USMC and women in infantry

the fact is more men are better suited for combat endurance than women..generally, a 130 lb man has more power and endurance than a 130 lb woman ! do you have any idea what a sniper does?? or the training?? or training for a Marine? it's not humping for 8 miles, then you rest all night...you don't go to sleep, but keep moving, and moving...
you think the sniper just sits all day on his a$$? drinking a coke?? ! they have to hump, hump hills, crawl, etc...they just don't pull a trigger..in fact, sometimes the sniper has to go the extra, extra mile..carrying extra supplies and equipment..LWD, are you saying most males and most females are almost exactly alike in mentality, physically, and physiology??? no way ..look at Price's Olympic stats, and those are the best females...

 

what does this mean?? generally, men have more power and endurance than women, no? this is a physical fact..undeniable..and, with men being bigger, the weight has a more detrimental effect on the smaller sex, no??

 

Indeed. If one could substantiate that a lesser requirement is ok then it should be a lesser one for all. Personally what I would propose (if you could identify the right factors, not an incosiderable task in and of itself) would be a 3 tear system applied to all. There would be a lower threshold (or two actually one to get in and one to complete) if you didn't meet it then it's a no go. There would be an intermendiate that if you didn't meet it there would have to be some outstanding other characteristic that allowed it to be waved. If all the intermediates were passed for entrance then if positions were limited how a scale based on exceeding those requirements would determine who gets in. In a perfect world politics would have no place, unfortunately we don't live in such a place.

From what I've read stamina and strength are actually important in flying combat aircraft although not of the same nature as an infantry man might require. I know you were talking about infantry by the way but others have made some rather blanket statements and I was replying to them there.

I said they would compete I didn't say they would win very often. Again I wouldn't exect women to ever come close to equalling the number of men in sports with not gender specfic divisions or in the infantry but I suspect there are some that could make the cut.

 

Indeed but not all that relevant to the matter at hand. What's important is whether some women are good enough.

Not at all and that should have been clear from what I've written to date.

As above correct but as stated irrelevant.

 

it is relevant because it means there are a lot less women qualified for combat duty, ...they can't hang...some of the women are qualified, some could cut it, but it is a very, very small number compared to men......even if they did train all year. Maximal Oxygen Consumption
The "typical" young untrained male will have an absolute VO2 max of 3.5 liters/min, while the typical same-age female will be about 2 liters/min. This is a 43% difference! Where does it come from? Well first, much of the difference is due to the fact that males are bigger, on average, than females. Us humans are all (sort of) geometrically similar, so heart size scales in proportion to lean body size . If we divide VO2 by bodyweight, the difference is diminished (45 ml/min/kg vs 38 ml/min/kg) to 15 to 20%, but not eliminated. What is the source of this remaining difference?

If we compare average bodyfat in males and females, we find part of the answer. Young untrained women average about 25% bodyfat compared to 15% in young men. So, if we factor out body composition differences by dividing VO2 by lean body mass (Bodyweight minus estimated fat weight)) the difference in maximal O2 consumption decreases to perhaps 7-10%. Keep in mind though that this is only a meaningful exercise on paper. A female athlete cannot expect to improve her performance by reducing her bodyfat down to the sub 7% levels that are often observed in elite males. The health consequences for the female are too severe!

To find an explanation for the remaining 10% difference we must go back to the key limitation on VO2 max, oxygen delivery. On average females have a lower blood hemoglobin content than males, up to 10% lower. Finally, there is some evidence, that the female heart is slightly smaller relative to body size than the male heart. Recent ECG and echocardiographic studies also suggest that the young female heart exhibits less enlargement in response to either endurance or resistance training than the male heart (George et al, 1995) This may be due to differences in androgen receptor density in the female heart. A smaller heart would be expected to be a less effective pump. Sources: http://home.hia.no/~stephens/gender.htm

 

This arguement is hilarious...and shows some people will argue anything...the Imperical eveidence is in...the anacdotal evidence is in...the logic is in, the history is in...Maybe night is day...maybe black is white? Im a male and i could easily beat every women in my building (several hundred)...all with one arm behind my back....id say one, maybe two hits and they are going to hospital with something broken...ive had pissed off women lay into me with all there might...and i giggled...am i a giant? No...im a male.

 

Very nice post and logic. I enjoyed it.

 

You still don't get it do you? It matters not how many women you could or even have beaten in your building or over your entire life. Your domestic issues are entirely irrelevant.

What matters is that people be treated equally. That those that qualify by meeting set standards be allowed the opportunity. That's it.

 

well, the males are not treated equally now, because the women's standards are lower, for an 'occupation' that requires physical strength and endurance

 

I rather agree with Jeff on this. I do not think the infantry is the place for any small framed person, male or female.

Not quite the same but I recently read about Lyudmila Pavlichenko, a Russian sniper in WW2., one of several thousand officially designated snipers. She was credited with killing 309 Germans, 36 of which were snipers themselves.. Of course snipers do not have to carry heavy packs, run distances with same, it seems they need discipline, patients and skills..

This would mean, to me at least, she was a valuable soldier. So far this discussion has been about strength and size for the most part as the OP stated.. I agree the Armed Forces should not relax stands for infantry soldiers in general but there are specific jobs not requiring those particular assets. Snipers perhaps, lots of women pilots, , etc. the US army has a huge logistical tail, lots of intelligence work, etc. .....But I digress, I believe the gist of this was about combat soldiers. I would be concerned about fraternization and it's affect on combat effectiveness. I cannot make a conclusion because I have no real knowledge about this area.

As a strange aside, Lyudmila was sent on a world tour of the Allies before the war ended, Woodie Gruthie even wrote a song about her, American journalist, male and female, criticized her for her attire, a uniform, and even ask her if women wore makeup in combat. Concerns about journalism have long roots !

Gaines

 

Before everyone loses their minds and think that just because the Russians had female snipers in WW2 it does not mean that women can handle the job of a modern sniper. Sure they can lay behind a rifle and shoot just as well as men, but, sniping does not soley encompass shooting; there is a lot of extemporaneous gear you have to take with you and that is all carried in on your back.

 

Maybe she could flirt with her spotter and get him to haul her makeup and gear, as long as I am being crazy and all. ....lol

Seriously I would hate to have to haul a Barrett 50 cal or 332 Lapula, scopes, , ammo, rations, perhaps a wind indicator, range finder, , etc.. . I read somewhere that the Russians sometimes teamed up but most seem to have worked alone. Now the shooter and spotter do haul a lot of gear. I went over to Ft Benning , 40 miles, to watch a sniper competition, great stuff.

 

Competition is one thing. When I went to STA school in 1987 they issued us larger packs just to be able to hump the gear we needed: radios, NVG's, NODS, Starlights, batteries, Ghillies, chow, water, ammo, everything enough for 4 days at a time between resupply. Moral of the story is that it is a tough job and just because they lower the standard to let women in the 03 field doesn't mean they will be snipers.
I have said it before and I will say it again: if you can do the job do it, if you can't then don't cry about the standards being too high. I watched a lot of men wash out of ITS because they couldn't keep up.

 

I hate to use the whole slippery slope argument, but here it is appropriate. If they go ahead and lower the standards, which is what is being pushed for now, because they say the bar is unrealistically high, it will eventually effect Scout Sniper School, Reconaissance, all the even more challenging than IOC schools, because they will argue, that their inability to attend these schools unfairly hampers their careers. (This argument is being used already with regards to the IOC course)

That is the very problem now. The Marine Corps opened the courses, they provided additional, formal preparation training, the actively recruited the best female 2d Lt.'s they could get. When they didn't have any pass they changed, widened, the candidate pool to include company grade officers, trying to get one to pass. Now it's no longer a question of an unbiased assesment. It's you need to lower the standards to accomidate these officers, and it's not their fault they failed, it's the Marine Corps fault for having seperate, gender normed, performance standards. Standards that were imposed upon the Marine Corps initially to widen career opportunities for women. Now it's these same standards that are holding them back?
To be fair the majority of female officers have said, including some that attempted the IOC that women and men are physically different and the don't want to serve in infantry, or they attempted the course to test themselves and they cannot do it physically.

I've seen it in every course school from Boot Camp to the Special Forces Qualification Course. The weak or those that don't want it enough mentally, fail and are dropped. All reporting on the IOC debate always mentions the number of men that have failed also. That's the way you select the best. So why do the politicians and the press not whine, cry and gnash their teeth about these men? Shouldn't the course be made less challenging so they can pass also?

I know I'm preaching to the choir, my replys to your points are more for other people following this debate and not really directed at you. You've been there. You know. There aren't many more physically demanding jobs on the planet than being a Marine Corps '03.

 

Yes sir. Taking the shot is just a very small part of the job. Humping all the weapons, sustainment gear, spotting scopes, commo gear, water, rations, clothing, batteries, etc. is usually a bigger load than the regular infantry guys hump. The team has to be self-sustaining and be able to move to the positions from which to surveil and engage, then have enough azz left to beat feet out of the area if they're compromised or to move to their exfil point. Missions can last from hours to days to a week.
And while the press is making a big deal out of how hard the Marine Corps Officer course is, "perhaps too hard!" It has a lower attrition rate than many other infantry related schools, such as the aforementioned Scout Sniper Course which has about a 50% attrition rate. This despite requiring a 1st class PFT before submitting your packet and having a selection phase prior to the course. For a Recon Marine it's 70% or higher attrition, if you count the entire pipeline from graduation and selection at ITB (Basic Infantry training at Infantry Training Battalion). When lives depend upon it you want the best you have. Do we go back and lower the standards at all these courses?

Green Slime wrote:

To be fair the Marine Corps strongly recruited candidates. They received their marching orders from DoD that this would be happening and the Marine Corps moved on it quickly, deciding they needed data on female performance and difficulties, to be able to intelligently decide how to go forward. They went to newly minted female Lt.'s, fresh out of the Basic School, that appeared to be the in the top tier, physically and mentally, of all female Lt.'s and asked them to try it. They promised that failure would not negatively effect their future career in the Marine Corps. A very real worry in a highly competetive officer corps. I respect most for even attempting it. There is no shame, male or female for attempting it and not making the cut, it is an extremely tough course. The only ones that I do have a problem with are those that want to blame the Marine Corps for not better preparing them due to seperate gender standards, when the Marine Corps has these seperate gender based standards, because DoD pushed it on them to enhance opportunities for female service members.

It's not that simple. They've tried it and because none have yet made the cut, the political powers that be are pushing to have the standards lowered to the point that an appropriate percentage will pass. With a lowering of standards you don't just get the females that couldn't make the cut at the original level, you also get the less qualified, weaker males that also didn't make the previous standard. When that happens and it probably will, next time the Chinese decide they want to destroy the Marine Division because it is the most combat effective force in Korea, they probably will. Next time a Japanese Admiral claims a million American's can't take Tarawa in a hundred years, he'll likely be proven right. Next time they throw a Marine Brigade into Korea to save a perimeter from collapse, it probably will and all those troops desperately hanging on will be killed or captured and the war lost.

 

I get a lot,of things that are over your head little Mr...your preaching feminism...an ideal that disregards the real world....

 

Your powers of persuasion are impressive. Or not. Care to actually make an argument that is more than a lot of hot air in a wet paper bag?

 

Okay tough guy.....this thread has jumped the shark.

You are better than that Gaines

 

The tough guy comment misses my point...