USMC and women in infantry

You need to come to grips with the fact that there are more women in the military. Women are doing more stuff in the Marines today than when either you or I were in.....it's comming up on 30 years, stuff has changed.

Look at it this way: IF there are 20 women in an Infantry Company and a battalion embarks thats at least 80 women, that's not including the extras that might come with H&S, then you have the women who would be in Motor T and the air wing. It's not very difficult to see how there would easily be enough women to fill a berthing area.

Sure it's going to suck less for them at first; but, as time goes by it will suck just as much for them as it does for the guys. At some point berthing areas will be integrated.

When you were in think about how many black and Philipino mess stewards there were and that was almost 40 years after desegregation....it just takes time.

If the women want to lace up their boots and put on a pickle suit and hump a ruck let them at it.

 

I've been searching, and I do see where the new carriers are going from 200 rack area to 30, with its own head...I haven't been able to find what the Gators will have
I've been saying all along if they can hang, so be it....but with all the evidence posted on this thread, I don't see too many that will be able...

 

It's about the fourth paragraph down in this link
http://www.seaforces.org/usnships/lhd/Wasp-class.htm

if you search: LHD Berthing Areas and select images it looks like things are pretty plush compared to ships like the Alamo, Denver, Iwo Jima and New Orleans....it's even better looking than the Looper.

It's all changing, these Marines today don't have to iron cammies or polish boots. The Barracks all have cable, air conditioning and are limited to 3 people...it ain't the same.

 

we had Navy rooms on the Navy base......almost the same at Lejeune, then I went into an open squadbay barracks on Geiger till I got out..[ from what I remember, I moved a lot, from 3-6 to UNITAS and from Lejeune to Geiger..I also did an NBC school at Geiger, so memories are mixed ] of course we didn't spend much sleeping time in the bay......slept on the deck, in the berthing area, of ship a few times, it was cooler there..but for some reason, a little water kept invading my area...
I'd have loved to have a female comrade...easier, more fun, etc to talk to them

 

First, I don't agree with Bronk7's problem with living conditions, when I first went in and for much of my time we still had open squadbays and I thought while there was a definate lack of privacy, I felt our units were closer and more cohesive than units I was with later that were billeted to three and four man rooms. The Marine Corps still takes a perverse pride in their Spartan living conditions. I got a chance to visit the current enlisted barracks at Miramar, drove down there from Pendleton with my younger son to visit with a close friend of his that he'd been with on his Afghanistan deployment, and I thought they were extremely nice compared to what I'd lived in. They were also touted by Marine Corps leadership, around the same time, as being the best in the Marine Corps. I mentioned this to the Corporal we were visiting, as to how nice the barracks were, he agreed they were very nice compared to what he was used to at Pendleton, but then threw in that Air Force personnel on TAD to Miramar, and required to live in the same barracks get a sub-standard housing allowance. I thought this was probably BS and was partially correct. As far as I can ascertain there is no "sub-standard" housing allowance, but the Air Force does pay additional BHA for living in barracks not up to the Air Force standard. So in effect they are paying an additional allowance for Air Force personnel, forced to live in Marine Corps barracks, the exact amount determined by how far below Air Force standards they are, so while not officially called a "sub-standard" housing allowance, that is what it effectually is.

As for your assertion as to the numbers of women we are speaking of, I think you over estimate them. This is likely because of the partisan rhetoric involved in the reporting. Women (from official DoD reports) only make up 6% of the Marine Corps, a substantially lower percentage compared to other services. In an official survey of Female Marines, 69% said they had no desire to, and would not consider serving in a ground combat MOS' if opened to them. So were only 1.8% of the Marine Corps is female and would even consider serving in a Ground Combat unit. Not very many bodies.

 

That is why there was a big "IF" in my statement I chose 20 because that seemed like a large enough number to matter and it kept the math easy. The moral of the story is that there are already women who are serving aboard "Gators" in many different capacities in both the Marine Corps and the Navy. The impact on the male berthing antics would not be affected and the disparity in living conditions would be minimal, IF women were allowed in the 03 field.

 

1.8% is a very small number and I don't see shoving a few into some space, even if it isn't as cramped, would be an issue. I do think that the lowering of standards to enable them to serve is (I know you've stated you DO NOT advocate the lowering of standards), and that is the way the political winds are blowing at the moment.

How do we do it and maintain any pretense that it is equitable? Do we have a sliding scale, do we pass say 80% of the females, so we just chop the lower 20% of female candidates? No, then you'd have the males that perfomed higher than the 80th percentile female complaining about inequities, even if he wouldn't have passed the original standards. There would be a perception that no amount of PC training seminars could erase. Do we just lower the bar so that every candidate that performs better than the 80th percentile female passes. On the plus side we'd have quite a few additional male officers pass in each class, we could run fewer classes per year and save money. But what about the impact on the operating forces? There are what about 324 infantry/weapons platoons in the Marine Corps? Lts. are usually platoon leaders so if we'd given all the females that had thus attempted IOC a pass and placed them in the infantry, and we replaced all the platoon commanders with females, we have three battalions or a regiment that would have substandard leadership? That's 10% of the Marine Corps. Or would we be better off to spread them out, one per battalion, that would be more fair because then we've weakened the force across the board. I pity the company that gets in trouble and has to rely on that particular platoon and it doesn't get there because the CO can't keep up. I think to be fair she should have to write the letters to the families of the dead Marines and explain to them why their sons deaths were for the greater good, sure she couldn't make the hump to save them but it broadens the career possibilities for all their female comrades.

Note: The second paragraph is aimed at everyone, not specifically Jugs, and I know how posts can be misconstrued. He is a friend and a member I greatly respect. Anyone that takes my comments as an attack on Jugs will have two of us on him.

 

I am of the thought that the women who could pass the training, at the male standard, could take care of themselves and would fit in with their male counter parts.

I see segregated berthing as an attempt at PC and it being no better than the Jim Crowe Laws wich allowed for separate but equal amenities and they would go away as time progressed and women were assemilated into the fighting force.

I guess I just don't care one way or the other if women are allowed into the 03 field; provided they can meet or exceed the exisiting standard.

What I do care about is the derogatory attitude put forth in the discussion and it is just not necessary.

 

Well the issue has evolved since the SecDef's directive that the combat arms field be opened to women. Now, we have politicians suggesting that the standards for the IOC are unnecessarily high because none of the female candidates have passed. Candidates that were recruited because they were some of the best of the best. We are no longer talking about females that..."meet or exceed the exisiting standard". Thus far none have met the existing standard.
I do not consider it being derogatory, to state that lowering the standards will result in a less capable officer, be they male or female, remember a large number of males don't pass either. A male that cannot keep up physically is no less a detriment to a unit as a female that can't keep up.

 

If I found your comments derogatory we would have discussed it, I value and seek you opinion on this matter; however, some are not as forward thinking and evolved as I would hope grown men and fellow veterans might be.

 

Yes sir. Thank you, and I think I am now about done beating this dead horse.

 

That rather depends on the number of berthing areas and the numbers of each sex present doesn't it? In one of the other articles they mentioned that women from several areas were assigned to the same berthing area while the men tended to be assigned to berthing areas by function. That could easily lead to the women being more crowded ... or not. It depends on how the numbers work out.

Not sure why people are having a hard time messaging me.

 

that's my point...if they are just as 'crowded', etc as the males, then it would be 'equal'.....wouldn't that have to mean the female numbers would have to add up to the same number of males in the largest berthing area??
I think I could be a federal auditor/financial/economic advisor ...all you have to do is talk double talk, mix the words around, etc, like I do in my posts

 

If you had say 6 berthing areas that held 20 people each and a crew of 40 females and 80 males then it would be equal. Make it 81:39 or 79:41 or even 80:39 or 79:40 and one or the other is less crowded. If the crew is only 110 instead of 120 then again it depens on how they are parceled out. At that point though it's not really a matter of one sex being favored over another. If the berthing areas are further from the work areas is that a negative? Some might say it is and in the case I mentioned above women are likely to be further from their work areas. I'm not sure I would consider that much of plus or minus but then if you are talking berthing areas that hold a score or more people having one or two open slots doesn't seem that big of deal to me either. If you get down to half a dozen or less to a room then it starts becoming pretty significant.

 

Here's an article on women in special ops that has some interesting parallels IMO.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ff32e0a3426a4f379a4f4d503cfe881d/ap-exclusive-special-ops-troops-doubt-women-can-do-job

 

That's because there are similar demands placed upon the servicemember, and the government has compromised standards in the past for political reasons. When I went through Special Forces Selection and Assessment, one of the events was a 12-mile ruck march with a 70-lb. ruck. This was in addition to your weapon, LBE, ammo, water, etc. all of which was carried. They weighed the ruck before and after the event and if it was less than 70-lbs. you failed the event. Some people carried filled canteens on their rucks (1 and 2 qt.) because the water added weight to hit the 70-lb mark, I added bags of sand and left the canteens on my ruck empty, no sense leaving anything to chance, and just filled the two on my LBE. IIRC, the max time was three hours, but in the deep, powdery sand on the course you had to do a shuffle type run, jog, the entire way to finish and you went at your best pace not wanting to squeak by. It's been a lot of years, but I'm thinking it was July or August because the heat and humidity were brutal. I sucked down my water pretty quickly and if I had had water in the canteens on my ruck they'd have been calling my name and it would have added another mental barrier in addition to the pain. I'm glad I didn't have them because in a moment of weakness I might have chanced it. Some people did and they finished with lighter than 70 and failed. A lot of peoples bodies gave out and even more peoples mind failed them and they quit. You'd see them going by in the back of the cadre trucks (which I think was another mental torture, just quit, the pain stops and you can ride back to the finish point). Anyway, about half way through I started seeing these foreign officers that were going through, going by in the back of the trucks WTF? They're quitting? Finished, had my pack weighed, and was directed to one area, those that did not pass were directed to another. I saw some really outstanding soldiers over in the no-go area, one dude had an ankle fracture that had been repaired years before and the pin had come out. He had his boot off and a medic was checking him out and you could see the pin bulging out under the skin. Other people were getting IV's because they had become heat casualties, others had blown out knees and were being helped to vans for transport to the Troop Medical Center. Anyway next day these same foreign students were still with our class, the US no-go's were being out processed or were in the hospital. Most of those that had quit were asian and central American, we had a number of Australian SAS in the class and they were hard men. Never saw one quit or be medically dropped. Because of that I've always respected the Australians, but when dealing with central american, Indonesian, Thai, etc. troops I always question if they actually earned their american Tabs and Badges or were just given them. It does lead to a lack of respect. Found out later that many of these officers were from prominent families in their home countries. It would be very embarrasing to the individual officer, their parent nation and the US if they were returned home having failed. The hard feelings could spill over, and while we enjoyed a harmonious relationship with many of these countries militaries, the loss of face of the failed officer could lead to a souring of that relationship. So we lie and everyone is happy. That's what our politicians are hoping will happen now with this controversy, lie, smile and pretend they meet the standards and all will be well.

 

Back when I was in high school and boy scouts I carried an 80+lb pack a couple of times. Never tried to go that far that fast with it though. I suspect that fastest I ever hiked was a bit over 3mph I doubt I hit 3.5, doing 12 in under 3 means you were averaging over 4. Had some experiance with loose sand on beach hikes to I learned to head down to the wet sand ASAP. The heaviest was a time when I thought the plan was to establish a base camp at the foot of St. Helens and climb up to the Dog's Head to do snow and glacier work. When we got there it was decided that we'd camp on top of the Dog's head instead. Loose pumice is more of a pain than sand but we weren't rushed and the snow field was much easier.

One of the concerns I would have is how well the requirements can be linked to peformance. Another as we've discussed above is some of the other factors that may get glossed over. A broken leg or hip when you are out on a mission is a serious casultie (or at least I would think it would be). You aren't walking with it at least very far or very fast. Evacuation isn't always trivial either and may have it's own consequences. At the same time there may be other factors that make it worthwhile to take the risks on a person who is not quite as fit or may have an issue like the bone fracture one.

 

LWD, the Mt St Helens? seems like you were moving fast...what accounted for the most weight?

Price, maybe I mentioned it in another post, but a buddy of mine was with the 'recon' unit of UNITAS...he wasn't that big...but he said the Peruvians couldn't hack it going up some hills.....he would pass them up.....

per LWD article, it said most of the females didn't want the combat roles.....one of the comments said, there are a lot of males that can't hump the heavy packs...as stated before, a lot of them can be conditioned to do that...the physical strength is there......not so with the females....

 

That's a bold statement, I would go so far as to say that "not all women can be conditioned to carry the required load"; the trick is finding them.

I bet if you found 10 women that are 6'1" and 240lbs, and are in any kind of shape, the majority of them could perform the task. I would also expect to find one or two that exceed the standard and one or two who fail to meet the standard.

 

I probably wouldn't want to even look at them.. ..the one's I see like that are going into the fast food places...and they can barely walk because they've had knee and back surgery.....men are generally bigger....and the females as big that, probably have male genes...so can we count them as males?