• 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

The important thing is that male members must remember that female members are PEOPLE and human beings, just like they are, and to treat them as a team mate and a colleague instead of a sexual interest just because she happens to be female.

LOL. You don't plan on winning any war you find yourself in.
 
[h=2]World War II[/h]Main article: Soviet women in World War II

Women, members of Sydir Kovpak's partisan formation in Ukraine


Women played a large part in most of the armed forces of the Second World War. In most countries though, women tended to serve mostly in administrative, medical and in auxiliary roles. But in the Soviet Union women fought in larger numbers in front line roles. Over 800,000 women served in the Soviet armed forces in World War II; nearly 200,000 of them were decorated and 89 of them eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. They served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles.[SUP][1][/SUP] Very few of these women, however, were ever promoted to officers.
[h=3]Aviators[/h]For Soviet women aviators, instrumental to this change was Marina Raskova, a famous Russian aviator, often referred to[SUP][by whom?][/SUP] as the ‘Russian Amelia Earhart’. Raskova became a famous aviator as both a pilot and a navigator in the 1930s. She was the first woman to become a navigator in the Soviet Air Force in 1933. Raskova is credited with using her personal connections with Joseph Stalin to convince the military to form three combat regiments for women. The Soviet Union was the first nation to allow women pilots to fly combat missions. These regiments flew a combined total of more than 30,000 combat sorties, produced at least thirty Heroes of the Soviet Union, and included at least two fighter aces. This military unit was initially called Aviation Group 122 while the three regiments received training. After their training, the three regiments received their formal designations as the 586th Fighter Aviation Regiment, the 46th Taman Guards Night Bomber Aviation Regiment and the 125th Guards Bomber Aviation Regiment.
[h=3]Land forces[/h]The Soviet Union also used women for sniping duties extensively, and to great effect, including Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya and Ukrainian Lyudmila Pavlichenko (who killed over 300 enemy soldiers). The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, careful, deliberate, can avoid hand-to-hand combat, and need higher levels of aerobic conditioning than other troops. Women also served as machine gunners, tank drivers, medics, communication personnel and political officers. Manshuk Mametova was a machine gunner from Kazakhstan and was the first Soviet Asian woman to receive the Hero of the Soviet Union for acts of bravery.

image-416809-galleryV9-vxul.jpg


German prisoners marched out of Stalingrad. At least they could take joy in not having the indignity of having German women fighting at their side. Just the indignity of losing to Russians who had tens of thousands of Russian combat troops at their side.
 
Didn't see this coming :roll: Female Marines have received ample time (over a year) to prepare for this test which, oh by the way, still isn't to the same standard that it is for males. Sure, they have to get the same bare minimum of 3 that males get. However, their max is 8 whereas mine is 20. So, on a maximum 300 point physical fitness test (PFT) where each of the 3 events (pull ups, crunches, 3 mile run) has the potential to give you 100 points, a female Marine only has to do 40% of the work I have to in order to get 100 points for her pull ups on her PFT. I call bogus. That enables her to be as competitive for promotion as me without having to do the work that I do. Not to mention that she can run her 3 miles in 21 minutes to receive 100 points for that while I have to run it in 18 minutes. If you've ever run a 5K, 3 minutes is an eternity between two runners.

Some of you will say "Well, that score is only part of what is looked at when considering promotion." I will submit this to you. Every promotion board for E-6, E-7, and E-8/E-9 (this board is conducted jointly) in the Marine Corps has an after action review written for it. In every one of those after action reviews, the board members are asked "What is the first tie breaker between two Marines if there is one spot left in their MOS field to promote?" The answer is ALWAYS "Their PFT score".

Now, some on this site will say that I am butt hurt because 3 females passed our infantry course. That is mentioned in the article. Not the case. When I know that 16 females began the course and only 3 passed, I'm not worried. Of the 16, 9 failed due to performance reasons. That leaves 7. Of those 7, 4 broke due to hip and knee problems. Those are the classic female breaking points that I've seen in most female injuries. Those occur very frequently at Parris Island as well. So, we have the 3 left. Now, for males, approximately 79% make it through infantry training. 10% of them are dropped for medical reasons. That leaves approximately 11% for performance/legal issues. For those of you who are Marines, it's the classic, always spoken of, 10% that fail. Also of note, the females were required to carry each other during casualty evacuation, movement courses, etc. So, a female weighing 110lbs-140lbs is carrying around her equivalent weight while the males are slinging whichever casualty they see over their shoulder. Again, I call bogus. I'm not a big fan of this social engineering crap. DADT was another issue. I wasn't a supporter of that. It wasn't performance based. A gay guy can fireman's carry a casualty just as effectively (though the casualty may be uncomfortable:2razz:) as a straight guy. But the vast majority of females cannot do the same. This is a performance thing for me. It is a logistical thing. It is a morale thing. Our military is the best in the world yet we want to mess with the very core of its competence. The members of it. I'm not a big fan.

Corps Delays Pull-Up Requirements for Female Marines | TIME.com

Yeah - performance overall is the only reason I've opposed let ins with altered standards.

They should set overall ability standards, and anyone who meets those standards can engage - and those who can't, don't. Gender wouldn't matter. It would result in less women qualifying, but at least they're not qualifying based on their own abilities (or lack of) - thus putting it on the individual and not on engineered social standards.

Though I'm not quite sure why you're citing injury stats - if one is injured certainly you don't want them in. It seemed, for a moment, that you were arguing the opposite: that the standards were too harsh for both men and women. (though by the end it was clear you weren't)
 
Logic and social placement are not diametric opposites.
Oh but they can be and many times are.

The purpose of the military is to protect society, not have society subservient to the military.
Good. You got one thing right anyway.

If the military has practices or policies contrary to best social interests, the practice or policy must be changed.
Really? So we must change the fact that our military is designed to kill other people? Explain how we gain from such a change.

FEW soldiers will ever be in combat - and as wars become more technology based even less so.
Dummies have been saying this type nonsense since the end of WW1. A person would think as many times as it's been proven to be nuts, some people that buy into it would learn better. Guesss not.

But 100% become members of civilian society - and bring with them the attitudes ground into them during their formative young adult years in the military.
No, not true. Many die before they ever get the chance to reenter civilian society. But the vast majority of those that do retain the positive attributes learned while serving in the military. Excluding some retired generals of course.

There is a saying of "once a Marine, always a Marine." So what about the 30, 40, 50, 60 years after they are an active Marine?
What about it?

Near complete illogic on your part.
 
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, there are only male and female Marines. There are no people, human beings, girls, boys, or any other pansy-ass ****.

I don't see how this makes any sense.
 
LOL. You don't plan on winning any war you find yourself in.

Well according to your theory, all I'd have to do is take my shirt off. :roll:
 
You're arguing with someone who is now just arguing to argue. He is taking the position that a tank platoon goes into combat in total isolation for months at a time, completely cut off from supplies - for which month after month a pregnant soldier would be stuck there. Actually, tanks run out of fuel very quickly.

In fact, the military requires soldiers allow all sorts of drugs be injected into them - like it or not. Nothing would prevent women in combat to be tested for pregnancy and injected with a month's long contraceptive slow release capsule, which many women now use anyway.

Of course, if she can. Not everyone can take all birth control methods though. I'm just thinking that it's not like a pregnancy is something that happens often in most cases, so I don't see what the big deal is.
 
Since when is getting pregnant an illness?

I'm saying that there are times when men may need to take some time too, so it's really not much different.
 
I can give you plenty of real life examples where lacking physical capabilities can cost lives. Imagine you're patrolling up a mountain in enemy territory, loaded with 100+ lbs of gear, and the entire patrol has to wait for the weakest link, and people have to start carrying that person's gear for them, thus weighing the team down even further. Because of this delay you can't make your rendevous point and your ride out (helicopter, which you have very limited use of), has to come back at another time, so your patrol is stranded in enemy territory. I know, because I've personally seen this happen.

The fact is simple, women have a fraction of the physical requirements, even in the infantry, that men do. That is a HUUUUGE problem. These women that passed will be the weakest links in their units. I'm confused why you would defend lowering the quality of our combat arms. Physical fitness DOES matter, and it matters a LOT. If women want to be part of combat arms, they should meet the same requirements their teammates do.

Frankly though, the unit would just put that weak link back in the fob watching a radio or something, but then again maybe she'll complain of discrimination and they'd have to take her anyway.



I have personally been outside the wire without resupply for weeks at a time. This is a very real scenario, please do not talk about things you have ZERO idea or experience of.



Your massive ignorance of the physical requirements of modern combat is undeniable. You seem to picture all war as riding around a tank in the middle of baghdad.

When in reality it looks like this:

size0.jpg



It must have been a real challenge being weeks in another country with the entire rest of the military out of the country and on vacation. That's your point, right?

Could you fly an F-35B? If not, what the hell good were you and you should have been washed out. That's your point, huh?

This messages such as yours of "no woman could do what I did as a grunt!" are less than pointless. A bizarre view that the military consists solely of small squads of foot soldiers trekking off into the wilderness for months at a time ready to battle it out with combat knives - for which the rest of the military should just be eliminated as irrelevant.

Yeah, the military had a role and need for guys such as you. And being so low in status within military structure they grind in how greatly important guys like you are - the cannon fodder guys as the express goes. And you were important too. I don't mean to say otherwise. But your view that you were everything and everyone else was nothing? Naw, you took the head swelling too seriously.

Our military doesn't kill more of the enemy because of our infantry. although our infantry has been excellent. It is because we have better technocrats in the military and in the civilian sector supporting the military.
 
It must have been a real challenge being weeks in another country with the entire rest of the military out of the country and on vacation. That's your point, right?

Could you fly an F-35B? If not, what the hell good were you and you should have been washed out. That's your point, huh?

This messages such as yours of "no woman could do what I did as a grunt!" are less than pointless. A bizarre view that the military consists solely of small squads of foot soldiers trekking off into the wilderness for months at a time ready to battle it out with combat knives - for which the rest of the military should just be eliminated as irrelevant.

Yeah, the military had a role and need for guys such as you. And being so low in status within military structure they grind in how greatly important guys like you are - the cannon fodder guys as the express goes. And you were important too. I don't mean to say otherwise. But your view that you were everything and everyone else was nothing? Naw, you took the head swelling too seriously.

Our military doesn't kill more of the enemy because of our infantry. although our infantry has been excellent. It is because we have better technocrats in the military and in the civilian sector supporting the military.

Holy ****ing ****. Are you serious right now? Show me one time where I said "no woman could do what I did as a grunt!" You realize we're talking about women joining combat arms right?

Basically, you stuck your dick out and made a bunch of highly misinformed statements about physical fitness being irrelevant in modern combat, and I corrected you. You claimed there were no examples where lack of physical fitness could get anyone killed, so I gave you one. Tell me why women should not be held to the same physical standards as men.

Secondly, it was a 15 month deployment, so I have no idea what you're talking about with "weeks", nor do I have any idea what you mean about me flying an F-35B. If that was the job I was shooting for, I would make sure I met the ****ing standards, and didn't try to get in by doing far less than my colleagues.

It is highly unpleasant talking to you, especially when you go off on such random ****ing tangents after I corrected you. I've stated from the beginning that women should have to meet the same standards as men for the same job. That is equality. If you'd like to explain to me why they should get a free pass, please do.
 
And you don't have any clue that the American military consists of more than infantry and tank platoons.
LOL. Provide proof. LOL. You don't know what you don't know.

One direction the military is headed is obvious - technology. But the other is assassination (they call it otherwise).
Killing our enemies is now assassination? if you say so. Sounds a lot better than allowing them to continue to work to kill us. Or do you disagree?

Technology isn't gender specific contrary to your view of things. And there are missions where women could get in where men could not. How many decades was it before our military FINALLY recognized that the enemies were using their women to kill our soldiers?
Provide an example of such. One thing our military has been very good at generally, is catching on relatively quick to what our enemy is up to.

- Our troops conditioned to only see men as warriors?
Since when?
 
Of course, if she can. Not everyone can take all birth control methods though. I'm just thinking that it's not like a pregnancy is something that happens often in most cases, so I don't see what the big deal is.

Losing a soldier while conducting combat operations that could have easily been avoided is not a big deal?
 
Losing a soldier while conducting combat operations that could have easily been avoided is not a big deal?

Give me a break. It's not like they can't get a replacement. Pregnancy is a temporary situation and not always avoidable, especially if you're a married person.
 
My view of the Marines in combat comes from a former Marine who was a small squad leader for which his team was the first squad to go on foot securing village after village thru the Hellman District of Afghanistan all the way to the Pakistan border and back - that was the most remote and dangerous in the war. His relatives literally saw the Marines as having put him as a troublemaker in boot camp as head of a small squad of boot camp troublemakers on a virtual suicide mission to teach him and them a lesson.

He had volunteered specifically because he wanted the life experience of being a soldier killing the enemy. He enlisted to obtain that goal - the goal of hunting people in the context of war. He had hunted every other kind of animal before this. It wasn't for God and country. He was open to everyone why he was joining the Marines. Not a big guy, but state wrestling champ. Been hunting from the farm he grew on since a child. It was to experience being a soldier killing the enemy. To hunt humans in that context. He wanted to, as a soldier, hunt people. People who also were soldiers, so it a "fair" fight. Like hunting deer on their turf, where the deer get to shoot back.

