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