PDA

View Full Version : Females Fail again



CYBERFX1024
04-01-2013, 09:17 PM
I just saw that they had two more women fail again in completing the Infantry Officer course. I personally don't know why the Marine Corps keeps investing time and money into this. I don't think there will be anyone to fully complete the course when held to the same standard as men.

Any thoughts on this?

Quixotic
04-01-2013, 09:25 PM
Yea, how many men failed?

combatrob
04-02-2013, 04:27 AM
Waiting for OP to deliver...

JD2780
04-02-2013, 12:08 PM
It's like posting how many women failed PJ school or BUD/s and not posting how many men failed. There is a huge washout rate, and those females would have plenty of company.

Pullinteeth
04-02-2013, 01:03 PM
I just saw that they had two more women fail again in completing the Infantry Officer course. I personally don't know why the Marine Corps keeps investing time and money into this. I don't think there will be anyone to fully complete the course when held to the same standard as men.

Any thoughts on this?

If no one can pass, apparently the standard is too high...

DocBones
04-02-2013, 06:45 PM
pullinteeth, the women Marines were allowed to enter the course knowing that there would be no gender norming. It's hard enough to become an infantry officer in the Corps. If the course were to be gender normed, we'd be adding not only women, but softer type males, that if they couldn't handle the course, why does anyone think that they can haul the gear that the infantry has to do? It's tough for a reason. If an officer can't hack the training, then the Corps has no place place for any of them, male or female who can't complete the course, in the infantry. The Corps carries very heavy packs, up to 140 pounds, plus ammo for them and for the smaw gunners. Add in the bdus, the combat helmet, the canteens, medical first aid kits, entrenching tools, gas masks, plus the weapon. And other stuff.

It's tough enough being a Marine, without having to carry some non hackers gear also.

So, it's either pass, or fail, and get some other job. It's as simple as that.

RobotChicken
04-02-2013, 07:40 PM
:cry Or issue 'em some pack mules or sled dogs...:lock1

efmbman
04-02-2013, 09:43 PM
Does the failure of women bring joy to anyone?

Mr. Squid
04-02-2013, 10:31 PM
Yea, how many men failed?As compared to the number of men who passed? You tell me. I'll tell you this much though; *percentages* in this case, viewed alongside their respective raw numbers, will paint a far more accurate picture than wandering astray with just raw numbers alone.

AJBIGJ
04-02-2013, 10:35 PM
The system works. Women can sign up and try out just like the men. Those that pass when they do will be able to hack it. Those that cannot will and are washing out. Why is this even a issue for discussion? The only thing this proves is that removing an absolute ban on women in these MOS's does not weaken the force because it operates as it was designed to.

Quixotic
04-02-2013, 10:39 PM
As compared to the number of men who passed?

I'm not comparing anything by asking that question.


You tell me.

I don't know, that's why I asked.


I'll tell you this much though; *percentages* in this case, viewed alongside their respective raw numbers, will paint a far more accurate picture than wandering astray with just raw numbers alone.

Agreed

AJBIGJ
04-02-2013, 10:59 PM
The system works. Women can sign up and try out just like the men. Those that pass when they do will be able to hack it. Those that cannot will be and are washing out. Why is this even a issue for discussion? The only thing this proves is that removing an absolute ban on women in these MOS's does not weaken the force because it operates as it was designed to.

Pullinteeth
04-03-2013, 12:55 PM
pullinteeth, the women Marines were allowed to enter the course knowing that there would be no gender norming. It's hard enough to become an infantry officer in the Corps. If the course were to be gender normed, we'd be adding not only women, but softer type males, that if they couldn't handle the course, why does anyone think that they can haul the gear that the infantry has to do? It's tough for a reason. If an officer can't hack the training, then the Corps has no place place for any of them, male or female who can't complete the course, in the infantry. The Corps carries very heavy packs, up to 140 pounds, plus ammo for them and for the smaw gunners. Add in the bdus, the combat helmet, the canteens, medical first aid kits, entrenching tools, gas masks, plus the weapon. And other stuff.

It's tough enough being a Marine, without having to carry some non hackers gear also.

So, it's either pass, or fail, and get some other job. It's as simple as that.

I get that...he didn't say no FEMALES could pass...he said no one could pass.... Having a standard that is unatainable by ANYONE seems pretty stupid to me...

TJMAC77SP
04-03-2013, 02:51 PM
Actually it is pretty obvious that asking about the number of men who failed did have an agenda.

Otherwise the question should have been..."How many women have entered the course?"

And as mentioned, percentages of failure for both genders gives a truer picture. Knowing how many men failed by itself does nothing to add to the knowledge of the situation.

sandsjames
04-03-2013, 02:58 PM
Does the failure of women bring joy to anyone?

The failure itself doesn't bring joy but the proof, to those who insist we can all do the same tasks, that it just isn't the case brings a little joy. I don't dislike women at all. I dislike activists who are being activists just for the sake of it. I'm glad that women are competing in business on a skill/intellectual/leadership level. For people to continue to insist that men and women, in general, can compete on a physical level is ridiculous.

Quixotic
04-03-2013, 03:29 PM
Actually it is pretty obvious that asking about the number of men who failed did have an agenda.

Ok, what's my agenda?


Otherwise the question should have been..."How many women have entered the course?"

I don't care how many women entered the course. I want to know how many men failed the course, specifically, out of how many.


And as mentioned, percentages of failure for both genders gives a truer picture. Knowing how many men failed by itself does nothing to add to the knowledge of the situation.

That depends upon exactly what knowledge of a situation one is looking for. I guess I'll have to wait for you to tell me what my agenda is so I can decide what I need knowledge about.

TJMAC77SP
04-03-2013, 05:07 PM
Ok, what's my agenda?



I don't care how many women entered the course. I want to know how many men failed the course, specifically, out of how many.



That depends upon exactly what knowledge of a situation one is looking for. I guess I'll have to wait for you to tell me what my agenda is so I can decide what I need knowledge about.

How about you tell us what insight you will gain by comparing the number of men who fail to the number of women who fail? What 'knowledge' are you looking for?

Please, at least be honest with your postings.

Pullinteeth
04-03-2013, 05:15 PM
Actually it is pretty obvious that asking about the number of men who failed did have an agenda.

Otherwise the question should have been..."How many women have entered the course?"

And as mentioned, percentages of failure for both genders gives a truer picture. Knowing how many men failed by itself does nothing to add to the knowledge of the situation.

Actually, knowing how many men failed, how many men were enrolled, how many women failed, and how many women were enrolled would give you those percentages. You are right, knowing how many men failed doesn't tell you squat but neither does knowing how many women failed... The next step (if an issue was identified) would be to find out WHY there was a difference in percentages. If that difference is caused by a valid requirement, fine. If it is caused by a BS requirement...that might be another matter entirely...

TJMAC77SP
04-03-2013, 06:52 PM
Actually, knowing how many men failed, how many men were enrolled, how many women failed, and how many women were enrolled would give you those percentages. You are right, knowing how many men failed doesn't tell you squat but neither does knowing how many women failed... The next step (if an issue was identified) would be to find out WHY there was a difference in percentages. If that difference is caused by a valid requirement, fine. If it is caused by a BS requirement...that might be another matter entirely...



So the question asked was of no substantive value?

My point.

Quixotic
04-03-2013, 09:31 PM
How about you tell us what insight you will gain by comparing the number of men who fail to the number of women who fail? What 'knowledge' are you looking for?

Please, at least be honest with your postings.

Hmmm, what knowledge could be gained by comparing the number of men who fail the number of women who fail....? Hmmm, I wonder...

I'm still waiting for you to tell be what my agenda is.

Banned
04-03-2013, 10:02 PM
In the Corps there is a reflexive hatred and bitterness towards female Marines. I'm not sure why exactly. Is it because its a high-tempo/high stress organization, and the females were an unfortunate easy target to vent all this hatred and anger?

The "female problem" is entirely self-inflicted. All the services have a double standard for the sexes... but the USMC is by far the worst offender. From day 1 of boot camp female Marines are taught that they are weaker, that there's roles that they couldn't/shouldn't do. In other words... that sense of entitlement that American girls often have is never broken.

So basically, the females are being taught from Day #1 at a lower standard... then when they fail out of courses that's somehow evidence that they shouldn't be held to a higher standard. It's circular reasoning.

From my experience - a typical Army girl will deblouse and help pitch the operations tent and fill sand bags without even thinking about it - from what I saw in the Corps - the dudes would be working, and the female standing around expecting everyone to work except her. Not to say they were all like that... but its an attitude that the organization seemed to actively encourage.

garhkal
04-03-2013, 10:16 PM
I don't care how many women entered the course. I want to know how many men failed the course, specifically, out of how many..

So you want to know the % of men who fail, but care not how many women fail... and you say there is no agenda there??
RIIIGGGHHHHHTT>

RobotChicken
04-03-2013, 10:27 PM
:happyWell if you consider they 'Kangaroo' their young for 9 months, they ought to be able to handle the extra weight! :preggers

Quixotic
04-03-2013, 10:58 PM
So you want to know the % of men who fail, but care not how many women fail... and you say there is no agenda there??
RIIIGGGHHHHHTT>

When did I say I don't care how many women failed?

Since the other guy won't tell me my agenda, perhaps you will...?

efmbman
04-04-2013, 12:03 AM
In the Corps there is a reflexive hatred and bitterness towards female Marines. I'm not sure why exactly. Is it because its a high-tempo/high stress organization, and the females were an unfortunate easy target to vent all this hatred and anger?

They are looking for a few good MEN. Could be that simple.

Banned
04-04-2013, 12:44 AM
They are looking for a few good MEN. Could be that simple.

Very true!

RobotChicken
04-04-2013, 12:52 AM
:preggers Well the rate things are going...you will have to settle for a 'Few Great Women'; cause the 'guy pool' is full of wimps! (sorry to bust your bubble..IMO of course) Military 'BRATS' excluded of course, 63% of enlistment I believe..Mr. Dorr? :phone

Banned
04-04-2013, 01:08 AM
They are looking for a few good MEN. Could be that simple.

Very true!

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2013, 10:29 AM
Hmmm, what knowledge could be gained by comparing the number of men who fail the number of women who fail....? Hmmm, I wonder...

I'm still waiting for you to tell be what my agenda is.

I am still waiting for you to tell me what knowledge you will gain from knowing those two particular facts.

BTW: My agenda is calling people out who try to slyly push an agenda without actually stating so. Like maybe the OP had some anti-female bent.

So.............what insight to the situation (females failing Infantry Officer Course) do you gain from knowing those two facts you insist are important

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2013, 10:31 AM
So you want to know the % of men who fail, but care not how many women fail... and you say there is no agenda there??
RIIIGGGHHHHHTT>

But he asked NOTHING about percentages for either gender, just number of men who failed.

Pullinteeth
04-04-2013, 01:35 PM
I don't care how many women entered the course. I want to know how many men failed the course, specifically, out of how many.

That makes no sense....you can't compare the two. You want the # of women that failed and the percentage of men that failed...

So...if 1 woman failed, that is enough info for you
If 20 men entered and 10 failed you would want to know the percentage.

So your comparison would be one woman failed and 50% of the men failed. That doesn't tell you ANYHING. If however, you knew that 2 women entered and 1 failed, you would have a similar standard to compare...both would be 50%....

garhkal
04-04-2013, 03:34 PM
But he asked NOTHING about percentages for either gender, just number of men who failed.

Incorrect.. she/he (not sure really) wanted to know
"I don't care how many women entered the course. I want to know how many men failed the course, specifically, out of how many."
The bolded part would give a percentage.

Quixotic
04-04-2013, 04:20 PM
I am still waiting for you to tell me what knowledge you will gain from knowing those two particular facts.

BTW: My agenda is calling people out who try to slyly push an agenda without actually stating so. Like maybe the OP had some anti-female bent.

So.............what insight to the situation (females failing Infantry Officer Course) do you gain from knowing those two facts you insist are important

I am still waiting for you to tell me what my 'obvious' agenda is, then, once I know my agenda, I'll tell you the simple truth behind those two 'obvious' questions.

How about that?

So.............. what's my agenda please.

Quixotic
04-04-2013, 04:21 PM
But he asked NOTHING about percentages for either gender, just number of men who failed.

Maybe because I already have the other info...?

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2013, 05:59 PM
Maybe because I already have the other info...?

NOW you do but that isn't what you first asked. You knew that didn't you? Did you hope I didn't remember?

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2013, 05:59 PM
I am still waiting for you to tell me what my 'obvious' agenda is, then, once I know my agenda, I'll tell you the simple truth behind those two 'obvious' questions.

How about that?

So.............. what's my agenda please.


Again........................"......people out who try to slyly push an agenda without actually stating so. Like maybe the OP had some anti-female bent."

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2013, 06:22 PM
Incorrect.. she/he (not sure really) wanted to know
"I don't care how many women entered the course. I want to know how many men failed the course, specifically, out of how many."
The bolded part would give a percentage.



First post..........before being challenged.


Yea, how many men failed?

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2013, 06:23 PM
Maybe because I already have the other info...?

NOW you do but that isn't what you first asked. You knew that didn't you? Did you hope I didn't remember?

Banned
04-04-2013, 06:36 PM
TJMAC... I honestly think you're deliberately trying to misunderstand his argument. His point was perfectly clear.

The OP declared women unfit for combat because two women failed out of the infantry officers course. Quixotic responded with "how many men failed". The point he was making should be fairly obvious, regardless of "agenda".

JD2780
04-04-2013, 06:43 PM
I just want to see the attrition rate for men. Isn't it 100% for women so far? That's crappy considering there are some that can certainly do it.

CYBERFX1024
04-04-2013, 07:03 PM
Again........................"......people out who try to slyly push an agenda without actually stating so. Like maybe the OP had some anti-female bent."

I don't have a agenda and I am not anti women in the Marine Corps. But I am dead set against women in the Infantry fields. The vast majority of them can not do it. I know a very small minority can but most of them can't. I don't see it practical enough for women to try the Infantry Officer course when 99% of them will fail. Why waste all that time and money on that?

JD2780
04-04-2013, 07:08 PM
I just want to see the attrition rate for men. Isn't it 100% for women so far? That's crappy considering there are some that can certainly do it.

JD2780
04-04-2013, 07:12 PM
It may very well be...the OP said the standard is so high that no one can complete it so...that would also mean the failure rate for males would be 100%. Neither attrition rate has been posted so this is just idle speculation.... Find it had to believe that not a single person would pass but....



That just means the USMC screening process sucks @$$cock...not that women can't do it. You SAY most can't but....talk is cheap-it takes money to buy gas...

Apparently its about 25%. That's not exactly that high at all. I think if the same amount of women applied you would get probably a 25%-35% pass rate. That is a complete WAG based off no scientific evidence!!!

Pullinteeth
04-04-2013, 07:12 PM
I just want to see the attrition rate for men. Isn't it 100% for women so far? That's crappy considering there are some that can certainly do it.

It may very well be...the OP said the standard is so high that no one can complete it so...that would also mean the failure rate for males would be 100%. Neither attrition rate has been posted so this is just idle speculation.... Find it had to believe that not a single person would pass but....


I don't have a agenda and I am not anti women in the Marine Corps. But I am dead set against women in the Infantry fields. The vast majority of them can not do it. I know a very small minority can but most of them can't. I don't see it practical enough for women to try the Infantry Officer course when 99% of them will fail. Why waste all that time and money on that?

That just means the USMC screening process sucks @$$cock...not that women can't do it. You SAY most can't but....talk is cheap-it takes money to buy gas...

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2013, 07:39 PM
I'm not asking about the OP's agenda, I am asking you what is my sly 'obvious' agenda. Yep, still waiting.

Can you not read and comprehend? Of course you can. This hole is getting deeper.

Quixotic
04-04-2013, 07:48 PM
Again........................"......people out who try to slyly push an agenda without actually stating so. Like maybe the OP had some anti-female bent."

I'm not asking about the OP's agenda, I am asking you what is my sly 'obvious' agenda. Yep, still waiting.

Quixotic
04-04-2013, 07:50 PM
NOW you do but that isn't what you first asked. You knew that didn't you? Did you hope I didn't remember?

I said maybe LOL.

Tell me, did you remember my 'obvious' agenda yet?

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2013, 08:01 PM
TJMAC... I honestly think you're deliberately trying to misunderstand his argument. His point was perfectly clear.

The OP declared women unfit for combat because two women failed out of the infantry officers course. Quixotic responded with "how many men failed". The point he was making should be fairly obvious, regardless of "agenda".

The question itself revealed his real point........obvious since you understood it. The answer to the question asked would have revealed no relevant information regarding the fitness of women to operate in the Infantry.

Silly huh? All these posts and here we are, right where my original post intended.

Quixotic
04-04-2013, 08:16 PM
The question itself revealed his real point........obvious since you understood it. The answer to the question asked would have revealed no relevant information regarding the fitness of women to operate in the Infantry.

Silly huh? All these posts and here we are, right where my original post intended.

Right, your original post, where you accused me of having an 'obvious' agenda.

Still waiting to know what my agenda is...

GoatDriver57
04-04-2013, 08:47 PM
The failure itself doesn't bring joy but the proof, to those who insist we can all do the same tasks, that it just isn't the case brings a little joy. I don't dislike women at all. I dislike activists who are being activists just for the sake of it. I'm glad that women are competing in business on a skill/intellectual/leadership level. For people to continue to insist that men and women, in general, can compete on a physical level is ridiculous.

Very good post.

The question; "Yea, how many men failed? "

Answer; the same ratio as the women. 10 men and one female.

Nothing going on here gentleOnes unless RFD has something he sees? :) .

Banned
04-04-2013, 09:53 PM
The question itself revealed his real point........obvious since you understood it. The answer to the question asked would have revealed no relevant information regarding the fitness of women to operate in the Infantry.

Silly huh? All these posts and here we are, right where my original post intended.

I am equally curious as to what you think his "agenda" is... other than simply getting some context to the fact two women failed. If ten or twenty males also failed... that sheds some light on the number.

Pullinteeth
04-05-2013, 12:10 PM
I am equally curious as to what you think his "agenda" is... other than simply getting some context to the fact two women failed. If ten or twenty males also failed... that sheds some light on the number.

No it doesn't.

If 2 women failed and there were 20 enrolled and 10 or 20 males failed and there were 10 or 20 enrolled, that would tell a completely different story than it 2 women failed and there were 4 enrolled and 10 or 20 males failed and there were 50 or 60 enrolled.
Raw numbers don't give you any context at all...you need the ratio or percentages.

Banned
04-05-2013, 01:53 PM
No it doesn't.

If 2 women failed and there were 20 enrolled and 10 or 20 males failed and there were 10 or 20 enrolled, that would tell a completely different story than it 2 women failed and there were 4 enrolled and 10 or 20 males failed and there were 50 or 60 enrolled.
Raw numbers don't give you any context at all...you need the ratio or percentages.

Yes yese yes yes yes okay fine.

Pullinteeth
04-05-2013, 05:44 PM
Yes yese yes yes yes okay fine.

My point is that we have gone six pages and as of yet, no meaningful data has been supplied to support the OP that women are not qualified...we know a couple aren't...and that 25% of an undetermined population either passed or didn't pass-that post was extremely unclear (or I can't read).

TJMAC77SP
04-09-2013, 10:45 AM
Right, your original post, where you accused me of having an 'obvious' agenda.

Still waiting to know what my agenda is...

Did you want it in another language?


Read this again slowly........I added a little bold text to aid in the effort.

"Again........................"......people out who try to slyly push an agenda without actually stating so. Like maybe the OP had some anti-female bent."

This is like explaining a joke. See the "like maybe' is a reference to the thinly veiled agenda you showed when asking your irrelevant question. And just in case you are still missing it.........."The OP had some anti-femail bent". See, THAT would be your agenda.

Kinda a let down after all this. You can climb out now.

CYBERFX1024
04-09-2013, 01:56 PM
I did have a somewhat anti-female bent to it. I am not going to lie. I hate how the DOD has become so PC oriented it is sickening. I understand women want to be equal and I applaud them for that. But too many times in Marines I have seen females use the differences to there advantage. Now a couple of female officers sued the DOD and it relented. So now they can try to finish Infantry Officer Course.

JD2780
04-09-2013, 01:58 PM
I did have a somewhat anti-female bent to it. I am not going to lie. I hate how the DOD has become so PC oriented it is sickening. I understand women want to be equal and I applaud them for that. But too many times in Marines I have seen females use the differences to there advantage. Now a couple of female officers sued the DOD and it relented. So now they can try to finish Infantry Officer Course.

If they did finish would you still have this contempt for women?

Would you just assume the cadre folded and let them slide?

Or would you trust them the way you would trust any other butter bar, I know I said trust butter bar i relatively speaking.

TJMAC77SP
04-09-2013, 04:34 PM
No, english is fine.



Well, thank you for the bold print, about the OP's agenda. Here's some bold print of my own,



Given that I'm the one that asked the question, that would make me the one with the 'obvious' agenda, now again, one more time, WHAT IS MY "OBVIOUS" AGENDA!!!

Come on, you can do it, it's not hard.

It kinda sucks when you make an accusation about someone and they call you out on it isn't it?

Here, one more time, what's my agenda please?

Come one, do you think anyone is buying this........?

Let's not cherry pick and quote my entire post.

Like this..............

"The OP had some anti-female bent". See, THAT would be your agenda.

I am puzzled at this point why this seems to be such a big deal to you. Are you shocked that someone recognized your obtuse point? Other posters (including Joe despite his stated 'curiosity') saw it. We all do it just not sure why so sensitive.

EDIT: I did correct the spelling from my original post

Quixotic
04-09-2013, 04:38 PM
Did you want it in another language?

No, english is fine.


Read this again slowly........I added a little bold text to aid in the effort.

"Again........................"......people out who try to slyly push an agenda without actually stating so. Like maybe the OP had some anti-female bent."

This is like explaining a joke. See the "like maybe' is a reference to the thinly veiled agenda you showed when asking your irrelevant question. And just in case you are still missing it.........."The OP had some anti-femail bent". See, THAT would be your agenda.

Kinda a let down after all this. You can climb out now.

Well, thank you for the bold print, about the OP's agenda. Here's some bold print of my own,


Actually it is pretty obvious that asking about the number of men who failed did have an agenda.

Given that I'm the one that asked the question, that would make me the one with the 'obvious' agenda, now again, one more time, WHAT IS MY "OBVIOUS" AGENDA!!!

Come on, you can do it, it's not hard.

It kinda sucks when you make an accusation about someone and they call you out on it isn't it?

Here, one more time, what's my agenda please?

sandsjames
04-09-2013, 04:53 PM
Here, one more time, what's my agenda please?


I haven't been part of the conversation but, oh well. By asking how many men have failed when the article is about women you are trying to make the point that women failing proves nothing. You're trying to push that the article does nothing to prove that women aren't equally as cabable as men. You are insinuating that men and women are equal. Ultimately, your agenda is one of equality in all aspects. Your agenda is misguided.

TJMAC77SP
04-09-2013, 04:58 PM
No, english is fine.



Well, thank you for the bold print, about the OP's agenda. Here's some bold print of my own,



Given that I'm the one that asked the question, that would make me the one with the 'obvious' agenda, now again, one more time, WHAT IS MY "OBVIOUS" AGENDA!!!

Come on, you can do it, it's not hard.

It kinda sucks when you make an accusation about someone and they call you out on it isn't it?

Here, one more time, what's my agenda please?

Come one, do you think anyone is buying this........?

Let's not cherry pick and quote my entire post.

Like this..............

"The OP had some anti-femail bent". See, THAT would be your agenda.

Quixotic
04-09-2013, 08:22 PM
Come one, do you think anyone is buying this........?

Let's not cherry pick and quote my entire post.

Like this..............

"The OP had some anti-femail bent". See, THAT would be your agenda.

Nope, just because the OP may have an "anti-female bent" does not, in any way shape or form, mean that I subscribe to his/her 'agenda.'

Furthermore, I fail to see how simply asking how many men failed, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I am anti-female, and share the OP's position, or agenda.

If you feel that my 'obvious agenda' is that I am anti-female then you would of course, be wrong.

Try again.

garhkal
04-09-2013, 08:27 PM
If they did finish would you still have this contempt for women?

Would you just assume the cadre folded and let them slide?

Being they already sued to be allowed back in, i can easily see part of that 'allow them back in' to 'ensure they pass, even if you have to lessen the goal posts' for them to do so...

F4CrewChick
04-09-2013, 10:17 PM
Yeah, right. The handful of women who have applied definitely speak for all possible women candidates. Hey you neanderthal, the 1920's called, they want their meme back.

DocBones
04-10-2013, 12:04 AM
I have never ever seen a a new officer (butter bar) that was trusted in the infantry by his men, until he had done some time and learned the ropes of being in command of a platoon, how to lessen wear and tear on the men, and had enough real experience to not order his men into a deadly situation, if other courses of action were available. Also, how to call in artillery. And finally, sometimes, not to be a self serving prick.

F4CrewChick
04-10-2013, 12:12 AM
Did you know Bea Arthur was a Marine? All 5'10 and a 1/2 of her and I bet she woulda made it through combat training.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8126/8636459226_96fe02db4e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8636459226/) Bea-Arthur-USMC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8636459226/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr

Assaultdog0351
04-10-2013, 07:01 AM
This is all just a waste of time and money, neither of which we can spare! Can't we just use the sequester to delay like everyone else seems to be doing? Lol! But no, seriously!

TJMAC77SP
04-10-2013, 11:26 AM
Nope, just because the OP may have an "anti-female bent" does not, in any way shape or form, mean that I subscribe to his/her 'agenda.'

Furthermore, I fail to see how simply asking how many men failed, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I am anti-female, and share the OP's position, or agenda.

If you feel that my 'obvious agenda' is that I am anti-female then you would of course, be wrong.

Try again.

Ok, I have done it again. I have completely overestimated someone's mental acuity.

My point was YOUR agenda was to attempt to point out what you THOUGHT was the OP's position. I didn't come close to attributing THAT position as YOUR agenda.

What your question failed to do and continues to fail to do was uncover or illuminate any information which would be relevant to anything when comparing women and men failing the Infantry course.

Quixotic
04-10-2013, 04:43 PM
Ok, I have done it again. I have completely overestimated someone's mental acuity.

Noted.


My point was YOUR agenda was to attempt to point out what you THOUGHT was the OP's position. I didn't come close to attributing THAT position as YOUR agenda.

Sure you did.


What your question failed to do and continues to fail to do was uncover or illuminate any information which would be relevant to anything when comparing women and men failing the Infantry course.

Sure it does.

Failure to uncover or illuminate any information which could be relevant.... as if 99% of the posts around here do?

TJMAC77SP
04-10-2013, 05:09 PM
Noted.



Sure you did.



Sure it does.

Failure to uncover or illuminate any information which could be relevant.... as if 99% of the posts around here do?

Ok, my turn for questions.

Please show me the posts where I attributed your posts as being anti-female.

Please show us how knowing how many men failed (combined with how many women failed as revealed in the OP) gave us any irrelevant information on anything of substance.

TJMAC77SP
04-10-2013, 05:11 PM
Did you know Bea Arthur was a Marine? All 5'10 and a 1/2 of her and I bet she woulda made it through combat training.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8126/8636459226_96fe02db4e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8636459226/) Bea-Arthur-USMC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8636459226/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr

I have read that before. Interestingly enough according to some reports Arthur denied her service in the Corps. Never read an explanation for that. Kinda weird.

sandsjames
04-10-2013, 05:20 PM
I have read that before. Interestingly enough according to some reports Arthur denied her service in the Corps. Never read an explanation for that. Kinda weird.

Why are we discussing Bea Arthur? I thought we were talking about women?

Quixotic
04-10-2013, 05:35 PM
Ok, my turn for questions.

Oh now it's your turn? LOL


Please show me the posts where I attributed your posts as being anti-female.

We already covered that.


Please show us how knowing how many men failed (combined with how many women failed as revealed in the OP) gave us any irrelevant information on anything of substance.

We already covered that too.

MisterBen
04-11-2013, 02:52 AM
Did you know Bea Arthur was a Marine? All 5'10 and a 1/2 of her and I bet she woulda made it through combat training.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8126/8636459226_96fe02db4e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8636459226/) Bea-Arthur-USMC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8636459226/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr

I bet you she wouldn't. Corps in the 40s was a different animal and not PC as today. Mothers of America.

Problem with liberal hollywood, all female warriors are GI Jane and Xena caliber. But in real life, a whole different story.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYjOTIS-7kc

TJMAC77SP
04-11-2013, 10:22 AM
Oh now it's your turn? LOL



We already covered that.



We already covered that too.

LOL ? WTF, OMG, I don't get a turn?

Please tell me where "we covered" my questions. You made assertions, prove them.

Quixotic
04-11-2013, 04:41 PM
LOL ? WTF, OMG, I don't get a turn?

Please tell me where "we covered" my questions. You made assertions, prove them.

Actually, you're the one with unproven assertions around here, remember, my agenda and all that?

Anyway, we covered your recent questions in pages 1-4 of this thread, they're not hard to find.

Good luck!

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2013, 04:18 PM
Actually, you're the one with unproven assertions around here, remember, my agenda and all that?

Anyway, we covered your recent questions in pages 1-4 of this thread, they're not hard to find.

Good luck!

One of us is ignoring actual words posted and seeing words not posted.

Luck has nothing to do with it.

Joe, more of that smell.