"A Few Good Women" Topic
12 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board Back to the Modern Media Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Workbench ArticleOne way to base Modern Pulp figures for a wide variety of environments.
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 21 Mar 2015 10:49 p.m. PST |
"The Marines are looking for a few good women to serve in combat but, after more than two years of trying, no woman has made it through the grueling infantry officer school Remember that old recruiting ad the Marines are "…looking for a few good men?" Well, now they're looking for a few good women as well. The Armed Services have been ordered to open all their ground combat units to women by the end of this year – or else give the secretary of defense a good reason why not. For the Marines that means accepting female volunteers into their Infantry Officer School to see if they can make it through the grueling three-month course. You would expect the training to be tough, but we had no idea how tough until we saw it. The Marines have kept most of what happens in that course secret so anyone going through it doesn't know what to expect. But they opened it up for us so you could see what it takes to become a Marine infantry officer – male or female it doesn't matter because the demands are the same. Can women do it? Take a look and judge for yourself…" Full article here link YouTube link Amicalement Armand |
Solzhenitsyn | 22 Mar 2015 6:05 a.m. PST |
The Marines will lower their standards to be "inclusive" as every other group has had to have females in every position. Don't get me wrong. If a female can pass the standard for a spot, they have earned that spot. A woman should be allowed to try for every job a man can try for, but the levels should not be lowered to accomate them. I had females in my training troop. Some were tough as nails. I was paired up against a woman in defensive tactics once. I held back as I didn't want to hit a woman and kept her away with jabs. She ducked under one, came in and hit me with a 5 or 6 punch combo into the ribs. Hurt, good shots. I pushed her back and she said not to take it easy on her as nobody was going to take it easy on her on the streets. She had and has my unending respect. Several woman graduated in higher class standing than me and each one of them deserved thier spot. Tough, smart, highly motivated and truely dedicated. Yet, too many females in my group got away with stuff that would have had a male thrown out. Some were unable to complete a single formation run, even after months of training. They dropped out every time and rode the golf cart back. I saw one female refuse a direct order from a Drill Instructor. If a male had done that, they would have been gone before the sun set, she had a private talking too in an office. The LAFD had a requirement to graduate that you must be able to run a fire hose up 3 flights of stairs in a set time. A female recruit could not do this. The hose was just too heavy for her. She was dismissed, sued LAFD, won, was re-instated and that requirement was passed over. Look what happened to the first female fighter pilot for the Navy. She was pushed through flight school, failures that would have had a male wash out were overlooked and she became a F-14 pilot. The Navy was lucky she only killed herself on a botched carrier landing. The invest showed that she was unqualified to be a fighter pilot, but the standard was lowered to be "inclusive". Set the level of training and skill for a position. Then keep it. If anyone, a man or woman, passes that level, they have earned the right to be there, but don't lower it when peoples lives could depend on someone who just isn't cut out for that line of work. |
Wolfhag | 22 Mar 2015 9:32 a.m. PST |
From what I recall the standard was lowered for the female Naval pilot to get one accepted into Naval Fighter jets by the political establishment and some Navy Admirals caved or have their careers ruined. Remember, the politicians select the Generals and Admirals. That's why we can't trust them. My son is in the Marines in an infantry support unit and has some women in his unit. He says only a couple pull their weight and have initiative to do their job. This includes a female LT that fails to establish rapport with the troops. The Bn Co is ready to dump her. Here is the scuttlebutt that I got from him yesterday. There is a small group of Colonels and Generals that are pushing females into the combat MOS's as a way to further their careers to look good to the civilian politically correct establishment that makes selections for General positions. He said it's a morale killer to insert a few women who can't hack it into an all male grunt unit. Of course he's a L/Cpl so what does he know. But he does speak for the majority of male enlisted. I served in Marine infantry in the early 1970's. In no way would I want my daughter to be a "roommate" or work with a bunch of high testosterone macho idiot Marine Grunts. I admit to being one. I wouldn't want my daughter doing the stupid things we did back then to prove yourself. Drinking, getting into bar fights, taking stupid risks, etc. From what my son told me things have not changed much today. Lets put those good women in a position where they can excel, not kill morale to help a few guys further their position. Wolfhag |
