The Disaster of ‘Gender Norming’ Ground Combat

AFP 511470058 I ACF AFG HEThe Center for Military Readiness (CMR) has released a 64-page report analyzing ongoing research by the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) about the effectiveness of integrating women into direct ground combat (DGC) units. The Interim CMR Special Report pokes a giant hole in the Obama administration’s assertions that standards of effectiveness can be maintained irrespective of the biological differences between men and women.

In January 2013, with all the attendant fanfare, Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lifted a 1994 ban on women serving in smaller DGCs, insisting that “women are contributing in unprecedented ways to the military’s mission of defending the nation.” The move was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and each branch of service has until January 2016 to seek special exemptions to the change. Panetta argued that women already make up 15 percent of the military and have already faced “the reality of combat.” He further insisted everyone is entitled to see if they can meet the qualifications for being in a DGC.

As it is with so many leftist agendas, the meaning of words can be manipulated to meet them. As the CMR explains, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey “has suggested that standards too high for women should be questioned” and has called for a “critical mass” of women in DGC units, a percentage that apparently ranges from 10-15 percent. To achieve this critical mass, the Obama administration has embraced “gender diversity metrics” that could lead to higher-preforming personnel being replaced by those meeting minimum standards characterized as “lower but equal.”

All of this is code-speak for quotas.

In 2012, Gen. James Amos initiated USMC research aimed at finding a way to integrate women into combat units. While physical strength was not the only issue of concern, it is the one where the disparities between men and women could not be obscured. Data collected in 2013 from 409 male and 379 female volunteers by the USMC Training and Education Command (TECOM) revealed several inconvenient truths during the five “proxy” tests designed to simulate ground combat element (GCE) tasks. In conjunction with data from Physical and Combat Fitness Tests (PFT and CFT), the greatest disparity between men and women was demonstrated in tests that measured upper body strength, which is considered essential for both survival and the success of missions involving direct ground combat.

The numbers are stark. In pull-up tests, men averaged 15.69 pull-ups, compared to a 3.59 pull-up average for women. Clean and press tests that involved lifting progressively heavier weights ranging from 70-115 pounds produced a passing rate of 80 percent among men at the 115 pound level, compared to only 8.7 percent of women. In a 120 mm Tank Loading Simulation drill, less than 1 percent of the men failed, compared to 18.68 percent of women. Less than 1 percent of men failed the 155 mm Artillery Lift and Carry, compared to 28.2 percent of women. And in the Obstacle Wall With Assist Box test that used a 20 inch box to simulate a “helping hand,” less than 1.2 percent of men could not get over the obstacle course, compared with 21.32 percent of women.

Enter “gender norming.” Gender norming is the idea that the military should have different (read: lower) standards for women than men. In practice, this has been going on for a long time. As a 1995 article written by Walter Williams reveals, “Army fitness standards call for 80 push-ups for men and 56 for women. Male soldiers ages 17 to 25 must run two miles in 17 minutes and 55 seconds. Females are given 22 minutes and 14 seconds. Male Marine trainees must climb 20 feet of rope in 30 seconds; women are given 50 seconds.” Nonetheless, proponents of gender norming say any concern that it will lead to lowered overall standards is unwarranted—because female soldiers will have to meet stringent guidelines before they are deployed in DGCs.

Not quite. “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is then on the service to come and explain to the secretary, ‘Why is it that high?  Does it really have to be that high?’” Gen. Dempsey contends.

The CMR further illuminates the machinations taking place, citing a June 2013 report to Congress by the Marines, noting that “gender-neutral” events in the PFT, CFT and obstacle courses “would be gender-normed for score…to account for physiological differences.” The CMR further reveals that researchers see the USMC project as a way to question whether tests such as the PFT and CFT serve as “valid predictors” of success in “combat-related tasks.” All of this is designed to downplay the conclusions reached by the CMR’s evaluation of the study: that “gender norming” is a contradiction of “gender neutral,” and despite the Pentagon’s insistence that those eligible for DGCs will have to meet gender-neutral standards, “data compiled so far indicates that this expectation cannot be met.”

How does the military plan to sidestep the issue? The CMR reveals the insidious concepts being employed in that regard. “Gender Diversity Dividends” could allow women to use “gender scoring tables” to accumulate points or dividends leading to 3rd, 2nd or 1st class status, that may even include extra points for women only. “Lower But Equal Standards” is the idea that the “worst performing decile” (one-tenth) of soldier performance should be used to calculate minimum passing test scores. “Training to Task” is the idea that women could improve their performance in pre-screening and other upper-body strength tests.

As the CMR notes, there is no specific study to support that assertion. A 1997 effort conducted by the Army revealed that specialized training could strengthen women on a temporary basis—but strengthen men even more, while retired expert in military medicine Rear Admiral Hugh Scott explained that androgenic hormones “that are not going to change” account for the differences in muscle mass and endurance training between men and women.

Military women have noticed. A recent survey conducted by the Army revealed that only 7.5 percent of the 30,000 who responded said they would want one of the combat jobs that would be made available. Even more telling, when the Army polled men and women about the physical standards, both groups said they should remain the same. “The men don’t want to lower the standards because they see that as a perceived risk to their team,” David Brinkley, deputy chief of staff for operations at the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, told the AP. “The women don’t want to lower the standards because they want the men to know they’re just as able as they are to do the same task.” Regardless, the article further noted that “Brinkley’s office at Fort Eustis is filled with charts, graphs and data the Army is using to methodically bring women into jobs that have been previously open only to men.”

The CMR notes the effort is being aided by organizations such as the RAND Corporation, who have produced studies that are “not independent or objective, or likely to challenge the administration’s group-think on military-social issues.” It is group think that is seemingly determined to advance the agenda that methodology can eliminate biological differences between the overwhelming majority of men and women.

However, the military remains determined to try. The CMR notes the Marines will stand up “Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Forces” (GCEITF) that include a 25 percent rate of participation by women and will engage in simulated combat experiences. The CMR warns that the exercise might include “task-shifting” that could conceal deficiencies that would be unworkable in smaller DGC units.

They further warn that Congress needs to get heavily involved in reviewing the research, to consider the many “unresolved controversies that are barely mentioned in the current research.” They include disparities in injuries sustained by women, unit cohesion, the potential for sexual misconduct, readiness, recruiting, retention and reassignment costs, cultural ambivalence with regard to violence against women, and eligibility for Selective Service obligations tied to DGC units.

In conclusion, the CMR’s bottom line is clear: “None of the USMC research results produced so far support the activists’ theories that women can be physical equals and interchangeable with men in the combat arms.”

Unfortunately one suspects such reality is irrelevant. Speaking with Front Page, CMR President Elaine Donnelly noted that gender integration is driven by the idea of “how to make it happen, instead of whether to make it happen.” “The military should not be forced to achieve an agenda the president’s base demands,” she explained. “If you’re going to have a critical mass of women in direct ground combat units, standards have to be lowered. That’s the only was you can achieve that.” Donnelly also explained how such agendas are sustained. “Nobody holds the policy-makers accountable,” she said. For the sake of current and future soldiers who go into harm’s way to protect the nation, Americans must do exactly that — and demand an end to this dangerous, ideology-driven military policy.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/ Edward Cline

    This is a very thorough, convincing article about the futility and politically correct dishonesty about inserting women into combat status, regardless of test results. Of course it’s egalitarian in nature and motive. It seems that this administration and its “let’s level the military” advocates wish to see our services reduced to the combat readiness and effectiveness of, say, that of the Netherlands. However, I’d like to see a comparison of our military with that of Israel’s IDF, in which women are trained in combat and apparently are effective in action. Is there such a study?

    • UCSPanther

      From what I have read, no servicewoman has been placed on the front lines by the IDF since 1948.

      They teach them how to fight and they are placed in the reserves, but they are not deployed on the front lines.

      • Nabukuduriuzhur

        Makes sense.

        Before we went PC in Korea, in WWII, the men behind the front lines who did support roles were all trained in basic combat. It wasn’t unusual for Axis forces to break into rear areas and so they had to be ready, even if all they had was a carbine.

        • JayWye

          “every soldier is a combat troop.”

          “every Marine is a rifleman”.

        • UCSPanther

          Hence the need for weapons like the old M1 Carbine…

    • Larry Larkin

      All military personnel should be trained to fight, and capable of doing so. That doesn’t mean that all military personnel are capable of being in direct ground combat positions.
      There are a great many “tail” positions in the modern military that do not require the physical capabilities of DGC positions in the “teeth” and there shouldn’t be a problem employing female personnel in those positions. However, employing females in “teeth” roles puts lives at risk and degrades the capabilities of those units.

      • http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/ Edward Cline

        Thanks. Daniel sent me links and an explanation that the IDF doesn’t deploy women to combat, that their role is as reservists, and that the IDF has racked up the same deficiencies in training women for arduous combat roles (but never tried to fake it, as the U.S. is). It explains why no article I’ve ever read on the subject of putting American women in actual combat roles ever cited the IDF as a model to emulate in U.S. services. He also explained that there is a small “co-ed” unit based near the Egyptian border, but that none of the women in it have ever seen a firefight or any “rough stuff.” All the photos one has seen of bikini-clad women toting automatics is just cheesecake. Daniel’s final remark was that a culture or country that sends its women into combat is in grave trouble. I agree.

        • David

          There was an incident recently where a group of female IDF soldiers stopped a group of terrorists infiltrating from Gaza. It was a female who shot the three bad guys.

          • Larry Larkin

            Yes, they are soldiers, no they are not infantry, or tankers, or combat engineers, or artillery, or paratroopers or the like, just soldiers, and all soldiers should be able to do that.
            It’s the basis behind the USMC’s “every man a rifleman” concept. All Marines are trained to fight, but not all Marines are employed in fighting roles.

          • Nabukuduriuzhur

            The Israeli women are very tough compared to our flakes in this country. They live in a part of the world where their friends and countrymen get blown up or shot by terrorists. They’ve seen what they fight. Just from Oslo to 2000, there were more than 10,000 terror attacks by the Palestinians.

            Our American women have no toughness compared to them. Most bail from their marriages when they don’t party enough or get bored. They make false claims of “sexual harassment” against superiors who want them to do their jobs.

            To mess up one of Patton’s comments, I’d rather have an IS unit ahead of me than American women behind me.

          • JayWye

            Also note Israel is a MUCH smaller country,with a much smaller population to draw troops from. (plus they exclude certain religious groups(like Hasidics) from military service.)
            the US doesn’t need women in the military,we have enough men. Having women “soldiers” causes more trouble than they’re worth. the only women “soldiers” who want to go in combat units are the career officers,so they can earn promotions.

          • trapper

            So, what does that prove?

