Red flag for the Klu Klux Klams (Marine pullup standards)

[FaC]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024277192

BrentWil (2,243 posts)

Women in the Military:Is it wrong to say that women (on average) are physically weaker than males?
This article, caught my attention.

http://www.standard-journal.com/news/news_ap/article_dc0ed90b-3e12-5f74-aa97-adba1c66b969.html

Basically, the USMC is delaying a standard for women because only 45 percent of the women can meet the standard.

Let me first say, I think that any time one expands their base of possible workers, they greatly expand their chances to gain intellectual capital. I think the addition of female workers to every aspect of the American economy over the last 75 years is one of the driving forces behind the driving economic growth that defined the last 75 years. However, with certain jobs in the military, it seems to have become politically incorrect to state a basic fact of nature. Males, on average, are stronger than females.

I would not argue that for most military jobs, one does not need an extremely high physical standard. However, the linked story above is about a stand of doing 3 pull ups. There are jobs in the military where doing 3 pullups (or harder physical standards) should be required. For example, the Ranger Regiment. I believe the absolute minimum to be in a Ranger unit is to pass a PT test with an 80 percent score on each event , do 6 pull ups, do a 12 mile ruck march in 3 hours and do a five mile run in 40 min. Very few females will be able to meet this standard and I am sure the military will eventually be forced to lower the standards or there will be virtually no females in these units. Is this good for national security? If elite units are forced to drop standards, is that okay? On the other side, if they don't and there are very few females in these units, is the low number number of females a problem? Will they be isolated?

Brent, just a world of advice: you are playing with fire here on several fronts. The first is that yes, it IS politically incorrect to state basic facts of nature. Second, the standards will be lowered but that is immaterial to the goal of integration, even if said integration reduces combat effectiveness. Before this is done you will end up having to defend yourself on several fronts and still get your butt handed to you over your obviously boorish attitude.

Star Member rudolph the red (185 posts)
5. In the Marines, the ethos is that every Marine is a rifleman,

thus we are all held to the same standard, regardless of MOS. If you can't meet the standard, GTFO.

Rudolph - the same standard is immaterial if it does not further the goals of political correctness...

BrentWil (2,243 posts)
6. The general biological differences between males and females are well documented.

For example:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/men-vs-women-upper-body-strength.htm

    Women's lower body strength tends to be more closely matched to men's, while their upper body strength is often just half that of men's upper body strength. In a 1993 study exploring gender differences in muscle makeup, female participants exhibited 52 percent of men's upper body strength, which the researchers partially attributed to their smaller muscles and a higher concentration of fatty tissues in the top half of the female body . Another study published in 1999 similarly found women had 40 percent less upper body skeletal muscle . Even controlling for athletic aptitude doesn't tip the upper body strength scales in favor of the female; an experiment comparing the hand grip strength of non-athletic male participants versus elite women athletes still revealed a muscle power disparity in favor of the menfolk .



I guess the follow question would be, are you okay if the standards stay the same and there are no women in these units?

Brent - Science is useless in this discussion since political correctness trumps facts in the minds of the DUmmies (especially the Klu Klux Klams)

AngryAmish (20,013 posts)
24. why not just give steroids to females that can't pass the test?

Test at beginning of boot camp, those who cant pass get steroids and weight training, then test again at end of boot camp. Kinda luke the fat folks get out on soecial diets.

That it - drugs are the answer!!

[Skul]

The Klams have stayed out of it for the time being.
Might be worth keeping an eye on.

[NHSparky]

I would not argue that for most military jobs, one does not need an extremely high physical standard.

Depends on what you mean by "extremely high", DUmmies.  And yeah, I wasn't in what one would typically consider a physical job, but damned if I didn't do some seriously physical tasks on a daily basis.

[98ZJUSMC]

Let me first say, I think that any time one expands their base of possible workers, they greatly expand their chances to gain intellectual capital. I think the addition of female workers to every aspect of the American economy over the last 75 years is one of the driving forces behind the driving economic growth that defined the last 75 years.

What a load of shit.    You have not one clue what you are talking about.

Shut.  Up.

AngryAmish (20,013 posts)
24. why not just give steroids to females that can't pass the test?

Test at beginning of boot camp, those who cant pass get steroids and weight training, then test again at end of boot camp. Kinda luke the fat folks get out on soecial diets.

...and some people wonder why were are, where we are.

[obumazombie]

Similar comments in my other forum...
http://www.netfriction.com/DisplayThread.asp?BD=2102966&Page=1&ForumID=91&msgid=2102966&OM=2102966#2102966

[Chris_]

I would not put my life in the hands of someone that was not qualified to do their job.  If they can't pass the current standards as they stand, they fail.  It's that simple.

[RayRaytheSBS]

Wow.. the sheer ignorance of the klu Klux klams is ridiculous. Yes, PT tests are a subjective method of testing physical fitness, but using your legs to climb up in a situation that a man might use to climb with his arms? WTF did BainsBaine and Vanillarhapsody smoke?

A woman is already at a disadvantage since in the infantry we are glorified pack mules. My IBA is at least 25 lbs, my FLC is another 25(at LEAST), and my rucksack is usually 60+ lbs. I'm 200+ lbs, and that is under 2/3rds of my bodyweight.

 For the average woman who is in good enough shape for military service we could say is 145 lbs, that is closer to 75% of their bodyweight. This will cause them to have a higher likelihood of injury due to exceeding the recommended bodyweight to load ratio.

Keep in mind I was being incredibly generous with weight and not giving the woman a SAW or M240B, which weigh 14.51 and 26.7 lbs respectively. When I was in a weapons squad, our loads were ALWAYS in excess of 80 lbs in our rucks. That would put our woman carrying almost 90 percent of her bodyweight.

I don't care who you are. Carrying 90% of your bodyweight for long distances and through changes in elevation takes a toll on the body. This will mean more women in these jobs are likely to be hurt than men.  This means the woman in question may be permanently injured, be required to reclass or be med boarded from the military, but we have 'equality'.

Just like a DUche to not consider the law of unintended consequences.

 Edit: changed PT treat to PT test.

[Bad Dog]

You all are missing the point.  We just need to make a few minor alterations to the rules of war to accommodate those with less upper body strength.  This type of thing seems to be working very well with the NFL rules.  A few more years and we should be seeing female pro football players.