30th Female Marine officer Fails IOC

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.

**Vaktathi**

xraytango wrote:
The military is not a place for guinea pigging the newest leftist touchy feely warm fuzzy disfunctional ideas.

To be fair, it has been repeatedly throughout US history. Racial integration for example started with the military way earlier than it was begun in the civilian realm.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

SemperMortis wrote:
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.

There's been some real doozies here in the OT over the years, but this definitely one of the top ones, even for one of these threads.

Ouze wrote:
I'm supposed to be really mad about the first number, but just shrug about the second one. Why?

Because of this, obviously:

Spoiler:

**SemperMortis**

d-usa wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:

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?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

If you don't understand that is a problem then I don't know what to tell you except welcome to the real world?

The real world has real numbers?

I took a quick look and couldn't find the cost for sending a single Officer through IOC or an enlisted Marine through ITB, however I did find this.

Opening infantry jobs to female Marines could cost the Marine Corps nearly $2 million per year in additional recruiting and retention expenditures, according to a new study published by the Rand Corp.

Recurring costs could also include additional physical conditioning time as necessary, lost time necessary to recover from increased injury rates, as well as any other alterations to training or continued implementation of policy changes," the researchers wrote.

And even with all combat fields open, data suggests the number of women in Marine infantry jobs will remain small, the report concludes. The Corps would need to recruit 100 female grunts per year to build an infantry that is 2 percent female, assuming optimistically high boot camp and infantry training graduation rates.

So an extra 2 million a year to field the same number of infantry in the USMC, but now 2% will be women.

**Dreadwinter**

Considering the size of the military budget, I am totally fine with an extra 2 million a year. That is not that much at all.

**Ouze**

SemperMortis wrote:
So an extra 2 million a year to field the same number of infantry in the USMC, but now 2% will be women.

2 million dollars a year is 0.08% of the USMC yearly budget.

**SemperMortis**

Dreadwinter wrote:
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?

Yes and Yes, If you don't believe me then ask any poor Grunt who had to escort the FET and Lioness teams around. The Taliban at least knew the difference and after a few firefights those female teams had to be assigned infantry handlers to make sure they didn't get lit up anymore.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
So an extra 2 million a year to field the same number of infantry in the USMC, but now 2% will be women.

2 million dollars a year is 0.08% of the USMC yearly budget.

SO in your own words you are willing to pay a higher price for our military to be LESS effective. got it. Sorry that was meant for dreadwinter, but you clearly believe the same so

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Ouze wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
So an extra 2 million a year to field the same number of infantry in the USMC, but now 2% will be women.

2 million dollars a year is 0.08% of the USMC yearly budget.

Well it's clearly the straw that broke the camel's back.

Not only are our enemies no longer afraid of us, but we're just pissing away money left and right. It's only a matter of time before society collapses.

**Ouze**

SemperMortis wrote:
SO in your own words you are willing to pay a higher price for our military to be LESS effective. got it. Sorry that was meant for dreadwinter, but you clearly believe the same so

Doesn't sound like you need me present to invent things you'd like me to say, so you can rebut them.

Still waiting for that explanation of why the 50 failure rate from 2 normal classes of all men isn't a problem, but the 30 was an outrage.

**Dreadwinter**

SemperMortis wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
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?

Yes and Yes, If you don't believe me then ask any poor Grunt who had to escort the FET and Lioness teams around. The Taliban at least knew the difference and after a few firefights those female teams had to be assigned infantry handlers to make sure they didn't get lit up anymore.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
So an extra 2 million a year to field the same number of infantry in the USMC, but now 2% will be women.

2 million dollars a year is 0.08% of the USMC yearly budget.

SO in your own words you are willing to pay a higher price for our military to be LESS effective. got it. Sorry that was meant for dreadwinter, but you clearly believe the same so

So, you are telling me that the Taliban could tell the difference between men and women in a segregated all women unit? No way. NO. WAY.

Also, if they pass the same test as a male, how are they less effective? Is it just because they are a woman? They would have proven they can hang with the men. But they are girls so they obviously are inferior!

**motyak**

Well if we're at the point where we are poking our tongues at each other, being sarcastic and just generally talking at each other and not to each other, I think we can say that we're done here. Just like most other threads that get started on this topic.