Marines delay female fitness plan aft...

Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail

There are 107 comments on the St. Petersburg Times story from Jan 2, 2014, titled Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail. In it, St. Petersburg Times reports that:

This Feb. 21, 2013 file photo shows female recruits at the Marine Corps Training Depot on Parris Island, S.C. More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pull-ups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at St. Petersburg Times.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#1 Jan 2, 2014
shocking, how many people will PC get killed?
John Reading

Hanoi, Vietnam

#2 Jan 3, 2014
dont snow me wrote:
shocking, how many people will PC get killed?
;) dont ask N dont tell! just do it;-000
Robert

Douglasville, GA

#3 Jan 3, 2014
"equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs" What that means in english is to lower standards so women can pass which will also let men who have no business going forward to pass also.

This is insane and anyone who has served in a infantry unit in combat knows it with having to give it a second thought.

Invite the girls to play tackle football with the boys if you want to see how this will work out.
Say What

Newport News, VA

#4 Jan 3, 2014
I would think physical requirements show be equal for certain positions. If a 225 lb soldier gets wounded....he/she I relying on a fellow soldier to get them out of there.

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#5 Jan 3, 2014
taking a REALLY bad idea as far as they possibly can...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Jan 3, 2014
Say What wrote:
I would think physical requirements show be equal for certain positions. If a 225 lb soldier gets wounded....he/she I relying on a fellow soldier to get them out of there.
Unless he's 6'8", a 225lb soldier is likely OBESE according to military standards.

Maybe THAT is part of the problem?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Jan 3, 2014
I do agree standards shouldn't be lowered just to get women into combat positions, but we DO need to review those standard to see if they make sense.

Does every servicemember need to be able to bench press 250lbs?
Or run 10 miles in 10 minutes?
Or do 500 pullups?

Standards are often adjusted depending on the total force needed; i.e. fat people, old people, medical issues, mental health issues, criminal background, etc are all adjusted if they can't get enough people to meet the needs of the force.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#8 Jan 3, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I do agree standards shouldn't be lowered just to get women into combat positions, but we DO need to review those standard to see if they make sense.
Does every servicemember need to be able to bench press 250lbs?
Or run 10 miles in 10 minutes?
Or do 500 pullups?
Standards are often adjusted depending on the total force needed; i.e. fat people, old people, medical issues, mental health issues, criminal background, etc are all adjusted if they can't get enough people to meet the needs of the force.
As a former Marine I KNOW the standards and while there are many men who have trouble meeting them they do. I concede there are *some* women who can and do surpass their male counterparts. But to insist that women,as a whole are the same,physically on par with men is a really stoopid generalization. They aren't. They may certainly be SMARTER. But as a matter of purely physical stamina for a prolonged period they are not designed for that.

As a matter of discourse goes,it is a foolish endeavor to insist that on the basis of a few(a reletive term)women surviving basic infantry training(not to be confused with BASIC training)that the institution as a whole be open to any female that thinks she is capable. Men are sent as a matter of course and those few who are incapable will be weeded out. The failure rate is rather low and accepted as the result of the numbers subjected to the rigors of the regimen. The costs are negligible as the system is designed with a certain standard in mind and that a low percentage of men will not be acceptable. But to open the doors,carte blanche,simply socially experiment with females who wish to "prove themselves" or make some sort of point about equality of the sexes would be the epitome of stupidity. Something our government of late seems to be awash with........

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Jan 3, 2014
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>As a former Marine I KNOW the standards and while there are many men who have trouble meeting them they do. I concede there are *some* women who can and do surpass their male counterparts. But to insist that women,as a whole are the same,physically on par with men is a really stoopid generalization. They aren't. They may certainly be SMARTER. But as a matter of purely physical stamina for a prolonged period they are not designed for that.
As a matter of discourse goes,it is a foolish endeavor to insist that on the basis of a few(a reletive term)women surviving basic infantry training(not to be confused with BASIC training)that the institution as a whole be open to any female that thinks she is capable. Men are sent as a matter of course and those few who are incapable will be weeded out. The failure rate is rather low and accepted as the result of the numbers subjected to the rigors of the regimen. The costs are negligible as the system is designed with a certain standard in mind and that a low percentage of men will not be acceptable. But to open the doors,carte blanche,simply socially experiment with females who wish to "prove themselves" or make some sort of point about equality of the sexes would be the epitome of stupidity. Something our government of late seems to be awash with........
I never said women were the same physically as men. I'm asking if the current physical standards are actually required to do the job, or if they are just arbitrary standards set by some bean counter somewhere.

I was career Navy and did 2 combat tours with the Marines; not once did I have to carry a 225lb man by myself or do 20 pullups or run 5 miles non-stop.

So again, the question is are the standards actually related to the ability to do the job, or are the just random standards to measure a level of strength & fitness?

Btw, I agree that IF the current standards are absolutely required, then we need to look at the cost benefit ratio. Maybe just make sure they can do the 3 pullups BEFORE going to infantry training. How much can that cost?

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#10 Jan 3, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said women were the same physically as men. I'm asking if the current physical standards are actually required to do the job, or if they are just arbitrary standards set by some bean counter somewhere.
I was career Navy and did 2 combat tours with the Marines; not once did I have to carry a 225lb man by myself or do 20 pullups or run 5 miles non-stop.
So again, the question is are the standards actually related to the ability to do the job, or are the just random standards to measure a level of strength & fitness?
Btw, I agree that IF the current standards are absolutely required, then we need to look at the cost benefit ratio. Maybe just make sure they can do the 3 pullups BEFORE going to infantry training. How much can that cost?
As I remember the standards for the PFT,there was a required 3 pullups.40 situps(in one minute),and a minimum of 28 minutes on the 3 mile run. Thbat was the minimum. Pass that and you qualified to get killed in war. It wasn't put quite that way but it was known. If you served/worked with Marines then you KNOW we demand things..... After my little stint with the Marines,I joined the Guard in my home State. A different breed of cat altogether..... While we were then an Armor Unit we had females in it. The leadership spent more time tryin g to lay these *troops* than f**king lead. When the first Gulf war started up and it looked like we were going to be mobilized,many of these graqy headed left overs from V/N put in their letters of retirement. NEVER having trained the guys that were supposed to take their place,should they become "combat ineffective"...... Killed in action,NOT quit when faced with the possibility of war after wasting 20 years on the taxpayers dime..... After nthat I told the CO I was history. He REALLY hated losing me,but as I explained the situation to him he understood and knew I was going. One year later that unit was re-assigned from an Armored unit to a Medical/Hospital unit. Gutless bastards decimated that unit and I wasn't about to be a part no the system that condoned it.

Sumation: Women as a whole need not be cycled thru some social experiment as a contest for who can die bravest........
bedlamb

Montclair, CA

#11 Jan 3, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless he's 6'8", a 225lb soldier is likely OBESE according to military standards.
Maybe THAT is part of the problem?
Average Joe on the street, at 225, would be significantly overweight. A soldier, or athlete, with a high degree of muscle weight, would NOT be. Muscle weighs more than fat.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#12 Jan 3, 2014
bedlamb wrote:
<quoted text>
Average Joe on the street, at 225, would be significantly overweight. A soldier, or athlete, with a high degree of muscle weight, would NOT be. Muscle weighs more than fat.
Not relevant..... We're talking about standards required to be met by volunteers. Not a draft. A draft would be more relenting,due to the wide broom that sweeps up whoever is called. As a volunteer service,we can afford to be more discriminating. And we are.
Duh

United States

#13 Jan 3, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless he's 6'8", a 225lb soldier is likely OBESE according to military standards.
Maybe THAT is part of the problem?
I guess you've never seen some of the Navy Seals and Rangers we have serving now have you?

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#14 Jan 3, 2014
Women have the right to be killed in combat. To be fair and not hurt anyone's feelings, they need to lower the standards so everyone gets in if they want to. It is the PC thing to do.

Since: Sep 08

Viva Madeira

#15 Jan 3, 2014
As much as I would like to see the removal of gender biases, the standards should not be lower. There are women (as of now not that many) who have the physical stamina needed for the required training, more will soon follow. Gender parity is inevitable.
Okimar

Bowling Green, KY

#16 Jan 3, 2014
RustyS wrote:
Women have the right to be killed in combat. To be fair and not hurt anyone's feelings, they need to lower the standards so everyone gets in if they want to. It is the PC thing to do.
Rusty,why do I get the feeling you are an arbitrarilly killer elite..... LOL Let me guess. Send them to God to sort 'em out,he knows his own..... Right? LOL
Okimar

Bowling Green, KY

#17 Jan 3, 2014
Marichu wrote:
As much as I would like to see the removal of gender biases, the standards should not be lower. There are women (as of now not that many) who have the physical stamina needed for the required training, more will soon follow. Gender parity is inevitable.
Clue: Women,as wonderful,as infuriating,as enigmatic as they are will never be,as a group/whole as durable as men for the physical demands-long term-that sustained combat/warfare demands. I've worked with AND for women and found them capable,fair,determined in their focus on the job at hand. But when it comes down to the nut cuttin' I've never seen one yet that can hold up for a prolonged period. Period.Used in a secondary or supporting role where the physical demands are not as stringant,yes,but not as a PRIMARY role in front line combat.

Since: Sep 08

Viva Madeira

#18 Jan 3, 2014
Okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Clue: Women,as wonderful,as infuriating,as enigmatic as they are will never be,as a group/whole as durable as men for the physical demands-long term-that sustained combat/warfare demands. I've worked with AND for women and found them capable,fair,determined in their focus on the job at hand. But when it comes down to the nut cuttin' I've never seen one yet that can hold up for a prolonged period. Period.Used in a secondary or supporting role where the physical demands are not as stringant,yes,but not as a PRIMARY role in front line combat.
Women have served in combat.

During WWII, the USSR had women combat soldiers and Israel has had women serving in combat situations for several years. Those are just two examples of women serving.

And there were instances in Iraq and Afghanistan (where there were no front lines) where women found themselves in direct ground combat situations. Those women faced the same risks as their male counterparts. They patrolled streets with machine guns, served as gunners on vehicles, dismantled explosives, drove trucks down bomb-ridden streets, and rescued the dead and injured in battle zones. Women were shot at, killed or maimed because they were in combat situations. I don’t know if these women completed the required three pull-ups, but they fulfilled their obligations as a soldier.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Jan 3, 2014
okimar wrote:
Sumation: Women as a whole need not be cycled thru some social experiment as a contest for who can die bravest........
Part of the problem may be that you view them as "women as a whole".

I view them just like I view men- individuals who want to serve their country.

What if someone had arbitrarily decided Washington or Greene or Jackson or Sherman or Burke or Patton or Eisenhower or Puller weren't qualified for the military because they couldn't do a certain number of pushups?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Jan 3, 2014
bedlamb wrote:
<quoted text>
Average Joe on the street, at 225, would be significantly overweight. A soldier, or athlete, with a high degree of muscle weight, would NOT be. Muscle weighs more than fat.
Yes, I dealt with many of the 225 lbers in the military; they were mostly just plain fat.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Military Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What Do You Want Developed At Woodhaven And Wri... 1 hr Andy Green 15
News China Won't Run From a Fight With Trump 10 hr Jeremy 100
Freedom is NOT FREE 11 hr Philbert 2
News Thunder in the Valley celebrating 20 years 11 hr Jeremy 5
News 24 military medals stolen during California dam... Sun Ashley 2
News Trump's plan for spike in defense spending face... Feb 18 Conflicting Promises 1
News Funeral arrangements, memorial announced for fa... Feb 17 James 2
More from around the web