Is a feminist agenda derailing national security?

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 00:40:18 -0500

This article's thesis: the US government has recently spent absurd amounts of blood and treasure on two failed counterinsurgency efforts lasting over a decade. Those failures' causes are debatable (unclear objectives from civilian policymakers, perhaps?), but in the face of back-to-back failures and giant budget cuts, we seem far more intent on using this nation's warfighters as guinea pigs to test the plausibility of utopian feminist ideas than we do on sharpening their combat skills. With a shrinking force, standards should be *increasing,* not being cherry-picked for "relevance" by lobbyists with agendas potentially harmful to units' combat effectiveness.

In short: if you're a woman and you want to be in a combat unit, that's fine. Meet the standards. Period.
But for the love of Washington, can we please refocus on how to win asymmetric wars? We haven't done that successfully since before Vietnam, and somehow I don't think adding women to combat units is the
missing link.

Can anyone point out a weakness in this line of thinking?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/1/providing-for-common-defense-a-lower-priority-as-p/?page=all

Pentagon pivots to social issues; providing for common defense a lower priority

As the armed forces shrink and withdraw from some global hot spots, their agenda for the battle of the sexes grows.

Response by CPL Paul B. made Jan 4 at 2014 1:06 AM

CPL Paul B. — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 01:06:22 -0500

I feel that way being a 260 lb man, who is 6'3". If I were to fall in combat, I would want the female to be able to fireman carry me to safety, and not break down over my body. <br>

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Jan 4 at 2014 1:40 AM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 01:40:59 -0500

Sir<div>It feels like the entire military generally feels the way you do, yet no one on Capital Hill seems to be listening to us. It is very discouraging and in all honesty, it's making my gender look bad and that pisses me off! </div>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2014 9:14 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 09:14:25 -0500

<p>It seems that what most lobbyist, media professionals and citizens fail to realize is that many women have been serving in support of combat units for many years. No they have not been able to hold specific MOSs (such as Infantry, Armor or Field Artillery and any Special Forces positions) but females have been assigned to combat units as supply, intelligence and medics to name a few.</p><p><br></p><p>When it comes to standards, I know of certain males that cannot meet the rigorous standards of the Rangers (how many do we know that fail out of RIP every cycle?). If there is a female that wants to and CAN meet the standards to hold any MOS in the military than I do not see why she cannot. </p><p><br></p><p>However, unfortunately the question is with our ever changing budget... Will the cost of all the changes in logistics for training and at the unit be beneficial? How many females need to pass Infantry Basic Training in order to make all the money spent worth it? Most importantly, is that something we really need to be focusing on right now?? I personally believe that not just as a military but our government and society have a few more important things to work on!!</p>

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Jan 4 at 2014 5:22 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 17:22:16 -0500

We have never "won" an "asymmetric" war. Our problem with Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq was we kept wanting to superimpose our will on an autonomous nation state. When we do that, we generate ill will faster than good will. We also lack the national will for total warfare or blatant imperialism which is ultimately what is wanted, but can't be admitted.<br>Social dynamics with in the military has always been the focus for social scientists. Problem is, so few of them actually understand the "control" environment that they are injecting the new theory of human behavior into. Integration of blacks and whites in the 70s, acceptance of homosexuality in the ranks in the 90s, women in combat in the 2000s... <br>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2014 6:30 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 18:30:53 -0500

This is another "if we let ____ into the military, it will ruin us" argument, with a sprinkle of "now is a bad time" thrown in.  It's been said since the Civil War.<div><br></div><div>You want to complain about the money being spent on integrating women into the infantry while ignoring the money spent over the last 30-40 years on pointless studies and lobbying to keep women out.  Pretty illogical.</div><div><br></div><div>And then, the attempt to link standards with the military's win/loss record in asymmetric warfare is puzzling.   Our inability to think outside of our own cultural confines is a big part of the problem (both as a military, as a government, and as a nation).  We didn't win with the status quo and your solution is more of the status quo, but with women. </div><div><br></div><div>On several threads, the issue of women and standards comes up and the knee jerk reaction is to say that women have to meet the same existing standards as men.  But where is your evidence that those exact standards are the make or break mark for our success or failure as a military force?  Over the last 12 years, the standards you are demanding were met, no women were let in...and guess what...we didn't win.  Common sense would dictate it's time to try something else, but what I hear a lot here is a strong palpable fear of trying something else.  Ok, but then expect the same results.</div>

