On 9 January, Gen James F. Amos, along with all of the other Service chiefs, endorsed a letter that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent to the Secretary of Defense recommending that women be allowed to serve in the combat arms. In November 2012, Gen Amos also modified the female physical fitness test so that women now have to do pull-ups instead of the flexed-arm hang. However, male and female physical standards remain dramatically different.
Many Marines (and external observers) don’t realize how much the female Marine fitness tests are currently curved. For the Marine Corps physical fitness test (PFT), 100 percent for a man is 18 minutes or faster for a 3-mile run, 100 crunches in 2 minutes, and 20 dead hang pull-ups. One hundred percent for a woman is 21 minutes or faster for a 3-mile run, 100 crunches, and 8 pull-ups. A woman who scores 100 percent on the female test would get 222 points (74 percent) on the men’s test, which isn't even a first-class score. In order for an individual to be commissioned an officer in the Marine Corps, he must get a first-class PFT. Now that everyone will have to do pull-ups, a perfect PFT score for a woman is below the passing score for a man to be a Marine officer. Why is it okay for females to wear the uniform based on a standard which, for a man, declares him unfit for service? That’s not only unfair, it’s un-American. It’s also not equal.
For the Marine Corps combat fitness test (CFT), 100 percent for a man is 2 minutes and 45 seconds for the 880-yard movement-to-contact run; 91 thirty-pound ammo can lifts, and 2 minutes and 14 seconds for the maneuver-under-fire run; 100 percent for a woman is 3 minutes and 28 seconds for the 800-yard run; 60 thirty-pound ammo can lifts, and 3 minutes and 1 second for the maneuver-under-fire run. One hundred percent on the female test is 81 percent on the men’s test, which is also a second-class score. The minimum CFT score for a man to serve in the Marine Corps is 82 percent if graded on the women’s test. Only women who score in the top 18 percent are eligible to serve in the Marine Corps if they are held to the men’s standard.
On 29 January, Gen Amos said that some MOSs, like the infantry, may remain closed to women if only a few women are able to pass the training requirements. However, the inequities in the male and female fitness requirements impact every MOS. If every Marine is a Marine, and we are all “riflemen,” what does it say about our values if we allow women to serve in the same jobs as men (some of which have involved killing people and suffering casualties) when all Marines do not have to perform to the same standards? Why can a female pilot, logistician, or administrator do 60 percent fewer pull-ups and run 16 percent slower than a male and still get a perfect score? Why is 82 percent on the CFT for a woman equivalent to the bare-bones minimum for a man when they will be doing the exact same job? Is there any other job in America in which women are explicitly required to perform to a lower standard just because they are women? No. It’s against the law. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the “Equal Protection” Amendment, states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [author’s emphasis]
Given the 14th Amendment and the inherent inequities in gender-based physical requirements, particularly when promotion, longevity in the Marine Corps, and billet assignment are determined by a number of factors, to include physical standards, is there another way? Why not come up with a single physical standard for all Marines, in accordance with the spirit of “equal rights” and “every Marine a rifleperson” to ensure that, regardless of gender, we have the best Marines possible to fight and win our Nation’s wars? One PFT. One CFT. One obstacle course with equal times. At the Basic Officer Course, one requirement on the endurance course. Equal standards at recruit training. Since the Commandant also said, “We can’t afford to lower standards, we can’t make adjustments to what’s required on the battlefield,” unless the Marine Corps will discharge every woman who is unable to perform to male physical standards, “every Marine” is not true.
There are female Marines and male Marines. From the day they meet a recruiter until the day they are discharged, male and female Marines are currently required to perform to different physical standards. If warfare has changed and “there are no more frontlines,” job-specific physical fitness tests do not make sense because our tradition that every Marine is a rifleman is now more important than ever. If we were to come up with job-specific PFTs, will a logistician assigned to an infantry battalion have to do a different PFT than someone with the same MOS assigned to a combat logistics group? Will a MEU have to administer different PFTs for all of the different occupational specialties contained within it? Furthermore, there are administrative considerations associated with comparing individuals for non-MOS assignments such as recruiting or the drill field; unless of course, the Corps does not want the best person for the job. Perhaps our Commandant is under pressure from civilian policymakers or lobbyist groups that want gender integration for reasons other than sheer performance, who also recognize that there are physical differences between men and women, and who are willing to give women special treatment (i.e., easier female fitness tests). If that is the case, I think we as a Corps have an integrity problem.
If Gen Amos can’t explain why women do not even have to meet the minimum physical requirements for male Marines, yet are allowed to serve in the same assignments, receive the same pay, and get the same promotion opportunities, our Corps will unravel from within. No trust equals no Corps. Commandant, sir, every Marine dating back to 1775 needs your leadership now. Perhaps more than ever.
The Marine Corps Association & Foundation remembers the past and honors the present. Review the first one hundred years of MCA via historical photos and film clips of the organization that serves the men and women of the Marine Corps. Click 
Comments
Well done Birdzell
This article is spot on. Out current leadership is a joke and needs to go. Unfortunately I am active and cannot publish my name, I am also a combat arms officer and this is completely disgraceful. Think about the priorites of the Commandant: Diversity, Sleeves Down, Chucks on Friday, SS Flags (which stands for Scout Snipers), commercials with AID boxes, repeal of DADT, SAPR training, and now women in the infantry. The commandant should have resigned the day this was announced. What are we not focusing on? Lessons learned from 10 years of war, the Marines still in Helmand, what mistakes did we make institutionally, what have we done well, getting the force well-read, well-trained and physically fit etc... Instead we are throttled with nonsense.
Progressive administrations will come and go, fiscal cuts will come and go, but the Marine Corps should be what it has always been. Ready to win our nations battles when they need to be fought. Our nations enemies will act when we are weakest. When all the smoke clears from Washington politics, the Marines will either be ready to stand and fight or not. We are a weaker force because of this commandant. Semper Fidelis Sir
Well Done Birdzell Comment
I don't know which was better, the article itself or the comment by "annonymous". I remember the 70's when there was a huge push to bring more women in the Corps along with our mandatory "Human Relations Meetings". The result of the push was instant degradation of morale as men who were doing their very best to move forward in their careers were all of a sudden frozen in their MOS's and ranks as the Corps fast tracked women and minorities to gain a perceived balance. The result was unqualified men and women NCO's and officers in "non-combat" billets. Readiness suffered and more often than not, better qualified men bit the bullet and helped them succeed, only because if they don't, it could cost lives down the road. What social engineers don't care about or want to hear is that while these equal rights issues are noble causes at the end of the day they can and will cost peoples lives.
Marine Standards Once a Marine, Always a Marine.
This letter could not be explain any better. It has always been. WMs , two-
thirds we can do with- out. Their present is nothing but political for votes.
Not for the country.
E.J. Kues Retired USMC
Spot on Marine
I'm not a Marine, but I am Army Special Forces (retired), your article is spot on. We (you Active and Reserve really) have the weakest military leadership at the top than I have ever seen.
Well Said
I am a former Marine. Specifically an infantry officer- I couldn't agree more with the article.
It makes you wonder if maybe there was a reason that the commandant had always been a ground pounder. We got what we asked for.
Good article. Lets see, the
Good article. Lets see, the PFT and CFT are designed to measure strength, speed, agility, and endurance; however the standards are clearly different for men and women (lower for women).
An infantryman is required to fire and manuever in combat, kick in doors, haul casualties, climb walls, and move quickly with agility over perhaps a long period of time. The success of the team, squad or platoon is dependant on each mans ability to keep up and support his buddies. There is very little tolerance for those that fail to perform or keep up.
Rhetorical question; why by by design would the government or whomever want to weaken the forces that protect our country? Diversity, gender equality, political correctness, and subtle declawing have taken precedence over warfighting and common sense. Chuco
morale
What is happening is a slow, insidious dismantling of this country's pride and principles. The Marines have pride in their accomplishments of endurance which are regularly tested. The PFT and CFT test indicate females' inability to qualify to Marine requirements of strength and endurance. And that should be that.
/s/ widow, Capt. Robert L. Maynes, Ret.
Semper Fi!
Women In Combat Role for USMC
Let's put all women in a squad; co.,, etc., and see how they perform!
Do they all get time off from combat when their period arrives?
From a former Marine & Corpsman.
Women in Combat
1973-1974 I was on the staff of Major General P.X. Kelly, Commanding General of the 4th Marine Division, attached to the G2 and Senior Staff NCO in charge of all Interrogation-Translation Teams and Interpreter Teams (ITT & IT) of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. Sometime during 1973 General Kelly asked me to do a study on the utilization of female (women) assets in ITT's & IT's as well as the direct role they could play in combat.
The final determination was that "female limguists" trained in the role of Interpreter/Interrogator could be used in these roles within a combat theatre. With the caveat that they would not be attached to combat
units nor used as "Field Interrogators/Translators".
Fast forward to 2013. Roles of women in the military has changed, and I suspect that the jury is still out
with respect to the "Warrior Woman". History is repleat with the occasional use of women in combat and it appears at first glance that they did well! However, the questiion that remains unanswered is why havn't women been used throughout history, by different cultures, on a continues basis?
MSgt D.R. Johnson, USMC, Ret.
Women in Combat
My gawd men don't get your skivies in a bind. I'm from what you might call the "Ole Corps". yeah I remember when that @#$% Truman tried to do away with the Corps, incorporating them into the Army! The only reason were still here is for the same reason we've always been here - we do the most damage to the enemy with the least amount of men and equipment - than any other fighting unit in the U.S.. It has always been so and will, I suspect, always be!
With respect to the Commandant, if he is doing his job, and I suspect that he is, and that is the continuation of the Corps! Even if he has to grovel. Think for a moment, how much money (funds) do you believe he could get allocated for the Corps if all he did was to piss into the tide?! As much as you might hate it sometimes you have to go along to get along, it stinks but there it is. Behind the scenes you can still change it. Become part of the solution by staying in the Corps and making it the finest fighting machine the world has ever seen, once again. Semper Fi, from an ole MSgt of Marines
To MSgt of Marines
MSgt,
The funds will always be there as long as we stay true to our ethos. That will ensure we remain Americas Force in Readiness. Our standards are set on a meritorious system rewarding success and pushing away the chaffe. This commandant is bending to the progressive winds of an administration and violating the fundamental "Why" of people join the Marines. We don't need to change to attract women or minorities. The Marines should remain what we have always been. One Corps with one uniform representing one constitution. The Corps should not change to accomodate...others improve to make it. Regardless of who, what, where from and why. The beauty of the Marine Corps is that it is a new beginning for so many in seek of a noble cause. Without this, we are the Army, and that is disgraceful.
This Commandant does not get it and should leave.
Semper Fidelis.
Core Values
In principle I agree, however, and lest we forget:
In the 60's we pushed for a one color Corps - Marine Green - regardless
Of your skin color when you were awarded the globe and anchor and put on the "Marine Green" we were all equal and of one color!
Lest we forget the "Core Values" imparted to every recruit. Here is where the real Corps is built, on Honor - Courage - Commitment. And lest we forget, that the heart of the Corps is and always has been the corps of NCOS that dispose of what Officers propose. When you have time read the autobiography of General LeJeune. I'm no longer in the main stream, and I know there is a lot of BS going on behind the scenes, but I have yet to hear of a Marine unit that ever gave up the fight. Neither should you, but do it within the frame work of the Corps, and keep the damn mainline press out of it, if at all possible.
Semper Fi, Old MSgt of Marines
To MSgt of Marines
Well said Master Sgt. General LeJeune set the standard, 6-11 Leading Marines provides the reference, and we must strive to live to that. I don't think the Commandant is doing that. I truly don't think he gets it.
Can somebody write an
Can somebody write an article/blog about how d@mn fragile marines have become? Reading these articles and the responses they get makes me wonder when the Marine Corps started making spineless, gutless troops. The enduring quality of the Corps is its ability to TRANSCEND the bullcrap and accomplish the mission NO MATTER THE REQUIREMENTS. Marines get dirty. They swear. They work hard, play hard, and fight harder. Marines are the most feared fighting force in the world. BUT, propose putting a few women with infantry units and the whole institution falls apart like a house of cards. Is that what the Marine Corps has become? A house of cards?
Reading all this junk about a-frames and q-frames and periods and rape and blah blah blah are excuses-----excuses made to not accomplish the mission. If the Commandant says qualified women should be in the infantry, than all of you whiners need to shut up and move on. Half of you probably shouldn't be there, yourselves...what's the number of current infantryman who DON'T run first class PFTs? Using your logic, you shouldn't be where you are. What the h3ll sense does that make?!
Suck it up. Adapt and overcome. Start acting like the Corps hasn't had these same ol arguments before (with blacks and latinos and gays and blah blah). You can tell op tempo is slowing down---nothing to do but rehash the past and show the world that we are a castle built on sand.
Women in the Corps
Wow! Bet you feel better now that you've got all that hate and discontent off your chest. The only problem is that you miss the point. Do you really think the Corps can't cope with women in their ranks? We have for over 60 odd years. So, what's new? Women in the role of "Combat Warrior" is another Trojan Horse used by the Progressive Liberal Left to water down, further, the effective combat rediness of our armed forces. You're looking at a microcosm of what they have already done to this Nation. Not necessarily in order but you'll get the drift if you'll just follow their agenda: Control the Media; Water down the curriculum of our schools (dumb down, so everbody is equal)(rewrite history, so the U.S. becomes the great satan); Ruin the economy(by driving our industries off shore, and our jobs); Create the nanny state(give the non productive more & more of others money, it's called redistribution); Vote into office the ones who will give us the most freebys(creating dependence on the government dole); and finally, get rid of God.
Are you beginning to see now why women in combat is an important issue?
On the silly side, imagine a company of female warriors in full battle dress getting ready to assault an enemy position getting bogged down in their high heeled combat boots!
Semper Fi,
High heels? Thats your
High heels? Thats your response? Anyway, you lost me on your Rush Limbaugh diatribe. The far right has gotten as insane as the far left. All the same obsessive junk.
Insane
Insane Left - Insane Right! Where does that leave you? Just plain Insane!?
But glad to see you survived your head wound, carry on.
Ooorah
Bloom where you are planted!
The passion for the traditions and integrity of the Corps notwithstanding, have been confronted with decisions which I have disagreed but carried out to the best of my ability. As I recall, our commission did not allow for picking and choosing orders from our superiors. Furthermore, the last thing the Corps needs is to get into a 14th amendment mess and next thing you know, long hair will be in.
If the requirements for officers and enlisted members is to satisfactorily pass IOC and the Infantry training courses, then enuff said.
Couple of humps up and down Las Pulgas and Piedra de Lumbre canyons with gear will settle most of it.
Finally, let's remember, we are all Marines.
Larry Simpson
Col USMC retired
Putting it bluntly and practically
I'm 55, female, and came of age in the 70s when women's lib was really going strong. You might think I'm all for women in combat. You would be mistaken. Women is combat is just not practical and I'll tell you why in the most up-front way I can think of at this precise moment: I don't want to change a tampon in a fox hole and you sure as hell don't want to watch me.
Thousands of good Marines have died putting themselves between me and the bad guys. I am eternally grateful.
That's it?
That's the reason you don't want to be in combat? Because you don't want to change a tampon? And because men don't want to see it?
It's not because you're getting shot at, blown up, and watching your friends die?
It's because of a tampon?
Wow. Let's definitely leave you behind the wire, then. You can change your tampon from the comfort of your room.
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
We Rescued Women/They Didn't Lead the Raid
I have seen women in combat, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Having said that, I have never seen a woman in combat fight with the stamina, ferocity, cleverness, daring and "kill the enemy, whatever it takes" warrior spirit of a man. I'll limit this post to two examples: One, my first time under fire was in Barcelona, Spain on May 24th, 1981, during the 2nd day of the Siege of the Banco Central. Under fire, the media--men and women--ran away from Kalashnikov fire, coming from Spanish fascist terrorists. Meanwhile, Spanish counterterrorists (trained by British SAS and Delta Force) moved forward, without hesitation, into the lion's den. Note that not one woman was recruited into the Spanish counterterrorist forces, and it was an all-male elite fighting force. The Spanish counterterrorists were successful, killed terrorists at point-blank range once inside (it was a Spanish CT sniper who set off the final assault by killing a terrorist on the roof of the bank) and rescued 180 hostages. A woman on that operation would have been a distraction, to say the least, and moreover, simply unnecessary. Second, I was humbled, and grateful, to lead a raid against a Burmese Army slave labor patrol near Shohto Mountain, in the Karen State in Burma, on December 13-14, 1992. My Marine infantry training got the job done, I never would have been able to lead that raid without the incredible lessons on bush craft, raiding and reconnaissance that I got from then-Colonel Tony Zinni in the summer of 1988, when my unit was deployed on Okinawa. Of the eleven Karen hill tribespeople that we freed, seven of them were children and four of them were women. So why weren't those women able to free themselves? Why did they get captured by male soldiers of the Burmese Army? One reason is that none of them were physically-capable of killing a Burmese soldier in hand-to-hand combat (which they would have to have done, to prevent being hog-tied and put on a slave labor patrol, to begin with). We rescued the women. And my raiding party had no women on it, either, for the simple reason that I had to pick two men who I knew for a fact could move out, double-time, through triple-canopy bush, carrying rifles and rounds and water. Yes, we had no grenades. No, we did not fail. But having women with us, forget about it, we never would have been able to track down and take down that Burmese Army slave labor patrol and we never would have freed those Karen from their ropes and shackles and chains. I do not understand the logic of forcing women into combat missions; nothing I ever saw at war mitigated at all in favor of putting women on infantry missions, sniper missions, special ops raids or any other mission I have been attached to or led. And Billy Birdzell is absolutely right. Take a cold, hard look at Marines in history and ask yourself if, as a commander, you would have put a squad, or more, of women on Colonel Carlson's epic 250 kilometer long range reconnaissance in Guadalcanal, or with Colonel Edson on Bloody Hill. I can only see one reason for forcing women into line units, especially infantry and special operations, and that would be to ensure defeat. Marines are not particularly fond of the word defeat and for good reason. Excellent writing, Mr. Birdzell.
Semper Fi, Mike Tucker
Visiting Scholar on Counterterrorism, US Naval Academy
Be careful of generalizations
I'm not a female, nor a feminist- but I am a a little familiar with history, and have 15 years on Active duty as an attack pilot with 2 deployments (to include initial invasion in 2003) and another year trip to AFG in a few months...and even after surgery in both knees I max my PFT...so I'm not personally vested in the argument other than taking a fair look at the facts.
We can find any history to support anything we like, but we can't make glaring generalities about women's performance in combat. A role which has been severely limited by law, but seems to make exceptions in times of national emergency for most of history. In WWII more than 550K Russian women were conscripted into the war effort on what has probably the closest the world has seen to an absolute or total war. From Glanz's book on the Red Army, "[among the specialties] women conscripted into the war effort were placed were in three aviation regiments (all women) and in partisan and underground organizations…and as the fighting grew more desperate, Stalin was compelled to grant women a more active role in the war effort in direct combat roles, such as anti-aircraft machine gunners, rifleman, and snipers. More than 150,000 women were awarded with combat orders and medals for bravery in the struggle against the German invaders, with more than 200 receiving the Order of Glory 2nd and 3rd degree, 86 women received the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union (to include 29 pilots) and 4 women became full cavaliers in the Order of Glory."
Additionally, you have accounts from the Balkans in 1992 of female infantry units in northern Sarajevo participating in some of the heaviest house-to-house fighting that occured during the longest seige in recroded history. Here's an interesting NY times piece about a woman asking for a divorce from her husband of 33 years because he shot himself to leave the front lines (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/06/world/in-sarajevo-war-also-means-battl...)
And we can't forget U.S. Army MP CPT Linda Bray actually leading soldiers into ground combat, successfully taking a well-defended Panamanian police post during the invasion of Panama...which was actually denied for a while due to the restrictions based on allowing women in combat.
It sounds like Mr. Birdzell is implying that we shouldn't have women in the military at all because they can't do as well as men on the PT test. Maybe if the military only consisted of INF or Special Ops units - then I can see the logic. But the military is more than just rifleman. The reason we have women in the roles they serve now is based on when we made the shift to an All-Volunteer Force - not enought men to do everything else that is required to make a military work. If we cut the roughly 15% population of the armed services that was female, we would absolutely devaste our ability to fight and win our nation's wars.
I don't believe in a separate standard for the jobs that require high endurance and strength, but does an admin clerk need to perform at the same level as a recon guy? I mean it's great if she can bang out 20 pull ups and run a 6 min mile, but that has nothing to do with her "combat" job...which is to process my admin paperwork downrange. Being physically fit is important, but as history shows - it's not necessarily the perfect metric that translates into being a good rifleman/Soldier.
finally
Not taking a side here...just glad to see a comment that brings something new to the gazette's table. Well said.
Weak
Go join the Army.....another pathetic air winger who does not understand the physical demands of serving a ground combat unit.....weak.
Equality
If you've never worked with a woman while in combat, how do you know that she won't be capable of "keeping up with you"? How can you underestimate her and say that she won;t work as hard as you? Despite what you might think, some of us work hard and put forth all of our effort. We try our hardest to prove ourselves to the males in a military culture that is predominantly male. Don't blame it on us if the authorities have lowered the standards on females; I'm sure enough of us would be more than willing to raise that bar.
Woman in Combat Units
Thank you for doing a great job breaking down the discrepancy between the male and female tests.. As a former Grunt (0331) in a line company I can honestly say I really don't care who fought alongside of us, but they must have been able to actually fight alongside of us. I hope the Marine Corps comes to its senses and imposes the same physical standards for women (especially in combat units) as the men. For those who can meet the same standards the only other issue remaining is hygiene. I spent nearly 3 weeks in the jungle once and could not shower or barely clean up. Another month or so in the desert as well. This is of serious concern for units in the field that will also have to be addressed. If not, I fear we may lose more brothers just to allow our sisters in combat.
Equality
Hey Equality....dont wait on the green machine to raise the bar, start taking the PFT &CFT using the male standards, its that simple. Set a higher standard for yourself and that way no one can talk Sh*t about you anymore. I still dont know why you would want to be where no one wants you?. Get fit and push for an all female battalion, ruck up and go get your kill on. Yall would probably kick ass and make history...but no special treatment. I am not up to speed on this but I believe the army is experimenting with all female infantry units. 'Athena Project' ring bells with anyone? Look into it.
Women in the Marine Corps? I agree with the wing wiper, they fill roles....I was in the invasion in 03 and remember a female Harrier pilot that got it done over An Nasirya while I was on the ground covered in flies and filth down below searching for 3 women that were captured a few days prior (Jessica Lynch). One of them died two were liberated along with several male soldiers. Women in male infantry units? Not acceptable. I guess your FAC tour didnt expose you enough to the rigors and downright nastiness of the field and combat on a day to day basis?
All female infantry units? Go for it, see if it works, we might get surprised but I dont think America is ready, even now, to see their daughters get mangled wholesale in the mill of murder that is combat. Its ugly, real ugly, and no place for mixed gendered units. I havent met a woman yet, except maybe for my ex wife, that was mean enough to want to draw blood and flip the anger switch with no hesitation and start killing. I also havent met a woman that can drag my big a$$, under fire to a waiting helicopter or beat me in a street fight hand to hand.
We are different, we are built differently, we are NOT the same. Do not lower the bar or standards and we will be much better off as a corps and will respect women more in the process. If women are destined to be in combat roles then let them meet the standard...not the double standard. Most of the women I knew during my time in were happy to serve and wanted no part in a victor unit or combat. Billy B is referring to Infanty Units not the Corps as a whole and he is spot on.
Next assignment Billy.....All female units. Battalion Strength. The male units wont complain they will be relieved and Im telling you now... will get humbled.
Thats all I got.
DJ 0321
Want empirical info? - Read this Study
Yes it's from 92 but i'm sure that women and men's body's haven't changed that much physically in 20 years.
If it doesn't increase combat effectiveness, it is a liablity or an unnecessary expense.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262626.pdf
damned if you do...
I'm a woman, a former Army officer, and I could hold my own on the PT tests -- beat most of the men in my unit in the run, beat all of them in the sit-ups, but, yeah, I just couldn't get past 52 push-ups in 2 minutes. I could hump more than half my weight, carrying the same ruck as men twice my size did. I outshot them all on several weapons.
Know what this prowess got me? Resentment and harrassment simply because their manhood felt challenged.
So if I suck on the PT test (which some women did, but so did many men), I get derided as unfit for service, but if I do *too* well I get mistreated, too.
Make up your minds. Combat success requires more than just physical fitness. Mental agility and equinamity, among other qualities, are less measurable but just as important.
A reply, and some clarification
This is a reply to the post 'damned if you do...' and some other clarification on some thinking that I feel is incorrect. This is going to be a long post...
For the former Army Officer; 'sucking' on a female PT test is different than 'sucking' on a male PT test. As this article states, they are different. And 52 push ups in two minutes for a female, who is most certainly smaller than a male, isn't the same, just as three pull-ups for someone who has a smaller bodyweight isn't the same thing as three pull-ups for someone who is heavier (men). I see a lot of this kind of apples to oranges comparisons, which are of course incorrect.
Personally, I would have problem, given six months and some proper dieting, destroying both your run times and your upper body strength. Not because I'm exactly strong, either; but because as a male, I have advantages over almost all women in terms of absolute upper body strength. This has been known for some time. While there are some women who are stronger than some men - and female bodybuilders can become quite large - these stronger women are almost never as strong as trained male, and female bodybuilders are taking steroids to attain the levels in size that they reach. In fact, it is known is exercise sports and sciences than the only way for females to reach a decent size of muscle mass is by taking androgens, or male hormones. This is ironic.
I can't speak for the males and the harassment that you received - I wasn't there, and I'm assuming that you are telling the truth - but deriding them, and, it seems, males in general in the military is a theme that I see common a lot on the articles, boards, and posts.
I'm going to speak plainly, and perhaps what some might consider rude here on the board. This isn't meant to denigrate female servicemembers in any way. It's meant to say some things out loud before they become so politically incorrect that they can't be said at all. Of course, we are already getting there.
I find it really difficult to hear much of any complaints that servicewomen have with respect to inequality. As this article exposes, the inequality in the military is institutionalized, and visisble for any who see. When the women in combat debate was raised, I heard, along with countless males, the problem of inequality in the service. These comments about inequality completely neglected the enormous dual standards that exist in our military for female and male servicemembers.
Have any of the (few) women who are complaining on this board voiced any resentement to the fact that they attain the same leadership positions as men, the same benefits (and then some; men cannot be airlifted from combat zones because of pregnancies), and the same status as males, even though the PT for all services are objectively different, and easier, for females?
Have you heard any feminists, the Great Complainers, complain about this inequality?
Have you ever had a dream where a feminist, or women in combat supporter became deeply angry and resentful of the dual standards in the military, standards that place women in the service in the same positions, or positions over, men in the service?
Here is something else that is morally disgusting; when was the last time you heard the President, or anyone else in public office, refer to the gender of the men who died in battles such as Normandy as males...?
I can't remember. Do you know the reason? Because feminists and progressives understand that this will reinforce the masculine identity of the members who died in these wars and skirmishes. And feminists don't want you to know that there are men in the military, doing what men have done for hundreds of years. This is beyond disugsting; it's damned immoral, it's damned disrespectful, and it's damned undeserving. It's a disagrace.
The resentment that 'damned if you do...' speaks about is real, and, more to the point, it is deserving. If I went into a job interview where someone had less stringent background tests, a less thorough and easier interview process, and could sue the interviewer if he didn't get in because he felt the interview was too tough, I would be resentful if the person who got the job. This is called 'being normal', and 'having a desire to be treated equally'.
I though women in combat supporters, and feminists alike, understood this? I suppose equality of the sexes only matters when it happens to females. Oh, wait... that's a logical contradiction. Oh, well, nevermind that.
It's interesting to hear 'damned if you do..' infer to men to 'make up their minds'. Well, men have; they allowed you to join the military given that you join based on lowered standards than them, and even allowed you to have rank over them given this. They have opened up previous all male combat units to you now, as well. And yet, you are still complaining about things. Perhaps you need to read the title of your subject header again, and think about the full implications of this.
For the males on this board; I salute your continued service to a military that cares less about you, even in your death, than it does about feminism and progressive ideology. I apologize that American's, and most men, do not care about the fact that they are destroying a culture of a Band of Brothers, something that has been around for literally hundreds of years. I'm so very sorry. I don't think that our country deserves you.
To the women on this board, and in service; I salute your continued service to this military, but unless you are willing to see that you cannot ask for equality while be treated unequally in basic training and in other areas, you are not thinking about the necessisity of the military, and you aren't really thinking about equality, either. You are thinking about yourself.
Be politically incorrect to the maximum (and therefore logical to the greatest extent) allow me pretend something; that we are in another world, another America, we have an all male military. This military does not have the following problems, or, if it does, they are minimal;
1) These men don't become pregnant. This is obvious.
2) Standards are maintained; any male who complains about not being able to finish basic is seen as someone who shouldn't serve, not as someone who should have the military serve him.
3) Sexual harassment is low. Straight men don't sexually harass each other to any real extent.
4) They do not suffer from deployability issues related to pregnancies, sexual harassment, problems related to feminine hygenie, and general greater deployability problems of females in general.
If a certain group of men could not attain complete basic training, and if they had deployability issues, became pregnant, and then demanded to be treated differently than the other men in the ficticious military, we wouldn't listen to a word that they said.
To make a point clear; the reason why we are allowing all of this to happen is because we have been raised to treat women differently, which feminists oppose. This seems ironic to me.
Here are some things that I think are reasonable expectations for what will happen as this policy change goes into effect in the next few years;
1) Men will no longer see the military as a place to affirm their masculinity, and recruitment will drop. To the extent that the military tries to engage young men to join up, feminists and female officers will complain that they are being 'sexist'. I believe the Marines used to use the slogan 'We are looking for a few Good Men'. That was pre-women in combat days. Do you think that any attempt will be made to recruit males into the combat arms after this? (No.)
2) Men killing women and women killing men will be seen as normal, encouraging aggressive behaviour between male and female service members. Of course, feminists and women in combat supporters will complain and act dumbfounded as to why the increase in assaults.
3) Sexual harassment, assaults, and pregnancies will go up, and the combat arms will have to learn to deal with them on a battalion level. The things that plague the current military will plague the combat units.
That sums up what I felt like saying. I apologize if this is a rambling, and long, post, but these things have to be said. This country, and even the military, seems to be rapidly losing it's mind. Careful, and concise reasoning are treated as rude and unsensitive, even now in the services.
Here are some resources for the curious:
http://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/Images/CMRDocuments/Gregor-Info-Paper-20120508.pdf
There is also data from the U.S. Army's own comparisons of female and male ability floating around somewhere.
~Alex
standards
When I was in, there was an unspoken code that when PT test came around, you were to add a little in for the person you were observing because if they failed their test they wouldn't be able to feed their family. Above all, you were not supposed to mess with a man's ability to feed his family. So we added a little in to make sure everybody passed okay. Not everything is as they seem.
PFT standards and blue falcons
In the Marine Corps, the only time at which you could "add a little in" on a PFT were the crunches. Wasn't possible to get hooked up anywhere else as PFTs always had official monitors. Even then, the "little added" would be something like rounding 98 or 99 up to 100. And-- women did it too.
Post new comment