Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Pressure grows on Marines to consider lowering combat standards for women

Via Joe

Pfc. Christina Fuentes Montenegro and other Marines from Delta Company, Infantry Training Battalion, School of Infantry-East, receive final instructions prior to assaulting an objective during the Infantry Integrated Field Training Exercise aboard Camp Geiger, N.C., Nov 15, 2013. (U.S. Marine Corps photo)

Two years ago, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the nation’s top military officer, laid down an edict on the Obama administration’s plan to open direct land combat jobs to women: If women cannot meet a standard, senior commanders better have a good reason why it should not be lowered.

Today, the “Dempsey rule” appears to have its first test case.

The Marine Corps just finished research to see if female officers could successfully complete its rigorous Infantry Officer Course.

A IOC diploma is a must to earn the designation of infantry officer. Of 29 women who tried, none graduated; only four made it through the first day’s combat endurance test.


  1. The distincton being asked is if the high standard is merely arbitrary in order to screen women out of those competative jobs.

    Example: A good marine needs to be able to throw a live grenade more than 20 meters. Why? So they don't blow themselves up with it. But the Marines could make the standard 50 meters or 75 meters just to show how tough they are. But DoD already invented the M203 to "throw" grnades farther. so it isn't really useful to require troops to be able to use a higher standard.

    Do material handlers need to be able to lift a pallet of artillery shells? or do they need to be able to drive the fork lift?

    1. Every man should be able to function as a rifleman.

  2. We're about to be in deep shit, and I'm afraid this will result in a new name for fragging. Like "bagging" or "hagging"?