View Full Version : Women to be admitted to Ranger school.
polymorpheous
05-18-12, 10:51
http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814
Please tell me this article is bullshit.
If it's true, I fear for the safety of the Rangers.
Army Chief
05-18-12, 11:20
While the article contains a great deal of opinion and interpretation, the basic premise (admission to the course between Class 03-13 and 05-13) is accurately reported.
AC
VooDoo6Actual
05-18-12, 11:49
Standards should be the same.
The lack of standards is the downfall of credibility...
Standards should be the same.
The lack of standards is the downfall of credibility...
Like.
Reagans Rascals
05-18-12, 12:13
Standards should be the same.
The lack of standards is the downfall of credibility...
Are the standards the same for a 21 year old female attending Airborne School, as they are for a 21 year old male?
No they aren't. Its a joke for females..
http://www.stewsmith.com/linkpages/airborne.htm
and I'm more than sure the standards will be curbed for Ranger School as well if females are allowed to attend
if they can do the training No female push ups cut back on running times ect then more power to them I personally don't seeing this going down well .I think it is funny how the Army says No females in Combat MOS but yet they have been thrown right in the middle of it .I wonder what is next female 19 kilos
Are the standards the same for a 21 year old female attending Airborne School, as they are for a 21 year old male?
I don't know. But they should be. I see no problem with women being allowed to serve in any part of the service as long as they can meet every standard that the men have too.
Cesiumsponge
05-18-12, 12:22
Wow, I think my friend would be pissed. He worked his ass off and recycled on the mountain phase to earn his Ranger tab. The man was a PT stud going in and finished as a bag of bones.
Reagans Rascals
05-18-12, 12:25
Wow, I think my friend would be pissed. He worked his ass off and recycled on the mountain phase to earn his Ranger tab. The man was a PT stud going in and finished as a bag of bones.
Well, I'm sure if he had underwent gender reassignment surgery, and became a female, the standards would have been easier and he would have made it through no sweat.... and if he still didn't pass... he could have sued the Army for being discriminating, intolerant and gender biased...
its a win-win.... so if there are any hot shot future Delta studs out there... just take the easy way out and you'll make it
A friend of Mine Just got back from Jump school becoming a Rigger he did say the girls had it much easier . I do not agree that times and amount of the training should be changed for anyone .
lifebreath
05-18-12, 13:22
Well, I'm sure if he had underwent gender reassignment surgery, and became a female, the standards would have been easier and he would have made it through no sweat.... and if he still didn't pass... he could have sued the Army for being discriminating, intolerant and gender biased...
its a win-win.... so if there are any hot shot future Delta studs out there... just take the easy way out and you'll make it
LOL! Good stuff.
Well, I'm sure if he had underwent gender reassignment surgery, and became a female, the standards would have been easier and he would have made it through no sweat.... and if he still didn't pass... he could have sued the Army for being discriminating, intolerant and gender biased...
its a win-win.... so if there are any hot shot future Delta studs out there... just take the easy way out and you'll make it
Sadly, I foresee that being in the Army's future.
RogerinTPA
05-18-12, 14:04
Standards should be the same.
The lack of standards is the downfall of credibility...
Agreed. Welcome to another round of downsizing and political correctness.
I was in instructor pilot at Ft. Rucker when the first 4 female 2LTs were sent through the AH-64 Apache pipeline. I believe 3 of 4 passed, with one recycled. The standards didn't change, but the Attack/Scout macho BS/Language, was watered down severely. Friends who taught that course were extremely agitated at this abomination (their words) for quite a while, but privately stated the LTs held there own.
Hopefully, the standard will be upheld to a degree and lessons taught, will remain the same. I envision, like the above example, only the attitude & colorful language will be watered down or totally eliminated. But that was half the fun...
Reagans Rascals
05-18-12, 14:14
Agreed. Welcome to another round of downsizing and political correctness.
I was in instructor pilot at Ft. Rucker when the first 4 female 2LTs were sent through the AH-64 Apache pipeline. I believe 3 of 4 passed, with one recycled. The standards didn't change, but the Attack/Scout macho BS/Language, was watered down severely. Friends who taught that course were extremely agitated at this abomination (their words) for quite a while, but privately stated the LTs held there own.
Hopefully, the standard will be upheld to a degree and lessons taught, will remain the same. I envision, like the above example, only the attitude & colorful language will be watered down or totally eliminated. But that was half the fun...
This reminds me of a Female Naval Aviator Prospect, going through Introductory Flight Screening in Mobile, AL.... failed to maintain standards, failed to qualify 3 times, and upon her fourth try, subsequently overshot the runway, flipped the aircraft, and landed in a ditch.... she was still recycled....
Political Correctness goes along way.... just ask Kara Hultgreen... oh yeah... you can't... you can thank Congresswoman Schroeder for pushing that flying liability through....
Agreed. Welcome to another round of downsizing and political correctness.
I was in instructor pilot at Ft. Rucker when the first 4 female 2LTs were sent through the AH-64 Apache pipeline. I believe 3 of 4 passed, with one recycled. The standards didn't change, but the Attack/Scout macho BS/Language, was watered down severely. Friends who taught that course were extremely agitated at this abomination (their words) for quite a while, but privately stated the LTs held there own.
Hopefully, the standard will be upheld to a degree and lessons taught, will remain the same. I envision, like the above example, only the attitude & colorful language will be watered down or totally eliminated. But that was half the fun...
I am glad to hear the standard was not changed for them
A funny story while I was at Ft Knox we had some Female Drill SGT show up at the ranges and other training Like the Gas room .they Screamed and said things that even made some of us Blush :D I remember Her screaming at a Younger PVT and asked" if he needed to borrow some Midol? Because even on her Worst day she could do better than that"it was a lot more colorful than what I typed:D
RogerinTPA
05-18-12, 14:41
I am glad to hear the standard was not changed for them
A funny story while I was at Ft Knox we had some Female Drill SGT show up at the ranges and other training Like the Gas room .they Screamed and said things that even made some of us Blush :D I remember Her screaming at a Younger PVT and asked" if he needed to borrow some Midol? Because even on her Worst day she could do better than that"it was a lot more colorful than what I typed:D
I believe it. I've met quite a few women who could smoke most men in shooting, driving, flying, etc...half were humble. The others would be all in your face, talking some pretty colorful smack to the guys. It was quite entertaining...
ICANHITHIMMAN
05-18-12, 15:02
I dont have issue with women serving, but the standard should be uniform regardless of sex. I never went to ranger school so I dont think I can get as upset about it as someone who has.
In the end...
http://cdn.randomfunnypicture.com/pictures/905feminism-strong-smart-independent-motivational.jpg
In the end...
http://cdn.randomfunnypicture.com/pictures/905feminism-strong-smart-independent-motivational.jpg
SO true!
I agree that if they want to let women in, the standards should be the exact same as the men.
Moose-Knuckle
05-18-12, 16:17
I feel as if I wake up each and everyday in a never ending episode of the Twilight Zone . . . http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/282.gif
CarlosDJackal
05-18-12, 16:37
Agreed. Welcome to another round of downsizing and political correctness.
I was in instructor pilot at Ft. Rucker when the first 4 female 2LTs were sent through the AH-64 Apache pipeline. I believe 3 of 4 passed, with one recycled. The standards didn't change, but the Attack/Scout macho BS/Language, was watered down severely. Friends who taught that course were extremely agitated at this abomination (their words) for quite a while, but privately stated the LTs held there own...
When I attended Mother Rucker we had 3 Females in our class (all Officers). All three were PT studs and held their own in that arena. Two did the same amount of work as most of us but one (who ended up being an Apache pilot for the ARNG) got away with missing academic training days throughout the year.
She did the same when it came tot he FTXs and such. While neither of the other two (who did the work) wanted to go into Combat Arms (which is one of the reasons they chose the Aviation Branch) I would take either one of them because they would at least do their best. But that one - forget about it.
I suspect they will be watered down Ranger School after the first female to drop out files an EEO complaint. Especially with the current anti-military administration.
It is ironic that I'm currently finishing "Beyond Band of Brothers: The War Memoirs of Major Dick Winters" and he comments on his disgust with the airborne at the end of the war due to relaxed standards and lowered training requirements.
I'm sorta glad he isn't still alive to see just how far down that slippery slope we've come.
But I guess we aren't really willing to fight real wars the way we used to, so may as well let anyone join. At some point we'll be the armed "peace corps" and it might as well be full of women, homosexuals and conscientious objectors.
I honestly feel sorry for most guys in today's military who understand what should be done and why and have to watch it not happen over and over. When you have double standards all those hard won berets, ranger tabs and wings suddenly become meaningless.
RogerinTPA
05-18-12, 17:49
When I attended Mother Rucker we had 3 Females in our class (all Officers). All three were PT studs and held their own in that arena. Two did the same amount of work as most of us but one (who ended up being an Apache pilot for the ARNG) got away with missing academic training days throughout the year.
She did the same when it came tot he FTXs and such. While neither of the other two (who did the work) wanted to go into Combat Arms (which is one of the reasons they chose the Aviation Branch) I would take either one of them because they would at least do their best. But that one - forget about it.
I suspect they will be watered down Ranger School after the first female to drop out files an EEO complaint. Especially with the current anti-military administration.
There is always one female in every class trying to game the system, that thought and did get away with slacking because their looks. That said, a lot of male students, regardless of the course, also will try to game the system, until they get caught, skinned, battered, then fried...but that was way back in the day. Now, according to some recently retired friends, they issue 2 "time out" cards and have to offer the students a chance to seek "spiritual counseling" when the pressure gets too tough. It's disgusting. :bad:
RogerinTPA
05-18-12, 18:32
"The Army's top leader said he wants to give women every opportunity to succeed in infantry battalions since the military reversed the policy barring them from infantry duty earlier this year."
Here's the link:
http://www.military.com/news/article/ranger-school-considers-going-co-ed.html?ESRC=dod.nl
SeriousStudent
05-18-12, 18:46
There is always one female in every class trying to game the system, that thought and did get away with slacking because their looks. That said, a lot of male students, regardless of the course, also will try to game the system, until they get caught, skinned, battered, then fried...but that was way back in the day. Now, according to some recently retired friends, they issue 2 "time out" cards and have to offer the students a chance to seek "spiritual counseling" when the pressure gets too tough. It's disgusting. :bad:
I am curious, Roger. When you are OCONUS at your other job, do the Taliban respect time out cards? I thought they just tore up the cards and handed out orange jumpsuits for the video cameras.
And I'm saying this as a father who is preparing his daughter to enter the Corps, and helping a nephew that is debating what branch to select.
I have told him about all the ladies you dashing aviators attract, but the silly lad is still thinking Infantry. He wants to try for the Rangers. I already texted him a link to the story, I'll be fascianted to read his response.
And with the help of several members here, my daughter is working to get a first-class PFT score before she goes to boot camp. But we are using the male standards, not the female. Pullups, crunches, run times, swimming, etc.
Women in Ranger school - sigh. If you want to pass the training course for one of the world's premier light infantry units, you'd better bring your A game, not a time out card.
We had this discussion today at work with our Detachment Medic. Her husband is an R.I. here at 6th RTB and from what was said, the first females will be West Point Grads and prior to Ranger School they will get 1 on 1 immersion training on everything they'll go thru at Ranger School.
And the Ranger Assessment Phase will be watered down
RogerinTPA
05-18-12, 20:09
I am curious, Roger. When you are OCONUS at your other job, do the Taliban respect time out cards? I thought they just tore up the cards and handed out orange jumpsuits for the video cameras.
And I'm saying this as a father who is preparing his daughter to enter the Corps, and helping a nephew that is debating what branch to select.
I have told him about all the ladies you dashing aviators attract, but the silly lad is still thinking Infantry. He wants to try for the Rangers. I already texted him a link to the story, I'll be fascianted to read his response.
And with the help of several members here, my daughter is working to get a first-class PFT score before she goes to boot camp. But we are using the male standards, not the female. Pullups, crunches, run times, swimming, etc.
Women in Ranger school - sigh. If you want to pass the training course for one of the world's premier light infantry units, you'd better bring your A game, not a time out card.
The Taliban, eh, not so much...
I'm sorry Bill, I guess I didn't explain that so well. The time out cards were in reference to the Army's flight school and not Ranger School. There was a move to get rid of them (the time out cards), but because of the current shift to a peace time force and current political (PC) climate, I sincerely doubt it.
Good on your daughter though. Maxing out a PFT/PT score, being smart and demonstrating good leadership qualities, are always a good thing. It is a huge factor in promotion and other favorable actions as you know. I'm sure she will do very well in those areas, after your mentoring. ;)
davidjinks
05-18-12, 20:24
No, there aren't any different standards for gender...:rolleyes:
http://www.apft-standards.com/
It'll be the same IF they're allowed into Ranger school, just like it is in Airborne school, just like it is in EOD school………..
QuietShootr
05-18-12, 21:22
I don't know. But they should be. I see no problem with women being allowed to serve in any part of the service as long as they can meet every standard that the men have too.
Yeah? What was YOUR MOS?
The Army is addressing the specifics of the plan to allow female soldiers to join infantry battalions and – associated with that move – to make the prestigious Ranger School co-ed, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said Wednesday.
Are. You. ****ing. Shitting. Me.
Now I know why old people get old and want to die. They don't want to look at what the ****in' world turns into.
*cough*
At least the Rangers are finally admitting they'll take in any bitch out there... :haha:
Yes This Is A Dated Thread But. . .
Here's an April 8 2015 article in Defense One regarding women enrolled in Ranger School:
Defense One (http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/05/all-8-women-fail-to-advance-ranger-school/112270/)
MountainRaven
05-09-15, 13:49
It is ironic that I'm currently finishing "Beyond Band of Brothers: The War Memoirs of Major Dick Winters" and he comments on his disgust with the airborne at the end of the war due to relaxed standards and lowered training requirements.
I'm sorta glad he isn't still alive to see just how far down that slippery slope we've come.
But I guess we aren't really willing to fight real wars the way we used to, so may as well let anyone join. At some point we'll be the armed "peace corps" and it might as well be full of women, homosexuals and conscientious objectors.
I honestly feel sorry for most guys in today's military who understand what should be done and why and have to watch it not happen over and over. When you have double standards all those hard won berets, ranger tabs and wings suddenly become meaningless.
Necro, but since this thread is back up....
Eugene Sledge was quite upset on Okinawa that the Marines were taking draftees.
In late 1944, guys who were clerks were being sent to fight in tanks as drivers, assistant drivers/radiomen, gunners, and loaders (tank commanders suffered much fewer casualties than other tank crewmen).
Hell, most of the guys who had been in in 1940, 41, 42 were pretty disgusted with the guys who were coming in in 1944 and 45, period. And it wasn't just "the replacements" syndrome, either.
The simple fact is that when you're fighting a war that's going to kill 45 million people before it's over, you either have to lower your standards or make due with fewer combat troops. Of course, the fact that the War Department viewed men as equipment that was interchangeable - so that when one man was shot up or taken out of action, they simply replaced him with another man - helped the evolution along.
Well, they have all failed out.
Now let's watch and see what pressure is applied to change the standard...
Well, they have all failed out.
Now let's watch and see what pressure is applied to change the standard...
Actually, they recycled... Very different and not uncommon.
If they are allowed to recycle the same phase twice that will be a clear sign of special treatment. That's normally a day 1 restart.
Some are indicating they cannot be "peered", either. That's another big special treatment if true.
I'm not a fan of this politically driven decision, but will say that the 8 who made it out of RAP week were pretty tough. Probably tougher than most of us reading about it.
Actually, they recycled... Very different and not uncommon.
If they are allowed to recycle the same phase twice that will be a clear sign of special treatment. That's normally a day 1 restart.
Some are indicating they cannot be "peered", either. That's another big special treatment if true.
I'm not a fan of this politically driven decision, but will say that the 8 who made it out of RAP week were pretty tough. Probably tougher than most of us reading about it.
Perhaps true, but nonetheless not Ranger material.
While some women can run like the wind and do other PT exercises prevalent on Day 1 (situps, pullups, pushups), I kind of figured that the humping heavy loads over distance would be the deciding factor. Apparently I wasn't far off the mark.
The special treatment is going to be a concern. If it is her turn to hump the 240 or SAW, then it's her turn, period. Can't hang? Quit.
The universal lowering of standards is another issue. I read somewhere that Army SF is reevaluating the "necessity" of moving heavy loads over distance. i.e. humping 70+lb rucks plus battle rattle for 20+ miles (like, I dunno, in the friggin' Q-Course). Not only would previously unqualified males make it, but gee, some women would too! Go figure.
Hopefully we will have a Republican conservative who will win in 2016 and undo this horseshit. Yeah, I know, pipe dream......
I have heard that females in rigorous training have more bone/joint problems. Would not such injuries necessitate removal from the elite programs?
Some are indicating they cannot be "peered", either. That's another big special treatment if true.
You're right, it is special treatment, but I *almost* think its warranted for right now. Out of 200 men, there's going to be enough that cant look past their genitals no matter how much they carry the 240 or lead the nav. If this is true, I hope there is at least some kind of check in place like the RIs having a say, something.
On the issue as a whole, I think people are more worried than they need to be. I'm not aware of anybody lowering their standards or even really considering it. I haven't seen any serious commentary from civilian leadership about lowering them, either. Every woman who gets involved in these debates echoes not lowering the standards. There's a lot of sky is falling shit going around these days that simply isn't true, and everyone is ASSuming that any "reevaluated" standards will be easier- heaven forbid they simply reflect a more accurate assessment of what level of fitness people really need to be at regardless of which genitals they have or which genitals they are attracted too.
If anyone, be they male or female, can't handle the rigors of battle, they don't qualify.
Is there a bit of the "old boys club" syndrome at work?
Yes, but that's not the end all and be all.
War fighters don't need weak links.
If you're an Amazon woman who can hack it, I'd bet most guys would welcome her into the ranks, not all, but most.
But, if a female soldier simply doesn't have the muscle mass required to hump gear and suffer deprivation of many different kinds while in the field, then sorry, go elsewhere...
You're right, it is special treatment, but I *almost* think its warranted for right now. Out of 200 men, there's going to be enough that cant look past their genitals no matter how much they carry the 240 or lead the nav. If this is true, I hope there is at least some kind of check in place like the RIs having a say, something.
On the issue as a whole, I think people are more worried than they need to be. I'm not aware of anybody lowering their standards or even really considering it. I haven't seen any serious commentary from civilian leadership about lowering them, either. Every woman who gets involved in these debates echoes not lowering the standards. There's a lot of sky is falling shit going around these days that simply isn't true, and everyone is ASSuming that any "reevaluated" standards will be easier- heaven forbid they simply reflect a more accurate assessment of what level of fitness people really need to be at regardless of which genitals they have or which genitals they are attracted too.
You don't see the irony of that statement? Why would they be reevaluating the standards, to make them harder than they already are? Riiiight.
If anything the training you have to complete for those coveted positions has always been about pushing you beyond the "....level of fitness people really need to be at". It is about seeing what you're made of when pushed beyond what is reasonable. I suspect you know this though.
So why then are we suddenly reevaluating just how much does a soldier really need to carry or just how far do they really need to go? Hmmm......seems like awfully suspicious timing with the push for women to be in those roles. I don't recall ever hearing about that rubbish prior to our current administration's PC social experiments.
So why then are we suddenly reevaluating just how much does a soldier really need to carry or just how far do they really need to go? Hmmm......seems like awfully suspicious timing with the push for women to be in those roles. I don't recall ever hearing about that rubbish prior to our current administration's PC social experiments.
It's not an absurd conclusion to come to, but have you seen ANYONE, outside of a civilian buzzfeed blogger or some shit, saying we need to or will lower standards to get women into combat positions?
ColtSeavers
05-13-15, 18:55
Four pages and no one's mentioned Pvt. Vasquez?
http://www.writeups.org/img/fiche/2263a.jpg
I'd be fine with her on my team.
It's not an absurd conclusion to come to, but have you seen ANYONE, outside of a civilian buzzfeed blogger or some shit, saying we need to or will lower standards to get women into combat positions?
Nope, sure haven't.
That said, it becomes a game of semantics. You don't have to lower standards when you've reevaluated what is really necessary for a specific unit to perform a mission. Sometime last year I read about the Marines considering this for infantry units and more recently Army SF. The timing of it is just too much of a coincidence for me to buy.
While there are certainly real-world combat exceptions, all of your Ranger/SF/Recon/SEAL programs are geared to pushing you past what you'd commonly encounter in real-life missions in order to see if you can make the cut. The fact that you may never non-stop ruck 25 miles as a member of XXX in real combat doesn't mean it should be dropped from the selection portion of that unit's training. It's how you make it in with the HSLD boys, a right of passage if you will.
IMHO the grueling shit you have to put up with and successfully pass to enter the world of the elite should ALWAYS exceed what you'll commonly endure on a live mission. You change that in this era of PC bullshit and it can only be for one reason......
mkmckinley
05-14-15, 17:18
For SF it's not even as much an issue of physicality, although that is a major hurdle, but of perception by foreign nationals. We can have as much equality and political correctness as we want in the cozy USA. However the places SF goes are not friendly and the people they deal with will likely laugh them out of the shura when they show up with "here's our boss, the female Captain." Hell I've seen where they didn't even want to deal with a male soldier because he didn't have convincing facial hair. It's not about what people back home want it's about what image SF can present to host nation personnel in order to accomplish the mission. ODA-host nation relationships can be anywhere from dicey to downright confrontational in the best of times. Unfortunately the host nations SF works in are full of sexist assholes. They aren't going to respect a team with a female on it and they sure as hell don't want to get clowned by their buddies/other tribe/next village over for "getting trained by a girl" or whatever other scenario one can imagine. It's not SF's mission to address that issue. Furthermore the entire philosophy of SF selection and recruitment is about what's best for the mission. Is it your dream to grow up and become a Green Beret? Nobody cares. Either perform or don't, embody what will help SF get the mission done or don't. An individuals hopes and dreams matter only in as much as they fuel that person to perform. The organisation could not care less and shouldn't. It's not about catering to the aspirations, personal or career, of wannabes. The whole deal with wanting to put women in some of these roles is political and command directed by people with wither no knowledge of ground truth or those who simply don't care about mission success.
Nightstalker865
05-14-15, 17:55
For SF it's not even as much an issue of physicality, although that is a major hurdle, but of perception by foreign nationals. We can have as much equality and political correctness as we want in the cozy USA. However the places SF goes are not friendly and the people they deal with will likely laugh them out of the shura when they show up with "here's our boss, the female Captain." Hell I've seen where they didn't even want to deal with a male soldier because he didn't have convincing facial hair. It's not about what people back home want it's about what image SF can present to host nation personnel in order to accomplish the mission. ODA-host nation relationships can be anywhere from dicey to downright confrontational in the best of times. Unfortunately the host nations SF works in are full of sexist assholes. They aren't going to respect a team with a female on it and they sure as hell don't want to get clowned by their buddies/other tribe/next village over for "getting trained by a girl" or whatever other scenario one can imagine. It's not SF's mission to address that issue. Furthermore the entire philosophy of SF selection and recruitment is about what's best for the mission. Is it your dream to grow up and become a Green Beret? Nobody cares. Either perform or don't, embody what will help SF get the mission done or don't. An individuals hopes and dreams matter only in as much as they fuel that person to perform. The organisation could not care less and shouldn't. It's not about catering to the aspirations, personal or career, of wannabes. The whole deal with wanting to put women in some of these roles is political and command directed by people with wither no knowledge of ground truth or those who simply don't care about mission success.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I have no issue with them going and getting their short tab. Meet the standards and you've earned it.
Allowing them into the teams is a whole different thing all together.... It just isn't smart.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Necro, but since this thread is back up....
Eugene Sledge was quite upset on Okinawa that the Marines were taking draftees.
In late 1944, guys who were clerks were being sent to fight in tanks as drivers, assistant drivers/radiomen, gunners, and loaders (tank commanders suffered much fewer casualties than other tank crewmen).
Hell, most of the guys who had been in in 1940, 41, 42 were pretty disgusted with the guys who were coming in in 1944 and 45, period. And it wasn't just "the replacements" syndrome, either.
The simple fact is that when you're fighting a war that's going to kill 45 million people before it's over, you either have to lower your standards or make due with fewer combat troops. Of course, the fact that the War Department viewed men as equipment that was interchangeable - so that when one man was shot up or taken out of action, they simply replaced him with another man - helped the evolution along.
Honestly, I'm all for letting anyone who wants to join, join. The only exception would be those who would always be a liability to themselves or others due to limited capacity or handicap. I would respect a triple amputee who wanted back in the fight but I'm not sure it should be accommodated.
But "special schools" are something altogether different. If you want to be a SEAL, SF, Ranger, Airborne or anything like that you should be able to do the same job to the same standards and everyone should be able to depend upon you the same as you depend upon them. I could see height and weight requirements being relaxed for female applicants so long as they are satisfying all other performance standards.
MountainRaven
05-14-15, 22:29
It's not an absurd conclusion to come to, but have you seen ANYONE, outside of a civilian buzzfeed blogger or some shit, saying we need to or will lower standards to get women into combat positions?
Moreover, haven't we been trying to lighten the load of soldiers and Marines in the field for some time? A soldier or Marine carrying less weight can cover a greater distance faster and arrive at his (or her) destination less fatigued and therefore fight more effectively then a soldier or Marine carrying more weight - doubly so when you get mountains and high altitude involved. These are simple physiological facts that will be in play no matter your genitals or your level of fitness.
I've never heard anyone who has seen the elephant say, "I wish I had humped more stuff and heavier stuff around the mountains of Afghanistan. And so does everyone else in my squad/platoon/company." Hell, I've never heard a backpacker, hiker, or hunter say anything like that: Most of them are forever locked in a battle to reduce the weight of the crap that they carry and reduce the amount of crap that they carry. First-time backpackers/hikers often find that they have packed way, way more than they need. Hell, during the Second World War, there were those who thought there ought to have been trucks to follow the combat troops on the march to collect all the useless crap that the troops surreptitiously "lost" that they were supposed to carry!
I don't see why we wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing for our combat troops. Hell, I've even read arguments (including, IIRC, on that mountain guerrilla blog) that the improved combat effectiveness from running as light as possible can, for instance and in certain circumstances, outweigh the benefits of wearing armor. To wit: That if you arrive at your objective with greater rapidity and less exhausted, you are less likely to be hit in the first place from being able to more rapidly maneuver and from being able to more effectively neutralize the enemy.
Moreover, haven't we been trying to lighten the load of soldiers and Marines in the field for some time? A soldier or Marine carrying less weight can cover a greater distance faster and arrive at his (or her) destination less fatigued and therefore fight more effectively then a soldier or Marine carrying more weight - doubly so when you get mountains and high altitude involved. These are simple physiological facts that will be in play no matter your genitals or your level of fitness.
I've never heard anyone who has seen the elephant say, "I wish I had humped more stuff and heavier stuff around the mountains of Afghanistan. And so does everyone else in my squad/platoon/company." Hell, I've never heard a backpacker, hiker, or hunter say anything like that: Most of them are forever locked in a battle to reduce the weight of the crap that they carry and reduce the amount of crap that they carry. First-time backpackers/hikers often find that they have packed way, way more than they need. Hell, during the Second World War, there were those who thought there ought to have been trucks to follow the combat troops on the march to collect all the useless crap that the troops surreptitiously "lost" that they were supposed to carry!
I don't see why we wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing for our combat troops. Hell, I've even read arguments (including, IIRC, on that mountain guerrilla blog) that the improved combat effectiveness from running as light as possible can, for instance and in certain circumstances, outweigh the benefits of wearing armor. To wit: That if you arrive at your objective with greater rapidity and less exhausted, you are less likely to be hit in the first place from being able to more rapidly maneuver and from being able to more effectively neutralize the enemy.
At the same time, wouldn't it be great if everyone in your Ranger group was able to carry you out of harms way if necessary?
ramairthree
05-15-15, 01:24
Moreover, haven't we been trying to lighten the load of soldiers and Marines in the field for some time? A soldier or Marine carrying less weight can cover a greater distance faster and arrive at his (or her) destination less fatigued and therefore fight more effectively then a soldier or Marine carrying more weight - doubly so when you get mountains and high altitude involved. These are simple physiological facts that will be in play no matter your genitals or your level of fitness.
I've never heard anyone who has seen the elephant say, "I wish I had humped more stuff and heavier stuff around the mountains of Afghanistan. And so does everyone else in my squad/platoon/company." Hell, I've never heard a backpacker, hiker, or hunter say anything like that: Most of them are forever locked in a battle to reduce the weight of the crap that they carry and reduce the amount of crap that they carry. First-time backpackers/hikers often find that they have packed way, way more than they need. Hell, during the Second World War, there were those who thought there ought to have been trucks to follow the combat troops on the march to collect all the useless crap that the troops surreptitiously "lost" that they were supposed to carry!
I don't see why we wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing for our combat troops. Hell, I've even read arguments (including, IIRC, on that mountain guerrilla blog) that the improved combat effectiveness from running as light as possible can, for instance and in certain circumstances, outweigh the benefits of wearing armor. To wit: That if you arrive at your objective with greater rapidity and less exhausted, you are less likely to be hit in the first place from being able to more rapidly maneuver and from being able to more effectively neutralize the enemy.
A whole bunch of guys in 1993 wished they had more ammo, water, NODS, etc. I grew up where you patrolled in your jungle fatigues and PC and it was insane to consider patrolling in armor and helmets and nods for everyone. Let alone a radio for everyone and ear pro.
Decades later, I assure you every one of my last dozens of objectives was with 50/50s, Bolle eye pro goggles, embitr, dual channel pelt ours, and plate hangers. I was not humping a ruck with a dozen days of supplies, but similar total weight to decades ago.
I can go into significant detail on why women in these roles is a bad idea. There will be a whole lot of butt hurt.
Psychological disorders in men entering the service are lower than their age groups as a whole. Women higher. Yes, the very same daddy issues and esteem problems you see in dysfunctional civy professions are entering the service. The quality density of combat arms/sof enlisted to O's is similar. The quality density of female enlisted to O's has a much more pronounced difference. See proportion of cst female officers to enlisted. And they only go on a sample of missions anyway. Not the ball crushers.
The warrior psychological profile is much less represented. More injuries during training. More injuries, both acute and overuse over long term. Far more in completed deployments. Sof pipelines typically fail out half or more attendees. Both by physical failures and quit/weak mindedness. At best, about 5% of women can perform at the level of the average man out of say basic and infantry initial training. And that is initial on day one. It degrades further the longer the training.
So, your wife the West Point grad that does cross fit and runs triathlons will be lucky to perform at the level of the most medicore soldier or marine that just finished infantry ait. The majority of those men will fail a sof pipeline. It may say 52 push ups are needed to pass. When it takes 80 something push ups to get 52 perfect ones counted that is a different story. Or doing the pt test after being kept up getting smoked until two hours before. Or the 8 minute pace miles being much harder when the first one is at 5:30, then 10:30 jog, then 6 minute mile, etc to average 8 minute miles. Or having to repeat a huge ruck the next day because your kit was missing a soap dish.
I will not even go into how much disruptive shit gets covered up and jacks crap on fob after fob.
The average dipshit soft mos e4 that had a female land nav partner at Pldc or cadet that had a couple on their obstacle course team knows what the weak links are. I never knew a female to even pass the air assault course if they had to pass the obstacle course the first day. If it rained and everyone did a pt test instead they would get in. Then they would get different standards on the boot run too.
There have to be a small number of females that would make the exact same standards. The disruptive component of putting them in the exact same troops and teams exists. But the sad truth is in order to be fair, and regardless of the negative impact on effectiveness, standards will be adapted to ensure sex integration occurs at some point.
Some interesting observations.
Mine differ slightly.
I have served with many highly skilled females during my career, from conscripts to NCO's to Officers, and many could out-soldier their male counterparts, both physically and skill-wise. This includes deployments to Kosovo and Afghanistan.
Regarding the whole cultural issue, beards, women etc, I think some here are over-emphasizing the issue. We never had any issue with the HN-locals we worked with, and our female soldiers never had any issue gaining respect from the ANA or ANP guys, or the locals.
In fact, they were leery of the guys in the beginning, as well. Everyone needed to prove themselves.
The beard-requirement for respect and what not....meh....I shaved off part of my beard late in my deployment, (redeployment mustache), and to the team I was working with, they just thought it was funny. No loss of respect or such.
Many of my colleagues did not have heavy facial hair growth, still no issue.
In addition, in a muslim country, using females can get you access to information that men cannot get. Our Army SOF is currently doing a pilot project to select and train females for a direct support role, primarily for Urban SR, as they have identified the need and benefit of having women along. FET - Female engagement teams. My former platoon commanders girlfriend is about to deploy in this role with a SOF element as I type this.
So, to outright reject the idea is probably not a good idea.
The main issue with gender-specific requirements, speaking to my female colleagues, is that for those of them who have made it through their respective pipelines on par with the guys - ie exceeding the minimum female requirements to the degree that they would also do well using the male requirements, is that they always feel judged; did she pass because she was a female, or did she actually pull her own weight? They constantly feel that they have to prove themselves. This is also due to the fact that there is some affirmative action guidelines, as it is politically convenient to play the gender-card.
Whenever I had female soldiers in my platoon, I did not grant them any special treatment for being females. Nor did I judge them based on this fact. All I cared about was their ability to do the tasks they were given, and how their skills progressed.
I dont think women would do well in an infantry unit for one main reason. They are not built for the job. People forget that the next war might not have us fighting out of FOBs where we go home every night. Mind you Im talking with only experience from Iraq and Afghanistan is a whole different animal.
Could a female have done my job in 2005? Sure. We always had support, pretty much drove everywhere, and never stayed out in "injun" country for long periods of time.
However the war I fought in 2003 when we invaded Iraq was far different. We didnt have FOBs to go to at night. We slept in fields or some random farm we took over. There were days where we cleared whole ****ing towns on foot. Not only were we on foot we were carrying an ass load of shit. I was a SAW gunner then and carried 900 rounds of linked 5.56. Plus my body armor. Plus my MOP gear. Plus my helmet. Plus grenades. Plus 100 rounds of linked 7.62. Plus batteries. Plus water. Plus whatever other random shit I had. All together my walk around gear, not including any sort of ruck or backpack, weighed a little over 90 pounds. At the time I was 19 years old, 6 foot 1, and 200 pounds. I was in great shape too. that gear weighed a little less than half my body weight. How much is that going to affect a 120-130 pound female?
I wasnt the only one carrying that amount of shit either. There was a joke that "basic load" meant you were "basically out of ammo". We had so much 25mm, AT4s, and TOW missiles shoved in those Bradleys you could hardly sit down. Not to mention my CLU and 3 Javelins Luckily we didnt get hit because we probably would have gone nuclear. Did we need all that ammo? Turned out no. The 25mm DU worked well against Iraqi tanks so nobody shot any TOWs. Between the A10s, FA18s, Apaches, Abrams, and Bradleys by the time any of us on foot actually needed to fire our weapons a little judicious aiming made the firefights pretty short.
When we were nearing Baghdad one day we were coming into a city and received accurate Iraqi artillery fire. Our only escape was to basically charge into the city. Our whole company got completely separated and intermingled into the Iraqi defense lines. I spent that entire day running through that city getting into small skirmishes. That battle lasted pretty much the entire day. I cant even begin to tell you how many houses and office buildings I cleared that day. Dozens if not hundreds of flights of stairs were walked up and down that day. At one point we got intel that an Iraqi RPG team was flanking a position that my 1st Sgt was holding at an intersection. We were no where near our Bradley so my squad had to run nearly a mile to reinforce the guys at the intersection. That was after several hours of fighting already and we were getting pot shots the entire way. So not only were we running with all the ****ing gear on but you had to return fire at the same time.
That day smoked everyone. Guys who were in great shape. Several are now (or recently retired from) SF. Several passed Ranger School. If there are women out there who could hack that kind of combat they are very few and far between. And even if we are able to spend the ridiculous amount of time and money to find those select few.... Whats the point? What asset are they going to provide to an Infantry platoon?
Shit I almost forgot another thing. Hygiene. During the Invasion most of us did not get to shower for nearly three months. Several guys lost their hygiene kits to enemy fire or shrapnel. I went most of the time with no toothbrush and brushed my teeth with my finger. Baby wipes disappeared really quick. Hell we ran out of water twice. Supply was rare and even then had little hygiene stuff. How is a woman going to fare health wise if she goes two menstrual cycles without bathing?
Sorry for the rambling.... it's nearly 0300 and Im tired.
When training soldiers here, we do not train for low intensity scenarios - the FOB-centric approach you mention. Full spectrum operations is the name of the game.
That means that we go on exercises for extended periods of time, with no other facilities than what we bring with us.
Hygiene and menstrual cycles - why is that a problem? Women have had their period for ever - it is no issue staying in the field for extended periods of time. If it is a problem, it is usually men who make it out to be.
Re your packing list. You state yourself that you did not need all the stuff you brought. Did your platoon leadership or company leadership conduct proper TLP's/MDMP's for that mission?
One Norwegian female combat engineer was awarded a medal for bravery in combat last year, for clearing a path for the unit she was in, during a 15 hour firefight with the Taliban.
Another female soldier I trained, was a gunner on the CV9030N IFV. She was the first person to get kills with that platform - she dumped nearly 25 Taliban in one fight. She had no issues hacking it for weeks on end in the field, both during training in Norway and deployed.
I have several other anecdotal stories of women who do well in combat.
That said, there are some issues with this whole gender issue, but that is not gender itself. It is the continued push to get women into military duty positions, that many women might not be interested in, in the first place. More on that to come.
At some point during mountain phase a ranger candidate will need to carry their gear, battle rattle, plus a 240. Typical weight for all that is 135-137 lbs. In the mountains, often in freezing or sweltering temps.
And about the lightest they run with required gear is still over 90-100 lbs.
Packing lists and mandatory load out is known. Not much optional stuff to drop even if you could.
The patrols work in Darby phases is where the females did not meet standard. Just the beginning of heavier loads, no sleep and minimal food. Considered easier than Mountain phase.
Physiology differences will be a big challenge. This is not a moodiness and menstruation issue... Way bigger than that... Literally.
When training soldiers here, we do not train for low intensity scenarios - the FOB-centric approach you mention. Full spectrum operations is the name of the game.
That means that we go on exercises for extended periods of time, with no other facilities than what we bring with us.
Hygiene and menstrual cycles - why is that a problem? Women have had their period for ever - it is no issue staying in the field for extended periods of time. If it is a problem, it is usually men who make it out to be.
Re your packing list. You state yourself that you did not need all the stuff you brought. Did your platoon leadership or company leadership conduct proper TLP's/MDMP's for that mission?
One Norwegian female combat engineer was awarded a medal for bravery in combat last year, for clearing a path for the unit she was in, during a 15 hour firefight with the Taliban.
Another female soldier I trained, was a gunner on the CV9030N IFV. She was the first person to get kills with that platform - she dumped nearly 25 Taliban in one fight. She had no issues hacking it for weeks on end in the field, both during training in Norway and deployed.
I have several other anecdotal stories of women who do well in combat.
That said, there are some issues with this whole gender issue, but that is not gender itself. It is the continued push to get women into military duty positions, that many women might not be interested in, in the first place. More on that to come.
Does Norway have different standards women like the US?
I think some in this thread have wandered off the reservation regarding what it is about specifically: women going to Ranger school (and by extrapolation other more elite programs). We're not talking about women in infantry units. That is pretty cut-and-dry; they either pass Infantry OSUT at Benning (if Army) or Marine SOI (if in the Corps) or they don't. It can be argued that there are physical challenges you might face once out of training that will surpass the difficulty level you encountered in rudimentary infantry training. Like your permanent-party unit might road march 20-some miles but you didn't do that in basic infantry training. Or the rigors of combat might exceed what you dealt with in schooling (like C-grunt during the invasion of Iraq). This is an area where women might come up short. Can some pass Infantry OSUT/SOI? Yeah, probably so. The problems with those women will most likely occur down the road in the above-mentioned scenarios.
For Ranger school and other more elite programs, it is the reverse. The standards are so high because they want to see you pushed beyond what is reasonable, even beyond what you will most likely encounter in combat situations. They don't want the standards changed to reflect what is likely, they want them to reflect worse-case plus.
I don't care what you say but every time the military finds a way to "save" weight they find something else to carry!
Does Norway have different standards women like the US?
For physical evaluations, yes. Women have to complete fewer reps than men for push-ups, sit ups and hang-ups and can run the 3000m endurance test slower, to score the same equivalent marks as men.
We also do a 15km march, and a 30km march (both summer and winter), and women have longer to complete these events.
For the special operations units, there are no gender specific requirements. Anyone who tries out has to pass using the same minimum requirements, regardless of gender.
We have one fully professional, ie not conscript, heavy mech battalion - they use a differentiated requirement approach, based on duty position (MOS, though we don't use that term or system). If you are in a mech platoon, you generally have to meet a higher fitness standard than say HQ platoon or medical platoon. They do not differentiate between the genders, they must all meet the same requirements.
Besides the obvious physical issues, I also have some moral ones (and yes, morality is a moving target for some).
IMHO, As a society I do not think intentionally as a matter of policy, placing women in these positions (specifically to close with and kill the enemy) is a good idea, and it's a simple one. Society functions best when everyone has a functional area. For the human species, in order for it to continue, women will have to bear children, and are the primary caregiver while the man is out hunting/gathering the food. To do that, it's beat into Men's psyche that women should be nurtured and protected, so that they are not soft targets. If we take that out of our collective social and moral structure, then men are going to have to stop looking at protecting women, and in fact are going to treat them like other men.
Are we ready for that, and the results? Then a majority women become a TARGET, and PREY. They no longer get the 'bye' that they get now - no tipping the hat, no opening the door, no 'protecting' their virtue. I for one think overall that's bad for women, and that's bad for our society. We already expect men to kill and that's hard enough to live with for them - do we really want to intentionally expect the same from women? Who will bear and raise our children? Not even the militaristic Spartans believed that women should be placed in the line with a sword and shield.
Let's give a scenario: What man is not going to place himself in personal danger if his fellow female soldier is being attacked (knowing specifically that they are going to be killed and likely gang-raped beforehand by the enemy) and not try to go to their rescue? Right now that is ingrained in our collective psyche...are we ready to give that up? Think of the long-term implications.
Call me old school, call me sexist - I'll take that title gladly - if it means I don't think women should intentionally be placed in those situations/positions. Is chivalry really that dead?
I think some in this thread have wandered off the reservation regarding what it is about specifically: women going to Ranger school (and by extrapolation other more elite programs). We're not talking about women in infantry units. That is pretty cut-and-dry; they either pass Infantry OSUT at Benning (if Army) or Marine SOI (if in the Corps) or they don't. It can be argued that there are physical challenges you might face once out of training that will surpass the difficulty level you encountered in rudimentary infantry training. Like your permanent-party unit might road march 20-some miles but you didn't do that in basic infantry training. Or the rigors of combat might exceed what you dealt with in schooling (like C-grunt during the invasion of Iraq). This is an area where women might come up short. Can some pass Infantry OSUT/SOI? Yeah, probably so. The problems with those women will most likely occur down the road in the above-mentioned scenarios.
For Ranger school and other more elite programs, it is the reverse. The standards are so high because they want to see you pushed beyond what is reasonable, even beyond what you will most likely encounter in combat situations. They don't want the standards changed to reflect what is likely, they want them to reflect worse-case plus.
I don't care what you say but every time the military finds a way to "save" weight they find something else to carry!
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Ranger School primarily a combat leadership course? Not necessarily a stepping stone to more elite programs?
As for your last paragraph, it all depends on the leadership of the unit you are in. You might have had bad experiences, I sought to give my guys the best possible conditions in order to complete their missions.
Averageman
05-15-15, 11:59
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Ranger School primarily a combat leadership course? Not necessarily a stepping stone to more elite programs?
As for your last paragraph, it all depends on the leadership of the unit you are in. You might have had bad experiences, I sought to give my guys the best possible conditions in order to complete their missions.
I can't help but wonder what end result they are trying to achieve?
It would seem to be a social experiment and a way to "earn" a tab for someone who currently cannot serve in a Ranger Battalion. Every one of these slots taken by someone of any sex that cannot serve as a Ranger, only takes that slot from someone who possibly would and could serve. Admitting that this is only a test, or to develop leadership skills simply proves this is all about ticket punching for promotion and social engineering.
Would we not be better served by keeping this a Infantry or at least a Combat Arms School and forget the social experiments until females can actually serve in a Ranger Battalion?
We used to get young Second Lieutenants with Ranger Tabs in Armor Battalions, My thought was "Yeah, that's cool, but if you get off of that Tank Sir, you're gonna get killed running around playing Grunt."
Besides the obvious physical issues, I also have some moral ones (and yes, morality is a moving target for some).
IMHO, As a society I do not think intentionally as a matter of policy, placing women in these positions (specifically to close with and kill the enemy) is a good idea, and it's a simple one. Society functions best when everyone has a functional area. For the human species, in order for it to continue, women will have to bear children, and are the primary caregiver while the man is out hunting/gathering the food. To do that, it's beat into Men's psyche that women should be nurtured and protected, so that they are not soft targets. If we take that out of our collective social and moral structure, then men are going to have to stop looking at protecting women, and in fact are going to treat them like other men.
Are we ready for that, and the results? Then a majority women become a TARGET, and PREY. They no longer get the 'bye' that they get now - no tipping the hat, no opening the door, no 'protecting' their virtue. I for one think overall that's bad for women, and that's bad for our society. We already expect men to kill and that's hard enough to live with for them - do we really want to intentionally expect the same from women? Who will bear and raise our children? Not even the militaristic Spartans believed that women should be placed in the line with a sword and shield.
Let's give a scenario: What man is not going to place himself in personal danger if his fellow female soldier is being attacked (knowing specifically that they are going to be killed and likely gang-raped beforehand by the enemy) and not try to go to their rescue? Right now that is ingrained in our collective psyche...are we ready to give that up? Think of the long-term implications.
Call me old school, call me sexist - I'll take that title gladly - if it means I don't think women should intentionally be placed in those situations/positions. Is chivalry really that dead?
For politicians, and they are the main driving force for this, it is more important to make a statement by opening combat MOS' to women, or using affirmative action to increase the female quota at higher levels of leadership, for example.
Case in point, last year, our conscript military service was made gender neutral. It started out by requiring all citizens to carry out their civic duty by serving one year in the Norwegian armed forces. At the time the law was written, before women could vote, only men were referred to as citizens. From about mid WWII, military service was voluntary for women. They were restricted to admin duties, communications, aid station workers and the like. No weapons training. In the mid 80's, women could serve in all roles, no restrictions.
As stated, last year it was decided by parliament that all eligible men and women can be called in to serve. This whole thing was done to increase the female quota. What they have not considered, is that statistics show that of the number of females who go through pre-service briefings, checks and interviews, only a fraction actually show up. Of these, about 30% do not finish their time in service.
So, I just don't think that the desire or drive to have military careers is there to begin with, when it comes to women.
I would much sooner have women who are interested and motivated show up, than a bunch who are not - who are also being forced to do it.
ramairthree
05-15-15, 12:01
Yes, when people start talking about the girl they heard was really brave, and the one they met at band camp that could out soldier others in her platoon, and use words like moreover and to wit regarding shit they have not done, they do not tend to be speaking from decades on direct experience.
Also, as with racism, there are people offering opinions they are supposed to offer, to ensure they are not seen in a certain light. I am cool and trendy. There should be chicks like black widow.
I know what every minute of the "best" CST "selection" was scheduled. And the issues with a few iterations.
I know why every single member of a sof task force of multiple units that went home early for med or psyc or admin disguised as something else went home early for a five year period.