          • David

            What doesn’t it prove?

      • Nabukuduriuzhur

        Most of my relatives served in one way or another. Motor pool, electrician, bands, MPs, you name it. All are needed.
        One of my uncles was 16 when he enlisted.

      • ADM64

        Even the “tail” positions need to be capable of combat, not just for those situations where they come under attack, but to replace men in the front line who have become casualties. This has happened again and again in our major wars. If you can’t do that, your forces are too brittle for sustained combat, and if your “support” troops can’t handle being in direct combat, then you will simply lose more of them than you have to if you try. There is no problem with men having the same basic training as infantry; big problem with women, hence the artificial division between direct combat and support.

        It’s the same in the Navy. All push-buttons until you have to fight damage or evacuate casualties (although there are other situations that require strength). Coed crews are less robust, less capable, more limited, except in peacetime.

        More generally, creating tiers within the military is bad. Everyone should think of themselves as a combatant or else even with “training” those who don’t will suffer unnecessarily and endanger others.

      • JayWye

        As the other guy mentioned previously,the enemy can easily appear in the rear areas,and those soldiers have to be able to fight,to throw grenades effectively,and to lug a full combat load. Women can’t do that.

  • cajunwarthog

    As a Senior NCO of the 80′ and 90′s, I can assure you that women drastically degrade the effectiveness of a combat unit. In non-combat unit the effect is not as great, but is still very noticeable.

    Yea, go ahead and label me as “male chauvinist pig” and “racist”.

    • Bamaguje

      You are realist, not a “male chauvinist pig.”

    • kiwi41

      How dare you tell the truth !!
      + 1 for realist.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      Nope, you’re just a truth-teller.

    • MattBracken

      Don’t worry, I’m sure that the Chinese and Russians will also lower their standards, and have quotas for weaker women and open homosexuals in their combat units. Just to make it fair.

      • cajunwarthog

        I’m sure obama has written a sternly worded letter to the Putin and the Red Chinese demanding they “feminize” their military also.

        • contemptuous Maximus

          Don’t worry, the Peoples Cube assures us that Obama will only fight countries which have an LGBT military.

      • jon

        Where do the transgenders come in??

        • Nabukuduriuzhur

          Rapes went up 50% in the last year in the military. LGBT’s not taking “no” for an answer.

          • jon

            No surprise there………….the entire country has been getting raped for the past six years!

        • JayWye

          they’re all in the hospitals getting free “reassignment” surgeries,or recovering from them. Or they’re having reactions to the female hormones,and are on sick call.

      • JayWye

        Chinese families ABORT most of their female children,so they have a severe imbalance,and a LOT of military-age young men that have no chance of finding a mate.

    • Sniper Tracks

      Was an NCO of a Special Action Team (SAT) in Germany during Cold War days 80′s. We had a couple of women on the volunteer team. They agreed to the conditions that if they could not keep up the physical demands and training programs they would be removed.
      What bothers me to most is the use of progressive wording “Gender metrics” which could and may lead to the introduction of “Cross Gender” being implemented into the ranks?

    • PatnTrucks

      I was in the Air Force 71-75 and I agree with you! No way can women hold up combat positions! No way! Women that go around ‘apeing’ men’s behavior – with the haircuts, tattoos and walking in that funny strut they think men have and trying to be a she-boy still aren’t men! I know the Israeli army has women, but not sure in what roles they are.

      • trapper

        Not as infantry, artillery, nor armor–the combat arms.

  • Bamaguje

    I don’t understand the leftist compulsion to treat disparate situations the same way, even when it is abundantly obvious they are not, and consequences of equal treatment could be disastrous.

    Hence, women should be allowed into combat just like men, even if it means reducing standards that may result in more soldiers coming home in body bags.
    Islam is no different from other religions, so we must turn a blind eye to Jihadi violence.
    Gays should be able to marry just like heterosexuals.
    And there’s Affirmative action to lower standards for Blacks in order to ensure racial equality.

    • tickletik

      There are two players here. The moron, and the degenerate. Both these use leftism as a religion.

      The degenerate knows that he is tearing everything apart and intends it. A while ago I read an article written by some feminist saying that she knew gay marriage was nonsense, but she backed it because she hated marriage.

      The second person is the moron. This is the Ben Affleck of the movement. Sort of well meaning, arrogant, believes all the slogans. Mostly a jerk. These are the foot soldiers. They are all expendable of course.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        I would use alternate names: the Ben Afflecks are the “useful idiots” in Lenin’s phrase, while the feminist you mentioned is one of the radical power-seekers who fully intend to destroy Western civilization.

      • WhiteHunter

        Spot on. The America-hating radical Left, with the likes of Obama, Ayers, and Ward Churchill in the vanguard, is like a young vandal standing in front of a freshly painted subway station wall, his index finger twitching in thrilled anticipation on the button of his can of spray paint.

        They can’t stand the thought of leaving anything undefiled–which is why they’ve targeted the last two successfully functioning, undefiled institutions we still have: the American military, and the Boy Scouts of America.

        The very reason these two organizations still function–or did until recently–is that they have stubbornly maintained their original, and only valid, purposes: respectively, winning our wars, and training boys and young men to be good citizens, good husbands, and good fathers, respectively.

        They have achieved this by maintaining, cultivating, and enforcing time-tested “conventional” values, attitudes, and cultures. Which is exactly what so infuriates the iconoclastic Left.

        The Left has forced our military to enlist women for front-line combat, recruit gays, and even, incredibly, accept “transgendered individuals”(!).

        The politically correct corporate CEOs who dominate the Board of the BSA have reversed longstanding policy to mandate the acceptance of “gay” Scouts, though with the insincere assurance that the new policy won’t apply to Scoutmasters. Not quite yet, anyway.

        ‘scuse me, but I don’t think 12-year-old boys ought to be working out their sexual orientation around the campfire, no matter that the hard-Left ideologues believe that that’s exactly the best place for them to do so–particularly in group discussions with Scoutmasters whose own “orientation” is, uh, “unconventional.”

        The Obammunists and their friends have taken a wrecking ball to our country on every front–economic, cultural, diplomatic, and right now by refusing to protect us against the looming threat of an epidemic. If they’re not stopped right now, the damage will be beyond repair–but, characteristically, they’ll never accept the blame for any of it. They never do.

  • Gamal

    Gender norming is a code word for discrimination against men and should be illegal.
    I believe it was Israel that tried women in combat once and one of the problems was that the men kept sacrificing themselves to save the women instead of focusing on accomplishing the mission.

  • Godagesil Rex

    The writer ignored the 300lb gorilla in the room: the ethnicity of the Neanderthals. In both instances, they were minorities. I have Black and Hispanic Friends but they are older, as am I. They have educations, families and similar values to my own. I see an erosion of basic common decency due in large part to the influx of third-worlders who do not share out values. They come from a dog eat dog social structure, else why else would they be here. I’ve lived and worked in the 3rd world and it is clear to me that they don’t change when they get here. In both sub-cultures, Hispanic and African American, they value machismo. The whole phrase heard so common in both: “You dis’d me man! Don’t you dis me!” is predicated that they deserve your respect for merely drawing a breath. The notion that they have to earn someone’s respect is foreign to them. They have such fragile self images and have so little respect for themselves, and are very aware of their lack of value on any level, that they take offense at what they perceive is a slight from anyone and try to assert their dominance and worth the only way they know how: brute force.

    • tagalog

      Brute force in the sense of attacks-from-behind and roundhousing women who don’t expect it.

  • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

    As soon as we retire Barry Hussein from office, the next man to go has to be Gen. Martin Dempsey, who obviously got where he is by taking politically-correct stands that undermine our national security. (Recall that before he got involved in this gender-norming charade, he claimed the worst result from the Ft. Hood shootings would be the “loss of our diversity,” i.e. we need more Muslims in the military even if they’re subversives and traitors).

    • ata777

      Wrong General. It was Army Gen. George Casey who worried about a loss of diversity.

      • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

        Dempsey is fully in agreement with Casey.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        I stand corrected, Private – it must be that any two Leftists sound so much alike. Or perhaps Dempsey has made other politically-correct public statements that I simply mixed up. Anyway, he’s got to go!

        • ata777

          no argument from me.

  • http://www.hubpages.com/profiles/maven101 LarryConners

    Frankly I don’t understand the point of allowing women in combat. It won’t boost effectiveness.and will put men in harms way, unnecessarily… The Israelis did a study by sending a mixed gender unit into combat… One woman was hailed a hero and another hid behind a bush for an hour and a half while her unit thought she was kidnapped. But what is perhaps of the most concern is that the men went out of their way to defend the women. They put themselves in situations that they wouldn’t normally be in. Here is the story:

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/world/middleeast/looking-to-israel-for-clues-on-women-in-combat.html

    Congress has the constitutional responsibility to set the rules and regulations governing the armed forces (Article I, Section 8)….Unfortunately, Congress is as cowardly as the Joint Chiefs….
    Putting women in combat is as historic a change of military policy as anything I can think of, yet neither house has held full hearings on the question in over 20 years….

    • JayWye

      putting women in the military at all was a big mistake. Many of them can’t do the jobs they’re trained for. the heavy tasks,they end up getting a guy to do it,in addition to his own duties(“teamwork”). Or they’re off on sick call,or they get pregnant,and have to be shipped stateside,put on “light duty”,etc,and are thus ” not militarily ready”. Leaving positions empty. So either their job doesn’t get done,or some guy has to do it in addition to his own.

      • JayWye

        I was in the USAF,and stationed at a northern base;and being single and stuck living on-base,I was put into a snow removal team. They got me up at 3AM every time it snowed,to clear sidewalks,etc. (and then to regular work afterwards) The married guys got “auxiliary police” duties. NONE of the WAFs had any extra duties. They also lived in the BOQ.

  • David

    I was in an MI unit. Despite the disparities in enlistment between men and women, women made up about the same number of Arabic linguists. Women actually seem to be better at many aspects of intelligence work including cryptology, foreign languages, and keeping track of disparate pieces of information. They also tend to be very good at logistics and in the medical fields. If the government wants more women in the armed services why doesn’t it launch a stronger recruitment drive for women in those fields?

    Or how about this: do what the Soviet Union used to do and have all female combat units. Same thing for submarines, have an all female crew of submarines or battleships.

    • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

      You’re advocating logic and reason in the face of a feminist agenda. The very first sacrifice on an ideology’s altar is truth.

    • Nabukuduriuzhur

      Most millitaries had separate units.

      The Soviet women’s units didn’t fare very well when captured by the Axis, although they were more likely to survive the camps than the male soldiers.

      The “night witches” were an interesting development with women pilots, but like other Soviet air formations, they were not nearly as well trained or equipped as their Axis antagonists. (A possible exception is the IL-2, but the claims are contradictory on its effectiveness.)

    • JayWye

      Females on the ships and mech infantry can’t do the heavy tasks. can’t do damage control,can’t fight fires. you’d lose more ships.
      there’s NO valid reason for having women in the military,it’s just social PC garbage. and terribly corrosive.

    • Biff Henderson

      An all woman submarine crew may or may not pose a problem because the menstrual cycles of women living together tend to synchronize.

      • David

        Ha Ha Ha, you did a very good job of imitating a clueless, sexist, moron. Very funny.

        • Biff Henderson

          I can’t know if you have had the pleasure of experiencing a “menstrual synchrony myth” environment. According to you the Ha Ha Ha barrel of monkeys were the victims of their cluelessness as they conveniently used the excuse of the Cycle for bad behavior. It is tragic that the deluded, self-effacive, sexist morons openly professed a change in demeanor. The unenlightened and cowardly man bought into this belittling lie instead of demanding an accounting for said behavior. The victim of victims ad infinitum.
          “The magic of the tongue is the most dangerous of all spells.” – Edward Bulwer-Lython.
          The social engineers have plied their magic to identify the ignorant woman’s crutch, those falsehoods cheaply exploited to absolve them of the responsibility of their failings. Biology is no match for magic. I’m calling bullsh^t. I tend to weigh the preponderance of the anecdotal over the magical meme.

      • JayWye

        an all-women sub crew would not be able to “turn the wrenches”. the heavy mech jobs,they would be unable to perform. Kiss a costly sub bye-bye. They probably would not even be able to load their sub with supplies before starting a patrol. Or handle torpedoes. Women crew on a sub might (would) be a hazard to all on board.

        • Biff Henderson

          After gender raping the mental faculties of the military establishment the boat should be a snap. The Progressive Think Tanks raided the Magic Kingdom of their Disney Imagineers, they could be swell fellas and loan out a few for a good cause.

  • Kruton

    If 10 % of Marines at Guadalcanal were women who would have won?

  • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

    “Nobody holds the policy-makers accountable,” because half the public has bought into the left’s memes. Eventually, reality will hold America accountable and all of us will suffer for the stupidity of half our friends, neighbors and relatives.

  • hrwolfe

    The Clinton administration saw the Military as a fine place for social experimentation too.

  • FedUpWithWelfareStates

    It is coming, the final nail in the coffin to destroy the military, by forcibly integrating females into combat arms units, lowering the standards for them & eventually promoting them faster than their male counterparts. What will happen when males (primarily White males who make up the majority of combat arms) stop enlisting, as I have advised my son not too, in light of the current degradation of the military? Will the draft be re-imposed? We saw how great that worked out the last time it was used during Vietnam…fragging of officers, disobeying of orders, etc. & oh yea, we lost that one. Of course this is all designed to destroy the last bastion of conservative thought, morality & social discipline…replacing it with a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the military…

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    “None Dare Call It Treason”

  • Nabukuduriuzhur

    I was far less kind when I wrote “27.3 Women in the Military” for National Wave of Foolishness:

    “The PC role of women of the last 20 years in the military has been a disaster.

    We’re not honest enough to admit it.

    While there have been successes here and there, the integration of women
    into non-traditional roles in the Military, particularly combat roles, has frequently been disastrous, although it’s not been PC to state. From the onset in the 1980s to now, it’s been a matter of women on one hand claiming that they want to be treated the same as men and then turning around and wanting special treatment. Relaxed standards. Different standards. Double standards.

    It’s not terribly honest to claim to want equality, to claim to want to be treated the “same as men” but to then clamor to change the fundamental nature of a job, is it? Or to clamor for doing it less well? Or to clamor for reduced standards?

    The stereotype of “women having to do it twice as well” is rarely true: there are too many thousands of examples wherein women were held to a different standard than men in the performance of their Military duties in the last 30 years.

    The typical woman of fifty years ago was better suited to military life, before personal responsibility became a dirty word in feminist jargon. Most women 50 years ago were tougher and more realistic about life.

    Think that is incorrect? Does today’s “modern” woman, who has been trained for almost forty years to avoid responsibility and to blame others for the consequences of her own decisions, have any business being in the Military?”

    “Some statistics from the military: of all unmarried women in the military, more than 10% are pregnant at any given time. You can imagine the logistics problems, as well as the emotional problems with that. More than 50% of those serving on Naval ships are pregnant at the end of each tour at sea. Now they want women on submarines.

    Perhaps the most troubling part of the entire matter is the thinking of the Military by so many women of the last 30 years as just “a career” or even like it was the “Boy Scouts.” Or something to “show men they can.”

    The Military is not a game or just a “career”. It’s a ruthless killing machine designed to kill the enemy and end the enemy’s ability to make war. The Military kills. It burns, breaks, rips, cuts, guts, grinds, blasts, burns, incinerates, crushes and riddles the enemy, and ends the enemy’s ability to make war. The Military
    does unspeakable things to keep the rest of us safe.

    Think it’s any surprise that so few vets who’ve seen combat actually want to talk about what they’ve had to do?

    The Military Preserves, Protects and Defends the Constitution of the United States by bloodshed. It’s meant to be a cadre of professionals who are expert at what they do.

    The “kinder, gentler” military envisioned by the Feminists could not protect the Nation.

    The Military is NOT a social club.

    The Military is not a game.”

    “Today’s American woman generally does not do well in combat from the toughness standpoint. Afghanistan and Iraq have proven that. The PTSD
    rate alone is proof of that, with some sources stating 100%.

    The conditioning American women have received in public school since the
    1980s to displace their responsibilities onto others does not make for toughness. Blaming men for everything doesn’t work well on the battlefield.

    As has been the case in every military that has ever existed— Russian, Israeli, German, the ancient Celts, etc— in actual combat, the men will tend to protect the women in combat and this leads to horrific casualties. It has in the past and will in the future. While training can ameliorate this to some extent, is it even worth trying to do so?

    Is it something we necessarily want to do? Is it something that should be done?

    In professional support roles in wartime prior to the past 20 years, women often did very well. Doctors, nurses, lawyers and the like. Some still do, despite today’s PC military and radical feminism.”

    “However, today, every group wants their own special rules. They want to be
    treated differently. So much for “equality.”

    How many women who entered formerly male-dominated civilian work in the last 30 years did exactly the same thing?

    Insisted that the job must be modified to suit them, rather than doing the job as it was? Unfortunately, that has often meant that the job was not done as well, the job is not done at all, or getting rid of the position altogether. So much for “equality.”

    The Military has been no different. From the mechanic who refuses to carry her tools like the male mechanic would, to different numbers of pushups required for physical fitness.

    Should we remove the Military’s ability to get the job done, merely for PC’ sake?

    We’re almost to that point with every group wanting their own special
    treatment.”

    • 1970greenie

      The Military is not a game or just a “career”. It’s a ruthless killing machine designed to kill the enemy and end the enemy’s ability to make war. The Military kills. It burns, breaks, rips, cuts, guts, grinds, blasts, burns, incinerates, crushes and riddles the enemy, and ends the enemy’s ability to make war. The Military
      does unspeakable things to keep the rest of us safe.

      Perfect. Absolutely Perfect. It is NOT the by scouts. So few seem to understand this.

      • PatnTrucks

        Absolutely correct. My service in the Air Force was in the hospital squadron. I did the hospital record keeping to be sure those injuries got it in the medical records – and we know that is important for VA benefits. I’m glad I did that work, also did hospital finance. You know….women’s work. I’m glad to have served, but I’ve always believed not all military jobs are for women. I read a study that under combat – the brutal killing part that some of these folks seem surprised about – women tend to break down immediately seeing Suzie blow to bits as opposed to the men who keep fighting when Joe gets blown to bits.

        • Clive Walters

          I’ve got to agree…someone has to tell the politicians about the sheer gut wrenching physical hard work of combat. Aside from the emotional wall that men typically can erect, there’s the unstinting strenuous work. Not just hauling weapons and struggling to use them sometimes for hours on end without food or sleep, but hauling wounded back to safety, caring your own gear and another man’s too because he’s wounded…carrying enough ammo (even 5.56 starts to get heavy), picking up an MG and ammo box and high tailing it to a position to cover your squad, in 50 degC heat.

  • ADM64

    The standards have already been lowered in the Navy and Air Force, and for support troops. Why expect anything different with the Marines and Army infantry and direct combat forces?

  • tagalog

    Standards that are “lower but equal?”

    The logic of equality of result: Orwellian degradation of the language.

    I mean, that’s almost word-for-word right out of “Animal Farm.” Even the Ivy League intellectuals in Washington, D.C., could be expected to get it.

  • 1970greenie

    The Military is not a game or just a “career”. It’s a ruthless killing machine designed to kill the enemy and end the enemy’s ability to make war. The Military kills. It burns, breaks, rips, cuts, guts, grinds, blasts, burns, incinerates, crushes and riddles the enemy, and ends the enemy’s ability to make war. The Military
    does unspeakable things to keep the rest of us safe.

    Perfect! Absolutely Perfect! As stated, it is NOT the boy scouts! So few understand this.

  • tagalog

    Nearly every combat veteran will agree that the training they got to prepare them for combat was effective in direct proportion to how demanding and tough it was. This is a given.

    I once had a friend (who had never experienced anything like basic training) who opined that things would go much better for recruits and boots if they could just take their NCO aside and reason with him. I burst out laughing when he said that. I guess it’s not that funny now.

  • Ellen_L

    The fundamental mistake is two fold. First, treating people as classes not as individuals. A woman who can do the job should be considered for it, however if there are few or none then that is ok.

    The second and worst error is choosing equality over liberty as more essential for a society. That was a difference in the American Revolution from all the others. We had been in a newer world long enough to value quality and competence over prestige yet not to give into envy of older notions of class. By substituting the notion that anyone should be allowed to achieve with the one that everyone is the same we lose the engine that drives prosperity and worse respect for the fact that people are individuals with different talents and virtues.

    Some will succeed and others won’t, It is not always fair or even just but it is the facts. Pretending otherwise will lead to destruction of the prosperity we could regain quickly if we don’t destroy the virtues of responsibility and optimism that drive those able to build an economy.

    • JayWye

      No,women should NOT be in the military. Period.
      We have to waste resources providing separate quarters and facilities for them,redesign uniforms and body armor (and then stock the extra items)
      They’re redesigning warships to provide special quarters,showers,and latrines for women,a huge waste;insanity,PC garbage. Women in mechanized ground combat units will not even have that luxury.
      And after all that waste,we STILL have all the other problems their presence brings. it’s NOT WORTH the trouble.

