Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Welcome to the Suck

The Marine Corps has been ordered to allow women to serve in ground combat units.

Personally, I would like to have seen all high school, collegiate, Olympic, and professional sports teams opened to both genders before the military. That could have served as a testing ground and given everyone the opportunity to see how the genders compare in head to head physical competition.

But okay, it was coming to this and it is no surprise. It's being done for the the emotional feels it generates as we go into an election cycle.

Here's my proposal. Hold the current physical fitness standards for all personnel. Remove any adjustment in physical fitness testing for female Marines. If female recruits cannot pass the minimum standard, they don't graduate from recruit training. If they can't pass the standard for any MOS, they cannot hold that MOS. To the extent that physical fitness scores are used for job selection or promotion, the results can no longer be skewed like they have been for decades.

Anything else will sacrifice the lives of Marines on the altar of political correctness.

14 comments:

burt said...

Agreed. Standards exist for a reason: to ensure a sufficient level of performance across all members in a specific group.

To use an example that the non-veterans among us might understand, firefighting standards include the ability to lift and carry a specific amount of deadweight that represents an unconscious individual. If you can't lift and carry that deadweight "out of the building", you endanger your life, the life of the person you're trying to save, and the lives of any other firefighters who have to "cover your ass" because you couldn't do the job.

I'm ok with anyone - including gender - who can pass the existing standards for ground combat troops. Those standards were developed over time and after understanding the stress that troops undergo during battle. Changing the standards doesn't change the stress of battle, but it DOES endanger the lives of others on the team who have to "cover the ass" of the member who CANNOT pull his/her weight.

burt said...

Agreed. Standards exist for a reason: to ensure a sufficient level of performance across all members in a specific group.

To use an example that the non-veterans among us might understand, firefighting standards include the ability to lift and carry a specific amount of deadweight that represents an unconscious individual. If you can't lift and carry that deadweight "out of the building", you endanger your life, the life of the person you're trying to save, and the lives of any other firefighters who have to "cover your ass" because you couldn't do the job.

I'm ok with anyone - including gender - who can pass the existing standards for ground combat troops. Those standards were developed over time and after understanding the stress that troops undergo during battle. Changing the standards doesn't change the stress of battle, but it DOES endanger the lives of others on the team who have to "cover the ass" of the member who CANNOT pull his/her weight.

Guffaw in AZ said...

"If female recruits cannot pass the minimum standard, they don't graduate from recruit training. If they can't pass the standard for any MOS, they cannot hold that MOS. To the extent that physical fitness scores are used for job selection or promotion, the results can no longer be skewed like they have been for decades."

Yep.

Won't happen though.
Political Correctness is killing the Republic!

gfa

R.K. Brumbelow said...

We have a republic? I suspect it has been a while since we had an actual republic for even functional values of republic.

Sherm said...

Those pushing this do so, in part, because they know that no one they personally know and care for will ever be subject to these changes.

They view the military as just another government sinecure.

ShallNOTBeInfringed Original said...

What's that word they use for those who can't hack it and get "killed by "friendly" fire.....is it fragging?

maxsnafu said...

I hope this discourages young men from joining the military.

Tony Tsquared said...

I was in a "Joint Unit" that provided communications to some unique military groups. We had females in this element. There was blatant double standards to allow sub-standard females multiple opportunities to qualify on required tasks.

When I was a E-6 I was tasked with teaching a young female how to drive a deuce and a half as this was a requirement to be pentle tow qualified to be in this unit. She had never driven any vehicle. I spent a year teaching her how to drive. After a year I refused to sign off on her going to take the driving test as I said she was not ready. My supervisor signed off and she went to take the test. She totaled a 5-ton with her Deuce during the test.

They moved her to another position and someone else spent another year teaching her how to drive. They finally gave up and pencil whipped her qualification and kept her away from the drivers seat until she got out.

On the other hand there was a male soldier that failed the driving test. They reassigned him to another unit that wasn't as much a cherry assignment as what we had.

Borepatch said...

Welcome to the real War On Women.

Old NFO said...

Once again the military is being used as a social experiment... AND, IMHO, yet another attempt to drive people away from joining the military.

Gary Marson said...

You know that when women are being allowed in front line combat roles that the high command is sure that the big shows are over.

I think modern military thinking is that conflicts will result in very low casualties for American troops. This is due to superior weapons and training as well as modern armor for bullet protection and superior battlefield info systems and sensors.

Can you imaging what the hue and cry would be if the mummies and daddies of these career princesses were to confront their precious daughters coming home in body bags in any quantity over say 20 to 50? The dads would sue the US government for not "taking care" of their precious princesses on the battlefield. Nope, the US high command does not envision high body counts going forward. So females can persue
their civil service jobs with relative safety and gain a career that would make mum and dad proud.

Goober said...

I presume women will be required to fill out selective service registrations at age 18 now, too?

No?

So equality doesn't mean what I think it means then, eh?

Goober said...

I presume women will be required to fill out selective service registrations at age 18 now, too?

No?

So equality doesn't mean what I think it means then, eh?

coconut commando said...

From the Army side of the house, we've been ordered by SECDEF Carter to "allow" women into combat roles. I've personally seen a very small number of women that have performed better than their male counterparts in a firefight, but even they will tell you that it's not a "career opportunity" like it's being presented. That being said, if they want to push this social experiment down our throats, then ALL women should be required by law to register with selective service upon their 18th birthday.