Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

USMC and women in infantry

Discussion in 'The Stump' started by USMCPrice, Mar 17, 2015.

  1. Pacifist

    Pacifist Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    90
  2. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    Location:
    God's Country
    1775=2015, died of political correctness at 240 years of age. Rest in Peace Marine Corps, you had a good run. It took a political appointee to do what the Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, Chinese,Vietnamese and too many other foes never accomplished.
     
  3. Otto

    Otto Gearing up. Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,391
    Likes Received:
    1,574
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Female Navy Seals, hmmm.

    There are a lot of complications for integrated units, though I'd have less an issue with it if the standards were identical. I cannot see how that will be the case, what will they do? Have smaller logs in BUD/S?
     
  4. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    Location:
    God's Country
    The SEALS are probably the last group that will be effected because of the way they run their selection. The don't have a set standard but only select the best of the best. They use a bell curve. There are minimum prerequisites that must be met, but you need to sigificantly exceed them to be competitive. So you'd need several things to occur simultaneously. A small group of prospective candidates, with a large percentace of females having exceptional pt capabilities. The males in that particular class would need to be below average compared to a normal class. Then the females that made it through selection would need to stay healthy. In the Marine Corps test injuries to females were endemic.
     
  5. Otto

    Otto Gearing up. Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,391
    Likes Received:
    1,574
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    I just finished reading the executive summary of that USMC test report. It brings two thoughts to mind. 1) its not surprising at all, it just proves what we all know 2) this decision is reckless, dangerous, and will cost lives

    I'm 100% behind equality. However equality does not mean identical.
     
  6. WW2HistoryGal

    WW2HistoryGal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Nebraska
    I agree with you. This is absolutely reckless.
     
    Otto likes this.
  7. Otto

    Otto Gearing up. Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,391
    Likes Received:
    1,574
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Thanks WW2HG.

    I want to be clear about my position here as this is a sensitive topic to some. I'm fine with anyone performing any task as long as they are qualified. When it comes to tasks like warfighting, firefighting, etc you need the most capable to perform those tasks. If we are using a different metric of acceptance for any subdivision of the population for such critical roles, that's just not smart.

    If my home is on fire and a team of ten firefighters shows up with a ladder to rescue my family from the upper floor, I want the fastest and strongest group to be there regardless of their race or gender. Not necessarily the 5 top women and 5 top men, top 5 Asians and top 5 whites, or whatever equal measure that indicates "equality".
     
  8. Pacifist

    Pacifist Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    90
    One more step on the path to force "Equality" over "Fact". One more step towards the destruction of the West. So very very glad I'm never having kids.
     
  9. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    Location:
    God's Country
    It's worse than just the "you will gender integrate the infantry", if it were done by strongest, highest endurance, most skilled, most capable, gender blind, get the slot, I'd support it. That's not the case. This has been going on for some time now. Initially, the Marine Corps noticed that they needed to eliminate some of the gender disparity in PT testing in order to do away with the combat exclusion.They tried to transition the bent armed hang for females over to pullups, the scoring would still be modified by age and gender, but everyone would be taking the same test. One standard across the service was their end goal. The run wasn't messed with, nor were situps/crunches (almost no gender disparity in the latter exercise). They announced the change in 2013, gave a year to transition and in the meantime left it open for females to choose the exercise they'd perform for the test, so as not to hurt their careers during the transition period. The percentages of females opting to use the pullup doubled over the year to between 14 and 15 percent. Good. However, over the same time period they were unable to improve the performance to the point they could switch, because 55 percent of females still could not do the 3 pullup minimum. For those using the pullup, gender norming was to remain in place, eight pullups for a female to max, twenty for a male. They extended the deadline into mid-2015 to give more time to remediate, they have not been successful.
    The Marine Corps is only 7 percent female to begin with, they determined that the pullup switch would erode their ability to recruit and retain quality female personnel to maintain that percentage, without retaining the seperate standards.They contracted with an educational institution to design, implement and compile results for a scientific study into the subject. They also started trying to get their best females to go through infantry enlisted and officer courses, and to participate in the Integrated Ground Task force study. They ran females through the Infanatry School-East, but allowed them to use the female PT standard because they needed sufficient women for the study. They ran integrated male/female, all female, and all male units through a simulated MEU workup to make sure all personnel were technically qualified before the testing commenced. After the six month workup at Camp LeJeune they went to 29 Palms for a 3 1/2 month study period where they utilized their skills.
    From Marines.mil article listing the MOS' that were tested:
    "The task force consisted of Company A, representing (0311) rifleman; Company B, boasting mechanized roles of (1812) M1A1 tank crewman, (1833) amphibious assault vehicle crewman and (0313) light armored vehicle crewman; Weapons Company, further representing the infantry in (0331) machine gunner, (0341) mortarman, and (0351) assaultman and (0352) anti-tank missileman; and Battery A, showcasing the (0811) field artillery cannoneer MOS. The task force was rounded out with Headquarters and Service Company, which included an Engineer Platoon of (1371) combat engineers."
    The Marine Corps released the results, noted the disparities, and requested an exclusion. In the meantime, Secretary of the Navy Mabus issued a requirement that the Marine Corps would up its female percentage to 25% from 7% and would begin execution immediately. This percentage is greater than that in the US Army 13.6%, US Navy 16.4% (he also ordered the Navy to move towards 25% of shipboard sailors would be female) and Airforce, the service with the highest percentage of females, most technical positions and fewest personnel involved in ground combat at 19.1%. How can the Marine Corps reasonably, raise female PT standards to approximate those of males, and increase the percentage of females? How will they be able to maintain the staffing levels of their heavily infantry centric service with a smaller pool of males 75% vs current 93%, and simultaneously integrate females without losing combat effectiveness? Can't be done. Standards will have to be kept the same as they are now or lowered to meet the female, service wide percentage of personnel. Females not meeting a common physical standard will have to be utilized to man the infantry battalions because there won't be enough male Marines to fill the slots, or the battalions will have to deploy understrength. Not a good recipe for success.
     
    USS Washington likes this.
  10. Pacifist

    Pacifist Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    90
    Even if they manage to fill 25% strength with women they'd still deploy understrength. Overall, 11 percent of female service personnel scheduled to ship out were not able to in the previous year because of a pregnancy. Then add those who are in combat and decide to get pregnant to be sent home.
     
  11. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    In my opinion, having military experience(preferably being in the infantry) should be a requirement to be secretary of Defense, as they would understand what the ground pounders need to accomplish their mission, and most certainly would have opposed opening combat positions to women, Sec Def Carter made a huge mistake.
     
    Otto likes this.
  12. WW2HistoryGal

    WW2HistoryGal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Yep. I completely agree with you. I follow Jessie Jane Duff on Twitter (she's a retired USMC Gunnery Sergeant) and she has a lot of really good things to say on this topic.
     
  13. Pacifist

    Pacifist Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    90
  14. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    Location:
    God's Country
  15. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    Location:
    God's Country
    Thanks for reminding me of her WW2HistoryGal. Here's one of her articles:

    Should the National Football League allow women on the playing field? After all, they can kick and carry a ball, and professional football is one industry in which women are sorely under-represented, to say the least.
    It’s not that likely to happen, is it?
    The reality is Americans would be horrified to see a 220-pound strong safety drive over a female wide receiver running toward the goal line. There’s simply too great a disparity in body mass and strength between NFL players and women, and the physical demands are too great.
    Amazingly, what is common sense on the football field has now been completely abandoned on the battlefield.
    With the Pentagon’s recent announcement that combat positions will be open to women, we see the latest misguided effort to achieve “equality” where it cannot be achieved—and it may cost military women in the long run.
    Women have long served in support of combat missions, frequently near the front lines. As a woman and a 20-year veteran of the Marine Corps, I know first-hand how difficult combat field operations are.
    I carried in excess of 100 pounds of gear over difficult terrain for 10-15 mile marches throughout my 20-year career. This was done only with an M-16 rifle or pistol, not with the additional ammunition or heavier weapons our ground units carry. The fatigue was extreme and it was difficult to imagine how an infantryman overcame the difficulty of field movement for weeks or months at a time.
    Under current policy, women in the Marine Corps are held to a less-rigorous physical standard due to the obvious physical differences. It’s a physiological fact that women have less upper body strength compared to men—yet the physical demands of combat won’t change.
    Currently, women have higher rates of discharge for medical disability that prevents them from finishing their enlistment, or re-enlistment. Stress and muscular deterioration in women comes on faster and harder due to the heavy gear and physical duress in the field environment.
    Muscle atrophy, hip displacement, and arthritis in knees and joints are common ailments. Spinal compression occurs from long periods of heavy combat loads.
    This is the hard reality of how extended field time and intense physical standards take their toll. Women’s bodies simply aren’t designed for the fatigue of field operations with heavy field gear and weapons on less muscular body frames. (For an example, read this eye-opening article by Captain Katie Petronio, who details the long-term physical damage she endured supporting Marine Corps infantry as a combat engineer).
    Sure, a small number of women will meet the requirements and complete training. How will combat units adjust for these statistical outliers? What is reasonable accommodation when it comes to showering or relieving oneself?
    Even our civilian society allows for non-compliance when an accommodation requires unreasonable demands upon the employer. (The elephant in the room in the question of sexual abuse, which is already a seriously and heavily-documented problem in the services; it’s hard to imagine how this new policy won’t exacerbate that problem.)
    The bitter irony is that the long-term effect of this policy, which is intended to open up avenues for higher promotion to women, could result in fewer military opportunities for women.
    If this is about promotional opportunity (and there are female generals in fields outside of combat arms, by the way), then each field should be evaluated to ensure promotional opportunity is balanced fairly for women. This is a more practical adjustment than to simply remove restrictions. Women are often promoted faster than men in the fields they are assigned.
    Are we setting a woman up for failure by placing her into a field that will likely cause her body to deteriorate to a point where further service is impossible? Even if a female can get through Infantry Officers’ Course, which has a single physical standard for both men and women — and a 25% male drop-out rate — how long can her body meet the demands of the extreme training?
    The odds are remote that any woman in a combat position will make it 20 years to see the opportunity to retire, let alone be considered for the rank of general officer.
    Many of the advocates of this policy had support roles that never required them to sleep in mud, bathe without privacy and relieve themselves in the open.
    It’s alarming that women from the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, former officers who flew planes, or a few females who supported infantry for a few months as Female Engagement Teams in Iraq, have adopted a shallow “You go, girl!” mindset. These advocates, to say nothing of the media cheerleaders and others who have never served and are now celebrating this policy; have never met the rigorous requirements of the infantry themselves.
    There is zero evidence this new policy will enhance combat readiness. The attitude that all military opportunities must be equal — held by those who have misconceptions about the realities of long combat operations — demonstrates how few people understand what the mission of our infantry truly requires.
    Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Jane Duff, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), is a member of the Concerned Veterans for America’s organizing committee.

    http://nation.time.com/2013/01/30/so-when-are-women-joining-the-nfl/
     
  16. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    Location:
    God's Country
    [​IMG]
     
    USS Washington and Poppy like this.
  17. WW2HistoryGal

    WW2HistoryGal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Yep!
     
  18. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Perhaps not the best example.

    Had they let him 'serve' they could do no worse than they did, and might have done better since it was the disgruntled hunchback that told the Persians how to flank the Spartan line because he felt rejection.

    Just sayin.
     
  19. Pacifist

    Pacifist Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    90
    I can't agree with you. It's a realistic example. Note they did say he could support them. He could tend the wounded. He just couldn't preform on the fontline.

    The US military will not accept midgets. However they are encouraged to produce weapons, food, medical supplies, and everything the military needs to work.
     
  20. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    757
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    If you've read the Congressional reports on this subject, etc., the next thing coming is going to be a relaxing of many standards forced on the military to increase the number of women in combat units. What the reports are saying is that the military services have to prove that their standards are necessary to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Defense. That means if he thinks their standards are too high, not letting enough women compete for these jobs he can order the services to lower them to let women in.
    That has happened every time in the past where one of these affirmative action pushes happened. I fully expect it to happen here, and happen before Obama leaves office. That way the standards are in place and hard to raise back up without creating problems both for women already in units as well as political ones.
     

Share This Page