• 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

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.

I acknowledge that. I've known a couple of women who probably could hack it if given a chance.

However, that's not really the issue. The issue is whether or not we should risk screwing up the established system for everyone just so a handful of women can do a certain job, which no one really needs them to do in the first place.

The military has a rather clear role. "Equal opportunity social engineering" really isn't it.
 
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.

Again, I never asserted any such thing. Try reading.
 
I acknowledge that. I've known a couple of women who probably could hack it if given a chance.

However, that's not really the issue. The issue is whether or not we should risk screwing up the established system for everyone just so a handful of women can do a certain job, which no one really needs them to do in the first place.

The military has a rather clear role. "Equal opportunity social engineering" really isn't it.

Too bad. Women are going to be treated as equals, like it or not. :)
 
Again, I never asserted any such thing. Try reading.
Did you not assert that we, as service members, should be able to suppress and control our sexual urges?
 
Did you not assert that we, as service members, should be able to suppress and control our sexual urges?

Do you think you should have sex with your coworkers? Can you "suppress" your urges while in a professional environment? What the hell is wrong with you guys anyway?
 
Do you think you should have sex with your coworkers? Can you "suppress" your urges while in a professional environment? What the hell is wrong with you guys anyway?
What is the longest period of time you've ever been away from the opposite sex? Again, another person who's never served telling those that have how it SHOULD be. One thing you're missing here. It isn't like the men are pinning down these chicks and gang raping them. They are willing participants most of the time. The urge goes both ways.
 
What is the longest period of time you've ever been away from the opposite sex? Again, another person who's never served telling those that have how it SHOULD be. One thing you're missing here. It isn't like the men are pinning down these chicks and gang raping them. They are willing participants most of the time. The urge goes both ways.

Of course, I'm not excusing the behavior from the women either. Both should be behaving as if they are at work, regardless of how long it's been. Go jerk off or something.
 
Of course, I'm not excusing the behavior from the women either. Both should be behaving as if they are at work, regardless of how long it's been. Go jerk off or something.
Trust me, we do. It gets old.:cool:
 
Sorry....but despite what you and NP say, we have the best military in the world and the men and women who defend this country deserve respect....not the badmouthing and moaning that you guys engage in.

People like YOU support the idiocy we have going on right. The job of the military is to break things and kill people and be the best at it so no one @#$@#$'s with us. This keeps OUR young men and women ALIVE if they are called into combat. Politically correct garbage that does not enhance the MISSION guarantees that good men and women will end up in metal boxes shipped home to Dove. People like you SPIT on the graves of those that died for our freedoms and hand our military handcuffs and say "I respect you, but you have to be diverse, and caring and honor everyone!" I wouldn't sign up for the military today if you put a gun to my head, and I made it clear to my kids they gotta be 18 and able to sign up on their own, I ain't signing paperwork to help them get started.

In the 80's when my father flew F-4's, there was a warrior spirit, a "Hoo rah" attitude among the pilots of "We're the best, and ain't no one gonna stand in our way". Today? The Air Force can't keep pilots in, my step mother (Retired Major btw, nurse) works at Dyess as a contractor, she can't believe the stupidity of today's Air Force, the disrespect, the inane rules and regulations.

And it's people like YOU, that support politicians that made that happen. Heaven forbid we ever get in another major war, cause a lot fo good people are going to die before we figure out this politically correct bull**** is deadly.

The point of war isn't to die for your country, it's make the other bastard die for his first.
 
Too bad. Women are going to be treated as equals, like it or not. :)

And a lot of young women who were never really cut out to be on the front lines in the first place will very likely wind up dying horribly (possibly after being sexually abused or raped) because of it in the long run.

This really isn't something to be proud of.
 
Do you think you should have sex with your coworkers? Can you "suppress" your urges while in a professional environment? What the hell is wrong with you guys anyway?

Ummmm... No offense, but you don't have any idea what you're talking about. :lol:

I was so rabidly horny after six months overseas that I could literally smell a woman coming from 20 yards off. Living in a stressful, and frankly, animalistic, environment for an extended period of time is simply going to bring out more animalistic instincts.

It's human nature, and as MTP pointed out, this can tend to go both ways. lol
 
Everyone one of those women was desguised as a man and cashiered from the service when they were outted.

So what? It shows that there are women out there who are suited to go to war and some that actually WANT to, believe it or not.
 
Ummmm... No offense, but you don't have any idea what you're talking about. :lol:

I was so rabidly horny after six months overseas that I could literally smell a woman coming from 20 yards off. Living in a stressful, and frankly, animalistic, environment for an extended period of time is simply going to bring out more animalistic instincts.

It's human nature, and as MTP pointed out, this can tend to go both ways. lol

Please, there are people who practice abstinence, even under stressful situations. You are just making excuses for bad behavior and some people who lack self control and self discipline and probably don't really belong in the military to begin with.
 
Please, there are people who practice abstinence, even under stressful situations.

How successful do "abstinence" focused policies targeted towards extremely horny groups of people tend to be in your experience? :lol:

You are just making excuses for bad behavior and some people who lack self control and self discipline and probably don't really belong in the military to begin with.


I'm simply being realistic. Even ignoring the inherent problems posed by having women go toe to toe with men twice their size in close quarters combat (many of whom come from cultures which tend to take a very low view of women in general), the simple fact of the matter is that throwing trained young "alpha male" killers and young women together in war has not, historically, lead to desirable outcomes.

Do you have any idea how many rapes and sexual assaults took place in Japan, or Germany, during the US occupation of those nations following WW2?
 
Last edited:
How successful do "abstinence" focused policies targeted towards extremely horny groups of people tend to be in your experience? :lol:
I don't think this is unrealistic. This is supposed to be their JOB. They should be taking it seriously. It's not the women's fault if they don't and vice versa.

I'm simply being realistic. Even ignoring the inherent problems posed by having women go toe to toe with men twice their size in close quarters combat (many of whom come from cultures which tend to take a very low view of women in general), the simple fact of the matter is that throwing trained young "alpha male" killers and young women together in war has not, historically, lead to desirable outcomes.

I already said IF THE WOMEN CAN PASS THE PHYSICAL FITNESS EXPECTATIONS. (Caps Lock so that people will SEE that and quit using that lame argument).

Do you have any idea how many rapes and sexual assaults took place in Japan, or Germany, during the US occupation of these nations following WW2?

This happens to women who aren't involved in the fighting of wars too, so it's a moot point once again.
 
I don't think this is unrealistic. This is supposed to be their JOB. They should be taking it seriously. It's not the women's fault if they don't and vice versa.

It doesn't matter who's "fault" the problem might or might not be. What matters is that we are creating problems which do not need to exist more or less for the Hell of it.

Just because a car could theoretically drive with oval, rather than round, wheels, would that make building one that way a good idea when regular round wheels already work just fine?

The fact of the matter is that we're complicating things here for no objective benefit whatsoever. It's simply a bad way to run an institution on which the survival of our nation could very well depend some day.

I already said IF THE WOMEN CAN PASS THE PHYSICAL FITNESS EXPECTATIONS. (Caps Lock so that people will SEE that and quit using that lame argument).

Even if they meet the requirements, it is doubtful that they would be able to fight as well as a man. Just because a woman can do "X" amount of repetitions of a certain exercise, doesn't mean that she also weighs 170 lbs or has the physical strength and aggression necessary to successfully bayonet some crazed Chinese or Iranian infantryman trying to do the same to her.

That is also not the direction the military is going with this particular policy either way regardless. They are trying to push for reduced standards.

This happens to women who aren't involved in the fighting of wars too, so it's a moot point once again.

Eh. Not really.

Just because some breeds of dogs are already known to maul and eat toddlers, would that make deliberately going out of your way to make sure dogs and toddlers spent more time together a good idea?
 
Last edited:
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.

In truth - I think many men go through most of their military careers with injuries and never reported them. But we hacked that up in another thread not too long ago so I won't bother here, no point.
 
In truth - I think many men go through most of their military careers with injuries and never reported them. But we hacked that up in another thread not too long ago so I won't bother here, no point.

True, but a man's entire hip isn't going to come apart mid mission if he fails to report an injury either.

Stress fractures in major load bearing bones are nothing to take lightly.
 
It doesn't matter who's "fault" the problem might or might not be. What matters is that we are creating problems which do not need to exist more or less for the Hell of it.

Just because a car could theoretically drive with oval, rather than round wheels, would that make building one that way a good idea when regular round wheels already work just fine?

The fact of the matter is that we're complicating things here for no objective benefit whatsoever. It's simply a bad way to run an institution on which the survival of our nation could very well depend some day.



Even if they meet the requirements, it is doubtful that they would be able to fight as well as a man. Just because a woman can do "X" amount of repetitions of a certain exercise, doesn't mean that she also weighs 170 lbs or has the physical strength and aggression necessary to successfully bayonet some crazed Chinese or Iranian infantryman trying to do the same to her.

That is also not the direction the military is going with this particular policy either way regardless. They are trying to push for reduced standards.



Eh. Not really.

Just because some breeds of dogs are already known to maul and eat toddlers, would that make deliberately going out of your way to make sure dogs and toddlers spent more time together a good idea?

I think this entire post is bull.
 
If you say so. :shrug:

Everything I've said is simple common sense.

No it isn't because there are PLENTY of people in the military who are not "screwing around." Just because you are weak doesn't mean everyone else is.
 
Back
Top Bottom