Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course and Female Marines, gauging females in combat roles

2014-10-26 10:51:14 -0400

Through out the military there has been a push for female service members to join their brothers in some of the most challenging assignments in combat units. The Marines are by far the most adamant about proving this. They are steps beyond where the other services are in their own integration of females in combat roles. They are finding the cold hard truth. It really doesn't matter what one thinks is fair, as in requiring females to performing such duties, but the issue is are they physically capable of performing them. The physical challenges are the deciding factor that many simple ignore. It may be that simply some don't know what they are asking females service members to do. Saying that you know someone that is capable of passing is really just an assumption. Unless one is familiar with that training by going through it or witnesses it as an observer one really may not realize what is expected of a person in that course. This is no more evident than the Army calling for Observers for Ranger School to follow any female going through the course to learn on the stresses on those females trying.

*Please read the article. There are a lot of assumptions out there. So far there isn't a solid number out there on how many. I believe they are up to 27 female marines that have attempted it and failed. One of the most recent of the three was a recycle. If they were a male Marine a failed recycle attempt is a guarantee reclass to something else.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2014/1024/Three-pioneering-women-in-Marine-infantry-course-are-asked-to-leave.-Why

Three pioneering women in Marine infantry course are asked to leave. Why?

The three women who qualified for the Marine Corps's Infantry Officers Course were physically disqualified last week. No woman has successfully completed the course.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Oct 26 at 2014 11:06 AM

2014-10-26 11:06:01 -0400

So long as anyone, female, transgender, gay, etc can meet the standards that are the same for everyone, they should be allowed to participate and serve in that capacity.

We do not let those with inferior vision fly, and we should not let someone with inferior strength serve in an aggressive combat role.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 26 at 2014 5:21 PM

2014-10-26 17:21:33 -0400

I'm all for following the best and the brightest. When I was a grunt, I must admit that anyone looking so tiny would never make it through the grueling demands that we had. That being said, don't quit trying. I knew some woman that were farm raised and corn fed with backs stronger than most from throwing bails of hay all day long. I knew some women who were disqualified from flying scouts because they were too tall. No way that they would fail the physical demands. These officers just look tiny. We all come in all shapes and sizes. Not everyone can make it in the infantry....female or male.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Oct 26 at 2014 5:48 PM

2014-10-26 17:48:07 -0400

So, a little inside gouge from someone who's been there: this school is very hard. The rest of this post is long, but the topic merits it.

The article was overall pretty fair, but a bit ignorant, maybe even sloppily constructed.

1. It's not fair to compare IOC to an enlisted school (unspecified, whether it's School of Infantry or Marine Combat Training-very different) in terms of hike pace as Mr. Jacobs does. IOC has different, tougher standards than any other USMC school (except maybe Basic Reconnaissance Course (BRC)or part of the MARSOC pipeline) and rightly so.
2. "Retired Army Col. Ellen Haring, an advocate for women in combat," with all the respect due her honorable service, is unqualified to comment on the training because A. Not a Marine and B. Not an attendee of the school. I wouldn't try to tell a Ranger about the appropriate difficulty of his course.
3. Maj Flynn (who I think I was chewed out by-at IOC-for good reason) makes the point about the focus being on leadership, therefore the fact that the entire class failed to meet the target time (a very common occurrence) is not relevant, the fact that these three men and three women could not hang with the class is the critical issue.

Now, to the topic generally, I agree with SFC Mark Merino, CWO4 Maria Pettus and CPT Zachary Brooks, same standards, same expectations, same privileges. I don't care about your race, sex, orientation or anything but your ability and commitment. I am proud overall of how the Corps has performed in this task: challenging female Marines to achieve. I would prefer we move more rapidly: mandate a common Physical Fitness Test, uniform and Specialty designators, I would incentivize graduation of these schools by awarding the specialty sought just as a male Marine would earn, even if they cant yet be assigned to combat units, they can carry the deginator at least.

Finally, I want to thank CPT Private RallyPoint Member for posting this worthwhile topic for discussion, kudos, and one minor correction:
"If they were a male Marine a failed recycle attempt is a guarantee reclass to something else. "
This statement is often true, but there are exceptions. Most of the guys who were dropped from my class were for leadership, or motivation or skill failures. There were one or two who still possessed strong potential as Infantry Officers and needed some specific remediation, and were therefore recycled. It is rare, but it does happen.

I think overall we need to be steadfastly professional, cautious on both extremes to show no bias, to treat no one with special preference based on anything but their potential, never any external unrelated traits.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2014 11:49 AM

2014-10-27 11:49:43 -0400

I was in the USMC infantry field (0313) and served in Desert Storm with an all male company. I to believe that if a woman can do the job then by all means. I would rather see the best in a role they want and are good at.

That being said, I believe that this newer generation doesn't have the problem I would have had back in 1991 and that is what a female would do to the unit cohesion of our Company. I do not know if the males would have treated her the same as the males, either intentionally or unintentionally. Personally having grown up believing that chivalry isn't dead I can easily see myself being overly protective of a female, even if she could smoke me in PT and outshoot me on the range. Not to mention any fraternization that may go on and how that affects an infantry unit (I know, same issue all units face today)

Having been in several types of military companies (currently signal corps now) an infantry unit is its own breed.

I recognize this was a long time ago but I'm curious to see what others, maybe younger military folks think? Is this concern about changing the dynamic for the company not a concern anymore?

Response by SGT Jason Keefer made Oct 27 at 2014 12:36 PM

2014-10-27 12:36:11 -0400

"Retired Army Col. Ellen Haring, an advocate for women in combat, says that although the entire formation was supposed to complete the hike in three hours, it took most of the group closer to four hours.

“Despite the fact that none of them could keep the pace that was set that day, they were considered failures. But the whole unit failed to meet those parameters, not just those six people,” she says. “Who maintains the rate of the march?”"

"In the IOC, “it’s up to the person in front to set the speed of the hike,” he says. “There doesn’t seem to be a standard around these movements.”"

So, as I read it.... some go hard in the front screwed these 6 out of school and that all of the class failed this ruck march as a whole? I'm a bit confused by this standard.... reminds me of unit PT when the 4 up front would push a blistering pace just to fall out later making the whole run brutal for everyone else in the meantime.

Response by SGT Forrest Perez made Oct 28 at 2014 2:36 PM

2014-10-28 14:36:32 -0400

I don't want to argue with nobody but keep standards high if you can't hack it you can't hack

Response by SFC Benjamin Parsons made Oct 28 at 2014 3:05 PM

2014-10-28 15:05:04 -0400

Was converted from a bad attitude toward women serving almost at all, by virtue of assignment to a 'mixed gender' outfit at the NTC in the early 80s, to a generally positive attitude toward women's ability to perform tough work in a tough environment.
I have no doubt there are women who could perform equally in the loader role on an Abrams. I also have no doubt those women are few and far between.
My gripe is it's gonna take a lot of training time and money to identify the ones who can.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2014 3:20 PM

2014-10-28 15:20:15 -0400

If they are capable of meeting the established standards, then so be it. Lowering the standard to allow women in is certainly not the right answer. The requirements aren't created arbitrarily; they ensure ability to accomplish the mission.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 28 at 2014 7:35 PM

2014-10-28 19:35:07 -0400

It sounds like things were all above board and they legitimately did not meet the standard, which as most have pointed out in this and related posts is the primary objective of integrating combat roles.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2014 7:51 PM

2014-10-28 19:51:12 -0400

The standards should not change. Changing these standards would be like changing the standards in the Olympics so that more people could win a Gold Medal, why not let everyone that signs up have a Gold Medal. After all that would be much more fair, wouldn't it?

Response by SGT(P) Harry Clyde Jr. made Oct 28 at 2014 11:37 PM

2014-10-28 23:37:08 -0400

I agree. If the current standards can be met, then i dont care what gender, orientation etc. you are.
I work at the Marine Armor Training Company. We train Tankers, Mechanics and ABV. We just had our first class of Females graduate last month from the Marine Armor Crewmans Course. Im not involved with the POI due to being supply, and retired army but saw these Marines almost everyday around my office/barracks when not training and would talk to them. They all volunteered and had MOSs and some with a few years in. They pushed themselves and made it through. They continued on to a testing type unit I believe to see the actual feasibility of it. I commend them and wish them good will in their new assignments.
As with all services, there are males that cannot make it through and are better suited for different fields.
The Marines are a step ahead of opening and testing females in the combat roles over the other services. I give kudos to them for it.
Times are changing and services are getting smaller and can use the willing and able especially in the combat roles/fields. I dont want to see again what we had in the early 90s where combat gun sections have to be short handed and use mechanics, supply, medics etc to fill positions in the field. I had a battery commander get between the trails on some fire missions to fill a needed open spot. Lets not leave anyone out of these fieldsif they can do the job.
My 2 bits!

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Oct 29 at 2014 8:41 AM

2014-10-29 08:41:25 -0400

What's the actual issue here?

Maybe I missed something but this looks more or less cut-and-dry: they didn't meet standards. We're talking about the infantry, here -- not exactly the place you want to give a good-try-buddy do-over. If you don't make it but get cycled through anyway, then maybe some poor Joe Snuffy gets lit up downrange because you were a substandard try-hard.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 10:13 AM

2014-10-29 10:13:40 -0400

What the folks criticizing the USMC seem to be missing is that the course is equally unfair to ALL students wrt changing paces and some marches being faster than others and so on--it's like saying one team lost the game because of the rain, when it was raining on BOTH teams. At the end of the day, it will take awhile for females to rise up and be strong combat leaders. No doubt they can handle the mental aspects--I've seen it firsthand; but the physical aspects are crucial in combat roles and MOST women canNOT handle those physical aspects. It is a scientific FACT that women have significantly fewer muscle fibers than men--that's hard to get around. The bigger issue these advocates seem to be missing is that the pool of women to draw from for these roles is significantly smaller, so at best, there will likely never be a large number of women in true combat roles. I am not against women in combat, but I am absolutely against changing existing standards to accommodate them. Further, I think the worse thing we could do is "pass" a woman through required training for the sake of having a woman in combat and set her up for failure--schools are easy to control, but down in actual units--not so much.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 9:46 PM

2014-10-29 21:46:55 -0400

Well, then "No woman has successfully completed the course."
Reading the article, I have no doubt that these women were treated as equals. There were standards, regardless of gender, and these soldiers didn't meet them. They tried their best, but couldn't do it.
As a woman, I'm not outraged in the least. Actually, I'm proud that the Marines allowed them to attempt it, and though they weren't successful, the women still learned something, and I'm sure will never regret trying.
The course should remain "as is", with a set standard. If one day, those few (or single) female graduates the course, we have reached true equality in the ranks. And they will have absolutely earned their place. Until then, I'm satisfied knowing that these women performed to the peak of their abilities and that's pretty cool :)

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Oct 29 at 2014 11:14 PM

2014-10-29 23:14:54 -0400

I can't stand how service women are made out to be the bad guys with this issue. We are portrayed to be the ones kicking and screaming for the standards to be lowered when in actuality, it's people on Capital Hill who are doing the pushing.

Can anyone find me a military woman who believes the standards for combat MOSs should be lowered to accommodate our gender?

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/194131-marines-might-lower-combat-standards-women/

Mission Accomplished? U.S. Marine Corps Might Lower Combat Standards For Women

Is this really what feminists want? A military that changes its standards for women?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2014 2:13 PM

2014-10-30 14:13:11 -0400

As long as we are keeping the standards the same and not lowering any of them I don't care if a female attempts, passes, and becomes a grunt...Just don't change the standards.

All of this equality and PC talk does get old though. If you really want equality in the military the everyone should have the same regs for everything. Haircuts, PT standards (don't even change for age), uniform regs, no more gender segregated bathrooms or barracks...I mean this can get way out of hand...

If you want to become a Grunt...pass the course...with the same standards

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Nov 24 at 2014 10:23 AM

2014-11-24 10:23:34 -0500

I think this is a good idea. Even though the males "roll" through out history has been to protect the females of Out species. The only way we can overcome this bias is by letting women into the combat zone. Granted several to a lot of men will die still trying to protect these women. Until new generations of troops trained together as combat soldiers, we will never get beyond the " protect the female" bias. That is my opinion.

Response by Sgt Louis Spinner made Jun 20 at 2015 12:33 AM

2015-06-20 00:33:11 -0400

Started a new network aimed at assisting fellow Marines find jobs through other Marines, mentor each other, discuss, and help out in anyway needed. This group is intended solely for Marines. Please invite all your fellow Marine Corps veterans.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/MarineNetwork/

Response by Capt Lance Gallardo made Jul 28 at 2015 11:05 AM

2015-07-28 11:05:52 -0400

My brother is a 23 year veteran as an Urban firefighter/Paramedic Captain (currently a Fire Academy Trainer/captain). He has pretty much done it all seen it all. Urban Search and rescue, has deployed within the US to numerous out of state disasters and wild-land fires, truck Captain, Engine Captain, Paramedic Lieutenant in San Francisco Fire Department. He has seen more death and destruction, and treated more knife and gunshot wounds, than anyone but the most combat experienced Navy Corpsman or Army Medic. In his more than two decades he has seen maybe about five female firefighters (out of the thousands of firefighters he has worked with and observed performing in the most hazardous of firefighting situations) who could do the job on their best days approaching the average male firefighter. I would have no problem qualifying my brother as an "expert Witness" in any Court to render a Expert opinion" due to his formal education - AA Degree in fire science/BA from UC Davis, numerous professional schools and firefighting courses, and command level experience. He is also the Assistant Fire Chief of his hometown Volunteer Fire Department. I have thought for some time that being an urban firefighter humping around 70-80 pounds of gear (or more) under extremely dangerous and stressful physical conditions (while having to make critical life or death decisions) is about the closest approximation to an "infantry" job in civilian society. After some three decades of trying to recruit and retain female firefighters, most large urban fire departments can still manage to hire and retain (and pass through the fire academy) only about 3-5% female firefighters. This drives the liberal "we are all equal" rights establishment crazy. The simple fact is that most women (and a good proportion of the male population) don't have either the physical upper body strength or the will and determination to make it through enlisted infantry schools and even less can get through Officer Infantry courses in the Marine Corps or the Army. It is simple math. We are not created equal, as much as the social engineers want to say it is so. Unless we are willing to significantly change the standards of what is required to become an Infantry Officer (pack weight, upper body strength etc.), the pool of available females will be extremely small who have the requisite physical strength, cardio endurance, combined with the desire, will, and motivation to endure the grind and challenges of Infantry Officer schools, as well as advanced schools, such as Ranger School, SOF, Courses Marine Recon Schools, Seal/BUDS classes, Air Force SOF courses/schools. We are refusing to accept the Data, the Evidence, for sake of political correctness.

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Jul 29 at 2015 7:06 PM

2015-07-29 19:06:36 -0400

If I read right the whole unit failed to meet over all requirements.There for redo the test.For the whole unit to fail that's some pretty stringent requirements.

Response by LCpl Thomas Gilkerson made Jul 30 at 2015 1:04 AM

2015-07-30 01:04:41 -0400

This PC bull is going to get marines killed.

Response by SSG Delanda Hunt made Oct 5 at 2015 12:26 AM

2015-10-05 00:26:47 -0400

Observers = baby sitters, and someone to go run and tell the General when the big boys say something bad. Spies in ranger school. Remember when they said everyone would be treated the same. So the females get special observers, what next time out cards. Ranger school will become just like so many more army schools watered down and a waste of time.

Response by SGT Lori Adams made Nov 25 at 2019 2:20 PM

2019-11-25 14:20:06 -0500

You said the female was a “recycle” not a failed recycle, so I fail to see the correlation between her and the male who was a failed recycle.