re: "Pressure grows on Marines to consider lowering combat standards for women."

quote:

---

Women have been in combat scenarios for years in both Russia and Israel with great effectiveness.

---

Not really.

They're relegated to a single mixed battalion in Israel that sits out and guards the Sinai border and have never seen action. They sat out the war in Lebanon in 2006. The Israelis learned their lesson the hard way and pulled way back from allowing any women in combat roles after 1948.

Russia hasn't had women in combat roles - and that was mostly snipers in what was their greatest existential threat since the Khans came sweeping down the plain - since WWII.

quote:

---

Ziva would mess up your world.

---

She has horrible trigger discipline. You'd end up getting shot in the arse by her.

quote:

---

That's interesting.

---

of course I've been away from that end for some time, hopefully just by the sheer numbers they are getting better applicants but the first few waves were filled SJWs wanting to make a statement more than be an aviator, Kara Hultgreen comes to mind, I saw a documentary not long ago following the training paths of two Naval aviators that began training on the F-18 together, at the end of the show the dude was over in Iraq dropping bombs and laying down cannon fire, CAPs, etc, i.e. doing his job, she's still trying to figure out how to land on the boat, and given quite the opportunity to do it

quote:

---

Chesty Puller would slap the frick out of Dempsey.

---

This X 1,000,000

quote:

---

obviously, but with any job, you have to actually show the qualifying standards effect the performance... in this case, would (and im completely making numbers up) a 5:30 mile instead of 5:15 make a noticeable impact on safety, or would it create a larger team able to contribute in a positive way?

Im agreeing that saying "ok what test would a woman pass" is silly, but asking if there is a reasonable argument to be made for changing standards in general.

---

To tell you the truth, if the physical fitness test were made to be more oriented towards actual combat, it'd probably eliminate half or more of the already very small group of women who can pass muster with the basic enlisted infantry training standards in the Army and Marines.

This is one thing the US Army and USMC could learn from the British Royal Marines - their standards are geared almost entirely towards combat effectiveness.

quote:

---

obviously, but with any job, you have to actually show the qualifying standards effect the performance... in this case, would (and im completely making numbers up) a 5:30 mile instead of 5:15 make a noticeable impact on safety, or would it create a larger team able to contribute in a positive way?

Im agreeing that saying "ok what test would a woman pass" is silly, but asking if there is a reasonable argument to be made for changing standards in general

---

And I understand that. My concern is that it's hard to quantify what a new minimum should be because what can happen out in combat is really unpredictable. The absolute worst can happen so you prepare for that as best you can. You need as much muscular strength and endurance as you can get.

I have never served, so I'm by no means an authority on the subject. So take what I say with a grain of salt

The military doesn't need to do anything to prove it's point except print out the current failure rate.

IF the idiots in D.C. need a visual, then the Army or Marines need to field a squad of active duty chicks, send them to a war zone, film it and show it on prime time TV nightly until 'Merica understands.

As a current Army Infantryman (Follow Me!), I personally have no issue with female in combat arm jobs (not limited to infantry - armour, artillery, etc). So long as they pass the same PT test that I have to. Not just that, while it's not a requirement, we have our "Infantry PT test" which is more based on endurance. For example, we run a mile and a half in full gear with the minimum time of 11 minutes. Another example is being able to fireman carry another soldier while you are both in full gear 100 yards.

The current PT test is a poor evaluator of strength and endurance. I just want you to be able to perform in the field.

quote:

---

You need as much muscular strength and endurance as you can get.

---

While true these aren't the most important things: #1 is mental toughness........I'll take a guy that's, while in shape, finishes in the bottom half of all recruits in endurance but you can't frick with him mentally. Those guys are like the Eveready Bunny.......they don't ever stop.