How will the image of the Marine Corp be affected by allowing women into the Infantry?

2016-05-11T22:59:50-04:00

Will standards be the same?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2016 11:02 PM

2016-05-11T23:02:00-04:00

Are they going to? I thought they were pushing back on that.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2016 11:07 PM

2016-05-11T23:07:51-04:00

Their image will be better than it is now and it is already really high!

Response by PVT John Williams made May 12 at 2016 12:15 AM

2016-05-12T00:15:51-04:00

As long as the standards are not watered down like the Army did for the two females who went through Ranger School.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2016 3:14 AM

2016-05-12T03:14:50-04:00

MAJ David Vermillion The image of the Marine Corps will be just fine. Marines will make this work.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 12 at 2016 6:43 AM

2016-05-12T06:43:08-04:00

If there is anything the USMC is REALY good at, it is promoting the USMC "Brand."

As for "standards" changing. That's a loaded question. The Standards are constantly EVOLVING. They evolved while I was in. They are evolving now.

"Don't let the standards change" is a HORRIBLE rallying cry. It is unenlightened. The World Changes. The Battle Environment Changes. Therefore Standards need to change. Examples include:

1) Women started going to MCT in 1995~
2) The Female PFT was adjusted upward in 1996-1997 (so was the Males, making it more difficult)
3) We added the CFT, and are continuing to modify it because we KNOW the PFT is NOT a good measure of Combat Prowess or Effectiveness
4) We are looking at changing how the PFT is conducted (for males & females) again

But as for how "allowing Women into the Infantry" it will have minimum ACTUAL effect. The USMC is the smallest Service, and has the least number of Women (7%). Based on other Nations with female Infantry, the anticipated percentage is somewhere in the .5% range (over 20 years).

The USMC actually has TRAINED & Qualified 03xx, 08xx, 13xx, & 18xx (Combat Arms) Personnel NOW, due to the Integrated Testing from 29 Palms. The MOS qualifications did not change, however, there were recommendations made based on the studies, and an Objective Task list developed.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made May 12 at 2016 8:14 AM

2016-05-12T08:14:12-04:00

What is the most damning thing of this is that of the 233 Females who made it through SOI only 2 volunteered to take the next step. If I recall correctly the Marines only accepted highly qualified and screened female volunteers to attempt he course and the drop out rate was still well over 60%.
Not a single female officer has been able to complete IOC of the 30 who attempted it. The image I get is of the Civilian Administration trying to fit a round peg and a square hole and failing miserably.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made May 12 at 2016 9:20 AM

2016-05-12T09:20:21-04:00

Women have been in the Marines for decades, nothing will change.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made May 12 at 2016 9:36 AM

2016-05-12T09:36:18-04:00

As long as the same high standards are maintained. The Marine Corps image won't be affected one bit. Adapt and overcome. That's what we do. I've never understood the great debate. I've known female Marines who are as strong if not stronger than their male peers. As long as she can physically do the job, if she wants it, let her have it.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2016 10:06 AM

2016-05-12T10:06:01-04:00

The image will not change.
The effect on the MOS will only be known over time.

Response by Cpl Mark A. Morris made May 12 at 2016 10:22 AM

2016-05-12T10:22:35-04:00

I have a friend who wanted to play professional football. He told me he tried out twice. But, was not quick enough. I wondered why the football team just didn't change its standards. Things change. Right?
For me, I support any lady that wants to be in Marine Corp Victor Units. Or, any special operator program. If (I wrote if) the standards are lowered so females can assomplish the PFT, or have a separate PFT, then the name United States Marine Corp should be changed.

Response by Sgt Franklin B. made May 12 at 2016 10:50 AM

2016-05-12T10:50:35-04:00

Ok, no matter what I think and voice will everyone agree ,but at my age I care less. I joined the Marines in 1964 and was medically retired in late 1968 of wounds received in Combat. I was a grunt and loved every dirty moment. I loved the outdoors. Endurance was a game for me. A challange. My belief is there are very few women that would enjoy it every day, day in and day out, I didn't. I always respected women Marines. They sure showed the better side of us. Most were smarter and quicker in gasping things. They are dam good Marines but should not be thrust into combat as a 0311 "Gunt"

Response by LCpl Michael Harrell made May 12 at 2016 11:27 AM

2016-05-12T11:27:22-04:00

That's a good question sir! I can see it being good and bad sir. Good in the face it will be equality in the grunts, and look at Isreal, they have women fighters and they are tough as horse shoe nails! But, is America ready for its daughters to ripped apart on a battle field?!

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made May 12 at 2016 2:50 PM

2016-05-12T14:50:53-04:00

"How will the image of the Marine Corp be affected by allowing women into the Infantry?"

I think it is too soon to say, Major.....I'm very skeptical but am willing to wait and see how this change works out. Most Marines I know are against this idea.

Response by SGT Randall Spence made May 13 at 2016 12:27 AM

2016-05-13T00:27:02-04:00

Have to ask, same tasks same responsibility as male counterparts?

Response by PFC Victor Bozic made May 16 at 2016 11:34 PM

2016-05-16T23:34:07-04:00

As, a VN combat Marine it's a sad day that the Corps is bowing to the PC Bullshit of this present administration. There is no good that possibly come out of allowing women in a rifle squad. They are either get someone KIA or get Killed themselves. There are men that have no business in the infantry, much less women!
G/2/5 68-69