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

“the inevitable: more female injuries, less-demanding training for men, and overall standards that are ‘equal’ but lower than before.”

(CNSNews.com) – 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.

On the other side of the issue, the Department of Defense Women in Service Review says it “conducted an extensive review of all laws and policies concerning women in the armed forces” in 2011 and 2012, taking into consideration “the outstanding performance of more than 280,000 women who deployed and served alongside men in Iraq and Afghanistan.” read more

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

  1. I’m an an air force vet. I became very strong working on planes, but I just don’t think women are strong or tough enough to work along side of men in combat positions. There is a place for most in the military. I also think women should be drafted if the draft is ever reinstated. Women are great in logistics getting supplies, etc to military in the field, vital support positions, etc.

    14
  2. Maybe the Army should issue a press release that ONLY trans women will be accepted because of their superior physical ability over “natural” women. Then sit back and watch the left spin itself in a knot of epic proportions!

    23
  3. Israel has some badass women fighters. There have always been women warriors; see Budaca or the Viking women. This is more of a comment on the state of American women than women in general.

    12
  4. Pathetic, especially considering that these fitness tests have already been modified to accommodate females. These intruders worry more about how their uniforms are tailored than they do actually readying themselves for the rigors of combat.
    To be clear, I’m not against women in the military and I thank them for their service as well, but combat rolls are an ill fit.

    13
  5. Then let those ‘badass’ Israeli female soldiers fight their own wars for them instead of using our troops. Our troops should be on our border defending our country, not spending 60 years facilitating things for Israel.

    6
  6. Who would have guessed?? Where are all the women wrestlers who can tromp a transgender?? Just what is that those trans gendered females have that non-modified females lack??

    3
  7. I think there is a place for women in the military and I even think a rare few can come close to doing what a man can do or maybe more with some of these sissy men these days.

    With that said this should be discovered by them having to compete the same way as a man and not with watered down training.

    I see in fire departments, ambulance services and police services they’ve done this same watered down bs that hurts them in real life situations. All because we can’t discriminate against women or lard asses. Just read in the paper the other day about two fire departments being sued, one was by the family of a firefighter who died of a heart attack while fighting a house fire. They blame the fire department because he would not have passed the yearly physical if they had not changed it to accommodate more firefighters. The other was a woman who hurt her back on a ladder, her argument much the same except she didn’t pass but they allowed her to stay on and sent on her fire knowing she wasn’t physically capable. Yet, if they had given either of them a pink slip due to not being physically capable they would have sued for discrimination. This world is just about too damn stupid to live in anymore.

    9
  8. A lot of males also don’t make the points required for a combat MOS.

    Here’s the things. First, the small percentage of females who can qualify still are at the physical bottom of all combat soldiers.

    And second, there also are psychological differences between males and females. I don’t want to hear about female Israeli soldiers who aren’t deployed worldwide and sleep in their own beds at night while directly defending their tiny homeland. Plenty of studies have shown that in combat, women hesitate, hang back in situations in which men will rush forward. There’s a reason that you almost never hear of women bystanders diving into a lake or going into a burning building to save people. And a reason that trainers of military and police dogs won’t use bitches (they hang back, protective of their handlers behind them in a situation they perceive as dangerous.) Females evolved to be protective of themselves and their offspring. It’s not that they can’t fight or be vicious when necessary — they can, if it’s the direct protection of their charges. But it’s a different psychological dynamic.

    10
  9. @Old Racist White Woman November 10, 2019 at 12:11 pm

    > I think there is a place for women in the

    Then here is where you want to be. And where we’re going is what you want. And I’m not going to try and “change your mind”.

    Especially if someone (not, necessarily, yourself) “argues” that what brought us here, by design, can take us somewhere else. If. If only. If only we just call a do over. And ride the same tracks, on the same train, to some “other” destination. Oh… and, of course… pay the conductors for our “new” trip. Again.

  10. Regarding transgendered women. I think they are more likely to be lesbians. No need to mutilate yourself. The much larger problem seems to be men trangendering to females, perhaps to win trophies, when these “men” find they can’t win against other males. I don’t see too lesbians trying to compete in men’s sporting events. Just my opinion.

    2
  11. This is also similar to what an Israeli General (to a lesser extent) said of their forces before they came for his head.

    Of note: Lower economic diets are not made of good food and gym memberships are $$$.

    Higher economic diets of Starbucks lattes, tofu(soy) and Yoga does not a rifle with ammo & body armour carry.

    3
  12. hen you’ve had a string of leaders who despise the military and all it stands for, you can’t expect much better. Get the people who want to see dead soldiers out of government and things will improve.

    3
  13. Remember our “world champion” women’s soccer team? They were soundly beaten by high school boys. Need I say more?

    9
  14. Anon, I’m not talking about on the front lines or in battle. I think in that situation there are maybe a handful of women that could do it. I’ve known a few amazon type women in my day that could do it.

    However, these days the men that can do it are dwindling, either because they’re lard asses or pansy boys. I blame women for raising pansies, but I also blame Dads who don’t wear the pants in the family to see their sons are not raised as pansies.
    I taught my boys some things, but when it came to being a man that was not something I could do and something left to their Dad.

    I also agree with janitor about emotions, women are emotional. I’m a bred and raised country girl, who can and has dug fence post holes, drove fence posts, hauled hay, unloaded a ton of feed 50 lb bags at a time, shot critters that needed shooting, etc., but I’m a woman and can be nuts due to emotions. lol

    6
  15. You could draft all the millennial soy boys and girls, add in the bat shit insane transgenders, and we still couldn’t beat Lower Slobovia in a flag football contest let alone an all out war!

    4
  16. I’m going to try and keep this scientific and clean as much as possible. Please if you comment, do the same.

    No one wants to bring up the obvious problems women have with ground combat roles that men don’t. I’m talking practicality here. Those of us who have served know that it’s a literal pain in the butt to suit up for combat. Fatigues, belts and harnesses, (remember 782 gear?) body armor including groin plates, water and backpack. Finally weapons and comms gear.

    Why do I bring this up? When a man has to take a leak he can just unbutton the fly and do it…but when a woman has to she has to take most of the above gear OFF, find a place with a little privacy (or be screened by her male squadmates), then put all that crap on again. So, instead of taking 30 seconds for a man, it takes 5 minutes for a woman plus privacy concerns. (yes privacy is an issue especially in a foreign, read islamic, country)

    Another thing while we’re at it, men don’t have periods. It’s just a fact, and on the battlefield facts matter. No one wants a squadmate sick, cramping or otherwise less than 110% because that can get people killed. Taking a patrol ‘off’ due to this is inexcuseable imho because it put’s more load on others. And the rules regarding urination apply even more so to cleanliness re periods.

    The real question is: what does a unit gain by having women in ground combat roles? Can they see better, shoot better, move faster, or do any other mission critical activity better? If the answer is no (which of course it is) then it’s a no brainer.

    But only of course if you care about not killing your own.

    7
  17. @Old Racist White Woman November 10, 2019 at 1:56 pm

    > Anon, I’m not talking about on the front lines or in battle. I think in that situation there are maybe a handful of women that could do it. I’ve known a few amazon type women in my day that could do it.

    You’re implying that I seek to change your mind. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, on that. You’ve met a few that could. If that is the “argument” that any should be allowed to, ever, because, maybe, some, can, then here, this place, this time, is where we arrive. And what we all see of how we arrived here, is driving us to, is where that will always take us. By design. Some want that. And the next. I am not trying to talk them out of it.

    > However, these days the men that can do it are dwindling, either because they’re lard asses or pansy boys.

    It’s a Company town world. The Company sets the costs. The Company sets the pay. Lard asses and pansy boys meet the Company job requirements. Same as other people. Some that might look familiar, in this thread.

  18. Women do well in static defense and as pilots etc.
    where body strength is of secondary importance.
    If they are where the bullets are flying they
    should and do qualify for the same combat awards
    as men serving in those same positions do.
    As troops in combat assaults most just cannot cut it.

    3
  19. @Mark November 10, 2019 at 3:19 pm

    > But only of course if you care about not killing your own.

    If that was your concern, you wouldn’t be there.

    So, a very “sciensy” non sequitur. But no more sequitur for it.

  20. Technology changes strength requirements, THERE are female A-10 pilots, but flying aircraft pulling a lot of Gs takes a lot of strength. Also, Female officers want the combat experience in order to get promoted. I don’t think combat is as a high of priority to ENLISTED women.

    2
  21. Denying woman and men are different is insane and the progressive left are responsible for this fallacy to weaken foundational institutions to gain control, which leads to dangerous compromised policies.
    Physically grueling professions require brawn and that’s exclusively provided by testosterone – only naturally born males physically fit should apply.
    In general women are not created for combat, although some are built to qualify, that number is very low. The fact women only (for now) are vessels of gestation of children for nine months plus the emotional and hormonal shifts included, automatically limits their involvement in intense physical activity. Makes no sense to staff a military combat unit with women – completely ineffective.
    The elitist policies in place, thanks to the left must br stoped now, before the U.S. armed forces are completely destroyed by (social)ist engineering.

    2
  22. Army Vet here Infantry, Air traffic Control, Air Defense Artillery, Lance Missile (Short Range Nuke). 1975-1981 1985 to 1991. Females in the infantry. Now way in hell. i worked in 81 mm Mortars a box of three shell weighed about 40 pounds For a Mech Infantry Mortar track carried just over 100 rounds per track. Try carrying that much ammo to each of 3 tracks. Non-mech Infantry had to had carry the mortar , Bipod baseplate and sight or an additional load of 20-40 pounds plus your basic loadout . Air traffic Control was easier My buddies 1st sgt told the females in his unit to NOT show up if they were alerted as they would not be allowed on the airplane. in Lance missile I knew of one female that did not have physical issues as she could max the old male PT test. In a later unit we had a female diesel Mechanic that could NOT luift her own tool box and every-time there was a field exercise. She told the 1st Sgt that she might be pregnant and if they were using smoke or gas grenades that that would cause problems with her pregnancy and rather than ordering her to go they let her stay behind.

    5
  23. “… overall standards that are ‘equal’ but lower than before.”

    Standards that are equal but lower?
    Doesn’t the word lower imply unequal?
    And if standards can be lowered (however equally) they’re not really standards, are they?

    Why are we continually assaulted by verbal absurdities?

    Why are we playing “pretend” with our Defense?

    I know that we do it to assuage the hysteria of the fools, but is it really good policy? Sooner or later (if History is a guide) push will come to shove and we will be in a fight for our existence (not a bullshit “war” like baking a cake for a fag “marriage” or chasing a bunch of goat-fuckers around a sandbox).

    izlamo delenda est …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!