Military Watering Down Standards So Females Can Meet Them (1 Viewer)

[cpwill]

Oh. Gosh. If only someone had predicted things like this this.

...Ignoring the Marine study, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened all combat roles to women in December 2015. Rather than requiring new female combat recruits to meet the same physical standards as men, the military began crafting “gender neutral” standards in the hope that more women would qualify. Previously, women had been admitted to noncombat specialties under lower strength and endurance requirements.

Only two women have passed the Marine Corps’s fabled infantry-officer training course out of the three dozen who have tried. Most wash out in the combat endurance test, administered on day one. Participants hike miles while carrying combat loads of 80 pounds or more, climb 20-foot ropes multiple times, and scale an 8-foot barrier. The purpose of the test is to ensure that officers can hump their own equipment and still arrive at a battleground mentally and physically capable of leading troops. Most female aspirants couldn’t pass the test, so the Marines changed it from a pass/fail requirement to an unscored exercise with no bearing on the candidate’s ultimate evaluation. The weapons-company hike during the IOC is now “gender neutral,” meaning that officers can hand their pack to a buddy if they get tired, rather than carrying it for the course’s full 10 miles....

The argument for putting women into combat roles has always been nonmilitary: Combat experience qualifies soldiers for high-ranking Pentagon jobs. But war isn’t about promoting equality. Its objective is to break the enemy’s will through precise lethal engagement, with the lowest possible loss of American life. The claim that female combat soldiers will perform as lethally as men over an extended deployment entails a denial of biological reality

 

[joko104]

Why or why does the military spend all that money on aircraft, missiles, satellites, drones and all that other technical stuff because REALLY the peak of military advancement was in WW1. :roll:

 

[Mr Person]

Weren't they already watering them down given Americans' insistence on size?

 

[joko104]

Why does the military lower standards for white men? Black men are stronger. The claim that white combat soldiers will perform as lethally as black combat soldiers over an extended deployment entails a denial of biological reality. One only has to look at professional contact sports such as football to recognize the physical inferiority of white men. Black women also are stronger than white women. How many more Americans in combat will lose their lives for the military downgrading standard for white people?

The average black American can bench press more than the average white American

Of course weight and strength are not the same thing. In order to compare the races in strength, I found a study of police officers which compared the bench pressing ability of black and white officers, both at the time they were recruited, and after years on the job. The study found that upon recruitment, the average white man could bench press 84.2 kg (standard deviation = 21.2), the average black could bench press 95.1 kg (SD = 24.6). In other words, black men are 0.51 SD stronger than white men. If we convert strength to farmilliar IQ scale, where the white mean is set at 100 and the white SD is set at 15, then white men have a (sex adjusted) SQ (Strength Quotient) of 100, and black men have an SQ of 108.

Both races improved after years of on the job training, but the gap remained. Black women could also bench press more than white women, both at recruitment, and especially after training in both groups.

Blacks dominate American body building

What happens when we move from the average and look at the extremes? Here’s a list of the top 15 body builders of all time. For apples to apples comparison, I excluded all the non-Americans, to make a list of the top AMERICAN body builder’s of all time:

1. Ronnie Coleman (Black)
2. Arnold Schwarzenegger (White)
3. Kai Greene (Black)
4. Phillip Health (Black)
5. Flex Wheeler (Black)
6. Johnnie O. Jackson (Black)
7. Lee Haney (Black)
8. Lou Ferrigno (White)
9. Kevin Levrone (Black)

So blacks are only 12.6% of America, but 78% of the top body builders in American history.

https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/08/which-race-is-physically-strongest/

 

[braindrain]

Why or why does the military spend all that money on aircraft, missiles, satellites, drones and all that other technical stuff because REALLY the peak of military advancement was in WW1. :roll:

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea what so ever about what the military actually does. You should probably stick to topics you are not clueless on.

 

[braindrain]

Why does the military lower standards for white men? Black men are stronger. The claim that white combat soldiers will perform as lethally as black combat soldiers over an extended deployment entails a denial of biological reality. One only has to look at professional contact sports such as football to recognize the physical inferiority of white men. Black women also are stronger than white women. How many more Americans in combat will lose their lives for the military downgrading standard for white people?

The average black American can bench press more than the average white American

Of course weight and strength are not the same thing. In order to compare the races in strength, I found a study of police officers which compared the bench pressing ability of black and white officers, both at the time they were recruited, and after years on the job. The study found that upon recruitment, the average white man could bench press 84.2 kg (standard deviation = 21.2), the average black could bench press 95.1 kg (SD = 24.6). In other words, black men are 0.51 SD stronger than white men. If we convert strength to farmilliar IQ scale, where the white mean is set at 100 and the white SD is set at 15, then white men have a (sex adjusted) SQ (Strength Quotient) of 100, and black men have an SQ of 108.

Both races improved after years of on the job training, but the gap remained. Black women could also bench press more than white women, both at recruitment, and especially after training in both groups.

Blacks dominate American body building

What happens when we move from the average and look at the extremes? Here’s a list of the top 15 body builders of all time. For apples to apples comparison, I excluded all the non-Americans, to make a list of the top AMERICAN body builder’s of all time:

1. Ronnie Coleman (Black)
2. Arnold Schwarzenegger (White)
3. Kai Greene (Black)
4. Phillip Health (Black)
5. Flex Wheeler (Black)
6. Johnnie O. Jackson (Black)
7. Lee Haney (Black)
8. Lou Ferrigno (White)
9. Kevin Levrone (Black)

So blacks are only 12.6% of America, but 78% of the top body builders in American history.

https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/08/which-race-is-physically-strongest/

So is it that you don't understand that the military is looking for people that can meet a mission related requirements and not for extreme outliers from our population such s professional athletes.

Further even if you had a real point which you don't seeing as blacks only make up about 6 percent of our infantry and even smaller numbers within SOF if we changed standards to exclude white males the US military would be incapable of conducting operations.

 

[TheParser]

There was a headline on Drudge this morning that claims the Green Berets are also lowering their standards in order to have more diversity, especially women.

This is a very serious matter.


If President Trump were not so politically vulnerable at the moment, he might be expected to stop the lowering of standards.


I was especially shocked a few years ago when the government decided to have women serve aboard submarines. Common sense dictates that it is crazy to put men and women together in such cramped quarters.


As one can guess, there has been at least one scandal reported in the media. No doubt, other scandals are being covered up.


Hopefully, the next president (a Democrat, of course) will have the courage to (quietly) stop this lowering of standards. It's one thing to ensure diversity in, say, the entertainment field. It's quite another matter when it comes to our military forces.

 

[cpwill]

There was a headline on Drudge this morning that claims the Green Berets are also lowering their standards in order to have more diversity, especially women.

This is a very serious matter.


If President Trump were not so politically vulnerable at the moment, he might be expected to stop the lowering of standards.


I was especially shocked a few years ago when the government decided to have women serve aboard submarines. Common sense dictates that it is crazy to put men and women together in such cramped quarters.


As one can guess, there has been at least one scandal reported in the media. No doubt, other scandals are being covered up.


Hopefully, the next president (a Democrat, of course) will have the courage to (quietly) stop this lowering of standards. It's one thing to ensure diversity in, say, the entertainment field. It's quite another matter when it comes to our military forces.

I don't think Trump gives a rats' ass. I had hoped he'd let Mattis fix things, but then he stomped all over his own dick on the matter with the transgender bru-ha-ha and the idiocy about how expensive it was.


But yeah. We're going to let our military become less lethal, in order to make people feel better about themselves. Because making people feel better about themselves is why we have a military.

 

[cpwill]

Weren't they already watering them down given Americans' insistence on size?

No, although had they been wiser about it, the services would have moved to using the PFTs as measurements of physical fitness, and dropped tape for those who have 1st classes. Some might have called that watering down standards, though I would have said it was strengthening the more difficult one, while getting rid of the one that had no impact on mission.

 

[Myview]

If we were still fighting with swords and maces that required upper body strength, core and leg strength I would agree. Modern warfare is fought at a distance with advanced weapons. Brawn still has its place but is negated by the need to be technically proficient with modern weapon delivery systems. Women have a place to serve if they want it.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Oh. Gosh. If only someone had predicted things like this this.

This has been going on since I was in the military back in the late 70's. Back then women were not in a lot of the combat roles. I don't think the people processing payroll need to be held to the same standards as a combat soldier. I also think there should be 2 branches of the service. Combat and support and they should have completely different requirements as well as pay and retirement. The people in support who are and will not ever be subjected to actual battle should not be held to the same standards as a combat soldier. They should also not receive the same pay or benefits.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Why or why does the military spend all that money on aircraft, missiles, satellites, drones and all that other technical stuff because REALLY the peak of military advancement was in WW1. :roll:

All that equipment and technology is wonderful. However the training has always proven to be the deciding factor. 100 marines hitting and killing with every pull of the trigger is always going to win over 1000 poorly trained soldiers spraying and praying.

 

[joko104]

So is it that you don't understand that the military is looking for people that can meet a mission related requirements and not for extreme outliers from our population such s professional athletes.

Further even if you had a real point which you don't seeing as blacks only make up about 6 percent of our infantry and even smaller numbers within SOF if we changed standards to exclude white males the US military would be incapable of conducting operations.

No, that's not the claim of the OP. The OP claims lowering standards to allow a class of people in will get our troops killed. The measure of the OP is singularly physical strength and ability.

