Latest female candidates in Marine Combat Endurance Test do not complete it

Submitted by Mastodon on Sun, 2013-10-06 03:15

Story here. Excerpt:

'Four more women took on the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course on Thursday and washed out, the latest chapter in the service’s ongoing research into which roles women should be able to fill in combat.

The women failed the school’s introductory Combat Endurance Test, a grueling exam designed to assess physical strength, stamina and the ability to make decisions while exhausted. They were recruited on a voluntary basis to attempt IOC at Quantico, Va.

All told, 81 male and female Marines began the initial endurance test yesterday at Quantico. Sixty-five men passed; 12 male Marines and four female Marines did not, said Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman at the Pentagon.

Women began reporting to IOC on a voluntary basis last year. Counting the latest class, 10 women have attempted IOC, and none has passed. Nine failed to make it through the combat endurance test. The tenth passed the initial test last fall but was dropped a little more than a week into training due to stress fractures in her foot, Marine officials said. Two women were among the last class of 79 Marines who attempted it in July; both failed the CET.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

For those not catching the reference, look here. :)

Anyway, the issue to look for here is that with each iteration of these failures of female candidates, the likelihood of the Corps reducing their fitness and other standards for candidates to the school will go up. There will also be an increased likelihood that they will implement a two-standard qualification system: one for boys, one for girls.

The Corps might be able to find female officers who can take the CET, but they need to make sure they are prepared. In short, they may need extra training, including strength development, etc. There's no shame in this. It's simply the application of a principle the armed forces already uses: if a soldier/Marine/seaman/airman wants to be something badly enough, generally the service will give you the opportunity to succeed even if you need "remedial help". For some areas, they may choose not to apply this principle for specific reasons, but generally, if you don't quit on yourself, they don't quit on you.

Well, guess we'll see where it goes. But I already think I know the answer.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2013-10-06 16:22

How much do you want to bet they establish two tracks

One to train men to be in the Corps.
One management track to train women to boss the men around

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by bronxman on Sun, 2013-10-06 18:22

I mentioned in prior posts that I think the whole real reason for what is going on here rests with female officers getting the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), or in the case of the Corps, the Combat Action Ribbon. With that, a whole new set of opportunities opens for career military officers, most especially ascending to significantly high ranks in the armed forces that involve the direct disposition and direction of combat units. One can become a general without the CIB, but is only qualified to be at the top or near-top of certain chains of responsibility, like logistics or personnel management (for example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_C._Wilson), so female officers/generals already do exist and "boss the men around". But what female politicians in D.C. and female officers in the services want to see is women ascend to ranking leadership positions in actual combat roles, and command combat units directly. However, to do this, one has to actually serve in combat and from a qualification standpoint, especially to be a combat officer, one must pass the rigorous training standards and actually command troops in a combat zone for some period of time. The way the Army and Corps measure this is by looking at one's M.O.S. and service record. Just to start the process of getting on the short list for consideration of promotions to senior ranks such as full colonel and above, the right M.O.S., service record, and experience has to be in place for the aspirant. After all, people without actual combat experience trying to make decisions about what and where combat troops should do and go under combat conditions is truly frightening. (Combat command is hard enough, even with the right training, and even with some experience; imagine people without either doing it!) So in an effort to reduce as much as possible unnecessary loss of life while green combat officers get their feet wet in actual combat (said wetness produced by the blood of their own men), since Vietnam the services have strived to create the necessary conditions whereby new combat leaders are as vetted, then well-trained, and capable from day one of leading men into combat as they can reasonably be expected, and this has led to a dramatic reduction in would-be US casualties as compared with previous wars.

Anything the armed forces now do to cut that short in the name of political correctness should be very worrisome indeed. However I believe that just as few men can handle the rigors of combat command, likewise no one should expect any given woman to do the same. I think certain females in the services can indeed be combat officers, but may need extra training, especially around the physical requirements. That isn't too much to ask. But what is too much to ask is a lowering of any requirements or creating a two-track system, or two sets of requirements for male and female combat officers. That is not only unfair to potential male combat officers, but also dangerous for anyone who relies on a combat officer's skills for sound leadership. There are no do-overs when it comes to getting shot at, bombed, or anything like it.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2013-10-06 21:47