Jump to content

USMC Study on Females in the infantry


Recommended Posts

You went to the school, you're Ranger qualified. (Your words!) so because you're qualified (passed the course) you earn the tab which says Ranger.

I went to Airborne school, got the wings and wore the tab above the AA patch of the 82nd, but I was in the 82nd Combat Aviation Battalion which didn't jump much, but I was still considered Airborne.

That would be like saying you got through flight school but you're not a pilot.

Come on, are you even current or former military?

If not, listen to those of us who were or are!

Tim

I've known guys who went through Airborne School as well, and had the wings, but they were considered "Airborne Qualified" but not "Airborne". It's where you are assigned that matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think there is a place for women in the military if, and only if, they can meet the exact same physical standards as men for the job in question, but that raises another problem. Male Marines do not have different levels of basic physical requirements based on job description. Grunts, pencil-pushers, grease monkeys and pilots are all supposed to meet the same base standard, although a clerk is never going to have to run 500 meters under fire carrying his file cabinet. But even the base requirements are, frankly, going to be insurmountable for your average woman. So either you make everyone meet the base standard and have an incredibly small, but very rugged, group of women in the service or you have different standards for different occupational fields which would be incompatible with the Corps' "basic rifleman" philosophy.

That's not exactly true. There are different requirements between MOSs even though they might not be written into official policy. I did a 3-week Marine Combat Training course at the School of Infantry, which is a course for POGs. We limited our offensive training and concentrated on defensive and observational training. The furthest we hiked was 15k up Mount Motherfkkker with 90+ lbs of gear to begin three days field exercises. The grunts double that and add additional weight to the mix in the form of components from crew-served weapons. I will add that you can observe them because they leave a 100ft dust trail behind them because they seem to literally be running up the hills with all that crap. I think that females have less of a challenge training in North Carolina.

As far as the basic rifleman philosophy, even those standards deviate between MOSs. If you're not combat arms then you're granted a little more time on the timed shooting CQ test. Another thing to consider is that Army infantry spent more time mounted than the Marines.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/11/secnav-criticizes-marines-infantry-study-interview/72059308/

Female volunteers, except for a small "provisional infantry" group, were required to graduate from the Marines' entry-level enlisted infantry training course and specific combat job schools, if applicable. They also had to get at least a third-class score on the male version of the Marine Corps' Physical Fitness Test, requiring three pullups, 50 crunches in one minute, and a 3-mile run in 28 minutes.

Most people don't seem to realize that this doesn't even give you a passing score.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray Mabus never served one day in the military, so he doesn't know what it's like.

His position is great for getting votes for people who want to "make things equal, but not really equal", but as usual, ignore reality and biology.

Edited by Johnopfor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the deal:

Everyone who is pushing for this greater integration MUST attempt the 8 week course at the Marine Corps' School of Infantry. THEY shall be evaluated and have their results published as public record. Then, the public can choose to weigh their opinions based on this information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The military has integrated minorities, women, and homosexuals into the service, each time insisting that it would have dire effects on combat efficiency

I've seen a good man with combat experience have his career literally destroyed by false rape charges. When a guy with his experience gets a career ending counceling letter for something that he didn't do, it has an effect with combat efficiency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a simplification of this issue. Everytime there has been changed it hasn't exactly gone just perfect first of all and there were all kinds of race issues in the 1960s and 1970s. for example.

The other issue with women that you mention is that again, its "working" but at the cost of additional efforts, additional blood sweat and tears, inappropraite relationships, pregnancy, harassment etc. Its ground careers into dust, and continues to do so. And this is before we get into other issues like just basic preferential treatment. in order to make it work at a basic level we had to lower standards right off the bat.

I don't look at the last 20 years with women in the military as "success" its been a long painful process that cost us in ways most people don't even realize. Bascially military leaders are under constant pressure to make the square peg fit the round hole. Every prediction in the mid 1990s has come true. More work, less payoff

This is going to sound basic but what helps achieve the objective is a good thing, and what gets in the way is bad. Sexual harrassment briefs, Court martials, pregnancy, inappropriate relationships, and reams of paperwork do not help you kill the enemy and win wars. Sorry.

This is ARC, where a if a study found the F-35 was only 90 percent as effective at CAS as the A-10 there would be a riot since the A-10 saves the infantry, yet if we put in actual infantry with females that 70 percent or less as effective, we are fine with that. I don't get it. I told "ask any infantryman, they love the A-10" funny the survey question doesn't include women in the infantry.

If we thought of it in terms of weapon systems (which Infantry are) or athletes as Kevin appropriately mentions (which Infantry are) we have a case of system/player A vs System/player B.

System A is strong, faster, more resilient and has a higher pass rate and better accuracy with fewer injuries vs system B, which is not as strong, not as fast, less resilient has a lower pass rate and lower accuracy with a higher rate of injury (AKA downtime)

which do we pick Coach/Commander/Taxpayer?

The last little gripe that really russles my jimmies, is that we have har 14 years of heavy infantry combat, and rather than put woman in we expanded the serivices and constantly redeployed males. My point being this amazing equal untapped resource, remained untapped. But now we are winding down on combat (so I hear) and now this issue comes up again?

Where were all these voices in 2005? 2006? Why didn't we use these additional combat forces then? I can think of a 14 year experiment we could have run that is as realistic as it gets, yet we didn't.

Here is my issue, basically it comes down to military leadership is lazy. Doing the right thing is hard, time and time again they have chosen the easy way out until the civilian government that they work for says enough. Then it goes back to the whole well they don't "get it" they don't know how it is in the real world we work in and their soft civilian rules are going to get people killed.

Understand I'm referring to the culture of top management not the individual service members. There is example after example of playing the "readiness" card when they are asked to conform to modern life, whether it is properly disposing of hazardous materials or treating their service members like employees of a 1st world nation, not disposable factory workers of the 1890s.

You've responded before that raising the standards for women to that of men would practically eliminate women from military service, you have also said that having standards for combat troops and non-combat troops is not an option.

Either seems to be workable to me. If it excludes a large number of women from service is that really a bad thing? We already exclude many men of small stature or with certain physical disabilities who would be able to meet the lowered women's standards.

If they adopted a combat arms standard and a non-combat arms standard again you would open up the opportunities, women who could meet the higher standard would no longer be second class members of the organization, and the services would gain more potential recruits into non-combat operations. Does it really matter if a drone pilot weighs 300lbs, or has no legs. Does it really matter if an intelligence analyst has a brilliant mind for cryptography but also has bad asthma?

I'm sorry but the race issues and gender issues are tough, deal with it. We expect these people to go into a country and kill the soldiers while protecting the civilian population. Do you really think that will happen in a force that can't keep its members from harassing its own members based on race, gender and orientation? The military can't keep its service members from raping other service members in peacetime and I'm supposed to believe that if they didn't have women serving that they would be able to prevent these people from raping the population at large during military operations?

This is the 21st century, having a "break glass in case of emergency" force is no longer an option. We expect the military to be a professional, controlled force able to discriminate between friend, foe and non-combatant. The days of harassing the local population and acceptable collateral damage are over. If the current organization is unwilling or unable to meet these standards then perhaps there is a need for a major overhaul and re-organization.

Don't blame the guys on the ground, it all stems from a leadership that chooses to look the other way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider is that Army infantry spent more time mounted than the Marines.

Other way around. However, the Army is much larger which allows for light (leg, airborne, air assault), heavy, and stryker brigades. Honestly, the differences between the two are not as great as most would like to believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other way around. However, the Army is much larger which allows for light (leg, airborne, air assault), heavy, and stryker brigades. Honestly, the differences between the two are not as great as most would like to believe.

I don't believe that a bit. In the GWOT the Army conducted a huge chunk of their operations mounted whereas the Marines sealed off the channels of retreat and dismounted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not exactly true. There are different requirements between MOSs even though they might not be written into official policy. I did a 3-week Marine Combat Training course at the School of Infantry, which is a course for POGs. We limited our offensive training and concentrated on defensive and observational training. The furthest we hiked was 15k up Mount Motherfkkker with 90+ lbs of gear to begin three days field exercises. The grunts double that and add additional weight to the mix in the form of components from crew-served weapons. I will add that you can observe them because they leave a 100ft dust trail behind them because they seem to literally be running up the hills with all that crap. I think that females have less of a challenge training in North Carolina.

As far as the basic rifleman philosophy, even those standards deviate between MOSs. If you're not combat arms then you're granted a little more time on the timed shooting CQ test. Another thing to consider is that Army infantry spent more time mounted than the Marines.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/11/secnav-criticizes-marines-infantry-study-interview/72059308/

Female volunteers, except for a small "provisional infantry" group, were required to graduate from the Marines' entry-level enlisted infantry training course and specific combat job schools, if applicable. They also had to get at least a third-class score on the male version of the Marine Corps' Physical Fitness Test, requiring three pullups, 50 crunches in one minute, and a 3-mile run in 28 minutes.

Most people don't seem to realize that this doesn't even give you a passing score.

How do you figure Marines spend less time mounted. Yes the Army has Armored and Stryker Brigades, but we also have 10th Mountain, 101st, and of course the 82nd Airborne. That's three full divisions of light infantry with 3 brigades each, plus a IBCT in both 3rd and 4th Infantry Divisions, plus another IBCT in 25th ID, plus an Airborne BCT in 25th ID. We also have the 173rd Airborne. That's 14 Brigades of light infantry, about double the number of brigades of the entire USMC. Nearly everyone, Army and Marines, has been motorized in Iraq and Afghanistan, but structure is still light infantry. In Afghanistan the Army had RC-East which involved a lot of dismounted maneuver in really rough terrain, while the Marines were in RC-South where terrain allowed mounted maneuver. In Iraq nobody was doing long dismounted maneuver especially in what was largely an urban fight.

Edited by nspreitler
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that a bit. In the GWOT the Army conducted a huge chunk of their operations mounted whereas the Marines sealed off the channels of retreat and dismounted.

You can believe anything you want. However, when you make a claim that makes no sense....it's easy pickins. The statement "sealed off the channels of retreat and dismounted". What are you talking about? Time and space for context. The dismounted/mounted line is and has been blurred for quite sometime. How that is relevant for folks today is with the platforms the military is investing in and how we see ourselves conducting future operations. Plenty is written about it if you wanted to take the time and get smart on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that a bit. In the GWOT the Army conducted a huge chunk of their operations mounted whereas the Marines sealed off the channels of retreat and dismounted.

You'll like this movie, lots of Army grunts driving around in trucks, undoubtedly pushing the Taliban towards the dismounted Marines.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my issue, basically it comes down to military leadership is lazy. Doing the right thing is hard, time and time again they have chosen the easy way out until the civilian government that they work for says enough. Then it goes back to the whole well they don't "get it" they don't know how it is in the real world we work in and their soft civilian rules are going to get people killed.

The right thing in this case is keeping combat unit cohesive and combat ready and yes, integration will get people killed. I promise. Its also going to lead to more injuries for the females, this is a statistical fact. So it will get people hurt. I promise.

Understand I'm referring to the culture of top management not the individual service members. There is example after example of playing the "readiness" card when they are asked to conform to modern life, whether it is properly disposing of hazardous materials or treating their service members like employees of a 1st world nation, not disposable factory workers of the 1890s.

The individual service members are much like me, and although its a straw poll here, you can see that people who have actually served (and in ground combat units) are pretty steadfast in their opinion. Its not just a leadership issue. Not by a long shot. and i don't think its hard to say its a simple issue of biology. It won't be "leadership" that is handling the additional burden. It will be people like me.

You've responded before that raising the standards for women to that of men would practically eliminate women from military service, you have also said that having standards for combat troops and non-combat troops is not an option.

Yes, still true.

Either seems to be workable to me. If it excludes a large number of women from service is that really a bad thing? We already exclude many men of small stature or with certain physical disabilities who would be able to meet the lowered women's standards.

If they adopted a combat arms standard and a non-combat arms standard again you would open up the opportunities, women who could meet the higher standard would no longer be second class members of the organization, and the services would gain more potential recruits into non-combat operations. Does it really matter if a drone pilot weighs 300lbs, or has no legs. Does it really matter if an intelligence analyst has a brilliant mind for cryptography but also has bad asthma?

To the military? yes it does matter. Moreover here is the bottom line, and again its not easy for civilians to get this. Even if females meet the "minimal standard" they are still going to be at the bottom of the barrel. Its been pointed out for example that USMC officers have to pretty much meet a 1st class PFT. If you don't promotion is bye bye. So actually creating equal standards, even if a woman were to meet them (minimum being 3 pull ups for example) the average male officer is turning out at least 15. Even females have pointed out that making them conform to male standards would doom them promotion wise. Woman are actually getting promoted at a faster rate than males, and this is without having to serve in combat units or conforming to the male PFT standard.

The minumum is a minumum in a competitive environment it will get you through the door and thats about it

The military has all these wacky ideas about a single standard and uniformity. I've tried talking to them about it, but damned if they don't listen.

I'm sorry but the race issues and gender issues are tough, deal with it.

The military has been struggling to deal with it. with some seriously poor results to show for it. Its dismissive to say "oh its tough? sorry" ITs a hard enough job already.

We expect these people to go into a country and kill the soldiers while protecting the civilian population. Do you really think that will happen in a force that can't keep its members from harassing its own members based on race, gender and orientation? The military can't keep its service members from raping other service members in peacetime and I'm supposed to believe that if they didn't have women serving that they would be able to prevent these people from raping the population at large during military operations?

Lock a bunch of 19 year olds in close proximity in high stress for months with little outside contact and watch what happens. It aint a bold prediction. Bonus points if you create a bunch of rules to keep them apart, thats like an aphrodisiac

This is the 21st century, having a "break glass in case of emergency" force is no longer an option. We expect the military to be a professional, controlled force able to discriminate between friend, foe and non-combatant. The days of harassing the local population and acceptable collateral damage are over. If the current organization is unwilling or unable to meet these standards then perhaps there is a need for a major overhaul and re-organization.

Sure, what could go wrong? Purge them of all the non believers who chose to believe in biology. The first test should be "can a man get pregnant?" any answer other than yes, shows a lack of faith in equality.

Don't blame the guys on the ground, it all stems from a leadership that chooses to look the other way.

I'm a guy on the ground, i am the problem. I don't want women in combat arms. The problem stems from "leadership" not understanding my job and forcing me to take substandard personnel, and their whole solution to the myriad issues is to shrug it off and say "make it work"

Basically we will work more, spend more, and arrive at a lesser standard. We understand high attrition and expense to get say a Navy SEAL-- But going to all that trouble to get a female who won't last 6 months before having to be medically discharged and on VA disability for the rest of her days? All in the interest of getting warm fuzzies to say that we did it to produce a barely passable infantryperson? To what end? Even if females could be brought up to male standards but it cost twice as much and took twice as long it's a poor investment in tax dollars in budgets thay ar continually decreasing. Where is that money going to come from? How is the medical infrastructure going to have to change to accomadate the higher rate of injury? We will have to have additonal corpsman? Where does that money come from? We end up cutting other areas is the answer. Less training. Less ammo to practice with etc.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting..

I really didn't see any posts that ventured into the realm of misogyny, just some reservations about whether women are capable of performing a very physically demanding job in conditions that are absolutely unique compared to any other military specialty or civilian profession (and please don't use police, fire-fighters, EMT's or similar civilian jobs as proof that women can function as infantry, it's not even close).

I don't think women would be able to function as a defensive lineman in the NFL. Does that make me a misogynist?

Yes. You probaby think that sports should be divided between male and female too. Pig. Did you know the patriots QB is female? Don't you feel silly

Why havnt we integrated the olmpics yet? Or boxing or MMA? Why aren't the ladies competing in pommel horse and rings again? All things being equal and all surely thr woman competing against men will result in a rain of gold medals? Why the segregation?

I think it's highly odd that we havnt had women and men compete in sports because duh, it wouldn't be fair. But a battlefield will be fair? Suddenly everything we know about sports, fitness, biology, physiology goes out the window when we put on camouflage?

The army actually approached this subject in thr 1990s with Th3 idea of "how can we make this work?" And they never found a solution. They concluded that women would need additional training in large doses for a small number to even meet minumum male standards even then that was barely passing.

I work in The fitness world. If you can find a way to make a female equal a male physically under equal competition, there is a helluva lot of money in it for you. Not to mention revolutionizing multiple scientific disciplines.

The other frustrating issue with this is we don't see people shouting equality when a male fails to meet a standard. Where are all the weak men advocates? When private shmuckatelli gets discharged for failing a run again where are all the bleeding hearts calling for equality? Especially when old shmuckatelli would fall into the standards set for a female? Can someone explain that?

Let's say the run has a cutoff of 26 minutes for males, 28 minutes for females and poor old shmuckatelli comes in at 26:30, but a female crosses the finish line at 27:30, we send shmuckatelli packing but not the lady?? A full minute less is acceptable, but shmuckatelli missing it by 30 seconds is no go?

How about the vast amounts of special forces hopefuls thay fall short year after year? No equality talk for the elite units that purge the majority of hopefuls?

It's not that combat arms doesn't send plenty of males packing too when they fail to meet standards. In 1999 I met a soldier who missed a chance at ranger school, his boyhood dream by a single push up. Sorry kid standards are standards and we don't budge*

*exemption for females.

The only way to make things "equal" is to make them not equal. We know a female can't match a male for upper body strength, so make things "equal" by making unequal standards. Very Orwellian, it makes me feel double plus ungood

It's different from racial segregation, you had men that could do it, but the institution prevented it. In this case women can't do it and the institution allows it, by adapting the standards to allow them entry.

it was clear even to racists that minorities could do the job in real life circumstances. Places like frozen chosen, it was clear it could be done, tuskegee airmansame thing. The japanese division in europe etc. We have 20 years of woman serving in earnest, and 14 years of combat, and guess what?

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

TT - the report you referenced was bogus. The guys in the field didn't have the right "mindset".

“It started out with a fairly large component of the men thinking ‘this is not a good idea,’ and ‘women will never be able to do this,” Mabus said in the Friday interview with NPR. “When you start out with that mindset, you’re almost presupposing the outcome.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/14/navy-secretary-threw-us-under-the-bus-say-marines-in-gender-integrated-infantry-unit/

I consider myself pretty open-minded on this issue but this a**clown appears to have already made his mind up. Why bother with the field experiment and the study, could have save a lot of money / ammo and just made the call to open up all fields to women. Now with this study being written off, more money will be spent on another study and another and another until the SECNAV gets the results he wants.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

“It started out with a fairly large component of the men thinking ‘this is not a good idea,’ and ‘women will never be able to do this,” Mabus said in the Friday interview with NPR. “When you start out with that mindset, you’re almost presupposing the outcome.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/14/navy-secretary-threw-us-under-the-bus-say-marines-in-gender-integrated-infantry-unit/

So all it took was doubt in the mind of males to emotionally crush the women into under performing?

Shouldn't the story end with initially skeptical males being shown they are wrong by the determined group of females out to prove they can hack it?

No? OK blame the men I guess

Agree with you on the rest too John

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so's we don't have a sudden lockdown event, let's go over a couple things I expect posters to keep in mind on this, or any topic in ARC:

1-Anyone is allowed to comment, regardless of where they worked or whether or not if they've served in a military, police, or any other similar organization. Sometimes people from the outside might have a different perspective on thing. It doesn't mean they are automatically wrong OR right.

2-I expect people to keep things respectful. As soon as it slides into insults, then things start to disappear/get locked.

3-Don't egg on the lock happy ops with comments aboot "In before the lock". I've got an itchy lock trigger finger as it is, don't get it a quiverin' with excitement sports fans.

We now return you to your briefly interrupted thread

Alvis 3.1

ARC Moderation Team Generic "Article Adjective Adverb".

Link to post
Share on other sites

THere have been studies that have shown women do better in close quarter environments than men... IE submarines specifically. The sexes are just very different. Women can do some things far better than men and vice versa... You cant deny that men and woemn are just wired differently... Isreal have used women in infantry and special forces for a long time with good results... But I think the US military takes a misogynistic approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THere have been studies that have shown women do better in close quarter environments than men... IE submarines specifically. The sexes are just very different. Women can do some things far better than men and vice versa... You cant deny that men and woemn are just wired differently... Isreal have used women in infantry and special forces for a long time with good results... But I think the US military takes a misogynistic approach.

Funny, I believe the US military was one of first services to permit women to fly into combat (and I think to fly in general). Also one of the first to permit them to serve on fighting vessels. But hey, if you want to write off the US military as misogynistic, have at it.

Also, I believe that the Israeli units that have women assigned are not regular "line" infantry. They are either border patrol / internal security or similar specialized forces. Last I heard, there are no women serving in regular grunt units. The pics of all those cute Israeli tankers are nice but note that those women are only allowed to serve in training units. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the Israeli special ops units that have women assigned are not direct action "door kicker" units but more like covert Mossad units where women are used for undercover work (which they also do for US special ops forces).

Bottom line is that Israel has a great deal of combat experience and they have opted NOT to put women into true combat arms units. I'm not even certain that Israel even allows women to fly into combat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The general public doesn't realize how much combat women have and may see in other jobs... pilots, motor t, MPs, etc

Anyways, I think even many of the advocates of women in the combat arms are beginning to come around on this. Even the Young Turks (very left leaning) acknowledge that they can't keep up with the extreme workload (I'm not an infantryman but it IS extreme in my opinion) without male help. I don't see this going much further in the public's mind, but I'm usually wrong about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THere have been studies that have shown women do better in close quarter environments than men... IE submarines specifically. The sexes are just very different. Women can do some things far better than men and vice versa... You cant deny that men and woemn are just wired differently... Isreal have used women in infantry and special forces for a long time with good results... But I think the US military takes a misogynistic approach.

Better in close quarters environments than men? Lol yes that's been my experience with women... better how?

I find this misogynist quip really offensive first off.the US has had women in the military for decades and what they are and aren't capable of is pretty well known at this point.

Secondly, earlier in the thread Israel came up. 11bee covered it again. Please note that Israel also took women and put them in certain unit's while leaving them out of others. Much sexist/mysogenist?

This is the key argument in thr mysogeny vs equality issues though.

We are told that women are equal to men in military matters and that is that. OTOH we are told women are different and better in some areas than men and vice versa.

Implying women aren't equal makes you a sexist, implying women have certain specialty in certain areas and not others makes you a mysogenist.

They are totes equal to men big badasses but so help me if you make one remark deemed inappropriate it's career ending as they are more emotionally delicate and all. Its the warrior princess syndrome.

The problem is simply that the military took an objective look about how to make it work way back when and it was dismissed outright, because that would imply they are not as capable not as equal and require more consideration.

We are told left and right they are equal yet double standards are created and enforced all over the military. So they are equal, but have different standards?

Ok komrade, the wheat harvest is coming in well.

If they are equal, make the PT Standard equal. No idea why they are getting this sexist/mysogenist double standard. Clearly the military holding the ladies back right?

The key issue is whether we want to keep pretending they are equal, or whether we want to say they are not acknowledge they are not equal, and then put them in units and missions that highlight their strengths. What you don't get is to play it both ways.

Instead we keep trying to convince ourselves that F-22s and A-10s are equal and interchangeable. Equality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so's we don't have a sudden lockdown event, let's go over a couple things I expect posters to keep in mind on this, or any topic in ARC:

1-Anyone is allowed to comment, regardless of where they worked or whether or not if they've served in a military, police, or any other similar organization. Sometimes people from the outside might have a different perspective on thing. It doesn't mean they are automatically wrong OR right.

2-I expect people to keep things respectful. As soon as it slides into insults, then things start to disappear/get locked.

3-Don't egg on the lock happy ops with comments aboot "In before the lock". I've got an itchy lock trigger finger as it is, don't get it a quiverin' with excitement sports fans.

We now return you to your briefly interrupted thread

Alvis 3.1

ARC Moderation Team Generic "Article Adjective Adverb".

LochNessUrquhart_zpsabwrzhms.jpg

In before the Loch?

Regards,

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites

Implying women aren't equal makes you a sexist, implying women have certain specialty in certain areas and not others makes you a mysogenist.

It seems like that, but I argue that remaining fully aware of these differences actually helps us in all sorts of relationships! I go to a very liberal school, hell I'm a very liberal guy, but I love opening the door for ladies and offering my female teachers a hand when they might need it, especially the hot ones.

TBH, I really don't see this issue remaining for long. The military's done its part and most of us realize the overall experience is doomed to fail as long as we demand equal standards. The general public is so ignorant of military matters that they have no business blabbing on about it. Don't they realize that many active males don't even make it through? It takes MUCH more than being a good shot to make it. It's like a super serious team sport with no room for error. /rant off

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...