One of the new fronts in feminism seems to be having women in combat. It doesn't matter that studies show it makes combat patrols less effective (no really, read more on that undeniable study here), or that they now have to lower physical standards in order to reach their allotted quota. The agenda is more important than things like "safety" or "winning wars."

One of the countries foremost Strength-training experts, Mark Rippetoe went more in depth on the topic of women in combat recently. I'd advise reading the whole thing, but this passage is important...

Getting yourself and other people killed should also not be the unintended consequence of politically-motivated employment policy. Once again: IF the job has quantifiable physical requirements, THEN the job should have quantifiable hiring criteria based on objectively assessed levels of required physical performance.

Any time a job's physical testing parameters have been altered to determine anything other than the most successful objective physical performance of that job, the job's ultimate successful outcome has become secondary to the hiring agenda. Or the job wasn't really important anyway – the mere appearance of importance has become the primary concern, along with a couple of interesting agenda items.

When asked for comment, feminists were still processing...

We've talked about this on the show multiple times. We've even have female military officers call into said show and agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of the piece.

The common thread among logical, accomplished people is that "if women want to join combat units, they should meet all the exact same standards, and performance should be at least of equal to that of their male counterparts."

Contrast that with the leftist response of "EQUALITY!"

The military should be a perfect microcosm of a work-space that is entirely performance-based. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcomes. Conservatives understand this. Leftists instead believe that forcing (and eventually enforcing) diversity is the better course of action. In the name of political correctness, they send il-equipped women to their deaths. They do so, calling it "progress." How do we know? Well again, I point you to every significant study ever conducted on men vs. women in combat scenarios. Some findings...

All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)

How tolerant...

Now full disclosure, Coach Rippetoe has been a friend to the show. He's also never been a shrinking violet. So the backlash is expected. See his interview below.