Women in combat (but not really) Vol. III

There is also the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) Leaders Course at Pendleton, I don't see that opening up to female Marine officers...seems to me that set them up to fail
the IOC

"See 2 failed the IOC, experiment over"

I've gone on record as saying women probably don't belong in infantry roles based on the heavy liftiing requirement in the MOS job qualification description...


However, the sexist military culture, in particular Marine culture regards female Marines as 3 types...

Sluts
B*tches
Dykes

Regardless of the countless powerpoint presentations regarding harrassment and attitude adjustments in treating female military members...the culture itself remains anti-female in the combat arms. It's a "boys club" basically.

It's not just the Marines, the Air Force had their own scandal involving female recruits going through basic military training.

Now you can deny this all you want, but those are the realities.

For an institution that is supposed to represent American ideals of equality..it remains sexist.
What you see as an "experiment" is not unlike what the military went through regarding the issue of race segregation...with racism permeating the ranks.

That social issue has been dealt with, but sexism remains.

A system built upon volunteers can't afford to discount 51% of the populace...females. Particularly as 40% of males between 18 - 24 are either physically or morally unfit for service.

Right now the services can afford to be "picky" but a contingency plan should exist that is more accepting of females in combat roles of some nature.

Allowing female candidates into Marine IOC is a start, but I would hardly say that a conclusion can be drawn, military wide, based upon 2 candidates washing out.

 

Marines have the lowest percentage of females, at 7%, of any service branch...
Of those 7% who are officers, I'd venture to say we're talking about less than 1,000 females who would be eligible to
participate in the Marine IOC...Nationwide.

If indeed a pilot program like this Marine Corps one that has been established, to place female candidates through a training course with identical standards to that of the male counterparts...
Army AIT would provide a more realistic dataset...it would open it up to female enlisted soldiers...not as rare of a commodity as female Marine officers.

The only argument I have on this discussion, is the categorical denial based on the presumption females are ill suited for direct ground combat roles...without establishing
substantiated evidence of same. The contingency being the standards relating to training and subsequent performance of the job remain virtually identical for both males and females.

When I was in undergraduate pilot training for the U.S. Air Force...the wash-out rate for fighter/bomber track in the T-38 phase of training...was in the neighborhood of 40%. I tracked heavies which admittedly had a lower failure rate of around 25%...This was all prior to President Clinton allowing females to serve as combat pilots, starting in '93. Point being, the same stigma towards females in terms of serving in aviation combat roles existed. No way could a female survive the program, standards would have to lowered...weaker candidates would get pushed through jeopardizing combat effectiveness; all for sake of a feminist - politically correct agenda. I may not know what a Marine or soldier infantryman goes through, I may not know the rigors of the training...but what I do know, is the stigma associated with females in the service as categorically deemed a detriment to combat effectiveness, without even given the opportunity to fail.

Hey, it's very possible that not even ONE female could pass advanced infantry training, but at least we'll know.

Give them the opportunity to fail...or possibly succeed, and I do applaud the Marine Corps for that.

 

I don't have time right now to answer all of this, I will tommorow.

I'll leave this though:

They didn't open up LAV Leaders Course to women because LAV Leaders Course is for Infantry Officers assigned to LAR units. In other words, every single Infantry Officer assigned to LAR battalions FIRST attends IOC and THEN attends LAV Leaders Course.

 

Stop trying to use the race argument. We've debated that over and over and over and over again and proven it wrong. Black men, white men, asian men, purple men etc. all have pretty much the exact same physical skills. Women don't have these skills.

Hate the boys club mentality all you want. Every dangerous physically demanding job has a "boys club" around it. Don't you think there's a reason for that?

You're broad assessment about Marine culture is also ridiculous. I don't see how you can categorize the views of hundreds of thousands of individual men. What you're doing is just as bad as branding women into three categroeis.

Even at the height of World War II Infantrymen only made up about 10% of the total military....if that. We definitely don't need women to fill in that number. This isn't the Roman Army where every soldier closes with the enemy. Women can do almost every job that men can. Women can easily fill in for other jobs and free up more men to join the Infantry....as they did in WW2 in the U.S., Japan, Russia, Germany etc.

I stated from the very begining that the test was still ongoing. This is still a result, nonetheless. Just because it's a result you don't like doesn't mean it isn't one.

 

I think it's a smart way to test women in the Infantry. The Marine Corps takes it's best and brightest women (theoretically) sends them through OCS for 10 weeks, TBS for 6 months, and then lets them volunteer for infantry. TBS is very infantry focused and during that school women would really learn to hone their Infantry skills and understand the rigors of the grunts. From what I've heard, it's quite common for motivated Infantry wannabes to decide to go to a different specialty after spending weeks out in the field during the various FEXs at TBS.

I don't really care what happened with pilot training. Clearly that was just sexism because women were more than physically capable of performing the job as has since been proven. Women HAVE NOT been able to prove themselves physically capable in infantry occupations.

 

There are actually higher initial physical standards for pilot training than the infantry. I've seen plenty of infantry with glasses, for pilot training..that's a disqualifier from the get go for undergraduate pilot training...a candidate must also pass a Class I Medical examination which is more detailed as to what the typical enlisted must pass to be in the infantry. You can wear coke bottled glasses, and as long as it's correctable to 20/20 you can be a grunt in either the Army or Marine. Despite your belief the infantry are the "physical elite" of the service, that's simply not the case. Physical strength is more important in the infantry, but that's different from physical standards such as uncorrected vision.

 

The reason I bring this up is this. What happens when a soldier breaks their prescription glasses? Say this happens in an intense firefight? They are a liability at that point, someone who might be physically weaker but can see with 20/20 visual acuity would be more valuable. The reason they allow glasses in the infantry, and essentially lower the standards for same, is to allow enough recruits in to fill all the infantry slots. I'm not putting down someone who needs glasses, but in the rigors of combat, if those glasses should break they would be an instant liability. The infantry therefore, already has a lowering of standards, even for males...I don't hear much talk about banning folks who wear glasses from the infantry even though they could be a very real liability on the battlefield...

I don't care if a Marine or soldier can bench press 500 lbs. and carry a load out 20 miles, double time....if they wear glasses and these glasses are damaged in the course of a battle; they are an instant liability. The reason there is an eyeglasses allowed clause, is as previously stated, to fill the infantry slots. 100% Combat effectiveness is already given a backseat to needing combat personnel.

 

You're ridiculous. You know very well I meant physical fitness standards and not general physical screenings. Take a class of fighter pilots fresh from flight school and a class of Infantry Officers fresh from IOC. The former may have better vision but the later will be more physically fit.

 

The military has basic vision requirements that prevent anyone from being blind on the battlefield. If a guy breaks their glasses they'll still be able to fight. You're also dead wrong about the loose requirements for numbers. Infantry has always been one of the most in demand professions, despite your prehistoric viewpoints. I know in the Marine Corps, recruits sometimes have to wait a year for an infantry slot and the competition for Officers at TBS is very fierce. Not letting in a potential stud because he has 20/40 vision would be stupid. You'll notice that Special Forces, which is much more selective than pilot training, has the same vision requirements as regular infantry.

 

You're missing the point. Uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 is a physical requirement for initial flight training. Once you get established and a pilot's vision deteriorates to needing eyeglasses, say 20/40, the Air Force at least, allows it. The Army/Marines infantry allows for uncorrected visual acuity up to 20/400...at that level, without eyeglasses a person sees the World very blurry, and would be a detriment in a combat scenario should they lose these eyeglasses. Yet the Army/Marines are willing to accept those risks because the narrowing of standards equivalent to what pilot training requires, would create a potential shortage of viable infantry troops.

Physical strength doesn't mean squat if you see blurry; eyeglasses can correct to 20/20, but this soldier is then dependent upon those eyeglasses...if they break or are damaged?
Well the Army/Marines are willing to take that risk out of necessity. I simply present a hypothetical, though a female recruit, even in excellent physical shape for a female might still be weaker than the average male counterpart...why are the services unwilling to take that liability risk putting them in direct ground combat units. I've already presented evidence that the available pool of potential male recruits...age 17 - 24, nearly 3 in 4 could not meet the physical or moral standards. With war winding down, the services can be picky now, but who is to say what geo-political event may unfold in the future that this may change. Can we rely upon an available pool of potential male recruits to fill the ranks voluntarily and within military standards? I would argue no.

 

What possible physical attribute is more important than vision? for a pilot, 90% of the information processed is done so by the eyeballs...I would assume the same is true of Special Forces?

Yet the infantry maintains vision standards far below that of pilot training...why? To narrow the standards would mean not being able to fill the infantry slots...the service takes the risk.

 

Bump.

Women Sue Panetta Over Combat Exclusion
Nov 28, 2012

Source: Stars and Stripes

http://www.stripes.com/news/women-sue-panetta-over-combat-exclusion-1.198571

WASHINGTON -- Four women and an advocacy group are suing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, alleging that the policy excluding women from combat units is unconstitutional.
The combat exclusion policy puts women at a disadvantage and “sends a clear message to the world that women are not capable of serving their country to the same extent as men,” according to the federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in California.

Major Mary Jennings Hegar, a combat helicopter pilot in the California Air National Guard; Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt, a civil affairs soldier in the Army reserves; Capt. Alexandra Zoe Bedell, a logistics officer in the Marine Corps reserves; and 1st Lt. Colleen Farrell, an active-duty Marine air support control officer, are the plaintiffs in the suit, along with the Service Women’s Action Network. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Northern California and the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.

Hegar said she knew she wanted to be an Air Force pilot at a young age and has proven she can do the job.

“The ability to serve has very little to do with gender,” she said. “It has everything to do with heart, character, ability, determination and dedication. This policy is a disservice to those women who put their lives on the line for their country.”

 

Which of course is pure drivel; yet it will be accepted with hardly a blink of an eye, thanks to the Boehnerization of the American male.

 

Uh, no it's not. 20/70, correctable to 20/20 with no waiver or up to 20/200 (-3.00 refractive error), correctable to 20/20 with a waiver. Anything worse than and up to -8.00 is eligible for PRK/LASIK and a waiver. And LMAO @ debating vision standards to make your case.

 

Uncle Ferd would join a co-ed military if he weren't too old...

Pentagon undeterred by sex scandals; policy on women proceeds
Thursday, January 3, 2013 - Despite sex scandals, Pentagon pushing women closer to battlefield

See also:

Is the no-draft military creating a warrior class?
January 2, 2013 WASHINGTON — Some fear all-volunteer force may desensitize US to effects of warfare

 

Good stuff as usual waltky, I mean "Uncle Ferd." Regarding the former...I will admit the statistics on sexual harassment and consensual hook-ups are a sad reality. Having 4-stars committing adultery, even allegedly, that sort amoral approach to leadership eventually filters down to the junior enlisted. It permeates the core values of the services. My personal opinion anyway. The civilian work environment entails entails a mixture of men and women. Seriously, if you can't be around a female and maintain professional decorum in the services; what makes them think working as a civilian around females is going to be any different. So we keep the "boys club" mentality in the Armed Forces because boys will be boys? Oh shucks Sergeant, I grabbed her ass cause she's so gosh darned purty. It's pathetic. I do acknowledge the stressed involved with close quarter living in the combat theater. It may be a mistake to mix the genders along those lines. However the problem of harassment and consortium appears to occur in all environs, and not limited solely to hazardous duty areas. Anyway my two cents.

Regarding the latter article on family history of service....anecdotal, my Dad was in the Army infantry for a stint in WW2, and while I didn't follow in his footsteps as a ground pounder, he certainly influenced to join up.

 

A feminized military for a feminized America. Good luck with that girls.

 

different physical requirements for different jobs...just as in various sports a body type that excels in one sport will fail miserably in another...

speaking with a guy from the commemorative air force who flew a B17 he says to carry the maximum bomb pay load carried by the bombers of WW2 were manned by a scrawny crew, 145-165lb weight was common not big burly infantry types, so they recruited small and lean crews...touring the B17 maneuvering through the craft was difficult with my 6'1" 220lbs carcass...

I knew two kids that both signed up to fly fighters F18's...both of them were excellent physical specimens and prepared for the initial physical tests...F18 recruits were each allowed only one attempt come, up short in any test and they would be rejected, one recruit failed a VO2 max test which he exceeded in previous private clinic testing, but the air force says on that the day he failed and that was it... the other recruit (a girl) passed all tests but was rejected from F18s because of menstruation, something to do with G Force...she was offered Herks but turned down the offer, it F18s or nothing for her...the testing was strict but it's understandable when you factor in the potential loss of a multimillion dollar F18, a infantry recruit breaking his glasses and losing his rifle doesn't have the same critical dollar value...

 

I'm not understanding any of this. The Navy flies the F-18, not the Air Force. Plus they don't "recruit" pilots to fly specific airframes.
An Air Force pilot candidate goes through various phases of flight training prior to track selection, which typically involves either fighter/bomber or heavies. Heavies are the C-17, C-130 and tankers. After track selection, the actual airframe a pilot advances to is dependent upon the needs of the Air Force. A pilot may even be given a remotely piloted airframe like the Predator. You're there to serve your country. There may be disappointment in being given an airframe that wasn't your first choice, but you suck it up and move on with 100% dedication. Throwing in the towel and withdrawing on request is equivalent to a child throwing a temper tantrum not getting what they wanted for Christmas. That sort of attitude does not translate to solid officership.

 

which would make sense if I lived in the US, you didn't notice the little flag in the corner?...

our air force flies F18's...twin engines were a requirement for arctic missions and our Navy doesn't use planes only choppers

enlisting is a two way street, the kids I knew signed up conditionally to fly Hornets, the military also has the option to reject them...that's just he way it was done...and there are more applicants to fly than available positions for pilots so the military can afford to be choosy and only take the very, very best...

 

Well you didn't specify it was the RCAF in your post. I have no idea how they run their dog and pony show up there. In the USAF, USN/USMC or USCG...a pilot candidate doesn't enlist. They are commissioned. The US Army is a little different because their pilots are warrant officers not commissioned. No deference to Canada, but the World's greatest pilots and training originate in the U.S. In fact Europe and NATO pilots train here. I see no reason to change things based on how Canada recruits their pilot candidates by specific airframe.

 

that's just jingoistic patriotism you have no way of proving that...

in fact NATO pilots train in Canada as well.... training in N America has little to do superior training and more to do with open airspace, europe has a very restricted airspace...

I never suggested you(USA) change...

 

That's not jingoism, that's a fact. The U.S. Has the world's greatest pilots, support crews equipment and training...on the planet. How many carriers does Canada have again? The U.Sm has been conducting carrier operations for decades...for nearly a century. There is nothing more difficult in the realm of military aviation than mastering carrier operations. Canada has historicalluy produced many combat aces and for what they have....do a fine job. However they are no where near the level of the U.S. In all aspects of military aviation...today.

Plus the Canadian system of pilot selection is nearly identical to ours...
Candidated, go through the basic officer training for the Canadian air force which includes a first phase of general training and, upon successful completion of the first phase, a second phase of language instruction that lasts 7 months. Once you've completed officer's training you then need to go into pilot training which begins with a Primary Flying Training course that you must pass in order to progress to high levels of fighter pilot training.

Perform at the highest levels during the 8 month long Basic Flight Training, during which you can be selected for the Fast Jet program that leads you into fighter pilot training.

So I'm confused where someone signs up just to Hornets. Like here, they need a college degree, they are then commissioned, then on to primary flight training...before track selection to "fast jets,"

 

Herk,
You might be surprised at the amount of inappropriate sexual behavior that takes places everyday in the workplace, both civilian and government. The problem on the civilian side is that it is most of the higher levels who engage in it and the problem with the government side is that it is from top to bottom. No matter how many regs and laws that are past in the civilian or in government, people are going to be that bastards that they are, those who are bastards. From homosexual to heterosexual shenanigans, these things take place and the only ones to stop it are those in the given work environments. In government, it tends to be worse because there is an entrenched cultural mindset where the perpetrators can actually establish a "known" culture of conduct and depending on their stature, seniority and connections, they go about what they do with impunity. It is for this reason among others, why I seen nothing good ever coming of combining male-female combat regiments.

 

baseless jingoism...having carriers is irrelevant, if it were relevant you're now stating US army and air force pilots are crap compared to navy/carrier pilots and that's BS...canada eliminated carrier operations decades ago as a needless expense....your over the top patriotism is obscuring your thought process...