What the military is desperately short of is highly intelligent people and this is the reason the military wants to double the number of potential recruits. I do understand many ex military men are extremely insecure so have to fall back on maleness to find worth - arguing we should follow the standards of ISIS in recruitment.

 

[joko104]

All that equipment and technology is wonderful. However the training has always proven to be the deciding factor. 100 marines hitting and killing with every pull of the trigger is always going to win over 1000 poorly trained soldiers spraying and praying.

One drone can kill all 100 Marines controlled from 5000 miles away. There is a very low ceiling of the ability to train people with low IQs. Exactly how many pounds of pull are on a Marine's rifle? More than women can pull? Women actually make better snipers for a number of physiological reasons. :roll:

 

[joko104]

This has been going on since I was in the military back in the late 70's. Back then women were not in a lot of the combat roles. I don't think the people processing payroll need to be held to the same standards as a combat soldier. I also think there should be 2 branches of the service. Combat and support and they should have completely different requirements as well as pay and retirement. The people in support who are and will not ever be subjected to actual battle should not be held to the same standards as a combat soldier. They should also not receive the same pay or benefits.

It's called "combat pay" and already exists.

 

[PirateMk1]

This has been going on since I was in the military back in the late 70's. Back then women were not in a lot of the combat roles. I don't think the people processing payroll need to be held to the same standards as a combat soldier. I also think there should be 2 branches of the service. Combat and support and they should have completely different requirements as well as pay and retirement. The people in support who are and will not ever be subjected to actual battle should not be held to the same standards as a combat soldier. They should also not receive the same pay or benefits.

I ran logistics for the DOD, specifically ran their fuel for them in the sandbox. Basically a mercenary. I prefer privateer. In any case we were supposed to be behind the lines and unarmed. We were unarmed, mainly to keep us from shooting the idiots running the **** show, but we were also under fire quite a bit since there were no real lines of combat except when you exited a base. Having a separate non fighting logistics tail is not all its cracked up to be. Its basically a way to suck up more fighting power and men. Thats all. I should know I've been there and got the t-shirt a couple of times. Literally. If it was up to me all logistical tails would be self sufficient and capable of defending themselves and minimal. People shouldn't be subject to a greater potential to die on the way to a base PX with shipping container full of TV's and Xboxes because we are there so long.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

One drone can kill all 100 Marines controlled from 5000 miles away. There is a very low ceiling of the ability to train people with low IQs. Exactly how many pounds of pull are on a Marine's rifle? More than women can pull? Women actually make better snipers for a number of physiological reasons. :roll:

I bid not say women could not fill combat rolls or were not good soldiers. Training will always be the deciding factor from a drone operator to a sniper. We have a long way to go before boots are no longer need on the ground. The maxim machine gun was supposed to make the combat soldier obsolete. Instead trench warfare ended and it was the maxim machine gun that became obsolete. There a thousands of examples that prove that it will be a long time before the combat soldier is obsolete. Air to air missiles would end dog fighting. History has proved over and over again that there is no substitute for training.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

It's called "combat pay" and already exists.

Again you fail to understand. I am well aware of combat pay. I am also well aware that a pencil pusher who will never be in any danger other than tripping over their own 2 feet will retire in 20 years the same as a person being shot at in a combat zone. Sorry but 20 years in a combat zone is equal to 45 years behind a desk. Plus a pencil usher needs little if any combat training and shouldn't even be considered a soldier. Most would become more of a liability than an asset if they ever did end up in battle.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I ran logistics for the DOD, specifically ran their fuel for them in the sandbox. Basically a mercenary. I prefer privateer. In any case we were supposed to be behind the lines and unarmed. We were unarmed, mainly to keep us from shooting the idiots running the **** show, but we were also under fire quite a bit since there were no real lines of combat except when you exited a base. Having a separate non fighting logistics tail is not all its cracked up to be. Its basically a way to suck up more fighting power and men. Thats all. I should know I've been there and got the t-shirt a couple of times. Literally. If it was up to me all logistical tails would be self sufficient and capable of defending themselves and minimal. People shouldn't be subject to a greater potential to die on the way to a base PX with shipping container full of TV's and Xboxes because we are there so long.

Anyone on the battle field needs to be trained and armed. However as you well know there are a lot people wearing a uniform that will never see a battlefield.

 

[PirateMk1]

Anyone on the battle field needs to be trained and armed. However as you well know there are a lot people wearing a uniform that will never see a battlefield.

Problem is these days the battlefield is quite literally everywhere.

 

[braindrain]

No, that's not the claim of the OP. The OP claims lowering standards to allow a class of people in will get our troops killed. The measure of the OP is singularly physical strength and ability.

What the military is desperately short of is highly intelligent people and this is the reason the military wants to double the number of potential recruits. I do understand many ex military men are extremely insecure so have to fall back on maleness to find worth - arguing we should follow the standards of ISIS in recruitment.

So not only are you clueless about the military you are not paying attention to what people write either. No one is saying women shouldn't be allowed in the military. What we are talking about is certain jobs, those that by thier very nature require a certain amount of physical ability, have a certain standard in place as they should and now in order to increase the number of women who pass those standards are being lowered.

No one is claiming that women shouldn't serve or that all soldiers need to be capable of doing what infantry or SOF do. And no one is saying that intelligence isn't very important. But also that strength and endurance are also very important to certain jobs. My mission ruck weighs between 85 - 135 lbs depending on what we are doing. You can have an iq similar to Hawkens but if you can not get the needed equipment to the location it needs to be by the time it needs to be there then you are useless for my job. The fact that you can't understand that just demonstrates how clueless you are.

And the fact that you have to resort to things like saying that those who believe that maintaining standards is important are insecure only proves you have no real argument but only your hurt feelings.

 

[braindrain]

One drone can kill all 100 Marines controlled from 5000 miles away. There is a very low ceiling of the ability to train people with low IQs. Exactly how many pounds of pull are on a Marine's rifle? More than women can pull? Women actually make better snipers for a number of physiological reasons. :roll:

More demonstrating that you know nothing about this topic. So I guess you think that Marine just magically got to the location he was in with all his needed equipment and only had to squeeze a trigger. Nevermind that location may be the top of a mountain somewhere in Afghanistan.

 

[braindrain]

It's called "combat pay" and already exists.

As if anyone needed more proof to how clueless you are. So how about you tell us how this combat pay is different for an infantry soldier getting shot at on a weekly basis and an admin guy On a super fob and never here's a shot in anger.

 

[Blackbart]

Why does the military lower standards for white men? Black men are stronger. The claim that white combat soldiers will perform as lethally as black combat soldiers over an extended deployment entails a denial of biological reality. One only has to look at professional contact sports such as football to recognize the physical inferiority of white men. Black women also are stronger than white women. How many more Americans in combat will lose their lives for the military downgrading standard for white people?

The average black American can bench press more than the average white American

Of course weight and strength are not the same thing. In order to compare the races in strength, I found a study of police officers which compared the bench pressing ability of black and white officers, both at the time they were recruited, and after years on the job. The study found that upon recruitment, the average white man could bench press 84.2 kg (standard deviation = 21.2), the average black could bench press 95.1 kg (SD = 24.6). In other words, black men are 0.51 SD stronger than white men. If we convert strength to farmilliar IQ scale, where the white mean is set at 100 and the white SD is set at 15, then white men have a (sex adjusted) SQ (Strength Quotient) of 100, and black men have an SQ of 108.

Both races improved after years of on the job training, but the gap remained. Black women could also bench press more than white women, both at recruitment, and especially after training in both groups.

Blacks dominate American body building

What happens when we move from the average and look at the extremes? Here’s a list of the top 15 body builders of all time. For apples to apples comparison, I excluded all the non-Americans, to make a list of the top AMERICAN body builder’s of all time:

1. Ronnie Coleman (Black)
2. Arnold Schwarzenegger (White)
3. Kai Greene (Black)
4. Phillip Health (Black)
5. Flex Wheeler (Black)
6. Johnnie O. Jackson (Black)
7. Lee Haney (Black)
8. Lou Ferrigno (White)
9. Kevin Levrone (Black)

So blacks are only 12.6% of America, but 78% of the top body builders in American history.

https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/08/which-race-is-physically-strongest/

Interesting, what do Einstein, Wright Bros, Socrates, Henry Ford, Walter Chrysler, Oppenheimer, Henry, Edison, Westinghouse, Paul Mauser, Tesla, Marconi, Gates, Diesel, Fulton, Whitney and many many others have in common?

Have you ever served in the military? I didn't think so.

 

[Blackbart]

This has been going on since I was in the military back in the late 70's. Back then women were not in a lot of the combat roles. I don't think the people processing payroll need to be held to the same standards as a combat soldier. I also think there should be 2 branches of the service. Combat and support and they should have completely different requirements as well as pay and retirement. The people in support who are and will not ever be subjected to actual battle should not be held to the same standards as a combat soldier. They should also not receive the same pay or benefits.

Sadly IMO this is what much of the military has regressed to from circa 1976. https://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/...releases-video-of-captured-u-s-sailor-crying/ to present, now compare that to 1968 https://www.atlasobscura.com/articl...t-their-hostages-were-signaling-in-this-photo These guys were communication techs, not exactly the most manly rate and not usually required to carry weapons nor combat trained. Fact was even the sawed off lil bastards north of the 38th couldn't break them. There wasn't a Beau Berghdahl among them.