by Jack Lee
In 1945 the Army and Marine’s physical fitness test included pullups, squat jumps, pushups, 2-min situps, 300 yard run, shuttle run and 60 sec-squat thrusts. In order to score excellent a recruit had to do 20 pull ups, 75 squat jumps, 54 push ups, 79 situps, 44 sec. In the 300 yard run, 41 secs on the indoor shuttle run and 41 squat thrusts.
55% of female Army and Marine recruits can’t even 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.
Capt. Maureen Krebs at Paris Island said, “The Marines had hoped to institute the pullups on the belief 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.
Officials felt there wasn’t a medical risk to putting the new standard into effect as planned across the service, but that the risk of losing recruits and hurting retention of women already in the service was unacceptably high,” she said.
In order for a female recruit to score excellent they must hang from a bar for 70 seconds, however this test is considered so easy and pointless it was not even considered for male recruits.
Female recruits showed alarming weakness in all areas of physical testing, plus they were more prone to injury and they have a retention problem, hinting that we can’t afford to place them in combat roles.
Long term recon patrols where soldiers are required to spend 10 days in the field, void of proper hygiene, took unacceptable high tolls on females. They were extremely susceptible infection and debilitating skin rash, the men fared far better because of their physiology.
The cost of training, the lower physical standards, poor retention and costly injuries from female combat recruits can’t be ignored. So far, the physical deficits have been offset by our technological edge and male soldiers doing even more to take up the slack to give us an overall battlefield superiority. However, that edge ends when it’s a one on one fight to the death with a determined enemy. This is now the difference between life and death – winning and losing. Can it be anymore clear?
Like the NFL, this is the major leagues and you either cut it or you don’t. This is not to say women can’t have many valuable roles in the military, but combat shouldn’t be one them. When it comes to war fighting our first line must always be our best. Political correctness does not belong in this equasion. We owe that much to the troops that we send in harms way, they shouldn’t have to take up the slack for anyone.
“55% of female Army and Marine recruits can’t even do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year”
And what of the 45% of female recruits who can? Why should they be barred from service because of the rest of their gender? That’s quite collectivist and anti-individualist of you. But then, all sexist generalizations are.
Also, I wish you’d be better about citing your sources. I have no idea where you got any of this information.
Chris, what about the other 45%? They still lack the same upper body strength as an enemy male combatant would have. They still have problems with extended stays in the field causing debilitating infections, did not read the entire post? You want proof of the stats, all you have to do is google it, very simple. I did and here’s another source http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/02/marines-female-fitness-pullups/4294313/ Not the scource I used, but close enough, same data. It’s available at many places on the web.
Chris, you said, “That’s quite collectivist and anti-individualist of you. But then, all sexist generalizations are.”
You sure paint with a broad brush Chris, how about we just stick with the facts and skip labels and assumptions? We will get farther.
Women have never been barred from serving in the military.
There is (was) nothing preventing military women from establishing a greater roll for women without integrating the services. This type of change would have been just as difficult to achieve but it would have had a better result. Training and participation would be designed and planned around the possible…activities women could actually perform and perform well.
Had feminists chosen to expand their participation in this way they would have had the opportunity to actually earn their stripes and they would have garnered greater appreciation and respect. A female Navy Seal team, for instance, might be possible over the course of time as women improved skills and proved themselves. On the other hand if this was something women teams just could not do, or if the types of missions they could perform were found to be too limited, we would actually know the boundaries of their participation. As it is we are asked to become partners in the great illusion that women can perform equally with men. Women lose all opportunity to show what they are actually capable of accomplishing.
All of this tinkering has done unnecessary damage to our military in my opinion. We have lost sight of the larger purpose to indulge the selfish interests of what amounts to a handful of women.
Feminists aren’t interested in the strength and cohesiveness of the military. They are interested in personal power, prestige, money, and perks. The demand for integration shows that these women think of themselves as inferior while they posture as equals. If they had real confidence they would just find ways to compete and expand the roll of women in the military within the female branches. If they were certain of their abilities to perform as equals they would just seek excellence within their ranks and perform.
The real sexists are those who deceive themselves about the differences in the sexes and attempt to erase all of the lines that mark the differences to prove their illusion. They use (abuse) the rule of law to legitimize the ruse. It’s pretty sick, actually. Call it the law of neuterality…a state in which the sexes are neutered in order to achieve “equality” (of outcomes).
Tina, you’re right of course! There are basic fundamental physiological differences between the sexes and anyone can see it, only some choose not to admit it.
Men are mostly stronger in upper body strength. They tend to be stronger and faster overall.
In combat this equals life or death. Chris would rather put females at risk and also their males counterparts rather than admit it. If we were 100% equal then we would have women in the NFL, there would not be a ladies tee at the golf course, women would play in the NBA, there would be no women’s tennis matches, just tennis matches, women runners would hold the fastest times, there would women holding boxing titles after defeating male boxers and the list goes on, but we don’t see that for a darn good reason! People like Chris live in another world where being equal means equal in all things, regardless of how God made us. That can’t be done – it’s not physically possibly unless some mad scientists does genetic engineering to create a race of Amazons.
NOTE: There are a few, very few females, that can hold their own a similar sized male. Liberals always point to the exception, not the rule.
Jack: “Chris, what about the other 45%? They still lack the same upper body strength as an enemy male combatant would have. They still have problems with extended stays in the field causing debilitating infections, did not read the entire post?”
Who is “they?” Every single woman who might volunteer for armed combat? How could you possible know that?
“NOTE: There are a few, very few females, that can hold their own a similar sized male. Liberals always point to the exception, not the rule.”
That’s not at all what I’m doing. I’m saying that each potential soldier should be judged on an individual basis, regardless of their gender. Don’t change the requirements to accommodate women–keep them the same, and only allow women who make the cut. These women will be rare, but as you admit, they do exist.
Why institute a generalized, discriminatory “no women” policy for armed combat, rather than just letting the chips fall where they may? If there are women who can do the job as well as a fit male soldier, why not take them? How are you helping strengthen the armed forces by keeping out those few women who can meet the requirements? That is collectivist by definition. You’re saying we should not let any individual woman in just because they tend to be weaker as a group.
If you can’t see the irony in accusing me of “painting with a broad brush,” you’re being willfully obtuse.
It’s not me being obtuse Chris, check out that mirror once in a while will ya? My point was crystal clear. There are basic differences between males and females, don’t blame me for that! lol I didn’t create them, but I can see the difference! What you’re implying is also quite clear, we should keep lowering the bar until almost everyone can pass it.
I’m suggesting that we raise the bar, so that only those most fit and having the greatest chance of survival can pass it. What you are saying is we should spend precious finite resources, even if only 1 female in a 1000 will actually qualify and somehow we will all better served. (I’m saying that each potential soldier should be judged on an individual basis, regardless of their gender – Chris S.)
I’m saying the odds are too high to warrant such an investment in limited resources. The military is not a social experiment, it’s for warfighting. And while women have many valuable roles they can play in the military, erasing all the barriors (male physical fitness tests) just to be frontline combat soldiers is a bad idea. You’re saying there’s no difference physical between the sexes and that they require no special costs or considerations to find them and keep them? Chris this is NOT where we want to go. We’ll lose and can’t afford to lose. You would have a better chance of convincing us they (ladies) should be allowed in the NFL and suggesting we change the rules for them to avoid bone jarring tackles.
Jack,
With all respect you’re wrong on women serving in combat roles. If I understand your point; you believe that the strongest female in the military today could not take down the weakest male in the military. This is just wrong headed. In 1989 while serving at F.E. Warren A.F.B., I watched as my partner, a female M.P., took down a very angry Marine. She was all of 5’ 5” and about 125 lbs. She was able to subdue this 5’ 10” 185 lb Marine within seconds. She was the best partner a man could have and to this day I’ll never forget how she saved my butt.
Also you should know that physical strength is not the only thing needed in combat. It takes a combination of physical and psychological strength to win a battle. Some of the most physically fit Navy Seamen don’t make it through Navy Seal training because they’re not emotionally and psychologically strong enough.
With that I’ll leave you to your barefoot and pregnant attitude toward the very capable women in our armed services. Your hypothesis just doesn’t hold up to facts.
Pete, actually that is not what I am saying. There are always the exceptions and I admitted this earlier, but the question is, should we spend vast sums of money and training to get the exception? Is having the exception really worth it? I’m saying no, but I am also saying women can play a valuable role in the military. But not in combat. Let me make this part clear: As a general rule, they are the weaker sex, therfore they are not suited for frontline combat. You don’t see women in the Navy Seals and you don’t see them in Special Forces. You don’t see women playing football in the NFL either. There are differences between the sexes. That’s my point, women are not built to be the equal of men in everything – nor were men built to be the equal of women in everything.
Jack: “What you’re implying is also quite clear, we should keep lowering the bar until almost everyone can pass it.”
Now you’re DEFINITELY being obtuse, since that is literally the exact opposite of what I wrote.
Here is what I said:
“Don’t change the requirements to accommodate women–keep them the same, and only allow women who make the cut.”
Anyone who can read English can see that I clearly did NOT imply that we should “lower the bar” for anyone. I said that we should keep the bar the same, and allow any soldier who can meet the current requirements, regardless of gender.
“What you are saying is we should spend precious finite resources, even if only 1 female in a 1000 will actually qualify and somehow we will all better served.”
How many male recruits go to boot camp and end up not qualifying? Resources are “wasted” every time a recruit doesn’t make the cut. Given that fewer women than men volunteer for the military anyway, I don’t see how letting women in, provided they can pass the same requirements as men, is such a huge drain on resources that it justifies such a discriminatory policy. The military spends a lot of time and money on recruitment. Why is that money well spent when it’s spent on finding qualified men, but suddenly a “waste” when it’s spent on finding quality women?
“The military is not a social experiment, it’s for warfighting.”
You realize that was, word for word, the argument most commonly made against racial integration in the armed forces?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2008/08/07/4377342-writer-recalls-trumans-risky-order-to-integrate-military?lite
You can’t get up in arms about being compared to historical bigots when you insist upon sounding exactly like them.
“And while women have many valuable roles they can play in the military, erasing all the barriors (male physical fitness tests) just to be frontline combat soldiers is a bad idea.”
You’re not making sense. I did not ask for any fitness test to be “erased.” I asked for men and women to be held to the exact same standard. I don’t understand why you perceive that as an unreasonable request.
“You’re saying there’s no difference physical between the sexes”
No, I never said anything like that, nor did I imply it.
Get back to me when you are willing to respond to the arguments I actually made, and not strawman arguments.
Jack because of the position I have taken I think it’s important to let everyone know that in my youth I was not a petite little small fry. I was 5′ 10.5″ tall and slender but quite strong. Examples: I helped mu husband move one of those big heavy standard pianos up six stairs into the house and put it in place. I helped him move one of those old hide-a-beds another time, including lifting it up into the back of the truck and back out. We were building a patio cover once and couldn’t afford redwood so we bought fir and it was wet. While he was figuring out how to anchor it on the post at his end, I held the 4 x 12 beam over my head for about 10 minutes at my end while standing on a ladder. I’m quite sure I could have been one of those women who were capable of completing the tough training.
I also fully acknowledge that there are women like the woman Pete describes above. The vast majority of women do not fit that profile, however.
I offer for consideration an article, posted by Col. West, that was written by Marine Iraq vet Jude Eden:
There are also social problems that accompany integrating men and women in the military and these problems can break down the readiness factor. While the ideal of professionalism is always held up as the perfect model it is often not the perfect model that becomes the reality.
This is why I much prefer retaining separate services and giving the women the opportunity. to prove themselves without the benefit of men being around to help them out. Much better to see if the women can manage to come up with a Special Forces Team before we decide that lowering standards is smart. It’s about feminist wanting control. That they insist on weakening our military to get what they want is incredibly self serving.
This push has never been about making a stronger military
Excellent Tina, good find.
Good God Jack the world has changed. The United States has changed. People have changed. If a woman wants to join a branch of the service then more power to her. If she qualifies for a front line position then put her on the front line. No changing of the requirements and no special treatment. If she can’t hack it, just like a man, then she’s out. If the men on the front line can’t control their libido and emotions then they’re out too. Don’t say this is just a waste of money, for many men don’t qualify either.
I believe that women make up about 15% of the 2 million in service (This was just a guess). So, based on my purely guesstimated numbers, 300 thousand women serve. They have every right to volunteer to be on the front line just like men. They have every right to succeed or fail in their training just like the men do too. Here’s some news for you; women don’t want special treatment they just want a chance to succeed. I don’t see how this is a waste of money. As far as I know recruiters are the first step to becoming a member of the military (and they don’t care about gender), then boot camp, and then your specialization training. All of these steps or hurdles are designed to root out those men and women that don’t cut it and those that do.
What happened to the “can do” attitude in America? Or does that apply to men only? In America today, women are police officers, firefighters, construction workers and agents for the FBI, NSA, and CIA. All of these professions at one time said that women couldn’t do the job…excuses, excuses.
You keep mentioning pull-ups as a qualification for service and I wonder…how many battles have been decided by how many pull-ups a service member can do. If that were the deciding factor then we surly would have won in Korea and Vietnam. I’ll put a soldier, man or woman, on the front line if they have the skills for the job. You know it wasn’t very long ago that your same arguments were made about African Americans. The world is changing Jack so you can lead, follow or get out of the way.
Pete, you said it, you made my point exactly! We shouldn’t change the physical testing…but, Pete we did! We absolutely lowered the standards so women could pass to be in a combat role. This makes no sense to me. Ask yourself, why do we have standards? The obvious answer is to sort out the most likely to win and survive. How do we maintain that if we lower the standards for females just so they can participate?
I might be wrong, but I don’t believe countries like the North Koreans or China lowered their standards?
Pete, if it was a case of keeping our high standards and allowing anyone (male or female) who can pass them to take a combat role, I would be right there with you and say let the women in, but it’s not that way.
Did you read the WWII requirements for pull ups and see what they are today? Today 55% of female recruits can’t even do 3 pull ups. This measures upper body strength. But, it doesn’t stop there. They can’t hold up as long in the field or carry the same loads (on average) as their male counterparts. I’ve consulted with NCO’s in the Army and the Marines and they share my opinion based on their personal experiences as drill instructors.
Pete lets take the emotion out of it for the moment and just read this…”the Air Force Fitness Test Scoring for males under 30 years of age requires males to run 1.5 miles in a maximum time of 13:36 (min.:secs.): the female maximum time is 16:22. A female who runs at this slower rate would actually receive a higher score than a male who runs nearly three minutes faster. The minimum number of push-ups for males and females in the same age group is 33 and 18, respectively. In the case of push-ups, males and females who achieve the minimum passing number of push-ups receive the same score.
Although it can be argued that there are women who can meet and exceed many male physical standards, the experiences with the Canadian military and recent Marine Corp Infantry Officers Course (IOC), suggest that large numbers of women will not succeed if held to these same higher standards. In addition, forcing women to continuously meet higher standards has been found to increase their injury and attrition rates.”
High attrition, higher injury, equals high cost and wasted time and resources – is any of this important or is more important to say we’re enlightened because we let women into combat roles?
Pete you crossed a line with me when you said, the arguement I made above could be made about African-Americans not so long ago and that is absolutely false. That’s a bogus assertion and I’m disappointed you felt it was necessary to play the race card, but the way you were headed I felt it was only a matter of time.
Read more: Women in Combat: TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2013/06/18/women-in-combat-the-numbers-racket/#ixzz2pUxvO1pi
If we could eliminate the political pressure there is to lower standards in order to make sure women qualify, we could find out just how many are up to the task. If the numbers who could qualify were sufficient to warrant changing our services it might be worth it. I still think both men and women would be more effective trained separately and utilized according to their strengths.
I suspect that we haven’t maintained the higher standards for two reasons: 1. Most women can’t meet the male standard, 2. Lack of female interest. This (probable) reality would undermine the political feminist goal, transforming the services. If the military enforced standards the feminist goal would be dead.
I don’t think its too much to ask that the highest standards be maintained. The purpose for a strong military outweighs individual desires. “Can do” works better when we shoot for excellence and be truthful about what is actually do-able.
Things do change over the decades. Attitudes, hairstyles, music, interests.
People do not change. At the core we are the same as we were centuries ago. Women are mentally and hormonally very different from their male counterparts and for good reason. We’ve been lying about that for about five or six decades. Women today work at a variety of jobs they didn’t do in years gone by but most remain in service oriented work. Some women are more physically fit…most don’t do the hard physical work their grandmothers and great grandmothers did around the house so in some ways they are pampered by comparison.
I would ask our government to create the best military on the planet…to keep the highest standards in place.
Some of the same political arguments might have been made about black men prior to integration of the services but the realities were not the same. Black men were excluded because they were considered inferior beings. Women are not considered inferior just different. Black men are not the same as women any more than white men are. And if you ask those whose relatives served, you will find the attitude among those black males was predominantly to perform to a higher standard than their white male counterparts…they achieved first. There is the can do spirit!
