What, are you kidding? They DID open the door! Don't be such a cynic. They might not have made it, but for the first time in U.S. history, they've put the opportunity out there. It's one which women didn't have before.

As a USN veteran, I salute them.

As a personal trainer, I know that women re just biologically different than men. One is not superior to the other. We are built for different roles. Men have lower pulse rates, because they can process more oxygen per minute since they have larger lungs and hearts. How much oxygen you can process per minute (Vo2max) is an indication of aerobic fitness, but that fitness level varies by gender. For instance, my Vo2max is 34, excellent for a 51 year old woman, but it would be almost worst than poor for a 51 year old man or a 25 yer old woman. A fair one for a 25 year old man has to be at least 42. So women and men are not expected to compete in the same races for a reason. Also, very few women can do one chin-up or pull-up. The military and I ask my female clients to be able to just hold themselves up in a chin-up position for 15 seconds. My female clients do not walk in being able to do that. The military (I used to be in it) ask everyone to work at their ability. It is not a competition. So don't whine. And rEbULIXtAsY, you make it so easy for us gay women to understand why we aren't attracted to men.

Did you miss the part abou6 30 men also falling out?

@ Brenda.... As a 20 year Army medic (ret) I agree totally what you posted yet it does reinforce why woman should not be in front-line combat units. As you eluded there are separate standards in the military based on Age and Gender. Its not "sexist" just a realization that there are differences in body strength and ability. No one is saying that Women can't "fight" but it is not a main role.

Also this speaks to the culture Men are better suited at some task as are woman are... this has nothing to do with intelligence, bravery or character but the woman mind DOES work differently than a mans... this "difference" transcends Gender ... yet that also too is taken into account... I feel that "gender neutrality" is a false pursuit which is confused with Women Equality. The Former is a smoke screen and a talking point... the latter is a actual problem that has nothing to do with the JOB but make sure there is equal pay and treatment.

Being in the Infantry does not serve women kind in the least.

parallelcooler

How many men were there? 100% of the women failed.

StandUpJokeOff

What, are you kidding? They DID open the door! Don't be such a cynic. They might not have made it, but for the first time in U.S. history, they've put the opportunity out there. It's one which women didn't have before.

As a USN veteran, I salute them.

As a former marine , I also give them a salute for trying. How ever I also want to make my stance on that some places women just are not supposed to be , or positions they should be in.

This has nothing to do with trying to show some superiority over the other. Its about there being a clear distinction between the sexes. In todays politically correct world , they will try to make it seem like there are no difference between male and female, which cant be any farther from the truth.

What I dont want seen are the standards lowered to allow any group of people to be allowed into something just so they can be viewed as politically correct.

Just think about the military, police force, fire departments of the past compared to today. In the past the standards are set, but no one is making the cut.

The politically correct agenda comes hey why arent there any women or blacks, hispanics on the force. Then you have all these liberal agenda groups putting the pressure on for those standards to be lowered.

It has been my opinion and always will be, if you dont fit the standard then it wasnt meant for you. As the famous line said in Caddy Shack , The world needs Ditch diggers too. :D

I was an instructor on the rifle range at Quantico,

We fired all of the boot officers through the rifle range.

Putting a 120 or 130 # woman behind a rifle with a muzzle velocity of 2800 ft per second, is a sure prescription for a stove up female officer.

I was also a combat marine in Viet Nam.

I was hit with grenade fragments and another Marine , carried, dragged, pulled, pushed me 7.5 miles to a chopper pick up zone.

I am not knocking women, women have almost all of the capabilities that men have and many that men don't have, there are a few areas that they don't match up, you are going to get a lot of people killed, finding that out, men and women.

Woody Williams is spot on; if there are women who are able to meet the physical requirements and training, they'll enter and pass. Until then...

@rEbULlXtAsY - tell that to cristiane "cyborg" santos. she would use and abuse you.

rEbULIXtAsY, the problem I have with your post is that you sat men are superior. They are not. Why is it that whenever something or someone is different it becomes an issue of superiority? Women can give birth. Men can't. So are women superior when it comes to giving birth? Or just built differently? We can all be different and have superior differences. Having larger lungs and hearts points to the fact that at the same level of fitness (training at the same intensity and duration), men would be able to process more oxygen, be faster (an aspect of muscle, too), and last longer. A poorly conditioned man would perform poorly.

NO NO NO, this tactic of "Well she cant do this and she cant do that so we'll give her a cushy job and she'll have authority over men. NO NO NO. It wont work now or ever. This is not how to improve the military. They are not going to do this ever.

rEbULIXtAsY, You don't have to be politically correct. You've always been an outcast if you didn't conform to any of societies standards of what is deemed appropriate. A hundred years ago you would have been an outcast for mentioning women and the bedroom in the same sentence. You would have in no point in human history been able to fit in, congratulations, you fail the most basic of all human abilities.

I really applaud the Marine Corps for this experiment- very gutsy --- of course, that is what they are.

They will probably be criticized for even trying, because the PC types are going to scream for lowered qualifications. Some people just refuse to admit there is a differance between men and women. Well, folks, I can't have a baby, how about that for equality. I also am 5'8" and have no sports ability , so there goes my career in the NBA....

I say if a woman can do the job, MEETING the qualifications, then let her. But if she can't, like those 30 other guys, then the answer is NO - just like those other 30 didn't make the grade. THAT'S equality.

Some men do not pass either!!!

This is a NONE STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

100% of two is still TWO. Why not allow a full complement of women to attempt the training? The same number of women as men? (This would not be every time, but just for the test.)

I am a woman. I don't want standards lowered for any woman to take any physically demanding job, like infantry, fireman, paramedic, etc. But I want ALL qualified women to have the OPPORTUNITY. That's the door these women were trying to open. As it stands right now, they do not all have the opportunity, and that is unfair. I commend them for trying, and the Marines for allowing it. I hope they'll do another test, with maybe a few more test subjects. Two is not sufficient.

rEbULlXtAsY- Your opinion that men are physically superior to women is "politically incorrect," while still being accurate, in general terms. Your opinion that "being in the kitchen and bedroom is our best characteristic" is stupid, ignorant and misogynistic. Seems unlikely that any self-respecting woman would allow you in a bedroom with her. But then, maybe that's just the reaction of a hysterical female, huh?

Trouble was wrong women...I have a daughter in law thats a marine corporal, soon to be a sargent, this girl did the whole boot camp with a dislocated hip, and scored highest in p.t. and rifle....her husband my son, says she can damn near take him in hand to hand mcmap program, shes about 5' 9" 130# soaking wet...i'd stack her up against anyone on the marine combat course....crazy girl...

I give these two women credit for trying.Thirty men also failed.there are women out there who can pass it,they just haven't been discovered yet.

If the women can pass, then they're qualified. If they can't, then they can't. It's that simple.

But by NO means should the standards be lowered for them. There are the exceptional women that do have the strength and stamina for this type of thing, but they are going to be a rarity... just the same, they should at least have the chance to try so that, like the men, they can learn the limits of what their bodies and minds are capable of.

rEbULlXtAsY

Call it sexism for all I care but woman will never be an equal to man when it comes to certain things in life. Being in the kitchen and bedroom are woman's best characteristics to date :)

That may be so and it'll be the same the other way around. Your sexism comes from the crap flowing out of your mouth about being in the kitchen and the bedroom...you have no idea what our best characteristics are! As far as the kitchen and the bedroom...I'm pretty sure we can do that on our own without a man and the so called equality you speak of. We're with the men we are with not out of necessity but the sheer willingness and want to.

it's a fact

no matter how great a woman is at any given physical activity there will ALWAYS be a man who will perform the same physical activity better

it's not sexist

it's the cold hard truth

men are physically superior to women and always will be

trying to argue this point is like trying to argue 7 is not greater than 5

Physically stronger does not mean "superior."

Talk to anyone in the martial arts field. You don't need body weight and muscle to make you the better fighter.

And as far as "superior" goes? Women go through the physical process of giving birth to children. Men can't do that. So who's better at it? Women! That must mean we're "physically superior"!

Ignorant cuss.

Everyone either assumes or has been led to believe the issue is women being in combat, which really isn't the issue at all.

First, it's a financial and resource management issue. Secondly, it's a moral issue.

The Department of Defense designates certain military occupations as open to males only. The two women attempting the Marine Infantry Officer course were not on their way to become infantry officers, as conventional infantry is one area the DoD only allows males to be in. They volunteered, I understand, to try the course for evaluation purposes, the conclusions derived from their participation would be taken into consideration in future planning.

As a general rule, the DoD bars women from Infantry, Artillery, and Armor. It's not that women can't fight or be in combat - they train as warriors first and whatever else they may be second. Women can be Military Police or Security Forces, and they definitely can be expected to engage in combat right along with the male MP's or SF's should the need arise. Military Police is similar to Infantry in many ways, but MP's don't generally lug many tens of pounds of weight around on their backs for miles on end! The issue is being able to successfully carry considerable amounts of weight in the course of the job, which is mostly training, and not end up with chronic debilitating injuries as a result of it. Infantry carries a ton of gear out into the field, mostly on the body or on the back. Artillery gets to move heavy guns into and out of position, on top of loading those guns during firing, and any artilleryman will tell you it's a real workout! Armor might look easy, but everything about a tank is HEAVY, including ammunition for the main gun and machine gun(s), and a three person tank crew is expected to be able to do some field repairs, such as replacing a road wheel and/or a tread. Those suckers weigh a bunch and it's all most men can do to get the job done and not get hurt doing it. Sadly, quite a few men DO get hurt doing these things, and much of it is in training rather than in actual combat.

Troops cost a lot of money to train and retain. It is very wasteful to essentially 'throw out' good soldiers, Marines, airmen, or sailors by letting them needlessly sustain permanent injuries from doing what they were hired to do when they were accepted for service. It's also wrong. Those injuries don't just magically heal when the warrior becomes a civilian. It often means years of pain and impairement for a young man or woman who suffers orthopedic injuries which may take over a decade to heal, if ever. It may very seriously affect their ability to earn a living or live any kind of normal life.

The problem is, stuff weighs what it weighs. In general, weapons and equipment don't weigh as much as they once did, but our troops are still equipped with a lot of field gear and modern heavy weapons are, in fact, heavier than they used to be. In WWII, a 75mm gun was standard on a tank, and a 90mm was more or less the ultimate. Today, it's a 120mm main gun. Naturally, the munitions weigh quite a bit more, and handling them exacts a higher toll on whoever ends up having to do it. Ground troops generally don't carry much more than they absolutely have to, so there's not much that one can opt to leave behind to lighten the load. The only thing that is likely to weigh less for the sake of a woman would be clothing, presuming smaller sizes, but the weight savings would most likely never exceed a pound. If a man has to carry 60 pounds of gear out into the field, figure a woman doing the same job will probably be lugging no less than 59, and most likely it'll be the same 60 pounds the man carries. However, it's much less of a burden on most men than it would be on most women. The man is much less likely to get hurt from having to haul that weight around all the time.

Ultimately, I'd say that maybe 30%, give or take, of men who have military occupations involving lots of heavy stuff end up with bad knees, bad backs, and other chronic conditions as a result. With women, if they're doing the same exact thing, same exact pay grade, probably more like 80% will end up with chronic injuries to show for it. That's hardly fair! Most of the time, such injuries will make a person unfit for duty, requiring the servicemember to be separated. Money spent to train them is now essentially wasted and someone else will have to be trained to replace him or her. On top of it, the injured warrior may well be receiving compensation and/or treatment from the Department of Veterans' Affairs for some extended period of time. The tax paying public gets to keep paying for a war fighter who cannot be used.

Until such time as warfare can be made to not be physically grueling young persons' work, some things are going to be best left to strong young men who can (hopefully) withstand the intense demands placed on their bodies and bounce back when they're finished.

The women failed to meet the program standards. Looks like the next step called for will be to change the "standards". Get em more "up to date" . In other words, make it so those that failed, wont , next time around......This is typical. It will be called for next. And it is WRONG.

I never comment on the posts but feel compelled to now. I served 21 years in the Marines as an infantry officer. I was an instructor at the Infantry Officer Course at The Basic School and served an additional 4 years at the Basic School. Simple math: 7 years training and evalutating 2dlts. Women and men are different. Some women can physically perform better than men, but the basic physiological differences aren't a matter of opnion, but are pretty well documented. I also was a close combat instructor teaching Marine Corps martial arts and had close and personal contact via interpersonal violence to prepare our warriors for the horror of combat. I fought with virtually every student who went through the course. So I'm supposed to do the same to a 23 year old woman? Sorry, not in my nature nor the way I was raised. Men are the protectors, the warriors of the culture and no amount of social engineering is going to change the nature of men and women. The real issue isn't whether a few women can do the physical events. Some can. The real question is why? Do we want the women of our nation fighting at bayonet range with the enemies of our state? For those that have not experienced the horrific nature of close combat the true issue is clouded by agendas and normative opinions. Slugging through the mud, for weeks at a time with 100 pounds of gear on our backs without a shower watching your buddies strip naked to clean the vermin off of each other to prevent disease and then having to watch that same buddy blown up or shot is not something I'd wish on anyone, and having a female in that environment only further complicates the unit cohesion that holds a unit together in dealing with the universal phobia: killing and fear of being killed. No offense to my USN bretheren in earlier posts, but unless you served as a Corpsman in an infantry unit, you will never really understand the issue. So please, people, before you continue to cast judgement on the professionals that spend their lives preparing our youth for success in combat let's not make spurrious comments on a topic in which you really have no understanding of.

While it is true that there are positions that most women (and many men) simply aren't capable of meeting the standards for, there are always the exceptions for each gender.

In the artillery, a standard 155 mm projectile weighs around 100 lbs with a fuse. Males routinely carry projectiles on their shoulders from gun to gun. Most women would be unable to do this, but most men on a gun crew can. One crazy sergeant that I worked with was known for carrying a 198 lb 8 inch howitzer projectile on each shoulder from one gun to another.

As long as the standards aren't lowered, I don't care what the do. Like Woody said though, I have serious doubts about the females being able to carry/drag wounded comrades to safety. Considering that the average combat infantry soldier is now carrying 60 - 80 lbs of gear, how many women are going to be able to carry it and an injured comrade.

As bad as the Infantry training program is, Infantry combat is much, much worse. I was an Infantry rifleman in Vietnam 68-69 and was astounded by the physicality of it. Combine that with the filth, lack of food, danger, lack of sleep and you have a God awful situation. Some folks refer to an Infantry combat role as a "job." Didn't seem like a "job" or "an opportunity" to us. We had been cast into hell. 2 months without a bath, hungry, sick, exhausted, clothes ripped to shreds by the jungle, leeches hanging onto you. Please forget this idea of women in the Infantry.

@ COYOTEHUNTER- no disrespect to your daughter in-law or yourself sir but your daughter in-law may have had the highest PFT score for women but women in the Marine Corps are not held to the same standards as male Marines. As far as her expertise with a rifle- that was at the rifle range. The course these two WM's attempted would have perhaps made them eligible to lead a infantry platoon into combat and that is alot different from the rifle range.

There used to be a phrase:"Every Marine, a basic rifleman." It just doesn't apply anymore.

This should not be about whether you are male or female, but about if you can pass the test and do the job. I say good job to the two gals who had the guts to at least try.

Roger, Roger...what you said is spot on. Having actually served in combat with an infantry unit gives you credibility that our politicians lack. Thank you for your service in one of the most difficult eras to wear our country's uniform in service to our country. Our Vietnam veterans suffered for their service at the hands of the very populace that called them into that service.

If a woman tries and makes the cut, good for her. The service tho should not ever lower the qualification or physical endurance requirements, because reality is extremely cruel and a person in a combat situation must be able to do whatever it takes to do the job. If this causes the majority of women to fail the course, too bad for them, but they didn't have the 'stuff'. Many team members would rather be confident their peers had the right stuff to get them out of tough situations alive.

The alternative is often death. Reality is exceptionally cruel. Sorry pathetic PC crowd....

StandUpJokeOff wrote "Talk to anyone in the martial arts field. You don't need body weight and muscle to make you the better fighter."

I suppose that's why boxing, wrestling and even UFC have weight classes. In the martial arts "field", there is very little fighting and lots of selling, particularly that physical technique is the equalizer. To some extent, this is true. Training classes for 10 years increases your endurance and abdominal muscular strength. THAT is most of the martial arts advantage. Most of the best martial arts teachers have this in common : extraordinary grip strength. With women so much lower on the size/weight/strength curve, almost no amount of technique will equalize their chances against the average male.

Big Duke 6 wrote "Do we want the women of our nation fighting at bayonet range with the enemies of our state?"

Women want social equality. But really, it's about grabbing the safe, low hour/high pay work to have access to the top 20% of wealthier men. So, why shouldn't women share the nasty, dirty work with an equal risk of death and injury?

Maybe both these women have a grounds to sue the government for these tests being so so so very unfair to women!!! Seriously, these tests are hard for men as well because military service is, well, just hard. I remember being in boot camp and having these big Arnold Schwarzenegger type guys bawling their eyse out because they just could not handle the stress. The military is a hard, rough life!

I want to add this too. I fought 3 men intent on killing me at close combat, hand-to-hand. I survived, barely, but I was the only one to come out of that fight. I just want to know how many women would want to really be in such a position?!

Vincent your argument is way off. The UFC in its infancy did not have weight classes and it was not the biggest who won but those who had the most skill. But this isnt the UFC or another pro sport. A 5'2" 350lb obese woman who is well trained and armed with a .45 ACP could take out any and all in the UFC.

The physical standards in the military arent so much to see who will win in a hand to hand fight, they are to make sure you have the strength and endurance to get to where you are needed to complete your mission. Most of the time that mission is completed from behind a gun sight.

" ... Don't hate me for speaking the truth ... "

Hate them for being the complete moron that they are. Or just feel sorry for them. That will really piss them off.

There is no change in roles for women in the military. They have gone as far as they can go. You have to understand how the world is looking at us. We are fast becoming a joke in the minds of military experts around the world. That impression alone will get good men killed. Many of the best female pilots in the world are already dead. What they didnt understand is that you dont survive a bad day. A bad day takes you down. The best female pilot in the Navy died when she hit the tail of a carrier on a clear day and flat seas. A Woman during wartime is like a Jonah. You dont want to be around one when the shooting starts. Many times during an operation soldiers have to defend and hold their positions. Others depend on each doing their job. A woman would be a weak link in an otherwise solid chain.

Denali...Having spent 38 years as a nurse, let's talk dirty, filthy, long shifts with "high" pay. I worked 12 shifts and was "on call" for almost half of my life before retiring....We are the same people that patch you up and spend hours and hours caring for your sorry butt if you get injured when you fall off a bar stool or shoot yourself in the foot. We don't judge. We just do our job and move on to the next injured or sick person. Blood, urine, feces, mucous, vomit...all in a day's work. No, I couldn't pass the MC test...and I am as pro-military personnel as you can get. Still, I spent a lot of my time doing work that wasn't for high pay and short hours....Then I went home and did more. Superiority doesn't have anything to do with physical strength...It is about character. If it were about strength alone, all those dopers in athletics would be our heroes....Some still are and that is pretty screwed up.

I had a masculine lesbian neighbor once. She did everything in her power to try to portray herself as a man. She mowed the lawn and did other hard yard work (it wasn't necessary, we had a management agency that handled that). Hated men (of course). Picked fights with others bigger than herself. Rode a Harley motorcycle, ALWAYS had a cigarette in her mouth, and always walked like a butch. She was also in the military.

Interesting though, she may have been in the military but it still wasn't equal. She would never be in the fighting unit, never know what it is like to be TRULY 'volunteered' for deployment into battle. Same pay, less work.

Tell truth, the only thing she accomplished was making herself look ridiculous.

Did all you men forget or just not read that 30 men dropped out? Don't focus on the women so much when there are numerous men have failed.

Big Duke; I had always stated that women have every right to do what men do in the military, until I spoke with my husband and his best friend. They both explained to me in quite detail as to why women should not be in combat. And as you stated, they were raised to protect. If during a combat situation and had a choice of who to protect, hands down know matter the situation, they would choose the woman.

After this long long debate, I totally agreed with them (and you) and completely look at it differently. Now women should be allowed, however I do not think that men and women should be stationed together during a war. Only at military bases. Before everyone starts yelling and calling me names (that statement is actually sad that I have to defend my beliefs for those who do not agree) my reasoning is; when we have men/women together at war, away from loved ones they tend to lose focus and put others at risk. Having sex while they should be standing guard for an incoming threat is a HUGE one and happens all the time and witnessed by my husband and best friends (mentioned above).

I have a idea lets drop the standards so the girls can play too!

Lovetherain,

What you described is a great argument for why MEN are not well suited to serve in the military, not women. If men are too distracted by the presence of women to be able to focus on doing their jobs, then the men shouldn't be there. Your logic parallels the Muslim extremist countries where women are required to wear burkas despite 100 degree heat because otherwise if the women show their faces, then they are "enticing" men to rape them, which of course is considered the women's fault. Give me a break! It's time for men to take responsibility for their own behavior, and stop blaming women for it.

D Buck: What a shame there weren't even 30 women allowed to try (30 is the number of men who failed) wonder how many men entered the training. I bet more than 2. Your logic about dropping the standards is just plain stupid.

Lalaw; Do not even compare my logic (your word) to what I believe in to Muslim extremists. Are you a liberal? Because if so, leave it to you for calling me a Muslim extremist because I gave an accounted fact. If you would have read and fully comprehended my post, you would understand that I do not think they should be in combat Period. I also never blamed anyone. Not sure where you got that one but you are in your own little world. What comes along with combat is being stationed together. Let me be clear on this fact; the women that were in Iraq during my husbands two tours, were the instigators for these sexual encounters. Not the MEN!!

You do realize they are in the United States Military. No need for burkas. That is a cultural thing not that I agree with it or would even encourage it. And that has nothing to do with my post. Angry much?

However, I do agree that many men should not be in the military at all.

First mistake in the Article:

The program, run at the Marine base at Quantico, Va., is considered the toughest course in the Marine Corps.

Granted the USMC MARSOC Course is not only at Quantico; the USMC MARSOC Course IS the USMC toughest course in the USMC, on par with the US Army Q Course, USN BUD/S, USAF STT.

Since the 1980s I have always been a supporter of the ERA, as Equal Rights means equal Civic Duty (including Women in Combat). As having been on the US Military Training Teams attached to the CIA's SAD/SOG sent to US Ally Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars, we had very capable women on the Teams. After training the Iraqis Military it was routine for us to accompany those we trained into Combat (the women did too, leading whole Infantry Companies, Battalions, etc. of Iraqis Military Women into Combat.). During this one of my O-1s was shot by a USSR Spetsnaz Sniper (that we killed), and she was evacuated to Germany, so she missed us being rotated to Operation Cyclone; she later became my Operations Officer of my Command Team. These women were trained by who knows, as we never saw women at our Courses; but, they were trained to the same standards (including physical), and will/did kill without hesitation. At Islamic Nations our US Military Asymmetric Warfare Women are absolutely NECESSARY as Combatants.

I have fought for years for these women to be recognized for their EARNED Combat Awards, Decorations, Medals, Combat Qualifications, etc. so that they could be promoted ahead of the lower US Military Conventional Warfare Infantry, much to the distaste of the Politicians (having to admit there are US Military Women in Combat).

Second mistake from the Article:

The other female volunteer, who was also a second lieutenant, was unable to complete the introductory endurance test and dropped out – along with nearly 30 men – on Sept. 28.

Ok, 30 men failed also. So what was the Class Size. How about this have 50% Women and 50% Men in a Class to get real research data.

While still at ROTC we used to conduct prep training for candidates for other schools, those that failed the prep training had their slot for the school removed and given to another candidate. Because of our close relationships with the other US Military Branches ROTC Programs we did this for candidates going to the US Army Air Assault School, US Army Airborne School, US Army Ranger School, US Army Q Course, USAF Para Rescue Jump and Special Operation Wing (later STTs), USN BUD/S, USMC Force Recon (later USMC MARSOC), etc. as the "Black Hat" Trainers, with some of us Black Hats being women. Most of us came from the various US Military Branches as prior US Military Service "Retreads".

So sure choose the "wrong women" for the USMC experiment to get a known "politically correct" result.

And unlike what j70141 in Colorado, the women that I have proudly served and am proudly serving with are NOT she-males, and do NOT look like USSR women Olympians on steroids or male hormones. How many of you can spend years of consecutive tours living with the locals at Afghanistan to conduct US Military Asymmetric Mountain Warfare, what we (yes, our women too) were doing less than a month ago, then getting your R&R and Leaves cancelled after a couple of weeks to get sent to US AFRICOM, northwest; prior to being sent back to Afghanistan.

That was a nice article David, thank you. The most correct statement you made was, they selected the wrong volunteers. Just as the Infantry requires men in good physical condition to begin with, the females entering that training will also need to be physically fit. The military should put together a volunteer group of female athletes, college gymnasts, Olympians, etc. and put them through the physical portion. My bet is they would excel. Just because they have 2lt's bars on their shoulder does not qualify them. But they should be thanked for their courage for attempting the course.

Woody Williams in #1.11:

That was then. With all the modern technology in military, you do not need to do all that 'macho' stuff.

My point is, what kind of tests did they fail and how relevant are those today. Do they revise the test tasks to keep up with the technological advances?

And remember there are 30 or so guys that failed it too; only 2 women were able to participate that failed.

And rEbULlXtAsY in #1.2 : what you display in your comment is not sexism it is ignorance and vainglory

EdAndBunny wrote " A 5'2" 350lb obese woman who is well trained and armed with a .45 ACP could take out any and all in the UFC."

Correct. Without a 0.45, a 5'2" 350lb obese woman couldn't take out anyone in the UFC. But a 5'2" 350 lb obese man without a gun would still have a chance.

Colorblind wrote "Denali...Having spent 38 years as a nurse, let's talk dirty, filthy, long shifts with "high" pay."

The pay and other social benefits in nursing are higher than in outdoor construction during night shifts. The efforts of nurses are well-appreciated and never overlooked. But you could make more on a night construction site. Did you apply for that job? How much more than that for a man would the pay need to be to get you out there to wave a flag with 60-80 mph cars driving by in the cold at 3am ? Wouldn't you rather be a nurse ?

Although I make an effort to observe, I have never seen a female highway-side construction worker on the night crew. Is my anecdotal observation off? Are women really working on roadside construction crews at night in the cold? Night pay is higher. In hospitals, male nurses are expected to lift heavy equipment and patients. Either five female nurses or one male nurse.

roger-2929720,

You are 100% correct. I served in the Army Infantry as an 11B Mountaineer. I was a Rifleman, but we naturally had our weapons platoon and 11C (mortars) with us. Every man had to carry his ruck, full combat load, and 2 rounds for the mortar. For awhile I was on the M60 crew (before we swapped out to the 240B) as an assistant gunner, so I got to hump the tripod in addition to extra 7.62 for the weapon. What it boils down to is every man humping in excess of 65-75 lbs over long distances. Weight was not allocated on a graduated scale; the 140lb guys weren't given smaller rucks or told that they only had to carry one mortar round because of their size. Combat Arms is not the rest of the Army. It demands a high degree of physical strain. If women want to serve in the Infantry, they would have to literally share the weight equally. Anything less would be detrimental to the team.

tes-1779376,

When I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was quite a bit of door kicking, patrolling and physical intensity. You must be thinking of those Air Force ads where Airmen sit at consoles and use joysticks. Perhaps you are thinking of the folks who get to ride around in HUMVEES and work with Civil Affairs. Despite technological advances there will always be need for "boots on the ground" Infantrymen in both the Army and the Marines.

Women make up 20% of the armed forces, but your problem troops are consistently 50% female and 50% male. I don't know what what else to really extrapolate from that, other than the military isn't a good fit for many women. You can argue whose fault this is all day, it's just the state of reality.

Having said that, I totally believe in a woman being an infantry leader if she can make it through the training with one set of standards. As long as you keep one set of standards, any woman who makes it deserves our support and respect in an infantry role.

Women don't belong in combat next to men...period.....before all the bleeding heart liberals jump on that comment...phsycologically the two sexes would not function the same side by side in combat as they would with two guys side by side. You can't erase the ingrained natural responses men and women have toward eachother...it would be an ineffective if not disastorouse pairing...you can argue it all you want but...i'm right

I give them credit for taking the steps to test this out at least. As mentioned there is no shame in washing out of a tough program like this. 30 men washed out at the same time. It happens. I really have no problem with women in combat roles but I do know from my own experience that it would be hard for the average female to make it in some MOS's. I was a field artilleryman and there were plenty of guys that had trouble hefting a 155mm shell (98 lbs. I think) which a cannon crew member must be able to do often. It's little things like that which would be a problem in my opinion. Not the mental stuff.

It's great to see the door starting to open a crack, and if there are women who can/do make the cut, being held to the same standards of men, then they should, hands down, be allowed to fight in the infantry.

BUT...

Life isn't fair. In order for the final goal of gender desegregation to happen, I'm sorry ladies, but the first ones to give it the old college try are going to have to be smarter, faster, stronger and more fearless then all of the men out there.

If you do not think you can make it, do not try, because it will only set females back. I know it sounds kind of bitchy, but that's the unfortunate way life. When these ladies got in, we took a step forward, when they left we took two steps back.

JohnnyOnTheSpot-3794903

While statistically, you're correct; 100% of women did fail. They didn't even represent 2% of the students. You're much more likely to have all of a demographic fail if there is only 2 out of 109.

If the ratios were flipped and it were 107 women and 2 men, and 100% of the women failed and 30% of the men failed, then quite possible there would only one male marine whom passed the course.

Just someting to think about.

As a former Infantry NCO I can honestly say I have never met a woman that can undergo the physical stresses that men can. perhaps there are a few out there, I have yet to meet one. if you can carry over 100 pounds 24/7 with no shower for a month (sometimes more) and keep up, you have a slim chance. and that is male or female.

Infantry is not a normal job, it is very,very hard work, and it never ends until you ETS.

I have to agree with Old hand.

There is a huge difference between the requirements for service in combat SUPPORT positions and combat ARMS duties.

It's been a long time since I was an Infantry NCO and Instructor but, back in my time, making it through Infantry AIT was light years more difficult than getting through basic training. And Infantry AIT was a walk in the park compared to actual combat operations.

When I was an Instructor, one of the MINIMUM requirements of Infantry Training was the ability carry everything required for operations and subsistence for one to two weeks on a 10 mile FORCED MARCH within a required timeframe.

That is to carry around 80# of food, clothing, ammunition, personal items, and equipment at approximately TWICE the normal walking speed for about 3 hours.

I'm fully on board with allowing women to serve in combat SUPPORT jobs. But, it costs tens of thousands of dollars to train an Infantry soldier and, even among men that have already made it through Basic Training (which is considerably tougher than the women's), there is a significant wash-out rate.

I truly doubt that it would be possible to achieve even a double-digit rate of success for female Infantry trainees unless the standard requirements were drastically reduced. It wouldn't be remotely COST-effective to allow women to serve in the Infantry even without taking into consideration the substantially more rigorous requirements of actual combat operations.

As for the arguement that, since only two women were involved in this trial it is not valid, I would say that, from my military experience, those two women were undoubtedly HAND-PICKED from among the best candidates available. They would have been well above the average of female trainees.

The marines standard for women and pull-ups has just been changed. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/us/politics/first-pull-ups-then-combat-marines-say.html?_r=0

The USMC should definitely stick to their standards, and now it's only fair to let any capable officer (male or female) have a crack at the program.

If you're good enough, you make it. If you're not, then you don't. Simple.

She was knocked up.

They'll dumb it down like they had to do everything else in the military so they can pass, some judge will see to that.

Beth---- No one is knocking women, or their capabilities, a standard excersize, in a male Marine Corp boot camp is to put 6 men under a telep hone pole and they do team sit ups with the pole.

Its not about physical ability, its about whats between their ears and you know it. Think of every woman youve ever known and ask yourself wasnt she a bit unbalanced during that time of the month. ABSOLUTELY YES.

kurtnmia

"She was knocked up."

Heck yes she was knocked up, and if you want a lot more of them knocked up just put em in the ditch with the guys.

Right... side by side with the sodomy going on.

Outside of Hollywood... has there ever been a female S.E.A.L?

just asking, seriously - no ulterior agenda - just asking. I'm asking because, that is probably the creme de la Creme of visable counter insergency commands in the US services, not sure how you could improve on them - without altering their DNA.

She was "knocked up." Please cite your source. It wasn't in the article. Seriously, you believe that a woman can't be a soldier because she has PMS? Think about that for a bit and see if you can spare enough brain cells to rethink your position. NO, women are not as physically capable as many men--SOME are. Some men are couch potatoes and have little physical ability. This doesn't have to be a war of the sexes. Women have been shown to be much more capable of defusing aggressive situations than have men--seen in studies of female corrections officers in prisons. When it comes to hands on, men are better. Both have a place in society. If a woman can pass the MC tests, good for her. If she can't, it is better that she do something else that is productive and beneficial to our corp.

Beoweolf,

read post#1.35 and draw your own conclusion.

I neither confirm nor deny.

I guess you have to play the game even if it means you lose in the long run, otherwise someone might get their feelings hurt, women have proved that they are more flexible then men right. especially the lesbian types, cant base every thing on two girls and one being pregnant, that is what I want protecting my back a pregnant woman bless her. I vote for sexual segregation and a vow of abstinence. we used to have a system that worked. lets just get rid of the male element they are useless, I'll go back as a trainer.

Well, they can take male hormone shots, do some weight lifting, chain smoke non-filtered cigarettes & then look like a female Navy SeaBee.

You folks need to listen to people in the know like Big Duke6. This isn't GI Jane, this is the real world. The psychological factors involved here related to unit integrity and cohesion are enormous.

In a perfect world i would be all for equal rights in such things but if the world were perfect we wouldn't need such things. Plenty of important places for women to serve their country that are not combat related. That has to be good enough considering the problems involved.

By the way, having been through some of the training the Corps has to offer, i always found it interesting that women had different standards than the men. Particularly in the PFT (Physical Fitness Test.) All Marines are tested annually in this regard. No doubt there are women that can hang with the men's standards but they are the exception to the rule. Otherwise the standards would be the same for both. An automatic dis-qualifier from physical standpoint if you ask me.

kurtnmia, when you did this Marine training course, how did you do?

hear, hear, lot of men didn't make it through.

Semper Fi.

If I had a daughter, wife, Mother or sister who seriously applied, and legtimately failed while giving it her all. I'd be prouder than hell. (all I'd ask is - Honey, please don't drop out week one / one day one... that would be embarassing) after that - Take it as it comes, can't ask for more that doing your best and working on guts and pride!

Some day ... it's good to have something to shoot for.

I give these two women credit for trying.There were also 30 men who didn't pass the muster.there are qualified women who can pass this test,they just haven't been discovered yet.

it is a pass or fail course. there is no almost pass, or close to passing, or gee you sure did try hard though.

alaskagirl333: That is what is wrong with this country today. Too many people unwilling to say "FAIL!" and you are just feeding the fire of denial. Yes, they FAILED. Unlike today's POS scoiety, in the military, not everyone gets a trophy just for showing up!

Alaska,,if you drop out of a class in college without completing the semester, then you FLUNK. It's as simple as that. Put it as PC as you want, they failed.

As the wife of a Marine, I'll be perfectly happy to see them not lower the standards. Doing that not only reduces what the Marines are and stand for, but could also put more of our front line fighters in danger having unqualified members in their group.

Alaska, but they did fail. No pity party or so sorry you couldn't complete this course. How would you define not finishing the course? It really is quite sad to have a pass/fail requirement change because it is not nice.

The first female was failed. She failed to complete the endurance portion. Anyway, not completing something in the Corps is failing regardless of the reason. In the infantry we don't have time for people that can't hack it especially those that are expected to lead. It's a wolfpack mentality and those in charge (NCOS included) have to be able to out perform their Marines. Failure gets good men killed. The odds are some will die even if everything is done correctly.

You must be talking about the Romney's.

Abolutely! Romneys not a war hero like Obama and Clinton. What a coward. Oh, wait...

Klondiko, uh huh and the inept liar in the white house, you leftys aren't even smart enough to keep your mouth shut.

Amen! For all those bashing these women, did YOU serve?

I served. I'm a woman. And it makes me downright sick, the number of men-boys that I see today who don't even have the ambition to stick with a part-time job... never mind the 24/7 commitment required by the military, where the demands of the service comes first and everything else (including family) comes second.

"Dude, I couldn't handle someone giving me orders" is the lame excuse that I often hear. In which case, they've been watching too many Hollywood movies ("Like, I would totally go off on some dude yelling at me"--even though that mostly only occurs in basic training), or they have no clue as to how the workplace operates, where you DO take orders--from your boss. Can't handle having your boss tell you what to do? Too bad! That's life, pal. Either start your own business or suck it up.

Don't forget, Obama killed Osama Usama.

@StandUp - Great post and I agree. I was in the USN and tell all my younger friends/family to enlist because of the numerous benefits (discipline, honor, etc...) but I hear that cop out so many times.

I'd love it if younger people had to put some time in the military prior to college or working. I think we'd have a more productive society.

...and it's the part of the military that requires the least amount of brains.

I don't think so!

You can tell Brenda has never been in or around the military. As an AF veteran and a civilian manager, I can absolutely tell you that any military member (at least the ones allowed to stay in) are heads and shoulders above their civilian counterparts. Smarter, faster, better conditioned, better trained, better at both managing and leading. Any part of the military that requires the least amount of brains still requires more than most civilians can bring to the table.

Brenda, I can tell you that some of the most brilliant men (and women) I met in my 24 years of service were Marines. Sorry, but you just don't make it in any branch of the armed forces by physical abilities alone, no matter what you are doing. Lack of intelligence just gets you in the worst kind of trouble...

All who serve have to be held to the same basic physical and intellectual standard--and that's a standard that your average American can't meet these days, with 2/3rds of us being obese and because we harbor a prominent "slacker" attitude.

Brenda--you obviously have no clue.

Brenda-251440 - ...and it's the part of the military that requires the least amount of brains.

Really, just to be the lowest US Military Officer (O-1) you must have a College Bachelors Degree. To become competitive for promotions you must have or are working on your Masters Degree. Those of us that have been in the US Military for a very long time are those with PhDs, and multiple Masters, Bachelors Degrees plus many Certifications; so that if you RIF us we will be more experienced, qualified and educated and take your jobs away.

In context of "brains" how about this as BASIC US Military Leadership (as NEVER trained nor experienced in the US Civilian World), you attempt to persuade your subordinates to risk known death, then lead them from the front to face that known death. Then surviving that going back again to face that known death over and over and over again. And don't say that I don't know, that (lead from the front) is what I have been doing for decades to keep the EARNED respect of my Teams.

justross - And if she got medically dropped, I'm guessing she'll recycle when she's healed up.

When that happened to me (different much harder Course), knocked out and in the hospital, just a couple of days before graduation; I had to go back again and start at Day 0 OR Resign my US Military Officer's Commission.

Hear, hear Gunny, if it was easy everyone would make it.

Semper Fi.

Very good point Woody, I agree with you 100%, also some of the Marines, that I personally knew, that failed the 13 week grunt test, went on to become outstanding Harrier Pilots.

Guns---great post.

Semper Fi!

They were not strong enough to pass the PFT.

10-4 to you N. Serling

Klondiko: No, they call them "Marines"---as they should be called.

BAM Means BEST American MARINE

Bill W , In my day they called them Bad Azz Marines, and all female Marines were called Wam's, which really stood for WM's .. Women Marines.

I thought W/M stood for "waste of money"......????

USMC = Uncle Sams Misguided Children.

Don't give me any grief over this. My husband is a Marine Officer and has a T-shirt that says that. hehehe..No truer words ever spoken.

They are the BEST.

I commend ALL who serve, regardless of the branch or their rank. My son is an Army Warrant Officer.

OK, liberal, other countries militarys are not even close to ours. Some military jobs most women just can't do unless (like your other country) we lower the standards. Everyone should be allowed to try, but the standard is set for wartime and should not be lowered for any reason.

Former, I have seen many of your posts, I would be surpised , if you were ever, in the Corps.

FormerMarineSgt wrote "and they do pretty damn well in the countries that let them."

Putting one woman in a combat role by allowing her lower female-specific physical standards is large scale discrimination against men that would also pass those lower physical standards.

Just an American-2988472:

Israel's military (IDF) puts women in combat positions. Say what you will, but I can think of many other countries whose armed forces I would rather face before Israel's!

BlueMist wrote "Israel's military (IDF) puts women in combat positions"

Women and men will be equal when the death toll from combat service is equal. I have not been able to find those numbers yet. But here are the results : woman kills 2 in Sept 2012. In 12 years of operation, only two kills ?!? Women in Israel's combat positions are not doing the same job and carrying the same risk as men in combat positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion

Yes, some countries have females in combat roles...but they don't do as well as men. They can't be advisors to Afghans (in the field) and I saw almost all of them in armored vehicles. When it coming to road marches and SPEC OPS, the women weren't around. The Marines had the Lioness program and later female engagement teams.....it was a mixed success. Bottom line: a few (very few) women could make it in infantry. Men have larger hearts, lungs and strength which is critical in the field. Additionally, men can much more easily adapt to filthy conditions in the field for extended periods of time (check out our college fraternities). Additionally, women catch diseases much more easily than men in the field because of their cycle. Lastly...and lets face it people, men can be much more violent (check out our prisons) which is needed in ground combat. I have been there and done that. It is not fun at times in the field...but men adapt much better. Women are better in other areas, but not ground combat. And that is the bottom line people....to win....not to make sure everybody gets a chance.

Women in the military do face some risks that most of the men do not. Sexual harrassment and rape are two, for example. Those who serve, all who serve, deserve admiration and respect.

Colorblind wrote "Women in the military do face some risks that most of the men do not. Sexual harrassment"

Sexual harrassment is a state of mind that women are more vulnerable to verbal comments than men.

Of course, no one considers women showing up to work with paint on their face, some sort of lavendar aroma and much less clothing than men sexual harrassment. It is clearly the female version of sexual harrassment that is not yet regulated.

"Additionally, women catch diseases much more easily than men in the field because of their cycle"

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read!

Bags,

That one gets me every time too. Newsflash, we don't die from "period".

Sorry, Sarah, but the female body in the field is a liability.

I've had to fly females out of the field, consuming valuable and scheduled helos, just for showers.
It's just a higher-maintenance vehicle. Sorry 'bout that.

Another point; I've NEVER participated in a scheduled road march were the females weren't ditching their ruck, helmet and rifle early in and picking it up at the finish line. We even caught one commander with an "overstuffed" looking rucksack. Everybody else was carrying 70lbs of SAND. When it finished, a buddy ran over and picked up the CO's ruck with one hand, and pulled out a PILLOW in front of the entire march. She tried to give him an Article 15, but ended up in front of the school CG, instead.

Women are not men. They're now worse, just different. And those differences do not lend themselves to ground combat. Drones, truck driving, etc.? Sure. Why not. But don't let your ego make you think that 25% less muscle mass, less heart and lung capacity and much less bone density mean nothing. In combat, it means EVERYTHING.

Maximum,

If that's the current procedure, it doesn't NEED to be. Sorry, that's the truth. We have ways of stopping our menstrual cycles, really cheap, easy ways.

Just because it's the policy right now, doesn't mean the myth of "Periods will kill them" is true.

There is NO logical argument for not even allowing women to TRY and pass the same tests as men, with the same standards.

I am unaware of the word "try" in combat?
Is there a second place?

Sure, "try" all you want back in the rear.
But, if the dropout/failure rate were this high in combat, we'd be NMC (Non-Mission Capable).
That's more than enough evidence for me.

BTW, the last major "try" involved Navy Lt. Kara Hultgren. She tried, and failed several times during her Navy (land) qualifications. She was "passed" by PC-minded senior officers and ultimately given an F-14 carrier assignment. She failed MISERABLY, killing herself and almost killing her RIO.

We are NOT going to change the structure of our combat operations for the .001% that can pass. No agency or company, military or civilian, would make wholesale changes and incur dramatic risks for that percentage. Sorry.

BTW, would you agree to MANDATORY temporary sterilization of females to ensure that they're deployable for the length of their contract?

Maximum,

TRY, in my post means they should be allowed to go through the same standards testing as men. If they wash out and can't meet the qualifications like these two, then they don't get the job.

Furthermore, people keep mentioning that the standards will be lowered, but I've noticed it's only MEN who bring that up. Did these two women ask for specialized, lowered standards? If a women wants to be in this position, do you really think she wants to be held to separate standards?

BTW, would you agree to MANDATORY temporary sterilization of females to ensure that they're deployable for the length of their contract?

Sure, yeah. That makes sense. And by the way, that's NOT sterilization. It's a simple side effect of some types of BC that MANY, MANY women are currently taking. It wouldn't even be out of the ordinary for most of us.

I've never met a male who asked for separate physical standards, and only a few women who didn't NEED them. And, yes, I've worked with quite a few military females who asked and even DEMANDED separate standards. The one-man 155mm projectile lift because a two-women job. The single-soldier tire change became a three-female job. Physical jobs require physical ability. Unfortunately, the standards for those jobs are engineered around men.

Wether people want the standards to change or no, THEY WILL CHANGE. This has been proven in every case. Maybe these two females were able to pass the fitness test during in-processing. Will they be able to pass it EVERY TIME, for the length of their enlistment? Logic and experience say NO.

There's nothing more demoralizing to a unit than knowing that some of them shouldn't be there.

So basically you're saying, because something MIGHT happen, approximately 50% of the population doesn't even deserve even an attempt at meeting the men's standards.

And those who can and want to, are just SOL?

Lowering the standards is something that's under our control, ergo it's boiled down to, quite simply, an excuse for gender based discrimination.

Not "might", WILL happen.
But, let's say for the sake of amusement that "might" is the correct word.

If my T-10B parachute "might" fail to properly deploy 50% of the time, should I accept that as the standard? Should I make "accomodations" for that parachute? Should I add 50% unit strength to make up for the other 50% that are gonna burn in to the LZ?

If a female wants to "try" to pass the physical fitness test of a man, let her try.
If a female wants to "try" to LEAD a ground combat unit, despite all the proven limitations, liabilities and experiences shown in the thousands of years of recorded human history before, NO. Not worth it. Not worth the social re-engineering, not worth the hedging or excuses.

Sorry. This isn't a game and everything isn't about some female's career.

Not "might", WILL happen.

Do you work nights for the Psychic Hotline? Stop making excuses and trying to substitute them for logic.

If my T-10B parachute "might" fail to properly deploy 50% of the time, should I accept that as the standard? Should I make "accomodations" for that parachute? Should I add 50% unit strength to make up for the other 50% that are gonna burn in to the LZ?

Dude, you are so totally off point here. What don't you understand, that because of your hypothetical MIGHT, 50% of our population doesn't even get to try and TAKE THE TEST.

That doesn't mean all women automatically go into combat. That means that within that 50%, there's a smaller population who would like to at least take the test at the same standards, and those that pass are allowed in.

Just like men.

Your statement above implies that ALL women are INCAPABLE of meeting the standards and assumes, automatically that those standards would be lowered.

If a female wants to "try" to LEAD a ground combat unit, despite all the proven limitations, liabilities and experiences shown in the thousands of years of recorded human history before, NO. Not worth it. Not worth the social re-engineering, not worth the hedging or excuses.

So, then why do you trust men to lead you, that have passed those standards? Passing them is good enough for you to trust a man to lead you, why aren't those standards enough for you to trust a woman?

My experience tells me that the standards WILL be lowered, officially or unofficially.
In a risk/benefit analysis, these only one answer: No.
We are not so infantry-poor that risking this scenario will improve our combat readiness and capability.

What does your military experience tell you?

My experience tells me that the standards WILL be lowered, officially or unofficially.

Your experience does not change the fact that lowering the standards is STILL under our control, and to use the mere POSSIBILITY of something which we CONTROL happening, is simply an excuse.

We are not so infantry-poor that risking this scenario will improve our combat readiness and capability.

If they're meeting the same standards as men, how does that effect combat readiness or capability in anyway, except deepening our pool and increasing our numbers? Why wouldn't you want that to happen?

You also didn't answer my question. If they meet the same standards as men...

So, then why do you trust men to lead you, that have passed those standards? Passing them is good enough for you to trust a man to lead you, why isn't passing those standards enough for you to trust a woman?

What does your military experience tell you?

I don't have any, but your personal experience doesn't mean anything either. We don't decide policy based on Maximum Bob's hypothetical conjectures and personal observations, feelings, guesses or opinions.

After all, your whole case here, basically boils down to an excuse.

My conjectures are not "hypothetical". Every thing I postulate I've seen or experienced personally, as have many of the veterans posting here. Anybody that's been in the military knows to immediately roll their eyes when some hack starts saying, "Studies show ...". Sure, I'm gonna believe them over my own eyes. These experiences, when compiled, are NOT anecdotes. They're actual, verifyable statistics. You cannot wave them away because you see this as somehow different. That's a fact and it's only gotten worse with PC-minded stunts like this. This stunt is, in itslef, PROOF of what I've been saying.

You call it an excuse. In the military, you don't get excuses. Nobody cares why you're NMC, why a large percentage of your troops are non-deployable, or why you've re-tasked a job function to take two soldiers and twice as long. Or why you have to tell another soldier to pick up the slack.

And, if you really want to know, I trust the men leading me because they weren't selected to meet the standards. They met them and they're there without any special intervention and because common sense tells you that they should be there.

It's a fact that the farther you are from the problem, the easier the solution looks.

Every thing I postulate I've seen or experienced personally, as have many of the veterans posting here. Anybody that's been in the military knows to immediately roll their eyes when some hack starts saying, "Studies show ..."

Ahhh yes, those quantitative and qualitative, tested for reliability and validity, generalizable peer reviewed studies take a back seat to strangers "personal experiences" posted online. Has it ever occurred to you that the world is bigger then your personal experiences, and that although you may see something occur, it doesn't automatically make that observation the norm? Nor does it guarentee that the observation will occur in all circumstances in the future.

And it STILL doesn't change the fact that lowering the standards is under our control, and the MERE POSSIBILITY of something UNDER OUR CONTROL happening, is completely DEPENDENT on what WE choose to do, ergo saying that possibility is a reason for discrimination IS an EXCUSE.

These experiences, when compiled, are NOT anecdotes. They're actual, verifyable statistics. You cannot wave them away because you see this as somehow different.

No, they aren't. What methodology do you use to observe them? What was your sampling method? What were your independent and dependent variables? What was your hypothesis? How did you test for said hypothesis? What was your control group? What were your measurement techniques?

Bottom line, your personal observations are nothing more then just that. Applicable to YOUR life and opinions, BUT NOT applicable to populations in general, nor are they capable of predicting the future.

And, if you really want to know, I trust the men leading me because they weren't selected to meet the standards. They met them and they're there without any special intervention and because common sense tells you that they should be there.

Right, so if women meet those same standards in that same way, why are men passing those standards good enough for you to trust, but not women who pass them exact same way?

You only answered the first part of the question.

Sarah and Bags are Packed,

have you ever been in the field in Afghanistan with women? If not, shut your pie-hole. We had to medevac some females for vaginal infections. It is just the way it is...not their fault, just biology my darlings. Believe it or not, the field (and especially when you live out there for days on end with no showers), can be a filthy place. I love it when people comment on stuff when they have absolutely experience except what they heard in the coffee shop.

We had to medevac some females for vaginal infections. It is just the way it is...not their fault, just biology my darlings

Have you ever been a woman, because I have. So, if you haven't then, how'd you say it??? "Shut your pie hole"??? And I can tell you, unequivocally, that you're lying. A: We have the technology to stop menstrual cycles. B: You don't get infections from them and C: Any air lifting that was done, was a needless and useless policy.

Nothing worse then guys who get on here and all of a sudden become gynecologists.

That's just the way it is, darlin'.

Sarah,

you are right....I don't know that it was because of their cycle....I didn't go ask them. It was labeled "female hygiene issue". I wasn't going to ask about the details. But we are getting off topic. Bottom line: women don't do as well as men in the field.....you may find one or two, but generally, they do not. It is not about intelligence, it is just an issue of size, strength and endurance. Men just naturally have this advantage. Unless you have been a grunt in Marine infantry unit....then I will never be able to reason with you. You are obviously a feminist that "women can do anything men can do". How about celebrating our differences. Women do things better than men....I accept that. You seem to be a man-hater.

We are different. Society is always trying to make men and women look the same. We have different roles in life, roles that make men feel like men, and women feel liek women. Its how we were designed. It doesnt mean in anyway that men are some higher power than women, or we are to look down on there. Everyone in this life has a role. Men feel like men when they make money to support their families. Men feel like men when they know that their family depend on him. That is one of the greatest feelings in the world for a man.

Too bad there are many men out there that can even live up to that. They like to mooch off their loved ones and just be lazy :P

Not a man hater at all. Just a "stupid" hater. Have I ever said that men aren't bigger/stronger or that they're inherently bad?

All I'm saying, is if you're going to discriminate against ALL women, even those who CAN hack it, you better have a damn good, logical argument.

I've yet to hear one.

Ridicuous and inappropriate. You need some sex education and some class. Education can be bought. Class, apparently, has to be learned in other ways....

The one thing that a marine could always count on, was that his officers and NCO's would do the best they could for them.

You dare not endanger that, Have sen the time, when I did things, that I didn't want to, for that single reason, a man, I trusted said, "we've got it to do"

Not likely that was Hollywood B.S.!

N.Serling call it as you wish. I served 23 years in the Army, and for the most part, there were course that most women could not get through, just as there were men who also could not cut it physically. But there were women who could have made it, but, policy kept them out of those courses. I, was one of those men that would not of made through a physically demanding course, so please do not come back with a quip of where did I fit in.

I wish the movie "GI Jane" used an actress double that could do one proper push-up. I've know at least two women that can do 1-2 pushups, a least for the peak period of their lives. Why didn't a movie showing that a woman that exceeded men could at least do one pushup ? (I'll go back and re-watch those scenes to make sure my memory of them are up to snuff.)

No doubt in my mind , that there are women out there, that can get through the course.

I also know it's another animal, when you get to a place where the crap has hit he fan off and on for 24 to 48 hours.

When has a Woman EVER completed The SF Q course none, The Darby Queen/Nasty Nate None. Buds NEVER! Women have a place in the military yes; they are integral part just stating the facts but they do not belong in Combat Arms.

Serling--as far as I'm aware, women have not been offered a chance to pass the SF Q course or any other special warfare school, so pointing out that they haven't is kind a pointless exercise.

Given enough time the Marines can make a man out of anyone, including a woman. Semper Fi.

There are no Nurses in the Marines.

There are thousands of nurses that care for SOLDIERS--all soldiers....Marines included. Marines are part of the Navy and the Navy has nurses that care for Marines. The job they do is not always pleasant and there are many men that are not up to the task.

Colorblind wrote "The job they do is not always pleasant"

Agreed. It's just not as bad as killing the enemy and facing death and dismemberment. All women seem to be afraid of that task.

Vincent,

You know ALL the women in the world??? Wow, that's impressive.

Many of the men who did not cut it on their first pass will be offered a chance to be recycled through the next class in the Infantry Officers School. Assuming, of course, that the reason they did not complete was an injury or illness that they can recover completely from in order to attempt the course again. The Corps is wise enough to know that someone breaking an ankle or catching pnuemonia does not reflect on either their ability to lead or their fitness for the field, and that oftentimes, the grit to go through the grinder a second time shows the character necessary for success in combat.

There is no reason why a woman bounced from her class for such an injury or illness should not be afforded the same opportunity.

The women were likely put in a group of less capable men.

Nope, you can, or you get out, in the Corps

David--are you saying none of your peers failed to complete the course when you went through?

Marine Infantry Officers Course is not SF quality...but it is a real @$$ kicker. It has gotten harder over the years. And by the way everyone...109 started....27 men dropped out along with the 2 females. Some of the men...like one of the females, was injured in training.

Replacing a man on a firefighter team with a woman increases the risk for the remaining for men. Before, they had a 1 in 5 chance of being the person put into the most dangerous rescue role. With the addition of the woman, they now have a 1 in 4 chance of that role. The woman, of course, will not be put at risk , usually at her own insistence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Fire_Department_casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

All 343 fire fighters that died during the 9/11 Bombing aftermath were male. So, where were the female fire fighters ? Completely out of harm's way ?

If one woman died, you know that all of the news articles would focus on her : one woman fire fighter and 342 fire fighters were killed. The woman suffered more.

Vincent,

I'm really sorry that someone dumped you, but your misogyny is getting out of hand.

T-Block,

If men are so easily distracted and unable to do their jobs, then they are not fit to serve in the military. Your outdated argument was made back in the 1970's about women working in offices, but apparently most men have now learned how to do their work despite the fact that another gender exists and works at the same company. You can't blame women for men's behavior - the men need to be accountable for it.

She might of had a husband and was just beginning her pregnancy when the course started. Just because and if she was pregnant does not mean she was sleeping with fellow students. Geez.

LALaw,

I often wonder what exactly is going on with men in the armed forces, that makes them incapable of working next to a women. Yet, they come back to the civilian world and can work with females just fine.

Really? You folks are trying to compare combat with an office environment? Really?

Jon,

No, we're saying men have frontal lobes too. You know, the part of your brain that controls impulses. If you're in the middle of a combat zone and can't keep it in your pants, that's YOUR problem and might I add a serious one, and women shouldn't be punished for it.

Other then being directly in combat, women are already brushing up against men (no pun intended) in the forces. So the "testosterone crazed, me wanna mate NOW" can't be used unless...

A: We don't allow women in any position in the armed forces

or

B: Men in combat literally don't have frontal lobes and would drop trow in the middle of being ass deep in violence.

My feelings exactly Sarah... "Look out... sniper!!!" ... "lets do it"

I don't think any one is degrading women, here.

I think the efforts of people trying to push women into combat jobs are going to get a lot of people killed, men and women.

I met some women during my time in the Corps, who were some on the meanest human beings, I ever met.

They still couldn't pick up a 50 lb A4 and run with it.

Woody...You don't think anyone is degrading women here? Seriously? How about the post about "being on the rag", or the comment about that they didn't "dumb down" the tests for the women. Then there are those that commented on the "women are best in the kitchen and bedroom" post. Some men are much more physically prepared for these test than any woman. Others are not. But, to conclude that there are no disparaging comments toward women on this page is simply not true. So many rapes of women in the military gives an idea of the mentality toward women in the military by SOME, not all, men in the same positions.

"Being on the rag" is significant. For this reason, women take more sick days during the year.

Vincent,

Being "on the rag" can be controlled and stopped through BC.

Vincent: shut up already. The only thing you've proven is that you're a complete moron who knows nothing about women. Geez man, it's embarrassing!