• 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

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...

Precisely. When you are looking for someone to mold into the kind of person best suited to locating closing with and destroying the enemy through fire and maneuver and/or repelling his assault through fire and close combat, the demographic you need is also the one most likely to be controlled by his genetalia.
 
cpwill said:
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?
Click to expand...

Why is a pregnancy such a big problem, just give her maternity leave and then have her come back, like any other job. It's no different than if a male member gets ill or suffers an injury or something. Why would court martials be necessary? It's not a permanent condition.
 
cpwill said:
: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.
Click to expand...

Why do you claim they're dying because of women? That's silly. Post some evidence of this actually happening.
 
Ikari said:
I don't mind the mixing of sexes into the military, but it shouldn't come at the cost of lowering standards. Anyone who can meet the established standards should be allowed to join; but you should have to meet the established standards.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I agree and I support equality in hiring decisions.

So anyone who can't do the job shouldn't get the job.

Fair and simple.
 
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...
.
Click to expand...




Anyone in the United States Military who violates the UCMJ will pay a price for their lack of self control.
 
shrubnose said:
Anyone in the United States Military who violates the UCMJ will pay a price for their lack of self control.
Click to expand...

As it should be IMO.
 
shrubnose said:
Anyone in the United States Military who violates the UCMJ will pay a price for their lack of self control.
Click to expand...

No one ever said they wouldn't.
 
ChrisL said:
Why is a pregnancy such a big problem, just give her maternity leave and then have her come back, like any other job.
Click to expand...

It's not like any other job, Chris. When you lose a person on a deployment that reduces your combat efficiency and puts every other person in danger. It has the exact same effect on your combat power as a KIA. If WalMart loses a good manager for a couple months of maternity leave, KMart doesn't get to kill two associates, but Al-Qaeda does. This isn't like your job - in the infantry you sleep together, bathe together, train together, relax together, you're together 24 hours a day, face-to-face proximity, while people are actively trying to kill you. You stay alive when you operate seamlessly as a team, a team that is usually closer than your family. That's why I point out that individual qualifications are irrelevant except inasmuch as they speak to your ability to help the team operate as a team. I'd rather have a mediocre machine gunner who was great at building morale among his fellows than an uber-competent Rambo who introduced tensions into the group any day of the week. Because the first guy doesn't detract from our ability to operate as a team.

Why would court martials be necessary? It's not a permanent condition.
Click to expand...

Because A) it reduces combat power, thereby putting other peoples' lives at risk and B) it marks a breakdown in good order and discipline, which the military requires in order to keep from turning into an armed mob.
 
ChrisL said:
Why do you claim they're dying because of women? That's silly. Post some evidence of this actually happening.
Click to expand...

You die when you lose the ability to operate as a team, and you die when the combat power of your unit and your support units is degraded. That's why everyone who has been there, been part of the infantry, and has posted on this forum about this subject, shares pretty much the same opinion. Women in the infantry are a distraction - distractions reduce your ability to focus on mission - reduced ability to focus on mission means degraded performance - degraded performance means higher casualties.

They don't do stuff like this because it's Thursday, they do it because it's becoming such a problem that you have to get a General Officer involved.


Tell me, Chris. Why do you think that the infantry veterans here all come back with the stories and claims of "yeah, when they brought out females it really effected the unit in negative ways", if that is not true. Are we all making it up?
 
ChrisL said:
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:
Click to expand...

I really don't think you understand. Recruiting young men with certain traits has been a practice for centuries and while we are no longer recruiting young boys to start training we are still recruiting an age group young enough to instill the desirable mindset. What you are dealing with here is not simply theory at this point, but something that is tried and true and known to create the best warriors.
 
cpwill said:
It's not like any other job, Chris. When you lose a person on a deployment that reduces your combat efficiency and puts every other person in danger. It has the exact same effect on your combat power as a KIA. If WalMart loses a good manager for a couple months of maternity leave, KMart doesn't get to kill two associates, but Al-Qaeda does. This isn't like your job - in the infantry you sleep together, bathe together, train together, relax together, you're together 24 hours a day, face-to-face proximity, while people are actively trying to kill you. You stay alive when you operate seamlessly as a team, a team that is usually closer than your family. That's why I point out that individual qualifications are irrelevant except inasmuch as they speak to your ability to help the team operate as a team. I'd rather have a mediocre machine gunner who was great at building morale among his fellows than an uber-competent Rambo who introduced tensions into the group any day of the week. Because the first guy doesn't detract from our ability to operate as a team.



Because A) it reduces combat power, thereby putting other peoples' lives at risk and B) it marks a breakdown in good order and discipline, which the military requires in order to keep from turning into an armed mob.
Click to expand...

I was wondering how feeding a baby on the front lines in a combat situation thousands of miles from home might work out! Will nannies be hired?

Greetings, cpwill. :2wave:
 
polgara said:
I was wondering how feeding a baby on the front lines in a combat situation thousands of miles from home might work out! Will nannies be hired?

Greetings, cpwill. :2wave:
Click to expand...

:) Hey Polgara.


Women who become pregnant have the option to just get out of their contract (leave the military alltogether) or simply not be in a deployed status. This creates a significant problem for the mixed-gender units, as it is not uncommon for females to become pregnant in order to avoid deployment, leaving the unit less capable of fulfilling its mission. You can't admit that that's what you did, so you claim the pregnancy was unintended.

Which is why "unplanned pregnancies" in the military are 50% higher than they are in the civilian world

"Overall, 11 percent of female service personnel scheduled to ship out were not able to in the previous year because of a pregnancy."

Taking 11% casualties before you even step out the door is friggin catastrophic.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Really now, you laughed? Do you really think that lowering the standards makes for a stronger unit?
Click to expand...

Today's world requires a smarter military than it did in the past. Wars are not fought the same way that they were in the 1940's and 50's. Getting rid of the lower intelligence in the military absolutely strengthens our military.
 
disneydude said:
Today's world requires a smarter military than it did in the past. Wars are not fought the same way that they were in the 1940's and 50's. Getting rid of the lower intelligence in the military absolutely strengthens our military.
Click to expand...

Then aren't we fortunate that our military today is both smarter and more educated than at any time in our history :).
 
They're gonna make the women wear Pull-Ups?

night_time.jpg
 
disneydude said:
Sorry.....our military is not dumb. You do a disservice to the men and women who wear the uniforms when you demean them like that.
Click to expand...

Dumbing down as in lowering the physical and academic standards in the name of political correctness.

Giving Obama a second chance last year was a disservice to our men and women who wear the uniform.
 
disneydude said:
Today's world requires a smarter military than it did in the past. Wars are not fought the same way that they were in the 1940's and 50's. Getting rid of the lower intelligence in the military absolutely strengthens our military.
Click to expand...

Not exactly true Disneydude. Because of technology many MOS's and ratings have lowered their minimum scores on qualifying for many jobs.

For example my old MOS was 0849, (Shore Fire Control Party Man) a navel gunfire spotter, comparable to an artillery forward observer.
With only a map, compass, binoculars with mills on the lenses to determine distances using mathematical calculations in your head and a radio, I had to determine exactly where I was on a map using only a compass, had to determine the coordinates and altitude of the target and be able to determine the distance to the target and be able to spot the round and determine if the round is over, short or has to be adjusted left or right to bring it on target. Also had to come up with a compass bearing (True or Magnetic) from my position to the target.

Back during the Vietnam war the minimum GCT for that MOS was 110. I watched over the past few decades the GCT being dumbed down to 105 then to 100 today. I asked why is that ? I was told today a NGF spotter has all of the above, map, compass, binoculars and a radio but today they also have GPS to tell them where they are. Laser range finders to determine range and distance. Laser target designators. A calculator eliminating doing mathematical calculations in your head while being shot at during a fire fight. And a radio that actually works. Today you need less in the brain housing department to get a round on target.

On the other end in the FSCC and FCC and on the gun plot rooms aboard ships you no longer see slide rules, rulers, protractors, compass, dividers, etc. It's all can be done on a calculator, no thinking involved. You no longer have to be a mathematician.
 
cpwill said:
It's not like any other job, Chris. When you lose a person on a deployment that reduces your combat efficiency and puts every other person in danger. It has the exact same effect on your combat power as a KIA. If WalMart loses a good manager for a couple months of maternity leave, KMart doesn't get to kill two associates, but Al-Qaeda does. This isn't like your job - in the infantry you sleep together, bathe together, train together, relax together, you're together 24 hours a day, face-to-face proximity, while people are actively trying to kill you. You stay alive when you operate seamlessly as a team, a team that is usually closer than your family. That's why I point out that individual qualifications are irrelevant except inasmuch as they speak to your ability to help the team operate as a team. I'd rather have a mediocre machine gunner who was great at building morale among his fellows than an uber-competent Rambo who introduced tensions into the group any day of the week. Because the first guy doesn't detract from our ability to operate as a team.



Because A) it reduces combat power, thereby putting other peoples' lives at risk and B) it marks a breakdown in good order and discipline, which the military requires in order to keep from turning into an armed mob.
Click to expand...

I missed your link to where a .308 fired by a woman has less muzzle velocity than a .308 fired by a woman. Please post it.

If not, you got nothing but YOUR claim that Marines are uncontrollable, testosterone driven lose cannons incapable of following the hierarchy of command and who will gang rape any woman they come across.

You aren't the only person who despises the Marines, as that is what it really boils down to.

And unless you served in combat with women, all your talk about a your knowledge is actually non-existence.

Yes, they claimed that white soldiers would never follow black officers too. And they were just as wrong. The USA did just fine under an African-American head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
 
Training of Marines overall needs to change from EVERY former Marine I've known. The question is NOT just how a Marine performs in the military, but how they conduct themselves when they leave the Marines and enter civilian society.

The level of derogatory sexism and often outright misogyny is high and destructive - to both the former Marine and his wife and children. They marry extremely submissive women - for which her lack of power allows the former Marine father to treat his children as privates in his personal little army. Their marriages and families tend to be disasters.

A job of a soldier is to follow the hierarchy of rank for orders. Any person incapable of doing so should not be enlisted. If enlisted and refuses to follow the hierarchy of command, regardless of the race or gender of the higher ranking officer, should minimally be dishonorably discharged.

It is not only a question of whether or not no women are worthy of being a Marine - which on it's face is an absurd question. There also is the effects of the extreme efforts to convince Marines they are testosterone invincible warriors who should by virtue of being male then dominate women because they are more powerful - believing "power" is measured in physical strength, which has little to no relevancy in civilian life after service and can be very destructive to the Marine and all he interacts with, particularly his own nuclear family. The question is not just about Marines in the Marines, but Marines after their enlistment is over.

The same OMG! IT WILL DESTROY THE MILITARY! has been declared in relation to minorities. Been declared in relation to non-citizens in service. Been declared in relation to gays. And now declared in relation to women. It's always a bunch of counter productive BS.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
I missed your link to where a .308 fired by a woman has less muzzle velocity than a .308 fired by a woman. Please post it.

If not, you got nothing but YOUR claim that Marines are uncontrollable, testosterone driven lose cannons incapable of following the hierarchy of command and who will gang rape any woman they come across.

You aren't the only person who despises the Marines, as that is what it really boils down to.

And unless you served in combat with women, all your talk about a your knowledge is actually non-existence.

Yes, they claimed that white soldiers would never follow black officers too. And they were just as wrong. The USA did just fine under an African-American head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Click to expand...

:lol: If you bother to read the posts you are responding to then you will note that A: Your arguments are strawmen and B: In fact I have served in combat with women.

...But you don't. Because actual learning would hinder your ability to hold your position in this thread :).
 
All militaries historically face the problem of old dogs in the military having intense opposition to change.

The German's so easily overran France because their military leaders - in their 70s and 80s - not only planned for another WWI trench warfare, but even tried to address the German invasion with WWI tactics during the invasion.

The US military is no exception. The extreme resistance to semi-automatic weapons. Resistance to the relevancy of air power. Resistance to the relevancy of aircraft carriers. The resistance to the increasing cost inefficient of battleships. Resistance to racial integration. Resistance to allowing non-citizens in combat. The Japanese army learned that bravado doesn't win battles, it gets troops killed en mass and loses the battle. How many decades before the military accepted that swords are no longer worth what their weight then prohibited in the alternative? It will never end.

ANY TIME the military faces potential change, the old dogs throw up every obstacle they can dream up.

In this debate, the old dogs are claiming that wars of the future will still be fought in unarmed hand to hand combat and the army that can march on foot and carry the heaviest packs the longest distance quickest wins. Wars of the future are mostly going to be won by who can best play video games and understands electronics.
 
cpwill said:
:lol: If you bother to read the posts you are responding to then you will note that A: Your arguments are strawmen and B: In fact I have served in combat with women.

...But you don't. Because actual learning would hinder your ability to hold your position in this thread :).
Click to expand...

Well excuse me. What battle was it the USA lost because there were women in combat?
 
joko104 said:
Well excuse me. What battle was it the USA lost because there were women in combat?
Click to expand...

Another strawman? No one has suggested that the presence of women in combat will cause the US to lose major battles. We are saying that they will detract from the ability of combat units such as the infantry to function as a single integrated team, reducing their combat efficiency and resulting in increased casualties.

All militaries historically face the problem of old dogs in the military having intense opposition to change.
Click to expand...

I'm 30. Feel free to poll the other veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan on this forum who have all told ya'll the exact same thing based on direct, personal experience.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Training of Marines overall needs to change from EVERY former Marine I've known. The question is NOT just how a Marine performs in the military, but how they conduct themselves when they leave the Marines and enter civilian society.

The level of derogatory sexism and often outright misogyny is high and destructive - to both the former Marine and his wife and children. They marry extremely submissive women - for which her lack of power allows the former Marine father to treat his children as privates in his personal little army. Their marriages and families tend to be disasters.

A job of a soldier is to follow the hierarchy of rank for orders. Any person incapable of doing so should not be enlisted. If enlisted and refuses to follow the hierarchy of command, regardless of the race or gender of the higher ranking officer, should minimally be dishonorably discharged.

It is not only a question of whether or not no women are worthy of being a Marine - which on it's face is an absurd question. There also is the effects of the extreme efforts to convince Marines they are testosterone invincible warriors who should by virtue of being male then dominate women because they are more powerful - believing "power" is measured in physical strength, which has little to no relevancy in civilian life after service and can be very destructive to the Marine and all he interacts with, particularly his own nuclear family. The question is not just about Marines in the Marines, but Marines after their enlistment is over.

The same OMG! IT WILL DESTROY THE MILITARY! has been declared in relation to minorities. Been declared in relation to non-citizens in service. Been declared in relation to gays. And now declared in relation to women. It's always a bunch of counter productive BS.
Click to expand...

APPLAUSE :applaud :applaud :applaud
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom