Posted on 04/21/2014 12:00:08 PM PDT by kingattax
Idiot? Uh, nope. Ignorant? Again, nope. If you say to me “ Move that 200 lb man” I could do it. I would use different muscles and leverage and body positions, but I could do it.
You, my friend, have obviously never been in a fight with a really determined female. Or, you could just be ignorant. (oh, and don’t even bother going there with “girls don’t fight”!)
The females in my training company were all 5’5” and under. Every single one was on crutches by the 2nd week. Shin splints from running (& to be fair, improperly fitting footwear).
Our sister company had a female cross-country runner. Running wasn’t so much the problem there.
Your post brings up a point I intentionally avoided: They didn’t need to be attractive. They merely needed to be women.
I understand that 26 men took the test with her and also failed. Were they set up to fail? ...Yes, of course. The Infantry course is set up to weed out those who do not have the physical and mental toughness necessary to make it as an Infantryman.
I know, I was was an Infantryman in the 80’s and remained in the service for almost 7 years, until injury and surgeries weeded me out. And that was a good thing. Because when you can not perform, someone, (usually you, but often someone else) will die on the battle field.
Can she carry this man out of battle with her weapon and her pack?
A short guy in a unit is a handy thing to have, especially if they are strong and fast. They can go places the guy carrying the SAW can’t go.
If you are talking espionage, having a woman in the unit is a good thing. If you are talking infiltration, again, a good thing, especially in plain clothes.
They have their uses, but the training hasn’t caught up to it yet. They make outstanding snipers. Outstanding snipers.
Red Alert!
All us wimmin’ folk will jis stay home here and have babies while all you big, strong men go off and fight the wars. Oh, yes, we’ll defend ourselves while you’re gone, cos some of us are pretty damn good with a gun, and fight like wildcats. And we do not fight fair. But that’s ok, you go off and us brood mares will just sit here. And we’ll fix the tractors, put up the hay, keep the coyote population down, ...you know, all that stuff we shouldn’t be able to do cos we are shorter and thinner than you. And when you get home, you’ll see we did just fine without you. Right down to fixin’ the truck! Which isn’t to say that we don’t need you or want you, it’s to say that we can take care of ourselves, our family and our property. but then, we’re just girls, right?
I’ve got an idea...let’s take all the women who want to be in combat and put them on the BLM SWAT team. The next stand-off can reveal 4-5 gals who are 5’3” tall trying to take down an old, 6’ rancher...
You are living in a fantasy world and a stupid one at that.
Just look at the track and field world records for men and women. A good high school boy can beat the women’s world record in most events. I probably should change that to a very good high school boy but it remains clear that the difference is not small. It is huge.
Some of the records may at first appear similar until you realize that the distances and weights are different in a lot of events. For example the men run a 110 meter high hurdle while the girls run a 100 meter hurdle which is lower.
In all the weight events the women use lighter implements.
There are ways in which women sometimes surprise and that is their ability to do work over a long period of time but that does not mean heavy lifting etc. I have seen some of the women weight lifters and I would be very surprised if some of them were not on steroids, but still they can’t approach the weight men can lift.
They should do what Rush Limbaugh suggested.
Have a Women’s Battalion that all bunk together so their menstural cycles sync up, and they all have PMS at the same time, then unleash them on the enemy.
“Actually, if you read the article, she is calling for HIGHER standards for women earlier in their testing, not lower standards.”
If the military had those higher, tougher standards for training and testing for women earlier, they would get complaints (and likely lawsuits) that the physical fitness standards for women are too high and discriminatory.
I bet ultimately they will end up dropping their physical fitness standards for everyone (men and women) and then we can all be happy pretending that the average woman is equal in strength to the average man.
Sorry.
Talk about missing the point.
This is Marine Infantry Training, not Marine Infantry Logistics Training.
Expeditionary missions, limited support in the field, highly independent, high exposure to enemy forces, highly mobile, outfitted with 65 to 120 lbs of personal gear, probability of hand-to-hand combat is between 30 to 50%.
Either put them in the rear with the gear, or you deploy them behind enemy lines individually or in very small teams.
First hand experience. I enlisted in the Marines in January 1959, with a “guarantee” for aviation. The “guarantee” was contingent upon passing all tests. Otherwise, it would be 0311 - Rifleman. I was assigned to NAS Memphis schools for testing and assignment.
We had three choices of schools, so I chose Guided missiles (which I really wanted), hydraulics and aviation electrician. I was beaten out for the guided missile school by a WM, because her test scores were higher than mine.
As for this WM, she dropped out on the fist day because she wasn’t good enough. And neither were the 26 men who dropped out with her.
My point being is that she’s not calling for women to be let off easy.
Not all of the males got a second try.
It happens throughout the military. My son was a boomer for 14 years, but seeing as how females couldn't go to sea, they took all the shore billets.
Even though he was a single father with two kids, he only had one two-year tour in 14 years. Even though he wanted to be a lifer, he had to get out for the sake of his kids.
He now works as a civilian for the Navy Dept, working on the same equipment on the same boats, at home every night. Oh, and he makes a LOT more money now.
Anecdotal nonsense
My ex wife was handy with a knife
Didn’t make her a ghurka
PC folks be what they is....full of dookie
Most people here don’t know jack shit about life and death violence or war zones or just brutal environments
Women are not as capable as men strength or mental.
It is wishful thinking lunacy to think otherwise
History did not try to spare women from violence because men were oppressive to women but rather to protect them from it given they are not as capable period across the board...baring a few exceptions
A military or culture determined by exceptions will soon fail like anything else
These policies are fomented by politicians and academia who hate our military anyhow and are catering to lesbian field officers stuck in rank with no CIB laurels
And no resistance from our PC perfumed brass afraid to lose decent pensions awarded full birds and stars
Sad shit all round
Brutality in which women and children suffer most is no video game or silly commercial
Sheildmaidens and Amazon’s were myths....not real
No one purposely throws women into combat....they are a last resort...
Like Hitler youth....
Silly Freepers....why am I not surprised.
I served, too (1959-62), and can just imagine the problems that could develop with mixed-sex units. I never served with a woman and it would have seemed odd to me, and the other men with whom I served, to have a female in our midst. Not that we were anti-woman, you understand, it's just that the military seemed to us to be an all-male opeation.
Give her a week in the field in Vietnam and I guarantee she’d be cured.
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.