Thursday, April 23, 2015

The situational equality of women in the military: USMC to drop standards for women in the Infantry.

I enlisted in the military in 1972 during that little tiff in SE Asia.  No, I didn't go (They weren't shipping 17 year olds... and I was 17 years and 1 day old when I enlisted.)

So, I took the only overseas assignment I could get back then: Germany.

This was right around the start of two different major policy changes in the US Army: VOLAR (Ending the draft and The All Volunteer Army) and the decision to begin the end of the WAC, or the Women's Army Corps.

That began the increased reliance of women in the military and the subsequent push for that elusive goal of "equality."

Equal is defined thus:
adjective \ˈē-kwəl\: the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality
: having the same mathematical value
: not changing : the same for each person
Yes...  "the same for each person."

I was a Recon Scout in an Infantry Battalion (1/4 IN) and we were all briefed on this push for women to come in.

We were assured that they would have to be equal.  That they would have to meet the same standards... the same weight standards, the same physical training standards, the same job standards.

We were also assured they'd have the same standard of living as we did.

It was all a lie, of course.

In everything from physical standards (These are the minimums for most job skills)
The following chart shows the minimum score allowed to graduate from AIT and the requirements for your semi-annual Army PFT there after: 
Age GroupGenderPush-UpsSit-Ups2-Mile Run
17 - 21Male425315:54
22 - 26Male405016:36

These tables reflect the Army's bare minimum PFT requirements, however these scores are considered below average and could reflect poorly on your record.  In addition the Army offers a Physical Fitness Badge to those soldiers who score 270 or above on the Army PFT.
.... to living conditions in the barracks, women were treated much better... and certainly not equally... than their male counterparts.

From the beginning, women have failed to either be treated equally or to seek out equality.

The reasons were not military, they were purely political.

It has NEVER been adequately explained why, for example, a female MP shouldn't have to exhibit the same upper body strength as her male contemporary... or why she shouldn't have to run as fast.

That they don't is the thing.  And how many women have ever complained about this institutional double standard?

Of course, there's also the pregnancy dodge: get pregnant to avoid deployment, get pregnant to leave deployment.

If you're a male and you deliberately disable yourself to avoid deployment or end your deployment... what happens?

You get in serious trouble.  And you should.

If you get pregnant?

Nothing happens, except you get paid as if you were performing your duties like everyone else instead of being exempt from duty and assigned to nothing much more strenuous than permanent CQ for the duration of your pregnancy scam.

This then is what passes for "equal" in the military.

And "separate but equal is not equal."

Especially when you don't need to meet the same standards.

And now, as expected, we can see even more of this so-called "equality" collapse as the Marine Corps.... and then everyone else... are going to be forced to lower standards for women and women only in order to get them into combat arms slots.

And why is this happening?

Because, you know, a bullet don't care.

Because none of the women allowed to go to the Infantry Officer's Course have made it.

Zero.  And that automatically means the standards are too high, and, well, as a result... you can guess the rest.

And this is the kind of bullshit that is sickening because we can see with a certainty that the outcome of this insanity is going to be unnecessary casualties, shattered morale and the undeniable lie of artificial "equality" as the military becomes a cesspool of affirmative action crap.

As a former grunt and a former scout, I would refuse to go to war under a female officer generally, particularly one who did not meet AT LEAST the same standards I met.

That means they won't have to carry as much as far to qualify.

That means they won't be able to drag me out of harm's way if I'm wounded... or stay up with us on long range patrols.

They won't have to break track on a tank, or pick up an artillery shell or any of that... but they'll still be qualified for combat arms.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a damned disaster.
Pressure grows on Marines to consider lowering combat standards for women

The only useful purpose this garbage provides is a forum to point out what we knew all along: it's never been equal and now, because of this kind of political crap...

It never will be.

And people... our people... are going to die because of it.

No comments: