Failing the Combat Endurance Test no longer disqualifies Infantry Officers

| February 12, 2018 | 141 Comments

At the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officers Course in the recent past, failing the grueling Combat Endurance Test would disqualify an officer from completing the course. That has changed, according to the Marine Corps Times. Now, the Combat Endurance Test is just part of the overall grade of a student. Incidentally, with the participation of women in the course, the CET has eliminated all but one female candidate.

The Marine Corps says that the change isn’t lowering the standards, just changing the standard.

“The average attrition rate for the CET between 2012 and 2017 was less than three percent,” Training Command said. “The majority of the attrition in Infantry Officer Course is associated with a student’s overall performance on tactical movements and leadership.”

The largest spike in attrition from the test occurred in 2015 ? with roughly 6 percent, or 22 Marines washing out of the infantry course for failure to pass the Combat Endurance Test. In 2017, less than 1 percent ? roughly four Marines ? failed the test.

I’m assuming that a large number of those Marines who failed the CET were men, so there was nothing related to the gender of the candidates which caused them to fail. One woman was successful, so it wasn’t impossible for women to complete the CET.

In the end, the only result of this decision is that the Marine Infantry Officer Corps will include that 1% of Marines who should not be there.

Category: Marine Corps

Comments (141)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. AW1Ed says:

    And so it begins.

  2. Sapper3307 says:

    Just remember the USMC did not lower the standards, the USMC removed the standards.

  3. IDC SARC says:

    “The Marine Corps says that the change isn’t lowering the standards, just changing the standard.”

    whooozajigggawhaaaa?

    • E4 Mafia For Life. says:

      The man did not loose his legs, he was just reduced by 30%.

    • FuzeVT says:

      “The Marine Corps says that the change isn’t lowering the standards, just changing the standard.”

      Yes, changing to a LOWER standard.

      You can’t really talk all fancy around the fact that when a standard is “changed” and the change means some people who would have been disqualified before are now able to make it – that is lowering the standard.

      Retirement Day – 354 Days and counting.

  4. Combat Historian says:

    The usual disclaimer applies: “…no standards were lowered in the making of this social engineering project to wreck an esteemed institution..”

  5. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    “When the PC quotas don’t meet the standard, lower or eliminate it.”

    That shit needs to be thrown out with yesterday’s trash.

  6. Ex-PH2 says:

    Oh, let the whining begin!!!

    OK, if one woman can make it through Combat Endurance, then more can do the same thing.

    • NECCSEBEECPO says:

      Men also failed, and this test was not in place until 2012, when they wanted to let woman in Combat Leadership positions.

      So my question would be are all the Marine Combat Officers before this test qualified? What a question, and probably one of the reason the test was lifted as a qualifier.

    • USMC Steve says:

      That may well be true. Do you know how many FAILED to make the grade? By my last count it was like 22. 1 divided by 22 is what Percentage? A Marine Infantry Officer HAS to be the biggest, toughest badass in that unit. If they cannot hack that test, they cannot hack combat. AND THEY WILL GET PEOPLE KILLED. The system the Corps had worked forever. Too bad if the women don’t like it.

  7. Mason says:

    If it’s a change that will only effect a tiny percentage, then the obvious question is why would you change it?

    • NECCSEBEECPO says:

      The test was not in place before 2012, so why put this test in place for a qualifier, when all Marine Combat Officers before did not have to take the test.

      • Mason says:

        The problem for them is, that it’s easy to toughen or raise standards than it is to lower them. Even if you’re rolling back to a recent, lesser standard such as they are doing here, it looks like you’re making it easier or less tough.

  8. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    I smell a Harring.

  9. Wilted Willy says:

    The Marines? Please come on with the social engineering! If you can’t pass then you don’t belong there. I mean if a girl can pass it, then it can’t be that bad? Sorry Ex………..
    But really I don’t understand why they lowered the standards for Christ’s sake? I wouldn’t want to be in combat with them when my life depended on it?
    Go Army!

  10. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    We’re not lowering the standard we’re just changint it to take the 3% or so who weren’t fucking good enough to pass and put them in charge of infantry and hoping for the best….

    There’s no way this could go wrong….

    • NECCSEBEECPO says:

      What about all the Officers before 2012 when test became a standard, they didn’t take this test, so are they qualified under 2012 standards. Good question..

      • TF-BA says:

        So basically your point is that the Rangers who took Point du Hoc aren’t Rangers because they didn’t go to RIP, or that the MACV-SOG guys aren’t SF because they didn’t go to the Q course.

        Just because the traffic laws change all the time doesn’t mean we have to re test every year for our driving licenses.

        Additionally, the requirements of life in FMF Infantry tends to be more difficult than anything the school house can manufacture. Meddling with training standards like this one is just meddling IMO. If and when they change the force march standard to one based on individual times like they were crying about a few years ago, you’ll hear me cry foul.

      • Jonn Lilyea says:

        Say it one more time, I think there’s a guy in the back who didn’t hear you.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        So is your point that it was just designed to keep women out?

        If that’s true it’s certainly fucked up…if however it was put in place to create a stronger group of leaders removing it seems counterproductive.

        Standards always change I get that part. Usually they become more prohibitive as time passes and the requirements of a position are determined to require a stronger outcome. The same is true in the civilian world, we don’t often relax newer, tighter standards. In my current occupation the quality standards and best practices are getting ever tighter and require outside auditing for compliance to the standard. There have been several tighter requirements over the last twenty years, there have been zero relaxed standards.

        Imposing tighter standards doesn’t suggest that those who came before weren’t good enough it simply means that the success rate of those would have been far improved if they had this newer, tighter standard initially.

        Requirements for technical certifications become more rigorous, not less. We should expect that our military will increase the requirements from time to time of those who wish to occupy certain occupations in that military.

        Again it doesn’t cast aspersions on previous candidates, it’s simply recognizing a changing world.

        Or not…what do I know?

        • USMC Steve says:

          No, it is not fucked up. Women cannot hack it. The test shows that. And as was mentioned before, it has been in place a hell of a lot longer than 2012. Try the 1990’s. Both men and women have to take it, and if men or women fail, they are out. Same test and same results. The Marine Infantry Officer has to be the biggest, meanest hardass in the entire unit to get their job done. The CET helps to ensure this.

  11. Ex-PH2 says:

    Audie Murphy was rejected by the Marine Corps because he was too short.

    That is all.

    • MrFace says:

      Me thinks Chesty Puller wasn’t of an overtly large size either.

      Cheers,
      MrFace

    • The Other Whitey says:

      Just a couple things to keep in mind on that one.

      First: MG-42, freehand, with enough belted 7.92 to keep that heavy bitch fed at 1200 RPM long enough to wipe out one Wehrmacht platoon and rout the survivors of a second.

      Second: Manning a .50-cal in subzero temperatures, simultaneously directing artillery, while suffering from malaria.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Well, I don’t know. Puller was 5’7″ and built like a brick outhouse.

      Audie Murphy was 5’5″ and weighed barely 112 pounds wringing wet.

      I think adrenaline has a lot to do with it, too.

    • Just An Old Dog says:

      Sigh… Audie Murphy was NOT rejected by the Marines because he was Too Short….
      Murphy was rejected by both the Marines and Army the first time hew tried to enlist because he was UNDERAGE.
      The second time, when he was qualified, he went to the Army first. The rest is history.

  12. Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

    I read the story on the online Marine Corps Times last week, and right away the bullshit alarm went off in my head.

  13. Yef says:

    “A nation who sends its women to war is throwing away its future “.

    Forgot who said that. Some dude. Probably an evil sexists.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Gee, Yef, tell that to nurses like my niece, okay? Or better yet, tell the nurses and other women who served in Vietnam while you’re at it.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        Of the organizations you cite, contrast their casualty rates and types with front-line ground-gaining combat units, particularly infantry.

        Losing a large number of ladies as breeders is -hugely- impactful, and those who would be in close combat would naturally be heavily drawn from “young” and “healthy” .

        Lose enough of them, and a civilization -will- implode.

        • Hondo says:

          FWIW: 8 female nurses died in Vietnam. Only one was KIA (e.g., lost due to enemy action). That individual was lost during a rocket or mortar attack on a US compound that hit her hospital, as I recall.

          The other 7 were lost in accidents.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          I know that, Hondo, but they were still in harm’s way, and not all the women there were nurses or embassy staff, either. The donut dollies were all in harm’s way, too.

          • rgr769 says:

            I was there, and no they were not. I only saw the donut ladies in secure base camps. Our base camps were so secure that no one carried weapons in them, unless you were an MP or going to or from duty on the bunker line. You travelling through Shotcago aka Chiraq is more dangerous than what was experienced by females in the Viet of the Nam. The principal threat to US females in Vietnam was pregnancy and VD, other than Jeep rides.

            • Perry Gaskill says:

              Daytime was safer than night.

              I remember one day being with a small unit dug into the top of a hill when a Huey landed with a half-dozen Red Cross ladies. They spent about 15 minutes making small talk– no donuts, no coffee– and flew off again. The reaction after they left was what was that about?

              • rgr769 says:

                Someone had the bright idea to fly six Chicago fashion models to Firebase LZ Center to put on a fashion show for us. It was the weirdest thing I ever saw over there. Talk about out of place. They might as well have been aliens from outer space. The ladies spent about a hour with us, including lunch at the officers’ table in our little mess hall; most awkward meal I had during my fifteen month tour.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            One of those women was killed in her sleep by someone (I forget who) who wanted something she had – radio or phongraph, something like that.

          • Hondo says:

            All nurses? No. But the vast majority of the 7,500 (DoD figures) military women who served in Vietnam WERE in fact nurses. And most if not all of the rest of the military women there by regulation would have served at major HQs or facilities in relatively secure rear area locations (Saigon, Long Binh, major evac hospitals, etc . . . ).

            The Army – which had the lion’s share of all troops in Vietnam – at the time had a regulatory provision that prohibited the assignment of women, regardless of their MOS, to billets having a high probability of direct involvement in ground combat. (I believe it was a DoD prohibition, but I’d have to research that to be sure. I’m also pretty sure that prohibition wasn’t lifted until sometime during the 1980s.) And since the height of the Vietnam War occurred during the days of the Women’s Army Corps, other than in Army medicine there were precious few billets other than WAC billets open to women at the time.

            Looking at the numbers: 58,000+ US troops died in Vietnam; roughly 8,000 of those died from non-combat causes (accidents, disease, crime, etc . . . ). That means that out of every 8 male military deaths in Vietnam, more than seven (on average) were combat losses. For women, the ratio is reversed: one combat loss and 7 non-combat losses. Tells you something about the relative risks faced by military men and women serving in Vietnam.

            A man’s chances of dying in Vietnam were much higher than a woman’s also. Approx 2.6 million military personnel served in-country in Vietnam; 58,000 died. That means that about 1 in every 45 men who served in Vietnam died.

            In contrast, about 7,500 women in uniform served there. Eight died. That works out to a bit more than 1 in 1,000 (1 in 937.5, to be precise).

            Why? Because women in Vietnam served in relatively safe assignments in rear areas. By Army policy, they were prohibited from assignments having a significant chance of having direct involvement in ground combat. Their exposure to risk was far lower than even the male REMF serving at a major tactical HQ or major tactical log support base – and immensely lower than that of the guy out there “beating the bush” looking for VC, or serving at an isolated firebase.

            Yes, everyone who served in Vietnam was “at risk” to some degree. Hell, the VC bombed the Brinks Hotel in downtown Saigon in 1964. But to paraphrase George Orwell, some were “more ‘at risk’ than others”. And across the board with very few if any exceptions, the women in uniform in Vietnam simply weren’t serving in high-risk assignments.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Oh, but, 11B, aren’t you forgetting that the SJWs want EQUAL for everyone, especially WIMMIN? And what could be MORE EQUAL than WOMYN being drafted for the war effort?

        Maybe you could stop thinking about breeding rights and start thinking about willingness to serve and awareness of dangers???

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          Reality trumps wishing.

          Women, and only women, can bear children.

          Women are built differently from men, because of that.

          Does not matter one bit what is “fair” or “wanted”. We cannot afford to kill or maim large numbers of breeding age females without inducing a civilization collapse population impact.

          Biological fact. Not subject to wishful thinking or arguments of fairness.

          Ignore that reality all you want. It is -impossible- to ignore the consequences, and you are far too smart not to see the consequences.

          • Some Guy says:

            Yes, but the number of women needed to be lost to affect the continuation of the nation is so staggeringly large as to be irrelevant. We have ~320 million people living in the US, of which ~160 million are female. I don’t know the exact numbers, but I would guess that at least 60 million of them are in the fertile age range (18-40).
            Our entire armed forces, to include the reserves, is around 4 million, of which 10-20% are female, depending on the branch. Even if we were to double those numbers with only breeding-age women and increase the female ratio to over 50%, at which point we would have the largest military by personnel alone, that would still leave at least over 55 million women on the homefront to carry on having kids. The only way I see our population being threatened by underpopulation is through MASSIVE nuclear strikes on CONUS or some other event that would kill off most of the population, but not increased military service in combat MOSs.

          • 26Limabeans says:

            “We cannot afford to kill or maim large numbers of breeding age females”

            That’s how we manage the Moose population around here. Works good. Gotta have breeders.
            Am I comparing Women to Moose?
            Yeah, some of them.

      • USMC Steve says:

        You need to rethink the term “going to war”. How many of those nurses command infantry units or engage in any sort of combat? Answer is -0-. Totally bogus comparison here.

        • TF-BA says:

          I know of ONE female nurse corps officer who has a CAR. To my knowledge she set up the first field hospital on bagram.
          She’s ONE chick you would love to get some good love from, she’s 6ft tall, blonde and all fucking navy baby. When I PCS’d she was on the commander list. So by now she’s a captain if she wants it.

          Not a great leader but a fucking spectacular nurse. Also the type of person who would say “Oh HM2 your description makes my heart go aflutter” I also raced this chick everyday to be FIRST IN THE OFFICE for like a whole year. She is wildly competitive.

  14. E4 Mafia For Life. says:

    Gentlemen and ladies:
    If I have lost 100% of arguments with my wife – even though I was right- would removing the emotion requirement allow me to win based on logic?
    You think about that shit okay?

  15. Yef says:

    I don’t get it. Who is the political power behind this who wants to have women in the infantry?

    If a woman wants to be infantry she can meet the standards.

    But this smells as if some old dude safely behind a desk want to put women in danger for the sake of it.

  16. Frank says:

    Well why would infantry want Endurance anyway?
    Compare this pussification with the Commando Course.
    Unchanged since 1940.

  17. 26Limabeans says:

    “Officer Corps will include that 1% of Marines who should not be there”

    If one percent is good then two percent must be twice as good.

  18. Sparks says:

    I don’t know and speak to Officer training in the Marines. I wasn’t a Marine but I was Army Infantry. I think if anything the standards should be held to the highest. Since either sex is here to stay, it should still be the highest of standards. We’re not talking about going out to take a professional exam after training. We’re talking about going to seek out, close with and destroy the enemy as terribly as we can. As long as our ability to do that is maintained, I don’t care. If it it lessened by even one percent, you will be able to tally the results difference in body bags and that I do care deeply about.

    • IDC SARC says:

      Yes, but unfortunately as long as Commanders are judged by the quantity they produce over the quality, this will be an ongoing battle.

      As an Instructor on Ft Bragg, it is an ever present factor that undermines the capabilities of the many in favor of boosting the careers of the few.

  19. Nastyleg says:

    Women in combat is not a new concept. It’s been done for centuries now. Besides women are better shots then men ask the Soviets. That’s not anecdotal evidence either. Women have a lower center of gravity then men.
    So what’s changed? Societies out look on what is expected of the male and female genders. Men ,biology backs this up, have the traditional role of hunter,gatherer,and protector. Professor Dr Jordan Peterson can explain this way better than I can. Where as women have the traditional role of care taker, nurturer. Again professor Dr Jordan Peterson can explain this better.
    Men and women are different, to those of us with a keen eye and a bit of common sense we understand that, that doesn’t mean that there are exception to the rule. It would be in the interest of the US government to seek those people out.
    Make the event pass or fail. But make it recycle point. If you really want it it’s not going anywhere. That’s the point of goals right?

