Sole female Marine drops out of Infantry training
CNN reports that the only female class member of the latest Marine Corps Infantry officer course has dropped along with 33 of her fellow male classmates. It was her second attempt and she won’t get another shot at an infantry assignment;
In January, then-head of Southern Command, Marine Gen. John Kelly, cast doubt on whether many women would be able to enter the infantry if current standards were upheld.
“If we don’t change standards, it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers — any real numbers come into the infantry,” Kelly told reporters at the Pentagon.
So there’s the question for the social justice warriors – which is more important? Numbers or Standards? Standards save lives and numbers save professional reputations.
Fox News says that the Marines are intensifying their recruiting efforts in high school girls’ athletic programs;
For years, only about 7 percent to 8 percent of the Corps, which numbers 184,200, has been women. It’s the smallest percentage of women among all the military services. But on the heels of the Pentagon decision to allow women who qualify to serve in combat jobs, thousands of new infantry, armor and other front-line posts are now open.
[Marine Commandant General Robert Neller] said he wants to see women in some of those posts. That order now rests with Maj. Gen. Paul Kennedy, head of the Marine Corps’ recruiting command.
Kennedy is aggressively recruiting women for the service. He’s sending targeted mailings, changing advertising to better represent female Marines, and traveling the country to meet with coaches and female athletes who may be well-suited for the rigors of Marine service.
Or, they could spend their money on tried and true recruiting efforts for warriors and stop throwing money away on social engineering.
Thanks to AverageNCO for the link.
Category: Marine Corps
Standards are more important.
These aren’t toy soldiers, y’know.
Well, to all the Social Engineers, we are nothing more than toys in their sandbox. We are just numbers on a spreadsheet, not actual human beings with thoughts or feelings, hopes or aspirations. We are only that when the politicos can trot us out for easy votes.
The
racist left-wing-extremist SJWsProgressives won’t be happy until all the USA looks like Milwaukee.South side of Chicago, Englewood district, 63rd and Stony Island, all of that.
Ex-PH2:
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million have been slaughtered, by their own governments, during times of peace, within living memory, due to commiescumism.
The commiescum still want another go at the mass slaughter machine making.
Many many of our own people are too stupid to connect the dots leading to their own mass slaughter and believe agitproping for commiescumism is a grand idea.
What the fuck makes you think that the same mindset of those above, which is what born SJWism, give a shit about who they cause to be murdered on their alter of known idiocy?
Kill the fucktards by the millions, or be killed by the fucktards in the millions. Those are the only options now.
Stupid fucking thumb-suckers and moral cowards are why we’re in this mess.
Ah, then you missed my point, Grimmy.
I know too well that appearances are everything with the nitwits you mention. Individuality is prized, let’s accommodate everyone’s individuality, and destroy cohesiveness as quickly as possible.
They despise team sports and real teamwork, yet groupthink is everything to them.
I know what you’re talking about. It does not mean that they will succeed at destroying us. There’s a huge, massive difference between populations that have generations of dictators in their past and other populations like the USofA that have NEVER had that and never will. I’ve tried repeatedly to emphasize that even the tiniest Dictats of the State, like the idiotic highway and park closings in the 2013 sequestration, have done nothing but piss people off enormously.
We are not nearly as embedded in the herd mentality as those slimeballs think we are. Try to have a little faith, okay?
We keep limiting ourselves to talking the talk and muttering nifty slogans, but in reality, there’s been absolutely zero effective attempts at pushing back against the scumbags.
We’ve been losing this war for so long we’ve become comfortable with the excuses for defeat.
so glad I’m retired. And especially not working as a recruiter.
She gave it a shot. Good on her.
…and I volunteer to provide sexual healing to her for her efforts.
Gee – what a surprise. (smile)
bow chicka bow bow
IDC SARC: Given your propensity to willingly offer ‘sexual healing’ to all women, I’m surprised any suffer from depression or any mental disorder or, for that matter, any physical maladies. Thanks for your efforts to heal the country’s women. It’s very noble of you.
Oh, yeah?
That’s awfully generous of you, Doc, but what about the rest of the wimmins in the crowd??
I’m sure he’ll get to them in due time. Let’s not rush him. I’m thinking he must be exhausted from all that healing. Damn, I wish I could again be exhausted from ‘healing’. Bwhaaa
Plenty to go round! Veterans get preference.
The honor grad for the current Advanced Machine Gunners Course is a female. Some of the best students I had at ITB were female, so women fully capable of performing the duties of an infantryman certainly exist. Unfortunately, the numbers are so low, that it really isn’t worth the cost or effort.
Hahaha. Sure dude. I believe you.
I bet she carry the M240L with a full combat load like if it was a feather.
Oh great. You’re back.
Everyone stand by for more insightful, highly-informed commentary from the self-anointed 11B SuperGrunt.
Yef: Yeah, he’s back. How do you know what she is capable of carrying? If she passed the course as the honor grad, it would follow she can perform her duties satisfactorily.
Don’t you be coming back here with your bullshit. You previously ridiculed those not infantry. Now are you setting your sights on women in service?
I would really enjoy reading your posts that don’t disrespect fellow troops who are not grunts on the ground or women. Are you capable of offering posts that are relevant to topic and of interest to others or will you revert to your old passive aggressive ways?
Regards …
What? Is Yef the Infertile pickin’ on us GURLZZZZ?
Maybe we could hook him up with a couple of Kurdish women snipers. They could part his hair for him in a new direction.
Mr. Kipling once referenced Afghan women and their knives. Pretty sure he wrote that from a “been there, done that” perspective.
No, she didn’t carry the M240L, considering the Marine Corps still uses the M240B.
LCpl Savannah Chase, has been selected as the honor grad for AMGC Class 4-16.
My Recon platoon had the M240G for the first time back in ’95…is the M240B just still widely used by the USMC infantry due to availability or some other modification?
Who are you? How’d you get this info?
It only gets harder once in the fleet too. Less we forget this is the basic standard for entry, not operational requirements. Seen infantry officer grads not be able to pull their weight in the fleet.
Perhaps as the troop numbers decline and slots for entry are increasingly competitive, standards actually raise…..
Are the IOC training standards too low?
Standards don’t rise per se, but as more compete for fewer slots, the bar for entry gets higher. Not sure how the Marines do it, but Army cadets/candidates are evaluated based on GPA, PT, performance in officer training, peer evals, and a few other factors in the branching process. Infantry is a ‘sellout’ branch, meaning that there are more that apply for it than get it.
However, all the branches get a quality distribution. No one ever wants to be Chemical Corps, but they need quality leaders as well. So, every year some top performer that wanted Infantry gets Chemical, and some smart high speed Computer Science major that wanted Signal Corps gets Infantry.
From my observations, the standards at IOC haven’t been (and aren’t) lowered.
There are similarities in how USMC officer candidates get selected and screened for IOC, just as you describe it in comparison to how the Army does business.
The social engineers won’t stop until they get what they want, exactly like what they have done to the rest of the country. When the disaster happens that causes troops to lose their lives due to said engineering, the media will gladly cover it up. We should be grateful for the few who serve to protect us, I am fearful what engineered trap awaits them.
Kill two birds with one stone: Transexuals. Plus, I bet they will do great as leaders in combat, what with them being so emotionally stable and stuff.
Give them point on night patrol – with malfunctioning NVGs…
On point, yes, but malfunctioning equipment? No. I wouldn’t do that to anyone, ever.
And tell them it’s for the good of the country AND their status, for who is who and what is what.
What should we do with guys like SGT Shane Ortega?
Well, he looks like a GUY to me.
What’s the problem? He’s got bigger muscles than you do and he doesn’t have a dick yet?
Who’s that other one, the pale guy with the big biceps? There was a photo of him with a big gun a while back.
Come on! Is it the gonads that bother you, or the fact that these people said something about it out loud?
I keep thinking of that woman who decided to out herself to her husband, started taking reaplacement hormone therapy, grew a beard and muscles, and then found out she was pregnant.
My only reaction to people who declare themselves TG is take care of it AHEAD of signing up.
After that, I don’t care. They either make it or they don’t.
Medically…are we going to assume the continued financial and logistical responsibility of assuring the HRT and what about downrange? Are we going to continue the cost and and time off for the continuing process of that journey and pay lifetime disability for any unforeseen complications?
There’s already a long list of elective no-gos regarding the wants hopes and desires of those on active duty. Who gets the green light, who gets the red?
If a TG wants breast implants at government expense why can’t Sgt Bornaman have pectoral implants at government expense? Doesn’t someone that identifies with their genotype have just as much right to strive for self actualization through body modification?
technically, SGT Bornaman (I see what you did there, kinda funny) could have implants if he was diagnosed by a physician with some sort of body dysmorphia.
Theoretically, but I’ve never seen it done…not even once.
I have seen females get implant surgery for enhancement, but they had to pay for the implants themselves.
Breast reduction…whole different matter, because that can be justified as medically warranted.
Had a girl working for me in the 80s who was in desperate need of a reduction. She walked slumped, her back hurt constantly, headaches from C spine having to deal with the slumping, etc. I’m telling you, I have no idea how she got in the Navy. She was that big. She was also one of my best troops. Finally several of us, over time, talked her into getting a reduction prior to EAOS (she didn’t plan to reenlist). She got the reduction and a very pleasant, hard-working troop became even more pleasant and hard-working.
Anyhoo, I’m all for reduction but am inclined to draw the line at augmentation for those who want to be female. That should be on their dime. It’s not a medical necessity, although the SJWs probably will make it so, if they haven’t done so already. BTW, the Navy doctors were/are willing to do both reductions and augmentations. They are usually not career and wanted as much experience as possible prior to joining the civilian ranks. BTW, the girl reenlisted. Several times. She retired as an HMCS about 2008. I’m thinking that reduction changed her outlook on life. She was from a tiny town in the South. Parents very poor. She joined the Navy b/c she had absolutely no future staying where she was. I love a happy story where the troop is a success. Really makes me proud of the opportunity the Navy affords people.
“Navy doctors were/are willing to do both reductions and augmentations.”
They have to do procedures for board certification. I’ve even seen them do liposuction, because they had to. But there’s the rub, the service member usually has to go to a hospital that has a need to do such things at the time.
If they can’t do the procedures at a military facility then the service branch has to cough up the money to send the physician somewhere to get the procedures.
True. The procedures (reduction/augmentation) are not common at the smaller Navy hospitals. I’m thinking the larger Navy hospitals, such as Bethesda (which was stolen by the Army but which I still refer to as a Navy hospital … take that Army), San Diego, Portsmouth, etc. probably have ability to perform those procedures. I’ve been retired 25 years, so my knowledge concerning the matter is at best rusty and possibly just flat out incorrect. I’ve known Navy doctors who had privileges at civilian hospitals, primarily so they could get experience. I don’t believe those I knew about were the primary on civilians, but had free rein when operating on military members. Good Times …
Well, unless the price of HRT has gone up drastically in the past 25 years, conjugated estrogens cost me about $35 per month. It was covered by my insurance, yes, but I paid the entire thing out of my own pocket instead of using my insurance to cover it, because I had a Flexpay account that covered glasses, copayments, and other stuff like that and had to use the money in it by the end of the year.
Now, female-to-male hormone therapy (androgens) cost $80 to $90 per month for subdural implants, and $160 to $200 per month for gels, patches and/or buccal applications. A 10-month supply of low-dose injectable testosterone costs about $60 ($6/month). So how is that unaffordable to person who is making that choice?
Unless things have changed drastically since I left the Navy, any elective surgery that was NOT related to a service-connected condition was paid for by the person requesting it.
You’re not talking about something that is medically necessary. It is a choice, and since we have seen (right here on TAH) several people who waited until they had left the service to make a gender change (remember that SEAL?), as a taxpayer I would want to know what justification there is in providing an unnecessary medical procedure to someone whose sole purpose in entering the military is to get a freebie like that.
If they want it, and they’re in the service, they should have to pay for it. If they don’t want to, tough bananas.
I do not have any issues with making these choices. But if they’ve already made the change, or started to, they should expect to pay for their choice because it is a CHOICE, NOT a necessity, which is proven by the prior examples we’ve already seen.
That’s my point.
It doesn’t bother me at all- not sure why you would think it does. As long as he can keep that helicopter flying safely so we can use it to kill bad guys I am fine with it.
My point is that here we have an seemingly fit and competent Soldier, why should we force him to get out or change his sexual identity to please other people?
I did a little research on the case you are talking about- Kayden Coleman was a woman who had lived as a man for ten years when he married a man who knew he was a trans-man. Coleman got pregnant about a year into the marriage when he stopped taking hormones for breast surgery. This kind of shows that sex and gender are two different things.
You asked a question and now your questioning why I responded? Da Fuk?
I wasn’t speaking to you personally red, geez. I was simply referencing the can of worms they are going to have to consider. Based on a question you asked.
I have no thoughts about your personal views, I’m just responding to the comment.
The military discriminates…it will still discriminate based on IQ, abilities, medical conditions, eyesight etc.
How much time and resources should be spent to accommodate an individual? Is it more cost effective to train another pilot unencumbered by such things? I dunno…just having thoughts.
I can see both sides of the issue. Kinda boring if I just say…ya got a point red every time you post something.
I’m actually responding to PH-2…
It is interesting. This particular dude seems pretty sharp.
I am equally sure that there are a number of Bradley Mannings out there, who while perhaps gender dysmorphic had all kinds of other issues that the unit leadership just swept under the rug to fill the deployment roster.
This is where good (or bad) leadership comes in- If you read the case history, Manning assaulted an NCO and the leadership removed his bolt from his weapon. The guy should have been sent home- the unit would have done much better without a problem child. that said, they were routinely overlooking serious security and SCIF procedure breaches.
I understand what both of you are saying. My response is above.
I don’t care if they want to be turned into cowboy boots. That’s why I asked what was bothering reddevil, because there are people who are freaked by any kind of changes, period.
My response to it is that it is a choice, not a medical necessity. If I had to pay for MY hormone replacement therapy for menopause, why should I, or anyone else, be expected to pay for someone else’s NOT required medical expenses for a condition. That includes boob jobs, guys.
“This kind of shows that sex and gender are two different things.”
Good to see you’re enlightening yourself red….I’ve been explaining the same thing to folks since it was still the DSM-III
I bet Obama will get someone on this to change the standards. He can’t sleep at night without destroying our military.
Not everybody makes the team, let alone the varsity first string. Thanks for trying, all 34 of you. I couldn’t have done it. The standards are just fine where they are.
I think this is a good news story. Women have the chance to try, and the Marines have maintained their standards.
There are currently 9 women in Army IBOLC and a bunch in ABOLC (http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/military/article72817077.html).
More than likely a few will graduate (my guess is that around 75% graduate from IBOLC, and a few more graduate from ABOLC.
True, BOLC is a bit less grueling than IOC, but it is no joke (http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ibolc/content/pdf/IBOLC%20Graduation%20Requirements.pdf) and BOLC is also the first step for most Infantry officers- they still have Ranger school, Bradley Leader, Jump School, Army Reconnaissance, etc., ahead of them.
Ranger is voluntary; the armor officers and those going to mech assignments may choose not to go, or they will give it a shot and move on to their unit after they recycle. Even then, odds are that at least a few of these women will graduate from Ranger school- IBOLC students have the highest graduation rate.
The final question is whether or not these women are taking the slots of men that would otherwise go. Keep this in mind:
-After the branching boards each Fall and again after the commissioning ceremonies across the country in May or June each year, the phone in the Office of the Chief of Infantry begins to ring with cadets who were branched Infantry that want to do anything else.
-Every Ranger School Zero Day, the ARTB CSM looks out on roughly 400 potential Ranger students, knowing that 200 or so of them will deliberately fail the pushup event the next morning because they don’t want to go to Ranger school and failing is the ‘honorable’ way out.
-I heard SMA Dailey (a rare ‘leg Ranger’, by the way) talk about Ranger school slots when he was a a division CSM. He had an NCODP with every NCO in the division, and made it clear that any NCO that wanted to go to Ranger school would get a slot- he would guarantee it. Roughly 50% of the NCOs in the room raised their hand indicating they would go. He got four (4) 4187s that year…
Reddevil: I’m Navy. What is a 4187? Thanks.
Request for Personnel Action- basically the first step in requesting a school, reassignment, etc.
In other words, you hear lots of stories from guys about how they wanted to join the Navy, were gonna be a SEAL, got screwed out of their Ranger slot, etc, but they never actually took the first step to make it happen…
Reddevil: Thanks for the info. One of my favorites was ‘my recruiter lied to me’. I heard this mostly in the 60s and early 70s, when I was a junior Sailor. I reminded them that they joined the Navy before being drafted to serve in VN. So, it was a win-win for them. Avoid VN and learn a trade/career. ‘My recruiter lied to me’ was THE common mantra in boot. I guess a few were lied to. Not me. I asked only to be a Corpsman, which I qualified for via the GCT/ARI. Today I think that is the ASVAB. Could be wrong. Regardless of ‘promises’ that may have been made, the Sailor also had to qualify for that NEC by taking tests to prove qualification.
There are lies, and then there are deceptions. When I enlisted I wanted to go to Germany, certainly not Vietnam. The Sergeant asked me if I wanted a guarantee that I would go to Germany. I said “Hell yes!”. He told me that would cost me an extra year. So be it.
When I returned from RVN with a year left to serve (what a coincidence) I went to see the IG to get my year back. There was no guarantee in my records, so Catch 22, I was stuck at Ft. Benning. for a year.
All things considered, I would rather have spent that year in RVN than at Ft. Benning.
I’ll point out that those women in I/ABOLC short circuited the branching process, as branches had already been determined and announced when SECDEF made the determination to permit women to attend.
I’ll personally be surprised if they get 1 Ranger qualified graduate out of the group as it is less selective than last years test cohort and they are not getting the same type of “hand on” prep.
Yes and no. They had to go to a board, and the same standards were applied as were applied during the normal process.
This seems unusual, but there are actually a few branching processes each year. We are most familiar with the ROTC/USMA spring branching because thats whern most of the LTs are commissioned. However, we have the OCS board, summer commissioning (end of camp), and winter commissioning.
Also overlooked is the fact that NG officers are basically branched based on the unit they join. If you complete state OCS and get a PL job in A/2-141 infantry, you are an infantry officer. In fact, when the NG reconfigures BCTs, entire units are rebranched and reclassified- and they have about a year to get trained.
I worked with a CA ARNG unit once that had transitioned from an MP battalion to an MI battalion. The only people in the entire battalion that were MOS qualified were the E-4 and below that had gone to AIT within the last 6 months and the support guys (cooks, mechanics, comms, etc). None of the officers or NCOs had been to any branch or MOS qualifying school.
The assumption that all men are better at fighting wars than all women is absurd.
When held to the same standards the women that make it through training and qualify to serve in combat arms positions are displacing men less capable than them.
This Marine was not one of those women.
Not saying that is true or untrue per se because there is hardly a available population of proven Female Combat Leaders to compare and contrast to draw such a conclusion at this time.
One could infer that due to the competitive nature of such things that within the realm of the female gender the ones making it to such a position may be inherently of a higher caliber compared to their male counterpart (respective to other males by sheer numbers)…by a sort of natural selection. But again without quantification it is just an assumption.
I think there are quite a few proven female combat leaders out there. A few have distinguished themselves in combat (SGT Hester, comes to mind)
I found it interesting that while the Navy was handing out NJP for the Iran/Farsi island incident, the one female present is actually being recognized for her bravery during the incident: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/08/10/female-sailor-recognized-for-bravery-iranian-detention-incident.html
Thanks for the reminder, but I assure you that I was aware of Sgt Hester (I’d hit it) and other’s without seeing it here. I did do 24 years in the suck and continue to train active duty troops every day (not sitting at a desk either).
One instance of an NCO performing immediate action competently is not a point I would argue, but is also not proof one way or another she would be a superior infantry leader. Actions such as hers are exactly why I wouldn’t be foolish enough to just be dismissive of a soldier’s capabilities based purely on gender irrespective to the situation.
Had I said there’s no evidence women can perform bravely in combat, something I would certainly not be stupid enough to believe then that would be a different matter.
Hester (who is perfectly deserving of her Silver Star) was not the leader on the patrol for which she was decorated-but hardly anybody remembers SSG (later MSG) Timothy Nein, because his bravery doesn’t serve some political narrative.
Red, from your comments it’s obvious that you have no problems with women serving as infantry officers. Other comments you have made indicate you were an infantry battalion commander. You therefore have a perspective different from most here at TAH.
It would be enlightening to all of us to hear more from you on this topic. As a former combat infantry NCO whose opinion is pretty much with the majority here, that combat is difficult enough without complicating it further, I know I’d certainly like to hear more from you as to why you appear to disagree.
Bottom line, I am performance oriented. I don’t care what flavor you are, I want the best possible Soldier in a position.
I was not a battalion commander- I commanded an Infantry HHC as an MI officer- in addition to a company command in an MI battalion.
I also spent a total of six years as an MI guy in infantry battalions.
In that time I was generally greatly impressed by infantry officers and NCOs, and developed an undying admiration and love for junior enlisted infantrymen- I have been in the ‘mud, the blood, and the beer’ with the infantry, and was just always in awe of how tough they can be.
On the other hand, there was the other end of the bell curve. The bottom 15% of men that somehow ended up in the infantry, and everyone had to suffer with them until their own stupidity, discipline issues, or a promotion board got them out of the unit.
They were the guys that fell out of every road march, barely passed their PT test, and whined when there was more mud than beer.
If we could replace those guys- the bottom 15% of men- with the top 15% of women, we will be better off. If the guys near the bottom of the curve work a little harder not to fall out of a road march because the top five women are about to pass them, we are all better off.
We have a standard for entry, another for training, and another for active service. Stand by those standards. If a woman can meet them, let her serve.
“If we could replace those guys- the bottom 15% of men- with the top 15% of women, we will be better off”
Sounds good, but in actuality there may be, at the most 5% Females that could hadle being a grunt.
There is also another HUGE varible, what if that top 15 (or 5)% of females wanted NOTHING to do with being in combat arms?
I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating: a few years ago I worked a (sustainment) brigade SOY competition. A female from one of the maintenance companies won the NCO portion-she was the only female competing. She was great at IWQ, the board, land nav and everything else-except the road march, where she finished at least 20 minutes behind the guys (it kicked her ass, to be frank).
They’re called grunts for a reason.
Great point, but since this was a Soldier of the Year board, it implies that the Soldiers were hand picked by their company and battalion chain of command- in other words, she was the worst of the best in the brigade at road marching.
The ultimate question is did she meet the standard?
Also, what does this say about the thousands of male Soldiers in the brigade that didn’t even compete?
It reminds me of the video a few years back of the female veterinarian completing her EFMB road march. She was smoked, collapsed at the end, and barely finished in time. she was excoriated for her performance, and it was held as an example of why women shouldn’t belong in combat, etc. No one seemed to realize that literally thousands of men FAIL that event every year.
I have no problem saying that she was an exceptional NCO and that she deserved to win the competition, but physically she was out of her depth.
And thousands of male soldiers do fail the EFMB every year (usually by NOGOing the written test), but not necessarily the road march.
The fact remains that the average female will have about 2/3 of the upper body muscle mass of a male and about 60% of his aerobic capacity.
Those things matter when lives are on the line.
The principle that the chain-of-command makes good and/or equitable selections is generally true – but not universally true. “Brown nosing” isn’t limited to civilian life. Military chains-of-command are not above making inequitable selections if they know doing so will “make the CG happy”.
I am not saying that happened in the case under discussion; I wasn’t there, so I don’t know one way or the other. But it does happen from time to time.
I disagree. For one thing, USMC and Army studies indicate that there are a lot more that can handle it.
I agree, the question is, would they want to be a grunt…
At the same time, a good 5% of serving grunts have no business being there (rough beer math, based on at least 1 guy in each platoon). Another 5-10% or so would be performing at the same level as the top performing woman.
The standard and generally flawed arguments against women in any career field are (in this order):
1) Women can’t do it (reality in parens)
(women demonstrate that they can)
2) Women are gross, they have periods and get pregnant, it will ruin the morale and cohesion of the unit.
(multiple examples of gender integrated small units somehow making things work)
3) Well, only a really weird chick would want to do this in the first place.
(you have me there, but only weird dudes want to be infantry in the first place.
By weird I mean that only very unusual (statistically) men want to be in the infantry. Less than 1% of the population joins the military in the first place, and a small minority of them are in the infantry. So few, in fact, that we offer all sorts of incentives to those that want to be 11B/0300.
If we are going to incentivize it, we should want the best. If some of the best are women, so be it.
“For one thing, USMC and Army studies indicate that there are a lot more that can handle it.”
However…Practical application doesn’t seem to be supporting that so much.
Perhaps the theories are more skewed in favor of the politician’s collective agendas?
…and I haven’t seen it in the females that come through the command where I’m paid to train ’em.
If they’re strong, they’re slow. If they’re fast, they’re weak. They also spend a lot of time on profile.
So, Troop A maxes the pushup event, and barely passes the run, while Troop B maxes the run and barely passes pushups. Did they both still pass?
Are the troops on profile within standards for the course? Is there a max time for them to be on profile before they are dropped, recycled, or separated?
Practical application is that there are over 200 women that completed USMC infantry school- 36% of those that attempted.
Again: It’s all about standards. If you think the standards are too low, raise them to where they need to be.
The women currently held only to the standards of big Army.There’s no SOF standards for them.
There is a promise that the standards will be applied equally when women eventually enter SFAS/BUDS etc…but we aren’t there yet.
‘If they’re strong, they’re slow. If they’re fast, they’re weak.’ You can say the same things about men. Which man is faster, the weight lifter or the sprinter? Which one can lift and carry more weight?
Yes….but none of the men in this case are weaker or slower.
I still think there are women out there that can do it. I just think there are fewer than projected. Longevity due to plain old anatomy and physiology is also questionable. Time will tell.
There’s a Marine Corps study that was released recently that shows that mixed gender units do not performs at a comparable level as all-male ones, but Reddevil either doesn’t know about, or tactfully excludes, that one.
I’m very familiar with the study.
I am also very familiar with the many design flaws in the study, to include the fact that the women involved were trained in a separate boot camp, one that either had a toxic battalion commander or deliberately trained women to lower standards.
Also, reports on the study never point out how many women performed to individual standards (collective performance is a leader’s job), or how many men failed to meet those standards.
What happens, by the way, to men who don’t meet the minimum standard?
Again: Meet the standard? Stay in and serve. Fail to meet the standard? Get out and make burgers.
I think perhaps you have confused the reason why that battalion commander was relieved.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/07/kate-germano-fired-marine-corps-female-recruit-unit-commander/29763371/
Collective training is indeed the commander’s responsibility-it’s too bad when that runs afoul of political whim. Most of us here can see where this is headed-and why.
