via USNI News.
But what kills me is this gender norming bullshit. Milstead is lying his fucking ass off and he damn well knows it. Put a female loader in one tank and male in another and see which one has a higher rate of fire.
Same thing on a gun line.
Have your mythical Amazons do a forced march against a group of male Marines and see how they fair.
But the real test will be in combat. That will be interesting.
The Marine Corps intends to build up a female cadre of officers and noncommissioned officers to help women as more military occupations and units become open to females, the deputy commandant for manpower and reserve affairs told the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee on Thursday.Chesty you're a liar.
Lt. Gen. Robert Milstead Jr. told the panel that it “is not going to happen overnight,” but the Marine Corps is learning from its pilot program—48 female Marines working in 19 the battalion headquarters of previously closed positions, such as tank units—on how to proceed in opening more military occupations to women by 2016.
Milstead stressed that women will “have to meet the [same] physical standards” established for men to be accepted into training for previously male-only jobs. He said that 250 of the 335 specialties in the Marine Corps have more than one demanding physical standard. The standards, such as lifting and loading a tank round, were “developed without regard to gender.”
His Army counterpart, Lt. Gen. Howard Bromberg, said that all standards are being reviewed now as the policy is lifted that excludes women from direct ground combat operations. “We’re looking at that for the 110-pound male as well,” he said.
“The key is to validate the standard . . . to ensure it’s right,” Juliet Beyler, director of the Pentagon’s Office of Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management, said.
Milstead said the services also need to study the social and psychological impact of opening those occupations both to the women entering them—their resiliency and ability to handle stress—and the effect on small units. “It’s equally important as the physical.”
Old breed? New breed? There’s not a damn bit of difference so long as it’s the Marine breed. Chesty Puller, USMCThere's a huge fucking difference now.
But what kills me is this gender norming bullshit. Milstead is lying his fucking ass off and he damn well knows it. Put a female loader in one tank and male in another and see which one has a higher rate of fire.
Same thing on a gun line.
Have your mythical Amazons do a forced march against a group of male Marines and see how they fair.
But the real test will be in combat. That will be interesting.
"But the real test will be in combat. That will be interesting."
ReplyDeleteThats one word for it.
I see a rather darker future though.
The US is engaged in a near peer war against china.
A marine battalion is over ran, the survivors are cut off and need to force march over rough terrain to escape the Chinese forces hunting them. Do the male marines leave the female marines to the fate of task force smith, or even comfort women? Or does the entire force die?
A marine force is dug in and taking a pasting. Another enemy attack is massing and the base needs desperate reinforcement. The wars not going well and helicopter and truck logistics are in short supply.
Do reinforcements arrive late or understrength?
Marines are deployed as peace keepers during a bloody civil war.
Within days of them hitting the ground, insurgents begin targeting female marines almost exclusively.
After several high profile deaths, the Lt Col or Col comes under pressure to restrict female marines to base. Does he lose 20% of his command to terror? He doesnt.
Days later, three female marines are taken alive. Video of their brutal gang rape and murder is released on the internet before their families are informed of their capture.
Womens rights activist files law suit against Battalion Lt Col and Congresswoman calls for "thorough investigation", white house staffer refuses to answer when asked if officer has support of the CinC
Interesting?
More like bloody disaster
When seconds count, a mixed platoon is three minutes further away
oh i fully expect some female Marine to be drug through the street, raped, and then gutted on the internet.
Deletequite honestly its the fault of a weak ass JCS for allowing this bullshit to flow but they lack moral courage. i was pissed about the Marine Corps before but now i'm ready to just consider it another corrupt federal agency that has fancy mottoes that mean nothing. i'm gonna have to chew on this but the Haney's of the world got their way.
i can't wait for that bitch to join the infantry and get sent to combat. she wanted, now she has it so i hope the female steps up to the plate....or is this something that she wants for others but not herself.
was pissed about the Marine Corps before but now i'm ready to just consider it another corrupt federal agency that has fancy mottoes that mean nothing.
DeleteWow Semper Fi there, didn't take much to turn you.
you haven't been paying attention. i've been faithful to the Corps, the Corps hasn't been faithful to me. its suppose to stand for uncompromising excellence, fair treatment without favoritism.
Deleteyeah. i was loyal. the Corps hasn't been.
Your rose garden is in the mail.
Deletesloganeering is all you have to contribute to this? no one asked for a rose garden except for the females that will be in infantry units soon and glitter sneezing, tulip shitting idiots like yourself.
Delete"Milstead stressed that women will “have to meet the [same] physical standards” established for men to be accepted into training for previously male-only jobs."
ReplyDeleteThis will be over quickly then.
he was lying. they aren't going to gender norm a damn thing. standards are going to be lowered but it won't matter. all they want is what they want.
DeleteNo possible good can come of this. Women already serve in every possible way they can be useful in the military. In a lot of ways they do well but in others they already get in the way and reduce effectiveness and morale. I hate to think of it but the awful scenarios described in above comments are simply an eventuality if this road is followed.
ReplyDeletethe only good that will come of this is that when the Marine Corps finally does its "early out" programs they'll have lines around the block.
Deleterecruiting is going to become alot more difficult too. masculinity is under attack and even though they can't compete on an equal footing, they'll simply tip the scales to make sure chicks can get in. i never trusted WM's.... now? .... we'll see, but it ain't good.
What's good for the goose:
ReplyDelete"Put a female loader in one tank and male in another and see which one has a higher rate of fire.:
Put a 110 pound male loader in one tank, and a 200 pound male body builder in the other, and tell me who has a higher rate of fire? The minimum standard IS the minimum standard, there will always be high performers and marginal performers. The problem here is that the high performing female will be a marginal performer compared to the average male, and will not have the physical capacity to get better, whereas you can bulk up the men.
Since 'loader' is about core and upper body strength, I would estimate there will be a greater difference in performance between 'smaller' males and females than there will be between the 110 lb male and the 200 lb bodybuilder. But my experience is limited I was only a 118lb recruit who became a 200lb bodybuilder, working a combined cerebral/physical job my first ten years in the AF. Now I can also honestly provide the added opinion that an old fat guy could still do better than a little woman: I can and would lose weight, but the 110 lb woman isn't going to get much stronger or greatly increase her muscle endurance.
DeleteIn my first career field, which opened to women after I entered, I only ran into one female troop who could hack a full duty day humping 400lb missiles, she was over 6 ft, big-framed, not fat -- and she was still far more whupped than any of the 'small' guys. ALL the other females eventually got tired of the physical labor, and worked their way into the office/supply backroom jobs. Over time, having women in the career field increased the amount of support equipment and altered work processes. Peacetime processes accommodated the reduced physical capabilities during peacetime operations. Those processes got thrown out under combat optempo.
Are these assholes no paying any attention to the undeniable increase in sports-related injuries among young women? And this is from playing soccer and cheerleading, not full contact sports.
ReplyDeleteA simple google search:
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/HealthNotes/BonesandJoints/SportsInjuriesandPrevention/WomenandSportsInjuries.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/magazine/11Girls-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Women aren't just smaller men without penises. They have wider hips, thinner, less dense bones in their thighs and feet.
From soccer! What will it look like when they start trying to hump mortar baseplates or 50kg rucks or setting up M2HB in a pintle mount?
Somebody needs to find out what the current level of injuries and medical discharges are among female servicemembers because I have a feeling you are going to see a massive increase in surgically repaired ligaments, tendons, discs, bones. What is this going to do to Tri-care costs? What is going to be passed on to the VA?
stupid, stupid, stupid.
And the limp-dicks who don't have the guts to stand up to this like Amos are going to be retired, playing golf, and won't have to deal with the chaos left in the wake.
spot on. but the biggest boosters of this will never allow their daughters to experience this. NEVER! what they will do is have someone else's daughter go through this meat grinder and have them get destroyed mentally and physically.
Deletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1380195/Tougher-Army-training-doubles-female-injuries.html
DeleteTo get this straight:
ReplyDelete- Not much apparent concern here about the decade-after-decade incapacity to deliver a MEU's GCE to multiple insertion-points ashore in one First Wave shot ?!
- Not much apparent concern about the 'cute'/'happy' assumptions of a 12nm ship-to-shore policy at which you might lose the whole ARG/MEU-base ?!
- Therefore not much concern about the USMC's core self-defining amphibious mission-profile ?
But some are all 'verklemmt' about a few women making it to the ground-combat frontline ? Worried about getting a rice-bowl or two broken ?
If you can't do a GCE First Wave decade after decade, you might want burn server-time on how to resolve THAT most central USMC-challenge...
And it sure ain't just women at risk of being tortured, gang-raped, mutilated and killed. That happens even in peacetime, and even in quite bucolic settings far from gun-noise and tactical back-and-forth.
As to the spirit of many posting on this thread, divorce-lawyers are prone to do well, young women will turn away from that particular 'male' role-model and push to redefine certain realities - and the Republic shall survive all that laboring in long-overdue pursuit of progress towards a civilized society worthy indeed of staunch defense by all of its members - men and women alike.
The real issue is if they lower standards to specifically to allow women to serve in combat. There may indeed be some women in the 90th+ percentile who can perform at the same level as many of their male peers. There are about 12,900 women currently serving in the USMC. If you start seeing more than 5-10% of those women in combat MOS's, then we'll have an indication that the standards might be lower for women. If the standards are sacrosanct and women have to meet the requirements, then why do they have lower standards e.g. pull-ups?
Delete8 pull ups is 40pts for men, but it is 100 pts for women. Why the difference?
and as I pointed out, women aren't just smaller versions of men. They are more prone to physical injury due to their build, bone density, etc.
Are combat units going to have 100% + manning levels to account for increased injuries that women will suffer? Doubtful.
Increased rates of injuries among women will affect unit readiness because x-amount of slots in a unit will be occupied by a woman recovering from stress fractures or a torn ligament, etc.
Is that an acceptable trade-off for allowing women to serve in combat units?
Yes, the Republic will survive, but where does it say the Republic needs to be dumb, too?
Absolutely correct. And build/bone density is only the start. Women are at a complete physiological disadvantage down to the cellular level when it comes to surviving combat much less thriving in it. Women have about 20ml less blood per pound of body weight and their red blood cells transport about 20% less oxygen. As a look at the history of 20-21st century combat medicine will illustrate to anyone who is willing to do the research, most combat deaths come from shock due to blood loss. So women are more likely to have more severe injuries from equivalent use of force, AND are less likely to survive equivalent injuries. You can take almost any nominally fit male and train them up to surpass any 90+% female. The only time we should be lowering standards is when we have to: after we've run out of those who can meet the standards. I've see standards slip for kum-bah-frickin-yah reasons before, and the chances are they are going to do it again. It will all be 'fine', until suddenly - it won't be.
DeleteI do LOVE the bit about "women will turn away from that particular 'male' role-model and push to redefine certain realities". Heh. Sounds like some heavy post-modern 'equal rights' hoohaw spoon-fed to the gullible in some faux-liberal "Studies" program, or maybe just a 'Beta' pickup line? Feh.
The only unchanging thing about warfare, at least since recorded history began, is the nature of man himself. That reality is going to stomp any 'redefined' (read: contrived) reality the post-modernists are peddling in the end. Reality, REAL reality, is a b*tch.
that's going up as the quote of the week!
DeleteIt's going down no matter what hollering and hopping up and down with ...whatever. Basic Democratic Theory i.e. the rejection of well-chewed-on 'Separate-But-Equal' pomp-&-silly. Been there - done that - found to be decidedly 'deficient'.
DeleteIf most aspiring women combat-soldiers will come to fail - so they will. That is, until women advance to see that percentage of failure shrink...
We'll look back after one generation of wide-open-opportunities with the same sense of wonder, puzzlement, alarm, gratification to see repeated the astonishing growth-spurt of body-height within one generation, but this time in terms of relative physical attainment of women grown up and trained without bigotry and other such self-destructive - not to mention self-denigrating - tin-pot opining.
All pretty much a rerun of the white-male hype-and-ventilation once African Americans were ordered integrated. At any rate, it seems high time for the Cossack-Belt Test. Looking around, how many of 'sage wisdom' would pass that old measure-of-girth test. Might begin to easily rival the presumed failure-rate of women frontline warriors.
So we will come to see a black woman Marine Corps General with two Purple Hearts serving on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And she won't carry the coffee-&-cookies.
And, predictably, some will pass out from some hysteria-episode...bless their hearts.
Progress towards a fully-evolved Democracy and thus Civilized Society. And that machine will always be very hard to defeat.
Never mind the Chicken-Nanos...
http://results-2012.virginlondonmarathon.com/2012/index.php?pid=search
ReplyDeleteThe first woman came behind the first 255 men.
The tenth woman came 525th in total.
There were forty women in the top 1000
131 in the top 2000
286 in the top 3000