USMC and women in infantry

I never said males cannot think rationally in close or precarious situations, I pointed out that it is not unheard of for a soldier with a chip on his shoulder to let his ego get the better of him and that does happen. From an earlier post I also stated that while statistically males tend to be stronger females also tend to statistically be better able to talking down a situation.

I trust this was just a misunderstanding as for one to use statistics to back up their view but then throw statistics aside when it doesn't sit well with their view is to make for a pointless debate.

Majority of blokes are stronger, Can take a tougher beating but there are still females that can do just as good, They are just not in high a number.

Majority of Sheila's are more adapt at talking down a situation, But there are still blokes that can do just as good, They too are just not in high a number.

 

also, there is the story of the USMC officer that pulled out his 45 and stopped Israeli tanks....http://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/03/world/a-marine-pistol-drawn-stops-3-israeli-tanks.html ...sometimes you need to take charge. and obey your orders...would a female let them go past her post?
your example seems a little unrealistic, or not complete.....USMC squads should be in a tactical formation during a patrol, very spread out...never let their guard down, or in tactically unsound positions.....the armed locals should know they are USMC, and stand down if they are friendly....are they friendly, no one knows, or are they neutral? the leaders get into an argument?? stand over tactics? do you mean ''heavy handed''?....if they are not friendly, trouble, of course...
good point on female interaction, but in the Muslim countries, I thought the males do it all? so, in your example, there are females in the local troops??
I can definitely see fire erupting between friendly locals and a USMC squad, especially with identification problems....but I doubt it would be because of the leaders being male....CAC makes a good point on this....but, in some instances, I'd listen to a female more than a male....

 

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet by CAC.
Skyhooks
Women In Uniform
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eqmW8lqiEc

The opening vocal- thought there was a chick in the band. He sounds high pitched.

 

The Marine Corps developed and fielded female engagement teams in Afghanistan for just this purpose and they were very effective. So much so that the US Army followed suit and fielded their own, including accompanying Special Forces teams.

Heres a link bronk to bring you up to speed;

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112606206

What isn't as widely reported by the media was the downside (which in the grand scheme of the total war was far outweighed by the advantages)
-Marine Infantrymen complained that they were not able to patrol as far or as aggressively due to issues with the FET's being able to carry sufficient sustainment loads at the pace all male patrols normally operated, or to physically keep up in the more rugged areas or when patrols were of longer range or duration.
-Due to restrictions with involving females in direct ground combat, Marine patrols had to pull back, break contact or otherwise avoid engaging targets of opportunity or attack located Taliban elements.
-The enemy noticed this and would probe patrols containing FET's, causing the patrols to pull back or be cut short in order to avoid bringing on a general engagement.
-The FET's where initially being used aggressively in forward areas, were more and more deployed in relatively secure areas where the likelyhood of a full scale firefight was greatly reduce. They did however still develop a great deal of good intelligence and were very effective in bringing the female segment of the population over to the NATO/New Afghan Government side.

 

That seems much more honest, realistic, and reasonable to me. Advantages weighed in with disadvantages. Rather than state that if someone qualifies, a Marine is just a Marine regardless of gender.

How has the psychological effects of sustained combat situations affected the female marines? Better? Worse? Different?

 

As long as both sides remain professional an respectful the sexual aspect should not come in to play. Homosexuals have been serving openly for the last several years, in Infantry units, and I have not heard of any blue on blue instances of rape or sexual harassment; I don't see how things could be any different for females. Once women are held to the same standards as men respect will take care of the rest.

Women will get the respect they earn, if they go to field and act like a double breasted mattress thrasher then that is how they will be treated; if they go out and are aware of their environment then they will be treated accordingly. Give them a chance to earn their place and do the job.

You have to give both sides enough credit to adapt to the situation.

 

Price, from the article, I still see there is much non-communication because of the culture...sure, they formed these teams, but the male Muslims don't seem to go along with it..it has one small paragraph that says they helped turn some Sunnis around....sure, but as the article states, the males still are the ones in charge....I can't see a 1000s of years' old culture being turned around by WMs...from the article, I don't get ''very'' effective..I see they still have a lot of trouble
you know what this article sounds like?? a ''feel'' good story for the PCers...like the old Nam news....am I saying it is not right? no, it's possible......but they are changing the old culture? my next door neighbor was a Muslim, and he treated his wife like a ''slave''
I think we see how different their culture is, don't we?? it's obvious...bombings, stonings, head choppings, ..just yesterday a woman was beaten to death for burning the Quran in Afghanistan....hard to change cultures.....it would be like the Muslims coming over here and making women change to their customs--not talking to strangers, not driving, etc
what we were talking about, -the main, original question-- are the WMs stopping firefights?, ..I see no evidence of this at all......I was asking if the armed locals had dedicated females to communicate/translate..is this normal?
on further thought, in some instances, I think this is a good idea for the women..but as far as stopping firefights, that's different

 

You are branding their entire culture based off a mix of biased media, seldom occurring events, and geographically limited cultural twists, and dragging everyone through the mud.

That picture, while partly true, is still only partly true.

It's as if Europeans were to paint the US as one big violent pornographic gun-fetischist club filled with crazed religious fanatics advocating the death-sentence. Sure, if I want to, I can find plenty of examples. But it hardly tells the whole story of the US.

Not talking to strangers, not driving, are not applicable to the whole of the muslim community, nor even the part thereof which are resident in the Middle East.

 

I was about to ask about this or bring it up. Sounds like at the very least it would be better to have those who might serve in this role in better shape. Now whether it's officially an "infantry" slot or something else you want to mimize the negative impacts as much as possible.

 

I certainly wouldn't consider his post to be "preaching feminism". Perhaps the word has a different meaning over there.

 

Most feminists dont know what real feminism is...Its a simple concept...equal rights and opportunity for women...across the board (That in nutshell is feminism - and that from a respected leader in the feminist movement). Anything else is an agenda in disguise.
What would YOU consider feminism?

Added opportunity.

 

the WMs have lower standards to 'claim the title of US Marine'...that, itself, is inequality !

 

And dont get me started on quotas...something real feminists are against.

 

I'd disagree. They are Marines. The way the gender normed physical standards were arrived at was that it took an equal amount of exertion. If they show just as much determination and desire, don't quit, complete all the training events, etc. even if it is at a lesser but gender equivilent level, they deserve it. They're going to be an admin person, or mechanic, or driver, or linguist, or computer operator, avionics repair person, radar operator, whatever job outside combat arms, so their lack of physical capability will not undermine the mission or cost lives. Their actual skill and intelligence may make them beneficial. In combat arms strength and stamina are inextricably intertwined with the other traits that make someone perform up to standard in those fields. So you're 400rds shot on ammo for the 240G because the WM couldn't hump it. You need mortar support but the you're out of ammo because the WM's couldn't hump the rounds. You don't make an objective on time because you had to slow the pace for the WM's to keep up and the patrol you were supposed to relieve got wiped out. You go into a position and your already tired Marines have to skip rest and don't get time to eat because they have to help the WM's dig their fighting holes. You're about to be overrun, the 155's were holding them back but all of a sudden the fire slackens because the WM's can't haul the 100lb rounds for as long or as fast. They don't need to be in these units or endangering the mission and lives of other Marines, however they are Marines and serve well in the majority of other areas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj5j9QUpuvo

Watch these Marines hump it on a fire mission. You don't see the other gun bunnies humping the rounds over to the gun position.

 

The thing is that if it were a Male Marine causing such delays they would be bounced out most riki tik. Don't cut them any slack an hold them to the same standard without exception. If a woman wants to do it let them try, If a woman can do let het her. Simple a that.

 

I Agree 100% percent with that post USMCPrice...said it better than i could.

 

In the perfect world that's how it would be. However, you've been there Brad, you know that's not how it works in the real world. I can give you a hundred examples of things I saw without even thinking hard, I know you did too. Thing about it is you know that's how it is, it's not right but hey, nobody dies over it so you keep your mouth shut and drive on. It's OK you'll be back in the closed world of the 03's soon enough and won't have to deal with them anymore. Just a minor inconvenience.
Real world the politicians use data. If the real world results do not fall in line with the data there IS descrimination. That's all there is to it. 10% of males fail this, the female failure rate is 22%, there must be descrimination, don't look for other causes. Real world they give a pass to the 12% that came closest to meeting the standard so the drop rates are comparable.

 

yes yes yes to all...but they undeniably have or had a lower standard, at least when I was in.... arm hang v pull ups...they didn't have to do the same thing as a male to earn the title US Marine...I guess it's like the Olympics, you have the female category and a male category....but! if they want equality, they are being hypocritical...and every Marine is a rifleman....what if there were a bunch of non humpers at the Chosin??
and I agree, that in some countries and instances, it might be better to have WMs communicating with the locals
and, going with Jug, sometimes the slackers on PT were 'harassed'--pushed, shoved, yelled at, knocked down, etc..they definitely weren't considered for promotion....
do the WMs hump at all??.. just asking..... I never saw them hump...and, who would they give a promotion to, if a WM and male had the same MOS, same scores, except for PFT?
great video Price....they can pump them out!..the gun and Marines are all one entity, performing perfectly....like I said before, the gun is a ''part'' of them, and they, are part of it

 

The way I see it used over here is by for a position well past equality. If secifically questioned on it they may or may not state equality is their aim but when you look at their proposals it's clear that what they want is something different. So we are using different definitions.

 

Fair enough...