Explaining women in combat arms

[/MSG/]

I'm pretty sure Billy didn't have a problem with gays in the military. He also had nice things to say about the natives where he was posted, I forget if it was Iraq or A'stan.

Iraq, and I didn't care about people who were gay. Most of the ones I knew were shit bags, but that's incidental.

 

[SR_]

Nah, it's your reality. There are plenty of men who outrank you who support women in combat and don't think it's a problem.

Just because Tom is faint with excitment and prattling on about your expertise, you're just one guy, who holds very conservative, thus very traditional, views on gender (and many other things). And that is all you are. One guy. You speak for no one, and you hold no special expertise. The article I linked to earlier quoted a General in support of this. You don't trump him or anyone else. One guy.

Of course its my reality. Its also my responsibility.

There is not "plenty" of men who outrank me and support women in combat arms.

Again.. and I guess we need to revisit this once more. Combat and combat arms are not the same thing. I support having women in combat. I do not support having women in combat arms. There are going to be significant problems with that, and even the Generals realize this, otherwise theres no need to review how to implement this new policy.

You deciding that I hold no "special expertise" because I disagree with you is unfortunate, especially since I am apart of the service that is talking to you from a first hand account, and will be affected. I guess not serving and not being there and not having done it makes you and I on equal footing right?

 

[/MSG/]

Late in June, 1st Battalion, 9th Marines, out of Camp Lejeune, N.C., will participate in three physical testing events:

• A replica 40mm Mark-19 machine-gun lift, in which a Marine lifts a 72-pound weapon over his or her head while wearing a 71-pound combat load.

• A casualty evacuation, in which a Marine drags a 165-pound mannequin wearing a 43-pound combat load while wearing a 43-pound load of his own.

• A “march under load,” in which Marines carry a 71-pound combat load 20 kilometers in less than five hours.

Infantry units do this all the time. This is all they really do. They hump around, go to the field, and practice fighting wars. They come back for a few days, rest, clean weapons and gear and they go do it again.... for years. They are trained to be the individuals that are tasked with taking territory and holding it. They train to do this as combined arms units with support for the other combat arm mos's of artillery and tanks. They train with the support of air assets... and the rest of the training for the remaining Marine Corps is in logistics (how to supply these infantry units while on the move).

There is nothing "normal" about this. The infantry is the primary focus of the Marine Corps. Everything that everyone else does is to support the infantry. The physical standards and regular training regiment of these units is grueling and it never stops. You will always find that the small unit leaders within the infantry community are all the top performers in regards to these physical activities, in most cases the officers are the top performers. The Marine Corps is very focused on physical ability, physical performance on these tests factor into promotions and thus the advancement of careers.

As difficult as this is for infantryman, the physical standards for the special forces are even more intense. This is to include MARSOC, SEALS, RANGERS, DELTA...

Man, I should have been a grunt. I might have actually enjoyed it.

Probably not thought, as i am highly allergic to bullshit.

 

[christiefan915]

The reason you think its a put down is because you see these issues in an emotional and cinematic way. I dont.

Our reasons for this are different.

Are you charged with the defense of a nation? no
Are you charged with leading young men during times of crisis or extreme stress where life and death hang in the balance? no

You see these things as if you are watching a movie or if its all hypothetical. You have no first hand knowledge or experience and yet you seem to think thats really not necessary as this is only a exercise of the mind... and discussion about equality in an academic sense.

I post dozens of articles and videos to help TEACH you about the reality, not the hypothetical. I assume that you, afterall, are a citizen of the United States. The way that your own national security is conducted is directly tied to your liberty and freedom and security.

You think this is about sensitivity. This is not... and it shouldnt be. This is about your own national defense apparatus being physically able to DEFEND YOU.

This isnt about attitudes and feelings. Thats only important for the dialogue of a movie. This isnt a movie. This is real life. If you feel like im insensitive or blase or not concerned with how feelings are portrayed then thats a good thing. As a member of the "troops", my job isnt to make you feel good about how think things "should be", especially social experiments. Youre better served by understanding that my focus is on making sure that more of those that would do you harm lose their lives than the lives of those who are fighting on your behalf.

You think this issue is about how women are treated in the military.... yes, you are an idiot on a lot of matters, and this is definitely one of them.

You haven't given one single, rational argument to justify your discrimination. Fortunately, there are people higher up in the food chain than you who are slowly changing an outdated system to reflect reality. For example:

"If the United States had previously allowed women to serve officially in military combat roles, including special operations forces, there might be fewer sexual assaults in the armed services, the Pentagon's top general told reporters Thursday.

Having studied the issue of rampant sexual misconduct in the ranks, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that he has concluded that the phenomenon exists partly because women have been subordinated to men in military culture: "It's because we've had separate classes of military personnel."

At the end of the day you're just another ultra-conservative hack who's worried sick that the old order of alpha male supremacy is going away. And good riddance to that.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Of course its my reality. Its also my responsibility.

There is not "plenty" of men who outrank me and support women in combat arms.

Again.. and I guess we need to revisit this once more. Combat and combat arms are not the same thing. I support having women in combat. I do not support having women in combat arms. There are going to be significant problems with that, and even the Generals realize this, otherwise theres no need to review how to implement this new policy.

You deciding that I hold no "special expertise" because I disagree with you is unfortunate, especially since I am apart of the service that is talking to you from a first hand account, and will be affected. I guess not serving and not being there and not having done it makes you and I on equal footing right?

Well, I haven't seen any polling, but there are some men who outrank you who do. What makes you right and them wrong?

As far my giving your words weight, I would never privilege your voice over the voices of the women in the military. They are there, they know, this affects them. They are speaking. I am listening. Anyone who privileges your voice over theirs is engaging in classic oppressive behavior.

Oh my, a review on implementing a new policy! I bet that's never hapened before. And what a burden.

That's stupid and proves nothing.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

You haven't given one single, rational argument to justify your discrimination. Fortunately, there are people higher up in the food chain than you who are slowly changing an outdated system to reflect reality. For example:

"If the United States had previously allowed women to serve officially in military combat roles, including special operations forces, there might be fewer sexual assaults in the armed services, the Pentagon's top general told reporters Thursday.

Having studied the issue of rampant sexual misconduct in the ranks, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that he has concluded that the phenomenon exists partly because women have been subordinated to men in military culture: "It's because we've had separate classes of military personnel."

At the end of the day you're just another ultra-conservative hack who's worried sick that the old order of alpha male supremacy is going away. And good riddance to that.

Hear, hear!

 

[cancel2 2022]

Transgendered people are already serving and still forced to stay in the closet. The Silent Soldiers Who Are Still ‘Unfit to Serve’

I just find the military attitudes about sexual orientation are abhorrent. I don't know where else so many people can be freely discriminated against and not held accountable. We managed to move away from segregating and didn't have any repercussions from doing so. Anybody who volunteers for our military knows he/she might have to give their life in battle. So we let these people fight and die for the country but frown on their color or gender? We'll allow them to die but not promote them fairly because of some arbitrary standard?

You know I have two sons and if they wanted to enlist I'd support them no matter what. But I actively prevented recruiters from contacting them in school (yes, parents were allowed to do that). I don't trust Obama any more than I did bush about entering into some foreign conflict where Americans can get killed. So you're right that I want equality but don't want anyone deployed. IMO there hasn't been a conflict since WWII that I think is worth a single life.

I would say that Korea, the Falklands, Libya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan were justified. There were many others where the West should have intervened but just sat on its hands and did nothing; Ruanda, Biafra, East Pakistan aka Bangla Desh, East Timor, Burma, Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique, Sudan, The Congo and Cambodia come to mind. In the case of Cambodia, the US actually supported the Kmer Rouge, how crazy is that? It took Vietnam the supposed bad guys to kick the bastards out!!

 

[SR_]

You haven't given one single, rational argument to justify your discrimination. Fortunately, there are people higher up in the food chain than you who are slowly changing an outdated system to reflect reality. For example:

"If the United States had previously allowed women to serve officially in military combat roles, including special operations forces, there might be fewer sexual assaults in the armed services, the Pentagon's top general told reporters Thursday.

Having studied the issue of rampant sexual misconduct in the ranks, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that he has concluded that the phenomenon exists partly because women have been subordinated to men in military culture: "It's because we've had separate classes of military personnel."

At the end of the day you're just another ultra-conservative hack who's worried sick that the old order of alpha male supremacy is going away. And good riddance to that.

You think having a Marine wounded on the ground, and having a woman who is not physically able to carry him to safety is justified so that a woman can avoid sexual misconduct?

Are you somehow under the impression that the purpose of the military is to advance women in rank so that there might be fewer sexual assaults in the armed services?

Seriously, thats the effect that comes to mind when you look at this issue?

It isnt the effect on combat effectiveness and the safety of those who fight on your behalf... its about female military members and their sexual experiences?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Of course its my reality. Its also my responsibility.

There is not "plenty" of men who outrank me and support women in combat arms.

Again.. and I guess we need to revisit this once more. Combat and combat arms are not the same thing. I support having women in combat. I do not support having women in combat arms. There are going to be significant problems with that, and even the Generals realize this, otherwise theres no need to review how to implement this new policy.

You deciding that I hold no "special expertise" because I disagree with you is unfortunate, especially since I am apart of the service that is talking to you from a first hand account, and will be affected. I guess not serving and not being there and not having done it makes you and I on equal footing right?

Darla gained her expertise on military tactics and logistics reading women's studies at Washington State university, which as you know is second only to West Point in all matters military.

 

[christiefan915]

You think having a Marine wounded on the ground, and having a woman who is not physically able to carry him to safety is justified so that a woman can avoid sexual misconduct?

Are you somehow under the impression that the purpose of the military is to advance women in rank so that there might be fewer sexual assaults in the armed services?

Seriously, thats the effect that comes to mind when you look at this issue?

It isnt the effect on combat effectiveness and the safety of those who fight on your behalf... its about female military members and their sexual experiences?

You think that all women would be totally unable to physically carry a man to safety? Do you think the General doesn't know what the front-line requirements are for any soldier, male or female?

Apparently physical strength is the only argument you can muster up, but that doesn't mean it's the whole story, just the one you've chosen to focus on.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You think that all women would be totally unable to physically carry a man to safety? Do you think the General doesn't know what the front-line requirements are for any soldier, male or female?

Apparently physical strength is the only argument you can muster up, but that doesn't mean it's the whole story, just the one you've chosen to focus on.

If physical strength and fitness is not a vital component of being a Marine for instance, why is there so much emphasis placed on it?

 

[SR_]

Well, I haven't seen any polling, but there are some men who outrank you who do. What makes you right and them wrong?

As far my giving your words weight, I would never privilege your voice over the voices of the women in the military. They are there, they know, this affects them. They are speaking. I am listening. Anyone who privileges your voice over theirs is engaging in classic oppressive behavior.

Oh my, a review on implementing a new policy! I bet that's never hapened before. And what a burden.

That's stupid and proves nothing.

Just a quick review.

Right now no women, not one, not one single woman, has ever been able to qualify or meet the standards to do the jobs in combat arms MOS's. ZERO. There are no women speaking from experience in this regard. A few have tried it and failed. A few have experienced combat in some similar conditions and told you, that this is not a good idea. Everyone else is either telling you from their own experience and expertise as I am, or they are speaking from an academic commentary viewpoint.

Whether my words carry any weight to you is only a demonstration of your ignorance or intellect. Im not doing a research paper, im not advancing any social agenda, im simply telling you how things work, what im worried about, and why you should be worried as well. You may disagree. But youre disagreeing from no point of information or experience. Instead of asking why a Sergeant of Marines is concerned about this, you feel threatened as if im trying to denigrate women. I provide you information, in detail, and you discount it as props in an attack on womens equality.

Im not concerned with the advancement of women or their careers. Nothing I have written has anything to do with that. Im concerned about someone having to die because someone else who didnt have to step up to the plate wanted a woman to have an opportunity for which she was ill suited to undertake.

Clearly this information doesnt matter to you, you feel like you think you know something about this issue although you dont and you seem to support it even though you dont understand what it entails or the effects it will have. Its just merely another talking point and its for "your side" and thats all that seems to matter. Thats a sad reflection of your priorities and how much you actually care or dont care. I cant address that and I havent attempted too.

The review of standards proves that as the standards exist this policy will not work. If it would work, theres no need to review anything. Thats common sense. That also demonstrates the problem. We have the best and most capable combat arms of any military on the face of the planet. Part of that is due to a higher standard, especially physical standard... if that standard needs to be modified and reviewed so that females can become members of the combat arms community, then clearly it is because as it stands today they could not be successful.

If the standards are set today, and if the intent was to have females meet the same standards, then why do we need to review standards. They exist.. pass or fail. Can or cannot.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You think that all women would be totally unable to physically carry a man to safety? Do you think the General doesn't know what the front-line requirements are for any soldier, male or female?

Apparently physical strength is the only argument you can muster up, but that doesn't mean it's the whole story, just the one you've chosen to focus on.

I think that Billy was right when he said that being a general these days is immensely political, my words not his, and to stay in the position you have to play by the rules.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Just a quick review.

Right now no women, not one, not one single woman, has ever been able to qualify or meet the standards to do the jobs in combat arms MOS's. ZERO. There are no women speaking from experience in this regard. A few have tried it and failed. A few have experienced combat in some similar conditions and told you, that this is not a good idea. Everyone else is either telling you from their own experience and expertise as I am, or they are speaking from an academic commentary viewpoint.

Whether my words carry any weight to you is only a demonstration of your ignorance or intellect. Im not doing a research paper, im not advancing any social agenda, im simply telling you how things work, what im worried about, and why you should be worried as well. You may disagree. But youre disagreeing from no point of information or experience. Instead of asking why a Sergeant of Marines is concerned about this, you feel threatened as if im trying to denigrate women. I provide you information, in detail, and you discount it as props in an attack on womens equality.

Im not concerned with the advancement of women or their careers. Nothing I have written has anything to do with that. Im concerned about someone having to die because someone else who didnt have to step up to the plate wanted a woman to have an opportunity for which she was ill suited to undertake.

Clearly this information doesnt matter to you, you feel like you think you know something about this issue although you dont and you seem to support it even though you dont understand what it entails or the effects it will have. Its just merely another talking point and its for "your side" and thats all that seems to matter. Thats a sad reflection of your priorities and how much you actually care or dont care. I cant address that and I havent attempted too.

The review of standards proves that as the standards exist this policy will not work. If it would work, theres no need to review anything. Thats common sense. That also demonstrates the problem. We have the best and most capable combat arms of any military on the face of the planet. Part of that is due to a higher standard, especially physical standard... if that standard needs to be modified and reviewed so that females can become members of the combat arms community, then clearly it is because as it stands today they could not be successful.

If the standards are set today, and if the intent was to have females meet the same standards, then why do we need to review standards. They exist.. pass or fail. Can or cannot.

Translation: Darla is full of shit., I just thought I would précis that for you.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Just a quick review.

Right now no women, not one, not one single woman, has ever been able to qualify or meet the standards to do the jobs in combat arms MOS's. ZERO. There are no women speaking from experience in this regard. A few have tried it and failed. A few have experienced combat in some similar conditions and told you, that this is not a good idea. Everyone else is either telling you from their own experience and expertise as I am, or they are speaking from an academic commentary viewpoint.

Whether my words carry any weight to you is only a demonstration of your ignorance or intellect. Im not doing a research paper, im not advancing any social agenda, im simply telling you how things work, what im worried about, and why you should be worried as well. You may disagree. But youre disagreeing from no point of information or experience. Instead of asking why a Sergeant of Marines is concerned about this, you feel threatened as if im trying to denigrate women. I provide you information, in detail, and you discount it as props in an attack on womens equality.

Im not concerned with the advancement of women or their careers. Nothing I have written has anything to do with that. Im concerned about someone having to die because someone else who didnt have to step up to the plate wanted a woman to have an opportunity for which she was ill suited to undertake.

Clearly this information doesnt matter to you, you feel like you think you know something about this issue although you dont and you seem to support it even though you dont understand what it entails or the effects it will have. Its just merely another talking point and its for "your side" and thats all that seems to matter. Thats a sad reflection of your priorities and how much you actually care or dont care. I cant address that and I havent attempted too.

The review of standards proves that as the standards exist this policy will not work. If it would work, theres no need to review anything. Thats common sense. That also demonstrates the problem. We have the best and most capable combat arms of any military on the face of the planet. Part of that is due to a higher standard, especially physical standard... if that standard needs to be modified and reviewed so that females can become members of the combat arms community, then clearly it is because as it stands today they could not be successful.

If the standards are set today, and if the intent was to have females meet the same standards, then why do we need to review standards. They exist.. pass or fail. Can or cannot.

Yes, women who have experienced combat are speaking up about it. I linked to one right in this thread. WHo cares if they were officially combat troops? Do you think I'm fucking stupid?? Women have not been allowed in combat, why would I be arguing that the women were combat troops? What they are is women who get all of the negatives of being in combat, and none of the positives. Which is what you are arguing for. Everyone knows women are in combat right now and have been for years. They care not permitted to officially be in combat, so they are denied the benefits. It's this simple. Everything else you are saying is a bunch of horseshit.

The Pentagon stated that standards won't be lowered, so your continued whining about no woman passing the tests is irrelevantl. THey will pass or they won't be in combat troops. But some will pass. Many more than you are trying to claim.

And they will eventually rise through the ranks.

MEanwhile the Joint Chief of Staffs made this recommendation to Panetta. But no doubt you are bigger cheese than them as well.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Just a quick review.

Right now no women, not one, not one single woman, has ever been able to qualify or meet the standards to do the jobs in combat arms MOS's. ZERO. There are no women speaking from experience in this regard. A few have tried it and failed. A few have experienced combat in some similar conditions and told you, that this is not a good idea. Everyone else is either telling you from their own experience and expertise as I am, or they are speaking from an academic commentary viewpoint.

Whether my words carry any weight to you is only a demonstration of your ignorance or intellect. Im not doing a research paper, im not advancing any social agenda, im simply telling you how things work, what im worried about, and why you should be worried as well. You may disagree. But youre disagreeing from no point of information or experience. Instead of asking why a Sergeant of Marines is concerned about this, you feel threatened as if im trying to denigrate women. I provide you information, in detail, and you discount it as props in an attack on womens equality.

Im not concerned with the advancement of women or their careers. Nothing I have written has anything to do with that. Im concerned about someone having to die because someone else who didnt have to step up to the plate wanted a woman to have an opportunity for which she was ill suited to undertake.

Clearly this information doesnt matter to you, you feel like you think you know something about this issue although you dont and you seem to support it even though you dont understand what it entails or the effects it will have. Its just merely another talking point and its for "your side" and thats all that seems to matter. Thats a sad reflection of your priorities and how much you actually care or dont care. I cant address that and I havent attempted too.

The review of standards proves that as the standards exist this policy will not work. If it would work, theres no need to review anything. Thats common sense. That also demonstrates the problem. We have the best and most capable combat arms of any military on the face of the planet. Part of that is due to a higher standard, especially physical standard... if that standard needs to be modified and reviewed so that females can become members of the combat arms community, then clearly it is because as it stands today they could not be successful.

If the standards are set today, and if the intent was to have females meet the same standards, then why do we need to review standards. They exist.. pass or fail. Can or cannot.

If Darla had her way, she would change the Olympics rules and introduce handicaps.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I think that Billy was right when he said that being a general these days is immensely political, my words not his, and to stay in the position you have to play by the rules.

Oh those PC bitches are at it again! NOw they have taken over the Generals and forced them to jump through their fembot hoops in order to keep their jobs.

Of course you believe this. You believe anyone and anything that supports your misogynistic world view.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

If Darla had her way, she would change the Olympics rules and introduce handicaps.

If you had your way rape would be legal.

BTw, it was the Joints Chiefs of Staff who made this recommondation to Panetta. And I don't have much pull with them, so "Darla" has nothing to do with this.

 

[christiefan915]

If physical strength and fitness is not a vital component of being a Marine for instance, why is there so much emphasis placed on it?

I wonder how much of the emphasis is on fitness rather than strength. Over the holidays my son's friend came for a visit. He served 2 stretches in Iraq and was on leave. He is maybe 5'9"-10" and looked to weigh around 150 (I didn't ask). He was skinny when he enlisted and still seemed pretty lightweight to me. According to SR, this male could carry a soldier but a woman of comparable size couldn't. Does that make sense to you?

I know basic training has physical tests and standards that all recruits have to meet. But what I'm getting from SR is that because most women don't meet a certain standard they shouldn't even be given the chance to try, that they could create more problems just by being there, that the only reason for them to be in certain combat situations is because of political correctness. That's just horseshit.

 

[christiefan915]

I think that Billy was right when he said that being a general these days is immensely political, my words not his, and to stay in the position you have to play by the rules.

Yet the way we fight wars is changing, too. I think Howey had it right when he said pretty soon it's all going to happen with computers (paraphrasing).