Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

cpwill said:

:doh :failpail:

Click to expand...

A typical 'intelligent' conservative response.

BlackAsCoal said:

A typical 'intelligent' conservative response.

Click to expand...

The entire post that you applauded was :





But hey - if you're just here for the feel-good-ism, then I invite you to agree with me that Joko calling for all members of the military to be beaten with hammers until they are equally stupid is as disastrous as it is immoral. It's just as legitimate as the post you liked.

disneydude said:

Blah blah blah.....its just the same old tired sexist lines from you and your ilk. Sorry.....but the days of the bigots, sexists and homophobes are past and our nation and military are better as a result.

Click to expand...

Blah....blah....blah...."the days of bigots, sexists and homophobes are past"? What a crop of BS. The affirmative action programs are programs demanding government sponsored bigotry, sexism and preferred sexual orientation. None of them made our military better.
All of them require lowering or eliminating the physical, mental and/or constitutional standards to meet preferred government mandated discrimination.

Just how will a woman by virtue of gender make an infantry platoon better? That's right, she can't.
Just how will a gay man by virtue of sexual orientation make a tank platoon better? That's right, he can't.
Just how will an unqualified minority by virtue of race make an artillery battery better? That's right, he can't.

Yet each branch has minimum physical and mental standards to be met to be accepted in them. Unless government lowers the standards or ignores the constitutional rights of others.

You are just another of the type that cares not for the lives of American soldiers but for the acceptance of the BS political correct crowd.

disneydude said:

Hmmmmm....calling the troop "dumb" and saying that those in the military are not as good as they were "back in THEIR day" is badmouthing the troops.

Click to expand...

He never said they were "dumb". He said they have been "dumbed down". If any of them question the morality of another soldiers sexual habits or lower mental capabilities excused by race or physical capabilities excused by gender and how it can lead to negative results in his platoon, he faces disciplinary action. So by definition, he has been "dumbed down" to never question common sense even at the expense of his fellow soldiers lives or his own.

And yet, you support placing our soldiers in additional self created danger.

disneydude said:

Suffice it to say....you get rid of the immature attitudes and banter and the nation is much better as a whole. A few sexist pigs can destroy a whole lot. We are only as strong as our weakest link. Remove them and we are stronger.

Click to expand...

LOL. You can't be this silly intentionally can you...never mind.

Women getting admitted to a branch of the military they can't and won't meet the standards of, will destroy that unit. Lives will be lost unnecessarily.
And in the same para, you say "we are only as strong as our weakest link". LOL. Oh, the irony. LOL.
Completely delusional on your part. LOL.
You don't know one thing about the military and/or how to "make it stronger".

cpwill said:

Another strawman? No one has suggested that the presence of women in combat will cause the US to lose major battles. We are saying that they will detract from the ability of combat units such as the infantry to function as a single integrated team, reducing their combat efficiency and resulting in increased casualties.



I'm 30. Feel free to poll the other veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan on this forum who have all told ya'll the exact same thing based on direct, personal experience.

Click to expand...

Is your objection to women and men being in the same small squad in actual combat? Or women in combat roles in general? I can see circumstances where a mixed sall unit isn't going to work, if that's your point.

ChrisL said:

Agree.



Don't agree. That's a poor excuse. Obviously these young men are lacking discipline if that's the case. I can understand and wouldn't find it unusual to happen some of the time, but it should not be a widespread issue IMO. That just shows a lack of self control and perhaps people like that don't belong in the military at all anyway.

Click to expand...

It may be a "poor excuse" but to deny it won't happen and with very adverse effects to a small unit will not erase the problems. Military planning is supposed to be based on logic not ideal social placement.

cpwill said:

It's not like any other job, Chris. When you lose a person on a deployment that reduces your combat efficiency and puts every other person in danger. It has the exact same effect on your combat power as a KIA. If WalMart loses a good manager for a couple months of maternity leave, KMart doesn't get to kill two associates, but Al-Qaeda does. This isn't like your job - in the infantry you sleep together, bathe together, train together, relax together, you're together 24 hours a day, face-to-face proximity, while people are actively trying to kill you. You stay alive when you operate seamlessly as a team, a team that is usually closer than your family. That's why I point out that individual qualifications are irrelevant except inasmuch as they speak to your ability to help the team operate as a team. I'd rather have a mediocre machine gunner who was great at building morale among his fellows than an uber-competent Rambo who introduced tensions into the group any day of the week. Because the first guy doesn't detract from our ability to operate as a team.



Because A) it reduces combat power, thereby putting other peoples' lives at risk and B) it marks a breakdown in good order and discipline, which the military requires in order to keep from turning into an armed mob.

Click to expand...

The only way what you say makes sense is if ALL the women went on leave for pregnancy at the same time. :lol: It's not all of them though, so your argument makes no sense.

ItAin'tFree said:

It may be a "poor excuse" but to deny it won't happen and with very adverse effects to a small unit will not erase the problems. Military planning is supposed to be based on logic not ideal social placement.

Click to expand...

It should not happen. Obviously these "boys" are not very well trained if they cannot control their urges.

ItAin'tFree said:

LOL. You can't be this silly intentionally can you...never mind.

Women getting admitted to a branch of the military they can't and won't meet the standards of, will destroy that unit. Lives will be lost unnecessarily.
And in the same para, you say "we are only as strong as our weakest link". LOL. Oh, the irony. LOL.
Completely delusional on your part. LOL.
You don't know one thing about the military and/or how to "make it stronger".

Click to expand...

Well, the "standards" certainly are an issue, aren't they? But, then, the fuss mostly is over changing the standards, isn't it?

Winning battles and wars no longer are decided upon which side had soldiers who would win more arm wrestling contests. Thus, we come tot he question of is the best Marine the one who can do the most pull-ups? For how 95+% will be used in combat, no. Yet people are furious over changing pull-up standards for women (or anyone.)

Marines don't meet the standards of Navy Seals. Does that make them inferior Marines who will "get people killed" and therefore should be washed out?

The important thing is that male members must remember that female members are PEOPLE and human beings, just like they are, and to treat them as a team mate and a colleague instead of a sexual interest just because she happens to be female.

ItAin'tFree said:

It may be a "poor excuse" but to deny it won't happen and with very adverse effects to a small unit will not erase the problems. Military planning is supposed to be based on logic not ideal social placement.

Click to expand...

Logic and social placement are not diametric opposites. The purpose of the military is to protect society, not have society subservient to the military. If the military has practices or policies contrary to best social interests, the practice or policy must be changed. FEW soldiers will ever be in combat - and as wars become more technology based even less so. But 100% become members of civilian society - and bring with them the attitudes ground into them during their formative young adult years in the military.

There is a saying of "once a Marine, always a Marine." So what about the 30, 40, 50, 60 years after they are an active Marine?

ChrisL said:

Why is a pregnancy such a big problem, just give her maternity leave and then have her come back, like any other job. It's no different than if a male member gets ill or suffers an injury or something. Why would court martials be necessary? It's not a permanent condition.

Click to expand...

This idea removes any and all doubt that you don't have a clue as to what it is like in an infantry or tank platoon. And the importance of each soldier to be present for duty if at all possible.

ItAin'tFree said:

This idea removes any and all doubt that you don't have a clue as to what it is like in an infantry or tank platoon. And the importance of each soldier to be present for duty if at all possible.

Click to expand...

What would they do if one of their male members got an illness?

And it ****ing begins!!!!!!!!!

The next step is to have flower girls sprinkling flower petals on the beach during amphib exercises.

ItAin'tFree said:

Blah....blah....blah...."the days of bigots, sexists and homophobes are past"? What a crop of BS. The affirmative action programs are programs demanding government sponsored bigotry, sexism and preferred sexual orientation. None of them made our military better.
All of them require lowering or eliminating the physical, mental and/or constitutional standards to meet preferred government mandated discrimination.

Just how will a woman by virtue of gender make an infantry platoon better? That's right, he can't.
Just how will a gay man by virtue of sexual orientation make a tank platoon better? That's right, he can't.
Just how will an unqualified minority by virtue of race make an artillery battery better? That's right, he can't.

Yet each branch has minimum physical and mental standards to be met to be accepted in them. Unless government lowers the standards or ignores the constitutional rights of others.

You are just another of the type that cares not for the lives of American soldiers but for the acceptance of the BS political correct crowd.

Click to expand...

Just how will a man by virtue of gender make an infantry platoon better? That's right, she can't.
Just how will a heterosexual man by virtue of sexual orientation make a tank platoon better? That's right, he can't.
Just how will an unqualified white man by virtue of race make an artillery battery better? That's right, he can't.

In short, your message is nothing.

You like to interchange physical and mental standards, when they are not the same at all. The topic is physical strength ability - and you think you can just slide in "mental standards" along with it. The educational standards and testing of the military had substantially increased and continues to do so - for all branches of service.

No one can enlist without a high school degree anymore. No branch of service. To enlist in the Air Force in ANY capacity a person must test in the top 50% intellectually and in acquired knowledge or that person can not get it.

My daughter is trying to enlist in the Air Force - but there are physical issues that might block it. At this time they are doing everything within military allowances to get her past those. Why? She's not an athlete. She can't do many pullups or pushups. But her academic credentials go off the chart in knowledge, diversity and initiative, plus leadership qualities. So they want her, a lot. The obstacle being prior foot surgery that may disqualify her.

THAT is who the MODERN military needs. There is never a shortage of strong back low intelligent grunts - which is the military you foolishly urge for.

Physical strength and geekness tend to be opposite personalities. The military has no shortage high school football players who want to enlist - many, many more times than they need now. But the military has a big shortage of Meza chess club presidents wanting to enlist. The military will royally award enlistees with college - in initial rank and pay.

If a body builder with barely a high school degree wants to enlist, they will yawn that the person has to pass an aptitude test - and if passes might be allowed to enlist at the absolute bottom level. If someone with a college degree and academic acalaides beyond that? They jump over that enlistment desk - promising joining as an E4 or higher, significantly higher pay and are all over that person to SIGN UP NOW!!!

Your views of the military are dangerous dinosaur views that have lead to the defeat of large armies certain they can't lose to much smaller armies that are smarter. It's probably been 2000 years since which side's soldiers can do more pushups has determined the outcome of a battle. What you want is to maintain an increasingly outdated and incapable military, and it appears smarter minds are prevailing.

ChrisL said:

The important thing is that male members must remember that female members are PEOPLE and human beings, just like they are, and to treat them as a team mate and a colleague instead of a sexual interest just because she happens to be female.

Click to expand...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, there are only male and female Marines. There are no people, human beings, girls, boys, or any other pansy-ass ****.

disneydude said:

Today's world requires a smarter military than it did in the past. Wars are not fought the same way that they were in the 1940's and 50's. Getting rid of the lower intelligence in the military absolutely strengthens our military.

Click to expand...

Then why do you support programs that do just the opposite? By law.

ChrisL said:

The important thing is that male members must remember that female members are PEOPLE and human beings, just like they are, and to treat them as a team mate and a colleague instead of a sexual interest just because she happens to be female.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, Marine and human being in the same sentence.. without a superlative.

Male or Female, Marines generally live among those in the SUPER HUMAN catagory of earthly existance. The Corps will find the correct solution. Observe, Adapt, and Overcome.

to paraphrase an old toast:

" to Them, and those like Them

There's too few of them left.



Happy Thanksgiving Chris

Thom Paine

ItAin'tFree said:

This idea removes any and all doubt that you don't have a clue as to what it is like in an infantry or tank platoon. And the importance of each soldier to be present for duty if at all possible.

Click to expand...

And you don't have any clue that the American military consists of more than infantry and tank platoons.

One direction the military is headed is obvious - technology. But the other is assassination (they call it otherwise).

Technology isn't gender specific contrary to your view of things. And there are missions where women could get in where men could not. How many decades was it before our military FINALLY recognized that the enemies were using their women to kill our soldiers? - Our troops conditioned to only see men as warriors?

ChrisL said:

What would they do if one of their male members got an illness?

Click to expand...

You're arguing with someone who is now just arguing to argue. He is taking the position that a tank platoon goes into combat in total isolation for months at a time, completely cut off from supplies - for which month after month a pregnant soldier would be stuck there. Actually, tanks run out of fuel very quickly.

In fact, the military requires soldiers allow all sorts of drugs be injected into them - like it or not. Nothing would prevent women in combat to be tested for pregnancy and injected with a month's long contraceptive slow release capsule, which many women now use anyway.

cpwill said:

You die when you lose the ability to operate as a team, and you die when the combat power of your unit and your support units is degraded. That's why everyone who has been there, been part of the infantry, and has posted on this forum about this subject, shares pretty much the same opinion. Women in the infantry are a distraction - distractions reduce your ability to focus on mission - reduced ability to focus on mission means degraded performance - degraded performance means higher casualties.

They don't do stuff like this because it's Thursday, they do it because it's becoming such a problem that you have to get a General Officer involved.


Tell me, Chris. Why do you think that the infantry veterans here all come back with the stories and claims of "yeah, when they brought out females it really effected the unit in negative ways", if that is not true. Are we all making it up?

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're all just making it up. Not one of you has given ONE example of ANY battle incident where it made any difference whatsoever, have you?

White men in infantry pretty much use to say that blacks in their unit would be very damaging too. So would gays. So would foreigners. They were always wrong.

cpwill said:

Another strawman? No one has suggested that the presence of women in combat will cause the US to lose major battles. We are saying that they will detract from the ability of combat units such as the infantry to function as a single integrated team, reducing their combat efficiency and resulting in increased casualties.

Click to expand...

When has women in a combat units causes even 1 casualty, since that is what you claimed happened?

Or are you saying that it never has as far as you know, but to believe you that some day it will?

joko104 said:

Well, the "standards" certainly are an issue, aren't they? But, then, the fuss mostly is over changing the standards, isn't it?
Standards are an issue as they should be. Setting them correctly saves lives. The "fuss' is over lowering the standards for a preferred group.

Winning battles and wars no longer are decided upon which side had soldiers who would win more arm wrestling contests.
As much military history as I have studied, I'm not aware of any such event. Ever.

Thus, we come tot he question of is the best Marine the one who can do the most pull-ups?
Show me anywhere in which that has been said by anyone other than you.

For how 95+% will be used in combat, no. Yet people are furious over changing pull-up standards for women (or anyone.)
As they should be as it makes sense. Lots of upper body strength is required to be an effective combat soldier. Why do you choose to deny such?

Marines don't meet the standards of Navy Seals. Does that make them inferior Marines who will "get people killed" and therefore should be washed out?
No. It means they may not meet the standards of the Navy Seals. Different MOS, different mission, different standards.

Click to expand...

An effective military requires discrimination and plenty of it. Physical, mental and behavioral discrimination must be used to enhance combat effectiveness. It decreases lives lost on our side and increases our enemies casualties. So why is it that you don't seem concerned about our soldiers lives?

joko104 said:

Yeah, you're all just making it up. Not one of you has given ONE example of ANY battle incident where it made any difference whatsoever, have you?

White men in infantry pretty much use to say that blacks in their unit would be very damaging too. So would gays. So would foreigners. They were always wrong.

Click to expand...

I can give you plenty of real life examples where lacking physical capabilities can cost lives. Imagine you're patrolling up a mountain in enemy territory, loaded with 100+ lbs of gear, and the entire patrol has to wait for the weakest link, and people have to start carrying that person's gear for them, thus weighing the team down even further. Because of this delay you can't make your rendevous point and your ride out (helicopter, which you have very limited use of), has to come back at another time, so your patrol is stranded in enemy territory. I know, because I've personally seen this happen.

The fact is simple, women have a fraction of the physical requirements, even in the infantry, that men do. That is a HUUUUGE problem. These women that passed will be the weakest links in their units. I'm confused why you would defend lowering the quality of our combat arms. Physical fitness DOES matter, and it matters a LOT. If women want to be part of combat arms, they should meet the same requirements their teammates do.

Frankly though, the unit would just put that weak link back in the fob watching a radio or something, but then again maybe she'll complain of discrimination and they'd have to take her anyway.

joko104 said:

You're arguing with someone who is now just arguing to argue. He is taking the position that a tank platoon goes into combat in total isolation for months at a time, completely cut off from supplies - for which month after month a pregnant soldier would be stuck there. Actually, tanks run out of fuel very quickly.

In fact, the military requires soldiers allow all sorts of drugs be injected into them - like it or not. Nothing would prevent women in combat to be tested for pregnancy and injected with a month's long contraceptive slow release capsule, which many women now use anyway.

Click to expand...

I have personally been outside the wire without resupply for weeks at a time. This is a very real scenario, please do not talk about things you have ZERO idea or experience of.

joko104 said:

Well, the "standards" certainly are an issue, aren't they? But, then, the fuss mostly is over changing the standards, isn't it?

Winning battles and wars no longer are decided upon which side had soldiers who would win more arm wrestling contests. Thus, we come tot he question of is the best Marine the one who can do the most pull-ups? For how 95+% will be used in combat, no. Yet people are furious over changing pull-up standards for women (or anyone.)

Marines don't meet the standards of Navy Seals. Does that make them inferior Marines who will "get people killed" and therefore should be washed out?

Click to expand...

Your massive ignorance of the physical requirements of modern combat is undeniable. You seem to picture all war as riding around a tank in the middle of baghdad.

When in reality it looks like this: