Posted on Apr 8, 2015
Last IOC in Marine infantry experiment drops female officers
13.4K
37
28
5
5
0
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/04/07/last-ioc-in-marine-experiment-drops-two-officers/25418867/
For your consumption.
Of note is reference to Ground Intelligence Officers (0203) remaining open. Our (3/1) Assistant S2 (Aka Scout Sniper Platoon Commander) was a Ground Intel Officer.
For your consumption.
Of note is reference to Ground Intelligence Officers (0203) remaining open. Our (3/1) Assistant S2 (Aka Scout Sniper Platoon Commander) was a Ground Intel Officer.
Women in the Military
Infantry
Combat Arms
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
I just read this. I thought this would have happened. It is an extremely difficult course. Now the Army is going to do their part with Ranger School. We will see what really comes of this. Will they alter the standards? I hope not. I am tired of this Israeli Army thing also. They don't fight how we fight. We have a set of expectations that we have put there for the combat effectiveness. If we reduce them we will be reducing our combat effectiveness.
(4)
(0)
MAJ Rene De La Rosa
1LT Eric Rosa, your pithy remarks speak volumes regarding the current situation.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I will lead with the quote that I think summarizes the reality:
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal - Aristotle
So we learned that not nearly as many women as were allowed to try even volunteered to try. Then of the women that did, 0% passed (the IOC).
4 passed the SOI course for enlisted Marines.
Do you think this will silence the women in combat chatter? Probably not. It will not stop until the standards are lowered and some make it and they can claim victory.
Mind you, the women demanding this are not women in the Marines they are feminists that have zero interest in attending. Women Marines are the best trained women in the US Military(IMHO) and they don't appear to even want to volunteer.
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal - Aristotle
So we learned that not nearly as many women as were allowed to try even volunteered to try. Then of the women that did, 0% passed (the IOC).
4 passed the SOI course for enlisted Marines.
Do you think this will silence the women in combat chatter? Probably not. It will not stop until the standards are lowered and some make it and they can claim victory.
Mind you, the women demanding this are not women in the Marines they are feminists that have zero interest in attending. Women Marines are the best trained women in the US Military(IMHO) and they don't appear to even want to volunteer.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
"That data will be taken alongside other research points, including the much higher success rate for enlisted female Marines in passing the Infantry Training Battalion course at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. As of February, 358 women had attempted the course, with 122 graduates, for a pass rate of 34 percent."
We actually had much better results on the enlisted side. It wasn't just the initial 4. Since then (through Feb 2015), we've had 122 of 358.
We actually had much better results on the enlisted side. It wasn't just the initial 4. Since then (through Feb 2015), we've had 122 of 358.
(0)
(0)
CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar
A Marine who is familiar with Greek philosophers! Be careful there, CPL, You could singlehandedly ruin the Marines' "Jarhead" image!
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I have a feeling it will be devoid of "opinion" and rely on data more than anything. It may include "testimonials" to highlight the issue however.
Overall this is how research should be done. "Baptism by fire." I doubt anyone will be able to say standards were 'adjusted' (positive or negative) when reviewing this.
Overall this is how research should be done. "Baptism by fire." I doubt anyone will be able to say standards were 'adjusted' (positive or negative) when reviewing this.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Love seeing actual results coming out with information to back it. Hopefully this can get some of the aggressive supporters (that want a "first this" and a "first that" as well as "Men and Women can do all the same things") to wake up a bit. Evidence and hard data are important to have.
(2)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Completely agree with your breakdown. This is a good way to discuss the issue.
Completely agree with your breakdown. This is a good way to discuss the issue.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT Zachary Brooks I've been trying to come up with 'terminology' that is adequate to discuss the issue for a few weeks now, as many people get caught up on "Standards" which is inadequate.
We know that Physical Fitness (normalized) is different, which means we must 'translate' it into something that is the same. The old Objective vs Subjective debate. I think by using terms like Capability & Prowess, we get an apples-to-apples comparison.
It removes trying to equate Fitness with a needed "Standard" as Fitness is not a measure of Capability. It is a measurement of Effort. One can be Fit, but lack Capability because of the Test in question.
We know that Physical Fitness (normalized) is different, which means we must 'translate' it into something that is the same. The old Objective vs Subjective debate. I think by using terms like Capability & Prowess, we get an apples-to-apples comparison.
It removes trying to equate Fitness with a needed "Standard" as Fitness is not a measure of Capability. It is a measurement of Effort. One can be Fit, but lack Capability because of the Test in question.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I agree with your analysis for the most part, however I find your assertion that we need to look at individuals somewhat problematic. When we enlist recruits, they're offered a combat arms MOS based upon the physical capabilities of their "class" not their individual "prowess." Few if any recruits enter BCT at the level of their graduating peers. Instead we look at them as raw material and expect BCT to build them up to that level. Opening combat arms to the 1 out of 100 females with the requisite prowess means the other 99 in her "class" come with her. Those other 99 would likely recycle, eventually reclass, or worse yet end up being a burden on a squad somewhere. The only way to ensure this doesn't happen would require a dramatic overhaul of our entire IET process. Enlistment standards would have to be much higher, which I don't think is a feasible option.
In short, we base our metrics for Combat Arms service off of groups not individuals. Adjusting these metrics based upon outliers within a group is only going to reduce readiness and lethality.
I agree with your analysis for the most part, however I find your assertion that we need to look at individuals somewhat problematic. When we enlist recruits, they're offered a combat arms MOS based upon the physical capabilities of their "class" not their individual "prowess." Few if any recruits enter BCT at the level of their graduating peers. Instead we look at them as raw material and expect BCT to build them up to that level. Opening combat arms to the 1 out of 100 females with the requisite prowess means the other 99 in her "class" come with her. Those other 99 would likely recycle, eventually reclass, or worse yet end up being a burden on a squad somewhere. The only way to ensure this doesn't happen would require a dramatic overhaul of our entire IET process. Enlistment standards would have to be much higher, which I don't think is a feasible option.
In short, we base our metrics for Combat Arms service off of groups not individuals. Adjusting these metrics based upon outliers within a group is only going to reduce readiness and lethality.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ (Join to see) I don't disagree. But that boils down to Equal Opportunity vs Equal Representation. In no way do I advocate Equal Representation.
What I am suggesting is finding the comparable standard to give Equal Opportunity.
As you said, we don't measure Prowess at entry. We don't even measure 'real' Fitness at entry.
Referencing the USMC IOC course, one of the first things done is the Combat Endurance Test. Pass, you move on. Fail, you're out. That is a 'fair' barrier to entry.
Theoretically, a similar test could be administered at Army Basic which acts as a disqualifies for those wanting to try for Combat Arms fields. If you pass, you can head to the school. If you fail, you're reassigned to an alternate.
What I am suggesting is finding the comparable standard to give Equal Opportunity.
As you said, we don't measure Prowess at entry. We don't even measure 'real' Fitness at entry.
Referencing the USMC IOC course, one of the first things done is the Combat Endurance Test. Pass, you move on. Fail, you're out. That is a 'fair' barrier to entry.
Theoretically, a similar test could be administered at Army Basic which acts as a disqualifies for those wanting to try for Combat Arms fields. If you pass, you can head to the school. If you fail, you're reassigned to an alternate.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
0% pass rate officer side, 44% pass rate enlisted side. About in line with what I expected.
What's nice about this is it actual research & documentation, as opposed to conjecture. Objective vs Subjective. This is what I like about the Corps doing these experiments.
What's nice about this is it actual research & documentation, as opposed to conjecture. Objective vs Subjective. This is what I like about the Corps doing these experiments.
(5)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm not surprised either.
1. Yeah, women have high endurance capacities, but we don't have the strength capacity to deal with these kind of challenges.
2. You notice that the volunteer pool was enlarged, yet they still had very low application numbers. That should tell you something. Women know this is a very demanding course and only a few brave ones were willing to even consider trying. (I wouldn't have considered it at all. Just me.)
3. If a woman or man wants to try for these types of units, then more power to them, but let's be realistic and realize that only a few highly disciplined dedicated women will even try for such accomplishments. Of those only a few will make it through.
I'm pretty happy with the 44% pass rate for enlisted volunteers. That is higher than I expected.
1. Yeah, women have high endurance capacities, but we don't have the strength capacity to deal with these kind of challenges.
2. You notice that the volunteer pool was enlarged, yet they still had very low application numbers. That should tell you something. Women know this is a very demanding course and only a few brave ones were willing to even consider trying. (I wouldn't have considered it at all. Just me.)
3. If a woman or man wants to try for these types of units, then more power to them, but let's be realistic and realize that only a few highly disciplined dedicated women will even try for such accomplishments. Of those only a few will make it through.
I'm pretty happy with the 44% pass rate for enlisted volunteers. That is higher than I expected.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar
This was a waste of taxpayers' money frankly. We all knew the outcome of this horse race before the first gate was opened.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
We can not change the cards that mother nature has dealt us Humans. Males have testosterone and therefore can grow much larger muscles than females. Males also have a greater lung capacity than females that better supply oxygen to the blood. So mother nature is not fair, well it is what it is and we can not change that. Unless you want to start messing with human genetics? I elude to the the Halo Game Series.
So, do we lower the standard for females, or for everyone? I do not think that is a viable solution, it will simply get people killed in the heat of combat. There is a reason that the standards are set high, because what we do is not easy, and some of them harder, much harder that others. Clearly women are smart enough to do the job, but it takes more than that. Many of the couch potato males in our society could not do it either.
Are there females that could pass male standards, probably. They would be have to be very athletic and driven. What would be the long term affects on their health running at such a high tempo? Most males end up banged up after a career in high tempo MOS's
Now look at the standards for tier I forces like Delta and Seal team 6, most healthy physically fit males can not meet their physical standards, not even close. Do we play the politically correct card and make exceptions? I do not have the answer for that. Do we create roles for women in certain areas to take advantage of the fact that they are women and could blend in certain combat environments, go unnoticed? Perhaps that is a valuable asset we could use. Other nations have done that, Russia, Israel; but are willing to accept what will happen to them if they are compromised?
So RP and I being chauvinistic or a realist? I am not going to tell a female no you should not do this, if a service opens a field to a female by all means try it if you want, but do not expect lower standards.
P.S.
DARPA is working on an exoskeleton suit to boost the strength of troops. Perhaps one day every soldier will will have the strength of three big men.
So, do we lower the standard for females, or for everyone? I do not think that is a viable solution, it will simply get people killed in the heat of combat. There is a reason that the standards are set high, because what we do is not easy, and some of them harder, much harder that others. Clearly women are smart enough to do the job, but it takes more than that. Many of the couch potato males in our society could not do it either.
Are there females that could pass male standards, probably. They would be have to be very athletic and driven. What would be the long term affects on their health running at such a high tempo? Most males end up banged up after a career in high tempo MOS's
Now look at the standards for tier I forces like Delta and Seal team 6, most healthy physically fit males can not meet their physical standards, not even close. Do we play the politically correct card and make exceptions? I do not have the answer for that. Do we create roles for women in certain areas to take advantage of the fact that they are women and could blend in certain combat environments, go unnoticed? Perhaps that is a valuable asset we could use. Other nations have done that, Russia, Israel; but are willing to accept what will happen to them if they are compromised?
So RP and I being chauvinistic or a realist? I am not going to tell a female no you should not do this, if a service opens a field to a female by all means try it if you want, but do not expect lower standards.
P.S.
DARPA is working on an exoskeleton suit to boost the strength of troops. Perhaps one day every soldier will will have the strength of three big men.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I think it's more a case of determining which "standard" we use. Physical Fitness is not the proper standard, as it is a normalized test used for comparison purposes. It measure Effort, not Capability. So we have to shift to a Combat 'Prowess' model instead, which measures Capability against the Course itself.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG John Erny That's the common standard, so I think we have become locked into it. No fault on you.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The real issue I see is that we will never get data until a woman Marine completes the entire course of instruction. I would like to see a small group of woman Marine Officers go thru the course "unofficially" but in the same manner as the Men. We need data...are they failing due to lack of strength? technique? I don't know. In a video clip I saw one woman Marine trying to climb a rope and not even using her legs, that tells me that fatigue and technique may be part of the problem.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. None passed because the course was "designed by males" or failure rate is due to a predisposition in "differences in PT standards" or "physiological differences" not being conclusive for the rigors of combat. Seems it could be a PT issue as the enlisted 34% success rate with the Infantry Training Battalion course vs officers. I would like to know all the PT scores of all the volunteers. I would bet the 122 graduates had better scores.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
For the ITB and integration testing in 29 palms, it was mentioned that the median PFT score for females was "about" 20 points higher than the males. Keep in mind smaller pool, which can significantly change the numbers, especially on a 300 point scale (6.7%) so it's not outside normal deviations. Both "classes" (males & females) were in the USMC 1st Class PFT range (225+).
I'd have to go back and look up the exact numbers, but this is from the summary, not the final report.
When we go to the officer side, the PFT range is going to be significantly "closer" (everyone is going to be at or above 285) which is really going to highlight physiological differences when dealing with the course itself.
I'd have to go back and look up the exact numbers, but this is from the summary, not the final report.
When we go to the officer side, the PFT range is going to be significantly "closer" (everyone is going to be at or above 285) which is really going to highlight physiological differences when dealing with the course itself.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google