Women Not Meeting Minimum Marine Corp Fitness Standards DU Rad Fems Chime In

[DumbAss Tanker]

May be the first DUer I actually believe was in the military, other than calling a HMMWV a HMMVEE, but with so many people ****ing up acronyms, it's common. I can't attest to the Marine's pushup strength. Keep in mind, he's comparing combat arms Army guys with Marines, not your average Army guy/gal.

Yeah, what this one says rings pretty true, I think he's a real vet and has at least some kind of experience with real tanks.  Therefore probably an incautious mole, but certainly chum for the feminazis even if he is a legit Democrat.

[seahorse513]

First off, no way in hell she ever did them.  Ever.  Second, any woman who could do more than 1-2 would never let themselves go to the point they look like The Penguin.

Isn't the pole like over 6 feet high??

[GOBUCKS]

Response to eShirl (Reply #3)
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:21 AM
nadinbrzezinski (128,649 posts)
16. Correct

In my 20s I did them, regularly. I worked EMS. I had to work those muscles. These days I would not try, not before significant upper body training that is.

nadin could do dozens of pull ups in her 20s.

Many may not have seen a photo of nutcase nadin in her 20s:

[JohnnyReb]

Here's an article about the WMs and their PT test.

http://news.msn.com/us/marines-delay-female-fitness-plan-after-half-fail

[longview]

Dad gum it!  Don't cut the chicas any slack.  They can either do the job or they can't.  Ugh.  Makes me sick.

[JohnnyReb]

Doing her would be as close to being queer as I would ever get.

On second thought, if she's a transsexual....forget it.

[txradioguy]

As long as they are approved for combat they damn well better be eligible for Selective Service.

I agree.  And I'd add that as long as they are approved for combat MOS'...they need to do away with separate male and female standards for the PT test.

[AprilRazz]

As a woman that has actually served in the military (not just married to it), I can say that in my opinion, women have no place in ground combat. Our enemy will see them as more of a target (and we all know how they treat their own women) and it will needlessly endanger the lives of the men with them. Corpsman and medics have stopped wearing identifying symbols (red cross on helmet or arm) for the same reason. The Marines are protective of their Corpsman because he is the one person they hope will bring them back alive if they are injured. But the enemy knows it as well and would take them out the first chance they got.
Same with women. You drill it into men's heads all you want but you will never change human nature. For millions of years the women have relied on men for protection, men will protect them as it is nature and no amount of power point training will change that.

[obumazombie]

I Think the original designation of the Humvee was HMMWV. High Mobility Multi Wheel Vehicle. That's how I recall it.

[dane]

No ,No, No, to each as their ability.

All military needs to place people in a category of ability.   Be it mental, physical, and with the possibility that those placed can change over time.

Woman that want to go into combat have to realize they have a body structure far different from the Males.   The males strength is in the upper torso, woman have their strength in the hips and thighs.   A male can carry a 50 pound back pack but a woman needs the weight on her hips.

Until the military finds a way for the female combat solders to pee standing up, lug 80 pounds on their back as the men do,    then I worry about our women that just need a bit of help to with technology to get a chance to come anywhere close to the males.

Unless I misunderstood the wording in the 'protect against all enemies, foreign....' and so on, this implies that everyone EVERYONE faces the possibility of combat.  Surely you do not suggest that someone be disallowed if conditions require them to engage by using the disclaimer "Oh, I cannot do that!  I am a cook (baker, quartermaster, signalman, truck driver, whatever). 

Years ago I had a young man working for me who was dismayed because he was on a ship, in the Navy.  He said he had not expected to be on a ship.  I asked him had he never seen a war movie with ships, or a Navy recruiting poster?

[DefiantSix]

Unless I misunderstood the wording in the 'protect against all enemies, foreign....' and so on, this implies that everyone EVERYONE faces the possibility of combat.  Surely you do not suggest that someone be disallowed if conditions require them to engage by using the disclaimer "Oh, I cannot do that!  I am a cook (baker, quartermaster, signalman, truck driver, whatever). 

Years ago I had a young man working for me who was dismayed because he was on a ship, in the Navy.  He said he had not expected to be on a ship.  I asked him had he never seen a war movie with ships, or a Navy recruiting poster?

 

[seahorse513]

Unless I misunderstood the wording in the 'protect against all enemies, foreign....' and so on, this implies that everyone EVERYONE faces the possibility of combat.  Surely you do not suggest that someone be disallowed if conditions require them to engage by using the disclaimer "Oh, I cannot do that!  I am a cook (baker, quartermaster, signalman, truck driver, whatever). 

Years ago I had a young man working for me who was dismayed because he was on a ship, in the Navy.  He said he had not expected to be on a ship.  I asked him had he never seen a war movie with ships, or a Navy recruiting poster?

Physically, I might not be able to do combat, but If I had to drag a wounded soldier out of harm's way, then I would, If I could not drag him, I would stay with him/her till the end... nobody should die alone...

[DefiantSix]

Physically, I might not be able to do combat, but If I had to drag a wounded soldier out of harm's way, then I would, If I could not drag him, I would stay with him/her till the end... nobody should die alone...

Unfortunately, "not dying alone" is not the standard.

"Mission first, then the men/women", and "leave no one behind", are the standard.

[seahorse513]

Unfortunately, "not dying alone" is not the standard.

"Mission first, then the men/women", and "leave no one behind", are the standard.

And I understand that the mission comes first, but even the bravest soldier should have the comfort of company in his last dying breaths.

[DefiantSix]

And I understand that the mission comes first, but even the bravest soldier should have the comfort of company in his last dying breaths.

That dying soldier put his butt on the chopping block to complete the mission he and his teammates were assigned. If you're stopping in the midst of a firefight to hold the guy's hand, instead of doing your job so that everybody else on the team can get home alive, is that dying man going to be grateful to you, or offended that you're wasting the sacrifice he's made and letting the team down?

[wasp69]

Physically, I might not be able to do combat, but If I had to drag a wounded soldier out of harm's way, then I would, If I could not drag him, I would stay with him/her till the end... nobody should die alone...

You've seen too many movies.

[seahorse513]

That dying soldier put his butt on the chopping block to complete the mission he and his teammates were assigned. If you're stopping in the midst of a firefight to hold the guy's hand, instead of doing your job so that everybody else on the team can get home alive, is that dying man going to be grateful to you, or offended that you're wasting the sacrifice he's made and letting the team down?

So he would want me to leave him to die in the trenches, even after the mission was completed? That seems kinda cold...

[dane]

Physically, I might not be able to do combat, but If I had to drag a wounded soldier out of harm's way, then I would, If I could not drag him, I would stay with him/her till the end... nobody should die alone...

If one can truthfully say this, one should not be involved in combat - or in any of the armed forces, since every single member has the potential to be in combat.

[DefiantSix]

So he would want me to leave him to die in the trenches, even after the mission was completed? That seems kinda cold...

No. He would want you to do your job, protect the rest of the team, and complete the mission. Then - when doing so doesn't put the rest of the team at risk and jeopardize the success of the mission - live up to the second part of the standard I mentioned above: "Leave no man behind".   

[DumbAss Tanker]

Sea, the basic paradigm of military leadership is this:
1.  Mission first
2.  Subordinates and peers second
3.  Yourself third.

Just about everything that goes wrong in an operation can be traced back to a failure at some level to follow this, except for instances where the mission itself was stupidly impossible for reasons either unknown or unconsidered.

[wasp69]

So he would want me to leave him to die in the trenches, even after the mission was completed? That seems kinda cold...

What he wants is irrelevant to killing bad guys and breaking their stuff.  That's the focus, not the individual.

[BlueStateSaint]

So he would want me to leave him to die in the trenches, even after the mission was completed? That seems kinda cold...

Sea, take a look at this link, and read some of the stories.  These servicemen were interested in the mission, the mission, and the mission.  Period.

http://www.history.army.mil/moh/index.html

[jtyangel]

You've seen too many movies.

I have to agree with wasp and others here on this seahorse. You are a sweetie, but you are kinda proving another variation on why women are not fit for combat. While it is in the male nature to protect female, it is also in the female nature to be nurturers. That nature when the both are together in this situation can distract from what they are all their to do.

I think you are emotionalizing the reality of what those men(and yes women) are there to do and it really isn't to offer comfort to one another if it will jeopardize or interfere with the mission they are there to accomplish.

[AprilRazz]

So he would want me to leave him to die in the trenches, even after the mission was completed? That seems kinda cold...

As a former Corpsman I can tell you this. We will do everything we can to get you out of harms way and to a place where medical care can be provided off the battlefield. But our priority is for those that can be saved. If you are wounded to the point that your death is imminent then we will do what is in our power to make you comfortable (morphine and the like) but you are now not a priority. It is the same in the civilian world to a point as well. But we will do everything we can to get you out. But I will not put mine or any of my Corpsmen or Marines lives in danger to remove your body or stay with you while you pass on. As it has been said "War is hell" and there are sacrifices that have to be made. While you may have died with nobody holding your hand you will be honored for the sacrifice you made and any service member will tell you that you are never alone.

[NHSparky]

Sea--simply put, you staying with a mortally wounded buddy is nice in theory, but in battle, EVERY BODY COUNTS.  If you aren't helping achieve the mission, you're an impediment.  And if I can't trust you to do the mission, pretty please with sugar on top, GTFO.