She could probably quickly pin my elderly butt, but against a top-ranked MMA fighter, she would last under 5 seconds. I doubt she could take one solid punch from a male professional fighter.
Posted on 01/04/2014 2:41:29 PM PST by nickcarraway
More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs.
The delay rekindled sharp debate in the military on the question of whether women have the physical strength for some military jobs, as service branches move toward opening thousands of combat roles to them in 2016. Beginning this week, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. Men have the same minimum requirement but need 20 for a perfect score. The previous minimum standard for women was a timed flexed-arm hang. The new requirement was tested on female recruits at Parris Island last year but only 45 percent of women could do even three.
Now, some might say that this proves women aren’t strong. Hogwash. Women are very strong. To give just one important example, more than 100 million women give birth each and every year. It is an impressive feat of strength. Women also nurse their babies, which is fraught with problems ranging from mastitis to thrush. Women display physical strength in many ways, from athletic prowess to working jobs requiring them to be on their feet all day.
And it doesn’t prove that men are physically superior in every way. To given just one unimportant example, some large percentage of men have such a hard time dealing with the common cold that fantastic comedy sketches are written about it. (“For God’s sake, woman, he’s a man, he’s got a man cold!”)
But to state the obvious, by which I mean I’m about to say something extremely controversial, the average female is not as strong in the upper-body region as the average man. (Again: Please don’t demand I be written out of polite society for noting this truth that was universally acknowledged until roughly 15 minutes ago.) Even at my Crossfit gym, which is full of freakishly strong humans of both sexes, the men routinely outperform the women. And one of the things I love about my gym is that everyone is simply encouraged to do their work to the best of their ability.
So the problem with the fact that most female Marine recruits aren’t meeting even the minimum requirement for upper-body strength isn’t that women aren’t strong. In fact, the problem is not even that men and women have different physical strengths.
The problem is that we are all supposed to pretend that men and women are identical. It doesn’t help men, women, children or the institutions they inhabit to pretend natural differences don’t exist. And here, it’s actually dangerous. We may have forgotten in our rush to drone warfare what actual combat entails. It’s grueling and requires tremendous physical and mental strength and discipline.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to “continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed,” according to a statement from the Marines. The Associated Press then goes on to characterize the truth that “pullups require the muscular strength necessary to perform common military tasks such as scaling a wall, climbing up a rope or lifting and carrying heavy munitions” simply as a “belief” held by the Marine Corps. I wonder where they got that crazy idea. I mean, I can’t scale a wall or climb a rope but I’ve noticed that everyone at my gym who can do these things can also do a pullup. Or 20 pullups. One can read these statements and the backtracking on pullup requirements as a precursor to watering down the skills required to be effective in a Marine combat situation. The story states that if the military decides to keep some positions closed to women, they must explain why.
Success for women should not mean being viewed, contrary to reality, as interchangeable with men in all things. Men and women are both strong but strong in very different ways, both of which contribute mightily to human flourishing.
Not necessarily. She's fairly cute. The male MMA fighter might decide it would be amusing to pin her to the mat in a submission hold in the first five seconds, and then just lay on top of her while discussing her mental and emotional deficiencies with her, with her unable to do a damn thing about it, while the cameras rolled.
Hmmm...
She could probably quickly pin my elderly butt, but against a top-ranked MMA fighter, she would last under 5 seconds. I doubt she could take one solid punch from a male professional fighter.
They’d break her pretty face like a piece of glass...She best stick to wrestling lesbians.
BS. The uterus, with no help from the mother, is contracting and opening the cervix on its own. The woman has no control or participation, just endurance of the pain. And the pushing is just pushing. It doesn't require strength, just enduring the pain and lasting until the job is over.
When a starved enemy infiltrator jumps into a foxhole in the middle of a pitch black night while brandishing a bayonet, the ability to withstand mastitis and thrush are going to factor heavily into that outcome.
The author is pointing out the obvious differences between men and women, but I suspect that while she may understand those differences as well as some freepers on this thread, she doesn't see the issue the same way.
There are a lot of Freepers, male and female, who readily acknowledge the difference in physical ability between the sexes, but do NOT have an issue at all with women being promoted to various duties and positions they are clearly not the most qualified for. They believe it is WORTH it.
That is where I think this author is. She sees the difference, but pooh-poohs the downside of putting unqualified people in position where you need the best person, not the one who is 67% as good but has the correct anatomy.
She states near the end of her article: "...The problem is that we are all supposed to pretend that men and women are identical. It doesn’t help men, women, children or the institutions they inhabit to pretend natural differences don’t exist. And here, it’s actually dangerous. We may have forgotten in our rush to drone warfare what actual combat entails. It’s grueling and requires tremendous physical and mental strength and discipline..." but it is clear to me, that what she is saying here is: "...The problem is that we are all supposed to pretend that men and women are identical. It doesn’t help men, women, children or the institutions they inhabit to pretend natural differences don’t exist. And here, it’s actually dangerous. We may have forgotten in our rush to drone warfare what actual combat entails. It’s grueling and requires tremendous physical and mental strength and discipline...BUT..."
It is clear she sees the folly in it, but she thinks the downside is outweighed by what she sees as an upside for females.
She is fairly not guilty in that image...
Did we read the same article?
I don't see that at all. I was with you in your reply until that last comment. The author is talking to people who think women, as a whole, can meet the physical requirements to be line infantry. I don't see the author agreeing with that idea at all. She clearly states that men and women are strong in different ways, but that it is male strength (in this case, upper body strength) that is required to fight and win our nation's wars, according to those who fight and win them.
I don't see a single thing in the article that implies that the author thinks we should ignore that for some greater good.
You are correct.
I overstated her point and attributed to her what I see from many posters on FR (and from some on this thread, which I know from previous discussions) which I should not have done.
I do maintain that if this had been a serious effort by an author with some real principle, the article would have had a title quite different from the one that it had.
I will grant that the author does not always have the final say in the composition of the title, but this title is the epitome of the trope trotted out by feminists of all stripes, including some on FR who claim to be conservative.
it doesn’t mean women aren’t strong-—
it means they aren’t strong enough!
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.