- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Active Marines - Have Women in the Infantry Had a Negative Impact on the USMC?
Posted on 3/28/24 at 2:20 pm to Northshore Aggie
Posted on 3/28/24 at 2:20 pm to Northshore Aggie
quote:
i'm also curious why you think this is not an accurate analogy. if you think that the Marine Corps "if done right" could integrate women into combat arms in a way that makes us better at fighting and killing, then why couldnt an NBA or NFL team use the same strategy to make them the best basketball or football team in the league?
I don't know of a woman on the planet who is better than the worst NFL player at almost every position, but if you find one, go for it. There are no rules against female NBA and NFL players. They simply aren't good enough to meet the minimum standards. That isn't the case for infantry Marines. If you want to raise the standards to weed out weak men, then let's have that conversation.
0
Posted on 3/28/24 at 2:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Maintain or increase standards for leadership, physical fitness
if the physical standard for men was made the same for women, the Marine Corps would almost overnight become 99.9% male.
as far as leadership goes, women make poor leaders over groups of men - even more so over groups of aggressive alpha type men who want to serve in combat. you're never going to train that out of them. a platoon of infantrymen will never want to follow a woman, ever. that's perhaps an ugly truth, but it is the truth.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 2:25 pm to Northshore Aggie
quote:
if you think that the Marine Corps "if done right" could integrate women into combat arms in a way that makes us better at fighting and killing,
The Marine Corps can't even integrate women into a PT test that has the same standards, nor do they even try.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 2:26 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
Agree. I do find it weird they now have females at MCRD SD when women have enough medical problems at PI. I recruited 3 females and they had massive hip problems, can’t imagine what they’re seeing after field training at Pendleton.
My son just graduated at the beginning of last month at MCRD San Diego. The girls platoon looked like a mash unit. They were MULTIPLE females on crutches or some kind of boot. I went to San Diego for boot camp too. Those mountains are not a joke at all.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 2:26 pm to Tridentds
quote:
“No ask no tell “. started the turd ball rolling down the hill.
You could make the argument that women on ships started it. That was the first big integration that put "fairness" and "opportunity" ahead of effectiveness.
Effectiveness should be the only metric.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 2:29 pm to Northshore Aggie
quote:
if the physical standard for men was made the same for women, the Marine Corps would almost overnight become 99.9% male.
And? If the physical standard for infantry Marines was made what it should be, a lot of men wouldn't be infantry.
quote:
as far as leadership goes, women make poor leaders over groups of men - even more so over groups of aggressive alpha type men who want to serve in combat. you're never going to train that out of them. a platoon of infantrymen will never want to follow a woman, ever. that's perhaps an ugly truth, but it is the truth.
And? I've known plenty of men who were poor leaders.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 2:29 pm to RFK
Obviously, it has nothing to do with the individual's character, motivation, patriotism, etc., but certainly not every man (hell, in 2024, a helluva lot of men would fall into this category as well) is suited for front line infantry service. (Virtually) No woman is.
Let's take that 1% of 1% elite woman athlete: I won't question her motivations to go into the service as opposed to using her gifts to make major bank. Certainly there are high-performing females who are exceptional physical specimens. Even this rarefied company will experience greater breakdowns over time - stress fractures, UTIs, hell, women have higher rates of mental illness and service will only exacerbate those symptoms.
Why? Primarily biology. Regardless of the "modern" sensibilities about this being some sort of social construct, on the contrary, it is biological reality. Men (even at the same scale weight and relative rates of fitness) have heavier/denser bones and heavier/denser muscles. Men have greater aerobic capacity.
Women's capabilities are impressive because 25% of their metabolism is devoted to reproduction, while in men it is less than 3%. But, what that means is that women sacrifice the ability to sustain heavy work effort over time without suffering those breakdowns (and, obviously, unique aspects of the anatomy of women.)
Plus a man cannot get pregnant while preparing for a deployment or in a combat zone.
A combat unit gains NOTHING by admitting women, but risks all the things outlined above. In certain very narrow survival situations (i.e. Soviet Union 1941), I can see that having women serve in combat can be an resource, but one of last resort, IMHO.
Let's take that 1% of 1% elite woman athlete: I won't question her motivations to go into the service as opposed to using her gifts to make major bank. Certainly there are high-performing females who are exceptional physical specimens. Even this rarefied company will experience greater breakdowns over time - stress fractures, UTIs, hell, women have higher rates of mental illness and service will only exacerbate those symptoms.
Why? Primarily biology. Regardless of the "modern" sensibilities about this being some sort of social construct, on the contrary, it is biological reality. Men (even at the same scale weight and relative rates of fitness) have heavier/denser bones and heavier/denser muscles. Men have greater aerobic capacity.
Women's capabilities are impressive because 25% of their metabolism is devoted to reproduction, while in men it is less than 3%. But, what that means is that women sacrifice the ability to sustain heavy work effort over time without suffering those breakdowns (and, obviously, unique aspects of the anatomy of women.)
Plus a man cannot get pregnant while preparing for a deployment or in a combat zone.
A combat unit gains NOTHING by admitting women, but risks all the things outlined above. In certain very narrow survival situations (i.e. Soviet Union 1941), I can see that having women serve in combat can be an resource, but one of last resort, IMHO.
This post was edited on 3/28/24 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 3/28/24 at 2:33 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Obviously, it has nothing to do with the individual's character, motivation, patriotism, etc., but certainly not every man (hell, in 2024, a helluva lot of men would fall into this category as well) is suited for front line infantry service. (Virtually) No woman is.
Let's take that 1% of 1% elite woman athlete: I won't question her motivations to go into the service as opposed to using her gifts to make major bank. Certainly there are high-performing females who are exceptional physical specimens. Even this rarefied company will experience greater breakdowns over time - stress fractures, UTIs, hell, women have higher rates of mental illness and service will only exacerbate those symptoms.
Why? Primarily biology. Regardless of the "modern" sensibilities about this being some sort of social construct, on the contrary, it is biological reality. Men (even at the same scale weight and relative rates of fitness) have heavier/denser bones and heavier/denser muscles. Men have greater aerobic capacity.
Women's capabilities are impressive because 25% of their metabolism is devoted to reproduction, while in men it is less than 3%. But, what that means is that women sacrifice the ability to sustain heavy work effort over time without suffering those breakdowns (and, obviously, unique aspects of the anatomy of women.)
Plus a man cannot get pregnant while preparing for a deployment or in a combat zone.
A combat unit gains NOTHING by admitting women, but risks all the things outlined above. In certain very narrow survival situations (i.e. Soviet Union 1941), I can see that having women serve in combat can be an resource, but one of last resort, IMHO.
facts, every word. now i'll hand you off to argue with Displaced bc i have to go to a meeting.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 2:35 pm to Northshore Aggie
quote:
Plus a man cannot get pregnant while preparing for a deployment or in a combat zone.
Plenty of men have had circumstances where they were unable to deploy.
Y'all are giving good reasons for why men are and should remain the bulk of our infantry. What you aren't doing a good job of is arguing why women should be excluded.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 3:17 pm to RFK
Here are results from the Bataan Memorial Death March in the heavy category (35lb ruck). This is a 26.2 mile movement at White Sands. I've done it multiple times. Came in 3rd one year.
Female
Participants 87
Finishers 67 (77%)
Pace 21:26/mile
Average Time 09:21:56
Winner 5:53
Male
Participants 440
Finishers 363 (82.5%)
Pace 20:16/mile
Average Time 08:51:17
Winner 4:05
The male winner was 108 minutes faster, that's 4 minutes per mile.
As you add weight the disparity grows. A 35lb ruck is nothing. Any recent or active military person knows that in theater you will rarely move with less than 2x that amount. For most people, body armor + helmet will get you to 35lbs.
Here's an excerpt from a CNAS LINK.
Fighting load consists of the equipment (weapon, ammunition, helmet, body armor, water, etc.) that soldiers carry directly on their person while maneuvering and fighting.
Approach load consists of the fighting load plus a rucksack carried during a march, which would contain additional water, ammunition, food, and other supplies for the duration of the mission.19
The Marine Corps includes performance measures in their load definitions. For the equivalent of a “fighting load,” the average infantry Marine should “be able to conduct combat operations indefinitely with minimal degradation in combat effectiveness.” The “approach load” equivalent should still allow a Marine to march 20 miles in eight hours “with the reasonable expectation of maintaining 90 percent combat effectiveness.”20
The Harmful Effect of Heavy Loads
Today’s soldier is heavily burdened. A 2003 battlefield combat load study found average fighting loads ranging by position from 53 pounds to 81 pounds.21 The average approach march load was 102 pounds,22 consistent with other average weights of around 90 pounds when a rucksack is included.23 These weights, heavy as they are, may be increasing over time. A 2007 Marine study revealed an average load of 97 to 135 pounds in combat.24 A 2017 Government Accountability Office report identified Marine loads of 90 to 159 pounds, with an average of 117 pounds, and Army loads of 96 to 140 pounds, with an average of 119 pounds.25
Female
Participants 87
Finishers 67 (77%)
Pace 21:26/mile
Average Time 09:21:56
Winner 5:53
Male
Participants 440
Finishers 363 (82.5%)
Pace 20:16/mile
Average Time 08:51:17
Winner 4:05
The male winner was 108 minutes faster, that's 4 minutes per mile.
As you add weight the disparity grows. A 35lb ruck is nothing. Any recent or active military person knows that in theater you will rarely move with less than 2x that amount. For most people, body armor + helmet will get you to 35lbs.
Here's an excerpt from a CNAS LINK.
Fighting load consists of the equipment (weapon, ammunition, helmet, body armor, water, etc.) that soldiers carry directly on their person while maneuvering and fighting.
Approach load consists of the fighting load plus a rucksack carried during a march, which would contain additional water, ammunition, food, and other supplies for the duration of the mission.19
The Marine Corps includes performance measures in their load definitions. For the equivalent of a “fighting load,” the average infantry Marine should “be able to conduct combat operations indefinitely with minimal degradation in combat effectiveness.” The “approach load” equivalent should still allow a Marine to march 20 miles in eight hours “with the reasonable expectation of maintaining 90 percent combat effectiveness.”20
The Harmful Effect of Heavy Loads
Today’s soldier is heavily burdened. A 2003 battlefield combat load study found average fighting loads ranging by position from 53 pounds to 81 pounds.21 The average approach march load was 102 pounds,22 consistent with other average weights of around 90 pounds when a rucksack is included.23 These weights, heavy as they are, may be increasing over time. A 2007 Marine study revealed an average load of 97 to 135 pounds in combat.24 A 2017 Government Accountability Office report identified Marine loads of 90 to 159 pounds, with an average of 117 pounds, and Army loads of 96 to 140 pounds, with an average of 119 pounds.25
Posted on 3/28/24 at 3:52 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
“If my son was a marine”my arse motherfricker. He is a marine. A marine veteran. And he served as a combat engineer. Firsthand, he and his comrades saw the Corp trying to push women through marine combat engineer training. Could not fricking cut it. A danger to anyone with them. frick you.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 4:02 pm to RFK
quote:Who are you to assume the general’s gender?
It was a male major general
Posted on 3/28/24 at 4:08 pm to OTIS2
quote:
“If my son was a marine”my arse motherfricker. He is a marine. A marine veteran. And he served as a combat engineer. Firsthand, he and his comrades saw the Corp trying to push women through marine combat engineer training. Could not fricking cut it. A danger to anyone with them. frick you.
Good for your son. He fed you some bullshite, or you're feeding us some bullshite.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 4:09 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
Here are results from the Bataan Memorial Death March in the heavy category (35lb ruck).
The top female finisher would've been top 15 in the male category.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 4:11 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:You sound just like those idiot generals trying to get promoted by justifying policies that are harmful and will eventually get soldiers needlessly killed.
DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 3/28/24 at 4:12 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
You sound just like those idiot generals trying to get promoted by justifying policies that are harmful and will eventually get soldiers needlessly killed.
*Marines.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 4:20 pm to RFK
If you are voting for rfk you a dumbass
Posted on 3/28/24 at 4:21 pm to Timeoday
Dumbass
Posted on 3/28/24 at 4:26 pm to Tiger1242
Isreal women are built hotter and stronger
Posted on 3/28/24 at 4:28 pm to RFK
Having women in the infantry is like starting with a percentage of your unit already injured/wounded. They cannot carry their share of gear and so some ambitious hopeful young Marine carries it for her. It hurts readiness and is a stupid idea.
This post was edited on 3/28/24 at 4:30 pm
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News