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2014 9:56 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 21:56:31 -0500

Much like the discussion of opening up the Boy Scouts to homosexual boys this whole discussion is derailing our focus.  It does not matter whether you are gay or straight...the standards are the standards.  Either meet them or accept that you cannot.  Enough with the PC.  The military is not playing some game...we deal in life or death.  Leaders:  Stay focused on People and the Mission and let the rest of this BS flush.

Response by SSgt Lonnie Montgomery made Jan 4 at 2014 10:15 PM

SSgt Lonnie Montgomery — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 22:15:00 -0500

Bottom line if someone can complete the physical requirements that any other service member has for that MOS and requires no extra or special treatment or equipment to perform normal duties of the MOS then I would have to say “yes”. But do not dumb down the requirements or make special arrangements to meet them. You want the job you have to earn it like any other service member that come before had to. Once qualified, there should be no special augmenting, overseeing, or sharing of authority of the unit commander on any matter to include morale and discipline, as in the UCMJ. Equal is equal; qualified is qualified; there is no special treatment.

Response by CPT Linzie Brim made Jan 5 at 2014 7:29 AM

CPT Linzie Brim — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 07:29:09 -0500

Women in combat. A distraction. When I went through basic a few years back...while on field duty we knew where the female units were, we could smell them over a mile a way. Sorry ladies hygiene issues alone are enough to give your position away. In WWII German General Rommel correctly figured out what size of force was coming to met him by one piece of logistic paper...a order for sanitary napkins. While working with the 82nd Airborne last year a lanky saw gunner told me he weighed 185 pounds, while his kit, weapon, ammo and body armor weighed in a 125 pounds. Yes there are one or two women I have seen that can safely carry that weight but, would I trust them with my life? No. Too much social and political problems, not to mention the male female relationship issues. Combat Service Support and Logistics Yes. Combat no. Yes we need women in the military and no, not in combat.

Response by TSgt Brian Herman made Jan 5 at 2014 8:22 AM

TSgt Brian Herman — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 08:22:49 -0500

The problem isn't a "feminist" idea, but rather,  another effort to increase the amount of "Politically Correct" thinking in the service, while at the same time making a conscious effort to weaken our capability.<br>The problem, quite honestly, is our political leadership does not have the mental or spiritual will to actually do what it takes to "win" a war.<br>As long as we have a superior force, then clearly it "isn't fair" to those who opposes us. Therefor, the U.S. must be weakened, in order to have a "fair fight". Look at the rules of engagement as a further example of "PC" and fairness. Isn't that the biggest reason for women to 'want' to be in a combat unit? Promotion after the fact? It 'isn't fair' that big, strong men get recognition for killing people an blowing shit up. The fact that a woman can't throw around a fifty cal shouldn't have any bearing on her ability to get the senior level positions for pay!<br><br>

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jan 5 at 2014 12:17 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:17:33 -0500

<p>I do not think that a "feminist agenda" is derailing national security, I do however feel that the need to continually bring up women in combat roles, need for differing standards, yada yada yada, creates a sense of the military once again being utilized as an engine for social change. I am just glad that I am retired now and do not have to deal with the headaches that all of this line of crapola will bring to everyone involved.</p><p> </p><p>"TREAT 'EM ROUGH!!"</p>

Response by SSG Bruce Durham made Jan 5 at 2014 12:34 PM

SSG Bruce Durham — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:34:30 -0500

Capt Wolfers comment reminds me of the old adage about lions Many of todays leadership is so PC they can't or won't stand up for simple common sense anymore.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jan 7 at 2014 2:40 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 02:40:26 -0500

The Ukraine has female paratroopers.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jan 7 at 2014 10:10 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:10:36 -0500

Lets not forget Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth the 1st, Harriet Tubman, the Amazons.(yes they did exist). The idea the women shouldn't be in combat is a modernistic male bias that has no basis in fact. Women fought in the civil war and the american revolution and countless other conflicts throughout history. For men to say "Women shouldn't be in combat" like its a man's decision to make for women is outrageous and very egocentric, like somehow as men its out place to decide what women should and shouldn't do.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 7:54 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:54:49 -0400

Nope it is the Politically Correct agenda that is.

Response by SrA Greg Hardin made Jan 9 at 2015 11:55 PM

SrA Greg Hardin — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 23:55:01 -0500

Yes it is as well as my love life. Women in combat makes the team weaker not stronger. Active duty can rarely voice their true opinion because they work for the Government.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 12:53 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:53:30 -0500

As a Service Member I see no problem with allowing women to do any MOS, there are plenty that are willing and capable.

But I do not believe that our society is capable of handling women in combat centric roles on the front lines of the next war. Oh sure it'll all be good news, peaches and cream during our "peacetime" as they wave the flags of "progress" and "equality." But as soon as the administration formally puts boots on the ground the public is going to turn coward.

I wish it was different. I honestly do.

But I have zero faith in John Q. Public to not lose his mind when he hears the news report that the "Third Battle of Fallujah" had 788 casualties with 113 dead, 21 of them women and with another 68 women wounded.

And the news will ALWAYS split the statistic into total number, and then say how many were women.
YOU JUST KNOW IT!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 10 at 2015 8:37 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:37:48 -0500

I'm going to break a personal rule and respond before reading the other responses...

Are you out of your mind? Do you ever want to sleep in a warm bed again? (You know what I actually mean, don't you?)

What does the role of women in the military have to do with the winning and losing of wars of any kind?

Women played no combat role in the war in Vietnam. They don't seem to have played very significant roles in more recent ones.

Then, there's the question of "winning". Who says we didn't win in Vietnam? Of course we won. Every Vietnam Vet takes (or should take great pride) in winning. Sadly, it was the Appeasement Movement in America (don't call it a Peace Movement) that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

How about Iraq? Good grief, we tore through the Iraqi army like waste products through a goose. We found the WMDs. We brought Sadaam to the gallows. Again, it was the Appeasement Movement that had the final say and it looks like their leader is going to take us back for another stab at it.

You're absolutely correct about mission statements. But, that's about all...

Response by SrA Greg Hardin made Jan 11 at 2015 2:38 PM

SrA Greg Hardin — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 14:38:12 -0500

It is hurting our security and readiness. If I place an add to hire a typist and require them to type so many words a minute then it does not matter if they are male or female but with the military there is a double standard. If females can not do the same training in the same amount of time they do not qualify and I would not want to fight next to them!

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Jan 11 at 2015 9:35 PM

SSG Tim Everett — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:35:28 -0500

FIRE IN THE HOLE!

Response by 1SG Frank Boynton made Jan 13 at 2015 12:53 PM

1SG Frank Boynton — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:53:10 -0500

In the early 1980's I was a drill sergeant at Ft. Dix, NJ. Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) headed up at the time by Congress Woman Patricia Schroeder from Colorado conducted an experiment to show that females could be trained to the same standards as their male counterparts. They conducted this test during a 6 month period at Ft. Dix. As I was training female trainees at the time, my company was part of the test. The bottom line was the test was a complete failure. It proved that in fact the AVERAGE woman could meet the same standards as their male counter parts in some very critical areas. As such the results were never released and the units involved in the test were sworn not to divulge the results.

So the test was modified and they came back with the new standards and surprise, the women passed it and it was promoted as a great success. So what did they change?

1. The hand grenade throw. Everyone knows a hand grenade has a 5 meter kill ratio and a 15 meter danger zone. Males must throw the grenade a distance of 25 meters. Makes sense, you don't want to be hurt by your own grenade. Well for women the grenade assault course was changed to 15 meters. Yes within the danger zone for them.

