84% of women fail Army's new combat fitness test (vs. 30% of men)

[Beetlegeuse]

Report: 84% of Women Fail New Army Combat Fitness Test

In a new report, the Center for Military Readiness says that 84% of women fail the New Army Combat Fitness Test and that “all military officials should drop the ‘gender diversity’ agenda and put mission readiness and ‘combat lethality’ first.”

“It makes no sense for recruiters to devote more time and money recruiting ‘gender diverse’ trainees who are more likely to be injured, less likely to want infantry assignments, and less likely to remain through basic training or physically-demanding combat arms assignments for twenty years or more,” states the CMR report....




There was an Army captain who scuttled his career back in 1986 by publishing a study showing 60% of women recruits couldn't throw a hand grenade far enough to be out of its killing radius and 80% lacked the shoulder strength to charge an M-60 machinegun from the prone position.

It is not news that very few women have sufficient physical strength and stamina to be useful in a combat role. There's a saying in the army that 'everyone's secondary MOS is 18B' (meaning infantry). The Marines take it a step further and say that every Marine is a rifleman first, whatever else second.

Not to mention women are not cost effective to recruit and maintain because the the army spends twice as much on medical care for a woman than for a man and the quartermaster has to stock additional items entirely on their account (panties, brassieres, sanitary napkins, etc.), plus extra sizes of existing uniform items.

You can't justify their extra expense unless they're more combat effective but in fact the opposite is true.

EDIT:
The CDC says the average American man weighs 198 lbs and the average woman weighs 171. If there's a fire in your place tonight and you pass out from the smoke before you can make your exit, which would you prefer come crashing through the door to haul your unconscious ass out of there, a 198-lb fire-man or a 171-lb fire-woman?

[AR's King Silabolin]

Rumor says that due to the norwegian military female policy, "HM Helge Ingstad" smashed into a supertanker and was destroyed for good, last year. And 25% of the norwegian military marine capasity wasted.
Too many girls at the bridge who were there because of their sex, not knowhow.
The report however ocourse didnt talk about this.
But, the leading officer at Helge Ingstad prior accident, the Captain and the guy who is responsible for docking ships at the supertanker, and the controlling guard at the harbour, were all men.
So... Perhaps the antifeminists were wrong. An american female trainee at the bridge of HM Helge Ingstad, who supposingly demanded alot of attention by the chief bridge officer, started the talk.

Sent fra min BLA-L29 via Tapatalk

[tarmyg]

EDIT:
The CDC says the average American man weighs 198 lbs and the average woman weighs 171. If there's a fire in your place tonight and you pass out from the smoke before you can make your exit, which would you prefer come crashing through the door to haul your unconscious ass out of there, a 198-lb fire-man or a 171-lb fire-woman?

I don't think I understand what you are saying so I'll ask a question. Are you saying we should evaluate people based on gender and not ability because men weigh more than women?

[Beetlegeuse]

People don't have a gender.

[Beetlegeuse]

Overwhelming majority of women fail new Army combat-fitness test
Trump gets urged to cancel Obama's failing 'social experiment'

A new report from the Center for Military Readiness reveals 84% of the women who take a new Army combat-fitness test fail.

It's one of the signs that the "social experiment" launched during the Barack Obama administration isn't working, CMR says.

"In December 2015, former Defense Secretary Ashton Carter overturned policy and authorized women to serve in direct ground combat (infantry) units," the report said. "These are the fighting teams that attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action – missions beyond the experience of being 'in harm's way,'" the report said.

CMR noted that women "are serving with as they always have."

"But in two major categories – unequal physical capabilities and sexual misconduct – signs of a failing social experiment are increasingly obvious," CMR said.

"During the Obama administration, Pentagon officials bought into false promises of a 'gender-free' military. Men and women would be equally capable, immune to sexual attractions, and interchangeable in physically challenging missions. Instead of this fantasy, the caisson's wheels are starting to fall off," the report found.

Not surprising, since "at least a dozen major studies warned of serious problems before the social experiment began, and in 2012," CMR said.

"Among other things, Marine proxy tests with hundreds of volunteers confirmed significant physical differences in weight-lifting exercises simulating heavy armor or artillery rounds. Most men could lift progressively heavy barbells above their heads, but 92% of female participants could not accomplish the 'clean & press' with a 115 lb. weight," the report said.

Injury rates for women proved two to six times higher, and at the Marines' Infantry Officer Course, only two of more than 30 female officers passed even after adjustments were made in scoring requirements.

Some women have completed the Ranger School at Fort Benning, Georgia, but a book reporting on the issue said "the first two women ... received special treatment and concessions."

What is known so far is that in scientific field tests all-male units outperformed the gender-mixed teams 69% of the time, the CMR report said.

According to unofficial Army Combat Fitness Test pass/fail records of 3,206 soldiers in 11 battalions, 84% of female trainees and 30% of male trainees failed the six-event Army test.

The report recommended: "Four years after the grand women in the infantry experiment began, the Trump administration should reexamine ideological goals and consider taking up the challenge stated by James Hasson in his book 'Stand Down': 'The time to roll back the misguided Obama-era 'reforms' to the military is now . . . President Trump, as Washington pundits love to say, is a ‘disruptive’ president, one willing to buck trends, reject conventional thinking, and make controversial changes'."

"Constructive change will require new presidential orders to high-level officials, including Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley. Leadership is especially needed because General Milley, in his previous role as Chief of Staff of the Army, was responsible for implementation of deeply flawed social policies during the Obama administration," the report said.

[emphasis added]

[tarmyg]

Qualified people should serve, seems pretty easy to understand. Not sure what this anti-women thing is all about? If you pass the test serve, if not, don't. Whatever culture war this organization is on they also use made up numbers which is clear from the official statements from the Army: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...officials-say/