October 24, 2012, - 3:20 pm

After Women Fail Marine Infantry Course, USMC to Use “Gender Neutral” Standards So Chicks Pass

By Debbie Schlussel

Much has been made by Mitt Romney of Barack Obama’s significant shrinking of America’s military. And he’s right about that. But another very serious problem is the feminization and chickification of the U.S. Armed Forces, which makes us even weaker. Of course, Romney would never point that out because he’s 1) not a conservative and doesn’t care about that, and 2) he doesn’t want to be accused again of a “war on women.” What we really have here is the women’s war on America’s military, and now, that’s the case with the feminist war on the U.S. Marine Corps. But the women failed.


U.S. Marine Corps Gets Chickified

I’ve written about the many successful attempts to feminize the U.S. Armed Forces and other attempts that haven’t been successful . . . yet. These includes the push to allow women to become Navy SEALs and to force U.S. Army men to wear fake breasts and wombs to “identify with” women in the military. And, now, there is the case of the women who tried to become Marine infantrymen but dropped out because they failed. The U.S. Marine Corps is considering lowered, “gender neutral standards” so women can pass. That’s how it always works, or rather, doesn’t work, but is put into place anyway. In the long term, this is as bad as shrinking the military because it means that the non-shrunk portion won’t pass muster under the normal standards.

The Marine Corps’ effort to evaluate whether more combat jobs should open to women marked another milestone last week when the second of two female volunteers washed out of infantry officer training.

A second lieutenant, she was dropped from the program Friday after failing to complete required training due to unspecified medical reasons, a Marine official told Marine Corps Times. It’s unclear whether she was injured or if she became ill.

“Medical reasons”? Is that what they are calling failure, these days. On the other hand, uterus is, indeed, a medical term. Nice excuse, though.

The other volunteer, also a second lieutenant, dropped out Sept. 28 after she was unable to complete the program’s introductory combat endurance test. Nearly 30 men also washed out on the first day.

Known as the Infantry Officers Course, the demanding 13-week program is based at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. The current class, which began with 109 students, is the first to have included women. On average, about 25 percent of the men who enroll in IOC fail to complete it and voluntarily withdraw.

The Corps sought female volunteers for the course as part of a broader research effort to assess how female Marines might perform in assignments whose primary mission is direct ground combat — jobs they are prohibited from filling now. Just the two women stepped forward. Marine officials have declined to identify them, citing a desire to protect their privacy.

And a desire to protect these failures and the obvious conclusion here, which is that women cannot cut it in these jobs and their presence as infantrymen would make America weak at war. But don’t worry, not to be confused by the facts–the sheer facts of failure and lack of competence–the Marines will try again to foist feminism on the infantry.

At Quantico, those overseeing the IOC experiment have said that it will involve up to 100 female officers and take at least a year to complete. The Marine official, speaking on condition of anonymity, reaffirmed the Corps’ intent to recruit female volunteers for subsequent iterations of the course.

“This was just the first shot,” the official said. . . .

As part of the Corps’ ongoing review, officials have opened nearly 400 jobs in select ground combat units — billets in artillery and tank battalions, among others — to female officers and staff noncommissioned officers. Previously, only men were allowed to fill those jobs. Additionally, Marine officials are exploring whether the service should develop “gender-neutral” physical standards.

Translation: lowering the standards. In 3-2-1 . . . . It’s not a matter of if, just when. More American men will die on the battlefield because of this. That’s not my opinion. It’s an inevitability.

Reader Duane:

Liberal mentality is always “don’t raise the bridge lower the water” when attempting to prove their point that everyone is equal-as long as the standards are lowered so that those who aren’t can be. Eventually, their social engineering experiment will result in the total collapse of this country.

Non-Semper Fidelis, bitches.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

45 Responses

Interesting article DS, I know at the sametime your not saying that women are forbidded to serve in the US military, what your saying is that they should’nt serve hand-to-hand combat on the ground!

What if a male soldier is injured real bad during a combat war, I pretty much doubt that the female soldier will be able to lift up the male soldier on her shoulders, because physically she can’t do it, while the male soldier weighs well over 200 lbs. And this is NOT me being misogynistic, so you PCers, back off and try to reason what me, Debbie and all of us here are saying.

Now if women want to serve in the military, they can either serve in the Air Force to fly jet-planes, in the Navy with all the computers there, etc., or they can even be “contractors” (I know during the Iraq war, from what I’ve heard and read, the contractors outnumbered our soldiers by a slight margin). And I won’t be surprised if dumbasses on both the left-wing and the right-wing may troll here and begin to make immature and irrational personal-attacks on Debbie’s personality, etc., there too predictable when DS writes an article like this!

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on October 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm

Our Armed Forces should not be used as a Laboratory or a place to adopt new social norms. Any policy change should have one, and only one, consideration.

Will the new policy increase the ability of the Armed Forces to inflict violence in such a way that will enhance the security of the United States of America.

If the answer to the above is not Yes, the proposed policy (and those who support it) can go to hell.

I_AM_ME on October 24, 2012 at 3:58 pm

I went through same thing YEARS ago. Police test. Wriiten exam was If you are Black give yourself 10 points,if you are a vet 10 points(good) If you are a woman,etc… Physical was worse skewed than written. You would have thought you were applying for different type jobs.

Stoopid Billie on October 24, 2012 at 3:59 pm

Debbie, as a former 10 year Marine veteran, I am saddened that the beloved Corps that I served would be on the forefront of this feminist crap. This is the one of the main reasons why after 10 years I decided to get out because at the time, I could see the PC/feminist ruining all the military.

Unfortunately, we have military brass who are more beholden to their careers and cushy defense contractor/lobbying jobs after their military service, to give a damn about the fighting MAN.

I served under the two years of the 1st George Bush and the full 8 years of Mr. Clinton. I knew back then that once the PC crap began rolling downhill it would not stop. I wonder if our enemies are concerned about womens rights in their militaries ala Islamic jihadist? If we continue this way, who knows how Americas standing will be?

I know there was a remake of RED DAWN being made by MGM before MGM went out of business. In this remake, America is occupied by the Chinese/North Koreans, which might not be fantasy if our military is allowed to be continued downgraded. I better start buying a Rossetta Stone language package for Mandarin Chinese because i might be needing later on.

Mario on October 24, 2012 at 4:01 pm

I think smoking pot and other drugs is a big contributor to leftist thinking. These drugs alter your brain and blur the lines of logic and reasoning. When they do these drugs, all boundaries disappear. Unfortunately, leftists continue that way of thinking even when they are not high on drugs.

David on October 24, 2012 at 4:21 pm

when it comes time for a real fight in a real war women will be absent form the battlefield. No first world nation will willingly send young women to die…their job is to stay in the home and have the babies while the men go off to fight and die.

chuck on October 24, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Big surprise there, huh? I remember as a youngster hearing about affirmative action too.

samurai on October 24, 2012 at 4:43 pm

The current standards ARE gender-neutral.

Men wash out more than women do!

Why the heck would the Marines want to change them? To favor women, of course! Its not politically to point out, ahem – that few women can endure harsh training required for intense combat and very few want to.

Forget G.I Jane – you know the movie. That’s only a movie and in real life men don’t want to fight with women in the foxholes. Whatever advances have been made in mechanized warfare, its still about strength and brute force, stupid!

A fact of life feminists and the military brass ignore. All for the dubious privilege of having America’s daughters coming back home in body bags! Let’s hear it for equality in the military!

No wonder the Muslim World is laughing at us.

NormanF on October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm

Desert Storm had it’s fair share of females getting pregnant on purpose to avoid battle. Then there were the enterprising democrats that charged for their services in the portajohns that were available. Sickening stories of mysterious white streams appearing, not far from long lines of customers. During peacetime it was bad enough…. I guess this concern is small potatoes compared to the ANA our good young men are forced to serve with.

samurai on October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm

Somehow I doubt our enemies are lowering standards when they are shooting at us.

I also oppose giving veterans a ten point preference. That is what is done in federal civil service jobs, and many of these vets are screw-offs, incompetents or both. If you are opposed to affirmative action, then you should be opposed to giving veterans preference, for a non-combat related job (being a policeman or a fireman is a combat related type job).

I believe it was Nonsense Pelosi or some other female congressman who wanted the military to redesign their equipment to make the equipment lighter so women who are weaker would be able to “carry their load.”

Jonathan E Grant on October 24, 2012 at 5:39 pm

Frankly, I’d breathe better if those women stayed HOME AND DIDN’T HAVE BABIES.

As goes Israel, so goes the World... on October 24, 2012 at 5:53 pm

I believe that if women can’t cut it, then they need to move on and realize they don’t have what it takes. Sorry.

Feminism in 2012 makes me barf. Let me use two crude but apt examples of a very sobering truth dopes don’t wanna accept. Men are a hell of a lot stronger than women and there ain’t NOTHING one can do about it.

At the gym, I saw a retarded episode of “Jersey Shore” (Rows of flat screen TVs are suspended from the ceiling) where two of the Guido idiots beat each other up. It was scary to me because it was 2 men fighting and they tore apart the room. It showed what men can do when in a physical row. It was NOWHERE near what a female fight would be (hair-pulling ad nauseam). It was real and brutal. The females just stood around crying. That’s all a female can do when that happens.

That viral video of the Bus Driver round-housing that big-mouthed, ghetto-skank that hit him first and spit on him. He really punched her like a man and she had it coming. He said if she wanted to have a go like a man, he was gonna treat her like a man. I agree. He then picked her up and threw her physically off the bus with ease. She got her just desserts (hope he won’t get fired but that is almost impossible).

It’s not like the movies (Anne Hathaway in TDKR…Palestina Jolie in “Salt”). Not even close. Some men are scumbags and a women has to know how to protect herself but in self-defense classes they teach you how to GET AWAY…not go 10 rounds with a guy.

I am even rethinking women being cops. When I really think of it, it’s like having a cat be a cop. In my feminist days I would have fought to the death on this but those days are gone and truth and reality rule the day now.

Skunky on October 24, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    Skunky, this is what happens when the quest for equal rights morphs into demands for special rights. If only women were failing this testing, there might be a point to reexamining the standard. However, that was not the case. That should have been a red flag for the evaluators that opening these positions to women was not a good idea. Feminists, quite often, care more about pursuing an ideology than than about how their efforts might actually impact women. As you noted in your example, an ordinary male bus driver was able to dispose of a crazed female passenger without that much effort. Women are not physically identical to men. The muscle mass and upper body strength of a woman cannot normally match that of a physically healthy and fit adult male. Do we really need to have women beaten to a pulp or returned home in body bags in order to prove this? I find some feminists to be the real misogynists in this area.

    Worry01 on October 25, 2012 at 2:48 am

    I totally agree, Skunky.

    Italkit on October 25, 2012 at 3:41 am

    You nailed it Skunky….see my post further down. I call attention to the debacle with Suzy “Stripper Pole” Barr and point out that was only a shaving off the tip of the iceberg. That BS has been going on for a long time within the ranks of Border Patrol, ICE, et al. Just didn’t get the press time because nobody got called out on it. Oh yeah…the ones in position to call it out wouldn’t and couldn’t because they were getting the “perks”……

    IceNoMore on October 25, 2012 at 1:39 pm

There are two questions at hand both of which are repeatedly either addressed by fallacious arguments or ignored by the progressive dogma:

1. The issue of women in foxholes with men leads to a breakdown of morale and would undoubtedly have deadly impact on readiness when the inevitable “foxhole” relationship turns intimate or sexual either among peers or subordinates-peers. You can’t have a fighting unit distracted or demoralized by favoritism, jealousy, corruption of allegiances that would be the by-product of intimate relationships between “soldiers.”

The controversy with open homosexuals has the same elements plus additional ones, but it is that progressive argument which incorrectly (by classifying homosexuals and women as interchangeable “oppressed minorities”) perverts and influences the female combatant argument.

2. And this being the most compelling problem, what happens when a female combatant is captured by the enemy, raped, and becomes pregnant? Is the “soldier’s” “enemy-baby” an additional liability for the Armed Force, or is the baby a citizen of the opposing country/entity? Either way, the female combatant who becomes pregnant against her will by an enemy poses hitherto unthinkable and ghastly implications.

DS_ROCKS! on October 24, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    DS_ROCKS, you say

    “The controversy with open homosexuals has the same elements plus additional ones, but it is that progressive argument which incorrectly (by classifying homosexuals and women as interchangeable “oppressed minorities”) perverts and influences the female combatant argument.”

    I no longer have an opinion regarding open gays in the military. I used to support it, when I thought there was evidence in its favor. Now I don’t trust the evidence.

    However, women are much, much worse in every way. You see, most men are straight. So, the actual impact of a gay man on a straight man is comparatively minimal. Putting women around is, in contrast, a very serious disruption, as this will effect the vast majority of military men. And, even if gay men in the military would shack up, they wouldn’t be departing on pregnancy leave. Finally, gay men are no weaker than straight men.

    Not only should women not be in combat roles, their numbers should be reduced to the same proportion as in WW2. Or so this non-military type thinks.

    skzion on October 24, 2012 at 7:35 pm

      Nicely said, Skzion! Loved the compare & contrast of gay men and females. Totally agree!

      Skunky on October 24, 2012 at 7:54 pm

the only way a woman can defand her self against a man is with a gun to that end i have taught my wife how to shoot and how to carry a concealed weapon.woman in the military can not be in the infantry,no way can they carry a 120lb rucksack 24/7 in 100 degree temp. and humidity.if it was me and they got in the way i would be forced to shoot them.woman can’t do infantry.i blame this bull shit on that ass hole dempsey who swhould be fired and court marsheled.

bruce on October 24, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    The military chain of command is composed primarily of “kiss asses” who do not give a damn about their oath to protect the nation. Only care about their careers and promoting politically correct policies which they know will destroy the military. The strategy of infiltrating the chain of command with homos got underway in earnest in the first days of the Clinton administration when he issued the order allowing openly queer males to serve. This was met with vocal resistance by the chain of command of the various branches. Clinton backed off but the drill provided him with a “purge” list of officers to be kicked out of the military. He was then able to focus his next years on elevating compliant queers into the vacant slots. Bush did nothing to remedy the situation. So now we have a “butt boy” chain of command implementing policies such as watered down Marine Corp infantry physical and skill requirements which they know will destroy the US military and our nation.

    joesixpack31 on October 24, 2012 at 8:23 pm

While in the Corps (84-93)the PFT (physical fitness test) is part of the score used for promotions. Men ran 3 miles, women only ran half that. The test was different for men and women because they are different but it was used in determining promotions. Near the end of my time I also saw where not only race but sex was also one of the factors in picking “meritorious” promotions when they needed better PC numbers in different fields and ranks.

Soon their will be no standards or at least any point to actual claim they have any. Seems more like the book & movie “Harrison Bergeron” every day.

ender on October 24, 2012 at 9:03 pm

@skzion: “However, women are much, much worse in every way.”

I agree essentially, but that is a separate point.

I used the gays-in-the-military plight as evidence of how progressives amalgamate the issues of gays and women in order to further their agenda, when, as you partially point out, the problems are hardly interchangeable.

And, since you brought up the gay issue, I have to point out a couple of inconsistencies in what you said.

“So, the actual impact of a gay man on a straight man is comparatively minimal.”

That’s an assumption and these days the impact of such is probably not honestly reported because of decades of progressive immersion. Speaking anecdotally from my own experience as a relatively highly commended soldier (US Army, ’79 – ’85), while it’s true that gays have historically had minimal impact on readiness (there was always at least one or two men who everyone knew was gay, and they were treated differently), the blessing of openly gay soldiers and the ensuing “shacking up, etc.) *would* have a much more severe impact on morale when gay officers or non-coms might develop intimate relationships with subordinates, even if it would never end up in pregnancy.

“Finally, gay men are no weaker than straight men.”

True, but likewise there are a percentage of women who are stronger than some men. You can’t use that as a criteria because it will be torn to shreds by progressives. Now, as far as advanced training goes such as in Debbie’s article’s example of the IOC, trying to get equitable numbers of women to pass the course requires the lowering of standards. Again, that is a different issue.

DS_ROCKS! on October 24, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    “since you brought up the gay issue …”

    DS_ROCKS, I think you’re the one who first brought up the gay issue, but that’s OK. Thanks for your service, by the way.

    As I said before, I am no longer in the pro out-gays-in-the-military camp. I now think that anything that could possibly interfere with the military’s ability to kill people and break things deserves heightened scrutiny. While generally the burden of proof should be on the governmental entity that is “discriminating,” the military should require the burden of proof to be reversed. I expect we mainly agree on this issue.

    But the problems related to women preceded any gay problem by many years. And, unlike any possible problems from gays, problems from women cannot be mitigated (at least by very much). Furthermore, women in leadership roles are at the forefront of growing rot. I mean, men boost up women to get sex. This is the evolutionary motivation. Thus, women are inherently disruptive. Women cause men to turn on other men by their very nature. Rather than focusing on some abstract “progressive movement,” I’d suggest focusing on the concrete. As of this moment, the only way to reverse the rot in the military is to focus on the women, removing them from any combat role whatsoever, and removing them from the chain of command related to combat.

    I said, “So, the actual impact of a gay man on a straight man is comparatively minimal.”

    You said, “the blessing of openly gay soldiers and the ensuing “shacking up, etc.) *would* have a much more severe impact on morale when gay officers or non-coms might develop intimate relationships with subordinates, even if it would never end up in pregnancy.”

    I agree that this is a potential problem. I’d say, though (and I admit I am an outsider), that “intimate” describes hetero male relationships in the military as well. I think that gay male sexual relationships are inherently less disruptive than male-female relationships. You simply do not have the disruption that attends women getting men to compete for their affections. I also can’t deny that Sparta, the most powerful land-based military force of ancient times, was distinctive in having omnipresent ADULT homosexuality.

    “but likewise there are a percentage of women who are stronger than some men. You can’t use that as a criteria because it will be torn to shreds by progressives.”

    C’mon. What percentage of military women are stronger than military men? Less than 1%? This sort of thing is just not practically relevant.

    skzion on October 25, 2012 at 12:53 pm


      “Thanks for your service, by the way.”

      It was my pleasure.

      “Women cause men to turn on other men by their very nature. ”

      Good point. I agree that among the two problems, women have a worse effect than gays.

      “I’d say, though (and I admit I am an outsider), that “intimate” describes hetero male relationships in the military as well”

      When I was in, I was in a completely male units, so I have no experience seeing the effects hetero relationships between soldiers.

      However, during Basic Training, (in ’79 the Army had just recently begun giving women the same (although female Basic units were segregated) Basic Training as men (albeit with lower standards for women), we were regularly warned to avoid contact with females trainees because when such couplings were discovered, apparently the women who were caught had a propensity to claim that she was being raped to avoid punishment. So, evidently that was a problem, also.

      DS_ROCKS! on October 25, 2012 at 2:53 pm

        DS_ROCKS, just to clarify a point:

        ““I’d say, though (and I admit I am an outsider), that “intimate” describes hetero male relationships in the military as well”.

        I meant that from what I have heard, relationships between hetero men, certainly in combat, become pretty intense, even though not sexual. I was just wondering whether gay sex between gay men, adding additional “intensity,” would actually be a problem. It was commonplace in Sparta, where it was thought essential for group cohesion. I’m just speculating here, of course. Male-male affection of any kind does not seem corrosive to group interactions the way male-female affection does. Or so I think.

        Anyway, interesting chat.

        skzion on October 25, 2012 at 7:22 pm

Debbie I would like you to pat me on the head with a positive boldfaced after comment like everybody else gets. I have studied your habits so here goes my highest percentage comment:

(Restate as closely as possible some slightly obscure opinion Debbie has offered before but not too recently so as to plausibly pretend that you spontaneously think what she already said).

A1 on October 25, 2012 at 1:26 am

    A1 maybe you’d get some feedback if you didn’t always act like an inappropriate pervert in heat.

    And what you stated what others do, YOU do in 95% of your terrible posts.

    (Sorry Skzion…didn’t mean to step on your turf but he annoys me as much as he annoys you.)

    Skunky on October 25, 2012 at 10:23 am

      ‘s no problem, Skunky.

      A1, I too am puzzled that Debbie doesn’t pat you on the head, as you are obviously a very appealing fellow.

      skzion on October 25, 2012 at 12:24 pm

      A1 doesn’t bother me. I regard him in the same way that I do the affable, schizoid regulars I see at the McDonald’s or the 7-11. Everyone knows them and treats them gently, but I always visually scan their pockets and jackets for outlines of weapons, just in case.

      DS_ROCKS! on October 25, 2012 at 7:45 pm

Both my sons were in the infantry in the Marine Corp. I as a mother would not feel comfortable having my sons’ lives in the possible hands of these women. There isn’t a woman alive that can handle what the Marines handle.

Fran on October 25, 2012 at 8:18 am

What eklse do you expect when today’s military leaders are political toadies? When the ISLAMIC TERRORIST attack took place at Ft. Hood, the head of the joint chiefs stated that, “He hoped this “incident” would not set back the diversity in the armed services and in the country.” When the “Afghan partners” shot our men in the back, the commanding general in Afghanistan gave the following statement (Explanation.) “The reason this “Incident” happened was because the Afghans were under pressure and frustration due to their ramadan holiday.” Tell that to the grieving families! During the last “Debate,” our brilliant commander in chief gave us a lesson in his tactical and strategic genius talking about aircraft carriers and submarines – explaining that “Technology” would give us naval superiority. Why didn’t Willard explain to this naval expert that China is pledged to a six hundred ship navy? Why didn’t he bring up China’s increasing naval presence in the South China Sea? So much for “Technology. I guess everything balances out…..China will have a six hundred ship navy – we have women on submarines. China has millions of men under arms – we will cut our forces and have “Gender equality.” I feel so much safer now.

herbster on October 25, 2012 at 9:53 am

How does the IDF handle sex differences for performance standards? It seems we could learn a lot from Israel–everything from military training/homeland security to air travel security.

Aurora on October 25, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Aurora, my impression is that there are no women in combat roles in the IDF.

    Anyway, since the IDF hasn’t won a war since 1973 (and that was nearly a disaster), I wouldn’t use it as a model.

    skzion on October 25, 2012 at 7:25 pm

Same series of faux pas’s took place in the ranks of Federal Law Enforcement. PT standards, behavior in the office and field, et al, all were changed to make way for the “new standard”. This did nothing but corrupt the pathway to promotion, guys had to emasculate themselves as to not offend the fair gender or set themselves up for a frivolous harassment allegation, and the list goes on. We all see how that worked out. Don’t misunderstand me….I’m not biased nor chauvinistic in any way; I’m a realist; I call it like I see it. There were a handful of women I worked with in the field who I respected and didn’t mind having my six; they were smart, they worked hard, they weren’t afraid to roll up their sleeves and jump in the trenches, and they never played the gender card. Unfortunately, they were VERY FEW and far between.

IceNoMore on October 25, 2012 at 11:03 am

DACOWITS was pushing hard on this from the early 80s on. I was there and saw it in action. Over the course of a career it became more and more absurd: a little step led to another and another and another. After a while, we’ve arrived at a dangerous place – and we fail to recognize it as such.

No one who cared about their career dared to speak out. Now – most simply accept this PC push as not only inevitable, but the “right thing to do.” Much like the arguments for “diversity” which seemingly means different things to different folks but never seems to hinge on merit.

IMO, we will pay a big price if/when we face a foe who can match our technological capabilities. We’ve been lulled into thinking we’ll be as easily victorious over first-rate foes as we’ve been with the third-raters we’ve crushed. While some women are indeed athletic and very fit, even the best fall short of a comparably fit male.

What’s also overlooked is the psychological dimension of group dynamics. IME, a group of men faced with a difficult task tends to “gel” and a “group-think” seems to naturally arise with regard to objectives, priorities and best course of action. Women think differently and do not share this trait. As a result, they distract the group and tend to require more.

GC on October 25, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    GC, this is an interesting point. Men tend to be good at forming teams and sustaining hierarchies; women tend not to be. Men are effective in large (or enormously large) groups; women are most comfortable in groups of a few. Mix them and you can be sure that organization will fail.

    skzion on October 25, 2012 at 7:29 pm

History teaches us “The Art Of War” (Sun Tsu) that has been practiced by humans since the beginning of time. Where has it been proven that women are an asset to combat? If they aided in the defeat of an enemy women would have been conscripted long before our time.

Rochelle on October 25, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Did you ever notice that none of these great social planners ever seem to be concerned about how to actually IMPROVE the military or make it more effective? In fact if we look into them we find they really hate the military. They just seem to think it exists only to promote their gay lifestyle or whatever is fashionable at the time. The idea is not that different than their plans for NASA to become a “reach out to Muslims” program. Never mind if it actually promotes any scientific knowledge or not.

jerry doegen on October 25, 2012 at 2:42 pm

Funny thing, boys and girls, is that the vast majority of men are really no good in hand-to-hand combat either. They think they are, but they’re not. How do I know? I’ve taught karate for almost 40 years. Our military boys get some training, but not nearly enough. Ever watch Cops and watch most of them get their hides tanned by the perps? They’re not trained either, even though they think they are. A small percentage of women are very capable of doing the same physical things men are and more and more have come along, but, in short, I don’t think that most women should be on the battlefield except in support roles. However, I have seen a handful of highly trained women over the past few decades who could take the vast majority of men in the US to task. So, let them prove themselves, but the standards should not be lowered for politically correct reasons mostly because it’s unfair to the women and dangerous to those around them. And, yes, I’m aware of extraordinary female athletes and most of them could leave me in the dust, but combat is qualitatively different and requires specific skills and a different sort of thinking. Let’s utilize the best capabilities of everyone, but combat is typically not the best side of women. And, let’s train the men much more soundly. Hey, the Muslims are training in armed and unarmed combat every day. If we’re not, we’re choosing to be victims.

Pray Hard on October 25, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    @Pray – “the vast majority of men are really no good in hand-to-hand combat either.”

    That’s no secret. I’ve seen Army studies that show that 90% of confirmed kills are achieved by 10% of soldiers. Some men are just born efficient soldiers. I don’t think training has a lot to do with it.

    DS_ROCKS! on October 25, 2012 at 7:37 pm

There are PLENTY of men and women who have quit OCS at Quantico during the FIRST day of in-processing…for a multitude of reasons (“DOR”- Drop On Request)
More have QUIT during TBS; just ask the Corpsmen at TBS Ray Hall (medical)…especially during summer classes. Depending on their gender, college degree, and RACE some were re-assigned to “administrative” billets…affirmative action anyone?
Women being dropped? At IOC? For a “medical” reason? We’ll NEVER know for certain (Privacy Act etc.) Which is probably why a “medical” reason was given.
In the early ’90’s, a FEMALE Warrant Officer, assigned to Weapons Training Battalion (WTBN), who was on the USMC rifle team, was told she did NOT appear feminine enough. She subsequently received cosmetic surgery to increase her bust size (can’t make this up). The procedure was out-sourced because the DoD did not provide boob jobs.
Females at TBS, during road marches (humps) could spread-load their gear (only required to “hump” 40% of a males load-out). …and when they finished the march, congratulations could be heard, “…GOOD JOB!” “HOORAH Lieutenant!”
Perhaps, if the WMs (Woman Marine) can’t hack it, they should hump back down the road and apply at the FBI Academy. I have a feeling the end game for the limp wristed men, and militant feminist pushing women in combatant leadership roles is having a female to be awarded the Medal of Honor…no kidding. The whole, “anything you can do, I can do better” mentality.”

Sick_Boy on October 26, 2012 at 7:32 am

If I may be allowed, as a former woman marine, women do not belong in combat, flying fighter jets or cobra helicopters, or walking guard in a hostile area or war zone. Women should be support only! Women should wear class a uniforms, makeup and act like ladies. But then I am old corps.

Carolyn mangum on October 28, 2012 at 7:21 pm

Women want to be in combat and shout the feminist motto of everything a man can do they can do better. Fine. Let them have their indignation and chants that make them feel good about themselves.

Making way for a very select few women that can make it in combat is not enough to warrant the financial hardship they would need for new heads and other female oriented items.

The only reason this is an issue is that most men lose their ball around women and can’t say no because of the loud screams and tears.

Put up in the decision chair of the pentagon. I have no such problems. I will tell them no until their screaming fit leaves them tired and cranky wallowing in a puddle of their own tears at my feet.

They want combat? Let them play modern warfare(whichever one) and tell them that’s as close as they’re going to get.

That one guy on October 29, 2012 at 10:58 pm

Like it or not, women do not belong in front-line combat roles.

I can’t enlist – eyes keep me out, nystagmus (US Army regs sent by a recruiter).

Women CAN be good soldiers, just – especially in the pampered West – most are worthless for that sort of role. I’d wager about 90% of MEN are, too, BTW – US Army regs were recently “adjusted” so what I would term the “Morbidly Obese” (Bigger then BMI 31; Body fat % in the 40% ragne and up) could actually meet recruitement requirements, so the army can make their numbers.

Women, OTOH, aren’t known for being motivated to “kill” (even dominate) the same way men are. There’s even a psychological theory that men are the “fight or flight” pattern, EXCLUSIVELY – women are “Tend and befriend.” Evolution-wise, it makes sense. Woman who continues to fight after the men are dead doesn’t reproduce. The ones who give up will. Mix in a few millenia, and allow that women will choose dominant men by choice as well as result of conflict – dominance requires size and strength. Mechanics are now against her, too. (Not to mention, physics of birth get in the way – my understanding is most female Army washouts are due to leg and hip injuries. Just the mechanics of the bones.)

The physical requirements of ANY job are there for a REASON. NO adjusting ANY of them. Unless, fo course, I get to model speedos, too – equal opportunity all the way, baby! How about a bikini, too, while we’re at it? I have the right to model Victoria’s Secret! (Ok, that almost made ME barf.) 😉

For the women who CAN hack it: They’ll get the respect. They’ll be “one of the guys”, mostly. The ones who can’t? F*ck ’em. Maybe not literally. But the armed forces aren’t in the business of “affirming Princess’s self-image.” They are in the business of blowing things up, killing people, and destroying infrastructure, to end the enemy’s ability to wage war.

The only argument I can think of in FAVOR of combat roles is, women are less likely to be targeted. Allows more freedom of movement, and most males hesitate before shooting a female – gamers have used that for a while to their advantage. Use a female avatar, that split-second makes a big difference in a twitch game.

We are not facing massive invasions any more. There will be no “Red Dawn” or similar. No reason to. The countries are worthless anyway – the MONEY and GOVERNANCE gets as much conflict and resolution as anything else. So irregular wars, no major need for carrying 200-pound packs or something. (Forget the actual weight, but M-1 was 40 pounds alone; the M-16 is what, 12?) Smaller targets survive better, up to hand-to-hand. Then there’s still the “kill” instinct. And the strength and leverage to back it up. At my 5’9″ 220# frame, I don’t need to INTEND harm to a 100# woman of any height – I’m over 100% bigger, with different leverages in my body (shoulder girdle, arm size, ribcage -> lung capacity, hieght vs weight vs strength, center of gravity, raw ability to throw someone around like a rag doll). Each of those becomes a force-multiplier: as if she had a gun at 30 feet, basically. then it’s no contest in her favor; if I close the distance, she’s dead. I can hook her, suplex her, mount from behind, choke out. total time on that, maybe 10 seconds – suplex is ungainly. Bum-rush would work as well or better, rush her and do a double-leg takedown to slam the head onto the ground; then just grab the throat and squeeze. Easy. she gets all the force from her own weight, my weight, momentum of my charge, and the leverage and angular momentum of my takedown slamming her into the ground. A tough man would get hurt, she’ll be seeing stars or just OUT, most likely. Doesn’t have the fat and muscle to absorb the injury. Not the movies… things break.
And if we reverse it, using “averages”? She takes me down, I get hit and thrown. She mounts and goes for a choke… I choke, I focus my eyes, I grab her hand, peel it off my throat, bend it back into a joint lock, push her off me, and then apply whatever’s appropriate – break the arm, strike the jaw, strike the throat, hit the breasts (like a guy getting a testicle shot for those who don’t know), and it goes downhill from there.
I’m unusual, probably – but i’m a fat slob for where I SHOULD be, and if I were just 200# of muscle – hey, guys that weight are overhead pressing 500#. a 100# woman? Yeah, that’s a shotput, kind of. Up in the air, and down into the ground, and we’ll have hamburger for dinner tonight.

(for those who have NOT been gorilla pressed, and then dropped – that sudden stop HURTS. Potential for broken ribs on just normal grassy ground, at the least it knocks the wind out of you. Now, give her a few extra feet upwards from the thrust of someone tossing her, and let her land in an uncontrolled pile somewhere behind – her wiggling in the air will make for a BAD landing. As in, could simply break a neck, or land face-first, or land on an arm and shatter arm and ribs, puncturing internal organs…)

Yeah, it gets … BAD. Weapons will even it out a littlel but some of the guns pack a mean punch – and shoulder-firing an AK is a bit different from an M-16/M-4, is different than pistols @ 9 mm instead of .45. Holding them up is one thing, firing accurately another, and being able to use your shoulder the next day yet another.

Physical requirements. Game over. Deal with it. And give up emasculating the men, some of them will eventually get wise and “forget” proper courtesy when you act like a bitch.

Jean on December 14, 2012 at 3:42 pm

None of this article is true.

The first woman, and each subsequent one after that, failed the combat endurance test. I suggest you look it up. The second, passed the CET and then broke her foot. That is common knowledge.

Col Desgrossiliers, CO of both TBS and IOC, has made it clear there will be no lowering of standards – or genderizing standards – at IOC. Rigors of combat do not know a gender, therefore the standard is the same across the board. He has allowed media at every CET and has been very open about his plans. Again, common knowledge.

Some of your comments have suggested other things that are not true. Females at TBS do not “spread-load” their gear. WM’s carry the same pack as everyone else. All the requirements are the same. If ANYONE “quits” TBS, they are not re-assigned to an administrative job, every Marine Corps Officer must fulfill the requirements of the Period of Instruction with the confidence of their staff in order to graduate. It is NOT an option to quit TBS and still be a Marine. You may be re-assigned to an administrative section while you await your other-than-honorable discharge; you are still taking the taxpayers money.

Please do your research, the Marine Corps is by far the most open organization about implementing women into previously off-limits MOS’s. Journalism like this is a disgrace and unnecessarily inflammatory. If you respect the Marine Corps, listen to what our leadership is actually saying.

Sarah on August 15, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field