We Knew this was coming.

[Gracie]

Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

Although no new timetable has been set on the delayed physical requirement, 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," Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, said Thursday.

Starting with the new year, 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. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.

There. happy now?

 

[MikeK]

Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

Although no new timetable has been set on the delayed physical requirement, 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," Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, said Thursday.

Starting with the new year, 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. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.

And this 2013 trial was not the first time the Corps evaluated women for assignment to combat line companies. I recall they did it back in '57 or '58 (while I was in) and it was shown that women cannot endure the kind of physical and mental stresses imposed by sustained combat conditions. I recall the Commandant saying our women Marines have cause for pride in their existing performances but they should "leave the hard and dirty stuff to the men until there are no more men left to do it."

This notion some women have that they are physically and psychologically equal to men is for the most part the effect of feminist propaganda which is based entirely on extremely exceptional examples, such as placing an extremely masculine woman in contention with an extremely effeminate man and regarding the outcome as universally typical. And for those who might misunderstand the implications of what I've said, please be assured that in many ways the differences between the two gender are in accord with Nature's design and are positive rather than negative. It doesn't mean men are better than women but are simply different. And any suggestion that asserting the difference is equal to racism is paranoid absurdity.

 

[Kondor3]

"...any suggestion that asserting the difference is equal to racism is paranoid absurdity."

 

[dreolin]

Do I have to find the link just to make you understand where I got the 45%? I might..if I feel like it.

WOMEN WHO CANNOT PULL THEIR OWN WEIGHT UP 3 TIMES CANNOT PULL OR DRAG A FELLOW SOLDIER OUT OF HARMS WAY. PERIOD.
Women can do A LOT of things. The military WILL benefit from them, yes. But in the front lines where men are being shot down, MAJOR injuries who cannot walk themselves...a woman that can't do ONLY 3 PULLUPS will NOT be able to sling that guy over her shoulder and haul him out, OR pull him with just her arms and leg strength. No way, no how. They should not be in the midst of the fighting. They should be using their eyes and snipering the **** out of the enemy, with radios at hand, grenades, rocket launchers or whatever is at their disposal. Physically? NOT ON THE FRONT LINES.

Understand now? Or do I need to shout more?

Shout all you want. Women do that when they don't get their way. They are far more emotionally erratic than men.

How is that?

Ya know, I am going to have a no problem calling a woman in and saying "I'm sorry. You have not met the physical requirements for this position" and then maybe encouraging er to try again.

I am not going to have such an easy time saying "I'm sorry, hon. We cannot consider you for this position because Sally couldn't do more than three pull ups last year. Oh, before you leave, dear, how about pouring me another cup of coffee.

Don't mean a thing to me. I don't have a daughter which is good because I wouldn't have a good explanation to give to her as to why she couldn't do something so she shouldn't even try.

Be all you can be...

unless your a chick, and then be all we will let you be and don't even try to think beyond that.

 

[Gracie]

Do I have to find the link just to make you understand where I got the 45%? I might..if I feel like it.

WOMEN WHO CANNOT PULL THEIR OWN WEIGHT UP 3 TIMES CANNOT PULL OR DRAG A FELLOW SOLDIER OUT OF HARMS WAY. PERIOD.
Women can do A LOT of things. The military WILL benefit from them, yes. But in the front lines where men are being shot down, MAJOR injuries who cannot walk themselves...a woman that can't do ONLY 3 PULLUPS will NOT be able to sling that guy over her shoulder and haul him out, OR pull him with just her arms and leg strength. No way, no how. They should not be in the midst of the fighting. They should be using their eyes and snipering the **** out of the enemy, with radios at hand, grenades, rocket launchers or whatever is at their disposal. Physically? NOT ON THE FRONT LINES.

Understand now? Or do I need to shout more?

Shout all you want. Women do that when they don't get their way. They are far more emotionally erratic than men.

How is that?

Ya know, I am going to have a no problem calling a woman in and saying "I'm sorry. You have not met the physical requirements for this position" and then maybe encouraging er to try again.

I am not going to have such an easy time saying "I'm sorry, hon. We cannot consider you for this position because Sally couldn't do more than three pull ups last year. Oh, before you leave, dear, how about pouring me another cup of coffee.

Don't mean a thing to me. I don't have a daughter which is good because I wouldn't have a good explanation to give to her as to why she couldn't do something so she shouldn't even try.

Be all you can be...

unless your a chick, and then be all we will let you be and don't even try to think beyond that.

You missed my point.

 

[Gracie]

Shout all you want. Women do that when they don't get their way. They are far more emotionally erratic than men.

Careful there. That broad brush might get too heavy for ya to carry around.

 

[dreolin]

Shout all you want. Women do that when they don't get their way. They are far more emotionally erratic than men.

Careful there. That broad brush might get too heavy for ya to carry around.

And you obviously missed my point.

I am not the one advocating prohibiting women from certain positions solely based upon their gender. All I did was show you what is included in those gender stereotypes.

 

[Edgetho]

I have called in dozens of Artillery strikes on Map Coordinates alone. In combat

With me sometimes a 100 meters from where they landed. Talk about 'pucker factor'. I usually asked for a smoke round first..... One with a different color than the other so I could adjust fire. We had two guns. Montagnards on both. Neither one was literate. Simple, "left, right, up, down" worked for me. "Drop 100, Up 100, east, west 100" etc works.

Sure, it's better to use 'mils' and all that other FO bullshit but not everybody operates that way. You're talking about a Unit whose feet are stuck in the sand.

We were a fast-moving, highly aggressive Unit that nobody knew where we were until we told them. Sometimes, even we didn't know where we were. Which was another good use for calling in Artillery using map coordinates.

"Hey Sam. Where da **** are we?"

"Beats me, we was running so fast, I have no idea where we are."

"Cool. I'll call in a locating round about 'here'.

And we'd shoot an azimuth off of that

And I (they) could put a round in your hip pocket from 6 or 7 miles away. In minutes.

I have also called in/worked with Spads (A-1 Skyraider) Super Sabres, Cobras, Puff the Magic Dragon (aka; Spooky) (I swear to God, those guys were drunk) and F4s, which suck. Really suck. And regular Huey Gunships.

The Air Force, it was harder to get their Freq. Fly Boys......

I tried to call in a strike from some 4th ID Artillery 175mm in Pleiku one time, and they were worse than ******* useless. We were out of range of our guys. Which happened a lot.

They had to make sure there were no Helicopters, Aircraft (ours, the Vietnamese and whoever else), Sea Gulls, etc in the air and by the time they checked all that bullshit, we were completely out of the area, running our asses off.

I'm sure that you guys knew/know what you were doing, but you weren't any good to us. At all.

When we needed Artillery, we needed it Right.*******.Now.

Oh, used to crack me up....... When the 4th ID sent out a Company sized unit, or even a Patrol, they'd turn the Artillery in the direction the Patrol was headed in.

I'm like, "Guys, why not just tell Charlie where you're going so he can have a nice ******* ambush waiting for you?"

I absolutely refused to work with regular units. Don't take this personal like or anything, but you guys were a bigger threat to American Troops than you were to the enemy half the time.

I'll settle for the old-fashioned 4 digit maps.

Worked every time. I have a HUGE amount of respect for cartographers. Good at what they do.

You know I was never in the military but I do know something about what you guys are talking about. Edgetho, I got to call it the way I see it , I took a map reading course in ROTC and if that was really the way that you called in artillery support then it is no wonder you don't like the artillery. For one thing I think your instructions are not standard. I also know that most vets don't talk as easily as you seem to about their war experiences. Sorry just the way I see it !!!

And I think you have no idea what I did in Viet Nam.

That's okay. Few do. But we were an important group

And when it comes to relating what I did as an 11B4S, none of you would have any base of comparison to relate it to.

And that's okay too.

But trust me when I say, I did all those things -- And more.

One thing to always remember about a soldier's experience in combat.... All he knows is what HE experienced.

All I know about Artillery is what I experienced. Not my MOS. All I knew is I wanted it RIGHT NOW and I wanted it on target.

And our way worked for us.

 

[Kondor3]

Shout all you want. Women do that when they don't get their way. They are far more emotionally erratic than men.

Careful there. That broad brush might get too heavy for ya to carry around.

And you obviously missed my point.

I am not the one advocating prohibiting women from certain positions solely based upon their gender. All I did was show you what is included in those gender stereotypes.

Nonsense.

You disingenuously cherry-picked the worst of gender-stereotyping, to evoke emotions designed to advance your cause.

Does advocacy for a continued barring of women in Infantry roles represent a form of gender-stereotyping?

Yes.

Absolutely.

But only with respect to physicality; not with respect to overall worth or merit of abilities or parity or subservience.

A great many folks who oppose such a proposed role for women in the Infantry are every bit as committed to egalitarianism and parity as you are; quite possibly more so, in many instances.

It's just that they have a better grip on reality and future prospects, with respect to Nature, and the Average Man and the Average Woman and their inherent physical nature and abilities.

And don't waste our time asking that 'what is an Average Woman' question again... you know damned-well what is meant, in both a metaphorical and a statistically and medically quantifiable sense.

Not everyone who opposes women in Infantry roles is a 'go get me a beer, *****' type, eh?

And it's bullshit, dragging-out that redneck persona as a counterpointing tactic, in a debating context where no such manifestations are present, either explicitly or implicitly.

 

[Edgetho]

Careful there. That broad brush might get too heavy for ya to carry around.

And you obviously missed my point.

I am not the one advocating prohibiting women from certain positions solely based upon their gender. All I did was show you what is included in those gender stereotypes.

Nonsense.

You disingenuously cherry-picked the worst of gender-stereotyping, to evoke emotions designed to advance your cause.

Does advocacy for a continued barring of women in Infantry roles represent a form of gender-stereotyping?

Yes.

Absolutely.

But only with respect to physicality; not with respect to overall worth or merit of abilities or parity or subservience.

A great many folks who oppose such a proposed role for women in the Infantry are every bit as committed to egalitarianism and parity as you are; quite possibly more so, in many instances.

It's just that they have a better grip on reality and future prospects, with respect to Nature, and the Average Man and the Average Woman and their inherent physical nature and abilities.

And don't waste our time asking that 'what is an Average Woman' question again... you know damned-well what is meant, in both a metaphorical and a statistically and medically quantifiable sense.

Not everyone who opposes women in Infantry roles is a 'go get me a beer, *****' type, eh?

And it's bullshit, dragging-out that redneck persona as a counterpointing tactic, in a debating context where no such manifestations are present, either explicitly or implicitly.

The Russians tried women in combat. Didn't work.

The Israelis tried it. Didn't work. They have the Caracal Battalion but they're nothing more than a Border Patrol Unit. If any real hostilities begin, they'll be pulled back, out of the way.

You act like women in combat has never been tried. And you're a moron.

Women in combat goes all the way back to the Druids. In fact, there's two posters in here who use the Queen of the Iceni's name as their handle.

Women in combat doesn't work. It just doesn't work.

 

[dreolin]

Careful there. That broad brush might get too heavy for ya to carry around.

And you obviously missed my point.

I am not the one advocating prohibiting women from certain positions solely based upon their gender. All I did was show you what is included in those gender stereotypes.

Nonsense.

You disingenuously cherry-picked the worst of gender-stereotyping, to evoke emotions designed to advance your cause.

Does advocacy for a continued barring of women in Infantry roles represent a form of gender-stereotyping?

Yes.

Absolutely.

But only with respect to physicality; not with respect to overall worth or merit of abilities or parity or subservience.

A great many folks who oppose such a proposed role for women in the Infantry are every bit as committed to egalitarianism and parity as you are; quite possibly more so, in many instances.

It's just that they have a better grip on reality and future prospects, with respect to Nature, and the Average Man and the Average Woman and their inherent physical nature and abilities.

And don't waste our time asking that 'what is an Average Woman' question again... you know damned-well what is meant, in both a metaphorical and a statistically and medically quantifiable sense.

Not everyone who opposes women in Infantry roles is a 'go get me a beer, *****' type, eh?

And it's bullshit, dragging-out that redneck persona as a counterpointing tactic, in a debating context where no such manifestations are present, either explicitly or implicitly.

Don't accuse me of "cherry picking" when just a day or two ago I am reading asses make comments about broken fingernails and missed hairdresser appointments.

I believe in not letting unfit troops engage in certain MOSes, but I am not going to determine that entirely on gender in certain roles, and that is what you are doing.

And I was illustrating a point anyway and not stereotyping.

I knew plenty of 11s who would have sucked at hand to hand but brought other skills to the table that were sorely needed.

To me, saying you can't do something because you are a woman holds about as much water as saying you cannot so something because you are black.

And again, stereotypes work for groups, not for individuals.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do 3 pullups - San Jose Mercury News

I'm a 51 year old man.

This morning I did 60 pullups, rested 2 minutes then did 10 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, then did 35 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, and did 35 again.

They shouldn't lower physical standards just so women can get promoted in combat units.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And the OP still stands.......

 

[dreolin]

And the OP still stands.......

Not really...maybe for about a year.

This part does..."Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........"

Ya know, I have the greatest appreciation for old vets, I'm one myself, but a person, a society, and a military that cannot adapt to change doesn't last very long and just gets in the way.

I can say this in all honesty.,,if women had been allowed to serve in my combat unit in Vietnam, lives would have been saved...but what the hell...what does a few American lives matter when there is a macho image to maintain.

The target date is "by 2016". Support it or get out of the way, because you aren't going to change it, and a good troopie supports their command.

 

[Katzndogz]

The liberal way to deal with this is to lowee the standards for the men too. Just the way it was done to weaken the police departments.

 

[1776]

Liberals want to gut the military so letting flamers flame in the open and putting women in combat roles is meant to drive out the real troops, making us Canada.

They want the US military to work under UN mandate so downsizing the military and making it weak moves them closer to that goal.

Next they will go after the Academies shutting down 2 of them as GOV waste forcing them into 1 Academy ignoring the differences between the Navy, Army and Air Force.

 

[Kondor3]

The liberal way to deal with this is to lowee the standards for the men too. Just the way it was done to weaken the police departments.

'Hyper-egalitarians' will figure this out once (1) women in Infantry become commonplace and represent a good-sized percentage of our power in the field, and (2) we get our asses kicked good-and-proper in the field; attributable to the inferior quality of our infantry troops.

By then, of course, it will be too late, and the rest of us - the entire country - will be fucked, but, at least, the hyper-egalitarians will have the satisfaction of having played by the letter of the Laws of Man - while ignoring the Laws of Nature - on the way to our demise.

If we (as a Nation) are stupid enough to let them go through with it, that is.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And the OP still stands.......

Not really...maybe for about a year.

This part does..."Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........"

Ya know, I have the greatest appreciation for old vets, I'm one myself, but a person, a society, and a military that cannot adapt to change doesn't last very long and just gets in the way.

I can say this in all honesty.,,if women had been allowed to serve in my combat unit in Vietnam, lives would have been saved...but what the hell...what does a few American lives matter when there is a macho image to maintain.

The target date is "by 2016". Support it or get out of the way, because you aren't going to change it, and a good troopie supports their command.

Horseshit.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The liberal way to deal with this is to lowee the standards for the men too. Just the way it was done to weaken the police departments.

'Hyper-egalitarians' will figure this out once (1) women in Infantry become commonplace and represent a good-sized percentage of our power in the field, and (2) we get our asses kicked good-and-proper in the field; attributable to the inferior quality of our infantry troops.

By then, of course, it will be too late, and the rest of us - the entire country - will be fucked, but, at least, the hyper-egalitarians will have the satisfaction of having played by the letter of the Laws of Man - while ignoring the Laws of Nature - on the way to our demise.

If we (as a Nation) are stupid enough to let them go through with it, that is.

Problem is that most all politicians will be afraid to fight it because they don't want to loose the votes. And the Generals don't want to be told to retire......We are fucked.

 

[OriginalShroom]

It's "gender norming"....

They expect anyone shooting at U.S. troops to give female troops extra time to run away.