  20. IDC SARC says:

    “Women in combat is not a new concept. It’s been done for centuries now. Besides women are better shots then men ask the Soviets. That’s not anecdotal evidence either.”

    Yeah and “historical evidence” is never romanticized and or morphed into legend.

    Got any current stats that show that as a starting point, female recruits in the US are consistently better shots than male recruits?

    • rgr769 says:

      But, but let’s not forget about those Amazons, you know, those woman warriors documented in the Wonder Woman movie. They were a historical fact. (Not)

      Women “infantrypersons” are going to really kick ass with full body armor (35 lbs.) and a hundred pounds of other gear and ammo. As a 24 year old, I had a hell of a time humping a combat load of 115 pounds without armor in the Viet of the Nam, but what do I know. I’m going to love seeing the injury stats on these female “infantrypersons” as a result of training alone, but they will likely hide them from us.

      • IDC SARC says:

        I’m sure they’ll figure out a way to modify the realities of modern warfare to accommodate their agenda….well theoretically anyway. Not that the theoretical model will survive first contact.

        • TF-BA says:

          The Theoretical model won’t survive getting 120lbs of gear from the barracks to the assembly point for Tuesday’s foot conditioning march to the range. Forget theoretically having to carry 200lbs of shit across the desert or up a mountain. We all know that never happens in the Infantry.

          These ladies aren’t worried because they can rely on the Combat Concierge service to carry that shit for them.

          • TF-BA says:

            Combat Concierge service available only to card holding members of Vagina Club International*

          • Stacy0311 says:

            Hey, that’s 120lbs of the world’s finest light weight gear courtesy of government procurement….
            “Well this widget only weighs 8 ounces, and that widget only weighs 2 lbs.” And suddenly the grunt is loaded down with 638 different light weight widgets that are ALL mission critical requirements.

            That’s why I got out of the infantry and switched to armor. We have sponson boxes and bustle racks to carry mission critical widgets like coolers and BBQ grills and chairs.

            • TF-BA says:

              Sounds like a good deal until the BLT isn’t taking tanks to wherever. Then you hate your life x 2 and you live the life of a 0311 yet again. Looking pathetic while doing your job, because your job ran away in a different direction from the war. FLANK THE ARMOR! BRING ME SOME FUCKING WATER CAUSE I’M ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING. JESESUSS!

              HO LEE FUK MI

              I’ll love you to death because you were an 03 first.

              You make it seem like infantry guys do hard things! STOP TELLING LIES! THE INFANTRY IS THE BEST JOB IN THE WHOLE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. THERE IS NO other MOS where you spend most of the day playing call of duty and then walk outside for afternoon formation. Also the Corpsmen do no work, ever. Just tossing that in for the kids.

            • TF-BA says:

              Don’t start confusing them with numbers. OH shit, never mention the 81mm mortar base plate. If nobody talks about it than it never exists. Intersexuality. Just shut up and do it to it. God forbid the American Infantry actually win.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Yeah, okay, a little information helps here. They were NOT Wonder Woman. They were women who separated themselves from the rest of society as a tribe. They were called ‘Amazons’ because ‘amazon’ means in Greek ‘without a breast’, meaning they flattened or wrapped one side to be better archers. There is some evidence that they did exist in the steppes of north central Asia, since graves have been found there with women buried with bows and other trophies.
        However, the actual history of that has nothing to do with comic books or Greek legends.

    • nastyleg says:

      IDSARC
      http://www.military.com/video/specialties-and-personnel/snipers/wwii-russian-female-snipers/663088355001/
      https://sofrep.com/78170/female-kurdish-snipers-cut-isis/
      https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/896402/ISIS-news-woman-sniper-first-kill-jihadi-military-Special-Reconnaissance-Regiment
      As for the lower center of gravity. Have you ever noticed that women are more coordinated/balanced when they walk. Men walk less coordinated/stumble more than women. Lower center of gravity (mass) allowed for a more stable platform for shooting. That’s why prone supported is better than kneeling. As for US recruits hard stats I couldn’t find any. I may eat crow on that but here is more evidence.
      https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2017/2/1/are-women-better-shooters-than-men/

      • IDC SARC says:

        “Men walk less coordinated/stumble more than women.”

