• 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

If you say so. :shrug:

Everything I've said is simple common sense.

You are so contradictory too. Why don't we just give them all porn, then they'll just lose interest in real sex altogether. :lamo
 
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

Men and women are not equal. We do different things differently-and we are built differently. There are things women can do well in the military-but grunt work isnt one of them.

Welcome to the liberal fruitopia.
 
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.

I just find it a bit funny because no one's body is made for rucking. LOL
 
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.

Generally speaking, you're not going to get much of anywhere betting on the "good side" of human nature. :lol:

You're also completely ignoring my point here. Why complicate something that does not need to complicated, especially when there's no guarantee that it will function as effectively as it did before afterwards?

We'd be needlessly putting women (and men) in harm's way for no objective benefit whatsoever.

You are so contradictory too. Why don't we just give them all porn, then they'll just lose interest in real sex altogether. :lamo

Ummm... They already have. They have it in droves, as a matter of fact. We were swapping it back and forth on external hard drives like prisoners swap cigarettes when I was overseas. :lol:

Two things though:

A) In the field, porn isn't really feasible.

B) Even with porn, many men will still go after the real thing, especially if a woman is actually playing an active role in encouraging contact.
 
I just find it a bit funny because no one's body is made for rucking. LOL

No, they're not. :lol:

However, this doesn't change the fact that women are a lot less able to withstand the strains of it than men happen to be.

A thirty something year old man who spends 15 years in the infantry is probably going to be in pretty rough shape (bad knees, bad back, marked signs of accelerated aging, etca).

However, even as bad as it would be for a man, it would be worse for a woman. Most women simply wouldn't survive the job that long. Their body would most likely give out on them.
 
Generally speaking, you're not going to get much of anywhere betting on the "good side" of human nature. :lol:

You're also completely ignoring my point here. Why complicate something that does not need to complicated, especially when there's no guarantee that it will function as effectively as it did before afterwards?

We'd be needlessly putting women (and men) in harm's way for no objective benefit whatsoever.



Ummm... They already have. They have it in droves, as a matter of fact. We were swapping it back and forth on external hard drives like prisoners swap cigarettes when I was overseas. :lol:

Two things though:

A) In the field, porn isn't really feasible.

B) Even with porn, many men will still go after the real thing, especially if a woman is actually playing an active role in encouraging contact.

For no benefit? I beg to differ. Well if the woman is encouraging contact, then she should be disciplined. Just because some people cannot control themselves (and it certainly is FAR from a majority), that is no reason to disallow women who can meet the physical fitness standards. Most of these kinds of women would more than like be "big and strong" women and not the "sex kitten" type that most men would be lusting over all the time.
 
No, they're not. :lol:

However, this doesn't change the fact that women are a lot less able to withstand the strains of it than men happen to be.

A thirty something year old man who spends 15 years in the infantry is probably going to be in pretty rough shape (bad knees, bad back, marked signs of accelerated aging, etca).

However, even as bad as it would be for a man, it would be worse for a woman. Most women simply wouldn't survive the job that long. Their body would most likely give out on them.

Wouldn't know - my husband's out and it was a fight to go out gracefully on a medical retirement due to injuries sustained while in the service. That's my only direct experience.
 
For no benefit? I beg to differ.

So, what's the benefit? I see none.

Men are getting the job done just fine, and have been for centuries. I see no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the inclusion of women would increase combat effectiveness.

Well if the woman is encouraging contact, then she should be disciplined. Just because some people cannot control themselves (and it certainly is FAR from a majority), that is no reason to disallow women who can meet the physical fitness standards. Most of these kinds of women would more than like be "big and strong" women and not the "sex kitten" type that most men would be lusting over all the time.

Maybe not, but a lot of men will make due with what's available. :lol:

Again, even putting all of that aside, how does it benefit anyone to introduce this unnecessary dynamic to the battlefield in the first place?
 
So, what's the benefit? I see none.

Men are getting the job done just fine, and have been for centuries. I see no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the inclusion of women would increase combat effectiveness.



Maybe not, but a lot of men will make due with what's available. :lol:

Again, even putting all of that aside, how does it benefit anyone to introduce this unnecessary dynamic to the battlefield in the first place?

Anyone who is willing to put their life on the line for their country is an asset to the military. By observation of this thread, it's pretty clear that the problem isn't the women but the men and how they look at their women counterparts. Grow up!
 
Anyone who is willing to put their life on the line for their country is an asset to the military. By observation of this thread, it's pretty clear that the problem isn't the women but the men and how they look at their women counterparts. Grow up!

Just because someone thinks that they can do something, doesn't necessarily mean that are actually capable of doing so.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions on this. I'm simply telling you that everything we know about war and warriors would seem to indicate that gender integrated combat units are not a very good idea.

Noble intentions are no substitute for practical workability.
 
Just because someone thinks that they can do something, doesn't necessarily mean that are actually capable of doing so.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions on this. I'm simply telling you that everything we know about war and warriors would seem to indicate that gender integrated combat units are not a very good idea.

Noble intentions are no substitute for practical workability.

No, people with no self control and no self discipline do not belong in the military. This is nothing but your typical "boy's club" mentality. It's ridiculous, outdated and stupid.
 
No, people with no self control and no self discipline do not belong in the military.

Again, "self-control and self-discipline" aren't really the point of the military. The point is to create an effective fighting force to crush the United States' enemies.

What you're suggesting here does nothing to further that goal. It creates a lot of needless problems that almost certainly will hamper the effectiveness of our forces in future conflicts.

This is nothing but your typical "boy's club" mentality. It's ridiculous, outdated and stupid.

Honestly, not really. War isn't a game.
 
Again, "self-control and self-discipline" aren't really the point of the military. The point is to create an effective fighting force to crush the United States' enemies.

What you're suggesting here does nothing to further that goal. It creates a lot of needless problems that almost certainly will hamper the effectiveness of our forces in future conflicts.



Honestly, not really. War isn't a game.

The point of the military is to protect the country, and that should be taken seriously. Anyone who is willing and able-bodied should be able to fight for their country, regardless of a few pervs.
 
No, it's facts and truths that don't agree with your social driven agenda causing you to refuse to accept reality.


Setting aside that in fact "social agenda" most certainly matters as we aren't a society that exists for the military, but the other way around, I suppose it is typical for low-rankers to bitch that the higher ups in the military don't know what they are doing. But, then, there are reasons those such as you were/are low rankers.

The level of troops the military needs to enlist varies greatly, mostly often due to whether or not the USA is at war. During Vietnam, the 1st war against Iraq and the 2nd, the military ramped up recruitment (and draft for Vietnam) - and lower standards. In other times, such as now, the military has more potential recruits than it needs - particularly when unemployment goes up - so has increased standards.

ONCE AGAIN, THE MILITARY HAS INCREASED THE STANDARDS FOR ENLISTEES, not the other way around as you lament. The military has increased the standards by what the military most has valued for many decades now.

Who do they enlist at the higher rank? A state wrestling champion? Or someone with ANY bachelor's degree? In fact, if those two enlist at the same time, the person with the BA will be a superior at higher pay than the more "powerful" wrestling champion. Everyone knows that too, but the reasoning is lost to you it seems. Even "in combat," it will be that college grad that will be ordering the wrestling champ what to do.

The military increased or decreased minimal requirements for enlistment, based upon need. The standards are adjusted up and down exactly opposite of what YOU claim the military needs.

At this time the military doesn't need a large number of soldiers, so it has RAISED standards. But the standards they raise and lower are intellectual and educational standards, not pull-up standards. So while you think what made you valuable was physical strength, the military does not - nor has it ever - based it's enlistment standards upon physical strength. It's enlistment standards are based upon level of intelligence and education.

Sure, having a military selection and promotion practice based upon intelligence and education offends YOU - and you RAGE that those in charge of the military does not agree with your view that what makes a good soldier is small brains and big muscles.

So rage on that the military should have 20 mile run and pull up contests to decide who runs the military if that makes you feel better about yourself. But there are reasons why guys like you never call the shots in the military. Guys like you were to follow orders of those big-brain officers telling you want to do with your muscles when you're over the wire they sent you over.

FOR DECADES the military has raised and lowered it standards based upon aptitude and intelligence, not muscle and brawn. And it will continue to do so.

THUS, since more women pursue higher education than men now do - as many men believe than being on the football team is a job qualifier - the military will more and more seek out women, because more women will be more highly educated than men. The military does not have a shortage of muscle-heads. They need brainy people. Either gender. Even in combat. Excluding women reduces the intelligence of the Marines by 50% - and they won't do it much longer.
 
Last edited:
The point of the military is to protect the country, and that should be taken seriously. Anyone who is willing and able-bodied should be able to fight for their country, regardless of a few pervs.

I think it is offensive that they claim our soldiers, and specifically Marines, are a bunch of gang-rapists for which women are only safe if they are kept away from women. Maybe when Marines are done with their enlistment they should then be locked up to keep them out of society for women's protection if what they say is true. Of course, it's not.
 
Again, "self-control and self-discipline" aren't really the point of the military. The point is to create an effective fighting force to crush the United States' enemies.

What you're suggesting here does nothing to further that goal. It creates a lot of needless problems that almost certainly will hamper the effectiveness of our forces in future conflicts.



Honestly, not really. War isn't a game.

No, you're wrong. War isn't an arm wrestling contest either. If men want to continue to dominate in the military they better spend less time at the gym and more time cracking the books in school. And declaring they will rape women if in the service to keep women out sure as hell isn't going to work.
 
You are so contradictory too. Why don't we just give them all porn, then they'll just lose interest in real sex altogether. :lamo

LOL! Hitler distributed blow up sex dolls to his troops.
 
LOL! Hitler distributed blow up sex dolls to his troops.

That's probably not a bad idea given some of the comments on this thread. :lol:
 
The point of the military is to protect the country, and that should be taken seriously. Anyone who is willing and able-bodied should be able to fight for their country, regardless of a few pervs.

Again, I fail to see how creating needless problems for "political correctness" sake alone is in any way useful here.

Women can serve in the military now if they so wish. They are simply barred from certain fields because it wouldn't be a good idea for them to be involved there. I haven't seen any evidence to counter-act this claim.

Frankly, we'll probably have robots doing most of our fighting for us within a few decades' time anyway. There's really no point in throwing women in the mud to die to simply prove some completely asinine feminist political point.

No, you're wrong. War isn't an arm wrestling contest either. If men want to continue to dominate in the military they better spend less time at the gym and more time cracking the books in school.

What on earth does education have to do with rucking 30 miles a day and shooting people in the face afterwards?

There are plenty of jobs out there available to women which require that they use brains, not brawn. The infantry isn't one of them.

And declaring they will rape women if in the service to keep women out sure as hell isn't going to work.

Some men are always going to be inclined to want to rape women. They are scum, and there generally aren't very many of them.

However, there are enough of them to put any woman exposed to a certain environment at unnecessary risk.

Frankly, rape by our own soldiers isn't even what I'm worried about here. What about the enemy?
 
Again, I fail to see how creating needless problems for "political correctness" sake alone is in any way useful here.

Women can serve in the military now if they so wish. They are simply barred from certain fields because it wouldn't be a good idea for them to be involved there. I haven't seen any evidence to counter-act this claim.

Frankly, we'll probably have robots doing most of our fighting for us within a few decades' time anyway. There's really no point in throwing women in the mud to die to simply prove some completely asinine feminist political point.

Because they WANT to, that's why.
 
Because they WANT to, that's why.

And if what this ludicrously small group of women "wants" turns out to be detrimental to the whole of the military institution, what is the point?

They would be putting themselves at unnecessary risk as well as the people around them.

Again, the cost-benefit analysis here simply doesn't favor changing things around in this regard. It's going to create a lot of needless pain, suffering, and general awkwardness (all at tax payer expense) while doing nothing whatsoever to make our forces more effective.
 
The point of the military is to protect the country, and that should be taken seriously. Anyone who is willing and able-bodied should be able to fight for their country, regardless of a few pervs.

Should I, as an asthmatic, be allowed to fight in infantry? No, my medical condition would put fellow soldiers at risk. If you are a detriment to the military (which females that cannot perform at a male level or need would be) then you are better left not joining, you weigh down the military and put others at risk. Do I think there should be opportunities to serve? Sure, in non-combat areas.
 
Should I, as an asthmatic, be allowed to fight in infantry? No, my medical condition would put fellow soldiers at risk. If you are a detriment to the military (which females that cannot perform at a male level or need would be) then you are better left not joining, you weigh down the military and put others at risk. Do I think there should be opportunities to serve? Sure, in non-combat areas.

Again? Really? I already said that the woman would have to pass the physical fitness requirements.
 
And if what this ludicrously small group of women "wants" turns out to be detrimental to the whole of the military institution, what is the point?

They would be putting themselves at unnecessary risk as well as the people around them.

Again, the cost-benefit analysis here simply doesn't favor changing things around in this regard. It's going to create a lot of needless pain, suffering, and general awkwardness (all at tax payer expense) while doing nothing whatsoever to make our forces more effective.

That's insane. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom