I can say about that. 1. Not everyone has served in combat zones. Men and Women. So it isn't just women who aren't getting points/credits/awards/etc... Those who haven't been in combat roles, have to make up for it in other areas. 2. Because of diversity in the military, most promotions and assignments are not 100% based on merit. (Welcome to the real world). So people have to work around the politics of the military every day. 3. If a person's main reason to want to be in a combat role/career field is to get promotions and assignments,,,, well; I personally don't want to even know or meet that person. I've met "THOSE" people. "THOSE" people, get people killed.

Most get that CC.
 
I'm sure you've heard stories about how the males put their life in danger, to save a woman in combat as instinct. That's something you get on the platoon level and with the experience.

You need to separate what people are saying about their motivation from how they actually behave on the battlefield. They have a duty to protect all of their fellow soldiers to the best of their ability. They may feel worse when a woman gets injured or killed, but it shouldn't affect their behavior on the battlefield.

This is a training issue, much like when a soldier looks at a civilian in the field to recognize that women can be as much of a threat (IEDs) as men and they all need to be recognized as a potential threat. You have a requirement to treat the female civilian differently while addressing the potential threat, because you realize (and have been trained accordingly) that this is the best way to conduct business to the overall operation.

With women in your unit who have volunteered for this mission (we don't have a draft), everyone has to be trained and understand that gender has been checked at the door when you go into combat. We got through this with minorities. We'll get through it with women.
 
You need to separate what people are saying about their motivation from how they actually behave on the battlefield. They have a duty to protect all of their fellow soldiers to the best of their ability. They may feel worse when a woman gets injured or killed, but it shouldn't affect their behavior on the battlefield.

This is a training issue, much like when a soldier looks at a civilian in the field to recognize that women can be as much of a threat (IEDs) as men and they all need to be recognized as a potential threat. You have a requirement to treat the female civilian differently while addressing the potential threat, because you realize (and have been trained accordingly) that this is the best way to conduct business to the overall operation.

With women in your unit who have volunteered for this mission (we don't have a draft...NS!), everyone has to be trained and understand that gender has been checked at the door when you go into combat. We got through this with minorities. We'll get through it with women.

Minorities? What does that have to do with what we're talking about? Sorry dude, I guess it was only a matter of time till someone pulled out that card, I guess I'm the "Jim Crow" of male combatants lol

It's all about being the best you can be, period. You want to make people happy, compromise.

Have a nice night.
 
Back
Top