• 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

ChrisL said:
Again? Really? I already said that the woman would have to pass the physical fitness requirements.
Click to expand...

And with the issue in the OP, those standards are not the same and they should be the same. There needs to be more than if someone wants to serve. Passing women through and lowering standards in the name of "equality" or "feminism" is wrong. A woman should have identical requirements to a man in every way possible.
 
digsbe said:
And with the issue in the OP, those standards are not the same and they should be the same. There needs to be more than if someone wants to serve. Passing women through and lowering standards in the name of "equality" or "feminism" is wrong. A woman should have identical requirements to a man in every way possible.
Click to expand...

And a man should have the same identical too. Now how many splits can a man do?

https://www.google.com/search?q=spl...4H_Do2gXCjYHQBg&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1482&bih=806
 
winston53660 said:
And a man should have the same identical too. Now how splits can a man do?
Click to expand...

That's irrational, then again come back when splits become a necessary thing for efficient combat.

The point is that lowering the established standards so women can be "equal" with the opportunity to be in the infantry is wrong. It puts other soldiers at risk and makes the military inefficient.
 
digsbe said:
That's irrational, then again come back when splits become a necessary thing for efficient combat.

The point is that lowering the established standards so women can be "equal" with the opportunity to be in the infantry is wrong. It puts other soldiers at risk and makes the military inefficient.
Click to expand...

No it is not irrational to expect women to kick ass as well even if they do it differently
 
ChrisL said:
That's insane. :roll:
Click to expand...

As a 34 year old male this is my standard vs a female the same age.
These are the minimums for a passing score
Pushups (male)-36 (female) 15
Situps (male)-42 (female) 42
2mile run (male)-17:42 (female) 21:42

So as you can see a 34 year old male has to do 21 more pushups and run two miles four minutes faster than a female to pass.

A female meeting the minimum standards for a male would get a score of 240 while the male would only get a 180.

Thats a considerable difference.
 
joko104 said:
I think it is offensive that they claim our soldiers, and specifically Marines, are a bunch of gang-rapists for which women are only safe if they are kept away from women. Maybe when Marines are done with their enlistment they should then be locked up to keep them out of society for women's protection if what they say is true. Of course, it's not.
Click to expand...

Why are all of you pro women in the infantry types taking things to the extreme. No one is saying that there will be large instances of gang rape. What there will be are lots of increased sexual tension and relationships between members of an infantry squad which will lower unit moral and reduce combat effectiveness. That is obvious to a anyone with any common sense who is looking at reality and not how they wish things would be.

Do you guys honestly thing that there is no value in the opinion of guys who have actually been in the infantry vs guys who have never been in the military. I have seen the problems introducing women to a small group of guys on a deployment. And that is in the SOF world where there is a huge difference between the maturity and disciplinefrom the conventional military.
 
TBH the "army standards" aren't particularly difficult...
But anyways, if being weaker, running slower, etc is prohibitive to getting the job done, and getting it done in a safe manner, then of course the minimum standard must stand REGARDLESS OF GENDER
 
A lot of you guys are saying that we should expect everyone in our lower ranks to be able to not become distracted by being around the opposite sex and if they can't than those are not the types of people we want in the military.
Do you have any idea how many of our high level leadership has gotten in trouble either publicly or in privately for that very same thing. (Petraeus anyone ). It is a fact of life that when you mix men and women some of them are going to get involved. And where there are some people having sex there are others who are unhappy that they are not. Then there are the ones who are upset because they believe either right or wrong that someone in the relationship is getting preferential treatment. And of course where there are relationships there are break ups. It doesn't have to be everyone. It only takes two to mess up the unit.

If you really don't think that will lead to moral problems and a lack of combat effectivness than you are living in a fantasy land.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
They can move their bodies in different ways that are advantageous is the point.
Click to expand...

Being a little bit bendier is not an advantage in combat.

In hand to hand, size and strength pretty much always carry the day. In a shoot out, hand to eye co-ordination, vision, and speed (for sprinting from cover to cover) are the major deciding factors.

