Women in IOC: I've taught girls more aggressive than some boys, but....

[BaiHu]

can someone put some color on this? What is the point? I mean, if only 2 women want to volunteer and they fail, then what is the true demand for women in combat?


The only two women to participate in the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course (IOC) failed ongoing tests to determine which infantry positions should be available to women, according to the Marine Corps Times:

The women failed the introductory Combat Endurance Test, a punishing test of physical strength and endurance, officials at Marine Corps headquarters said Tuesday. The latest class began March 28 at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., with 110 lieutenants participating. Ninety-six men passed the initial endurance test. Twelve men and two women — the only female Marines taking part — failed.

http://freebeacon.com/female-marines-fail-infantry-officer-course/

[Kevin B.]

I have to watch what I say but I will say this...

The "true demand" is for more women in senior leadership positions in our Military. The bulk of the senior leaders (General Officers) have historically been drawn from the combat arms-Infantry, Armor and Special Operations- where women are barred from serving.

[BaiHu]

I have to watch what I say but I will say this...

The "true demand" is for more women in senior leadership positions in our Military. The bulk of the senior leaders (General Officers) have historically been drawn from the combat arms-Infantry, Armor and Special Operations- where women are barred from serving.

I understand the touchiness on this subject, but....

If all the people on the battlefield are men, then is it wrong to assume that those who have BTDT have a better sense on how to command and what those troops have gone through?

If no woman wants to be or is not capable of passing the prerequisites to get on the battlefield, then is it wrong to assume that those who have not BTDT should not be in command, for they know not what the troops go through?

[Kevin B.]

If all the people on the battlefield are men, then is it wrong to assume that those who have BTDT have a better sense on how to command and what those troops have gone through?

Not it is not wrong to assume that, though I would add that there is no guarantee that having "BTDT" equates to the ability to successfully command.


If no woman wants to be or is not capable of passing the prerequisites to get on the battlefield, then is it wrong to assume that those who have not BTDT should not be in command, for they know not what the troops go through?

There are some women who are interested in serving in other capacities on the battlefield. The issue lies in the fact that, some people are more interested in ensuring everyone has an equal chance to be successful and when the physical prerequisites prevent certain people from experiencing success, would rather change those prerequisites than acknowledge that those people can not/will not be successful .

[RoyGBiv]

What useful skills and perspectives do you lose from your top command by narrowing your candidate pool in this way?

BTDT is certainly important... but does this de-facto requirement weaken your overall decision making ability in any way?
If yes... How best to rectify?

Back on topic...
If command identifies X, Y, Z as the necessary skills for positions A, B, C... Nobody should get the job if they can't meet the skills.

[Kevin B.]

At the risk of oversimplifying, you probably do not want a quartermaster officer commanding an infantry division for the same reason that you do not want an anesthesiologist heading up your neurosurgery department.

[BaiHu]

I brought up the BTDT remark, b/c I often hear from those in the military complaining that men, who haven't been in combat, tend to be poorer leaders. Therefore, my assumption is if a woman cannot meet the prereqs to even get the opportunity to BTDT, then how will she stack up as a leader of soldiers that are on the ground? How is it good for morale if the person in charge of you a) hasn't passed the same hurdles as you, b) hasn't been or can't be anywhere near the situation you've been in and c) is essentially being politically appointed in order to make the military more fair or equitable?

This, IMO, is a disaster no matter what the situation. You can change women in the military for short men in basketball or sumo wrestlers for the 400 meter hurdle. It's a bad idea to change the program for the sake of fairness, rather than evolving out of a fear of extinction. Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.

Imagine if all the long necked giraffes were forced to feed the shorter giraffes b/c they couldn't reach the leaves. What would happen when the long necked giraffes died off b/c they had to feed more and more short giraffes?

[NickA]

An excellent post from my new favorite blogger:
http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/04/01/women-in-combat-myths-and-realities/

His distinction between "women in combat" and "women in combat arms" was especially interesting to me.

[David Armstrong]

I think the issue is not whether most women could qualify, the issue is more that if a woman does qualify the same as a man she should be given the opportunity to try. I'm somewhat ambivalent on the whole thing. There is something about females in the combat arms that disturbs me, but we heard much of the same when bringing women into law enforcement and that has worked out fairly well.

[BaiHu]

An excellent post from my new favorite blogger:
http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/04/01/women-in-combat-myths-and-realities/

His distinction between "women in combat" and "women in combat arms" was especially interesting to me.

Thanks for reminding me. I love his stuff and agree.


I think the issue is not whether most women could qualify, the issue is more that if a woman does qualify the same as a man she should be given the opportunity to try. I'm somewhat ambivalent on the whole thing. There is something about females in the combat arms that disturbs me, but we heard much of the same when bringing women into law enforcement and that has worked out fairly well.

I agree with you too David.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Kevin B.]

Here is a pretty decent article on the topic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/30/army-may-train-women-for-rigor-of-front-lines/?page=all

[BWT]

A female general said this,

“Put them through the infantry officer basic for the officers and infantry course that the enlisted soldiers go through, and see how the women do,” Gen. LeBoeuf said. “Even if there’s one woman, then that woman needs to have that opportunity.”

I'm all about men and women being equal. I'm a devout Christian, but, we have different roles. If you don't know, it costs what? A million plus dollars I've heard to train a SF soldier, how about rather than looking for the 1-3% of Women that hypothetically could pass male standards and maybe those schools we look at how much time, money and effort will be wasted trying to promote equality and having an astronomical failure rate so they can have the right to try to earn the 1 in a hundred chance, to serve next to Men?

How about we try to increase the ability of our current soldiers not to fail out of these demanding schools at alarming rates and maintain the integrity of the program.

Rather than try to find the one in a thousand woman who can barely meet requirements?

I do t hate women, or disrespect them. But a country that's at War and in massive debt needs to find better ways to spend the money we do versus trying to beat the massive odds of the situation just to try to promote equality. Or some sense of it.

80% of SEAL trainees fail.

http://www.extremesealexperience.com/121.l.2140.ARE_YOU_A_FUTURE_NAVY_SEAL

60% of Ranger candidates fail.

http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/RTB/

Looks like of the preselected SF candidates

50-60% Fail, these are pre screened candidates

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090324184906AA9qG2V

That last one isn't a great source.

Force Recon it appears can't even fully staff their Battalions and never was able to.

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9071945704/m/9940018651001

I mean... C'mon.

If only 1% of women can match the average male, and the top male candidates are failing at such high rates. Why spend the time?

I don't see it as equality.

ETA: I'll tell you what's sexist. Telling a woman who if she chooses to be a stay at home Mom she has less value.

That's sexist.

[hufnagel]

Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.


oh how that simple phrase is so true, and yet so forgotten or worse trampled on by the masses who can't compete.

[nalesq]

Everyone says, 'hey, let's then just make the PT standards the same for men and for women, and if women can make it, then great, let them be infantry,' but it's not that simple.

If you made the PT standards the same for females as for males, you would actually end up screwing over the females for promotion purposes, because a female would find it vastly harder to meet say, the 100% max standard on the PT test, compared to the men who would find it much easier to do so. So a female who, in the current system under the female standards, is a 100% PT goddess, now, under the "1 (male) standard for everyone PT test" is just a 60% barely-making-it soldier on paper, which will hinder her military career.

Since a lot of this "let's let women into the combat arms branches" impetus appears to be driven by a desire to level the playing field for promotions down the road (since combat arms soldiers tend to get promoted farther), how long do you think that state of affairs will be allowed to continue, before the standards just get lowered?

[Kyle Reese]

Equal opportunity also means that women attending traditionally all male schools within the Armed Forces have the opportunity to fail out of them, just like their male counterparts. I'm not opposed to women serving in combat arms, provided they meet the same standards that males have to.

[Kevin B.]

Equal opportunity also means that women attending traditionally all male schools within the Armed Forces have the opportunity to fail out of them, just like their male counterparts. I'm not opposed to women serving in combat arms, provided they meet the same standards that males have to.

The issue is that we have leaders who want to lower the current standards and then hold everyone to the same standard.

[hufnagel]

I would assume that the standards that need to be met are based on real world requirements of the personnel being trained. As such it should not matter your gender, race or other "labels"... if you can't meet the standards you fail. They're there for a reason. Changing them or giving someone or a group of someones a pass because they cannot meet them puts the lives of those they serve with in danger.

[BaiHu]

Wasn't this an issue with NY firefighters not too long ago?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[TGS]

I'm assuming not everyone has read this, which I thought was a pretty good read:

Get Over it! We Are Not All Created Equal (http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal)

[Drang]

can someone put some color on this? What is the point? I mean, if only 2 women want to volunteer and they fail, then what is the true demand for women in combat?
The true demand for womyn in combat comes from political "leaders", especially "progressives", who are pretty much required to be feminists.

[JConn]

Equal opportunity also means that women attending traditionally all male schools within the Armed Forces have the opportunity to fail out of them, just like their male counterparts. I'm not opposed to women serving in combat arms, provided they meet the same standards that males have to.



This.

[ToddG]

So a female who, in the current system under the female standards, is a 100% PT goddess, now, under the "1 (male) standard for everyone PT test" is just a 60% barely-making-it soldier on paper, which will hinder her military career.

So are military PT standards for combat arms soldiers supposed to be based on combat effectiveness, or making sure everyone has a chance for career advancement?

[JConn]

The "standards" for physical fitness are already pretty low. Most everyone can pass them without working out too much. Essentially if you are in OK shape, you are good to go. If a combat arms soldier is just passing their pt, its bad news for everyone involved. If pt standards are lowered to make promotion easier for females then any sense of priorities has been thrown out the window. Not saying it couldn't happen, just saying.

[TGS]

The "standards" for physical fitness are already pretty low. Most everyone can pass them without working out too much.

Passing a PFT, and "passing" a PFT are two different things......at least in the USMC. The standard enforced is usually much higher than the paper standard. An 0311 (rifleman) with 8 pullups, a 27 min 3-mile and 80 crunches is passing, but that dog just ain't gonna hunt. A lot of times, not even in The Wing. An 0302 (infantry officer)? Ha. Haha! Anyone can hate on officers all they want, but Marine officers are not held to any joke of a PT standard.

[Kyle Reese]

Passing a PFT, and "passing" a PFT are two different things......at least in the USMC. The standard enforced is usually much higher than the paper standard. A 03 with 8 pullups, a 27 min 3-mile and 80 crunches is passing, but that dog just ain't gonna hunt. A lot of times, not even in The Wing.

When I was in the Ft Myer MP CO, an APFT of 270 minimum was deemed "acceptable" for NCO's. The Army standard for passing (was) 180/300.

[TGS]

When I was in the Ft Myer MP CO, an APFT of 270 minimum was deemed "acceptable" for NCO's. The Army standard for passing (was) 180/300.

"Acceptable", and I imagine still coming under scrutiny to some small degree.

[Kyle Reese]

"Acceptable", and I imagine still coming under scrutiny to some small degree.

If you scored 270 or higher, you were more or less told that a higher score was expected the next time. Under 270? Extra PT. Fail an APFT or tape over? Watch out.

[peterb]

Wasn't this an issue with NY firefighters not too long ago?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Don't know about NY in particular, but the fire service in general has dealt with this by moving from pure tests of strength that were seen as favoring men(bench press, pull-ups, etc.) to job-oriented tasks(hose drag, stair climb, etc.) The thought is that it doesn't matter what combination of strength and technique you use as long as you can do the work.

Here's an example: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/fstems/trainingcert/testing/documents/OrientationGuide.pdf

[ford.304]

Don't know about NY in particular, but the fire service in general has dealt with this by moving from pure tests of strength that were seen as favoring men(bench press, pull-ups, etc.) to job-oriented tasks(hose drag, stair climb, etc.) The thought is that it doesn't matter what combination of strength and technique you use as long as you can do the work.

Here's an example: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/fstems/trainingcert/testing/documents/OrientationGuide.pdf

This seems to be a reasonable approach to me. It doesn't matter how much you can bench, it matters that you can get yourself and your gear to the right place in shape to fight.

Personally I think they should just make a separate women's combat unit with the best female soldiers who want to volunteer, held to whatever standard they find is effective. If they hold their own in combat, then maybe the issue is with our PT standards. If they don't, well they're not making your other units weaker.

There are precedents:
In world war 1, there was a separate detachment made of men who volunteered, but were too short to meet normal standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Regimental_Combat_Team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans_in_the_Ameri can_Civil_War

Give women a chance to try while minimizing the risk.

[BaiHu]

Don't know about NY in particular, but the fire service in general has dealt with this by moving from pure tests of strength that were seen as favoring men(bench press, pull-ups, etc.) to job-oriented tasks(hose drag, stair climb, etc.) The thought is that it doesn't matter what combination of strength and technique you use as long as you can do the work.

Here's an example: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/fstems/trainingcert/testing/documents/OrientationGuide.pdf

That makes sense, I was referring to this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano

[TCinVA]

It's inevitable that the cancer that is Diversity! will rot the standards.

[Sparks2112]

Having been several places while in the army that had marine units stationed there I was always SUPER impressed with the physical fitness of the marines I met. They were all pretty beastly.

[secondstoryguy]

The current equality/PC trend in both military and law enforcement circles is simply to lower the standards so that there is an even playing field between men and women. Often the standards that are lowered are long-standing tests that men have had no trouble passing but that women have problems with. They typically do this by averaging men's and women's scores on a given task and setting the cutoff there. I witnessed this first hand last month when I took the physical test for a LEO job. The times/standards were ridiculously low due to averaging.

I don't believe in this at all. You weaken one link and the entire chain fails. Women are weaker than men, period. If they were physically equal you would see them playing professional sports alongside men(from a physical standpoint combat is the ultimate professional sport). Sure, you can find that one woman outta every few thousand that can perform to the level of an average male but IMHO its not worth the internal logistical changes(berthing areas, medical needs, dealing with favoritism due to relationships, etc) you would have to make to integrate them. Is it fair to the women that can perform to level of an average male? No, but one of the first lessons I was taught as a child is "life is not fair". If you want to build an efficient, smooth-running combat unit, leave the females out(or form all female combat units...LOL!)

In combat and often in LEO work you often depend on the physical ability of your buddies/counterparts to be an effective team. If you cut corners, your just trading the safety of all those involved for politically correct window dressing.

[peterb]

It's inevitable that the cancer that is Diversity! will rot the standards.

Agree if it's diversity for diversity's sake, but removing unrelated selection biases can make for a stronger organization.

Orchestras started hiring many more female performers after they changed to blind auditions, where applicants play behind a curtain and are never seen by the judges. It's hard to argue that they're selecting worse musicians if all they're judging is what they hear.

Prior to the auditions being blind, the judges were adamant that they were choosing fairly, based only on musical skill. But the data refutes that. Unconscious bias can be hard to recognize.

Setting up a selection method that is truly fair and relevant to actual job performance is not trivial.

[Kevin B.]

Setting up a selection method that is truly fair and relevant to actual job performance is not trivial.

I am all for it. However, I am certain that in the majority of cases it will result in less diversity, not more. I am equally certain it will never come to fruition outside certain units, where selection methods relevant to actual job performance already exist.

[David Armstrong]

Don't know about NY in particular, but the fire service in general has dealt with this by moving from pure tests of strength that were seen as favoring men(bench press, pull-ups, etc.) to job-oriented tasks(hose drag, stair climb, etc.) The thought is that it doesn't matter what combination of strength and technique you use as long as you can do the work.

Here's an example: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/fstems/trainingcert/testing/documents/OrientationGuide.pdf
That is what LE has gone to in large part...here is the task, get it done however you need to do it. Doesn't seem to have reduced effectiveness to any great degree.

[Drang]

I would assume that the standards that need to be met are based on real world requirements of the personnel being trained.
Would 'twere so...

[Drang]

New Fitness and Combat-Readiness Tests | Army.com (http://army.com/new-fitness-and-combat-readiness-tests) Not sure they're still planning on implementing this.
USMC Combat Fitness Test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Fitness_Test)

[Kevin B.]

The Army's test is dead. The Marine Combat Fitness Test has separate standards based on gender.

[JHC]

Even passing the rigorous male PT standards does not equal sustained ground combat operations; rucking the Hindu Kush with 100 lbs of armor, pack, ammo.
One of the female former officers leading this charge could move her svelte 120 lb body across the Ironman faster than many men. So what? That does not equal sustained ground combat operations. Females already suffer a dramatically higher rate of ortho injuries in sports than males. Sustained ground combat operations is tearing up the joints, vertebrae and disks of males.

Does adding females to these ground units make them more effective at accomplishing their mission? No. Simple. Don't do it.

It's been said and it appears so from their leading spokeswomen - this is about officers wanting their ticket punched. Get it in the MPs, get it in the missile components of FA or ADA.

The way its tracking, the USMC has set a good example. Don't bend the standard one iota and build the case not to change. They have a couple years to the final decision point.

[TGS]

One of the female former officers leading this charge could move her svelte 120 lb body across the Ironman faster than many men. So what? That does not equal sustained ground combat operations. Females already suffer a dramatically higher rate of ortho injuries in sports than males. Sustained ground combat operations is tearing up the joints, vertebrae and disks of males.

This is what Capt. Katie Petronio was talking about in the article I posted. In addition to the ortho injuries, there's also a whole slew of hormonal problems for women placed under that workload.


Does adding females to these ground units make them more effective at accomplishing their mission? No. Simple.

In conventional warfare, true; human terrain operations in countries with sensitivities about male>woman contact, not so much. Female Engagement Teams have been pretty important in contemporary operations. Petronio gets to this point as well, and posits a secondary 03xx MOS designator for female Marines to have more FET/infantry specific training, though not be permanently assigned to an infantry unit.

She's probably the most reasoned person I've ever read on the subject.

BTW, what happened to your hand? Ya get shot?

[Keydet08]

Female Engagement Teams have been pretty important in contemporary operations.

FET=Facebook Engagement Team

Taking a bunch of POG females from the group or wing, giving them about 6 months of mediocre training, then expecting them to do some MISO is not a recipe for success.

[TGS]

FET=Facebook Engagement Team

Taking a bunch of POG females from the group or wing, giving them about 6 months of mediocre training, then expecting them to do some MISO is not a recipe for success.

So is your disagreement with the efficacy of MISO, mediocre training, or the POG females?

[Keydet08]

So is your disagreement with the efficacy of MISO, mediocre training, or the POG females?

My disagreement is with the whole program, and my opinion comes from firsthand experience trying to employ them at the infantry BN level in Afg.