Women Dropped From USMC Infantry Course

[Jarhead0331]

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.

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/

[LongBlade]

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.

[bayonetbrant]

Several years after Faulkner crashed and burned, the Citadel had a pair of female cadets graduate 1-2 at the top of their class...

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[bayonetbrant]

^^
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

[Jarhead0331]

^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. 

[bayonetbrant]

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.

[LongBlade]

^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.

[Jarhead0331]

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. 

[LongBlade]

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.

[bayonetbrant]

My 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

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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.

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[Airborne Rifles]

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.

[bayonetbrant]

There's a reason we seperate men's and women's events in the Olympics.

Yep...  unitards ;)