Your post seem to be a contradiction of women in combat.
Because women fought in wars many times over, those women who fought and died did not have to "hump a 120 pound ALICE pack for several miles"
(Also to mention the mere argument of women not belonging in the military disgraces their dying sacrafice)
There are many males that cannot do that also
What does humping a 120 pound ALICE pack for several miles have anything to do with combat?
Really, all of this boot camp physical male vs female doesn't do jack when bullets are flying
Obviously you were not in the Marine Corps ......this is one of the things that is done in combat...... Humping 120 pounds packs....how do you think we get to the objective.......ride in trucks. If you have not served in the military or a combat vet then keep your opinions to yourself.
I agree Python I was not in the Corp Army 2000-2005 We had women in our unit they held their own I would say that obviously there is different standards in the PT test. I personally do not no why a woman would want to be in a combat arms MOS anyway.
Another thing I hate to bring up is the sexual harassment it happens. When a new female comes into the unit the bets start taking place on who is going to sleep with her first. I know it sounds terrible but it happens all the time. I sure it would be even worse in a combat arms unit.
To much politics and less war fighting this administration is full of politically correct individuals who are afraid to offend anyone even I it leads to hurting the country as a whole.
I'm not so sure it's ridiculous to suggest that excluding the opinions of people who lack personal experience of military life and combat is no more appropriate than excluding the opinions of people who lack personal understanding of the mental and emotional limits of women as a whole.
If it was so far from reasonable, why did you feel the need to reply to it? Since you did reply to it, why not demonstrate why it is ridiculous? Surely that'd have more impact than excluding anyone who has not been in the military.
Given that many nations have shown the hard way that women can function in combat positions when the metal hits the meat, sometimes better than men, what does it matter if they can't run 10 miles with 120 pounds on their backs?
Obviously, that didn't impede their effectiveness, their courage or fighting efficiency. Yes, there have to be PT standards, but sometimes the standards seem to be made for the sole purpose of making sure women don't achieve them.
Women can stand pain and discomfort as well as men, and have showed that they can kill and fight when it counts. So far, most people arguing against women in the military look like grade school kids going through the phase where 'girls are stupid'.
So if a women can not hump a combat load then who is going to carry it for her. Are we going to make some other poor soul help carry her load. The PT standards were in place long before they were even thinking of bringing women into combat roles. They are in place for a reason and has nothing to do with a women passing them or not.
It was a ridiculous questions because I don't have to be a women to know that if a women can't hang with what is expected of them during combat then they should not be serving in combat roles. This is based on experience and not on assumptions.
Most people that never been in the military do not have a clue what is involved in preparing for combat other than what they see in movies. There is more to it then just showing up on scene and start shooting at the bad guys. Anybody can pull a trigger and shoot someone even a kid can do that. That is the easy part. The hard part is the training and preparation for the physical and mental aspects of combat.
You know no one here is saying that women who cannot "hang" should get into combat roles.
The question is whether women can "hang". Understanding women's limits is as important to the question as understanding the standards they need to meet.
You jumped in late in this thread and admitted you haven't read the previous pages. No one has said that women who can't pass the same PT tests as men should be allowed in. I know that's what's happened in some western units (I'm too lazy to google if Israel has lower tests) but no one on this forum has advocated it.
What people HAVE been saying is IF a woman can meet the standards then there's not many reasons to not let them. All the stuff about sex and whatnot has already been covered too.
And finally, you don't need to have served to have an opinion on this one. If it was something brand new then yes, there wouldn't be a substitute for experience. But, in this case, those of us who haven't enlisted can draw evidence from history and current affairs where women serve/have served and have done so without issue. That evidence stands true regardless of our personal involvement with the military.
(I got out a year and some change ago. I was with 3/2 WPNs Co.. Originally an 0352 and then added 0317 which is what I did my combat pump to Afghan as)
That bolded part really is the easy way out. I get frustrated as well when so many people who have not served, or more accurately for the American population . . . gotten out and exercised with some level of intensity, have so many opinions on the subject. Especially when there is a laziness to have a discussion on the issue and the whole "civil/equality rights!" mentality is thrown out as an end all without any discussion (because the topic really is a little different then what gets brought up). I find the "if they can do it, let them!" without any explanation from those advocating women in infantry roles benefitting the conversation as much as the "if you haven't served, then you don't rate an opinion." The benefit is pretty much none.
There has actually been very little of it in this thread. It is true that the majority of people have absolutely no clue about what the job entails and the issues that come up. However, I believe that people who have served and do have experience, that the responsibility is on our shoulders to help shed light on any subject brought up where the military is considered. We went through about 5 or 6 pages just listing and describing what certain acronyms mean and the different disability issues veterans serving in the infantry often face, as well as what the job requires. This is a whopper of a thread and it is certainly understandable why some people see it and don't want to read the entire thing (you're not the only one who has jumped in randomly), but I and other people have put so much into this thread that I honestly think as a one stop shop for information on this topic between personal experiences, opposing opinions, and information; you would be hard pressed to find as decent a discussion on the internet.
Personally I think it's a bit of a waste of resources because women don't even seem to have an interest in combat roles like the infantry currently. Hence my updates of the 'trial runs' of women who have gone through OIC so far (a total of 4, all who failed out in the first weeks, and the recent whopping 5 for next months OIC). I also think the "it's a group thing, individual ability doesn't matter as much as in the civilian world" is missed as well. If you wanted to avoid all the quartering issues by creating an all women unit, you couldn't even make a fire team with the amount of women interested currently. Unless it's happening in large numbers, I don't see why it's relevant. That's just the tip of the iceberg of opinion I've put out in the thread though.
Anyways, I think I'm definitely on the side of the argument most people don't like and a few other people share the same concerns. You and I aren't the only Marine commenting in the thread. There is actually quite a few of us here on MAP that are regular and active users (hence my "the Marines are taking over comment in your intro thread). Telling people "you don't understand and you shouldn't comment" doesn't help promote conversation though, and that is what I think is needed most. Regardless of how frustrating it can be to help somebody understand something they will probably never have a clue about. Probably the same feeling anybody with a good amount of experience in any field feel about the general population who makes decisions for them
Because women fought in wars many times over, those women who fought and died did not have to "hump a 120 pound ALICE pack for several miles"
(Also to mention the mere argument of women not belonging in the military disgraces their dying sacrafice)