Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/8/2002 12:00:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 12:10:09 PM EDT by DonS]
Anyone know the source for this, or if it is true:
[b] In a recent news story about Marine boot camp in Parris Island, where the sexes are trained separately, attention was given to the differences in men's and women's performance on the rifle range. After they have been trained, 87 percent of the men qualify on their first attempt while only 65 percent of the women do so. When asked about this "gender gap," the officer in charge of the marksmanship unit was at a loss: "We can't put our finger on it."
View Quote
[/b] I found it at: [url]http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.women07may07.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlines[/url] I'm a definite male chauvinist, but this surprises me. Specially since women seem to do so well in long range shooting competition . . .
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 12:24:50 PM EDT
I think it depends on why the women originally elisted to begin with. for many of us on this board, we are firearms enthusiatists. These women probably elisted, probably wanted to go to other fields, but according to the U.S. Marine philosophy, every person is a rifleman or riflewoman. I guess after all the years of drumming the fact into their heads that guns are dangerous, don't touch them it could kill you etc, it is probably causing some woman to be gun shy, and is having a detrimental effect on the women in the Marines.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 12:36:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 12:38:36 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Originally Posted By DonS: Anyone know the source for this, or if it is true:
[b] In a recent news story about Marine boot camp in Parris Island, where the sexes are trained separately, attention was given to the differences in men's and women's performance on the rifle range. After they have been trained, 87 percent of the men qualify on their first attempt while only 65 percent of the women do so. When asked about this "gender gap," the officer in charge of the marksmanship unit was at a loss: "We can't put our finger on it."
View Quote
[/b] I found it at: [url]http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.women07may07.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlines[/url] While I'm a definite male chauvinist, but this surprises me. Specially since women seem to do so well in long range shooting competition . . .
View Quote
Well first you need to find out what the results are in the US Army to make a comparison. Probably you will find it relates to the fact that the Marines do not take the training of WMs very seriously. Why pay much attention training a person who is only gonna suffle paper? The Marines have far and away the FEWEST MOS's open to women of any of the Armed Forces. Going through the motions on their training, while shortchanging them individually, has no effect on the Corps rediness- though taxpayers should find the wastfullness offensive. The Marines are also the most stubborn in resisting the increasing role of women in the military. The last thing they are going to do is help their "enemies" by encourging high scores amongst female Marine recruits. In the days when training was segregated by COLOR, in all the armed services, we saw the same thing. The lack of integrated training made it difficult to tell if everyone is being given the same level of training, or if they are being scored to the same standard. In the days of racial segregation, the Negros were NOT being given the same standars of training NOR were they being held to the same standards. When the time came to take objective pass/fail tests- like qualifing with the rifle- a greater proportion of the Negros flunked on the first try. Racists constantly used to use this as "proof" that Negros were less fit than other races- based on the services boldfaced lies that the training was the same for everyone. When integrated training began, this performance gap vanished overnight I wouldn't get worked up about it though, if a woman wants to serve her country today she has got three other choices who DO value her presence so what the Marines do isn't a big deal.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 12:43:21 PM EDT
ArmdLbrl, Sometimes, you are just a waste of sperm......I mean a waste of bandwidth. [:D] Dave S
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 12:48:02 PM EDT
Remember that at any given time, 25% of the women will be operating at "sub-optimal" physiological conditions (i.e. "ragtime")
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 12:48:43 PM EDT
When asked about this "gender gap," the officer in charge of the marksmanship unit was at a loss: "We can't put our finger on it."
View Quote
[/b] Obviously their tits keep getting in the way. Putting your fingers on them will get you court martialed.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 12:58:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 1:00:00 PM EDT by Wildweasel]
Well back when I went through basic we where integrated with Females and I was a "Whitehat" (Qualified first round) so I helped out with some of the slower learners. This one female would jerk back away from the rifle every time she shot. I mean like a foot! At first I though the buffer was hanging up or something but the rifle was fine, then I ended up bracing her shoulder with my arms and having her shoot downrange 5 rounds. once she learned that it wasn't going to blow her arm off I got her zeroed and she eventually qualified. Now my wife is a dead shot. (She learned to shoot by plinking jack rabbits out west) I think it is mostly due to it not being "Lady like " to shoot or some such. My sisters all used to shoot before they turned 13 then they didn't want anymore to do with it.Some of them where really good wing shots too.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 1:01:01 PM EDT
As a recruit, I worked the chow hall for one week at Parris Island. At the rifle stage of training, the females were in the same area of the depot, so we would also serve them chow for that week. Anywho, the female recruits were not allowed to have doughnuts, because they all gained 5-10lbs during the rifle range stage. You can imagine the looks they would give us-hoping we would sneak them a doughnut or two. [;)] nasties...
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 1:02:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Remember that at any given time, 25% of the women will be operating at "sub-optimal" physiological conditions (i.e. "ragtime")
View Quote
would you care to explain, with the proper and credible medical/scientific citations (this is non-negotiable), how a menstruating women is "sub-optimal" in the physiological department?
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 1:13:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 1:14:47 PM EDT by SNorman]
Originally Posted By ARLady:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Remember that at any given time, 25% of the women will be operating at "sub-optimal" physiological conditions (i.e. "ragtime")
View Quote
would you care to explain, with the proper and credible medical/scientific citations (this is non-negotiable), how a menstruating women is "sub-optimal" in the physiological department?
View Quote
Hmmm hard to say, I just can't put my finger on it, so to speak. [img]http://greghavener.com/images/tylenolmens.gif[/img] But, it could have something to do with menstrual cramps, backache, breast tenderness, irritability, and headaches, I think! Edited to add: I was just informed that this product will help control "temporary water weight gain" as well!
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 1:18:08 PM EDT
I'll tell you this, ArmdLbrl: It's patently obvious that you have absolutely no idea how things work in the Marine Corps. Anytime a female Marine fails to meet standards, [b]most of which have been ridiculously lowered for them[/b], someone ends up on the skyline and is the recipient of stringent unwanted scrutiny. All marksmanship training in the Marine Corps is identical. This is one standard that DACOWITS (or LACKOFWITS as it should be known) has not yet found an excuse to weaken and degrade. Primary Marksmanship Instructors, PMIs, are drawn from both the male and female ranks with regard only to who can shoot and teach marksmanship the best. The standard program of training is just as purposefully carried out for WMs as it is for males. Believe me, the Fourth Recruit Training Battalion CO isn't going to stand for any less, knowing her officer fitness reports, and therefore her career, are hanging in the balance. Any remarks about breasts or menstrual cycles, while humorous [rolleyes], don't bring anything to the debate.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 1:18:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 1:22:26 PM EDT by SNorman]
[img]http://greghavener.com/images/tylenol2.jpg[/img] [img]http://greghavener.com/images/mydolpms.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 1:18:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARLady:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Remember that at any given time, 25% of the women will be operating at "sub-optimal" physiological conditions (i.e. "ragtime")
View Quote
would you care to explain, with the proper and credible medical/scientific citations (this is non-negotiable), how a menstruating women is "sub-optimal" in the physiological department?
View Quote
Do you know how long my finger hovered over the mouse button, waiting to click "submit", pondering the replies I'd get from that statement? [:\] Okay, here goes... For one, mild to severe anemia depending on the individual. Then there's PMS that includes mood swings, tender breasts, fatigue, irritability, food cravings, depression, swollen abdomen, water retention and joint pain - all of which interfere with cognitive skills, concentration and physical endurance. Do you really need medical citations stating the obvious, that menstruation lowers a woman's physical, cognitive, and behavioral performance??
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 1:20:22 PM EDT
Also, while the Army may have many more MOS's open to females, they do not allow females in any combat arms MOS. Just like the Marine Corps.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 1:21:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 1:25:26 PM EDT by DPeacher]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Well first you need to find out what the results are in the US Army to make a comparison.
View Quote
The significant differences between the two services marksmanship training programs prevents any direct comparisons.
Probably you will find it relates to the fact that the Marines do not take the training of WMs very seriously. Why pay much attention training a person who is only gonna suffle paper?
View Quote
I have seen many males in the 0100 occupational field. About a 50/50 split as a matter of fact.
The Marines have far and away the FEWEST MOS's open to women of any of the Armed Forces. Going through the motions on their training, while shortchanging them individually, has no effect on the Corps rediness- though taxpayers should find the wastfullness offensive. The Marines are also the most stubborn in resisting the increasing role of women in the military. The last thing they are going to do is help their "enemies" by encourging high scores amongst female Marine recruits.
View Quote
And exactly how much time have you spent with 4th Battalion, RTR, at MCRD Parris Island? Or with Marines in the FMF? With statements like the one above, by guess would be zilch point nadda. Ask the Army about the sex scandals associated with integrated basic training. I don't recall the Marines having that problem. I also don't recall the Marines having to purge Neo-Nazis from their ranks at about the same time the Army did.
In the days when training was segregated by COLOR, in all the armed services, we saw the same thing. The lack of integrated training made it difficult to tell if everyone is being given the same level of training, or if they are being scored to the same standard. In the days of racial segregation, the Negros were NOT being given the same standars of training NOR were they being held to the same standards. When the time came to take objective pass/fail tests- like qualifing with the rifle- a greater proportion of the Negros flunked on the first try. Racists constantly used to use this as "proof" that Negros were less fit than other races- based on the services boldfaced lies that the training was the same for everyone. When integrated training began, this performance gap vanished overnight
View Quote
Have you ever been to Montford Point? What can you tell me about SgtMaj "Hashmark" Johnson?
I wouldn't get worked up about it though, if a woman wants to serve her country today she has got three other choices who DO value her presence so what the Marines do isn't a big deal.
View Quote
Maybe you should ask LtGen Carol Mutter, the first female 3 star General in US history, if the Marines value a females presence.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 1:49:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARLady:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Remember that at any given time, 25% of the women will be operating at "sub-optimal" physiological conditions (i.e. "ragtime")
View Quote
would you care to explain, with the proper and credible medical/scientific citations (this is non-negotiable), how a menstruating women is "sub-optimal" in the physiological department?
View Quote
A little grumpy today, are we? That's ok, dear, we understand. (pat, pat, pat) [:D]
Originally Posted By DPeacher:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Probably you will find it relates to the fact that the Marines do not take the training of WMs very seriously. Why pay much attention training a person who is only gonna suffle paper?
View Quote
I have seen many males in the 0100 occupational field. About a 50/50 split as a matter of fact.
View Quote
Ah yes, that "***** are almost half of the group!" fallacy again. And what PERCENTAGE OF THE WHOLE FORCE do males comprise, vs. females? A LITTLE DISPROPORTIONATE THERE IF IT'S 50/50, DON'T YOU THINK???
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 2:03:28 PM EDT
Also, while the Army may have many more MOS's open to females, they do not allow females in any combat arms MOS. Just like the Marine Corps. THANK GOD!
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 2:03:45 PM EDT
is it possible that guys spend literally years playing with guns and using guns while growing up, and that most gals do not? could that possibly make a difference? am i wasting the time i spend at the range familiarizing and practising with guns?
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 2:19:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: Also, while the Army may have many more MOS's open to females, they do not allow females in any combat arms MOS. Just like the Marine Corps.
View Quote
You hit the point exactly. You should know being one. All Marines are supposed to be riflemen first correct? That has always been the creedo right? How does that jibe with having women Marines who are barred by law from ever exercising this? What is the Marine Corps supposed to think about this? Even if there was no sexism can you not see the great temptation to cut corners in basic on the womens side, to pay less attention, since they are unlikely to ever be tested?
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 2:21:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By westman431: Also, while the Army may have many more MOS's open to females, they do not allow females in any combat arms MOS. Just like the Marine Corps. THANK GOD!
View Quote
Flying Apachies and Kiowas doesnt count as being in combat??
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 2:21:55 PM EDT
Nah, it's just bigotted, sexist, discrimination plain and simple. Women are EQUAL to men, haven't you heard? WHO designed the rifles? MEN. WHO was in charge of the training? MEN. WHO designed the drill? MEN. WHO was conducting the comparison? MEN. What this is is just more evidence that we have a long way to go before women are given equal responsibilities in the military. Maybe then women won't be subjected to biased, sexist exercises that automatically favor men. [:|]
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 2:26:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: All Marines are supposed to be riflemen first correct? That has always been the creedo right?
View Quote
All Marines [b]are[/b] basically trained riflemen when they leave bootcamp. Some require remedial help to qualify with the M16A2 service rifle, but those that do need remediation get it, or they are sent home. Failing to qualify with the rifle is synonymous with failing to qualify as a Marine.
How does that jibe with having women Marines who are barred by law from ever exercising this? What is the Marine Corps supposed to think about this? Even if there was no sexism can you not see the great temptation to cut corners in basic on the womens side, to pay less attention, since they are unlikely to ever be tested?
View Quote
Regardless of your theoretical temptation, there are no corners cut. As I said, officers' careers depend on it. And WMs are tested every year, like every male Marine, on the rifle range.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 2:41:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: The Marines have far and away the FEWEST MOS's open to women of any of the Armed Forces. Going through the motions on their training, while shortchanging them individually, has no effect on the Corps rediness- though taxpayers should find the wastfullness offensive. The Marines are also the most stubborn in resisting the increasing role of women in the military. The last thing they are going to do is help their "enemies" by encourging high scores amongst female Marine recruits.
View Quote
Sounds to me like the Marines have the most realistic view of women in the military - if you can't depend on them to be able to pick up their rifle, put the ruck on, and become an instant infantryman at any time, then you have no need for them (and that goes for male Marines as well - if you can't function in the field as an infantryman for say, a week, you're not much use.) Male-female integrated basic training has been tried in the army, with predictable results - the females were injured more often, couldn't keep up with the males on road marches, and let's not forget the impact on the morale of the male soldiers when they see females getting numerically higher scores on PT tests because their standards are set so much lower. I just don't buy the line about "females don't receive the same training as males" - they both attend the same exact rifle marksmanship classes, and rifle marksmanship isn't exactly a physically demanding subject. My thought on the matter is that the females, in general, just don't give 100%...and neither did a lot of the male soldiers I worked with in 12 1/2 years in the army. I used to see a hell of a lot more male soldiers than female ralphing their guts up at the finish line of the 2-mile-run for the PT test, which leads me to believe the males simply gave more.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 2:41:59 PM EDT
Although many women can out shoot men, and do so at MCRD, they have a higher Unq rate because they are more prone to flinch, I think that caused by both physiological (being smaller) and psychological (cultural aversion that many women have toward weapons) factors. Additionally they tend to do worse in the off hand, because of having less upper body strength to support the weight of the weapon.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 4:37:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed:
Originally Posted By ARLady:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Remember that at any given time, 25% of the women will be operating at "sub-optimal" physiological conditions (i.e. "ragtime")
View Quote
would you care to explain, with the proper and credible medical/scientific citations (this is non-negotiable), how a menstruating women is "sub-optimal" in the physiological department?
View Quote
A little grumpy today, are we? That's ok, dear, we understand. (pat, pat, pat) [:D]
View Quote
no, just a hell of a lot more knowledgeable and experienced than a bunch of men when it comes to this topic. it was a baseless, stereotypical assumption that came from an obviously ignorant source on the subject. not touchy. just wanted the source for the statement. what's wrong with that?
Originally posted by SNorman: But, it could have something to do with menstrual cramps, backache, breast tenderness, irritability, and headaches, I think!
View Quote
well, you thought wrong. while those are the most common symptoms of PMS, very few women actually experience all of them. and even fewer women experience them to a degree that severely impedes their ability to do a job or perform a task.
Originally posted by The_Macallan: For one, mild to severe anemia [blue]depending on the individual[blue].
View Quote
again, very few women experience this to a degree that affects their day to day tasks. depending on the individual? you're making blanket assumptions about the entire population of the female sex, and you qualify it with "depending on the individual"????? [b]THAT[/b] is exactly why i asked for credible sources to these assumptions.
Then there's PMS that includes mood swings, tender breasts, fatigue, irritability, food cravings, depression, swollen abdomen, water retention and joint pain - all of which interfere with cognitive skills, concentration and physical endurance.
View Quote
once again, a little misinformed. yes, those are all symptoms of PMS. but very few women experience them all at once. and of those, only a few will be incapacitated. i know a bunch of women complain about it. but it's because they can get away with it. sad, and i hate to say it cuz it reflects poorly on my sex, but it's true. it's too easy to stay home from work because of the cramps. i'd say that for every 100 or so women who do that, probably only about 5 give or take a couple, were really truly unable to get to work. it's more about inconvenience, not true incapacitation.
Do you really need medical citations stating the obvious, that menstruation lowers a woman's physical, cognitive, and behavioral performance??
View Quote
yeah, actually, i do. because your statement is fundamentally wrong. it isn't the menstruation itself, it's the hormone levels and changes that result in these symptoms. i'll grant that physical performance is affected, to what degree in each individual and to what degree throughout the population is up for debate; but if you want to start making a bunch of conclusions that menstruation affects the mental/cognitive performance of all females [b]IN GENERAL[/b], then i expect you to have some evidence to back up that statement.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 4:39:58 PM EDT
71-Hour_Achmed, My reference to the 50/50 split was to highlight the fact that a fair percentage of the Marines who have a primary MOS in the Admin field are of the male gender. And, is a counter to the remark [b]"Why pay much attention training a person who is only gonna suffle paper?"[b] I have reveiwed my cruise books and I am compelled to report that my 50/50 ratio of Marines in Admin MOS's (traditional S shops, Maintenance and Supply Admin included) is in fact incorrect. the actual number in the units (Airwing) that I have been a member of, and have a cruise book for, is 27 female/154 male. The point is this. Regardless of gender or MOS, ALL Marines receive the exact same basic marksmanship instruction in bootcamp. ALL Marines are subject to the exact same annual rifle qualification regardless of gender or MOS. A few years ago, just after the Corps went to the "Hit or Miss" Known Distance course of fire, a WM from Cherry Point went UNK two weeks in a row. She was assigned marksmanship remediation at a Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer. She spent a few hours each week over a 6 month period with the instructors at ISMT. She went back to the rifle range and was the first Marine in FMFlant to clean the course. 50 rounds in the black, score of 65. My best score on this coures is a 58, my worst is a 50.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 4:48:27 PM EDT
Uh, don't we have some IDF folks on here? I'd like to hear their opinions.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 4:57:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Spade: Uh, don't we have some IDF folks on here? I'd like to hear their opinions.
View Quote
Well since the question is about the marksmenship training for women Marines, what the IDF has to say about how we US Marines train women would not really be important now, would it? DPeacher, when did this WM shoot a 65, the last I heard from the WTBN guys at Quantico, that no on had shot a 65 yet.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 5:10:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN:
Originally Posted By Spade: Uh, don't we have some IDF folks on here? I'd like to hear their opinions.
View Quote
Well since the question is about the marksmenship training for women Marines, what the IDF has to say about how we US Marines train women would not really be important now, would it?
View Quote
well, it could be relevant if there were a stark contrast in the training methods and one group, say IDF, had higher female success percentages than say, the marines. if th IDF femals have higher percentages of success, and there's a big difference in training, one would at least have to pause and review the data more completely. i'll grant that there are a lot more variables that come into play, and the training received by females in either group is probably [i]not[/i] the deciding factor, but it is a possibility and cannot automatically be discounted. i think he might also have been referring to the "sub-optimal" comment regarding women and "that time of the month." meaning, it doesn't seem to affect the IDF women to such a degree that there presence there is severely affected.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 5:20:19 PM EDT
You cannot make the argument, the Marine Corps has a unique weapons training program (we are the only service to shoot beyond 300 m to qualify. Throughout the militaries of the world only the special ops community and snipers still regularly train to shoot beyond 300m). Neither the IDF, USA nor other organization out there has a comparable shooting program. It really isn't relevant if any other program has better or worse results, since they aren't trained in rifle marksmanship the way we do. And since ever Marine here is saying the exact same thing that both male and female Marines get the exact same marksmanship training from PMIs that whole job is get them qualified, the argument that women are getting less training is BS being passed by non-Marines who basically don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 5:49:10 PM EDT
For all you masogynistic types out there posting Midol pics.. Can you guys think of ANYTHING scarier than a well trained Marine Female WITH PMS!!!! The mind quakes at such an image!!
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:03:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: DPeacher, when did this WM shoot a 65, the last I heard from the WTBN guys at Quantico, that no on had shot a 65 yet.
View Quote
Actually, Cherry Point's high score is now a 64, shot by a guy. Before that, I believe that it was 63, but the previous high score WAS held by a WM. I heard that Camp Lejune now has a 65. It was shot last month, if what I heard was true.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:28:29 PM EDT
Since our women warriors come from the same source as our other gals I see no reason to think they'd act much better at "that time of the month". A soldier doubled over in pain for 12 hours, during combat mind you, is not long for this world. Sex? Pregnancy? It happens. Then what do you do, 1st LT? Whatever you do squad moral is hurt badly. Kind of a "force subtracter" if you will. And for what? Are we short of men? We exclude men we *know* can do the job for less cause. The gays. They don't cramp up. They don't get preggers. They're as strong as the rest of us, and they're O.U.T. Women in combat: Too high a price to pay to be stylish.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:31:49 PM EDT
STLRN, I believe it was reported in the MCAS New River "Rotovue" in 97 or 98. After reading the article I tried like crazy to get my Marines into the ISMT at Camp Geiger. Best I could do was the 55 gal snap in barrels by the MAG-29 HQ annex..............HydGuy, you probably are right about the score. I could be wrong about the 65, and since I don't have any physical evidence to back my claim I will take your word and the word of STLRN that a 65 has not yet been officialy recorded. It is very possible the CHPT WM's 63 is the one I am refering to. While not the perfect score it is DAMN good shooting none the less, and should go a long way to prove the commitment the Corps has for a basic marksmanship program that exceeds the majority of most other organizations advanced programs. And that this commitment is extended to ALL Marines (Except the Presidents Own).
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:36:17 PM EDT
I was a Marksmanship Instructor at Parris Island in '93 and '94. I find it extremely offensive that anyone would accuse me of giving sub-standard training to WM's simply because they will most likely never use a rifle in combat. My job was not to qualify Marines, but to TEACH Marines to qualify themselves with the best possible score. I treated all my recruits the same, male or female. I will say that most WM cycles shot lower scores, and I had one or two go unqualified every time, but the males had a few unqualified some times too. One thing I did notice was that the WM's tended to show a lack of attention to the task at hand if you did not push them to stay focused. A lot of this relates to the fact that the two weeks spant on the rifle range are low stress. It is hard for anyone to shoot well when they are afraid that at the slightest mistake they will have someone with percieved power screaming in their ear making them do pushups. This lends to a more laid back attitude and females tend to get a little flirty. Same thing happens to male recruits with a female instructor. Again, I want to stress that there are absolutely no training diferences in WM's and males on the rifle range.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:50:32 PM EDT
ARLady, unfortunatly the only way to to comapre the females or the IDF and USMC would be to take both out to a USMC KD range and run the exact course of fire, and then take both out to a IDF course. The standards held by one service could be vastly different then the other. For all I know the IDF could consider 5 of 15 rounds in a 10" circle a 50 meters from the prone position with the aid of sandbags to be the minimum to qualify. I'm sure the IDF has higher standards then that, but I'm just trying to make a point. To the rest of Y'all...If anyone on this board has their doubts about the marksmanship training taught at MCRD San Diego, MCRD Parris Island, or MCB Quantico, then please feel free to visit your local Marine Recruiting Office. They have the expertise to get you a first hand look. Do you have what it takes to earn the title United States Marine? Put up, or shut up.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 8:12:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 8:38:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 8:54:41 PM EDT
In the reserves, at least, the women are trained exactly the same as the men. But then, we weren't talking about reserve marksmanship training. I went to boot camp at MCRD San Diego, so I never saw how the women were trained. I think, based on the woman shooters I know personally, that [b]as with any race or gender it depends on individual effort[/b]. Our high shooter a couple years back was a woman Marine, but she's also known for being a very dedicated and locked-on individual. Interestingly, I've taught all my girlfriends how to shoot in the past few years, and some woman friends as well. Generally, these women are not interested in shooting and becoming skilled, only plinking. My male friends don't shoot any more often, and when they practice, they're clearly trying to improve their skills. I can't explain this difference. My last thought is not an opinion of any kind. There was an extremely hardcore woman sergeant at my unit, former active duty in God-only-knows what MOS, but she went back to school to be in comm. She could probably have kicked any of our asses, but I always remember overhearing her one time, talking about field training. She was discussing the longer drill weekends or our summer AT (those famous two weeks, for those non-military). She mentioned how a couple of days weren't so bad, but more than a few days in the field and they (WMs) started to hurt -- she said their interior plumbing just wasn't designed to be outdoors or without showers for that long. Anyway, she's out of the Marines and in LE now. I still respected her, even after hearing that. For the missions she was assigned, she was one of the best. How she performed in the field wasn't based on the fact that it hurt to be a woman, but rather the fact that she was determined to perform her duties regardless. Not sure if this makes sense to you all or not. Hope my $0.02 helps.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 9:10:49 PM EDT
Male, female, black, white, or rainbow striped, I simply want to see "gender normalisation" (or whatever the Hell they call it this week) go away and a simple set of training and performance standards instituted. Females less cabable? My wife is 5'2" and 120#, I'm 6'3" and 235#. I teach my wife H2H and CQB, and she regularly tosses my oversized ass around. I don't know what she can do on the bench, but it don't matter. Qualify with weapons? No problem - my wife shoots anything I can and does just as well with less practise - she's a naturally good shot (bitch ;)) I hardly had to train her on marksmanship - just on operating and maintaining various weapons. She probably needs to practise one day to my ten! PMS? I'd like to send a batch of well-armed divorcees into Afghanistan on "that time of the month" - I think it would be a far more effective fighting force than anything else handy (yes, I'm being facetious - but only slightly...) I can't offer up any ideas on properly utilising women in Combat Arms, but I am willing to bet that tatjana and ARLady would be more than happy to edify my knuckle-dragging self - and I would be more than happy to hear it (really!) Feel free to reply here or via email, I really DO want to hear your ideas (besides, they could come in handy in quite a few of my training sessions!) ARLady - where in IN are you? Just wondering, I should be in Lafayette right around 30MAY-3JUN, but I need to firm up the dates... FFZ
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 9:11:21 PM EDT
As far as the effectiveness of women in combat, the Russians of WWII can give some great examples. Are we prepared as a society to have our daughters returned to us in flag draped coffins at the same rate our sons do? Not me. My 9 year old daughter can already wield the 10/22 like a pro,but if she joins the military, I hope it's to "free a man to fight".
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 11:22:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lurker: is it possible that guys spend literally years playing with guns and using guns while growing up, and that most gals do not? could that possibly make a difference? am i wasting the time i spend at the range familiarizing and practising with guns?
View Quote
Make a difference? No. Actually, it can be a bad thing as one acquires bad habits. A novice shooter can be taught how to shoot the correct way, an experienced shooter will usually need to have bad habits corrected. As for why the WM's shoot at a lesser score, who knows? IMO it's probably not enough dry firing practice.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 11:29:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tatjana: If you officers out there can't figure out how to play to our strengths, or have no interest in doing so, then your armed forces are weaker for it. That's too bad.Grow up.
View Quote
And those "strengths" are, exactly, what?
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 12:09:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Astrogoth: Since our women warriors come from the same source as our other gals I see no reason to think they'd act much better at "that time of the month". A soldier doubled over in pain for 12 hours, during combat mind you, is not long for this world. Sex? Pregnancy? It happens. Then what do you do, 1st LT? Whatever you do squad moral is hurt badly. Kind of a "force subtracter" if you will. And for what? Are we short of men? We exclude men we *know* can do the job for less cause. The gays. They don't cramp up. They don't get preggers. They're as strong as the rest of us, and they're O.U.T. Women in combat: Too high a price to pay to be stylish.
View Quote
Seemed to work quite well for the Soviets. Works well for the Israelis.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 12:13:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BobCole: And those "strengths" are, exactly, what?
View Quote
That it doesn't take a man to press a trigger on a rifle. A woman with a rifle will kill you just as damned dead as a man with a rifle.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 12:35:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tatjana: Sorry, as a graduate of the Swiss marksmanship program, I have to disagree. We shot regularly to 500 meters with 5.56 out of StG90s (Sig 550s).
View Quote
I don't know the Swiss LtCol I went to the advanced course with in 2001 told me that their course of fire ended at 300ms. So either he was mistaken or your are, but I tend to believe those I meet in person, vice the internet
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 12:58:35 AM EDT
Actually both Redman and Tatjana, neither the Israelis nor the Soviets, Russians, currently use women in the combat arms. The Soviets used it as a combat expedient, when they felt the state itself was at stake. The Israelis found that, the normally push over Arab forces fought much harder, creating more casualties, when they faced women. It has almost become a myth in the feminist circles of the effectiveness of the Israeli women infantrymen, they took much higher causalities and were unable to accomplish missions that their male counterparts would have.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 4:54:22 AM EDT
Just an observation, FWIW: I've gotten to see the military pistol teams at several bullseye matches. The Army Marksmanship Unit team tends to be be about 20% female while the Air Force and Marine Corps teams tend to be about 5% female. I don't know why the AMU has a substantially higher proportion of female shooters. It might have something to do with the organizational differences between the AMU and the pistol teams of the other services.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 5:09:40 AM EDT
"would you care to explain, with the proper and credible medical/scientific citations (this is non-negotiable), how a menstruating women is "sub-optimal" in the physiological department?" uh...does 30+ years of living with wominz count???
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 5:14:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2002 5:16:38 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
When I went through OCS, there was a huge push for there to be more women and minority officers. The Officer Selection Officers (recruiters) Tried their best. In doing so, they would sometimes allow women and minorities into OCS, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT MEET THE STANDARDS. They gave waivers for PFT and SAT scores that were below the Corps' usual high standards. Surprise, surprise, when some of these underqualified individuals got to Quantico, their performance, on average, was lower than that of white males. "How could that be?" asked some congress members. The only conclusion that they could arrive at was discrimination. Some folks from congress drove down to Quantico and were SHOCKED to see the SGT Instructors yelling at, and stressing out the Officer Candidates. They also found out that the Candidates were getting less than 4 hours sleep a night! (As the lights went out, the Sgt Instructors would announce, "you have a full inspection and a test first thing tomorrow. Good night ladies!") "How could all of the stress and lack of sleep aid in the candidates training to become Marine Officers?" they asked. What they didn't realize, was that OCS has nothing to do with training. You're not supposed to "learn" anything. The purpose of OCS is not to "make" Marine Officers. The purpose of OCS is to evaluate OFFICER CANDIDATES. To put them under a great deal of stress, and determine whether they are the right material to be made into Marine Officers at The Basic School. Congress didn't grasp this. So they insisted on full night's sleep, and less stress. For the sake of fairness.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 5:36:21 AM EDT
With the Females I served with in the Army most could not have cared less about Marksmanship. there where a few. Until they are serious about training and learning the craft then they will be treated the way they act. I was in a male/female BTC it sucked. nothing like going on the road march and having almost the entire female platoon fall out and mock you as they rode by in a deuce and a half. Now that helps unit cohesion. (For the record there where 2 females out of the platoon that finished the 15 miles. and I would have gladly had them with me in a SHTF scenario.) the rest of them where not worth the training the Army tried to give them. Until the female recruits take this stuff as real training then it is only their fault. I have served with /under female officers/NCO's some good some bad just like male officers but for the most part female enlisted didn't hack it playing Army. In their MOS(MI) they did a fine job. One of our friends from Berlin is now a SGT Maj in the Army btw, She is a very capable person and has worked in combat arms units as a Top Kick, I believe she was hand selected for schools and promotions during the Clinton years just because she was female.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top