December 27, 2013

The Marines Corps quietly puts off the requirement that female Marines perform 3 pullups.

A Marine spokesperson cites the need to "ensure all female Marines are given the best opportunity to succeed." Only 45% of female recruits could meet the standard, which 99% of male recruits meet.
Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, says the delay shows that women just can't meet the same standards.

"Young women, in spite of all the training and all the best intentions, are not going to be the equal of young men in terms of upper body strength," Maginnis says. "You've got to have a lot of upper body strength to lift the stuff. Been there, done that."

Maginnis just wrote a book called Deadly Consequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat. He says the issue has more to do with politics than protecting the nation.
But 45% of the women did it. Depending on how you look at it, that's a surprisingly high percentage.

257 comments:

1 – 200 of 257   Newer›   Newest»
tds said...

not 45% of women, but 45% of those who applied to be a marine. It is not a surprisingly high percentage in the context of 3 (three) pull-ups and wanting to be a marine.

I'm equally buffled by 1% of men who applied and were not able to do it.

Shouting Thomas said...

At some point, Althouse, our armed forces will have to fight a war of defense for our survival.

Your desire to turn the armed forces into a daycare center will look awful foolish when that day arrives.

You did the same thing to the legal biz.

It's dying now.

Back when I started in the legal biz, my first clients were tough, macho Jewish guys right out of NYU. Street fighters. Started with a four man office and built it into a huge firm that was ultimately swallowed up by one of the famous white shoe firms.

When you and the women started to arrive in droves, all excitement and adventure seeped out of the biz, and everything became about quotas and babysitting.

When you and the women arrive on the scene, Althouse, the fun is over and it's time for the men to leave and look for a new adventure. You kill everything in the name of security and tender feelings.

The only exception to this rule is the whores. They are the really strong women, Althouse. They play by the same rules as the men.

Capt. Schmoe said...

Here's the deal.

One side needs to realize that there are women physically strong enough, possess the proper mindset and are brutal enough to be effective in combat.

The other side needs to realize that the overwhelming majority of women do not possess all or enough of the above traits.

Both sides need to do what it takes to ensure that those who have it can succeed.

Both sides need to agree that the stakes are too high to use combat troops for the purposes of promoting self esteem or social change.

I know of what I speak.

TosaGuy said...

If it is a minimum standard for all Marines, then it is a minimum standard for all Marines.

Ann Althouse said...

"not 45% of women, but 45% of those who applied to be a marine."

Yes, that's why I wrote "of the women."

virgil xenophon said...

The first of many "I told you so" moments along the new Obama PC road to hell and loss of combat effectiveness that our PC kool-aid drinking flag officers have spinelessly agreed to and mapped out for the armed services--all to protect their own stars.

Ann Althouse said...

Read the whole article. It's about how to do the training. Those who can't meet the standard should not pass. Don't make the complaint you'd make if the standard were changed. It's impressive that 45% made it, and that means it can be done by more than a trivial number, and they think they can get there with better training. We'll see what happens.

ironrailsironweights said...

Doing three pull-ups is difficult but not impossible for women. It can be done with enough training.

Peter

Salamandyr said...

Here's the thing.

3 pull-ups is the "minimum" standard. But if you plan on going into combat. You aren't pushing for the "minimum" standard. You want to be as fit, as strong, as you can possibly. While 180 (the passing PT test requirement for the Army) is okay for a supply clerk, an infantry soldier shouldn't be pushing for anything less than 300.

St. George said...

Are Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie named after Bert the cop and Ernie the taxi driver from "It's a Wonderful Life"?

Just wondering.

Hagar said...

Didn't it use to be 10 pull-ups - and in the Army?

virgil xenophon said...

PS: I forgot to put the "useful idiot" pre-fix in front of "flag officers."

MadisonMan said...

Ensuring learner success at a Technical College is achieved in largely the same way.

Tank said...

The standard itself is a joke. I'm a not particularly strong 60 year old and I can do 3 pullups. I am not nearly strong or fit enough for combat.

Three pullups - WTF ???

There are a small small percentage of women who can qualify physically for these jobs, but I suspect that the effect of women in combat will not be good overall. I used to be neutral on this, ie. leave it up to the people involved in the military to decide, but just looking at the problems they're having with "sexual assaults" makes it look like it's not working out.

Three? I can't get over that.

virgil xenophon said...

@EDH/

I've always been partial to "hype the natives" myself..

Inga said...

Dang Shouting Thomas, what is your problem with women, American women? No, don't answer, we've all heard it before ad nauseum. Somehow I can't see you ranting like this when you are babysitting for your granddaughter, at least I hope not.

As for women and upper body strength, if they have it and can pass the qualifications, they have every right to be in the same role as the men who qualify similarily. We really need to get out of the last century, yes I know women were charming when they deffered to the wisdom of their husbands in all matters, but women have had the chance to break out of the corset of male dominance, haven't you noticed?

dbp said...

I am pretty amazed that 45% of the WM's were able to do 3 pull-ups. It shows that the Corps is getting very high quality recruits since only about one in 20 young women can do even one.

On the other hand, in boot camp there were a few guys (either weak, fat or some combination of the two) who couldn't do a pull-up and they went to a company that got them into shape. The regular guys all did between 10 and 20 pull-ups. Any guy who could only do 3-4 would be considered a weak, out of shape loser.

EDH said...

There's a parallel between the military "quietly" relaxing the requirement that female Marines perform 3 pullups, and the SCOTUS majority in Windsor not declaring homosexuals (or at least those in same sex couples) a protected class status and extending full 14th Amend protections.

It's a contemptuous strategy, peculiar to government, where un-elected officials take the heat on behalf of elected officials on controversial issues -- usually where a majority opposes a much better organized minority -- called "duping the rubes, slowly".

SGT Ted said...

The problem is that feminists and the social engineers merely see the Military as a jobs program, like the CCC, thus, they want women to get their "fair share". They could care less about the mission or selfless service.

The rot is so far gone that even certain female officers only see service in the context of providing just another careerist opportunity to be "just like the guys", rather than serve your country, regardless of hardship.

Based on the double standard towards physical abilities that gives deference to women's lack of upper body strength and not the mission, I am not surprised that only 45% can meet the standard. The only reason it worked at all was their exclusion from combat arms MOSs, where the strength really counts.

The illusion of being "combat fit" from them serving in the MPs, where they don't have to foot march on a regular basis and haven't had to fight sustained combat actions since Vietnam or WW2, has led to this latest experiment, where the political pressure to once again defer to the women's lack of ability and political correctness, instead of the truth of combat mission requirements, is taking hold.

That's what women will face if they make them meet the same standard as the men; lots of failure to measure up to even get in the door, much less be fit enough to be a grunt.

If women want infantry and other direct sustained combat jobs, they had better be able to hack it at the men's level, because that job has no room for whiney princesses and manicured office dollies.

Shouting Thomas said...

We really need to get out of the last century, yes I know women were charming when they deffered to the wisdom of their husbands in all matters, but women have had the chance to break out of the corset of male dominance, haven't you noticed?

The last century was pretty good.

Your characterization of the lives of women in the past is a bald face lie.

I don't accept your bullshit propaganda history.

SGT Ted said...

As for women and upper body strength, if they have it and can pass the qualifications, they have every right to be in the same role as the men who qualify similarily. We really need to get out of the last century...

I agree. Women should be required to meet the same physical standards as the men in ALL the Military jobs, not just Combat Arms. Right now, they don't have to and the result is an unfair advantage in promotion opportunities for women.

So, I agree that we should raise the female physical standards for the rest of the military jobs to being truly equal to what the men have to do.

We can give the women already serving a year to get up to speed with the guys and then discharge the ones that don't measure up, and retrain the marginal ones to an MOS that doesn't require anything much over the minimum.

I am glad we have found common ground, Inga.

virgil xenophon said...

And it's just not the infantry. Everyone thinks it's just peachy-keen to have women flying fighters because...because...EQUALITY! But during a 9G turn the human head w. helmet becomes the functional equivalent of a 50lb bowling ball and unless one's neck and shoulder muscles are strong enough one's head becomes pinned to the cockpit canopy without the ability to move. Needless to say, because of this inescapable fact of the human anatomy few women have neck muscles strong enough to function under these conditions, hence the existence of special weight-training programs--all at extra tax-payers expense--just to enable female fighter pilots to function in dog-fights..

Original Mike said...

Three?

The Drill SGT said...

what Salamandyr said...

Personal rights versus force effectiveness.

I'm on the side of force effectiveness. When metal meets meat, there isn't any room for marginally qualified riflemen...

in your face combat is not a feel good sport. As a former Drill, I'm still disappointed the Army abandoned Bayonet Training in BCT. Whether or not, we stick many people in combat situations, the violence of the training is good for the military psyche.

Jack Wayne said...

The Marine that gets put down in combat and his only hope is a female to stoop over, pick him up, sling him over her shoulder and carry him to safety is a dead Marine.

Inga said...

Well, Drill SGT. If that's what you really want, then be prepared for the draft to be reinstated. All those jobs that women do would then need to be done by men and that might just create a shortage of combat troops, but hey what do I know, I'm just a female.

virgil xenophon said...

And of course all of this is driven by femminista officers who want to make flag rank. Polls have consistently shown that the vast majority of enlisted women--the vast majority of women in the armed services--DO NOT want to be fed into the combat arms meat-grinder. All of this agitation is strictly an elitist ploy for promotion opportunities. And has already been WELL DEMONSTRATED, the mere existence of women in the armed services has led to huge back-channel pressures for unofficial quota systems in promotions to meet PC "Diversity" goals along with other such quota systems for minorities and homosexuals--all serving to TOTALLY distort not only any system of promotion based on merit but personnel assignment systems based on qualifications as well.

Alexander said...

Hey Inga,

When they do reinstate the draft, maybe you can get around for insisting women be required to partake in it as well - not really fair that only men have their rights of citizenship tied to being willing to serve as cannon fodder for the state's welfare and survival.

You show 'em, girl!

Inga said...

Alexander, perhaps you haven't been around Althouse long enough to know I am all for women being included in a draft if it ever comes to that.

SGT Ted said...

There will be no draft reinstatement simply because women have to meet the same physical standard. How silly is that? It will merely remove the unfair advantage women have over men in promotion opportunities.

Oh I am for mandatory draft registration for women. I want equality in the obligation to National Service.

Deirdre Mundy said...

If I were one of the 45%, I'd be pretty angry.

The Drill SGT said...

Inga said...
Well, Drill SGT. If that's what you really want, then be prepared for the draft to be reinstated. All those jobs that women do would then need to be done by men and that might just create a shortage of combat troops, but hey what do I know, I'm just a female.


What are you smoking?

I didn't say the women can't be fine soldiers. FYI, I'm married to a retired full Colonel (female :)

What I said is that frontline combat arms is no place for marginally qualified riflemen.

That is not a gender based statement. Riflemen need to max the PT test, not meet the min, regardless of their gender...

Women make excellent Helo pilots and pretty good MP's for example. As Virgil points out, neck, forearm and height parameters make high performance jets a bit iffy for some.

As for the draft and making numbers? LOL, we have plenty of riflemen. The handful of marginally qualified females doesn't amount to a fraction of 1 percent of the needed numbers. draft? what a joke argument. Try a better one next time...

As SGT Ted implied, the whole flap is driven by ticket punching female Academy grads and leftist social engineers...

Alexander said...

Inga,

No need to wait for hypothetical - you go ahead and write you congressmen about changing the requirements for selective service.

Next Adventure said...

I work out at a small CrossFit gym and have seen many women build up strength to exceed the test. It is a skill that can be taught or trained with enough time. If the marines want to make a standard, they should commit to the standard. I also work in a downtown office and wouldn't want to risk my life depending on the number of pull-ups the average office worker could complete.

virgil xenophon said...

To see the feminista insanity in all this, at a time of HUGE budget cuts in the armed services and vast personnel down-sizing, there is still femminista agitation within the Navy to use already scarce dollars we don't have to spend billions to re-configure submarines to accommodate women. THIS is the sort of insane craziness that PC leads to--NOT ONLY without increasing the combat effectiveness of the armed services ONE WHIT, but actually degrading it in terms of misdirected dollars and degraded morale and loss of qualified personnel by driving the very sort of officers/NCOs one wishes to retain out of the service in disgust.

virgil xenophon said...

And, just to be obtuse, one can make an argument that with the sort of down-sizing the armed forces are supposedly contemplating, there will be NO NEED for ANY women or homosexuals AT ALL--there being more than enough straight male volunteers for the reduced number of slots--thus engendering NO disrupting sexual influence at all..

SGT Ted said...

Women should be required to register for the draft right now. Men have to and access to Federal Aid for college tuition is tied to it.

It should be the same for women, if we are to have true equality.

jimbino said...

We also need to give women a pass on chess, STEM, economics, filmmaking and other things men do so well.

PB Reader said...

As standards are watered down, so does the actual effectiveness of a military, though perceived effectiveness lags. This creates a dangerous dynamic when the enemy correctly assesses effectiveness and exploits this.

Of course, the standard has to be relevant to performing their duty, and historically smart and agile overcomes dumb and strong.

PB Reader said...

As standards are watered down, so does the actual effectiveness of a military, though perceived effectiveness lags. This creates a dangerous dynamic when the enemy correctly assesses effectiveness and exploits this.

Of course, the standard has to be relevant to performing their duty, and historically smart and agile overcomes dumb and strong.

SGT Ted said...

I think people that cannot handle gays in the ranks need to shut up and soldier, or get out.

If you have the mental toughness to handle combat, you should be able to handle gays serving, without going "ewwww" like some junior high schoolgirl.

Alexander said...

Tom Kratman has an excellent essay on the topic.

http://www.baen.com/amazonsrightbreast.asp

He puts the following as the primary problems with female soldiers:

1. Physical strength.
2. Women are too rational to be manipulated and led the way young men are.
3. Things that currently work to motivate young men will no longer do so in the presence of women.
4. Pregnancy.
5. Children, with the woman having custody. (And there’s a fine example of the truly heroic levels of dishonesty within DoD. Yes, there are many, many single male parents. Few of them have custody, so in few cases does it matter to the military. Women are also single parents, and usually have custody. This is a not insignificant problem within DoD. Right, that means there is no comparison between the two, though the PC clowns at DoD will try to equate them. Lying sacks of shit!)
6. Fraternization, favoritism, and de facto prostitution, with resultant demoralization, not only of men, but of less sexually desirable women.
7. Malingering. (Yes, too many military women do malinger. Men would, too, if they could get away with it. Women are allowed to, especially via pregnancy. Men, usually, are not, and, of course, never for pregnancy. It is men that allow women to malinger, and male physical labor that covers it up.)
8. Field sanitation. (Yes, women have a little problem there that men do not.)
9. Lack of certain training opportunities for women.
10. Lack of experienced female combat leaders.
11. The baleful influence of the EO Fascisti.
12. Sexual harassment / complaints. (Have I mentioned yet that I was once privileged – if that’s quite the word – to hear half a dozen Air Force females comparing notes on how to set their male bosses up for this, so as to make life easier for themselves? Did I mention that the Air Force did a study which determined that about two-thirds of sexual harassment and, IIRC, rape complaints within USAF were purely and completely spurious? The study appears to have slipped down the memory hole. Yet it was done.)
13. Special arms and equipment required by, or useful to, women.
14. Straight males can’t be trusted to train them.
15. Unwillingness of men from some cultures (Islamic, notably) to either give way before or surrender to women. “Oh, that’s their problem.” Ummm...no; and someone who claims it is only demonstrating their own ignorance. When it drives up our casualties and gives the enemy a moral shot in the arm, it’s our problem. It might not be a problem for the ignorant PC clowns who won’t be out there soaking up unnecessary casualties, but it will be for the PBIs, male and female, who are.
16. Woman as the bottleneck in the production of the next generation’s machine gun fodder.
17. The tendency, historically demonstrated, for men to forget the mission and charge to the rescue if their female comrades are at risk.
18. Rape of captured women.
19. Greater difficulty in committing combat forces if they include women. (Yes, some feminists think that’s a good thing. See, e.g., Professor Maria Lepowsky’s testimony before the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, circa 1992.)
20. Hard wired differences that may – we just don’t know – make women unsuitable for combat to the extent that they are typical women.

A portion of those are really pretty easy to fix. Just toss gender integration. If putting straight men and women together, along with gays and lesbians, in the same units leads to “sexual tension” (that, by the way, is a silly-assed euphemism for the distraction caused by love, lust, sex, romance, favoritism, and de facto prostitution; it’s silly-assed because it addresses a mere fraction of the problem, thereby hiding the rest), then we ought to be able to eliminate it by not putting them together. That this would outrage the social engineers is gravy. Thus, 3, 6, 11, 12, and 17 are basically solved, while 2, 4, 7, 13, and 19 are at least mitigated.

Inga said...

Hey Virgil, did you forget to exclude blacks in the downsized military too, while you're being a huge bigot.

virgil xenophon said...

PS: Warming to the subject, I should just add that there HAS NEVER BEEN a SINGLE study, EVER, that found the presence of women in the armed services increased the combat effectiveness of ANY branch--ALL differing ONLY in the degree to which they reduced combat effectiveness (ranging from 5-20%, iirc)

Gahrie said...

All those jobs that women do would then need to be done by men and that might just create a shortage of combat troops,

All branches of the service are turning potential recruits away.

Inga said...

They won't be turning women or men away in the event of another big war Gahrie, nor will they be raising physical requirements for anyone.

virgil xenophon said...

@Inga/

Your idiocy is exceeded only by your obtuseness. We're talking physical limitations and effects of sexuality on unit morale/cohesion/chemistry here--NEITHER of which involve straight black males..

Alexander said...

Inga,

If you want to open that can of worms that nobody else felt the need to touch, would you do me a favor and show me - scientifically - where it is proven that a ethnically diverse armed force is a more effective fighting force?

This would prove immeasurably helpful in the 21st century, as our great geopolitical rival, China, is perhaps the most mono-cultural superpower in the history of the planet. Han uber alles!

Now I, for one, would think it immeasurably foolish to simply discount a fifth or so of one's fighting capacity simply because they were not the majority race. But then, I'm not the one throwing charges.

Mike F said...

Yes 45% did the pullups, but how many of the 45% just barely did it and are just marginally able to meet the standard. My guess is that 45% represents a far, far lower level of physical competence than the 99% of men who passed. Any way you try and spin this the facts are women in combat will without question will degrade the fighting ability of ground units.

Inga said...

Virgil,
Who is being obtuse? I was pointing out to you that in your bigotry you might as well have gone whole hog and included black males.

virgil xenophon said...

@SGT TED/

Your ignoring the "gay mafia" and the effect it has on distorting promotion and personnel assignments (officers especially) via unofficial back-channel pressures for quotas--and also providing homosexuals special immunity from criticism. You'd have to be blind to avoid seeing the effects this is already having..

n.n said...

I thought the Marines was a more demanding branch. Three pullups, is that it? I guess lowered expectations is evidence of progress. Is this related to the well-intentioned but misguided self-esteem movement?

Oh, well. Marginal education. Marginal military. Marginal fitness. A dysfunctional convergence seems inevitable.

Inga said...

My God Alexander, are you now suggesting that blacks should be excluded (even old Virgil wouldn't go there). You folks don't like being called bigots, but every single day on these threads it's there, bigotry. It doesn't surprise any liberal, but it should concern conservatives that it appears daily on a blog that is inhabited mainly by conservative commenters.

Lovernios said...

The Drill Sgt: "As a former Drill, I'm still disappointed the Army abandoned Bayonet Training in BCT. Whether or not, we stick many people in combat situations, the violence of the training is good for the military psyche."

What? That was one of the few things I loved about Basic.

When I was in Basic, at the first training with pugel sticks the Drill Sgt. paired me up with the most athletic recruit, a former HS football star. I was a 5' 5" 110 lbs (soaking wet) shrimp.

The football star complained to the DS, "Aww, gee he's so small, it ain't fair!"

The DS replied, "You idiot! How big do you think the VC are? Now, go at it!"

At that point, the big guy smashed into me, knocking me down and senseless. But being the relentless little rascal I was (and still am) I got up and we continued. I hit him in the gut with the "bayonet" end and followed up with a smash to the head with the "butt" end. The Ds liked that.

Anyway, I agree that direct, visceral combat training like you get with bayonet, is invaluable preparation for combat. And I believe a Brit unit actually fixed bayonets and made a charge during the Iraq campaign.


ThomasD said...

Every Marine a Rifleman

Or, maybe not...

virgil xenophon said...

I see that Inga, unable to win the argument based on facts of physical limitations of women or of the proven sexual distractions females and gays engender in terms of unit effectiveness, sinks in frustration to personal character assassination.

Bigot? I guess you've never met my wife, obviously--nor our son--you utter fool..

jdkchem said...

Having been there and done that in the Corps, 3 pullups is not by any means a sign of achievement. If you cannot do 10 your seen as a physical weakling. If you only do the minimums on the PFT you still fail. That's reality.

But 45% of the women did it.

Which is absolutely meaningless and demonstrates nothing. Back then I could show up half drunk half hung over and still crank out 15 pullups, puke, 80 situps, puke, run 3 miles in under 19 minutes and puke some more. I was not by any means considered physically strong compared to my fellow jarheads. So Althouse, you and the rest of feminazis need to get over the "accomplishment" crap and start accepting that in the Corps doing the minimum is failing, period.

SGT Ted said...

Your ignoring the "gay mafia" and the effect it has on distorting promotion and personnel assignments (officers especially) via unofficial back-channel pressures for quotas--and also providing homosexuals special immunity from criticism. You'd have to be blind to avoid seeing the effects this is already having..

I call bullshit on this. Promotion standards are for the most part based on ability scores and demonstrated leadership abilities and a picture of the SM in uniform, especially the centralized boards. None of those things says in any way whether or not an SM is gay. There is no marital status or sexuality block to check on a promotion packet. All the things you complain about, such as favoritism allowing sub-standard people to make promotion, have always been a problem in the Straight military. Adding gays into the mix doesn't suddenly make it worse.

I have served in the line with enough gays to not have an immature and quite frankly, un-adult attitude about gays in the ranks.

Many highly qualified military Officers and Senior NCOs said the same thing about blacks in the ranks 65 years ago. They were wrong.

traditionalguy said...

Egad. Does this imply that there is a genetic difference in men and women.

Jimmy the Greek got canned for implying a physical standard existed in Slave recruits pre abolition, and that eliminated most white men from strength positions. So the white men got to use the guns.

Eureka, women Marines can use the guns.

Jason said...

I used to do 20-25 pull-ups on the way into the chow hall. Twice a day in garrison. Pretty much every male was expected to do ten.

That is the undiluted standard and where combat arms troops need to be.

Also, one pull-up for a 180 pound male is a lot more wattage than one pull-up for a 115 pound female.

Everyone has to haul the same 50 cal ammo cans, the same aid bag, the same 60mm mortar round, the same radio, the same M240 machine gun, thecsame tripod and spare barrel, the same mortar tube, the same base plate, the same batteries, the same wounded buddy and all his gear.

This push to pretend women have any place in the combat arms is simply delusional.

So are you, Inga.

Alexander said...

No, I specifically stated that it would be idiotic to exclude a fifth of your fighting capacity for no pertinent reason. Especially when the military and the rights within cannot, in our particular society, be divorced from civilian culture.

What I asked was as you were the one suddenly throwing out charges that people wanted to do that (when nobody was saying that), was if you could in fact back up the claim that there was a benefit to a diverse fighting force for its own sake.

It's not a white/black thing either. For instance, while all Korean males have to go through conscription, their government for some time (might still do?) excluded children born to one non-Korean parent for that reason. This was not 'anti-black', it was 'anti-foreign' in general. The idea being that the army was more effective if it was in every way homogeneous. And as Korea is 99% Korean, they weren't losing much doing this.

Trashhauler said...

When I joined the Air Force at 18, I could do 12 pullups, mostly because I had done very few of them before. After a year at the Air Force Academy, I could do 20 or so. And I was no he-man. I later went to jump school at Ft Benning and found that we cadets were in far better shape than most of the Army doggies. But even they could do far more than 3 pullups.

I don't understand this "gotta get women in combat" goal. My experience in the field was very limited, but I recall it as being dirty, exhausting, and sometimes dangerous. And that was without anyone trying to kill me.

Skeptical Voter said...

Interesting Salamandyr when you say that passing score on Army physical fitness test is now just 180 points (out of a possible 500)

I agree that 180 is okay for a REMF supply clerk who won't have to lift anything heavier than a coffee cup.
But back in 1969 at Fort Polk's North Fort they were turning out 1,000 light weapons infantrymen a week. They were also running about the same number of draftees, and regular enlisted men through Basic Training at Fort Polk's South Fort. To even get out of basic training you had to score a minimum 300 on the physical fitness test. If you couldn't do that you were held back in a special training company until you could. I also seem to recall that we'd occasionally have to do ten pull-ups to get into the mess hall. Standards have slipped. I survived it all, but sometimes had my doubts. I left Fort Polk as a low paid trained killer with an 11 Hotel MOS.

David said...

You want the persons on your left and right to have 100% of the needed skills, not 45%.

There is no place for grade inflation in combat training.

Inga said...

Alexander, why would I try to convince anyone that having a diverse fighting force is beneficial, our military members represent our population's diversity. What is important is that those citizens who are patriotic enough to want to serve their country, can.

Jim Howard said...

The truth is this about women entering the military. The strongest woman is only a little stronger than the weakest man.

And that strong woman is an athlete and is already about as strong as she will ever be.

That weak guy, on the other hand, isn't much of an athlete at all. As training progresses he will become much stronger than the athletic woman.

Most jobs in the military can be done by women. Combat infantry and special forces are not amoung them.

Alexander said...

You were the one throwing incendiary comments on an issue that nobody was discussing - a man would be expected to put up or shut up. I was just treating you equally.

There is nothing patriotic about diminishing the national's capacity to go to war for the sake of pushing one's political cause and personal limelight.

Inga said...

Virgil, when you make bigoted statements it's reasonable for a person to assume you are a bigot. That is so simple even you can understand this, hopefully.

The Drill SGT said...

Skeptical

same math, different events. In 69 when you and I had BCT, there were 5 events, and you needed 60 in each for a min of 300

now its 3 events, 60 each for at least 180

I hit him in the gut with the "bayonet" end and followed up with a smash to the head with the "butt" end.

no points for form, but your DS appreciated you using a "long thrust" and a "horizontal butt stroke"

remember those moves? instinctive aren't they. Thank a DS :)

Alexander said...

Inga:

Our army does not, in fact, celebrate our nation's diversity. The dying is overwhelmingly done by young, white, men, disproportionately southern.

http://www.stonybrook.edu/workingclass/publications/Casualty%20study%20main%20report%20Oct%202011.pdf

If those you call bigots really were, they would be *clamoring* to get your ideas passed. Maybe, just maybe, they are the actual patriots, and their goal isn't to keep women down, but to ensure that their job - the defense of the nation - can actually be accomplished.

David said...

There are plenty of women who can be trained to do 3 pull ups and many more. One question, though, is whether the time spent on training for that dilutes other essential elements of the training. There's only so much time.

When I was in my late teens, I could do 10 pullups without huge strain. I trained myself to do more than 10 one armed pullups with each arm. That took a while but it wasn't impossible.

Now at age 70 I can't do even one pullup at full weight. I do "assisted" pullups on a machine which counterweights my body weight.

Could I learn to do 3 pullups now without counterweight? Perhaps, but it would take a lot of very specific effort that would detract from other things I want and need to do.

The commandant at Parris Island near where I live is now a female. By all reports she is doing a fine job. Someone should ask her what she thinks about this. Indeed I'm sure someone has. But the answer has not been publicized, which may tell you what it is.

Inga said...

Alexander, all the more reason to make sure our military IS diverse, isn it?

Alexander said...

Not unless you can prove that that improves the ability to perform the mission.

Which you won't, because only bigots support the status quo of white men dying to protect a diverse nation... or something.

virgil xenophon said...

@SGT TED/

Yes, promotion politics and service/command cliques have always been a factor, but the addition of women and gays puts a special patina on it. You should visit the blog "CDR Salamander" (for starters) and peruse the archives for discussions about numerous celebrated cases of efforts to remove incompetent ship's Captains who were female lesbians and the protection the flag-rank/O-6 gay mafia/feministas gave them despite numerous complaints/failed inspections. And we're talking dangerously life-threatening incompetence here--in MORE THAN ONE instance..

Or shall we delve into the quota system for female fighter-pilots and the Karen Hultgreen incident in which, in order to get women into fighter cockpits strong "big kid" "unofficial" PC pressures pushed an unqualified individual thru plt tng and carrier quals just to make her the first female F-14 pilot in the Navy whereby she soon killed herself and almost killed her RIO in a pilot error carrier-landing mishap? Or read the book "Hornets over Kuwait" by J.A. Stout, Maj, USMC and contemplate his very un-PC view of women in the cockpit and in the war-zone in general.

I could go on...don't get me started..

onthenorthriver.com said...

Google "Katie Petronio" Captain USMC and a Afghanistan veteran.

After two tours (7 and 10 month) she found that her body was breaking down, her women's body could no longer repair the damage of prolonged physical exertion, little chance of rest and insufficient food. All problems shared by the male marines in her unit. Most of the men also experienced problems, but not as severe and the men recovered faster during the time spend at a base.

Why? Her rate of deterioration was faster because she only produced a fraction of the muscle repairing testosterone of the male Marines.

Legislate that reality away.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

But 45% of the women did it. Depending on how you look at it, that's a surprisingly high percentage.

Why?

Inga said...

Of course Virgil wouldn't admit that male pilots also made mistakes that got them and their crew killed.

jr565 said...

I,as an out of shape guy, would probably not meet the standard. But you won't see the standard lowered to suit me and my circumstance. Unless I had a vagina.
But I suppose I should be down with the standard changed. For people with vaginas because of me being sympatico with women's equality or something.
Funny, but it sounds like discrimination against guys like ME. Any woman that supports this is therefore. A chauvinist.
Different standards for the sexes.
Women must have equality even if it means there isn't equality.
And women and children first still applies if we're on a sinking ship, I'm sure.

Jason said...

The fact that Marine officers were not willing to speak honestly and on the record tells you all you need to know.

virgil xenophon said...

@Alexander/

LOL. An old Army drill sgt was once quoted years ago as saying: "Son, there are only three kinds of people in this man's Army: Southern whites, Southern blacks, and everyone else."

Alexander said...

Inga, like Hultgreen, totally missed the mark...

Jason said...

Inga, you're a fucking idiot.

Do you even know who Hultgreen is? The lethal mistake was in bureaucrats determined to beat the USAF in the PR race to qualify a female fighter pilot overruling her instructors who said she wasn't ready to fly her assigned aircraft in the first place.

PC killed Hultgreen, who might have been a fine officer somewhere else in the navy. She was 27 or 28.

Good going, libtards.

Lovernios said...

The Drill Sgt: "no points for form, but your DS appreciated you using a "long thrust" and a "horizontal butt stroke"

remember those moves? instinctive aren't they. Thank a DS."

I think he appreciated that I got up and continued, even against an opponent 90lbs heavier and 6-8 inches taller. I was a shrimp but not a wimp.

Yes, I still practice them today using a staff. Been doing martial arts for about 40 years.

I'm 60 and I think I could still pass that test. I train twice a week at kendo (Japanese Fencing), yoga once a week and 2-3 times a week at the gym (banging the heavy bag & resistance training). I haven't been doing any pull-ups, I think I give it a go when I'm in the gym to see how many I can do.

Thanks, Drill Sgt. Helms.

Gglevil Ggleisevil said...

I'd say that the major disadvantage for women is breast and hip size, as it contributes quite a bit of extra weight. The real problem is with trying to treat men and women as exactly the same, when they're obviously not. I know, stating the obvious is very un-PC, and may get me a prison term, the way things are going in our formerly free country.

virgil xenophon said...

@Inga/

True enough, mistakes are made all the time. But Hultgreen's case was one in which the command structure KNEW she was incompetent but forced lower-ranking instructors/commanders to qualify/promote her ANYWAY--all in order to worship upon the alter of feminista PC.
That sort of thing is ABSOLUTELY unconscionable. Multiple people's lives are at stake/risk. The same may be said for pushing women into the combat arms..

virgil xenophon said...

Oh, I forgot to add that Inga seems to have now redefined the term "bigot"="pointing out the uncomfortably factually obvious."

Archie said...

No gays. No women. Strong military.

Trashhauler said...

Inga wrote: "...all the more reason to make sure our military IS diverse, isn't it?"

The Services find that blacks tend to seek support jobs that more readily provide to post-military skills, while close combat specialties tend to draw more whites and hispanics. There are social and historical reasons for these choices.

But let's not conflate diversity with equal opportunity. The latter is required in a multi-cultural military. The former is not.

Military jobs skills and proficiency require standardized performance and teamwork. While there are numerous historical examples of standardization and teamwork being aided by the homogeneity of unit members, there is no evidence that diversity aids them.

Diversity is simply what results from having a multi-cultural recruiting base. It is not something we need to foster in the military. If diversity were a true military advantage, we would assign people so that they were thoroughly mixed, so that each unit would have its share of, for example, left-handed, gay, Serbo-Croatians. Instead, we assign them by skills, trusting our training system to eliminate non-standard performance.

Scott M said...

Of course Virgil wouldn't admit that male pilots also made mistakes that got them and their crew killed.

Wow. The ignorance...it's gone beyond burning.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

all the more reason to make sure our military IS diverse, isn it?

Diversity in a military should be one of the least important goals. The LEAST.

Efficiency. Ability. Dedication. Personality traits that lend to being in a military machine. (Being in the military is a completely different mind set than being a kindergarten teacher for example.) Placing people into the best position to capitalize on their physical and mental abilities. If a woman isn't physically capable of performing in field combat or handling the G forces of a fighter jet, she should NOT be there to satisfy some diversity goal.

Having the proper proportion of women, blacks, chinese, mexicans, caucasians, muslims, baptists, jews, catholics, gays...whatever......is immaterial, completely irrelevant and could even be a detriment to the ability to function if you are just plonking people into slots for diversity like some sort of recipe to fill.

I don't care WHAT the military looks like when it is protecting me. Just like our local volunteer fire department.....if my house were on fire, I wouldn't care if they were all transexuals who showed up in tutus and flip flops to put out the fire. Just put out the damned fire.

Inga said...

No one is advocating a forced diversity, I am speaking of a diversity that already exists in our population and is reflected naturally in our military.

Howard Roark said...

There will be Marines who die because of the lower standard for physical strength.

A wounded Marine will not be pulled/ carried to medical help because his fellow Marine is there but without the needed strength to do what is required.

Scott M said...

No one is advocating a forced diversity, I am speaking of a diversity that already exists in our population and is reflected naturally in our military.

And since the makeup of the all-volunteer force doesn't match that societal makeup, to achieve that diversity, you would either have to force it or apply incentives to reach quotas.

Alexander said...

And *we're* pointing out that:

1. You're wrong that the diversity in the population is reflected in the military.

2. You're wrong that the diversity - insofar as it exists in the military - is not 'forced'.

Too many special interest groups and self-labeled victims in high places saw that 'their' group wasn't getting enough of the military 'spoils'. And you and yours are looking to push this further and further up until the point it literally kills us. Great work.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I am speaking of a diversity that already exists in our population and is reflected naturally in our military.

And here I thought you were complaining about the lack of diversity in the military.

The military does NOT reflect the population diversity of the United States. In fact that 'natural' diversity is not reflected throughout the US. You don't have nearly the percentage of Mexicans in your part of the country that we do in mine. There is no reason that you should.

There is no reason that there should be ANY reflection of any population in the military. No more reason than there should be a reflection of the "natural" diversity of the population in the NFL or in professional baseball. Perhaps you should focus on making sure that the over representation of very large athletically capable black men in the NFL is reduced to reflect the diversity of the population. We need some women and smaller framed asians.

The stupidity of trying to reconfigure the NFL to reflect the supposed diversity of the population is just as stupid as trying to force the military to increase women and other "perceived" minorities in order to create artificial diversity.

Ken Green said...

Here's what I don't understand. If you're going to apply for the Marines, wouldn't you get yourself in decent shape BEFORE you apply, and to make your life somewhat easier in bootcamp? I knew a guy who went out for the SEALs at one point, and he spent a good 6 months working out like a maniac to get his weight down, his speed up, his muscle mass up, his endurance up, and yes, his ability to do pull ups, push ups, sit ups, bench press, etc. Why wouldn't these women have done even more of that, knowing that they'd have to be at the top of female fitness capability to make the cut?

PS: When I was of an age to consider the marines, I could do 10 pull ups, even without any workout routine, and I was over-weight most of that time.

Inga said...

I'm mainly addressing those who have called for women and gays to be EXCLUDED in our military. I do not expect the military to EXACTLY match the diversity in the population at large.

Scott M said...

Inga is basically calling for more black men and women to be denied entry into the US military.

Blacks make up, last I checked, 12-13% of our population. However, also last I checked (and is what I remember from my service) blacks are over-represented in the US military, making up a little of 20% of the billets.

There aren't an endless number of available slots for volunteers in the US military. Thus, in order to achieve the diversity Inga is calling for, more black men and women would have to be denied entry so that their numbers overall drop to 12-13 percent to match the general population.

Inga said...

Scott, not so, not at all. As I said, Virgil and Archie made the suggestion that the military would be stronger without women and gays. I am saying that a diverse military is stronger.

virgil xenophon said...

About the logic of "diversity." ala DBQ. I wouldn't care, par example, ONE WHIT if the SCOTUS were comprised of nothing but an all-female Catholic Philipino-American bench as long as they all imbibed in the philosophical waters of our Founding Fathers..

damikesc said...

Lowering of standards. Gee, who saw THAT coming?

As for women and upper body strength, if they have it and can pass the qualifications, they have every right to be in the same role as the men who qualify similarily.

The issue, though, is that they are LOWERING the standards to push women thru.

Do you support that?

Anglelyne said...

jdkchem: "But 45% of the women did it."

Which is absolutely meaningless and demonstrates nothing.


Exactly. Look for more of this cherry-picking of non-results to "prove" that having women in combat is anything but evidence that the adults no longer have the decision-making power in our institutions. Just dig a bit more and follow-up and see how these "qualified" women end up.

Capt. Schmoe: Both sides need to do what it takes to ensure that those who have it can succeed.

Why? Why should entire functional institutions be re-arranged, have their time and resources drained, with all sorts of negative side-effects introduced, for the vanishingly small number of "non-traditional warriors" who might (might) be physically and mentally qualified?

Furthermore, when all the "equal opportunity" play-acting begins to undermine an institution, those who are the backbone of the organization - those who actually get the damned job done - get fed up and leave, or no longer consider such careers in the first place. Only Inga would be dumb enough to reply "good riddance" to that eventuality.

You know you have gone through the looking-glass regarding "equality of opportunity" when that "opportunity" requires vast amounts of intervention on behalf of even the most qualified of the allegedly discriminated-against candidates, transparently dishonest rationalizations for lowering standards, and institutional disruption. Truly equally-qualified candidates would not require this. (Anybody who compares this to the quite successful past racial integration of the U.S. military doesn't know much about why that worked reasonably well. Hint: see under "equally qualified".)

Nomennovum said...

Jeez. Gone for -- what? -- a year? Reintroduced to Althouse by Instapundit after having left in disgust as a result of Althouse's thinly disguised hatred for most of her commenters ... and that batshit crazy leftist troll and trouble-maker, that sub-moronic retired nurse and ur-dope, Inga is still stirring the pot and people still respond to her pathetic and obvious attention whoring. And Althouse, of course, refuses to ban her ad-hominemness.

virgil xenophon said...

Again, Inga's lack of judgment and ignorance of the realities of much of life is the perfect example of why the 19th Amendment should be repealed--or as Kate @smalldeadanimals once wrote: "I wouldn't mind giving up my vote if I could take them all with me.." LOL.

Anglelyne said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Yay, it's DBQ! Have you not been around here much recently, or have I just missed the threads you're been participating in?

Anyway, nice to see you commenting.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I am saying that a diverse military is stronger.

Why? HOW? In what way?

If you put women into positions that they are physically weaker or incapable of accomplishing, how is this making the military stronger?

The only way to make the military strong is to have people in positions for which they are suited, mentally and physically. If that means that some demographic sections are under represented .....tough shit.

The military is not a private company. It isn't a business that be monkeyed around with to suit your social engineering desires. It is a machine that is needed to be at optimal functioning capacity to protect us and if we are in conflict to WIN.

Trashhauler said...

As I recall, diversity is a concept that was cooked up by academia to get around the strictures of post-Bakke court findings against racial quotas. Whether or not a learning environment is enhanced by diversity is an open question, I suppose.

But, academia and equal opportunity requirements aside, can anyone think of a job setting in which overall job performance is enhanced by diversity? Some customer service functions, perhaps. Otherwise, what work settings?

Donald Sensing said...

There are no infantrywomen now and there will not be any in the future. I do not foresee a time when women will be involuntarily assigned to infantry or the vast majority of other specialties putatively opened to them now. And believe me, women are absolutely not going to volunteer for them in any kind of significant numbers at all, leading them to again be closed to women (unofficially, but actually). Here is why.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

I am saying that a diverse military is stronger.

Why? On what basis can you make that assumption? That putting women in rear-echelon MOS' frees up men for combat arms jobs? No argument from me there, but I sense that's not the angle you're advocating.

Inga said...

Angelyne, you and DBQ are the type women who would sabotage their own gender and misrepresent and minimize the contributions that women have made in our military. Gender traitors, ugh. And don't try to say you care more about the strength of our fighting force by your obvious bigotry to your own sex. Women like you two really turn my stomach.

I stated early on in this thread, that if a woman qualifies she should be allowed to do the job, do you think you can wrap your idiotic head around this? I doubt it.

Donald Sensing said...

Canada's armed forces made this change in 1989. So how many of combat jobs are held by women there? Just over 2 percent. According to the Globe and Mail of Toronto, "few enlisted women want to be on the front lines. Like a lot of men (but more so), they join up for the free education and career training, and would really rather not get anywhere near combat."

Nomennovum said...

No woman can possibly be qualified to serve alongside men in the military. They weaken the military by their very presence.

G Dixon said...

During the period in which Togo West was Army Sec, the gender norming requirement which is a metaphor for all of this nonsense occurred.

The minimum distance for throwing a hand grenade was gender-normed.
One distance for males, a 'normed' distance for females.

The problem became obvious when it was noted that the distance a female was required to throw a hand grenade was less than its fatal burst radius.

The Drill SGT said...

Inga said...
I am saying that a diverse military is stronger.


Wishing it was true does not make it so.

Any combat leader will tell you that a homogenous unit (define it any way you want. shared training, shared race, shared whatever) is easier to command and motivate. When you have to pick a person to walk point, any decision is viewed through a lens of perceived or actual favoritism. That you as the leader may now be sleeping with a subordinate makes it easier or harder to lead the rest?

Inga said...

Hail, hail the bigots are now all representin' with the return of NoNoNovum.

Michael said...

3? They only have to do 3? In the fucking Marine Corps? 3 as in 1-2-3? So, after doing one they only have to do two more?

This cannot be right.

And an amazing 45% of women who signed up, on purpose, to join the USMC cannot do three?

Pathetic. They took the number down from 10 to 3 so that at least one or two women could be in the marines and less than half can make the cut.

3

Dust Bunny Queen said...

that if a woman qualifies she should be allowed to do the job, do you think you can wrap your idiotic head around this? I doubt it.

The military is dumbing down, relaxing, or eliminating the qualifications to do the job. This makes the job (infantry for example) open to less qualified people than before. By letting less physically qualified people.....women and possibly/eventually men who cannot perform the required amount of pullups (the original topic of this post)to fill the positions that they would NEVER have qualified for in the past, the military is being weakened. It is also putting the people who ARE qualified into danger.

In an office setting this unqualified people working next to you...not such a big deal. In a life and death combat situation. It IS a big deal.

Can you wrap your head around that? I doubt it.

G Dixon said...

A gender-normed military will work so long as America's opponents gender-norm their offensive operations.

realwest said...

I'm rather astounded that doing 3 pull ups is considered OK.
I enlisted during the Vietnam War and served as an infantryman. While that was a loong time ago, the physical fitness requirements for the Infantry (and maybe the other two Combat Arms) were pretty severe.
I don't care if the person on my right or left is male, female or gay, just that I can count on them to fire at the enemy and fill and hoist sandbags as rapidly as needed and be able to carry a wounded comrade to safety.
If you can't do that, you don't belong in the Infantry, regardless of gender, race, or gender preference. Period.

The Drill SGT said...

Michael said...
3? They only have to do 3? In the fucking Marine Corps?


as somebody up thread pointed out, the standard in Army Basic used to be 10, else you didn't get to eat :)

Nomennovum said...

"I'm rather astounded that doing 3 pull ups is considered OK."

Of course it's not. Clearly it was already "dumbed down" to accommodate the females. Now it's effectively down to zero. Still, they won't get enough women to meet their quota. Soon they'll be instituting a queefing requirement in boot camp. If you can't queef after fucking your CO, you're out.

Inga said...

DBQ, there are commenters here that are calling for the exclusion of women in the military ALTOGETHER, are you on board with that? You seem lke the type who might actually want to serve in the military and perform well (except maybe your test results in that psychosis quiz the other day,lol) you're OK with exclusion?

Michael said...

I am 68 years old and can do 3 fucking pull ups. I can run a fucking marathon. I should not be able to pass the physical test for the USMC.

I am really disturbed to read this.

virgil xenophon said...

@G Dixon/

Yes, blue grenades for the boys, pink grenades for the girls. All of this idiocy is well spot-lighted in the book "The Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars" by Stephanie Gutmann.(2000)

exhelodrvr1 said...

Inga,
Do you think that everyone should have to meet the same standards to enter the military and at each point in their career when there is a requirement to take a test?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Inga: I don't get the sense that posters are wanting to exclude women from all aspects of the military. Just from active combat-infantry-field positions where their physical inabilities would put the rest of the troops in danger. Also positions where the male female dynamic could be a distraction.

I see a good place for women in the military in positions where they are qualified. Mechanics. Supply positions. Motorized activities. Computerized activities. Things that don't require actual physical strength. Many positions that would be suitable and which are necessary to a functioning military.

As to me being in the military. I thought about it. I was recruited in the late 60's by the Air Force after taking the standard tests in high school that all the guys were taking at that time. They wanted to offer me a position as an aviation navigator. The Army wanted to recruit me as a mechanic. I scored very highly on those sections. They sent me letters and had recruiters call me until they found out I was female and then offered me other positions. Whatever.

My results on the psyc test would make me imminently, mentally qualified for the military and even for combat. Physically..... I was (and still am) totally unqualified for combat and understand why the Air Force changed their mind. Even being a mechanic would likely have been beyond my physical capabilities. You need a lot of upper body strength to do some mechanical tasks associated with machinery and motors.

Yes. I am absolutely ok with exclusion of people who are not qualified to do the jobs. In fact, I would demand that exclusion. Women are, in general, weaker than men in the physical arena. They cannot do the same job with any efficiency in some aspects of the military....and in civilian life as well. It is reality and delusion to deny it.

virgil xenophon said...

@Donald Sensing/

Nice link & post. Thx.

Patrick said...

The term "gender traitor" is among the most stupid terms I've heard lately. It's no different than saying "you're a girl, so you must think exactly like us. Our you're a traitor!"

People should be embarrassed to write something like that.

The Drill SGT said...

Yes. I am absolutely ok with exclusion of people who are not qualified to do the jobs. In fact, I would demand that exclusion. Women are, in general, weaker than men in the physical arena. They cannot do the same job with any efficiency in some aspects of the military....and in civilian life as well. It is reality and delusion to deny it.

I think Virgil and Scott were both pilots. I'll ask for support for my assertion that females make very good helo pilots.

better average hand /eye coord, attention to detail, less need to superior spatial skills that the best fighter jocks have, and bluntly, testosterone gets in the way of some piloting. "e.g. Old bold pilots :)

MP's work well as females. they fight mounted, and home each day at a FOB. see SGT Hester

virgil xenophon said...

And for those here who think it alright to have women in "non-Combat" rear-area support roles (supply, communications, clerical, etc) I would remind everyone that it was in the Battle of the Bulge at Bastogne that it was JUST THESE PEOPLE at rear-area HQ units, etc., who had to pick up rifles when their lines were overrun and engage in hand-to-hand combat with the Germans. Anybody want to utilize Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine and go back and replace all those rear-area male support personnel with females with the battle hanging in the balance?

Hyphenated American said...

"Alexander, why would I try to convince anyone that having a diverse fighting force is beneficial, our military members represent our population's diversity. What is important is that those citizens who are patriotic enough to want to serve their country, can. "

This is liberalism 101. The main purpose of the military is to make people feel good about themselves. And people wonder why Obamacare website was such a disaster - it was built by people like Inga.

Anglelyne said...

DBQ to DB*: "I am saying that a diverse military is stronger".

Why? HOW? In what way?


'Cause it enables us to leverage the functionality, shift the paradigms, lean in, think outside the box, deliver seamless integration of incentivization, prioritize our synergies and synergize our priorities. That sort of thing.

*Dozy Bint

Inga said...

DBQ,
Virgil, Archie and NoNoNovum all called for the exclusion of women altogether in the military.

Inga said...

Angelyne is a self hater and bigot.

Scott M said...

DBQ, there are commenters here that are calling for the exclusion of women in the military ALTOGETHER, are you on board with that?

I'm not calling for the removal of all women from the military. However, I AM calling for barring anyone from deployments/TDY that has the capacity to become pregnant (ie, get a free ticket home anytime they want). And don't say it doesn't happen, because it does...a lot.

It just so happens that there is a large contingent of the population (roughly half) that lack this biological ability to get out of a shitty deployment. To make things fair, simply don't allow those than can to deploy.

You save time and money and you protect esprit de corps, which is vital in combat theaters.

Inga said...

Scott, I didn't say YOU were calling for the exclusion of women from the military, why do you include yourself in group I mentioned, guilty conscience, lol?

Anglelyne said...

Dozy Bint: Angelyne, you and DBQ are the type women who would sabotage their own gender and misrepresent and minimize the contributions that women have made in our military. Gender traitors, ugh. And don't try to say you care more about the strength of our fighting force by your obvious bigotry to your own sex. Women like you two really turn my stomach.

I'm not the one here who considers myself inferior to men because I'm completely unqualified to be a combat soldier. Soldiering is a man's job. You apparently don't believe that there's anything special and valuable about being a woman that complements that. Nope, "one of the boys" in all things, or we're scum!

Inga said...

Bigotlyne,
Talks tough but wants to leave "soldiering" to men alone. Wimp.

Cedarford said...

The debate that women are "just fine" for all military roles save combat arms ignores that many "non-combat" jobs involve soldiers and sailors having to move heavy objects and move them fast in certain situations. The Navy has "non-combat" people that move several hundred 20-30 KG boxes during stores replenishment in an hour, plus fire brigade duties involving heavy hoses, other equipment that must be muscled in. Fast! The maintenance on AF jets and Army vehicles is designed for a man of better than average strength to do certain tasks.

The AF has pallets of ordnance that must be manhandled from bunker to strip and then loaded by hoist, or combat load removed on returning aircraft. Also fire brigades. All not involving combat infantry, but needing male strength and stamina. In the AF, the temporary solution for women unable to do the tasks was to make them "safety observors or supervisors".

So the issue of women in the military does go past combat arms. There are limits in other activities. A woman may be unable to unbolt a Helo blade for replacement in a rear repair facility or Stateside...so she "does the paperwork" while a man does that. Where formerly, the man did the unbolting, did the paperwork, alone..Efficiency is lost. Time is lost when a refueling crew of 3 men and 2 women only has the 3 guys capable of quickly getting hoses in refueling configuration. An Army supply truck that takes 2 men a half hour to unload and move items to storage takes a man and a woman 50 minutes. A two-woman supply truck crew could take well over an hour. To even several hours if one of the women is "nauseous" or strained from unloading tons of stuff and a man has to be fetched to replace her for unloading....

exhelodrvr1 said...

Inga,
Do you think that everyone should have to meet the same standards to enter the military and at each point in their career when there is a requirement to take a test?

Michael said...

Inga. Less than half of the women volunteering for the USMC can do 3 pull ups.

You cool with the other 55% passing anyway? Or is the issue at hand too specific for the bullshit diversity talk?

Anglelyne said...

Dozy Bint: Angelyne is a self hater and bigot.

Anglelyne. A-n-g-l-e-l-y-n-e. Pronounced Angle-een. Some of us have cartoon characters for avatars, some of us are cartoon characters.

Mike said...

God, Inga, can't you stick to a subject and make a cogent argument without resorting to invective? Someone points out your idea is stupid and has been tried and failed and is failing and is ruining the military. People who have been there and done that tell you how it works. You call them names and suggest they are bigots.

This is no surprise and is sometimes entertaining but don't you EVER consider that your crackpot ideas are not standing the test of the real world?

You call Angelyne a coward but you can't even deal with the facts of the news nugget that Althouse supplied. Are you afraid to acknowledge the standards have to be changed to make the demographic shift you think is needed?

Inga said...

Exhelodrvr. In the positions that require brute strength to perform safely and effectively, yes, same standards. In other non combat positions, no.

virgil xenophon said...

@Inga/

Newsflash: I think Anglelyne & DBQ can well take care of themselves and if I were a betting mam--and I am--I'd wager neither lays awake at night worrying overmuch about their lot in life..

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Virgil

I would remind everyone that it was in the Battle of the Bulge at Bastogne that it was JUST THESE PEOPLE at rear-area HQ units, etc., who had to pick up rifles when their lines were overrun and engage in hand-to-hand combat with the Germans.

I agree. If you are in a potential combat zone you are potentially going to need combat skills and the closer you are to the actual combat, more qualified personnel should be stationed. People able to handle a sudden overwhelming attack. (Bengazi comes to mind here.)

However, in today's military as opposed to WWII (correct me if I'm wrong) many of those rear area functions are now computerized or centralized and there isn't the need to have as many support people, clerks etc so very close to actual combat as in the past. In fact we now send out drones and do 'combat' by computerized un-manned armaments. SO I could be sitting somewhere thousands of miles from the combat arena and use my computerized combat skills, honed by years of playing computerized combat type games to be efficient in virtual combat.

I also agree with Scott. The ability to get pregnant in the middle of a combat/war zone and be sent home is a purely female capacity. If I were Queen and in charge. I would insist that any females in combat be 1.) Qualified and 2) using birth control such as Norplant to prevent pregnancy during deployment. If the women can't accept this, then take another job.

The male female dynamic is also a troubling issue. It is hormonal. It is learned behavior. It is a problem in civilian life. You see the issues arise in an office setting. Being harassed sexually. Men hitting on you or the mere presence of a woman in a predominantly male causing off interpersonal dynamics that are not annoying but also distracting. You really don't need this distraction in a life and death combat setting.

Inga said...

Mike,
Bigotlyne was the first to start with the insults at 11:31. I don't back down to such people here or anywhere. However it Is getting old and I see Bigotlyne is getting her feelings hurt, despite the fact she doesn't hesitate to hand it out. And Althouse doesn't wan this sort of bak and forth.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
virgil xenophon said...

@C4/

Yes, your points/examples are exactly some of the things Stephanie Gutmann highlights in her book and to which Donald Sensing, above, links.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Inga,
So it's OK with you that positions with a reasonable potential for emergency scenarios requiring higher levels of physical performance be "manned" by people not capable of performing to that higher level, as long as that scenario doesn't occur in combat?


Michael said...

Inga." And Althouse doesn't wan this sort of bak and forth."


This is the kind of tough girl the military needs. Appeal to authority when the rhetoric collapses, when the position is over run. Hit the gym Ingabigot. Give us a quick three.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Cedarford makes very good points about the loss of efficiency by insisting that women participate in activities that are beyond their physical strength. As I acknowledge, as much as I know about mechanics of an engine. I am not, nor was ever capable of doing what my husband is doing now. Switching out an engine in a car and retrofitting the frame. I can weld. I can use cutting torches. I CANNOT lift and position a 429 engine and transmission into the engine compartment even with a cherry picker. Even undoing bolts in some cases requires considerable upper body strength.

Cedarford is also right in noting the duplication of effort by having women do portions if jobs. Breaking a task into multiple parts that men used to do all as one task.

I'm not the one here who considers myself inferior to men because I'm completely unqualified to be a combat soldier. Soldiering is a man's job."

100% agree.

Inga said...

No Michael, I'm not going to continue to do something Althouse has specifically and clearly asked us NOT to do. What, you want to be entertained? Ask Angelne to do a pole dance for you.

Michael said...

Ingabigot. Call the general the enemy is bothering you! They might hurt you.

Ugly words about other women, the pole dance thing, is a very bigoted right wing kind of slur. Not good for the sisterhood. You a bad soldierwoman,

virgil xenophon said...

@DBQ/

Yes, you're right on one analytical (and factual) level, but on another analytical level ironically in places like Af And Iraq there often ARE NO "rear areas" safe from attack in an insurgency type civil war with no defined "front lines" thus placing "rear area" types in the thick of the risk. e.g., SEE: the infamous Camp Bastion attack in Af where 8% of our entire F-8 Harrier fighter attack capability was destroyed by a night ground attack which penetrated deep within the base and killed the Squadron Commander, among others..the worst one day loss of US aircraft since Vietnam and the worst losses taken by that Squadron since Pearl Harbor..

Inga said...

Michael, I'm pretty sure Angelyne is just fine with the pole dance reference, she might just consider it a service to the fighting men of America.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

We are having an interesting debate and discussion about an important topic.

Inga has so far, called the two women who are posting gender traitors, bigots and implied that Anglelyne is a slutty pole dancer. Actually.....talk about upper body strength. A pole dancer could probably do all those pullups with ease!! and look good doing it. Inga has called almost everyone posting a bigot.

We are adults and can discuss issues without descending into name calling. I think that a good back and forth discussion of the issues is what makes a blog interesting.

I'm also willing to be informed and corrected by those who have actual experience with the topic at hand when my assumptions are faulty. That is also an adult attitude.

Lydia said...

Some interesting stuff in a NY Times piece, Looking to Israel for Clues on Women in Combat:

"While more than 92 percent of I.D.F. jobs are now open to women — they are fighter pilots, infantry officers, naval captains and Humvee drivers — just 3 percent serve in combat roles."

And they seem to have set aside a specific unit for women in combat:

"The main combat unit for women is Caracal, named for a desert cat that looks similar whether male or female. Since its founding in 2000, the unit, which has been up to two-thirds female, has guarded the borders with Jordan and Egypt"

And...

"Arielle Werner, 21, who grew up in Minnesota and immigrated to Israel in order to join the combat unit, said female recruits underwent the same training regimen as the men, except for occasionally shorter runs or treks with full regalia. 'Once in a while we can guilt the guys into doing the heavy lifting' of huge water bottles or stretchers, she said, 'but girls do the same as guys; it’s pretty equal'."

"Guilt the guys," huh? And I like that "pretty equal."

Inga said...

Virgil, my daughter was just down the road from the Camp Bastion attack, during her year in Afghanistan. She was there and she was of service to the guys who were getting injured, for which she was given a commendation BTW.

Anglelyne said...

Mike: God, Inga, can't you stick to a subject and make a cogent argument without resorting to invective? Someone points out your idea is stupid and has been tried and failed and is failing and is ruining the military. People who have been there and done that tell you how it works. You call them names and suggest they are bigots.

Plenty of women who have served honorably in the military think putting women into combat roles is a really stupid idea. Some honorable women have tested themselves against the standards - wanting to be in combat roles and starting out believing that they could hack it - and discovered, and honestly reported, that, no, they couldn't.

Cowards, all of them, unlike our armchair Amazon.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"she was of service to the guys"

I'll bet she was!

virgil xenophon said...

Lydia gives good quote, lol. "guilt the guys" and "pretty equal" really says it all, doesn't it?

Harold said...

A story I heard way back when is that when women were first assigned shipboard, a Captain had his female officers hand select 4 of the best enlisted women on board, and he randomly pulled 4 men from the sailing list. Set zebra (all hatches shut and dogged) throughout the ship, and assigned the 4 man team and the 4 woman team to carry a P-250 pump from repair 5 to the scene of simulated flooding. In OBA's because of the simulated fires that went with the flooding.

It's not that the female team was slower then the male team that was the point. The point was that the female team NEVER COMPLETED THE MISSION!

Publication of this, was, of course, forbidden. But the story made the rounds. Any Captain who dared to conduct such an experiment today would undoubtedly be relieved for cause.

On a ship, even the clerks and cooks have damage control duties. In the Marines, even the clerks and cooks are riflemen should it come to that.

In war, it is often far better if the enemy surrenders or flees rather then fight. None of our potential enemies share our sensibilities. In the Panama invasion only one unit assigned to take an outlying post received fire rather then immediate surrender. The Panamanian garrison wouldn't surrender to the female MP company.

Inga said...

And yes you are right, in the Marines, at Camp Leatherneck, the 9mm pistol and the M4. Corpsmen all carry the pistol and a rifle everywhere they go on Camp Leatherneck.

Scott M said...

I'll bet she was!

Uncalled for. (Assuming there's actually a daughter and she actually served a year in the 'Stan)

Original Mike said...

"I am saying that a diverse military is stronger."

Oh, for crying out loud. I'd ask why, but others already have and you haven't been able to come up with an answer.

damikesc said...

I stated early on in this thread, that if a woman qualifies she should be allowed to do the job, do you think you can wrap your idiotic head around this? I doubt it.

If they're lowering standards, then no, women don't seem able to meet them in a way to satisfy Progressives.

Note: conservatives didn't ask for these changes, noting that it will not end up working out well.

So, Inga, are your attacks on Anglelyne OK? Would they be OK if, say, I said them, verbatim, to you?

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

And Scott, this is uncalled for too.
"(Assuming there's actually a daughter and she actually served a year in the 'Stan)"

12/27/13, 1:45 PM

I've mentioned my daughter numerous times here while she was in Afghanistan. Another commenter who has access to military records (how I don't know) verified that she was indeed in the Navy and attached to the Marines. She was with the 1st MLG in Afghanistan, I've also mentioned this several times.

Chef Mojo said...

Looks like Inga is just Shouting Thomas in drags. Rude and boorish. But mostly boring.

In her panicked hands, "bigot" and "racsist" become meaningless, blending into the background noise. Typical of leftists to completely abuse the language and make it devoid of meaning and impact.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
"I'm mainly addressing those who have called for women and gays to be EXCLUDED in our military. I do not expect the military to EXACTLY match the diversity in the population at large."

DADT allowed gays to serve in the military. They just weren't supposed to bring up their gayness. In the interest of unit cohesiveness, why should they have? Gayness should be kept in the closet while serving. So too should officers infidelity.
As for women being excluded, the question is "excluded from what?"
From jobs they are incapable of holding because they don't meet the requirements?

Original Mike said...

Apparently, progressives view the military as a spoils system and demand their piece of the pie. Whatever happened to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ..."?

Inga said...

Mojo, I try to ignore most rude people here, but some days there are so damn many, one cannot ignore them and are dragged into interacting with them, including you, rude chef.

jr565 said...

Real west wrote:
"I don't care if the person on my right or left is male, female or gay, just that I can count on them to fire at the enemy and fill and hoist sandbags as rapidly as needed and be able to carry a wounded comrade to safety.
If you can't do that, you don't belong in the Infantry,
regardless of gender, race, or gender preference. Period."


That's the point, isn't it? I wouldn't want to be the wounded guy on the field having to rely on a weakling who can't even do three pullups to carry me to safety.
Inga's push for diversity seems to fly smack in the face of safety of individuals who's lives are in danger?
If you can't do the job, then you can't do the job.

Nomennovum said...

Look, it's quite clear the left, having destroyed public education, marriage, the working class, and the health insurance market, wants to destroy the military. Is this not obvious? They've been slashing and burning their way through our culture for more than a generation.

Surely you see a pattern here. It's always done in the name of fairness and kindness, but it always smacks of retribution, accompanied by invective and nastiness.

El Pollo Raylan said...

If men and women are equal, they should be able to pass the same physical standards. Full stop.

Unknown said...

The question that matters is of that 45%, how many of the women did it take everything they had in order to do just those 3 pullups? I suspect it was most of them.

I say this as a woman who is strong and has often surprised men by how much weight I could carry. But I had an epiphany when I tried to load a heavy package into my car many years ago. It was a hammock weighing about 60-80 lbs and at least 20 feet long. No handles and very awkward sized package. Now, I could generally carry 80lbs to 100lbs with no problems. But it took me 15 minutes to load it into my convertible. I was exhausted by the time I got it in.

When I got it home, I did not want to carry it up two flights of stairs. Lucky for me, a guy who lived in my building saw me and offered to help. He was about 5'5 and very slender (I was 5'4 and slender- we looked about the same size :-). In 2 seconds, he reached into the car and swung it onto his shoulder. He ran that sucker up 2 flights of stairs in nothing flat. I am still AWED by that awesome feat. Lesson learned-- women can be strong but they are generally strong in short bursts. It can take everything for a woman to do something that comes so naturally and easily to men. No way can women perform in combat at the necessary level for long stretches of time without doing damage to themselves or others. Women have a lot to contribute but combat is not it.

There was an article by a female marine who argued against women in combat. She was strong and passed all of the tests. But in the field, she lost massive amounts of muscle and her recovery time was less than the men in her unit. She had days when her leg muscles simply gave out on her. She ended up having all kinds of medical problems and became infertile due to the damage she did to her body.

Women can lie to themselves all they want BUT the laws of physics will not be denied.

AllenS said...

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
12/27/13, 12:53 PM


I agree totally.

ALP said...

THREE???? Seriously? I am stunned its that low.

Former gym rat and competitive lifter here. Most of the women I lifted with who trained pull ups (myself included) could do 3 sets of 10. On my best days - I could pull off a set of 12. A few of the really good women would add extra weight around their waist, and the outliers could do 3-4 sets of 15 pull ups.

Those three pull ups MUST come after some other exhausting physical test, right?

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
She was there and she was of service to the guys who were getting injured, for which she was given a commendation BTW.

thank her for her service. But, the point is, it's the guys getting injured and she's there to help the guys who get injured, not try to fight the war as an infantryman.
A team is only as strong as its weakest link. How much are you willing to bet that 98% of women would be that weakest link.
This is not a team sport where you can have a men's division and a woman's division and the women compete against the women. No, they would be judged on the same standard which is set by the battlefield. A field that is pretty unforgiving.
How many women could hack playing in the NFL against men built like professional football players? now imagine those same men are shooting bullets at you and/or attempting to stab you with bayonets. Or you have to carry one of those 200+ guys over your shoulders out of harms way.
It's ok that women can't hack it. They are physically not built that way. But a fact is a fact.
If you really want to play by your rules lets stop having divisions in sports for women. Let's compare the best marathon runners solely by times. Even the best women runner will only be an average male runner based on that standard.
If you apply that standard to combat you quickly see how women and those who are relying on them are at a disadvantage.

Tom said...

Capt. Schmoe

I also know what I'm talking about, and including the very small percentage of woman who can pass the physical requirements will still lead to problems. We haven't even gotten into the health and hygiene issues involved in living in sometimes extreme filth for days or weeks at a time with no opportunity to truly bathe or shower. Never mind the logistics issues of having to defecate and pee somewhere, often out in the open in front of your comrades.

In short, a disaster waiting to happen.

Inga said...

Jr.
Guess what, the female Corpsmen carried their 9mm and their M4s everywhere they went on base at Camp Leatherneck, AND were EXPECTED to USE them, if they needed to, which they did during the Camp Bastion attack. Women went on convoys that were also subject to being blown up. Women performed their duties as well as their male counterparts.

virgil xenophon said...

@jr565/

Yes, a couple, three decades ago there was a big push in college sports to let women compete on men's teams in sports like tennis and golf "if they were good enough to make the team." That is, until men said: "OK, turn about is fair play, if men tennis players can't make the top starting six on the men's team, lets let them try out for the women's team." Horrified, women PE instructors said "But that would mean that there would be no women on the women's teams!" End of demands for women on men's teams. It's all a one-way street with the feministas..

virgil xenophon said...

PS: There is A REASON that they have a "woman's tee" and a 'men's tee" in golf.

Original Mike said...

" Women performed their duties as well as their male counterparts."

So long as said duties did not entail pulling themselves up.

virgil xenophon said...

Addendum: My Father was a college Hall-of-Fame tennis and basketball coach who in retirement started a Christmas Holiday college tennis tournament in Palm Springs at the Cathedral Canyon CC.. Once, during the time of the Bobby Riggs-Billy Jean King tennis match he was sitting in the stands at another tournament in Indian Wells with Chris Evert et all discussing the relative strengths of men and women tennis players. "Heck," Chrissy said, (who was ranked #1 in the world at the time) "I can't even beat my brother and he's not even ranked in the top 200 in the men's!" LOL

Original Mike said...

"This is not a team sport where you can have a men's division and a woman's division and the women compete against the women."

Why not have men's armies and women's armies? The U.N. could enforce it.

Joe said...

Isn't this a slap in the face to those female marines who met and exceeded the standard? Their qualifications will now be questioned--were they one of those who got a free pass?

The Drill SGT said...

Inga said...
Jr.
Guess what, the female Corpsmen carried their 9mm and their M4s everywhere they went on base at Camp Leatherneck, AND were EXPECTED to USE them, if they needed to, which they did during the Camp Bastion attack. Women went on convoys that were also subject to being blown up. Women performed their duties as well as their male counterparts.


Nobody here disputes that some women are able to do some jobs in combat.

What most of use dispute is that more than a handful of women are capable of being marginal riflemen.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Drill SGT.
My daughter qualified at the shooting range with the Marines before she left for Afghanistan, she made Sharpshooter, I'm guessing that's not bad. Some of the guys did worse than her and had trouble qualifying.

Michael said...

Joe. Of course. And you will be right most of the time to question their skills. Such is affirmative action.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Only 1% of chess grand masters are women. Perhaps the World Chess Federation should change the rules to make it more possible for women to win for more diversity in the grand master ranks.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
My daughter qualified at the shooting range with the Marines before she left for Afghanistan, she made Sharpshooter, I'm guessing that's not bad. Some of the guys did worse than her and had trouble qualifying.


How much can she lift. How much does she weigh, and how fast can she run. Could she play football with 250 pound guys?
If one of those guys were shot on a battlefield could she lift him and carry him to safety?
Being able to fire a weapon is only one portion of combat.

damikesc said...

Addendum: My Father was a college Hall-of-Fame tennis and basketball coach who in retirement started a Christmas Holiday college tennis tournament in Palm Springs at the Cathedral Canyon CC.. Once, during the time of the Bobby Riggs-Billy Jean King tennis match he was sitting in the stands at another tournament in Indian Wells with Chris Evert et all discussing the relative strengths of men and women tennis players. "Heck," Chrissy said, (who was ranked #1 in the world at the time) "I can't even beat my brother and he's not even ranked in the top 200 in the men's!" LOL

There's long been a theory that Riggs threw the match. He had crushed another top ranked woman not long before the King match. He tended to have big debts and, well, he could be persuaded to do things.

Inga said...

Jr. In order to be a Corpsman with the Marines they, male and female must attend the FMTB ( Fleet Marine Training Battalion), after the initial Corpschool at some point. Then when they are attached to the Marines they must complete the FMF qualification within a year of being with the Marines. At FMTB females must qualify ALONG with the males.

Goju said...

To the person who referenced the bayonet charge by Brit troops: that would have been the South Argyle Highlanders. And they did some serious ass whupping. Details can be found at Blackfive.com in the "People You Should Know" archives. There is also the details on the Salvadorian who took a knife to a gunfight and killed a bunch of bad guys. A truely awesome story.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 257   Newer› Newest»