Welcome to the Home of the 6.8 SPC - 68forums.com.

Advertise Here
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47
  1. #41

    Default

    Read most of the article and the author boasts that the female officer can "bench 145 pounds and squat 200 pounds". SO WHAT? That's nothing compared to what most men can do. So she can squat an additional 200 pounds. I weigh 215 butt naked. I'm no marine, but what if I were carrying an additional 50 pounds of gear and got injured? She wouldn't be able to move me unless she stripped me naked in a war zone. I agree with her...it's a bad idea.
    Welcome to Tennessee, the patron state of shootin' stuff.

  2. #42
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    OKLA
    Posts
    5,729

    Default

    Having been in every combat zone since desert storm I can say without a doubt that women shouldn't be there. They just aren't made for it (with very few exceptions). They aren't able to meet the physical demands and it puts males at risk having to pick up there slack. The military knows this which is why women have a lower PT standard than men. Same job but a lower minimum standard! Have you ever tried to lift a 250# patient into a number 5 stanchion while being shot at? All the while the little female is unable to get her corner of the litter above her freaking waist!
    USAF Ret.
    Pistol,Rifle,Sniper Team



    Combat/Flight medic- 88-94, Flight Nurse 94-08, Chief Nurse / CCATT 05-08, Marksmanship Team 00-08
    Tours -Desert storm 2, Somalia 1, Bosnia 3, Afghan. 2, Iraq 1

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LocoGringo View Post
    Read most of the article and the author boasts that the female officer can "bench 145 pounds and squat 200 pounds". SO WHAT? That's nothing compared to what most men can do. So she can squat an additional 200 pounds.
    If thats how you read the article, thats fine.
    But i took it as they were showing that she wasnt a slouch when it came to being fit. and even a female in top physical condition saw dramitic deteriation of their physical capability.
    thats how i read it.

    and thanx for the "buck naked" image, you owe me $7 for lunch now!!

    did you read the bottom?

    “This has a lot do to with physical standards,” Haney said. “This is the Marine Corps. This isn’t JV. We've got to make sure we’re doing the right thing for the institution and the individual.”

    i put $10 down she wanted to say air force!!!
    HA!

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by harris hawker View Post
    If thats how you read the article, thats fine.
    But i took it as they were showing that she wasnt a slouch when it came to being fit. and even a female in top physical condition saw dramitic deteriation of their physical capability.
    thats how i read it.

    and thanx for the "buck naked" image, you owe me $7 for lunch now!!

    did you read the bottom?

    “This has a lot do to with physical standards,” Haney said. “This is the Marine Corps. This isn’t JV. We've got to make sure we’re doing the right thing for the institution and the individual.”

    i put $10 down she wanted to say air force!!!
    HA!
    We're on the same page. I was referring to the author who wrote the article (the author wasn't the female Marine) and I didn't finish the article as I got the point of it pretty quickly.

    About lunch...I might be one sexy guy, so I don't know what you were picturing. At least my wife tells me I'm sexy...
    Welcome to Tennessee, the patron state of shootin' stuff.

  5. #45
    68Forums.com lifer
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sugar Land Texas
    Posts
    1,050

    Default

    In my experience each new member of a unit has something to prove. He or she must prove they are going to hold up their end of the bargain. I can't really see the replacement coming in and being a female. I can only imagine the response - Oh no we are going to have to carry her. I can't imagine an co-ed intergrated front line combat unit. I think females having advanced infantry training is a good idea but it doesn't mean they should be assigned to combat units. I can just imagine the responses when the new female combat unit member arrrives - "who The F sent her". Why our unit? Who's idea was this. BOHICA.

  6. #46
    68Forums.com Team Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Great State of "West by GOD Virginia!"
    Posts
    3,669

    Default

    I've seen this first hand, they want to be treated equal but their standards are lower than the men's, i have seen so many guys helping the women out and not only does that hurt but it takes away from what that guy should be doing, If they are going to have women in the military then make up a whole unit of nothing but women, i would love to see that.
    Steve. - Leader of the Cow Eater Clan.
    Missouri Hunters Group
    6.8 SPC Guide
    Congress Contact Link




  7. #47
    68Forums.com Team Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Roswell, GA
    Posts
    1,591

    Default

    Look, we had to put them on our damn submarines to comply with the government's anti-discrimination initiative, so why not put them in combat? It worked well in "Starship Troopers", at least visually.
    Sighting in the new ARP 6.8 upper.


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •