ONE PING ONLY, VASILI

Our Secretary of Defense popped up on X today and dropped the MOA PINGS on the Gillibrands of the country.

For far too long, we have allowed standards to slip. We’ve had different standards for men/women serving in combat arms MOS’s and jobs….

That’s not acceptable, and it changes right now! pic.twitter.com/Zn9OyBew6G

— Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (@SecDef) March 31, 2025

DA DADA DA DA I'M LOVIN' IT

Different physical standards for men and women in the U.S. military have existed for a long time. BUT, there were also combat roles that were male-only.

Then, under Obama, all combat roles were opened to men AND women. BUT, different physical fitness standards for men and women…

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) March 31, 2025

...Then, under Obama, all combat roles were opened to men AND women. BUT, different physical fitness standards for men and women remained.  

Today at @DeptofDefense — we fix this. All combat roles are open to men and women BUT they must all meet the same, high standard. 

No standards will be lowered AND all combat roles will only have sex-neutral standards. Common sense.

This has been a battle royale forever, since Colorado's vile representative Pat Schroeder started her crusading when I was still on active duty. And man, let me tell you what - we all hated her and whatever three female officers she would always trot out to congressional hearings to make the case. All those chicas were worried about was their fitreps, whining that guys who had a combat ticket beat them out for promotions, so they needed to be able to break into those MOSs. 

No one asked the enlisted girls who were going to be the ones humping the hills constantly, breaking down from marches with too heavy packs our frames were never meant to carry, and going deaf from artillery what we thought.

What we knew was that we couldn't do it, and we were perfectly happy the way things were. I can't haul a 175 lb guy off a battlefield, and I didn't want his worrying about me to get him killed because he hesitated when we were all supposed to be moving.

Hell, no. All of us Marines of the female persuasion were plenty happy to fill our niche, appreciate the men for what they could do that we couldn't, and vice versa.

We signed up knowing the limitations and the 'why' of the limitations, and that was fine by us. 

But always comes the over-educated elite, 90% of whom have never spent a day in uniform in their lives, who always know best.

It's always a total cluster, and that's what this has been.

From the zoo surrounding the circus to get that first Army girl her 'Ranger tab,' with the women being coached beforehand and then allowed to repeat phases they'd failed - unlike the male candidates - just to be able to shove some chick over the line and say 'Lookee here!' 

...When the first integrated class started on April 19, none of the nineteen female candidates made it through the Darby phase of the course.

Eight were “recycled” back to the beginning of the phase to take a second crack at the course with the next class to show up, which is an entirely normal procedure. None of the eight passed on the second try. Of those eight, three candidates were given a third try but were required to start back at the very beginning and re-do RAP week, in what is known as a “Day One” recycled (as opposed to joining the next class after it completed RAP week, which is how the average recycle usually works).

Getting a third attempt at the course is certainly unusual, but it’s not unheard of. The opportunity is offered on relatively rare occasions to candidates who have performed well in most aspects of the course but struggled with a single test or task. In this particular class, three of the eight female candidates remaining were given a third try, as were two male candidates who had passed RAP week but failed Darby twice. (At this point, it’s worth mentioning two things. First, the two male candidates did not take the offer for a third chance as Day One recycles; all three female candidates did. Second, RAP week consists largely of pass fail physical tests that have objective and essentially unfudgeable metrics of success—you either run five miles within the time limit, for example, or you don’t; you either complete the twelve-mile weighted ruck march on time, or you don’t. Many people don’t pass all those tests even when entering the course for the first time in peak physical condition. The female candidates did, and they did it despite having already been subjected to the exhaustion and malnutrition of Darby Phase twice. Day One recycles are viewed by a lot of candidates as something close to a death sentence for your chances of passing the course for exactly that reason. That the female candidates passed RAP week events under those conditions speaks to their level of physical stamina and conditioning.)

What a disgrace. And then what a disservice to the women who could actually complete the course - I think there's been a couple - who will always get the side-eye, as in 'Did she really?' 

There are something like 100 women in Ranger battalions now.

But what was changed to get to that number? What lethality was compromised?

...It is important to emphasize that those whom I interviewed expressed admiration for the graduating females’ grit and perseverance and were not critical of the female candidates’ character or commitment. The officers and enlisted soldiers I spoke to uniformly respected the female candidates’ efforts and willingness to put themselves through the rigors of Ranger training. They repeatedly emphasized that their critiques were intended simply to highlight how systematic political pressure forced changes to the legendary Ranger course, damaging its integrity, just as political pressure forced detrimental changes at every level of the military during the eight years of the Obama administration.

There are always going to be the female studs who could, say, complete the Ranger course or get through SEAL training, but it's not just the course. It's the sustained combat environment that makes guys stronger but breaks a woman's frame down. It's just a fact. A female who tears a course up at Fort Benning is not going to look the same after three moths up and down the mountains in Afghanistan - something the males did routinely. Or even humping the hills of Camp Pendleton - it's physiology. 

Some of us have been saying from day one that if women are allowed in combat arms there should be one physical standard, not two. An M2 or 240B doesn't suddenly get lighter because it's being carried by a female. So having two fitness standards for combat arms is complete BS. https://t.co/SSrqAmAaXR

— J.R. Salzman (@jrsalzman) March 31, 2025

For those unfamiliar with the weapons my friend J.R. is referring to, the M2 is a 50 CAL that they're saying all the pieces clock in at about 84lbs [not a one person show, thank you Jeff] and the M240 is carried version machine gun, in at almost 30 lbs. His point is the fellows who carry these also have packs and ammo to lug with them. Think Adam Baldwin in Full Metal Jacket. 

He was lugging an M60 around Hue. With a 100-round belt, that's an extra 30 lbs.

This is the right move by Hegseth.

SecDef did it the right way, too. He didn't say 'no women' - he said everyone meets a single, lethal standard for combat arms..

...The memo, which orders the military branches to “develop comprehensive plans to distinguish combat arms occupations from non-combat arms occupations,” specifies in hand-underlined text that the soon-to-be-developed standards must not “result in any existing service member being held to a lower standard.”

“All entry-level and sustained physical fitness requirements within combat arms positions must be sex-neutral, based solely on the operational demands of the occupation and the readiness needed to confront any adversary,” Hegseth wrote.

My fellow women veterans are already taking condescending virtue signalers to task all over X, and it is a GLORIOUS thing to see.

No. Combat arms is particularly physically demanding. Anyone doing that job needs to meet appropriate physical standards. It's not subjective how such standards are measured. Civilians weighing in on these things with your vague emotional reservations put our service members in…

— 🇺🇲 Estella 🇮🇱 (@ArchLuminous) March 31, 2025

...Civilians weighing in on these things with your vague emotional reservations put our service members in danger because you have absolutely no idea how anything in combat works. I know you think you're being principled, but you simply have no business weighing in on this.

Well done.