Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Story:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/mi.../72251362/

 



 

 

His comments were made via a Facebook status that has since been taken down. It was a response to the Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus saying the Marine Corps should've chosen better females for the infantry integration experiment. The status read:

 

"...This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in the GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study.


They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. SECNAV has stated that he has made his mind up even before the release of these results and that the USMC test unit will not change his mind on anything.


Listen up folks. Your senior leadership of this country does not want to see America overwhelmingly succeed on the battlefield, it wants to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to pursue whatever they want regardless of the outcome on national security. The infantry is not Ranger School. That is just a school like any other school and is not a feeder specifically to the infantry.


Anyone can go to that school that meets the prereqs, just like airborne school. Kudos to the two women who graduated. They are badasses in their own right. In regards to the infantry... There is no trophy for second place. You perform or die.


Make no mistake. In this realm, you want your fastest, most fit, most physical and most lethal person you can possibly put on the battlefield to overwhelm the enemy's ability to counter what you are throwing at them and in every test case, that person has turned out to be a man.


There is nothing gender biased about this, it is what it is. You will never see a female Quarterback in the NFL, there will never be a female center on any NHL team and you will never see a female batting in the number 4 spot for the New York Yankees. It is what it is. As a country we preach equality.


But to place these mandates on the military before this country has even considered making females register, just like males, for the selective service is in all aspects out of touch with reality. Equality and equal opportunity start before you raise your right hand and swear and oath to this country.


Yes, we are an all volunteer force at the moment. Should this country however need to mobilize rapidly again to face the threats of the world like our grandfathers did, it will once again look to the military age males of this country to fill the ranks because last I checked, we did not require women to register for the selective service.


Until that happens, we should not even be wasting our time even thinking about opening up the infantry to women..."

 

 

Hopefully this decorated American hero doesn't face backlash from the PC police on this.

 

There is a time and a place for opening doors and breaking down barriers.

 

While clearing an ISIS compound in Iraq is a great time to open doors and break down barriers, it's not the time to be opening those doors and breaking those barriers. The Marines should continue to search for good female candidates for the infantry, but under no circumstances should a woman be put out there purely because she's a woman who can hang with the bottom 5% of men. That's a great way to get her (and potentially others) killed.

The Sgt Maj is correct.

Unfortunately, he will most likely be "retired" and sent on his way.

The top brass in the military is mostly political and this truth does not jibe with group think/view about the military from POTUS and those around him.

Keep the standards the same and if these women can keep up, so be it. Otherwise, you never ever lower standards in a profession where being the dead weight could get other people killed.

I wonder how much of the military's move to this has to do with low recruitment? 

Quote:I wonder how much of the military's move to this has to do with low recruitment? 

 

Don't play coy. Let it out, boudreaumw.

Quote:Don't play coy. Let it out, boudreaumw.

QUE?

Quote:QUE?

 

I said don't play coy. You then respond by continuing to play coy.

 

Explain what you mean by "I wonder how much of the military's move to this has to do with low recruitment" and explain why you wonder that.

Quote:I said don't play coy. You then respond by continuing to play coy.

 

Explain what you mean by "I wonder how much of the military's move to this has to do with low recruitment" and explain why you wonder that.

Should be obvious enough shouldn't it? Standards have been lowered. The same thing happens in businesses when quality talent can't be found but you still need bodies. I wonder how of this is because of that.

Quote:Should be obvious enough shouldn't it? Standards have been lowered. The same thing happens in businesses when quality talent can't be found but you still need bodies. I wonder how of this is because of that.

 

It would be obvious if it made sense. Did you read the article? Current women in the marines aren't being compared to marines from 10 or 20 years ago. Current women in the marines were being tested alongside current men in the marines and they "were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study".

Quote:It would be obvious if it made sense. Did you read the article? Current women in the marines aren't being compared to marines from 10 or 20 years ago. Current women in the marines were being tested alongside current men in the marines and they "were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study".

So, then, it would stand to reason that if women are placed on the front lines with the infantry anyway, the motivations for doing so are something other than striving to put the best force out there, wouldn't it?

Quote:It would be obvious if it made sense. Did you read the article? Current women in the marines aren't being compared to marines from 10 or 20 years ago. Current women in the marines were being tested alongside current men in the marines and they "were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study".

Oh I get it. You are being intentionally obtuse. Ok carry on.

Quote:So, then, it would stand to reason that if women are placed on the front lines with the infantry anyway, the motivations for doing so are something other than striving to put the best force out there, wouldn't it?

 

Yes, and that's why Sgt. Maj. LeHew is rightfully upset.

Quote:Oh I get it. You are being intentionally obtuse. Ok carry on.

 

You're the one that's asking a silly question that I went ahead and answered.

 

Again, we could skip 2 pages of semantics if you just come out and say how you feel about his comments.

Quote:You're the one that's asking a silly question that I went ahead and answered.


I. Again, we could skip 2 pages of semantics if you just come out and say how you feel about his comments.

You are inferring something that simply isn't there which is not surprising really based on others comments you have made. I don't disagree with his comments. I do think that with recruitment down it stands to reason that standards would be lowered to get more bodies and that includes passing women who are not passing.I read something just the other day that said exactly this with regards to male recruits so it stands to reason it would apply to women as well.

Quote:Yes, and that's why Sgt. Maj. LeHew is rightfully upset.

So then I think that you, me, and boudreamw are all in agreement, we just refuse to see it because he's a commie, you're a fascist, and I'm some spineless toad sitting on a fence.

Quote:So then I think that you, me, and boudreamw are all in agreement, we just refuse to see it because he's a commie, you're a fascist, and I'm some spineless toad sitting on a fence.

What kind of place would it be if people just got along? Boring that's what.

Quote:You are inferring something that simply isn't there which is not surprising really based on others comments you have made. I don't disagree with his comments. I do think that with recruitment down it stands to reason that standards would be lowered to get more bodies and that includes passing women who are not passing.I read something just the other day that said exactly this with regards to male recruits so it stands to reason it would apply to women as well.

 

Yes, but if that's the case then those "lower standard women" are being compared respectively to "lower standard men" and still perform at the lowest 5%.

Quote:So then I think that you, me, and boudreamw are all in agreement, we just refuse to see it because he's a commie, you're a fascist, and I'm some spineless toad sitting on a fence.

 

 

Oh, oops.

Quote:Yes, but if that's the case then those "lower standard women" are being compared respectively to "lower standard men" and still perform at the lowest 5%.

That's not what I am saying. I am saying it stands to reasons that if they need bodies and are therefore accepting less the ideal males based on lack of qualifications that would open the door for women regardless of whether they are qualified for the job or not. Its about getting bodies. See what I am saying? I am wondering how much is the need for bodies and how much is because they want to seem inclusive or whatever term we use here.