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.
So at the moment Female Marine officers are 0 for 30 attempting to make it into infantry. Historically the IOC has a 25% attrition rate for males but so far it has proven impossible for the females.
The one bright side is that this last female to fail, joined up attempting to be Infantry so she will get a 2nd shot at the course (SIDE NOTE: She was dropped for failing the Ruck twice, as were 2 males). So she has another chance to get past Week 2 of the 10 week long course.
As far as cost efficiency is concerned this is quickly turning into a rather large waste of tax payers money, not saying there aren't a number of other huge wastes. This springs to mind
But at what point do we say enough is enough, lets stop wasting time and money on this failed/failing social experiment.
I'm not sure if 0 for 30 is something we can apply the phrase "proven impossible" to. 30 women have gone in and failed, which is not very many nor necessarily a representation of the best possible candidates. Furthermore, women make up a substantial amount of the taxes that go into paying for this training. So if they believe that it should continue then it should. Some men feel that it really isn't a waste either. It is pretty odd to tell the young girls growing up that they can be anything they want, except "insert list of things we don't want icky girls in". Women were not suppose to become astronauts, yet some did it and now a woman might become a president despite that never having happened before. I think many women want other women to keep trying to achieve what is said to be "proven impossible".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 03:13:49
Considering the Corps budget is massively reduced, it is a foolish waste to keep throwing women into this course to find one that might make it while at the same time blocking out men who have a 75% chance of success.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 03:28:45
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm not sure if 0 for 30 is something we can apply the phrase "proven impossible" to. 30 women have gone in and failed, which is not very many nor necessarily a representation of the best possible candidates. Furthermore, women make up a substantial amount of the taxes that go into paying for this training. So if they believe that it should continue then it should. Some men feel that it really isn't a waste either. It is pretty odd to tell the young girls growing up that they can be anything they want, except "insert list of things we don't want icky girls in". Women were not suppose to become astronauts, yet some did it and now a woman might become a president despite that never having happened before. I think many women want other women to keep trying to achieve what is said to be "proven impossible".
Well, girls can grow up to be anything they want, Except be in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS, MLL, or insert any other professional sporting league here. Why can't women join those sports leagues? Oh it is because women can not compete against males at that level because of inherent differences between the sexes, IE Men are bigger, stronger, faster on average then women. So why in gods name would be ban women from competing in a sporting event but not keep them out of Combat arms where the price of failure isn't a bad season, or missing the playoffs but is instead Death, either their own death or the deaths of those who serve with them.
As far as it not being enough candidates to prove it is impossible I would disagree with you on that, 30 is a very small number, the USMC female officer corps is roughly 1,430 Female officers. so 30 is about what? 2% of the total? I would say that 2% sample size of a population is a fairly large sample size. Furthermore, these candidates were all volunteers who chose to attempt IOC rather then being forced into it. Therefore they probably make up the best candidates available, as they had the desire to attempt it.
And in reference to your comment on taxes, that is a strawman at best. Just because a female pays taxes doesn't mean she is on board with wasting those taxes on failed social experiments.
30 is too small of a sample size for any conclusion to be drawn.
That said, I do think that if no women ever manage to pass the test, there is a point where we need to re-evaluate the cost-effectiveness of letting them attempt it. I just don't know where that point is.
BrotherGecko wrote: Furthermore, women make up a substantial amount of the taxes that go into paying for this training.
As do people who have physical and mental disabilities, yet there is a general consensus that letting someone with one leg try out to be a Navy SEAL is a waste of money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 03:33:31
BlaxicanX wrote: 30 is too small of a sample size for any conclusion to be drawn.
That said, I do think that if no women ever manage to pass the test, there is a point where we need to re-evaluate the cost-effectiveness of letting them attempt it. I just don't know where that point is.
BrotherGecko wrote: Furthermore, women make up a substantial amount of the taxes that go into paying for this training.
As do people who have physical and mental disabilities, yet there is a general consensus that letting someone with one leg try out to be a Navy SEAL is a waste of money.
Even though you are on my side so to speak in this debate i have to point out that I served with a Marine officer who had his leg blown off in Afghanistan. A couple of years later he was right back over there kicking butts and taking names. Granted he was a POG after his leg was blown off.
I didn't mean to imply that people with disabilities have no place in the military. Rather, my point is that people being automatically disqualified from certain roles in the military through things entirely beyond their control (such as physiology) is fairly common. Like you said, that marine is a pogue- even if the service he provides post-injury is a very important and valuable one, his days of rucksacking through the mountains are over.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/29 03:47:25
It boils down to the current Sec. of Defense being an equal rights advocate and using the U.S. Military to conduct social experiments.
In related news the first woman passed Ranger School and became the first female infantry officer this week. Scuttlebutt says that she was told that she would make it through regardless. They bucked SOP and let things slide to make it easier on the women Ranger Candidates.
Women in the infantry, as front line troops, or SF snake eaters is a really bad idea.
No 'buts' about it.
Namby-pamby SJW-ing social experiments have no place in the military. The military is not a place for guinea pigging the newest leftist touchy feely warm fuzzy disfunctional ideas.
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
BlaxicanX wrote: I didn't mean to imply that people with disabilities have no place in the military. Rather, my point is that people being automatically disqualified from certain roles in the military through things entirely beyond their control (such as physiology) is fairly common. Like you said, that marine is a pogue- even if the service he provides post-injury is a very important and valuable one, his days of rucksacking through the mountains are over.
Exactly; Just because you can't fight on the front lines does not mean you can't make a valid contribution to the military. This idea of putting women into Special Forces and Combat arms smells of political motivation rather then a actual tactical/strategic benefit. In an age where military spending is going down, the military is shrinking, why are they willing to spend significantly more money to allow females to attempt to get into these MOS's that were previously closed to them, when so far all of the statistics show that they have a significantly higher attrition rate and are slowing down the school house pipeline.
I love the idea that the IOC hasn't lowered the standards, and I hope to god the USMC raises its standards across the board, this double standard for PT is absolutely ridiculous. If you want to play with the men then you need to follow the same rules.
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm not sure if 0 for 30 is something we can apply the phrase "proven impossible" to. 30 women have gone in and failed, which is not very many nor necessarily a representation of the best possible candidates. Furthermore, women make up a substantial amount of the taxes that go into paying for this training. So if they believe that it should continue then it should. Some men feel that it really isn't a waste either. It is pretty odd to tell the young girls growing up that they can be anything they want, except "insert list of things we don't want icky girls in". Women were not suppose to become astronauts, yet some did it and now a woman might become a president despite that never having happened before. I think many women want other women to keep trying to achieve what is said to be "proven impossible".
Well, girls can grow up to be anything they want, Except be in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS, MLL, or insert any other professional sporting league here. Why can't women join those sports leagues? Oh it is because women can not compete against males at that level because of inherent differences between the sexes, IE Men are bigger, stronger, faster on average then women. So why in gods name would be ban women from competing in a sporting event but not keep them out of Combat arms where the price of failure isn't a bad season, or missing the playoffs but is instead Death, either their own death or the deaths of those who serve with them.
As far as it not being enough candidates to prove it is impossible I would disagree with you on that, 30 is a very small number, the USMC female officer corps is roughly 1,430 Female officers. so 30 is about what? 2% of the total? I would say that 2% sample size of a population is a fairly large sample size. Furthermore, these candidates were all volunteers who chose to attempt IOC rather then being forced into it. Therefore they probably make up the best candidates available, as they had the desire to attempt it.
And in reference to your comment on taxes, that is a strawman at best. Just because a female pays taxes doesn't mean she is on board with wasting those taxes on failed social experiments.
I did not realize those sports organizations were government ran. Waaaaaait a second, they are not so they are in no way a good comparison here? You almost got me!
As long as women pay taxes to support the Military, they should be given every opportunity to pursue their dreams of being in the infantry. Limiting what people do just because we do not feel it is worth it is not what this country is about. The argument is not a strawman in any way and just attempting to wave it off as one is silly.
It's absolutely a political move, there is no room for a woman in a combat unit.
Women need to be in support and logistics, anything that doesn't require 11B or 0311 as the core of their skill set.
Truckers, cooks, plumbers, electricians, any REMF position, but not combat forward specializations!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 04:00:50
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
It already has. Let's make sure we keep this thread polite and open for discussion, rather than coming straight out first page swinging for the fences. Thanks.
I've removed a few posts that, while not necessarily inaccurate, were a bit off topic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 04:02:00
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm not sure if 0 for 30 is something we can apply the phrase "proven impossible" to. 30 women have gone in and failed, which is not very many nor necessarily a representation of the best possible candidates. Furthermore, women make up a substantial amount of the taxes that go into paying for this training. So if they believe that it should continue then it should. Some men feel that it really isn't a waste either. It is pretty odd to tell the young girls growing up that they can be anything they want, except "insert list of things we don't want icky girls in". Women were not suppose to become astronauts, yet some did it and now a woman might become a president despite that never having happened before. I think many women want other women to keep trying to achieve what is said to be "proven impossible".
Well, girls can grow up to be anything they want, Except be in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS, MLL, or insert any other professional sporting league here. Why can't women join those sports leagues? Oh it is because women can not compete against males at that level because of inherent differences between the sexes, IE Men are bigger, stronger, faster on average then women. So why in gods name would be ban women from competing in a sporting event but not keep them out of Combat arms where the price of failure isn't a bad season, or missing the playoffs but is instead Death, either their own death or the deaths of those who serve with them.
As far as it not being enough candidates to prove it is impossible I would disagree with you on that, 30 is a very small number, the USMC female officer corps is roughly 1,430 Female officers. so 30 is about what? 2% of the total? I would say that 2% sample size of a population is a fairly large sample size. Furthermore, these candidates were all volunteers who chose to attempt IOC rather then being forced into it. Therefore they probably make up the best candidates available, as they had the desire to attempt it.
And in reference to your comment on taxes, that is a strawman at best. Just because a female pays taxes doesn't mean she is on board with wasting those taxes on failed social experiments.
I did not realize those sports organizations were government ran. Waaaaaait a second, they are not so they are in no way a good comparison here? You almost got me!
As long as women pay taxes to support the Military, they should be given every opportunity to pursue their dreams of being in the infantry. Limiting what people do just because we do not feel it is worth it is not what this country is about. The argument is not a strawman in any way and just attempting to wave it off as one is silly.
So because professional sports aren't run by the government it is perfectly fine to allow them to discriminate based on ability, where the consequences are significantly less then in the military. That just seems foolish
Maybe I don't understand your argument here. Because the military is run by the government they are duty bound then to allow people who are proven to be of lesser quality in regards to certain jobs IE Infantry/Combat Arms, to both join them and deploy in them. I mean hell its only peoples lives who cares. Keep in mind this is the same government that says you can't do drugs because you might die, and the same government that says you can't drink and drive because you might die and or kill someone else. But apparently your allowed to kill others in the military because "reasons".
And removing wasteful military/government spending should be the goal of everyone.
So far as women in combat roles, I support equal opportunities, even when they don't lead to equal outcomes.
If a combat role has legitimate real-world physical requirements that for biological realities less women will be likely to qualify for, that is not a problem in my mind.
I don't see a valid reason to close those roles off to the women who might qualify, however. The "waste of taxpayer dollars" idea is a non-starter. These classes are going to be run anyway, these women are already enlisted anyway, these are sunk costs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 04:04:37
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: So far as women in combat roles, I support equal opportunities, even when they don't lead to equal outcomes.
If a combat role has legitimate real-world physical requirements that for biological realities less women will be likely to qualify for, that is not a problem in my mind.
I don't see a valid reason to close those roles off to the women who might qualify, however.
So you don't see a massive increase in training cost as being a bad thing? On a fixed military budget that means that less money will be allocated towards training, if you are not a student of history I strongly suggest you look up how well the US army did in the Korean War when they weren't given enough money to properly train their troops for combat.
EDIT: I just saw your edit, you are 100% wrong, these classes are already going to happen you are right about that. However, you seem to not understand what a wasted training space is. IF I have the money to train 100 people for something I want those 100 people trained, bottom line. When I send 100 males to IOC to train I get 75% return not bad. When I send women, well we don't know yet because so far the attrition rate is 100%. So yes that same money is being spent, but instead of getting a return on that money it is being WASTED
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 04:07:43
FYI it's ONLY the USMC Commandant who is speaking out about the issue, the Army is going along with it.
Devil Dogs gotta be tougher and are not interested in anything less than the best, that's why they won't be lowering their standards for Combat Arms.
The officer structure in the Army seems to be more politically inclined, whereas the Marines respect a good trooper first and from what I gather Officer Candidates come up from the ranks; opposingly the Army picks college boys and military school grads.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
Dreadwinter wrote: . Limiting what people do just because we do not feel it is worth it is not what this country is about.
It kind of is when practicality is top-priority, as I explained earlier in the thread.
Not even a little bit what this country is about. We are based on freedom and the fact that we believe our citizens can do whatever they set their mind on doing. If a woman wishes to join an infantry unit, she should have every opportunity to prove she is capable. If she does not pass, that is one thing. But she should never be told "No, you cannot even try because you are a woman." That is just ridiculous.
Women have been proven to be effective in combat roles in the world. Right now there are women fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen. But somehow our women are not as good as those women? I find that hard to believe.
Ouze wrote: I don't believe it's a massive increase in training costs.
I agree you are right about that. At the moment it won't be a massive increase in training costs, it will be a massive decrease in value of that training. When attrition rates go up, rate of return goes down. Instead of receiving back a trained soldier/sailor/airmen/Marine you are getting a person who failed, and has to go back into the training pool to either try again or attempt a different school. So it is wasting money. This leads to a withering away of combat readiness and unit potential as well as taking training spaces away from those with a proven higher chance of graduating.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote: FYI it's ONLY the USMC Commandant who is speaking out about the issue, the Army is going along with it.
Devil Dogs gotta be tougher and are not interested in anything less than the best, that's why they won't be lowering their standards for Combat Arms.
The officer structure in the Army seems to be more politically inclined, whereas the Marines respect a good trooper first and from what I gather Officer Candidates come up from the ranks; opposingly the Army picks college boys and military school grads.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
unfortunately your wrong, the USMC takes college kids to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 04:11:16
SemperMortis wrote: EDIT: I just saw your edit, you are 100% wrong, these classes are already going to happen you are right about that. However, you seem to not understand what a wasted training space is. IF I have the money to train 100 people for something I want those 100 people trained, bottom line. When I send 100 males to IOC to train I get 75% return not bad. When I send women, well we don't know yet because so far the attrition rate is 100%. So yes that same money is being spent, but instead of getting a return on that money it is being WASTED
And how many spots were "wasted"?
If you have a class of 100, and some are women, then they failed and those spots were "wasted" and this is an outrage. Lets assume that all 30 were in one class, this is a horrible waste of taxpayer dollars.
However, if it's men only, then every class of 100 has 25 fail, over and over again, for years running, and this isn't a problem in your mind.
Some pretty selective outrage if you ask me.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Dreadwinter wrote: . Limiting what people do just because we do not feel it is worth it is not what this country is about.
It kind of is when practicality is top-priority, as I explained earlier in the thread.
Not even a little bit what this country is about. We are based on freedom and the fact that we believe our citizens can do whatever they set their mind on doing. If a woman wishes to join an infantry unit, she should have every opportunity to prove she is capable. If she does not pass, that is one thing. But she should never be told "No, you cannot even try because you are a woman." That is just ridiculous.
Women have been proven to be effective in combat roles in the world. Right now there are women fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen. But somehow our women are not as good as those women? I find that hard to believe.
And those women are dying at an alarming rate, and we in the US don't like wasting lives that can be spared by simply utilizing the best tool for the job. IE Men in combat arms.
Our country is based on freedom but it also (at least used to be) based on common fething sense. Apparently in this current PC climate, telling the truth isn't allowed because there might be that one random female who can make it, and we should spend millions of dollars allowing her to have her dream come true.
Dreadwinter wrote: . Limiting what people do just because we do not feel it is worth it is not what this country is about.
It kind of is when practicality is top-priority, as I explained earlier in the thread.
Not even a little bit what this country is about. We are based on freedom and the fact that we believe our citizens can do whatever they set their mind on doing. If a woman wishes to join an infantry unit, she should have every opportunity to prove she is capable. If she does not pass, that is one thing. But she should never be told "No, you cannot even try because you are a woman." That is just ridiculous.
Women have been proven to be effective in combat roles in the world. Right now there are women fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen. But somehow our women are not as good as those women? I find that hard to believe.