2. At the time stress fractures were showing up around week 3 and 4 for many women, setting them back in basic to another cycle or even discharge. It was determined that the cause of this was women were not use to wearing boots. Since at that time boots were the duty uniform for everything, including PT it was causing the fractures. So the change was all PT would be conducted in tennis shoes. Additionally long marches to the rifle ranges, the women would be required to change into tennis shoes for the march and then switch back to boots when on the range. Additionally, female cycles would be trucked to the ranges on extremely hot, and cold days. And during bivouac in the event of extreme cold they were trucked back to the barracks after the days training was over and trucked back out in the early morning.

3. Rifle qualification was another major factor in female failures. Changes to the POI for weapons qualification included twice the amount of ammo a female trainee would get to do a specific course of instruction. Additionally the actual qualification course was changed to allow a female to pass the qualification course at 85% of a qualification score.

4. Probably the biggest failure was the final PT test. The changes made to the female pt test was that they only had to pass at an 80% of the minimum qualification score. They would be required to meet Army qualifications by the time they graduated their AIT.

5. Obstacle / Confidence Courses - Everyone knows that the Obstacle course is required to complete, while the Confidence Course is optional. However, if you were a male in the 80's and said you didn't want to do a specific Confidence obstacle, you never heard the end of it. Both courses were determined to be optional for females. They could opt out of a specific obstacle. Most couldn't do the wall so they were allowed to bypass it. Most of the obstacles that required upper body strength were bypassed.
It's no wonder that after the new standards were put into place and the test was conducted a second time that it was a resounding success.

There were other minor changes and some ad-hoc changes when it looked like it might negatively impact the results of the new test.

I'm not suggesting anything from this, but I know this, changing requirements to meet a political end doesn't sit well. You have to depend on that person next to you and I don't want to worry if they just passed their qualification course with 85% instead of the requirement. Or they can't carry my ass off the field because they couldn't pass their PT test and don't have the necessary upper body strength. When I was with the 4/23 infantry we'd have our quarterly 25 mile road march with full battle packs with a mandatory completion time of 6 hours. One time we walked from Yakima Training area back to Ft. Lewis, over the mountains with full rucks, because the commander got tired of waiting for our transportation to show up. That's about 150 miles right through the heart of Mount Rainier National Park and we completed it in a little over 2 days. I can't even imagine seeing the commander giving the order for all females to get into tennis shoes.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2015 10:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:03:27 -0500

Sir, you are trolling right? I mean no one with an actual college education reads that article with credibility.

All opinions quoted were from a single view point. There was no interview of people who did
\not agree with the author's opinion, in addition the headline was editorial.

Let us instead discuss how to win wars. The process of wining modern wars is a clear three steps. First defeat the field force, then blow out the middle management nodes that support the militant opposition. Third change the internal economics so as to remove the support for the militant opposition. I have yet to find a place where this did not work.

My own experience was that the presence of female troops in most patrols allowed us access to parts of the population only they could access.

However responding to your post the article does not rise to the level of journalism. At best an opinion piece. Do you have something better?

Response by Cpl Michael Wolf made Jan 13 at 2015 10:30 PM

Cpl Michael Wolf — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:30:58 -0500

Regardless of context, the standard to be a Grunt should not be dumbed down so any weakling can get in. Wars are won by hard people doing impossible feats of both brawn and spine. If you can't pick up your unconscious battle buddy who weights 200+lbs from the prone to your shoulders then I don't want you anywhere near me when the bullets start flying, if I can't count on you then I might as well shoot you myself cause your nothing but dead weight slowing me down. The wrong people die because bad decisions are made, those decisions can go all the way back to the DI that didn't filter out bad seeds to the CO that let the wrong person into the wrong profession, to politicians that like to stick their PC noses where they don't belong so they can suck up to some feminist slim ball with dick envy.

Response by PV2 Abbott Shaull made Jan 13 at 2015 10:43 PM

PV2 Abbott Shaull — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:43:36 -0500

Never blame advancement of women in the military with failures in other areas. It wasn't due to women in the ranks that we blew the Missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. That was due to the massive failures of two sitting Presidents who ideas were totally clueless in Foreign Policy effectively, and the second one hasn't yet to have a person in the State Department who has knows much better.

With that said, when women were gong to be open to various Military MOS so long ago, the argument of having lower Standard for women should of never made it out the door. It is one of the major problems inside the Military. We can't expect for everyone to be treated as equal and truly cut out the Mickey Mouse, until we get to one Standard for everyone. Once the Military does that some other argument that are currently going will seem to be none starters anymore too.

With the modern battlefield, women are already on there, and they have been proving themselves time and again. So let them prove themselves in Combat MOS, and hold them to the same standards as the men are.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jan 14 at 2015 1:07 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:07:50 -0500

There are many jobs in the military that don't require peak physical condition or top strength. Of the ones that do, front line infanty for example, I don't believe 99% of women are up to the requirements. Not to mention, you can't call a "time out" because you have a hygiene problem to take care of. The problem comes where people, not just women, are placed where they don't belong.

Response by PO1 Tracy Dreyer made Jan 14 at 2015 11:23 AM

PO1 Tracy Dreyer — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:23:57 -0500

Women want to be in combat units, fine pass the exact same tests and standards as men

Why is this such a difficult idea?

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Jan 14 at 2015 12:07 PM

1SG Harold Piet — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 12:07:37 -0500

When the battle happens, and you face the enemy, the enemy will not take it easy on you because you are black, white, male or female. All combat soldiers need the same standard. All non combat soldiers should be paid less or slots filled with civilians.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Jan 14 at 2015 8:46 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 20:46:43 -0500

Only if we let it.....

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2015 1:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:39:41 -0500

Political Correctness is derailing National Security.... PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2015 3:05 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:05:49 -0500

I love how folks debate issues such as this one, but you all seem to forget one thing....YOUR OPINION DOES NOT MATTER!!!! When our government leaders say it is time to allow women to assume roles in the combat arms community, then it's going to be time and they will assume roles in the combat arms community. So just end all the bickering amongst each other. Stop calling this move a "feminist agenda". Your government makes the rules here and you're going to patriotic up and follow them. Just like with homosexuals in the military you can cry how much they will hurt readiness, but the government has saw through your bias and allowed them to serve openly. When the government says "women can serve as Infantry", they will serve as Infantry and whatever standards are in place will be the standard.

Also I saw a few post with all the countries in the world that allow women to serve in combat roles. Kudos to them, however who cares what another country is allowing within their military? When was the last time anyone in the world called upon a country other than the US for assistance? You know what I see when I look at other countries in the world? Potential allies from potential enemy nations. I can care less about the examples that they are setting with their militaries. We have to shape our military for our people.

As for my views and how I feel about all of this, I don't care if you're female, male, transgendered, gay, straight, pink with polka dots, purple with green stripes, etc....if you are willing and able to fight and defend this fine land of ours, then I accept you to fight by my side.

Response by SPC Adina (Fawn Mac) McKenzie made Jan 15 at 2015 6:05 PM

SPC Adina (Fawn Mac) McKenzie — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:05:51 -0500

People forget We are Not a Social Experiment Laboratory ~ There are differences between Males & Females, there are specific MOS's that should Remain Male ... Opening Combat Arms would affect cohesiveness. Standards would automatically be changed .... she comes down on leavy for deploymente & decides she doesn't want to go so she gets pregnent. How about she's taken POW for a number of years, raped & comes out with a couple of children....Then of course we know the enemy uses working dogs just like we do - we know dogs sent in on Females, so will she be pulled out of missions for that week or so every month? Women Warriors have their place in the Military BUT Not In Combat Arms & Special Forces. We need to quit waisting the Tax Dollars sending them to wash out of the training or back to their "other job" if they do succeed ~

Response by SSG William Patton made Jan 15 at 2015 9:57 PM

SSG William Patton — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:57:32 -0500

I recently read a critique of a study conducted in the Marines OCS with regard to females in that program. While there have been a handful of women succeed in the NCO leadership course, no women have met the standards for the Marine officer candidate course. In fact, according to this study, only two have made it past the first day and they both lasted into the second day before quitting. Feminists have also been lobbying the DoD to lower their standards to this program, but thankfully, Marine leadership has stood their ground. I am concerned that the standards for the NCO leadership course may be lower than that for the officers and in my opinion, they should be equally difficult. Lowering the standards only weakens the leadership, when it should be as difficult as possible to mimick what a person will face in combat. When the lead is flying is not the time to learn that the leadership, either officer corps or NCOs do not have what it takes to ensure mission success.