P.S. Plenty of other studies that have been out for 30 years or so that show that females will suffer injuries at a much higher rate than males when subjected to similar physical stresses, but you ignored that as well. There are plenty of reasons that we never tried to integrate females into the combat arms until the current administration-our policy then wasn’t just blind prejudice or sexist remnant.
Politicians are simply telling the military to set a standard and hold everyone to it.
Prior to this happening, men were assumed to be fit for Infantry service by virtue of their biological sex. Now, both the Army and USMC are establishing gender neutral entry, graduation, and in-service physical standards directly related to job performance. If you can meet those standards, you can enlist, graduate from AIT, and serve in the Infantry. If you can’t, there are a variety of opportunities in food service.
You sure have a lot of excuses.
I was IN and I can tell you 80% of what you say is bullshit.
I assume you are IN so I ask: are you blind? I understand your approach and philosophy being a “gender-neutral” world (and I agree wholeheartedly in the non-IN world), but the same SJW’s that you indirectly and passively criticize would make you a hypocrite as you appear to be one yourself.
Just an observation.
The IN is not about an equal playing field, it is about winning and everything that comes with it.
Remember that.
Well, then why don’t you try it?
Oh, BEANS! Don’t stir the pot!
Wait for it…
Who asserted ALL men are better at fighting wars than all women? It may have appeared on TAH, but I haven’t seen it. If that is your belief and not a quote, I agree.
I feel women who successfully complete training and otherwise qualify should be allowed to do so.
Training, however, though extremely, extremely difficult, as evidenced by the number of men who drop, is not the same as being in the field. I learned that. Most Corpsmen and Grunts I knew felt the same.
As an aside, and not directed to anyone, the lowering of standards will result in the death of troops, both male and female. The military should not serve as a continuous social experiment by the tinkering SJW twinkies. The SJWs don’t have a dog in this fight. Their objective is to force others to comply with their beliefs and then they can feel good about themselves, regardless of the outcome. The outcome will not be favorable for those KIA b/c of SJW manipulation.
Reread my first sentence above and it did not come out as I intended. A reader might assume ‘If that is your belief and not a quote, I agree.’ suggests I agree that All men are better fighters than women. Not at all. What I meant to say was I respect your opinion to make that statement but I totally disagree. I rarely use words such as ‘all’ or ‘every’ or ‘everyone’. Or at least I try not to use those words. Rarely are there absolutes. Anyway, many women are much better at fighting wars than many men. Many women are not. The proof is in the pudding. If they can successfully complete the required training, w/l the lowering of standards, they should be allowed to be in the infantry or other endeavors that require extreme physical stamina. Never should standards be lowered to appease the mindless SJW, most of whom have no dog in the fight. They wish to observe at a distance and enjoy the carnage. IMO
My post was directed to Lostcause re his statement ‘The assumption that all men are better at fighting wars than all women is absurd.’ I had assumed he made the statement b/c someone had made that assertion. I haven’t seen it and wondered where Lostcause got it. I never saw that opinion from anyone on TAH. It simply is not true.
Lostcause often reads into something that simply isn’t there.
Nothing new about that, he can’t be bothered to actually proofread before commenting.
Lostcause often appears to be a practitioner of the rectus extractus school of argument, AKA MSU.
It’s a side effect of his extreme recto-cranial inversion
I don’t believe anyone has said that ONLY men are better at fighting than women, or that ALL men are better than ALL women.
Who was it said he had a tanker crew that was all women, that they had mouths like sewers and he just loved them because they were so damned dedicated?
And no one here has discounted the role of Soviet women in the Red Army trained and working as snipers during World War II.
There may be a lot of hoohah that goes on here about women in combat zones, but I haven’t seen anyone yet say that ALL men are better at it than ALL women.
And rightly so.
Not all adult males are men.
If you make that ‘adult humans’ and ‘grown-ups’, I agree completely.
There seems to be some social divide in this generation between the adults who are grownups, and the children in adult bodies.
OMG….that is so true and the prevalance is disturbing.
I get email articles from inc.com, a business website. The last few days have been chock full of articles about personnel issues with millenials and how to understand them and deal with them.
It makes me thankful that I’m still serving the military as a DA Civilian and not having to deal with such issues. There have been some changes even here over the years, but nothing like what I see on the savannas inhabited by free ranging humans
I get my ear bent routinely by friends that are forced to fend for themselves in that ecosystem.
“The last few days have been chock full of articles about personnel issues with millenials and how to understand them and deal with them.”
They need to talk to my Nephew, Lee, who though he himself can be considered a millenial has a very strong work ethic.
He has his own Construction business and can do anything that involves building a house from clearing a lot to installing custom kitchens, bathrooms and flooring.
He has had guys that he gave a chance to work. If they slack off or whine he tells them ” go sit under that tree until Five” then I’ll give you a ride home, you are fired”
It’s the group of millenials that have a common base in being ‘sheltered’, for lack of another word. They use words like microaggression to describe someone who tells them what to do in a no-nonsense fashion, like your nephew. He’s the flip side of that coin.
It’s not saying there is no hope for that generation. Not all of them are slackers or self-centered little grass sprigs, but there are enough of them to give the rest an undeserved connotation. I think this will sort itself out.
Your nephew and others like HIM will be the successful examples, where those who he fires will be working at greasy spoon diners bussing tables, or asking people ‘Would you like fries with that?’
There is one thread on DU this morning, and I quoted something from it, in which the commenter echoed what you’ve said. These ‘kids’ are nearly impossible to train, don’t understand anything they’re supposed to do or how a work place functions, and companies are finding it cheaper to upgrade training for current employees instead of hiring newbies, who are shocked at the ‘unsheltered’ quality of the ‘real’ world.
That is a sad, sad thing to say about these adult children coming into the work force. I am SO glad I’m retired!
Ditto on the glad to be retired statement. I can leisurely watch the insanity taking place in the country w/o being physically involved in the fray. What I see pisses me off to the max, but that’s another story. The kids coming into the workforce, including military service, have often left their safe space for the first time. They don’t have a clue how to survive in the real world, the world w/o safe spaces, group hugs and aromatherapy boutiques. I’m told by senior Sailors and Marines that the behavior they exhibited in civilian life is often prevalent in the military. They try to revert to their old ‘I’m offended by everything’ mentality. Even at their first duty station after boot they have not yet learned to deal with the reality of the world outside their safe space. Or so I’m told.
Those who revert to the “I’m offended by everything mentality” usually get eaten by the rest of the pack.
If they don’t eventually come around and get with the program, their military career usually gets cut short at some point.
At least, that’s what I observed how the Marine Corps approached such things, but that was some time ago.
Maybe things have changed a bit.
Amen. Which is the major reason I oppose the presence of women in combat units. It is, to put it politely, unrealistic to expect young men and women to act like ladies and gentlemen, or even grownups, under extended field conditions in a combat zone. Add in omnipresent firearms and explosives and you are going to get unnecessary casualties.
Here is a link today re the female Sailor who was among those captured by the Iranians earlier this year.
“A Navy petty officer second class, the only female sailor among the 10 who were detained, received the Navy Commendation Medal on Aug. 3 in recognition of her efforts to summon help under the noses of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard members who captured the crews.”
And here is the link. Have at it …
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/08/10/female-sailor-recognized-for-bravery-iranian-detention-incident.html
I have to ask why the others didn’t try to follow her example.
Is the blabbermouth in that brief video the LTjg who couldn’t find his way out of a paper bag with a map and a compass? Because if he is, and I ever see his sorry ass at my Walmart, I will do more to embarrass him in public than he can possibly imagine.
I read it. Yeah, her actions were extraordinarily heroic…for a girl.
For a girl??????
Pfffffttttt!
When screaming for help won’t work, try the emergency beacon.
First I believe standards should never be lowered, altered or made to accommodate anyone, male or female. She tried and she failed, so move on, it’s not the end of the world or her career. It is not the atypical Amazonian female we are talking about here for combat roles but the general population of women. Also we are not talking about Israeli women in combat who have a completely different outlook than most, as a gender and their national mindset. We are talking about the American population of men and women where it is getting harder and harder to find men who are willing and more important, able to serve. Now translate that to the current female population of America and the story gets worse. Not knocking anyone for wanting to try. But if you try and fail, take pride in the fact you gave it your best if you did. If you want standards changed to make it easier to make it, you are in the wrong line of work.
What did you do when the Russians buzzed you? “Nuffem.”
What did you do when the Russians overflew your deck? “Nuffem.”
What did you do when a few Iranians in a canoe boarded you? “Nuffem.”
What did you do about accommodating gays, transvestites, and transexuals? “Well, now, glad you asked. We are the point of the spear on those issues. We…”
So after giving her a second chance she still dropped out. No shame in that, many men can’t do it either. The shame will come when the Marines lower their standards so that a woman will be able to pass
Maybe she should apply to Ranger School?
It should not be an issue.
Or the new and improved…Rangerette School. 😀