Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,783 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
USMC Commandant Gen. Dunford tells the Secretary of the Navy that women Marines shouldn't be in combat roles (or integrated into infantry units) - a week before Dunford is to take over as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs........wow. I can only imagine that Gen. Dunford was pressured by this administration to show how well women integrated in infantry units, but instead spoke the truth......

Whether you think women should or shouldn't be in combat roles - this Irishman has a brass set the size of bowling balls.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The commandant of the Marine Corps has recommended that women be excluded from competing for certain front-line combat jobs, U.S. officials said Friday, as the Corps distanced itself from the other military services that are expected to allow women to serve in battlefield posts.

Officials said Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford submitted his recommendation to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus on Thursday. Mabus has made it clear he opposes the proposal from and recommended that women be allowed to compete for any Navy or Marine Corps combat jobs.

The developments have raised questions about whether Mabus can veto the Marine Corps proposal to prohibit women from serving in certain infantry and reconnaissance positions. And it puts Dunford, who takes over next week as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the position of defending an exclusion in his own service that the Army, Navy, Air Force and U.S. Special Operations Command have suggested isn't warranted in theirs.

Officials said Defense Secretary Ash Carter is aware of the dispute and intends to review the Marine plan. The Marine Corps is part of the Navy, so Mabus is secretary of both services.

U.S. officials said they didn't know the details of Dunford's report, but suggested that the Marine Corps believes that mixed-gender units are not as capable as all-male units. So they concluded that allowing women to compete would make the Marine Corps a less efficient fighting machine.

The Marines in the past week have been publicly and privately laying the groundwork for the Corps to maintain the current rule that excludes women from infantry and some ground combat jobs.

The debate has triggered a call for Mabus' resignation from a member of Congress who served in the Marines.

Officials say the Army, Navy and Air Force are expected to allow women to serve in all combat jobs and will not ask Carter for any exceptions. They say that Special Operations Command is also likely to allow women to compete for the most demanding military commando jobs - including the Navy SEALs - though with the knowledge that it may be years before women even try to enter those fields.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Mabus on Monday made his position clear.

"I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines, and it's not going to make them any less fighting-effective," he said, adding that the Navy SEALs also will not seek any waivers. "I think they will be a stronger force because a more diverse force is a stronger force. And it will not make them any less lethal."

Mabus' comments angered Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who has asked Carter in a letter to demand Mabus' resignation because he "openly disrespected the Marine Corps as an institution, and he insulted the competency of Marines by disregarding their professional judgment, their combat experience and their quality of leadership."

Hunter, who served as a Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Mabus' comments raise questions about whether he can be objective and continue to lead the Marine Corps. He said Mabus should have no role in decisions about women in the Marine Corps.

Under the current process, the service chiefs present their plans to the service secretaries, who will then forward recommendations to Carter. He will make the final decisions by the end of the year.

If Dunford does seek the exception, it puts the new Joint Chiefs chairman at odds with public statements by Carter asserting that anyone, regardless of gender, who meets the standards and requirements for a job should be allowed to do it.

Informing Dunford's decision is the Marine Corps' yearlong study on gender integration. It concluded that, overall, male-only units performed better than gender-integrated units. It found that the male-only infantry units shot more accurately, could carry more weight and move more quickly through specific tactical movements. It also concluded that women had higher injury rates than men, including stress fractures that likely resulted from carrying heavy loads.

The report acknowledged that "female Marines have performed superbly in the combat environments of Iraq and Afghanistan and are fully part of the fabric of a combat-hardened Marine Corps after the longest period of continuous combat operations in the Corps' history."

Mabus, however, told the City Club of Cleveland that while the Marines did a long study of the matter, it relied on averages - such as the average woman can't carry as much or perform as quickly as a man.

"The other way to look at it is we're not looking for average," said Mabus. "There were women that met this standard, and a lot of the things there that women fell a little short in can be remedied by two things: training and leadership."

Women make up less than 8 percent of the Marine Corps, the smallest percentage across the four active-duty services.

The services have been slowly integrating women into previously male-only roles, including as Army artillery officers and sailors on Navy submarines. Adding to the debate was the groundbreaking graduation last month of two women in the Army's grueling Ranger course.

In January 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed an order wiping away generations of limits on women fighting for their country, ordering a quarter-million positions open regardless of gender. They called for sweeping reviews of the physical requirements for combat jobs and gave the military services until January 2016 to argue if any positions should remain closed to women.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,288 Posts
Being an 03 isn't for all men, let alone that they want to integrate between men and women.
 

·
I'm a Michigander now.
Joined
·
5,119 Posts
I don't understand why these people can't wrap their friggin heads around this concept.

Consider at the average male vs. the average female.

Men are larger and evolutionarily predisposed to performing more work. Our muscular system differences are the simplest indicator. An all male unit can spread load the weight to be carried evenly. An integrated unit has two choices. Spread load evenly and then deal with a fatigued female prior to the rest of the team, or reduce the females load and fatigue the rest of the team sooner than the all male unit.

This is not a gender issue. This is a capability issue. There are some really motivated women out there, but heart and dedication can not make up the difference of physical limitations. If they can perform on equal footing, then why aren't there any women competing for the title Mr. Universe? Simple. The biggest female can not get as big or as strong as the biggest male.

And the point here is while there are some women that will perform equally to their male counterparts, the fact is that most women cannot when pushed to the absolute breaking point. And we shouldn't put the lives of forward operators in jeopardy because a few women can do the job.

It's tough to say this without sounding like a shovanistic (sp?) pig, but anatomy and physiology are the limiting factors here. Not shovanism.
 

·
Grand Poobah
Joined
·
21,090 Posts
I don't understand why these people can't wrap their friggin heads around this concept.

Consider at the average male vs. the average female.

Men are larger and evolutionarily predisposed to performing more work. Our muscular system differences are the simplest indicator. An all male unit can spread load the weight to be carried evenly. An integrated unit has two choices. Spread load evenly and then deal with a fatigued female prior to the rest of the team, or reduce the females load and fatigue the rest of the team sooner than the all male unit.

This is not a gender issue. This is a capability issue. There are some really motivated women out there, but heart and dedication can not make up the difference of physical limitations. If they can perform on equal footing, then why aren't there any women competing for the title Mr. Universe? Simple. The biggest female can not get as big or as strong as the biggest male.

And the point here is while there are some women that will perform equally to their male counterparts, the fact is that most women cannot when pushed to the absolute breaking point. And we shouldn't put the lives of forward operators in jeopardy because a few women can do the job.

It's tough to say this without sounding like a shovanistic (sp?) pig, but anatomy and physiology are the limiting factors here. Not shovanism.
Chauvinism

To answer your question, they can't wrap their heads around facts. Only feelings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
in another thread I posted how during OBC at Fort Sill, I had to replace a skinny classmate to load the 155 after having done my own long shift at number one doing the same. this skinny guy could probably lap me during the APFT, but he was frigging useless in any artillery role requiring strength. I have known many women that could outlift him. Maybe those amazons could/should have been Marines, lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,237 Posts
PC should stay in the computer world where it belongs and out of the military. Unfortunately, the evolution of our species has gone as such that the strongest women in any given unit could not bench press the same amount as the weakest man in the unit. That doesn't make men who point out this fact sexist. It makes them a realist. And if there's anything the PC police hate more than white cops, it's reality.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,853 Posts
I'll never understand these bra burning, modern-day Helen Gurley Brown-type women who feel the need to "prove" themselves with nonsense like this. It's right up there with lowering the standards to become a fireman. Would I choose the male firefighter over the female firefighter to carry me down a ladder from the 9th floor with smoke and flames shooting all over the place? And I'm only 112 or so lbs. Imagine if I was 200+? Yes, I believe I would choose the male.

I say let the men do the "heavy lifting", so to speak, and let the women contribute to whatever arm of the military they choose by giving 150%, just like the men, in a job they can mentally and PHYSICALLY handle. Putting the men's lives as well as their own on the line just to say "Look!!! I'm a chick and I'm allowed to be on the front line with a pile of equipment that weighs almost as much as me!!" is nothing short of narcissistic as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I'm sure there are a few that would be able to handle it but let's leave well enough alone without finding out the hard way that the very idea was a bad one from the start.

Sheesh. It's just plain common sense.

The man made the right choice imho. Good for him. rant over
 

·
moved to greener pastures
Joined
·
10,824 Posts
I'll never understand these bra burning, modern-day Helen Gurley Brown-type women who feel the need to "prove" themselves with nonsense like this. It's right up there with lowering the standards to become a fireman. Would I choose the male firefighter over the female firefighter to carry me down a ladder from the 9th floor with smoke and flames shooting all over the place? And I'm only 112 or so lbs. Imagine if I was 200+? Yes, I believe I would choose the male.

I say let the men do the "heavy lifting", so to speak, and let the women contribute to whatever arm of the military they choose by giving 150%, just like the men, in a job they can mentally and PHYSICALLY handle. Putting the men's lives as well as their own on the line just to say "Look!!! I'm a chick and I'm allowed to be on the front line with a pile of equipment that weighs almost as much as me!!" is nothing short of narcissistic as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I'm sure there are a few that would be able to handle it but let's leave well enough alone without finding out the hard way that the very idea was a bad one from the start.

Sheesh. It's just plain common sense.

The man made the right choice imho. Good for him. rant over
The only thing I got out of that was "bra burning".
What time is the show, and will there be refreshments?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
Great posts by everyone. I was on the edge with this one but after reading all the arguments my mind is fully made up. The job is too physical and should be done by the able bodied. I guess that's why I went into the Navy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,789 Posts
I will bet you a box of Krispy Kreme dougnuts that Barry pulls Dunford off the JCS. He just appointed a gay man to Secy of the Army. He did this just to put a thumb in the eye of the military whom he detests. Remember his goal....fundamentally transform America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5.56
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top