Woman's Abortion Letter
Previous post

U.S. Marine Corps Testing Undermines Women-In-Combat Agenda

U.S. Marine Corps Testing Undermines Women-In-Combat Agenda

Leave it to the United States Marines to do the heavy lifting of testing whether or not the ladies who decide they want to be “the Few. The Proud” and then after that choice, participate in testing to see whether they are fit to fight in direct ground combat.

The Center for Military Readiness has published some of their findings in an interim report that seems to have many inconvenient facts.  It is a 65 page report that is worth your time, however, the CMR could have just titled it “No Duh!” and it would have been a more correct way of phrasing their findings.  There were a number of tests performed, and in all cases except one, women failed from 4 to 29 times more often than men did.

These are things that many, including me, have pointed out long ago, but hopefully, these numbers will help after the next election to put this issue to bed.

Among the facts they gleaned:

  • In addition to findings that men performed four times as many pull-ups( 33), TECOM research found no correlations between PFT “flexed-arm hang” exercises, still permitted for women only, with upper-body strength. (p. 33-39) Attempts to replace the timed flexed-arm hang option with a 3 pull-up requirement had to be suspended until December 2015, since 55% of female Marine recruits were unable to perform the minimum test. These facts call into question theories about gender equality in physical strength required to perform effectively in the combat arms.
  • In the Deadlift test,of the men could lift 135 lbs., and 98.4% of the women were able to do the same. The report adds, “The deadlift is primarily a lower-body weight movement utilizing the larger and stronger muscles of the posterior chain.” (pp. 33-39)
  • Participants in the Clean & Press exercise had to do single lifts of progressively heavier weights (70 to 115 lbs.) from the ground to above the head. Of the 409 men, 80% lifted the heaviest weight, but only 8.7% of 378 women did so successfully. Six repetitions of a lesser weight (65 lb.) increased the failure rate even more.
  • In the 120 mm Tank Loading Simulation, a gunnery skills test, participants were asked to lift a simulated round weighing 55 lb., 5 times in 35 seconds or less. Quoting the NHRC report, “Less than 1% of men . . . [compared to] 18.68% of the women . . . could not complete the tank loading drill in the allotted time.” The report added, “It would be very likely that failure rates would increase in a more confined space [such as a tank] and actually taking a round out of a horizontal tube and placing it into a horizontal breech.”
  • 155 mm Artillery Lift-and-Carry, a test simulating ordnance stowing, participants were asked to pick up a replica 155 mm artillery round weighing 95 lb and carry it a distance of 50 meters in under 2 minutes. Quoting the NHRC report, “Less than 1% of men . . .[compared to] 28.2% of women could not complete the 155 mm artillery round lift-and-carry in the allotted time.” The report added, “Marines were not required to place the round on their shoulder and were allowed to cradle the round. [If women had been] required to ‘shoulder’ the round and/or carry multiple rounds, the 28.2% failure would increase.” (pp. 35-39) Page 10 Interim Center for Military Readiness Special Report
  • On the Obstacle Course Wall-with-Assist-Box test, a 20” high assist box, (used to simulate and standardize what could be a 1- or 2-Marine’s helping-hand) essentially reduced the height of the 7 ft. wall to approximately 5’4.” Quoting the report, Less than 1.2 % of the men could not get over the obstacle course wall using an assist box while wearing Kevlar helmet, flak jacket, plate carrier, and SAPI . . . [compared to] 21.32% of women who could not get over the obstacle course wall using an assist box,while wearing [the same protective gear.]” (pp. 35-36)

It is not an acceptance of my nature that bothers me, it is that the feminists demand that instead of acceptance in the differences we have, that we should accept the lie that women and men are all the same, except for the parts that make babies.

“In the male, testosterone has a profound effect on protein formation and increased muscular development that begins after the start of puberty during which there is a doubling of the muscle mass of all muscle groups. While men and women have an equal number of muscles and muscle fibers, the strength difference relates exclusively to muscle size that is determined by testosterone levels. Because women have less testosterone than men, they have smaller muscle fibers that result in the development of small-size muscles; in effect, women have less muscle to activate. That also is the reason why women develop less muscle when training with weights and exercising.”

