If women are suitable for combat units like Infantry, then why do standards need to be lowered?

here is the link

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... omen-afte/

Marines did an 18 month test, and not one female made it through infantry officer training. The logical person would say that putting females into combat units does not work, but when are liberals every logical? If women are going to serve, they will have to lower the standard.

This month 20 females will start US Army Ranger School. They hoped for 40, but only 20 passed the pre-ranger test. Generally around 60% of males pass the pre ranger qualification, but only 17% of females have passed.

I wonder what the cost to the American tax payer on all of this is.

Is the mission to still "Fight and Win America's Wars", or is it to carry out social experiments?

From the article

"Two years ago, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the nation’s top military officer, laid down an edict on the Obama administration’s plan to open direct land combat jobs to women: If women cannot meet a standard, senior commanders better have a good reason why it should not be lowered."


read that again "If women cannot met a standard, senior commanders better have a good reason why it should not be lowered"


One more time - "If women cannot met a standard, senior commanders better have a good reason why it should not be lowered"


Does it not make more sense for Commanders to have a good reason on why a standard WOULD BE LOWERED?

Standards are high because combat is tough. When you lower the standard, you get a substandard product. Substandard in combat equates to losing in combat.


I am not getting how this leads to lethality, success on the battlefield, winning America's wars. did I miss something?

Homophobic and gynophobic!! Lawdy, lawdy RangerPP, you've faced enemies in combat fiercer than most women and homosexuals.

When I say stuff like this I always run the risk of being ridiculed for putting down RangerPP because he is soldier, a Ranger no less, an actual warrior and should get a free pass. I think he understands I mean no disrespect for him or that service. I felt the need to type this, but am feeling a bit of Stockholm syndrome, too, causing me to be overly nice.

I am a US citizen. On here, nothing else matters. No free passes for anyone

No one anywhere owes me an ounce of kindness, niceness, or thanks. Any job I have worked was voluntary, and I deserve nothing more than the teacher, lawyer, doctor, plumber, fisherman, policeman, welder, mechanic, dentist.......All of us have our 1st Amendment rights.


Now, the facts still remain. According to the facts presented, to get women into the combat unites, there is talk of lowering standards.

A military with lower standards will have be less lethal. do you want lethality and ability to win in combat, or do you want social play land where everyone gets a trophy.

Call me a homophobe all day long. it does not change the factual evidence I provided. homosexuality and pedophilia are connected. The fact that you do not like hearing the truth, does not make it any less truthful.

Makes for a good joke, but when it comes to the defense of the nation and the Constitution, I am generally not into jokes.

This topic is real, and should be alarming.

Sounds like they need to test better females. Like Gina Carano or Ronda Rousey!

I have trained some very impressive female fighters. they are impressive when they fight other females. Same goes for female boxers. Put them against a male, and they are not so impressive.

Rhonda Rousey's mother is a former judo Olympian. When asked about her daughter fighting a man, she replied.

"That's a stupid idea," she said. "Seriously, that's a stupid idea. I'm as much a feminist as anyone but the fact is that biologically, there's a difference between men and women. Hello, duh. A woman who is 135 pounds and a man who is 135 pounds are not physically equal."


here is the link - http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/265436- ... rcent-men/

The Marine Corps selected the top women to send to their infantry school. These women were in top physical condition. Very few of them passed the first day. I do not believe any made it past the third day.


Look at men with 10 plus years in the infantry, and see what it does to their body. See the back, knee, and other injuries that carrying the ruck sack puts on the body. What happens when you put that same stress on a smaller framed, women's body? What does it do to her in reference to reproductive organs, and osteoporosis? Is it ethical to even do such a thing.

Presently the mixing of genders in our military has not worked out so well. The sexual assault problem is still not solved. With so few women able to make it into the combat ranks, what would it do to the elite few that get put into a male dominated world? Is it tax effective, does it increase lethality, and is it ethical to put women in that position?

You to smart for me rangerP, I'm going back and play in the for sale forum!

I agree with RangerP on this one, I am still in and it pisses me off that they keep talking about lowering standards for females, because they constantly cannot keep up with how low they already are, and this in >85% of them. And this is for the minimum standards, but yet they want to fill the slots that are currently closed to females, but not meet the same standards that males are held to for the exact same slot. Sound like a load of bullshit to me. And trust me if they can do it then more power to them, but in 2 of my tours to a wonderful place across the pond, we had 3 different female medics and out of that only 1 was able to keep up with us, the other 2 either couldn't handle the physical aspect and the other couldn't deal with what all was happening on more than daily basis.

And by the way cross-fit has nothing to do with shooting and having the possiblity to drag dead weight for 50-100 yrds if need be. I can tell you that 150 lbs of that is a real SOB to drag!

Just my .02, from someone that deals with this shit.

RangerP - I enjoy some of your well educated and backed-up posts! You are one quote heavy indivdual.

bayouboy - you had an outstanding and logical question.

Tyler Johnson - Remember, Google can make a dummy like me look half way good, and even a blind hog finds an occasional acorn.

So is this post informative or an objection?

I have served with some very capable females Officer and Enlisted. Yes there are physiological differences in male and females, hence different APFT standards. But I think female Soldiers have already proven their worth in combat.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16391

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23547346/ns/u ... fghan-war/

http://nation.time.com/2013/01/28/ameri ... ane-sight/

I say go ahead let them try, they have earned that and we don't know until it is proven wrong, in a training environment if they pass let them go. You should try serving with females more often, you'll like their special brand of drama and hygiene issues - you can add some validity to your argument by pointing out the dramatic increase in female hygiene issues in a deployed environment. Run your concerns up your chain of command, see what that gets you.

Baron Vom stated "I say go ahead let them try, they have earned that and we don't know until it is proven wrong"



They already tried, and it failed. The Marines tested them for 18 months, and all failed. Of those going to just pre-ranger, only 17% passed, where 60% of males pass.

It is not cost effective to the American tax payer. it will not increase lethality, and it is not ethical when you consider what it does to the female body and the problems with sexual assaults.

Once again, are we looking to fight and win America's wars, or do social experiments.

HAHA... Those issues going up the cahin someohoe disappear! Or atleast they did with us! Good pint Baron. I have also had many capable females whether they are enlisted or officers, I get your point, my only problem is why cant we have the same standard across the board if we are to share positions and jobs equally? There should be no difference in standard correct? Either lower their or lower the males standard to meet that of the opposite sex?

RP "They already tried, and it failed. The Marines tested them for 18 months, and not one failed."


if not one failed - what's the problem?

Yeah, normally helps when one of them if fucking a person in that chain! Thats the only way I have every seen things get better for the MP platoon we had with us on our last trip!

Before I go.....I to agree with you ranger p, The standards should not be lowered, if you cant complete the training then "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" ( no matter who you are). The Air Force didn't play this crap during G training. They upped the standard. lol

I don't think anyone is saying lowering the standards for these courses - the main concern is will it be wasting more GVT dollars and lowering the combat effectiveness of units they are assigned to

Yea, yea, it was a typing error. Of all females attending Marine infantry officer school - ALL FAILED


Go back and look at the title of this thread ".....Lower your standards for the women"

read the article, and see where the discussion is about "lowering the standards" is the topic.


the reason for lowering the standard is because females can not pass the current standard.

Current standards were not created to be anti-female. Experts who led soldiers, who commanded in combat, got with the Physical Education experts, and the doctors, and the number crunchers, and they came up with what the minimums for endurance, strength, and total fitness to have soldiers that can serve in combat.

The minimum standards to just serve in the military are much lower than those to serve in infantry unites. When you move to the more elite unites, Rangers, Seals, Air Force PJ, Special Forces, delta....you get even higher standards.

Once again, the topic of the post is not fairness and trophies for all, it is the very likely possibility of lowering standards to appease feminists and liberals.

Dguidry stated "founding fathers much preferred to put chains around the necks of slaves. Wouldn't have wanted them to get too uppity."



No, the Founding Fathers never sent folks to Africa to make slaves of the black folks and chain their necks.

Slavery existed for hundreds of years in America prior to their ever being a founding father.

many of the founding fathers did not believe slavery was proper, and they wrote a Declaration and Constitution that did not agree with slavery. Thus the reason that in less than a hundreds years after forming this great nation, slavery was abolished by Republicans. Republican party formed out of the old Free Soil party in an effort to stop slavery.

It was the democrat that wanted to keep the chain of slavery around the black man's neck. it was the democrat that formed the KKK. it was the democrat that passed Jim Crow. It was the democrat that lynched blacks. It was the democrat that fought desegregation.

Baron Von stated "I don't think anyone is saying lowering the standards for these courses "


DID YOU EVEN READ THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD?

DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE?

THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION IS ABOUT LOWERING STANDARDS BECAUSE FEMALES CAN NOT PASS THE CURRENT ONES.

[/quote]Ok, so a bunch of male doctors, male officers who led soldiers, and male experts got together and decided what the minimum standard should be for female soldiers.[/quote]

So Im guessing your point is that we should also RE-TRY all the females convicts and such for being sentenced and convicted by male judges?

If women are so capable why aren't 18 year olds having to register for the draft like young men do.

Selective service than.

Dguidry stated "Ok, so a bunch of male doctors, male officers who led soldiers, and male experts got together and decided what the minimum standard should be for female soldiers."



NO, that is not what happened.,

Experts determined the bottom standards for combat soldiers. Genitalia had nothing to do with the standards.

Most men do not pass the standards for units like Rangers, Marine Infantry, Special Forces, Delta....

As to date, zero women have passed.

Now people are butt hurt because when they let women try, they failed.


There is not such thing as a gender standard for combat. A freaking tank round weighs what it weights. A 75 pound ruck sack weighs 75 pounds. A 12 mile road march is 12 miles long. Jumping up over your head, grabbing a window, and pulling your body weight plus combat weight is tough regardless if you have a penis.

Women have shown that they can not pass the minimum standards for the combat units. It does not make them bad people, any more than a man that fails the standards. not all are cut out to be combat soldiers.

This is not a hard concept to grasp.

That is an exellent question that I have an answer to:

Women Aren't Required to Register
Here's why:

THE LAW
Selective Service law as it is written now refers specifically to "male persons" in stating who must register and who would be drafted. For women to be required to register with Selective Service, Congress would have to amend the law.

THE SUPREME COURT
The constitutionality of excluding women was tested in the courts. A Supreme Court decision in 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg, held that registering only men did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced, on January 24, 2013, the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members. The service branches continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. Ongoing project is still underway.



NOTE: The Selective Service System, if given the mission and additional modest resources, is capable of registering and drafting women.

RangerPP: Are you kidding me? You are now a revisionist for slavery in america, too?? So our founding fathers got up one morning and said to themselves, "Hey, ya'll (south of mason dixon) or everyone, we've got all these black people here and we don't like it. What should we do? Well, lets wait 100 years to figure this out."

"Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery. The considerable investment of Southern Founders in slave-based staple agriculture, combined with their deep-seated racial prejudice, posed additional obstacles to emancipation."

Makes one wonder that if they were alive to day, they would have left the abolition of slavery to the states.

Good Reads:

http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/heres- ... -bad-idea/ (written by a female! Holy shit!)

http://nation.time.com/2013/07/25/the-c ... to-combat/ (talks about diversity if the priority and not readiness)