Lobbyist groups are advocating lowering standards for female infantry

SGT Suraj Dave — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:29:13 -0400

http://www.gruntreport.com/u-s-marine-corps-might-lower-combat-standards-for-women/

Again, the government hasnt done this, but now groups are lobbying for lowering standards for equality purposes.

Thoughts? (I am against it)

U.S. Marine Corps Might Lower Combat Standards For Women

The first three women to successfully completethe Marine’s Combat Endurance Test (CET) have been asked to leave the rigorous, infantry officers training cou

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Nov 1 at 2014 12:39 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:39:49 -0400

I am all for equality, but if a person (note I did not specify gender) cannot meet the standard for infantry, that person should not BE infantry.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Nov 1 at 2014 12:42 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:42:50 -0400

The standard is the minimum required to do the job effectively. The military was not someplace where "affirmative action" is desired. They had women pass to current standard. It can be done. Leave it be.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Nov 1 at 2014 12:44 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:44:51 -0400

Tell them to f--king go "lobby" elsewhere! Or maybe these "lobbyists" should go ask all our enemies, foreign and domestic, to lower their standards so we don't have to fight so hard.

Golly gee whiz, ISIS guys could you please stop lopping heads off and only fire pistols instead of AK-47s and RPGs, pretty please???

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 1:21 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 13:21:19 -0400

Absolutely, positively, awful. The three Marines didn't ask that damn group to speak for them.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Nov 1 at 2014 1:22 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 13:22:47 -0400

IF you are asking that standards be lowered, can it be called equality?

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Nov 1 at 2014 1:28 PM

SSG Tim Everett — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 13:28:11 -0400

The military is not a political party or politician. It should not be subject to the whims of lobbyists, not ever. Whoever receives this "lobby request", should they be wearing a uniform, should tell them "duly noted, move out and draw fire."

Oh, you're a lobbyist? Cool story, bro. I have a lobby right out by the glass doors, there's a Staff Duty NCO and a Duty Driver. Go ask them what you can do to help clean my lobby. Ever worked a floor buffer? POUND SAND, troop.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Nov 1 at 2014 1:29 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 13:29:53 -0400

SGT Suraj Dave I think I can accurately predict you will get one, maybe two at most advocates for changing standards here on RP. Those of us actually in the military are all pretty much in agreement on this topic: standards shouldn't change, 'cause combat doesn't care. Combat doesn't care what color, sex or sexual orientation you are. Neither should we, on either the pro or anti-side. As your article pointed out, none of the Female Marines who have attempted these courses and failed have asked for reduced standards. Some of us may advocate increased standardization (as i did in this very similar thread) like the same PFT, maybe the same uniform etc. Some of us like CPT Private RallyPoint Member may be conflicted on how long we extend the competition and option to women, how many we allow to fail before closing the option generally, but none of us are going to promote changing the standard.

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/marine-corps-infantry-officer-course-and-female-marines-gauging-females-in-combat-roles

Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course and Female Marines, gauging females in combat roles |...

Through out the military there has been a push for female service members to join their brothers in some of the most challenging assignments in combat units. The Marines are by far the most adamant about proving this. They are steps beyond where the other services are in their own integration of females in combat roles. They are finding the cold hard truth. It really doesn't matter what one thinks is fair, as in requiring females to performing...

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 1:43 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 13:43:13 -0400

Bad idea. As the article says: "It would entirely undercut the value of their achievement, and diminish the overall fighting capacity of the Marine Corps."

Not only that, but do we want to lower the standards on any combat-related training for anyone? I think not. Those lower standards could result in higher casualty rates in combat.

The article also says that even the women candidates themselves don't want the standards lowered.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Nov 1 at 2014 2:18 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 14:18:32 -0400

Well of course we should lower the standards for female Soldiers. We have lower standards for PT, so why wouldn't we lower the standards so they can 'pass' combat schools. Personally, I would like to see the same standards for PT before opening doors for historically non-female MOS's. But what do I know, I am just a lowly junior Soldier...

Response by SrA Marc Haynes made Nov 1 at 2014 4:12 PM

SrA Marc Haynes — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:12:59 -0400

I believe that the standards were created to save lives in combat. These standards should be ones that protect this country and our service members as much as possible.

Response by PO1 Michael G. made Nov 1 at 2014 5:18 PM

PO1 Michael G. — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 17:18:20 -0400

SGT Suraj Dave I completely agree with you. One of the principle reasons that I have understood people to advocate for allowing women into combat roles in the first place (as well as other fields in the military, like submarines) is that they would advocate that if a woman can do the same job well, then she should be allowed to serve in that field. Okay, I can agree with that.

But, if a female is judged on a different standard, then that's actually where the inequality starts to happen. If a woman doesn't have to physically perform at a certain level, then why do men have to perform higher? The job doesn't care and can't tell the difference. So, if a *person* of either gender is considered fit for the billet with lower standards, then everyone ought to be able to graded on the same scale.

Obviously, I do not advocate lowering standards for combat roles or special programs. But it does smack of gender bias to allow women to serve in certain fields with only having met physical requirements that would have been substandard for a man to be in the same billet.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 6:23 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 18:23:17 -0400

I don't believe any Marine would think standards need to be lowered man or women. Our standards are what make us Marines and separate us from the rest of the services. Also why many countries try to emulate the Corps with their own version of Marines. We are not elite because we slack when things get tough. We are elite because we are pushed beyond our limits and secede. It is drilled in our being to adapt and overcome.

Interesting and lost in all the talk about these three women is the fact three men also where disqualified. I suppose if one of these men where gay then they would also be pushing the issue for lower standards for gay men.

Also the services have been scrambling to meet the January 2016 deadline that requires them to have incorporated women or come back with a reason – backed by research – why they were unable to accomplish that mission. Wouldn't failed the standards be research and reason enough.

If the goal is to just integrate women into combat roles so we look diversified and everyone has a feel good story. Then just put them in and to hell with everything.

But in my opinion the women who are trying their best to secede would feel let down by the system, if they modify standards for them. They would lose that feeling of accomplishment of proving they are good enough. They would always feel they have to watch their back and the feeling of not being excepted and ostrasized. Which will happen anyway because some men are asses.

But as I have stated in another post with a similar premise. Standards should not be purposely made to exclude women for the purpose of failure. If a women accomplishes the task and earns the MOS/AFSC more power to her and congratulations job well done.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 8:59 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:59:41 -0400

Lowering standards is part of the reason our beloved military is in the shape it is right now. When we needed the rush of troops for Iraq and Afghanistan we opened the floodgates and now it takes trekking through miles of red tape to get rid of the scumbags that are taking root in our ranks and choking the life out of the new recruits that want to serve honorably. That being said, despite the fact that I am in favor of opening more MOS's to allow females to serve, I am 100% against lowering or changing standards to suit them. When it comes down to crunch time, combat is combat is combat. Even though I am from a support MOS, I have had missions where I have gone out of my specialty and am expected to perform as well as my combat arms brothers, and I guarantee you that I will every time. And that is with a rebuilt foot courtesy of Uncle Sam. Now, if my non-combat arms self is required to train and meet certain standards in order to meet a specific mission set, why should less be expected of our female counterparts? I know that I can carry, drag, or somehow manage to move a fellow Soldier in the event he/she is wounded and unable to move on their own. I expect the same from whomever I am serving with. Lowering the standards for combat MOS's to allow more females to complete the courses would not be a positive move for the men and women that serve for the simple fact that our enemy will not lower their standards when attacking us. I've never witnessed, nor heard of for that matter, of an enemy that will take it easy on US forces for the simple fact that there are females present. So, all in all, if they want to join those specific military specialties, then do so knowing there are standards set in place for a specific reason and work to surpass them. For all in all, nothing in life is worth a damn if it is given to you as opposed to if you earn it.

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Nov 1 at 2014 10:20 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 22:20:04 -0400

There is a reason for the high standard! wanna see woman die in combat roles, lower the standard!

This isn't about equality, it is the Marine corps taking the lives of those in combat serious. Training, hard training, saves lives.
Perhaps we should ask our enemies to lower their standards so we can lower our standards without putting anyone at a greater risk.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 10:42 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 22:42:00 -0400

I don't think they will. But this was inevitable. This is what happens when you inject societal norms into the military. They will change policy to address this. I don't think they will directly change it but they will revise or update the standards to enable women to pass. Over time standards change. I think it will be a back door to getting them in to pass.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 11:22 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 23:22:12 -0400

SGT Dave & 1LT Rosa...I was assigned to the Commandant, Women's Army Corps HQ in late 1973 until the WAC was disestablished in 1976 (at that time Ft McClellan AL was also home of the Chemical School and later also the Military Police School). At that time women had to have higher intelligence and a high school diploma to sign up. All female officers had to had have a college degree. At that time, men were not required to have a high school diploma unless they wanted to be an officer--a college degree was not required for a male to be commissioned. Of course, West Point, ROTC and other types of legal and medical commissions except OCS and battlefield ranks had college degrees. As for "fitness" in some MOS series, a male could be color blind, with one leg and have missing fingers (we had plenty of them in 1974) . The physical require for a woman was higher. A pregnant woman was discharged, the father was not. That said, I personally photographed and observed new PT standards evolve for women and weapons training (they were not allowed to train with weapons, nor enter West Point, and for a long time could only be "sponsors" in ROTC.). Male officers and medical personnel worked with women on the run, dodge, & jump, push ups, and climbing obstacles...upper body strength was a huge problem, endurance was not when the conditioning stage was met. Fact is, the standards were lowered in one sense for both men and women. We got rid of the horizontal ladder and the run, dodge, jump and the inverted crawl. We added a mile to the run and added a time factor to pushups and situps. We did create different time factors for men and women based on age. That was just after the Army switched from the draft to all volunteer ="VOLAR". However, VOLAR was not an initial success despite enlistment bonuses for men that women did not get. After a time recruiting goals were not being met. I believe it was because of a combination of anti-war fervor and because not enough men were meeting the physical and mental standards. I know this because I wrote about it and had first hand access. A decision was made to "integerate" the Army by allowing 50,000 WACs to "join"--and suddenly VOLAR was a success again. Women still had issues with upper body strength and body weight as they matured. Men tended to lose muscle mass as they matured. PT standard changed many times...from a five event test to three events. More and more MOS series were open to women. Few men or women could met the standards for Airborne, Ranger, or Special Opns--which in my opinion should be the minimum physical standard for every soldier. For that is the essence of a soldier. It ithe basic standard because approximately 7 out of 10 men cannot meet that standard. Today, that qualified pool continues to shrink...and yet more women are meeting the standard than ever before. One woman was the honor grad and about to be the distinguished grad at the MP school in 1978 when she gave birth to a baby in the barracks. She was quickly chaptered out much to the chagrin of all because national news was asking: "if basic training was so tough, how can a pregnant female get through it and be at the top of the class?" Consider also that at this time, intelligence in terms of math and technical skills , verbal skills, and especially written language skills are also negative factors that are not looking good among many current high school and even many college grads. There are improvements from in eye hand coordination, spacial acuity, and dexterity in men that some attribute to sports and electronic games. In other words the more our culture gets fat and happy and diabetic with less social interactions and writing ability, the less we are finding men and women who can defend our country in my old age. Yet we are finding, in some cases, more women than men who can. Maybe that is a blip on the radar, maybe that is blip in evolution. Maybe it is simply shame on us.

Response by SPC James Mcneil made Nov 2 at 2014 8:30 AM

SPC James Mcneil — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:30:34 -0500

This is a horrible idea. Infantry is supposed to be hard. It's supposed to be intense. It's not supposed to be like t-ball where everyone gets a trophy just for participating. If you want to be infantry, then you need to be able to handle the demands of infantry. If not, then you shouldn't demand that they be lowered so you can participate.

This will get people killed if they do it.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 9:34 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:34:50 -0500

They wanted females in combat, they got it. I fully support that. If they want to fight, let them, women are just as capable as men when it comes to firing guns and things. However, my wife and I are firm believers that they need to meet the standard set for men; they NEED to be able to carry a 200 lb guy out of the line of fire, its their job, and if we lower standards for them it makes us as a force weaker.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Nov 2 at 2014 10:48 AM

SGT Richard H. — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:48:59 -0500

Absolutely unacceptable. The standards aren't there because the Infantry is a "Boys Club". The physical standards are there because they are what's needed for an effective fighting force. If anything, I would be in favor of HIGHER standards for Infantry (both male and female). High standards keep people alive.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Nov 3 at 2014 1:15 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:15:47 -0500

Although I am still not in favor of females in combat branches (I'm too "old school", I guess), if the decision is to allow it, then there needs to be a standard set (the same for everyone, not a different male/female standard). Anybody meeting that standard should be allowed to serve in that branch/MOS.

If you want true equality, make all the rules the same, regardless of sex. For example, if the desire is to treat males and females the same, make females register fore the draft, just like males. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

When this whole "females in combat" issue came up, everyone was assured that there would be no degradation of the standards for females. Right... The lobbyists and social engineers will eventually have their way with this one, just like they have with all the rest of the changes they have foisted on the military.

Bottom line is that it adversely impacts the effectiveness of our military, all in the name of "social justice".

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2014 6:23 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 18:23:56 -0500

I was in the Infantry for my first 5 years in the Army, it was tough, I knew dudes that couldn't hang. That's why I training over to Aviation. But the point is, you don't lower standard, for anyone, you continue to train the Marines. The service is not doing anyone, any favors by lowering standards…that will only get people killed one day.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Nov 5 at 2014 8:57 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:57:22 -0500

Surprised it took this long for someone to advocate for a lowering of standards to make for more equality amongst the sexes......

Response by SrA Marc Haynes made Nov 5 at 2014 11:37 AM

SrA Marc Haynes — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 11:37:58 -0500

I always did not like the idea of some people people that walked the 1 mile test instead of running it. I could see minor time allowances for age but these are military personnel and should be able to run 1 mile.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2014 12:00 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:00:56 -0500

They should shut their mouths. Some things are supposed to be hard and if anyone male or female can't make the standard then tough shit.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2014 12:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:07:12 -0500

I wonder what's going to be next....a female version of a tank with lighter rounds and a smaller track? Or lighter artillery rounds for the females/males that cannot carry the heavier ones?

Response by PO3 Christopher Saucedo made Nov 5 at 2014 12:07 PM

PO3 Christopher Saucedo — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:07:34 -0500

Keep the standards where they are at. If an individual wishes to perform that job specification then they should be required to pass the standards that are set. If we expect our military to be the best in the world, then tough standards should not be lowered. Well unless we want to have the so-so military in the world.

In the Us, we have been lowering the educational standards for years in order not to offend someone or hurt their feelings. Look where we are now with education. We have more students that cannot read, write, or even do basic mathematical functions such as adding and subtracting. Now don't get me wrong, there are some individuals that due to a disease such as cerebral palsy or autism may not be able to meet the standards should be given a chance to prove that they can do what they can based on their ability and the limitations of their disease.

This is a link to an exam administered to 8th grade students in 1895. How many of us could pass this exam today? I highly doubt many of us would pass this exam.

http://grandfather-economic-report.com/1895-test.htm

It just shows how much our education system has been dumbed down in order to accommodate individuals who do not wish to even try to pass a class and blame the teachers for their failure.

Now if we take this same approach as the US has done with education and apply it to military requirements and standards, where will our military be in twenty years from now?

Could You Pass the 8th Grade Exam of 1895? - by MWHodges

IT's doubtful many high school graduates could pass the 8th grade final exam of 1895 - - many college graduates and teachers, too. Why are today's school exams less rigorous than before, and failing to match meet international competition as prior generations? Quality problems despite higher spending.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2014 12:10 PM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:10:57 -0500

Abso-f-ing-lutely Not!!!! Hell no! Our enemies don't lower the standard for killing! WTF

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2014 12:34 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:34:26 -0500

Civilians have no right to impress PC, civilian societal norms on the military. We have a culture and structure that is not in any way like the civilian world. We use to assimilate soldiers when they joined, and now, as we have gotten "nicer," are suffering the ramifications of our more soft nature. Im sick of this discussion. If females want to go combat arms, fine...but the standard MUST be upheld. Civilians have no right to chime in with their opinions.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2014 12:57 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:57:17 -0500

No matter what the job, it doesn't get easier because of your gender. There will be women who can do the job and men who can't. Plain and simple. But to consider gender for any standard is sexist

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Nov 5 at 2014 1:16 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:16:53 -0500

Another reason why I don't like lobbyists...
How many of them have served in the military? Of those, how many are women? Why are they trying to lower standards for our armed forces? Do we need to be less capable to fight and win our nations wars? I don't think so. If women can pass the current standards and effectively serve in combat roles then allow them to prove that they are capable. We are doing a disservice to our military and our country if we lower the standards.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2014 2:08 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 14:08:25 -0500

I am pretty certain the pretty girl didn't make it judging by the look on her face..

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Nov 5 at 2014 2:09 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 14:09:40 -0500

Has lowering standards ever gotten anyone anything good? No, I think not and it will only jeopardize the safety of those who count on you to do a minimum skill or task. This takes me back to the question about lowering the standard in basic/AIT to get broken or unfit folks into the formations and allow the units to train them up physically. Not a good idea. Who comes up with this stuff? Folks in cubicles? Obviously not anyone who is where the rubber meets the road. my simple .02

Response by LCpl Sean King made Nov 5 at 2014 8:14 PM

LCpl Sean King — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 20:14:17 -0500

Ooorah! Cut the nuts off of the corps more than you already have uncle Sam! If that's the case why not cut the body fat standards and make basic a month and a half shorter? Next thing you know the corps will be softer than the AF and easier to enter than the army (no offense to either branch)

Response by CW2 Richard English made Nov 5 at 2014 10:00 PM

CW2 Richard English — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 22:00:57 -0500

I am a retired Marine Grunt and Army Warrant Officer. The lobbyist are using the wrong word, it is not lowering the standards but instead developing standards that recognizes men and women physical/mental differencies. I have years of expirences training men and women in the military when I served as a Drill SGT at Ft Jackson and a TAC Officer at the Warrent Officer training school. I welcome anyone who serves our country and I respect their choice of roll. American military is made up of marines, soldiers, saliors and airmen, not men and women.

Richard English

Response by SSG David Kaelin made Nov 13 at 2014 4:20 AM

SSG David Kaelin — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 04:20:54 -0500

There should be one standard for Combat MOS'. Period. We're talking lives here.

If you can't haul, you shouldn't be combat infantry.

If you can't do maintenance on the vehicles, such as pulling track, you shouldn't be there.

If you can't physically do the job....NO!

If you can...GREAT! Get it done.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2014 4:33 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 04:33:39 -0500

Unless there are verified medical limitations, women should not be given special treatment in order to work in infantry or any other military specialty. We can't have anyone serving in the military who cannot carry their own weight fully.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jan 22 at 2015 11:43 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:43:23 -0500

Okay, I cannot let this go for some reason, where is this Marine's cover! Of course the mess her hair has turned into only makes fact she is missing it more obvious, it does not answer where or why it is not on her head?

Since the Marine is the backgorund has their gear set up the same way I can only assume they uniformly ate up for a reason?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2015 11:50 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:50:04 -0500

So the lobbyists want us to make everyone equal by letting them into the ground combat forces but they want to lower the standards for gender equality? Am I missing something here? What exactly does equality mean to them, I am all for giving everyone a chance but not at the expense of standards. The hippocracy on display here by these groups is outrageous.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Jan 22 at 2015 12:02 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:02:42 -0500

Of course they are. This gets people killed.

We do need to readjust the standards by the job description in my opinion, but not by sex.

For example, I cannot fly helicopters because of a minor color blind issue, and that standard is there for a reason.

If I cannot lift 75 pounds and move it, then I cannot be a field artillery loader.

These standards are in place for specific MOSes and should stay that way, but all the standards should be enforced the same for men and women. Which means, again in my opinion, that we need a different PT test.

Response by SPC Stephen Bartlett made Jan 22 at 2015 12:28 PM

SPC Stephen Bartlett — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:28:05 -0500

Standards mean quality what kind of soldiers do we want

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jan 22 at 2015 12:32 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:32:17 -0500

If they can't hack it in training, there's no way they will hack it in the field. As stated there were even males axed, so standards are there for a reason. The reason is the safety of the entire unit and all those involved.

Response by SPC Jack Hunt, JR made Jan 22 at 2015 3:25 PM

SPC Jack Hunt, JR — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:25:19 -0500

So if the standards are lowered and the female troops can't keep up with their male counterparts on a mission, let's say on a forward recon. Does that not put all the troops on the patrol in danger?

That to me put the squad two troops down or possibly three. The female that doesn't have to maintain the equal standard of herald counterparts, as well as the one or two other troops that have to carry her and her gear.

I think not!

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jan 22 at 2015 4:12 PM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:12:33 -0500

It looks like they've already dropped the uniform standard for this one. She'll make a good officer. **facepalm**.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Mar 13 at 2015 10:10 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:10:47 -0400

Nah, they need to make it at the same standard as men, if they can make it great, but even some men fallout of the standard, but it should all be the same.

Response by CSM Eric Olsen made Jun 18 at 2015 6:34 PM

CSM Eric Olsen — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:34:34 -0400

Well tell them to stop!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 6:52 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:52:35 -0400

If they can meet the current standards fine. Lowering the standards never works out for the better.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 6:54 PM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:54:22 -0400

As much as I think women should be able to do infantry and special warfare programs like seal and special forces. We can have anyone dragging ass. I say let them join. They just have to meet the "male" requirements. They shouldn't get special treat ment on physical fitness standards if they are going to be guarding my back. If so more people are going to be coming off their flight home being cared by 4 to 6 military personnel. And we can't have that happen.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Jun 18 at 2015 7:11 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 19:11:10 -0400

Poorly sourced article with a clear agenda. Notice that the Marines themselves don't want to lower the standards nor have they said they want to. These unnamed interest groups don't matter. At the end of the day, the decision to let women into the infantry or deny them the same, both Marines and Army, will will be based on what happens during the rigorous training.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 7:13 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 19:13:25 -0400

My thought is, it's amazing how blogging is nothing like actually reporting news, where standards and ethics require you to verify your facts.