Did you read the examples I gave? It kind of feels like you're throwing platitudes at me rather than actually engaging my argument.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/29 04:20:12
SemperMortis wrote: EDIT: I just saw your edit, you are 100% wrong, these classes are already going to happen you are right about that. However, you seem to not understand what a wasted training space is. IF I have the money to train 100 people for something I want those 100 people trained, bottom line. When I send 100 males to IOC to train I get 75% return not bad. When I send women, well we don't know yet because so far the attrition rate is 100%. So yes that same money is being spent, but instead of getting a return on that money it is being WASTED
And how many spots were "wasted"?
If you have a class of 100, and some are women, then they failed and those spots were "wasted" and this is an outrage. Lets assume that all 30 were in one class, this is a horrible waste of taxpayer dollars.
However, if it's men only, then every class of 100 has 25 fail, over and over again, for years running, and this isn't a problem in your mind.
Some pretty selective outrage if you ask me.
Or your terrible with both math and applying common sense to those statistics.
75% of males graduate IOC
0% of females graduate IOC
With a significantly easier PFT and PT requirements Female marines HAVE graduated ITB (Infantry Training Battalion) which is an entry level training center for USMC Infantry
Male attrition rate for ITB is around 2%
Female attrition rate for ITB is around 56%
So if an ITB class has 100 seats and 98 graduate I have 98 marines ready to hit the fleet (if they are male)
IF it is a female battalion I have 44 Marines ready to hit the fleet.
If you don't understand that is a problem then I don't know what to tell you except welcome to the real world?
Dreadwinter wrote: . Limiting what people do just because we do not feel it is worth it is not what this country is about.
It kind of is when practicality is top-priority, as I explained earlier in the thread.
Not even a little bit what this country is about. We are based on freedom and the fact that we believe our citizens can do whatever they set their mind on doing. If a woman wishes to join an infantry unit, she should have every opportunity to prove she is capable. If she does not pass, that is one thing. But she should never be told "No, you cannot even try because you are a woman." That is just ridiculous.
Women have been proven to be effective in combat roles in the world. Right now there are women fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen. But somehow our women are not as good as those women? I find that hard to believe.
And those women are dying at an alarming rate, and we in the US don't like wasting lives that can be spared by simply utilizing the best tool for the job. IE Men in combat arms.
Our country is based on freedom but it also (at least used to be) based on common fething sense. Apparently in this current PC climate, telling the truth isn't allowed because there might be that one random female who can make it, and we should spend millions of dollars allowing her to have her dream come true.
No, stop. This is not an issue about the current PC climate and I believe there has already been a warning in this thread about that sort of terrible argument.
This country was never based on "common fething sense" if you look back on the original constitution. Do you believe that having slaves is "common fething sense"? Do you believe that women not being able to vote is "common fething sense"? Or is that all just about the "PC climate"? Come on now, need a history lesson?
You are also trying to make this sound worse than it is to support your argument. 30 people does not mean there will only be one random female who can make it. It also does not mean we are going to spend millions of dollars on her dream coming true.
Your outrage at 30 people failing is indicateive of "outrage culture." Stop feeding in to "outrage culture." (See what I did there? I threw your argument right back at you)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 04:20:58
Our country is based on freedom but it also (at least used to be) based on common fething sense. Apparently in this current PC climate, telling the truth isn't allowed because there might be that one random female who can make it, and we should spend millions of dollars allowing her to have her dream come true.
It costs $70,000 to have one person participate in the course?
It already has. Let's make sure we keep this thread polite and open for discussion, rather than coming straight out first page swinging for the fences. Thanks.
I've removed a few posts that, while not necessarily inaccurate, were a bit off topic.
Sure. Maybe I approached that a bit strong; but the question to ask is, "who is the Army trying to impress with this, the equal rights and 3rd wave feminist crowd, or their country's enemies?"
Generally speaking a country's military should inspire dread and awe in its enemies, this move seems to be an appeasement to an uninformed civilian population that wants things the way it feels they "should be" instead of understanding how things actually "are".
We pay taxes to train and outfit a military, we the good people want bad men to do bad things on our behalf.
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
Do you really think the most technologically advanced army to ever exist on this planet is inspiring less dread and awe because women are being allowed to try out for an infantry position?
Do you really believe people care what sex the person is that is trying to kill them? Do you believe that they can even tell with all that gear on?
