Posted on 10/26/2014 11:25:52 AM PDT by Timber Rattler
Just weeks after three women passed a rigorous day-long test qualifying them to potentially lead US Marine infantrymen for the first time in history, news came that all three women have been asked to leave the course.
They were physically disqualified from the training last week for falling behind in hikes while carrying loads of upwards of 100 pounds, says Maj. George Flynn, director of the Infantry Officers Course (IOC) at Quantico, Va.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.csmonitor.com ...
“Should the standards be lowered far enough to get the proper number of women?”
What exactly is the “proper” number of women and what is is based on and why does it even exist? I thought we were all equal now. There are no women, blacks, latinos, white men, cripples, retarded.... just all equal androgynous human units.
This “proper” number of things is just another exercise in mediocrity promoted by inferiors.
Your opening position in #10:
At the end of the day the Marines, like all services, need to find ways to bring women into combat...
But a few minutes later when you test that proposition to persuade the public in this post, you change the terms!
I'll play:
1. Yes, women should be in combat and we need to find ways to do so respectfully in ways that do not endanger them (emphasis added), their colleagues, the mission, the service, or the country.
To reach the answer you desire, you set up an impossibility. Is it possible you sincerely do not realize there is no such thing as "combat" that does not endanger anyone in its vicinity, or to or from the area?
What did you do in the Navy? Not training, in the fleet.
Most people quit digging when they find themselves in a hole. When they don’t it is either because they don’t understand their position or they simply won’t give up. One of these possibilities you may face with pity the other with some measure of respect for tenacity.
I shall refrain from ad hominem attacks henceforth. I do wonder though what motive a person has to take such a position as this one has.
What do you imagine will be the effect on unit cohesion, morale, and the capacity of officers of the female persuasion to lead if, for reasons of political correctness, we create an easily distinguishable class of officers who are systematically incapable of meeting the same standards to which their troops are held?
The inevitable result will be to gut the standards.
My vest (body armor) weighs between 35-40 lbs before ammo....there is plenty more to add to this system.
Weight of War
https://www2.kuow.org/specials/militaryweight.pdf
Notice additional weight in the bottom left corner.
It’s not a percent of your body weight - it’s your share of the load regardless of your weight.
Unless they can do it.
We made the same argument. However, yours is profoundly more pertinent than mine because you are a physically capable female as well as the mother of a son who one day might be required to rely on a female in combat.
Well said, and BTW, these are not infantrymen. They are infantry LEADERS; not the lead from behind kind.
I was as an O4. Not unusual at all.
Most men in Marine basic officer training don’t want to become infantry either. About a quarter of those who do end up failing or dropping out of the grueling 13-week regimen testing their physical, mental and moral acumen. More than 10 percent wash out the first day.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jul/06/infantry-course-quantico-men-women/4/?#article-copy
1. Yes, women should be in combat and we need to find ways to do so respectfully in ways that do not endanger them, their colleagues, the mission, the service, or the country.
If you argued that women should have the *right* to be in combat *if* they could pass the same fitness tests men do, I'd agree with you, although I wouldn't personally lobby for it.
But your position here is insane. Combat troops have to move fast and hard, and often face situations where coordinating support is not realistic. If someone, male or female, can't haul their own load, they should not be there, because they handicap the entire group.
"Go on without me; I'm holding you back" is not just a movie trope; it is a legitimate expression of the military ideal. The goal is more important than the individual; the survival of the group is more important than the individual; serving others is more important than being served. This whole, "Things have to be changed to accommodate my needs" approach is a complete reversal of everything most military people believe.
More important, it is deadly. I was walking the berms between rice patties in Korea once with a married couple who were both in the Army. In the distance we could see troops running along a road. The couple I was with said knew who they all were and explained to me they were doing time trials, then for a while our conversation was punctuated by random comments on them -- "that big pack will all be fine... those stragglers might make it... oh, man, I think he's out... definitely out; knew that guy wouldn't cut it" and so on. Finally a woman ran back, well behind guys they'd said would flunk out.
My companions said, "she might make it." I gave them both an incredulous look, and the guy shrugged, saying, "I guess the brass thinks the enemy won't shoot women, I dunno," while the woman said, "That's one reason I'm out when this tour is done," and went on to tell me about looking around during training exercises and realizing it literally took twice as many women to do the job she'd signed up for. She was a medic, and it took four women to carry the bodies two guys could handle. She was not the only woman I met there who resented the fact that they'd sign her up to do a job she'd never be able to do well; plenty of women "in the field" know full well that they are not suited for combat and don't want it.
Granted, some women put on men's clothes and went out and fought in the Civil War. Some women actually are capable of doing the job of a combat soldier, and I have no real problem with allowing those women to do so. But I am deeply opposed to changing the rules to "allow" women in, when doing so means actively endangering people, both the women allowed in and their team members.
Another question might be what if, in that real war, the US had to reinstitute the draft?
Are Americans prepared to actually require that young women fight in combat positions?
This is a no brainer. I’m a woman and I don’t want women in combat roles. I want men protecting my country.
I don’t want a female president, either, representing my country to woman-hating Muslims.
I don’t want a female priest, either.
Marines are for marrying, not competing against.
100lbs. is close to 100% of a female’s body weight. I’m no physiologist, but I can’t imagine there would be that many females able to carry that amount of weight for extended periods of time, let alone in the mountains of afcrapistan...
“asked to leave”. Liberals trying to soften the blow of DISQUALIFIED. No one was asked anything. They were dismissed by orders of the commanding officer. Hardly a request.
The standards were lowered for women when hubby did a stint in the Army, and he’s been out over twenty years. Rumor was they were lowering them again the year he got out; don’t remember how that went but they were already past many danger points.
“I’d rather have brains entered into the equation, not just brawn.”
The entire idea of women in combat is stupid, so I guess these women didn’t bring the brains, either.
Why? And not the B.S. you listed after the above statement. What real purpose does women in the Infantry serve? Are we not getting enough men to do the job? Are the combat arms branches just that much easier now? Are women that much stronger than men? Is their endurance far superior now?
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.