Marines want a few good women
One of my former workmates sent this link from NPR which reports the the Marines are still going the motions of letting women into infantry jobs without lowering the standards.
“There’s going to be a rigorous set of standards, and a Marine, male or female, is going to have to meet those standards, so this will exclude some proportion of the population. There’s going to be some men who can’t meet these standards,” [Marine Lt. Col. Michael Samarov] said.
We already know that after 230-some years of eliminating weak men from the infantry. I was a 128-pound private when I went through the Army’s training nearly 40 years ago and it’s tough – tougher than your body will admit sometimes. I’ve booted privates that went through the training and arrived at my platoon thinking that the training was over.
“Females that are small in stature are at a huge disadvantage compared to males,” [Katelyn Allison of the Department of Sports Medicine and Nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh] added, “let’s say a male Marine who is 200 pounds or 180 pounds. So that’s a huge barrier, and if that’s something that’s required of everybody, then there’s no way around that.”
[…]
Allison says her researchers can also help the Marines identify common injuries to women, like sprained ankles and shin splints, and ways to prevent them. They’ve already done similar work with the Army’s 101st Airborne Division.
More stuff we already know. I hope you guys are getting paid well to learn all of the “no shit” stuff.
“We owe it to the American people to make sure that somebody who’s a Marine in a particular specialty can do the job, and we owe it to that Marine, to keep faith that young man or woman who has volunteered to serve their nation,” [Lt. Col. Samarov] said.
Don’t forget that you owe it the fella on her left and right, and the families of those on her left and right.
“I think the jury is still out on the propensity for women to join the ground combat arms,” [Col. Anne Weinberg] said. “My generation, you know, is a different breed from the young women who are coming into the Marine Corps now. They are very tough, very strong, and they have that mindset of ‘I want to go and do these types of jobs.’ “
So, we’re going to go through all of these studies and tests and eventually find one female who wants to do the job and actually can meet the standards? Yeah, I don’t see that happening. If this so bleeding important, why don’t they have whole units of female infantry? I mean if it’s imperative to the national security goals of this nation and feasible that we have women in the infantry and the red herring crowd are worried about the potential for inappropriate social interaction, segregating the women from the men during and after training seems to be a viable solution at least in the short term. That way they can also hide the fact that there are going to be separate standards.
Category: Marine Corps
Any Marine vet will tell you the standard is already lowered at the first physical test they have to pass in order to even begin training at bootcamp. That same lower standard follows them throughout their time in the Corps.
What a fucking joke.
The standards will be lowered further to please the femanazis and the metrosexual men in the pentagon.
I cant wait for all the fraternization, sexual harrassment, and pregnancy issues nobody seems to ever want talk about.
Infantrymen spend FAR more time together in close quarters, out in the field training and out in sector. You really think they arent going to screw?
Or SGT Jarhead Jeff falls in love with LCPL Lucy and devides never to give her the dangerous jobs.
Stupid phone. You get the idea.
All one has to do is look at the shit the USN is going through with female sailors serving alongside their male counterparts. How many CO’s, XO’s, and CMC’s (They still call them that?) have been fired for Fraternization or having a command climate that is non-inclusive or some such shit. I’m not saying women shouldn’t serve…I’m saying the bar should never be lowered, and women should conform to their environment…not the opposite. Grunts are hard men, that do hard jobs, that take mental and physical toughness that a lot of us just don’t have male and female alike.
And we won’t even mention the ones that got pregnant on deployment, or before, that suddenly couldn’t go out with their unit and so got rotated to shore duty while that poor guy who had the shore post gets to fill in with the fleet to cover her ass.
GD- this isn’t an issue any more. We now have Spc Bob allowed to be with his BFF, CPL Dave, any time without regard to being booted. So what if its now M and F doing it too?
Because two guys boning won’t make one of them pregnant. You have a four man team and suddenly your SAW Gunner knocks up your Grenadier and now you’re down to 3 people for more than 9 months.
Off the subject slightly…
There’s only so much weight any animal (including humans) can carry any distance. I wouldn’t pack a mule the way those Marines are loaded down. Whatever they’re carrying on their backs, it’s too much. “Broken down” is a term that should be historical and applied to cart horses, not today’s Marines!
That pack load is only 67 lbs, which is barely half the weight of a sustainment load one would carry in country.
“There’s going to be a rigorous set of standards, and a Marine, male or female, is going to have to meet those standards, so this will exclude some proportion of the population. There’s going to be some men who can’t meet these standards,” [Marine Lt. Col. Michael Samarov] said.
That’s genius at work right there…back in 1943 Robert Palmer wrote about procuring ground combat troops and discussed how only 74% of men were graduating from infantry school, he was discussing ROTC candidates but the point was similar. The Marines currently experience a 14 percent attrition rate among males.
The bad news for the women folk is that those 14% of unqualified males are, on average, better than the typical female Marine in terms of strength and endurance.
So just a thought, if we were looking to increase graduation rate wouldn’t it make more sense to concentrate on the males who failed since even in their failure they are typically more qualified physically than their female counterparts?
Are you referring to Marine IOC or ITB? Attrition rate for IOC is about 20-25 percent. For ITB, the attrition rate is about 1-2% for males. Its about 60-70% for the females that have attended.
I’m just curious where you are getting the 14 percent?
At the School of Infantry for the USMC, 1-2% attrition rate for entry level infantry males is the correct number. Entry level infantry females are currently sitting at a 56% attrition rate (which is expected to increase due to women attempting the heavy weapons MOS’s). Remember this is entry level training, which is not as rigorous as some would have you believe, and yet they are still failing more than half of students attending.
I answered a response down below…
Here we go again. The dance of the tards. Funny how we don’t have money for service members or can’t get them VA appointments, but there’s plenty of money for pointless studies that tell us shit that we already know. I’d like to find the person/presons responsible for this shit and hit them with a ball peen hammer.
A hearty hand-break and a bowl of poop for the lot of ’em.
Do you expect Congress or, for that matter, the 4.95 liberals on the Supreme Court to stop Obama? No, you don’t, not if your eyes are open. So why would you expect those who depend on him and his for their livelihoods to cut against the grain on this? I have said it a million times. Changing America requires changing its institutions, whether that be the powers of the presidency, the rules under which the Reid Senate plays games with rules, or military traditions and standards.
Science, history, logic, facts, evidence … none of these things matter anymore. In our brave new Social Justice Warrior Corps, political correctness and warm fuzzy feels are what matter most. The primary mission stopped being “defeat America’s enemies in combat” years ago.
The army lowered the standards in jump school to allow women to become paratroopers.
I never understood the reason behind training someone up to be Airborne that would never jump into a combat situation.
Why train infantrymen to shoot guns when it’s not likely they’ll ever shoot anyone in combat?
I guess I was a little vague. I was talking about women being Airborne qualified. Being how they would never be allowed to, historically, jump into combat…
It started with female riggers…then the gates opened and the standards DROPPED!
Beretverde, they also quit using profanity. I stopped by the Airborne School a few years ago to watch the training while on a business trip to Ft. Benning. I got out of the car and walked over to the training site to watch and reminisce. After a few minutes I turned to my business partner, a retired armor major and said, “Something’s missing; it’s not the same.”
It took me about thirty seconds more to figure out what was missing; it was the decibel level and the language. No longer was there non-stop, in-your-face and both ears, spit-slinging screaming of some very creative combinations of profane terms, but rather a more collegial and congenial form of instruction coming from the black hats.
That was when I noticed the few female trainees.
The Marines have put a few Female enlisted Marines through SOI. All volunteers who were screened to make sure they could pass the MINIMUM Standards for the male PFT. So, the very top of female enlisted who were VOLUNTEERS were sent to SOI.
Of that number the attrition rate was about 75%, some of the “graduates” even being on light duty.
SOI does have some physical demands, there is scheduled PT and forced marches mixed in with the technical training on weapons and live firing ranges, However in pales when compared to the phyical deand made on an infantryman during statrside manuevers, much less combat deployments.
On the officer ZERO females have completed OIC, Just like the enlisted side, only the cream of the crop and volunteers. None have made it.
Once again, the attrition rate for females attending ITB is 56%. I am not sure where you guys are getting your inflated numbers, but it is not 60-70%, it is still massively higher than the male attrition rate which sits at roughly 1-2%.
All in all, the study is coming to the conclusion that we knew all along, there are just some things that are more suited to the male species, and no matter what we do, we can’t just wish away biology.
Rerun,
The First Class that attended SOI East started with 15 and graduated 3, Which is an 80% attritition rate, thats where the numbers came from. The Second class graduated 10 ( including a recycle) out of 14 enrolled in the class, so their numbers were much more favorable, only about a 25% attrition rate.
There had to have been some sort of arm bending done by the boot lickers at HQMC to have that % change so drastically.
56% is still unacceptable, its a waste of time and resources to keep this social experiment going.
Don’t worry, it is almost over. The Marine Corps has the data they need, at least on the entry level training side. Next up is this SPMAGTF test. All the females partaking in the study as 03xx test subjects (E-2 through E-5) will have to attend ITB in order to attain the MOS before they can join the experiment. Should be interesting when only half the required number actually show up after not being able to complete entry level infantry training.
According to the marine corps times: 223 female marines have entered training and 86 have passed. Thats about a 40 percent (38 percent to be exact)retention rate. Therefore, a 60 percent drop out rate.
I used between 60-70 percent as a range.
Well as someone who is directly involved in the study, and has seen all the numbers and trains these females, I can attest that the attrition rate is sitting at exactly 56%. Not berating anybody, just pointing out the actual numbers. I can tell you the study, on our level at least is very straight forward, they either pass or they don’t on their own merits.
Fair enough. So the Marine Corps PR is giving out faulty statistics?
Not exactly faulty, but more like confusing. What is being counted as failures, why are they failures, injuries, DOR’s etc etc. Regardless, the attrition rate is massively higher than the males, and quite frankly it is not worth opening the infantry to females.
The biggest issue is the Marine Corps putting so much stock into the PFT, of course a female standing at 60″ tall and weighing 100 lbs is going to be able to do a decent amount of pullups. However, she is not going to pull my 220 lbs ass out of danger when I take a round. There lies the problem, the standards in general are to lax, the PFT is a good indicator of general fitness levels, put plays no role in combat conditioning whatsoever. Despite this, they are failing at a much higher percentage than males, once the weapons MOS tests are concluded, which is very soon, I do expect the attrition to sit around 70%. It is one thing to carry a rifle and pack, and a totally different deal humping the 240 or 60mm.
We will see where this all leads. My money is infantry and SOF will stay closed, while things like Arty and Tanks opens.
Speaking as a former Arty guy, There are duties that females would have a hard time performing in that field. Simply setting up the howitzer to fire and moving projectiles takes a lot of upper body strength. Unlike some MOSs where you can let the females slide and use males to handle the heavy details, Arty crews need all hands to emplace weapons and set up the position up. 155mm projectiles weigh about 200 pounds each. I am sure that Amtracs, LAV crews and Armor have the same issues.
I agree 100%, but I have a sinking feeling the feel good society wont stop until they get someone to change and they can claim some sort of victory. Unfortunately, the other combat arms fields arent being studied as closely as the 03 and 11 series.
Old Dog:
Are you sure your not thinking of the old 8inch shells being 200?
most 155 shells are around 100-110. WP and some of the other special once can go up to 120ish depending on square weight. of course the new HE round they are fielding is heavier then the old one, the dirty little secret of arty is despite “push button” war shell wight is going up not down. doesn’t negate your point though, and i might add breaking track on a paladin is hot, heavy PHYSICAL work. you can put a female in a cannon crew but 2 things will happen, 1. it will slow the crew down and 2. it will physically break her. hell i was the PL and i still left arty with hearing loss, and a bad back from moving shells all the time because guess what EVERYONE moves shells.
You are correct, I looked at some of my old stuff and the M198 had shells that were about 95-100 pounds max. Still a lot of weight to be slinging around. I Served in a few different types of units, including infantry, and in my opinion the Artillery Cannonners had the mot physically demanding job as far as upper body strength.
According to marine corps times: 223 female marines have entered ITB and 86 graduated. That is about a 40 percent retention rate(38 to be exact). That would mean a 60 percent drop out rate. I used the range between 60-70 percent.
There was another article, a few months back, which had the female pool of applicants a bit higher than 223.
I mean this has been the only handful of times they have even reported that contrasting number to begin with.
Sorry for the double post. You can delete one of them if you wish.
In our newly transgendered sub-society formerly known as the military, IF a true Y-chromosome female were to make the cut, then declare herself gender-confused and therefore a ‘man’, would s/he then have to conform to male standards? OR, JUST because she is X-chromosome deficient, not have to do so?
so if they are all for upholding the standard why is the Marine Corps delaying the female pull up standard AGAIN!
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140703/NEWS/307030068
Nice.
Equality and pulling the same weight was never the intention of getting females into the service. It was set up to intentionally discriminate against males in favor of females to get them in.
That won’t be changing any time soon. It’s institutionalized throughout the DoD, federal agencies, and states. Physical discrimination is socially accepted if it favor females for the same job/pay. Hell, discrimination is accepted if you’re deemed a certain minority too.
Better tuck your junk in, Gents. Get those lower reqs and job spaces.
Finally the Marines and I are in step. I too am looking for a “few good women”.
As a poster stated earlier, this does not end until they get the “feel good” number of females that they want and need to justify opening the infantry to women. The Marine Corps is being attacked by feminist who are pissed that more women are not passing. New issue of Marine Corps times has an article from a retired Colonel named Ellen Haring. She doesn’t like the methodology of the testing. Reading between the lines, she doesn’t seem to like that the females are not all in one group with a friendly cadre who will push them through training, standards be damned. I am sure all of Colonel Haring’s rigorous infantry experience makes her the go-to person to tell the Corps how to conduct it’s experiment. Don’t worry Colonel. General Amos is bound and determined to have women in the infantry. The only thing working against him is time. He won’t be Commandant much longer. And hopefully General Dunford will stop this bullshit in it’s tracks before it destroys the unit cohesion of our infantry units. I have seen first hand what happens when men and women are integrated. In Iraq in 2005, our FOB was a virtual whorehouse once we started using women on the entry control points into Fallujah and they moved onto our FOB. And this does not even take into account the lack of physical strength to complete even the most basic infantry tasks (march with a load, manipulate heavy weapons, live in field conditions etc.). It is the intention of this administration to neuter the military and by extension this country. All of their talk about nothing changing after the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a goddamn lie. Now they are promising standards won’t be lowered in order to get women into ground jobs. In order to integrate women, standards HAVE to be lowered so it will be done with the same kind of lying bullshit that characterized allowing homosexuals to serve openly. This whole “experiment” is window dressing. It will prove women cannot withstand the rigors of infantry life and then the… Read more »
I am sorry, well…no I’m not. I am old and set in my ways. When “Annie Gets Her Gun”, sooner or later, I don’t want to serve in combat with her. I don’t want her on my six, my left or right. I don’t trust her to watch over me when I am sleeping. I don’t want or need emotional attachments more than those formed between me and my platoon members. There were guys I did not trust and thought were flaky. Like I said, as an old 11B, it is hard enough to do the job and take care of yourself, your fellow troops and your AO. I don’t want the additional emotional and worry load of whether G.I. Jane is okay in the field, having female troubles or anything else. I am just old and old fashioned. I was raised that women were equal but were to be protected and cherished, not battle buddies. I’m not changing my way of thinking at this point in life. They can play at these social, feel good experiments all they want. The result will be, more dead than necessary. That is the end result and common sense, if Obama, the liberals and even the DoD had any, would accept what they truly know is correct and work on getting more men who can’t cut it to pass than altering standards so women can pass. My time in the military has never been duplicated in civilian life, ever. Not the incidents and their intensity, the brotherhood, none of it. Call me a chauvinist or what you will. War and combat, on the ground, face to face, is a job for men. Period. Just my one old, humble opinion. No offense intended to any of the ladies in the room. You are all just that to me, ladies and the way I was raised, we don’t put ladies into harms way, we protect them from it.
Well said sparks, I always like to sum it up like this: The average Airborne Infantryman (a specialty they are looking at opening to women) carries at least 35-40 lbs in his web gear/FLC (LCE for you old-timers). In addition to that, he has an approximate WAR TIME(you know, that thing we are supposed to win for the nation). weight of 80-110+ lbs. He will be sitting there, with that in Green Ramp and walking out to the Aircraft anywhere from 400-600 meters, which is a significant emotional event even for the men. He will then have to SIT like that for up to 12 hours as he flies enroute to the drop location. No potty breaks, no ‘game off’, none of that. I have been lead to believe by some of my female Airborne counterparts that is unrealistic, as that could cause a woman to get a urinary tract infection. WTF?? What good are they then for airborne operations then, because that is what WILL HAPPEN!! So once this soldier has carried 140 lbs (the max weight of an average woman who is 5′ 6″ and 21 in the army is only 163 lbs. by the way) to the aircraft, and sat with it in his lap for up to 12 HOURS. He will be required to hit the ground, and RAPIDLY sieze his objective. I know many men who have issues with this, how many women can do it? Not enough to justify opening the MOS in my opinion. Call me sexist, Call me old-fashioned, but there are some things men are better at. Beinga a human pack-mule and carrying heavy weights for long distances is one of them. By the way, I was being nice, and didn’t even make her an ammo bearer for a Machine Gun Team (1000 rds 7.62 @ 7 lbs per 100 rds), Or a mortarmen (45 lbs in the ‘hip fire’ configuration), or Javelin Gunner (45 lbs. again). These positions are 110+ lbs in their rucks and on their person. That means that the average woman in the army will be carrying… Read more »