Page 51 of 52 FirstFirst ... 4149505152 LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 519

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

  1. #501
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratrooper View Post
    Thats the thing though, I don't believe anyone said women should not be in the military or are not an asset. We just believe that they are not suited for COMBAT ARMS
    Every job in the military provides a useful function that helps the entire machine. Almost all of those jobs are open to women and they do just fine at them.

    Infantry and Special Operations specifically are VERY PHYSICAL

    I have already provided research from the Army that shows women are more prone to injury than men (even in basic training)
    Attachment 67157392

    http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/...2-4a518be998f7

    Many combat vets have given their opinions and they just happen to be supported by military doctors.
    I stated this on the OP. Women jack their hips up at the cyclic rate (if you're military you understand the term) and it is usually permanent.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  2. #502
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Please, this stuff is par for the course with you super conservative traditionalists.
    this stuff is par for the course with veterans. Who know what they are talking about and therefore disagree with you.

    [quote]I'm asking on statistics where there have been reported altercations or what not between female and male military members, and how often they occur in relation to how many are enlisted.


    Of course, we are ALWAYS going to have some behavioral issues.
    So why are you willing to expand their incidences to the units that are least capable of handling them and most likely to suffer in the form of increased casualties from having to deal with them?

    If your answer is "because that is 'fair'", okay. That's fine. But at least you are recognizing the trade-off

    Good Lord! These are people on an internet forum. I don't know anything about them.
    Well now you do because they've opened up to you. War stories are often incredibly personal - it's a deep, powerful experience. I don't tell my **** to most folks, but here behind the computer screen it is easier. So now you do know something about them. And your response to them opening up to you was to dismiss or spit at them.

    I didn't ignore them. I honestly haven't seen you post the stats I specifically requested.
    How about you start with the stats above about women being more prone to injury?

    Then we can work with 11% of women in the military in Any Given Year having an "unplanned" pregnancy. For comparison, that's 50% higher than the civilian populace.

    The Navy did a study in the late 80s and found out that at any given time about 8.5% of their women were pregnant, although at that time only about 40% were "unplanned".

    This bit from that particular piece struck me as interesting:

    ...Cmdr. Judy J. Glenn, a Navy nurse in the obstetrics and gynecology department at the Navy Hospital in Balboa Park was the first researcher to call attention to the pregnancy issue. During a 10-month period in 1986 and 1987, Glenn found that out of the 789 Navy women on active duty who registered for prenatal care at the hospital, 41% were single.

    Single parents are a growing population in the Navy and society in general, Glenn said. With 52% of the women in her study under 22 years old, many had unrealistically optimistic expectations about caring for a child while remaining in the Navy, she said.

    "We're not talking about mature, responsible adults. We're talking about very young adults," Glenn said. "They're 19 to 21, newly emancipated, sexually active and not using birth control."...
    How do you think they are getting pregnant? Do you think perhaps "sex" might be involved?

    If you would be so kind as to repost them, that would be great, and thank you in advance.
    we can start there.

    There are statistics that the Marine Corps took, polling Marines about the integration of women into combat units.... but for some reason they appear to have not been willing to release the full data, especially with regards to "how infantry veteran Marines polled on the question".

    Lol! No, they aren't facts unless they are supported by EVIDENCE. Personal observations are NOT facts. LOL!
    Wait. Are you telling me that if you step outside your house, right now, and witness a car crash, that it is not a "fact" that a car crash occurred? That you will retain a healthy skepticism over whether or not a car crash occurred until you read about it on the internet?

    None of these things are FACTS. Sorry.
    They are all facts, and they are all true.


    But since you are so keen on facts - where are yours? Where is your evidence that everyone here who has actual experience but you, with no experience or relevant data, are correct? Where are your statistics, links?

    My opinions (which I don't deny, they are opinions) are based upon knowing that some females are most certainly capable of doing jobs that men do, and to stop them from doing what they want because of the fact that they are female is really nothing but gender discrimination if you really think about it.
    No. This isn't about equality. It's about combat efficiency.

    It's not their fault they were born females, and it's not their fault if the men can't control themselves
    Both of those things are true. They are also unfortunately not relevant - if your higher value is combat efficiency. If you value "fairness" more than combat efficiency, then they do become relevant, but you need to be explicit about your relative valuation.

    never suggested you faked anything.
    Post #349

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL
    What a pussy response. ... For all I know you aren't even in the military.
    I simply don't know you, don't know anything about any of you people actually, and this is the internet. I'm not a newcomer.
    Take a look at what we did to Joko's story. It's not terribly difficult for us to spot a fake.

  3. #503
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Why aren't you guys raging about how physical standards are different for service members based on age? What aren't you raging that if an older service member can't meet the same standards as younger men, THEY WILL GET PEOPLE KILLED!

    Age discrimination in physical standards WILL GET PEOPLE KILLED!!!! Lower standards for older men in the military has caused huge numbers of casualties and will ultimately cause the USA to be invaded and defeated! Damn liberals!!!
    Because older servicemembers aren't on the front lines kicking in doors. Dude, I know you've gotten pretty personal with others on this thread and it's gotten ugly. I've tried very hard not to do that with you. To be honest, I'm surprised no warnings have been issued yet. But please take my advice on this. You are very, very ignorant of what goes on in the military and should sit back and listen. I'm an active duty Marine and can't tell you about the culture of an Army infantry/airborne unit compared to a Marine infantry unit. So what makes you think you can speak on an even remotely intelligent level about this stuff?

    You have people from numerous branches of the military saying the same thing, agreeing with each other, about this stuff. We're telling you that is doesn't work. We're telling you that the infantry, artillery, engineers, and many other combat mos's are very physical and cannot be handled by women. It's not because we hate women. As far as I know most of us are married or at least have lost our virginity. We love women. We just don't love them fighting beside us. Why? Because they aren't capable of it and would degrade our abilities to do so.
    Last edited by MarineTpartier; 11-28-13 at 03:14 PM.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  4. #504
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    That is irrelevant. This woman cannot speak for every other woman! So it was too much for HER. She can only speak for herself.
    download1.jpg
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  5. #505
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Could you be a little more specific? Disagree with what exactly?
    That disagreed with the CIC's social engineering agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #506
    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 apdst View Post
    That disagreed with the CIC's social engineering agenda.
    Social engineering? Sorry, you're going to have to be more specific.

  7. #507
    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 MarineTpartier View Post
    Ha-ha! Very funny!

  8. #508
    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

    First of all your posts are TOO long. I timed out trying to respond to this. Thankfully I saved it.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    this stuff is par for the course with veterans. Who know what they are talking about and therefore disagree with you.
    No, there are many people who served who have traditionalist views which skew their outlook, especially when it comes to anything to do with women and equal rights. They just HATE that. Whether or not they are a veteran or served is irrelevant in MANY cases.

    [QUOTE]
    I'm asking on statistics where there have been reported altercations or what not between female and male military members, and how often they occur in relation to how many are enlisted.
    This here is a question that I find very important that I keep asking you to provide me with some data, and you either refuse or no such data exists. Either way, it does not support your argument unless you can PRODUCE something!!!




    So why are you willing to expand their incidences to the units that are least capable of handling them and most likely to suffer in the form of increased casualties from having to deal with them?

    If your answer is "because that is 'fair'", okay. That's fine. But at least you are recognizing the trade-off
    There are MANY things that can cause strife within a unit. For you to try to put the blame on women being there and based on only the fact that they are WOMEN is certainly gender discrimination. I don't believe there is any "trade-off." I think having women is an ADDITION. They are being added on TOP of the men who are already/will be serving.


    Well now you do because they've opened up to you. War stories are often incredibly personal - it's a deep, powerful experience. I don't tell my **** to most folks, but here behind the computer screen it is easier. So now you do know something about them. And your response to them opening up to you was to dismiss or spit at them.
    Nobody shared any personal war story with me, and I have not been rude to anyone besides you here, and that is because I find your traditionalist views disgusting. Get a grip and STOP trying to make this some kind of "you're a big meanie" tit for tat. That's just lame. Argue your point and stop whining. This isn't an appreciation thread. This is a debate website and I am debating a topic. I have not broken any rules, and I'm tired of your "you're a meanie" routine.



    How about you start with the stats above about women being more prone to injury?

    Then we can work with 11% of women in the military in Any Given Year having an "unplanned" pregnancy. For comparison, that's 50% higher than the civilian populace.
    This is a terrible argument. Some smaller boned men would be more prone to injuries too. Ridiculous. A young healthy woman who passes the physical fitness test is perfectly able bodied. Women as a WHOLE are more prone to injuries because as they age, they lose calcium in their bones (osteoporosis), but this happens with AGING. THIS is not a problem for healthy YOUNG women. Sure, their bones are smaller and less dense, but it's not like a healthy young woman is going to break her hip or something.

    The Navy did a study in the late 80s and found out that at any given time about 8.5% of their women were pregnant, although at that time only about 40% were "unplanned".
    Again, this is irrelevant. Pregnancy is a temporary condition. 8.5% is not really that many. What is the percentage of male soldiers out on injury leave or something at any given time? You have to make comparisons here. You can't just post one without posting the other. That really doesn't PROVE anything.

    This bit from that particular piece struck me as interesting:
    Single parents are growing in the population period. Of course that is reflected everywhere. The one thing you forget to mention is that more and more MEN are becoming single parents too.



    How do you think they are getting pregnant? Do you think perhaps "sex" might be involved?
    Yes, which takes two people. These pregnancies may not be the result of an affair with a fellow member of the military either. These women could easily have boyfriends.


    we can start there.

    There are statistics that the Marine Corps took, polling Marines about the integration of women into combat units.... but for some reason they appear to have not been willing to release the full data, especially with regards to "how infantry veteran Marines polled on the question".
    Well then you don't have evidence. I'm sorry, your personal anecdotes I do believe, but they really don't mean anything in the bigger picture.


    Wait. Are you telling me that if you step outside your house, right now, and witness a car crash, that it is not a "fact" that a car crash occurred? That you will retain a healthy skepticism over whether or not a car crash occurred until you read about it on the internet?
    LOL! How foolish. If the police arrived and there was no car or any other evidence of a car crash, then NO it would not be a fact. Are you really this naive? I don't believe it. I think you're playing dumb.

    They are all facts, and they are all true.
    No sorry, facts require evidence other than hearsay.


    But since you are so keen on facts - where are yours? Where is your evidence that everyone here who has actual experience but you, with no experience or relevant data, are correct? Where are your statistics, links?
    My claims are that the military is going to be accepting females into combat roles in the military and that I don't have a problem with that as long as they can pass the physical fitness tests the same as the men. I have nothing to prove. YOU, OTH, are making all KINDS of allegations.



    No. This isn't about equality. It's about combat efficiency.
    And your views about what women "should" do affect your opinions on this matter. I think that a woman could be completely efficient.

    Both of those things are true. They are also unfortunately not relevant - if your higher value is combat efficiency. If you value "fairness" more than combat efficiency, then they do become relevant, but you need to be explicit about your relative valuation.
    I value both, and I don't think that women would be the problem you are implying they would. I just don't believe that. Not that I don't believe your personal stories and others' stories, but they don't prove anything.


    Yeah? That is true. For all I know you aren't. I never accused you of lying. I'm saying I don't know you at all and I don't know if you are or not. You probably aren't, but it certainly is not impossible, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been lied to and probably not the last either. Lol! I'll check that link out later maybe. I have other posts to address.





    Take a look at what we did to Joko's story. It's not terribly difficult for us to spot a fake.
    What do I care? That's between you and him. Nothing to do with me and I don't want to be involved.

  9. #509
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Social engineering? Sorry, you're going to have to be more specific.
    Ending DADT and putting women into the combat arms.

  10. #510
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    First of all your posts are TOO long. I timed out trying to respond to this. Thankfully I saved it.
    Your replies are just as long - you've taken a bit of my day

    No, there are many people who served who have traditionalist views which skew their outlook, especially when it comes to anything to do with women and equal rights. They just HATE that. Whether or not they are a veteran or served is irrelevant in MANY cases.
    I don't think you would be able to point to a single individual in this thread who hates the notion of equal rights for females. As I've pointed out to you a couple of times - quite the opposite.

    This here is a question that I find very important that I keep asking you to provide me with some data, and you either refuse or no such data exists. Either way, it does not support your argument unless you can PRODUCE something!!!
    Data has been produced both in the narrative and statistical form. Thus far you are desperately trying to find ways to ignore it.

    There are MANY things that can cause strife within a unit.
    That is correct. For example, one guy can sleep with another guy's wife - that is why adultery is illegal in the military, and you can be thrown in prison for it. In fact, actions that are prejudicial to good order and discipline are generally covered under the UCMJ and the unit can have you removed in order to keep you from causing strife.

    For you to try to put the blame on women being there and based on only the fact that they are WOMEN is certainly gender discrimination.
    1. I am not trying to put the blame on women. I am pointing out that them being there causes strife. It's no one's fault, it's just human nature. It's a reality that we all have to deal with.
    2. The measuring stick isn't "gender", it's do you contribute to the ability of a unit to act as an effective combat team. There are a whole list of items that will disqualify you from it - from color-blindness, to asthma, to being an adulterer, to being a woman.

    I don't believe there is any "trade-off." I think having women is an ADDITION. They are being added on TOP of the men who are already/will be serving.
    That is incorrect - a unit only has so many billets, the women will REPLACE men who are already/will be serving. And there absolutely is a trade-off; as multiple people who have actually witnessed that trade off occur in real life have told you.

    Nobody shared any personal war story with me
    ....did you miss the last 500 or so posts, as well as your own arguments? You are literally here telling us that our experience doesn't count, and now you claim we aren't even sharing our experiences?

    and I have not been rude to anyone besides you here, and that is because I find your traditionalist views disgusting.
    I couldn't care one way or t'other about tradition, or family structure, or gender equality inside of this because my higher concern is making sure we aren't hindering our combat troops ability to function as a team, thus putting their lives in danger. I find your willingness to disregard the warnings of those who would actually know that you are putting people's lives in danger disgusting. I would think that at least they have earned the decency of being taken seriously when they make such a claim.

    Get a grip and STOP trying to make this some kind of "you're a big meanie" tit for tat.
    HAH - says the woman who not just a second ago was talking about how you are right because others are misogynists or traditionalists or whathaveyou?

    This is a terrible argument. Some smaller boned men would be more prone to injuries too. Ridiculous. A young healthy woman who passes the physical fitness test is perfectly able bodied. Women as a WHOLE are more prone to injuries because as they age, they lose calcium in their bones (osteoporosis), but this happens with AGING. THIS is not a problem for healthy YOUNG women.
    That is incorrect - if you had bothered to actually read the information presented to you before trying to figure out a way to try to discount it, you would have noticed that those statistics for women breaking down were of young healthy women who had passed physical fitness tests.

    Sure, their bones are smaller and less dense, but it's not like a healthy young woman is going to break her hip or something.
    Actually she is - it's called a "stress fracture".

    Again, this is irrelevant. Pregnancy is a temporary condition.
    Which is irrelevant. So is being wounded - it is still a casualty and a loss of combat power.

    8.5% is not really that many.
    8.5% casualties right out the gate is actually pretty serious. And you will notice in the link above which you also tried to dismiss that it's up to about 10-11% now. A battalion commander, for example, whose unit saw 10-11% deployment-ending injuries in training would likely be relieved of command for endangering his mission.

    What is the percentage of male soldiers out on injury leave or something at any given time?
    Significantly less than females - I apologize; my wife is asking me to go to bed: I will answer the rest of this on the morrow

    You have to make comparisons here. You can't just post one without posting the other. That really doesn't PROVE anything.



    Single parents are growing in the population period. Of course that is reflected everywhere. The one thing you forget to mention is that more and more MEN are becoming single parents too.





    Yes, which takes two people. These pregnancies may not be the result of an affair with a fellow member of the military either. These women could easily have boyfriends.




    Well then you don't have evidence. I'm sorry, your personal anecdotes I do believe, but they really don't mean anything in the bigger picture.




    LOL! How foolish. If the police arrived and there was no car or any other evidence of a car crash, then NO it would not be a fact. Are you really this naive? I don't believe it. I think you're playing dumb.



    No sorry, facts require evidence other than hearsay.




    My claims are that the military is going to be accepting females into combat roles in the military and that I don't have a problem with that as long as they can pass the physical fitness tests the same as the men. I have nothing to prove. YOU, OTH, are making all KINDS of allegations.
    But that is incorrect - you are explicitly claiming that we are incorrect, and that women will not in fact detract from unit cohesion in the infantry or become problematic due to greater absence due to medical concerns (to include pregnancy). You are, in fact, making exactly the same type of observations and claims that you are demanding evidentiary support for from us. Either put up, or admit that the preponderance of evidence thus far presented in this thread supports the position of those who actually know what they are talking about.


    And your views about what women "should" do affect your opinions on this matter. I think that a woman could be completely efficient.
    And this. Since you are such an expert in our psychology, but apparently are unwilling to deal with the fact that in fact I treat women under my command the same as males, and have, at multiple times in my career, gone to bat for women under my leadership to see them promoted and even put into billets far exceeding their rank because I think they belong there, how about you describe for us this bogeyman that you insist anyone who disagrees with you must be.

Page 51 of 52 FirstFirst ... 4149505152 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
  •