Four females left in Marine enlisted infantry training
Twelve females began Marine Corps infantry training and after their 20 kilometer (12 miles) march, four are left. Seven began the march, of the three who didn’t complete it, two will retry, and the third elected to train for another specialty. 10% of the men who began didn’t complete it either. From USAToday;
The Marines said 26 men out of the 246 who started also did not complete the hike.
In order to satisfy the requirements for the hike, the Marines must keep up with a brisk pace carrying equipment weighing more than 80 pounds on their backs.
So the social engineers aren’t going to be happy about this. The Navy Times reports that the Pentagon is already in the process of rewriting the standards;
[Jessica Wright, acting undersecretary of defense for personnel] is overseeing the process of opening up all military jobs to women by 2016, including more than 200,000 billets that make up the core of the ground-level combat forces in the Army and Marine Corps. The four services are developing a new set of job-specific physical standards.
She said military officials are consulting with fitness experts, occupational therapists and other medical and health professionals to ensure that the emerging physical standard will be based on “science” rather than “opinion.”
“The standard” as it currently exists has served this country and it’s warriors in combat for more than two hundred years, but I don’t see on Jessica Wright’s list of experts any combat experienced men. “Opinion”, in this case, is based on the crucible of combat.
Compare Ms. Wright’s answer to the article from USAToday about ten months ago when the Pentagon assured us that “The military will not need to lower its physical standards as it opens direct combat jobs to women”.
We can probably rest assured that we won’t see Ms. Wright anywhere near the sound of weapons fired in anger.
Category: Military issues
@49 – And you missed the entire point, which is that you and Fen @#1 seem to find it necessary to point the finger at women for failure, and have an excuse for it, and ignore the same things in men, as if men neither have failure rates nor lack the ability to complete a task – that it is only women who fail.
And that is completely not true.
Why do you find it necessary to ignore the men who could not complete the hike, but instead point out the women who did not complete it and make assumptions based on nothing but your own speculations?
In regard to statistics, which you are so fond of, 246 men versus 15 women is hardly a valid statistical demographic. This is an infantry training class, open to those who VOLUNTEER for it. They all had the same requirements expected of them, regardless of sex. Some met the expectations, some did not.
Why do you find it necessary to point at the women who failed and not at the men?
And why do you find it necessary to bring up a non sequitur argument about bone mass, as if that has anything to do with not completing a hike with a loaded pack, when it’s more likely that those who did not complete the hike were dehydrated and exhausted and their blood sugar may have crashed? That didn’t occur to you, did it?
And, if you will go back and read what I actually posted, I said women play hockey the same as men, AND in the Olympics. I did not make a reference to whether it was ‘check’ or ‘no check’. That came from you.
#49 I never made assertions or declarations other than responding to your statement in the 14th post. Whatever side point that was argued never came from me. You made a statement. I provided an answer.
Again, as far as women’s hockey: Women’s hockey does not have checking at the high school, NCAA, or Olympic levels. Men’s hockey has checking at all those levels as well as juniors and professional.
Also, to clarify why I am talking checking vs no checking: you made the statement
“If you want to argue the point, women play hockey just the same as men, and in the Olympics. Women are in boxing, weight lifting, volleyball, surfing, basketball, soccer, rugby, horseracing, 3-day eventing, track events, marathons, ice skating, etc. All are high-end sports with the same rules and expectations.”
The last part of statement is false. Male/Female hockey does not have the same rules. There is a difference between how it is played.
Unless I see a videotape of those wm’s keeping up pace I won’t believe it. I bet they fell back but didn’t quit and got credit for it. ITB humps are weak too. I want to see these wm’s in the line companies doing them after a week in the field being poured on in late November. I would pay money for that video.
I attend a few high school basketball games a year. Why, in a non-contact sport, no girls are EVER on the boy’s team? Sexism?
Also, that game that comes on TV on Sunday afternoons where they hit a white little ball with a stick? Never see girls playing with the boys. More sexism!
Why does the US Army Airborne school’s now have no mandatory pull-ups to graduate?
Jump school is now, and for years, has been a joke…why?
“Feel good stories” about the female soldier who did this and that, as their male counterparts (who also did the exact same thing and end up rolling their eyes) is becoming the norm and is being pushed by the PC military PAOs. The shoving of social engineering down the military’s throat is a sham on the public. Shame on the commanders who sit by and refuse to do the right thing.
“Air cav. Harper lee is female, too. Just so you know.”
