Marine Corps to open infantry training to enlisted women

I'm in agreement with Mushroom. Asymmetrical wars require finesse not brute strength. Lesson learned by the French in the Battle of Algiers dealing with the same concept of insurgency we're dealing with today. . Human intel requires gaining the trust of a people and fear is not always the best way to achieve this, stomping on cultural identifiers equivalent to buring a Qu'ran will only incite distrust. Having a female troop accompany a patrol to conduct interviews and searches, if necessary, on indigenous females, I believe is a positive.

 

Which once again shows you know nothing.

Show me where I have said anything in contempt of our President?

Go away troll, you annoy me.

 

Right here:

If you don't think he was doing precisely that when he signed the repeal of DADT, then Marine, you don't think too good.

Sheesh, make up yer mind, already.

 

At what point did anyone say that standards should be lowered for females? This whole argument is a straw man.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, the repeal of DADT was an example of getting politics OUT of the military.

 

So your claim is that you have no issue with women being allowed to serve in infantry positions?
Given this, why have you only questioned the ideas of people who express that women should have that right, rather than questioning those who disagreed (or both sides, for that matter)?
The implication is obvious.

OK, since you're not implying that women shouldn't be allowed in infantry postions (yeah, right ), I don't know what we're arguing about. That being said, you've asked why I believe they should have the opportunity (whether or not they choose to take it)... Here's a more detailed explanation:

The Fourteenth Amendment, in section 1, says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Civil Rights Act of 1964 is also relevent since title VII bans discrimination by trade unions, schools, and employers involved in interstate commerce or doing business with the federal government.

Under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Congress has explicit authority “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” Still, like all powers given to the national legislature, this one could not be used in a way that violated constitutional rights. For example, a rule barring racial minorities from military service clearly would not be valid now.

 

Are you arguing for or against women in the infantry? The fear of many is that if women are allowed in the infantry, gender standards will be put in place the equivalent of PT scores which are lowered for females. They require fewer reps for timed push-ups, sit-ups and have higher minimum times for the running portion of the fitness test The PT standards are adjusted to account for a females' physical abilities. As long as standards apply equally to all who go through an infantry school, I don't see a problem with it. The argument is made that gender specific standards for passing infantry school will have a detrimental effect on combat readiness. Ok, fair enough, this may be true, however males receive waivers also. For example if they have lower ASVAB scores than the minimum, sometimes they get a waiver. Or a moral waiver if there is some sort of criminal history prior to enlisting. Basically standards are lowered to allow them in. My only arugment is, if we're going to raise heck about the danger of lowering standards for females to serve in the infantry, how about raising heck for all the other waivers the services give out when they are pressed to meet the quotas for recruits. Doesn't that effect combat readiness also?

I believe it does, but we look the other way out of necessity.

My only argument, after all these posts, is simply to keep the standards required to be in an infantry unit, in place. Let the candidate meet the standard, don't lower the standard to meet the candiate. If we do this, if the Army and Marines do this, personally I have no issue with females serving in direct ground combat units. I have served with females in leadership positions and take no issue with their level of competence. Sometimes I think the people against this sort of thing, just don't like women. They project that dislike on to all sorts of scenarios or use anecdotal evidence that every single female in uniform is looking to get pregnant as a way out or to ruin a male's career with false accusations. That has not been my experience.

 

Finally, something I can agree with wholeheartedly.

 

Ok, then.
My sincere apologies for an unnecessary "ad hominem" on your Marine Corps.
They are professional and maintain a military bearing above all the services. Much can be learned from how they run their ship. I allowed personal bias to influence an arugment, serving no real point aside to further the discussion. I recognize that and apologize to all the Marines within earshot.

 

No doubt it looks that way to people who think upside down.

Were that my claim, you wouldn't have to ask what my claim is, obviously.

a figment of your imagination which serves no other purpose than to divert attention from the original question.

Not my problem.

Evidently the distinction between a state and a department of the federal government somehow eludes you.

Since the US military is not a school or trade union, nor an employer as defined by the act, it's actually not relevant in the least.

 

That's very subjective. Please illustrate how my thinking is "upside down".

I believe the question was related to why I believe women should be given opportunities afforded to men.
I have answered this question and now pose my own: Do you believe they shouldn't?

Can you define the term "failed state" or "sovereign state"?
Even if you were correct in the assumption that the act refers solely to sub-entities, do you believe the standard applied to every department in every sub-state in the nation doesn't apply on the federal level?

"Upon graduation from recruit training, each Marine then reports to the School of Infantry for combat skills training. A strongly held belief in the Marine Corps is that every Marine is a rifleman. Upon graduation from the School of Infantry, Marines report to a new command for formal school training for the Military Operational Skill (MOS) he or she has been assigned."
http://www.careersinthemilitary.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=services.marines_enlisted

Here's an interesting article directly referencing the army, but the same issues apply in the Corps: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20130430_art011.pdf

BTW, in order to establish the level of first-hand experience you are basing your position on, can you clarify your military service?

 

Why, that is entirely obvious.

Because you are not agreeing with everything he says 100%, even though he knows nothing about the military.

 

Not in the least.

I shouldn't have to, and it's pretty clear by now it would be a waste of time in your case anyway.

Indeed you have, and your answer casts your belief as devoid of any basis in reality.

The concepts are of no moment in the present context, so their definitions are irrelevant.

There's no "if" about it.

I'm not interested in undefined "standards". You cited the P/I clause, and it doesn't apply.

 

So your argument has now become nothing more than a random ad hominem, and adherence to a train of thought (founded on zero experience) for which you cannot provide any actual support.

I see you continue to dodge any questions about what you actually believe, in order to avoid having to say anything constructive. Stay classy.