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

Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

The only way what you say makes sense is if ALL the women went on leave for pregnancy at the same time

No. What I am saying is true if even one female leaves or gets out of deployment for pregnancy.
 
Give me a break. It's not like they can't get a replacement. Pregnancy is a temporary situation and not always avoidable, especially if you're a married person.

:doh Combat is a team sport, Chris. You train, deploy, and fight as a team. Throwing someone new in as a combat replacement still reduces your combat efficiency..

Pregnancy is 100% avoidable in the infantry. You just don't have women.
 
Didn't see this coming :roll: Female Marines have received ample time (over a year) to prepare for this test which, oh by the way, still isn't to the same standard that it is for males. Sure, they have to get the same bare minimum of 3 that males get. However, their max is 8 whereas mine is 20. So, on a maximum 300 point physical fitness test (PFT) where each of the 3 events (pull ups, crunches, 3 mile run) has the potential to give you 100 points, a female Marine only has to do 40% of the work I have to in order to get 100 points for her pull ups on her PFT. I call bogus. That enables her to be as competitive for promotion as me without having to do the work that I do. Not to mention that she can run her 3 miles in 21 minutes to receive 100 points for that while I have to run it in 18 minutes. If you've ever run a 5K, 3 minutes is an eternity between two runners.

Some of you will say "Well, that score is only part of what is looked at when considering promotion." I will submit this to you. Every promotion board for E-6, E-7, and E-8/E-9 (this board is conducted jointly) in the Marine Corps has an after action review written for it. In every one of those after action reviews, the board members are asked "What is the first tie breaker between two Marines if there is one spot left in their MOS field to promote?" The answer is ALWAYS "Their PFT score".

Now, some on this site will say that I am butt hurt because 3 females passed our infantry course. That is mentioned in the article. Not the case. When I know that 16 females began the course and only 3 passed, I'm not worried. Of the 16, 9 failed due to performance reasons. That leaves 7. Of those 7, 4 broke due to hip and knee problems. Those are the classic female breaking points that I've seen in most female injuries. Those occur very frequently at Parris Island as well. So, we have the 3 left. Now, for males, approximately 79% make it through infantry training. 10% of them are dropped for medical reasons. That leaves approximately 11% for performance/legal issues. For those of you who are Marines, it's the classic, always spoken of, 10% that fail. Also of note, the females were required to carry each other during casualty evacuation, movement courses, etc. So, a female weighing 110lbs-140lbs is carrying around her equivalent weight while the males are slinging whichever casualty they see over their shoulder. Again, I call bogus. I'm not a big fan of this social engineering crap. DADT was another issue. I wasn't a supporter of that. It wasn't performance based. A gay guy can fireman's carry a casualty just as effectively (though the casualty may be uncomfortable:2razz:) as a straight guy. But the vast majority of females cannot do the same. This is a performance thing for me. It is a logistical thing. It is a morale thing. Our military is the best in the world yet we want to mess with the very core of its competence. The members of it. I'm not a big fan.

Corps Delays Pull-Up Requirements for Female Marines | TIME.com


Females will always get special treatment in the Marine Corps.

http://terminallance.com/2011/02/28/terminal-lance-109-curious-dining/
 
Please, that's the insinuation that you and others have made. That women are too "distracting" or that the men can't control themselves. It's retarded.

One is not the other. No one said that men completely lose their minds (well, relatively) around women - we argue that women are distracting, that introducing sexual tension into the combat units will ruin the bonding and team cohesion that is necessary for them to do their jobs well. Do not exaggerate what we are saying in order to try to justify dismissing it - those of us who have the experience to say that this would put lives in danger at least have earned the right that you take them seriously.
 
Give me a break. It's not like they can't get a replacement.

Actually you can't. A unit has to take a certain percentage of casualties before the military can justify breaking up and reducing other units to replace its' lost membership. The squad will just run on less combat power, and pray harder that they don't get into a firefight with someone who now outnumbers them.

We had a squad (13 dudes) get reduced at one point to three. We didn't get combat replacements, we just folded them into other squads who had lost one or two. Now we're down an entire rifle squad; which effectively means a platoon is down to limited ops, which effectively means that the company is going to have to run the other three platoons hard with no break. And we got nobody.
 
Holy ****ing ****. Are you serious right now? Show me one time where I said "no woman could do what I did as a grunt!" You realize we're talking about women joining combat arms right?

Basically, you stuck your dick out and made a bunch of highly misinformed statements about physical fitness being irrelevant in modern combat, and I corrected you. You claimed there were no examples where lack of physical fitness could get anyone killed, so I gave you one. Tell me why women should not be held to the same physical standards as men.

Secondly, it was a 15 month deployment, so I have no idea what you're talking about with "weeks", nor do I have any idea what you mean about me flying an F-35B. If that was the job I was shooting for, I would make sure I met the ****ing standards, and didn't try to get in by doing far less than my colleagues.

