Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

All male vs mixed gender marines

191 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

mbrn30000

Do they relax the standards to make sure some women can pass? I have heard that fire depts. have done that in the past. No expert on that though. Could be only rumor. All I can say, if I am unconscious and need someone to carry my fat **** to safety, I would prefer someone with upper body strength. women never have enough, due to the center of gravity of their bodies. Even a very strong lady cannot overcome a very average man if both equally trained. so many modern weapons are now so electronic that kids that game make pretty good soldiers and again, it seems to be dominated by males. I don't want to pick on the women who serve us, but at some point we got to be honest. what can they really do well, and what is not really something they can do. remember the enemy does not get the same EEOC orders to play nice.

Edited by mbrn30000
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

To assume that emergency services are under the same sort of life and death situations as special forces soldiers is completely absurd!

I have every respect for the police and fire crews but to compare their working environment to that of a specialist soldier shows how little you know about either professions!

Well, this is to prove a point you are trying to make about women being a distraction to men. I find that to be a poor excuse for a ban of women in combat roles. There have been others on here that talk about the ratio rate of women to men, and others have wondered at the training. Yes, I do admit that weight ratio is noticeably different. I remember my husband telling me how women in basic training, ( that's boot camp for Airmen) did have less amount of goals than the men, so yes there is a different set of training. But again, to use women as a distraction is wrong. I do know, that in all situations, men and women are capable in being professional.

I had had a brother in as a volunteer in the fire department. I had a neighbor who's career field was the fire department, down on the base. I have seen a various crisis to know, it's a dangerous field. Granted, a specialist soldier is more in a danger zone. My husband was in more so than the police and the fire department, but whether I am familiar with them, like you seem to think, still does not stray from the point, that men and women are quite capable to be professional and not letting their 'hormones' rule them. Especially in a crisis situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas Cooper Merrin

Well, this is to prove a point you are trying to make about women being a distraction to men. I find that to be a poor excuse for a ban of women in combat roles. There have been others on here that talk about the ratio rate of women to men, and others have wondered at the training. Yes, I do admit that weight ratio is noticeably different. I remember my husband telling me how women in basic training, ( that's boot camp for Airmen) did have less amount of goals than the men, so yes there is a different set of training. But again, to use women as a distraction is wrong. I do know, that in all situations, men and women are capable in being professional.

I had had a brother in as a volunteer in the fire department. I had a neighbor who's career field was the fire department, down on the base. I have seen a various crisis to know, it's a dangerous field. Granted, a specialist soldier is more in a danger zone. My husband was in more so than the police and the fire department, but whether I am familiar with them, like you seem to think, still does not stray from the point, that men and women are quite capable to be professional and not letting their 'hormones' rule them. Especially in a crisis situation.

Fair enough

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

"The Marines don't want gender integration in their teams, and they have a study to prove it is bad."

"Who did the study?"

"The Marines."

"Hmm..."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Hot off Monday's press, "Grunt life: Marines dish on the Corps' women in combat experiment"

http://www.marinecor...iment/71632666/

"Over time, your body breaks down," Sheffield said. "Our backs were hurting. Out of 100 female Marines, I'm going to say a good 20 could do this."

Infantry platoon volunteer Sgt. Jeremy Bradshaw arrived at the same conclusion about women capable of living the grunt life following his time in the task force.

"It's a very small number; I'd say two out of 10," he said.

While videos and photographs released by the Marine Corps show women excelling at combat tasks, Bradshaw said they omitted the moments of failure. He watched a four-woman team struggling for more than seven minutes to move a 200-pound dummy, without success, he said. Another time, he said, female Marines failed to clamber over the top of the shipping container during movement-to-contact assessments."

Looks like Father Merrin might have a point after all?

"The female variable in this social experiment has wrought a fundamental change in the way male NCOs think, act and lead," Augello wrote in the 13-page paper he presented to Marine leaders, which he shared with Marine Corps Times. "A change that is sadly for the worse, not the better."

A four-woman team struggled to move a 200 pound dummy? I find that a little difficult to believe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I did 10 years of "day in day out" and believe me if you have a group of sexualy deprived 25 year old men, any form of female is a huge distraction! Im not saying they are not capable, im saying that human nature/ biological urges and protective instincts dont just stop because you are wearing a tan beret! And in a combat situation these are distractions that are slightly more important than in your average office environment

How about your average church environment? Do we have to protect the biological males and fragile females from the combat and the distractions that go on in there too?

This isn't directed at you as if I thought you were a real priest. It's hypothetical food for thought for all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Dream_03

...seriously?

Are some people actually saying that a woman is not allowed to fight for her country and the things it has given her?

If a woman wants to give her life for something she cares so passionately about, especially her country, then she has moral and legal rights to do so!

I won't deny that men are physically, and sometimes emotionally, stronger than us females, but that doesn't mean we can't aim a gun or knock someone out if we need to.

That is like sayings all men need to be the same weight/height and have the same strength the other soldiers to be in the Marines.

At the end of the day, if you are joining the Marines because you feel as though you should give back to the country you have been gifted to be born in, who cares what gender you are?

If your argument is 'they can die easier!' are you really so dim to think that we don't know that we can die? Are you serious?

Edited by _Dream_03
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas Cooper Merrin

How about your average church environment? Do we have to protect the biological males and fragile females from the combat and the distractions that go on in there too?

This isn't directed at you as if I thought you were a real priest. It's hypothetical food for thought for all.

Im guessing you haven't been in many churches.

Not going to give you the satisfaction of rising to your idiotic "hypothetical" question

Edited by Father Merrin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I read about this, and wonder at the quality of the experiment. This could certainly not be "double blind" since everyone knows the sex composition of their unit. It could very easily be a consequence of this -- those in male-only units do better because everyone expects them to, combined with some sexism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

If your argument is 'they can die easier!' are you really so dim to think that we don't know that we can die? Are you serious?

That's a mind numbing question. Irrational too. The argument is not that a women will die easier. It is that their lack of strength and stamina will get others killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Heres a good article about why the Marines are resistant to woman in thier ranks. Apparently its a Mens Club.

https://www.yahoo.co...-202848098.html

Very interesting article. I wonder, do married marines take this attitude home to their wives? Or are they mostly single?

As for the separated genders in Marine boot camp, I found that isn't true to a sense, when my husband told me about his basic training experience. He even had a 'generic' video to show me what he went through. I think I remember something about my late brother's experiences in Marine boot camp, but that was a long time ago, I forgot. I would think all boot (basic training) camps were all intergrated?

Im guessing you haven't been in many churches.

Not going to give you the satisfaction of rising to your idiotic "hypothetical" question

I'm going to be up front, and yes been saying this all over here. I never grew up going to church (or a temple, mosque, etc, etc) a totally secular raising. So, it will be extremely evident of my ignorance on this. But I do have some sincere questions for you. ( and not to echo the questions that was just asked about church environment) but as a religious man in the services. I hope you can remind me of your role that you mentioned earlier in this thread.

Now, I have met military chaplins. Of course, there are the various religious buildings on bases, the one I lived on for a time, had a catholic church, a prostatant church, ( funny I can't remember a temple on there *shrugs* ) but anyways. Were you a chaplin, Father Merrin? Or were you actually in a different career field? Just curious. I'm taking this, that you are an actual religious figure. ( and if that is really you in your avatar picture, ( nice looking, just had to say) so on that note, I didn't realize religious figures had more avenues in military career fields than what I experienced in military life. Or were you a religious figure who joined in another level?

I'm really really curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas Cooper Merrin

Very interesting article. I wonder, do married marines take this attitude home to their wives? Or are they mostly single?

As for the separated genders in Marine boot camp, I found that isn't true to a sense, when my husband told me about his basic training experience. He even had a 'generic' video to show me what he went through. I think I remember something about my late brother's experiences in Marine boot camp, but that was a long time ago, I forgot. I would think all boot (basic training) camps were all intergrated?

I'm going to be up front, and yes been saying this all over here. I never grew up going to church (or a temple, mosque, etc, etc) a totally secular raising. So, it will be extremely evident of my ignorance on this. But I do have some sincere questions for you. ( and not to echo the questions that was just asked about church environment) but as a religious man in the services. I hope you can remind me of your role that you mentioned earlier in this thread.

Now, I have met military chaplins. Of course, there are the various religious buildings on bases, the one I lived on for a time, had a catholic church, a prostatant church, ( funny I can't remember a temple on there *shrugs* ) but anyways. Were you a chaplin, Father Merrin? Or were you actually in a different career field? Just curious. I'm taking this, that you are an actual religious figure. ( and if that is really you in your avatar picture, ( nice looking, just had to say) so on that note, I didn't realize religious figures had more avenues in military career fields than what I experienced in military life. Or were you a religious figure who joined in another level?

I'm really really curious.

Every member of my unit was single! its not a life for a family man.

My religious path happend after my special forces career,

10 years of doing what i did (JTF2) eventually broke me down, and i went looking for a reason to carry on living, i was discharged due to mental health issues ,joined various groups and ended up becoming involved in the CC, but i have left that path also, as it could not provide me with the answers i needed.

Just to clarify, im not against women joining the military in general! What i am against is them being in the elite combat groups that are sent in when all else fails, im only talking about special ops units, the more familiar being JTF2, Delta force

,SAS ,SBS, Seals etc, it's these units that all my previous posts have been aimed at, i have no issues with women being involved with any other aspect of the armed forces.

Edited by Father Merrin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Every member of my unit was single! its not a life for a family man.

First off, thank you very much for answering my question. ( I see you pretty much showed some of yourself personally. I respect you very much for it. :) ) It makes me wonder, ( and I'm reminded years ago of a controversial bit in the news about a particular marine higher up years ago who wanted to only recruit unmarried recruits. I can't seem to find anything on it in my initial search, but I will keep trying. But I remember he did not get what he wanted. After dealing with a lot of being an Air Force wife, and certain situations, I wonder, at some point, if that marine could be right in certain senses) But, I wont go on questioning this, this is your answer to my question. So thank you again.
My religious path happend after my special forces career,

10 years of doing what i did (JTF2) eventually broke me down, and i went looking for a reason to carry on living, i was discharged due to mental health issues ,joined various groups and ended up becoming involved in the CC, but i have left that path also, as it could not provide me with the answers i needed.

Ah, I see. :yes: That clarifies things for me. I thought you were already ordained or something close to that when you joined. I didn't realize it was something that came to you later in your military career. (are you ordained as a chaplin now? I can't remember if you made that known previously?)
Just to clarify, im not against women joining the military in general! What i am against is them being in the elite combat groups that are sent in when all else fails, im only talking about special ops units, the more familiar being JTF2, Delta force

,SAS ,SBS, Seals etc, it's these units that all my previous posts have been aimed at, i have no issues with women being involved with any other aspect of the armed forces.

I understood that in your previous posts. But it makes me wonder how far that one goes in using a man's ........ to be it bluntly, urges and using this as a reason for the exclusion of women in something. And as a woman myself, (( and mostly so when the husband is deployed)) women can have this too you know. :devil: In which I feel I think you are aware. ;)

But this just might be me, but it reminds me of certain belief systems here in the states, and other certain cultures, where a woman is suppose to cover up, or dress a certain way, and in certain cultures, not even allowed to venture outside a building for fear of what she does to a man. I find that very ...................... wrong :no:

I'm not going to argue on the ratio of women's strength, but I do believe that ingenuity is also something that both genders have. ( Frankly I have found certain aspects of the thinking in the marine corp to be very........................ off setting when it comes to how they treat women.) But this is just me I suppose. I just cannot excuse personally this behavior of how men react to women when it comes to their biology.

But, this post is mostly to appreciate you answering my question and it opens up to me more so about you and how you come by your thoughts and points, and I thank you. :yes::)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Dream_03

That's a mind numbing question. Irrational too. The argument is not that a women will die easier. It is that their lack of strength and stamina will get others killed.

Its what I've heard many people say whenever this question has been brought up, not mainly on this thread. And please evaluate more on how that'd get others killed.

I also think the whole idea that women would distract the men, creating jealousy and turmoil is completely absurd. I laughed while thinking about it.

That is almost like saying it is my responsibility to not get raped if I'm walking to my house.

This argument is also completely invalid because it can easily be solved, training apart.

Though I think it is totally foolish to say it is on our shoulders whether or not the men choose to act like adults, lets remember that these men have shown maturity on a level of joining the Marines for their country (at least a majority)

There will always be problems with two genders living together, but what you are saying you should really think about.

It would not be different from only created All boy/All girl schools, keeping them completely separate then the GOVERNMENT deciding who has a child with who to keep up the population. Wouldn't you all love that? Perfect world population control, its already starting in China with the one-child rule.

It is okay to say things like 'Having two genders together could cause a lot of problems' but what angers me is saying 'the woman would cause a lot of problems'

The only part that I understand about not letting woman onto the special forces is how woman are more prone to give up. With weaker physical chances of actually making it, I won't deny the possibility.

Edited by _Dream_03
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Its what I've heard many people say whenever this question has been brought up, not mainly on this thread. And please evaluate more on how that'd get others killed.

Well, you must understand my statement in some way. Right?...

The only part that I understand about not letting woman onto the special forces is how woman are more prone to give up. With weaker physical chances of actually making it, I won't deny the possibility.

Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Dream_03

Well, you must understand my statement in some way. Right?..

Of course I understand where you're coming from, but in what way?

For example, would a woman distract men from duties/training?

Or do you mean something like - they are too cowardice in battle and would leave their fellow soldiers hanging?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

I read about this, and wonder at the quality of the experiment. This could certainly not be "double blind" since everyone knows the sex composition of their unit. It could very easily be a consequence of this -- those in male-only units do better because everyone expects them to, combined with some sexism.

They could easily not need a double blind by not informing the units that they are part of a statistical experiment which is likely what was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

They could easily not need a double blind by not informing the units that they are part of a statistical experiment which is likely what was done.

That would not solve the problem. They are not stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

It is probably better to not try to solve social problems with this sort of thing, but keep the units all the same sex. I will agree with this because I can see no effective way to determine whether or not in the long run mixing them would help or hurt their military effectiveness, but the logic does seem to point toward hurt, and military effectiveness has got to be the only consideration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

That would not solve the problem. They are not stupid.

Additionally, the problem may not be (and probably isn't) an objective one. If a bunch of male marines are convinced that having a female with them is going to make them more inefficient, confirmation bias will lead to a decrease in their performance, regardless.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use your brain

So whats your opinion OverSword?

Do you think woman should have the right to be in combat if they met all the same requirements as thier male counterparts?

If they meet all the same requirements then I believe it would be fine.

When I was in there were some females that most guys wouldn't want to mess with, but at the same time there were some petite ones that I honestly wouldn't want to have to rely on to fireman's carry/ buddy drag me out of a fight if I had been hit.

When I was in, the females had a different PFT from the males, the main difference being the pull-up section of the PFT. Male Marine pull-ups rely heavily on upper body strength, while the females had an easier version where they would just have to hold themselves above the bars which is mostly endurance, not strength.

The fact is that most females are not built with the same physical attributes as males, however there are exceptions to this rule. If a female can pass the same PFT, CFT, and endure the fact that "feminine needs" may have to be put on hold at certain times, then by all means let them fight.

A female still holds the #1 rifle score at Paris Island, although you won't find many people willing to admit it :gun:

There are other things that go into play while making a decision like this, such as psychological effects on the enemy ect. I was just trying to point out the physical aspect in this post though, as this topic wouldn't be PC enough for a lot of people to hear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
If they meet all the same requirements then I believe it would be fine.

No. It probably would not. The problem is not due to physical capability. The problem is emotional in nature.

Guys, particularly hypermasculine cultures, have an extremely hard time dealing with women on an equal basis. Some are literally incapable of acknowledging that women could do the same job that they do. And it isn't just the hypermasculine cultures either. It is a behavioral trait shared by pretty much all men, although at least some men can control it to a tolerable degree.

This is something women figured out ages ago. "A woman has to work twice as hard as a man to get half the credit."

When I was in there were some females that most guys wouldn't want to mess with, but at the same time there were some petite ones that I honestly wouldn't want to have to rely on to fireman's carry/ buddy drag me out of a fight if I had been hit.

We had a girl, little slip of a thing, in the engine room, back when I was a lowly little E3. She weighed about 98 lbs, soaking wet. There is no way in hell she could have lifted any of us.

So, she didn't. When training time came along, she sat up the other guy, put her back to his stomach and rolled over to all fours, bringing him along on her back. She walked, doggy-style, with him on her back, all the way to the ladder, and still retained enough control to accidentally guide his head into one of the pipes when he started commenting on similarities between her style and certain other activities (PC training was a bit more direct in those days).

Sure, she had to use four legs instead of two, but hey, the job got done. Where brute strength fails, you have to use technique. As our WO put it: "If it's stupid, and it works, it ain't stupid."

The fact is that most females are not built with the same physical attributes as males, however there are exceptions to this rule.

That's not as much a fact as people would like to believe. Women do have to train a bit harder to get to the same strength level as a man of similar height and built, but the amount of training is nominal. Similarly, most men do not have the endurance and technique of women, because women tend to have better strength to weight ratios (again, everything else being equal). Men can, with only nominal training, achieve the same endurance levels of women. Curiously though, most men do not bother bettering their strength techniques, preferring to brute force their way through. It may simply be that women do not have that option which leads to female technique often being better than male.

If a female can pass the same PFT, CFT, and endure the fact that "feminine needs" may have to be put on hold at certain times, then by all means let them fight.

The problem is that women don't set the standards. They are set by higher command, which generally, for all their talk about the need for equality, refuse to acknowledge that women don't need lower standards. Consequently, even if women meet the normal standards, they are always dismissed because "women have lower standards than men".

There are other things that go into play while making a decision like this, such as psychological effects on the enemy ect. I was just trying to point out the physical aspect in this post though, as this topic wouldn't be PC enough for a lot of people to hear.

Although it is indeed a fascinating aspect.

Edited by aquatus1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use your brain
No. It probably would not. The problem is not due to physical capability. The problem is emotional in nature.

Guys, particularly hypermasculine cultures, have an extremely hard time dealing with women on an equal basis. Some are literally incapable of acknowledging that women could do the same job that they do. And it isn't just the hypermasculine cultures either. It is a behavioral trait shared by pretty much all men, although at least some men can control it to a tolerable degree.

This is something women figures out ages ago. "A woman has to work twice as hard as a man to get half the credit."

They would change that tune if that female beat the breaks off of them, or tapped them out ( however you like to play )

Also if this female passed the CFT using the exact same techniques as everyone it would turn some heads.

If this female aced the CQ shooting test, along with LR with flying colors it would also turn heads.

Obviously yes the female would have to prove herself.... as everyone has to prove themselves. ( Admittedly she would be under much more scrutiny )

We had a girl, little slip of a thing, in the engine room, back when I was a lowly little E3. She weighed about 98 lbs, soaking wet. There is no way in hell she could have lifted any of us.

So, she didn't. When training time came along, she sat up the other guy, put her back to his stomach and rolled over to all fours, bringing him along on her back. She walked, doggy-style, with him on her back, all the way to the ladder, and still retained enough control to accidentally guide his head into one of the pipes when he started commenting on similarities between her style and certain other activities (PC training was a bit more direct in those days).

Sure, she had to use four legs instead of two, but hey, the job got done. Where brute strength fails, you have to use technique. As our WO put it: "If it's stupid, and it works, it ain't stupid."

I have never seen this technique, we use the Fireman's Carry and the Buddy Drag. These are the most effective in combat, and ANYONE who is a 03 must be able to do this with the heaviest person in the platoon.

The problem is that women don't set the standards. They are set by higher command, which generally, for all their talk about the need for equality, refuse to acknowledge that women don't need lower standards. Consequently, even if women meet the normal standards, they are always dismissed because "women have lower standards than men".

They would need to take the same test. If they can't pass it, they can't fight.

Although it is indeed a fascinating aspect.

Indeed, I could talk for hours about all the variables.

I'm just choosing to stick to the physical aspect for this forum though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

They would change that tune if that female beat the breaks off of them, or tapped them out ( however you like to play )

No. They would just get angrier and even more intolerant. Guys that have a problem with considering women their equals don't suddenly change their minds when they find themselves losing to women.

Also if this female passed the CFT using the exact same techniques as everyone it would turn some heads.

Why? People would just dismiss it with the same "Sure, there are always exceptions" excuse they use to pretend they are being fair.

If this female aced the CQ shooting test, along with LR with flying colors it would also turn heads.

And yet, no one seems to remember who holds the Paris Island shooting record.

Obviously yes the female would have to prove herself.... as everyone has to prove themselves. ( Admittedly she would be under much more scrutiny )

No. She would have to prove herself above and beyond what the average male would have to prove. And she would have to continue doing so fresh at every station. There would be no carry-over acceptance for her.

I have never seen this technique, we use the Fireman's Carry and the Buddy Drag.

Not surprised. How often do tiny little people have to carry much bigger people?

These are the most effective in combat, and ANYONE who is a 03 must be able to do this with the heaviest person in the platoon.

What's most effective in combat is whatever happens to get the job done, you know that as well as I.

But let's not be simplistic. You know full well the example wasn't a recommendation to change combat training. It was an example of how doing things differently allows different types of people to accomplish the same thing.

They would need to take the same test. If they can't pass it, they can't fight.

Preaching to the choir. Tell the higher-ups; they are the ones that set the standards, and that sabotage women by lowering them.

Indeed, I could talk for hours about all the variables.

I'm just choosing to stick to the physical aspect for this forum though.

Alright then. Let's leave out the parts about whether one and only one technique is good in a combat situation.

My position is that the problem has little to do with the physical part of it, and everything to do with the expectation that the problem is the physical part of it. It cannot be denied that women regularly, from ancient days to modern ones, have actively engaged in warfare, and performed as well (and occasionally better), than males. That pretty much means that performance-wise, they are indeed equals.

Edited by aquatus1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.