Can't say I'm surprised. I will never understand the push to get women into combat. This reminds me of the whole Shannon Falkner debacle at the Citadel. Fight a legal battle for years for admission, get in, and then fail out in the first week. Anyway, I've highlighted the scary part. It's only a matter of time.
Quote
USMC drops second female from infantry course
By Andrew deGrandpré - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Oct 15, 2012 12:55:21 EDT
The Marine Corps' effort to evaluate whether more combat jobs should open to women marked another milestone last week when the second of two female volunteers washed out of infantry officer training.
A second lieutenant, she was dropped from the program Friday after failing to complete required training due to unspecified medical reasons, a Marine official told Marine Corps Times. It's unclear whether she was injured or if she became ill.
The other volunteer, also a second lieutenant, dropped out Sept. 28 after she was unable to complete the program's introductory combat endurance test. Nearly 30 men also washed out on the first day.
Known as the Infantry Officers Course, the demanding 13-week program is based at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. The current class, which began with 109 students, is the first to have included women. On average, about 25 percent of the men who enroll in IOC fail to complete it and voluntarily withdraw.
The Corps sought female volunteers for the course as part of a broader research effort to assess how female Marines might perform in assignments whose primary mission is direct ground combat — jobs they are prohibited from filling now. Just the two women stepped forward. Marine officials have declined to identify them, citing a desire to protect their privacy.
Upon completing IOC's combat endurance test in September, the woman dropped from the program Friday issued the following statement via Marine Corps public affairs personnel: "I want to try to open up a door, maybe, for women after me. I don't know how far it will open, but I'm hoping to make a difference for women down the road."
At Quantico, those overseeing the IOC experiment have said that it will involve up to 100 female officers and take at least a year to complete. The Marine official, speaking on condition of anonymity, reaffirmed the Corps' intent to recruit female volunteers for subsequent iterations of the course.
"This was just the first shot," the official said.
The next IOC will begin this winter. So far, no new volunteers have emerged, said Maj. Shawn Haney, a spokeswoman for Manpower and Reserve Affairs in Quantico, the command leading the Marine Corps' research. Nevertheless, she said, the experiences of these first two volunteers will prove valuable as senior leaders contemplate potential next moves.
As part of the Corps' ongoing review, officials have opened nearly 400 jobs in select ground combat units — billets in artillery and tank battalions, among others — to female officers and staff noncommissioned officers. Previously, only men were allowed to fill those jobs. Additionally, Marine officials are exploring whether the service should develop "gender-neutral" physical standards.
Taken together, all of these efforts are expected to inform a recommendation from the Marine Corps to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on what additional changes — if any — should be made. That's due to the Pentagon in early November.
"All information gathered as part of our quantitative research efforts, to include IOC, will be provided to our senior leaders as part of our recommendation and report," Haney said. "For IOC specifically, such information includes recruiting of volunteers, volunteer data and performance of those who reported to IOC for training."
http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-womem-infantry-officers-course-101512/ (http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-womem-infantry-officers-course-101512/)
Gender neutral doesn't sound like a winner.
I'm willing to listen if someone wants to make the case, but they'd better have a good case because I doubt the current standards are bad.
Several years after Faulkner crashed and burned, the Citadel had a pair of female cadets graduate 1-2 at the top of their class...
Quote from: bayonetbrant on October 19, 2012, 07:10:52 AM
Several years after Faulkner crashed and burned, the Citadel had a pair of female cadets graduate 1-2 at the top of their class...
I'm not saying there aren't women out there that can't do it. Hell, the butter bars that dropped from IOC made it through OCS and TBS, so they are Marines...period. I'm simply suggesting that they will always look for ways to "tweak" standards to ensure that females can pass. This is a disservice, not only to national security at large and the image of the Marine Corps, but its a disservice to the very women out there who could potentially meet and exceed the current standards of the course.
^^
There's an underlying assumption that the 'male' standards would be inherently 'watered down' if they were changed to 'gender neutral'. That may well be the case. However, I'd be curious how the 'male' standards were established, and while they may be rigorous, are they truly accurate, necessary, etc.
Any change to them that doesn't jack up the number of push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, miles, etc is seen as 'watering down' even if the old standards are no longer relevant, or could even be physiologically detrimental (ie, too many push-ups trying to do better on fitness tests results in long-term injuries to certain muscles*).
I want to know how the current standards were established, and whether or not they're still relevant, before making any call about whether or not something is being watered down, even if the numbers of reps are, in fact, being reduced.
Maybe they are actually being watered down, but lacking greater context, I'm not quite prepared to say for sure that they are.
I will grant you that some people monkey with standards for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean they can't monkey with standards for the right reasons, either.
* I don't know if that's a real circumstance or not, but I'm using it as an example
^So what you're saying is, you support the concept of women in combat? Infantry combat, as you know, is more than just push-ups, side-straddle hops and how fast you can run a mile and a half.
I may be the only tank platoon leader in the US Army to have a woman assigned to his platoon, back when I was at FHL.
It's a long story, and I will admit that it wasn't in combat. But she did just fine with everything we were doing for the 2-1/2 months she was assigned to us.
The Canadians have had women in the Armor force for over 15 years, so it seems they are capable of doing it.
I am also willing to admit that maybe they don't belong there, with stories such as this one as anecdotal evidence:
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
What I am emphatically saying, though, is that we haven't studied the issue nearly long enough, or in a sufficiently non-biased manner, with any real depth or detail, to make a solid decision.
There's too much emotion, too many political agendas, and too many anecdotes to definitively say that it's a good or bad idea. We don't know because we're (thus far) not willing to invest the time and effort to (a) truly study the effects, results, costs, benefits, etc, and (b) tell meddlers to butt the hell out until we're done studying it.
Personally, I think there's better way to profile for the combat arms than gender profiling. There's a certain psychological profile that goes with being a combat arms trooper, and we've all seen certain men that just don't "get it" in the combat arms. It may be that more men than women possess those psychological traits. Maybe not. We don't know because we haven't taken the time to find out.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 19, 2012, 08:39:06 AM
^So what you're saying is, you support the concept of women in combat? Infantry combat, as you know, is more than just push-ups, side-straddle hops and how fast you can run a mile and a half.
I'm not sure what Brant is saying. (Brant just beat me to the post by a few seconds.)
But I will make this observation - generally through history men have fought the wars. However, we do have instances of women serving, too. The USSR during WWII, for instance.
I think the proper question isn't whether we should change the standards for combat. The question is whether the standards properly identify and train for combat.
Never having served I can't really say. But I would speculate that the number of pushups you do in a firefight is fairly limited. That doesn't mean upper body strength isn't important, but it does beg the question as to whether the number of pushups a woman (or man for that matter) can do is a proper indicator of combat ability.
My primary objection to women serving in combat is not one based upon ability. Women have served in combat abroad for centuries, and some of them have proved very adept, capable and downright deadly.
My objection is more from a moral standpoint.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 19, 2012, 09:08:32 AM
My primary objection to women serving in combat is not one based upon ability. Women have served in combat abroad for centuries, and some of them have proved very adept, capable and downright deadly.
My objection is more from a moral standpoint.
Understood.
I don't have a dog in this fight and I respect where you're coming from, so I'll bow out.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 19, 2012, 09:08:32 AMMy objection is more from a moral standpoint.
Fair 'nuff, and I can respect that. When you started talking about watering down the standards, I took it as an issue with the standards of performance, not the morality of women in battle. My bad.
Let me make it up to you (http://grognews.blogspot.com/search/label/Women%20In%20Uniform?updated-max=2010-07-27T10:05:00%2B01:00&max-results=20&start=20&by-date=false)
I've heard that the women who can handle combat are more ruthless than men.
Historically, swinging melee weapons, there was a clear reason the upper body strength of men was crucial to success. Now that weapons are mechanical, its not clear it should be so important. Mental toughness is more important than physical strength.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on October 19, 2012, 04:53:52 PM
Historically, swinging melee weapons, there was a clear reason the upper body strength of men was crucial to success. Now that weapons are mechanical, its not clear it should be so important. Mental toughness is more important than physical strength.
I have to disagree with this to a certain extent. Modern infantry combat is not as "mechanical" as you think.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 19, 2012, 05:25:21 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on October 19, 2012, 04:53:52 PM
Historically, swinging melee weapons, there was a clear reason the upper body strength of men was crucial to success. Now that weapons are mechanical, its not clear it should be so important. Mental toughness is more important than physical strength.
I have to disagree with this to a certain extent. Modern infantry combat is not as "mechanical" as you think.
I agree with Jarhead. Walking around with 80 lbs of gear (average soldier load in Afghanistan) seriously tests your stamina. We have enough trouble these days getting males into physical condition to be an adequate infantryman. Throw in females who are physically smaller and weaker on average, and the problems for infantry company and platoon leadership get even more difficult. There's a reason we seperate men's and women's events in the Olympics.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on October 19, 2012, 05:31:49 PMThere's a reason we seperate men's and women's events in the Olympics.
Yep... unitards ;)
You know that all Israeli women in the military are trained for combat, but not assigned to front line units?
Back around 1973, was at some kind of reception in Athens, Greece, and ran into the Israeli military attache from the embassy.
I knew that women had fought in the first war that the Israelis fought in 48. Asked him how that had worked out, and if it was a good expereince, why the women weren't in front line units.
His answer was two problems.
In the war of Independence, many of the fighters were former partisans who learned their trade fighting the SS and Einsatzkommando in Russia. They were a hard bitten lot, but some of the women were just vicious towards prisoners. They scared their own comrades.
Also, the Israeli army found that units that included women soldiers had heavier casualties.
Not because the women were bad, or fought poorly, but because the male soldiers took a lot of unnecessary risks to keep the women from getting hurt.
This may have been a cultural thing, or maybe just a temporary issue based on the emerging nation of Israel.
However, once the decision was made, the politicians made the military stick to it.
In many cultures carrying loads is mostly done by women. Their legs can be quite strong.
Why do infantry have to carry 80lbs? I am ignorant of what goes in infantry packs.
Ammo, food, water, armour, weapon, what else?
What if women infantry carry stuff for the males to fight with less crap on their backs? ;)
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on October 19, 2012, 07:39:43 PM
What if women infantry carry stuff for the males to fight with less crap on their backs? ;)
Now you're talking. Lift the ban!
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on October 19, 2012, 07:34:55 PM
In many cultures carrying loads is mostly done by women. Their legs can be quite strong.
Why do infantry have to carry 80lbs? I am ignorant of what goes in infantry packs.
Ammo, food, water, armour, weapon, what else?
40lbs of body armor, 7lbs for every 100 rounds of ammo (210 round basic load), 7-15 lb weapon, aid kit, one day of MREs, water, specialty weapons that every platoon carries like AT4's or LAWs, mortar rounds, grenades, radios, NVGs, radio batteries, batteries for NVGs, lasers and optics, tripods for gun teams, mine detectors, search kits, detainee kits, extra aid kits, litters. And that's just for a one-day patrol. Throw in a rucksack for multi-day missions and the packing list can go up to 100-120lbs. Ounces add up to pounds and infantry is all about carrying things long distances.
My wife was a soldier. She led paratroopers in combat and she is one of maybe three women I have met who can (and did) really hack what infantrymen do (all 5'4" of her). Granted, in today's combat most soldiers wont stray more than 100m from their vehicles so the point is usually moot, but that one time when the mission is to hike up an 11,000ft mountain with 120lbs of gear then you need to have confidence that everyone in your unit can do it. Even in a volunteer military like ours we have to deal in averages and play to the lowest common denominator. In our American culture the women do not carry the heavy loads, so until they do (and let's work towards that goal ;)) I'd have to say adding females to infantry units brigs down their effectivenss overall.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on October 19, 2012, 08:36:28 PMIn our American culture the women do not carry the heavy loads
I have a friend who's 8 months pregnant. I dare you to say that line to her face ;D
Well, my wife just gave birth on Monday...maybe I'll try saying to her face first? ;D
As far as I'm concerned, the one factor which should preclude a woman from serving in the infantry is lack of upper body strength. The infantryman has to carry everything he needs, and/or thinks he'll need, on his back. In my day, even though we were all issued flak jackets, nobody wore them since they wouldn't stop much of anything. So, we didn't have to worry about the weight of body armour. It's all the other stuff that adds up.
When we would go out, we usually caaried three to five days worth of rations. Now, these were C-rations, not MRE's. C rats were cans...and cans meant bulk and weight. But, the limiting factor was water. Water is very heavy and so we would be resupplied every 3-5 days...five days in the rainy season when we were expected to catch our own additional water from the rain. For my M-16, I carried about 20 magazines (20 round clips...we didn't have banana clips), four bandoliers of M-16 ammo tied around my waist and another 8-10 bandoliers in my rucksack. Everybody carried at least a couple hundred rounds for the M-60's. In addition everyone carried frags, smoke grenades, claymores, additional M-79 rounds, shelter half, poncho liner...and...of course...an entrenching tool. When you stop for the night, you gotta dig a hole. Oh...I almost forgot the steel pot. Somehow, that thing got heavier as the day went along. I also carried one of our starlight scopes. That thing weighed about 5-7 pounds all by itself.
We would go out for 10-20 days at a time. The longest we were out was over 35 days. I can't imagine a woman being able to physically keep up with that. And that's just walking around. What happens when you have contact and there are caualties...AND...the closest LZ is a kiick away? I wouldn't want to have to rely on a woman to carry me there.
To sum it up, I have no problem with women serving in the military. There are even jobs where they are superior to men. But, they really don't belong in the infantry.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on October 19, 2012, 10:38:05 PM
Well, my wife just gave birth on Monday...maybe I'll try saying to her face first? ;D
Congratulations :)
Quote from: bob48 on October 20, 2012, 06:15:26 AM
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on October 19, 2012, 10:38:05 PM
Well, my wife just gave birth on Monday...maybe I'll try saying to her face first? ;D
Congratulations :)
Indeed! Congrats on the new AR-Mini!
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on October 19, 2012, 10:38:05 PM
Well, my wife just gave birth on Monday...maybe I'll try saying to her face first? ;D
Congrats!
And in case you do decide to say that to her, it's been nice knowing you. :D
Quote from: Electric_Strawberry on October 19, 2012, 11:06:18 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the one factor which should preclude a woman from serving in the infantry is lack of upper body strength. The infantryman has to carry everything he needs, and/or thinks he'll need, on his back. In my day, even though we were all issued flak jackets, nobody wore them since they wouldn't stop much of anything. So, we didn't have to worry about the weight of body armour. It's all the other stuff that adds up.
When we would go out, we usually caaried three to five days worth of rations. Now, these were C-rations, not MRE's. C rats were cans...and cans meant bulk and weight. But, the limiting factor was water. Water is very heavy and so we would be resupplied every 3-5 days...five days in the rainy season when we were expected to catch our own additional water from the rain. For my M-16, I carried about 20 magazines (20 round clips...we didn't have banana clips), four bandoliers of M-16 ammo tied around my waist and another 8-10 bandoliers in my rucksack. Everybody carried at least a couple hundred rounds for the M-60's. In addition everyone carried frags, smoke grenades, claymores, additional M-79 rounds, shelter half, poncho liner...and...of course...an entrenching tool. When you stop for the night, you gotta dig a hole. Oh...I almost forgot the steel pot. Somehow, that thing got heavier as the day went along. I also carried one of our starlight scopes. That thing weighed about 5-7 pounds all by itself.
We would go out for 10-20 days at a time. The longest we were out was over 35 days. I can't imagine a woman being able to physically keep up with that. And that's just walking around. What happens when you have contact and there are caualties...AND...the closest LZ is a kiick away? I wouldn't want to have to rely on a woman to carry me there.
To sum it up, I have no problem with women serving in the military. There are even jobs where they are superior to men. But, they really don't belong in the infantry.
That is a lot of stuff.
The good old days of having a horse eh? So why did cavalry go out of style when they could be used for infantry support? A horse can handle some tough terrain. Why spend a fortune developing a robotic mule when there are horses?
The Army is using mules (the old-fashioned flesh and blood kind) to carry loads in Afghanistan these days.
And thanks all for the congratulations. Upon reflection I decided that discretion is the better part of valor and did not tell my wife that the doesn't carry much weight :D.
In all seriousness though, I've watched here deliver two babies now with no drugs whatsoever, so I don't hold many misconceptions about what she and other women can do. My hat's off to them.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on October 21, 2012, 01:45:02 AM
That is a lot of stuff.
The good old days of having a horse eh? So why did cavalry go out of style when they could be used for infantry support? A horse can handle some tough terrain. Why spend a fortune developing a robotic mule when there are horses?
It's funny you should say that. When it was time to move out, "The Word" was, "Saddle up." ;D
While there are undeniable physical fitness issues I think
since the majority of soldiers are male the primary problem
of women serving in frontline units is the delicate ego and
emotional problems they cause for their male counterparts.
Anybody who has been married knows that women are much
more ruthless and emotionally adapted to combat compared to
males who are rather fragile and burdened by ideals such as
fair play and other nonsense. Why do you think women were
given the job of childbearing? If it was up to the sausage crowd
the race would have ben extinct before we left the trees.
Quote from: Longdan on November 01, 2012, 11:33:05 AM
Anybody who has been married knows that women are much
more ruthless and emotionally adapted to combat compared to
males who are rather fragile and burdened by ideals such as
fair play and other nonsense.
I'm married. I've led elite soldiers in combat. My wife was a soldier and led elite soldiers in combat. I know no such thing.
My primary objection to women in an infantry role would be, as already stated, physical strength. Maybe pushups aren't such a big deal, but when her buddy takes a round and needs to be carried to safety, will she be strong enough to do it? If a woman is some GI Jane super-woman and can hack it physically, then initially I would be all for it.
JH brings up a good point, though. Although I don't have any objection to a woman taking a bullet in combat if she volunteered and when through all that work to get there, but I wonder how it would affect her fellow Marines/soldiers seeing her take a bullet? Men kind of act differently when it comes to protecting a woman vs protecting a man. I wonder if a man might even put himself at risk far beyond what he would normally do, in order to protect, save, or rescue a wounded woman in combat?
On a separate note, I couldn't believe how heavy body armor was the first time I had to wear it. I mean, you see all those infantry dudes humping around, running and jumping and what not in that stuff and you don't realize that that shit weighs like 50 or 60 pounds. I remember I put it on and I was like, "you mean I have to wear this shit all the time? How do you expect me to be able to do anything?"
I guess you get used to it after a while, but I never did. I always felt like that kid in A Christmas Story that couldn't put his arms down when his mom dressed him up to go outside in the snow.
Quote from: Toonces on November 10, 2012, 01:38:21 AMOn a separate note, I couldn't believe how heavy body armor was the first time I had to wear it. I mean, you see all those infantry dudes humping around, running and jumping and what not in that stuff and you don't realize that that shit weighs like 50 or 60 pounds. I remember I put it on and I was like, "you mean I have to wear this shit all the time? How do you expect me to be able to do anything?"
We joined the military; you joined the Navy ;)
What was said up there illustrates my point a bit.
Morale wise it is the guys with the problems and the worries.
I cannot argue with Airborne Rifles but I have faced an armed
and angry man - and fled in terror from a woman armed only with
her tongue...and.. well ... a couple of softer things.
But she could slay a big man at forty paces with that tongue!
cheers
Quote from: Longdan on November 11, 2012, 09:23:31 PM
What was said up there illustrates my point a bit.
Morale wise it is the guys with the problems and the worries.
I cannot argue with Airborne Rifles but I have faced an armed
and angry man - and fled in terror from a woman armed only with
her tongue...and.. well ... a couple of softer things.
But she could slay a big man at forty paces with that tongue!
cheers
I'm sure both experiences were terrifying, but also irrelevant to who is best suited for light infantry combat.
Depends - as has been said before on who the woman is: 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-RrO1hxJac&feature=related
http://listverse.com/2008/03/17/top-10-badass-female-warriors/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069988/First-female-soldier-kill-combat-Chantelle-Taylor-says-me.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173050/Do-NOT-steal-woman-s-towel-Heavily-armed-bikini-clad-female-Israeli-soldiers-mingle-Tel-Aviv-beachgoers.html
More seriously
http://news.yahoo.com/israels-only-co-ed-combat-unit-proves-worth-062742493.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko
QuoteOn a separate note, I couldn't believe how heavy body armor was the first time I had to wear it.
isnt Navy body armor called a ship?