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.

http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-womem-infantry-officers-course-101512/

The Marine Corps’ effort to evaluate whether more combat jobs should open to women marked another milestone last week when the second of two female volunteers washed out of infantry officer training.

A second lieutenant, she was dropped from the program Friday after failing to complete required training due to unspecified medical reasons, a Marine official told Marine Corps Times. It’s unclear whether she was injured or if she became ill.

The other volunteer, also a second lieutenant, dropped out Sept. 28 after she was unable to complete the program’s introductory combat endurance test. Nearly 30 men also washed out on the first day.

Known as the Infantry Officers Course, the demanding 13-week program is based at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. The current class, which began with 109 students, is the first to have included women. On average, about 25 percent of the men who enroll in IOC fail to complete it and voluntarily withdraw.

The Corps sought female volunteers for the course as part of a broader research effort to assess how female Marines might perform in assignments whose primary mission is direct ground combat — jobs they are prohibited from filling now. Just the two women stepped forward. Marine officials have declined to identify them, citing a desire to protect their privacy. (Cont)

Since we seem to be talking about wimminz a lot recently and these officers just dropped I figured now would be a good time to bring up female segregation from front line combat units. There's plenty of valid arguments for both sides certainly though I find myself coming down on not letting women into the infantry at the very least just based on the sheer logistics of the matter. I see very little benefit for what will be a high cost and a lot of work. Nothing to do with whether or not she can do the job or not, I'm sure there's a good number of females who are damn handy in a scrap and I know from the Canadians that the few women they have in their infantry units perform admirably, but with things as they are now it's too much of a bother.

I remember being told that we didn't allow women on the front line as if they were captured it was far more emotive for the public to see a woman being tortured or mistreated, which would put pressure on the government to deal with their enemies to secure a release.

Forgot to link this in my OP, scroll down to the blog post. It basically is the long form of my own beliefs on the matter and is probably a little more eloquent

http://terminallance.com/2012/10/19/terminal-lance-it-writes-itself/

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-womem-infantry-officers-course-101512/

The Marine Corps’ effort to evaluate whether more combat jobs should open to women marked another milestone last week when the second of two female volunteers washed out of infantry officer training.

A second lieutenant, she was dropped from the program Friday after failing to complete required training due to unspecified medical reasons, a Marine official told Marine Corps Times. It’s unclear whether she was injured or if she became ill.

The other volunteer, also a second lieutenant, dropped out Sept. 28 after she was unable to complete the program’s introductory combat endurance test. Nearly 30 men also washed out on the first day.

Known as the Infantry Officers Course, the demanding 13-week program is based at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. The current class, which began with 109 students, is the first to have included women. On average, about 25 percent of the men who enroll in IOC fail to complete it and voluntarily withdraw.

The Corps sought female volunteers for the course as part of a broader research effort to assess how female Marines might perform in assignments whose primary mission is direct ground combat — jobs they are prohibited from filling now. Just the two women stepped forward. Marine officials have declined to identify them, citing a desire to protect their privacy. (Cont)

Since we seem to be talking about wimminz a lot recently and these officers just dropped I figured now would be a good time to bring up female segregation from front line combat units. There's plenty of valid arguments for both sides certainly though I find myself coming down on not letting women into the infantry at the very least just based on the sheer logistics of the matter. I see very little benefit for what will be a high cost and a lot of work. Nothing to do with whether or not she can do the job or not, I'm sure there's a good number of females who are damn handy in a scrap and I know from the Canadians that the few women they have in their infantry units perform admirably, but with things as they are now it's too much of a bother.

What precisely do you mean by "sheer logistics"? This is rather vague phrasing, and specifics would be easier to address in a rational manner.

If a single gender nuetral physical test is given females who can hack should be welcomed. At the same time non hacker males can be excluded and we all benefit.

 Chongara wrote:
What precisely do you mean by "sheer logistics"? This is rather vague phrasing, and specifics would be easier to address in a rational manner.

G.I. issue sanitary napkins. A logistical NIGHTMARE.

feeder wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
What precisely do you mean by "sheer logistics"? This is rather vague phrasing, and specifics would be easier to address in a rational manner.

G.I. issue sanitary napkins. A logistical NIGHTMARE.

Or the fact that per current regs females require separate sanitation facilities, sleeping quarters, etc ad nauseum from their male counterparts thus making even setting up a F.O.B in the feth end of nowhere an extra pain in the ass.

Gotta agree with Auston though, a single gender neutral PT test would be a good start on things.

feeder wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
What precisely do you mean by "sheer logistics"? This is rather vague phrasing, and specifics would be easier to address in a rational manner.

G.I. issue sanitary napkins. A logistical NIGHTMARE.

Or this?

Which is genius.

Here we go again

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

feeder wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
What precisely do you mean by "sheer logistics"? This is rather vague phrasing, and specifics would be easier to address in a rational manner.

G.I. issue sanitary napkins. A logistical NIGHTMARE.

Or the fact that per current regs females require separate sanitation facilities, sleeping quarters, etc ad nauseum from their male counterparts thus making even setting up a F.O.B in the feth end of nowhere an extra pain in the ass.

This is an issue with the current regulations. So is the fact women's roles are restricted. If we're talking one procedural change, I see no reason to assume that others wouldn't be made to accommodate it. I'm not really sure "The way we do things now would make it difficult" is a great argument against making fundamental changes to the way we're doing things.

Black soldiers used to have separate barracks as well. Things change.

I think the biggest issue is that women don't have to adhere to the same physical fitness requirements as men do.

As such, in a tight spot, a female soldier may not be capable of doing the same job as a male soldier.

You can't ask her to carry her wounded 250lb squadmate(who weights over 300 with his gear) like you could ask a male soldier.


Issues like that.

Women should be allowed into any job, but they must pass the same physical requirements as the men do.

You could also have issues of sexual harassment. It's much easier when your army is made up of one gender.

I think they should have the ability to do whatever they want. They've already proved themselves as Marines, and if they want to be infantry, I think they should be allowed to at least try.

I'd like to be committed to that statement, but something still doesn't seem right about it. I'm not sure a woman could perform the same physical duties as a man in the situations that infantry find themselves in (hoisting someone over a wall, carrying a wounded person, carrying a Machine Gun for extended periods of time, carrying excessive weight, running with gear on, etc etc).

Would they be attached to existing infantry units, or would they have their own?

I don't buy the idea that men are better at it than women. Some men are better at it then women, but I'd also bet that there are some women that are better at it then some men.

The physical requirements should be the same, and whoever can do it is in.

As to the sexual harassment angle making policy based on the worst elements of any group is not often good policy. There are racists that make it through screening, so it shouldn't be surprising if misogynistic donkey-caves can to on occasion, but that doesn't mean they should set the standard. I would prefer to think that our soldiers are professionals and that the vast majority aren't mouthbreathers who can't control themselves and can't follow orders.

 Ahtman wrote:
As to the sexual harassment angle making policy based on the worst elements of any group is not often good policy. There are racists that make it through screening, so it shouldn't be surprising if misogynistic donkey-caves can to on occasion, but that doesn't mean they should set the standard. I would prefer to think that our soldiers are professionals and that the vast majority aren't mouthbreathers who can't control themselves and can't follow orders.

From what I've read, the problem goes further than that. I've heard of rape victims being diagnosed with "pre-existing" "personality disorders" to drum them out, and in one case the victim said her superiors threatened to court martial her for adultery.

Of course, the solution is not to forbid women from joining the military (although I would advise any woman that asked me to not join), it's to root out the rapists and their sympathisers.

Simple answer is yes, they can try, why not?

They have to pass the exact same course, none of this segregation gak like they have now.. and then its properly earned.

I mean, the USMC physical is laughable anyway, but have you seen how easy it is for chicks? I think for men its 3 chin ups, but for women its "hang off the bar for ten seconds" or something fething ridiculous.

No wonder these women fethed up, they got in the USMC doing gak way easier than the male USMC!

Women should be equal, and free to try out for everything.. but they should never be allowed to progress by doing something far easier than the male recruits.

Fair's fair right? They can try out for anything, but they should have to try out same as everyone else.

I think previous discussions on this have answered these questions well. Specifically, the problem is one of political will; and not anything more then that.

This issue will cease to exist when elected officials explain to their constituents that the test for infantry is a standard test that is open to any interested volunteer and applied evenly and fairly to all applicants regardless of race, creed, orientation or gender; and that such a test can produce seemingly biased results without being inherently biased. They can further explain that being a front-line soldier is a physically demanding role ill-suited to most men and, due to the way our bodies have evolved, somewhat more women; and that as the test itself accurately represents the real world challenges our soldiers will face, it would be a grave disservice to our men and women in uniform, and the country as a whole, to artificially alter the tests to represent politically desirable battlefield that the real world will not provide.

But that would require leadership, so I expect this to be fixed sometime late next never.

I'd go mental if any girl I knew wanted to join the armed forces in a frontline capacity. But each to their own. If they can do the job that's required then sure let them have a crack.

 Testify wrote:
I'd go mental if any girl I knew wanted to join the armed forces in a frontline capacity.

Really? Does "mental" mean afraid in crumpet land?

 AustonT wrote:

 Testify wrote:
I'd go mental if any girl I knew wanted to join the armed forces in a frontline capacity.

Really? Does "mental" mean afraid in crumpet land?

Adjective
mental
(colloquial, comparable) Insane, mad, crazy.
He is the most mental freshman I've seen yet.
He went mental on us.

 mattyrm wrote:
Simple answer is yes, they can try, why not?

They have to pass the exact same course, none of this segregation gak like they have now.. and then its properly earned.

I mean, the USMC physical is laughable anyway, but have you seen how easy it is for chicks? I think for men its 3 chin ups, but for women its "hang off the bar for ten seconds" or something fething ridiculous.

No wonder these women fethed up, they got in the USMC doing gak way easier than the male USMC!

Women should be equal, and free to try out for everything.. but they should never be allowed to progress by doing something far easier than the male recruits.

Fair's fair right? They can try out for anything, but they should have to try out same as everyone else.

Three pulls ups at a bare minimum, if you're only pulling three you will be sent to remedial PT/made to do pull ups constantly through out the day till you improve. The average from my Wing squadron was about twelve pull ups, with over achievers hitting the "perfect" score of twenty regularly. Grunt units are in even better physical condition on average, even more so if you include MARSOC, STA (scout snipers) and Force Recon in the numbers.

The female PFT replaces the pull ups with a "press arm hang" (hang off the bar for x second) and I believe a perfect score is close to a minute. The three mile run is also timed differently for females. I gotta say the former always ticked me off a little bit, hanging off the bar for a minute isn't the most comfortable thing in the world, but it's a breeze compared to twenty dead hang pull ups.

The only place "equality" such as it is exists is in the one hundred crunches in two minutes, and frankly any one in decent physical condition should be able to do that without fail.

My fatass could do one hundred crunches in two minutes. That is pretty bad.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

The female PFT replaces the pull ups with a "press arm hang" (hang off the bar for x second) and I believe a perfect score is close to a minute. The three mile run is also timed differently for females. I gotta say the former always ticked me off a little bit, hanging off the bar for a minute isn't the most comfortable thing in the world, but it's a breeze compared to twenty dead hang pull ups.

The only place "equality" such as it is exists is in the one hundred crunches in two minutes, and frankly any one in decent physical condition should be able to do that without fail.

Aye thats what Im talking about, then they went off to some Army place, fethed up, and made all the USMC look bad, when their boot is easier and requires far less than the men!

Female Marine should have identical physical criteria. Its meant to be the few the proud, not the few, the proud, the physically impaired due to their gender.

I am not sexist and think women should be barred from attempting anything, I just think the ladies should have to do the exact same things, and not have longer run times or less pull-ups and such for the criteria tests.

feth me, my scrawny ass missus can do about 6 pull-ups! If you want to be a fething marine chick you best have more meat on you than my 105lb wench!

So beginning of next year the Army next with females in Ranger School.

We should send some female petty officers to BUD/S while we're at it.

They did that already. Viggo Mortensen gave her a hard time, but it all worked out in the end.

They ever came out with dollar figures on her shaving her head?

 Seaward wrote:
They did that already. Viggo Mortensen gave her a hard time, but it all worked out in the end.

Hah, which brings us to our real question.

Is Demi Moore still hot with her head shaved?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
They ever came out with dollar figures on her shaving her head?

More money then any of us will ever see?

KalashnikovMarine wrote:There's plenty of valid arguments for both sides certainly though I find myself coming down on not letting women into the infantry at the very least just based on the sheer logistics of the matter. I see very little benefit for what will be a high cost and a lot of work.

The reality is that whilst logistics may become more complicated (unless regulations change, which I think should be done), there often seems to be a shortage of sheer "man"power on modern frontlines, at least as far as the US armed forces are concerned. Take this story for example. This female medic wasn't supposed to be there, the unit only had her tag along because no-one else was available. And if the unit commander had not violated standing regulations and allowed her to come along, the soldiers she saved would have been killed.
So the current policy is not only sexist, it puts male soldiers at risk on top of that.

dæl wrote:I remember being told that we didn't allow women on the front line as if they were captured it was far more emotive for the public to see a woman being tortured or mistreated, which would put pressure on the government to deal with their enemies to secure a release.

That might actually be true, or at least extremely likely. Of course, this is just a product of the inequality. Women being regarded as the weaker sex that needs protection (and thus subconsciously triggering an emotional response) will continue to be a problem until it becomes common that women hold roles traditionally regarded as "manly".

At the end of the day, I think it's pretty sexist that it is supposedly "okayer" for a man to get tortured or mistreated or killed in action.

Mr Nobodyg wrote:You could also have issues of sexual harassment. It's much easier when your army is made up of one gender.

You could also have issues of racism. It's much easier when your army is made up of one skin colour.

Oh, and of course all the gay people better stay out as well.

...

Nah, I'm with mattyrm on this one. Everyone who passes the tests (which really should be uniform, and in other nations are) and is able to do the job should be in. Everyone who doesn't make the cut should be left out. Regardless of silly caste-like definitions such as ethnicity or gender. Either you can do something, or you can't.