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 ...
Biden sold his soul to be at the right hand of the devil...
Anyway, is 124 pounds a relevant and meaningful measure today? And back to the article, was the pace consistent? The article suggests there might be more to this story than the initial headline that they failed.-————————
Any one who has ever humped ammunition instead of a ream of copy paper has a clue about the weight of ammunition, water and rations. An M16/M4 with 10 ea. 30 round magazines is a noticeable burden by its self but add grenades, flares, support items, kevlar, protective vest, your share of ammo for the squad weapon, etc., it begins to add up and if a serioous firefight is anticipated your ammo does not stop at 10 magazines (280 to 290 rounds) ‘cause it ain’t enough. Those automatic weapons have a real appetite.
Reno, I read to the end of the thread before I wrote this.
You seem to have been hit hard for your “bring them in” comment, and in the context of Infantry, well you should have. Infantry may get a lot of rides sometimes but they were humping the mountains of Afghanistan on foot carrying up to and sometimes over 100 lbs.
The “women in combat” issue is not really “women in combat” because they are already in combat - be it pilots, MPs or many other jobs. In those positions they have served well.
The argument now is “should all positions be opened?” The Army and Marines are looking at the issue - and the required strength for each MOS. They are also saying standards will not be lowered. If the job is for the individual to get over a five foot wall and they place a 1 foot box in front for the females are they getting over a five foot or a “four” foot wall? Have the standards just been lowered?
In interesting study on what they are doing.
http://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/InterimCMRSpecRpt-100314.pdf
Condensed version (oped)
So the questions are “What are the standards”, “Can women pass those standards?” and finally “Should the standards be lowered far enough to get the proper number of women?”
And at the end of all that comes “If the Infantry is voluntary for females why can males be just assigned?”
You too.
Of course the irony is that the pleasure was all mine.
Yes, I absolutely believe in that. In certain civilian jobs, it's okay to put a handicapped person in charge. But on the front lines in battle, it's problematic. Too many things can go wrong. Lead by example.
You mean like everyone agreed was normal, until the radical leftists took control in the 1970s?
You think the first couple of centuries were the wrong way to go, were artificial, and that the lefties are now right about how to create effective warriors?
Yes...among other things. Semper Fi.
This is fundamentally illogical. We need to find ways to put wormen in combat in ways that don't endanger them? What? Combat is by its very nature dangerous, and the idea that it could be made "respectful" or not dangerous is madness.
I am a woman--a tall, strong, athletic woman who takes care of 1400-pound horses all day, handles firearms, power tools, tractor, and performs heavy farm maintenance jobs. I chuck 80-pound bales of hay and 50-pound grain sacks around every day. But my son, who is an active-duty warfighter, could pick me up in one hand and break me, if he wished. Men are stronger than we are. It doesn't make any difference how much we train and work out. They are just made differently, with bigger bones and muscles that respond better to stress than ours do. We can be strong in other ways. Being respectful has nothing to do with it and won't alter biology.
There are certainly some jobs in the military that women can perform admirably. I know male computer scientists in the Marines, and that, along with many other non-front line tasks, is a way women could contribute. But to have my son and his comrades endangered because they have a relatively weak person in the unit is not acceptable, no matter whose feelings are hurt by the exclusion of women.
I am compelled to wonder how much experience with firearms and survival situations you have. You could not write about the ludicrous concept of respectful and non-dangerous combat if you did.
Ahhhhh....the 124 pounds is one of many factors. Kick them out...they were failures.
Ahhhhh....the 124 pounds is one of many factors. Kick them out...they were failures.
You ever been in the infantry? The purpose of forced maarchex with full pack and ammo is two fold. One is to survive combat and the other is to be able to carry your buddy so he can survive. It’s a grunt thing not a Hollywood thing.
What an odd reality-avoiding comment. In many things, men and women are different.
and the men were carrying 77% of their body weight?
(100# pack on a 130 pound is the equivalent of a 140# pack on a 180 pound person)
must not be a very desperate survival situation if they have to carry that much gear
Some day, years from now, America is going to field a military force in total compliance with the feel good nonsense of the politically correct.
Standards will have been lowered for enlistment, affirmative action implemented for any kind of special forces, women serving as front line combat soldiers, unqualified officers having been promoted due to PC quotas, homosexuals more concerned about their ‘ husband ‘ than the unit and on and on.
And when the day comes America will suffer a catastrophic and final defeat at the hands of an enemy that does not give a damn about political correct.
Never been to war? Ever been in combat? Yes, they need to carry the same load as a man or get out but the cold hard truth is this is no place for a woman or equality or social agendas or any of that crap. Everyone is equal in the military before they advance. Everyone is torn down to the very same lowest common denominator then built up from there. Especially Marines.
You eat dirt, find mortar round containers to take a dump in if you can. You have dysentery. Your bung is raw, wet and red and miserable, your underwear are soiled and stay that way, you live in dirt with flies, bugs and spiders and you sweat buckets then you freeze. On top of that you stay alert and able because your life and all your buddies lives depend on it. As an officer you tell people to do things that will get them killed. You tell people to do miserable things and if you can’t do them yourself and won’t do them yourself they can and should tell you to go to hell. It is not a democracy and not some corpocracy where people get promoted to lead because they look and smell good or know someone and mistakes go without real consequence. What woman would want this and what woman should be allowed this “pleasure”. Think about it just a bit. If you still think the “Marines, like all services, need to find way to bring women into combat” I’ll tell you the really nasty stuff and then I’ll tell you how big a fool I really think you and like minded people are.
Being a REMF is a totally different story but there are no REMFs in the Marines in the beginning. Only riflemen.
People that promote these equality agendas make me puke. Most of the time their position is deeply seated in failure and envy because they can’t measure up.
My Father was in the combat engineers in WWII. This is a scene from their crossing of the Roer River. It depicts a real battle and yes, their bridge was blown up. I suspect there are certain jobs the women do not want to get into.
“...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.
2. Yes, women should be in the military. For example, if conscription was again implemented, both men and women should be equally conscripted.
3. Yes, women are and should be equal members of society. ...”
The purpose of the armed forces is to apply armed force - violence - in defense of the nation and its interests.
It can be cute, though, when the bien-pensant types force the military to dance to their tune, to be lab rats in an endless series of social-science experiments. But the bien-pensant types are either very confused, or they have ulterior motives. Either way, their proposals are best ignored, their programs stopped or reversed.
And, yes, I know the armed forces have been required in the past to advance the goals of well-intentioned social engineers whose troubled consciences simply won’t allow them to sit still. Forcing the military to do what they have wanted was easy: just convince political leaders it was all a good idea, and the leaders just ordered the military to comply.
The goals were of varying worth, results nugatory. The success or failure of past programs cannot shed light on the desirability of proposed programs, nor on their chances for success.
They can, though, diminish the effectiveness of the military and degrade its efficiency. Risk of failure can only increase.
Considering what is at stake, how can it be prudent to run such risks?
And - more to the point for this forum - how can posters like Reno89519 insist on being taken seriously, even as they demand their pet notions deserve greater priority than national defense?
LoL
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.