• 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

joko104 said:
The view that the Marines consist singularly of ground assault soldiers is naïve and false. And hand-to-hand combat is increasingly irrelevant anyway. Are men inherently better shots? If not, then the complaint is nothing.

In addition, there are many situations where women would be more suited than men in foreign countries, given that men aren't even allowed in some settings, just like women are not in other settings. There are situations where women would be more persuasive.

One real problem Hitler had taking Stalingrad was German troops were limited only to men, Russian troops were not. Women served not only in front line combat groups, but numerous support roles too. I have no doubt German troops were not laughing about Russian women in the infantry before it was over - particularly the women operating machine gun nests. Germans had pushed the Stalingrad defense to just a few blocks - and if you study that even in detail you find it was Russia having both women and men in frontline combat that made the difference. But for women, Stalingrad would have fallen - and if it had the war would have proceeded in an entirely different direction - opening Russian oil to Germany and kept a couple hundred thousand more Germans on the Western front.

It has often been pointed out that whether it be Muslim or otherwise, a society that only uses 1/2 it's population are also those most impoverished and limited societies.

Women have some inherent superiorities. For example, on average women can take more pain than a man.

But, on the bottom line, the measure of a good soldier being the one who can do the most pull-ups is - simply put - absurd. Even for Marines.
Click to expand...

And the Soviets got women out of those units as quick as they could because they were not as effective as men and they created problems at the small unit level.

Nobody in the Marine Core ever said whoever can do the most pull ups is the measure of a good Marine. Period. A complete and deliberate misrepresentation on your part.
 
joko104 said:
What a bunch of junk.
Click to expand...

No, it's facts and truths that don't agree with your social driven agenda causing you to refuse to accept reality.
 
disneydude said:
LOL....people like you are what bring down our military. I would venture to say that our military is better today than it was back in your day because it isn't filled with the same level of sexists and homophobes that it used to. Keep bad-mouthing the military Apdst....they'll keep protecting you regardless.
Click to expand...

So you don't mind "saying" things you know nothing about.

Lets pretend for a minute that the military used to be full of sexists and homophobes. Getting rid of them improved the fighting capabilities of a small infantry or tank unit, exactly how?
 
joko104 said:
Pull ups. :lamo

Yes, the next war will be decided by who is better with a battle ax. :roll:

Give me a statistic of who many enemy casualties we caused and we suffered in hand-to-hand unarmed combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, since it appears many believe that still determined the outcome of a battle?
Click to expand...

Another example of just how completely clueless you are on this subject.

Lots of troops that closed with the enemy in the urban environment started carry around high tech tomahawks because of it's many uses in such an environment. But you are inadvertently correct, the tomahawks were not being used to decide the outcome of a war. They were being used to see who survived a fight at the individual level.

Get a grip on reality.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Sorry but despite what you misrepresent, nobody is badmouthing the troops. Period. The badmouthing is aimed at stupid political leaders who could not care less about our soldiers getting killed just as long as they make their politically correct points. You don't either. If you did you would never consider supporting this type nonsense but then your ass has never been on the line and it never will so with you the problem is out of sight and out of mine.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Then why don't you support them by standing against politically correct politicians that don't care if they get them killed? You have joined an immoral crusade to get them killed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
So you don't mind "saying" things you know nothing about.

Lets pretend for a minute that the military used to be full of sexists and homophobes. Getting rid of them improved the fighting capabilities of a small infantry or tank unit, exactly how?
Click to expand...

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.
 
I still say if a woman can pass all the tests (the equivalent of the ones that the men have to pass), then I see no reason why she shouldn't be allowed to be in the military. Using the excuse that the men and women can't control themselves is a piss poor excuse and just not true.
 
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...

The think the idea that lowering standards to expand the base makes for a stronger military isn't all that bright.
 
ChrisL said:
I still say if a woman can pass all the tests (the equivalent of the ones that the men have to pass), then I see no reason why she shouldn't be allowed to be in the military. Using the excuse that the men and women can't control themselves is a piss poor excuse and just not true.
Click to expand...

Young men put into war alongside women has been known to cause problems for centuries.
 
It seems to me that this train has already left the station. Women WILL be in combat roles in today's military.

It seems to me that the questions should now move to how best to prepare and use women in combat situations.
 
Henrin said:
The think the idea that lowering standards to expand the base makes for a stronger military isn't all that bright.
Click to expand...

LOL.....perhaps if your idea of a military does not include intelligence.
 
Henrin said:
The think the idea that lowering standards to expand the base makes for a stronger military isn't all that bright.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Henrin said:
Young men put into war alongside women has been known to cause problems for centuries.
Click to expand...

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.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....perhaps if your idea of a military does not include intelligence.
Click to expand...

Really now, you laughed? Do you really think that lowering the standards makes for a stronger unit?
 
joko104 said:
What a bunch of junk.
Click to expand...

:roll: multiple combat veterans have posted the exact same thing, the exact same experience, in this forum. Thank you at least for replying in such a manner as to demonstrate the vacuity of your position.
 
ChrisL said:
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 doesn't matter if you think it's a poor excuse. It is reality. In combat ignoring reality get's you killed. Frankly, I'm not willing for any more of my friends to die so that others can pat themselves on the back about how "fair" they are being.
 
cpwill said:
It doesn't matter if you think it's a poor excuse. It is reality. In combat ignoring reality get's you killed. Frankly, I'm not willing for any more of my friends to die so that others can pat themselves on the back about how "fair" they are being.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong. It's an excuse to say that they cannot control themselves, and a terrible one at that. :roll:
 
ChrisL said:
cpwill said:
Now is the part where (typically) the response is "professionalism" and my response is "reality - and in reality appealing to professionalism to paper over real problems results in more dead 18 year old kids" No thanks. I've said enough good-bye's to last me at least until I'm old enough that at least my friends are dying of old age.
Click to expand...


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?
Click to expand...

:doh

Sure. If you want to stop hiring people for the military until they are in their late 20s early 30s, you push that. Then the military will be even less effective.

We need young, strong, bodies whose brains are convinced they are invincible, and who are capable of carrying crushing loads immense distances before killing other human beings and then celebrating in that fact. That means 18-22 year olds. You take out that demographic, you've taken out the vast majority of the military.

Complaining that the infantry doesn't run like your adult, professional workplace is like complaining that a frat house has more drinking than your mormon temple. It is the nature of the people in the frat house that it will be so. The "well we should just press the magical 'professionalism' button" is an attempt to paper over a real problem, which is that you are introducing sexual tension into units who cannot afford distractions. But the actual cover for that problem isn't going to be a piece of paper that says "oh, also teach them a class on how they should all be professional". We are going to actually pay that cover charge in denominations of young boys and girls screaming their guts out on a battlefield in some ****hole country. Because that is what happens when you reduce the ability of your rifle squad to operate as a single, integrated entity.


Now, if that's the price you want us to pay for you being able to pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that at least you made everything fair? :shrug: The military answers to civilian control - we'll roger up, it's what we signed the paper to do. But we at least deserve that you make that decision deliberately and recognize the tradeoff. Our lives have at least that much value.
 
ChrisL said:
I think you are wrong. It's an excuse to say that they cannot control themselves, and a terrible one at that. :roll:
Click to expand...

It's not an excuse, it's an accurate depiction of reality. 18-22 year old men have powerful sex drives, and aren't noted by their ability to avoid being distracted by them, or their incredibly high-quality decision-making as pertains to them.

As a matter of curiosity, given that you flatly put out that I am in fact wrong, how much time, exactly, have you spent in the Infantry? Or the deployed military at all?


I've been in both all male units when I was in the infantry, and I've been in mixed-gender units since I moved to intel. I've seen the stupid drama that comes with taking what are basically high school kids of both genders and putting them in close, high-pressure contact but with no time to afford for mommy and daddy style adult supervision. I've seen the way that all-male units integrate better because of that, the way that the all-male units don't suffer from the distractions of the drama, have better team coordination, even learn to think as a single unit. Rifle Squads can develop corporate personalities, really. And I've seen that fall apart when women were introduced.

The other combat veterans who has been part of an infantry unit that has seen women come out to the fob in this forum has said pretty much the exact same thing. At the least if the people who would actually know from personal direct experience say that this would put their lives in danger, and if you claim at all to support the members of the military, you at least owe us the consideration to consider the notion that perhaps know what we are talking about when we say that.
 
Last edited:
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...

Recruiting men right out of high school is the best approach outside of starting them much younger. The reason for this simple. While you would like to start programming young men in their early teens you can still program them just fine when they eighteen, but not nearly as successfully later. The men that sign up and the men they desire are aggressive and likely aren't the best representatives of self control and in many ways that is desirable for the job.
 
cpwill said:
It's not an excuse, it's an accurate depiction of reality.

As a matter of curiosity, given that you flatly put out that I am in fact wrong, how much time, exactly, have you spent in the Infantry?
Click to expand...

I don't have to be in the military to understand that human beings are intelligent creatures, able to know right from wrong and able to practice amazing self control when necessary.
 
Henrin said:
Recruiting men right out of high school is the best approach outside of starting them much younger. The reason for this simple. While you would like to start programming young men in their early teens you can still program them just fine when they eighteen, but not nearly as successfully later. The men that sign up and the men they desire are aggressive and likely aren't the best representatives of self control and in many ways that is desirable for the job.
Click to expand...

I understand that theory, but they are supposed to be self-disciplined. In that case, if I was the enemy, I'd just send a bunch of hot women in bikinis or even nude and could win the war. :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
I don't have to be in the military to understand that human beings are intelligent creatures, able to know right from wrong and able to practice amazing self control when necessary.
Click to expand...

:lol: so no, you have no particular experience to draw on to tell me that my description of what actually happens in real life, the real life where people die from this kind of crap is wrong.
 
ChrisL said:
I understand that theory, but they are supposed to be self-disciplined.
Click to expand...

Sure. That doesn't mean perfect self control, and it doesn't mean that they aren't 18-22 year old males. It simply is an ideal that we try to teach them to strive for. And when you introduce women into the mix, it makes that striving, keeping good order and discipline, exponentially harder.

Why do you think that they had to start threatening courts-martials for people who became pregnant while in-country? Because it wasn't a problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom