Thursday, April 8, 2021

Women In the Military Part VI

 h/t The Old Jarhead














What's that? Women can't cut it in the military most of the time? Who knew?

I mean, besides literally everyone, including every veteran since the Spanish-American War.

(REALITY) The U.S. Army, currently stuck in a quagmire over a rigorous new physical fitness test, needs to get its act together and make sure soldiers are ready for combat, say a national security expert. 
The rollout of the Army Combat Fitness Test in 2019 hit a roadblock when initial test scores showed 65% of women failed compared to 10% of men. 
The new ACFT replaced the Army's three-event Physical Fitness Test, which graded soldiers according to sex and age, but the alarming failure rate caused an uproar among Democrat lawmakers who used a 2021 Pentagon spending bill to order a halt to scoring soldiers according to the new test. A study of the test is being done by the RAND Corp. 
According to Stars and Stripes, the fitness exam is a six-event test that is patterned after the grueling CrossFit program with weights and barbells, medicine balls, kettle bells, and a 90-lb. sled to simulate dragging a wounded soldier. 
The new test, which is meant to better simulate combat, includes a "leg tuck" station that 72% of women failed when they couldn't raise their legs to their chin. 
During the phase-in period, the U.S. Marine Corps was the only branch to publicly speak out after its own testing showed female Marines were failing to keep up with males during rigorous combat simulations such as loading artillery shells and carrying a wounded Marine to safety.

And this is after they lowered the bar, by command direction, for everything women try!

Let's talk turkey: No woman has served in the US military under the same requirements as a man since the American Civil War , and not a single woman serving now or anytime in the last century has had to measure up to the same standards as men for so much as one minute of her entire military career. Now that they're being asked to do exactly that, 4/5ths of them can't even meet the basic standard.

It's time women either put up, or shut up.

Meet the exact same standards, or kick them the fuck out, where they belong. Any job a woman can do isn't something that should necessarily be a military job. Put them back in civilian service where they belong, or else end the farcical experiment, and acknowledge there's something critical they lack for combat (that would be called muscle mass), ban them from it in perpetuity, and go back to the status quo when common sense and biology ruled military decisions, instead of woke retardation.

Clerks and jerks? In the rear, with the gear? Fine, sweetheart.

Combat? Combat arms? Anything within a country mile? No way in hell. No Combat Barbie, ever. Period. 

(That means no shipboard deployment on warships either, unless they can sling 4x4s for Damage Control and carry a full hosepack up five ladders and then put out a fire, after dragging Seaman Fatty McChowhound to safety too.)

And change back to common sense quickly, before Combat Barbie wannabes get themselves and other people killed for their immutable physical shortcomings. 

And the 10% of men who can't cut it either? At a time when the military is the smallest it's been in 100 years, and should have the pick of recruits? 

Those are some douchebag recruiters who need to be re-assigned to someplace seriously shitty for an entire tour, just to drive the point home to stop signing up couch potatoes and nancy boys. Any recruiter not making poolees at least pass a PFT before they sign them up is doing it wrong. Especially for female would-be recruits.

Maybe when it turns out they can only find 10-20% of women a year in the country who can even pass the test to enlist, they'll realize what the problem is. And it ain't the test.

17 comments:

RandyGC said...

Even the new test has issues:

"a 90-lb. sled to simulate dragging a wounded soldier."

And the last time you saw a combat loaded soldier weighing in as low as 90lb is when? Even a 90lb female is going to weigh substantially more once you add body armor, ammo, weapons ruck etc.

Oh, you're going to take time under fire while they're bleeding out to strip off the excess weight? Good luck with that.

Landroll said...

When I was in in the '70, the Army thought to reduce the weight of hand grenades to a half pound because most women couldn't heave a normal one pound grenade far enough to be relatively safe. Also they couldn't pass the grenade throw portion of the then PT test. They quit the idea when they realized a half pound grenade was about as deadly as an M80 fire cracker. Women were also the reason for switching to the M9 Baretta. Women's hands too small to handle an M1911.

John said...

This.

This is the lie of equality.

Georgiaboy61 said...

@ Landroll

Yep, that's right: As long ago as the 1980s, when Big Green first started taking in large numbers of women not destined for traditional female areas of the military, they ran into the fact that very few women could throw a standard fragmentation grenade far-enough to escape the blast cone. Rather than man-up and go back to the 'Hill and the public, the brass lied about it, buried the incriminating data, and changed to test to make it easier for women to pass. The distance thrown with the grenade was reduced, and recruits were henceforth only required to do a short unhanded toss over a low wall.
So, when you stated that the grenade was also reduced in weight - and thereby lethality - it tracked as being correct and consistent with what was done.

The Beretta M9 was adopted in part for inter-alliance reasons within NATO, i.e., the keep our partners in Italy happy, but there's no question "small-stature soldiers," a.k.a. "soldierettes" can handle and use a 9x19mm pistol more-easily than one in .45ACP. The same could be said for the continued reliance on the M-16/M-4 assault rifles. The 5.56x45 NATO is a much easier round to control, and to carry, than something more-substantial like 7.62x51 NATO, to name one example. I don't want to go down that whole "caliber debate" rabbit hole, I am just noting that the army has to have weapons in its inventory that are "female friendly" if Big Green continues to rely on women for its needs. Whereas almost all females are comfortable with the M-16/M-4, relatively few like firing a full-power battle rifle, or carrying on, or carrying a standard ammo load for it.

Tim said...

It's not just the Army, it's all the Armed Services.

Aesop said...

Yes, Tim, it's all the services, but the Army, at 1,099,061 people, is 46% of the current entire US armed forces, the largest component of all services by far, and 77% of the available U.S. ground combat forces, so it makes one helluva lot more difference what they're doing, especially when what they're doing is screwing the pooch so hard. And it's even worse when we already have a military establishment shrunken to the smallest it's been since before Pearl Harbor.

There will be consequences to all that, and not in a good way.

We yell because we care. ;)

Unknown said...

Yes, women should be kicked out. They can't pass the test, they can go home. I don't care whose feelings get hurt.

The lie of "women can do anything a man can!" is just that: a lie with no basis in reality. It's time to stop perpetuating the lie, too. Women cannot do everything a man can.

No matter how much the feminists have hysterics over having the truth shoved down thier throats.

~Rhea

Mark said...

There's a reason combat sports (boxing, MMA, martial arts, etc) are segregated by sex AND weight, because if you put a 130 lb woman in the ring against a 130 lb man you'd better have an ambulance handy. Non-sport combat isn't so segregated, which means you want the people on the point to be those most likely to kick ass, which with few exceptions will be those with the dangly bits.

This makes perfect sense, which is exactly why TPTB don't see it.

I get tired of the "A woman can do anything a man can, which is why women need lower standards so they can keep up with the men" BS. Personally if I'm trapped in a burning building, I don't give a crap what reproductive organs my rescuer has, I just want someone who can break thru the wall, pick my 230+ lb ass up and carry me out. I'd be willing to place bets on who would be most likely to accomplish that.

Greg said...

I've said before that I've met women who could be Navy seals, and they DO NOT look like Demi Moore. Granted, those sorts of women are on the very narrow end of their physiological bell curve, and don't track in numbers available to do what the "woke" military wants. If a woman can meet the needed standards that 10% or more men cannot, then all power to them, welcome aboard. It ain't gonna happen though.

Unknown said...

Ha. Stalin gutted the Soviet military...do you detect a pattern? Create a crisis and take all the guns...crisis occurs when we get our shix kicked by someone overseas...bc we have idiots running the milcomplex and quotas manning flying saucers...

Survivormann99 said...

Lots of you people are living in a dream world. You really think that Dodderin' Joe's Administration is going to start kicking women out of the military because they can't pass physical fitness tests? What is the color of the sky in the alternate universe in which you live? Joe won't even come down with a hammer on the teachers' unions in order to get kids back in school. The teachers' unions are too important as a Democrat constituency. Democrats are fine with screwing the kids and their futures if it keeps the unions happy.

That political problem is actually a trivial one compared to what would result from "denying our young women expanded career opportunities." From the Democrat perspective, it is far better to mollify feminists and to have our armed forces live the lie that women can perform their mission, than to create a feminist brouhaha that damages Democrats at the polls.

I spent four years in the Marine Corps (you know, around the time of the War of 1812). Women in the Corps were not quite a rarity, but they were certainly never seen much outside administrative jobs. Four years after I left the Corps, I discovered that I still had "latent military tendencies." Because of limitations related to serving in the local Marine Reserve unit, I joined the Army Guard, specifically, a Corps Artillery Headquarters unit. It was quite an abrupt change seeing so many women in the unit.

I remember two things about the first time I went with the unit to the field at Fort Knox. Shortly after we arrived, one female soldier took off and walked around the training area looking for 110 electrical service to use with her hair dryer the next morning. A second woman was the only injured soldier that weekend, having injured her back from trying to help erect a GP Medium tent. To her credit, "the spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak."

The bullshit "can do" charade where the Army brass, hoping for that next star on the collar, pretends that women who have, on average, 40% less upper body strength than the average male, can do the job is going to get a good many soldiers killed if the idea is ever tested in battle. The reality of the situation, however, is that the Pentagon has said that nearly 3/4 of American youth don't qualify for the military. According to AmericanMilitaryNews.com, "Factors affecting eligibility include health problems, criminal records or poor education, and the lack of potential enlistments may hinder any plans in beefing up America’s armed forces." It turns out that being fat, a thug, a retard, or a banana slug reduces the recruiting pool. Who knew?

The bottom line is that we are stuck with Combat Barbies now, and the situation is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Unknownsailor said...

Every deployment I ever did aboard a carrier had women on it, from 1996 until I retired. Each and every time, 20 or more women got sent home for getting pregnant. Each and every time women women introduced drama where there need none be. Each and every time the fucking was going on non stop, no matter how hard the Navy tried to stop it. Women get the office jobs, leaving the men to do the ones that are physically laborious and dirty, and removing the possibility of rewarding the hard working with a job in the air conditioned office for a sustained job well done.

I supervised women more than once, and I never cut them any slack. They can damned well sling cargo like a man can, or they get stronger until they can. That 90 lb pail of non-skid ain't gonna make up 4 ladders by itself, ladies. Get hot.

Survivormann99 said...

Found at Western Rifle Shooters:
https://rumble.com/veynzj-us-military-pushes-inclusion-effeminacy-while-russian-recruitment-ads-empha.html

Wayne said...

I wanted to join the marines, but I didn’t qualify. My parents were married. To each other.

Aesop said...

's okay, Wayne.
I know a lot of guys who had the same problem. But that's what happens when you've got two dads.
;)

Survivormann99 said...

Wayne,

I'm thinking that you should stay away from this blog. After all, some of the discussion is age-sensitive. Gay marriage wasn't even legal in the US until sometime in the last ten years, so, child, you must be very young--and your parents must be very proud of you.

favill said...

I remember a Korean War vet telling me a story about how an ad hoc platoon of clerks and cooks was assembled and used as the counter-attack force against a Chinese breakthrough in a Canadian battalion's lines (back then they'd use "broken" combat arms types to be clerks and cooks). I vote no women in the military whatsoever. In today's battlefield, the bad guys can show up well behind the front-lines--the last thing you want is a bunch of (literal) girls having to fight hand to hand with some crazy Jihadists or Spetsnaz commandoes.