Posted on 01/15/2014 6:32:13 AM PST by Phillyred
I KNOW that I will probably get some flack for this, but I just can't hold my tongue any longer on this issue of female Marines participating in combat.
I've been following this story closely for the past two years, and let's just say that this is where the egalitarian rubber meets the road.
If you haven't been following the story, here's the skinny:
More than half of female Marines can't do three pull-ups, and that's the minimum standard that the Marine Corps designated to integrate women into combat jobs. According to the military, eight pull-ups is a perfect score for females, but male recruits must do 20 pull-ups for a perfect score.
If we're all the same, why the gender exception? Shouldn't women be required to do 20 pull-ups, too?
Additionally, female recruits should also be physically capable of climbing a rope, scaling a wall, marching 12 miles with an 88-pound pack and, of course, be capable of throwing a wounded comrade over one's shoulder while running under combat fire to safety.
Now, don't get me wrong. As a red-blooded, equal-rights-loving American womanist and fitness enthusiast, I fully salute any woman who can make the grade by passing this physically and emotionally grueling test. And, sure, there may be a few outliers that can actually achieve it, but they will be the rare exception.
The question is, will those few outliers be enough to make a difference? I doubt it. Should we be tailoring the toughest and most physically demanding military training by gender? Absolutely not!
I get it. We are on this nonsensical egalitarian trip and just don't want to admit the truth - women and men are different.
That's right, folks - women cannot compete physically with men.
Does anyone find this fact surprising?
For example, let's just take WNBA phenomenon Candice Parker, who some say is the best female basketball player. Now, with all due respect to Ms. Parker, does anyone think that she could be a serious contender in the NBA competing against top male basketball players like LeBron, Kobe or Kevin Garnett? Of course not, right? Why? Because even the best female basketball player is no match for her male counterpart, whose sheer physicality would in all probability crush her's 99.9 percent of the time.
Without a doubt, most people would agree that a co-ed NBA is probably a bad idea, just like integrating women into direct ground-combat fighting teams.
Although I am all about equal opportunity, lowering the bar and allowing women to squeak by with the basic minimum fitness requirements is a disservice to all. You're either qualified to do the job, or not. Lowering the standards for political correctness is not just irresponsible, it will, no doubt, prove to be deadly.
Kimberly Garrison is a wellness coach and owner of One on One Ultimate Fitness in Philadelphia. Her column appears Wednesdays.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/living/20140115_Men_and_women_the_same__Tell_it_to_the_marines.html#QgAS8LurcfYmxgoI.99
The first time I read this story, I went out in the yard to the swing set to give it a try. I did 3 pull ups. I won’t say it was easy but I’m 68 years old.
I am not a supporter of changing standards for women, simply to get them into combat positions. But if they want to treat women equally, why aren’t they required to register for Selective Service at age 18, just like young men are? It seems this would be an easy fix.
Other than a few crazy liberal loons, the comments on the article read like the comments on Free Republic. Maybe all is not lost after all.
Wasn't this tried already? Someone from the WNBA tried to play with the big boys and got badly embarrassed. Cheryl Swopes comes to mind, but I don't know if that was here.
It was back in the late 80s-early 90s, if memory serves.
Not just the draft. When a woman actually qualifies to enter the 0311 or related combat career field they need to meet ALL of the same requirements on an ongoing basis just as men do. Like men, they don’t have the choice to opt out, they take what they are assigned to. Remove the option to get pregnant and thus avoid deployment or other such duties; if they become pregnant within 30 days of a deployment they will be charged with malingering. If they are deferred for pregnancy, they will be immediately at the top of the list to deploy within 4 months of birth, no exemptions. Women have always had way too many “outs” when it comes to assigning them to these MOS’s.
Totally agree. And as an earlier poster said, let’s take this “equality” all the way to its logical conclusion (not that logic matters in the world of the left) and make women sign up for the draft. Equal means equal, not equal when it benefits women but unequal when it doesn’t. BTW, why aren’t more of these feminists clamoring for equality in the number of ditch diggers and garnbage collectors?
What better way to destroy the American family, and finally, our very way of life?
Panetta was brought to DC by his fellow Californian, Richard M. Nixon. The Nixon legacy continues.
That’s one thing you can’t really lay at his feet. It’s been an issue for over 40 years. There was at one point in the 80s and 90s a “Social Actions” career field, which has morphed into something even more politically correct, the name of which escapes me at the moment. Without exception, every person I ever met in that career field was a member of an ethnic minority who could barely function in the written or spoken word. So, social experimentation run by social experiments - what did we think would happen? The ethnic minority individuals who were intelligent, articulate and more than barely competent scorned this career field and with good reason.
I don't disagree with you, but the military would be crossing into some unsavory territory, dictating when and where a pregnancy could occur. What if the woman claimed to be using birth control, and on the night before their deployment, that birth control failed? Additionally, taking the mother away from babies and young children at ANY time is cruel and anti-family.
Of course, this is not about equality in Obama's eyes. This is just another 100-pound weight to strap onto the camel's back, waiting for it to collapse completly.
I’m sure every liberal has a hand in diluting standards in the military along with weak kneed republican cowards.
I disagree, this too was a decision put in place by the “greatest generation”, they knew where they were going.
When the 2% limit was removed for women, then the sky was the limit.
“”In August 1972, all military occupational specialties (MOSs) opened to WAC officers and enlisted women except those that might require combat training or duty.
The advent of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973 made a large difference in the numbers of women coming into the Army. As a result of recruitment and greater opportunities, the total number of WACs in the Army increased from 12,260 in 1972 to 52,900 in 1978.
Army women had been allowed to rig parachutes during World War II, but could not participate in parachute jumps. In 1950 a Parachute Rigger Course was added to the Quartermaster School curriculum at Fort Lee, Va. It was not initially open to female soldiers since they were not “jump-qualified.” That changed in 1972 when 43E was added to WAC active duty list of available MOSs. Within months, female soldiers were graduating from the parachute rigger course, assigned to airborne units around the country, and were jumping with their own chutes.
Post-Vietnam woman soldier
The move to the All-Volunteer Force led the Army to begin recruiting women aggressively for the Reserve components. As with the active force, recruiting, training, and opportunities improved for women, and by the end of September 1978, the Army Reserve had approximately 25,000 WACs and the Army National Guard had over 13,000.
Women entered the Army Reserve Officers Training Program (ROTC) beginning in September 1972. South Dakota State University was the first to graduate women in the college ROTC program, on May 1, 1976. By May 1981, approximately 40,000 women were enrolled in college and university ROTC units throughout the United States. Young women (age 14) could enter the Junior ROTC in 1972. By May 1981, over 32,000 were enrolled in the high school units.
Weapons training for women became mandatory in June 1975. In 1976, the weapons training program was expanded to include additional small arms weapons, the light antitank weapon (LAW), the 40mm grenade launcher, the Claymore mine, and the M60 machine gun. Weapons training began with training on the Ml6 rifle. Women officers, warrant officers, cadets, and officer candidates received the same weapons training as men.
By 1977, combined basic training for men and women became policy after a test conducted at Fort Jackson the year before.
Vietnam, elimination of the draft, and the rise of the feminist movement had an impact on the Women’s Army Corps. There was a renewed emphasis on parity and increased opportunity for women in uniform. On May 24, 1974, Congress reduced the minimum age for enlistment of women to the same as men – age 17 with parental consent (18 without), effective April 1, 1976.
On October 7, 1975, President Ford signed Public Law 94-106 that permitted women to be admitted to all service academies beginning in 1976. On Jan. 1, 1976, length of long tours in overseas areas was increased from twenty-four months to thirty-six months for single females, the same as tours for single males. On June 30, 1975, the Secretary of Defense directed elimination of involuntary discharge of military women because of pregnancy and parenthood.””
Well, they are actually.
And you see them all the time, holding the 'STOP/SLOW' signs and driving the truck.
Within 30 days of deployment or during deployment it is within their control to NOT become pregnant. It is their RESPONSIBILITY, just as it is the responsibility of deploying males not to take actions that would disable them or preclude them from deployment as well as actions during the deployment such as shooting themselves in the foot or contracting venereal diseases that would take them off the line.
Taking the mother away from the baby! Why is that ANY different than taking the father away? Enlisting, choosing a combat career field or choosing any field that might potentially put you in a combat situation is a fully informed decision that each should be making. Make your choice; stay at home motherhood or a military career that might separate you from the child. Men have been doing this for a long time; isn’t that cruel and anti-family? Want equality? Then take responsibility and live with the same rules. Equality means just that.
To be fair, Allendale and I responded to Phillyred's comment:
And it is one thing for them to be allowed in these roles, but now the government is promoting it to women more than men now.
We did not question whether females have a proper role in the military, but did argue that political correctness has currently contaminated the thinking behind the issue of how and where they should serve.
Speaking for myself, no matter what Hollywood tried to do with Demi Moore and Meg Ryan, females in a fire fight are ultimately a liability.
Make that: “...in a prolonged and mixed sex fire fight.”
Can you elaborate on that? Panetta ran for congress and was my congressman for many terms.
There is no question that women deployed in gender appropriate role can enhance the combat effectiveness of an army when there are manpower shortages.The Israelis have pioneered this concept. However what is not commonly known is that these women rarely see or are expected to see actual combat. However the politically correct “gender neutral” policy of today’s Pentagon reflects current political realities rather than the hard lessons of combat. During the Battle of the Bulge the very outcome and the number of casualties would have been far worse if support troops were not committed to the battle. In today’s army most of those “support troops” are women, many of whom are pregnant at any given time. The use of women in combat roles will endanger the men and make units less effective. No one can say with certainty when the American army will be as hard pressed as they were at the Battle of the Bulge ,Chosin or Hue again. The only certainty will be that if a future battle goes badly for our new gender neutral fighting force, the politicians will scurry and will never be held accountable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.