• 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!

Military Watering Down Standards So Females Can Meet Them

Even if true you are most likely Army which doesn't qualify you as some kind of expert on Marine training.

What about my experience? I would think that being an actual 0311 Marine Infantryman would make me an "Expert" in Marine training.

Or do you just ignore the experience of anybody that does not agree with you?
 
Small world. I was at Ft Bliss at the time as well. I served in 2-1 ADA with SFC Robert Dowdy, who was the Battalion Motor Pool NCOIC, when we deployed to Saudi Arabia in support of Southern Watch. We were having lunch together and he expressed a desire to retire when we redeployed. Of course he made the E8 list before we redeployed, accepted the promotion and was transferred to 11th Brigade and eventually was laterally promoted to 1SG of the 507th. He was killed in the ambush.

Well, that entire movement was kind of a FUBAR exercise that will likely not be repeated again any time soon. Moving PATRIOT up with the front line units in a combat environment is not needed at all, and thankfully is no longer part of the doctrine. But it does show that it is not only the Grunts who are in danger in the forward battle areas, combat today is not like WWII where you can generally draw a line on a map and assume that is the actual "front lines".

But yea, a lot of the Army seemed to go "Warrior Crazy" after that. Suddenly everybody was a Warrior, and they started to work hard to pound that into everybody. Although even 15 years later I do not think it has stuck more than in a superficial level. Because outside of grunts I have never seen those in another MOS working to keep their weapon clean without somebody else pushing them to do so. Or during some hip pocket training spend time teaching their younger soldiers how to react to a near ambush or go into a parking lot and actually practice doing a resection with a map, compass, and protractor.
 
Why does the military lower standards for white men? Black men are stronger. The claim that white combat soldiers will perform as lethally as black combat soldiers over an extended deployment entails a denial of biological reality. One only has to look at professional contact sports such as football to recognize the physical inferiority of white men. Black women also are stronger than white women. How many more Americans in combat will lose their lives for the military downgrading standard for white people?

The average black American can bench press more than the average white American

Of course weight and strength are not the same thing. In order to compare the races in strength, I found a study of police officers which compared the bench pressing ability of black and white officers, both at the time they were recruited, and after years on the job. The study found that upon recruitment, the average white man could bench press 84.2 kg (standard deviation = 21.2), the average black could bench press 95.1 kg (SD = 24.6). In other words, black men are 0.51 SD stronger than white men. If we convert strength to farmilliar IQ scale, where the white mean is set at 100 and the white SD is set at 15, then white men have a (sex adjusted) SQ (Strength Quotient) of 100, and black men have an SQ of 108.

Both races improved after years of on the job training, but the gap remained. Black women could also bench press more than white women, both at recruitment, and especially after training in both groups.

Blacks dominate American body building

What happens when we move from the average and look at the extremes? Here’s a list of the top 15 body builders of all time. For apples to apples comparison, I excluded all the non-Americans, to make a list of the top AMERICAN body builder’s of all time:

1. Ronnie Coleman (Black)
2. Arnold Schwarzenegger (White)
3. Kai Greene (Black)
4. Phillip Health (Black)
5. Flex Wheeler (Black)
6. Johnnie O. Jackson (Black)
7. Lee Haney (Black)
8. Lou Ferrigno (White)
9. Kevin Levrone (Black)

So blacks are only 12.6% of America, but 78% of the top body builders in American history.

https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/08/which-race-is-physically-strongest/

What stupid comparison.

Body builder to females.
 
If you can't adjust it for women then you can't adjust it for age, either. Lots of senior NCOs won't like that....

No.
Adjusting things to make it easier for women is not the same as adjusting things to compensate for experience retention.
 
I see no wannabe Rambo's in them pictures just the difference between those that were coddled in coed boot and those that got a boot up their asses when they screwed up. There were NO Berghdahls in VN either.

I just bring up Rambo for all the people who never worked as a team and realize just how effective average people can be when well trained and they each do their part. Too much TV not enough reality. Just like everyone relates to James Bond as the super spy. When in reality some of the best spies are just the opposite. The last person in the world you would suspect.
 
Sorry, this is a little bit different than opinion threads on this site. It is pointless to have a conversation with someone who passes themselves of as a original source. Even if true you are most likely Army which doesn't qualify you as some kind of expert on Marine training. I have much more faith in Gen Bohm who is responsible for the Marine training course. Sure I am naïve in the area of military preparedness. That's why I trust what Gen Bohm has to say. I respect your opinion but have to believe that's all it is.
May I ask why when their is evidence directly contradicting what he says would you believe him. The only reason I can see for it is because it's what you want to be true facts be damned.
 
May I ask why when their is evidence directly contradicting what he says would you believe him. The only reason I can see for it is because it's what you want to be true facts be damned.

General Bohm is answerable and accountable to people who rank higher. My opinion doesn't matter. When I was in the military we would follow the chain of command but we would gripe and complain about everything to each other. My feeling is that this thread is more about griping and complaining to each other. Solid actionable evidence should go up the chain of command if it exists.
 
There was a headline on Drudge this morning that claims the Green Berets are also lowering their standards in order to have more diversity, especially women.

This is a very serious matter.


If President Trump were not so politically vulnerable at the moment, he might be expected to stop the lowering of standards.


I was especially shocked a few years ago when the government decided to have women serve aboard submarines. Common sense dictates that it is crazy to put men and women together in such cramped quarters.


As one can guess, there has been at least one scandal reported in the media. No doubt, other scandals are being covered up.


Hopefully, the next president (a Democrat, of course) will have the courage to (quietly) stop this lowering of standards. It's one thing to ensure diversity in, say, the entertainment field. It's quite another matter when it comes to our military forces.
Are you kidding? IF the next President is a Democrat - the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Starr will be a transgendered female who will order troops to turn in their assault weapons and arm themselves with ***** hats.
 
I don't think Trump gives a rats' ass. I had hoped he'd let Mattis fix things, but then he stomped all over his own dick on the matter with the transgender bru-ha-ha and the idiocy about how expensive it was.


But yeah. We're going to let our military become less lethal, in order to make people feel better about themselves. Because making people feel better about themselves is why we have a military.
Yeah, this problem has been percolating for decades but it's all Trump's fault.
 
While the standards may be the same, Soldiers in non-combat units don't spend nearly the time on these skills as combat arms Soldiers do.
Bull****. I've spent way to much time with everyone re-re-recleaning our rifles to ever believe that.

Instead, I would say that unit, in particular, had poor leadership, from the Commander on down. Non-combat MOS undisciplined, as you claim.
 
No.
Adjusting things to make it easier for women is not the same as adjusting things to compensate for experience retention.
Adjusting things to exclude half your personnel is exactly like adjusting things to make it easier for the elderly.
 
Bull****. I've spent way to much time with everyone re-re-recleaning our rifles to ever believe that.

Instead, I would say that unit, in particular, had poor leadership, from the Commander on down. Non-combat MOS undisciplined, as you claim.

I never said they were undisciplined. I served in combat arms units and non-combat arms units. Soldiers is combat arms unit spend more time training in combat related tasks and are thereby more proficient in these tasks.
 
I never said they were undisciplined. I served in combat arms units and non-combat arms units. Soldiers is combat arms unit spend more time training in combat related tasks and are thereby more proficient in these tasks.
Sure seems like you are, though. You argue the unit got lost because they didn't have basic proficiency in land nav (I agree), and then you said they didn't have that basic proficiency because they were not a combat MOS. Meaning only combat MOSs have even a basic level of proficiency in land nav.

If combat MOSs are going beyond basic proficiancy, great for them, but that fact doesn't really matter here.

All I'm saying is 90% of the Army is non-combat MOS and perform land lav and weapons maintenance just fine, they don't get lost, and their rifles work. This one unit, in particular, was apparently ate the f up and I'm blaming their leadership.
 
Last edited:
Adjusting things to exclude half your personnel is exactly like adjusting things to make it easier for the elderly.
You are confused as well as wrong.
Adjustments for experience is far more worthy than making adjustments for those who are not and may even be detrimental.
 
You are confused as well as wrong.
Adjustments for experience is far more worthy than making adjustments for those who are not and may even be detrimental.
That's an opinion, not a fact.
 
Which branch did you serve in?
iLOL
All you have done is confirmed your lack of understanding again.
Like the branch I served in matters as what I said would apply to any branch.
 
iLOL
All you have done is confirmed your lack of understanding again.
Like the branch I served in matters as what I said would apply to any branch.
Well, you don't see me running around telling people who were in a profession that they don't know what they're talking about regarding that profession.

So, lacking experience, do you have any 3rd party data supporting your view?
 
Well, you don't see me running around telling people who were in a profession that they don't know what they're talking about regarding that profession.
Doh! That is not what happened.
Thus again displaying your lack of understanding.


So, lacking experience, do you have any 3rd party data supporting your view?
Really? You want 3rd party data to show that those who are educated/trained, with years experience, are more important/valuable for retention purposes to justify the adjustments spoken about, and are therefore not the same as making adjustments for those who do not have such value? Really? That is what you want?
You can't figure that out on your own? Wow!
 
Doh! That is not what happened.
Thus again displaying your lack of understanding.


Really? You want 3rd party data to show that those who are educated/trained, with years experience, are more important/valuable for retention purposes to justify the adjustments spoken about, and are therefore not the same as making adjustments for those who do not have such value? Really? That is what you want?
You can't figure that out on your own? Wow!
So you have no experience to draw from, nore 3rd party data. Is this typical of your posting style on the forum?
 
So you have no experience to draw from, nore 3rd party data. Is this typical of your posting style on the forum?
iLOL You are digging your hole even further.
Do you, or do you not understand how a person with training and experience is more valuable when compared to someone without such?
 
So you have no experience to draw from, nore 3rd party data. Is this typical of your posting style on the forum?
iLOL You are digging your hole even further.
Do you, or do you not understand how a person with training and experience is more valuable when compared to someone without such?

Looks like it is. Well, it was nice meeting you :)
 
Looks like it is. Well, it was nice meeting you :)
iLOL
Run away all you want.
You know the position you took is unsupportable and the reason you run now.
 
Adjusting things to exclude half your personnel is exactly like adjusting things to make it easier for the elderly.

You think women would make up half of the infantry, or even the military? Can you support this claim?

'cause, there are two branches with ground-combat-infantry: The Army, and the Marine Corps. And women are a heavy minority in both.

women_lineArtboard%2010%402x.png


So... I'm not seeing the option for "half our infantry personnel being excluded" by keeping the infantry all-male... at all.

At the tactical level, as far as I'm aware, the "Old" guys are the ~35 year olds, and though you have some places where older guys exist, they tend to be the very hardy ~42 year olds. Hardly "Elderly".

Furthermore, if you will take a gander at the PFT/CFT standards for the Marine Corps, you will notice that they go up in strength requirements for those "older" men in their late 20s and early 30s, not down.

So..... I think you are quite a bit off, here, if you want to claim that A) we have lowered standards to allow the elderly to serve in the infantry and B) we have done so without impact in a way similar to the lowering of standards to help more females pass.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom