HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » 17 pct of male Marines su...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:34 PM

17 pct of male Marines surveyed likely to leave Corps if women get combat posts

Source: Associated Press

A Marine Corps survey found about 17 percent of male Marine respondents said they would likely leave the Corps if women move into combat positions.

That number jumped to 22 percent if women are assigned involuntarily to those jobs, according to the survey.

Male Marines also listed among their top concerns fears about being falsely accused of sexual harassment or assault, fraternization or some Marines getting preferential treatment. They also worried women would be limited because of pregnancy or personal issues that could affect the unit before they are sent to the battlefield.

.......

Women Marines listed among their top three concerns enemies targeting women as POWs, the risk of sexual harassment or assault and hygiene requirements, according to the results which did not given specifics.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/marine-leader-says-infantry-skeptical-about-women-in-combat-some-positions-may-be-closed/2013/01/31/6bd727c6-6c06-11e2-8f4f-2abd96162ba8_story.html?wp_login_redirect=0

102 replies, 10698 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 102 replies Author Time Post
Reply 17 pct of male Marines surveyed likely to leave Corps if women get combat posts (Original post)
Redfairen Feb 2013 OP
Little Star Feb 2013 #1
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #2
dballance Feb 2013 #5
Robb Feb 2013 #8
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #28
Cha Feb 2013 #50
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #80
Bucky Feb 2013 #82
Hekate Feb 2013 #51
Big_Mike Feb 2013 #52
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #53
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #56
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #65
Democracyinkind Feb 2013 #74
riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #84
oberle Feb 2013 #88
Big_Mike Feb 2013 #92
amandabeech Feb 2013 #93
riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #95
Bay Boy Feb 2013 #97
Big_Mike Feb 2013 #98
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #57
ZombieHorde Feb 2013 #59
Le Taz Hot Feb 2013 #3
dballance Feb 2013 #4
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #58
jberryhill Feb 2013 #6
Enrique Feb 2013 #7
earthside Feb 2013 #13
bobclark86 Feb 2013 #31
yurbud Feb 2013 #87
SoapBox Feb 2013 #9
dixiegrrrrl Feb 2013 #24
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #30
Smilo Feb 2013 #10
SCVDem Feb 2013 #12
SoapBox Feb 2013 #22
AAO Feb 2013 #44
SCVDem Feb 2013 #11
SnowCritter Feb 2013 #19
Bigmack Feb 2013 #25
SCVDem Feb 2013 #46
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #14
Sancho Feb 2013 #15
Smarmie Doofus Feb 2013 #17
ellisonz Feb 2013 #99
Xithras Feb 2013 #16
SoapBox Feb 2013 #23
MADem Feb 2013 #32
pinboy3niner Feb 2013 #18
JustABozoOnThisBus Feb 2013 #20
bluedigger Feb 2013 #21
rosesaylavee Feb 2013 #26
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #27
MADem Feb 2013 #29
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #33
Divine Discontent Feb 2013 #40
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #34
Exultant Democracy Feb 2013 #35
L0oniX Feb 2013 #36
primavera Feb 2013 #37
rocktivity Feb 2013 #38
Divine Discontent Feb 2013 #39
sulphurdunn Feb 2013 #41
cap Feb 2013 #42
ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #43
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #45
SCVDem Feb 2013 #47
KamaAina Feb 2013 #48
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #49
indepat Feb 2013 #54
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #55
3c273a Feb 2013 #60
Dyedinthewoolliberal Feb 2013 #61
John2 Feb 2013 #62
underpants Feb 2013 #63
olddad56 Feb 2013 #64
markpkessinger Feb 2013 #66
BobFromNY5 Feb 2013 #67
Katashi_itto Feb 2013 #68
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #71
Katashi_itto Feb 2013 #72
sendero Feb 2013 #69
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #70
krispos42 Feb 2013 #73
ThoughtCriminal Feb 2013 #75
La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2013 #76
Bucky Feb 2013 #81
Kennah Feb 2013 #86
MjolnirTime Feb 2013 #77
alarimer Feb 2013 #78
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #79
Bucky Feb 2013 #83
treestar Feb 2013 #100
JI7 Feb 2013 #102
ncteechur Feb 2013 #85
Politicub Feb 2013 #89
Fearless Feb 2013 #90
Arkana Feb 2013 #91
grahamhgreen Feb 2013 #94
duhneece Feb 2013 #96
Historic NY Feb 2013 #101

Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:36 PM

1. WTF! Shame on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:37 PM

2. Or in other words, the vast majority of marines are not sexist assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:39 PM

5. I Like That way of Looking at It. Good Job! /eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:44 PM

8. That was my read on it, too.

Considering the reputation the USMC has been getting (probably unfairly) as being the most resistant to change, this is a pretty good number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:51 PM

28. Well said!!! K&R !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:47 PM

50. Yeah! And, 17% are brainwashed rush limbaugh

addicts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #50)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:44 PM

80. What's the basis in fact for that assertion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #80)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:46 PM

82. Based on the last election, I think he means Marines are smarter than civilians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:59 PM

51. Well done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:34 PM

52. I do not think that they replied from a sexist point of view, but one of readiness

I retired from Army service. My Marine brothers laugh at me, and say the Army is completely different, but in most respects these two services mirror one another. People look at women in combat and see it only in terms of equality of opportunity and that women can do any job out there. For over 90% of the jobs in the military, I agree women can do them. But not those jobs in the direct combat arms.

I led and mentored women in the Army for about 10 years of my service. I did 10 years in Combat Arms (Infantry and Combat Engineering) and 8 years in Combat Support (Heavy Equipment Engineer and Maintenance units) and two years teaching leadership (PLDC). Women can be as good or bad as any other troopie, mostly averaging towards a little better than simply good. Some were outstanding and some were duds. The outstanding I tried to promote a quickly as possible, the duds I retrained and they performed to standard or they were eventually separated from service. There is little room for under-performers in the military. The main thing about them however, is that you ALWAYS planned to use more bodies for a job when the physical requirements were severe in nature. When we had to bust tires on a deuce and a half, rather than 3 guys (maybe two with bigger guys), I'd assign six or seven females to break the tire loose from the split ring and then get the ring off the tire so that the tube could be repaired or replaced. I never of my own will assigned females to break track on the M88 recovery vehicle (was required to do it twice, and ended up having to help them rather than do my job just to get it finished). That job is a stone bitch for anyone, and getting the track back around the drive sprocket and all the rest of the reassembly is not something to remember fondly. I never ever saw a female replace individual track pads on armored vehicles. Occasionally, they would change track plates on dozers, but only very rarely. We would occasionally send down contact teams with females as attachments to combat units, but they were only attachments.

For the past 10 years, WOMEN HAVE BEEN IN COMBAT. There is no arguing that point. They have been there and done that, with some awarded Silver Stars for performance under fire. In particular, I remember the female MP whose convoy was ambushed. She took charge, drove across the ambush and counter-attacked. Tremendous leader, obviously. But closing with and destroying the enemy is not her primary job, it was something forced upon her by circumstance.

She operated a machinegun (an M60 I believe) and devastated the enemy. But she was not assigned to a foot patrol and ordered to carry the "Pig" ( a term of endearment among us old gunners) over the course of a 12 or 16 hour day of movement. Let me tell you, the pig weighs 23 pounds, each 100 rounds of ammo weighs around 7 pounds (gunner carries 300, so 21 more pounds) so just the guns is 46 pound to carry. Full battle rattle is another 40 pounds. There is 86 pounds already loaded on someone who might go as high as 140 - 150 pounds. In her performance, she crossed across the ambush and attacked. On foot, she most likely would failed to have accomplished what she did. Perhaps she could have crawled across the ambush, but she could never have run. I do not know this as a fact, but based upon 20 years experience, I would strongly bet that way.

Also, given the lack of upper body strength in most females, how long do you think she could actually function on a daily basis? In two years of monthly rotations teaching basic combat patrolling with 3 females out of my 15 soldiers, I never had one last more than about an hour as either pig gunner or as radio operator. I know that anecdote does not equal data, but I sure as hell could plan that way! Yes, there are a very few who could likely stand the pressure, but overall women in direct combat positions is a weakness and adversely affects readiness.

The physiological issues are simple - ignore it. If a unit is ever attacked by chemical weapons or is exposed to nuclear fallout, the decontamination points are co-ed. Everybody is decontaminated, stripped naked and showered as part of final decontamination. No separate lines. Ignore it and drive on. In combat, how they pee should not matter, just that they are by your shoulder, fighting to save your life as you save theirs. Unfortunately, there are many old people in the US who never grew up and are childish about this. It should not matter, but for many it does. Fuck it, ignore it is my motto.

I am a big supporter of women in the service, but I think both the unit and the individual suffer if women are added to infantry, armor, some cavalry, and most combat engineer positions; particularly when assigned to Light units. Maybe they could partly work out in a wheeled or tracked unit, but never in light units.) As an aside, Light only means that they carry everything everywhere they go. And let me tell you, it is NOT light!!). As a Combat Engineer, rather than machinegun ammo, I carried 20 - 60 pounds of high explosive. Kicked my ass every time. But I carried it, day in and day out. I climbed mountains, crossed jungles or trekked across deserts with my load. The terrain did not matter, mission accomplishment is all that matters.

And in my humble opinion, females in direct combat units will not foster mission accomplishment, only hinder it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Big_Mike (Reply #52)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:37 PM

53. if the shoe fits, at least admit to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Big_Mike (Reply #52)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:48 PM

56. People gave nearly identical rants about blacks in the military. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #56)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:11 PM

65. And most recently gays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Big_Mike (Reply #52)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 07:05 AM

74. You guys were wrong when you said those things about desegregation, wrong when you said those things

about gay members of the military and you will be proven wrong by history as to your views on women as well. (you alread have been, you chose just not to notice...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Big_Mike (Reply #52)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:44 PM

84. You do know that many other militaries have full gender integration, like Israel, Australia

New Zealand and more, right?

Or are you going to tell me that, for example, the IDF would do something that hinders "mission accomplishment"? Or that in the past 10 - 20 years that these military combat units have been fully integrated, that they've allowed their standards to fall off?



I'll wait right here for your answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #84)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:25 PM

88. Gender integration

Fortunately for Israel, Australia and New Zealand, they don't go starting wars in inhospitable parts of the world. Ok Israel is somewhat inhospitable, but last I saw, they don't go around starting stupid wars. (yes they do do stupid things).










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #84)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:42 PM

92. That is exactly my point.

Israeli units have females everywhere except in front line infantry, armor, artillery, and engineer units. In the artillery, they are in missile, fire control, or meteorological sections. In the Infantry, they are at Battalion (two levels up from direct combat, nearby the fight, but not directly engaged. They might well shoot, but they are not at the tip of the spear.) level. I have not heard their exact assignment level in Armor other than they are not in tanks themselves.

In our Engineer Battalions, units have already been commanded by females (for example, LTC Laura Loftus commanded the US Army's 4th Engineer Bn in Iraq until injured in a traffic accident). They are not at the squad level, but they are mechanics and battalion staff personnel.

I did not say they can't be in direct combat- it already happens. But elsewhere they are not assigned to the line units, only one level up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Big_Mike (Reply #92)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:17 PM

93. Thank you for your post, Big Mike.

Women have much to contribute to the defense of our country, and I'm happy to see you acknowledge that contribution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Big_Mike (Reply #92)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:01 AM

95. Do you have a link to your assertion that the IDF doesn't allow full integration?

In 2000, the Equality amendment to the Military Service law stated that "The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men."

FULL equality under the law for the military forces. And that's just Israel there's also other countries that allow women in any combat role they can qualify to hold.

Whether women can be found who want those jobs, or who can do them is another question. But if they can pass the tests and fulfill their responsibilities they are allowed to hold that job in the Israeli combat units. Period.

I see nothing that stipulates that women are excluded from any position they can qualify for. If you have a link that disproves that I'm willing to look at it otherwise you are coming across as sexist and bigoted in NOT allowing women the opportunity to try for those positions.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #95)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:37 AM

97. You included the disclaimer:

"And that's just Israel there's also other countries that allow women in any combat role they can qualify to hold"

Which to me seems to me if they can't carry the necessary weight for the job they don't qualify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #95)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:49 PM

98. Ok, here are a few articles in answer to your request

In the article from Bloomberg, they report that even with the law, only 90% of positions are open. I believe our numbers will come in around the mid-90th percentile, myself. And in the woman's description, they say when the load is too heavy, the get "help from the guys."

Having BT&DT, I can tell you that you SOMETIMES carry the load of your teammates, you cannot do this on a permanent basis. You degrade your capabilities too much. That the Israeli Army prescribes a minimum of 30 percent of body weight as the minimum soldiers must be able to pack seems to be reasonable on its face. However, that means that if an average woman, defined in Weight Watchers, who is 5'5" and 134 pounds, provides only 40 lbs. of load carrying.

In a study by the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL), they report a MINIMUM fighting load of 40 pounds and situations where over 120 pounds must be carried for 20 km per day over extended periods, and some emergencies could call for 150 pounds! I've done my share of 120+ lb. loads and hated every minute and a few approaching 150 lbs., and I was 6'6" and weighed 225 pounds. We had 150 pound guys hang those loads (80+% of body weight). I cannot envisage a woman doing day after day of movement with a load of more than her body weight.

According to this Wiki post we find the following:
Women in the Israeli Defense Forces are female soldiers who serve in the Israel Defense Forces. Israel is the only country in the world with a mandatory military service requirement for women. Women have taken part in Israelís military before and since the founding of the state in 1948, with women currently comprising 33% of all IDF soldiers and 51% of its officers, fulfilling various roles within the Ground, Navy and Air Forces. The 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law states that "The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men." As of now, 88% to 92% of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions.


I'd say that this matches what I have said above.

For pure facts on the ground regarding the amount of women in combat formations in other countries military forces, this article from National Geographic gives fairly decent background information. Some of the information I myself find equivocal, but overall it seems a decent portrayal. Please note the sections regarding adjusting either the standards by gender or overall lowering them. They note that eight countries have women in all positions:


That Australia is moving to all positions open with a 5 year period for the transition - I'd like to see the results at the end of 5 years before I'd sign on to something similar;

Canada, from an article in The Wall Street Journal (for better or worse), has had women in the infantry and other combat formations since 1989, and lost 4 females to combat in Afghanistan. The article cites women's perception that they were kept out of the fight to protect them. True or not, the perception lowers the confidence of the soldiers in the women's combat capabilities. Of note is the female on the machinegun team, who routinely carried 80 pound loads. In my experience, that was an average machinegun load, so that is one woman who definitely makes the grade. I do not and have never said that women cannot serve, it is just that so few meet the standard and can stand the load. The Canadian Army is 14% female, but on 2.4% serve in the combat arms. Is the cost of modifying everything worth the benefit derived?

Denmark has since 1988 allowed women in all positions. They have had 84 women serve in Afghanistan, however, the Danes do not allow women in leadership positions.

In the French Army, women are 20% of the service, but only 1.7% of the combat forces.

Germany has about 800 women in the combat arms, with no real data on them presented.

Israel is mentioned above.

New Zealand has had issues with women serving, but given this, I'll still take a Kiwi at my back and day and any place. My experience with them makes me comfortable with any of them serving.

Norway, along with Denmark, has a long history of women serving. One woman quoted has served in the infantry for 25 years, but notes that females must meet the regular standards.


And my personal criterion has always been just that: meet the regular standard. I'll never ask any more, but I demand nothing less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:50 PM

57. Good way of looking at it.

If that 17% matches deeds to words, the majority grows!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 06:00 PM

59. Exactly, that is how I saw it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:37 PM

3. Good!

If that's the way they feel, they weren't qualified in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:38 PM

4. I Wonder How Many Service Members Threatened to Resign When the Service was Integrated

I may just have to go googling to see if I can find out. I'm willing to bet there were a fair number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:51 PM

58. If you find anything that would be really interesting to know. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:40 PM

6. Answering a survey and doing it are two different things


Similar stories were circulated prior to the end of DADT.

Clearly, among those not favoring a policy change, if they believe their response will influence the direction of policy, then their answers will reflect what they would prefer, and not necessarily what they would do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:43 PM

7. yeah it reminds me of all the people moving to Canada

if something or other happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:58 PM

13. Most are too dependent on the gov't check.

They won't quit no matter what they are saying now.

And despite most Marines' dislike of 'big government', they also know they couldn't make it in the private sector.

I know too many Marines and ex-Marines who bitch about the 'government' but have spent their entire adult lives on the government payroll.

(Some of the most liberal, anti-war people I know are also 'former' Marines, so I am not trying to paint with too broad a brush.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:57 PM

31. I remember those DADT surveys...

The Marines were the most intolerant of the branches. Most reported they were worried they were going to get raped in the shower because, as we all know, gay men always rape every naked man they see with no self-control, like how every single straight men, without exception, will always rape every single women at the beach.

Here's a poem for y'all I just crafted:
"First, they let the black guys serve in my unit, but I didn't say anything because there was somebody else to stop the bullets from hitting me.

Then, they let the gay guys serve in my unit, but I didn't say anything because there was somebody else to stop the bullets from hitting me.

Then, they let in the women, but I didn't say anything because there was somebody else to stop the bullets from hitting me.

Now there's nobody left to bring in and stop the bullets from hitting me, as we're all here already."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:29 AM

87. that's the best response

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:46 PM

9. Buh-Bye...Wimps!

Oh boo-hoo! They can't work with women!

Then get the Fuck out! Go join some anti-women, oh except for prostitutes and strippers, group.

Good bye!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:35 PM

24. So a small % of Marines are more afraid of women than of whoever their enemy is?

Women sure have a lot of power, yes we do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:53 PM

30. Yeah, they better get out! They could never handle an attack by an all women

invasion. Unfit for service, I say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:49 PM

10. Marines

are two a penny anyway. So good riddance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:57 PM

12. Can't let that insult slide!

This is a very few and are not representative of the Corps.

If you do feel that way, Tell It To A Marine!

Good luck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:31 PM

22. "How many total US Marines are there?"

Answer:

"200,827 active (as of June 2011)
40,000 reserve (as of 2010)

Approximately 40,000 graduate each year from Paris Island, SC and San Diego, CA.

Additionally the Marines also produce officers at Quantico, VA. I am not sure how the whole process works with Marine Corps officers but I know the Naval Academy and Pensacola Florida have something to do with their training as well( I think the former is for Aviation). You basically have OCS and TBS and I am not sure of the rules regarding who gets to skip what.
But suffice it to say I would guess the Marines produce between 2 and 5 thousand officers a year as well.

So say over 40 thousand Marines a year...probably around 42,000.

If they have kept the relative same numbers (give or take 50K active or 25%) since Vietnam and the average age of a Marine graduating bootcamp is 19 then there are approximately 2.4 million U.S. Marines alive in the United States (56 years worth of Marines 75-19).

If fighting age is between 18 and 50 then there are approximately 1.3 Million Marines of fighting age living in the United States.

Once a Marine Always a Marine. United States Marines are notoriously loyal to God, Corps, and Country (in that order). Almost all of them own and maintain their own personal weapons. Many are members of the Marine Corps league, join a state Marine Corps (ie Texas State Marines) and/or regularly shoot in competition (NRA). If our country called on these Marines there would be about a million Marines in the capital (or anywhere else) within about 48 hours."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_total_US_Marines_are_there




SO say, 17% of 240,827...is 40,941. Uh...I would say that 30,000 to 40,000 is no small number...just say'n.

But you are correct, for all of the Marine bravado and bluster, why won't they just follow orders? I say good bye and good riddance to those that don't follow command.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:30 PM

44. YEah, the few, the proud and all that rot!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:55 PM

11. This Marine vet says

Goodbye!

You are United States Marines. You follow orders and carry yourselves in an outstanding manner in thought and deed!

Personally I find this thinking juvenile and defeatist.

Get out of MY Marine Corps!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:25 PM

19. Ooh-Rah!

Semper Fi!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:44 PM

25. Yup.... nobody in the Corps ever....

... asked me who I would serve with.

In fact, I was in during the mid-late 1960s, and racial integration wasn't all that well accepted by some Marines.

They(we) were told - in no uncertain terms - that we would serve proudly with fucking space aliens, if that's what the Corps said.

One more thing... Marines bitch. They bitch a lot. It goes with the insignia.

Let's see how this shakes out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:09 PM

46. If we weren't bitching

We weren't happy!

Semper-Fi

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:59 PM

14. Good riddance! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:05 PM

15. Great! That's a first step to downsize the military!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:13 PM

17. +1. Sneaky. But effective. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:31 PM

99. +2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:09 PM

16. Had a funny conversation with my USMC reserve nephew last Christmas

This was before the announcement, obviously, but we were talking about women in combat. He was trying to explain why women don't belong on patrol duties, and the best he could come up with was...urination.

"Where are they supposed to pee?"

"Where do you pee?"

"Wherever I need to. But I'm a guy."

"A woman can't piss wherever she needs to?"

"But it's different. She needs to drop her pants. That slows the patrol down. Guys don't have to do that."

"So how do you shit?"

"Uhh..."

I really wish I had a transcript of the entire conversation. It was funny as hell listening to him try to defend keeping women out of combat, only to be forced to admit that every single one of his arguments were baseless. I got even better when his mother jumped in after his "women can't handle pain as well as men" comment. Watching a 6'1" 24 year old Marine cringe and cower in front of his 5'2" 46 year old mother and she educated him about the "joys" of birthing his oversized head was priceless (he's normal now, but he really had a weirdly large head when he was born).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:33 PM

23. ROFLMAO!

...isn't it hilarious...how "narrow" minded people can be. Or is it just dumb?

Go Women!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:00 PM

32. Poor lad--he hasn't been around many women in "rough living" situations.

Actually, there is a little item that enables women to pee standing up. It's popular amongst aircrews who pilot small craft that don't have a crapper onboard but do have one of those handy dandy pee tubes to whizz on the go. It is similar to this device, which is much more colorful but accomplishes the same basic purpose:

http://www.go-girl.com/what-is-gogirl.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:18 PM

18. Hasta la vista, babies

And good riddance!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:28 PM

20. 17 pct of voters for "x" party will move to Canada if "y" party's candidate wins.

People say a lot of things.

But to give up a military career because of a ruling? Give up the retirement pay? The cheap and good lifetime medical insurance? This is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:29 PM

21. The survey results don't surprise me.

I'm curious, though. What was the response to serving in combat with involuntary soldiers without gender differentiation? They probably didn't ask that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:44 PM

26. Good.

The Marines don't need immature brats to fill their ranks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:49 PM

27. 17 percent of male Marines not manly man enough to serve with women. Let them

go. The Marines are about teamwork, not primadonnas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:53 PM

29. Cough--horseshit--cough.

How about this headline?

17 pct of male Marines surveyed likely to leave Corps because the impending drawdown will cut the branch by something close to that number


Oh well....this way, they can say they left for a bigoted reason, instead of being booted out for not making the cut.

Mark my words, the drawdown is coming, and it's going to make the one in the mid-nineties look like a frigging garden party. PT test scores will be rigidly adhered to, "satisfactory" will be regarded as "not good enough," promotions are going to get TIGHT in a rigidly up-or-out environment, advancement tests are going to be geared towards the top ten percent of a paygrade, "professional training" hoops are going to get more onerous, uniform inspections will increase, drug tests will increase, and it's going to be a Peacetime Zero Tolerance Party. I wouldn't be surprised if these idiots who mouth off on Facebook start getting some pushback/Art. 15 action from the brass. It ain't "free speech" when it's "conduct unbecoming."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:02 PM

33. 17% say they will leave. More like 5% would leave.

Considering we are not really at war, who cares?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:22 PM

40. right, maybe even 2%. they like the "power" they feel from the job too much

and those 17% probably couldn't do much worthwhile outside of the corps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:03 PM

34. I knew this was coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:09 PM

35. Those who leave are the same ones we don't want to be giving guns to.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out is all I can say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:11 PM

36. He-man Women Haters club



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:11 PM

37. Don't let the door hit you on the way out

We've got too large a military as is; it doesn't need to swell its ranks with neanderthals. Those guys can crawl back into the swamps they came from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:16 PM

38. 100 per cent of those 17 per cent are wimps

who can't stand the idea of a woman being able to do what they can.


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:20 PM

39. they like the guns & all the govt discounts & pay too much to leave - this is the percentage who...

could be accused of sexual harassment in the first year...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:23 PM

41. The oath of allegiance

for all branches of the armed forces it is the same. It requires fealty to the Constitution and to the orders of the Commander and Chief. Personally, I have serious reservations about women serving in the combat arms, but I'm a civilian again. Those is uniform are bound by their oaths of allegiance and by the UCMJ. If they can't deal with that they should get the fuck out of the uniform of the United States, just like their fundamentalist religious brethren who think they have a higher calling to serve god than to discharge oaths they took willingly to protect and defend the US Constitution. The armed services of a democratic republic are better served without them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:25 PM

42. Umm... so where are you going that you won't be working with women?

hunh???

Women are in a lot more fields than what you think. Including traditionally male ones.

I don't know. I heard that there are a number of remote caves somewhere in the Appalachian Mountains in Tennessee, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:26 PM

43. 17 pct of male Marines likely to leave Corps even if women don't get combat posts.

that number jumps to 22 percent if women are not assigned involuntarily to those jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:03 PM

45. Good riddance. I don't want my country defended or represented by BIGOTS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:29 PM

47. The Medevac chopper lands.......

these Marines see it is being piloted by a woman.

What do they do?

Wait for the next helicopter piloted by a man of course!


Sometimes you need to say these things out loud to get the full effect of stupid!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:35 PM

48. Doubtless the bottom 17 percent anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:45 PM

49. I'm fine with that 17% leaving.

I'd like to keep the additional 5% worried about involuntary assignment though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:39 PM

54. My, my, is it possible the macho-macho type is feeling

threatened?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:46 PM

55. It would be good for the Corps for those people to leave anyway.

If they're that upset over women in combat positions, I have to wonder how trustworthy they'd be around allied nations who allow women into similar roles, civilians in deployment zones, or hell, enemy forces.

If someone would try cutting short their term of service over that, they're a liability anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 06:56 PM

60. But before the announcement, 26% were planning to retire.

Just made that up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:14 PM

61. This is not directed at the poster but Who gives a fuck?

In the military you do what you are told. If they don't like it, throw 'em out.
USMC 68-72

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:07 PM

62. I wonder how

 

many of these macho Marines support the NRA and Lapierre or Senator Graham? It seems to me if they can support a woman's right to take on five criminals with assault weapons then why not put them in combat? That is the best training you can get. It is more in the mind than physical ability. Your desire to survive trumps everything. There are weak men too. It all depends on the individual. And religion has nothing to do with it. Apparently one of the commentors thinks so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:24 PM

63. This is my jar-headedness there are many like it but this one is mine

etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:25 PM

64. So, if women can serve in combat (fine by me), why do only males have to register with the ..

'selective service' bureau when they turn 18. I guess that service is still selective. Seems discrimination based on a persons gender to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:19 PM

66. I seem to recall a similar poll that indicated large numbers who would leave...

... if the ban on LGBT folks was lifted. And I believe we are still waiting for the mass exodus...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 08:09 PM

68. As a Navy Vet...this sounds damn familiar.. wasn't this line used when they were talking about gays?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #68)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 10:34 PM

71. And African Americans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #71)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 10:37 PM

72. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 09:28 PM

69. sounds like the "I'm moving out if Obama is elected"....

...a bunch of bullshit. I'll bet you money no where near that percentage leaves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 10:33 PM

70. Good -- the Corps doesn't need bigots

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 10:59 PM

73. Easy to say they will...

...harder to actually do.


:waves hand in dismissal:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:53 AM

75. Yeah right.

Like all the republicans who said they would leave the country if President Obama was re-elected.

Or all the soldiers who wouldn't fight if they had to serve with black men.

Real Marines will get over it and do their job.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:58 AM

76. 17% is not a bad number

it's probably a smaller number than the percentage of civilian population who are opposed to this.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #76)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:45 PM

81. 1 out of 6. Probably would be perfectly off-set by new female recruits.

I'm generously assuming that everyone threatening to quit would actually do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #81)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:10 AM

86. You covered both of my thoughts on this issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:15 PM

77. Fuck those pigs! Do we really need armed misogynists??

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:27 PM

78. Bye bye! Don't let the door hit you.

My ex is a retired Marine and I know that there are some good, decent, liberal ones. But this 17% is not good, decent or liberal. They are at least part of the right-wing redneck, piece of shit contingent that has infected our whole society.

So if they can't have their little he-man, no girls allowed clubhouse, they take their toys and go home.

Good luck and good riddance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:42 PM

79. My belief is that many do not want to see a womans head blown off

or torn to shreds, guts strewn about, it's obviously hell when it's their fellow men and it's my belief that the psyche of the male human being for the most part is largely effected by this. Males are largely hardwired for this. I know some of you will disagree but as a male and a veteran I can say I would be infinitely more troubled by seeing a female soldier obliterated next to me. My opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #79)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:48 PM

83. That's an interesting point. Female inclusion definitely changes social dynamics.

For the military overall, that's been a good thing. But the difference between combat and non-combat situations is pretty vast, even if the line between them has been blurred by the recent trend in nation-building missions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #79)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:22 PM

100. I would be upset either way

This is the putting women on the pedestal phenomena, making an excuse for limiting them by the idea that it's somehow "worse" for them to meet with consequences because they are "better" than men somehow.

Reminds me of an old book "The Natural Superiority of Women" which explained we were so superior we should never try to compete with men on anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #79)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:35 AM

102. but when you go to war you see that happen to women and children civilians , it's nothing new

i just don't believe that as a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:44 PM

85. Survey indicates 17percent of male marines likely to be dickheads!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:10 PM

89. I question someone's commitment to being in the military

if they have an issue with women's hygiene. Very strange, indeed.

Ironically the more resistance shown reinforces the importance of the decision to treat women as equals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:36 PM

90. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:18 PM

91. Good. More jobs for women then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:30 AM

94. I thought they were sworn to defend and protect....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:56 AM

96. How many when blacks were integrated?

I'd like to know how that 17% or 22% compares to the percentages of Marines surveyed likely to leave the Corps when blacks were first integrated into the military?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:24 AM

101. Survey says.......

will leave if racially intergrated, will leave if gays stay, and and now..

Excuses are like a--holes there always a bunch to go around.

Humm...perhaps this is a way for a RIF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread