Marine delay female fitness plan when over half fail

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 2, 2014 23:03:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Can I expand my argument- is it OK for the army to only hire generals with infantry experience?  Is it OK to only hire police chiefs with patrol experience?  Does a general or police chief have to fight a war or fight crime directly?  Obama is commander in chief and I doubt he he went through boot camp.

Maybe instead of changing the qualifications for foot soldier we change the qualifications for chief.

So...dumbing down our military is your answer?? You can't be serious....women can't meet the standards so lets get rid of the standards?

[Green Eyed Lady]

IMO, this is a big part of everything that is wrong in this country.  We can't meet the standards so we lower the standards.  This happens in education, the work place and everywhere else.  A certain "group" or "person" cant meet the standards so instead of helping that person to up his/her game to meet them, we just lower the bar.  Can't pass the test at 80%?  Lower the standard to 70%.  Pretty soon, there will be no tests at all...just to be fair to all, doncha know.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 3, 2014 0:36:56 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

IMO, this is a big part of everything that is wrong in this country.  We can't meet the standards so we lower the standards.  This happens in education, the work place and everywhere else.  A certain "group" or "person" cant meet the standards so instead of helping that person to up his/her game to meet them, we just lower the bar.  Can't pass the test at 80%?  Lower the standard to 70%.  Pretty soon, there will be no tests at all...just to be fair to all, doncha know.

I agree completely. You are either qualified or you are not. There should not be different standards based on sex, race, socio-economic status, etc.

[billisonboard]

Jan 3, 2014 0:49:08 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

.... There should not be different standards based on sex, race, socio-economic status, etc.

Nor qualifications based on sex, race, socioeconomic status, etc.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 3, 2014 0:59:14 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 3, 2014 0:49:08 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

.... There should not be different standards based on sex, race, socio-economic status, etc.

Nor qualifications based on sex, race, socioeconomic status, etc.

If a job requires physical strength, that is not the same as keeping women out just for the same of keeping women out. If a college requires certain scores for entrance, those are the standards that should be met by everyone.

[billisonboard]

Jan 3, 2014 1:03:43 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 3, 2014 0:59:14 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nor qualifications based on sex, race, socioeconomic status, etc.

If a job requires physical strength, that is not the same as keeping women out just for the same of keeping women out. If a college requires certain scores for entrance, those are the standards that should be met by everyone.

There are legitimate levels of physical strength that a job might require and there are levels of physical strength that are listed as being required but are never actually demanded of by the job. Tests can be written to work to exclude based on the more limited experiences of those raised in lower socioeconomic circumstances.

Here is an example of bias: Colleges which place emphasis for acceptance on extra-curricular activities limit the ability of those who have to work through high school to help support themselves from gaining entry.

[workpublic]

all this PC crap will do is get people killed.

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2014 1:22:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 3, 2014 1:03:43 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

If a job requires physical strength, that is not the same as keeping women out just for the same of keeping women out. If a college requires certain scores for entrance, those are the standards that should be met by everyone.

There are legitimate levels of physical strength that a job might require and there are levels of physical strength that are listed as being required but are never actually demanded of by the job. Tests can be written to work to exclude based on the more limited experiences of those raised in lower socioeconomic circumstances.

Here is an example of bias: Colleges which place emphasis for acceptance on extra-curricular activities limit the ability of those who have to work through high school to help support themselves from gaining entry.

this is a physicality test

same test for everyone

black, white, yellow, red

male, female

these are the basic requirements that through the years, the marine corps has decided is the minimum requirements

it isnt the test for the seals, or the rangers, or any special ops units which make these look like a hour at the playground

either you can pass the test, or you cant

lets not ever consider lowering the basic requirements.....i would hate to think that in doing so, one or more marines could die for that decision

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2014 1:22:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 3, 2014 1:03:43 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

If a job requires physical strength, that is not the same as keeping women out just for the same of keeping women out. If a college requires certain scores for entrance, those are the standards that should be met by everyone.

There are legitimate levels of physical strength that a job might require and there are levels of physical strength that are listed as being required but are never actually demanded of by the job. Tests can be written to work to exclude based on the more limited experiences of those raised in lower socioeconomic circumstances.

Here is an example of bias: Colleges which place emphasis for acceptance on extra-curricular activities limit the ability of those who have to work through high school to help support themselves from gaining entry.

How do you know whether those colleges aren't merely looking for more economically viable students and couldn't care less about being fair.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jan 2, 2014 18:56:51 GMT -5 swamp said:

I can't imagine why a young and fit woman can't do 3 pull-ups. 

Or are they doing them in full gear? 

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2014 0:36:56 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

IMO, this is a big part of everything that is wrong in this country.  We can't meet the standards so we lower the standards.  This happens in education, the work place and everywhere else.  A certain "group" or "person" cant meet the standards so instead of helping that person to up his/her game to meet them, we just lower the bar.  Can't pass the test at 80%?  Lower the standard to 70%.  Pretty soon, there will be no tests at all...just to be fair to all, doncha know.

Agreed, then we can all stand around hugging our participation trophy and hope no one tries to invade our country. Isn't that what they're teaching in our schools these days? Just homogenize the student body in a big hugfest. What was that about the fleet is only as fast as the slowest ship? That's where were heading, capability wise.

[billisonboard]

Jan 3, 2014 13:41:35 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

... Isn't that what they're teaching in our schools these days? ...

No

[EVT1]

Jan 3, 2014 0:28:00 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 2, 2014 23:03:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Can I expand my argument- is it OK for the army to only hire generals with infantry experience?  Is it OK to only hire police chiefs with patrol experience?  Does a general or police chief have to fight a war or fight crime directly?  Obama is commander in chief and I doubt he he went through boot camp.

Maybe instead of changing the qualifications for foot soldier we change the qualifications for chief.

So...dumbing down our military is your answer?? You can't be serious....women can't meet the standards so lets get rid of the standards?

How would that dumb down the military? I am saying just because some woman cannot run so far or whatever, that should not bar that person from any other military job that does not require it.  It might even smarten up the place- strength and endurance alone does not equate to leadership ability. 

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 3, 2014 16:23:07 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 3, 2014 0:28:00 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

So...dumbing down our military is your answer?? You can't be serious....women can't meet the standards so lets get rid of the standards?

How would that dumb down the military? I am saying just because some woman cannot run so far or whatever, that should not bar that person from any other military job that does not require it.  It might even smarten up the place- strength and endurance alone does not equate to leadership ability. 

Then why should we require from the men? If it isn't require for a job, no one should have to do it.  But don't have separate rules for women.  As a women, I find that insulting.

[EVT1]

Jan 3, 2014 16:28:02 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 3, 2014 16:23:07 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

How would that dumb down the military? I am saying just because some woman cannot run so far or whatever, that should not bar that person from any other military job that does not require it.  It might even smarten up the place- strength and endurance alone does not equate to leadership ability. 

Then why should we require from the men? If it isn't require for a job, no one should have to do it.  But don't have separate rules for women.  As a women, I find that insulting.

I never said that- you are missing my argument entirely. 

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2014 16:34:52 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 3, 2014 16:28:02 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Then why should we require from the men? If it isn't require for a job, no one should have to do it.  But don't have separate rules for women.  As a women, I find that insulting.

I never said that- you are missing my argument entirely. 

so....what are you saying

should women or men that have never seen combat because of physical limitations be placed above those who have?

i understand the commander in chief orders the military into action all the time, and he/she will not see action

but i think the military is different.....as one that earned a combat ribbon, it gave me some confidence that my superiors HAD been in similiar situations before

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 3, 2014 16:43:49 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

Jan 3, 2014 16:34:52 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I never said that- you are missing my argument entirely. 

so....what are you saying

should women or men that have never seen combat because of physical limitations be placed above those who have?

i understand the commander in chief orders the military into action all the time, and he/she will not see action

but i think the military is different.....as one that earned a combat ribbon, it gave me some confidence that my superiors HAD been in similiar situations before

[zibazinski]

So now we have a pilot shortage coming. But because of the cutbacks, DD who qualified for pilot, was made to wait for over two years to get going with her career so finally told them to stuff it and went on with her life. Too bad for the military as she'd have made a darn good pilot. Hooray for me who didn't want her sexually assaulted by those who are supposed to have her back.

[zibazinski]

Btw, who do you think teaches the future officers at OCS? Those that have never been officers. Sometimes those who've never left the US. DD still learned.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 3, 2014 16:34:52 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 3, 2014 16:28:02 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Then why should we require from the men? If it isn't require for a job, no one should have to do it.  But don't have separate rules for women.  As a women, I find that insulting.

I never said that- you are missing my argument entirely. 

I don't think I am. You are saying above that maybe generals and police chiefs should be required to have field or combat experience...it is experience that prepares us for our job. And yes, I realize that Obama is the Commander in Chief but do you seriously not think that he relies HEAVILY on his generals to guide him? Do you really think that Obama is qualified to strategize at a detail level?  How can anyone that hasn't seen combat be the person to lead? So yes, in my opinion you want to dumb down our military just so women can climb the ranks without meeting any of the requirements.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 3, 2014 16:48:24 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Btw, who do you think teaches the future officers at OCS? Those that have never been officers. Sometimes those who've never left the US. DD still learned.

You aren't going to like this comment, but those that can do...those that can't teach.

Just because someone can teach does not mean that they can lead.  Big difference.

[zibazinski]

Unfortunately, these couldn't do either but the future officers study very hard on their own so they do well.  The guys may have had better teachers. The women had women who were there for various personal reasons but not because they were good teachers. But since the future officers were only women, I guess that didn't matter. DD commented on from what she could see that the teachers for the men gave them advice as to how to overcome obstacles or certain things. No such help forthcoming from the women. 

[EVT1]

Jan 3, 2014 16:43:49 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

Jan 3, 2014 16:34:52 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I never said that- you are missing my argument entirely. 

so....what are you saying

should women or men that have never seen combat because of physical limitations be placed above those who have?

i understand the commander in chief orders the military into action all the time, and he/she will not see action

but i think the military is different.....as one that earned a combat ribbon, it gave me some confidence that my superiors HAD been in similiar situations before

I am not suggesting anyone be put ahead of anyone else.  Are you going to suggest that every general we have has seen combat first hand?  I just think that it stinks that promotions are skewed towards those that came up through fighting positions when at the time women were not allowed at all in them-and I am going from memory that was the case.

I am only saying that- sure if you want to be special forces then the qualification are what they are- but if there is a promotion issue because the people being picked are from areas women cannot get into, then perhaps the criteria for promotions needs to be looked at. 



 

[DVM gone riding]

Jan 3, 2014 16:58:19 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Unfortunately, these couldn't do either but the future officers study very hard on their own so they do well.  The guys may have had better teachers. The women had women who were there for various personal reasons but not because they were good teachers. But since the future officers were only women, I guess that didn't matter. DD commented on from what she could see that the teachers for the men gave them advice as to how to overcome obstacles or certain things. No such help forthcoming from the women. 

THe men and woman had two different sets of teachers was this in the military or in prep for the military. Definitely doesn't seem fair to have two different sets. 

Did anyone else think in the pic at the top that the women looked bad? When I see pics of male marines they are crisp and organized the women looked confused, disoriented bad hair, like they had been wrung out and couldn't hold it together, intentional/accident/just got back from a 10 mile hike in full gear?

[billisonboard]

Jan 3, 2014 20:55:17 GMT -5 DVM gone riding said:

... in the pic at the top ...

Which pic?

[zibazinski]

OCS had male instructors for the men and female ones for the women. Everyone looks like death after miles of hiking in full gear. But I can imagine that if you're looking for pics to show how sorry the poor pitiful women candidates are and how fantastic the men look, you can find them.

[DVM gone riding]

Jan 3, 2014 21:04:18 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 3, 2014 20:55:17 GMT -5 DVM gone riding said:

... in the pic at the top ...

Which pic?

in the original article.  No idea if they were actually hiking or not. Seriously to me it looked staged they looked so out of sorts but not sweaty

[billisonboard]

Jan 3, 2014 21:16:29 GMT -5 DVM gone riding said:

Jan 3, 2014 21:04:18 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Which pic?

in the original article.  No idea if they were actually hiking or not. Seriously to me it looked staged they looked so out of sorts but not sweaty

When I click on the link in the OP, I get this:

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jan 3, 2014 21:24:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 3, 2014 21:16:29 GMT -5 DVM gone riding said:

in the original article.  No idea if they were actually hiking or not. Seriously to me it looked staged they looked so out of sorts but not sweaty

When I click on the link in the OP, I get this:

...these are soldiers, not marines... fwiw...

eta: Army, not USMC