View Full Version : First female Special Forces candidate dropped from Q-Course
Two more (officers this time) slated to go through in the spring of 2017. Yippee......:rolleyes:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/14/first-female-soldier-in-green-beret-training-fails/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2ASituation%20Report
With the extremely high attrition rate for males, it comes as no surprise. The military will have to find hundreds of qualified female candidates in order to find a few who can survive the program.
With the extremely high attrition rate for males, it comes as no surprise. The military will have to find hundreds of qualified female candidates in order to find a few who can survive the program.
.....or lower the standards. Does modern SF really need to carry 100+lbs of equipment all that distance? (rhetorical, tongue-in-cheek question)
Eurodriver
09-15-16, 11:17
.....or lower the standards. Does modern SF really need to carry 100+lbs of equipment all that distance? (rhetorical, tongue-in-cheek question)
"The standards were developed for men, by men so there is an inherent bias in the standards from the get-go. "
-Euro's GF
I bet Demi Moore 20 years ago would've passed.
I dream of a day when we get a CIF with enough balls to put an end to all of this progressive crap that has been put into the military over the past 8 years.
Honestly, I'm surprised things like this haven't been "fixed" get some through.
In all seriousness, asking some slip of a girl to hump a 200+ lb ruck and 240 is kinda unrealistic, and any woman who could is likely some dykey buzzcut Bertha type
That said: I could, as a layperson, see where there are some places that females wouldn't be looked twice at and where men would stick out too much.
They should have like a WAC SF tab. Realistically there have been some pretty severe female terrorists/guerillas from the Cold War on and realistic training for realistic use of female soldiers isn't a bad idea.
I thought they had something like that and called the Funny Platoon or something already
Mr. Goodtimes
09-15-16, 11:43
In all seriousness, asking some slip of a girl to hump a 200+ lb ruck and 240 is kinda unrealistic, and any woman who could is likely some dykey buzzcut Bertha type.
Equal rights equal plights.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"The standards were developed for men, by men so there is an inherent bias in the standards from the get-go. "
-Euro's GF
Certainly she wasn't talking about military stuff, right?
Right??????
Equal rights equal plights.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Okay, well, you try to gain the trust of overly religious, socially mysterious women dressed up like Jawas who stash bombs, guns, dope and money.
Harem is etymologically derived from Haraam.
Ain't no James Bond PUA seduction BS gonna work there.
Howabout "right tool for the job"?
Okay, well, you try to gain the trust of overly religious, socially mysterious women dressed up like Jawas who stash bombs, guns, dope and money.
Harem is etymologically derived from Haraam.
Ain't no James Bond PUA seduction BS gonna work there.
Howabout "right tool for the job"?
I have read where there are women working with CAG (Delta). Now, they haven't passed CAG's selection but they work in conjunction with them on super-sneaky ops. I have no issue with that, as you're not actually part of the unit. To be a part of any HSLD unit you have to UNEQUIVOCALLY pass their training course. That means NO gray areas as far as standards are concerned.
I think it comes as no surprised they did not make it. I will also not be surprised when no female makes it on her accord and the standards change.
I think it comes as no surprised they did not make it. I will also not be surprised when no female makes it on her accord and the standards change.
If they lower the standards for women, that will compromise mission integrity, and also put our SF men at further risk. They already have enough risk.
If they lower the standards for women, that will compromise mission integrity, and also put our SF men at further risk. They already have enough risk.
Like the people in charge actually care?
I have read where there are women working with CAG (Delta). Now, they haven't passed CAG's selection but they work in conjunction with them on super-sneaky ops. I have no issue with that, as you're not actually part of the unit. To be a part of any HSLD unit you have to UNEQUIVOCALLY pass their training course. That means NO gray areas as far as standards are concerned.
You work with someone, you help them accomplish goals, under same leadership but you aren't "part" of the unit? I don't get it.
Not everything is brute force. I am not a military guy and have a sour/skeptical outlook on women in general but females come in plenty handing searching other females, dealing with distraught juveniles, etc.
A female oriented training schedule that prepares one for close unavoidable combat and or exigent circumstances in the overall scope of accomplishing the goal isn't being a hippie progressive. I do agree that shoe-horning females in male jobs isn't so smart but they should go about it realistically. Women are built different and a lot of "normal" women in the world get turned off by some butch chick and that raises alarms.
Tale as old as time. Men use brute force, women use treachery.
Just sayin
Averageman
09-15-16, 12:08
I'm going to show my age here a bit, but here it goes
Just looking at the numbers; Is the pressure applied to integrate these Female Soldiers in to these Male dominated roles worth the effort? Yeah that's pretty damned sexist, but lets look at it in dollars and cents.
Just how much SHARPS training time, time eaten away due to Sexual Harassment incidents, time lost for Pregnancy, Time lost, time lost, time lost, is worth the effort to place these Soldiers in the roles and jobs they do? I might also add jobs they do on average, not as well as Men?
I'm just pretty sure that if someone did an audit of what it actually costs, the juice received isn't worth the squeeze applied.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to get some flak for that, but that's just what I see.
If they Army really wanted "equality" they would change the women's PT standards to be the same as the men.
I have read where there are women working with CAG (Delta). Now, they haven't passed CAG's selection but they work in conjunction with them on super-sneaky ops. I have no issue with that, as you're not actually part of the unit. To be a part of any HSLD unit you have to UNEQUIVOCALLY pass their training course. That means NO gray areas as far as standards are concerned.
Not Mil, just a reader, but I was under the impression that an ODB can/does have elements that haven't necessarily passed a Q-Course? Is that not correct?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not Mil, just a reader, but I was under the impression that an ODB can/does have elements that haven't necessarily passed a Q-Course? Is that not correct?
Ex-mil myself, but not HSLD SF/Ranger/Delta either! But yeah, they are considered "support" elements assigned to a specific unit. For instance, Army Special Forces will have personnel assigned to that group or battalion that are not on an ODA (operational detachment alpha, or A-Team) itself but wear the same patch (minus the "long tab" special forces-worded one). They can be cooks, supply, transportation, military intelligence, etc. They have not gone through the Q-Course and are not part of an operational A-Team.
I would wager any women assigned to actually work with a HSLD unit are in an MI (military intelligence) slot.
You work with someone, you help them accomplish goals, under same leadership but you aren't "part" of the unit? I don't get it.
See the post above this one in reply to JC5188.
Ex-mil myself, but not HSLD SF/Ranger/Delta either! But yeah, they are considered "support" elements assigned to a specific unit. For instance, Army Special Forces will have personnel assigned to that group or battalion that are not on an ODA (operational detachment alpha, or A-Team) itself but wear the same patch (minus the "long tab" special forces-worded one). They can be cooks, supply, transportation, military intelligence, etc. They have not gone through the Q-Course and are not part of an operational A-Team.
I would wager any women assigned to actually work with a HSLD unit are in an MI (military intelligence) slot.
When I was in the 82nd one of the guys in my platoon married a POG from 7th Group. She was always telling us how she was "SF" and even made up some bs story about killing some people when she did some 2 month mini-deployment to Afghanistan.
I don't recall what her MOS was anymore but she was mostly taking photographs and making powerpoint slides. Now that I sit here and think about though I think you may be on to something as it may have been an MI MOS.
Ex-mil myself, but not HSLD SF/Ranger/Delta either! But yeah, they are considered "support" elements assigned to a specific unit. For instance, Army Special Forces will have personnel assigned to that group or battalion that are not on an ODA (operational detachment alpha, or A-Team) itself but wear the same patch (minus the "long tab" special forces-worded one). They can be cooks, supply, transportation, military intelligence, etc. They have not gone through the Q-Course and are not part of an operational A-Team.
I would wager any women assigned to actually work with a HSLD unit are in an MI (military intelligence) slot.
Many of the women assigned to SOF units are MI. Some are area experts, some are cultural experts, and some do SMU-type work. Kick in doors or rescue hostages on a plane or do lock-in/lock-out? No, but assets nonetheless.
I will maintain that as long as SOF units do not lower standards the number of women completing the pipelines, if any, will be onesies and twosies.
When I was in the 82nd one of the guys in my platoon married a POG from 7th Group. She was always telling us how she was "SF" and even made up some bs story about killing some people when she did some 2 month mini-deployment to Afghanistan.
I don't recall what her MOS was anymore but she was mostly taking photographs and making powerpoint slides. Now that I sit here and think about though I think you may be on to something as it may have been an MI MOS.
Well, no woman is immune from being a jerk.
You should see some female police. Know every god damn thing until some big 6'5" black dude comes at them then the cavalry can't get there fast enough. 9 out of 10 it was a case of alligator mouth and hummingbird ass. Same with short guys with little man syndrome.
Most of the time a "hey man, be cool." calms guys down then they wanna hop out of a car and spin em up again.
Blech.
Many of the women assigned to SOF units are MI. Some are area experts, some are cultural experts, and some do SMU-type work. Kick in doors or rescue hostages on a plane or do lock-in/lock-out? No, but assets nonetheless.
I will maintain that as long as SOF units do not lower standards the number of women completing the pipelines, if any, will be onesies and twosies.
Oh no doubt, just an observation that most likely it is an MI billet they occupy when actually doing something dangerous, i.e. not desk work or analyzing photographs. I can think of SMU-type jobs that a female would work well in, maybe not in the ME (unless they look and sound the part) but in general.
I will go out on a limb and say any women who do go on SMU-type missions have probably been taught to shoot better than most of us and are in damn good shape. CIA-style training if you will. That said, they did NOT pass the same course as the males they're supporting. ;)
That said, they did NOT pass the same course as the males they're supporting. ;)
You might be surprised, brother.
There are a lot of career opportunities for motivated individuals of both sexes.
Ex-mil myself, but not HSLD SF/Ranger/Delta either! But yeah, they are considered "support" elements assigned to a specific unit. For instance, Army Special Forces will have personnel assigned to that group or battalion that are not on an ODA (operational detachment alpha, or A-Team) itself but wear the same patch (minus the "long tab" special forces-worded one). They can be cooks, supply, transportation, military intelligence, etc. They have not gone through the Q-Course and are not part of an operational A-Team.
I would wager any women assigned to actually work with a HSLD unit are in an MI (military intelligence) slot.
Ahh...gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm going to show my age here a bit, but here it goes
Just looking at the numbers; Is the pressure applied to integrate these Female Soldiers in to these Male dominated roles worth the effort? Yeah that's pretty damned sexist, but lets look at it in dollars and cents.
Just how much SHARPS training time, time eaten away due to Sexual Harassment incidents, time lost for Pregnancy, Time lost, time lost, time lost, is worth the effort to place these Soldiers in the roles and jobs they do? I might also add jobs they do on average, not as well as Men?
I'm just pretty sure that if someone did an audit of what it actually costs, the juice received isn't worth the squeeze applied.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to get some flak for that, but that's just what I see.
The mission, and getting results is obviously taking a back seat to the progressive, political agenda of this administration to advance women for the reason of "optics" and perception. Watch your six.
With the extremely high attrition rate for males, it comes as no surprise. The military will have to find hundreds of qualified female candidates in order to find a few who can survive the program.
And that'll be one tough bit$% too. If any woman can get through it with no drop in standards, that's a women I'd have some respect for. I know there's still debate over whether the two who passed Ranger school were given special treatment. The Army flat our denies it but some in the know claim other wise. I have no first hand knowledge of it
I'm going to show my age here a bit, but here it goes
Just looking at the numbers; Is the pressure applied to integrate these Female Soldiers in to these Male dominated roles worth the effort? Yeah that's pretty damned sexist, but lets look at it in dollars and cents.
Just how much SHARPS training time, time eaten away due to Sexual Harassment incidents, time lost for Pregnancy, Time lost, time lost, time lost, is worth the effort to place these Soldiers in the roles and jobs they do? I might also add jobs they do on average, not as well as Men?
I'm just pretty sure that if someone did an audit of what it actually costs, the juice received isn't worth the squeeze applied.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to get some flak for that, but that's just what I see.
That is OKAY, I get flak for being pro draft or universal conscription.
As the VN conflict wound down, the Generals and Defense Admin knew that they would not be able to pull off an all volunteer military without much more female involvement. They knew this and set about planning accordingly to open up as many jobs as possible, absent direct combat positions, in order to attract female recruits. One of their goals was to match the physical (strength/conditioning) and mental aptitudes of both male and female recruits to the jobs they were assigned. They were working with the DOL to develop job related standards, such as determining how much strength a tracked vehicle mechanic needs to wrestle a 80+ pound road wheel into place, when they ran afoul of the Congressional Women's Caucus (or it's predecessor).
Those fine folks took issue with the fact such standards would eliminate many females from holding jobs such as tracked vehicle mechanic. That this sensible plan would also eliminate some men from these jobs was not on their radar. Needless to say the plan was gutted for political reasons, and, here we are.
Direct to your feelings about eliminating females from the Armed Forces, won't happen they are still needed. During Vietnam Era 265,000 women served in the Armed Forces. The 7,500 women actually deployed in theater included 36 women Marines, 421 women in the Navy, and 771 in the Air Force. The remainder were in the Army. Army, Navy and Air Force nurses accounted for 80 percent of the total women deployed.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/rr/s01/cw/students/leeann/historyandcollections/history/learnmoreques.htm
During Desert Storm there were 374,000 women in the Armed Forces. More than 40,000 deployed.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/rr/s01/cw/students/leeann/historyandcollections/collections/photopages/phespersgulf.html
More than 200,000 women are in the active-duty military today, including 69 generals and admirals. (2011)
That number comprises about 74,000 in the Army, 53,000 in the Navy, 62,000 in the Air Force and 14,000 in the Marine Corps.
Among the enlisted ranks, women were most represented in the medical (30.5%) and administrative (30.1%) specialties.
They made up about 17% of supply units, 14% of communications staff and 10% of electronics technicians.
Health care was the top field for female officers, at 39%. They made up nearly 28% of administrative officers, 19% of intelligence officers and 18% of supply officers.
In the Navy, 46% of all female officers were in the medical field.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women-glance/
I was in the Marines from 1972 to 1976. I only remember seeing one WM.
That is OKAY, I get flak for being pro draft or universal conscription.
Have you ever met anyone that has absolutely no business being in the military? Somebody who simply did everything wrong, just never got it and always caused problems for everyone else as a result? The kind of person who would be last on your list to go into combat with because you know for a fact they would get people killed because they simply aren't the kind of people that belong in the military?
It's one thing to have to deal with them because they volunteered and you can't just kick somebody out because they are really bad at their job and you do your best to find a place for them that won't cause too many problems.
But I will never understand anyone who wants to mandate entire segments of the population to such circumstances or why you would want to subject those currently serving to their presence. Anyone who thinks every person should be obligated to military service should be forced to go to war with a platoon of the biggest **** ups and incompetents they can cobble together. I suspect they'd change their position on universal conscription pretty fast.
The only exception I can think of is if we were actually invaded by a large foreign military force, and even then I think we'd be better off with two groups, the professional military and a citizen militia.
You might be surprised, brother.
There are a lot of career opportunities for motivated individuals of both sexes.
Fair enough, but let's use CAG (Delta) as an example. I've read where they actually do use females for some SMU missions (of course CAG is likely always classified as SMU). Maybe a woman and a Delta guy deploy overseas as a husband/wife façade to gather intel or prep an AO for a mission. You think the woman actually went through CAG's selection at Camp Dawson, to include the final 40-mile/65lb ruck march/compass course? I ain't buying it.
I'm not saying they haven't done something to earn that position, probably more than most here have ever done (to include my plain-old Airborne Infantry self), but I'd bet my next paycheck it wasn't what the base group they're supporting went through.
Have you ever met anyone that has absolutely no business being in the military? Somebody who simply did everything wrong, just never got it and always caused problems for everyone else as a result? The kind of person who would be last on your list to go into combat with because you know for a fact they would get people killed because they simply aren't the kind of people that belong in the military?
It's one thing to have to deal with them because they volunteered and you can't just kick somebody out because they are really bad at their job and you do your best to find a place for them that won't cause too many problems.
But I will never understand anyone who wants to mandate entire segments of the population to such circumstances or why you would want to subject those currently serving to their presence. Anyone who thinks every person should be obligated to military service should be forced to go to war with a platoon of the biggest **** ups and incompetents they can cobble together. I suspect they'd change their position on universal conscription pretty fast.
The only exception I can think of is if we were actually invaded by a large foreign military force, and even then I think we'd be better off with two groups, the professional military and a citizen militia.
When you have an undertaking as massive as WWII for example you have no choice but to conscript. Doubt we'll ever see that need again but as far as the past is concerned it has been necessary at times.
Averageman
09-15-16, 19:14
Okay, I'm going to be a D*ck again.
How many people here know someone that had a med drop from the Special Operations Qualifications Course? Everybody more than likely here has, all good people, hard chargers and they likely as not prepared their asses off to go there.
They failed, their bodies gave out, for what ever reason, be that trench foot or a broken back, they didn't make it. Most of these guys were no shit carnivores, they were good at what they did and excelled as Soldiers.
Now, lets think of how many women have that kind of drive, musculature, bone density and inner metal strength beyond those guys we know who didn't make it?
Then lets think about this, you got the Tab, they sewed it on. Now your're going to have that Female do that kind of repetitive physical stuff everyday?
It don't work.
Sorry, it just doesn't.
It's not a social experiment, this isn't a movie and she's not Demi Moore.
These are someone's Daughters and Sons, this is life or death and they deserve to be told the truth, Women and Men are not physically equal.
sevenhelmet
09-15-16, 19:15
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Too bad nobody takes that shit seriously anymore.
As to the women serving, put me in the "equal rights, equal plights" camp. I work in a .mil community which was publicly and politically forced to integrate under slick willy's reign of RIF-borne terror. That said, I am proud to know women who can do my job as well or better than me, and earn their keep every day. I have also unfortunately crossed paths with a few who used their gender to intimidate, implicate, and cajole male officers into allowing them to get in places they didn't belong. They didn't tend to last long when it became apparent to EVERYONE that they didn't belong there, thus costing the military untold amounts of money in training, not to mention the lives they endangered. The few who play the gender card will always make true equality a near-impossibility unless the ability to "play the gender card" to weasel out of things can be eliminated.
Easier said than done.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Too bad nobody takes that shit seriously anymore.
As to the women serving, put me in the "equal rights, equal plights" camp. I work in a .mil community which was publicly and politically forced to integrate under slick willy's reign of RIF-borne terror. That said, I am proud to know women who can do my job as well or better than me, and earn their keep every day. I have also unfortunately crossed paths with a few who used their gender to intimidate, implicate, and cajole male officers into allowing them to get in places they didn't belong. They didn't tend to last long when it became apparent to EVERYONE that they didn't belong there. The few who do the latter will always make true equality a near-impossibility unless the ability to play the "gender card" to weasel out of things has been eliminated.
I think the issue here in this thread isn't so much whether women can perform in most military jobs (they can without a doubt), but whether they can perform in the tip-of-the-spear jobs. More importantly, whether they can meet the standards to even GET to the tip-of-the-spear jobs.
You're USAF if I remember correctly. How many women PJ's are there?
Okay, I'm going to be a D*ck again.
How many people here know someone that had a med drop from the Special Operations Qualifications Course? Everybody more than likely here has, all good people, hard chargers and they likely as not prepared their asses off to go there.
They failed, their bodies gave out, for what ever reason, be that trench foot or a broken back, they didn't make it. Most of these guys were no shit carnivores, they were good at what they did and excelled as Soldiers.
Now, lets think of how many women have that kind of drive, musculature, bone density and inner metal strength beyond those guys we know who didn't make it?
Then lets think about this, you got the Tab, they sewed it on. Now your're going to have that Female do that kind of repetitive physical stuff everyday?
It don't work.
Sorry, it just doesn't.
It's not a social experiment, this isn't a movie and she's not Demi Moore.
These are someone's Daughters and Sons, this is life or death and they deserve to be told the truth, Women and Men are not physically equal.
Dude, speaking the truth doesn't make you a dick. Far from it. Reality is reality, not what the libtards want it to be.
sevenhelmet
09-15-16, 19:21
I think the issue here in this thread isn't so much whether women can perform in most military jobs (they can without a doubt), but whether they can perform in the tip-of-the-spear jobs. More importantly, whether they can meet the standards to even GET to the tip-of-the-spear jobs.
You're USAF if I remember correctly. How many women PJ's are there?
Navy, actually. It's OK, I won't take it personally- this time.
I do see the distinction you are pointing out, but my basic premise should still apply- if you meet the standard, you get to play in the show. SOF has some unique requirements, and that's OK, as long as the standards are being met. Where I draw the line is forced integration efforts and moving the goal-posts, thereby negatively affecting readiness. It's been going on in my community for years (decades now) and it sucks, because it endangers lives and makes the capable women get regarded with suspicion, paradoxically making things more difficult for them. It's the standard law of unintended consequences when you mess with double-standards.
ETA: So, yeah, they'll have to gen-up a bunch of candidates to get a couple through. Sucks, but what's the washout rate for men? Oh, and women are created... differently. That's one of my favorite things about life on this planet.
ramairthree
09-16-16, 00:16
The real numbers are out there.
You need a military woman at greater than 90th percentile amount her peers to perform at the average level of some Spec4 kid in the 82nd.
You get some of them,
That at best would pass at a 50% rate.
They get acute injuries more.
The get chronic injuries more.
They have less chance of recovery from the injuries.
This is why you get thousands of chicks screened to get hundreds of candidates,
To get months of special train up,
To get a dozen or two to pass some training,
To end up with graduates you can count on one hand that will pass training.
Did they pass to standard?
Well,
It is one thing to pass a physical event to standard.
Let's say you need to do 52 push-ups.
Getting up after 8 hours and doing 52 push-ups is entirely different than being smoked into exhausted jelly into all hours of the night,
Then after two hours sleep doing 90 push-ups before they finally count 52 of them as correct.
Guess which way I met the standard in RIP thirty years ago with about a sixty percent attrition or Ranger school the next year after half of those that made it through RIP to Ranger BN had been sent packing.
Now let's say you get that small number through an assessment/selection event.
Those messed up physically that cannot complete the further training are a higher percentage in women.
Less complete redeployment training.
They complete deployments less often for both physical and mental issues.
They have higher rates of issues after deployments.
The numbers basically amount to there being a hell of lot of squeeze for no juice.
I have been to every location in OEF and OIF where personnel were with a SOF TF over an eight year period.
Care to guess the number one drama issue?
Let's say there were females with some degree of selection and training,
Guess what percentage of those end up with drama issues compared to the males?
I am not saying there are no 5' 10" white males that could not be forwards or centers in the NBA.
I will say you are ****ing retarded if you think a good place to find your teams power forwards is among that population.
For whatever reason,
You can find more successful personnel for these endeavors among teenagers and 20-something males that binge drink on the weekends, smoke a dozen or two packs of cigarettes a month or dip mountains of Copenhagen, eat creamed beef over scrambled eggs for breakfast in the chow hall, graduated high school, etc. than you can among college educated tri-athletes that are really good at Crossfit, eat right, and have no bad habits but happen to be female.
It makes as much sense as pouring 90% of the education budget into the stupidest 10% of students,
Or taking the most money from the hardest working most productive people and giving it the laziest least productive people, or purposefully emigrating the biggest possible threats to national security, or giving Junkies free needles and near an while giving sober drivers drinking a beer an expensive ticket, or throwing the book at a guy moving with guns in his truck while letting a gandbanger plea his violent felony to jaywalking.
ramairthree
09-16-16, 00:19
Navy, actually. It's OK, I won't take it personally- this time.
I do see the distinction you are pointing out, but my basic premise should still apply- if you meet the standard, you get to play in the show. SOF has some unique requirements, and that's OK, as long as the standards are being met. Where I draw the line is forced integration efforts and moving the goal-posts, thereby negatively affecting readiness. It's been going on in my community for years (decades now) and it sucks, because it endangers lives and makes the capable women get regarded with suspicion, paradoxically making things more difficult for them. It's the standard law of unintended consequences when you mess with double-standards.
ETA: So, yeah, they'll have to gen-up a bunch of candidates to get a couple through. Sucks, but what's the washout rate for men? Oh, and women are created... differently. That's one of my favorite things about life on this planet.
I used to feel if they meet the standard, great. Game on.
I have long since seen so many standards shift, or the same standards achieved under different conditions, that I have little faith in the concept.
I have also seen levels of drama and shitstorms,
That make it painfully clear that it never just quite works out.
Have you ever met anyone that has absolutely no business being in the military?
I asked that about myself every other day while I was in the military :p
Moose-Knuckle
09-16-16, 03:26
I dream of a day when we get a CIF with enough balls to put an end to all of this progressive crap that has been put into the military over the past 8 years.
Honestly, I'm surprised things like this haven't been "fixed" get some through.
This is where I'm at.
All this forced progressive bovine feces does nothing but harm the nation in the long run. Does anyone think that 7th century goat lovers, Russians, CHICOMS, etc take us serious with all this transgender, feminism, etc. tomfoolery.
I'm mean we have a SECNAV naming ships after the likes of Harvey f'n Milk for cripes sake . . . might as well change our nation's flag to a solid white rectangle.
Moose-Knuckle
09-16-16, 03:27
I have read where there are women working with CAG (Delta). Now, they haven't passed CAG's selection but they work in conjunction with them on super-sneaky ops. I have no issue with that, as you're not actually part of the unit. To be a part of any HSLD unit you have to UNEQUIVOCALLY pass their training course. That means NO gray areas as far as standards are concerned.
It's my understanding that females are NOT assaulters . . . there are other units in the upper echelon where females are on the intelligence side of the aisle.
No way an SF woman can serve in roles advantageous for the gender, like intelligence gathering unless it's the middle east where you have no idea what's under the tarp. Tough to change roles with blistered feet, busted knuckles, black fingernails, etc.
You work with someone, you help them accomplish goals, under same leadership but you aren't "part" of the unit? I don't get it.
Not everything is brute force. I am not a military guy and have a sour/skeptical outlook on women in general but females come in plenty handing searching other females, dealing with distraught juveniles, etc.
A female oriented training schedule that prepares one for close unavoidable combat and or exigent circumstances in the overall scope of accomplishing the goal isn't being a hippie progressive. I do agree that shoe-horning females in male jobs isn't so smart but they should go about it realistically. Women are built different and a lot of "normal" women in the world get turned off by some butch chick and that raises alarms.
Tale as old as time. Men use brute force, women use treachery.
Just sayin
If you are in the unit you need to be able to do what the unit does. If you are support you can be used for certain needs and left when you aren't needed.
As much of the cool ninja secret squirrel stuff that SF, CAG, SEALs, etc do where having a female along could be helpful.... Sometimes they do plain old straight leg infantry shit. Grab your ruck and the 240B cuz we're going out into injun territory for a few days on foot, type stuff. That is brute force and that is what they do.
Okay, I'm going to be a D*ck again.
How many people here know someone that had a med drop from the Special Operations Qualifications Course? Everybody more than likely here has, all good people, hard chargers and they likely as not prepared their asses off to go there.
They failed, their bodies gave out, for what ever reason, be that trench foot or a broken back, they didn't make it. Most of these guys were no shit carnivores, they were good at what they did and excelled as Soldiers.
Now, lets think of how many women have that kind of drive, musculature, bone density and inner metal strength beyond those guys we know who didn't make it?
Then lets think about this, you got the Tab, they sewed it on. Now your're going to have that Female do that kind of repetitive physical stuff everyday?
It don't work.
Sorry, it just doesn't.
It's not a social experiment, this isn't a movie and she's not Demi Moore.
These are someone's Daughters and Sons, this is life or death and they deserve to be told the truth, Women and Men are not physically equal.
Well, dick or not, it's truth. My issue with this, well there are several, but among them is that the data is clear that women's bodies cannot take the same physical abuse over a prolonged period of time. So maybe some women make it through RASP, A&S, BUDS. Those are time-limited shit sandwiches, and everyone who went through them said that it was easy compared to "operating" (how I loathe that word) in the real world. Hell, it's true for non SOF. Once you get to the fleet it just gets harder. Women simply are built for that, and that is OK.
crusader377
09-16-16, 09:19
I think the notion of women in direct ground combat and that they will add capability to those units by supposed diversity really shows the ignorance and hubris of both modern politicians and some modern generals. Think about it, if women were some how an added benefit to combat, you would have seen extensive use as women as warriors throughout 5000 years of recorded history. How come legendary commanders like Alexander the Great, Caesar, Genghis Khan, Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Shaka Zulu, Geronimo, Rommel, and Patton none of them ever advocated the use of women and combat soldiers. There have been dozens if not hundreds of great warrior cultures again none of them used women. Women in warfare have successfully been used as spies and logistic and support personnel, camp followers but not as primary combatants.
As the VN conflict wound down, the Generals and Defense Admin knew that they would not be able to pull off an all volunteer military without much more female involvement. They knew this and set about planning accordingly to open up as many jobs as possible, absent direct combat positions, in order to attract female recruits. One of their goals was to match the physical (strength/conditioning) and mental aptitudes of both male and female recruits to the jobs they were assigned. They were working with the DOL to develop job related standards, such as determining how much strength a tracked vehicle mechanic needs to wrestle a 80+ pound road wheel into place, when they ran afoul of the Congressional Women's Caucus (or it's predecessor).
Those fine folks took issue with the fact such standards would eliminate many females from holding jobs such as tracked vehicle mechanic. That this sensible plan would also eliminate some men from these jobs was not on their radar. Needless to say the plan was gutted for political reasons, and, here we are.
That makes one helluva lot more sense than standards based on gender. God forbid we actually make sure you're capable of doing your duties as assigned....
These are someone's Daughters and Sons, this is life or death and they deserve to be told the truth, Women and Men are not physically equal.
Somewhere along the line we jumped the shark from "equality of opportunity" to "everyone is equal in all things." I've heard it said that to pretend men and women are equals in every aspect is to ignore the talents that make each unique and more effective than the other in different aspects of life.
Moose-Knuckle
09-16-16, 10:22
I think the notion of women in direct ground combat and that they will add capability to those units by supposed diversity really shows the ignorance and hubris of both modern politicians and some modern generals. Think about it, if women were some how an added benefit to combat, you would have seen extensive use as women as warriors throughout 5000 years of recorded history. How come legendary commanders like Alexander the Great, Caesar, Genghis Khan, Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Shaka Zulu, Geronimo, Rommel, and Patton none of them ever advocated the use of women and combat soldiers. There have been dozens if not hundreds of great warrior cultures again none of them used women. Women in warfare have successfully been used as spies and logistic and support personnel, camp followers but not as primary combatants.
You are correct except for the Russians in WWII.
They are the exception, women in combat roles were restricted to snipers and they were used to great affect. And even that was an act of desperation as their men were being slaughtered wholesale and after the invasion it was all hands on deck to defend the motherland.
Well, back story is that the soldierette in question did well right up through land nav. I will say, I have walked part of the Star, and it's no joke.
Well, back story is that the soldierette in question did well right up through land nav. I will say, I have walked part of the Star, and it's no joke.
Whats before land nav?
Whats before land nav?
PT testing, swim testing, team work exercises, O course, distance rucks, runs. As I understand the Star is towards the end of A&S.
PT testing, swim testing, team work exercises, O course, distance rucks, runs. As I understand the Star is towards the end of A&S.
The VERY end used to be a 20+ mile ruck march. Not sure if it still is or not.
One thing about ruck marches: if everyone's ruck weighs the same, and it is done with equal rest or lack thereof (like someone alluded to earlier), that is one thing. Then you have the distribution of equipment above and beyond the ruck's weight. That is where some fudging can take place, i.e. everyone in the team is carrying extra equipment in addition to their 65lb rucks except a certain someone. :rolleyes: Sure, her ruck might meet weight but she isn't carrying anything extra. Not saying this happened, but sometimes details like this are easy to overlook unless you know specifically what to look for.
http://taskandpurpose.com/hunter-troop-worlds-first-female-special-operations-unit/
The VERY end used to be a 20+ mile ruck march. Not sure if it still is or not.
One thing about ruck marches: if everyone's ruck weighs the same, and it is done with equal rest or lack thereof (like someone alluded to earlier), that is one thing. Then you have the distribution of equipment above and beyond the ruck's weight. That is where some fudging can take place, i.e. everyone in the team is carrying extra equipment in addition to their 65lb rucks except a certain someone. :rolleyes: Sure, her ruck might meet weight but she isn't carrying anything extra. Not saying this happened, but sometimes details like this are easy to overlook unless you know specifically what to look for.
Definitely. I can't recall a single ruck event where I was ANYWHERE close to minimum weight.
PT testing, swim testing, team work exercises, O course, distance rucks, runs. As I understand the Star is towards the end of A&S.
Im sure theres a joke about directions somewhere in there
http://taskandpurpose.com/hunter-troop-worlds-first-female-special-operations-unit/
From the article you linked:
Physical standards for women are almost the same as they are for men, with only a few exceptions— for example, Jegertroppen soldiers carry 60-pound rucksacks instead of the heavier 88-pound packs their male counterparts carry.
Sure, some tough chicks without a doubt. But the little nuances like the above scream "Not the same!!!"
From the article you linked:
Physical standards for women are almost the same as they are for men, with only a few exceptions— for example, Jegertroppen soldiers carry 60-pound rucksacks instead of the heavier 88-pound packs their male counterparts carry.
Sure, some tough chicks without a doubt. But the little nuances like the above scream "Not the same!!!"
I'm curious though, as they're a full unit of people carrying 60-pound rucksacks, can they actually accomplish their mission without the extra 18 lbs of gear per person? They haven't deployed, so there's no real world answer, of course.
I'm curious though, as they're a full unit of people carrying 60-pound rucksacks, can they actually accomplish their mission without the extra 18 lbs of gear per person? They haven't deployed, so there's no real world answer, of course.
I thought you zoomies were good at math? It's a 28lb difference! ;)
I see your point, but what it usually comes down to is what standards are used to "make the grade" will often exceed what you'd actually find on a real-world mission. In other words you want to see how much they can take (physically as well as mentally) in training so that anything shy of that is gravy so to speak.
Has the APFT changed in the last 11 years?
When I was in the push up and 2 mile run times for women were no where close to the men's.
Has the APFT changed in the last 11 years?
I don't think so. Still male/female standards.
I don't think so. Still male/female standards.
If they're serious about putting women in combat arms MOS then this needs to change.
mkmckinley
09-16-16, 15:04
There are advantages and limitations to anything. I'd be out of line saying SF should or shouldn't accept women. The decision should be based on whether or not it supports the mission.
With regards to weight, I'd imagine that for any type of "special" unit the infil weight is likely to be something around 120lbs. Most of that weight is probably mission essential gear with only a small fraction going to personal life support stuff like food, clothing, shelters. These guys are basically ultralight backpacking from a life support standpoint (sleeping under a poncho, minimal/no sleeping bag, minimal food, minimal clothing, procure water as you go...) All that extra weight-carrying capacity goes toward ammo, batteries, med, radios, demo, armor. Moreover speed is survival. The more time spent walking around the higher the risk. Same goes for the size of the element. The more people you have the more likely you are to be noticed. If you have someone that can only carry 60lbs or is slow that extra weight has to be spread out across the rest of the group. If one person can only carry personal gear plus 25lbs do you want to take them? What capability do they have that makes it worth taking them vs. someone who can carry more/faster? Sure, there are times when you can just drive someplace or land a helo. Do you want to limit a team to ONLY those methods of transportation? That smaller, slower, weaker team member better have some truly valuable capabilities that nobody else does to make it worth including them. Getting back to women vs. men. If a woman can legitimately meet the physical standards desired by a unit, be it a 120lb infil ruck or 45 lbs/4 mph/12mi AND is just as technically skilled as a man, then there's no PHYSICAL reason she shouldn't be part of that unit. If 65lbs is deemed to be too little weight then the standard needs to be written for more weight.
For the sake of argument also consider the cost/benefits with regards to injures and service life. You spend $$$$ selecting, training, and equipping someone you're going to want to get a few years of service out of them. If you assess an individual and the likelihood they get hurt and have to get med-boarded is much higher than baseline is it ethical and responsible to put them through the pipeline? Is it ethical to dangle a carrot in front of someone knowing they're predisposed to becoming hurt or disabled? Is it reasonable to train someone for two or three years, hopefully have them operational for two or three years if the complete the training, and then spend the next sixty years paying them 85% disability? These are the things that a lot of people don't seem to consider.
Check out this document (http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7) and keep in mind it applies to basic training, not higher stress stuff. If you don't want to read the whole thing just ctrl-f the "%" symbol and you'll get the gist.
Averageman
09-16-16, 15:05
I can think of a couple of instances where someone not being able to carry their ruck resulted in "That Guy" having his load distributed amongst the rest of us and we carried, dragged and pushed and pulled him the rest of the way. We were pretty tight knit and all was well.
The second time it happened, same guy, same thing and nearly the same result, except there was a small amount of grumbling among those who thought he was slacking. Slowly he was ostracized from the group.
Third time resulted in a whooping, not a small one either. People had become very resentful and questioned this guys drive and purpose, and to no small degree his actions and integrity.
He left the unit before we made it back to the barracks and was a medical drop.
Now this was essentially some "Lord of the Flies" kind of stuff that I'm not really proud of participating in, but that's what happens when you have a high stress and physically challenging environment filled with young Men.
I really don't see that working out any better by putting Women in that mix.
It's just going to cause more injuries and more drama than is needed.
And that'll be one tough bit$% too. If any woman can get through it with no drop in standards, that's a women I'd have some respect for. I know there's still debate over whether the two who passed Ranger school were given special treatment. The Army flat our denies it but some in the know claim other wise. I have no first hand knowledge of it
My son and several buddies completed Ranger School concurrent with the females. The only one in his squad dropped during rap week. Buddies had some in their squad.
General consensus is the objective stuff during RAP week (land nav, ruck march, etc) was very consistent. They met the standard. Big debate on whether they were "peered" or not, which is a big part of RS completion. Army not talking. What they do know as fact is the females were given multiple shots at recycle or day 1 restart for failing the same segment twice. Which is not the case for males. Even the RI's commented on that. IE: You can fail for peers and recycle. And then fail patrols and recycle. But you can't recycle twice for the same reason (failing patrols, etc.). And since peers may have been excluded, it even increases the aspect of special treatment.
But the Army has closed ranks on this. Anyone involved who speaks will be discredited. I've seen it happen with field grade officers in units who sent some there. Will discredit even those who know facts about the recycle aspect.
This does not mean the 3 who graduated did not work for it, they did. But they absolutely had opportunities a garden variety male soldier did not. Especially those who are not batt-boys. To be fair, the fem grads were incredibly fit and motivated entering. (Ironmen, etc) By all accounts there were in tough shape exiting. But that's not that unusual.
One thing about ruck marches: if everyone's ruck weighs the same, and it is done with equal rest or lack thereof (like someone alluded to earlier), that is one thing.
In RS, and I'm told for SFAS, there are mandatory loadouts (including water) which are checked at the end for graded events. And that loadout >= the required weight. They are all the same, not load variation.
Then you have the distribution of equipment above and beyond the ruck's weight. That is where some fudging can take place, i.e. everyone in the team is carrying extra equipment in addition to their 65lb rucks except a certain someone.
This where peer grading factors in. It's a big deal in IBOLC & RS. Don't know about SFAS/Q. Don't carry your weight, it will impact you in peers.
Likewise, the saw guy (heaviest individual loadout) or the 240B guys probably get some peer advantage if they don't ask for help.
Has the APFT changed in the last 11 years?
Big arguments on the usefulness of the APFT as an indicator of performance. My son largely maintained 300+ APFT, with as high as 355 on the extended scale. And did 290 graded by RI's. Yet rucking in a formation fast march was tough just due to stridelength differences. Not problem completing the timed events, or rucking the saw for 6 mths.
He bulked up 30 lbs or so just due to PT & Rucking largely during IBOLC, no weight lifting. It's that much work.
The role based standards are the right answer, and should be gender neutral. There are issues with fems in bradleys & armor even now due to lifting requirements. Is it logical to allow females to serve that cannot perform mandatory mtc/repair tasks? Much less equitable?
How many people here know someone that had a med drop from the Special Operations Qualifications Course? Everybody more than likely here has, all good people, hard chargers and they likely as not prepared their asses off to go there.
They failed, their bodies gave out, for what ever reason, be that trench foot or a broken back, they didn't make it. Most of these guys were no shit carnivores, they were good at what they did and excelled as Soldiers.
Now, lets think of how many women have that kind of drive, musculature, bone density and inner metal strength beyond those guys we know who didn't make it?
That's the issue with females in RS... just the long grind, minimal sleep, heavy loads, minimal diet. For 3-6 mths. Just tough on anyone. It's also hard on bulky lifters. Just hard to sustain that much load on minimal calories.
Some on here may have direct experience and can comment, but some indicate RS is harder than SFAS just due to the duration and the calorie aspect. So the fact some got through RS (and more will) make people think they can probably do SFAS/Q. I have no idea myself. My boss earned the long tab, his conjecture is RS is tougher. (But he never did RS).
Hard to find enlisted who did both, just not very common. I'm told it's due to the MOS paths. Only folks I've met who had both were officers and did RS right after commissioning and SFAS years later. (Forget the window, 1LT promotable or CPT?)
Have a good friend who was a med drop in the Q course as an officer. Had no inclination to go back, just knew his (older) body could not do it a 2nd time.
You need a military woman at greater than 90th percentile amount her peers to perform at the average level of some Spec4 kid in the 82nd.
You get some of them, That at best would pass at a 50% rate.
Snip
This is why you get thousands of chicks screened to get hundreds of candidates, To get months of special train up, To get a dozen or two to pass some training, To end up with graduates you can count on one hand that will pass training.
This is the core issue. 5-10% making it through RTAC & RAP week (rough numbers). Even with special prep prior to RTAC. 18 made it out of RAP, 2 graduated of the original waves. Another one came later (in her late 30's if I recall!).
Point being, how useful is it if 1-2% of the top 5% of females in the Army (or less) can make it through ?? A few will, and it will be declared a success. There is a theory that RS can now back off any preferential treatment (if it occurred) since it's been proved that it can be done with existing standards. Only time will tell.
There is also some question about whether the extended training up & recycles in RTAC adversely impacted their RS chances. And big arguments. The real test will be when female IN LT's go through IBOLC which is a better trainup for RS as it's more spread out and in depth. I predict we'll see some more tab and with less phase recycles/day 1 recycles.
Side note: USMA (West Point) sees higher field injury rates in females very consistently. Some remain on profile for 2-3 years and are at risk of graduation. For stuff that does not really impact the males much (obstacle course, falling while patrolling under load, etc).
I thought you zoomies were good at math? It's a 28lb difference! ;)
I see your point, but what it usually comes down to is what standards are used to "make the grade" will often exceed what you'd actually find on a real-world mission. In other words you want to see how much they can take (physically as well as mentally) in training so that anything shy of that is gravy so to speak.
I had 3 hrs of "sleep" last night :(
Slap me down if I'm wrong, but let's refocus on the crux of the problem.
Seems to me that most of the buzz about getting females into combat arms and then into the Ranger/SF pipeline was more about eliminating the glass ceiling for promotions that some females were running up against when competing for promotion against guys who had tabs, etc. that they weren't eligible to obtain. Say what you want, but most of us would be pissing and moaning if we were in their boots.
The Army in particular, could have defused this situation by redoing the promotion structure. I am not trying to offend anyone, but let's be really honest, there are a lot of boutique tabs and badges out there. Certainly, those that wear them earned them and should be proud, but does the fact that a guy went through the Ranger course when he was a 22 year-old newly minted ring-knocker, really mean that much 20 years later when he hasn't patrolled, climbed, navigated, etc. since he was tabbed?
Do we really need to give 'points' to get folks to attend courses that test them and develop them professionally? If we do what, really, does it say about their character that the challenge and gained competence wasn't enough?
The cream SHOULD rise to the top, the Army, in particular, would have headed off a lot of this drama if the promotion system didn't encourage badge hunting.
If they had done that I'm not sure we would be having this prolonged conversation about women in the selection courses.
If women, by definition aren't suitable for combat roles, then should they be eligible for the same promotions as combat vets that risked their lives? What is the ultimate purpose of the military? To promote women, and give non combatants equal outcomes for non-equal participation, or is it to accomplish a mission to defend all of our citizens?
If women, by definition aren't suitable for combat roles, then should they be eligible for the same promotions as combat vets that risked their lives? What is the ultimate purpose of the military? To promote women, and give non combatants equal outcomes for non-equal participation, or is it to accomplish a mission to defend all of our citizens?
Bingo! It isn't about what's "fair" (waaahhh!!!) but what's proven effective at defending our country.
If women, by definition aren't suitable for combat roles, then should they be eligible for the same promotions as combat vets that risked their lives? What is the ultimate purpose of the military? To promote women, and give non combatants equal outcomes for non-equal participation, or is it to accomplish a mission to defend all of our citizens?
I don't believe that I said anything that would indicate I felt that way. I said that some of the buzz about females getting into combat arms was a byproduct on too much emphasis on the being tabbed for promotion, you could say it is that way for male soldiers also.
But to answer your question, ultimately the desire should be to promote the most deserving person based on performance in their branch or MOS.
So, if you are asking me if it is fair that an extremely competent female Blackhawk pilot going for Colonel doesn't make the cut for promotion because she didn't go to Ranger Course and the 'average competent' male Majors who have the tab get promoted, then yeah I think that is bullshit.
Hey, I think women in combat arms is a stupid idea on many levels. I hope you don't think that I am saying that Hotlips Houlihan should have been eligible to take McArthur's place.
ramairthree
09-17-16, 00:53
There are plenty of double tabbed, not rare at all.
Pre-SFAS Phase one had a lot of the gut checks.
18 series did not used to be its own MOS.
11 series guys would get their SF Identifier after the Q course.
Some would come back to Ranger Bn to get their PSG time for promotion, go back to group after, etc.
This ended by late 80s as it was now an MOS and not an identifier.
An entire year group of two of SF qualified Infranfry Officers basically got told, you half are crossed arrows, the other half are crossed rifles.
Into the 90s operators that were 11 series,
Could have issues with promotions.
They got credit for SFAS with Selection, and what used to be phase 1 and 3 of the Q course for OTC, and would do phase 2, then the MOS specific portion, and convert to 18 series.
Don't know anyone that has done that in ages.
Zero issue for 11 series making E8 and E9 fast as operators, and same for 18 series whether Group or operators.
I have know guys that failed RIP and got sent to Ranger Department, 82nd, Panama Airborne unit, or passed RIP but later got shit canned from Ranger Bn go on to pass Ranger School.
I knew a few guys that passed RIP and kicked ass in Ranger Bn but got hurt or failed Ranger School and sent packing.
Guys that failed RIP and passed SFAS.
RIP, Ranger Bn, and Ranger School Grads that failed SFAS. Guys that smoked SFAS but failed Q course. Guys that barely passed SFAS but smoked Q course. SF guys that failed Ranger School.
A mediocre as **** guy in Ranger Bn that passed Selection and OTC and excelled as an Operater.
A superstar in Ranger Bn that failed Selection, went SF, and was later a superstar operator.
A superstar Ranger BN guy that was a superstar operator.
Superstars that were relatively dud operators.
Superstar Ranger Bn stud combat diver that failed selection.
And everything in between.
Guys kicking more ass at 45 physically than when they were 21.
Guys doing exactly the same at 45 than when they were 21.
Guys waxing and waning stud to dud over and over during those years.
Guys you cannot believe ever were capable of any of that in the past.
In general, and plenty of exceptions to the rule both ways,
But very in general,
Ranger Bn guys continue to meet and exceed entry standards or get sent packing.
SF guys may not continue to meet and exceed the standards that got them there.
Operators find ways to continually exceed their previous standards.
and,
Not in general,
But near universally,
It takes very exceptional women to perform at very common male standards.
USMC_Anglico
09-17-16, 08:06
There are plenty of double tabbed, not rare at all.
Pre-SFAS Phase one had a lot of the gut checks.
18 series did not used to be its own MOS.
11 series guys would get their SF Identifier after the Q course.
Some would come back to Ranger Bn to get their PSG time for promotion, go back to group after, etc.
This ended by late 80s as it was now an MOS and not an identifier.
An entire year group of two of SF qualified Infranfry Officers basically got told, you half are crossed arrows, the other half are crossed rifles.
Into the 90s operators that were 11 series,
Could have issues with promotions.
They got credit for SFAS with Selection, and what used to be phase 1 and 3 of the Q course for OTC, and would do phase 2, then the MOS specific portion, and convert to 18 series.
Don't know anyone that has done that in ages.
Zero issue for 11 series making E8 and E9 fast as operators, and same for 18 series whether Group or operators.
I have know guys that failed RIP and got sent to Ranger Department, 82nd, Panama Airborne unit, or passed RIP but later got shit canned from Ranger Bn go on to pass Ranger School.
I knew a few guys that passed RIP and kicked ass in Ranger Bn but got hurt or failed Ranger School and sent packing.
Guys that failed RIP and passed SFAS.
RIP, Ranger Bn, and Ranger School Grads that failed SFAS. Guys that smoked SFAS but failed Q course. Guys that barely passed SFAS but smoked Q course. SF guys that failed Ranger School.
A mediocre as **** guy in Ranger Bn that passed Selection and OTC and excelled as an Operater.
A superstar in Ranger Bn that failed Selection, went SF, and was later a superstar operator.
A superstar Ranger BN guy that was a superstar operator.
Superstars that were relatively dud operators.
Superstar Ranger Bn stud combat diver that failed selection.
And everything in between.
Guys kicking more ass at 45 physically than when they were 21.
Guys doing exactly the same at 45 than when they were 21.
Guys waxing and waning stud to dud over and over during those years.
Guys you cannot believe ever were capable of any of that in the past.
In general, and plenty of exceptions to the rule both ways,
But very in general,
Ranger Bn guys continue to meet and exceed entry standards or get sent packing.
SF guys may not continue to meet and exceed the standards that got them there.
Operators find ways to continually exceed their previous standards.
and,
Not in general,
But near universally,
It takes very exceptional women to perform at very common male standards.
Lot's of truth right here.
The whole thing is a waste of time and $. Big Army is spending tons of effort and $ trying to get female O's and NCO's to reclass so they can mentor the few hundred IET females that are coming in. There are almost no takers, not surprisingly. In this day of constrained budgets, these $ could be better spent than throwing it all at onesies and twosies. If a female wants in, no problem, come on in and do what needs to be done in the pipeline and get on with the job. If they get bounced out, then join the long line of males in the same boat headed for the 82nd, etc.
In my end of SOF we have females in our units. The bulk are not on the tactical teams, they show up wanting it, but when they see what is involved they self select to the higher HQ that aren't in the field as much. We also get males that choose that route too, so no real difference. The few females that choose to stay are motivated and do the job well.
I have know guys that failed RIP and got sent to Ranger Department, 82nd, Panama Airborne unit, or passed RIP but later got shit canned from Ranger Bn go on to pass Ranger School.
That's my old unit! And yep, we had numerous bolo's from Ranger Batt. Like you said, some failed RIP, and some were tossed afterwards. None were tabbed of course.
Now we did get one real-deal Ranger tabbed E-5, mortar maggot like myself, who had the mustard stain from Grenada. Sgt. Pack. Good dude. Not sure why he ended up in Panama but I highly doubt it was because he fvcked up, maybe just a normal PCS (?). This was 30 years ago so maybe the play-and-stay with Batt wasn't like it is now, i.e. more non-Batt PCS moves to circulate your experience in the Army back then. Gotta remember the 'Nam vets were all senior NCO's and nearing retirement. The only young blood "combat" guys at that time were from Grenada. We also got a shitload of 82nd dudes transferred down to us, almost all of whom were Grenada vets.
Apologies in advance for the long post, but we are approaching the crux of the issue: Promotability
It takes very exceptional women to perform at very common male standards.
Roger on all, and especially your last point
Seems to me that most of the buzz about getting females into combat arms and then into the Ranger/SF pipeline was more about eliminating the glass ceiling for promotions that some females were running up against when competing for promotion against guys who had tabs, etc. that they weren't eligible to obtain.
Can't speak for enlisted, but this is the core issue for officers. Promotability.
But it's not tabs, it's branches. And for officers, Ranger tab is critical for IN lately.
Thus the big push to get women through RS, so they can then proceed into IN officer ranks. And thus into field grade and later, general officer ranks.
One of the female RS grads became the 1st female IN officer via cross branching. Write it down, she will make general. By all accounts, the three fems who tabbed are exceptional individuals. I don't wish them ill will at all.
But while exceptional for females, it's the norm for your average IN 2LT. Non-triathelete, no special grooming. Just a drive and recognition that they had to finish RS. Period. Or they would not be welcome in their unit and ruin their career before it even started. It's not optional for them.
The Army in particular, could have defused this situation by redoing the promotion structure. I am not trying to offend anyone, but let's be really honest, there are a lot of boutique tabs and badges out there. Certainly, those that wear them earned them and should be proud, but does the fact that a guy went through the Ranger course when he was a 22 year-old newly minted ring-knocker, really mean that much 20 years later when he hasn't patrolled, climbed, navigated, etc. since he was tabbed?
You would know better than I, and not defending badgefinders in other Army branches, but the majority of officers attempting RS are IN LT's and CPT's with an equal weighting of USMA & ROTC grads. IE: It's not a ringknocker thing, if that still exists. They both get a certain number of slots and it's linked with the IBOLC pipeline.
And that RS tab is extremely relevant for them now. Their job will be essentially small unit IN ops and that's what RS is all about. And in the current environment, an untabbed IN LT will probably not get a platoon and essentially ruin their career. Or will be sent back to RS and told not to come back without a tab. Currently, all IN 2LT's will at least attempt RS. I can state as fact that for at least two well known Airborne units the word to 2LT's is to not bother showing up without a tab.
The next chunk are armor officers, both due to proximity of ABOLC and some legit need to understand the crunchy world. About 50% of ABOLC grads attempt RS. But far less make them through than their IN peers. Not really fair comparison, they have much less time prepping for the physical demands of RS. Where IBOLC is very focused on exactly that.
Other branches are exceptions, small percentage. There are nearly always some, but it's not a 2LT pipeline thing usually, it's normally their unit got them in.
This is a point of contention lately- there are a certain number of slots reserved for non IN & AR officers. Yet it's not a job critical skill for them, should those slots go more to get the folks that need it? (give washouts a 2nd chance after maturing a bit. Get more NG IN/AR in as well)
Do we really need to give 'points' to get folks to attend courses that test them and develop them professionally? If we do what, really, does it say about their character that the challenge and gained competence wasn't enough?
The cream SHOULD rise to the top, the Army, in particular, would have headed off a lot of this drama if the promotion system didn't encourage badge hunting.
The problem started when RS became positioned as "the premier leadership school in the Army. Or maybe the free world". (Oft repeated positioning)
So that makes it both desirable and potential a factor in evaluation. Certainly a subjective factor. "Why would I not want my MP officer leadership to have the same opportunity to be a good leader as line unit officers do?"
If they had done that I'm not sure we would be having this prolonged conversation about women in the selection courses.
That's an easy answer: Remove badges from consideration in field grade promotion.
But that won't fix the branch leadership issue. IE: They need (want) female field grade officers and above in the mainstream combat arms branches (IN & AR) because that is the bulk of the Army.
Likewise, is officer time in the Ranger Regiment more valuable than a broadening assignment at JTC? Or the pentagon as a staffie? Some qualifications lead to experience that should be more valued and a factor in promotion.
I said that some of the buzz about females getting into combat arms was a byproduct on too much emphasis on the being tabbed for promotion, you could say it is that way for male soldiers also.
Many feel Badges should be qualifiers. And not differentiators, unless having that qualification offers a true advantage for the position and future positions.
Pathfinder & Jumpmaster are critical skills in Airborne ops as you need them to setup a drop zone, etc. In some units you are considered useless without them at a certain level. Yet they are about useless in non-airborne units. (OK, PF is still helpful for combat arms units). Yet jump wings are highly desired even by those who have no desire to go IN. So enlisted Joes have to fight to get jump school slots, where that future DR/AG/JAG officer is able to get a slot.
That said, Ranger tab remains a factor as its very unlikely to get a command of an IBCT, SBCT, or ABCT as anything but IN or AR. With far more IN commanders than AR. So as long as RS is viewed as pretty much mandatory for IN officers, it will remain an issue. I'm sure someone can point out an exception, but it's considered a truism. Which is what has made IN a more desirable branch in the last couple of decades... has the most promotion opportunities if wanting to go career officer.
And that's probably OK, the general officer ranks should probably represent the composition of the Army. But for higher commands, would we really want an Corps of Engineers General over an Airborne division? Or even an Armored unit? Just do a quick survey of the branch of the commanders of the current BCT's. So at a certain level, the odds will shift to IN/AR for higher commands not over a specific support branch.
That's what this is about, setting up to get more females at that top tier of leadership. And that means getting them into IN/AR officer pipelines. They won't be able to make a difference in a support branch. And might still be at a disadvantage as an FA or Aviation officer. (Though there are some notable exceptions)
Some of you would know far better than I would, but my understanding is that lack of long tab is not as much a barrier to officer promotion in the mainstream Army. IN & AR largely views it as a parallel track for junior officers. They go off for a bit and don't resurface until far later.
So as far as I'm concerned, females wanting to pursue SF are doing it out of a true desire or chasing to be "the first female to complete".
Really the same for line officers in Ranger Regiment... Don't bother applying without a RS tab. But officer time in Regiment is viewed very favorably down the road apparently.
I'm way out of my lane, speaking as an observer only about the officer track due to friends, a son, and his buds who live in that world. We are about to see the first wave of female IN officers complete IBOLC (or not) and start RS (or not). Exit criteria for IBOLC now includes all the graded events for RS including peers. Which many females were challenged by. So it's going to be interesting to see how that plays out.
Enlisted may be entirely different. But you don't see that many enlisted females pushing for RS, etc. It may happen, but I don't think the Army is driving it like they are pushing for female IN officers.
Apologies in advance for the long post, but we are approaching the crux of the issue: Promotability
Roger on all, and especially your last point
Can't speak for enlisted, but this is the core issue for officers. Promotability.
But it's not tabs, it's branches. And for officers, Ranger tab is critical for IN lately.
Thus the big push to get women through RS, so they can then proceed into IN officer ranks. And thus into field grade and later, general officer ranks.
One of the female RS grads became the 1st female IN officer via cross branching. Write it down, she will make general. By all accounts, the three fems who tabbed are exceptional individuals. I don't wish them ill will at all.
But while exceptional for females, it's the norm for your average IN 2LT. Non-triathelete, no special grooming. Just a drive and recognition that they had to finish RS. Period. Or they would not be welcome in their unit and ruin their career before it even started. It's not optional for them.
You would know better than I, and not defending badgefinders in other Army branches, but the majority of officers attempting RS are IN LT's and CPT's with an equal weighting of USMA & ROTC grads. IE: It's not a ringknocker thing, if that still exists. They both get a certain number of slots and it's linked with the IBOLC pipeline.
And that RS tab is extremely relevant for them now. Their job will be essentially small unit IN ops and that's what RS is all about. And in the current environment, an untabbed IN LT will probably not get a platoon and essentially ruin their career. Or will be sent back to RS and told not to come back without a tab. Currently, all IN 2LT's will at least attempt RS. I can state as fact that for at least two well known Airborne units the word to 2LT's is to not bother showing up without a tab.
The next chunk are armor officers, both due to proximity of ABOLC and some legit need to understand the crunchy world. About 50% of ABOLC grads attempt RS. But far less make them through than their IN peers. Not really fair comparison, they have much less time prepping for the physical demands of RS. Where IBOLC is very focused on exactly that.
Other branches are exceptions, small percentage. There are nearly always some, but it's not a 2LT pipeline thing usually, it's normally their unit got them in.
This is a point of contention lately- there are a certain number of slots reserved for non IN & AR officers. Yet it's not a job critical skill for them, should those slots go more to get the folks that need it? (give washouts a 2nd chance after maturing a bit. Get more NG IN/AR in as well)
The problem started when RS became positioned as "the premier leadership school in the Army. Or maybe the free world". (Oft repeated positioning)
So that makes it both desirable and potential a factor in evaluation. Certainly a subjective factor. "Why would I not want my MP officer leadership to have the same opportunity to be a good leader as line unit officers do?"
That's an easy answer: Remove badges from consideration in field grade promotion.
But that won't fix the branch leadership issue. IE: They need (want) female field grade officers and above in the mainstream combat arms branches (IN & AR) because that is the bulk of the Army.
Likewise, is officer time in the Ranger Regiment more valuable than a broadening assignment at JTC? Or the pentagon as a staffie? Some qualifications lead to experience that should be more valued and a factor in promotion.
Many feel Badges should be qualifiers. And not differentiators, unless having that qualification offers a true advantage for the position and future positions.
Pathfinder & Jumpmaster are critical skills in Airborne ops as you need them to setup a drop zone, etc. In some units you are considered useless without them at a certain level. Yet they are about useless in non-airborne units. (OK, PF is still helpful for combat arms units). Yet jump wings are highly desired even by those who have no desire to go IN. So enlisted Joes have to fight to get jump school slots, where that future DR/AG/JAG officer is able to get a slot.
That said, Ranger tab remains a factor as its very unlikely to get a command of an IBCT, SBCT, or ABCT as anything but IN or AR. With far more IN commanders than AR. So as long as RS is viewed as pretty much mandatory for IN officers, it will remain an issue. I'm sure someone can point out an exception, but it's considered a truism. Which is what has made IN a more desirable branch in the last couple of decades... has the most promotion opportunities if wanting to go career officer.
And that's probably OK, the general officer ranks should probably represent the composition of the Army. But for higher commands, would we really want an Corps of Engineers General over an Airborne division? Or even an Armored unit? Just do a quick survey of the branch of the commanders of the current BCT's. So at a certain level, the odds will shift to IN/AR for higher commands not over a specific support branch.
That's what this is about, setting up to get more females at that top tier of leadership. And that means getting them into IN/AR officer pipelines. They won't be able to make a difference in a support branch. And might still be at a disadvantage as an FA or Aviation officer. (Though there are some notable exceptions)
Some of you would know far better than I would, but my understanding is that lack of long tab is not as much a barrier to officer promotion in the mainstream Army. IN & AR largely views it as a parallel track for junior officers. They go off for a bit and don't resurface until far later.
So as far as I'm concerned, females wanting to pursue SF are doing it out of a true desire or chasing to be "the first female to complete".
Really the same for line officers in Ranger Regiment... Don't bother applying without a RS tab. But officer time in Regiment is viewed very favorably down the road apparently.
I'm way out of my lane, speaking as an observer only about the officer track due to friends, a son, and his buds who live in that world. We are about to see the first wave of female IN officers complete IBOLC (or not) and start RS (or not). Exit criteria for IBOLC now includes all the graded events for RS including peers. Which many females were challenged by. So it's going to be interesting to see how that plays out.
Enlisted may be entirely different. But you don't see that many enlisted females pushing for RS, etc. It may happen, but I don't think the Army is driving it like they are pushing for female IN officers.
I think you're pretty spot on for most of it. Not that it matters much but IN, AR, and FA officers actually can't even apply for Regiment without a tab.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In all seriousness, asking some slip of a girl to hump a 200+ lb ruck and 240 is kinda unrealistic, and any woman who could is likely some dykey buzzcut Bertha type
That said: I could, as a layperson, see where there are some places that females wouldn't be looked twice at and where men would stick out too much.
They should have like a WAC SF tab. Realistically there have been some pretty severe female terrorists/guerillas from the Cold War on and realistic training for realistic use of female soldiers isn't a bad idea.
I thought they had something like that and called the Funny Platoon or something already
Agreed!
Having super athletic, shooters who are female can go places where you and I cannot.
Create a separate group for them and cull HARD.
-----------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
It's my understanding that females are NOT assaulters . . . there are other units in the upper echelon where females are on the intelligence side of the aisle.
Yep.
-----------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Oh no doubt, just an observation that most likely it is an MI billet they occupy when actually doing something dangerous, i.e. not desk work or analyzing photographs. I can think of SMU-type jobs that a female would work well in, maybe not in the ME (unless they look and sound the part) but in general.
I will go out on a limb and say any women who do go on SMU-type missions have probably been taught to shoot better than most of us and are in damn good shape. CIA-style training if you will. That said, they did NOT pass the same course as the males they're supporting. ;)
I would agree. I could ask but it's pretty apparent that they are not assaulters and there is no way they can do the same physical things of the men.
That SHOULD be blatantly obvious to all.
-----------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Agreed!
Having super athletic, shooters who are female can go places where you and I cannot.
Create a separate group for them and cull HARD.
I would think it would still need to be done and organized under the auspices of the MI umbrella, like where those sneaky-pete women reside currently. To create an all-female unit would be akin to creating an all-white/all-black/all-Hispanic unit. I don't disagree in principle, just that in today's PC world it wouldn't fly. Leave them under the MI branch and cull hard like you said, but only pull them when needed for a specific mission.
I would agree. I could ask but it's pretty apparent that they are not assaulters and there is no way they can do the same physical things of the men.
That SHOULD be blatantly obvious to all.
Yeah, well, then there's that......:rolleyes:
I would think it would still need to be done and organized under the auspices of the MI umbrella, like where those sneaky-pete women reside currently. To create an all-female unit would be akin to creating an all-white/all-black/all-Hispanic unit. I don't disagree in principle, just that in today's PC world it wouldn't fly. Leave them under the MI branch and cull hard like you said, but only pull them when needed for a specific mission.
I'm okay with leaving them under Mil Intel. Just provide a path for those who may be required to go outside the fence, deeper into the badlands or make it ALL like that. I would start out with the former and create a special branch and if it is successful, slowly up the standards for both.
Slightly off topic yet germane: they should integrate Cross Fit type of conditioning focusing on the areas of the body where improvements are needed/desired. Same with diet.
For women KNEES are a weak point when working that intensely due to their wider pelvis. Of course, the types of women who make it will not be your typical "coke bottle" shape: look at pole vaulters, 400m and 200m Olympic women.
I'd love to be over that project:
General fitness
Navigation
Shooting, shooting, shooting
Unarmed self-defense
Olympic Lifting
Language
Culture
Cross-Fit level of conditioning with "all the rest".
I have a sneaking suspicion that already exists, though. It's just not discussed.
-----------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
ramairthree
09-17-16, 10:58
That's my old unit! And yep, we had numerous bolo's from Ranger Batt. Like you said, some failed RIP, and some were tossed afterwards. None were tabbed of course.
Now we did get one real-deal Ranger tabbed E-5, mortar maggot like myself, who had the mustard stain from Grenada. Sgt. Pack. Good dude. Not sure why he ended up in Panama but I highly doubt it was because he fvcked up, maybe just a normal PCS (?). This was 30 years ago so maybe the play-and-stay with Batt wasn't like it is now, i.e. more non-Batt PCS moves to circulate your experience in the Army back then. Gotta remember the 'Nam vets were all senior NCO's and nearing retirement. The only young blood "combat" guys at that time were from Grenada. We also got a shitload of 82nd dudes transferred down to us, almost all of whom were Grenada vets.
Sometimes after JOTC guys would want to go to Panama because they thought it was cool.
Sometimes when 18 series was still based on feeder MOS,
And an 11 series was becoming an 18d,
They would go to fort Sam for medic AIT, then 300F1,
Then off to Bragg to finish the med portion and then do 1,3 and finish up the Q course.
Went fine for most.
However,
Many a young Ranger SGT got caught plowing away like a rented mule through his AIT female counterparts and found himself being sent to Korea or Panama for breaking AIT rules.
Outlander Systems
09-17-16, 11:02
Deleted
ramairthree
09-17-16, 11:08
Also,
Keep in mind,
Is the primary goal of these initiatives increased combat effectiveness and lives save?
Improved unit cohesion?
No.
Open end all be all goal is fairness, opportunity, etc.
This is how you also end up with five foot tall 100 pound firefighters, cops, and paramedics.
Med students that take five or six years to get through school and still never pass boards.
Near illiterate senior NCOs.
SQT, lowered GT score levels, easier APFT standards for younger, sex different APFT run times, Etc.
And, quite frankly,
A less open goal, but end game none the less is the intense fervor and burning hatred of the existence of all male, mostly white, highly performing elements that must be eradicated at all costs.
Feels oriented female heavy trends have included the complete disarray of our educational system, the approaching full retard ness of our medical system, the shenanigans in our workplaces,
And must influence and change to highest performing sections of our military at all costs.
It will be sold and packaged and just giving a fair opportunity.
Much like gay rights is sold as two consenting adults free to live their life.
But somehow that has turned into what we all knew was coming as well. Everyone forced to accept and be battered by and adhere to and embrace and change all our lives around.
This thread is an epic fail.
Epic? Or just "big?" Not "medium?" Care to share why??
I do not know if the woman in question was dropped before the end of A&S, or during the land nav portion of A&S. I would be interested to know how her peer reviews were and where she fell in the rest of the course.
Not that it matters much but IN, AR, and FA officers actually can't even apply for Regiment without a tab.
Not so funny LT joke in a couple of the airborne units: "What do you call a RS tabbed IN 2LT with jump wings, and some other neat schools, maintains 300 APFT, and can hold their own with the best on ruck & PT days?"
"Average!" or "Assistant S-whatever"
Point being in a reducing Army, what may have been desirable becomes the norm. And expected, just one of many like that. Army is apparently overstrength in LT's in general, and particularly in desirable IN units. Currently not unusual to have 10-20 waiting for a PL slot in a BN during peak LT hatching time.
Ram Air is right, this is all political gender norming stuff. May be some time before we see female BCT commanders, but you'll start seeing them on BCT staff soon even if they have to cross branch CPT's & Majors. You will see the next USMA Supe most likely be a female, etc.
There may be parallel comparisons between female police administrators and the soon to be female majors, colonels, and generals.
If Army officers must earn Ranger tabs for promotion, what similar requirement do Marine officers have to meet in order to advance?
Physician friends say that females are graduating from med school at rates similar to men yet the ladies don't stay in the game by quitting altogether, retiring early, or becoming part timers. There is a question of their pulling their own weight in practices. Just hear say. I don't know.
I followed Katrina very closely and noticed that female troops did not get down--like at waist level or below--in all the dirty sewage and chemically contaminated water. Since their reproductive tract is line with highly absorbent mucus membrane, this may have been a directive. My point. None but it could be.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.