Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-22-2013, 01:00 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,453,393 times
Reputation: 3142

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
I appreciate the apology, and your direct & informative answer. I've never served, nor have any desire to, so I really didn't know how these things worked. And for the record, I don't doubt that MOST women cannot handle such rigorous physical feats - lawd knows I would fail even at boot camp, lol.

My only opinion on the issue is that women should be allowed to TRY, and if they succeed we should give them the kudos they deserve. If they fail, well, I guess that is on them. But why all the backlash against these women who did what they were asked, and apparently did it well? I just don't get the anger from some people over that, which is why I brought up the issue of sexism earlier in the discussion.
As far as I am concerned, it has to do with the expense involved. The expense not only in money but in time and effort.

It's not like seeing if women can be car mechanics or sewer workers or some other profession dominated by men. This is combat. It's life and death. It's not a place for social engineering. We need an efficient, effective military. It's not just a matter of whether any individual woman is up to the task. I would never doubt that some are. It's a matter of whether enough are up to the task to be worth the expense of putting them in the units. They need to be recruited, trained, transported, and supported in the field. Are enough able to perform that it is worth the cost and logistics involved?

This initial test says no.

Let's have women on tank crews and firing cannons and stringing up signal wire. No problem. But when it comes to the effectiveness of our infantry soldiers, we need more than a 30% graduation rate to make it worth it.

 
Old 11-22-2013, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
5,094 posts, read 5,162,772 times
Reputation: 4231

PRIVATE BENJAMIN (1980) "MENTAL BREAKDOWN" - YouTube
 
Old 11-22-2013, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Central Maine
2,866 posts, read 3,621,551 times
Reputation: 4019
Actually, the lowering of standards for women in the military began under Carter in 1977. The Army also has multiple boot camps that depend on one's future MOS. Trust me, your wife never had to meet the same standards as those with the MOS 11B. Your wife had an administrative or support MOS, which means that she certainly did not attend boot camp at Fort Jackson, SC, Fort Bragg, NC, or Fort Hood, TX.

Well I don't know about Fort Jackson, Fort Bragg or Fort Hood Glitch. I thought "Boot Camp" was "Boot Camp" and then you went on to train in your MOS in advanced training. I guess that the Army is different than the USMC where everyone is a rifleman first. All I know is that she went through the same boot camp as the men, as is depicted below, and made it through. Her two main complaints were 1) they should have had women traning women, NOT men training women, in boot camp due to the sexual assault/harrassment going on. No she is not talking about the screaming and swearing by the drill sergeants. Rather the pulling female recruits to the D.S office in the middle of the night and imposing on them to do "little favors" (of which she refused and paid for later in **** work details) and 2) she wished that the female part of the Army trained separately and remained a separate entity within the Army, like it was in WWII.

As fields previously closed to women gradually opened and women began to move into nontraditional military jobs, it became clear that knowledge of weapons and defensive tactics would be necessary. On 26 March 1975, on the recommendation of DCSPER and TRADOC commander General William E. DePuy, those subjects became mandatory in WAC training for those enlisting or re-enlisting after 30 June 1975. The WAC training staff revised the basic training program to include qualification on the M-16 rifle beginning in December 1976, and defensive techniques, such as digging foxholes. In July 1976, TRADOC added training on weapons, such as light antitank weapons, grenade launchers, Claymore mines, and the M-60 machine gun, for enlisted women at Fort McClellan, Ala. In the spring of 1977, training with hand grenades was also added. Physical training was increased to include more exercise, and the day march was expanded from two and a half miles to six and a half miles. Additional training included the use of gas masks and helicopter familiarization. These changes meant, with few exceptions, that the WAC basic course was on a par with the basic course that men underwent.







 
Old 11-22-2013, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustPassinThru View Post
Here is a link to a good article on the subject. Women are passing the Marine infantry training course. Get over it.

An excerpt:
"This is what happens when you stop excluding whole groups of people from tests and careers. Some of them want those careers. Some of them can pass those tests. How many? You don’t know. In sports parlance, that’s why you play the game. You open the competition and let it surprise you. Not everything turns out equal. But sooner or later, you get a Jewish swimming prodigy, a gay diving champ, a black golfing legend, or a Chinese basketball star."

As a former Marine, my knee-jerk reaction to hearing that the ban would be lifted on women serving in combat roles was, not in my Marine Corps. However, women have performed well in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so perhaps there was merit in this change. After all, one of the women that graduated showed enough acumen and ability to be made a squad leader. While only three of the women in the program made it through ITB, it did prove that some women can make the grade.

The Corps is gathering information and will make an assessment as to the viability of women Marines in combat roles. There are 250 more females scheduled to enter the test program but, the question is, will enough women pass the rigorous ITB training to satisfy the Corps that it is worth the time to train them? Will a success rate of 33% or less be sufficient? We will have the answer perhaps as early as next July.
Were you aware that women do not have to meet the same standards as men in the Marine Corps? While it is true that women must perform the same tasks as men, they are not required to perform those tasks in the same time or in the same manner as men. Thus far, no women has had to meet the same requirements as men. The requirements for women are much lower, which proves that this is nothing but political correctness and has nothing to do with "equality." This can only have one result - more dead Marines.
 
Old 11-22-2013, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Better half of PA
1,391 posts, read 1,230,853 times
Reputation: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
The Marine Corps has already lowered the standard for women. See Post #42: //www.city-data.com/forum/32314322-post42.html

Even the "small male Marines" have to meet a much higher standard than the biggest brawniest female. The only thing this policy will succeed in accomplishing is a sharp increase in body bags, which of course is the goal of every liberal freak.
Anger and paranoia is alive and well in Wasilla. But I'm glad you're letting the sane of us know how you feel.
 
Old 11-22-2013, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by DauntlessDan View Post
Actually, the lowering of standards for women in the military began under Carter in 1977. The Army also has multiple boot camps that depend on one's future MOS. Trust me, your wife never had to meet the same standards as those with the MOS 11B. Your wife had an administrative or support MOS, which means that she certainly did not attend boot camp at Fort Jackson, SC, Fort Bragg, NC, or Fort Hood, TX.

Well I don't know about Fort Jackson, Fort Bragg or Fort Hood Glitch. I thought "Boot Camp" was "Boot Camp" and then you went on to train in your MOS in advanced training. I guess that the Army is different than the USMC where everyone is a rifleman first. All I know is that she went through the same boot camp as the men, as is depicted below, and made it through. Her two main complaints were 1) they should have had women traning women, NOT men training women, in boot camp due to the sexual assault/harrassment going on. No she is not talking about the screaming and swearing by the drill sergeants. Rather the pulling female recruits to the D.S office in the middle of the night and imposing on them to do "little favors" (of which she refused and paid for later in **** work details) and 2) she wished that the female part of the Army trained separately and remained a separate entity within the Army, like it was in WWII.

As fields previously closed to women gradually opened and women began to move into nontraditional military jobs, it became clear that knowledge of weapons and defensive tactics would be necessary. On 26 March 1975, on the recommendation of DCSPER and TRADOC commander General William E. DePuy, those subjects became mandatory in WAC training for those enlisting or re-enlisting after 30 June 1975. The WAC training staff revised the basic training program to include qualification on the M-16 rifle beginning in December 1976, and defensive techniques, such as digging foxholes. In July 1976, TRADOC added training on weapons, such as light antitank weapons, grenade launchers, Claymore mines, and the M-60 machine gun, for enlisted women at Fort McClellan, Ala. In the spring of 1977, training with hand grenades was also added. Physical training was increased to include more exercise, and the day march was expanded from two and a half miles to six and a half miles. Additional training included the use of gas masks and helicopter familiarization. These changes meant, with few exceptions, that the WAC basic course was on a par with the basic course that men underwent.
Army boot camp is very different from Marine Corps boot camp. As you say, every male in the Marine Corps is trained as an MOS 0311 Rifleman. Which is why males and females do not go through boot camp together in the Marine Corps.

In the Army, however, if you are scheduled to be trained in an MOS that is administrative or support, you do not go through the normal Army boot camp that is designed to train soldiers in a combat MOS. A recruit that is scheduled to be trained in an administration or support MOS goes to a special boot camp that does not give them anywhere near the same kind of training or place the same kind of physical requirements they do for those who will be taught a combat MOS. They do not train as hard, run as far, or spend as much time on the range as those scheduled to be trained as an 11B or another combat MOS.

Since their future MOS will not require them to haul equipment or stay in the field, they are not trained in these areas. They are given instruction in military protocol, rudimentary first aid training, and basic weapons familiarization. Very few ever fail in these kinds of special Army boot camps, because their requirements are not nearly as high as the boot camps for those who will be trained in a combat MOS.

Women, and men who are scheduled to be trained in an administrative or support MOS, get weapon familiarization, not training. They are required to qualify with the M-16, nothing more. They fire the LAW simulator (it is not even a real LAW) once and only once. They are given instruction on grenades, but never fire a grenade launcher, use claymores, or use an M60 machine gun. There is also no helicopter familiarization. Physical training has been significantly reduced in these special Army boot camps. You are only required to "run" one mile.

The differences between the Army boot camp for administrative and support personnel is as different from Army boot camp for combat personnel as night and day. There is very little similarity between the two.
 
Old 11-22-2013, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,061 posts, read 26,024,198 times
Reputation: 15526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
That is the only way a liberal freak could ever end up in the military, as the result of the draft. Everyone knows liberal freaks are absolute cowards.
You just added a new dimension to dumb, maybe you don't understand that the draft doesn't discriminate whether you are liberal or conservative. I know conservative = war hero, that's been proven time and again. Sounds like you missed you opportunity to be other than a keyboard warrior.
 
Old 11-22-2013, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
You just added a new dimension to dumb, maybe you don't understand that the draft doesn't discriminate whether you are liberal or conservative. I know conservative = war hero, that's been proven time and again. Sounds like you missed you opportunity to be other than a keyboard warrior.
What part of "[t]hat is the only way a liberal freak could ever end up in the military, as the result of the draft" did you not comprehend? Of course the draft does not discriminate. How do you think liberal freaks ended up in the military, if not for the draft? You certainly will not find liberal freaks in an all voluntary military since they are all natural cowards.

I served in the Marine Corps from 1972 to 1980. How about you? (You need not respond, the question was entirely rhetorical.)
 
Old 11-22-2013, 07:16 PM
 
Location: North Texas
24,561 posts, read 40,186,320 times
Reputation: 28548
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Glad to see they didn't' allow waivers/exemptions and failure do them in with being all PC.

They didn't lower the bar one bit.
This. If we women want to fight alongside the men, we must meet the same standards.
 
Old 11-22-2013, 07:25 PM
 
2,004 posts, read 3,406,753 times
Reputation: 3774
I went thru the same ITR school at Camp Geiger after boot camp at Parris Island in 1964 as the women in the article. I salute them and say 'job well done'.
Semper Fi ladies.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:54 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top