Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

[sabrefan]

Lower standards? When I was in the service the women had the exact same training we did, even though they were not allowed in combat! I find it interesting that most on here who are opposed have not served, to be quite honest there were many women I knew in the service who would have been quite capable in a combat MOS.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I did serve… I served from 1972 - 76 in the Army as an 11B and then joining the Navy as a Seabee from 1979 - 1985.
No they didn’t do the same physical standards as men… women operated on women physical standards not the men’s.

 

[LisaA]

One it is spelled CANADIAN and two I served in the US Army Rangers 1986 to 1995.

So there were female rangers who passed all of the tests and standards? Wow didn’t realize that…

My experience in close interaction with many troops from 2005 on was that the females have lower physical standards. Yes they have to pass the same “paper” tests that isn’t going to be much help on the field of battle.

My understanding was that the Marines opened up an opportunity to qualify for some sort of elite infantry position. They thought 100 women would try out but only two even wanted to attempt it. One didn’t last a day and the other washed out shortly afterward. I just do not think women in combat would be a positive for the military…do you?

Lisa

 

[sabrefan]

One it is spelled CANADIAN and two I served in the US Army Rangers 1986 to 1995.

It can be spelled either “Canadian” or “Canadien.”

 

[october_baby]

One it is spelled CANADIAN and two I served in the US Army Rangers 1986 to 1995.

sorry, my bad…

 

[bethndanny]

Lower standards? When I was in the service the women had the exact same training we did, even though they were not allowed in combat! I find it interesting that most on here who are opposed have not served, to be quite honest there were many women I knew in the service who would have been quite capable in a combat MOS.

One it is spelled CANADIAN and two I served in the US Army Rangers 1986 to 1995.

There haven’t been women in the Rangers, so I’m not sure what you mean when you say they had the same training. Also, current U.S. Army Physical Fitness Requirements are different for men and women. Are you saying that In 1986 women were required to go by the same standards as men, and that was changed after 1995?

I’ll honestly tell you, I have not served. My husband, however, has been a Marine since 1998. Female and Male physical fitness and combat fitness standards have never been the same. Now SOI and IOC standards have not been lowered for women, if that is what you mean. But, the only two women who tried IOC, without lower standards, couldn’t do it.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

So there were female rangers who passed all of the tests and standards? Wow didn’t realize that…

My experience in close interaction with many troops from 2005 on was that the females have lower physical standards. Yes they have to pass the same “paper” tests that isn’t going to be much help on the field of battle.

My understanding was that the Marines opened up an opportunity to qualify for some sort of elite infantry position. They thought 100 women would try out but only two even wanted to attempt it. One didn’t last a day and the other washed out shortly afterward. I just do not think women in combat would be a positive for the military…do you?

Lisa

I don’t think yukonbrad meant that (not sure what he meant). Neither the Ranger Battalions nor Ranger School were open to women, and during my time in the service (1979 - 1987) there were separate physical standards for men and women. I believe it’s still the same now. Women don’t even have to pass the same physical standards for jump school, which is required for every special operations unit. When women first began attending jump school in the 1970s, they tried using the same physical fitness standards and all failed, so they had to adopt “normed” physical fitness standards (these are just to begin training, not the scores you require to pass). Currently (according to the training staff at Ft Benning) it’s as follows:

The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) is used by the Basic Airborne Course (BAC) to ensure Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines meet minimum physical fitness requirements necessary to successfully complete Airborne training. In order to enter the course, the prospective student MUST score a MINIMUM of 60% on the lowest age group scale. This equates to 42 push-ups, 53 sit-ups, and a 15:54 or faster on the 2-mile run for males and 19 push-ups, 53 sit-ups, and an 18:54 or faster on the 2-mile run for females.

(Source: benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/airborne/pt.htm)

I would say that is a disparity of expectations.

Jump school has also dropped the pull-up requirements they had when I went through, which are tough for women (and a lot of men) to do, but that may also be because they changed parachute models - I went through when they still had the T-10 parachute, and you had to grab the risers and pull down on them (an equivalent movement to doing a pull-up) to spill air out the back and steer your chute. They switched to the MC1-1B chute shortly afterwards, which used toggles to spill air and were both more maneuverable and required less upper-body strength to control.

If Brad says he served in a Ranger combat unit with women who received the same training he did, I don’t know what kind of unit he was in but he was not in a Ranger Battalion. Maybe he was referring to his time in Basic Training or something. But they norm the physical fitness standards there, too. One woman officer did sue and got to attend the SF Officer’s Course circa 1981, but she washed out despite having the rules bent for her numerous times.

All that is likely to change soon, and the scuttlebutt on a lot of military sites is that the Ranger School training cadre have been told that women (officers only, no enlisted) will be entering and they will pass, so as not to interfere with their career plans. Women will be Infantry Branch officers, for the first time in American history. This is about as politicized an issue as you can imagine.

Again, we are withdrawing our forces in Afghanistan. The Marines and the Army are drawing down troops like crazy. Why is there a sudden need to start adding women to the front line? It’s not like we’re facing a mass invasion by the Giant Bug-People from Zeta Reticuli and every member of the human species will have to man the front lines.

(Or are we? Maybe Obama know something he isn’t telling us…)

 

[LisaA]

I don’t think yukonbrad meant that (not sure what he meant). Neither the Ranger Battalions nor Ranger School were open to women, and during my time in the service (1979 - 1987) there were separate physical standards for men and women. I believe it’s still the same now. Women don’t even have to pass the same physical standards for jump school, which is required for every special operations unit. When women first began attending jump school in the 1970s, they tried using the same physical fitness standards and all failed, so they had to adopt “normed” physical fitness standards (these are just to begin training, not the scores you require to pass). Currently (according to the training staff at Ft Benning) it’s as follows:

(Source: benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/airborne/pt.htm)

I would say that is a disparity of expectations.

Jump school has also dropped the pull-up requirements they had when I went through, which are tough for women (and a lot of men) to do, but that may also be because they changed parachute models - I went through when they still had the T-10 parachute, and you had to grab the risers and pull down on them (an equivalent movement to doing a pull-up) to spill air out the back and steer your chute. They switched to the MC1-1B chute shortly afterwards, which used toggles to spill air and were both more maneuverable and required less upper-body strength to control.

If Brad says he served in a Ranger combat unit with women who received the same training he did, I don’t know what kind of unit he was in but he was not in a Ranger Battalion. Maybe he was referring to his time in Basic Training or something. But they norm the physical fitness standards there, too. One woman officer did sue and got to attend the SF Officer’s Course, but she washed out despite having the rules bent for her numerous times.

All that is likely to change soon, and the scuttlebutt on a lot of military sites is that the Ranger School training cadre have been told that women (officers only, no enlisted) will be entering and they will pass, so as not to interfere with their career plans. Women will be Infantry Branch officers, for the first time in American history. This is about as politicized an issue as you can imagine.

Again, we are withdrawing our forces in Afghanistan. The Marines and the Army are drawing down troops like crazy. Why is there a sudden need to start adding women to the front line? It’s not like we’re facing a mass invasion by the Giant Bug-People from Zeta Reticuli and every member of the human species will have to man the front lines.

(Or are we? Maybe Obama know something he isn’t telling us…)

AZMike your posts are always so thoughtful and well written. I was a bit tongue in cheek commenting about the Rangers. One of my closet miliatary “adoptees” went through Ranger School as did the son of a dear friend so I am aware of the rigors of this uinit. When Yukon said the same I figured he meant the 'book learnin" in which women can excel.

Not much I can add to your great post other than “NO KIDDING” as to your questioning the sudden “need” for females on the front lines. It seems like more of a utopian dream marinated in the political correctness of some university think tank (and the university would be one without a ROTC!)

Lisa

 

[october_baby]

I don’t think yukonbrad meant that (not sure what he meant). Neither the Ranger Battalions nor Ranger School were open to women, and during my time in the service (1979 - 1987) there were separate physical standards for men and women. I believe it’s still the same now. Women don’t even have to pass the same physical standards for jump school, which is required for every special operations unit. When women first began attending jump school in the 1970s, they tried using the same physical fitness standards and all failed, so they had to adopt “normed” physical fitness standards (these are just to begin training, not the scores you require to pass). Currently (according to the training staff at Ft Benning) it’s as follows:

(Source: benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/airborne/pt.htm)

I would say that is a disparity of expectations.

Jump school has also dropped the pull-up requirements they had when I went through, which are tough for women (and a lot of men) to do, but that may also be because they changed parachute models - I went through when they still had the T-10 parachute, and you had to grab the risers and pull down on them (an equivalent movement to doing a pull-up) to spill air out the back and steer your chute. They switched to the MC1-1B chute shortly afterwards, which used toggles to spill air and were both more maneuverable and required less upper-body strength to control.

If Brad says he served in a Ranger combat unit with women who received the same training he did, I don’t know what kind of unit he was in but he was not in a Ranger Battalion. Maybe he was referring to his time in Basic Training or something. But they norm the physical fitness standards there, too. One woman officer did sue and got to attend the SF Officer’s Course, but she washed out despite having the rules bent for her numerous times.

All that is likely to change soon, and the scuttlebutt on a lot of military sites is that the Ranger School training cadre have been told that women (officers only, no enlisted) will be entering and they will pass, so as not to interfere with their career plans. Women will be Infantry Branch officers, for the first time in American history. This is about as politicized an issue as you can imagine.

Again, we are withdrawing our forces in Afghanistan. The Marines and the Army are drawing down troops like crazy. Why is there a sudden need to start adding women to the front line? It’s not like we’re facing a mass invasion by the Giant Bug-People from Zeta Reticuli and every member of the human species will have to man the front lines.

(Or are we? Maybe Obama know something he isn’t telling us…)

when I was in the army, men and women trained separately, although I heard under Clinton
they trained together, I don’t if this true, just something I heard…

 

[epan]

Lower standards? When I was in the service the women had the exact same training we did, even though they were not allowed in combat! I find it interesting that most on here who are opposed have not served, to be quite honest there were many women I knew in the service who would have been quite capable in a combat MOS.

which branch was this?

current USMC PFT score for males:

100 points for: 20 pullups, 100 timed crunches, 3 miles in 18:00

current USMC PFT score for females:

flexed arm hang for 70 seconds (no pullups), 100 crunches, 3 miles in 21:00

these are the minimal standards. for any recon, special ops, infantry, etc… the standards are much higher. i doubt that most females could qualify.

this raises the question of legal or practical integration. if you allow females in all roles, but then leave the standards where they are now, then no females can qualify. so have you actually opened the role to females, or do you lower the standards?

 

[maximus]

I haven’t really formed an opinion about the issue in question but it should be pointed out that no woman is going to be forced into combat. Under the new rules women must volunteer to be placed in one of the formerly prohibited positions.

How long would you trust that the current rule remains in place? What you learn about liberal driven agendas is that you give them an inch and they will take a yard. Nothing seems to delighted them as much as forcing through governmental powers someone to do something against their moral code or will.

I hope I am wrong and this does not come to pass.

God Bless

 

[mellowcalico]

Everyone keeps talking about women having different standards (which they currently do for the general military). But when I heard this news piece on the radio, it was made pretty clear by the military person they interviewed that in order to qualify for combat infantry, women must pass the same physical, endurance, and strength tests with the same scores that current combat troops do now.

I just wanted to put that out there because there is a lot of energy and arguing in this thread about lowering standards for women–which is moot if what that officer in the interview said is true.

What we should be discussing is the mixing of men and women in that kind of stressful situation (keeping in mind the biology of men and women).

 

[colmywaykurtz]

I went by your statements, Lisa. You berated more than once in this thread the motives of the women that want to enter the infantry in the U.S.

Are you denying you subscribed certain motives (a lack of selflessness, but personal dreams and ambitions) to those women?

So, lets get this straight. A woman wants to join the SF or Marine Infantry and she is motivated by personal ambition and what she perceives as rewards, but if a man does it’s only out of selfless sacrifice?

I have my opinion based off of experience and close relationships with Marines. Some of whom were like brothers to me.

But I don’t regard ambition and motives for rewards as necessarily a bad thing. A certain level of pride seems good insofar as it seems a motivator that pushes people to excel and compete.

No, you seem to think your opinion of me must carry some All-American brand of opinion I need care about. I’m sure it irks you I’m a black male that made it through the Marine Corps and worked his way into university (having to go through community college and taking non-college level remedial math classes) by graduating with honors from community college rather than getting in by Affirmative Action.

And by the way… President Obama rocks.

Maybe I’ve been wrong and women should be allowed into the infantry ranks.

I’m just hazarding a guess you’re not a nun even though you seem to think you can berate women desiring to join the ranks of infantry and SF as having no self sacrifice in them.

You’re not a nun and I’m not a priest and there is a reason we took a road not committing ourselves to celibacy and a selfless following of Christ down that road.

I’m aware of your view of me. I’m aware of your view of Obama. And I can hazard a guess a number of your views on a number of things. I’m well aware of your “America” the “friendly.”

Suffice to say you can talk and talk but I simply do not find your statements or opinions compelling evidence.

I also believe no more in your “America” than I do in Satan.

As-salam alaykum

I DO have a couple of questions, TimeEntrance. You list your religious preference as Catholic. Yet it DOES sound like you disbelieve in Satan. Is that the case, or do I misunderstand you?

Also, isn’t As-salam alaykum a blessing in Arabic? “Peace be unto you”? Isn’t that a typically Muslim blessing?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Everyone keeps talking about women having different standards (which they currently do for the general military). But when I heard this news piece on the radio, it was made pretty clear by the military person they interviewed that in order to qualify for combat infantry, women must pass the same physical, endurance, and strength tests with the same scores that current combat troops do now.

“a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain…why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”
-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 24 Jan Pentagon news conference

They are going to lower the standards.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Lower standards? When I was in the service the women had the exact same training we did, even though they were not allowed in combat! I find it interesting that most on here who are opposed have not served, to be quite honest there were many women I knew in the service who would have been quite capable in a combat MOS.

usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm

One standard for male soldiers, one standard for female soldiers. They tried the “one standard for everybody” approach. It didn’t work. Well it did, but not the way they wanted.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I DO have a couple of questions, TimeEntrance. You list your religious preference as Catholic.

I’m what one calls a cradle Catholic. I’m not a practicing Catholic. I still pray frequently to the Virgin Mary and two female saints (one Arab and one French–from a people in France that have been described as “the Indians of France”) . I still pray to Jesus and the Holy Trinity.

I’ve encountered to many people that are atheist (though most–not all–of them seem to be arrogant to me), non-practicing Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even a former professor of mine that’s a Haitian Voodoo priest… that are better people than Mass attending Catholics.

Actually, a cousin of mine is a former Green Beret. He was raised Catholic as well but left Catholicism to become Protestant. He is a better man being Protestant than he was as a Catholic–I think by his own admittance. He’s a bit more harsh on what he thought he was like as Army SF. In his opinion it’s perfectly possible to be in the military–even SF–and be a young “punk.” That was his opinion and not mine. Which in fact kind of surprised me when he said it. But after the initial shock I think I know what he was getting at. And I suppose there is truth in what he said.

Yet it DOES sound like you disbelieve in Satan. Is that the case, or do I misunderstand you?

I know Satan exists. I don’t know why you would think otherwise. Maybe it was due to me acknowledging the sacrifices of that Mexican-American Marine I served with aboard ship that discussed with me (semi-passionate on his side) about him worshiping Satan (he told me his god is better than mine… and preceded to tell me why). Most people would not know he worshiped Satan and belonged to the Church of Satan if they met him. He spoke just like most other people and was an average Marine I would say. He didn’t stand out as exceptionally good or bad as a Marine.

I have to credit him for teaching me a bout a few things mainstream Satanists believe. According to him they don’t go out killing people. But they teach indulgence in pleasures and not to turn the other cheek. I remember he spoke about hurting people if they trespass into your “lair” too. He didn’t teach/tell me much but he told me a few things. We really only had the discussion once. He was more passionate in the discussion than I was. I was curious about why he went the way he did but in a certain way I was indifferent too.

Point here is that people make sacrifices all the time. Nazi soldiers and Japanese Kamikaze. NFL players certainly do knowing what we know now about the damage done to their bodies and brains over time. Single women working insane hours in corporate America sometimes sacrifice motherhood or relationships or at least put those things off to climb the corporate hill.

Sacrifice is not one and the same with selflessness to me. And as I said… reading about the Jesuits missions into Oregon Country (at minimum as dangerous then, if not far more, than Afghanistan today) taught me something about selflessness. And few will remember those men. Few know they even existed. And they had no air and naval fire support to call on. No rescue parties from the Vatican or Jesuit General. In fact, mail to months if it ever reached them at all. And to be tortured by the Indians of that country was pretty hellish.

But even the founder of the Jesuits left weapons of war aside after being enthralled by reading about the lives of the saints. I don’t confuse the saints or Jesus with rifles and bombs or the Marine Corps dress blues or the Navy’s dress whites.

Also, isn’t As-salam alaykum a blessing in Arabic? “Peace be unto you”? Isn’t that a typically Muslim blessing?

Yes it’s a Muslim and Arabic expression. I say it in honor of my Muslim and Arab acquaintance I had the good pleasure of briefly knowing in a college class of mine. He was from Saudi Arabia. I believe he went back there.

My enemies are not Muslim nor are they foreign. My enemies are right here in the millions in the United States. Not all Americans just millions of them. They are the ones that will hate me. They are the ones that will attempt to kill me.

And I really have no beef with Al Qaida as they’ve never done anything personally to me. If one of them blows off the legs of some SF person in Afghanistan that is between those two, not me. I’m sitting here in the U.S. minding my business.

As a side note… I remember debating one of those SF cats over the Crusades. This was after 9-11. The guy was adamant the Catholic Europeans should have stayed in Europe and had no need whatsoever to go bother the good Muslim people of the Middle East. It was all do over Church corruption and lay Catholic greed in his eyes.

Mind you something like 30,000 Muslim horsemen are said to have descended upon Tours, France. When is the last time one of those SF guys or regular military personnel has witnessed 30,000 Al Qaida members with rifles attacking New York City? So, no reason to go off to Afghanistan or Iraq. Could’ve let Interpol deal with it.

Or as my former Voodoo priest professor in one of the social sciences might say… they are applying asymmetrical standards.

.

 

[TimeEntrance]

If you are using “SF” for U.S. Army Special Forces, no. You are incorrect, and probably shouldn’t base your opinions about a group solely on what people claiming to be members of that group post on the Internet.

I’m using “SF” for special forces of any branch. Including the Army Rangers.

They were SF from different branches. Period. And some of them that were out of the service would brag and brag about how much money they were making just like gang bangers or mafia soldier.

I never heard Pope John Paul 2 bragging on and on about how much money he made and how smart he was.

In my experience, most members of SF are religious, and probably have a higher level of attending church than the population as a whole. The SF selection process culls out those with xenophobia and wannabe Rambos. The need for cultural, negotiation, and language skills within SF results in a cadre that generally has a greater understanding and respect for other cultures than, again, most of the American population.

I doubt it. I have higher regard for Pope John Paul 2 (with all the several languages he spoke) and this current Pope and as well as an atheist and liberal philosophy professor that occasionally posts on a philosophy forum I go on sometimes. He speaks five languages, has lived in ashrams, ghettos, been thrown in jail for marching in the Civil Rights Movement and for being a conscientious objector. He lived in Harlem and studied under Banyard Rustin. His life pursuit has been to reduce misery and war in the world.

You can spare me the polemics about SF people.

 

[TimeEntrance]

The rest of your perceptions are similarly false (I’m trying to be charitable, here.) Your idea that “quite a number of those career SF members would massacre and enslave Americans in the millions (particularly welfare mothers and males they regard as “losers”) including (and probably high on their list) the majority of military veterans if they had their way” is one of the most fallacious and insulting things I’ve read about SF.

My perception is quite fine. I know the tone and diction I read.

The majority of them like to think of themselves as the equivalents of Donald Trumps or big CEO’s. The ones still in the service. The one’s out either identify with that or are in law enforcement and have egos the size of Mt. Everest.

And I picked up a particular disdain they have for “average” blue collar people. Which is possible why they despise (and despise is the right word) so many military veterans.

But like I said… the internet brings out the worst in people. I’ve noticed this. The medical doctors that worked on me in the hospital were (by and large) some of the noblest people I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting.

But to my surprise lurking on this renowned Student Doctor Website - forums.studentdoctor.net/ - I’ve come a cross a thread or more with medical doctors bragging about how much money they make and just being nasty towards posters asking certain questions going into schools like Physician Assistants schools.

I just lurk on that site basically–occasionally–as my views of doctors and the whole medical establishment is so high I don’t want enough reality to seep in and tarnish it. Plus, students and professionals on that site are over-achievers and very accomplished and driven people. I’m a smaller person in the world. So, I don’t want to stray into the territory of the might and great in that sense. But I get a little info here and there from lurking.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, perhaps, but it is incumbent on the speaker that it be an informed opinion. You are a very young man who was unable to make it through basic training in the Marines.

I made it through Marine basic training, MCT, and SOI. In SOI I volunteered for Security Forces and got accepted. Then eventually went to Security Forces School in Virginia. I was stationed on the Battleship Wisconsin and later at Norfolk Company.

Typical arrogant SF reply . Someone does not fall down worshiping the feet of military people as de facto saints or stainless objects and that person “never did time in the military.”

I don’t need to wonder how Germans and Japanese could fight on the wrong side of WWII. I only need look at the blind, unquestioning, garbage that seeps out the mouths of American military people.

I have medals and ribbons by the way (had them–I threw them away). Including the combat action ribbon. But they gave those out kind of easy during Desert Storm. My ship was never hit and we were more or less in the “theater of war” rather than what I would regard as real combat. But of course… I guess you’re going to reply that response and opinion of mine evidence I was never on the Battleship Wisconsin.

(The Marines on the Missouri * were dressed in desert cammies. Our Marine CO for whatever reason… kept us in the standard green cammies at the time. Guess he didn’t want us to feel like part of the war. Just like his constant volunteering us for working parties. The Missouri actually fired first in the war before the Wisconsin but the media credited us with that I think. We mainly diplomatic/ceremonial ship.)

Based on that very limited experience, you really don’t know enough to cast aspersions on members of the SF (which we Catholics consider the sin of calumny, by the way) based on what you read on the Internet, and if you are an honest.
person, you should apologize to those you have defamed as a group and individually. I can tell you that I, for one, have never wanted to massacre or enslave anyone.

I don’t care what Catholics think. No more than I care if they’re signing agreements with Nazis.

So, let me try and tell you this again: I can’t tell much the difference from U.S. SF people than from Satan when it comes to their level of pride.*

 

[johnnyjones]

Of course there are some women that are suited for combat, but we don’t win wars and conquer tyranny with “some”. Many of your average “woman on the street” will say," women in combat, sure why not?" But when the rubber hits the road, they realize the error of their over zealous words and ultimately want no part of it.

Start demanding that women play with men in pro-football and see where that gets you.

 

[TimeEntrance]

If you don’t believe in Satan/Evil One/Devil then I do wonder at your other beliefs. I think there is sufficient evidence of its presence to convince even the most skeptical.

I know Satan exists. I frequently hear him speaking when I listen to one or more Americans or Catholics running their mouth.

At any rate the references regarding motiviations of women wanting to be in combat (note I did NOT limit this to the elite units such as SEALs you brought this up) but simply their desire to serve in the infantry as being born of ambition and a desire to rise in the ranks.

I know what you said. Your spouted opinion (which was accompanied by outrage) was symmetrical to mine.

But like any Nazi or Imperial Japanese soldier I doubt you could figure that out.

So, let me state this again: I did not join the Marines out of selflessness (my sacrifices are neither here nor there with all that uncalled for sleep deprivation aboard ship [to the point I was visibly loosing weight]), like other Marines I joined because I wanted to be one of the tough and belong to something regarded as elite. Period. And if I ever climb a corporate hill and make hand over fist in cash it won’t be motivated out of selflessness either.

If I want to be selfless I’ll become a monk or a Jesuit with a Ph.D. sharing his earning with his order and fellow Jesuits. I kept all my paycheck for me when I was in the Corps by the way (except the small sums deducted for some charity I picked out). And I don’t and didn’t need anyone thanking me for my service in the military and Corps as Uncle Sam and the Marine Corps thanked me every two weeks when I got paid.

I said this because it was reported as THE reason for even considering this change. Not one person here, on the news, in the Pentagon has provided a potential benefit for the military to push this dramatic change of policy. It seemed to be totally feelings based and and a result of certain divesity programs in the military rather than out of need. In a time when huge cuts are being proposed, is this truly a priority? Only in some utopian university think tank’s dreams…

As I said… if they are allowed in–speaking from the Corps side–I’m sure the new generation of Marine Corps will work it out one way or another.

For troops it’s Mission, Men, and Me in that order, or at least the troops I’ve been in contact with and heard speak regarding this issue. There were a number of high ranking females who said that while they may have had some hope of succeeding in meeting the standards for infantry but they felt that it would be counterproductive to the mission, their brothers in arms and those they are charged with defending. They expressed the kind of unselfishness I associate with our service members.

They didn’t want to be berated.

You (the person in the military) want to be “unselfish” give up your pay. But first you can start by not screwing other service mens wives while they (the men) are deployed out of country.

I asked repeatedly if anyone had heard a single reason to allow women in combat positoins and no one responded with anything but “they want to!”

So what.

If I could go back and do it over again I’d “want” to join the French Foreign Legion. You think that’s out of some saintly, selfless love for France? Give me a break.

Some claim they have the right to try out for these positions but from where does that right arise? It is not a natural right, something we have by virture of being human beings. There are jobs, tasks, positions that not everyone qualifies for by virtue of their skills or strength or other characteristics. I dont’ have the right to play NBA basketball and I sure don’t have the talent. But no one questions this, a sport, big boys playing big games for big money…nothing of eternal value. Yet the same people are screaming that women have the right to compromise the mission, endanger their fellow troops and reduce the effectiveness of the military…an area where it IS life and death not a game.

So that is the reason I concluded that this was not something the military needs or will benefit the military, it appears based on every bit of evidence I’ve seen to be a bit of social engineering created not by need but by ideology.

Interesting about your background. For some reason I thought you were a female. Lisa

At bold: lets get this straight. The majority of military people never see combat. That includes infantry and SF. They’re out in the fields playing with their rifles. Or out in the water playing fish or tag my butt.

Who are out in the world day in and day out making a difference on the front lines are the nurses aids, nurses, doctors and other health and medical specialists. Having sacrificed countless hours and much of their youth to studying.

And I have great admiration for doctors and nurses.

And I’ve found it odd one doctor in the VA not even treating me in the emergency room had to come in smiling and asking a few questions when he heard I box (real boxing training is tougher than most Marine Corps training). Like he admires this or something. All I do–or rather did–was throw hands. Any buffoon can do that. Kind of like carrying a pack and rifle. A medical doctor on the other hand is like being an NFL star to me.

 

[TimeEntrance]

FYI here is RossBoxing’s blog on sacrifice and success. Anthony Pettis had his father murdered on the streets of Milwaukee and is an up and coming MMA star. I find it interesting–no I don’t–that this motivational speaker quotes Vince Lombardi (similar to me quoting him in this thread and referencing him).

I remember one combat veteran Force Recon man stating that his civilian years of sports wrestling taught him a lot about combat. Sports in general–from my experience in them–teaches you a number of things about the human mind and what motivates people. I wrestled my junior year of high school. The training in high school wrestling makes Marine Corps boot camp physically seem like a walk in the park. The School of Infantry less so.

(although psychologically boot camp is far more difficult than sports wrestling)

Americans can direct their complaints to Ross about “sacrifice” being a component to a lot of professions on earth. It’s his blog, not mine, though I agree with him.

rosstraining.com/blog/

Excerpts.

The Price of Success

February 01st, 2013 | Category: Combat Sports,Training

In the video below, you’ll see Eric Thomas speaking to a group of mixed martial artists (including Anthony Pettis). His message is powerful and particularly relevant to competitive fighters. If you want to succeed as a fighter, there is a price to pay. Your life needs to revolve around the sport. It must consume you. Stepping into the ring or cage is not a game. It’s a fight. Your opponent is coming with hopes of knocking you unconscious. Nothing would please him more than to see you hit the canvas.

Your opponent doesn’t care about your social life. He doesn’t care if you are able to go out and enjoy yourself. He doesn’t care if you are tired. He doesn’t care if you are sore. He doesn’t are about you. He wants to knock you out. And as I state these facts, please don’t misinterpret my message. I’m not trying to discourage you. Your level of dedication is a personal choice. What you prioritize in life is entirely up to you.

I’m not here to tell you how to live your life.

There isn’t anything they wouldn’t sacrifice to improve.

And as you’ve probably guessed, such sacrifice and dedication isn’t limited to competitive fighters. The 110 percent mentality can be seen in any profession. Different people have different interpretations of what constitutes hard work. Different people also have different priorities in life. Not everyone cares about becoming the absolute best. Maybe I’m just crazy, because I’ve always wanted to be the best at whatever I do. Maybe I do sacrifice too much at times. It isn’t always healthy and it isn’t always fun. Once again though, it is an individual choice. We all live the lives that we want to live.

Just be aware that making it to the top of anything is a challenging journey. Worthwhile rewards don’t come without sacrifice.

There is the video at the bottom of that blog showing the motivational talk.

And which is what I was saying about the people in the special forces of every U.S. military branch being driven people with ambition that want to be the best. Before I got attacked with blubbering comments about the saintly Jesus-like qualities of people that join and serve in the U.S. military and/or SF.

And just for the record, just because I ran and did pushups in the Marine Corps doesn’t mean I was reading for the Olympics. I don’t think most the people in this thread even comprehend how many pushups some amateur and professional boxers do in a single training. Try 1,000 or 3,000. I was up to 100 at my first boxing gym before I left. The next one I trained at didn’t take physical conditioning that seriously. So, I probably never did more than 20 or so. Not being the most motivated. But I was actively hooked on drugs at the same time. I’d like to see how many SF personnel can smoke crack, go to community college getting all A’s, go to a boxing gym, and train at a separate martial arts studio all during the same week (sometimes same day). Not many I suspect.