USMC 4-star: Women to attend infantry school

It seems the Marines are going to start training female infantry officers. As someone who spent five years in the Marine Corps Infantry I have to say that I am all for it. I look forward to knowing there are some hard corps women out there on the battlefield. I would have enjoyed fighting with women and having that fury that some have, although I do believe it would be harder to see a woman wounded or killed than compared to a man.

Marine Corps Times

The Marine Corps school that produces infantry combat officers will enroll its first-ever female students this year, Marine Corps Times has learned.

As part of the service’s extensive research campaign to determine what additional jobs could be opened to women, an undetermined number of volunteers will attend the Infantry Officers Course in Quantico, Va., said Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Corps’ assistant commandant. There, Marine officers are groomed to serve in direct combat roles and lead troops into battle.

It also looks like enlisted women will get their chance as well.

Soon, enlisted women also will have an opportunity to attend infantry training, Dunford said. Marine officials are developing plans to assign female Marines to the Corps’ Infantry Training Battalions, which fall under the Schools of the Infantry.

This is the only part I take issue with. I believe the physicall fitness standards should stay the same for the men and the women should be required to pass those same standards as the men if they want to serve in the Infantry. Full equality I say. If the standards are equalized then that would require lowering the mens standard which is there for a reason. But if a female Marine can go toe to toe with the men then she deserves the opportunity. I do think that if when women are allowed to fully serve in combat roles they will still be a minority but there will be some hard corps female Devil Dogs out there that's for sure.

Additionally, new functional fitness tests are being developed to help Marine Corps leaders determine how women and men perform in, and cope with, various combat tasks. The goal is to establish “gender-neutral” physical fitness standards. Details are scant, but the Marine Corps’ Training and Education Command is looking to purchase a variety of new equipment specifically for these tests, suggesting the tasks associated with them will closely mimic combat-essential duties such as operating and moving heavy weaponry, and carrying casualties from the battlefield.

The Marine Corps defines gender-neutral physical standards as being identical for men and women, rather than weighted — or “gender-normed” — like those applied in the service’s annual Physical Fitness Test. During the PFT, women can earn a minimum or maximum score with fewer repetitions and a slower run times than their male counterparts.

So, Women of ATS, how do you feel about this?

And, Men of ATS, how do you feel about this?

If they can make it through it, more power to'em.

I agree that physical standards should be uniform and not lowered.

reply to post by usmc0311


This is amazing! This is wonderful.

Too long have women been held back and not allowed this, or that, or some other thing.
Such an intolerable doctrine still occurs around the world where in some places women aren't even allowed to drive a car, or be seen bare-faced in public.

Opening up and allowing women to serve in infantry combat roles, giving everyone equal choice and equal option to choose what they want to do as opposed to choosing for them as has been done is fantastic and wonderful.

All men are created equal ... heh, yeah right. Women have yet to see that statement honored in full.

reply to post by usmc0311


While I'm upset the standards have been lowered to allow WM's in, I support the option of all Marines to pick up an 03 MOS. Now they'll be able to see how hard it really is! I was a POG (Personel Other than Grunt) & I worked in the 2 Shop, Most of my buddies were 03's and I didn't envy them at all , Working Party Up! lol , All Jokes aside, 03's have the Hardest job in the Corps. Semper Fidelis

reply to post by usmc0311


This is the only part I take issue with. I believe the physicall fitness standards should stay the same for the men and the women should be required to pass those same standards as the men if they want to serve in the Infantry. Full equality I say. If the standards are equalized then that would require lowering the mens standard which is there for a reason. But if a female Marine can go toe to toe with the men then she deserves the opportunity. I do think that if when women are allowed to fully serve in combat roles they will still be a minority but there will be some hard corps female Devil Dogs out there that's for sure.


This is the only part I take issue with...





Biologically, women have less lean muscle mass than men, and unless you are going the way of steroids and/or growth hormones, that isn't gonna change.


But what should change is the 11Bravo MOS being only for men. If a woman is willing to go through the same training, with qualification standards differentiating amongst the sexes, than hell yes!


It's not like there haven't been some hotties that are handy with the steel...

Sorry but I think this is BS. I'm all for letting women join the Marines but lowering the physical demands of the troops is a disgrace, there is a reason they are the best of the best. By lowering their standards they are basically saying woman are not equal and can't compete with their male counterparts, I say give women the same exact treatment as men and if they can't hack it, oh well......

reply to post by facelift

Biologically, women have less lean muscle mass than men, and unless you are going the way of steroids and/or growth hormones, that isn't gonna change.

I fully understand that but infantry weapons, gear, and combat, don't distinguish between man muscle and women muscle. That is where I am coming from on that issue.

But what should change is the 11Bravo MOS being only for men.

In the Corps the infanty has the 0311 mos code. I'm not sure if the Army will implement this soon or not. I would have guessed it would be the Army that would do it first before the Marines. But I guess the Corps just wanted to be first as ussual, ha ha. Thanks for the input.

Semper Fi

Originally posted by jheated5
Sorry but I think this is BS. I'm all for letting women join the Marines but lowering the physical demands of the troops is a disgrace, there is a reason they are the best of the best. By lowering their standards they are basically saying woman are not equal and can't compete with their male counterparts, I say give women the same exact treatment as men and if they can't hack it, oh well......

That's my feeling. If they want to be in the Infantry then they need to hang with the boys. If a woman can keep up with us in combat then I have absolutely no problem with them being there.

I see a myriad of issues with this change - not the least of which will be the leadership nightmare created by injecting mixed gender into the logistical component.

I was an Army SF Officer - I worked on some projects with women who were in black operations units. While they were competent in field craft and necessary in some instances for cover purposes they were a novelty at best.

They were never really accepted because they don't have to meet the same standards to serve in the same unit. They can't attend the Q course which is always required for males in a special mission unit and I honestly only met one female who I think cold have passed. She was one of the best NCO's I ever worked with male or otherwise.

Often there mere presence led to a degradation of unit cohesion and with one exception there was always a romantic interlude within the team. Fine by me by me even if it was usually adultery (consenting adults and all that) but it created jealously and petty spats.... Mission focus, people...mission focus.

That and they were never part of the brotherhood because they didn't pass the same curses under the same standards.

This will be a nightmare for leaders to implement. Glad I won't be in a leadership position when the Army decides this too. I can't see the cost to benefit ever being met for the changes required over the benefits gained.

reply to post by Golf66


I see where you are coming from and understand. I'm sure it will be a complete clusterbleep to begin with and to implement. I also think there will be problems with romantic relationships and such. With any major change there are challenges. Black Marines faced huge hurtles when they were intergrated in with the rest and the women will be no different. As long as the standards don't fall I think the problematic issues will eventually work themselves out. I do agree and am glad that I will not have to be in a position of leadership when this transtion takes place. Anyway, thank you for your input.

Semper Fi.

reply to post by facelift


One of the problems with the whole 'lowering' of standards argument is that the fitness standards have been designed around male physiology.

While I made a statement regarding "All men are equal ..." in my last post, there are indeed some physiological differences between men and women where some things regarding physical stress, pain management, balance, decompression, flexibility, and lower body muscle management and control, as well as thermal regulation in many cases and studies give strong indication of feminine dominance in those areas.

Were the fitness regimes designed around both physiological standards, you'd find just as many men lacking in areas where women excel over men as you do with women where physical fitness regimes are designed around a purely male physiology.

reply to post by usmc0311


I fully understand that but infantry weapons, gear, and combat, don't distinguish between man muscle and women muscle. That is where I am coming from on that issue


I hear you Lima Charlie chief...not saying they should be a 60 gunner, just that a 2 way firing range doesn't discriminate amongst the sexes, so let 'em drive on.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by facelift

 

One of the problems with the whole 'lowering' of standards argument is that the fitness standards have been designed around male physiology.

While I made a statement regarding "All men are equal ..." in my last post, there are indeed some physiological differences between men and women where some things regarding physical stress, pain management, balance, decompression, flexibility, and lower body muscle management and control, as well as thermal regulation in many cases and studies give strong indication of feminine dominance in those areas.

Were the fitness regimes designed around both physiological standards, you'd find just as many men lacking in areas where women excel over men as you do with women where physical fitness regimes are designed around a purely male physiology.

edit on 19-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

I think that is probably the main reason for the change in the standards. I just hope that they still keep it competative enough where only the true tough guys' and girls' can be the ones who make it through.

reply to post by Druscilla


You're waaaay out of your lane right now, we're not talking about scientific study and theory, we're talking about the physical requirements of a job that many of us have done. I'm all for debate here, but you're ignorant in this subject.

Originally posted by facelift
reply to post by usmc0311

 

I fully understand that but infantry weapons, gear, and combat, don't distinguish between man muscle and women muscle. That is where I am coming from on that issue


I hear you Lima Charlie chief...not saying they should be a 60 gunner, just that a 2 way firing range doesn't discriminate amongst the sexes, so let 'em drive on.

I think there could be some great women machine gunners. I also think women would make great mortarmen as well. I actually came across alot of women who were excellent with their rifles while I was instructing on the range. It was always funny to see a female admin Marine out shoot an infantryman during standard qualification.

reply to post by usmc0311


Sure thing.
By no means am I advocating that any training course be easy for anyone.

While some standards along physical requirements may be lowered for women, I think others should be raised for both men and women.
Some standards that men may have found a little easier in difficulty that women indeed find easier will then be found harder all the way across.

With a new standard customized to fit a unisex fighting force, equally, so that there is no distrust or looking down on anyone for being exempt from any test or qualification standards, I think we can get over some of the myths, and wives tales held onto for so long and let our girls and boys shine together.

reply to post by usmc0311


It will be an interesting experiment.. every study has shown that women handle combat just as well as men do.. but there have also been studies that have shown men become compromised by women around them (such as seeing women wounded). Then there is the risk of high stress leading to sexual assaults on the battlefield. But it's worked well for several other countries, so I'm happy to see it tried here.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by Druscilla

 

You're waaaay out of your lane right now, we're not talking about scientific study and theory, we're talking about the physical requirements of a job that many of us have done. I'm all for debate here, but you're ignorant in this subject.

When you give birth, and go through that magnitude of pain and real physical punishment, and come out the other side actually smiling and joyous, please come talk to me again about who's ignorant about what.

Pain tolerance alone, as well as physical stress management is built in to the female body well beyond male tolerances at the biological level. A 100lbs girl might not be able to carry and shift and muscle what her 180lbs male counterpart might, but, with equivalent training, discipline, and psychological conditioning, girl will toe to toe dominate on pain tolerance and stress.

As far as theory and science goes, who do you think makes the decisions way up high top of the tree based on what data? This is a big decision and in the harder than hard devil dogs go go go Marine Corps at that.
Not all military intelligence is an oxymoron.

Lastly, as far as being way outside my lane?
1. This is an open forum, and I'm entitled, welcome, and even encouraged to make contributions to topics of discussion based on my opinion, just as you or anyone else is.
2. I'm not a threat to the boys-only club. This ruling is already in effect. Girls are now allowed. If you take offense or feel some exception to that, take it up the flagpole to the ones that have made this decision.

Oh, as a fun factor that might perk some memories for some of you, and for others to review, that might have a little relevance let's review the Marine Corps Rules of Gunfighting:

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

12. Have a plan.

13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

16. Don't drop your guard.

17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.

19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4."

Navy Rules for Gun fighting:

1. Go to Sea

2. Send the Marines

3. Drink Coffee

Now out of all that, does any of that preclude or X out girls?

Women should not be in infantry.
When I was in the army I was a teenage girl and weighed 105 pounds.
I could barely carry what was required on my back.
I needed help in the motorpool because I didn't have the strength to do things.
Sorry .. but I'm all for a separate Womens Army Corp. (and that goes for the Marines as well)
I was definately a weak link. Most of the women I saw were just like me.