Posted on 04/13/2014 5:36:52 PM PDT by RoosterRedux
The military is taking steps to prepare women for combat roles in 2016.
The Marine Corps announced that it would give young female lieutenants who wash out of the grueling Infantry Officer Course a second shot, same as their male counterparts.
The Army is conducting a study to test just how fit a soldier has to be to engage in combat. The study involves 60 women and 100 men.
CBS News reported on both developments last week.
The Marine Corps announcement came after Marine 2nd Lt. Sage Santangelo took the Infantry Officer Court and wrote about her experience last month in an op-ed in The Washington Post. She didnt make it past the first day and blamed the Marine Corps for a dual standard that sets up women to flunk the course.
Fifteen young women Marines have taken the course. All washed out and all but one washed out on the first day.
She wrote that male officers could retake the course if they failed, but that women could not.
The commandant of the Marine Corps ordered the change after he read her op-ed.
"I'm very humbled that he would consider my opinions and my thoughts," Santangelo, 24, told CBS. "I'm hopeful that it will help others, and I'm glad to see that he's doing that."
The Marines invited female officers to take the Infantry Officer Course in 2012. The 13-week course tests the mettle of potential infantry officers.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Even evil aliens would flee the planet.
I tried, but failed...so here I am.
As you do frequently, this is yet another thread where your sole interest was in stalking, the topic doesn’t seem to interest you at all.
Grudge carrying from thread to thread and stalking seems to occupy a lot of your efforts here.
Active Duty ping.
It’s not that I am in favor of women in combat...I am just against fags in combat.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Think there’s any chance some(all) of the women that pass will be fags?
So it is libertarianism and Rand Paul that has you stalking me.
I guess that is to be the topic on this thread now, as you turn turn this into yet another of your pro-gay marriage, pro-Rand Paul arguments.
You are the problem.
This is common knowledge...but apparently news to you.
Get peaceful man...we are your friends. The enemy is over there.
How about trying to focus on your females in the military arguments, since you won’t share with me whatever this talk is about the wounds I gave you on another thread.
Poor Sheep Dog. It must be terribly difficult dealing with we three dimensional critters from your two dimensional world.
With all the wars that have been fought throughout recorded history, one would think there would have been at least one successful general that had actively sought to field female units if it were such a good idea. Certainly, women have been pressed into combat roles, but the historical record shows it’s generally as a last resort.
HAW, what a liar you visibly display yourself to be!
Yeah, it’s not that wonderful an idea.
World War II found plenty of use for women, but it was in “Rosie The Riveter” roles.
“I wonder why there is no push to put women in the NFL or MLB? Is it because there are physical differences?”
Because women being handed their assess on prime time television is a bad thing.
Exactly, it’s insane to think that the great secret that has been kept from humans through all of existence, is that males are not really a warrior sex at all, that females are too, it’s just that no one had thought of it, or tried it.
I would like to know what force could keep women down all this time if they were fighters.
As said, Freep mail me if I can help. Otherwise, please take your argumentative, faultfinding, scab-picking, contrariness elsewhere.
Life is hard enough without people like you on FR just trying to piss everyone off.
I come to FR for the camaraderie and friendship.
If I want to be chewed out, I will ring up my ex-wife.
There were the Amazons, reputed to be so fanatic that they would hack off a breast to facilitate their archery.
There is no lie in that post, my opposition to gay marriage and Rand Paul’s social liberalism, is what drives this stalking that you do, and your emotional attacks.
“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who dont want to be festooned by those issues.”
You continue to be two-dimensional about issues; you therefore lie when you claim to describe a three-dimensional world.
You have yet to make a post to me related to the thread you posted.
Aw, did the cat scratch the Sheep Dog?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.