      • Ellen_L

        The military is larger than combat. There are many other tasks that women have been doing for decades. There were women in WW2, some as flyers doing non combat missions, nurses – today doctors as well. Then all the clerical positions and cooks etc. There were even a few who dressed as males in the Revolution.

        Besides my main point was not about women in military. It was to say that the idea that women ought to be more represented and standards changed to make that possible was wrong and part of a larger error of assuming that people are interchangeable and should be treated as classes rather than as individuals doing specific tasks. The standards should not be changed because one person is not as strong as another in any task. The standards are set by the requirements of the job. If a woman can do it and is willing to live with the requirements then she can try, but the standards should remain the same. If a rare person is so valuable but cannot do the job – find him/her another position where his/her talents are used.

        You may be right about some combat positions as well as some in police, fire fighting and other dangerous tasks, there may not be any women who can do the job, but then again there may.
        As to combat, sudden changes are a very bad idea. Thus in other countries where women are used – like Israel and we heard lately about women Kurdish flyers – the problem has been dealt with. To throw out women already in the military is a bad idea but to try to equalize the numbers artificially is worse.

        Thanks for the conversation. I see your point but suspect we are talking at cross purposes and don’t disagree all that much. We may not be using the term military in the same way. I am including more than the situations you describe where trying to accommodate women may be a terrible idea. Of course, that is not the only waste our less than knowledgeable not so brave leaders are fostering on us, but it illustrates their bad premises.

  • cree

    Obama’s “fundamental transformation” includes (of course) our military. Orwell made it up as fiction; the Obama oligarchy fulfills as prophecy.

    Women own the honor of being key to victory in WW2. They did their role, the men did theirs. It worked and worked as it should, well; they own their portion of glory.

    Women installed in ground combat will dishonor them by captivity or injury or slaughter. The attempt to “equality” the differences in male/female physiology for ground combat is impossible and insane.

  • rogerinflorida

    Read this:
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/infantry-combat-not-for-women-says-battle-tested-female-marine-captain

    USMC Captain Katie Petronio has walked the walk, she knows the score.
    These idiots in Washington are causing a lot of problems. Oh, and yes, 80% of men couldn’t hack it either.

  • GSR

    As a veteran, I too can also attest to the notion of women in direct combat positions. Absurd and not safe – for them and the country. Let me serve in non-combat assignments.

  • C.V. Shaw

    I believe that there is a book entitled “Weak Link: The Feminization of the Military” that discusses the disastrous effects women are having on the U.S. Military.
    Here is some scientific data relevant to the original post:
    Skeletal and Muscular System
    Strength, Power and Muscle Mass
    On average, males are physically stronger than females.
    The difference is due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males; and, also, having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass.
    While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is, in turn, due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men’s higher level of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females when adjusting for total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio. (Wikipedia- Sex Differences in Humans).
    As a result, gross measurements of body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes as a result of this difference and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength.
    This is supported by another study that found that females are about 52-66 percent as strong as males in the upper body and about 70-80 percent as strong in the lower body.
    One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees- in 45 and older males and females-found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength. (Sex Differences in Humans-Wikipedia)
    Skeleton
    1. Males, on average, have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.
    2. In men, the second digit (index finger) tends to be shorter than the fourth digit (ring finger). While, in women, the second digit tends to be longer than the fourth.
    3. Men have a more pronounced “Adam’s Apple” or thyroid cartilage (and deeper voices) due to larger vocal cords.
    4. On average, men have longer canine teeth than women.
    5. Male skulls and head bones have a different shape than female skulls. One difference is in the roundness of the eye cavities. Another is the male’s bony brow. Another is the shape of the jaw.
    6. Male and female pelvises are shaped differently. The female pelvis features a wider pelvic cavity which is necessary when giving birth. The female pelvis has evolved to its maximum width for childbirth. An even wider pelvis would make women unable to walk.
    In contrast, human male pelves did not evolve to give birth and are, therefore, slightly more optimized for walking.
    The female pelvis is larger and broader than the male pelvis which is taller, narrower, and more compact.
    The female inlet is larger and oval in shape.
    While the male inlet is more heart shaped.
    7. Contrary to popular belief, however, males and females do not differ in the number of ribs.
    Both have twelve pairs. (Sex Differences in Humans-Wikipedia)
    Respiratory System
    Males typically have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with about 56 greater lung volume per body mass. They, also, have larger hearts, 10 percent higher red blood cell count, and higher haemoglobin, hence greater oxygen- carrying capacity. They, also, have higher circulating clotting factors (Vitamin K, prothrombin and platelets). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance. (Sex Differences in Humans-Wikipedia)
    However, despite all of the aforementioned, in my opinion, the main reason that women are not qualified for combat duty is the fact that they do not have the character, the intelligence, nor the courage to perform in a combat capacity. Traditionally, through out history, the reason that women have not been allowed in combat units is the perception that women are too base, cowardly, and intellectually deficient to serve in a combat capacity. The history of the behavior of women in the U.S. Military seems to confirm this perception.
    I served with the U.S. Army; 4th I.D.; 2/8th Inf.; Republic of Vietnam 1969-1970.

    • tagalog

      Fourth ID -go Ivy! The feminists will take all the data you cite, cite the upper-end-of-the-sine-wave anomalous women who can compete muscularly with men, and claim that because the exception exists, the claim of male muscular difference is bogus.

  • Biff Henderson

    What the military fails to address is the “norming” standards of a pre or post-operative transgender jewelry fruits. Then there’s the she-males that limit themselves to hormone therapy. You can’t expect them to sacrifice their body image by bulking up. Should “it’s” be required to meet the stringent standards of a male? What of the biological female that’s crossed over to who knows where? Wouldn’t it be appropriate to a have single, salad bar standard so those that identify as the other can live with themselves? Another thing, everyone should be awarded a participation metal the minute they put on a uniform.

  • David

    What’s your source on that?

  • barbarajoanne

    Now this is the real War on Women. Not that the Left will care.

  • donqpublic

    Hey, they’ve played the same equality game in law enforcement for fifty years and 97 percent of the officers killed on duty are males. Females are grossly under represented in deaths and staffing for equal pay and benefits. Even after all the gender norming and quotas, law enforcement can’t attract enough females to do the job to achieve “critical mass” without the luxury of a draft to sexually integrate the ranks; and an affirmative action draft to ensure equal dying for equal pay between guys and gals in the military isn’t going to happen unless the goal is for Potemkin units filled with tokens backed up by special forces swat teams when it gets hairy doing the occasional policing of man made natural disasters. But, since they’re determined to make it work, I suggest segregating the units by gender and then the generals can better able balance unit death rates–by rotating contact time with the enemy by gender to achieve equal death rates– between the sexes to achieve equality in pay and opportunity for medals while performing the mission. True, there will probably be more deaths than necessary, but hey, sometimes equality can suck.

  • Waiting

    Wasn’t it a woman who was unable to keep the guy out of the WH recently? Numerous bad guys have gotten away from women police officers by strength alone. Firemen, police, and military have to be able to keep themselves alive while aiding others to live. The women who don’t want to take on a man’s job recognize they have other strengths and gifts given by our Creator.
    This whole world is going down. Beasts are rising and rulers are unable to stop them.
    Revelation 13

  • BobH2003

    As a Brit we have the same stupid ideology going on over here as in the USA.
    However I seriously believe there is a very good solution to highlight the idiocy of these gender equality falsehoods. It is a solution that is very straight forward, and will clear expose the end result of their so called “equality”.

    Able sports organisers should start a major and serious campaign to get all women competing in all sports events, on an equal footing against men.
    All separated male/female sports should be banned outright in these competitions, and the known feminist activists invited to help make it happen.

    Women should be made to compete directly against men in all sports events, boxing, wrestling, running, weights, swimming, discus, javelin, long and high jump, cycling, etc.

    Feminists want every equality they can possibly obtain, making full use the law to enforce it. However their resounding silence on enforcing it in sports is interesting. We men should correct that silence asap!

    This campaign would take considerable organisation and publicity but would in the end serve a very good cause in showing that equality is not possible.

    Is there anyone out there who can make this happen?

  • trapper

    Leftists never learn. Each thinks that he can do it when all others have failed. This experiment has been done in the Israeli army, the Canadian army, and the British army. In all these instances it was determined that women could not do the job and should not be put into these combat roles. This is amazing. PS If there is no problem with women in combat why don’t we make all women combat units–we don’t because they would be inferior to those of the enemy.

  • Ellen_L

    I agree with you. My comments were intended for the general problem not the specific military one. It is certain that the military is NOT the place to try to make everyone equal. The missions are too dangerous and important to risk on incompetent people more interested in socializing than achieving the objectives.
    There will be few women who would do well in such an environment but there are those few. Perhaps they would need special assignments so that the men would not be distracted by trying to protect them. There are probably better places for those valiant few than combat – like spying or sabotage. Or they could form their own special units.
    The idea that every one should be equal is bad even among men, not everyone can be a Marine or even a regular soldier. Some are not talented in that direction or are physically not strong enough.
    My point was that life is not fair nor should people expect equality. The liberty to attempt something is not the promise that one will succeed. Better to learn what one is good at than insist that others deal with incompetence.

  • jon

    Better ‘splain that XYZ stuff to Obamy ‘fore he start puttin tampon machines in foxholes……

  • couldashitamiata

    The Israelis tried this. It was a disaster. Could be this is why Barry wants it.

  • JayWye

    Actually,FN Herstal invented the P90.
    And the 5.7×28 military ammo pierces body armor and helmets.

  • vnamvet1969

    The question in my mind is why would a woman want to participate in ground combat? They should realize that their physical makeup would dissipate any chance of survival against a male opponent in hand to hand combat. They would have never made it in Viet Nam, I assure you. That war tried even the strongest of men, both physically and emotionally. And, let us not leave out the sexual distraction involved. Even old mama son looked good after a few months, and how do you deal with that relevant issue? It is just a fact of life and I have not heard of this being addressed.

  • reyol

    What they want so bad that they can taste it is to get a woman into a special operations unit such as SEALs, Special Forces, Delta Force or Rangers. It’s only possible if they keep pulling a female candidate out of training, let her stress fractures heal, then re-insert her into the course where she left off – something they don’t do for any man. This is what the Royal Marines did a few years back to get a woman through their commando course.

    It will take immense resourses to do all the mentoring, grooming and gender norming that women will require in the numbers that they want. It will take a lot longer to get even the toughest women through such a course. Basic Training in the Army has been so watered down to accomodate females that real training for male Soldiers takes place after Basic. So, basically, to get a few women through say, the Ranger Course, will take a grooming process like I described above; but to get a lot of women through will take making it as easy as today’s Basic Training.