Women in U.S. infantry (USMC, Rangers, etc. - merged)

[Journeyman]

..... the fact that she's now slated for Pilot training after failing the IOC surprised me a little bit.

Why?  What classifications should be out-of-bounds if one fails to pass the Infantry Officers' Course?

What I found.....interesting.....about the article is that, even though she didn't know the detailed course requirements, she personally chose not to train to the male PT standard beforehand, and it's the Corps' fault for having two separate standards for the Recruit courses.  Personally, I value an Infantry officer who can think and show initiative as well.  25 males had also failed Day 1; they also chose not to be prepared, so it's not because of a sexist double-standard.


Edit: typo

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Why?  What classifications should be out-of-bounds if one fails to pass the Infantry Officers' Course?

I think it is more because Marine Corps pilots had to pass the IOC before being allowed to go onto the pilot side, or it used to be that way IIRC. 

Marine Corps Pilot Trg Info

 

[CombatDoc]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fourteen-women-have-tried-and-failed-the-marines-infantry-officer-course-heres-why/2014/03/28/24a83ea0-b145-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

Interesting article, and since I haven't done FORCE yet I'd like to know if it has alleviated any of the gender-specific double-standards (that was part of the point of the change, right?)

The FORCE test has one standard that is not gender specific ie women must pass the same tests as men within the same available time. For example, the first test is to lift a 20 kg sandbag above a line on the wall, 30 reps in 3.5 minutes.  This can be very difficult for a 45 kg person, should be less so for a 80 kg person. 

There is discussion about introducing "exemption" levels for the FORCE that I suspect will be age- and gender-specific.

 

[dimsum]

Why?  What classifications should be out-of-bounds if one fails to pass the Infantry Officers' Course?

I'm not saying any classifications should be out of bounds to anyone who fails any course, just drawing on the (admittedly AF-centric "holier than thou*") attitude that generally compulsory transfers wouldn't be from Inf O to an aircrew officer trade.  I actually applaud the USMC for thinking outside-the-box in that regard.

* Yep, I said it.  I stand by it - I'd bet on marrying Kate Upton tomorrow over passing an Inf O course. 

 

[Strike]

...25 males had also failed Day 1; they also chose not to be prepared, so it's not because of a sexist double-standard.

Ah, but those 25 men have the chance to try again.  The women do not.  So that right there is a double standard.

 

[MikeL]

I think it is more because Marine Corps pilots had to pass the IOC before being allowed to go onto the pilot side, or it used to be that way IIRC. 

I'm not sure about that, as women have been able to be USMC Pilots since 1993, and women being able to attend IOC is fairly recent. Also, browsing around that USMC Recruiting website, I see no mention of IOC(closest thing I saw was that a Pilot/Flight Officer can do a ground tour with a Infantry Battalion as a FAC) being a part of the training for Pilots/Flight Officers.

With all due respect to the foot-borne folks in the crowd, the fact that she's now slated for Pilot training after failing the IOC surprised me a little bit.

I'm not saying any classifications should be out of bounds to anyone who fails any course, just drawing on the (admittedly AF-centric "holier than thou*") attitude that generally compulsory transfers wouldn't be from Inf O to an aircrew officer trade.

Even if she passed IOC, she would not have become a Inf O and would have gone on to flight training; as she joined the USMC to be a Pilot/Flight Officer. Same as the 4(?) women that have passed the USMC Infantry course(0311 Rifleman), after the course finished they went onto their MOS school to be trained in the job they joined the USMC for.

 

[Journeyman]

Ah, but those 25 men have the chance to try again.  The women do not.  So that right there is a double standard.

OK, with that I agree.  Apples / oranges to her main premise though.


I've personally gone through some gruelling courses -- yes, I was younger.  Not once did I say upon completion, "thank goodness I didn't precede this course by time in a mixed-gender platoon, which would have clearly precluded me spending extra time in the gym, on the road, under a ruck in personal preparation for the training."

1.  The USMC states that their standard is justifiable and will not be lowered.
2.  She had the capability of ramping up her personal training in order to improve her odds of passing  [yes, "odds of" -- nothing will guarantee a pass]
3.  She failed, then notwithstanding potentially preparing for the more gruelling single-standard, blamed the fact that her previous training had two-standards.


Nice try 2Lt; best wishes on your pilot training. 

Hopefully we won't see a similar missive if she washes out and we have to hear about the laws of physics and aerodynamics being unfair.

 

[ballz]

I didn't see anything in there saying she didn't meet the male standard, she didn't meet the male "perfect score," which to be honest, I don't know very many Infantry Officers in the Canadian Army that could. She went way beyond the female standard of a 70 second bent-arm hang with her 16 pull ups (which is almost the perfect score for a man, and is waaaay beyond the minimum 3 required).

I am glad the USMC is not going to lower its standard. I also think she has a very valid point. Having women segregated through basic training is sexist and does put the female candidates at a disadvantage. Is it a disadvantage that can't be overcome? No. But it is a disadvantage and saying "she could overcome it if she just put more effort into it on her own time" does not make a gender-based advantage/disadvantage okay.

 

[Journeyman]

I am glad the USMC is not going to lower its standard...... Having women segregated through basic training is sexist and does put the female candidates at a disadvantage.

So you want one, non-lowered standard for all USMC training, notwithstanding that likely resulting in a 99% wash out rate of females.  Outstanding.

 

[ballz]

So you want one, non-lowered standard for all USMC training, notwithstanding that likely resulting in a 99% wash out rate of females.  Outstanding.

Why would it result in a 99% wash out rate of females? She is talking about being segregated in the early stages of their training when they show up at Officer Candidate School where the physical standard is much less than it is during the Infantry Officer Course (aka our St. Jean fitness standard vs our IODP1.1 fitness standard).

What decent argument can you make for the thesis "integrating women and men at the basic training level would result in a 99% wash out rate of females?" considering we, in Canada, already have everything integrated at the basic training level and still have tons of females coming through?

Granted I haven't done courses like the SAR Tech stuff you've done and probably a host of others, but I did get put on an "all-infantry" platoon during my Ph 2 (instead of all green trades), and our course was much more physically demanding than the other non-infantry serials, and I was definitely thankful for that when I was beginning DP1.1. Having a tougher course before DP1.1 made DP1.1 suck a lot less. Her argument that being put on courses that are easier than the male courses prior to IOC is a disadvantage seems pretty valid to me.

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, women are passing our courses; either our women are harder or our standards are lower.  You, me, the article have all acknowledged a higher USMC physical standard than the CAF, which we also agree the Marines should not lower.

Why would it result in a 99% wash out rate of females?

Establishing the current USMC male recruit standard for both genders means you are going to get a dramatic decrease in females graduating from recruit school, let alone their trade schools -- perhaps not a 99% wash-out -- but certainly not enough to justify eliminating the overwhelming percentage of female recruits who just want to be clerks, mechanics, whatever.....in order to give the minuscule number of women who want Infantry Officer 'a better chance.'

Failing to get in shape for a gruelling course isn't sexist, it's stupid, and blaming a system she was aware of because the standards existed before she joined is just lame.

I guess the problem is "personal responsibility" has way too many syllables compared to "kumbaya."

 

[Strike]

Establishing the current USMC male recruit standard for both genders means you are going to get a dramatic decrease in females graduating from recruit school, let alone their trade schools -- perhaps not a 99% wash-out -- but certainly not enough to justify eliminating the overwhelming percentage of female recruits who just want to be clerks, mechanics, whatever.....in order to give the minuscule number of women who want Infantry Officer 'a better chance.'

You know, I don't even think it's a matter of setting the standard to the male level at recruit school for all to pass.  Keep the standards the same but have the courses mixed.  Just because of the nature of competition and ego, the women are going to try and do their best to achieve the male standard just so that their male counterparts see them as equal.  Psychologically it's going to make the women tougher, which will better prepare them for those tougher male-dominated courses.

 

[Journeyman]

Well ballz, Strike, you two have at 'er; I'm going to opt out of this discussion.  I have to get the troops through the ball-busting (and ovary-busting) FORCE testing before I can get time to tell the Marines that their PT standards are all fcked up.



...but then, WHIMIS.....CTAT training.....maybe another SHARP lecture or two......perhaps a Safety teleconference.......yep, stupid Marine losers.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Journeyman is on target guys.  We had a similar situation when I did my Phase 3.  We had one female on the course who failed after week 3 due to lack of fitness.  She then proceeded to blame everything and everyone for her failure, rather then accepting the fact that she maybe needed to do a little bit more workup training beforehand.

In her defence, the system was also partially at fault because she had initially applied to be a Log O and the recruiting centre told her that Logistics was full and that the only trade they were offering her was Infantry.  Of course they also told her that she could switch later  :

I like the USMC approach and think that they are going about integration of females into the combat arms the right way.  Lets face it, in the infantry, reputation is everything and if we start lowering requirements to make the pointy end gender neutral then we are already setting those females that do pass, up for failure as they will be discredited when they arrive at their units.

This is a better approach than what we often do, which is, trying to stuff 10lbs of shit into a 2lb bag.  Sometimes it just doesn't fit.

 

[dapaterson]

The FORCE test has one standard that is not gender specific ie women must pass the same tests as men within the same available time. For example, the first test is to lift a 20 kg sandbag above a line on the wall, 30 reps in 3.5 minutes.  This can be very difficult for a 45 kg person, should be less so for a 80 kg person. 

There is discussion about introducing "exemption" levels for the FORCE that I suspect will be age- and gender-specific.

My understanding is that there may be the introduction of incentives for FORCE, not exemptions - that is, rather than a simple pass/fail, the test will grant some form of formal recognition of performance.  The performance would be comparative to others in the same gender/age bands.

 

[Transporter]

My understanding is that there may be the introduction of incentives for FORCE, not exemptions - that is, rather than a simple pass/fail, the test will grant some form of formal recognition of performance.  The performance would be comparative to others in the same gender/age bands.

Will we get more shiny pins to put on our DEU? I'll lift those sandbags an extra six inches if I can get a shiny pin 

 

[dapaterson]

Will we get more shiny pins to put on our DEU? I'll lift those sandbags an extra six inches if I can get a shiny pin 

How to give recognition is still up in the air, as far as I know.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

How to give recognition is still up in the air, as far as I know.

RMC gives anyone who achieves a certain fitness standard on the PPT crossed bats on their scarlet sleeves... maybe we should emulate RMC, heaven forbid!  ;D

 

[dapaterson]

RMC gives anyone who achieves a certain fitness standard on the PPT crossed bats on their scarlet sleeves... maybe we should emulate RMC, heaven forbid!  ;D

The Army in the early 90s had the "Warrior badge" a similar thing that was widely mocked.

There are lots of ways to do such things - do you recognize this year's performance, or do you recognize the cumulative performance over say the last 5 years?  Do you recognize individuals, or do you come up with a scoring to recognize units & foster competition that way?  Do you give uniform bling, water bottles/gym bags, leave or something else?

There are many things that are possible; all it takes is some imagination.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The Army in the early 90s had the "Warrior badge" a similar thing that was widely mocked.

There are lots of ways to do such things - do you recognize this year's performance, or do you recognize the cumulative performance over say the last 5 years?  Do you recognize individuals, or do you come up with a scoring to recognize units & foster competition that way?  Do you give uniform bling, water bottles/gym bags, leave or something else?

There are many things that are possible; all it takes is some imagination.

I actually don't mind the idea of crossed batons on the DEU, they could be worn on the opposite sleeve of the crossed rifle and wouldn't look completely out of place.