Explaining women in combat arms

Jarod argued earlier that it is sexist to not want to see women die in war but to be ok with men dying in war. Can one argue it is out of respect for women to not want to see them die in war? I agree with you that a man should not hit a woman out of respect (unless your life is in danger or the woman is really trying to kick your ass). Can that reach a point of being sexist in treating a woman different than you would a man in that senario?

But what does this have to do with women in the military? Why shouldn't you hit women? Because every six seconds in this country a woman is beaten. Because, generally speaking, most women are physically weaker than the man who is beating them. Abusive men don't seek out women they think can give them a challenge anymore than any bully seeks out strong victims. Generally speaking most women aren't trained in self-defense. Abusive men don't seek out women who are studying martial arts.

This really has nothing to do with the particular women who seek out a career in the military.
 
Why would ever have respect for a scumbag that said this....and is proud of it.

Yet nobody called him out on this, whilst when I said that at least she had a "stonking pair of tits", that old buzzard Darla went apeshit!! Apparently the guideline is you can call all women who are not liberals cunts but woe betide if you transgress the holy writ of Darla.
 
I hope you mean that by "response mocking" that the above never happened. But you still don't get it. You still used the idea that the women on patrol were nothing but sluts, and the men were the willing receivers of their largesse. I bet if this scenario was changed (below) you wouldn't think it was mocking.

"Jane: I know that during my tour we had very handsome male Marines that went on patrols with us, slept naked with us out in the field during offensive operations and performed sexual favors for all of us to keep us in a good mood... helped ferry ammunition to us during firefights, cooked our meals, carried out our wounded, sometimes they would suntan nude and invite us to hold "who has the biggest willy" contests."

When I saw this I was fairly certain he was taking the piss, surely being around Billy long enough you would get a sense for the gallows humour in the military.
 
Exactly, are we talking basic training or Seal, Ranger standards because special ops standards are a lot more physically taxing than basic training. My brother in law couldn't pass the Ranger test, but his son did.

There are several different layers of training and separation...and I can only speak to the Marine Corps.

The first starts at recruiting. Recruiters are trained in evaluating individuals who are interested in joining the Marine Corps in regards to what and which MOS's to recommend and place individuals in. This is done through a combination of preliminary aptitude tests, physical tests, and medical evaluations. There are specifications and requirements that any new recruit must match with prior to being send to bootcamp. For the Marine Corps there is a minimum physical qualification that must be passed just in order to enter recruit training.

The second represents "bootcamp". The physical requirements are low for this level, however performance in all physical activities are required and passage of all events are required before you can leave your recruit training battalion. Prior to graduation you must pass both the Marine Corps standard PFT (Physical Fitness Test) that for males includes max pull-ups (max 20) x 5 pts, max crunches in 2 min (max 100) x 1, and a 3 mile run (100 pts max if at or under 18 min) for the highest total of 300 pts or a perfect PFT (20 pullups, 100 crunches, 18 minute 3 mile run). In addition to this there is the Marine Corps standard CFT (Combat Fitness Test). This is comprised of an 800 meter sprint in boots and utes, then you have a 30 lbs max ammo can lift in 2 min, followed by an intricate maneuver under fire course that consists of too much to list, here is a video of it:

The CFT is scored differently based on Gender currently as is the PFT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Physical_Fitness_Test
Females now have the option to do pullups but normally they do a flex arm hang in place of that. They get more time on the run as well in order to receive the max points

http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/61/Docs/HQ Svc BN/MCPFP 17-26[1].pdf
Females again are already given a different set of criteria in order to get max points.

Bootcamp is part preparation for further training evolutions. You do not have to enter bootcamp in peak physical condition, but as you are trained over 13 weeks you get more physically fit. Though the requirements are fairly low in terms of physical standards, the results are quite improved by the time you graduate. Along this initial training evolution if you are overweight you will be dropped from your training battalion and placed in BCP (Body Composition Program) until you meet the weight standards. If you cannot pass the PFT and CFT you will be dropped from your training battalion and put into a Physical Training Remediation program until you can pass it.

No one leaves bootcamp until these milestones have been met.

The third level splits into 2 roads. The first road if you are non-infantry is to undergo Marine Combat Training, which is a 5 week evolution. This is a "mini-infantry" course. All Marines are required to take it if they are not going into an infantry billet. At the end of the day ALL Marines are riflemen. So you learn combat tactics and squad operations. You hump miles and miles in full load carrying weapons. If you are unable to pass these events or if you are injured during this evolution you are dropped from your training battalion and remediated.

If you are entering an infantry MOS, then you proceed from bootcamp to the School of Infantry. At this stage you undertake all of the training of MCT which is just basic introduction to combat tactics. All of the same requirements must be met. Then depending on your MOS you go into specific MOS training. If you are going to be a machine gunner you then you have an additional month course where you are introduced to the 240, .50 cal, and M19. If you are a mortar man you have an additional month being taught how to employ the 81's, and 120's, if you are a rifleman you.... each infantry discipline gets specific training on their weapon systems and employment.

This stage is extremely physical. Most all of the training includes carrying the weapon systems on long humps in full load. Emplacing, tearing down, move... emplacing, tearing down, move... this gear can weigh 30 lbs or more just the weapon systems. The 50 cal weighs 85 pounds. Your fighting load can weigh up to 60 lbs. It is a lot of grueling activities carrying and moving with a lot of weight on your back and an extreme test of the lower extremities. If you cannot complete the training evolution you will be dropped from your training battalion to either be re-trained as a different MOS or put in medical until you can fully recover and try again. This is the combat arm MOS... this is what you are tasked with doing. It is your job to be put on a ship, then assault a beach, then fight inland to establish a beachhead... this is the purpose of the Marine Corps. You will be on foot, carrying everything you need to survive and kill the enemy. This is it.

This is where, currently the males, who cannot meet the standards are dropped. This is still initial training. This is before you ever join an infantry unit.

Once you successfully pass this then you are finally complete with your initial training and you join the fleet.

The final physical standards are set my your infantry unit. The following is a physical standards test that will take place this summer.

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...
 
I hope you mean that by "response mocking" that the above never happened. But you still don't get it. You still used the idea that the women on patrol were nothing but sluts, and the men were the willing receivers of their largesse. I bet if this scenario was changed (below) you wouldn't think it was mocking.

"Jane: I know that during my tour we had very handsome male Marines that went on patrols with us, slept naked with us out in the field during offensive operations and performed sexual favors for all of us to keep us in a good mood... helped ferry ammunition to us during firefights, cooked our meals, carried out our wounded, sometimes they would suntan nude and invite us to hold "who has the biggest willy" contests."

are you an idiot?

I just explained to you the context of the response. Of course it never happened that wasnt the point. The point was to refute a comment from another poster saying that heterosexual members of the military act in inappropriate ways... of which I clearly "mocked" as entirely not true and way out of reality.

Of course I wouldnt take your example seriously. We're professionals operating in a combat zone... why would any idiot take that comment seriously??... as Im assuming you did?
 
Save me "the right" bullshit. I'm asking as my own person, not as a member of a political party of political group. To not want to see a woman die in combat has nothing to do with my political beliefs plus I already have stated that if a woman wants to go to the front lines and can pass the physical test then I support. Hey, I'll be the first to celebrate during the next war when more woman have been killed than men in combat. That will be true equality.

So if a woman attacked and robbed you and was doing serious physical harm to you you would just sit there and take it, risking death, out of respect? I would love to see that on YouTube.

Do you know one of the reasons I come onto this board is to find out what PC nonsense there is in the pipeline? The next thing after this will be equality for transgendered personnel and the right to wear mufti when going into battle. Some of those handbags can carry a lot of grenades!! It is also bloody amazing that the same people who want absolute equality in the armed forces do not want them deployed in any circumstances anyway.
 
are you an idiot?

I just explained to you the context of the response. Of course it never happened that wasnt the point. The point was to refute a comment from another poster saying that heterosexual members of the military act in inappropriate ways... of which I clearly "mocked" as entirely not true and way out of reality.

Of course I wouldnt take your example seriously. We're professionals operating in a combat zone... why would any idiot take that comment seriously??... as Im assuming you did?

images


Everything you've written about women and gays in the military is a put-down or at the very least, damning with faint praise.

Your intolerance for anything other than the status quo is noted. I really hate to think your attitude is prevalent among all troops because if it is, it shows a depressing level of ignorance and prejudice. I'd like to think that the people charged with defending this country are better than you portray them.

You can post dozens of articles and videos to try and show women are unfit for certain jobs but you're not fooling the women here, even if some of the men are buying into it. You can do the same for gays but you're not credible there, either.

I may be an idiot about some matters, but sensitivity to the way women are treated both in and out of the military isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:
When I saw this I was fairly certain he was taking the piss, surely being around Billy long enough you would get a sense for the gallows humour in the military.

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.
 
Boiled down: most women can't qualify for combat arms MOS because they're physically incapable of the demands. But to further one's career, one is required to have combat experience. However, the qualifications for getting the specialized experience can't be changed in the slightest because that would mean lowering safety standards simply for reasons of political correctness.

Why don't you guys just come out and say you don't want women in these positions, period, instead of thinking you can fool us with your smoke and mirrors?


Do you admit to the statement in this post or deny it ?
"most women can't qualify for combat arms MOS because they're physically incapable of the demands"

don't you think this is a quite significant issue...?
should standards be lower for the girls like we do when they want to be cops and firefighters ?
will the lower standards endanger the other troops ?

These are legitimate questions and concerns aren't they ?
 
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 it was Iraq or A'stan.

Gays is a totally different question, at least as far as physical standards are concerned. Please believe me if women can pass the tests then good luck to them but I seriously doubt that there are enough to form more than a couple of frontline infantry platoons. SR knows what he is talking about and should be listened to, there is no political correctness on a battlefield. I have worked with many ex-military and they pretty much all have the same type of gallows humour, which is why I knew that he wasn't being remotely serious. I knew one guy who had been in the Royal Marines and he told me that there were very few excuses that were acceptable for not reporting for duty, apart from maybe death or losing a limb!!
 
Do you know one of the reasons I come onto this board is to find out what PC nonsense there is in the pipeline? The next thing after this will be equality for transgendered personnel and the right to wear mufti when going into battle. Some of those handbags can carry a lot of grenades!! It is also bloody amazing that the same people who want absolute equality in the armed forces do not want them deployed in any circumstances anyway.

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.
 
Christie can you just shut up? We are all going to listen to this white guy cause this other white guy said he knows his shit okay?

I hate when women try and interrupt white guys while they are busy making rules and regulations about us. I mean, really Christie, what the eff is your problem????
 
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.

OMG you are still yapping?! That's just like a woman...as Cawakco so sagely pointed out yesterday - some of these women have opinions and are not too shy about sharing them!!
 
Christie can you just shut up? We are all going to listen to this white guy cause this other white guy said he knows his shit okay?

I hate when women try and interrupt white guys while they are busy making rules and regulations about us. I mean, really Christie, what the eff is your problem????

I don't know my place. Whatever it is, I'm not in it!
 
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'd say that the claim that those who want equality don't want soldiers deployed in any circumstances is an unsupportable overreach though.
 
images


Everything you've written about women and gays in the military is a put-down or at the very least, damning with faint praise.

Your intolerance for anything other than the status quo is noted. I really hate to think your attitude is prevalent among all troops because if it is, it shows a depressing level of ignorance and prejudice. I'd like to think that the people charged with defending this country are better than you portray them.

You can post dozens of articles and videos to try and show women are unfit for certain jobs but you're not fooling the women here, even if some of the men are buying into it. You can do the same for gays but you're not credible there, either.

I may be an idiot about some matters, but sensitivity to the way women are treated both in and out of the military isn't one of them.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Back
Top