Page 52 of 52 FirstFirst ... 242505152
Results 511 to 519 of 519

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

  1. #511
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    And, for tomorrow as well:
    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.







    What do I care? That's between you and him. Nothing to do with me and I don't want to be involved.

  2. #512
    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
    Your replies are just as long - you've taken a bit of my day



    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.



    Data has been produced both in the narrative and statistical form. Thus far you are desperately trying to find ways to ignore it.



    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.



    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.



    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.



    ....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?



    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.



    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?



    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.



    Actually she is - it's called a "stress fracture".



    Which is irrelevant. So is being wounded - it is still a casualty and a loss of combat power.



    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.



    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



    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 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.
    I'll reply to this tomorrow. I'm too tired to write another novel right now.

  3. #513
    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

    I wonder if this is a tactic for you cpwill? You know eventually people are going to get tired of responding to the novels. But I WILL write one tomorrow.

  4. #514
    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
    There is so much Walter Mitty going on and so much false claims it too risky to engage in that I'm out of these topics. It's irrelevant anyway. The military and civilian leadership as left the past behind and advanced to wiser goals and practices learning from terrible mistakes of the past.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Joko, please state the tactical advantages of having women in the infantry and other combat arms units.
    Well?
    “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. #515
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Older soldiers, in order to be retained, are not left in those ground pounding front line positions; they move to support, management and training jobs or are forced out. This is true in the construction trades as well.
    You at least have to decide if your position is that the entire military is in identical combat roles or not - rather than declaring it IS in relation to women and it ISN'T in relation to men - for which you then claim inequality in standards is fine for men but will destroy the military if for women.

  6. #516
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Well?
    I have posted this many times extensively. Your side has never presented any "tactical advantages" of only having men in combat units.

    More importantly, none of you have ever explained why you believe the entirety of the military exists singularly for the Infantry in "combat arms" - for which the rest of the military should I suppose just be eliminated.

    The issue is physical standards for all persons entering the military as that is how basic training is done now. You have to defend those standards for your position as being a necessity for every person who enters military service - not just infantry that heads out on 2 week long small unit patrols - which is now all but a thing of the past anyway.

    You have to explain why the person in Utah remotely flying the drone with infrared detectors that can find and kill "the enemy" with far better success rates and poising no risk of an American casualty should have to be able to run 2 miles with a heavy pack in 19/45, nor why the technician who services that drone has to, nor - for that matter - 90+% of the other people in that branch of service should.

    It's like the guy driving the Budweiser delivery truck raging how everyone in the company should be able to lift as much as he does - and that he's more important than everyone else working for Budweiser because of it - when actually he is among the most easily trained and the most easily replaced.

  7. #517
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,688

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    You at least have to decide if your position is that the entire military is in identical combat roles or not - rather than declaring it IS in relation to women and it ISN'T in relation to men - for which you then claim inequality in standards is fine for men but will destroy the military if for women.
    You are mixing apples and oranges here. The different standards for gender/age are now position independent, while my point was that older soldiers move to different positions or are denied reenlistment. I favor position dependent standards, not age/gender based standards.
    “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

  8. #518
    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
    I have posted this many times extensively. Your side has never presented any "tactical advantages" of only having men in combat units.
    We have, however, posted the tactical disadvantages of having women in the unit. Again, YOU show the tactical advantages of having women in combat units. That's the question. Don't try to turn it back around to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    More importantly, none of you have ever explained why you believe the entirety of the military exists singularly for the Infantry in "combat arms" - for which the rest of the military should I suppose just be eliminated.
    I'll explain this as easily as I can for you. Let's use aircraft as an example. A Supply Clerk in an air unit is responsible ordering parts for an aircraft. He then sends those parts to an aircraft mechanic to fix the bird. The pilot needs those parts to fly the jet. The jet exists to support the infantry. EVERY SINGLE JOB in the military always revolves around supporting the warfighter down range. Even if that MOS never has any direct interaction with the infantry, it is still inevitably supporting the infantry. Even administration clerks in a logistics battalion are supporting infantry indirectly? Why? They provide administrative support for the logisticians that are supporting the infantryman. If our military was set up any other way, it would cease to serve the purpose it's supposed to.
    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    The issue is physical standards for all persons entering the military as that is how basic training is done now. You have to defend those standards for your position as being a necessity for every person who enters military service - not just infantry that heads out on 2 week long small unit patrols - which is now all but a thing of the past anyway.
    If I'm following what you are saying correctly, you're saying we should have the same standards for everyone entering the military. There should be no special standards for each MOS. Well, that's the way it is now bro. It always has been. Read the OP. Those aren't infantry standards. They are standard Physical Fitness Test standards for all entry level Marines. And females cannot meet them nor are they being held to the same ones as men.
    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    You have to explain why the person in Utah remotely flying the drone with infrared detectors that can find and kill "the enemy" with far better success rates and poising no risk of an American casualty should have to be able to run 2 miles with a heavy pack in 19/45, nor why the technician who services that drone has to, nor - for that matter - 90+% of the other people in that branch of service should.
    No one, as far as I know, has claimed that a drone operator should be able to do that. However, the minimum Physical Fitness standards in the OP are just as much about keeping costs down and a proper image as they are about actual fitness. Look at it this way, the better shape our military is in, the less it costs to provide healthcare. The less types of uniforms have to be produced because we all fit in a certain range of sizes for them. The more favorable our military looks to the public. No one likes to see a fat servicemember in uniform. If we do not have basic physical standards, that goes away. Finally, the drone operator has to be in good shape. Studies have shown that a person in shape will have better hand eye coordination, handle stress better, and have more endurance at even the most menial of tasks. Drone operators need all of these qualities.
    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    It's like the guy driving the Budweiser delivery truck raging how everyone in the company should be able to lift as much as he does - and that he's more important than everyone else working for Budweiser because of it - when actually he is among the most easily trained and the most easily replaced.
    However, without that Budweiser delivery man, the product doesn't move. You can have an executive with an MBA sitting in his office making big decisions all you want. If the product isn't moving, it doesn't matter what he does. Further, your analogy doesn't fit this situation. 1) Budweiser doesn't care what it's employees look like. 2) Budweiser doesn't require standard training for all employees prior to moving on to their area of expertise. 3) The infantryman, on average, costs more to train that technical MOS's do. Why? Because once a person learns a jet engine, that's it. A jet engine in the US is a jet engine in Afghanistan is a jet engine in the Philippines. However, a patrol is not the same in the US as it is in Afghanistan as it is in the Philippines. So, the infantryman requires constant follow on training to adapt the various theaters he may go to.
    “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

  9. #519
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL
    What is the percentage of male soldiers out on injury leave or something at any given time?
    There are numerous ways to get at this. Among Army Trainees, for example, Women experienced twice as many injuries as men (relative risk [RR] 5 2.1, 1.78–2.5) and experienced serious time-loss injuries almost 2.5 times more often than men; although this was with gender-disparity standards, which were easier on the females. When the British Army switched to Gender-Neutral standards (as opposed to gender disparity), the expulsion rate due to injuries for females shot from around 4.6% to 11.1%, while male rate remained below 1.5%

    men and women are differently built. Those pelvic stress fractures? they happen in one of every 367 female recruits - but only in one out of every 40,000 males. But that is a stronger disparity than average - because on average women in the military have stress fractures "only" twice as much as men. Among athletes, the rates of ACL rupture (to name just another injury) for females ranges from 2.4 to 9.7 times that of the men. Females in the military get hospitalized at a rate 30% higher than males - and that's after you strip out the figures for pregnancy/delivery/etc. They also require ambulatory care 50% more than men.

    These are the figures for healthy, young, physically active members of both genders - not the old.

    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.
    True story - and you'll find elsewhere that I am nothing but an advocate of a child deserving two, actively involved parents. However, what we are addressing here is combat power and combat efficiency, and when a couple get's pregnant, only one gender becomes non-deployable and ineffective at an infantry job.

    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.
    On the contrary - I have seen this at play. It's not just the stories surrounding those I have come into contact with, it is the constant rearing of this problem everywhere we have mixed-gender units. This has been confirmed to you by multiple others from multiple branches and supported by the statistics surrounding and eventual command reactions to the by-product which is pregnancy.

    Even YOU have admitted that there will be problems. I notice that you did not answer the question about why you would be willing to introduce those problems into the units that can least afford them, and are most likely to pay for them in terms of blood. I would be very interested in seeing what your response to that is.

    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 I think you are deliberately being obtuse. If you walked out your door, and witnessed a car crash, did you witness it occur? Is it a "fact"? If the police came to the scene of the accident and walked up to your door to ask you if you had seen the crash, would your response be "well I don't know, I haven't read about it on the internet yet"?

    No sorry, facts require evidence other than hearsay.
    That is incorrect - facts require observation. If I were to try to extrapolate some kind of statistic (for example, if I were to extrapolate from my experiences of 4/8 that 50% of women in the military become sexually prejudicial to good order and discipline), then I would require more evidence than my own observation - I would require the observation of enough others to get a statistically meaningful sample size.

Page 52 of 52 FirstFirst ... 242505152

Posting Permissions

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