On an extended op, sheer physical stamina, endurance, and resiliency are the major deciding factors in an engagement.

Women generally lag behind men with regard to just about all of these.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
They can move their bodies in different ways that are advantageous is the point.
Click to expand...

What way can they move their body that would be advantageous in a front line combat unit?

Women have less blood, weaker connective tissue, and lack the body strength-especially upper body strength.

These are facts-your opinion doesn't matter.
 
braindrain said:
A lot of you guys are saying that we should expect everyone in our lower ranks to be able to not become distracted by being around the opposite sex and if they can't than those are not the types of people we want in the military.
Do you have any idea how many of our high level leadership has gotten in trouble either publicly or in privately for that very same thing. (Petraeus anyone ). It is a fact of life that when you mix men and women some of them are going to get involved. And where there are some people having sex there are others who are unhappy that they are not. Then there are the ones who are upset because they believe either right or wrong that someone in the relationship is getting preferential treatment. And of course where there are relationships there are break ups. It doesn't have to be everyone. It only takes two to mess up the unit.

If you really don't think that will lead to moral problems and a lack of combat effectivness than you are living in a fantasy land.
Click to expand...

How many women get pregnant on an aircraft carrier at sea? Its often several.

The biggest problem isn't how they are in combat-its the 99% of the day that ISNT combat.
 
ChrisL said:
Oh really? So you're telling me that there are problems with your MALE counterparts as well. Hmm. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Specifically that squad took two IED's and a sniper. That tends to be a problem.
 
ChrisL said:
That's insane. :roll:
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to insist that everyone in this thread that actually knows what they are talking about is obviously either insane, or making it up? Do you really credit us so lowly that we are incapable of accurately describing our experience?
 
ChrisL said:
Because they WANT to, that's why.
Click to expand...

Their want is irrelevant. The Needs of the Military are what control personnel assignment, and the primary objective is Mission Accomplishment, not Everyone Feels Happy About Their Opportunities.
 
ChrisL said:
For no benefit? I beg to differ. Well if the woman is encouraging contact, then she should be disciplined. Just because some people cannot control themselves (and it certainly is FAR from a majority), that is no reason to disallow women who can meet the physical fitness standards.
Click to expand...

Actually, in the military, it is - it's called "Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline"; and it is a far more significant number than you are allowing. I've directly supervised at different points in the last few years 8 females. Of that, two of them slept with co-workers to include members of their chain of command, one had an affair with another Marine (both were married), and one had an affair with a Marine who was married (she was separated), and got pregnant in the last couple of months prior to a deployment so she could skip it. The drama and investigations wrecked any sense of team, any sense of unity - that unit was broken into warring sections before it even set foot out the door, and it was all due to the drama that comes with having mixed-gender units. So that's 4 out of 8. The other three were outstanding Marines - I put two of them up for meritorious promotion, and put another in an extremely high-profile billet. It's worth noting of those four, however, that one of them was married to a Marine who then cheated on her with several other female Marines and then divorced her, one was happily married, and one was a lesbian.

Most of these kinds of women would more than like be "big and strong" women and not the "sex kitten" type that most men would be lusting over all the time.
Click to expand...

:lol: two words: Deployment Pretty. :lol:

On a deployment, if it doesn't actually have a penis, most guys will want to screw it. :shrug: One of the side effects of being Out There and under constant stress.
 
cpwill said:
Actually, in the military, it is - it's called "Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline"; and it is a far more significant number than you are allowing. I've directly supervised at different points in the last few years 8 females. Of that, two of them slept with co-workers to include members of their chain of command, one had an affair with another Marine (both were married), and one had an affair with a Marine who was married (she was separated), and got pregnant in the last couple of months prior to a deployment so she could skip it. The drama and investigations wrecked any sense of team, any sense of unity - that unit was broken into warring sections before it even set foot out the door, and it was all due to the drama that comes with having mixed-gender units. So that's 4 out of 8. The other three were outstanding Marines - I put two of them up for meritorious promotion, and put another in an extremely high-profile billet. It's worth noting of those four, however, that one of them was married to a Marine who then cheated on her with several other female Marines and then divorced her, one was happily married, and one was a lesbian.



