45% of all women fail marine strength test

[rangerrebew]

For "equality" its time for the Marines to drop all their physical requirements to be tolerant of women.   Chuck Hagel will probably order it soon anyway.   The Marines need to be ready to throw bon bons and pillows at the enemy at any moment. :pillowfight:



45% of Women Fail Marine Strength Test

Posted By Frank Camp on Jan 3, 2014 | 232 Comments





“Truth is often hard to swallow, so we rest in comfortable lies and delusions.” – Dorothy Anne Seese

Equality or strength? Which do we choose if and when those two qualities are mutually exclusive? I suppose it depends on the situation. How about I raise the stakes? Choosing equality may kill you, while choosing strength may save your life. That’s much easier, or so it seems. But what if society is pushing one over the other? That’s exactly what’s happening in our military today.

According to the Associated Press:

“More than half of female Marines in boot camp can’t do three pull-ups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement…”

Now that women are being allowed to enter combat situations, there has been great debate regarding restructuring strength requirements. The minimum for women was to be three pull-ups, but that seems to have been scrapped for the moment. The minimum for men is three as well, but they must do twenty in order to get a perfect score.

“…part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs…The Marines had hoped to institute the pull-ups on the belief that pull-ups require the muscular strength necessary to perform common military tasks…”
   



The debate isn’t so much about women so much as it is about strength requirements. Another possible option, now that the pull-up has been scratched, is a flexed arm hang. However, some in the Marines aren’t happy with the flexed hang, as it does not build strength like pull-ups do.

If women must be “equalized” in terms of physical strength, what does that mean? As I see it, the current thought behind equalization is to lower the strength bar for female recruits simply because they don’t have the strength possessed by their male counterparts. But what does that say, not only about our military, but about the lives that could be put in harms way if a soldier doesn’t have the strength to complete a task in the heat of battle?

I want an open military in which women can perform the same jobs as men, but only if those women can perform at the same level as their male counterparts. If we lower the minimum requirement for women, we are putting lives at risk. Not only the lives of the female soldiers, but of their partners, and civilians.

Let’s face it, women don’t often have the physical strength possessed by men. News flash! Women and men are different. This seems to have become a battle of women’s rights at this point, and it makes me feel uncomfortable, because that’s not the correct viewpoint. This entire debate is being viewed through a feminist lens, when the truth of the situation is much more simple, and infinitely more powerful.

This fight for equality isn’t about equality at all, it’s about life. When it comes down to it, when the situation is stripped down to bare bones, is a women cannot hold her own with her male partners in battle, lives could be lost. This situation is simple, and its consequences profound.

Sometimes, the truth is hard to swallow, so we spit it out.

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4249/45-women-fail-marine-strength-test/#z1YMCpCqKTP5ObXu.99

[EC]

This fight for equality isn’t about equality at all, it’s about life. When it comes down to it, when the situation is stripped down to bare bones, is a women cannot hold her own with her male partners in battle, lives could be lost. This situation is simple, and its consequences profound.This fight for equality isn’t about equality at all, it’s about life. When it comes down to it, when the situation is stripped down to bare bones, is a women cannot hold her own with her male partners in battle, lives could be lost. This situation is simple, and its consequences profound.

Balls.

Best tac officer I ever worked with - a woman.
Best heavy weapon specialist - a woman. Sure, she was half again as big as me, but still.
Best demo specialist - a woman.
Best XO - a woman.
Best close combat fighter - you guessed it, a woman.
Best sniper - a woman. OK, she went insane, but still ....

I'd respectfully suggest to my brothers in the USMC that squad excellence and balancing is far more important than individual excellence. While basic fitness, lethality, and strength is important, a balanced squad is moreso.

[rangerrebew]

When my son went through OCS and was graduating, we went to his graduation.  There were 3 female marines, gunnery sergeants, that were pushing the candidates through their basic training and, personally, I think they could have pulled ships through a canal.  These women were tough looking and tough acting.  But, apparently, that is not true in most places.  I have no problems with women in the military, as long as they can do what men do.  Being an air traffic controller doesn't require much physical strength but being a Navy SEAL does.  If a woman can perform at the same level physically as needed for the respective job, no problem.  I could not meet the physical requirements to be a SEAL and don't think it would have been wise to lower them to be politically correct so I could get in.  I feel the same about women.

[Relic]

Balls.

Best tac officer I ever worked with - a woman.
Best heavy weapon specialist - a woman. Sure, she was half again as big as me, but still.
Best demo specialist - a woman.
Best XO - a woman.
Best close combat fighter - you guessed it, a woman.
Best sniper - a woman. OK, she went insane, but still ....

I'd respectfully suggest to my brothers in the USMC that squad excellence and balancing is far more important than individual excellence. While basic fitness, lethality, and strength is important, a balanced squad is moreso.

With all due respect, this has nothing to do with combat, and everything to do with the left's values. The left wants to push that women are NO DIFFERENT than men. Anyone with more than one functioning brain cell knows that's garbage, but that is what the left believes, and wants to cram down societies' collective throat.

The left also doesn't care about combat readiness. The left would prefer that we get to a place where we're unable to engage in combat. Place individuals in roles they are incapable of carrying out fits nicely with that view.

I have mixed emotions about women in the military. While I know there are jobs women can do, there are jobs that most women can't do. It seems to me, that making a standard and keeping to it, is the right answer. What about all the men in the past who couldn't pass the tests, or didn't have the physical stature? No one cried for them, they were rejected. If you meet the requirements, you should get a shot, if you don't, you get rejected. Any other approach is by definition biased.

As an aside, while you may have run into women in all manner of jobs that were superior to the men around them, it makes me wonder about the men around those women. My experience with women in the workplace hasn't been nearly as positive as what you relate. And when I was in the USN, we didn't have women on combatant vessels.

[musiclady]

With all due respect, this has nothing to do with combat, and everything to do with the left's values. The left wants to push that women are NO DIFFERENT than men. Anyone with more than one functioning brain cell knows that's garbage, but that is what the left believes, and wants to cram down societies' collective throat.

The left also doesn't care about combat readiness. The left would prefer that we get to a place where we're unable to engage in combat. Place individuals in roles they are incapable of carrying out fits nicely with that view.

I have mixed emotions about women in the military. While I know there are jobs women can do, there are jobs that most women can't do. It seems to me, that making a standard and keeping to it, is the right answer. What about all the men in the past who couldn't pass the tests, or didn't have the physical stature? No one cried for them, they were rejected. If you meet the requirements, you should get a shot, if you don't, you get rejected. Any other approach is by definition biased.

Just thought I might enter the conversation here, as a woman.  I consider myself a 'feminist'.......in the true sense of the word, not the political left's distortion of it.   I believe in equality of opportunity, I believe that in the past (and some in the present) there has been rampant sexism that kept women from doing things that they could do well.  I, myself, have experienced overt sexism in jobs over the years, that included pay inequity for the same job, and lack of opportunity to contribute because I am female.

That said, I COMPLETELY agree, Relic, with what you have said about women in the military.  They need to be completely qualified for the jobs they do, and that includes physically.  Since MOST women are physically weaker than MOST men, I don't think women should be doing jobs they are not qualified to do, just for some nebulous 'equality' argument.

When my son was in the military and in a war zone, I did not want him dependent on someone who did not have the physical capability of carrying him out of a firefight if he were injured.  I had a serious problem with the fact that there were women there who did not meet the requirements of the job.

Frankly, I don't know what the solution is, because obviously women can do many, many things as well as men (and many better), but when it comes to sheer physical strength, I think that any woman in combat has to pass the exact tests that the men do, or shouldn't be there.

[musiclady]

btw, while I'm here..........rangerrebew, your comment about pillows and bon bons was derogatory and out of line, and I, for one, did not appreciate it, which is why I avoided this thread previously.

[EC]

With all due respect, this has nothing to do with combat, and everything to do with the left's values. The left wants to push that women are NO DIFFERENT than men. Anyone with more than one functioning brain cell knows that's garbage, but that is what the left believes, and wants to cram down societies' collective throat.

The left also doesn't care about combat readiness. The left would prefer that we get to a place where we're unable to engage in combat. Place individuals in roles they are incapable of carrying out fits nicely with that view.

I have mixed emotions about women in the military. While I know there are jobs women can do, there are jobs that most women can't do. It seems to me, that making a standard and keeping to it, is the right answer. What about all the men in the past who couldn't pass the tests, or didn't have the physical stature? No one cried for them, they were rejected. If you meet the requirements, you should get a shot, if you don't, you get rejected. Any other approach is by definition biased.

As an aside, while you may have run into women in all manner of jobs that were superior to the men around them, it makes me wonder about the men around those women. My experience with women in the workplace hasn't been nearly as positive as what you relate. And when I was in the USN, we didn't have women on combatant vessels.

Women are wildly different from men.

Makes them in no way less capable. I guess the only one who could make it in a traditional unit would have been Rosa. Strong as hell, hell - stronger than the rest of us. Just the way it is, you know? Sometimes it happens. You'd have liked her.

But I'll not neglect women or see them done down. They have their strengths and only a fool would dispute that. Our tac witch could basically pull a plan out of her ass in 30 seconds when it hit the pot - and it would work. So what, she could carry less. Big deal. An extra mag in the webbing doesn't kill you and is a self correcting problem. Having someone who can't assess the situation and suggest the correct course of action does kill you. It's balance.

Navy is a different game. Close quarters with no separation for months? Not a good idea. Different services have different needs.

[rangerrebew]

btw, while I'm here..........rangerrebew, your comment about pillows and bon bons was derogatory and out of line, and I, for one, did not appreciate it, which is why I avoided this thread previously.

I am truly sorry if it offended you.  It was meant to be sarcastic to show that a proud and tough group of military are being dragged down by PC, a president who hates everything to do with the military, and a media unsupportive of the military.  I am a Viet Nam veteran and my son a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.  My wife's father was a bomber pilot over the Burma Hump in WWII and he had a brother shot down and killed over the Med.  I have a great great uncle buried at Andersonville.  Our family has always supported the military and I would not do anything to knowingly besmirch any of them.  Again, I apologize.

[musiclady]

I am truly sorry if it offended you.  It was meant to be sarcastic to show that a proud and tough group of military are being dragged down by PC, a president who hates everything to do with the military, and a media unsupportive of the military.  I am a Viet Nam veteran and my son a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.  My wife's father was a bomber pilot over the Burma Hump in WWII and he had a brother shot down and killed over the Med.  I have a great great uncle buried at Andersonville.  Our family has always supported the military and I would not do anything to knowingly besmirch any of them.  Again, I apologize.

I never questioned your respect for the military, nor your understanding of the dangers of what this military-hating punk in the WH is doing to our troops.

My only problem was with the generalization that women cannot fight.  There are plenty of us out here who are very pugnacious and tough, and actually are feistier than a lot of men these days.   

As you can see from my comments above, I believe that any woman who wants to go into combat needs to pass the exact same physical requirements as men.  It was just the sarcastic generalization that all women are soft and weak that I found objectionable.

(btw, I would be far better in combat, weak and old as I am, than Barack Obama would ever be.    )

[happyg]

I know about several males who were not accepted into the Marines because they could not pass the grueling  schedule. A few were rejected because they were overweight. My stepson said they were pork chops or something like that. I would bet that those who were rejected could out perform most women who are accepted. Affirmative action for women in the military is the last thing they should be doing.

[musiclady]

I know about several males who were not accepted into the Marines because they could not pass the grueling  schedule. A few were rejected because they were overweight. My stepson said they were pork chops or something like that. I would bet that those who were rejected could out perform most women who are accepted. Affirmative action for women in the military is the last thing they should be doing.

That's why, if women are going to be there, they should have to pass the exact same physical tests.

I would guess that there are some women who are stronger than many men, but they should have to prove that they are, IMO.

Then we would know that everyone in the military could do the job.

Right now, with the affirmative action stance, we have no such assurance.

In fact, we know quite the opposite.

[Relic]

That's why, if women are going to be there, they should have to pass the exact same physical tests.

I would guess that there are some women who are stronger than many men, but they should have to prove that they are, IMO.

Then we would know that everyone in the military could do the job.

Right now, with the affirmative action stance, we have no such assurance.

In fact, we know quite the opposite.

You're using logic and reason. That's like kryptonite to the left.