I have something to say about the number of women passing Marine Infantry Officer training…

I remember my exchange officer assignment to the U.S. Marine Corps II Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Lejeune, between1999 and 2002. My wife Angela will never forget our first Marine Birthday Ball and the true sense of warrior camaraderie as part of the Marine team. And being there, I got to see what the phrase, “The Few, The Proud” really meant. It was a toughness that came with earning the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor that defines an American Marine. In the Army we are divided by our respective branches and even along the lines of certain specialties — but there is only one title for those who wear the scarlet and gold: Marine.

So here’s a very interesting comparison between my Army and the U.S. Marine Corps. We recently brought you the story about twelve female Soldiers who passed the Ranger Training Assessment Course (RTAC) and will be heading to the next Ranger Course. Of course I was not on the ground to assess whether standards varied for males versus females in the RTAC.

But here’s another story that may not get widespread coverage. As reported by the Washington Times, “The Marine Corps‘ historic experiment to allow women to take part in its Infantry Officer Course ended with ZERO female graduates.”

“The last two female applicants hoping to make it through the course were cut during the Combat Endurance Test on April 2, along with nine of the 90 male Marines who applied for the program, Marine Corps Times reported Wednesday. Marine Corps spokeswoman Capt. Maureen Krebs told Military.com that female applicants were not expected to meet the same physical fitness screening standards as men, but they were required to match male performance in the course.”

“The 13-week school historically averages a 25 percent attrition rate, Military.com reported Friday. Since the experiment began about two years ago, 29 women have volunteered for IOC at Quantico, Ms. Krebs said, Military.com reported. However, female Marines have had a higher success rate at the Infantry Training Battalion course at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, where 122 of the 358 women who entered the course graduated.”

The Marine Corps was wise to get ahead of this social egalitarian experiment and do it their way — the right way, by maintaining their impeccable standards.

What we see from their assessment is that zero female officers met the standard of their rigorous Marine Infantry Officer Course (IOC). And an even more important evaluation is that approximately 35 percent of female Marines were able to pass the Marine Infantry Training Battalion course. The latter is equivalent to the U.S. Army Infantry Advanced Individual Training at Ft. Benning, Georgia.

U.S. Army Ranger School is a premier leadership course based on highly specialized infantry training operations. And its history is rooted in the exploits and operations of one Colonel Robert Rogers and his Rangers of the French and Indian War — namely his campaign against the Abenaki Indians. They were a specialized guerrilla warfare unit of hand-selected men, about 600 in strength. Spencer Tracy made the character famous in the movie, “Northwest Passage.” But enough of a history lesson — the important issue will be a comparative assessment of infantry training rigor.

I would hate for the results of these “experiments” to uncover that Marine infantry training is more rigorous than Army Ranger training. And don’t laugh, but you can just bet I’ll be getting lots of jibes from my Marine buddies if indeed there are females who “complete” Ranger School. They’ll remind me about what I’m sharing here — just like the ribbing I got over the “Army of One” marketing campaign and the commercial that showed the Soldier with no weapon and out of uniform, running in the opposite direction from the rest of the Soldiers. I’m quite sure some of you remember that commercial!

It was the Obama administration which issued the truly ill-conceived mandate that females be allowed to attend Army Ranger training in 2015 and next year, 2016, U.S. Navy SEAL training. I guess President Obama and Valerie Jarrett watched “G.I. Jane” too many times.

The Times say, “Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford will use the data to issue a recommendation to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter on how the Corps intends to open up some combat jobs to women in 2016.”

I’m standing by for his report. I maintain the position that it would be better for us to assess how we develop a power projection, strike operations-oriented force to meet the requirements of the 21st century battlefield — not these “experiments.”

I am quite sure American taxpayers would prefer better equipment and training for the combat infantrymen we already have — as opposed to this. I hate to use the words of one recently announced presidential candidate but, “what difference at this point does it make” to assess whether females can pass infantry or Ranger training when we’re not engaging militant Islamic terrorism and jihadism as we witness its spread across the globe. I suppose the next focus for our military will be on fashionable dress uniforms?

And just how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on these “experiments?” I’d rather see those victims and survivor families from the 2009 Ft. Hood terrorist attack by Nidal Hasan be provided proper benefits.

If you have time this week, watch the film “Northwest Passage” and you’ll understand why Ranger Training is fashioned with swamp and mountain phase — the Army cancelled the desert phase some years ago. There are some tasks that are not common, and particularly not easy for the common Soldier or Marine to achieve. The important aspect of the military that some civilians — mostly leftist progressives — do not comprehend is that our profit margin is not in dollars and cents — it is in lives. And at this current time, with the resurgence of a historically savage and barbaric, tenacious and determined enemy hell bent on their archaic beliefs to fuel their atrocities — we need warriors fashioned after COL Rogers’ elite guerrilla unit.

We don’t need “experiments” in social equality and fairness.

Leave a Reply

133 Comments on "I have something to say about the number of women passing Marine Infantry Officer training…"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
VL123
Guest

Politically correct social experiments. That’s all the left does with the military.

Guest
Guest

☞☞☞I RECEIVED FIRST DRAFT OF $13000!@ak14:

➨➨➨➨https://WebC0inInfo.com/home/position

✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬✬

MacClocker
Guest

Get the frack outa here you freaking spammer….go suck your lotus tailpipe…I also flagged your post as spam…too bad they don’t log your IP so you can be banned permantly.
You are worse than a whore you absurd troll

Jim Hasak
Guest

Sir prahs, sir prahs, sir prahs, Sour Gent!

Time to ease up on the requirements, eh. Otherwise, our military might end up being a bunch of really tough guys.

FRTYTMB
Guest

☛✈4 You can get it HERE

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

►►►►►►—- http://www.optimism.com/best/789k

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫

Brendan
Guest
The standards were not lowered for the Ranger assessment course, and most females did not pass. Mr West, your comparing the results of women in Ranger School to Marine Infantry Officer training is completely unfounded and only shows how little you remember. Zero women have completed Ranger School … Zero. A couple of women have passed a preRanger course to see if they were able to attend Ranger School. None have yet completed Ranger school. I also find it ironic that you think women are taking slots away from men in infantry units who could use the skills learned. I… Read more »
djmc993150
Guest

I find it ironic that you are trying to point out things he included in his post (he never said women completed ranger school and even went on a slight rant about what may happen if they did and passed). Reading comprehension I’d a wonderful thing. Try it sometime.

Brendan
Guest

Speaking of reading comprehension, I guess you missed where he wrote…
“I would hate for the results of these “experiments” to uncover that Marine infantry training is more rigorous than Army Ranger training.”

The assessment course is not Ranger training.

Also, that was not the hypocritical irony I was pointing to in his rant.

djmc993150
Guest
By the way, I guess you missed this line: “We recently brought you the story about twelve female Soldiers who passed the Ranger Training Assessment Course (RTAC) and will be heading to the next Ranger Course.” Kinda lays your whole point to be a clear case of not knowing how to read when he explicitly refers to both as separate things. Or this line…. “And don’t laugh, but you can just bet I’ll be getting lots of jibes from my Marine buddies if indeed there are females who “complete” Ranger School. ” Kinda hard to say he is saying they… Read more »
Brendan
Guest

no… I didn’t miss any of that.
And that minor quibble was the least of my problems with West’s rant

djmc993150
Guest

You have managed to quote, but still haven’t breached the comprehension piece.
Quick grammar quiz. Is “would hate” in the past, present or FUTURE tense?
If training women ALREADY (ie PAST TENSE) happened, would there still be any potential to “hate” in the future what has already been shown by the past?
Again, reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. Try again, task an aspirin for headaches.

marine
Guest

he was comparing infantry training to ranger school, not officer infantry training. it was a jab at the army. they almost gave all infantry marines green berets in 2000 for the equivalence in their training

djmc993150
Guest

I don’t think they almost did that in the least bit. I don’t know who led you to believe that but the army was the but of a lot of jokes when they took the black beret from the Rangers. NO Marine Commandant or any Marine I knew much less me had any interest in the gay beret.

Brendan
Guest

Please troll elsewhere and don’t pretend to know anything about the military

djmc993150
Guest

We certainly agree on his post.

Steve Finelli
Guest

I think it was easily understood that he was referring to when women finally do enter Ranger school, not that they already have. I did not take what he said to mean that women have already gone through the school.

djmc993150
Guest

No one did. He read what he wanted to read because he has some chip on his shoulder.

Brendan
Guest

No… that was a minor quibble… my main issue with West’s rant was his saying women take away slots that should go to men who could use the training, something I agree with, yet he, himself, tried to get into Ranger School several times while an artillery officer… essentially he attempted to do the same thing he is complaining that women are doing… taking slots from men who could make good use of the training.

djmc993150
Guest
A minor quibble that rather than admit you were wrong, dug your heals in by quoting a sentence that did nothing to validate your misinterpretation. It goes to your credibility. You failed to interpret a rather simple point in his article that was repeated multiple times. As for your “main issue”, nothing of what you said has anything to do with the point. Its called a false comparison and a bit of an ad hominem. All you did was essentially validate his point and attack him rather than have an actual point of your own. As to the heart of… Read more »
Brendan
Guest

Racist?
I have no idea why you decided to bring race into this.
What made you think that anything I wrote had anything to do with race?

djmc993150
Guest

It was an either or.. Either you have some personal grudge with him or you have one because hes black..

Brendan
Guest

How does my pointing out the hypocritical irony of him complaining about slots being taken from people who could use them have anything to do with race?
Are you just randomly throwing out a race card or did you actually something racist in anything I said?

If I call a black man a hypocrite it has to be because of race?
That is the same absurd argument that some Obama defenders make.

djmc993150
Guest

If Adolph Hitler walked up and handed you the solution to Nuclear Fission and free energy for the world, does it matter that it came from Hitler? Does his involvement add or subtract from the math of nuclear fusion? Same issue here. Just stick to the topic and debate it.. Don’t fall into the liberal trap of attacking people and not points.

Brendan
Guest

His point is hypocritical.

djmc993150
Guest

Then your only interest in posting is attacking West…
Than you shouldn’t be upset when people attack you personally too.

Brendan
Guest

So long as there is some merit to the attack.
Disagreeing with my interpretation of his comparing Ranger School to Marine Infantry Officer training is one thing.
Calling me a racist for no reason is just being absurd.
I am currently writing another response below, explaining to you exactly why I call him a hypocrite

djmc993150
Guest

Because either his statements are true or untrue. Its irrelevant who or what he is or what hes done.
You are trying to make it about him when its not. If you cant stick to the point instead of attacking the messenger than why should anyone listen to you.
If you feel women should be in the infantry then make the case. But if you think attacking the messenger because you clearly don’t think he should be allowed to make an argument, than you should really take a step back and look at what exactly you are really arguing.

Brendan
Guest
Ok.. I’m going to make this as clear as possible because you seem to have completely misunderstood why I am calling him a hypocrite and can’t see any other reason than race. These women are not in infantry units. I agree with Mr West that these women are taking spaces in Ranger school that should go to soldiers that could use the training. But… …that same complaint is why Mr West is a hypocrite. In a previous article on the same subject, Mr West stated that he applied for Ranger School twice while serving as an artillery officer. He was… Read more »
djmc993150
Guest
My intent was not to call you a racist nor do I in any way think that’s what you were going. I brought it up to try to establish a link in arguments. I personally don’t like Mr West. There are things he says and does that causes me to question the kind of person he is. But I don’t let it effect my reading of his pieces and listening to what he says on an issue. Some of his positions are the same as mine, some aren’t. My problem is, that when you make it about him and whether… Read more »
John L. Krueger
Guest
Ranger School is primarily a leadership school, that is why it’s been open to other branches, particularly for officers, for decades. However, as a rule, only combat arms were allowed to apply. There may have been some exceptions. If I recall from when I went, the primary exceptions were engineers. Because it’s primarily a leadership course, anyone in combat arms and engineers can use the skills acquired in Ranger School. The skills involved in producing a Patrol Order and preparing for operations served me well when producing Operations Orders and preparing for operations on short notice and in Armored Cavalry.… Read more »
Bo
Guest

Women would not last three days in BUDS training. This politically correct nonsense serves only to waste the precious training resources we have. Rank stupidity is what it is, but it’s what one comes to expect out of this administration.

wooly
Guest

At 20 I would’ve kicked BUDS ass. Nobody would give me a chance ’cause I was a girl. A couple of years later my neck was broken and people were shocked at my determination. Give women the chance and let us fail as miserably as the men do.

Brendan
Guest
No. You would not have. Unless you could miraculously overcome your female physiology, you could not have made it through. I do not doubt the determination or courage of women. And many women are very athletic and can compete with, and even surpass, some athletic men. but the infantry and special operations are NOT the civilian athletic world where the athletes go to the gym every day, follow a diet and are well rested. Women athletes, with training and diet, can outperform some male athletes. but they can not over come their physiology. Women’s bodies can not maintain muscle mass… Read more »
wooly
Guest

You’ve never met a pregnant woman? Nine months of nurturing what is essentially a parasite sucking up every bit of energy and nutrients. Incapable of getting enough rest. Hauling around thirty extra pounds every second then being expected to sleep in thirty minute intervals for the next year. Women couldn’t possibly understand the physical demands of combat….

Nighty night. Have fun debating.

Brendan
Guest

You are clueless.
That was a truly ignorant comparison.
Is that pregnant women hiking miles over rough terrain on no sleep or food?
No.
So please don’t comment on things you do not understand.

You have zero understanding of the rigors of the infantry.

wooly
Guest

“Is that pregnant women hiking miles over rough terrain on no sleep or food? No.”

Neither is the infantry, dear. Infantrymen are occasionally allowed to eat and sleep.

“You have zero understanding of the rigors ofof the infantry”.

If you say so.

Brendan
Guest

Wow… you have no idea what the infantry does.
Yes… the infantry sometimes humps over rough terrain for days on end with little food or sleep, while carrying heavy loads.

Yes… the infantry does eat and rest and often does short patrols…. that’s under the best of conditions.

But the infantry does not always operate under the best of conditions… and the fact that you don’t understand that shows how little you know.

you think the standards for the infantry should be to only be able to fight under the best of conditions.

wooly
Guest
Thank you for explaining to me what I know and what I think. If you could bring yourself to read what I’m writing instead of what you want to believe there could be a discussion here but you and DJ are having a meltdown because you both wish to believe something which is simply not true. None of your so-called evidence demonstrated what you claim. Since I’ve already addressed the one personal experience presented I will explain the reason why presenting a study showing the initial body composition of the average human body does not support your claims. Marines of… Read more »
Brendan
Guest
Nothing to do with ego And I am not saying women can not perform well in combat or in charge of combat troops. They can. Women have proven themselves in combat. Have you ever been in the military? I’m not asking because I’m condescending to you. I genuinely want to be able to illustrate my point and if I knew what you did and in what branch, I could lay out a comparative example to better explain. As to loss of muscle mass.. the studies you are citing refer to the natural loss of muscle mas over long periods of… Read more »
Enos
Guest

No it’s not

wooly
Guest

It doesn’t cost so much for men to fail that THEY are prevented from trying. You boys scared a woman might kick ass and look good doing it?

Thedead Whitemale
Guest

It’s not about you. It’s about the needs of the military. It would not be worth going through 10,000 men to find one who could make it. Fortunately, it requires nothing like 10,000 men to find one who can do the job. It is not worth going 10,000 women to find one who could make it.

wooly
Guest
Horse puckey! Are ya serious? You’re telling me it costs money to have women take a run at this and it costs nothing for men to? Do they have to use pink, scented paper that costs $100 a sheet to do preliminary testing for women and not for men? Do they have to have grief counselors standing by just in case a woman doesn’t make it? Doesn’t cost anything to tell a weakling “no” regardless of gender. Considering how many more men there are IN the ranks it seems there wouldn’t be ANY more women (proportionally) having a go than… Read more »
Wendy Blaski
Guest

I’m with you wooly, but I’m out of here. I’d suggest you do the same. You’re outnumbered and you can’t fix stupid. None so blind as he who will not see and all. But you’re still right. 🙂

Brendan
Guest

Where did you serve?
How familiar are you with the rigors of the infantry?

Gene Ellefson
Guest

Apparently you don’t understand statistics, or math for that matter so I doubt if you would have passed SEAL training either. Testing for 1 in 10,000 women obviously is not as efficient as screening out 80 out of 100 men (typically 80% of men fail BUDS) It is NOT worth it to test those 10,000 or even 1000 women to find 1 woman that will pass.

wooly
Guest

How many men who are unqualified get screened out? You’re claiming 20% get past early screening. If zero women can qualify that would screen out ALL women who apply. How does that hurt YOU? How does that hurt anything but a few unqualified men’s egos?

Gene Ellefson
Guest

Wooly, it doesn’t hurt me….we are talking about the cost with screening out the 999 to get 1 qualified woman vs taking 100 male applicants and screening out 80. If you can’t figure out that it is not cost effective to screen out the 999 women then you really have a serious math / economics problem.

wooly
Guest

How many men apply each year and are rejected? How much does it cost to screen them? How much more would it cost to screen the few women who could get all their paperwork squared away just to apply? How could they come up with that money?

Maybe buy one fewer toilet seat? Fire some superfluous lackey?

Thedead Whitemale
Guest
Unless standards are lowered (as they probably will be), few to no women will qualify. So it’s a massive waste of effort trying to identify the one in 10,000 women who will qualify (before they lower the standards, as they did decades in other areas), rather than the one or two out of five men who will. It’s like fishing in a drainage ditch right next to a stocked pond. If your goal is to catch fish, you’ll hit up the pond. If your goal is to be fair to the underserved drainage ditch, I suppose you might catch a… Read more »
djmc993150
Guest

If your goal is to catch a shark than fishing in a pond isn’t going to work either.

wooly
Guest

So you’re preemptively failing ALL women just because some men are afraid of a few women’s success.

Maggie
Guest
I couldn’t keep to myself after reading this exchange. Wooly, I am a woman and I can see the clear logic in his statement. Women are built differently than men. That doesn’t mean that they’re less of a human being, but men and women aren’t good at all of the same things. It would be like asking a fish to climb a tree. Yes, women are strong, and some are very strong, but a trained woman can never beat a trained man in physical strength. Sure, some women will want to try the route of the Marines, but should the… Read more »
MaxEffectUSA
Guest

I agree, but standards should not be lowered to be “politically correct”. Standards in the US Navy were lowered for everybody to accommodate women.

wooly
Guest

F*@king aye. Fail or succeed on merit alone. You lower your standards to ‘help’ me I’ll lower your cheating azz to horizontal.

Thedead Whitemale
Guest

Right, because women even at the lowest, basic training level have to meet the same standards as men.

jeffnsc
Guest

That’s not true. Minimum standards for women are lower, fewer push ups (42 men, 19 women) and longer time for two mile run (15:54 men, 18:54 women).

wooly
Guest

That was sarcasm

jeffnsc
Guest

sorry! lol I usually get sarcasm. 🙂

wooly
Guest

😎

wooly
Guest

Your problem is not my problem. Unless you have absolutely zero reading comprehension you know I don’t approve of differential standards. You can do it or you cant.
Either way it’s not my problem

Thedead Whitemale
Guest

By the way, has anyone else figured out that “wooly” and “Brendan” are your twin sock puppets, or am I the first?

Brendan
Guest

WTF are you talking about?

wooly
Guest

Not even close.

Thedead Whitemale
Guest

Women can’t meet the same standards at the elite levels. It’s not a reading comprehension issue. It’s a reality comprehension issue.

wooly
Guest
Perhaps you can explain HOW it’s ‘obvious’ that women can’t compete at elite levels when there’d been exactly zero women even allowed to TRY until very recently? Certainly any shmoe can’t just show up and say “spend a shipload of money to train me to be a SEAL” and the Navy just DOES. Isn’t there some kind of standard necessary to meet BEFORE any formal training/testing takes place? I know I was rejected out of hand for having potentially functional breasts but is “not being able to gestate” the only standard a man has to meet? I’ll look forward to… Read more »
Gene Ellefson
Guest

You obviously have no clue about SEAL selection. It is not done in a vacuum. You don’t go to a recruiter and sign up to be a SEAL. They DO NOT waste valuable time and money trying to make just anyone a SEAL….there are physical requirements that are needed to qualify and there are required recommendations from senior officers, etc.

wooly
Guest

Exactly. Nobody gets to go directly into SEAL training. There are steps to go through and if a female can’t get those things squared away she doesn’t get further. Those arguing that allowing women to make the attempt will cost millions and take spots away from men are skipping over those steps in their argument.

Thank you for making my point.

djmc993150
Guest

Because how many women max out the basic male standards? For the Marines that’s 20 dead lift pull ups, 100 crunches, and a sub 18:00 minute three mile.
They had to modify the VERY reduced pull up standard they gave women already and still haven’t changed their run to meet the male times.

wooly
Guest
If they can’t cut it then fine. That’s a very different thing from saying they can’t TRY to reach those standards. So they fail. Big whoop. Everyone fails at something at some point. But claiming that females are inherently incapable -because of their anatomy alone- is a completely different thing. Pound for pound women are as strong and as functional as men. The difference is that women are normally smaller than men. If person A can do a job and person B is the same physical size as person A it is an insult to suggest one or the other… Read more »
MacClocker
Guest
You keep using the word “Inherently”. Women ARE inherently incapable of performing the same menial tasks that men take for granted, and you take a man and a woman of the same size and weight and the man can 85% of the time knock out the woman. A woman cannot stand there punch for punch toe to toe with a man and last for any real length of time. Of course there are those “manly” women out there but they take testosterone to grow hair and otherwise “bulk up”. Someone here already said and I agree that IF you find… Read more »
wooly
Guest

You not wanting a qualified and exceptionally well trained woman fighting next to you seems to be YOUR problem not the woman’s.

Brendan
Guest

No they aren’t.
Deprived of food and exercise, women lose muscle mass much faster then men.
Their bodies are not designed to maintain muscle mass the same way.
The infantry is NOT a 9-5 job where you get to go home and work out and eat well and rest every day.

djmc993150
Guest

On your second point, the person A and B comparison. It doesn’t work that way.

It goes even more deeply in biology about how a mans and womans body biologically reacts to austere living.

But don’t listen to me, listen to someone who has actually done it:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/12/12684555-women-in-the-infantry-forget-about-it-says-female-marine-officer?lite

wooly
Guest

I’m not talking about a 5’3″ female who lost 17% of her muscle mass. I’m talking about people of equivalent size. Stick a 5’3″ male out there and see if he can functionfunction at all. Or take a 5’10” Marine and have HIM lose that much. Nobody does well with that kind of loss but it’s not because she’s got boobies that she was less functional, it was her initial body mass.

djmc993150
Guest

So basically you have no argument / counter to her.
She lost 17% of her muscle mass for a reason jack a–.

djmc993150
Guest
First, its not just a “big whoop” when they fail. The military has a set and shrinking training budget. For every girl that is sent to that training that we KNOW she wont pass, that money is wasted. There are two further consequences; first we either have to add another male slot to take the unit she was supposed to take but failed out of IOC – essentially training two people for the same job, or we have to accept that unit will not get a leader until someone passes the next IOC 3-4 months later. If we KNOW 0-whatever… Read more »
wooly
Guest

Your opinion. Not reality.

GodGirl
Guest

God made men and women different to serve different purposes. The line has become so blurred we forget that. If women can make their bodies do the same thing without changing the standard then great! If not then they, along with men who didn’t pass, shouldn’t be in that role. Enemy combatants don’t know nor care your gender; it’s an injustice to put a woman in a role she isn’t meant to fill if she got in on lowered standards and endangers herself and others.

Hell-Cat
Guest

The point is to have an effective, strong military. Period.

Rooster Cogburn
Guest
I am glad they are giving them the opportunity to fail. It is important to show how hard it is. By the way all branches have standards for male and female recruits, with an obvious gender bias. It would be interesting to see how a female-only squad would perform. I have seen some real Amazonian redneck crazy-ass women who would scare most men to tears. Shred the dead in a river of blood type bitches and proud of the label. A squad of those. What it comes down to is mortally wounded women on a battlefield. I don’t give a… Read more »
jamrpb
Guest

Especially abut every 28 days…look out!!

djmc993150
Guest
I agree for the most part, but its really not about the mortally wounded woman in combat. Being in the infantry is more than the 5 or 20 minute firefight. Its the 6 months of operating from a mud hut patrol base with little to no hygiene. Its patrolling every day in 120 degree heat with 60-80 lbs of gear. Its marching 72 miles in three days while carrying 100+ lbs and going into the fight right after and digging a fighting hole that night. Its the long term physical demand and destruction of your body over 6 months to… Read more »
Brendan
Guest

I absolutely agree.

wooly
Guest

Women are such delicate and ungrateful creatures.

Men endure so much to keep them safe and now they’re thinking theyve got the right to demand equal opportunity. Not equal -outcome- but just a chance at the challenge and you boys are patting those silly creatures on the head and telling the little lady not to bother her little head about it ’cause the big strong men will keep her safe from failing.

SMH

Brendan
Guest

Our physiology is different

wooly
Guest

No shit sherlock. I never would’ve noticed that if you didn’t point that out.

That’s all you got?

Brendan
Guest

No kid… i have more and I’ve written you several lengthy explanations.

And clearly you don’t know that our physiology is different if you think women can be in the infantry.
Either that or you have absolutely no idea what the infantry actually does.

wooly
Guest

Watch that ‘kid’ stuff. I’ve got a son who is getting close to his 20 in.

You boys think you know so much about me.

Brendan
Guest

I respond with the level of respect that I receive .
You lost credibility and respect with your “no shit sherlock” remark.

I know almost nothing about you and I do not presume to.
All that I do know is that you know nothing of the infantry and are the type of person who makes ignorant presumptions about things you don’t understand

wooly
Guest

You thought it necessary to point out that men and women are different physiologically…..

You were not exactly breaking new ground with that statement

Brendan
Guest

Well it’s a point that you seem to not understand since you still haven’t acknowledged that women’s bodies can not naturally maintain muscle mass the same way men’s bodies do.

wooly
Guest
My assertion is simply that anatomy should not be an automatic argument for refusal and if it can be demonstrated that a woman can do the job without a reduction in standards there is no reason to prevent her from doing it. While you can claim whatever you wish you and your cronies haven’t shown ANY scientific evidence of any of your claims except you saying it. The one item presented was a personal POV piece by a woman who had a physically negative experience. A sample size of one is too small to demonstrate the factuality of any assertion.… Read more »
jimmy2sticks
Guest

Project 60 and Project Summertime (US Military Academy 1976); TRADOC Women in combat study (1986); Physical study of Army men and women (1992 submitted to Presidential commision)

Brendan
Guest

I have no problem with a women going to the same schools as men…. and my only issue with women in Ranger School is the same as my argument against non infantry soldiers who attend Ranger School… they are taking slots from soldiers who can benefit more from Ranger school in their units.

As to maintaining muscle mass… are you honestly saying you don’t know the differences in maintaining muscle mass in bodies that produce greater amounts of testosterone than estrogen?

djmc993150
Guest

Yep, tell this woman who I would trust in a heartbeat with my life.. Your childish “witty” response tells me you don’t really have any point or substantiating well thought out answer, just ad hominems.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/12/12684555-women-in-the-infantry-forget-about-it-says-female-marine-officer?lite

wooly
Guest

Just because you can’t admit your insults doesn’t mean they’re not there. You were the one that said women couldn’t endure the conditions. I have no problem with it being rare to find a woman who can but I DO have a problem with being patted on the head. You respond like my opinion is somehow a threat to you. I just pointed out your condescension.

djmc993150
Guest

Facts aren’t insults kitten did your feelings get hurt?
You can claim condescension if you like. I am pointing out fact, none of which have you been able to dispute. Nor have you been able to respond respectfully about the woman who was actually there. Your VERY condescending attempt to discredit her is pretty pathetic. So yes, when you attack fellow Marine officers from a position of ignorance I am not the least bit interested what you have to say.

wooly
Guest

I was condescending by pointing out that her physical size was a factor and that a man that size wouldn’t do well either?

Alrighty then…

djmc993150
Guest

The only way your post isn’t an insult is to her is you have to admit she did nothing wrong and her body mass loss was biologic. Which defeats your whole point. Otherwise you were insulting here for not hacking it like similarly sized men.

wooly
Guest

Please reread what I wrote.

djmc993150
Guest

I did, and you are still an a–

djmc993150
Guest

Yes because you know s—- about the military. There are plenty of men similar size who do well.

wooly
Guest

That was kinda my point. A human body can only take so much abuse but that’s not because it’s female. If a man who has whatever body mass and a female with the equivalent body mass lose the same percentage of that mass they’ll both be weaker. That’s not an insult. That’s not condescending. What’s condescending is to claim one can’t do the job because that one’s female.

Gene Ellefson
Guest

It isn’t about body mass….it is about circulatory system, it is about pulmonary system. There are basic differences between men and women in these areas too….generally men can tolerate cold better than women….

wooly
Guest

Your evidence, sir?

In my experience men complain about it differently but that is hardly proof that there’s a physical difference. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27real.html?referrer=

Sad that the first thing I could find was from the NYT but I have stuff to do … Have a peachy day.

djmc993150
Guest

A womans body BIOLOGICALLY REACTS DIFFERENT to those conditions than a MANS BODY.
PERIOD.
THATS SCIENCE not sexism.
Grow the he– up.

djmc993150
Guest

THEY DONT LOSE THE SAME AMOUNT. ARE YOU THAT DENSE!!
That was her whole point and mine.

wooly
Guest
Seriously? Women actually lose body fat slower than men precisely because of how they are built biologically. You’re not reading what I’m writing you’re reading what you THINK I’m writing. I don’t want anyone to get ANY position they don’t earn honestly. Okay? Women are not inherently incapable of ANY job because of their anatomy. Okay? Well except maybe writing their name in the snow with their own urine but that hardly seems an important part of military operations so… There is zero harm in allowing otherwise qualified personnel to go through a SCREENING PROCESS (note: I didn’t say full… Read more »
djmc993150
Guest

Seriously body fat is used for strength and endurance? Well we have this whole fitness thing all wrong and honey boo boo is well on her way to being the model soldier. Because clearly muscle and muscle loss has nothing to do with health and fitness. It’s all about how much fat you have.

djmc993150
Guest

So should the handicapped be given the chance too? What about 16 year old boys? What about 60 year men and women?
Where are you drawing your social justice lines about when we decide someone isn’t capable of doing the job by default.

Wendy Blaski
Guest

Are you intentionally misunderstanding wooly’s posts, just for the sake of arguing, or are you truly this dense? And now you’re just getting ridiculous with the handicapped and 16 and 60 year olds. Get serious.

It never pays to engage with people who won’t hear and don’t know how to listen, but I keep letting myself get sucked in. Anyway, wooly was perfectly clear in what he said, and you’re just being contentious and an ass. Now I’m leaving too, because you’re like chewing on tinfoil.

djmc993150
Guest
Actually no, the problem is you and her aren’t thinking through what she said. The core of her argument is that there will EVENTUALLY be a woman who passes the course, so women should be continuously fed into it regardless of all other consequences. Why? well because you all want your girl power social equality in ALL things regardless of biology (well not in all things because I have yet to see one of you complain that female dominated sectors need to take in more men). So taking her argument and intents foundation to its logical conclusion, you would HAVE… Read more »
wooly
Guest

Where did I say people who aren’t capable should be given jobs they can’t do? That’s a delusion someone else came up with. I said and continue to say if a person can meet the requirements they should be eligible to try for the job. I see zero reasonable/logical/scientific explanations for why women are INHERENTLY incapable of these jobs. Except that “they just can’t”.

djmc993150
Guest
Here you go, the SCIENTIFIC comparison of male and female skeletal muscle mass. http://jap.physiology.org/content/89/1/81 And, by the way, you have no scientific or empirical or logical reason to assume women are inherently CAPABLE of doing it. And go ahead point out the other nations that do it, I will show you how hollow that argument is and how poorly thought out it is. I have provided both a specific case – the only one we have of a woman performing in an infantry like environment and the health effects it had on her, the general study of male vs female… Read more »
Brendan
Guest
Wrong.. there is a very good argument for keeping women out of the infantry. I do not doubt a woman’s desire to fight nor am I one of those people who say they don’t belong in combat because they lack the killer instinct. Support units see combat and women have performed very well in combat with these units. My argument has nothing to do with those who are worried about what happens to female prisoners or how the American public will stomach female casualties. Those points are moot and absurd. Those who argue in favor of women serving in the… Read more »
djmc993150
Guest

0 of all women who tried IOC passed it. Where is your evidence they can do it.

wooly
Guest

And your evidence that 0 women ever can’t do it is…..?

djmc993150
Guest

Its irrelevant if you can find ONE woman who might pass IOC. You haven’t addressed the larger issues brought up by the Capt and you haven’t shown that the cost is worth the girl power activism.
I pointed out the huge cost of trying.

kelly vance
Guest
I was saying this in college in 1979, after separating out of the First Marines a couple of years earlier. . A lot of those college kids that just left high school thought I was an ignorant knuckle dragger. The profs were cool. After class we walked across campus and they asked me why I said what I said. I talked about the rigors of combat, muscle mass, ability to take a punch, etc. You sometimes might have to move, with full gear, ten or twenty miles overnight, then fight all day and all night the next day. Look, some… Read more »
J.e. Dyer
Guest

Tell it, brother. 20 years, US Navy, and no, we don’t need to keep trying to feed women up, down, or sideways through Marine Corps or special forces training. The purpose of the military is to fight and win America’s wars.

The military is taking enough resource cuts as it is. We don’t need to spend another penny on social experimentation.

Scott Snoopy
Guest
What all of those in favor of these experiments in military social engineering never mention it the high attrition rate of men from Ranger school, Q Course, the PJ/CCT/TACP pipelines, BUDs, etc. It takes a special breed to earn the various skill indicators/badges and to be one of the elite. All of this current crop of social engineers forgets what Patsy Schroeder said of her great social experiment with women on aircraft carriers…how did so many women get pregnant on the first Med-cruise of the Eisenhower? She was baffled that at least 20 of these women got pregnant…many were not… Read more »
Steve Baldwin
Guest

Between Panetta and Obama our military is going to hell. So glad I’m done. I couldn’t serve with all these experiments and changes for the PC progressives out there.

MotherBatherick
Guest

Pelosi, hillary and elizabeth warren; more examples of failed experiments.

aces928
Guest

The Army of ONE slogan was the worst ad campaign in modern history. What was never explained was the the acronym ONE; Officers, Non-commissioned officers & Enlisted, made us an Army of ONE. It was never supposed to be about an individual warrior, but the advertising execs got it all wrong and the ad failed. It looks like the Marines are still doing it right. Semper Fi.

Brendan
Guest

What do you think Marines are doing that the Army isn’t?

CMAC
Guest

Nothing. Ranger School is just that, school. You aren’t automatically put into a Ranger unit after school. It’s just a leadership training and assessment. Furthermore, these females only passed RTAC, which is like a “Pre-Ranger School”. For the Marines on the other hand, you don’t get to serve as an Infantry Officer without finishing IOC. IOC weeds out all but the best of the best, RTAC just weeds out those who really don’t want to be there in the first place…

Brendan
Guest

I know what Ranger School is and I know the difference between being a Ranger and being Ranger qualified.
My question to the other poster was what he/she thought the Marines were doing right that the Army wasn’t.

jamrpb
Guest

Lowering standards to get the quota through. The Corps won’t COMPROMISE, while the other services are too PC because of the Kenyan, Muslim’s policies/social experimentation.

Brendan
Guest

No standards were lowered and there is no quota

pandainc
Guest

Sure glad I was never in a Navy of one …

SmartAss100
Guest

They cannot reduce the standards to accommodate women….if there is a specific reason that each standard is in place….then those standards must remain. If there are standards that don’t really would not make much of a difference…then change it. I feel the same way for Fire fighters….if building is burning…I want a strong man, not sort of strong woman to be able to carry me…or my kids to safety….and Im a kickass mom….

Vet
Guest

I agree with some of Mr. West’s comments, but consider this- “We don’t need “experiments” in social equality and fairness.” If this were always the case, we would not have had Tuskegee. The military has led the way in the past with “social experiments.” and we are a better, stronger force as a direct result. Sometimes experiments yield amazing results, but they have to be given a chance.