The real heroes of (black) civil rights are those individuals who performed to high standards. They achieved and earned the respect and acceptance of the white community…the politics followed.
We diminish and harm the notion of equality when we lie in order to further a cause. I want none of that.
Jack: “I’ve consulted with NCO’s in the Army and the Marines and they share my opinion based on their personal experiences as drill instructors.”
I’ll bet there’s some evidence to be found that those who dare speak the truth are asked to shut up about it or leave the military too.
And you’re right…they don’t have to meet the same standards and in many cases, and they still fail. Also there is little interest.
Military Times:
It should also be said that women who try to meet the highest standard actually would be putting their physical well being at risk. Women who train and achieving higher muscle mass and lower body fat levels end up with messed up hormonal balances.
Jack: “Pete you crossed a line with me when you said, the arguement I made above could be made about African-Americans not so long ago and that is absolutely false. That’s a bogus assertion and I’m disappointed you felt it was necessary to play the race card, but the way you were headed I felt it was only a matter of time.”
But Jack, I already showed you that you DID make an argument that was identical to arguments made against allowing African-Americans into the military. You said:
“The military is not a social experiment, it’s for warfighting.”
That was exactly one of the arguments used by people who opposed African-Americans serving in the military. You must know that. How is Pete “crossing a line” by pointing out that fact?
Chris Pete is introducing a whole new dynamic, …racism. But, racism has nothing to do with it. What we were talking about is strictly physical fitness. This is an objective, quantifiable area of human physiology that concludes with projected results based on reliable statistica data, absent emotion. On the other hand, racism is pure emotion, it’s totally illogical, subjective and lacking credible data to prove a hypothesese. The two issues could not be further apart and it stuns me that you, as a bright and college educated person, would miss the obvious? And further, blacks have been serving in the United States military for 200 years, granted they were often segregated and that was racism and it was wrong. However, they were never barred because they lacked upper body strength, were infection prone and didn’t have the desired stamina. So you see Chris, the guy you are defending introduced a red herring and you fell for it. Racism is a stupid comparison and besides, it’s benneath your intellect. This was a political ploy and you know who plays the race card all the time don’t you? Democrats….liberal democrats.
Jack, I didn’t call you racist. I said you’re using the same argument against women that was used to keep black soldiers from integration into the military.
Let’s make this simple; If you were the commander of the military would you put women on the front line (FYI…there are no more traditional front lines)if they passed every qualification and had the full support of their NCO’s, commanders and fellow soldiers? If your answer is no then you just don’t want women on the battlefield. If yes, then this topic is finished.
Pete, the answer is yes without any question, however you want side step what I have been saying from the start. We have lowered the bar because it was politically correct to do so and that’s all. As for the front lines, yes it is a little blurry, however we still take the fight to the enemy and when we do that we need to send our best, not what is politically correct, because that doesn’t win battles. I don’t understand why you can’t see this? You seem to refuse to accept that we’ve lowered our standards. Why is that?
I did agree with you when I posted, “If she qualifies for a front line position then put her on the front line. No changing of the requirements and no special treatment. If she can’t hack it, just like a man, then she’s out.” I clearly said no changing of the reqirememts. You seem to refuse to comprehend what I wrote.
Maintaining high, unchanging standards for everyone is ideal, but not realistic. This is because of quotas and political pressure.
If female representation in the military dropped from 15% to 5% because women had to meet the same higher standard of men, would you find that acceptable? The politicians, feminists, and top military brass certainly would not.
So the only two options left are to keep separate standards or have gender neutral standards that are low enough so an acceptable number of females can succeed.
The situation at Paris Island is only proving what everyone and their mother already suspected – the standards agreed upon in the end WILL be made low enough to make quota. The real question is whether we want to subject males to these low standards or give them a higher one (aka the old standards).
Markus, you explained it very well, thank you. With today’s salary and benefits for enlisted I don’t understand why we have a problem with recruitment and retention. What a great way for young adults to enter the working world, learn good habits and do something for their country.
I agree Marcus makes a good point.
It’s the salaries and benefits that make integration a target. They wouldn’t bother if combat/male service experience wasn’t the only path to higher levels of authority, pay, and benefits.
Hard core feminists traditionally use intimidation to acquire equality, or what amounts to a semblance of equality. Unless they actually perform it will remain an illusion.