Commander-in-Chief Obama allows lower military standards so unqualified women can serve in combat

NPR reports:

Starting Jan. 1, every woman in the Marines Corps was supposed to meet a new physical standard by performing three pullups. But that has been put off.

The Marine Corps announced it quietly. There was no news conference — just a notice on and an item on its own TV show.

Lance Cpl. Ally Beiswanger explained that the pullup test had been put off until sometime next year, to gather more data and “ensure all female Marines are given the best opportunity to succeed.”

So far, female Marines are not succeeding. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were doing fewer than three pullups; only 1 percent of male recruits failed the test.

The three pullups is already the minimum required for all male Marines. Now the Marine Corps has postponed the plan, and that’s raising questions about whether women have the physical strength to handle ground combat, which they’ll be allowed to do beginning in 2016.

Why does this matter?

Well, the same NPR article continues:

The Marine Corps has been using it to test upper body strength for men for more than 40 years. And that upper body strength, they say, is necessary to serve in ground combat: to pull yourself out of a canal in Afghanistan, to climb over a mud wall, to carry an ammunition box.

And a CNS News article on the subject states:

Pull-ups have been used to test Marines’ upper body strength for over 40 years. The ability to pull-up one’s own body weight over a bar shows the upper body strength that, in combat, is needed to lift fallen comrades, pull one’s self over a wall, and carry heavy munitions. Combat Marines also carry a pack that weighs around 90 pounds, with gunners carrying an additional 50 or 60 pounds.

In other words, this qualification is by no means trivial. On the contrary, this involves skills that are necessary in combat – necessary for saving the soldier’s own life, as well as for saving the lives of other soldiers.

Obama, who is Commander-in-Chief of the military, is saying that he’s perfectly OK with allowing unqualified women to go into combat, even if it means that their lack of qualifications could end up killing them, as well as killing other U.S. soldiers who depend on them.

I have always believed that the phrase “affirmative action” is just another way of saying “lower standards so unqualified people can participate,” and this is a great example of that.

This is actually a step backward, not forward, for the women’s rights movement. Real rights also come with responsibilities. If women are going to be serving in combat, then they should have the same responsibilities as their male counterparts. By lowering the standards for women to serve in combat, Obama is saying that he thinks that a female soldier is not as good as a male soldier.

For any kind of job, affirmative action is a bad policy. For jobs that involve life and death situations, it is a horrible policy, and one that can result in tragedy.

What’s my position on this? I think that a woman should be allowed to do any job that a man is allowed to do, as long as she is qualified. If she is not qualified, then she should not be allowed to do the job. I hold the same position regarding blacks, gays, the disabled, etc. As long as the person is qualified to do the job, then they should be allowed to do the job. If they are not qualified to do the job, then they should not be allowed to do the job. Affirmative action, and the lower standards that go along with it, should be abolished.

December 27, 2013. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Military, Politics, Sexism, War against achievement.


  1. Robert Gretter replied:

    Although I agree with you on the standards required for combat I am not sure how exactly you make an Obama connection. Can you offer some proof that Obama even knows about this?

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military. In order for this to happen, he must know about it and be in favor of it.

  2. HMichael Hawkins replied:

    It would be impossible for me to agree with you more than I do. This is just a license for women in the military to get themselves killed. One anecdotal story supports this, about the woman who was allowed to fly an F-14 when she consistently failed numerous segments of Pilot Training. Nevertheless, she was at the control of an F-14 (with a male in the back seat, with no controls) approaching a carrier landing. They waved her off, but she ignored the signal and killed herself and the back seater as the plane crashed onto the deck and then skidded into the ocean. Had it been a male at the controls with the same failure history, I would feel the same. The laws of physics do not discriminate based on sex. Incompetence will kill you if you are not qualified, regardless of your plumbing.

    As the father of a Marine Test/Combat Pilot, who is probably the worlds most knowledgeable person for the Harrier, AV8, I can assure you there should never be a woman flying a Harrier. They simply do not have the strength and skills required to fly such an aircraft. And women are not constitutionally constructed for combat, in general. For those few who do meet the physical and psychological requirements for combat, I fully support their right to do so. But I don’t think any woman is going to qualify on those two grounds.

  3. Jefferson replied:

    Thank you for this Incredibly informational Blog, Mr. Dan.
    What I like most? You don’t seem to care for partisan bickering, you criticize everyone who deserves criticizing – without bias.
    That’s a rarity nowadays.
    Keep it up!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Trackback URI

%d bloggers like this: