Posted on 04/08/2014 8:07:42 AM PDT by don-o
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Marine Corps commandant has reacted swiftly to a female Marine officer’s complaint that women are unfairly precluded from trying a second time to pass the prestigious Marine Corps Infantry Officers Course, when men can have a second try.
In response to a question from a female Army officer at an Atlantic Council forum April 1, Gen. James F. Amos said he has ordered a change in the rules and lavished praise not only on Marine Corps 2nd Lt. Sage Santangelo, who protested the restriction, but on all his female Marines.
And, Amos said, he offered Santangelo a chance to go to Afghanistan while she awaits an opening in flight training.
“I got an answer back in about 14 nanoseconds. … So we’re cutting orders right now. Sage is going to go to Afghanistan, to join the Marine Expeditionary Brigade Forward over there,” the commandant said.
The question was sparked by an opinion article Santangelo wrote in the March 30 Washington Post in which she graphically described the tremendous physical ordeal young Marine officers endure in trying to qualify to lead Marine infantry. Despite her great desire and effort, she was physically unable to complete the initial endurance test, as did 25 male officers and the three other female Marines who tried that day.
So far, 14 women officers have tried to pass the 17-week infantry officers course at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., and all have been unable to complete it. Thirteen enlisted female Marines, however, have passed the somewhat less difficult basic infantry training school at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
The women have been given those chances because the Marine Corps, along with the Army, is attempting to determine if they can open ground combat jobs, including infantry, to women. Although military women are now able to serve in many combat-related positions, including aviation, military police and, for the Army, field artillery, they still are banned from the infantry.
Putting women through the infantry qualification schools is part of the Corps’ tests to see if they can meet the tough physical standards now required, and if those standards are necessary.
The Marines also are forming an experimental unit that would give a group of volunteers a chance to see if women can perform ground combat tasks over a prolonged period.
But in her article, Santangelo complained that her training in the Marine Officer Candidate School was not as physically demanding as what was required of male officer candidates, so she was not as prepared for the infantry course.
And, she noted, the men who failed the initial qualification test could apply for a second chance, but she could not.
Amos said he read Santangelo’s article, which he said “was superb,” and invited her to his Pentagon office to discuss the issue.
“When she brought up the point about the inability to recycle. … I went back to my folks and said, ‘we got to fix this.’ So we are,” he said.
Amos explained that the rule about not getting a second chance was intended to protect the unsuccessful officer’s ability to get into their future military occupational specialty and be positioned for the critical selection for a regular commission, rather than staying as a reserve officer, which limits their potential for a career. But, he said, “we’ll take care of them.”
Amos said he “bristled at the headline” on the Post article, which said the female officer “failed,” saying it “took enormous courage” for Santangelo and the other female Marines to attempt to win a position in what has been a male-dominated field for the Corps’ 238-year history. “I’m a big fan of our females,” he said.
In his presentation and answers to other questions, Amos spelled out the challenges he faces in trying to shape the Corps to continue to meet the nation’s challenges, when the fiscal constraints imposed by sequestration force him to reduce his force structure to have enough money to maintain combat readiness in the near term and for modernization for future capability.
And he strongly defended his top acquisition priority, the short takeoff, vertical landing F-35B, and said his top ground combat need, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, is moving ahead and he will soon announce the road map for acquiring the initial replacement for the Vietnam-vintage AAV-7 amphibious assault vehicles.
I see. For you, regulations and standards are simply suggestions. Good luck with that point of view.
No, but you limited your assessment of the situation to existing large scale training programs. What in the standards and regulations prevent a high intensity physical training program for women who desire a career path calling for high level physical abilities? One of the strengths of the military is their ability to create effective high intensity training designed to produce targeted results in a minimum amount of time. Identifying highly motivated women willing to push themselves to the limits to achieve previously unreached levels of performance should be a benefit to the service unless you think it would just create a bunch of uppity broads getting in the way of the guys.
There should be no 2 standards. IF a woman wants equal treatment, then they should be able to preform equally.
They wanted into combat, then all 18 year old girls should come under the MANDATORY DRAFT sign UP for Males.
I’m waiting for a 18 year old male to challenge this bias MANDATORY DRAFT Issue.
IF YOU WANT EQUAL, YOU MUST PERFORM EQUAL! Can’t take the equal training don’t go for those jobs that require it.
Israeli women seem to cope with equal training, guess American women are Whuzzes.
Again, you are missing the forest for the trees. Any training program is required to be under the auspices of specific standards. These highly motivated women are responsible to prepare themselves to meet the higher standards embedded in follow-on training.
To make it a specific training regimen administered by the Corps is essentially a remedial program. To make a program specifically aimed at women further puts highly motivated males at a disadvantage.
Again, it is the trainee's responsibility to be prepared to meet the entrance standards for training they desire. Once there, they will be trained to meet the graduation criteria.
You ask what in the regulations and standards prevents the establishment of such a pre-training regimen? Nothing. But regulations similarly do not allow such an official pre-training program, and setting it up for women alone would actually be discriminatory against the individuals who are excluded.
Now, please tell me why the Corps should be held responsible for pre-training women to meet the known standards for the infantry officer's course, while men are expected to train themselves to be prepared to surpass the entrance criteria.
I'm disappointed that you feel the need to accuse me of sexism. It belies the weakness of your argument. It also underscores the idea that you do not believe that women can train themselves to such a high physical standard - no matter that men are required to do so in order to achieve the same desired results. That aspect of your position is utterly pathetic.
Refuting your leaky logic is becoming quite tiresome.
If the program is established with a specific achievement end goal with career path recognition on completion, the program would not be remedial. An equivalent program for men could be likewise instituted of course it would have different standards because the service has already established that different standards for men and women can apply as long as they do not conflict with the requirements of the job. Highly motivated males would not be at a disadvantage, they could achieve the same recognition for superior physical abilities.
Women and men already are held to differing physical standards. Whether in a segregated setting or in joint training environment, both males and females could be trained to meet their respective higher performance standard.
You ask what in the regulations and standards prevents the establishment of such a pre-training regimen? Nothing. But regulations similarly do not allow such an official pre-training program, and setting it up for women alone would actually be discriminatory against the individuals who are excluded.
Now, please tell me why the Corps should be held responsible for pre-training women to meet the known standards for the infantry officer's course, while men are expected to train themselves to be prepared to surpass the entrance criteria.
First off, the standard for the infantry officer's course is not known. As indicated in the article, efforts are made to insure that the candidate does not know what they will be facing on that first day of training.
Second, as also indicated in the article men are trained to a physical level more closely approaching the requirements of the test than women are. This occurs during their normal duty. You are saying that a woman, because she is a woman, should be required to train off duty to obtain the same training level that a male receives as part of normal duty.
I am not arguing that all women should be physically trained to a higher standard. I don't think most women would want that, especially from some short, old, overweight guy. However I have enough years of personnel management to know if my goal is to return the highest value from my staff and I recognize that achievement level between two talented individuals is the result of an institutional training deficiency, I correct the deficiency and realize that value.
You can come back at me as many times as you want, but your thinking is so confined inside the box that I doubt you can come up with anything that I can't refute in seconds.
*Corps.
Oh,boy. Are you a Lib? It sure sounds like it.
We women do NOT belong in combat. I would not blame the men for not wanting a woman to be their platoon commander.
Combat infantry is a MAN’S job.
Yep.
I have never served but I know we women are not equipped for the job. Combat infantry is a man’s job for all the obvious reasons.
Quite the contrary, politically I am a staunch conservative. Philosophically I am a libertarian.
It is not my place to say what is a man's job or a woman's job. I fully recognize that men and women are different physically, emotionally and psychologically. However, if a woman is physically, emotionally, psychologically and mentally fit for a position and they desire that position, they should have equal opportunity to achieve that position regardless of race, color, religion or gender.
It doesn't matter whether I believe someone should or shouldn't do something, under our constitution, if they meet the standards, they should have equal opportunity. You may believe women don't belong in combat. You have the freedom to hold and express that belief. However as a libertarian I do not believe you have the right to prevent another person from exercising their freedom to strive for and qualify for a position.
I agree, and I am a former military reservist. There are places where woman offer great support, but when it comes to combat those guys must know you can and will be able to give them the same support they are giving you.
Putting women into combat is never a good idea. I do not care if she meets the requirements. It is a man’s job.
Isn’t that the purpose of the qualification standards, to insure the person is qualified and capable?
A well thought out and reasoned response. I give up. You have shattered me with your superior logic.
It is a man’s job because they are built for it, mentally and biologically. No matter how strong a woman is she will not have the same strength as a man.
Putting women on the front lines with the men can only spell trouble.
Then there’s the issue of menstruation and hygiene.
There is a reason for the exclusion.
Yes to a degree...However, a small woman would have trouble under fire pulling a large man out of harm’s way thereby putting his life in danger, if he was wounded. Upper body strength in women is still limited.
Standards for physical strength, agility and stamina are part of the qualifications for the position. If the woman can meet those standards, your strength argument is no more substantial than cotton candy.
There are currently multiple forms of pharmaceuticals that will reduce menstruation to a 3 month cycle or totally offset it if desired. Most women in high stress physical environments have their menstrual cycle reduced or eliminated naturally by by controls within their own bodies. This is well documented by studies on female athletes
There are countries which have successfully integrated females into their combat forces, Israel being the most visible. Please describe for me the problems that Israel is having as a result of integrating females into their combat forces.
If there are reasons for the exclusion, please give me some that can't be refuted instantly with little or no effort.
I understand that you don't like the idea. That does not qualify as a reason to restrict another persons opportunity in a democratic society.
Physical standards have already been established for the position. If those standards are enforced regardless of gender, then your argument has no validity.
So let me get this straight...women are cheering and applauding a woman who want to put women in roles where they have a high probability of not succeeding which will will lead to a quick death? Is that about right?
Agreed...my comment was for whoever felt a woman should be able to do anything and everything the males could, whether or not that was actually true.
Early last year there was a push to lower those standards, which begs the question....’are women more qualified now, or are the standards being lowered to keep peace politically?” Does a lower standard mean more danger for men that are with them, or even for women in those rates that would be exposed to a combat zone?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/6/keep-combat-standards-high-military-urged/?page=all
The discussion on this thread initiated with the article about the Marine Infantry Officers Training School. There was absolutely no reference to lowered standards. Ergo lowered standards are not part of the position I am defending.
Standards should be exactly what are necessary to fully qualify for a position, no more, no less.
If you want to defend against lower standards, go find someone who is advocating lowered standards, it is not me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.