Facts, as pointed out by John Adams, are stubborn things, that despite the wishes of the feminists to the contrary, shall not be moved. William J. Gregor, PhD, Professor of Social Sciences at the School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, KS explains why these military studies regarding gender remain useful and relevant today:

“There is no study that indicates that training can overcome the large physical differences between men and women. Additionally, training women to perform heavy work jobs increases dramatically the skeletal-muscular injury rate among women which is already far greater than men. Attempting to train women with men will require either training men less well or accepting a high attrition rate among the very few women who will meet the nominal qualifications for heavy work jobs.”

So please, read the study, and have a solid look at the numbers.  Understand what they mean (110 pound 5’1″ girls can’t do as much as 175 pound 5’10” boys).  Then at your next get together, and if the subject comes up, ask your feminist friends (we all have at least one in our circle right?) if the life of their son is worth the perceived increase in “equality” that front line military service will get for their daughter.

Ask her how “equal” she wants her daughter to be.

Written by

  • Rebecca says:

    I am opposed to lowering physical standards to make it easier for women to take on combat roles. With that said:

    1) What am I to make of this statement? “At the April 2014 Training, Strength, and Conditioning (TSAC) professional conference in San Diego, CA, Col. Brian J. McGuire, USMCR, presented data resulting from these tests on an unofficial,
    personal-opinion basis.” Why is an “unofficial, personal-opinion” based report even being cited in this assessment?

    2) I am pleased to see consideration of the “common task” approach to physical fitness assessment. Whole-body strength and endurance tests using simulated combat-related tasks seem to me much more appropriate in evaluating both men and women.

    3) If the Islamic State is to be an important adversary in upcoming years, the psychological impact of female troops should be seriously considered. See, e.g., Stars and Stripes’ “Female fighters of the PKK may be the Islamic State’s worst nightmare,” August 30, 2014.

  • ColdWarVet says:


    1) The report released by CMR is nothing new. This has been studied before (see MEPSCAT). This is just a radical left/Feminist agenda to waste money on unnecessary social experiments. I was part of the study and women did not do well.


    “One example is the Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test (MEPSCAT). It was initially developed to address a problem brought to light by the military itself: Although they were filling their quotas, 85% of women filling the slots couldn’t do what the jobs required.”

    “…categorized all Army jobs as light, heavy, or very heavy, and then devised standard physical requirements – expressed as low, medium, high – with which to separate applicants for a particular MOS. They then conducted preliminary tests to see if soldiers in the field, already out there in assigned jobs, were matched with an appropriate MOS. ‘The results,’ as the Army Times put it, ‘did not bode well for women.’ While most men exceeded the high and medium standards for aerobic capacity,’ the paper reported, ‘no woman met the high standard and very few the medium. In other words, by the proposed test’s standards, all of the men were qualified for their jobs in heavy-lifting specialties but fewer than 15 percent of the women.’”

    2) PKK belongs to the radical left and has roots to the communist party. In the beginning, female’s fighters were recruited through kidnapping (see link below). Since then, females have joined because of the socio-economic conditions. In other words, they are having a hard time supporting themselves and their children.

    The radical left/Feminists are pushing these kind of PKK women in combat articles to promote their agenda that women and men are equal in physical strength in direct-ground combat roles. BTW, it is not surprising that the Obama administration is arming them. See the connection.

    The PKK is viewed as a terrorist group by the Turkish government. Terrorist groups have never had a problem recruiting recruiting and exploiting women. The radical left/Feminists will ride any pig that promotes their cause.


    “In the PKK’s early stages, it recruited young women by kidnapping them. In doing so, the PKK forced families whose children were already a member of the organization to cooperate and thus turned them into accomplices, creating both a myth and sensation of curiosity based on the idea that women in the organization were “free.” As a result, an increasing number of women joined the group.”

Leave a Reply

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

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner