Lady Rangers
Ok, don’t lose your shit over the photo – it’s Leilani Wyatt, in a movie short “Gloriana“. If you’re on our Facebook page, you’ve seen it before.
The Army has released a couple of documents in regards to ladies attending Ranger School. The first is seeking female Observer/Controllers for Ranger School – you know, a rehearsal for prospective students. Thanks to JD Pendry for sending the documents to us;
ALARACT 221/2014
DTG: 112030Z SEP 14
UNCLAS
THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED BY US ARMY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AGENCY (USAITA) ON BEHALF OF HEADQUARTERS, US ARMY TRAINING AND
DOCTRINE COMMAND (TRADOC)
SUBJECT: FEMALE OBSERVERS/ADVISORS FOR THE UNITED STATES ARMY
MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE (MCOE) RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT
NARR/(U) PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO SEEK ARMY-WIDE SUPPORT OF
FEMALE OBSERVERS/ADVISORS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MCOE RANGER COURSE
ASSESSMENT (DECISION REGARDING EXECUTION OF ASSESSMENT WILL BE MADE
IN JANUARY 2015).
1. (U) BACKGROUND: AS PART OF THE ARMY SOLDIER 2020 INITIATIVE TO
ENSURE THE BEST-QUALIFIED SOLDIERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN
ANY POSITION WHERE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING TO STANDARD, THE
MCOE MAY CONDUCT A RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT IN 3RD QTR FY15 (EXACT
DATES TBD).
1.A. (U) MCOE MAY CONDUCT A RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT TO INFORM
FUTURE DECISION MAKING.
1.B. (U) FEMALE VOLUNTEERS WILL BE SELECTED TO SERVE AS
OBSERVERS/ADVISORS DURING THE RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT (EXACT CLASS
TBP).
2. (U) ARMY COMMANDS (ACOMS), ARMY SERVICE COMPONENT COMMANDS
(ASCCS), AND DIRECT REPORTING UNITS (DRUS) WILL CONDUCT A RECRUITING
EFFORT TO IDENTIFY FEMALE VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE AS OBSERVERS/ADVISORS
FOR THE RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT.
3. (U) FEMALE OBSERVERS/ADVISORS WILL ASSIST THE AIRBORNE AND RANGER
TRAINING BRIGADE (ARTB)CADRE IN OBSERVING ALL MAJOR BLOCKS OF
INSTRUCTION AND TRAINING DURING THIS ASSESSMENT. FEMALE
OBSERVERS/ADVISORS WILL NOT SERVE AS RANGER INSTRUCTORS OR TRAIN OR
EVALUATE STUDENTS.
3.A. (U) FEMALE OBSERVER/ADVISOR PREREQUISITES.
3.A.1. (U) – MUST BE A FEMALE SOLDIER OR OFFICER VOLUNTEER
3.A.2. (U) – MOS OR BRANCH IMMATERIAL
3.A.3. (U) – GRADE E6, E7, E8, W2, W3, O2, O3, OR O4
3.A.4. (U) – MEET HEIGHT AND WEIGHT STANDARDS
3.A.5. (U) – MUST HAVE A PHYSICAL PROFILE SERIAL SYSTEM NUMBER
(PULHES) OF 111121 OR RECEIVE A WAIVER FROM THE INFANTRY SCHOOL AND
HAVE NO PHYSICAL LIMITING PROFILE
3.A.6. (U) – MUST MEET STANDARDS OF MEDICAL FITNESS IAW CHAPTER 5, AR
40-501 (RANGER PHYSICAL)
3.B. (U) FEMALE OBSERVER/ADVISOR ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (NOT
REQUIREMENTS).
3.B.1. (U) FEMALE OBSERVER/ADVISOR VOLUNTEERS WILL BE EVALUATED ON
THEIR ABILITY TO PERFORM RANGER TASKS AND RANGER ASSESSMENT PHASE
REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING: THE RANGER PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT (49 PUSH-UPS,
59 SIT-UPS, 5-MILE RUN IN 40 MINUTES, AND 6 CHIN-UPS); 12-MILE
FOOTMARCH IN 3 HOURS; THE COMBAT WATER SURVIVAL ASSESSMENT (CWSA),
AND LAND NAVIGATION. THE 12-MILE FOOTMARCH IS CONDUCTED IN THE ARMY
COMBAT UNIFORM, BOOTS, FIGHTING LOAD CARRIER (FLC), PATROL CAP, AND
RUCKSACK WEIGHING A MINIMUM OF 35 LBS (WITHOUT WATER) WHILE CARRYING
INDIVIDUAL WEAPON.
3.B.2. (U) FEMALE VOLUNTEERS WITH DRILL SERGEANT/ADVANCED INDIVIDUAL
TRAINING (AIT) PLATOON SERGEANT EXPERIENCE, COMBAT TRAINING CENTER
OBSERVER/CONTROLLER EXPERIENCE, AND THOSE WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY
COMPLETED PHYSICALLY DEMANDING FUNCTIONAL ARMY COURSES ARE HIGHLY
DESIRED.
3.C. (U) APPLICANT PACKETS WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
3.C.1. (U) AN UPDATED CURRENT COPY OF THEIR OFFICER RECORD BRIEF
(ORB) OR ENLISTED RECORD BRIEF (ERB)
3.C.2. (U) COPIES OF LAST THREE OER/NCOER
3.C.3. (U) LETTER TO THE ARTB COMMANDER EXPRESSING WHY APPLICANT
WISHES TO SERVE AS AN ARTB OBSERVER/ADVISOR FOR THE ASSESSMENT.
LETTER MAY BE ONE TO TWO PARAGRAPHS AND NOT TO EXCEED ONE PAGE IN
LENGTH.
3.C.4. (U) DA FORM 705 (ARMY PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST SCORECARD)DATED
WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION PACKET.
3.D. (U) FEMALE OBSERVER/ADVISOR SELECTION PROCESS
3.D.1. (U) THE ASSESSMENT WILL OCCUR OVER AN 8-DAY PERIOD (INCLUDES 2
TRAVEL DAYS).
3.D.2. (U) CANDIDATES WILL NOT BE DROPPED FROM THE ASSESSMENT EXCEPT
FOR INJURY OR BY SELF REMOVAL.
3.D.3. (U) CANDIDATES WILL BE ASSESSED ON THEIR ABILITY TO EXECUTE
RANGER TASKS AND RANGER ASSESSMENT PHASE REQUIREMENTS.
3.D.4. (U) UPON COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT THE CANDIDATES WILL
REVIEW THEIR PERFORMANCE WITH SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE ARTB.
3.D.5. (U) ALL CANDIDATES WILL PROVIDE A WRITTEN EXIT AFTER ACTION
REPORT UPON COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT.
3.D.6. (U) EXIT INTERVIEWS WILL BE CONDUCTED WITH ALL CANDIDATES.
3.E. (U) TIMELINE
3.E.1. (U) CANDIDATE PACKETS MUST BE SUBMITTED NLT 10 OCT 14.
3.E.2. (U) CANDIDATES SELECTED WILL BE NOTIFIED ON OR AROUND (O/A) 20
OCT 14.
3.E.3. (U) CANDIDATES WILL TRAVEL TO FORT BENNING O/A 10-18 NOV 14 ON
TEMPORARY DUTY (TDY).
3.E.4. (U) FEMALE SOLDIERS SELECTED AS OBSERVERS/ADVISORS WILL
TRAVEL TO FORT BENNING WITH FOLLOW-ON DUTY AT FORT BENNING, GA;
DAHLONEGA, GA; OR EGLIN AFB, FL. REPORT DATE MAY BE 5 JAN 15, WITH
TDY ENDING O/A 18 SEPT 15.
4. (U) ORDERS AUTHORIZATION AND FUNDING INFORMATION WILL BE
PUBLISHED IN A SUPPLEMENTAL MESSAGE.
5. (U) POINTS OF CONTACT (POCS).
5.A. (U) INITIAL REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL BE SENT TO
USAIS (USARMY.BENNING.TRADOC.MBX.OCOIWEB@MAIL.MIL) OR BY VOICE
MESSAGE AT (706) 545-0458; DSN 835-0458
5.B. (U) INDIVIDUAL POCS (FOR PACKET SUBMISSION, FUNDING, AND
ORDERS)
WILL BE IDENTIFIED IN SUPPLEMENTAL MESSAGES.
6. (U) EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS MESSAGE IS 365 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE
DATE.
The second document outlines requirements for prospective students.
ALARACT 222/2014
DTG: 112045Z SEP 14
THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED BY US ARMY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AGENCY (USAITA) ON BEHALF OF HEADQUARTERS, US ARMY TRAINING AND
DOCTRINE COMMAND (TRADOC)
SUBJECT: FEMALE STUDENTS FOR THE UNITED STATES ARMY MANEUVER CENTER
OF EXCELLENCE (MCOE) RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT
NARR/(U) PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO SEEK ARMY-WIDE SUPPORT OF
ELIGIBLE FEMALE STUDENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MCOE RANGER COURSE
ASSESSMENT(DECISION REGARDING EXECUTION OF ASSESSMENT WILL BE MADE IN
JANUARY 2015).
1. (U) BACKGROUND: AS PART OF THE ARMY SOLDIER 2020 INITIATIVE TO
ENSURE THE BEST-QUALIFIED SOLDIERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN
ANY POSITION WHERE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING TO STANDARD, THE
MCOE MAY CONDUCT A RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT IN 3RD QTR FY15 (EXACT
DATES TBD).
1.A. (U) MCOE MAY CONDUCT A RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT TO INFORM FUTURE
DECISION MAKING.
1.B. (U) FEMALE VOLUNTEERS SELECTED TO ATTEND THE RANGER COURSE
ASSESSMENT (EXACT CLASS TBP) WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL COURSE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.
2. (U) ARMY COMMANDS (ACOMS), ARMY SERVICE COMPONENT COMMANDS
(ASCCS), AND DIRECT REPORTING UNITS (DRUS) WILL CONDUCT A RECRUITING
EFFORT TO IDENTIFY FEMALE VOLUNTEERS FOR THE RANGER COURSE
ASSESSMENT.
3. (U) PREREQUISITES FOR ENTRY INTO THE RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT CAN
BE FOUND IN THE ARMY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND RESERVATION SYSTEM
(ATRRS). ADDITIONAL STUDENT INFORMATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
CAN BE FOUND ON THE AIRBORNE AND RANGER TRAINING BRIGADE (ARTB) WEB-
SITE UNDER THE STUDENT INFORMATION LINK
(HTTP://WWW.BENNING.ARMY.MIL/INFANTRY/RTB/)
3.A. (U) ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITING WOMEN FROM ATTENDING
THE RANGER COURSE ARE SUSPENDED FOR SELECTION INTO THE RANGER COURSE
ASSESSMENT.
3.A.1. (U) THE RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT IS OPEN TO ALL FEMALE
VOLUNTEERS IN THE GRADES E4-O4.
3.A.2. (U) FEMALE SOLDIERS MUST BE VOLUNTEERS. FEMALE SOLDIERS WILL
NOT BE DIRECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT.
3.A.3. (U) ALL FEMALE VOLUNTEERS MUST HAVE AN END TERM OF SERVICE
(ETS) NO EARLIER THAN 01 OCTOBER 2016.