It is highly unpleasant talking to you, especially when you go off on such random ****ing tangents after I corrected you. I've stated from the beginning that women should have to meet the same standards as men for the same job. That is equality. If you'd like to explain to me why they should get a free pass, please do.

Yeah. Welcome to debating Joko on this topic (and others).
 
The very fact that you would type this complete nonsense is 100% proof that you have no idea whatsoever on how the military works. I don't know if you just made this up or you really believe this big of a bs story that someone told you but either way the fact that you believe it should be proof to anyone who reads it that you are clueless about the military and nothing you say should be looked at as coming from a place of knowledge.

I was going to go through the whole thing and point out the utter nonsense one by one but it is just so far out there I don't even know where to start

Yeah. I'll admit, I'm torn whether he made the whole thing up, or whether someone saw a fool and proceeded to spin one of the funniest whopper tale I've heard as of yet. :lol: whattya wanna bet the guy was a Water Dog?


Joko - I've told you before (in detail) how and why that story that you tell is complete and utter crap - and that anyone who had any experience whatsoever would instantly recognize it as such; why do you continue to repeat it?
 
Yeah - performance overall is the only reason I've opposed let ins with altered standards.

They should set overall ability standards, and anyone who meets those standards can engage - and those who can't, don't. Gender wouldn't matter. It would result in less women qualifying, but at least they're not qualifying based on their own abilities (or lack of) - thus putting it on the individual and not on engineered social standards.

Though I'm not quite sure why you're citing injury stats - if one is injured certainly you don't want them in. It seemed, for a moment, that you were arguing the opposite: that the standards were too harsh for both men and women. (though by the end it was clear you weren't)
Injury stats were due to the fact that women's legs, especially their hips, are not made for rucking, etc. I saw quite a few females when I was a Drill Instructor on Parris Island be told they would never walk without pain again due to the hip injuries they had. Males get injured as well, don't get me wrong. It's just not as concentrated in one area of the body as with women.
 
It should not happen. Obviously these "boys" are not very well trained if they cannot control their urges.
So, by that train of thought, could it not also be said that we can "train" gays to not be gay? If it's so easy to control an urge and just train it out of them. Why don't more anti-homosexuals propose that? Why don't you? You seem to think it's possible with this statement.
 
:roll: and then there are the people who have no idea what they are talking about, but don't let that stop them from trying to look smarter than everyone else.
You know, I was reading back through this thread because I didn't realize it has caught fire like it had. I saw that absolutely STUPID comment, almost replied, then thought "You know what, I saw that CP was in this thread. Bet he took care of that." lol
 
Well, maybe those 18-22 year olds need to be taught some professionalism. Either that or maybe they are just TOO young and immature to be in the military at all?

The nature of the job is killing people, not "professionalism." That's really all there is to it. :shrug:

Anything which allows you to kill people in a quicker, and more efficient, manner while taking fewer casualties in return is good. Anything which makes that job more complicated than it needs to be is bad.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't see how throwing women into front line combat really accomplishes much of anything other than making matters "more complicated" in this regard.

Don't get me wrong. Women are fine in service, support, and admin roles. In some fields, they are even preferable to men.

However, when it comes to pure blood lust, aggression, and physical drive, men are pretty much always going to have an edge. There is really no way around this fact.

There is a reason why every single war to be fought over the course of the last 10,000 years has been fought by men (and primarily young, hyper-aggressive, men, at that) rather than women. They're simply better suited for the job.
 
The nature of the job is killing people, not "professionalism." That's really all there is to it. :shrug:

Anything which allows you to kill people in a quicker, and more efficient, manner while taking fewer casualties in return is good. Anything which makes that job more complicated than it needs to be is bad.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't see how throwing women into front line combat really accomplishes much of anything other than making matters "more complicated" in this regard.

Don't get me wrong. Women are fine in service, support, and admin roles. In some fields, they are even preferable to men.

However, when it comes to pure blood lust, aggression, and physical drive, men are pretty much always going to have an edge. There is really no way around this fact.

There is a reason why every single war to be fought over the course of the last 10,000 years has been fought by men (and primarily young, hyper-aggressive, men, at that) rather than women. They're simply better suited for the job.

:roll:

That depends upon the person. There are plenty of men who cannot handle fighting in wars and plenty of women who can.

Nope, not true. There were plenty of female warriors throughout history. Maybe you should educate yourself.

Top 10 Badass Female Warriors - Listverse
 
So, by that train of thought, could it not also be said that we can "train" gays to not be gay? If it's so easy to control an urge and just train it out of them. Why don't more anti-homosexuals propose that? Why don't you? You seem to think it's possible with this statement.

That is retarded. None of what I said is comparable to any of this garbage.
 
Actually you can't. A unit has to take a certain percentage of casualties before the military can justify breaking up and reducing other units to replace its' lost membership. The squad will just run on less combat power, and pray harder that they don't get into a firefight with someone who now outnumbers them.

We had a squad (13 dudes) get reduced at one point to three. We didn't get combat replacements, we just folded them into other squads who had lost one or two. Now we're down an entire rifle squad; which effectively means a platoon is down to limited ops, which effectively means that the company is going to have to run the other three platoons hard with no break. And we got nobody.

Oh really? So you're telling me that there are problems with your MALE counterparts as well. Hmm. Interesting.
 
:roll:

That depends upon the person. There are plenty of men who cannot handle fighting in wars and plenty of women who can.

We are talking about averages here, not exceptions. The simple fact of the matter here is that A) men generally tend to be better suited for the physical and mental strain of combat than women, and B) men tend to fight better in the company of other men, rather than in mixed gender groups.

Excuse me triteness here, but "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Nope, not true. There were plenty of female warriors throughout history. Maybe you should educate yourself.

Top 10 Badass Female Warriors - Listverse

First off, the vast majority of these women were generals or political rulers, not frontline warriors. I never said that I had a problem with that.

Secondly, in every instance where actual "female armies" were involved, they were basically horribly slaughtered in the long run.

Women have a hard time keeping up with men even in the era of rifles and bombs. In the era of hand to hand combat, they would have been an at extreme disadvantage to the average male soldier.
 
We are talking about averages here, not exceptions. The simple fact of the matter here is that A) men generally tend to be better suited for the physical and mental strain of combat than women, and B) men tend to fight better in the company of other men, rather than in mixed gender groups.

Well obviously you weren't paying attention because that wasn't my argument at all. I acknowledged the fact that the women should be able to pass the same physical fitness tests as the men, and if that is the case then there should not be a problem with it, but then we have people trying to say that the male soldiers cannot control themselves around these female soldiers. Give me a break. That's a crappy excuse for a weak nature.
 
Certainly I'm realistic enough to realize that a woman such as myself who is basically tiny with little upper body strength (compared to most men) would ever be able to make a career out of being in the military, a police officer, a firefighter, etc. But I also realize that there are women out there who are NOT like me at all and who would be completely capable of performing such jobs.
 
My local police department has one standard for men and women. Women rarely ever pass, but they do pass.
Why should the military be any different.


I'm of the mind that women should not be in combat arms. Not because they can't handle it, but because so few can it doesn't warrant changing the entire system. If we get to a point where woman can pass the same standards at even a close % as men I'm all for reconsidering.

Should we build a female dorm for an Infantry Company with one female? Should we build female latrines for an Infantry unit with one female? To me it just isn't cost effective.

You know there are probably 50+ year old men that are tough enough to make it in the Infantry School but that doesn't men the military is going to raise the entry cut off to 50+.
 
I lost track of this thread since I posted the OP and didn't realize it had taken off like it had. As I was catching up, I've noticed one common theme. The many that haven't served that are participating in this thread continue to tell the few who have why male/female units SHOULD work while being given the reasons why it DOESN'T work. I won't go into any detail about why it doesn't work because that has been discussed ad nauseam. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't work. You can say "You should train them better" all you want. They are 18-22 year old males. 18-22 year old males whether Marines, soldiers, college kids, whatever, are sex crazed. That's all there is to it. You add the stress of combat, separation from the opposite sex, etc and it's a formula for disaster. Now, I know that reason won't hold up. None of you think it's legit. That's fine. But the physical limitations of females in general cannot be ignored and that is the purpose of this thread. All of the other crap will be swept under the "you should discipline them better" by the people that don't have to do the disciplining.
 
How so? You can train sexual urge out of someone correct?

Where did I say that? :roll: I said that there is no reason why these men cannot CONTROL their urges.
 
Well obviously you weren't paying attention because that wasn't my argument at all. I acknowledged the fact that the women should be able to pass the same physical fitness tests as the men, and if that is the case then there should not be a problem with it, but then we have people trying to say that the male soldiers cannot control themselves around these female soldiers. Give me a break. That's a crappy excuse for a weak nature.

Men are weak in certain regards. They always have been. :shrug:

The simple fact of the matter is that there's no real reason to force them to be "strong" simply because it's more "politically correct," when what we've been doing so far seems to work just fine.

We don't need our soldiers to be perfect "gentlemen." We need them to kill people. Everything else is simply a distraction.
 
Where did I say that? :roll: I said that there is no reason why these men cannot CONTROL their urges.
Im just being the devil's advocate here. You assert that we, as a military, should be able to train the urges out of men towards women. If that were true, then homosexuals should be able to control their urges and basically not be gay.
I'm attempting to prove a point here. The point being that you can't train a sexual urge out of a human being. It doesn't matter what sort of punishments we administer. Just take a look at sexual assault numbers. Punishments and awareness have spiked. Yet, the percentages continue to climb.
 
Back
Top Bottom