(A.K.A. Non-Original Rants)

–Co-opting good stuff from all over the ‘Net and maybe some original thoughts—ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fitness for combat reviews. Let the histrionics begin

The Secretary of War has ordered an overall review of operational readiness in combat units. This includes looking at the approximately 3,800 women who are in such units for fitness.

The reactions of these women just proves that this is needed.

one service member raged against the double standard, writing: ‘You mean your guys can’t focus on the mission without trying to stick it in… not my problem.’

Another woman shared a text she sent to a colleague, blasting the scrutiny placed on female troops: ‘Are we also reviewing the effectiveness of men in ground combat positions, or just assuming they’re effective because they were born with a penis?’

Here’s the thing. Standards were changed to get women into those positions. If a woman can meet the same standards as a man to earn a place, then yee-rah. If she can’t, then she needs to do something else.

They are screeching like harpies because they think this is an outright ban on women in combat positions. It’s not. But if it turns out that all of those women cannot meet the same criteria as men, then they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

At a September speech to senior military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, Hegseth said women must meet the same highest standards as men.

‘When it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral,’ Hegseth said. ‘If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is.’

Just like I don’t want a 5 foot nothing female fighterfighter showing up to pull me out of a fire, I don’t want women in combat who cannot literally pull their own weight. It puts themselves and those around them in harm’s way and adds a burden to the rest of the team.

It’s just reality.

ht: B

ETA: This isn’t all military but is a good reminder that there are things that women really just can’t do.



10 responses to “Fitness for combat reviews. Let the histrionics begin”

  1. The enemy combatant is not going to adjust their combative style based on the “Combat Readiness” of the person they are about to engage with.

    To lower the standards of Combat Readiness is basically just saying, OK, I’m here to sacrifice myself in the name of “Equity”.

    Not exactly the most intelligent stance to take.

    Destroying things and killing people is the number one goal of the military. How an individual is BEST suited to do that is what needs to be identified and utilized.

    And THAT is regardless of gender. Even some Men are better equipped to fly airplanes or pilot watercraft than direct combat.

    Some are better marksman…

    Myself? Designing components for such systems as Harm, Aegis and Patriot….

    I could go on… but logic tends to escape the “Harpies” as you so eloquently described them.

    Like

  2. As Dirty Harry said, “That’s a helluva price to pay for being stylish.”

    Like

  3. All traced back to June 4, 1919, and August 18, 1920, infamous dates that got us to where we are today.

    Like

  4. Most of the videos showed commercial fisherman getting bounced around. Much different than naval operations. I know because I got flung out of my bunk in a tropical storm and ended up bleeding like a stuck pig on a fishing boat.

    As far as meeting physical standards, the issue is widespread across the military not just combat arms. My old coworker is CO of a cyber unit and was told by one of her officers that no one told her about fitness standards, and she didn’t feel that she had to do the annual PT tests.

    I trained some active-duty USAF officers that were by any definition obese. The fact is they must have been that way for years.

    It will take years to clean this issue up.

    Like

  5. If women want to be in front line combat units, then I have no objection PROVIDED that they are all in the one, all female unit. When they can’t dig foxholes and get mortared to hamburger paste, can’t carry the amount of kit that a modern infantryman has to lug around and run out of ammunition, food, water etc. and get shot to shit, or die of hypothermia then it’s a case of Oh, dear, how sad, never mind.

    What they should not be allowed to do is be integrated with a male unit which will then have to devote a lot of time, effort and resources to look after them. There is nothing more effective in destroying unit morale than having to carry and baby useless members that can’t pull their weight and expect the rest of the team to do their share of the work

    Like

  6. The Marine Corps used to unofficially call WMs (Women Marines) Waste of Money. In combat arms it’s true with few exceptions. There are some great female Marines serving in other jobs. Infantry units are no place for women, no matter the skill level. USMC infantry cultivates what many would consider barbaric discipline. It can be ugly, but is totally necessary, and embraced by those who serve alongside our warrior brothers. The sacrifice is enormous, and not taken lightly. If you know, you know.

    Like

  7. White German Shepherd Avatar
    White German Shepherd

    When I was in the US Air Force, we called them “split tail foxes”.

    Imagine my surprise when years later I saw a cartoon character depicted as a fox with two tails. I think it was on a Sonic cartoon. I busted a gut.

    Like

  8. Just have the registered democrats line up for inspection.

    Like

  9. boneman–Agreed. Logic does escape them.

    crazyeighter–He had many truths.

    Nemo–Definitely agree.

    Gerry–It was just a general video about jobs that women won’t do. And yes, it’ll take a long time to clean up.

    Phil B–I think that’s a good model to use.

    TRoy–It has never made sense why that was allowed.

    Shepherd–I bet it was a funny moment!

    10–Good idea!

    Like

  10. I wish I had saved a copy, because I’ve searched and can’t find the article again, but, years ago, I read an article by a woman who was a naval officer arguing that women should not be allowed to serve in the US Navy.

    As I recall, she felt that a women’s auxiliary would be useful, but the bad effects of women serving in the actual USN were almost completely bad. Her arguments were that women were not physically strong enough to be well-suited for duty at sea, and there were too many loopholes allowing them to avoid it. Each woman who avoided sea duty took a shore billet that was then unavailable to men, causing their time at sea to be extended.

    As a result, the expected cycling between shipboard assignments and shore assignments was broken, which meant that many male sailors had no opportunity to be with their families for periods of time that were always being further extended.

    She had further points related to how many women in the Navy were single mothers, but I don’t recall what her arguments were, other than that it was not a good thing

    Like

Leave a Reply to TRoy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *