A Fair Chance?
November 21, 2013 10:29 AM Subscribe
For the first time, three women, identified as Pfc. Julia Carroll, Pfc. Christina Fuentes Montenegro and Pfc. Katie Gorz will graduate from enlisted infantry training today, having passed the two month course at the School of Infantry-East at Camp Geiger, a satellite of Lejeune. However, they still won’t be allowed to serve in an infantry unit, until the Marine Corps finishes its study of women in combat, in two more years' time.
The training course, held at Camp Geiger, N.C., began with 15 female volunteers and 266 male volunteers. So, one third of the females completed the course compared to 83 percent of the men.
A fourth female Marine, Pfc. Harlee Bradford, completed all the course requirements but was unable to take her last Physical Fitness Test and Combat Fitness Test due to a stress fracture. Bradford said she will finish the program shortly and expects to participate in a graduation ceremony with ITB’s next class.
Previously
The training course, held at Camp Geiger, N.C., began with 15 female volunteers and 266 male volunteers. So, one third of the females completed the course compared to 83 percent of the men.
A fourth female Marine, Pfc. Harlee Bradford, completed all the course requirements but was unable to take her last Physical Fitness Test and Combat Fitness Test due to a stress fracture. Bradford said she will finish the program shortly and expects to participate in a graduation ceremony with ITB’s next class.
Previously
It seems underwhelming in this situation but I feel a strong need to shout YOU GO, GIRL, and snap my fingers around. Great job, Marines!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:34 AM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:34 AM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
Pfc. Bradford's picture was reportedly lifted from her Instagram account, which I can't seem to find; does it still exist, and if so, where? Would love to follow!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:36 AM on November 21, 2013
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:36 AM on November 21, 2013
TPS, I believe she took her Instagram down, from what I could find.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:37 AM on November 21, 2013
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:37 AM on November 21, 2013
Since last year, new female lieutenants have been invited to attend the Corps’ Infantry Officer Course at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.. To date, however, none has passed.
First, let me admire the grammar since I consider 'none' to be a contraction of 'no one' and thus 'none' needs a singular-type verb. (Please stop rolling your eyes, I have another concern)
Second, let me ask for elucidation of the Officer Course. Is it physically or mentally challenging? In the past year, how many female marines have been eligible for it? Why do they shun it?
posted by Cranberry at 10:42 AM on November 21, 2013
First, let me admire the grammar since I consider 'none' to be a contraction of 'no one' and thus 'none' needs a singular-type verb. (Please stop rolling your eyes, I have another concern)
Second, let me ask for elucidation of the Officer Course. Is it physically or mentally challenging? In the past year, how many female marines have been eligible for it? Why do they shun it?
posted by Cranberry at 10:42 AM on November 21, 2013
"In a survey last year, one in six male Marines said they probably would leave the service if they were forced to serve alongside women in ground combat units."
Good riddance!
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 10:43 AM on November 21, 2013 [31 favorites]
Good riddance!
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 10:43 AM on November 21, 2013 [31 favorites]
Second, let me ask for elucidation of the Officer Course
previously
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:45 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
previously
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:45 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
I figured as much. Hope she didn't get in trouble!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:53 AM on November 21, 2013
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:53 AM on November 21, 2013
TPS, I believe the picture you are looking for is here.
posted by procrastination at 10:57 AM on November 21, 2013
posted by procrastination at 10:57 AM on November 21, 2013
The comment section of the marinecorpstimesn (first link) makes for "interesting" reading.
posted by nostrada at 10:58 AM on November 21, 2013
posted by nostrada at 10:58 AM on November 21, 2013
Wow. From the comments, by someone who used their real Facebook name: Regardless of what the report says, based on what I saw in my 8 years of active duty, I seriously doubt that this happened without any pencil whipping, and some nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:10 AM on November 21, 2013
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:10 AM on November 21, 2013
I wonder: in this day of satellites, drones, "surgical strikes," and incredible support and technology...are there ever instances where a soldier would need to hike/jog 12 miles carrying a 90 pound pack and a rifle?
Sounds to me like this is a holdover from the early 20th Century and a "but it's traditional and that's the way we've always done it" kinda thing...with no real world applications.
posted by CrowGoat at 11:14 AM on November 21, 2013
Sounds to me like this is a holdover from the early 20th Century and a "but it's traditional and that's the way we've always done it" kinda thing...with no real world applications.
posted by CrowGoat at 11:14 AM on November 21, 2013
Felled by your gun, felled by your gun, more than 300 Nazis, felled by your gun.
If this woman and thousands like her could fight in full-combat roles in the worst front of the worst war ever, then why are we even having this debate?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:25 AM on November 21, 2013 [7 favorites]
If this woman and thousands like her could fight in full-combat roles in the worst front of the worst war ever, then why are we even having this debate?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:25 AM on November 21, 2013 [7 favorites]
I wonder: in this day of satellites, drones, "surgical strikes," and incredible support and technology...are there ever instances where a soldier would need to hike/jog 12 miles carrying a 90 pound pack and a rifle?
No but they may be walking around with 100 pounds of gear in 110 degree weather, or snow or uphill or whatever. From the Marines POV, they want all their soldiers to be highly capable and interchangeable. Still, there's no reason women couldn't do this just as well as any man.
posted by doctor_negative at 11:30 AM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
No but they may be walking around with 100 pounds of gear in 110 degree weather, or snow or uphill or whatever. From the Marines POV, they want all their soldiers to be highly capable and interchangeable. Still, there's no reason women couldn't do this just as well as any man.
posted by doctor_negative at 11:30 AM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
If one of them were my daughter, I would be extremely proud of her bravery and tenacity in what is a tough slog for anyone, let alone someone who was VERY visible and probably unwanted. I also hope my daughter chooses not to enlist in the military and I get to be proud of her for something else.
posted by Dr. Twist at 11:31 AM on November 21, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Dr. Twist at 11:31 AM on November 21, 2013 [6 favorites]
Watch out, America: apparently having a vagina makes it hard to kill people!
posted by grubi at 11:33 AM on November 21, 2013
posted by grubi at 11:33 AM on November 21, 2013
I'd like to think that a person who could ruck in dozens of miles to complete a singularly oriented mission (i.e. both Gulf Wars) can prevent thousands of lives being wasted and billions of dollars in resources from being expended; and still retain a touch of soul as compared to a drone strike.
Females in the service in any capacity is still less interesting than where chow is. Might be some residual chest beating around; but by and large is isn't much of as issue as compared to 'can you do the job' and 'are you still able to finish the day, or are you on your back getting an IV for exhaustion". Chow and work define the service way more than what a person is in my experience.
Females bring better hearing and a positive esprit de corps to the service; and a completely different social skills set than most males. Many young people won't respond to anything *but* a polite and stern MOM motivating them. Hilarious, but effective.
Good for these females, and a boost for all.
posted by buzzman at 11:36 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Females in the service in any capacity is still less interesting than where chow is. Might be some residual chest beating around; but by and large is isn't much of as issue as compared to 'can you do the job' and 'are you still able to finish the day, or are you on your back getting an IV for exhaustion". Chow and work define the service way more than what a person is in my experience.
Females bring better hearing and a positive esprit de corps to the service; and a completely different social skills set than most males. Many young people won't respond to anything *but* a polite and stern MOM motivating them. Hilarious, but effective.
Good for these females, and a boost for all.
posted by buzzman at 11:36 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Still, there's no reason women couldn't do this just as well as any man.
Marine Corps infantry is more like Army Rangers or Navy Seals. The physical demands are much higher and the training far more rigorous than regular basic "infantry" training - which in the marines is also pretty demanding.
It's worth pointing out that Army Ranger school is closed to women, so the Marines are ahead of the curve on this.
Congrats to these women for succeeding and to the other women for qualifying even if they didn't pass. They are far tougher than I ever was.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:37 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Marine Corps infantry is more like Army Rangers or Navy Seals. The physical demands are much higher and the training far more rigorous than regular basic "infantry" training - which in the marines is also pretty demanding.
It's worth pointing out that Army Ranger school is closed to women, so the Marines are ahead of the curve on this.
Congrats to these women for succeeding and to the other women for qualifying even if they didn't pass. They are far tougher than I ever was.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:37 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
ever instances where a soldier would need to hike/jog 12 miles carrying a 90 pound pack and a rifle?
Yes.
posted by dazed_one at 11:37 AM on November 21, 2013
Yes.
posted by dazed_one at 11:37 AM on November 21, 2013
Watch out, America: apparently having a vagina makes it hard to kill people!
This is silly. Having testes instead of ovaries may very well make it easier to kill people. There's little doubt that testosterone makes animals more aggressive, and most killing is in fact done by men (not something to be proud of, but it is the case). Testosterone also helps to build the muscle it takes to carry heavy weapons and gear.
That said, there are of course women who can kill and women who are just as strong or stronger than most men, so dismissing applicants based on gender alone doesn't make sense.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 11:42 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
This is silly. Having testes instead of ovaries may very well make it easier to kill people. There's little doubt that testosterone makes animals more aggressive, and most killing is in fact done by men (not something to be proud of, but it is the case). Testosterone also helps to build the muscle it takes to carry heavy weapons and gear.
That said, there are of course women who can kill and women who are just as strong or stronger than most men, so dismissing applicants based on gender alone doesn't make sense.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 11:42 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
There's little doubt that testosterone makes animals more aggressive,
Which doesn't matter in this context because soldiers are not (ostensibly) set loose with their own instincts. They're specifically moved and ordered. Saying a pack of wolves is better at killing than a warren of rabbits isn't the point. Being a human being who has been trained to be proficient with a weapon and then being ordered into combat doesn't require some extra level of testosterone. It requires competence.
posted by grubi at 11:50 AM on November 21, 2013 [20 favorites]
Which doesn't matter in this context because soldiers are not (ostensibly) set loose with their own instincts. They're specifically moved and ordered. Saying a pack of wolves is better at killing than a warren of rabbits isn't the point. Being a human being who has been trained to be proficient with a weapon and then being ordered into combat doesn't require some extra level of testosterone. It requires competence.
posted by grubi at 11:50 AM on November 21, 2013 [20 favorites]
I'm proud of them and happy for them as well. To the speculation that physical requirement(s) for infantrymen, and now women (woo!), in the Marine Corps may have "no real world applications", I can only point you to friends of mine that
A) are Marines,
B) have hiked many miles on patrols,
C) while in combat settings,
D) with full packs, and
E) don't harbor a desire to actually die for their country while serving.
So, yea, the training is something they do because it might save their ass. I'm glad to see that the Marines are moving, if slowly, towards equality for servicewomen as well. There are still miles to go but at least they're moving in the right direction.
Is there somewhere I can get their autographs? I'm not even kidding.
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:58 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
A) are Marines,
B) have hiked many miles on patrols,
C) while in combat settings,
D) with full packs, and
E) don't harbor a desire to actually die for their country while serving.
So, yea, the training is something they do because it might save their ass. I'm glad to see that the Marines are moving, if slowly, towards equality for servicewomen as well. There are still miles to go but at least they're moving in the right direction.
Is there somewhere I can get their autographs? I'm not even kidding.
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:58 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Good point, grubi. I might still argue that dealing with the fact of having killed another human may be more difficult for women, but I have no real evidence to believe so. A lot of the differences in aggression may be due to culture rather than biology as well, and thus easier to overcome.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 12:16 PM on November 21, 2013
posted by Thoughtcrime at 12:16 PM on November 21, 2013
And there's no evidence that testosterone causes or induces aggression.
posted by mattbucher at 12:25 PM on November 21, 2013
posted by mattbucher at 12:25 PM on November 21, 2013
Watch out, America: apparently having a vagina makes it hard to kill people!
If this were factual, I think it would be an excellent argument for doing everything in our power to create a world in which all heads of state and military leaders were women. A little more consideration given to what we're doing before we set about killing people is never a bad thing.
posted by MeghanC at 12:25 PM on November 21, 2013
If this were factual, I think it would be an excellent argument for doing everything in our power to create a world in which all heads of state and military leaders were women. A little more consideration given to what we're doing before we set about killing people is never a bad thing.
posted by MeghanC at 12:25 PM on November 21, 2013
And there's no evidence that testosterone causes or induces aggression.
Well, something in men does.
posted by IndigoJones at 12:34 PM on November 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well, something in men does.
posted by IndigoJones at 12:34 PM on November 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
And there's no evidence that testosterone causes or induces aggression.
Whoa there. One study which does not find a link is not the same as there being no evidence. There are plenty of studies which have found a link. You can't find one single study which corresponds with your preferred ideological position and claim it is the end all and be all of science.
posted by Justinian at 12:36 PM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
Whoa there. One study which does not find a link is not the same as there being no evidence. There are plenty of studies which have found a link. You can't find one single study which corresponds with your preferred ideological position and claim it is the end all and be all of science.
posted by Justinian at 12:36 PM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
The point is that while all the stuff about testosterone, killer instinct, and physical ability may be true at the population level (I'm willing to bet that, in the entire US population, more men than women could adhere to the Marines' physical standards, for instance), it's useless at the individual level, where there are certainly women that can do all the things a Marine does.
posted by downing street memo at 12:39 PM on November 21, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by downing street memo at 12:39 PM on November 21, 2013 [11 favorites]
That's definitely true, it's just not the same as there being no evidence that testosterone and aggression are linked.
posted by Justinian at 12:42 PM on November 21, 2013
posted by Justinian at 12:42 PM on November 21, 2013
While aggression is sometimes a good thing in soldiers, it's not always; sometimes you also have to be able to NOT shoot somebody, and our current military has not always been good at this. All the more reason to set fitness standards without regard for gender and take anybody who meets them.
posted by Sequence at 12:43 PM on November 21, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Sequence at 12:43 PM on November 21, 2013 [5 favorites]
The point is that while all the stuff about testosterone, killer instinct, and physical ability may be true at the population level
It's also incredibly difficult to sort these out from social factors, in humans. There's some interesting research on this.
posted by WidgetAlley at 12:45 PM on November 21, 2013
It's also incredibly difficult to sort these out from social factors, in humans. There's some interesting research on this.
posted by WidgetAlley at 12:45 PM on November 21, 2013
The point is that while all the stuff about testosterone, killer instinct, and physical ability may be true at the population level (I'm willing to bet that, in the entire US population, more men than women could adhere to the Marines' physical standards, for instance), it's useless at the individual level, where there are certainly women that can do all the things a Marine does.
Exactly. If only 1% of women were capable of this and 99% of men were (which is obviously not true either), then we should STILL let those women do it because why the hell not?
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:45 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Exactly. If only 1% of women were capable of this and 99% of men were (which is obviously not true either), then we should STILL let those women do it because why the hell not?
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:45 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure you're gonna find much disagreement about that here on Metafilter!
posted by Justinian at 12:53 PM on November 21, 2013
posted by Justinian at 12:53 PM on November 21, 2013
Hudson: Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?
Vasquez: No. Have you?
(one of my favorite zingers)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:55 PM on November 21, 2013 [16 favorites]
Vasquez: No. Have you?
(one of my favorite zingers)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:55 PM on November 21, 2013 [16 favorites]
As someone who thinks war is stupid and needlessly exploits the poor, I'm conflicted as to whether this is good or bad.
posted by Renoroc at 1:02 PM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Renoroc at 1:02 PM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
A lot of the differences in aggression may be due to culture rather than biology as well, and thus easier to overcome.
I try to keep that in mind as well.
posted by grubi at 1:06 PM on November 21, 2013
I try to keep that in mind as well.
posted by grubi at 1:06 PM on November 21, 2013
The question will become more contentious when we re-introduce the draft. Which, if history is any guide, is bound to happen sooner or later.
(Interestingly, while the Soviets had women in combat in WWII, they did not (as far as I can determine) in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Miss Russian Army is a post-war phenom.)
posted by IndigoJones at 1:07 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
(Interestingly, while the Soviets had women in combat in WWII, they did not (as far as I can determine) in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Miss Russian Army is a post-war phenom.)
posted by IndigoJones at 1:07 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
"So, one third of the females completed the course compared to 83 percent of the men."
Your fraction is wrong. It's one-fifth (3 of 15) of the women compared to four-fifths (221 of 266) of the men. 20% compared to 83%. (27% counting the marine with the fracture.)
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:17 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Your fraction is wrong. It's one-fifth (3 of 15) of the women compared to four-fifths (221 of 266) of the men. 20% compared to 83%. (27% counting the marine with the fracture.)
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:17 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yes, sorry about that Ivan Fyodorovich.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:20 PM on November 21, 2013
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:20 PM on November 21, 2013
> "As someone who thinks war is stupid and needlessly exploits the poor, I'm conflicted as to whether this is good or bad."
As someone who to some extent agrees with the first part of this sentiment, I strongly disagree with the second part.
Denying a class of people a choice that others can make is a bad thing. If you want to get rid of the armed forces entirely, that's actually a completely separate issue. As long as they exist, women who want to volunteer should not be barred from them.
posted by kyrademon at 1:28 PM on November 21, 2013 [3 favorites]
As someone who to some extent agrees with the first part of this sentiment, I strongly disagree with the second part.
Denying a class of people a choice that others can make is a bad thing. If you want to get rid of the armed forces entirely, that's actually a completely separate issue. As long as they exist, women who want to volunteer should not be barred from them.
posted by kyrademon at 1:28 PM on November 21, 2013 [3 favorites]
I wonder: in this day of satellites, drones, "surgical strikes," and incredible support and technology...are there ever instances where a soldier would need to hike/jog 12 miles carrying a 90 pound pack and a rifle?
Sounds to me like this is a holdover from the early 20th Century and a "but it's traditional and that's the way we've always done it" kinda thing...with no real world applications.
You're mistaking the marketing for the reality. Drones and surgical strikes are new and sexy because they enable those in power to destroy and kill with impunity, but if destroying things and killing people were the only aims of our military then we'd have shed standing armies decades ago.
Cruise missiles and drone strikes are great for getting specific people or specific hardware/installations to stop doing things you don't want them to, but getting people to start doing the things you do want them to do requires boots on the ground... and, clearly, some semblance of rapport and empathy with the culture that inhabits said ground.
Can a couple hundred million dollars worth of Tomahawks effectively end fixed-wing and helicopter strafing runs on Libyan or Syrian protesters? Yep.
Can a few hundred million dollars more spent on drone strikes and carrier-launched air sorties wipe out Libyan armor divisions massacring civilians in rebel strongholds, or destroy Syrian artillery busily shelling residential neighborhoods? Sure.
Can drone strikes link up disparate anti-Taliban warlords and forge them into a shaky alliance that (briefly) drives atavistic misogynists back into their literal caves, all the while conducting guerrilla raids on hidden and decentralized supply chains? Hardly.
Can cruise missiles eliminate Syrian chemical weapon stores in a manner that doesn't poison every civilian in a 2-mile radius? ...Yeah, no.
The military is required to provide a wide variety of violent services in the pursuit of our leaders' idiotic and rapacious policies, and in order to meet that requirement must keep a variety of tools on-hand.
The point of the Marines is to provide an extremely flexible and self-sufficient force that is considerably larger than ultra-specialized units like the Seals, but still fairly elite when compared to bread-and-butter Army units.
If you were tasked with creating such a force, you'd probably want to start by setting physical and intellectual requirements somewhere around the top 20% of all available military recruits, right? Good balance between pool size vs. soldier quality. You'd probably standardize your gear weight around what you could consistently train that top 20% to carry on a daily basis, right? And when that weight requirement ran headlong into gender-specific Gaussian distributions of raw physical strength, you'd probably (extreme benefit of the doubt) inadvertently make it impossible for all but the top few % of women to participate.
My point is - the people creating these military branches aren't quite the neanderthals you make them out to be. The current situation is an inevitable consequence of the requirements they labored under - and mostly, not entirely but mostly - the discrimination you see is more a result of utter ambivalence rather than actual antipathy to equal opportunity.
Which is still not all that great, but considerably better than a lot of people here might think.
posted by Ryvar at 1:33 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sounds to me like this is a holdover from the early 20th Century and a "but it's traditional and that's the way we've always done it" kinda thing...with no real world applications.
You're mistaking the marketing for the reality. Drones and surgical strikes are new and sexy because they enable those in power to destroy and kill with impunity, but if destroying things and killing people were the only aims of our military then we'd have shed standing armies decades ago.
Cruise missiles and drone strikes are great for getting specific people or specific hardware/installations to stop doing things you don't want them to, but getting people to start doing the things you do want them to do requires boots on the ground... and, clearly, some semblance of rapport and empathy with the culture that inhabits said ground.
Can a couple hundred million dollars worth of Tomahawks effectively end fixed-wing and helicopter strafing runs on Libyan or Syrian protesters? Yep.
Can a few hundred million dollars more spent on drone strikes and carrier-launched air sorties wipe out Libyan armor divisions massacring civilians in rebel strongholds, or destroy Syrian artillery busily shelling residential neighborhoods? Sure.
Can drone strikes link up disparate anti-Taliban warlords and forge them into a shaky alliance that (briefly) drives atavistic misogynists back into their literal caves, all the while conducting guerrilla raids on hidden and decentralized supply chains? Hardly.
Can cruise missiles eliminate Syrian chemical weapon stores in a manner that doesn't poison every civilian in a 2-mile radius? ...Yeah, no.
The military is required to provide a wide variety of violent services in the pursuit of our leaders' idiotic and rapacious policies, and in order to meet that requirement must keep a variety of tools on-hand.
The point of the Marines is to provide an extremely flexible and self-sufficient force that is considerably larger than ultra-specialized units like the Seals, but still fairly elite when compared to bread-and-butter Army units.
If you were tasked with creating such a force, you'd probably want to start by setting physical and intellectual requirements somewhere around the top 20% of all available military recruits, right? Good balance between pool size vs. soldier quality. You'd probably standardize your gear weight around what you could consistently train that top 20% to carry on a daily basis, right? And when that weight requirement ran headlong into gender-specific Gaussian distributions of raw physical strength, you'd probably (extreme benefit of the doubt) inadvertently make it impossible for all but the top few % of women to participate.
My point is - the people creating these military branches aren't quite the neanderthals you make them out to be. The current situation is an inevitable consequence of the requirements they labored under - and mostly, not entirely but mostly - the discrimination you see is more a result of utter ambivalence rather than actual antipathy to equal opportunity.
Which is still not all that great, but considerably better than a lot of people here might think.
posted by Ryvar at 1:33 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Marine Corps infantry is more like Army Rangers or Navy Seals. The physical demands are much higher and the training far more rigorous than regular basic "infantry" training - which in the marines is also pretty demanding.
So, my kid brother is a Marine, and in fact went through this exact infantry training at this very same camp a year or so ago.
I mean, don't get me wrong. My brother is really physically fit. I have no doubt that he could carry 100 lbs of supplies through the mountains of Afghanistan or whatever it is they're training Marines to do nowadays, physical strength wise. He could probably totally beat you all up, too.
But he's not, like, a superhero or anything. He wasn't even a jock in high school. There are definitely women -- not even particularly unfeminine women -- who are more athletically inclined than he is.
I have no doubt, after watching my baby brother blossom from emo kid special snowflake coddled baby of the family to hardened Marine, that a woman could handle it.
And, I mean, the body's capacity for physical strength and athleticism is a quantifiable thing. You can say "You Must Be This Badass To Ride", and anyone who can't do the list of physical tasks doesn't get in. We're not talking about some obscure unknowable capacity, here.
posted by Sara C. at 1:41 PM on November 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
So, my kid brother is a Marine, and in fact went through this exact infantry training at this very same camp a year or so ago.
I mean, don't get me wrong. My brother is really physically fit. I have no doubt that he could carry 100 lbs of supplies through the mountains of Afghanistan or whatever it is they're training Marines to do nowadays, physical strength wise. He could probably totally beat you all up, too.
But he's not, like, a superhero or anything. He wasn't even a jock in high school. There are definitely women -- not even particularly unfeminine women -- who are more athletically inclined than he is.
I have no doubt, after watching my baby brother blossom from emo kid special snowflake coddled baby of the family to hardened Marine, that a woman could handle it.
And, I mean, the body's capacity for physical strength and athleticism is a quantifiable thing. You can say "You Must Be This Badass To Ride", and anyone who can't do the list of physical tasks doesn't get in. We're not talking about some obscure unknowable capacity, here.
posted by Sara C. at 1:41 PM on November 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
My son is in the US Army, about which my feelings are ... complicated, but I support the fact that he made his decision for good reasons and serves honorably. I'm especially proud that he questioned an order that he thought was incorrect (on practical and performance grounds, not ethical), got in trouble, got cleared when it turned out he was right, the order was incorrect, possibly causing a safety or performance problem.
The US military is good at a lot of things: training, researching, getting stuff done. When they desegregated based on race, they gave, and still give, opportunity to a lot of African-Americans and Hispanics. In my high school class of mumblety (1979), a lot of black classmates enlisted, stayed in 20 years, retired from the military and got civilian jobs and helped create the black middle class in the US. As integration proceeded, non-whites got leadership opportunities that they didn't get very many other places. As the US military has integrated women into leadership and towards full participation, they're giving women leadership opportunity. Those women who started 20+ years ago are retiring, getting jobs, and transforming things.
No matter how you feel about the military, gaining an understanding of military culture, the good as well as the macho, is a good idea. It's a massive part of the US economy and a major employer. Ignore the jingoistic recruiting crap; talk to people who've served, and get an understanding of what it's about. One of my biggest complaints is the wide divide between officers and enlisted troops. It's a holdover from the European class system, it's kind of horrible, and no one talks about it. Joining the US military is a path to US citizenship. Also, don't believe a word that a recruiter says.
I don't feel any connection to the Marines' culture. But I'm so stinkin' proud of these women for having physical and mental courage, toughness and excellence, and for leading the way for other women. Oorah!
posted by theora55 at 1:49 PM on November 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
The US military is good at a lot of things: training, researching, getting stuff done. When they desegregated based on race, they gave, and still give, opportunity to a lot of African-Americans and Hispanics. In my high school class of mumblety (1979), a lot of black classmates enlisted, stayed in 20 years, retired from the military and got civilian jobs and helped create the black middle class in the US. As integration proceeded, non-whites got leadership opportunities that they didn't get very many other places. As the US military has integrated women into leadership and towards full participation, they're giving women leadership opportunity. Those women who started 20+ years ago are retiring, getting jobs, and transforming things.
No matter how you feel about the military, gaining an understanding of military culture, the good as well as the macho, is a good idea. It's a massive part of the US economy and a major employer. Ignore the jingoistic recruiting crap; talk to people who've served, and get an understanding of what it's about. One of my biggest complaints is the wide divide between officers and enlisted troops. It's a holdover from the European class system, it's kind of horrible, and no one talks about it. Joining the US military is a path to US citizenship. Also, don't believe a word that a recruiter says.
I don't feel any connection to the Marines' culture. But I'm so stinkin' proud of these women for having physical and mental courage, toughness and excellence, and for leading the way for other women. Oorah!
posted by theora55 at 1:49 PM on November 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
If they can pass the training, they deserve to serve. It's just that simple.
"Ready to serve, lieutenant."
"You won't be going out there, private first class Lady. You're staying behind the lines, because you can't carry heavy things, and get tired easily."
"Sir that is inaccurate sir!" *hefts up ammo crate, runs it five times around the command tent*
"You used your back and legs. Real marines don't do that. Dismissed!"
posted by turbid dahlia at 1:50 PM on November 21, 2013
"Ready to serve, lieutenant."
"You won't be going out there, private first class Lady. You're staying behind the lines, because you can't carry heavy things, and get tired easily."
"Sir that is inaccurate sir!" *hefts up ammo crate, runs it five times around the command tent*
"You used your back and legs. Real marines don't do that. Dismissed!"
posted by turbid dahlia at 1:50 PM on November 21, 2013
The comments in the linked article from militarytimes.com include quite a few congratulations and OUTSTANDING!s from other Marines. That's encouraging.
posted by theora55 at 1:52 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by theora55 at 1:52 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
All the evidence suggests that physically, women and men overlap to a great degree. I bet the militaries of the world have known this for a long time. Why I would be cautious about putting women in combat roles alongside men is because romance and sex between fellow soldiers are complications you want to avoid during a battle.
Keeping large groups of people organized and on-task in life-threatening situations is hard enough, once you start worrying about which members of your unit are dating, or recently broke up, things get a lot more complicated. The caution has less to do with the traits of individual women and men; it's about how women and men interact.
posted by serif at 1:53 PM on November 21, 2013
Keeping large groups of people organized and on-task in life-threatening situations is hard enough, once you start worrying about which members of your unit are dating, or recently broke up, things get a lot more complicated. The caution has less to do with the traits of individual women and men; it's about how women and men interact.
posted by serif at 1:53 PM on November 21, 2013
Why I would be cautious about putting women in combat roles alongside men is because romance and sex between fellow soldiers are complications you want to avoid during a battle.
This is problematic logic because, as far as I know anyway, they didn't remove gay males from combat roles. Not that the military in general is well known for their cohesive logic behind things but still.
posted by RolandOfEld at 2:00 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
This is problematic logic because, as far as I know anyway, they didn't remove gay males from combat roles. Not that the military in general is well known for their cohesive logic behind things but still.
posted by RolandOfEld at 2:00 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
> "... romance and sex between fellow soldiers are complications you want to avoid during a battle."
That is the current thought on the issue, yes, although it should be pointed out that it hasn't always been.
Still, even if it is actually a correct assessment, it could be used as an excuse for anything. Keeping women (or gay men) out of any business that involves stress and teamwork, which is most of them. And if you want to say, "Being a soldier is different! Lives are on the line!" Well ... lives are on the line if you are a firefighter. An air-traffic controller. An ER surgeon. I could go on for a long time.
And that could also be used as an excuse to keep men out of all those jobs, you know. The problem could be solved by going the other way, too.
Fraternization rules already exist. If it's a real concern, that should be the end of the matter.
posted by kyrademon at 2:03 PM on November 21, 2013 [8 favorites]
That is the current thought on the issue, yes, although it should be pointed out that it hasn't always been.
Still, even if it is actually a correct assessment, it could be used as an excuse for anything. Keeping women (or gay men) out of any business that involves stress and teamwork, which is most of them. And if you want to say, "Being a soldier is different! Lives are on the line!" Well ... lives are on the line if you are a firefighter. An air-traffic controller. An ER surgeon. I could go on for a long time.
And that could also be used as an excuse to keep men out of all those jobs, you know. The problem could be solved by going the other way, too.
Fraternization rules already exist. If it's a real concern, that should be the end of the matter.
posted by kyrademon at 2:03 PM on November 21, 2013 [8 favorites]
I'm seeing a lot of muddy thinking about what it means to be an infantryperson. For the most part you are not Rambo. You are a cog in a wheel. Personal valor is a given, but the valor has been groomed by training: how to use your weapon, and by conditioning: how to clear a hang-fire, how to function while exhausted, how to use your tools. An infantryperson's tools range from a sheathe knife, to bivouac gear, to a piece of electronic equipment. Infantrypeople learn to walk if they don't have to run, stand if they don't have to walk, and sit if they don't have to stand. They learn to sleep if they don't have to be awake. They learn to make do with what they have, and jury rig with what they lack. At some point the infantryperson gets it through his or her head that the guy next to him hold his life in their hands, and vice versa. I'm not an elitist in this respect, but I beg you to consider what it's like to be willing to die for some guy you wouldn't want around your family: that's sometimes your choice. By this I mean that even in a life or death situation, you are always more than your job, even when your job, at that moment, is the center of your universe.
One of RedBud's grandkids is an infantryman. He doesn't hump a ruck, because he's a turret gunner in one of those new armored vehicles. That was just the luck of the draw. I would prefer to be a ground-pounder myself, if I still were an 11B, because the idea of doing what he does reminds me too much of being an RPG magnet.
I don't know what the present day realities are in a line outfit, but I do remember that my team mates and I rarely had time to have sex during a firefight. Okay, none of them was female, but still. I am aware that some military people nowadays won't serve in combat with women. This is a self-correcting problem. I'm also aware that rape is a serious issue in the military. This is not a self-correcting problem and it ought to be handled. The notion that women are psychologically unfit for combat is just plain stupid. Well, actually there may be something to that idea, but it would apply to men as well.
The notion of the infantryman as a wild-eyed aggressive killer is one that's informed by ignorance, movies, role-playing games, and adolescent wet dreaming. The infantryperson who works best is one that knows his job, and tries to keep his head when the shit starts flying. Hand-to-hand combat is rare, but it does happen. Mostly it's guns, grenades artillery and air strikes. In sum, the infantry is the teeth of the armed forces. Their job is to kill people. The chilling fact is that some of them joined the military just for the opportunity commit homicide without going to jail, while others have a more complex view of the job.
I don't see how any thinking person can reflect on how this must work without having conflicting thoughts.
posted by mule98J at 2:25 PM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
One of RedBud's grandkids is an infantryman. He doesn't hump a ruck, because he's a turret gunner in one of those new armored vehicles. That was just the luck of the draw. I would prefer to be a ground-pounder myself, if I still were an 11B, because the idea of doing what he does reminds me too much of being an RPG magnet.
I don't know what the present day realities are in a line outfit, but I do remember that my team mates and I rarely had time to have sex during a firefight. Okay, none of them was female, but still. I am aware that some military people nowadays won't serve in combat with women. This is a self-correcting problem. I'm also aware that rape is a serious issue in the military. This is not a self-correcting problem and it ought to be handled. The notion that women are psychologically unfit for combat is just plain stupid. Well, actually there may be something to that idea, but it would apply to men as well.
The notion of the infantryman as a wild-eyed aggressive killer is one that's informed by ignorance, movies, role-playing games, and adolescent wet dreaming. The infantryperson who works best is one that knows his job, and tries to keep his head when the shit starts flying. Hand-to-hand combat is rare, but it does happen. Mostly it's guns, grenades artillery and air strikes. In sum, the infantry is the teeth of the armed forces. Their job is to kill people. The chilling fact is that some of them joined the military just for the opportunity commit homicide without going to jail, while others have a more complex view of the job.
I don't see how any thinking person can reflect on how this must work without having conflicting thoughts.
posted by mule98J at 2:25 PM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
"Marine Corps infantry is more like Army Rangers or Navy Seals."
Only a Marine or civilian would claim this, but it's not true.
Rangers are trained and made to suffer/tested more than most Marines, who go through a bit more than most Army infantry--but as much or less than some, as there are some seriously rough and tough regiments out there (like the 101st Rakkassans were in the late 90s--maybe still today). SEALs get more training than Rangers.
Note: the Marines have Force Recon, which is more like Ranger Batt--and maybe MARSOC and MEU(SOCS) and MSPF units, which are like SEALs/SF. I still think SFOD-D ("Delta Force") and DEVGRU ("Seal Team 6") probably have the toughest training in the US.
posted by whatgorilla at 2:28 PM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
Only a Marine or civilian would claim this, but it's not true.
Rangers are trained and made to suffer/tested more than most Marines, who go through a bit more than most Army infantry--but as much or less than some, as there are some seriously rough and tough regiments out there (like the 101st Rakkassans were in the late 90s--maybe still today). SEALs get more training than Rangers.
Note: the Marines have Force Recon, which is more like Ranger Batt--and maybe MARSOC and MEU(SOCS) and MSPF units, which are like SEALs/SF. I still think SFOD-D ("Delta Force") and DEVGRU ("Seal Team 6") probably have the toughest training in the US.
posted by whatgorilla at 2:28 PM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
I don't know what the present day realities are in a line outfit, but I do remember that my team mates and I rarely had time to have sex during a firefight. Okay, none of them was female, but still.
This is a great point. I'm the only woman in my department at my (civilian) job. So far I have not had sex with any of my coworkers. It's never even crossed my mind.
I've had my share of workplace crushes, but it strikes me that this sort of thing is not really avoidable unless you keep women out of the armed forces entirely, and outside of any kind of contractor or support position that might interface with the military in any way. It would mean no female war correspondents, no female translators, no female members of the diplomatic corps.
"What if we threw a war and nobody came because they decided to have an orgy in the trenches instead" does not strike me as a realistic reason to keep women out of combat positions.
(Not touching the issue of rape with a ten foot pole. I just don't know nearly enough about it.)
posted by Sara C. at 2:38 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
This is a great point. I'm the only woman in my department at my (civilian) job. So far I have not had sex with any of my coworkers. It's never even crossed my mind.
I've had my share of workplace crushes, but it strikes me that this sort of thing is not really avoidable unless you keep women out of the armed forces entirely, and outside of any kind of contractor or support position that might interface with the military in any way. It would mean no female war correspondents, no female translators, no female members of the diplomatic corps.
"What if we threw a war and nobody came because they decided to have an orgy in the trenches instead" does not strike me as a realistic reason to keep women out of combat positions.
(Not touching the issue of rape with a ten foot pole. I just don't know nearly enough about it.)
posted by Sara C. at 2:38 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Two years? That's no good. We might've run out of wars by then.
posted by pompomtom at 2:39 PM on November 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by pompomtom at 2:39 PM on November 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
Years and years of field work and sports have taught me that men think they are just inherently much stronger than women to a comical degree. Also they are wrong: young outdoorsy physical people are uniformly tough as fuck and the rest of us are.. not.
This will not stop a 45 year old man with a pot belly and a bad back telling a strapping 5'11" 22 year old woman who spends all her free time back country skiing and chopping wood to be careful lifting a 25lb battery though. Its some weird mental disconnect that men can't get past no matter how out of shape, weak or small they are in real life.
posted by fshgrl at 2:41 PM on November 21, 2013 [17 favorites]
This will not stop a 45 year old man with a pot belly and a bad back telling a strapping 5'11" 22 year old woman who spends all her free time back country skiing and chopping wood to be careful lifting a 25lb battery though. Its some weird mental disconnect that men can't get past no matter how out of shape, weak or small they are in real life.
posted by fshgrl at 2:41 PM on November 21, 2013 [17 favorites]
I still think SFOD-D ("Delta Force") and DEVGRU ("Seal Team 6") probably have the toughest training in the US.
There's only been a couple former members that have actually given out numbers, the more reliable one being Paul Howe (of Black Hawk Down fame) stating 12-14 operators graduating from an initial group of 240 applicants (5-6%).
Mind you, that's 240 people who genuinely believed they could hack it, with all the self-selection pre-filtering implied.
Coincidentally, similar ratios are oft-reported "common knowledge" for the most elite of the Russian Spetsnaz units (Alpha and Vympel), but I'm not finding a trustworthy English-speaking source for that anywhere.
posted by Ryvar at 2:57 PM on November 21, 2013
There's only been a couple former members that have actually given out numbers, the more reliable one being Paul Howe (of Black Hawk Down fame) stating 12-14 operators graduating from an initial group of 240 applicants (5-6%).
Mind you, that's 240 people who genuinely believed they could hack it, with all the self-selection pre-filtering implied.
Coincidentally, similar ratios are oft-reported "common knowledge" for the most elite of the Russian Spetsnaz units (Alpha and Vympel), but I'm not finding a trustworthy English-speaking source for that anywhere.
posted by Ryvar at 2:57 PM on November 21, 2013
The testosterone and aggression derail was silly, but I'd like to point out that aggressiveness is not necessarily a great character trait in a soldier. What one presumably wants is obedience, good judgment, a level-headed demeanor, competence, the ability to make quick decisions under pressure, and a willingness to execute decisions or orders even if they involve killing people and/or putting oneself or others at great risk of harm.
Aggressiveness is certainly not required for any of those traits, and may in fact be detrimental to some of them. And in any case I don't see anything in the characteristics I listed that women aren't just as good at as men.
The "men are more aggressive because testosterone" thing is a red herring, is what I'm saying. Aggression isn't a particularly important part of being a good soldier, and may even be a hindrance.
posted by Scientist at 3:05 PM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
Aggressiveness is certainly not required for any of those traits, and may in fact be detrimental to some of them. And in any case I don't see anything in the characteristics I listed that women aren't just as good at as men.
The "men are more aggressive because testosterone" thing is a red herring, is what I'm saying. Aggression isn't a particularly important part of being a good soldier, and may even be a hindrance.
posted by Scientist at 3:05 PM on November 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
I don't think that's true. You want aggression just not uncontrolled aggression. We spend huge amounts of training just getting soldiers to the point where they're aggressive enough to actually fire their weapons at the enemy. The statistics on how many soldiers were willing to engage enemy soldiers in, say, WWII (as opposed to simply firing into the air near the enemy) is very surprising.
posted by Justinian at 4:13 PM on November 21, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:13 PM on November 21, 2013 [3 favorites]
Years and years of field work and sports have taught me that men think they are just inherently much stronger than women to a comical degree. Also they are wrong: young outdoorsy physical people are uniformly tough as fuck and the rest of us are.. not.
But not uniformly as tough as each other. Thus, men and women have different standards in athletic competitions. Women who pass the military physicals are statistical outliers.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:33 PM on November 21, 2013
But not uniformly as tough as each other. Thus, men and women have different standards in athletic competitions. Women who pass the military physicals are statistical outliers.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:33 PM on November 21, 2013
I don't really get why, when we talk about the women who have passed military physical requirements, the conversation always turns to an all women vs. all men thing.
So four women have passed Marine Infantry Training. Send those four women into the trenches. They've proven by every possible metric that they are capable of this, where a great many men are not.
The fact that those women are outliers, or that not all women are lining up to do the same thing, is meaningless.
posted by Sara C. at 4:39 PM on November 21, 2013 [9 favorites]
So four women have passed Marine Infantry Training. Send those four women into the trenches. They've proven by every possible metric that they are capable of this, where a great many men are not.
The fact that those women are outliers, or that not all women are lining up to do the same thing, is meaningless.
posted by Sara C. at 4:39 PM on November 21, 2013 [9 favorites]
They've trained for this role, they should be allowed to perform it to the best of their abilities. Kudos to them for having the persistence to get this far.
posted by arcticseal at 4:41 PM on November 21, 2013
posted by arcticseal at 4:41 PM on November 21, 2013
I don't really get why, when we talk about the women who have passed military physical requirements, the conversation always turns to an all women vs. all men thing.
I think it's because, as I said, you're not going to find anyone on Metafilter going "Nah, we shouldn't allow women to join even if they pass the physical requirements". So there isn't much to talk about there besides "hooray for them!", so the conversation moves to other things.
posted by Justinian at 4:42 PM on November 21, 2013
I think it's because, as I said, you're not going to find anyone on Metafilter going "Nah, we shouldn't allow women to join even if they pass the physical requirements". So there isn't much to talk about there besides "hooray for them!", so the conversation moves to other things.
posted by Justinian at 4:42 PM on November 21, 2013
The statistics on how many soldiers were willing to engage enemy soldiers in, say, WWII (as opposed to simply firing into the air near the enemy) is very surprising.This isn't really a statistic.
This one general pretty much just said it was so without any particular evidence. I think that it's a myth that people like - it says good things about us! - but it never really had any basis in truth. If someone is coming to kill you, and you have a rifle in your hands, you're going to try to use it to kill them first. Unless you freeze in terror, but even if that happens in your first firefight, you'll probably eventually get over it.
posted by kavasa at 5:06 PM on November 21, 2013
I wonder: in this day of satellites, drones, "surgical strikes," and incredible support and technology...are there ever instances where a soldier would need to hike/jog 12 miles carrying a 90 pound pack and a rifle?
I'm a naval aviator who's been around long enough to see females enter into combat flight roles. I've never had a problem with them being there, and have met some OUTSTANDING female aviators.
I just remember one issue many of my fellow aviators had when females were first integrated was, "If we get shot down and I'm injured is she going to be able to carry me out of danger?" I always figured it was a valid concern, but for a situation that was extremely unlikely to ever occur - seemed to me if we were shot down we'd both likely be dead.
For the Marines I could see having to carry one of your fellow Marines out of danger a much more probable scenario, so I suppose if they were able to pass the course while meeting the same standards as everyone else there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to fight. Of course a body weighs more than 90 lbs, but I could see a rationale in setting a baseline that helps demonstrate the ability to carry truly heavy weight a reasonable distance.
Modern warfare, despite it's technological advances, still - and likely always will - depend on an well-trained and physically strong ground fighting force in it's cadre of weapons. My semi-educated guess is that the 90 pound rack requirement remains based upon multiple lessons learned over many, many years of experience on conducting the art and science of War.
posted by matty at 5:47 PM on November 21, 2013
I'm a naval aviator who's been around long enough to see females enter into combat flight roles. I've never had a problem with them being there, and have met some OUTSTANDING female aviators.
I just remember one issue many of my fellow aviators had when females were first integrated was, "If we get shot down and I'm injured is she going to be able to carry me out of danger?" I always figured it was a valid concern, but for a situation that was extremely unlikely to ever occur - seemed to me if we were shot down we'd both likely be dead.
For the Marines I could see having to carry one of your fellow Marines out of danger a much more probable scenario, so I suppose if they were able to pass the course while meeting the same standards as everyone else there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to fight. Of course a body weighs more than 90 lbs, but I could see a rationale in setting a baseline that helps demonstrate the ability to carry truly heavy weight a reasonable distance.
Modern warfare, despite it's technological advances, still - and likely always will - depend on an well-trained and physically strong ground fighting force in it's cadre of weapons. My semi-educated guess is that the 90 pound rack requirement remains based upon multiple lessons learned over many, many years of experience on conducting the art and science of War.
posted by matty at 5:47 PM on November 21, 2013
What, a general fabricating statistics? Say it ain't so! /hamburger
posted by Justinian at 6:03 PM on November 21, 2013
posted by Justinian at 6:03 PM on November 21, 2013
The 90lb rack requirement is based on how the US infantry does war. There are and always have been women fighting in combat all over the globe in armies that maybe don't care about that so much. It has nothing to do with fighting per se.
I have to say, based on having many veteran friends, that carryng huge packs doesn't seen to be very good for the long term health of even the biggest, strongest man. Lots of knee replacements and vertebral stress fractures in that population. Lots of 40 year old cripples.
posted by fshgrl at 10:08 PM on November 21, 2013
I have to say, based on having many veteran friends, that carryng huge packs doesn't seen to be very good for the long term health of even the biggest, strongest man. Lots of knee replacements and vertebral stress fractures in that population. Lots of 40 year old cripples.
posted by fshgrl at 10:08 PM on November 21, 2013
But not uniformly as tough as each other. Thus, men and women have different standards in athletic competitions. Women who pass the military physicals are statistical outliers.
I think that depends on how you define toughness. If you define toughness solely as maximum physical strength, then yes, on average men are better. If you define toughness as ability to endure physical and psychological discomfort then I don't think there is any difference (save the possible effects of sociocultural conditioning telling men to suck it up and women to give in).
Also re: statistical outlier, I think you're underestimating the athletic capabilities of women who've been through intelligent physical conditioning. The average woman has only seen regular, intense exercise as a good thing for maybe the past 20 years. Remember, women weren't allowed into the Boston Marathon until the early 1970s, and women weren't allowed to compete in weightlifting in the Olympics until freaking 2000. And even now in general the average young woman sees messages that encourage her to run, do aerobics, yoga, and maybe pick up tiny little baby weights (but not too much!). Meanwhile, the average young man is encouraged to hit the weights hard, do heavy conditioning workouts, and play contact sports. Guess who is going to be more prepared for the general strength demands of a PT test and obstacle course? I'm not saying women and men have equal strength potential, but a lot of female potential is being wasted due to how our culture teaches them to exercise versus men.
Thankfully our culture is slowly changing towards a more positive view of athletic-bodied women and more women are being encouraged to go into the weight room and develop their strength and power. But until a middle-school girl feels as comfortable sneaking into the school weight room and fucking around with dumbbells as a middle-school boy does, the average woman simply is not going to be building an athletic base comparative to the average man.
posted by Anonymous at 10:12 PM on November 21, 2013
I think that depends on how you define toughness. If you define toughness solely as maximum physical strength, then yes, on average men are better. If you define toughness as ability to endure physical and psychological discomfort then I don't think there is any difference (save the possible effects of sociocultural conditioning telling men to suck it up and women to give in).
Also re: statistical outlier, I think you're underestimating the athletic capabilities of women who've been through intelligent physical conditioning. The average woman has only seen regular, intense exercise as a good thing for maybe the past 20 years. Remember, women weren't allowed into the Boston Marathon until the early 1970s, and women weren't allowed to compete in weightlifting in the Olympics until freaking 2000. And even now in general the average young woman sees messages that encourage her to run, do aerobics, yoga, and maybe pick up tiny little baby weights (but not too much!). Meanwhile, the average young man is encouraged to hit the weights hard, do heavy conditioning workouts, and play contact sports. Guess who is going to be more prepared for the general strength demands of a PT test and obstacle course? I'm not saying women and men have equal strength potential, but a lot of female potential is being wasted due to how our culture teaches them to exercise versus men.
Thankfully our culture is slowly changing towards a more positive view of athletic-bodied women and more women are being encouraged to go into the weight room and develop their strength and power. But until a middle-school girl feels as comfortable sneaking into the school weight room and fucking around with dumbbells as a middle-school boy does, the average woman simply is not going to be building an athletic base comparative to the average man.
posted by Anonymous at 10:12 PM on November 21, 2013
If you want an idea of female athletic potential, last month a female friend of mine competed in the North American Strongman National Strongwoman Championships. Strongman is a relatively small sport and Strongwoman is even smaller, with a pretty tiny pool of athletes compared to soccer or gymnastics or even powerlifting and weightlifting. Well, my 150# friend recently did a ~60' farmer's walk with 300# in each hand. That's where you pick up a weight from the floor--in this case, 300# per hand--and take a walk. She was booking it, this wasn't a slow stumble. Each weight was twice her bodyweight! She did that, and at Nats in her weight class she came in third. So if she isn't getting first in a tiny sport with a tiny athlete pool despite being able to take a stroll with 300# in each hand, well, to me that's saying there are a lot of women out there who have no idea how badass they could be with the right training.
posted by Anonymous at 10:20 PM on November 21, 2013
posted by Anonymous at 10:20 PM on November 21, 2013
I wonder: in this day of satellites, drones, "surgical strikes," and incredible support and technology...are there ever instances where a soldier would need to hike/jog 12 miles carrying a 90 pound pack and a rifle?
Actually, modern body armor makes infantry combat gear heavier than ever.
"In Afghanistan, soldiers routinely carry loads of 130 to 150 pounds for three-day missions...In Iraq, where patrols are more likely to use vehicles, loads range from 60 to nearly 100 pounds, he said."
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:23 AM on November 22, 2013
Actually, modern body armor makes infantry combat gear heavier than ever.
"In Afghanistan, soldiers routinely carry loads of 130 to 150 pounds for three-day missions...In Iraq, where patrols are more likely to use vehicles, loads range from 60 to nearly 100 pounds, he said."
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:23 AM on November 22, 2013
I have to wonder how the development of powered exoskeletons will affect the strength requirements. There will probablybe groups like the Green Berets that will need to keep them, but will standard infantry need as much strength?
And of course when we eventually develop full-on powered armor, strength may not be an issue. Maybe.
posted by happyroach at 1:23 AM on November 22, 2013
And of course when we eventually develop full-on powered armor, strength may not be an issue. Maybe.
posted by happyroach at 1:23 AM on November 22, 2013
> "... to me that's saying there are a lot of women out there who have no idea how badass they could be with the right training."
Yes.
My gf and I have been seriously weight training for about a year now. The number of women in that section of the gym is close to nonexistent.
I won't say 90 pounds is nothing, but a relatively small woman deadlifting *twice* that amount is considered an "intermediate" lifter, not even advanced. Squatting 90 pounds, which might be a more appropriate measure for this, is considered novice level.
posted by kyrademon at 2:57 AM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yes.
My gf and I have been seriously weight training for about a year now. The number of women in that section of the gym is close to nonexistent.
I won't say 90 pounds is nothing, but a relatively small woman deadlifting *twice* that amount is considered an "intermediate" lifter, not even advanced. Squatting 90 pounds, which might be a more appropriate measure for this, is considered novice level.
posted by kyrademon at 2:57 AM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
As an infantryman, I'd like to clarify that rucking 12.5 miles with a 90 pound ruck will make for a pretty bad day. It's not really analogous to deadlifting or squatting. It is its own kind of suck. It makes your whole body hurt.
Kudos to those Marines.
posted by A Bad Catholic at 9:21 AM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
Kudos to those Marines.
posted by A Bad Catholic at 9:21 AM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
I did not mean to imply it was analogous, or that squatting 90 pounds means you can automatically carry it around 12.5 miles. Obviously, this is not the case, and I'm sorry if I was unclear.
What I meant was, for even a small woman, that first step of hefting up 90 pounds and carry it a ways actually doesn't take a lot of training. But a lot of women have been convinced that there's no way they could even do that, and even have been told there's something weird about them if they want to try.
And that means there are barriers to overcome before Marine training even begins, in order not to start with a completely unnecessary disadvantage.
posted by kyrademon at 1:48 PM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
What I meant was, for even a small woman, that first step of hefting up 90 pounds and carry it a ways actually doesn't take a lot of training. But a lot of women have been convinced that there's no way they could even do that, and even have been told there's something weird about them if they want to try.
And that means there are barriers to overcome before Marine training even begins, in order not to start with a completely unnecessary disadvantage.
posted by kyrademon at 1:48 PM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
"And that means there are barriers to overcome before Marine training even begins, in order not to start with a completely unnecessary disadvantage."
As a short, non-muscular man, I've been aware since childhood how differently-socialized males and females are, and how it's factually wrong.
Of course there are aggregate differences, as you and others describe. But I've always felt competent in that physical sense and in a self-defense sense. Mind you, I've always been very aware of my disadvantages with self-defense and that they have to be compensated for. But whether it's moving furniture or self-defense, it's obvious that there's a whole lot of women who are as physically capable as me ... but they don't think of themselves that way while, meanwhile, I've been socialized to automatically assume I am.
So, as you say, it's not clear what's possible for the average woman were women socialized to consider themselves capable in this respect. But I think there's a lot more potential than most people believe. Women, in general, will have a deficit when competing in programs like this one; there may not ever be parity in some of them. But I feel certain that women's participation will come a lot closer to parity than most people expect.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:20 PM on November 22, 2013
As a short, non-muscular man, I've been aware since childhood how differently-socialized males and females are, and how it's factually wrong.
Of course there are aggregate differences, as you and others describe. But I've always felt competent in that physical sense and in a self-defense sense. Mind you, I've always been very aware of my disadvantages with self-defense and that they have to be compensated for. But whether it's moving furniture or self-defense, it's obvious that there's a whole lot of women who are as physically capable as me ... but they don't think of themselves that way while, meanwhile, I've been socialized to automatically assume I am.
So, as you say, it's not clear what's possible for the average woman were women socialized to consider themselves capable in this respect. But I think there's a lot more potential than most people believe. Women, in general, will have a deficit when competing in programs like this one; there may not ever be parity in some of them. But I feel certain that women's participation will come a lot closer to parity than most people expect.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:20 PM on November 22, 2013
Yeah, being able to lift 90 pounds is trivial compared to hauling it around over rugged terrain for 12 hours a day. That, of course, doesn't mean that a lot of women could do the latter only that the idea that being able to deadlift 90 or even 180 pounds is comparable.
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on November 22, 2013
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on November 22, 2013
Err, couldn't? The double negative got to me? I mean that I'm sure there are women would CAN do it.
posted by Justinian at 2:29 PM on November 22, 2013
posted by Justinian at 2:29 PM on November 22, 2013
« Older US Senate Democrats vote to change filibuster... | Dr Who 50th Anniversary Google Spectacular Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nolnacs at 10:33 AM on November 21, 2013 [15 favorites]