1
229

[–] HighfalutinNakabear 1 points 229 points (+230|-1) ago 

Well are they surprised? Not trying to be a dick, it just seems obvious when military PFT requirements are different for men and women. Men who would perform at the same physical standard as the women wouldn't make the cut.

0
205

[–] weezkitty 0 points 205 points (+205|-0) ago 

Equality should mean equal standards. Even if it cuts out a lot of the potential women

0
124

[–] zquad 0 points 124 points (+124|-0) ago 

Not today apparently, today equality = equal outcomes

[–] [deleted] 0 points 45 points (+45|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] MamaFrankie 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I agree. A soldier should be defined by a great number of things, one being physical and martial prowess. If the bar is set, anyone who can get over it, regardless of gender, should be able to be a soldier. That's what equality would mean to me in this, as opposed to lowering the bar of what defines a soldier's physical prowess.

0
1

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_ESSENCE 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This was obvious to me, 20 years ago, when my sister was a marine, and she was complaining about the unequal opportunities, and sexism in the service. Those are real things that needed to be knocked down. But the bottom line is the argument that women can't perform as well as men, on average - - - physically. (my sister was not in a combat role anyway). The counterargument is that there indeed exist women who can compete on par with men, physically. So why not allow THEM to have combat roles? Why not make the physical standards based on actual performance, and set those standards equal to genders, and allow the capable individuals of either gender be combat marines? I could not distinguish any sexism in this argument, yet, here we are, 20 years later, and this obvious argument is not considered, as we STILL have unequal physical standards.

0
55

[–] ZangiefBadGuy 0 points 55 points (+55|-0) ago 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but females hitting Excellent on the female scale are barely, if at all, passing on the male scale. If that is the case, then color me not surprised one bit.

0
40

[–] ManifoldDanger 0 points 40 points (+40|-0) ago 

Correct, heres the charts for male and female. You can see for your self how big the difference is.:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm

0
27

[–] Voluptuous_Panda 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Correct. A male would have to do 20 pull ups, 100 crunches in 2 minutes, and run 3 miles in 18 minutes to get a perfect 300. A female on the other hand needs to hold a flexed arm hang for 70 seconds, do 100 crunches in 2 minutes, and run 3 miles in 21 minutes to get a perfect 300. When I got out, I think they were trying to switch females to pull ups, but they only needed to do 8 to get a score of 100 versus a males 20. Needless to say, this was hardly fair as when it came time for promotions, a female who was physically weaker, but due to their adjusted PFT, would have better scores than their male peers.

EDIT: Considering they did transfer over to the pull ups for women. To get a perfect score for the female version would be equivalent to a 222 on a male version. I think that is barely considered a 2nd class PFT or is in the range of a 3rd class PFT.

0
0

[–] Maxcactus 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This stuff is just going to get a bunch of females killed in combat. But then just being any kind of marine will tend to increase one's chance of being killed in combat.

0
8

[–] greycloud 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

its not even the physical fitness that is the biggest impact. study after study shows that males will do stupid things when females are in danger. an all male unit is capable of better tactics than a unit where males can see females in danger. even if women could perform at the higher standards that males do (and some women do), it wouldn't change the fact that males act differently around males than they do around females. females in danger put males in danger, all male units just have males in danger, and other males methodically removing them from danger or covering them appropriately.

pussy clouds the vision of the best snipers.

0
0

[–] HighfalutinNakabear 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Very salient point, hadn't considered that.

0
4

[–] Gargilius 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

...won't the bad guys adjust to the different standards? I mean, it would be pretty unsporting of them not to, wouldn't it?

5
104

[–] Mr_YUP 5 points 104 points (+109|-5) ago 

Apparently the US Marines have allowed women to become officers for many years now but they had to pass the exact same physical test that the men do. Needless to say there have been no women officers in the Marines

1
25

[–] coldacid 1 points 25 points (+26|-1) ago 

No idea why anyone would downvote you, the article even said that they've never had successful female entrants into officer training.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
19

[–] OmenemO 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Infantry officer specifically. There have been plenty of women officers in the Marines in other MOS's.

"Today, women account for 4.3 percent of all Marine officers..."

0
3

[–] Mr_YUP 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Good to know that it's specifically infantry!

0
1

[–] WhiteTigerScream 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I knew a girl in bootcamp who outperformed most of the guys, she was seriously manly (was often confused for a guy). They exist, there just aren't many of them.

3
-3

[–] HugeIfTrue 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Apparently you like to spread false information.
Yeah you probably meant INFANTRY OFFICERS. Its a pretty big difference from saying that there are:

"no women officers in the Marines"

There are thousands of POG female officers. Infantry is a job that Marines need to decide upon once they qualify as officers. Most males who graduate OCS and TBS do not go down that route, they go to a non infantry MOS school. You make it sound like there are no females in the Marine Corps of officer rank. That would make you so WRONG its disgusting.

0
0

[–] Mr_YUP 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If you would kindly look at other comments people have pointed this out that bit I did not know with much kinder/non-accusatory words

2
84

[–] ZangiefBadGuy 2 points 84 points (+86|-2) ago 

In other news, water is still wet.

1
53

[–] fatpeoplearegross 1 points 53 points (+54|-1) ago 

Uh yeah...gonna need a source on that

2
31

[–] Kal 2 points 31 points (+33|-2) ago 

It's so annoying when people just spew their bullshit views and then can't back it up when you call them out.

0
11

[–] TopShelfPrivilege 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

0
2

[–] barset 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Sat down on the toilet, tip of dick dipped into the water, can confirm, water is still wet.

0
7

[–] ginx2666 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[citation needed]

0
1

[–] Apaster 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

that is such a generalization.

0
1

[–] SrBearLordofOldCastl 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I dont trust you mate.

0
0

[–] ZangiefBadGuy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm not your mate, buddy.

0
67

[–] RJKH 0 points 67 points (+67|-0) ago 

Fucking journalism: talks about study, doesn't link study. Have a link, folks.

0
5

[–] ZangiefBadGuy 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

This should be higher for providing relevant data that's missing from the article.

0
0

[–] Perturabo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Any idea where we can find the actual meat of the study? A summary is very useful, but I want to look at the real study.

1
55

[–] sp00kygh0st 1 points 55 points (+56|-1) ago 

Not everyone is equal. Deal with it

0
14

[–] DiggRedditVoatBlank 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

Definitely not when it comes to physical capability. If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it'll spend its whole life thinking that you're discriminating against it when it can't catch monkeys. that took a turn for the weird

1
4

[–] jimibulgin 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Definitely not when it comes to physical capability. If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree walk sideways, it'll spend its whole life thinking that you're discriminating against it when it can't catch monkeys crabs. that took a turn for the weird

0
2

[–] CobaltThoriumG 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Ok, hear me out, if the fish and the monkey bang...

0
5

[–] bob3333 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Well we're supposed to rearrange the universe so that everybody can achieve the same things regardless of their abilities.

0
2

[–] xoitus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Everyone is equal, women are just more equal!

I've always thought this whole movement to get people killed was stupid.

Another example: burning house: do you want the 200lb fireman who passed a heavy carry test to carry you out or someone who didn't?

0
0

[–] jonesjones 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

it's just stupid when equality doesn't actually mean equality but it means special privilege. Talk to me when the physical requirements are the same: that's REALLY equality.

1
-1

[–] maxoverdrive 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Talk to me when the body bags coming home from a war with a draft are 50/50. THAT'S real equality. It's also an equality that no so-called feminist anywhere strives for.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 55 points (+55|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
20

[–] jxfaith 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

Sexual dimorphism is a theory perpetuated by the patriarchy to keep strong women down!

0
4

[–] Apaster 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

wait men and women are different? Youre telling me their pants don't conceal what my pants do?

1
25

[–] Capitol18 1 points 25 points (+26|-1) ago 

Who would have thought!

Men are suited to combat. Gender roles are based in biology. Not even to mention, we instinctively protect women and value them more so integrating them into a male unit causes all sorts of issues.

1
1

[–] CobaltThoriumG 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Also rapes like wow.

0
25

[–] AVX 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

On marksmanship, men who had not been through infantry school hit targets 44% of the time with M4 rifles, besting infantry-trained women, who hit targets 28% of the time.

I'm surprised that men seemed better able to shoot accurately than women in this surveyance. You'd think there would be no difference. Can anyone explain this to me? (I live in a country where guns aren't legal so forgive my ignorance)

2
25

[–] ForgotMyName 2 points 25 points (+27|-2) ago 

28%!? Are you kidding me? Who wants to go into war with someone next to them that can't even hit 1/3 of their shots on a stationary target while prone? "Cover me, lol, j/k, I know you can't, I'll just run out there and die."

2
9

[–] Mead 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

Could be worse, they could be police officers who can't hit the broad side of a barn without unloading their entire magazine.

0
1

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_ESSENCE 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think this has to do with the lower standards for women. I would be there's a substantial percentage of women who would fail to meet the male standards, when expected to meed the lower female standards, would actually work harder, and improve to where they would meed the male expectations, if they didn't have the lower female expectations. There are a LOT of women who certainly talk the talk, and a substantial subset who would walk the walk, if they were REQUIRED to do so. Just about everybody is lazy if you give them lower standards to meet.

0
5

[–] Somali 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Male parts are better suited for combat and precision and predatory focus than female parts

0
2

[–] zambeezy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

What do you mean "male parts" and "female parts"?

0
2

[–] Pm-me-your-boobs 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Maybe because men imagine shooting guns much more than women. Plus the toys men play with and the movies men watch have much more guns in them

0
2

[–] coldacid 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It'd be good to have an idea of the group sizes. "28% of the time" doesn't mean too much if for example the infantry-trained women group was like a fifth of the size of the non-trained men group.

0
1

[–] confusiondiffusion 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It was 100 women and 300 men.

load more comments ▼ (58 remaining)