Discussion in 'The Stump' started by USMCPrice, Mar 17, 2015.
well I guess you shouldn't talk about how you think about beating up women
Just off the top of my head, I can already think of several women of my acquaintance who love to meet the attitudes above.
J**** in particular... Construction background. She'd adore this, she makes blokes who think like the above a little side hobby when she's had a few. It's often funny.
Sometimes they've come back, their macho pride dented so. That's when it gets really really funny. And then a bit worrying.
She can spell too. More likely to be running a site than hefting bricks about these days. Does however also go a bit gooey over ponies.
I'm with those who think a lowering of standards is ridiculous, but definitely think if anyone can pass the same tests while keeping up & fitting in, then I couldn't object to them doing any military job. If they can't, then F 'em off. All else is indeed madness.
If anything I'd have hoped that any women being allowed or encouraged to play this game really ought to be aiming to higher standards than the norm, physically & ethically, while the world is watching. That'd be the clearest way they could show that their achievements aren't just a bit of PR fluff.
I do find the references to frame size slightly odd.
Some of the hardest and highest stamina people I've known have been wiry little F-ers. And plenty of big buggers cry when hit right, or can barely lift a spare wheel.
(Knew a massive septic lad who was a guard at one of the Cambridge air bases. Used to throw his weight and mouth around in a similar sort of vein to the quote above. Eventually had the pleasure of watching him 'dissected' in a beer tent by a tall thin lady in a leather skirt called M*****, who really knew how to make each strike count. Never saw him again after that. Anyone might think his huge-gobbed hubristic arrogance had led to his total humiliation in front of a large and highly entertained crowd.
Which has just reminded me of 'N******s', an HA lady, proud to be 'property' but nobody's little girl, who also had the party trick of punching chaps sitting in old style deck-chairs completely over the back of them with one hit. She'd have made a cracking stormtrooper, but I suspect would not have moulded well to military discipline...)
Point is; experience teaches me there is no truly 'average' human being, and following on from that, there is no truly average gender type. Massive variety. Quite the pool to choose from.
Handy opportunity to repost this pic I'm enjoying at the mo.
Anyone feel like impugning the Nepalese chaps in the front row for their lighter frame? Seems unwise.
Then there's the Bantam Battalions.
5'2" or less IIRC.
Smattering of VCs.
Maybe a couple of Divisions by WW1's end.
Not so bad. For little lads.
The Marines goal is it provide the US with the troops with the best chances of accomplishing the mission and returning safely. To do this they try to stack the odds in their favor. They try to provide better gear than their opponents. Better training. Better dental care.
Every time they reduce the standards the odds of one more soldier returning in a coffin increase. It's not a question of gender rights. It's a question of is the 150 pound woman or the 150 pound man more likely to keep their squad mates alive. Which gives the officer commanding them more options? If the 150 lb man is injured can the 150 lb woman quickly carry him out? Is the reverse true?
The job doesn't change. The sandbags need to be filled and stacked. The 15 mile road needs to be patrolled. The enemy needs to die. These jobs are real they don't have simple yes or no answers. Both men and women can do them all. However does one tire out moving sandbags faster? Can one carry more equipment with less strain during the patrol? Can one throw the grenade farther?
Life or death is decided by small things but the goal of the Marines is to stack as many of those small things in their favor.
Man that's over the line dude...I have never hit nor would I ever hit a woman. As for thinking about it...well it's sort of the topic isn't it? It's not me here who's playing the tough guy fella...
When you think about it...its your beloved Marine Corp who obviously think violence against women is acceptable (if they are put into combat roles)...not even a dig if you think about it.
nicely put Pacifist.....did not everyone read the article I posted? there is a big difference....the woman will tire out quicker....even if she can pass the PFT standards, their stamina for long term endurance is a lot lower, per the article...sure there are some that can keep up.....but that's not many
do you know, every Marine is considered a rifleman [ including pilots ]...every one has to be able to perform as a rifleman...and the WMs are not required to perform up to the standards as the men.....if they went through male bootcamp, many, many more would not make it...
remember, a 150lb man is generally stronger with more stamina than a 150lb woman...and, per the article, generally, they cannot train up to the male standards....the physiology won't allow it
I want women to have every opportunity that men have...but not if someone will die because of PC
Well, during exercises, I've been picked up from prone and carried in a fireman carry by a 5'4" 140lb woman, up a gravelly beach.
That little bulldog earned my respect.
The instructor rightly paired her with the largest guy, with the motivation that when the shit hits the fan, you don't get to choose who needs your help.
Being 6'6" and 220lbs had its advantages, but trying to stay unseen aint one.
Well then what did you mean when you posted this:
Being a male has nothing to do with not getting your ass beat by a female.
No....the US Military is providing women with the opportunity to serve in Infantry units an the Marine Corps is in the forefront of making that happen.
As far as Marine Corps Specific attempts to remove gender bias last year women began to have the option to perform pull ups during their annual PFT instead of the current flex arm hang, this was done in anticipation of phasing out the flex arm hang.
Prior to that Female Marines were given the option of riding a bicycle, instead of the 3 mile run, during the PFT.
The Marine Corps has always made women shoot from the same distances during rifle qual (there has never been "white tee's" on a Marine Rifle Range)
Enough of a rant.
As far as any of the services being able to find qualified candidates.
There are enlistment standards that you have to meet in order to enlist in the military and the Marines have very specific boy composition standards:
There is also a different IST/ PFT standard for men and women:
The reason for the disparity is because promotions are based on cutting scores an cutting scores are based on PFT and Rifle Scores. So without the gender norming of the PFT scores women would never promote in shared MOS fields. That is why there are a lot more female NCOs in certain MOS fields, they get more points for lower performance.
The way I see it is if the services were to recruit women for the infantry it needs to be done prior to enlistment with the same standard for men and women. If you want to put women in the Infantry, find women who want to be in the Infantry not just those that want to make a point.
The fighting ladies of Kurdistan wear high heals and sexy jump suits.
Just because she can serve as a Kurdish fighter doesn't mean she'd hack it as a Leatherneck.
Former Navy SEAL and author of Lone Survivor Marcus Luttrell joined Fox News’ Fox & Friends to discuss ISIS’ growing control of the Middle East and the imminent terrorist attack on the Marine-occupied U.S. Al-Asad Air Base......
“With 300 Marines, you could probably take over Iraq if you wanted to get rid of ISIS completely,” he said. “Make no mistake about it, Marines are war fighters. I mean they are really good at what they do.”
“The only time they are not good at what they do is when someone puts the shackles on them,” he added.
True, but in WWI the average British soldier was 5'5", 112 lbs. (had to convert it the source listed 8 stone), so the "Bantam Battalions", while smaller were not significantly so. People were much smaller back then due to socio-economic factors. Also, the average weight of their kit was 53 to 58 lbs. all inclusive in 1914. By 1916 it had increased to 70-90 lbs. all inclusive (most of the additional weight was in the steel helmet, additional ammo, wire cutters, gas masks/respirators). Now, according to MCCDC the average load a Marine Infantryman carries ranges from 101 to 180lbs. depending upon how long they are expected to sustain themselves. This weight does not include uniform, boots, helmet, body armor, personal weapon and several other things included in the WWI figure for the British soldier. The assault load, stripped down to the bare minimum is around 60lbs. (again not including the items listed previously). The latest Marine Corps study I could find (MCCDEC-MRD 2003) had the height of the average male Marine Infantryman at about 5'10" (5'9.6") and 170lbs.
So take these figures and a WWI British soldier, in 1916 carried 62.5 to 80% of his body weight. A modern Marine Infantryman 59% to 105% of bodyweight. However, the most common load out is around 127lbs or 74% of bodyweight. Now if I might use a little extrapolation of the facts I've given 59%-62.5% to 74%-80%, but adjust for the items not counted in todays figures, but included in the WWI figures (uniform, boots, helmet, body armor, personal weapon) and the basic infantryman's load has remained fairly constant from the WWI figures. The loads have increased, but so has the size of the soldier to keep pace.
The Kurdish lady pictured is a pop singer, I forget her name.
Ah: 'Helly Luv'. Not a fighter I believe.
I get you, Price, I do. I'd restate that I don't think any front line test should be watered down by gender, and would concede I was being a touch facetious about the bantams, though I'd still maintain there's plenty of tough females out there.
I'm voting Brad on this one (!), I think...
'let anyone in as long as they can all prove that they can test and fight with the same efficiency'.
Neutral egalitarianism I quite like, but 'positive discrimination' schemes leave me completely cold.
This is a very simple matter.
An available job has specific requirements in order to achieve success.
Meet those requirements, and the job is yours.
Don't meet them, you don't get it.
Just because you really want to be able to do something, or someone else wants you to, doesn't mean you can.
Nothing to do with gender or general ability and that's what true equality should be about.
If males fail to meet the requirements, then it's no act of discrimination to acknowledge that females will also fail.
A weak link is a weak link, regardless of gender.
Just because the sexes should be equally valued doesn't mean that differences should be ignored; in fact these differences should be appreciated for what they are: as potentially advantageous.
An organisation will succeed if personnel are matched to the correct job.
Failure will surely follow if criteria irrelevant to the essential requirements of the job, are superimposed.
There are always going to be some people who are exceptions and exceptional.
There are other jobs, there are other opportunities.
Let me make it clear that I'm not a veteran and although I intend to enlist in the Marine Corps upon completing school, that means next to nothing in the real world (although many "future Marines" would have you think differently). However, I'd like to bring up an aspect of this arrangement I don't believe we've dealt with, apologies if I'm mistaken and we've already gone over this. In addition to physical limitations, sexual assault would be a major problem if women were integrated into combat arms. Now, I'm not saying that all or most Marines would rape a woman given the chance, as that would be incredibly slanderous and flat out wrong, but look at COPs and other places in a combat zone. The grunts and the tankers and the artillerymen often have to deal with the very real specter of death, experiencing the highest adrenaline rushes known to man. They also have to deal with the lowest points of boredom in the world as they sit in Humvees or on watch for hours on end. Add a small group of young women to that equation and you may have a very big problem on your hands. Military sexual assault is already a huge issue with millions spent trying to solve it, and adding fuel to that fire may not be the best route.
There is a giant sexual assault problem in High Schools and Universities, does that mean women should be prevented from going to the school of their choice as well?
It's more and age issue than anything else, 17-24 is the age that most sexual assaults occur regardless of lack of entertainment or other stressors.
Your argument is invalid.
I work with women everyday and they all manage to not get sexually assaulted.....
I'm not even going to address this because I don't think it should factor into the decision. Sexual assault is wrong, illegal, and anyone that perpetrates one is a criminal and deserves whatever they get. Women already deploy with units to the combat zone and I don't see it's been an unmanageable problem in those units. Also, note that most of the most egregious cases don't involve Marines. The Airforce is in the news for it alot and except for aircrews, and TAC's, most of the Airforce never hears a shot fired in anger. Could it be a lack of discipline?
All seriousness aside, can't resist this; I guess the "combat jack" would have to go away.
Was just reading about the female Caracal battalion of the Israeli Army. Interesting stuff-
I'm of the belief one set or rules and standards, Applies to all.
May be that males are statistically stronger and tougher, But females to statistically tend to be more able to defuse situations without violence. Having a female on the team could mean the difference between dead Marines and live Marines.
I think for the most part those dead set against it are living in the old times, Being too stubborn to adapt (My father one of those old farts ) but in reality human civilization would not be where it is at today if we didn't adapt. The most successful countries and military's tend to be those most willing to adapt.
If a female can pass the full 18 month SASR training course to the same standards as the blokes, Is willing to put up with the same cr*p in the field as the blokes, Well then let her be in the SASR.
We can agree on that. The problem is that when the standard is maintained and no or insufficient females make the cut there is a political push to lower the standard. As is occuring at the present time.
And I can give you a thousand other scenarios where a weak team member gets the team whacked or causes the mission to fail. Anecdotal what if's prove nothing. Males normally weed out the weak links.
The Marine Corps has always been on the cutting edge of developing new concepts, tactics, and weapons systems, including racial and gender integration. In Korea when the military was undergoing racial integration, the US Army did so by forming seperate units, and during the first year and a half the US Army had an abysal record. The Marine Corps did so by fully integrated it's line companies and everyone from the enemy, to Truman's personal observer (General Lowe) to SLA Marshall acknowledged them as the most combat effective unit the US deployed. They quickly followed suit with the Navy and enlisted women into military service in positions other than nurses during WWI, were quick to fully implement the integration of women into all MOS' not requiring direct ground combat, and pioneered Female Engagement Teams during the GWOT to better interact with the female Muslim populace due to cultural perogatives. They were quick to set up the framework to test and obtain data for integrating women into combat MOS', but have balked at pressure to lower standards to implement the policy. One thing they don't do is compromised on discipline or troop quality. They have always been ready and have suceeded against the odds because of this. Now they're being asked to compromise their quality.
von noobie, can you give an example of a situation that needs defusing?? that sounds like not too often, rare, strange, etc....sounds like a job for an officer, senior non-com...can you give a specific account of a similar situation that has happened?
....so, they can save lives in that 'particular' situation, but will they be able to hump up the hill to save some lives?? or carry a wounded Marine to safety?? or carry heavy ammo where needed, and then perform after doing all that?
I remember what I read sometime ago...when the US military was integrated with blacks, the article stated, that was not a change that effected how the unit performed because it was a mental attitude change...with females, you have a physical problem...and then you have the problems of pregnancy, intimate relationships, etc, that throw a bunch of new problems into the fire...harassment, rape, etc claims...Sgt Joe loves PFC Jill, but LCPL John loves Jill, boom boom, problems, etc...
as stated before, this occupation deals with killing and being killed...it's not your everyday job...so it doesn't compare to the 'regular' world..so, it needs to be thought out carefully
Example - Military patrol comes across armed locals, Not unheard of (I wont speak to how common as I don't know) for the military patrol to use stand over tactics, Some times they work but also some times it pushes the locals to fight back. Both groups armed does not take a lot for an argument to turn into a fire fight, A female not burdened with the male ego could talk down such a situation.
Not to mention the fact local females depending on the nation would be more willing to talk to a fellow female rather then a male, Could provide vital intel that might have otherwise been missed.
The standard female humping it up the hill or carrying a wounded Marine to safety no, But those that have passed the same requirements as the other active duty combat soldiers (I do not support government and/or military's lowering the requirements for one gender purely to get them to pass) could do so.
The argument of there being risks of pregnancy, relationships etc is a poor not to mention useless argument considering the fact females managed to serve just fine in Iraq and Afghanistan with out such situations popping up all over the place. If that had truly been an issue then females would have been excluded from Iraq and Afghanistan entirely.
I agree that it needs to be thought out carefully and perhaps implemented gradually (Small scale test), But that is no reason for the views of some to scrap the idea entirely.
You seem to be pushing the point that males cannot think rationally in close or precarious situations...I bet you remember von noobie, of the Aussie lieutenant that stood down a convoy of Indonesian troops loaded with looted crap at a check point...blokes got out of the trucks with assault rifles, looking intimidating. The Aussies locked and loaded, snipers hidden on the bank over looking the check point spotting the trouble makers and giving messages to the LT...(this in East Timor) This could have been a massacre, erupting in an international sh$t fight...the Indonesian soldiers were spoken to calmly and professionally by the LT (who knows the words?) and the convoy turned back without a shot fired...
This was an example of training and professionalism from this young LT who had barely been in the military for any length of time...