• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Aclu sues over policy barring women from combat

Boo Radley said:
I question if they are really key. Or just a way to limit female participation?
Click to expand...

Wow - yes, it's key.

Everyone needs to be able to physically accomplish the same tasks in certain situations. There's no point in someone being in various situations if they can't do it - man or woman.

If they want to reassess the standards and lower them all around then that's fine. . . and that makes perfect sense= changing things in response to advances in weapons and fighting styles, etc. Common sense, there.

If the theater has changed they the standards need to change as well.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Wow - yes, it's key.

Everyone needs to be able to physically accomplish the same tasks in certain situations. There's no point in someone being in various situations if they can't do it - man or woman.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they didn't. I do say there are more than one or two ways to accomplish any task.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Which is true - it just doesn't change the importance of it.
Click to expand...

The more alternatives you have, the less important it becomes. It's a minor point, but could be huge if the powers that be see only a one or two ways of it being done.
 
TurtleDude said:
ACLU sues over policy barring women from combat - chicagotribune.com


The American Civil Liberties Union and four servicewomen sued the U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday to end a ban on women in combat, calling the military the last bastion of discrimination by the federal government and saying modern warfare has already put women in the line of fire.

modern warfare doesn't have the clear boundaries that may have once existed. It will be interesting to see how this plays out​
Click to expand...

It will be interesting. I don't have a problem with this happening so long as they pass the same fitness tests. When I was in the Marines, the females had a different annual physical fitness test. I think if they are going to tow the big guns on the long humps and whatnot... gotta meet the same physical ability tests. If so... by all means.
 
Women have been allowed into combat roles here since 1989. Why can't the U.S.?
 
0bserver92 said:
Women have been allowed into combat roles here since 1989. Why can't the U.S.?
Click to expand...

They're in combat all the time, too.

It's only certain units they're not in at present because those units have to fulfill certain functions.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Historically men go to war to protect their women and children from wars barbarism. Women do not belong in a combat situation period. Having said that though those little gook women were bad ass cold blooded killers so I could be wrong. And gook is not a racial slur, it was the term of the day like kraut or Jap, war words are not infraction worthy, I don't think.:neutral:
Click to expand...

gook/go͝ok/
Noun:

offensive. A foreigner, esp. a person of Philippine, Korean, or Vietnamese descent.
A sloppy wet or viscous substance.
 
Surtr said:
That's one thing that kept me pissed off. Some chick gets her max, then gloats about it like she's the "bees knees", baddest mother****er in town. Congratulations lady, you were able to pass my minimum score.
Click to expand...

This is about the time when the macho, egotistical, superiority complex, sexist speak creeps out.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Perfect example of why I rarely respond to anything you post. I am here to discuss and debate issues, you are here to engage in petty little personal arguments. I have neither the time nor inclination for your idea of fun. Have a nice day.:)
Click to expand...

Play victim all you want. It was you who posted that 'terms of the day' can't be 'ethnic slurs'. Remind us which of those Asian wars you were a soldier in?
 
Women should not be in combat. Period. It's not a women's rights thing. It's a performance thing. Heck, we (the Marine Corps) just sent a triathlete and a Crossfit instructor through Infantry Officers Course and neither one made it through 2 weeks of it. Sure, there were males that failed as well. However, if you put equal numbers of women through the course of men, you would have a huge percentage of failures. These 2 women were hand picked for the course and neither made it.

Another issue that will arise is this. And I don't think anyone has thought of it. Let's say we allow women to openly go into infantry, artillery, etc. Btw, I think that is inevitable. Anyway, no physical test prior to, no pre screening, just an open door policy. Now, let's assume that 75%-85% of them fail the MOS schools due to not being able to physically perform. What are we to do with the failures? We will push them to non-combat jobs such as admin, aviation maintenance, supply, etc. What will occur then is a military full of women maintainers and supporters with a military full of male infantry, arty, etc. Recruiters will have to tell male recruits that they have to join a combat MOS because all of the support MOS's are full. After that, the Manpower sections at DOD will begin to see this disparity. The answer will be to lax the standards thus allowing more women through. This will especially effect the "combat support" MOS's such as artillery, tanks, light armored vehicles (or Strykers, Bradleys, etc). This is due to the fact that there are a few positions in those MOS's that don't require a lot of physical prowess. For instance, there are jobs in artillery that you can do that never require a service member to lift an artillery round (100-125lbs). However, the reason they don't lift the round is because their leaders plan around their weakness. Now, more of these positions will be filled with women. Eventually, these positions will all be filled and women will now be forced to perform physically. If (when for the most part) a woman can't perform and all of the aforementioned positions are filled, what are we to do? Fail? Quit?

Finally, allowing women into combat MOS's will fail due to this. MOS's such as artillery, tanks, and light armored vehicles are the "Swiss Army knife" of the military. When these MOS's are not needed to do their primary job in a combat environment such as a COIN environment, they are called upon to fill an infantry role. Due to the fact that women are allowed at will into these MOS's, we lose that capability. They also will not have been screened for infantry. Sure, there are a few guys that can't fill the role now. However, we always need a radio watch or two. Now, those spots are filled by women. So the weak guys go on patrol and get waxed.

There is a huge trickle down effect that politicians and you, the general public, will never see. Sure, the DOD will pump out school graduation stats and crap that you guys will bite hook, line, and sinker on. All of you will come on here touting the fact that women are scoring higher on academic tests than males. You may even get the opportunity to tout that they graduate at a higher rate than males. But what you won't see is that male Corporal or Sergeant having to plan a whole mission around the fact that PFC Suzy can't carry the radio, anti-tank rocket, machine gun, or anything else extra. You won't see them having to place PFC Suzy in a certain place in the squad that most likely won't require them to carry a much heavier male out if someone's hit. You won't see when PFC Suzy never leaves the wire to begin with because she was left back at the patrol base to do radio watch or stand post because she's on her period or just can't hack it. I'm not anti-women in the military. They do a great job in some cases. But I am totally against them being in combat MOS's.
 
Am I the only one who is more concerned about the danger of women being raped when held in closed quarters with men, then about whether or not women are suitable for combat?

Seriously, does the ACLU even take women's safety into consideration?
 
ReformCollege said:
Am I the only one who is more concerned about the danger of women being raped when held in closed quarters with men, then about whether or not women are suitable for combat?

Seriously, does the ACLU even take women's safety into consideration?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be as prevalent as you think. What, are we a bunch of neanderthals or something?
 
DiAnna said:
Women in combat should be treated the same as men in combat in the same situations. I don't want to hear about men who will "protect women" more than they will "protect their own comrades in arms". Soldiers are soldiers. Women in the military have the same responsibilities as their male counterparts. If they can fight for their country, and die for their country, they deserve equality. The USA is at war. Women who serve are at war. I cry to see our veterans return with their limbs and their minds destroyed because of what they have suffered... but I cannot and will not dismiss the sacrifice of women who have served with honor, simply because they lacked a penis in the field of battle.
Click to expand...

Apologies ahead of time I promise I am not being sexist, but I think you are vastly underestimating the role of testosterone and differences in the capacity of both male and female sympathetic nervous systems. Sure there may be some women who can fight just as well as men, but on average, biology dictates men are far superior at it. Women are far better at a lot of things then men, and things that I probably value a whole lot more than combat. But in terms of combat, it is a man's world.

If you don't agree with this and think that women should be allowed to fight in combat, fine. But that means that women have to pass the same rigorous training bars which have been constructed for men. You can't claim they are equal, and turn a blind eye to the fact that women have much lower performance requirements.
 
Another point to drive this home. Various interest groups (and many of you who have no clue what you're talking about) state that they want equal footing for women. Very well, let's look at how "even" the footing is. The male and female physical fitness test (PFT) standards in the Marine Corps are hugely swayed in the females favor. Here are the standards:
For males, the PFT is divided into 3 events, each with a max of 100 points to be earned. They are pullups/chin ups, crunches, and a 3 mile run. For pullups/chin ups the max is 20, the min is 3. Crunches, max 100, min 44. Run max 18 minutes min 28 minutes.
For women, the PFT is divided into 3 events, each with a max of 100 points to be earned. They are the flexed arm hang (FAH), crunches, and a 3 mile run. Basically, the FAH is where you execute 1 pull up and see how long you can hang before you arms lock back out. For the FAH, its 70 seconds max, 15 seconds min. Crunches, max is 100, min is 40. Run max is 21 minutes, min is 31 minutes.
Here's the issue. The FAH was instituted because women, overwhelmingly, are too weak to execute pull ups. Not being able to execute pull ups equals women not getting as high of PFT scores as males. This equals women not being promoted as fast. But isn't that fair? We want things to be fair correct? Why should a woman only have to hang from a bar while I have to do chin ups? Why should a woman be allowed to run 3 miles, 3 minutes slower than me yet attain the same score? 3 minutes is a LONG time when speaking of running. In the name of fairness, let's level the playing field. You won't hear ANY interest group say ANYTHING about this. Why? Because then we revert back to the all male gun club and God forbid that happen. Then, we have a bunch of women being passed over for promotion and eventually kicked out because they can't meet the standards. They don't want it to be THAT fair. Just fair enough that they can get the glory without the work to earn it.
Full disclosure, rumor has it that the Marine Corps has stated they intend to institute new PFT standards for women where they have to execute pull ups. However, their max is 8. My max is 20. If a male Marine in my unit does 8, we make fun of him for being weak. In recruit training, I used to put all of my recruits (I was a Drill Instructor) on remedial physical training if they did under 10. So now we have women being able to do almost half as many pull ups as us yet get the same points. And there still isn't an adjustment of the run time disparity. Hey, that's not fair!!!
 
ReformCollege said:
Am I the only one who is more concerned about the danger of women being raped when held in closed quarters with men, then about whether or not women are suitable for combat?

Seriously, does the ACLU even take women's safety into consideration?
Click to expand...

Women are already in close quarters with men when deployed. I don't see how what job they are doing when they leave those quarters would affect that problem.

I have served in gender-integrated units in which females were sleeping in the cots right next to be when we were in the field. They would change in their sleeping bag or put up a tarp. We were admin, drivers, mechanics and the like. How would of us being infantry had changed that, other than perhaps not having cots?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Another point to drive this home. Various interest groups (and many of you who have no clue what you're talking about) state that they want equal footing for women. Very well, let's look at how "even" the footing is. The male and female physical fitness test (PFT) standards in the Marine Corps are hugely swayed in the females favor. Here are the standards:
For males, the PFT is divided into 3 events, each with a max of 100 points to be earned. They are pullups/chin ups, crunches, and a 3 mile run. For pullups/chin ups the max is 20, the min is 3. Crunches, max 100, min 44. Run max 18 minutes min 28 minutes.
For women, the PFT is divided into 3 events, each with a max of 100 points to be earned. They are the flexed arm hang (FAH), crunches, and a 3 mile run. Basically, the FAH is where you execute 1 pull up and see how long you can hang before you arms lock back out. For the FAH, its 70 seconds max, 15 seconds min. Crunches, max is 100, min is 40. Run max is 21 minutes, min is 31 minutes.
Here's the issue. The FAH was instituted because women, overwhelmingly, are too weak to execute pull ups. Not being able to execute pull ups equals women not getting as high of PFT scores as males. This equals women not being promoted as fast. But isn't that fair? We want things to be fair correct? Why should a woman only have to hang from a bar while I have to do chin ups? Why should a woman be allowed to run 3 miles, 3 minutes slower than me yet attain the same score? 3 minutes is a LONG time when speaking of running. In the name of fairness, let's level the playing field. You won't hear ANY interest group say ANYTHING about this. Why? Because then we revert back to the all male gun club and God forbid that happen. Then, we have a bunch of women being passed over for promotion and eventually kicked out because they can't meet the standards. They don't want it to be THAT fair. Just fair enough that they can get the glory without the work to earn it.
Full disclosure, rumor has it that the Marine Corps has stated they intend to institute new PFT standards for women where they have to execute pull ups. However, their max is 8. My max is 20. If a male Marine in my unit does 8, we make fun of him for being weak. In recruit training, I used to put all of my recruits (I was a Drill Instructor) on remedial physical training if they did under 10. So now we have women being able to do almost half as many pull ups as us yet get the same points. And there still isn't an adjustment of the run time disparity. Hey, that's not fair!!!
Click to expand...

I think most people who advocate allowing women into combat MOSs, myself included, do so on the condition that they have to meet the same physical standards as the men. And yes, that means that the vast majority of women won't be able do it. But some will.
 
Sarcogito said:
I think most people who advocate allowing women into combat MOSs, myself included, do so on the condition that they have to meet the same physical standards as the men. And yes, that means that the vast majority of women won't be able do it. But some will.
Click to expand...
Currently, there are no special physical standards that men have to meet to gain access to combat MOSs. The standards I posted are the standards that all Marines must meet, no matter their MOS. If we are saying that women should be able to meet these standards, then that means they won't gain access to the military period when most of them fail them. That, or they will be on the low end of the spectrum of performance thereby decreasing our capabilities. Is that really what we want in the name of fairness? We want to decrease our capabilites so that it's fair? That's not what we SHOULD be about. Apparently, that's what we are turning in to though.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Currently, there are no special physical standards that men have to meet to gain access to combat MOSs. The standards I posted are the standards that all Marines must meet, no matter their MOS. If we are saying that women should be able to meet these standards, then that means they won't gain access to the military period when most of them fail them. That, or they will be on the low end of the spectrum of performance thereby decreasing our capabilities. Is that really what we want in the name of fairness? We want to decrease our capabilites so that it's fair? That's not what we SHOULD be about. Apparently, that's what we are turning in to though.
Click to expand...

Assuming of course that those standards actually represent the essentials what is needed to be effective today.
 
Boo Radley said:
Assuming of course that those standards actually represent the essentials what is needed to be effective today.
Click to expand...

I haven't mentioned the Combat Fitness Test yet. Which is also skewed to women. I'm sticking with this because there is more data and it has more history. The PFT has been around forever. The CFT just started recently and was skewed to women from its inception.
 
Oh boy, here we go ...

*flexes fingers*

Navy Pride said:
The women in the Navy I talk to don't want to be in combat.
Click to expand...
Oh man, I had no idea the women you know don't want to be in combat, we should probably bar every single woman from combat now because of what you've experienced.

sawyerloggingon said:
Historically men go to war to protect their women and children from wars barbarism. Women do not belong in a combat situation period. Having said that though those little gook women were bad ass cold blooded killers so I could be wrong. And gook is not a racial slur, it was the term of the day like kraut or Jap, war words are not infraction worthy, I don't think.:neutral:
Click to expand...
lol

Surtr said:
Great, just what the Military needs. More civilians with no military experience telling us what we need. Same reason we now get issued thousands of dollars of equipment that stays in its original packaging, stuffed in a ruck in the back of a closet.
Click to expand...
The military need non-civilians with military experience to tell them what equality means?

RabidAlpaca said:
Hrm... I don't know, I've played Modern Warfare and I didn't see any females at all in it.
Click to expand...
ah, machismo misogyny ... wonderful

MarineTpartier said:
Women should not be in combat. Period. It's not a women's rights thing. It's a performance thing.
Click to expand...
Granted, there are women who are not fit enough for combat ... but there also are. So we just completely ban all women now? Brilliant logic.

By the way, not only does this argument say women can't be good enough to be on the front-lines, but it also makes men more disposable. It says men can and should be thrown away to death more than women. So really, everyone should be concerned about this inequality.

I don't support war in general, but this sort of discrimination is unacceptable simply because it keeps sexism alive.

ReformCollege said:
Am I the only one who is more concerned about the danger of women being raped when held in closed quarters with men, then about whether or not women are suitable for combat?

Seriously, does the ACLU even take women's safety into consideration?
Click to expand...
This is also a stupid argument because what it's essentially saying is that we should stop women from getting raped instead of, say ... oh I don't know ... maybe stop actual rape?


I seriously don't think a lot of people understand the effects of sexism, even at the military level. These attitudes just continue to propagate certain societal restrictions and types of discrimination against women.

The requirements need to remain the same, doesn't matter if you're a man, a woman, or a rhinoceros. If you're gonna be in the military there should be level standards for combat. If they do sway in favor of women, then that's a shame and they should be equalized. HOWEVER, this does not mean we just ban all women from now on. Don't be ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
Currently, there are no special physical standards that men have to meet to gain access to combat MOSs. The standards I posted are the standards that all Marines must meet, no matter their MOS. If we are saying that women should be able to meet these standards, then that means they won't gain access to the military period when most of them fail them. That, or they will be on the low end of the spectrum of performance thereby decreasing our capabilities. Is that really what we want in the name of fairness? We want to decrease our capabilites so that it's fair? That's not what we SHOULD be about. Apparently, that's what we are turning in to though.
Click to expand...

Well, it isn’t the kind of issue that can be resolved by just changing one thing. You are right, if the only change is all females have to meet the male standard then that would be disastrous for women in the Armed Forces. What I am saying is it is the job that matters. If a female can be a veterinary assistant in the Army without having to run two miles in 15 minutes, than a male should be held to that same standard. But to be infantry you would likely need to score much higher on a PT than a vet tech though not as high on an ASVAB.

We set different ASVAB requirements for different MOSs so I don’t see why we can’t do the same for physical fitness. I realize the USMC is the smallest of the forces and the only one that doesn’t have problems meetings its recruitment goals, so it can likely afford to be more picky.

I think it should be dependent on the MOS, not the gender. And why do we lower the standards for the older members? Some say it is because they are in leadership positions and less likely to have to do the grunt work. I say then the requirement should be adjusted by RANK, not by AGE.

But that is just me.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I haven't mentioned the Combat Fitness Test yet. Which is also skewed to women. I'm sticking with this because there is more data and it has more history. The PFT has been around forever. The CFT just started recently and was skewed to women from its inception.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change what I said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom