So to sum that opinion piece up:

A)Women can't handle prolonged periods of discomfort.
B)Men are too sensitive to see women suffer prolonged periods of discomfort.
C)Men are too sensitive to see women naked/urinate/defecate.

Not convinced. Honestly when the point is to go to places and kill people how can concerns like B and C be seriously entertained? Can't handle seeing a woman shit into an MRE bag but can see people get blown to bits.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 2:03:12 PM

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/all-these-objections-women-combat-are-dumb/61372/

I agree with this piece 100%

1/24/2013 2:12:43 PM

Quote :

"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know."

- Gingrich

Quote :

"I do have concerns about women in frontline combat. I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that's probably—you know, it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat. But I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat, and I think that's probably not in the best interest of men, women, or the mission."

- Santorum

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/24/decision-to-allow-women-in-combat-roles-raises-questions-about-draft/

Quote :

"Critics say the big battle ahead isn't over physical capabilities or competency but in the logistical legal challenge of trying to weave the changes into current law. How the government would handle the draft is among the questions observers are asking. "Once you allow women into combat, you are then essentially ordering all women to fight," Tommy Sears, executive director at The Center for Military Readiness, told FoxNews.com. "You have a vocal minority forcing women who would rather not be fighting to go to war." Sears told FoxNews.com Thursday that he believes once women are allowed on the front lines, all women will be held to the same standards as men. He claimed the government could be obligated to expand the draft -- should it ever be activated -- to women. "There are interest groups for women who will actually make it a point to see that that happens," he said. U.S. law states that if there are changes in policy regarding where women can serve in the military, the Pentagon must provide a "detailed analysis of the legal implication of the proposed change with respect to the constitutionality of the application of the Military Selective Service Act ... to males only." Currently, men are supposed to register for the Selective Service within a month of turning 18. It has been limited to men between the ages of 18 and 25. Since women have not been allowed to fight on the front lines, they have been excluded from the lottery. The drafting order involves a number of steps but basically it comes down to a computer picking who gets called to duty. Some say it's too early to worry about a draft but others point to the complicated process as another example of the uphill challenges that face the seismic shift in military policy. If the draft were ever reinstated, changing the rules could be complicated. The country's military normally uses volunteer troops. The president has the authority to call in reserve troops and the National Guard if necessary, but if more military personnel are needed, Congress and the president could decide to reinstate the draft. "

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16681072-valor-knows-no-gender-pentagon-lifts-ban-on-women-in-combat?lite

Quote :

"'Valor knows no gender': Pentagon lifts ban on women in combat By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News Declaring that it would strengthen both the military and the country, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday lifted a ban on women in combat and said that it was “the responsibility of every citizen to protect the nation.”"

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 2:27:10 PM

Women are capable of stopping their period, if that's the issue

1/24/2013 2:29:17 PM

http://freebeacon.com/dempsey-combat-ban-contributed-to-sexual-assault-problem/

What a bunch of horse shit from a politician in uniform. Yes, sexual assault is a problem in the military because men and women aren't mixed enough

1/24/2013 4:29:31 PM

Quote :

"Declaring that it would strengthen both the military and the country, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday lifted a ban on women in combat and said that it was “the responsibility of every citizen to protect the nation.”""

What a load of shit.

1/24/2013 4:53:17 PM

Sure are a lot of people who want to die for the the Greater Good™. First the gay folks and now the women.

I think it's a little funny that people will drop their anti-war stance in the defense of a woman's right to die in battle.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 9:05:23 PM

Quote :

"I think it's a little funny that people will drop their anti-war stance in the defense of a woman's right to die in battle."

Who do you know that has done this?

1/24/2013 9:36:30 PM

Quote :

"i'm sure str8foolish loves the thought of one of our women being taken POW in the middle east or africa. i promise you, the POW experience would not be created equal, either."

Cornum, Rhonda
Lynch, Jessica
Johnson, Shoshana

asymmetrical warfare has had women in combat roles before we knew they were combat roles

1/24/2013 10:01:23 PM

I doubt there will be many women who even want to go infantry. I know there were very few women who expressed interest when the Marine Corps did surveys. Interesting article from a Marine Officer on the subject.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

1/25/2013 3:42:37 AM

other countries do it and are just fine.

1/25/2013 4:25:44 AM

^^^ Good post in a troll thread.

I remember some war story a while back about women who served and sacrificed in Iraq. The real outrage is that they weren't eligible for some metals or compensation because we can't officially classify anything a woman does as "combat". As far as I can tell, the concept of combat should be a hindsight observation. While sometimes you may send soldiers into combat, that's not how all combat occurs.

If there are branches that are 100% male and remain that way, then unless there's a problem that women want to get in we shouldn't care. As I see the issue, this is more of a matter of recognizing that women see combat, as opposed to sending them into combat. With that perspective, it's pretty clear that this ostensible "ban" was bullshit.

1/25/2013 3:00:18 PM

if somebody wants to go into combat be my guest; don't be a liability (that's an all-inclusive statement). i'm old school in my opinions in that i would prefer men going into combat before women, but it's from the idea of valuing women, not that women are "incapable" or "inferior".

1/25/2013 3:07:09 PM

Thoughts from a blogger named Henry McCulloch:

Quote :

"I have had many years to think about what role women should have in the armed forces. I was a Marine infantry officer and Air Force Reserve fighter pilot in an active capacity for over 16 years. Now, mercifully, I am completely separated from the U.S. armed forces. During my active service and in the years since it ended, I have seen women over-preferred and over-promoted at every step. Inevitably their presence in any numbers is burdensome to the force and detrimental to combat readiness—even when serving only in support units. No matter what promises about high standards Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey may make, standards will be lowered until enough women qualify that this great social experiment can be declared a success. But the truth will be otherwise and, should the U.S. armed forces have to fight a serious adversary that does not engage in this nonsense, very quickly obvious. Men, and some of these ladies, will pay for this social engineering with their lives. In the 1970s, I saw the service academies thrown open to women, and male cadets and midshipmen at all three academies ordered not to tell the press anything about the blatant dual standards that prevailed thenceforth—despite command assurances to the public that no standards were being relaxed to accommodate women. So much for the Honor Code. It is not surprising that Air Force Academy graduates of the Class of ‘80 (the first to include women) are among the most cynical men I have ever known. I saw women offered more chances to overcome physical unfitness and injuries in Marine officer training than any man—even a Naval Academy graduate—would be given. That was in 1980. At least in 1980 an unqualified Marine officerette was never in danger of having to attempt to lead Marines in combat. After 2013, however, all bets may be off. I saw women offered several chances to repeat flunked check rides in Air Force flight training, when one flunked check ride was almost always enough to wash out a man, even an Air Force Academy graduate. That was in 1984. And at least in 1984, there was not yet any danger that an underqualified Air Force pilotess would have to attempt to fly a tactical aircraft in combat. After 1994, however, all bets were off. In the late 1980s, I watched uniformed women officers lobbying openly in the Capitol and on national television for the removal of any restrictions on their assignability—engaging in political activity while in uniform that would have earned (deservedly) any male officer a court-martial. These ladies were not lobbying because they wished to fight, but because they wanted more chances at promotion. No senior officer disciplined any of them, and no elected or appointed federal official that I am aware of, either Republican or Democrat, protested their gross breaches of military decorum. In 1991 and 1992, I watched the careers of many male naval aviators ruined because one woman Navy helicopter pilot, Paula Coughlin, complained about their behavior at Tailhook ‘91 in Las Vegas, where they were celebrating victory in Desert Storm. The high-jinks Lieutenant Couglin and other naval aviatrixes present engaged in were overlooked, while the Chief of Naval Operations stood by and allowed good men’s careers to be destroyed rather than question the very questionable account of one junior, but female, officer. In 1994 and 1995, I watched as the failed attempt to qualify Captain (“inexplicably” speed-promoted to Major) Jacqueline “Jackie” Parker in the F-16 effectively ruined the 174th Fighter Wing—a unit that had recently distinguished itself in Desert Storm. Parker destroyed several careers along her erratic flightpath, including those of the 174 FW’s Wing Commander, Vice Commander and Deputy Commander for Operations—with whom she had an affair—all the while firing off accusations of sexual harassment to cover her dangerous deficiencies as a “fighter pilot.” (I put that in quotes because a woman can no more truly be a fighter pilot than two homosexuals can truly be married to each other.) Once it became too obvious that the vaunted Parker would kill herself or someone else if she continued attempting to fly the F-16 operationally, she was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and sent to a non-flying job in California. Search the internet: it’s easy to find propaganda lauding Parker as a Pioneer of Aviation. She never paid the slightest price for the devastation she left in her wake. After 1995, I stopped flying actively because of the demands of my civilian career. While I regretted leaving the F-16 and my fighter squadron, I had no regrets about leaving what the armed forces had already become. In the years since, the armed forces have only become worse—much worse. And eventually, after considerable reflection, the conclusion I reached is that women should not, for moral and readiness reasons both, serve in the armed forces in any capacity. I might allow a strictly limited exception for nurses in rear-area hospitals; even in that case I’m not convinced that role would not be filled just as well or better by uniformed men or civilians. As for the other social revolutions liberalism has force-fed into the armed forces, I do not believe homosexuals should serve in the armed forces, period. The same goes for foreign nationals; nobody should be able to buy U.S. citizenship simply by enlisting in the U.S. armed forces. Whatever the current commander-in-chief and the generals and admirals who advise him may be serious about, they clearly are not serious about America’s having armed forces capable of fighting and winning wars. So while I am disgusted by the decision to eliminate the combat exclusion altogether, I am not in the least surprised by it."

1/25/2013 5:46:48 PM

Quote :

"As for the other social revolutions liberalism has force-fed into the armed forces, I do not believe homosexuals should serve in the armed forces, period. The same goes for foreign nationals; nobody should be able to buy U.S. citizenship simply by enlisting in the U.S. armed forces."

what a fucking turd

1/25/2013 5:49:09 PM

^I thought this piece was even more troll-like.

Quote :

"I might allow a strictly limited exception for nurses in rear-area hospitals; even in that case I’m not convinced that role would not be filled just as well or better by uniformed men or civilians."

To the back of the bus hospital with you military women, we have civilian men who should get preferential treatment for this job!

1/25/2013 6:01:59 PM

Quote :

"“fighter pilot.” (I put that in quotes because a woman can no more truly be a fighter pilot than two homosexuals can truly be married to each other"

1/25/2013 8:26:12 PM

Most women (and most men) aren't interested in fighting. So don't worry...you're not gonna be overrun by women tryna get into combat. And, not only is the desire generally absent, but the need isn't really there either. Girls do better than boys in school so they tend to go to college instead of the military, but of course, all options should be open to anybody who wants or needs to try.

I also think it's important to talk about reality, not biological ability. I'm just saying...tubby beer guzzlers who still complain of pain from their high school football "careers" should not be going on about biological differences...it's just embarrassing.

Quote :

"TULIPlovr: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYdt-7MOUs - the men in the background are Marines. The teary-eyed quitter whose punches and kicks make the men laugh....isn't. And yes, I know she had just been sprayed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK8ywmLmPbs

No blacks allowed either!

1/26/2013 4:34:36 PM

If women want to volunteer to get sent off to third world shitholes to do god knows what for next to nothing, then be my guest.

1/26/2013 4:59:57 PM

After reading some of these discussions, I wonder how many of you have met or seen women in combat...

For a war with no front lines, I've seen women in action and there's no real anatomical difference that causes problems when responding to direct and indirect fire.

In the end, it's about training and how it's used to combat hostile forces.

Now, if we're talking about 90 mile rucks with 65+ lbs., that may be a little more difficult due to those anatomical differences.

Right now, women are used as a source of inspiration to foreign populations that may not regard women as equals. Cultural Engagement Teams send a strategic message of a woman empowered, capable of providing and sustaining mission accomplishment at full spectrum.

Change your thinking and check your head. We're ONE or we're NOTHING.

1/26/2013 5:51:12 PM

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/the-long-march-of-envy/

Quote :

"Since the goal is to erase the concept of masculine virtues, the new bargain the introduction of women into combat represents isn’t to have women join equally or even seriously in the fighting and dying. The new bargain is that men will continue to be the ones who fight and die, but that they must not feel a sense of masculine pride in either doing this or having this obligation. In this sense they are doing to the military what they have done to other institutions. Husbands and fathers are still responsible to protect and provide for their families, they have just been taught not to see themselves as head of the household."

^

Quote :

"Right now, women are used as a source of inspiration to foreign populations that may not regard women as equals. Cultural Engagement Teams send a strategic message of a woman empowered, capable of providing and sustaining mission accomplishment at full spectrum."

This kind of ignorance of Islam goes all the way up to the top. Our enemies are not fooled, and they envy neither us nor the 'freedom' of our women. Most emotional tales of such interactions are nothing but a deluded Westerner's interpretation of what they see.

Afghanis know exactly what kinds of "inspirational" words and apparent changes will open the wallets of our politicians and military, and their cultures have prepared them quite well to lie, cheat, and steal, over long periods of time, in order to establish their own fiefdoms. Their women are willing accomplices, and play their role quite effectively.

There will be no change in Afghanistan nor Iraq. The people are not transformed by democracy or gender egalitarianism. They are not sitting therein ignorance of how awesome life would be if they would just be like us. They aren't poor savages living in the dark, who just need to see a little hope for rights and equality. That's hogwash. They know what we think and want, and they actively reject all of it for foundational worldview reasons that we can't and won't touch.

Cultural Engagement Teams themselves are just as much a symptom of our feminine military as these female 'soldiers' themselves.

[Edited on January 26, 2013 at 7:56 PM. Reason : s]

1/26/2013 7:37:23 PM

There should be a standard requirement/expectation for combat jobs. If the person (male or female) can meet these requirements professionally, then I don't see there being an issue. If the said person can't objectively meet these requirements or they can't hold a professional work ethic in the field, then they have no business being there.

1/26/2013 9:23:59 PM

Quote :

"Since the goal is to erase the concept of masculine virtues, the new bargain the introduction of women into combat represents isn’t to have women join equally or even seriously in the fighting and dying. The new bargain is that men will continue to be the ones who fight and die, but that they must not feel a sense of masculine pride in either doing this or having this obligation."

This reminds me of a bad 90s movie where Schwarzenegger's character got pregnant (science), and when a woman found out she was outraged. Something about how he was talking away the dignity of women by co-opting the one task that they were (until then) uniquely able to do for society.

Actually, it's pretty much an identical argument.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110216/



[Edited on January 27, 2013 at 1:52 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2013 1:51:48 PM

Quote :

"have just been taught not to see themselves as head of the household."

I'm fascinated by the term 'head of household'. We could probably have a whole other thread dedicated to attempting to define it.

1/27/2013 2:01:35 PM

Quote :

"Incidentally, their lower center of mass helps women take higher G forces and so make very good fighter pilots."

What would you say you know about Aviation physiology!?! B/C you just made THAT statement up. Also, we've had female fighter pilots for 20 years now, so... [reasons I love T-dub]

I agree with pretty much all the other military folks in here. It'll make great sense on paper. IE: sure put ladies in infantry, they'll "meet the standard". But yea, facts are facts. Maybe they'll be better marksmen, but they simply can't carry the weight over the distances that men can. Physical fitness standards across the board are significantly different. The idea that technology makes athleticism irrelevant is why women are allowed in many places,like aviation and maybe submarines (I'm not a submariner) where that's true. But in an infantry battalion or SOF... they simply can't perform.

1/27/2013 9:48:53 PM

^ yeah and my understanding is that the new policy doesn't demand women be put in those positions, it only allows for it, if it is needed.

I don't see why anyone would be against such a policy.

Not to mention our allies have had women in combat positions. It's not the end of the world, i'm not sure why people are freaking out about this.

1/27/2013 10:20:07 PM

Quote :

"I agree with pretty much all the other military folks in here. It'll make great sense on paper. IE: sure put ladies in infantry, they'll "meet the standard"."

Now what do you have against recognizing that women have already served in combat roles?

Putting recruits in roles specifically thought to lead to combat (infantry) is only one part of this, and you're ignoring the other part. If a woman has seen action, then isn't it ridiculously demeaning to maintain an "official" stance that she hasn't?

1/28/2013 8:08:04 AM

Quote :

"Putting recruits in roles specifically thought to lead to combat (infantry) is only one part of this, and you're ignoring the other part. If a woman has seen action, then isn't it ridiculously demeaning to maintain an "official" stance that she hasn't?"

A) Define "action". I've been shot at, but everyone on that airplane (including me) will certainly tell you that we weren't in combat. Nor do I fill a combat roll as an MPRA Mission Commander.

B) Define "Roles thought to lead to combat". To say that a heavy equipment battalion (where women serve) is equally as likely to be in combat as an infantry battalion, is a little far fetched. While I do contend that both units are very likely to see enemy fire. (especially in the CENTCOM and AFRICOM AORs)

The jobs are physically very different. Are there some women who can do infantry and SOF jobs? I'm sure there are. But the standard for physical fitness will be lowered to allow females, vice allowing females to serve under the same standards. It's already happened across the board.

1/28/2013 6:06:07 PM

Quote :

"But the standard for physical fitness will be lowered to allow females, vice allowing females to serve under the same standards. It's already happened across the board. "

And this is where I disagree with allowing females. Either you make the standards or you don't. On the battlefield and in war, the enemy isn't going to give you a "handicap" because you are female. Having seperate standards is not only a hazard in the field, but is also unobjective and sexual discrimination.

1/29/2013 5:59:26 AM

There's a reason the military is opening jobs. I know you guys talk about standards... but the bulk of it really is this: Our days of fighting hand to hand are at a minimal... We don't do it unless we don't have a choice.

Now, you can argue standards, and you can argue anatomy and I agree to an extent. If they can hack it, why not? But you would sooner judge based on reason over experience and there's a flaw in thought there. You underestimate due to what exactly?

But men and women both will surprise you and women have been in combat for a long time, it's just that the military has just not caught up until now.

If they can lay down fire when I need them to (in which they have and can), I'm happy. If they can obey an order the same as the next guy (in which they can), I'm happy. Hell, I'd be happy just for sheer competence.

At this point, you're all just a bunch of talking heads that haven't seen shit. And when you open your mouth, you need to see some shit. Otherwise, you're just coming off as one of those people.

2/3/2013 3:41:07 AM

The military will figure out what jobs women can do. No need to make blanked policies. When lives are on the line, there is a strong incentive to make the right decision.

Maybe we won't see chicks carrying big packs over distances, but we'll find jobs they can do.

2/3/2013 12:02:06 PM

Quote :

"The jobs are physically very different. Are there some women who can do infantry and SOF jobs? I'm sure there are. But the standard for physical fitness will be lowered to allow females, vice allowing females to serve under the same standards. It's already happened across the board."

You're still stubbornly ignoring the point: you don't know what shit women veterans have been through.

You can generalize, and you are generalizing, but that doesn't change the central point. Do you think there has never been a woman in the armed forces that has seen conditions so severe that we should classify it as combat?

I remember hearing that truck driving in Iraq had one of the highest mortality rates or any job. But you are talking about modern wars as if they were WWII. We live in asymmetric war, and again, you don't know what women have seen in service, but yet you arrogantly suggest that their roles should never be classified as combat when you don't know what their role was.

In fact, your entire argument hinges on the idea that publicly recognizing that women can physically serve in combat roles will cause requirements to degrade. Dude, that's not a problem with the combat classification. That's a problem with having chickenshit leaders.

2/3/2013 12:27:15 PM

Quote :

"You're still stubbornly ignoring the point: you don't know what shit women veterans have been through."

I've served with females in OIF and OEF. It seems to me that YOU don't know what shit veterans have been through. GOD I love Tdub....

Quote :

"You can generalize, and you are generalizing, but that doesn't change the central point. Do you think there has never been a woman in the armed forces that has seen conditions so severe that we should classify it as combat?"

So, maybe you don't understand combat roles. It has to do with putting a combat tag on a specific unit so individuals attached to that unit get a pay bonus, NOT deciding whether or not someone was in combat after and engagement has occurred.

Quote :

"I remember hearing that truck driving in Iraq had one of the highest mortality rates or any job. But you are talking about modern wars as if they were WWII. We live in asymmetric war, and again, you don't know what women have seen in service, but yet you arrogantly suggest that their roles should never be classified as combat when you don't know what their role was."

Truck driving in Iraq was very dangerous. I was stationed at the same place as a large number of motor pool guys. IED's made it super dangerous to drive outside of the wire on known supply routes. Again I'm not saying that women haven't seen enemy fire. I'm saying that the current standard for physical ability in an infantry, artillery, or SOF unit can not be sustained if you allow females. [Of note: Infantry and SOF are excluded from the current plan, so, this argument is kinda pointless]

Quote :

"In fact, your entire argument hinges on the idea that publicly recognizing that women can physically serve in combat roles will cause requirements to degrade. Dude, that's not a problem with the combat classification. That's a problem with having chickenshit leaders. "

So, that may be true. But those leaders are pressed by public pressure to reach certain "diversity" numbers. It's a reality, I don't like it or agree with it, but it's what happens.

2/3/2013 5:32:30 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that the current standard for physical ability in an infantry, artillery, or SOF unit can not be sustained if you allow females."

Why? There are certainly females that an meet that standard. Likewise, there are men that can't.

2/3/2013 6:10:30 PM

Quick question: When and where were women denied pay, benefits, personal awards, ect while in combat? To be clear, I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm legitimately asking. I've done 7 pumps between OIF and OEF in the Infantry and Recon/MARSOC and women received the same pay and benefits while in country as us. They were awarded CARs, Purple Hearts, and Medals with "V" when they rated them. From what I saw the Marine Corps was more than fair about that kind of stuff, as they should be.

Aside from that question, I think there needs to be some clarification on what a "combat role" is. Every MOS in country is a "combat role," its a matter of weather that role is conducting combat operations or supporting them. Motor-T, Engineers, Supply, ect all support combat operations. Does that mean they don't get in fire-fights and have to deal with IEDs? Of course not. It's just not their primary job. This is the kind of combat women have mostly been seeing and they have performed capably and admirably in those situations.

Conducting combat operations is an entirely different beast. If a supply convoy gets shot at, they return fire, but their primary mission is to get the convoy to its destination. Their not setting up a base of fire and pushing out a maneuver element. Their doing what they have to to get out of the situation and accomplish their mission. It's different than strapping on 100+ pounds of gear, patrolling 20 klicks, getting in 3 or 4 fire-fights lasting an hour or more, having to carry a casualty 3 klicks to an LZ, finding an IED on the way back, waiting hours for EOD, finally getting back after 14 or 15 hours, standing post all night, filling sand bags and stacking water and MREs as soon as your relieved, then immediately getting called out on a QRF mission on no sleep or chow for another 8 hours ad 2 or 3 fire-fights and a MEDEVAC, working parties and post when you get back, and finally maybe an hour of sleep before it's time for patrol again. Not to mention all of this happens in 120 degree heat while having dysentery after having not showered for 4 months.

Sound far-fetched? That's a normal day and it lasts for month's. Combat support MOS's absolutely see combat and yes, women have been serving in combat. But the combat is a byproduct of doing their job, not the job itself. Its fought differently with a different objective. Denying women any kind of credit for the combat they see is fucking bullshit and should be rectified. But to equate serving in a "combat role" with conducting combat operations is misguided.

2/4/2013 2:42:02 AM

^ So, there's my whole point.

^^Maybe CAN NOT was a bad term. The standards WILL NOT be sustained because they will hold women to different physical standards. (like what they do now for physical fitness standards in every service.) Again, are there some american females that can hang with Marines in a MARSOC unit? I'm sure there are, but they're few and far between.

2/4/2013 8:00:46 AM

Quote :

"So, maybe you don't understand combat roles. It has to do with putting a combat tag on a specific unit so individuals attached to that unit get a pay bonus, NOT deciding whether or not someone was in combat after and engagement has occurred."

You can claim that what I'm reading is wrong, but make no mistake about the issue I am arguing.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22437569/pentagon-lifts-ban-women-serving-combat-roles

Quote :

"As recently as two months ago, four servicewomen filed a federal lawsuit against the Pentagon challenging its combat restriction, saying they had all served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan but had not been officially recognized for it."

You're saying that a combat classification isn't a retroactive thing. This lawsuit seems to say otherwise. To the extent that it is a retroactive thing, then the status quo is indefensible. I think that's pretty clear to everyone. Your position only makes sense by not viewing the issue the same as what the above wording suggests.

2/4/2013 8:42:29 AM

Quote :

"Conducting combat operations is an entirely different beast. If a supply convoy gets shot at, they return fire, but their primary mission is to get the convoy to its destination. Their not setting up a base of fire and pushing out a maneuver element. Their doing what they have to to get out of the situation and accomplish their mission. It's different than strapping on 100+ pounds of gear, patrolling 20 klicks, getting in 3 or 4 fire-fights lasting an hour or more, having to carry a casualty 3 klicks to an LZ, finding an IED on the way back, waiting hours for EOD, finally getting back after 14 or 15 hours, standing post all night, filling sand bags and stacking water and MREs as soon as your relieved, then immediately getting called out on a QRF mission on no sleep or chow for another 8 hours ad 2 or 3 fire-fights and a MEDEVAC, working parties and post when you get back, and finally maybe an hour of sleep before it's time for patrol again. Not to mention all of this happens in 120 degree heat while having dysentery after having not showered for 4 months."

It's worth looking at some basic differences between men and women and how they impact the kind of scenarios you outline here. I understand tendencies to strive for equality and it is admirable, but I think there is some desire to ignore biological realities here.

Good article on the subject here: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

Quote :

"I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen. By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females. There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women. There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death. For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?"

acraw posted something in the Beachbody thread that takes a look at the effects of prolonged periods without food (which could at least be compared to prolonged periods of energy deprivation) on men and women, and men fare far better than women: http://www.paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/

The people pushing for this change, as the first article points out, aren't the people in active service for the most part, they're outsiders with an agenda. It might be an agenda I agree with for the most part, and my overall position is that we really shouldn't be involved in these military conflicts at all, but I think there is a strong argument that women have it far worse in prolonged periods of stress and combat.

2/4/2013 12:20:26 PM

ttt for pull-ups.

7/22/2013 5:39:58 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/02/marines-female-fitness-pullups/4294313/

Half of women couldn't do 3 pull-ups.

"More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs."

[Edited on January 2, 2014 at 6:52 PM. Reason : ]

1/2/2014 6:52:20 PM

I call bullshit on 45% of female 'marines' being able to do 3 pull-ups with proper form. I'd be surprised if it were half that.

1/2/2014 7:31:15 PM

Sheesh, you're an angry person.

Good thing you have religion to keep you even.

[Edited on January 2, 2014 at 7:52 PM. Reason : ]

1/2/2014 7:52:08 PM

pretty cool that he doesn't post for months and then comes back with his usual bullshit

1/2/2014 8:41:58 PM

While 3 pull ups is the minimum to pass the test, I don't think I've ever seen a male Marine do worse than at least double that ( which is itself a pathetic display).

Additionally, if you do only 3, while you won't be failed specifically for pull-ups, you had better be an outstanding runner if you want to pass (and max out the crunches, too, although that's not particularly difficult). Even then, you would be well short of a first class score, which is really effectively the standard. hell, even a low-ish first class score is viewed as meeting the minimums, but the mark of a slob.

1/2/2014 8:53:47 PM

Are these normal pull-ups or are you wearing weights or something?

I'm pretty sure I could do 3 solid pull-ups and I'm pretty scrawny and do little excercize.

Seems shocking women actually training to be marines can't do this.

It makes me question their recruiting more than anything.

1/2/2014 10:57:49 PM

normal pull ups. not even in boots and fatigues or anything...just plain pull-ups in what amounts to gym clothes. only "catch" is that you have to clear your chin over the bar, and go all the way down to full extension, and you can't "kip" (swing your lower body for momentum).

but no, they're just regular pull-ups with good form. 20 is the goal. I would guess that the median for male Marines is probably 15. People maxing it at 20 is pretty common. In 9.5 years, I've never failed to get 20, for example...and I'm a 34-year old Captain in the air wing, not a 21 year old Corporal in the infantry.

1/3/2014 12:09:13 AM

Kind of an arbitrary exercise, but women effectively cannot do pull-ups unless they are on steroids or very slight of frame (which then means they can't carry shit).

I don't know that pull-ups are super functional, though.

1/3/2014 1:44:26 AM

Fuck that bullshit. My fatass of 265, albeit extremely muscular 265, can still do 5-6 deadhang pullups. I am so god damn sick of this liberal feminist bullshit that women can do anything a man can.

Western society: where we emasculate men, and half ass try to butch up women.

1/3/2014 2:10:11 AM

^^ Pull-ups are a great metric of upper body strength, and I have seen a few women who can do them pretty decently.

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 9:33 AM. Reason : maybe not 20, and certainly not 30, but easily more than 3. there aren't many of them, though.]

1/3/2014 9:33:00 AM

Quote :

"but women effectively cannot do pull-ups unless they are on steroids or very slight of frame (which then means they can't carry shit)."

there doesn't seem to be much scientific support for this, and some units that stress training for it are having almost 100% pass rates

1/3/2014 9:40:17 AM