feh...
Posted on 12/28/2013 7:27:24 AM PST by Timber Rattler
Last month, three women became the first of their sex to graduate from the Marine Corps’ famously grueling Advanced Infantry Training Course. The Marine Corps was asking a simple question by running small groups through these courses in experimental test batches, two to five women at a time: Can the female body withstand the rigors of infantry training? The answer, these women showed, is that it can.
So far much of the debate surrounding integration has focused on the physical capabilities of women, as if this were the singular issue. Admittedly the strain of infantry training, or even combat, is relatively easier for a 6-foot tall, 180-pound man, but there are women fit enough to survive these punishing courses. As for combat, well, if we’ve proved anything over the last decade of war, it’s that women can sustain its rigors.
So if the barrier to integrating women into the infantry isn’t a physical one then what is it?
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
I guess SEALs don’t have to do pull ups.
Infantry basic is a LONG way from BUDS or Q course. That is out of 100 men who apply, only about 3 actually make it.
feh...
This article IMO is a freaking lie.
Any woman who does not look like a Gorilla could not pass the same physical test as the men in the Seals.
I submit the standards were lowered. Perhaps for the whole class to get these women through.
If women were equal to men we would not have women’s sports.
There is no reasonable case to be made. I first heard of this stupidity back in the 1980s—they have been working on it for decades. One female Seal means one qualified male that is being excluded. THE BELL CURVE CANNOT BE FUDGED.
Maybe they can start with tranny SEALS. That way you still have men doing the task but you get to check off two identity politicks groups with one pen stroke.
Elliott Ackerman starts off his article in typical “Liberal” fashion. Namely, a lie. He states that over the past decade women have proved they can sustain the rigors of combat. The fact is NOTHING has been PROVEN.
What is really going on, I believe, is that certain officers, worried about what Obama’s thugs might do to their career, are pushing the non sense that women have “proven” they can endure ALL combat requirements like young men so that they can look good to Obama et al and not get put on an early retirement list.
I have read many unbiased articles that are completely contrary to Mr. Ackerman’s fantasies. For those that will write and demand I produce them, it’s called Google. Help yourself.
What a grand plan.
If you have something that works (SpecOps), keep F*&%ing with it until it doesn’t.
this article is not “PC nonsense”
it is an out and out LIE- to destroy our military-
That is the stated goal of the communists currently
occupying the senate and white house.
There is no law prohibiting women from being hired by professional football teams. The fact is there are no women who can meet the qualifications to play NFL football. The other fact is that most NFL players probably couldn't pass the physical and mental requirements to graduate from the SEAL program.
But we gotta have Women SEALS even if it means they get themselves and their fellow team members killed.
Yep.
By lowering the standards for women in combat training for purely sexist reasons, the Secretary of Navy and the Marine Commandant have given aid and comfort to the enemy.
My solution, in the same vane as the article:
put in the requirement for male seals to mate with female seals and the little ‘seal pups’ will be required to go into the navy at age 18 and become seals. thus we create a replacement system for the seals, but with a long gap between ‘procurement order’ and enlistment.
18 year pipeline...
A bad idea, IMHO. I recognize there are many women who serve or have served in the armed forces with honor, and I am thankful for each of them and their sacrifices. But with the SEALs, we’re talking about a program so grueling, so physically demanding, that only a tiny percentage of male candidates are able to complete even the initial phases of it (I know I sure couldn’t). Most women are not as physically strong as most men. The likelihood of a female candidate having the strength and endurance to complete things even the publicly known training exercises like Surf Torture, Drown Proofing, and whatever you call the log carrying exercises seems awfully remote.
Now, I’ll admit such women could exist. (I’m sure there are some lady FReepers out there that could whoop my butt, LOL). But the likelihood is, most won’t and there will be pressure to lessen the standards from Congress. I can only see that as disastrous for a group that is routinely called on to do the impossible, and is expected to act as the ultimate team.
Also in today’s news: “Reports of Sexual Assaults in Military on Rise.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3106024/posts
Let me think about the wisdom of men like Elliot Ackerman, who have “proven” that there are no barriers to putting women into harm’s way. What could go wrong?
There has never been any military position opened to females that held females to the same physical standards as males. The recent push to bring females into the combat arms is not driven by a desire to prove the ladies have finally arrived in terms of physical strength. It is being done because all of the highest positions in the military always go to combat specialties....infantry, artillery, aviation, special operations, etc.
In order to have a 4-star chief of staff of the Army who is female, they have to let females in those combat specialties. Since females can’t meet the physical standards, they will change them again. Then they will try to avoid females in actual assignments that would prove their inability to keep up physically. They will be assigned to staff jobs, headquarters companies, etc., or their equivalents.
Some of them will be pre-selected at about the rank of major to receive a star. One of those will be pre-selected to be a 4-star. She will also become a Chief.
That is how they’ve done it in every other field opened to females. That is how they’ll do it here.
My sense is that NO young lady will EVER see a real Seal mission, except, perhaps, one specifically tailored for her....but, she will eventually be put in charge of that which she could not do. That favoritism will injure morale.
I'd like to know how we've proven this. Beyond brash assertions by cocktail sipping beltway feminists I know of nothing that qualifies as an assessment of females in sustained combat operations. The reason for this is simple: At no time during the past 10 years has the U.S. military been involved in sustained infantry centric combat on the order of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Women have performed well in the type of combat experienced in Iraq and in parts of Afghanistan, but they were not infantry soldiers and were not subject to the physical demands of long term infantry combat operations.
Liberal feminists just want another scalp on their belt, they would never volunteer to serve in the military, and even less volunteer to serve in the infantry. They just want to flex their political power in order to intimidate government to provide them with the financial and competitive advantages of being declared a favored group. This also helps to destroy our military, one of the few institutions not yet destroyed by the plague of liberalism.
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.