Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ThorHammer
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
    Back to the OP, the real question is if they will do the same thing here that they did with the initial integration and lower the standards for women.
    As I said in the OP, I suspect that only one result of this experiment will be allowed to come out; it works. We can't have anything that stands in the way of "progress for the sake of progress", can we? Regardless of the result there will always be an asterisk that goes with any female that passes the course because if they were held to the same standards to begin with, well, odds are very good that they wouldn't even be Marines. Because of that, in the eyes of the vast majority of Marines, they'll just be another WM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThorHammer
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by RDK View Post
    It appears that your mind is already made up and closed to any new facts. There are women out there who can be just as physically strong and capable as any man.
    I have yet to meet one. Do they exist? Probably. That said, a woman's strength is always going to be different than that of a man's. I mean, if women were just as capable and physically strong, then we wouldn't need separate sporting events, would we? IMO, there are so few women who may meet the requirements to warrant them being allowed to serve in line units.

    Originally posted by RDK View Post
    Your arguments are that they are not capable, having them would not be good for unit cohesion and that different standards would have to be applied for them to be able to compete. Same argument as was used for blacks, then women and gays.
    I have only heard the unit cohesion argument against blacks and gays. Regardless, trying to compare a black or homosexual male to a female is comparing apples and oranges.

    Originally posted by RDK View Post
    Yes I am an outsider looking in, but I am looking into a front line combat unit on the front lines of the war in Afghanistan.
    And I have been in such a unit (granted, not in Afghanistan).

    Originally posted by RDK View Post
    Your position is that the military is so special that they cannot be understood by anyone who is or was not in that particular branch of service.

    I have news for you, you are not that special.
    I never claimed we (or I) are special, did I? Just different; apart. We are part of something that cannot be fully understood unless you have actually been part of it yourself.
    Last edited by ThorHammer; 09-04-2012, 05:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • michael h
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
    There is a reason that there are physical requirements to be in the military for both women and men. I have known some men who seem to appear so weak that a gentle wind would blow them over. If they are in the military there is a good chance they are not that physically weak.

    Women are not that physically weak compared to the average man. Both genders always have standouts just watch a body building competition for women.
    Both sexes do have standouts ... which is why I stated the woman should be an exceptional physical specimen if she wants replace a man in combat arms. Woman do not meet the same physical standard as men for military service when it comes to the PT test. I don't suspect this has changed. A quick surf reveals for a young man to score 50 pts on pushups he would need 35 reps in 2 minutes, for a women to score 50 she would need to do 13 reps. Thats 35 reps to 13 reps for the same passing score.

    Men of course will generally be blessed with higher testosterone levels that will allow for more physical development. As a general rule of thumb you would expect to see both men and women improve on physical tests as they train more, men of course getting more benefit because of hormones. Thats why when you see most hardcore woman bodybuilders ... they are juicing it, not natural body builders.

    Its not an insult to suggest keeping woman out of more physical combat arms ... its reality. The military to my knowledge the military has always booted soldiers with bad injuries that would effect combat readiness ... sent them into early retirement with a paycheck suitable for the handicap created by combat.

    The key in combat remains on each soldier being able to physically perform their duties ... no weak links.

    Leave a comment:


  • RRAHH
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    I hate to be another douche but women do NOT belong in the military until they can do the same amount as a man can for the respective positions they take up. Equal rights means equal responsibility and standards. Until that happens, I don't want women in the military.

    Leave a comment:


  • CYDdharta
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by John Drake View Post
    Uh...could you give me ONE other source that actually addresses the topic rather than World Nut Daily? The Haaretz thing says that the IDF actually AGREES with me, that is, that women are alright in combat roles, but there is resistance in the actual doing so. So what? Resistance by old-fashioned types who are unwilling to accept modernity does not equate to their position being right

    I regard WND with the same "respect" I reserve for the National Enquirer. That is, I'll believe what they say if I see it said by someone credible too

    I knew you’d whine about World Net, that’s why I posted the Haaretz article. How you got that there are already women serving in line combat units from an article that says they’ve frozen implementation of a gender equality program is beyond me. Religious and military leaders in the IDF are against full implementation. In fact, the only ones who really seem to support the idea are the handful of academics and officers who conducted the study and a few career-minded and/or intensely patriotic IDF women.

    Leave a comment:


  • michael h
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by John Drake View Post
    Uh...could you give me ONE other source that actually addresses the topic rather than World Nut Daily? The Haaretz thing says that the IDF actually AGREES with me, that is, that women are alright in combat roles, but there is resistance in the actual doing so. So what? Resistance by old-fashioned types who are unwilling to accept modernity does not equate to their position being right

    I regard WND with the same "respect" I reserve for the National Enquirer. That is, I'll believe what they say if I see it said by someone credible too
    Good info on wiki

    Women in the Israel Defense Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Leave a comment:


  • John Drake
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post
    That is incorrect, 9% of military occupations in the IDF are closed to females. They include the very roles Thor mentioned, and for the very same reasons.


    Debunking the Israeli ‘women in combat’ myth



    IDF freezes implementation of report calling for gender equality - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
    Uh...could you give me ONE other source that actually addresses the topic rather than World Nut Daily? The Haaretz thing says that the IDF actually AGREES with me, that is, that women are alright in combat roles, but there is resistance in the actual doing so. So what? Resistance by old-fashioned types who are unwilling to accept modernity does not equate to their position being right

    I regard WND with the same "respect" I reserve for the National Enquirer. That is, I'll believe what they say if I see it said by someone credible too
    Last edited by John Drake; 09-03-2012, 03:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CYDdharta
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by John Drake View Post
    Women serve extensively in all roles including combat in the Israeli Army. I've never really heard anyone complain of that Force's overall effectiveness, have you?

    That is incorrect, 9% of military occupations in the IDF are closed to females. They include the very roles Thor mentioned, and for the very same reasons.

    Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”

    “Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
    Debunking the Israeli ‘women in combat’ myth


    Another Segev Committee member said that aside from the rabbis, many senior officers - including both current Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and Yoav Galant, who was originally supposed to get the job before being disqualified at the last minute - also "fiercely opposed integrating women into assault units."

    As a result, he said, "not one of the main recommendations has been implemented: Length of service hasn't been equalized, all jobs haven't been opened up, and certainly women haven't been put in front-line units."

    A senior Personnel Directorate officer rejected the claim that "nothing has been done."

    "We've made progress, but we've only come partway," he said.

    Nevertheless, he added, the army opposes using women as combat troops in the infantry and tank corps, as too few women can meet the physical requirements, "like marching 90 kilometers while carrying a heavy load." Women should be integrated "according to the IDF's operational needs," he said.
    IDF freezes implementation of report calling for gender equality - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

    Leave a comment:


  • John Drake
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Women serve extensively in all roles including combat in the Israeli Army. I've never really heard anyone complain of that Force's overall effectiveness, have you?

    And could you take that "us vs them we military are better" attitude back to Belize or Argentina where it fits in? It doesn't irritate Americans coz we forgive people strange peccadillos but we do have problems keeping the laughter down.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishjoel
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
    Turn the clock back 70 something years and replace "women" with "Blacks" and your statement was found false as it is now.

    There goes the neighborhood......
    No, this is not the same. They didn't lower the standards to allow blacks entry into the military. They did do that for females. They are held to one standards while men are held to another. I had a female PL that could score higher than me on a PT test, by the male standard, but once you loaded her up with body armor, a weapon, and a rucksack she was not able to keep up very well. It's not a knock against her, she was pretty damn tough. It's simple biology. The body mass and bone density just isn't there to support it. Even if you find that exception their bodies will be torn up over time pretty badly. Even most male bodies have permanent problems by the time they put in their time.

    Back to the OP, the real question is if they will do the same thing here that they did with the initial integration and lower the standards for women.
    Last edited by fishjoel; 09-01-2012, 09:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by Unique POV View Post
    Are you sure you are in Missouri and not Saudi Arabia?

    TODAYonline | World | Saudi Arabia to build new city for women workers

    I've never worked in a single gender environment in my 30 + working years. I've also never seen an issue that was caused by the sex of the people I work with. In my youth, when I had more physical jobs in auto repair and parts... I lifted and sweated just as much as the guys did unloading 500+ tire shipments and such . They never said... hey that's too heavy for you... go sit down while we do your job for you. I'm 45... just out of curiosity.... how old are you?
    I've got 20 years on you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wlessard
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by michael h View Post
    Men and women are physically different. Lives are on the line and any "weak" link effects the performance of the whole. If the woman is not an exceptional physical specimen, she has no business "replacing a man". That said a woman can kill effectively and I have no problem with them being trained to do so. My only objection being where it would jeopardize the effectiveness of the whole unit.
    There is a reason that there are physical requirements to be in the military for both women and men. I have known some men who seem to appear so weak that a gentle wind would blow them over. If they are in the military there is a good chance they are not that physically weak.

    Women are not that physically weak compared to the average man. Both genders always have standouts just watch a body building competition for women.

    Leave a comment:


  • RDK
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
    I have never met one that could meet the same physical standards as their male counterparts. Those that came close couldn't hang in a simulated combat environment.

    Out of curiosity, what would be a "fair" chance to you?
    It appears that your mind is already made up and closed to any new facts. There are women out there who can be just as physically strong and capable as any man.


    My arguments against women in combat roles is worlds apart from those used against gays and blacks.

    And yet you weren't with us. Its a different world actually serving in line units, let alone the Corps as a whole. Again, you were/are an outsider looking in.
    Your arguments are that they are not capable, having them would not be good for unit cohesion and that different standards would have to be applied for them to be able to compete. Same argument as was used for blacks, then women and gays.

    Yes I am an outsider looking in, but I am looking into a front line combat unit on the front lines of the war in Afghanistan.

    Your position is that the military is so special that they cannot be understood by anyone who is or was not in that particular branch of service.

    I have news for you, you are not that special.
    Last edited by RDK; 09-01-2012, 04:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Unique POV
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    If you put men and women together in any situation, you have endangered both. I worked at McDonalds when in college, it was all male employees. Along came NOW and the ERA and Mc Donalds was required to hire women. The entire professional atmosphere went to hell. It wasn't just the fact that there were women there. It was the men trying to impress or protect the women. It doesn't work.
    Are you sure you are in Missouri and not Saudi Arabia?

    TODAYonline | World | Saudi Arabia to build new city for women workers

    I've never worked in a single gender environment in my 30 + working years. I've also never seen an issue that was caused by the sex of the people I work with. In my youth, when I had more physical jobs in auto repair and parts... I lifted and sweated just as much as the guys did unloading 500+ tire shipments and such . They never said... hey that's too heavy for you... go sit down while we do your job for you. I'm 45... just out of curiosity.... how old are you?

    Leave a comment:


  • ThorHammer
    replied
    Re: My beloved Corps is dying a slow death....

    Originally posted by reality View Post
    Bullets and bombs don't have standards, and the enemy doesn't care that you're just as tough and gung-ho as a man if you can't run as fast with the same load because you are physically weaker and your quals were different than the rest of your unit's.
    That is a major sticking point for me. I have had the chance to serve in both line units and rear units. In those rear units we had females who had rock hard bodies (in all the right places too!) who had perfect PFTs (Physical Fitness Tests). Seriously, according to ever unit of measure the Marine Corps had for females, they were perfect. However the second you added any sort of weight to their bodies, such as a typical combat load, they were useless.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X