Female Marines Not Required To Do 1 Pull-Up

Female Combat DiscriminationNow that’s the way to assure the survival of females in combat — since females can now serve in combat positions within the US military services.

From CNSNews.com:

by Barbara Boland

(CNSNews.com) — Females in the Marine Corps currently are not required to do pull-ups as part of their physical training, and a deadline mandating that they do at least 3 pull-ups by Jan. 1, 2014 as part of their  training has been delayed for at least a year, the Corps quietly announced on social media.

Unlike their female counterparts, male Marines have long been required to do at least 3 pullups as part of the Physical Fitness Test (PFT). That’s the minimum requirement for males.

Currently, “women aren’t able to make the minimum standard of three pull-ups,” Marine spokesman Capt. Eric Flanagan told CNSNews.com. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were unable to do three pull-ups (1 percent of male recruits also failed).

Marine officers told NPR off-the-record that, given the three-pull-ups rule,  they were afraid of losing “not only new recruits, but also current female Marines who can’t pass the test.”

Women in the Marine Corps will be allowed into ground combat in 2016. The delay in meeting men’s physical standards has raised questions about “whether women have the physical strength to handle ground combat,” reported NPR.

“‘If you can’t pull yourself up, have the decency to pull yourself out,’  Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer and military historian, told Time.com. “‘The military, despite all the post-modern technology, is still essentially physical.’”

With that in mind, I recommend the exchange between Time Magazine and retired Army Lt Col Robert Maginnis in reference to his book “Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat.”  It turns out he is completely correct in his fears:

Time: What’s the key thing you learned in writing Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat?

Pentagon brass are kowtowing to their political masters and radical feminists to remove exemptions for women in ground combat in defiance of overwhelming scientific evidence and combat experience. This craven behavior is terribly dangerous for our armed forces, our national security, and especially the young women who will be placed in harm’s way.

Pentagon officials insist they won’t lower standards to enable more women in combat units. Do you believe them?

I don’t believe them, and neither should the American people.

The Obama Administration and the Pentagon say they will maintain high standards “to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender,” in the words of former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Personnel policy, however, is driven by the “diversity metrics” outlined in the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Diversity, not military readiness, is the highest priority.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has admitted as much. In the press conference announcing the rescission of the 1994 rule excluding women from ground combat units, he said, “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high?”

The proper question is “Do we have the personnel we need to meet the current high standards for combat units?”

The answer right now is yes.

There is no shortage of able-bodied male volunteers who meet the existing, battle-tested standards for ground combat positions.

So why ask the services to consider changing the standards? Because this has become more about politics than fielding the most capable fighting force.

I thought Marines were the toughest of the tough.  Apparently not.

If women want to be in combat, they should pass the same requirements as men.

If women want to be cops, they should pass the same requirements as men.

If women want to be firefighters, they should pass the same requirements as men.

You want equality?  That is true equality.


Perhaps the most insightful exchange between Time and Lt Col McGinnis?  The following:

What do you think will happen, given the push to let women serve in combat, if the nation ever needs to reinstitute the draft?

Lifting all combat exclusions for women virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court will declare male-only conscription unconstitutional.

And a return to the draft is far more likely than most people realize. The unsustainably high cost of the all-volunteer force, especially with $17 trillion in national debt, and the expected requirements of future military operations will probably lead to a resumption of the draft, however politically unpopular it might be.

When that happens, women will be drafted and forced into ground combat roles.

How about it, young little urban Baby Mommas and Valley Girl chickies?  Ready for your being drafted into the US military for combat?

Gird thy thongs.


USMC: no bolts allowed in their rifles during Obama’s inaugural

Yes, I am a bit late to this party, but I post what I can when I am made aware.

First, the photo that confirms:

Marines at 2013 Pres Inaugural -- NO BOLT IN RIFLESecond: check the website of BobOwens.com:

David Codrea has revealed that President Obama has so little regard for the United States Marines risking their lives under his command life that they were forced to dismantle their already empty parade rifles for his second inauguration parade. This is nothing less than a slap in the face of the Corps:

“Didn’t know the Marines had to take the bolts out of their rifles for the Inaugural,” an email forwarded to Gun Rights Examiner from a United States Marine Corps source observed. “Wonder if someone can explain why [they] would be marching in the inaugural parade with no bolts in their rifles!”

The email linked to a YouTube video of the 57th Presidential Inaugural Parade, embedded in this column, featuring Bravo Company Marines from the Marine Barracks Washington. Sure enough, the observation in the email is confirmed by watching the video, with screen shots provided in the photo and slide show accompanying this article.

Question for you: do you think that was a decision made at a USMC level, or was it a decision made at an — ahem — “higher” level?  I’d like my military readers to weigh in.  I know what my thought is.  .  .