Response by SGT Timothy Byrd made Jan 16 at 2015 10:27 AM

SGT Timothy Byrd — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:27:15 -0500

I have read a lot of the posts for this topic & my response is this: In order to alleviate any issue make ONE STANDARD which should start at point of entry BASIC TRAINING & keep it that way. With having separate physical standards puts a line between males & females from day one. If we operate on the same standard from the very beginning than that helps to erase that barrier. Yes in today's war-fighting females can be put into a position of combat at any moment so if we can ALL operate on the same level than there would be less friction. Woman have been in combat arms units in the past ie ODA and have been successful why because they could operate on the same level so again ONE standard.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 11:02 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:02:34 -0500

Sir, the response that comes to mind off the bat,is that if we have fewer Soldiers, why would we restrict what jobs those few Soldiers can hold? If you have 20 new Combat Arms eligible recruits with 23 open CA slots to fill, the fact that those eligible Soldiers are female should not be a reason you don't fill those slots. Over simplified, maybe, but I think that is the bottom line. The fact that feminists have used simple math and common sense to forward their cause should not ruffle your feathers in the least. The Army is a machine, Soldiers are cogs in that machine. Stop seeing yourself as more important than the cog next to you and the machine can do what it needs to do without your emotional response.

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made Jan 16 at 2015 11:59 AM

Cpl Glynis Sakowicz — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:59:31 -0500

I was typing out a long, drawn out comment on this, and then two of my daughters walked in, snarling and snapping at each other. "Everything all right?" I asked one, I swear to G-d, she turned her head 180 degrees, staring at me over her spine as she snarled, "You know Mom... we redheads know the fastest way to anyone's heart... " turning to her sister she bellowed, "RIGHT THRU THE RIB CAGE!"
I mention this, because I'm thinking... the Pentagon should test them when they have PMS and I think they'd sail thru any test that required aggression.
On the other hand, "Give them a chance!" all right? I mean, there are a lot of men who can't do those jobs either, so don't dumb it down, don't change the tests, just let those who want, try for the jobs... some will make it, and those that don't will walk away with an understanding of what is needed, and probably try again.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Jan 18 at 2015 11:41 PM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 23:41:25 -0500

The Marine Corps ladies attempting to get through training for Infantry jobs cant do their minimum 3 pull-ups. This tells me they probably cannot pull themselves and their gear up and over an obstacle even once. Now that the Army Ranger school has heard of this, they have opened their doors to women. Ironic.

I got no issue about women being out there, so long as they CAN DO IT without any standards being lowered.

Response by Cpl Michael Wolf made Jun 1 at 2015 6:53 PM

Cpl Michael Wolf — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 18:53:41 -0400

https://youtu.be/Z9zp6kyIcWo

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 1 at 2015 11:22 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 23:22:05 -0400

No.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 5:44 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:44:53 -0400

"Is a feminist agenda derailing national security?" OMG, biggest laugh I've had in a long time. I'm not laughing at the premise, really. But it just sounds so funny. Go ahead: say the title out loud to yourself.

God, I wish I could say so, because the modern radical-feminism movement popular on social media is far and away from its honorable and righteous beginnings.

Alas, I don't think feminism has anything to do with studying to see whether/how women can be integrated into combat specific MOSs.

Response by PFC Peter Bohnhof made Jun 11 at 2015 3:39 PM

PFC Peter Bohnhof — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:39:02 -0400

Well of course it is, that is the goal of the America-hating leftists, to degrade America and our economic, tactical and legal capabilities as much as possible. Anyone paying attention, or a student of history can figure that out. Time for a purge.