Lobbyist groups are advocating lowering standards for female infantry

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.