:lol: two words: Deployment Pretty. :lol:

On a deployment, if it doesn't actually have a penis, most guys will want to screw it. :shrug: One of the side effects of being Out There and under constant stress.
Click to expand...
Sounds an awful lot like cops and firefighters. :)
 
Gathomas88 said:
What on earth does education have to do with rucking 30 miles a day and shooting people in the face afterwards?

There are plenty of jobs out there available to women which require that they use brains, not brawn. The infantry isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree with that:

1. Stupid people don't necessarily make the best warriors, even in direct combat
2. Who should be sent off on heavy pack 30 miles treks into battle zones should be whoever is most capable, and if that is solely men then it's solely men.
3. Infantry isn't just about 30 mile treks into battle.

I don't dispute that "strong back" is the foremost consideration in some military combat settings. Nor do I dispute that men have stronger backs. I dispute that your view that is all that infantry and Marines need and do.

Just like in the private sector, I truly believe the real concern of the military is losing the race for who has the most technologically smartest soldiers. The USA is losing the technology knowledge and skills competition badly with other countries in the private sector - and accordingly may be doing so also in our military sector. Technological skills don't just matter in factories, but even can matter on the battlefield. Making this open to women doubles the pool the military has to compete for technologically inclined and skilled recruits.

I think the "rape" and "women are distracting" claims are not pointless and begging the issue. The question is do enlisting women, including in combat roles, enhance the military? I say it does. It doubles the pool, plus brings a desirable diversity. Diversity increases wisdom and options.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah. Welcome to debating Joko on this topic (and others).
Click to expand...

For real, what the **** is wrong with this guy? He seriously just said that no jobs in the military are physical anymore, therefore physical standards are just there to try to keep women out.

Apparently in the 6 years since I've come back from afghanistan all combat has been replaced by robots.

The funniest part, my wife, a petite school teacher, can pass the male standards for the marine PFT. Then we have joko coming in and saying no woman could ever do that and should never have to.

I don't know about your experience, but in my unit (173rd Airborne), if you scored anything less than a 270 (300 max, 180 min), you'd be relieved of your leadership position and be a complete dirtbag.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
For real, what the **** is wrong with this guy? He seriously just said that no jobs in the military are physical anymore, therefore physical standards are just there to try to keep women out.

Apparently in the 6 years since I've come back from afghanistan all combat has been replaced by robots.
Click to expand...

Dude, if you want to laugh until you cry, go read his post about where he gets' his insight from :lol:

The funniest part, my wife, a petite school teacher, can pass the male standards for the marine PFT. Then we have joko coming in and saying no woman could ever do that and should never have to.

I don't know about your experience, but in my unit (173rd Airborne), if you scored anything less than a 270 (300 max, 180 min), you'd be relieved of your leadership position and be a complete dirtbag.
Click to expand...

:D Well, in the Marines we have a "real" PFT, so 270 is actually fairly good. But yeah, 250 was pretty much the cut-off. For the older guys, especially, the 3 mile run was just hard to come in at under 22 minutes.

But I thought you guys had an extended "max" scale?
 
cpwill said:
Dude, if you want to laugh until you cry, go read his post about where he gets' his insight from :lol:



:D Well, in the Marines we have a "real" PFT, so 270 is actually fairly good. But yeah, 250 was pretty much the cut-off. For the older guys, especially, the 3 mile run was just hard to come in at under 22 minutes.

But I thought you guys had an extended "max" scale?
Click to expand...

Getting a 270 on the APFT is the minimum in the 173rd (90 pts above the Army minimum). Superstars should be 290+ or 300+. The excuse however that women can't do pullups is ridiculous, as my wife is a pullup beast.

And I think joko is just trolling now. Nobody can be that ignorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom