"The Marines Are Looking For A Few Good (Combat-Ready) Women" Topic

"The challenge for the Marines, and for the Army, is how to open up ground combat jobs to women in January 2016, without lowering standards.

And here's where things stand in the Marines.

Eighty-five female Marines already made it through an infantry training course last fall at Camp Lejeune, N.C., which included drills such as attacking a mock enemy force, hidden in a pine forest. That course lasted eight weeks, and the men and women all completed the same training…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

the men and women all completed the same training

If all recruits are judged by the same physical standard without regard to gender then I don't see a problem

In a perfect world that would be the case. But the politicians want positive results NOW.

Why are so many people, in such a hurry to get more females killed and maimed then already happens to in non-combat branches ? Not to mention, with the current enemies we face, who have low regards for women in general, and being an "infidel" female only opens them up for even more abuse if captured. They will be lucky to just get raped, which is horrible enough … isn't it ?

Cynically I have to say, Because they are running out of normal 'cannon fodder'. Plenty of youngsters are not willing to sacrifice themselves for failed policies but if the administration can make it harder to survive in the civilian world they could get a new batch.

What you got there is the difference between reality and perception. Politicians think their decisions affect people's perception which can help them get re-elected. I don't think it occurs to them that those decisions actually have real world consequences.

Way to miss the point, Legion 4:

link

One in three American servicewomen get sexually assaulted by fellow soldiers. Enemy combatants are the least of their concerns.

I doubt that even significant casualties and POW abuse will make some folks realize that the post-modern concept of "gender" gets trumped by actual biological sex distinctions in the real world.

I don't know AcrylickNick, I don't beleive The Guardian is a reputable source on the subject. 1 in 3 sericewomen getting sexually assualt sounds like a very, very high inaccurate statistic. If that was going on the males would be too busy to do their jobs ! You miss the point, even if that stat was true, and I very much doubt it is, by training them and putting them in Infantry units really has nothing to do with that number. I've served in 4 Inf Bns, a CBT SPT Bn and a Bde HQ in my youth. Back then no females were in Combat Arms, so none in the Inf Bns. And the females in the SPT Bn and Bn HQ, were few. Plus my experience, was that the females were not getting raped but very much willing. Just for the exercise, have you served in the military ?

There were (and are) tons of reports all over the media, congressional hearings, etc. Not that you would bother to look it up, I know.

But denying all that is not enough for you, is it?

You also have to insinuate that these soldiers really wanted to be raped?

That's disgusting.

With attitudes like yours, it's easy to see why the vast majority of the rapists don't need to fear consequences.

I never said, these soldiers wanted to be raped … I just never heard or saw anything like you are talking about in my 10 + years in the active duty US ARMY … in my youth … And I'm not saying it didn't or does not happen … just that it is rare, based on all the females in the military. What is disgusting is your attitude, because if you had served, you'd know, 1/3 is a ridiculus statistic … And has nothing to do with the topic … females going thru Infantry training … Had you been in the Infantry … you'd know what I'm talking about … And as a Commander, had any of my troops male or female had been raped, I certainly would have taken action …

Legion 4 . . .

"Last year(2013), in releasing survey data, the Department of Defense finally put raw numbers to the comparison: Of an estimated 26,000 service members who were targets of sexual assaults in 2012, fifty-four percent were men. That's 14,000 male survivors—in one year. Over all, only about 3,000 sexual assaults were reported, and 302 were prosecuted in military court. Of those reports, women filed 88 percent. Of the 380 men who did report, 247 asked for an investigation, and just 28 percent of those went to court-martial."

Seems too high to me. Also there is a marked problem in how it's handled.

As to the topic, well if a woman wants to serve and can make the grade there is no good reason not to allow her too. Just as there was no good reason not to allow blacks to serve, or homosexuals. It's really what democracy and freedom is all about, isn't it?

link

No doubt based on all the media reports etc., there is a problem … never said there was not … but again, those figures seem high to me. Has society changed so much and inturn the military, since I was on active duty '79-'90 ? I don't think so … I hope not … And yes, you make a good point, about allowing everyone to serve. I agree, but … if you have ever been in the Infantry, you'd understand about my reluctance to having females in Grunt units …

Those figures seem WAY too high to me also. As anything you really need to know the criteria for the categorization. Without that you are at the mercy of people with agendas who sometimes classify things far differently than even the respondents would agree with. The article never does define the term MST other than what the letters mean. Sure, rape is never acceptable but if having someone touch your hair and tell you they think you are pretty also classifies are we all still on board with the numbers?

Part of me says that if a woman can do the job then I don't want to stand in her way. But then another part of me wonders is that what's best for the unit/army/country? It's not about democracy or freedom, it's about protecting those things. Two very different things.

For the record – Cav Scout with one deployment. Never had a woman in the unit but saw a few I thought were good. Saw far more that were better off behind a desk and they were fine with that. They didn't join to fight and had no interest in doing so.

A number of years ago I saw a TV program about women in combat. One of the commentators said the women would not like being in combat, as it was a dirty, stressful, painful, and potentially deadly activity. Another commentator said, then why do men like it?

I

No question females are good soldiers and can preform many tasks. I knew many of them, my clerk typist when I was in the CBT SPT Bn, and that Bn's S1 and S2, the Cdr of the BMMC, etc., etc. … Remember the female MP SGT Hester who jumped up on their HUMMWV's .50 cal and saved her ambushed unit. Ws awarded a Silver Star. But think about it … that was not the norm. Females were not normally put in combat situations. Of course with the type of COIN we are fighting more and more females get shot at, WIA and KIA. But they are not doing the daily Infantry type ops. AcrylicNick like many read or see something, and it appears he never served, and take it for 100% accurate. And makes a personal attack on me, because from what he read or saw on TV news, I'm the bad guy in the ARMY. Enabling or ingnoring such things. Which was far from true. Maybe GR C17 is the same. If you have not served in Combat Arms units, like Infantry or CAV, etc., you really have no actual POV or idea what goes on. On the ground daily in the life of a soldier whose job is primarily kill people …

… would not like being in combat, as it was a dirty, stressful, painful, and potentially deadly activity. Another commentator said, then why do men like it?

From my 10 + years as a Grunt, many young males have more testosterone than common sense, so to speak. Which helps make him a good soldier generally. The aggressive young Alpha Male with the proper training and mind set makes a very good killing machine. That with discipline and understanding of what lawful orders are verses "just following orders" … Good soldiers are not Huns, Mongols or Vikings. They don't just slaughter everything in the area. Again among other things, that is where good order and displine from their leaders, etc. comes in. Also that is why I'm having a hard time understanding the high numbers of sexual assaults to both females and males (!?) today … Has society changed … or are there just to many forms on media spotlighting the "bad apples" ? Regardless the bad apples should be dealt with like any other infractions of the UCMJ …