Jump to content

Recommended Posts

While I believe this to be a mistake... I think it's also a bad joke because they are forcing something in the name of equality yet allowing unequal standards to remain. Women as of now (well I believe the services have till 2016 to fully get this implemented) can go be in the infantry. That sounds great... except that infantrywoman is found acceptable to run 3 miles slower and be weaker than a infantryman performing the same job? This isn't about women and their ability to handle being in combat, which I don't believe to be an issue, it's about having a false sense of equality that isn't there.

 

To put a comparison.. let's say you are working an office job. To get promoted they base it off how many reports you can file and how many phone calls you can make. Well one group is expected to make file 20 reports and make 18 phone calls a month.. while the other group is given the same promotion points for filing 8 reports and making 15 phone calls a month.. and the scores aren't anyone's opinion they are completely based on your #. Doesn't it seem like one group is doing more than the other.. while the other group gets just as much credit? That is PER the rules of the military in the favor of women. I wouldn't agree with it if it were in reverse either.

 

I don't know how many of you have had to carry someone on a stretcher with 3 other people helping while in full combat gear... it's not an easy thing to do especially when your not walking on a simple paved road but rather through ditches and the such. No one cares but don't worry this will get votes from feminists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't bother watching the video on the link, but the text report neglected to mention that Panetta addressed all of your concerns, and that women are going to have to meet the exact same standards as men do, period, end of conversation, and they (the armed services, specifically the USMC and USA) have until the end of 2015 to create AND implement a way of making it happen, on an equal footing. So far, the only 2 females that have attempted to make it through combat infantry school have failed, so I don't foresee a huge rush to make the attempt.

 

Given what was said today (and not the incomplete edition in the OP), I seriously doubt there's going to be a serious change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will point out that war in this era is very different than those before it. There are no distincted front lines anymore and we are not flighting aganst a enemy army that fallows the rules of war. This being the case. Women are on the "Front Lines" everyday doing their job. ..And yes you can disparage the fact that woman in the military have differant physical requirements and in some cases I can agree that those standards could indeed be rased, however there are woman out that that can do the job. It will take to 2016 to implement for the very reason that they will be taking a hard look at those differences in physical requirements and So I feel that this is in fact a step in the right direction. There is nothing I can see that would prevent females from doing as well a job if they wanted and where aloud to. As to the physical aspect to which you talk about your comparison and your speaking specifically about the physical differences in passable PT requirements I assume. I say that Physical fitness in a general sense is but one factor...the more you do it the better you get so anyone in a infantry unit will become more fit...but it is not enought to discourage it do to percieved notions of physical capability as long as they are able to preform the required tasks to the standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Venom, you kow me, know I agree with you. I think the standard should be the same... BUT woman should have the opportunity to try and be allowed to make that choice. It doesn't appear that there is still any great rush on this but it is enlightening and gets people thinking and talking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't bother watching the video on the link, but the text report neglected to mention that Panetta addressed all of your concerns, and that women are going to have to meet the exact same standards as men do, period, end of conversation, and they (the armed services, specifically the USMC and USA) have until the end of 2015 to create AND implement a way of making it happen, on an equal footing. So far, the only 2 females that have attempted to make it through combat infantry school have failed, so I don't foresee a huge rush to make the attempt.

 

Given what was said today (and not the incomplete edition in the OP), I seriously doubt there's going to be a serious change.

That's incredibly shortsighted... it's not the end of conversation... if they do actually force the same physical requirements on both men and women do you think they are going to put the women on the men's standards or the other way around? hmmmm I guess by 2015 since they are going to make it on equal footing I will see all the women with haircuts like the men do? Probably not... so no Panetta has quite simply not addressed all of my concerns.

 

I have already gotten into other factors that make this a bad choice... one huge part which is not the women's fault which is the way young men behave around women... which is foolishly. The military has a culture and the United States has one that violence and harm against women is worse than against men. Tweeted by one of the President's Advisors the same day as the women in combat arms ban lifted "If there's one thing we should all agree on, it's protecting women from violence. Congress needs to pass the Violence Against Women Act."

So on one hand we are teaching people that violence against women is wrong (which obviously unwarranted violence against anyone is) but even more so than violence against men.

 

Now as far as women being on the "front lines" doing their job everyday. Absolutely there are women doing that. However driving from Camp Leatherneck to what may be considered "the front lines" and then back isn't on par with staying in Sangin your entire deployment. We had Female Engagement Teams (FET) and they showed many of the problems women in combat presented. From physical weakness, more so than the men of the battalion, to the need for additional privacy from a platoon of men. Take over a compound where you can't just leave to take a piss or shit and guess what we "had" to make special accommodations for the women. In addition to this simple fact that we have a cultural problem doing this, women are physically weaker as a general rule, the standards between men/women are different (from the physical fitness tests to hair cuts.. which are a factor in actual combat) we don't have many women that are actually in the military that WANT to be in combat arms. As pointed out there were 2 female volunteers for the infantry course in the USMC (both failed early on, of course there will be women that can handle it), the USMC wanted to run the study again (seems logical, 2 isn't exactly a massive study group) and they couldn't get 1 volunteer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Venom, you kow me, know I agree with you. I think the standard should be the same... BUT woman should have the opportunity to try and be allowed to make that choice. It doesn't appear that there is still any great rush on this but it is enlightening and gets people thinking and talking.
I don't in normal infantry units. If they want to be in a more specialized unit like MARSOC, SEALs, ODA, etc sure.... but putting women into the general population of young men who fall in love as soon as they see a pair of tits in the middle of a combat zone and thus start inner platoon fighting, lowering morale, lowering combat power, etc it's not worth it to do something a very small minority of women in the military even want to do.

 

So again, if someone wanted to pull a Demi Moore, go ahead and join the SEALs or any other group that is filled with more professionalism and education than that of 18-21 year old men looking to have sex with anything that moves. Of course with that said we apparently have plenty of Generals that cannot keep it in their pants when women get involved, Generals whom are highly educated and professional (or so we thought). The military isn't about being equal, it's about killing the enemies of this country. Doing things that reduce that combat effectiveness completely counters what the military is about. Look how people acted about Jessica Lynch when she was captured. Look up what the military gave her a Bronze Star for... then look up what she says actually happened. She was captured, brutally raped and paraded around as a war hero (against her wishes to my understanding). Was she at fault for any of this? Absolutely not. She was simply doing her job. Now look at how the heart strings of the entire country were pulled at.. certainly more so than the other male soldiers captured with her because of our culture. We don't see men and women the same. Are the courts going to see it the same if I ran out and beat up a female versus a male? Probably not. So instead we are going to falsely claim equality, while continuing to treat the two genders unequally, because they can now all have the same job? I will stop complaining once it is all equal. Men and women have all the same standards, to include if you go open contract you have a good chance of getting sent to the infantry just like men. Making it so women have to opt in is not equal to men, are women to sign up for the draft now? I think so.

 

@Chaosrook:

Your Physical fitness score directly affects your promotion. It is easier for women to get a higher score than men. A man has to run 3 miles at a maximum of 18 minutes for a perfect score. Women have to run 3 miles at a maximum of 21 minutes for a perfect score. So a male will get 100 points and a female will get that same 100 points for running 3 minutes faster. A male running a 21 minute 3 mile time will receive 82 points.

 

 

Completing one pull-up would be worth 75 points on a 100-point scale, with five points awarded for each additional pull-up, the document says. A perfect score would be obtained with six pull-ups

That is the plan for women to do pull ups in the USMC (Currently they do a flexed arm hang). So for a woman to get 75 points in what is the hardest event for men to get a perfect score it appears, she has to do a SINGLE pull up. Okay.. a male has to do 15 pull ups to get 75 points... and if he does only one he fails the entire PFT automatically (actually anything less than 3 is an automatic failure even if your other scores are maxed).

 

The study found that 43 percent performed at least one dead-hang pull-up, and the 318 participants averaged 1.63 pull-ups as a group. More than 21 percent of participants performed at least three, and 37 percent performed at least three when lower-body movement — a banned practice frequently known as “kip” — was allowed. With lower-body movement, 55 percent of all participants performed at least one pull-up.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/07/marine-female-pft-pullup-flexed-arm-hang-071011/

 

Now to be fair this is a starting point but unless they are going to make the pull up portion a joke for most Marine males in an effort to make it passable for most Marine females it's going to be unequal because the male and female body are not built equally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Women have been fighting in wars for years. Take a look back to the Valkyries and the amazons.

 

Israel treat men and women equally. Women do national service.

 

I don't in normal infantry units. If they want to be in a more specialized unit like MARSOC, SEALs, ODA, etc sure.... but putting women into the general population of young men who fall in love as soon as they see a pair of tits in the middle of a combat zone and thus start inner platoon fighting, lowering morale, lowering combat power, etc it's not worth it to do something a very small minority of women in the military even want to do.

 

This is the whole problem with the military, the all boys club institution. It HAS to change. Women are on this planet! We are here whether you like it or not. In all male professions there was always hostility towards women entering it. Men, well guys you will have to deal with the fact that there are WOMEN there because hell that is what life is like. MEN AND WOMEN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Women have been fighting in wars for years. Take a look back to the Valkyries and the amazons.
Yes women were also used effectively against the Romans... because they were women and they were being slaughtered by women as they weren't fighting them.

 

Israel treat men and women equally. Women do national service.
No they do not. This is a misconception.

 

 

 

This is the whole problem with the military, the all boys club institution. It HAS to change. Women are on this planet! We are here whether you like it or not. In all male professions there was always hostility towards women entering it. Men, well guys you will have to deal with the fact that there are WOMEN there because hell that is what life is like. MEN AND WOMEN.
This is also a very two way street of hostility versus the opposite sex in professions dominated by one gender. Of course you're going to turn this into a woman hating deal... with your "we are here whether you like it or not".

 

Let's deal with the reality. Women are physically weaker than men as a general rule, if you want to say our culture should shift to being completely gender blind that is fine.. however that is not the case of the culture of the United States as of today. So now we have two people that are in competition for the same job (and this has been the case).. with one that has lower standards that are treated exactly the same as a person with higher standards? That's your idea of "we are here whether you like it or not"? That women should get an automatic advantage because they were born with a vagina? Do you like it when men get an advantage because they are born with a penis? I would assume no you don't. So assuming that is the case.. why do you think this is a good idea?

 

Why is it "fair" that a woman can decide "hey I don't want to be in the infantry and therefore you can't put me there" versus a man where they simply tell him tough shit your infantry if you like it or not (and that does happen). So your idea is to simply let women get to pick and choose if they want to be part of the infantry, something not afforded to many men, and claim it's all about men having an advantage? Well if you aren't aware the infantry also has one of the slowest promotion rates in the USMC at least. So women aren't missing out on getting promoted. Meanwhile we have women in Afghanistan with hair literally down to their ass.. and that's fine if they put it up in a bun.. regardless of the fact they then cannot see out of their helmet and aim properly. Are men afforded that chance? No.

 

So no it's fine that a women gets the same exact points for promotion for running 3 miles 3 minutes slower than a man... oh then we have to recognize that men and women are built differently.. when a woman gets 75 points for "cranking out" 1 entire pull... while men have to do 15 pull ups for that same score.. and fail an entire PFT if they do only one... that's fair? This cop out bullshit about "oh women are here to stay deal with it" is great when you're saying it over the internet sitting in a chair... you know when it sucks? When one of these females with little upper body strength to begin with, is tired, is eating well, and is trying to pull 200 lbs worth of Marine out of an irrigation ditch. Then what? Oh well it's equality so its fine if he dies or another female because they weren't expected to have upper body strength? No.

 

So what is most likely going to happen? Women will get to compete with men for the same promotion with lower standards or they are just going to lower the entire military's standards. Why are we doing this? So a very small handful of women can possibly get into the infantry? Women don't add anything we don't already have... we have FET's for when we need someone of the female gender.. are you saying that women make better tacticians than men, are better at handling people than men? I thought men and women were capable of the same mental feats and it depended on the person and not on what sexual organ you have on your body.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spare me the sanctimonious crap. If you've not worn a uniform and been shot at, butt the hell out. Once you've served, folks, I'll consider your opinion.

 

~M

 

EDIT: It just slipped out. This is going to end up in Heated Discussions, I just know it.

 

Some of the responses have made me consider moving them over to the humor section, but so far, nothing has inspired me to move things to A51. (And just because not everyone has the military shield by their name does not mean they did not serve - it just means they don't have pixels... myself included. )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify what I said about the Romans: The Romans fought against an enemy using women... those women were crushing the Romans because the Romans would freeze up and not fight back..until an order came out to kill all of the women first. Why did the Romans not kill them from the start? Their culture... that is not to say the Romans had an ideal culture by any means however they didn't see women as being on the battlefield.

 

Now what is the United State's culture like with women? Is it a place where it's considered the same crime to physically assault a man versus a women? Or do people generally feel more sympathy for a woman that is beaten by a man than by a man beaten by another man? I believe, in general, that people are more sympathetic towards women.

 

That is not to say that sexism doesn't exist in our culture today however it goes both ways. Blindly rushing in screaming "equality for all" when there is no such thing in reality is foolish. If there is true equality then I except men and women will magically become physically equal? Not going to happen. If you cannot recognize that there is a real, tangible difference between men and women physically and how that plays out into combat then that's your ignorance. Is it going to simply be okay for the three Marines trying to carry out 180 - 200+ lbs of Marine (along with their 50-75+ lbs of gear on them) okay when they have an average female that cannot physically do it and not due to any lack of effort or will? Is having a Marine die because we need women in combat is the scream of feminism (ignoring that women are actively put into combat situations without being in actual combat arm units).

 

People seem blinded by feminism as if to say men are just a vastly superior gender than women and women obviously can't mentally handle the military and make tough choices. I'm not saying that, I don't know anyone serious who is. My friends and I do know how difficult it was for us as grown men, who are very physically active, who work quite a bit, who had very high PFT scores (per the men's scoring), and we STRUGGLED to carry injured Marines in actual combat. I'm 190 lbs, some other male marines were even in the 130 lbs (and some more than 200 obviously). All of them were put into situations where they had to struggle to carry other injured Marines and/or heavy gear in combat. Why would I want to force allowing a gender, that is proven to be physically weaker, into a situation where that can easy equal someone dying? You can only have so much will power before your body says no and passes out... I've seen male Marines do that in combat situations... I've seen female Marines do that trying to "hump" 5 miles without half a combat load... and these were females that were scoring near 300 on their PFT (300 is a perfect score).

 

So this backward thinking of oh they have the same job they are equal is just foolish. Between the physical difference of the genders and our cultural view of women should be protected prevent this from being equal. Remember this came within an HOUR of the announcement of repealing the ban:

 

""If there's one thing we should all agree on, it's protecting women from violence. Congress needs to pass the Violence Against Women Act.""

 

And from the same Administration... So let's say oh women, whom are held to a lower standard than men, should be able to be in infantry units... but back here in the States we need to pass special laws that protect women from violence... men can defend themselves, they are men after all.

 

You don't make one women "equal" by giving them lower standards, special rights and choices. If they made women and men have the SAME exact standard (which really means going to the male's standards because I am not in favor of lowering standards) then I would at least feel it a fair system. How pissed off would you be if someone with lower scores than you passed because those lower scores actually meant they were higher scoring than you due to their gender, race, religion, etc? I don't think you would. Imagine if we had a system where if you were a white male you were given more points for running 3 miles in the same time as a black male? Wouldn't that be racist? I think it would certainly be. So if women are equal to men why are feminists okay with women getting more points for running slower times? Imagine if it were reversed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to clarify what I said about the Romans: The Romans fought against an enemy using women... those women were crushing the Romans because the Romans would freeze up and not fight back..until an order came out to kill all of the women first. Why did the Romans not kill them from the start? Their culture... that is not to say the Romans had an ideal culture by any means however they didn't see women as being on the battlefield.

 

Well they were stupid patriachal gits. I come from the celts/picts. I was born a warrior. I don't see why I should not be allowed to fight just because some old man tells me I can't. What a load of shite. If you are trained in hand to hand combat such as Krav Maga well, it is not physical brute strength at the end of the day.

 

So the guys don't like the girls joining in? well get the violins out and start playing them. I honestly don't care.

 

At the end of the day noone does. Just think about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well they were stupid patriachal gits. I come from the celts/picts. I was born a warrior. I don't see why I should not be allowed to fight just because some old man tells me I can't. What a load of shite. If you are trained in hand to hand combat such as Krav Maga well, it is not physical brute strength at the end of the day.

 

So the guys don't like the girls joining in? well get the violins out and start playing them. I honestly don't care.

 

At the end of the day noone does. Just think about that.

 

Oh Krav Maga makes you more able to carry a stretcher even if you physically cannot handle it? No.

 

I'm a martial arts instructor, brute strength is an enormous factor.... but I guess men and women are exactly the same right? Fine.. let's merge the WNBA with the NBA and see how many females are starting. Track? There should be no segregation of the sexes. Any sport? Completely open to both genders (in fact the NFL recently opened up to females). Let's see how this goes.. oh and this isn't even literally trying to kill people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I had an indepth conversation with someone really close to me about this topic earlier. And I'd like to share that conversation with all of you. The conversation has been edited for grammer but not content so please be aware that it is an unbiased opinion of a Marine who has been there and done that.Pepsi: ill will always fight against thatI would never and will never go into combat with a femaledsnchanted:why? If they can physically meet the same standards as a manPepsi:you really want to go into this now?Because I will lolI will give you an honest, marine corps infantryman's perspective on women in combat from someone who has actually fought in combatdsnchanted: I’m not trying to argue babe u know that but u also know I think things should be fair...Pepsi: I agreehere’s why I don’t agree with the ideaI have multiple reasons to start with, but first primarily let me say that these are MY reasons, and do not represent the marine corps, the united states defense department, or perhaps even how it should bethey are my personal reasons from my experience in lifeto start with, the first reason, is a weakness of men, not a fault of women on any levelit is the fatherly/protective feeling every single male innately feels towards a woman, until she has given very significant reasons not toif I had a woman in my team, regardless of her strength or what she was actually capable ofshe would always be first priority for me to protect. this is not true for males at all. if I had a female there, I would not necessarily do more for her, but there’s a really good chance that if I had to choose, she would get the attentionthat kind of specialist treatment takes away from unit discipline, moral, and cohesionthe idea that one person may be more important than another is something that is removed from every marines mind in boot campthis is not an easy thing to do, but is made easier by the fact that is a unit of menbreaking that innate sense of duty and protection for the female sex is something is nearly impossible to do, and usually takes extreme action on the part of the female2ndwhile I can agree that some women could do the job, both physically and mentally, I do not believe there are enough of these women in this country to allow open and fair recruitment of both sexesthere are very few men who can be proper marines, and we have to suffer with a few shit bags that sneak through the cracksI honestly believe that if women are allowed in, it would be strict to begin withthen the equal rights, which always entails special treatment is brought into playI cannot afford to have a team consisting of 2 men and 2 women and having half of them inept. I would rather take the sexism and the more sure chance of getting at least 3 good males, then take what I see being a gamble on getting an equal amount of good females3rd and this is also a weakness of memenis the unavoidable sexual interest that would be felt between males and females. unless we are going to restrict combat operations to female that are unattractive, men are going to like themwhen men are focusing on pussy and not on the mission at hand, things get to be very very problematicthis relates to number 1 in a major waywhile I have others, they are much less firm and I don’t feel like presenting them due to not having enough surety in them myselfwhile I agree most of my reasons are unjust to females, I believe they are significant enough concerns that, for at least the time being, we should restrict combat operations to males onlyhrmm I like the fact that ur logic is logicalPepsi: our society does not breed strong enough females yet for the task of combatdsnchanted: what about all female units?Pepsi: IF and only if, those units could perform to the standards that their male counterparts do, then that would remove stipulation number 2however segregation is completely unethical in our society and our modern worldwe put the black in their own platoon in ww2, and we are still paying for that act of discriminationanother thing to think about babe with that ideais units do not operate by themselvesin the city of Ramadi we had 3 marine corps units and 2 army unitsif those women were in fact not able to perform to the standards of those around them, then they would jeopardize the lives of everyone on that battle fieldare you prepared to risk 1000s of Americans lives for a simple desire for fairness?dsnchanted: well yeah that’s the whole thing.. the female units would only be comprised of those females who can pass and surpass the standards already set forth for their male counterparts and in order to avoid sexual situations be grouped into a unit of their ownI think eventually we will have an integrated military but we aren’t there yetI agree. but I do not think we live in a society that will accept temporary segregation. they want full integration and rightseven women will view their own private units as discriminationwhile your idea is logical, and would have worked had we presented it 70 years ago, we are too far down the equal rights chain to ever even think about that againI hope to have presented this argument in a logical, however very subjective manner. the common response I get is that "so because men are too weak to deal with it, we should strip the freedom away from the other half of our population??"and to that I continue to respond "Yes"I admit it is because we are weak that women can’t serve with usI mean, here’s a prime example of what I’m talking about from own lifein SOI (school of infantry), one of the things we learned was how to fight in a fighting holewhich consisted of digging a hole a sitting in it for 2 dayswhile prepping for and countering attacksduring the night, it got down way below zeroso the only way to stay warm was to use your fighting mate’s body heatso we stripped down to underwear and had 2 people in a sleeping bag to keep each other warmone was awake while the other was asleepno awkwardness at all because we are all straight males trying to stay warmwe had a saying "nothing is gay under 30 degrees"now same scenario, only with an attractive femaleyou think there’s much going through that 18 year old kids mind other than her?you think he’s paying attention to his sectors with her bare breasts squeezed against him?dsnchanted: nope again I agreesometimes there are situations where there is no good and easy right answerPepsi: exactlyI believe in equality and fairness for all humansit is something I fight for everydaybut in this situation, I care more about the lives of my marines, and then the unfairness felt by the female sexthis may be a failing on my part, if so that is why I put the disclaimer in at the beginningdsnchanted: I don’t think it iscoming from a female perspective had my life went in a different direction I would be one of the first in a combat unit of that I have no doubt, but not everyone has the mentality that I do, not everyone is a Vasquez in disguisePepsi: well that’s a very large point, but can also be argued from both sidesI can say that I believe a lot of females are like, may be physically strong enough but not mentally capableI just truly believe if you out and got every female that is capable in all aspects, and wanted to fight, you would end up with a platoon sized elementnothing morecould be sexism againbut we have the marine corps for the few and the bestthose that are the most physically and mentally capableand there almost 400k of usabout 250k of which should truly be thereI believe that if you went looking for female marine infantryman, you’d find maybe a team’s worth, if thatdsnchanted: exactly... Shin gets mad when he talks to me, he’s a squid, he asked me once how I felt about our military.... and I said I love em all, especially my Marines and he went off on a tirade I laughed my ass offPepsi: so this is why I don’t believe we should be desegregating. when we have as many women capable as men, then I will withdraw that argumentfucking semen

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of females come back FROM deployment preggers... this isn't a US only issue. There were female brits getting knocked up, having men within their units fighting over them. That's not the women's fault however it's a reality when you put the opposite sexes together for any length of time it's going to happen. War is not some business deal where you get to pack up and go home, it's not a sport, it's not a business trip, war is where you are literally trying to kill people and other people are actively trying to kill you. Making extremely complex situations even more so just for the sake of false equality is moronic when it negatively affects the people trying to survive.

 

On deployment I've had female Marines come up to us and want to hold the SAW (a machine gun)... and then cite how "oh this isn't bad"... well no shit, you have no gear on, the SAW is unloaded and you held it for 2 minutes. Meanwhile that same female Marine had so much hair in a bun, which is completely within regulations, that she wouldn't be able to wear her helmet correct to use the SAW.

 

Can someone explain to me how it is equal that women can have longer hair, lower PFT standards, lower CFT standards, get to choose to opt out of combat arms jobs, don't have to sign up for the draft. I fully believe a woman could be trained as well as a man as far as knowledge and be effective. That doesn't mean they aren't going to hurt the combat ability of a unit just because of the very simple fact they have a vagina. Take away the immaturity and lack of self control and the simple fact they are by and large weaker than males as a whole makes this a huge mistake.

 

Are you in the military Markus, do you have any experience besides being "born a warrior" in fighting in a war to understand the harsh realities? That's an honest question. If you want equality, why not ban any division by gender? Who would want to see GSP take on Cyborg or whatever her name is in the Octagon? I wouldn't personally... but hey for the sake of equality that's fair right? Do you really think a woman would stand a chance? There will be exceptions, there will be women that can pump out pull ups. However making a rule that only those women can be combat arms is not equality, because your still not forcing them in like men are into those jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of OT, but Christine "Cyborg" Santos would whoop George 'Decision' St Pierre's ass 9 times out of 10... of course, she also has 10 times the testosterone level of a normal human male, and has been suspended for a year because of it, but anyway...

 

20090814052523_01cyborg.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyborg? but she has not extra parts from a machine? or maybe that part is in the brain? I guess we shall never know.

 

Oh yeah I almost forgot in Iraq, during Operation Matador there were female soldiers getting banged by male Marines in fighting positions that they had shared for a week.

 

Sounds great to me! Where can I sign up :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Cyborg would have been crushed by GSP... even on the juice. GSP fights in a 170 lb weight class and is presumed not to be on the juice... Cyborg fights at 145..

 

 

Sounds great to me! Where can I sign up :P
At a local recruiting office. It's nice to see you don't actually care about real equality but just want females to get special privileges which seems to be modern feminism.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also Cyborg would have been crushed by GSP... even on the juice. GSP fights in a 170 lb weight class and is presumed not to be on the juice... Cyborg fights at 145..

 

 

At a local recruiting office. It's nice to see you don't actually care about real equality but just want females to get special privileges which seems to be modern feminism.

negative matey, People should be treated the same.You see we humans are the most deadly species on the planet. We got this far because of sex and our instinct to kill. Nothing better before the kill than a good f+ck, personally I think it is better and more constructive if men and women work together rather than against each other. Nothing better than a smoke, a drink, a f+ck and then getting down to the killing Business :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
negative matey, People should be treated the same.You see we humans are the most deadly species on the planet. We got this far because of sex and our instinct to kill. Nothing better before the kill than a good f+ck, personally I think it is better and more constructive if men and women work together rather than against each other. Nothing better than a smoke, a drink, a f+ck and then getting down to the killing Business :P
So you believe women should be scored and held to the exact same standard PFT and CFT as the men in the USMC? They should have to have the same hair cuts as the men?

 

How far do you wish to take this? Women don't have to deploy if they are preggers.. So if a man is pregnant.. oh wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think women should be allowed to fight on the front line with men. As far as I understood, they are already. Noone cares anyhow about the cannon fodder, that is life. Life is shit. So having fun like Smoking drinking and f+king before a possible death should be enjoyed, hell we have one life. Who cares what hair cut you have? who cares about what muscles you have? in death we are all the same, we are all Born naked and we all die. So if a woman chooses to serve her Country and die for it, hell let her do it. We all have a choice, unlike the child soldiers serving in the Congo, taken from their villages. Kids with guns.... but that is another Topic and another thread. Hair cuts.... I doubt they give a shite about how your hair is in the Congo....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - let's try to steer this back on topic, please. We've kind of seriously gotten away from the OP, and parts of this are verging on silly, while other parts are completely unrelated.

 

The topic and the OP deserve more respect than that. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think women should be allowed to fight on the front line with men. As far as I understood, they are already. Noone cares anyhow about the cannon fodder, that is life. Life is shit. So having fun like Smoking drinking and f+king before a possible death should be enjoyed, hell we have one life. Who cares what hair cut you have? who cares about what muscles you have? in death we are all the same, we are all Born naked and we all die. So if a woman chooses to serve her Country and die for it, hell let her do it. We all have a choice, unlike the child soldiers serving in the Congo, taken from their villages. Kids with guns.... but that is another Topic and another thread. Hair cuts.... I doubt they give a shite about how your hair is in the Congo....

I wasn't aware we were talking about the Congo and child soldiers... we aren't.

 

Your hair cut matters because besides the use of gas masks, wearing a Kevlar Helmet is a problem when you have a huge bun of hair impairing your ability to look down your sights and shoot with any sort of accuracy and impairs your vision in general. That is bad.

 

Why do muscles matter? Because people get shot, blown up, just randomly hurt, etc and they often times need to be carried out.. which involves muscles.

 

So Markus you have not addressed anything that is an issue, such as the different standards that are based merely on gender. Should we start scoring PFT's based upon someone's height too? You seem utterly incapable of answering a question in regards to this instead you start talking about child soldiers in the Congo. The issue isn't letting a women serve her country, which women are allowed, the issue is will women who have a lower standard then men impede the combat effectiveness of units on the battlefield. Your continued posts just show you lack of knowledge on the subject. They don't care how long you hair is in the congo is a defense? I wasn't aware they were *forced* to wear helmets in the Congo like units in the United States military are. You also seem to believe the only way to serve your country is to be in the infantry, I suppose the men & women doing other jobs such as motor-t, working on helos, etc aren't serving?

 

We may all be equal in death... we are not all equal in life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a rather silly subject though. No offense to the people burning for it.

 

How is lethalness of males vs females measured? Best marksman? Best in bench-press? If now the US armys goal, like venom described it, is to "kill the enemy". How the hell can it be a complicated matter? The "women are weaker" argument would probably hold up in the times where the weapons/gears actually was heavy as hell. Or when you needed to have several -years- of training just to managed to pull the string of a bow. Nowdays as an infantry, you aim, pull the trigger, move around, or in worst case, drag someone out of combat. Yes, you may describe it as an extreme physical activity, according to our standards now days. The gear on your body is heavy as hell. But haven't it come to a point where some duties in the army is sometimes overly biased? I have quite a few friends that went to afghanistan (including women) haven't heard one of them complaining about someone not being able to carry their weight or preform in combat.

 

What's even more interesting is to use the proven science (think it was one of the nobel prize winners) of what happens with our bodies and especially our muscles, while we become afraid, (first page there):

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2012/popular-chemistryprize2012.pdf

Our bodies are amazing, especially when it gets pumped with adrenaline and other substances. We can't put a label on that strength, because it's quite individual. Sure you will need a base strength in order to make it work, but I think the current ideal base strength is heavily exaggerated. It is also about technique, not just brute force. I remember learning to "carry" people out of combat in at least 7 different ways.

 

As for your point about relationships/pregnancies in camp, eurgh. I just can't understand why people can be arsed to add -more- burdens on themselves while being in the environment they're in. Can't they just turn on Jersey Shore on the telly or something? Only explanation is that people are stupid. They're stupid because they're letting the high-school mentality get to them. Soldiers are supposed to be grownups, adults. But I guess shrinks merely view that as a number rather than a state of mind there.

 

Actually in Sweden, at the end of the national service we got 2 grades from 1-10 and a "Yes" or a "No". The "Yes" and No". Mean that either you're mature enough to take service abroad, or you're not. There was quite a few in our plutoon that got "No". None of those who got "no" were female.

 

I do agree with you in regards to equality. It can't just start in the middle of someones life or for just one particular thing, it needs to be something that's part of an individuals entire lifespan from child to adult for it to work. Many do raise boys these days telling them they shouldn't do this and that to girls and that they have to be protected because they're so, so fragile. It's wrong. Genders should not be victimized or generalized.

 

But we're not perfect, never will we be. Just as we will never learn to live side by side in peace with all different people of the planet. Too much intolerance for that. Too much people for that.

 

All in all, my theory about this is just based on the facts:

- US is pulling back forces, and in the end, many will be relieved from duty.

- US opens up "237,000 individual jobs to women across service branches, including 5,000 positions for female Marines in ground combat elements."

- If you're male in the services, you'll be worried about keeping your job when the competition increases.

 

I would be. Doesn't mean I wouldn't think it's the right thing to do.

Edited by Ron/Nathaniel Hawk
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have a follow up question as I can't be arsed to read through the entire thread to find it.

 

Is it only the recruitment tests that are different between male and females in the army? Or is it -all- tests after that as well?

 

In Sweden it was only the recruitment test because they wanted more females, every other test while actually in the service was the same for everyone. And I can't say I recall all the women being at the bottom of those results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*shakes head* Ya know sometimes its like beating my head against a brick wall, then doing it some more because its fun... The point was to generate thoughtful discourse on a relevant and current subject. Weather we like it or not we are evolving as a society and we are going to see changes. It is up to us on how we effect those changes and respond to them as they happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
*shakes head* Ya know sometimes its like beating my head against a brick wall, then doing it some more because its fun... The point was to generate thoughtful discourse on a relevant and current subject. Weather we like it or not we are evolving as a society and we are going to see changes. It is up to us on how we effect those changes and respond to them as they happen.

:)

 

[video=youtube;pl3vxEudif8]

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part, other than paper testing and range firing, the requirements for males are anywhere from quite a bit to substantially MORE rigorous than they are for females. Be it less weight to carry on trails/packs, etc, right down to fewer pull-ups, and 'girl-style' push-ups. Now, while some may say it's not big deal if a female can't carry anything heavy as long as she can shoot, let me point out that it's a hell of a lot easier to shoot a 50cal than it is to tote it around.

 

That being said, I personally have no real objections to having females doing any job that her male counterparts do, so long as she's held to exactly the same standards. What Venomusmc seems to be arguing is that there should be no difference in standards, and he's right. He's also right in that there is a difference. What Markus is arguing (I think - I always get thrown off a bit when people start making arguments based on Valkyries, Amazons and other fictional and semi-fictional creatures) is that women should have a chance, and that, too, is correct. She's incorrect on a few things, such as women have the same responsibilities in the IDF as males do (they do not), or that Krav Maga is some sort of super martial art (when it's very well known that any version of KM taught outside of the IDF is about as functional and realistic as fighting scenes from Kung Fu Theatre...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
All in all, my theory about this is just based on the facts:

- US is pulling back forces, and in the end, many will be relieved from duty.

- US opens up "237,000 individual jobs to women across service branches, including 5,000 positions for female Marines in ground combat elements."

- If you're male in the services, you'll be worried about keeping your job when the competition increases.

 

I would be. Doesn't mean I wouldn't think it's the right thing to do.

Many will be relieved from duty and actually already have been. I've never heard anyone in the military be worried about keeping their job in regards to women coming in to knock them out of a spot. The way the US military allows people to stay is is 99% based off the total allowed numbers for that branch of service. Meaning you could be an amazingly qualified woman and not be allowed to re enlist because your MOS doesn't need people. Or you could be an under qualified male and be allowed to stay in because the military needs more people of that MOS.

 

So now I believe women make 14% of so of the total US military population... Probably 90%+ (a conservative estimate) of them are not even eligible to transfer into combat arm units, not due to their gender, but due to their contract. Now then you have to ask what % of women would even transfer in? The USMC is having a hard time finding any female volunteers for infantry training as it is today. So now I do not believe the thought of losing your job because a woman took your spot is something 99.9% of the troops are worrying about right now.

 

However now that you bring it up... being how the government tends to operate wouldn't it be great (sarcasm alert) if they demanded 15% of the infantry be women? Then you would have issues but to my knowledge that is currently not the case.

 

 

@Kahlan

Yes I agree we are evolving but is that in a good way that we are evolving? Am I the only one seeing the mixed message of the push to lift the "ban" on women in combat (which is twisting words... because women were allowed in combat, I never witnessed a case where we were forced to leave because we had women with us... they were banned from MOS' that had jobs that were for direct combat) and ""If there's one thing we should all agree on, it's protecting women from violence. Congress needs to pass the Violence Against Women Act."

 

So we are saying on one hand women are just fighters, exactly like men and they should be allowed to be general infantry (while ignoring the different standards based completely on gender) and on the other we are saying we need to pass laws that further protect women against violence... but not men? These both came from the same administration on the same day.

This is just another case of I want to have my cake and eat it too. We are being told this is about equality.. while comparing people on completely unequal standards. This is a major push for equality of the citizens of this country... while we try and pass laws that are designed only to protect one gender..

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't aware we were talking about the Congo and child soldiers... we aren't.

 

Your hair cut matters because besides the use of gas masks, wearing a Kevlar Helmet is a problem when you have a huge bun of hair impairing your ability to look down your sights and shoot with any sort of accuracy and impairs your vision in general. That is bad.

 

Why do muscles matter? Because people get shot, blown up, just randomly hurt, etc and they often times need to be carried out.. which involves muscles.

 

We may all be equal in death... we are not all equal in life.

 

Sorry for going off topic. :P

 

I agree, silly haircuts and silly shoes just are not going to cut it. I have visions now of ladies with long hair down their backs running over the battlefield in short skirts, high heels carrying assault rifles... oh wait.... what a fantasy :P

 

Fantasy..... like this:-

 

[video=youtube;CS5gr3T2gPI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS5gr3T2gPI

 

No seriously, there does have to be a level of standard for safety reasons just as Venom mentioned regarding helmets and such. However, women should be given the chance to try, if they don't cut it, so be it, if they do then let them serve. There should be no advantages.

 

And aye Venom, we are not equal in life? Indeed, but people should have at least a chance to try whatever they wish to do, there should not be advantages though. If people don't meet up to the standard then they should not pass, regardless of gender.

Edited by Markus Balthazar
Link to post
Share on other sites
For the most part, other than paper testing and range firing, the requirements for males are anywhere from quite a bit to substantially MORE rigorous than they are for females. Be it less weight to carry on trails/packs, etc, right down to fewer pull-ups, and 'girl-style' push-ups. Now, while some may say it's not big deal if a female can't carry anything heavy as long as she can shoot, let me point out that it's a hell of a lot easier to shoot a 50cal than it is to tote it around.

 

That being said, I personally have no real objections to having females doing any job that her male counterparts do, so long as she's held to exactly the same standards. What Venomusmc seems to be arguing is that there should be no difference in standards, and he's right. He's also right in that there is a difference. What Markus is arguing (I think - I always get thrown off a bit when people start making arguments based on Valkyries, Amazons and other fictional and semi-fictional creatures) is that women should have a chance, and that, too, is correct. She's incorrect on a few things, such as women have the same responsibilities in the IDF as males do (they do not), or that Krav Maga is some sort of super martial art (when it's very well known that any version of KM taught outside of the IDF is about as functional and realistic as fighting scenes from Kung Fu Theatre...)

 

I agree totally, and I guess you saw as well I was just making a few humourous comments to lighten the thread up a bit. I used to roleplay a jester and like to be a joker now and again :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
For the most part, other than paper testing and range firing, the requirements for males are anywhere from quite a bit to substantially MORE rigorous than they are for females. Be it less weight to carry on trails/packs, etc, right down to fewer pull-ups, and 'girl-style' push-ups. Now, while some may say it's not big deal if a female can't carry anything heavy as long as she can shoot, let me point out that it's a hell of a lot easier to shoot a 50cal than it is to tote it around.

That is rather stupid. Its not logical to expect someone unfit to have an extreme physical service. In the end its about motivation. I'm sure that people who are motivated enough to fit the requirements will work their ass off to do so, without gender exceptions, regardless of gender. The girl in our group was about the fittest of us all while doing the national service. She also got the heaviest weapon. She wasn't an amazon. She was a shorter than average woman but she was crazy/motivated/focused when it came to training. If you're expected to preform an action as a soldier, it's no others responsibility than the soldier to make sure you're fit enough to pull it through.

 

To say anything else is just shooting yourself in the foot, as a feminist and an "equalist".

 

To say that it's impossible for women to reach a state of physical fitness for a specified service seems to me a bit elitist and macho (or well, not when it comes to physical attributes like length etc, I was too tall to be either in the armored or the airforce :( ). As long as same requirements is set for both genders, nobody can question people who manages to pass them, indifferent of gender.

 

I've never heard anyone in the military be worried about keeping their job in regards to women coming in to knock them out of a spot. The way the US military allows people to stay is is 99% based off the total allowed numbers for that branch of service. Meaning you could be an amazingly qualified woman and not be allowed to re enlist because your MOS doesn't need people. Or you could be an under qualified male and be allowed to stay in because the military needs more people of that MOS.

Well perhaps not for those existing in service, but the competition would grow should there be an open spot somewhere and people (of all gender) started to apply for transfers/employment for it.

 

So we are saying on one hand women are just fighters, exactly like men and they should be allowed to be general infantry (while ignoring the different standards based completely on gender) and on the other we are saying we need to pass laws that further protect women against violence... but not men? These both came from the same administration on the same day.

It's because society have accepted that being a soldier is a profession, with violence involved, indifferent of gender. Just like being a police, security guard or bouncer. You forget that becoming a soldier is a choice. Females are not forced to join but they choose to join. In other words, they chose a profession that consists of violence.

 

I think the "VAWA" is more aimed towards those women in the US (and the women in the rest of the world, as this is also an international human rights project) who get violence forced upon them through various means and abused in general. The reason for it would be that it is generally more women that do get violated and abused than men. To think of it as a ban for women to chose what line of work they want to have a career in seems to me a bit like not grasping the concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention as well, the Russians had women on the front line in combat roles in world war two.

 

It's because society have accepted that being a soldier is a profession, with violence involved, indifferent of gender. Just like being a police, security guard or bouncer. You forget that becoming a soldier is a choice. Females are not forced to join but they choose to join. In other words, they chose a profession that consists of violence.

 

I agree. People cannot accept that there are some women who can do these professions and they want to do them.

 

After all, it is not like we have conscription anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No seriously, there does have to be a level of standard for safety reasons just as Venom mentioned regarding helmets and such. However, women should be given the chance to try, if they don't cut it, so be it, if they do then let them serve. There should be no advantages.

See that's still not equal if women are given just the option to try and are not forced into these jobs like men are. If they want equality they need the same exact standards and to not have the choice to simply opt out of combat arms units like men are not afforded.

 

 

 

And aye Venom, we are not equal in life? Indeed, but people should have at least a chance to try whatever they wish to do, there should not be advantages though. If people don't meet up to the standard then they should not pass, regardless of gender.
We are not all equal in life. I wanted to be an NFL linebacker when I was younger and I was not born with the size or speed required to play at that level. Yes there are a few NFL players, that did well, at that position that weren't the "right" height however they still were faster than I am apparently capable of despite years of training.

 

See the problem that women are going to face is if they do make the standard the same... women are going to be literally kicked out of the military because of it. If you cannot pass a PFT they will remove you from the United States Marine Corps after a certain period of time. If women are put on the same PFT/CFT scoring as men (and should be since we are expecting them to do the same job) they (the women) will also get promoted slower as their points for promotion will drop. Of course the higher ups have already spoken to the idea of lowering the standard for all if they require the same from men and women. 300 PFT scores for men (which is the maximum score) are not something every man can achieve. In my last platoon out of 45 or so Marines we had about 5 300 PFT scores. That means an 18 min or less 3 mile run, 20 dead hang pull ups (no kipping, if you drop off the bar you are done), and the easy 100 situps in 2 minutes (which is currently the same standard for women). If they lower that standard there are going to be a lot more Marines getting a 300 PFT for doing less. The PFT does get a lot of Marines (male and female) to workout because they know it directly affects their promotions.

 

So the question is if men and women are indeed equal why do women need a lower PFT standard or why do we need to lower the PFT standard in order to have more women pass? Is the PFT important? Some will actually say no it is not... in that it does not produce the actual issues related to fitness in combat (bigger Marines usually have a harder time running the 3 mile PFT, yet are better at "humps" which the Marine is packed down with weight on long movements is the general idea). So the USMC created the CFT, or Combat Fitness Test, to go along with the PFT. Things such as a 1/4 mile sprint in just your boots (no gear), an ammo can lift (uniform weight of the ammo can) and a "fire and movement" course which is familiar to anyone who has played sports with an added fireman's carry and ammo can carry (the person you carry is based on your weight). The women still have a lower standard for time and ammo can lifts. When you are handing up ammo cans to a machine gun position in combat no one cares if you are a female or male... all they care about is getting the ammo and you better not stop feeding them it because it could result in Marines dying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Forgot to mention as well, the Russians had women on the front line in combat roles in world war two.

 

This is sort of an apples and oranges comparison - any time that it's your country that's being invaded, and you fight back, you are a 'front line' combatant. That's not to refute the fact that, indeed, the Russian women were some of the best snipers in WWII - they were. But by the same token, it was extremely rare that they were actually involved in infantry type combat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is rather stupid. Its not logical to expect someone unfit to have an extreme physical service. In the end its about motivation. I'm sure that people who are motivated enough to fit the requirements will work their ass off to do so, without gender exceptions, regardless of gender.
Then let them meet the requirements, don't water them down because it's the individual happens to be equipped with a vagina. I can find very motivated people that are 250 lbs that despite all that motivation cannot run three miles. Motivation will only take you so far.

 

The girl in our group was about the fittest of us all while doing the national service. She also got the heaviest weapon. She wasn't an amazon. She was a shorter than average woman but she was crazy/motivated/focused when it came to training. If you're expected to preform an action as a soldier, it's no others responsibility than the soldier to make sure you're fit enough to pull it through.
Good for her. Training and actual war are two very different things. There are no timeouts in actual war.

 

To say anything else is just shooting yourself in the foot, as a feminist and an "equalist".

 

To say that it's impossible for women to reach a state of physical fitness for a specified service seems to me a bit elitist and macho (or well, not when it comes to physical attributes like length etc, I was too tall to be either in the armored or the airforce :( ). As long as same requirements is set for both genders, nobody can question people who manages to pass them, indifferent of gender.

No one said it was impossible. The reality is the vast majority of women will not meet the current physical requirements that are demanded of men. Oh you were too tall to be in armor or the airforce? Maybe you should sue for discrimination? Clearly it's not far to hold your height, something beyond your control against you due to the realities of what is needed. I am being sarcastic about a law suit.

 

As for the same requirements... that is true up to a point of which you lower them to allow more of one gender to have more success. Let's make the USMC have all Marines regardless of gender have to do the same PFT/CFT of the higher standard, which is the male standard. Then there will be no question that they can pass the physical tests of men. If you lower the requirements because women cannot seem to, as a whole, pass the same standard that men, as a whole, are passing you are not answering that question in a positive manner for women.

 

Giving men and women the same standard.. while lowering the standard the men were at is plainly saying women cannot meet the standard the men were.

 

 

Well perhaps not for those existing in service, but the competition would grow should there be an open spot somewhere and people (of all gender) started to apply for transfers/employment for it.
Competition would grow... but by all accounts by a tiny amount. Remember, the USMC couldn't even find ONE female volunteer this last go to try women in the infantry officer's course. and that is after the previous course had both female volunteers fail early on. One would reasonably expect that volunteers would have a higher level of motivation that those merely forced in.

 

Also it once again is not equal if women have the option of joining combat arms but cannot be forced to as men are.

 

It's because society have accepted that being a soldier is a profession, with violence involved, indifferent of gender. Just like being a police, security guard or bouncer. You forget that becoming a soldier is a choice. Females are not forced to join but they choose to join. In other words, they chose a profession that consists of violence.
Sure, without looking at actual jobs within the military. The USMC is based around the infantry. Every MOS' job is to support the infantry. So if you're a supply clerk, your job is to issue boots to help the infantry, not to fight although you are trained and in some cases you will fight. A police officers purpose is not to kill but to protect. The infantry's purpose is to kill.

 

I think the "VAWA" is more aimed towards those women in the US (and the women in the rest of the world, as this is also an international human rights project) who get violence forced upon them through various means and abused in general. The reason for it would be that it is generally more women that do get violated and abused than men. To think of it as a ban for women to chose what line of work they want to have a career in seems to me a bit like not grasping the concept.
I don't believe the VAWA is meant to ban women from choosing a career. Where I do believe you fail to grasp the backwardness of saying women are completely equal to men in all ways, yet need extra laws to protect them from abuse.. is why do they need more protect then men if they are indeed equal in every sense of the word?

 

Men are abused by women and it is not seen as the same as if a man abused a woman. In fact these abuses are getting more and more common for men... yet I don't see any laws to protect men from the abuses of women. No they are men and expected to shrug it off. Ever have a guy friend who was drunk out of his mind end up having sex with a woman he had zero intention of sleeping with and never would sober? That's not considered rape by society (I'm speaking in the United States), no that was a drunken mistake and something to laugh at. In reverse? Well that's grounds for a woman declaring rape. I have been physically hit by a completely insane ex, I didn't strike her back, it left a very small bruise and I wasn't worried about it. She isn't nearly my size, what do you think would happen if I went to court as a Marine, as a martial arts instructor, as a combat veteran, as someone much stronger than her, and claimed she was hitting me and I needed them to stop? People would laugh at me.

spouse abuse - women hitting men - women abusing men - Marie Claire

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Men are abused by women and it is not seen as the same as if a man abused a woman. In fact these abuses are getting more and more common for men... yet I don't see any laws to protect men from the abuses of women. No they are men and expected to shrug it off. Ever have a guy friend who was drunk out of his mind end up having sex with a woman he had zero intention of sleeping with and never would sober? That's not considered rape by society (I'm speaking in the United States), no that was a drunken mistake and something to laugh at. In reverse? Well that's grounds for a woman declaring rape. I have been physically hit by a completely insane ex, I didn't strike her back, it left a very small bruise and I wasn't worried about it. She isn't nearly my size, what do you think would happen if I went to court as a Marine, as a martial arts instructor, as a combat veteran, as someone much stronger than her, and claimed she was hitting me and I needed them to stop? People would laugh at me.

spouse abuse - women hitting men - women abusing men - Marie Claire

 

It is absolutely disgusting yes. Men should be protected as well. Also in combat arms, there are many men raped by other men. Many also have MST (Military sex trauma) and because of societys view men are tough, they are supposed to shrug it off and laugh it off. It is not funny. I agree 100%. Equality should mean equality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Men are abused by women and it is not seen as the same as if a man abused a woman. In fact these abuses are getting more and more common for men... yet I don't see any laws to protect men from the abuses of women. No they are men and expected to shrug it off. Ever have a guy friend who was drunk out of his mind end up having sex with a woman he had zero intention of sleeping with and never would sober? That's not considered rape by society (I'm speaking in the United States), no that was a drunken mistake and something to laugh at. In reverse? Well that's grounds for a woman declaring rape. I have been physically hit by a completely insane ex, I didn't strike her back, it left a very small bruise and I wasn't worried about it. She isn't nearly my size, what do you think would happen if I went to court as a Marine, as a martial arts instructor, as a combat veteran, as someone much stronger than her, and claimed she was hitting me and I needed them to stop? People would laugh at me.

spouse abuse - women hitting men - women abusing men - Marie Claire

 

The effect of similar VAWA in Sweden was that centres were created where people (both men and women) could turn to should they had been abused or violated. In the beginning it was mostly women going there, but since about 5-10 years back, there's been -a lot- of effort in developing these centers to tell men "we are here if you need help" and more men have started to go there for aid. Sometimes its easy to think of the counseling and treatment for a couple with issues is one way treatment (just treatment of the victim). But that's not correct. The one who abuses also has to go to counseling and treatment in order to find a way to stop with the destructive behavior. Both in regards to someone beating their partner and someone beating their children. It's a two way treatment. Both the victim and the abuser needs correct treatment. Especially if they wish to continue living together.

 

My point is, it has to start somewhere, once it has started, it usually develops and continue to develop over time. My mother is currently working in the business and with the development of it. And it's still not flawless, but better than what we had 10-20 years ago, which was nothing.

 

As for the same requirements... that is true up to a point of which you lower them to allow more of one gender to have more success. Let's make the USMC have all Marines regardless of gender have to do the same PFT/CFT of the higher standard, which is the male standard. Then there will be no question that they can pass the physical tests of men. If you lower the requirements because women cannot seem to, as a whole, pass the same standard that men, as a whole, are passing you are not answering that question in a positive manner for women.

 

That's a bit what I mean with me believing the requirements can be exaggerated. Not sure what these requirements are, but as it's so common both swedish women and men are sent to afghanistan as infantry and both manage to do the job very well there. I find it dubious that extremely high standards are needed.

 

But again, swedish goals of foreign service and US goals are fairly different...

Edited by Ron/Nathaniel Hawk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweden has unfortunately lost 5 soldiers in Afghanistan since having troops there I believe since 2005. While it's unfortunate they lost 5 it's also a big indication of just how much fighting the Swedes do there... it's not much at all.

 

The last number I saw was 630 or so Swedes were sent to Afghanistan total (at one time)... The Swedish are not actively fighting like the Americans or Brits even. Sitting on a base doesn't require a high level of physical fitness. Spending months at a time living in Afghani homes without showers, proper nutrition and heavy loads with no days off is hard for able bodied men... it just breaks women down. Women's bodies don't operate correctly in those conditions, they stop having their period (not due to a pill), they experience a lot of medical issues, etc. There are also hygiene issues unique to women.

 

As for our PFT.. if anything it's not hard enough. Especially when you have a shrinking military that is a good time to up the standards. Watering down standards because people feel it's "extremely" high to expect someone to strive for a 18 minute 3 mile or 20 pull ups is crazy. Also I'd like to point out I've never heard of anything saying women didn't have the endurance in running that men have... yet they are allotted more time. Simply saying that we should lower standards because maybe they don't need to be that high is indicative of someone that hasn't experienced one of these deployments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree wholeheartedly venom. My Marine has been there done that and he doesn't sugarcoat the ugliness of it. How can I explain my bottom line on how I feel about it? I think that women should be given the chance, yet I am equally as passionate that if they can't meet or surpass the SAME standards as males then they shouldn't be waved through just to meet a quota or some other soically irrelevant and outdated ideal of equality. I really don't know if the evolution of warfare is a good thing or not, woman in combat is going to be one of those things where as mcuh as we want end result answers NOW, we are simply going to have to wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is absolutely disgusting yes. Men should be protected as well. Also in combat arms, there are many men raped by other men. Many also have MST (Military sex trauma) and because of societys view men are tough, they are supposed to shrug it off and laugh it off. It is not funny. I agree 100%. Equality should mean equality.
This isn't equality and yet you're applauding it. If anything it's a step in the wrong direction. The idea that people are claiming this is equality while ignoring the fact that women get more points towards promotion for doing literally less of the same thing is proof enough. This by the way is true for ANY job in the military, combat or not. If you're a woman you get more points for running a 22 minute mile than a man does... so if you are in competition for the same job that gives you an edge.

 

So while you are saying here that you agree that equality should mean an treating the genders the same you are all for something that absolutely does not do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't equality and yet you're applauding it. If anything it's a step in the wrong direction. The idea that people are claiming this is equality while ignoring the fact that women get more points towards promotion for doing literally less of the same thing is proof enough. This by the way is true for ANY job in the military, combat or not. If you're a woman you get more points for running a 22 minute mile than a man does... so if you are in competition for the same job that gives you an edge.

 

So while you are saying here that you agree that equality should mean an treating the genders the same you are all for something that absolutely does not do that.

 

I dunno about that mate. I treat everyone the same, always have done, sadly society doesn't. We all have our personal views, beliefs and opinions. That is what makes us unique. Every generation sees things differently too.

 

If I came accross at applauding it that is not what I meant. I believe there should be the same standards just as Kahlan said in her above post.

 

And as she said

 

I really don't know if the evolution of warfare is a good thing or not, woman in combat is going to be one of those things where as mcuh as we want end result answers NOW, we are simply going to have to wait and see.

 

We little people have very little say in what is done. We have our opinions but at the end of the day, we are not the ones calling the shots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spending months at a time living in Afghani homes without showers, proper nutrition and heavy loads with no days off is hard for able bodied men... it just breaks women down. Women's bodies don't operate correctly in those conditions, they stop having their period (not due to a pill), they experience a lot of medical issues, etc. There are also hygiene issues unique to women.

 

boo f*** hoo.... What a load of bollocks. So poor women should be protected because they have a period. B***shit.

 

I have had months where I was unable to shower, had little food and even caught scabies. You know what? I am not dead. I am still here. That is just a load of tripe and also why should men suffer that and women not? Is that equality? No.

 

My view, there are differences between men and women. There are differences between individuals, some people are taller than each other blah F**** blah, but if someone can pass the tests, and wants to do it, then let them. This is where I stand, let them have a chance,

 

At the end of the day endurance is important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We little people have very little say in what is done. We have our opinions but at the end of the day, we are not the ones calling the shots.
Put a lot of "little people' together and you get a pretty big voice.

 

boo f*** hoo.... What a load of bollocks. So poor women should be protected because they have a period. B***shit.

 

I have had months where I was unable to shower, had little food and even caught scabies. You know what? I am not dead. I am still here. That is just a load of tripe and also why should men suffer that and women not? Is that equality? No.

 

My view, there are differences between men and women. There are differences between individuals, some people are taller than each other blah F**** blah, but if someone can pass the tests, and wants to do it, then let them. This is where I stand, let them have a chance,

 

At the end of the day endurance is important.

Obviously there are differences between individuals. At the end of the day endurance is a problem... and it has been shown many times that the female body does not have the endurance of a man's in these conditions. The female body, in general, is not made for that kind if lifestyle.

 

Why should females not suffer that when men do? Because if they become a burden to the men it's a problem. If a woman is stuck at a PB base and can't keep up after time when all the men are then it's an issue. Like it or not men and women are not created equally. Take that simple fact and then add in a culture that despite some people's belief actually feels more protective of women than men in general and you have a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously there are differences between individuals. At the end of the day endurance is a problem... and it has been shown many times that the female body does not have the endurance of a man's in these conditions. The female body, in general, is not made for that kind if lifestyle.

Not in general, but there will be some cases where a female individual is motivated enough to get in shape and have the right preferences for it.

 

Basically:

[video=youtube;uX2fofPEgD4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX2fofPEgD4

Link to post
Share on other sites
Put a lot of "little people' together and you get a pretty big voice.

 

 

[/color]Obviously there are differences between individuals. At the end of the day endurance is a problem... and it has been shown many times that the female body does not have the endurance of a man's in these conditions. The female body, in general, is not made for that kind if lifestyle.

 

Why should females not suffer that when men do? Because if they become a burden to the men it's a problem. If a woman is stuck at a PB base and can't keep up after time when all the men are then it's an issue. Like it or not men and women are not created equally. Take that simple fact and then add in a culture that despite some people's belief actually feels more protective of women than men in general and you have a problem.

 

Dum ta dum dum *clash of a symbol*

 

Marry me Venom. Honestly, I am not joking. Real men are hard to find nowadays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...