3.A.4. (U) FEMALE VOLUNTEERS MUST COMPLETE AN APPROVED RANGER
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION (DD FORM 2807-1, DD FORM 2807-2, AND DD FORM
2808) AND AUDIOGRAM (DD FORM 2216) PERFORMED IAW AR 40-501, CHAPTER
8. FEMALE VOLUNTEERS MUST PROVIDE COPIES OF ALL LABORATORY OR
SPECIALIZED CONSULTATIONS SIGNED BY A DOCTOR AND DENTIST, DATED
WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF COURSE START DATE. VOLUNTEERS MUST MEET MEDICAL
FITNESS STANDARDS IAW AR 40-501, CHAPTERS 2, 5-3, AND 5-4.
ADDITIONALLY, VOLUNTEERS MUST PROVIDE A CURRENT COPY OF MEDPROS THAT
INCLUDES A ROUTINE ADULT + H1N1 MODULE AND A ROUTINE IMMUNIZATION
SUMMARY.
3.A.5. (U) FEMALE VOLUNTEERS WILL BE ADMINISTERED A PREGNANCY TEST
DURING IN-PROCESSING. POSITIVE TESTS WILL RESULT IN DISENROLLMENT.
3.A.6. (U) ALL FEMALE VOLUNTEERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE US
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, RANGER TRAINING AND ASSESSMENT COURSE (RTAC)
CONDUCTED AT FT BENNING, COLUMBUS, GA PRIOR TO ENROLLMENT IN THE
RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT CLASS.
3.A.7. (U) ALL RTAC COURSE (ATRRS) RESERVATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF THE
RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT, WILL BE COORDINATED THROUGH THE US ARMY
INFANTRY SCHOOL (USAIS).
3.A.8. (U) ALL FEMALE VOLUNTEERS WILL HAVE A COPY OF THEIR COMMANDERS
VALIDATION LETTER FOR IN-PROCESSING. IN-PROCESSING PREREQUISITE
INFORMATION, INCLUDING AN EXAMPLE COMMANDERS VALIDATION LETTER, CAN
BE FOUND ON THE ARTB WEB SITE UNDER THE STUDENT INFORMATION LINK
(HTTP://WWW.BENNING.ARMY.MIL/INFANTRY/RTB/).
3.A.9. (U) THE COMMANDERS VALIDATION LETTER WILL CERTIFY ALL
PARTICIPANTS ARE PROFICIENT ON RANGER TASKS AND RANGER ASSESSMENT
PHASE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING: THE RANGER PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT (49
PUSH-UPS, 59 SIT-UPS, 5-MILE RUN IN 40 MINUTES, and 6 CHIN-UPS); 12-
MILE FOOTMARCH IN 3 HOURS; THE COMBAT WATER SURVIVAL ASSESSMENT
(CWSA); AND LAND NAVIGATION. THE 12-MILE FOOTMARCH IS CONDUCTED IN
THE ARMY COMBAT UNIFORM, BOOTS, FIGHTING LOAD CARRIER (FLC), PATROL
CAP, AND RUCKSACK WEIGHING A MINIMUM OF 35 LBS (WITHOUT WATER) WHILE
CARRYING AN INDIVIDUAL WEAPON.
3.B. (U) VOLUNTEER IDENTIFICATION AND ENROLLMENT TIMELINE.
3.B.1. (U) UNITS WILL PROVIDE USAIS THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL
ASSESSMENT VOLUNTEERS NLT 3 NOV 14.
3.B.2. (U) UNITS WILL PROVIDE USAIS STANDARD NAME LINE INFORMATION OF
ASSESSMENT VOLUNTEERS NLT 1 DEC 14.
3.B.3. (U) DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION WILL BE
PUBLISHED IN A SUPPLEMENTAL MESSAGE. ALL ATRRS RANGER COURSE SEATS
FOR THIS ASSESSMENT WILL BE HELD AND MANAGED BY THE USAIS.
3.C. (U) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
3.C.1. (U) FEMALE VOLUNTEERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE THE 90-DAY
RANGER COURSE PREPARATION PROGRAM ON THE ARTB WEB SITE
(HTTP://WWW.BENNING.ARMY.MIL/INFANTRY/RTB/).
3.C.2. (U) ALL WOMEN WHO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE AND GRADUATE FROM THE
RANGER COURSE WILL RECEIVE A GRADUATION CERTIFICATE AND BE AWARDED,
AND AUTHORIZED TO WEAR, THE RANGER TAB. UNTIL FUTURE INTEGRATION
DECISIONS ARE MADE AND REQUIREMENTS UNDER TITLE 10 US CODE, SECTION
652 ARE SATISFIED, FEMALE GRADUATES WILL NOT RECEIVE THE ASSOCIATED
RANGER SKILL IDENTIFIERS OR BE ASSIGNED TO RANGER CODED UNITS OR
POSITIONS.
4. (U) FUNDING INFORMATION FOR ASSESSMENT PARTICIPANT ATTENDANCE AT
RTAC AND THE RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT WILL BE PUBLISHED IN A
SUPPLEMENTAL MESSAGE.
5. (U) POINTS OF CONTACT (POCS).
5.A. (U) INITIAL REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL BE SENT TO
THE USAIS AT USARMY.BENNING.TRADOC.MBX.OCOIWEB@MAIL.MIL OR BY VOICE
MESSAGE AT (706) 545-0458; DSN 835-0458
5.B. (U) INDIVIDUAL POCS (FOR FUNDING, ORDERS, AND ATRRS) WILL BE
IDENTIFIED IN SUPPLEMENTAL MESSAGES.
6. (U) EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS MESSAGE WILL BE 365 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE DATE
While this in encouraging, in that it doesn’t appear to offer a reduction in standards, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. All of my female soldier friends on Facebook think this is wonderful – not for themselves, of course. They think it’s great that everyone else has the opportunity. My sense is that Big Army is going to be disappointed by the number of volunteers. I’m sure there are some real hard-charging women who will want to participate, but not in the crowds that the social scientists will like. The most vocal among females in the Army are those who have no intention of attending the school, though.
Then, in a small way, the standards have already changed in that some women will be allowed to observe the training before they take part in the school. I’m not aware of a program that allows prospective male Ranger students to recon the course of study before they attend.
Category: Army News, Military issues
only 49 pushups and 59 sit ups? Has that always been the standard for the PT Test? That seems rather low.
Minimum standards, I’m guessing – for comparison, to qualify for BUD/S, you only need to do 50 push-ups and 50 sit-ups. The ‘competitive’ standards are considerably higher.
If you aren’t maxing your push-ups on the APFT then going to ranger school and passing the minimum can be pretty risky.
The RPFT is just the first gate, and plenty will fail if the standard remains the same. It’s a mental game too. Had a buddy fail the rpft, then go back again and fail land nav, went back a third time and failed the fuck, on his fourth try he finally made it into the school house and recycled every phase. He earned his tab though.
Ruck… Not the other word. Jesus.
While I would salute your buddy’s determination. As a taxpayer, and former commander who had to make decisions on spending limited individual training monies to send people to school I have to question the investment strategy of permitting someone the opportunity to go attempt the course four times.
If he failed the fuck, he needs to take the blue pill.
Failed every event once? It’s almost like he went there for the rough draft before actually being ready for the final copy! While he spent a lot of time at Ranger School, and it was physically and mentally tough, I don’t feel that getting to experience every event and phase once as a “practice run” before actually passing is quite “earning the tab”.
I’m no SF guy by any means, but I would imagine that the minimum standards would be met with guffaws and general derision. In other words, just a warm up for the real PT.
Yup the end is near for Combat Arms. God save us all.
Sapper3307…Roger That Brother!
Maybe I am in the minority here, but there were some hard charging females in my unit. I’d put a few of them up against an infantry soldier when it comes down to common skill level tasks.
Not to mention, our Female Gunners were just as vicious as the guys were, if not more so. Also they were generally better marksmen with crew served weapon systems like the 240B and M2.
When we were in Iraq, they had a lot to prove to everyone.
You are in the minority. How could you possibly compare a female pogue with an 11B serving in a rifle unit?
Patrols weed out the weak rather quickly.
WTF is a pogue? Do you mean POG? As in person other than grunt? Are you even in the military…maybe some cherry ass private, a wannabe poser or are you just a fuc$in retard?
Usually when you have a unit with folks that need to prove something you can count on casualties.
Imagine a scenario where the tiny female Rangerette is in a heated firefight and has to drag that hulking E-6 behind her to cover after he has been wounded and immobilized. She won’t be able to move him and they would both probably be casualties. This PC BS is going to get good soldiers of both genders killed.
^^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^^
It isn’t about females serving in combat arms. It’s about being able to meet ALL of the standards. hell, there are guys that couldn’t make all the standards either.
Same thing in my Navy rating. Lots of guys who could run/PT, and were smart, but who couldn’t pass the swim quals. I was fortunate in being a pool rat from the time I was 8 years old. Those swimming skills (and a burning desire to NOT fail) were what got me into the rating.
I’m not opposed to women in combat arms, per se, as long as they meet ALL the standards the men have to meet.
Tim, my Ranger tab is crying right now. Im sure everyone will meet the same standards just as soon as the standards are lowered to ensure women can pass. It is a lot easier for non combat personel to have no problem with women in combat arms, as you dont know what it entails. Personal opinion from an airborne infantryman, I dont even like the idea of women being combat medics. I dont think women should be receive field training with men, and I dont think any deployed unit that leaves the wire shoild be mixed gender. We all know how that stateside 4 becomes a deployment 10, now we are going to stick them around a bunch of grunts and pretend this will not interfere with the mission? We are going to insert them in Ranger school and think that all those guys arent going to be more interested in hitting on them then completing the course? The last thing combat arms needs, and especially Ranger school, is sexual distraction
I hear ya. The problem that the military is facing is that the numbnutz congress insists on using the military as a social-engineering petri dish. It shouldn’t be that way. The leadership ought to be able to set the standards and put them into force. But it isn’t that way right now.
So to my mind the best way to deal with it is to keep the standards in place and refuse to lower them. If a female can pass them, then so be it. But otherwise, lowering the standards might make the big bugs feel good, but all it will really accomplish is getting good people killed, or compromising a mission.
I understand exactly where you are coming from. In my world, the military would forbid marriages too. No females. No marriages. No dependents. Period.
But that’s not the world we currently live in and so we have to find a way to adapt with the least amount of damage all around.
Kind of like the Unsullied from Game of Thrones?
AW1 Tim:
“The problem that the military is facing is that the numbnutz congress insists on using the military as a social-engineering petri dish.”
I disagree in part with the above statement.
Imo, it’s a case of anyone in the officer ranks demonstrating any actual integrity or real leadership capability having been targeted for purge since the Clinton regime.
All the branches have been treated much the same.
The Corps, initially, managed to do a 180 and retreat even deeper into the warrior culture, but even now with this latest piece of spineless shit for a CMC, the Corps is moving into lockstep with the destructionists.
And, in the end, it’s no one’s fault but our own. We’ve sat on our hands and watched the ravaging politicos do their evil and done absolutely squat all to protect our brothers and sisters in the service from the destructionist predators.
Hate to burst your bubble, the women I went out the wire with in 2008-2009 were some of the best soldiers I served with.
I admit, before I joined the MP’S that I had the same thoughts you did. After living with, and fighting with, women, changed my attitude.
You would be surprised at the bond that gets created amongst members of a mixed gender squad.
Soldiers are soldiers, regardless of gender.
As long as you can pass the requirements, you should be allowed to serve.
“Passing the requirements” is one thing. Being able to maintain the standards is something else. And I’ve already read articles about Congresscritters questioning why existing standards are so high and if they can be lowered so more women can try out.
Yeah.
Try that for a full deployment with the porn, hormones (in some cases) and close proximity.
Now toss in preferential treatment.
Not to mention 3-12 day excursions as opposed to returning to the FOB every night.
Its one thing to leave the wire; another to stay gone for a while.
My experience in Iraq 2003/2004 mirrors your’s Ex-344MP.
Not only did we have plenty of women in our unit that served honorably and with distinction, we also had two married couples in the unit, and surprise surprise, no more issues than with guys who couldn’t hack it. Hell all of our women finished the full 12 month (3/03 to 3/04) rotation while we lost about 4 of our male soldiers to mental issues.
And to answer Green Thumb below, our mission profile required extended time outside the wire, typically 3 to 6 days at a time with frequent overnites outside of any secured areas in the first 6 months (4/03 to 9/03), had plenty of porn being circulated, and mixed-gender teams operating on extended convoys and on missions daily.
As Ex-344MP says, if you can pass the requirements, you should be allowed to serve. I will agree though, the standards should not be ‘normalized’.
Yeah, I’ve been in units with married couples as well and my experience is that it’s a terrible idea. If you have problems with one of them, you are almost certainly going to have problems with the other one, which is most definitely not conducive to good order and discipline. Also, consider that this person-your supposed mate for life-is not like every one else in how you make decisions. A leader has to make decisions without any bias, but I’ve personally seen a 1SG give his fiance a makeup PT test-without the training NCO being present and despite her (the training NCO) objections-so that she could qualify for a promotion, which she ultimately got. It’s not a good situation.
Yup, that’s a pretty mucked up experience there, and should have been reported and prosecuted. I can see where that would color a person’s perspective.
I never encountered that issue personally with our married troops. I’d like to be able to say the level of professionalism was higher in our unit than in the one you describe, but I DID see that kind of favoritism displayed between male buddies on occasion (no women involved though), so I guess I can’t. 😉
This was in a Brigade HQ company. 0-6 had to know about it, but it was near the end of our tour and nothing was done (perhaps because no one wanted to make the effort to keep the involved parties on orders until the issue was resolved-that’s my speculation, but still).
I’d like to say that I’ve never seen a similar situation between “buddies” either, but of course I can’t. I think that such problems are particularly bad in the guard and reserves where you have units that keep people together for years, people from the same towns and regions, and strong friendships develop. That can be both a strength and a weakness I suppose.
“That can be both a strength and a weakness I suppose.”
Both, very much so.
In our Company, pretty much everyone below the level of Platoon Leader had been serving together for up 6 or more years. A few of us had been in the unit for more than twelve.
Over all that made for a pretty well oiled unit in the performance of our job, and interpersonally.
Professionally we could be admittedly lacking on the ‘military professionalism’ side of the equation, though we could ‘play the game’ as needed.
Smitty–
I know there are alot of “Smiths” out there. But you wouldn’t be a Smith with the first name of Don, would you? I knew two Rangers back at Ft. Sam who were doing the Medic training. Don Lowe and “Smitty”. Might you be him?
PS…You are right. Females are a distraction and they most likely do not have a clue about what your job was about, let alone what it took to get there.
I know a Ranger medic named Don Lowe..
Word.
I served as a line medic my whole career, female medics aren’t medics, they’re barracks morale officers at best, there’s also a lot of rules that keep women off the line for good reasons including medic positions, the closest a woman can get as a medic to the infantry is as a medic in the BSB or BSTB and that’s it, those units aren’t authorized to issue CMBs either but somehow it’s done through a lot of under the desk counselings
imagine an affirmative action secret service bimbet is tasked with protecting an entrance to the White House and is easily overpowered by a man despite pulling a sidearm and who proceeds to wander the hall passing by the staircase to the Presidents personnel quarters before ending up in the green room.
Oh, wait….that just happened.
Imagine a petite Navy petty officer on guard duty at the front gate at Norfolk, who finds that her fellow PO on guard duty, a man larger than she is, has been shot and killed by a man in a pickup truck. She pulls her sidearm, takes aim and fires at the intruder, and succeeds in shooting him.
Oh, wait – that happened last year.
And you’re an asshole.
Dipshit, I was making a point which you obviously didn’t get. Asshole yourself. If you don’t get something ask
Both of you, go to your rooms and don’t come out until you are both ready to apologize!
Hey, man.
Ex-PH2 is cool. Really cool. I disagree with her on this one, big time, for sure, but go easy.
I guess I may need to apologize ahead of time here. I would not want to serve with women in combat. Especially women who look like her. I never did in my time and it is now, only my imaginations and knowledge of myself which are what I am going by. I am sorry and if this rubber stamps me a chauvinist, then I guess I am and need to take a seat with those like me. But I also know myself quite well at this age and know myself from back then in hindsight. I am a simple, male with usual feelings and tendencies. I know I would, after long stints in the field such as in LIB duty, cast a wandering eye to a woman. Next would come those soft, warm feelings and then… preference. That is me. Preference to a woman in combat is a recipe for getting others, including myself, killed and failing to accomplish the mission. It is my shortcoming and not that of the women I know and I hold myself responsible. However, if the men in combat today are anything like those I served with long ago and something tells me that young hormone driven males with heightened senses of everything around them are pretty much the same now as then, I don’t feel this will work out well in practice. Again, I repeat, for all the women who apply and pass these courses under CURRENT standards, more power to them because it IS coming. Again I also add it would be MY shortcomings, not theirs which could cause the potential problem issues. Problems in combat are multiple and ever present now and to add something as complicated as this to the mix is not, in my mind, a good thing at all. IMHO folks. If I need get an “I’m A Chauvinist” bumper sticker, so be it. But my DEEPEST concerns here are LIVES at risk for any reason. Lives of men AND women in combat. It is my shared belief I am sure that the less lives lost, the better. Why… Read more »
This argument makes no sense to me. You don’t want women in combat arms because you can’t control yourself? This is the same argument used for the use of Burqas in the Arab world. Can’t have men being tempted by that soft woman flesh, can you?
If they pass the test, give them the tab and let them serve. At this point, there is little evidence that the qualifications will be lowered. Until that point, let’s cool down on the outrage. When, and if, the standards are lowered I will be one of the first people in line to file my complaints, but until then let’s just let it be.
By the time we find out that standards have been lowered, it will be too late. You can jump up and down and stomp your feet, but they won’t rescind the lowering of standards. it will take losing men and women in battle for that to happen. And that’s a price we shouldn’t have to pay.
The military isn’t some social experiment for the commies to play with, it’s the job of the military to fight our country’s wars and to protect our citizens. The amount of women that would be able to pass the test isn’t worth the expense that will have to be laid out.
The problem with this argument is there isn’t anything but conjecture that the standards will be lowered. I also wouldn’t call it a social experiment, it’s opening the combat arms fields to everyone, instead of just men, because there is no scientific evidence that women are not capable of preforming these duties. Some will pass, some will fail. Those that pass the tests get the tab. Just like the men that enter the school.
But the original issue at hand was that Sparks felt that women shouldn’t be allowed in combat arms because he, and by extension, all men, would become Lovey Dovey over the ladies in the units, and would be unable to control themselves or treat them as equals. I find this argument ridiculous, and one that points to larger problems that need to be addressed. We shouldn’t restrict the rights of one party to make it easier for another party not to break the law. It’s the exact same argument for the use of burqas in the Arab world. You have to restrict the rights of the women because the men can’t control themselves around them. That is total bullshit. How about the men with the issues either address them themselves or get the hell out.
Ex-344MP has it right. There are plenty of women serving that are tough as nails and outperform men in their units. Camaraderie will be built in these units. They will be a cohesive force that can and will look beyond the sex of an individual. They are soldiers, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt here. And if someone can’t get over this fact, the issue is with them, and the women shouldn’t have to cow to their failings.
“The problem with this argument is there isn’t anything but conjecture that the standards will be lowered”
Really? You want to stick with that? Riddle me this; why are there different standards on the PT test?
Again, the School’s requirements are already set. To this point, everyone has said the requirements will stay the same. Right now you are upset about something that everyone says isn’t going to happen. Might as well start ranting about the Sun just in case it dares to rise in the west tomorrow.
Denying women the opportunity to serve in combat arms is like the Saudis denying them drivers licenses. Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn’t make the women not qualified to perform their duties. If they past the test, let them do their jobs.
The standards will be changed, “DrKnow”. Bet good money on it.
There is precedent. As Old Trooper indicates, for that you need look no farther than physical fitness testing standards in the services. They are gender-specific vice unisex.
This difference is due to basic biology. Women as a population have approximately 80% the cardiovascular endurance and around 2/3 (or less) the physical strength of men. Setting unisex physical standards for strength and endurance that are demanding for men guarantees an unacceptably high female failure rate if females use those same standards.
We do not have unisex standards today. Instead, we have “gender normed” standards. In virtually all cases, the female standards are “normed” to require substantially less physical performance than the corresponding male standards. (Indeed, at one point it was actually possible for females to max a PT test under Army standards with raw scores that would fail a male troop.)
Ranger school is perhaps the most physically demanding school in the Army. Its standards are derived from the realities of infantry combat, and the need to train people to operate as infantry soldiers in such an environment.
Ground combat is not gender normed.
I feel like I am banging my head against a wall here. Or at least have walked into an echo chamber.
No one has stated that the requirements for the Ranger School will change. Right now you are just speculating. I guess it is fine to speculate, but it is absolutely pointless to get all in a tizzy over it.
When an idea is a manifestly stupid idea, someone needs to speak up. That is true whether the stupid idea is politically popular or not.
Opening ground combat specialties with high physical requirements (e.g., infantry, tank crewman, artillery crewman, etc . . . . ) to women is simply a stupid idea. The physical differences between genders virtually guarantees that women will, by and large, not succeed in those specialties and will be at greater risk for injury and disability due to training-induced injuries if assigned to same than will male troops. Forcing the military to open those specialties to women for political correctness reasons flies in the face of both common sense and military effectiveness.
Effectiveness in the military is not optional. Not if you want to win wars, anyway.
You’re assuming that the women let into these fields won’t meet the physical requirements currently set for these MOSs. Currently that assumption is incorrect. Until the current situation changes let’s deal in facts.
Some women WILL pass the physical requirements. While the data will suggest that the mean population of women may not be able to pass the physical requirements, SOME will. There is absolutely no reason, based upon their physical strength or endurance to deny them the opportunity to serve in combat arms at that point.
If the SOLDIER can pass the test, they should be allowed the opportunity. Why should it matter if that soldier is a man or a woman?
Will enough physically and mentally capable enough females volunteer, to make this worth doing. DrKnow, have you ever served in the US Army Combat Arms? Especially an Airborne Infantry Unit? The physical and mental demands are nothing to minimize.
The Standards and physical demands on Rangers is even more severe…
This is not a good idea, this is a politically motivated idea based on the idea that we are all somehow equal, we aren’t though.
“Feelings” have nothing to do with this. It’s a best use of resources question – which directly impacts military effectiveness. The military does not exist to promote social causes. Rather, it exists to defend the nation. Using financial, training, and personnel resources where they be utilized best contributes to effectiveness. Satisfying individual desires is a secondary consideration at best – particularly when service is voluntary. Effectiveness and efficiency trumps individual wishes. That’s precisely why the services exclude those with poor (but correctable) eyesight from flight school – even if they’re otherwise qualified, and want to go. Human performance in all areas appears to be normally distributed. That means measuring parameters of interest – and from those measurements, estimating the population mean and the standard deviation – allows one to characterize the population based on that measured performance. Comparing population norms, physical performance curves for males and females on tasks involving endurance and strength are similar – but are offset by somewhere between 1 and 2 standard deviations. That means the average male is operating at a performance level that corresponds to the top 7 – 16% of females. The difference appears to be one of physical capacity, not of training. Biology plays a part, as males tend to have higher testosterone levels (the original anabolic steroid) and thus a higher lean muscle mass fraction, as well as more muscle period. It is not something that can be changed without pharmacological intervention. Physical training can only go so far. Combat arms specialties have higher physical requirements than most other specialties. That is also true for those seeking to attend physically rigorous schools and/or serve in elite units where physical performance at the normal male level is inadequate – like Ranger and SF units. These tend to draw males operating in the +1 standard deviation range or higher. In simple terms, that’s roughly “top 15% of males in terms of physical performance and capability”. Such units and schools are also expensive, so failing to properly pre-screen candidates is costly. What it boils down to is that the average male applicant to Ranger… Read more »
No where do I say that we should force women into these fields, nor do I think that will even happen. I also find your heavy reliance on the means of populations interesting, but it does harken images of Fascism, eugenics and Super Soldier projects in my mind. I can see how AW1 Tim could really get behind these stats to justify his Unsullied Army dream. First off, I want to bring this back to Sparks original point that Women should be allowed in combat arms because he doesn’t think men can control their urges. That was what started this whole thing and I still feel really needs to be talked about more. If a man can’t control himself around a women, he doesn’t belong in society. As to the aspect that only a small percentage of women will be able to pass the requirements to join the combat arms, and the even more strict requirements of some of the elite schools, I have always said that the majority will most likely not pass. But that is no reason to deny those that could the opportunity to serve in those fields. As you said Hondo, there are strict selection processes for these schools. Not anybody can just show up on day one. The dregs, both unqualified men and women are cut. Worrying about the risk an underqualified woman getting her ranger tab should be the same as worrying about an underqualified man receiving his tab. You have to have faith in the system. To me it doesn’t matter if 3 or 30,000 female soldiers graduate from the school. They are passing the exact same tests as their fellow male soldiers As for now, they have their standards and I trust them. The facts are they will have the same requirements. Speculating on how many people will pass the test is pointless. I see no reason to deny a soldier an opportunity if they can pass all of the same requirements. Because it might be expensive? The Army just blew 4 BILLION on a new camo research program that they still… Read more »
Ever heard of Godwin’s Law, DrKnow? Well, at least you were polite about it.
There is nothing nefarious about using known statistics to back an argument. Failing to understand the argument, however, is evidence of ignorance – at least of the math, and possibly of willful ignorance – and is at worst indicative of mendacity.
I also see you have no desire to discuss the facts of the situation, but wish to return to the “feelings” argument.
Arguing feelings vice facts is the hallmark of someone who does not have a logical argument.
I have no desire to discuss Sparks’ position. I have served in both all-male and co-ed Army units. I do not share his opinion.
Where women serve can and should be made on the basis of military effectiveness – period. For probably 90% of military specialties, using female troops makes eminent sense and contributes to overall effectiveness. For a small number of specialties and assignments – primarily in the combat arms specialties – it does not.
And in a time of markedly inadequate resources, wasting them on politically-correct but ludicrous whims of fancy to score political points is absurd.
Hondo- The point I want explained is Why, if a woman graduates from Ranger School, is the Military Effectiveness of her unit negatively affected?
Assuming that happened, the damage would not be to the individual’s unit. The damage would be to the overall effectiveness of the military through wasted resources.
Given the additional resources required to get one female graduate (intensive screening, special programs, new/altered facilities, additional reporting, additional medical care, additional training washouts, etc . . . .) easily 2 or 3 male applicants could have been trained . Given a fixed-resource environment, that means fewer overall will complete the training. That in turn reduces overall military effectiveness.
The military is NOT about individuals. It is – first, foremost, and absolutely – about winning the nation’s wars. Anything that reduces overall effectiveness detracts from the military’s ability to do so, and is therefore a damnfool idea.
A point I did not address above, but will now: the fact that the Army just wasted $4B on yet another new uniform is true – and is irrelevant. Bringing it up was either a clumsy attempt to deflect attention or a non sequitur logical fallacy on your part. That money is gone. It cannot be reclaimed, and has no bearing on the fact that this proposal would be a similar (albeit probably smaller) waste of resources.
I think you are VASTLY overestimating the additional costs of opening the elite combat schools to women. Most of the costs incurred with be smaller one time costs or will be the exact same costs incurred by allowing a male student attend the school.
More intensive screening, come on. That is literally a null cost change.
I do find it hilarious that the argument here has gone from women are too sexy to serve in combat arms, to too weak to serve, to now they are too expensive. At some point these ridiculous excuses are going to run out. Heck, rb325th even tried to argue that they didn’t have the mental capability to handle the jobs. I’m kind of glad nobody tried to back him on THAT one.
With DoD’s military manpower payroll north of $150B/year, ANY diversion of labor from productive tasks to unproductive ones is significant. It directly wastes funds in nonproductive activities while preventing those same hours from being devoted to something productive.
And please read my argument above again – and have someone help you understand it if necessary. My argument was not that “women are too expensive”, as you attempt to misrepresent here. Rather, my argument was that the program is a diversion of resources from productive use to one of little or no net benefit to the military, the net result of which is a less effective military overall.
The fact that women troops do get injured more often and require more medical care is true, but is not pertinenet. If it were a male group that was unlikely to succeed – say, those with test scores below the school minimums, or who failed some minor aspect of medical screening – the argument would be the same, and would be equally valid.
Your assumption that allowing women to attend ranger school, and the costs therefore incurred, will be of little to no benefit to the military is where I take issue.
By graduation from Ranger School the Army is gaining a Ranger, it shouldn’t matter if that Ranger is male or female, as at that point they have passed all of the same trials.
And then there are the non-definable benefits. But, as these benefits are difficult in the least to quantify, and I have no doubt that others would argue don’t exist, we can just forsake those for now.
Your analogy to the male group is flawed. One would have to assume that the women applying to the school meet the minimum requirements, otherwise why waste their time being screened out before the process begins.
With all of the requirements staying the same for both men and women, I don’t see how you can assume that women will fail out of the course at a higher rate than men. If they meet the minimum requirements, they should be considered on equal footing to anyone else in the class that had to meet the same standards.
I would even hypothesize that some of the women attending these elite schools will excel beyond that of some of their male classmates. By attending the school alone they are already showing they are at the top of their population group, which to me would show that they posses drive and skills above their populations mean abilities, giving them an advantage.
For someone who calls themself “DrKnow”, you seem to have a real problem with reading comprehension and logic.
1. “Top of the group” matters not. What matters is objective standards. For example, the tallest Bantu pygmy in Africa probably isn’t going to do well in the NBA – because tall for his “group” is well below NBA norms. Have someone explain that to you if you don’t “get” the comparison.
2. There is no such thing as an “non-definable benefit”. The term you’re searching for is “non-quantifiable” or “intangible” benefit.
3. Whether or not the Army would derive benefit from having a female Ranger is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the expenditure of resources is worth the benefit, or if using the resources for a different purpose would be of greater benefit.
4. You regard the assertion that “the standards will remain the same” as fact. It is not; at this point, it is an assertion. History tells us that it likely is a falsehood. Only time will tell whether or not it is indeed true – but I can certainly tell you how history says the “smart money” should bet.
Methinks you need to go review basic logic. Your arguments here show all the hallmarks of someone who thinks they can reason logically, but who in fact has trouble staying on-point and crafting a logical argument. You constantly change the subject, bring up unrelated and irrelevant points, miss the main point of clear statements, and evade the issue being discussed. You also engage in thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks.
Unless you can improve your arguments, we’re done. I’ve wasted far more time here arguing with you than your arguments here merit.
Well I am sorry you feel as if you wasted your time. As for your beliefs that I am missing your point, I would beg to differ.
And as for changing the staying on point, I am not the person who switched the argument 3 or 4 different times.
Also, I would like to point out that you have never actually substantiated your final argument that the costs of allowing women to attend ranger school will be a detriment to the army, as the resources could be spent better elsewhere.
Also, I hate to invoke Godwin’s Law again, but you’re kind of a Grammar Nazi.
But your comment on the smart money being that that Army will change its standards, even though multiple times it has stated that those standards won’t change, intrigues me. I got $20 bucks that says you’re wrong. Let’s give it a year. Eh?
The one who doesn’t “get it” is you, drknow. We have historical precedence to suggest that our assumptions are well warranted.
DrKnow…I do not know what you do or don’t know about combat. I do know you took my comment completely out of context and imposed you own thoughts into it. You stated, “But the original issue at hand was that Sparks felt that women shouldn’t be allowed in combat arms because he, and by extension, all men, would become Lovey Dovey over the ladies in the units, and would be unable to control themselves or treat them as equals.” DrKnow, first, I spoke for NO ONE except myself…NO ONE ELSE! I was honest and forthright about MY feelings and opinions and offered them humbly as such. I also stated, “Again, I repeat, for all the women who apply and pass these courses under CURRENT standards, more power to them because it IS coming.” You glossed over that sentence. As for standards, I do not know if they will be lowered or not but all indications are, this is not about a program for or about, military necessity. It is, in my opinion, a social endeavor to find faster tracks for women’s promotions. Promotions women have long complained are limited to them due to lack of experience in MOS fields such as combat, Rangers and other traditionally male functions. If this is the purpose of all this, then it is much ado about nothing, with potentially dire and deadly consequences. Many, many fields in all branches offer the same promotion opportunities to men and women. If however, combat MOS standards are indeed lowered, ALL will suffer. If they are not lowered, then this “program for women’s progress”, not military need will ultimately fail due to lack of volunteers and those who can pass the training. The numbers will just not be there. That brings up the issue of requiring “gender normed” standards to achieve the desired numbers. Which has already happened in other areas. I think even you would agree, this would be a mistake. I have no more desire to serve and fight next to a man who is there because of lowered standards than I do a woman. I… Read more »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen
DrKnow…The Tuskegee Airmen? Really? Men doing a job previously withheld because of race not sex. Now I think you grasping at straws.
Or could one complain it was the Army playing with social-engineering?
One could – if the Army hadn’t essentially re-segregated after World War II. The Army didn’t actually integrate for good until 5 years later, during the Korean war.
You’re aware that Truman ordered the military integrated during Korea because of manpower need (specifically, the need for more infantry troops to fight in Korea) and not because of a social engineering rationale, right?
Wait, did you just agree with me?
Um, no. Read it again. If you still don’t “get it”, have someone explain it to you – repeatedly if necessary.
DrKnow…Additionally you stated, “If a man can’t control himself around a women, he doesn’t belong in society”.
I guess by that you include a man like me. Did I ever say, anywhere in my posts that I could NOT control myself? I spoke only to MY personal, internal feelings as a guy in close quarters with those of the opposite sex. No where did I say or even imply that those feelings meant or had a natural consequence of me not being able to control myself or my behavior properly, while in the company of women. I was raised to be a gentleman in all things. This includes my conduct and behavior around women. Your comment was WAY OFF BASE, OUT OF PLACE AND OVER THE TOP, as it regards ANYTHING I wrote here. Like Hondo, I too have served in units of mostly women. I had NO problems conducting myself as a gentleman at ALL TIMES. Whatever thoughts may have gone through my head were private and kept where they should be, in my head and NEVER uttered or acted upon. The women I served with were by and large, exemplary in their job performance. To the same degree as the men I served with in those same jobs. I held them in the same regard, esteem and gratitude for their job well done.
You sir, have taken my few words of personal thoughts and extrapolated an entirely new position FOR ME! One I never wrote, or implied. You have taken great liberties with my post for the sake of your argument. However, perhaps you can read it again and note the “personal” part of it. Please add no more than what is there either.
Write what you will but you are close to offending me, which I believe you could care less about. That’s okay though, I have tough skin. But to twist my words, their stated meaning and intentions into something they are not for the sake of furthering your position is to be honest, wrong sir.
I can control 40 Roosters.
Throw in a Hen into the mix and I will have a problem with the Roosters.
Just saying.
Green Thumb…Thank you Sir and thank you again.
As long as we all agree the problem is with the roosters, not the hen.
The problem lies in both.
But it might not be the hens fault if she was dropped into the pen.
Thant being said, I can control 40 hens. But when a Rooster shows up, I have a problem.
Loosely translated, this is why we do not have unisex locker rooms.
My issue with your argument is you’re placing the blame on one sex because of the actions of another, be it 40 roosters or 40 hens.
And the larger problem is the leadership here. Would they rather deny opportunities to one class to make their day to day life easier? Or should we be trying to get rid of systemic sexism in our units, get over the fact people have different parts, and treat everyone like the soldiers they are? Go to work, do your job, don’t harass anyone. Doesn’t seem that hard to me.
Sexual attraction is more primal than discipline. We have to be taught to be disciplined-that’s a big part of basic training-but sexual attraction comes perfectly naturally to most of us. There are limits to what good order and discipline can achieve and overcome and sane military policy recognizes that, but our policy is now being directed by those who think that all “gender differences” are the result of culture and socialization and not hard-wired. This is foolishness and delusion and we’ll pay a price in blood for it.
It’s called “male/female sexual attraction” – or, if you prefer, the “male/female dynamic”. Members of both genders act differently in a mixed-gender environment than they do in a single-gender environment. In particular, many have an increased tendency to do stupid things due to that effect.
For someone who uses the screen name “DrKnow”, you appear to have quite a bit of difficulty perceiving the obvious.
Also, in response to your comment about leadership, you are right.
In a perfect world.
Now lets step outside that to a world where you are tired, wet, hungry, exhausted, frustrated and trying to complete a mission were lives could be on the line in a very dark, hot and kinetic environment.
In this game, there is no time for “grab ass” or argument as combat effectiveness will be compromised.
Green Thumb-
in that situation, why not get rid of the offenders instead, as they are the ones causing the issues.
we have gone down this road, before, and I have said all I need to say about it. Here’s a peek at what is in store for these women. Now; how many instructors will get hauled before the Old Man for sexual misconduct when they touch a female the same way they touch the guys? The training will change; you can bet book on that.
Create a battalion of women rangers and send them on a mission! That will proofs if the women are as tough as men.
The standards will be lowered…just like jump school.
Sparks,
As a chicklet, I once really believed I could do it. That is until we did a mock up for Air Assault. Boom. I could not make my little body physically go to make that road march. We needed it under three hours and I missed it by two. I didn’t have it in me to go back and try again. I just figgered to leave it to the big boys with real balls.
I am still tough, but I had to know my limits or be disappointed over and over. I left it for the ones who could.
That said, from a chick perspective, we admire the males as much, too and we are just as prone to do things we would not in a normal situation.
I don’t have so much of a problem with this as I do with the females not having the strength –genetically to do what a dude can. I might be the best goddamned medic you ever saw, but they’d have to dump me in by chopper to get the job done.
Somebody said the powers that be are using the troops for the biggest social experiments ever. And the more I see, the more I believe. We should be considered and elite force, no matter what our tabs or patches say and we should NOT EVER have to conform because of that very reason.
The road march…I missed it by two minutes.
DefendUSA…Thank you, for serving. I appreciate your post and I appreciate that you understood I was posting my OWN feelings as a guy and no one else, however skewed my feelings and thoughts may be by today’s standards. I certainly meant no disrespect or offense to you or any woman serving or who has served. Regarding you being a medic…God bless you! I owe my life to medics in the field, then in Medivac units and hospitals. You are one of the most important and critical functions in our military and without you and many like you, I and so many others I knew would not be here today. Thank you, for the lives here today because of what you gave.
Yesterday I posted my comments above. I should have posted the last part first. I spoke of my personal thoughts and was honest about them. While I knew they would not be well received by all or most I had no idea one poster would read what was NOT between my lines and construe their position based on things I did not post or intent. The outcome unfortunately were several exchanges which took the thread somewhat off target. For my post having anything to do with this, I apologize to all. Regardless of my personal thoughts on the matter of women in combat roles, my true intent was as follows. I do not want to see any more troops die than is necessary in combat. Not of either sex. The loss of life in combat is something I remember with sadness to this day. While I understand and accepted then, it was an unavoidable risk, I am in favor of making that risk as unavoidable as possible at all costs. To me, that means the highest trained and qualified troops in every job, doing those jobs to the best of their abilities. High standards produce a high quality troop. Lower standards produce a lower quality troop. It is true in our school systems when courses and testing methods are reduced to the lowest common denominator and it is true in the military or any field of endeavor. But the military unlike any of the others, is one where American lives are at stake. That in itself is reason enough for me to conclude that lowered, entrance, training and qualification standards will result in lives lost which need not be. I love our troops and honor all our veterans. I wish to see them come home safe and whole. All that can be done to accomplish this is of the highest priority to me and should be to our Pentagon and President. To Hondo and all others who were caught up in the results of the person misreading onto my comment conclusions not there, I apologize. I will say again, in… Read more »
The world is a strange and ironic place indeed. The same liberals who so vehemently opposed the draft will have to conscript unwilling females in order to meet their target numbers for a “gender-normed” force. Stranger than fiction indeed.
It actually was the Republicans who put ending the draft on their party platform first. Most of the Democratic establishment at the time wanted to keep conscription knowing that the eventual costs of a volunteer military would be unattainable at the then required force structure.
True, but only half the story.
Nixon promised to end the draft during his 1968 campaign. This was indeed somewhat due to beliefs Nixon had acquired while out of elective office that a military draft was not strictly necessary. However, it was also largely a reaction towards the anti-draft sentiment that had developed under LBJ during the Vietnam War.
Further, Nixon planned to wind-down the number of US troops in Vietnam (which he in fact did – to zero in 1973, embassy guards and Defense Attache personnel excluded). Doing so would reduce the need for military manpower enough to allow him to end the draft.
The last US politician to call for reinstatement of the draft was Rep. Charles Wrangel in 2006. Then-House Speaker Pelosi opposed the proposal.
I was referring to specific politicians, not parties in general. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my original post.
Beware of the leader that will lead you into combat so THEY will get promoted. Either Sex, but this seems to be the MO of the Senior Female Officer Corps. Couple of Sacrifices to the PC Gods and we are off and running. Even better, some Enlisted Females to start the pyre.
So will the tabs from that class have an asterik?
Stacy0311…Thanks brother, you owe me a keyboard! LMAO. 😀
Is that Asterik or ass to risk?
Captain Kathleen Wilder was able to wrangle a “Certificate of Completion” in 1981 after failing SF Officer Course in 1980 (ca. 1982 all officers were then required to go through the Q Course with the NCOs).
When word got out that she got her “Green Beret” (before the Long Tab, I think), I heard some Rangers say, “The day a crack-troop gets a Ranger Tab is the day I remove my Tab.”
Question – will women be allowed in Ranger units? If not, why are we wasting school slots? In case nobody noticed, things are kinda tight these days.
I agree that the biggest challenge will be finding women who actually want to go to Ranger School. After a few months in, most people have enough of a clue to know if they have what it takes to make it into any of the elite schools. First you have to separate out the women capable of passing to the current standard. Then you have to find the women in that group that actually want to go through the course. This makes for an extremely small pool of women to choose from to be your initial class. Or even in any class after.
Spot on!
When Canada opened up all MOS’s to women there was an initial rush as people want to be “the first”. The interest drops off pretty quickly after that point.
Also, women officers aren’t stupid. They can see that any women, even one who makes it through Ranger school, will have to compete head to head in a much more competitive OER gene pool as a combat arms officer. Which will have the effect of decreasing their opportunities for promotion.
I think she’s hot. Although not as hot as a sprinkled donut.
If she could just dye her hair blonde…
sincerely
John “Faker 6” Giduck
Wonder how long it will take before there’s a – categorical first – casualty related to toxic shock syndrome after sanitary “issues” compound under stress, heat, load, lack of “facilities” or the free time to utilize them.
I’d support an all female unit… But I can’t get behind this gender mixing in combat arms. This country has lost focus. Mission first has been replaced with equality – kinda defeats the entire principle of any military organization.
So you’ve never heard of the diva cup, huh? Surgical quality silicone, not a tampon, does not collect bacteria, does not produce toxic shock syndrome, used by women hikers and free-climbers.
Next!!!
Sure.
What is the maintenance under extreme conditions? Especially if there is an inside or outside issue?
And are we overlooking biological infection? Separate from the cup? And will women willing do this, somewhat unproven in the long term, device that could have side effects on health down the road?
You brought up a great and logical point, just not the entire point.
No offense. Just being logical.
And what do you do with urine when you’re in the field?
Empty the cup, rinse with water, reinsert. If possible, boil it, but the silicone version does not require that as it is non-absorbent.
Unproven in the long term?
McGlasson and Perkins invented the original design in 1932, with several variations up to 1950. A different version was marketed in the 1960s by Tassaway, but a more popular brand was marketed in 1987 as The Keeper, and MeLuna began manufacturing theirs out of TPE in the 1990s.
The capacity of the menstrual/diva cup is roughly 3 times greater than that of a super tampon.
Any questions?
Now, would I offer a solution without a backup, GT?
Seriously, what do you take me for?
OH, and in regard to urination: the She-wee or Go-Girl is used by women hikers and backpackers in back country, so we girls can pee standing up. 🙂 Just requires a little practice. And no dropping trows.
Do you realize how long that takes?
And how much extra product you are taking along? And garbage you are producing? And your “Pee-Wee”, how is that being sanitized?
In the amount of time it took me to write these questions, we are moving again.
I hear your argument, but it is being stretched thin.
Haha haha haha. “Rinse with water” hahahhaha! Where are you getting all that water from? Every man in the platoon has already drank his IV bag.
Has anyone let Chaz Bono know it’s time now??
Dat Ass tab?
Pink tabs. That’s the answer. Pink tabs.
Hey Sparks. All men are horn dogs. That doesn’t mean that we act on our impulses but it does mean that our minds conjure all kinds of R and X-rated thoughts in the company of women and that our eyes suddenly develop X-ray vision. In other words, our focus changes and, when it does, our focus isn’t where it should be. (Thus, we force images of Golda Meir or Janet Reno upon ourselves to get right.) Worse, despite the impure thoughts, most men are also extremely protective of women. That combination is not good. Not good at all.
OKay, AirCav, I’ll take this viewpoint. Let’s say I’m back in my 20s, as I was in that photo that was in the members’ gallery until that whackjob in the pacnw stole it and ‘shopped it onto Audie Murphy’s MOH portrait. (Yeah, he IS that low.) So it’s gone for the time being. But let’s say I’m back in my 20s, following your squad or team as a combat photographer, and I do have a sidearm (I would insist on that), but don’t have a rifle because I’m busy shooting pix of you guys taking potshots at the bad guys.
And let’s say I see one of the bad guys poking his head above the wall and aiming at you, so I pull my gun out and take a shot at him, succeeding in popping a hole in his head.
Are you going to get your shorts in a wad because I was shooting my gun instead of my camera and I was protecting you?
I’m asking this seriously. Nothing facetious about it.
Of course I would not mind if you took out a bad guy and saved my butt in doing so. I would be quite grateful, I’m sure. And if, tomorrow, someone got the drop on me at an ATM while I was withdrawing cash and you intervened, drawing a pistola on him and owning the situation, I would be likewise grateful. But that wouldn’t change the fact that men are from Mars and women are from Venus.
Am I the only one who picked up on the 35 lb ruck for the 12 mile road march? I don’t think my ruck EVER weighed 35 lbs when I went through (class 11-03), and as far as as our pre-Ranger course (Fort Drum), I think it had to weigh 65 lbs (could have been 55, that was a while ago). That could be argued as “lowering the standard” right off the bat.
In the video I posted (granted, it’s older, but still relevant, because the training hasn’t changed) it shows these guys humping a minimum of 65lb rucks, on marches, in the field exercises, all over the place.
Word.
The ones screaming for “equality” are the ones who don’t want true equality, they want high standards for others, but “different equal/high” standards for their constituency.
These women crying for women being in combat arms want women to be in combat arms, but at “easier” standards. Its not equal unless THEY say it is equal, especially when it doesn’t apply to them, or they don’t have to meet the standards.
Its the same with the “equal” PT standards. They aren’t equal. Not even equal in regards to age. The older you get, the less you have to do. And if they wanted to be “biologically” equal, they would make females do more Sit-Ups than males. Why? Because they are stronger in the hips due to the requirement of giving birth. Men are stronger in the chest and shoulders. But if they did that, some females would be crying “unfair” and “discrimination”. Why? Because its not “fair” for them to have to do more.
With any Army training course, if there is a determined “distractor” that causes students to fail at a higher rate, whether as a whole or as one “type” of student for that class, there will be a determination identifying that the “distractor” caused a higher failure percentage, with recommendations to increase the passing rate for that “group” or for the whole class.
In other words, when females can’t pass the current physical requirements as they stand, they will reduce that requirement.
…In other words, when females can’t pass the current physical requirements as they stand, they will reduce that requirement.
Dunno about nowadays, but I’ve been told that in the 1980s there was only one age category for PT: 17-21. The older NCOs and officers got no break; 35 year-olds had to pass the APFT using the 17-21 age standards.
I would hope the SFAS would not change this requirement to be politically-gender-correct.
I just checked http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/sfas/prepare.html Looks like SFAS is an awesome FIVE WEEK program … Women, like their male counterparts, will have to pass SFAS before even going to SFQC.
These are nothing but pre-reqs.
The fun will start later.
Damn straight! That’s just SFAS … the Q-course kicks manly ass.
Do not forget peer evals.
I wonder how the Army will “fix” that?
Easy: no more peer-evals.
There, fixed.
Since when?
Not yet; I mean …. after peer-evals become “problematic.”
Roger that.
Peer evaluations?
Women are a lot more nasty about verbally disemboweling each other than men are.
Another nail in this bizarre and dangerous idea.
Peer evals are a great tool. Peer eval’d out a couple in OCS. The TACs were a little shocked when we asked “Is it okay to write on the back of the form?” Even more so when we went back and asked “Can we have an extra form?”
It’s easy when everything is recorded in a little green notebook.
I’ve been “just another Leg” my entire Army career, but I’ve heard stories about the peer eval sessions in Ranger School that some referred to as “Fuck your Buddy time”. Will Females participating in Ranger School get special treatment, or will political correctness be enforced by Executive Order the way B. Hussein 0bama & Company like to force their agenda down everyone’s throat?
I was not a Ranger Instructor, so I have no way of quantifying what I’m about to say. My memories are over 30 years old …. but as I recall: Peer evaluations were required after each Phase and my impression was that everyone hated to do them. You did not have to say anything bad about a student — you could highlight team-player, selflessness, hard work, etc. Or, if the person has no business being in Ranger School*, adverse evaluations help clear the field. As far as adverse actions go, I think the peer eval is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. If someone is average and receives a poor evaluation, the RIs probably take it in stride. The student can be recycled if the RIs think he has potential. I do recall a few problem-children who were removed from my class — possibly they received too many adverse comments. . . . . When you’ve been humping all day and all night and you swear you weren’t napping, but the RI is holding your patrol cap in his hands …. and it’s raining, and you’ve just been made the patrol leader …. and everybody is humping, pulling his weight trying not to drone …. THEN you get one fellah who starts to feel sorry for himself, becomes selfish, drags ass, WHINES noisily, then has the temerity to tell you — the patrol leader– “No, I do not want to take point, tell somebody else.” Well (after two other students pryed my fingers from around his neck as I actively was choking him)… I suppose I felt compelled to give an adverse peer evaluation. I think he received more than one. * City Week: One student who obviously did not belong in Ranger School was one night yelling at a tree. I asked him what the heck he was doing; he said he was counseled by the Senior Ranger Instructor to show more leadership ability. So he was practicing giving commands to a racoon in the top of the tree. He was yelling for the racoon to “Come down… Read more »
“Spotlight” Rangers do not make it far.
Especially those that whine and cannot carry the load.
Word.
This really boils down to a few female officers who cannot get promoted in various categories.
As mentioned above somewhere, not the rank or file.
The good of the few outweigh the good of the many. Or does it? Only time will tell.
Isn’t this all volunteer?
I know what the washout rate is for SEALs.
What’s the percentage of volunteers who start versus those who wash out?
If this is only looked at as a way for women to make rank, then the entire program is phony and a failure.
Ex-PH2 asks: What’s the percentage of volunteers who start versus those who wash out?
From Wiki re Ranger School:
Re BUD/S:
SEAL training is extremely rigorous, having a reputation as some of the toughest in the world. The drop out rate for SEAL training is sometimes over 90 percent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_SEALs
Thanks!
As I said, if this is ONLY regarded as a way for women to make rank faster, it’s phony and I object to it.
If, however, enough women volunteer for it to make the statistics valid, I may change my mind.
And no, I do NOT think the standards should be lowered. Period.
Doing so invalidates the purpose of the entire program, which is to train elite warriors, NOT to boost people up the ladder faster.
Have I made that point clear?
Another social engineering program by the idiots in Washington, being pushed by the Femi-nazis.
I wonder what would happen if they told the NBA,NFL and MLB they had to have 10% of their teams be females.
Women are capable of ground combat, it’s just they are limited in their effectiveness.
There might come a day when we are in the same positions the Kurds are in, where we are fighting for our existence and anyone who can pull a trigger will be given a gun.
We have the luxury of putting the best, most qualified people in the job.
We don’t need to waste the lives of men or women by putting people in a job they can’t do.
I also noticed that the females who go through this school won’t be designated as “students” but as “Observers and Advisors”,,,, and they cannot be failed out of the course. They have to be medically dropped or request that they be dropped.
So, whats going to happen when they flunk a portion? will they just take a note on it and move on to the next phase.
For what it’s worth The Marines have had a few women make it through SOI, but SOI is not as grueling as Ranger School. They took only volunteers who where the best of the female graduates of recruit training, and still had a 60-70% failure rate.
The USMC Infantry Officers Course has had about a dozen female Lts attempt it. These Females where all top notch athletes… All but one dropped on the first day, and the other dropped within 3 days.
I thought we had this asinine argument worked out last year in January and that the REAL reason you GUYS don’t want us WIMMINS in your turf and trench zones is that you can’t get your tiny minds off your crotches.
And as I said in January, LAST YEAR, do you really expect me to believe that all you can think about is getting laid when live rounds are flying over your heads?
To which Twist answered: You’d be surprised what you can think about when live fire is flying over your head.
I get that. And at least he was honest.
But what this ridiculous argument boils down to is that you GUYS are afraid you’re going to be replaced in the trenches by us WIMMINS, and yeah, there are WIMMINS who are physically capable of cutting the mustard in this line of work, whether you like it or not. And if they are, the first thing out of your silly mouths will be ‘oh, they must all be lesbians, they’re probably all uglier than a duck’s ass, who would want to f–k that beyatch,’ etc.
So you might as well admit that your entire argument against this idea revolves entirely around the idea that maybe none of
the WIMMIN selected for this, and passing it, will want or need your services as sex partners because they will be able to pick and choose who and what they want, and most likely won’t be interested in any of you.
So go ahead – make all the disparaging remarks you like. The women who manage to pass through this school will very likely be damned good at being Rangers.
And that just burns your shorts, doesn’t it?
I have to disagree with you, Ex-PH2. I was an Army 11B/11H for four years, then a Marine 0311 for ten years. Those units had no wimmen back then. I later joined the Guard and spent my last nine years in logistics, (a field with lots of wimmen.)
The problems I saw were not with whether wimmen could do their job or not, the problems were during those time we were not doing our jobs, which was most of the time.
When boys and girls are put together in confined quarters, they act like boys and girls and there isn’t anything any commander can do about it.
I was at Ft. Lee going through school to reclass to 92Y and the Commander had more trouble with the boys and girls acting like boys and girls than she did with booze or drugs. (She was a good CO and I liked her.)
Most of a soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines life isn’t spent in combat; they are in garrison or someplace like that. Where they act like boys and girls.
I do not think wimmen should be in the military in any capacity doing any job because of these things I have observed.
Full disclosure: I met my wife in the Marines, she was a 0161 Postal Clerk at 29 Palms, and my youngest daughter was a 1391 Bulk Fuel Specialist at Camp Mujuk, Korea and later at 29 Palms.
Forgot to add my BLUF: Wimmen are not conducive to the good order and discipline of the military.
I can see your point, Legans, except for one little thing: I was in the Navy during the 1960s and 1970s and all the disorder and lack of discipline I saw came from sailors, not from the WAVES.
I took my job seriously and was regarded as peculiar because I was there to work, not to fool around. All the other women I knew had the same attitudes. And frankly, as I said, the bulk of the fooling around at work came from the men, NOT the women.
I have no doubt you and your fellow WAVES were a credit to your service, Ex-PH2. I was in after you and in different services. Our experiences were very different.
My own experience is closer to current times and has a more relevant point of view than yours.
And I have to add, Legans, that you contradicted yourself in several places in what you said. You don’t want women in the military, but that CO was good at what she did. Women are not conducive to order and discipline – your words, total BS – but you met your wife in the military and your youngest daughter was in the military working in what I can only surmise is a dangerous job.
You’ve bluntly contradicted yourself, but you lay the blame for misbehavior on boys and girls, not men or women. Are they children or adults? It’s okay for men to act like randy idiots, but women should not EVER show any interest in sex?
You can’t have it both ways, you know. We are NOT here for your convenience.
I do not see how I contradicted myself, Ex-PH2. I noted some experiences I have had with one female CO, (I had another who was very good,) my wife and daughter were Marines, that does not mean I think they should have been.
I retired from the Army as a SFC so I do tend to refer to the younger troops as “boys and girls” instead of “men and women.” You are right, of course, they are men and women and should be treated as such. The young women are just as randy as the young men BTW.
Okay, what I see you saying is that when off-duty it was okay for the guys to be ‘guys’, but the girls shouldn’t act like normal girls who like guys. They should be prissy and prim, and I don’t understand that. I’ve never been prissy and prim, nor have I ever held myself to a lower standard of performance than any men I worked with, in the Navy or in my civilian job.
You’re sending a mixed message there. That’s how it looks to me.
My apologies, Ex-PH2, I did not mean to convey one was to blame over the other, they are not. They both act like men and women.
Most of the time spent in the military is off duty. That is where I have seen problems arise. Most of us spend a 8 or 10 hour duty day then hit the barracks for whatever we’re going to do. It is during those times I have seen most of the mischief happen.
OK, but that was also true when I was in the Navy. All the mischief happened outside of work, at the EM clubs or parties offbase. It didn’t happen (to my knowledge) during working hours, or when standing duty sections.
Working hours are not what I was talking about or referring to. Most of a soldiers or sailors life is spent off duty hours.
During duty hours men and women are on the ball and working well together. I have been there and done that.
After hours, which is most of our time, men and women act like men and women.
When I met my wife she was a Corporal and I was a Sergeant. We were very proper Marines in front of all the other Marines.
You’re still not seeing my point. Women and men work together in civilian jobs. In MOST companies, they behave the way they should but after work, they act like, as you put it, men and women.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out with what you said.
I never said women couldn’t do many jobs in the military. They can and I have worked with many who were great at what they did.
That does not mean I think they should be there doing what they do.
I was an Army and Marine Infantryman. Infantry is what all war boils down to and women are not suited to that life.
They can and do fill many support roles, but they cannot fill the Infantry role and they are not conducive to the good order and discipline of the military.
Ex – IF woman can make it through the Ranger School, as is, no exemptions or exceptions, then, yes, they would most likely make good Rangers. I honestly don’t think anyone doubts that. I think the real, and very realistic fear is that, once non-superwomen start having difficulties and dropping out in excess of what the “observer corps” thinks is appropriate, then the standards will be dropped. WILL be, Not “might” be. It has happened every time this has come up before in my beloved Army, first in Airborne school, then in Air Assault (a shell now of its former, Bullwinkle Wing glorious self), and so on. I honestly do no think anyone would have a single objection to any woman going through this or any other combat arms course as it stands, with standards determined by the need of what the course is intended to produce, not by the nature of the students themselves. However, the track record of what Big Army has been forced (sometimes far too willingly) to swallow over the past forty or so years makes it a lock that Ranger will be forced to “evolve.” And while supporters will have a group of young ladies with tabs to applaud, briefly, until they move onto the next thing they see as needing changing, the combat effectiveness of the Army will indeed suffer as a result. Permanently. There is a Christian book called “Wild At Heart,” really aimed at the ones who missed volunteering and later regret it, that discusses briefly the real philosophic center of all this – what is it that a man fights for, and why does a woman need to be fought for. This sounds silly, but I feel we have drifted so far from any common moral ground in this country that we don’t even know who we really are as people anymore. Without grounding, without a moral center and foundationally shared truths, how can we truly cooperate and work in harmony together, as a community and as a nation? Why have we drifted so far afield that what we are, biologically… Read more »
John, see my comment below.
This is not about morals, and while it seems to be change for the sake of change, the feminazis co-opted the feminist movement a LONG time ago, to the detriment of the rest of us who want to succeed on our own merits, and not because we feel we are owed any favors.
EX-PH2,
I have been bested by females in a few endevours in my time in. There was one who smoked my ass in the PFT Run ( as well as 90% of the males. She could run 3 miles in like 15:30.
There was another female that made me, and about 250 other males look like non-shooting fucks in the 1998 Western Divison Matches. She took a spot on the All Marine Rifle team, and i have nothing but praise for her.
I have nothing but admiration for anyone who strives to do a job and performs to a high level of excellence.
Even if men and women were nuetered and spayed and given a magic pill to “unsex” them and take that completely off the table there is still the fact that women are simply unable to stand up to the day to day rigors of being a grunt.
I have personal knowledge of a hard-charging Marine 2nd Lt who is a superb athlete. She is nationaly competetive in cross-fit. She did not last a full day in Marine Corps Infantry Officers Course.
Point taken, Old Dog.
I’m only making the argument that the disgruntled grumbling appears to stem from those who fear loss of their own status, which is NOT going to happen under any circumstances, despite what they fear.
Since this is a voluntary program and unless announced to the contrary in the future, the announcement says that standards remain as they are, and my response to the grumbling is that those who WANT to succeed at it will do so, period. Will power is a great motivator, and has far more to do with success than training, size, physical strength, fitness or stamina. Lowering the standards, as most of those commenting fear will happen, will not guarantee success for anyone.
However, the numbers of women who go through this program and others like it should be sufficient to provide a valid statistical reference, or the entire business of opening it to women is baloney.
Either the women who volunteer will make it or they won’t. That’s all there is to it.
Loss of my status, Ex-PH2? You have got to be kidding.
No Army in history has ever fielded an Infantry force of women. There have been a few countries who have fielded some snipers and fighter pilots, but they have never been an Infantry force who have ever made a difference on any battlefield in history.
War is for Men.
No, I’m not kidding.
Legans, I used to compete at horse shows, in classes over fences that would scare the hair off a bald man. My competitors were both women AND men. The playing field was completely leveled because the burden of proof – winning – was on both the horse and the rider.
I beat as many men as I did women, and not once did I hear any grumbling about being a female rider versus a male rider.
Warfare is a competition for survival. I could say it’s for reproduction rights, too, which is not too far off. That means that women in infantry are not supposed to be available for that purpose. In fact, they may decide to choose their own mates or may be killed or decide NOT to reproduce, hence loss of male status.
I’m not saying I WANT to go into combat. I’m a lot less naive than I was in the 1960s, when I requested duty that would have put me into a combat camera group. And I could bring up Dicky Chappelle, the female journalist embedded with the Marines in Vietnam, who stubbornly stuck to a story for weeks, to the completion of it when her male colleagues gave the same thing a week to 10 days.
But what you are saying, in no uncertain terms, Legans, is that women don’t have the right to serve their country under any circumstances.
That is utter crap, and you know it, but if I run into any WWII nurses who served in the Pacific theater or Korean War nurses, or for that matter Vietnam nurses and doctors, or if I ever run into my niece who was stationed at Baghdad as a surgical nurse, I’ll let them all know that you think they had no right to be there.
How can you be such a jerk and look yourself in the mirror?
Does your wife know what you really think of women and what we’re good for?
Me personally, I do not want a crotch that has been out there unwashed and “unbathed” for a week.
I will pass. But others will not and that is a HUGE leadership and, by extent, combat effectiveness problem.
I have not worked with any Female Marines. All the time was growing up. I traught to protect the Ladies.I was the protector and provider. The Ladies were traught to be comforter and teacher. What do you think I would feel if my female gunner was wounded or killed? Emotionally how would react to her first kill ? Could take handling WIAs and KIAs ? Hot LZs for MediEvac or Hot inserts and exertions? These are the questions that need answers. Joe
Well, Joe, maybe you should ask some of the women who were Army nurses over in Vietnam who were KIA. Their names are on the Vietnam memorial wall, you know.
Maybe you should ask Tammy Duckworth how it felt to lose both of her legs and now the use of one arm, when her helicopter was shot down.
But once again you point to the few, not the many.
When one population group is 10% of the total, the statistics are lower.
You ought to have a better response than the one you gave me. It does not hold one drop of water in view of the demographics.
Semantics.
You might not want to rethink using the “nurses killed in Vietnam” as examples here, Ex-PH2.
The US lost 8 female military personnel in Vietnam. Of the 8, 7 were US Army Nurses; 1 was a USAF flight nurse. Their names may be found here:
http://www.virtualwall.org/women.htm
Additional links there show their Virtual Wall memorials.
Of those 8 US military women who died as the result of the Vietnam War, two died of natural causes (1 complications of stroke, 1 sickness). Two were killed while on an R&R flight to Saigon that apparently crashed for reasons other than enemy action (no Purple Hearts awarded). Two others were killed when returning to home station in Qui Nhon from temporary assignment at Pleiku. The crash in this case was also apparently due to other than enemy action (no Purple Hearts awarded). The USAF nurse was killed in the crash of one of the “Operation Babylift” aircraft, again not due to enemy action.
Only one of the ladies who died in Vietnam died appears to have died due to enemy action. That occurred during a rocket attack on a US military hospital at Chu Lai – which was doubtless “inside the wire”.
I am not denigrating any of these ladies’ service. But using them as examples to bolster a case for women serving in combat roles or specialties is at best misguided. None of these individuals were engaged in ground combat operations at the time of their demise.
Duckworth’s example is somewhat more valid regarding service in combat – but again, not as an example of a woman serving in a ground combat specialty. Flying over a city in a UH-60 or AH-64 is a far cry from kicking in doors or humping a rucksack, ammo, and weapon. One does not have to be either an infantryman or a pilot to see that.
Oh, good. I’m glad to know that air combat doesn’t count for anything as combat.
The next time I see John McCain, I’ll tell him that being shot down and tortured during his little stay at the Hanoi Hilton by the VC doesn’t count for anything because it wasn’t ground combat.
In fact, I’ll tell all the helicopter pilots and fighter pilots who were shot down during OIF/OEF, Vietnam, Korea, and WWII that their injuries, deaths and imprisonments don’t count for anything because it wasn’t fucking ground combat. I’ll include any bomber pilots I come across while I’m at my search for these people.
For your information, 67 American women died in Vietnam and Laos. 9 of them were military. 4 of them were POWs, three of them tortured and burned to death in Laos, and one is still listed as missing. I’ll tell the two women journalists who were killed in combat operations in Vietnam that their deaths didn’t count for anything, either. I’ll tell Barbara Robbins, a CIA officer, who died when a car bomb exploded outside the US embassy in Saigon in 1965, that her death didn’t count for anything, either. I’ll tell all of them that none of it counted for anything because they weren’t in the bush shooting at people, as if bullets count and people don’t.
Take of the pink blinders, Ex-PH2, and read what I said – not what you assumed I said, or what you expected me (or someone else) to say.
I did NOT claim Duckworth’s service was not combat service; ditto for those of the nurses who died as a result of Vietnam. Each of those individuals served in combat. Hell, I even said exactly that above about Duckworth.
Rather, contrary to your misrepresentation above what I actually said was that none of them is a reasonable example of someone serving in a GROUND COMBAT SPECIALTIY in combat – e.g., a specialty such as infantry, armor, cav, or artillery. And you know that is 100%, absolutely true.
Flying is not serving in a ground combat specialty; it’s serving as a pilot. Riding on an aircraft as a passenger to go on R&R or to return to home base is not serving in a ground combat specialty. Serving in a hospital within a secure perimeter is not serving in a ground combat specialty. None of those are even examples of service while assigned to a ground combat unit. They are examples of service in an aviation unit and in medical units, respectively.
Everything I’ve said in this comment (and in the one you misrepresented above) is absolutely true, and you know that.
Your whole point in comments on this article has been to argue that selected women are fully capable of serving in GROUND COMBAT SPECIALTIES, and should be allowed to do so. If that’s your point, you need to provide examples that support your case – not unrelated examples that appeal to emotion, but are otherwise irrelevant to your point.
And my rebuttal, Hondo, is that since there are as yet no women specifically assigned to ground combat specialties, there is no way to provide examples. In addition, the resort to a defensive position of protecting such turf, which constitutes the bulk of arguments against this inclusion of women in ground combat, is as loaded with ’emotional’ examples as my comments about air combat and women’s deaths in wartime. Note that I did not include the deaths of servicemen and women during the attack on Pearl Harbor, which occurred BEFORE WWII was declared, and are therefore non-combatant in the mostly technical sense, EVEN IF they were later included. Nor did I include any and/or all of the surface and subsurface naval warfare deaths from WWII, or the losses suffered by the crew of the USS Indianapolis on its way to Tinian Island when it was torpedoed, and the crew were mostly killed by exposure and sharks, not by the torpedo or the resulting fuel fires. I could have easily done so, but I did not. You know as well as I do that the only way to even this out is to reinstate the draft and include women in the requirement and to make those specialty classes 50-50, and let the chips fall where they may. The fallout rate from all of them is always high. But don’t tell me that MY argument was based ONLY on emotional appeal, because that is what 95% of the comments on this thread amount to: a fear of loss of social position, hierarchy, and a certain amount of jealousy. What I have specifically noted is that the few comments about women engaging effectively in land combat, as here: http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=55675&cpage=1#comment-2036350 were specifically ignored by the majority of commenters, or if there was a response, it was somewhat derogatory. I also said, definitively, that the standards should NOT be lowered to accommodate anyone, period, because if they are, it invalidates the entire program. It does not level the playing field because it produces false results for the sole purpose of promoting someone, whereas competing as… Read more »
Great points, Ex. Especially on the draft and registering for selective service.
Just add pregnancy 1 month out of deployment as possible UCMJ action.
I know this blows open a new issue, especially regulating a woman’s reproductive rights, but I personally know a FSC that had 5 of the 7 women assigned become pregnant 1-2 months out. That is a personnel nightmare for a CO or any PSG or SL. You lose unit cohesion and effectiveness as you scramble to replace and train new personnel.
And I know, personally, that only three carries to full term.
And do not get me wrong, this was a certain socio-economic class. I will leave it at that. But I will state the fathers of these children, if found, should be held accountable as well.
I am not interesting in addressing points or issues arising from your exchanges with anyone else in these comments, Ex-PH2. Indeed, virtually all of the points you raise in the comment immediately above are irrelevant to my issue with you here.
My issue here solely concerns my exchanges with you in the comments to this article above.
I have engaged you precisely twice previously. This is the third instance.
In my first comment directed to you, I was pointing out the fact that your examples were not particularly appropriate given your stated position and point of view. That is accurate. In fact, everything I said in that comment was completely accurate. The fact that you appear to have misinterpreted it – or perhaps don’t like what I said – does not alter the fact that it is true.
Your reply contained a blatant misrepresentation of my initial comment. Indeed, it misrepresents what I actually said in a way that I find particularly objectionable and reprehensible.
It is that misrepresentation – by you – of my actual words above that is my issue. It is that misrepresentation of what I actually said which prompted my second reply – which was by design harsh. The “pink blinders” language was indeed purposefully chosen to both get your attention and to convey a message.
You generally defend your opinions well here. You are entitled to those opinions, and to defend them with vigor. That is laudable, and I can respect that even when I don’t agree with your opinion.
However, you are not entitled to misrepresent what I said to make your point. Doing that crosses the line between defending an opinion and misrepresentation of fact. And yeah, I do have a problem with that.
You want to discuss that issue, I’m all ears. Otherwise we’re done here.
Addendum: by the way, there are indeed existing examples of women engaging in ground combat that you could have used. And they are indeed US examples; I can think of at least two (and possibly a third) off of the top of my head.
How can you get 50/50 gender makeup for infantry AIT, Ranger school, BUD/S?
Even in the most socially progressive militaries(even ones with conscription)women make up about 2-3 percent of combat arms units. They makeup about less than one percent of infantry soldiers pretty much across the board. They are pretty much nonexistent in special operations units.
What do you feel the passing rate of females would be if you had these classes a 50/50 percent gender spread?
I mean, currently, at Marine ITB women have about 60 percent drop out rate in comparison to the 1-2 percent of the men. The women, in question, are pre selected.
How would that work in something like BUD/S?
I think the Army is putting the horse before the cart in this case.
Open up the “standard” combat arms MOS”s” to women without relaxing standards first, let women try to qualify and then run the math.
Then Big Army and the rest of the world can truly gauge if opening the “elite” specialties to women is a good idea.
Men the world is achangin’ the best way to weather the change is not to oppose it, but to engage the change. You can better manage it that way. The end goal should be to integrate women to the highest degree possible, WHILE maintaining the standards of each type of MOS.
Standing back and naysaying takes you out of the decision making loop, but taking ownership of the standards while being “inclusive” towards women will be the best chance of keeping our future warfighters as safe and effective as possible.
All of this is so much delusion by the feminist left that has convinced itself that there are no differences between men and women (or that women are men). This morning on Sportscenter they showed a female hockey player skating with the Ducks in practice, but they weren’t checking and the goalie blocked every shot she took (that they showed). The men said complimentary things about her, but I’ll bet that there’s not a man on their roster (or the rosters of their minor league teams) that they’d want her to take. There’s a reason that we don’t send women out to play sports against men-the difference in physical strength is obvious, but the military-where the issue is literally life or death-has been compromised by fools with political power. We will pay a cost for that in blood.
One more thing-sex is more primal than discipline. We have to be taught to be disciplined-that’s a big part of what boot camp is about, but sexual attraction comes perfectly naturally to the overwhelming majority of us. Those who seem to think that, by some miracle, military order and discipline, can overcome “the biological imperative” are further seriously deluded.
68W58, I agree completely. You can not “correct” biology and how someone is socialized (protective towards females, etc) with a 2 hour powerpoint presentation.
I have never seen men act toward women in any manner other than predatory. I have yet to see ANY man act protective toward ANY women, anywhere. PERIOD.
Do you want to go over that part about ‘protective’ again?
Did you perhaps mean this in reply to JC89? Because since I never said anything about men being “protective” in the first place (although I think your assertion is incorrect, it’s largely irrelevant to my argument), it would be impossible for me to go over it “again”.
Yes, it was meant for JC89. Sorry I wasn’t more clear about that. My bad.
This is for you, Ex.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/female-peshmerga-fighter-recalls-front-line-life/vi-BBbILHb
I am terribly sorry to hear that Ex-PH2, how sad.
Jacobite, it’s true. I would not waste my time making that up. From the time I went into the Navy, until I retired in 2008, I saw it constantly at work and outside of work, happening to friends of mine, to total strangers, to me, etc. I could make a long list. It was really bad, and it wasn’t just at parties or after hours at the local; it was while waiting for the bus at 5PM, or the same thing at 6:30AM, even on the bus or train. It never stopped.
Well, when you’re minding your own business and you grab a cab to go home, and the cab driver hits on you, your only recourse is to complain to the taxi company, but the driver is right back the next time and does the same thing.
And you guys probably wonder why I get so bitchy.
“And you guys probably wonder why I get so bitchy.”
I just figured it was because of that Lebanese pileup. //duck //cover 😉
I apologize in advance for the long post. I have had many discussions and thoughts about this subject in the last several years. My understanding is that at the end of the day the primary mission of the military forces of the United States is to fight and win this country’s wars. To that end, I believe that decisions like this should be studied and decided upon based on what makes our forces more effective and lethal. I am not saying that other considerations are not valid, only that we should keep in mind what the ultimate mission is and what the cost of changes not based on this could be; which is to have more servicemembers return home dead or wounded. I have served with females (usually indirectly with them being assigned to my higher) for most of my career. The vast majority of them are no better or worse as Soldiers then the males. Most of that depends on the person and the leadership that they are under. There have been well known cases where females have performed acts of extreme valor and leadership throughout our history, so this is not in question. For me, there are two questions that concern me about allowing females into ground combat units. The first is the physical aspect that has been talked about extensively on previous posts. I don’t think that you will find many people disagreeing that, in general, females have different physical strength and stamina then males. Some point to the success that females have had in the last 10 years of war when talking about physical aspects. What is generally not brought into the conversation is the fact that the majority of our operations have been mounted. When we get into a war that requires infantry to move long distances while carrying all their equipment, I doubt the success rate will be the same. It is probably valid to discuss what the physical standards need to be for those in direct ground combat. But, those discussions need to be based around what standards are needed to accomplish the… Read more »
Part # 1:
If they pass the course without any changes in the standards and they are smokin’ hot … I am good with it … providing …
Part # 2:
They are tested in real combat conditions, prove to be combat effective and don’t endanger fellow Rangers during proving period.
Overheard in whispered conversation at TRADOC Headquarters: Extract from first message: Candidate packets must be submitted NLT 10 Oct 2014. Suspense date has passed. What,Zero packets received? No sweat, call a staff meeting to discuss extending the suspense date and issue a stern reprimand to all commands that they failed to meet the deadline. There must be some packets out there somewhere,track them down. Let’s get going,we have to get this program up and running or heads will roll!! Jesus,this is just like the packet fiasco for the Army’s over 40 Astronaut Program.
For anyone still interested, I feel that Breach, Bang, Clear just wrote a fairly interesting piece on female infantrymen. I would suggest you read it, as it includes an interview with an actual female infantrymen, as well as some of the authors opinions.
http://www.breachbangclear.com/females-in-the-infantry-er-yes-actually/
Chris Hernandez, whose blog I have read before (it’s something like chrishernandezauthor.com or just google “Chris Hernandez author”), is a gifted writer. But he glosses over a great deal in this piece (for instance he notes that she is mech infantry and didn’t have to carry her gear very far in theater, says essentially “no big deal”, but omits that that’s exactly what our light fighters do in Afghanistan). Anyway, from the comments a rebuttal of sorts http://israelmatzav.blogspot.ca/2014/06/new-study-by-idf-reserve-colonel-says.html
I guess the real issue that the requirements for these duties not be lowered. At this point, I don’t believe they will be. Your rebuttal talks of the IDF setting up lowered standards for women trainees, which is probably what has led to the higher rates of injuries.
The article by Mr. Hernandez points out that the Marine Corps has already allows for women to attend their Infantry Officer Course and enlisted infantry schools. While only a few women have passed, the did so with the exact same requirements as the male students.
It isn’t training it’s physiology. There are any number of studies that have been done over the past 30 years or so that show that females will suffer higher rates of musculoskeletal injuries in comparison to men-here’s one: http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7. Physiology can’t be overcome with good intentions or with political maneuvering.
There are reasons why men and women have different physical training standards. Nature won’t be ignored forever.
http://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/InterimCMRSpecRpt-100314.pdf <– U. S. Marine Corps Research Findings: Where is the Case for Co-Ed Ground Combat? Interim CMR Special Report, October 2014.
BTW-the Army has no Ranger Branch or specific identified Ranger Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). Ranger duty is primarily an Special Qualification Identifier associated with certain MOSs (11B, 11Z, 13F, 25C, 25U, 35F, 35L, AND 68W) and concurrently connected with ranger coded duty assignment in some capacity within the 75th Ranger Regiment (authorizes Ranger Scroll and Beret). Such duty assignment requires successful completion of the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program (RASP1 or RASP2).
RASP is not attending and completing the Ranger School (A PME career development course). Results in award of the Ranger Tab. May not result in assignment into a Ranger coded duty position in the 75th Ranger Regiment.