Noble713 | 22 Mar 2015 10:24 a.m. PST |
"General" Smith was Colonel Smith, and turning command of The Basic School to Colonel Alford (himself a 1-star now) when I was there. We started the Infantry Officers Course in the fall, so the summer heat wasn't the problem. Still, without a doubt, the Combat Endurance Test was the most brutal day of my life. I think 3 guys were dropped at the end of that day. About 40% of the rest of us "failed", which meant we entered the IOC course normally but were required to take the remedial re-training test (another nut-cruncher endurance course known as the O-E-O-E-O) about 3 weeks in…and on a Saturday when everyone else is in recovery mode. A friend of mine from OCS was in the previous (summer) IOC course, he went down with heat stroke during the OEOEO, spent a week in the hospital, and was medically separated from the Marine Corps. I think they dialed back the equipment load after that (his class may have run the OEOEO with the MTV ( link ) body armor on). I got dropped about 85% of the way through, just before the final Field Exercise in 29 Palms. My observations, those who passed tended to be one of two types: 1. Physically large and beefy. Carrying loads over 100 lbs. affects them less due to their large frames, muscle mass, and the combat load as a percentage of their weight is smaller. 2. Skinny guys with insane cardio-respiratory endurance. Physical exhaustion cuts your oxygen flow to your brain, causing you to make bad decisions under duress. These guys, no matter how much load they are under….just never seem to get *that* tired. Another good friend of mine fit this description. University track team, ran 5k in 16:30 consistently. Scrawny, not particularly bright….never got tired. If you fall in the middle somewhere, average height/weight with decent but not superhuman endurance…it's an uphill battle, and I felt like no amount of intellect or classroom tactical acumen can compensate. You just get crushed by your load and then start making mistake after mistake. If you're lucky the instructors don't notice you and you slip through. |
Lion in the Stars | 22 Mar 2015 11:06 a.m. PST |
If you're lucky the instructors don't notice you and you slip through. It was my experience that no Marine instructor *EVER* failed to notice a mistake. Just that they decided it wasn't worth chewing your butt over. I know there are combat jobs women can do better than a man can. Pilot comes to mind. Faster reflexes, better G tolerance. But there are an enormous number of combat jobs that require very heavy lifting. Ejection seat mechanic comes to mind as an unusual example, you need to be able to lift the 50lb seat with one hand while you put the safing pins in. If you drop the seat or the pins, you're going to die as the seat fires. Armored vehicle crew also comes to mind for having a lot of heavy lifting involved. Not the actual driving, though a loader needs to move a 60+lb shell around. The maintenance. Lifting track links, road wheels, etc. You can't skimp on that. |
Davoust | 22 Mar 2015 1:47 p.m. PST |
Former Marine Officer. IOC in the winter. Bitter cold. When Virginia and the rest of the Corps shut down, we were out in the snow. In the woods it would get up to your chest. Jan – Mar 1987 was when I was there. Broken bones, cuts etc, heck one of my friend had a piece of wood stuck in his knee and we kept it hid from the Instructors. One LT was a former Corpsman. Can a woman make it through IOC. No. Unless they change the requirements to let them. In the 1980's the Corps fiddled with the idea of women in combat and found out they were physically and mentally unable to sustain combat actions. Heck most men can either. 1988 as the XO of A company 1/6, I was stationed at Camp Schwab. My company was tasked to train the Motor T Battalion in patrolling, rear area security etc. Half way through the training the majority of the women were at sick call for various reasons, yeast infections being a major one. Not able to stay that clean. Men can get nasty and have fewer medical issues. Women, not so much. I found the female Officer to have a poor attitude. It was about her. I, me what I can do, I am better. Bunch of crap. It is about the unit period. Marine officers lead from the front. That is why their training is so much more difficult. The first time her Marines would have to help her over an obstacle, her ability to lead would be toast. The PFC has my respect. She finish the course and admitted women could not do it for physical reasons. She hit on the head. Men and women, though equal, are different. That difference is an asset not a liability. Though I have to say, watching the film on the training at Camp Upsher was disappointing. I say Upsher as that is where the School of Infantry and Marine Combat Training Battalion is located. Unless it has moved been moved to Mainside. In 1989-90 I was an XO, CO and S-3a at MCT and SOI. I helped write the training package for MCT. From the scenes shown on 60 Minutes, it would appear they "lowered" MCT standards. The package I wrote was for full combat loads and we lived in the field for 30 days. No time off. Ran everywhere, no humping, First Sgt shuffle at best or what we called the Fleet chase pace. Constant patrolling, EI (Enlisted Instructors) constantly harassing the Marines. Even had an EI through a flashbang during a Religious Service. Yes the Chaplain was not happy. We need to stop this silly social experimentation. It has been proved over and over why women should not be in combat units. I just do not understand why a woman wants to lower herself to a man's level. |
Legion 4 | 22 Mar 2015 2:16 p.m. PST |
I have a hard time believing, after over a decade in my youth as an Infantry Officer in 4 US ARMY Infantry Bns. That any or even very few females can make in thru any hard core infantry training, etc. So obviously I agree with Davoust … |
mandt2 | 22 Mar 2015 9:14 p.m. PST |
Can a woman make it through IOC. No. Unless they change the requirements to let them. In the 1980's the Corps fiddled with the idea of women in combat and found out they were physically and mentally unable to sustain combat actions. Heck most men can either. That 1980s study is probably not the last word. A more recent study described in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology indicates that there is no statistically significant difference in the way the sexes respond to being in combat. It's an interesting study. link Every physical and mental requirement established by the armed forces is arbitrary, but most do make sense. However, long a domain of men, the physical requirements of the Army and Marines have been geared towards men and so would focus on those abilities that men excel at. The one area that has been neglected is mental health. I wonder if lengthy psychological analysis and testing should be used to determine a recruit's mental fitness to face combat. I imagine this would result in recruiters turning away a significant proportion of potential recruits. |
Legion 4 | 23 Mar 2015 8:26 a.m. PST |
Every physical and mental requirement established by the armed forces is arbitrary, but most do make sense. However, long a domain of men, the physical requirements of the Army and Marines have been geared towards men and so would focus on those abilities that men excel at. Yes, as forever, wars were mostly fought by the male of the species. Who genetically has more muscle mass and has one thing many miss. The young male has a lot of testosterone. Much more than the female. That makes him much more aggressive … and in combat generally "deadlier" … And yes, we all have heard of females in a combat situation, like MP SGT Hester in Iraq rising to the occassion. And killing many of the ambushers of her MP unit's Hummers, with a .50 cal. … That may have been more of a survival mode event, but regardless, she did her duty and I laud he actions. However, most/many/95% of human females don't have the hunter/killer instinct. Many males don't as well, but many more do … The one area that has been neglected is mental health. I wonder if lengthy psychological analysis and testing should be used to determine a recruit's mental fitness to face combat. I imagine this would result in recruiters turning away a significant proportion of potential recruits.
They used to give a small psych eval, not sure about recently. In may cases you can't really judge how well an individual will do in a combat situation or even in a combat unit. I've seen tough guys off the block go to enlist. But they couldn't hack it … And based on my time as a Rifle Plt PL and later a Mech Co. Cdr. You really can't judge a book by it's cover or even daily interactions, generally. So an elaborate psych eval would be of little use in general. And if nothing else, takes away time. That could be used in training civilains and turning them in effective soldiers, IMO … And we all need to remember, combat units like Infantry and Armor only exist for one overall reason. As it was taught to us in the early days of Inf Ofc Basic – The mission of the Infantry is to kill, capture and/or destroy enemy personnel and equipment … Hence the term "Armed Forces" … |
Lion in the Stars | 23 Mar 2015 12:39 p.m. PST |
Psychological screenings are different for every branch. For example, the Navy wants to make sure that submarine crewmen aren't going to snap from never being able to get away from people or not seeing sunshine, to say nothing of sleeping next to the end of the world. I would suggest those insisting that men and women react to combat identically review the words of the Junior High School teacher: "When you see two boys fighting, separate them and send them to the principal's office. When you see two girls fighting, if you value your life wait until the fight is finished and then send the survivor (singular) to the nurse's office." When women decide that it's time to fight, someone is going to die (barring massive medical intervention), end of discussion. Even if there is a survivor, they're an enemy for life. No acknowledgement of Realpolitik that says we need to ally with Iran to deal with the DAESHbags, Iran needs to cease to exist (putting things into terms we're all familiar with, not that I think Iran needs to cease to exist as a nation/tribe) You think wars are bad when they're fought over control of a portion of your territory? Existential wars only end when one side is the only side left. We saw the preview of that on the Eastern Front in WW2, and in Korean and China in the 1930s. No thank you. |
specforc12 | 23 Mar 2015 7:35 p.m. PST |
mandt2: I have a few things to say. First, regarding the statement, "Every physical and mental requirement established by the armed forces is arbitrary . . . ". These requirements are anything but "arbitrary", I don't care what some stupid journal says what about this. To quote a famous general, "they don't know any more about real combat then they do about fornicating"! I joined the US Army Special Operations at the ripe old age of 34, just before the 35 year old cutoff in 1991. And, let me tell you and anyone else, the military has, over 70 years of trial and error figured out the limits of human body and what it can withstand, and endure to an acceptable standard, for anything that really matters. For example, they know, and I'm living proof of this, that 33'-0" is the absolute scariest height for anyone who has acrophobia. This is why they have the practice "jump tower" for Airborne school as well as other obstacle course devices set at this height. I know this to be true. That height was as terrifying as it can get. I was standing in the open door of a C-130 at 2500 feet, didn't creep me out in the least, but that 33' climb made my knees shake uncontrollably. This is just one example. My point is, that being the "gramps" of the Basic Training platoon the psychological aspect, due to my maturity, was nothing – a piece of cake. But, the physical aspect I was expected to perform with those, literally half my age (17 year olds). That was tough, for an old fart. My contention is, that women, with a few exceptions, of course, cannot "hang" with their male counterparts regarding physicality. Those standards should be at the male standards – why? Because, can that 125# girl drag a wounded 225# male out of harms way in a battle, I highly doubt it. Therein, lies the flaw in this paradigm. Can, a woman perform intellectually as well as a man, probably better for a number of reasons and in my experience can think more organized and multi-task better than most males. I'll also say that women often are better shots at the rifle range once they get over their fear of the "recoil". I've seen this over and over as an instructor and coach at the rifle range during qualification. But, in a combat environment, with very few exceptions, they would be a liability more often than not. I had a Slovenian girlfriend of 9 years who was on the Women's Yugoslav Basketball Team for 10 years. She could kick my butt skiing, even though I was an amateur Slalom Skier! I was rated a 4.2 Tennis player in my hey-day, back then. I took her to play for her very first time holding a racket. Within 1/2 hour she was sizzling shots barely over the net tape with pace. One came firing over with such speed it literally took the racket out of my hand – that never happened in my life. Yet, she would be the first to say that men and women are not physically equal, men have superior strength – that's all there's to it (which doesn't say much for me, does it? LOL). And, it's a danger to the women and all the others when confronted with the hardships of combat – rucking, fighting, and any other tests of strength, though not necessarily endurance. Mental resilience is very individual and does not conform to standards that apply to physicality. These are two different animals all together. And, as one poster (Legion 4) stated, and I concur, that those you would think were tough mentally in training and excercises, I've seen fall apart, get stressed out, irrational on deployments, and that shmuck soldier, sometimes even a "do-nothing" punk turns into "super-soldier" when confronted with the real deal. It's amazing, but the real personality comes out under combat or deployments with all the stress factors thrown in. As I'm still in the Army, the Psych Evals are much more serious and comprehensive and are seriously considered, especially as a result of the rampant PTSD. The same Psych Evals are used to screen those nut cases from getting into the Army in the first place, even though many still slip through the "net", and also gets a lot of soldiers kicked out or "chaptered out" after being in the military for years. They are discriminating and getting rid of these liabilities as much as possible, especially with the draw-down the military is now experiencing. |
Legion 4 | 24 Mar 2015 9:43 a.m. PST |
You and I being military or in my case former military, we have a much more "realistic" appreciation of such topics. That many who have never served don't. And I'm not berating anyone for that. Only making an observation, as I see it. As we both know and can see in threads like this, as I said we may see things differently and more realistically, pre se. Of course, I think back to my youth, in the '60s. Not many really wanted to be drafted and few wanted to be in the Infantry. But today it appears that paradigm has shifted or gone PC ? No draft [Thank God !] for one. And now some think females can decide if can be in combat arms … But as we know, there is more to is than that … You just can't decide to be a RANGER or SF or DELTA, etc., because you just may want to. Those titles must be earned. And the same should be and is for Infantrymen, and Tankers, etc. … |
|