Matrix Games Forums

quote:ORIGINAL: I'm guessing that since religion has nothing to do with joining the infantry, no.

Don't be so sure.

It is certainly a game changer.

A friend (in the Air force) told me that they are changing the Name "Airmen", Now that women are in the Air force?

Australian Military, paying for Breast augmentation.

http://www.wired.com/2007/09/australian-navy/

Somehow I think this could be used to our advantage. Start filling the implants with High explosives...Booby-trap the bodies (pun intended)[:D]

Be all you can be!

Check this out...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... nl_evening

To be fair women should also register for the draft. How did that get by since women are now in the service? The Movers and shakers for women's equality overlooked this very basic point. I wonder why?

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Check this out...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... nl_evening

"The service did so citing a nine-month study it carried out last year at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Twentynine Palms, Calif., to assess how women perform when integrated into units that are typically all men. It found that, on average, women who participated were injured twice as often as men, less accurate with infantry weapons and not as good at removing wounded troops from the battlefield." WP.com

Just what is needed to win?
Hurt more often. Can't shoot. And, can't even carry the wounded off the battlefield.

And, some loony tune had the nerve to say that the study should have shown how the top performing women (out of the whole group of women) did?

This is madness. (No, this is not Sparta).

RR

Gee, I don't ask scientists to launch amphibiuos assaults, maybe we should not ask the Marines to do scientific experiments. We're going to base our decision about women in combat on the exploits of 24 women Marines in one whole exercise designed, executed and evaluated by male Marines. To top it off, we have an essay from a Lance Corporal testifying that he was not impressed by the women. I might ask a Marine of his pay grade to get coffee for the scientists who should be doing the experiments.

Wearing gear that creates stress fractures is wrong in a male or a female. Stress fractures add up to real injuries that the government pays for in the form of lifelong medical care. Soldiers aren't mules. This is a leadership problem. Don't break your soldiers, you might need them.

A combat drill where a soldier stands up and carries another wounded soldier thrown over his shoulders is rare...because the standing soldier would also get wounded...immediately. A fireman's carry is not the best method. It's the scene in "We were soldiers once and young" where the LT picks up his soldier and runs back fully exposed only to be shot and killed himself.

Once again, if the women Marines only got 39 hits out of 40 possible, then they still qualified expert. Are the women Marines qualified with their weapon systems or not? Can the unit perform it's wartime mission?

I was in the Army for 21 years. We had women in the MP Corps in combat, wearing full battle rattle, completing their unit's wartime mission. So you can have a female MP wearing a kevlar, flak vest, individual gear, ammo, etc, with her assigned M4 slung over her back, firing a Mk-19 that she carried from her Humvee to the fighting position she helped dig out, but heaven forbid that we actually use women for infantry.

Just say'in:

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military ... /79817026/

ORIGINAL: Zap

To be fair women should also register for the draft. How did that get by since women are now in the service? The Movers and shakers for women's equality overlooked this very basic point. I wonder why?

Watched how Hilldog got tongue tied on this subject. A pure DURR response! lol[:D]

Poopyhead,

I am amazed by how your mind works.
Strawmen and strange thoughts do not a cogent argument make.
Because someone puts on a Marine uniform makes them "not a scientist"?

You were army. Thanks for your service.
But, it does not make you a scientist/expert either?

And, we are still talking women in infantry combat. Not women MPs or women truck drivers. A woman who could not drag a wounded comrade, shoot a weapon well, and got injured twice as often may be a good reason to second think social engineering?
That is all I am saying.

RR

Women are in combat. Can your mind agree to that?

The thread about women in that test showed them not doing well at a firemans's carry, which no one should be doing while being shot at anyway. Stand up and carry a casualty out of a firefight and you get two casualties. That's not a realistic test. That's what I am saying.

I have explained repeatedly that individual weapon skill is not even relevant. Individual weapon skills are rated expert, sharpshooter or marksman. If every individual scored the lowest rating for marksman, then the unit would still qualify on any collective task for engaging targets. The unit would be reported as combat mission ready. What did the women actually qualify? If some of the men qualified marksman and some of the women qualified expert, then say so. If the men scored 40 out of 40 and the women 38 out of 40, then they all qualified expert. Biased statistics are useless back when I studied Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Computer Science. I'm sure that the male Marines that came up with those statistics knew what they were doing. That's what I am saying.

The injuries were stress fractures. Both men and women got them. If you are in the military, you're going to do a lot of marching and you will get stress fractures to your feet. Women in the military aren't excluded from marching because they might get more stress fractures. The same argument applies to women being in the infantry. That's what I am saying.

In the 80's, infantry were replaced by MP's at some Pershing Missile sites in Germany as the guard force. For a short time, both were present at the site I was at. The infantry sergeants told me that they were surprised at what our MP women could do. The active Army fights an asymmetric threat. The infantry can't be everywhere. Women MP's and truck drivers are not second class soldiers. If you meet the standard, you're a "GO". Every soldiers secondary job is infantry. That's how it works.

P.S. If I had posted that Marines on Okinawa made mistakes during WW II (creation of a straw man), therefore these results are mistaken, then that would be using a straw man argument.

I posted simply that scientists aren't Marines (statement of fact for emphasis) and similarly Marines aren't scientists.

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

If you meet the standard, you're a "GO".

Which standard?

Every task in the military has one standard. Again, an army is not made up of infantry and the rest second class soldiers.

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

Every task in the military has one standard.

Your words are simply not true. As the image I posted back on page 10 clearly shows, the women are not being held to the same standards.



Jim

Without wanting to get into the whys and wherefores: we have no context whatever for that photo, and I wasn't able to find anything verifiable about it anywhere. It's certainly much-shared...

Cheers

Pip

I have dropped in on this "discussion" for a look every now and then.
Does any one know what the word "hysterical" comes from? I see a lot of
hysterical reactions from males around here and really think Poopyhead
and his 21 years of service have more credibility than most others
including myself and my three years... four decades ago. That is just
my opinion and you can say whatever you want about that. You don't need
a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, but a weatherman will
usually be right and know why he is right.
Cheers.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Your words are simply not true. As the image I posted back on page 10 clearly shows, the women are not being held to the same standards.

Setting aside the veracity and context of that photo, "is not being" is not the same as "could not possibly"

There are many regulations that are not being properly enforced in any given organization at any one time, but to project that as a irrevocable statement of how things will be is to engage in a disingenuous cherry-picking of facts.

Well a picture speaks a thousand words, but if you don't want to believe your own lyin eyes, then the link JW posted a while back clearly proves women are being allowed to cheat and when they apparently fail a course they get passed anyway and their records documenting their failure get shredded by ideologues in the army.

http://usdefensewatch.com/2016/01/doubl ... e-rangers/

This is just like affirmative action. In the police academy the guy who sat in front of me was an affirmative action hire. I spent the entire academy kicking his chair trying to keep him awake. He failed every single test we took, but was allowed a private one on one remedial exam behind closed doors and amazingly passed every single test by the exact minimum score required to pass.

Two weeks after graduation he raped and sodomized two women at gunpoint. He then showed them his badge and told them not to call the police as he would know about it. It was very satisfying when I got to disarm him and place him under arrest in the lineup room after having spent months kicking his chair to no avail. Ideologues will do anything to prove their PC agenda, but people like those two poor women pay the price for their warped ideology and failed methods.

Jim

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead
Every task in the military has one standard. Again, an army is not made up of infantry and the rest second class soldiers.

Maybe in the mind is one standard.

But; No there are two. One for the men and one for the women.

I have been asking why and also have no issues if men and women meet the one standard.

And, I believe lives are too valuable to become simply pawns in some great "social experiment".

RR

Since this is becoming a lesson in reasonable thinking, a picture without a context has no meaning. An experience at the police academy is really, totally irrelevant.

The link about the females at Ranger School is hearsay evidence presented so that we should write Congress to do an actual investigation. How about a link to an actual investigation with actual evidence? Lots of soldiers get pulled from normal duties for many reasons. I was in a unit that sent a team to the Njeimegen march. Another group was sent to a Brigade training event. All of them got time off to prepare. It's a waste of training dollars if you send a soldier somewhere only to have a failure. It's also normal for a soldier who No Goes to retrain and have an opportunity to retest, even more than once.

Ranger School is not Infantry school. It's tough training where you are totally at the mercy of the instructors. I had a friend whose father had been a Ranger Instructor (RI). He flew through Ranger training and actually gained weight while he was there. One of my Sergeants almost got peered out. He had done two tours in Vietnam and told the RI's they were doing things wrong and could go get bent before they got someone killed. After graduation, he hit an RI "rhymes with brick". Then all of them hit him and he hit the dirt. It seems that Ranger candidates do well if the RI's want them to do well.

Let's take a simple hypothetical case to examine how statistics can be intentionally used to cloud the truth. We have ten recruits, five men and five women, training to fill five slots for the Infantry. The recruits qualify with their weapons, do an Army Physical Fitness Test and are evaluated on basic infantry skills. The results are formalized and the scores posted for a male group and a female group.

Male group: (100, 95, 90, 85, 80)
Average male score: 90

Female group: (85, 75, 75, 70 65)
Average female score: 74

We only want the best candidates, because Infantry are the best. The average female scores are lower than the average male scores. Having women in an infantry unit would "lower the standard".

Now lets just have one group of infantry candidates with all the scores posted with gender:

One group: (100-M, 95-M, 90-M, 85-M, 85-F, 80-M, 75-F, 75-F, 70-F, 65-F)

"We only want the best candidates, because Infantry are the best." So:

Chosen Infantry group (100-M, 95-M, 90-M, 85-M, 85-F)
Average infantry group score: 91

As you can see, the female with the best score was better than one of the males. She wasn't better than "the average male score", but she was better than an actual real life male. By doing so, she also improved the average score of 90 that the infantry unit would have achieved if only the male recruits had been chosen to the higher standard of 91.

That's what equality means. The best person for the job, gets the job. It's not a liberal ideal or a conservative ideal. It's an American ideal. The reason we have an army is to protect all of our nation's ideals.