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

Use your brain
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.

Sure women can be highly effective in combat, I'm not arguing that. I'm just stating that women should have to pass the exact same physical tests to be able to do so.

1x Kevlar - 3 Lbs

1x Flak - ~10 Lbs

2x Ceramic Plates - 20 Lb

1-2x Weapons - Minimum 8.9 Lbs, 17 Lbs if M249

3x M67 - 3 Lbs

Water - 5 Lbs

Ammo - 5-50 Lbs

And this is just standard stuff, not to mention pack, mortars, AT4, 203 ect.

It is more about strength these days than it used to be, and even more-so in this country.

Now wearing all this gear, what % of women do you think could carry a 200Lb person wearing the exact same thing?

Edited by Use your brain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

All the ones that train for it, just like guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

As long as you remain solidly welded to the double false concepts of strength being the only measure of performance and the difference in base strength of male vs female being insurmountable, you will not be able to understand my position.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use your brain

As long as you remain solidly welded to the double false concepts of strength being the only measure of performance and the difference in base strength of male vs female being insurmountable, you will not be able to understand my position.

I edited my post, read the new first sentence :yes:

Strength just happens to be a very important part of a very effective unit.

As I stated in my first post, there are women that fit the bill, it's just not for all.

It's not for all guys either.

Edited by Use your brain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

While the edited portion is something I do not disagree with, and have already commented on, I don't see anything to indicate the post you quoted above is incorrect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

My view is that mentally, spiritually, and legally, men and women are equal. Physically our bodies are somewhat different, and it may be that our minds are also.

Still, there are plenty of women around more capable of doing what a soldier has to do than many men.

In other words some ideological absolute rule is not called for; instead case by case decisions are needed, in each case looking for what will work best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Agreed. The problem is institutionalized bias, not physical or mental capability.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use your brain

Agreed. The problem is institutionalized bias, not physical or mental capability.

Agreed

The guys who went through this school with these females will have far less of a bias now. http://www.npr.org/2...g-ranger-school

8 of the 19 women still remain, if they can all finish it would put them at the same % as the male success rate.

This is how you build trust and lessen the bias, going through grueling training like this together, side by side. From now on these females will be seen as Rangers (not female Rangers, just Rangers), because they earned the title in the same manner as everyone else.

This story is from May 27, I'm curious as to how this turned out.

ETA: They all failed.

2 women have passed now though.

Edited by Use your brain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

It will be interesting to see how it turns out if more and more women enter into combat roles. It will be more interesting it women begin to outnumber the men, mainly because of past social reaction to roles that became female roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use your brain

It will be interesting to see how it turns out if more and more women enter into combat roles. It will be more interesting it women begin to outnumber the men, mainly because of past social reaction to roles that became female roles.

It will never happen unless they change the requirements. Women just aren't made the same as men, it's biology.

There is a pretty good video of a female Marine DI explaining this, I'll have to dig it up. It's not bashing women, it's just simple facts.

All the women failed Ranger School by the way.

2 have passed now, it took them over 4 months instead of 2 because they kept getting recycled. They didn't quit though so kudos.

This will be the way the rest of the tests go for these physically demanding roles.

As I said, there are a few women who can pull it off, it's just not the same as the % of men who can. This is not being sexest, it's just stating facts.

Edited by Use your brain
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
It will never happen unless they change the requirements. Women just aren't made the same as men, it's biology.

Out of curiousity, are you stating that, biologically, the female of a given species tends to be less aggressive, less violent, and generally less dangerous, than the male?

'Cause...

There is a pretty good video of a female Marine DI explaining this, I'll have to dig it up. It's not bashing women, it's just simple facts

Is the female Marine a biologist?

Or is she someone who went through training for, and currently lives in, the previously mentioned hyper-masculine environment?

All the women failed Ranger School by the way.

No surprise. The question under discussion is why they failed.

As I said, there are a few women who can pull it off, it's just not the same as the % of men who can. This is not being sexest, it's just stating facts.

I'll just go ahead and repeat myself:

As long as you remain solidly welded to the double false concepts of strength being the only measure of performance and the difference in base strength of male vs female being insurmountable, you will not be able to understand my position.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use your brain
Out of curiousity, are you stating that, biologically, the female of a given species tends to be less aggressive, less violent, and generally less dangerous, than the male?

'Cause...

Yes. Cause Testosterone. At least that is what those pesky scientists and statistics say.

Don't take that the wrong way, women can be just as crazy :whistle:

I was just answering your question.

Is the female Marine a biologist?

Or is she someone who went through training for, and currently lives in, the previously mentioned hyper-masculine environment?

She is someone who has more experience training females than any biologist on the planet.

She also went through DI school, and learned first hand.

No surprise. The question under discussion is why they failed.

Are you suggesting a conspiracy? Note that failure is either quitting voluntarily, or you are unable to complete a task.

I rebuttal with why would they let 2 pass then?

'll just go ahead and repeat myself:

As long as you remain solidly welded to the double false concepts of strength being the only measure of performance and the difference in base strength of male vs female being insurmountable, you will not be able to understand my position.

I thought you agreed that females should have to go through the same thing as the males?

Nowhere did I say they failed because they weren't physically strong enough.

Edited by Use your brain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Yes. Cause Testosterone. At least that is what those pesky scientists and statistics say.

If you like, we can discuss what those pesky scientists and statistics actually say.

Don't take that the wrong way, women can be just as crazy :whistle:

Agreed. They are equal, but different, after all.

I was just answering your question.

That's fine. I have no reason to take offense. However, I will point out that the presences of testosterone is no more an insurmountable handicap to aggression than it is to strength.

She is someone who has more experience training females than any biologist on the planet.

Does she now?

Or does she simply have the same experience other DI's have?

She also went through DI school, and learned first hand.

Let me ask you, in your experience, would people who went through something that required a considerable emotional, psychological, and physical investment...

Are those people generally more likely to agree with the conclusions of the school they graduated from, or disagree?

Are you suggesting a conspiracy?

No. I am, however, saying that there could well be a cultural component at play.

It would hardly be the first time institutionalized discrimination reared its head in the military.

Note that failure is either quitting voluntarily, or you are unable to complete a task.

Come on now. You know perfectly well there ways to make someone quite, or ensure they can't complete a task. Let's not play innocent here. I'm not saying that's what happened, but come on, let's not be coy.

I rebuttal with why would they let 2 pass then?

Beats me. I don't that, anymore than I know why the others failed. Maybe they met all the qualifications. Maybe external factors interfered with their dismissal, in the same way that external factors could have interfered in the success of the others. Without evidence in either direction, there is really no way to tell about this specific situation.

I thought you agreed that females should have to go through the same thing as the males?

You thought correctly. What is confusing you is that you can't conceive of anything other than strength as being the only measure of success.

Nowhere did I say they failed because they weren't physically strong enough.

You running theme has been that women have to meet the same physical standards as men. The first comment you made concerning my post was pointing out how in combat situations a strength-dependent should be used. Every single counter you have made is based around women not being as strong as men.

You are literally centering everything around physical strength. As much as you agree that it is only one factor, for all that you are claim to acknowledge a theoretical equality, you are still, in every aspect, whether it be general combat, ranger training, infantry load-outs, all you talk about is physical strength.

Have you really not noticed that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

My question is, when they are selecting special forces trainees, have they changed any of the physical requirements from years past? Also if you were to hand the results of all the testing of the applicants to a person who did not know the gender of the applicants, only the results of each test, would the women have been chosen? If the answer is yes, then by all means, they deserve it, but if the answer is no, then something other than the best interest of the military is afoot. Also in a time when we have sequestration and military units are being deactivated, troops getting their walking papers, why would we waste money training people on functions they are not legally able to do, unless it is for photo ops for politicians to garner the female vote? If we determine that the best army is made up of 6'4" 250 lb Martian hermorphrodites, then we should be looking for them. The point of the military is to win wars not to win popularity or be a jobs program, or to raise male or female self esteem. The military exists to kill the enemy or convince the potential enemy it is futile to ever attack us.

Edited by mbrn30000
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

I agree. Unless adding females into the mix actually improves overall performance stats of the whole group, squad, ect; I can't see a purpose. Especially given that it takes them twice as long with multiple do-overs to get it right. That alone would identify an anonymous test result as female not to mention there is no extra time and there are no do-overs in the field.

Edited by F3SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LV-426

I honestly think some people are so utterly hellbent on absolute equality in the most miniscule of detail that they forget men and women actually are inherently different...

Don't get me wrong. I fully believe in equal rights and opportunities for all, but we are different. We're physically different, and we typically react differently to things psychologically.

I can already anticipate the comments coming in screaming 'sexism.' I'll stop you right there though. I believe in many situations women can be stronger than men. Hell... as a slight aside, if you know the reference for my forum name, you'll know it's from a movie with probably one of the strongest female role models in film history! The mentally strongest, the most intelligent and adaptable survivor, who still shows her maternal feminine side. Anyway... this isn't the movie review section :rolleyes:

To the point...

Talking about combat effectiveness - as well as I can as a civvy - I know that I'd react differently to seeing a man in distress and a woman in distress. I'd want to help either as much as I could, but I'm ceratin that I'd feel more emotionally involved towards the woman. I just think it's a natural instinct genetically programmed into men in general. I also know from my forty-odd years of life that women are far less likely to display the same bias, and that they often mistake the male bias as some kind of discrimination.

Now, I'm not stating here whether those differences would benefit or hinder a tight-knit military group, but they definitely need to be considered and evaluated without political correctness being the prime concern, and not just seen as discrimination. We're talking about human lives in the most hostile situations here after all.

No offense to some posters, but Father Merrin's views hold a lot more weight here than that of the civvy posters too, myself included.

Edited by LV-426
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erowin

Having women in combat would help get rid of that 'I should place more value over her life because she's female' mindset. I can see why there would be bumps at first, as most of the men are probably changing their behavior because there are women fighting alongside them. But eventually you see your fellow soldiers as equal after been through some **** together.

I don't think doing it all at once is the best idea, but slowly allowing women to do more and more in the military might actually help get rid of sexist mindsets. Or maybe all female troops?

Edited by Erowin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

I don't understand how subjecting women to a strictly combative role that involves killing for the sake of survival forebodes well for whichever country of regimental powers of the day they represent ~ at its most fundamental level it shows a failure of everything representative of what constitutes as a sign of sophisticated humanity ~

Or as a female friend of mine is prone to point out ~ Its just the case of men wanting women in the armed forces just to make the men in the military forces feel better about getting by day to day ~

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Having women in combat would help get rid of that 'I should place more value over her life because she's female' mindset. I can see why there would be bumps at first, as most of the men are probably changing their behavior because there are women fighting alongside them. But eventually you see your fellow soldiers as equal after been through some **** together.

I don't think doing it all at once is the best idea, but slowly allowing women to do more and more in the military might actually help get rid of sexist mindsets. Or maybe all female troops?

The "eventually" is sincerely what concerns me. Men generally feel the need to protect women to their detriment. They will come to a woman's defense, whether we need it or not., putting their own lives in danger.

It took me years to train my husband to back off when I said, "I got this". :lol: He has never been one to get into fights to begin with, but he won't back down when confronted with certain situations. I can pretty easily diffuse a situation that could quickly take a turn for the worst.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas Cooper Merrin

My question is, when they are s8electing special forces trainees, have they changed any of the physical requirements from years past?

I cant speak for all physical evaluations but any i have been involved in are culculated on a points system, with faster times and more exercise repetitions being awarded more points, with there being a minimum points amount to pass! But the fittness side is only a small part of the actual selection process!

It has changed slightly over the years to take basic human rights into account but on a whole its still the same basic requirements as its always been!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas Cooper Merrin

The "eventually" is sincerely what concerns me. Men generally feel the need to protect women to their detriment. They will come to a woman's defense, whether we need it or not., putting their own lives in danger.

It took me years to train my husband to back off when I said, "I got this". :lol: He has never been one to get into fights to begin with, but he won't back down when confronted with certain situations. I can pretty easily diffuse a situation that could quickly take a turn for the worst.

Your right, its a natural male instinct, its very difficult to overcome a preset reaction! Its like the way a female may respond to the crys of a child!

I agree that females are by far the better sex at being able to diffuse a situation before it escalates, but special ops go in when things have already taken a turn for the worst!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas Cooper Merrin

The "eventually" is sincerely what concerns me. Men generally feel the need to protect women to their detriment. They will come to a woman's defense, whether we need it or not., putting their own lives in danger.

It took me years to train my husband to back off when I said, "I got this". :lol: He has never been one to get into fights to begin with, but he won't back down when confronted with certain situations. I can pretty easily diffuse a situation that could quickly take a turn for the worst.

Your right, its a natural male instinct, its very difficult to overcome a preset reaction! Its like the way a female may respond to the crys of a child!

I agree that females are by far the better sex at being able to diffuse a situation before it escalates, but special ops go in when things have already taken a turn for the worst!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

If a woman can handle her bodyweight the way a man can handle his, I don't see what the problem is. The discussion got tilted to special forces, but do I think women should be Marines? Absolutely, no question about it. If the physical limitations are an issue then have the same standards for both genders.

As for all this good theory about distractions, I'd have to see the empirical evidence that mixed gender forces are such a problem. Not with sensational examples or appealing to ourselves as authorities on the subject, but on mixed gender fighting inferiority.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LV-426

Your right, its a natural male instinct, its very difficult to overcome a preset reaction! Its like the way a female may respond to the crys of a child!

I think the pertinent question is why should men have to fight against their natural instincts, when every other group on the planet is actively encouraged to embrace them these days?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

If a woman is to prove her worth measured against the capabilities of fighting fit men, wont that mean a woman has to be more alike a man just to be equal ?

~

  • 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.