Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/10/24 19:23:23
Subject: Re:Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/10/24 19:26:29
Subject: Re:Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Oddly enough, I think the different physical requirements is the byproduct of the desire to have an integrated armed forces.
They deliberatly set the bar lower for women so they could instantly get women into the armed forces and fulfill some artificial requirement they have X percentage of women soldiers.
Whenever we have tried to force segregation, it almost always results in the bar being set artificially low or silly measures being taken.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
I think different physical requirements is, ultimately, harmful to the cause. Not only does it result in overall reduced efficiency of the military (unless you really need bodies, but then I'd suggest simply dropping the bar for both genders a bit, rather than one gender a lot), it also provides free ammo for the scepticists and mysogynists who can now claim that any female soldier isn't as capable, even if she would have been one of the few who would have accomplished the male tests. Some soldiers "having it easier" will also have an averse effect on unit morale, I think. It just hampers actual integration. You'll have the numbers on paper ... but in practice?
2012/10/24 19:36:21
Subject: Re:Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course
If they lower the standards from Ranger school to make females pass it then we have a serious problem in the Army
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/24 19:44:57
Subject: Re:Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course
Jihadin wrote: If they lower the standards from Ranger school to make females pass it then we have a serious problem in the Army
They lowered the standards at Ranger School when they let CSS in. It is what it is now, a leadership school not a challenging mark of the elite line infantry.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/10/24 20:04:23
Subject: Re:Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course
Jihadin wrote: If they lower the standards from Ranger school to make females pass it then we have a serious problem in the Army
This would be a surprise how?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/10/25 01:09:09
Subject: Re:Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/25 01:12:50
Subject: Re:Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/10/25 05:09:58
Subject: Re:Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course
Jihadin wrote: Then the tab is no longer worth the title.
IMO it hasn't for awhile. To me without the scroll it's just a career move. YMMV
From an outsider perspective we (and I say we as in "Me and most of the Marines I know) find the Ranger process extremely.... confusing/odd. Personally I feel like the tab, title, beanie, the marks of a Ranger need to be reserved for people who take the scroll and are part of an elite light infantry force as opposed to graduates of a rather brutal leadership school/training course. (Who just get the tab but still). Sure it sounds bad ass to say you're a ranger... but why not have some other title and tab for graduates of the course that doesn't end with you being... well an actual Ranger? Surely there's other names for the course.
The only equivalent I can think of in the Corps, or really more the closest equivalent I can think of, would be someone trying to open a "Recon" or "Force Recon" leadership course that doesn't end with one in one of the Force Recon units. Albeit a person who TRIED to do that would get kicked in the head before it could get implemented.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
You talking the training of the course or the tab/scroll itself? Course is small unit tactics. The tab you recieve on completion. The scroll you recieve when your in combat attach/assigned to a ranger bat. There's only 3 active ranger battalions (4th is the training) Rangers is the stepping stone to advance to SF/Delta or a career progression of the chain of command.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/25 05:30:12
Subject: Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course
I was under the Impression that the course is different depending on whether you're going to the battalions or whether you're just picking up your tab.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I was under the Impression that the course is different depending on whether you're going to the battalions or whether you're just picking up your tab.
The course is the same no matter who you are. There are soldiers in the regiment that are not tabbed, there are soldiers outside the regiment that are tabbed. But in my point of view only those who are tabbed and in the regiment are Rangers. I'm not alone, I'm actually pretty sure that is the "mainstream" view. Believe it or not there are Marines who go to and complete ranger school every year like a handful tops and they are mostly Marsoc cats.
Edit: by "the regiment" I mean 75th Ranger Rgt which is the combined name for all three BNs.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/10/25 06:31:26
Subject: Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course
So after some searching I found this, which is an interview from Maclean's Magazine here in Canada with the fellow who wrote the book called, "Co-ed Combat" and is of the opinion that women should not be the in the army at all, let alone in combat roles.
Spoiler:
'You hear about slack discipline in mixed sex units because members are devoting too much attention to the opposite sex'. Author of 'Co-ed Combat' talks to Kate Fillion about why all women in the U.S. military should be out of Iraq
KATE FILLION | November 8, 2007 |
A: There clearly is at least an incipient movement, you see it in much of the press, where there have been a lot of stories about how women in Iraq are basically doing the same things as men and how the services there, particularly the army, are chafing under the restrictions of the prohibition on [female participation in] ground combat. Survey numbers show that about 10 per cent of military women say they themselves would be willing to volunteer for combat, but larger numbers say that women who want to should have the option.
Q: What would be wrong with letting that 10 per cent volunteer?
A: The argument that's made frequently is that combat is no longer a test of brawn but of brains, so while it's true that men are stronger than women, it doesn't matter. But strength still matters! In the infantry, the typical soldier is carrying at a minimum 60 lb., and a lot are carrying 75 to 100 lb. That's a very heavy load, and it's not just that you have to carry it across the street, you have to carry it for miles, then have sufficient energy reserves to dig into what might be very hard ground, and then do what you went there for: engage in a fight with the enemy. Strength matters even on warships. You might have a job — cook, say, or radioman — that doesn't require much strength when things are operating normally, but if the ship gets hit by a missile, suddenly everybody's job is damage control. When a U.S. ship hit an Iranian mine in the Persian Gulf in 1988 and almost sank, the captain ordered the magazine emptied of ammunition so it didn't blow up the ship, and the shells were 50 lb. apiece. Twenty per cent of the ship's crew was in a bucket brigade, passing these shells down the line. When bad things happen you often do need strength. Let's say you're a pilot whose airplane is attacked by hostile fire. One 220-lb. pilot who was in that position said it took every ounce of strength he had to keep the airplane steady. And he was a big, beefy guy.
Q: Is there any other reason women shouldn't be flying combat aircraft?
A: Well, the possibility of being a POW, which raises special problems. Once captured, female prisoners face a substantial risk of rape, and that's something that, for the most part, men don't face.
Q: If a woman is willing to take that risk, shouldn't she be allowed to?
A: The thing is, it doesn't just affect her. The captors may very well also have male prisoners, and can use the abuse or threats of abuse of female prisoners as a means of extracting information or other kinds of co-operation from male prisoners. We know from the air force training that even in simulations, men are much more distressed by abuse of their female comrades than their male comrades. You don't want to give the enemy an extra tool. Another issue is the effect on national morale when females are taken prisoner. The Jessica Lynch example showed pretty clearly that it's perceived as a greater blow to the nation when females are captured — and we see now how public perceptions of how we're doing and the costs we're paying affect the resolve to continue a conflict.
Q: You say we're not getting the full picture of women's military performance in Iraq. What information is being withheld?
A: The mainstream press in general seems favourably disposed toward the service of women, so we get stories only of their good performance, we don't hear about their bad performance. But you do hear anecdotal reports, not so much about women's performance under fire as much as about slack discipline in the mixed sex support units, because the members are often devoting too much of their attention to the opposite sex. There's too much monkey business.
Q: I was surprised that a central command officer told you no one is collecting information about the number of soldiers who get pregnant in Iraq.
A: I cannot believe the U.S. military is so unconcerned with the causes of personnel loss that they aren't keeping track, but releasing it is another matter. They don't see any advantage in saying that even a small number of women are leaving because of pregnancy. A statistic that you see frequently is that at any one time, about 10 per cent of the women serving in the military — not just in Iraq, but in every part of the military — are pregnant. So far, 155,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan altogether, so I'd guess that hundreds, and likely more, have become pregnant and returned home, or weren't able to deploy in the first place because they were pregnant.
Q: Aside from the risk of pregnancy, what are some of the other issues in mixed sex units?
Q: A lot of the arguments you're making are the same ones that have been made about gays in the military: the negative effects on unit cohesion, the introduction of sexual tension, the perception of weakness.
A: It's a somewhat different issue, but not entirely. And in the U.S. Army [unlike the Canadian military], the rule is that homosexuals cannot serve. A lot of people don't understand that "don't ask, don't tell" is a Department of Defense enforcement regulation of a federal statute, which says essentially that those who engage in or desire to engage in homosexual activities are not eligible to serve in the armed forces.
Q: Do you think there are any other fields where full integration of women is a bad idea, or are you solely opposed to it in the military?
A: I've studied occupational segregation in the civilian world, and I think psychological and physical differences are a substantial cause of what we see in terms of the glass ceiling and gender gap. Even in the absence of discrimination, you would still see substantial differences in the way men and women sort themselves out in the workplace. But the thing about the military is, one, the challenges are so intense in combat, and two, the consequences of doing poorly, and the national security consequences also, are so potentially serious. Another thing is that while there are individual requirements such as strength, which is relatively easily measured, a lot of the psychological attributes that go into being an effective combat soldier are not so easy to measure. One recurrent theme of combat behaviour literature is that it's always a surprise who ends up doing well.
Q: By the same token, could you not argue that women could surprise you?
A: I have no doubt that there are a few women who possess the requisite strength and personality profile to be individually effective soldiers.
Q: What's the personality profile, exactly?
A: Fairly high risk preference, less fearful of things than other people, more physically aggressive and dominant than people in general, higher pain tolerance, less empathic than people in general — you've got to be able to detach yourself from the fact that the person whose head you're about to blow off is another human being with a family, and having killed, you need to be able to deal with it without excessive guilt. I don't think there are very many women with that profile, but it's not just about individual traits, it's about how groups interact. It's a truism that individuals don't fight wars, groups do. You fight as a unit. Can a mixed sex group be as cohesive? What is the effect of the kind of sexual competition that always goes on in groups of people in their prime mating years? Another issue related to cohesion is trust: combat soldiers have to be able to trust that their comrades have their back, they have to have confidence in their leaders and a willingness to follow them. The traits men identify in effective fighters tend to be very stereotypically masculine: courage, physical strength, leadership. In dangerous situations, women don't trigger that kind of trust in men.
Q: What if she's holding a powerful weapon and is higher-ranked?
A: These preferences exist to a large extent independent of what created them in our psyche. In ancient times, when everyone agrees that warfare was a matter of brawn, women would not have been effective fighters. In our evolutionary past, the selection of comrades for fighting and other dangerous activities would have had substantial fitness consequences, in the sense that if you trusted the wrong person, you died. So that would have created a substantial pressure for men to respond, on an intuitive rather than cognitive level, to a man who possessed the traits associated with being an effective fighter and hunter.
Q: So this lack of trust men have can't be overturned by new evidence?
A: The decision to trust is what psychologists call fast and shallow; we don't write down pros and cons, it's a gut-level judgment and it's very difficult to change on the basis of cognitive input. It's like trying to tell somebody who's afraid of snakes that you don't have to be afraid, they're not poisonous. The person says, "Okay, fine, but get them away from me."
Q: In Iraq, and increasingly in Afghanistan, there's no such thing as a 100 per cent combat-free zone. So is your position that no women at all should be sent to either country, even in support positions?
A: I think that to the extent that all of Iraq is a war zone and all of the personnel serving there are subject to combat risks, then my argument would be yes, women should be excluded.
Q: In which case they'll never rise to the top ranks of the military.
A: If you look at promotion statistics [in the U.S.], women are often promoted at a disproportionately high rate.
Q: Only in the past 20 or 30 years.
A: Forty years ago, the U.S. military was capped at two per cent female, so yes. Only in 1976 were the service academies opened to women. But over the last 20 years, even with the combat exclusion, women tended to do reasonably well, overall, in terms of promotion. But clearly, a woman's probability of rising to the very top echelons of the military is very slight as long as women are excluded from combat.
Q: In the U.S., the military has traditionally provided a socio-economic ladder out of poverty. If women were barred even from support positions in Iraq, that ladder wouldn't be as available for women as men.
A: Actually, the military might accept more women into training than it currently does. The percentage of female enlistees has gone down since 2000, and one interpretation is that women don't want to be exposed to combat risks, as they are in Iraq. If you're joining the military looking for a job or training, rather than looking to fight, the prospect of getting blown up is a disincentive.
A: The argument that's made frequently is that combat is no longer a test of brawn but of brains, so while it's true that men are stronger than women, it doesn't matter. But strength still matters! In the infantry, the typical soldier is carrying at a minimum 60 lb., and a lot are carrying 75 to 100 lb. That's a very heavy load, and it's not just that you have to carry it across the street, you have to carry it for miles, then have sufficient energy reserves to dig into what might be very hard ground, and then do what you went there for: engage in a fight with the enemy.
I've seen up to 120 pounds for a paratrooper. The problem isn't that women are weak and can't carry their weight, it's that some dumbasses have the troops carrying 70% more crap than the recommendations state they should, and it significantly reduces their combat effectiveness - both in the short term due to fatigue and in the long term due to injury.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
2012/10/25 07:55:21
Subject: Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I was under the Impression that the course is different depending on whether you're going to the battalions or whether you're just picking up your tab.
The course is the same no matter who you are. There are soldiers in the regiment that are not tabbed, there are soldiers outside the regiment that are tabbed. But in my point of view only those who are tabbed and in the regiment are Rangers. I'm not alone, I'm actually pretty sure that is the "mainstream" view. Believe it or not there are Marines who go to and complete ranger school every year like a handful tops and they are mostly Marsoc cats.
Edit: by "the regiment" I mean 75th Ranger Rgt which is the combined name for all three BNs.
I did actually know there's some Marines who've done Ranger school... isn't there like one Marine in the Ranger Hall of Fame too?
Apparently Matty and I aren't the only ones who think female Marines need to start pulling their own weight (it's a pull up joke, take a breath) I wonder why this plan got blocked? minimum of one pull up with six for a max score is way nicer then the theoretical plan the Ops Chief and I drew up for giggles when I was at Yuma.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/25 08:59:12
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
So two women volunteered for the officer course, were given the same requirements as male entrants, failed and so didn't pass. Seems like the system working pretty well.
Anyhoo, now that the gay thing has blown over, is women in the army the new thing people are going to claim is totally destroying the nation's ability to defend itself?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/25 09:29:52
Subject: Re:Women in the Infantry: Female Marines fail out of Infantry Officer's course