Washington Examiner
McCain: Military needs to maintain “rigorous combat standards” for women
Former veteran Sen. John McCain issued a statement of support of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat. …
McCain also suggested that the military should not weaken their physical standards as more women enter combat.
“As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world – particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units,” he added.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Please shut up you pontificating old fart. They are going to do no such thing and you bloody well know it.
sharrukin on January 23, 2013 at 11:33 PM
The ideal female combat soldiers should have xy chromosomes and testicles.
And should be known as males.
Scribbler on January 23, 2013 at 11:35 PM
They won’t.
Having woman maintain the same standard as men (which, incidentally is THE standard) wouldn’t be fair.
There have to be different – meaning lesser – standards for woman. It would be discriminatory for woman – who get the same pay, benefits, etc – to have to adhere to the same standard as men.
catmman on January 23, 2013 at 11:38 PM
i totally agree. they should keep the same standards, i don’t want them lowered. this may surprise some of you but some women are actually very physically strong! and they can meet those strict standards. tired of the “they’re women, they can’t handle it” bs. (also tired of the “it will be too distracting for men” bs that a bunch of people say. sure, shut women out just because the men can’t make an effort to control their distraction? yeah, great argument there)
Sachiko on January 23, 2013 at 11:38 PM
Sweet Jeebus Gramps, is there anything you don’t feel you have to way in on? Shut up and go away already.
P.S. Thank You for service. Now go away…
Tim Zank on January 23, 2013 at 11:47 PM
no, it’s not unfair to anyone. we should have the highest quality soldiers available, in order to successfully complete missions and benefit our country. that’s not unfair to anyone, that’s just what’s best for the country. so that’s why the standards shouldn’t be lowered. but the women who can meet those requirements should be allowed to be in those combat positions if it’s what they sincerely want to do. if they feel like that’s the best way they can serve the country then let them do it! don’t block them from serving in that way, if they are physically strong enough to do it.
Sachiko on January 23, 2013 at 11:47 PM
You mean, weaken them any more than they already did.
Because they’re already ridiculously weaker, and have been for decades.
Rebar on January 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM
Send Meggers, Mav.
Christien on January 23, 2013 at 11:57 PM
I agree, there should be no lowering of standards. Not sure if you didn’t pick up on my snark or not.
The problem is, there’s already two standards. They won’t change them.
catmman on January 23, 2013 at 11:58 PM
They won’t keep up the standards. They won’t be able to. As soon as a woman is compromised by her anatomy/reproductive cycle the men will have to compensate as they would if one if their own were injured . The difference is that injuries are not entirely predictable. This is . So right off there will have have to be extra bodies on hand to make up the difference.
Seth Halpern on January 23, 2013 at 11:58 PM
Twelve year old boys can handle it too, but it doesn’t make sense to recruit them either.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/30/army-may-train-women-for-rigor-of-front-lines/?page=all
The study concluded that only 0.1 percent of female applicants and 1 percent of trained female soldiers “would reach the required standards to meet the demands of these roles.”
In tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 ROTC women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men.
Other studies…
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey’s in 1993):”The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength…
An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men.”
Further:”The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:”Women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.”In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.”
From the same report:”Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:”
(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.”
(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.”(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.”
(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge….”
From Canada’s recent “stroll” with gender integration into the combat arms:
“After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training course. The Canadian experience corroborates the testimony of LTC Gregor, who said the odds of selecting a woman matching the physical size and strength of the average male are more than 130-to-1.”
sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 12:04 AM
[sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 12:04 AM]
That’s pretty much the point. McCain knows it, too, and he’s just talking to hear himself talk and so he can check the box on his list of Senatorial oversight advice to give. What he says means nothing in the real world.
Dusty on January 24, 2013 at 12:23 AM
The NFL needs to stop its ban on women players now!
reddevil on January 24, 2013 at 12:35 AM
I value your opinion so much Sen McTurd. How is the Obama presidency that we shouldn’t fear working out?
arnold ziffel on January 24, 2013 at 1:02 AM
1 in ten thousand women could meet the exact same standards as the guys already must.
Let that tiny group of gals go for front line combat.
The entire number would probably be a platoon.
profitsbeard on January 24, 2013 at 2:00 AM
And guess what? Even that statistic doesn’t come CLOSE to describing the problem. Wars are not won by “average” soldiers; they’re mostly useful for wasting the enemy’s ammo. Wars are won by that tiny handful of bastards who do things that no one else can.
I remember hearing on national news a few years back about some jackass high school coach who put a girl on his third-string roster. Train a freshmen boy who can barely lift his own helmet, and who the Hell knows? He might turn out to be a star someday. But if you take a girl who’s already exercised to the peak of her abilities to meet the MINIMUM requirements, put her on the field with even partially-grown men, and nothing good is going to come from that.
It’s funny as Hell when all you’re losing is games. But when you’re killing American soldiers; not so much.
logis on January 24, 2013 at 5:08 AM
The United States isn’t serious about fighting wars anymore, nor about winning them. That has been true for some time now.
“Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.” – Ronald Reagan
Those words shocked and upset a lot of people, though they shouldn’t have. On another headline thread…NBC panel scolds Prince Harry: “Why do you need to antagonize the Taliban?”
That is the mentality of the weak and effeminate elites in the west.
These days the military is being used as a social program for the left and the ability of the military to achieve victory is given lip service at best.
sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:27 AM
Huh ? Whazzat ?
Did I just hear a asquirrel fart ?
cableguy615 on January 24, 2013 at 6:21 AM
For any policy change to the make up of the armed forces the first question that needs to be asked is, “will this increase or decrease our combat readiness?”
The military’s purpose is to provide national defense. It is not a jobs program or a social petri-dish. The military currently discriminates against individuals for certain positions and SHOULD continue to discriminate based on gender.
No sane person would objectively choose a mixed gender battalion of Marines over an all male battalion.
Furthermore, if the billet vacancy rates of a nuclear carrier prior to and during deployment were ever applied to an all male carrier there would be a congressional investigation into the Navy’s command climate and operational readiness. But being that these vacancies are by and large due to women, nothing, zilch, nada.
I loathe democrats and their utopian fantasies.
Meat Fighter on January 24, 2013 at 7:08 AM
Some people struggle with reality. Like you, for example.`
xblade on January 24, 2013 at 7:38 AM
The one thing we know WONT happen is the maintenance of standards of any kind.
The Regime is going to have it’s brigade of female harridans no matter how many women it has to kill to get it.
Look at what they did in the 90′s when Clinton forced female carrier pilots on the Navy.
wildcat72 on January 24, 2013 at 7:48 AM
Reality bites, whiny c*nt. And the reality is our military will suffer from being used as a liberal ‘fairness lab’.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:16 AM