The number of women that would, in physical means only, be suitable in regular marine, 82nd, etc. line infantry is very small. Roughly two standard deviations above the mean. With a very preselected group of women, maybe ten percent.
Half at best of those men would make it to a ranger bn, marsoc, or oda position.
On physicality alone, we are down to a very small amount of women to finish initial selection and training.
And this is not considering even higher fail assessments like buds, pj Indoc, etc.
Add in mental suitability, and it gets smaller. Politically incorrect, but very, very, real.
Add in more injuries, etc and it gets smaller.
How many top level female athletes can compete with men in that field?
Add in the strife, and I assure you the male/female strife and issues are a very real negative factor. And I doubly assure the female/female strife of an all woman assessment and training group exceeds a male group by about a factor of ten.
Realistically, with some altered standards, similar training, and slightly different roles, there is a place for all female combat arms or "SOF" squads, odas, or troops. In the past, now, and in the future.
There is and has been a place in the military for mixed populations of male/female.
However, looking specifically at making woman Rangers, seals, etc. and putting them on the exact same teams in mixed groups , well that is the goal and makes no sense.
The average 50 year old retired green beret getting thick around the middle may get out ran and out pull upped by the super cross fit academy grad female half his age that wants to be a seal. Yet odds are a thousand to one she will quit on a ruck before him, and he can kick the shit out of her. I know there is this girl power fantasy now with black widow and ufc, etc. and cross fit and tough mudders, etc. but even the most fantastic Amazon specimens I have know with a ton of heart and guts, well, at best , Just not going to cut it in the big leagues. In the same way every guy at the range with an ar and crye kit or cop that went to a carbine course thinks he could have been a green beret or seal if he went, these women and many that know them don't get it either.
We might as well say opportunities for female athletes are limited and they want to play in the nba. And when that does not happen ask, Does the rim really need to be ten off the ground.
Another myth, the woman has to be twice as good to be considered average. Not the case at all. Just the opposite. Since at least the late 90s, women in gender neutral positions serving in sof,
Seem to get the opposite. If they don't suck they are considered good. If they are average, or better, they are considered awesome. Yes, the women are correct they are judged by a different standard, but it is a 180 from what they think.
Edit, saw some morality posts come up. Yes, the stoic O5 and e8 or e9 with lots af direct action under their belts will get hit like a freight train when they get a young woman killed. Whether they were right there or not. Just think, the only reason some young woman have been killed in combat is so we would not insult people by having their women searched by anyone but a woman.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Ranger School primarily a combat leadership course? Not necessarily a stepping stone to more elite programs?
For enlisted, yes. For infantry officers its pretty much mandatory for any of the paths you would want. Putting in a packet for Ranger bat or SF as an officer would be a waste of time if no Ranger tab.
Even in most of the ABN units an infantry 2LT will not be given a platoon without one. Essentially a career killer.
I believe a handful of women may complete RS over the next couple of years. But it does not mean anything if 1% of the few who try complete it... Its statistically meaningless in terms of the broader army.
As my son puts it... The females he knows who would have even a chance at the RAPFT know they could not complete the course. And have no desire. While the ones yelling the loudest have trouble with their current APFT, washed out of AASLT, or screening for sapper.
Yes, when people start talking about the girl they heard was really brave, and the one they met at band camp that could out soldier others in her platoon, and use words like moreover and to wit regarding shit they have not done, they do not tend to be speaking from decades on direct experience.
If you are addressing me with this paragraph, your comments are way off the mark regarding both my experience and what I have or have not done.
I have trained female infantry, recon and combat vehicle crews, and I have sent the same women to combat. I have served with female infantry in combat, and have no reservations as long as they can do the job. Same requirements I set for male soldiers.
I actually do have a decade of experience on this very topic.
How do you know how this works, seeing as you do not allow females in combat MOS?
I am against gender differentiated standards. I am against affirmative action as a recruiting measure. I am against lowering standards to reach a quota. I am fine with equal opportunity, with equal standards.
Regarding the strife issue, this is not an issue with the all female platoon I referenced, as the ones going through the training have been selected from female personnel who were already serving. If you do not think that they would be expelled from the program if their personality was not up to par, you are mistaken. That is the same exact the male SOF trainees are held to - if the cadre state that they would not want the guy in their patrol, he is out, even if he passed the physical evaluations.
Ref male/female strife, that is a leadership issue. There are ways to handling it.
For enlisted, yes. For infantry officers its pretty much mandatory for any of the paths you would want. Putting in a packet for Ranger bat or SF as an officer would be a waste of time if no Ranger tab.
Not true, at least for SF. If you haven't been to Ranger and get through selection, they'll just send you. I know it's the same for enlisted guys in Batt - as for officers I think it depends on if you've been and failed or just haven't gone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not true, at least for SF. If you haven't been to Ranger and get through selection, they'll just send you. I know it's the same for enlisted guys in Batt - as for officers I think it depends on if you've been and failed or just haven't gone.
There may be exceptions, but the current crop of infantry LTs being told don't bother if you did not complete RS. Exceptions might be a med drop that had to take time off to heal. (Actually, being told you will complete or die trying)
And that all new infantry officer will attempt RS after IBOLC. So complete or leave on a stretcher.
SOR or LOM drop is a career killer in infantry it appears.
Turn this around... In batt enlisted are expected to complete RS. Why would they ever consider an officer to put over them who could not? Not talking about support roles.
All indications are that it takes a stellar package for an officer to be considered. An infantry officer who did not complete almost by definition does not have a stellar pkg.
Which is the political motivation driving this issue. Can't have female infantry without female officers. Untabbed infantry officers will not do well. Therefore, women must pass RS.
ramairthree
05-15-15, 15:19
If you are addressing me with this paragraph, your comments are way off the mark regarding both my experience and what I have or have not done.
I have trained female infantry, recon and combat vehicle crews, and I have sent the same women to combat. I have served with female infantry in combat, and have no reservations as long as they can do the job. Same requirements I set for male soldiers.
I actually do have a decade of experience on this very topic.
How do you know how this works, seeing as you do not allow females in combat MOS?
I am against gender differentiated standards. I am against affirmative action as a recruiting measure. I am against lowering standards to reach a quota. I am fine with equal opportunity, with equal standards.
Regarding the strife issue, this is not an issue with the all female platoon I referenced, as the ones going through the training have been selected from female personnel who were already serving. If you do not think that they would be expelled from the program if their personality was not up to par, you are mistaken. That is the same exact the male SOF trainees are held to - if the cadre state that they would not want the guy in their patrol, he is out, even if he passed the physical evaluations.
Ref male/female strife, that is a leadership issue. There are ways to handling it.
Newsflash,
If you are capable of training platoon after platoon of females to male infantry standards, we are not anywhere at all on the same page of standards regarding SOF selection and standards.
Be it ranger school, the q course, etc.
Again, while you must be one of the people referenced,
Where are your decadeS of experience with US SOF, female SOF unit serving personnel, CSTs ,etc. every Norwegian or Isralei chick in fatiques and with an M16, again, is not the same animal.
Over an 8 year period, I have literally been on every FOB with a SOF presence in OEF and OIF, with many other HFZ and combat zones beyond that over almost 30 years. If you have been the SEA or 02 of a group, regiment, or tier 1 here unit you might have a similar degree of experience.
Not everyone with my background has the exact same opinion. One has a very strong sense of justice and fairness. Another sees the way of the winds and won't fall on his sword rocking the boat. They have a role, but it is not the exact same role.The only Norwegians I have directly interacted with were marine commandos and I did not see any there.
I have already stated that maybe 10% of women can meet US basic Infantry/Combat Arms training standards. Even then with lesser durability and longevity.
Is this thread about basic entry level combat arms in European countries that despite some cool historical stuff is a non-entity in world events? I thought it was about women is US ranger school, SOF, etc. vs basic standards.
How many movies are out right now with European vehicle crews vs US SOF?
The
"It's a leadership issue" also tells me you may have gotten from the kiddie pool to splashing around in the shallow end, but are not doing cross overs in the deep end with the big boys. You really think a command desperately short of operators is going to shit can every married one that tagged the intel chick or whatever on some deployment. Or every O5 or 6 or higher is going to crush his career putting pen to paper on every mental issue, admin issue, or pregnancy issue that gets sent home early?
As I said, there would be some butt hurt.
what any single athletic endeavor do women compete at the top level with men?
The "It's a leadership issue" also tells me you may have gotten from the kiddie pool to splashing around in the shallow end, but are not doing cross overs in the deep end with the big boys.
Is that all you've got? Snide remarks and personal attacks? Are you not capable of having a proper discussion on the topic?
Newsflash,
If you are capable of training platoon after platoon of females to male infantry standards, we are not anywhere at all on the same page of standards regarding SOF selection and standards.
Be it ranger school, the q course, etc.
Never said that. What you missed, and was my point, is that motivated females who have the right stuff can succeed in a combat MOS. Not that all women can, or even want to.
The program with the Army SOF was established last year, and is a pilot program based off a requirement and capability gap identified by that unit. They are being trained for the specific task I mentioned, not as shooters.
Again, while you must be one of the people referenced,
Where are your decadeS of experience with US SOF, female SOF unit serving personnel, CSTs ,etc. every Norwegian or Isralei chick in fatiques and with an M16, again, is not the same animal.
I don't have decades of experience with US SOF, female SOF unit serving personnel, CST etc. Would be hard to accomplish, seeing as I am not from the US. I did, however, list my experience with females in combat MOS, from a Norwegian perspective. I have also addressed some of the issues associated with women in the military. I have worked with US SOF, both in training and in Afghanistan, sharing the same fox holes, and they surely displayed more professional courtesy than you are demonstrating in this thread. Sir.
And again, why this SOF focus, when the question was Ranger School? Where is the relevance?
Over an 8 year period, I have literally been on every FOB with a SOF presence in OEF and OIF, with many other HFZ and combat zones beyond that over almost 30 years. If you have been the SEA or 02 of a group, regiment, or tier 1 here unit you might have a similar degree of experience.
Not everyone with my background has the exact same opinion. One has a very strong sense of justice and fairness. Another sees the way of the winds and won't fall on his sword rocking the boat. They have a role, but it is not the exact same role.The only Norwegians I have directly interacted with were marine commandos and I did not see any there.
Are you SOF? Honest question. Further, one does not have to be SOF to have valid experience or valid opinion. Different playing fields, for sure, but for a reason as well.
The Marine Commandos, were they the SOF element or their support unit? Females have tried to pass selection for both Army and Navy SOF, but none have made it yet.
Is this thread about basic entry level combat arms in European countries that despite some cool historical stuff is a non-entity in world events? I thought it was about women is US ranger school, SOF, etc. vs basic standards.
How many movies are out right now with European vehicle crews vs US SOF?
If different perspectives are not wanted, I will butt out.
Also, if movie deals are an indicator of who is best, then yeah, US SOF clearly wins :rolleyes:
Btw, I am not trendy, politically correct or afraid of being seen in a certain light. I base and form my opinions on my experiences. Disagree all you want, but stop using suppression techniques when you should clearly be able to articulate why you have reached your conclusions, based on the experience level you have said you have (10 years enlisted, 20 years O). Your posts have been nothing but snide remarks and insinuations about others' backgrounds and experience.
Yes, when people start talking about the girl they heard was really brave, and the one they met at band camp that could out soldier others in her platoon, and use words like moreover and to wit regarding shit they have not done, they do not tend to be speaking from decades on direct experience.
Also, as with racism, there are people offering opinions they are supposed to offer, to ensure they are not seen in a certain light. I am cool and trendy. There should be chicks like black widow.
I know what every minute of the "best" CST "selection" was scheduled. And the issues with a few iterations.
I know why every single member of a sof task force of multiple units that went home early for med or psyc or admin disguised as something else went home early for a five year period.
The number of women that would, in physical means only, be suitable in regular marine, 82nd, etc. line infantry is very small. Roughly two standard deviations above the mean. With a very preselected group of women, maybe ten percent.
Half at best of those men would make it to a ranger bn, marsoc, or oda position.
On physicality alone, we are down to a very small amount of women to finish initial selection and training.
And this is not considering even higher fail assessments like buds, pj Indoc, etc.
Add in mental suitability, and it gets smaller. Politically incorrect, but very, very, real.
Add in more injuries, etc and it gets smaller.
How many top level female athletes can compete with men in that field?
Add in the strife, and I assure you the male/female strife and issues are a very real negative factor. And I doubly assure the female/female strife of an all woman assessment and training group exceeds a male group by about a factor of ten.
Realistically, with some altered standards, similar training, and slightly different roles, there is a place for all female combat arms or "SOF" squads, odas, or troops. In the past, now, and in the future.
There is and has been a place in the military for mixed populations of male/female.
However, looking specifically at making woman Rangers, seals, etc. and putting them on the exact same teams in mixed groups , well that is the goal and makes no sense.
The average 50 year old retired green beret getting thick around the middle may get out ran and out pull upped by the super cross fit academy grad female half his age that wants to be a seal. Yet odds are a thousand to one she will quit on a ruck before him, and he can kick the shit out of her. I know there is this girl power fantasy now with black widow and ufc, etc. and cross fit and tough mudders, etc. but even the most fantastic Amazon specimens I have know with a ton of heart and guts, well, at best , Just not going to cut it in the big leagues. In the same way every guy at the range with an ar and crye kit or cop that went to a carbine course thinks he could have been a green beret or seal if he went, these women and many that know them don't get it either.
We might as well say opportunities for female athletes are limited and they want to play in the nba. And when that does not happen ask, Does the rim really need to be ten off the ground.
Another myth, the woman has to be twice as good to be considered average. Not the case at all. Just the opposite. Since at least the late 90s, women in gender neutral positions serving in sof,
Seem to get the opposite. If they don't suck they are considered good. If they are average, or better, they are considered awesome. Yes, the women are correct they are judged by a different standard, but it is a 180 from what they think.
Edit, saw some morality posts come up. Yes, the stoic O5 and e8 or e9 with lots af direct action under their belts will get hit like a freight train when they get a young woman killed. Whether they were right there or not. Just think, the only reason some young woman have been killed in combat is so we would not insult people by having their women searched by anyone but a woman.
Oh I love that line! Spot on!
MountainRaven
05-15-15, 21:41
Besides the obvious physical issues, I also have some moral ones (and yes, morality is a moving target for some).
IMHO, As a society I do not think intentionally as a matter of policy, placing women in these positions (specifically to close with and kill the enemy) is a good idea, and it's a simple one. Society functions best when everyone has a functional area. For the human species, in order for it to continue, women will have to bear children, and are the primary caregiver while the man is out hunting/gathering the food. To do that, it's beat into Men's psyche that women should be nurtured and protected, so that they are not soft targets. If we take that out of our collective social and moral structure, then men are going to have to stop looking at protecting women, and in fact are going to treat them like other men.
Are we ready for that, and the results? Then a majority women become a TARGET, and PREY. They no longer get the 'bye' that they get now - no tipping the hat, no opening the door, no 'protecting' their virtue. I for one think overall that's bad for women, and that's bad for our society. We already expect men to kill and that's hard enough to live with for them - do we really want to intentionally expect the same from women? Who will bear and raise our children? Not even the militaristic Spartans believed that women should be placed in the line with a sword and shield.
Let's give a scenario: What man is not going to place himself in personal danger if his fellow female soldier is being attacked (knowing specifically that they are going to be killed and likely gang-raped beforehand by the enemy) and not try to go to their rescue? Right now that is ingrained in our collective psyche...are we ready to give that up? Think of the long-term implications.
Call me old school, call me sexist - I'll take that title gladly - if it means I don't think women should intentionally be placed in those situations/positions. Is chivalry really that dead?
Women are already targets and prey - if they weren't, there would be no rape and no murder or violence against women in the world. But violence is prevalent against women, even (especially) in cultures where women are supposed to be a "protected" and "defended" group. They have been targets and prey since long before homo sapiens existed.
There are many differences between the Spartans (and other warrior cultures of the past) and modern Americans that make the comparison poor. Not least of which being that the Spartans marched to where they fought (Americans don't - we ride ships or airplanes before we even get to the same continent as the battlefield). When the Spartans went to war, all or almost all the men of military age went to war. In most of these military cultures, the women were still expected to be able to fight - because the task of defending hearth and home fell on them while the men were on campaign. History is replete with examples of women in military cultures taking up the sword to defend their home, hold, and children while their men were fighting the battles of their feudal lords - and not infrequently falling on the field of battle. Today the homefront is much more secure: We have cops. We have military strategic reserves of both men and materiél. Women do not need to be prepared to defend their communities against hostile bandits that might come into town after the able-bodied men have taken up their arms and armor and marched to a distant battlefield at the behest of their feudal lord(s).
IOW, the women of these cultures weren't soft targets because they were being actively protected and defended by men - they weren't soft targets because they were capable of defending themselves while their husbands, sons, and fathers were nowhere to be seen.
We also vary in that in many, older cultures, women were treated as property. A marriage was a business transaction, as well as potentially being a political move: A woman was in effect sold by her father to her husband. Today, women are treated more equally (and thus one of the fundamental transformations in marriage as an institution that results in legal and moral argument for same-sex marriage), a wedding is not the ceremonial giving of a woman by her father to her spouse - it is the decision of two equals to enter into a (traditionally) long-term legal, economic, and often religious relationship.
But I digress.
The point being that we have little in common, culturally, with those ancient societies of the past that kept women at home.
Artic1, it appears your issue is that you're speaking on a topic that your experience doesn't parallel. You may have experience with women in the Norwegian military conducting the Norwegian military's missions. However, I'm certain that the needs and utilization of the Norwegian military differ GREATLY than that of the United States.
There may be exceptions, but the current crop of infantry LTs being told don't bother if you did not complete RS. Exceptions might be a med drop that had to take time off to heal. (Actually, being told you will complete or die trying)
And that all new infantry officer will attempt RS after IBOLC. So complete or leave on a stretcher.
SOR or LOM drop is a career killer in infantry it appears.
Turn this around... In batt enlisted are expected to complete RS. Why would they ever consider an officer to put over them who could not? Not talking about support roles.
All indications are that it takes a stellar package for an officer to be considered. An infantry officer who did not complete almost by definition does not have a stellar pkg.
Which is the political motivation driving this issue. Can't have female infantry without female officers. Untabbed infantry officers will not do well. Therefore, women must pass RS.
Sorry, I didn't realize the last sentence of your post was still talking about infantry officers - I thought you meant any officers going SF. In that case, you're absolutely correct.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Artic1, it appears your issue is that you're speaking on a topic that your experience doesn't parallel. You may have experience with women in the Norwegian military conducting the Norwegian military's missions. However, I'm certain that the needs and utilization of the Norwegian military differ GREATLY than that of the United States.
I had a fairly long reply typed up but didn't want to step on either ramair3's or artic1's toes.
I may be way off base, but my perception is that culturally many European countries are not as gender conscious as the United States, this no doubt impacts artic1's viewpoint.
Unfortunately we still base things on whether x number of your type have been included or excluded.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why I couldn't fly with 20/100 20/200 vision corrected to 20/20 and a pilot that has their eyes go bad after flight training still can; or why I had to have 20/100 uncorrected in both eyes to get on with many LE agencies, yet in-service troopers, deputies, and patrolmen whose vision falls below that standard aren't medically retired. (this was before RK). Maybe I should have whined instead of driving on in another direction?
ramairthree
05-31-15, 00:39
No worries about toe stepping.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
But frankly, I am sick of the nonsense. I still wait to be shown where women compete with men at the highest levels of anything involving a combination of mental and physical toughness.
However, there is much butt hurt when one's opinion is not weighed the same as other's. People have gone from being entitled to having an opinion to feeling they should never be told to sit in the corner and shut up and color while the grown ups are talking.
For everyone, there are topics where they are a kid and topics where they are a grown up. I have owned and professionally used AR based rifles since the 80s. But when it comes to building and tuning them, vs use and maintenance, I am a kid. I have thousands of hours in the back of airplanes, helicopters, Pandurs, and Strykers. I know a lot about how to do basic maintenance on a Hilux or Humvee and can drive them pretty whell. But I have little experience in such with the aircraft and APCs.
"one does not have to be SOF to have valid experience or valid opinion" is the perfect example. And dealing with that nonsense repeatedly is the reason for my complete lack of civility.
How about if we let those of us that have been through a pipeline into a line MOS in a SOF unit and spent years there and been on target with them in combat decide who is suitable to be in a SOF unit. Someone's "valid experience" with a bunch of basic combat arms MOS's in a conscript active military maybe just big enough to handle Zimbabwe is valid for discussing how chicks do in a vehicle crew or something, not about Ranger School, SF, etc. It has nothing to do with Ranger Battalions, SF, SEALs, etc. This is not about making some platoons of women Infantry or Cav. This is about the systematic desire of some in the US with an agenda that has nothing to do with combat effectiveness.
I played high school and a year of college soccer. I am under no illusion that I any business telling a D1 college star player, let alone a world cup coach or professional soccer player how and what they should be doing. And how many people are telling them they have to have female players on the team?
I think there are truly few who have the black and white opinion that no woman ever should be a SEAL or Green Beret, or that there is no woman that ever could be.
The issue is how very, very few would actually pass the actually selection/course/etc.
In lesser courses,
the injury rate is still much higher for women.
Their notification to successfully deploy rate is much lower.
Their completion of deployment rate is much lower.
The mental issue rate is much higher.
When none or not enough females can pass even the basic selection and entry, they will "change" them as invalid standards so they will.
There are already ways around this.
When women can't pass a selection,
they get their own.
Then, when they can't pass the course the men do,
they "go through" the same course.
For the record, doing training is not the same as passing it.
Then, they get hurt more, recover more slowly, get hurt even more, deploy less, finish deployments more less, get in emotional and mental shit more, etc. etc. And do you know how many you have to go through to find some that can fastrope in kit, etc. etc.
Units have been trying to select women and train them for direct support and enabling roles for much longer than most think.
You can super select the cross fit super motivated officer college graduate women, barely find some that can fast rope, and go through a couple hundred that have already been pre-selected,
and end up with
individuals that are on par with the average smoking, weekend binge drinking 20 year old Infantryman in the 82nd, let alone the percentage of them that would make it into a Ranger Bn or SF. And then they get to go die so we can search women. Then people say they died because they did not get the same training as the men, which they could neither pass nor the selection for it.
Anyways, I will not post on this again.
Word is that 5 more dropped, and the remaining three are day 0 recycles. So the 8 did not complete Darby, twice. In ideal conditions.
As to the other comments... It appears we have some who seem to not have an understanding of just how demanding RS is physically/mentally. And others making the leap to women in SF/SOF. Which is not the issue at hand, yet anyway.
The political calculus is pretty simple, even if completely wrong headed
1. They want women in mainstream MOS's and to remove the last gender barriers in combat arms, which means infantry
2. This means we have to have female infantry officers
3. Infantry officers are expected to complete RS. Dead end career otherwise.
Therefore: females must be able to complete RS
To me this is like saying women should be able to play pro football with the men. Or that men should be able to have/carry babies like women.
Politics may demand it, but it won't change the physiological barriers
Word is that 5 more dropped, and the remaining three are day 0 recycles. So the 8 did not complete Darby, twice. In ideal conditions.
As to the other comments... It appears we have some who seem to not have an understanding of just how demanding RS is physically/mentally. And others making the leap to women in SF/SOF. Which is not the issue at hand, yet anyway.
The political calculus is pretty simple, even if completely wrong headed
1. They want women in mainstream MOS's and to remove the last gender barriers in combat arms, which means infantry
2. This means we have to have female infantry officers
3. Infantry officers are expected to complete RS. Dead end career otherwise.
Therefore: females must be able to complete RS
To me this is like saying women should be able to play pro football with the men. Or that men should be able to have/carry babies like women.
Politics may demand it, but it won't change the physiological barriers
So how does this end with anything other than a restructuring of requirements and standards?
So how does this end with anything other than a restructuring of requirements and standards?
That's the big concern. Right now the tab is still a bit of a gold standard, uncompromised.
I just hope my son finishes RS before any standards change occurs
Personally I believe it's a career killer for any general to get in the way of this political Juggernaut
The political calculus is pretty simple, even if completely wrong headed
1. They want women in mainstream MOS's and to remove the last gender barriers in combat arms, which means infantry
2. This means we have to have female infantry officers
3. Infantry officers are expected to complete RS. Dead end career otherwise.
Therefore: females must be able to complete RS
This is exactly why I will no longer encourage my son to join the military - no matter what Russian, Islamofascist, or intergalactic alien army is poised off our shores for an invasion. I simply have no confidence in our military leadership to conduct warfare without succumbing to political pressures that needless inflate our casualty count.
ramairthree
05-31-15, 11:10
"It appears we have some who seem to not have an understanding of just how demanding RS is physically/mentally. And others making the leap to women in SF/SOF. Which is not the issue at hand, yet anyway."
Actually, if you were in a command position of a SOF unit in I believe 2013, you were informed from your 3-star specifically outlining the timeline SOF had to explain to the SECDEF and CJCS why women were not being admitted.
Actually, if you were in a command position of a SOF unit in I believe 2013, you were informed from your 3-star specifically outlining the timeline SOF had to explain to the SECDEF and CJCS why women were not being admitted.
Then it is relevant, even if further out.
As an outsider, I actually see better justification for some females in SF based on their official mission/doctrine than mainstream infantry. (Not generically SOF, just the official Army SF, nor how they are often used of late)
IE: it appears to me that females could help the traditional SF mission in some cases. (But I'm sure some will tell me I'm wrong)
I don't see females making regular infantry more effective, much less Ranger regiments.
And even if there was an advantage, the .5% who could possibly meet the standard will not be enough to make a meaningful difference.
I look at it as trying to figure out what mission set culling that top half-percentile of women warriors would be great at to justify the cost, expense, and slots in elite schools to get them to that point.
The lady Marines I've met who were physically talented and mentally tough enough to hack that type of training (a grand total of two) both excelled so completely at their existing jobs that they quickly found themselves on the accelerated leadership development track too fast to really be experience at the NCO version of the job -- I really think it's a case of the military as a whole needing those highly capable women in leadership roles and role models for others more than they need them in infantry line units, and that to me is the justification. Any that then choose to try and meet the existing standards should go for that, and it'll have a tremendous amount of meaning because there is no asterisk next to that accomplishment - and have the requisite meaning for their careers and leadership advancement too.
Then it is relevant, even if further out.
As an outsider, I actually see better justification for some females in SF based on their official mission/doctrine than mainstream infantry. (Not generically SOF, just the official Army SF, nor how they are often used of late)
IE: it appears to me that females could help the traditional SF mission in some cases. (But I'm sure some will tell me I'm wrong)
I don't see females making regular infantry more effective, much less Ranger regiments.
And even if there was an advantage, the .5% who could possibly meet the standard will not be enough to make a meaningful difference.
This has been going on for many years, as a lot of women have been working with the various task forces, there are female alphabet agents, FETs for the conventional guys, etc.... The important, and never mentioned in the news distinction, is that they sit in the back and wait for the objective to be clear and secure before they move in and help with SSE and what not. They are absolutely important, but they are not "fighting with SOF" like proponents use them for.
It's similar to the "there are no front lines" rhetoric. Yes, there are. If you never left KAF or a main MSR, you were in the rear.
In the beginning........was not most of the recent fuss about the ceiling women/men hit promotion wise without the Ranger Tab? Although that impacts non-Ranger Tabbed male officers also, the female-mafia is, of course, concerned about females.
Seems to me a simple fix would be to simply cut any school/skill qualification that is not available to both genders from 'point' consideration for promotion? Yes, if you allowed females to branch infantry, you might have the rare female infantry officer who is leading men in a unit who are 'V' designates, but that happens on a regular occurrence with male officers. If the female can't hack the position let the OER system work.
I know that is too simplistic, but it seems to me that we give too much credence to Jump Wings and Ranger Tabs, when many of the officers who wear those tabs have never served in a Ranger Battalion, or made more than 5 jumps. You can say it is a leadership course, and it is, but essentially it gets the small unit leaders off on the right foot, and gives them confidence in any patrol oriented task. Twenty years down the road, if you haven't polished the apple beyond what you learned in Ranger school, then you haven't developed properly.
Non-SF Tabbed shouldn't command SF units;
Non-Ranger Tabbed shouldn't command a Ranger CO, BN, or RGT;
Non-Pilots shouldn't command Aviation Units
Officers who aren't qualified in one of the tip-of-the-spear jobs in a BN, RGT, or DIV shouldn't command those units so what that means is if you are commanding the 82nd, you better be a Master Parachutist from a Combat Arms MOS, not a Nurse.
I don't think that 86's women from stars, which is the real issue, IMHO.
Edited to add, this is from my perspective, my service ended in 2001.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.