Page 35 of 52 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 519

Thread: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

  1. #341
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Nonsense.
    The next time you ever claim to support our military, or our troops, or care about the wounded, or the fallen, at all, I am going to remind you that you do not even care enough about us to take us seriously when we suggest that a proposed change will put our lives in danger, and that your only reaction to stuff like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Benzin388
    In 2007, I was in an infantry company in Iraq, living on a remote outpost (not a FOB). For the first 5 months of combat, we had no females at our outpost. I would regard the company as one of the more disciplined I've served in. After five months, we required additional support to move our troops out to missions. 3 five-ton trucks with female drivers were attached to us. Even though we afforded them their own living space (which wasnt mandatory), problems began almost immediately. All three females started to linger around the platoon bays nightly. They began relationships with NCOs, subverting the chain of command, and were engaged in sexual activity with other lower enlisted Soldiers/Airmen, as well. This caused more than one fist fight. Sex was happening in the outhouses, in the platoon bays and in the vehicles. Adultery was committed on a number of occasions. The staunch discipline we enjoyed prior to their arrival was starting to erode. My commander chose to have them sent back to their support units and "swapped" for male truck drivers. All detrimental effects reversed immediately. We found out later that one of the females became pregnant, and was sent home.

    -Later, living on another remote outpost in Iraq during 08-09, the unit i was under had a combat support company attached to it. There were about ten females in this company. We weren't there for a month and the drama began. One female became pregnant. Another committed adultery. Fights between male soldiers erupted over girlfriends. Females were hopping on convoys to other FOBs to have "conjugal visits" with their boyfriends in other units. Then another female became pregnant. Then a female NCO began a relationship with a soldier that worked for her. Eventually, there were sexual assault accusations, he said, she said. And on, and on, and on. It was a mess.

    Now this may sound like I am blaming females, I am not. I am blaming the fact that they were living with a predominantly male unit many times on FOB's. There would have been no issues if they weren't there. Of course, there are many answers to this. Some could blame male soldiers for lack of discipline. I know I do. Others would say that both males and females are to blame. Others would blame the chain of command for turning a blind eye and not wanting to do anything about the issues. But one must understand how difficult it is for a male commander to do the finger pointing.

    The best environment for female soldiers is to be around other female soldiers. For one, they will have female leadership that can address the issues specifically. If combat MOSs and AFSC's were opened up to females, their numbers in the infantry battalions and combat units would be low, causing situations similar to the ones that I have outlined.

    I have served in units that were all male, and others that were mixed. Just based off what I've seen, a female presence in an all-male infantry unit will cause a disruption in discipline, and thus, cause a disruption to combat operations. This is not a matter of females being qualified or unfit to serve; this is a matter of human nature.

    As for females in SOF, I would vehemently disagree. The physical requirements are so difficult than in all likelihood, most women would not be able to make it through SOF selection. If and when they did, it would be likely that there would only be a few females in the SOF force and the same problems I've outlined above would occur. Not to mention, the primary mission of SOF is to work with foreign armies and militias. In most cultures that we fight wars in, a female wouldn't be considered a legitimate counterpart by HNF or militia leadership. This is why the army doesn't allow females to be advisors for MiTT teams in Iraq or Afghanistan. A good call, in my opinion.

    I re-iterate, this isn't about the ability of females or the fact that they just cant cut it in combat-i know they can. This is about the potential disruption that they will cause in infantry and other all-male units. They (females) may not intend for these disruptions, but it will happen. I've seen it to many times to be naive.
    Is to deny it and claim it is nonsense, and that we cannot be trusted to give you our direct experience if you do not like the implications of it.

  2. #342
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Lying gets you nowhere. I have never posted no woman could meet physical standards nor ever posted that there are no "physical" jobs in the military anymore.

    What I have posted is claiming that the sole measure of 100% combat needs is based on physical measurements is false.
    And for this assertion you are drawing from your combat experience ?

    You claimed combat isn't physical so women shouldn't be required to meet the same standards. I prefer to treat women equally while you prefer to patronize them. Please take your sexist views elsewhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  3. #343
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,566

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Oh my! LOL! Now there's a round-about way of blaming women. Absolutely stunning the hoops some of you will jump through to try and prevent women from being able to serve their country.
    You asked, I delivered. Are you asserting (if so provide proof) that military service, as it is practiced now, is equally dangerous for males and females? If so I stand corrected, otherwise accept this fact as proof that having gender based combat assignments makes military service more dangerous for males than females. Adding females to the military, as applied, indeed made it more dangerous for males in the military.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #344
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    And for this assertion you are drawing from your combat experience ?

    You claimed combat isn't physical so women shouldn't be required to meet the same standards. I prefer to treat women equally while you prefer to patronize them. Please take your sexist views elsewhere.
    What war were you in that we won? Why do you think you are smarter than our military and civil command?

  5. #345
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    A dictatorship huh? Well I guess the military has spoken. They ARE going to be accepting women, so I suppose you'd better find a way to deal with your bitter misogyny.
    Do you miss the parts where I point out that I have served with fantastic female Marines, gone to bat and put my own reputation on the line to get them meritoriously promoted above their peers, and have no problem with women serving in the military, or do you just choose to ignore them because you lack the emotional capacity to handle the idea of someone disagreeing with you for good reasons?

    As for this decision - it's pretty obviously being driven by the administration. As I stated, we have a civilian-governed military, and if we are told to make this change, then we will roger up. But I would think that our lives have at least enough value that you would be willing to recognize the trade-off you are asking us to make.

    If the woman can pass the physical fitness test, that is absolutely untrue.
    It is true because combat is a team sport - not an individual sport. It's not like the stupid video games, where you can run around and be your own rock-star. As I told you in the very first time when you asked this question (and I - naively - assumed you were honestly asking the question rather than seeking to accuse others of misogyny for daring to disagree with you on the likely effects of integrating women into the infantry), you can be friggin Rambo, and if you detract from the ability of the team to operate as a team, then you are a liability, not an asset.

    Now I suppose you'll bring up sex and pregnancy again.
    Non-combat losses degrade combat efficiency, just as sexual drama destroys team cohesion.

    Oh surprise! There it is, earlier than I expected. Bogus. Most of them DO control themselves. Those who do not are insubordinate and not good at following orders. Apparently, they need to be purged from the dictatorship.
    how in the world did you draw any of that from this:

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill
    No. Because the introduction of sexual tension and the drama that comes with it into the infantry is a distraction they cannot afford. Horny is pretty much a constant state of being for an 18-22 year old male on deployment. There is no "getting" sex-deprived, you just are. You are on deployment.
    As for "most" it doesn't take "most" to wreck a unit's team cohesion. It takes very few. I watched a division-level shop of about 20-30 people get ripped apart into warring, distrustful factions by three females.

    Oh well. I guess those men need to grow up a little bit . . . or a LOT actually.
    Sure. Oh. Problem. 18-22 year olds make the best fighters. That's why we recruit them. So you can either degrade combat efficiency by going co-ed with a bunch of 18-22 year olds, or you can degrade combat efficiency by trying to recruit a bunch of 35 year olds - but either way, you are degrading your combat efficiency.

    If they cannot, then they should be discharged or otherwise disciplined.
    I just find this constant refrain hilarious given the collective head-splitting that occured when General Cucolo proposed to do just that from the same factions that push women in the infantry, who then put enough pressure on the administration to force him to back off on doing so.

    How incredibly insulting! Plenty of women take their jobs VERY seriously. Come down off your high horse.
    So that's your response? Yeah. Again. The next time you even pretend to honestly give a **** about the members of the U.S. military, I'm going to remember and remind you that this is how highly you actually value us.

  6. #346
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    4/8? Please post links. Of course, you must know that I don't believe you.
    Links?


    Are you even reading what people are trying to tell you here?

  7. #347
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    What war were you in that we won? Why do you think you are smarter than our military and civil command?
    Afghanistan, which we will never win. We haven't won a war in over 20 years.

    It wasn't the military's decision, it was a political one. Why are you so opposed to equality?
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 11-27-13 at 02:08 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  8. #348
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The next time you ever claim to support our military, or our troops, or care about the wounded, or the fallen, at all, I am going to remind you that you do not even care enough about us to take us seriously when we suggest that a proposed change will put our lives in danger, and that your only reaction to stuff like this:



    Is to deny it and claim it is nonsense, and that we cannot be trusted to give you our direct experience if you do not like the implications of it.
    Quit your lying. I'm talking about your assertion that these young men and women cannot control themselves. YOU are being dishonest.

  9. #349
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Do you miss the parts where I point out that I have served with fantastic female Marines, gone to bat and put my own reputation on the line to get them meritoriously promoted above their peers, and have no problem with women serving in the military, or do you just choose to ignore them because you lack the emotional capacity to handle the idea of someone disagreeing with you for good reasons?
    Throughout this thread, you have nothing but say what a problem female military members are to the males.

    As for this decision - it's pretty obviously being driven by the administration. As I stated, we have a civilian-governed military, and if we are told to make this change, then we will roger up. But I would think that our lives have at least enough value that you would be willing to recognize the trade-off you are asking us to make.
    I don't see any trade-offs. I see the military wanting to accept more people.



    It is true because combat is a team sport - not an individual sport. It's not like the stupid video games, where you can run around and be your own rock-star. As I told you in the very first time when you asked this question (and I - naively - assumed you were honestly asking the question rather than seeking to accuse others of misogyny for daring to disagree with you on the likely effects of integrating women into the infantry), you can be friggin Rambo, and if you detract from the ability of the team to operate as a team, then you are a liability, not an asset.
    It isn't true. If those women can pass the same tests as the men, they are just as qualified and in some cases probably more so than a lot of the men.



    Non-combat losses degrade combat efficiency, just as sexual drama destroys team cohesion.



    how in the world did you draw any of that from this:



    As for "most" it doesn't take "most" to wreck a unit's team cohesion. It takes very few. I watched a division-level shop of about 20-30 people get ripped apart into warring, distrustful factions by three females.

    As for all of this, you still haven't provided any links to support this. You can "claim" anything you want, and it doesn't make it a fact.

    Sure. Oh. Problem. 18-22 year olds make the best fighters. That's why we recruit them. So you can either degrade combat efficiency by going co-ed with a bunch of 18-22 year olds, or you can degrade combat efficiency by trying to recruit a bunch of 35 year olds - but either way, you are degrading your combat efficiency.
    And plenty of them OBVIOUSLY can control themselves and do just fine. You are applying the few problem people as if they represent the whole. These instances are RELATIVELY rare, and you cannot deny that.



    I just find this constant refrain hilarious given the collective head-splitting that occured when General Cucolo proposed to do just that from the same factions that push women in the infantry, who then put enough pressure on the administration to force him to back off on doing so.
    I don't know anything about that.


    So that's your response? Yeah. Again. The next time you even pretend to honestly give a **** about the members of the U.S. military, I'm going to remember and remind you that this is how highly you actually value us.
    What a pussy response. Oh, now you're using the "woe is me" tactic. Give me a break. Either argue the issue or back out of the thread.

    For all I know you aren't even in the military.

  10. #350
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Throughout this thread, you have nothing but say what a problem female military members are to the males.
    That is incorrect. I have pointed out where the integration of the genders leads to problems, and pointed out that the combat arms cannot afford the distraction of these problems.

    I don't see any trade-offs
    You don't want to see any trade-offs and so you are accusing those of us who have the experience to recognize that there are trade-offs of perfidy. Look, if you want the policy - fine. But pretending that life offers us a free lunch and that there aren't trade-offs, especially when you have access to multiple experienced individuals who assure that there are, is using Hope in place of a Strategy. But Hope is not a Strategy and when we forget that in the military, other people pay the price for our mistake in very brutal ways.

    I see the military wanting to accept more people.
    The military would be accepting less people under current projections, actually. The military has no intention of recruiting additional people in order to put women in combat arms, I don't think they even have any plans of increasing their recruitment of females - on the contrary, recruitment across the branches that have the highest portion of combat-arms (the Army and Marine Corps) is scheduled to drop sharply. The Marine Corps is going to go from about 202,000 to probably about 167,000(ish).

    It isn't true. If those women can pass the same tests as the men, they are just as qualified and in some cases probably more so than a lot of the men.
    individually they will meet their individual qualifications. If combat were an individual sport, let them on in. But it's not.

    As for all of this, you still haven't provided any links to support this. You can "claim" anything you want, and it doesn't make it a fact.
    you want us to "link" our personal experience?

    And plenty of them OBVIOUSLY can control themselves and do just fine.
    It's a margin question. Even the ones who themselves will not directly contribute to a breakdown of good order and discipline are going to have to deal with degraded teams, lost unit cohesion, the drama, cliques, etc.

    You are applying the few problem people as if they represent the whole. These instances are RELATIVELY rare, and you cannot deny that.
    I do deny that they are relatively rare. They occur in almost every single mixed-gender deployed unit that I have ever seen. I have seen precisely one mixed gender (non-deployed) shop that did not have drama from it, and the female in that one was a lesbian.

    I don't know anything about that.
    That's right, you don't. Because when it comes to how the military and the infantry actually operate, you do not know what you are talking about. Now, that's not a bad thing - no one could expect you to. But it does mean that maybe you should reconsider whether you really want to insist that your uninformed opinion is so obviously true that those who do know what they are talking about are all lying when they disagree with you on something.

    What a pussy response. Oh, now you're using the "woe is me" tactic. Give me a break. Either argue the issue or back out of the thread.

    For all I know you aren't even in the military.
    yeah, that dog's not going to hunt for you. There are people on this forum who have known me for a decade now. They were there when I enlisted, when I went to Boot Camp, when I was posting live from Iraq, when I moved to Okinawa, you name it. Fakers don't sound like me - fakers sound like Joko when he's telling us about his buddy 'Rambo Norris'.



    That's me and American - he came and picked me up from Dam Neck Annex when I was there for some training, we went to a wine festival.

    So yeah. Going with the "well everyone who disagrees with me must be lying" routine... that's not going to work so well for you in this one.


    You are smarter than this, Chris. What gives?

Page 35 of 52 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •