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.
I'd say this thread outlines pretty starkly the differences between Dems and Republicans when it comes to women.
Night and day.
It sure does. Liberal freaks want to get those in the military killed by lowering the standards for women. Meanwhile the sane among us want true equality. A single genderless standard. Liberal freaks have a true hatred for women, that much is obvious.
It depends on the women.
Since the Marines are a small assault force, of course the physical standards won't be lowered for them. The Marines are supposed to face any opponent, no matter how large or small the opposing force.
I wouldn't pick a fight any sooner with a female Marine who has passed combat certs than I would a man. There are lots of small male Marines who could kick my butt, and I don't see any difference between them and a female.
And after all, Audie Murphy was only 5'5" and slightly built. Possessing the will to fight hard is greater than physical size and strength any day. The Japanese taught us that lesson in WWII.
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.
There is no rate in the document, where do you get this 25 times difference?
I don't see how it is being politically correct. They are running the same course, and those that graduate do so.
It is also the first class of only 15 people, and 4 graduated (not 3) from the first document. In the second link it says there were 13....why the difference?
3 graduated, the fourth sustained an injury preventing her graduation till next group, per the article.
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.
Mmm, yes, those strong brave men using....their guns. How EVER could women not do the same?
It isn't just about rifle marksmanship, or using their guns as you put it. Females are just as good at marksmanship as males. The vast physiological difference come from the other actions required before, during, and after a fire fight. Slogging gear weighing between 30-70 pounds (ammo, water, food, weapon, ancillary equipment (optics, batteries, GPS), body armor, etc.)) Breaching doors/windows. Pulling yourself through a first floor window. Having to do buddy evacuation for a wounded fellow Marine (and their gear).
It isn't just about rifle marksmanship, or using their guns as you put it. Females are just as good at marksmanship as males. The vast physiological difference come from the other actions required before, during, and after a fire fight. Slogging gear weighing between 30-70 pounds (ammo, water, food, weapon, ancillary equipment (optics, batteries, GPS), body armor, etc.)) Breaching doors/windows. Pulling yourself through a first floor window. Having to do buddy evacuation for a wounded fellow Marine (and their gear).
Bit more to it than pulling a trigger.
Exactly! Most females have no idea at all what combat is like. It is a shame that we have to waste so much money proving that only very few can complete the courses.
What is your beef exactly? That they hold the women to the EXACT SAME STANDARDS as the men? That only the ones who PASS can graduate? Does it irk you that this proves that women can get the job done just as men can? Does it make you nervous?
Post #4. Only took 3 replies until someone came along and used the "competent women threaten you" mantra of feminism. Try some original thought.
So what you're saying is that, contrary to conservatives' predictions, they are being rigorous and only graduating the truly qualified.
The ones that are one haircut away from a sex change operation.
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.
