The Marines have Lower Physical Requirements for Women they’re Integrating into Combat

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Women serving in the military in Iraq were issued rape whistles.  To protect themselves from their fellow soldiers.  They needed the whistle to call for help.  As they could not depend on being strong enough to fight off a rapist.  Or a gang of rapists.  Which illustrates a point about men and women.  They’re different.  Men are bigger and stronger than women.  So women were given rape whistles to call for help when a bigger and stronger man tried to rape her.

Of course, that whistle won’t do much good in combat.  Which is where the left wants to put women in the military.  In roles that have been until now reserved solely for physically strong men.  Who can do 3 pullups.  Or more (see Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail by AP posted 1/2/2014 on USA Today).

Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.

The Marines had hoped to institute the pullups on the belief that pullups require the muscular strength necessary to perform common military tasks such as scaling a wall, climbing up a rope or lifting and carrying heavy munitions.

Officials felt there wasn’t a medical risk to putting the new standard into effect as planned across the service, but that the risk of losing recruits and hurting retention of women already in the service was unacceptably high, she said.

Because the change is being put off, women will be able to choose which test of upper-body strength they will be graded on in their annual physical fitness test. Their choices:

• Pullups, with three the minimum. Three is also the minimum for male Marines, but they need 20 for a perfect rating.

• A flexed-arm hang. The minimum is for 15 seconds; women get a perfect score if they last for 70 seconds. Men don’t do the hang in their test…

Military brass has said repeatedly that physical standards won’t be lowered to accommodate female applicants. Success for women in training for the upcoming openings has come in fits and starts.

But you are.  If you have different requirements for men and women you have lowered the standards for women.  Which will not only put their fellow Marines at risk.  But it will put these women at a disadvantage with the enemy.  Because blowing your rape whistle won’t stop the enemy from beating you to death.

There are many roles women can serve in the armed forces.  Even in combat zones.  From pilots to sappers.  And they have.  So close to the combat that they’ve been getting killed and maimed serving their country just like men.  But putting them into infantry units will get a lot of them killed.  Imagine a wounded Marine outside a foxhole exposed to enemy fire.  Who can drag that Marine safely into the foxhole quicker?  The Marine who can’t do 3 pullups?  Or the Marine that can do 20 pullups?  If a man is in that foxhole he may be able to reach out and grab that wounded Marine with one hand.  And drag him quickly into the foxhole.  While if it’s a woman in that foxhole she may have to get out completely and expose herself to enemy fire as she uses both hands to slowly drag that wounded Marine to safety.  And likely getting shot in the process.

Soldiers need to be strong.  The stronger the better.  And the more likely he or she will kill the enemy before the enemy kills him or her.  There should not be different requirements for men and women.  There should be only one requirement.  For Marines.  If women want to fight in combat they should be as strong as men.  Or they shouldn’t be there.  Just like we don’t have women in the NFL.  Which isn’t as hard as being a soldier.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Women in Combat Zones have been issued Rape Whistles to Protect themselves from their Fellow Soldiers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Watch a realistic war movie.  Like PlatoonSaving Private Ryan.  Or Band of Brothers.  And study the scenes where the combat is so close that it devolves into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where brute strength and dirty fighting kills someone.  Where men are reduced to animals in the wild.  Snorting and grunting and gasping for life.  Until someone can stab another to death.  Snap a neck.  Or choke someone to death.  For when the enemy gets this close you can’t use your rifle.  All you have is your physical strength.  And whoever is stronger typically wins these horrific hand-to-hand encounters.  This is combat at its worse.  Where the killing is close.  You hear the dying breath of the enemy.  And look them in the eyes as they die.

Now there is a drive to put women in combat.  Up to now they have only served in support roles that engaged in periodic combat situations.  Serving valiantly.  And paying a heavy price in the wounds they receive.  But they end their day in a rear area.  In a base with beds to sleep in.  Hot chow.  And showers.  They haven’t ‘rucked up’ and gone on extended patrols with the infantry or Special Forces.  But some say it is now time that women do (see ‘No girls allowed’: Iraq war vet Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on opening combat missions to women by Rick Klein, Richard Coolidge, and Jordyn Phelps posted 7/3/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Ask Rep. Tulsi Gabbard why she supports the military’s new policy to allow women to serve in combat roles, and the Iraq war veteran speaks from experience.

“I can tell you during my deployment, there were missions that I– volunteered for and was not allowed to go on, simply because I’m a woman,” Gabbard, D-Hawaii, tells Top Line. “They said, ‘Sorry, no. No girls allowed…’”

Gabbard also brings a first-hand perspective to the issue of sexual assault in the military, saying she “heard and saw incidents” of sexual assault within her military camp when she was in Iraq.

“We got issued rape whistles so that as we walk out of our tent or walk out of our hooch, we’ve got our body armor, we’ve got our helmet, our weapon, and we’ve got our rape whistle,” Gabbard recalls. “It was an eye-opening experience to have to consider that fact when we’re serving overseas in Iraq and…this is a risk or a danger that exists.”

Women have different physical standards in training.  To help them complete training.  Because they don’t have the same strength of men.  And can’t do what men do.  There are some who can but by and large if they didn’t have these different standards we wouldn’t have as many women in the military today.  Or have to issue rape whistles.  For if a women met the same physical standards as a man she wouldn’t need that rape whistle.  For she would be able to defend herself from a would be rapist.  Just as she would be able to defend herself if the enemy penetrated their defensive line and the combat devolved into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where blowing a rape whistle wouldn’t cause the enemy to stop trying to kill her.

Sure, some will say, a woman may be able to protect herself if it was one on one.  But what if she was being gang-raped?  Then she would still need that rape whistle.  If it was that bad in the military then we shouldn’t have women there in the first place.  For it’s an obvious distraction to the mission if we have to focus so much on sexual assault in these rear areas of deployed troops.  And what would happen once these troops left these rear areas and entered combat?  There were a lot of unpopular second lieutenants who were ‘accidentally’ shot by their own troops in Vietnam.  For putting men on report.  Or just being incompetent in leading men into battle.  When the bullets started flying accidents happened.  Grenades get tossed around and accidentally end up in the wrong foxhole.  And if they happen to have an enemy rifle, why, they could say the lieutenant fell gloriously in battle under enemy fire.  Any gang of soldiers who would try to gang-rape a soldier in their unit would have no second thoughts about making their problem go away in the field.  You can’t put them all in the brig.  If you did you wouldn’t have enough to send into the field.  So soldiers will enter the field with some possible bad blood.  And scores to settle.

Is it this bad in the military?  Probably not.  Can it be?  Perhaps.  For you’re always going to have trouble when mixing men and women together.  Officers may be gentlemen.  But soldiers are cold-blooded killers in the field.  Who revert to their animalistic past.  Where it’s kill or be killed.  Thinking that we can flip a switch on them to change them from cold-blooded killers to gentlemen is asking a lot of them.  And distracts from the mission.  For the few women who can meet the men’s physical standards is it worth it to play with these social experiments on the best military in the world?  Will these women make the best military better?  Will they not change it?  Or will they degrade it?  None of these three options make a compelling case to tamper with the best military in the world.  So why do it?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,