From the Marine Corps ranks.


One of my "Sisters" came to us from the Corps. Her last duty assignment was as a D.I. at Parris Island. She's one hell of a firefighter. I'd advance a hose line on the gates of hell with her. She was harder on the "firefighter barbies" than any male I knew.


The Marine Corps ethos is "Every Marine is a rifleman". Between my Sister and the other females I know who went into the Corps I can say that of all the services the Marine Corps better prepares their basic troops.

(09-11-2015 12:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: He said simply, that we are moving towards putting gender and gender identity inclusion over all things. That to to this in the military will lead to less combat efficient units (which this study showed). And less combat ready units will mean more deaths (common sense).

No, this study shows that a random grouping of mixed-gender teams are outperformed by a random grouping of same gendered teams, an outcome which surprises no one. The hyperbole comes in from taking this to mean that the median woman will be inserted into these units without consideration to their relative lack of performance. That simply isn't happening. What will most likely happen is the top performing women, who perform similarly as men, will be integrated into the units which are applicable.

The fallacy you are committing is in assuming the infantry MOS has a specific physical qualification track, like that of becoming a Ranger or a SEAL. But to qualify for combat infantry all one has to do is pass Basic Training. Basic already has two different physical standards for men and women.

So what you'll end up with are women who are qualified for positions save those that require physical strength. For instance, look at the composition of a Field artillery piece, say a Howitzer. Now women will do just fine as crew leader, the land navigator and driver. What roles they probably won't engage in are loader and emplacement. The same goes for fire teams as there will be few women assigned the carry the M249 SAW.

(09-11-2015 12:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: He said simply, that we are moving towards putting gender and gender identity inclusion over all things. That to to this in the military will lead to less combat efficient units (which this study showed). And less combat ready units will mean more deaths (common sense).

No, this study shows that a random grouping of mixed-gender teams are outperformed by a random grouping of same gendered teams, an outcome which surprises no one. The hyperbole comes in from taking this to mean that the median woman will be inserted into these units without consideration to their relative lack of performance. That simply isn't happening. What will most likely happen is the top performing women, who perform similarly as men, will be integrated into the units which are applicable.

That is fine with me. Don't however be surprised...if that number is almost zero. It is simply not a problem worth dealing with on the front lines of combat. I have no problem with them serving in support capacities and that IS an equally valid role that deserves praise IMO. Women should not feel slighted because they are not allowed to run point on Recon. They should in fact want the BEST qualified individuals to do that. There is no doubt in my mind that having females in direct combat roles puts soldiers in danger. The instinct of men to "look out" for women is undeniable. We simply do not need that paradigm inserted into combat. These soldiers have enough to deal with without it.

The question I have is why didn't they have an all female group in the study?

(09-11-2015 08:49 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 12:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: He said simply, that we are moving towards putting gender and gender identity inclusion over all things. That to to this in the military will lead to less combat efficient units (which this study showed). And less combat ready units will mean more deaths (common sense).

No, this study shows that a random grouping of mixed-gender teams are outperformed by a random grouping of same gendered teams, an outcome which surprises no one. The hyperbole comes in from taking this to mean that the median woman will be inserted into these units without consideration to their relative lack of performance. That simply isn't happening. What will most likely happen is the top performing women, who perform similarly as men, will be integrated into the units which are applicable.

That is fine with me. Don't however be surprised...if that number is almost zero. It is simply not a problem worth dealing with on the front lines of combat. I have no problem with them serving in support capacities and that IS an equally valid role that deserves praise IMO. Women should not feel slighted because they are not allowed to run point on Recon. They should in fact want the BEST qualified individuals to do that. There is no doubt in my mind that having females in direct combat roles puts soldiers in danger. The instinct of men to "look out" for women is undeniable. We simply do not need that paradigm inserted into combat. These soldiers have enough to deal with without it.

I don't have a problem with not having any females who do not pass the same physical requirements as men, especially for unites like the Seals or Rangers.

Why should we care?

(09-11-2015 10:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why should we care?

Because American lives would be at stake?

(09-11-2015 10:47 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't have a problem with not having any females who do not pass the same physical requirements as men, especially for units like the Seals or Rangers.

The problem is that things like this tend to evolve in the same way that CRA did. At first, it's okay to include only those who pass the same requirements. But after a while, the fact that few women can make that grade (when you're talking about SEALs or Rangers, many men don't make that grade) turns into this idea that we need more women, and that leads to including women whether they meet the test or not.

I'm 100% in favor of women being eligible for all roles, including combat. Israel does that. They have mixed gender tank crews. They get sent out on multi-day patrols. When they do that, they get issued condoms. I'm totally fine with all of that. We should do the same.

What I'm not fine with is any lowering of standards to admit women. We've already done too much of that.

(09-11-2015 11:21 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why should we care?

Because American lives would be at stake?

So this is already a done deal or still in the experimental phase?

(09-11-2015 11:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 11:21 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why should we care?

Because American lives would be at stake?

So this is already a done deal or still in the experimental phase?

Women can serve in combat zones but not sure if serving in actual combat is allowed yet. I don't think it is.

(09-11-2015 11:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 11:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 11:21 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why should we care?

Because American lives would be at stake?

So this is already a done deal or still in the experimental phase?

Women can serve in combat zones but not sure if serving in actual combat is allowed yet. I don't think it is.

This would seem to suggest that it's not going to happen.

To clarify what I posted above.

I'm fine with women serving in combat, not just combat support but actual combat, as long as the meet the same standards as men.

I'm not fine with lowering standards to qualify more women.

That probably puts me out of line with both the left and the right on this issue. Been there, done that.

(09-11-2015 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To clarify what I posted above.

I'm fine with women serving in combat, not just combat support but actual combat, as long as the meet the same standards as men.

I'm not fine with lowering standards to qualify more women.

That probably puts me out of line with both the left and the right on this issue. Been there, done that.

I think that's where most people in the military are.

(09-11-2015 11:54 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To clarify what I posted above.

I'm fine with women serving in combat, not just combat support but actual combat, as long as the meet the same standards as men.

I'm not fine with lowering standards to qualify more women.

That probably puts me out of line with both the left and the right on this issue. Been there, done that.

I think that's where most people in the military are.

Including most women in the military, at least in my experience.

(09-11-2015 11:32 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 11:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 11:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 11:21 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why should we care?

Because American lives would be at stake?

So this is already a done deal or still in the experimental phase?

Women can serve in combat zones but not sure if serving in actual combat is allowed yet. I don't think it is.

This would seem to suggest that it's not going to happen.

If the data backs that up, then I say let it be. However, there will be those that, despite the data, will keep pressing the issue due to some "gender rights" crap. Those same folks won't even consider the lives at stake.

(09-11-2015 11:54 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To clarify what I posted above.

I'm fine with women serving in combat, not just combat support but actual combat, as long as the meet the same standards as men.

I'm not fine with lowering standards to qualify more women.

That probably puts me out of line with both the left and the right on this issue. Been there, done that.

I think that's where most people in the military are.

As long as the standards are the same, have at it ladies, lol.

(09-11-2015 01:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 11:54 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To clarify what I posted above.

I'm fine with women serving in combat, not just combat support but actual combat, as long as the meet the same standards as men.

I'm not fine with lowering standards to qualify more women.

That probably puts me out of line with both the left and the right on this issue. Been there, done that.

I think that's where most people in the military are.

As long as the standards are the same, have at it ladies, lol.

That's all most people have wanted. But there are a collection of politicians and activists looking for specific results that when not met will alter the standards to get the answers they desire.

I am not surprised. They are only equal, understanding that differences in strength and muscle tone as cultural constructs, in feminist science. Feminist science and science are not the same thing.

If I was in combat, I wouldn't want ladies with me. I'd rather focus on the enemy.

(09-11-2015 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To clarify what I posted above.

I'm fine with women serving in combat, not just combat support but actual combat, as long as the meet the same standards as men.

I'm not fine with lowering standards to qualify more women.

That probably puts me out of line with both the left and the right on this issue. Been there, done that.

That is pretty much my stance also. I just don't see that there are going to be hardly any that will qualify under the same standard as the men. The standard should be exactly the same for infantry level combat soldiers. I cant see how we can afford anything but that.