(09-11-2015 02:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If I was in combat, I wouldn't want ladies with me. I'd rather focus on the enemy.

You first have to be in the military Fit. lol

(09-11-2015 02:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  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 not for the patriarchy and evil $#!+lords every women would live up to their Rhonda Rousey potential.

/sarcasm

(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.

The Sayeret is closed to females unless that's changed recently. There are quasi unconfirmed reports of all female SF teams, but they are most likely given different assignments than say capturing a boat of illegal arms headed into Gaza

(09-11-2015 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 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.

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

Agree on all fronts

(09-10-2015 05:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  No surprises at all. If you were never in the Infantry, you don't want to be a 50 Cal gunner (Crew Served) that is
a ***** to haul around. I liked having the 203 though. Shooting those rounds was fun.

I loved the M203. Wish I'd been able to bring one home with me.

I was artillery and Army, so can't really speak to the idea of women in infantry units. But there were a few women in my Lance missle unit in Germany in commo and clerk jobs, including one big ol PFC who used to insist on taking occasional ***** in the men's latrine. Not sure what was worse, the smell or the noise.

A USMC Sgt-Maj has apparently come out to defend the test and its results...

Link

That took some brass balls to come out and say that. While free speech is something that is protected in this country, it is not a guaranteed right in the military.

(09-15-2015 01:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  A USMC Sgt-Maj has apparently come out to defend the test and its results...

Link

I was just going to post this, no fu(ks were given

(09-15-2015 02:45 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 01:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  A USMC Sgt-Maj has apparently come out to defend the test and its results...

Link

I was just going to post this, no fu(ks were given

This was a Marine who cares deeply not only about the Corps as an organization, but for every riflemen within. But he DGAF about the SECNAV and the SJW who obviously don't care about operational performance, just XX numbers. I'm sure the Sgt-Maj paperwork for his DD214 was already in the works before he posted this. If you go read his bio, he has the chops for his statement to carry weight.

(09-15-2015 03:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 02:45 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 01:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  A USMC Sgt-Maj has apparently come out to defend the test and its results...

Link

I was just going to post this, no fu(ks were given

This was a Marine who cares deeply not only about the Corps as an organization, but for every riflemen within. But he DGAF about the SECNAV and the SJW who obviously don't care about operational performance, just XX numbers. I'm sure the Sgt-Maj paperwork for his DD214 was already in the works before he posted this. If you go read his bio, he has the chops for his statement to carry weight.

I agree 100% with your post, there is a reason why his nickname is The Hero of Nasiriyah

(09-15-2015 01:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  A USMC Sgt-Maj has apparently come out to defend the test and its results...

Link

"You will never see a female QB in the NFL." I think this pretty much says it all.

(09-15-2015 09:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 01:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  A USMC Sgt-Maj has apparently come out to defend the test and its results...

Link

"You will never see a female QB in the NFL." I think this pretty much says it all.

The counter argument used by proponents of females in combat is that infantry doesn't have/need the same level of exclusivity. Though everyone knows what will happen when they open SEAL's up to women and nary a one is able to pass BUD/s.

(09-15-2015 09:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 01:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  A USMC Sgt-Maj has apparently come out to defend the test and its results...

Link

"You will never see a female QB in the NFL." I think this pretty much says it all.

Not that I think it'd change the outcome much, but that's a pretty terrible analogy considering the realities of the sport and the fact at most levels it's decidedly male only.

(09-17-2015 09:09 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 09:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 01:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  A USMC Sgt-Maj has apparently come out to defend the test and its results...

Link

"You will never see a female QB in the NFL." I think this pretty much says it all.

Not that I think it'd change the outcome much, but that's a pretty terrible analogy considering the realities of the sport and the fact at most levels it's decidedly male only.

Not that I'm a fan of sports being alluded to as forms of warfare, but I think the point the analogy was trying to present is that when the goal is winning, you open it to all and select the best. The problem is that the military's job is killing people and breaking things and its been proven in several different warfare areas that women are capable of accomplishing that mission as effectively as men. Most of those areas though lack the physical component that is uniquely inherent in combat infantry.

(09-17-2015 09:24 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-17-2015 09:09 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 09:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 01:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  A USMC Sgt-Maj has apparently come out to defend the test and its results...

Link

"You will never see a female QB in the NFL." I think this pretty much says it all.

Not that I think it'd change the outcome much, but that's a pretty terrible analogy considering the realities of the sport and the fact at most levels it's decidedly male only.

Not that I'm a fan of sports being alluded to as forms of warfare, but I think the point the analogy was trying to present is that when the goal is winning, you open it to all and select the best. The problem is that the military's job is killing people and breaking things and its been proven in several different warfare areas that women are capable of accomplishing that mission as effectively as men. Most of those areas though lack the physical component that is uniquely inherent in combat infantry.

My point is that it's a particularly poor analogy because at most levels, football is closed to women. Use soccer or basketball or any of the other sports which isn't decidedly closed to women at most levels and you'd make a better overall argument. Again, I don't think it'd change the point he's trying to make, I'm simply pointing out that his analogy was a poor one.

As for the rest of your post, I have sincere problems with lowering standards, especially for any edge of the knife or elite type units like the Rangers, Seals, Recon, etc, but I think it is also an eventuality that many of the normal infantry roles could be done just as well by women even if they are lacking in specific areas (upper body strength being the most commonly cited).

I can't believe that I'm agreeing with ZERO eight here. In Israel women are conscripted just like men and are in fighting units. In the Mexican revolution there were women carrying rifles alongside men and doing the same fighting. But, I say if they can't do the training for special ops units they shouldn't change the requirements to suit them.

I love it how posters that have never been in the military say that they know what's better for the military.


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

(09-17-2015 07:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I can't believe that I'm agreeing with ZERO eight here. In Israel women are conscripted just like men and are in fighting units. In the Mexican revolution there were women carrying rifles alongside men and doing the same fighting. But, I say if they can't do the training for special ops units they shouldn't change the requirements to suit them.

I agree with you. But don't worry, we are not agreeing with Zero here. That last sentence is where we disagree with him.

(09-18-2015 02:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2015 07:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I can't believe that I'm agreeing with ZERO eight here. In Israel women are conscripted just like men and are in fighting units. In the Mexican revolution there were women carrying rifles alongside men and doing the same fighting. But, I say if they can't do the training for special ops units they shouldn't change the requirements to suit them.

I agree with you. But don't worry, we are not agreeing with Zero here. That last sentence is where we disagree with him.

From the post directly above his, the one he is responding to.

Quote:As for the rest of your post, I have sincere problems with lowering standards, especially for any edge of the knife or elite type units like the Rangers, Seals, Recon, etc, but I think it is also an eventuality that many of the normal infantry roles could be done just as well by women even if they are lacking in specific areas (upper body strength being the most commonly cited).

(09-18-2015 12:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 02:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2015 07:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I can't believe that I'm agreeing with ZERO eight here. In Israel women are conscripted just like men and are in fighting units. In the Mexican revolution there were women carrying rifles alongside men and doing the same fighting. But, I say if they can't do the training for special ops units they shouldn't change the requirements to suit them.

I agree with you. But don't worry, we are not agreeing with Zero here. That last sentence is where we disagree with him.

From the post directly above his, the one he is responding to.

Quote:As for the rest of your post, I have sincere problems with lowering standards, especially for any edge of the knife or elite type units like the Rangers, Seals, Recon, etc, but I think it is also an eventuality that many of the normal infantry roles could be done just as well by women even if they are lacking in specific areas (upper body strength being the most commonly cited).

My mistake, I read over the "eight" the first time, and thought that by ZERO he was referring to Obama, as that word is often used in that manner here, as I myself refer on occasion to Shrub and Zero. I do think the comment is appropriate and correct if we are referring to Obama.

I agree that you have expressed a very reasonable opinion here, and I think it is one that you have expressed consistently in the past, and I agree with you 100% on this issue. Sorry about the confusion, my bad.