The "lobbyist groups" is one person, who wrote an article that suggested the Marine Infantry Officer Leader Course go back to the old school standard have having the Combat Evaluation Test later in the course, and not on the first day. Her reasoning was that other schools allow you to recycle.
Her arguments are well thought out, but they clearly come from someone unfamiliar with ground combat, as she spent most of her career in Fort Belvoir or teaching at the War College.
http://warontherocks.com/2014/05/can-women-be-infantry-marines/

Can Women be Infantry Marines? - War on the Rocks

When the Secretary of Defense rescinded the ground combat exclusion policy he gave the Services three years to fully integrate women into all combat specia

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 7:19 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 19:19:37 -0400

No way, it is absolutely a TERRIBLE DANGEROUS idea to change standards, I would rally everyone female Soldier I know and we would protest this.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 18 at 2015 10:54 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:54:53 -0400

Are the Rigors of Combat going to be lowered? Are the Loads that Infantry troopers expected to carry going to decrease? Are the bad guys going to make it easier on the women Soldiers?

This is what you get when the Video Game players that have never had to "Ruck Up and move to Daylight" try to make policy.

The big thing that everyone on the Rally Point that is in favor of women in the Infantry says is IF THEY CAN HACK IT...well, IF they have to lower the standards, Obviously they can not hack it.

NUFF Freaking said.

Response by PO1 Michael Burdick made Jun 18 at 2015 11:37 PM

PO1 Michael Burdick — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 23:37:26 -0400

Lower Standards means less abled soldiers and that is bad for everyone especially those who just get by. They will be painfully out matched and that will hurt them in the long run.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 19 at 2015 3:42 AM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:42:23 -0400

How many members of these lobbyist groups have served in the military, let alone in infantry billets?

Yeah I didn't think so...

Sure they're entitled to their opinion, but when they start demanding the military change something they have no idea about, they sound stupid.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 19 at 2015 4:50 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:50:56 -0400

Do other countries turn their Infantry into pack mules?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2015 5:10 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 17:10:43 -0400

So who carries their gear.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jun 19 at 2015 5:28 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 17:28:53 -0400

If three can do it then the rest should be able to do it.
And if the young lady in the pics was one that did it, as petite as she is, then the lobbiests can go Fornicate themselves.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 1:21 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:21:18 -0400

Unless they are also going to extend those same reductions to everyone, we must adhere to a standard. And we must caution against changing the standard merely to allow for for diversity. This is an exaggerated application of this possibility but should we also lower the standards for men who are not strong enough, fast enough etc for admission to various jobs? We must determine accurate criteria for a combat job without cooking the data to meet a politically correct goal at the expense of the security of our Great Nation.

Response by SSG Thomas Brousseau made Jun 23 at 2015 1:35 AM

SSG Thomas Brousseau — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:35:30 -0400

THE STANDARDS SHOULD NEVER BE LOWERED! If anything, with the current caotic situation in the world and current real world threats. The standards must be increased or we will suffer much more lost of American lives!!!!!!!!.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2015 12:14 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:14:25 -0400

brace for lawsuits from short people wanting to play basketball professionally, less attractive people who really think that they should have the chance to be a model, blind piolets, tone deaf singers, weak soldiers who can't shoot demanding to join Delta, intellectually challenged scientists and physicians.

Equal rights, whether it be for a job, a school, a financial loan, a career, doesn't merely denote the right to try for and successfully achieve a goal but the equal right to not make the grade, fail the test and not qualify.

Response by SGT Vince Albert Dickson made Feb 21 at 2016 9:01 PM

SGT Vince Albert Dickson — Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:01:34 -0500

I'm most definitely against it because there should always be a standard! But I feel that they shouldn't be Infantry because of being on the Frontline! And as a Leader I always (ALWAYS) focused more attention to the well-being of my Privates! I couldn't phantom have an Infantry Woman on my left or right! No disrespect to Service Women! But our enemies treat Women POWs diabolical! Keeping it real! Hooah