BooRadley. Harper Lee is butch and my use of masculine pronouns when referring to him is appropriate. Just so you know.
“Clearly air cab needs a blow job,” writes BooRadley.
Yeah, and if the line for them outside your door were not a mile long, I might let you accommodate me.
“fitness experts, occupational therapists and other medical and health professionals to ensure that the emerging physical standard will be based on “science” rather than “opinion.””
It appears that there’s going to be more “opinion” than “science” if fitness experts and occupational therapists who are civilians and deal in civilian occupations. That’s why the standards are what they are, because “occupational therapists” and “fitness experts” with combat experience wrote them.
@13 – The pace varies, but if I’m not mistaken, generally it can be 112 to 140 paces a minute. A regular pace, as in marching is about 120 beats per minute with a 30 inch step.
Others feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
The Army’s Expert Infantry Badge 12-mile road march must be completed in three hours, so I’m guessing that the Marines’ road march is about the same time limit.
FWIW: 120 steps per min with a 30″ step equates to a 17.6 min per mile pace. A 4 mi/hr (15 min per mile) pace would require either a substantially faster pace or a longer stride – about 36″ vice 30″.
I’ll double down on that MG (retired) Jessica Wright is credible on these matters. She was our State Adjutant for years, and G-d knows if any woman could make it through infantry school, it would have been her. She was an incredible aviator and great leader, on top of that. And those of us who have run or road marched with her know that she could very darn well hold her own against many of the muffin-top shaped men the PA Guard seems to love to retain.
This infantryman held nothing but respect for her, as she was Pennsylvania’s AG through at least four Guard mobilizations for OIF and OEF. You can rest assured that she’s talked to people with on the ground experience at least once or twice throughout that, and that when she says standards, she’s not going to go for piffle.
I also have been to Shabbos dinner with Senator Cardin a few times. The man is a nice guy, but he’s the last fellow that should ever offer any sentiment in any direction on military training. He supports the troops, but he’s never been one, so he can suck it.
Having women attempting a traditionally all-male course of training is news worthy, and that is why it is being discussed. For all we know, when the training was initiated back whenever that happened, it was also newsworthy. Don’t know, don’t really care, except that anything new and different is newsworthy.
Men and women are physiologically different well beyond the obvious. It’s a fact. Ask any orthopedic surgeon about how that works out with the injuries he or she treats. Failing to understand this concept is excusable under some circumstances, but inexcusable when developing military standards and training courses.
It is also a fact that some people can never be trained to do some tasks. Some of those people are male and some are female. It doesn’t matter if I want to, have an aptitude for it, train to do it, and eat properly – I have never been tall enough to play professional basketball. Period. End of story.
There are also some folks out there who naturally can do this or that with little training because they have a superb collection of whatever it takes to do that task.
Other people have enough of this or that attribute to overcome other limiting factors. That is what training programs are supposed to accomplish – taking whatever talent we have and honing it into a skill.
If, however, we are a square peg, we can only be forced into a smaller, round hole, by causing great damage to the physical make up of the square peg.
I’ve said it before on the topic; I wish that the Israeli model were tenable here, rather than branch/force-wide modifications. When the Israelis stood up the Caracal infantry battalion, they, like they do all the way around, allowed the unit to have its own internal PT standards, and then only deploy the unit for missions tailored to their capabilities, all low intensity border defense type stuff.
But our whole social fabric is woven differently, so it is what it is.
Air cav- you’d be spoiled for life. And I accept that statement as a compliment. There are quite a few who wish that door wasn’t locked .
That being said- the news wrote a feel good story about maybe “changing” standards to placate the masses- when if you look at what’s actually happening in the marine corps you would KNOW that they’ve equalized the standards ( base standards- lowest to pass) to be more difficult for females – as they should.
The women who are in SOI have no
Option to become combat and actually lost their contracted MOS group to do this ( are now undesignated).
— and they didn’t even really volunteer for it in the same manner that guys did- they were offered it, standing on the line, after 10+ weeks of boot camp and had to decide right then. Without a call home, without any knowledge that the bitchy ass men who
Came before them were gonna rag on them and label them for the rest of their careers. And most likely make their careers hell because they dared to step out of line.
Boo, I know that the world has changed since I attempted several odd-ball things earlier in life, but I suffered no career ill-effects for failing to succeed when trying something new and untested. Given the opportunity, I was involved with more than one traditionally all-male pursuit. I succeeded at most, but failed at others. It was all good.
I am hoping that in today’s world, that at least some of the women who fail will still be respected for making the attempt. At lot will depend upon their attitude, of course.
I agree owb- Attitude does mean a lot. Truthfully I don’t even want to see females in combat, like most here, but I really feel like the snark level is over the top
You know-
I think every guy here would drag an injured brother 100 miles if he had to- but would they leave a female because “she should have been able to do it herself”. Because that’s the vibe I’m getting. Dead serious. And that’s sick
Boo, I don’t see anyone on here attacking these four Marines. Why do you keep reiterating your admiration for them? We get it. Asking whether they passed the fitness test on the male or female standard is not trashing them. Neither is saying that they should have been made to pass the on the male standard. If this eventually goes into effect, and females are put into the unit, how can they ever get any respect when their fellow grunts know they passed at a lower standard and still got to the same point as them? It is setting these females up for failure. And the setting the Military up for a deluge of EO complaints when leadership doesn’t promote enough females ahead of males that are held to a higher standard. That is not equality.
To the point about Olympics/sports etc. males and Females don’t directly compete against each other in these sports, making this argument irrelevant.
@69 whoa. That is completely off base and wrong. Who are you man? With a comment like that I’m starting to doubt you ever served.
Well, Boo. I think you are wrong about the vibe.
Are there nuts who would leave a fellow warrior behind? A few, of course. And they would pay dearly for that failure. That sort of attitude is not pervasive in the military that I know.
Smoke-check, Boo Radley is one of us girls. She may have reasons for thinking out loud.
So the standard pace is 4/mph with a loaded pack? I know I walk faster than that carrying my big Nikon camera, and have to slow down so I won’t miss the very things I’m going out to shoot.
Okay, 4NPH with a loaded pack. I’ll work up to it. Haven’t done that in a while. It should be fun. Plenty of hiking around here. It’s just the cost of gas that has held me back, but that’s dropping.
That should be ‘4MPH’. Geez, get some caffeine.
@22 Go back and read my #6 comment again, please. You missed the point entirely.
PH2 – might want to recheck your math, I’m pretty sure that 4.5 miles times 2 is 9 miles, not 7. More caffeine!
TN – you forgot the most significant – men think the Three Stooges are funny as hell and women don’t. (Per Jay Leno)
@55, this is an anecdote, so probably not of statistical significance, but.. I went to small upstate NY high school with a crappy boys basketball team. Our girls team was also not great, but they had a 6’6″ center who was awesome. She ended up practicing with the boys team but did not play games with them (it was the only way she could get a challenge). She ended up getting a free ride to Stanford for basketball as well. So, some girls, in special situations, can hang.
Thanks, Hondo. I was too lazy to do the math anyway. 🙂
I am going to concede that I’m wrong on the vibe because I don’t like when others “predict” so I will stop.
My point is only that contempt for policy reflects as contempt for the females involved even tho they didn’t jockey for this school- especially in some of the early posts.
I haven’t been here in a while and I was really caught off guard.
I raised my kids to see enlisted as a good step and I sure as hell hope the old timers are there for them.
@6 and 75,
I don’t think TTM missed the point, I just think he’s unimpressed.
@80 My comment was focused on what the women will get out of the training personally. I purposefully did not address the issue what kind of combat soldiers the women might be because I’ve seen the dogpile those kinds of comments cause before.
And I DEFINITELY picked up on the fact that TTM was unimpressed.
#15 “They should be commended….” Why? They should be commended the same as anyone who has passed that road march. When we finished the Bayonet in Infantry training years ago we had a ceremony, complete with “grog” to recognize those of us who had completed our training as Infantrymen. A few days later we pinned on the blue cords and then became normal dumba$$ Privates again. “Personally, I admire a woman who can run circles around me….” Why? Why not? I am far from in my best shape, but when I see a woman who is physically capable of keeping up with me or especially more hard-charging guys, I’m impressed. This shouldn’t be construed as anything approaching support for integrating females into my MOS, but rather further evidence that most will not make good Infantry Soldiers in my opinion. I’ll stop being impressed when they are fully capable of performing beyond standards in combat arms. “They are trailblazers and deserve accolades in one respect….” Why? For better or worse, we live in a society where “the first…” is always recognized. We have months that recognize blacks, Hispanics, women, Native Americans, and damned near every other non-white Christian male out there. I’m fine with it–growing up in the ’80s I never knew anything else. These women were “the first” to complete this road march, and may end up becoming “the first” to qualify in the Infantry branch. Like it or not, they are trailblazers in a society which sees fit to reap praise upon those who merely accomplish what countless others have. I can jump on the bandwagon and piss and moan about this change. I can use my twelve years in the Infantry to denounce all theories that females can make it in my MOS, take a nice refreshing drink of “Haterade” when a female encroaches on my precious lifestyle by meeting a standard which I and my peers felt she should have been unable to meet, and otherwise play the part of the unimpressed Infantry NCO. Or I can give praise when it’s warranted and acknowledge that there will… Read more »
There’s a LOT of people here talking in circles, without actually addressing the other’s points. The comparisons made to sports is at the professional level, just as Infantry is a professional level. We’re not talking about a 3rd world drafted Army, not even one that assigns people to “special forces” units while not training or testing their ability to be there. The US Military maintains a professional force, of a size way too small for the mission it is assigned. The size of an operational element, particularly in Infantry and other units which move on foot is such that the fewer boots leaving a trail, the better. That means it is far more important that each member is able to carry their own weight, both physically, and figuratively on the objective. And if a member of that element is killed or wounded, the equipment may be expendable but the other members must add that weight (the body) to their own load. In sports, there have been a few instances of a female soccer star going on to kicker on a male football team, but even that was short-lived, even at the collegiate level. Aside from co-ed organizations which generally require a certain ratio of females to males, there are few examples of direct competition between the sexes, and basically none at the professional (or Olympic) level. The inference is that the lack of co-ed or direct competition is recognition that it is not a fair playing field. The inference is that if these hypotheticals exist of a “superwoman” that could outperform on the same field, they would have occurred already. The attrition rate in this class (near 75% or 11 of 15 already out as of the 1st day of actual Infantry training events) compared to the standard IS a valid point. It is NOT a personal dig on the 15 or on the 4. It is a point that men and women are different, and Infantry is a very physical endeavor. The physical differences between the sexes are valid points to make, as are the increased likelihood of injury.… Read more »
Excellent analysis, TN.
As for your last two questions: IMO, those pushing for this could care less about the resource impact – or the impact on military effectiveness. And I also fear they will not listen to any answer other than, “We’ll make it work”.
@76 – Yes, it is a typo and I didn’t catch it before I hit ‘submit’. My bad.
TN, your discussion is very valid and to the point. Your question ‘those women found, that achieved that standard, would it not still be discriminatory against the majority of women that could not attain that standard?’ deserves an answer, but is this kind of training, for a specific program, voluntary or ordered?
If it’s voluntary, then I think the answer to your question should logically be ‘No’. If it is not voluntary, but those participating in it ordered to it, then the answer logically is ‘Yes’. There is a huge difference there.
If it’s voluntary but the volunteer can’t complete the program for whatever reason, are men discriminated against?
If it’s non-voluntary and the ‘conscript’ can’t complete the program, why should anyone, male or female, be subject to discrimination?
The real point is that this is going on and happening, whether anyone likes it or not.
I do NOT think that standards and requirements should be lowered, nor do I see this as a path to promotion. I despise the politics that go into this kind of thing.
Instead of being snarky and snide about it, the people who make the snidest remarks should be saying, ‘Good for them’ about the women who DO make it and those who want a second go-round at it.
And for the record there ARE Olympic sports in which men and women compete on the same teams against each other.
Thank God I don’t listen to Jay Leno. As a man,I find the Three Stooges very annoying. Different scenarios, but the same result. Someone is getting punch, kicked, slapped etc. Sorr, it was never my kind of show.
I would say yes, TN, it is discriminatory toward those not qualified to compete head to head with those who, because of an accident of physical stature (or whatever), are allowed to complete additional training, thus putting them in the “more likely,” or “more qualified” positions. On the other hand, exactly that sort of discrimination is practiced every day, in and out of the military.
For instance, medical squadron commanders are docs. No one else need apply. I am not a world champion figure skater because I don’t skate. Would any of us want someone flying the plane in which we sit who is not discriminating against those who have no pilot license?
OWB: I’d argue that what you describe is not discrimination per se, but is in fact the evaluation of applicants against standard and absolute requirements. And I have to accept that – even it it’s the only reason why I ended up in the Army vice the Air Force.
I have no issue with physical or professional standards that matter and can’t be waived, even if I don’t agree with them. (Though some I’ve seem to me to be true “head-scratchers”. Why, for example, is it all right for a pilot to need corrective lenses but not someone applying for flight school – unless they already have a commercial pilot’s license, in which case it’s OK?) If those standards are applied equally and are defensible, then, well, they’re applied equally and are defensible. Case closed.
What becomes problematic for me is when I see differing standards based on gender/race/ethnicity. And please don’t even try to tell none of those exist. They do, and I can show you examples in writing and in use today in every uniformed service – just look at the physical fitness test and height/weight standards, which vary by both gender and age. The variances may be defensible, and I may grudgingly accept the need for that variation. But they still are problematic for me.
I believe all the equestrian events, and sailing, are the only true coed events in the Olympics.
Mixed doubles events don’t count because that Requires one of each on each team, and that’s not a measure of gender vs gender ability.
I do wonder why curling isn’t coed though, there wouldn’t seem to be a reason for it not to be?
In any case, I don’t entirely agree with TN’S analysis of pro sports and women. I DO believe women have been frozen out of a lot of things sports related more out of chauvinism than lack of ability, not all, not even most, but a lot just the same.
As for the 4 women that completed the ruck march? Good on em, in the same way I applaud the efforts of ANYONE who can do it. In otherwords, no special kudos just because they’re women. And if women are wanting really equal treatment, they shouldn’t want any more recognition than what I just gave. 🙂
Jacobite: Olympic shooting formerly was (1968-1980). It ceased to be after the 1980 Olympics, reportedly due to pressure from Eastern European nations.
http://annieoakley.org/2012/03/05/will-the-olympics-shooting-competition-be-co-ed-again-one-day/
Nice article. And yes, I’d fully support coed shooting sports in the Olympics, there’s absolutely no reason not to.
Again, chauvinistic pressure due to bruised athletic male egos.
I hear ya on the issue of corrective lenses, Hondo. Keep in mind that I have not researched it in something over 30 years, so have no idea whether the same reasons, much less standards, apply. But, at one time, the decision really was based upon actuarial data. There had also been some small amount of slippage in how precisely the standard was applied, depending upon such factors as “Do we still have more applicants than we need?” and whether we were at war at the time.
My sources of information were primarily WWII flight instructors and some who continued in the field well into later life. It was a source of much discussion especially through the 60’s and Viet Nam.
All to preface that there did exist charts showing the age at which most people would need glasses, expectations for those with youthful 20/20 and better vision deterioration rates, and all that sort of thing. Fascinating stuff, really. Don’t remember the correlation between having a civilian commercial license and entry into the USAF. At one point during the 60’s (want to say 68-69?) having a commercial license did not help getting into the USAF to fly at all, but my memory is a bit fuzzy on the particulars beyond that.
During that time frame (late 60’s, early 70’s) in the ANG we had civilian commercial airline pilots in non-flying jobs while some professional athletes, accountants and lawyers were flying the planes! It was a very interesting time.
@82. Thanks for the response. I accept your answers as–well–your answers.
“Those of you who did your time–whether it was 3 years or 30–and hung up the boots will not have the painful transition my generation will have.”
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that and I have actually felt pangs of sympathy for those who have been in 10-15 years and have to play the BIG game. The newbies get the kool-aid from day one and their systems can more easily adapt to this socially engineered military. The ones with 19 or so years can hang. The middle guys get to sip from the cup, leave on their own, or get tossed.
@79. Boo Radley. I didn’t know you were a girl or I would have been a gentleman. Please accept my sexist apology.
#93, Hopefully I didn’t sound too defensive. I’ve known a variety of Infantry and other assignments over the years–from line grunt to spit-and-shine show pony to Recruiter with a blue cord, to brigade level staff. Hence, I like to think I have a slight bit more insight than some of my peers who have never served outside of an Infantry line company. I am not happy with this change, and my personal feelings are that even IF a woman can hold up in training, she will likely be a hindrance on the battlefield. I’ve said it before: today’s operations are completely unlike those of a conventional war. Most combat arms types do mounted patrols or short dismounted ones, and rarely do units stay in the “field” without support for more than a day or two. Even the most remote COP has amenities we didn’t have in early 2003. Earlier generations of Soldiers would be amazed by how “nice” many places are now. When we get back to taking and holding ground, with the point elements going weeks without resupply or respite from combat conditions, I fear this experiment may go horribly wrong. I’ve rarely trained with women in the field, but those times I have they have been required to go back in for hygiene after only 2-3 days. I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t like this job (staff). I also feel dated as a line Infantryman, and I’m seriously considering going back to the show pony life. This next year or two could be my swan song as an active duty Soldier. In an era of downsizing, we are looking at conducting a social experiment, meaning that long-time SSGs like myself may be unneeded. It is my understanding that women of all ranks will be welcomed into my MOS–I could very well have that immature 29-year-old S2 SFC as my platoon sergeant in less than two years. Or perhaps find myself mentoring a female SSG who has served for the past 15 years as a cook. Like you said, I can either conform, get out, or wait… Read more »
PH: like it or not, the whole ‘experiment’ is being implemented based on the argument that it IS about promotion. It’s a BS argument, as females have been promoted to the highest ranks of every enlistment type: CSM, CW5, and 4 star, but that IS the excuse of politicians wanting to force the issue of women in combat arms.
And this is not a new debate. It was an issue raised by Clinton and has been an issue under Obama since at least the time he repealed DADT.
@ Boo Radley. My comments were abit harse in #42.
However, on a related note we ran out of Tylenol and I resorted to Mydol. Took care of the headache and I did not bitch about anything for three weeks.
fm2176, when you say ‘sent back for hygiene’, could you be more specific?
If that is in regard to women having their monthly menstrual cycles or having to relieve themselves en route, then you should know that there are solutions to both of those problems, and there have been for several years. Women hikers and climbers use these, so you should become aware of them, too. They are low in cost unobtrusive.
This is the go-girl, which allows women to pee standing up: http://www.go-girl.com/
In the UK, it’s called a she-wee. Using it just takes a little practice.
If by ‘hygiene’ you mean finding a solution to menstrual cycles, the diva cup http://divacup.com/ should solve that problem.
And in regard to cramps, which are mosly caused by lack of hydration, nothing with caffeine in it and NO COLD water should be consumed. Both caffeinated drinks and cold drinks act as vasoconstrictors and add to cramps. And the other solution is over-the-counter remedies like Advil, which is ibuprofen, and Pamprin or Midol as long as they have ibuprofen, which is a prostaglandin blocker.
If the hygiene problem refers to the fact that without a daily shower, everyone smells like a goat — well, it comes with the territory, doesn’t it?
And likewise, if it’s about their hair getting greasy because it’s long and they have to keep it bunned up, then you and everyone else in your line of work ought to know by now that even Julius Caesar and Alexander made their troops keep their hair short, for a very good reason. If you have long hair, it just gives your enemy something grab hold of so he can cut your throat. You might want to take that into consideration when/if you have to train women in the field.
Ex-PH2,
It is my understanding that this was due to feminine hygiene problems, but since those training situations never involved my own Soldiers, who knows? And yes, there are certain products on the market–I read an article about the handy dandy urination device early in his deployment. Seems like a funnel of sorts.
I’m done sharing my personal thoughts on this regardless. As I said earlier, it is all moot as Big Army’s decision has been made. Even if I were General fm2176 there is nothing I could do to stop this train. Sometime in the next eight years I’m jumping the train regardless–whether it be through voluntary or involuntary separation or by meeting minimum retirement criteria. I’ll do everything I can as an NCO to see this work, and I’ll continue to take care of my Soldiers, male and female. When my time is done, it’s done…
@89 Have you seen the female curlers? You’d know why it’s not co-ed if you had…. /kidding — no need to flame me with pictures of hot chicks in parkas pushing giant stones on an ice alley for god’s sake… I’ve avoided this topic mostly because it appears to be as fm2176 says, a foregone happening to appease some perceived oppression of the female of the species…as with all things PC statistical data is irrelevant, and the current standard appears to be in danger of becoming irrelevant. With the military we apparently like deciding to run experiments without concern for the outcome. Dead women in numbers equal to dead men during combat situations will be an interesting outcome of this experiment. Do you suppose the photographs of young women on the evening new will result in the application of military force more often than current, less often than current, or no change? I think I have an idea what happens when we start seeing 3500 dead women and 3500 dead men…that’s equality in action right there…at that point the PC activists can explain to the families that their daughters are so lucky to be able to finally be killed in the service of the nation in equal quantities at men. At that point the heavens will open up and we can sing kumbay-f#cking-ya together and rejoice in our sophisticated civilization that we can get our daughters killed as often as our sons… Maybe the next 7000 US service members to die will do so for some reason other than leaving two sh1tholes exactly as we found them and leaving no long term stability behind….maybe the addition of women to the ranks of the dead will give us pause to consider using force for an end that makes the nation safer for a long period of time instead of a decade and then returning to exactly the same starting point of ten years previous. Or maybe nobody besides the people here actually give a rat’s 4ss about what happens to service men and women because after all 99.5% of these turds… Read more »