Lowering the Standards

Here we go, in opening up battlefield positions to females, there is talk of lowering the standards. From Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

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? Does it really have to be that high?”

Do we really need to hold our guys (and soon gals) to one high standard?
Hand Salute: NavyDavy, thanks!

13 thoughts on “Lowering the Standards”

  1. Drop your standards and you require a greater understanding of body counts.

    Maintain your standards and you simply allow your enemies to over take you; they will learn through your faults and they will punish you.

    Strive daily for higher standards in every thing you do; it weakens your enemy and their resolve.

    Yours Aye.

    1. I love this: Strive daily for higher standards in every thing you do; it weakens your enemy and their resolve. Good advice for everyone.

    2. True words. Would you please cross the pond and explain that concept — using simple words — to our presumptive military ‘leaders’?

      Pardon the sarcasm, but I dread the day when our military brethren are sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.

  2. How naive. I mean, for starters, if standards are lowered for the infantry training, how will that help? I read “War” a while ago about the 173rd ABCT when they deployed to the Korengal Valley. They are some of the most well trained infantrymen there are, regarding PT as well as other standards. They were completely out of breath when the 10th ID guys they were relieving took them along for standard patrols around the mountains.

    Now, would anyone believe that a freshly minted infantryman could have managed that, when it took weeks for the 173rd to get used to it enough for them to not pass out?

    On another note, if women are to be allowed in the infantry, and standards will be lowered (i.e. it will covertly be admitted that they are simply not physically capable due to very basic biology), then shouldn’t the standards for both genders be lowered from basic training and forward? I mean, it’s called equal opportunities. And shouldn’t people like me be allowed in fighter jets? I mean, sure, I’m way too tall, and I don’t have normal colour vision, but then again, I have like 90% of it, and you know, equal opportunities.

    And on a last, more serious note: Not only is the military a fighting force, which is in no way obligated to, nor should it ever be giving everyone willing the opportunity to serve in it, has anyone behind this actually considered the medical ramifications of it? Google “Get over it! We are not all created equal” and you’ll find an article in the Marine Corps Gazette written by a female officer who was out in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan her unit was out and about building smaller bases, and long story short, due to the fact that the female skeleton and other parts of the body are not as well suited to field work as the male body, a perfectly healthy officer ended up with severe muscle conditions, and being infertile. The fact that she had almost top PT scores, and had graduated among the top of her classes did nothing to change basic facts. She writes herself that her movements during firefights, in and out of vehicles, etc. were severely hindered and painful. And as she herself notes, if the combat fields are to be opened for women for the sake of allowing them gain experience required to be promoted (because that’s appareantly what the military is for; Not fighting wars and keeping the nation safe, but to provide everyone who wants it with a career, regardless of suitability), then it wont matter, because if female infantrymen and officers pull their weight as much as they can, they will end up being medically discharged before they’re even close to higher ranks. I suppose the only other option would be female infantrymen and officers who don’t even try to pull their weight, and can thus stay in long enough to reach higher ranks. But I don’t suppose that will stop the angry feminists. After all, simple facts that can be explained to 6 year olds won’t stop them…

    1. Very common sensical. I’ve been meaning to read War. I read a couple of write-ups of it and it looked to be a quality, in-depth review of many of the things I find of interest. And I like Sebastian Junger’s writing. . .

      1. Yes, it was indeed a very good book. It made it a bit extra sad to hear of the death of Tim Hetherington in Libya.

  3. The military cannot do this without lowering the standards for everyone…it makes no sense…the only thing that does however is the left’s unabated siren call to dismantle the American military without sounding as if they are, ‘to make things more equal’…how ridiculous….the way the left deals with ‘gun control’ …the real purpose is to obliterate gun ownership and take all the guns…and all in favor of ‘political correctness’ say ‘Aye’….k

  4. Ex Bootneck said it so well: “Strive daily for higher standards in every thing you do; it weakens your enemy and their resolve.”

    Short and sweet. To the point. It refers to reason for not doing it #1 (don’t lower standards).
    There are other reasons too, though.
    (2) Men are instinctively protective of women. This might result in behavior not concentrated on aggression against the enemy, but to protect a female soldier.
    (3) If more than one man should fall in love with a specific woman (is this not possible?), this could possibly culminate in murder on the battlefield.
    I know this is politically incorrect, but I think in matters of national defense, it’s important to be hard headed.

  5. Kris: I have not heard the specifics exactly. How is this going to be implemented?
    Clark: Men are protective of women. Have they stopped to account that women might also be a distraction?

Comments are closed.