US Marines To Accept Chubbier Women

Tyler Durden's picture

In an effort to maintain the new status quo of cutting standards everywhere in the name of equality and "progress", the Marine Corps announced major changes over the Fourth of July holiday weekend regarding how much it will allow service members to weigh, and the biggest shift comes for women: going forward "larger" ladies will be allowed to defend the country while also standards used within the physical fitness test will also be relaxed.  

In a document released by USMC Fitness division, the new height and weight standard took effect on July 1, 2016 and is relaxing regulations to increase the pool of potential parties. Think of it as a covenant lite loan in a way... only "heavy."  Why would the US do this?  One could be excused for understandably saying that the US is becoming more progressive and is accommodating those who have the heart to serve but not necessary the physical capability.

 We see a different reason for the US to be relaxing admission tests, which is this chart highlighting weak capacity from the Heritage US Military Strength Index:

What's changing? According to the Washington Post, the Marine Corps will now allow chubbier women to, so to say, slip through the cracks.

"Female Marines will be allowed to weigh five to seven pounds more than before for each inch of their height, according to new guidelines published by the service. A 5-foot-6 woman, for example, was previously allowed to weigh up to 155 pounds, but can now be 161. A 5-foot-9 woman was allowed to be up to 169 pounds, but can now be 176."

The Corps is also relaxing the rules on pull-ups. The new rule will eliminate fixed-arm hanging as an alternative choice to pull-ups for women. In place of fixed-arm hanging women, and men, will have the option to choose push-ups instead. The incentive remains skewed toward the more demanding pull-up, as Military.com explains:

"'Push-ups become an option on the PFT, but Marines are incentivized toward pull-ups, as these are a better test of functional, dynamic upper body strength and correlate stronger to physically demanding tasks,' Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller said in an administrative message to the Corps released Friday. 'Push-ups are also a valid exercise and good test; however maximum points can only be earned by executing pull-ups.'"

Explaining the new physical fitness test requirements, Military.com went on to say:

"The hybrid pull-up option is the Marines' solution to a four-year conundrum of how to promote pull-ups for all Marines without making it impossible for women to succeed."

As we march further into a state of "gender equality" there is nothing wrong with admitting rules need to be eased but when it comes to defending a nation, is the best answer really to just relax the standards?  When we observe banking institutions do that with their prequalification requirements, the results are virtually always disastrous and in the last prominent case, led to a bailout of the entire financial system.

Who will bailout the US military if pudgy push comes to shove.

Either way, these are the new rules.  We have reported extensively on robots replacing workers and as that trend spreads deeper into the workforce, expect the American military to relax admission requirements even further to "help" accomodate even greater enlistment numbers by those who have been recently displaced by a robotic "Johnny 5" barrista.

Full message from Gen. Robert Neller:

R 011230Z JUL 16

ALMAR 022/16

MSGID/GENADMIN/CMC WASHINGTON DC DMCS//

SUBJ/CHANGES TO THE PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST (PFT), COMBAT FITNESS TEST (CFT), AND BODY COMPOSITION PROGRAM (BCP)//

REF/A/ALMAR 030/15 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL FITNESS AND BODY COMPOSITION STANDARDS// GENTEXT/REMARKS/

 

1.  Last November we began a comprehensive review of physical fitness and body composition standards.  Subsequent efforts focused on developing a physical fitness program that incentivizes behavior toward an end state of a healthy and fit force able to better answer the call in any clime and place.  The review was a collaborative effort that drew from fitness experts and Marines, and provided wide-ranging options for consideration.

 

2.  As a result, a number of PFT and CFT changes are being implemented that ensure standards are relevant, challenging, and also allow for greater distinction between Marines of different fitness levels and age groups.  There are significant adjustments to the PFT and CFT scoring tables, requiring most Marines to demonstrate greater performance to meet the new minimum and maximum standards.  A major change to the PFT is the elimination of the Flexed Arm Hang for females and incorporation of a push-up / pull-up hybrid event for all Marines, recruits, and officer candidates.  Push-ups become an option on the PFT, but Marines are incentivized toward pull-ups, as these are a better test of functional, dynamic upper body strength and correlate stronger to physically demanding tasks.  Push-ups are also a valid exercise and good test; however maximum points can only be earned by executing pull-ups.  These changes go into effect 1 Jan 2017.

 

3.  Performance on the PFT and CFT will also be a consideration in BCP decisions.  Marines scoring 285 and higher on both the PFT and CFT will be exempt from weight and body fat (BF) limits.  Marines scoring 250 and higher on both the PFT and CFT will be afforded an additional 1 percent BF.  However, all Marines are still subject to the requirements of the Military Appearance Program.  These changes also go into effect 1 Jan 2017.

 

4.  Other changes to BCP include modifying the maximum allowable weight limits for female Marines, use of more precise tape measuring devices and de-centralizing BCP waiver granting authority from Manpower and Reserve Affairs (Manpower Management) to the first General Officer in a Marine’s chain of command.  These BCP changes go into effect immediately.

 

5.  Additional details, including the new PFT/CFT scoring tables, physical fitness training recommendations, and BCP adjustments are available at:  https:(slash)(slash)fitness.usmc.mil.  Follow-on MARADMINS will further address administrative details and the associated Marine Corps Orders will be updated accordingly.

 

6.  America expects its Marine Corps to be the most ready when the Nation is least ready.  Collectively, these are the biggest changes to the PFT since 1972 and CFT since 2009.  We will monitor the effects of these adjustments for two years and then adjust if required to ensure our standards continue to contribute to the effectiveness of our force and enhance our ability to respond when our Nation calls.

 

7.  Robert B. Neller, General, U.S. Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marine Corps.//

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Is it not obvious the Empire needs a freshly expanded pool of (brainwashed and therefore 'willing') conscripts?

Just as they conscripted females into the workforce to hide the stagnant wages over the last 25 years, so too they need to conscript females into the Imperial army to expand the ranks for the coming fiat wars.

blue51's picture

Next up, instant citizenship to any new immigrant upon completion of enlistment.

Here2Go's picture

The Few, The Proud, The FATTIES!

kliguy38's picture

Finally.....my prayers have been answered

38BWD22's picture

 

Marine ROTC Physical Fitness Test in the 1970s at US univerisities:

-- Must achieve 135 or more (total) points to pass the test, 3 categories below

-- 2 points for each push-up OR 5 points for each chin-up

-- Must be able to run 3 miles in 28 minutes or less, 40 points for the 28 minutes, 1 more point for each 10 seconds under 28 minutes

-- Sit-ups/abdominals: 1 point each to 60 sit-ups, 2 points each sit-up over 60

-- Max points for each of the above three exercises: 100 points

Max possible total points: 300

I'll bet that was much harder then than it is now.  Bitchez.

Richard Chesler's picture

Obongo the corrupt helps lowering the bar, again.

 

Manthong's picture

How about a new motto?...

“Obama’s Marines… built for comfort, not for speed.”

Handful of Dust's picture

 

Soweto's Panzer Division?

Can you imagine when these heffers fart those beans out?!

divingengineer's picture

I thought this was what the Air Force  was for.

Oh well,  I like em with a little meat on their bones too.

DownWithYogaPants's picture

It's easier to do pull-ups when they lower the bar!

 

.........and regarding meat on their bones?! That wait raiting is o'beast.  She's just as likely to be some bull dyke who will rip your dick off.

Shockwave's picture

Actually its more or less the same. When I enlisted in the USMC in 07, the scores were

 

3 miles in 28:00 min, 18:00 perfect score

3 Pullups min, 20 for perfect

50 crunches min, 100 for perfect score.

undertow1141's picture

same in '91 except situps not crunches 40 min 80 max score in 3 mins

BeanusCountus's picture

First, thank you for your service. And to Schockwave as well. Did I misread the author's article? Is this really a change to accommodate less physically capable candidates?

thePablo's picture

This is actually a change to make the physical standards fit the type of Marine that the Corps is trying to recruit and retain. As an infantryman, I support slightly slower run times with tougher upper body strength standards. The changes to body fat are actually in favor of really muscular Marines, not the fatties. Source: currently a Marine.

adeptish's picture

Right on.

If you can fight better than you can run...

runningman18's picture

No, the rule changes are designed to create a gray area by which utterly incapable females can still be conscripted as cannon fodder in the name of "gender equality".  Just read up on how those two chicks finally graduated Army Ranger School.  The military brass basically told the trainers they WILL pass those women or else.  All standards had to be lowered to make this possible because not a single woman had the strength to make it.  Lower standards mean a weaker military.  There's no way around it.  The Marines are following the same pattern and are now frankly fucked.  Soon you won't know who is in the foxhole next to you - someone who met the original standards, or someone who coasted through training on their victim status and an electric scooter.     

Handful of Dust's picture

Training used to involve sit-ups. Now they do "Roll-overs."

ebworthen's picture

No more tests!  Intent is all that matters!

If you believe you can join!

All hail the New Rome!

JLee2027's picture

+1000 for the intent part.  Thanks to Jim Comey, we can all stop obeying traffic lights and other laws, as we clearly intend no harm in running red lights and killing small women and children in crosswalks.

edotabin's picture

Why dream small?  I'm buying a server, sticking it in my basement and applying for a job as Secretary of State.

/s

 

I really wouldn't want that stupid job anyway.

vollderlerby's picture

Killing women and small children in crosswalks is just extremely careless.  No reasonable prosecutor would go for that case, is all good.

crackpuff's picture

I'm waiting for the Marines to start a new handicap brigade, maybe in another year or 2. Nothing strikes fear in the enemy's heart like heavy-armor wheelchairs, or rocket-launching crutches. The physical fitness tests will consist of a series of grunts and moans

Antiborge's picture

Haha you guys are killing me with laughter.

rbg81's picture

I'm reminded of that scene in "Full Metal Jacket", where Gomer Pyle eats a candy bar while the rest of his platoon does push ups.  When it comes to combat, anyone with a gender, weight, sexual-orientation, minority, religious (read: Muslim) desgination will have a Get-Out-Of-Combat-Free card.  Only White Males will be eligible to die.  But not to worry: those in the protected categories will still get special pay and opportunties for promotion.

Antiborge's picture

Apparently there is a lot of MATTER here.

 

Lol...

Hail Cesar...his implosion is almost complete  again.

Four chan's picture

did i hear trannys are now in? shut it down its over.

Curiously_Crazy's picture

Even that doesn't seem overly taxing.

Every surveyor in our office who does field work (that is to say all but one) could pass that test without much hassel and with no training. Walking 10-15km a day carrying around a load of equipment (no assistants these days) often over hilly/rocky terrain and banging pegs into the ground with a sledge hammer counts as training I guess.

 

In Australia at least most physical construction workers could pass it and almost every fireman would pass it.

 

Hardly sounds 'elite'

ThorAss's picture

Let's see ... At 32 I could run 3 miles in under 15 minutes, so that would give me 100 points just for the run. Sit-ups? 60 easy. 25 push-ups or 5 chin-ups. And I wasn't an athlete.

 

Antiborge's picture

Hahahahha that is good.

HRH of Aquitaine's picture

Citizenship upon completion of one's service requirement has been happening for decades.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

A version of that already exists. If you enlist, the "Look-back Window" into your history is only ONE year, when you apply for citizenship.

For everyone else, it's 3 or 5 years. 3 of you're married to a US citizen, and 5 if you're not.

Thus whatever "objectionable" conduct you've done outside the 1 year, is ignored. As you can imagine, a lot of guys enlisting have a "questionable" background.

Frito's picture

Next stop... Starship Troopers!

Fisherman Blue's picture

The queer Obama version will be called  "Starship Poopers"

slammin_dude's picture

dude its been that way forever

Cold War Kid's picture

I've heard they are practically doing that now. All kinds of non US citizens serving.

CC Lemon's picture

Just like that scene in Gangs From New York, when the Irish were taken FOTB and into the army.

That was also a time of massive unrest, civil strife, poor stealing from the rich, immigration wars and race wars.

With U.S. military bombing everybody all the while.

Pretty tight rhyme, there, Mr. History.

Tallest Skil's picture

One of the most important hormones used by our bodies in muscle development is called testosterone, and is often called the male sex hormone. Though this hormone is present in women, it is in much smaller amounts. This is why a woman and man that do the same workout over the same period of time will have different results. Scientific studies have shown women on average to be only 52% as strong as men in their upper body and 66% as strong as men in their lower bodies (Miller et al). Males were also shown to be stronger relative to their lean body mass. One significant factor was that women have much smaller muscle cross-sectional area. When measured during physical testing, the bottom 5% of males scored higher than 60% of females. Data suggests that this is an innate biological gender difference, and not just the result of different physical conditioning (Miller, et. al.).

 

The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces concluded that the average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55% of the upper-body strength and 72% of the lower-body strength (Reed). Certainly, strength is a very important factor in combat efficiency. While civilians imagine that every job in the modem military is now just pushing the buttons of some advanced piece of technology, this is not the case. Combatants need to carry heavy loads, run lengthy distances and still be able to outperform the enemy.

 

Strength is not the only physical difference that should be considered. Injuries are also a very important issue. Studies have consistently shown that females are more likely to become injured during strenuous physical training. Females have approximately 33-39% more stress transferred to their skeletal systems because of their smaller muscle mass. Another reason for this stress is that skeletal alignment is different, and creates a biomechanical disadvantage while marching, running or carrying weight at the extremes of endurance. All of this extra stress results in increased rate of injury. In one sample, 37% of male United States Army recruits experienced a lower limb injury during a twelve week basic training course, whereas female injury rates were much higher at 60% (Gemmell). The term “gender norming” refers to adjusted training requirements in respect to gender. For instance, the gender normed physical training regimen in the United States Army means that females have lower physical training requirements. The British military recently eliminated gender norming in an effort to improve their performance. In a study conducted by the British military, when gender norming was eliminated in basic training the proportion of female recruits medically discharged because of an overuse injury rose from 4.6% to 11.1%, whereas the proportion of such males remained at under 1.5% (Gemmell).

 

This was a large study with thousands of both males and females. Specifically studied were 11,925 men and 1,324 females over a common time period. When a military member is injured, they are often unable to continue training until they are healed. The member may be separated from the service if the injury is deemed serious enough. If the injury is one that will require a lengthy rehabilitation the injured service member will not be deployable. All of these possibilities result in lower unit readiness. Members injured during training programs may have to be dropped from training. This results in time and money wasted. In the year 1998 the average initial training cost to the United States per new service member was thirty-five thousand dollars (Basic Training Attrition Rates).

 

In terms of general endurance events such as long distance running, men are also generally superior performers than women. In one study it was concluded that the greater sex-specific and essential body fat of women is one determinant of the difference in metabolic responses to running and distance running performance. An average woman, having greater body fat percentage, will utilize more oxygen to run at any given average speed, and will have a lower maximum volume of oxygen expressed relative to body weight. As a result the average woman will maintain a speed on the twelve minute run or other similar distance running event which is slower than her male counterpart. The sex-specific, essential fat of women cannot be eliminated by diet or training (Cureton). In general terms females possess 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance over short and long term time periods (Center for Military Readiness).

 

Many people, especially civilians, believe that a modern military with its high tech gear and weapons is no longer an institution that requires a member to be physically fit. These people believe that pushing buttons is all it takes to do the job. While it is true that modern technology has made the modern military more deadly, the assumption that this has somehow made combat less physically intense could not be more wrong. A soldier carrying all the necessary equipment, ammunition, weapons, food and water must still carry 50-100 pounds of gear with them at times. They must be able to maneuver and fight effectively enough to destroy the enemy. They must be able to pick up and carry a heavy fallen comrade. Strength and endurance are necessary for many critical aspects of combat. The losers of this ultimate contest die.

 

Gender norming would also be harmful for units that need to perform to this standard. Combat units need cohesion. Cohesion is defined in the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, “Cohesion is the relationship that develops in a unit or group where (1) members share common values and experiences; (2) individuals in the group conform to group norms and behavior in order to ensure group survival and goals; (3) members lose their personal identity in favor of a group identity; (4) members focus on group activities and goals; (5) unit members become totally dependent on each other for the completion of their mission or survival; and (6) group members must meet all standards of performance and behavior in order not to threaten group survival.” A cohesive unit must have every member trust each other. Trust is one of the most crucial elements, not just the trust in one another’s integrity, but also the trust in your comrade to perform their job effectively. If a soldier is worried about who is covering his back, he will not be fully concentrating on his own responsibilities. A gender normed standard would result in unit separated on gender lines, which seriously undermines the trust that is so important. This concept of having different standards for each gender is the result of the ends justifying the means. The end goal of some is to have women freely serve in whatever capacity they wish, and the means of accomplishing this goal are changing standards for women to allow them to succeed. Equal effort has been wrongly equated with equal results. 

 

What should our priorities be as a nation? In a report to Congress entitled Summary of Presidential Commission Findings and Record in Support of Alternative Views, it was pointed out that the need for a superior military, which is the priority of the nation, must outweigh any civil rights claim no matter how noble or seemingly justified. “Civil society protects individual rights, but the military, which protects civil society, must be governed by different rules. Civilian society forbids employment discrimination, but lives and combat missions might be put at risk by service members who cannot meet the demands of the battlefield. The military must be able to choose those most able to survive, fight, and win.”

 

There is no such thing as the “right” to serve. That is a civilian idea stemming from the incorrect equivalent of having the right to have a certain job out in the civilian workforce. Service in the American military is a privilege in peacetime volunteer force, and a duty in a drafted wartime force. No one has a right to serve. Should this be changed as a result of feminist lobbying or public pressure? In the movie “Crimson Tide,” a submarine’s commanding officer played by Gene Hackman answered the question well by saying, “The armed forces defend democracy. They do not practice it.”

 

Gemmell, I.M. (2002). Injuries among female army recruits: A conflict of legislation. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Vol 95, number 1, 23-27. Retrieved from http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/95/1/23 

 

Miller, E.J. et al (2004). Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology. Vol 66, number 3, 254-262. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/l47235487q162675/  

 

Carey, M.A. et al (2007). It's all about sex, male-female differences in lung development and disease. Trends Endocrinal Metab. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2391086/ 

 

Cureton, K. J. et al (1980). Distance running performance and metabolic responses to running in men and women with excess weight experimentally equated. Medicine and Science In Sports and Exercise. Vol 12, no. 4, 288-294. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/acsmmsse/Abstract/1980/24000/Distance_running_performance_and_metabolic.11.aspxl  

Women In Combat. Fred On Everything. 8 Oct 2008. Web. 5 Mar 2010. http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml

 

Women in the Military, Combat Roles Considered. CDI. 29 Jan 1998. Web. 5 Mar 2010 http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html

 

Basic Training Attrition Rates. About.com. Web. 4 Mar 2010. <http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/l/blbasicattrit.htm

 

Women In Combat. Center For Military Readiness. 22 Nov 2004. Web. 3 Mar 2010. http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?DocID=237

 

Women and World War II: Women in the Military. About.com. Web. 7 Mar 2010. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/warwwii/a/military.htm 

 

 

Definition of Cohesion in Close Combat Units. Center For Military Readiness. 2 Jan 2008. Web. 7 Mar 2010. http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=323 

Shadow1275's picture

Duty Smuty. This kind of reasonimg assumes that the left cares about facts..... spoilers they don't.

dot.dot's picture

WTF man.  You damn near publish a book.

Dickweed Wang's picture

I was going to say he had some good points but he would have been better off trying to present them with about 5% of the text that he used.  He has to realize a lot of ZHr's have very short attention spans . . . .

Tallest Skil's picture

>>a lot of ZHr's have very short attention spans...

And that depresses me more than what is happening to us. If you can't even read a page or two's worth of content on a given subject, you're already lost.

The Internet is the greatest and most terrible thing we've ever created.

konputa's picture

Nice work on your write up. Laziness and short attention spans are just some of the reasons for the numerous problems we're dealing with today. That's lost on some here, apparently. Fight club ain't what it used to be.

HRH of Aquitaine's picture

So you had that term paper locked and loaded, eh?

It doesn't really fucking matter. Any military that is going to allow trannies to serve, who gives a fuck if a few fat asses pull desk duty?

Seriously get a fucking grip on yourself.

The US military is the laughing stock of the world. I would have been more fucking impressed if you had a paper ready to go that talked about why the US Marines are cannibalizing older jets to keep some on the flight line and why so many planes came back on a carrier because they were out of service. That concerns me more than allowing some fat asses into the service.

Dickweed Wang's picture

So you had that term paper locked and loaded, eh?

 

Looks like it . . . LMFAO!!!!

HRH of Aquitaine's picture

Fuck the guy posts a wall of text? Here? Oh spare me.