Archives Article: Women in Ground Combat

[Mark Rippetoe]

Women in Ground Combat | Mark Rippetoe

I recently got this email regarding this article:

Where is the evidence to support your claims in this article?I’m interested in reviewing the evidence to support your claims because I am conducting research at Georgetown University.
Women in Ground Combat | Mark Rippetoe



How does your argument stand if few, “but not many” can operate at the same capacity as men:

You stated that: “There will be, of course, individual (and primarily hypothetical) women who can operate at the same physical capacity required of men in combat. But not many. “ I am a female Marine veteran who DID meet the same physical standards as men, I DID carry a machine gun, was void of injury and was fully competent and capable to lead my Marines from the front. The “but not many” quantity of women you reference are the very few that are capable and now legally allowed to serve in those previously closed ground combat occupations. So if they can meet the same standards, how does your argument stand? Just because the quantity is not equal to that of men based on genetic factors etc, why should these jobs remained closed to the “but not many” women who can?


Standards are not being lowered:

Additionally, many uniformed individuals believe that the unit standards are being lowered in order to allow women to serve. Which according to General Walters, the previous commandant of the Marine Corps whom I met with on April 22,2018 is false. The Marine Corps (to reference a specific branch) previously did not have standardized physical fitness requirements for military occupational specialty (MOS) schools prior to the introduction of women. Now that these standards have been formalized, ALL Marines (both male and female) are required to meet those standards. The formalization of these standards has actually strengthened the overall ability of these unit and MOS’s by forcing men to meet them as well.

Bold and italics are mine. She doesn't seem to understand that the point of the essay is the basis of the standards, not the sex of the soldier. I don't get nearly enough amusing communications like this.

[Harlon Muncy]

You misogynistic bastard lol
I currently train new soldiers how to drive tanks. I applaud the female soldiers for their spirit but to be honest it just doesn’t work. Most of them don’t complete the course first time around do to missed training from injury. The ones that do are having very mixed reviews once they arrive to their units. Tanks are not as physically demanding as say infantry, but everything you touch on it is heavy, all the maintenance, etc. plus trying to evacuate a man out of the tank before he burns to death.....
I don’t trust most of the male trainees that are coming in either because of the culture we are raising our children in these days. It feels like they are very.....beta

[Fulcrum]

Are there other countries that do not have a separate set of standards for men and women for combat troops?

Does anyone know what the IDF does? because service there is compulsory from what I understand.

I'd imagine they have the highest percentage of women serving.

[Harlon Muncy]

Right now at least the army (i can’t speak on the other branches) has a new pt test that should take effect this October. There will be no age or gender difference in scoring. It will be a different standard for combat troops and non combat troops. From what I understand they made the minimum score ridiculously easy to pass. IMO it is a better test than the last one but could still use some work. Also they left the 2 mile run in the end because some old bastard decided it needed to be in there (they have a perfectly good cardio test with the sprint drag carry. Below is a video of the proposed test. Y’all got any opinions?

YouTube

[Scaldrew]

It's almost like she hasn't even looked into your stance on strength in the military. Shocking, I know.

You've stated elsewhere that military training and preparation is inadequate in its entirety. That is to say, for both men and women. Neither is being aptly prepared to carry heavy loads in or out of combat situations. Too much emphasis on dumb, out-of-fashion movements like crunches and pushups, and cardio; neither get you very strong, if at all. Similarly, your article on women soldiers isn't a knock on women (soldiers), but criticism of military preparation entirely. Women are allowed to underperform, which is made worse by the fact these tests are inadequate to begin with, making them twice more likely to be helpless in do or die situations, and so burn to death in tanks or get bombed like their fellow soldiers.

If anything, your articles come from a desire to ensure that countless soldiers can be saved and can save themselves, fuelled of course by a deeper understanding of the human body, how it moves, and how it wants to be strong. But I guess we expect too much from a researcher to know all that. And just from reading, no less.

Telling you, and I've told you since I started posting to this board: (some/many/most?) people just do not know how to read. And it's sad.