Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 2 November 2012, 13:52
SOW_0331's Avatar
SOW_0331 SOW_0331 is offline
Firearms Industry Exile
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Someone Else's Private Hell
Posts: 2,415
They'll just lower the standards and give them a second chance. Next time, the endurance test will be easier. Or, if its anything like other coed units I saw (Motor T), they just won't have to do it.
__________________
Weapon System Developer, Small Arms Tester/Evaluator, and Beef Terriyaki Skewering Madman

Rest Easy SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 2 November 2012, 13:56
Stanley_White's Avatar
Stanley_White Stanley_White is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Downtown
Posts: 1,609
http://www.socnet.com/showpost.php?p...8&postcount=37

-Stan
__________________
-Stanley_White

All my life I wanted to go up in society. Where everything higher was legal, straight. But the higher I go, the more crooked it becomes. Where the hell does it end? -- Michael Corleone

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? -- Mark 8:36 KJV


Never get out of the boat. Absolutely goddamn right. Unless you were going all the way. -- Captain Willard
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 2 November 2012, 15:15
bubblehead bubblehead is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: East Coast
Posts: 463
This female Marine Corps Capt. says it the best:

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/a...-created-equal

Sorry in advance if this is a double-tap.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 2 November 2012, 16:12
PinkMist's Avatar
PinkMist PinkMist is offline
Send it....
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Miami, Fl.
Posts: 311
Cant say I actually expected them to pass it
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 2 November 2012, 16:13
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,645
Threads Merged
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 4 November 2012, 11:25
VMI_Marine VMI_Marine is offline
Marine
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOW_0331 View Post
They'll just lower the standards and give them a second chance. Next time, the endurance test will be easier. Or, if its anything like other coed units I saw (Motor T), they just won't have to do it.
I highly doubt that. One, the Marine Corps did this of its own volition and without being told by someone else, meaning we get to conduct this experiment on our own terms. Unfortunately, two women is statistically insignificant when trying to prove our point, so the study is hamstrung by our inability to get female volunteers. Then again, that seems like a pretty significant piece of data in and of itself.

Two, I know the current Director of IOC, and he is a man of the highest integrity. I've said it before, if anyone will make sure this thing is done right, that any women who volunteer get a fair shake while maintaining the integrity of IOC's standards, it's him. I may eat those words one day due to forces beyond his control, but right now I put my complete trust and confidence in him.
__________________
"This is how it is when the war machine rolls back and forth. You take your pleasure where you can and when you can, and let the circumstances be damned. For tomorrow you may be somewhere else." - Cass

"I understand all of the words you used, but I don't know what you just said." - Gen. Hagee speaking to the MEU S-3
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 27 November 2012, 20:55
Spinner's Avatar
Spinner Spinner is offline
Pele's Bucket of Fire?...never heard of it
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 12,662
Female military members sue to serve in combat

http://news.yahoo.com/female-militar...192246975.html

I'm not sure I follow the argument that, because they cannot serve in a combat arms capacity, they are denied promotion opportunities.

In the sense that they can't be promoted to command infantry or other CA units, that's true. However, they have the same opportunity as any male serving in the same capacity as they are (whether it be MI, MP, etc) to be promoted within that career field. I guess their position, and there may be some validity to it in a narrow sense, is that they won't ever get the highest commands that traditionally go to officers within the combat arms branches of their respective services.

But when you think about it, promotions above even Colonel are highly competitve, and all things being (un)equal, do any woman think they can compete with a man over the long haul in the infantry branch? If they really want that opportunity, then fine, but make sure they have to meet the same physical standards as any man in that branch.

But do woman actually think they will get more promotion opportunites in a combat arms unit than they will in the units they currently serve in? I doubt it, for a lot of reasons, and I'd love to hear some of the women on this board voice their opinion on the subject.

That means you, Purple.
__________________
"This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who!"
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 27 November 2012, 21:04
Stanley_White's Avatar
Stanley_White Stanley_White is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Downtown
Posts: 1,609
I am endlessly annoyed at the idea of someone joining an organization that did not hide at all the fact that career opportunities are limited based upon gender and then suing.

Who do I have to sue because my career opportunities as a surrogate mother are limited?

-Stan
__________________
-Stanley_White

All my life I wanted to go up in society. Where everything higher was legal, straight. But the higher I go, the more crooked it becomes. Where the hell does it end? -- Michael Corleone

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? -- Mark 8:36 KJV


Never get out of the boat. Absolutely goddamn right. Unless you were going all the way. -- Captain Willard
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 27 November 2012, 21:36
Baildog's Avatar
Baildog Baildog is offline
I've got a gun too, mf'er
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Moon Base Alpha
Posts: 3,379
https://fitness.usmc.mil/FPFT/default.aspx

Be careful what you wish for, ladies
__________________
"If you set out to take Vienna...take Vienna"
- Napoleon
"If you want to be free...then you can't be dumb"
- Bootsy Collins
"If you don't like freedom, for heaven's sake, pack your bags and leave"
- Rotterdam Mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb
"I appeal to all our citizens, no matter from what land their forefathers came, to keep this ever in mind, and to shun with scorn and contempt the sinister intriguers and mischief-makers who would seek to divide them along lines of creed, or birthplace or of national origin."
- Teddy Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 27 November 2012, 21:39
Too40gawlf Too40gawlf is offline
On the Extract Bird
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baildog View Post
https://fitness.usmc.mil/FPFT/default.aspx

Be careful what you wish for, ladies
They're still graded on a curve though:

EIGHT (8) PULL-UPS EQUAL 100 POINTS
SEVEN (7) PULL-UPS EQUAL 95 POINTS
SIX (6) PULL-UPS EQUAL 85 POINTS
FIVE (5) PULL-UPS EQUAL 75 POINTS
FOUR (4) PULL-UPS EQUAL 65 POINTS
THREE (3) PULL-UPS EQUAL 40 POINTS
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 27 November 2012, 22:03
GourmetMarine GourmetMarine is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 188
Spinner-

As i have previously stated I DO NOT THINK women belong in CA units for may reasons. Forget the physical challenges, what about the emotional challenges? We are different in both are physical and emotional needs. Women should be promoted based on their performance but in no way could I have ever passed a Marine Corps male PFT. I do not and never had have the upper body strength let alone be able to meet all the additional physical challenges required to be in a CA unit.

I have two brothers who in the last 11 years did over 9 deployments. They came back very different men. And to be honest I do not think I could handle the emotional turmoil that goes with a CA unit. (ie Loss of a team mate, the children would get to me, the long deployments away from my children, and what just what if because of my size I could not save another Marine?) The guilt.

When I went to boot camp we were told and it was made very clear we were there to fulfill support roles. Now I know I will get some flak for this but I still say when it comes to a CA unit I am not your equal nor are any of the women I know. Now there are MOS's in the Corps I am pretty sure I could smoke a guy in, but not in a CA unit.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 27 November 2012, 22:12
RamblinWreck RamblinWreck is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Coast of North Carolina
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Too40gawlf View Post
They're still graded on a curve though:

EIGHT (8) PULL-UPS EQUAL 100 POINTS
SEVEN (7) PULL-UPS EQUAL 95 POINTS
SIX (6) PULL-UPS EQUAL 85 POINTS
FIVE (5) PULL-UPS EQUAL 75 POINTS
FOUR (4) PULL-UPS EQUAL 65 POINTS
THREE (3) PULL-UPS EQUAL 40 POINTS
Wait a minute, I had to do 20 to get 100 points. Additionally, if a bet or alcohol was involved, I had to do 40, or more, but still only got 100 points. Does this mean the average male Marine is 2-1/2 times stronger than the average female Marine?
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 27 November 2012, 22:30
Purple36's Avatar
Purple36 Purple36 is offline
Swimming Upstream
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: East Coast
Posts: 9,334
I find these threads wearisome and repetetive so I won't chime in except to state that I could not handle the physical requirements to be a grunt, thus would not want to be one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinner View Post

But do woman actually think they will get more promotion opportunites in a combat arms unit than they will in the units they currently serve in? I doubt it, for a lot of reasons, and I'd love to hear some of the women on this board voice their opinion on the subject.

That means you, Purple.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 28 November 2012, 00:00
nofear's Avatar
nofear nofear is offline
Proud wearer of a Beard.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia-based
Posts: 2,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple36 View Post
I find these threads wearisome and repetetive so I won't chime in except to state that I could not handle the physical requirements to be a grunt, thus would not want to be one.
And therein lies a very valid point that most people pushing for gender quotas keep ignoring.

Most women, (yes, I'm being stereo-typical here), don't WANT to serve / work in the jobs that are usually declared to be sexist.

And for those that do want it? They're on the same playing field as men who want it....they have to pass certain job-specific standards, both physical and mental.
__________________
"Amateurs train until they get it right. Professionals train until they can't get it wrong." - Unknown
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 28 November 2012, 00:13
bubblehead bubblehead is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: East Coast
Posts: 463
found this posted elsewhere:

Quote:
This is settled science. The U.S. and other countries' militaries have conducted extensive, repeated studies and determined that as populations female bodies are less suited for basic combat tasks than male bodies. Period. They are weaker, break more easily, get ill more easily. This is fact. It may or may not be significant in determining whether women should be allowed to do -every- job in the military. But it is what it is.
These were echoed in USMC Captain Katie Petronic's article:

Quote:
...severe case of restless leg syndrome

...muscle atrophy in my thighs

...rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions

...lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome
Like others have said, if females are held to the same physical standards as males then let'em play.

Last edited by bubblehead; 28 November 2012 at 00:19.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 28 November 2012, 15:51
Spinner's Avatar
Spinner Spinner is offline
Pele's Bucket of Fire?...never heard of it
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 12,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple36 View Post
I find these threads wearisome and repetetive so I won't chime in except to state that I could not handle the physical requirements to be a grunt, thus would not want to be one.
I get that, and don't want to beat a dead horse.

But I thought their main argument for bringing the suit rang a little hollow, in terms of their argument that women's opportunites for advancement are being hindered because they're shut out of the combat arms branches.

I haven't crunched any relevant numbers in terms of personnel strength of the Army combat support branches vs combat arms, and it's irrelevant for the combat arms personnel because of the prohibition. That's not even taking into consideration the physical demands that are inherent in the infantry branch, for example.

But seriously, when you take into account the total number of women serving in a combat support role vs the number of men serving in that same capacity, and given that proportionately women are outnumbered overall, do you think that you don't have as much opportunity to be promoted because of your gender?

I think you've addressed that in the past, but since these 4 women are in effect filing suit on behalf of all women serving in every branch of the military, I thought I'd get your opinion again.

At the same time, I understand if you just want to put the whole issue to rest and not give an opinion either way. And you've given an answer that I think is pretty honest in regard to a female going the combat arms route.
__________________
"This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who!"
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 28 November 2012, 16:03
Spinner's Avatar
Spinner Spinner is offline
Pele's Bucket of Fire?...never heard of it
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 12,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by GourmetMarine View Post
Spinner-

As i have previously stated I DO NOT THINK women belong in CA units for may reasons. Forget the physical challenges, what about the emotional challenges? We are different in both are physical and emotional needs. Women should be promoted based on their performance but in no way could I have ever passed a Marine Corps male PFT. I do not and never had have the upper body strength let alone be able to meet all the additional physical challenges required to be in a CA unit.

I have two brothers who in the last 11 years did over 9 deployments. They came back very different men. And to be honest I do not think I could handle the emotional turmoil that goes with a CA unit. (ie Loss of a team mate, the children would get to me, the long deployments away from my children, and what just what if because of my size I could not save another Marine?) The guilt.

When I went to boot camp we were told and it was made very clear we were there to fulfill support roles. Now I know I will get some flak for this but I still say when it comes to a CA unit I am not your equal nor are any of the women I know. Now there are MOS's in the Corps I am pretty sure I could smoke a guy in, but not in a CA unit.
I understand what you're saying GourmetMarine, but the crux of the lawsuit that I'm seeking opinions on has to do with women in the military getting shafted on promotional opportunites, including those for the highest commands, because they are prohibited from joining a combat arms unit. It's not about the effects of combat on the individual, simply about them getting shut out of promotions based on the fact that they're shut out of the combat arms.

I'd say there probably is a percentage of women, small though it is, who could actually hang in one of those roles. And that's no problem as far as it goes.

But if it comes down to a very small percentage of women actually meeting a standard for going that route, out of a pool of women in the military that is proportionately smaller than that of men serving overall, I doubt that this would give these women any better opportunity for promotion than that which they already have.

In fact, when you consider how few would actually qualify over the long haul, there chances for promotion would actually be less than if they were competing against their male counterparts in combat support branch of the military.

I guess I don't understand why the complainants think they would have more opportunites for promotion, when it's pretty clear that having just a few women serving in these branches would actually lessen their opportunity for promotion, all things being equal.
__________________
"This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who!"
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 28 November 2012, 16:03
WS-G WS-G is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Same universe
Posts: 3,407
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblinWreck View Post
(your post)
Damn.... To get into G Co, all I had to do was lift a five-gallon bucket of concrete with my penis....
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 28 November 2012, 16:27
EchoFiveMike's Avatar
EchoFiveMike EchoFiveMike is offline
Make a desert and call it peace.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: back home, IVO chicago
Posts: 8,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by WS-G View Post
Damn.... To get into G Co, all I had to do was lift a five-gallon bucket of concrete with my penis....
Well, I guess that's one way to get a cock that hangs down to your knees, probably not doctor recommended. S/F....Ken M
__________________
"If you remember nothing else about what Iím about to consider here, remember this: the one and only reason politicians, bureaucrats, and policemen want to take your weapons away from you is so that they can do things to you that they couldnít do if you still had your weapons."ó L. Neil Smith
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 28 November 2012, 21:52
Purple36's Avatar
Purple36 Purple36 is offline
Swimming Upstream
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: East Coast
Posts: 9,334
Officer careers are just different than the NCO career path; however I know both male and female 06s and a female General in my career field- but my career field is not combat arms and I am no expert in officer promotions thus my opinion is not likely to be accurate.


The primary consideration should not be promotion potential but mission accomplishment. I know I'm not answering you but I really don't know if not being combat arms hurts a female officers upward mobility.


There are opportunities that are off limits to me, but I have no issues with that since I physically could not handle it. Hasn't hurt my promotions in the least being an intell weenie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinner View Post
I get that, and don't want to beat a dead horse.

But I thought their main argument for bringing the suit rang a little hollow, in terms of their argument that women's opportunites for advancement are being hindered because they're shut out of the combat arms branches.

I haven't crunched any relevant numbers in terms of personnel strength of the Army combat support branches vs combat arms, and it's irrelevant for the combat arms personnel because of the prohibition. That's not even taking into consideration the physical demands that are inherent in the infantry branch, for example.
Tha
But seriously, when you take into account the total number of women serving in a combat support role vs the number of men serving in that same capacity, and given that proportionately women are outnumbered overall, do you think that you don't have as much opportunity to be promoted because of your gender?

I think you've addressed that in the past, but since these 4 women are in effect filing suit on behalf of all women serving in every branch of the military, I thought I'd get your opinion again.

At the same time, I understand if you just want to put the whole issue to rest and not give an opinion either way. And you've given an answer that I think is pretty honest in regard to a female going the combat arms route.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET