USMC and women in infantry

Haha...The Army backside is alive and well in the Australian Army too...The chicks complain its the food...tight skirts...tight DPCUs? Im not complaining...

 

I would think the solution would be pre screening. In order to get into the program you have to meet certain standards and you need to meet even higher ones to complete it. If you keep refining the criteria based on the results to date you should have decent predictors for both men and women as to the probability of success before too long. Figureing out just what the key predictors are might be the most difficult part.

It could well be that what you end up with is a selection from the top 1% of females competeing with the top 10% of males but as long as the critieria are objective does it matter?

Not a term I feel comfortable using.

That's not neccessarily a bad thing.

But there are lots of ways to win a real fight, throwing a punch is far from the best. Especially if you are talking combat in general and not just infantry combat. For instance from what I've read females may actually make better pilots to at least a small degree than males. At the very least it appears that sex isn't the key statistic in determing pilot skill.

Actually it's quite clear that they can compete against each other. Whether or not they should is a matter of opinion and depends on just what you are trying to get out of the competitions. In battle I venture to say there are some women that I'd rather have on my side than some men.

 

Has anyone ever seen a woman bouncer in any bar on the planet?

 

Not sure how relevant that is though. A bouncer has failed if it actually turns into a fight. When you get to the point where the quality of your military matters you are past that point.

 

Bouncers get in a lot of fights, often in breaking up fights that have already started. Women are not bouncers because they cannot win a fight with men.

 

Sorry that's BS. Women can indeed win fights with men and have done so in the past. The bouncers primary role is to prevent fights and then to stop any that get started. Being big and intimidating is important in that regard. You don't see many small bouncers either do you? Size and body build do also have some impact on how much damage you can take. That would tend to discourage women from taking such positons as well (not to mention smaller men). I also suspect because of the above women are more likely to use techniques that can cause permanent damage or even death in fights. Not something you really want in a bouncer either but perfectly acceptable in a soldier.

 

Sorry that's BS

 

women, in general, are smaller, more fragile, not as strong...this is a fact...sure, the bigger ones can maybe beat the smaller men... there are some small women that can beat some larger men, but that's a very small number...come on, let's be real...you put 130 pounds of gear on most standard size females, and they are not going to be able to keep up with the men..this is a physical fact...
as CAC stated, women usually will back away from physical conflict..the ones I see fighting are usually-how should I say it?--in the violent tribe, and have some male genetics here's my final stat that covers a wide range of topics--over 85% of murders are performed by males because they are more physically violent, aggressive, etc....men are better fighters because of their physiology...over 85%!

 

There are loads in the UK, and very effective too. They appear to be able to diffuse aggression but also have the back up of her fellow bouncers if necessary. I knew a 50ish Irish barmaid, 5ft 2ins in height and she would huckle you out the bar in no time at all.

I once faced a drug crazed intruder in my home and managed to get him outside. When my husband and neighbour arrived on the scene he got very aggressive and only fled when he heard police sirens.

 

Put 130 lbs of gear on most men now days and they aren't going anywhere very fast or far either. The question is should those that can be denighed the oppertunity just because of their sex.

A lot of men will as well. That can be taken care of in selection or training.

Doesn't that describe the men you are wanting for the infantry as well?

Wrong. A human female is characterized genetically by haveing 2 X chromosones. A male by having one (usually with one Y chromosone as well but sometimes with more or less). So human females (unless you are talking about people who have had sex change surgery) have no male genetics.

Just because they are more violent doesn't mean that they will necessairly be better soldiers. Certainly the fact that more murders are committed by males doesn't. As for being better fighters in general you are correct bigger and stronger typically help. However there are always exceptions and especially in modern combat bigger and stronger aren't always the key determinants. Strength for instance isn't the key feature I would look for in a sniper. or in a pilot, or a TC. A friend of my dads for instance although a male weighed in at ~130 lbs when he joined the Marines. He ended up carrying a BAR.

 

Having worked in different forms of security, I can say having a young female companion can be quite an advantage.

No male wants to look stupid in front of a woman. When confronted by males only, a transgressor will be more ready to become aggressive, even when outnumbered.

And yes, I've seen female bouncers. Bouncers never work alone. When there is a problem, it's never 1-on-1. Alchohol (or worse) is always involved.

Another wierd thing about humans, all too often, its not the 6'4" muscle bound guy you have to worry about. IMX; it's the midget psychopath with a chip on his shoulder, and a need to prove himself. Just like dogs. Its not the big dogs that run around yapping, causing problems, and biting. These individuals calm down dramatically when faced with female opponents. Who wants to risk fighting a woman?

When I was organising teams, the difference was so noticeable, we put into practice as far as was feasible, mixed pairs. It really works as far as reducing tense situations.

 

As opposed to spending all that money to run tens of thousands of males, to find the hundred or two hundred that can make the standard....

Your second point is presumptuous, as I've made no such assumption. It's not about top ten percents of anything, but about giving individuals the opportunity to prove that they can, or that they cannot.

Every single male may try. That cost is already accepted. Yet somehow a few hundred more individuals is just way over budget...

Endurance wise, a rugby match is nothing compared to a 90 km Cross country ski race. It is all upper body endurance, as this video shows the techique:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1_49OFYwR8

This is done for 3½-4½ hours. Try it. Or get a skierg training machine, and do it.

I'd like to see this guy even finish...

 

They currently do a three month pre-course program for the females attempting to prepare them for the course. Secondly, due to the failure rate and a drop in new female 2d Lt.'s applying, they changed the criteria to allow company grade female officers to apply and in fact encouraged it. As of yet it has not helped.

As for the enlisted side, the females are not required to meet the male PT standard. They also are each assigned a female NCO mentor that helps them through. I don't have any problem with that on the enlisted side. The males are easy to motivate to suck it up and drive through when their spirits/morale flag. The females do need to be handled in a different manner to motivate them to drive through, and since the infantry instructors are male adding the female mentors makes sense. (There are female instructors on the MCT side of the infantry school, but not on the '03 side). With officers it is a totally different requirement, they have to be self motivated. Same goes for NCO's. The non-rates have to be motivated and that's what the officers and NCO's are responsible for doing.

No it does not. I agree. However, due to the lack of female success in the course there is a great deal of pressure being put on the Marine Corps to lower the bar. That is not a good thing.

Nor is physical stamina and strength a critical requirement for flying a modern aircraft. We are talking infantry combat, artillery and armor, not combat in general. The other areas have been open to women for a long time.

Really? Florence Griffith Joyner-1988 Olympic Trials-"In the Olympic trials leading up to the 1988 games, she shattered the 100-meter world record by .27 seconds, running a staggering 10.49." What did the male 100 meter leader run that year? Carl Lewis 9.92 (Ben Johnson actually turned in a 9.79 that year but questions about performance enhancing drugs voided his time) Look at track, marathons, weight lifting, speed skating, etc. etc. If they did not compete in gender segregated events, you would have virtually no women competing. They are at a physical disadvantage.
2012 Olympics
Bike Sprints
Men's Gold-10.232 10.308 (the slowest man competing not even making it into the quarter, semi or finals was 10.663)
Women's Gold-11.218 11.348
Rowing-Pairs
Men's Gold-6:16.65
Women's Gold-7:27.13 (The slowest men's time, didn't even come close to being competetive, 7:05.12)
Swimming
Men's 50m Free style-21.34s
Women's 50m Free style-24.05s
Men's 400m Free style-3:40.14
Women's 400m Free style-4:01.45
Men's 1500m Free style-14:31.02
Women's 1500m Free style-(Trick question, women only compete up to 800m they don't have a 1500m)
Weightlifting
Men's 152lb class-759lbs.
Women's 152 lb class-576lbs.
The highest womens class is over 165lbs.
Women's 165+ class-734lbs.
Men's 169lb class-836lbs.
....but we've limited the bigger men where there are no women to compare:
Men's 231+ class (the highest) 1003lbs.!

...and you get the same results across all sports. If there were not seperate gender divisions, in most sports, women would not even qualify to compete in the games.

 

Sorry, but it ain't. I've seen female bouncers hammer the crap out of guys twice their size. Females bouncers have been a common sight on Britain for about 20 years.

 

If you're talking general population that is correct. If you're talking Marines, they've mostly been weeded out in Boot Camp. The whole "A lot of men will as well. That can be taken care of in selection or training." is a strawman argument. Men ARE weeded out during selection and training. They have been for as long as the course has existed, with no one calling for lowering the standard. The problem is that when the women are weeded out, as is happening in the Officer's course the standard is considered unfair and should be lowered so that they have the opportunity to access that career field. All you'll end up with is a weaker, less capable officers corps.

 

A strawman argument. All males don't get to attend the course, you have to meet certain pre-requisites before you're even considered. They don't run ten's of thousands through, looking for a hundred or two. There are only 108 infantry company commanders in the entire active Marine Corps (if you include Weapons Companys). 432 rifle or weapons platoon commanders at any one time. So we're talking a select group. They don't accept all 2d Lt.'s applying for the course and of those that do start the course there is on average a 20-25% attrition rate. Well so far for the women it is 100% and all within the first few days (the course is 86 days long and medical drops are a problem in any course that gruelling and that long). 29 have attempted it, based on the average attrition rate you'd expect 22-23 to have passed. There is also the three month prep phase they're running them through in an attempt to get one to pass. Also a no go. There is a cost to send every soldier/Marine to a course, additional costs if you run a pre-phase. In a cash strapped military, one in which the US Army was skipping pre-deployment training before sending troops to Afghanistan because of the costs, can we really afford to spend all these additional assets?

 

Now let's look at an additional no win situation the Marine Corps is in. One of the female officers, 2d Lt. Sage Santangelo, that attempted the course (and failed) blames the Marine Corps for not holding her to a higher standard! What B.S.

In a recent Washington Post column, Santangelo attributes these failures to a double standard women face during their entire time in the Marine Corps.
From the beginning of training in Officer Candidates Schools, women have few chances to compete against men. The schools are segregated based on sex and women are held to a lower set of standards, according to Santangelo.
Santangelo, in The Washington Post, notes:
In the Physical Fitness Test, for example, a male perfect score is achieved by an 18-minute three-mile run, 20 pull-ups and 100 sit-ups in two minutes. A female perfect score is a 21-minute three-mile run, a 70-second flexed-arm hang and 100 sit-ups in two minutes. There was a move to shift from arm hangs to pull-ups for women last year. Yet 55 percent of female recruits were unable to meet the minimum of three, and the plan was put on hold.
This difference in passable criteria sets the tone that women can't compete on a similar level as men, according to Santangelo.

Now why are there seperate standards? Because when women were first integrated into many occupational fields they complained that having to meet the male standard unfairly restricted them. So the military had two options: 1.) Lower standards across the board (bad idea) 2.) Gender norm the standards to allow women to have access to the fields.
The Marine Corps has attempted, as she states, to bring the women up to the male standard but can't without disqualifying too many female service members, so they placed it on hold. One thing I would tell Lt. Santangelo is that during my entire time in the Marine Corps (and in the Army too), after Boot Camp, I was always responsible for maintaining my physical fitness. I always overtrained so that I would meet the physical demands of any course I attended. Why should she be any different? Is anyone stopping her from training? She's supposed to be a leader and self-motivated.

 

I like the term "walking mattresses" to BAMs, but that's just me.

 

I'm wondering what the US was doing in Afghanistan to start with.... and which is more expensive, training 30 individuals for 3 months (which they should be doing anyway), or losing vehicles to IED's, in country which primarily produces disgruntled weed-growers.

I sympathize with the problem. I'd expect more self-knowledge to realise that they're lacking the level of physical and mental fitness required. That goes for anyone dropping out uninjured. The question is how many were pushed into attempting, in order to prove a political point, either for or against.

 

QFT.