Marines unveil new gender-neutral standards for 29 jobs. Your thoughts on Objective Testing?

I agree. As a 145 lb boot, I had to hump the largest man 200 lbs.+ in our platoon. That was just how the pairing chips fell. I felt my feet were sinking 6" into the deck, but I did it. Time and again.

Capt Jeff S. . I know you say it in jest but it is a coming, just wait. Nothing is sacred.

This is about equality though, you can't pick and choose when you want to use physiological differences that affect performance and when you want to disregard them. The same idea that if a few women can pass entry level infantry training means the field should be opened up to all women isn't much of stretch from if a few women can run 3 miles in 18 minutes, or do 20 pullups then all women should be able to do the same. In regards to effort I'll use myself as an example, after being shot in the arm, I have to expend more effort to get my 17 pullups than someone who hasn't been shot has to expend to get 20 pullups, because of physical limitations beyond my control.

Capt Jeff S. - I'm actually ok with that, the problem I have is that we have this Animal Farm notion of equality, where some people are more equal than others, when it's convenient.

Bear with me. I'm going to take an indirect approach to answering your question.

I have a problem when those we elect to represent us pass laws that impact us and exempt themselves from the same. Our government has transitioned from one that was representative of the people to one that is elitist and out of touch with reality. They have no clue about the military. It's nothing but a social experiment to them. And if they're wrong and get people killed with their stupid decision making, it doesn't impact them.

Ambassador Stevens requested security at Benghazi. Hillary denied it. Our embassy gets attacked on 9-11, but it wasn't a terrorist attack; it was just a bunch of people who showed up with mortars and RPG's to demonstrate about a video. And when Gen Ham put together a rescue team to rescue our Embassy personnel, he was relieved within 2 min. of giving the order to proceed with the rescue mission. Susan Rice gets promoted for pushing false narratives that she received from the White House, Hillary pushes the same false narratives and lies to the families of the victims, obfuscates investigations, and runs for President. To date, who besides Gen Ham (who did the right thing!), has been held accountable for actions taken during Benghazi? ???

If Chelsea Clinton had been at that embassy with Sasha and Malia, would a rescue mission have been attempted? Hold on to that thought and let's go back to the issue of security. If the daughters of these politicians (that make decisions for us) were there, they would have had all the security they requested AND THEN SOME! The embassy would not have been attacked.

Our politicians are spoiled by the fact that they are never held accountable for their poor decision making. They never seem to suffer the full consequence that the rest of us bear. If the politicians pass a tax increase, they give themselves a bigger pay raise. If they pass a healthcare plan for us, they exempt themselves from it. We can't insider trade, but they can. If they start a war, they aren't the ones fighting it, nor are their sons and daughters lives put at risk.

And if Congress mandates putting women and men in combat infantry units, it won't be their sons dying because Suzy couldn't keep up or pull her share of the load. Just because you can find 3 out of every 100 women that might could do the work men do in combat, you still don't gain because you waste money training a group that washes out at a much higher rate, sustains more training related injuries, and even in non-combat related MOS's requires more health care. IT MAKES NO SENSE! Not from a physical performance, or fiscal benefit perspective!!! Does our 'perceived' need for social justice trump common sense?!! Apparently in the minds of liberal politicians who live in bubbles of reality that do not have any tangent to the real world, yes.

Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. Keep that in mind. Not everyone can join, for good reason. Frankly, I think the geniuses that come up with all this PC nonsense would be singing a different tune if they suffered the consequence of their poor judgment. If our Commander-in-Chief had to lead our troops in battle FROM THE FRONT, he wouldn't be so itchy to start wars. If the sons and daughters of our Congressional leaders (who make decisions for our military) were in front line infantry units committed to battle, they wouldn't be changing [lowering] standards and stacking the units with women.

I don't care if you are a woman and are bleeding out of your whatever because you feel slighted that you can't be an infantry soldier. That's too bad. The purpose of the U.S. military is not to be the most PC LGBT friendly and gender neutral peace keeping force on the planet, while combatting Ebola and Climate Change. Our business is breaking things and breaking the enemy's will to fight by taking the fight to them in the most expeditious, violent and cost effective manner possible. PERIOD! The mere thought of getting their asses kicked by us should be enough to promote our national interests and deter nations from wanting to attack us.

I'm waiting for them as well. I did like that we have an Objective list, as opposed to a modification of the PFT, which is a "body mass" (subjective) test. As the article says, it's likely going to exclude "smaller" folks regardless of gender.

Chesty Puller was a little guy. Just saying...