• 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!

Pentagon to overturn ban on women in military combat roles

ReformCollege said:
Maybe if you read the article, you would get such data.


"There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women."
Click to expand...

Notice the words "shortage of."

Women have for a long time been treated differently in this country, thus trained to be a certain way. Look at athletics for example. Prior to title 9 female athletes were far inferior to what we re seeing recently. I would suspect that like with athletics, once more was expected, improvement would come. Currently it s not shocking that men would do better, in time that my change.

However, the point us she is not even challenged. The poster merely accepts it. While we don't really know if her numbers are correct or how representative they are of all females, no questions re ask, n review of data sought, no effort to proved data. Just an opinion piece.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I would like to think that too. Experience and history has taught me that we cannot. The ones who give the orders are not the ones who die - and nor do their families.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is too true.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well there you go. I know an African American who thinks we should return to slavery. Based on your logic here, we should. When will you learn this type of tactic is ineffective?
Click to expand...

So, no. You didn't read it.
 
ReformCollege said:
Maybe if you read the article, you would get such data.


"There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women."
Click to expand...

After she wrote this, we sent females, carefully selecting the fittest, most ready, bad-assesst of the lieutenants out of OCS to IOC. They broke in the first few weeks.
 
cpwill said:
After she wrote this, we sent females, carefully selecting the fittest, most ready, bad-assesst of the lieutenants out of OCS to IOC. They broke in the first few weeks.
Click to expand...

I responded to that already.
 
You know, I think we should take a cue from Starship Troopers in this matter.
 
Boo Radley said:
Notice the words "shortage of."

Women have for a long time been treated differently in this country, thus trained to be a certain way. Look at athletics for example. Prior to title 9 female athletes were far inferior to what we re seeing recently. I would suspect that like with athletics, once more was expected, improvement would come. Currently it s not shocking that men would do better, in time that my change.

However, the point us she is not even challenged. The poster merely accepts it. While we don't really know if her numbers are correct or how representative they are of all females, no questions re ask, n review of data sought, no effort to proved data. Just an opinion piece.
Click to expand...

Woman compete against other women. High school runners could beat Olympic women sprinters. They explicitly have separate standards for training that men and women have to pass. And I think you are ignoring that she was one of the best of the best, and she is saying "it broke me down." Do you really think someone who is one of the best of the best in all of her training and who was a star hockey player got that way because she trained to be a female?

You're completely ignoring the biology. There is a reason why dopers use testosterone and not estrogen when they want to get a boost.
 
ReformCollege said:
Woman compete against other women. High school runners could beat Olympic women sprinters. They explicitly have separate standards for training that men and women have to pass. And I think you are ignoring that she was one of the best of the best, and she is saying "it broke me down." Do you really think someone who is one of the best of the best in all of her training and who was a star hockey player got that way because she trained to be a female?

You're completely ignoring the biology. There is a reason why dopers use testosterone and not estrogen when they want to get a boost.
Click to expand...

Not ignoring it at all. I'm saying they will improve, and that they likely can do the actual job, even if they do it differently than men. The test is the job.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not ignoring it at all. I'm saying they will improve, and that they likely can do the actual job, even if they do it differently than men. The test is the job.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could clarify for me, what qualifications do you have to make such a statement? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Title 9 doesn't count as evidence because I refuted that point; women are still kept separate from men for athletic purposes because of biological differences. If the army had a need for roles that women could fill, they would have roles that women can fill. They do have roles women can fill. And being in the infantry isn't one of them according to those who actual train for combat. Not without lowering the standards. So unless you can provide me with some expertise from someone in active service that says that women can do these roles, then you are essentially just sticking your head in the sand on this issue.
 
ReformCollege said:
Perhaps you could clarify for me, what qualifications do you have to make such a statement? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Title 9 doesn't count as evidence because I refuted that point; women are still kept separate from men for athletic purposes because of biological differences. If the army had a need for roles that women could fill, they would have roles that women can fill. They do have roles women can fill. And being in the infantry isn't one of them according to those who actual train for combat. Not without lowering the standards. So unless you can provide me with some expertise from someone in active service that says that women can do these roles, then you are essentially just sticking your head in the sand on this issue.
Click to expand...

Whether you accepted it or not, the point is they improved. Any group so challenged will improve. I suggest that the military MAY suffer from group think and are unwilling to challenge their assumptions. I only argue before jumping off the cliff that do due diligence and rethink everything.
 
Boo Radley said:
Whether you accepted it or not, the point is they improved. Any group so challenged will improve. I suggest that the military MAY suffer from group think and are unwilling to challenge their assumptions. I only argue before jumping off the cliff that do due diligence and rethink everything.
Click to expand...

Improving from a 2 to a 4 means nothing when a 80 is required of you. Besides, the army isn't a place for social experiments. Square peg, round hole.
 
ReformCollege said:
Improving from a 2 to a 4 means nothing when a 80 is required of you. Besides, the army isn't a place for social experiments. Square peg, round hole.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about a owl experiment. I said re-evaluate the tankards to make sure they properly measure what is needed to do the job.
 
I have no idea why that is such a good movie, but it is great. Maybe the shower scene...?
MarineTpartier said:
You know, I think we should take a cue from Starship Troopers in this matter.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
I have no idea why that is such a good movie, but it is great. Maybe the shower scene...?
Click to expand...

The funny part is bro, that you know as well as I do that Marines talk all kind of crap about what they would do if chicks had to shower with them and how awesome it would be. Then, when the time came for it, they would all vacate the shower with a quickness because they're all scared lol.
Actually, I saw that happen in Baghdad right after we got there in 2003. We had the NBC Decon tents set up to get a shower and this WM comes up and asks when the female time is. The dude running the show just looks at her, laughs, and says "You know how long it's been since anyone had a shower? I'm not shutting this thing down for one Marine to shower." So, she got in line lol. Every dude in that line was like "Is she going in with us? WTF?" So, she got in the shower, stripped, and started washing. Every dude in that place exited faster than you could scream sexual harrassment, including me lol.
 
I don't agree with this decision, but that does not matter, it is already decided. However, I anticipate CNN Breaking News items to sporadically flash across the TV telling me about a distressed woman in combat, or one that has been sexually assaulted, likely even by one of our own, and how the military probably isn't bending perfectly to female combat soldiers needs. There will be lots of angry Anderson Cooper/Piers Morgan moments in which they criticize men, the military, and America. It will be a great moment for equality, indeed. All other considerations are null and void, apparently.
 
ReformCollege said:
Improving from a 2 to a 4 means nothing when a 80 is required of you. Besides, the army isn't a place for social experiments. Square peg, round hole.
Click to expand...
Of course not....... Integration of blacks and whites not withstanding.... of course not....

Everyone always says this.... yet it is the military where such "social experiments" always seem to work out just fine.

Blacks fighting will ruin the army they said.....
Women serving with men in support roles will ruin the army they said....
Gays will ruin the army they said......
 
Caine said:
Of course not....... Integration of blacks and whites not withstanding.... of course not....

Everyone always says this.... yet it is the military where such "social experiments" always seem to work out just fine.

Blacks fighting will ruin the army they said.....
Women serving with men in support roles will ruin the army they said....
Gays will ruin the army they said......
Click to expand...

The first only has merit as long as there is discrimination against blacks, which is something that changed over time. The third only has merit if it leads to tension and problems within the unit. That one is to be determined. The second has merit because woman are smaller, weaker, have a higher body fat %, and slower then males. The first and third are rooted in social constructions, the second is rooted in biology.
 
ReformCollege said:
The first only has merit as long as there is discrimination against blacks, which is something that changed over time. The third only has merit if it leads to tension and problems within the unit. That one is to be determined. The second has merit because woman are smaller, weaker, have a higher body fat %, and slower then males. The first and third are rooted in social constructions, the second is rooted in biology.
Click to expand...

The difference is that not all males are the same..... not all females are the same.....

There are females that are more tough than I am.... I ain't gonna sit here and try to act all badass. Its the truth.... And I served in an airborne infantry unit for 4 years with two deployments to Iraq during the early years 2003/2004/2005.

Claiming someone to be incapable of something purely based upon their gender is just ****ing ignorant.
Claiming someone to be capable of something purely based upon their gender is also just ****ing ignorant.


Stick to beliving in funny MEMEs that talk about women making sandwiches for grunts on the frontlines....



And let the Army figure out how to get this to work on their own.
 
Caine said:
The difference is that not all males are the same..... not all females are the same.....

There are females that are more tough than I am.... I ain't gonna sit here and try to act all badass. Its the truth.... And I served in an airborne infantry unit for 4 years with two deployments to Iraq during the early years 2003/2004/2005.

Claiming someone to be incapable of something purely based upon their gender is just ****ing ignorant.
Claiming someone to be capable of something purely based upon their gender is also just ****ing ignorant.


Stick to beliving in funny MEMEs that talk about women making sandwiches for grunts on the frontlines....



And let the Army figure out how to get this to work on their own.
Click to expand...

You make a good point. So let me settle this in a way that I think we both can agree on. The army sets physical standards that are the same for everyone regardless of gender/race/sexuality, and only those who meet those standards can qualify. That means the same number of pullups, the same height/weight requirements, the same number of pushups, and the same obstacle course times, everything.

Fair?
 
ReformCollege said:
You make a good point. So let me settle this in a way that I think we both can agree on. The army sets physical standards that are the same for everyone regardless of gender/race/sexuality, and only those who meet those standards can qualify. That means the same number of pullups, the same height/weight requirements, the same number of pushups, and the same obstacle course times, everything.

Fair?
Click to expand...
Sure....Sounds good.

Speaking of the physical fitness requirements...
Since when did army combat MOSs have their own fitness standards
Since when are obstacle course times a part of the physical fitness testing standards?
 
Caine said:
Sure....Sounds good.

Speaking of the physical fitness requirements...
Since when did army combat MOSs have their own fitness standards
Since when are obstacle course times a part of the physical fitness testing standards?
Click to expand...

I do remember when I was in, sometime ago, the 82nd had different standards. I also know, some men didn't meet them and stayed in the 82nd.
 
Pilot said:
Pentagon to overturn ban on women in military combat roles | World news | guardian.co.uk


Personally, I'm fine with this as long as they physical requirements are the same. If you can't lift enough or run long enough, you're putting other people in extra danger as well as yourself.
Click to expand...

I agree.As long as the physicaly requirements are the same women should be allowed to serve in combat roles. If a 17-21 year old man has to do 42 push ups to get a 60% on the APFT, then a 17-21 year old woman should have to do 42 push ups to get a 60% on the APFT and those push ups should be the same quality.nothing should be dumbed down.Dumbing down standards will put combat troops at risk.

But they are not going to keep standards the same.So I do not think women should be allowed in combat roles.
Gen. Dempsey: If Women Can
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”
 
jamesrage said:
I agree.As long as the physicaly requirements are the same women should be allowed to serve in combat roles. If a 17-21 year old man has to do 42 push ups to get a 60% on the APFT, then a 17-21 year old woman should have to do 42 push ups to get a 60% on the APFT and those push ups should be the same quality.nothing should be dumbed down.Dumbing down standards will put combat troops at risk.

But they are not going to keep standards the same.So I do not think women should be allowed in combat roles.
Gen. Dempsey: If Women Can
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”
Click to expand...

If you can't say yes, because and show the rationale to be sound, should the standard be there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom