# NOW can we be done with the silly, "women in combat roles" debate?



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 28, 2013)

*U.S. Marines WEAKEN fitness requirement for women, won't make them do three pull-ups*

After just three out of 15 females successfully graduated from the Marine Corps' enlisted infantry training course in November, an order to enforce gender parity has been delayed indefinitely.

Full Story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uirement-wont-three-pull-ups-pass-muster.html


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 28, 2013)

"If you like your service's MOS-specific physical fitness standards, you may keep your service's MOS-specific physical fitness standards."


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 28, 2013)

This is retarded on every level. I do not agree with it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 28, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> "If you like your service's MOS-specific physical fitness standards, you may keep your service's MOS-specific physical fitness standards."


I had to read this twice, but that's funny shit right there!


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 28, 2013)

That's disappointing......and will probably start a trend with the other services :wall:


----------



## JHD (Dec 28, 2013)

As a female,  I completely understand the desire for parity.  BUT, if you can't do three pull ups (or pull your injured comrades to safety when they need you), you shouldn't be in that role.  This makes me so mad that the powers that be don't get it.  The funny thing is, I don't think it is the female marines screaming for it to be done.  It seems like it is the PC police trying to make sure things are "fair and balanced".

I would hate to think that my nephew, son, cousin, father, uncle, friend, etc., was counting on someone half their size to get them out of a shitstorm.


----------



## Brill (Dec 29, 2013)

We have female cops & firefighters. Do they have different PT standards?


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 29, 2013)

lindy said:


> We have female cops & firefighters. Do they have different PT standards?


Good question.  I was just looking at the City of Pittsburgh requirements.  It doesnt appear that the Pittsburgh Fire Department has male/female standards on their physical test:   http://www.iafflocal1.org/docs/2012 Firefighter Recruit Physical Ability Exam.pdf

City of Pittsburgh Police use the MPOETC standards listed here:  http://www.mpoetc.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/mpoetc/7545/officer_certification/561278


----------



## Brill (Dec 29, 2013)

I just checked FBI standards, which have a M vs F scale :

https://www.fbijobs.gov/11131.asp


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 29, 2013)

Looking at this a little more, I see the City of Pittsburgh physical test for Paramedics is not gender specific either.  https://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/pers-depo/Exam/PARAMEDIC.pdf


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 29, 2013)

In Durham the standard for Police was Gender neutral, which made it pretty darn easy for males.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 29, 2013)

The City of Durham list a physical entry requirement for  a recruit for the 300 meter run within 82.9 seconds.  (no gender specified)  http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/DPD/Pages/Fitness.aspx

In comparison, the gender specific charts for the MPOETC lists an acceptable score for entry level the 300 meter run for a female aged 30-39 at 82.0 seconds.  The acceptable time for a male in that age group is 63.0 
seconds.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 29, 2013)

Comparing copwork to Infantry duties (specifically in physical activity) is retarded. All the bullshit pushups, situps, pullups and runs don't mean shit, when we do a 10+ mile ruck with over 100lbs of bullshit, and conduct an live fire assault.

The PFT's are just that a baseline test of fitness. If you're not passing the baseline, don't even start talking about mission readiness/fitness stuff.

I really wish people would pull their heads out of their asses about this "women in the Infantry" bullshit. And no, manning the 240B on a humvee during a convoy once in Iraq, is not the same thing as being a fucking Infantryman. People who use that bullshit analogy have no fucking clue what the fuck they are talking about.

Furthermore instead of dropping the fucking standards b/c only a 5th of the women who tried passed, look into those three that passed, use their data and background to recruit your Infantrywomen candidates in the future. That would probably boost the numbers a bit, I mean it ain't fucking rocket doctor shit here.

People are fucking stupid nowadays....


----------



## Brill (Dec 29, 2013)

JAB said:


> Comparing copwork to Infantry duties (specifically in physical activity) is retarded.



Really? How so?

My experience in OEF attached to an ODA totally refutes your statement (e.g. Targeting, patrol, gathering intel or evidence, SSE, etc.).


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 29, 2013)

If you dumb the standards down enough, you don't need separate male and female physical requirements.  That's what's going to happen, the MOS requirements are going to get "re-evaluated" and lowered, so both genders can easily meet the new standards.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 29, 2013)

lindy said:


> Really? How so?
> 
> My experience in OEF attached to an ODA totally refutes your statement (e.g. Targeting, patrol, gathering intel or evidence, SSE, etc.).



I was not talking about technical skills, I was talking about physical activities. Outside of some game wardens and some aspects for SWAT cops, the physical activity levels are worlds apart.

I don't have personal experience in astan, but from what I'm told walking up and down mountains are a bit harder than walking a street, or doing a mounted patrol.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 29, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> If you dumb the standards down enough, you don't need separate male and female physical requirements.  That's what's going to happen, the MOS requirements are going to get "re-evaluated" and lowered, so both genders can easily meet the new standards.



That should work great for the next war....glad I won't be a part of it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 29, 2013)

JAB said:


> That should work great for the next war....glad I won't be a part of it.



You might be bro, because part of it might be here.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 29, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> You might be bro, because part of it might be here.



LOL, if that ever happens, I plan to link up with a few of the other whack jobs on here and form our own damn unit.

But really though, some things should not be messed with, lowering the standards for your front-line trigger pullers is probably not a good idea for anyone.


----------



## usmcvet (Dec 29, 2013)

lindy said:


> We have female cops & firefighters. Do they have different PT standards?


The standards Very different for female cops here in VT.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 29, 2013)

usmcvet said:


> The standards Very different for female cops here in VT.


How so?


----------



## policemedic (Dec 29, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> City of Pittsburgh Police use the MPOETC standards listed here:  http://www.mpoetc.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/mpoetc/7545/officer_certification/561278


 
The MPOETC standards are used by every municipal police agency in the Commonwealth.


----------



## usmcvet (Dec 29, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> How so?


http://vcjtc.vermont.gov/training/pt


----------



## usmcvet (Dec 29, 2013)

The 40% is the entrance requirement for police recruits, 50% is required to graduate.  Officers are required to do the same job but the standards are very different.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 30, 2013)

The Vermont Standards look  like the MPOETC charts.  When you stated that the Vermont standards "VERY" different I thought you meant in comparison to those.  

I was looking at the Vermont State Police chart.  While they are based on the 50th percentile, candidates get additional points for beating the standard. 
http://vsp.vermont.gov/employment/basic_requirements/fitness


----------



## usmcvet (Dec 30, 2013)

The number come from the Cooper Standards so the numbers are probably very similar across the nation.  That was the idea any way.  I meant different standards for men and women.  VSP and Burlington PD require recruits to be at the 50th% to get in to the academy, most other departments require a recruit meet the academy standards.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Dec 31, 2013)

What a crock of shit.  My solution: Give those 55% that can't do them a certain deadline to do them by, or they get separated.  End of story.   They knew this was coming so they have NO excuse.  There are pull up bars all over the friggin place.  And I'm sure there are a lot of Marines who would have helped them learn how to do pull ups, had they asked.  Folks who enjoy their fitness like to share their fitness experience and whenever I wanted advice or assistance, I got it.

This is just like the overweight Marines who have to lose the pounds in a certain time frame or get separated.  If/Then = Consequence.

Put on your big girl panties and get up on that damned bar.


----------



## Tropicana98 (Dec 31, 2013)

lindy said:


> Really? How so?
> 
> My experience in OEF attached to an ODA totally refutes your statement (e.g. Targeting, patrol, gathering intel or evidence, SSE, etc.).



Yes that stuff would be "similar". However lets look at patrolling specifically I'm willing to be you put many a click on your feet as oppose to having a patrol car to get you there before those activities that are cop-like took place. Even when a vehicle was in use I bet your standard loadout made you a lot wider, heavier, and more cumbersome vs a standard cop; while being packed in there with some other "mission essential" equipment that conveniently never left said vehicle or even just you and your boys packed in there.


----------



## Johca (Dec 31, 2013)

lindy said:


> Really? How so?
> 
> My experience in OEF attached to an ODA totally refutes your statement (e.g. Targeting, patrol, gathering intel or evidence, SSE, etc.).


Your experiences probably do.  However, each of the mission types listed differ in objective of the utilization and likely the unmounted (on-foot) travel duration and distance.  Being an old fart out of military service since 1996 I clearly cannot throw up any of my experience, but I do know the majority of law enforce patrols done by law enforcement officer in the United States are not full combat load foot patrols and such patrols are not of the extended duration and frequency of most unmounted (0n-foot) combat patrols.


----------



## 0699 (Dec 31, 2013)

lindy said:


> I just checked FBI standards, which have a M vs F scale :
> 
> https://www.fbijobs.gov/11131.asp


 
That's not the only thing in the government that has different standards for males/females... 



JHD said:


> As a female,  I completely understand the desire for parity.  BUT, if you can't do three pull ups (or pull your injured comrades to safety when they need you), you shouldn't be in that role.  This makes me so mad that the powers that be don't get it.  The funny thing is, I don't think it is the female marines screaming for it to be done.  It seems like it is the PC police trying to make sure things are "fair and balanced".
> 
> I would hate to think that my nephew, son, cousin, father, uncle, friend, etc., was counting on someone half their size to get them out of a shitstorm.


 
Wait.  YOU'RE A GIRL?!?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 31, 2013)

@policemedic, being that you are a cop and 11B whats your thoughts on patrol cop work vs grunt work, as far as physical activity levels, types of physical fitness need, etc?

FYI: guys I'm not try to pit one against the other here. Just think using the PFT from LE as an example for MIL id a bit silly, especially in comparison to the Infantry. Also that the cooper cut PFT (pretty well the standard for LE) has different scoring for male & female.

Something also I'm wondering is do SWAT teams/schools drop the standard to a female standard for prerequisite/assignment/graduation?

Its been about 8 years since I've been to any SWAT schools, but I don't remember a different standard for male and female. However, no females attended any of the schools/courses that I did, so I'm wondering?


----------



## JHD (Dec 31, 2013)

0699 said:


> Wait.  YOU'RE A GIRL?!?



LOL. You and @Firemedic. Yes, I am a card carrying girl.


----------



## racing_kitty (Dec 31, 2013)

JHD said:


> LOL. You and @Firemedic. Yes, I am a card carrying girl.



And here I thought that your av-a-tar was just a double amputee stick man.  Sheesh, who knew?


----------



## JHD (Dec 31, 2013)

I


racing_kitty said:


> And here I thought that your av-a-tar was just a double amputee stick man.  Sheesh, who knew?


 I know.  I need to do something about the lack of avatar...


----------



## usmcvet (Dec 31, 2013)

Being a cop is no where near as physical demanding as being in the infantry.   Being a cop can be physically demanding and cops need to be able to fight.  Fitness obviously plays an important part in survival.   I've been a cop here in VT since '92.  I'm sure walking a foot post in a large city is more physically demanding than the single office cars I've spent most of my career in.


----------



## Rooster501 (Dec 31, 2013)

My agency conducts its own training academy.  Standards are enforced equally across the board for all ages and all genders.  The women that wear our uniform are very few but very capable.


----------



## Johca (Dec 31, 2013)

Talking about fighting fit U.S. female members of the U.S Armed Forces can't be taken serious compared to these female service members.






http://www.frequency.com/video/amazing-military-parade-chinese-female/130507222/-/5-1467


----------



## Johca (Dec 31, 2013)

The fitness of current U.s Armed Forces is overall much less than was put into the field to fight the fight during WWII, Korean War, and Southeast Asia conflicts.  The problem is not only has China sustained fitness standards, the education standards put out better educated students than the U.S. education system.   Thus conversation of any U.S. service member male or female unable to do three or more chin-ups is a very sad state of combat readiness to be discussing.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 1, 2014)

JAB said:


> @policemedic, being that you are a cop and 11B whats your thoughts on patrol cop work vs grunt work, as far as physical activity levels, types of physical fitness need, etc?
> 
> FYI: guys I'm not try to pit one against the other here. Just think using the PFT from LE as an example for MIL id a bit silly, especially in comparison to the Infantry. Also that the cooper cut PFT (pretty well the standard for LE) has different scoring for male & female.
> 
> ...



There's no question but that being an Infantryman is more physically demanding than being a cop.  Now, there are times when things even out--I've had to climb to the top of a 25 story building, for instance--but the Infantry regularly demands more effort than police work does.

Police work is to a large degree somewhat sedentary.  Most cops drive cars most of the day, and get out when/as necessary.  When physical exertion is necessary, it's often an all-out effort, but if police work is done correctly you don't fight too many people (even when working really bad neighborhoods).  Now, I'm talking about patrol division cops here.  Detectives and other investigators are even more sedentary by the nature of their work. 

Now, I've walked footbeats all day, and that does suck a bit.  Soft body armor and the Batman belt do wear on you after 8 hours.  But it's not rucking.

With that said, the need to be physically fit is equal.  Accomplishing that goal happens much more frequently in the Infantry than it does in America's PDs.  And that's a shame.  There are any number of reasons for it--some are even valid--but we must work harder to stay fit despite the challenges we face that our military brethren don't.

Harmony Church was exponentially more physically taxing than the police academy, even though the academy was longer.  In fairness, the academy was much more intellectually taxing.

We've had women on our SWAT team, and so does Philadelphia.  I know one or two female SWAT cops with more shootings under their belt than most male cops, and I'll trust them with my life.  They've earned their place.  We don't alter our standards for selection on our team; the PT test is the PT test and there's only one standard.  The shooting test is the shooting test etc.  I can't speak for all SWAT training schools, but the Philadelphia Police  SWAT school has unisex standards and so does the NTOA school.

Even in SWAT the physical demands don't compare to the Infantry (although there are exceptions).  The gear is the same; my vest and plates weigh as much now as they ever did (and they're set up about the same).  My aid bag damn sure isn't any lighter.  But I get to drop the aid bag outside the objective now.  I don't need to hump it for 25 miles in less than 8 hours to make sure the unit is certified good to go like I used to.  Even on long operations like barricades the physical stress is mostly from wearing the gear, carrying a shield, porting windows or whatever.  It's not the same as doing a long movement over shit terrain and then doing a raid.  Teams swap out and relieve each other; the concept of not sleeping for 24 or more hours during an operation is completely foreign to LE.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Jan 2, 2014)

LE has it figured out.  The military needs to nut up, quit listening to outside opinions with an agenda, and implement the same standards & requirements across the board.

Not everyone gets to win the game and get a trophy.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Jan 2, 2014)

AMRUSMCR said:


> LE has it figured out.  The military needs to nut up, quit listening to outside opinions with an agenda, and implement the same standards & requirements across the board.


 
In regards to LE having it figured out, that is not quite the case.  While some agencies have one standard, more have male/female standards as well as a varying standard for age.  Most, if not all agencies that follow the Cooper Institute's standard subscribe to this, even though Cooper will tell you that that only correct and legal standard is t0 have one standard, which is supported by case law.  

As for the arguments of which job is harder based on tasks, the comparison is doesn't make sense.  Hell, it isn't even appropriate.  A clerk isn't an infantryman and neither are cops.  The problem in LE is that a 6'5" 220 pound asshole who decides he doesn't want to go to jail doesn't care which PT standard you passed, just like an 80 pound ruck + food, water, ammo, etc. that needs to ascend 5,000 feet doesn't care what the PT standard is.  The job is the same for everyone performing it regardless age or sex.


----------



## usmcvet (Jan 3, 2014)

I agree.  The job is very similar when you are in a fight for your life.  Fighting hand to hand in home town USA or overseas a fight is a fight.  The tools and back up we bring to the fight is similar at times but often very different.




policemedic said:


> There's no question but that being an Infantryman is more physically demanding than being a cop.  Now, there are times when things even out--I've had to climb to the top of a 25 story building, for instance--but the Infantry regularly demands more effort than police work does.
> 
> Police work is to a large degree somewhat sedentary.  Most cops drive cars most of the day, and get out when/as necessary.  When physical exertion is necessary, it's often an all-out effort, but if police work is done correctly you don't fight too many people (even when working really bad neighborhoods).  Now, I'm talking about patrol division cops here.  Detectives and other investigators are even more sedentary by the nature of their work.
> 
> ...


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Jan 3, 2014)

RustyShackleford said:


> In regards to LE having it figured out, that is not quite the case.  While some agencies have one standard, more have male/female standards as well as a varying standard for age.  Most, if not all agencies that follow the Cooper Institute's standard subscribe to this, even though Cooper will tell you that that only correct and legal standard is t0 have one standard, which is supported by case law.



Ahhhh.  Thanks for the correction.  Based on previous posts it seemed that the examples provided and the experiences had been a flat standard across the board,  as a common in the LE community.  I didn't research this further, but am interested in the case law aspect to it, so definitely will.



RustyShackleford said:


> As for the arguments of which job is harder based on tasks, the comparison is doesn't make sense. Hell, it isn't even appropriate. A clerk isn't an infantryman and neither are cops. The problem in LE is that a 6'5" 220 pound asshole who decides he doesn't want to go to jail doesn't care which PT standard you passed, just like an 80 pound ruck + food, water, ammo, etc. that needs to ascend 5,000 feet doesn't care what the PT standard is. The job is the same for everyone performing it regardless age or sex.



This is what I agree with.  The different standards just irritate me.  If the job is the same for both genders, then the standards need to be the same.  You can either do it, or you can't.  If you can't, and won't, then you never will.  Accept it and move on.    The WM's they interviewed all stated that they had to put forth effort to train to do it, but once they did, they were able to meet/exceed the minimum. 

I realize I'm pretty verbose on this subject, and I apologize, but it just lights a fire under my ass.  If women want to be accepted on equal footing in the combat MOS's that are being opened up to them, they also need to prove they can do it.   When standards get lowered so that they can make it and so that everyone looks / feels good about themselves, then they're going to be that much further in the hole in re: to attaining respect from many that they have to serve alongside.  You have to earn respect... it's not handed out just because someone with a well intentioned but misguided women's rights agenda or a politicians say it should be so.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 3, 2014)

That's another reason I like the fire service. Do we help each other? Yes. But the stress training we do is very very individual. You either do it or you fucking quit. We do it till people quit, since those with the heart might end up falling out (which happens) but they'll get right the fuck back up and continue dragging the hoseline or hitting the sled, etc. The people that fail and continue to try even after failing are better by thousands of times than those that might fail or don't even fail, and quit.

Here's a flavor test for ya.

8 lb sledge on a Kaiser sled, back and forth 2 times  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   The sled weighs what it weighs. You move it or fail, period.

2.5" 200' line advancement on a flaked charged line (S-flaked parallel to the starting line, it gets heavier the further out you go and the more smoked you get) It  weighs approximately 549 lbs.

Dummy drag on a 200 lb dead man

Ladder raise on a 35' ladder, all upper body. Ladder is affixed to training building for safety purposes.

Enter 2nd story building through ladder climb. Pick up hose pack (about 50-75 lbs) and walk down and up 3 story stairs twice. 
Go to window, pull up 2 hose rolls with a rope hand over hand. Lower controlled, go to bottom floor. 
Get handed 1.75" line with smoothbore nozzle, advance through building with line flowing on your own. 
Move outside, carry Hurst hydraulic tools (jaws of life and all associated equipment ) 200' off engine to where wrecked training car is and set up tool station appropriately (tarp, etc)
Move back to building, go through obstacle course consisting of entanglement/entrapment/convoluted obstacles we encounter while under blackout conditions
Come out, change air pack bottles, then get tested mentally through emergency regulator/mask failure situations as well as Mayday protocols (Mayday's are trained/tested throughout in the entanglement obstacles by proctors hounding you worse than Drill's) while you're absolutely fucking smoked.

Oh yeah, the whole time you're on SCBA air and have to maintain positive control of your chosen weapon IE pickhead, Denver tool, Halligan, etc.


----------



## digrar (Jan 3, 2014)

We still have a one standard combat fitness test (agility test, 15km weight bearing pack march and firemans carry), an age/sex standard based fitness test (2.4km run, push push and sit ups), but have recently introduced an employment based physical standard test that progresses from all corps standard, to arms corps standard to individual corps specific standard.
 So far the Infantry one (15km route march bearing 40-45kg/88-100lb, 1km fighting order run in 8 minutes at 22kg - 23kg/48-50lb, 72m fire and movement with 18m leopard crawl, 35kg/77lb box lift and place and a 10m 80kg/176lb casualty drag) hasn't to my knowledge been passed by a female soldier or officer. 

In service applicants can (but as of yet haven't to my knowledge) attempt to transfer into Infantry, by 2016 females will be able to attempt to enlist off the street.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 13, 2014)

*Can you scale a wall wearing 70lbs of gear? Military putting male and female soldiers through a new series of drills in bid to find a unisex test to see who is ready for combat*

Researchers in Georgia are trying out a new form of a physical fitness test for both male and female soldiers in hopes of finding a unisex combat readiness test.

Full Story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579581/Army-tests-women-men-combat-fitness-study.html

MailOnline


----------



## JBS (Mar 13, 2014)

For everyone who wants to see women in combat with infantry and SOF, I wonder how you feel about first putting women in the NFL.  

Mandatory female runningbacks throughout the NFL.


----------



## pardus (Mar 13, 2014)

digrar said:


> We still have a one standard combat fitness test (agility test, 15km weight bearing pack march and firemans carry), an age/sex standard based fitness test (2.4km run, push push and sit ups), *but have recently introduced an employment based physical standard test that progresses from all corps standard, to arms corps standard to individual corps specific standard.*
> So far the Infantry one (15km route march bearing 40-45kg/88-100lb, 1km fighting order run in 8 minutes at 22kg - 23kg/48-50lb, 72m fire and movement with 18m leopard crawl, 35kg/77lb box lift and place and a 10m 80kg/176lb casualty drag) hasn't to my knowledge been passed by a female soldier or officer.
> 
> In service applicants can (but as of yet haven't to my knowledge) attempt to transfer into Infantry, by 2016 females will be able to attempt to enlist off the street.



This is a great idea, a PT test based on the job you do.


----------



## reed11b (Mar 13, 2014)

JBS said:


> For everyone who wants to see women in combat with infantry and SOF, I wonder how you feel about first putting women in the NFL.
> 
> Mandatory female runningbacks throughout the NFL.


As long as they are dressed like the lingerie bowl, I'm down.
Reed


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 14, 2014)

Who cares anymore this argument is over, get ready for the standards to fall to pre-ww2 levels. I think we should let women fight the next war all by themselves, they can show us what we have been doing wrong in Iraq and Astan.


----------



## TheSiatonist (Mar 14, 2014)

Does this count?

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/art...ps-names-first-woman-serve-MEU-sergeant-major


----------



## LogDog0402 (Mar 14, 2014)

pardus said:


> This is a great idea, a PT test based on the job you do.



What's the PT test going to be like for desk jockeys?  Coffee cup curls, retrieving paper from the printer, and chair spins.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 14, 2014)

Just read this yesterday, it'll be interesting to see the results but I think they should have used a higher % of female soldiers in it.



> http://m.military.com/daily-news/20...-unit-to-women.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1
> 
> The Marine Corps will open a stateside combat unit to women to collect data for the military's overall effort to integrate them into combat roles by 2016.
> 
> ...


----------



## Etype (Mar 14, 2014)

I haven't read the whole thread, so go ahead and jump on me if this is a repeat.

Here's what they've been doing-  They'll take a standard like 12 miles with 35 pounds in 3 hours.  Then they'll say, "but is that really a good standard?  How many times do you actually do that in combat?  Maybe we should change it to 200 yards in 2 minutes to simulate running to the truck since more forces are mounted these days."

The people that are pulling the strings and pushing the issue obviously want women in the force, for political reasons or otherwise.  They are bending and breaking the rules to see it come to fruition.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 14, 2014)

JBS said:


> For everyone who wants to see women in combat with infantry and SOF, I wonder how you feel about first putting women in the NFL.
> 
> Mandatory female runningbacks throughout the NFL.


 
Hell, just let female cadets and midshipmen play for the NCAA football team.  The uproar from alumni would be awesome.



pardus said:


> This is a great idea, a PT test based on the job you do.


 
IIRC, the DOD tried this in the 70s.  DACOWITS shot it down because too many women couldn't pass the tests for the more physical jobs.


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 15, 2014)

JAB said:


> LOL, if that ever happens, I plan to link up with a few of the other whack jobs on here and form our own damn unit.
> 
> But really though, some things should not be messed with, lowering the standards for your front-line trigger pullers is probably not a good idea for anyone.



I like your style...


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 15, 2014)

Etype said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, so go ahead and jump on me if this is a repeat.
> 
> Here's what they've been doing-  They'll take a standard like 12 miles with 35 pounds in 3 hours.  Then they'll say, "but is that really a good standard?  How many times do you actually do that in combat?  Maybe we should change it to 200 yards in 2 minutes to simulate running to the truck since more forces are mounted these days."
> 
> The people that are pulling the strings and pushing the issue obviously want women in the force, for political reasons or otherwise.  They are bending and breaking the rules to see it come to fruition.



It's not even speculation; here's the quote from the horse's mouth: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?"

IMO, the very concept of any regiment, any branch, any service having to justify maintenance of their standards is deeply disturbing, especially when the driving factor for that question is in no way tied to operational capability.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 15, 2014)

TheSiatonist said:


> Does this count?
> 
> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140311/NEWS/303110030/Corps-names-first-woman-serve-MEU-sergeant-major



Count for what?  She is not in a combat MOS, she has achieved a first, and kudos for that achievement....but not relevant to this topic...IMHO.


----------



## pardus (Mar 17, 2014)

0699 said:


> IIRC, the DOD tried this in the 70s.  DACOWITS shot it down because too many women couldn't pass the tests for the more physical jobs.



:wall: Fucking typical.


----------



## CQB (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## CDG (Apr 7, 2014)

The recruiter at my ASOS is widely considered a 1% female by people in the wing.  Top PT performer, competes in CF, ran track at Penn State, etc.  She took a PAST a few days ago.  Failed two of 4 events, the run and the push-ups.


----------



## surgicalcric (Apr 7, 2014)

Totentanz said:


> It's not even speculation; here's the quote from the horse's mouth: *“Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?"*



Exactly the reason I am getting out, this and the fucking corn-row issue for black females.  The brass is more concerned with themselves than with winning wars. 

When the nation falls I am gonna punch a liberal bitch activist in her fucking throat.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 7, 2014)

surgicalcric said:


> Exactly the reason I am getting out, this and the fucking corn-row issue for black females.  The brass is more concerned with themselves than with winning wars.
> 
> When the nation falls I am gonna punch a liberal bitch activist in her fucking throat.


Cric, are you saying that you don't support my CONGRINT to allow me to wear corn rows?  I thought we were friends....


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 7, 2014)

surgicalcric said:


> Exactly the reason I am getting out, this and the fucking corn-row issue for black females.  The brass is more concerned with themselves than with winning wars.
> 
> When the nation falls I am gonna punch a liberal bitch activist in her fucking throat.



I saw that shot in the WaPo yesterday, about them complaining that 670-1 is racially biased. I personally think 670-1 is biased against real warriors.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 7, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I saw that shot in the WaPo yesterday, about them complaining that 670-1 is racially biased. I personally think 670-1 is biased against real warriors.



Motherfucker won't let you wear your skirt....otherwise know as a kilt? 

LOL


----------



## surgicalcric (Apr 8, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I saw that shot in the WaPo yesterday, about them complaining that 670-1 is racially biased. I personally think 670-1 is biased against real warriors.



The entire military is biased against us Brother.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 8, 2014)

surgicalcric said:


> The entire military is biased against us Brother.



A timeless adage gents.  Watch Seven Samurai or the Magnificent Seven...when troubles start they all come calling for the warrior but when the fighting is done, the warrior is alone.

As Kipling said: So it's "Tommy this" and "Tommy that" and "Tommy where's your soul?" / But it's "thin red line o' heroes!" when the drums begin to roll.  

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/tommy.html


----------



## Johca (Apr 8, 2014)




----------



## Johca (Apr 8, 2014)




----------



## surgicalcric (Apr 8, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> A timeless adage gents...



Indeed Sir.


----------



## AWP (Apr 9, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I saw that shot in the WaPo yesterday, about them complaining that 670-1 is racially biased. I personally think 670-1 is biased against real warriors.


 
CNN has picked up the torch as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/politics/army-hairstyle-ban-debate/index.html?hpt=hp_c3



> Dreadlocks "against the scalp or free-hanging" are banned. "Unkempt" or "matted" braids and cornrows are also considered dreadlocks and "are not authorized," according to the regulations that were updated this month.
> It's that type of language, words like "unkempt" and "matted," that read to some African Americans, as code for racial bias.


----------



## pardus (Apr 9, 2014)

I'm so sick of the fucking race card being pulled. Now that said, I don't know jack shit about having black hair and what it's like to maintain it. I do think corn rows look like shit though.

My people have been tattooed for over 5,500 years now (Circa Copper (Bronze) Age), so I say fuck you to the wankers who tell me I'm now unprofessional looking. 



> If soldiers aren't happy, they can go through a formal process to request changes to the hairstyle regulations, the Army said.



Oh, that sounds easy.   Bwahahahahahahaha!


----------



## surgicalcric (Apr 9, 2014)

pardus said:


> I say fuck you to the wankers who tell me I'm now unprofessional looking.



It isnt now, you were unprofessional right out of the womb.


----------



## Worldweaver (Apr 9, 2014)

Everyone, skin fades...GO.  

Dudes are forced to look like dick heads (literally) and these females want equal treatment?


----------



## Johca (Apr 9, 2014)

I'm confused, how does hair styling connect  to doing any task or mission in the ground direct combat environment with competence and doing task and mission safely and with survivability?   A public health argument concerning head lice and such and perhaps chem/bio warfare protective equipment and decontamination argument for limiting restricting certain hair styles can be made but that concern and solution already applies equally to both genders.


----------



## BloodStripe (May 23, 2014)

Who wants to volunteer before being voluntold?

http://blogs.militarytimes.com/batt...for-co-ed-ground-combat-element/?sf26528496=1


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 13, 2014)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...corps-gender-test-coed-combat-units/17195559/


----------



## pardus (Oct 13, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...corps-gender-test-coed-combat-units/17195559/



Being in that unit, at any level will be a bloody nightmare.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 13, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...corps-gender-test-coed-combat-units/17195559/



So I gotta ask...govt is going to spend a _metric-shit-ton* _of cash on this mess.  Can/will they disciple a woman if she gets herself knocked up and has to pulled out of training?

*Copy write @pardus


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 13, 2014)

Ooh-Rah1069 said:


> So I gotta ask...govt is going to spend a _metric-shit-ton* _of cash on this mess.  Can/will they disciple a woman if she gets herself knocked up and has to pulled out of training?
> 
> *Copy write @pardus



No, because that would be sexist.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 13, 2014)

Ooh-Rah1069 said:


> So I gotta ask...govt is going to spend a _metric-shit-ton* _of cash on this mess.  Can/will they disciple a woman if she gets herself knocked up and has to pulled out of training?
> 
> *Copy write @pardus



My solution for that is one that probably treads a very fine line when it comes to "reproductive rights."  Take the females in for a reproductive briefing, or series of briefings.  Break it down, in no uncertain terms, what the damage to unit cohesion/esprit de corps/blah blah blah would be if they got knocked up. shoot them straight about the science in the process of getting pregnant so as to dispel any bullshit old wives' tales, and then allow for everyone to choose their contraception (condoms and the rhythm method do not count).  To make it more palatable, it could be presented as a means to reduce/eliminate menses during the training cycle, not just to make sure Pvt. Whorebag doesn't piss hot for hCG.

Obviously, it would have to be non-permanent, as any of the permanent sterilization methods would require a week of con leave at minimum (in the case of Essure), and much longer for tubal ligation, and that's not even addressing the ethical complaints about same.

Once all that is out of the way, if PVT Sugartits still gets pregnant, then it's time to run her high up the captain's mast.  Like I said earlier, my solution has some ethical issues, but that's how I would address that problem.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 13, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> My solution for that is one that probably treads a very fine line when it comes to "reproductive rights."  Take the females in for a reproductive briefing, or series of briefings.  Break it down, in no uncertain terms, what the damage to unit cohesion/esprit de corps/blah blah blah would be if they got knocked up. shoot them straight about the science in the process of getting pregnant so as to dispel any bullshit old wives' tales, and then allow for everyone to choose their contraception (condoms and the rhythm method do not count).  To make it more palatable, it could be presented as a means to reduce/eliminate menses during the training cycle, not just to make sure Pvt. Whorebag doesn't piss hot for hCG.
> 
> Obviously, it would have to be non-permanent, as any of the permanent sterilization methods would require a week of con leave at minimum (in the case of Essure), and much longer for tubal ligation, and that's not even addressing the ethical complaints about same.
> 
> Once all that is out of the way, if PVT Sugartits still gets pregnant, then it's time to run her high up the captain's mast.  Like I said earlier, my solution has some ethical issues, but that's how I would address that problem.



So essentially you are a proponent of the "Starship Troopers" method of women in combat, remove the chance of pregnancy through chemical or reversible surgical means, then let the social contexts be part of the individual's responsibility.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 13, 2014)

x SF med said:


> So essentially you are a proponent of the "Starship Troopers" method of women in combat, remove the chance of pregnancy through chemical or reversible surgical means, then let the social contexts be part of the individual's responsibility.



Exactly.


----------



## Johca (Oct 13, 2014)

http://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/InterimCMRSpecRpt-100314.pdf   <---
U. S. Marine Corps Research Findings: Where is the Case for Co-Ed Ground Combat?   Interim CMR Special Report, October 2014.
*

*


----------