        Yeah, must be why men never excel in sports, dance, martial arts or any endeavor that requires fast reflexes, balance and coordination. 🙂

        Inherent mechanics or such things aside it’s pretty easy to understand that the inherent shooting skills in women even if accepted as statistically better than men as a group are likely negligible at the onset, subject to the law of diminishing returns during the training pipeline and eventually reduced to a deficit by the rigors of the demands placed on all members of an infantry or special operations unit.

        Want the best shot on point defense or a moving platform, it could conceivably be a woman…but would that skill go along with the other skills inherent to an infantry or special operations unit? Statistically, not very likely.

        • SFC D says:

          It’s anecdotal, but personal experience tells me that women LEARN to shoot better than men, because they don’t have preconceived notions of being an expert and don’t have to un-learn all the shit we males learned from John Wayne movies.

          • IDC SARC says:

            I saw a DoD study awhile back that suggested as a group, women in the military generally tend to try harder than their male counterparts. That could be a factor in such things as static marksmanship as well.

            Who knows what she sees the first time she puts iron sights on black and has a chance for catharsis. 🙂

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I couldn’t find any competition scores in biathlon for Americans, but the attached has the AWSA final scores for the winter biathlon competition. It appears that the women have higher scores than the men.

      Smooches!!!

      https://www.awsa.org.uk/nordic/results/

      • IDC SARC says:

        lightly weighted on skis shooting a highly specialized .22…wtf does that have to do with our military?

        I never said women can’t shoot well…that’s not the question.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        15k ladies individual versus 20k mens. That is 33% more cardio loading for the guys, and I can absolutely guar-on-fookink-tee that makes huge difference.

        And, gee… all events are thusly skewed short for the gals. Hmmmmm….

        Yeah, even-steven there, Ex-PH2. Apples to apples across the board.

        And why, do you suppose, that they used such uneven distance numbers?

      • Frank says:

        Yeah. That’s why the laydeez don’t need to have their own competitions. And chess

      • The Other Whitey says:

        No offense, Ex, but I’ll take Olympic Biathlon (men’s and women’s) seriously when the competitors use service rifles, not fiberglass featherweights shooting cold-loaded .22 Short.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          They actually used to use .30 caliber service cartridges and ranges out to 250 meters.

          Norwegians invented the sport, 1860s I believe, and the above .30/250m was the 1920s-1960s version.

          The Finns played a similar game vs Russia. That one was called “The Winter War”.

    • USMC Steve says:

      All women Marines have to qualify with the rifle, and the pistol if it is their standard weapon. I ran the pistol range at MCB 29 Palms for a year. Women with the .45 pistol failed to qualify over 30 percent of the time as opposed to an 88 percent qual rate for male Marines. For Rifle details the WM’s requal rate was also less than for males, but not as far separated. Maybe the difference was because Russian woman strong like bull…

  21. USMC Steve says:

    Hopefully when the real infantry Marines get stuck with a crack troop for a platoon commander who cannot hack it, they will rediscover the tradition of fragging. Kill the weak leader before they kill you.

  22. Just An Old Dog says:

    Its actually much ado about nothing. The test is administered the Very FIRST day of IOC, and its an ass kicker.
    IMHO as long as the students COMPLETE the test ( regardless of times) they can use it as a bench mark for progress.
    Have some fucking faith. If someone can’t pass it by the end of training they will be gone.
    They are just not front end loading the course .

  23. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    This stuff makes me cringe. Maleness–as in masculinity, not merely a chromosome–and the traditional role of men have been under attack for many years now. The arguments for and against women infantry are, to me, beside the point, which is to destroy any semblance of the traditional role of men. In this instance, that traditional role is male as protector and warrior. That’s what is truly the beef, not whether this or that many push ups or pull ups should be minimally required.

  24. FatCircles0311 says:

    Standards should always be increasing especially when the avaible slots are so low. Instead we reduce standards because? Yeah…

    Don’t care how long they’ve been around either. Reducing standards is obvious.

  25. Ex-PH2 says:

    Per 11Bmailclerk, it’s all about breeding rights: http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=77650&cpage=1#comment-3085572

    So if that’s the whole point to men “going to war” as opposed to women doing the same thing, what in the world makes it sensible to send in the younger men, more fit and more likely to be able to reproduce, instead of those of geezer age first?

    Seriously, if it’s all about “only women can have children”, then what is the point to killing off the younger men instead of bumping off the older guys whose days of virility are receding in to the past?

    Especially when any personal encounters now require the use of pills to even come close to King Priam’s legendary status as a stud (50 sons, Hecuba gave birth to 19, never mind the rest of the clan), why not send them in first and reserve the younger fellows for the last ditch efforts?

    After all, the intensity of war almost invariably leads to the intensity of sex, historically, so this might wake up the geezers.

    That just makes sense to me. Give ’em enough of a bonus to send home to the Mrs. and enough ammo to take down a fort. Then if any of them survive (and still walk), they can have a big parade afterwards, with dancing girls, free food and beer.

    • Mason says:

      Ex, if you haven’t, read Old Man’s War by John Scalzi

    • timactual says:

      ” what in the world makes it sensible to send in the younger men,… instead of those of geezer age first”

      Because both sides want to win. Young men are faster, stronger, less susceptible to injury or disease, and more resilient (mentally and physically). Their hearing and vision are also better. Even though war isn’t quite as physical as it once was younger men are more likely to survive and win.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      And are you assuming that the older males running things are not aware of the reproductive advantages of keeping the young bucks busy elsewhere?

      Sheesh….

    • USMC Steve says:

      Old dudes can still breed well into their dotage. If you don’t mind senile sperm.

    • Hondo says:

      . . . . to even come close to King Priam’s legendary status as a stud (50 sons, Hecuba gave birth to 19, never mind the rest of the clan), . . . .

      By itself, that’s not evidence of a terribly impressive amount of sex.

      Assuming he also fathered 50 daughters (as would be expected), and assuming each child required 7 sexual encounters on average, that means he’d have had to have had sex roughly 700 times. A healthy male in his 50s could easily manage that over a 7 year period – that’s only twice a week. Over 20 years (say ages 45 to 65), that’s only about once every 10 days.

      Now, if ol’ King Priam fathered 500 sons and 500 daughters in a 20 year period . . . . (smile)

  26. jonp says:

    The standards are the standards. If either men or women can’t meet them then tough shit. The standards should not be changed because someone is whining about a participation trophy. I never heard of one being given out on a battlefield.

    War in gender neutral. You can’t cut it, you’ll get killed. More importantly, while the SJW’s are crowing about getting women into slots they couldn’t qualify for on an even setting and forced the standards lower so they could, you will get the person next to you killed.

  27. Stacy0311 says:

    Everybody’s losing their minds about this.
    “OMG, lowering standards so women can pass!!!”

    Actually it’s about getting that first transgender Marine Infantry officer so the Marines can talk smack to the Army.

    “Oh you’ve got chicks in the Rangers and infantry? Well we’ve got tranny grunt zeros. So suck it”
    /sarc

    • USMC Steve says:

      I could just see us doing that.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Every time this subject – women in combat infantry – comes up, the apes go ape-shit. Takes all of 30 seconds.

      Sometimes I like to stir the pot, too, because it’s a lot of fun to watch these guys whine about breeding rights. They’re all so predictable. If you have a bunch of warrior women like Wonder Woman, those Supreme Beings won’t be interested in their lesser status. (snrrtt!)

      • OWB says:

        If we are going to dream up mythical creatures to win our wars, how’s about we just dream up the wars as well? Sure would save us a bunch of $$. Not sure what the committee in charge of such things would look like, but maybe it would keep some of the old geezers off the streets and out of trouble.

    • spd0302 says:

      Your comment made my day brother.
      Semper Fi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *