Not Surprisingly, The Marines Pass An Integrity Test

Marines pull-up2

In 2013, I wrote about what appeared to be a retreat by the Marines in the face of pressure to admit more women into the Corps. At the time, it looked like the Marines would be joining a shabby parade.

For example,  some fire departments have allowed political correctness, feminist threats, irrational diversity ideology and fear of “disparate impact” lawsuits  to lead to their lowering of fitness standards to allow more women to be firefighters, if weak and dangerously unqualified ones.

The USMC is having none of that, apparently, despite itys tactical delay in 2013. Accepting the new policy that now allows women to qualify for combat duty, the Marine Corps has established new fitness requirements that have weeded out six of seven female recruits as well as forty out of about 1,500 male recruits who failed to pass the new regimen of pull-ups, ammunition-can lifts, a 3-mile run and combat maneuvers required  to be certified combat-ready.

That’s fine. It would be fine if 6 out of 7 male recruits failed. There should be no affirmative action when diversity for diversity’s sake results in a less effective work force regardless of the tasks involved, but especially when putting thumbs, fists and feet on the scales will get people killed.

In fact, in a decade or so, when gene splicing, changing cultural norms, elective breeding and the unconditional surrender of the male gender in the War Against Women results in the average American woman being 6’2 and looking like this…

????????????????????????????????????

…and the kinder, gentler, well-trained average American male, thanks to subjugation, a feminizing culture and addiction to video games being 5’7 and looking like this..

 

Big-bang-theory-the-sheldon-cooper

 

…I won’t care if all Marines, firefighters, police officer, construction workers and NFL linebackers are women.

As long as they can do the job that they got on their merits and ability.

Semper Fi!

13 thoughts on “Not Surprisingly, The Marines Pass An Integrity Test

  1. Jack said, “As long as they can do the job that they got on their merits and ability.”

    I’m X Army Infantry my son-in-law is an Infantry Marine Sgt.

    My opinion is; as long as they can maintain equal standards across the board as their male counterparts I have absolutely no problem with them performing combat jobs. Once that uniform goes on they must be equally capable of doing the job – period!

    My Marine son-in-law feels a bit differently and part of that is he’s never met a female that could meet or maintain the same standards – yet. I’ve personally met a few that could. His experience with fellow female Marines hasn’t been very good; his words are, “equal standard failures”.

    It will be a long hard road for any female wanting to fully integrate into an Infantry line combat unit regardless of branch.

    • He’s right. The Marine Corps has abysmally low standards for an organization that touts itself as the combative and professional elite. Don’t get me wrong… they’re still the best conventional and semi-conventional warfighters out there but the gulf between what’s sold and what’s bought is wiiiiide.

      He’s also right that there are very very few women in the Marine Corps who could reliably compete at the level of physicality demanded by the average victor unit. Maybe in the Army where the rucks are lighter and shorter, but as a general trend over time Marines march with more gear and weaponry over longer distances, and that wrecks the bodies of even the nations strongest and most athletic young men. I bet those women from the cross-fit games could do it, but I’m not convinced that enough of them exist in the Corps to make the cultural and organizational costs of integration practical.

      • Red Pill Ethics said, “Maybe in the Army where the rucks are lighter and shorter, but as a general trend over time Marines march with more gear and weaponry over longer distances, and that wrecks the bodies of even the nations strongest and most athletic young men.”

        Oh really?

        It appears that you may have a few common misconceptions. I’m going to take a wild guess that you haven’t been exposed to too much information about the Army’s Airborne (specifically the 82nd Airborne) or Army Rangers line units. I remember carrying around 60# to 80# routinely during my years back in the 90’s and I wasn’t in one of the line units I mentioned above, those Soldiers carry weights that sometimes approach their own body weight in gear all the time and then they jump out of perfectly good airplanes and beat the living crap out of their bodies some more. I was personally an Infantry Instructor for the Army and the term Light Infantry is nothing but a freaking joke to ANYONE that’s in the infantry I don’t care what branch they’re in.

        The size and contents of the pack and the gear that is carried by each person in a Infantry unit (or any other unit for that matter) is mission specific regardless of the branch of service. Sometimes day packs are best, sometimes mediums rucks or assault packs are better, and sometimes you have to pack for the long haul drop behind enemy lines or the like, it just depends on the mission and training is usually steered to being mission specific. Sometimes the mission is simply to train for all contingencies and then you likely pack to build and maintain strength and stamina and to maintain overall deployment capabilities anywhere in the world.

        I’d put the Army Infantry and Marine Infantry line units equally up against any fighting force in the world, but if I could choose the best all around war fighters on the planet to be by my side in a conflict, it would be any of the highly qualified Infantry personnel in an Army Ranger Battalion or any member of a Seal Team.

        • That sounds aweful dick-measurey. I mean sure, if you cherry pick your units you’ll be able to find some that hump the weight Marines do (maybe even more), but that’s why the qualifier was general trend over time. Line infantry to line infantry, both doctrinally and as a matter of practice Marine’s carry a heavier load. The misconception is common because it’s a commonly observed non-misconception. Comparing Marine line infantry to the Army’s upselected best is flattering though 😉

          • Red Pill Ethics,
            Well I kept it clean, but you chose to drag it a bit into the gutter; I’m game, I’ll go a couple rounds with you if that’s what you really want.

            You’re the one that started this dick-measuring competition with the sentence I quoted above. Fact is that if you don’t cherry pick and compare apples-to-apples then you’ve flunked dick-measuring 101. I’ve been on Marine bases and I’ve seen what goes on, and it’s no freaking different than an Army Post; for instance, I’ve spent a lot of time at Twenty-Nine Palms, it’s a hell hole scraped out of a Martian landscape and it’s full of Infantry Marines (My son-in-law’s deployment unit is there) and it’s full of POG’s. You should hear the grunts complain about the f’ing POG’s! Drag all those POG Marines away from their “cushy” jobs and put them on on the road with the grunts for extended road marches every week with over stuffed rucks and then we’ll talk across the board equality; in my opinion, until that point, you’re just full-o-crap.

            You said, “Line infantry to line infantry, both doctrinally and as a matter of practice Marine’s carry a heavier load.”

            That sentence was a full load. Remember mission specific?

            Please present the hoards of verifiable evidence to support your claim or hit the f’ing road. Facts talk, BS walks. He said, she said, just ain’t gonna cut it for a grunt with screwed up knees and a back that’s deteriorating from humpin’ full sized, fully loaded, rucks for 8 f’ing years.

            You said it, “the gulf between what’s sold and what’s bought is wiiiiide.”; that also describes the dick-measuring BS you bought.

            So; how do you like the new progression of the dick-measuring competition you started? 😉

            Conclusion
            Stop down playing one branch over another or one grunt over another, get off your POG stool and go out and bivouac with the grunts. We’re all on the same freaking side; remember mission specific and stop the BS dick-measuring.

            • Sounds dick-measury but now ranty. Mission specific load outs don’t invalidate general trends over time, it just means that for the same hypothetical mission Marines would usually load heavier both as a result of doctrine (i.e. weapon composition at the fireteam level) and practice (we tend to carry more bonus gear). A quick google found this : http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/weight-of-war-gear-that-protects-troops-also-injures-them/ – the floor weight starts higher and ends on a heavier ceiling. I’m sure there’s more but *shrug* it started as a gentle interservice ribbing, but you might be a little too moto to take it that way

              • Friendly note to Red Pill Ethics to end this BS,
                I just love it when people present their facts and they don’t bother to read their own supporting documents thoroughly or understand the math that is presented to them in their own supporting documentation.

                In the document that you presented it clearly stated that in 2003 the Army study found that the average combat load was between 87 and 127 pounds and that a similar study performed by the Navy in 2007 (4 years later) they found the average combat load for a Marine was between 97 and 135 pounds; however, what you completely missed was a fact that was clearly stated that Army soldiers combat load has increased 25% or more by 2009. Here is how that math works out for our math challenged friends; the Army combat load was increased to 109 to 158 pounds.

                I can play this dick-measuring game all f’ing day with you Red Pill Ethics; you wanna go another round so you can open your mouth to change socks again?

                It appears that I have the experience, the personal observation, and the facts (as you presented them) on my side and I still say; stop down playing one branch over another or one grunt over another, get off your POG stool and go out and bivouac with the grunts. We’re all on the same freaking side; remember mission specific and stop the BS dick-measuring.

                Let it end here Red Pill Ethics.

  2. The standards must bear some close resemblance to the abilities actually required to do the job. They are proxies, not Holy Writ.

    But once you’ve established what the standards are, then they must be applied to all.

    • Now, I’m not actually disagreeing with the gist of your comment, but you seem to be suggesting that somehow, 240 years of experience as to what the job of combat soldiers requires in terms of physical prowess is somehow insufficient to know where to draw the lines. Military hand weapons are still heavy, the physical strength required to do most infantry, special operations and forward penetration and intelligence-gathering operations have not changed much. These are all things that the Marine Corps does, among others, and all these jobs, in general, are likely to be much harder for women to do on average.

      As Jack suggests (albeit tongue in cheek), evolution may change that fact, and it isn’t to say that there are certain combat roles that women aren’t better suited for. But jobs that require higher muscle masses and density generally aren’t among them.

      So let’s not reinvent the wheel, and for the most part, Marine standards are Holy Writ, inscribed in the blood of millions of men and a few women over the years. Women are well suited and even superior to men for some combat roles, especially technical and other specialties such as piloting certain aircraft and working on naval ships. But in general, they are poorly suited for ground combat, and that is reflected in their higher attrition rate.

  3. I have absolutely, positively zero problem if all the women in the world were to be 6’2″ and look like that.

    There, I said it.

Leave a Reply to Glenn Logan Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.