Okay so maybe it was a USMC booth. Like I said it was years ago.

Another issue is that while choosing the infantry field is basically voluntary unless you go open contract (where you say you'll do pretty much whatever and they assign you a job) once you choose to go infantry, that's it. There's no going to infantry training school, finding out it sucks and deciding ok, I don't like this, give me another job please. You are stuck in the infantry field. You will get dropped, and retake the course, get dropped and retake the course, over and over again until you can either cut the mustard or they kick you out. (Something you don't want on your record). The decision to go into the infantry is made at a point where you have no idea what it's like and if you don't like it, well too bad. Women who take the course currently are coming from non infantry related fields and are getting to decide if they want to give it a shot or not. But in the future, the powers that be have already said that if a woman chooses infantry, she will be stuck in that field. And the time where she decides if she wants infantry, she has no idea whether she can make it or not, and it's much more likely that she can't. So she will be stuck in this endless loop of repeating something she cant do, risking injury the entire time and will eventually be discharged. Because if you do it any other way, where she has the option to go do something else if she fails, that is a double standard. For men it's do it or gtfo.

I agree 100% but i don't think anyone is objecting to having them take part in the things you mentioned. They are only objecting to putting them in the infantry where they will be put in positions where they will have to run, carry, shoot, and blow **** up.

Ok, but even the jobs that require you to RCS&BSU, they need more than that? I.e. It's not just that.

Argument number 2. It's not a fixed standard, it's more of a competition for a certain number of jobs. I.e. Even if you only got 65 women in, they would have replaced 65 men who were physically inferior or otherwise worse vs the requirements... Surely that's a good thing?

Seems the only response to this is to handwave the tests away and say that somehow the tests are more likely to allow through women who can't to the job more than it would allow men through who can't do it.

The military is pretty different from other fields imo. You kill people. Orders are pretty much orders as far as I know and as said below, most of the work is putting in the orders (run/kill/blow up).

I think this is right. Maybe have all female squads. I dont think the PC weighs up to disrupting a squad.

Actually, the way the world works these days it wouldn't surprise me if they would replace 65 men that would be at least of equal skill. Due to the other factors they would still be a net negative for the squad.

As long as there are no (published ITT) studies on women in the army its going to be hard to judge obviously. Saying that they are subhumans for not being able to 'keep their penis in their pants' is lolworthy and disconnected from reality we all face each day. Dont any of you think that if you introduce a male into a 100% female workplace dynamics are going to change ? Animals ... these females.

You're using a terrible analogy after saying someone used a terrible analogy.

Thats what you want. Its not what I want if studies show its going to cost lives. But I agree, garment factories are known for their stressfull environment where you can get shot in the face before you know it.

Here's a recent article in the Washington Post where one of the female Marine lieutenants' that failed the officer course talks about her experience. She basically said it was the Marine Corps fault that she failed because they did not push her hard enough physically earlier in her career to prepare herself for the course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...f19_story.html

Considering you equate marine life with "the reality we all face each day", if I were you I wouldn't be so quick to play the sarcasm card.

How do you do studies on this kind of thing anyway?

no. it isn't.

right now the US has the most effective, dynamic fighting force in the history of mankind. might as well take that and try a politically motivated gender experiment right?

it's not like requests have been going up the chain of command saying "i think we would accomplish better soldiering if we had a few women in our foxhole. can we get that done Colonel? the grunts fighting our wars really want it."

i'm sure people who thing this is a great idea have read every book by Naomi Wolf, but have they ever talked to an infantry soldier? does it mean anything that nearly every person who's served it combat answers the question "hahaha....wait your serious? no that's a terrible idea."

should women have equal opportunities in everything else? of course. a woman executive can evaluate the pros and cons of a proposed merger between two media companies as well as a man.

that does not mean a woman is as effective in a 4 man squad making a tactical retreat down a mountain against 100 enemy fighters.

Wow, thats so unwomanlike. I know guys that have been training since legally allowed to join specialised forces, why should that be any different ?

"the reality we all face each day" was obviously not understood but you can draw your conclusions. Reality we face each day = males handle themselfs differently when women are near, just like it is the other way around. I guess you are different though, right ?

How do the men in your reality we face each day handle killing ? The same way marines do?

Yeah I mean, her biggest gripe was that women had lower physical standards starting in basic training and this hampered her, she said the USMC should do away with the different requirements for male and female physical training, yet if this was the case, over half the women in the Marine Corps would be discharged. Here's an article from a few months ago that talks about the fact the they tried to change the standards for the women to be more like the men.
One of those requirements was that female Marines must be able to do 3 pull ups by the end of their basic training. The fail rate soared to 55% and the Marine Corps had to temporarily abandon the idea, or it would have lost over half of it's incoming women recruits.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/27/257363...ullup-standard

Where did I mention killing in my post ? As stated before;

I really can't help you further if this isn't landing.

@sandman
Thats pretty sick... (I mean wrt the difference, she is right and we should not have different criteria, thats basically what we've been saying all along ITT).

Seems like the training failed if they can't do it, don't you think?

When he was a Marine trainer in North Carolina, he required his female instructors to knock out pullups just like the guys.

"At first, a lot of women weren't able to do it," Jacob says. "They were able to do one, some were able to do two, but what happened was by having that standard and enforcing that standard, it made my Marines, it made the troops go to the gym and train to that standard."

Within six months, all of the women in his company were doing eight to 12 pullups, he says.

Strange **** happens when you shift an established standard mid-training.

You can't use everyday examples when talking about trained units, simply because they don't react like the average joe. This part seems to be lost to you.

If you can train someone to not flinch when he shoots someone cold blood or his mate get's blown to bits, you can train him to not pussy out when a woman gets killed or a pair of tits is near.

That pull up story is pretty crazy. How can you not be able to do 3 pull ups after the end of basic training? I totally get not being able to do them without training but Google says basic training is 9 or 10 weeks long.

I would assume most people who sign up train a little before going to basic training too right? So it would be quite a bit longer than 10 weeks of training.

I definitely agree that women can learn to do pull ups. The problem is that the woman LT was saying the Marine Corps failed to train her for something that was far outside her physical depth. She was VOLUNTEERING to go to a course that had a 25% fail rate for MEN. She knew it was going to easily be the most challenging thing she ever did and she should have prepared herself long before she agreed to go, and not keep doing the standard female morning workout and then be surprised when she didn't succeed. Instead she wanted every woman in the Marine Corps to be forced to a higher standard that most aren't capable of doing and would result in over half of the women being kicked out.
A similar example would be if I, as an infantry Marine, wanted to apply for Navy SEAL/Marine FORCE recon training which has a 60% fail rate and is the hardest military training known to man. Instead of preparing my body for the hell that is coming, I just kept doing my normal morning workouts, then got my ass kicked the first day, rang out, and then blamed the Marine Corps for not preparing me. Then I demanded that all men should be forced to receive physical training equal to that of Navy SEALs and watch as half the Marine Corps gets discharged. It's just not realistic and it's no one's fault but mine.


USMC Basic Training is 13 weeks, which is 4 weeks longer than the 2nd longest basic, which is the Army's 9 weeks. If you do USMC basic and then later move to another branch, like the Army, you do not have to repeat boot camp. But if you come to the Marines from another branch, you must repeat boot camp.
You are actually able to enlist up to year before you graduate high school at 17 (which is what I did). From that point you are committed by contract to go, you just get to finish school first. It's call the DEP, the delayed entry program, and during that time you have meetings with other DEP members once a month where you do physical training and whatnot to prepare you for going to basic training.

A) Everyday examples will be magnified in these kind of situation, so yes I can. Thinking the sexism that we tolerate every day disappears when you give someone a gun is pretty stupid.
B) I lolled at your ignorance. Not flinching when shooting someone isn't something that is done much in the army. Go out in the real world before making these arguments. Im sorry for your sexually frustrated reply. One love.

This whole discussion is specifically about infantry duty. Infantry is all about running, carrying, shooting, and blowing **** up.

^^^AND following orders. Put a couple commanding officers in prison for this "boys will be boys" garbage and this behavior will end in a heartbeat.

Some people make this sound as if we are training out of control murderers (who then are expected to be welcomed back into society) instead of disciplined protectors. There is a reason it's called "defense" and not offense.

I don't get it. What is called defense?

edit: ah ok, I get it now. Translation problems

Sorry, I should have been more clear, "the Department of Defense". (as opposed to the Dept of Offense...)

Just saw your edit. We are X posting, lol.

Yes, because the U.S. fight tons of defensive wars.