In boot camp he defied his immediate CO in war exercises, claiming if he followed the CO's commands he would get his squad killed - so he wouldn't do it since the exercises were supposed to be real. In response, then they made him and a few other "won't do it" newbies play the role of the insurgents. The punishment didn't work. He and his squad not only would repel the Marines in exercises, he even pulled off the unthinkable - capturing a Marine and dragging him away - literally beating that Marine into submission and dragging him off - since it is suppose to be done as if "real." The absolute last thing our military wants is insurgents to capture a live soldier, and he and his small squad of boot camp enlistees playing as insurgents had done it.

So they sent him and that little squad to Afghanistan in the Hellman District, giving the order for them to go West to the Pakistan border, which is exactly what his squad did. This is what he wanted, to HUNT "the enemy." So, the entire time he was there, he and his little squad trekked across and around that district, absolutely not wanting any support, and with the heaviest weapon they had being 1 full auto - hunting and killing insurgents (or "the outsiders" as he called them). In the end, he said became boring. Word was preceding them and all potential targets would "run far away and hide." No artillery or air support. Just a small group of "hunters" with their hunting rifles - so to speak.

That no one was willing to even try to lay in ambush over - and they weren't sneaking around. They would camp in the open. Shout out via an interpreter for the cowards to come out and fight. Mano-e-mano. At first they would, and his squad would kill them. Word got around about that.

When he returned, he was offered a $100,oooK plus position via the Pentagon. They wanted him to train special OPs teams, because they told him that is the direction the military is headed. He felt the effort in Afghanistan was a total waste, that once they left everything would return to exactly as it was. It appears the military has come to agree. Large ground invasions and occupations to be a thing of the past.

Rather, it will be a two fold combination. Massive air power. Specific Special OPs hit squads to take out specific people and targets. That combination more effective - in results - and more cost efficient too.

He declined the offer nor re-enlisted. BTW, his squad did not suffer one casualty. They killed many of "the enemy."

There will always be a need for some infantry. But modern war outcomes wouldn't be decided by the infantry. It is just one element of a much, much bigger picture. The ability to carry a 100 pound pack mile after mile, day after day, might apply to maybe 10%, probably less, of our land military forces. Setting all standards around that 10% is nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
Who said that? besides you?

Please, that's the insinuation that you and others have made. That women are too "distracting" or that the men can't control themselves. It's retarded.
 
Give me a break. It's not like they can't get a replacement. Pregnancy is a temporary situation and not always avoidable, especially if you're a married person.

Nobody said they couldn't get a replacement. But they may not get one when they need it and won't get one that is 100% ready from the get go to help said unit complete it's mission. That takes time.
 
Please, that's the insinuation that you and others have made. That women are too "distracting" or that the men can't control themselves. It's retarded.

I never said such and never implied such. But I did state things in realistic terms.
 
Holy ****ing ****. Are you serious right now? Show me one time where I said "no woman could do what I did as a grunt!" You realize we're talking about women joining combat arms right?

Basically, you stuck your dick out and made a bunch of highly misinformed statements about physical fitness being irrelevant in modern combat, and I corrected you. You claimed there were no examples where lack of physical fitness could get anyone killed, so I gave you one. Tell me why women should not be held to the same physical standards as men.

Secondly, it was a 15 month deployment, so I have no idea what you're talking about with "weeks", nor do I have any idea what you mean about me flying an F-35B. If that was the job I was shooting for, I would make sure I met the ****ing standards, and didn't try to get in by doing far less than my colleagues.

It is highly unpleasant talking to you, especially when you go off on such random ****ing tangents after I corrected you. I've stated from the beginning that women should have to meet the same standards as men for the same job. That is equality. If you'd like to explain to me why they should get a free pass, please do.

Once again, you have an antiquated view of what "combat arms" is limited to meaning. You are claiming "physical ability" is relevant to 100% of everyone in any "combat" role. AND you limit physical ability to muscularity. I'm saying it's not, because that ceased to be the only definition of "combat role" a long time ago.

For example, Russians found that women actually make better snipers.

What I said, BTW, is that you nor anyone has given one example - ever - of women in a combat role has ever got anyone killed. If that would happen, why hasn't it? You just keep claiming it will - because you say so.

It isn't as if women in combat roles is an unknown. But for women in combat roles, Stalingrad would have fallen and that would have altered the entire war. I provided a "proof" of women being effective - as in DEADLY - in combat roles. You can not give even ONE example where they have not been nor ONE example where a woman in a combat role got "someone killed."

Believe it or not, the entire military isn't designed around guys "going over the wire."
 
Last edited:
Once again, you have an antiquated view of what "combat arms" is limited to meaning. You are claiming "physical ability" is relevant to 100% of everyone in any "combat" role. AND you limit physical ability to muscularity. I'm saying it's not, because that ceased to be the only definition of "combat role" a long time ago.

For example, Russians found that women actually make better snipers.

What I said, BTW, is that you nor anyone has given one example - ever - of women in a combat role has ever got anyone killed. If that would happen, why hasn't it? You just keep claiming it will - because you say so.

It isn't as if women in combat roles is an unknown. But for women in combat roles, Stalingrad would have fallen and that would have altered the entire war. I provided a "proof" of women being effective - as in DEADLY - in combat roles. You can not give even ONE example where they have not been nor ONE example where a woman in a combat role got "someone killed."

Believe it or not, the entire military isn't designed around guys "going over the wire."
Wtf.. You realize the women in question are joining the infantry right? Why do you have such a low opinion of women that you believe they could never pass the minimal male standards?

You dont seem to have any desire for equality whatsoever. You want two teammates to be held to massively different standards.

Have you ever spent a single day in the military or combat arms? Because everything youve said has been pulled directly out of your ass.
 
My view of the Marines in combat comes from a former Marine who was a small squad leader for which his team was the first squad to go on foot securing village after village thru the Hellman District of Afghanistan all the way to the Pakistan border and back - that was the most remote and dangerous in the war. His relatives literally saw the Marines as having put him as a troublemaker in boot camp as head of a small squad of boot camp troublemakers on a virtual suicide mission to teach him and them a lesson.

He had volunteered specifically because he wanted the life experience of being a soldier killing the enemy. He enlisted to obtain that goal - the goal of hunting people in the context of war. He had hunted every other kind of animal before this. It wasn't for God and country. He was open to everyone why he was joining the Marines. Not a big guy, but state wrestling champ. Been hunting from the farm he grew on since a child. It was to experience being a soldier killing the enemy. To hunt humans in that context. He wanted to, as a soldier, hunt people. People who also were soldiers, so it a "fair" fight. Like hunting deer on their turf, where the deer get to shoot back.

In boot camp he defied his immediate CO in war exercises, claiming if he followed the CO's commands he would get his squad killed - so he wouldn't do it since the exercises were supposed to be real. In response, then they made him and a few other "won't do it" newbies play the role of the insurgents. The punishment didn't work. He and his squad not only would repel the Marines in exercises, he even pulled off the unthinkable - capturing a Marine and dragging him away - literally beating that Marine into submission and dragging him off - since it is suppose to be done as if "real." The absolute last thing our military wants is insurgents to capture a live soldier, and he and his small squad of boot camp enlistees playing as insurgents had done it.

So they sent him and that little squad to Afghanistan in the Hellman District, giving the order for them to go West to the Pakistan border, which is exactly what his squad did. This is what he wanted, to HUNT "the enemy." So, the entire time he was there, he and his little squad trekked across and around that district, absolutely not wanting any support, and with the heaviest weapon they had being 1 full auto - hunting and killing insurgents (or "the outsiders" as he called them). In the end, he said became boring. Word was preceding them and all potential targets would "run far away and hide." No artillery or air support. Just a small group of "hunters" with their hunting rifles - so to speak.

That no one was willing to even try to lay in ambush over - and they weren't sneaking around. They would camp in the open. Shout out via an interpreter for the cowards to come out and fight. Mano-e-mano. At first they would, and his squad would kill them. Word got around about that.

When he returned, he was offered a $100,oooK plus position via the Pentagon. They wanted him to train special OPs teams, because they told him that is the direction the military is headed. He felt the effort in Afghanistan was a total waste, that once they left everything would return to exactly as it was. It appears the military has come to agree. Large ground invasions and occupations to be a thing of the past.

Rather, it will be a two fold combination. Massive air power. Specific Special OPs hit squads to take out specific people and targets. That combination more effective - in results - and more cost efficient too.

He declined the offer nor re-enlisted. BTW, his squad did not suffer one casualty. They killed many of "the enemy."

There will always be a need for some infantry. But modern war outcomes wouldn't be decided by the infantry. It is just one element of a much, much bigger picture. The ability to carry a 100 pound pack mile after mile, day after day, might apply to maybe 10%, probably less, of our land military forces. Setting all standards around that 10% is nonsensical.

The very fact that you would type this complete nonsense is 100% proof that you have no idea whatsoever on how the military works. I don't know if you just made this up or you really believe this big of a bs story that someone told you but either way the fact that you believe it should be proof to anyone who reads it that you are clueless about the military and nothing you say should be looked at as coming from a place of knowledge.

I was going to go through the whole thing and point out the utter nonsense one by one but it is just so far out there I don't even know where to start
 
Back
Top Bottom