Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, I have ALways ALWAYS wanted to join the Marine Corps when I was younger.
My own brother joined the Marine Corps in year 1995, He got out of the Marine Corps in year 2001 (four years active duty, 2 years reserve)
At the time, my brother was barely 18 I was 11 years old. I KNOW what my brother has gone through. He was a Recon Marine. I agree with you, it is mental strength that makes a recon or a seal, but to deny the requirement of physical strength is insane!!
Do you know what does it take to become a Force Recon?
In fact I do. My team cross trained with them. I also happen to know that not all Recon's SEALs and Delta are muscle bound freaks of nature. Most are averaged sized men. Low body fat to be sure, but none would stand out in a crowd as physical giants.
Where do we get Navy SEALs and Force Recon? From the ranks. Who fills the ranks? Mainstream America.
Do I believe any woman could make the teams? NO, just as not all men can. Do I believe some women could? Yes I do. That ESU cop I spoke of earlier? She could have made the Unit I served on. She could certainly shoot with us, her mental attitude is right on and there isn't a lick of quit in her.
I don't confuse the average with the exceptional.
The fact your brother made Force Recon means he is exceptional. Most men are not.
Those women in the Soviet Army were few and far between. And they served as Snipers. Hardly as straining and vigourous and being on the front line.
I think women can serve as medics, field engineers etc.. Actual fighting? No. What if a woman has her period in the middle of a 10 day mission? She is also succeptible to vaginal infections without proper hygene. I also highly doubt a female can carry 80 pounds in gear, plus for example a heavy m249 Light Machine Gun. But I do agree that females should be able to serve in non combat front line roles. It's not worth it to change the rules, tradition, and a system that has worked for thousands of years to accomodate the very very few women who will be up to the task.
I think what's pissing a lot of people off, including males in the army is the fact that these women will have their standards lowered significantly in order to recruit them. There was a story a while back I was reading (I tried to look for the source) 4 females participating in one of the regular standardized physical tests.. I think 2 dropped out and the other 2 failed miserably.
You were never a sniper and that is obvious. Women did fight on the soviet front line. The nature of war has changed. Massive standing armies facing each other are a thing of the past. Can an average woman carry an 80 pound pack? Not likely at least not on a 20 mile hike. Women are qualifying for airborne and they have to meet the same standards as the boys club. Obviously some women can do it. If I am in combat and I have been. I want the person next to me to be able to shoot and shoot well. I want them able to keep their cool. I want them to know the drill. I don't really need them to carry 80 pounds of gear much of which you don't need on the average mission.
The M249. Great weapon and normally carried by a stout individual. Do you think that that 5'7 140 pound soldier can carry it around all day just because he is a man? I don't.
You were never a sniper and that is obvious. Women did fight on the soviet front line. The nature of war has changed. Massive standing armies facing each other are a thing of the past. Can an average woman carry an 80 pound pack? Not likely at least not on a 20 mile hike. Women are qualifying for airborne and they have to meet the same standards as the boys club. Obviously some women can do it. If I am in combat and I have been. I want the person next to me to be able to shoot and shoot well. I want them able to keep their cool. I want them to know the drill. I don't really need them to carry 80 pounds of gear much of which you don't need on the average mission.
The M249. Great weapon and normally carried by a stout individual. Do you think that that 5'7 140 pound soldier can carry it around all day just because he is a man? I don't.
Nope. But a man will inevitably get stronger and he will naturally be able to take much more physical abuse than a woman.
Also, did these women fighting for the Soviets even make a significant contribution? I'm tired of hearing that example used. Was it as significant as other minority groups such as the black US soldiers?
In fact I do. My team cross trained with them. I also happen to know that not all Recon's SEALs and Delta are muscle bound freaks of nature. Most are averaged sized men. Low body fat to be sure, but none would stand out in a crowd as physical giants.
Where do we get Navy SEALs and Force Recon? From the ranks. Who fills the ranks? Mainstream America.
Do I believe any woman could make the teams? NO, just as not all men can. Do I believe some women could? Yes I do. That ESU cop I spoke of earlier? She could have made the Unit I served on. She could certainly shoot with us, her mental attitude is right on and there isn't a lick of quit in her.
I don't confuse the average with the exceptional.
The fact your brother made Force Recon means he is exceptional. Most men are not.
I am not saying they stand out in a crowd as physical giants. Matter of fact, most of these meathead bodybuilders who claim they have 3% body fat perhaps will never make it in the Force Recon unit.
My brother was only 180lb when he was an active duty Marine. He is 6 feet tall. It doesn't take just muscles to be a force Recon, it takes mental capacity as well.
I have never served ONE day in the military, so I am not going to talk like I've been in the combat zone. But I don't believe a 15 year old boy and a 50 year old men can be put in combat zone regardless how strong they are.
Undeniably, some women might handle combat as well as some men. But that is true of some 13-, 14- and 15-year-old boys, and some 50- and 60-year old men. Yet we do not draft boys or men that age or send them into combat. Is this invidious discrimination based on age, or ageism?
Those women in the Soviet Army were few and far between. And they served as Snipers. Hardly as straining and vigourous and being on the front line.
I think women can serve as medics, field engineers etc.. Actual fighting? No. What if a woman has her period in the middle of a 10 day mission? She is also succeptible to vaginal infections without proper hygene. I also highly doubt a female can carry 80 pounds in gear, plus for example a heavy m249 Light Machine Gun. But I do agree that females should be able to serve in non combat front line roles. It's not worth it to change the rules, tradition, and a system that has worked for thousands of years to accomodate the very very few women who will be up to the task.
I think what's pissing a lot of people off, including males in the army is the fact that these women will have their standards lowered significantly in order to recruit them. There was a story a while back I was reading (I tried to look for the source) 4 females participating in one of the regular standardized physical tests.. I think 2 dropped out and the other 2 failed miserably.
Like I mentioned earlier, your opinion (and mine) doesn't much matter at this point. The die is cast. But I'm sure you can lodge protests against the military's decision with your elected representatives and pentagon officials. Just don't be too surpised to find that they don't reverse their position.
People are for women joining the military today because they sit safely in their homes, and watch the wars on television in comfort.
When/if the US fights against a real adversary and our people are actually dying, and a draft is initiated, we'll see how fast that new law is revoked.
You think any of these females of age on this thread would be the first in line, signing up for combat roles?
I bet you've never been in combat right? You wouldn't believe how quickly war regresses to just that, at the drop of a hat. Would you want your 115lb 19 year old daughter in a life or death, hand to hand fight with a 220 man?
Because if women are allowed into combat then they will be drafted right along with the men.
Oh; and all of their male counterparts are 220lbs. Give me a freak'n break here. I've seen guys that weighed less than 175lbs hump a full pack on an all day route march and still able to kick the chit out the 220lb'er afterwards.
That's called training and women thusly trained are every bit as competent as similarly trained men.
You judge your opponent's battlefield capability by his size alone, you're gonna lose.
Audie Murphy weighed how much again?
He attempted to join the Marines, the Navy and the Army but was turned down due to his age and weight so he changed his diet and put on weight, lied about his age and enlisted into the Army at 5' 5" tall and weighing only 112lbs.
Those women in the Soviet Army were few and far between. And they served as Snipers. Hardly as straining and vigourous and being on the front line.
I think women can serve as medics, field engineers etc.. Actual fighting? No. What if a woman has her period in the middle of a 10 day mission? She is also succeptible to vaginal infections without proper hygene. I also highly doubt a female can carry 80 pounds in gear, plus for example a heavy m249 Light Machine Gun. But I do agree that females should be able to serve in non combat front line roles. It's not worth it to change the rules, tradition, and a system that has worked for thousands of years to accomodate the very very few women who will be up to the task.
I think what's pissing a lot of people off, including males in the army is the fact that these women will have their standards lowered significantly in order to recruit them. There was a story a while back I was reading (I tried to look for the source) 4 females participating in one of the regular standardized physical tests.. I think 2 dropped out and the other 2 failed miserably.
I do not think women are suited for combat but I think there are many roles they can fill that they are just as good or better than men at.
Activist women see this as another hurtle for them to jump, another challenge for their activism/conflict addiction. But they should give this one up. You don't have to serve in combat to make a great, positive impact on the military.
I personally believe the military will be much better with women equally involved, but just not in combat.
I thought that ship had already sailed in their favor? Or am I just dreaming that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
