# Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion



## AWP (Feb 9, 2012)

It looks like the DoD is opening up some formerly restricted MOS'.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/09/women-in-combat-policy-could-change/?hpt=hp_c2



> The Defense Department is notifying Congress Thursday it will open up nearly 14,000 jobs to military women that will place them even closer to the front lines of combat.
> 
> Some of the jobs that will now be open to women include specialties such as tank or artillery mechanic, crew members on missile launcher, and field surgeons in forward deployed brigade combat teams.


 
Of course we have the now familiar


> A senior Pentagon official confirmed details to CNN, but declined to be identified until a formal announcement comes later on Thursday.


 
Be interesting to see the actual MOS list.


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2012)

Welcome to the artillery, Ladies.

http://www.defense.gov/news/WISR_Report_to_Congress.pdf


----------



## pardus (Feb 10, 2012)

I'm waiting for the first "combat" female to be captured and violated/desecrated/mutilated. We'll see a shit storm in govt then about it with everyone in headlong retreat over this issue.


----------



## CDG (Feb 10, 2012)

pardus said:


> I'm waiting for the first "combat" female to be captured and violated/desecrated/mutilated. We'll see a shit storm in govt then about it with everyone in headlong retreat over this issue.


 
Welcome to the site. Please post an intro in the appropriate thread, just like all the other newbies. Thanks.


----------



## pardus (Feb 10, 2012)

CDG said:


> Welcome to the site. Please post an intro in the appropriate thread, just like all the other newbies. Thanks.


 
Get fucked! I'm sick of all this disrespect! I'm in an SF sniper, SEAL, freefall Ranger, airsoft team and I know it ALL!


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 10, 2012)

pardus said:


> Get fucked! I'm sick of all this disrespect! I'm in an SF sniper, SEAL, freefall Ranger, airsoft team and I know it ALL!


 
I call BS.

You're not an airsofter.


----------



## pardus (Feb 10, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I call BS.
> 
> You're not an airsofter.


 
I might as well be at the moment lol


----------



## LibraryLady (Feb 10, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I call BS.
> 
> You're not an airsofter.


 
I'm inclined to agree.  Airsoft requires mad skillz, and we all know Pardus ain't got none.

LL


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2012)

I came into this thread expecting misogyny and got Pardus instead.

Nicely done.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 15, 2012)

pardus said:


> I'm waiting for the first "combat" female to be captured and violated/desecrated/mutilated. We'll see a shit storm in govt then about it with everyone in headlong retreat over this issue.


 
I kind of disagree, because a large part of the momentum for this movement comes from people who don't give a damn about the military, or to what happens to those who serve within it.  It was the same with DADT; a lot of people involved in the repeal don't give a hoot about the service, and would certainly never serve in the Armed Forces themselves, but because the military is such a revered part of the American fabric, if you can force through your social agenda there, the rest of the country will eventually follow.  It's the whole "military are social experimentation" conflict.  Where the US military goes, the rest of the country will follow.  See also racial integration, homosexual rights, and gender equality.


----------



## pardus (Feb 15, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I kind of disagree, because a large part of the momentum for this movement comes from people who don't give a damn about the military, or to what happens to those who serve within it. It was the same with DADT; a lot of people involved in the repeal don't give a hoot about the service, and would certainly never serve in the Armed Forces themselves, but because the military is such a revered part of the American fabric, if you can force through your social agenda there, the rest of the country will eventually follow. It's the whole "military are social experimentation" conflict. Where the US military goes, the rest of the country will follow. See also racial integration, homosexual rights, and gender equality.


 
Good point.
Wouldn't surprise me if either of us was right depending on which party was in power at that time.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 15, 2012)

pardus said:


> Good point.
> Wouldn't surprise me if either of us was right depending on which party was in power at that time.


 
That's true too.

But I don't think it's a bell that can be un-rung.  In cases like this, it is way harder to take something away from someone than it is to give it to them, especially when "they" are a minority.


----------



## digrar (Feb 15, 2012)

I don't have any doubts about their ability to fight, I don't care if they get killed, raped or beheaded, that's going to hurt as much as if my brother gets killed raped or beheaded, but I have yet to come across a female soldier who could grab a 120lb pack and keep up with my patrol, or drag one of my 250lb boys and his 120lb pack out of the shit. If you can't get to the fight, you're no good to me, fuck off back to the rear.


----------



## pardus (Feb 15, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> That's true too.
> 
> But I don't think it's a bell that can be un-rung. In cases like this, it is way harder to take something away from someone than it is to give it to them, especially when "they" are a minority.


 
Oh yes I agree, it will not be reversed.


----------



## QC (Feb 15, 2012)

Ahh, The Gift of the Vagi...a wondrous thing. 

Toothpaste does not go back in the tube.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 15, 2012)

Isn't there a reasonable chance, depending on who captures you, that a male would get raped as well?


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 16, 2012)

I'm just saying, if our chicks can do it; then why not American chicks?  It just takes a certain "type" of chick and they are hard to find one that deserves to be there.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 16, 2012)

I did a little time down in Mississippi around Beloxi(sp) where the women are that rare breed Rack. There are many at the 6FT mark and 200+ pounds an no fat. They will look at you in bed and say things like not done till I'm done or is that the best you got let me show you how it is done. My 5'11" 165 pound body took a hell of a beating but when in the home tied to my wheelchair the smile will be from remembering that time in my life. Just sayin. I will tell you I fought with some Men that didn't belong in combat either.
Did I mention they could suck the heads of four dozen bugs and still sit down to a dinner.
Bill


----------



## JBS (Feb 16, 2012)

What's the purpose of the initiative to put women in combat? Is it to better careers supposedly hamstrung by lack of combat experience, or is it to enhance the ability of combat units to fight? The latest I've heard about this was on N.P.R.; they went on and on about female officers who have been held back from promotion because they were not combat veterans. Seems like a shitty, shitty reason to potentially compromise certain units' ability to fight, and a great way to get a lot more good men killed over someone's promotion. The fact is women excel in everything they get themselves into, except in physical challenges against men. Why can't we just accept that we are physiologically different? We shouldn't ignore genuine differences in gender in our pursuit of blind equality.

About the "rape" issue for captured women, I know the politically correct answer is that a male captive could be raped as well, but I'm going to go all Huckleberry and just say women are about 10,000,000,000 times more likely to be raped if captured than men, and that's probably a conservative number. It's almost a certainty on any potential battlefield I can think of on earth. It has happened in every war in the history of mankind. In my mind this constitutes (or will eventually constitute) a legitimate psychological and morale problem that will come with the territory the first time a female combatant is captured. It's a terrible thing when we lose one of ours; it will undoubtedly lower morale even further among our people if we know GI Jane is getting gangraped by an enemy battalion and social media will also present these new horrors for the world to see when the obscene footage eventually gets uploaded. Any career movers thought of that viral video?

Before we allow activists to dictate how we fight, we'd better be damn sure we want to send our high school graduate Lacrosse girls to the front lines just so someone can get that promotion they've been denied. I certainly do not mean any disrespect, and I say this as much as a citizen as a I do a combat arms Marine.


----------



## redleg_64 (Feb 20, 2012)

For a while we had a female medic attached to our platoon.  It was all fine and dandy until one night she got her feelings hurt.  A buddy and I had to try and console her for about an hour while explaining that she was a soldier first and foremost and she didn't have time to feel sorry for herself.  She needed to toughen up.  Well, as luck would have it that night a soldier had a pretty serious issue and needed to be sent off on a bird.  It was a big headache having her around. 

On the other hand I have seen firsthand what a female can do in combat.  In March 2005 SGT Hester from a national guard MP unit out of Tennessee earned herself the Silver Star for her actions in spoiling an enemy ambush south of Baghdad.  I can't remember how many of those dudes she killed, but there were bodies lying everywhere.  I just wish she would have saved a few for me! 

I'm glad that all 13-series MOS's aren't open to women.  I don't think I would be able to handle that.  I've had a few male soldiers who could hardly lift a 155 round and get it onto the gun, let alone hoist it over their head onto the back of the ammo truck.  It sucked having to pull their weight and trying to put them in a position where they could still be useful.  What would I do with a few guys who can run 12-minute two miles but can hardly lift an HE round, especially if I had a female in the section too?  I'd rather have lots of stocky soldiers who aren't the fastest runners but can work for hours on end emplacing a howitzer in the mud and shooting fire mission after fire mission.  For the most part, I just don't think a female could hang.  Keep them on the MLRS and the radars.  Don't push them down to the cannon battalions.


----------



## AWP (Feb 20, 2012)

redleg_64 said:


> In March 2005 SGT Hester from a national guard MP unit out of Tennessee earned herself the Silver Star for her actions in spoiling an enemy ambush south of Baghdad. I can't remember how many of those dudes she killed, but there were bodies lying everywhere. I just wish she would have saved a few for me!


 
Not to detract from her fine work that day, but her boss earned a DSC for the same action; the Army PR machine probably never passed that along.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 22, 2012)

Saw this on the Canadian Army News site and thought I'd share to add to the discussion; perhaps one of the upsidedowners could add more.



> *Battle-hardened Canadians to help female diggers*
> David Ellery
> February 21, 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## digrar (Feb 23, 2012)

RackMaster said:


> Saw this on the Canadian Army News site and thought I'd share to add to the discussion; perhaps one of the upsidedowners could add more.


 
I don't expect any of them to be able to keep up with the way we patrol. Non event and waste of time and money.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 23, 2012)

digrar said:


> I don't expect any of them to be able to keep up with the way we patrol. Non event and waste of time and money.


 
I completely agree for the majority of women but there will be some that can do just as good of a job as the average male soldier.  I'm not talking some 90lb piece of trash with daddy issues that joined to prove a point.


----------



## CDG (Feb 23, 2012)

RackMaster said:


> I'm not talking some 90lb piece of trash with daddy issues that joined to prove a point.


 
Hey man, those kind of girls have their uses.  Maybe not 90lbs, that's a little slender, but the daddy issues thing.


----------



## digrar (Feb 23, 2012)

RackMaster said:


> I completely agree for the majority of women but there will be some that can do just as good of a job as the average male soldier. I'm not talking some 90lb piece of trash with daddy issues that joined to prove a point.


 
Defence dollars are tight in most countries, the time, effort and money spent looking for the extremely small minority and the extra infrastructure you'd need to put in place to handle them seems like something most purse string holders would baulk at if you tried to do it in an open market. In our case here in Australia, I don't agree with pissing money against the wall to pander to mainstream social/sexual equity issues.


----------



## firstpig151 (Sep 14, 2014)

I just read this article on Yahoo and wondered if any of the Benning guys could shed light on this situation.
http://www.businessinsider.com/women-army-ranger-school-2014-9

I'm popping my new thread cherry here so if I jacked anything up please be gentle.


----------



## medicchick (Sep 14, 2014)

Page not found but going by the URL it's been covered many times. 

https://shadowspear.com/vb/threads/females-in-ranger-school.14209/


----------



## firstpig151 (Sep 14, 2014)

CDG said:


> "Page not found"


If you type "women go to ranger school" in the search bar on broken link page it should pop up. Did for me. Fucking yahoo


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 14, 2014)

The link is the right one I think, but doesn't work when clicky.. odd.

Waste of money sending females simply for the fact that it's a combat leadership course. Integration should happen elsewhere first.


----------



## medicchick (Sep 14, 2014)

firstpig151 said:


> If you type "women go to Ranger school" in the search bar on broken link page it should pop up. Did for me. Fucking yahoo


It's the site here, not Yahoo.  SS automatically capitalizes Ranger which makes the URL invalid.  Just change the "R" to lowercase and it's good.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 14, 2014)

Firstpig...  there is already a tasking circulating.


----------



## 18echo (Sep 14, 2014)

I dig this quote from the article:


> “If a female thinks she’s physically strong enough to get through the school to get the tab, she should be able to go,” said Staff Sgt. Marscha Boydston, a supply specialist in Joint Base Lewis-McChord’s I Corps.


It's not about what you think you can do. It's about what you can demonstrate that you can do.
I have known plenty of joes over the last two decades who _thought _they could do something that turned out to be not the case.


----------



## dmcgill (Sep 14, 2014)

The Marine Corps has been abiding the new study and have sent 14 females to the Infantry Officer Course so far, 13 of which failed on the first day. Sounds like a real waste of money, but my bet is on this is not going to work out for the "equal opportunists" at the Pentagon. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a83ea0-b145-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 14, 2014)

18echo said:


> I dig this quote from the article:
> It's not about what you think you can do. It's about what you can demonstrate that you can do.
> I have known plenty of joes over the last two decades who _thought _they could do something that turned out to be not the case.



Well, that happens at Ranger school all the time. Large portion of student attrition is during the initial portion of Ranger school... people think they can do what they need to be able to do, and unfortunately they can't do it to standard, or just can't do it at all.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 14, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> ... people think they can do what they need to be able to do, and unfortunately they can't do it to standard, or just can't do it at all.



Task, Condition, Standard.  That is all.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 14, 2014)

Pretty much.


----------



## CDG (Sep 15, 2014)

dmcgill said:


> The Marine Corps has been abiding the new study and have sent 14 females to the Infantry Officer Course so far, 13 of which failed on the first day. Sounds like a real waste of money, but my bet is on this is not going to work out for the "equal opportunists" at the Pentagon.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a83ea0-b145-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html



The author comes off as whiny and wanting things handed to her, IMO.  "I needed more time to prepare", "It's not fair". She knew what the male standards were, no reason she couldn't train to them on her own.


----------



## Centermass (Sep 15, 2014)

It's an ALARACT message 2 parts. 

1st is for female volunteers to be OC's 

2nd is for candidates.


----------



## Centermass (Sep 15, 2014)

UNCLAS
SUBJ/ALARACT 221/2014 - FEMALE OBSERVERS/ADVISORS FOR THE UNITED
STATES ARMY MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE (MCOE) RANGER COURSE
ASSESSMENT

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.
BT
#2045


----------



## Centermass (Sep 15, 2014)

ALARACT RELEASE AUTHORITY WASHINGTON DC

PAAUZYUW RUJAAAA2055 2542234-UUUU--RUJAAAA.
ZNR UUUUU ZUI RUEWMCF1570 2542234
P 112045Z SEP 14
FM ALARACT RELEASE AUTHORITY WASHINGTON DC//CMOC//
TO ALARACT
INFO RUEAUSA/ALARACT RELEASE AUTHORITY WASHINGTON DC
BT
UNCLAS

SUBJ/ALARACT 222/2014 - FEMALE STUDENTS FOR THE UNITED STATES ARMY
MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE (MCOE) RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT
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.
BT
#2055


----------



## Centermass (Sep 15, 2014)

Continued emasculation of the american fucking male.....


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 15, 2014)

I think this has been covered elsewhere on this forum but I didn't see it; Lt. Serrano does a great job explaining why women do not belong in the infantry (see link below). While the Ranger tab does not indicate someone as a Ranger, the school is designed in principal for those in combat arms. While the Army is not looking to place those women who pass Ranger School into RASP, by allowing women into the course at this present time, it takes away slots from those who would benefit more from going through the school. Can females pass it? Well I have never been to Ranger course but I am smart enough to know that there are very highly fit females in the world who are also great leaders, so I think the answer is yes (just like sooner rather than later, a female IOC candidate will pass IOC). With that said, what could they take away from the school that they could pass on to their peers at their home command? Where as if you send an 11B through, he is more likely to take that knowledge and not only apply it in the real world, but he can then also train and share with others to make them better soldiers. Isn't that a big reason why non-Rangers attend Ranger School?

https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/why-women-do-not-belong-us-infantry


----------



## Viper1 (Sep 15, 2014)

Centermass said:


> Continued emasculation of the american fucking male.....



I respectfully disagree.

It's about damn time the Army did this.  Here is why...we use the wrong definition of diversity.  We think of diversity as differences in color, gender, religion, ethnic origin, when it reality it doesn't mean squat.  Let's use race as an example.  I can find you a black, white, latino, asian, and mixed SF guy and as x sf med says, they are the same "rifle green".  Crossed Arrows worn proudly, I can guarantee they are all type-A, aggressive, savvy, smart, talented guys that want to keep swinging the bat for America.  That doesn't mean they think different or act different.  They could all be arrogant rapport crushers (I've met them all)  I can also find you men of all five color groups previously mentioned who "grew up in poor/broken homes, went to bad schools, had bad parents, no parents, or single parents, never had any money, and overcame a metric ton of adversity to achieve their goals but someone mentored them correctly (coach, parent, teacher, etc.)"  Different skin colors, but the same experience.  That quoted line is the contextual background for affirmative action, minority admissions, and other such programs.   Just having the color wheel represented within an organization does not denote diversity.  It is the breadth of individual experiences which creates diversity.

Breadth of experience, broad experiences, DIVERSE experiences.  This is what we, the military, civilian companies, other organizations should strive for.

The best boss I ever had before going into SF was a female from the Transportation Corps.  She was also homosexual, at a time when it was illegal to be open.  She was the best for a number of reasons, not the least of which were her competence, common sense, and focus on the mission.  She was an exceptional leader for all the reasons we define leaders as exceptional (competence, integrity, aggressive, physically fit, ability to accomplish the mission, care for soldiers, etc).  The point is, the fact she is female or homosexual should not matter.  She was the best boss I ever had between 2005 and 2011, period.

Ranger Psych is correct.  Plenty of men tried and failed at Ranger School, SFAS, the Infantry, or any number of difficult things within the military.  There are certain men and women I've encountered that I never trusted in combat or training.  Thankfully, they left units quickly or were marginalized to minimize negative impact on the force.  There are men and women I've encountered who are exceptional Soldiers in combat and training.  I've been lucky and fortunate to fight the enemy by their side.  Sure, there may be only 1-2 women who could pass Ranger School or Infantry School but hell, why not?  They bleed the same as us, they are as smart as us, can be as aggressive as us, etc.  This is where Capt Serrano is incorrect.

The mission is gender-neutral.  Combat is gender-neutral.  Physical fitness is gender-neutral.  The ability to carry a ruck, weapon, and your buddy under fire is gender-neutral.  The word Soldier is gender-neutral!  The right Soldiers will accomplish all of those tasks successfully, and then some.  Uphold the one same standard we all know to be true, and our survivability on the battlefield is not negatively affected.  Any boss worth his salt is going to select the best team to accomplish the mission, period.  There were days I didn't take my female CST on patrol but it wasn't because they were women...it was because they were not going to help me accomplish the mission.  I took both ladies in support of a commando op once and it proved most successful.  The same goes for the female CA medic I worked with.  Some teams didn't want a female on their firebase but a couple others, including mine, took the approach of "well, we have three SOCM trained medics now...better for us!".

The brotherhood exists whether there are women around or not, and truly exists overseas.  Ask any Soldier...a man can ruin the feeling of Brotherhood just as easily.  It's called "personality conflicts."  Sure, the CA folks, CSTs, and other enablers knew that they weren't SF Soldiers but they never tried to act like SF soldiers.  They performed as competent, aggressive, well-trained Soldiers and on that foundation we built successful teamwork.  Performance matters, and mission accomplishment with the best team has primacy.

Assault and harassment occurred with women outside of the Infantry, and unfortunately will continue within it.  It's a leadership issue and a character issue.  Men and women of good moral compass will not participate in such acts, period.  Our entire SOTF did not have a signal incident occur over the last five years.  That is more common than people think or know.

Capt Serrano is right on two counts: it isn't about the individual, and the infantry isn't broken.  I counter that all team members should have opportunities to serve in all capacities and just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it can't become something better.  Soldier is a gender-neutral, ethnic-neutral, color-neutral term.  The same goes for Airman, Marine, Sailor, and Guardsman.  The mission we conduct is gender neutral, as are the known requirements to conduct that mission successfully.  Meet the requirements, accomplish the mission.

Who cares about whether the Soldier in charge, getting an award, getting promoted, or getting kicked out for doing something dumb is black, white, asian, latino, mixed, male, female, gay, or straight?  If the Army is serious about diversity, it will get rid of those metrics.  If it is serious about diversity, it will focus on the Soldier, breadth of experience, and proper talent management throughout the ranks.

The End!


----------



## AWP (Sep 15, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> Physical fitness is gender-neutral.  The ability to carry a ruck, weapon, and your buddy under fire is gender-neutral.  Uphold the one same standard we all know to be true, and our survivability on the battlefield is not negatively affected.
> 
> If the Army is serious about diversity, it will get rid of those metrics.


 
Dai Uy,

I disagree with the first and it kind of contradicts the last, though I'm onboard with the overall message. The APFT isn't gender-neutral and a grave concern many of us have regards your last, the metrics. "If the Army is serious..." but I think many of us are jaded enough to believe it isn't serious about this. The concern is this is will start out as "one standard" but morph into two standards, one male and one female just like the APFT. Another fear-inducing option is one lowered standard for all.

I honestly think this is less of an issue of "I don't want a woman in my platoon" than it is of "I don't trust the Army to send us qualified and competent women." One or two make it through and earn a Ranger tab. Then comes the slippery slope of "Why don't more women have a Ranger tab" (or whatever argument) and then the standards erode to meet politically correct goals. The military already speaks with two tongues when it comes to one standard for all, and I see this in CSS roles, so why should we trust Big Army to hold everyone to a single standard in the Infantry?


----------



## Viper1 (Sep 15, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Dai Uy,
> 
> I disagree with the first and it kind of contradicts the last, though I'm onboard with the overall message. The APFT isn't gender-neutral and a grave concern many of us have regards your last, the metrics. "If the Army is serious..." but I think many of us are jaded enough to believe it isn't serious about this. The concern is this is will start out as "one standard" but morph into two standards, one male and one female just like the APFT. Another fear-inducing option is one lowered standard for all.
> 
> I honestly think this is less of an issue of "I don't want a woman in my platoon" than it is of "I don't trust the Army to send us qualified and competent women." One or two make it through and earn a Ranger tab. Then comes the slippery slope of "Why don't more women have a Ranger tab" (or whatever argument) and then the standards erode to meet politically correct goals. The military already speaks with two tongues when it comes to one standard for all, and I see this in CSS roles, so why should we trust Big Army to hold everyone to a single standard in the Infantry?



Your right, the APFT isn't gender neutral; however I didn't say the APFT.  I said, "physical fitness."  Two different things and yes, there should be one, single, tough, APFT standard. 

Has not the Big Army tried to tinker with standards and pass rates for Ranger School or SFAS concerning men?  Has not an Army leader or DoD official asked "why is the selection rate only 42% at SFAS?" or "How come only X% graduate Ranger?"  The length of SFAS changed three times in three years (21, 14, and now 19 days) in part to get more men into the Q course.  It went against a SOF truth of quality vs quantity.  We can't be afraid of what might happen.  We must be prepared and develop plans so that particularly bad decisions e.g. dangerously lowering APFT standards are negated and not placed into regulation.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 15, 2014)

Physical fitness IS gender neutral.

Task requires specific capacity. Measure those currently doing it in a unit that has proven recently to be combat effective. That's the standard.

Meet it. Period.

I don't care about an innie or an outie as long as you can hang... back when I was active duty?  Good luck finding a female that could hang in any PT event.  When we're rucking around the PT track out in front of building 4 faster than you're running on your APFT, something's wrong.

Would it have made the living situation slightly more complicated? Yes, but not overly so in all honesty. 

Anyone who's a Grunt knows they aren't going to shit/shower/etc in good conditions all the time. Most choose the job because the field is fun to them even before they got to introduce belt fed weapons to camping. I know I did. I prefer the woods. I didn't mind slit trenches and had been using them since I was 12 off and on. Walking long distances carrying everything I needed to live was an enjoyable thing.... only thing Rangering brought to it was getting to jump out of aircraft, ride helicopters, automatic weapons and making shit blow up... all in the service of my country and the ultimate goal of getting to pop nugs of dicks that wanted to do us, as the US, harm.  Rock on.

If they can meet the standard, unadulterated, the way it sits now? fuck it, congratulations, now get back out on the line.


----------



## Viper1 (Sep 15, 2014)

Let me clarify a few points as well.
1) I am willing to accept people attempting to accomplish a task and failing.  Plenty of Soldiers do it every year, at every school for various reasons.
2) The standards are hard for a reason.  Combat is hard, the load is heavy, and the consequences of poor performance are dire.  That is all gender-neutral stuff.  Again, some Soldiers of all types try and fail at hard standards.
3) Capt Serrano's arguments about other cultures needed women in Infantry for cultural survival may be true but it also irrelevant.  
4) Slippery slope arguments are going to happen but as we recently saw with the surprising uproar about hairstyles, Soldiers and the civilian populace do have the ability to affect leadership decisions and make changes.  Imagine the uproar if the PT standard went to something akin to middle school fitness?


----------



## AWP (Sep 15, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> Your right, the APFT isn't gender neutral; however I didn't say the APFT.  I said, "physical fitness."  Two different things and yes, there should be one, single, tough, APFT standard.
> 
> Has not the Big Army tried to tinker with standards and pass rates for Ranger School or SFAS concerning men?  Has not an Army leader or DoD official asked "why is the selection rate only 42% at SFAS?" or "How come only X% graduate Ranger?"  The length of SFAS changed three times in three years (21, 14, and now 19 days) in part to get more men into the Q course.  It went against a SOF truth of quality vs quantity.  We can't be afraid of what might happen.  We must be prepared and develop plans so that particularly bad decisions e.g. dangerously lowering APFT standards are negated and not placed into regulation.


 
You are right that physical fitness is gender neutral, but it is irrelevant as long as the Army recognizes two different APFT's; really there are more than that by the time you include the age groups. If the Army were truly serious about equality, then it would have a standard, not a bunch of standards.


----------



## Viper1 (Sep 15, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> You are right that physical fitness is gender neutral, but it is irrelevant as long as the Army recognizes two different APFT's; really there are more than that by the time you include the age groups. If the Army were truly serious about equality, then it would have a standard, not a bunch of standards.



Agree!


----------



## Centermass (Sep 15, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> The mission is gender-neutral.  Combat is gender-neutral.  Physical fitness is gender-neutral.  The ability to carry a ruck, weapon, and your buddy under fire is gender-neutral.  The word Soldier is gender-neutral!  The right Soldiers will accomplish all of those tasks successfully, and then some.  Uphold the one same standard we all know to be true, and our survivability on the battlefield is not negatively affected.  Any boss worth his salt is going to select the best team to accomplish the mission, period.  There were days I didn't take my female CST on patrol but it wasn't because they were women...it was because they were not going to help me accomplish the mission
> The End!



Sorry Sir.

This is one we will just have to agree to disagree. The foot in the door is the W/O just issued (Actually, not just issued, just made official as this has been a draft in holding for the last year) 

Once don't ask  was repealed, the writing was on the wall. I knew back then this was next. Sure, the lines have been blurred many times and females have found themselves in the midst of combat and performed admirably. No argument there from me. If and when the shit ever hit the fan to the point where it didn't matter if you were a fetus, if you had 10 and 10, then by God, you had better be armed and shooting back scenario, that, I fully understand as well.

But the dynamic of actually having co-ed front line combat units to close with and destroy the enemy is a nuclear can of worms that need not and should not be opened IMO.

But rather than go into all the specifics (Which I've done in other threads and don't want to sound repetitive) this little experiment has got nothing but whitewash all over it. Mark my words, once the standards start to get fudged (And they will) that's when all your "Neutral" examples will turn to exceptions and modifications for the sake of someone's agenda.

Selection will become a buzz word and direction will replace it.

All I can tell you is wait and see. I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## dmcgill (Sep 16, 2014)

Excellent arguments all around, this is turning into a really good thread guys. I am still far from decided on my stance. Part of me looks at the situation wondering if it's comparable to the Truman administration's decision to desegregate the military. Looking back on that, it is laughable (and horrendous) that we could be so archaic in our thinking as a society to believe that because someone was a darker skin complexion, they were inferior and unable to contribute to certain missions. Same thing with being homosexual. It's absolutely preposterous. Are we in the same boat with this issue?

The times now are less prejudicial, but still are on this issue alone in most combat-arms circles in my experience. It is a very slippery slope and I can see both sides. I've read the word diversity a few times in this thread, and it has reminded me of one of the most atrocious times in our recent history. In November 2009 when the terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 American soldiers and wounded 32 others, General George Casey made a comment at a memorial service for the fallen at Fort Hood. I remember hearing the words live and it stopped me in my tracks.

"As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well," Then it got even worse in a February 2010 interview (at least this time he wasn't in front of the fallen's families) when he clarified just what he meant, "Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was,* if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse*". He literally said with that quote that 13 American lives mean nill in the grand scheme of diversifying our military. Our military always will be diverse, because this is AMERICA. Now you may be wondering why I am referencing a terrorist attack to women serving alongside us. The situations themselves don't correlate at all. It's the type of thinking from our bosses in the Pentagon that worries me. I feel like their motives are just COMPLETELY fucked up. I feel like if this women in the infantry/SOF etc gets implemented it's not going to be the for the right reasons and bad things may come of it.

Opinions?


----------



## firstpig151 (Sep 16, 2014)

I am truly impressed with the all of the intelligent dialogue regarding this subject.  Viper, sir you must be a member of the Mensa Society and express your opinions like a college professor.  

Me, not an exceptionally brilliant man but smart enough to have a 120 GT score which is overkill for my MOS.  What I am however is a very seasoned 1SG, too seasoned in fact.  Now I am fortunate enough to have been combat arms my entire career so for me it has not been an issue.  On the flip side if you talk to any 1SG who stands in front of the formation of a support company and he'll tell you the horror stories of having to deal with coed company. 

You can kill soldiers with mandatory SHARP power points every day but given the opportunity there is always going to be that one fucknut that doesn't get it and pushes the envelope with females.  More often than not it is the consensual mating rituals that take place that causes the most issues when one of the parties decides that they no longer want to have coitus with that partner and said partner gets butthurt over it.  Then there's the always famous scenario when one of the parties wakes up in the morning, feels like a total slut and cries rape.

My point with this is that I get my ass kicked in the gym on a regular basis by a couple of badass females.  Are there females that can ruck all day and night then fuck people up when they get to the objective, possibly?  But as a professional cat herder of 11B knuckle draggers having to deal with boys and girls playing together, the drawbacks of such an arrangement would far outweigh the benefits in an infantry squad.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 16, 2014)

If all of this comes to pass, and women do attend/graduate Ranger school with a few years' follow on in the Regiment, I sure hope to hell that they are ready to spend their middle age years hoping that they can even find a date after they're done at the physical therapist's office.  

Perhaps that's a crude way to put it, but I've made my point regarding the physiological aspect before.  You might be able to produce a female that's trained hard enough to at least meet and maintain the standard, but how long will she be able to maintain that level vs. her male counterparts?

A true "one of the guys" mentality a female would need to be in possession of to mitigate most of the potential drama in a co-ed Regiment doesn't exactly lend itself to making her marketable on the dating scene.  If she's serious about it, though, she won't have time to worry about that until she gets out, and she may not even think about it then.  However, not all women are capable of that kind of emotional disconnect for an extended period of time, and may not be able to handle the psychological stress, whether they are listening to their biological clock or not.  It would not be unreasonable to expect that to lead to possible substance abuse or psychologically damaging relationship choices later on.  Would the VA be ready to treat those issues?

Everyone is focusing on the potential for lowering PT standards and the deleterious effects that it will likely have on mission readiness, and rightfully so.  However, as is tradition with the people who come up with ideas such as these, they aren't looking at the second and third order effects of this little foray into social engineering.  The VA has already been overwhelmed by the number of veterans of both sexes thanks to GWOT, and there isn't exactly an adherence to a uniform standard when it comes to "women's services" at the VA clinics.  Throw PTSD on top of that sudden realization that "hey, I'm not one of the guys anymore," and the risk of suicide in female veterans will likely increase.  

I honestly don't see how this is going to end well, at all.


----------



## ODA (Sep 16, 2014)

I just don't seem to be able to follow the rules!


----------



## AWP (Sep 16, 2014)

ODA said:


> Post


 
Per the Site Rules, post an Introduction. This should be your next post.

Thank you.


----------



## Viper1 (Sep 17, 2014)

Centermass said:


> Sorry Sir.
> 
> But the dynamic of actually having co-ed front line combat units to close with and destroy the enemy is a nuclear can of worms that need not and should not be opened IMO.
> 
> ...



I understand your concerns.  I don't want to see standards get lowered either.  I hit a decade in service next May and I have yet to see lower standards through the various infantry/Ranger/SF courses.  We can't keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.  We have to ensure we let women attempt entry into our fields before that happens because the current standard is the right standard.  

It's a hard call but it doesn't cost any additional time, money, or resources.  It's about time all people shared the fighting, the bleeding, and the dying in a more equitable manner.  This isn't a game, and the more people figure it out through hard experiences, the better.  They want to be on the front line humping the M240B?  As long as they can do it, fine by me. 

If leaders lower standards it will cost us dearly.  Soldiers will die unnecessarily, Soldiers will leave service, and we will go through some hard times.  I'm on the side that will enough knowledge and input from the field, our leaders will do the right thing and leave the standards the same.  I know hope isn't a method, but it's the best we have right now.


----------



## Viper1 (Sep 17, 2014)

dmcgill said:


> "As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well," Then it got even worse in a February 2010 interview (at least this time he wasn't in front of the fallen's families) when he clarified just what he meant, "Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was,* if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse*". He literally said with that quote that 13 American lives mean nill in the grand scheme of diversifying our military. Our military always will be diverse, because this is AMERICA. Now you may be wondering why I am referencing a terrorist attack to women serving alongside us. The situations themselves don't correlate at all. It's the type of thinking from our bosses in the Pentagon that worries me. I feel like their motives are just COMPLETELY fucked up. I feel like if this women in the infantry/SOF etc gets implemented it's not going to be the for the right reasons and bad things may come of it.
> 
> Opinions?



This is why I said the Army gets the word "Diversity" wrong.  This is exactly why.

As far as the right reasons... The right reason is that combat is a shared responsibility between all military members, period.  Sure, it'll get politicized, aggrandized, and become a media fire-storm.  We are the best Army in the world because of our Soldiers and leaders.  If anyone can make this happen correctly, we can and we should.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 18, 2014)

My biggest issues with this argument/tasking is that the standards are likely to be lowered, and as soon as women are in SOF units there will be a media and political firestorm about the inequities for those women who chose to attempt this life....   and also about the 'exclusivity' of SOF ....   there is a reason the word 'Special' is the lead word in Special Operations Forces...

If you are  the tasked machine gunner or AG...  you better be able to carry the gun and the ammo and your standard load.   If you are the medic, the aid bag and your standard load.

Be technically and tactically proficient, pull your own weight, literally, and be able to drag or carry anybody on your team, in your squad/platoon, with gear, to safety under fire, while prepared to return fire immediately when needed.  Field shit is heavy, you have to be able to move it , for long distances, in poor conditions, under stress and be able to function.

Current Standards, current load, current POI...  If you are transgendered, purple and have your entire body covered in tattoos while wearing dreadlocks... if you can meet and maintain the standard, 100%...  go for it....   if you quit, it's on you....  if you fail, you were not ready....  if you were peered, you pissed off enough of your fellow students and instructors that you are not trusted....  and yes, it is that simple.


----------



## Squidward (Sep 19, 2014)

I think I share the same worry as everyone on here: a lapse in capability and capacity. I've had someone (a male enabler) quit on me shortly after infil and again during exfil down range. That experience made me take special interest in every person I worked with from that point on. However, sometimes  we can't choose who we find next to us when it counts.

Whether we hate, love or are completely indifferent with the idea of having female team mates, it's happening. Who knows what will happen with the standards at the entry level? What I do know is that every soul that shows up to group, battalion or any line unit shows up as a basically trained individual in need of guidance, mentoring and education. We all know what right looks like. I'll do what I have to to make sure whoever ends up next to me knows and practices the same. We're in the business of making the extraordinary commonplace, and this is just one more challenge for the books gents. Come at me political requirement......


----------



## bayaniking (Sep 26, 2014)

Hi guys please tell me if  the  following pequisits are are helpful to passing rasp and if I should be able to do more. 
For the physical:
I can do 100+ pushups x 5 with 2 min rest.
I can run 15+ miles with no water
I can run/Ruck 20 miles 50lbs in about 4.75 hrs
I can run a 6min mile pace for at least 10miles
I can do 100+ situps w/15lbs neck weight
I can do 15 pullups w/65lbs best
I can do almost 5 one arm pullups with left arm. 6 w/right
I can swim great.
I am 145lbs, 5ft 10inch
I can poop
I stood awake for 5 days 
I can also pee.

For the mental: I have photographic memory, which gets really annoying sometimes
and I can also withhold from jacking for 2 days straight
I can also force my self to sleep


----------



## AWP (Sep 26, 2014)

Just stand by and a friendly member of the staff will be along shortly to answer your questions.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Sep 26, 2014)

The ability to poop and pee is a critical task.  Go post an introduction before posting again @bayaniking


----------



## Muppet (Sep 26, 2014)

W.T.F.?

F.M.


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 3, 2014)

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/art...t-Marine-Infantry-Officer-Course?sf31937895=1

Marine Corps Infantry, so easy a woman can do it.


----------



## dmcgill (Oct 3, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/art...t-Marine-Infantry-Officer-Course?sf31937895=1
> 
> Marine Corps Infantry, so easy a woman can do it.



They literally wrote an article about three chicks who passed the FIRST DAY of IOC. That is hilarious.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 10, 2014)

"Three Women Have Applied to be Army Ranger School Advisers" "If the Army moves forward with the plan, the women will start a modified training regimen next year to give them a sense of what the program is like so they can work alongside male instructors and help observe the female students selected for the first-ever co-ed class, known as the Ranger Course Assessment, tentatively scheduled for this spring."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...chool-advisers.html?comp=7000023317843&rank=6

OK....gotta question this, shouldn't the advisors/observers be past Ranger School graduates?   Are the cadre considered advisors/observers....or are there male advisors/observers....OR....is this a new thing for the females?


----------



## x SF med (Oct 10, 2014)

Instructors used to be tabbed and have 75th time before they were even considered for the position, then they had to be stud Rangers to get the post...


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 10, 2014)

How can a non Q'd individual run a course? It's a failure waiting to happen.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 10, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> How can a non Q'd individual run a course? It's a failure waiting to happen.


 
When the political beast enters the arena, they can make Monday into Wednesday if it's expedient for them to do so.

The rules don't apply to particular events when they decide they don't want them to.

Sad, really!


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 10, 2014)

Agoge said:


> When the political beast enters the arena, they can make Monday into Wednesday if it's expedient for them to do so.
> 
> The rules don't apply to particular events when they decide they don't want them to.
> 
> Sad, really!


Oh I agree. The first part of my comment was sarcasm. Sadly we live in a society that cares about equality for all, regardless of what it does to strengthen or weaken the task ahead.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Oct 10, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> How can a non Q'd individual run a course? It's a failure waiting to happen.


They aren't running the course. Only advising RIs on women specific issues as far as I can tell. I figure it's a good thing. It'll prevent the inevitable failures from saying they were treated unfair.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 10, 2014)

Brian1/75 said:


> I figure it's a good thing. It'll prevent the inevitable failures from saying they were treated unfair.



Depends on the caliber of female that they bring on as part of the program.  A female with the proper mindset for SOF would do better than some political Big Army stocking puppet who's there to make sure the prerequisite amount of XX chromosomes sail through to make the press release look good.


----------



## Viper1 (Oct 10, 2014)

Kraut783 said:


> "Three Women Have Applied to be Army Ranger School Advisers" "If the Army moves forward with the plan, the women will start a modified training regimen next year to give them a sense of what the program is like so they can work alongside male instructors and help observe the female students selected for the first-ever co-ed class, known as the Ranger Course Assessment, tentatively scheduled for this spring."
> 
> http://www.military.com/daily-news/...chool-advisers.html?comp=7000023317843&rank=6
> 
> OK....gotta questions this, shouldn't the advisors/observers be past Ranger School graduates?   Are the cadre considered advisors/observers....or are there male advisors/observers....OR....is this a new thing for the females?



I've been supportive of the measures to open job fields to the entire force; however this is the wrong way to do it.  "A sense of what the program is like?"  That is like me running a jump master course without being a JM.  

This move has this perception: a COMPLETE lack of trust from the command in their male instructors.  They are assuming the entire instructor corps will fail/harass/unduly influence the performance of female students.

I was hoping that stupid BS like this would not occur.  I guess I was wrong.


----------



## AWP (Oct 10, 2014)

What's to advise the RI's? The standard's the standard, right? If we're treating men and women equally then what do we need to tell the RI's about female soldiers? If they were "observers" I could maybe see that, but "advisors?" Seriously?


----------



## Viper1 (Oct 10, 2014)

The observers should be the Senior NCOs and Commanders of the Ranger Committee.  Then LTC Mingus did a patrol with each company, as did his CSM to ensure quality work from the RIs.  What a slap in the face to the committee heads and the instructors.


----------



## Stanimal (Oct 10, 2014)

I am not a Ranger, but feel compelled to contribute to the discussion since all components are considering allowing females to audition.  I think we are all (or mostly all) in agreement that so long as a female can tow the line, then good on her.  Welcome to the unit!  My problem is not with the sex of the candidate, possible increases in cases of sexual assault or even the standards of performance.  Well, assuming there is only *one *standard.  My problem with this whole concept boils down to one thing...the almighty dollar.

*Hypothetical situation:* (_For ease of computation, and to prevent my becoming embarrassed by an inevitable miscalculation, we'll use nice, round numbers_.)  Let's say that you run a selection program for a well-known unit in SOCOM.  You run 5 courses each year.  Each course has a maximum candidate limit of about 200, and you usually are filled to capacity.  That's around 1000 candidates that actually show up on training day 1 over the period of a given year.  You have your share of non- hackers who can't meet the standards.  Then, there are the ever-present DORs who don't want to be there anymore.  Of course, you'll always have those who get medically injured in some way and are deemed unfit to continue.  Finally, you have those who completed the course, but you and your staff felt they weren't quite "_special_" enough to serve with the unit.  So after all of the attrition, you typically end up with about 50-60 basically qualified individuals from each selection.  These selected individuals will be sent on to the next phase where they'll actually begin their real training.  You know in the back of your mind, and from reliable reports (other instructors), that there is a certain amount of attrition to be had in the course that follows yours.  Either way at the end of the year, you end up with about 250 (50 x 5) basically qualified "selects".  Of these 250, assume around 10% will not pass the follow on training course that aims to make them actual Special Operators.  You know the costs involved with your course and those that follow it literally equates to millions of dollars being spent each year just to create these guys.  It's mind blowing.  Now, consider that your service component can find 20 super-fit, motivated females, that actually want to be there, meet all of the time and service restrictions and can meet or exceed all of the performance standards.  They all show up at your next course.  You've got to train female "observers", or "advisors" because God knows the male staff cannot be entrusted to carry out their mission with professionalism (sarcasm).  Separate berthing must be figured out because the females are not going to be allowed to cohabitate with the male candidates.  That could either mean finding another place for them to bunk, or actually having to build a new facility.  Worse yet would be taking an entire building, or squad bay away from the male candidates and using it to house females.  That would potentially cut into the number of male candidates you could take for each course because you wouldn't have anywhere to put them with females on deck.  Apply the standard attrition and selection rates to this group of females and you come out with around 5 of your original 20.  If statistics for females attending IOC are any indicator, expect the attrition to actually be quite a bit higher than what you are used to with males.  Basically, for all of the additional work required, you will likely have very few females still standing when all is said and done. 

*B.L.U.F- *It's somewhat justifiable to spend millions of dollars to end up with a company or two of newly minted Special Operators each year.  Is it just as prudent to drag enough women through the proverbial "knot hole" until one finally makes it?  Are the taxpayer's dollars being spent in an expeditious manner?  Is it acceptable to throw handfuls of darts at the board in the hopes that just a few might stick?  All in all, the juice doesn't appear to be quite worth the squeeze.


----------



## Brill (Oct 11, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> I've been supportive of the measures to open job fields to the entire force; however this is the wrong way to do it.  "A sense of what the program is like?"  That is like me running a jump master course without being a JM.



In my opinion, a better analogy would be a like someone who's never been to jump school running a JM course.

Why not just have them go through RTAC to get a sense of the program? :wall:  Just realized that 49 p/u would be extended scale for females.  It's important to note that 49 Ranger p/u are equal to 80 Army ones.

From ATTRS:

Course Scope: 
The Pre-Ranger Course consists of 14 days of training. The first week is designed to mirror the first week of Ranger School's (Benning) phase. The second week is designed to Coach, Teach, and Mentor students during the patrol phase of the course. The purpose of the Pre-Ranger Course (PRC) is to prepare Soldiers to succeed at the US Army Ranger School. Pre-Ranger accomplishes this by assessing the Soldiers' physical and mental capabilities, training the Soldiers on Troop Leading Procedures, Combat Orders and Reconnaissance/Combat patrols to the same standards conducted at the US Army Ranger School. Pre-Ranger is designed to verify that all medical/dental and administrative paperwork is complete for Ranger School attendance, and fix any deficiency that the Soldier may have. Students will be required to pass the minimum Ranger Physical Fitness Test of *49 push-ups*, 59 sit-ups and 5 mile (release) run in 40:00 minutes or less. In addition to the RPFT, students will be evaluated at the Combat Water Survival Test, Land Navigation, Road March, Ranger Stakes, Obstacle Course, Patrols, and Peer Evaluations.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Oct 11, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> This move has this perception: a COMPLETE lack of trust from the command in their male instructors.  They are assuming the entire instructor corps will fail/harass/unduly influence the performance of female students.


I don't know. I see it as similar to cops wearing cameras. Personally, if I was a RI I'd want them around just to cover my ass from bullshit as long as they aren't there to undercut the difficulty of Ranger School. You can see it as mistrust and I just see it as the Army covering their asses. A lot of politics going on and the Army is just making smart moves to protect itself and the RIs.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 11, 2014)

All of this brought to you by someone with 0 combat experience whatsoever, from 3 years ago. Talk about padding your bets. This panel had "Finger drill" and "Whitewash" written all over it the moment the panel was announced. And now, as a result, here we are are today. Nothing like someone with his credentials leading the way.

What a fucking joke.

Thank you Lester.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63057


----------



## AWP (Oct 11, 2014)

Centermass said:


> Thank you Lester.
> 
> http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63057
> 
> ...



He has a great biography! Look at all of these operational commands:

- February 1969 - November 1971, propulsion and structures engineer, Standard Space-Launch Vehicles Program Office, Los Angeles Air Force Station, California
- November 1971 - July 1974, propulsion engineer, Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
- July 1974 - April 1975, Program Element Monitor for the Short-Range Attack Missile, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
- April 1975 - March 1978, Executive Officer to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research and Development, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
- March 1978 - January 1980, Special Assistant and Aide-De-Camp to the Commander, Headquarters AFSC, Andrews AFB, Maryland
- January 1980 - June 1980, Defense Systems Management College, Fort Belvoir, Virginia
- June 1980 - January 1981, Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Virginia
- January 1981 - June 1981, Chief, Avionics Division, F-16 Systems Program Office, Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
- June 1981 - July 1984, Deputy Director for Special and Advanced Projects, F-16 Systems Program Office, Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
- August 1984 - June 1985, student, National War College, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C.
- June 1985 - June 1987, Director of Tactical Aircraft Systems, Headquarters AFSC, Andrews AFB, Maryland
- June 1987 - April 1988, Director, Medium-Launch Vehicles Program Office, Headquarters Space Systems Division, Los Angeles AFS, California
- April 1988 - August 1989, Assistant Deputy Commander for Launch Systems, Headquarters Space Systems Division, Los Angeles AFS, California
- August 1989 - July 1992, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Requirements, then Deputy Chief of Staff for Requirements, Headquarters AFSC, Andrews AFB, Maryland
- July 1992 - November 1994, Vice Commander, then Commander, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill AFB, Utah
- November 1994 - August 1996, Commander, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, California
- August 1996 - May 1999, Director, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.
- May 1999 - April 2000, Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
- April 2000 - October 2003, Commander, United States Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio


----------



## Grunt (Oct 11, 2014)

Simply put...he has no clue as to what he is talking about.

He seems like the perfect person to make the recommendation.

One who has never been in a situation even remotely similar to which he is suggesting should be changed.

Pathetic really.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Oct 11, 2014)

Geez, FF, how could you miss this one??
June 1985 - June 1987, Director of *Tactical* Aircraft Systems, Headquarters AFSC, Andrews AFB, Maryland
Tactical...I'd say that makes him overqualified...


----------



## pardus (Oct 11, 2014)

What a fucking dickhead.


----------



## firstpig151 (Oct 12, 2014)

http://sofrep.com/37098/75th-says-girls-regiment/
Props to Regiment for using scientific data analysis and basically telling the Army to go fuck themselves.  That it is not worth their time and trouble to participate in their stupid social experiment.
On a positive note however, it would give an entire new meaning to the term Rangerette.


----------



## CDG (Oct 29, 2014)

dmcgill said:


> They literally wrote an article about three chicks who passed the FIRST DAY of IOC. That is hilarious.


 They aren't there anymore........  http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/art...s-infantry-officer-course-will-not-re-attempt


----------



## pardus (Oct 29, 2014)

My hat is off to the Marines for maintaining the standard. Do you hear that Army?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 29, 2014)

They were dropped!?!  DROPPED!?!

I expected to read that they quit, not that they were dropped with 2 other men.  That means that "someone" cares about the standard, regardless of the candidate's sex.

Jesus, the Corps adhering to standards regardless of any PC fallout, a new Commandant, and the addition of a certain Major about to fire up some 1st Recon Marines...I'm looking forward to hoisting a few come this 10 November!


----------



## Grunt (Oct 29, 2014)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...That means that "someone" cares about the standard, regardless of the candidate's sex.



There will always be Gatekeepers and Sentinels standing watch over the standard. At some point, they may have the standard changed, but there will always be those that are willing to uphold it to the last minute...whether popular to do so or not.

Good for them!


----------



## CrewGuy (Oct 29, 2014)

x SF med said:


> My biggest issues with this argument/tasking is that the standards are likely to be lowered, and as soon as women are in SOF units there will be a media and political firestorm about the inequities for those women who chose to attempt this life....   and also about the 'exclusivity' of SOF ....   there is a reason the word 'Special' is the lead word in Special Operations Forces...
> 
> If you are  the tasked machine gunner or AG...  you better be able to carry the gun and the ammo and your standard load.   If you are the medic, the aid bag and your standard load.
> 
> ...


 
 AGREE!


----------



## Centermass (Oct 31, 2014)

I want to know whatever happened to the "Pee and Poop" guy.......


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 8, 2014)

Centermass said:


> All of this brought to you by someone with 0 combat experience whatsoever, from 3 years ago. Talk about padding your bets. This panel had "Finger drill" and "Whitewash" written all over it the moment the panel was announced. And now, as a result, here we are are today. Nothing like someone with his credentials leading the way.
> 
> What a fucking joke.
> 
> ...


----------



## Centermass (Nov 14, 2014)

Yup. Subject Matter Experts. :wall:


----------



## Muppet (Nov 14, 2014)

I sensed you're frustration from facebook Top. LOL.

F.M.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 14, 2014)

Centermass said:


> Yup. Subject Matter Experts. :wall:
> 
> 
> View attachment 12051


Right or wrong the first thing that came to mind when I saw this pic was "PEW! PEW!"


----------



## 8654Maine (Nov 14, 2014)

Centermass said:


> Yup. Subject Matter Experts. :wall:
> 
> 
> View attachment 12051



What the god dam hell is the soldier in the foreground doing with her left hand?

And why the fricking hell is that soldier in the background not managing her own 249?

Grrrr!

Normally, I'd do a spot correction.

But, then I'd probably be accused of something.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 14, 2014)

Centermass said:


> Yup. Subject Matter Experts. :wall:
> 
> 
> View attachment 12051


----------



## Grunt (Nov 14, 2014)

8654Maine said:


> What the god dam hell is the soldier in the foreground doing with her left hand?



She must be "left hand dominant".  :wall:

Just seeing that is aggravating.


----------



## 8654Maine (Nov 14, 2014)

Agoge said:


> She must be "left hand dominant".  :wall:
> 
> Just seeing that is aggravating.



Sinister is the word.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 15, 2014)

x SF med said:


> Instructors used to be tabbed and have 75th time before they were even considered for the position, then they had to be stud Rangers to get the post...


Since I've been commissioned that has not been the case.  I don't know how many of the RIs currently had Regiment time (I once thought they all came from there and not the FORCE) when I was at Benning.  But from what I understand a lot of them had never served in Regiment.  And there's no more Christmas in Mountain Phase that my friend Rob went through in '99.

And I could have sworn one of the first four women to attend IOC made it to the 3rd week of the course before having to withdraw due to the stress fracture in her foot that was listen in that article.  IOC is no joke.

I would say @Viper1 is correct, but when I was going through the hell that was the Institute at the beginning the VFT was the same for all males and females.  At the time it played into your PE grade at 20%.  The standard across the corps was 5 Pull ups, 60 situps/2 minutes, 1.5mile run/12:00 minutes.  Many men could not pass it, and in fact I did not pass that standard until junior year.  I just never cared to do pull ups because the Army said pushups and it was the Army who paid for school.  Not surprisingly due to pressures from the Dep of Ed the next year the VFT was gender normed, fear not though gentlemen, our standard for the mile and half was degraded to 12:30.  What was the new female standard: 1 Pull-Up, 60 situps/2minutes, and 1.5miles/14:30.  The Commandant said: well now you have to pass the VFT to have rank...I'm calling BS for a lot of the female officers we had my last 18 months there and since.  

In regards to having Female Observers for "MAN" School...I thought we all had Army Values?  If you live the Army Values there's no need for extra hoops, but then you say: "Sir, a lot of Soldiers have not lived them in the past, that's why we have EO, SHARP, and all sensing sessions run by Division."  And I say: Fuck me.


----------



## CDG (Nov 15, 2014)

ThunderHorse said:


> The standard across the corps was 5 Pull ups, 60 situps/2 minutes, 1.5mile run/12:00 minutes.  Many men could not pass it, and in fact I did not pass that standard until junior year.



WTF?  Are you saying the majority could not pass this test?  For college aged males that want to be in the military, that's pathetic.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 15, 2014)

CDG said:


> WTF?  Are you saying the majority could not pass this test?  For college aged males that want to be in the military, that's pathetic.



Prior to my reporting to MCRD, I worked as a Recruiter's Assistant for nine months. As such, I was assigned to conduct the PFT's for those wanting to join -- both Officer and Enlisted. 

One example of weakness was a candidate for the Naval Academy. I brought him to the rear of the office where our pull-up bar was located. I got on the bar and showed him a proper pull-up. Afterwards, I got down and asked if he had any questions concerning what was being expected of him. He said he didn't. 

I directed him to get on the bar and hang there. After he finally got on the bar and hung there for about 20-30 seconds, I told him that he could start. He told me that he had and was trying. Yep, he couldn't even break the bend in his elbow. He had expended every bit of energy he had trying to lift his body up and couldn't lift himself three inches. I actually told him to get down and wait for me to come back. I went inside and talked to the Gunny who directed me to send him away until he was prepared to return and be capable of doing pull-ups.

Simply put...he was pathetic.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 17, 2014)

CDG said:


> WTF?  Are you saying the majority could not pass this test?  For college aged males that want to be in the military, that's pathetic.



Not everyone that attends VMI wants to be in the military.  I just gave you an anecdote of part of my time there.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 20, 2014)

http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/heres-why-women-in-combat-units-is-a-bad-idea/#_

Good piece, and what makes it better is the author comes from an individual in a career field that is usually filled with liberal logic.


----------



## CDG (Dec 1, 2014)

New MC Times article about some of the women participating in the combat integration experiment.  This quote really bugged me:
*Pfc. Creasy*: _Personally, if I'm in a combat mindset, it's not going to matter if I'm out in the field. No one's going to say to me, 'get on that bar and do 20 pullups.' They're going to say, 'oh s---, this guy who's 170 [pounds] went down with his full combat load, get him out.' I may not be able to fireman-carry someone who weighs more than me, but I'm sure as hell going to find a way to get them out. I figure it's more important to have that mindset of sustaining life rather than, I can do 20 pullups and run a 19-minute three miles.
_
I think this is complete horseshit.  Why can't you fireman-carry someone who weighs more than you?  I've done it.  I've seen a lot of other guys do it.  I bet 90% or more of this board has done it.  "I'm going to figure it out" is bullshit.  If you can't perform, you don't deserve to be there, regardless of gender.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...14/11/29/marines-women-in-combat-qa/19570997/


----------



## Grunt (Dec 1, 2014)

Her "combat mindset" isn't going to pick that 170 pounds up and get it out of harm's way.

After all, if she utilized that mindset to her fullest advantage, it shouldn't matter to her that she needs to do 20 pull-ups. Meet the requirement or move along smartly.


----------



## Poccington (Dec 1, 2014)

CDG said:


> New MC Times article about some of the women participating in the combat integration experiment.  This quote really bugged me:
> *Pfc. Creasy*: _Personally, if I'm in a combat mindset, it's not going to matter if I'm out in the field. No one's going to say to me, 'get on that bar and do 20 pullups.' They're going to say, 'oh s---, this guy who's 170 [pounds] went down with his full combat load, get him out.' I may not be able to fireman-carry someone who weighs more than me, but I'm sure as hell going to find a way to get them out. I figure it's more important to have that mindset of sustaining life rather than, I can do 20 pullups and run a 19-minute three miles.
> _
> I think this is complete horseshit.  Why can't you fireman-carry someone who weighs more than you?  I've done it.  I've seen a lot of other guys do it.  I bet 90% or more of this board has done it.  "I'm going to figure it out" is bullshit.  If you can't perform, you don't deserve to be there, regardless of gender.
> ...



Yeah, it's a bit of a strange one.

I mean, realistically, if you're in a situation where your buddy has been hit and is on the floor... Your Platoon Sgt is roaring at you to get him the fuck into cover to be treated... The people who hit him, aren't gonna have much consideration for you as you "find a way to get him out". It's a case of either pick him up and move him or you're fucking useless to your mates and can't be trusted.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 1, 2014)

Sigh.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 1, 2014)

I can't wrap my mind around it.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 1, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> I can't wrap my mind around it.



Brother, _"It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma."
_
She can either do it...or she can't. There should be no changes made. Pass or Fail....

Whatever happened to the KISS principle....many, if not most times, the simpler, the better. 

Again, pass or fail...no "thinking about it"...just do it.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Dec 1, 2014)

We've all beaten the standard is the standard part of this to death and In light of PFC Creasy's comments, we all realize that most folks fail to rise to the occasion and that most people who plan to rise up end up failing miserably. That said, this will be jammed down everyone's throats, like it or not.  It is an agenda, not a search for equality.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 10, 2015)

So what say ye' in the know, does the Corps continue to stand tall, or does it eventually reduce standards that even the male officers struggle to complete?



 posted Jan 10, 6:15 AM
http://freebeacon.com/blog/exc...rom-infantry-course/

Two female Marine officers who volunteered to attempt the Corps’ challenging Infantry Officer Course did not proceed beyond the first day of the course, a Marine Corps spokesperson confirms to the Free Beacon. The two were the only female officers attempting the course in the current cycle, which began Thursday in Quantico, Virginia.

With the two most recent drops, there have been 29 attempts by female officers to pass the course since women have been allowed to volunteer, with none making it to graduation. (At least one woman has attempted the course more than once.) Only three female officers have made it beyond the initial day of training, a grueling evaluation known as the Combat Endurance Test, or CET. Male officers also regularly fail to pass the CET, and the overall course has a substantial attrition rate for males.

The Marine Corps spokesperson, Captain Maureen Krebs, told the Free Beacon that the two officers, “did not meet the standards required of them on day one in order to continue on with the course.” Fifteen male officers also did not meet the standards. Of the 118 officers who began the course, 101 proceeded to the second day. 

The Marine Corps, along with the other services, has been evaluating how to comply with the order to gender-integrate its combat arms specialties by the end of this year, or apply for special exemptions.

The results of the Marine Corps’ experimentation thus far has revealed a pattern: Female enlisted Marines have been able to graduate from the enlisted School of Infantry’s Infantry Training Battalion in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, though at a lower rate than male enlisted Marines, while female officers have faced great difficulty in graduating from the course in Quantico.

This situation has led some involved with the policy debate in Washington, D.C., to suggest that the standards at the officer’s course in Quantico–which are substantially higher than for the enlisted course–are unrealistically challenging, and need to be lowered.

Pressure will become tremendous to reduce those standards–something that the overwhelming majority of Marines, including those women who currently wish to serve in the infantry, believe would be damaging to the service


----------



## AWP (Jan 10, 2015)

One thing to consider: 3 out of 29 made it past the first day and zero have graduated. If the numbers start to creep up then we'll know the fix is on. I doubt those 29 walked in off the street, I'll go out on a limb and say they were screened and prepped for the course. If they say the standards didn't change but the numbers say otherwise, we'll have our answer.


----------



## Brill (Jan 10, 2015)

They should just go to Ranger School where they will have a better shot of passing.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Jan 10, 2015)

lindy said:


> They should just go to Ranger School where they will have a better shot of passing.



What Ranger class were you in?


----------



## Brill (Jan 10, 2015)

ShadowSpear said:


> What Ranger class were you in?



I'm 100% confident that none of my posts have EVER reflected that I am Ranger qualified.  Further, my entries on armyranger.com detailed my pathetic attempt.  

My post was a reference to females attending RS and definitely not insinuating that RS is easier than the Marine IOC.  Mother Army has put way to much money into ensuring females pass.  Plus there is significant pressure from policymakers in DC to see females fully integrated into front line combat units.  To make matters worse, it seems that the Marine Corps has the attitude that if a female can meet THE STANDARD, they should graduate whereas *the Army will change standards* to ensure gender equality.  Basic Airborne Course is a prime example.

To further solidify my point: Ranger school pushup minimums are 49 (70% for 17-21 year old males)...I personally did well over 80 but left the pit with just 52 that met the RI's criteria.  IF females are required to complete 49 as well (because it is the STANDARD) that would put them well into the extended scale for 71-21 year old females.  If the STANDARD becomes (or is translated to) 70 percentile, then 25 push ups would generate a pass on the push up station.

With the new female observers, do you honestly think that a female soldier will hear "too fast...don't bouncing...lock out...go lower...slow down" during the Ranger PFT?


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 10, 2015)

I would also be willing to say that if the enlisted female Marines attended SOI West, zero would graduate.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 11, 2015)

Jesus @lindy , I thought you were just taking a smart-ass shot a Rangers and got called out for it.  That's a hell of a response, my favorite part is the part where you agree that the Marine Corps is continuing to hold to 'the standard'!


----------



## Brill (Jan 11, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Jesus @lindy , I thought you were just taking a smart-ass shot a Rangers and got called out for it.  That's a hell of a response, my favorite part is the part where you agree that the Marine Corps is continuing to hold to 'the standard'!



No, not bashing RTB at all but rather disheartened by the Army's decision to cater to pressures of social experimentation.  My understanding is BAC used to be a physically demanding school.  It is not anymore at all.  I did it at 41 and it was easy.

My only interest is that all SOT-A billets are V coded (Ranger qualified parachutist ASI) and THAT is the only thing keeping female soldiers off SOT-As.  Once Ranger school is open to females and they begin passing, SOT-As will see females...and then problems will most likely start. (We already have some drama and don't need more.)

I was attached to an ODA that had a CST attachment as well.  It was not a good experience for the ODA or my team either.  The funny thing was *the CST considered themselves SOF because they had been through (a) "selection"* whereas we had not.  This is despite the fact that my SOT-A was on the task org every mission; CST not so much.






(The part at 1:25 still cracks me up. :-")

At 2:09 you'll see the CST sweep the Marine CPT right leg.  Same CST who would knit during daily team meetings...no shit...knit during team meetings.  The 18F would brief about Talib activity and one could hear "click, click, click" of the needles.  (NOTE: knitting does not instill confidence in a combat environment.)

To be fair, the CSTs were able to get "things" I was looking for when I could not (which is why the CST was requested to begin with).

In conclusion, I have been in TICs with females who could complete 25 push-ups.  I had more confidence fighting with host nation partner forces.  (DISCLAIMER: I know male 35Ps have been removed from SOT-As because of piss poor performance.  We're not perfect.)


----------



## Gunz (Jan 12, 2015)

They'll probably lower the standards of IOC to those of enlisted SOI. And if that affirmative action doesn't produce desired quota, they'll water it down some more. It's fucking bullshit. You either pack the gear or you don't. Like my daddy used to say, when you water down whiskey you don't get more whiskey you just get more water. If women can't pass the course you don't lower standards, you make tougher women.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 12, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> They'll probably lower the standards of IOC to those of enlisted SOI. And if that affirmative action doesn't produce desired quota, they'll water it down some more. It's fucking bullshit. You either pack the gear or you don't. Like my daddy used to say, when you water down whiskey you don't get more whiskey you just get more water. If women can't pass the course you don't lower standards, you make tougher women.



Bingo...it is what it is.

Pass or fail...KISS has always worked in the past.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 12, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> If women can't pass the course you don't lower standards, you make tougher women.



Agreed.  However, society would likely not be too terribly accepting of women sufficiently tough enough to pass the IOC.


----------



## AWP (Jan 13, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> Agreed.  However, society would likely not be too terribly accepting of women sufficiently tough enough to pass the IOC.


 
Not to mention the shit she/ they will have to endure upon completion. "Dyke" would probably be the kindest thing said.


----------



## Johca (Jan 13, 2015)

The female integration into combat conversation has been in yakked yack since the 1970s.   The main argument presented is there are women who can pass the course and there are lots of guys that fail the courses.  Both honest, correct, and accurate talking points.  Seldom entered into the discussion is there are 13-14 year old boys and girls that can pass the courses  and the inconvenient fact that in many 3rd world cultures 13-14 year olds are conscripted into combat one-way or another.  Also seldom entered into discussion is many do not voluntarily enter into military service to be combat infantry in the ditches and charging up hills on the front lines.

Then of course there is always the fitness testing hubaloo, especially now that consideration is being entertained about introducing career occupation-specific fitness standards.  Suddenly many of the guys who identify themselves with being high speed are even quaking in their boots and opine the current Army Fitness test is sufficient.

Unfortunately avoided in the conversation is many enter serving a military obligation for the entitlements and benefits more so than to be the one digging the ditch and foxhole on the front lines and engaging the enemy or to be the one charging over hill and dale to engage the enemy.  Also avoided in the conversation is the nature of military fighting force structure is not to be ready and willing to die for your country, but rather make the enemy SOB die for his or hers.  Killing the enemy is combat effectiveness and a certain level of physical human performance capability that merges into small tactical team and fighting unit combat capability to increase potential for killing the enemy SOB rather then the enemy winning the fight by decimating the small tactical team or the fighting unit.

Fighting unit capability is also known as individual combat readiness which merges into what is known as unit combat readiness.   A unit populated by a large number of individual on medical duty limitation and medical duty restrictions lacks unit combat readiness.  It is concurrently combat ineffective and combat inefficient.  It is a unit of poor bastards ready and willing to die for their country rather than the unit imposing hurt on the enemy so the poor SOB enemy dies for their country or cause.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 13, 2015)

Johca said:


> The female integration into combat conversation has been in yakked yack since the 1970s.   The main argument presented is there are women who can pass the course and there are lots of guys that fail the courses.  Both honest, correct, and accurate talking points.  Seldom entered into the discussion is there are 13-14 year old boys and girls that can pass the courses  and the inconvenient fact that in many 3rd world cultures 13-14 year olds are conscripted into combat one-way or another.  Also seldom entered into discussion is many do not voluntarily enter into military service to be combat infantry in the ditches and charging up hills on the front lines.
> 
> Then of course there is always the fitness testing hubaloo, especially now that consideration is being entertained about introducing career occupation-specific fitness standards.  Suddenly many of the guys who identify themselves with being high speed are even quaking in their boots and opine the current Army Fitness test is sufficient.
> 
> ...



Exactly my thoughts.  People want to go get some.....until they have to train up to get some.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 13, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> How so?



I've spent quite a bit of time searching for the article I'm going to discuss, but to no avail.  I'll probably have to go to the campus library to find it, but that can come later on.  I digress...

Not long after I had scheduled my trip to MEPS, I read an article about females meeting the male fitness standards in the military.  Bear in mind, I went to MEPS in December 2000, so the inequality of standards was an issue even then, and the timing of the article's release was what really lodged it into my mind.  The US Army, sometime between 1998 and 2000, took a group of average females and trained them to the point where they could easily meet the same physical standards as their male counterparts before actually sending them through to basic training.  This little social experiment was cut short because while several people in a position to care about this were happy to see that it was possible, they were absolutely horrified that the women had developed a more masculine physique in the process.  Their level of displeasure with that was so great as to bring early termination to this project, and the article reported that fact.

Given, this was damned near twenty years ago, and body transformation contests were still a novelty (Body For Life was only holding its second or third competition cycle by then), so it could possibly be that they looked like fitness models.  The article didn't provide before-and-after photos, so I have nothing but speculation to go on as to just how dramatic the physical transformation was in the Army's test subjects.  Still, even to this day, females who are heavily muscled up are not looked upon as generally attractive by the general population.  

To try to put it into eye-pleasing terms that the average person can understand, I'm gong to use the females in WWE as an example, past and present.  Take a look at the female wrestlers today.  We can all agree that they are in excellent physical shape, have a healthy level of cardiovascular fitness, and are generally viewed as smokin' hot.  Do you think they could pass the IOC?  Probably not (DISCLOSURE: I don't watch much wrestling, and my roomie watches the WWE Divas reality TV show, which is the only reason I know who any of them are these days).  There might be one or two who could give it a fighting chance, but all the way through?  Doubtful, although I could be wrong.

You want to see a female in the WWE who physically might have stood the best chance at going the distance?  That would be Chyna.  She had the heart, the mentality (and the steroids) to train just like a man, and guess what.  She looked like a man.  She didn't get the offer to pose for Playboy because they thought she was hot, she got it because she was a cultural anomaly, a phenomenon that people could not draw their eyes away from, and even then Hugh Hefner didn't make the offer until she had some work done to look at least a little feminine.  Do you think females today have the kind of intestinal fortitude to cope with becoming a spectacle because they were in adequate physical shape to complete the IOC?  Hell no.

I won't even get into how society would accept a female with the mentality to pass the IOC, not as a conqueror in the name of social justice, but as a woman who can think like the infantry.


----------



## Johca (Jan 13, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> I've spent quite a bit of time searching for the article I'm going to discuss, but to no avail.  I'll probably have to go to the campus library to find it, but that can come later on.  I digress...


Hopefully you can find the article.  If I recall correctly the intent was to do away with gender separate weight and fitness standards and modify the United States Army Physical Fitness Test (AFPT) to one standard for enlistment and retention purposes.   It is correct women were found that met the male standard for enlistment but unfortunately even within this group there was a significant percentage unable or unwilling to sustain the male standard for the duration of an enlistment or several enlistments.

Regaining fitness to the male standard also proved to be difficult after a pregnancy or a second pregnancy to term.  This is actually reflected in current policies pertinent to time given to pass the AFPT after a to term pregnancy.

Also during the years prior to, during, and subsequent to the US Army lacked gender neutral occupation-specific and initial basic qualification course fitness criteria as required by Public Law
Public Law 103-160, Section 542.

The touted Basic Airborne Course fitness standards are not gender neutral as there is a female standard that differs from the male standard.

The touted Ranger School fitness standard and the RASP and SFQC fitness standards are also not gender neutral as that fitness standards have never been validated and submitted to the US Congress IAW Public Law 103-160, Section 542 as being gender natural.

Only a few hazardous duties have actual gender-neutral fitness standards and these duties are U.S. Coast Guard Helicopter Rescue Swimmer duties and U.S. Navy Helicopter rescue swimmer duties.  Neither by the way are considered a combat duty.  However if female gender fitness capability to sustain higher fitness levels for duration of enlistment or for a career of performing such duties is going to be asserted, than retention of females having fitness to preform these duties for a full enlistment or several enlistments (career) ought to be thrown into discussion to back up assertions.

Even the Air Force lacks gender-neutral occupation-specific fitness standards for 99% of its occupations  (AFSCs) that is in compliance with Public Law 103-160, Section 542.  Of these AFSCs only two were in compliance with Public Law 103-160, Section 542 before it was even conceived of and written.

As far as female muscular body transformation go, best research the prevailing use of steroids to get that male muscular look and the heath problems such use brings with to the body as it ages past 30 years of living.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 13, 2015)

Were there women who did it naturally you think to train to a male's physique?


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 13, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> Were there women who did it naturally you think to train to a male's physique?



Absolutely!  Have a look at the natural bodybuilders.  They train to the kind of physique that could pass the IOC.  However, bodybuilders don't really do a whole lot of cardio, so while they have the musculature and strength to get through it, they may not have the stamina and endurance.  

The Army took the females and just PT'd the hell out of them using an exercise program that increased their strength AND cardiovascular endurance, using facilities and staff already in place for their fitness program for enlistees who failed their initial PFT that they had to take within the first three days of arrival for BCT (those special subjects spent their days either in the weight room or on the track until they were able to pass, and then began basic training).  Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if at least one person who first implemented that study hadn't studied the hell out of Mark Rippetoe or someone else preaching the same gospel.


----------



## Johca (Jan 13, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> Were there women who did it naturally you think to train to a male's physique?


Certainly, use of steroids by military service members was already a big no-no that was tested for.  However, I doubt very few if any got the male looking muscle bulk and cut.


----------



## Brill (Jan 13, 2015)

@Johca BAC used to require 5 pull ups but that was dropped allegedly to increase pass rates for females (pre-dates my experience).


----------



## AWP (Jan 13, 2015)

lindy said:


> @Johca BAC used to require 5 pull ups but that was dropped allegedly to increase pass rates for females (pre-dates my experience).


 
I went in Sep. '93. I know they change up the requirements, but then we didn't take a PT test and the pull ups were to eat, not a requirement. If you could only do 3 you went to the back of the line until you could do two more. The penalty was simply less time to eat. The females had a silly bar about 3 ft. off the ground where they stretched out underneath it and did "pull ups" from there. We had one or two female Marines who wanted to do pull ups (they actually could knock out 5 while a lot of males could not) and were denied by the Black Hats; they were made to go to the little bar. Kudos to them for at least trying, none of the others would. Runs were 9 min. miles and they still dropped you if you fell out.

I know the standards have changed, PT tests are/ were required, but it certainly isn't what it used to be.


----------



## Johca (Jan 13, 2015)

Reference Army FM  35-20 Physical Training Women’s Army Corps, February 1975,  Para 213. Airborne Trainee Physical Fitness Qualification Test for Women:

No scoring table, just minimums of (FYI no scoring table for men either at this time or prior to the now used APFT):

Incline Chin ups – 7 repetitions
Knee Bender -50 within a two minute period
Modified Pushups- 22 repetitions
Modified sit-ups- 20 repetitions
An endurance run of 1 mile in 10 minutes or less.

I went through BAC in February 1974 and the drop was only 25 pushups,  much less than the 50 pushup drop encountered at the PJ Indoc course prior to being sent to BAC.  I also seem to recall 10 chin-ups being the standard.  Shouldn't be to hard to find the Army (male) fitness FM in use during 1975.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 13, 2015)

lindy said:


> @Johca BAC used to require 5 pull ups but that was dropped allegedly to increase pass rates for females (pre-dates my experience).



When did you go? I had to do pull-ups in 2006.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 14, 2015)

It boils down to playing fucking stupid games with serious shit. This isn't a fucking contest. It isn't equal rights or diversity or glass ceilings. It's humping your share of squad organics up and down fucking mountains or swamps or jungles and getting to the objective ready to fight without anybody else having to cover your ass and hump your shit.


----------



## Brill (Jan 14, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> When did you go? I had to do pull-ups in 2006



2011 and I wasn't the oldest either!   There was a SGM that had WAY more gray hair that me.  Aside from the APFT, we only only ran to the rigger shed and even then females fell out but jumped anyway.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 14, 2015)

lindy said:


> 2011 and I wasn't the oldest either!   There was a SGM that had WAY more gray hair that me.  Aside from the APFT, we only only ran to the rigger shed and even then females fell out but jumped anyway.



Cherry


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 14, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Cherry



Speak for yourself, I went through BAC in '98...


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Cherry





Ranger Psych said:


> Speak for yourself, I went through BAC in '98...



Out of curiosity, how many jumps would you do, say per year, on average?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 14, 2015)

pardus said:


> Out of curiosity, how many jumps would you do, say per year, on average?



4-8


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 14, 2015)

Everyone is cherry to someone.


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> 4-8



OK, thanks.



TLDR20 said:


> Everyone is cherry to someone.



From what I've heard, It varies hugely depending on country and time period. Hell some Rhodesian Para's did 3 combat drops in one day. Just luck and circumstance.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 14, 2015)

pardus said:


> Out of curiosity, how many jumps would you do, say per year, on average?



6 years in Bn on airborne status, 64 jumps.  Rock a blue id card now, so no free skydiving for me.


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> 6 years in Bn on airborne status, 64 jumps.  Rock a blue id card now, so no free skydiving for me.



Alright. They sent you to MFF school?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 15, 2015)

Nope. No need for the missions the line Bn's did.


----------



## pardus (Jan 15, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Nope. No need for the missions the line Bn's did.



Gotcha.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 15, 2015)

In 1980, we had to do at least 10 pullups during training, and a minimum of 5 for each meal.  I think we ran at 7-8 min miles, and long runs were to Alabama and back, with heart attack hill as the last part of the runs.  Aand we had to run back from the rigger shed after every jump to make sure nobody had any injuries, again up heart attack hill.


----------



## pardus (Jan 15, 2015)

lindy said:


> 2011 and I wasn't the oldest either!   There was a SGM that had WAY more gray hair that me.  Aside from the APFT, we only only ran to the rigger shed and even then females fell out but jumped anyway.



So no 12 mile ruck or 5 mile run in 40 min?


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 15, 2015)

x SF med said:


> In 1980, we had to do at least 10 pullups during training, and a minimum of 5 for each meal.  I think we ran at 7-8 min miles, and long runs were to Alabama and back, with heart attack hill as the last part of the runs.  Aand we had to run back from the rigger shed after every jump to make sure nobody had any injuries, again up heart attack hill.


and we ran everywhere, no walking allowed.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 15, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> and we ran everywhere, no walking allowed.


... ran everywhere wearing steel pots, and since it was the summer of the heat wave....  rolled through the showers 6x a day, and after every roll through the showers, had to roll through the sawdust in order to evenly coat oneself to look like a piece of shake-n-bake chicken.    In white t-shirts that had to be clean every day (brand new t-shirts everyday, sweat, red clay and sawdust do NOT come out when baked in) and spit shined boots every morning prior to PT.  It made you feel like it was really a qualification school.


----------



## AWP (Jan 15, 2015)

Well, I guess I wasn't in the "last hard class"....


----------



## Johca (Jan 15, 2015)

I just found the 1973 BAC male fitness test minimums in FM 21-20, Physical Readiness Training, March 1973.  This was the male standard until the current APFT standard was implemented.

Chin-ups  - 6 repetitions
Bent Leg Sit-ups - 20 repetitions
Push ups - 22 repetitions
Half Knee Bend - 80 (two minute period)
I-mile Endurance Run  - 8½ minutes or less

Reference Army FM 35-20 Physical Training Women’s Army Corps, February 1975, Para 213. Airborne Trainee Physical Fitness Qualification Test for Women, this was the original initial female standard implemented in 1974 until the current APFT standard was implemented.

Incline Chin ups – 7 repetitions
Knee Bender -50 within a two minute period
Modified Pushups- 22 repetitions
Modified sit-ups- 20 repetitions
An endurance run of 1 mile in 10 minutes or less.

Neither test had a scoring table, just minimums.

The Ranger/Special Forces Physical Fitness Qualification Test, reference FM 21-20, March 1973:

Other than the swim event, the test is same for both Ranger and SF and has a scoring table.

Inverted crawl (age-all) Required  minimum raw score- 25.0 seconds
Bent leg Sit-ups (age-all) Required  minimum repetitions -  87
Push ups (age-all) Required  minimum repetitions -  88
Run, Dodge and Jump (age-all) Required  minimum raw score- 24.0 seconds
Two Mile Run (age-all) Required  minimum raw score- 16 minutes 80 seconds.
Swim Event all- Pass/fail

Ranger swim 15 meters with clothing, boots, equipment and rifle
SF Swim 60 meters with clothing and boots

FM 21-20, Physical Readiness Training, January 1969 only identifies Airborne Trainee Physical Fitness Qualification.  No Ranger or Special Forces Fitness Qualification Test.  Also  it was not until Army Regulation 600-951, January 1965 that the Army stipulated for the first time that all male and female personnel less than 40 years of age would be tested periodically for physical fitness.


Also reference
History of United States Army Physical Fitness and Physical Readiness Testing (http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=8760bed1-b3e5-4520-b782-e13ae4ccd566):

In January 1969, the fifth revision of _FM 21-20 _was published, and it contained 4 assessments that commanders could use. These were the Physical Combat Proficiency Test,  the Minimum Fitness Test-Male, Airborne Physical Fitness Test, and the Inclement Weather Test. The Physical Combat Proficiency Test was considered the standard test and the test items.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 15, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> When did you go? I had to do pull-ups in 2006.


I went in Nov '93 and no pull-ups.
Reed


----------



## Johca (Jan 15, 2015)

They let Air Force Security Forces go through BAC and pass it and these days they let them be black hat too, so it can't ever be a difficult physically demanding course anymore even if it was closed to women. 

In other BAC physical fitness perquisite news, reference current  Perquisites for BAC from ATRRS Course Catalog:

ALL APPLICANTS:
Must be less than 36 years of age on the ATRRS report date. General Officers, Field Grade Officers, Warrant Officers in grade W-3, W-4, and W-5 and enlisted personnel in pay grade of E-5 and above may be considered for a waiver of age when the examining medical officer recommends to the unit commander that such a waiver be granted. Must meet the physical qualification for parachute duty established in AR 40-501. Must weigh a minimum of 105 pounds when screened IAW AR 600-9. Male/Female must pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) with a score of 180 points (60 points in each event using the 17-21 year age group scale), complete one flexed-arm hang for 20 seconds, and meet the height and weight standard IAW AR 600-9. APFT will be administered to the students on the first day of the airborne course. Failure of the APFT constitutes a failure of the entrance exam. Students are afforded ten minutes of rest before being retested on pushups, sit-ups, or the flexed-arm hang, and twenty minutes of rest is afforded before retaking the run event of the APFT. Soldiers who fail to meet the established standard will be out-processed from the course.


----------



## Brill (Jan 15, 2015)

x SF med said:


> In 1980, we had to do at least 10 pullups during training, and a minimum of 5 for each meal.  I think we ran at 7-8 min miles, and long runs were to Alabama and back, with heart attack hill as the last part of the runs.  Aand we had to run back from the rigger shed after every jump to make sure nobody had any injuries, again up heart attack hill.



I think I saw that movie in the rigger shed.  In all seriousness, you established the point that standards change.  For the better?



pardus said:


> So no 12 mile ruck or 5 mile run in 40 min?



No, not for jump school.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 15, 2015)

lindy said:


> I think I saw that movie in the rigger shed.  In all seriousness, you established the point that standards change.  For the better?
> 
> 
> 
> No, not for jump school.



Toughness of a course is directly correlated with length of time since course attendance.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 15, 2015)

I wasn't stating toughness, just the standards....  it wasn't all that tough.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 15, 2015)

x SF med said:


> I wasn't stating toughness, just the standards....  it wasn't all that tough.



I know, I was busting your balls.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 15, 2015)

Johca said:


> Certainly, use of steroids by military service members was already a big no-no that was tested for.  However, I doubt very few if any got the male looking muscle bulk and cut.



Naturally though it simply is not possible?


----------



## x SF med (Jan 15, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I know, I was busting your balls.



Actually the toughest part was having to stand in the damn sun in 105* heat with the GA humidity wearing that friggin brain bucket and having sawdust and red clay everywhere in and on your body....


----------



## AWP (Jan 15, 2015)

The Army's plans for women in Ranger School, starting in April:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ueling-ranger-job-to-women/?intcmp=latestnews

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/2015/01/15/women-ranger-school-assessment/21708147/



> Female soldiers will be allowed to attend Ranger School in April as part of a one-time, integrated assessment, the Army announced Thursday.
> ---
> "We're just going to let the statistics speak for themselves as we go through this," he said, in response to a question from a soldier. "The main thing I'm focused on is the standards remain the same. In order to earn that tab, you have to do all the things necessary to earn that tab. We want to try a pilot to let women have the opportunity to do that."
> "We don't know if it's five people graduate, or 100 people graduate, or no one graduates," he said. "This is just a pilot to gain information for us to understand where we are, and then we'll take that data and make a determination on how we want to move forward."
> ...


 
Chopped for brevity. According to this, 160 will go to Pre-Ranger and those who pass it will go to Ranger School starting in April. I suspect we'll have some unoffical feedback (RI's quietly making comments), but some telling stats will be how many complete Pre-Ranger and how many earn a tab. I'm not trying to make a Marine Infantry vs. Ranger debate....*so no one go there*, but we see those numbers; the Corps has been very transparent.

I actually think this is great because it is "put up or shut up" time for supporters and detractors. I think if the Army's numbers deviate from the Corps' that will cause some problems, but the standard is supposed to be just that.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 15, 2015)

What impact will the female Cadre Ranger Instructors have on the women passing Pre-Ranger and Ranger school? I'm willing to bet the females will be more lenient on things they can control as they will want the females to pass. The make instructors on the other hand may be looking for a reason to fail them (unless of course the brass wants them to pass). I just hope it's a fair assessment for all.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 15, 2015)

If the standard is a 40km movement in 16 hrs, with full battle rattle, that's the standard, you do it or you don't...   why is this so difficult for people to digest....   there are reasons for most of the standards- in combat - if you can't hump the MG/ammo/AT/mortar, you are of no use....  if you can't hump your ruck, you are of no use, if you can't navigate in the woods at night, you are of no use, if you can't drag your buddy who is also in full battle rattle to a safe location so you can lay down effective suppressing and withering fire, you are of no use...  that's why the standards exist.

Yes, it is discriminatory, it has to be in order for true unit cohesion, trust that your teammate/squadmate meets or exceeds the standards is comforting and required.


----------



## pardus (Jan 15, 2015)

I have zero confidence that the Army will maintain it's standards as the Marines are doing thus far. I hope I'm proved wrong.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 15, 2015)

I always try to keep a 1% chance in the back of my mind that something would happen whereby the standards would remain the same. But, like @pardus, I don't have much confidence in that happening.

I think it may be more like what I heard today on a radio program...the new standard is going to be "changing the standards" as they exist today. 

Sadly enough, I think they will all be changed in the future. Hopefully, I will be proven wrong. If so, I will gladly accept my wrongful thinking.


----------



## digrar (Jan 15, 2015)

Ranger course cadre are used to being gate keepers of the standard aren't they? As long as they are left to their own devices that standard should be maintained.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 16, 2015)

There's no female cadre.  In order to be a Ranger Instructor you have to have your tab. Period.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 16, 2015)

So... "JAFO's"?
(see also, Blue Thunder)


----------



## CDG (Jan 16, 2015)

I think the "we'll let statistics speak for themselves" line is bullshit.  If the statistics aren't going the way they want, I believe it will turn into "upon further review we've decided there's no viable reason for the standards to be so high that women aren't passing in the numbers we want them to".  Then the standards will be lowered to allow an acceptable number of women to pass and allow everyone to feel like they accomplished some major social change.  I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2015)

CDG said:


> I think the "we'll let statistics speak for themselves" line is bullshit.


 
I think they will speak for themselves though not in a traditional sense. If RS produces a few women with tabs with the Marines do not, the Army will have to justify why standards for RS are less than those for the Marines. We'll also know the fix is in and I won't be surprise if RI's start discussing the events offline. That word will eventually trickle out to the masses.

In general though, ths has the potential to cause issues external to the Army as comparisons are made. Internally this could actually cause a greater divide between men and women in uniform IF the standards are "adjusted" and women have tabs.

I agree with you though about them being lowered, but I'm interested to see how this shakes out. It has the potential to open some major divides within the services.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 16, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I think they will speak for themselves though not in a traditional sense. If RS produces a few women with tabs with the Marines do not, the Army will have to justify why standards for RS are less than those for the Marines. We'll also know the fix is in and I won't be surprise if RI's start discussing the events offline. That word will eventually trickle out to the masses.
> 
> In general though, ths has the potential to cause issues external to the Army as comparisons are made. Internally this could actually cause a greater divide between men and women in uniform IF the standards are "adjusted" and women have tabs.
> 
> I agree with you though about them being lowered, but I'm interested to see how this shakes out. It has the potential to open some major divides within the services.



It still grinds my teeth that this is still trying to be pushed.


----------



## Brill (Jan 16, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> According to this, 160 will go to Pre-Ranger and those who pass it will go to Ranger School starting in April.



It's worth noting that RTAC is for National Guard and the class size capacity is 54 but in March it jumps to 100.  Why is that?


----------



## Brill (Jan 16, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> There's no female cadre.  In order to be a Ranger Instructor you have to have your tab. Period.



Another standard soon to be known as the old standard?


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 16, 2015)

*Female Soldiers Approved to Enter Ranger School in April*

"About 60 female soldiers will take part alongside male soldiers in the program that begins April 20 – Ranger Course 06-15, Army spokesman Lt. Col. Benjamin Garrett said in a statement"

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...chool-in-april.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=2


:whatever:


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 16, 2015)

If I were still in, I'd have a custom made t-shirt made with a tab that said "Refuse" on it, because I'd refuse to go. How 'bout that for a political statement?  I'd sooner fail out of the Marines' IOC than get the gimme on Ranger school.


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2015)

lindy said:


> It's worth noting that RTAC is for National Guard and the class size capacity is 54 but in March it jumps to 100.  Why is that?


 
I'd be less concerned about the Guard angle and more about the class sizes. with 160 making a run at it, you could see those additional slots as 40 female soldiers per class. In theory that doesn't hamper the number of men who are prepped for RS. We're all smart enough to know that without a corresponding increase in QUALIFIED cadre, nearly doubling the class size is a recipe for a lot of weakness to slip through the system. I witnessed first hand the drive for numbers over quality and bean counters love their numbers....

Like I said, it will all shake out in a few months, for better or worse.


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2015)

Housekeeping note:

I've merged two seperate yet similar threads. If you look at the date-time stamps and discussion it will be a bit disjointed, but I made the executive decision to merge them based on a common theme.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 16, 2015)

reed11b said:


> I went in Nov '93 and no pull-ups.
> Reed



I went in '91 and no pullups and no PT test, I just submitted my PT card.  We did pullups before chow and during training, but it wasn't a "zero day" requirement.


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> I went in '91 and no pullups and no PT test, I just submitted my PT card.  We did pullups before chow and during training, but it wasn't a "zero day" requirement.



Wow... I'm really surprised to hear that. Very interesting to see how it has changed over the years.

I spoke with a paratrooper who jumped 2 or 3 times during the Korean war. 
He said during Airborne school that his platoon had to stand in a large circle facing inwards, two Soldiers from opposite sides were selected by the cadre, one had to chase the other, if the chasee was caught, the chaser whipped him with his web belt. The guy I spoke too was quite proud that he'd never been caught.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 16, 2015)

I went to Airborne School the summer after my freshman year in college.  The NCOIC of my ROTC program pencil-whipped a PT test scorecard, giving me a score "high enough that the cadre won't screw with you when you report in."  We got the snot smoked out of us, but there was no physical fitness test-in requirement.  And I'm kind of glad too, when I was 18 I couldn't do pullups, because it wasn't on the PT test and there was no school (that I could go to at that time) that required it.


----------



## Brill (Jan 16, 2015)

pardus said:


> He said during Airborne school that his platoon had to stand in a large circle facing inwards, two Soldiers from opposite sides were selected by the cadre, one had to chase the other, if the chasee was caught, the chaser whipped him with his web belt.



There has to be a choir boy joke in there somewhere.


----------



## AWP (Jan 19, 2015)

There's this gem: a 40 YO PA in a medical unit who out Crossfit's "a Ranger and a Green Beret." At least they are making them buzz cut their hair.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...s-to-blaze-a-trail-to-elite-army-rangers.html

I'd laugh if this wasn't so sad.


----------



## Brill (Jan 19, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> There's this gem: a 40 YO PA in a medical unit who out Crossfit's "a Ranger and a Green Beret." At least they are making them buzz cut their hair.
> 
> http://www.military.com/daily-news/...s-to-blaze-a-trail-to-elite-army-rangers.html
> 
> I'd laugh if this wasn't so sad.



Great.  Another slam against us old folk.


----------



## AWP (Jan 19, 2015)

lindy said:


> Great.  Another slam against us old folk.


 
I'm 41 and have no doubt some senior citizens can make it. A 40 YO woman? I applaud her for trying at least while I detest the media coverage.

Now the rest of you, get off our lawn!


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 19, 2015)

And once again, this falls under the "fucking why" considering the investment to return. Burning slots on a "short" female when you could send anyone else.


----------



## CDG (Jan 19, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> There's this gem: a 40 YO PA in a medical unit who out Crossfit's "a Ranger and a Green Beret." At least they are making them buzz cut their hair.
> 
> http://www.military.com/daily-news/...s-to-blaze-a-trail-to-elite-army-rangers.html
> 
> I'd laugh if this wasn't so sad.



It might be slightly newsworthy if she was using the same weights in the CF workouts.  She's not.  Even CF, who in the early days said that there shouldn't be different weights for men and women because there aren't different weights in life, programs lighter weights for women.

How many hoops would a 40 year-old male PA have to jump through to go to RS?


----------



## AWP (Jan 19, 2015)

The whole article reeks of NGB politics...


----------



## digrar (Jan 19, 2015)

Flat track bully. Double her weight with pack, webbing and rifle and the hare will become the tortoise.


----------



## 8654Maine (Jan 20, 2015)

I went through jump school in '89.  I have no idea if pull-ups were necessary.

Of course, I went after Scuba then Ranger school.  I thought it was a nice time to catch up on rest and relaxation.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 20, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> So... "JAFO's"?
> (see also, Blue Thunder)



Yes. As per this post I made earlier. And no, they are NOT RI's.

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threa...y-ranger-school-discussion.22188/#post-353102

Funny how the ARTB FB page has now been pulled and no longer exists.....:-"


----------



## Viper1 (Jan 20, 2015)

Her ability to out-Crossfit male Soldiers does not equal graduating Ranger school.  Journalistic garbage.

Kudos to her for the effort.  The pioneers catch the arrows but it always good to see trailblazers stepping forward.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 21, 2015)

lindy said:


> It's worth noting that RTAC is for National Guard and the class size capacity is 54 but in March it jumps to 100.  Why is that?


When I was at Benning, every Armor LT went to RTAC.  Those posts that do not run a pre-ranger usually send Soldiers to RTAC as well.

Met a female Arty LT that is tiny who is one of the candidates, she sports the a GOs tab in her pocket.

You guys talking about Airborne school, my French Professor talked about how SF basically recruited from Airborne School and the 82nd.  That Airborne School was tough enough, and that SFAS was more about aptitude than a straight up physical killer as Q course wasn't exactly for the faint of heart.  This is a guy who in his late 50s would ruck 10 miles for lunch in his silkies when he was Dean of the Institute.


----------



## Brill (Jan 22, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> When I was at Benning, every Armor LT went to RTAC.  Those posts that do not run a pre-ranger usually send Soldiers to RTAC as well.



Explains why we can't get slots!


----------



## Centermass (Feb 4, 2015)

> First-ever gender integrated Ranger Training Assessment Course completed here
> 
> FORT BENNING, Georgia – Fifty-eight Soldiers completed the Ranger Training Assessment Course (RTAC) Jan. 30 at the Army National Guard’s Warrior Training Center here, including 5 women who will potentially be among the first to attend the U.S. Army Ranger Course in the spring.
> 
> ...


----------



## CDG (Feb 5, 2015)

A further breakdown on what Centermass posted above: http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...5/02/04/pre-ranger-assessment-women/22875325/

5 women equated to 19% (26 started) and all 5 were officers.  55% of men completed the assessment course ( 53 out of 96).  Of the 26 women, 19 were officers, 6 were NCOs, and 1 was a SPC.   16 women completed the course, but only 5 of those had met the minimum standards.


----------



## AWP (Feb 5, 2015)

CDG said:


> A further breakdown on what Centermass posted above: http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...5/02/04/pre-ranger-assessment-women/22875325/
> 
> 5 women equated to 19% (26 started) and all 5 were officers.  55% of men completed the assessment course ( 53 out of 96).  Of the 26 women, 19 were officers, 6 were NCOs, and 1 was a SPC.   16 women completed the course, but only 5 of those had met the minimum standards.


 
I wish we knew the breakdown of Branch/ MOS for all involved.


----------



## digrar (Feb 6, 2015)

5 Officers passed, how many of the remaining 21 were also Officers?


----------



## CDG (Feb 6, 2015)

digrar said:


> 5 Officers passed, how many of the remaining 21 were also Officers?



14. See post #171 for a breakdown of Enlisted vs Officer.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 9, 2015)

The majority of those men will have reported to RTB today or next Sunday if that's when they class up.  All five of those women have gone back to their units and will report after Best Ranger.  They get to heal up, gives them a better shot, but is not consistent with what the males are required to go through.  How do I know this...I know one of the ladies that passed, she has a sapper tab.


----------



## 8654Maine (Feb 9, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> The majority of those men will have reported to RTB today or next Sunday if that's when they class up.  All five of those women have gone back to their units and will report after Best Ranger.  They get to heal up, gives them a better shot, but is not consistent with what the males are required to go through.  How do I know this...I know one of the ladies that passed, she has a sapper tab.


 
And that is the travesty.  Equal isn't.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 9, 2015)

Well, yes and no. Simple fact is that there's no guarantees that you have to go straight to school from *any* PRC. It's just that it usually works out that way.


----------



## AWP (Feb 9, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> The majority of those men will have reported to RTB today or next Sunday if that's when they class up.  All five of those women have gone back to their units and will report after Best Ranger.  They get to heal up, gives them a better shot, but is not consistent with what the males are required to go through.  How do I know this...I know one of the ladies that passed, she has a sapper tab.


 
Another metric I wish were public.


----------



## CDG (Feb 17, 2015)

I keep seeing these articles about women attempting to get a slot at Ranger School and every one of them talks about all the (seemingly) special attention they get.  It sounds like their only job once they decide they want to go is to be coached and mentored every step of the way.  Is this something male soldiers also get?  Or am I reading too much into this?

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/fema...ping-to-earn-berths-at-ranger-school-1.329712


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 17, 2015)

No. Pre-Ranger is not a mandatory requirement across the Army. the 75th Regimental Training Detatchment conducts a "Regiment and Friends" Pre-Ranger. Basically who goes there is anyone from the 75th (since all MOS'es in the 75th can/will attend given time) as well as rather permanent attachments IE assigned and scroll wearing SOWT, TACP's etc.  Other elements, provided space, can attend as well.  Other units conduct Pre-Ranger as they can afford to. The former RI's that were in Alaska with me, for example, conducted a 2 week PRC for all the male soldiers going... but that's not always the case. ARNG all attends the PRC @ Benning. 

For the most part, there's little to no mentoring of individuals going. Regiment does what I would consider the most, to be blunt. Primarily because Regiment requires a tab for promotion past E-4 for 11 series, and it's pretty hard to get promoted even as a softskill to be an NCO without getting your shit. Also, the only thing that Regiment did (while I was in) that was even remotely close to Ranger school was have similar opord structure and 3 240's in line platoons for dismounted movement..... from then on, it was Reindeers and fucking rabbits as far as Regiment and Ranger school being alike.  Hence the permanently manned PRC, we generally actually needed to learn to dumb it down considering we could properly count on everyone to stay the fuck away as a general rule, etc.

There's a lot of trainup these women are getting that they honestly wouldn't be getting if their plumbing was reversed.


----------



## CDG (Feb 17, 2015)

Thanks @Ranger Psych.  It feels a little like the Army is skirting the issue of the standards.  Ok, they're the same, but now you're giving these women prep resources not available to a male soldier.  It's no surprise some will make it through if the Army essentially treats them as being there solely to go to RS and their daily structure is built around preparation for that task.  I'm tracking the Pre-Ranger Course requirements and who attends/doesn't attend.  It also sounds like these women are basically doing PRC at their home station for X amount of time before going to official PRC.


----------



## CDG (Feb 17, 2015)

Wild Bill said:


> Can you imagine the smell coming from her after a month with no good shower? Just wet wipes. i smell bad enough. I think I just vurped. Or is it vurpped. Could give away your position. Would they carry feminine products in the med kit or new type of MRE's. I've got my tobasco and this. Could plug a hole in the Hoover Dam or bullet wound.



To help get the TACP Pipeline thread back on track as requested I'm responding to this here.  @Wild Bill, I gotta disagree with this argument completely brother.  I think there are plenty of arguments to be raised about attempting to integrate women into SOF and ground combat MOSs.  This ain't one of them though.  This argument makes us look uninformed and petty.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 17, 2015)

Ranger school is just a leadership school. Might as well let them in once they stop the gender bias physical fitness requirement.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 17, 2015)

No, men do not receive the same amount of time to prepare/be mentored.  As far as pre-ranger not being a requirement for the school house it is quite often a requirement from Divisions filling slots, they don't want: he didn't go/pass pre-ranger to be an excuse.  Before I got injured in 2013 and was told I was going, I had to prepare myself on my own time.  I had to do regular PT, the brigade had a separate ranger prep for all enlisted Soldiers going that took them offline for three weeks prior to the Pre-Ranger course.  The only folks I know that get this sort of time off are on the Division Best Ranger team, all they do is eat, sleep, workout, jump out of blackhawks etc.

Everyone tells me "it's just a leadership school" I personally think sucking for that long is, not for the faint of heart.  I also do not wish to attend, but did not discourage my Soldiers from going.  But I could care less for Ranger Candidates, I wanted all my section leaders to put in for ARC and dismounted team leaders for RSLC...that didn't happen either.


----------



## CDG (Feb 18, 2015)

USA COL(Ret.) Ellen Haring figured out the problem.  It's the USMC's fault! 

http://ciceromagazine.com/features/is-the-marine-corps-setting-women-up-to-fail-in-combat-roles/

_Critics cite a lack of any possible incentive for women officers to volunteer_

Since when does being an Infantry Officer require incentives?  You get paid right?  You have food, water, shelter, equipment, access to medical care, etc., right?  So what the fuck else do you need?  You either want to lead Marines in combat or you don't.  It's bullshit to attempt to blame the USMC for not making the prospect lucrative enough.

_“If a volunteer is unable to successfully complete the program of instruction, it is unlikely they will be recycled due to impact on delaying attendance at their PMOS school, possible negative impact on fitness reporting cycles, potential harm to the volunteer’s career path, and complication with equitable career designations.”  In short, a female officer failing would see their career in the Marines suffer for trying—a rather large disincentive._

Actually, what this says is that they would be negatively affected by recycling due to the fact that it's in a testing phase.  If they don't make it, then they need to get on with becoming a productive USMC officer somewhere else.  This DOES NOT appear to equate to a career suffering for trying.

_Rather than look for ways to exclude women the Marines should seek out the toughest, smartest most capable women this country has to offer and vigorously recruit them to join the ranks of the infantry._

Why?  Why should the USMC put forth time, money, and effort to recruit the top 5% of women in the hopes that some of them make it?  They should be doing what the USMC has always done.  Lay down the gauntlet and see who wants to accept the challenge.  If women need to be courted into trying out, then they don't really want to be there.  Last I checked, the USMC has plenty of material out there that the "toughest, smartest most capable women" can find if they put their minds to being a USMC Infantry Officer.

This whole social experiment is rife with hypocrisy. 
"We don't want different standards.  We just want extra incentives, more time to prep for the standards, and resources not available to anyone else."


----------



## RetPara (Feb 18, 2015)

Retired CSM Jeff Melliger just posted the following on FB.  Mellinger is on the advisory committee for the whole women in Ranger School thing.



> Fresh off the press:
> 
> RTAC 1 and 2
> 222 Students in-processed
> ...


----------



## CDG (Feb 18, 2015)

Thanks for posting that up @RetPara.  Nice to see the total breakdown.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 18, 2015)

CDG said:


> USA COL(Ret.) Ellen Haring figured out the problem.  It's the USMC's fault!
> 
> http://ciceromagazine.com/features/is-the-marine-corps-setting-women-up-to-fail-in-combat-roles/
> 
> ...



How many people here took a career risk moving into a "high-speed" pipeline?  There are a few who could take a run at a selection program and/or training pipeline without any penalty, but I know people who have gone back to their original branches with significant career delays and are behind the metaphorical 8-ball and significantly behind their peers because of their decision to pursue an opportunity (as well as many others who were at serious risk if they didn't complete their pipelines).  This isn't unique to this instance (females in Marine infantry school), and frequently comes part and parcel with making a significant career move.  It's an issue that the appropriate elements (in the Army it should be the branch at HRC and the course cadre themselves) should acknowledge and address so that people aren't getting screwed, but this is NOT a "female" issue.


----------



## Johca (Feb 18, 2015)

http://www.defense.gov/news/MarineCorpsWISRImplementationPlan.pdf    Date of the document is 2 May 2013.  Each of the services originated and implemented a plan during period from April to May 2013.  Lt COL Retired Haring is overstating what the USMC is and is not doing.


----------



## Johca (Feb 18, 2015)

The author is also confusing tactical leading as being an occupation.  It is not and tactical leading requires more than being smart, it requires not only being competent but ability to not freak out under duress.  Here's a few videos that emphasizes the freak out concern.





The critical links pertinent to disclosing leading fail under duress in the video below is at: 00:34-0:45, 03:49-03:59, and 04:39-05:23.






Initial Intel was 200 enemy NVA, what the force  of 400 US Infantry actually encountered were 1600 or more NVA.


----------



## digrar (Feb 18, 2015)

RetPara said:


> Retired CSM Jeff Melliger just posted the following on FB.  Mellinger is on the advisory committee for the whole women in Ranger School thing.
> 
> 
> 
> > Comment from O/A: "Once the rucksack was introduced the performance degraded rapidly."



Called it.



digrar said:


> Flat track bully. Double her weight with pack, webbing and rifle and the hare will become the tortoise.


----------



## Loki (Mar 17, 2015)

Here's an excellent piece by 60 minutes on Women attempting to become USMC Infantry 
officers. 

*http://www.cbsnews.com/news/female-marines-women-in-combat-60-minutes/*

Well done and very insightful


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 17, 2015)

Loki said:


> Here's an excellent piece by 60 minutes on Women attempting to become USMC Infantry
> officers.
> 
> *http://www.cbsnews.com/news/female-marines-women-in-combat-60-minutes/*
> ...



_General George Smith: "We could make the bars lower, David, but that's really not the issue. The issue is the realities of combat aren't going to change based on gender. The enemy doesn't care whether you're a male or female." _

Ooh fucking Rah, General.  Ooh fucking Rah!

ETA - take the time to watch the video and not just read the transcript.  Those bees, holy crap...I can handle a lot, but I think I'd be f'd when the bees started to swarm.

*Question*:  When she was climbing the rope and fell off, it seemed she was trying to muscle her way up that thing.  Granted it has been a while, but I seem to recall being taught a technique (S-Technique?)  where you wrapped your boots around the rope and essentially climbed up - made the obstacle course a whole lot easier once I mastered it.  Is that not taught anymore, or are candidates for that course not permitted to use it?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 17, 2015)

She was using the J-Hook, which is taught in the Army as well...I never used it.

Marine Corps has stuck to their guns on this, I wish the Army had.


----------



## Loki (Mar 17, 2015)

The USMC will hold the line as long as possible. I believe the Corps is less political than the Army and other branches. They will fight the good fight until the end.

Semper Fi!


----------



## pardus (Mar 17, 2015)

There is no need to use any upper body strength on a rope climb sans holding on while you reposition your feet higher. 
Shit, on my first basic training they made us climb up with a full pack, and then let go with our hands to be supported only by your legs. 
A sphincter tightening exercise lol


----------



## Loki (Mar 20, 2015)

*"BRITISH REPORT DELIVERS BOMBSHELL ON WOMEN IN COMBAT"*
I was unable to open the Washington times report or the British report. Couldn't access original documents

https://www.sofmag.com/british-repo...-women-in-combat/comment-page-1/#comment-2859

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/8_5_2013_0928201jpg/


----------



## AWP (Apr 4, 2015)

Two items to continue the discussion. I heard about the first on the radio.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/special-operations-troops-doubt-women-can-do-the-job-1.338486



> WASHINGTON — Surveys find that men in U.S. special operations forces do not believe women can meet the physical and mental demands of their commando jobs, and they fear the Pentagon will lower standards to integrate women into their elite units, according to interviews and documents.
> Studies that surveyed personnel found "major misconceptions" within special operations about whether women should be brought into the male-only jobs. They also revealed concerns that department leaders would "capitulate to political pressure, allowing erosion of training standards," according to one document.
> 
> ...
> ...


 
Pretty straight forward and thoughts echoed here and elsewhere. The "misconceptions" quote is a bit disturbing because what isn't understood? What "misconceptions" are those? That kind of smells. The blurb about women in SOF was interesting to me in part because of this:

http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...5/03/04/women-in-special-operations/24366457/



> More than 4,100 officer and enlisted "men only" positions in special operations units of the Regular Army, National Guard and Army Reserve will be opened to women.
> ...
> The organizations being opened to women as a result of the Feb. 27 directive from Army Secretary John McHugh are:
> 
> ...


 
Here's where I need to call bullshit. 19th Group had at least one female rigger a decade ago. I don't know if a loophole was closed or what, but it happened. There have also been plenty of attachments at various levels which presumably skirts the law because they aren't assigned.


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 4, 2015)

There are a lot of guys who can not preform as some think women should.   IMHO, combat is something like 90-95% mental.  I never had to carry a 250 pound dude 100 yards.  

A good read The Marines Of Autumn, on survival.   I went over at 165 pounds in 6 months I was down to 125 pound.  

Can women do it?   Probably yes but not in the same percentage that men can do it.  

On Standards;  If they actually represent the needs of the job, then they should never ever be lowered.   A common comment that I heard in the RVN, they (our trainers)  should have been harder on us in training.  

Titus Flavius Josephus a first century historian accredited the Roman military success with;

"The practices were bloodless battles.  Their battles where bloody practices."


----------



## pardus (Apr 4, 2015)

When I see females who can carry 100+ lbs in a ruck, plus web gear which is probably 30+ and a rifle, patrol all day with that, live in the bush for months at a time like that, and be able to pass a PT test to male standards_._ Then I would _start _to think about a second look at this non pressing issue. That's not even considering the retardedness that the male Infanteers would immediately develop, that would by itself most likely ruin a unit.
It's just not possible and not needed. Fucking leave the issue alone. Jesus christ, work on something real like inequality in wages for women.
Wanting a magic sock that will give you unlimited money may seem like a good idea too, but it's only a real thing while you're on acid, so drop it!


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 4, 2015)

I think there are several parts to this issue.   Peace time service, Combat service and the different jobs and wars we get into.  

Peace time service..   is what it is.   Wars are not all the same.  We are not facing a enemy at the gates waiting to kill us all, where everyone who can fight is on the line.  In that situation it is about survival not being PC or getting promoted.   Today, we can be very selective and exclusionary to who we get.  We can build the best and effective teams with highly motivated people.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 5, 2015)

HOLLiS said:


> There are a lot of guys who can not preform as some think women should.   IMHO, combat is something like 90-95% mental.  I never had to carry a 250 pound dude 100 yards.
> ."



There are others who have Hollis.  Most of us weigh over 200 once we're loaded with kit and gear.


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 5, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> There are others who have Hollis.  Most of us weigh over 200 once we're loaded with kit and gear.



Let see, when I was med-evaced, I weighted 125 pound,  down from 165 when I went over six months earlier.  My pack weight 110 pounds, that did not include rifle, 30 20 rounds mags, boots, helmet, flak jacket (sans ceramic plates) avec 5 frags,  trousers, socks.  The radio operators carried more.   So now in my fat old age, I don't weight my weight then plus pack, sans the other stuff.   No wonder I  have joint issues. :)

The difference between a grunt and a mule..... eventually a mule will bulk at carrying more, a grunt won't. 




As I mentioned, carrying a 250 pound dude.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 6, 2015)

HOLLiS said:


> As I mentioned, carrying a 250 pound dude.



http://duskinandstephens.com/mike-duskin.html

Both of these guys were on the near end of 250lbs and multiple guys had to carry them and their gear out of Wardak.  My buddy got blown up in Wardak and he's a solid 250 lbs.  He got pulled out of a flipped over vehicle by a teammate, who was also close to 250-lbs.  In fact, the entire ODA was over 215 lbs.  We had to carry my team sergeant across the airfield when he got shot and he was a solid 200.  The dying contractor I loaded on a medevac bird in '06 was well over 200 as well and that took two of us on the stretcher. 

Listen, I think we agree on a lot points.  We have to assemble, train, and deploy the best folks we can get to the job. I've served with good men and women downrange and they all performed at or above the standard required.  There is no getting around certain facts though.  A 100rd belt of 7.62 weighs 7 pounds, a Carl-G weighs in at 20 lbs, a M-240B is over 25-lbs, and there are a lot of guys in service pushing near or beyond the 200 lb mark.  As I said, everyone I worked with could operate under those conditions.  The standard shouldn't be lowered to get around the previously mentioned facts.


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 6, 2015)

The best person for the job is the best person.  The neat thing is, it is not my call.  If it was, I would want the best person.

Reducing training requirements, standards etc is just wrong.


----------



## Brill (Apr 6, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> http://duskinandstephens.com/mike-duskin.html



Very fitting website.  October 2012 was a rough month.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 6, 2015)

Yep. Hell, I was 215 before you threw the saw, ammo, armor, etc on.  

I only know one woman who's proven to been able to remotely physically mule me around for any sort of distance in any manner. I'm married to her.  PTFO after a Phenegrine shot... the whole aid station was getting ready to break out a litter and wheeled litter carrier to get me out to the truck to go home for bed rest.... when she just mungo'ed me the fuck up on her shoulders and asked if someone could get the door for her. I don't doubt she could if I had been in full kit as well, but there's one thing between 100 meters walking at a slow pace with no aggrivating circumstances, and buddy carrying someone because you have to move them to the CCP/LZ with ineffective fire going around you. She knows it too, seems that alot of tiny "flat track bullies" don't seem to get it though. 

I mean, I'd sooner prefer seeing more segregation of duty positions... like stryker crew, etc. Can you think of anything more terrifying than a full crew of sync'ed up women on an Abrams or Bradley? It'd be glorious.


----------



## medicchick (Apr 6, 2015)

You must not remember in Alaska after you had your wisdom teeth out.  That was fun getting you across an icy parking lot (not under your own power), then mouthing off to the gate guard.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 7, 2015)

No, I really don't remember that shit. Now do you see why I really hate doing things that purposely get me to that LOC (or lack thereof?)


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 7, 2015)

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...arine-experiment-drops-two-officers/25418867/

From the Marine Corps Times.    I am glad the Corps did not adjust the standards.


----------



## AWP (Apr 7, 2015)

Could a Marine explain this to me:



> Officials have said that ongoing research will consider many aspects of temporarily integrating IOC, including the number of volunteers, their pass rate, and performance in the course. That data will be taken alongside other research points, including the much higher success rate for *enlisted female Marines in passing the Infantry Training Battalion course* at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. When that research concluded earlier this year, 240 women had attempted the course, with a pass rate of 44 percent.


 
Does ITB produce 0311's or is that something every infantry Marine has to complete before going on to an MOS producing course? How does it have a 44% pass rate and IOC has 0%? What are the differences?


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 7, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Could a Marine explain this to me:
> 
> 
> 
> Does ITB produce 0311's or is that something every infantry Marine has to complete before going on to an MOS producing course? How does it have a 44% pass rate and IOC has 0%? What are the differences?



ITB is for the enlisted folk. ITB is Infantry Training Battalion. All 03's (Infantry MOS) attend ITB.

Also for the enlisted is MCT. MCT is Marine Combat Training. MCT is where all non Infantry MOS's go.

Combined they all create the School of Infantry (SOI).


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 7, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Could a Marine explain this to me:
> 
> 
> 
> Does ITB produce 0311's or is that something every infantry Marine has to complete before going on to an MOS producing course? How does it have a 44% pass rate and IOC has 0%? What are the differences?



ITB is for 0311 Marines. MCT (Marine Combat Training) is for non Infantry Marines.

The two put together is/are called SOI (School of Infantry)

I think it is because IOC is longer. ITB as I recall is 8 weeks. Perhaps the IOC standards are "harder" (as much as it pains me to say that) because they are producing officers to lead enlisted Infantry Marines

edit: see above post.


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 7, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Could a Marine explain this to me:
> 
> 
> 
> Does ITB produce 0311's or is that something every infantry Marine has to complete before going on to an MOS producing course? How does it have a 44% pass rate and IOC has 0%? What are the differences?




My guess is the intensity of the training.   Getting my 0311 was not that difficult.  My daughter would have no problem passing the course.

When I was in,  Every Marine had to go through a basic infantry course (ITR).  Then they went off to schools or to Infantry training battalion, picking up the specialty part of their MOS.    0311,  03 is basic infantry.   11 is the specialty rifleman.   Machine gunner, mortarman, etc a different 03XX  I had two 03 MOSs,  0311 and 0353.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 7, 2015)

Having never attended IOC (@Teufel can speak for that if he would like) I can only speak on ITB. ITB is designed like many a-schools to graduate those who attend. Is it a cake walk? No, but it's not that difficult of a school. Just be able to hump every where (at least on the west coast back in 02 early 03) and pass a few basic written and practical tests. How any could fail it is beyond me (aside from injury). The standard is not very high coming out of there.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 7, 2015)

When I went through...it was basically an extension of Boot Camp. Up to and including a couple routine thrashings at times. We ran or humped everywhere we went. When we didn't do it quick enough...we thrashed a little. Things may have changed a bit since I went through in '86. 

With that said...since we were two weeks out of Boot Camp...we were all in good shape and the physical aspect wasn't that bad...only aggravating at times because we thought we were done with Boot Camp and thrashing.

The academic side of it wasn't bad -- in my opinion. Where there was some difficulty with some people was with the qualifying on specific weapons. However, with a little motivation and some extra training...they usually pulled through. We had a couple that were moved from MOS to MOS for failure to qualify.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 7, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Could a Marine explain this to me:
> 
> 
> 
> Does ITB produce 0311's or is that something every infantry Marine has to complete before going on to an MOS producing course? How does it have a 44% pass rate and IOC has 0%? What are the differences?



You can fail events at ITB and still get pushed through the course and graduate.  The standards are not that high. and the course is not that difficult. Almost every event at IOC is a graduation requirement.  This is one of the reasons that they are reassessing individual training standards now.  Being able to charge a 50 cal should be a graduation requirement for ITB but it is not.  You can drop out of hikes, fail the obstacle course etc and still pass.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 7, 2015)

Teufel said:


> You can fail events at ITB and still get pushed through the course and graduate.  The standards are not that high. and the course is not that difficult. Almost every event at IOC is a graduation requirement.  This is one of the reasons that they are reassessing individual training standards now.  Being able to charge a 50 cal should be a graduation requirement for ITB but it is not.  You can drop out of hikes, fail the obstacle course etc and still pass.



How long is IOC now? Is there more PT and/or more bookwork as opposed to ITB?


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 8, 2015)

Went through ITS (prior to ITB) in '85 and became an 0311.  It was easy.

Like @Teufel said, the intensity and competition is nothing like IOC.


----------



## CDG (Apr 8, 2015)

Most of the women have failed on the Combat Endurance Test.  Does ITB have anything comparable at any point in the training?


----------



## AWP (Apr 8, 2015)

Re: ITB..."Holy shit" is the first thing that comes to mind.

Thank you for the explanation everyone.


----------



## mac21 (Apr 8, 2015)

CDG said:


> Most of the women have failed on the Combat Endurance Test.  Does ITB have anything comparable at any point in the training?



When I went through in 2009, we didn't have anything comparable to the CET.

Marines failed hikes, fell out on ~3 mile range movements, scored below 200 on the PFT, and still somehow graduated.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 8, 2015)

CDG said:


> Most of the women have failed on the Combat Endurance Test.  Does ITB have anything comparable at any point in the training?



Not that I recall. You take a PFT  at some point.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 8, 2015)

I am just going to say that I took a screenshot of all the Marines talking about how hard it *wasn't.*


----------



## Teufel (Apr 8, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> How long is IOC now? Is there more PT and/or more bookwork as opposed to ITB?



IOC is basically Ranger school for Lieutenants.  I have never been to Ranger school but one of my classmates went in between graduation from the Naval Academy and TBS/IOC.  He told me that the field portions felt like being back at Ranger school, the academic aspects were significantly more challenging but we did get weekends off when we aren't in the field and we normally got fed outside of one patrol exercise where they starve you and push you to your limits.  I want to say it was seven MREs for 10 days or two weeks.  I don't remember.  I do remember conducting attacks and moving non stop day and night for two weeks.  Sometimes in MOP 4 and God help you if you're in the weapons platoon.  I'm not using this as a platform to say that IOC is as hard as Ranger school but the two courses are similar to some degree.  ITB is closer to Airborne school.  That should put things into frame for everyone.  

I believe IOC is 3 months long right now.  There is significantly more coursework at IOC.  ITB trains you to participate in a squad attack and maybe some patrolling.  IOC makes college frat boys hard and teaches them to fight a platoon across the range of military operations in multiple environments.  They fly the students to 29 Palms and Bridgeport at the end of the course for the final exercises.  Almost everything is live fire.  I remember doing a multiple platoon live fire movement to contact through the woods.  It's a beast course, one of the best in the Marine Corps.  They used to send select SNCOs through.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 8, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> I am just going to say that I took a screenshot of all the Marines talking about how hard it *wasn't.*



True story.  The Marine Corps places the burden of training on the NCOs at the rifle battalions.  Boot camp is tough and is supposed to weed out the weak.  ITB teaches Marines the basics but won't come close to the effectiveness of a young Marine Sergeant or Corporal with a deep knowledge of tactics and a loose understanding of the Marine Corps policy on hazing.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 8, 2015)

I was never hazed. I either was retrained due to my own ineptitude, or I had entertaining assistance in increasing my PT score.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 8, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> I am just going to say that I took a screenshot of all the Marines talking about how hard it *wasn't.*



Like I said it pains me to say that about USMC ITB. Hard in the sense of forced marches and that good livin PT. Beyond that not so much.  You're in jacked shape from boot camp so you can drive on.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 8, 2015)

If only you had some weight that you could throw around to change that, @Ranger Psych

Fleet life is different from ITB. I dreaded boot drops not because they were green and inexperienced, but because they were more often than not the physically weakest. In my humble opinion, ITB needs an extra two weeks added to it to allow more time to integrate a PT regimen. Every day is spent training from 05 to 1900 or later if in the field. We only PT'd twice if I remember. Boot camp had at least a few obstacle courses and movement courses that sucked.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 8, 2015)

CDG said:


> Most of the women have failed on the Combat Endurance Test.  Does ITB have anything comparable at any point in the training?



Two women passed, the first withdrew within days, the other withdrew three weeks into the course.  Both for medical reasons.  The total sample size of the last three years is just under 50 I think.

I will continuously say that IBOLC needs to be revamped, I am not an infantry officer, but if you're only training them for Ranger School and not to lead a platoon the day they leave course you're doing it wrong.  Which is what they are doing.  Everything I've heard about IOC tells me it is ridiculous.  But remember that after TBS all those guys do is workout until their class date, so for those that fail, their bodies couldn't take it.  Also I've seen complete trash graduate IBOLC (yes, ABOLC had trash too), of the Marine infantry officers I know, all of them are nuts.  

This coming from a Cavalrymen who wants nothing to do with Ranger School.


----------



## pardus (Apr 8, 2015)

This needs to be in this thread.


----------



## digrar (Apr 8, 2015)

I don't recall doing too much PT during Infantry IETs, we mostly patrolled in marching order heavy, doing section attacks over and over, digging in defensively and working in close country. Some obs and bayonet assault courses as formal PT sessions, a few circuits and runs.  
 But the 3 months spent mostly in the bush did the job for us and it's that aspect of our course where I don't see m/any females getting through. Especially now as there is an Infantry specific Physical Employment Standards test as a barrier for completion of the course.


----------



## pardus (Apr 8, 2015)

digrar said:


> I don't recall doing too much PT during Infantry IETs, *we mostly patrolled in marching order heavy*, doing section attacks over and over, digging in defensively and working in close country. Some obs and bayonet assault courses as formal PT sessions, a few circuits and runs.
> But the 3 months spent mostly in the bush did the job for us and it's that aspect of our course where I don't see m/any females getting through. Especially now as there is an Infantry specific Physical Employment Standards test as a barrier for completion of the course.



That is the Infanteer's bread and butter.
We didn't do much running at all, no one cared about running too much, but if you couldn't march with a full pack... You're no use.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 9, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> Everything I've heard about IOC tells me it is ridiculous.  But remember that after TBS all those guys do is workout until their class date, so for those that fail, their bodies couldn't take it.  Also I've seen complete trash graduate IBOLC (yes, ABOLC had trash too), of the Marine infantry officers I know, all of them are nuts.
> 
> This coming from a Cavalrymen who wants nothing to do with Ranger School.


 
I graduated TBS on a Friday and took the IOC Combat Endurance Test the following Monday morning.  I don't think much has changed since I graduated.  They normally time IOC course start dates to follow right behind TBS graduations.  

Interesting side note, while IOC is a solid kick in the nuts, we are seeing a very high attrition rate in officers, all of whom are IOC graduates, failing the Basic Recon Course.


----------



## digrar (Apr 9, 2015)

Officers do the same BRC as the other ranks?


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 9, 2015)

I'm glad to hear BRC is keeping up the standards.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 9, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> but if you're only training them for Ranger School and not to lead a platoon


Ranger school is a leadership school..


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 9, 2015)

Teufel said:


> I graduated TBS on a Friday and took the IOC Combat Endurance Test the following Monday morning.  I don't think much has changed since I graduated.  They normally time IOC course start dates to follow right behind TBS graduations.
> 
> Interesting side note, while IOC is a solid kick in the nuts, we are seeing a very high attrition rate in officers, all of whom are IOC graduates, failing the Basic Recon Course.



My ABOLC classmate said failing the E Course was an indictment on the Marine Officer's individual preparation because they had IOC Prep which consisted of a month to six weeks of reporting for PT in the morning and then having the whole day to work out after that.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 9, 2015)

SOTGWarrior said:


> If only you had some weight that you could throw around to change that, @Ranger Psych
> 
> Fleet life is different from ITB. I dreaded boot drops not because they were green and inexperienced, but because they were more often than not the physically weakest. In my humble opinion, ITB needs an extra two weeks added to it to allow more time to integrate a PT regimen. Every day is spent training from 05 to 1900 or later if in the field. We only PT'd twice if I remember. Boot camp had at least a few obstacle courses and movement courses that sucked.



I would make ITB about 12 weeks. You spend the last week doing paperwork and the first week doing nothing which kills 2 weeks. Plus there needs to be more patrolling.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 9, 2015)

Yes. I don't think officers and lat movers are required to attend pre-BRC but that may have changed.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 9, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> My ABOLC classmate said failing the E Course was an indictment on the Marine Officer's individual preparation because they had IOC Prep which consisted of a month to six weeks of reporting for PT in the morning and then having the whole day to work out after that.



I know the female officers were given time to work out and prepare themselves for IOC.  We never used to get that when I went through.  They may have changed things when they started sending female officers through.


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 9, 2015)

Teufel said:


> I know the female officers were given time to work out and prepare themselves for IOC.  We never used to get that when I went through.  They may have changed things when they started sending female officers through.




The Corps has changed a lot over the years.  A friend and I talked about those changes last night.  The Corps seems to be changing away from it's grunt heritage.  The current Sgt Major does not have a CAR, was a example.   Marines are warriors first, but PC attitude is changing that.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 9, 2015)

HOLLiS said:


> The current Sgt Major does not have a CAR



I was initially surprised by this, but then did a little Googling and found it not to be as uncommon as I had expected.  Prior to Sgt. Major Green (who does have two degrees in cyber warfare) , earning a CAR seemed to be a prerequisite up until 1999 when Sgt. Major McMichael was appointed.  Following him was Sgt. Major Estrada (no CAR and hand picked by President Obama Bush), then Sgt. Majors Kent and Barrett, who did have one.

I won't go so far as to say a Sgt. Major of The Marine Corps cannot be effective and relate to his Marines without that particular ribbon, but it does stand out to me that General Amos, former Commandant of the Marine Corps , did not have a CAR and was (un?)arguably the most disliked and out-of-touch CMC in recent Corps history.  <think  Pee-Gate, issues w/his resume/battles with the Marine Corps Times, ect>

ETA: Sgt. Major Estrada was nominated by Bush, not Obama.  He stepped down in 2007 - no reason given, but he immediately began campaigning for Obama over McCain - Thanks Deathy for the note.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 10, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> I am just going to say that I took a screenshot of all the Marines talking about how hard it *wasn't.*


 

None of those candy-asses had to do mess duty. Nothing like a week in the galley to separate the men from the boys.




Ooh-Rah said:


> I won't go so far as to say a Sgt. Major of The Marine Corps cannot be effective and relate to his Marines without that particular ribbon, but it does stand out to me that General Amos, former Commandant of the Marine Corps , did not have a CAR and was (un?)arguably the most disliked and out-of-touch CMC in recent Corps history.


 
The flag-raising on Iwo Jima epitomizes to me the heart and soul of the Corps: five Marine riflemen (one of them para-qualified) and their Navy Corpsman. Marines are shock troops, first and foremost, and the other elements and MOSs have always been in support of that infantry spearhead. We are all about engaging the enemy on the ground with whatever organics we can carry on our backs. No disrespect intended to non-03 Marines, all have critical support functions...but grunts are the lifeblood of the Corps. A Commandant or SgtMaj of the Marine Corps, in my biased opinion, should be blooded, or at least share the MOS of the majority of those in his command.


----------



## mac21 (Apr 10, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> None of those candy-asses had to do mess duty. Nothing like a week in the galley to separate the men from the boys.



This candy-ass spent a few weeks on mess duty.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 10, 2015)

mac21 said:


> This candy-ass spent a few weeks on mess duty.


 

Good for you. Did you get your KAB...Kitchen Assault Badge?


----------



## mac21 (Apr 10, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> Good for you. Did you get your KAB...Kitchen Assault Badge?


With gold star in lieu of second award.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 10, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> Good for you. Did you get your KAB...Kitchen Assault Badge?



I did multiple tours.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 11, 2015)

The final tally for April 19th:



> The fourth and final coed RTAC class has just a few more days left.
> 
> 61 women started this last RTAC iteration, and 7 passed.
> 
> ...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 11, 2015)

Link for source?


----------



## Centermass (Apr 12, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> Link for source?



Another Ranger (Ret CSM) who is overwatching the entire program. 

Good enough?


----------



## Teufel (Apr 12, 2015)

Centermass said:


> Another Ranger (Ret CSM) who is overwatching the entire program.
> 
> Good enough?



apparently www.rangerbuddy.com


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 12, 2015)

Centermass said:


> Another Ranger (Ret CSM) who is overwatching the entire program.
> 
> Good enough?


Not when I'm wanting to use it as evidence in a discussion.


----------



## AWP (Apr 13, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> Not when I'm wanting to use it as evidence in a discussion.



Do what you want, but Centermass is either a former RI or knows many former cadre....maybe both. I don't believe anyone on this board has found an instance of the man talking out of his ass where Ranger School is concerned.


----------



## x SF med (Apr 13, 2015)

Teufel said:


> apparently www.rangerbuddy.com




Sir, Lancelot Link is a Secret Chimp, and so is the link in your post


----------



## RetPara (Apr 13, 2015)

I get the feeling centermass and I are in the same group in facebook or another board.   I served at Regt with the CSM in the over watch mode.  He will raise the BS flag if needed.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 13, 2015)

x SF med said:


> Sir, Lancelot Link is a Secret Chimp, and so is the link in your post


could be www.dialaranger.com?


----------



## Worldweaver (Apr 13, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> Link for source?





ThunderHorse said:


> Not when I'm wanting to use it as evidence in a discussion.



Didn't you previously say you didn't want to attend, nor care about Ranger School?  Centermass gave you the information that he received first hand, not from some HuffPo article.  

Take it or leave it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 13, 2015)

Then he could name is source.  I'm taking the post as fact, but considering being credible is about citing sources, and in this case I cannot then idk.  I know one of the women that was supposed to go, her dad told me the Engineering BDE pulled her to send her to best Sapper and then her partner was injured.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 13, 2015)

Maybe I'm just cynical but I have the impression that it is just a matter of time before women start graduating Ranger school and I don't think it will be because they met the standard.  Good luck trying to drop a woman from the course for anything other than not making a time or some other hard quantifiable requirement.


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 13, 2015)

Teufel said:


> Maybe I'm just cynical but I have the impression that it is just a matter of time before women start graduating Ranger school and I don't think it will be because they met the standard.  Good luck trying to drop a woman from the course for anything other than not making a time or some other hard quantifiable requirement.



Might I also recommend the RI's wear body cameras for when (not if) some female(s) start claiming the RI's are failing them because they're female, and not because they didn't meet the standard.


----------



## Worldweaver (Apr 13, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> Then he could name is source.  I'm taking the post as fact, but considering being credible is about citing sources, and in this case I cannot then idk.



Dude, I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say here?  



ThunderHorse said:


> I know one of the women that was supposed to go, her dad told me the Engineering BDE pulled her to send her to best Sapper and then her partner was injured.



So, she went through RTAC and passed, along with just under 14% of the other women that attended; however, her command pulled her for best Sapper?  Sounds like a shitty situation, maybe she'll luck into a winter class next time.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 14, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> Might I also recommend the RI's wear body cameras for when (not if) some female(s) start claiming the RI's are failing them because they're female, and not because they didn't meet the standard.



That's a better way of saying what I was getting at.  It's a hot potato that some NCO is going to get stuck with holding.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 14, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> Two women passed, the first withdrew within days, the other withdrew three weeks into the course.  Both for medical reasons.  The total sample size of the last three years is just under 50 I think.
> 
> I will continuously say that IBOLC needs to be revamped, I am not an infantry officer, but if you're only training them for Ranger School and not to lead a platoon the day they leave course you're doing it wrong.  Which is what they are doing.  Everything I've heard about IOC tells me it is ridiculous.  But remember that after TBS all those guys do is workout until their class date, so for those that fail, their bodies couldn't take it.  Also I've seen complete trash graduate IBOLC (yes, ABOLC had trash too), of the Marine infantry officers I know, all of them are nuts.
> 
> This coming from a Cavalrymen who wants nothing to do with Ranger School.



What experience do you have in the Infantry?


----------



## Gunz (Apr 14, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> ..._*of the Marine infantry officers I know, all of them are nuts*_.


 
You think the O's are nuts, wait til you meet some Lance Corporals.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 14, 2015)

policemedic said:


> What experience do you have in the Infantry?


You mean being dismounted?  But in the Cav I've been on foot quite a bunch.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 14, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> You mean being dismounted?  But in the Cav I've been on foot quite a bunch.



Was that the only difference between my job as infantry and like every other job? I was curious


----------



## policemedic (Apr 14, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> You mean being dismounted?  But in the Cav I've been on foot quite a bunch.



I weep for the Army.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 14, 2015)

Dismounted Recon, if humping your shit in search of the enemy is not similar to the physical job of an infantrymen they need to stop sending Infantrymen to Cavalry Squadrons.  Also this discussion is not just about the Infantry but also the Armor branch as well.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 14, 2015)

I don't think it is an armor related discussion considering that you're basically our token blunted sabre,  you espouse that you're a comissioned officer and leader in a dismounted patrolling cavalry unit, and you outright refuse to increase your understanding of leadership and dismounted operations by attending the best school the army has to offer about it.

I guess there's what, around 400 women in the army with more intestinal fortitude than you?  Even if they failed, at least they stepped up to the plate and are better for it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 14, 2015)

It doesn't stop me from wanting to have the standards maintained.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 15, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> I know one of the women that was supposed to go, her dad told me the *Social Engineering BDE* pulled her to send her to *Best Supper* and then her partner was injured by a fork he was using, while practicing the Noodle Eating event.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 15, 2015)

I said it, and I owned it.


----------



## pardus (Apr 15, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> It doesn't stop me from wanting to have the standards maintained.



Curious statement...

Considering that Ranger school is "the standard" when it comes to leadership in the US Military, particularly in Infantry Ops which is the standard in itself when it comes to the Military. Especially from someone who says he kinda does the same thing as an Infantryman. 
Remember, Infantry is the core/baseline/standard of all warfare from time immemorial.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 15, 2015)

If it was the Standard then you'd get a Ranger Tab coming out of IBOLC or Infantry OSUT.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 15, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> If it was the Standard then you'd get a Ranger Tab coming out of IBOLC or Infantry OSUT.



I was just about ready to bow out of this thread completely, but now, you've hit a nerve.

Let me ask you a question, based on your last statement: Are you fucking serious???

First off, NO ONE JUST GETS A RANGER TAB. YOU EARN IT WITH EVERY FIBER IN YOUR BEING, WITH HARD WORK, DEDICATION, PERSEVERANCE, DETERMINATION, BLOOD, SWEAT AND UNBELIEVABLE EFFORT.

For you to make a statement about "Just getting a Ranger Tab coming out of Infantry OSUT" shows not only your true colors, but your unbelievable arrogance as well.

I've seen guys like you. The ones that have this giant chip on their shoulder because there isn't a tab there. And because of it, they think the world should work differently when through their own self perception, they don't fit in. I've graded guys like you, who believed somehow, they were there for all the right reasons, when they weren't there for themselves, to make themselves a better leader, all because they thought it was something they should do because that's what they believed others thought.

Had a kid, one night, in the mountains, after a long and difficult mission, who over came the odds and earned himself an Honor Grad Go, (After having to unfuck everything the soup sandwich did before him) just come up to me after I counseled him on it and quit, right then and there on the spot. As I would later find out, this student had Honor Grad Go's on every one of his patrols. He also maxed everyone of his peers and was well liked in the class.

As he told me he wanted to LOM (DOR) I had to ask him "Why" He said it was for his family, and that was the most important thing to him in this world. He was having problems on the home front, that he kept to himself, while he was in school and they had only gotten worse. The next thing he told me is what blew me away. He said he was a wheeled vehicle mechanic in 2nd Ranger Battalion, and loved his job, but he went to Ranger School for all the wrong reasons. He went Ranger because his Dad was a Ranger and thought it was something he should do. He went on to add that if he passed the course, he would be one of only a handful of Ranger Qualified mechanics in the Army, and he would be in Battalion forever. And because of the OPTEMPO in Battalion, his marriage was already beginning to crumble before he left. And if he passed, things would only get worse. I never really entered the Army for myself, he went onto say, I did it because I thought my Dad thought I should do it.

I applauded him for his honesty and candor. I also chewed him out for wasting a slot and not thinking the whole thing through before hand. I then proceeded to fill out his LOM and went to great lengths to pass on my positive observations on his performance.

Now, what does all this mean? It means he could have had the Brass Ring and all the honor and accolades that went along with it. He was a natural. And even with that, he went to prove to his CoC, that he could do it, but, at a certain moment, once he proved his point, he let it go and knew, he would have to live with that all the rest of his days. So, what did he get in return? It may just have very well saved his marriage. He put his priorities in order and made a decision. Something that obviously meant a great deal more to him than "Just getting a Ranger Tab."

He made his peace and his decision and was fine with it. Which brings me back to you. We all have choices in life to make. Some are easy, others, can be downright painful and perplexing.

The bottom line here is Ranger School doesn't choose whether you would like to attend or not. You choose it...and when you do, you do it because you have to want it, for all the right reasons. Not because it makes you some kind of PX hero, not to fit in or shove it in anyone else's mug. You do it because it's what you want, deep down inside you, with all your heart and soul. Not everyone is cut out for it. Not everyone makes it. Not everyone gets a trophy. It ain't fair, and neither is life. Deal with the hand you were dealt. You can either sit, and watch things happen, or, you can get off your ass and make things happen. Your call. It's how grown up things are done in a grown up world.

You do it, because if you can lead men under those conditions, you can lead most men anywhere. It's no secret that the course is not some Hi Speed shoot em up secret squirrel spoof curriculum, or a place where you'll be read into the operations of highly classified units. It's a course about leadership, where you'll learn more about yourself, and who you are, when you are fatigued like you've never been before in your entire life, more hungry than you've ever known, cold, wet, miserable, smelly, and more stressed than you ever have been or will be, EVER, then anything else.

And here's a news flash: It is about the suck, has been about the suck and will always be about the suck. In the end, that's exactly what it was designed for.

For someone who seems to have a great disdain about something that rubs them the wrong way, you sure seem to have a great interest in it.

You want to be a leader? Then, I suggest you go be a leader and be the best damn one that ever walked the face of the earth or held a billet. But for Gods sake, quit making excuses or bitchin about everyone with a TAB but you.

And one other thing - If I post something on here "Ranger Related" you can take that and my 22 yrs AFS to the bank......Lieutenant.


----------



## x SF med (Apr 15, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> If it was the Standard then you'd get a Ranger Tab coming out of IBOLC or Infantry OSUT.



Hey, LT....   are you ever wrong?   Has your PSG threatened you with physical harm, or just shaken his head and walked away?  If so, you may want to rethink your approach to leadership., communication and ability to learn. 

And if you actually paid attention, Ranger School is a leadership course not an advanced Infantry course.


----------



## 0699 (Apr 15, 2015)

x SF med said:


> Hey, LT....   are you ever wrong?   *Has your PSG threatened you with physical harm, or just shaken his head and walked away?*  If so, you may want to rethink your approach to leadership., communication and ability to learn.


 
Wow, this brings back memories...


----------



## Worldweaver (Apr 15, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> You mean being dismounted?  But in the Cav I've been on foot quite a bunch.



HAHAHA!!  So, "basically Infantry" right?


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 15, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> Might I also recommend the RI's wear body cameras for when (not if) some female(s) start claiming the RI's are failing them because they're female, and not because they didn't meet the standard.


To hate or not to hate, that is the question. Obviously not hating your comment, but hating the truth of it.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 15, 2015)

A couple guys were worried about the course, but I reminded them it would probably be the most professionally ran course to-date (not that the others aren't) based on visibility from higher HQ.  The rules will be clearer than ever before, which should help the cadre remove sub-standard performers and help the students perform to the clear and published standard.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 15, 2015)

Centermass said:


> It's a course about leadership, where you'll learn more about yourself, and who you are, when you are fatigued like you've never been before in your entire life, more hungry than you've ever known, cold, wet, miserable, smelly, and more stressed than you ever have been or will be, EVER, then anything else.


 
I've been wet, miserable, smelly, hungry, sleep-deprived, stressed and fatigued from days and nights of hyper-vigiliance like I've never been before in my entire life...and I'd still bet--except for the lethal aspects--that Ranger School is probably tougher than the real thing.


----------



## Johca (Apr 15, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> Dismounted Recon, if humping your shit in search of the enemy is not similar to the physical job of an infantrymen they need to stop sending Infantrymen to Cavalry Squadrons.  Also this discussion is not just about the Infantry but also the Armor branch as well.


Hmm, the purpose of the Ranger School is to develop small tactical leading ability by providing simulated peacetime military leading experience.  Although there is being able to do physical aspects of duties connected to being there combat leading this level of physical fitness to do is not directly about humping shit but about being concurrently physically fit to perform duties while effectively commanding (leading) others.

There is much historical inconveniences left out of Ranger histories at to how and why the ugly realities of fighting with leaders (commissioned, warrant, NCOs) either lacking ability to competently command troops in action or being unwilling to command troops in action.  Further what is the minimum given these troops, command the effectively in action to do this pass/fail standard?  Whatever the minimum standards are, they are certainly a bit more than simply being able to hump shit.  But if humping is the standard I guess we can discuss how much sex should happen.

A bit of history:

The Ranger Course was conceived during the Korean War and was known as the Ranger Training Command. The Ranger Training Command was inactivated and became the Ranger Department, a branch of the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Ga., Oct. 10, 1951.

The first Ranger Class for individual candidates graduated on 01 MAR 1952.

WWII historical perspectives:

When developing and deciding if U.S. Army should have commando type units and forces, Major General Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was in 1942 Chief of the Operations Division, War Department General Staff) told Colonel Lucian K. Truscott, Jr., such units and forces should be named something other than “commandos” because that name was so strongly identified with the British. Truscott chose “Rangers” a name that had been carried by a number of American units before, during, and after the War of Independence. The new unit was thus designated the 1st Ranger Battalion.

The 1st Ranger Battalion was officially activated on 19 June 1942.  Subsequently the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Ranger Battalions were formed. All the Ranger Battalions were deactivated at the end of WWII.

Korean War influences:

Throughout the period of their existence the Ranger Companies during the Korean War these forces were mostly employed as general infantry rather than as a raiding or marauding force as initially envisioned by Army Chief of Staff, General J. Lawton Collins who ordered the creation of the Ranger Companies of the Korean conflict.

Envisioned by General Collins to be "Marauder" units to operate behind enemy lines, attacking their tank parks and assembly areas, this utilization never happened. The Ranger Companies were generally utilized in Korean conflict as just another infantry company rather than for conducting special missions as raider, marauders or commandos. By June 1951 the Department of the Army decided to inactivate these units and accomplished this by 1 August 1951.  Although the Army Staff and major commands saw no need for Ranger units, they did see a need for ranger trained personnel. This resulted in the formation of the Ranger School concurrently with the inactivation of the Ranger Companies.

Generally personnel reports exposed several difficulties pertinent to combat units, in general, having difficulties in maintaining combat effectiveness pertinent to having competent leaders (trained and or experienced) and having leaders willing to lead others in combat.  Put differently, those put into positions involving tactical leading were inadequately prepared to deal with the quickly changing tactical situations encountered on the Korean battlefields.


officers continued to arrive with combat MOS's who were physically incapable of handling the jobs indicated by the MOS, it was necessary for FEC replacement installations to screen officers for age and physical condition as well as for experience and training in verifying their MOS's.


Eighth Amy complained that a number of officers were reluctant to command troops in action and asked that remedial or punitive steps be taken, but in February there was still evidence that proper disposition was not being made of substandard officers. As late as June 1951, commanders were encouraged to make use of their powers under AR >605-200, 615-369, and 615-368 to eliminate ineffective or undesirable personnel.
My worthless opinion:

As much as the day-to-day peacetime military differs from the day-to-day fighting wartime military there is also a significant command the troops difference between supervising, managing, administrative leading and commanding troops in action.  There is an abundance of NCOs, Warrant Officers, and Officers willing to make sure reflective belts are worn and more than a few of them take enjoyment in doing so.  However commanding troops in actions where incompetence and lack of fitness increases likelihood of becoming WIA or KIA or causing same too others is much less desirable day-to-day environment to be the leader.

The problem with the Ranger School is the standards have already become somewhat diluted by shift from training focus to develop leaders to command others in the fight to being the equal opportunity gender neutral needed for promotion requirement.   Commanding others in action at the fire team, infantry squad, combat patrol, platoon and company tactical fighting environment is as much about being able to make effective real-time  decisions in a rapidly changing tactical environment as it is being sufficiently physically fit to perform duties in the direct action ground combat environment.



Ocoka One said:


> I've been wet, miserable, smelly, hungry, sleep-deprived, stressed and fatigued from days and nights of hyper-vigiliance like I've never been before in my entire life...and I'd still bet--except for the lethal aspects--that Ranger School is probably tougher than the real thing.


I've not gone through any Pre-Ranger or Ranger courses, but I've been through a few significantly physically and psychologically demanding courses, however, I've accomplished or participated in real world missions/operations that were tougher than I encountered during training.  The training experience however was most beneficial particularly since I successfully accomplished what was expected to get accomplished without killing those participating along side me.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 15, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> I've been wet, miserable, smelly, hungry, sleep-deprived, stressed and fatigued from days and nights of hyper-vigiliance like I've never been before in my entire life...and I'd still bet--except for the lethal aspects--that Ranger School is probably tougher than the real thing.



 

First of all, the meme expresses my opinion on combat.  Smashmouth combat like Soldiers and Marines experienced in the Ia Drang Valley, Hue City, Nasariyah and Fallujah will always be harder than any school to include Ranger school.  You are leading men across the line of departure to their potential deaths and asking everything of them along the way.  Ranger school cannot hope to simulate the levels of fear that someone experiences in combat.  They can, however, ramp up the discomfort.  I haven't been to Ranger school but I've been to numerous other courses that adopt the same principles such as the Infantry Officer's Course and the Basic Reconnaissance Course.  You make students suffer so they learn what they are like under the worst conditions and also learn how to lead men who want nothing more than to go completely internal.  Leading physically exhausted men when you don't have much left in the tank is very similar to high intensity combat.  You can't just expect people to do something because you told them to.  You have to flip your weapon off safe and show them how it is done yourself.  You rely on each other to make it through...both in a nut crushing course like Ranger and in combat when you're passing around your last mags.  

On a side note, I am not in the Army and I have not been to Ranger school.  It does seem, however, that Ranger school is the standard for Army officers in the infantry.  Lieutenants seem to learn tactics at whatever their basic course is and learn to toughen through at Ranger School.  I haven't met any Army Majors who weren't Ranger school graduates.


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 15, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> I've been wet, miserable, smelly, hungry, sleep-deprived, stressed and fatigued from days and nights of hyper-vigiliance like I've never been before in my entire life...and I'd still bet--except for the lethal aspects--that Ranger School is probably tougher than the real thing.



Well, all of experiences will vary and so will our view of such things.   

A good read,  The Marines of Autumn.  

Two friends who would disagree,  One when he got his Ranger tab after finishing Q (went to 5th group).   The other a retired Sgt Major of 29 years in the Corps with a exemplary military resume.  

What I once thought was tough,  later was not.  The worse we have been in, is the worse we have been it.   I am so glad I have not seen the worse.

I graduated on Mutter's Ridge 1969  3/3 Marines.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 16, 2015)

f





Teufel said:


> View attachment 13013
> 
> First of all, the meme expresses my opinion on combat.  Smashmouth combat like Soldiers and Marines experienced in the Ia Drang Valley, Hue City, Nasariyah and Fallujah will always be harder than any school to include Ranger school.  You are leading men across the line of departure to their potential deaths and asking everything of them along the way.  Ranger school cannot hope to simulate the levels of fear that someone experiences in combat.  They can, however, ramp up the discomfort.  I haven't been to Ranger school but I've been to numerous other courses that adopt the same principles such as the Infantry Officer's Course and the Basic Reconnaissance Course.  You make students suffer so they learn what they are like under the worst conditions and also learn how to lead men who want nothing more than to go completely internal.  Leading physically exhausted men when you don't have much left in the tank is very similar to high intensity combat.  You can't just expect people to do something because you told them to.  You have to flip your weapon off safe and show them how it is done yourself.  You rely on each other to make it through...both in a nut crushing course like Ranger and in combat when you're passing around your last mags.
> 
> On a side note, I am not in the Army and I have not been to Ranger school.  It does seem, however, that Ranger school is the standard for Army officers in the infantry.  Lieutenants seem to learn tactics at whatever their basic course is and learn to toughen through at Ranger School.  I haven't met any Army Majors who weren't Ranger school graduates.


 

In deference to the Rangers on this board I didn't want to make my statement of combat misery and travail sound too much like one-upsmanship. No, I agree with both your post and Hollis's...the hell of the real thing cannot be reproduced at any school, on any course. I worked with Rangers in VN, my counterparts were under Ranger juristiction, and I trained with Rangers in Panama and have much respect for them. My battles had no names. They were running gunfights, ambushes, frenzied moments of murder and mayhem on trails, all-too-frequent boobytrap detonations, nameless little terrors that live only in the names of my brothers on the Wall. "The worse we've been in is the worse we've been in" and thank God it wasn't any worse.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 16, 2015)

One of my buddies classes up this Sunday, there will be females in his class.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 16, 2015)

Well, I can specifically say on my part that both EIB training and Ranger school both directly contributed towards mission accomplishment/survival. There was "less fun than Ranger school" operations in Afghanistan, calls for fire that I trained on (including polar) during EIB, methods of operation for specific tasks that directly related to missions we did...   there's no way a training environment can ever truly replicate the full spectrum of occurances and shit you deal with in combat, but once again, Ranger school is one of the few courses the military has that comes close. Even if you don't graduate, you're typically better off for having gone than someone who never went at all.

It's training. Tougher training provides a better experience to be able to take with you forward into combat. Will it apply 100%? never will. Will it be worse than combat? never will. Is it worth it? Idunno, you tell me if it was worth going through boot camp? Would you have rather gone to combat straight out the recruiter's back door?

All said and done, there's enough people involved with the whole Ranger school thing and females that the standards aren't being fucked with, and there's people who have no political pull by anyone else who will straight call bullshit if they dick it up.


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 16, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> In deference to the Rangers on this board I didn't want to make my statement of combat misery and travail sound too much like one-upsmanship. No, I agree with both your post and Hollis's...*the hell of the real thing cannot be reproduced at any school,* on any course. I worked with Rangers in VN, my counterparts were under Ranger juristiction, and I trained with Rangers in Panama and have much respect for them. My battles had no names. They were running gunfights, ambushes, frenzied moments of murder and mayhem on trails, all-too-frequent boobytrap detonations, nameless little terrors that live only in the names of my brothers on the Wall. "The worse we've been in is the worse we've been in" and thank God it wasn't any worse.



Imagine if training actually represented the real thing...... it would raise a out cry, over the injuries, fatalities etc.   When I was in boot camp, they would close down the really cool obstacle courses.  Some mother's son would get hurt, she would call her senator and ..... it was closed for re-evaluation.   

The harder we train, the less we bleed.  Civilian involvement, right or wrong does not help.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 16, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> ...It's training. Tougher training provides a better experience to be able to take with you forward into combat. Will it apply 100%? never will. Will it be worse than combat? never will. Is it worth it? Idunno, you tell me...


 

In retrospect, speaking for myself, I could've used training that was not necessarily physically or mentally _tougher_, but more reflective and representative of the way things were actually done in a joint forces field combat unit in the bush. When I got in the rice paddies I had to reboot much of what I'd learned in training. My Actual said "Throw out the book. This is the way we do things here." And the refinements of tactics, procedures and techniques made in the actual Suck were definate improvements over what we'd been taught.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 19, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> One of my buddies classes up this Sunday, there will be females in his class.



Today is the day when all 19 females in process.

Tomorrow officially begins Day 1 of RAP Week.

Word amongst the current RI's is that use of profanity by Instructors, is now prohibited. I have yet to be able to confirm it, but, when tobacco use went the way of the Doh Doh bird soon after Jody cadences became Disney tunes, I don't doubt it at all.

My guess is half, if not more, will be gone by Day 3 and the rest never make it out of the Mountain phase.

Going to be interesting, that's for sure.


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 19, 2015)

Centermass said:


> use of profanity by Instructors, is now prohibited



Man...there is going to be a lot of accidental/habit use of profanity....


----------



## CDG (Apr 19, 2015)

We need to train women to be combat leaders!  They should be treated the same as men!  But um, you know, no cursing guys, it kind of hurts feelings.  We're trying to make combat leaders here, ya know?


----------



## Worldweaver (Apr 20, 2015)

16 out of the 19 female candidates passed the PT test today.  

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2015/04/20/3678744_16-of-19-female-ranger-candidates.html?rh=1


----------



## pardus (Apr 20, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> 16 out of the 19 female candidates passed the PT test today.
> 
> http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2015/04/20/3678744_16-of-19-female-ranger-candidates.html?rh=1



Is that a regular APFT?



> The next major cut in numbers will likely come Thursday when the soldiers are required to complete a rugged 12-mile foot march in three hours or less while carrying 35 pounds on their backs.



They only carry 35lbs on the rucks?


----------



## Centermass (Apr 20, 2015)

pardus said:


> Is that a regular APFT?



Chin ups. Push ups, Sit ups, 2 mile run. They still have the 5 miler left to do, but it's separate from the RPFT.  



pardus said:


> They only carry 35lbs on the rucks?



45 lbs.


----------



## Worldweaver (Apr 20, 2015)

Pardus,

It's a 17 -21 (y/o) male scoring.  49 Pushups, 59 Situps, 6 chin-ups, and 5 miler in under 40:00. 

It's 45 lbs dry on a hardtop.  I expect for everyone to pass the RM, it's not difficult.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 20, 2015)

This is turning into one of my favorite threads, interesting to get a peek under the tent of something I would not usually be privy to. Even more interesting to see some of the standards  and ask myself if I could still do that today.


----------



## pardus (Apr 20, 2015)

Centermass said:


> Chin ups. Push ups, Sit ups, 2 mile run. They still have the 5 miler left to do, but it's separate from the RPFT.
> 
> 
> 
> 45 lbs.





Worldweaver said:


> Pardus,
> 
> It's a 17 -21 (y/o) male scoring.  49 Pushups, 59 Situps, 6 chin-ups, and 5 miler in under 40:00.
> 
> It's 45 lbs dry on a hardtop.  I expect for everyone to pass the RM, it's not difficult.



I thought 45lbs, thanks for clearing that up. 
I have to say, I'm surprised anyone going to Ranger school would fail the initial PT test.

Out of curiosity, the chin ups, palms in or out?


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 20, 2015)

So 3/19 failed the PT.  

What was the percentage of males that failed the PT?


----------



## Worldweaver (Apr 20, 2015)

Palms in, if I remember correctly


----------



## pardus (Apr 20, 2015)

8654Maine said:


> So 3/19 failed the PT.
> 
> What was the percentage of males that failed the PT?



Did you read the article? Do push ups Doc! Males failed at a higher percentage, 16% vs 20% IIRC.



Worldweaver said:


> Palms in, if I remember correctly



Thanks.


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 20, 2015)

pardus said:


> Did you read the article? Do push ups Doc! Males failed at a higher percentage, 16% vs 20% IIRC.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.



I'm glad someone else saw that.  Hence, the question.

So what do folks think about this?

I'll do push ups anyways.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 20, 2015)

pardus said:


> Out of curiosity, the chin ups, palms in or out?



Chin up = Palms facing you

Pull up  = Palms facing away. 

Do push ups......


----------



## pardus (Apr 20, 2015)

Centermass said:


> Chin up = Palms facing you
> 
> Pull up  = Palms facing away.
> 
> Do push ups......



Push ups, is that palms down or knuckles down?


----------



## digrar (Apr 21, 2015)

Knuckles dragging on the ground is your go isn't it?


----------



## x SF med (Apr 21, 2015)

pardus said:


> Push ups, is that palms down or knuckles down?



In your case, palms up....:wall:


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 21, 2015)

8654Maine said:


> I'm glad someone else saw that.  Hence, the question.
> 
> So what do folks think about this?
> 
> I'll do push ups anyways.


I don't about across the Army, but the women if any are there from 1AD that made were carefully selected, trained and mentored before going to RTAC.  I'd trust making it through the first few hours would be on point with a very carefully controlled experiment.  As a decently strong dude I know how body felt post two weeks in French Guyana so, I'm unsure of where they'll be at the end of RAP week or Darby phase.

Also, saw this the other day: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...omen-afte/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 22, 2015)

pardus said:


> I thought 45lbs, thanks for clearing that up.
> I have to say, I'm surprised anyone going to Ranger school would fail the initial PT test.
> 
> Out of curiosity, the chin ups, palms in or out?



A lot of dudes fail the PT test. Mostly push-ups.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 23, 2015)

2 of the 3 that failed Land Nav, failed the retest.

6 failed the road march.

*8 left in the course. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



*


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 25, 2015)

Some pictures and more information... Interesting that they don't mention any updates since a bunch have been dropped already.

Anyone have the update for week one?

http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili.../04/24/women-ranger-school-haircuts/26265435/


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 25, 2015)

Last I read in Army Time there were 8 remaining after week 1.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...rated-ranger-school-rap-week-update/26260827/


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 25, 2015)

Yeah, 140 some odd tried pre-ranger... 8 so far actually in the course now.  Only slightly higher attrition than the usual student population.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 25, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Some pictures and more information... Interesting that they don't mention any updates since a bunch have been dropped already.
> 
> *Anyone have the update for week one?*
> 
> http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili.../04/24/women-ranger-school-haircuts/26265435/





Ooh-Rah said:


> *Last I read in Army Time there were 8 remaining after week 1.*
> 
> http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...rated-ranger-school-rap-week-update/26260827/



I'm buying both of you some go fasters for your birthday's......geez. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threa...r-school-discussion.22188/page-16#post-382696


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 25, 2015)

Centermass said:


> I'm buying both of you some go fasters for your birthday's......geez.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey now.. I took that as coming out of the four days of RAP.  Figured maybe there may be some change entering Darby


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 25, 2015)

Please stop linking to Military Times, you need a paid subscription to read after looking at a set number of stories.  

Copy paste works quite well.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 25, 2015)

Reset your cookies and use a VPN newb.. But good point


----------



## pardus (Apr 25, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Please stop linking to Military Times, you need a paid subscription to read after looking at a set number of stories.
> 
> Copy paste works quite well.



Funny, I can open the pages fine and I don't have a subscription with them. I wonder how many times you have to open it to be blocked... :-/


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 25, 2015)

pardus said:


> Funny, I can open the pages fine and I don't have a subscription with them. I wonder how many times you have to open it to be blocked... :-/



First try was a no-go. Tried  later and I had no problems:-".


----------



## pardus (Apr 25, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> First try was a no-go. Tried  later and I had no problems:-".



Weird...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 28, 2015)

pardus said:


> Funny, I can open the pages fine and I don't have a subscription with them. I wonder how many times you have to open it to be blocked... :-/


Something like 15 free articles/month


----------



## pardus (Apr 29, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> Something like 15 free articles/month



Thank you.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 8, 2015)

Women in Ranger School update.

Nineteen women started with Class 6-15, which reported on 19 April and started on 20 April. Of these, only 8 made it out of RAP week.

All 8 failed the Darby phase, and all 8 will be recycled. Of these, 6 were boarded and recycled at battalion level. The last two were boarded and recycled at brigade level.

Some were recycled for peer reports, some were for spot reports, some were for patrols, some for more than one reason. Each had at least two patrols.

The 8 (and the very substantial number of males who also failed Darby) will go to the Gulag tomorrow and retrain until next Friday, when they will join Class 7-15 after it completes RAP/ foot march. Class 7-15 reports on 10 May and starts on 11 May. Scheduled graduation is 10 July.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 8, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Women in Ranger School update.
> 
> Nineteen women started with Class 6-15, which reported on 19 April and started on 20 April. Of these, only 8 made it out of RAP week.
> 
> ...



Could you explain what they failed in a bit more detail? What is Darby and the Gulag?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 8, 2015)

Tell you what, I  May not know the Ranger definition,but the idea of  being sent to the Gulag for retraining does not sound like something that would be an enjoyable experience!


----------



## Viper1 (May 8, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Tell you what, I  May not know the Ranger definition,but the idea of  being sent to the Gulag for retraining does not sound like something that would be an enjoyable experience!



It's not bad... Aside from the self imposed self hatred of being a recycle, you PT, do combatives and constantly retrain. The cadre are extremely professional, the classes and PEs are excellent. Three meals a day to get weight back up and when you aren't training you assist cadre with details. Being a good recycle with a good attitude goes a long way to get through the rest of the course. 

Let me put it like this... I was so impressed by the recycle cadre, one of them pinned on my ranger tab when I finally graduated. I'll never forget him. 

The ranger candidates will be fine. There's no date-time group on the tab.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 8, 2015)

.......

RAP week: First week in Ranger school, no sleep smokefest, obstacle courses, PT test, runs, rucks, land nav etc. The absolute basic shit that you need to be able to do to qualify as a Ranger. Rapid fire, 4 hrs of "sleep" max, usually less due to having to have shit tied down for inspections etc and your tiedown time is your rack time. 
Darby: Squad level patrol classes and squad level graded patrols.
Mountains: Mountaineering and rotary wing classes, Platoon level patrol classes and graded patrols that will involve mountaineering tasks and rotary wing operations.
Florida: Jungle/waterborne/airborne training classes, platoon level patrol classes and graded patrols that will include airborne/waterborne operations

Gulag: Recycle "platoon". 2/3 retraining courses on the shit that everyone fucked up as a student, 1/3 bitch details as necessary to help get things squared away for the next class. This time of year, heavier focus on retraining. During winter/summer block leave timeframe for RTB where you recycled, it goes to about 1/2 1/2.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 8, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> The ranger candidates will be fine. There's no date-time group on the tab.



Ehh... when half of them are already seeing review at brigade level boards, they're pretty hardcore soup sandwiches, honestly. They all also got at least 2 patrols in Darby, some got 3... which is pretty horseshit, honestly.


----------



## Worldweaver (May 8, 2015)

I honestly didn't expect the females to have problems with Darby.  Darby, in my opinion, was the least difficult phase.

I'll be interested to see the reporting perspective of a 0% pass rate, especially after the excitement following RAP week.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 8, 2015)

My good buddy is in the class, he passed Darby. He was a private in BN, currently infantry officer. He said the class was the hardest thing he has been through. He said in an effort to maintain the standard they probably went a bit overboard.

His company only had 37 guys make it. 80% total attrition.


----------



## Worldweaver (May 8, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> My good buddy is in the class, he passed Darby. He was a private in BN, currently infantry officer. He said the class was the hardest thing he has been through. He said in an effort to maintain the standard they probably went a bit overboard.
> 
> His company only had 37 guys make it. 80% total attrition.




There is obviously a scale of interpretation. Mentality from company to company, or from RI to RI, can vary greatly. 

However, if he went through RIP, and was a private in Batt, I'm surprised he thought that was the hardest thing.  It's big Army rules and pre-Ranger was much more difficult than Darby, in my opinion. 

Was he RFS'd from BN before he got a shot at RS?  Just wondering why he was a private at BN and didn't go to school?


----------



## TLDR20 (May 8, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> There is obviously a scale of interpretation. Mentality from company to company, or from RI to RI, can vary greatly.
> 
> However, if he went through RIP, and was a private in Batt, I'm surprised he thought that was the hardest thing.  It's big Army rules and pre-Ranger was much more difficult than Darby, in my opinion.
> 
> Was he RFS'd from BN before he got a shot at RS?  Just wondering why he was a private at BN and didn't go to school?



He was a SOCM medic, didn't go to RS. He did get RFS'ed. He did say however that it was harder than RIP. He went through RIP in 06, so take that for what it is worth. He certainly isn't a shitbag, and I take his word that it was pretty rough.

I am curious how these females are going to do on the RPAT now that they have been getting the shit smoked out of them for the last month+.


----------



## Florida173 (May 8, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I am curious how these females are going to do on the RPAT now that they have been getting the shit smoked out of them for the last month+.


 
Wasn't it stated above that they would be joining the next class after RAP week?  They may not need to do another RPAT since they've passed before.


----------



## Worldweaver (May 8, 2015)

If he thought Darby was difficult tell him to mentally prepare for mountains. 



Florida173 said:


> Wasn't it stated above that they would be joining the next class after RAP week?  They may not need to do another RPAT since they've passed before.



That is correct, will join with the new class after the 12-miler.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 8, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> If he thought Darby was difficult tell him to mentally prepare for mountains.
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct, will join with the new class after the 12-miler.



He said Darby was hard because they kept up the smoke, not the patrolling. He is gonna do fine.

I thought some of the recycles may have been day 1.


----------



## Worldweaver (May 8, 2015)

No, they will begin when the next class hits Darby patrols. 

'The eight who did not make the cut in the Camp Darby phase will be picked up by the next class in a week and redo the Darby phase.'

Read more here: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2015...ers-recycle-dont-make.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy


----------



## TLDR20 (May 8, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> No, they will begin when the next class hits Darby patrols.
> 
> 'The eight who did not make the cut in the Camp Darby phase will be picked up by the next class in a week and redo the Darby phase.'
> 
> Read more here: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2015...ers-recycle-dont-make.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy



Check.


----------



## Centermass (May 8, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> No, they will begin when the next class hits Darby patrols.
> 
> 'The eight who did not make the cut in the Camp Darby phase will be picked up by the next class in a week and redo the Darby phase.'



It didn't use to be like that either. When you were told you were being "Recycled" it meant you were either a "Day One Recycle" meaning RAP Week, RPAT, Land Nav, Road March, Malvesti....the whole enchilada, or back to Day One, beginning of that particular Phase.

Line up now for your shirts.......


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 8, 2015)

LOL

That didn't take long!


----------



## TLDR20 (May 8, 2015)

Centermass said:


> It didn't use to be like that either. When you were told you were being "Recycled" it meant you were either a "Day One Recycle" meaning RAP Week, RPAT, Land Nav, Road March, Malvesti....the whole enchilada, or back to Day One, beginning of that particular Phase.
> 
> Line up now for your shirts.......



So my buddy told me if you recycle for spot reports it is day 1. He said he was concerned because he has 5 out of 8 possible already, and he was pretty beat up and unlikely to pass the RPAT if he had to again after the brutal Darby phase and upcoming mountains. I'm hearing everything from a beat down student on his 8 hour pass though.


----------



## Centermass (May 8, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> Could you explain what they failed in a bit more detail?



Regarding the females. they haven't posted a break down matrix on specifics yet, but was told it included all 3: Peers, Spots and Patrols. Will know more tomorrow.



Marine0311 said:


> What is Darby and the Gulag?



Darby (As in Camp Darby) is an out lying Camp, about 8-9 miles from Camp Rogers (Which is located on Fort Benning) and Camp Darby, is not.

The Gulag as it's known, (AKA Vaughn's Platoon)  is located at Camp Rogers, where recycles, get additional training and also do details assigned to them, while waiting to form up at their respective times, with the next class, or a class, to be designated (Such as a student with a med problem, not serious enough, to send to a hospital or back to a unit, but needs more time to heal than say, the very next class that comes along)

Every Camp, to include Rogers, Mountains (Camp Merrill ) and Florida (Camp Rudder) all have their own version of a Gulag, per se.



TLDR20 said:


> So my buddy told me if you recycle for spot reports it is day 1. He said he was concerned because he has 5 out of 8 possible already, and he was pretty beat up and unlikely to pass the RPAT if he had to again after the brutal Darby phase and upcoming mountains. I'm hearing everything from a beat down student on his 8 hour pass though.



Enough Spots (Major Minus) would get you a Day One. An SOR (Negative) is the most serious and can get you dropped with a "DNR" attached to it. Minor "Minus" Spots and Major "Minus" Spots can be offset with enough of the opposites (Major / Minor "Plus" Spots) If he only has Minors, tell him not to sweat it, but just don't get any more. He just needs to kick ass in the Mountains, and do well on his patrols. The first week will be Mountaineering and Squad Level Patrols. The second week will culminate with Yonah, Section Level Patrols and an FTX. Let him know not be the source of any Breaks In Contact, mainly because, that's when they start to occur BIG TIME. If he's put on security, (LP/OP etc) PB perimeter security, or security at any time, he better not be caught sleeping. RI's have a knack for checking security TM's as they have (Students) a tendency to get a false sense of complacency, and seem to think, because their away from everyone else, no one will know. Trust me, they'll know. If he's good at Land Nav, there's lots of opportunity for him to get a plus, mainly because whenever Map Checks are done, most PL's, if not all, never get it right. lol

Peers, like Spots, are cumulative in nature, meaning depending how bad they are, you could get a recycle for just that phase or if they're really bad you'll get a board. And for most, they will recycle for just that Phase. Pass that Phase and accumulate more, then, at a minimum, you're looking at going before a BN Board, more than likely, a BDE board.

Patrols are more diminutive. 9 times out of 10, it's a partial recycle, with concentration on what that individual is having problems with. For instance, in the Mountains, if they smoked Mountaineering and the Knot Test, they'll skip that and be assigned to a Squad once they start a Planning Phase. Now, if they're a wiz at Planning and getting all Go's for a Planning Graded Phase, and they suck at being in charge for say a movement Phase, that's more than likely what that students next graded portion will be. Same thing with Actions On The Objective and / or a Patrol Base grade.

They can recycle nine times total or until 6 months have passed. Then it's bye bye.


----------



## Viper1 (May 8, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Ehh... when half of them are already seeing review at brigade level boards, they're pretty hardcore soup sandwiches, honestly. They all also got at least 2 patrols in Darby, some got 3... which is pretty horseshit, honestly.



I can agree with that. The 3-patrol thing has been around since I went through in 2006 when then-COL Chinn was RTB Cdr.

The recycles will make it or they won't. We'll see.


----------



## Young_devil1214 (May 27, 2015)

http://www.navytimes.com/story/mili...n-female-seal-navy-combat-exclusion/27653965/

Just wondering if anyone has read this? 

Personally I find this to be abautelt absurd. Although I'm not on a team (so take this with a grain of salt) but proposing a "gender neutral standard" is the exact same thing as lowering the standards. 

I don't understand this PC bullshit going on in our military. Especially in Special Operations. As the article also says this will effect the Marine Corps as well. 

If women can meet the current standards (again I'm not on a team so their input would be nice) then hell let them in. But these idiots on Washington are going to get people killed.  

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?


----------



## TLDR20 (May 27, 2015)

Gender Neutral Standards didn't lower the standard in Ranger School. I doubt BUD//S or team guys will allow a change.


----------



## BloodStripe (May 27, 2015)

If the SEALS are just looking for females to help them grow more luscious hair, why not just invite PJs in?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 27, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Gender Neutral Standards didn't lower the standard in Ranger School. I doubt BUD//S or team guys will allow a change.



Would you be willing to expand more on this?  Both in the case of Rangers and SEAL's.  Is the Secretary of the Navy not the final word, or does current leadership within the teams have some sort of power to override what SecNav says?  Not questioning you in any way, just genuinely want to better understand.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 27, 2015)

The standards in Ranger school were neutral to the gender, everyone had the same satdard, no women have passed yet, and if they do, they will meet the standard. The same will go for BUD/S.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 27, 2015)

I am thinking that this this statement from the article could cause some potential anxiety:

"_First we're going to make sure there are standards, second that they're gender-neutral and third that they have something to do with the job," Mabus told Navy Times._


----------



## AWP (May 27, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Would you be willing to expand more on this?



We have an entire multi-page thread on the topic.


----------



## AWP (May 27, 2015)

"Something to do with the job" could mean the Enablers, not the SEAL's. It may be the Navy Times but that doesn't mean it knows the Navy and how it works.


----------



## Grunt (May 28, 2015)

Hopefully, the branches and units that are having to deal with this issue will be able to hold on to what they have now until there is a change in administration.

If they are able to and a new administration wants to -- or decides to -- continue down the path we are heading now, hopefully they will leave the standards as they are now -- without changing them -- and then move forward. 

If the standards remain the same and a female passes them...then there isn't much anyone can argue against...as standards go...and then the next issue will have to be addressed as I am sure there will be a "next issue."

After all...selections are "just the beginning." Then comes the ability to have to continue meeting standards "day in and day out".


----------



## Florida173 (May 28, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> The standards in Ranger school were neutral to the gender, everyone had the same satdard, no women have passed yet, and if they do, they will meet the standard. The same will go for BUD/S.



Ranger school is a leadership producing school, not a combat arms related school.  Although I agree with what you are saying, there is a big difference in what it would mean for passing either.


----------



## Teufel (May 28, 2015)

Well if a woman does make it we all know they will write a book or make a movie about it. Or one of their classmates will.  It may be a graduation requirement now for all I know.


----------



## Board and Seize (May 28, 2015)

Teufel said:


> Well if a woman does make it we all know they will write a book *and* make a movie about it. *And* *some* of their classmates will.



FTFY


----------



## Il Duce (May 28, 2015)

http://www.theonion.com/article/navy-forms-elite-new-seal-team-to-write-best-selli-37393


----------



## digrar (May 28, 2015)

A female Officer just attempted SASR selection, she got about 9 days in, but had been dragging the chain almost since day one. She did everything, even the nude kit check on day one, but just didn't have the horse power, very fit, but not big enough.
I think this will remain the case until we see some young women who in a previous life were big and tall, serious top level strength athletes, throwing disciplines, rugby forwards, Olympic lifters, enlisting and attempting selection. A 5'6" 110lb cross fitter is just not going to have the grunt power to keep up on a top flight Infantry/SOF course.


----------



## policemedic (May 28, 2015)

digrar said:


> A female Officer just attempted SASR selection, she got about 9 days in, but had been dragging the chain almost since day one. She did everything, even the nude kit check on day one, but just didn't have the horse power, very fit, but not big enough.
> I think this will remain the case until we see some young women who in a previous life were big and tall, serious top level strength athletes, throwing disciplines, rugby forwards, Olympic lifters, enlisting and attempting selection. A 5'6" 110lb cross fitter is just not going to have the grunt power to keep up on a top flight Infantry/SOF course.


 
I'm sorry...nude kit check?


----------



## digrar (May 28, 2015)

Traditional part of SASR selection, pretty sure they do it in 2 Commando selection too. Gets people off guard, just a bit of added stress. Kit being the gear they've bought on selection, not an inspection of their dangly bits...


----------



## policemedic (May 28, 2015)

I'm picturing a platoon full of dudes stripping off and the look on the lone woman's face...


----------



## digrar (May 28, 2015)

Normally 120-150 on selection, middle of the night, Winter, the dudes might have been having their own issues...


----------



## Worldweaver (May 29, 2015)

Square one, Ladies and Gentlemen.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 29, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> Square one, Ladies and Gentlemen.



Can you elaborate?


----------



## Worldweaver (May 29, 2015)

Nothing official is out, just what I'm hearing from multiple sources.

Then there's this:


----------



## Marine0311 (May 29, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> Nothing official is out, just what I'm hearing from multiple sources.
> 
> Then there's this:



That is a classic rant but rings true. It seems the women who failed are pissed because they didn't get a pass and/or are not to be welcomed back? Being outside my lane (I am not a Ranger) is this normal or just in some cases?


----------



## Worldweaver (May 29, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> That is a classic rant but rings true. It seems the women who failed are pissed because they didn't get a pass and/or are not to be welcomed back? Being outside my lane (I am not a Ranger) is this normal or just in some cases?



This particular husband has been extremely critical of the entire process, and pushing the "inequality" line time and time again.  

The standard is the same for everyone.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 29, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> This particular husband has been extremely critical of the entire process, and pushing the "inequality" line time and time again.
> 
> The standard is the same for everyone.



I agree. I mean is it normal for those dropped not to be invited back or is it...few and far between?


----------



## Teufel (May 29, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> That is a classic rant but rings true. It seems the women who failed are pissed because they didn't get a pass and/or are not to be welcomed back? Being outside my lane (I am not a Ranger) is this normal or just in some cases?



It is extremely difficult for someone to try their hardest at something and accept the fact that despite all their efforts they are simply not good enough.


----------



## Worldweaver (May 29, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> I agree. I mean is it normal for those dropped not to be invited back or is it...few and far between?



I would think that would be up to their individual Command.  It's a leadership school, they're not there to ensure individuals don't pass, they're there to up uphold the standard and produce better leaders.


----------



## Centermass (May 29, 2015)

And yeah, the feedback is there are a bunch of sour grapes in the bunch.  

The Board is still in session. As for the 8, they've had 2 shots at this (Along with several males as well) and more than likely, will be returned back to their duty stations. 

Should be getting the official word shortly.


----------



## Centermass (May 29, 2015)

Here's the remainder of the comment Worldweaver posted earlier:


----------



## Worldweaver (May 29, 2015)

Centermass said:


> . As for the 8, they've had 2 shots at this (*Along with several males as well*) and more than likely, will be returned back to their duty stations.



CM, I think that is what is lost in this entire discussion. Hundreds of males fail this course every time, without recourse or complaint. I've know men that have made it to the last week of Florida, just to be dropped for honor violations. Unfortunately for them, they didn't have anyone to blame but themselves, not the "subjective RI" fairy or a misogynistic command. 

I honestly expected some of these females to make it through, but that's what I get for lumping soldiers into gender specific categories.  Ultimately, it appears that these soldiers just couldn't cut it.


----------



## Centermass (May 29, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> CM, I think that is what is lost in this entire discussion. Hundreds of males fail this course every time, without recourse or complaint. I've know men that have made it to the last week of Florida, just to be dropped for honor violations. Unfortunately for them, they didn't have anyone to blame but themselves, not the "subjective RI" fairy or a misogynistic command.
> 
> I honestly expected some of these females to make it through, but that's what I get for lumping soldiers into gender specific categories.  Ultimately, it appears that these soldiers just couldn't cut it.



Brother,

Honestly, short of them having their OR's filled as GO's ahead of time, they were given every opportunity, expertise and guidance, to get them ready enough to attend. Some people can do hand stands. Others can surf. Some chase the little white ball around. I know I can't do any of that and I think that's the point. 

Sometimes, there's a greater force in effect, that exists, known as the Great Equalizer. 

It's a damn shame that the ones in a position, that have a say, and have been pushing this social engineering experiment, have never attended the "Suck" in the first place, let alone, ever been in combat or a combat arms billet. And that's what really grinds my gears.


----------



## Beagle (May 29, 2015)

Teufel said:


> Well if a woman does make it we all know they will write a book or make a movie about it. Or one of their classmates will.  It may be a graduation requirement now for all I know.



Yeah it could be called "GI Jane"?


----------



## AKkeith (May 29, 2015)

Beagle said:


> Yeah it could be called "GI Jane"?


Failure is not an option.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 29, 2015)




----------



## Centermass (May 29, 2015)

Still haven't received the official word yet as we're still waiting, but the "Unofficial Word" is this:

All 8 female candidates were offered Day 1 recycles. 

3 accepted. 

The other 5 are going home.


----------



## Viper1 (May 29, 2015)

Centermass said:


> Here's the remainder of the comment Worldweaver posted earlier:



Okay this guy has me fired up. I'm willing to bet he doesn't have a tab or even made the attempt.

First off, just being ok and good enough doesn't cut it. Task, condition, standard, period. Often, good enough doesn't cut it. RI is looking for more than that. 

A cold weather casualty who I helped revive got go'd at Darby while I recycled. I recycled because patrols were substandard. It didn't matter that I had helped save my Ranger buddy... That's an expectation. I didn't meet the graded expectation of having good patrols. I eventually got my act together and graduated. 

That guy has no idea how Rangers, Ranger school graduates, or any SOF soldier feels about this issue.

He can cry into his Cheerios all he wants, but he is sullying his wife's reputation. He needs to keep his mouth shut.  I'm willing to bet most of those ladies will step up and admit they failed to meet the standard, and that is that. They will always be non-grads who say they got screwed. Good on all the attendees for trying.  The pioneers catch the first arrows.


----------



## Centermass (May 29, 2015)

It's official.

Of the 8 women who recycled the Darby phase, only three were offered and accepted a Day 1 recycle (the other 5 - who "Flat out failed" were dropped). This means those 3 must start the next class with all the PT events and foot march. Two men, with the same circumstances were offered Day 1's, refused to recycle and were sent home.

And for those sour grapes out there that feel they (The female students) were hammered un-mercilessly by the RI's, remember that the class was filled with female O/C's that overwatched everything, from beginning to end.


----------



## Worldweaver (May 29, 2015)

Great rundown Centermass.  I must credit those that took the day 1 recycle; I was never put in that position but i've known plenty that had day ones, it doesn't sound like a good time.

As far as the husband and wife combo that feel she is being "mistreated", they just called out the entire RI staff and Command. They continue to question the validity of the process and the professionalism of all involved.  The most disconcerting thing is that they're both Officers, and should know better.  Lead the Way...indeed.


----------



## Centermass (May 29, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> As far as the husband and wife combo that feel she is being "mistreated", they just called out the entire RI staff and Command. They continue to question the validity of the process and the professionalism of all involved.  The most disconcerting thing is that they're both Officers, and should know better.  Lead the Way...indeed.



Honestly, I wouldn't expect anything different. I'm just surprised there's not more bitchin. 

Of course, if I received this, I'd be pissed as well...........


----------



## Teufel (May 29, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


>


Haha Jimmy Stare saved my life.  Former member of 1st Force Recon Company and Ranger School graduate.


----------



## pardus (May 29, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> Great rundown Centermass.  I must credit those that took the day 1 recycle; I was never put in that position but i've known plenty that had day ones, it doesn't sound like a good time.
> 
> As far as the husband and wife combo that feel she is being "mistreated", they just called out the entire RI staff and Command. They continue to question the validity of the process and the professionalism of all involved.  The most disconcerting thing is that they're both Officers, and should know better.  Lead the Way...indeed.



Not a Ranger, never will be, but I want to say, Fuck both of them, they're a disgrace to their uniform.


----------



## AWP (May 29, 2015)

Part of me hopes the wife pays for the husband's stupidity. Going public to call out the RI's....talking out of your ass....dropping your wife's name for all to see...well, I guess that's one way to do it.


----------



## ZmanTX (May 29, 2015)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/8-women-fail-ranger-school-rangers-standards-change-214600870.html

Interesting take on the whole situation. 
Saw the article and wanted to share to see what you guys think.

Z


----------



## pardus (May 29, 2015)

ZmanTX said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/news/8-women-fail-ranger-school-rangers-standards-change-214600870.html
> 
> Interesting take on the whole situation.
> Saw the article and wanted to share to see what you guys think.
> ...



What did you think?


----------



## AWP (May 30, 2015)

ZmanTX said:


> Interesting take on the whole situation.
> Saw the article and wanted to share to see what you guys think.
> 
> Z



1. Do you have any commentary?
2. That article was more jacked up than a football bat. I'm a tad surprised at the two who spoke out in the article, but the rest of it is utter rubbish.

"Ranger School, which grooms the Army’s most elite special operations fighting force..."

"As new technologies potentially make raw physical strength less important..."

While it is perhaps an interesting discussion to have, no one will take you seriously when you voice such nonsense. Then the bit about making loads lighter. Um, we've done that for over a decade but the demands and capabilities just add weight. See also: the M4 carbine. I also find it ironic that any discussion about changing standards occurs AFTER women begin attending Ranger School. If this is such an important topic why is it coming up NOW?

Agenda driven clownshoes...


----------



## Brill (May 30, 2015)

@compforce , I wonder what SGT Brown has to say about the topic.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 30, 2015)

http://www.havokjournal.com/culture/all-female-ranger-candidates-have-now-completely-failed-out/

If the trend of 0% female success continues, the standards will be lowered so women can meet them.


----------



## 8654Maine (May 30, 2015)

^^^^This will only be a matter of time.

Soon, the combat diver course will be limiting swimmingg, cross-overs, and drown-proofing.

Only a matter of time.


----------



## Centermass (May 30, 2015)

8654Maine said:


> ^^^^This will only be a matter of time.
> 
> Soon, the combat diver course will be limiting swimmingg, cross-overs, and drown-proofing.
> 
> Only a matter of time.



"Secure your floaties" 

"Mount the gunnel"


----------



## Beagle (May 30, 2015)

The link below has a video of a female carrying another Soldier.

I get that congress is pushing this stuff but does a women really want to be a Ranger? 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...ome-Rangers-say-standards-should-change-video

Ran into this video

GEN Robert Barrow testimony on women in combat (1991)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=258&v=fy--whDNNKk


----------



## policemedic (May 30, 2015)

Apparently a few do want to earn a Ranger tab.


----------



## policemedic (May 30, 2015)

Beagle said:


> Ran into this video
> 
> GEN Robert Barrow testimony on women in combat (1991)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=258&v=fy--whDNNKk



Do you have an opinion on what he said?


----------



## Beagle (Jun 4, 2015)

My opinion is the standards should stay the same and if someone earns the Ranger tab then that's a great achievement. 

I deal with UCMJ on a daily basis for 3 years so maybe I'm bias and only see the problems that this may create..


----------



## HOLLiS (Jun 4, 2015)

Lots of men's opinions.  What about the women?    As I mentioned in the past, standards should reflect the needs of the job.    They can be discriminatory or define what the job entails.   I have never had to run 100 anything carrying a 250, 200, 150 pound person on my back.  Is it reasonable to say a person needs to do that.  I do not know.  My opinion is that combat is 95% mental.   The mind will throw in the towel before the body is ready too.   A good Read.. Marines of Autumn.    It is about what it takes to walk away from a battle.   The withdraw from Chosin Reservoir to the gulf.  

The best person for the job, is the best person for the job.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 4, 2015)

As often as I say that Ranger School is just a leadership school, I must kind of be reminded that it is specifically a combat leadership course focusing on small unit tactics.  As there are no women currently doing "combat," than I'm questioning why the push to go through this school.  Seems to come down to just getting a tab, which makes me a bit sick of our badge/tab chasing community. 

I'll leave it to the tabbed/scrolled guys on here to fix me if I'm seeing this wrong because I understand that there is more to it if you are actually in Regiment.


----------



## Centermass (Jun 4, 2015)

1. Spend 3 months to build a fort with your buddies. 

2. Once completed, slap a "No girls allowed" sign on it. 

3. Within 3 minutes, Gloria Allred, NOW and the ACLU will show up at the door....... 

Me, succumbing to the media pressure: "Okay, only if we get to attend all their slumber parties from now on.


----------



## Worldweaver (Jun 4, 2015)

Hollis, I was going to reply to your post but decided to send some hate your way instead. If you don't know why it may be required to carry some weight, then I don't know what to do for you.


----------



## Johca (Jun 4, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> As there are no women currently doing "combat," than I'm questioning why the push to go through this school.  Seems to come down to just getting a tab, which makes me a bit sick of our badge/tab chasing community.


If career combat specific MOSs and the Combat Branches (specifically Infantry Branch) is to be opened to women by 1 January 2016, then career means NCOs and Company Grade officers which is the chain of command leading small unit combat capability.  It then follows regardless of gender the leadership development must be equally available to service members of both genders as the quality of leading is part of units having combat effectiveness.



The Ranger Course was conceived during the Korean War and was known as the Ranger Training Command. The Ranger Training Command was inactivated and became the Ranger Department, a branch of the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Ga., October 10, 1951.

The first Ranger Class for individual candidates graduated on 1 March 1952.

Its purpose as identified in Army Regulation 611–1, *Enlisted Assignments and Utilization Management, pare 5.2 objectives*, “The objective of the Ranger Program is to maintain Army readiness through ranger-qualified Soldiers (SQI “G” and “V”)”, has changed little since its inception.

In an effort to better achieve this goal, in 1954, the Army required all combat arms officers to become Ranger/Airborne qualified.  Unfortunately the additional Army goal to have one Ranger qualified non-commissioned officer per infantry platoon and one officer per company was seldom achieved during the period from 1954 to the early 1970s.

In February 2005 the Army implemented policy changes to Ranger School attendance policy that disconnected requirement combat support and combat service support soldiers no longer needed to be assigned against a Ranger authorization to gain eligibility to attend Ranger training.

As the Army has no Ranger Branch or Ranger MOS the Ranger School is actually small tactical leader development utilizing situational field training scenarios to exposing students to must lead situations rather than being a commando, ranger, raider, Guerrillafighter, or marauder.  However as the MOS and Branch eligibility expanded to integrate service members holding combat support and combat service support MOSs, the frequency of students arriving lacking skill and knowledge competencies in basic infantry skills and lacking adequate physical fitness began increasing. This resulted in 1979 of the formation of pre-ranger courses which have become a prerequisite to getting placement in a Ranger School class training slot.

Regardless the purpose of the Ranger School is to develop combat skills of selected officers and enlisted men. This requires them to perform effectively as small-unit leaders in a realistic, tactical environment, and under mental and physical stress; approaches that are found in actual combat. Emphasis is placed on the development of individual combat skills and abilities through the application of the principles of leadership, while further developing military skills in the planning and conduct of dismounted infantry, airborne, airmobile, amphibious independent squad, and platoon-size operations. Graduates return to their units to pass on these skills.

WWII historical perspectives:

When developing and deciding if U.S. Army should have commando type units and forces, Major General Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was in 1942 Chief of the Operations Division, War Department General Staff) told Colonel Lucian K. Truscott, Jr., such units and forces should be named something other than “commandos” because that name was so strongly identified with the British. Truscott chose “Rangers” a name that had been carried by a number of American units before, during, and after the War of Independence. The new unit was thus designated the 1st Ranger Battalion.

The 1st Ranger Battalion was officially activated on 19 June 1942.  Subsequently the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Ranger Battalions were formed.  All were the Ranger Battalions were deactivated at the end of WWII.

Korean War influences:

Throughout the period of their existence the Ranger Companies during the Korean War these forces were mostly employed as general infantry rather than as a raiding or marauding force as initially envisioned by Army Chief of Staff, General J. Lawton Collins who ordered the creation of the Ranger Companies of the Korean conflict.

Envisioned by General Collins to be "Marauder" units to operate behind enemy lines, attacking their tank parks and assembly areas, this utilization never happened. The Ranger Companies were generally utilized in Korean conflict as just another infantry company rather than for conducting special missions as raider, marauders or commandos. By June 1951 the Department of the Army decided to inactivate these units and accomplished this by 1 August 1951.  Although the Army Staff and major commands saw no need for Ranger units, they did see a need for ranger trained personnel. This resulted in the formation of the Ranger School concurrently with the inactivation of the Ranger Companies.

Generally personnel reports exposed several difficulties pertinent to combat units, in general, having difficulties in maintaining combat effectiveness pertinent to having competent leaders (trained and or experienced) and having leaders willing to lead others in combat.  Put differently, those put into positions involving tactical leading were inadequately prepared to deal with the quickly changing tactical situations encountered on the Korean battlefields.


officers continued to arrive with combat MOS's who were physically incapable of handling the jobs indicated by the MOS, it was necessary for FEC replacement installations to screen officers for age and physical condition as well as for experience and training in verifying their MOS's.


Eighth Amy complained that a number of officers were reluctant to command troops in action and asked that remedial or punitive steps be taken, but in February there was still evidence that proper disposition was not being made of substandard officers. As late as June 1951, commanders were encouraged to make use of their powers under AR 605-200, 615-369, and 615-368 to eliminate ineffective or undesirable personnel.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jun 4, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> Hollis, I was going to reply to your post but decided to send some hate your way instead. If you don't know why it may be required to carry some weight, then I don't know what to do for you.




When I was med-evaced my pack weighted 110 pounds, that is not counting my flak jacket, helmet, rifle, 35 (2o rds) mags, 5 frags boots, clothing.  My weight was 125,  I was 6 ft @ 165 when I arrived in country.   We had some pretty small Marines in my company too.  We did not have guys who where all buffed out, we were a team not a individual.   We humped everything we needed.   It sucked when we worked with 81s, more weight.   We needed more people, to pull triggers and to carry the load.    A friend felt we just need more trigger pullers more than any other aspect.  

Now our enemy, where generally smaller than us and humped a lot of stuff.  I don't think they worried to much about the gender issue.

I did not advocate any person for the job based on their reproductive system, but on qualifications.   For special teams, I can see special qualifications.   IMHO, that is the team or team leader decision.   Not mine.   The battlescape has changed and as it changes we need to reflect that in our training and assignment of people.  The best person for the job is the best person.  If a person can not pass the qualifications needed, then they are a no-go.   Fortunately for those serving, my opinion is just that.   I am not going to influence those who make that decision. 

To restate my opinion,   Qualifications needs to accurately reflect the needs of the job.  If a person can not fulfill the qualifications, they are a no-go.

The other aspect, special teams should decide who goes and who does not go based on team needs.

Again a good read,  Marines of Autumn.     I am glad I was not there.


----------



## Worldweaver (Jun 4, 2015)

HOLLiS said:


> We humped everything we needed.   It sucked when we worked with 81s, more weight.   We needed more people, to pull triggers and to carry the load.    A friend felt we just need more trigger pullers more than any other aspect.
> 
> Now our enemy, where generally smaller than us and humped a lot of stuff.  I don't think they worried to much about the gender issue.
> 
> I did not advocate any person for the job based on their reproductive system, but on qualifications.



Hollis, I'm having trouble following your logic.  So, you said that you had to hump everything and carried a lot of weight?  Wouldn't that be a qualification for the "job" you were doing?

Gender aside, wouldn't being able to carry your own weight, the equipment, ruck, and possibly your buddy, be a important factor and prerequisite in the completion of your job?


----------



## HOLLiS (Jun 4, 2015)

Worldweaver,   We had the CMC PRT (Commandant of the Marine Corps Physical Readiness Test)  We did not have a weight criteria that I knew of.  Maybe when I was in, the main criteria was a warm body.   The CMC PRT was based on the lessons of the previous war fought.   One requirement was the ability to run 3 miles under a certain in full gear and carry on a fight.  Full gear was maybe 40 pounds max? 

If the weight requirement reflects the needs of the job,  I have no issue with that, or failing people who can not meet that qualification.   We expected people to put in 100% effort.  

We worked as a team,  expecting the same weight loads for everyone is probably not realistic.   A 6'2" 250 pound person is one thing, a guy who is 5'5" 125 is another.    Small teams are another issue and the team or team leader should make qualifications based on mission specific needs, would be my guess.

I forgot who said this; "It is not how big the dog is in the fight, it is how big the fight is in the dog."  

I would prefer tenacity over the ability to hump a of weight.


----------



## Worldweaver (Jun 4, 2015)

HOLLiS said:


> If the weight requirement reflects the needs of the job,  I have no issue with that, or failing people who can not meet that qualification.   We expected people to put in 100% effort.
> 
> We worked as a team,  *expecting the same weight loads for everyone is probably not realistic.   A 6'2" 250 pound person is one thing, a guy who is 5'5" 125 is another*.    Small teams are another issue and the team or team leader should make qualifications based on mission specific needs, would be my guess.
> 
> I would prefer tenacity over the ability to hump a of weight.



I completely disagree with the bold portion, too much anecdotal evidence to the contrary.  However, I do agree that people who cannot meet the qualifications should fail.  When they figure out how to make 1,000 rds of 7.62 x 51 weigh less, or how to lighten up a 27.6 lb weapon, then maybe requirements will change.    

I prefer the ability to hump tenaciously


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 5, 2015)

HOLLiS said:


> ,
> 
> To restate my opinion,   Qualifications needs to accurately reflect the needs of the job.  If a person can not fulfill the qualifications, they are a no-go.


The M242 Bushmaster weighs 262lbs, IOT be a Bradley Crewman you have to uninstall it in 10 minutes,  you can then take a break if you want after you've completed that task.  Then you have to reinstall it in 10 minutes.  I know some guys who can do it in five minutes, I got it in about 9:30...shit is rough.  The LAV-25 also has an M242 but I don't know the Marine Corps standards.


----------



## Centermass (Jun 5, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> The M242 Bushmaster weighs 262lbs, IOT be a Bradley Crewman you have to uninstall it in 10 minutes,  you can then take a break if you want after you've completed that task.  Then you have to reinstall it in 10 minutes.  I know some guys who can do it in five minutes, I got it in about 9:30...shit is rough.  The LAV-25 also has an M242 but I don't know the Marine Corps standards.



Congratulations. 

Is anyone humping the 242? I didn't think so. 

So, with that, what exactly does this have to do with the current topic?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 5, 2015)

Hollis was talking about standards, that is a standard in the Mech Infantry and and Armored Reconnaissance Squadrons.  So it has everything to do with this topic.


----------



## Centermass (Jun 5, 2015)




----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 5, 2015)

I love the back and forth in this thread.  It hasn't changed my opinion but has pushed me to use critical thinking.


----------



## x SF med (Jun 5, 2015)

Centermass said:


> Congratulations.
> 
> Is anyone humping the 242? I didn't think so.
> 
> So, with that, what exactly does this have to do with the current topic?



Nah, we only have to fix emplacements for the Ma Deuce...  not hump the beast, well, not usually....  when we do, it SUCKS.  Bob you get the barrel, Joe you get the receiver, Tom you get the tripod/T&E, everybody else...  grab a can or two of ammo....


----------



## HOLLiS (Jun 5, 2015)

x SF med said:


> Nah, we only have to fix emplacements for the Ma Deuce...  not hump the beast, well, not usually....  when we do, it SUCKS.  Bob you get the barrel, Joe you get the receiver, Tom you get the tripod/T&E, everybody else...  grab a can or two of ammo....




Novel concept,  Team Work.   :)


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 22, 2015)

We hadn't talked about this in awhile and I thought it was finished, article from the Washington Post:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ation-and-frustration-in-assessment-of-women/


----------



## Centermass (Jun 22, 2015)

Colonel Haring is an idiot. 

That pretty much covers it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 22, 2015)

Centermass said:


> Colonel Haring is an idiot.
> 
> That pretty much covers it.



Oh she sounds like a barrel of laughs -
http://scar.gmu.edu/people/ellen-haring

As I recall from "forever" ago, this debate has more to do with women in the military feeling left out of promotion opportunities than it does them wanting to be door kickers. 

I thought it was Col. Haring who I saw on 60 Minutes or 20/20 some time ago come right out and state that. For me that negates a lot of the conversation, but maybe that is why the promotional opportunities argument seems to have disappeared all together. Later tonight I am going to practice my Google-Fu and find that interview.


----------



## Viper1 (Jun 22, 2015)

Y'know, if the Army wanted to do this right, they would have opened up the combat arms MOSs to women, put a two-three year waiting period on Ranger school to see how they perform in combat arms duties, and THEN sent them to Ranger school. I conjecture they would have had a higher success rate than they do now. 

 My point?  No one just walks into Ranger School cold or solely focused on PT and expects to graduate.  It is focused on small unit tactics and I doubt support battalions and brigades have a prevalence of that going on.  Most of the students when I went through were combat arms and at the very least had combat arms OSUT, pre-ranger, IOBC, RASP, or something else combat arms related as a foundation before making the attempt.

It seems the cart was put before the horse on this one.  It takes more than heart.  It takes *gasp* actual tactical knowledge and competence in SUT.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 22, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> My point? No one just walks into Ranger School cold or solely focused on PT and expects to graduate. It is focused on small unit tactics and I doubt support battalions and brigades have a prevalence of that going on. Most of the students when I went through were combat arms and at the very least had combat arms OSUT, pre-ranger, IOBC, RASP, or something else combat arms related as a foundation before making the attempt.



I'd imagine that these women got more special training specific for passing the course than any of their male counterparts.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 22, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> I'd imagine that these women got more special training specific for passing the course than any of their male counterparts.



You would imagine? But have no basis for it?  
How about all the infantry officer LT's who just had an entire IBOLC before showing, or the 82nd dudes with Bragg pre-Ranger? These females did plenty of PT, but not a whole lot of platoon leadership.


----------



## Viper1 (Jun 22, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> I'd imagine that these women got more special training specific for passing the course than any of their male counterparts.



I don't know whether they did or not.  I'll defer to others to answer that. Either way, a few weeks of specialized training doesn't make up for months and potentially years of learning non-tangible things e.g. how to properly pack your rucksack, foot care, field craft, etc.


----------



## pardus (Jun 22, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> I don't know whether they did or not.  I'll defer to others to answer that. Either way, a few weeks of specialized training doesn't make up for months and potentially years of learning non-tangible things e.g. how to properly pack your rucksack, foot care, field craft, etc.



I couldn't recall the amount of times people have asked me for a "quick" tracking course, or how to operate in the bush as a grunt. Sure I can give you the basics in a couple of hours, but that's like demonstrating to a baby that to walk/run/sprint all one needs to do is place one foot in front of another. There you go, now go and win a gold medal at the Olympics tomorrow!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 22, 2015)

http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...22/women-ranger-school-pass-pt-test/29120373/


----------



## AWP (Jun 22, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> Either way, a few weeks of specialized training doesn't make up for months and potentially years of learning non-tangible things e.g. how to properly pack your rucksack, foot care, field craft, etc.



I'm sure it is no comfort, but we see this on the tech side as well. "Radar tracks planes, but what does that mean to us?" "So you have radios and they do what?" "I have about 10 minutes, so what does your shop do?" "You can copy a switch in 10 minutes, why is it taking hours?"

Did any of us learn to tie our shows in 5 minutes? What makes us think that years later our adult brains can learn complex tasks in the same time?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 23, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...22/women-ranger-school-pass-pt-test/29120373/



It's literally the easiest PT test in the Army. You're expected to do better than what's required there,  in fucking 11x OSUT.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 23, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> You would imagine? But have no basis for it?
> How about all the infantry officer LT's who just had an entire IBOLC before showing, or the 82nd dudes with Bragg pre-Ranger? These females did plenty of PT, but not a whole lot of platoon leadership.


 
The imagine part is a suggestion, not some sort of hardline belief. You are misplacing my discussion for some invite to argue BS. I thought something was mentioned in a previous page that these women had a lot more prep than their male counterparts. 

What you are suggesting is that only infantrymen do well at the course?  And it was in fact PT that did most of them in, not anything involving their platoon leadership experience. These women all passed RTAC.


----------



## x SF med (Jun 23, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> These females did plenty of PT, but not a whole lot of platoon leadership.





Florida173 said:


> The imagine part is a suggestion, not some sort of hardline belief. *You are misplacing my discussion for some invite to argue BS.* I thought something was mentioned in a previous page that these women had a lot more prep than their male counterparts.
> 
> What you are suggesting is that only infantrymen do well at the course?  And it was in fact PT that did most of them in, not anything involving their platoon leadership experience. These women all passed RTAC.



Slow your roll there stud....  and you need to read some of the other articles, all of the women made it through RAP, they failed in Darby, they had the PT test done and passed, they failed in the field problems.  You tossed out the unsubstantiated phrasing after "I imagine..." in an earlier post.   Actually, they all got put through an extensive, and extended Pre -Ranger course, were given recuperation time and then started the school proper.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 23, 2015)

x SF med said:


> Slow your roll there stud....  and you need to read some of the other articles, all of the women made it through RAP, they failed in Darby, they had the PT test done and passed, they failed in the field problems.  You tossed out the unsubstantiated phrasing after "I imagine..." in an earlier post.   Actually, they all got put through an extensive, and extended Pre -Ranger course, were given recuperation time and then started the school proper.


 
I did indeed read the some of the articles which is why I was suggesting that they got as you helped substantiate, "extensive, and extended Pre-Ranger course..."

TLDR20 is saying that it is the lack of platoon leadership experience that failed the women, but we have to look at all the women who were allowed to attempt ranger school and how they failed out, and if we add women who failed out of RTAC, it is PT that failed them.  You can't just speak about the eight that made it to Darby.


----------



## Centermass (Jun 23, 2015)

While "Platoon Leadership" is a graded phase during the course, it is an "Administrative Position" for which any of the students while "In the rear with the gear" during RAP and Darby, can receive SPOT reports for. Patrols during Darby are first "Cadre Led" and then, done at the Squad level. Platoon level OR's are not done until later, not at Darby or Benning.

What they are primarily graded on are the 5 Principles - Planning, Reconnaissance, Control, Security and Common Sense. at the Squad level + It can also be subjective - to the advantage of the student. In other words, if more than one of these were violated or did not meet the standards, the RI can also take the entire picture into consideration and ask "Could this individual still have completed their mission successfully, with no or minimal casualties?" And if that is the case, if the RI does pass them, it's usually followed with a lengthy and detailed narrative explanation as to the reason "Why".

And to keep it on par, a whole lot of others, haven't had that much in the way of "Platoon Leadership" either.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 10, 2015)

Update:

It’s not official, and they could still step on their… uh, make a serious error, but as of Thursday night it was highly probable that the three female officers remaining in Ranger School are going to pass the Camp Darby subphase of the school and move on to the second phase in the mountains at Dahlonega, Georgia. The two lieutenants and one major have finally passed the phase, after three attempts (and a considerable rest-up before their third shot). Last week, they passed the RAP Week phase (for each of them, a second time) without drama or difficulty.

On their third attempt at Camp Darby, the three women all passed one patrol. None has passed two. None has failed more than one (one or possibly two has only been graded once). With them “tabbed out” on patrols — at least as far as Darby is concerned — the course managers stopped assigning them to graded positions. This is often, but not always, done for men. The graded positions on the last couple days of the phase are going to the guys who need a Darby patrol pass to avoid recycle or dismissal, not to students who have demonstrated that they can lead a patrol — male or female alike.

None of the three women is in trouble on spot reports (negative spot reports can lead to phase and even course failure). Moreover, the instructors and observer/advisers think that these Ranger candidates are unlikely to have any trouble with peer reports, the last academic hurdle to completing the phase. Unless one of the women is injured, she will complete the phase.

There is no graduation. Instead, the soldiers get a few hours’ break — most of which will be spent chasing down equipment for the next phase — and then are transported to the Mountain Ranger Camp, a rustic hillside setting that they will spend little time in. Instead, they’ll be outdoors, doing some crude mountaineering (knot tying, rappelling, intro to technical climbing, etc.) and then running heavier and longer patrols. In the mountains they will have long movements and very difficult terrain. They will walk the contour of steep hills and struggle through tangled clearcuts at night.

Unless things have changed drastically, and weather and equipment permitting, airborne-qualified candidates will jump into a small DZ at mountain camp, and non-airborne candidates will be bused to the camp. The jumpers get five hours’ sleep before the jump for safety reasons (the legs do all guard duties). This five hours is the longest sleep a Ranger candidate can count on in the remainder of the course, at least until the next jump (probably into the culminating Florida phase).

So far, the Ranger Instructors are confident that the women have met the same standards as the men, with the single exception that Col. Fivecoat, the RTB commander, has been easier on them on recycles. Even then, they have not had treatment that is outside the range of what men have had.

Has there been… pressure? Depends on how you define it. The RIs are generally Ranger, infantry or SOF combat vets, so their idea of “pressure” doesn’t include being bossed around. Fivecoat is committed to the success of women in Ranger School, and he goes around telling folks that “the women must pass,” but he also says, “the standard must be held.” In his mind there is no contradiction. The RIs have done a pretty good job insulating the students from the looky-loos and media and giving them as normal a Ranger School experience as they can.

Tomorrow we should have the official word.

Source


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 10, 2015)

Centermass said:


> Has there been… pressure? Depends on how you define it.



Thank you for addressing this, it is a question I had been wanting to ask after the last Darby phase, but could not come up with a way to write it that did not sound insulting to the Rangers.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 31, 2015)

Ranger School update: Two of the female candidates passed the Mountain Phase at Camp Frank D. Merrill in Dahlonega, GA . One recycled for patrols.

60 men and 1 woman will be recycled, or given a second attempt at the next Mountain Phase of Ranger School, which starts on Saturday, August 8, 2015.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 4, 2015)

I know it's a British site, but I have to hope these women "HATE" begin referred in anyway to that stupid movie. 

Curious from those who may know, how accurate the article is from them being "days" from graduation - 

Two women advance to final phase of U.S. Army's Ranger School


----------



## pardus (Aug 4, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Curious from those who may know, how accurate the article is from them being "days" from graduation -



From the article _you_ posted... 



> 'The Ranger students, both male and female, are two-thirds of the way done with Ranger School,' Colonel David Fivecoat, commander of the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade, said in a July 31 release.





> will graduate from the course on August 21 at Victory Pond in Fort Benning, Georgia.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 5, 2015)

If you go off statistics, they should pass at this point.... but then as said before, juice vs squeeze. Keep the fact that yes, one or two in 200 could pass hooah high, in your back pocket of "SecDef Global Gloves-Off War CONOP" or go "hey, lets just fire off EVERY female in the Army, which totals approximately 74k, at Infantry and Infantry schools when the most recent statistics show that through an extended pipeline of preperation and training that exceeds what we've been doing for men up until this point.... we'd get 738 qualified graduates out of one of the premier leadership schools within the Army."

These women, should they graduate, should be the ones speaking out provided they can do so without focusing on their obvious "gender bias" with regards to the realities of females in an infantry occupation.  What many women who are pressing for "equality in the ranks" don't understand is that in the Infantry, true equality is reached... or as close to it as you can get.

The ruck packing list is the same.
The squad equipment is the same and gets carried by the same duty positions.
Some people carrier heavier weapons, and get those weapons and duty positions either as luck of the draw or as a rite of passage/reward for seniority and ability.
The distances are same for the squad and platoon.
The speed of assault and securing of the objective needs to maintain the same timeframe regardless if an innie or an outie is on the team.

There could be contention that due to a large portion of the men BEING Infantry, they to some extent live-eat-breathe these operations/briefings/techniques where they're less likely applied in such "force" outside of the realm of the blue cord...  but if I recall correctly, at least in direct training and/or time in service, the majority of these individuals well exceed the usual time in service for a Ranger school attendee as well as exceeded the train-up length of what some Best Ranger teams get for that grueling competition...

I think that there's plenty of generally "gender neutral" positions in the military where capability falls more under dexterity and prowess rather than relying heavily on physical capability. Those duty positions, like tank crew and other stuff like that where the brunt of the burden isn't on the back but instead on the brain, is where equality lies. Where it's on the back? Apples to Apples, the median average IN SERVICE NOW of Infantrymen still performs above the same average for females across the board physically... and that physical component will not go away. You still have to assault the cliffs and mountains while carrying the kit to sustain you on the objective, and while you can lighten that load.... a longer and more intensively required logisitical train puts those that are less prepared for contact with the enemy in a larger hazard factor zone due to having to keep the front doing the things the front does.

Simple fact is, it takes more resources and manpower put in greater than normal harms way if a unit needs resupply every 24 vs 72 hours, or every 72 vs every week.  That's more helos or vehicles getting wear and tear, more hazard for the entire elements having to traverse terrain by land or air (or sea, but resup by sea still ends up having an air/land component as I'm sure the Marines will attest to).

Are some women capable of doing it? I have no doubt. My contention is that as we have seen thus far, the component of those willing to undertake the task right now currently has a tenative sub-1% pass rate right now.  That's not really going to truly add much capability or manpower resource to the force... which is what we truly should be considering as the whole point of these exercises.  What makes the military a more capable and lethal fighting force.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 17, 2015)

2 women graduate  Ranger school.

History made: Army Ranger School to graduate its first female students ever


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 17, 2015)

Congrats to those that made it.

WASHINGTON — Two female soldiers will graduate from the Army’s legendary Ranger School this week, the first women to complete the course since it was opened to them on an experimental basis this year, the U.S. Army said Monday evening.

The two were part of a group of 19 female soldiers who passed a rigorous screening process to begin the physically demanding course that had been closed to women since it opened more than six decades ago.

The graduation on Friday will mark a key milestone on the military’s ongoing efforts to open front-line combat units to women. The military services have pledged to do so without compromising standards.

Students in the grueling two-month course are required to survive on little food and sleep despite demanding physical activity, including carrying more than 100 pounds of gear through mountains and swamps. It is considered the Army’s most physically challenging course.

.oembed-asset-link { background: #fff; border-bottom: 1px solid #e1e1e1; } .oembed-link-anchor { display: block; clear: both; } .oembed-link-thumbnail{ float: left; padding: 14px; } .oembed-link-thumbnail img { max-width: 78px; max-height: 60px; display: block; } p.oembed-link-title { font-size: 75%; color: #009BFF; margin: 0 14px; padding-top: 12px; font-weight:normal; text-align: left; line-height: 120%; } p.oembed-link-desc { font-size: 100%; color: #666; font-weight: normal; margin: 0 14px 14px 14px; font-family: 'Futura Today Light'; text-align: left; line-height: 120%; }



USA TODAY

Army Ranger School tests if women are up to grueling challenge


The women started the regimen in April, but like many men they were required to retake a phase of the course if they didn’t pass on the first go.

Graduates get to wear the coveted Ranger tab, which signifies their completion of the Army’s premier small unit leadership course for the infantry and other front-line troops.

"Each Ranger School graduate has shown the physical and mental toughness to successfully lead organizations at any level," Army Secretary John McHugh said in a statement. "This course has proven that every soldier, regardless of gender, can achieve his or her full potential."

But the women will not be able to join the infantry or other so-called ground combat jobs, including the Ranger regiment, which remain closed to women, at least through this year.

Opening the course to women is part of an assessment that all services have been ordered to undertake to determine how best to open the infantry, special forces and other ground combat jobs by next year. The Pentagon has ordered that all occupations be open to women after this year.

The services can request a waiver from some jobs, but would need to provide an extensive justification for doing so.

The military services have been steadily opening jobs to women over recent years, but the infantry and special operations fields are the most physically demanding and require that troops live close together in often primitive field conditions.

"I promise you that the one thing we will not compromise on is standards," Gen. Martin Dempsey told a group of U.S. servicemen in Baghdad recently.

First female soldiers to graduate from Army Ranger School


----------



## Loki (Aug 17, 2015)

This should get interesting now...

President Plans To Attend Ranger School Ceremony; This Guarantees First Women Will Graduate

Time to Welcome a New Era of Rangers


----------



## Johca (Aug 18, 2015)

The military combat capability concern isn’t about a difference between men and women, masculinity and femininity.  Neither is it about leading all levels of organizations in a peacetime military.

Each level of combat unit organization requires a different quality of leading.  There is a demarcation between enlisted and NCO for the same reasons as there is a demarcation between Company Grade Officer, Field Grade Officer and Flag Officer.  Unfortunately the demarcations between the three commissioned officer command grades of Company, Field, and Flag also comes with different size of organization being tactically led in the fight to win as well as a larger scope from tactical leading the smaller tactical unit with command in an immediate area to strategically lead larger numbers of tactical units in a larger area of operations to dominate and control.

The Korean War and subsequently the South East Asia conflicts, to a lesser degree, demonstrated beyond question being designated (appointed) leader in the peacetime military is less demanding than obtaining and sustaining unit integrity in the face of the enemy or in extraordinary demands to march significant distances under harsh conditions to reinforce and strengthen sieged positions.

Anybody can make it through a demanding inconvenient 61-day course that has train-up prerequisites (course prerequisites are needed necessity), the problem is readiness and availability of the individual to be utilized after getting this training.  It is here there is much similarity to obtaining and sustaining adequate or sufficient quality or level of physical fitness to be there fighting.  In this regard the 1947 FM 21-20, Physical Training concisely and precisely identified that although individuals can be trained up to needed levels of physical fitness within 10-15 weeks, keeping individuals at this level of fitness is difficult when most individuals lack the willingness to sustain their physical fitness. The same is true pertinent to having and sustaining willingness to command and lead troops in action.

The purpose of the Ranger School was never to train elite infantry soldiers to fight or to be commandos, raiders or marauders but to develop through training simulations the mental agility to employ already possessed infantry competencies and needed level of physical fitness (course prerequisites).  Thus the successfully completing the courseis not about being the roughest, toughest, meanest bastard or bitch in the unit, but about having competence in having sufficient situational awareness and mental, emotional, cognitive wherewithal to not only understand the tactical situation but to also lead others in the engaging in activities to successfully overcome becoming a rout, defeat, surrender, or complete decimation of the unit.

In this regard career has operational capability significance due to career cannot be separated from individual be both available and ready to competently perform “ALL” duties of the military occupation.

Both the Korean War and the Southeast Asia conflicts found military with too many officers and NCOs being both reluctant to lead others into combat and lacking adequate/sufficient level of combat fitness to be in combat.  This is the reason why the US Army Ranger School was created in 1952; this is the operational capability why the pass/fail human performance standards shouldn’t be diluted for career opportunity diversity purposes.  When purpose of Ranger School gets diverted or transformed to favoring being more promotable regardless of awarded MOS and without respect to developing competent capability and willingness to lead others in action then there will no longer be an operational capability need for the Ranger School to exist.


----------



## Loki (Aug 18, 2015)

Duffle blog knocked this one out of the park, the context of this article is epic. I still question whether this is really sarcasm... 
Out-Of-Standards NCO: 'Female Rangers A Disgrace'


----------



## Centermass (Aug 18, 2015)

Ha ha.

The SEAL community is already losing it's mind over the most recent announcement. 

If they for an instant didn't see this coming, they had on a blacked out mask and a hood on over their heads. :-"


----------



## 275ANGER! (Aug 18, 2015)

There was already females in Ranger School, we called them Officers! 

Congrats to the new graduates!


----------



## Teufel (Aug 19, 2015)

pardus said:


> I couldn't recall the amount of times people have asked me for a "quick" tracking course, or how to operate in the bush as a grunt. Sure I can give you the basics in a couple of hours, but that's like demonstrating to a baby that to walk/run/sprint all one needs to do is place one foot in front of another. There you go, now go and win a gold medal at the Olympics tomorrow!



Are you talking about the time that Teufel convinced you to fly to 29 Palms to train some grunts in combat tracking and you took a phantom shit in the CP and had to explain to the Battalion Commander that you deuced in the name of science and spoor aging?


----------



## Loki (Aug 19, 2015)

Navy Times relative to this topic, today.  "NAVY SEALs set to open to females" 
Home | Navy Times I  U.S. Navy news including pay & benefits, careers and more


----------



## AWP (Aug 19, 2015)

I've merged two threads in as many days so if this one seems a bit disjointed you know why.


----------



## pardus (Aug 19, 2015)

Teufel said:


> Are you talking about the time that Teufel convinced you to fly to 29 Palms to train some grunts in combat tracking and you took a phantom shit in the CP and had to explain to the Battalion Commander that you deuced in the name of science and spoor aging?



Hahahahaha! Good times!
But no, that was just a refresher for already trained people.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 19, 2015)

Is it true that these women didn't take part in peering?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 19, 2015)

Another perspective on the situation:



> Today is a game changer for our nation, but especially for the thousands of women who chose to enlist in our Army.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 19, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Is it true that these women didn't take part in peering?



Was it in a comment thread somewhere (like FB)?  There's always someone who claims to know someone on the inside of anything, and I happened to find one in a comment thread that claimed one female was an abject failure at land nav in mountain phase, but the RIs were told she was going to pass, regardless. I took it with a grain of salt. 

I doubt the RIs are going to say anything about it until they're retired, if ever. So unless the media shines an impartial light on it, the general public won't ever know for certain. No need for rumor mongering in the meantime.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 19, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Is it true that these women didn't take part in peering?



It definitely wasn't true in Darby.


racing_kitty said:


> Was it in a comment thread somewhere (like FB)?  There's always someone who claims to know someone on the inside of anything, and I happened to find one in a comment thread that claimed one female was an abject failure at land nav in mountain phase, but the RIs were told she was going to pass, regardless. I took it with a grain of salt.
> 
> I doubt the RIs are going to say anything about it until they're retired, if ever. So unless the media shines an impartial light on it, the general public won't ever know for certain. No need for rumor mongering in the meantime.



Like I said previously, my good friend was in their first iteration at Darby, they participated in peers.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 19, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> Was it in a comment thread somewhere (like FB)?  There's always someone who claims to know someone on the inside of anything, and I happened to find one in a comment thread that claimed one female was an abject failure at land nav in mountain phase, but the RIs were told she was going to pass, regardless. I took it with a grain of salt.
> 
> I doubt the RIs are going to say anything about it until they're retired, if ever. So unless the media shines an impartial light on it, the general public won't ever know for certain. No need for rumor mongering in the meantime.


 
Similar enough. Second hand. Friend's friend is an RI and mentioned that they weren't subjected to peering. I don't care enough to further propagate without firsthand knowledge.


----------



## Centermass (Aug 19, 2015)

Loki said:


> This should get interesting now...
> 
> President Plans To Attend Ranger School Ceremony; This Guarantees First Women Will Graduate



There were never any plans, nor are there, for the President to attend their graduation. 



Florida173 said:


> Is it true that these women didn't take part in peering?



No. They all were a part of the Peer Evaluation Process throughout their entire tenure. 



Florida173 said:


> Similar enough. Second hand. Friend's friend is an RI and mentioned that they weren't subjected to peering. I don't care enough to further propagate without firsthand knowledge.



Mine is first hand info from the man himself, to me directly.


----------



## CDG (Aug 19, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> Another perspective on the situation:



What a bunch of shit.  "Grand prizes" and "wins"?  This is is exactly the attitude that I have the most issue with in this whole debate.  It's just a game to her and those with her mindset.  It's not about actually doing the job, it's about "winning the prize".


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 20, 2015)

Here is a facebook response...

Ranger School officer combats rumors about how women passed in pointed Facebook post



> Gentlemen,
> 
> I am not much for posting on social media, but feel that I should comment on the current situation at Ranger School. First and foremost the Ranger instructors are professional noncommissioned Officers and trained the Ranger students the same way they have since 1952. If you believe nothing else, you should have faith in your fellow Rangers to adhere to their beliefs and the Ranger Creed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 20, 2015)

I saw that FB post, no idea if it's legit or not but sounds very credible.  I found the version you posted a little funny @Florida173 as someone went in and spelled out the acronyms - which I'm sure is helpful for the non-Army folks.  However, they got more than a few things wrong when they did so like fucking up the ranks and making OPFOR into 'operational forces' (it's opposition force). 

One of the dangers I guess in any social media, the more something is shared around the more it can be modified.


----------



## Centermass (Aug 21, 2015)

30 minutes after I took this pic, both had their Tabs. 

This morning, Victory Pond, Ft. Benning, GA. 

There is still one more in the Mountains. No word as of yet whether she's moving on.


----------



## Loki (Aug 21, 2015)

I submitted my package for Ranger school three times when I was still in the Infantry as an NCO over a period of years. I was bumped from the list by staff in HQ (officers) each time. My PT was excellent throughout and I was ready.  Our unit was last to know and never placed priority for slots.  That was then, this is now... I'm not a "Ranger" nor was I "Ranger tabbed" my hat is off to those that had the opportunity and passed. One of my regrets in the military not being able to get to that leadership school.  Bottom line is; I'm not in a position to criticize these people or pass judgement. I can assure you at 54 there's no way my old fat azz could do what those females did.  It's a bitter pill to swallow (ego sucks) but congratulations to both of them, they were 10% of the original group that started. That's a 10% roughly;  2 out of 19 who trained hard for months in advance. That attrition rate is much higher than the males.  Same, reduced, modified or otherwise the standards I wouldn't have passed. I've heard some folks that are not in that club run their mouths giving all types of opinions. If your not in the club I don't think your opinion counts for much. As a basic line grunt and small unit leader I paid my dues in the Infantry battalion the old fashion way. I don't trust the higher command or officers but I do trust those SNCOs on the ground and their integrity. I've given this a lot of thought...the world is changing rapidly, I gotta evolve and adapt or it eats you up. There are some things we have no control over nor do we know all the facts. We gotta have faith and trust, which is very hard in this modern society but it's what gives us mental stability and solid foundation.   

People are getting wrapped around the axle about physical standards and abilities. Women & men through modern training methods and advancement of physical human development are doing amazing things. Amazing things, way beyond what I thought was attainable when I was still in the game...my past life ;).  My old unit in LE just had our first female pass our basic SWAT school in twenty years. She now moves on to phase 2 and 3 in the process.  She can do more pull ups (27 BTW) shoot as good as any man or better and run faster, and in fact she fireman carried men in full gear during training and it was recorded. I have never ever seen anything like it, ever! I was floored and amazed. Physical ability and performance is not the issue or the matter with regard to integration of females into the Infantry. The factors in my opinion go way beyond that simple answer.  Mother nature and biology as well as sociology are entirely different matters.  But I'm sure we will soon see females in the infantry battalion in the Army. Whether we like it or not...  

Disclaimer
No insult or sarcasm is intended by this post.

Respectfully


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 21, 2015)

Of course if you consider the 160 or so women that attempted to be rangers, the 10% becomes more like 1.25%


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 21, 2015)

Good for these two women, and any other that earn their tab. They set the bar high for their fellow service members male and female. I am proud that we have such women here in the U.S., and in our military.


----------



## Brill (Aug 21, 2015)

Centermass said:


> 30 minutes after I took this pic, both had their Tabs.
> 
> This morning, Victory Pond, Ft. Benning, GA.



Would YOU fight alongside or follow them in combat?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 21, 2015)

Florida173, number's higher than that.

I'd have to look back (and honestly don't care to) but it's >240 actually went to RPOOF or whatever the fuck they're calling the NG Pre-Ranger now.  Yes, I jest. No, they really did name it something dumb. Which means the grad rate is lower than that 1%...

Trying to throw students prior to PRC into the mix isn't honest nor fair, nor is bothering with the whole "hand selected" bullshit.  Every Ranger student is hand selected.  Your entire COC is fucking eyeballing you hardcore because in the regular army it's a fucking big deal for school.

Everyone who's been to school knows that it's the ones to your left and right that matter, and contribute heavily to your grade. I know that fact dearly. 

There's always going to be blusterfucks that rage on about how their class was the last hard class... GUESS WHAT! RANGER SCHOOL CHANGES!  I know perfectly well how it changes, just year to year. Class 5-99? Zero week bullshit and Ranger Stakes,  Buddy run in boots and BDU's with equipment and rifle.  Class 5-00, Ranger Stakes was missing, no zero week, running shoes for the buddy run. Next thing rabble rabble "they look well fed, I looked like an Auschwitz survivor when I graduated"  Physiological difference. Bet you a dollar there's not a whole lotta chest meat left on those women. Means nothing, the majority of their changes are going to be under the uniform and you're an idiot that doesn't know or hasn't been around women to know where things are different.

I was Infantry, and in Regiment.  I didn't interact with many women in the military outside of classmates at PLDC, and 2 other instances.

First significant interaction? Female medic that showed up as requested support from a medical unit on post when we needed augmentation for administrative coverage of BN level training. She showed up with an M5 with LUNCH in it, no gear. Tried to get me in trouble when I yoinked her HMMWV ambulance with my Bn Surgeon's orders (and him riding shotty) because she didn't have the kit to go downrange to get some guys that were going into heat stroke during a live fire. She couldn't even fuckin drive the thing right anyway, so needless to say my impression of women in the military was bleh.

Next experience, PLDC. Drama Llama's abounded, baw baw its cold baw baw can you get my land nav points for me baw baw i don't know how to do this basic nco stuff even though they're directly teaching it to us im tired can we stop for a minute ugh i can't go on. Once again, my impression meter was firmly down near "Empty" regarding women in the military.

Last experience, Rear-D assigned as the motor pool NCOIC for the rigs we had left. Had to work with one of the incumbent maintenance units on the base.  180 change there, their 1sg basically assigned one of his soldiers specifically to us as our solution provider. She was fantastic at her job and while you had the classic joke of "Give a grunt 2 ball bearings, he'll break one and lose the other" well she'd do the exact opposite. She could fix a ball bearing perfectly and fabricate or source another without skipping a beat. She did a great job, and all I did was hand her wrenches or help draw tools...which she honestly didn't even need, but it meant that she'd get 2 of our unit's raggity ass vehicles fixed in a day instead of just one... and my job was to get them all up and running and servicable, with no tools or equipment to do so. Therefore, fuck yes I'm handing wrenches over to the one that knows how to fix it.

So 1 stellar, about 10 mediocre at best, and 1 absolute turd that is lucky to be still breathing after hazarding Rangers under my wing so to speak.   Sounds about like a bell curve to me.

I think that women in the military as a whole pretty much just need to get over their sex. Just as much as men do. You're going to have to shit and piss alongside the troops. We didn't have supplies in AFG to make a fancy wancy shower or shitter that gave privacy. You work with it through giving no fucks and being happy you've got a drum to shit in with a nailed down toilet seat, and that you at least have a shower head over a pallett running off a tank fed by ditch water.   You're sleeping with the squad and you're changing with the squad.  These are things that they will HAVE to contend with, not change, but work with/around, if they want to be Infantry or the like.  Having to put up a fucking sheet in a PB so that the girlies can shit in privacy is a pure TRADOC stupidity thing (which is where Ranger School lies) and it's something you ain't gonna be doing for real.... I guess chalk it up to it being one of the many things that you won't be doing in combat.   Thankfully, having been in Regiment, that list was so short I can't even remember any techniques or procedures that we totally just said NOPE that's a training only thing we're gonna do it this way.

Are there going to be many women that will go to RS? Not really. We already saw it with a sub-300 people being willing to go. There may have been pre-screening IE don't fucking even try if you can't score a 280 on the mens side of the scale for your age. Who knows, I've got an outie and I'm OUT of the army, so with the combination of the two, my knowledge of the pre-screening criteria is sorely lacking. 

Will there be many that pass? I think that the numbers, if continued, will most likely remain about the same.

What I do think is that maybe, JUST MAYBE, and this is actually a HUGE thing.... these hard chargers,  that can and do meet the standard?  They can punch their fellow female troops square in the babymaker when they try to lean on their ovaries as an excuse, or drag their labia in the dirt during a training event, to get them to meet the standard as expected of a SOLDIER.  Something that is rather hard for a male soldier to do, since Muh Sexism Muh IG if you light into them as you would any other (male) private that's below the standard by choice. So I say, even if they never go into "right proper combat arms" it's a good thing.

I don't think that if/when combat arms fully opens up, there's going to be a huge mad dash for female infantrymen. I also don't think there's going to be a huge change like everyone's rabbling about OMG LOTSAMONEY TO INTEGRATE.... erm, we had individual sleeping quarters with a shared shitter and kitchenette at Batt when I left.  The only thing that would be done? Women would have to room together, which would end up most likely sucking for both of them because they'd be in different squads/platoons which means 2 different COC's inspecting the common area and rooms. So they'd actually have it just as hard as some of the guys who have to deal with that now.

Woods stuff? Chances are they wouldn't give a fuck about needing a shield for "their privacy" when using the slit trench.

Changing in the field? How often are you changing uniforms in the woods? It's socks and Tshirts... and she'll have a sports bra on, which is a super-bikini... oh noes, us Mens see less skin than we would at a beach, for a half second. Once again, pretty sure there wouldn't be girly girls joining to wear crossed rifles. 

They're all gonna get pregnant and fuck with morale? erm, that's a command handled, individual discipline issue.

Rape? Go ahead and TRY to rape the gGrunt in 2nd squad when you're in first squad, or in 3rd platoon when you're in first. See what the fuck happens when you TRY. You didn't just roll up in other people's AO's without damn good reason as it was, otherwise you'd get balled up. She'd just need to yell FIRST SQUAD and you'd be lucky to not see a modern day Decimation happen when they came upon their teammate being assaulted.

Rude commentary and masculine bravado currently displayed as we all know? It can go away, anyway. While it's a bit of a brotherhood thing, it generally doesn't add to mission capability although it does add humor to a shit situation when you're rigging up for the 8th time today and someone (I have no idea who would do this :-") decides to let the guys en-masse have a laugh at the Bn XO's expense by rigging up with his fly open enough for testicules to hang free. SQUAT HOLD... I would see the diversity of pornography being passed around increase since tastes vary anyway.

Extremely blunt, but that's what I see. I don't see the classic "protect the girl" mentality because it's not like we'd do anything DIFFERENT. Fuck man, I mean, come on. We already have, as just one example, stellar studs taking rounds then hucking back grenades, losing hands and still continuing to control the situation while TQ'ing and bandaging themselves... How can you get more intense than that? If someone loses their shit just because the gGrunt's team or squad is pinned down vs ANY OTHER TEAM/SQUAD/PLATOON? They shouldn't be in fucking charge.

The only thing that I can see as a possible issue.... Ranger school is a pinnacle event. You train up to that..... where Regiment as an example, is being in the "Triple Nickle" club. Performance on demand at any time. It remains yet to be seen if there are women in the military or who join in the future that are capable of not just training up to, but maintaining that capability for years on end.  Can't know unless you try. Give them the chance.

Discussion welcome on points raised, different perspectives may bring light. Especially welcome is past/current female servicemember perspective to provide contrast to how I see things.

Oh, and Lindy? I would.  The Apache pilot? If I was her Warrant as an example, I would feel comfort in that she'd be able to move on foot with some semblance of sense if we had to E&E. The MP? I would never be an MP anyway. Their leadership qualities are going to be enhanced by having attended, EVEN IF THEY HAD NEVER GRADUATED. Every one of the women who participated in this process, pass or fail, has gone back to their unit with something learned. Even if it's just a healthy dose of humility and enhanced respect for those who have gone and succeeded.


----------



## Loki (Aug 21, 2015)

This is a fascinating exchange on this topic and worth the watch. From a former female Navy Jet pilot. I think she addresses some real issues that only a woman can address. Well done!   Challenges facing women in the Armed Forces


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 21, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Florida173, number's higher than that.
> 
> I'd have to look back (and honestly don't care to) but it's >240 actually went to RPOOF or whatever the fuck they're calling the NG Pre-Ranger now.  Yes, I jest. No, they really did name it something dumb. Which means the grad rate is lower than that 1%...
> 
> ...



Will the bathroom  humor that men say and do be affected?
Do you forsee women  in RASP?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 21, 2015)

Women have just as much bathroom humor (points at RK) so I think that anyone who chooses to get into that environment will probably be felt out (perhaps a bad term) as much as the next guy.

I mean, fuck. I was assessed for sanity and willingness to execute an order on my 1st day with my squad. Enter chow hall for breakfast, everyone's nomming in PT's. No ranks displayed.  "Eyy Ranger, You see that big mf'er with the chin that looks like it's off something prehistoric? Go tell him chow times over and to get the fuck outa your seat"

That was from my TL.... and the individual I was to execute said event towards was CSM Beam, at the time the CSM of 3/75.  

If shit ain't funny, you just say it and it's respected. You might ask later why in a private setting, and if it's something to be of note then it gets shared amongst the group and you respect it for when applied to yourself, you would expect the same respect.

You will see women attempting RASP at some point, I would expect that there would be few that attempt, just like there was few that even attempted going to Ranger school.  Think about it. CNN said that in '13 there were 74,000 women IN THE ARMY.

<300 put forth submissions to attempt at Ranger school.
19 actually ended up GOING to school.
2 have graduated. 1 is still in the course currently.

I don't see a mass submission for women to head at Regiment, should it open. As it is, the majority of jobs are filled by 11 series. This is off of when I was in, so at this point dated information but still acceptably relevant...

Infantry company.
You have one to two supply. 
You have one to 2 NBC guys. 
1-2 Commo guys
4-5 Medics
4-5 FIST'ers. 

everything else is filled by Infantrymen.

That means you have 11-ish positions that COULD be filled by women, given current regulations regarding big army sexes allowed for jobs.  There's more jobs in HHC where women currently fill positions in the army at large in the same MOS, but you have to remember.... Ranger Regiment is smaller in manning than the entire SEAL community. The entire SF Regiment. I think the Recon community is smaller.  There's not a whole lot of jobs to fill anyway, other than 11B.

These women that just got their tab's? They're officers for one, and for two they both are in MOS'es that are irrelevant to Regiment.  

I don't see a huge press for women trying to apply to attend RASP. If under a half percent of the Army female component even THOUGHT about attempting Ranger school... how many do YOU think will ruck up for a walk?

To go further: Even in a totally "open army" as far as duty position and sex, I don't forsee a huge push to reclass nor a huge push from current or soon to be recruits to go infantry, let alone Ranger infantry. The numbers will probably end up being as they are now. You'd see maybe 400 or so make a hop to be infantry because they'd dig it (the fighting position, that is... hurr joke is hurr..) and thanks to the humble pie from Hooah High and the NGPRC......maybe at MOST 25 studettes go FUCK IT IMA GONNA BE A RANGAH.... then RASP kicks off, breaks it off, and you have maybe 2-4 graduates out of however many classes actually had females added.  It wouldn't take much to integrate (literally 1-2 barracks rooms with a door) during RASP, zero work in actual Regiment, and they'd either continually meet the standard or they would have their rucks hucked in the hall.

Oh yeah, did I mention that due to being a smaller component within the overall Regiment and the assigned Battalions, that the soft-skills eat their own moreso than the Infantry? NBC, FIST, Supply, Commo? The 3/75 Commo section as one very prime example was tight as shit in terms of capability and execution, but WHOLEY HELL I was glad when I went over there I was just turning in or signing out shit and didn't actually work there.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 21, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> Will the bathroom  humor that men say and do be affected??



Who cares. That shit isn't necessary for anything.


----------



## pardus (Aug 21, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Who cares. That shit isn't necessary for anything.



It is part of a culture that has black humor. That's a culture of fighting/killing/dealing with death and shitty situations, and is most certainly necessary in a military environment that wants to strive through adversity. 
Now, that "Humor" does not need to involve unnecessary demeaning putdowns (I have no tolerance for that personally and jump on it when I encounter it), but should not shy away from saying "SF are a bunch of grandads, PJ's are hair gelled mofos, Kiwi's are sheep shaggers (Aussies are far worse because they like to lick sheep curtains), SEALs are filmstar wannabes, ETC..."


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 21, 2015)

pardus said:


> It is part of a culture that has black humor. That's a culture of fighting/killing/dealing with death and shitty situations, and is most certainly necessary in a military environment that wants to strive through adversity.
> Now, that "Humor" does not need to involve unnecessary demeaning putdowns (I have no tolerance for that personally and jump on it when I encounter it), but should not shy away from saying "SF are a bunch of grandads, PJ's are hair gelled mofos, Kiwi's are sheep shaggers (Aussies are far worse because they like to lick sheep curtains), SEALs are filmstar wannabes, ETC..."



Yeah but that and bathroom humor are different. You can easily be funny in a co-ed experience.


----------



## pardus (Aug 21, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah but that and bathroom humor are different. You can easily be funny in a co-ed experience.



Yes agreed.


Farts are still funny though.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 22, 2015)

This is my problem: Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course


----------



## Grunt (Aug 22, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> This is my problem: Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course



Thus will begin the ever present slippery slope of no return. I have no issues with who they choose to attend, but I don't agree with changing requirements in order to make the course fit the candidates rather than the candidates improve from the course.


----------



## Loki (Aug 22, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> This is my problem: Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course



Hopefully this will not happen, it will validate the greatest fears of all and undermine the entire process and create animosity.  This is all bad, if it happens. This changes the objective of the course intent and the desired end product, in my opinion. 

Respectfully


----------



## digrar (Aug 22, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> The only thing that I can see as a possible issue.... Ranger school is a pinnacle event. You train up to that..... where Regiment as an example, is being in the "Triple Nickle" club. Performance on demand at any time. It remains yet to be seen if there are women in the military or who join in the future that are capable of not just training up to, but maintaining that capability for years on end.  Can't know unless you try. Give them the chance.



That was one of my issues with the next step of having females in Infantry units. It's one thing to train up for a course, it's another to endure the grind for any decent period of time.


----------



## CDG (Aug 22, 2015)

digrar said:


> That was one of my issues with the next step of having females in Infantry units. It's one thing to train up for a course, it's another to endure the grind for any decent period of time.



And this is the issue no one is addressing.  Again, like in the article Marauder06 posted a couple pages back, it's nothing more than badge/tab chasing.  They want a school or course opened to get something shiny, and then what?  How many are going to be willing to continue to put in work?  And then how many are going to sit back and cry "SEXISM" when they're asked to actually perform, instead of just making it through a school or course. The pressure is already being applied from people with no clue what can of worms they're opening.  Maybe the standards in this last Ranger class were the same, maybe they weren't.  But given all the pressure from the top, I find it highly unlikely there were not at least informal meetings about getting some of the women through.  Now the USMC is facing backlash because women couldn't pass the IOC.  "We won't lower standards, that's not what this is about!"  Yeah, so, no women passed the IOC.  "We need to lower standards, this is ridiculous!"


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 22, 2015)

I've been looking and I have not found any actual women calling for the lowering of standards or being allowed into these courses. At least no women that they themselves would be physically capable. What gives?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 22, 2015)

CDG:

Considering one specific guy I served with is a Sergeant Major @ RTB, and has a serious no fucks given attitude about his career (strange he's made it this far, honestly)... If they had modified the standards in any way from what things are "normally" beyond the meager accommodations provided for the females the minimal time they get to stay in barracks, and a modification to the usual middle-of-everyone-shit-while-listening-to-opord slit trench? There wasn't shit changed, and if there was he'd be popping star clusters like a motherfucker about it everywhere he could to bring attention to things being modified that were actually standard-related as far as what "matters" IE, field time, field gear, loads, packing lists, patrols. He's quoted in a couple of the articles. The loads, the training, the missions, the equipment... were all the same as the last class.  Ranger school is a continual flux in an attempt to maintain relevance with regards to both doctrine and current operation methods. More towards doctrine, though.

Example: 5-99, Zero week ("acclimation" plus additional training) for everyone that could attend prior to RAP. If you passed the PT test and Land nav during Zero, you could avoid them in RAP. PT test and buddy run executed in boots/bdu's sans top. "Ranger Stakes" basically baby EIB. 5 mile was also in boots/bdu's sans top IIRC. No class on rucksack poncho raft.
5-00, no zero week, everything in RAP week, no Ranger stakes, PT test in PT's, Buddy run in bdu's and running shoes, 5 mile in PT's. Poncho raft and half mile swim in boots/bdu's around a zodiac on Victory Pond as a buddy team... which I ended up fucking towing my Ranger buddy on. 

Classes vary also in terms of execution and have rather large contingency plans for continuing training regardless of environment. Are you "getting over" in Ranger School when it's hurricane season and you're literally doing all bay planning with no actual execution of the mission? Yep. 

Do you see anyone bitching about Tabs from the classes that have done that, without women, where a fuckpile of men got Go's doing effectively paperwork only (and a sand table.. woo so hard)? Nope.  

Do you see people bitching because there weren't birds for them to jump in Darby, into Mountains, into Florida, into the FTX in florida? It's the standard to do so, isn't it?  Nope, you won't hear that shit. 

Hell, my first time in mountains we had no helos. Second time, we had helos. Same thing between the two times I got to do Darby.  We didn't jump into Florida at all my first time nor did the final mission as intended due to weather conditions, the incoming class jumped the 2nd time and we jumped in, did the final mission like normal.

_MUH STANDARDS, ad nausem._

Arguments about badge/tab chasing can be nullified when you take into account that it's literally EXPECTED for every infantry officer to get their shit, period. Don't got a tab as an infantry officer? You'll be lucky to make it past Captain.  Ranger school is 2+ months of suck and exhibition of trained and inherent ability with some minute aspects of "you got fucked, sucks to be you" thrown into the mix at times due to group execution, individual grade.  

Everyone who's been to school, grad or not, knows full well that every patrol isn't just on the leaders ability. One motherfucker can fuck it up for everyone in a graded position, and even have a domino effect that fucks it up further for more than just that single graded COC. These women earned their shit, and were carried BY just as much as THEY carried the troops to their left and right in those platoons. If they hadn't, they would have been peered. They didn't get peered out, they got peered well. 

If the Corps lowers the standards.... well, then I don't know what the fuck to say, other than a virtual desk flip (Only virtual though, I like my desk and my monitors now) followed by a full guttoral WHAT THE FUUUUUCCCKKKKK ARE YOU THINKING oriented at HQMC or whatever the hell you call it.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 22, 2015)

Given, my experience is only one person, and the experiences of others can and will be different, but here goes nothin'...

Any females that are truly interested in taking the infantry route don't want to see the standards degraded.  The females that look at their function in Army life without a feminist filter will train themselves to meet the male standard physically if they are so inclined.  I can't attest to how many would be interested in actually earning a scroll or living la vida infantry, but I'm reasonably certain that number is quite low, and I'm pretty sure that the majority of the ones who are interested aren't going to be interested in breeding anytime soon, if ever, and not solely because of sexual orientation.  Mother Army had better up their supply of IUD's or Essure, because those are the most effective means of inoculating against the physical side effects of "baby rabies."

That said, the reproductive biological clock is not the only clock ticking for females that choose this route; it's just the one that is easily ignored.  Females are physiologically different from males.  Period.  That's it.  The physical rigors that will be expected of them to maintain the male standard for an extended period of time, especially in Regiment, will wear them down faster than it will their male peers.  Not every female is going to have the physical constitution of Rhonda Rousey for years on end, and who's to say that Rhonda will be able to maintain her level of fitness for 20 years?  Hell, she has the luxury of being able to slack off and put on a couple of lbs during the off season when she's not prepping for a fight; Mother Army and the Benning School For Wayward Boys doesn't have an off season (unless you count leave time).  

Before I popped out Smallish Child at the age of 28, I could crank out 70-someodd pushups, nearly as many situps, and a 15:30-ish 2 mile run time (yeah, I'm a slow mofo, sue me) for my PT test.  I never really recovered my run time afterwards, but I'm not sure if that was pregnancy related, or a physical side effect of OIF 1 (keep in mind I did also deliver a live birth ten years prior and recovered from that quite well). However, once I hit 30, I started to encounter the occasional sprain or strain that I didn't worry about before.  My body started to break down, and injuries that I never personally endured --and scoffed at in my ignorance-- were suddenly a real thing for me to deal with.  Tendonitis in various places, knee problems, hip issues, and shin splints (one time problem) were suddenly things that I had to account for when I planned my workouts.  Yes, it happens to males as they get older, too.  Yes, if I were a little more physically fit, I might have been able to stave off the breakdown a little longer, but it didn't work out that way.  

Now, here I am at 39, and I still can't do more than 5 pushups without feeling a very sharp pain in a line that runs between my bicep and tricep from elbow to shoulder in my left arm, thanks to my doing one set of pull-ups too many during team PT four years ago, and I'm crossing my fingers that I won't need a hip replacement until I'm closer to 60.  Maintaining the male Army standard for fitness, or close to it, broke me down, and I wasn't even infantry or airborne.  However, slinging 100lb+ robots, 15m antenna mast assembly bags, or single drawer field safes without a partner to lift was something that I had to do from time to time over the course of my 10.5 year career.  It most certainly earned respect from my male peers, not to mention the reputation that I would physically damage you beyond repair in a bar fight, but it also earned me various aches and pains that don't really go away for long at an age where I shouldn't have that problem.  Social engineering is not ever going to mitigate that reality for the "average" female once she embarks on a career involving regular ruck marches, heavy gear, and a side order of jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.  It may not effect every infantry female at an early age; some females may break down at the same age as their male peers, but who's to say that it will be at the same rate or degree.

Getting into the social acclimation of females in the world of infantry, RP makes a good point.  The females who are cut out for a career in infantry aren't going to be the ones who are easily offended, nor throw the EO flag on the field if they get hit with a joke they didn't particularly find funny once it was levied at themselves.  Females assimilating into the motor pool or team room won't be as painful as some folks would think, at least once the novelty wears off.  Women who have absolutely zero issues with, and excel at shooting a motherfucker in the face that had it coming are wired differently than Suzy Homemaker and her ilk.  It's only going to be when they come across the ones who think the Army should never have gone co-ed to start with decades ago that you'll have issues, and you'll run across males of that persuasion in all walks of Army life.

One of the very first things I would do when my team acquired a new security element from a grunt unit was assure them that after hanging around me long enough, they would learn new and exciting ways to use "shit, piss, fuck, suck, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits, fart, turd and twat" (thank you, Blink 182) in a sentence.  Once the look of shock and horror passed from their faces, typically after some private giggled and stage-whispered "She said twat," my infantry/cav/arty/engineer guys would visibly loosen up, and goddamn if they wouldn't give 110% plus some every time my team had to go out on a mission.  As the only female tech in the company, and oftentimes the first military female they'd worked alongside, I was a novelty to them, and they appreciated that I assimilated into their world, rather than try to change them to fit into the land of estrogen.  In fact, one infantry SSG in one of my last dedicated security teams told me that they made the effort to strike up a conversation with me at least once a day just so they could hear me say something so inherently fucked up that it called their sanity into question just for hearing it.  

The hard core, foul mouth, perverse, violent persona that I cultivated served to put them at ease.  They knew I wasn't looking to be handled with kid gloves, and they didn't have to worry about me trying to mate with another team member because I was one of the guys.  I know that there are other females out there of a similar mindset; however, we are a distinct minority.  Those females, few as they may be, will be the ones that have a chance to really shine if they choose to make "killin' folks who needed killin'" a career.  The fact that they are "blazing a trail" for females in the future really won't be more than window dressing to their dedication to accomplishing the mission.  The ones that do it for the expressed purpose of "being the first," or making some kind of statement for feminism are probably going to be the ones who are, at best, mediocre shield maidens who couldn't find their asses with GPS directions and neon signs marking the target.


----------



## Loki (Aug 22, 2015)

Another opinion from a former Ranger 
OPINION:  Ranger School is Dead


----------



## pardus (Aug 22, 2015)

Loki said:


> Another opinion from a former Ranger
> OPINION:  Ranger School is Dead



I don't think he was a Ranger.


----------



## medicchick (Aug 22, 2015)

pardus said:


> I don't think he was a Ranger.


His bio says he went through Ranger school.

TYR Group LLC - John Hurth


> Some of John’s military training includes:
> 
> The U.S. Army’s Special Forces Qualification Course
> *U.S. Army Ranger School*
> ...


----------



## pardus (Aug 22, 2015)

medicchick said:


> His bio says he went through Ranger school.
> 
> TYR Group LLC - John Hurth



Yeah, just the school from my understanding.


----------



## AWP (Aug 22, 2015)

In my best Admin voice:

This thread is becoming circular in logic and arguments. Some want it locked, but I disagree. I will say that it is only staying open for two reasons:
1. When something new comes to light. Not RUMINT, not a Facebook post, not some blog, but something serious from a reputable source. If you don't know what that looks like, PM me.
2. The "That Guy Rapture." We all know "that guy" and in this case he's the one who will ignore 24 pages of posts, maybe quote one post, but he will drop his opinion on us...and we don't care. Like I said, we're making the same points over and over so a new voice without new information is just noise. Don't be that guy. Don't make me call you out because you couldn't read the thread or missed this post or whatever. Do. Not. Be. THAT GUY.

Counter arguments are done. New info or GTFO.

ETA: The post above was made as I typed, so this isn't in reaction to said post.

#ThatGuyMatters


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 23, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> Given, my experience is only one person, and the experiences of others can and will be different, but here goes nothin'...
> 
> Any females that are truly interested in taking the infantry route don't want to see the standards degraded.  The females that look at their function in Army life without a feminist filter will train themselves to meet the male standard physically if they are so inclined.  I can't attest to how many would be interested in actually earning a scroll or living la vida infantry, but I'm reasonably certain that number is quite low, and I'm pretty sure that the majority of the ones who are interested aren't going to be interested in breeding anytime soon, if ever, and not solely because of sexual orientation.  Mother Army had better up their supply of IUD's or Essure, because those are the most effective means of inoculating against the physical side effects of "baby rabies."
> 
> ...



A very informative and well written post RK. It does give me new perspective on women in the armed force and the possible future of women in the combat arms. I suppose it can be done if your model ( you) holds true.


----------



## Centermass (Aug 23, 2015)

lindy said:


> Would YOU fight alongside or follow them in combat?



If you've been on this board long enough, most know my feelings regarding women on the front lines. 

To answer your question, Yes, but only if it's @racing_kitty.


----------



## AWP (Aug 23, 2015)

Jesus Christ... WTF guys? Seriously... My post was too long? Not written in English? Is this a test? I like both of you and yet...

Sigh...


----------



## Centermass (Dec 3, 2015)

As a side note, CSM Thetford is one of the last Grenada Rangers still on AD. 

Ash Carter and our President, both of whom, have NO actual military experience, are doing great things for our country......


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 3, 2015)

Well, being totally honest... and as I have said personally before:  D cups or danglenuts, I wouldn't have personally given a shit provided they met the Ranger standard. Will many step up, nevermind achieve the standard? That has yet to be seen. I honestly can't see any women stepping up to the plate that wouldn't have some inkling, between hearsay, RASP holdover into actually participating in RASP, as to what kind of an environment, expectations, and overall structure they're trying to get into has. It's not like there's much dark about Regiment regarding THAT, if one even slightly looks around and asks questions regarding how things were/are.

You might see an influx of women who go totally balls to the wall and studette out because they are capable and haven't been able to do so until now. You might see the token 1/2 women go to RASP and bolo in a spectacular fashion not seen since the last extinction level event on this planet.  Won't know if there are those who are truly capable until they try, and won't know if they are sustainable at SOF Optempos for "expected service lifetimes" until they do. 

But, I can say that I am absoFUCKINGtootly pleased to see that the bar is set, in exactly the same position it has been (and even raised, considering RPAT/etc vs PT test + 5 mile + pullups of the past as a baseline).  Speaking solely from a Batt standpoint, the barracks infrastructure at home stations supports having a mixed environment.

If anything, I actually see more steadfast adherence to The Standard within Regiment, with absolute transparency regarding performance for the failures and successes, than within Hooah High. 

The only thing that will require some adjustment is the company locker areas, and even that can be solved by a small shift in terms of AO uniform requirements IE minimum uniform PT's. Couple that with supply spending maybe $100 a company in local purchase hard end items for 2x walmart extendable shower rods and associated shower curtain hangers per squad to put up inside and outside squad areas and 2x extra ponchos per squad bay from CIF to hang up as curtains to make the area strip-down friendly in a mixed gender environment, when it's necessary to do a total uniform swap.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 4, 2015)

The standards remain, but the door is open.  Everyone meets/exceeds the standards, everyone does the job.  Suck it up, you either get through the selection/training to join the unit or you don't.  If you don't meet/maintain the standard, buh-bye, nice seeing you, maybe you can play again at a later date, when you are ready.


----------



## AWP (Dec 4, 2015)

I'm skeptical the standards will remain the same, but time will tell.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 4, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I'm skeptical the standards will remain the same, but time will tell.


Combat standards will never change, training standards will lower.
This will increase the number of women in the system, and increase the number of men who make it through.
Manning problem solved.


----------



## AWP (Dec 4, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Combat standards will never change, training standards will lower.
> This will increase the number of women in the system, and increase the number of men who make it through.
> Manning problem solved.



My SWAG is the standards will initially be maintained. At some point some Congressman or Senator will (probably due to public scrutiny) ask the respective service chiefs why more women don't make it through. The mantra of "standards" will be advanced but quietly pressure will be applied or instructors told to look the other way until the numbers are better. This will be a slow process and "standards erosion" won't begin until this is out of the limelight or after 1 or 2 women make it through some pipeline or another. By then almost everyone involved in this decision will be out of uniform and the new crew more concerned with the next grade than those pesky standards.

The military will continue to remain a massive hypocrite factory as the standards are upheld in SOF or combat arms units, but the rest will continue to have separate PT thresh holds. Hell, the Marines flat out told SECNAV and SECDEF this was a bad idea and they told the Corps to eat a dick.

So yeah, I don't buy the line about "standards" but we'll just have to wait and see what happens. This party IS happening and all we can do is ride along and watch.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 4, 2015)

Nobody at RASP was ever worried about being promoted....   and your statement just highlights the fucksickle that is "other than SOF"...


----------



## 104TN (Dec 4, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I'm skeptical the standards will remain the same, but time will tell.


Logistically I don't think it'll be possible for standards to remain unchanged. What'll really impact if/how much standards change will be the number of women that want into Combat Arms/SOF.

Consider Army OSUT for any Combat Arms MOS. I have 0 clue how USAREC & TRADOC are going to handle the requirement to ensure everyone that wants a shot at a Combat Arms MOS gets one, but my hunch is that at some point they're going to have to set aside some slots to guarantee an equal opportunity to attend training. If that happens, attrition will have to be scrutinized/adjusted for out of necessity as there's still unit manning and readiness to consider. 

Eventually that'll lead to one of two things happening (please chime in if you can think of any other outcomes):

Each OSUT facility will need to increase its bandwidth (up the number of bodies they can accommodate during a training cycle)

Each OSUT facility will need to increase its throughput (up the number of bodies they output at the end of a training cycle)
Given that budgets are shrinking, I can't imagine #1 would happen any time soon. That leaves #2 (baring any other options you all introduce) - which means standards will have to change or be gender specific so line units get the bodies they need. 

Thoughts? Would this rationale hold true for other services and SOF pipelines too?


----------



## AWP (Dec 4, 2015)

rick said:


> Thoughts? Would this rationale hold true for other services and SOF pipelines too?



I'm going to take the services at face value and presume that women will be integrated into units and training with the minimal effort and money necessary and that the standards will be maintained.
1. You don't increase the number of training slots, you just open those to women. Ranger School setting aside slots was for testing, but in the real world where everyone's equal, the number of slots won't change with women vying for them alongside their male counterparts. Let's say the Army needs 10,000 (or whatever number) new 11B's this year, 10,000 contracts go to recruiting command, and the first 10k qualified recruits are taken into the pipeline. To me that sounds fair and equal....unless I'm missing something.
2. HR Command maintains metrics. All HR organizations maintain metrics, so HRC knows that historically x recruits equals y MOSQ soldiers. It uses that stat along with others to determine how many training slots are needed (assuming a pipeline can accommodate them, but that's a different issue).
3. Now women come into the picture. If they fail at greater numbers than their male counterparts (very likely) the Army is down to fewer MOSQ 11B's going to line companies.

Boom. Now what? The Army has to make up that shortfall. It either restricts the # of female enlistees or finds a way for them to pass at the same rate as the males.

For different reasons I think SOF will eventually fold, but it will take years.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 4, 2015)

I've seen it happen. Somebody bitches, gets a lawyer or goes to the media, claims predjudicial treatment, stirs up the shit and the powers-that-be fall all over themselves to cover their ass and look PC...and even standards written in stone can be degraded.



DA SWO said:


> Combat standards will never change, training standards will lower.


 
And people can die.


----------



## Brill (Dec 4, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I'm skeptical the standards will remain the same, but time will tell.



Did Airborne training change? I didn't do pull ups...didn't run anywhere except jump week back in 2010.


----------



## AWP (Dec 4, 2015)

lindy said:


> Did Airborne training change? I didn't do pull ups...didn't run anywhere except jump week back in 2010.



While I think it has fluctuated somewhat since I went through in '93, I would say there's an overall decline. We didn't take a pT test but I know classes after ours did take PT tests. We did pullups while female students did the 3' bar inverted, legs out whatever pullup. Our runs were 9 min. miles almost to the second with every female in the front ranks.

They've cleared changed and not for the better.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 4, 2015)

lindy said:


> Did Airborne training change? I didn't do pull ups...didn't run anywhere except jump week back in 2010.





Freefalling said:


> While I think it has fluctuated somewhat since I went through in '93, I would say there's an overall decline. We didn't take a pT test but I know classes after ours did take PT tests. We did pullups while female students did the 3' bar inverted, legs out whatever pullup. Our runs were 9 min. miles almost to the second with every female in the front ranks.
> 
> They've cleared changed and not for the better.



I took a PT test to get into BAC, and our final (after the run) exercise was 10 pull-ups, (with the women getting the 3' bar).
Justification for double PT standard was men were being tested for Combat (Arms) Fitness, women were support.
I see a slew of lawsuits in the near future with the government losing most of them.
The ladies got their wish for equality, hope it works well for them.


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 4, 2015)

Come Hell or high water.  The list of jobs opened, by branch, is in this link here.

All combat jobs open to women in the military



> The Defense Department will lift all gender-based restrictions on military service starting in January, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.
> 
> The historic change will clear the way for women to serve alongside men in combat arms units.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brill (Dec 4, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Justification for double PT standard was men were being tested for Combat (Arms) Fitness, *women were support.*



Uh...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 4, 2015)

Come join us in good conversation!

(Jib Jab)

USSOCOM Official Statement On Women Within SOF Units


----------



## AWP (Dec 4, 2015)

I just merged three very similar threads.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 4, 2015)

Let me add,The AF went down this road already.
When flight training opened to women the pressure was on to graduate females.  I went to SOS in 1988 (?), we had two AFA grads from the same class, one was a soup sandwich, and one ok.  The soup sandwich was a female KC-135 Pilot, the other guy washed out of UPT and was a Nav.
They were in the same UPT class, and both failed the same check ride, he failed a re-check and went to Nav School; per multiple sources she failed the re-check and got another checkride which she passed.
Same standards right?

When Clinton was President we opened fighters to women, the AF and Navy raced to see who could get the first combat ready female fighter pilot.  The Navy won, and she planted her F-14 into the stern of a carrier on her first operational landing.  RIO survived, she didn't.  Her Pilot Training Records were leaked by a disgruntled instructor, and we found that she was rushed through the system (some say she didn't meet fighter pilot criteria, I won't go that far).

The first female C-ALO couldn't pass her PT test, so PT test was dropped from the officer standard (they shouldn't be leaving the FOB, that's swine, err, enlisted work).

Bottom line, standards were waived for a female to achieve.
Management talks the talk, but a standard should not stop me from getting those Eagles, or a(nother) star.

I trust the enlisted women more than I trust the officers, female officers pushing this have whined being support hurt their careers (it'a all about me, #1).  The first females into Regiment are probably your recent Ranger School grads, getting staff jobs at Rgt HQ.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 4, 2015)

WTF is a gender-nuetral standard?

I had an A&S package that was rejected in 2012 because of my time in grade. I bet if I self-identify as a woman Ash Carter Inc. will intervene on my behalf and I'll have a seat immediately. I'm not against progression, I'm against weakness.

At least our Commandant keeps it real.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 4, 2015)

To be honest, we need to go full Starship Troopers on this, but that won't happen.  In my unit we had the first female FSO in the Division and probably the Army qualify on her Bradley.  It was not a Q1, but it wasn't her problem that they weren't a Q1...eight of those engagements were on her gunner.  The two she shot she hit in the 80s and 90s.  She's a studette...but she's tiny, she hasn't gone on long duration patrols that we used to do before we went back to our MTOE fleet.  She's a part of team, and gets that there's humor and dishes it right back out.  I know the Mortar NCOs and they've taken care and aided in her mentorship, she has repaid them by being a solid leader.

Scouts Out.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 5, 2015)

We dont *need *to do shit and that mentality created this mess. 

Your experience with a balls-to-the-wall soldier doesn't change the fact that the door is now wide-open to gender equality. That means lower standards, that means politics, and that means the integrity of it all (our community) is at risk to comprimise.

Not worth it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 5, 2015)

This whole thread reminds me of a very old science fiction book I read many years ago titled, Harrison Bergeron. (short plot synopsis within link)

From Wiki -
Harrison Bergeron is a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut and first published in October 1961. 

The story was written as a satire to offer a critique on people's claims that we should all be equal. It has been embraced by those critical of egalitarianism as an allegory of caution against socially enforced equality, more specifically the dangers of enforcing equality by virtue of leveling


----------



## x SF med (Dec 5, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> This whole thread reminds me of a very old science fiction book I read many years ago titled, Harrison Bergeron. (short plot synopsis within link)
> 
> From Wiki -
> Harrison Bergeron is a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut and first published in October 1961.
> ...




A MARINE bringing up Vonnegut's story of a way beyond standard person in a less than mediocre society?  I'm surprised 1. that you've read it, and 2. that you understood it.

I've always liked the story, and it is germane to the discussion.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 5, 2015)

Years ago the pressure on those who ran certain highly specialized or high tech military courses or schools was racial in nature. The word comes down "You _will _pass this candidate." The consequences to your career are left unspoken. No reason it can't happen now with regard to sex.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 5, 2015)

In the British Army, regular units are open to women, SOF are not.  But, from what I've seen and others can correct me...the standard is very high for the men and the women who serve in Combat Arms units must meet those standards which is why there are so few.


----------



## digrar (Dec 5, 2015)

Unsure about the Brits, but we've been open to in service applicants for 2 years, and off the streets applicants start next year. So far we have one female officer serving at the school of foot, who I believe is close to standard, but not quite there. I've hear that she won't be going out to one of the Battalions. We've had about 3 women attempt SASR and 2 Commando selection. They were not even close to making the standard. 
Armoured, Artillery and Engineers have had some more success with integration.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 6, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> This whole thread reminds me of a very old science fiction book I read many years ago titled, Harrison Bergeron. (short plot synopsis within link)
> 
> From Wiki -
> Harrison Bergeron is a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut and first published in October 1961.
> ...



I just read it. I've always liked Vonnegut.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 13, 2015)

Allen West on the apparent shredding of the female Ranger's school records.

As Obama ORDERS women in combat, look what we discovered about female Army Rangers!


----------



## Brill (Dec 13, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> Allen West on the apparent shredding of the female Ranger's school records.
> 
> As Obama ORDERS women in combat, look what we discovered about female Army Rangers!



Key takeaway from that editorial:

"There is a huge difference between being in a combat zone and being in close quarters combat."


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 13, 2015)

So not even a 1059 is available?


----------



## x SF med (Dec 14, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> So not even a 1059 is available?



They are asking for backups to the 1059's...  IOW, the instructor cards that backup the SAT's/MCS's on the 1059...  but, alas, the backup is gone for these 3 graduates.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 14, 2015)

Really mind boggling that they would destroy everything, is that common practice?


----------



## Centermass (Dec 14, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Really mind boggling that they would destroy everything, is that common practice?



No, it's not. Mine and just about everyone else's records are still on file.

A Ranger Buddy of mine smelled something was fishy and initiated the request to Russell. In the past, he's been dead on, 100% and in this case, I feel no different.    

Colonel Fivecoat needs to be called to the carpet and explain this phenomena. Seems lately, that everyone from Lerner, Hillary, and anyone else that has been linked to this administration with a pending scandal about to be exposed, has disappearing files, e-mails and records.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 14, 2015)

So if they can't produce anything...tabs?  That's how this goes right?  Stolen Valor and stories you tell at a Bar?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 14, 2015)

Dude, they got permanent orders awarding the tab.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 14, 2015)

Well, so much for transparency......way to start with a controversial issue :wall:


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 15, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Dude, they got permanent orders awarding the tab.



No order is permanent, if you're a complete and utter shitbag it can be stripped, same as you can lose a long tab if you're an absolute douchenozzle.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 15, 2015)

Well the orders actually say "Permanent Order #" but yeah, you are right they can be revoked.


----------



## AWP (Dec 15, 2015)

Their training records disappeared? How many of their male classmates' records have disappeared?

Tabs, wings, badges, etc. can be revoked. These won't so we can forget about that conversation. They could walk into the Vatican munching on a baby's head and keep their tabs.


----------



## Brill (Dec 15, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Their training records disappeared? How many of their male classmates' records have disappeared?
> 
> Tabs, wings, badges, etc. can be revoked. These won't so we can forget about that conversation. They could walk into the Vatican munching on a baby's head and keep their tabs.



Are we sure they are who we were told they are? Looks to me like some GLG-20s on their way to Dushanbe!


----------



## Lunch Pail (Dec 17, 2015)

This is from Loren "notaseal" Schofield's blog (Sofrep and Havok Journal writer) : First Female Non-Infantry Qualified Drill Instructor Will Start Training Future Infantrymen

The actual article from Fort Bliss Bugle: ‘Ready First’ Soldier breaks infantry boundary as a female | Fort Bliss Bugle

I will withhold my opinion, unless asked for, as it holds no water due to lack of experience, but looks like I have a chance to be one of the first with a female DI at 11x OSUT.

Additionally, here is the Rand report about considerations for integrating women in SOF.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 17, 2015)

Lunch Pail said:


> This is from Loren "notaseal" Schofield's blog (Sofrep and Havok Journal writer) : First Female Non-Infantry Qualified Drill Instructor Will Start Training Future Infantrymen
> 
> The actual article from Fort Bliss Bugle: ‘Ready First’ Soldier breaks infantry boundary as a female | Fort Bliss Bugle
> 
> ...




That female drill is in for a rude awakening at sand hill, we'll see how much shit she talks on the stairway to heaven (12 miles up at a 15 minute pace).


----------



## Lunch Pail (Dec 17, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> That female drill is in for a rude awakening at sand hill, we'll see how much shit she talks on the stairway to heaven (12 miles up at a 15 minute pace).



According to the PT Test results Mr. Schofield provided, I think everyone will still be recovering from trying to keep up on her blistering 15:48 2 mile.


----------



## Poccington (Dec 17, 2015)

She'll certainly keep up on the ruck marches... If they make all the recruits crawl.

15:48 for a 2 mile run... Fuck. Off.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 17, 2015)

Oh man, of course they'd come from 1st BDE...


----------



## pardus (Dec 17, 2015)

Lunch Pail said:


> According to the PT Test results Mr. Schofield provided, I think everyone will still be recovering from trying to keep up on her blistering 15:48 2 mile.



Have you done a single PT test in the Army yet?

let me give you some advice for free, STFU.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 18, 2015)

Lunch Pail said:


> I will withhold my opinion, unless asked for, as it holds no water due to lack of experience, but looks like I have a chance to be one of the first with a female DI at 11x OSUT.



Feel free to address those men and women wearing campaign hats at Fort Benning as Drill Instructor. Let us know how that works out for you. 

You have some research to do before you get to Fort Benning.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2015)

Met a drill CPL, once, but I don't think it was his first time making E4 and pretty sure he was waiting on orders to a line unit. Not at Benning, Ft Sill of all places.


----------



## Lunch Pail (Dec 18, 2015)

@pardus @policemedic @Diamondback 2/2 -Understood.  Those comments were out of line and disrespectful. Will not happen again.  Apologies for the derail.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 18, 2015)

I can't imagine the Corps ever going in for female DIs at male MCRD or at SOI...but since Obama took office every day is a crap shoot.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 20, 2015)

The last bullet...gender neutral standards...yeah right.  Everything is in favor of women in the military.

Obama signs defense bill, finalizing military retirement overhaul


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 20, 2015)

Fucking stupid.


----------



## DocIllinois (Dec 20, 2015)

So what's the intended endstate for military personnel here?  

This?   :-/


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 20, 2015)

DocIllinois said:


> So what's the intended endstate for military personnel here?
> 
> This?   :-/



Perhaps with the same IQ too. Our leadership by the POTUS after Bush, has done some wonderful things with, to, and for our military. Stay tunned, his final year may be the most exciting yet:wall:?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 20, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> The last bullet...gender neutral standards...yeah right.  Everything is in favor of women in the military.
> 
> Obama signs defense bill, finalizing military retirement overhaul



I know you're cav, and an officer to boot, but are you truly that dense? I mean, pretty much everyone here agreed that in order to do be able to have an genderless requirement, a single standard was going to have to come about in lieu of the current unequal ranking of men and women in the service. 

It was going to get called gender neutral as that's the term these days.

You can nail in the coffin and rabble all you want, but for one you're not in a field that's under much threat of female infiltration or has much in the way of standards anyway so I don't really see what you're bawwing about.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 21, 2015)

I'm not worried about any female infiltration, I'm in favor of their being one standard, but make the standard high not lower.  Reminds me of when VMI went to two physical standards rather than one, the female Standards became tremendously degraded...but the male standard also degraded.  We either do this the correct way, or we have a huge impact on readiness.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 9, 2016)

Semper Fi, General Kelly.

General's 'greatest fear' that military might lower standards for women

_WASHINGTON — The military will face pressure to lower standards in the future, if women are unable to meet the physical requirements to join front-line combat units or elite fighting forces, a ranking Marine Corps general said Friday.

Calling it his “greatest fear,” Gen. John F. Kelly, the commander of U.S. Southern Command who is slated to retire at the end of the month, predicted few female troops would be able to meet the physical demands in the traditionally all-male military occupations – primarily in the infantry, armor and special operations fields.

“There will be great pressure, whether it’s 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we’ve let women into these other roles, why aren’t they staying in those other roles?” Kelly told reporters Friday at the Pentagon. “And the answer is … if we don’t change standards it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers – any real numbers – come into the infantry, or the Rangers or the SEALs.”_


----------



## Kheenbish (Jan 9, 2016)

I recently went to an "All Call" hosted by CSM Thetford, the Senior Enlisted Advisor of SOCOM, and he promised standards wouldn't be changed. He said the problem wasn't the products coming out of  selections for special operations career fields, those have proven to pick the best for the job, but the problem was just allowing woman to participate. Did I believe him? Yes, but he won't be the one making the final decisions just a very big input into the matter.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jan 18, 2016)

An excellent article on this subject.

Thank you, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Newbold.  Outstanding thoughts.


*What Tempers the Steel of an Infantry Unit*


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 19, 2016)

I have tried to qualify this to men and women.  To me what it comes down to is 'trust.'  I hate the military-sports analogy...._but_, like on a football team, you have to have total, implacable, and instant trust that your teammate has your back, 100% of the time; as you have his.  he knows his role as you know yours.  You know what he is thinking when he is thinking it.  Am I saying this cannot be built with women?  That's exactly what I am saying.

I have been married 16, almost 17, years.  To this day  while I trust my wife I can never tell what she is thinking, I can never tell how she is going to react to me, and only because of God's law of marriage I am confident that no matter what I say or do she will not turn me into the chain of command/human resources for improper conduct/speech/whatever.

Because I have been with both all-male infantry units and mixed-gender non-infantry units I understand the differences in how these units operate.  I will say in the mixed-gender ones just did not know how a female was going to react to any amount of assgrabbery or shenanigans.  It was not uncommon for one guy to call another guy a pussy and be turned into the CoC by a female who just happened to overhear the comment and therefore needed to report a hostile work environment.

Any infantry unit, plain-Jane (see what I did there??), special operation, or otherwise, would spend that split second questioning a remark, a look, an utterance, instead of spending that split second doing what they are supposed to be doing, and it will cost lives.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 19, 2016)

Women....can't live with em...pass the beer nuts.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 19, 2016)

> "Don't Take The Girl"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So I was reading this thread again, and thought of the Tim McGraw song "don't take the girl" and than decided it needed a rewrite of the lyrics. lol, I hope none of my sisters in arms take any offense, as its meant as a joke, but bring on the hate if you must.


----------



## metalmom (Jan 19, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> So I was reading this thread again, and thought of the Tim McGraw song "don't take the girl" and than decided it needed a rewrite of the lyrics. lol, I hope none of my sisters in arms take any offense, as its meant as a joke, but bring on the hate if you must.


 This sister wont be hating on you. Just might have to slap you silly if we ever meet.haha. Great thread-but just starting to read it and have a ton to say already but want to read it all first. Be back with my 2 cents worth tomorrow.


----------



## CDG (Jan 22, 2016)

MARSOC has its first female applicants.

First Female Marines Apply to MARSOC | Military.com


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 22, 2016)

<snark on> I wonder if any of them are the ones that could not hack IOC? <snark off>

We knew it was coming.  So many questions.....standards?  CSO vs enablers? 

I will be curious to see where this goes.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 23, 2016)

Political pressure leads to numbers and quotas. And some swinging dick is always ready to give his superiors what they want to hear, and when it reaches the highest civilian political levels, what they want to hear are the numbers. They don't give a shit if Pfc Sally can't hump her share of squad organic gear, they want to be able to tell their media suck-ups how many Pfc Sallys they've passed through AIT or SOI or Ranger School or whatever.

And what do they mean by gender-neutral physical standards for CSOs? Are these the same standards MARSOC started out with, or have they been revised?


----------



## Grunt (Jan 23, 2016)

The fish rots from the head downward! Just short of another administration changing the policy, integration and standards will change.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jan 23, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> So I was reading this thread again, and thought of the Tim McGraw song "don't take the girl" and than decided it needed a rewrite of the lyrics. lol, I hope none of my sisters in arms take any offense, as its meant as a joke, but bring on the hate if you must.


----------



## metalmom (Jan 23, 2016)

Though I have read a lot of your thoughts and opinions I keep going back to what Viper 1 stated on the first page and fully agree with his opinion on all points. Back in the 80s there was a concern that if women were let into the Infantry-there would be a lot more male casualties because of their need to protect a female and 3 guys or more would run out to help her if she went down instead of maybe 1 or 2 to help their buddy Never bought that.When women were finally allowed in to Battle School I believe ony 1 or 2 made it. Rack is probably more in the know about that. I dont like what I heard if true that women are crying harassment down there unless it was a sexual offense. Im bringing up the old stuff because it is not much different from then than today. If someone can prove they are tough enough and qualify-whats the big deal. I for one am rooting for these women who are going after what they want and will stand behind them wishing them success. As Diamondback stated-bring on the hate if you must bros.:)


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jan 26, 2016)

The link is NSFW

Apologies if it's been posted but I just spent 4 mins trying not to piss from laughter.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 26, 2016)

Mac_NZ said:


> The link is NSFW
> 
> Apologies if it's been posted but I just spent 4 mins trying not to piss from laughter.



That was one of the funniest things I have seen.....


----------



## Bypass (Jan 26, 2016)

Mac_NZ said:


> The link is NSFW
> 
> Apologies if it's been posted but I just spent 4 mins trying not to piss from laughter.


Bwahahahaaa!!!!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 26, 2016)

Okay, that vid was funny as fuck.  

ETA - I cry every time I see that fucking dip cup.  Damn does that bring back memories!


----------



## Gunz (Jan 28, 2016)

Brave New World

New Strategy Will Change How Marines Train | Military.com


Forget all this bullshit about 21st Century combined arms etc.

What they are really saying here is that they are now faced with the ENORMOUS fucking retool of an organization that's been Man-Centric for 200+ years and are faced with the biggest challenge EVER to the organizational Marine Corps with the integration of women into boot camp, SOI, infantry, recon, special operations and other combat arms areas that have always been the realm of male Marines.

This is a fucking HUGE deal. They are couching it in subdued terms and official double-talk but peel away the veneer and this is all about becoming coed.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jan 28, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Brave New World
> 
> New Strategy Will Change How Marines Train | Military.com
> 
> ...



We're putting more troops back into war zones we just got out of that we weren't going to start putting troops back into.  

This mixification of the Marine Corps better happen ricky tick, so y'all can be more ready to go after getting gender neutralized.


----------



## Theirb123 (Jan 28, 2016)

Not sure of the legitimacy just thought I'd share...anyone heard similar? Is this shit really starting?


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 28, 2016)

I don't believe women should be *other than the awesome @racing_kitty * and lowering the standards (if that holds true) is just another nail in the coffin.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 29, 2016)

If it were done right, slowly, gradually, political pressure at a minimum, standards maintained in all categories, sure, why not capable women at the sharp edge of the formerly Men-Only departments? But the way it's being force-fed doesn't bode well.



DocIllinois said:


> ...This mixification of the Marine Corps better happen ricky tick, so y'all can be more ready to go after getting gender neutralized.



I'm guessing--younger Marines set me straight if I'm wrong--that the Corps might be experiencing some of the problems that typically beset the military during post-war years. Maybe a few more discipline problems, drug and alcohol abuse on the rise, PTSD issues, reexamining itself and it's role. And if so, probably not the best time to expect a quick and seamless "mixification."

Great word, by the way, Doc.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 2, 2016)

Senators take SecNav to task...

Senators scold Mabus for causing drama with Marine Corps


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 2, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Senators take SecNav to task...
> 
> Senators scold Mabus for causing drama with Marine Corps



Reading that made me happy.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 2, 2016)

My two favorite paragraphs:

_“I’ve been on this committee for a year and I don’t think I’ve seen a more outrageous or ill-advised order from the service secretary to tell the Marines that they’re going to take boot camp — which has been honed and put together for the benefit of the American people over decades — and you’re going to order them to give a detailed plan in 15 days?” Sullivan said. “Is that even remotely possible? Why did you issue such an order when nobody on this committee thinks that it was remotely possible to integrate boot camp?”_

...and...

_But McCain faulted Mabus for not going to Twentynine Palms, California, and Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, to observe the study as it was happening.
“So you, with a straight face, make claims that the Marine study was flawed and biased, even if you didn’t go see the study being performed,” McCain said._


----------



## Hillclimb (Feb 2, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> _But McCain faulted Mabus for not going to Twentynine Palms, California, and Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, to observe the study as it was happening.
> “So you, with a straight face, make claims that the Marine study was flawed and biased, even if you didn’t go see the study being performed,” McCain said._



He gets paid the big bu.. i mean.. he's in that cabinet mafia... i mean.. he's got that Executive schedule II rank.. i mean.. he has the best interest for the military: he knows best. He doesn't need to see the study, or how the Marine Corps operates for that matter.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 2, 2016)

what a fucking shit show.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 2, 2016)

I wouldn't let Mabus wash my car or cut my grass...clown!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 2, 2016)

Mabus is the biggest schmuck in the DoD...god.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 2, 2016)

So what happens if we find ourselves doing Iraq 3.0?

With the dumbing down, running warriors off?  Would we still win decisively? or take a shit-load of casualties?

IIRC, most of our loses came after hostilities "ended".


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 3, 2016)

Well the service chiefs recommended making women register for the draft, good call IMO.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well the service chiefs recommended making women register for the draft, good call IMO.


Congress can do it, or the Courts can mandate it.
I wonder if the gender equality supporters considered this as a possibility?


----------



## x SF med (Feb 3, 2016)

I still believe there has to be a single standard for each MOS.  There can be no equal but special integration.  Infantry has a standard for a reason, special Ops has a higher standard for a reason - the reasons for the standards are dependent on the demands inherent in each of MOS's in Combat Arms.  If you are in an FA unit, you better be able to cut charge and load gun, or you are a failure, and 155's are not light, if you're a tanker - breaking tread, loading, stowing etc require strength and technique, you have to be able to accomplish the tasks ...  One standard, meet it or do something else.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 3, 2016)

x SF med said:


> I still believe there has to be a single standard for each MOS.  There can be no equal but special integration.  Infantry has a standard for a reason, special Ops has a higher standard for a reason - the reasons for the standards are dependent on the demands inherent in each of MOS's in Combat Arms.  If you are in an FA unit, you better be able to cut charge and load gun, or you are a failure, and 155's are not light, if you're a tanker - breaking tread, loading, stowing etc require strength and technique, you have to be able to accomplish the tasks ...  One standard, meet it or do something else.



All very true.

Its also true that unit readiness can be affected when a female is sent home mid deployment if she gets pregnant.

(Or will 'equality' extend to keeping pregnant females in combat zones, because they "should" be able to finish out a tour like the men?  Or could birth control become mandatory for deployed females, perhaps?)

And that M/F relationships within the same unit can be a distraction during training.  Just keeping Snuffy off his goddamn cell phone can be a battle if those aren't banned completely on a rotation.

And if said M/F relationship within the same unit goes sour, its not always going to end in an amicable way, especially where most soldiers are still in their twenties.  Necessary cohesion will take a huge hit.

And that all it takes is one asshole to label a female in his unit as 'easy' and the respect of her peers can tank.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 3, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> All very true.
> 
> Its also true that unit readiness can be affected when a female is sent home mid deployment if she gets pregnant.



I understand what your saying, BUT; men go home everyday because of non-combat injuries.

Basketball, volleyball and football kill unit readiness faster than pregnancy.



DocIllinois said:


> (Or will 'equality' extend to keeping pregnant females in combat zones, because they "should" be able to finish out a tour like the men?  Or could birth control become mandatory for deployed females, perhaps?)



ID the baby daddy and hit both of them with UCMJ, though mid-tour leaves will still deplete the ranks.
That said, what if the two members are married?  I've been deployed (Bosnia) where we had married couples who didn't abstain.



DocIllinois said:


> And that M/F relationships within the same unit can be a distraction during training.  Just keeping Snuffy off his goddamn cell phone can be a battle if those aren't banned completely on a rotation.



More distracting than M/M or F/F relationships?



DocIllinois said:


> And if said M/F relationship within the same unit goes sour, its not always going to end in an amicable way, especially where most soldiers are still in their twenties.  Necessary cohesion will take a huge hit.



Totally agree



DocIllinois said:


> And that all it takes is one asshole to label a female in his unit as 'easy' and the respect of her peers can tank.



happens already (most females who have deployed experience this, I have seen it), leaders need to kick joe in the ass when it happens.


----------



## AWP (Feb 3, 2016)

Pregnancy or sexually based drama is a two-way street. Both parties are to blame and if men want to be seen as "not a part of the problem" then they need to behave accordingly.

"Equality" isn't something the women will bear alone and like it not "women in the...." is happening. Men need to get onboard and uphold their end of the deal ("No one is more professional than I" right?) before they can scream about favoritism. Keeping your house clean is the best "base" from which to launch criticism.


----------



## digrar (Feb 3, 2016)

x SF med said:


> I still believe there has to be a single standard for each MOS.  There can be no equal but special integration.  Infantry has a standard for a reason, special Ops has a higher standard for a reason - the reasons for the standards are dependent on the demands inherent in each of MOS's in Combat Arms.  If you are in an FA unit, you better be able to cut charge and load gun, or you are a failure, and 155's are not light, if you're a tanker - breaking tread, loading, stowing etc require strength and technique, you have to be able to accomplish the tasks ...  One standard, meet it or do something else.



We've gone down that road with the PESA tests, Physical Employment Standard Assessments, the exercises are all essentially the same, but there are different targets for different jobs, different distance, weights carried, reps required for different roles. 



DA SWO said:


> I understand what your saying, BUT; men go home everyday because of non-combat injuries.
> 
> Basketball, volleyball and football kill unit readiness faster than pregnancy.



Rugby and Aussie rules regularly puts people out, my ankle issues started with landing on a mates foot after raking in a rebound during basketball training for the Battalion team. 




> That said, what if the two members are married?  I've been deployed (Bosnia) where we had married couples who didn't abstain.



We had a few married couples in a task force in East Timor. They were put in different AOs and had to put up with the same separation issues as the rest of us.


----------



## Brill (Feb 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well the service chiefs recommended making women register for the draft, good call IMO.





"You wanna go do karate in the garage?"


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well the service chiefs recommended making women register for the draft, good call IMO.


This should have been the first step, not the reaction.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 3, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> This should have been the first step, not the reaction.



I don't know that I think that is true. If they were not allowed in combat jobs, what were we going to draft them to do? We only need so many wheeled vehicle mechanics. Now that all jobs are open...draft them bitches.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 4, 2016)

My line of thinking is that, Congress being the political pressure to the DoD to open combat jobs to females across the services.  Would step up, amend the selective service act, going forward they can tell the DoD.  You can now recruit all genders to fill any role within the DoD as they can both be drafted in a time of war and then start the clock.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 4, 2016)

Exactly how do you think congress is behind this?


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 4, 2016)

Hillclimb said:


> He gets paid the big bu.. i mean.. he's in that cabinet mafia... i mean.. he's got that Executive schedule II rank.. i mean.. he has the best interest for the military: he knows best. He doesn't need to see the study, or how the Marine Corps operates for that matter.



Well, he _was_ on a ship in the Navy for 2 years in the early 70s, so that makes him an expert...right??


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't know that I think that is true. If they were not allowed in combat jobs, what were we going to draft them to do? We only need so many wheeled vehicle mechanics. Now that all jobs are open...draft them bitches.



Spot on.  I understand manning levels are down, ostensibly because of the typical post-conflict drawdowns, but there are a lot of MOSs/NECs that are critically undermanned--er, understaffed (whew...almost blew it).  Give them what they want.  Instead of avoiding it, now that it is _fait accompli_, fucking go all-out to implement it, set the standards, open the doors, including the draft.  You want it?  With pleasure, and with a fire hose.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 4, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> My line of thinking is that, Congress being the political pressure to the DoD to open combat jobs to females across the services.  Would step up, amend the selective service act, going forward they can tell the DoD.  You can now recruit all genders to fill any role within the DoD as they can both be drafted in a time of war and then start the clock.





Ranger Psych said:


> Exactly how do you think congress is behind this?



The original ruling was Congress excluded women from direct combat "jobs" and Draftees traditionally went into those jobs so not registering women wasn't discrimination.

What should have happened is Congress (or DoD asking Congress) should have put a provision into the last Defense Bill amanding the draft to include women, but Republicans (as a group) are against women in direct combat and Democrats know their base would go apeshit if we actually treated women as equals (in this situation).

Now the GO's have called both sides out.


----------



## AWP (Feb 4, 2016)

Congress would be nuked from orbit if they put registration before the service chiefs had a chance to do their little kabuki theater. The outcome was preordained, but the illusion or perception matters. Making women register for the draft before opening all jobs to women would have added drama to an already ugly spectacle. There was a fiction to maintain.


----------



## CDG (Feb 4, 2016)

First female enlistee from TN for a combat job goes AWOL.

First Female Combat Engineer Enlistee From Tennessee Goes AWOL

I realize this is a one-person event and my posting it is not meant as a commentary on any other females.  This is rather ironic though.  Mother of 2 decides she wants to be GI Jane, then after going back home can't even manage to come back to work?  Clownshoes.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 4, 2016)

CDG said:


> First female enlistee from TN for a combat job goes AWOL.
> 
> First Female Combat Engineer Enlistee From Tennessee Goes AWOL
> 
> I realize this is a one-person event and my posting it is not meant as a commentary on any other females.  This is rather ironic though.  Mother of 2 decides she wants to be GI Jane, then after going back home can't even manage to come back to work?  Clownshoes.


Clown shoes all around.
They should (maybe did IDK) have talked to hubby and explained what happens when she is caught.
It's also possible something bad has happened to her, and that possibility isn't being explored in the rush to make fun of her (not you  @CDG )


----------



## Hillclimb (Feb 4, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Well, he _was_ on a ship in the Navy for 2 years in the early 70s, so that makes him an expert...right??



Absolutely!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 4, 2016)

Saw something on the ticker and it took me some time to find it.  Although I think Hunter should vote for his own bill: Lawmakers introduce bill to make women take part in the draft

Ladies, time to sign up.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 4, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Saw something on the ticker and it took me some time to find it.  Although I think Hunter should vote for his own bill: Lawmakers introduce bill to make women take part in the draft
> 
> Ladies, time to sign up.



Good.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 4, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Saw something on the ticker and it took me some time to find it.  Although I think Hunter should vote for his own bill: Lawmakers introduce bill to make women take part in the draft
> 
> Ladies, time to sign up.


I think introducing a bill and voting against it is ghey and a waste of time.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 5, 2016)

CDG said:


> First female enlistee from TN for a combat job goes AWOL.
> 
> First Female Combat Engineer Enlistee From Tennessee Goes AWOL
> 
> I realize this is a one-person event and my posting it is not meant as a commentary on any other females.  This is rather ironic though.  Mother of 2 decides she wants to be GI Jane, then after going back home can't even manage to come back to work?  Clownshoes.



Hey, look who we found!

4th-ever US female in combat role turns herself in after deserting


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2016)

That's the fastest I've ever seen someone come back once the news went off.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 5, 2016)

The news reports keep saying she was on convalescent leave. Wonder what the injury was? Not that it makes her actions ok, but I'm just curious about what her frame of mind was (small as it may be).


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2016)

I still can't believe kids go home for Christmas while in basic these days.  But if she was 11 weeks into training...shouldn't she be in the AIT portion since Army BCT is 10 weeks.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 6, 2016)

"these days"

I had christmas exodus in '97. 18th birthday present from the army was 2 weeks advance leave, running and doing PT in a town I didn't grow up in, with a 5k elevation increase. Yay.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 6, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> "these days"
> 
> I had christmas exodus in '97. 18th birthday present from the army was 2 weeks advance leave, running and doing PT in a town I didn't grow up in, with a 5k elevation increase. Yay.


Didn't know exodus in the Army went back that far.  I know so many people in the Corps and I guess an even older Army that never went home.  Got the day for Church and went back to training.  Hell, one of my friends was at Mountains phase Christmas of '99...says they trained through it. (Does that check out?)


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 6, 2016)

No leave during boot when I went through and I don't know any Marine I have ever meet that had it either. I'm talking about decades.


----------



## compforce (Feb 6, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Didn't know exodus in the Army went back that far.  I know so many people in the Corps and I guess an even older Army that never went home.  Got the day for Church and went back to training.  Hell, one of my friends was at Mountains phase Christmas of '99...says they trained through it. (Does that check out?)



1986 Christmas Exodus was alive and well at Benning School for Boys OSUT.  I missed it by graduating on 11 DEC, but the rotation behind us went on leave the same day we graduated AIT.  We also had a 24 hour pass between Basic and AIT.  That was it though.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 6, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> No leave during boot when I went through and I don't know any Marine I have ever meet that had it either. I'm talking about decades.



So no one ever starts basic before Christmas? Dude come on.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 6, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Didn't know exodus in the Army went back that far.  I know so many people in the Corps and I guess an even older Army that never went home.  Got the day for Church and went back to training.  Hell, one of my friends was at Mountains phase Christmas of '99...says they trained through it. (Does that check out?)



I think your friend is full of shit.

TRADIC has done exodus for a long ass time. Like 25 years long.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So no one ever starts basic before Christmas? Dude come on.



No. That's not what I meant.  They do start before basic but I was saying if one was in boot/basic you did not leave (to go home)....If I amd understanding the previous comments correctly.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 6, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> No. That's not what I meant.  They do start before basic but I was saying if one was in boot/basic you did not leave (to go home)....If I amd understanding the previous comments correctly.



Yeah you are right


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah that is what I am saying is BS. They certainly go home.



I'm wrong. Never mind.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm wrong. Never mind.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So no one ever starts basic before Christmas? Dude come on.



The Marine Corps will authorize recruits four hours of personal time on Christmas Eve and another 4 hours of personal time on Christmas day.  That's all you get.  No one goes home until you quit or graduate.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think your friend is full of shit.
> 
> TRADIC has done exodus for a long ass time. Like 25 years long.



The Marine Corps does exodus too.  Lots of recruits get to exodus their way out of boot camp.  They just don't get to come back and they don't earn their Eagle Globe and Anchor.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 6, 2016)

Teufel said:


> The Marine Corps does exodus too.  Lots of recruits get to exodus their way out of boot camp.  They just don't get to come back and they don't earn their Eagle Globe and Anchor.



I was not fully aware of that. How does it work?

edit: LOL!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 6, 2016)

Teufel said:


> The Marine Corps does exodus too.  Lots of recruits get to exodus their way out of boot camp.  They just don't get to come back and they don't earn their Eagle Globe and Anchor.


LOL...Sir, you had me worried for about 3 seconds!


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 6, 2016)

Teufel said:


> The Marine Corps does exodus too.  Lots of recruits get to exodus their way out of boot camp.  They just don't get to come back and they don't earn their Eagle Globe and Anchor.



Yeah I was wrong as fuck.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah I was wrong as fuck.



Taking leave in the middle of boot camp sounds wrong as fuck to me too.  So does having cell phones.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 6, 2016)

The Army does its block leave so that the Drill's and instructors can see their family and enjoy their holiday as well. It doesn't affect the training IMO, well accept for a few missing home and quitting, but I'm of the opinion of fuck them, didn't need them anyway, better in basic than at the unit.

Besides, Army basic is a fucking joke anyway and is not something to take any real measure of toughness and or meaning. The only two things that were challenges for me in Infantry OSUT was not beating the shit out of the dumb shits the Army recruits and road marching. Everything else was pretty easy, in fact boring most of the time.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 7, 2016)

There are female drills in the newest class of A TRP, 5-15 CAV.  Are there female drills on Sand Hill?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 7, 2016)

Never knew any students that got leave during Ranger school. The three training battalions offset a class start and their cadre leave so that training can continue. Anyone who's a recycle during a leave rotation simply spends 2 weeks extra there while waiting for the next class to catch up to them, doing a half day of training, any details they have for maintenance prior to the next class coming up, and maybe an hour or two of "free time" other than rack time.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 7, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> The Army does its block leave so that the Drill's and instructors can see their family and enjoy their holiday as well. It doesn't affect the training IMO, well accept for a few missing home and quitting, but I'm of the opinion of fuck them, didn't need them anyway, better in basic than at the unit.
> 
> Besides, Army basic is a fucking joke anyway and is not something to take any real measure of toughness and or meaning. The only two things that were challenges for me in Infantry OSUT was not beating the shit out of the dumb shits the Army recruits and road marching. Everything else was pretty easy, in fact boring most of the time.



I went back and read some of the letters I wrote to my father while I was there and it reads like I was at summer camp. Sandhill probably had its moments, but I don't really recall anything hard. Maybe the 7 week wait for a slot at jump school and doing details everyday. I spent 6mos at Benning before I got to Bragg and had no injuries holding me back.


----------



## 18echo (Feb 7, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Never knew any students that got leave during Ranger school. The three training battalions offset a class start and their cadre leave so that training can continue. Anyone who's a recycle during a leave rotation simply spends 2 weeks extra there while waiting for the next class to catch up to them, doing a half day of training, any details they have for maintenance prior to the next class coming up, and maybe an hour or two of "free time" other than rack time.


December 1995, we were trucked back from Darby to Rogers, filled out DA 31's and left on 22 or 23 DEC, came back on 2 JAN.
They handed us back all 4 copies of our DA 31's.
The 2LT next to me quietly asked me, "How are they going to charge us leave if they don't keep a copy of the DA 31?"
As I was tearing my copies in to small pieces I replied, "What DA 31?"

In FEB when I was signing out on leave enroute after graduation, my leave balance showed zero days subtracted from Xmas. Still not sure if that was an Xmas gift or if the S1 section in RTB back then just didn't know how to process leave.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 7, 2016)

That's a bro-tier hookup.


----------



## Brill (Feb 7, 2016)

18echo said:


> December 1995, we were trucked back from Darby to Rogers, filled out DA 31's and left on 22 or 23 DEC, came back on 2 JAN.
> They handed us back all 4 copies of our DA 31's.
> The 2LT next to me quietly asked me, "How are they going to charge us leave if they don't keep a copy of the DA 31?"
> As I was tearing my copies in to small pieces I replied, "What DA 31?"
> ...



The 2LT just learned from the bro-fessor.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 7, 2016)

18echo said:


> December 1995, we were trucked back from Darby to Rogers, filled out DA 31's and left on 22 or 23 DEC, came back on 2 JAN.
> They handed us back all 4 copies of our DA 31's.
> The 2LT next to me quietly asked me, "How are they going to charge us leave if they don't keep a copy of the DA 31?"
> As I was tearing my copies in to small pieces I replied, "What DA 31?"
> ...



I've lost 30 days of leave every year since I joined the Marine Corps because of my deployment cycle (we have a cap on accumulated leave).  Consider those days a gift.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 11, 2016)

Interesting Article: Only a Barbaric Nation Drafts Its Mothers and Daughters into Combat, by The Editors, National Review


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 11, 2016)

I went to boot late winter/early spring.  Every major and minor holiday of ANY time I always asked the RDCs if we could have the day off.  At first they all yelled and quarterdecked me (which I knew they would), but after a while it was kind of a running joke and every day they would ask, "Hey, Recruit, what's the holiday today?"  I would just make up some bullshit, and whatever day of the month it was, we would do an extra number of pushups at the end of morning PT to celebrate that holiday (real or not).


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 11, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Taking leave in the middle of boot camp sounds wrong as fuck to me too.  So does having cell phones.


Semi-disagree on the cell phones.
Lackland was having crappy support from the company that maintained the pay phones so they got rid of them and trainees get 15 min of call time every Sunday (which saves time by having everyone call in two shifts).
Otherwise the phones are locked up with no access until the last couple of weeks (which I disagree with)


----------



## Gunz (Feb 11, 2016)

We had no liberty or leave at any time during boot camp, ITR or MOS school. Your family could visit you on boot camp graduation day but you could not leave the base.

At SOI for infantry training/advanced infantry or machine gun school, an adult relative could check you out for the afternoon on Sunday only, but you had to be back in your rack by lights-out.

You got no unsupervised or unescorted liberty or leave until all your training was over--about 6 months--then you got your 30 days before reporting to the Fleet.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 11, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Semi-disagree on the cell phones.
> Lackland was having crappy support from the company that maintained the pay phones so they got rid of them and trainees get 15 min of call time every Sunday (which saves time by having everyone call in two shifts).
> Otherwise the phones are locked up with no access until the last couple of weeks (which I disagree with)



The Marine Corps solves that problem by allowing two phone calls.  Once when you arrive to tell your parents you have arrived safely and after you graduate.


----------



## Hillclimb (Feb 11, 2016)

Teufel said:


> The Marine Corps solves that problem by allowing two phone calls.  Once when you arrive to tell your parents you have arrived safely and after you graduate.



I don't even remember getting that. Got one phone call after the crucible, and that was it. As for graduation, I just gave them instructions via snail mail and hoped they didn't have any hiccups.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 11, 2016)

Hillclimb said:


> I don't even remember getting that. Got one phone call after the crucible, and that was it. As for graduation, I just gave them instructions via snail mail and hoped they didn't have any hiccups.



I mean you get as many calls as you want after you have graduated and leave the recruit depot.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 12, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Semi-disagree on the cell phones.
> Lackland was having crappy support from the company that maintained the pay phones so they got rid of them and trainees get 15 min of call time every Sunday (which saves time by having everyone call in two shifts).
> Otherwise the phones are locked up with no access until the last couple of weeks (which I disagree with)



That's roughly how my BCT ran it - phones were locked up for the cycle, and broken out during what would ordinarily be the "phone call" time block (once per phase, so 3x total) for 45-60 minutes.  We got more time on the phone, it took less time out of the training schedule, and on the whole, seemed like a more sensible way to do business than the "line at the pay phone" routine.


----------



## Towelthief (Feb 12, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Semi-disagree on the cell phones.
> Lackland was having crappy support from the company that maintained the pay phones so they got rid of them and trainees get 15 min of call time every Sunday (which saves time by having everyone call in two shifts).
> Otherwise the phones are locked up with no access until the last couple of weeks (which I disagree with)



We got a phone call when we arrived, one on Christmas, and one the week before graduating. Those were all with cell phones and about 15 min each. We also got one patio break where we used the 2 pay phones still in service at the squadron. Our phones were given back when we got on the bus to go to Tech School.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 12, 2016)

Here is the Marine Corps new gender neutral standards table.  They are going to design a new PFT/CFT standard (i.e. a higher PFT/CFT score requirement) now for combat arms vs non-combat arms.  They will also create a different PT test of some sort for load bearing combat arms MOSes i.e. infantry, engineers, recon etc.  I'm not sure what that will look like but it will include a road march with full combat load.  Recon already has a different PFT (500 yd swim, pushups, situps, pullups, 1.5 mile run in boots & utes, 12 mile ruck run (50 lbs), and back to back obstacle courses) that has to be performed in addition to the current PFT/CFT.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 12, 2016)

Anyone in Norway have SA on this? Norway's "Hunter Troop"


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 12, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Anyone in Norway have SA on this? Norway's "Hunter Troop"



Interesting link.

That they are straight out of highschool is facilitated by early aptitude testing and grooming. The Europeans have a much different approach to education from the begining of highschool, or earlier, and into post highschool education and training. Knowing that makes finding and training candidates a multi-year project. Is it a good idea? Seems to work for Norway. I guess the next question is if there is an all male SOF counterpart, with a seperate tract?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 13, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Anyone in Norway have SA on this? Norway's "Hunter Troop"


A hot chick who can also kick your butt, that's something to see...


----------



## ZmanTX (Mar 8, 2016)

Article written by former Ranger Jack Murphy.
Proof that standards will be dropped for females entering the 75th Ranger Regiment | SOFREP

_*"About a month and a half ago, a female JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) staffer arrived at Fort Benning to begin shadowing the RASP instructors. It was an unofficial position, but she has been present with the last three RASP classes to ensure that the course curriculum remains the same now as it does when the first female student arrives at RASP in May.*

*Sadly, the standards were already low when this female JSOC staff member arrived, as RASP students were not allowed to quit, or be failed for land navigation, failed the 12-mile ruck march, and even failed the APTF, but still graduated from the course. The bar had been set very low, low enough to ensure that women could graduate from RASP regardless of whether or not they met the standards.*

*This was pre-engineered to give a sense of equality, yet nothing about the implementation of females into special operations has been equal. When RASP cadre are informed that if they even think of disagreeing with the inclusion of female Rangers, they’d be committing career suicide; when they are forced to sit through multiple briefs outlining the integration process, yet have no input on how this could be done more transparently and effectively; there are bigger issues at hand than just fighting for more females to get opportunity for career advancement.*_ "

Thought I would share considering we have a lot of Rangers here on SS and especially since it's been a hot topic... A lot of members here called it about standards being changed.

Z


----------



## TheSiatonist (Mar 17, 2016)

Not sure if you folks have seen this...





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1796362113912565


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 17, 2016)

I don't know the context of the video, but did you see the look on the dude's face who pulled him off?  It was a, "what are you doing going after a girl!" look. 

That look tells me a thousand stories - the first being there would be no look if it was another dude getting his ass beat with a pugil stick.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 17, 2016)

TheSiatonist said:


> Not sure if you folks have seen this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Ooh-Rah said:


> I don't know the context of the video, but did you see the look on the dude's face who pulled him off?  It was a, "what are you doing going after a girl!" look.
> 
> That look tells me a thousand stories - the first being there would be no look if it was another dude getting his ass beat with a pugil stick.



She stopped and the dude never stopped charging.
Good on him for taking care of business.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 18, 2016)

That video...I don't know if the fundamental difference was that the dude was just more aggressive by nature and she was not, or what.  Like Ooh-Rah said, there's little context.  I have seen some women just pummel the shit out of each other at Wal-Mart over the last fried chicken, so I know that if properly motivated they will NOT stop or let up.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 18, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> That video...I don't know if the fundamental difference was that the dude was just more aggressive by nature and she was not, or what.  Like Ooh-Rah said, there's little context.  I have seen some women just pummel the shit out of each other at Wal-Mart over the last fried chicken, so I know that if properly motivated they will NOT stop or let up.


I watched it a few more times, she reaches out for her stick once on the ground (i.e. she still had fight left in her).
That said, she still got her ass handed to her.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 18, 2016)

The instructors give you a pep talk at the pugil course to fire up aggression and the killer instinct. They want you screaming like a banshee and they want to see total aggressive commitment, absolutely no hesitation, no quarter, you attack like a rabid dog.

I might get hammered for this statement, but I'm not so sure that most women possess that kind of natural innate aggressive vein that can be tapped into through motivational speech. Certainly they possess a ferocious maternal protective instinct...but how available is it when there's nothing to protect? How do you turn that on?


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 18, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I might get hammered for this statement, but I'm not so sure that most women possess that kind of natural innate aggressive vein that can be tapped into through motivational speech. Certainly they possess a ferocious maternal protective instinct...but how available is it when there's nothing to protect? How do you turn that on?



Great question.  My wife is not "aggressive" by nature, but if she even thinks there is a threat to one of the kids, Holy Can of Whoop Ass, Batman, she turns 'it' on.

Honey badger comes to mind.


----------



## medicchick (Mar 18, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> The instructors give you a pep talk at the pugil course to fire up aggression and the killer instinct. They want you screaming like a banshee and they want to see total aggressive commitment, absolutely no hesitation, no quarter, you attack like a rabid dog.
> 
> I might get hammered for this statement, but I'm not so sure that most women possess that kind of natural innate aggressive vein that can be tapped into through motivational speech. Certainly they possess a ferocious maternal protective instinct...but how available is it when there's nothing to protect? *How do you turn that on?*


You find a reason.  There is ALWAYS something worth protecting, your life.  You treat every training exercise like they are going to kill you. When RP was teaching me combatives he learned just how far I will let it go before I tap.  It's also a matter of pride, I want to get one good lick before I'm out.

If it's a threat to my daughter, watch out.  She doesn't need Daddy, she has Mommy who can be bat shit insane and not quit.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 18, 2016)

Same way we did it with men thousands of years ago, you train them, you beat it into them. The Spartan way etc...but then we've softened on the male side too, we seem to not want alphas anymore based on this microaggressed society.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 18, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> The Spartan way etc...but then we've softened on the male side too, we seem to not want alphas anymore based on this microaggressed society.



Nature vs nurture?  I don't know. I had a coworker a few years ago who threatened to call HR because I would "get in his space."  WTF?  I wasn't any different with him than any other person.  He couldn't simply say, "hey, can you back off a bit?" 

I have noticed this microagressive nature in fellow man, which is definitely contrasted by the "macroaggressive" nature in the wolves out there.


----------



## AWP (Mar 18, 2016)

Everyone thinks they are equal until they are laying in the dirt with the metallic taste of blood in their mouth. Some men aren't equal to others, some women aren't equal to men, etc. That isn't a slight, that's just life. "Some" being the important word here. There are some men out there who would lose to her, but on that day a southbound CSX caught her stopped at a crossing. The outcome was preordained and "how bad" was the only question to answer.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 18, 2016)

I wouldn't step into a cage with the likes of Ronda Rousey, Holy Holms, Measha Tate. All three would beat the crap out of me. Doesn't mean they would make good infantry soldier's or mean that they can survive in that world/role.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 18, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I wouldn't step into a cage with the likes of Ronda Rousey, Holy Holms, Measha Tate. All three would beat the crap out of me. Doesn't mean they would make good infantry soldier's or mean that they can survive in that world/role.



Yep...being a "Grunt" is a whole different monster.


----------



## Poccington (Mar 18, 2016)

My issue with that video was the actions of the instructors.

That female took the knock and immediately went about trying to get back into the fight. The instructors were the ones who had a shit fit and stopped the whole thing while she was looking to keep going.

Such bullshit.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 18, 2016)

Poccington said:


> My issue with that video was the actions of the instructors.
> 
> That female took the knock and immediately went about trying to get back into the fight. The instructors were the ones who had a shit fit and stopped the whole thing while she was looking to keep going.
> 
> Such bullshit.



Excellent point. Because if she'd been a man they would have screamed at his ass to get back up and get into the fight instead of racing to "protect" her...and in this you've hit the crux of this entire problem. There is a tendency for us to want to protect women and come to their defense..and in a coed military environment, that's not only favoritism, it's the subconscious lowering of standards.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 18, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Excellent point. Because if she'd been a man they would have screamed at his ass to get back up and get into the fight instead of racing to "protect" her...and in this you've hit the crux of this entire problem. There is a tendency for us to want to protect women and come to their defense..and in a coed military environment, that's not only favoritism, it's the subconscious lowering of standards.



Yep...without a doubt or a thought...males would have their protective tendencies "kick-in" whether they want it to or not. That isn't a good or a bad thing...it's just what it is. We are wired that way.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 18, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Excellent point. Because if she'd been a man they would have screamed at his ass to get back up and get into the fight instead of racing to "protect" her...and in this you've hit the crux of this entire problem. There is a tendency for us to want to protect women and come to their defense..and in a coed military environment, that's not only favoritism, it's the subconscious lowering of standards.



And, from an O's point of view, quite a pointlessly dangerous behavior.

Speaking from my branch's perspective, anyone who has ever seen an Infantry platoon maneuver on an objective will know that the scene is extremely vicious, almost barbarous, yet every element is orchestrated and playing their part to maintain a certain tempo.

This is the technique for a reason.  A certain number of one of those elements suddenly stopping their piece can put everyone at needless risk, not to mention it can screw the mission.

I foresee that it will take training and conditioning to prevent this from happening when females hit the combat arms, right down to the Team level.


----------



## 8654Maine (Mar 18, 2016)

If I was the enemy, I would know exactly who to target & wound to draw out the rest of the unit.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 18, 2016)

8654Maine said:


> If I was the enemy, I would know exactly who to target & wound to draw out the rest of the unit.



At which point a moron embed journalist will send photos of the female troop missing a leg or bleeding out from a neck hit to his publisher because of the shock value.

I trust the American public has already decided they're ok with that.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 18, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> I trust the American public has already decided they're ok with that.



Therein lies the truth. "They" are not ready and they don't even realize that this has been an issue in our military.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 18, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> ...Speaking from my branch's perspective, anyone who has ever seen an Infantry platoon maneuver on an objective will know that the scene is extremely vicious, almost barbarous, yet every element is orchestrated and playing their part to maintain a certain tempo...



Having lived with a small team in the bush for months on end...I can't imagine a cohesive coed arrangement in that environment. One way or another it would've been a disaster.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 18, 2016)

Here is a longer version of that video -

For some reason I cannot view on iPhone...works fine on desktop though.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=508604662666128


----------



## medicchick (Mar 18, 2016)

It looks like they stop after any head shots.


----------



## Brill (Mar 19, 2016)

Medics will need to carry pasties when they treating chest wounds in order to protect the dignity of the patients.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Here is a longer version of that video -
> 
> For some reason I cannot view on iPhone...works fine on desktop though.
> 
> ...



At least she held her ground, and did not run.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 19, 2016)

lindy said:


> Medics will need to carry pasties when they treating chest wounds in order to protect the dignity of the patients.



Dude you're all kinds of fucked. lol


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Here is a longer version of that video -
> 
> For some reason I cannot view on iPhone...works fine on desktop though.
> 
> ...



Okay so you see how aggressive the dude was on the first hit, and than he toned it down a few notches. That's the bullshit. You get in there and give 100%, its a fucking fight, you're training yourself to fight to the death, by clubbing another human to death with a rifle. That's exactly not the time to be pussyfooting around.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 19, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Okay so you see how aggressive the dude was on the first hit, and than he toned it down a few notches.



Yep.  And that is why I searched for a longer version - wanted to see if there was more get from the video - unfortunately I found what I expected.

It reminded me of when I used to play with my kids - the play wrestling we did; where I always let them feel they were in it.  Again, not knowing the context of the video, there did not seem to be a lot of other women Marines there.  Was she a one-off, who wanted to see what it was like, or is that who the male Marine got paired up with?  If so, than what we watched is a perfect example of the dumbing down of training to ensure everyone feels included.  If that was his only match up , that male Marine was done a great disservice.


----------



## BloodStripe (Mar 28, 2016)

Female admin Marine to attempt MARSOC training this summer

Marines,  in the event toy are told you cannot attend A&S because there are no slots available...


----------



## Hillclimb (Mar 28, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Female admin Marine to attempt MARSOC training this summer
> 
> Marines,  in the event toy are told you cannot attend A&S because there are no slots available...



This is a little bogus. There were a lot of people with great amounts of experience who couldn't come over because they were Staff Sergeants; Even senior Sergeants. When I went through you couldn't be an E-5 with more than 1 year TIG.

Unless they changed the rules. It was 2013 when I went.


----------



## Brill (Mar 29, 2016)

Hillclimb said:


> Unless they changed the rules. It was 2013 when I went.



Pssst. That's the point.


----------



## 8654Maine (Mar 29, 2016)

Yup, standards are same.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 30, 2016)

Ten years from now, this young lady will say, "fuck your standards, I got this."

This 9-Year-Old Girl Competed in a 24-Hour Obstacle Race Created by Navy Seals


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 30, 2016)

Battle-Frog is not the toughest thing in the world, in fact Tough Mudders are worse for the pure distance piece.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 30, 2016)

She's 9.  I give her props because of that, not because she is a girl.

I saw a piece on NPR that said the DoD was expecting 200 (female) applicants for combat MOSs, but as of that report, not one woman has stepped forward.  I also read an admin type is gong to A&S for MARSOC.   I think the DoD was expecting lines at the recruiting stations, not the crickets in the vacuum of silence.


----------



## digrar (Mar 30, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ten years from now, this young lady will say, "fuck your standards, I got this."
> 
> This 9-Year-Old Girl Competed in a 24-Hour Obstacle Race Created by Navy Seals



Throw an 180lb pack and webbing into the equation in ten years time and we'll have another look at what sort of warrior she is capable of being.


----------



## Poccington (Apr 1, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Battle-Frog is not the toughest thing in the world, in fact Tough Mudders are worse for the pure distance piece.



That's cool and all but she's 9 years fucking old.

Are we really at the stage where we try poke holes in a 9 year olds achievements?


----------



## Etype (Apr 1, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Battle-Frog is not the toughest thing in the world, in fact Tough Mudders are worse for the pure distance piece.


What were you doing when you were 9??? We already know it wasn't Crossfit, so you don't have to say that. 



digrar said:


> Throw an 180lb pack and webbing into the equation in ten years time and we'll have another look at what sort of warrior she is capable of being.


Did I said 180? Make it 1,080!!!


----------



## Grunt (Apr 1, 2016)

I like the fact that she isn't sitting on the couch or staring at the boob tube while pushing buttons for hours.

She is actually doing something physical and not simply rotting her brain.

I hope her the very best with her future and I hope she keeps the mindset that allows her to stay physically fit and sharp.

Best of fortune to the little lady!


----------



## Muppet (Apr 1, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ten years from now, this young lady will say, "fuck your standards, I got this."
> 
> This 9-Year-Old Girl Competed in a 24-Hour Obstacle Race Created by Navy Seals



Get some kid! Fucking get some...

M.


----------



## AWP (Apr 1, 2016)

Poccington said:


> That's cool and all but she's 9 years fucking old.
> 
> Are we really at the stage where we try poke holes in a 9 year olds achievements?



Yes. Kids these days have it easy. When I was 9 I had to run a half-marathon to the farm by 4:30 so I could milk the cows, slop the pigs, collect the eggs, and feed the horses before eating a breakfast of hardtack and coffee and school started at 8AM so most mornings I had to run another 5 miles to make it to my English class on time.


----------



## Muppet (Apr 1, 2016)

The closest I came when I was 9, is when I fucked screwed the pooch, my pop, the former D.S. when I was born at Ft. Dix in 76 would smoke the fuck out of me. Smoke drills, front, back, go's, all that shit. By the time I got to basic in 93, I was a fucking stud. LMAO.

M.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 1, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Yes. Kids these days have it easy. When I was 9 I had to run a half-marathon to the farm by 4:30 so I could milk the cows, slop the pigs, collect the eggs, and feed the horses before eating a breakfast of hardtack and coffee and school started at 8AM so most mornings I had to run another 5 miles to make it to my English class on time.



My dad joined the Marines in 1954.  He grew up on a dairy farm in northern Wisconsin, so he did boot in San Diego.  He always said he worked harder on the farm and got a lot less sleep growing up (he DID have to get up at 0330 to milk cows before school).


----------



## Etype (Apr 1, 2016)

I grew up on a pachyderm dairy farm. In the 90s, there wasn't a huge demand for pachyderm milk, so money was tight and the equipment was in bad shape. There were a lot of mornings I had to milk the rhinos and elephants by hand!!!


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 1, 2016)

I grew up playing outside with friends, worked a family farm in the summer, maintained your average 1980s diet and got plenty of sleep, participated in a couple of sports up through high school, then joined the military.


For some fluke of a reason I have apparently not been a soup sandwich in the Army to this day.

I did bench press 275 lbs. once, so that may perhaps explain the above aberrant event.


----------



## CDG (Apr 1, 2016)

You haven't lived until you've milked a moose at 0430 in December in Alaska.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 1, 2016)

CDG said:


> You haven't lived until you've milked a moose at 0430 in December in Alaska.



I just had to look it up...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 1, 2016)

Etype said:


> I grew up on a pachyderm dairy farm. In the 90s, there wasn't a huge demand for pachyderm milk, so money was tight and the equipment was in bad shape. There were a lot of mornings I had to milk the rhinos and elephants by hand!!!



I just had to look it up...


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 1, 2016)

Pshaw, that ain't nothing.

Try milking cats.  I had a buddy of mine, that little Focker, who was an expert.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 1, 2016)

8654Maine said:


> Pshaw, that ain't nothing.
> 
> Try milking cats.  I had a buddy of mine, that little Focker, who was an expert.



I just had to look it up...


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 2, 2016)

This thread has digressed into a pile of dog shit. wtf?


----------



## Brill (Apr 2, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> This thread has digressed into a pile of dog shit. wtf?



The thread or DOD's policy?


----------



## metalmom (Apr 4, 2016)

metalmom said:


> Though I have read a lot of your thoughts and opinions I keep going back to what Viper 1 stated on the first page and fully agree with his opinion on all points. Back in the 80s there was a concern that if women were let into the Infantry-there would be a lot more male casualties because of their need to protect a female and 3 guys or more would run out to help her if she went down instead of maybe 1 or 2 to help their buddy Never bought that.When women were finally allowed in to Battle School I believe ony 1 or 2 made it. Rack is probably more in the know about that. I dont like what I heard if true that women are crying harassment down there unless it was a sexual offense. Im bringing up the old stuff because it is not much different from then than today. If someone can prove they are tough enough and qualify-whats the big deal. I for one am rooting for these women who are going after what they want and will stand behind them wishing them success. As Diamondback stated-bring on the hate if you must bros.:)


 I have been thinking on this and had a memory come back.Once a yr Officers could come into our Jr. Ranks mess.They ask for permission to enter-we never said no.So a Major that had been giving me a rough ride intentionally sat down across from me and said some explicit demeaning words.All my guys-brothers -slammed their beers dowm and stood up and said-Sir you cant talk to her like that.So for those that have stated males instincts are to protect females I agree..And this wasnt in the field or combat situation.Still cant retract my former statement but can now understand the other side of this.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 8, 2016)

Female police officer joins Army Infantry, claims it will be "similar” to her job

Here we go.  First female enlisting 11X


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 8, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Female police officer joins Army Infantry, claims it will be "similar” to her job
> 
> Here we go.  First female enlisting 11X



This won't work.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 8, 2016)

The proponents will claim it works and someday in combat people will die.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 8, 2016)

I wish she fully understood the fact that law enforcement and being a grunt are worlds apart and never the two shall meet!

Two different jobs and two different mindsets.


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 8, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Female police officer joins Army Infantry, claims it will be "similar” to her job
> 
> Here we go.  First female enlisting 11X



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......I've been a Police Officer for 29 years, retired from USAR, two combat deployments.  It is NOT the same thing.....what an idiot.


edit:
WAIT...she is a FORMER Police Officer at the age of 25, at the *most* she has 4 years as an officer....so she failed at being a police officer, decides to join the Infantry  :wall:


----------



## Gunz (Apr 8, 2016)

So maybe she's a quitter and non-hack and pretty soon she's gonna get a big smack of reality right in the face...

unless politics lubricates her historic destiny as the first female ground-pounder, which I suspect it will...


----------



## AWP (Apr 8, 2016)

Somehow I don't think she's the brightest bulb and is being set up. We'll see how this plays out. Like I posted with Ranger School, at some point the cadre will talk and this will be no different. The outcome may be no different either.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 8, 2016)

One of the worst parts of this will be the "eyes" that will be focused on her class. They will serve as a living "experiment." I feel sorry for all of them as this could become a dog and pony show and all those with her just want to be there to serve their country.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 8, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Somehow I don't think she's the brightest bulb and is being set up. We'll see how this plays out. Like I posted with Ranger School, at some point the cadre will talk and this will be no different. The outcome may be no different either.


They can send her to ft hoodlum.
Not the brightest bulb, LOL, she's coming out of Louisiana.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 8, 2016)

If one didn't know better, one might think that her quotes sound like lines her recruiter would feed any recruit (s)he was trying to put into an infantry spot.

_HER QUOTE: " _she'd planned to enter the military police ranks_, "but infantry is similar, and they are more on the front lines, like law enforcement here, and I said that's what I want to do."_
*What I think her recruiter told her:*_   "Hey, you've already been a cop.  Infantry is the same thing, out there on the front lines, enforcing the the laws, pretty much like you do here!"_

_
HER QUOTE:  "I have served the front lines in my hometown ... and now I am going to serve the front lines for my country,” Barnett said in the release. “I want to deploy, see action, and I definitely want to go to Airborne school.”_
*What I think her recruiter told her:  *_"You are going to get to deploy, see some action and for sure you can go to Airborne! - "
_
I appreciate this young lady's willingness to serve, but she seems awful naive about what she is getting herself into.

_HER QUOTE: "Now that I've enlisted, I'm going fishing with my pa"_
*What her recruiter likely said:  *Holy shit!  I _can't wait to tell the guys I just signed the first chick into the infantry.

Army enlists first female infantry recruit_


----------



## Grunt (Apr 8, 2016)

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if her recruiter may be a little "eager" to be the first to sign up a female grunt.

Maybe that's just my normal skepticism!


----------



## AWP (Apr 8, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Not the brightest bulb, LOL, she's coming out of Louisiana.



Mississippi with more water....

I have this image of her recruiter spraying silver paint in his mouth and screaming "WITNESS ME" as he sent her paperwork up the chain. Former police officer, slight of frame, "MP is like infantry", not unattractive....her recruiter must have thought a winning lottery ticket dropped into his/ her lap. If she makes it (what are the odds she fails?) he/ she looks like a god for finding the right woman. If she fails the recruiter can mumble some platitudes and then sell her out behind her back and distance himself from the stench.

Mediocre.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 8, 2016)

How can she fail? This is the first test of the administration's gender neutral combat arms policy with regard to infantry. Apply pressure where needed with extreme prejudice.

The only way she fails IMV is if she can't hack the course and the administration lets her fail as proof to the naysayers the standards have not been lowered...even if they have been.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 8, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> How can she fail? This is the first test of the administration's gender neutral combat arms policy with regard to infantry. Apply pressure where needed with extreme prejudice.
> 
> The only way she fails IMV is if she can't hack the course and the administration lets her fail as proof to the naysayers the standards have not been lowered...even if they have been.


She can quit when she gets her first taste of tentless camping.


----------



## Brill (Apr 8, 2016)

There were MPs in Afghanistan...outside of BAF?


----------



## pardus (Apr 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> There were MPs in Afghanistan...outside of BAF?



MP's have done some real Grunt work. I recall a highly decorated  female MP that kicked some serious ass and was clearing trenches of Jihadis with an M9 in Iraq.


----------



## Brill (Apr 8, 2016)

pardus said:


> MP's have done some real Grunt work. I recall a highly female MP that kicked some serious ass and was clearing trenches of Jihadis with an M9 in Iraq.



Shit, that's right! Received a Silver Star too?


----------



## AWP (Apr 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> Shit, that's right! Received a Silver Star too?



And her boss whom you never hear about received a DSC for the same action.


----------



## Brill (Apr 8, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> And her boss whom you never hear about received a DSC for the same action.



Micro aggression detected!


----------



## digrar (Apr 8, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> How can she fail?



I'll put $10 on one of the following, stress fractures in legs, stress fractures in hips, not able to maintain pace while marching with weight, stress fractures in feet, stress fractures in spine, soft tissue injuries pretty much everywhere, a hernia.


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 8, 2016)

Is that the one that was awarded the silver star in Iraq?


----------



## pardus (Apr 8, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Is that the one that was awarded the silver star in Iraq?



Yes I believe so.


----------



## pardus (Apr 8, 2016)

It's not that women don't have the balls, They have certainly proved that many times over. They just don't have the body that evolved over millions of years to hunt and kill, that allows them to be a Grunt.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 9, 2016)

pardus said:


> It's not that women don't have the balls, They have certainly proved that many times over. They just don't have the body that evolved over millions of years to hunt and kill, that allows them to be a Grunt.



Rog that...women can fight and kill and have been doing it throughout history. And there are some badass ladies out there who will undoubtedly pass even the toughest training.

You guys have rightly pointed out the physical differences. What concerns me more is the interaction at squad and platoon level of male and female. Sexual tension, favoritism, the psychological forces that may be at work, particularly during long stints of garrison duty. There are going to be relationships among squad-mates. Break-ups. Domestic arguments in the squadbay. Some male NCOs might show favoritism to a pretty soldier :wall::wall:, some female soldiers might use their charms to elicit favoritism. This shit is going to happen because it happens anywhere males and females work together for extended periods. We all know that. Hell, there are enough barrack squabbles among males already.


----------



## digrar (Apr 10, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> You guys have rightly pointed out the physical differences. What concerns me more is the interaction at squad and platoon level of male and female. Sexual tension, favoritism, the psychological forces that may be at work, particularly during long stints of garrison duty. There are going to be relationships among squad-mates. Break-ups. Domestic arguments in the squadbay. Some male NCOs might show favoritism to a pretty soldier :wall::wall:, some female soldiers might use their charms to elicit favoritism. This shit is going to happen because it happens anywhere males and females work together for extended periods. We all know that. Hell, there are enough barrack squabbles among males already.




Support units have been dealing with this sort of stuff for decades without imploding. I don't see it as too much of an issue. Any reduction in standards on the other hand, letting underdone people into the role will reduce Infantry units ability to seize and hold ground and will make artillery and armoured units less effective.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 10, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> How can she fail? This is the first test of the administration's gender neutral combat arms policy with regard to infantry. Apply pressure where needed with extreme prejudice.
> 
> The only way she fails IMV is if she can't hack the course and the administration lets her fail as proof to the naysayers the standards have not been lowered...even if they have been.



How did all those other women fail at various levels? Still none have passed the Marines IOBC, 3 out of a bunch passed Ranger School. Obviously they are failing the fuck out of women.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 10, 2016)

What does a single recycle cost the agency? For example, if a ITB student is dropped for whatever reason, how much money does it cost for them to repeat the cycles they already passed? I think this will be what generally causes standards to be dropped and allow shitty grunts to slip through the cracks. That and the training command just wants to wipe their hands of them.


----------



## Loki (Apr 10, 2016)

All military services today have reduced Physical standards and scores for women. Women also have higher acceptable body fat standards by DOD regulations.  The USMC study of females in combat roles, in direct combat postings, demonstrated reduced combat effectiveness.  Mixed gender units achieved much lower task ratings as a whole than all male units. Thereby reducing the combat effectiveness of the unit across the board.  The NAVSEC buried the report as did Carter the SECDEF and ordered immediate integration of females in the force. Political correctness wins!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 10, 2016)

It wasn't buried as much as it was wholly discounted and ignored.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 10, 2016)

As to the body fat stuff, women need more body ft to be healthy. Let's take any elite female athlete, they will have a much higher body fat than the comparable male athlete. We are looking for the Ronda Rousey type female for the infantry, she is going to have 12-20% fat. Using that as a measure is stupid.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 11, 2016)

digrar said:


> Support units have been dealing with this sort of stuff for decades without imploding. I don't see it as too much of an issue. Any reduction in standards on the other hand, letting underdone people into the role will reduce Infantry units ability to seize and hold ground and will make artillery and armoured units less effective.



Yes, you're right about mixed-gender support units. And women have been serving in close quarters aboard naval vessels for years now. I guess the issues come up but are dealt with. I never served in a mixed-gender unit so my opinions on it are probably best kept to myself. With regard to women in the infantry, it's a generational thing but it's hard for me to imagine women Marines on Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal, or humping the load we carried in VN.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 11, 2016)

A ship is a far cry from the field. Life as a grunt is nasty. There is no other way to put it. Hygiene is horrible and will be a force to be reckoned with by females. Things are what they are and those issues will have to be dealt with as they arise. The biggest issue with that is -- will it off-set the combat effectiveness of that unit at that time. 

Until those things are tested in actual combat...no one will truly know.


----------



## AWP (Apr 11, 2016)

I think you'll see fewer problems with women and men living alongside one another than you expect. I believe the real sticking point will be performance and that fallout will ripple into disgust with other issues.

Time will tell, but I think it will validate everyone's fears about performance and politics.


----------



## digrar (Apr 12, 2016)

Any reduction in standard or double standard, which then leads to reduced performance will be a cancer.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 12, 2016)

digrar said:


> Support units have been dealing with this sort of stuff for decades without imploding. I don't see it as too much of an issue. Any reduction in standards on the other hand, letting underdone people into the role will reduce Infantry units ability to seize and hold ground and will make artillery and armoured units less effective.



The units don't implode as much as create work-arounds and unintentional double standards.  When I was a corpsman, my last unit, a reserve unit, was with a Marine logistics company.  There was a female Marine, cute thing, but very small.  She simply couldn't handle the warehouse and the amount of manual labor it called for.  So they devised other jobs for her, and for the half-dozen or so female Marines in the company.  I don't know that anyone in particular resented her for it or if it created any rifts, but it was there.  I would imagine (but admittedly don't know) it happens in other support units.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 12, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> ...I don't know that anyone in particular resented her for it or if it created any rifts, but it was there.  I would imagine (but admittedly don't know) it happens in other support units.



Therein lies the problem...a Grunt is a far cry from a logistics base. A Grunt is only going to go so far with "helping" her when in the field and probably even less when in combat.

As a Grunt, you are either an asset or a liability to your team and mission.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 12, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Therein lies the problem...a Grunt is a far cry from a logistics base. A Grunt is only going to go so far with "helping" her when in the field and probably even less when in combat.
> 
> As a Grunt, you are either an asset or a liability to your team and mission.



Completely agree.  It was my experience in an infantry platoon that everyone was already helping everyone else at 100% of their ability to do so.  And there weren't many weak links.  Not sure how much more could have been done with a significantly weak link.


----------



## digrar (Apr 12, 2016)

There it's nowhere to hide in a Rifle Platoon. Few places to hide in a Rifle Company.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 12, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Therein lies the problem...a Grunt is a far cry from a logistics base. A Grunt is only going to go so far with "helping" her when in the field and probably even less when in combat.
> 
> As a Grunt, you are either an asset or a liability to your team and mission.



edit


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 12, 2016)

Agree  

It can and will cost many things not to mention small unit cohesion.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 13, 2016)

So here is number two.



> Congratulations to Loren Ross, who today became the second woman to enlist as an 11X in the infantry. BG Donna Martin, CSM Cynthia Reed from U.S. Army Recruiting Battalion - Los Angeles, and CSM Latosha Ravenell from Salt Lake City Army Recruiting Battalion, were at the U.S. Army Seattle Recruiting Battalion for an operations update, making for an extra special swear-in ceremony!



Facebook















The posting on facebook has already required the USAREC people to respond.



> US Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) While we aim to provide an open, interactive space for all, we ask that you share your opinions and feedback in a respectful manner. As a fan of our page, you take personal responsibility for your comments, your username, and any information you submit. In that spirit, users are asked to adhere to the guidelines below. Violation of any of these guidelines may result in your comment being removed:- We do not allow graphic, obscene, explicit, racist, or sexist comments under any circumstances.- We do not allow comments that are abusive, hateful or slanderous to any person, organization, or nation.- We do not allow comments that suggest, endorse, or encourage illegal activity.- We do not allow any sort of solicitation or advertisement, including endorsement of any commercial, financial, or non-governmental organization.- Use of profanity is prohibited.Additionally, the appearance of external links, as posted by fans of this page or other Facebook users, does not constitute endorsement on behalf of the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense. (SH)


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 13, 2016)

No, no agenda there for the photo op.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 13, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> No, no agenda there for the photo op.



Yep...I wonder how many others that swore in that day had them in their photos.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 13, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> So here is number two.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can tell you she isn't going to make it.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 13, 2016)

They really are just opening themselves to criticism when they start going AWOL or dropped from OSUT for the typical stress fractures that anyone would be getting.


----------



## AWP (Apr 13, 2016)

A BG and two CSM's just happened to be in town for her swearing in?

Get the fuck out of here...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 13, 2016)

I can't fucking believe anyone in their right mind would allow that little girl to sign an 11X contract. Honestly shaking my damn head, WTF is wrong with people...

Someone who has been awhile and built up for it, sure okay. Some butch bull dike who spent highschool as a power lifter, maybe. But some petite princess, talk about being tossed to the wolves...


----------



## Grunt (Apr 13, 2016)

Currently, it's the hot topic and I am sure that when a female walks in and wants that MOS, there aren't a lot of recruiters telling them no, IMO.

However, I could be wrong...I just don't think I am...under these circumstances and times.

I wouldn't doubt if recruiters are given a "female" quota before long...if they haven't already.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 13, 2016)

I saw some small dudes in OSUT that never did anything but play video games, they had the heart, but not the robustness in their bodies, and they were physically broken down until the recycled or took that walk of shame (and it really wasn't hard stuff). If they keep enlisting people who are physically not prepared, they're going to hurt a lot of people and second and third effects will jack up standards and the VA system.

If their going to do this, at least do it right, where people can be successful and not end up hurt.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 13, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Currently, it's the hot topic and I am sure that when a female walks in and wants that MOS, there aren't a lot of recruiters telling them no, IMO.
> 
> However, I could be wrong...I just don't think I am...under these circumstances and times.
> 
> I wouldn't doubt if recruiters are given a "female" quota before long...if they haven't already.



I am cynical by nature and in my cynical nature I imagine recruiters have been encouraged to steer "qualified" females to those MOSs.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 13, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I saw some small dudes in OSUT that never did anything but play video games, they had the heart, but not the robustness in their bodies, and they were physically broken down until the recycled or took that walk of shame (and it really wasn't hard stuff). If they keep enlisting people who are physically not prepared, they're going to hurt a lot of people and second and third effects will jack up standards and the VA system.
> 
> If their going to do this, at least do it right, where people can be successful and not end up hurt.


So the WTB at Benning see an increase in female WT's.
Awesome (not)


----------



## Gunz (Apr 13, 2016)

edit


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 13, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Bring em. Bring the girls in, give em an M4, frags, a 10-pound ruck, let em do a pushup or two, rock n roll. I've had my ass shot too many times bitching about this, so no comment from me from now on. Love the lady Army Infantry. Love the Lady Marine Infantry. Lets get some transgender folk in here and have real party. How about midgets? Height requirements are discrimination. Seriously. Get the Little People in here, God Bless em. How about drag queens. Let drag queens dress up as women Soldiers and Marines. Hell, North Carolina, Bragg, Pope, Lejeune, New River, Cherry Point, let's get everybody in the same god dam bathroom, pissin frontal, backal, sideal, up down around...bring it.



Good job cheapening a conversation. You win man, you are obviously the most upset.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 13, 2016)

On another 100% unrelated note, velcro patches and the big velcro square look terrible on a uniform, IMO.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Good job cheapening a conversation. You win man, you are obviously the most upset.



No sir. You win.


----------



## digrar (Apr 13, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I can't fucking believe anyone in their right mind would allow that little girl to sign an 11X contract.



Where are the girls that packed down in the scrums in the forward pack at College, the 75kg + Olympic lifters, the light/heavyweight freestyle wrestlers, the throwing disciplines from track? Those are the girls that have half a chance of making it. 5'4", 120lb Loren Ross, with no discernible muscle definition, is just going to snap.


----------



## CDG (Apr 13, 2016)

digrar said:


> Where are the girls that packed down in the scrums in the forward pack at College, the 75kg + Olympic lifters, the light/heavyweight freestyle wrestlers, the throwing disciplines from track? Those are the girls that have half a chance of making it. 5'4", 120lb Loren Ross, with no discernible muscle definition, is just going to snap.



In my experience, the women I know who do have backgrounds in rugby, weightlifting, martial arts, etc. are more likely to say, "Yeah, we can do some shit, but we're just not built like a dude."  It's the princesses that have never done anything that are so convinced they can just show up and perform and it's gonna be NBD.

I don't think that girl could even stand up off the ground from a rucksack flop position with a standard infantry load on her back.


----------



## macNcheese (Apr 13, 2016)

The S&W shirt says it all.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 13, 2016)

CDG said:


> In my experience, the women I know who do have backgrounds in rugby, weightlifting, martial arts, etc. are more likely to say, "Yeah, we can do some shit, but we're just not built like a dude."  It's the princesses that have never done anything that are so convinced they can just show up and perform and it's gonna be NBD.
> 
> I don't think that girl could even stand up off the ground from a rucksack flop position with a standard infantry load on her back.



Brother, you hit the nail square on the head with that post!

I triple agree!!!


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 13, 2016)

The one smiling CSM looks "light on the right"; I wonder if she has ever deployed?


----------



## pardus (Apr 13, 2016)

macNcheese said:


> The S&W shirt says it all.



What does it say?


----------



## macNcheese (Apr 13, 2016)

if you support S&W, you carry their guns. If you want attention and everyone to know that you carry a gun you wear their shirt.


----------



## pardus (Apr 13, 2016)

macNcheese said:


> if you support S&W, you carry their guns. If you want attention and everyone to know that you carry a gun you wear their shirt.



Bit of a stretch of imagination I'd say. Looks like a t-shirt to me. Do you put that much thought into your clothing choices?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 13, 2016)

I've got a S&W poster in my garage, guess I want everyone to know I carry a Glock.


----------



## macNcheese (Apr 13, 2016)

maybe you're right. Just seems like wearing a shirt like that in this situation is a little cliche


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 13, 2016)

I guess the point would be, that her t shirt matters not, and hasn't a thing to do with this thread...


----------



## policemedic (Apr 14, 2016)

macNcheese said:


> The S&W shirt says it all.



How long have you served in the Infantry?


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 14, 2016)

I wear a Sig hat.  Never carried one.


----------



## Brill (Apr 14, 2016)

pardus said:


> What does it say?



Says their stock is up 200%!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 14, 2016)

Mod hat on: We are getting off topic, gents. Time to return to the OP discussion.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 14, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Mod hat on: We are getting off topic, gents. Time to return to the OP discussion.


Saw article on "first female enlisted tanker" and "second female infantry enlistee" today.


----------



## CDG (Apr 14, 2016)

ASOS in Mississippi has the first female TACP recruit.  Her first PAST she failed every event, and then quit on a 4 mile ruck.  Like, sat down and just wasn't having it.


----------



## Theirb123 (Apr 14, 2016)

CDG said:


> ASOS in Mississippi has the first female TACP recruit.  Her first PAST she failed every event, and then quit on a 4 mile ruck.  Like, sat down and just wasn't having it.



I wish someone was doing a documentary on this stuff so the public and the bureaucrats could see the reality of all this.


----------



## metalmom (Apr 14, 2016)

Why not just let them live and learn through this process. Think there are a lot of judgements in place and for some hoping they will fall out and fail.When some DO make it-they will be your sisters in arms.Never been SOF so maybe speaking out of turn but no kudos for at least them trying. Dont get it.


----------



## AWP (Apr 14, 2016)

CDG said:


> ASOS in Mississippi has the first female TACP recruit.  Her first PAST she failed every event, and then quit on a 4 mile ruck.  Like, sat down and just wasn't having it.



Not to grammar Nazi here, but please tell me you meant "had" the first female recruit.


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 14, 2016)

CDG said:


> ASOS in Mississippi has the first female TACP recruit.  Her first PAST she failed every event, and then quit on a 4 mile ruck.  Like, sat down and just wasn't having it.


That level of giving up makes me all Kinds of pissed the fuck off.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Not to grammar Nazi here, but please tell me you meant "had" the first female recruit.


I am willing to be has is the correct word.
I am also willing to bet that every state with an ASOS is in competition for the first successful candidate.
That State that wins will have taken 6 months to a year in preparing said female (which is incredibly sad) so she can pass.
There are capable women who can be good (dare I say outstanding JTAC's) our recruiting approach sucks and that's why we are failing.


----------



## pardus (Apr 14, 2016)

metalmom said:


> Why not just let them live and learn through this process. Think there are a lot of judgements in place and for some hoping they will fall out and fail.When some DO make it-they will be your sisters in arms.Never been SOF so maybe speaking out of turn but no kudos for at least them trying. Dont get it.



How about unqualified candidates taking slots away from qualified/much more likely to succeed candidates, and the waste of valuable resources to support a policy that is dead in the water?
IMO, This program is not going to enhance SOF units outside of some specialist units that we don't often hear about.


----------



## digrar (Apr 15, 2016)

pardus said:


> IMO, This program is not going to enhance SOF units outside of some specialist units that we don't often hear about.



And those groups already (or they do in Australia and the UK) have internal job specific pre selection/training reo cycles for females who are required in the units.


----------



## CDG (Apr 15, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Not to grammar Nazi here, but please tell me you meant "had" the first female recruit.



How dare you accuse me of a lack of attention to detail!!  I meant "has".  Every ASOS does it different.  At my home unit in PA, you have to pass a PAST in order to enlist.  We had one girl already try out and fail.  In MS, a potential 1C4 is allowed to join sight unseen, and then has 4 months to successfully complete a PAST in order to avoid being reclassed.


----------



## AWP (Apr 15, 2016)

CDG said:


> I meant "has".



My contempt for this world increased today.


----------



## AWP (Apr 15, 2016)

Whatcha' gonna' do, PL?

Exclusive: Army approves first 22 female officers for ground combat jobs



> WASHINGTON — The Army announced Friday the first 22 women to be commissioned as infantry and armor officers under new rules that open all ground combat jobs to females this year.



I can't wait to see the Pass/ Fail rates.


----------



## metalmom (Apr 15, 2016)

pardus said:


> How about unqualified candidates taking slots away from qualified/much more likely to succeed candidates, and the waste of valuable resources to support a policy that is dead in the water?
> IMO, This program is not going to enhance SOF units outside of some specialist units that we don't often hear about.


Hey Pardus-your likes say it all. Thank you for your response and not being impatient with me.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 15, 2016)

And so we continue down the treacherous road: Army OKs the first women to be commissioned as infantry or armor officers

I wonder how Hooah they are, it takes a special type of person to live on a Bradley with 10 dudes.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 16, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> And so we continue down the treacherous road: Army OKs the first women to be commissioned as infantry or armor officers
> 
> I wonder how Hooah they are, it takes a special type of person to live on a Bradley with 10 dudes.



And shitting on the track is some tradition I believe


----------



## Hillclimb (Apr 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I can't wait to see the Pass/ Fail rates.



Theyre gonna reveal that the results were inconclusive after a few recycles, then lose any grades and documentation. And say that the command wasn't supportive of the study, and then mandate that the military make it happen. Then SgtMaj Lehew will speak out on fb and.. Wait.. I think I'm mixing the Marine Corps mixed gender experimental unit and Ranger School 

Classic gender equality.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 16, 2016)

Hillclimb said:


> Theyre gonna reveal that the results were inconclusive after a few recycles, then lose any grades and documentation. And say that the command wasn't supportive of the study, and then mandate that the military make it happen. Then SgtMaj Lehew will speak out on fb and.. Wait.. I think I'm mixing the Marine Corps mixed gender experimental unit and Ranger School
> 
> Classic gender equality.



I don't know that I would equate Ranger School and the Marine experiment. As I have been told, by those there, and have read on here those women met the standard.


----------



## Hillclimb (Apr 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't know that I would equate Ranger School and the Marine experiment. As I have been told, by those there, and have read on here those women met the standard.



I'm a terrible narrator. I had meant to foreshadow the events of the pass/fail rates of Freefallings article with events of the past.

I'm sure there'll be a mix of stud (ettes?), accusations, excuses, drama, and finger pointing.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 16, 2016)

Hillclimb said:


> I'm a terrible narrator. I had meant to foreshadow the events of the pass/fail rates of Freefallings article with events of the past.
> 
> I'm sure there'll be a mix of stud (ettes?), accusations, excuses, drama, and finger pointing.



Hard agree.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 16, 2016)

digrar said:


> *Where are the girls that packed down in the scrums in the forward pack at College*, the 75kg + Olympic lifters, the light/heavyweight freestyle wrestlers, the throwing disciplines from track? Those are the girls that have half a chance of making it. 5'4", 120lb Loren Ross, with no discernible muscle definition, is just going to snap.



...with the thighs the size of tree trunks that could move a Volkswagen?  Freaking stronger then hell.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Whatcha' gonna' do, PL?
> 
> Exclusive: Army approves first 22 female officers for ground combat jobs
> 
> ...



I think the pass rate for the basic course is going to be high.  It's simply not that hard.  The real test will be how they fare out in the force, and how much, if any, help they're given from the system to ensure their success.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 16, 2016)

metalmom said:


> Why not just let them live and learn through this process. Think there are a lot of judgements in place and for some hoping they will fall out and fail.When some DO make it-they will be your sisters in arms.Never been SOF so maybe speaking out of turn but no kudos for at least them trying. Dont get it.



There are other issues at play, and its not (at least from my end) a disparagement to their wants and desires. It's an understanding of ability and demands of those specific jobs. I've always thought women would do well in combat arms MOS's like artillery, engineering, etc, that do not require extreme physical fitness and robustness. I do believe that there are some women who can make through OSUT and possibly complete an enlistment in a line unit. Will they be an asset to that unit? Time will tell, but one thing I do know is there bodies will be broken from it, faster and more permanently than males. Which brings up issue of do we enlist people into jobs that we know will be physically broken down and after a few months a year are medically booted and now a drain on the VA system and many other programs.

I think the Army could do this and do it right, but they have to get the social engineering and politics out of it, and stop playing the "everyone is a winner everyone gets a trophy" game, and properly select, screen and prepare women for the harsh reality of Infantry and SOF type jobs.

Honestly nobody is kidding around, sticking their chest out about how hard and physically demanding these jobs are. It's worlds apart from the rest of the military, and the schoolhouse is the easiest part.


----------



## medicchick (Apr 16, 2016)

I honestly want to know what is going to happen when they get pregnant.  I'm pretty sure they won't be able to do a 10 miles while 7 months along, not to mention maternity leave.  I had restrictions of not lifting over Bibby's weight (normally was no more than 5 pounds, she was over 8) for 6-8 weeks due to a c-section.  There was no way I would have been able to come right back and hump a 100+ pound ruck.  Even firing a rifle would hurt tbh.  Every infantryman has a job and team/squad members would have to pick up the slack because a member chose to take themselves out of action.  How will that play into morale?


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 16, 2016)

This is going to be fail. Both on the enlisted side and I have a feeling more so on the officer side with women in positions of command.


----------



## AWP (Apr 16, 2016)

medicchick said:


> I honestly want to know what is going to happen when they get pregnant.



I think the Army's standard (maybe DoD's?) is a 6 month profile after childbirth. I know my hernia repair put me on a 6 month profile and it was over a year before I could run without it bothering me. I can't imagine coming back after a C-section. The Army would have to bury them on a staff somewhere and I question how that would play early in a career if she left a platoon leader slot early.

We can all "what if" this thing, and maybe it is the pessimist in me, but it seems like there are more chances for failure than success. It has to play out and confirm/ deny our fears, but I don't have any faith in Big Army's or Congress' ability to remain objective.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I think the Army's standard (maybe DoD's?) is a 6 month profile after childbirth. I know my hernia repair put me on a 6 month profile and it was over a year before I could run without it bothering me. I can't imagine coming back after a C-section. The Army would have to bury them on a staff somewhere and I question how that would play early in a career if she left a platoon leader slot early.
> 
> We can all "what if" this thing, and maybe it is the pessimist in me, but it seems like there are more chances for failure than success. It has to play out and confirm/ deny our fears, but I don't have any faith in Big Army's or Congress' ability to remain objective.


Yep, so we have a pregnant 2 (or 1) Lt who is out of the game for a year.
The SJW's will bitch if she doesn't get the same marks as her male colleagues.
There are jobs (JAG) where being pregnant does not take you out of the game, others not so much.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 16, 2016)

The Army is moving towards MOS-specific physical fitness standards.  I imagine pregnancy will be one of the things addressed.  It should also help address some of the issues we've run into for years with a one-size-fits-all profile and assignment system.

As an example, several years ago 4BCT 10th MTN DIV (LI) was in a fight with HRC about 11-series E7s and E8s being assigned to the BDE.  About 40% of them had no-running profiles.  They were still deployable so HRC considered it not a problem.  For the BDE CDR and CSM it was a huge problem.  They, justifiably, said they weren't going to put PSGs and 1SGs in line companies who couldn't run with their troopers.  It meant the BDE was reporting a major shortage of personnel - but their HR numbers didn't agree. 

The shifts in physical standards and profile management should line up with GEN Milley's initiatives on deployability and readiness that go to IOC on 1 JUN.

I think the truth is there will be a number of structural changes to the force - most especially in combat arms - that are rolled out in the next 18 months.  There have to be.  Treating gender integration as an exercise in tokenism guarantees failure on multiple levels and will result in nothing but embarrassment for combat arms units.  I'll be interested to see the leaders that try to express a vision of what they want the force to look like.  I don't think it was an accident - at least on the part of Army leaders - to move forward with gender integration.  They're going to need to start showing the real plan, and fast, in my view.


----------



## Loki (Apr 16, 2016)

digrar said:


> Any reduction in standard or double standard, which then leads to reduced performance will be a cancer.



Which will occur.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 16, 2016)

Mandate birth control for female infantry/ SOF.

Wait, that's too much telling women what to do with their reproductive cycles.

Mandate that males and females in their late teens to mid twenties all simultaneously stop having inter-gender sex.

Wait, that will never ever happen.  Ever.

Mandate the creation of an Individual Rotation Policy to fill suddenly vacant unit spots for about a year.

Wait...


Such a pickle!


----------



## metalmom (Apr 16, 2016)

If you know me-you would know how much high regard I have for JTF2. Would love to see a female one day within that elite group. Any Canucks feel the same? Know theres not a lot of us here but am wondering how you feel about that?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 17, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> The Army is moving towards MOS-specific physical fitness standards.  I imagine pregnancy will be one of the things addressed.  It should also help address some of the issues we've run into for years with a one-size-fits-all profile and assignment system.
> 
> As an example, several years ago 4BCT 10th MTN DIV (LI) was in a fight with HRC about 11-series E7s and E8s being assigned to the BDE.  About 40% of them had no-running profiles.  They were still deployable so HRC considered it not a problem.  For the BDE CDR and CSM it was a huge problem.  They, justifiably, said they weren't going to put PSGs and 1SGs in line companies who couldn't run with their troopers.  It meant the BDE was reporting a major shortage of personnel - but their HR numbers didn't agree.
> 
> ...



There are plenty of companies that need good 1SGs because certain MOSs can't lead...there were three 35Zs inbound to Bliss at one point, the MICo in 2BCT has not had an E8 First Sergeant in years...and none of those dudes wanted it.  Sorry, but what a joke.   I don't see any of this happening, the politicians in the Army and DoD will win out.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 17, 2016)

Well you definitely have to be committed at that point in your career, to take Ft Bliss. Not surprized.


----------



## digrar (Apr 17, 2016)

metalmom said:


> If you know me-you would know how much high regard I have for JTF2. Would love to see a female one day within that elite group. Any Canucks feel the same? Know theres not a lot of us here but am wondering how you feel about that?



I have no doubts that JTF2 already have women in the unit somewhere filling roles. Some of them are probably operational type roles. Places like 14 Int, SRR, SASRs 4 Squadron, all have operational roles for women, they do job specific selections, which are quite arduous, and they're doing good work. 

But seriously, no females are getting into an operational Squadron or Company in 22SAS, JTF2, what ever we're calling CAG and ST6 these days, SASR, etc. The selection, continuation training and job role is just far beyond what even elite female athletes are capable of doing. You'll see females being employed on NFL rosters as offensive linesmen about the same time you'll see them in sabre squadrons.


----------



## Loki (Apr 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I can tell you she isn't going to make it.



No, but she will be very popular...


----------



## Loki (Apr 17, 2016)

Pressure grows on Marines to consider lowering combat standards for women
Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course

In order to achieve success they will have to lower standards, the current objectives of the military command and leadership in the White House demand it.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 17, 2016)

Loki said:


> Pressure grows on Marines to consider lowering combat standards for women
> Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course
> 
> In order to achieve success they will have to lower standards, the current objectives of the military command and leadership in the White House demand it.



Are there women out there that want this?


----------



## AWP (Apr 17, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Are there women out there that want this?



Irrelevant. Everyone will pay lip service to "equality" until massive failures occur. Outsiders and pundits will say the military is sexist and denying women a fair chance. Women in uniform and those who completed the training will say "don't weaken the standards" but patronizing politicians, advocates, and Net "experts" will argue that the women don't know what they need.

The next two years will be BS kabuki theater until feminists get their way, trumpeting "equality" when just about everyone in uniform, including women, knows it is wrong but powerless to stop the changes.

The opinions of women in uniform don't matter, not where politicians and advocates are concerned.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 17, 2016)

I think the women who passed Ranger School proved that women who are properly selected and prepared can meet the current standard's. I will honestly say those two women did change my mind regarding certain individual women being able to meet the same standards. The pregnancy issue means little to me, put a general order against pregnancy during preparation and deployment cycles. 

What is more interesting to me is how the two Ranger lady's are doing now, how RS has changed them, what medical conditions have come up. What is even more important is how a women will hold up in a line company and for how long. The constant training and physical grind, how they will handle common injuries and for how long. The final issue will be seeing exactly what they bring to the table, the goods and bads, and what affects that has on combat readiness and unit integrity.

If all the commands involved (recruiting, training, forces) sat down and hammered this out developed a criteria for recruiting preparation and training for both male and female's, it would be a good thing....and I'm not talking about the new gay physical fitness test for recruits. That literally a waste of time.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 17, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I think the women who passed Ranger School proved that women who are properly selected and prepared can meet the current standard's. I will honestly say those two women did change my mind regarding certain individual women being able to meet the same standards. The pregnancy issue means little to me, put a general order against pregnancy during preparation and deployment cycles.
> 
> What is more interesting to me is how the two Ranger lady's are doing now, how RS has changed them, what medical conditions have come up. What is even more important is how a women will hold up in a line company and for how long. The constant training and physical grind, how they will handle common injuries and for how long. The final issue will be seeing exactly what they bring to the table, the goods and bads, and what affects that has on combat readiness and unit integrity.
> 
> If all the commands involved (recruiting, training, forces) sat down and hammered this out developed a criteria for recruiting preparation and training for both male and female's, it would be a good thing....and I'm not talking about the new gay physical fitness test for recruits. That literally a waste of time.


Does that no-sex order go for single male soldiers too?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 17, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Does that no-sex order go for single male soldiers too?



Didn't say no sex, said no pregnancy. And god I hope they don't do it for males, that would totally do away with the war babies...


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 17, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Irrelevant. Everyone will pay lip service to "equality" until massive failures occur. Outsiders and pundits will say the military is sexist and denying women a fair chance. Women in uniform and those who completed the training will say "don't weaken the standards" but patronizing politicians, advocates, and Net "experts" will argue that the women don't know what they need.
> 
> The next two years will be BS kabuki theater until feminists get their way, trumpeting "equality" when just about everyone in uniform, including women, knows it is wrong but powerless to stop the changes.
> 
> The opinions of women in uniform don't matter, not where politicians and advocates are concerned.


The same feminists will be silent when we have the next TF Smith too.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 17, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Didn't say no sex, said no pregnancy. And god I hope they don't do it for males, that would totally do away with the war babies...


What is a 100% method of a woman not getting pregnant?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 17, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> What is a 100% method of a woman not getting pregnant?



I would imagine if she was raped on the battlefield no command would punish her for getting pregnant, anything outside that lays squarely on the females shoulders of personal responsibility. How she goes about that would obviously be her decision.


----------



## metalmom (Apr 17, 2016)

Raped on the battlefield? That still happens? Im out of this thread and need to keep my jaw bone shut.Will still be watching it.Interesting but some stuff pushes triggers.


----------



## macNcheese (Apr 17, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> What is a 100% method of a woman not getting pregnant?


Well... A hysterectomy I suppose. I don't think that can be a requirement for entry. Why not just segregate them into an all women's unit? Instead of saying "you can do what the men do", make a small unit for all the rousey-types and give them the opportunity to do something that men CANT do.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 17, 2016)

What fucking trigger did I push? Yes raped on a battlefield, this maybe the internet, but I ain't talking of fantasyland.

Yes it happens, if you get captured, male or female, you can look forward to being raped. You have a possibility of also being raped on the FOB by someone wearing your own uniform,and happens to male and female soldiers.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 17, 2016)

macNcheese said:


> Well... A hysterectomy I suppose. I don't think that can be a requirement for entry. Why not just segregate them into an all women's unit? Instead of saying "you can do what the men do", make a small unit for all the rousey-types and give them the opportunity to do something that men CANT do.


How about abstinence.....



....or just hire Lesbians.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 17, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> How about abstinence.....
> 
> 
> 
> ....or just hire Lesbians.



Lesbians can be attacked the same way as heteros, and can concieve.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 17, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> What fucking trigger did I push? Yes raped on a battlefield, this maybe the internet, but I ain't talking of fantasyland.
> 
> Yes it happens, if you get captured, male or female, you can look forward to being raped. You have a possibility of also being raped on the FOB by someone wearing your own uniform,and happens to male and female soldiers.



Indeed...there are still people that think those types of things are for TV only and that they don't occur in the real world. That is a point of view taken through the lens of ignorance. Not everyone that we meet or shall  meet in the future battlefields will care less about raping a capture female combatant.

People act like that would be unheard of. My answer to them is that they need to have a wakeup call and a dose of reality. Battlefield rape will be an issue to be concerned about!


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 17, 2016)

First I've heard about the "Dempsey Rule."

Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course


----------



## Grunt (Apr 17, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> First I've heard about the "Dempsey Rule."
> 
> Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course



I refer to those types of things as the "small print" that none of us will ever know about until it's enacted.

Now the changing of the standards shall begin....


----------



## metalmom (Apr 17, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Indeed...there are still people that think those types of things are for TV only and that they don't occur in the real world. That is a point of view taken through the lens of ignorance. Not everyone that we meet or shall  meet in the future battlefields will careless about raping a capture female combatant.
> 
> People act like that would be unheard of. My answer to them is that they need to have a wakeup call and a dose of reality. Battlefield rape will be an issue to be concerned about!


 I didnt hear the word captured.Just thought he was stating it still happens in the ranks in the field as it has..I am not ignorant nor do I need a wakeup call.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 17, 2016)

metalmom said:


> I didnt hear the word captured.Just thought he was stating it still happens in the ranks in the field as it has..I am not ignorant nor do I need a wakeup call.



I assure you it does happen in the field. It happens all over the military.

I didn't call you ignorant or in need of a wakeup call....


----------



## AWP (Apr 17, 2016)

Why don't we all slow our emotional roll?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 17, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> First I've heard about the "Dempsey Rule."
> 
> Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course



I met Gen Dempsey when he was a 3 star, and I was at the WTB to pitch a wounded warrior to trainer program. I had the backing of many senior O's and NCO's and had a solid presentation. I left that brief with absolutely zero respect for him....I had actually typed out the story but deleted it because its poor measure on my part to air that dirty laundry.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 17, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Lesbians can be attacked the same way as heteros, and can concieve.


Rape is one thing, I thought he was talking about consensual sex.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 17, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Rape is one thing, I thought he was talking about consensual sex.



The roll of things got a tad confusing, and I did not look back beyond this :


Diamondback 2/2 said:


> What fucking trigger did I push? Yes raped on a battlefield, this maybe the internet, but I ain't talking of fantasyland.
> 
> Yes it happens, if you get captured, male or female, you can look forward to being raped. You have a possibility of also being raped on the FOB by someone wearing your own uniform,and happens to male and female soldiers.



We're beyond that now, and sorry for the confusion, amigo.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 17, 2016)

If we're talking about consensual sex, and if a general order of no pregnancy prep/deploy is issued, the choice of birth control or abstaining from sex would be the women's. It's pretty simple and I'm really not understanding your post's. What is your point, and or question?


----------



## macNcheese (Apr 17, 2016)

So if the standards are dropped and an 18x says "I was a woman born in a man's body", wouldn't they be forced into letting them test as a woman with a lower standard? This can open up a lot of nasty doors in combination with the "gender identity" situation


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 17, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> First I've heard about the "Dempsey Rule."
> 
> Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course



I think GEN Dempsey is an incredibly smart strategic leader – so is GEN Milley and GEN Odierno.  I think these stories – and the narrative they generate – are missing the point.

DoD leaders – uniform and civilian – have made a calculus that full gender integration is the future of the all-volunteer force.  I wish they would express more fully why they made that decision – though I don’t think it’s hard to guess.  The narrative that it’s just a bunch of politically correct hippies kowtowing to feminists is, I think, falsely reductionist. 

I think the DoD’s leaders see the military of the future needed to be smaller, more technologically savvy, and all-volunteer.  They recognize the military will have to compete for the most talented individuals from an American society that is increasingly divorced from the physical and emotional commitments required for military service – as well as an increasing cultural divide between military and civilian pursuits.

Looking at those demographic and cultural changes strategic leaders recognize the military will need to draw from essentially all of the qualified pool of citizens.  The continued most under-represented group in the military (of able-bodied citizens) is women – half the population but only around 15% of the total force (highest percentage in the USAF at ~20 and lowest in the USMC at ~6).

Opening up all jobs to women is the first step – but it must be far from the last.  True integration means equality of opportunity – the ability to advance.  Even if everything worked perfectly on the current track we’re still 15 years away from female IN BN CDRs – 20 from DIV CDRs.  There’s no way that is going to be even close to fast enough.  Ranger qualification helps enlisted, but is not a requirement – there’s no IN officer that makes it past MAJ in the active force who is not Ranger qualified anymore.  Look at the advancement rates of AR LTCs to COL and BDE command after IN and AR merged to the ‘maneuver’ branch – it’s extremely low.  Not a big deal to anyone not a senior AR officer but very telling for how the culture of Army advancement works.

I think service leaders – especially the Army – need to start thinking and acting quickly to get a plan to make gender integration work or start resigning their commissions in protest.  Integrating onesy-twosey into any kind of unit is a recipe for disaster.  You’re going to put a single female lower enlisted into a unit with zero first, second, third, or even fourth line leaders of the same gender?  Nobody but the Citadel thought that was a good way to integrate a military college – much less a military unit.

Standards will not be able to remain the same.  You’ll never get the density of women required to pass the current physical standards.  Further, the group dynamics, team-building mechanisms, and motivating factors are going to be different.  The sooner we start working on those changes the better – they’re not going to get easier the more time passes.  We change standards all the time.  Standards exist to help us get after our objectives – to fight and win wars.  When the desert phase was dropped from Ranger school nobody said ‘all those graduates now are a bunch of pussies.’  Actually, somebody probably did say that – but it doesn’t really change things.

We’re going to lose things in the transition – some of which we’ve already started losing over the last 30 years.  Units will not be able to meet the same collective physical standards of strength and endurance.  Many of the tried-and-true methods for building esprit and teamwork will not work.  But, we have the opportunity to gain greater participation from a segment of the population with significant talent and brain-power to bring to the force.

I think we just need to be honest about what we will be able to do less well in the transition to what we’ll be able to do better.  To me, that is a political problem – but it’s not the politics of our elected leaders, it’s the politics of our military leaders.  It’s the same politics that makes us say ‘there’s no difference in AC and RC forces, they can do the same job’ – ‘we’re the toughest fighting force on the planet’ – ‘DCGS-A works great.’

We’ve been moving away from fighting an enemy face-to-face for some time (or maybe our adversaries have moved away from it due to our dominance).  The American way of war is overwhelming firepower, technology, and resources.  We’re not fighting our enemies in the bush – except when the enemy chooses.  We load our infantry up with 180lbs of lightweight gear to chase guerrillas around the mountains.  We don’t have a BN CDR or above in the force that will send a squad to take a dump without persistent overhead surveillance. 

There’s a powerful argument to be made that we’re not training or fighting the right way, that this view of a net-centric, disaggregated fighting force has significant weaknesses.  But, nobody is making that argument.  The argument being made is all the mean-feminist/liberal/PC Nazis are making us let girls into our beloved tough-mudders and camping trips.  Girls, who make our dick jokes less funny and sow dissension in the ranks with their wiles will ruin our superb fighting force that has gone from victory to victory for the last 50 years (except for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam but you’re a dirty liberal politician, dirtbag if you have the temerity to count those against our glorious fighting forces).


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 17, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> What is a 100% method of a woman not getting pregnant?



Most IUD's are over 99%. In the shape they will need to be in their fertility will be diminished anyway.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 18, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Well you definitely have to be committed at that point in your career, to take Ft Bliss. Not surprized.


Ft Bliss is definitely the best installation in the Army when it comes to amenities, training areas, and not having a shit town immediately outside the gate.  We may not have chosen El Paso, but she is the Desert Flower as my last BDE CSM was bound to say.  And CSM Hendrex is always on point.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 18, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Ft Bliss is definitely the best installation in the Army when it comes to amenities, training areas, and not having a shit town immediately outside the gate.  We may not have chosen El Paso, but she is the Desert Flower as my last BDE CSM was bound to say.  And CSM Hendrex is always on point.



lol, I'm going to absolutely disagree with you. But either way, to each their own.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 18, 2016)

I would rather deal with Columbus every day a week and twice on Sunday, than El Paso. Fuck that place. I also doubt you have much experience as to what other facilities and posts the military has....


----------



## policemedic (Apr 18, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Ft Bliss is definitely the best installation in the Army when it comes to amenities, training areas, and not having a shit town immediately outside the gate.  We may not have chosen El Paso, but she is the Desert Flower as my last BDE CSM was bound to say.  And CSM Hendrex is always on point.



Yeah...not so much.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 18, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Most IUD's are over 99%. In the shape they will need to be in their fertility will be diminished anyway.



My son was born with an IUD in place. It came out when the placenta was delivered.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 18, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Ft Bliss is definitely the best installation in the Army when it comes to amenities, training areas, and not having a shit town immediately outside the gate.  We may not have chosen El Paso, but she is the Desert Flower as my last BDE CSM was bound to say.  And CSM Hendrex is always on point.


Juarez isn't a shit hole anymore?


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 18, 2016)

I ran all of this "women in combat MOSs" past my cousin, a female, who spent close to 30 years in the Air Force between active and reserve.  She was "in computers."  That's all I know.  Her dad, my uncle, retired from the Navy, an EOCS with the SeaBees.  I know his take...he is as misogynistic and old-school as anyone here.  My cousin said that she just doesn't understand the appeal (to women), said her perspective is that although she supports women serving in the military, some jobs are not for women.  She also said that she has talked quite a bit with her old buddies, male and female, and the opinion was pretty universal.

I have seen far more opinion from men than women on this topic, and it seems a lot of women actually feel the same way as most men.


----------



## NFB19 (Apr 18, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I have seen far more opinion from men than women on this topic, and it seems a lot of women actually feel the same way as most men.


I've decided to chime in. 

The younger and rising female generation of the military is not of the opinion overwhelmingly shared here. Most I have talked to have zero doubt that women should be in combat positions and have the ability to do so. Anything against that opinion is bigotry. However, even though most of them hold that opinion, they have no desire to do so themselves. In fact I have met only a select few females here at the Academy with any desire to enter such a profession. We recently opened up our SEAL and EOD screeners up to women. We had one try the SEAL screener a few weeks ago. I'll just say she did not complete it. In her defense, our SEAL screener is extremely tough and I commend her for even trying.  

Now, the opinion of myself and fellow males of that same generation? If women want to stand on that wall with us, by all means, go ahead, but do NOT lower the standards to get there. They want to play our game, they have to go by our standards. Nothing less. That, is actually something most of the females agree with, it's just the females capable of doing so do not have the desire to uphold that constant level of physical fitness.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 18, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> our SEAL screener is extremely tough



LOL - I would hope so!


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 18, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> I've decided to chime in.
> 
> The younger and rising female generation of the military is not of the opinion overwhelmingly shared here. Most I have talked to have zero doubt that women should be in combat positions and have the ability to do so. Anything against that opinion is bigotry. However, even though most of them hold that opinion, they have no desire to do so themselves. In fact I have met only a select few females here at the Academy with any desire to enter such a profession. We recently opened up our SEAL and EOD screeners up to women. We had one try the SEAL screener a few weeks ago. I'll just say she did not complete it. In her defense, our SEAL screener is extremely tough and I commend her for even trying.
> 
> Now, the opinion of myself and fellow males of that same generation? If women want to stand on that wall with us, by all means, go ahead, but do NOT lower the standards to get there. They want to play our game, they have to go by our standards. Nothing less. That, is actually something most of the females agree with, it's just the females capable of doing so do not have the desire to uphold that constant level of physical fitness.



You bring up some good points.  The women with whom I have spoken or heard about are more of 'my' generation.  I would imagine the Millennial generation females may feel different.  That's OK.  I see a couple issues; one, of course is that of "standards."  I loathe the idea of lowering standards; I think most people do.  Then there is that less scientific, more abstract idea of women in combat MOSs in general.  Even if women can meet the standard, I am not convinced they can maintain the standard.  Of course, right now it's a moot point as it has not been done here (US). 

My opinions, and I won't speak for the others here, are based not on abstract theory but having been-there-done-that and have experienced the harshness of life in the field.  Subjective, sure, but so far most objective measuring sticks have been poo-poo'ed and ignored.  I am not even talking high-speed SOF; just a line infantry unit.  That makes me a bigot for thinking they can't do it?   I think that a woman or two will slip through the cracks, outliers, I think standards will change to encourage women to enter these MOSs, and I think unit integrity will suffer.  Time will tell if I am right.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 18, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> I've decided to chime in.
> 
> The younger and rising female generation of the military is not of the opinion overwhelmingly shared here. Most I have talked to have zero doubt that women should be in combat positions and have the ability to do so. Anything against that opinion is bigotry. However, even though most of them hold that opinion, they have no desire to do so themselves. In fact I have met only a select few females here at the Academy with any desire to enter such a profession. We recently opened up our SEAL and EOD screeners up to women. We had one try the SEAL screener a few weeks ago. I'll just say she did not complete it. In her defense, our SEAL screener is extremely tough and I commend her for even trying.
> 
> Now, the opinion of myself and fellow males of that same generation? If women want to stand on that wall with us, by all means, go ahead, but do NOT lower the standards to get there. They want to play our game, they have to go by our standards. Nothing less. That, is actually something most of the females agree with, it's just the females capable of doing so do not have the desire to uphold that constant level of physical fitness.


Does the Navy a have gender neutral PT Test?
If not, are your female classmates asking to have their standards raised?
How do your classmates feel about women registering for the draft?


----------



## NFB19 (Apr 18, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Does the Navy a have gender neutral PT Test?
> If not, are your female classmates asking to have their standards raised?
> How do your classmates feel about women registering for the draft?


No, the Navy does not have a gender neutral PT Test. I cannot personally speak to whether the PST for EOD and SEALs is gender neutral or not. I would hope so considering they have to go through the same screeners to get the appropriate summer training and be eligible for selection.

There is no outcry for my female classmates to have their standards raised as far as our semi-annual PRT goes. However, we do have the highest standards in the Navy (women and men) and the fact that such a select few of graduating men go into combat arms, I doubt there will ever be one. Most of my male classmates and a select few non-PC officers and senior enlisted would agree in private, that if going EOD, SEAL, or Marine Corps combat arms, the women should have the same standard as the men. 

I have only spoken about the selective service issue with only a few male classmates and one female Gunny (former member of FET) and they all agree that it should happen, but doubt it will.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 18, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> I would rather deal with Columbus every day a week and twice on Sunday, than El Paso. Fuck that place. I also doubt you have much experience as to what other facilities and posts the military has....



Columbus was actually pretty decent, Radcliff was not.  So that makes three, I'd prefer Colorado Springs than El Paso though.  Been to Lewis, NTC, and a bunch of guard places.  El Paso being a real city, like Columbus you just have to open your eyes.  I go hunting often, Ft Bliss proper has Freedom Crossing which is a small mall. The Commissary is gigantic.  

Are you far away from everything in the world, most assuredly, I need a beach with water.  Every post is what you make it, and this place is pretty solid.  I suppose if duty stations really mattered we'd all be in the Navy.


----------



## Brill (Apr 19, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> Most I have talked to have zero doubt that women should be in combat positions and have the ability to do so. Anything against that opinion is bigotry.



Why should they be and what is the advantage they bring? Also, how many of those you polled actually participated in close quarters combat?

I believe that those bigots you reference have an educated opinion based on experience.


----------



## NFB19 (Apr 19, 2016)

lindy said:


> Why should they be and what is the advantage they bring? Also, how many of those you polled actually participated in close quarters combat?
> 
> I believe that those bigots you reference have an educated opinion based on experience.


Their thought process, not mine. I agree with you. 

As for the first part of your post, I wrote one of my thesis papers on this topic exactly. The BLUF of it is, think about the injury and deployment turnover rate of our infantry and SOF groups in Afghanistan and Iraq and what that has done to retention. I can expand more if you like. 

Now, here's something interesting to consider! I've talked to the Gunny about her time in the FET and her thoughts on the whole ordeal. She believes that it will be years before we see successful female assimilation into infantry roles. She also predicts that these females will not come from those already in the Corps, rather recruiters will have to actively seek out those females that have the potential to succeed in combat arms positions, the powerlifters, field throwers, etc. They should be given extra attention to be prepared physically and educated as to the physical wear and demands that will be required of them. Her reasoning behind this is that those already in know only their job(s), and even if they're physically fit, they simply cannot transition into the grunt role and perform at that level constantly. Rather, the ones who will succeed are those that are carefully picked and physically and mentally prepared before heading straight into the training pipeline and into combat roles. They must be developed into that constant level of physicality and mental stress rather than transitioned.


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 19, 2016)

Here we go.

In Marines' new fitness plan, pullups for women won't be mandatory


> *In Marines' new fitness plan, pullups for women won't be mandatory*
> 
> Marine leaders have proposed a new physical fitness test that would still allow women to do the flexed-arm hang — but they're not likely to earn a first-class score without pullups.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 19, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> Their thought process, not mine. I agree with you.
> 
> As for the first part of your post, I wrote one of my thesis papers on this topic exactly. The BLUF of it is, think about the injury and deployment turnover rate of our infantry and SOF groups in Afghanistan and Iraq and what that has done to retention. I can expand more if you like.
> 
> Now, here's something interesting to consider! I've talked to the Gunny about her time in the FET and her thoughts on the whole ordeal. She believes that it will be years before we see successful female assimilation into infantry roles. She also predicts that these females will not come from those already in the Corps, rather recruiters will have to actively seek out those females that have the potential to succeed in combat arms positions, the powerlifters, field throwers, etc. They should be given extra attention to be prepared physically and educated as to the physical wear and demands that will be required of them. Her reasoning behind this is that those already in know only their job(s), and even if they're physically fit, they simply cannot transition into the grunt role and perform at that level constantly. Rather, the ones who will succeed are those that are carefully picked and physically and mentally prepared before heading straight into the training pipeline and into combat roles. They must be developed into that constant level of physicality and mental stress rather than transitioned.



You bring interesting perspective, one that life at Canoe U can only provide. 

There have many, may papers written on this and similar topics.  I think but certainly can't prove that many are attached to an agenda.  Still, getting all sides is good.

Recruiters will fill quotas with whoever qualifies, not the best or most qualified applicant.  Off the record, they will tell you as much.  So I am not particularly confident that they will push the "powerlifters, et al." and guide the others to non-combat MOSs.

I would agree that those women already engaged in powerlifting, field throwers, hockey, rugby, probably have the more desirable body habitus to allow them to be more successful than, say, Barbie.  But to me the issue isn't their qualification for school/training, per se, but the constant, incessant demand placed upon their body over a protracted amount of time.  Here's the thing: if it breaks down healthy, strong men with an above-average muscle-to-fat ratio, how much more so women who simply lack the muscoskeletal frame which prevents many of the wear-and-tear injuries?  I believe women will make it in.  Actually that has been pre-ordained; there is no choice.  And because of this standards will "change".

Your position that "the ones who will succeed are those that are carefully picked and physically and mentally prepared before heading straight into the training pipeline and into combat roles. They must be developed into that constant level of physicality and mental stress rather than transitioned" is true of men AND women, regardless of their MOS.  No challenge there.

My bigger concern than women getting into MOS school and making the fleet in a FMF line unit is as much regarding what the inclusion will do to unit integrity.  I will say carrying all the deuce gear and a med bag and a weapon and radio batteries and several pounds in water sucks, especially when it is over days and days...we split carrying the heavy stuff, trade off, take turns, and being in a position where someone simply cannot carry an extra ounce is deemed as "not a team player" and will be ostracized and a liability to the unit.  We dealt with that at FMSS (now FMTB) with FAR less weight and FAR less time and distance with women who were not in 'bad' shape.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 19, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Are you far away from everything in the world, most assuredly, I need a beach with water.  Every post is what you make it, and this place is pretty solid.  I suppose if duty stations really mattered we'd all be in the Navy.



Yes, the Navy/Marine bases do offer certain advantages.  The Coast Guard?  Damn, now _those_ are some nice duty stations.


----------



## AWP (Apr 19, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> Rather, the ones who will succeed are those that are carefully picked and physically and mentally prepared before heading straight into the training pipeline and into combat roles. They must be developed into that constant level of physicality and mental stress rather than transitioned.



And this is a metric ton of garbage. Men aren't given that level of preparation, but for women to succeed they will need to be "groomed" for lack of a better word? That still isn't this "equality" thing everyone preaches.

Same pipeline, same standards, same timelines, the same everything...that's equality.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 19, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> I've decided to chime in.
> 
> The younger and rising female generation of the military is not of the opinion overwhelmingly shared here. Most I have talked to have zero doubt that women should be in combat positions and have the ability to do so. Anything against that opinion is bigotry. .



The moment we have women making up even a significant portion of our ground forces is the moment we are done as a civilization.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 19, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> The moment we have women making up even a significant portion of our ground forces is the moment we are done as a civilization.


The last time I looked a lot of women were filling jobs in the Army, unless you don't feel the Army is a ground force?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 19, 2016)

You know what I'm saying, but to be clear: direct combat.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 19, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> The last time I looked a lot of women were filling jobs in the Army, unless you don't feel the Army is a ground force?



I see your point; that wasn't my interpretation on first blush of what he said, but when I read his comment again, I read it this way, too.  I took it as "combat" units.  Standing by to allow him to affirm or refute.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 19, 2016)

Words have meanings, as an Officer, he should know that.
FWIW- I assume by direct combat you mean Infantry/Armor combat, and not, oh, AH-64 types of "direct combat".


----------



## NFB19 (Apr 19, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> And this is a metric ton of garbage. Men aren't given that level of preparation, but for women to succeed they will need to be "groomed" for lack of a better word? That still isn't this "equality" thing everyone preaches.
> 
> Same pipeline, same standards, same timelines, the same everything...that's equality.


And you're entitled to that opinion. I'm of a similar one, I was simply offering an alternative perspective from a female combat veteran. While I agree with your last statement, the reality is, if the DoD's plan is going to work out like they want, you and I both know that's not how it's going to be. Right or not.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 19, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> The moment we have women making up even a significant portion of our ground forces is the moment we are done as a civilization.



Why would you say that? I neither agree or disagree, because I'm unsure what you're trying to say here. If you're saying our civilization will end because women are integrated into our Infantry type units at say the same percentage rate as the percentage rates of women enlisting, I would strongly disagree with that. If you're saying we will be doomed because our forces will be weakened by women in Infantry types jobs, that would be a foolish assumption as we have no quantitative data to say it will in fact make us weaker. Outside of that, I'm not sure what you are saying?


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 19, 2016)

As an applicable aside, the British are following suit, to include the SAS.

The arguments and opinions in the article from those who have BTDT will be quite familiar.  Misery loves company.

"(British Colonel Richard) Kemp said: 'Why do feelings run so high? Because every infantryman knows the price for this social engineering experiment will be paid in blood.'"

*Military chiefs say 'yes' to women joining Special Forces in frontline combat roles*

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/military-chiefs-say-yes-women-7703761


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 19, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Words have meanings, as an Officer, he should know that.
> FWIW- I assume by direct combat you mean Infantry/Armor combat, and not, oh, AH-64 types of "direct combat".



Everybody should know goddamn well what he is talking about, this is a thread about women in the fucking infantry.

This is a warning, stop being a dick for no reason.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 19, 2016)

Male unit level leadership -

Gender Integration: make it happen.

*Male leaders will make or break the Army's combat integration of women*


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 19, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> And this is a metric ton of garbage. Men aren't given that level of preparation, but for women to succeed they will need to be "groomed" for lack of a better word? That still isn't this "equality" thing everyone preaches.
> 
> Same pipeline, same standards, same timelines, the same everything...that's equality.


It's not equality we want- it's justice.

Do I care that a good number of candidates (men and women alike) will need to seek out specific intention just to make it through any SOF selection/pipeline- um, no, why would I? I actually had someone make the argument because one of the women I know went out and got a running coach, and a physio, and a strength/conditioning coach to prepare for selection. His response was; "I made it on my own, if a fucking girl can't then that's bullshit"  sorry, that's not the way this works. When we say things like that we _knowingly ignore "the standards" we all rail on about. _If youre not willing to accept that someone else passed because you personally disagree with it solely on the grounds that you did it differently, it shows that you don't care about "the standards" at all. If you show up, and you make the standard- you pass. How you got there? 100% inconsequential. Verify that your standard is vetted and immovable. If someone makes that standard? Well, they pass and they do so without an asterisk.

People that want to engage me in this conversation aren't nearly as entertained as they were say, 2 years ago. I had a lot more opinions, a lot more to say- but in the end, here is where I land.

Every single candidate I see gets 2 things from me- equal opportunity and a fair assessment to the given standard. No more, no less. I don't care if you're black, homosexual, a woman, if you identify as mayonnaise as a gender, or if I personally don't think youre right for the job or just a dickhead- I don't care. Equal opportunity, fair assessment. That's not equality- that's justice.


----------



## AWP (Apr 19, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> post



I agree with you. My problem is if the government is prepping women but not men, running courses before/ after Basic or whenever that are only available to women. If they build themselves on their own time, that's fantastic and I'm 100% serious. Get coaching through the base gym or resources available to them? Again, no issues. Have a special course set aside for them to prep? No. AF enlistees go from Basic to Indoc, right? I'm talking about adding a course solely for women before sending them to Indoc, some training not available to the men.


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 19, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I agree with you. My problem is if the government is prepping women but not men, running courses before/ after Basic or whenever that are only available to women. If they build themselves on their own time, that's fantastic and I'm 100% serious. Get coaching through the base gym or resources available to them? Again, no issues. Have a special course set aside for them to prep? No. AF enlistees go from Basic to Indoc, right? I'm talking about adding a course solely for women before sending them to Indoc, some training not available to the men.


Got you. Well, rest assured that won't happen from our side. If the AF has done anything right, it's that there won't be special/segregated training for women, at leas not under the sanctioned AF flag.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 19, 2016)

I just got an idea of Diamondback 2/2's ladies Infantry prep course. Although I'd have to hire everything out because my broke ass can't keep up anymore.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 19, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I just got an idea of Diamondback 2/2's ladies Infantry prep course. Although I'd have to hire everything out because my broke ass can't keep up anymore.



Whatever that would look like, ensure Gender Neutral latrine access at your facility.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 20, 2016)

The Royal Marine Commando has been open for the attendance of women


DocIllinois said:


> Male unit level leadership -
> 
> Gender Integration: make it happen.
> 
> *Male leaders will make or break the Army's combat integration of women*


This woman is one of the reasons for this nonsense, it needs to end.  I'm all for it being open, but they must maintain the same exact standards as males.  It's not like the male minimum standard is a lot anyways.

Freefalling is correct, it's well publicized and documented in base newspapers that women received special prep for Ranger School.  At Bliss the women first were carefully selected, ok no isssue, but then stopped doing their regular job to specifically prep for RTAC.  Those that passed, then had three months off and spent that whole time rebuilding their bodies and working with the same instructors they had previously.  All the while not doing their normal job.  That doesn't happen for men in this Army, all of our prep for anything is done on our own time.   That is what I've seen here at 1AD.  YMMV.


----------



## Brill (Apr 20, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> The BLUF of it is, think about the injury and deployment turnover rate of our infantry and SOF groups in Afghanistan and Iraq and what that has done to retention. I can expand more if you like.



I'm not following how commanders' inappropriate use of SOF (e.g. using them like GPF) is relevant. Are you saying that women could make up the losses?


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 20, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Male unit level leadership -
> 
> Gender Integration: make it happen.
> 
> *Male leaders will make or break the Army's combat integration of women*


Agree.
I'm going to ramble a bit.
Standards will change, maybe that's not a bad thing (I am probably joining the minority here).
Standards are always changing, the Airborne PT Test was run in boots, changing just before I went to jump school.
Those before me groused that it was easier, and the standards were lower (true); but we all hit the ground the same way (like a bag of rocks), so was doing the PT test in boots necessary (probably not)?

The key is changing the standards so they reflect mission requirements, and not changing for the sake of change.

The AF was actually in the middle of a 4 year test (female volunteers from Lackland) where everything was being evaluated, and leadership had to say why each evolution was conducted.  The test was OBE with the forced integration, and I am bummed because it would have provided a lot of good data.

My major concern is the damage we are doing to our Service Members (spines/hips) by making everyone wear 30 lbs of protection.  I see (on a constant basis) the damage we do to men and women in the 68W course (and other medic courses), and the women seem to be more broke coming out of basic than the men, so will women break down faster in Combat Arms?  

Will the Services improve female specific medical care?  Will the VA get better at caring for female vets?  It's one thing to open the doors, but I don't think many have looked at 2nd or 3rd order effects. 

I also think the Army needs to start screening it's female applicants before offering a contract, the 95lb cuties being paraded before the camera probably won't make it.  That's a wasted Combat Arms slot (Combat Arms is more than Infantry) in a time of tight budgets and more applicants than openings. The AF makes a new recruit pass a PT test before getting a Battlefield Airman slot, and the Army could do the same for it's Combat Arms slots (note, this should apply to men and women).

I don't think the integration will be smooth initially, but it'll work because the NCO Corp is still more professional and less political than the Officer Corp, but all sides have to be fair.  That may mean a GO telling a Congressman/woman that your constituent did not make the cut based on her performance, and not gender.  Females need the same re-test standards as men, and men should get the same breaks as women.

Woman will excell in a few areas that some will find surprising, there was a Master's (Phd?) study done by a (now retired officer) Ricky Lynch that showed women made better gunners than men, the limiting factor was their ability to load shells. There were a few other areas that women excelled at, but were limited because of upper body strength.

I also think automation will get a boost, eliminating some strength issues (though some stuff just requires brute force), and maybe we get lighter gear down the road.

But I could be wrong.


----------



## compforce (Apr 20, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> My major concern is the damage we are doing to our Service Members (spines/hips) by making everyone wear 30 lbs of protection. I see (on a constant basis) the damage we do to men and women in the 68W course (and other medic courses), and the women seem to be more broke coming out of basic than the men, so will women break down faster in Combat Arms?



Interesting you bring this up.  When I went through the 25B AIT, they used us as mass casualties for the 68W class' final exercise.  At 215 pounds I wasn't the heaviest guy in our class.  The 68W class (mostly female) tried to do a two person carry of me and couldn't even drag me (in uniform, not combat equipped).  One of the two or three guys in their class had to come over and help.  He just threw me up in a fireman's carry to move me where they needed me.  It was about 30' from where I was to the casualty collection point across a bay floor (smooth concrete).  My point is...  If there wasn't a pairing of two females from that class (they ALL tried) that could drag me 30' across a slick floor, what happens in combat if I'm wounded?


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 20, 2016)

compforce said:


> Interesting you bring this up.  When I went through the 25B AIT, they used us as mass casualties for the 68W class' final exercise.  At 215 pounds I wasn't the heaviest guy in our class.  The 68W class (mostly female) tried to do a two person carry of me and couldn't even drag me (in uniform, not combat equipped).  One of the two or three guys in their class had to come over and help.  He just threw me up in a fireman's carry to move me where they needed me.  It was about 30' from where I was to the casualty collection point across a bay floor (smooth concrete).  My point is...  If there wasn't a pairing of two females from that class (they ALL tried) that could drag me 30' across a slick floor, what happens in combat if I'm wounded?


Were ther wearing body armor etc?


----------



## compforce (Apr 20, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Were ther wearing body armor etc?



no, completely admin they even had the ACU blouse off, just t-shirts.  they didn't have their aid bags either, those were stacked by the collection point.


----------



## metalmom (Apr 20, 2016)

compforce said:


> Interesting you bring this up.  When I went through the 25B AIT, they used us as mass casualties for the 68W class' final exercise.  At 215 pounds I wasn't the heaviest guy in our class.  The 68W class (mostly female) tried to do a two person carry of me and couldn't even drag me (in uniform, not combat equipped).  One of the two or three guys in their class had to come over and help.  He just threw me up in a fireman's carry to move me where they needed me.  It was about 30' from where I was to the casualty collection point across a bay floor (smooth concrete).  My point is...  If there wasn't a pairing of two females from that class (they ALL tried) that could drag me 30' across a slick floor, what happens in combat if I'm wounded?


 Adrenaline.Women are essentially caretakers.In my mind a female would come get you in a heartbeat in combat. On the other side men are about protecting-that could also lead to issues. 43 Pages later-no solutions-only opinions-which are great.
I do not accept lowering standards-in fact -I would have questioned if females would get more of a rough ride than their brothers.Apparently not.


----------



## AWP (Apr 20, 2016)

metalmom said:


> Adrenaline.Women are essentially caretakers.In my mind a female would come get you in a heartbeat in combat.



No one's questioning their heart or desire. If you're banking on adrenaline to carry the day and overcome existing physical limitations, you've done a poor job of selecting and training your personnel. Sex, age, size...it doesn't matter.


----------



## metalmom (Apr 20, 2016)

Sorry-didnt explain right. Adrenaline carries everyone in the field-combat Fight or flight response.Choices and duties.. Didnt mean it for selection and training.In combat I would think when adrenaline rushes in you could even at 5 ft nothing-110 lbs drag that wounded soldier or even fireman carry them out. Im too old now to even think sbout trying out-if I was in the US. My focus is on some will pass.I truly want them to. Just dont want to see  standards lowered.Freefalling-still didnt explain it correctly as my head sees it.
How do you explain a woman lifting a car because their child was stuck under it. 
My opinions in this thread dont count for much-very aware of that. Still want to see them succeed.I can never explain it-its feeling induced. Maybe thats the diff between us.


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 20, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> No one's questioning their heart or desire. If you're banking on adrenaline to carry the day and overcome existing physical limitations, you've done a poor job of selecting and training your personnel. Sex, age, size...it doesn't matter.



"We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level of our training." -Archilochus


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 21, 2016)

Anecdote time...

Back in 2007, before I really started needing warranty work, I went through WLC (PLDC for you old-timers) at Stewart. My small group was going over different ways to extract a casualty, and my SGL (an 11B) paired me up with this one Pacific Islander dude who was from a CID unit to demonstrate the fireman's carry. I was into weight lifting at the time (although not to the degree I was at Hood), so I was well within my tape allowance at 170lbs. SPC. Samoan, however, easily had me by 70lbs., probably more like 80. 

I'm pretty sure my SGL thought I was going to have an aneurysm from how red in the face I got during the lift (that he expected me not to complete), but damn if I didn't get him up and moved a few steps forward. Neither one of us was in full battle rattle, and I'm sure that if we had been, I'd have never gotten him up. 

Adrenaline MIGHT have given me the oomph to get him up, but that's the initial burst, not several minutes into contact. SOF guys in gear would weigh about the same as SPC. Samoan, just with a different BMI. Females that could accomplish this would have to train long and hard to get to that capability, if they ever reached it. That inability to move your squad mate is a potentially fatal liability.


----------



## 104TN (Apr 21, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> ...That inability to move your squad mate is a potentially fatal liability.


Or something you should have to count on adrenaline to achieve.


----------



## NFB19 (Apr 21, 2016)

lindy said:


> I'm not following how commanders' inappropriate use of SOF (e.g. using them like GPF) is relevant. Are you saying that women could make up the losses?


That is a point I had to argue for, yes. Note: I was told that the sensitive nature of my paper would require me to be very PC and would have the possibility of popping up should I ever want a star so I was very delicate in my wording in the argument. With this particular point I mentioned how the integration of women into combat arms MIGHT be a partial solution to this serious issue facing our current military. However, I did mention that this was not a five year solution, but rather, more of a twenty year plan should women be successful in integrating. I did NOT mention that I doubt in even twenty years that females would be of a sizable number in combat arms to stifle this issue, or that, should they go into these occupations and make up a fair percentage of the combat arms forces, they would actually make the issue worse. 

As a future officer, one aspiring to enter the Infantry community, this issue is one that I'll actually have to deal with. I have my personal opinions, but we've been taught there's a time and place for those and usually that time and place is not when you are in uniform. I have come to terms that by the time I reach my first platoon there is likely to be at least one female. I am telling myself that none of it will matter, gender, size, etc. as long as I can trust her to have my men's and my back when the SHTF. If she somehow got in on different standards, I'll do my part to ensure that if she's gonna stay, she's going to operate on the same standard. I will not take anyone, man or woman, who I consider a liability. If that means the end of my career before it's even really began then so be it.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 21, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> That is a point I had to argue for, yes. Note: I was told that the sensitive nature of my paper would require me to be very PC and would have the possibility of popping up should I ever want a star so I was very delicate in my wording in the argument. With this particular point I mentioned how the integration of women into combat arms MIGHT be a partial solution to this serious issue facing our current military. However, I did mention that this was not a five year solution, but rather, more of a twenty year plan should women be successful in integrating. I did NOT mention that I doubt in even twenty years that females would be of a sizable number in combat arms to stifle this issue, or that, should they go into these occupations and make up a fair percentage of the combat arms forces, they would actually make the issue worse.
> 
> As a future officer, one aspiring to enter the Infantry community, this issue is one that I'll actually have to deal with. I have my personal opinions, but we've been taught there's a time and place for those and usually that time and place is not when you are in uniform. I have come to terms that by the time I reach my first platoon there is likely to be at least one female. I am telling myself that none of it will matter, gender, size, etc. as long as I can trust her to have my men's and my back when the SHTF. If she somehow got in on different standards, I'll do my part to ensure that if she's gonna stay, she's going to operate on the same standard. I will not take anyone, man or woman, who I consider a liability. If that means the end of my career before it's even really began then so be it.



I am out now so aside from my concern for the military-at-large my perspectives are academic as I won't be in a line unit with women.  But because YOU will be, however, I very much appreciate the minefield in which you are volunteering to walk and applaud you for attempt to walk it.  As a corpsmen I could tell a platoon-mate "you are a useless bitch" (and I did, all to dudes) and say it with impunity; you most certainly cannot.  Best of luck.


----------



## AWP (Apr 21, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> I will not take anyone, man or woman, who I consider a liability. If that means the end of my career before it's even really began then so be it.



That could be a very real choice and it is one of several reasons why I no longer wear a uniform. I made that stand and it added with other factors; they cost me. It is easy to say or take that stand until the ramifications catch up to you.

Not preaching to you, just providing perspective as a guy who was once in those shoes over a decade ago.

Good luck.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 21, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> That is a point I had to argue for, yes. Note: I was told that the sensitive nature of my paper would require me to be very PC and would have the possibility of popping up should I ever want a star so I was very delicate in my wording in the argument. With this particular point I mentioned how the integration of women into combat arms MIGHT be a partial solution to this serious issue facing our current military. However, I did mention that this was not a five year solution, but rather, more of a twenty year plan should women be successful in integrating. I did NOT mention that I doubt in even twenty years that females would be of a sizable number in combat arms to stifle this issue, or that, should they go into these occupations and make up a fair percentage of the combat arms forces, they would actually make the issue worse.
> 
> As a future officer, one aspiring to enter the Infantry community, this issue is one that I'll actually have to deal with. I have my personal opinions, but we've been taught there's a time and place for those and usually that time and place is not when you are in uniform. I have come to terms that by the time I reach my first platoon there is likely to be at least one female. I am telling myself that none of it will matter, gender, size, etc. as long as I can trust her to have my men's and my back when the SHTF. If she somehow got in on different standards, I'll do my part to ensure that if she's gonna stay, she's going to operate on the same standard. I will not take anyone, man or woman, who I consider a liability. If that means the end of my career before it's even really began then so be it.




I agree with Freefalling and would add that as an O, you'll also be responsible for influencing others to make something like Gender Integration work.   This will likely include salty dog NCOs who are strongly opposed to it.

Oh, and you'll very often have non-hacking problem children in your platoon/ company, BTW.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 21, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> That is a point I had to argue for, yes. Note: I was told that the sensitive nature of my paper would require me to be very PC and would have the possibility of popping up should I ever want a star so I was very delicate in my wording in the argument. With this particular point I mentioned how the integration of women into combat arms MIGHT be a partial solution to this serious issue facing our current military. However, I did mention that this was not a five year solution, but rather, more of a twenty year plan should women be successful in integrating. I did NOT mention that I doubt in even twenty years that females would be of a sizable number in combat arms to stifle this issue, or that, should they go into these occupations and make up a fair percentage of the combat arms forces, they would actually make the issue worse.
> 
> As a future officer, one aspiring to enter the Infantry community, this issue is one that I'll actually have to deal with. I have my personal opinions, but we've been taught there's a time and place for those and usually that time and place is not when you are in uniform. I have come to terms that by the time I reach my first platoon there is likely to be at least one female. I am telling myself that none of it will matter, gender, size, etc. as long as I can trust her to have my men's and my back when the SHTF. If she somehow got in on different standards, I'll do my part to ensure that if she's gonna stay, she's going to operate on the same standard. I will not take anyone, man or woman, who I consider a liability. If that means the end of my career before it's even really began then so be it.



I admire the bravado, but your post makes me chuckle. You have a lot to learn about leadership and the Army.


----------



## NFB19 (Apr 21, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I admire the bravado, but your post makes me chuckle. You have a lot to learn about leadership and the Army.


*Marine Corps


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 21, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> That is a point I had to argue for, yes. Note: I was told that the sensitive nature of my paper would require me to be very PC and would have the possibility of popping up should I ever want a star so I was very delicate in my wording in the argument. With this particular point I mentioned how the integration of women into combat arms MIGHT be a partial solution to this serious issue facing our current military. However, I did mention that this was not a five year solution, but rather, more of a twenty year plan should women be successful in integrating. I did NOT mention that I doubt in even twenty years that females would be of a sizable number in combat arms to stifle this issue, or that, should they go into these occupations and make up a fair percentage of the combat arms forces, they would actually make the issue worse.
> 
> As a future officer, one aspiring to enter the Infantry community, this issue is one that I'll actually have to deal with. I have my personal opinions, but we've been taught there's a time and place for those and usually that time and place is not when you are in uniform. I have come to terms that by the time I reach my first platoon there is likely to be at least one female. I am telling myself that none of it will matter, gender, size, etc. as long as I can trust her to have my men's and my back when the SHTF. If she somehow got in on different standards, I'll do my part to ensure that if she's gonna stay, she's going to operate on the same standard. I will not take anyone, man or woman, who I consider a liability. If that means the end of my career before it's even really began then so be it.



I thought this was hilariously fucked-up.  You have not even commissioned yet but are making choices to hedge your chances at GO?  Here's a tip, see if you've got what it takes to be a good PL, company commander, and field grade officer - that's at least 10 years of your life post-graduation - before you start assessing your chances at GO. 

If you do get the opportunity at higher responsibility - which starts at 2LT - you might spend some time considering what role integrity and candor are going to take in your career and your life.  If you decide you want to stifle or hide your opinions in the interests of smoothing your way up the ladder that's your choice - but own it.  Don't kid yourself into thinking you're going to suddenly become a bastion of telling truth to power when you hit a certain rank or position.  If you spent your whole career up to that point kissing ass and carrying water you're not going to turn it around at the top.

Finally, don't hide behind PC labels.  If you don't believe in DoD or service policies speak out when given the forum - up and across, not down.  If you can't enforce and own as a leader your commander's intent - right up to the President - then military service is not for you.

I think this guy says it pretty well:

australian general comments on sexual harassment - Bing video


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 21, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> Post


Well said, as always.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 21, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> *Marine Corps



LMAO, I was a national guard soldier killing people while you were in elementary school... Humble yourself turbo.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 22, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> That is a point I had to argue for, yes. Note: I was told that the sensitive nature of my paper would require me to be very PC and would have the possibility of popping up should I ever want a star so I was very delicate in my wording in the argument. With this particular point I mentioned how the integration of women into combat arms MIGHT be a partial solution to this serious issue facing our current military. However, I did mention that this was not a five year solution, but rather, more of a twenty year plan should women be successful in integrating. I did NOT mention that I doubt in even twenty years that females would be of a sizable number in combat arms to stifle this issue, or that, should they go into these occupations and make up a fair percentage of the combat arms forces, they would actually make the issue worse.
> 
> As a future officer, one aspiring to enter the Infantry community, this issue is one that I'll actually have to deal with. I have my personal opinions, but we've been taught there's a time and place for those and usually that time and place is not when you are in uniform. I have come to terms that by the time I reach my first platoon there is likely to be at least one female. I am telling myself that none of it will matter, gender, size, etc. as long as I can trust her to have my men's and my back when the SHTF. If she somehow got in on different standards, I'll do my part to ensure that if she's gonna stay, she's going to operate on the same standard. I will not take anyone, man or woman, who I consider a liability. If that means the end of my career before it's even really began then so be it.


Your professor is not that awesome...something you write college will not affect your chance to make GO, and if it does, fuck them and do something better.  Lead your NCOs, lead your Joes.  There are always weak links in a platoon, it's yours and your NCOs jobs to train them to be stronger and to push them to places they can't go.  That's leadership.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 22, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> *Marine Corps


You are not a Marine yet, so I wouldn't get my panties in a wad.

There are some awesome Marines on this board (you'll figure them out), and some awesome non-Marines.  They can all give you valuable insight.
FWIW- Be a great Cadet, excel at the Academy. Then concentrate on being a great Lt or Capt; guys who concentrate on becoming GO's before they are commissioned tend to suck.


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 22, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Then concentrate on being a great Lt or Capt; guys who concentrate on becoming GO's *before they are commissioned* tend to suck.



Or even in their company-grade time.  

Additionally - just as a piece of advice - get used to scrutinizing your language.  Not out of any PC concerns, but one thing junior servicemembers quickly learn is that specific words have specific meanings.  Exchanging different terms that you may consider synonyms may have significant consequences for yourself and others if you don't consider the meanings carefully.

"Measure twice, cut once" becomes "think twice, speak once" for junior officers.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 22, 2016)

The best 2LT's keep their mouths shut, ears open and learn from their NCO's. The best NCO's treat that 2LT with respect, make sure the missions is accomplished, the men are GTG, and ensure that 2LT gets the credit. Just about the time that LT starts to know the job, they will take him away and give you a brand new one. Funny thing, the worst and best 2LT I ever had was a green to gold E7 11B turned 2LT 11A, couldn't tell that guy shit, but he was also right 90% of the time. Always getting into NCO business and had no problem calling you out behind the conex if you didn't agree. I doubt he went very far as an officer, but I think he was enjoying himself.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 22, 2016)

I was running an ER at a SAC base just south of the Canadian Boarder. I thought I ran the place, and actually had the potential of becoming a micro managment ogre. One day I walked into the head, and a couple of seconds later, I heard the door lock behind me. There stood a pissed looking USAF TSGT with his arms crossed over his chest. He began with, "Look here man........" in the end, I came to understand I took care of the folks who came through the door needing medical care. Getting anything I needed to provide the care was up to him. Life was a lot simpler for me after that chat, and we may not have been the best of friends, but we would back each other all the way down the line. I learned a great deal from him.


----------



## metalmom (Apr 22, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I was running an ER at a SAC base just south of the Canadian Boarder. I thought I ran the place, and actually had the potential of becoming a micro managment ogre. One day I walked into the head, and a couple of seconds later, I heard the door lock behind me. There stood a pissed looking USAF TSGT with his arms crossed over his chest. He began with, "Look here man........" in the end, I came understand I took care of the folks who came through the door needing medical care. Getting anything I needed to provide the care was up to him. Life was a lot simpler for me after that chat, and we may not have been the best of friends, but we would back each other all the way down the line. I learned a great deal from him.


 I think we can learn valuable lessons like you did then-but we need to have our ears wide open and be able to accept criticism and move forward.This is why I am here and why this site is so important.If some are not getting the arrogance knocked out of them out there-they sure will here.Thats good teaching moments.


----------



## digrar (Apr 23, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I think this guy says it pretty well:
> 
> australian general comments on sexual harassment - Bing video



General Morrison was recently awarded Australian of the year. Apart from some very senior officers, the veteran community kicked up a huge fuss. He is not well liked and is seen as agenda driven and quick to ditch the troops he led, for his 15 minutes of fame as a fighter for women's rights, something that garners him 5 figure sums on the lecture circuit.
This particular speech was written by his transgender speech writer. S/he was was also nominated for Australian of the Year and was not a happy little camper when Morrison got the gong.
Most of the people he references at the start of the video clip did little more than receive an email. Most did not open it. He wrecked a number of 20+ year careers for receiving an email. One was terminated for having a brother who also served getting the email. The whole issue had actually been investigated, only one person was ever convicted (an ex service civilian who was the instigator of the email) and listed as pretty much a non event until it became convenient for him to make it a big event.
He had a similar over reaction to posts on a Regiment facebook group becoming public (His Regiment in fact). About 2000 of us received a letter where he denigrated all of our service, over the actions of a few people, on a closed private page.

Morrison was quite happy to walk past the standard, until it became politically and ultimately financially beneficial to take a stand. he's a grub.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Apr 23, 2016)

digrar said:


> snip



General Morrison is sure as hell no General Sir Cosgrove, if Uncle Pete had made that same speech I might have taken it to heart.


----------



## digrar (Apr 23, 2016)

He's got some valid points, but he's too divisive to ever get his own team on board, he's not particularly a good leader.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 23, 2016)

I thought GEN Morrison expressed CDR's intent for what we would call SHARP and EO policies in the US Army very clearly - something in short supply across the US force.  I don't know how any leader would ever be an effective subordinate if they had to run CDR's intent through the sieve of what they think of the CDR personally, what their politic skills/agenda is, or what their political views are.

If a CDR is insincere or unwilling to enforce their stated policies that will come through with experience and action.  But, if I'm judging on what a CDR is saying - this guy says it pretty clearly.


----------



## Etype (Apr 23, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> The BLUF of it is, think about the injury and deployment turnover rate of our infantry and SOF groups in Afghanistan and Iraq and what that has done to retention. I can expand more if you like.


What is a, "deployment turnover rate?" Are you talking about turnover during deployments, amount of deployments, or turnover in general?



NFB19 said:


> I was told that the sensitive nature of my paper would require me to be very PC and would have the possibility of popping up should I ever want a star...


I want to laugh out of my chair at this, but I've been desensitized through several years on this forum.

As you work to finish you bachelors and become an officer, remember, there are a number of people on this forum who have masters degrees in deployment history (6+ years total time deployed).

Don't outrun your headlights.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 23, 2016)

digrar said:


> General Morrison was recently awarded Australian of the year. Apart from some very senior officers, the veteran community kicked up a huge fuss. He is not well liked and is seen as agenda driven and quick to ditch the troops he led, for his 15 minutes of fame as a fighter for women's rights, something that garners him 5 figure sums on the lecture circuit.
> This particular speech was written by his transgender speech writer. S/he was was also nominated for Australian of the Year and was not a happy little camper when Morrison got the gong.
> Most of the people he references at the start of the video clip did little more than receive an email. Most did not open it. He wrecked a number of 20+ year careers for receiving an email. One was terminated for having a brother who also served getting the email. The whole issue had actually been investigated, only one person was ever convicted (an ex service civilian who was the instigator of the email) and listed as pretty much a non event until it became convenient for him to make it a big event.
> He had a similar over reaction to posts on a Regiment facebook group becoming public (His Regiment in fact). About 2000 of us received a letter where he denigrated all of our service, over the actions of a few people, on a closed private page.
> ...


Sounds like the SHARP training we go through all the time...


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 25, 2016)

In other news, my state has decided to create an excess spot in every Infantry unit for a female E-5 who has been through the Infantry Transition Course.

Her purpose, currently, will be only to act as a liaison to any incoming lower enlisted female 11Bs (a few of whom are already in RSP.)  She will not be assigned to a position in an operational platoon.

This was mentioned while the officers in my unit did a Women in the Infantry sensing session this past weekend.  Many hands in the horseshoe formation went up with the same concern: if we're going for integration then why immediately alienate someone, an NCO especially, by putting them into an untouchable excess spot?

Our CO goes to the Brigade level sensing deal with unit comments and suggestions early next month.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 25, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> In other news, my state has decided to create an excess spot in every Infantry unit for a female E-5 who has been through the Infantry Transition Course.
> 
> Her purpose, currently, will be only to act as a liaison to any incoming lower enlisted female 11Bs (a few of whom are already in RSP.)  She will not be assigned to a position in an operational platoon.
> 
> ...



Are you in an infantry unit? 

I'm not trying to be an asshole just curious.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 25, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Are you in an infantry unit?
> 
> I'm not trying to be an asshole just curious.



An officer in one, yes.


----------



## NFB19 (Apr 25, 2016)

Etype said:


> What is a, "deployment turnover rate?" Are you talking about turnover during deployments, amount of deployments, or turnover in general?
> 
> 
> I want to laugh out of my chair at this, but I've been desensitized through several years on this forum.
> ...


Amount of deployments.

I've received a lot of flak about the whole GO comment. After reading what I put I realize it looks like I'm just a careerist looking to climb the military hierarchy before I've even really entered it. Perhaps that is how my instructor meant it; I don't think so, when he said it, I took it as, if you want your military career to last longer than your obligated five years, then you'll need to take ownership of this order and find reasons to support it. I wasn't about to regurgitate the illogical arguments that are being spewed today, so I wrote my paper hypothetically with the argument based on the success of integration at the rate the DoD _hopes_ for. Basically, I said _if _this works, here's the best case scenerio. I even examined cultures who have used women as critical assets in their combat arms teams, i.e. Soviets and Israelis. With those examples I did mention their integration was/is forced due to their state of conflict, one which we have not been seriously threatened with for over a century.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 25, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> An officer in one, yes.



Did they only poll infantryman?


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 25, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Did they only poll infantryman?



Yes, our session only included Infantry.  We are a standalone Infantry unit and it was a MUTA drill.

It was not a poll as the time for something like that has long passed, but a Q&A and feedback/ concerns session.


----------



## AWP (Apr 25, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> In other news, my state has decided to create an excess spot in every Infantry unit for a female E-5 who has been through the Infantry Transition Course.



I'm not justifying this..."interesting" move, but once upon a time the Guard could carry a certain percentage of overage slots up to E-5. Are they creating a slot or setting aside one of these overage slots for the female NCO? The issue of rank makes me think it is the latter. Still garbage, but operating with the system at least vice opening a position.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 25, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'm not justifying this..."interesting" move, but once upon a time the Guard could carry a certain percentage of overage slots up to E-5. Are they creating a slot or setting aside one of these overage slots for the female NCO? The issue of rank makes me think it is the latter. Still garbage, but operating with the system at least vice opening a position.



The spot has been created specifically for a female E-5 who has been through the Infantry Transition Course.

If it were an existing overage spot then we could (and likely would) simply fill it with a male E-5.  State would be pissed in that case but whatever.

It is garbage, I agree.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 25, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> The spot has been created specifically for a female E-5 who has been through the Infantry Transition Course.
> 
> If it were an existing overage spot then we could (and likely would) simply fill it with a male E-5.  State would be pissed in that case but whatever.
> 
> It is garbage, I agree.


Maybe not.
Hopefully you get solid NCO's vice SJW's.  A good "Liaison" NCO can work both sides of the issue and nip things quickly.


----------



## AWP (Apr 25, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> The spot has been created specifically for a female E-5 who has been through the Infantry Transition Course.
> 
> If it were an existing overage spot then we could (and likely would) simply fill it with a male E-5.  State would be pissed in that case but whatever.
> 
> It is garbage, I agree.



The Guard sinks to a new low.

I'm with @DA SWO on this, hopefully (hope is a dangerous thing) the position is filled with good NCO's and not women with an agenda or weak-minded careerists given biased marching orders. Given my cynicism and pessimism we can all guess what I think will happen. Time will tell.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 25, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The Guard sinks to a new low.
> 
> I'm with @DA SWO on this, hopefully (hope is a dangerous thing) the position is filled with good NCO's and not women with an agenda or weak-minded careerists given biased marching orders. Given my cynicism and pessimism we can all guess what I think will happen. Time will tell.



The general unit sentiment to this action was, "If you're going to integrate women into the Infantry, then fucking integrate them.  Don't make them aliens right from the get go."

This isn't taking for granted that the female NCO will not be motivated to train with the line platoons, find ways to contribute in a meaningful manner, and learn about ground level life in the Infantry and all that.

The most effective way to facilitate those things, which they should be IMO, is to put her into a TL spot like any incoming male E5.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 25, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> The general unit sentiment to this action was, "If you're going to integrate women into the Infantry, then fucking integrate them.  Don't make them aliens right from the get go."
> 
> This isn't taking for granted that the female NCO will not be motivated to train with the line platoons, find ways to contribute in a meaningful manner, and learn about ground level life in the Infantry and all that.
> 
> The most effective way to facilitate those things, which they should be IMO, is to put her into a TL spot like any incoming male E5.



That would be a cherry ass team leader.


----------



## AWP (Apr 25, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That would be a cherry ass team leader.



They would, but if you send them to the unit as an E-5, what other options are there? Dump her at BN in a -3 slot for a year so she can learn about the environment and see ops from that perspective? That limits how many you can integrate into the line companies. They are NCO's so placing  them in a quasi-SPC role could be problematic. You either slot them as a B team leader or place two NCO's in the B fire team but neuter her by essentially stripping her of any NCO responsibility, but she still draws the pay...which alienates the other male soldiers.

It is a shit sandwich and there are no good answers. I totally agree with you, but is there a good solution or a bunch of lesser evils?


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 25, 2016)

IMHO, things will be a whole lot smoother if the first incoming females are GTG on PT, have a very thick skin, and humble enough to admit that they don't know what they don't know.

The integration will still be a bastard and take ages, and likely some corrective counseling, but with the above in place the struggle will be eased somewhat.

Although, we've got some _males_ who aren't so hot at the above so time will indeed tell.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 25, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> IMHO, things will be a whole lot smoother if the first incoming females are GTG on PT, have a very thick skin, and humble enough to admit that they don't know what they don't know.
> 
> The integration will still be a bastard and take ages, and likely some corrective counseling, but with the above in place the struggle will be eased somewhat.
> 
> *Although, we've got some males who aren't so hot at the above so time will indeed tell*.



They change or move on, happens all the time.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 25, 2016)

It ain't going to work that way, and it's going to piss off a bunch of SPC's who have been waiting probably for years, to make SGT. Knowing how difficult it can be to get promoted in the NG Infantry, and knowing how disgruntled many dudes are about it, they will hate her just for wearing that rank and going through a "Infantry transition course" (what in the fuck is that?). They need to come in from Sand Hill as E I owe you ones and earn their place, anything else or less, will simply make them outcasts, especially to the guys who actually care, which undoubtedly are your best people.

Honestly sounds like they are setting a system to side step platoon/company level leadership and give a young, unknowing/understanding lady a way to take problem's (real or perceived) straight to the btn leadership (with pull). Which would be drama queen extraordinar to the tenth power...

I feel for you @DocIllinois

A smarter way, would be a female 2LT/1LT at the Btn level who acts kinda of like an EO style S1, makes sure things get properly investigated, ensures equal bullshit for everyone, and can be the ear for younger ladies, interpret whatever the hell is going on for the commander/Top. Still have normal career progression, etc.  She wouldn't have to be Infantry or transitioned, just normal S1 with some extra training for dealing with new female grunt's.

$.02


----------



## Grunt (Apr 25, 2016)

I suspect there will be concessions made at multiple levels to have women integrated into multiple levels. I suspect that the establishment will not want to wait for women to work their way up the rank structure in grunt related fields. 

They will work out a way to put females in leadership roles. It will happen...whether or not it's the right thing to do...they don't care.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 25, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> It ain't going to work that way, and it's going to piss off a bunch of SPC's who have been waiting probably for years, to make SGT. Knowing how difficult it can be to get promoted in the NG Infantry, and knowing how disgruntled many dudes are about it, they will hate her just for wearing that rank and going through a "Infantry transition course" (what in the fuck is that?). They need to come in from Sand Hill as E I owe you ones and earn their place, anything else or less, will simply make them outcasts, especially to the guys who actually care, which undoubtedly are your best people.
> 
> Honestly sounds like they are setting a system to side step platoon/company level leadership and give a young, unknowing/understanding lady a way to take problem's (real or perceived) straight to the btn leadership (with pull). Which would be drama queen extraordinar to the tenth power...
> 
> ...



Agreed, and this makes me consider another aspect.  If the female Snuffy goes to the excess E5 with an issue, that matter damn well better always get communicated to the troop's TL.  Is there anything that Private 'shouldn't' be able to go to her immediate COC with? 

If I were that soldier's TL/SL and knew she went to the liaison with something, then asked the liaison what was up and got any reply resembling "Don't worry about it," I'd come unscrewed. 

Closeness, trust and communication aren't just fanciful social constructs in a combat arms unit, they're a necessity.


----------



## AWP (Apr 25, 2016)

Agoge said:


> I suspect there will be concessions made at multiple levels to have women integrated into multiple levels. I suspect that the establishment will not want to wait for women to work their way up the rank structure in grunt related fields.
> 
> They will work out a way to put females in leadership roles. It will happen...whether or not it's the right thing to do...they don't care.



Once they branch Infantry and finish the career captain's course (MCCC? It changed since I was in) they become eligible for any IN slot including battalion and brigade commanders. The Guard runs a reclassing course for soldiers wanting to become 11B's (plus other MOS'), but O's go through the AD courses. I don't know if this Infantry Transition Course is the same 11B producing/ retraining course or not.

Anyway, you can have a scenario, male or female, where a Signal or Quartermaster O goes to the MCCC and is now eligible to be Infantry/ Armor/ whatever that Course produces. That happens all of the time. Even the AD does it with Branch Detailing. Like it or not there is a precedent for moving female enlisted and officers into combat arms roles because men have done it forever. It is rare to see them do it past the SSG or Captain levels. The FLARNG used to see this a lot as O's jockeyed for promotions; there were a few with more than 2 branches.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 25, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Once they branch Infantry and finish the career captain's course (MCCC? It changed since I was in) they become eligible for any IN slot including battalion and brigade commanders. The Guard runs a reclassing course for soldiers wanting to become 11B's (plus other MOS'), but O's go through the AD courses. I don't know if this Infantry Transition Course is the same 11B producing/ retraining course or not.
> 
> Anyway, you can have a scenario, male or female, where a Signal or Quartermaster O goes to the MCCC and is now eligible to be Infantry/ Armor/ whatever that Course produces. That happens all of the time. Even the AD does it with Branch Detailing. Like it or not there is a precedent for moving female enlisted and officers into combat arms roles because men have done it forever. It is rare to see them do it past the SSG or Captain levels. The FLARNG used to see this a lot as O's jockeyed for promotions; there were a few with more than 2 branches.



I understand that a little better now as I am woefully ignorant of how the Army does things -- especially along those lines.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 25, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Once they branch Infantry and finish the career captain's course (MCCC? It changed since I was in) they become eligible for any IN slot including battalion and brigade commanders. The Guard runs a reclassing course for soldiers wanting to become 11B's (plus other MOS'), but O's go through the AD courses. I don't know if this Infantry Transition Course is the same 11B producing/ retraining course or not.



Its a course for an enlisted member to reclass to Infantry.  Ours is held at Camp Atterbury.

Infantry Transition Course

Yet another thing that gets under my skin; two weeks to fully reclass as Infantry?  Come on.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 25, 2016)

If the transition course is the two week 11B MOSQ course the guard use's for reclass, than they will be double fucked. Nobody respects those stupid two week schools, and honestly it pisses guys off again, because someone E5/E6 who was a clerk or whatever, did a two week school and stole a promotion from a guy who's been waiting for years to get promoted.

It's one of the things I've always hated about the NG Infantry units, is they were always, nonstop, screwing over the enlisted. With rank, with schools, with reclass, with unit integrity, with all kinds of stupid stuff that would literally make you want to go postal on people. 50 year old non-deployable overweight E5's holding up promotions. 

The guard needs to stop the reclass, start an up or out policy, and boot everyone who can't make tape or pass the APFT on demand. They probably lose 25-30% of the people, but they would be a much better force for it...and they would keep a lot more good people.


----------



## AWP (Apr 25, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Its a course for an enlisted member to reclass to Infantry.  Ours is held at Camp Atterbury.
> 
> Infantry Transition Course
> 
> Yet another thing that gets under my skin; two weeks to fully reclass as Infantry?  Come on.



The Indiana brigade ran one in Afghanistan (I think all or most of the Guard units did) down in Kabul. All sorts of "dumb" went on down there and it contributed to the cheapening of the CIB. FL runs a 14-whatever reclass for its ADA brigade and I think a 63B (or whatever the vehicle mechanic MOS is these days) reclass as well. The two week or AT+drills+AT reclass programs are one of the dumbest concepts created by the Guard and accepted by the AD. That and running its own OCS program, but that's another story.



Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Post



While we're all guilty of drifting from the thread, you and Doc bring up great points about the Guard system and how it ties into the problems with integrating female soldiers, problems the AD won't necessarily have. Jam female NCO's through a school no one respects, dump them in a line unit when they aren't ready (but they are on paper, just ask NGB's politicians!), and watch the rebellion begin. I hope someone's tracking retention and transfer rates for combat arms units.


----------



## Etype (Apr 26, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> Amount of deployments.
> 
> i.e. Soviets and Israelis. With those examples I did mention their integration was/is forced due to their state of conflict, one which we have not been seriously threatened with for over a century.


So is the amount of deployments something that would negatively effect women in SOF?

As to your second point, something we haven't been threatened with in over a century? What is that?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 27, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> That is a point I had to argue for, yes. Note: I was told that the sensitive nature of my paper ...



You've mentioned this paper of yours several times now.  How about taking your name and other identifying information off of it and posting it here or sending it to me in a PM?  I don't understand some of the points you're making in referencing it and would like to read it in its entirety.  I won't share it with anyone else and I won't comment on it to anyone but you.



NFB19 said:


> That is a point I had to argue for, yes. Note: I was told that the sensitive nature of my paper would require me to be very PC and would have the possibility of popping up should I ever want a star...



An obscure paper you wrote for a random class you had in college 20+ years before could be so sensitive that it might somehow "pop up" when you're under consideration for flag officer rank and adversely affect your chances for a star?  Does that sound even remotely possible to you?  Please tell me the person telling you this is a career civilian and not someone who actually knows how the military works.  You're in college and preparing to be a military officer.  Your concerns when it comes to writing papers should be making them "professional," not "PC."



NFB19 said:


> I have my personal opinions, but we've been taught *there's a time and place for those*.



Yeah, it's called "college." Even at the service academies there are plenty of ways for you to express your opinions... unless you're too scared.  You know, for your chances of making flag rank or of not being PC enough or something.



NFB19 said:


> ... *I will not take anyone, man or woman, who I consider a liability.* If that means the end of my career before it's even really began then so be it.



If the last 20 years is any indication, you are dead wrong about the part in bold.  You'll take anyone you're told to take, whether you consider them a "liability" or not.  There will be very few times in your career, particularly in the early years, when you get to make those kinds of decisions.  Just trying to do a little expectation management here.

I'm going to close with this last thought:  I'm more than a little skeptical that someone who is already sacrificing his beliefs at the altar of the PC gods over something as trivial as a college paper in order to protect his career is going to spontaneously decide to fall on his sword when it comes to playing for real stakes down the road.  It's easy to say what you will or will not do when you're sitting comfortably back home and not confronting those situations directly.

I take that back, that's not my last thought.  This is it:  you seem like an intelligent and motivated, but as yet inexperienced, individual.  In some ways you remind me of me when I was your age.  I think you're exactly the kind of person who can benefit from being a member of the ShadowSpear community, if you're willing to actually learn from the experience.  As an officer who wants to see an aspiring fellow officer succeed, I recommend a little more humility and some personal reflection on the reactions you've received since you became a member here and to think hard about what your next post in this thread is going to say.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 27, 2016)

Good post @Marauder06


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 27, 2016)

@Marauder06 hit it straight in the X-ring.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 27, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> If the last 20 years is any indication, you are dead wrong about the part in bold.  You'll take anyone you're told to take, whether you consider them a "liability" or not.  There will be very few times in your career, particularly in the early years, when you get to make those kinds of decisions.  Just trying to do a little expectation management here.



I was chatting with a PC once, many, many years ago, and he said, and I paraphrase:  It's not the studs I worry about, they have enough initiative and intelligence to do the job.  Even the mediocre Marines will usually turn out OK with good leadership within the team.  My biggest job is motivating and leading the kid that can barely pass the PFT, leading the kid that needs a second and third time to get a concept.  Those are the people who most benefit from real leadership the most, and those are the Marines I want to see succeed the most.

You are right: leaders inherit their teams (platoons, companies, ship's company, ODAs, whatever).  They have to actually, you know, _lead _their people.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 27, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I was chatting with a PC once, many, many years ago, and he said, and I paraphrase:  It's not the studs I worry about, they have enough initiative and intelligence to do the job.  Even the mediocre Marines will usually turn out OK with good leadership within the team.  My biggest job is motivating and leading the kid that can barely pass the PFT, leading the kid that needs a second and third time to get a concept.  Those are the people who most benefit from real leadership the most, and those are the Marines I want to see succeed the most.
> 
> You are right: leaders inherit their teams (platoons, companies, ship's company, ODAs, whatever).  They have to actually, you know, _lead _their people.



I think this is a great point and similar to some of the most helpful advice I ever got as an officer.  When I was a LT our BN CSM took out a sheet of paper and laid out a graph for me (he was talking about the things that made a good commander - time management being an under-rated skill).

He laid out a line and said essentially:

'In any given unit you have about 5% of the troopers who are superstars.  Doesn't matter where you put them or what you have them doing they will shine.  About the same percentage are total dirtbags - criminals, mental cases, unreformed troublemakers.  The rest of the unit is in the middle.  Let's say in an average unit about half of those folks will tend to make the right choice unsupervised and about half will tend to make the wrong one - but the truth is the average unit's I've seen the split is much more uneven.  Most leaders at the company and above spend 90% of their time on the bottom 5% - and so give all their missions to the top 5% because they know they'll get done.  A good command team limits the time spent on these bubbas at the edges and concentrates on moving the line on that 90% in the middle.'

I wrote the advice down, had it in my book of reminders before I took company command, and when I whipped out the book and did my first two 90 day assessments on how I was doing in command I found myself falling into this trap he warned me about.  I've found it very useful ever since then as a self-evaluation tool and as a tool to evaluate others.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 27, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I think this is a great point and similar to some of the most helpful advice I ever got as an officer.  When I was a LT our BN CSM took out a sheet of paper and laid out a graph for me (he was talking about the things that made a good commander - time management being an under-rated skill).
> 
> He laid out a line and said essentially:
> 
> ...



Had almost the exact same thing (he used 10% top, 10% bottom) explained to me at one of my first NCOPD's. It made a lot of sense once I viewed it in that light of where I needed to dedicate my time and supervision. It was also used to in the example of micro management of the top performers and how it can become counter productive. In many cases it was better to tell them what you want done and allow them to run with it. Where the shitbags almost always needed micro management and direct supervision in all duties. In many cases using newly pinned CPL/SGT's on the lower half in developing their ability to lead hard to lead troops. Obviously different areas of leadership and responsibility between O's and NCO's, but interesting that you used that as a self evaluation tool.

Great post BTW!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 27, 2016)

Capt. Griest is going all in. Got her Ranger tab and now off to the infantry.  At this point my only opinion on this is that I respect the fact that she's continuing to decline interview requests and is instead just trying to be the best Soldier she can be.

_Capt. Kristen Griest, one of the first women to earn the coveted Ranger tab, will once again make history by becoming the Army’s first female infantry officer.

Griest is expected to graduate from the Maneuver Captain's Career Course on Thursday and earn the right to wear the distinctive blue infantry cord, officials confirmed to Army Times.

"Like any other officer wishing to branch-transfer, Capt. Griest applied for an exception to Army policy to transfer from military police to infantry," said Bob Purtiman, a spokesman for the Maneuver Center of Excellence and Fort Benning, Georgia. "Her transfer was approved by the Department of the Army and she's now an infantry officer."_

Meet the Army's first female infantry officer


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 27, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Capt. Griest is going all in. Got her Ranger tab and now off to the infantry.  At this point my only opinion on this is that I respect the fact that she's continuing to decline interview requests and is instead just tying to be the best Soldier she can be.
> 
> _Capt. Kristen Griest, one of the first women to earn the coveted Ranger tab, will once again make history by becoming the Army’s first female infantry officer.
> 
> ...



This is a smart step forward, although it will be interesting where she ends up and if she gets a command or staff job.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 27, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Capt. Griest is going all in. Got her Ranger tab and now off to the infantry.  At this point my only opinion on this is that I respect the fact that she's continuing to decline interview requests and is instead just trying to be the best Soldier she can be.
> 
> _Capt. Kristen Griest, one of the first women to earn the coveted Ranger tab, will once again make history by becoming the Army’s first female infantry officer.
> 
> ...



Now what....has she earned the right to COMMAND an infantry company?

She has never commanded an Infantry Platoon, at any level, (And sorry, 58 days in the suck doesn't count) never served as an XO in an Infantry Company. So, based on this, and her rank, she just gets to sidestep all the usual requirements of assuming command of an Infantry Company that occurs over a period of 4-6 years along with all the OER's that go along with that recommendation???????

Fail.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 27, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Now what....has she earned the right to COMMAND an infantry company?
> 
> She has never commanded an Infantry Platoon, at any level, (And sorry, 58 days in the suck doesn't count) never served as an XO in an Infantry Company. So, based on this, and her rank, she just gets to sidestep all the usual requirements of assuming command of an Infantry Company that occurs over a period of 4-6 years along with all the OER's that go along with that recommendation???????
> 
> Fail.


Let's see what they do with her.

Prediction: She goes to the 75th Rgr Rgt in 2-4 years as their first female officer.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 27, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Now what....has she earned the right to COMMAND an infantry company?
> 
> She has never commanded an Infantry Platoon, at any level, (And sorry, 58 days in the suck doesn't count) never served as an XO in an Infantry Company. So, based on this, and her rank, she just gets to sidestep all the usual requirements of assuming command of an Infantry Company that occurs over a period of 4-6 years along with all the OER's that go along with that recommendation???????
> 
> Fail.



I've seen O-3 PL's before normally for very short periods, but its happened. I would imagine she will end up on a btn staff or an HHC commander. 

My $.02


----------



## Grunt (Apr 27, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I would imagine she will end up on a btn staff or an HHC commander.



Only if Big Army doesn't have different plans for her! She may become "their" poster child -- willingly or unwillingly.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 27, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Let's see what they do with her.
> 
> Prediction: She goes to the 75th Rgr Rgt in 2-4 years as their first female officer.



2-4 years? That's what has me uncorked. She's headed to RASP next.

Which means the standards HAVE CHANGED.


----------



## AWP (Apr 27, 2016)

Centermass said:


> 2-4 years? That's what has me uncorked. She's headed to RASP next.
> 
> Which means the standards HAVE CHANGED.




Get the fuck out. Her first Infantry command is likely to be a Ranger Platoon?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 27, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Only if Big Army doesn't have different plans for her! She may become "their" poster child -- willingly or unwillingly.



Well she has already become that with graduation of Ranger school and now the Infantry commanders course. But I honestly doubt any Btn commander is going to give her a line company right out the gate, pressure from above or not. No body could justify that, but giving her a staff job, or HHC command would be reasonable. She won't be commanding line platoons besides the scout platoon and that normally got a HSLD PL and normally ends up more of a Btn commander asset vs the HHC CO asset. 

I mean she has to go somewhere, if she ends up in a Btn, those two options make sense. Outside of some special "you will get some platoon time" which really depends on her date of rank and if they have a senior enough company commander to make it work.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 27, 2016)

It's very common to command fairly shortly after a branch transfer.  The twist here is very few officers branch transfer into combat arms in the Army.  Combat arms are usually where other branches detail their officers as LTs and CPTs - then they transition back to their primary branch.  Usually a CPT right out of the career course will go to a BDE and serve somewhere on the staff - preferably in the BN they are competing for command.  They'll then take command based on a BDE OML approved by the BDE CDR that factors in time in service, performance, potential, and an internal board process.


----------



## AWP (Apr 27, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> It's very common to command fairly shortly after a branch transfer.  The twist here is very few officers branch transfer into combat arms in the Army.  Combat arms are usually where other branches detail their officers as LTs and CPTs - then they transition back to their primary branch.  Usually a CPT right out of the career course will go to a BDE and serve somewhere on the staff - preferably in the BN they are competing for command.  They'll then take command based on a BDE OML approved by the BDE CDR that factors in time in service, performance, potential, and an internal board process.



I thought about Branch Details, but have only ever heard of combat arms first and then transitioning to a CS or CSS company. As for a BDE OML....I have zero faith in the system to not politicize it where female soldiers are concerned. The odds of her taking an infantry company and outperforming her peers who grew up in infantry units are astronomical.


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 27, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Now what....has she earned the right to COMMAND an infantry company?
> 
> She has never commanded an Infantry Platoon, at any level, (And sorry, 58 days in the suck doesn't count) never served as an XO in an Infantry Company. So, based on this, and her rank, she just gets to sidestep all the usual requirements of assuming command of an Infantry Company that occurs over a period of 4-6 years along with all the OER's that go along with that recommendation???????
> 
> Fail.



Other than the obvious "hell yes" rubber stamp to the request, is there any part of the process that wouldn't have been applied to a male MP 1LT/CPT wanting to jump branches? 

(not rhetorical; I'm asking because I don't know)


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 27, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I thought about Branch Details, but have only ever heard of combat arms first and then transitioning to a CS or CSS company. As for a BDE OML....I have zero faith in the system to not politicize it where female soldiers are concerned. The odds of her taking an infantry company and outperforming her peers who grew up in infantry units are astronomical.



Sure, but there's politics across the board.  One of the factors always considered is where is the CPT in their career.  If it's somebody you want to have a shot at MAJ they have to have a command - so frequently dudes get bumped up by seniority not by performance.

It will be interesting to see how combat arms handles it because OS has been dealing with this shit for years.  I've seen plenty of stud MI CPTs passed over for command of MICOs so a guy with a Ranger tab could get it - Ranger tab being the explicit criteria.  Sometimes that means a branch detailed officer with some experience, mostly it means your most junior CPT who happens to have been branch detailed.  Maneuver guys have been saying a guy can be a great commander - doesn't need experience in that branch - in favor of maneuver guys over those branches for years.  Now the shoe will be on the other foot.

Similarly, the argument that 'women are going to get preferential treatment in assignment, promotion, CSL, and all the rest because their a minority and need to move up to be represented in senior ranks.'  Well, I'm an MI officer - so I wouldn't know anything about that shit.  Maneuver guys have had a different set of rules than the rest of us for a long time - and they were the ones that dictated them since they're 90% of the GOs.  Now they're going to have to reap a little of that shit sandwich themselves so they better pony up to the table and dig in.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 27, 2016)

At the same time, her being the test case and with all eyes on every step of the process, doesn't that potentially ace out any chance of preferential treatment in regards to her assignment?  Granted I'm so far out of my lane of expertise here that I'm driving the wrong way in Europe, but I am genuinely curious about this.


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 27, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> At the same time, her being the test case and with all eyes on every step of the process, doesn't that potentially ace out any chance of preferential treatment in regards to her assignment?  Granted I'm so far out of my lane of expertise here that I'm driving the wrong way in Europe, but I am genuinely curious about this.



I'm sure they can find a way to spin preferential treatment if they find a need.


----------



## compforce (Apr 27, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> At the same time, her being the test case and with all eyes on every step of the process, doesn't that potentially ace out any chance of preferential treatment in regards to her assignment?  Granted I'm so far out of my lane of expertise here that I'm driving the wrong way in Europe, but I am genuinely curious about this.



Not if the powers that be want it to politically happen.  A quiet word to the GO/Division CDR that she really needs to succeed for HIS career will filter its way down the chain and she'll have nothing but stellar OER's.  And we all know that what's on paper trumps the truth on the ground when it comes to promotions and perceived success...

Perception is reality


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 27, 2016)

Sigh.  Fucking politics :wall:


----------



## CDG (Apr 27, 2016)

I have zero faith that this will go off smoothly, or the way it would go for a male officer in the same position.  The civilian leadership has already shown a complete lack of understanding of the ramifications of their decision-making, a disregard for the ground truth (here's looking at you Mabus), and a propensity to treat the military like a social petri dish.  Most general officers, and field grades, will likely bow to pressure, however subtle it may be, and ensure "success" at the cost of efficiency and efficacy. Those who attempt to take a stand will be marginalized at best, and demonized at worst.  Their careers will be over either way and the endstate combat power of the United States will gradually weaken as this game of "everyone deserves a trophy and women deserve it more than others" is played out.  COL (Ret.) Haring has already written an article stating male leadership will be to blame for female failure.  That sentiment will echo and will force an environment of mutual distrust and hostility.  This is going to go to a very bad place if we continue down the current path, IMHO.

To be clear, I am talking about the situation as a whole, across all branches.  This is bigger than the incident with CPT Griest's career path.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 27, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Now what....has she earned the right to COMMAND an infantry company?
> 
> She has never commanded an Infantry Platoon, at any level, (And sorry, 58 days in the suck doesn't count) never served as an XO in an Infantry Company. So, based on this, and her rank, she just gets to sidestep all the usual requirements of assuming command of an Infantry Company that occurs over a period of 4-6 years along with all the OER's that go along with that recommendation???????
> 
> Fail.



Unless the process has changed along with other things in the Infantry, a tab and cord get an incoming PL about a week of quasi respect.  After that, if the people they are commanding decide they're maybe ok its a long process of harshly testing the officer's confidence, composure, and sense of dignity - things which factor very heavily into combat arms leadership. 

I hope that this cherry CPT doesn't get all butt hurt when/ if this happens in a place where they have no genuine experience.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 27, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Now what....has she earned the right to COMMAND an infantry company?
> 
> She has never commanded an Infantry Platoon, at any level, (And sorry, 58 days in the suck doesn't count) never served as an XO in an Infantry Company. So, based on this, and her rank, she just gets to sidestep all the usual requirements of assuming command of an Infantry Company that occurs over a period of 4-6 years along with all the OER's that go along with that recommendation???????
> 
> Fail.



Having been an S1 in my last job, I will inform all who would think otherwise: Command is a Right!  Captains are managed by year groups and at  a minimum will get their 12+ months...if they serve under 12 months you know something bad occurred.  HHC should always be a second command...why, because the BC needs a solidly built HQ and a CDR that knows how to maneuver pieces.  She may end up as an FSC commander, I've seen Armor and Artillery officers command them, I've also seen an Artillery Officer command a Recon Troop.  But make no mistake, HRC does not value commands outside of your MOS as much as commands within your MOS.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 27, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Having been an S1 in my last job, I will inform all who would think otherwise: Command is a Right!  Captains are managed by year groups and at  a minimum will get their 12+ months...if they serve under 12 months you know something bad occurred.  HHC should always be a second command...why, because the BC needs a solidly built HQ and a CDR that knows how to maneuver pieces.  She may end up as an FSC commander, I've seen Armor and Artillery officers command them, I've also seen an Artillery Officer command a Recon Troop.  But make no mistake, HRC does not value commands outside of your MOS as much as commands within your MOS.



Okay so...since we are all rubbing our temples and channeling our inner psychic, what is your gut prediction with her?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 27, 2016)

I have no idea, that she gets her 12 months to command an Infantry Company, I would suspect Branch would attempt to send her to an SBCT or ABCT.  But she's quoted as wanting to be super high speed so she'll probably try to go to Bragg or Campbell.  In a Vacuum I would think it would be very tough for her to compete physically, but if she earns it in the S3 shop and her BC pushes for her she'll see command.  What she does with her 12 months is up to her.  With a good 1SG any commander can come out not completely dicked up even though they might be.  I honestly don't know, and I think it's a bad move considering the way the Army  did this integration thing.


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 27, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Having been an S1 in my last job, I will inform all who would think otherwise: Command is a Right!



On what basis?  Your answer to why you belong in charge of a formation (ANY formation, much less a combat arms formation) is that it'll fuck your career otherwise?  Holy shit...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 27, 2016)

That's the reality of how Officers are managed, you get placed into Key Development jobs, if you fail to complete the required amount of time you're done.  For Captains that means 12 months of command time within your MOS.  For Field grades it's 24 months of S3/XO time, for LTC it BN CMD (of any kind).  Should it be that way? Probably.  Now how the BDE CDR and BDE S1 manage the command OML is different in every BDE.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 27, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> On what basis?  Your answer to why you belong in charge of a formation (ANY formation, much less a combat arms formation) is that it'll fuck your career otherwise?  Holy shit...





ThunderHorse said:


> That's the reality of how Officers are managed, you get placed into Key Development jobs, if you fail to complete the required amount of time you're done.  For Captains that means 12 months of command time within your MOS.  For Field grades it's 24 months of S3/XO time, for LTC it BN CMD (of any kind).  Should it be that way? Probably.  Now how the BDE CDR and BDE S1 manage the command OML is different in every BDE.



^He's correct.  That is exactly how it works, especially in the company grade ranks, and not just in the Infantry.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 27, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I was chatting with a PC once, many, many years ago, and he said, and I paraphrase:  It's not the studs I worry about, they have enough initiative and intelligence to do the job.  Even the mediocre Marines will usually turn out OK with good leadership within the team.  My biggest job is motivating and leading the kid that can barely pass the PFT, leading the kid that needs a second and third time to get a concept.  Those are the people who most benefit from real leadership the most, and those are the Marines I want to see succeed the most.
> 
> You are right: leaders inherit their teams (platoons, companies, ship's company, ODAs, whatever).  They have to actually, you know, _lead _their people.


Yes, this exactly.

In more than 20 years of commissioned service, I've had exactly one assignment where I had completely unrestricted hiring and firing authority.  Assigned, augmentee, military, civilian, higher rank than me, somebody's boy... whatever.  If I didn't think you were a good fit, you didn't get in.  If I didn't think you were working out, you were gone that day.  That was for one one specific position downrange with the Task Force, which I filled for four months before I rotated out and it was someone else's gig.  When I was in 5th Group I got to leave one NCO behind because he was a dirtbag (he ended up with a USASFC combat patch anyway, which is a completely different story).  Other than that, I had to play the hand I was dealt with the cards that the Army dealt me.

At the height of the GWOT not only was it almost impossible to get rid of someone, we were letting in all kinds of people with sketchy backgrounds.  People coming into the military need to come to grips with the fact that there are going to be "liabilities" in their formations.  Pre-service, they need to concentrate on not being that liability themselves before they worry about what they're going to do about the shortcomings of others.


----------



## AWP (Apr 27, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> On what basis?  Your answer to why you belong in charge of a formation (ANY formation, much less a combat arms formation) is that it'll fuck your career otherwise?  Holy shit...



If they underperform at lower levels they shouldn't have a shot at round 2. If they performed, even marginally, then they should go on to the next level. While it rarely happens I think that's one reason you have the mandatory PL, Company XO, Company Commander, Staff, OPs, BN XO, etc. path. It doesn't just make sense it can (if done properly which is perhaps another discussion) serve as a checks and balances against dirtbags.

Now, the logic of "He sucked as an XO, but maybe he'll be a good CO because he deserves that shot" is something I can't wrap my head around and would hope that isn't practiced.


----------



## NFB19 (Apr 27, 2016)

Etype said:


> So is the amount of deployments something that would negatively effect women in SOF?
> 
> As to your second point, something we haven't been threatened with in over a century? What is that?


The amount of deployments is negatively affecting Infantry and SOF forces now is what I'm saying. 

Second point: Invasion and occupation of the homeland. 

Marauder06, you'll be receiving a PM shortly concerning your post.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 27, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> The amount of deployments is negatively affecting Infantry and SOF forces now is what I'm saying.
> 
> Second point: Invasion and occupation of the homeland.
> 
> Marauder06, you'll be receiving a PM shortly concerning your post.



The amount of deployments is what makes our force strong as well. I don't think in the history of our military you had as many experienced SOF/infantry guys filling the ranks.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 27, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> If they underperform at lower levels they shouldn't have a shot at round 2. If they performed, even marginally, then they should go on to the next level. While it rarely happens I think that's one reason you have the mandatory PL, Company XO, Company Commander, Staff, OPs, BN XO, etc. path. It doesn't just make sense it can (if done properly which is perhaps another discussion) serve as a checks and balances against dirtbags.
> 
> Now, the logic of "He sucked as an XO, but maybe he'll be a good CO because he deserves that shot" is something I can't wrap my head around and would hope that isn't practiced.



This happens all the time.  Saw it from the time I was a Cherry LT until I left.  11 years of watching mediocre people get promoted and placed in positions of responsibility to "square them away for the board."  It doesn't make sense but it happens and will continue to happen until senior leaders from O-4 and above are held accountable for their counseling.  No one has the heart to tell anyone, "Hey man, you gave it your best shot and we need to look at work in another area suited to your strengths or you need to find work outside of the military".  No one has the heart to tell someone, "Hey man, command and leadership isn't your strong suit." SF was much better at this than others but it depended on the leader.  First SF BC fired a guy in the middle of a meeting for poor performance.  Next BC couldn't fire anyone, no matter how much his XO or S-3 and Commanders pleaded with him.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 27, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> ....
> 
> Marauder06, you'll be receiving a PM shortly concerning your post.



Thank you for that very professional email.  I look forward to talking more later.


----------



## Etype (Apr 27, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> The amount of deployments is negatively affecting Infantry and SOF forces now is what I'm saying.
> 
> Second point: Invasion and occupation of the homeland.
> 
> Marauder06, you'll be receiving a PM shortly concerning your post.


US SOF is comprised of the best supported, most lethal, most survivable ground forces ever to exist within the known universe.

This is a direct result of the recent OPTEMPO.

There are plenty of ways for guys to get out of line units and stay home if they want to, most dudes want more deployments.

I'm sure you can analyze certain selections of data and come up with negatives, but high OPTEMPO is a net positive.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 28, 2016)

Well done, Marines.  And by that I am not in any way being negative towards the woman Marine, but instead pleased that the Corps is holding strong on their standards.

The 30th woman to attempt Marines' Infantry Officer Course is dropped

Latest Woman to Try Marines' Infantry Officer Course Drops after Hike | Military.com


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 29, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Well done, Marines.  And by that I am not in any way being negative towards the woman Marine, but instead pleased that the Corps is holding strong on their standards.
> 
> The 30th woman to attempt Marines' Infantry Officer Course is dropped
> 
> Latest Woman to Try Marines' Infantry Officer Course Drops after Hike | Military.com



Of course, there is glaring difference between no woman making it through IOC and a few women having made it through SOI.  I have seen some of one IOC course, it seemed jog-run-sprint; while SOI seemed more crawl-walk-jog.  Aside from the sheer pace I don't know why one seems to be attainable but not the other.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 29, 2016)

SOI -- or ITS as it was called when I went through -- was basically an extension of Boot Camp with an emphasis on whatever your MOS was. We were still thrashed and ran every where we went.

I did't find it to be taxing physically as I was already in shape -- physically and mentally. However, that's not to say that it wasn't hard for those that weren't. I would say it was more mental for them than physical.

After all...heart can only take you so far if you can't push past the physical pain and tiredness!


----------



## AWP (Apr 29, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Of course, there is glaring difference between no woman making it through IOC and a few women having made it through SOI.  I have seen some of one IOC course, it seemed jog-run-sprint; while SOI seemed more crawl-walk-jog.  Aside from the sheer pace I don't know why one seems to be attainable but not the other.



I think Teufel had a great post (like he has any other kind) on IOC vs SOI, probably in this thread somewhere.


----------



## Brill (Apr 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I think Teufel had a great post (like he has any other kind) on IOC vs SOI, probably in this thread somewhere.



Sir, that post is just over the next hill.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> Sir, that post is just over the next hill.



Just one more klick


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 29, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Just one more klick



I meant two more klicks.


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 29, 2016)

Agoge said:


> SOI -- or ITS as it was called when I went through -- was basically an extension of Boot Camp with an emphasis on whatever your MOS was. We were still thrashed and ran every where we went.
> 
> I did't find it to be taxing physically as I was already in shape -- physically and mentally. However, that's not to say that it wasn't hard for those that weren't. I would say it was more mental for them than physical.
> 
> After all...heart can only take you so far if you can't push past the physical pain and tiredness!



I went through ITS in Geiger twice:  0311 and 0352 training.  

Ahh, the memories!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 29, 2016)

Allen West's Editorial: Congrats to the Army's first female infantry officer; now here's the BIG question... - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 30, 2016)

I expect more out of Allen West.  A high schooler could pen a more cogent, coherent, thoughtful, and respectful article. Wow.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 30, 2016)

I hope she kicks ass and doesn't waste time by taking names.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 30, 2016)

Viper1 said:


> I expect more out of Allen West.  A high schooler could pen a more cogent, coherent, thoughtful, and respectful article. Wow.



Concur.  I'd fail one of my students for turning in some weak-ass shit like that.

He's assuming that standards dropped at Benning just because they changed the name... long before the first woman attended the MCC?    And he has questions about someone (anyone?) meeting the fitness standards for a TRADOC school... really? 

Of course Griest will be groomed for company command... she's an Infantry officer now and that's what happens with Infantry officers.  Let her get on with her job and leave the "combat advising of female Peshmerga" to those whose job that kind of thing is:  SOF.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 30, 2016)

Viper1 said:


> I expect more out of Allen West.  A high schooler could pen a more cogent, coherent, thoughtful, and respectful article. Wow.



I also concur with this statement, and have graded 101 Composition papers as an English Lit. TA that read better than his piece.   

Additionally, none of LTC Allen's thoughts in that article are terribly original at this point.  He is yet one more reason to be upset if I ever see Fox News on in my house.


----------



## AWP (Apr 30, 2016)

I'd listen to him. If anyone's qualified to speak about poor decision-making and questionable leadership, it is Allen West.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 30, 2016)

Viper1 said:


> I expect more out of Allen West.  A high schooler could pen a more cogent, coherent, thoughtful, and respectful article. Wow.


I no longer expect a lot from him.
That article was meant for those who don't know what they don't know, and won't take the time to research the facts.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 30, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'd listen to him. If anyone's qualified to speak about poor decision-making and questionable leadership, it is Allen West.



Well played, good sir.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 30, 2016)

I agree with @Viper1 about expecting better from LTC West.

That said, to dog him out on what he did for his men, is just not right at all. How many soldiers have been killed or mangled due to risk adverse officer's who only care for their careers and do not care who's body/body parts they have to step over to get their next promotion. 

LTC West was not that kind of Officer, and he has my absolute respect for that and what he did for his men. 

But agree his article is incredibly poorly written, lacks depth and almost seems petty.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 30, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> But agree his article is incredibly poorly written, lacks depth and almost seems petty.



Yep...it almost seemed like an off-the-cuff article written because he "felt" he needed to get something out there pertaining to this issue. Rushed and not well thought out.


----------



## Etype (Apr 30, 2016)

Hey Al West, how hard was jumpmaster school? If I remember correctly, that's about all you did schools wise.


----------



## AWP (Apr 30, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> That said, to dog him out on what he did for his men, is just not right at all. How many soldiers have been killed or mangled due to risk adverse officer's who only care for their careers and do not care who's body/body parts they have to step over to get their next promotion.
> 
> LTC West was not that kind of Officer, and he has my absolute respect for that and what he did for his men.



There's a difference between being risk adverse and doing what he did. He was wrong and even admitted he was wrong, but then said he'd do it again.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 30, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> There's a difference between being risk adverse and doing what he did. He was wrong and even admitted he was wrong, but then said he'd do it again.



I understand, but he put his men in front of his career, yes it was wrong as far as the rules go. But I respect that he was willing to lose his promising career and possibly go to prison to protect his unit from an ambush. His unit was never ambushed in Iraq until after he was relieved of his command. During that time frame in Iraq, that was a little more than a coincidence. I can't and won't speak to his leadership or how effective he was as a commander. But I will say that as a soldier he has my respect for what he did, regardless of the rules and outcome.

ETA: Something else is that he didn't hide what he did and get caught up in some fuckery. He sent up the Intel and the method he used to get it. The Brigade didn't do shit about it, it wasn't until some (probably disgruntled) NCO started a CC compliant, that LTC West was relieved.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 30, 2016)

Seen this on FB. Obviously not M249 SAW's, but really those ladies look like midgets holding M240B's.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 30, 2016)

Yep...holding them is fun. Rucking with them for 10 or 15 miles with full gear...not so much!

Those smiles wouldn't be there at the end of the ruck.


----------



## digrar (Apr 30, 2016)

Compared to this big fucker, that shoots from the shoulder, standing unsupported...


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 30, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> The amount of deployments is negatively affecting Infantry and SOF forces now is what I'm saying.
> 
> Second point: Invasion and occupation of the homeland.
> 
> Marauder06, you'll be receiving a PM shortly concerning your post.



Sent you my email address.  I look forward to reading your paper.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 30, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Seen this on FB. Obviously not M249 SAW's, but really those ladies look like midgets holding M240B's.
> 
> View attachment 15378


They don't look tough in that photo, sorry.


----------



## pardus (Apr 30, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> The amount of deployments is negatively affecting Infantry and SOF forces now is what I'm saying.
> 
> Second point: Invasion and occupation of the homeland.
> 
> Marauder06, you'll be receiving a PM shortly concerning your post.



Why don't you post it here?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 30, 2016)

digrar said:


> Compared to this big fucker, that shoots from the shoulder, standing unsupported...


----------



## Marauder06 (May 1, 2016)

Etype said:


> Hey Al West, how hard was jumpmaster school? If I remember correctly, that's about all you did schools wise.


I never even made it that far.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 1, 2016)

pardus said:


> Why don't you post it here?


I suggested that, and then asked if he would send it to me via PM or email.  He said he'd email it to me.  Still waiting...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 1, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I suggested that, and then asked if he would send it to me via PM or email.  He said he'd email it to me.  Still waiting...



Must of needed a last minute scrub...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 1, 2016)




----------



## TLDR20 (May 1, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> View attachment 15387



*Stopped...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> *Stopped...



Honestly didn't catch that, I was too busy being pissed about a chick wearing the blue cord. Really can't explain why, but it just makes me mad as hell.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 1, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Honestly didn't catch that, I was too busy being pissed about a chick wearing the blue cord. Really can't explain why, but it just makes me mad as hell.



Do you feel like it cheapens your experience that a woman can do it too? I am not attacking you at all, I am just curious. It bothers me too, and I don't really know why. I get a visceral reaction to it.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Do you feel like it cheapens your experience that a woman can do it too? I am not attacking you at all, I am just curious. It bothers me too, and I don't really know why. I get a visceral reaction to it.



I honestly don't know, just really got mad as shit and started cussing like a sailor. My wife asked me what is up and I don't really have an answer.

I think it's just more the brotherhood of knowing we were different from the rest. I mean Infantry OSUT isn't hard, she has passed Ranger school, I have no reason to be upset, but I am, and honestly I don't know why.

ETA: I will say that I wish her well and all the success in the world. I hope she becomes the best damn Infantry officer in the Army.


----------



## CDG (May 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Do you feel like it cheapens your experience that a woman can do it too? I am not attacking you at all, I am just curious. It bothers me too, and I don't really know why. I get a visceral reaction to it.



I think this is probably behind a lot of the emotion attached to the integration of women in combat arms/SOF.  Alpha males have always taken great pride in their roles as warriors and protectors.  They want that feeling of their woman, or any woman, needing them for certain things.  It may sound sexist or chauvinistic, but I think it's a biological/primal/neurological inevitability that if women are all of a sudden given access to the same communities, whether standards are the same or not, it does cheapen the experience.  The warrior culture is built on stronger, tougher, bigger, faster, etc.  Historically, women are not viewed as any of these.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Do you feel like it cheapens your experience that a woman can do it too? I am not attacking you at all, I am just curious. It bothers me too, and I don't really know why. I get a visceral reaction to it.



What bothers me about it is knowing specifically what was necessary to be an Infantryman, and a Ranger, while deployed.... and then turning around and having nearly 100% of interactions with females in a field environment be purely negative (bitching, flat out not doing their jobs, being unprepared to the point that they hazarded MY RANGERS I was supporting, etc etc) and with that realization of a Blue Cord meaning lots of woods time, being very concerned if the status quo females in the military now, decide to reclass.


----------



## AWP (May 1, 2016)

And not one word from the uncultured masses regarding her simply dreadful hair.


----------



## Etype (May 1, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I never even made it that far.


I feel your career has transcended Mr. West's on the military front.


----------



## digrar (May 1, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I I mean Infantry OSUT isn't hard, she has passed Ranger school,



At the end of the day, while being achievements, they're just schools, it's not enduring the unrelenting arse chafe that is life in an Infantry Battalion.
As it is (in our neck of the woods) COs are already considered a bit of an outsider due to spending only a quarter to a third of their careers in a Battalion (in our Army they hand in their Regimental hat badge and adopt the Staff Corps hat badge on promotion to Colonel)  and Capt Griest has missed out on the most difficult part of that experience already.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 1, 2016)

I'd like to invite the SecDef to put on a basic Infantryman's load, plus a ruck weighed out with enough to live on, plus M4, plus distributed extra ammo for the SAW/240, and hump up and down Atterbury with my unit for two solid weeks this summer.

Not moving tactically, not reacting to the inevitable occasional arty sim or any of the rest of it, just humping.

I would be surprised if one doesn't come to understand what one's about to ask our women to do, and what kind of physical damage they'll be dealing with for the rest of their lives, in the service of a social experiment.


----------



## Brill (May 1, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> I'd like to invite the SecDef to put on a basic Infantryman's load, plus a ruck weighed out with enough to live on, plus M4, plus distributed extra ammo for the SAW/240, and hump up and down Atterbury with my unit for two solid weeks this summer.
> 
> Not moving tactically, not reacting to the inevitable occasional arty sim or any of the rest of it, just humping.
> 
> I would be surprised if one doesn't come to understand what one's about to ask our women to do, and what kind of physical damage they'll be dealing with for the rest of their lives, in the service of a social experiment.



SECDEF is a political appointee, so that's really not his concern.  EVERY US Army General on the JCS staff should have filed for retirement when Carter said "can I has a female 11A with a short tab?"  THAT would have shown the entire US that the idea is indeed a bad one yet instead, the Generals have traded their careers and future jobs as executives of pick a defense contractor.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 1, 2016)

digrar said:


> At the end of the day, while being achievements, they're just schools, it's not enduring the unrelenting arse chafe that is life in an Infantry Battalion.
> As it is (in our neck of the woods) COs are already considered a bit of an outsider due to spending only a quarter to a third of their careers in a Battalion (in our Army they hand in their Regimental hat badge and adopt the Staff Corps hat badge on promotion to Colonel)  and Capt Griest has missed out on the most difficult part of that experience already.



Been thinking about it for awhile now and I think the reason I am upset, is a feel like it's a cheating move. I was pretty proud at my turning blue ceremony, not because I had accomplished some huge achievement. But because I felt like I truly joined a brotherhood of true warriors, not guys who put on a uniform, but the guys who literally are the ones who fight. Now I've learned alot since that day over 14 year's ago. But it didn't come easy, had to humble myself, I had to fight a lot of uphill battle's, training on my own time, working a normal job, while trying to study FM's/TM's and master the part time job. I joined knowing I would be sent to war, chose a job that would put me face to face with the enemy, I trained my butt off, going to civi/LE schools on my own dime, and even did an interstate transfer to a unit that I knew nobody in, so I could deploy. I spent 9years on AD as a Guard guy. Couldn't get the cool school's, and really feel disgruntled about it.

But they are tossing schools to these ladies, giving them special train ups, and now allowing her to branch transfer to Infantry with a swipe of a pen and  a captains course. And now she is sporting a blue cord on her right shoulder as a captain, an Infantry Captain.

It's really discouraging and aggravating to think back on all the hardships and suck I put myself through to wear that stupid blue cord with pride, and than watch the Army just give it to this women, because they needed a first woman grunt.

I'm sure many of you guys are laughing at this, or maybe don't understand it, but that stupid blue cord on my greens/blues meant alot to me, now it's been cheapened.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 1, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I'm sure many of you guys are laughing at this, or maybe don't understand it, but that stupid blue cord on my greens/blues meant alot to me, now it's been cheapened.



You'll get no laughter from me.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 1, 2016)

The branch transfer issue isn't that uncommon.  It's very, very common for officers to branch into a combat support or combat service support branch and branch detail into a combat arms branch.  This is due to the fact that CA branches need lots of LTs, and the CS/CSS branches need lots of CPTs.  The change most often happens at the Captains Career Course level; you do a transition course (maybe), put on your new branch insignia, do the CCC, then you're back in the force as whatever your new branch is.  

It is less common for people to branch transfer into a CA branch like Infantry, but it's not unheard of.  It's going to be frequent for females for the next couple of years, which is logical (if irksome) because the branch was previously closed to them.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> SECDEF is a political appointee, so that's really not his concern.  EVERY US Army General on the JCS staff should have filed for retirement when Carter said "can I has a female 11A with a short tab?"  THAT would have shown the entire US that the idea is indeed a bad one yet instead, the Generals have traded their careers and future jobs as executives of pick a defense contractor.



Alrighty then, I'll take the results of the extraordinarily expensive and inevitably failed social experiment.

Delayed result but still effective, and perhaps even the oblivious and uninformed political appointees will take notice.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 1, 2016)

Every Branch that donates Lieutenants to Combat Arms has a transition course, they're not necessarily rough as one of my friend's has a week left of MIOTC...but I'm quite sure that there is no IN/AR/FA Officer transition course.  But there's a whole lot of stuff she's missed, and yes a month long Infantry Officer's Course for Dumbies may not do it, but that's what needs to happen for her and any male that would like to do so.


----------



## Etype (May 1, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> I'd like to invite the SecDef to put on a basic Infantryman's load, plus a ruck weighed out with enough to live on, plus M4, plus distributed extra ammo for the SAW/240, and hump up and down Atterbury with my unit for two solid weeks this summer.


This was a lesson that I took to selection from the 82nd.

Life in a combat arms unit is hard, and you aren't allowed to quit. You can't tell your squad leader or platoon sergeant that you quit in the field, there is nowhere to go.  When you do a 6 mile out-and-back run, you still have to make it back to the unit area- there's no truck to pick you up.

So, when I got to selection and saw dudes quitting, I couldn't fathom it, it was such an alien concept.

The real test for these women is going to occcur when they are leading troops in their actual units, whether it's in the field or in combat. Outside of schools and JRTC/NTC/JMRC, there is no instructor or OC to correct you or make you aware of your mistakes- you eat them, and everyone truly pays for them through mileage, loss of sleep, or possibly loss of life.

For the sake of their soldiers, I hope they do well.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 2, 2016)

Check out the curriculum for Infantry Officer Basic Leadership Course (IBOLC, formerly known as IOBC).  While it takes experience and effort to make a _superior_ infantry officer, it's simply not that hard to train someone to be a _competent_ infantry officer, and competency is what most TRADOC schools are looking for in new officers.  

All pre-commissioning sources focus on infantry tactics as a vehicle for evaluating leadership ability and potential.  Some do this more than others, some do it better than others, but if IOBC educates one to a bachelor's degree in "infantry," then many of the major ROTC programs, and certainly West Point, probably get their officers-to-be up to the associate's level prior to commissioning.  

While it is usually true that someone who has been practicing a trade longer will be markedly better at it than a neophyte, the fact is that branch transfers happen regularly in the Army, and I can't think of any studies that show officers who have branch detailed or branch transferred perform less competently than officers who were purely of that branch.  That definitely doesn't hold in my own experience.

Finally, much of BOLC is spent preparing infantry officers for the rigors of Ranger School.  Presumably, someone who has already tabbed out of that school has sufficiently demonstrated the physical, mental, and tactical skills required for it.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 2, 2016)

I have every confidence that there are female officers who will perform competently in the Infantry branch.

Prep schools aren't equivalent to line unit leadership; I have always contended that IBOLC and Ranger school should be combined into one school for Infantry officers, though.


Female 11Bs, who will be spending many, many more years on the physical side of the job, are who I'm most concerned about.

Paying special attention to Section 10:
The Modern Warrior's Combat Load


----------



## Devildoc (May 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Do you feel like it cheapens your experience that a woman can do it too? I am not attacking you at all, I am just curious. It bothers me too, and I don't really know why. I get a visceral reaction to it.



For me, yeah, a little.  Part of it is that there are so few bastions of pure, unadulterated manhood left.  Part of it goes way deeper.  While I think 95% (maybe more) of jobs/tasks don't require a man or woman specifically, there are some that just one gender or the other can do, should do or is called to do.  Women moving into combat MOSs is just one more reason the male part of our species is being made obsolete in society.*

*I am sensitive to this because of relationships in my own family that are attempting to underscore the fact that men just aren't needed.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 2, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> For me, yeah, a little.  Part of it is that there are so few bastions of pure, unadulterated manhood left.  Part of it goes way deeper.  While I think 95% (maybe more) of jobs/tasks don't require a man or woman specifically, there are some that just one gender or the other can do, should do or is called to do.  Women moving into combat MOSs is just one more reason the male part of our species is being made obsolete in society.*
> 
> *I am sensitive to this because of relationships in my own family that are attempting to underscore the fact that men just aren't needed.



That day is perhaps close at hand.  :-"

*Sperm created in lab*


Edit: cite latest work


----------



## Devildoc (May 2, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> That day is perhaps close at hand.  :-"
> 
> *Sperm created in lab*
> 
> ...



Don't I know it, Brother.  I have seen this material.

Since I put out the teaser....my sis-in-law, 41, single, decided that since she hadn't met Mr. Right she would do embryonic adoption.  Maybe she hasn't met Mr. Right because she is a fat cow of a sociopathic narcissist, but that's another story.  So she gets shot up, has this kid, now declares to be "Mom and dad," no need of a man in her life, tells me and my wife that she is entirely of equal status to us.  Nevermind she needs a full-time cook and nanny to dog-sit this kid, and will leave the kid while she steals away for "me time."  But, hey, we are told she is "equal to any man".

In the guise of equal opportunity, under the veil of equality, women are eroding every sanctity of maledom in society.  And it's NOT that they are trying to rise to the meet a standard to do it; in many cases, they are destroying standards in order to lower them so they can wear the glass slipper, er, combat boot.  Then when that happens, they write the narrative on why it was right to do so and that those of us supporting standards are just knuckle-dragging troglodytes and misogynists.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 2, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> For me, yeah, a little.  Part of it is that there are so few bastions of pure, unadulterated manhood left.  Part of it goes way deeper.  While I think 95% (maybe more) of jobs/tasks don't require a man or woman specifically, there are some that just one gender or the other can do, should do or is called to do.  Women moving into combat MOSs is just one more reason the male part of our species is being made obsolete in society.*
> 
> *I am sensitive to this because of relationships in my own family that are attempting to underscore the fact that men just aren't needed.


Were you an infantryman?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 2, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Check out the curriculum for Infantry Officer Basic Leadership Course (IBOLC, formerly known as IOBC).  While it takes experience and effort to make a _superior_ infantry officer, it's simply not that hard to train someone to be a _competent_ infantry officer, and competency is what most TRADOC schools are looking for in new officers.
> 
> All pre-commissioning sources focus on infantry tactics as a vehicle for evaluating leadership ability and potential.  Some do this more than others, some do it better than others, but if IOBC educates one to a bachelor's degree in "infantry," then many of the major ROTC programs, and certainly West Point, probably get their officers-to-be up to the associate's level prior to commissioning.
> 
> ...



Being that you spent your younger years as an Infantry PL, would you feel confident in taking over an Infantry btn tomorrow, leading them through a year long deployment to Afghanistan, several companies spread out over a large battle space, and if so, would you allow this young "tabbed" lady to lead one of those companies, with full confidence of command?


----------



## Devildoc (May 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Were you an infantryman?



No, I was a corpsman.  FMSS/FMTB (field med training, a Marine school) is co-ed and not particularly hard.  Still, of the handful of the women in my class, about half had to be recycled because they just couldn't handle it physically.

To be fair I had no issue working with female corpsman when I was with a FSSG unit (logistics and mixed gender); but then, it wasn't particularly hard, even the field time.  Of course, the infantry platoon was an entirely different matter, and it this perspective from which I come.


----------



## Centermass (May 2, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> I'd like to invite the SecDef to put on a basic Infantryman's load, plus a ruck weighed out with enough to live on, plus M4, plus distributed extra ammo for the SAW/240, and hump up and down Atterbury with my unit for two solid weeks this summer.
> 
> Not moving tactically, not reacting to the inevitable occasional arty sim or any of the rest of it, just humping.
> 
> I would be surprised if one doesn't come to understand what one's about to ask our women to do, and what kind of physical damage they'll be dealing with for the rest of their lives, in the service of a social experiment.



Had something of a similar nature occur back during the Clinton era. We were at JRTC doing our rotation and my RTO gets a message the CO needs me on the horn ASAP. He tells me that some VIP's are heading my way, don't get bent out of shape and take care of business. I respond with "Roger, out." I didn't bother to ask him what was going on or who they were. I take a quick glance around the perimeter and everything is 5x5 as usual. A few minutes after that, a bunch of controller HMMV's stop short, and an entourage of people get out, and start heading in my direction.

A Colonel and Sergeant Major walk up and say "You must be Sergeant Centermass" I salute the Colonel and shake the CSM's hand. The Colonel then introduces me to Congress person Pat Schroeder. I shake her hand and the Col proceeds to explain that the good congress person is out here to observe training and talk with the troops. "No problem Sir" I respond. In the meantime, she's looking around, and beams in on my ruck. Without saying so much as a word, she reaches down and goes to pick it up.......she could barely budge it.

She then let's go, looks at me and says "Are they always this heavy?" "No ma'am" I responded, "Sometimes, they're heavier." She then, walked away shaking her head. Never said "Thanks" or "See ya" or talked to anyone else. The Sergeant Major had a grin on his face she couldn't see, as they made their way back to the vehicles.

This episode was back when it was initially suggested females be allowed to serve in Combat Arm roles while she was on the House Armed Services Subcommittee.

About an hour later, the CO gets on the radio and asks me how everything went. I said "I think she got everything she was looking for."


----------



## digrar (May 2, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Female 11Bs, who will be spending many, many more years on the physical side of the job, are who I'm most concerned about.



I agreed with your post, but disagree that they will spend many many years in the job. I don't think m/any will last longer than a year in a Rifle Platoon.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 2, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Being that you spent your younger years as an Infantry PL, would you feel confident in taking over an Infantry btn tomorrow, leading them through a year long deployment to Afghanistan, several companies spread out over a large battle space, and if so, would you allow this young "tabbed" lady to lead one of those companies, with full confidence of command?



I'm not fit to be an infantry battalion commander.  There is too much operational art garnered in the field grade ranks prior to assuming battalion command for me to make that up with just BS and brainpower.  It would be a disservice to the unit to have me as an infantry battalion commander. 

That said, I'm quite confident that if the Army gave me a branch transfer and sent me to the MCCC and after a little staff time put me in front of an infantry company, like they did with CPT Griest, I'd do quite well.  As I said before, in the company grade ranks it's just not that hard to be competent.  A better example might be an armor company though, since I have zero experience with armor and ~ four years as an infantry officer.  Either way, I'd happily command alongside a female infantry or armor company commander if she met all of the requirements.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 2, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> I have every confidence that there are female officers who will perform competently in the Infantry branch.
> 
> Prep schools aren't equivalent to line unit leadership; I have always contended that IBOLC and Ranger school should be combined into one school for Infantry officers, though.
> 
> ...



IBOLC and Ranger School are functionally combined already, unless something has changed in the last few years.  The normal path is IBOLC --> Ranger School --> Airborne School (sometimes RS and AS are reversed) --> unit.  Too many people fail out of Ranger School for it to be part of the formal IBOLC curriculum; it would affect the number of available officers in line units.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 2, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm not fit to be an infantry battalion commander.  There is too much operational art garnered in the field grade ranks prior to assuming battalion command for me to make that up with just BS and brainpower.  It would be a disservice to the unit to have me as an infantry battalion commander.
> 
> That said, I'm quite confident that if the Army gave me a branch transfer and sent me to the MCCC and after a little staff time put me in front of an infantry company, like they did with CPT Griest, I'd do quite well.  As I said before, in the company grade ranks it's just not that hard to be competent.  A better example might be an armor company though, since I have zero experience with armor and ~ four years as an infantry officer.  Either way, I'd happily command alongside a female infantry or armor company commander if she met all of the requirements.



Well put sir, and I would say that if CPT Griest spends some time on the staff side prior to assuming a company command it would be a smarter route. But honestly doubt she will be accepted or respected if she walks into a command with literally zero experience as an Infantry officer. Ranger school doesn't really give you credibility in the line company. In fact the first thing that normally gets brought up in a AAR when someone tabbed fucks up is "you've been to Ranger school we expect better" normally followed by a sarcastic mutter in the ranks like "black and gold for caution when following". Not that anyone disrespects the school its obviously one of the best and hardest in the world, it's that the soldiers will judge everything and everyone on their individual performance and not on the cool schools they complete. 

With no experience everyone will see straight through her, and that will make things very challenging for her and the unit.


----------



## Il Duce (May 2, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm not fit to be an infantry battalion commander.  There is too much operational art garnered in the field grade ranks prior to assuming battalion command for me to make that up with just BS and brainpower.  It would be a disservice to the unit to have me as an infantry battalion commander.



I think if you were assigned to an active BCT today, yeah, you wouldn't do well as an IN BN CDR - preparation and experience are too specific - just like I think most of those BN CDRs would make shit G2s or MI BN CDRs.  But, I do wonder if you wouldn't do alright as an ARNG or RC maneuver CDR.

I'm not trying to shit on the ARNG or RC but one of the things that hampers organizations above the company level is the dearth of effective field grade officers in those components.  It comes down to the operational and organizational experience you alluded to in your post.  If I take an RC LTC with 18 years in, who was never AC and/or never deployed, they have less time physically wearing a uniform than you did as a CPT (38 days a year times 18 years = 684 days).  This is exacerbated by the experiential and learning curve in training, organizing, and employing organizations above the company level.  We have a strong tradition in the modern Army that those require deep experience - nobody puts the most brilliant LT or E4 of all time as the BDE CDR or CSM.  Plus, look at the number of officers who hold multiple branches in the RC - more than a few BN and above CDRs didn't start out in those branches and have differing levels of full-time experience.

I get your point, but I think you could probably take an ARNG or RC BN tomorrow and be in the top 20% of CDRs.  I guess my major point is we do have different standards in the force already - but we don't often criticize them because we don't want to insult fellow Soldiers we rely on and would be incapable of fulfilling our mission without.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 2, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Well put sir, and I would say that if CPT Griest spends some time on the staff side prior to assuming a company command it would be a smarter route. But honestly doubt she will be accepted or respected if she walks into a command with literally zero experience as an Infantry officer. Ranger school doesn't really give you credibility in the line company. In fact the first thing that normally gets brought up in a AAR when someone tabbed fucks up is "you've been to Ranger school we expect better" normally followed by a sarcastic mutter in the ranks like "black and gold for caution when following". Not that anyone disrespects the school its obviously one of the best and hardest in the world, it's that the soldiers will judge everything and everyone on their individual performance and not on the cool schools they complete.
> 
> With no experience everyone will see straight through her, and that will make things very challenging for her and the unit.



I agree.  I don't think she'll walk straight into command, it would be setting her up for failure and the Army won't allow that to happen.  There are no "zero day recycles" in company command.  

She'll spend some time in the command queue working on a battalion staff, probably as an assistant S3, and when it's her time she'll get her shot.  I think she'll do just fine.


----------



## DA SWO (May 2, 2016)

What is her MP experience?
i.e. FOBBIT or running convoys?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 2, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I think if you were assigned to an active BCT today, yeah, you wouldn't do well as an IN BN CDR - preparation and experience are too specific - just like I think most of those BN CDRs would make shit G2s or MI BN CDRs.  But, I do wonder if you wouldn't do alright as an ARNG or RC maneuver CDR.
> 
> I'm not trying to shit on the ARNG or RC but one of the things that hampers organizations above the company level is the dearth of effective field grade officers in those components.  It comes down to the operational and organizational experience you alluded to in your post.  If I take an RC LTC with 18 years in, who was never AC and/or never deployed, they have less time physically wearing a uniform than you did as a CPT (38 days a year times 18 years = 684 days).  This is exacerbated by the experiential and learning curve in training, organizing, and employing organizations above the company level.  We have a strong tradition in the modern Army that those require deep experience - nobody puts the most brilliant LT or E4 of all time as the BDE CDR or CSM.  Plus, look at the number of officers who hold multiple branches in the RC - more than a few BN and above CDRs didn't start out in those branches and have differing levels of full-time experience.
> 
> I get your point, but I think you could probably take an ARNG or RC BN tomorrow and be in the top 20% of CDRs.  I guess my major point is we do have different standards in the force already - but we don't often criticize them because we don't want to insult fellow Soldiers we rely on and would be incapable of fulfilling our mission without.



The issues with ARNG field grade officers is not organizational capabilities or lack of experience for that matter. It's more so a lack of trust and ability to trust. And that is systemic from a lack of working operationally as Btn or Brigade size element. Most of that happens on a table top format until the Guard is activated. When that happens it requires time of gaining trust in people to perform their jobs from the top down. Any officer stepping into a guard BCT/BTN will suffer the same fait and growing pains. That's just the nature of the ARNG, partially due to the part time until deployed stuff, but also due to people being moved around regularly. Also due to a very harsh accountability environment that is very unforgiving. I've seen quite a few AD turned Guard Officers crumble under the stress and insanity that takes place in the BCT/BTN levels within the ARNG.

That said, I think your questions are valid, but lack understanding in capabilities. For example, the Guard is has better capabilities in the areas of low intensity conflict, stability operations, security operations, humanitarian operations, what used to be full spectrum operations, etc. Where we are losing alot of capability is in maneuver warfare or more to the point conventional large unit against large unit operations. We can do it, but we lack the training facilities, equipment and budgets, to be proficient at it (from what I'm told, so is the AD side). And honestly its just not the primary focus, as we are a multi mission force, with a state and federal mission that requires us to be always Gumby.

As for the individual experience levels within the ARNG, you would be absolutely shocked. Not only are most soldier (enlisted and officers) prior AD. But they also hold rank at much older and mature ages. They have been around for quite awhile. Another thing often over looked by AD soldiers is the civilian occupation experience many of these guys bring to the table. From corporate CEO's, MD's and small business owners, also serving as officers, to firefighters, cops, construction worker's, etc often filling the enlisted ranks. With people like that, you get a unique capability that is not often found in the AD side, which allows us to be alot more flexible, to take on different roles, like going from kicking doors in the middle of the night in one zone, to plumbing clean water to a village in another zone the following day. No special engineers needed, just can you do it, than get it done. 

That all said, it all comes back to the time and trust development. You give a BCT/BTN enough time (normally 6-12 mths) and they will operate as efficiently as any other. The problem is when big Army wants extra boots, they don't want to afford that "gel time" and we end up spending a few months of a deployment still trying to gel. Which has led directly to unnecessary deaths of ARNG soldier's, specifically in my own platoon, more specifically my first TL, but that's a story for another thread.


----------



## AWP (May 2, 2016)

People also forget the Guard isn't designed to activate and send off to war. The 6 week train-up preceding a deployment is too short IMO, but not something I've been through. I would look upon with some skepticism any claims that the Guard is as good as their AD counterparts. Sure, it is better in some regards, no doubt, but worse in others. Like any organization on the planet, it has inherent strengths and weaknesses. Our military leadership should have the courage to use it appropriately instead of treating it like a differently colored Lego block.

As discussed above, one key failure of the Guard is the inability to practice BDE level operations and even BN-sized ops are something for Annual Training because of the logistics involved in doing anything on the weekend. You also have BN's spread across the state and at best companies are within 3-4 hours of each other. Add that to limited training spaces and you have a recipe for massive shortcomings.

When you set aside politics the Guard's real strength lies in her CGO's and NCO's...ah, but Guard politics. I can explain it but unless you've seen them in action or felt their wrath you can't really know how crippling they are to the Guard.

I've always liked to think, and still do, that the Guard brings more breadth to the table and the AD side more depth. Neither is bad, they just have to be used properly. When they aren't the Guard loses out all day, every day, regardless of the circumstances. The Guard is a good, relevant tool, but you have to use the tool properly for it to be effective.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> People also forget the Guard isn't designed to activate and send off to war. The 6 week train-up preceding a deployment is too short IMO, but not something I've been through. I would look upon with some skepticism any claims that the Guard is as good as their AD counterparts. Sure, it is better in some regards, no doubt, but worse in others. Like any organization on the planet, it has inherent strengths and weaknesses. Our military leadership should have the courage to use it appropriately instead of treating it like a differently colored Lego block.
> 
> As discussed above, one key failure of the Guard is the inability to practice BDE level operations and even BN-sized ops are something for Annual Training because of the logistics involved in doing anything on the weekend. You also have BN's spread across the state and at best companies are within 3-4 hours of each other. Add that to limited training spaces and you have a recipe for massive shortcomings.
> 
> ...



The six weeks is bare bone minimum and that would be a unit deploying as a platoon or company element. Basically checking all the individual task blocks, some small unit tactic's/maneuvers specific to the mission, SRP, get on the plane. It really should be 90 days minimum for company and below, and 6 mths minimum for a Btn. A BCT really needs a full year.

As for "as good as" comments, its depending on the mission and train up. Both my deployments were as a Btn, both relieved AD Infantry Btn, both showed better success in mission accomplishment than the AD counter parts.

That said, they were missions we were specifically trained for, were unique to our capabilities and not for the AD guys. We took over battle space in 03, where AD made the push and basically pulled security, we got there at the beginning of the insurgency and conducted full spectrum ops (so we racked up all kinds of accomplishments that were not available to the AD unit). In 08 it was a convoy security mission, we simply did that better, less vehicle loses, more recovery's, more mission accomplished, meeting time hacks, etc.

So I agree but also view it through a different lens and understand the specifics of the mission, prep training specific to the mission, and the capabilities/flexibilities difference between AD and ARNG.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 2, 2016)

And just to be absolutely clear if you line a AD btn up against a ARNG Btn for a straight up conventional fight, AD will always kick our ass. We just don't have the facilities, equipment or time to be proficient at it, and its highly unlikely Guard will face that situation. Also keep in mind, during WW2 NG units received 2 years in training before deploying, and were staffed by a lot of AD officers.

ETA: besides 1/143 Infantry (Airborne), I'd put those guys up against any AD conventional battalion, and they would absolutely hold their own. $.02


----------



## Brill (May 3, 2016)

@Il Duce , don't forget that many Guard bums actually work in their "MOS" in their civilian capacity too. Perhaps a civ manager is MORE effective at bureaucracy than an AD officer because he's driven by market forces rather than OER forces.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> @Il Duce , don't forget that many Guard bums actually work in their "MOS" in their civilian capacity too. Perhaps a civ manager is MORE effective at bureaucracy than an AD officer because he's driven by market forces rather than OER forces.


No one in the Guard manages an infantry battalion in their civilian capacity.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 3, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> No one in the Guard manages an infantry battalion in their civilian capacity.



No, but several AGR (active guard reserve) officers and NCO's do. But in my opinion it would be very different than what an AD staff does. Their focus is more the administration of the battalion for pay, training and personnel issues. It's basically a light staff and most issues are not immediate focus.

You also have several technicians, who are basically ARNG reservist who are paid a wage, but still perform their MOS in uniform. Also not something common in a infantry battalion (motor pool, weapons maintenance, IT, etc).

That said, most battalion commanders, CSM, and most staff officers are AGR in some format throughout the state. They may belong to XYZ unit, but work full time for a task forces, or a state command group, or up at the division level doing other staff responsibility's.

As posted before it's not really an experience issue with Guard officers, it's more of a working together, time to gel and develop trust, good old boy politics, etc.

Example: MG Kendall Penn was my battalion Cdr in 2003-2005 Iraq, he was AGR at brigade before the deployment, after he became the BCT Xo and Cdr, but was AGR at the state command as a COL, and than BG, commanded the brigade during 07-09 Iraq, returned and became AGR as the division west cdr and later deputy commander of ops for First Army, retiring as MG. I doubt many AD officers had his  equivalent experience to rank, basically working full time a position ahead of his grade from CPT until retirement. It has its pluses, you never really PCS, deployments are periodic, but you generally end up a grade below your actual job compared to your AD counter parts.


----------



## Devildoc (May 3, 2016)

Well, before GWOT, back in the Dark Ages of the Clinton era, very, very few reserve and NG personnel/units were activated, and when they were, a lot were used in different roles than they were supposed to fill (in the Navy, anyway).  Of course GWOT changed all of that and the mantra became "if you haven't deployed, you will" and "not 'if' but 'when.'" 

It seems on the Navy side, the powers-that-be who decide how to utilize non-AD personnel change every couple years, and with them, their pet plans. 

At least in my field, the medical side of the house, it's a natural place for women in uniform to serve, and aside from the utter bitching and moaning about the austere field life of a fleet hospital (kinda like MASH, but not really; and nothing really austere about it), I have seen no issues (with women in these roles).  Even when the Navy medical reserve component gets activated and members are far-flung across the globe, despite perhaps being in totally new roles with totally new responsibilities, in support capacities it seems to pan out.  Female corpsmen, however, that may be attached to a Marine infantry unit in these situations?  Not a chance.


----------



## moobob (May 3, 2016)

Etype said:


> This was a lesson that I took to selection from the 82nd.
> 
> Life in a combat arms unit is hard, and you aren't allowed to quit. You can't tell your squad leader or platoon sergeant that you quit in the field, there is nowhere to go.  When you do a 6 mile out-and-back run, you still have to make it back to the unit area- there's no truck to pick you up.
> 
> ...



The cynic in me wonders if we would've  lost less lives if they did these changes during OIF/OEF so we could very quickly confirm how bad an idea it was, or if we'll end up losing more lives, since we're now in peacetime (outside of SOF) and women will have more time to establish themselves and succeed within the ranks, without people trying to kill them.

I firmly believe there are some badass women that could make it in combat arms, albeit with a shorter shelf life than men. With the inevitable dropping of standards for political reasons, however, women will be a net negative for the force.


----------



## moobob (May 3, 2016)

That, and those of us that have seen first-hand how hyped CSTs were, as if they were running and gunning and mowing down legions of Taliban. The ones that were OK and got into gunfights were not doing 12 mile infils on foot before said gunfights, because most ODAs weren't doing that shit either. However, almost any SF dude has the capability to do that when asked. They were NOT validation of women in combat, but the media coverage we allowed them to get pushed that narrative, whether intentional or not.


----------



## DA SWO (May 3, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Well, before GWOT, back in the Dark Ages of the Clinton era, very, very few reserve and NG personnel/units were activated, and when they were, a lot were used in different roles than they were supposed to fill (in the Navy, anyway).  Of course GWOT changed all of that and the mantra became "if you haven't deployed, you will" and "not 'if' but 'when.'"
> 
> It seems on the Navy side, the powers-that-be who decide how to utilize non-AD personnel change every couple years, and with them, their pet plans.
> 
> At least in my field, the medical side of the house, it's a natural place for women in uniform to serve, and aside from the utter bitching and moaning about the austere field life of a fleet hospital (kinda like MASH, but not really; and nothing really austere about it), I have seen no issues (with women in these roles).  Even when the Navy medical reserve component gets activated and members are far-flung across the globe, despite perhaps being in totally new roles with totally new responsibilities, in support capacities it seems to pan out.  Female corpsmen, however, that may be attached to a Marine infantry unit in these situations?  Not a chance.


Sorry, have to disagree a little.
You may not have seen a lot of Army National Guardsmen/Reservists getting mobilized but I assure you the Air Guard and Reserve had a lot of "opportunities".
Army Reserve and National Guard units mobilized and deployed to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti also, 29th ID was enroute to Bosnia on 9/11 (IIRC shit happened while they were in the air).
Clinton (like Obama) kept things as low key as he could (unless he needed cover for a political decision).


----------



## Devildoc (May 3, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Sorry, have to disagree a little.
> You may not have seen a lot of Army National Guardsmen/Reservists getting mobilized but I assure you the Air Guard and Reserve had a lot of "opportunities".
> Army Reserve and National Guard units mobilized and deployed to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti also, 29th ID was enroute to Bosnia on 9/11 (IIRC shit happened while they were in the air).
> Clinton (like Obama) kept things as low key as he could (unless he needed cover for a political decision).



Sure, this is an area in which my knowledge is very much skewed, and my perspective is entirely that of the Navy reserve (and its support of the Marines/Marine reserve).  I fully admit I don't know what I don't know and I appreciate the history lesson.


----------



## Etype (May 3, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> As I said before, in the company grade ranks it's just not that hard to be competent.


I can't disagree with your remarks on Bn level command, because I have no way to truly understand the scope of duties and responsibilities.

But I will say this- at the Bn level, you have several leadership filters between your decisions and the end user. At the company grade, you may literally be making life or death decisions.


----------



## Brill (May 3, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> No one in the Guard manages an infantry battalion in their civilian capacity.



Management of resources, both men and material, transcends civ/mil does it not?..with less BS on the civ side.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> Management of resources, both men and material, transcends civ/mil does it not?..with less BS on the civ side.


If that were true, we wouldn't need a standing army at all and could call out the Guard and Reserves whenever we needed troops.

Right?


----------



## DocIllinois (May 3, 2016)

Some skills developed mostly on the civilian side which I use as a Guard officer.  And these are just off the top of my head:

Public speaking
time management
resources management
planning
training concept development
group and individual motivation
counseling

These skills aren't trained and developed exclusively on the civ side, but have been much more highly developed in the civvy environment in my own case because of constant market and competition forces which are absent in the military.   It ain't cutting edge skill required to maintain competence enough to stay within your military promotion track, at least until you get way up into the rarefied rank regions.

I agree with @Marauder06  that there are some aspects of military service more highly developed by working in a full time Army, though.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 3, 2016)

NFB19 said:


> The amount of deployments is negatively affecting Infantry and SOF forces now is what I'm saying.
> 
> Second point: Invasion and occupation of the homeland.
> 
> Marauder06, you'll be receiving a PM shortly concerning your post.



A few days ago @NFB19 and I had a discussion in this thread related to a paper he wrote about women in the combat arms.  I challenged him to send me a copy of the paper, and assured him I'd keep its contents, and his name, private and that I'd give him feedback on it.

The purpose of this post is to confirm that he is a man of his word and did, in fact, send the paper.  Now I have go read it and give him feedback so I can live up to my end of the agreement.


----------



## Brill (May 3, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> If that were true, we wouldn't need a standing army at all and could call out the Guard and Reserves whenever we needed troops.
> 
> Right?



"Not in my Army!"

My point is that management skills are similar however leadership is definitely not the same.


----------



## Loki (May 7, 2016)

Some interesting stories on this topic: 

Combat is Still a Man's Game

Smokescreen on the Potomac: Pentagon and Congress deliberately ignoring $36 million USMC study that shows women cannot survive in the combat arms


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 8, 2016)

Not sure if this was ever posted here: I just ran across it. The Irony: An Unequal Application of Gender Equality


----------



## Teufel (May 9, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Some skills developed mostly on the civilian side which I use as a Guard officer.  And these are just off the top of my head:
> 
> Public speaking
> time management
> ...




I don't manage. I command.  There is an art to fighting a battalion and I learned that as a battalion operations officer.


----------



## Frank S. (May 9, 2016)

Viper1 said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> It's about damn time the Army did this.  Here is why...we use the wrong definition of diversity.  We think of diversity as differences in color, gender, religion, ethnic origin, when it reality it doesn't mean squat.  Let's use race as an example.  I can find you a black, white, latino, asian, and mixed SF guy and as x sf med says, they are the same "rifle green".  Crossed Arrows worn proudly, I can guarantee they are all type-A, aggressive, savvy, smart, talented guys that want to keep swinging the bat for America.  That doesn't mean they think different or act different.  They could all be arrogant rapport crushers (I've met them all)  I can also find you men of all five color groups previously mentioned who "grew up in poor/broken homes, went to bad schools, had bad parents, no parents, or single parents, never had any money, and overcame a metric ton of adversity to achieve their goals but someone mentored them correctly (coach, parent, teacher, etc.)"  Different skin colors, but the same experience.  That quoted line is the contextual background for affirmative action, minority admissions, and other such programs.   Just having the color wheel represented within an organization does not denote diversity.  It is the breadth of individual experiences which creates diversity.
> 
> ...



Boom.


----------



## Teufel (May 9, 2016)

Etype said:


> I can't disagree with your remarks on Bn level command, because I have no way to truly understand the scope of duties and responsibilities.
> 
> But I will say this- at the Bn level, you have several leadership filters between your decisions and the end user. At the company grade, you may literally be making life or death decisions.



This is true and not true at the same time.  Most combat nowadays takes place at the small unit level and a good squad leader or platoon sergeant can make up for field grade failings.  The battalion commander sets the tone for everything with every decision and action he makes.  Keep in mind that most infantry units are made up of brand new recruits with a cadre of NCOs to lead them.  The command climate will shape how this is done.  A unit normally adopts the attitude of the commander.  It's hard to explain how this happens but it's happened at every unit I've ever been at.  A micro-managing battalion commander usually creates micro-managing company commanders who in turn create micro managing platoon commanders and so on.  Also keep in mind that the battalion commander sets the tone for fires (who gets it and when), acceptable collateral damage, ROE (and his interpretation of it),  good order and discipline, troop lay down, medical support lay down, push/pull logistics, campaign planning etc.  Does his unit go hunting HVIs? Heavy patrolling? Focus on the local people?  It all starts at the top.  

I once knew a battalion commander who was convinced that the key to his battlespace was controlling the lines of communication.  He defined this as the major dirt highway that connected the ring road to the major town in the district.  I, and many others, offered that driving the highway was a suicide mission because of the impossible number of IEDs the enemy emplaced there and that convoys could easily take the open desert and reach their destination unharmed.  You don't have to own the road to control the LOCs if you can easily drive off it.  He put all his combat power on the road, created outposts every two kilometers and 15 Marines died.  They never did manage to control the road.  Meanwhile the other 5 districts in his AO suffered for lack of combat power.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 9, 2016)

Teufel said:


> I don't manage. I command.  There is an art to fighting a battalion and I learned that as a battalion operations officer.



There was no mention of these skills being specifically part of management or command.

Operating a private health care business is, however, much more command than anything else.


----------



## Teufel (May 9, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> There was no mention of these skills being specifically part of management or command.
> 
> Operating a private health care business is, however, much more command than anything else.



You manage a private health care business.  You command a battalion. A manager administers systems, focuses on outputs and tries to maximize efficiency.  A commander has to do many of the same things (or the XO and OPSO do anyway) but also focus on the development, discipline and well being of his people at a level that does not exist outside of the military.  A manager can discard a poor performer.  A commander is on the hook for his people until they are given orders out of their unit or discharged from service no matter how bad they are. 

They also are responsible for setting policies and directives on everything from equal opportunity to motorcycle safety.  A manager isn't responsible for disciplining their people.  A commander (in the Marine Corps anyway) can reduce a Marine by one rank, put them on a work detail for 45 days, confine them to quarters for 45 days and cut their pay in half for two months.  Marine fails to pay his child support?  Somehow that is my problem as a commander.  Marine buys a corvette at 20% APR?  My problem. 

I've never worked outside the military but I can't imagine that a manager would mentor, coach and develop their subordinates to the level that a battalion commander does to their subordinate company commanders.  I think that managing a clinic may make you a better OPSO or XO and many aspects of managing a business are similar to command but management is not the same as command.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 9, 2016)

Teufel said:


> You manage a private health care business.  You command a battalion. A manager administers systems, focuses on outputs and tries to maximize efficiency.  A commander has to do many of the same things (or the XO and OPSO do anyway) but also focus on the development, discipline and well being of his people at a level that does not exist outside of the military.  A manager can discard a poor performer.  A commander is on the hook for his people until they are given orders out of their unit or discharged from service no matter how bad they are.
> 
> They also are responsible for setting policies and directives on everything from equal opportunity to motorcycle safety.  A manager isn't responsible for disciplining their people.  A commander (in the Marine Corps anyway) can reduce a Marine by one rank, put them on a work detail for 45 days, confine them to quarters for 45 days and cut their pay in half for two months.  Marine fails to pay his child support?  Somehow that is my problem as a commander.  Marine buys a corvette at 20% APR?  My problem.
> 
> I've never worked outside the military but I can't imagine that a manager would mentor, coach and develop their subordinates to the level that a battalion commander does to their subordinate company commanders.  I think that managing a clinic may make you a better OPSO or XO and many aspects of managing a business are similar to command but management is not the same as command.



I agree with regards to difference between a manager and the position of command. Where private sector and command do share similarities is in being the actual owner of a business or the CEO. Where the buck stops with you, you set the tone of the business and are ultimately responsible for the success and failures of the specific goal (mission if you will) of that business.

I also agree that anything outside of the military, except possibly FIRE/EMS/LE, and specific disaster relief style civilian equivalent, is far outside of the scope of a true command. Where decisions result in life and death of your own people or the life and death of others, and overall success of the objectives.

That said, being well diverse in multiple areas of management and leadership, also allows you to take other unorthodox approach's to issues that are found when in command of a military unit the likes of an infantry battalion.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 9, 2016)

Teufel said:


> You manage a private health care business.  You command a battalion. A manager administers systems, focuses on outputs and tries to maximize efficiency.  A commander has to do many of the same things (or the XO and OPSO do anyway) but also focus on the development, discipline and well being of his people at a level that does not exist outside of the military.  A manager can discard a poor performer.  A commander is on the hook for his people until they are given orders out of their unit or discharged from service no matter how bad they are.
> 
> They also are responsible for setting policies and directives on everything from equal opportunity to motorcycle safety.  A manager isn't responsible for disciplining their people.  A commander (in the Marine Corps anyway) can reduce a Marine by one rank, put them on a work detail for 45 days, confine them to quarters for 45 days and cut their pay in half for two months.  Marine fails to pay his child support?  Somehow that is my problem as a commander.  Marine buys a corvette at 20% APR?  My problem.
> 
> I've never worked outside the military but I can't imagine that a manager would mentor, coach and develop their subordinates to the level that a battalion commander does to their subordinate company commanders.  I think that managing a clinic may make you a better OPSO or XO and many aspects of managing a business are similar to command but management is not the same as command.



Command is exercising control over a particular group or operation.  This is exactly most of what someone in charge of a private health care business does on a daily basis.

Now imagine being BC, CO, XO, leading, administrating and managing the show all at the same time.

There are, of course, basic differences in the product of effort in either case.


----------



## Teufel (May 10, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Command is exercising control over a particular group or operation.  This is exactly most of what someone in charge of a private health care business does on a daily basis.
> 
> Now imagine being BC, CO, XO, leading, administrating and managing the show all at the same time.
> 
> There are, of course, basic differences in the product of effort in either case.



I would argue that no one outside of the military controls anything.  Service members are bound by oath (and the UCMJ) to obey all lawful orders.  That is control.  Civilians, with the possible exception of law enforcement, lead and manage.  I don't think even the police swear an oath to obey their superior officers.  Someone who manages a private health care clinic will certainly have many skills that would assist them if they were put in command of an infantry battalion.  I wouldn't go so far to say that a health clinic is similar to command though.  

Control is also exercised very differently.  A commander uses mission type orders, commander's intent, defined end states and control tools such as C2pC/CPOF, radio networks, computer networks to help drive his subordinates to a common goal.  I have spent a significant amount of time in command in the Marine Corps but I think I would struggle initially if I was given an Army infantry battalion because the systems, from control to supply and administration, are different.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 10, 2016)

No one outside the military controlling anything is interesting to imagine, I suppose. 

I generate and enforce policy, control the assets and resources of the organization, determine the power structure of the entire organization, exert influence through the actions of a subordinate leader and representatives, and tell someone in my employ to take a hike if they aren't consistently performing to a standard that I set (giving more personnel control than a military commander.)

IOW, I would offer that means and techniques of control in one arena which fail to exactly match another do not equate to zero control.

On top of all that, this is done while in never ending competition with others who are offering a same or similar service.


Edit - I'm responsible for a sidebar here, apologies to the Mods.


----------



## Teufel (May 10, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> No one outside the military controlling anything is interesting to imagine, I suppose.
> 
> I generate and enforce policy, control the assets and resources of the organization, determine the power structure of the entire organization, exert influence through the actions of a subordinate leader and representatives, and tell someone in my employ to take a hike if they aren't consistently performing to a standard that I set (giving more personnel control than a military commander.)
> 
> ...



Hillary Clinton generates and enforces policy, controls the assets and resources of an organization, determines power structure and exerts influence but I wouldn't put her in command of an infantry battalion.

I understand that this has become a discussion about your qualifications to command an infantry battalion based on your personal experience running a clinic. Would you say that your competitors are all equally qualified?


----------



## DocIllinois (May 10, 2016)

The sidebar subject was civilian management skills which translate/ transcend into military performance.   That mutated into whether command happens outside of the military.

This an independent topic and no longer applies to the thread subject, IMO.


----------



## Florida173 (May 11, 2016)

Female Marine rifleman, machine gunner headed to the infantry


> *Female Marine rifleman, machine gunner headed to the infantry*





> Since no women have graduated from the service’s Infantry Officer Course, female Marine or Navy officers assigned to infantry battalions will serve in support roles. The 30th female Marine to attempt IOC left her class on April 21 after she was unable to complete two hikes. She has the opportunity to attempt the course again in July.


Interesting read.


----------



## 8654Maine (May 11, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Female Marine rifleman, machine gunner headed to the infantry
> 
> 
> Interesting read.



From the above article:
"Starting this month, a training team will visit Marine Corps installations to explain the service’s gender integration plan."

WTF do you need a "training team" for explanations if things are the same and standards are the same?  

Sounds like "sensitivity training" to me.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 11, 2016)

8654Maine said:


> Sounds like "sensitivity training" to me.



Yeah but....

“This is not sensitivity training," Kulczewski told Marine Corps Times in April.   
“The focus will be on the details of the implementation plan and how it affects all Marines' best practices.”


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 12, 2016)

8654Maine said:


> From the above article:
> "Starting this month, a training team will visit Marine Corps installations to explain the service’s gender integration plan."
> 
> WTF do you need a "training team" for explanations if things are the same and standards are the same?
> ...


This is my biggest issue with this whole boondoggle.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 17, 2016)

This: GOP blocks provision to require women to register for draft


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 17, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> This: GOP blocks provision to require women to register for draft



"NOW" this is important?

_The committee’s chairman, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said in a statement Tuesday the action was taken to prevent what he called a* “reckless policy” from moving forward without closer study of its impact.
*_
*ETA - *I genuinely question whether a draft would even be effective anymore.  Today's entitled teenagers are only slightly more so their their parents.  Were the draft actually needed today, I think that the exodus to other lands and draft dodging would make the Vietnam era seem like they had full participation.  Typing this is making my head hurt because it is forcing me to come to terms with the idea that those willing to sacrifice for something are becoming far fewer than those who want someone else to do it for them.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 17, 2016)

I guess that equality only goes so far...


----------



## Devildoc (May 18, 2016)

The GOP...oh, the GOP....once again showing their irrelevance.  I swear in Washington one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.  Maybe if Congress had done its due diligence and proper oversight this whole thread wouldn't even be a thing.


----------



## Loki (May 19, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Not sure if this was ever posted here: I just ran across it. The Irony: An Unequal Application of Gender Equality



At 55, 20# overweight, and several injuries, I could still be in the Infantry, at the female standard... Hummm ;)


----------



## TLDR20 (May 20, 2016)

Loki said:


> At 55, 20# overweight, and several injuries, I could still be in the Infantry, at the female standard... Hummm ;)



There isn't a female standard in the infantry.


----------



## Loki (May 20, 2016)

See "score allowed to graduate from AIT and the requirements for your semi-annual Army PFT " there after Army Basic Training PFT | Military.com


----------



## policemedic (May 20, 2016)

That article points out the difference in PT scores, which have always been different.  To be fair, there should be only one PT in combat arms--the male standard.  Lowering it to the female level is silly.

However, @TLDR20 is right.  I've seen nothing to indicate that the individual go/no-go events in Infantry OSUT will be scored differently.  Packing lists and ruck times are the same regardless of who you are.

There's also the issue of unit standards.  When I was in the 7th ID(L), we completed 25 mile rucks regularly and we did it as a unit.  If you fell out, torture and damnation befell you.  Once you get out of the schoolhouse where the standard is individual and move into an Infantry company where the standard is what the unit is expected to be able to do, things change a bit.


----------



## Devildoc (May 20, 2016)

policemedic said:


> Once you get out of the schoolhouse where the standard is individual and move into an Infantry company where the standard is what the unit is expected to be able to do, things change a bit.



Field Med school is a Marine Corps command, with both Navy and Marine standards.  Same ruck and PFT standards as SOI.  My first platoon out of school, that standard, <ahem>, changed...a tad.  My first ruck hump was a real gut-check, by far the fastest I had done to that point.


----------



## Florida173 (May 20, 2016)

policemedic said:


> That article points out the difference in PT scores, which have always been different. To be fair, there should be only one PT in combat arms--the male standard. Lowering it to the female level is silly.
> 
> However, @TLDR20 is right. I've seen nothing to indicate that the individual go/no-go events in Infantry OSUT will be scored differently



The point is that there is no such thing as a combat arms fitness standard. Fitness is solely based on gender and age. All the go/no go events are I'd imagine the same as those in standard basic training.


----------



## Loki (May 20, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> The point is that there is no such thing as a combat arms fitness standard. Fitness is solely based on gender and age. All the go/no go events are I'd imagine the same as those in standard basic training.



 To be awarded the MOS you must pass a final scored PT test. Of course along with the events "GO"  or  "NO GO" included in the course requirements.  The standards of females and males is different. These are not equal nor the same. It will be interesting to see how this shakes down at Benning, and the unit level.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 21, 2016)

Now that men and women are functionally interchangeable, there should be no gender-based differences in standards.  This specifically includes PT and appearance/grooming.  I don't care what the standard is; one standard across the board for everyone.


----------



## pardus (May 21, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Now that men and women are functionally interchangeable, there should be no gender-based differences in standards.  This specifically includes PT and appearance/grooming.  I don't care what the standard is; one standard across the board for everyone.



That truly is the 800lb Gorilla in the room. How can there now remain a double standard for PT scores/grooming etc... with this new change? It's preposterous.


----------



## Etype (May 21, 2016)

policemedic said:


> That article points out the difference in PT scores, which have always been different.  To be fair, there should be only one PT in combat arms--the male standard.  Lowering it to the female level is silly.
> 
> However, @TLDR20 is right.  I've seen nothing to indicate that the individual go/no-go events in Infantry OSUT will be scored differently.  Packing lists and ruck times are the same regardless of who you are.
> 
> There's also the issue of unit standards.  When I was in the 7th ID(L), we completed 25 mile rucks regularly and we did it as a unit.  If you fell out, torture and damnation befell you.  Once you get out of the schoolhouse where the standard is individual and move into an Infantry company where the standard is what the unit is expected to be able to do, things change a bit.


When was a conventional unit doing 25 mile rucks?

I don't see that being doable for even 20% of the conventional folks I've worked with.  Out of the people I work with who have completed rucks that length or longer as part of selection, most of us would not be able to do it regularly without specifically training for it.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 21, 2016)

Etype said:


> When was a conventional unit doing 25 mile rucks?
> 
> I don't see that being doable for even 20% of the conventional folks I've worked with.  Out of the people I work with who have completed rucks that length or longer as part of selection, most of us would not be able to do it regularly without specifically training for it.



25-mile approach march in uniform and assault pack was a standard thing in the 101st when I was an infantry PL there.  I think it was once a quarter or a semi-annual thing for the line units.  This was back in the mid-90's and I don't know if it's still done today.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 21, 2016)

Etype said:


> When was a conventional unit doing 25 mile rucks?



Think late 80's time frame, a couple of years before Gulf War 1.0 kicked off.  Quite a few of you were still in preschool at that point, if you were even born at all.  It was still a hollow Army; when you don't have the funds for much ammo, you do other things, like walk really fast with a lot of shit on your back for retarded distances, especially if you're in a light infantry division.


----------



## policemedic (May 21, 2016)

Etype said:


> When was a conventional unit doing 25 mile rucks?
> 
> I don't see that being doable for even 20% of the conventional folks I've worked with.  Out of the people I work with who have completed rucks that length or longer as part of selection, most of us would not be able to do it regularly without specifically training for it.



1988/1989 for sure. We did one every six months as I recall for the unit to be certified.  That's 7ID(L), which along with the 82nd was the rapid deployment force.


----------



## DA SWO (May 21, 2016)

Etype said:


> When was a conventional unit doing 25 mile rucks?
> 
> I don't see that being doable for even 20% of the conventional folks I've worked with.  Out of the people I work with who have completed rucks that length or longer as part of selection, most of us would not be able to do it regularly without specifically training for it.


82nd did it quarterly in the early/mid 90's.
That and ruck back from the DZ were the norm.
Factoid: The ruck back from the DZ started in the early 80's as a way to save money (they didn't budget enough for gas home) and then they figured it was a good training event, and it became the standard.
Poor guys.


----------



## policemedic (May 21, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> Think late 80's time frame, a couple of years before Gulf War 1.0 kicked off.  Quite a few of you were still in preschool at that point, if you were even born at all.  It was still a hollow Army; when you don't have the funds for much ammo, you do other things, like walk really fast with a lot of shit on your back for retarded distances, especially if you're in a light infantry division.



I think you just called me old


----------



## policemedic (May 21, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> 82nd did it quarterly in the early/mid 90's.
> That and ruck back from the DZ were the norm.
> Factoid: The ruck back from the DZ started in the early 80's as a way to save money (they didn't budget enough for gas home) and then they figured it was a good training event, and it became the standard.
> Poor guys.



With us it wasn't a budget issue.  It was just assumed that if the training was occurring on post, we would hump there and back. 

The only time we got transported was if we were going to The Hungry Lizard or Travis.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 21, 2016)

The Corps has fallen - 

Marine Corps' new titles remove 'man' from infantryman, other jobs


----------



## Marine0311 (May 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The Corps has fallen -
> 
> Marine Corps' new titles remove 'man' from infantryman, other jobs



Bro that's from DuffelBlog


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 21, 2016)

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

I knew that.  I just wante....sigh...

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:


----------



## Marine0311 (May 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:
> 
> I knew that.  I just wante....sigh...
> 
> :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:



Oh. Sorry. My bad. :wall:


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 21, 2016)

All good @Marine0311 , I know you were "just lookin' out".  But the first thing that came to mind when I saw your reply was this masterpiece by @Freefalling when my April Fools post went south after just one reply...



Freefalling said:


> You people kill me. Your mom couldn't suck a dick the way ya'll can suck the life out of a thread.



*To add...*my favorite line in the Duffleblog story: 
_“Besides, in all seriousness,” said Kulczewski. “We all know that ‘every Marine a rifleman’ is the biggest lie in the Corps.”_


----------



## Loki (May 21, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> Think late 80's time frame, a couple of years before Gulf War 1.0 kicked off.  Quite a few of you were still in preschool at that point, if you were even born at all.  It was still a hollow Army; when you don't have the funds for much ammo, you do other things, like walk really fast with a lot of shit on your back for retarded distances, especially if you're in a light infantry division.



The words right out of my mouth; awesome! More weight, more land nav, more PT and more police call. ;) We are headed back there now as a military... Back to the future!


----------



## TLDR20 (May 21, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Bro that's from DuffelBlog


----------



## Devildoc (May 21, 2016)

Marine Times:

Marines weigh stripping the word 'man' from all job titles

Navy Times:

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/01/07/navy-looks-remove-man-all-job-titles/78415190/


----------



## racing_kitty (May 21, 2016)

policemedic said:


> I think you just called me old



Age only matters if you're cheese. Good wine and scotch also benefit greatly, so You're in good company.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 21, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Marine Times:
> 
> Marines weigh stripping the word 'man' from all job titles
> 
> ...



I strongly disagree with this. Blah.


----------



## digrar (May 22, 2016)

If your Battalion COs were anything like ours, in the years after the Falklands, the long tactical advance to battle became a key indicator for being battle fit.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 22, 2016)

Why? 1st female Army infantry officer assigned to Ranger training battalion


----------



## racing_kitty (May 22, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Why? 1st female Army infantry officer assigned to Ranger training battalion



Because politics.  The optics involved in putting the first tabbed split tail in any other position than a Ranger slot of some kind would be abysmal.  Perception is 9/10 of reality, and the way things are going, no lysergic acid diethylamide is needed to achieve the level of surreal we're at.

Be grateful it's only a staff slot.


----------



## policemedic (May 22, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Why? 1st female Army infantry officer assigned to Ranger training battalion


Out of curiosity, do you have a Ranger tab?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 22, 2016)

Etype said:


> When was a conventional unit doing 25 mile rucks?
> 
> I don't see that being doable for even 20% of the conventional folks I've worked with.  Out of the people I work with who have completed rucks that length or longer as part of selection, most of us would not be able to do it regularly without specifically training for it.



25 miler is a standard light infantry deal. I doubt many units have done it over the last 15 years due to deployment tempo operational environment. But yeah, OSUT used to have the bayonet march (25 miles and 5 missions). 10th Mtn had an annual 100 mile march in 4 days, and just about every light unit did monthly 12's and quarterly 25's.


----------



## Etype (May 22, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> 25 miler is a standard light infantry deal. I doubt many units have done it over the last 15 years due to deployment...



I don't know why deployments would stop them from happening, if anything, deployments should make you train harder.

Never did I hear of, or witness anything close to a 25 mile ruck in the 82nd.  Sicily DZ back to the division area is only 10ish miles.

Not saying they never happened, they just haven't happened any time recently that I know of.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 22, 2016)

Etype said:


> I don't know why deployments would stop them from happening, if anything, deployments should make you train harder.



Well I think commanders were trying to get a handle on the whole COIN thing and train their troops to meet that mission vs being dropped into an areas and moving long distances to contact.

And besides, unless you were doing some snoop-n-poop type mission, there hasn't been much need for rucking long distances during the GWOT.

Ever hear of Patton's ghost army?


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 22, 2016)

Can't remember, but I'm guessing by your statement about not rucking, that you didn't do afghanistan at all?

We walked. Alot. Even with dedicated platoon vehicles.


----------



## Etype (May 22, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Well I think commanders were trying to get a handle on the whole COIN thing and train their troops to meet that mission vs being dropped into an areas and moving long distances to contact.
> 
> And besides, unless you were doing some snoop-n-poop type mission, there hasn't been much need for rucking long distances during the GWOT.
> 
> Ever hear of Patton's ghost army?





Ranger Psych said:


> Can't remember, but I'm guessing by your statement about not rucking, that you didn't do afghanistan at all?
> 
> We walked. Alot. Even with dedicated platoon vehicles.



I don't know much about Patton, but I do remember walking all over Afghanistan.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 22, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> 25 miler is a standard light infantry deal. I doubt many units have done it over the last 15 years due to deployment tempo operational environment. But yeah, OSUT used to have the bayonet march (25 miles and 5 missions). 10th Mtn had an annual 100 mile march in 4 days, and just about every light unit did monthly 12's and quarterly 25's.



The Bayonet March is 12 miles.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> The Bayonet March is 12 miles.


It was 25 when I did it in 2002, 12miler was the stairway to heaven as I recall. I think we did a 15 miler in-between the 12 and 25, but its been awhile. 



Etype said:


> I don't know much about Patton, but I do remember walking all over Afghanistan.


I didn't do Afghanistan, most of my infantry buddies that did said their movements were fairly short (couple kilometers) and not under heavy ruck. Alot of nasty terrain patrolling from what I was told. I'm sure your experience was very different.



Ranger Psych said:


> Can't remember, but I'm guessing by your statement about not rucking, that you didn't do afghanistan at all?
> 
> We walked. Alot. Even with dedicated platoon vehicles.



No I didn't do Afghanistan, but have heard horror stories of the stuff the Rangers did in the beginning of that war (as far as living conditions, movement's, charging enemy infested mountains, etc). I was not meaning to talk about what SF or the Rangers did (as I obviously wouldn't know) especially in the beginning of OEF. I was talking more of the light infantry units that have been deployed to OIF/OEF and why rucking hasn't been at the forefront of those units, or at least wasn't a training priority for awhile.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 22, 2016)

Well, part of actually having a valid presence in an area is patrolling the area... and going to the places, even if it's a 12 mile march with a few thousand foot elevation gain. If you can get there, they can get there... so you gotta get there if for no other reason than to prove there's nowhere safe in the area for them, and the locals now know you can and will come out there if they do happen to share information.

Just occupying a MSS/FOB/whatever doesn't honestly establish a presence to ward off the enemy. It establishes a stationary target FOR the enemy.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 22, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Well, part of actually having a valid presence in an area is patrolling the area... and going to the places, even if it's a 12 mile march with a few thousand foot elevation gain. If you can get there, they can get there... so you gotta get there if for no other reason than to prove there's nowhere safe in the area for them, and the locals now know you can and will come out there if they do happen to share information.
> 
> Just occupying a MSS/FOB/whatever doesn't honestly establish a presence to ward off the enemy. It establishes a stationary target FOR the enemy.



I agree 100%.


----------



## Teufel (May 23, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> 25 miler is a standard light infantry deal. I doubt many units have done it over the last 15 years due to deployment tempo operational environment. But yeah, OSUT used to have the bayonet march (25 miles and 5 missions). 10th Mtn had an annual 100 mile march in 4 days, and just about every light unit did monthly 12's and quarterly 25's.



The Marine Corps used to require infantry battalions to conduct a 25 mile ruck march (with full combat load to include crew serve weapons) before being certified deployment ready.  The 25 miler was the culminating event in the Marine Corps Combat Readiness Evaluation (MCCRE).  I don't know if they still do it or not.  It was not uncommon for battalions to ruck march from Camp Pendleton to 29 Palms which is around 175 miles.  Don't ask me why, that sounds like a terrible idea.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 23, 2016)

Teufel said:


> The Marine Corps used to require infantry battalions to conduct a 25 mile ruck march (with full combat load to include crew serve weapons) before being certified deployment ready.  The 25 miler was the culminating event in the Marine Corps Combat Readiness Evaluation (MCCRE).  I don't know if they still do it or not.  It was not uncommon for battalions to ruck march from Camp Pendleton to 29 Palms which is around 175 miles.  Don't ask me why, that sounds like a terrible idea.



SIR YES SIR. RUCKING IS FUN SIR.


edit for spelling. Well played free.


----------



## AWP (May 24, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> SIR YES SIR. TUCKING IS FUN SIR



This man certainly agrees.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 24, 2016)

It puts the lotion on its skin!


----------



## Devildoc (May 24, 2016)

Teufel said:


> The Marine Corps used to require infantry battalions to conduct a 25 mile ruck march (with full combat load to include crew serve weapons) before being certified deployment ready.  The 25 miler was the culminating event in the Marine Corps Combat Readiness Evaluation (MCCRE).  I don't know if they still do it or not.  It was not uncommon for battalions to ruck march from Camp Pendleton to 29 Palms which is around 175 miles.  Don't ask me why, that sounds like a terrible idea.



I don't know if they still do it but units in Oki would hump down Oki.  My longest was 35ish miles, was told to hump the entire 115 miles from Bridgeport to Reno, but miraculously (CYA?  Risk management?  Don't know) motor T showed up and we rode the rest of the way.  We were supposed to do it for "training" (read: punishment) for transgressions in Bridgeport.  I recall the 25 mile pre-deployment humps.


----------



## Etype (May 25, 2016)

We need to start discussing time standards along with these distances.


----------



## DA SWO (May 25, 2016)

Etype said:


> We need to start discussing time standards along with these distances.


Not SFAS timing, pretty much assured.
More like a 20 min mile.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 25, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Not SFAS timing, pretty much assured.
> More like a 20 min mile.



20 min mile is really damn slow, I don't know if I have ever rucked that slow. Generally what eats up the time on long hauls, is taking breaks, but I would agree you are not kicking it out. But 20 minute mile, is it even possible to walk that slow?


----------



## DocIllinois (May 25, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> 20 min mile is really damn slow, I don't know if I have ever gone rucked that slow. Generally what eats up the time on long hauls, is taking breaks, but I would agree you are not kicking it out. But 20 minute mile, is it even possible to walk that slow?



Have you ever seen a Guard support unit ruck marching?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 25, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Have you ever seen a Guard support unit ruck marching?



The only time I've ever seen anyone other than infantry/SOF with a ruck, they were carrying it to a truck. So no I haven't, but really 20 minute mile pace?


----------



## DocIllinois (May 25, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> The only time I've ever seen anyone other than infantry/SOF with a ruck, they were carrying it to a truck. So no I haven't, but really 20 minute mile pace?



The main body pace can be on listless side.

Don't get me wrong here; our support folks are awesome for rides, maintenance, getting paid, etc. 

Moving out while being a human pack mule, though, just isn't in their wheel house.


----------



## Devildoc (May 25, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> The main body pace can be on listless side.
> 
> Don't get me wrong here; our support folks are awesome for rides, maintenance, getting paid, etc.
> 
> Moving out while being a human pack mule, though, just isn't in their wheel house.



20 min pace for a distance hump sounds about right.  A lot slower for shitty terrain.  In jungle we were lucky to make a 30 min/mile pace.


----------



## policemedic (May 25, 2016)

Etype said:


> We need to start discussing time standards along with these distances.


 7th ID(L) standard for 25 miles was <8hrs if I recall.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 25, 2016)

policemedic said:


> 7th ID(L) standard for 25 miles was <8hrs if I recall.



I'm guessing with a few halts, water, food, etc?

ETA: assuming you guys did four 15 minute halts during a 25 miler, that would put it around 16.8 minutes a mile to complete in 8 hours. That seems a bit of a more realistic movement for a light infantry unit.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 25, 2016)

I did a couple of 25+ mile rucks, but outside of the bayonet event at Benning, they were personal event's, Bataan memorial, a military style amazing race event, a unit challenge ruck marathon. But I've always got to set my pace on those, and try to stay around 15 minute a mile pace for distance. I've done a shit load of 6-12 mile rucks and I normally just flat ran those or stayed low 14's for pace. And in all honesty I was pretty slow compared to alot of the guys I would train with, as in I was pushing hard to keep up with them. Former 82nd and 25th guy's, the dude from the 25th was a rucking fool.


----------



## Teufel (May 25, 2016)

Etype said:


> We need to start discussing time standards along with these distances.



The Marine Corps Combat Readiness Evaluation standard is 25 Miles/40 kilometers in under 8 hours.  Normally you march at a 4 miles an hour pace but stop 10 minutes every hour to change socks.


----------



## policemedic (May 25, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I'm guessing with a few halts, water, food, etc?
> 
> ETA: assuming you guys did four 15 minute halts during a 25 miler, that would put it around 16.8 minutes a mile to complete in 8 hours. That seems a bit of a more realistic movement for a light infantry unit.



Yes.  Don't honestly remember how often the halts came, though.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 25, 2016)

Last 30 miler I did, first call at midnight, movement at 1230 to stepoff point, started walking at around two, home before lunch.


----------



## digrar (May 26, 2016)

Matildas lose 7-0 to U15 side

Elite female athletes, toweled up by a regional representative team of 15 year olds...


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 29, 2016)

Two week transition course...This sergeant is the Army's first female enlisted infantry soldier


----------



## Kraut783 (May 29, 2016)

Hate to be an ass....but I hope she is a better soldier than she looks....she looks like a 42A.


----------



## Centermass (May 29, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Two week transition course...This sergeant is the Army's first female enlisted infantry soldier



Well, Griest sidestepped IOBC, IOAC, and all the 3-4 years worth of experience in between even more valuable, so, why not?

This one goes through a 2 week WY NG course and wham, bam, TY ma'am..another one "Instant Infantry. 

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. Last time I checked, the only "Bona Fide" Infantry course in the Army was at Benning and it was a lot longer than what she went through. (And no, the TASS route doesn't cut it)

And by virtue of her rank, that would make her a Fire Team Leader?? Seriously, this is fucking not only ridiculous, it's downright dangerous and stupid. To all my buddies in the Corps, the fix is in. Based on what's now going on within the Army, you can bet your ass the heat is going to be turned up and it's heading your way. Believe me. 

Everyone here knows I'm not in agreement with this whole social engineering circus, but for the life of me, this approach of standards be damned, we'll just go the way of the Shake and Bake method has hit a new low with regards to preparation, training and standards.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 29, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Well, Griest sidestepped IOBC, IOAC, and all the 3-4 years worth of experience in between even more valuable, so, why not?
> 
> This one goes through a 2 week WY NG course and wham, bam, TY ma'am..another one "Instant Infantry.
> 
> ...



Our INF unit will soon be getting a female Two Week Course E5 assigned who won't even be part of an operational platoon, but a "liaison" for incoming lower enlisted female 11Bs.

The painfully obvious issues with this have been discussed elsewhere on SS. 

My $.02 worth of fuel to the above fire.


----------



## DA SWO (May 29, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Well, Griest sidestepped IOBC, IOAC, and all the 3-4 years worth of experience in between even more valuable, so, why not?
> 
> This one goes through a 2 week WY NG course and wham, bam, TY ma'am..another one "Instant Infantry.
> 
> ...


The Guard has run two-week Infantry Courses for years now.


----------



## Florida173 (May 29, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> The Guard has run two-week Infantry Courses for years now.



There's a reason why no one thinks highly of national guard infantry


----------



## Kraut783 (May 29, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> The Guard has run two-week Infantry Courses for years now.



True....but, this is a new twist with the female thing...like a backdoor.


----------



## Centermass (May 29, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> The Guard has run two-week Infantry Courses for years now.



Like I said earlier........



Centermass said:


> Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. Last time I checked, the only "Bona Fide" Infantry course in the Army was at Benning and it was a lot longer than what she went through. *(And no, the TASS route doesn't cut it)*


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 30, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> The Guard has run two-week Infantry Courses for years now.



We don't like the two week geeks either.


----------



## Centermass (May 30, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> There's a reason why no one thinks highly of national guard infantry



Even though I don't agree with the system there Bud, that's some pretty arrogant shit you posted. 

Hating the system is one thing, disrespecting them overall with a statement such as you did, demonstrates you still have a lot of maturing left to do.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 30, 2016)

Just playing Devil's Advocate regarding a couple aspects...

I would personally consider someone who even just went through, let alone graduated, all 64 some odd days comprising three phases of Ranger school to be better qualified in Infantry tasks and operations, than someone straight out of 11B OSUT. 

Ranger school's 9 weeks total. Excluding 8 weeks for Basic, 11x OSUT is 5 weeks, discounting any 11 series above Bravo's additional training.

Putting things into other perspective, it's been a long-standing rule/thing that non-infantry that DO graduate school, get a secondary mos of 11B.  This wonderful rule gave MSG Van Aalst to Regiment and the unit. 

The officers will be better equipped to look at things from that side of the military with regards to how things work for cross-branch transfers, and what is expected OF a cross-branch transfer... However, there IS a precedent in place for MOS swaps at least on the enlisted side of things. 

IOBC is about 5 months long, so longer than Ranger school but anyone who's been to school knows exactly how well prepared and capable those recent graduates are, when it comes to the arduous experiences of Ranger school.

Where does the cirriculum differ/diverge between what an aviation officer receives, and what an Infantry officer receives? Obviously, there's different planning metrics and such with regards to how aviation plans out operations, both logistically and tactically, however IF all things were equal at School.... a female crossbranch would still know all the opord, movement, planning, etc as needed by being a graduate. Paperwork's paperwork, counseling statements, statements of charges, supply requests... these are all standard military forms and things.  

Taking off the devil horns now, I still personally have no issue with the concept of women in the military, in any job. 

The issue is that there's no single standard being applied, straight out the gate with a sole branch PT test and subsequent MOS specific physical qualification.  The simple fact is that each job in the military, regardless of sex, has physical demands. Mechanics need to be able to mule about a towbar. Infantry needs to mule around M2's and Mk19's. Cooks need to be able to haul mermites. Intel guys need to be able to carry laptops. Bla de blah.  

Going further, specific units, Regiment being a prime example, have pure flat expectations for those who are in the unit, as in the past and even now, all Rangers in the Regiment are expected to be multitalented and flexible, hence the 80% minimum across the board as well as other mission-specific requirements for placement and continued service.

Putting a physical capacity framework in, with a minimum service standard for the military branch being discussed, followed up with MOS specific requirements, and then digressing into Battalion, Regiment or Brigade level standardization pulling straight off of both of those (IE, Infantry BN goes off Infantry standard regardless of MOS, as an example), would be a huge step in the right direction towards ensuring the physical capacity of ALL troops within a unit, even currently all-male or classically all-male manned units.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 30, 2016)

11B OSUT, or IOBC vs Ranger school is really immaterial IMHO. if we're talking individual skill, than someone with a Ranger tab should have a solid understanding in SUT and TLP (that's not always the case). The issue as with the NG gay ass 2 week course as with just graduating a commanders course or being a cherry out of OSUT. Is and always will be, experience. Nobody looks at a 2LT or PVT fresh out of Benning as anyone who knows anything about anything. Ranger tab? Fresh to the unit with no experience ain't much different. Someone coming from another unit, a few years under their belt, its different.

But honestly, on the lower level, its time with the troops, time to gel, developed SOP and TTP, its building that trust. It can be fast with experienced people, specifically the leadership, but it just takes time and drilling in the basics. A female E5 showing up with a 2wk 11B course will be about 5-7 years behind the curve in the guard and will have every E4/SPC hating her guts, who has  been through Sand Hill, who has a deployment or two, who has his EIB/CIB and who was waiting for his promotion to SGT. But I've already stated all this BS, I digress. All the Army has to do, is make them hit the same schools, meet the same standards, and put in their time like everyone else...


----------



## Etype (May 30, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> There's a reason why no one thinks highly of national guard infantry


I don't think very highly of the fact that we used the NG in support of our world police operations.

If I were king, they'd remain focus on fighting large scale conflicts and be held in reserve for NATIONAL defense.


----------



## Florida173 (May 30, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Even though I don't agree with the system there Bud, that's some pretty arrogant shit you posted.
> 
> Hating the system is one thing, disrespecting them overall with a statement such as you did, demonstrates you still have a lot of maturing left to do.



Arrogant shit? What kind of BS is that? I didn't even mean it I the way that you are suggesting. I would have used some of the pronouns to denote that I feel this way..
But.. The active duty component infantry has never thought highly of their guard counterpart. Not once did I ever hear anyone stand up for them. My time deploying with at least one guard unit later on showed me that there's some good former active duty people in the ranks now, but when they deployed it was at least 1/3 IRR call ups to finish up the ranks.

I don't think as poorly of them as I once did, but that's mostly because of a generation of attrition from active duty that has filled the ranks. There's no disrespect there, it's reality and has been discussed enough times on this board. I'm all about the additional skills that our citizen-soldiers bring to the fight, but that's going to be mostly anecdotal.

It's likely that we'll see more and more females go infantry from the NG than the active side. It's probably better that way now with the op tempo as it is. Less impact.


----------



## Florida173 (May 30, 2016)

Etype said:


> I don't think very highly of the fact that we used the NG in support of our world police operations.
> 
> If I were king, they'd remain focus on fighting large scale conflicts and be held in reserve for NATIONAL defense.



And their Defense Support to Civilian Authorities.

Being a Florida guardsmen, I've done my share of hurricane and special event support and see that the civilian side appreciates the support immensely.


----------



## DA SWO (May 30, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> There's a reason why no one thinks highly of national guard infantry


IIRC the Guard Infantry Bde out of Florida supported 5th SFG during the initial drive into Iraq, which means Guard Infantry Soldiers were there long before the 173rd made its jump into a secure drop zone, just saying.


----------



## Florida173 (May 30, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> IIRC the Guard Infantry Bde out of Florida supported 5th SFG during the initial drive into Iraq, which means Guard Infantry Soldiers were there long before the 173rd made its jump into a secure drop zone, just saying.



I wouldn't take anything away from my friends over in the 53rd. Their stories of providing security in Jordan and Kuwait before their eventual movement into Iraq are legendary. 

Your attempt to provoke on the otherside shows an ignorance that I will be happy to help you with. Rand published a great paper that goes in-depth to the reasons for the jump. Message me if you are interested.

BTW, the 173rd is the only unit to have ever allowed a female to jump into combat.


----------



## Etype (May 30, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> IIRC the Guard Infantry Bde out of Florida supported 5th SFG during the initial drive into Iraq, which means Guard Infantry Soldiers were there long before the 173rd made its jump into a secure drop zone, just saying.


I remember watching night vision video as a kid at the firehouse of FL NG soldiers clearing one of the berms for 5th Group HMMWVs to drive through.

Pretty cool.

That was a mission to be proud of for them.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 30, 2016)

@Florida173, your comments are disrespectful.

I'm all about fairness, so what quantitative experience do you draw from to make the comments you have made? Obviously you were with the 173rd (amazing unit) but did you serve with NG Infantry, have you deployed as a member of an NG Infantry unit? Have you worked as an instructor or OC/T that has validated/trained/certified both NG and AD Infantry units?

What experience brought you to the conclusion that NG Infantry is vastly not respected by AD? 

I can make long lists of BS, that shows both sides of the argument. I'm not going to waste my time. So as a NG Infantry soldier (no regular Army) who spent a combined time of almost 3 yrs in Iraq, who spent almost 3 yrs time training RC/NG/RA soldiers and who made it a personal goal to be better than everyone else regardless of branch or status. Please tell me why you or any other AD soldiers do not respect me or my service? Or more so my brothers who lost their lives soldiering in as Infantrymen, or the countless brothers I have that if told something like what you wrote personally would knock the shit out of that person. 

It's one thing to have service rivalries and talk shit about each other, it's something totally different to blatantly disrespect the contributions made by the thousands of NG Infantry soldiers who right seat/left seat with their AD counterparts and accomplished their mission just like everyone else...


----------



## DA SWO (May 30, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> I wouldn't take anything away from my friends over in the 53rd. Their stories of providing security in Jordan and Kuwait before their eventual movement into Iraq are legendary.
> 
> Your attempt to provoke on the otherside shows an ignorance that I will be happy to help you with. Rand published a great paper that goes in-depth to the reasons for the jump. Message me if you are interested.
> 
> BTW, the 173rd is the only unit to have ever allowed a female to jump into combat.


I don't need a Rand paper, it's called: URGENT FURY, Lessons Learned, same reason used for some of the jumps into Panama during JUST CAUSE.
As far as woofing shit goes, your fellow jumpers do a good job; and no, you were not the first unit to put females into combat; the OSS beat you to it by a few decades.


----------



## policemedic (May 30, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I don't need a Rand paper, it's called: URGENT FURY, Lessons Learned, same reason used for some of the jumps into Panama during JUST CAUSE.
> As far as woofing shit goes, your fellow jumpers do a good job; and no, you were not the first unit to put females into combat; the OSS beat you to it by a few decades.



There's a difference between JUST CAUSE  and some other jumps. As I recall, the jump into Rio Hato airfield--controlled by the enemy, not US Army SF--didn't have to be reclassified after the fact for the guys to earn their mustard stain. Then again, that's because they actually jumped into a firefight so it was pretty obvious.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 30, 2016)

I don't think there is any reason to knock the 173rd, the fear of jumping into the unknown and the suck they dealt with after has my undying respect. Those guys earned their mustard stain as far as I'm concerned.

I'm personally more interested in @Florida173 reasons for disrespecting me and my brothers.


----------



## AWP (May 30, 2016)

This is entertaining but we're not going to let one person's BS side track a whole thread. Y'all need to hurry along and wrap up this little sidebar.


----------



## Florida173 (May 30, 2016)

Meh. I already said I misspoke and didn't mean it any more than the over generalization that occurs about the National Guard that's apparently ground breaking to thin skinned people in here. 

No one cares about my deployments on both sides as some sort of anecdotal bonefides. Already stated what occurs and how things have generally changed since I've left infantry due to the attrition from active duty. If your curious I'd be happy to grab a beer with you at anytime and tell war stories.

I don't care about @DA SWO 's ignorance of what occurred on my jump. The mustard stain was known immediately, not some time later.

As for the first female jumper, I was referring to Catherine Leroy's jump with the herd in Vietnam during Junction City. I'm not familiar with other documented females to jump before that into combat, but if you can give me a source I'd be happy to update my info.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 30, 2016)

Nobody is thin skinned, just not going to let you off the hook for being disrespectful. If you want to drop it and move on, no worries, but I think you absolutely showed your ass with the last few posts. I'll leave it at that...


----------



## DA SWO (May 31, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> This is entertaining but we're not going to let one person's BS side track a whole thread. Y'all need to hurry along and wrap up this little sidebar.



Last off topic response.
@Florida173 go look at the thread regarding the 173rd's jump.  I supported the decision to jump in and award a Combat Star (and still do), then take a second look at my post.  I pointed out that Guard Infantry were in the fight while the 173rd was in Italy.

You are acting butt-hurt and thin skinned whenever someone comments about the jump.


Now back on topic.
Looks like AETC is outlawing motivational PT.  I think it's to increase the flow (i.e. add females) through the training pipeline.
STTS is going to be an eye-opener for many Airmen.


----------



## Etype (May 31, 2016)

I've done helicopter assaults into a few places, and rapids off a C-130- I want my arrowheads.


----------



## Brill (May 31, 2016)

Etype said:


> I've done helicopter assaults into a few places, and rapids off a C-130- I want my arrowheads.



Were there CSTs with you (tying this back to SOFt chicks)?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 16, 2016)

What will the House do...Senate approves women registering for the draft - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## 104TN (Jun 17, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> What will the House do...Senate approves women registering for the draft - CNNPolitics.com


Hopefully approve. If we're a country of equal rights than it stands to reason that citizens should have equal responsibilities.


----------



## Brill (Jun 17, 2016)

rick said:


> Hopefully approve. If we're a country of equal rights than it stands to reason that citizens should have equal responsibilities.



Equal rights and diversity are not the same thing.


----------



## Centermass (Jun 17, 2016)

lindy said:


> Equal rights and diversity are not the same thing.



Nope.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 18, 2016)

There you go...."2) I DONT WANT EQUAL RIGHTS LIKE THIS"   all in, or STFU


----------



## Lefty375 (Jun 18, 2016)

Yes, because a random person twitter is indicative of a whole movement. I really like to imagine most people on this forum are above such low quality bait.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 18, 2016)

Lefty375 said:


> Yes, because a random person twitter is indicative of a whole movement. I really like to imagine most people on this forum are above such low quality bait.



lol yeah, it only has 4 likes. It may not even be a real account.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 18, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> lol yeah, it only has 4 likes. It may not even be a real account.



It was funny though....even it not real


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 18, 2016)

The account looks to be real. The girl who posted it has also is just that, a girl. Based on the photos and commentary, I think she just turned 21. She could be younger based on pictures and subtext. I could be wrong though, kind of suck at navigating twitter.

Edit: While her response seems silly to me, it got some gears turning. Would the new draft affect women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds more than men?


----------



## pardus (Jun 18, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> The account looks to be real. The girl who posted it has also is just that, a girl. Based on the photos and commentary, I think she just turned 21. She could be younger based on pictures and subtext. I could be wrong though, kind of suck at navigating twitter.
> 
> Edit: While her response seems silly to me, it got some gears turning. Would the new draft affect women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds more than men?



Why would it?


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 18, 2016)

pardus said:


> Why would it?


Based on my limited understanding. I keep hearing for the most part that females generate less income than males. I also hear that many of the people that dodged the draft, used college or personal wealth to evade it. That they minimized their chances of being a enlisted/entry level personnel because of their backgrounds. Which makes me wonder, if the lower earning middle and lower class women are going to have a higher rate of compliance. Presumably, since they don't generate the same amount of wealth as males. I wonder if they will have access to the same tactics.

That being said. I'm also wondering how pregnancy, existing children, and the birthing age will affect the new draft. To expand. In some cultures here, it's normal for women to bear children early (18-25). While in other groups, women wait until their late 20's or thirties to have children. Usually after they have finished schooling and have a stable career. Which makes me wonder, if the birth rate will change and coincide with women giving birth earlier because of the draft.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 19, 2016)

Oh, it's a pretty real twitter.  ↠ kelsea ↠ (@kelseaaamarieee) | Twitter


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 21, 2016)

New Marine standards making a difference, for women...and men....

The few, the proud, the physically fit


----------



## 104TN (Jun 27, 2016)

File footage of new practical study just released by the Marines.

Instagram video by ♠️⚡️OAF Nation⚡️♠️ • Mar 18, 2016 at 1:55am UTC


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 27, 2016)

rick said:


> File footage of new practical study just released by the Marines.
> 
> Instagram video by ♠️⚡️OAF Nation⚡️♠️ • Mar 18, 2016 at 1:55am UTC



This has made the rounds a few times.  I am still most amazed at the reaction of the Marine w/the sunglasses.  He appears PISSED about what just happened.


----------



## 104TN (Jun 27, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> This has made the rounds a few times.  I am still most amazed at the reaction of the Marine w/the sunglasses.  He appears PISSED about what just happened.


His privilege was showing.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 28, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> This has made the rounds a few times.  I am still most amazed at the reaction of the Marine w/the sunglasses.  He appears PISSED about what just happened.




What is the point of reinforcing the notion in training that closing the distance and forcing an enemy combatant to the ground (whom you can't shoot for whatever reason) before killing him isn't an option? 

This is allowed to happen only if the asshole who is likewise trying to kill you is a male and over a certain physical size, I suppose.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 28, 2016)

Which APFT would Patricia take?

US Army allowing first openly transgender infantryman to stay in


----------



## Etype (Jun 28, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Which APFT would Patricia take?
> 
> US Army allowing first openly transgender infantryman to stay in


So I wonder if he actually got his testicles removed.

I would think that's a pretty important consideration.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 28, 2016)

Etype said:


> So I wonder if he actually got his testicles removed.
> 
> I would think that's a pretty important consideration.


I'd say pre-op.. but I am pretty CIS-gendered and don't know the intricacies of these things. Is an operation to actually become as close to the physical gender as possible an ultimate goal? Who knows.. Did Diane Schroer transition?


----------



## Etype (Jun 28, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> I'd say pre-op.. but I am pretty CIS-gendered and don't know the intricacies of these things. Is an operation to actually become as close to the physical gender as possible an ultimate goal? Who knows.. Did Diane Schroer transition?


Yeah... I'd call a "pre-operative transgender" a cross-dresser. But I'm not a cool kid, what do I know?


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 28, 2016)

Etype said:


> Yeah... I'd call a "pre-operative transgender" a cross-dresser. But I'm not a cool kid, what do I know?



Like I said, I'm no expert, but I believe I heard something like the cross-dressing community being somewhat on the outs with the rest of the contemporary gender-fluid crowd. @pardus or @Freefalling probably can speak more to this. :-"


----------



## AWP (Jun 28, 2016)

Etype said:


> But I'm not a cool kid, what do I know?



MBITR Retention Techniques?


----------



## CDG (Jun 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> MBITR Retention Techniques?



Waste of time.  They're like $500 on Ebay, so who really gives a shit?  I'll tie down the important things, like my can of Monster.


----------



## 104TN (Jun 28, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Which APFT would Patricia take?
> 
> US Army allowing first openly transgender infantryman to stay in



That awkward feeling when you're shivering in your hasty and your battle has boobs...and testicles...


----------



## Etype (Jun 29, 2016)

rick said:


> That awkward feeling when you're shivering in your hasty and your battle has boobs...and testicles...


Are you a drill sergeant?


----------



## 104TN (Jun 29, 2016)

Etype said:


> Are you a drill sergeant?


Fat civilian. 1ea.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 30, 2016)

Are barracks with transgendered soldiers considered co-ed? Can CIS gender soldiers be roommates with non-CIS Genders?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 30, 2016)

Pentagon Ends Ban on Transgender Troops in Military

Here's my question, shouldn't there be "T" designation rather than giving an F/M?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 2, 2016)

Terminal Lance - Terminal Lance “The TRANSition”


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 2, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Terminal Lance - Terminal Lance “The TRANSition”



What are your thoughts on Max's opinion?  

Agree?
Disagree?


----------



## Brill (Jul 2, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> What are your thoughts on Max's opinion?
> 
> Agree?
> Disagree?



Exactly like the comic indicates: it's a distraction. We are at war and our service chiefs are more focused on non-war fighting issues.

How does a commander enforce good order and discipline when anything goes?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 2, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> What are your thoughts on Max's opinion?
> 
> Agree?
> Disagree?


What @lindy said.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 2, 2016)

Guidance to incoming combat arms transgender folks who may now be perusing forums such as this one: 

Be good at your job and a great basic Soldier/ Sailor/ Marine/ Airman.  Its the best chance you're going to have of being even marginally accepted by your immediate peers, IMO.

If you're ate up and transgender, I see it being a very challenging situation for you.  Joes have ways of making life considerably difficult for non hackers, especially anyone identifying themselves as being an outlier in such a way.


----------



## AWP (Jul 2, 2016)

Transgender folks will have a tough row to hoe, but the adversity will speak volumes about their character. There will be those guys who call them freaks, many behind their backs, but performance will turn some around. Every single failure to perform will damn the entire community in the eyes of many.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Transgender folks will have a tough row to hoe, but the adversity will speak volumes about their character. There will be those guys who call them freaks, many behind their backs, but performance will turn some around. Every single failure to perform will damn the entire community in the eyes of many.


Failure to fairly correct will break unit cohesion down, and will damn the rest.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 2, 2016)

Curious to how many of the suspected 0.3% of the United States transgender population will be in the military.


----------



## AWP (Jul 18, 2016)

The first female Airman has started the TACP pipeline. To me, this is the meat of the article:



> The Air Force first told Air Force Times in May that the aspiring TACP was one of two female airmen who had passed the physical test required to begin battlefield airman training, since the Defense Department opened up all combat jobs to women.
> 
> The other woman who passed the PT test is an active-duty officer who wants to become a combat rescue officer. Holliday said that airman is still preparing for her training and her start date has not yet been set.
> 
> ...



I can only guess either A) there's now a unified PAST or B) the AFT doesn't understand the difference in the PAST tests and these numbers are for all versions/ standards.

First for Air Force: Female airman begins TACP training


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 18, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The first female Airman has started the TACP pipeline. To me, this is the meat of the article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's literally the initial bullshit PAST needed for cross training. It would be akin to saying "The first transgender Ranger has started training!" after passing MEPS. 

I have been pretty involved in the new process/applications for the upcoming O/E selections. Lots of stuff on the horizon to be sure.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 18, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> It would be akin to saying "The first transgender Ranger has started training!" after passing MEPS.



That is a really good analogy for those of us not as familiar with the numerous acronymed pre-selection courses - thank you!


----------



## Centermass (Jul 22, 2016)

As if this was any surprise......



> Two female Army officers will make history when they report to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in their first step toward earning the Special Forces tab and becoming Green Berets.
> 
> The female officers, whom Army officials declined to identify, could attend their first Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) class as early as October, though neither has yet received orders for training at Fort Bragg.



Full Story


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 22, 2016)

Centermass said:


> As if this was any surprise......
> 
> 
> 
> Full Story



Were the women who went to Ranger School given ample or extra time to prepare vs the men?


----------



## Centermass (Jul 22, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Were the women who went to Ranger School given ample or extra time to prepare vs the men?



4 months plus. F/T away from their units.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 22, 2016)

"An important thing to remember is, these are volunteers. Special Forces is something soldiers volunteer for,” Maj. Faulkenberry said."

Yeah, cause no one volunteers for the Army


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 22, 2016)

Centermass said:


> 4 months plus. F/T away from their units.


Thank you.


----------



## Etype (Jul 22, 2016)

Centermass said:


> As if this was any surprise......
> 
> 
> 
> Full Story


I'm interested to see/hear about this!

Two things I learned in selection-
- During team week, I learned I could feel pain.
- During the trek, I learned that my feet weren't bulletproof.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 23, 2016)

Etype said:


> I'm interested to see/hear about this!
> 
> Two things I learned in selection-
> - During team week, I learned I could feel pain.
> - During the trek, I learned that my feet weren't bulletproof.



I learned the same thing about my shoulders. My feet were hard but my shoulders hurt worse than anything I can remember.


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2016)

The Marine Corps released its new PFT, CFT, and body composition program.

Let's go to the articles:

Marine Corps Makes Biggest Changes To Fitness Standards In 40 Years

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...s-need-know-corps-new-fitness-rules/86582012/



> "*The new PFT and CFT standards raise the bar on physical fitness for all Marines*," said Maj. Gen. James Lukeman, commanding general of Training and Education Command.





> Brian McGuire, deputy of fitness branch for TECOM’s standards division, called the flexed-arm hang an "inadequate test of upper body strength," adding that the pullup is preferred because it requires an individual to overcome his entire body weight, while a pushup requires he overcome only 70 to 80 percent. *So why include pushups at all*?
> 
> McGuire said it was because the *Marine Corps didn't "want to create a manpower problem by having some female Marines failing*."



Straight from the Marines
CHANGES TO THE PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST (PFT), COMBAT FITNESS TEST (CFT), AND BODY COMPOSITION PROGRAM (BCP) > The Official United States Marine Corps Public Website > Marines.mil - Messages



> 4.  Other changes to BCP include modifying the maximum allowable weight limits for female Marines



Maybe this is good for the Corps, I really don't know, but there's no way any of this is equal for men and women. They "raised the bar" and then changed the test to avoid failing too many women?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 23, 2016)

Thing is, you do pullups first.... fail to achieve reps, go do pushups. Double that up with that you can only get what, 70% of max if you go to the pushup reps?  It means that either they train the fuck up or they can pass, but they ain't maxing for being able to hold onto something for a little bit.


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Thing is, you do pullups first.... fail to achieve reps, go do pushups. Double that up with that you can only get what, 70% of max if you go to the pushup reps?  It means that either they train the fuck up or they can pass, but they ain't maxing for being able to hold onto something for a little bit.



I agree, but they still changed the test and then admitted it was done to benefit female Marines. They didn't include pushups for any other reason. One of the main themes in this thread is about the lowering of standards to accommodate women. Leadership has stated time and time again it would not lower standards for women. When the rubber meets the road the Marines and Army have both lowered their standards and/ or given women opportunities unavailable to men.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 23, 2016)

Better explained here:

11 things Marines need to know about the new PFT, CFT and body composition rules


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Better explained here:
> 
> 11 things Marines need to know about the new PFT, CFT and body composition rules



That was in my post, the URL didn't display in a friendly manner.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 23, 2016)

Oops - missed that @Freefalling

To add:  I was distracted by the part of the story that you bolded above.

In fact I am still distracted by the part of the story that you bolded above....

_Brian McGuire, deputy of fitness branch for TECOM’s standards division, called the flexed-arm hang an "inadequate test of upper body strength," adding that the pullup is preferred because it requires an individual to overcome his entire body weight, while a pushup requires he overcome only 70 to 80 percent. So why include pushups at all?

*McGuire said it was because the Marine Corps didn't "want to create a manpower problem by having some female Marines failing."*

“This is a very big change in fitness testing," he said. "One of the key principles is to ensure a greater distinction between Marines at different fitness levels. ...While it incentivizes pullups, if the individual cannot do a pullup, the individual doesn’t fail.”_


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Oops - missed that @Freefalling



No worries. Marines and reading: a love-hate relationship since Tun Tavern.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 23, 2016)

I'm pretty sure over time it wouldn't matter, I've never seen Marine Recruiters deal with the same amount of manpower fills that the Army had to when I was in high school.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 2, 2016)

SMA: Army needs female soldiers to step up for combat jobs

My opinion is if they don't want to lateral transfer, we don't need them.  Officers and NCOs should want to be in the job they're in, and then want to lead.  Otherwise you end up with a PFC that has stripes or is just existing as an officer and they are dead weight.


----------



## reed11b (Aug 2, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> SMA: Army needs female soldiers to step up for combat jobs
> 
> My opinion is if they don't want to lateral transfer, we don't need them.  Officers and NCOs should want to be in the job they're in, and then want to lead.  Otherwise you end up with a PFC that has stripes or is just existing as an officer and they are dead weight.


Did I just find myself in agreement with ThunderHorse? What sign of the apocalypse is that?
Reed


----------



## Jay_Pew (Aug 2, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> SMA: Army needs female soldiers to step up for combat jobs
> 
> My opinion is if they don't want to lateral transfer, we don't need them.  Officers and NCOs should want to be in the job they're in, and then want to lead.  Otherwise you end up with a PFC that has stripes or is just existing as an officer and they are dead weight.



"You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink."

Pretty much sums up what is going on here. The opportunity is there for any woman in the service that wants to take that route, but much like internal polling among troops showed, not many woman where interested in the first place.

Few Army women want combat jobs, survey finds


----------



## x SF med (Aug 2, 2016)

Most women in the military did not joint to become Combat Arms, nor have they a desire to lat move to Combat Arms...  it's a politically moltivated agenda, to show inclusiveness if it works and show gender bias if it doesn't.  It is a lose-lose proposition, always has been, always will be.

If you meet the standards for the job, have at it.  I you fail to meet the standards, thanks for playing, there are no nice parting gifts, no bonus points, no waivers...  back to the needs of mother green in an area in which you do qualify.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 2, 2016)

The survey doesn't surprise me. When I think of the weight and gear we rucked through jungles and paddies and up and down hills, I can't imagine _most _women _wanting_ to do that. And maybe it's a good thing, it'll mean those who go for it will be the ones who really want it.


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> The survey doesn't surprise me. When I think of the weight and gear we rucked through jungles and paddies and up and down hills, I can't imagine _most _women wanting to do that. And maybe it's a good thing, it'll mean those who go for it will be the ones who really want it.



It's the same story as it is for dudes. People want to do the cool stuff.  Using my own careerfield as an example, everybody thinks it would be awesome to be on a mountainside saying "Cleared Hot".  It's less awesome to be land naving alone at night through the Florida vegetation on 2 hours sleep in the last 72 hours. Similar stories for every combat arms/SOF job.


----------



## AWP (Aug 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> It's the same story as it is for dudes. People want to do the cool stuff.  Using my own careerfield as an example, everybody thinks it would be awesome to be on a mountainside saying "Cleared Hot".  It's less awesome to be land naving alone at night through the Florida vegetation on 2 hours sleep in the last 72 hours. Similar stories for every combat arms/SOF job.



Everyone thinks they are Darth material until the pool/ land nav course/ surf zone/ PT test....


----------



## Centermass (Aug 3, 2016)

Everyone wants to be tough shit until it's time to do tough shit.........


----------



## DocIllinois (Aug 3, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Everyone wants to be tough shit until it's time to do tough shit.........



Everyone also wants to impose well meaning civilian values upon the military until it's time to face the realities of another all out war.  Those same people will then look on in bewilderment and disappointment when an organized enemy rolls over what they believe will pass for our fighting force.

"The problem is not that Americans are soft but that they simply will not face what war is all about until they have had their teeth kicked in."   - T.R. Fehrenbach,_ This Kind of War_, Ch. 25


----------



## Gunz (Aug 3, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> *Everyone also wants to impose well meaning civilian values upon the military *until it's time to face the realities of another all out war.  Those same people will then look on in bewilderment and disappointment when an organized enemy rolls over what they believe will pass for our fighting force.
> 
> "The problem is not that Americans are soft but that they simply will not face what war is all about until they have had their teeth kicked in."   - T.R. Fehrenbach,_ This Kind of War_, Ch. 25



Well said, especially the bold, because that trend began years ago with regard to restrictive ROE and battlefield "etiquette," largely implemented by risk averse civilian leadership; a leadership that since the end of Vietnam has become increasingly distant from and unfamiliar with military service. Now the trend has moved from the battlefield into social, moral and political aspects of daily peacetime military life and I think it will continue. Once implemented, policies are rarely rescinded.


----------



## Scholar (Aug 4, 2016)

I'm not a member of the military yet, but after reading maybe 10 pages on this thread I get the sense that many service members view the issue of women in Combat Arms the same way I do: if they can qualify without the standards being altered, let them give it a shot. This also happens to be the way I and presumably y'all think about men in combat arms. After all, the standards are the standards and they're pretty self explanatory. This shows that it's not a question of equality or women's rights, it's just a prop show to draw the votes of the uneducated social justice activists, most of whom don't have an inkling of what it takes to win a war and many of whom think that America could stand to lose a war just to prove that "we're not as great as we think we are"( I'm quoting a class mate from my freshman PoliSci class). As a member of the generation that wants free college and birth control whatever the cost, I'm sad to report that it's working. There's a lot of ignorance in this country and it frightens me to think about what it's going to take to wake us up.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 4, 2016)

Scholar said:


> I'm not a member of the military yet, but after reading maybe 10 pages on this thread I get the sense that many service members view the issue of women in Combat Arms the same way I do: if they can qualify without the standards being altered, let them give it a shot. This also happens to be the way I and presumably y'all think about men in combat arms. After all, the standards are the standards and they're pretty self explanatory. This shows that it's not a question of equality or women's rights, it's just a prop show to draw the votes of the uneducated social justice activists, most of whom don't have an inkling of what it takes to win a war and many of whom think that America could stand to lose a war just to prove that "we're not as great as we think we are"( I'm quoting a class mate from my freshman PoliSci class). As a member of the generation that wants free college and birth control whatever the cost, I'm sad to report that it's working. There's a lot of ignorance in this country and it frightens me to think about what it's going to take to wake us up.



Thanks stud, keep weighing in on things you honestly don't understand yet. Have you had the sociology class where they talk about the effects of abortion and birth control on crime? Have you carried a mortar up a mountain? Have you carried a buddy on your back for 500M? Maybe you should just wade the fuck on out of this convo.


----------



## Scholar (Aug 4, 2016)

@TLDR20    Roger. I'm out


----------



## Teufel (Aug 4, 2016)

@Scholar, we certainly welcome your input and participation on this board.  We here at shadowspear pride ourselves on being an inclusive organization unlike other forums on the internet.  I don't want you to be discouraged.  I am sure you are learning a lot of great theories and ideas at college right now.  You have to understand that this is an emotionally charged subject for many members here and this is an area where theory probably should be tempered with experience.  @racing_kitty, for example, (sorry for calling you out) is a female service-member who is holding her own (and then some) in the highly selective, extremely competitive and male dominated Explosives Ordnance Field.  I really appreciate the invaluable perspective and experience she brings to this conversation.  Other members here also have also had unique experiences in the subject matter.  You can learn a lot from reading and participating in this site.  I have been in the Marine Corps for quite a while and I still experience professional growth on this forum.  The key is to understand when and how to participate here.  I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors and encourage you to continue to use this site as a resource.


----------



## Brill (Aug 5, 2016)

I'll keep saying it until it happens:

@Teufel for Congress!!!!


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Thanks stud, keep weighing in on things you honestly don't understand yet. Have you had the sociology class where they talk about the effects of abortion and birth control on crime? Have you carried a mortar up a mountain? Have you carried a buddy on your back for 500M? Maybe you should just wade the fuck on out of this convo.



This was a dick post on my part. We have exchanged PM's, and I think scholar understands my position now.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> I'll keep saying it until it happens:
> 
> @Teufel for Congress!!!!


You mean for President, 2020


----------



## Teufel (Aug 12, 2016)

Could you imagine me as a politician?  I would have to significantly censor myself to get elected.  It would never happen!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 12, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Could you imagine me as a politician?  I would have to significantly censor myself to get elected.  It would never happen!



Saying what you think certainly hasn't hurt Trump. Not comparing you to him obviously, but I do think he has shown that the national is ready for someone who will call a spade-a-spade.


----------



## Brill (Aug 12, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Could you imagine me as a politician?  I would have to significantly censor myself to get elected.  It would never happen!



Can you imagine anyone else but Bush atop the rubble with that bullhorn? I'm glad nobody censored him.

Bill would have humped the firefighter's leg, Barrack would have bowed to him, and Hillary would have asked for a donation for The Foundation.


----------



## DocIllinois (Aug 12, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> *Saying what you think certainly hasn't hurt Trump.* Not comparing you to him obviously, but I do think he has shown that the national is ready for someone who will call a spade-a-spade.


I take issue with that notion.  

Inside Donald Trump's Meltdown


It doesn't matter what qualities of directness a wanna-be politician displays if they otherwise insist upon alienating huge voting blocs, IMO.

He's giving the election away to Hillary and she is man enough to take it from him.  
I admit that this is a sidebar here, though.


----------



## Centermass (Sep 5, 2016)

Centermass said:


> As if this was any surprise......
> 
> Two female Army officers will make history when they report to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in their first step toward earning the Special Forces tab and becoming Green Berets.
> 
> ...



Unconfirmed, but apparently, the first woman to attempt the Special Forces assessment phase quit within 48 hours.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 5, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Unconfirmed, but apparently, the first woman to attempt the Special Forces assessment phase quit within 48 hours.


Yeah, the media needs to get a grip on what they consider "news" reporting. 

90% of our candidates fail, yet, every couple weeks I hear about the next Battlefield Airman female giving it a shot. If I was reporting on the issue, I wouldn't bother with any candidate that hasn't passed selection, indoc, assessment, whatever. You're just wasting your time before that.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 5, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Unconfirmed, but apparently, the first woman to attempt the Special Forces assessment phase quit within 48 hours.


I'm going to withhold comments, because there's nothing I can say that isn't snark-infused and dripping with nonproductive sarcasm. :wall:


----------



## Etype (Sep 5, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Unconfirmed, but apparently, the first woman to attempt the Special Forces assessment phase quit within 48 hours.





amlove21 said:


> Yeah, the media needs to get a grip on what they consider "news" reporting.
> 
> 90% of our candidates fail, yet, every couple weeks I hear about the next Battlefield Airman female giving it a shot. If I was reporting on the issue, I wouldn't bother with any candidate that hasn't passed selection, indoc, assessment, whatever. You're just wasting your time before that.


The first 48 hours- so a lay out, a PT test, weighing rucks, and maybe a run?

Yeah, if every candidate that quit was news worthy, they'd have one-hundred or so articles from every selection class.


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 5, 2016)

Direct recent quote from one of my NCOs:  "A couple gals failed a course that most people fail and the media picked it up?  Well, if it bleeds it leads, I guess."

Have a thick skin, ladies, and welcome to the combat arms.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 5, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> I'm going to withhold comments, because there's nothing I can say that isn't snark-infused and dripping with _reproductive_ sarcasm. :wall:




Fixed


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 5, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Unconfirmed, but apparently, the first woman to attempt the Special Forces assessment phase quit within 48 hours.



I think we took a PT test and all the mental evals, and maybe a run... The first 48 hours were the most stressful for me though because I had come from SOPc and thought some form of hammer was going to drop.


----------



## Viper1 (Sep 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think we took a PT test and all the mental evals, and maybe a run... The first 48 hours were the most stressful for me though because I had come from SOPc and thought some form of hammer was going to drop.



Agree here.  PT test, long run, pull-ups, mental.  My second day there was awful. I did mediocre on everything. However, plenty of good dudes told me "move on to the next event." Thank goodness for that advice.


----------



## Ohge (Oct 12, 2016)

The recent movements for inclusion and diversity in the Air Force have had an interesting effect on the AF EOD pipeline (not SOF, I know). I certainly hope all of this experimentation won't end up popcorn-worthy over the next few years.


----------



## Jay_Pew (Oct 13, 2016)

Ohge said:


> The recent movements for inclusion and diversity in the Air Force have had an interesting effect on the AF EOD pipeline (not SOF, I know). I certainly hope all of this experimentation won't end up popcorn-worthy over the next few years.



I believe you're reffering to the somewhat recent move to remove the PAST requirement for EOD correct? I remember watching some video a while back, where they were wiggling there way through explaining why the PAST was not necessary for that career field anymore. I certainly felt bad for them lol.


----------



## Ohge (Oct 13, 2016)

The suspension of the PAST is definitely part of it. To further aggravate problems, they've allowed the Preliminary Course to continue teaching the physical fitness portion and administer the progress checks (Evals), but students cannot be held back or eliminated due to failure to meet the standards on any fitness PCs. 

The course was previously using the PAST as a risk management tool; students weren't allowed to start the course until they could successfully complete the PAST. Now, with the removal of the tool, some students are coming in day one and running 1.5 miles in 13-14 minutes, unable to perform a single pull-up, and destroying themselves on the first mile of their first ruck. 

Once the PAST was removed, it caused a terrible chain reaction in much of the support provided to the course. The Doc that came through twice a week to provide support to students quit coming, the CDSS that provided training and guidance to candidates from DEP to enlistment stopped providing physical fitness help, recruiters told Airmen there are no fitness requirements in EOD anymore, and many other reactions from services that didn't get the memo in the proper format. 

The EOD CFM put out a message with General Green stating that an occupational fitness assessment was in the works and that standards are still important to be met, but by the time that came out so much wildfire had been spread it is proving difficult to contain.

Unfortunately, much of this is simply the tip of the iceberg; being an AETC course at Sheppard AFB brings a whole other series of systemic issues that the keepers of the course are constantly at war with.


----------



## Jay_Pew (Oct 13, 2016)

@Ohge 

Wow that's quiet a conundrum. I hope this kind of failure doesn't spread to the other Battlefield Airmen AFSC's. This sounds like an utter disaster. An what seems weird about all of this is that EOD (in the Air Force anyway) was open to women even before Sec. Carter made the descision to open up all jobs to women. So women could already go out for this job, so why the pretty much removal of any physical standards?


----------



## Ohge (Oct 13, 2016)

You are absolutely correct that women have always been open to enlist in the EOD Career field. I believe women have accounted for roughly 5% of Air Force EOD Techs (I'm sure I could find the data but it isn't that pertinent). Additionally, attrtion rates throughout the pipeline have pretty much stayed the same; updates to the preliminary course are done to assure success at the joint-service school, but this tends to create excessive wash-out/SIE rates for the course. 

That typically creates an issue with programmed elimination rates (PERs); while NAVSCOLEOD (the joint-service school in Eglin) is experiencing great results with attrition 15-20% below the PER, the Preliminary Course is seeing the opposite. While this is truly meeting the intent of the course, each agency within the chain is laser-focused solely on their production numbers instead of big-picture. I'm sure you can imagine what that means for a course that is consistently hitting far over their PER, and I believe that is playing a large part in the myriad changes that have been evolving over the last few years. 

In my personal opinion, what it means in the short-term truly pales in comparison to what it may mean in regards to the long-term health, climate, and culture of the AF EOD career field. Now, more than ever, will we need the very best front-line supervisors in order to keep the ship afloat. And an even more personal opinion? That's a scary thought.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 13, 2016)

I taught an advanced pistol/rifle class for some USAF EOD, they had a few females in that unit. One of them was pretty hot, and I though I was gonna be able to give some after hours instruction, until a particular Senior MSG dissuaded me. She had that Jessica Alba, daddies little princess thing going on...:-"


----------



## Ohge (Oct 13, 2016)

Have a name? There are only a handful who could possibly meet that description...

What did you teach and where? Most flights source out their advanced pistol/carbine training to companies like TMG (TSAC/HITT/CQBT) or Gunsite (Advanced/Team Tactics). Every once in a while a shop will try out a local company, and I always like to hear how it went.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 13, 2016)

First Army TF SARG APRM course, out of FT Sill Oklahoma, the summer of 2006. I was TDY there to teach the class and eval the new platform/OCT's. Can't remember her name though, it's been a minute. I think they were heading to the sandbox, but honestly can't remember for sure.


----------



## Ohge (Oct 13, 2016)

Ah, it was likely in conjunction with our CST for predeployment. I went through Ft. Sill in the winter of '06, I believe. I'm actually about an hour out from there now.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 13, 2016)

Ohge said:


> Ah, it was likely in conjunction with our CST for predeployment. I went through Ft. Sill in the winter of '06, I believe. I'm actually about an hour out from there now.



Most likely, as back than that was the name of the game (predeployment). The APRM course was just a week long stand in brass unfuck the fundamentals type course. Not really "tactical" training, and was only given by request, kinda like SDM, Sniper sustainment, etc. TF SARG was all the President Hundred tabbed/shooting team guys. I was only at FT Sill for about 6 weeks during 2006, the summer June/July I believe.


----------



## Johca (Oct 13, 2016)

AF EOD never actually had a PAST requirement to begin with.  A fitness program touting a PAST standard was sort of implemented in 2012 (only four years ago) because too many AF EOD students were failing the AF Fitness test and not meeting weight standards by the time they got to final phase of training at NAVSCOLEOD, Eglin AFB, FL.


----------



## Johca (Oct 13, 2016)

This video is an informational release about fitness becoming more important to performing day-to-day AF EOD duties.  Although 782nd TRG and 96th Force Support Squadron, Eglin AFB are mentioned as developing the standards,  no mention is made concerning involvement of getting any Department of the Air Force official approval needed to implement an occupation specific fitness standard for award and retention of AFSC.  It was a course fitness standard only, it was never implemented as a career or as a duty occupational fitness assessment by the Department of the Air Force.

BTW, AF EOD is not a Battlefield Airman (BA) AFSC.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 13, 2016)

Johca said:


> This video is an informational release about fitness becoming more important to performing day-to-day AF EOD duties.  Although 782nd TRG and 96th Force Support Squadron, Eglin AFB are mentioned as developing the standards,  no mention is made concerning involvement of getting any Department of the Air Force official approval needed to implement an occupation specific fitness standard for award and retention of AFSC.  It was a course fitness standard only, it was never implemented as a career or as a duty occupational fitness assessment by the Department of the Air Force.
> 
> BTW, AF EOD is not a Battlefield Airman (BA) AFSC.



Were you a bomb jockey before you became a PJ ?


----------



## Ohge (Oct 13, 2016)

Just a few corrections:

- The AF side of NAVSCOLEOD is Detachment 3, and falls under the 782 TRG (out of Sheppard AFB, not Eglin). 

- The PAST requirements were provided to the EOD career field via Dr. Baumgartner, the Exercise Physiologist for the Air Force. Whether or not this altered version was based on collected data I'm uncertain (more on that later). 

- As far as saying that the Department of the Air Force has never formally acknowledged EOD's PAST, look no further than AF/A1's previous discussions on EOD's attrition within the context of BA/CS AFSCs (http://www.acq.osd.mil/rd/hptb/hfet...nnel_SubTAG_2014_BA_CS_Brief_DSYX_&_AFRS.pptx); this discussion included both the TAPAS and PAST requirements and was developed by the Air Force's Strategic Research and Assessment (AFPC/DSYX).
You could also look at the most recent version of AFI 32-3001, dated 13 May 2016, which discusses the PAST requirement for retrainees/officers/ANG personnel during their 10-day orientation (http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/afi32-3001/afi32-3001.pdf); this is signed by the AF Civil Engineer (AF/A4C), Major General Gren, who is in the first video you posted. I assume those illustrate a top-level acknowledgement, but if not I'm sure I could provide more data. 

Now, to elaborate on the removal of the PAST, I am guessing that during the WISR, when the current BA career fields were being scrutinized on their fitness standards, it was discovered that EOD has been using the PAST as a disqualifying benchmark but was no longer considered a BA/CS AFSC. This would leave me to believe that the next step would be to take a look at the data that was used in creating the modified version that EOD uses, and this is where I speculate that there wasn't actually any data collected, just some sort of drug deal with Dr. Baumgartner. I don't know if this is true at all, but this is the sort of thing that would gravitate at the CFM level, and it certainly isn't my place to dig (though I am terribly curious). Couple this with AETC's rigorous intent to reduce attrition and boost throughput in the Preliminary Course, and the rest of the chips fall comfortably into place.

The PAST was a great tool for risk mitigation; as soon as the floodgates were open, people were getting hospitalized, injuring themselves out of the pipeline (and even the Air Force), and SIEs went up. Worst of all, the communication given to recruiters was minimal, and basically equated to them telling people to jump into EOD now, because there weren't any physical requirements at all. The Preliminary Course, as well as NAVSCOLEOD, have not modified their physical fitness at all (the Air Force couldn't modify the NAVSCOLEOD course if they wanted to). 

Currently, the CFM is working towards the creation of an occupational fitness assessment that better correlates to the physical requirements of performing EOD duties, both state-side and overseas, with full backing from the AF Civil Engineer. I am honestly very excited for the change, since the new tool will be required to be met by everyone in the career field on a yearly basis, not just candidates.


----------



## Johca (Oct 13, 2016)

The PowerPoint overview beyond the title page states "Battlefield Airman (BA) and Combat Support.  AF EOD and AF SERE were the two Combat Support AFSCs being included.  The first video I posted concisely and clearly indicated the stated  the AF EOD entry PAST is suspended until a relevant based on EOD tasks occupational fitness test is developed.

Although the PAST standards were provided by The PAST requirements were provided to the EOD career field via Dr. Baumgartner, he provided a correlated recommendation lacking any actual AF EOD job analysis studies, he also lacked the approval to implement these standards as Gender-Neutral Occupational performance standards for the AF EOD occupation.  It was the none compliance to get AF EOD's occupational fitness standards put forth for approval or disapproval to the Secretary of the Air Force and subsequently the Secretary of Defense that caused the EOD PAST to be suspended.  Further the process is a bit more complicated by the 2013 repeal of combat exclusion policies as the fine print of that action states any implementation of Gender-Neutral Occupational performance standards now also gets securitized by the U.S. Congress before being implemented.

I'm also aware of AFI 32-3001 which states:


> 1.8.8.1.8.  Failure to maintain fitness standards within AF regulations to a level required to conduct full spectrum EOD operations within CONUS, OCONUS, and contingency environments.



Unfortunately AFI 32-3001 doesn't prescribe or identify what the occupational fitness standard is or refer to any Air Force policy that stipulate whether the fitness standard is Air Force service wide fitness test or  gender-neutral AF EOD occupation fitness standard.

Further the Air Force Officer Classification Directory or Air Force Enlisted Classification Directory only identify PAST as required for entry into career field and not for award and retention of AFSC.


> 3.5.1.3. Successful completion of the EOD physical ability and stamina test (PAST) located on the AF Portal under AETC A2/3/10 Divisions, AETC/A3T.



This differs from the BA AFSCs which stipulate "Physical certification and maintenance of personal physical standards as defined in AFI 10-3502, Volume1, Pararescue and Combat Rescue Officer Training or Physical qualification and maintenance of personal physical standards as defined in AFI 13-219 Volume 2, Combat Control and Special Tactics Officer Standardization and Evaluation, and AFSI 13-219 Volume 1. is required for award of 3-level, 5-level, 7-level. and 9-level AFSC in these occupational specialties.

The Department of the Air Force never implemented an EOD occupational fitness standard in compliance with DODI 1308.3,  DoD Physical Fitness and Body Fat Programs Procedures, November 5, 2002.



> 6.1.2.3.  Military Services shall extend their physical fitness programs to incorporate occupational-specific physical fitness requirements for those career fields where it is deemed necessary to ensure adequate skill, performance, and safety.  This extension shall include identifying each specific physical capability needed by the occupational specialties.  These additional physical fitness standards development will include a risk assessment for prevention of injuries and will reflect levels of physical abilities necessary to meet the duty demands of the occupation.  Once the levels or desired physical capability are identified, physical fitness training and testing should be linked to these capabilities.  Emerging training methodologies should be considered when designing the appropriate physical fitness training.
> 
> 6.1.3.1.  Military Services shall develop and use physical fitness tests (PFTs) that evaluate aerobic capacity (e.g., timed run, submaximal cycling) and muscular strength and muscular endurance (e.g., push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, machine tests).  PFTs assess Service-wide baseline generalized fitness levels and are not intended to represent mission or occupationally specific fitness demands.



DOD policy concerning occupational fitness standards drives from U.S. Congress implementing Gender-Neutral Occupational performance standards  public law in 1993 pertinent to Women in the Service.



> SEC. 543. GENDER-NEUTRAL OCCUPATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
> (a) GENDER NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT- In the case of any military occupational career field that is open to both male and female members of the Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense--
> (1) shall ensure that qualification of members of the Armed Forces for, and continuance of members of the Armed Forces in, that occupational career field is evaluated on the basis of common, relevant performance standards, without differential standards or evaluation on the basis of gender;
> (2) may not use any gender quota, goal, or ceiling except as specifically authorized by law; and
> ...


----------



## Ohge (Oct 13, 2016)

All of the items you posted are things I don't dispute (or even stated myself, albeit differently); I'm not sure if you are in disagreement or simply providing more context to others. I maintain that the PAST was likely provided to EOD as a quick fix to a systemic problem that ended up providing only a temporary cure; luckily, a permanent fix is in the works, but the current state is abysmal due to poor communication between multiple agencies in the mix (CDSS, recruitment, AETC, NAVSCOLEOD).


----------



## Johca (Oct 13, 2016)

Ohge said:


> I'm not sure if you are in disagreement or simply providing more context to others.


It's a context more so than agreeing or disagreeing on EOD needing or not needing a PAST or an AF occupational fitness standard. 

What I'm focusing on is the perspective of "I hope this kind of failure doesn't spread to the other Battlefield Airmen AFSC's."   AF EOD was in a "politically" bad position in sustaining it's entry PAST requirements particularly when the 2013 repeal of combat exclusion policies happened. 

I'm also not sure when AF EOD was opened to women, but it happened no later than 1993.  The politics are further complicated in that EOD is a joint occupation based on award of a joint badge (much like the Airborne Parachutist Badge being used by all the services) in that Army, Navy, USMC  have EOD techs, but although the EOD badge is a joint badge the duties do differ.   It's extremely complicated to analyze the where, when, how, and why utilized differences but the Navy EOD PST has a 500 yard swim requirement which the AF EOD PAST never had.  This is where AF considering AF EOD combat support rather than Battlefield Airman complicates the "politics".  It is this politics that make comparing AF EOD with the AF Battlefield Airman AFSCs a very messy comparison.


----------



## Ohge (Oct 13, 2016)

Air Force EOD has never been closed to women. The only time it has been closed to women was when it was moved to a combat role in the Marines, I believe, but this is obviously no longer the case. 

It's somewhat of a moot point to say it's messy to compare EOD across the board when the Navy PST includes a swim portion. For one, not only do the pipelines and additional training differ, but joint instructions spell out a fundamental difference that easily creates an understanding that an occupational fitness assessment would place more emphasis on swimming for Navy EOD than the Air Force. Additionally, I'm sure you are aware of how CCT was brought into the fold with pararescue as far as the PAST and selection processes; there are now seven AFSCs that are utilizing the PAST under the BA construct, but they don't all match in requirements. That certainly doesn't negate their legitimacy.

Again, I'm in full agreement that the EOD PAST was most likely a "quick fix", which is unfortunate given the last 15 years of operations, but I agree that no one should be concerned about the BA AFSCs getting their PAST shut down and I appreciate you pointing that out.


----------



## Johca (Oct 14, 2016)

I am aware with how CCT was brought into the realm of having an occupational-specific fitness requirement and into the realm of having a formal entry screening requirement in 1988 by assimilating the pararescue  PAST and adopting the the Pararescue Indoctrination Course as being the Pararescue and Combat Control Indoctrination Course. 

Although the Pararescue PAST had been certified as Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirement since 1967, the brining in CCT to create the PJ-CCT PAST resulted in this PAST being recertified as a Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirement for award and retention of PJ and CCT 3-level, 5-level, 7-level, and 9-level AFSCs regardless of age and duty assignment.

Several changes to the PAST happened in 1988 to make it the PJ/CCT PAST, elimination of eight count body builders and flutter kicks.  There was also some minor changes done to the swimming and running requirements.  Current PAST standards show PJ and CCT PAST standards have become delinked pertinent o the swimming and running requirements.   Although there is much occupational similarity between PJ and CCT there are fundamental utilization differences that place more emphasis on swimming and other functional fitness standards for Pararescue which is also clearly reflected in the TAPAS score requirement.

There were only seven Air Force specialties  (CCT, PJ, SOW, TACP, CRO, STO, and SOW officer not opened to woman when the Combat Exclusion Policies were rescinded effective in January 2013.  At this time not all of these AFSCs had a certified Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirement although all, like EOD, had an entry PAST.  As SOW Officer became nonexistent since 2013 the number of formerly closed to woman AFSCs is now six, four enlisted and two officer specialties.

Two of the four enlisted specialties, TACP and SOW, never had any certified  Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirements.  This is why the January 2013 elimination of the Combat Exclusion Policy forced the Air Force the April 2013 Implementation Plan for integrating women into Career Fields engaged in Direct Ground Combat.  The critical policy statement is that AETC (thus Dr. Baumgartner direct involvement) develop and validate occupationally specific, operationally relevant, and gender-neutral Air Force physical performance tests for all seven (now 6) closed AFSCs; AND establish the Air Force precedent and methodological process for the previous step for all other physically demanding AFSCs.  Each career field will remain closed until physical tests and standards for each AFSC have been validated for operational relevance and improved for implementation by Headquarters Air Force Director of Force Management Policy.

The October 2016 Air Force Enlisted Classification Directory has implemented no policy changes pertinent to Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirements pertinent to the remaining six closed AFSCs.  The PAST requirements have yet to be changed in any way as results of AETC developing and validating occupationally specific, operationally relevant, and gender-neutral Air Force physical performance tests for the CCT, PJ, SOW, TACP, CRO, STO AFSCs,

However EOD classification requirements no longer has the "3.5.1.3. Successful completion of the EOD physical ability and stamina test (PAST) located on the AF Portal under AETC A2/3/10 Divisions, AETC/A3T." requirement.

The significant context of ALL my comments and opinion pertinent to AFSCs having PAST is politically there is minimal interest or effort being exerted to develop and implement  Gender-Neutral Occupational performance requirements for physically demanding AFSCs that are not the six AFSCs that were closed to women when the combat exclusion polices were rescinded in January 2013.  At least one of the six, TACP, has yet to establish operationally relevant and being operational specific due to being primarily integrated as support into Army direct ground combat units, and not necessarily to perform JTAC duties, that the Army has yet to establish their operationally relevant physical fitness standards for assignment to those units.  The context being in terms of joint instructions seldom identify how Army units fundamentally differ in terms of needed occupational fitness assessment regardless of MOS or AFSC held.  TACP duty assignments to support the 75th Ranger Regiment is currently the most obvious current exception.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 14, 2016)




----------



## Ohge (Oct 14, 2016)

Yeah, I definitely still pretty much agree with you. 

I am in full understanding of the implementation plan released by SecDef outlining their plans to develop and validate tests/standards and to establish the precedent for all other physically-demanding AFSCs.

I also know about the removal of the PAST (para 3.5.1.3); I talked to the CFM/FDM to make sure it was removed!

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the differences in fitness standards between PJs and CCT are clearly reflected in the TAPAS. The TAPAS is a personality test and has no real bearing on physical attributes; additionally, neither CCT nor PJs include a TAPAS requirement per the October 2016 AFECD. 

Also interesting to note:

ALO (13LX) still requires completion of the TACP PAST according to its specialty quals (para 3.5.3) in the October 2016 AFOCD; the same goes for TACP in the AFECD (para 3.5.1.1). 

CCT states a requirement to complete the CCT PAST and refers to the A3T website; STO, however, does not mention the PAST at all, but instead references AFI 13-219 Vol 2 for fitness requirements throughout the pipeline.

The most recent release of the PAST worksheet available on AETC/A3T's page is still dated 01 Sep 14 and includes requirement criteria for PJ, CCT, SOWT, TACP, SERE, and EOD.

Donley's memo to SecDef outlining the AF's plan states that "active recruitment of women into previously closed career fields cannot commence until gender-neutral standards are validated and the congressional notification/waiting period has expired." The waiting period expired in January of this year, if I recall correctly, and there is no longer a Column O in the Attachment 4 of the AFECD (barring women from specific AFSCs), but if what you are saying about TACP is true, the standards couldn't have been evaluated. Wasn't there a female who passed the TACP PAST in May of this year?


----------



## Jay_Pew (Oct 14, 2016)

Ohge said:


> Wasn't there a female who passed the TACP PAST in May of this year?


There was but she ended up dropping out in the first day or so due to an injury. 

First woman to attempt TACP training left after injury


----------



## Ohge (Oct 14, 2016)

Ah, thanks! That still means she had to take the PAST to start, doesn't it? I never heard that any of the BA AFSCs suspended their PASTs, so I was curious about that.


----------



## CDG (Oct 15, 2016)

Ohge said:


> Ah, thanks! That still means she had to take the PAST to start, doesn't it? I never heard that any of the BA AFSCs suspended their PASTs, so I was curious about that.



Yes. You also do a PAST as event 1 at the Prep Course.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 15, 2016)

Wow.  I was surprised that an Army officer  would publicly critique the Marine Corps training standards for its officers.  Surprised that is until I read further and found that she is retired, and was never an infantry officer.  Either was I, so I've no opinion to offer on The Corps OCS other to say that I might be more interested in what the Colonel had to say if she actually had experience in the area.

First obvious "click bait" story I've seen from The Times in a while.

Marines' requirements for infantry officers are unrealistic, Army colonel says


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 15, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Wow.  I was surprised that an Army officer  would publicly critique the Marine Corps training standards for its officers.  Surprised that is until I read further and found that she is retired, and was never an infantry officer.  Either was I, so I've no opinion to offer on The Corps OCS other to say that I might be more interested in what the Colonel had to say if she actually had experience in the area.
> 
> First obvious "click bait" story I've seen from The Times in a while.
> 
> Marines' requirements for infantry officers are unrealistic, Army colonel says



COL Haring's writing (as a whole body of work) is full of weakly-supported clickbait opinions.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 15, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> COL Haring's writing (as a whole body of work) is full of weakly-supported clickbait opinions.



Not to mention primarily agenda driven.


----------



## Johca (Oct 15, 2016)

TAPAS in the current AFECD available on MYPERS, dated AFECD, 31 October 2016 does disclose TAPAS requirement has been dropped for some AFSCs, but not all.  Column O (closed to women) also no longer exits as the AFSCs have technically opened to woman, with woman applying and passing the appropriate physical fitness requirements.

According to the Air Force Implementation Plan for Integrating Woman into Career Fields Engaged in Direct Ground Combat (attached), the physical/mental standards validation was supposed to be completed by 1 January 2016.  Although AETC completed the physical/mental standards validation study months ago, no changes have yet to result from this study or changes that are being announced as to soon be implemented.  Consequently the PAST worksheet available on AETC/A3T, dated 01 Sep 14 being used for PJ, CCT, SOWT, TACP, SERE.  The EOD PAST has been rescinded and not being used

TACP is the only enlisted BA AFSC that has had a woman that reported to start training.  An active-duty female officer has passed the CRO PAST, but her start date is still unknown as of 21 Sept 2016.

The Pararescue PAST is a term developed by TSgt TJ Bruce and SMSgt John Tobey when they ran the PJ Indoc (OL-J) during 1973.  It came about as how can you hold students to a trained and qualified standard when you are actually training to improve ability and stamina to meet or exceed this standard.  At this time it mirrored the Pararescue occupational performance requirement, annual physical fitness test, in ARRSR 55-11, Pararescue Operations.  The current occupation performance requirements are now in AFI 10-3502, Volume1, Pararescue and Combat Rescue Officer Training.

PAST hasn't been used for STO/CRO applicants in that those desiring to become CRO and STOs go through a two phase screening and selection to get approval and a start date to enter training.

PAST isn't exactly used any longer for those submitting retraining applications to become PJs or CCT.  The PJ retraining process as of 1 January 2016 mirrors the CCT process and methodology with the  occupation performance requirements in the appropriate AFI being the standard rather than a PAST that is not prescribed as an actual  occupation performance requirement.



> Combat Control:
> 3.5.1.3. The following are mandatory for retraining candidates:
> 3.5.1.3.1. Grade of E-5 or below with less than 10 years Total Active Federal Military Service (Total Federal Military Service for Reserve of the Air Force personnel).
> 3.5.1.3.2. Current commander’s written recommendation.
> ...


----------



## digrar (Oct 15, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Wow.  I was surprised that an Army officer  would publicly critique the Marine Corps training standards for its officers.  Surprised that is until I read further and found that she is retired, and was never an infantry officer.  Either was I, so I've no opinion to offer on The Corps OCS other to say that I might be more interested in what the Colonel had to say if she actually had experience in the area.
> 
> First obvious "click bait" story I've seen from The Times in a while.
> 
> Marines' requirements for infantry officers are unrealistic, Army colonel says





> “I'm trying to imagine the type of fighting and tactical task that requires you to move around administratively in an AO with 150-plus pounds on your back… Nothing is impossible, but trying to come up with a situation, mission and METT-T where this would be required is… a unicorn in my opinion.”



In our experience, a lot of this was driven by the Falklands. Battalions tabbing/yomping 15-30km to battle, carrying all the personal ammunition and crew served mortar rounds and link required to carry out the battle. While this isn't typical of engagements in the last 15 years, it's still pretty realistic task and one a serious Infantry Battalion should be able to achieve.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 15, 2016)

A 170-pound infantry Soldier or Marine (I use that weight as a probable average), most likely will not be carrying 150 lbs. But he might have to carry 80-100 lbs over long distances and difficult terrain for days. Train harder than you fight, so the weight/distance sounds reasonable.


----------



## digrar (Oct 15, 2016)

This passage is from David Kilcullen's "Counterinsurgency". David was OC Support Company 2nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment. He's talking about his boys in the early days of INTERFET September 1999 in East Timor.






Later the next year, we were carrying similar loads on 3-5 day recon patrols.


----------



## Yosemite (Oct 16, 2016)

Johca said:


> PAST isn't exactly used any longer for those submitting retraining applications to become PJs or CCT.  The PJ retraining process as of 1 January 2016 mirrors the CCT process and methodology with the  occupation performance requirements in the appropriate AFI being the standard rather than a PAST that is not prescribed as an actual  occupation performance requirement.



I am actively assembling my retraining package at this time and I received the following from MyPers:

Section I. AFSC Eligibility/Requirements

1C211 - COMBAT CONTROL -- Eligible
For AFSC: 1C211
1. The following medical requirements must be met IAW the AF Enlisted Classification Directory (AFECD).
a. PULHES must be 111111K
The below template is recommended to be included in the “Additional Comments” section of your AF Form 422.
AFSC: AFECD Req: Meets Req: Note:
1. 1c2X1 Para X.X.X Y / N
2.
3.
4.
5.
2. Class III Flight Physical memo, must include Physical Exam criteria for Army Airborne/Halo/Dive Schools IAW HQ AFORMOA/SGP Message DTG 13100Z Mar 96.
a. Available at local flight surgeon’s office
3. Provide an DD Form 2992 and DD Form 2808, physical qualification for air traffic control duty, marine diving duty, and parachute duty according to AFI 48-123 is required.
a. Contact your local Medical Treatment Facilities (MTF) Flight Medicine section
4. Qualification to bear firearms according to AFIs 31-207, 36-2226, and 13-219 is mandatory.
a. Provide copy of AF Form 522
*5. Successful completion (within THREE months of qualification eligibility determination) of the Combat Control Team (CCT) Physical Ability and Stamina Test (PAST) located on the HQ AETC/A3T Portal page (PAST worksheet attached).*
6. Minimum score of 30 required on CCT selection model completed in Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS).
7. AFSC Advisory Note 461 - Active Duty retrainees are required to complete the Combat Control Retrainee Assessment prior to entering pipeline training as a 1C211.
8. Current Unit Commander’s written recommendation.
9. RECORD REVIEW LIST
a. Log in to vMPF / Record Review/Update / View/Print All Pages
b. Save file as a PDF and upload to your myPers incident
10. LAST 3 EPRs (front & back)
11. Grade of E-5 or below with less than 10 years Total Active Federal Military Service.
12. AFCT: Mechanical 55 and General 55 (must meet both)
NOTES:
1. Specialty requires routine access to SECRET material or similar environment. For award and retention of AFSCs 1C2XX, completion of a current National Agency Check, Local Agency Checks and Credit (NACLC) according to AFI 31-501, Personnel Security Program Management.
NOTE: Award of the 3-skill level without a completed NACLC is authorized provided an interim Secret security clearance has been granted according to AFI 31-501.
a. Submit required documents to Unit Security Manager within 10 days of receipt of APPROVED RETRAINING AND CLASS DATE. All security clearance requirements identified in ETCA must be completed prior to Class Start Date or you run the risk of being returned to your home station and exhausting your FTA Retraining Opportunity.
2. Requires a Career Field Manager (CFM) Review

I will be taking my PAST within the next couple of weeks just because MyPers told me to do so. There may be a disconnect from what is actually happening in the PJ/CCT pipelines and what MyPers is handing out to their retrainee applicants. I do know that we no longer need a CC recommendation(as stated in an MFR put out earlier this year), so it is very possible that the retraining requirements are just not being updated.


----------



## AWP (Oct 16, 2016)

Fick in _One Bullet Away_ described his time as a Weapons Platoon commander in the early, early days of OEF. He said one patrol had them departing on LAV's but then being told to dismount. He said his Marines were carrying close to 200 pounds as a result. True or not? No clue, but I have to take him at face value. "War, war never changes" and yet people still insist the standards are too high? This fobbitt will never understand that logic.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Fick in _One Bullet Away_ described his time as a Weapons Platoon commander in the early, early days of OEF. He said one patrol had them departing on LAV's but then being told to dismount. He said his Marines were carrying close to 200 pounds as a result. True or not? No clue, but I have to take him at face value. "War, war never changes" and yet people still insist the standards are too high? This fobbitt will never understand that logic.



We are using OIF and OEF as a model for future wars but these were largely mechanized, FOB bound wars.  The infantry marching standard was built for dismounted warfare where infantrymen will be tasked to frequently move from patrol base to patrol base with their protective equipment, water, ammunition, and whatever they need to dig in and bivouac.  Imagine having to fight through the mountains of North Korea with your house on your back plus mortar rounds.  

I'm surprised that this Army Colonel did not look at the Center for Army Lessons Learned study on combat loads in OEF:  http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf 

The study provided a ton of data, which unfortunately doesn't brief as well as vague and anonymous sources that reference unicorns. 

I'll summarize this for the TL;DR crowd:
A typical soldier carried a 62 lb fighting load (M4, 210 rounds 5.56, interceptor vest with front & back SAPIs, a grenade, 2 canteens, a camelbak, and a first aid kid)

This jumped up to a 95 lb "approach march load" when they added an assault pack with a second camelback, an IV, poncho and poncho liner, 2 MREs and a poly-pro top. This was carried on longer 48-72 hour patrols.

The soldiers also had to carry a 120 lb "emergency approach load" with their main rucksacks with additional ammunition and their sleep systems when they moved patrol bases.  

Add 20 lbs to the approach load outs for the SAW gunner, machine gunners, and mortarmen.  These load outs required the soldiers to be resupplied 2-3 MREs and 8 quarts of water per day.  You can imagine how the "emergency approach load out" would increase if the resupply rate was less frequent.


----------



## Poccington (Oct 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Fick in _One Bullet Away_ described his time as a Weapons Platoon commander in the early, early days of OEF. He said one patrol had them departing on LAV's but then being told to dismount. He said his Marines were carrying close to 200 pounds as a result. True or not? No clue, but I have to take him at face value. "War, war never changes" and yet people still insist the standards are too high? This fobbitt will never understand that logic.



It's pretty feasible, you think of a mortar detachment or GPMG SF detachment with frontline ammo etc. and things are gonna get very heavy, very quickly.

I hate these arguments for lowering standards. Terrain won't change based on gender, the physical demands of patrolling carrying full battle rattle won't change based on gender and the enemy will still fuck you up whether you're a man, woman or clown.

Anyone who thinks they're not negatively effecting the ability of a fighting force by enforcing gender specific standards or lowering standards to accomodate members of a certain gender, are out of their mind.


----------



## Johca (Oct 16, 2016)

Fliehr13 said:


> ..AFSC Advisory Note 461 - Active Duty retrainees are required to complete the Combat Control Retrainee Assessment prior to entering pipeline training as a 1C211. ...


This is the basis of PAST is not exactly used any more as the final determinant of the applicant's retrain request being finalized with approved to enter pipeline training.

Prior to 1 January 2016 the opportunity to retrain from perspective of the gaining AFSC, Pararescue, was the applicant must pass the required PAST and the required medical examinations.  Presuming applicant passed PAST and was medically cleared most of the disapproval was result of either (1) losing AFSC not releasing applicant or (2) applicant not qualified to reenlist (Selective reenlistment Program, High Year of Tenure), or (3) AF had no retrain quota for the applicant.

Read attached file Clarification of Crossflow Retrain Policy.  It was the opening of the retrain applicant floodgates having potential to put more students into the Pararescue Development Course than the course had facilities and resources to train that forced implementation in January 2016 of the Pararescue retraining assessment course that in methodologies and procedures mirrors the CCT retraining assessment course.  The opening of the retain applicant floodgates also forced classification policy of "Grade of E-5 or below with less than 10 years Total Active Federal Military Service (Total Federal Military Service for Reserve of the Air Force personnel) to be put in the AFECD.  This policy mirrors what has been in place for CCT for the past several years.

The same prescreen assessment environment, but a bit more robust on leading performance, is encountered during the Phase 2 CRO and STO assessment.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 16, 2016)

Wouldn't it be cool if we had, like the NCOIC of the PJ pipeline on here...?


----------



## Johca (Oct 16, 2016)

Considering, according to 9 Oct 2016 Military Times article-And the fattest U.S. Military Service is ..., obesity is increasing and fitness is declining it will be interesting what physical/mental standards will  be five years from now.

The rack and stack of being the most obese and unfit service was Army #1,  Air Force #2, Navy #3, USMC #4.  According to article Navy was #3 only because it changed BMI and other standards to make it more difficult to fail weight and physical standards.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 16, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Wow.  I was surprised that an Army officer  would publicly critique the Marine Corps training standards for its officers.  Surprised that is until I read further and found that she is retired, and was never an infantry officer.  Either was I, so I've no opinion to offer on The Corps OCS other to say that I might be more interested in what the Colonel had to say if she actually had experience in the area.
> 
> First obvious "click bait" story I've seen from The Times in a while.
> 
> Marines' requirements for infantry officers are unrealistic, Army colonel says


Ellen Haring has done more to negatively effect Army readiness through her political agenda caused by jealousy.  Many would say it's because she never got a star, but I find that part hilarious because being a woman didn't stop Anne Dunwoody from making 4 stars.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 16, 2016)

Johca said:


> Considering, according to 9 Oct 2016 Military Times article-And the fattest U.S. Military Service is ..., obesity is increasing and fitness is declining it will be interesting what physical/mental standards will  be five years from now.
> 
> The rack and stack of being the most obese and fit service was Army #1,  Air Force #2, Navy #3, USMC #4.  According to article Navy was #3 only because it changed BMI and other standards to make it more difficult to fail weight and physical standards.



USMC was #6. The Navy was #s 3,4 and 5


----------



## yarles87 (Oct 16, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Wow.  I was surprised that an Army officer  would publicly critique the Marine Corps training standards for its officers.  Surprised that is until I read further and found that she is retired, and was never an infantry officer.  Either was I, so I've no opinion to offer on The Corps OCS other to say that I might be more interested in what the Colonel had to say if she actually had experience in the area.
> 
> First obvious "click bait" story I've seen from The Times in a while.
> 
> Marines' requirements for infantry officers are unrealistic, Army colonel says



Having gone through IOC, nothing about that hike(s) is unreasonable. Weight was based off of a METT-T for the training evolution, and the required weapon systems/ammunition/gear was hauled to the training area. Frankly, I thought that hike was one of the easier ones, as the time hacks were slower than the normal pace. 

A female will pass that course eventually and the infantry won't disintegrate. However, it is frustrating that such a strong agenda is being pushed by people who have contributed nothing from within the community in a attempt to fix something that isn't broken.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Fick in _One Bullet Away_ described his time as a Weapons Platoon commander in the early, early days of OEF. He said one patrol had them departing on LAV's but then being told to dismount. He said his Marines were carrying close to 200 pounds as a result. True or not? No clue, but I have to take him at face value. "War, war never changes" and yet people still insist the standards are too high? This fobbitt will never understand that logic.



It is true at least for me because I did it at least once during my time in the sandbox. Other dismounted patrols were doing with those "patrol backpacks" or whatever you want to call them and still with everything crammed in.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 16, 2016)

Hehe, open letter to Ellen Haring:

Letter To The Army Colonel Who Said Marine Standards Are Unrealistic

In the latest Armor Branch newsletter they talked about how twenty women have been accessed to the branch. 

ABOLC is not extremely strenuous physically because we did not have the same time in the course to just focus on foot marches.  My Marine tactics officer said at the time, because we as a class were wanting more of the hard stuff, "not gonna happen, do you muldoons have any idea how hard it is to teach you after we did a 8-mile forced march for PT?" 

We only did two marches the entire time for conditioning, however during our field portion there were several times we had to conduct infiltrations on the reconnaissance side.  Even in the Early fall, humping 10k over the terrain in Good Hope Maneuver Area was strenuous...and when that mission ended we had to refit three hours later for another mission.  There is still nothing to this day so strenuous that a woman couldn't complete in the ABOLC curriculum.

As a reconnaissance PL in a heavy formation I was tied to my vehicle, but my commander enjoyed air insertions so we did them in our Troop collective training before the SQDN deployed to the sand for an NIE.  In the summer heat of Fort Bliss with an 80lb load I'll tell you it's rough if your legs aren't conditioned from running and marches. 

I trained my dismounted teams to be able to march 10Ks for infiltration and establishment of OPs, their loads would shift if they were going to be out there for days but rarely did it drop below 40lbs and more often than not with extra radios, batteries and optics it would be near 80lbs.  So this idea that requirements are too tough...I would say the Army's does not represent the facts.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 16, 2016)

Hehe....good letter and a very nice and professional way to tell retired Colonel Haring to STFU and mind you own business.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 16, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> It is true at least for me because I did it at least once during my time in the sandbox. Other dismounted patrols were doing with those "patrol backpacks" or whatever you want to call them and still with everything crammed in.



Respect, brother.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 16, 2016)

Teufel said:


> USMC was #6. The Navy was #s 3,4 and 5



Admittedly, coffee went up my nose when I read this. 

That said, I've been working with a team of FMF-qualified Corpsmen the past week and they're fitter than I am (damn it) save one.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 16, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> It is true at least for me because I did it at least once during my time in the sandbox. Other dismounted patrols were doing with those "patrol backpacks" or whatever you want to call them and still with everything crammed in.



I've heard many stories of guys packing 150+lbs of gear in and out of the mountains of Afghanistan. Lucky, I never had to hump more than 60-80 lbs assualt pack in Iraq, and never in any mountains. As @policemedic said, much respect brother...


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 16, 2016)

policemedic said:


> Respect, brother.



Thank you and respect to you.



Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I've heard many stories of guys packing 150+lbs of gear in and out of the mountains of Afghanistan. Lucky, I never had to hump more than 60-80 lbs assualt pack in Iraq, and never in any mountains. As @policemedic said, much respect brother...



I did it here and there in Iraq so no Afgan mountains and such for me. As I said when we did it with those patrol backpacks also add the weight of your vest, plates, and anything you carry on your LBV . Yeah that was fun.

I just don't agree with carrying that weight for the sake of it but I still think it is a valuable training tool and to wit the more you sweat in training the less you bleed in war.


----------



## CDG (Oct 17, 2016)

The 12 mile ruck at the TACP schoolhouse is done with about 115-120# of gear on. The loadout is definitely not unreasonable based on what we would need to carry to conduct operations living out of our rucks. It would be even heavier on a real mission, because we weren't carrying food, and we only had enough water for the ruck. It's not just the ruck either. Can you still function and do your job when you get to the OP and drop the ruck? It's pointless to have someone who can only make it to the site, but can't contribute once there.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 17, 2016)

CDG said:


> The 12 mile ruck at the TACP schoolhouse is done with about 115-120# of gear on. The loadout is definitely not unreasonable based on what we would need to carry to conduct operations living out of our rucks. It would be even heavier on a real mission, because we weren't carrying food, and we only had enough water for the ruck. It's not just the ruck either. Can you still function and do your job when you get to the OP and drop the ruck? It's pointless to have someone who can only make it to the site, but can't contribute once there.



Is this a ruck for time, or a simulated mission? 115-120 of gear(total on a person) is different than 115-120 of rucksack. I do totally agree with what you are saying. I only ask because a 120lb road march is a recipe for training injuries. 

The heaviest ruck I carried was somewhere in the neighborhood of 128 lbs. Plus a normal load of ammo, nods, radio the whole deal on my person. As a 200 pound dude I actually prolly weighed in close to 400 lbs.  We moved nowhere near 12 miles and it was a smoke session. Even on a road it would have been very rough going. That was my infil  to Robin Sage. Was all that mission essential gear? Apart from all the copenhagen(which is debateable) absolutely.

Rucks need to be heavy in training. They will certainly be heavy again.


----------



## Johca (Oct 17, 2016)

CDG said:


> Can you still function and do your job when you get to the OP and drop the ruck? It's pointless to have someone who can only make it to the site, but can't contribute once there.


Bingo!  To give an additional perspective, an entry fitness test that takes an hour or so to accomplish or a required annual occupational-specific fitness test that takes an hour or so to accomplish, by themselves is inadequate to determine individual's performance reliability and dependability to contribute on arriving, particularly if it a no-notice rapid response to the over-the-horizon crisis or incident objective area/site with minimal if any support.


----------



## CDG (Oct 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Is this a ruck for time, or a simulated mission? 115-120 of gear(total on a person) is different than 115-120 of rucksack. I do totally agree with what you are saying. I only ask because a 120lb road march is a recipe for training injuries.
> 
> The heaviest ruck I carried was somewhere in the neighborhood of 128 lbs. Plus a normal load of ammo, nods, radio the whole deal on my person. As a 200 pound dude I actually prolly weighed in close to 400 lbs.  We moved nowhere near 12 miles and it was a smoke session. Even on a road it would have been very rough going. That was my infil  to Robin Sage. Was all that mission essential gear? Apart from all the copenhagen(which is debateable) absolutely.
> 
> Rucks need to be heavy in training. They will certainly be heavy again.



Ruck for time. It was 120# total. Probably 75-80# in the ruck, then helmet, rubber duck, body armor, and LBV.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 17, 2016)

Haring is a femi -nazi who seems to think her Bull Winkle badge made her a subject matter expert on all things men vs women in the military.

Her Army BS was bad enough. Hitting the Marines with more of it justifies the mantra "Stay in your lane and stay out of ours"


----------



## CDG (Oct 19, 2016)

Color me unsurprised.  I don't think all women are in it just for the attention, but it looks like MAJ Jaster is, and she won't be the last.  Especially now that the door has been opened.

"Rangers Lead The Way..." To The Bank. Female Ranger Seeks To Cash In On Fame?


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 23, 2016)

Are you honestly surprised? The only thing I'm surprised about is how long it took. I'm standing by for the first GI Jane frog-woman story.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 23, 2016)

I am  not surprised at all. Get paid to speak? Cool. It's the American way. I kinda admire it.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 23, 2016)

Any one who is the "first" to achieve something that many others haven't, open themselves up to being approached about a book concerning their experience.

It would be nice if she decides to do an honorable book about her accomplishment and doesn't make it a "political" statement. Her book could "help" or "hurt" females advancement in combat arms. The ball is in her court and it all depends on how she handles it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 24, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Any one who is the "first" to achieve something that many others haven't, open themselves up to being approached about a book concerning their experience.
> 
> It would be nice if she decides to do an honorable book about her accomplishment and doesn't make it a "political" statement. Her book could "help" or "hurt" females advancement in combat arms. The ball is in her court and it all depends on how she handles it.



She wasn't first.  She was third.  And there is something... unseemly about taking that kind of money for speaking engagements while still holding a commission (she's in the Reserves so this is completely legal AFAIK).


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 24, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> She wasn't first.  She was third.  And there is something... unseemly about taking that kind of money for speaking engagements while still holding a commission (she's in the Reserves so this is completely legal AFAIK).



I agree with the unseemly part however, it doesn't seem like the same opprobrium is applied to male special operators who release tell-alls, biographies, or memoirs - even those who are found to have fabricated or exaggerated portions of their story.  It seems like we've developed a voyeuristic culture when it comes to military service in general, through media savvy SOF, and this officer is reaping the benefits.  The mark of support or offense seems to be how much you identify with the person.  People on SS love to read about hooah dude X, Y, or Z as they imagine themselves in the image of that person.  I would bet this officer gets paid a premium for the same reason with other demographics.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 24, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I agree with the unseemly part however, it doesn't seem like the same opprobrium is applied to male special operators who release tell-alls, biographies, or memoirs - even those who are found to have fabricated or exaggerated portions of their story.  It seems like we've developed a voyeuristic culture when it comes to military service in general, through media savvy SOF, and this officer is reaping the benefits.  The mark of support or offense seems to be how much you identify with the person.  People on SS love to read about hooah dude X, Y, or Z as they imagine themselves in the image of that person.  I would bet this officer gets paid a premium for the same reason with other demographics.



There have been multiple threads here talking about guys like Mark Owen. Not much of it positive.


----------



## CDG (Oct 24, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I agree with the unseemly part however, it doesn't seem like the same opprobrium is applied to male special operators who release tell-alls, biographies, or memoirs - even those who are found to have fabricated or exaggerated portions of their story.  It seems like we've developed a voyeuristic culture when it comes to military service in general, through media savvy SOF, and this officer is reaping the benefits.  The mark of support or offense seems to be how much you identify with the person.  People on SS love to read about hooah dude X, Y, or Z as they imagine themselves in the image of that person.  I would bet this officer gets paid a premium for the same reason with other demographics.



As TLDR20 said, male servicemembers have been strongly criticized for releasing that media.  However, they had at least actually done something in the real world.  Going on a speaking tour because you got a Ranger tab?  A male MAJ who completed Ranger School would be laughed out of the office for proposing he be paid to talk about that experience.  Further, imagine what would happen to a new team member who just completed SFQC, SQT, etc. and decided to write a book on his training experiences.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 24, 2016)

policemedic said:


> That said, I've been working with a team of FMF-qualified Corpsmen the past week and they're fitter than I am (damn it) save one.



The FMF-qualled corpsmen span the spectrum as well.  Yes, the corpsmen in the combat arms are typically very fit; air wingers, not so much.  FSSG (or whatever it is called now), not so much.


----------



## Lefty375 (Oct 24, 2016)

CDG said:


> As TLDR20 said, male servicemembers have been strongly criticized for releasing that media.  However, they had at least actually done something in the real world.  Going on a speaking tour because you got a Ranger tab?  A male MAJ who completed Ranger School would be laughed out of the office for proposing he be paid to talk about that experience.  Further, imagine what would happen to a new team member who just completed SFQC, SQT, etc. and decided to write a book on his training experiences.



I think there is a difference between a male MAJ who completed RS and the 3rd woman to do so. Whether or not that experience is enough to warrant payment for speaking should/is decided by market forces. 

If a new team member decided to write about his _training experience _there would be nothing inherently wrong with it. Once he/she decides to claim things they have no experience in there should be harsh criticism. 

It seems there is a type of value assessment going on. 





CDG said:


> However, they had at least actually done something in the real world.



While I don't necessarily agree the female MAJ with a tab is the pinnacle of leadership, she does have some demonstrable form of overcoming adversity. The great thing is there are hundreds of speakers to pick from. I see nothing terrible about this.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> There have been multiple threads here talking about guys like Mark Owen. Not much of it positive.



I was thinking about Marcus Luttrell and Chris Kyle - people who were legitimate special operators who went through some legitimate shit, but also exaggerated or fabricated things.

Ultimately consumers, including members of SS, pay for the things that engage them and ignore or otherwise look past the things that don't.  I think that's a big part of the market in military-themed literature - driven in large part by SOF during the GWOT.  Not trying to devalue people's choices, just saying those same factors are likely in play for this officer's ability to get paid speaking gigs.  There's a population who is engaged and impressed with her accomplishments and is willing to pay to hear her story. 

I think personally it's unseemly.  But, I've never done anything anyone would pay to hear about so I'll sit over with the haters.  But, I don't think it's fair to hate on this lady and her fans while lining up to buy the next issue of SOF-core porn (trademark pending).


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 24, 2016)

Kyle and Luttrell's books were approved for release by DoN.


----------



## CDG (Oct 24, 2016)

Lefty375 said:


> I think there is a difference between a male MAJ who completed RS and the 3rd woman to do so. Whether or not that experience is enough to warrant payment for speaking should/is decided by market forces.
> 
> If a new team member decided to write about his _training experience _there would be nothing inherently wrong with it. Once he/she decides to claim things they have no experience in there should be harsh criticism.
> 
> ...



Whether or not it warrants payment is an entirely separate matter from how it looks.  The fact is that as the 3rd woman to complete Ranger School, she has more of a responsibility to set the example.  Immediately seeking to cash in, while not inherent illegal, is certainly unseemly and distasteful.  Maintaining a quiet professionalism and offering to help women wanting to walk her path is one thing, running to the bank with a fistful of cash is quite another. 

I'm not saying there would be anything inherently wrong with it.  What I am saying is that your leadership at 3/75 likely would have had a strong conversation with you had you decided during your first month at Regiment to write a book about training.  They may have colorfully suggested you focus on learning the job and being as grey as possible.  Do you disagree?  She should use her experience to help other women, but I strongly disagree with this move.  It's unprofessional, attention-seeking, and selfish.


----------



## Lefty375 (Oct 24, 2016)

CDG said:


> Whether or not it warrants payment is an entirely separate matter from how it looks.  The fact is that as the 3rd woman to complete Ranger School, she has more of a responsibility to set the example.  Immediately seeking to cash in, while not inherent illegal, is certainly unseemly and distasteful.  Maintaining a quiet professionalism and offering to help women wanting to walk her path is one thing, running to the bank with a fistful of cash is quite another.
> 
> I'm not saying there would be anything inherently wrong with it.  What I am saying is that your leadership at 3/75 likely would have had a strong conversation with you had you decided during your first month at Regiment to write a book about training.  They may have colorfully suggested you focus on learning the job and being as grey as possible.  Do you disagree?  She should use her experience to help other women, but I strongly disagree with this move.  It's unprofessional, attention-seeking, and selfish.



What is "setting the example" is up for interpretation, I suppose. If we were to disagree with anything, it seems to lie on this issue. It could be argued that since she is one of the first, she is obliged to share her experience, thereby motivating more women and men to aim high. I'm not saying this is my view, I just see it as not so clear. Again, a quiet professionalism could recruit fewer people to walk her path. She isn't in the CIA or under NDA, so I see little distasteful about it. If it were proven her motives for Ranger School were to make a "fistful of cash", I would see this as unseemly, just as you do. I would just like evidence of such motives.

I think being in a Special Operations unit (with my tiny bit of experience), is different. Again, I am amateur hour compared to the great people we have on this forum. However, I think what SOF does as a _job, _is in fact, different from a leadership course or military school. While there might be similarities, the responsibilities of both respective groups (SOF and MIL school attendees) are not similar. I agree with you about what leadership in Batt might say, but, it's because of the nature of the job. By wanting to be assessed and selected by certain organizations, I would argue you give up your right to do certain things. I simply don't extend this obligation to most military schools. Schools with NDA's and "critical/mission essential information" seem to fit the "don't talk about this" side of the argument.

I think her experience can be used to help many people, not just women. Probably very few on this forum, but I doubt her talks would be for people like us.

*Note:* I suppose it's important to note I am fairly biased. My whole career was started because of books from SOF veterans...some vetted and some not. Either way, I was inspired and still am.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 25, 2016)

Lefty375 said:


> I think there is a difference between a male MAJ who completed RS and the 3rd woman to do so. Whether or not that experience is enough to warrant payment for speaking should/is decided by market forces.
> 
> If a new team member decided to write about his _training experience _there would be nothing inherently wrong with it. Once he/she decides to claim things they have no experience in there should be harsh criticism.
> 
> ...



I don't have any respect for her. Not because she's a female with a tab, but for all the complaining and crying she did to her husband, who then, promptly shared it on social media with the world. 

Her husband is still a MAJOR pussy. Talk about a fucking whiner.........


----------



## Centermass (Oct 25, 2016)

To add,

Just what we need. Someone who moaned and bitched the whole time, about getting screwed throughout the entire process, now doing speaking engagements on Leadership. 

Yup, that's a strong Ranger right there.......


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 27, 2016)

Ten women graduate from the Army's first integrated infantry officer course

Any chance we have a syllabus from five years ago and compare it to the published syllabus today?


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 27, 2016)

I went through almost that long ago and the calendar looks virtually the same.  

The final exercise for our class was a full two weeks starting on the weekend, which is the only major difference I can see.

IBOLC Training Calendar


----------



## CDG (Nov 15, 2016)

Survey: Women troops feel undervalued and unappreciated

Jesus Christ.  Now, it's not about service, it's about making sure enough people are told that you serve.  IIRC, people that do well at their jobs are typically recognized accordingly.  Even if you do, and you aren't, so what?  If you need recognition or an attaboy (attagirl) every time you do something, go find something else.  Otherwise, just do your fucking job.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 15, 2016)

I'd be curious to see the number of commendation or achievement medals awarded to females (in any MOS) when compared to the number of those awarded to male grunts. In the infantry you don't get a NAM (or AAM) for simply getting MRE's to the field for a two week op.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 15, 2016)

CDG said:


> Survey: Women troops feel undervalued and unappreciated
> 
> Jesus Christ.  Now, it's not about service, it's about making sure enough people are told that you serve.  IIRC, people that do well at their jobs are typically recognized accordingly.  Even if you do, and you aren't, so what?  If you need recognition or an attaboy (attagirl) every time you do something, go find something else.  Otherwise, just do your fucking job.



I note the irony.  The military is _the_ great melting pot, a sea of anonymity, where you are supposed to be a small cog in a huge machine, the ultimate selfless team.  And they feel undervalued and unappreciated.  For fuck's sake, how many times have I heard "It's not about you"?  And now they claim, "but it's about _me_."


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 15, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> I'd be curious to see the number of commendation or achievement medals awarded to females (in any MOS) when compared to the number of those awarded to male grunts. In the infantry you don't get a NAM (or AAM) for simply getting MRE's to the field for a two week op.



When I was an S1, one of the other battalions authorized 150 impact AAMs for a month long exercise.  Between impact and achievement AAMs we issued 30...


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 15, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> When I was an S1, one of the other battalions authorized 150 impact AAMs for a month long exercise.  Between impact and achievement AAMs we issued 30...



The Navy changed the approving authority for NAMs around 2003.  Before, the approving authority was higher; after, it was at the local command.  We went from no one getting one to everyone getting them, mainly because of the promotional points.

My first, as a corpsman, was when the I&I corpsman was fired because she was an idiot and played a race card every other day;  they put me on orders, I covered the job for three months before they could get another.  I got a NAM because I processed something like 15 med boards, filed a shit-load of NOEs, redesigned the medical department of the Marine side of the reserve center, wrote contracts and MOAs with local medical providers for different services, ended up saving a lot of money.  I got a NAM for that; it had to be approved at the battalion level.  It was reluctantly approved...I understood that they wanted to give me a letter of commendation instead (which would have been fine).

Fast forward, after I was commissioned, one of my collateral duties was to process AT orders for members of my unit.  I got a NAM because I spent two drill weekends making sure everyone got their orders.  THAT NAM was approved by the CO of the reserve center.  My unit chief got a Navy Comm for redesigning the goat locker ("Chief's mess" for you non-Navy types).  Unbelievable.


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 15, 2016)

CDG said:


> Survey: Women troops feel undervalued and unappreciated
> 
> Jesus Christ.  Now, it's not about service, it's about making sure enough people are told that you serve.  IIRC, people that do well at their jobs are typically recognized accordingly.  Even if you do, and you aren't, so what?  If you need recognition or an attaboy (attagirl) every time you do something, go find something else.  Otherwise, just do your fucking job.



I think in general it's a bad idea to dismiss concerns from a survey because you don't see the same thing from your foxhole - it's one of the reasons to have surveys like command climate.

In this case the survey asked women to list issues affecting female servicemembers.  I think it's unbelievably hypocritical to then criticize them as complainers for responding as requested.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 15, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I think in general it's a bad idea to dismiss concerns from a survey because you don't see the same thing from your foxhole - it's one of the reasons to have surveys like command climate.
> 
> In this case the survey asked women to list issues affecting female servicemembers.  I think it's unbelievably hypocritical to then criticize them as complainers for responding as requested.



I understand what you are saying, but I am challenged in feeling that the command climate surveys have moved from sexual harassment/assault to "do you feel validated?"-types of questions.  I do agree re: the hypocrisy of asking the question then being critical of them answering.  I am critical of surveys like this to begin with, and have seen it in civilian medicine where the onus has moved from supporting quality care to service with a smile and customer service.  Honestly I don't know where the balance lay, but I feel that when you sign up, you know what you are getting into and should be well aware you will likely feel undervalued and underappreciated (and underfed and underslept and overtired...) for a good part of your military career.  In short, and maybe it's because I own a Y chromosome, I never, ever, thought what or how I felt ever mattered in achieving the mission.


----------



## CDG (Nov 15, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I think in general it's a bad idea to dismiss concerns from a survey because you don't see the same thing from your foxhole - it's one of the reasons to have surveys like command climate.
> 
> In this case the survey asked women to list issues affecting female servicemembers.  I think it's unbelievably hypocritical to then criticize them as complainers for responding as requested.



Because command climate surveys are so useful?  Lack of appreciation can hardly be seen as valid concern.  Everything is focused on them.  They are held to lower standards, praised more for meeting them, and allowed special benefits not available to male servicemembers.  If you want recognition, do something worthy of it.  I think it's ridiculous to criticize me for saying they should focus more on doing their jobs, and less on how often people tell them they're special snowflakes.  FWIW, I would say the same thing if it was about males.  However, male responses to questions like that are not given the same weight anyways.  When was the last time you took a male only survey?  Yet I'm the hypocrite.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 15, 2016)

CDG said:


> Because command climate surveys are so useful?  Lack of appreciation can hardly be seen as valid concern.  Everything is focused on them.  They are held to lower standards, praised more for meeting them, and allowed special benefits not available to male servicemembers.  If you want recognition, do something worthy of it.  I think it's ridiculous to criticize me for saying they should focus more on doing their jobs, and less on how often people tell them they're special snowflakes.  FWIW, I would say the same thing if it was about males.  However, male responses to questions like that are not given the same weight anyways.  When was the last time you took a male only survey?  Yet I'm the hypocrite.



I feel like all the surveys I took were all male.  I was never in a unit that had females.


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 15, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I understand what you are saying, but I am challenged in feeling that the command climate surveys have moved from sexual harassment/assault to "do you feel validated?"-types of questions.  I do agree re: the hypocrisy of asking the question then being critical of them answering.  I am critical of surveys like this to begin with, and have seen it in civilian medicine where the onus has moved from supporting quality care to service with a smile and customer service.  Honestly I don't know where the balance lay, but I feel that when you sign up, you know what you are getting into and should be well aware you will likely feel undervalued and underappreciated (and underfed and underslept and overtired...) for a good part of your military career.  In short, and maybe it's because I own a Y chromosome, I never, ever, thought what or how I felt ever mattered in achieving the mission.



Yeah, I think that's valid.  It's the concern with any kind of anonymous survey - command climate being the one I've had the most experience with.  How much do you weigh the comments?  Are they valid - representing feelings folks don't feel comfortable addressing directly with the command - or are they a couple of disgruntled folks covering their own failings with anonymous comments.

I've experienced commands reacting I think too far in either direction.  However, I think in general you need the ability to hear from corners of your formation you don't hear from regularly for whatever reason.  If you don't you have the potential to be blindsided by feelings in your formation you're not tracking.  If you're true to 'responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen' as a commander that's always got to be an area of concern.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 15, 2016)

Guess women's history month and all the bogus female only missions isn't enough.
You can't be fully integrated into the mission if you constantly call attention to your gender or race.


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 15, 2016)

CDG said:


> Because command climate surveys are so useful?  Lack of appreciation can hardly be seen as valid concern.  Everything is focused on them.  They are held to lower standards, praised more for meeting them, and allowed special benefits not available to male servicemembers.  If you want recognition, do something worthy of it.  I think it's ridiculous to criticize me for saying they should focus more on doing their jobs, and less on how often people tell them they're special snowflakes.  FWIW, I would say the same thing if it was about males.  However, male responses to questions like that are not given the same weight anyways.  When was the last time you took a male only survey?  Yet I'm the hypocrite.



I've taken plenty of male-only surveys - when I was in units with only males.  Sounds like you've got most of the complaints you're criticizing women for - you feel like somebody has it easier than you, they get more compliments, nobody listens to you.  That's essentially the definition of sexism or racism if the definition of somebody is anybody of a different gender or race than you.  And yes, that is hypocritical.  But, hypocrisy is something we all suffer from time to time - I don't think it suffices to make you a hypocrite.


----------



## CDG (Nov 15, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I've taken plenty of male-only surveys - when I was in units with only males.  Sounds like you've got most of the complaints you're criticizing women for - you feel like somebody has it easier than you, they get more compliments, nobody listens to you.  That's essentially the definition of sexism or racism if the definition of somebody is anybody of a different gender or race than you.  And yes, that is hypocritical.  But, hypocrisy is something we all suffer from time to time - I don't think it suffices to make you a hypocrite.



No, my complaint is that they have all that and yet they still want more.  Don't go whining about feeling undervalued and underappreciated when you're the most focused on group in the military.  I don't want to have it easy, and I could care less about being recognized.  I know I'm good at my job, and I know when the people I am working for trust me.  People do listen to me by nature of what I do.  I don't have to scream and point out that they should listen.  I focus on being the best I can be in every aspect of my job, and the rest is irrelevant.

To clarify on male only vs female only surveys. I am well aware there are male only units.  That's not what I'm talking about.  Tell me a time when a survey was sent out to only men, addressing only issues affecting men. Not by default of the unit being all male.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 17, 2016)

Task and Purpose is becoming worse the Washington Post...

The Trump Administration Shouldn't Touch New Women-In-Combat Rules

What gives the lady validity is that her brother in the Air Force Reserves...


----------



## Jay_Pew (Nov 17, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Task and Purpose is becoming worse the Washington Post...
> 
> The Trump Administration Shouldn't Touch New Women-In-Combat Rules
> 
> What gives the lady validity is that her brother in the Air Force Reserves...


I think the funnest part of the article was this.

"_this would not only set women back decades, but also severely *impacts mission effectiveness and national security*".
_
This was literally the arguement to keep women OUT of combat roles in the first place, and now the author is saying this is the reason to keep them in (or let them in I should say).


----------



## Etype (Nov 17, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Task and Purpose is becoming worse the Washington Post...
> 
> The Trump Administration Shouldn't Touch New Women-In-Combat Rules
> 
> What gives the lady validity is that her brother in the Air Force Reserves...





Jay_Pew said:


> I think the funnest part of the article was this.
> 
> "_this would not only set women back decades, but also severely *impacts mission effectiveness and national security*".
> _
> This was literally the arguement to keep women OUT of combat roles in the first place, and now the author is saying this is the reason to keep them in (or let them in I should say).


You turds forgot to do your OSINT exploitation.  The author, Lydia Turnage,  was a 5 month US House of Representatives intern, is now an intern with the US Service Women's Action Network... And... A waitress at Chili's.

Her interests lie with women (and Chili's).  Her interests do not lie with what is best for the military or the nation.

ETA-
She was an intern to Rep. Louise Slaughter (D), from NY.  She is set to graduate from Georgetown Univ. in 2018.  The college girl tells us about women in combat... PAY ATTENTION BOYS!!!

Her boyfriend, Emil Francois Thomas, thinks America has a police brutality problem.

Her boy friend also thinks black people can't be racist.



She's also worried that her boyfriend is going to be killed by a racist cop, just because he is black and is near a nice car.  Does she worry about her boyfriend killing a cop?  That is a far more likely scenario, statistically speaking-


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 17, 2016)

Etype said:


> You turds forgot to do your OSINT exploitation.  The author, Lydia Turnage,  was a 5 month US House of Representatives intern, is now an intern with the US Service Women's Action Network... And... A waitress at Chili's.
> 
> Her interests lie with women (and Chili's).  Her interests do not lie with what is best for the military or the nation.
> 
> ...



But she has a brother in the USAF reserve... CLEARLY she's the leading authority in this field.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Nov 18, 2016)

In other words, she has no business writing for "Task and Purpose". Maybe she's just stirring the pot to get fired? Or maybe "Task and Purpose", as an organization needs to vet it's hires more thoroughly.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 18, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> In other words, she has no business writing for "Task and Purpose". Maybe she's just stirring the pot to get fired? Or maybe "Task and Purpose", as an organization needs to vet it's hires more thoroughly.



T&P is a great organization, and I've personally met a number of their employees.  Their owner, Zach Iscol, is a legit SOF Marine and a genuinely good person.  I've met him in person and corresponded with him via email a couple of times.  Zach Iscol | Task & Purpose 

Politically, Zach is very liberal and I suspect he's deeply disappointed Hillary lost.  I think this article reflects one of the multitude of views expressed by T&P authors.  I think this article is bullshit, as are the author's politics, but I suspect it represents the view of many veterans and other members of the military community.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 18, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I think this article is bullshit, as are the author's politics, but I suspect it represents the view of many veterans and other members of the military community.



Then it shouldn't be an issue to find a well-spoken veteran to voice an opinion on the topic.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 18, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> T&P is a great organization, and I've personally met a number of their employees.  Their owner, Zach Iscol, is a legit SOF Marine and a genuinely good person.  I've met him in person and corresponded with him via email a couple of times.  Zach Iscol | Task & Purpose
> 
> Politically, Zach is very liberal and I suspect he's deeply disappointed Hillary lost.  I think this article reflects one of the multitude of views expressed by T&P authors.  I think this article is bullshit, as are the author's politics, but I suspect it represents the view of many veterans and other members of the military community.



This article is off topic, relatively well researched but is further evidence of why I think Task & Purpose is bullshit.  Having writers that have zero experience in our line of work doesn't seem to be what I thought it was for.  Another rag.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 18, 2016)

There are plenty of legit vets who write for T&P, including more than one member of this site.  If I didn't have my own, competing blog I'd write for them as well.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Nov 18, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> T&P is a great organization, and I've personally met a number of their employees.  Their owner, Zach Iscol, is a legit SOF Marine and a genuinely good person.  I've met him in person and corresponded with him via email a couple of times.  Zach Iscol | Task & Purpose
> 
> Politically, Zach is very liberal and I suspect he's deeply disappointed Hillary lost.  I think this article reflects one of the multitude of views expressed by T&P authors.  I think this article is bullshit, as are the author's politics, but I suspect it represents the view of many veterans and other members of the military community.


That would make sense, as there are a large number of people who are venting their anger with the election. Maybe that article, is one of the ways that these people are voicing their displeasure.  When it comes to objectivity though, it doesn't help "T&P" to have those people on board, as they end up tainting the name. A writers political ideology, that bleeds into their work, ruins any credibility that the organization has as a whole.

Although with the history of this thread, and the debate regarding integration of females in Combat Arms. The policy behind gender integration in the military, could described as a political construct that was pushed through for the sake of inclusion, or gain of political and social capital.:-"

Man I suck at grammar.:wall:


----------



## Teufel (Dec 12, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> T&P is a great organization, and I've personally met a number of their employees.  Their owner, Zach Iscol, is a legit SOF Marine and a genuinely good person.  I've met him in person and corresponded with him via email a couple of times.  Zach Iscol | Task & Purpose
> 
> Politically, Zach is very liberal and I suspect he's deeply disappointed Hillary lost.  I think this article reflects one of the multitude of views expressed by T&P authors.  I think this article is bullshit, as are the author's politics, but I suspect it represents the view of many veterans and other members of the military community.



Zach Iscol was an Foreign Military Training Unit (FMTU) guy who got grandfathered into MARSOC.   His parents are huge Clinton supporters ($$$$) and he is a close personal friend of Chelsea Clinton. He was in my company when I served in 1/1 but he was on his way out as I was checking in.  I hear he is a good dude and deployed an FMTU team into the Battle of Fallujah.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

I have no problem with women being trained to be commandos, if that's what they want. I do believe that they should be trained separately, though, and organized into all female units, and used exclusively for home-guard and forces of last resort -- perhaps even border patrol.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 12, 2016)

@82DABN43E1P 

The reason for my disagreement in this thread is the same as my reason for disagreement in the General Mattis thread.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @82DABN43E1P
> 
> The reason for my disagreement in this thread is the same as my reason for disagreement in the General Mattis thread.



My reasoning in my argument in this thread is the same as in the other, that sexual politics is hardwired, that denying it is as healthy and productive as denying any other reality.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 12, 2016)

82DABN43E1P said:


> My reasoning in my argument in this thread is the same as in the other, that sexual politics is hardwired, that denying it is as healthy and productive as denying any other reality.



Clarify your point.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Clarify your point.



I just mean that adding sexual dynamics to an already highly demanding situation is suboptimal, when what you really want is optimal.

You want women on an ODA? Why? Because there's a shortage of male applicants? Because it will improve unit performance? Or, because cultural Marxists want to reorder the universe the way they imagine it "should be"?

Why does SF select applicants, instead of just creating a series of tests for them to pass or fail? If SF just wanted people who could do the job, the selection process would be unnecessary. SF wants people who can do the job without detracting from unit performance. Isn't enhancing unit performance part of an operator's job?

If there's sexual tension between two or more team members on an extended deployment, does it enhance or detract from optimal unit performance?

[And, that's just one problem.]


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 12, 2016)

You seem to be conflating women and gay people. Or maybe due to your multiple posts in different threads in a similar vein I am. 

I think you should get vetted. 


82DABN43E1P said:


> I just mean that adding sexual dynamics to an already highly demanding situation is suboptimal, when what you really want is optimal.
> 
> You want women on an ODA? Why? Because there's a shortage of male applicants? Because it will improve unit performance? Or, because cultural Marxists want to reorder the universe the way they imagine it "should be"?
> 
> ...


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> You seem to be conflating women and gay people. Or maybe due to your multiple posts in different threads in a similar vein I am.
> 
> I think you should get vetted.



What I'm doing is observing that sexual tension (from whatever source) makes matters worse, not better. I'm a dinosaur. I know. I thought my position would at least be understood, here, if not universally embraced.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 13, 2016)

82DABN43E1P said:


> What I'm doing is observing that sexual tension (from whatever source) makes matters worse, not better. I'm a dinosaur. I know. I thought my position would at least be understood, here, if not universally embraced.


This thread is 66 pages long, your position is understood.  We get it, and a lot of us agree with that but we tend to focus on the physiological aspect rather than the sexual tension piece.  Because in the current environment focusing on the sexual tension piece is not an argument that will be heard.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 13, 2016)

I've said this before on this forum and I'll say it again. I don't care who you fuck or what you got down there between your legs...if you're where you need to be doing what needs to be done when the shit hits the fan...the beer's on me.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 13, 2016)

82DABN43E1P said:


> What I'm doing is observing that sexual tension (from whatever source) makes matters worse, not better. I'm a dinosaur. I know. I thought my position would at least be understood, here, if not universally embraced.



That's kind of a broad assumption.  It's also one I disagree with for a number of reasons.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 13, 2016)

policemedic said:


> That's kind of a broad assumption.  It's also one I disagree with for a number of reasons.



As much as I enjoy a good argument, that's not why I came here, and I shouldn't have allowed myself to become distracted; so, if anyone feels compelled to engage me further on any of the hornets nests I've kicked over, please feel free to PM me. Thanks.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 6, 2017)

While admittedly not a grunt, this Terminal Lance makes me laugh because two of my best bros were grunts...and this is exactly what they described.

Terminal Lance “New Joins”

_Well it’s finally happened you guys. Yesterday, the first female infantry Marines checked into 1st Battalion, 8th Marines at Camp Lejeune.

Now they finally get to understand the prestige of being a grunt in the United States Marine Corps. They’ll get to do such intense physical activities as standing by in their rooms or cleaning weapons at the armory for 7 hours for no particular reason. They’ll spend a bunch of time standing around waiting for formations because First Sergeant and the CO are always late. They’ll completely stop giving a fuck about their careers after a couple of years and do the bare minimum to pass PFT’s and ranges because they just don’t care anymore and their cutting score is fucked anyway.

Welcome to being a grunt._


----------



## Gunz (Jan 7, 2017)

I love it, man._ "Awesome infantry stuff"_ bwwaaaaaaahaaaaaahaaaaa. Start field-daying the squad bay, ladies, take the shitcans out and dump them and when you finish that you can practice your "awesome infantry skills" raking all the pine needles in the company area.


----------



## CDG (Jan 18, 2017)

Apparently, the first female Ranger has arrived.

Exclusive: The 75th Ranger Regiment Is No Longer An All-Male Unit


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 18, 2017)

CDG said:


> Apparently, the first female Ranger has arrived.
> 
> Exclusive: The 75th Ranger Regiment Is No Longer An All-Male Unit



Good on her. I am sure she earned it. Regiment doesn't fuck around.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 18, 2017)

CDG said:


> Apparently, the first female Ranger has arrived.
> 
> Exclusive: The 75th Ranger Regiment Is No Longer An All-Male Unit



Too much fluff in this piece and doesn't get at the meat and potatoes.  Since it said the person who was selected is an officer I'm guessing it's CPT Griest?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 18, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Too much fluff in this piece and doesn't get at the meat and potatoes.  Since it said the person who was selected is an officer I'm guessing it's CPT Griest?



What "meat and potatoes?" They aren't going to advertise it for PERSEC reasons.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 18, 2017)

First Female in RGT, selected above PEERs, is a [Blank], required to attend [blank], will receive follow on assignment.

All the crap about how people don't know what the 75th is, people know who the Rangers are.  As an article...and being an exclusive, there wasn't a whole lot of stuff about the actual Soldier, just a lot of stuff that doesn't pertain to the successful accession of the Soldier to the regiment.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 18, 2017)

Yeezas man, the article was about women in SOF in general not this one soldier in particular. Regardless of what the title might say. You're being overly pedantic about this IMO.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 18, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> First Female in RGT, selected above PEERs, is a [Blank], required to attend [blank], will receive follow on assignment.
> 
> All the crap about how people don't know what the 75th is, people know who the Rangers are.  As an article...and being an exclusive, there wasn't a whole lot of stuff about the actual Soldier, just a lot of stuff that doesn't pertain to the successful accession of the Soldier to the regiment.



Until you registered on this forum, you didn't know 99.95% of SOF other than there is Ranger something in the army, and you had no desire to be one because it would require exertion and dedication.... so all of those facts are pertinent, as the school IS separate and a significantly different world, and what does it matter beyond they exceeded the standards to earn themselves a job? The 75th isn't in the publicity business, it's in the business of killing the enemies of our country more effectively and efficiently than any other unit. 

Whoever it is, they probably also got a healthy PERSEC briefing and that she's got a job to do, if she wanted to make waves she should have tried to be the first at Hooah High... she gets to earn her place every day just like the rest of us did.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 18, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> Until you registered on this forum, you didn't know 99.95% of SOF other than there is Ranger something in the army, and you had no desire to be one because it would require exertion and dedication.... so all of those facts are pertinent, as the school IS separate and a significantly different world, and what does it matter beyond they exceeded the standards to earn themselves a job? The 75th isn't in the publicity business, it's in the business of killing the enemies of our country more effectively and efficiently than any other unit.
> 
> Whoever it is, they probably also got a healthy PERSEC briefing and that she's got a job to do, if she wanted to make waves she should have tried to be the first at Hooah High... she gets to earn her place every day just like the rest of us did.



Fucking awesome post. 

She will contribute or piss off.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 18, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> Until you registered on this forum, you didn't know 99.95% of SOF other than there is Ranger something in the army, and you had no desire to be one because it would require exertion and dedication.... so all of those facts are pertinent, as the school IS separate and a significantly different world, and what does it matter beyond they exceeded the standards to earn themselves a job? The 75th isn't in the publicity business, it's in the business of killing the enemies of our country more effectively and efficiently than any other unit.
> 
> Whoever it is, they probably also got a healthy PERSEC briefing and that she's got a job to do, if she wanted to make waves she should have tried to be the first at Hooah High... she gets to earn her place every day just like the rest of us did.



My point had nothing to do with the young NCO, because as I understand it from people other than those at this forum, is that she is an NCO.  The article said she was an Officer.  I suppose the article is not meant for this audience and for the masses.

And if SOF ain't about publicity, why do I keep seeing books and movies every damn year?  

You can insult someone else's service, I wasn't insulting hers, just the fact that the article had a clickbait title.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 18, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> My point had nothing to do with the young NCO, because as I understand it from people other than those at this forum, is that she is an NCO.  The article said she was an Officer.  I suppose the article is not meant for this audience and for the masses.
> 
> And if SOF ain't about publicity, why do I keep seeing books and movies every damn year?
> 
> You can insult someone else's service, I wasn't insulting hers, just the fact that the article had a clickbait title.



Listen man.

Stop trying to pontificate about everything like you are the grand master of all that is. 

This isn't a friendly warning. This is from me, the admin.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 18, 2017)

I'm quoted in that article under my real name and the author of that story is both a former Ranger and a member here.  I'm interested to learn that it's a "fluff" piece.

Details about the female Ranger-to-be are known but weren't released publicly and because Task and Purpose isn't SOFREP and the author isn't... well, because the author is a stand up guy, he didn't publish them.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 19, 2017)

Not my circus and not my monkeys, but I have usually found T&P to be...better journalism with regard to military matters. 

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I was a newspaper reporter, so when I read articles like this I see if the author writes something in a way which would be libelous or unprofessional or violate ethical standards, which this one didn't.

For the new Ranger, if she met the standards, then she met the standards.


----------



## NomadicWriter (Jan 19, 2017)

I mean, sure, you could some up the entire article in one sentence: "A female has graduated RASP."
But 1) that's not very much fun to write and 2) most readers prefer to have a bit more context then that. 

Do I know more details on the situation? Yes. But I respected the USASOC PAO's wishes and excluded them. The real story is that, for the first time ever, a female passed the same selection that the "shooters" must pass to gain entry to a SOF unit.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Jan 19, 2017)

Any word on what her MOS is?


----------



## NomadicWriter (Jan 19, 2017)

ShadowSpear said:


> Any word on what her MOS is?


There are rumors, but I haven't been able to confirm anything.


----------



## digrar (Jan 19, 2017)

Waiting for a RASP 1 pass and serving out in the pointy end. That will be impressive.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 19, 2017)

Wonder if she is going to make her boyfriend wear her Ranger panties. LOL


----------



## policemedic (Jan 19, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Too much fluff in this piece and doesn't get at the meat and potatoes.  Since it said the person who was selected is an officer I'm guessing it's CPT Griest?



Interesting take.

I thought the piece was spot-on for what it needed to be and that it addressed the central point.  It also occurred to me that since I'm not/wasn't in the 75th Ranger Regiment, it's none of my damn business who the soldier is.


----------



## CDG (Mar 1, 2017)

This is loosely related, so I didn't feel it warranted its own thread.

Air Combat Command (ACC) has removed some heritage prints from their HQ building in Virginia after complaints of sexism.  Jesus. Christ.  

Air Combat Command removes posters after complaints of sexism


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 1, 2017)

Our military man...


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 2, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Our military man...


Our military man person...

Fixed that for you... better check that sexism bro sib!  [/sarcasm]


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 3, 2017)

Greist does not have the experience required, as having been an MP officer IIRC, to do jack in Regiment. Any ladies wanting into the party will need to either be support O's with commensurate backgrounds to apply, or rock out 11A out the gate on commissioning and get their shot at a line platoon.  The problem they will face there, is that the best get the job, so if they come in 2nd place in their RASP2 class, they very well could be the first loser, as we all joke about.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 20, 2017)

Two women apply for BUDS, SWCC:

Navy Has First Female Applicants for SEAL Officer, Special Boat Units | Military.com


----------



## Docboats (Jul 20, 2017)

> Two women apply for BUDS, SWCC:
> 
> Navy Has First Female Applicants for SEAL Officer, Special Boat Units | Military.com



Beast Mode if they make it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 20, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Two women apply for BUDS, SWCC:
> 
> Navy Has First Female Applicants for SEAL Officer, Special Boat Units | Military.com


And...cue the G.I. Jane jokes/memes.

Watching some of the women and the upper body strength they display on Ninja Warrior (Jesse Graff comes to mind), women are training differently than they ever have.
Best of success to them if they are able to complete the training.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 20, 2017)

If they can pack the gear, more power to them. Maybe they'll be better at keeping secrets than some of the dudes.


----------



## 104TN (Jul 20, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> If they can pack the gear, more power to them. Maybe they'll be better at keeping secrets than some of the dudes.


I mean the book deals write themselves.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Jul 20, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> And...cue the G.I. Jane jokes/memes.
> 
> Watching some of the women and the upper body strength they display on Ninja Warrior (Jesse Graff comes to mind), women are training differently than they ever have.
> Best of success to them if they are able to complete the training.



Cool but, starve them and deprive them of sleep completely and watch their bodies AND abilities return to what science and human anatomy agrees with.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 20, 2017)

@racing_kitty

When you worked around men in your MOS or with other men attached/in other units did you have a problem with the humor/jokes, etc?


----------



## Gunz (Jul 20, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> @racing_kitty
> 
> When you worked around men in your MOS or with other men attached/in other units did you have a problem with the humor/jokes, etc?



That's a good question, brother, and I'll be interested to hear her response...but I'm betting anybody stupid enough to mess with her got their asses handed to them.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 20, 2017)

Short answer: barring one very specific incident, I had no problems at all, and could often give as good as I got. 

The one incident had to do with a highly inappropriate variant of my former last name, which nobody could pronounce. I'd been called Purgatory, Peppertone, Penitentiary, you name it. One guy thought it was funny to call me "Pedophile." I didn't whine to the CoC, but I made damn sure he knew that was the one line you didn't cross. He took it badly, but fuck him. 

Later on, I had one particular security team (all 11B) that LOVED to go out with my team, and they'd always come talk to me when they had time. One day, we were holding in the staging area when one of their SSGs came and asked me what I was reading. I gave him a brief synopsis and my opinion of the book, and he looked somewhat disappointed. 

RK: "What's wrong?"
SSG: "I'm disappointed."
RK: "Why? What happened?"
SSG: "We always come talk to you because you say the craziest, raunchiest, most fucked up shit that makes us laugh (and look sane). You didn't deliver."

I followed up with something sufficient to fix that. 

If a female really has the right mindset, the shit talk won't bother her.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Jul 21, 2017)

Female Rangers Were Given Special Treatment, Sources Say


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 21, 2017)

ShadowSpear said:


> Female Rangers Were Given Special Treatment, Sources Say



That article was from 2015...


----------



## ShadowSpear (Jul 21, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> That article was from 2015...



I guess it pays to check dates of what people text me :-/


----------



## Teufel (Jul 21, 2017)

Who cares about candidates. Call me when someone makes it like the beasts who graduated from Ranger School.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 22, 2017)

Teufel said:


> Who cares about candidates. Call me when someone makes it like the beasts who graduated from Ranger School.



Are there any women who have tried to get into the Recon community?


----------



## Teufel (Jul 22, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> Are there any women who have tried to get into the Recon community?


No


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 8, 2017)

The Corps is looking to have a percentage of their freshly minted Women Marines complete MCT with the men in San Diego. (Vs. exclusively at Parris Island).

Although it looks good to politicians,   I do not believe that The Corps will get the results they are seeking.

Having the ladies join the guys at MCT is not going to do anything to change the resentment that guys feel when they watch their female comrades skate thru the shit jobs and blow their way thru meritorious promotion boards. (Yeah, I said that).

Until senior NCO's and officers put an "all stop" to the bullshit WM's Get away with, nothing will change.

Marines eye plan to put women in West Coast combat training

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Marine Corps for the first time is eyeing a plan to let women attend what has been male-only combat training in Southern California, as officials work to quash recurring problems with sexism and other bad behavior among Marines, according to Marine Corps officials.

If approved by senior Marine leaders, the change could happen as soon as next spring. And it could be the first step in a broader campaign to give male Marines who do their initial training on the West Coast the opportunity to work with female colleagues early in their career.

Marine leaders are also considering allowing women to attend boot camp in San Diego, the officials said.


----------



## suaveflooder (Aug 8, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Two women apply for BUDS, SWCC:
> 
> Navy Has First Female Applicants for SEAL Officer, Special Boat Units | Military.com



Not sure about the second, but here is one 

First Female SEAL Candidate Quits


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 8, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The Corps is looking to have a percentage of their freshly minted Women Marines complete MCT with the men in San Diego. (Vs. exclusively at Parris Island).
> 
> Although it looks good to politicians,   I do not believe that The Corps will get the results they are seeking.
> 
> ...



Since I haven't gone to MCT, I am not going to speak too much.  That said, most men--and women--I know who went through believes it to be pretty easy.  Is there any danger in integration in MCT?  For most people it's a box to check before they go to journalism school or maintenance school or wherever.  I don't know.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 8, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Since I haven't gone to MCT, I am not going to speak too much. That said, most men--and women--I know who went through believes it to be pretty easy. Is there any danger in integration in MCT? For most people it's a box to check before they go to journalism school or maintenance school or wherever. I don't know.



It's not hard.  I was not a Grunt so I went there vs. SOI (School of Infantry).  

To be clear, I have zero issues with WM's being integrated into MCT (I think they already are at Parris Island).  My beef is with the brain-wizards who think that this will create some magical brotherhood/sisterhood bonding between the men and women.  And maybe it will...until they get to the fleet and see what really happens out there.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Aug 8, 2017)

MCT is lame as shit. Mfers falling from 3 milers at the speed of a fart wearing a daypack full of skittles.


----------



## Loki (Aug 8, 2017)

I have tons of issues with women in combat roles, for tons of reasons. I don't support it and never will. But I'm not running this shxtshow or have any input. Thank you Sir, may I have another, Semper Fi


----------



## The Hate Ape (Aug 8, 2017)

In the Marine Corps you are either the mission or you are supporting the mission. I don't give a shit what side you do, but you better enact that task with extreme violence, tenacity, and willingness to perform. Neither side of the fence should allow for weakness.

I'm not against women, trans, people-from-new-jersey, whatever.... I'm against weakness. When I see weak ass shit occurring it upsets me, it upsets my peers, and it creates a general question delivered to the masses scoped & framed on a small example as to what will happen to our institution. Whatever happens, good luck and god speed but I expect everyone to be held to a standard that exuberates and breeds confidence to the force that whoever/whatever is being trained is the most capable and worthy product that our Marine Corps could produce. 

For both mission & those who are supporting the mission.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 8, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> It's not hard.  I was not a Grunt so I went there vs. SOI (School of Infantry).
> 
> To be clear, I have zero issues with WM's being integrated into MCT (I think they already are at Parris Island).  My beef is with the brain-wizards who think that this will create some magical brotherhood/sisterhood bonding between the men and women.  And maybe it will...until they get to the fleet and see what really happens out there.



I agree, I think social engineering is very dangerous on many levels.  But a 20-something day course after which everyone splits to the four corners of the earth for their MOS school, yeah, that won't do it.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 8, 2017)

I find myself in agreement with both @Loki and @The Hate Ape .

I've said a few times on this thread when your ass is up shit alley it doesn't matter who's helping you get out of it or fight your way through to the other side. But it's not easy for me to keep an open mind.

I tried to image women Marines in my Combined Action Platoon, in the bush all the time, month after month, humping prodigious amounts of gear and ammo, setting ambush every night, living on c-rats and cigarettes and bad water, sleep deprived, hyper-vigilant, bathing in brown rivers, gooks sores, ringworm, immersion foot, leeches, malaria, etc...not to mention having to fight an extremely competent and resourceful enemy...and the idea still strikes me as ludicrous.

But I know these days there more athletic women capable of the kind of physical endurance through training and conditioning that was rare back in my day. So...I guess I'm ambivalent.


----------



## Andoni (Aug 8, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> If a female really has the right mindset, the shit talk won't bother her.



Agreed. This has been my experience too. If a female has an issue with the shit talk and also cannot resolve the situation independently, there are bigger problems.


----------



## Andoni (Aug 8, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> I tried to image women Marines in my Combined Action Platoon, in the bush _all the time_, month after month, humping prodigious amounts of gear and ammo, setting ambushes every night, living on c-rats and cigarettes and bad water, sleep deprived, hyper-vigilant, bathing in brown rivers, gooks sores, ringworm, immersion foot, leeches, malaria, etc...



This should be a recruiting campaign. I'm not being sarcastic. I wish everyone knew this. Females in CF and SOF are two different animals. What you wrote applies to both. There is no equality in war, and there shouldn't be. But women are here to stay on larger scale then historically, and the value of everyone understanding the reality has exponentially increased. More work for everybody, and obscene costs just outweigh the value in almost every case. I blame the gender-neutral garbage on femme-nazis and stupidity, mostly.:wall: I suggest Americorps to motivated young females.


----------



## Loki (Aug 8, 2017)

"Any dissent will not be tolerated, critical reports or discipline will not be accepted. You have your orders Gentlemen, make it happen! They will be valuable assets regardless of facts, now move out."

Two Marine commanders fired this year for behavior toward women


----------



## pardus (Aug 8, 2017)

The Hate Ape said:


> In the Marine Corps you are either the mission or you are supporting the mission. I don't give a shit what side you do, but you better enact that task with extreme violence, tenacity, and willingness to perform. Neither side of the fence should allow for weakness.
> 
> I'm not against women, trans, people-from-new-jersey, whatever.... I'm against weakness. When I see weak ass shit occurring it upsets me, it upsets my peers, and it creates a general question delivered to the masses scoped & framed on a small example as to what will happen to our institution. Whatever happens, good luck and god speed but I expect everyone to be held to a standard that exuberates and breeds confidence to the force that whoever/whatever is being trained is the most capable and worthy product that our Marine Corps could produce.
> 
> For both mission & those who are supporting the mission.



I did some some contracting work for a Marine Infantry BN a few years ago. The one thing that really stands out in my mind (apart from the crayon eating competitions) was the professionalism displayed by the support troops. 
Army support troops are often lazy, undisciplined fucks, the Jarhead support troops acted like disciplined, dedicated Marines. I was and remain very impressed by that.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 8, 2017)

pardus said:


> I did some some contracting work for a Marine Infantry BN a few years ago. The one thing that really stands out in my mind (apart from the crayon eating competitions) was the professionalism displayed by the support troops.
> Army support troops are often lazy, undisciplined fucks, the Jarhead support troops acted like disciplined, dedicated Marines. I was and remain very impressed by that.


I believe the headquarters company commander was so hosed up though that he let you take a big kiwi shit in the middle of the FOB to help "teach tracking techniques"!


----------



## Gunz (Aug 9, 2017)

Pardus...The Man, The Legend.


----------



## Philopalope (Aug 9, 2017)

I can't really speak from experience but the impression I've gotten over the years is that they're just trying to appease the public.  If they really were interested in the well being of Soldiers / Sailors / Marines / Airmen ... they'd have identical standards.  It's not about what bits you've got between your legs... but what you're capable of physically and mentally.  Sadly though, I don't see that changing.


----------



## AWP (Aug 9, 2017)

Philopalope said:


> ... they'd have identical standards.



The standards have never been equal. Both sexes break out according to age groups. I'm leery of politics causing the standards to erode, but we need to be honest...the standards were never the same and haven't been for decades. If we want true equality (which I support) then we need to drastically overhaul the PT standards. An 18 YO male and a 25 YO male do not have the same requirements.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 9, 2017)

I think we are talking about 2 different things-IMO,  "equality" means everyone is judged to an objective standard that is fair and just. "Uniformity" means everyone is judged to the exact same standard, regardless of age/sex/focus group. No one wants "uniformity", because that's stupid, for the reasons @AWP laid out, among a ton of others. It's why the AF will tell me that "regular" AF cats are just as fit as me because we both score 95's on our AF PT test- because the test is uniform in nature and doesn't take into account entire domains of fitness, to include job/task related evaluations.

The BA community is at least moving in the right direction here (with the BA Operator PT Update/New BA PT tests), which allow for age discrepancies and have a wider range of scores, meant to speak to an individual operator's readiness to perform the actual mission. If we assume that the exercises in this new test were derived from actual job stressors and physical movements necessary for the job, then what you have is a sliding scale of the individuals ability to perform the job, from the low end (not capable) to the high end (very capable). Currently, we have a collection of random crap that's supposed to be all inclusive (the run measures cardiorespiratory fitness; pushups measure musculoskeletal endurance, etc). That's rank horseshit. Time and again here at the schoolhouse, we fail students that can run an 18:00 3 mile cause when you put 1/4 of their bodyweight in kit on them, they can't climb a ladder or carry their buddy. That means our fitness test doesn't judge an operator's ability to do the job- it judges their ability to do well on that specific test.    

Instead, having a test that states, "to be a PJ, you have to complete a 100 yard farmers walk with 50lb dumbbells in each hand in under 30 seconds. Less than 15 seconds is max points, and the scale of points is X; :31 seconds or more earns you a score of 0" is "equality". Carrying a litter for 100 yards while moving a CCP is a necessary, validated and objective task, and the time cap adds in the stress of realism. Throw on an extra 5 seconds per 5 years over 30, and poof- there's your standard. Add that to a battery of other tests that are as equal and valid, and you have a PT test that can be applied across sexes to all candidates "equally", not "uniformly". You can be crappy in one area- like grip strength- but smoke everything else and still score well.

Doesn't matter who you are, if you identify as mayonnaise, or whether or not you find Rachel Maddow attractive. If you start with an objective evaluation based on job-specific taks, those questions about the "fairness of the standard" and all the other nonsense go away. Can't carry a litter? Can't be a PJ. Can't climb a rope ladder with 50lbs of gear? Can't be a PJ.


----------



## Philopalope (Aug 9, 2017)

AWP said:


> The standards have never been equal. Both sexes break out according to age groups. I'm leery of politics causing the standards to erode, but we need to be honest...the standards were never the same and haven't been for decades. If we want true equality (which I support) then we need to drastically overhaul the PT standards. An 18 YO male and a 25 YO male do not have the same requirements.



You're right, they've never been equal.  I think the main issue is from those who are _trying_ to push more women into combat roles.  When you try to up the numbers usually the standards drop, and there are lots of people demanding standards to be dropped to allow more women into these positions, including the SOF community.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 9, 2017)

Philopalope said:


> You're right, they've never been equal.  *I think the main issue is from those who are trying to push more women into combat roles. * When you try to up the numbers usually the standards drop, and there are lots of people demanding standards to be dropped to allow more women into these positions, including the SOF community.


I don't feel that push at all. I can't speak across the enterprise (only PJ community), but the only drama this has caused has been in the general public. 

We have a standard. It's always been the standard. If you don't make the standard, you don't get in, and we aren't getting any pressure for numbers- well, let me clarify. We ALWAYS get pressure for numbers. But AETC and AFSOC and ACC aren't telling us "get women". It's just not a conversation we even entertain.


----------



## AWP (Aug 9, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I think we are talking about 2 different things-IMO,  "equality" means everyone is judged to an objective standard that is fair and just. "Uniformity" means everyone is judged to the exact same standard, regardless of age/sex/focus group. No one wants "uniformity", because that's stupid, for the reasons @AWP laid out, among a ton of others. It's why the AF will tell me that "regular" AF cats are just as fit as me because we both score 95's on our AF PT test- because the test is uniform in nature and doesn't take into account entire domains of fitness, to include job/task related evaluations.



I'm on board, but there's a larger issue with the "women shouldn't in combat arms/ SOF" argument. People like to say "combat has one standard." Okay, try grading that on a PT test, but if combat has one standard, what about PT tests?

The hard reality is if you make a score where large numbers of say 35 YO men can pass, then you're lowering the standards. If you apply ONE standard across a branch regardless of age or sex, then you either really reduce the standards or accept a mass firing of military personnel. All of the pro/con arguments ignore this reality. How many 50 YO CSMs can match some stud 22 YO's PT score? "We shouldn't lower the standard." Your standard isn't the same, so you accept that while you want women to meet the men's standards?

Our military as a whole needs to accept the hypocrisy of these arguments and good luck making a standard for combat arms versus combat support like a dental tech. Assigned vs. attached? Unit-based (now your NBC or supply NCO in an SF company meets the same standards as an 18 series)? MOS-based (your Ranger Regt. 25-series and a garbage-ass NG Signal Battalion now have the same standard)?

Great point about equality vs. uniformity, because equality is the buzzword these days when people mean uniformity. We're still back to the above arguments.

(Note: "You" is in the generic sense, not a direct challenge to amlove in case anyone is curious)


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 9, 2017)

AWP said:


> I
> 
> *(Note: "You" is in the generic sense, not a direct challenge to amlove in case anyone is curious)*


That should be always clear, my main man!



AWP said:


> ...great post...


So I agree overall with your argument. But here is the thing; I think at least as far as SOF is concerned, our leadership has smoked this issue and led really well. I think your argument comes out in the wash. 

With the now 10 year long push for "recruit the right candidate; look for the whole person; look for someone who is going to be a good operator, not good at the selections" all of SOF has been moving to, we actually have a lot more freedom to apply that "sliding standard" of PT and holistic evaluation. 

BA is in deep with our human capital optimization programs- literally quantifying intangibles like leadership, integrity, effort- and we are continuing to professionalize our process. At my organization, we have gotten to the point where we can say, "Listen- this guy, although he hasn't failed anything, isn't the right guy. He's not going to be able to be successful, and here is why." And AETC listens and supports our "professional subjectivity". 

In the end, we are going to get the right candidates through the door, give everyone an equal opportunity for objective evaluation, from a place where every single instructor _wants every candidate to graduate_. It logically follows that we then produce more end-product. But inherent in that statement is that we are also going to be able to non-select the wrong candidate, whoever that may be and whatever sexual organs they posses. 

To quote a very smart SEAL 2 star- "The amount of women that even want to try SOF is infinitesimally small. Miniscule. The percentage of those that are going to make it? Smaller than that. So that percentage- decimal points of a small percentage point- is exactly equal to how much worry and effort I am going to give this issue. Make the standard. If you do, you're a team mate."


----------



## Philopalope (Aug 9, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I don't feel that push at all. I can't speak across the enterprise (only PJ community), but the only drama this has caused has been in the general public ...



Right, I mean with the public.  It might just be more apparent to me because I live in a VERY Liberal city but it's a hot topic where I'm from.  That and Trump's recent "ban" on Transgenders in the military.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 9, 2017)

Philopalope said:


> Right, I mean with the public.  It might just be more apparent to me because I live in a VERY Liberal city but it's a hot topic where I'm from.  That and Trump's recent "ban" on Transgenders in the military.


Yeah, I assure you, it's not even the smallest blip on our radar. I'll get excited when I see a female at my point in our respective pipeline, and I think that isn't feasible for another 4 years.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 10, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> "...Make the standard. If you do, you're a team mate."



There it is.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 11, 2017)

I enjoy reading The Times, even after all these years.  Don't I remember that one former Commandant hated it so much he tried to get it removed from PX's?

At boot camp, 3 out of 4 women fail to meet combat standards

Some pretty interesting back-and-forth in the article, to include:

- allegations that male recruiters shy away from helping female poolees in fear of being accused of something inappropriate 
- suggestions that The Corps is not going out of their way to hold recruiters accountable for actually trying to bring females into the ground units
- less than 1% of female recruits are coming to Bootcamp with a combat arms contract


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 11, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I enjoy reading The Times, even after all these years.  Don't I remember that one former Commandant hated it so much he tried to get it removed from PX's?
> 
> At boot camp, 3 out of 4 women fail to meet combat standards
> 
> ...



Of these three points, one should be easy to track:  the third.  The question then is, why?  Are recruiters talking them out of those MOSs?  Or are they simply deciding to not go into combat arms if they are qualified?

Those first two..."allegations" and "suggestions"....smack of all sorts of subjective interpretation.

Recruiters and women made me think of this story:  There was a woman who wanted to get away from her life, so she went to the recruiting station in Raleigh, NC to join the Marines.  The recruiter talked her out of it, told her the Marine Corps was no place for a woman.  Nine weeks later they got married.  That was in 1959, they were my parents.  I will say this:  if ever there was one woman I would want in combat, it was my mother.  She could kick anyone's ass.


----------



## AWP (Aug 11, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Are recruiters talking them out of those MOSs?  Or are they simply deciding to not go into combat arms if they are qualified?



Another problem with this too is that recruiters talk recruits into something different all of the time. If people become hung up on "they didn't recruit women into combat arms" they are overlooking the tried and true process of talking guys into slots other than combat arms or from one support job to another simply because of quotas. Possibly the last time recruiters didn't talk a recruit out of a job was at a little tavern in Philly.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 12, 2017)

Different force but does it all lead to this? This is a bold move and they better hope the attrition rate doesn't suddenly surge.

Australian Army reportedly shuns male recruits in favour of women


----------



## Andoni (Aug 12, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Different force but does it all lead to this?



Jesus Fuck. That's a lot of females. It sounds like a terrible idea.


----------



## digrar (Aug 12, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Different force but does it all lead to this? This is a bold move and they better hope the attrition rate doesn't suddenly surge.
> 
> Australian Army reportedly shuns male recruits in favour of women



It's a beat up and they're quoting a peanut who was arseholed from army for actively being a peanut.

The reality is that they're well over on numbers, they don't need to recruit for a year for most of the "combat" trades.
 However they will recruit every suitable woman that walks through the door, for any trade. For trades like Infantry, Cav and Artillery, that might be a couple of dozen women, most won't make it, but they'll be in and corps transferred into sigs, MPs or transport etc and will have boosted the gender ratio.

Social media images from the recruit training battalion still show platoons that are mostly male and mostly white, which will come as a shock to those who are convinced that they're not only solely recruiting women, but racial minorities too.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 21, 2017)

The author's assertion that no woman could ever be his "brother" in the SEAL Teams got my attention.

The writer's overall message is more emotional than fact and data driven, bur those emotions are real to him.

This statement stood out:

_A female who chooses to go to BUD/S has already chosen herself over the mission, as her mere presence indicates a change in training standards. She will never be able to complete training without lowering standards, because standards were already lowered to allow her to train. 
_
I have always fallen on the "if they can meet the standards" side of the coin, but if the initial standards are modified just to give them a chance to train?

 A very respected member of this board recently shared a story where a Marine Corps sniper class had a 100% graduation rate vs. the 30% that had been projected...because the General willed it.

 If that is the game that can be played...well then color me skeptical about the whole system, to include the two women who recently passed Ranger school with allegedly no deviation to the standards or additional chances to redo something they failed at.

I've read a number of "because that's the way we've always done it" posts and articles, but this is one of the more well written....

Females in SEAL Teams: They Will Never Be My Brothers


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 21, 2017)

If the standards remained the same for all top end schools like they did in the UK, you would have women pass.  The hardest of these that is open to women is the Marine Commando course, 20 or so women have passed the course in the 20 years it's been open.  None of them have chosen to serve in the units that qualification gives them right to serve in.


----------



## Andoni (Aug 21, 2017)

I cannot like this post enough. This is the most accurate article I have ever read using an eloquence that I lack. I am a female and directly supported the gwot as an individual augmentee on SOF small teams outside of the United States. It was always as a onsie or twosie tasking and I did not ever apply for a SOF pipeline. It took ten years to talk about it and I'm still fairly reserved, mainly because...it's weird as fuck. But yeah. That article is badass. I'm glad the author said it. He is spot on.

Edited to add the point/grammar: The training standard for females is lowered from the gate: there is nothing that can truly replace any SOF pipeline, imo. Add I was trained using an oxygen depriving black hood...a lot. Still not the same.



Ooh-Rah said:


> The author's assertion that no woman could ever be his "brother" in the SEAL Teams got my attention.
> 
> The writer's overall message is more emotional than fact and data driven, bur those emotions are real to him.
> 
> ...


----------



## Loki (Jan 30, 2018)

My son's Infantry unit has now been assigned 14 females including 1 female Lt. Platoon leader.  Of these 9 have been assigned to my sons Infantry company.  Including the female LT. , who is his Platoon leader. They have all been there for 1 month, 2 are now out on medical injuries and off the line. The remadner are all, (with the exception of the LT) to the person are falling out of the PT run and PT in general.  O and yes they have their "female standards" not male. As well they are constantly late for formation and not showing up. Three are being processed for disciplinary actions. They haven't been to the field yet with the unit. They go next month.... Rah!


----------



## Grunt (Jan 30, 2018)

People will soon understand -- as many have learned in the past -- that wanting to be a Grunt and living the Grunt life are two very different animals. The lesson can be a long and painful one.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 30, 2018)

Agoge said:


> People will soon understand -- as many have learned in the past -- that wanting to be a Grunt and living the Grunt life are two very different animals. The lesson can be a long and painful one.



Reminds me of that old saying "everyone wants to be a grunt until it's time to do grunt shit."


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 30, 2018)

Loki said:


> My son's Infantry unit has now been assigned 14 females including 1 female Lt. Platoon leader.  Of these 9 have been assigned to my sons Infantry company.  Including the female LT. , who is his Platoon leader. They have all been there for 1 month, 2 are now out on medical injuries and off the line. The remadner are all, (with the exception of the LT) to the person are falling out of the PT run and PT in general.  O and yes they have their "female standards" not male. As well they are constantly late for formation and not showing up. Three are being processed for disciplinary actions. They haven't been to the field yet with the unit. They go next month.... Rah!



Bragg or Hood?


----------



## Loki (Jan 30, 2018)

As a former grunt for over 10 years, my expectations of this social experiment are extremely low. I think they should create another additional position per squad for females, in every rifle squad. Just give them a posting so they can be grunts on paper. That will prevent the unit from suffering loss of personnel on the UMR prior to deployment and their combat effectiveness will be minimally impacted.  You can then work around the loss of personnel and lowered physical abilities. And everyone can feel good...


----------



## Gunz (Jan 30, 2018)

It's a hard way to make a living. You don't get the prestige of the top tier guys and yet you still take the same bullets. If women want to do it, I'm fine with it. Welcome to the suck. I enjoyed every hateful minute of it.


----------



## Loki (Jan 30, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> Bragg or Hood?



My apologies Sir, I'd rather not respond in this forum to that question. Hit me by PM.  Many NCOs are now fearful to discipline these people for fear of reprisals from the Command, and possible sex harassment complaints. They are being dealt with completely different than the males.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 30, 2018)

I


----------



## 256 (Jan 30, 2018)

Why aren’t there any females in the NFL? Start with making military PT standards the same for both male and female and I might take this integration seriously for a few seconds. I have zero problem with females going to Ranger School, it’s exposure to leadership skills. I would like to see the results or statistics showing percentages of males that have passed Infantry training vs women. It would effect the readiness of the Platoon element so much. 

PS I searched for the NFL argument, so I apologize if it’s been made.


----------



## Loki (Jan 30, 2018)

Women’s combat roles in Israel Defense Forces exaggerated, military traditionalists say


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 30, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> If there is a place to look at female soldiers, I would say look to our only Ally in the Middle East Serving side by side.
> 
> If there is a selection and training model, Isreal seems to be the place to go to get answers.



We have them in Canada as well and for quite some time now. There's no great numbers but they are there.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 30, 2018)

256 said:


> Why aren’t there any females in the NFL?



I do not believe that your argument is analogous to the military.  For starters, the NFL does not have rules against women being able to play. 

Women wanting to serve on subs, ships, tanks, Rangers, SEAL’s, etc has less to do with them wanting to be door kickers, and more to do with them wanting the same opportunities for promotion and assignments as their male counterparts. 

In many cases, women looking to serve in combat units are seeking promotional opportunities within the military and see having a CIB or CAR a way to open new avenues in their career path. This thread has countless links on that very idea.

To add, I am not arguing either way in this post, just offering the “why behind the what”.


----------



## 256 (Jan 30, 2018)

I use the NFL as an example because they want the biggest, fastest and strongest people available. You’re right women are open to try out, but they wouldn’t get picked. If I’m going to fight a war I want it fought with the biggest, fastest and strongest people available. The different PT standards for males vs females is a perfect indication that males are..bigger, faster and stronger. Just how I look at it. Not arguing either, just my two cents


----------



## Topkick (Jan 30, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I do not believe that your argument is analogous to the military. For starters, the NFL does not have rules against women being able to play.
> 
> Women wanting to serve on subs, ships, tanks, Rangers, SEAL’s, etc has less to do with them wanting to be door kickers, and more to do with them wanting the same opportunities for promotion and assignments as their male counterparts.
> 
> In many cases, women looking to serve in combat units are seeking promotional opportunities within the military and see having a CIB or CAR a way to open new avenues in their career path. This thread has countless links on that very idea.



I am not arguing one way or another because its no longer my fight, but I don't see the point being about what women want. Its more about what they (as a whole) are actually capable of. Are we being politically correct, sympathetic, empathetic, or realistic?


----------



## Gunz (Jan 30, 2018)

Loki said:


> ... Many NCOs are now fearful to discipline these people for fear of reprisals from the Command, and possible sex harassment complaints. They are being dealt with completely different than the males.




This was probably an inevitable consequence given the political, social and cultural sensitivity that's permeating the American military...especially with regard to this issue. Not to mention the pressure from up the chain to make it happen and the need to cover one's ass.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 30, 2018)

Loki said:


> Women’s combat roles in Israel Defense Forces exaggerated, military traditionalists say


Having been to a school in Israel for two months, females trained our STA platoon, while the rest of us were trained by Sayret Egoz and Duvdevan.  They ran our guys into the dirt, in both PT and counter sniper shooting.


----------



## CDG (Jan 30, 2018)

Not surprised to hear these reports at all.  About what I expected.  "Look at me, look at me.  I'm super equal. Wait, you mean I can't just get the fame of passing a course?  I have to live like the male grunts do?  But, I'm special.  I shouldn't have to do that."  Fucking ridiculous.


----------



## 256 (Jan 30, 2018)

CDG said:


> Not surprised to hear these reports at all.  About what I expected.  "Look at me, look at me.  I'm super equal. Wait, you mean I can't just get the fame of passing a course?  I have to live like the male grunts do?  But, I'm special.  I shouldn't have to do that."  Fucking ridiculous.




Thank you. Letting women in the infantry is an emotional response it’s not backed by facts.


----------



## Andoni (Jan 30, 2018)

Edited: Removed the wall of irrelevant information I just wrote. I apologize.

I think that Leaders who believe a female joins the military to make a feminist statement belong with the group of spouses that believe female troops joined to find a husband. Females in the military that joined to make a feminist statement are a going to be a fucking problem for everyone they interact with. It's the wrong answer anyway it's sliced.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 30, 2018)

Loki said:


> My apologies Sir, I'd rather not respond in this forum to that question. Hit me by PM.  Many NCOs are now fearful to discipline these people for fear of reprisals from the Command, and possible sex harassment complaints. They are being dealt with completely different than the males.



Thanks for the PM.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 30, 2018)

Israel's population is about 2.6% of ours and their army is correspondingly smaller as well.  As a result, their troops have to do a lot more than we do, and there is a lot less specialization.  Additionally, as the video that RF1 posted mentions, they did this out of necessity, not because they thought it was a great idea.  I think it's important to consider those facts because a "women in the infantry" discussion isn't an apples-to-apples comparison between Israel and the US.

Yes there are women in units that the Israelis call infantry battalions.  But in the US we would probably not designate those units the same way.  Much of what these "infantry battalions" do is more like MP work, or it is something that civilian agencies would do here.

For example, the Bardelas Battalion mentioned in the video is more like our Border Patrol than it is one of our straight-up infantry battalions.  It is also relegated to what I would argue is the safest, most stable part of Israel's national borders:  the part from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea along the border with Jordan.  That's probably not accidental.
https://www.idf.il/en/minisites/bardelas-battalion/

Another of the gender-integrated units, the Caracals, patrols the Egyptian border bertween Eilat and Gaza.  It's also something like 70% female.
Caracal Battalion - Wikipedia

In Israel, the combat arm of decision is armor.  AFAIK there are still no women tankers.  No, do I believe, are there many (any?) female combat troops in their paratrooper units, unless its onesies and twosies like snipers.

I served six months along the Israel/Egypt border and I've gone to Israel every year for the last five years.  When we visit "front line" combat units, the only women I see are support troops.  They are readily identifiable by their long braided hair and the strappy sandals they are permitted to wear with their uniforms.  

Israel Army /= to US Army in this regard


----------



## CDG (Jan 30, 2018)

Andoni said:


> Edited: Removed the wall of irrelevant information I just wrote. I apologize.
> 
> I think that Leaders who believe a female joins the military to make a feminist statement belong with the group of spouses that believe female troops joined to find a husband. Females in the military that joined to make a feminist statement are a going to be a fucking problem for everyone they interact with. It's the wrong answer anyway it's sliced.



I don't think women join to make a feminist statement, but I do think the vast majority of the push for including them in combat arms/SOF units is a feminist statement.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 31, 2018)

I'll repeat myself - One standard, not male or female, One Infantry Standard, One Ranger Standard, One SF Standard, One Support Standard... ad infinitum.  The tougher the unit, the tougher the standard, you meet/exceed it, you stay.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 31, 2018)

x SF med said:


> I'll repeat myself - One standard, not male or female, One Infantry Standard, One Ranger Standard, One SF Standard, One Support Standard... ad infinitum.  The tougher the unit, the tougher the standard, you meet/exceed it, you stay.



There you go, being all logical and rational.  That's exactly how it should be, but ...


----------



## Andoni (Jan 31, 2018)

I





CDG said:


> I do think the vast majority of the push for including them in combat arms/SOF units is a feminist statement.


 
I agree with you. I blame the femme nazis for pushing their stupid agenda without any skin in the game. Fuck them. They don't do anyone any favors.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 31, 2018)

Andoni said:


> femme nazis



Going forward, please avoid using phrases like that.  It's right up there with Dumb-a-crats and Republi-dorks.  (both of which I saw on another forum this morning).  Those phrases distract from a well thought out argument or comment.

Thanks!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 31, 2018)

Meanwhile over at MARSOC A&S....

Just my $.02 on perception.  However long ago it was, there was a near 'reality show' feeling during the coverage of the two women who graduated Ranger school.  I don't blame them, but it was there.  Hell, the Army even hosted a live broadcast of their graduation.  

I like that I didn't even know these women were in the MARSOC pipeline; that alone sends a message.  Not sure if it is a difference in Administrations, or Sec of Def Mattis, but I appreciate the low keyed secretiveness of it all. (as do I assume, the female candidates)

Third Female Marine Now in Selection to Become MARSOC Raider

_A 25-year-old female sergeant has almost completed the 21-day first phase of A&S after beginning the course Jan. 16, MARSOC spokesman Maj. Nicholas Mannweiler confirmed to Military.com.

The sergeant, who comes from the food specialist military occupational specialty, is on her first attempt through the phase.

If she makes it to the end of the course, which wraps up the week of Feb. 5, with a high enough aggregate academic and physical training score, she will be the first woman to enter the challenging and secretive second phase of MARSOC assessment and selection.

But that is not a given. Mannweiler said it's expected that a number of candidates will leave the selection pipeline at the phase’s conclusion with insufficient scores._


----------



## Andoni (Jan 31, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Going forward, please avoid using phrases like that.  It's right up there with Dumb-a-crats and Republi-dorks.  (both of which I saw on another forum this morning).  Those phrases distract from a well thought out argument or comment.
> 
> Thanks!



Got it. I just googled it. I guess since 2015 that has been a really bad name. I had no idea. In hindsight- anything ending in -zi is probably not acceptable. It won't happen again!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 31, 2018)

Andoni said:


> anything ending in -zi is probably not acceptable


----------



## Hillclimb (Jan 31, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Meanwhile over at MARSOC A&S....
> 
> Third Female Marine Now in Selection to Become MARSOC Raider
> [/I]



really biting my tongue on this one. I'll wait until Feb 5th to comment


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 31, 2018)

Hillclimb said:


> really biting my tongue on this one. I'll wait until Feb 5th to comment


I cannot wait. 
(No sarcasm intended)


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 31, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> Having been to a school in Israel for two months, females trained our STA platoon, while the rest of us were trained by Sayret Egoz and Duvdevan.  They ran our guys into the dirt, in both PT and counter sniper shooting.



I have an acquaintance here, former Duvdevan.  We've had this chat.  He acknowledged that the women who serve in SOF units are highly specialized, highly selected, often recruited, and usually not door-kickers.  The very, very select few who are, though, are studs (meant as a term of respect).


----------



## Gunz (Jan 31, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> "..._The sergeant, who comes from the food specialist military occupational specialty, is on her first attempt through the phase..."_



Raiders gotta eat.


----------



## AWP (Jan 31, 2018)

If she fails out, there's a gym at Nellis AFB that could use a new NCOIC....


----------



## Gunz (Jan 31, 2018)

x SF med said:


> I'll repeat myself - One standard, not male or female, One Infantry Standard, One Ranger Standard, One SF Standard, One Support Standard... ad infinitum.  The tougher the unit, the tougher the standard, you meet/exceed it, you stay.




There it freaking is.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 1, 2018)

AWP said:


> If she fails out, there's a gym at Nellis AFB that could use a new NCOIC....



Think she'd branch transfer from USMC to USAF for that position?  Seems like a sweet gig at Nellis.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 1, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> I have an acquaintance here, former Duvdevan.  We've had this chat.  He acknowledged that the women who serve in SOF units are highly specialized, highly selected, often recruited, and usually not door-kickers.  The very, very select few who are, though, are studs (meant as a term of respect).



As I wasn't a SS, I don't know which unit the women were from. And snipers are not door kickers, but the fact they put ours through a very difficult course speaks volumes about them and the way they approach their craft.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 7, 2018)

Passing Combat Endurance Test is no longer required for infantry officers

And this is how they will get more female 0302's into the fleet.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 7, 2018)

Hillclimb said:


> really biting my tongue on this one. I'll wait until Feb 5th to comment



Seriously, no pressure.  But since you put the date out there, I thought I'd at least ask.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 7, 2018)

It was only a matter of time and now the crack has begun spreading. The standards shall now start their descent into obscurity!


----------



## AWP (Feb 7, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> Passing Combat Endurance Test is no longer required for infantry officers
> 
> And this is how they will get more female 0302's into the fleet.



This has far too many parallels to the open letter sent by an SFQC instructor and SWCS's response.


----------



## reed11b (Feb 8, 2018)

256 said:


> I use the NFL as an example because they want the biggest, fastest and strongest people available. You’re right women are open to try out, but they wouldn’t get picked. If I’m going to fight a war I want it fought with the biggest, fastest and strongest people available. The different PT standards for males vs females is a perfect indication that males are..bigger, faster and stronger. Just how I look at it. Not arguing either, just my two cents


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
When I first joined the Airborne Infantry, I weighed 115lbs. I never got bigger than 135lbs on active duty. NOBODY was saying I was to small and weak for the infantry. Yes, physical strength and endurance will help a soldier in all aspects of the Infantry job, but the NFL it is not.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 8, 2018)

reed11b said:


> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> When I first joined the Airborne Infantry, I weighed 115lbs. I never got bigger than 135lbs on active duty. NOBODY was saying I was to small and weak for the infantry. Yes, physical strength and endurance will help a soldier in all aspects of the Infantry job, but the NFL it is not.



How do you figure it's not?


----------



## 256 (Feb 8, 2018)

reed11b said:


> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> When I first joined the Airborne Infantry, I weighed 115lbs. I never got bigger than 135lbs on active duty. NOBODY was saying I was to small and weak for the infantry. Yes, physical strength and endurance will help a soldier in all aspects of the Infantry job, but the NFL it is not.




I’m not really sure what all this means..only that it’s funny to you.


----------



## Loki (Feb 10, 2018)

Update; my son's company went to field this week. None of the females went, they were held back from Field ops (even the ones assigned to dismounted) with the exception of 1 enlisted and the Platoon leader. The one enlisted went out on profile day 1, she was sent back to the rear and had to be relieved. 4 of the others are now out on profile.


----------



## Loki (Feb 10, 2018)

Teufel said:


> Who cares about candidates. Call me when someone makes it like the beasts who graduated from Ranger School.


Still not buying that one.... that they graduated to standard.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 10, 2018)

Loki said:


> Still not buying that one....



For clarification, at least offer @Teufel the curtesy of telling him what exactly, you are "not buying".


----------



## CDG (Feb 10, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> For clarification, at least offer @Teufel the curtesy of telling him what exactly, you are "not buying".


FWIW, I took his comment as meaning he doesn't buy that women legitimately graduated Ranger School at the standard men are held to.


----------



## CDG (Feb 10, 2018)

Loki said:


> Update; my son's company went to field this week. None of the females went, they were held back from Field ops (even the ones assigned to dismounted) with the exception of 1 enlisted and the Platoon leader. The one enlisted went out on profile day 1, she was sent back to the rear and had to be relieved. 4 of the others are now out on profile.



What a shock. This is ridiculous.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 11, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> Passing Combat Endurance Test is no longer required for infantry officers
> 
> And this is how they will get more female 0302's into the fleet.


I read this updated story and found that the endurance test had been changed to an “all or nothing” in 2012.  Til then, it was as it is now, part of the course, but not a specific deal breaker. 

Difficult for me to doubt the motives for changing back now in 2018, but it’s not as if the Corps overturned 100 years of tradition here. 

Marine Corps Quietly Drops Major Obstacle to Female Infantry Officers


----------



## Loki (Feb 11, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I read this updated story and found that the endurance test had been changed to an “all or nothing” in 2012.  Til then, it was as it is now, part of the course, but not a specific deal breaker.
> 
> Difficult for me to doubt the motives for changing back now in 2018, but it’s not as if the Corps overturned 100 years of tradition here.
> 
> Marine Corps Quietly Drops Major Obstacle to Female Infantry Officers



The standards must be dropped to achieve the goal...and combat effectiveness of the Infantry is not the goal!


----------



## Poccington (Feb 11, 2018)

Loki said:


> The standards must be dropped to achieve the goal...and combat effectiveness of the Infantry is not the goal!



So was combat effectiveness of the Infantry not the goal before 2012?


----------



## CDG (Feb 11, 2018)

Poccington said:


> So was combat effectiveness of the Infantry not the goal before 2012?


I'm sure you can admit this is rather suspect. Things go back and forth, but it needs to change again now? Since women can't pass it? Amazing how so many men could pass, but when women can't the standard is all of a sudden deemed to be needlessly difficult.


----------



## Poccington (Feb 11, 2018)

CDG said:


> I'm sure you can admit this is rather suspect. Things go back and forth, but it needs to change again now? Since women can't pass it? Amazing how so many men could pass, but when women can't the standard is all of a sudden deemed to be needlessly difficult.



Definitely looks suspicious and I'd be of the same belief as you, that it was removed as a pass/fail test due to the issues that females were having with passing it. However, it's quite the leap to state that combat effectiveness of the Infantry is no longer of concern to the personnel in charge of running the IOC. 

The USMC had no problem smashing cunts all over the globe pre-2012.


----------



## CDG (Feb 11, 2018)

Poccington said:


> Definitely looks suspicious and I'd be of the same belief as you, that it was removed as a pass/fail test due to the issues that females were having with passing it. However, it's quite the leap to state that combat effectiveness of the Infantry is no longer of concern to the personnel in charge of running the IOC.
> 
> The USMC had no problem smashing cunts all over the globe pre-2012.



That's true, but the test wasn't removed as go/no-go criteria in order to allow women into the infantry either, prior to this instance.  I think it's completely reasonable to state that no one who is pushing for the integration of women into combat arms/SOF is concerned with combat effectiveness.  It's social experimentation, feminist agenda pushing, and in no way rooted in anything even remotely resembling care for what those units need to be combat effective. Women can, have, and continue to contribute in meaningful ways.  There is no place for them in some communities though.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 11, 2018)

Poccington said:


> Definitely looks suspicious and I'd be of the same belief as you, that it was removed as a pass/fail test due to the issues that females were having with passing it. However, it's quite the leap to state that combat effectiveness of the Infantry is no longer of concern to the personnel in charge of running the IOC.
> 
> The USMC had no problem smashing cunts all over the globe pre-2012.


It wasn't even a pass/fail, it was pass to enter.  A few women have passed the E-Course at the IOC previous to the first female Infantry Officer Course graduate.  IIRC, all of them were medically removed shortly after.

I'm not sure how IOC-Prep is now.  But back in 2012 I knew based on anecdotal references from the Marines in my ABOLC class.  Upon graduating TBS all Marine Tank Officers are sent to their units first to wait for a ABOLC class date.  All IOC Candidates depending on when they graduate TBS have between 4-6 Weeks between the end of TBS and the beginning of IOC.  During that period, their entire purpose in life is to get fit for IOC.  The E-Course used to be day 1.  Many men have failed the E-Course and re-classed.  I'm sure @Teufel is more up to date than I am in regards to IOC prep as I'm not a Marine and all of my Marine peers are commanding Tank Companies now.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 15, 2018)

LOL.  

LinkedIn is usually pretty professional, but whomever is running the social media sites for The Corps should have known better....

As soon as I saw that there were comments I would have bet A LOT of money what they would be referring to.


----------



## Loki (Feb 17, 2018)

http://forgodandcountry.com/news/us...ecruits-cant-throw-far-enough/?utm_source=MOH


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 17, 2018)

Loki said:


> http://forgodandcountry.com/news/us...ecruits-cant-throw-far-enough/?utm_source=MOH



I've been cadre on grenade ranges for folks _already_ in the Army and I can still vouch for this. 

Some soldiers even had problems just pulling the pin, which made for some interesting... chats during the alibi.  Ugh.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 17, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> I've been cadre on grenade ranges for folks _already_ in the Army and I can still vouch for this.
> 
> Some soldiers even had problems just pulling the pin, which made for some interesting... chats during the alibi.  Ugh.



This is so sad.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 17, 2018)

Loki said:


> http://forgodandcountry.com/news/us...ecruits-cant-throw-far-enough/?utm_source=MOH


The stupid thing about this...previous week: Increased Discipline coming to Basic Training was the headline...


----------



## Loki (Feb 17, 2018)

Spoke to my son today. Of the 15 females (not 14)  in his company 5 are on profiles now. The majority of them are falling out of company runs with regularity. 4 of them are openly saying they chose wrong to come to the Infantry.  One has sought out emotional counseling and taken off the line because yelling and physical punishment from the NCOs stresses her out and creates a hostile work environment.  None are being assigned machine guns for fear of them injuring themselves, and going out on back or hip injuries. There is some discipline problems currently relative to attitudes of several of the females that are disrespectful to the NCOs. One openly requested that the NCO not give her the same exercises because she was tired and couldn't continue the exercise and quit. She then broke down in tears and refused to continue with the exercises. The NCOs have to speak with the females with a witness present in order to avoid complaints and IGs.  New Army...Rah!  Combat effective? Hummmmmmmm


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 17, 2018)

Loki said:


> 4 of them are openly saying they chose wrong to come to the Infantry.





Loki said:


> One has sought out emotional counseling and taken off the line because yelling and physical punishment from the NCOs stresses her out and creates a hostile work environment.



Gee, nobody called this.


----------



## 256 (Feb 17, 2018)

I wonder if any females would be competing in the Olympics if there wouldn’t segregation of the sports...


----------



## Gunz (Feb 17, 2018)

This is what happens when you try to make the military all-inclusive and "fair" for everybody. I remember my SDI saying, "America is a democracy...the Marine Corps ain't." We are really digging a fucking hole here that we'll never get out of. The only hope, I suppose, is that warfighting technology can compensate for the dilution of individual combat effectiveness.

You can water down the whiskey. But you don't get more whiskey...you just get more water.


----------



## Loki (Feb 17, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Gee, nobody called this.


I think they need to create a single, 1 position in every Infantry squad for females. An extra additional posting for females. They are exempted from all standards, drills, exercises and punishment. They get all the awards, accolades and promotions but have no authority in the squad and or deploy with the squad in combat operations. Give them tabs, badges and or pretty things for their uniform but keep them in the rear in war.  They will and are reducing the combat effectiveness of the infantry and our war fighting ability as a whole in the future.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 17, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I read this updated story and found that the endurance test had been changed to an “all or nothing” in 2012.  Til then, it was as it is now, part of the course, but not a specific deal breaker.
> 
> Difficult for me to doubt the motives for changing back now in 2018, but it’s not as if the Corps overturned 100 years of tradition here.
> 
> Marine Corps Quietly Drops Major Obstacle to Female Infantry Officers


I had a weekend to prepare for IOC after graduating from TBS. Granted it’s been a minute. Or 15 years. We had to pass the combat endurance test to class up but everyone passed (aside from some of the international students). I think some Marines had to remediate though. I don’t remember.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 17, 2018)

Loki said:


> I think they need to create a single, 1 position in every Infantry squad for females. An extra additional posting for females. They are exempted from all standards, drills, exercises and punishment. They get all the awards, accolades and promotions but have no authority in the squad and or depoy with the squad in combat operations. Give them tabs, badges and or pretty things for their uniform but keep them in the rear in war.  They will and are reducing the combat effectiveness of the infantry and our war fighting ability as a whole in the future.



I would not put them in at all.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 17, 2018)

I've said it before, and I think it's becoming clearer as we move forward with this experiment.  I think there are some women who can hack it in the Infantry.  However, the question we need to ask is whether the juice is worth the squeeze because right now, the answer seems to be no.  That doesn't mean that women can't be useful and effective behind a gun in the military, but I'm not sure the Infantry is the right place for them to make their contribution.


----------



## AWP (Feb 17, 2018)

policemedic said:


> I've said it before, and I think it's becoming clearer as we move forward with this experiment.  I think there are some women who can hack it in the Infantry.  *However, the question we need to ask is whether the juice is worth the squeeze because right now, the answer seems to be no.*  That doesn't mean that women can't be useful and effective behind a gun in the military, but I'm not sure the Infantry is the right place for them to make their contribution.



diminishing returns | Definition & Example


----------



## Loki (Feb 17, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> I would not put them in at all.


Agreed, but it appears regardless of facts there's no turning back.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 18, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I read this updated story and found that the endurance test had been changed to an “all or nothing” in 2012.  Til then, it was as it is now, part of the course, but not a specific deal breaker.
> 
> Difficult for me to doubt the motives for changing back now in 2018, but it’s not as if the Corps overturned 100 years of tradition here.
> 
> Marine Corps Quietly Drops Major Obstacle to Female Infantry Officers



Interesting...so if I have a female in my squad during an extended combat operation that demands foot mobility over difficult terrain for many hours or even days, she might not be able to carry her share of gear and squad organic weapons and ammo? Or help carry a WIA to an extraction point? Or do half the shit we normally have to do?

Jesus, we carried 90-100 pounds of gear every day or night when moving to or from an ambush site or rendezvous. My freaking shoulders hurt just thinking about it. MG ammo, Claymores, C4, LAAWs, 40mm HE, radio batteries, strobes, frags, smokes, flares, were all distributed through the team. Everybody carried at least 70-80 lbs of their own personal gear and a full load-out of ammo as well as the gear that had to be shared.

I've tried, as long as we've had this discussion, to keep an open mind. But given the conditions we routinely endured, I can't imagine too many females being able to hack it. And anybody who couldn't hack it would've been shitcanned in a hurry.


----------



## Bypass (Feb 18, 2018)

18echo said:


> I dig this quote from the article:
> It's not about what you think you can do. It's about what you can demonstrate that you can do.
> I have known plenty of joes over the last two decades who _thought _they could do something that turned out to be not the case.


I thought I could fly this one time...........Case in point. I will never drink that much tequila again.


----------



## Loki (Feb 18, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Interesting...so if I have a female in my squad during an extended combat operation that demands foot mobility over difficult terrain for many hours or even days, she might not be able to carry her share of gear and squad organic weapons and ammo? Or help carry a WIA to an extraction point? Or do half the shit we normally have to do?
> 
> We routinely carried 90-100 pounds of gear every day or night when moving to or from an ambush site or rendezvous. MG ammo, Claymores, C4, LAAWs, 40mm HE, PRC25 batteries, strobes, frags, smokes, flares, were all distributed through the team. Everybody carried at least 70-80 lbs of their own personal gear and lots of ammo as well as the gear that had to be shared.
> 
> I've tried--as long as we've had this discussion--to shed my preconceived biases and keep an open mind--but given the conditions we routinely endured, I can't imagine too many females being able to hack it. And anybody who couldn't hack it would've been ostracized and shitcanned.



Exactly! Hear here, as a former Infantry squad leader and platoon sergeant I agree 100%. This is a politically correct fantasy to change human nature and the facts of human development for a million years.


----------



## reed11b (Feb 21, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> How do you figure it's not?


It's not NFL level of physical requirement. It's a false comparison. There are no 140lb NFL linebackers, but there are plenty of 140lb grunts still humping mortars and MGs.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 21, 2018)

There's a female at Regiment now, and apparently while tabless, she's doing just fine.

There are women that can meet the standard and pound for pound do the job. They are few and far between, and no amount of command pressure is going to change the fact that those that not only could, but want to try, to meet the standards inherent for 11B or beyond, are going to be unicorns.


----------



## DasBoot (Feb 21, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> There's a female at Regiment now, and apparently while tabless, she's doing just fine.
> 
> There are women that can meet the standard and pound for pound do the job. They are few and far between, and no amount of command pressure is going to change the fact that those that not only could, but want to try, to meet the standards inherent for 11B or beyond, are going to be unicorns.


She was in SURT with me. She’s a solid woman. Changed my view on this topic.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 21, 2018)

reed11b said:


> It's not NFL level of physical requirement. It's a false comparison. There are no 140lb NFL linebackers, but there are plenty of 140lb grunts still humping mortars and MGs.



Football is a very physical game. The NFL is full of extremely athletic people, to include the linemen. I would argue most linemen are the most athletic people on a field. Watch how fast a 275lb guy can run. Then watch a 200lb RB block him.


----------



## CDG (Feb 21, 2018)

Guys, stay on topic. This thread is not about physical requirements in the NFL.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 22, 2018)

USMC IOC also lower requirements for hikes:

Infantry Officer Course lowers requirement for hikes

Again, it's really not lowering standards, just a reset to make IOC more realistic to doctrine.


----------



## CDG (Feb 23, 2018)

"More realistic to doctrine" meaning there's a lot of political pressure to start having a high percentage of women pass all these courses.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 23, 2018)

Just wait, doctrine is about to be degraded...


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 23, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> Just wait, doctrine is about to be degraded...



....just as the Corps talk about more realistic training and exercises, and the CMC talks about having to fight to get to the fight....


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 23, 2018)

One of my good CRO friends (Officer type) succinctly put into words what a lot of people have been struggling with. 

"Are there females that can make it into our career field!? Absolutely there are. Right now, there are women walking this earth that could make it and be great operators. And currently, those women are getting paid 7 figures to be CrossFit™ athletes or training at the Olympic Training Center. They have zero interest in taking an 800% pay cut to risk their lives and enlist just to prove a point."

I think that's pretty true. As far as all this talk about "standards are lowering, doctrine is degraded..." As far as I am concerned, the rank and file own those. Don't want standards to drop? Cool. Don't drop your personal standards and do it above reproach. Seems to be working ok so far.


----------



## CDG (Feb 23, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> One of my good CRO friends (Officer type) succinctly put into words what a lot of people have been struggling with.
> 
> "Are there females that can make it into our career field!? Absolutely there are. Right now, there are women walking this earth that could make it and be great operators. And currently, those women are getting paid 7 figures to be CrossFit™ athletes or training at the Olympic Training Center. They have zero interest in taking an 800% pay cut to risk their lives and enlist just to prove a point."
> 
> I think that's pretty true. As far as all this talk about "standards are lowering, doctrine is degraded..." As far as I am concerned, the rank and file own those. Don't want standards to drop? Cool. Don't drop your personal standards and do it above reproach. Seems to be working ok so far.



Even for those women, the world of combat arms/SOF is an entirely different animal.  In a pipeline, you aren't having your sleep. nutrition, recovery, and workouts managed for you in a way to sustain and peak.  You aren't spending time with a physical therapist, massage therapist, chiropractor, etc.  You're not getting workouts cut short because all your neurons aren't firing that particular morning.  So it's different.  And there's the fact that making it through a pipeline is one thing, and being a valuable asset in the operational force is a different thing.  So maybe some of them can still make it through months of little sleep, MREs, weather, hours long PT sessions, and endless miles under a heavy ruck.  Great.  Now what?  The pipeline is just the beginning.  

Your last line sounds great, but the fact is that the rank and file can't do anything about politicians and senior officers changing standards.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 23, 2018)

OK, I have put up some memes today.  I'm not in a great mood, I'm sick, and I have a physical in 2 hours where a very nice gentleman is going to violate me with his pointer.  So I have been looking for things to make me laugh.  This checks that box and the box for this thread:


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 23, 2018)

CDG said:


> Even for those women, the world of combat arms/SOF is an entirely different animal.  In a pipeline, you aren't having your sleep. nutrition, recovery, and workouts managed for you in a way to sustain and peak.  *You aren't spending time with a physical therapist, massage therapist, chiropractor, etc.  You're not getting workouts cut short because all your neurons aren't firing that particular morning. * So it's different.  And there's the fact that making it through a pipeline is one thing, and being a valuable asset in the operational force is a different thing.  So maybe some of them can still make it through months of little sleep, MREs, weather, hours long PT sessions, and endless miles under a heavy ruck.  Great.  Now what?  The pipeline is just the beginning.
> 
> Your last line sounds great, but the fact is that the rank and file can't do anything about politicians and senior officers changing standards.


Says you! We are doing exactly the bolded (down to omega wave monitoring and sleep/nutrition adjustment in real time thanks to wearables) for our pipeline students. And we just got our wearables here at the SQ too... thanks to our staff of physical therapists 

As far as the rank and file not having control? I think it's probably more perspective than anything else, but I disagree. Working for AETC has only shown me exactly how much freedom I have in what other people call a "restrictive" environment. Easiest way to fuck the system up is from the inside.


----------



## CDG (Feb 23, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> Says you! We are doing exactly the bolded (down to omega wave monitoring and sleep/nutrition adjustment in real time thanks to wearables) for our pipeline students. And we just got our wearables here at the SQ too... thanks to our staff of physical therapists
> 
> As far as the rank and file not having control? I think it's probably more perspective than anything else, but I disagree. Working for AETC has only shown me exactly how much freedom I have in what other people call a "restrictive" environment. Easiest way to fuck the system up is from the inside.



Maybe at Kirtland you are.  Are they doing that at Indoc, where the major attrition occurs?


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 23, 2018)

CDG said:


> Maybe at Kirtland you are.  Are they doing that at Indoc, where the major attrition occurs?


BA Prep fully operational, Indoc next (should be fully equipped less than a year) and that should bleed over to all the BA COIE's (Courses Of Initial Entry).


----------



## CDG (Feb 23, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> BA Prep fully operational, Indoc next (should be fully equipped less than a year) and that should bleed over to all the BA COIE's (Courses Of Initial Entry).



And then what's the rollout like?  I assume all those variables I mentioned are still pipeline factors, i.e. sleep deprivation, MREs, etc.  There may be more options for recovery in your (limited) off time, but it's still vastly different form the regimen a professional athlete is under.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 23, 2018)

CDG said:


> And then what's the rollout like?  I assume all those variables I mentioned are still pipeline factors, i.e. sleep deprivation, MREs, etc.  There may be more options for recovery in your (limited) off time, but it's still vastly different form the regimen a professional athlete is under.


Yeah of course I agree with that. The thought on the rollout is- recruit and develop the right candidate. Push candidate to the absolute limit and do do with verified data backing up the process. 

Continue that monitoring and data collection through the life cycle of the operator in order to maximize longevity and durability across the BA enterprise. 

Now, sure, that’s different than a pro athlete for sure, but it’s lightnyears ahead of where we’ve been. 

I think all that applies to women in SOF because just like the men, we are going to be able to properly identify and develop a candidate that may be a great operator but is just on that precipice for one reason or another.


----------



## Hillclimb (Feb 25, 2018)

@Ooh-Rah sorry. OCONUS and have had bad reach back with what's going on.

I know the candidate was dropped prior to phase 2/the last 3 weeks. My opinions were going to be based on if she got pushed through. But they're keeping the process strict and clean over here.

To add to something beyond the pipeline and workup life, what about international relations? (its probably been covered, I haven't been keeping up).

When we're talking about the culture in some of these places, the middle east specifically, how do they think a woman walking up to a arab coalition partner/leadership is gonna turn out? Or to lead training for them? Saudi, Iraqi, Jordan, Lebanon, etc, and a female SOF member walks up says.. "Hi, I'm the Team Leader, let's discuss xyz" or "Hi, I'm the 18E, I need to talk with you about doing xyz or see if we can coordinate logistical support?"

My experiences are that they're too proud, and get offended if you try and "teach/train" them. They'd rather train with you, as they see themselves equally capable as us.. Can you imagine throwing in a woman teammate for them to be "peers" with?

Just a discussion we've been having recently over here.


----------



## Andoni (Feb 26, 2018)

Hillclimb said:


> When we're talking about the culture in some of these places, the middle east specifically, how do they think a woman walking up to a arab coalition partner/leadership is gonna turn out?



I asked this! I was told, "if is successful it's shit hot planning, and if it's not, you get a letter that says "This is your job. Do it better."

If this was a rhetorical question, I missed it, I apologize and I'll be quiet after I say this next part.

Men in the Middle East may not like females, but they don't like children or disabled people either.  They don't like anyone, so if the female is great, being female will be a non-issue. If she's not great, she won't be there. The right operator facilitates mediation in diversity and accomplishes the objective 100% of the time. Any gender operator can get along with Arab partners/leaders if that's the task.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 26, 2018)

Andoni said:


> I asked this! I was told, "if is successful it's shit hot planning, and if it's not, you get a letter that says "This is your job. Do it better."
> 
> If this was a rhetorical question, I missed it, I apologize and I'll be quiet after I say this next part.
> 
> Men in the Middle East may not like females, but they don't like children or disabled people either.  They don't like anyone, so if the female is great, being female will be a non-issue. If she's not great, she won't be there. The right operator facilitates mediation in diversity and accomplishes the objective 100% of the time. Any gender operator can get along with Arab partners/leaders if that's the task.


Disagree. 

No real discussion needed, that’s just 180 out from my personal experience.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 26, 2018)

How about "Fuck Arabs" as a general rule and we'll be ok?


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 26, 2018)

There is indeed stuff happening outside of the Middle East and northern Africa.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 26, 2018)

Today in class one of my students told me that in floor hockey, women earn two points for a goal and the men only one.

I was a bit skeptical that in 2018 we'd still have rules like this but I looked it up when I got home and it appears he was right.  A goal scored by a woman is literally worth twice one scored by a man, simply because of her gender.

https://www.ohio.edu/recreation/intramural/upload/floorhockeyrules1213.pdf

You know who was the most dismissive of the necessity and value of this rule?  The women in my class.  It's ridiculous special treatment like this that makes it hard for the sexes to be truly "equal."  Too many times, especially in mandatory co-ed events in the military, I've seen it come down to who has the best female on the team, not who has the best team.
Make the rules, and let the best people compete.


----------



## Topkick (Feb 26, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> in floor hockey, women earn two points for a goal and the men only one.



And this a sport in which women have excelled.


----------



## Loki (Feb 26, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> There's a female at Regiment now, and apparently while tabless, she's doing just fine.
> 
> There are women that can meet the standard and pound for pound do the job. They are few and far between, and no amount of command pressure is going to change the fact that those that not only could, but want to try, to meet the standards inherent for 11B or beyond, are going to be unicorns.



These are the rare exception not the rule. The problem is the standards are different, selection physically is different, relative to standards.  I know a woman who is an amazing SWAT team member, she can do more pull ups then most of the men, run as fast or faster, can fireman carry a full equipped officer on her back, and do everything in exceptional performance levels. She was in fact a honor graduate at her academy. We had kids that were veterans, representing every branch, occupational field and service in that course. She is utterly amazing, beatiful BTW and not homosexual... Our standards for the state of California are gender neutral, men and women have no distinctions. The shooting standards, PT, obstacle course time and all requirements are exactly the same.  She is the only female certified team member out of 450 personnel...period. We have had dozens upon dozens try out and fail miserably. Typical they fail the firearms and obstacle course timed run. Or their body begins to break down during training rendering them useless within 4 days. If they make through our phase 1 course, they fail phase 2. These are two, two week courses, and they must qualify as a prospective team member for 12 months prior to being sent to the courses. The problem is the Federal government and DOD in general won't take this approach. The goal is females in the Infantry, not the best most qualified person. Then there's the matter of biological issues and unit readiness and special considerations.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 27, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> ...Women's goals count for 2...


So a lifetime ago, when my wife and I first met, we played on a co-ed soccer team in the DC area that had the same rule. 

The wife was incredulous; considering she was a Div 1 captain of the Big South Conference Champion team she played for, she felt just fine playing against intramural level dudes. 

What did she do? She would goal out about every game (girls could only score 3 times or something) and then go back to playing more defensive mid than offensive. There were times when, just before she ripped the crap out of the ball at some out of shape 40 year old goalie,  she would actually say, "Worth 2! Way to go, assholes." She also recruited a Harvard grad and one of her college club friends and we would win some games by 8 or 9 points. In soccer. 

Dubs are dubs, moral of the story.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 6, 2018)

I dislike the tone of this article. Essentially it says, “your standards are so unreasonable that not enough women are even bothering to try out...”

Talk like that always gets me nervous.

Where are the female Marines?

A total of 92 women are operating in a multitude of combat billets across the Corps, from rifleman to armored reconnaissance to combat engineers.

Yet only 11 enlisted women are serving today in the traditional “03” infantry career fields, Marine Corps officials said. No women have even attempted the Basic Reconnaissance Course or Amphibious Reconnaissance Course, and there are no female snipers.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 6, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> So a lifetime ago, when my wife and I first met, we played on a co-ed soccer team in the DC area that had the same rule.
> 
> The wife was incredulous; considering she was a Div 1 captain of the Big South Conference Champion team she played for, she felt just fine playing against intramural level dudes.
> 
> ...



In the early 90s I dated (well, went out with for a couple dates) a member of the UNC-CH women's soccer team.  They were pretty good (won like a billion national championships if felt like).  She and some of her teammates would often meet to just kick the ball around at a local park, and sometimes some Latinos would play them a quick game or two.  Championship for-reals pro-level soccer.  Amazing to watch.  

Back to the thread.....


----------



## Gunz (Mar 6, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> So a lifetime ago, when my wife and I first met, we played on a co-ed soccer team in the DC area that had the same rule.
> 
> The wife was incredulous; considering she was a Div 1 captain of the Big South Conference Champion team she played for, she felt just fine playing against intramural level dudes.
> 
> ...


----------



## policemedic (Mar 6, 2018)

Loki said:


> These are the rare exception not the rule. The problem is the standards are different, selection physically is different, relative to standards.  I know a woman who is an amazing SWAT team member, she can do more pull ups then most of the men, run as fast or faster, can fireman carry a full equipped officer on her back, and do everything in exceptional performance levels. She was in fact a honor graduate at her academy. We had kids that were veterans, representing every branch, occupational field and service in that course. She is utterly amazing, beatiful BTW and not homosexual... Our standards for the state of California are gender neutral, men and women have no distinctions. The shooting standards, PT, obstacle course time and all requirements are exactly the same.  She is the only female certified team member out of 450 personnel...period. We have had dozens upon dozens try out and fail miserably. Typical they fail the firearms and obstacle course timed run. Or their body begins to break down during training rendering them useless within 4 days. If they make through our phase 1 course, they fail phase 2. These are two, two week courses, and they must qualify as a prospective team member for 12 months prior to being sent to the courses. The problem is the Federal government and DOD in general won't take this approach. The goal is females in the Infantry, not the best most qualified person. Then there's the matter of biological issues and unit readiness and special considerations.



So, women fail your course predominantly based on their shooting skills and the O course.  I understand the physical demands of the O course but what does shooting have to do with sex?


----------



## BloodStripe (Mar 6, 2018)

Let alone one of your AF buddies 😁


----------



## medicchick (Mar 6, 2018)

policemedic said:


> So, women fail your course predominantly based on their shooting skills and the O course.  I understand the physical demands of the O course but what does shooting have to do with sex?


I sometimes have a problem with getting a rifle in the correct position quickly due to my chest.  Granted less endowed woman may not have the same problem but it does exist.  They may also be limp wristing pistols and throwing their shot group off.  I had one female drop my HK USP .45c because it kicked more than she was expecting (and she got reamed because that was a wedding present).


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 6, 2018)

medicchick said:


> I sometimes have a problem with getting a rifle in the correct position quickly due to my chest.



Why don’t you send me a pic of what you are talking about, I’ll see if I can help!


----------



## BloodStripe (Mar 6, 2018)

This should be enough to share with you all.


----------



## DC (Mar 6, 2018)

What in the bloody hell is that!?!?! ^^^^The huge grit ball🧐


----------



## medicchick (Mar 6, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Why don’t you send me a pic of what you are talking about, I’ll see if I can help!


I'm sure @Ranger Psych has some pictures to share...


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 6, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Why don’t you send me a pic of what you are talking about, I’ll see if I can help!



If you don't know how to do a J turn, you'd best be youtubing that shit to learn.

This road leads towards chaos and mayhem the likes of which forensic scientists make lifetime careers of, trying to discern the order and process involved in creating the end result.

Beyond you having just asked by-the-by for a pic of the wife's chest....  

Simple answer, she's got a rack. Some buttstocks just flat out won't interface properly, allowing her to shoulder said style of buttstock/rifle properly/rapidly. It's part of why she relies more heavily on standard-style stocked rifles. She's also shorter, not like a Troll but close, to the point that even with a collapsible buttstock, some weapon systems just are out of reach for her physically. She's not military, it's not an issued system that she needs to make work... so we just get what works and she has become exceedingly competent with.  She does snapcap EJ/FP reloads and pump work with her 870 about daily for shits and grins.


----------



## BloodStripe (Mar 6, 2018)

DC said:


> What in the bloody hell is that!?!?! ^^^^The huge grit ball🧐



A giant bag of popcorn. I was waiting for @Ranger Psych to show up. 🤣


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 6, 2018)

Yeah @Ranger Psych and @medicchick I publicly apologize for that. Was not my intent to offend or cross a line.   It seemed funny at the time, stupid comment. 

- Truthfully I was not aware of the relationship until it was pointed out.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 6, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yeah @Ranger Psych and @medicchick I publicly apologize for that. Was not my intent to offend or cross a line.   It seemed funny at the time, stupid comment.
> 
> - Truthfully I was not aware of the relationship until it was pointed out.



While I'm grinning and totally just chuckling about it.... https://www.shadowspear.com/vb/members/medicchick.2890/#about

Your SA is lacking young padawan... LOL


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 6, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> Your SA is lacking young padawan... LOL


Yep. Well played Ooh-Rah, way to antagonize the guy who’s signature line says:  _The last people on the planet you should antagonize, are the ones to whom killing is a viable troubleshooting technique. _


----------



## CDG (Mar 6, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I dislike the tone of this article. Essentially it says, “your standards are so unreasonable that not enough women are even bothering to try out...”
> 
> Talk like that always gets me nervous.
> 
> ...



I read this article this morning and thought the same thing you did.  It seems small, but articles like this just continue to advance the eventuality of lowering standards under the guise of "Well, they were too hard to begin with."  Women will be allowed to meet lower standards, and by default, weaker men will make it into communities they don't belong in as well.  The price will end up being paid in the blood of better men that shouldn't have had to shoulder the extra burden of carrying a bunch of weak-ass teammates who got accepted based on a bullshit feminist agenda.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 6, 2018)

medicchick said:


> I sometimes have a problem with getting a rifle in the correct position quickly due to my chest.  Granted less endowed woman may not have the same problem but it does exist.  They may also be limp wristing pistols and throwing their shot group off.  I had one female drop my HK USP .45c because it kicked more than she was expecting (and she got reamed because that was a wedding present).



I’ll give you the snapping-in thing; I’ve seen how that can be an issue for some. I’ve never seen it so bad as to affect the officer’s ability to qualify well, though. 

The limp-wristing thing is not exclusive to women. Men do it as well. But to even get to the point where they’re attempting a SWAT qualification course they’ve already proven themselves to be competent with a pistol—and if they haven’t then the screening needs to be looked at. 

Honestly, shooting is one area where I’d expect women to be competitive with men.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 6, 2018)

Do some of the above posts mean that @medicchick gets to have a #Metoo tattoo?  o_O



PS dying laughing over here!


----------



## LibraryLady (Mar 6, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> ... Your SA is lacking young padawan... LOL




But wait.  It gets worse...



He PM'd me to apologize...



I think it was a scam to try to get me to post...

LL


----------



## AWP (Mar 6, 2018)




----------



## Chopstick (Mar 6, 2018)

I have a stupid question (and my son is not around to ask him).  I just saw a post on the Camp Pendleton FB page


> First female Marine students arrive at SOI-W
> The first female Marine students to check in to the School of Infantry – West, unload from the buses and begin their check in process on Camp Pendleton, Calif., March 6, 2018. This marks the first male-female integrated Marine Combat Training company on the West Coast



Don't all Marines do MCT after boot camp?  This is NOT ITB correct?  This is specific males and females at MCT together for the first time?

Pics here: First female Marine students arrive at SOI-W


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 6, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> I have a stupid question (and my son is not around to ask him).  I just saw a post on the Camp Pendleton FB page
> 
> 
> Don't all Marines do MCT after boot camp?  This is NOT ITB correct?  This is specific males and females at MCT together for the first time?
> ...


I remember reading about this. Part of intigrating the West Coast with female Marines do that they are not such a culture shock when the guys get into the fleet.

Female Marines enter Combat Training Battalion at Camp Pendleton for first time in history of base – Orange County Register


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 7, 2018)

I think some folks in my Marine parents group are thinking that this is the ITB but as I read it as MCT, which all female Marines do anyway?  This experiment,  oh I mean class , is just an integrated group and of course at SOI West where women formerly all went to SOI East?  The article you post @Ooh-Rah describes "modification" of housing etc to accommodate females.  So I am guessing the female Marines will have living quarters separate from the males? 
As I stated, some of the parents in the parents chat were freaking out over this.  My son graduated boot camp with 2 platoons of women.  On family day, I got a good look at those ladies.  Do. Not Mess.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 7, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Why don’t you send me a pic of what you are talking about, I’ll see if I can help!



Since It's late in the game, and the mess is behind us....  not to include Ooh-Rah's  corpse, which I would have had to help dispose of in the desert, bringing my own shovel, Moose Drool, tape measure (for depth) and visqueen duct tape and lime... I can now admit that this is one of the most hilarious suspensions of SA, EVER.  @Ooh-Rah - be glad The Large Ranger is a secure (if a bit psychotic) individual.  I will make sure he's well fed to appease him when next he rolls through the AO.  You get to figure out how to appease the Wife of Ranger....  she's good people, and a good shot.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 7, 2018)

I am just happy it wasn't me who put my foot--er, keyboard--in my mouth for once.... @Ooh-Rah is a good example, forever to be marked as "Remember that one guy who..." :)


----------



## CDG (Mar 7, 2018)

Dilly Dilly!!

USMC Says There's No Gender Double-Standard. This Photo Says Otherwise


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 7, 2018)

Good article, thanks for posting that up, @CDG


----------



## Serenity (Mar 8, 2018)

CDG said:


> Dilly Dilly!!
> 
> USMC Says There's No Gender Double-Standard. This Photo Says Otherwise



Seems like a petty and small minded article actually.  Maybe all that picture was trying to do is reinforce is a positive image of female in the military.  And that’s a good thing that needs more work on.  I’m not sure how many profession thinks it’s okay to post pictures of their female colleagues in uniform to be commented on and rated.  Hardly decent or honorable activity that presents the profession in a good light.  So they need to send more messages with a stamp of authority and lead by example.  If anything, it’s a reflection of a male dominated culture and not about women getting special treatment.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 8, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yeah @Ranger Psych and @medicchick I publicly apologize for that. Was not my intent to offend or cross a line.   It seemed funny at the time, stupid comment.
> 
> - Truthfully I was not aware of the relationship until it was pointed out.




One more misstep Marine and the Pirate Costume photo makes it's Shadowspear debut.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 8, 2018)

CDG said:


> Dilly Dilly!!
> 
> USMC Says There's No Gender Double-Standard. This Photo Says Otherwise



SGT MAJ is not amused....

Body language says it all.....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 8, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> SGT MAJ is not amused....
> 
> Body language says it all.....



LMAO!

Sgt Major is rarely amused, but you are right. He is absolutely giving the Colonel the “stink eye”.


.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 8, 2018)

CDG said:


> Dilly Dilly!!
> 
> USMC Says There's No Gender Double-Standard. This Photo Says Otherwise




The good Colonel wouldn't normally be within 15 klicks of maggoty SOI arrivals. It's all politics now and there's damn little anybody can do about it. 

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall of the Colonel's office when he got _that _directive: "You WILL greet the female SOI arrivals and shake their hands and you WILL act like you are happy about it..."


----------



## CDG (Mar 8, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> The good Colonel wouldn't normally be within 15 klicks of maggoty SOI arrivals. It's all politics now and there's damn little anybody can do about it.
> 
> I'd like to have been a fly on the wall of the Colonel's office when he got _that _directive: "You WILL greet the female SOI arrivals and shake their hands and you WILL act like you are happy about it..."



Politics indeed.  And it's a fucking shame too.  The degeneration of combat effectiveness because some people need to feel good about themselves.  Then we have the people with zero klicks on their back and feet that are all too ready to proffer asinine opinions about Girl Power.


----------



## AWP (Mar 8, 2018)

Serenity said:


> Seems like a petty and small minded article actually.  Maybe all that picture was trying to do is reinforce is a positive image of female in the military.  And that’s a good thing that needs more work on.  I’m not sure how many profession thinks it’s okay to post pictures of their female colleagues in uniform to be commented on and rated.  Hardly decent or honorable activity that presents the profession in a good light.  So they need to send more messages with a stamp of authority and lead by example.  If anything, it’s a reflection of a male dominated culture and not about women getting special treatment.



You have no idea what you are talking about, not in this context.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 8, 2018)

Serenity said:


> Seems like a petty and small minded article actually.  Maybe all that picture was trying to do is reinforce is a positive image of female in the military.  And that’s a good thing that needs more work on.  I’m not sure how many profession thinks it’s okay to post pictures of their female colleagues in uniform to be commented on and rated.  Hardly decent or honorable activity that presents the profession in a good light.  So they need to send more messages with a stamp of authority and lead by example.  If anything, it’s a reflection of a male dominated culture and not about women getting special treatment.


The Colonel never shook my hand until I graduated VMI, I didn't know who the Brigade Commander even was until half way through OBC...they have better stuff to do than shake hands of privates getting off a bus.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 8, 2018)

Serenity said:


> Seems like a petty and small minded article actually.  Maybe all that picture was trying to do is reinforce is a positive image of female in the military.  And that’s a good thing that needs more work on.  I’m not sure how many profession thinks it’s okay to post pictures of their female colleagues in uniform to be commented on and rated.  Hardly decent or honorable activity that presents the profession in a good light.  So they need to send more messages with a stamp of authority and lead by example.  If anything, it’s a reflection of a male dominated culture and not about women getting special treatment.



I’m sorry, but you just don’t understand the issues here.  This may be one of those things that people who haven’t served just won’t get.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 8, 2018)

Guys -

Let's stop the dog-pile here please. I'm not deleting any posts because sometimes the message needs to be reenforced, but I think the point has been made.  @Serenity , I hope you understand it.  DO NOT reply in this thread that you do or do not...just go about your business.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 8, 2018)

Yeah, political bullshit.

Day 1 of 11B OSUT, we met the BN commander and his boss too. Met as in the entire company in the auditorium/classroom got briefed on commander's intent, expectations, then the party began.  That was the only time we ever saw either of them other than in absolute passing.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 9, 2018)

Has anybody seen anything about quotas for female combat arms integration? I know a few years back a lady Cal. democrat was demanding 20%...plus new lighter designs and manufacture of personal protective gear like plate carriers etc specifically for women?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 9, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Has anybody seen anything about quotas for female combat arms integration? I know a few years back a lady Cal. democrat was demanding 20%...plus new lighter designs and manufacture of personal protective gear like plate carriers etc specifically for women?



The last I read, The Corps does not have a quota (published anyway) but the Commandant has said the he wants the female population of USMC to be minimum 10%. 

I would have guessed it was Well over that number already.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 9, 2018)

I'm not confident of the source, but this site says it's 6.8% in the Corps.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 9, 2018)

It's one thing to open the field.  It another entirely to find women who want to do it.  I think the DOD expected a shitload of GI Janes to put in packages for combat MOSs and ooh-rah schools, but I think most women are pretty self-aware about what they can/can't do, and what they want out of their career.


----------



## Serenity (Mar 9, 2018)

AWP said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about, not in this context.


That’s your opinion.  Maybe it’s you who don’t know what you’re talking about because this conversation affects young women who are trying to gain entry in a male dominated profession.  Were you that girl once?  Do you know how it feels to be a young woman facing a career choice that might be hostile to their gender?  I hear only one side and it’s the same story.  I’m still waiting for stronger female military voices to make some sense of this thread.  Unless, you’re a woman and many of the voices complaining the loudest are women too?   This is mostly an echo chamber and the sentiments expressed is not a positive one for men in the military in general.  While I get the concerns, I find myself less and less sympathetic.   The lack of feminine voices in this profession disturbs me. 

Take that however you wish or ignore - it’s just an opinion.



ThunderHorse said:


> The Colonel never shook my hand until I graduated VMI, I didn't know who the Brigade Commander even was until half way through OBC...they have better stuff to do than shake hands of privates getting off a bus.


So you would know this is not reality and just a marketing campaign? You’re not threatened right?  Because it’s so posed to me and as I said, highlights a bigger issue.  I seriously doubt the system will collapse from that one handshake, and that suddenly all the young women will be demanding special privileges and one-on-one time with senior officials.  But I appreciate that you shared.


policemedic said:


> I’m sorry, but you just don’t understand the issues here.  This may be one of those things that people who haven’t served just won’t get.


I don’t think so.  I’ve been reading this thread with interest for while and the opinions are unconvincing.  All I’m really reading is an unwillingness to adapt to change.  My understanding is that if the military is serious about integrating women, they need to accommodate for the differences.   But when they do, people complain. 

I doubt the combat arms will ever attract many able-bodied women or the kind of women with the will to succeed.  Women like that would have a lot of self-worth and have better options.  I cannot imagine these kind of women subjecting themselves to the kind of resentment I read in these kinds of threads.  They have better things to do.

For the record, I’ve been looking into my own backyard more as it’s a way to compare.  I like the stuff I’m seeing on our end; I think the ADF is making a genuine effort to integrate women.   We’re not a big population, and beyond politics, it would be pragmatic and sensible not to make women feel excluded.  If they need a little more encouragement to apply and a little more guidance to reach standards, then so what?  At least they’re willing to sign up and stand for something.  They should be respected.  There’s no need to make people feel unwelcomed when you need more people.


----------



## DC (Mar 9, 2018)

Serenity said:


> That’s your opinion.  Maybe it’s you who don’t know what you’re talking about because this conversation affects young women who are trying to gain entry in a male dominated profession.  Were you that girl once?  Do you know how it feels to be a young woman facing a career choice that might be hostile to their gender?  I hear only one side and it’s the same story.  I’m still waiting for stronger female military voices to make some sense of this thread.  Unless, you’re a woman and many of the voices complaining the loudest are women too?   This is mostly an echo chamber and the sentiments expressed is not a positive one for men in the military in general.  While I get the concerns, I find myself less and less sympathetic.   The lack of feminine voices in this profession disturbs me.
> 
> Take that however you wish or ignore - it’s just an opinion.
> 
> ...



Change? See that’s the issue Serenity. You do the same vetting and same requirements as we here have then you can be accepted. That’s the issue. No change jus same quals to do the same job. Easy Peasy right? The bar gets lowered and that we’re the animosity begins. It’s not the trainees fault but upper management. They doom you all from the start. I honestly think it may be intentional. I would serve with ANYONE who can qualify the same way I did period.


----------



## medicchick (Mar 10, 2018)

Serenity said:


> That’s your opinion.  Maybe it’s you who don’t know what you’re talking about because this conversation affects young women who are trying to gain entry in a male dominated profession.  Were you that girl once?  Do you know how it feels to be a young woman facing a career choice that might be hostile to their gender?  I hear only one side and it’s the same story.  I’m still waiting for stronger female military voices to make some sense of this thread.  Unless, you’re a woman and many of the voices complaining the loudest are women too?   This is mostly an echo chamber and the sentiments expressed is not a positive one for men in the military in general.  While I get the concerns, I find myself less and less sympathetic.   The lack of feminine voices in this profession disturbs me.
> 
> Take that however you wish or ignore - it’s just an opinion.
> 
> ...




You are missing the entire point of the article.  Females are supposed to be treated EXACTLY the same as males, yet there is photo proof that she was not.  The article was written by a male who was a student and instructor so he knows how it is supposed to be.  You seem to twist everything (even a simple statement) into something that is 180 from the intent.  Some (ok a lot) of your posts are actually hard to follow with how much they twist what the actual conversation that is going on to fit your being offended at something unrelated


----------



## Centermass (Mar 10, 2018)

Serenity said:


> That’s your opinion.  Maybe it’s you who don’t know what you’re talking about because this conversation affects young women who are trying to gain entry in a male dominated profession.  Were you that girl once?  Do you know how it feels to be a young woman facing a career choice that might be hostile to their gender?  I hear only one side and it’s the same story.  I’m still waiting for stronger female military voices to make some sense of this thread.  Unless, you’re a woman and many of the voices complaining the loudest are women too?   This is mostly an echo chamber and the sentiments expressed is not a positive one for men in the military in general.  While I get the concerns, I find myself less and less sympathetic.   The lack of feminine voices in this profession disturbs me.
> 
> Take that however you wish or ignore - it’s just an opinion.












Serenity said:


> So you would know this is not reality and just a marketing campaign? You’re not threatened right?  Because it’s so posed to me and as I said, highlights a bigger issue.  I seriously doubt the system will collapse from that one handshake, and that suddenly all the young women will be demanding special privileges and one-on-one time with senior officials.  But I appreciate that you shared.



No, but it sure as hell is indicative of the overall tone of appeasement rather than business as it should be. 



Serenity said:


> I don’t think so.  I’ve been reading this thread with interest for while and the opinions are unconvincing.  All I’m really reading is an unwillingness to adapt to change.  My understanding is that if the military is serious about integrating women, they need to accommodate for the differences.   But when they do, people complain.



Accommodate? You just answered your own complaint about others "complaining." The better choice of wording would have been "Concerns."  

I've bit my tongue reading some of your other posts, but I've got to tell you that this passive aggressive tone you continue to exhibit is really wearing out its welcome.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 10, 2018)

Serenity said:


> Whole Post



Not sure my opinion carries any weight, what with my XX chromosome pair, asshole swagger, four deployments, and a CAB that was actually earned outside the wire [/sarc], but I’ll weigh in once I get home. I will say this: the posts I’ve made previously in this exact thread have come from first hand experience and careful observation. Read them. Ponder them, as opposed to react to them, and I’ll certainly address this in a few hours.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 10, 2018)

My responses are in red.  Mod hat off, SOF/Infantry Hat on.



Serenity said:


> I don’t think so. I’ve been reading this thread with interest for while and the opinions are unconvincing. How is this thread unconvincing? Specifics, please. All I’m really reading is an unwillingness to adapt to change. What you are reading is an unwillingness to change standards to meet the demands of those unwilling to meet those standards.   My understanding is that if the military is serious about integrating women, they need to accommodate for the differences.  The integration of women into the military is working just fine for non-combat positions, the push back you are reading is from COMBAT ARMS/SPECIAL OPERATIONS soldiers and veterans decrying the drop in standards that will, not may, absolutely will get people killed - male and female.  A woman who meets the standards, and can maintain them, daily, for extended timeframes is another soldier deserving of the job, have at it. A woman who can't hump the 150Lb tick for 20km a day and perform the job required at the end, same as a guy who can't, GTFOD. There are some small accommodations that can be made without jeopardizing the mission and people, very few, very small - thus the stringent standards for the 1% of the 1% in SOF, and the 10% of 1% in Combat Arms in general.  Homogeneity of standard keeps people alive.  Look at a Combat Arms or SOF veteran, the limps, the aches, the inability to make certain moves - because of the demands of the job - for the love of the job - for the Team, every school we attend, every training mission, every real mission requires us to love the job, rely on our Team and know each person is capable in every situation, always, no matter what.  Accommodation breeds doubt, doubt breeds fear, fear breeds panic, panic brings death.  Does this fucking open your eyes to the rest of the thread? Because if you really read what's here, that's what's being said, instead you start your seriously annoying argumentative whining, when we've basically all said, go for it, if they can continuously meet and exceed the current standards - if not, no fucking way.   But when they do, people complain. Fuck yeah, you'd complain too if your life was the one on the line.
> 
> I doubt the combat arms will ever attract many able-bodied women or the kind of women with the will to succeed. Horseshit, only women with the will to succeed would even attempt it, that's part of the selection. Women like that would have a lot of self-worth and have better options. It's not about options, it's about a solid choice, you'll never understand in 100 lifetimes.I cannot imagine these kind of women subjecting themselves to the kind of resentment I read in these kinds of threads.  Those women would not be resented, rather respected, accepted and become teammates. They have better things to do. There is nothing better than being a member of a highly skilled, highly trained, cohesive team that can and will accomplish anything, or die trying, as a team.  This is a mindset that will forever be alien to you.  Argue all you desire, you will not convince me/us otherwise.
> 
> For the record, I’ve been looking into my own backyard more as it’s a way to compare. I like the stuff I’m seeing on our end; I think the ADF is making a genuine effort to integrate women. We’re not a big population, and beyond politics, it would be pragmatic and sensible not to make women feel excluded. If they need a little more encouragement to apply and a little more guidance to reach standards, then so what? At least they’re willing to sign up and stand for something. They should be respected. There’s no need to make people feel unwelcomed when you need more people.  I have no words for this last debacle of rhetoric you used as your close...



I so await the response from my little sister in arms...  You may want to close your eyes Ms. Seerenity, I do believe the Kitteh is gonna harsh your mellow....


----------



## DC (Mar 10, 2018)

x SF med said:


> My responses are in red.  Mod hat off, SOF/Infantry Hat on.


Best response ever.


----------



## Serenity (Mar 10, 2018)

DC said:


> Change? See that’s the issue Serenity. You do the same vetting and same requirements as we here have then you can be accepted. That’s the issue. No change jus same quals to do the same job. Easy Peasy right? The bar gets lowered and that we’re the animosity begins. It’s not the trainees fault but upper management. They doom you all from the start. I honestly think it may be intentional. I would serve with ANYONE who can qualify the same way I did period.


I get your where argument comes from but I don’t agree.  People have different strengths and weaknesses, and recognition of that is important to create a healthy dynamic with a broad range of skills.  Sure, there’s a base line of fitness required, we can’t have people huffing and puffing and out of breath in the battlefield.  But are these standards actually practical or just a rite of passage? From what I’ve read on this site and else where, it’s comes across like a lot of the training in the military causes injuries.  How does that make sense?  Why the heck is the female failure rate so high?  That doesn’t even make sense to me.  Anyone with the right motivation and maturity would know the standards and prepare accordingly.  It’s either standards are unreasonable or you’re attracting the wrong types.  I suspect it’s a combination of both. 

Animosity happens because people are threatened by change and differences, rather than just adapt.  That article just fuels that mentality - “Oh look, see?! See?! Double standards!”  I assume like anywhere, there’s a job description.  So as long as the person next to you does her job to spec, do you really care how she got to stand next to you?  That she went through your exact initiation?  As I said, there’s a need for more people.  It might be better to try to embrace those that actually want to be there and better guide them on their journey.  

I just hear a lot of men complaining, and no disrespect to you @medicchick, but I’m not sure you’re getting the point either, if your contribution amounted to you discussing your endowments.  Because, let’s be honest, why would you or I be relevant to those women who do wish to be infantry?  I’m not twisting anything, I am just stating a POV when I read this as a female civilian.  You don’t have to like it either.  While I may not be military, I’m in a male dominated career.  I see a lot of parallels in the subconscious gender biases.  I ignore, adapt or move on.  I have a job to do that I enjoy.  I’ve never whined as much as the kind of whining I read here.


----------



## AWP (Mar 10, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @Serenity , I hope you understand it.  DO NOT reply in this thread that you do or do not...just go about your business.





Serenity said:


> post



Failure to follow simple instructions. Points assessed and a 14 day thread ban.

---

Anyone else feel like ignoring a staff member?


----------



## DC (Mar 10, 2018)

Your whole post is actually foreign to me. You do it or quit. This isn’t corporate world it’s life and death. Standards are developed for you and your team to survive. Strange you don’t see that. Maybe the lens your seeing this needs cleaning or a magnification change. I’m not being a smartass(rare) but you seem to add to this discussion for an alternative idea. What are you looking for?


----------



## medicchick (Mar 10, 2018)

Serenity said:


> I just hear a lot of men complaining, and no disrespect to you @medicchick, but I’m not sure you’re getting the point either, if your contribution amounted to you discussing your endowments.  Because, let’s be honest, why would you or I be relevant to those women who do wish to be infantry?  I’m not twisting anything, I am just stating a POV when I read this as a female civilian.  You don’t have to like it either.  While I may not be military, I’m in a male dominated career.  I see a lot of parallels in the subconscious gender biases.  I ignore, adapt or move on.  I have a job to do that I enjoy.  I’ve never whined as much as the kind of whining I read here.



Wow, you have no fucking clue what that conversation was even about then.  How do you know what I wanted when I was looking to enlist?  How do you know anything about me?  You work in a male dominated career?  Great, so did I , several times.  Aircraft don't care what plumbing you have when they need to be serviced.  The person dying doesn't care either.  Don't try to pretend you know anything about my past or what I have to offer.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 10, 2018)

Serenity said:


> I get your where argument comes from but I don’t agree.  People have different strengths and weaknesses, and recognition of that is important to create a healthy dynamic with a broad range of skills.  Sure, there’s a base line of fitness required, we can’t have people huffing and puffing and out of breath in the battlefield.  But are these standards actually practical or just a rite of passage? From what I’ve read on this site and else where, it’s comes across like a lot of the training in the military causes injuries.  How does that make sense?



The baseline of fitness is a requirement in order to ensure that everyone in the unit is able to perform to a specific capacity. If you can't run that 5 mile in the time required, if you don't have the physical strength to be able to lift the weights as much as necessary, then you're going to hit the wall when everyone else isn't... and then the entire unit has to slow down because we don't leave people behind. That means that we now no longer make our hit time on an objective, and the bad guy gets away. Or the hostages get killed. Or the chemical weapons get fired off instead of destroyed on the ground.

Training causes direct injuries, and wear injuries. 

Direct injuries happen due to accidents or specific training events that are necessary, but high risk. An example is Military Airdrop operations. Parachuting is a high impact event with forces that decades of science and technology have not been able to mitigate to a significant extent... The only method that has proven to have the highest rate of injury reduction is ensuring a high level of fitness specifically because tendons and ligaments that can support specific standards have a higher incidence rate of being able to SUSTAIN those forces generated by the events.

Wear injuries will happen, and it's an accepted fact of the job. They happen to everyone over their lifetime, there's no way around the fact that someone who is more active than 90% of the average population is going to have accelerated physical wear on their musculoskeletal system.  

There is no way around the fact that a machine gun weighs over 24 pounds.
There is no way around the fact that a machine gun team needs over 2000 rounds of ammunition to be BARELY capable of doing their job, at 7 pounds per hundred rounds. 
There is no way around the fact that a recoilless rifle weighs what it weighs. 
There is no way around the minimum equipment you have to carry just as a human being let alone Soldier, Marine, or Combat Airman. 
MRE's weigh. 
Water weighs. 
The armor weighs. 

All of this you have to WEAR to TRAIN in order to ensure that you can actually FUNCTION with the equipment and be efficient, not leaving a yardsale when you move from position to position, and that you can run when you need to and crawl when you need to.  You HAVE to train to not only build up to DO the mission, but you have to PROVE that you can do the mission repeatedly, year after year, as people come and go and every unit in the army regardless of SOF or not, has to DO THEIR JOB in a simulated combat environment and be assessed as a functional unit. 

There are no assumptions of capacity, only demonstrations of capacity. This is why assessments for all SOF units have components with full equipment roadmarches and the like. You need to PROVE that you can do what you market you can do. Expecting otherwise is like sending a spec sheet out to a contractor then never doing any Quality Assurance, Destructive/Nondestructive testing, and assessing performance/compliance on the product you receive.



Serenity said:


> Why the heck is the female failure rate so high?  That doesn’t even make sense to me.  Anyone with the right motivation and maturity would know the standards and prepare accordingly.  It’s either standards are unreasonable or you’re attracting the wrong types.  I suspect it’s a combination of both.



The female failure rate is so high specifically because the average female is physiologically less capable than a male with a 20% average reduction being a generously low number. Male VO2 Max is 40% greater, max heart rate capacity is 20% greater, lung capacity and heart capacity is greater. Males are around 10% taller than females. 

This means that an average male is going to be out the gate, just as a genetic sexed human, more capable than a female. Where the female can jump to reach the wall and hang, the male can jump and have additional momentum due to reach to actually pull up less. Then the male has more inherent muscle mass to be able to pull themselves up the wall. Then they have the additional endurance to do it in repetition longer than the female will.  These physiological differences mean that a genetic female is already behind the power curve versus the AVERAGE man... and guess what sugar, SOF isn't looking for average. 

Look at it this way. Selection courses graduate for training and placement around the top 10% of each class, thereabouts. 36 graduates in a class of 240. Some may have passed solely on physical capabilities, but assessments aren't solely for physical capabilities. You can leave at any time, people QUIT. They just decide that the effort isn't worth it and go down the road. 

Taking Drop-On-Request out of the equation, even though it's part of the numbers, if females physically perform 20% WORSE than males, that means a female who even wants to have a CHANCE of passing will need to perform well over 20% better than the average to even just make it into the failure stack, let alone if they want to graduate. 




Serenity said:


> Animosity happens because people are threatened by change and differences, rather than just adapt.  That article just fuels that mentality - “Oh look, see?! See?! Double standards!”  I assume like anywhere, there’s a job description.  So as long as the person next to you does her job to spec, do you really care how she got to stand next to you?  That she went through your exact initiation?  As I said, there’s a need for more people.  It might be better to try to embrace those that actually want to be there and better guide them on their journey.



Your only option for adaptation is reduction of standards. This is unacceptable, as the cohesive units that operate now do so with specific capabilities, timeframes, equipment and support requirements. This isn't about embracing those that want to try, just because they tried. This is about being able to function as the sharp end of the sword when the pen fails. You want these units to adapt and take on people just because they want to be there... well, the problem with just taking on people that want to be there versus prove their capability to be there is very simple.

Mission: Take out an enemy camp
Situation: Enemy compliment at camp. Enemy complement of reinforcements tripling the size of enemy personnel on the objective in 1 hour.

Right now, units can get in, do the job, and get out without encountering the reinforcements. Your "Adaptation" ie reduction of standards in order to increase gender ratios synthetically with no regard for performance, means now that entire unit is still ON the objective getting slaughtered because they couldn't get out in time. This is the reality of "adaptation" versus "upholding the standard"



Serenity said:


> I just hear a lot of men complaining, and no disrespect to you @medicchick, but I’m not sure you’re getting the point either, if your contribution amounted to you discussing your endowments.  Because, let’s be honest, why would you or I be relevant to those women who do wish to be infantry?  I’m not twisting anything, I am just stating a POV when I read this as a female civilian.  You don’t have to like it either.  While I may not be military, I’m in a male dominated career.  I see a lot of parallels in the subconscious gender biases.  I ignore, adapt or move on.  I have a job to do that I enjoy.  I’ve never whined as much as the kind of whining I read here.



@medicchick has put on my very rucksack that I carried for weeks on end AS an infantryman.  She knows exactly how heavy my most basic individually carried load was. She's got more dog in the fight than you ever will, as you've got a civilian job that you enjoy and don't have anything other than opinionated platitudes to share, based solely on trying to parallel civilian work experience with the military. Guess what: The infantry has no civilian parallel. There's no call for a highly refined capacity of our specific skillset in the "outside world" and you should be thankful for that.  What this bluntly means is that you have nothing to form any true basis for what you consider a parallel. 

The standards ARE practical. The MEN that couldn't meet the standards and subsequently forced to leave the Ranger Regiment were absolutely a detriment to the team.  I have personally specifically seen where those that couldn't meet the standards EVEN WITH THE SLIGHTLY REDUCED SUPPORT STANDARDS were a huge problem. Having to drag along someone who's unable to perform to the standard, slowing down the entire element, drags the entire element's overall performance and capability down.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 10, 2018)

Serenity said:


> While I may not be military, I’m in a male dominated career.  I see a lot of parallels in the subconscious gender biases.  I ignore, adapt or move on.  I have a job to do that I enjoy.  I’ve never whined as much as the kind of whining I read here.



I am just explaining my dislike.  "While I may not be military".  THAT. RIGHT. THERE.  SPEAKS. VOLUMES.
I am not military.  I want to make that clear.  I come from a military family.    My son was an 0311. 2 tours in Sangin.  I know what he and his comrades experienced there.   Sangin et. al.  is no place for participation trophies and social experimentation.  That being said, I repeat I am not military.  There are amazing men and women on this site with mountains of real life training and experiences, wisdom they have gained, in many cases with real blood, sweat and yes, tears.  They have given a large portion of their lives in  service to their respective countries. They are here to support each other and form a community that fosters the next generations of like minded people.  PEOPLE.  I didnt say men, I said people. I have been welcomed into "their" house and I appreciate the advice and real friendships I have gained over the years.  I take offense at your comment about whining.  These people are not whiners by any stretch of the imagination.  @Serenity you have made your point over and over that women should, by virtue of gender  be pushed to the head of the military class and coddled.  Ok.  That is your position.  Being insulting and petulant to the owners of this house is inexcusable, however. If you would stop and read and know the people here the way I do, the sacrifices made not just by these individuals but their families  in service of their country you would understand how you embarrass yourself.  Please stop.  You could have a great experience here if you want to.  

Mods please moderate if need be.  I just had to say my piece.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 10, 2018)

*- Mod Request - *

If you snooze you lose -

Serenity is on a full forum timeout; no need to take this any further.  

Back on track for the actual topic of this thread.


----------



## Etype (Mar 10, 2018)

policemedic said:


> ... what does shooting have to do with sex?


I don't know the clinical reason, but anecdotal information in the form of USPSA stage times shows they aren't as good.


policemedic said:


> Honestly, shooting is one area where I’d expect women to be competitive with men.


Have you seen this in any instance? In my experience this is one are where they have been quite lacking.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 10, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> The good Colonel wouldn't normally be within 15 klicks of maggoty SOI arrivals. It's all politics now and there's damn little anybody can do about it.
> 
> I'd like to have been a fly on the wall of the Colonel's office when he got _that _directive: "You WILL greet the female SOI arrivals and shake their hands and you WILL act like you are happy about it..."



The more I think of this the more I wonder, did the WM's at least salute the Colonel?  To me it would have been a much more powerful picture if it was a photo of the Colonel welcoming the young Marines to SOI (or was it just MCT?) and them saluting each other.  I'm picturing the Sgt. Major thinking how has it come to this.  A PFC greeted by the Colonel as if they were drinking buddies who have not seen each other for years.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 10, 2018)

Serenity said:


> Shit Post



*- Mod edit -*

Pretty sure we asked the dog-pile to stop.  At a minimum, at least take the time to write out something relevant to the conversation instead of just insulting the member you disagree with.  There are some well written posts in response to Serenity.  This is not one of them.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 10, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> You don't know what you're talking about.  When it comes to Women, I've already seen the studs that can make it.  They don't get resented, they don't ask for special treatment, they just put their ruck on the Bradley and they go.  They can dish better insults than the men they serve with and lead.  They don't demand showers every 3 days (that's not even a reg, here's your jerry can of water, bath yourself when we pull into the PB).
> 
> People who can hack don't get chewed up.  People who can't do, that goes for whatever is between your legs.



@ThunderHorse

Did you not just see a user receive a 14 day break from this thread for failure to follow direction?
Did you not see my request just 2 posts above yours, highlighted in *Red* that asks members to stop the dog pile?
Are you not aware that quoting someone and putting "shit post" in their post will be a no-go?

I am getting tired of thread banning you and then having you come right back and doing the same thing all over again.

*Take a 7 day break from this thread and a 7 day timeout from the forum as a whole.*


----------



## policemedic (Mar 10, 2018)

Etype said:


> I don't know the clinical reason, but anecdotal information in the form of USPSA stage times shows they aren't as good.
> 
> Have you seen this in any instance? In my experience this is one are where they have been quite lacking.



I’m going to have to look at the USPSA data before I can comment intelligently, but you bring up an interesting point. 

This is anecdotal as well, but I have seen women outshoot men with roughly the same levels of experience.  At least one of them was a SWAT officer, and she had more shootings to her credit than others on her team.  

I do remember some science behind this, but I want to find the citation(s) before I discusss it.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 10, 2018)

policemedic said:


> I’m going to have to look at the USPSA data before I can comment intelligently...


Interested to see what you turn up.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 10, 2018)

Serenity said:


> ... if the military is serious about integrating women, they need to accommodate for the differences...



"Accommodating" means making it easier, Serenity. There is nothing easy about combat. There's a reason training for combat is tough. It's so you have a chance of surviving. It's so you can do your job and kill the enemy under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I spent almost every day of my tour--up until the day I was wounded and medevaced--in the bush with a small team of Marines. Everything we needed we carried on our backs, through thigh-deep flooded rice paddies, jungles, in ungodly humidity, tripwires and boobytraps everywhere, a constant source of stress, going weeks with very little sleep, filthy for months at a time--literally months with only a brown water river to bathe in--ringworm, immersion foot, leeches, mosquitoes, armies of flies, and the constant threat of the next treeline erupting in ambush.

No one.._.no one_ can be "accommodated" for combat. Everybody needs to pack the gear. Everybody has to be there to deliver their share of firepower, to carry their share of the load. "Accommodate" and you weaken the team. Weaken the team and good people die.


----------



## Etype (Mar 10, 2018)

Serenity said:


> But are these standards actually practical or just a rite of passage? From what I’ve read on this site and else where, it’s comes across like a lot of the training in the military causes injuries.  How does that make sense?  Why the heck is the female failure rate so high?


The standards are practical; high and practical standards are a rite of passage.
Military training does cause injury, as does training in college and professional sports.
Female failure rate is high because they often can't attain the same standards are men.


You seem quite befuddled by questions whose answers are obvious.


----------



## Etype (Mar 10, 2018)

Serenity said:


> I n.  I have a job to do that I enjoy.  I’ve never whined as much as the kind of whining I read here.


I'll bite. What is your job?


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 10, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The more I think of this the more I wonder, did the WM's at least salute the Colonel?  To me it would have been a much more powerful picture if it was a photo of the Colonel welcoming the young Marines to SOI (or was it just MCT?) and them saluting each other.  I'm picturing the Sgt. Major thinking how has it come to this.  A PFC greeted by the Colonel as if they were drinking buddies who have not seen each other for years.


It's MCT West.  Not SO I. My Marine Parents group  went off the spools when many of them thought the women were attending SO I. It was a bit amusing . Not to say that  won't be the next headline and dog and pony show from Pendleton.


----------



## digrar (Mar 10, 2018)

> For the record, I’ve been looking into my own backyard more as it’s a way to compare.  I like the stuff I’m seeing on our end; I think the ADF is making a genuine effort to integrate women.



I don't like the stuff I'm seeing.  I see defence setting these women up for failure at every step. By having "a little more encouragement" they're creating division within the ranks. Any young male digger that marches into a unit knows he's had to fight every inch of the way to get his slot. Every woman that has got to the same point has just shown up, after getting half a dozen or more incentives to coerce them into signing up for the job. That creates division.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 12, 2018)

What irks me the most about this issue is that the politicians and civilians who are pushing its implementation are thinking numbers not lives, with very little thought of the possible consequences. This isn't picking players for the local softball league. It's serious life and death shit. The women who make it through the pipeline must be equal to the task.


----------



## DC (Mar 12, 2018)

It’s about quota and politics. Anyone who can swim the line by passing the same standards of qualification has a place in any position. All others are political pawns.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 12, 2018)

While I agree that anyone who can meet a set standard should be provided with the opportunity, let's face facts. Men and women are not the same. Although I have a degree in Kinesiology, I didn't need it to figure this out. I have met women who are probably up to the challenge of humping a 60 lb rucksack for 26 miles but they were very few and far between. I have a hard time believing that standards don't get doctored to accommodate females, but I am watching this thread with an open mind, so you'll get no argument from me.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 12, 2018)

Topkick said:


> While I agree that anyone who can meet a set standard should be provided with the opportunity, let's face facts. Men and women are not the same. Although I have a degree in Kinesiology, I didn't need it to figure this out. *I have met women who are probably up to the challenge of humping a 60 lb rucksack for 26 miles but they were very few and far between*. I have have a hard time believing that standards don't get doctored to accommodate females, but I am watching this thread with an open mind, so you'll get no argument from me.



I have met women like this.  That seems to the proponent's rallying cry:  women can do it.  Sure, they might be able to do in in school or in a controlled environment.  But can they do it day after day, month after month?  Men with higher bone density and more muscle break down at a high rate in these fields; women will break down faster.  BUT...make the standards the same, and give them their shot.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 13, 2018)

Topkick said:


> ...I have a degree in Kinesiology...




I have a degree in mixology from the International School of Bartending.

Just sayin. And it's gender neutral.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 13, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> I have a degree in mixology from the International School of Bartending.
> 
> Just sayin. And it's gender neutral.



That requires some OJT, I suppose?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 14, 2018)

I thought this follow up article was worth the read.  

First female Ranger grads open up about the aftermath and joining the infantry


----------



## Loki (Mar 14, 2018)

Last week a female reported to my sons unit.  She's 4.11, 106 pounds. 1 week, out on injury, unable to assign her to be a driver. She can't lift the Bradley main gun barrel, at all. As of yesterday one female who is married to another private was caught having sex in the barracks with another male on duty. The male is being processed out the female received disciplinary action.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 14, 2018)

Loki said:


> Last week a female reported to my sons unit.  She's 4.11, 106 pounds. 1 week, out on injury, unable to assign her to be a driver. She can't lift the Bradley main gun barrel, at all. As of yesterday one female who is married to another private was caught having sex in the barracks with another male on duty. The male is being processed out the female received disciplinary action.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 14, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I thought this follow up article was worth the read.
> 
> First female Ranger grads open up about the aftermath and joining the infantry



Meet and/or exceed standards, keep your job...  easy.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 14, 2018)

Topkick said:


> That requires some OJT, I suppose?



If it fits in your mitt, you must drink it.


----------



## NikNifSik (Mar 14, 2018)

Topkick said:


> While I agree that anyone who can meet a set standard should be provided with the opportunity, let's face facts. Men and women are not the same. Although I have a degree in Kinesiology, I didn't need it to figure this out. I have met women who are probably up to the challenge of humping a 60 lb rucksack for 26 miles but they were very few and far between. I have a hard time believing that standards don't get doctored to accommodate females, but I am watching this thread with an open mind, so you'll get no argument from me.



Topkick, you are absolutely correct.  I think our major failure was not coming up with a way to properly implement women into SOF. I understand why women want to serve and want to be a part of SOF's mission.  We should have figured out how best to utilize that motivation, like many of our counterparts have to strengthen the force overall.  By not giving them a specific seat at the table, they are being forced into one of ours.  Women most definitely have a place and offer a specific capability in Special Operations, I just believe it isnt on a traditional detachment/team/troop.


----------



## Loki (Mar 17, 2018)

I'm just gonna leave this right here...


----------



## Gunz (Mar 17, 2018)

She could break you open like a shotgun.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 17, 2018)

racing_kitty said:


> View attachment 21839



I would like to hear more on this from your point of view. Do you look down upon or different at women who do that?


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 17, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> I would like to hear more on this from your point of view. Do you look down upon or different at women who do that?


I can't say for certain whether I'd look down upon the first female in that unit, the one who just barely escaped needing a height waiver just to enlist.  I don't know whether she thought she was going to rock the infantry like a bassinet, or if she was the victim of your typical recruiter who was just trying to get his numbers up (and recruiting IS a numbers game) regarding a push to get new XX chromosomes into the combat arms professions.

With regards to the company bicycle, I'll just keep my rant to myself, because I really don't want to get banned.  Yeah, it would be that bad.



Devildoc said:


> I have met women like this.  That seems to the proponent's rallying cry:  women can do it.  Sure, they might be able to do in in school or in a controlled environment.  But can they do it day after day, month after month?  Men with higher bone density and more muscle break down at a high rate in these fields; *women will break down faster*.  BUT...make the standards the same, and give them their shot.


If only I could like this a thousand times, especially the bold part in red.  Second order of effects: good luck fighting the VA for that service connected hip injury that suddenly isn't service connected anymore.  They don't want to pay you for shit.  Have fun with that, I'm not. /sarc


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 17, 2018)

And now, for the moment we've all been waiting for!!!



Serenity said:


> That’s your opinion.  Maybe it’s you who don’t know what you’re talking about because this conversation affects young women who are trying to gain entry in a male dominated profession.  Were you that girl once?  Do you know how it feels to be a young woman facing a career choice that might be hostile to their gender?  I hear only one side and it’s the same story.  I’m still waiting for stronger female military voices to make some sense of this thread.  Unless, you’re a woman and many of the voices complaining the loudest are women too?   This is mostly an echo chamber and the sentiments expressed is not a positive one for men in the military in general.  While I get the concerns, I find myself less and less sympathetic.   The lack of feminine voices in this profession disturbs me.



You might not think he knows what he's talking about, but I damned sure do.  A brief CV for the uninitiated, dear Serenity: just over 10.5 years active service in two career fields, one of which was most definitely "male dominated," while the other was simply a male-predominant unit; four deployments to the Iraq theater of operations, two apiece for each career field; and while I have certainly never been in a combat arms unit, I have been in more than one situation that would warrant the awarding of a Combat Action Badge in the manner that it was originally intended to be granted (NOT just because a rocket sailed over the other end of my FOB).  Oh, and just to check the other requisite boxes on that SJW resume, I'm a cisgendered bisexual female that served the entirety of my career in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military.  So go ahead and have a seat, because I'm uniquely qualified in whatever matrix you've got planned to trot out.  I have been "That Girl," although I was more often referred to as "the unicorn," or "one of the guys."

You said you were waiting on a stronger female military voice to make sense of this thread.  This indicates that either you had no idea who I am when you read my posts, or you discounted my posts in this thread outright.  Is it because I didn't agree with you?  Or is it because I'm not dressed up as June Cleaver in camoflauge, therefore I'm not feminine?  That's rhetorical.  Stay seated, if you please. 



Serenity said:


> Take that however you wish or ignore - it’s just an opinion.


  It's been taken, alright.  Stay seated.




Serenity said:


> So you would know this is not reality and just a marketing campaign? You’re not threatened right?  Because it’s so posed to me and as I said, highlights a bigger issue.  I seriously doubt the system will collapse from that one handshake, and that suddenly all the young women will be demanding special privileges and one-on-one time with senior officials.  But I appreciate that you shared.


  There's a great deal of politicking and "back story" involved in that one handshake.  The generals aren't in that picture because they want to extend a warm and hearty handshake to their troops, not by any stretch of the imagination.  They are there because a dog-and-pony show was scheduled so that they could verify that their directives from the Pentagon are being followed.  That's it, nothing more.  I've had to do several of those dog-and-pony shows during my time, and I got tagged for several of them because I was female (y'know, because diversity). 

You know what doesn't get done while people are preparing for these dog-and-pony shows?  Training, that's what.  Every moment spent getting the requisite number of bodies to make some jackass with a constellation on his/her collar happy could be spent honing a perishable skill or increasing the body of knowledge required to excel in the profession of arms.  Instead, everyone has to line up, look happy, and shake hands with some functional alcoholic that won't even remember a single name by the time he gets back into his vehicle.  Yeah, that's not a waste of time...

As far as demanding special privileges go, you'd be surprised.  While the first signal company I was assigned to was predominantly male, the battalion had a large female contingent.  It was my "absolute pleasure" [/sarc] to serve with these fine specimens of victimhood.  During my time with these female service members, I had to testify in two 15-6 investigations; the first was for a blatantly false accusation of sexual harassment against a male soldier, and the second was for a hostile work environment complaint that arose when the female in question made lewd and obscene jokes towards male members, then filed a complaint when she became the subject of the exact same joke in the exact same conversation.  I was also sexually harassed twice by females, to include having my very own lesbian stalker. 

I also observed, during my first deployment, a female SFC bragging about initiating a sexual harassment complaint against a male service member because he had an erection in his sleep.  IN. HIS. FUCKING. SLEEP.  When the proscribed uniform for sleeping is the Army Physical Fitness Uniform (shorts and a t-shirt), and she was walking through the male sleep area at a time when night-shift workers were asleep in their cots, what the hell did she think she was going to see? 

Then there were the females that requested that they never pull 12-hour guard duty at night because "eeeeew, it's unsafe for girls."  The request was granted, never mind that they each were in possession of a fully functional M-16 with a minimum of 120 rounds of 5.56mm ball ammunition.  Do you think that they'd have the balls to shoot the enemy on a battlefield if they didn't have the guts to shoot an attempted rapist?  Then there were the requests to reschedule a PT test because they were on their periods; thankfully, those were denied. 

I could go on for days, but I don't have that much space.



Serenity said:


> I don’t think so.  I’ve been reading this thread with interest for while and the opinions are unconvincing.  All I’m really reading is an unwillingness to adapt to change.  My understanding is that if the military is serious about integrating women, they need to accommodate for the differences.   But when they do, people complain.



Not all women think alike.  The women that think in a way suitable to thrive in combat arms or other, more highly specialized professions, often are told they "think like a guy."  They tend to not have as many problems integrating as the girly-girls who are more concerned with bringing the "grrrrl power!!!11!eleventy" to the profession of arms.  They also aren't exactly the paragon of femininity when in uniform.  At home is a different story, but actual shooting wars aren't fought in the living room.

That isn't to say that there won't be problems.  There certainly are still misogynists in the world today, in and out of the Army.  I had my run-ins with a few, to include a platoon sergeant that hinted at my failure as woman because I was out chasing bombs instead of living la vida housewife.  However, if that female otherwise meets the standards as set by the Army, there are already leaders in place that would see the situation and handle the situation accordingly.  You'd be surprised at how many simply DO NOT CARE what the chromosomal package consists of, so long as he or she can just do the damned job.  They just elect to keep quiet; they aren't the fucking white knights you're looking for to effect the social change you desire.

As far as physical standards go, lighter body armor that is as effective as any that we currently wear, lighter packs that don't break and can carry the load, lighter radios that are still as rugged and operational as their heavier counterparts, etc. would be just as much of a boon to male soldiers as it would to females.  That's the only way you're going to get around the physical requirements being what they are.  There are some things, however, that can't be made any smaller or lighter without compromising effectiveness.  The bomb suit is one, bullets are another.  If you can come up with something lighter and at least as effective (if not more so), then please engineer it and make it available so that ALL fighters can benefit from it.  Or should we only make all the "combat lite" gear available to females?  How is that fair? 

Physiology is a motherfucker.  It's not sexist to say that a woman's body breaks down at a faster rate than a man's when performing the same amount of physical work in a controlled environment.  I've mentioned my injuries in past posts in this thread and some others, and they are mainly the result of years of extreme use.  By extreme, I mean lifting 500lb truck hoods -- even with hydraulic assistance -- on a 26 ton vehicle several times a day for two years, humping 100lb field safes across motor pools because nobody was around to help, schlepping multiple 85lb antenna bags to and from when your retrans site has to relocate yet again, throwing 90lb robots in the back of a truck, lifting a soldier that outweighed me by nearly 100lb (without body armor) into a fireman's carry and move him to the other side of the building, and all of this at an age where most soldiers are already starting to plan their retirement (I enlisted in my mid-20's).  That kind of activity breaks down males of the same age, and proper nutrition, supplements, and personal fitness can only delay the damage so long.  That I was so old when I finally wore out makes me a statistical aberration, an outlier, an anecdote, not a reliable example of the majority of females.

Saying all of that qualifies me to ask you this question: if a male and a female of the same age, perform the same work for the same amount of time in the same conditions, and the female body breaks down first, what good is she to the unit in a combat capacity?  Secondly, from a budget standpoint, how much would it cost to train and install females in a unit where they wear out faster than the males, meaning that the rate of replacement would be greater? 



Serenity said:


> I doubt the combat arms will ever attract many able-bodied women or the kind of women with the will to succeed.  Women like that would have a lot of self-worth and have better options.  I cannot imagine these kind of women subjecting themselves to the kind of resentment I read in these kinds of threads.  They have better things to do.



Guess I'm going to get some warning points, but this is going to be worth it.  Bitch, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.  I'll be goddamned to the bowels of undying hell before I let some ungrateful whelp tell me that I don't have the fucking will to succeed because I stepped into a male-dominated career field that was open to women long before the combat arms.  I stepped into my role in spite of all the bullshit, as did all the other females that completed the same training as myself.  Bombs don't give a flying fuck in the sky what your fucking gender is; physics is physics, and dead is dead. 

I stepped in to save lives and break shit, and that's exactly what I did (shooting back was just a party favor).  I had leaders that saw through the bullshit and did what was right.  Not just new kids, I'm talking old timers, prior infantry types, that saw through the misogynist shit and treated me fairly.  While it will take time for the historically male professions to come around to the same level that my job was, it is not impossible.  Your blanket statement takes a serious, cholera-ridden shit upon the ethics and morals of the male leaders that I have had the pleasure of serving with during my tenure.  These are men who have fought, and sometimes died, in service of a nation that is filled with the ungrateful, whiny likes of you. 

War is a messy profession, and it will always have elements of raw violence and outright barbarity.  That's why it's fucking WAR!!!  The inherent barbarity is exactly why it should be a last resort, not a social experiment to prove that ovaries beat testicles 3:1 in a taste test; it's fucking death, not the Pepsi fucking Challenge.  You think I had better things to do in my life than blow up 1200lb of shit in one go and not go to jail?  Except for sex, I can't think of a whole lot that was better than that.  That's why I was cut out for that life, and little girly-girls are not.  It's so much more than what your myopic worldview can understand.  Read some history, some Sun-Tzu, educate yourself about the great military minds, read up on Joan of Arc, learn what war actually fucking is, and then come back with an informed argument as opposed to some fucking social media talking points.  


I'm ready for my thread ban now.  Good night.

<mod note:  thread edited slightly for language  --mara>


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 17, 2018)

racing_kitty said:


> Guess I'm going to get some warning points, but this is going to be worth it.


Yes. 2



racing_kitty said:


> I'm ready for my thread ban now. Good night.


Granted.


----------



## Dame (Mar 17, 2018)

racing_kitty said:


> Whole post



Why do your best speeches never fit on a pillow? Never mind. We'll work on it.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 17, 2018)

Mos def worth the wait @racing_kitty


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 17, 2018)

Thread locked till further notice. 

Have a good night.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 18, 2018)

Friendly reminder-

The topic is women in combat arms/SOF. Please stay on topic. 

Don't dogpile, no need for name calling, if you have something to add or you want to discuss then that's great. If you wanna tell someone they are a fuck head, that's cool, just do it via PM or text or carrier pigeon or really any other point to point means of communication that doesn't force the staff to get involved. 

Thread re-opened.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 18, 2018)

racing_kitty said:


> Physiology is a motherfucker. It's not sexist to say that a woman's body breaks down at a faster rate than a man's when performing the same amount of physical work in a controlled environment.



This is what I believe is a primary issue. As @Dame posted in another thread, Problem with _facts_: People don't like them. They ruin their opinions.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 24, 2018)

I hope this is not a repost.  Saw the article on FB this morning.  Although the title of the article is a bit frivolous in my humble opinion as the gear is not only taking hair into consideration in design/size(s).  
Military Changing Body Armor to Accommodate Women's Hairstyles



> As women enter ground combat fields in larger numbers, the military services are working harder to make gender-specific accommodations for their gear -- even down to tweaking protective equipment to fit around longer hair.
> 
> According to presentations prepared by the Army and the Marine Corps for the Pentagon's Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, both services are making independent changes to ensure gear fits correctly for women with hair buns.
> A presentation prepared by Army Lt. Col. Ginger L. Whitehead, product manager for Soldier Protective Equipment, shows a recently introduced version of the Female Improved Outer Tactical Vest, or FIOTV, includes a yoke-and-collar assembly that dips in the back to accommodate a hair bun, along with other fit improvements to offer better ballistic protection for women.
> ...


----------



## AWP (Mar 24, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> I hope this is not a repost.  Saw the article on FB this morning.  Although the title of the article is a bit frivolous in my humble opinion as the gear is not only taking hair into consideration in design/size(s).
> Military Changing Body Armor to Accommodate Women's Hairstyles



And this is a good thing, the changes. They will benefit women in combat arms and support slices. While I'm still against incorporating women into combat arms, this is one of the changes that had to happen and may be an unexpected side benefit to the process. The GWOT has seen a lot of women in support roles go downrange on convoys and the like wearing gear that wasn't designed for them.

The ship has sailed, the horse is out of the barn, we need to make them run as fast as we can. I think this is a good step.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 24, 2018)

I agree. I too am against women in combat arms but if you are going to allow it, you'll need to make accommodations. However, in some cases I am not against requiring the women to make the adjustments, such a cutting their hair short.


----------



## Loki (Mar 24, 2018)

Equal is equal, no special accommodation and or differences. All required to do all the same in order to maintain combat effectiveness. No exceptions for any gender or person, if you can't do it, leave you're gone! This is about war fighting not feelings... That is currently not the policy, standard and  nor will it be implemented.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 25, 2018)

If women can meet, exceed and maintain standards for combat Arms, they should have equipment that fits them properly to achieve the mission.  Not lighter or less effective, just properly fitted.


----------



## DC (Mar 25, 2018)

One size doesn’t fit all men or women. I lived those days with wet/dry suits, cold weather gear etc.


----------



## Teufel (Mar 26, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> I hope this is not a repost.  Saw the article on FB this morning.  Although the title of the article is a bit frivolous in my humble opinion as the gear is not only taking hair into consideration in design/size(s).
> Military Changing Body Armor to Accommodate Women's Hairstyles


Just in time for the GWOT!


----------



## Etype (Mar 26, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> I hope this is not a repost.  Saw the article on FB this morning.  Although the title of the article is a bit frivolous in my humble opinion as the gear is not only taking hair into consideration in design/size(s).
> Military Changing Body Armor to Accommodate Women's Hairstyles





> Female Improved Outer Tactical Vest, or FIOTV, includes a yoke-and-collar assembly that dips in the back to accommodate a hair bun... to offer better ballistic protection for women.


So less coverage equals improved ballistic protection??? This is lunacy.

It has long been known in the military that if you make the arguement of survivability, it is hard for higher headquarters to deny your request. This has known degraded to, 'increased survivability because it fits over hair buns.'


----------



## Chontair (Mar 26, 2018)

From my understanding, the minimum requirements asked of a woman in the Army is as follows
Push-Ups - Minimum 19 Max Score 42
2 Mile - Minimum 18:54 Max Score 15:36
Sit-Ups - Similar requirements

If the numbers match the standard set for men I see no problem in letting a woman into an infantry unit and allowing her to deploy with said infantry unit. But the numbers don't match the standard. What a joke to put other lives in danger for the sake of equality when there is nothing equal about this. How wonderful to provide an easier route of passage to a world of suck just because we need to be "inclusive"


----------



## Topkick (Mar 26, 2018)

Chontair said:


> From my understanding, the minimum requirements asked of a woman in the Army is as follows
> Push-Ups - Minimum 19 Max Score 42
> 2 Mile - Minimum 18:54 Max Score 15:36
> Sit-Ups - Similar requirements
> ...



The APFT doesn't tell the whole story. Even if they meet the same APFT standards, there are many other factors/ accommodations  involved when considering women in combat arms.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 26, 2018)

@Chontair 


Chontair said:


> From my understanding,


At 16 years old you understand nothing in regards to this thread...understand where your lane is, right now you are so far out of it you have rolled your bike in the ditch.

Do not respond, move on.  And if you have not done so yet....read this:

A Protocol Primer for ShadowSpear


----------



## J. (Mar 29, 2018)

We have 2 female Tank Crewman now, the first one arrived a little over a year ago and there is no one here that could say anything negative about her in a tactical and technical sense. 

She has obvious biological shortcomings in physical strength but I have yet to meet another female Marine that cares as much and try’s as hard as she does. She is held to the same standard as we are and she meets it.

Now with that said, there are still situations in which she requires assistance, most parts and tank specific tools weigh in between 40-200lbs. Even so, In all training evolutions she has participated in I have yet to hear of failures because of that. 

I am not for or against women in Combat Arms, I am for fair and equal high standards for all. Lowering the standards to accommodate weaker people, not men or women, people.. is in my eyes direct sabatoge of the mission.


----------



## Box (Mar 29, 2018)

Don't be confused by the concept of equality........

Warriors LOVE equality.

It is what motivates the warrior to train hard and endure sacrifice. If my enemy is equal to me, I must train harder to defeat them - man, woman, or child. Warriors strive to be MORE EQUAL than their foe. It's called WINNING and winning isn't always fair. Equal opportunity is one of the most noble of human endeavors - it draws forth the best that humankind has to offer. Unfortunately, it isn't equal opportunity that our elected representatives and activist seek - it is equality of outcome that they seek. Equality of Outcome is why gender norming was integrated into the Army APFT decades ago - it is why standards are massaged now - to give everyone a fair shot at the finish line.

The tragedy of buckling to political activism and mindless emotion in the spirit of fairness is that societies 'finish lines' respect no man...
...or woman
...or whatever other gender we have decided to recognize

Finish lines don't follow social media, they don't listen to speeches, they don't exhibit emotion; finish lines simply wait on the outcome. The hundred meter dash will always have a finish line 100 meters away from the starting blocks. Real "equality" ends when the starter pistol is fired. Only raw talent and effort will get you to the finish line first when EVERYONE is lined up shoulder-to-shoulder. One gender can no longer compete on the world stage unless they can reach that finish line in under 10 seconds. Another gender has a world record that has stood for a full 30 years that is a full second behind.
     -Imagine two competitors of different genders leaving the starting blocks equally, and both crossing the finish line EXACTLY 10.01 seconds later; one runner would shatter a world record while leaving the other watching the finals from his living room.

...and race - it’s difficult to speak candidly about equality if we aren't looking at the whole picture.

There is a race equality issue as well at play. So, let’s stay with the 100 meter dash metaphor: it was 2003 before a competitor of non-African descent broke the 10 second barrier and 2017 before a Caucasian broke the 10-second barrier. Everyone was equal at the starting line - but 100 meters is a long way to go when you are competing against other human beings that want to get there first. Nobody is going to give you a head start when there are consequences to NOT being first. These results are not a product of racism or misogyny - they are the results of countless generations of biological development. Just like in track and field - equality only exists at the line of departure. Just like in track and field, equality in military affairs ends when the first shot is fired - after that - REAL equality decides the victor. Somebody is always "more equal" when the finish line is the difference between life and death.

 Finish lines only respect winners.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 29, 2018)

To follow on to @Box 's post....  many military courses after a selection phase will start with an instructor saying: "You were good enough to get here, are you good enough to graduate?"   As one of my instructors repeated, constantly, "Adversity equalizes, and if you aren't equal, you are gone."


----------



## 256 (Mar 29, 2018)

Box said:


> Don't be confused by the concept of equality........
> 
> Warriors LOVE equality.
> 
> Equality of Outcome is why gender norming was integrated into the Army APFT decades ago - it is why standards are massaged now - to give everyone a fair shot at the finish line.



When you say "massaged now" are you meaning that the female and male standards are different? I've always stood against females in combat roles, the PT standards are a great example of how men and women are drastically different physically. I've heard the argument for one standard, which is a great idea but you have to start with the very basic of "standards" meaning the PT test. Make PT standards the same for both genders and I may jump on board.   



Box said:


> There is a race equality issue as well at play. So, let’s stay with the 100 meter dash metaphor: it was 2003 before a competitor of non-African descent broke the 10 second barrier and 2017 before a Caucasian broke the 10-second barrier. Everyone was equal at the starting line - but 100 meters is a long way to go when you are competing against other human beings that want to get there first. Nobody is going to give you a head start when there are consequences to NOT being first. These results are not a product of racism or misogyny - they are the results of countless generations of biological development. Just like in track and field - equality only exists at the line of departure. Just like in track and field, equality in military affairs ends when the first shot is fired - after that - REAL equality decides the victor. Somebody is always "more equal" when the finish line is the difference between life and death.
> 
> Finish lines only respect winners.



It's extremely frustrating to see Military Leadership (CIBs and metals for battles fought gleaming from their Blues) back these ludicrous "equally" ideas. They've been fighting and commanding for this fight going on 17 years, they clearly understand and have implemented your above thoughts why then do they agree to it? 

I have zero issues with females going to Ranger School, it's a leadership school, send anyone. I'd like to see the numbers of females going vs females passing and compare them to males. Only to show a point about practicalities, which again is clearly on display when referring back to the core standard, the physical fitness test.    

Excellent post, @Box


----------



## Box (Mar 30, 2018)

256 said:


> When you say "massaged now" are you meaning that the female and male standards are different? [/USER]



Indeed they are; for example take ANY career field that allows male and females to "_compete equally and fairly_" for promotion to the next pay grade:

A 22 year old male soldier that does 39 push-ups in 2 minutes has *FAILED* his PT test.
A 22 year old female soldier that does 39 push-ups in 2 minutes has passed and scored* 90 points of a possible 100 *on her PT test.

A 22 year old male soldier that runs 2-miles in 16 minutes and 42 seconds has *FAILED* his PT test.
A 22 year old female soldier that runs 2-miles in 16 minutes and 42 seconds has passed and scored* 89 points of a possible 100 *on her PT test.

Sit-Ups are "equally scored" for both genders.  it is worth noting though that because of the physiological construction of the female body, females are better built to do sit-ups because of their different center of gravity.  So women have an *advantage *in the sit-up event bit are scored equally...
So there's that.

Now, put those scores together so that equal results have been posted by both troops and one of them is going to get labeled as a shit-bag, he will get a poor counseling statement and possibly a career crushing mark on his next NCOER, he will most likely be put into a remedial PT program, and he will not be eligible to appear in front of the Staff Sergeant promotion board.

The female will post a final score of 270 and will be lauded as a stud-ette for scoring a 270 on her PT test.  She will get much better marks on her NCOER, and she will have a big smile on her face when she is answering questions at the Staff Sergeant promotion board.

Both crossed the finish line at the same time - but one is more equal on paper AND in the eyes of our nations politically motivated leadership.
One will be promoted into a higher position of leadership and placed in charge.

...and when the REAL finish line demands payment in full - well: * equality*


----------



## 256 (Mar 30, 2018)

Box said:


> Indeed they are; for example take ANY career field that allows male and females to "_compete equally and fairly_" for promotion to the next pay grade:
> 
> A 22 year old male soldier that does 39 push-ups in 2 minutes has *FAILED* his PT test.
> A 22 year old female soldier that does 39 push-ups in 2 minutes has passed and scored* 90 points of a possible 100 *on her PT test.
> ...



Couldn’t agree more


----------



## CDG (Mar 30, 2018)

Just saw this article from Task and Purpose.  I think I saw the one part about female DIs sleeping with recruits, and each other, somewhere else recently...... Or maybe that was just cutting edge adult entertainment.  Nevermind.

I Tried To Make Women Marines Tougher. It Was The Hardest Fight Of My Career


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 30, 2018)

There was a female DS at Fort McClellan, AL in 1986....would sleep with some of her soldiers, no one said anything until graduation. Lucky bastards.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 30, 2018)

CDG said:


> Just saw this article from Task and Purpose.  I think I saw the one part about female DIs sleeping with recruits, and each other, somewhere else recently...... Or maybe that was just cutting edge adult entertainment.  Nevermind.
> 
> I Tried To Make Women Marines Tougher. It Was The Hardest Fight Of My Career


This is a fantastic article.  Sadly I knew how it would end when I read:

_ The colonel didn’t seem too interested in what I had to say, but I wrote down the words he emphasized: “I prize harmony among my staff above all else.”_


----------



## J. (Apr 4, 2018)

Now the second female Tanker is currently UA after one week in the fleet, which is her second time being UA in her short career. Her and the one I mentioned before, are living examples of what we are discussing here.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 4, 2018)

J. said:


> Now the second female Tanker is currently UA after one week in the fleet


Be sure to report back when she is found and claims it was ‘the culture’ of her unit that forced her to go UA.  Also known as...’the Bergdahl defense’.


----------



## Box (Apr 5, 2018)

Kraut783 said:


> There was a female DS at Fort McClellan, AL in 1986....would sleep with some of her soldiers, no one said anything until graduation. Lucky bastards.



So...   was she hot?


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 5, 2018)

Because > 90% of my service as a corpsman was with all-male units I never had a whole lot of dealings with female Marines until my last duty as a corpsman before I was commissioned.  That was a supply company, and the company was about 15% female.  Of those, half just didn't belong.  They could not run from here to there, and in the field?  Forget about it.  Some of them were promoted so they could chill with the HQ platoon, some of them were sleeping with the leadership (a couple were damn hot), most of them had medical waivers of some sort.  It was eye-opening.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 5, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Some of them were promoted so they could chill with the HQ platoon, some of them were sleeping with the leadership (a couple were damn hot), most of them had medical waivers of some sort.


 3 1/2 years on Okinawa and I witnessed all of the above on a near daily basis. 

As I mentioned somewhere else in this very thread, until the officer corps comes down on the staff NCOs (who were the main perpetrators of fucking around with the WM’s), this will not stop. And, the women Marines will never gain the respect they seem to ask for it from the male Marines when they continue this behavior.

Did all the women Marines I know sleep with staff NCOs? No but, 99.99% of them used their sexuality to get out of formations,  pass field days without doing any work, better duty assignments, etc.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 5, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> 3 1/2 years on Okinawa and I witnessed all of the above on a near daily basis.
> 
> As I mentioned somewhere else in this very thread, until the officer corps comes down on the staff NCOs (who were the main perpetrators of fucking around with the WM’s), this will not stop. And, the women Marines will never gain the respect they seem to ask for it from the male Marines when they continue this behavior.
> 
> Did all the women Marines I know sleep with staff NCOs? No but, 99.99% of them used their sexuality to get out of formations,  pass field days without doing any work, better duty assignments, etc.


It won't ever totally stop, it's what men and women do when they are together. Nature dictates.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 5, 2018)

Topkick said:


> It won't ever totally stop, it's what men and women do when they are together. Nature dictates.



Agreed...but:

In the Military (at least The Corps) it is near acceptable behavior. No one can convince me that senior leadership could not put a near “all stop” on this if they wanted to. 

What makes jaded Lance Corporals hate life and resent WM’s more than usual?  When they witness the above every day, and KNOW that the same Gunny who failed their room for field day is the same Gunny who just passed the two girls next door, even though they didn’t do shit to prepare...because they were both at The Gunny’s House all weekend.  

AND...don’t anyone tell me that the officers are ignorant about this and “just didn’t know...”


----------



## Topkick (Apr 5, 2018)

Yep and anyone paying attention knows the officers are playing their own version of the same reindeer games.


----------



## KiloPapa (Apr 5, 2018)

So I guess that’s an international thing then.


----------



## Loki (Apr 8, 2018)

Well in this weeks news from my Son's unit: 1 female now pregnant, by a member of her squad, unknown which one at this point, since she admits to having sexual contact with 4 of them thus far. Another female was caught on duty, having sex with her squad leader, a SSG two weeks ago. My son has done 3.5 years thus far active duty. He is ETSing this month. He was offered a SGT / E-5, he opted out and will return to the private sector. He has no intention of re-enlisting in the military, ever.  Every one of my expectations for this social experimentation has gone perfectly to script. Rah go Army!


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 8, 2018)

Loki said:


> Well in this weeks news from my Son's unit: 1 female now pregnant, by a member of her squad, unknown which one at this point, since she admits to having sexual contact with 4 of them thus far. Another female was caught on duty, having sex with her squad leader, a SSG two weeks ago. My son has done 3.5 years thus far active duty. He is ETSing this month. He was offered a SGT / E-5, he opted out and will return to the private sector. He has no intention of re-enlisting in the military, ever.  Every one of my expectations for this social experimentation has gone perfectly to script. Rah go Army!





This is evergreen.

I’m sorry to hear that your son is getting out. However, I can’t say I’m surprised, not that I blame him.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 8, 2018)

racing_kitty said:


> View attachment 22147
> 
> This is evergreen.
> 
> I’m sorry to hear that your son is getting out. However, I can’t say I’m surprised, not that I blame him.



When I was a young soldier, I knew I was going to make the Army a career. I loved almost everything about it. The old, crusty NCOs would say to
me "you'll know when its time to retire, because it will feel like its no longer _your _Army_" _I didn't believe them until that day actually came. I am not one of those old NCOs who say "it was better back in my day" but its definitely not the same.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 9, 2018)

Loki said:


> Well in this weeks news from my Son's unit: 1 female now pregnant, by a member of her squad, unknown which one at this point, since she admits to having sexual contact with 4 of them thus far. Another female was caught on duty, having sex with her squad leader, a SSG two weeks ago. My son has done 3.5 years thus far active duty. He is ETSing this month. He was offered a SGT / E-5, he opted out and will return to the private sector. He has no intention of re-enlisting in the military, ever.  Every one of my expectations for this social experimentation has gone perfectly to script. Rah go Army!




The "Hate" is not for you but for this politically force-fed clusterfuck. 

I've tried for a long time to be open-minded about this. I was starting to think that maybe my old school views needed to change. Your posts have confirmed my earliest doubts about this and have only hardened my opinion. When the Navy first went coed aboard ship, this same soap-opera bullshit started to happen, pregnancies, jealousies, sexual tension to name just a few.

Maybe it can work in very small doses in a highly professional atmosphere. But in the combat-arms squad, in the platoon, this is fucking poison.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 9, 2018)

It's functioning just how we suspected it would. There is no surprises in anything @Loki wrote.

Prophecy being fulfilled....


----------



## Topkick (Apr 9, 2018)

Yeah, I've always been against women in combat arms but I tried to have an open mind and accept it as the future. I thought that as a dinosaur, I'll just keep my old dude opinion to myself. One thing that I do find interesting is that I keep hearing it works in other countries.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 9, 2018)

Topkick said:


> One thing that I do find interesting is that I keep hearing it works in other countries.



Because it's cultural.  It's already ingrained.  I am not saying it _couldn't_ work here, but like racial integration, needs to be a few generations removed before it's "normal" and the deviant behavior starts being culled out.

I am against women in combat MOSs, made no bones about it, but I am curious if the example @Loki brought up is normal, excessive, or conservative based against the numbers across the spectrum.  

I am very familiar with how this has gone down aboard ship (no pun intended), and the high rate of pregnancy has generally fallen except for right before deployment and when ships are ordered to stay on station beyond deployment time (so I ask, what's the point??).


----------



## Box (Apr 9, 2018)

Just an observation, but.........

I visited a few different places during my brief time in the Army and I also find it quite interesting to hear proponents preach about how well women in direct combat roles is working in other countries...

My question is, what 'other countries' are they talking about?
I have NEVER...
...EVER...
...EVEREVEREVER...
...been on a deployment and worked with another military that included women in direct combat roles that I was able to observe or interact with.

If it is working so well in other countries, where are all of the 1st person accounts of success with women in combat arms ands SOF?
Where are all of the success stories?   Maybe I was shielded from these units because the USA was ashamed of my caveman outlook and didn't want me interacting.  I've seen women on deployments - combat service and combat service support roles; I have NOT seen or heard of anyone working with women in combat arms/SOF roles.  Allowing them to serve and then keeping them at the FOB is not an example of success.  Full implementation, exposure, and employment is the only valid evidence of any level of success.  

Now, before anyone ignites their flame-thrower,  I get it - Psyop, CA, MP's and Aviation are front line direct combat SOF roles - I get it - I am sure that there are tons of anecdotal evidence about those career fields - but I am asking about the "other" direct combat roles where the primary duty description is to employ fire and maneuver to close with and destroy the enemy and his equipment.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 9, 2018)

Box said:


> Just an observation, but.........
> 
> I visited a few different places during my brief time in the Army and I also find it quite interesting to hear proponents preach about how well women in direct combat roles is working in other countries...
> 
> ...


I think this is particularly interesting because the Special Forces mission is to train other Army's around the globe, yet don't see women in their combat arms units. I'd like to hear more experiences from other green berets on this subject. 
As a conventional dude, I dont have much experience with other Army's.


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 9, 2018)

Box said:


> Just an observation, but.........
> 
> I visited a few different places during my brief time in the Army and I also find it quite interesting to hear proponents preach about how well women in direct combat roles is working in other countries...
> 
> ...



They aren't in large numbers but Canada has had women in combat arms for quite some time.  The first to come to mind was our first female to die in combat, Captain Nichola Goddard. 

15 Stories: Death of Nichola Goddard showed modern face of Canada's fighting forces


----------



## 256 (Apr 9, 2018)

Box said:


> Just an observation, but.........
> 
> I visited a few different places during my brief time in the Army and I also find it quite interesting to hear proponents preach about how well women in direct combat roles is working in other countries...
> 
> ...




Don't think you'll ever find that evidence. I think this nonsense was signed off on by military leadership because they could say, "look at the outstanding performance of female MP's during GWOT." They are forgetting that the GWOT has been fought primarily from FOBs or COPs and we weren't spending a month in the jungle (generally). I am fully aware that some of us sat on small OPs for days or weeks at a time, but females have not been a part of that; at least I never saw it. I've heard the Female Engagement Team arguments (FET) as well. Men have fought wars throughout human history, why do we think we're smarter than all that evidence?

@RackMaster understood, but the GWOT is not Vietnam and it is not WW2. I don't think we can use the experiences of females in GWOT as evidence.

I can't stand fluff in these stories either: “Supported by her team of three men, the well-regarded 26-year-old had just executed high explosive and illumination fire missions in support of Canadian troop manoeuvres against a known enemy — the first time a Canadian soldier had done so since the Korean War more than 50 years earlier."

- When the author says "the first time a Canadian soldier had done so since..." people read that and use it as evidence. It doesn't take a genius to call for fire. It is a task to be taken very seriously, but when people read that stuff it's very deceiving because it sounds so profound. PFC's have accomplished that mission, we make "cheat sheets" for it, just fill in the correct data. I'm not down playing Capt Nichola Goddard at all, but her experience or accomplishments should not be held as evidence that females are capable of continued combat.

I edited this because I wanted to reply to @RackMaster's article.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 9, 2018)

Plus, @RackMaster, an officer generally has more education, more maturity and discretion then the E1s thru E5s at squad/platoon level. For the most part, that's where the shenanigans will happen and where there will be the most damage to unit integrity.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 9, 2018)

There are women in direct combat roles in the British Army.  They are few.  Their standards are the same from what I've seen.  You can see how many women went through Commando course before actually one making the choice to serve in one of those units.  It's much different than here.


----------



## Etype (Apr 9, 2018)

Topkick said:


> I think this is particularly interesting because the Special Forces mission is to train other Army's around the globe, yet don't see women in their combat arms units. I'd like to hear more experiences from other green berets on this subject.
> As a conventional dude, I dont have much experience with other Army's.


First, the Special Forces mission isn't to train other Armies. Three of SFs potential missions involve training, although operationalization is the primary focus. There's a big difference between what a drill sergeant does and what an SF guy does.

Second, it doesn't work in other countries. The other countries, especially the European ones, engage more in combat zone tourism than they do in combat. They have the same problems we have in the matter, if not more -their saving grace is that for them, the stakes aren't as high.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 9, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> There are women in direct combat roles in the British Army.  They are few.  Their standards are the same from what I've seen.  You can see how many women went through Commando course before actually one making the choice to serve in one of those units.  It's much different than here.


The culture may be different, but physics are not. Are the physical standards somehow more achievable, or do they just except different standards from men and women in order to make it work?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 9, 2018)

Topkick said:


> The culture may be different, but physics are not. Are the physical standards somehow more achievable, or do they just except different standards from men and women in order to make it work?



I don't know about enlisted specifically other than the training pipeline in 26 Weeks for Infantry (10 weeks longer than in the US Army), 23 Weeks for Tankers and Armored Recce.  Their Officer Standards at Sandhurst are high.  

There are baseline Army Fitness Standards, and then you have progressive standards within those same tests per different Unit.  So the Para Regiment has a Higher Standard than standard Infantry, Infantry/Armor have high standards than Logistics.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 9, 2018)

Etype said:


> First, the Special Forces mission isn't to train other Armies. Three of SFs potential missions involve training, although operationalization is the primary focus. There's a big difference between what a drill sergeant does and what an SF guy does.
> 
> Second, it doesn't work in other countries. The other countries, especially the European ones, engage more in combat zone tourism than they do in combat. They have the same problems we have in the matter, if not more -their saving grace is that for them, the stakes aren't as high.


Thanks for the clarification. I certainly didn't mean to try and define exactly what you do. My main point was that you dudes have more credibility and exposure than us conventional guys in this arena and I value that experience. I often hear that other countries have had women in combat arms for a long time and I just don't get how it can be successful.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 9, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> There are women in direct combat roles in the British Army.  They are few.  Their standards are the same from what I've seen.  You can see how many women went through Commando course before actually one making the choice to serve in one of those units.  It's much different than here.



How many women have graduated the commando course? (I don't know)  I DO know that the first women to do so did it on her third attempt, only to be assigned to a supply/log unit.


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 9, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Plus, @RackMaster, an officer generally has more education, more maturity and discretion then the E1s thru E5s at squad/platoon level. For the most part, that's where the shenanigans will happen and where there will be the most damage to unit integrity.



This is to @256 as well.  Capt. Goddard is just the most prominent story of a woman in combat here recently.  She was the FOO, not exactly just calling in fire; they were forward and she was manning the GPMG in the hatch, exposed.  As for enlisted ranks, I know of many women in the infantry, armoured recce, artillery and even combat engineers. Women have been equally serving for quite some time here.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 9, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I certainly didn't mean to try and define exactly what you do. My main point was that you dudes have more credibility and exposure than us conventional guys in this arena and I value that experience. I often hear that other countries have had women in combat arms for a long time and I just don't get how it can be successful.



It's "successful" because there's like one or two women in an entire battalion joining the grunts, and they're outliers.  For the British at least, it has mostly been officers.  When I spent my time with the French, there was not M/W Standard.  There was a baseline fitness test and then different things added for different schools.  You had women attending Commando Course and succeeding often, yet they didn't go to Commando Units often.  Granted, each school had progressive qualification as well.  Primary Course at CNEC (Centre Nationale Entrainement Commando) was two weeks long, then you have a four week course, a six week course, and an eight week course.  Similar with Jungle Warfare, 2 Weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks.

@Devildoc It's close to 20 (course has been open for 19 years).  However, I only think two women that have graduated from All Arms Commando course have gone to Commando Units.  The majority of women graduates have chosen to return to their support roles.  Specifically due to the physical breakdown that occurred during the course and the requirements they'd have to meet based on everything I've collated over the years.  Also something to think about, When they opened the All Arms Commando course, they didn't do a controlled test like they did here in the Army where they did Pre-Ranger at their duty station, then Pre-Ranger Prep for months away from their Unit (men have to train on their free time), then Pre-Ranger at the Warrior Training Center, and then go to Ranger School.  It was: it's open, here are the standards, meet them.


----------



## x SF med (Apr 9, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> here are the standards, meet them.



Exactly how it should be.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 9, 2018)

@ThunderHorse , I didn't go to the full commando course, but I spent quality time with the RMs.  Best time of my life but I digress.  I echo xSF med, display the standards and allow people to meet them or not; and how they did it was equally impressive:  no prep courses, no pageantry, no specialness.  Apologies to Nike, "just do it."

But I see what happened across the pond as a mirror to what will happen here:  women might earn the badge/beret/tab/patch, but the pace and rigor of the unit will far exceed their capability to be a productive member, and they will self-select to support units or elsewhere.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 9, 2018)

RackMaster said:


> This is to @256 as well.  Capt. Goddard is just the most prominent story of a woman in combat here recently.  She was the FOO, not exactly just calling in fire; they were forward and she was manning the GPMG in the hatch, exposed.  As for enlisted ranks, I know of many women in the infantry, armoured recce, artillery and even combat engineers. Women have been equally serving for quite some time here.



RIP Capt Goddard. 

So you're saying it works in Canada. No issues with the male/female sexual dynamic in the regular ranks? Or issues of undue influence or favoritism with relation to sex? Do you think it's because it has been SOP
for a long time and these issues have been worked out?


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 9, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> RIP Capt Goddard.
> 
> So you're saying it works in Canada. No issues with the male/female sexual dynamic in the regular ranks? Or issues of undue influence or favoritism with relation to sex? Do you think it's because it has been SOP
> for a long time and these issues have been worked out?



Oh there's issues but we also permit LGBTQ to serve and that dynamic is in play as well. Any favouritism is usually caught eventually but we also have serving spouses and policies to keep them separate.  It wasn't the best when I joined in the mid 90's.  Even in comms, my subunit was only male and the first female brought in the year after.  It didn't take long before it all evened out.  From my experience there's more BS in support units and on FOB's while on deployment.


----------



## KiloPapa (Apr 10, 2018)

Having served in all four branches of the Norwegian military by now, from a private to an NCO, my experiences with females are, shall we say, «mixed».
Note, most of the NOR military is based on conscription, a draft. Our conscription model turned gender-neutral a few years ago.


----------



## Loki (May 7, 2018)

My son separated from service two weeks ago and is now going to a seasonal wildland firefighter team until October then to college. Two female PFCs at in his platoon were awarded ARCOMs. They have been in service less than 1 year; 8 1/2 months to be exact, neither has been deployed. The awards were given for being in the unit for that period of time, meeting minimal performance and adherence to standards.  These are his (my sons) words, not mine and I didn't read the citations.  But there was not exceptional contributing, and or distinguishing actions associated with the awards received. Now perhaps these are not all the facts, but regardless, during my tenure in the US Army I have never seen a PFC receive this award, much less two PFCs. I have written and recommended awards for my personnel, and even for combat actions. This is not my understanding of the awards process and regulations. Perhaps I'm dated and not up to speed with the new Army standards. Nor have ever I seen a person given this award for normal acceptable minimum performance.  Perhaps females meeting minimal performance standards exceptional and worthy of an ARCOM these days... Rah,  Go USMC, Semper Fi!


----------



## Gunz (May 7, 2018)

Loki said:


> My son separated from service two weeks ago and is now going to a seasonal wildland firefighter team until October then to college. Two female PFCs at in his platoon were awarded ARCOMs. They have been in service less than 1 year; 8 1/2 months to be exact, neither has been deployed. The awards were given for being in the unit for that period of time, meeting minimal performance and adherence to standards.  These are his (my sons) words, not mine and I didn't read the citations.  But there was not exceptional contributing, and or distinguishing actions associated with the awards received. Now perhaps these are not all the facts, but regardless, during my tenure in the US Army I have never seen a PFC receive this award, much less two of PFCs. I have written and recommended awards for my personnel, and even for combat actions. This is not my understanding of the awards process and regulations. Perhaps I'm dated and not up to speed with the new Army standards. Nor have I seen a person given this award for normal acceptable minimum performance.  Perhaps females meeting minimal performance standards exceptional and worthy of an ARCOM these days... Rah,  Go USMC, Semper Fi!




This is only going to get worse across the board, not just in the military. And the #MeToo hysteria is ramping it up. Government agencies, corporations, will all be scrambling to hire/promote/advance/reward candidates and employees based on race and gender...two factors that have absolutely nothing to do with ability, skill, talent or knowledge. This is why the PRC, a hardcore meritocracy, will eventually leave us with our pants around our ankles...because they advance people who have passed numerous exams and who are extremely good at what they do.

I'm sorry about your son's disappointing experiences in the Army...but thank you for updating us with glimpses into the Army's workaday world of social engineering.


----------



## Grunt (May 7, 2018)

This world we live in will never get better because we keep creating *classes* of people simply to award them something or to make them feel special.

We are indeed a perpetual mess now....


----------



## Loki (May 7, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> I'm sorry about your son's disappointing experiences in the Army...but thank you for updating us with glimpses into the Army's workaday world of social engineering.



He enjoyed the experience thoroughly, and saw it for what it is, the ground truth.  I felt it was instructive and the truth that will never be spoken outside or inside the military.  I really don't think anyone here is surprised or shocked.  All my own / personal observations and opinions of this social experiment while serving were again validated.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 7, 2018)

Not necessarily related to women in combat, but I just read a Facebook post of a 19 year old girl asking for a "truck". For free, because she needs more freedom to get places and so she can make her self a better life.

I obviously raged a bit and told her she needs to work and buy her own truck, etc, etc. But the kiddos came out of the wood work on how I was picking on this poor girl. Mind you, I didn't cuss her, I didn't tell her how fucking stupid she is, I just gave her the I walked and bummed rides to get to work until I could afford a truck, speech.  And holy shit apparently I'm some kinda internet bully for speaking a little fucking truth. 

None of these kids even saw anything wrong with a 19 year old asking for a free truck.

They have zero pride or care, just give it to me free or scream and act like a victim. These are the kids joining the military now, out in the work place, voting at the polls.

God help us.


----------



## Philopalope (May 8, 2018)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Not necessarily related to women in combat, but I just read a Facebook post of a 19 year old girl asking for a "truck". For free, because she needs more freedom to get places and so she can make her self a better life.
> 
> I obviously raged a bit and told her she needs to work and buy her own truck, etc, etc. But the kiddos came out of the wood work on how I was picking on this poor girl. Mind you, I didn't cuss her, I didn't tell her how fucking stupid she is, I just gave her the I walked and bummed rides to get to work until I could afford a truck, speech.  And holy shit apparently I'm some kinda internet bully for speaking a little fucking truth.
> 
> ...



I've been on a pretty big University campus for the past 4 years now and I can 100% tell you that it is not an uncommon thing... the amount of entitled kids asking for handouts and gimmes here is ridiculous.  What's even worse is when you combine the sense of entitlement with brittle feelings.


----------



## Devildoc (May 8, 2018)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Not necessarily related to women in combat, but I just read a Facebook post of a 19 year old girl asking for a "truck". For free, because she needs more freedom to get places and so she can make her self a better life.
> 
> I obviously raged a bit and told her she needs to work and buy her own truck, etc, etc. But the kiddos came out of the wood work on how I was picking on this poor girl. Mind you, I didn't cuss her, I didn't tell her how fucking stupid she is, I just gave her the I walked and bummed rides to get to work until I could afford a truck, speech.  And holy shit apparently I'm some kinda internet bully for speaking a little fucking truth.
> 
> ...



Heartless bastard.  What the hell is wrong with you??

:)


----------



## Serenity (May 22, 2018)

racing_kitty said:


> And now, for the moment we've all been waiting for!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I hope you’ve been well, Kitty.  Thank you for your very comprehensive response too.  I only came to check now.  That is the longest ass response I’ve had in my lifetime of being online.  

It’ll take me a few days to remember what this thread was about, to read your response, and a few more days to absorb your words.  I might try to reply, but I think somebody will ban me again for replying to this.  So depending if it’s permanent or not, I may or may not  be able to respond.  But I appreciate the effort in trying to put me in my place.  Although, you should know I’m not exactly precious where you think I should stand or sit.  I’m just interested and none of this is being taken personally by me.

Although, a quick skim, and I’m not sure why you’re yelling at me, calling me a bitch, ungrateful or whiney. To be clear, I have a lot of adjectives I’d love to use on many of you (well, not you personally), but I try to be polite.  Anyway, I’ll copy’n’paste your response in a word doc and read it later.  Not sure when I’ll be back or if I’m allowed back.  I might end up reading Sun-Tzu, and who knows how long it’ll take me to read that while I educate myself.  

Take care,
S


----------



## Serenity (May 22, 2018)

Omg...It’s almost 2000 words!!  

That’s a chapter for me.  If this is a ploy to load me with so much homework that I’ll run away scared.  It’s working.


----------



## CDG (May 22, 2018)

Enough.  From everyone. Feeding Serenity's need for attention is counter-productive.  This thread is about a specific topic. I am going to clean up some posts, and then we will stay on track.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 15, 2018)

Thought this would fit here.  Pregnant female in RS, made pregnant by another RS student.

Rangers Lead the Way – to the Maternity Ward!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 15, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Thought this would fit here.  Pregnant female in RS, made pregnant by another RS student.
> 
> Rangers Lead the Way – to the Maternity Ward!



Do you have a source on this other than a tabloid website?  Not saying it’s not true, but any website that features Alex Jones and Infowars is automatically suspect.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 15, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Do you have a source on this other than a tabloid website?  Not saying it’s not true, but any website that features Alex Jones and Infowars is automatically suspect.



I do not, but that is a good point. I'll dig into it a little more and see what I see. I will absolutely own that I could have been hoodwinked.


----------



## Grunt (Jun 16, 2018)

Those two words just don't sound right when placed together -- pregnant Ranger....


----------



## Gunz (Jun 16, 2018)

Consequentiality and romantic unrest...in a dynamic tactical environment.


----------



## Jaknight (Jun 25, 2018)

Sofrep seems to also mention the pregnant ranger along with other sites


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 25, 2018)

Jaknight said:


> Sofrep seems to also mention the pregnant ranger along with other sites



Does it? 

Does SOFREP “seem” to mention “the pregnant Ranger” along with “other sites”?  (She would still be in training and not yet a Ranger by the way)

There are enough Verified Rangers on this site that if this was a story worth discussing, one of them would have posted something. Maybe they still will, but it is not for you to do so because “SOFREP seemed to mention it”.

What does “seems to mention” even mean?

Did you bother reading the SOFREP article?  They have no named source either.  this is not a gossip site, if you take time to browse the forum, you will find we deal in fact here; not hearsay.

Do better on your 3rd post.


----------



## Jaknight (Jun 25, 2018)

Apologies I was trying to just pass along some information I had seen in a google search


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 25, 2018)

For the record, earning a Ranger tab does not make one “SOF.”  In fact, I’d wager that most people who earn a tab never serve in any capacity in a SOF unit.  Isn’t this a thread about women in SOF?  If so, then a discussion about someone getting knocked up in Ranger School seems to be misplaced.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 25, 2018)

Here's the article...<mod edit>

@ThunderHorse - why did you post that SOFREP article? (don't answer that).  

@Marauder06 in the post above made it clear that the topic was to be dropped.
I just admonished a new member for sourcing it one page back.  
It has zero facts and was published for no reason other than gain 'clicks'.
They'll get no such satisfaction from this site.

Rah


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 25, 2018)

...sigh...


----------



## Jaknight (Jun 25, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> For the record, earning a Ranger tab does not make one “SOF.”  In fact, I’d wager that most people who earn a tab never serve in any capacity in a SOF unit.  Isn’t this a thread about women in SOF?  If so, then a discussion about someone getting knocked up in Ranger School seems to be misplaced.


 
Question do Rangers that serve in the 75th have different nickname than regular rangers or is it just ranger for both?


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 25, 2018)

Jaknight said:


> Question do Rangers that serve in the 75th have different nickname than regular rangers or is it just ranger for both?


Ok my friend. Do me a solid. 

Post less, read more, use google. k? k.

The thread is about women in SOF career fields. It's already been said once; points to anyone that can't figure it out now. 

Have a great ShadowSpear day, everyone!


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 25, 2018)




----------



## Stretcher Jockey (Jun 25, 2018)

Honest question here coming from an Air Force guy: is Ranger considered Combat Arms? On United States Army Rangers - The United States Army it specifically states "The purpose of the Army's Ranger course is to prepare these Army volunteers - both officers and enlisted Soldiers - in combat arms related functional skills." 

After being here on the site for a while, I understand there is a difference between having the tab, and actually being assigned to a Regiment. Are the people who are tabbed but NOT assigned not a Regiment still considered combat arms professions? Or are they just considered (potentially) solid leaders that are able to keep their head when the plans fall apart?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 25, 2018)

Good conversation for a separate thread.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 9, 2018)

Best of success to her.

The Marines Didn’t Think Women Belonged in the Infantry. She’s Proving Them Wrong.

MOUNT BUNDEY TRAINING AREA, Australia — First Lt. Marina A. Hierl watched a dozen Marines charge toward human silhouettes made of paper atop a nearby hill. Despite the early hour, the troops’ armored vests and camouflage uniforms were soaked with sweat. She stood back as they scrambled up the rocky incline, shouting and firing rifles.

“Push left,” she said after the squad completed its mock attack and assembled around her, gulping from canteens as they awaited feedback. “And make sure you’re communicating.”

It was a fairly routine instruction to Marines training for war, coming from a lieutenant in a role familiar to the men: a young, college-educated officer who had little experience but had direct oversight of their lives.

But Lieutenant Hierl is the first woman in the Marine Corps to lead an infantry platoon — a historic moment for a male-dominated organization that had fiercely opposed integrating female troops into combat, something that still unsettles many within the ranks.


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 9, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Best of success to her.
> 
> The Marines Didn’t Think Women Belonged in the Infantry. She’s Proving Them Wrong.
> 
> ...


See.. the issue I have with this is the publicity. Women being in combat arms is zero issue to me. I was dating a chick in Savannah who is a CrossFit regional competitor who matched me in deadlift (405x3). What I don’t like, and I don’t blame it on the women but on the PAO’s, is that stuff like this draws unwanted attention to them. How many guys did the same live fire/training event and crushed it and didn’t get a shout out in an article? Good on her, bad on the PR machine pumping her up.


----------



## NikNifSik (Aug 9, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Best of success to her.
> 
> The Marines Didn’t Think Women Belonged in the Infantry. She’s Proving Them Wrong.
> 
> ...




I wish her success. It will be an uphill battle, and today's environment will always leave question marks around her.  

A friend of mine recently said something that rings true to my ears "Forced diversity is the enemy of merit".  

Hopefully, she can do right by her Marines, gain their true respect, and lead them honorably.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Aug 11, 2018)

Lets get real here, its all about the publicity. Anyone who thinks this is an improvement to our military fighting force is either naive or completely in the dark as to what is really going on.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Aug 11, 2018)

Edit: its not even worth the long post.

Women do not belong in the infantry and with regards to military operations - only possess limited scope relevance in SOF applications (Support Roles).


----------



## Box (Aug 11, 2018)

If it was really about equality of opportunity and combat readiness it would be worth a discussion but it is about equality of outcome in the name of political leverage

fairness - we need to be fair


----------



## Gunz (Aug 11, 2018)

RIP Suzie Rottencrotch. Your legendary name will henceforth never be invoked again in a Marine rifle platoon squad bay.


----------



## Centermass (Sep 5, 2018)

A company first sergeant began an affair with one of the first women to graduate from infantry basic training shortly after she reported to his newly integrated unit late last year. Both have been punished for it. Sgt. 1st Class Chase Usher, who had been serving as the top non commissioned officer of B Company, 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, has been removed from his position leading soldiers and is serving in a staff role, an 82nd Airborne spokesman told Army Times on Tuesday.

“Disciplinary action deemed appropriate by the chain of command was taken against both individuals and has been completed,” Lt. Col. Ramon Osorio, the division spokesman, said. “Both continue to serve within the division, however, the first sergeant was relieved of his position and currently serves on the staff of a different unit.”

“He didn’t foster a hostile environment to females at work, *but was a horny bastard *when it came to his personal life,” one soldier said in a sworn statement. "He often preached to us to look out for females in our ranks and not get into trouble with them and not have relationships with them. All the while, he was doing all of this.”



Full Story


----------



## Cookie_ (Sep 6, 2018)

Centermass said:


> ...*company first sergeant...*



Everyone knows damn well the soldiers were gonna start screwing each other's, as soldiers always have, regardless of career field.

It's just disappointing when Senior NCOs can't keep it in their pants around their own troops.


----------



## AWP (Sep 6, 2018)

It was consensual, but he's named and the woman isn't? He was dead wrong, but somehow she's the victim? No evidence of favoritism, both were punished, but she isn't named?

Nah, no double standard there at all....


----------



## Topkick (Sep 6, 2018)

Surprise, surprise! This is what boys and girls do.


----------



## Box (Sep 6, 2018)

...there is just too much fucking testosterone in combat units.

Unacceptable - tone it down - less red meat in the mess hall, there is too much protein. fats, and carbs being fed to our male service members.  Males are getting waaay too much sleep and as a result stress levels and cortisol levels are down.
...less sleep worrying about getting their careers crushed for acting like a neanderthal should help fix that

In an odd twist, we could get them to increase their alcohol intake to help drop those tstosterone levels, but that may have some unintended consequences.


Men - they suck


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 6, 2018)

AWP said:


> It was consensual, but he's named and the woman isn't? He was dead wrong, but somehow she's the victim? No evidence of favoritism, both were punished, but she isn't named?
> 
> Nah, no double standard there at all....


Company 1SG, Private snuffyette...nothing consensual about that even if she says yes yes yes everytime.  Abuse of power/fraternization and all that.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 6, 2018)

Instructors claim first female enlisted to earn Ranger tab actually quit, given special treatment


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 6, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> Company 1SG, Private snuffyette...nothing consensual about that even if she says yes yes yes everytime.  Abuse of power/fraternization and all that.



I normally don't agree with you, but I am 100% with you on this one.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 6, 2018)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Instructors claim first female enlisted to earn Ranger tab actually quit, given special treatment



I am shocked, I tell you...shocked....(my not shocked face)....


----------



## Box (Sep 6, 2018)

Devils advocate - but if one gender is equal to the other gender and grown ups are able to pursue grown up goals with the expectation of grown up behavior, why aren't both genders being taught to absolutely reject the advances of the other gender ESPECIALLY when it is a case of abuse of power or fraternization?
So am I to understand that the female in this case needs to be rescued from the males in her unit?

If so - let's crucify that 1SG to the absolute maximum extent of the law - from this day forward sex with a junior service member shall be treated like statutory rape because junior service members aren't mature enough to make their own choices.


I'm outraged at this outrage - it's so outrageous !!




...but at least we are finally focused on REAL news - not the reality TV shit show going on in Washington DC


----------



## medicchick (Sep 6, 2018)

AWP said:


> It was consensual, but he's named and the woman isn't? He was dead wrong, but somehow she's the victim? No evidence of favoritism, both were punished, but she isn't named?
> 
> Nah, no double standard there at all....


The only reason I can think of is because it's not his first time doing this and one such event lead to a child being created. Public shaming for a repeat offender?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 6, 2018)

Box said:


> I'm ouraged at this outrage - it's so outrageous !!


----------



## Centermass (Sep 6, 2018)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Instructors claim first female enlisted to earn Ranger tab actually quit, given special treatment





> The Public Affairs team at Fort Benning’s Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade would not comment on the matter, claiming that more information would need to be gathered before an official statement could be prepared.



In other words, don't hold your breath.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Sep 6, 2018)

Who would have thought????


----------



## Topkick (Sep 6, 2018)

I have been retired for awhile now and these issues were non existent when I was in infantry, armor, and cavalry units. Given the nature of the media to sensationalize, I can't get a good read on how well opening up these mos's to women is actually working/ not working. I don't support women in infantry and armor, but it doesn't really matter what I think anymore. However, I wonder if these decisions will ever be revisited or reversed?Thoughts?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 7, 2018)

I really should say some shit... but wherever. It's a different Army and my shit ain't on the line anymore. Not that I was ever asked, but on word with the black and gold!


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Sep 7, 2018)

AWP said:


> It was consensual, but he's named and the woman isn't? He was dead wrong, but somehow she's the victim? No evidence of favoritism, both were punished, but she isn't named?
> 
> Nah, no double standard there at all....


So, someone from another site linked her facebook/instagram modeling pictures. Unless the 82nd recently got exoskeletons, I don't see her humping a 240 or 249 anywhere. God damn it, liberals had to ruin the 82nd. Cest la vie.

edit: Posted incorrect info. Apparently the 82nd now has a bunch of scantily clad female fitness models as grunts.


----------



## Cookie_ (Sep 7, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> So, someone from another site linked her facebook/instagram modeling pictures. Unless the 82nd recently got exoskeletons, I don't see her humping a 240 or 249 anywhere. God damn it, liberals had to ruin the 82nd. Cest la vie.
> 
> edit: Posted incorrect info. Apparently the 82nd now has a bunch of scantily clad female fitness models as grunts.



Apparently Popular Military did a write-up on the soldier involved with that 1SG.

Only problem is they linked to the Facebook and personal info of a completely unrelated female soldier.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Sep 7, 2018)

Cookie_101st said:


> Apparently Popular Military did a write-up on the soldier involved with that 1SG.
> 
> Only problem is they linked to the Facebook and personal info of a completely unrelated female soldier.


Yep, I was an ass and posted info before I dug into it. Though, damn... some of these female grunts look like Instagram fitness models. Like damn, I can understand someone throwing away their career over some of these women.


----------



## Loki (Sep 13, 2018)

Read this today: The Ranger School Conspiracy


----------



## AWP (Sep 13, 2018)

Loki said:


> Read this today: The Ranger School Conspiracy



Holy shit....



> Keating’s story was quickly lambasted by former Ranger Training Brigade Commander, Colonel David Fivecoat and former Fort Benning Maneuver Center commander, *General Scott Miller*, who both adamantly claimed that there was no special treatment given to Griest and Haver, while demanding that Keating reveal her sources.



He was Delta in Somalia and a former JSOC commander. If he was in on it....



> In order to placate fools in Congress and their superiors, in order to pad their pensions, promotions and future defense contractor jobs, *Pentagon perfumed princes* have demanded female graduates from Ranger School, national security be damned.



Someone please tell me the author isnt a Hackworth acolyte. Ugh.


----------



## Cookie_ (Sep 13, 2018)

Regarding all the stories from Ranger School that source "anonymous Instructors and students" has there been anything written or put forth that seems like it might actually be from someone with firsthand knowledge, instead of people who seem like tab defenders?
Not to belittle anyone who questions the integrity of the course, but most things about it read as rumor.
Need a RI to write something like that open letter last year about the standards at SWCS.


----------



## AWP (Sep 13, 2018)

Cookie_101st said:


> Regarding all the stories from Ranger School that source "anonymous Instructors and students" has there been anything written or put forth that seems like it might actually be from someone with firsthand knowledge, instead of people who seem like tab defenders?
> Not to belittle anyone who questions the integrity of the course, but most things about it read as rumor.
> Need a RI to write something like that open letter last year about the standards at SWCS.



We have members with inside knowledge, ties to instructors at the various SOF schools, stuff like that. When they speak I listen and some of the stories in that article aren't news to a few of us. If anything, I'd say there's a lot more to the story.

With that said, they volunteer what they know or they don't. If some of them want to come forward, great. If not, that's fine by us too. We're not burning sources and the staff would frown upon members running their own HUMINT programs on other members of this board.

The board can believe what it wants about that article, but some of us have seen most of those details already. I did some digging and the author was close to David Hackworth...disappointing but I doubt anything in the article is incorrect.

YMMV.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 13, 2018)

AWP said:


> Someone please tell me the author isnt a Hackworth acolyte. Ugh.



The site continues to hack away my one time “heroes”. Hackworth was someone I read and listened to on a very regular basis.  I was genuinely saddened when cancer ate his body away.

Not to derail this thread too much, but what’s the beef with Hack?


----------



## AWP (Sep 13, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Not to derail this thread too much, but what’s the beef with Hack?



I'll shoot you a PM in the next day or two. This is one of those topics that I haven't thought about in years. I digested the info at the time, made up my mind, and pressed. What little I remember is that his emotion started getting the better of him. He was never as bad as Mike Yon, so that's a plus.


----------



## Topkick (Sep 13, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The site continues to hack away my one time “heroes”. Hackworth was someone I read and listened to on a very regular basis.  I was genuinely saddened when cancer ate his body away.
> 
> Not to derail this thread too much, but what’s the beef with Hack?


Same here. I was a Hackworth fan at one time. I thought he was a little unhinged at times, but overall, I liked his perspective. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, @AWP.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 13, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Same here. I was a Hackworth fan at one time. I thought he was a little unhinged at times, but overall, I liked his perspective. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, @AWP.


Assuming @AWP has no objection, I’ll add you to the PM he sent with a couple of links that gave me a different perspective of the man.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 13, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Assuming @AWP has no objection, I’ll add you to the PM he sent with a couple of links that gave me a different perspective of the man.



If there is no objection to any of you add me please.


----------



## Cookie_ (Sep 13, 2018)

AWP said:


> We have members with inside knowledge, ties to instructors at the various SOF schools, stuff like that. When they speak I listen and some of the stories in that article aren't news to a few of us. If anything, I'd say there's a lot more to the story.
> 
> With that said, they volunteer what they know or they don't. If some of them want to come forward, great. If not, that's fine by us too. We're not burning sources and the staff would frown upon members running their own HUMINT programs on other members of this board.
> 
> ...



Looking back at my post, I should have clarified a bit better. I know the board has members in such positions, and I have no doubt in the truth of whatever information or stories they provide.

It was supposed to be more along the lines of "if I were unaware of this board or anyone close to the community" line of questioning.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 13, 2018)

Our fears of integrating women in combat arms continue to pan out:

One of the First Women in the Infantry Will Be Discharged From the Marines


----------



## J. (Sep 13, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Our fears of integrating women in combat arms continue to pan out:
> 
> One of the First Women in the Infantry Will Be Discharged From the Marines



“Regardless of the outcome of this case, Corporal Cruz has been a courageous pioneer for women in the military and she has earned a place in Marine Corps history,” Captain Johnston said in a statement.

*I actually want to vomit..*


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 13, 2018)

J. said:


> “Regardless of the outcome of this case, Corporal Cruz has been a courageous pioneer for women in the military and she has earned a place in Marine Corps history,” Captain Johnston said in a statement.
> 
> *I actually want to vomit..*



They are talking out of both sides of their mouth:  She is a courageous pioneer...who violated the UCMJ and is getting booted.


----------



## Cookie_ (Sep 13, 2018)

The issue with this is the same as with the 1SG from a week or so ago; leaders getting horizontal with their troops. Fraternization has always been an issue in the military, so I don't see it as a problem just because of integration. It's a human issue, and those are always going to occur at a greater than zero percent.

Frat aside, I think the adultery and accessory to larceny charges are more of a story here.


----------



## Centermass (Sep 13, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The site continues to hack away my one time “heroes”. Hackworth was someone I read and listened to on a very regular basis.  I was genuinely saddened when cancer ate his body away.
> 
> Not to derail this thread too much, but what’s the beef with Hack?



I'll keep this short so as not to derail the thread, but up until this point, I too, was a fan of his. I lost all respect for him afterwards.

Hackworth claimed and wore a Ranger Tab without attending or graduating Ranger School. He wore it all the way up until the 1997-1998 time frame.

He was outed by those who ran the 75th Ranger Regiment Association at the time and later said that it must have been an oversight and that he requested a 'review' of his records to insure all his awards were correct. Said that he had so many awards it was hard to keep track of them all.

This occurred after Hackworth had outed a Navy Commander named 'Boorda' for wearing a 'V' device on one of his awards that was unearned. But Boorda, feeling shamed and dishonored, took his life with a pistol.

But when Hackworth was outed for wearing an unearned Ranger Tab, all he delivered was excuses.

JOURNALIST WHO ACCUSED BOORDA IS CHALLENGED


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 13, 2018)

Centermass said:


> Said that he had so many awards it was hard to keep track of them all.


Wow.  I cannot imagine any Ranger being very forgiving of that comment....all but completely discounting what it takes to earn that Tab.


----------



## Cookie_ (Sep 13, 2018)

Hack and his career could be it's own thread. Maybe it should.

It's best to think of him in two distinct eras; military and journalism.  Read and apply the lessons from the military one; disregard most everything in the other.


----------



## Centermass (Sep 13, 2018)

> In his own recommendation, Colonel Norton wrote that from an “institutional point of view, *we did not set up Sgt. Cruz for success*” and said the fraternization was *the result of an “inadequate knowledge of and guidance to young Marines from the battalion chain of command.” *



No, the human role of differences between the sexes did that for you Colonel.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 13, 2018)

Cookie_101st said:


> The issue with this is the same as with the 1SG from a week or so ago; leaders getting horizontal with their troops. Fraternization has always been an issue in the military, so I don't see it as a problem just because of integration. It's a human issue, and those are always going to occur at a greater than zero percent.
> 
> Frat aside, I think the adultery and accessory to larceny charges are more of a story here.



How many men are accused of fraternization in a combat unit?

Not speaking to the issue as it relates to historically integrated units or MOSs, but as it relates to combat arms.  I do think it's disingenuous to charge with adultery though.


----------



## Box (Sep 13, 2018)

but but but
fraternization should be considered a victimless crime 
consenting adults doing what consenting adults do when they are alone and consenting
dare I ask - is the service trying to legislate what this young Marine was doing in the privacy of her own bedroom?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 13, 2018)

Where's the adultery charge coming from I wonder.

I could write a long story about my old wingman. But I'll try to be short. When I moved onto Division staff my replacement as the S1 of the squadron was pretty female AG Officer whom I wasn't sure if I liked or not.  Well she sunk her hooks into the S4, basically identified the Alpha of the Promotable first Lieutenants and went after him.  He and I are still best friends to this day, she was the first chick he ever talked about.  Inside of three months of her being at the unit they were engaged.  He went to Maneuver Captain's Career course shortly after proposing.  They then got "secretly" married at month 7 and were doing the distance thing.  She and I had become friends over that period of time and multiple times of Myself and my GF having dinner with her were canceled over that period of time.

She then started having some weird behavior.  He goes to Pre-Ranger after MCCC and his wife says: "we're getting divorced" [Month 9].  Find out she's dating a Sergeant First Class in our old unit.  We had a long weekend, and he booked plane tickets to come see her before he had report back for his Pre-Ranger recycle.  She said if he came out to El Paso she'd leave until Tuesday and he wouldn't know where to find her.  He then reported to Pre-Ranger, passed, went to Darby, recycled had a 12 hour pass and had divorce papers in his mailbox...literally no time to fight it, sent the docs to his dad who had the lawyers at his corporate office look it over.  They said sign it because when she went to court while he was back in Ranger school he could get fucked. So he signed it, repeated Darby, passed and then went home during Christmas Exodus and she was being a real bitch about giving him a copy of their entire divorce decree and had to file for it. 

So inside of 13 Months she had two different engagement rings on her finger.  The SFC she was dating is now a 1SG and we have no idea what she's up to because she changed her last name and every single person that new her husband on social.  Their relationship wasn't a secret and her CoC did nothing.  My old wingman, well he's whole again and dating a civilian that is his age rather than a woman who was four year younger.


----------



## Cookie_ (Sep 13, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> How many men are accused of fraternization in a combat unit?



I don't have any numbers to provide, which is a task I'll try and find later. All I have is what I've seen when I was active.

To see someone, combat arms or not, charged for Fraternization under the UCMJ, was very few and far between.

To see someone get in trouble for violating the policy, however, happened all the time. Severity depended on command. 
Especially after the policy was updated in 2013/2014(?) to be any relationship between ranks, regardless of command or unit relationship.


----------



## Florida173 (Nov 14, 2018)

> For the first time since the Army opened its special operations jobs to women in 2016, a female soldier has completed the initial Special Forces Assessment and Selection process, a spokesman for Army Special Operations Command has confirmed to Army Times..



A female soldier has made it through the Army’s Special Forces selection


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 14, 2018)

Florida173 said:


> A female soldier has made it through the Army’s Special Forces selection



I just read that elsewhere.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 14, 2018)

Florida173 said:


> A female soldier has made it through the Army’s Special Forces selection


I like how this worked...no pomp and circumstance, just acknowledgement.  Seems Marine-like.


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 14, 2018)

Interesting...a great accomplishment, I wish her luck with the Q course.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 14, 2018)

This isn't the first time a woman got credit for Selection though, right?


----------



## J. (Nov 14, 2018)

Congratulations to that soldier, and the rest who were selected.

But,
If the goal is integration and equality, then why is this news?


----------



## AWP (Nov 14, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> This isn't the first time a woman got credit for Selection though, right?




Savage level: Master. Star and a wreath for that long forgotten bit of trivia.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 14, 2018)

Is this the first part of Selection or a pre screening or what?


----------



## Cookie_ (Nov 14, 2018)

J. said:


> Congratulations to that soldier, and the rest who were selected.
> 
> But,
> If the goal is integration and equality, then why is this news?



We usually mention the first of everything else; I think acknowledging the "firsts" are pretty important for showing that things can be equal and integrated. 
No need to go all Ranger and come up with the "first lesbian national guard mother" or "first black female officer who wears glasses" each time though.



Marine0311 said:


> Is this the first part of Selection or a pre screening or what?



As far as I know. SFAS is the totality of the "selection" process.

She'd still have to go through SFQC to be "qualified".


----------



## Centermass (Nov 14, 2018)

Cookie_101st said:


> Regarding all the stories from Ranger School that source "anonymous Instructors and students" has there been anything written or put forth that seems like it might actually be from someone with firsthand knowledge, instead of people who seem like tab defenders?
> Not to belittle anyone who questions the integrity of the course, but most things about it read as rumor.
> Need a RI to write something like that open letter last year about the standards at SWCS.



Anonymous? Maybe to you and others, but I figured anyone smart enough to know the command climate that still exists, would understand.

I can tell you first hand that any RI, or those within the Regiment, that gets ID'd, will get the kiss of death if their names are published, regarding their careers. Anything I've written within this thread referencing the topic and individuals cited, regarding the same, is firsthand knowledge from those I know and trust and will stand behind it 100%.



Marauder06 said:


> This isn't the first time a woman got credit for Selection though, right?



Katie Wilder, was the only female so far to attend the U.S. Army Special Forces Qualification Course and be granted SF certification. Her SFQC class graduated in Aug of 1980. It was granted under protest and she was never assigned to a team or served on an ODA.



Marine0311 said:


> Is this the first part of Selection or a pre screening or what?



Just A and S.

She now has to pass the "Q" course and become a resident of Pineland, without being evicted..........


----------



## J. (Nov 14, 2018)

Cookie_101st said:


> We usually mention the first of everything else; I think acknowledging the "firsts" are pretty important for showing that things can be equal and integrated.
> No need to go all Ranger and come up with the "first lesbian national guard mother" or "first black female officer who wears glasses" each time though.



I agree, it is a stepping stone that should be recognized. It just comes off as a PAO thing in order to tell future female candidates “you can do it too” which is fair and makes sense. I give the Army credit on being vague and to the point on this one. My only issue is that I can totally see this still being a story every single time. 

At what point is it going to stop being 
“Female (Insert Title) did X thing” 
and start being
“Marines/Soldiers do X thing”

One promotes team mindset, and the other alienates the success and failure of one very small group and puts them on display for everyone to see.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 14, 2018)

J. said:


> At what point is it going to stop being
> “Female (Insert Title) did X thing”
> and start being
> “Marines/Soldiers do X thing”


It pretty much already has.  You don't hear much about the future female Rangers.

The Marines don't really talk about it anyway.

People just assume anything "special" the Air Force has to offer already has women in it.

Future news will be if this gal earns a Green Beret and/or if a woman earns a SEAL Trident.


----------



## J. (Nov 14, 2018)

It is articles like these that don’t inspire me with confidence. These have been pumped out over the last two years, you can’t walk into an MCX without one of the “Times” papers talking about females as if they are something other than a Marine. I do think it is slowing down, and in no way do I blame the women for the publicity they are getting but at this point I feel like I’m watching the DOD jump up and down yelling “HEY! LOOK! WE GOT WOMEN, SEE! LOOK HERE!”

The Marines Didn’t Think Women Belonged in the Infantry. She’s Proving Them Wrong.

One of the First Women in the Infantry Will Be Discharged From the Marines


----------



## Cookie_ (Nov 14, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> It pretty much already has.  You don't hear much about the future female Rangers.
> 
> The Marines don't really talk about it anyway.
> 
> ...


I kinda made a joke about it, but I remember it being news that the "first enlisted Female from the National Guard" completed Ranger School this summer. Not big news, but still something there was press about. 

Fully agree though that the 1st woman to earn a Green Beret/Trident/other SOF identification will be news.


----------



## medicchick (Nov 15, 2018)

Cookie_101st said:


> I kinda made a joke about it, but I remember it being news that the "first enlisted Female from the National Guard" completed Ranger School this summer. Not big news, but still something there was press about.
> 
> Fully agree though that the 1st woman to earn a Green Beret/Trident/other SOF identification will be news.


There is at least one woman wearing a tan beret and Scroll. Not sure what other SOF ID you would mean, unless you don't count Rangers as SOF...


----------



## Cookie_ (Nov 15, 2018)

medicchick said:


> There is at least one woman wearing a tan beret and Scroll. Not sure what other SOF ID you would mean, unless you don't count Rangers as SOF...



Rangers absolutely count.
I'm referring to SOF units that haven't yet had females graduate/qualify. 
The first female Raider, Pj, etc is important news.
I think when they start reaching for specifics (first officer/enlisted/guard/reservist) it becomes a bit excessive.


----------



## medicchick (Nov 15, 2018)

Cookie_101st said:


> Rangers absolutely count.
> I'm referring to SOF units that haven't yet had females graduate/qualify.
> The first female Raider, Pj, etc is important news.
> I think when they start reaching for specifics (first officer/enlisted/guard/reservist) it becomes a bit excessive.



Gotcha. 

The hair on the first female PJ better be epic...lol


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 15, 2018)

medicchick said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> The hair on the first female PJ better be epic...lol





I am encouraging this lass to apply....


----------



## Gunz (Nov 15, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> View attachment 24891
> 
> I am encouraging this lass to apply....




#Me Too.


----------



## bw10 (Nov 15, 2018)

Heard she didn't pass land nav, team week and was non-recced by all course cadre


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 15, 2018)

bw10 said:


> Heard she didn't pass land nav, team week and was non-recced by all course cadre



Unless you are a vetted SF member of this board, what you “heard” is a non factor. Stay in your lane.


----------



## Cookie_ (Nov 15, 2018)

bw10 said:


> Heard she didn't pass land nav, team week and was non-recced by all course cadre



Heard from? Where?

Accusations like that are usually provided with information, especially from unvetted members.


----------



## bw10 (Nov 15, 2018)

Cookie_101st said:


> Heard from? Where?
> 
> Accusations like that are usually provided with information, especially from unvetted members.





Ooh-Rah said:


> Unless you are a vetted SF member of this board, what you “heard” is a non factor. Stay in your lane.



OAFNation had made a post regarding it. The intent of my post was not to be accusatory, I was more inquiring if any others had heard the same. I agree, hearsay is a non-factor, so I apologize.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 15, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> This isn't the first time a woman got credit for Selection though, right?





All kidding aside,  I do see a place for women in the UW & FID Mission of SF. If they can hold the standards and pull their own weight.  There were quite a few women who served honorably in the OSS during WW2, and although I'm absolutely against women in the light Infantry,  those lines have already been crossed for better or worse. So more power to them...


----------



## The Hate Ape (Nov 15, 2018)

I really hate how interesting it is to the western world that a female attempts something in SOF. Most data suggest that the wide majority of candidates underperform compared to their male counterparts, if they even qualify. That suggestion is not misogynistic - it is the required blatant level of honesty if we expect to approach this topic with any sort of logic. 

Proponents of this nonsense pretend the most elite units the United States military suddenly should be entitled to everyone; all people should be able to _apply_ under the required standard, however, the standard shouldn't be considered questionable if candidates are passing. This PC bullshit needs to stop.

The title may as well read
"weak af candidate is selected to move on to the harder part"

Good luck in the Q.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 15, 2018)

Wake me up when she gets her green hat.


----------



## Box (Nov 15, 2018)

I passed that course - it aint all that hard...

...based on that bit of trivia, why arent there hundreds of female graduates by now?


----------



## Loki (Jan 14, 2019)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/women-...dHmFbIJAbkGXJZzx0Q5acuMlU-J4bNNx3uFcYh3JBH_fo


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 14, 2019)

Loki said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/women-...dHmFbIJAbkGXJZzx0Q5acuMlU-J4bNNx3uFcYh3JBH_fo



I don't have a subscription with the WSJ so I can't read it, but I know the author from some things I've seen her write or people respond to.
Is it the normal "standards will be lowered, rapes will increase, and America will never win again!" stuff she usually writes?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 14, 2019)

Loki said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/women-...dHmFbIJAbkGXJZzx0Q5acuMlU-J4bNNx3uFcYh3JBH_fo


Not everyone keeps an unnecessarily expensive subscription to WSJ. 

Here is a PDF of the article I’ve created for the forum.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 14, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Not everyone keeps an unnecessarily expensive subscription to WSJ.
> 
> Here is a PDF of the article I’ve created for the forum.


Thanks for that.

For an article ostensibly about fitness standards, there was a lot more talk about fraternization than fitness.

I can't speak for other branches, but I'm interested in how the gender neutral standards for the army will work. I ran through it with my brother over Christmas using the proposed standards, and it's an asskicker; especially those hand-release push-ups.

If the (current) standards are applied based on assigned unit it could work, but I think it'd be better just to choose either the significant/strenuous category and just make it on grading metric across the force.


----------



## Kaldak (Jan 14, 2019)

Cookie_101st said:


> I don't have a subscription with the WSJ so I can't read it, but I know the author from some things I've seen her write or people respond to.
> Is it the normal "standards will be lowered, rapes will increase, and America will never win again!" stuff she usually writes?



Not rape, eros and higher medical costs. Otherwise pretty much hit it on the head.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 14, 2019)

Eh...no...I ain't goin there.


----------



## Gordus (Jan 14, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Not everyone keeps an unnecessarily expensive subscription to WSJ.
> 
> Here is a PDF of the article I’ve created for the forum.



"Mr. Mattis had previously addressed the incompatibility of eros and military discipline. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand challenged him about these *politically incorrect* *views* ...."

I know I'm not qualified to leave an opinion on this specific topic, and in no way I'm trying to, or patronizing, also sorry for commenting but I have to say this; People, especialy politicians, who can't prove a service record, lack any qualification to have an opinion on a topic, should never allow themselves the right to challenge the views of individuals who are more than qualified in their field and can testify via their own experience or other accounts, and base facts. Your politicians should not dip their noses into military affairs and tell them how to run things. That is highly inapropriate.
Dealing with and trying to eliminate sexual and other type of inapropriate harassment ( though I completly oppose any one-sided stance on any of that ) os a noble cause. But for the love of god, stop trying to tell ppl who know better, how to run shit and question them on *facts.*


----------



## Box (Jan 14, 2019)

"Facts" have nothing to do with the outcome of military or political decision making


----------



## Gordus (Jan 14, 2019)

I know that much of current political decision making isn't evidence / fact based and why it is so, but that's very irritating when rationale needs to stand above emotions in areas that require it, and when it in no way interferes with ethics. There is nothing unethical or "politicaly incorrect" in pointing out something that simply is, the way it is. Being in denial and trying to push through some redundant agenda isn't a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.


----------



## Lefty375 (Jan 14, 2019)

Gordus said:


> I know that much of current political decision making isn't evidence / fact based and why it is so, but that's very irritating when rationale needs to stand above emotions in areas that require it, and when it in no way interferes with ethics. There is nothing unethical or "politicaly incorrect" in pointing out something that simply is, the way it is. Being in denial and trying to push through some redundant agenda isn't a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.



Everyone on every side says facts don't care about your feelings. Everyone has some facts and we use our rationale and rhetoric to sharpen the facts we want to win the day. You have said nothing new in your critique of policy making. The hard "fact" here is there are smart, capable people on both sides making arguments.


----------



## Gordus (Jan 14, 2019)

Lefty375 said:


> You have said nothing new in your critique of policy making. The hard "fact" here is there are smart, capable people on both sides making arguments.



I know, just felt I had to get it off my chest and I wanted to be brutaly honest about this, because it is a legit issue.

I don't doubt that for a minute and I'm also not suggesting to exclude everyone who isn't an expert from a discussion, so long as their contribution brings qualification and value to the table, and I just don't see any value in the continuous denial of hard facts and willfull ignorance.

Sorry for the off-topic. Won't further derail.


----------



## Gordus (Jan 16, 2019)

A perspective on the topic, from the only woman ( retired ) thus far who has made the cut in the Geo sof - sf respectively, apparently.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/58426150@N04/45847616475/in/dateposted/
According to wiki, in Georgia, you need to have served at least 2 years in the army, passed 2 Ranger courses and the airborne school to be allowed to apply for special forces selection.


----------



## Jaknight (Feb 13, 2019)

So one Woman has made it through RASP that’s cool I  wonder if Any will pass the SFAS or Q course in the near future


----------



## AWP (Feb 13, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> So one Woman has made it through RASP that’s cool I  wonder if Any will pass the SFAS or Q course in the near future



RASP II, not RASP I.


----------



## Cannon850 (Feb 17, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> So one Woman has made it through RASP that’s cool I  wonder if Any will pass the SFAS or Q course in the near future


from my understanding 1 female has recently been selected at SFAS ( albeit amidst much controversy and criticism from others in her class)


----------



## Jaknight (Feb 17, 2019)

Cannon850 said:


> from my understanding 1 female has recently been selected at SFAS ( albeit amidst much controversy and criticism from others in her class)


 
Are they pushing more female officers than enlisted women to join  SOF ? It always seems like it’s a female officer trying for it


----------



## Cannon850 (Feb 17, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> Are they pushing more female officers than enlisted women to join  SOF ? It always seems like it’s a female officer trying for it



I can't say either way, but the female that I am speaking of was enlisted.


----------



## Brill (Feb 17, 2019)

Cannon850 said:


> I can't say either way, but the female that I am speaking of was enlisted.



Is she hot?


----------



## Cannon850 (Feb 18, 2019)

lindy said:


> Is she hot?



Im assuming that's why she got selected


----------



## EqualReaction (Feb 18, 2019)

Cannon850 said:


> Im assuming that's why she got selected


So is she a beauty and a beast?  From the numbers it seems that overall attrition has gotten higher in these last few years for SFAS for males. So for at least the males it seems that standards are being upheld.


----------



## Box (Feb 19, 2019)

I heard an interesting commercial on the radio on my way to work this morning.
The spot must have said "be a man" three or four times 
It was reminding people of the law - men must register for the draft when they reach the age of adulthood.

Be a man?

so sexist - what makes people think that only men are able to register for the draft


----------



## The Hate Ape (Feb 19, 2019)

Civillian oversight of the military is a good thing for a nation but not always the military.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 19, 2019)

I never really understood the concept, civilians start the wars,  the military fights them. Oversight?  Mehh, set the budget, commission the commanders and tell us when and where to got to war.  Otherwise, stay in your lane... 

Not withstanding a military take over of the government, which civilian oversight wouldn't stop if the military so decided. 

Just saying.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Feb 19, 2019)

I disagree that a military takeover is plausible today due to decisions made in the yester-years. Largely by civillians. 

While I agree with popular opinion on the operational effects of civillian/military management, I would reiterate that it is an extreme generalization that doesnt paint an accurate narrative.

The nature of their positions are indeed political, hence the partisan nonsense. But make no mistake, they are much more neccessary for reasons often overlooked.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 23, 2019)

MAN.

Can you imagine having to deal with the fact that not only did a female get selected over you, but that she's ALSO hot and probably wouldn't sleep with you because you're a non-select? Man that's fantastic. The sheer poo poo lip in that scenario is so funny to me.

There are going to be a lot of butthurt support/non combat career fields out there when the first female operators curve them at a bar because they're "just support anyway". 

Double burn.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 23, 2019)

Ladies can do stuff now.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 23, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> Ladies can do stuff now.


#Draft_me_too


----------



## Gunz (Feb 23, 2019)

DasBoot said:


> Nope we have one from RASP 1.
> 
> Also the number of dipshits showing up at Batt these days shows that those attrition rates need to go up for RASP.  The pushed way too many guys through in anticipation for the DPRK mission.



DPRK mission? We're you guys going to whack Kim now that we're making friends with him?


----------



## DasBoot (Feb 23, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> DPRK mission? We're you guys going to whack Kim now that we're making friends with him?


All of SOF was expecting heavy casualties if we went in. I can’t comment on others but when it was looking like “it” was going to happen they started prepping to fill the slots from mass casualties.


----------



## Cookie_ (Feb 23, 2019)

@Ocoka, it was even sort of the same situation for the SOF guard units(at least the ones I'm familiar with) as @DasBoot describes; lots of talk of increasing bodies (less for casualties and more to actually reach 100% manning) and prepping for "an enemy likely to use CBRN weapons".


----------



## Jaknight (Feb 23, 2019)

Cookie_ said:


> @Ocoka, it was even sort of the same situation for the SOF guard units(at least the ones I'm familiar with) as @DasBoot describes; lots of talk of increasing bodies (less for casualties and more to actually reach 100% manning) and prepping for "an enemy likely to use CBRN weapons".


 CBRN weapons? Is that chemical?


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 23, 2019)

Chemical Biological Radialogical Nuclear/ (Explosives)


----------



## Gunz (Feb 24, 2019)

.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 24, 2019)

Interesting.. National Coalition of Men?

With women in combat roles, a federal court rules the male-only draft unconstitutional


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 24, 2019)

Have to admit, it's probably time for the draft to be for both sexes. You can't cherry pick what you want to be equal for and what you don't want to be equal for.


----------



## Brill (Feb 24, 2019)

Kraut783 said:


> Have to admit, it's probably time for the draft to be for both sexes. You can't cherry pick what you want to be equal for and what you don't want to be equal for.



That’s sexist!


----------



## chickenrappa (Feb 24, 2019)

Well yeah, about time women have to sign up for the draft too. I wonder what kind of stipulations they'll put on it though, because there's no way they're going to make it 100 percent the same. At least I think on the base level they'll make the way it works basically the same, but probably have some different ways of going about it. Interested to see if they can pull it off.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2019)

chickenrappa said:


> Well yeah, about time women have to sign up for the draft too. I wonder what kind of stipulations they'll put on it though, because there's no way they're going to make it 100 percent the same. At least I think on the base level they'll make the way it works basically the same, but probably have some different ways of going about it. Interested to see if they can pull it off.


Why would they need to make it any different? 

If the only male version is unconstitutional, why wouldn’t simply including all SSNs through selective service registration be as simple as that?


----------



## chickenrappa (Feb 24, 2019)

Yeah, everyone would have to sign up on their 18th birthday, that would be standard for both males and females. It could be that simple, the complicated portion would be during the actual draft (if activated again), would they pull 50/50 male/female draftee numbers? What would the ratio be? That was more what I was thinking about, I over complicate shit sometimes in my head. But you're correct @amlove21 The process of signing up shouldn't be different, and including all SSN's would probably be the way they go about it. I was speaking more for the actual draft (if activated again), more of a curious thought than anything that anybody could answer yet.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2019)

If they activated the draft, you wouldn’t partition it out; you’d just pull numbers out the hat. Everyone is equal now, right? So no need for a split. 

That post has some sarcasm in it, I hear what you’re saying.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 24, 2019)




----------



## Box (Feb 24, 2019)

_All animals are equal_, but some animals are more equal than others.


----------



## SOSTCRNA (Feb 25, 2019)

Box said:


> _All animals are equal_, but some animals are more equal than others.



One of my favorite lines.  Useful when dealing with the entitled.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 25, 2019)

An older article, but relevant to this conversation:  When It Comes To Gender Integration In The Military, “Equality” Starts With “Apathy”



> However, in the military, the unit is more important than the both the individual and any demographic to which an individual may belong.  Gender neutrality, or better yet gender apathy, should be the norm.  Singling out  women for special praise or privileges damages male soldiers’ trust in their leadership and the policymakers that made this decision. It puts female soldiers in the most awkward of positions with respect to their peers. They don’t need it. They don’t want it. So stop doing it.


----------



## Johca (Feb 25, 2019)

The draft, is involuntarily conscripting civilian into military service. Any gender equality arguments based on registering for the draft disappeared in 19973 when U.S. Congress implemented the All Voluntary military policies.  Regardless, all the arguments of the draft are further complicated in warfighting needs much support for every combatant put on the front lines.  This then puts the needs to win the fight overrules the desired job choice.   Its unlikely that everybody drafted would want placement in a unit or job most likely to get them killed and even if they did the need for special warfighters that these forums focus on will be much less than the need for conventional warfighters.

Soo... being required to register for the draft is a nothing gained or lost argument as far as doing and being there in combat is concerned.  Most will join the new Space Force to avoid being put into harms way anyway.


----------



## Board and Seize (Feb 25, 2019)

From the article:

"Yes, to some extent this is symbolic, but it does have some real-world impact," said Marc Angelucci, the lawyer for the men challenging the Selective Service System. "Either they need to get rid of the draft registration, or they need to require women to do the same thing that men do."

It's amazing to me that we still have the vestiges of the straight-up, government-run, legalized slavery known as the draft - and that it seems so unproblematic to most people.  If this ruling leads to the end of Selective Service, it would be the biggest and, to my mind, most meaningful step towards freedom that this country has taken in a long time.



Diamondback 2/2 said:


> View attachment 26577



I've been saying this for years (going full on Starship Troopers is the logical conclusion).  Ever since we had our first town hall on the repeal of DADT and the issue of housing hetero/homo Marines of the same gender together was brought up.  It's not only the logical conclusion, but going full on Starship Troopers is the *only* logically consistent position to take now that gender segregation is politically untenable.  From housing, to bootcamp showering, to standards (physical, grooming, or otherwise) - complete


Marauder06 said:


> gender apathy


is the solution.  It's also the only natural Schelling Point solution other than a male-only military.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 25, 2019)

The bad thing about the draft is that people don't want to be drafted and will do just about anything to get out of it...especially in a war where there's just the slightest wiggle room for moral arguments. Plus, you get soldiers who refuse combat assignments. Having said that, lots of brave draftees have sucked it up, done their duty and kicked ass when it counted. But it's not a good thing.



Marauder06 said:


> _"...However, in the military, the unit is more important than the both the individual and any demographic to which an individual may belong. Gender neutrality, or better yet gender apathy, should be the norm..."_



Absolutely. And yet people being what they are, can gender apathy ever truly exist in any hormone-rich environment? Biology may come in to play at some point in any unit.


----------



## bvvanes (Apr 28, 2019)

In college they talked about “androgeny”. Knowing of the era of the demise of paper flashes and candy stripers I thought SF would prevail unabated. That was before SF was sold out to mother Army. SF was thrown under the bus with the enlisted / officers that only wanted to do the mission. The guys with a little larceny in their hearts, the guys that cared more about the mission than themselves, the 18A that would grab a beer with you at the GB club. I suffered through MacKall, a few MOSs and years later was commissioned. There’s a mission to do on a team. You lead from the front or you enable those leading. Or get the hell out of the way.

My success never relied on my maleness. I achieved what I did by sheer will/determination/perseverance. Is there a place for those traits to be tested, yes it’s selection. So if we default to SFAS to weeding out “weak” ones, we then have only the school house to trust to produce those that have been tested. Or can we? We are seeing in the national media now, some (allegedly) at the school house that may have an agenda very different. As rumors go, historically others in positions of power within the community have tried to make SF more PC or inclusionary, In OEF I “volunteered” for some “trips” that could have ended badly for me.

Would I care that the one covering my 6 was a female, of course not. Is there a place for a woman in SF/SOF? Ask the Israelis, our Intel services etc If there is, is the crucible in a male training environment? I would say no. I don’t know that you can expect a woman to pass standards that only a few men can pass. Can a woman, provided the standards aren’t changed, pass; maybe. Can a woman run a marathon like a man? Of course. But as I understand it, the fastest woman will always be slower than the fastest man, it’s the anatomy! Those inclusionary folks don’t want to acknowledge the differences or turmoil they will cause, for them a greater ‘good’ is being served. We have sown the seeds of our own demise.

I accepted being in the SF association when it was the Decade Club and knowing I couldn’t talk at meetings until I had my time in. In an ideal world, I’d say: you want to be in SF, get tabbed. You want to assist in the mission, get a tab. If you can’t get through selection, go somewhere else. How many more contrived windmills are we going to knock down? What’s next, the NFL, military academy football teams? Standards exist, even Hell requires you to be a sinner to get in!

The ‘enablers’ in SWC need to enable the teams’ prosecution of the mission with quality personnel. Two 18 series instructors are getting the boot over this, fair or not? As I’ve come to realize, ones’ perception is ones’ reality. A valuable teaching point has been lost if these 2 leave.

I’m reminded of a few anecdotes. One being: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and as Pogo said, I have met the enemy and he is us.

- mod edit - 
@bvvanes - you had a lot to say, I did not change any words, but added some paragraphs so that it would be easier for folks to read.
Ooh Rah


----------



## bvvanes (May 3, 2019)

bvvanes said:


> In college they talked about “androgeny”. Knowing of the era of the demise of paper flashes and candy stripers I thought SF would prevail unabated. That was before SF was sold out to mother Army. SF was thrown under the bus with the enlisted / officers that only wanted to do the mission. The guys with a little larceny in their hearts, the guys that cared more about the mission than themselves, the 18A that would grab a beer with you at the GB club. I suffered through MacKall, a few MOSs and years later was commissioned. There’s a mission to do on a team. You lead from the front or you enable those leading. Or get the hell out of the way.
> 
> My success never relied on my maleness. I achieved what I did by sheer will/determination/perseverance. Is there a place for those traits to be tested, yes it’s selection. So if we default to SFAS to weeding out “weak” ones, we then have only the school house to trust to produce those that have been tested. Or can we? We are seeing in the national media now, some (allegedly) at the school house that may have an agenda very different. As rumors go, historically others in positions of power within the community have tried to make SF more PC or inclusionary, In OEF I “volunteered” for some “trips” that could have ended badly for me.
> 
> ...


Thanks. sometimes I can ramble on when pissed. bv


----------



## Gordus (May 3, 2019)

bvvanes said:


> it’s the anatomy! Those inclusionary folks don’t want to acknowledge the differences or turmoil they will cause, for them a greater ‘good’ is being served. We have sown the seeds of our own demise.



Nope. Away with silly facts !

Denialism is the new black.


----------



## bvvanes (May 20, 2019)

Is it Christmas or Halloween?
At Christmas, we spend as much as we can afford, to give our loved ones as much as we can. For Halloween, we spend as little as we can, to provide as much as we can, for as many as we can. 
A SWC commander said he had ‘a client, a customer’ he provides the SWC product to  (the end-user) the A-team. What would happen if Mackall turned out an 18A that couldn’t make decisions? What would a team do when the 18A said’ ‘should we take that hill or valley or hold our position; or 2 clicks back was a grassy knoll that we could take and hold, what to do?’ It wouldn’t take long for someone to ask SWC what the hell did they turn out at Mackall for the team to use? The demoralizing effect on that team would be palpable. While on a ‘trip’ on the border with Pakistan while in OEF, some started debating where we were (grid coordinate wise) on this mountain. Demoralizing? you could cut it with a knife. 
Better yet, when you buy soda, do you buy Coca Cola or the K-mart brand of cola?  Even worse, while the 2 colas taste different, what if the K-mart brand caused stomach pains, headaches etc? More than a flavor issue, now you have an aversion to drinking the K-mart cola. 
In the medical field, I have seen the effect a “perceived” incompetent physician / nurse / pa can have in the hospital / clinic. Their decisions aren’t trusted, in fact they are questioned / suspect, they garner little respect and and they sew seeds of mistrust / discontent in the end user for those who put the ‘product’ in their positions. I  remember an ENT resident physician who according to the RNs was ‘walking death’. It was said if her patients survived it was only because of survival of the fittest. Her actions were always questioned, her decisions / orders second-guessed and reviewed by other physicians etc. So why not take her out of her training program? She had a few ‘pc’ buttons that the program could press and say ‘look what we’re producing’. More importantly, folks found ‘work arounds’ to avoid using her ‘expertise’. So what happens on a team with a female 18D that got through S & A / MOS training and ended up on a team not because she passed the standards her male counterparts had to pass but had the correct ‘pc’ buttons and rumors were swirling that standards were ‘massaged’ to help her correct societal ills?
Having been an 18D and knowing maybe 1/4 of our class finished the complete course because of ‘standards’ and as an officer, having worked in SWC for years, I understand standards exist. Once I heard a doctor trying to convince an audience of doctors why a HIV positive male should have open heart surgery. He pleaded with his audience about their obligation to humanity / their compassion. When some said ‘well, yeah we should allow the operation even though the bypass machine now will be infected with HIV blood, the MDs, RNs etc will be exposed to HIV blood and god forbid they get accidentally stuck! But if they do, the hospital will name a room after them as one did in Texas after the RN died.  And yes, the doctor did prevail, but the doctor / advocate for this operation forgot to mention that when the operation was to occur he was to be on a planned vacation. How convenient. So, will those advocating for ‘massaging’ the standards be conveniently ‘on vacation’ or will they be subjected to their dictates also? My experience says they won’t be around to personally witness their dictates in action. This is truly “delegation and disappear”.
Would you want her taking care of you down-range? Would it be survival of the fittest? How demoralizing would it be? As a social scientist, would you say well my life is worth risking for the progress I see her making? Or would you ask is it Christmas or Halloween; or quality or quantity?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 21, 2019)

*- Update -*

MASSACHUSETTS, USA — In the nearly four years since the Pentagon announced it was opening all combat jobs to women , at least 30 have earned the Army Ranger tab, two have graduated Marine infantry school and three have passed the grueling initial assessment phase for Green Beret training.

Their numbers are small, but their completion of some of the military's most arduous physical and mental courses has raised an intriguing scientific question: Who are these "hyperfit" women and what makes them so competitive?

Military studies 'hyperfit' women who pass grueling courses


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2019)

4 years for 30 Ranger tabs, 2 Marine infantry, and 3 SFAS selectees? What's our ROI for the policy, especially since we know some of the female Ranger grads had different "opportunities" than their male counterparts?


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 21, 2019)

I think it should state Infantry Officer Course for female Marines. 

I'd still like to see them push the females out west for ITB.


----------



## DasBoot (Jul 21, 2019)

AWP said:


> 4 years for 30 Ranger tabs, 2 Marine infantry, and 3 SFAS selectees? What's our ROI for the policy, especially since we know some of the female Ranger grads had different "opportunities" than their male counterparts?


I’m actually calling BS on the chicks getting special treatment. I had an RI tell me they’re typically harder on females while I was a recycle. I had one graduate with me and another get held up in Florida who I was with the rest of the time. They didn’t get any special breaks.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 21, 2019)

Meh. Your whole class was special treatment then.

😜


----------



## DasBoot (Jul 21, 2019)

BloodStripe said:


> Meh. Your whole class was special treatment then.
> 
> 😜


Same class I saw a Marine get up and quit day one during combatives...


----------



## Box (Jul 22, 2019)

We need more studies - we still arent sure if humans are a dimorphic species or not.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 22, 2019)

There will always be some shield-maidens.


----------



## Gordus (Jul 22, 2019)

This has been brought up before, but if the ( political ) demands ( and sjw complaints  ) are ( were ) so high, why not test and create an all-female special operations unit like Norway did, instead of trying to accommodate and adjust the selection process and upset the working environment and effectiveness of existing units.
So, there may be 1 in a million, and that person is still excluded from joining a team and participating in combat operations. What value does that have. It gives you a bad rep, and the person won't achieve their career goal, which sucks for them.

But the solution is not, to accommodate and lower standarts, in existing units. Therefore, maybe ....


----------



## DasBoot (Jul 22, 2019)

Gordus said:


> This has been brought up before, but if the ( political ) demands ( and sjw complaints  ) are ( were ) so high, why not test and create an all-female special operations unit like Norway did, instead of trying to accommodate and adjust the selection process and upset the working environment and effectiveness of existing units.
> So, there may be 1 in a million, and that person is still excluded from joining a team and participating in combat operations. What value does that have. It gives you a bad rep, and the person won't achieve their career goal, which sucks for them.
> 
> But the solution is not, to accommodate and lower standarts, in existing units. Therefore, maybe ....


Standards have not been lowered for females at RASP, RASP 2, and SURT. The overall selections have been revamped to better fit modern understandings of sports and performance psychology. There can be arguments made that the old ways of mind numbing smoking bred a tougher individual and I partially agree with this. With all that said, the standards are the same.


----------



## Board and Seize (Jul 22, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...In the nearly four years since the Pentagon announced it was opening all combat jobs to women , at least *30* have earned the Army Ranger tab, *two* have graduated Marine infantry school and *three* have passed the grueling initial assessment phase for Green Beret training...



So the empirical science is in!

IOC (2) > SFAS (3) > Ranger (30) 
(where ">" means harder than)

OMG, muhreen is harder than Rambo, lololololol!

/s


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 22, 2019)

Board and Seize said:


> So the empirical science is in!
> 
> IOC (2) > SFAS (3) > Ranger (30)
> (where ">" means harder than)
> ...



The path to IOC v. Ranger School for Women Service Members has been significantly different.

They were still doing this at 1AD when I was there, women volunteers were OPCONNED to the Divisional Pre-Ranger course for a period of two months before going through division pre-ranger. Then went through Pre-Ranger at Bliss. Following completion of that they had a recovery period and went to Warrior Training Center at Ft Benning and went through the National Guard's Pre-Ranger course. If they passed that, they returned to Home-Station for Recovery for roughly one-month to six-weeks and then classed up to Ranger School at Ft Benning. Previous to the establishment of the 1AD Pre-Ranger course, they had a TACON attachment to DIV HQ where the women Volunteers spent 4+ months away from their units. The training path for any male Soldier at 1AD was pretty much a solo event until he went through DIV Pre-Ranger.

Mind,Marine IOC was open to women volunteers well before Ranger School was. The course was changed, likely to allow women to complete the course (or so it was said). This is opinion, but it's in this thread. You could say that Standards across the board were basically lowered. The Endurance Course-12 Hour Endurance Run and Obstacle Course previously was an entrance requirement to Marine IOC. Unlike ABOLC or IBOLC for the Army, there is no in-processing on Day 1 because Marines selected for IOC following TBS class up into IOC Prep. Basically a period of getting super fucking fit so that they can sustain the chronic load that IOC puts on Marines. The E-Course ate up Male Marine Officers, I think the figure was previously like 15-20% of an IOC class would get a new MOS following the the failure of the E-Course. Well, now the E-Course is no longer a pass/fail requirement. There were a few women to pass the E-Course before they changed this requirement. However, those that did usually had to physically withdraw because IOC is tough and it was breaking their bodies down. IOC today is still extremely tough course and the numbers show it.

They are different courses (both hard as shit), but the prep periods seem to be completely different approaches.

Another course to look at that's been open a long time and few British Women Soldiers and Marines have passed over time is the Royal Marine Commando Course.  The data on this stuff is pretty succinct.  The ROI isn't really there, but if you took the Marine or British path, I don't think you're investing that much extra time or money.  But the Army's approach has pulled Women Officers and Senior NCOs away from their units for significantly longer periods than is expected of their male counterparts.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 22, 2019)

I think @Board and Seize was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.

There are too many uncontrolled variables to draw meaningful conclusions without more data.  So really, this merits an eyebrow raise and not much more.

But back in MY day....hurumph hurumph hurumph....


----------



## Gunz (Jul 22, 2019)

Gordus said:


> ...This has been brought up before, but if the ( political ) demands ( and sjw complaints  ) are ( were ) so high, why not test and create an all-female special operations unit like Norway did...



Because the impetus behind the politics is diversity and inclusiveness and the abolition of segregated units.


----------



## KiloPapa (Jul 22, 2019)

Gordus said:


> , why not test and create an all-female special operations unit like Norway did, instead of trying to accommodate and adjust the selection process and upset the working environment and effectiveness of existing units.


It should be noted that the Jegertroppen was (it is claimed) created to meet a specific operational need for females - i.e. being female was an important quality in itself. All other NORSOF units are still open to females, however none have yet passed the selection courses as far as I’m aware.


----------



## DZ (Jul 22, 2019)

Board and Seize said:


> So the empirical science is in!
> 
> IOC (2) > SFAS (3) > Ranger (30)
> (where ">" means harder than)
> ...


I know you're joking, but for the record; SFAS is by far the easiest part of becoming a Green Beret.


----------



## Gordus (Jul 22, 2019)

DasBoot said:


> With all that said, the standards are the same.



That is good to hear.

However the issue remains and is reflected in other countries. There are females who make the cut, but are denied access to SF teams and deployment in combat operations, from what I gather. So far, on the internet, I've heard mostly if not only cons from ppl who serve in such units and their objections about females being part in such a working environment ( SF teams, combat etc ), all sound very plausible tbh.

That is why I ask about all-female units.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 23, 2019)

I would've liked to have been in an all-female unit. 😁😜


----------



## KiloPapa (Jul 23, 2019)

There is that small issue of you being male...


----------



## Grunt (Jul 23, 2019)

I think they ought to let those women progress without using them as subject matter for their articles. Let them be and allow them to do their jobs without the spotlight. But, that's just my grunt way of thinking....


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 23, 2019)

Board and Seize said:


> So the empirical science is in!
> 
> IOC (2) > SFAS (3) > Ranger (30)
> (where ">" means harder than)
> ...


We have had some TACP grads- no one close on Control or PJ.


----------



## GOTWA (Jul 23, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> I would've liked to have been in an all-female unit. 😁😜


It's a terrible thing when you work with attractive females and you're single.  I almost got married to my then HUMINT gf.


----------



## LibraryLady (Jul 23, 2019)

KiloPapa said:


> There is that small issue of you being male...


And here I thought @Ocoka  was a lesbian in a male body... 

LL


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 23, 2019)

KiloPapa said:


> There is that small issue of you being male...



It's 2019.  I'm not sure you can make that assumption/accusation.....


----------



## Brill (Jul 23, 2019)

Gordus said:


> There are females who make the cut, but are denied access to ... and deployment...



I think, given the GWOT and the highly specialized units tasked with executing national priorities, that pretty smart people have studied ways to reduce the signature of a tattooed muscled up American towering over the local populace overseas.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 23, 2019)

KiloPapa said:


> There is that small issue of you being male...



Are you assuming his identity? How dare you!!!!


----------



## Gordus (Jul 24, 2019)

lindy said:


> I think, given the GWOT and the highly specialized units tasked with executing national priorities, that pretty smart people have studied ways to reduce the signature of a tattooed muscled up American towering over the local populace overseas.



Wouldn't it be more beneficial to recruit and train locals of either gender for such specific roles ? as an adversary, you'd expect that less. Plus you create a professional pool that later helps to (re)build the local armed forces. Prob saying smth that has been the get go for centuries, sorry xD

Okay fine. I'll admit, I'm mainly attracted to the idea of all-female SOF because in my head they look really darn cool. Can a man's dream come true ?


----------



## Brill (Jul 24, 2019)

Gordus said:


> Wouldn't it be more beneficial to recruit and train locals of either gender for such specific roles ? as an adversary, you'd expect that less.



I know several former “locals”, who left their homeland and became US citizens, who are aiding this country achieve its goals.


----------



## AWP (Jul 24, 2019)

Gordus said:


> Wouldn't it be more beneficial to recruit and train locals of either gender for such specific roles ?



My country has a bad habit of doing just that, but then leaving the locals behind when we leave.


----------



## Gordus (Jul 25, 2019)

AWP said:


> My country has a bad habit of doing just that, but then leaving the locals behind when we leave.



I figure that's where other Alliance members come in, and I guess if the US didn't care at all, there wouldn't even be efforts to find a replacement. Of course I can only speak for a country I know and where this is the case.

It is still unfortunate when you hear from ppl who command such units, that current develoments should have already taken place 10 years ago. But hey, it's always better late than never right. So, no hard feelings.  Okay maybe a little.  

But this is going way off-topic.


----------



## arch_angel (Jul 25, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> The path to IOC v. Ranger School for Women Service Members has been significantly different.
> 
> They were still doing this at 1AD when I was there, women volunteers were OPCONNED to the Divisional Pre-Ranger course for a period of two months before going through division pre-ranger. Then went through Pre-Ranger at Bliss. Following completion of that they had a recovery period and went to Warrior Training Center at Ft Benning and went through the National Guard's Pre-Ranger course. If they passed that, they returned to Home-Station for Recovery for roughly one-month to six-weeks and then classed up to Ranger School at Ft Benning. Previous to the establishment of the 1AD Pre-Ranger course, they had a TACON attachment to DIV HQ where the women Volunteers spent 4+ months away from their units. The training path for any male Soldier at 1AD was pretty much a solo event until he went through DIV Pre-Ranger.
> 
> ...



Hey brother, I'm here to tell you.... Every part of the CET is still a requirement for entrance into IOC. If you fail a hike during IOC you're dropped. Don't make the time hacks on the CET, boarded and usually dropped. The Marine Times articles that were published on 'lowering standards' was a complete crock of shit.

My class alone had over 40 drops (3 of them females). The next class had about 60 drops (all males).

By no means am I saying that course is harder than any other cause honestly idc either way. My point is, the standard at IOC has not been adjusted to make it any easier. In fact, they ADDED a 12 mile hike to the POI while I was there (conveniently) so if anything it's gotten even more difficult.

Academically, if you fail exams, you get boarded (and usually dropped).  There's alot of misinformation out there, just wanted to set the record straight.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 25, 2019)

@arch_angel , thanks for the gouge.  A lot of us have been out a minute so what a lot of us hear is from media, so it's dated, biased, incomplete, etc.  It's helpful to hear relevant and timely info.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 25, 2019)

arch_angel said:


> Hey brother, I'm here to tell you.... Every part of the CET is still a requirement for entrance into IOC. If you fail a hike during IOC you're dropped. Don't make the time hacks on the CET, boarded and usually dropped. The Marine Times articles that were published on 'lowering standards' was a complete crock of shit.
> 
> My class alone had over 40 drops (3 of them females). The next class had about 60 drops (all males).
> 
> ...


Just going by what's been announced by HQMC: Passing Combat Endurance Test is no longer required for infantry officers

Marine Corps Quietly Drops Major Obstacle to Female Infantry Officers


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 25, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> Just going by what's been announced by HQMC: Passing Combat Endurance Test is no longer required for infantry officers
> 
> Marine Corps Quietly Drops Major Obstacle to Female Infantry Officers



"_TECOM officials said the data shows the overall attrition rate for the combat endurance test was not high_."

...except for the women candidates. Then it was very close to 100%.

But hey, at least no one is lowering standards, right?


----------



## arch_angel (Jul 25, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> Just going by what's been announced by HQMC: Passing Combat Endurance Test is no longer required for infantry officers
> 
> Marine Corps Quietly Drops Major Obstacle to Female Infantry Officers


Those are the exact articles I'm referring to. Marine Times is not known for reporting accurate information, and the Military.com site referenced them as a source.

As of July '18, we had quite a few dudes get dropped immediately following the CET (which included a double-o with rope climbs). 

You may have to take my word for it, those requirements are still there.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 25, 2019)

Well, there are standards, then there are standards.  Every school I've been through and most of the units I was in minimum standards would not keep you in.  I am curious how many women meet the standards, but minimally so?


----------



## arch_angel (Jul 25, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Well, there are standards, then there are standards.  Every school I've been through and most of the units I was in minimum standards would not keep you in.  I am curious how many women meet the standards, but minimally so?


From my class we had 2 that passed the CET but were dropped later on during one of the hikes. One of them outperformed 80% of the class during the CET, she was an animal. Unfortunately she was also of small stature and broke her hip carrying a 240.

Surprisingly, there's not a lot of interest from a lot of female Marine officers to attend IOC. A lot more of them opt for arty/tracks/combat engineers. TBS has a funny way of opening your eyes to how much you may or may not want to spend extensive amounts of time in the field.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 25, 2019)

arch_angel said:


> From my class we had 2 that passed the CET but were dropped later on during one of the hikes. One of them outperformed 80% of the class during the CET, she was an animal. Unfortunately she was also of small stature and broke her hip carrying a 240.
> 
> Surprisingly, there's not a lot of interest from a lot of female Marine officers to attend IOC. A lot more of them opt for arty/tracks/combat engineers. TBS has a funny way of opening your eyes to how much you may or may not want to spend extensive amounts of time in the field.



The physical demands of IOC are pretty intense.  Before they changed that requirement no woman had graduated IOC.  There about 5 or 6 that made passed the E-Course.  But, similar to the Marine you pointed out broke something else along the way.  But that's why Marine Infantry officers are studs.


----------



## Teufel (Jul 25, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> "_TECOM officials said the data shows the overall attrition rate for the combat endurance test was not high_."
> 
> ...except for the women candidates. Then it was very close to 100%.
> 
> But hey, at least no one is lowering standards, right?


The CET was not a one shot pass/fail event when I attended IOC in 2003. You could remediate it.


----------



## WILAX (Aug 2, 2019)

amlove21 said:


> We have had some TACP grads- no one close on Control or PJ.



So there has been a female TACP grad? AF times put out an article FEB 2019 stating a female could graduate sometime in the spring from the school house.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 3, 2019)

JMsmith said:


> So there has been a female TACP grad? AF times put out an article FEB 2019 stating a female could graduate sometime in the spring from the school house.


Multiple ALO. 3-4? I’d have to check.


----------



## AWP (Aug 14, 2019)

amlove21 said:


> Multiple ALO. 3-4? I’d have to check.



One of them sits about 15 feet from my desk. Small world.

ETA: she said there are 4: 3 still AD and one went to the Guard.


----------



## Johca (Aug 14, 2019)

Unlike CRO and STO the TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY OFFICER (changed from ALO, effective 30 April 2019) utilizes an intermediate (13L2) qualification (always has since the 13L ALO AFSC was established) between entry and qualified.

From Air Force Officer Classification Directory, 30 April 2019:
3.3.4. 13L3.
3.3.4.1.  Completion of Basic ALO Skill Course (BASC).

Do any of the multiple female ALO's hold award of 13L2 (Intermediate) or 13L3 (qualified) specialty code and a JTAC Special Experience Qualifier (9C, 9D, 9E)?

ALO and TACP Tier 2 Operator Fitness Test Guidance Memorandum is attached. Not a particularly robust or strenuous fitness test.

BTW, JTAC qualification and certification on the enlisted TACP side of the house isn't mandatory core qualification requirement until award of the 5-skill level.


----------



## Brill (Aug 14, 2019)

AWP said:


> One of them sits about 15 feet from my desk. Small world.



“She hot?”


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 15, 2019)

lindy said:


> “She hot?”



Uhh, hello, it's the AF? That's a recruiting prereq?


----------



## Johca (Aug 15, 2019)

Some assessment and selection and Air Force Occupational-specific fitness test standards over the years for comparison purposes.

The PJ PAST assessment and section standard originates with the 17-29 years old age bracket used by Pararescue when the Pararescue Assessment and Selection Course was established as an entry requirement in 1964. The PAST from ARRSR 55-11 Dec 1977.pdf captures these standards.

8-count body builders and flutter kicks were removed during 1989 by CCT functional managers after the combined CCT and PJ Indoc course was established effective 1 August 1987.  At this time it became known as the PJ and Combat Control PAST.  One minimum standard for both specialties.

Circa 2000 it simply became the PAST with different minimums for PJ, CCT, SOWT, SERE, TACP and AF EOD.

As far as I'm aware of, nobody has informed me differently, the 2019 PAST is still being used for enlisted entry classification purposes to enlist with a GTEP contract and for enlisted to cross train out of one Air Force specialty into the PJ, CCT, SR (formerly SOW), TACP, SERE, and AF EOD specialties.

So curious who would/could pass the 1977 standards?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 15, 2019)

Johca said:


> Some assessment and selection and Air Force Occupational-specific fitness test standards over the years for comparison purposes.
> 
> The PJ PAST assessment and section standard originates with the 17-29 years old age bracket used by Pararescue when the Pararescue Assessment and Selection Course was established as an entry requirement in 1964. The PAST from ARRSR 55-11 Dec 1977.pdf captures these standards.
> 
> ...



Damn, those fuckers were fit.


----------



## Johca (Aug 15, 2019)

Yes, we were back then before the days of CrossFit, massive steroids use and abuse, and everybody gets the feel good participation trophy.

Attached is an OL-J fitness test stats for OL-J Indoc Class 78-04 day before they shjpped out into the training pipeline, dated 27 November 1973.  Started in morning with 6-mile run followed immediately by calisthenics, followed by swim.  The water confidence was done after lunch.

Nobody failed and the last SIE or medical elimination (meningitis) was five weeks earlier.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 15, 2019)

Seriously. What in the flying fuck does decades-dated and tactically/strategically irrelevant to a modern battlefield information that you keep in your back pocket have to do with what the hell is going on today for training modern battlefield troops?

I mean, shit man, there's not classes on goddamn muskets anymore, are you going to start breaking out the TM/FM for a Sharps and quoting how a .65 ball is superior to 5.56 within it's operational range overlap?


----------



## Johca (Aug 15, 2019)

Yes, technology has changed.  But those who won the battle with a sharp would most likely win the battle using modern technology.

I thought or hoped seeing how fitness standards have changed might be a bit more interestingly relevant to some than how hot is she questions and answers.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 15, 2019)

If I could wipe this thread off the board, I would. 

Get back to the actual topic, how we are going to integrate women in combat/SOF career fields. 

Sounds like the ALO (the one that actually passed a selection, got qualified, and is currently deployed putting effects downrange) is doing just fine.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 15, 2019)

Like we do everyone else?  The best integration happens is when we maintain the standards and that individual meets them without regard to what's betwixt their legs.


----------



## Johca (Aug 15, 2019)

Well it seems the AF is integrating, so why is the how even a question among those serving in the AF now that it has happened within the TACP officer/enlisted human performance capability provided to win the fight?


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 15, 2019)

Cool.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 17, 2019)

amlove21 said:


> If I could wipe this thread off the board, I would.
> 
> Get back to the actual topic, how we are going to integrate women in combat/SOF career fields.
> 
> Sounds like the ALO (the one that actually passed a selection, got qualified, and is currently deployed putting effects downrange) is doing just fine.



It’s been a few days so Re-opening - with a short leash.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 17, 2019)

- Update -

The first enlisted woman to attempt Air Force special reconnaissance training has been dropped from the program

The first enlisted woman to attempt the Air Force's special operations weather career field — now known as special reconnaissance (SR) — has not been selected to proceed further in her training, according to Air Education and Training Command.

The trainee, unidentified for privacy reasons, was the eighth woman to try any kind of battlefield training in the Air Force since the Defense Department opened combat career fields to all in December 2015.

But the SR candidate "was not selected to proceed further in training during assessment and selection," according to AETC spokeswoman Marilyn Holliday.


----------



## Brill (Aug 17, 2019)

Watched the recent change of command of 75th RR and noticed there appeared to be a female CPT with scroll, short tab, and scroll for combat patch.

If a candidate can meet the standards, I personally don’t care what position they use to pee.


----------



## GOTWA (Aug 17, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> - Update -
> 
> The first enlisted woman to attempt Air Force special reconnaissance training has been dropped from the program
> 
> ...



I feel is does a disservice to women when their failures are publicized.  I understand the integration of sorts is still unraveling itself, but no need to highlight it.  The whole point is to remove the special attention. 



lindy said:


> If a candidate can meet the standards, I personally don’t care what position they use to pee.



Waking up at 0300 from a deep sleep to answer the calls of my tiny bladder, I'm taking the easiest route which will allow me to keep my eyes closed.  Just say'n.


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 17, 2019)

lindy said:


> Watched the recent change of command of 75th RR and noticed there appeared to be a female CPT with scroll, short tab, and scroll for combat patch.
> 
> If a candidate can meet the standards, I personally don’t care what position they use to pee.


She’s regimental S1.


----------



## EqualReaction (Aug 17, 2019)

DasBoot said:


> She’s regimental S1.



Do you think that the Regiment has handled the integration of females fairly well?


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 18, 2019)

EqualReaction said:


> Do you think that the Regiment has handled the integration of females fairly well?


Yes.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 18, 2019)

93 pages and redundancy abounds. When your ass is in the sling and your bleeding and the contact is still hot and in doubt, you're not going to care who comes through running react. You won't care if the motherfucker has a dick and wears a dress.

I've seen women Vietcong dead beside their male comrades. And of our women athlete-warriors today, I would've been very reassured to have one of them fighting alongside me.

I've changed my attitude over the duration of this thread. I still think sexual tension can cause disruption and favoritism in certain units and under certain circumstances. But there are dedicated, professional female warriors who pack the gear.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 18, 2019)

Being totally honest, my jury is still out.  Awaiting further data.  So far the 'n' has been very small.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 18, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> 93 pages and redundancy abounds. When your ass is in the sling and your bleeding and the contact is still hot and in doubt, you're not going to care who comes through running react. You won't care if the motherfucker has a dick and wears a dress.
> 
> I've seen women Vietcong dead beside their male comrades. And of our women athlete-warriors today, I would've been very reassured to have one of them fighting alongside me.
> 
> I've changed my attitude over the duration of this thread. I still think sexual tension can cause disruption and favoritism in certain units and under certain circumstances. But there are dedicated, professional female warriors who pack the gear.



We've had women fully integrated for a long time now.  They are just as much of warriors as the next man.  But you are right, the sexual tension is probably the last major hurdle to counter, sexual harassment and assault is still common place.  But it's still rampant in the rest of society and I'm a firm believer that our military's are just a concentrated display of society.  Until we fix these problems across society, it will still be there in the military; no matter how much death by PowerPoint you shove down the troops throats.  

Canada to pay nearly C$1bn to sexual misconduct victims in military

They're even banning old fashioned pinup tattoos. 

Canadian military bans sexually explicit, discriminatory tattoos


----------



## Brill (Aug 18, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Being totally honest, my jury is still out.  Awaiting further data.  So far the 'n' has been very small.



I think the data isn’t consistent and that skews the hell out of arguments.

Very specialized units that answer to NCA have excellent selection programs (psychological as well as physical) and are known to use *all available* resources very effectively.  General Purpose Forces do not have similar standards and leaders of GPF are much more susceptible to political pressure or virtual signaling.

While both have leaders come and go, elite SOF units typically have leaders “mature” within the unit and have very strong loyalty to same both in/out of the unit. This isn’t the same in GPF. 

Additionally, there is no way an O-6 would authorize a group of 12 soldiers from the 101st to insert into a foreign country, link up with local forces, execute a mission, and have an O-3 represent American foreign policy. Going further, when have GPFs operated in anything less than Squad level?


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 18, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> 93 pages and redundancy abounds. When your ass is in the sling and your bleeding and the contact is still hot and in doubt, you're not going to care who comes through running react. You won't care if the motherfucker has a dick and wears a dress.
> 
> I've seen women Vietcong dead beside their male comrades. And of our women athlete-warriors today, I would've been very reassured to have one of them fighting alongside me.
> 
> I've changed my attitude over the duration of this thread. I still think sexual tension can cause disruption and favoritism in certain units and under certain circumstances. But there are dedicated, professional female warriors who pack the gear.


I had a buddy of mine essentially start dating a female we were recycles with during the BRC hold. All consensual, no issues arose and they kept things on the down low. Overall just a funny situation but it does illustrate that the urge to reproduce tops everything in the human mind.


----------



## policemedic (Aug 18, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> They're even banning old fashioned pinup tattoos.
> 
> Canadian military bans sexually explicit, discriminatory tattoos



Well, I’d be fucked.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 18, 2019)

policemedic said:


> Well, I’d be fucked.



I know a lot of men and women that are fucked.   I think they're going to lose a lot of talent, instead of people paying for cover-ups.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 29, 2019)

Just saw this today (looks like publish date of 8/28/19).  As I am not "in the know" I won't comment to the veracity of the article.

The Inside Story Of How The Army Reduced Standards To Get Women Through Ranger Training


----------



## Gunz (Aug 29, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Just saw this today (looks like publish date of 8/28/19).  As I am not "in the know" I won't comment to the veracity of the article.
> 
> The Inside Story Of How The Army Reduced Standards To Get Women Through Ranger Training




Griest went through the course when Obama was POTUS, openly gay Eric Fanning was Secretary of the Army and SECDEF Ash Carter opened the services to transgender individuals. Considering the circumstances, I'd be very surprised if there hadn't been top-down political pressure at the time. I would hope standards have tightened up since then.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 29, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> I know a lot of men and women that are fucked.   I think they're going to lose a lot of talent, instead of people paying for cover-ups.



You mean this would violate policy?


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 29, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> You mean this would violate policy?
> 
> View attachment 29192



It would look better on it's cheek.  lol


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 29, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Just saw this today (looks like publish date of 8/28/19).  As I am not "in the know" I won't comment to the veracity of the article.
> 
> The Inside Story Of How The Army Reduced Standards To Get Women Through Ranger Training



I'm not surprised...


----------



## bvvanes (Sep 7, 2019)

Just read the Ranger article in the 'Daily Caller' by Hassan. While it's not unanticipated that standards will 'change' for those deemed historically depressed/maligned/derided/victims/etc etc etc. What is though, is that those that will alter standards still hide behind their activities with a passionate denial. Standards exist because prior to them, bad events and/or outcomes occurred. Hence some one, somewhere tried to mitigate that by placing 'standards'. In my profession, if standards are removed, people are severely injured or die. If you look at the 'standard' and see it for what it is based on, it's easy to say it should remain or 'let's try to make good, better'. Unfortunately, better is the enemy of good! I would say, those in the 'good-better' paradigm, are usually not subjected to the edicts of their changes, that is, they don't have to deal with the real world consequences of their changes. Some would call those 'changers', hypocrites. But since they aren't on the front lines with those they helped circumvent the system, they really aren't hypocrits anymore than hollywood actors calling for the rest of us to get rid of our arms are hypocrites, even though they have their own armed security service! Once while on a visit to Beverley Hills, Calif, I went for a long run thru the hills and when I returned, I was asked if I had run by this very famous and now deceased film producers home. I said yes and was asked if I ran on the sidewalks near his home. My response was, there weren't any sidewalks around his home. I was told that's right, he also had massive bushes obstructing a view of the house and signs stating 'armed response to intruders' around his property. The reason; this very liberal etc etc did't want others peering in on his life style and he had the $ to make it happen. I would imagine, when a bad outcome directly and personally effects those changing standards, they will whine like all hell and use the Bart Simpson defense: you didn't see nothing, you can't prove nothing and I didn't do anything wrong!


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 7, 2019)

Part of the problem is, few people (in charge, or who matter) can articulate what "standards" are and why they exist.  So if they don't know, they can change them arbitrarily.  Units and organizations with standards need to do a better job of explaining why they exist and why they should not be changed.  I see this very problem and health care, just as I saw in the military. You want me to be able to run 2 miles and 16 minutes? Why? What does it matter? You want me to start an IV in under 30 seconds? Why?


----------



## bvvanes (Sep 11, 2019)

While I agree that standards should be instituted if necessary, the problem is their interpretation. A small study showed the range of correct interpretation of warnings on medicines was from 0-78%. If you took out the standard / warning, that the med should 'be taken with food', then less than half got the warnings correct. I guess some warnings should be explained but some need not. On the firing line, I knew not to shoot outside the left and right limits. I also knew not to have my head between the static line and the anchor line cable in the aircraft. But I suspect the young lady that recently put her cell phone on vibrate, placed it in her vagina, which required surgery to retrieve it, didn't know you shouldn't do that. In fact, she found a lawyer to take her case and she's suing the phone manufacturer for not warning her. I probably needed some explanation as to why when I was first scuba diving, don't do a rapid ascent. The beauty of what happens when you micromanage or 'nibble' on the edges of standards is that you will always have plausible denial ie, 'ok, so we changed the standard for land nav and now we pass those who previously wouldn't make it' but no one can prove that that was the cause of 'x,y,z' happening. So if I missed a class in the 18D course but did well otherwise in the course, is the cause of x,y,z happening because I missed that one class? In all likelihood, no, since there is some overlap in those classes and that class material probably will be revisited again somewhere. On a mountain top in OEF, a couple of guys on our team were discussing our location based on the historical map they had, a third guy pulled out a GPS and said "I'll show you where we're at!". So should we do away with knowing and passing land nav since Garmin isn't leaving anytime soon and hell, why not just pull out a GPS, if you have it, if it has a charge etc etc Should pilots still know how to land / fly a commercial aircraft since they mostly land / fly by computer anyway. As we tire of the steady drip, drip, drip of the optempo, the few that can 'make the grade', the temptation to adjust the 'quantity/quality' ratio should be avoided. I'm reminded that while we tire of fighting the enemy, the enemy doesn't isn't tired of fighting us.


----------



## bvvanes (Sep 15, 2019)

As a parting shot for this discussion, I recall a recently reported New Hampshire judge releasing an 'elderly' prisoner from prison early since he was felt to have 'aged out' whereby he was no longer prone to committing his murderous crimes (serving 'life' in prison for stabbing his wife to death in front on her daughter). To quote him: " At some point, Mr. Flick is going to age out of his capacity to engage in this conduct, and incarcerating him beyond the time that he ages out doesn’t seem to me to make good sense from a criminological or fiscal perspective". Well, the recent report was that the elderly, aged-out Mr. Flick again stabbed to death a women in front of her child. Oh, he is 76 years old! He is yet to be sentenced for this crime. What about the 'standards' that he should have done his time? As a heart surgeon used to say: No good deed, goes unpunished. While starting selection, we were told: look to your left and your right, chances are good that guy won't be there at graduation. That should be changed to: look to your left and your right, chances are good he or she, shouldn't be there, but unfortunately, they will be, so watch yourself. How sad.


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 7, 2019)

Army document reveals 86% of female soldiers failed new physical fitness test

Oops.. 



> Leaked ACFT numbers obtained by Clearance Jobs writer David Brown show around 36% of Soldiers fail the new fitness test, with around 30% of men failing while 84% of women failed to meet the mark. On the passing side, around 70% of men pass, while a mere 16% of women can clear the pass/fail hurdle.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 7, 2019)

Color me not surprised.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 7, 2019)

I think it's sad that the information had to be learned through a "leaked" document instead of simply provided. Release the information and let the chips fall where they may. The numbers only reinforce what most people knew would happen once this project was started.


----------



## GOTWA (Oct 7, 2019)

Florida173 said:


> Army document reveals 86% of female soldiers failed new physical fitness test
> 
> Oops..


There's no juice to the article. It should state why they failed. I can tell you, as someone in a testing battalion, most of the female failures are due to the dead hang leg tuck. If everyone could do a leg tuck it would reduce the failure rate by some 80% or some crazy ass number I don't remember. 

The whole point of having testing battalions was to identify the weak points in PT and overall physical preparation. This shouldn't be a "surprise surprise/gotcha" evaluation. It should be looked upon as a metric for improvement. 

Sex aside, how the fuck people fail this thing is beyond me, that includes the men. 

Off the top of my head, the minimum is:
140lb deadlift x 3
10# medicine ball throw for 5m distance 
10 pushups 
Spring drag carry under 3:20 - we have a 98# female that passes this
1 leg tuck
2 mile run in under 21 minutes


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 7, 2019)

GOTWA said:


> - post -



Thank you for perspective!


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 8, 2019)

GOTWA said:


> There's no juice to the article. It should state why they failed. I can tell you, as someone in a testing battalion, most of the female failures are due to the dead hang leg tuck. If everyone could do a leg tuck it would reduce the failure rate by some 80% or some crazy ass number I don't remember.
> 
> The whole point of having testing battalions was to identify the weak points in PT and overall physical preparation. This shouldn't be a "surprise surprise/gotcha" evaluation. It should be looked upon as a metric for improvement.
> 
> ...




I did a practice PT test under the new standards a couple of weeks ago. I found most of the events to be very easy. And very silly. The first time I ever threw a 10# ball backwards over my head in my entire military career was that PT test. Nailed it. Dead lift? What-evs. Shuttle runs? OK I was out of breath but it wasn't much of a drama. Hand release pushups? "this is really stupid, but OK." Last event before the run: leg raises.

Number of reps I completed: 0.

I never attempted leg raises before this practice PT test. I always more-than-max the situps on the APFT so I thought this was going to be easy. But it's a totally different technique. I tried to kip with my legs to get them up to the bar and my sweaty hands slipped off. Event terminated.

It's technique.  Once people (including me) get a couple of reps in, I think we'll see a dramatic decline in failures, particularly of the leg raises.


----------



## GOTWA (Oct 8, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I did a practice PT test under the new standards a couple of weeks ago. I found most of the events to be very easy. And very silly. The first time I ever threw a 10# ball backwards over my head in my entire military career was that PT test. Nailed it. Dead lift? What-evs. Shuttle runs? OK I was out of breath but it wasn't much of a drama. Hand release pushups? "this is really stupid, but OK." Last event before the run: leg raises.
> 
> Number of reps I completed: 0.
> 
> ...



Precisely, which is why the article is a bunch of hoopla with no substance.  Out of the two companies that took it during my second iteration, we had 15+ still fail the run.  People were still crossing the finish after 23 minutes.  Leg tuck technique is fixable.  If one can't make the run in the allotted time, the Army probably isn't the place to work.  

Now, you want to talk passing with a high score...it's no longer very easy.  Unless they change the max standards, very few people will ever score a 600.  

I feel the new PT test met the goal of identifying standards commensurate of physical job requirements.  To roll this back into the thread topic, it's now a very equal test.  It'll be up to the units to set the standard and then up to everyone to meet it.  But of course, standards aren't the goal, exceeding them is.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 8, 2019)

I really don't have any beef with this whole test, other than that I think there was no need to cut out the APFT.  I always felt that we should add a CFT and mirror the Marine Corps in that regard.  

Now...the last rendition of the change that had a high jump was insane.  It made no fucking sense, so glad that got shut down.


----------



## NikNifSik (Oct 8, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I did a practice PT test under the new standards a couple of weeks ago. I found most of the events to be very easy. And very silly. The first time I ever threw a 10# ball backwards over my head in my entire military career was that PT test. Nailed it. Dead lift? What-evs. Shuttle runs? OK I was out of breath but it wasn't much of a drama. Hand release pushups? "this is really stupid, but OK." Last event before the run: leg raises.
> 
> Number of reps I completed: 0.
> 
> ...



Agreed on the technique being key. I for one, prefer doing the leg tucks over the sit-ups, but I struggle maxing the sit-ups being so top-heavy. Army standard for passing this new test overall seems pretty easy, but maxing is no joke, significantly harder than the PT test in my opinion. I think this is a step in the right direction.  Not sure why there are standards deviations for females to males, but none for age. If a 20-year female stud wants to be SOF, good on her, she should have to do what the 20-year-old male does, at least for minimums. Equal opportunity is not the same as equal outcome.


----------



## Arf (Nov 8, 2019)

suaveflooder said:


> Not sure about the second, but here is one
> 
> First Female SEAL Candidate Quits




None of the women in both the SEAL and SWCC pipelines have made it past BUD/S Orientation yet.

SEAL and SWCC: BUD/S Prep in Illinois (Only Enlisted)

SEAL and SWCC: BUD/S Orientation in Coronado (SEAL Officer Candidates Start with us here)

SEAL: BUD/S 1st Phase — SWCC: Basic Crewman Selection (BCS)

SEAL: BUD/S 2nd Phase — SWCC: Basic Crewman Training (BCT)

SEAL: BUD/S 3rd Phase — SWCC: Crewman Qualification Training (CQT)

SEAL: SEAL Qualifications Training (SQT)


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 21, 2019)

First female graduate of BRC. First female Marine earns recon military occupational specialty

Good for her if everything was equal.


----------



## digrar (Jan 2, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Saw this on the Canadian Army News site and thought I'd share to add to the discussion; perhaps one of the upsidedowners could add more.




Five male two female new clearance divers graduate - CONTACT magazine

We've had women in 1RAR for a couple of years now, with one being promoted to Lance Corporal and a couple of others getting some Support Company trades up and potentially a posting into a platoon this year.
Now, a couple of new female Clearance Divers.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 2, 2020)

- multiple threads on the topic merged -


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 27, 2020)

Huh. Well done.  

First Woman Set to Pass Special Forces Training and Join Green Berets

The woman, an enlisted soldier, is in the final stage of training before graduating from the roughly yearlong qualification course, or Q Course, as a Special Forces engineer sergeant. Her graduation is almost guaranteed, officials said, although occasionally soldiers have failed the course this late in the training or withdrawn because of injuries.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 27, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh. Well done.
> 
> First Woman Set to Pass Special Forces Training and Join Green Berets
> 
> The woman, an enlisted soldier, is in the final stage of training before graduating from the roughly yearlong qualification course, or Q Course, as a Special Forces engineer sergeant. Her graduation is almost guaranteed, officials said, although occasionally soldiers have failed the course this late in the training or withdrawn because of injuries.



This is getting pretty big press around these parts (we're about 90 minutes from Bragg).  A lot of the press is back-slapping, but things are quiet from people in-the-know.


----------



## AWP (Feb 27, 2020)

I'll wait to hear from our vetted SF members before I break out the champagne...


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 27, 2020)

AWP said:


> I'll wait to hear from our vetted SF members before I break out the champagne...



That's kind of what I was alluding to...the silence from the non-press people on Bragg is deafening.


----------



## Bypass (Feb 27, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh. Well done.
> 
> First Woman Set to Pass Special Forces Training and Join Green Berets
> 
> The woman, an enlisted soldier, is in the final stage of training before graduating from the roughly yearlong qualification course, or Q Course, as a Special Forces engineer sergeant. Her graduation is almost guaranteed, officials said, although occasionally soldiers have failed the course this late in the training or withdrawn because of injuries.


You think she will still qualify for that year long maternity leave?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 27, 2020)

Bypass said:


> You think she will still qualify for that year long maternity leave?


That was Marine Corps, she is Army. 

In regards to the maternity leave "joke", whether she made it 'to standard' or got a little help from Cadre, the woman has accomplished more in her military career than I ever did on my best day.  She'll get no disrespect from me.


----------



## Cookie_ (Feb 27, 2020)

We had a guy a while back who got injured in SFAS and told us he had gone through with a female who got selected. He said she was a tank that kept up with everybody else. I wonder if this is the same one or not; I'll have to ask next time I see him at drill.

I'm with @Ooh-Rah; props to her WHEN she actually finishes. Lord knows even a "relaxed" standard at the Q is still probably no joke.


----------



## Brill (Feb 27, 2020)

Sideline personal biases about women in active combat and whose P is in whose V for a minute and focus on UW.

For a Regiment so focused on foreign cultures, this decision is difficult to understand. There are EXTREMELY few cultures outside of “The West” where females have a voice in decision making let along get heard. Which Army or guerrilla force in the ME, Africa, or Asia is led or advised by by a female? Sure there are isolates (e.g. YPG) but isn’t THAT why CSTs are a flexible option for the ODA commander? A bunch of dudes productively sitting around talking to old hajjis about X would suddenly start popping viagra and wishing they could put P in V upon the sight of a western female because, in the majority of cultures where We need SF to operate, women are viewed as a commodity/property.

Why on earth set the entire ODA up for failure by putting a female on a team? This would be like the command mandating every ODA take a SCAR on every CONOP because taxpayers bought them.

It seems the Army is trying to impose its own culture (not laws of armed warfare) upon the oppressed.


----------



## Kaldak (Feb 27, 2020)

I'm not SF, but wouldn't having a female around all the time who is as well trained as the rest of the team be a positive? Guys talk to the elders, she talks to the women. She doesn't need as much watching/guarding as a CST.

Personally, if she can hack it, I have no problem with it. She also brings a different perspective.


----------



## Brill (Feb 27, 2020)

Kaldak said:


> I'm not SF, but wouldn't having a female around all the time who is as well trained as the rest of the team be a positive? Guys talk to the elders, she talks to the women. She doesn't need as much watching/guarding as a CST.
> 
> Personally, if she can hack it, I have no problem with it. She also brings a different perspective.



Add a CST and the team keeps a SF guy doing SF stuff. Have those fucking SOT-As act as their PSD. Those shitheads are always standing around listen to crazy shit on their “radios” anyway.


----------



## DZ (Feb 27, 2020)

Cookie_ said:


> I'm with @Ooh-Rah; props to her WHEN she actually finishes. Lord knows even a "relaxed" standard at the Q is still probably no joke.



Not coming at you, but I hear this sentiment a lot about the "optimized" Q course. I graduated in one of the last "Legacy" Q course classes before the changes. I remember being pissed when I first heard they were shortening the course cause if someone hasn't gone through what I had, then some how I'm better than them. That's just a "last hard class" mentality I think.

I always thought the course was too long, so I'm glad it's shorter (although I was hoping they would shorten language instead). For anyone that doesn't know, students will now spend 11 weeks straight out at camp Mackall as opposed to the old 6 week SUT I went through. And everyone likes to forget about the 6 month Q course Vietnam era SF guys went through. Is anyone saying they had an "easier" course?

In my experience it's not the course itself that makes it hard. It is the instructors and the grading criteria they hold you to. I think there was some legitimate concerns about the standards the students were going to be held to when Sonntag was at the helm, but with him gone I am not as worried. We will see the quality of the new course layout when the graduates start getting to Group in the coming months.

I think when you hear guys talk shit on the new Course, they are probably talking out their ass, and suffering from a last hard class mentality. Honestly, this new layout could be harder than the old one. Again it all depends on what cadre are able to do and the standards they are able to impose. 

As far as females in SF go, I won't comment publicly. I'm sure most of you can surmise my thoughts.. this particular female though, I heard from her NG unit who put her into the pipeline that she is an absolute beast, and a prior professional athlete.


----------



## Brill (Feb 27, 2020)

DZ said:


> this particular female though, I heard from her NG unit who put her into the pipeline that she is an absolute beast, and a prior professional athlete.



I bet 12-24 months she assess for CAG, assuming she gets a CIB, which is now doubtful.


----------



## Kaldak (Feb 27, 2020)

lindy said:


> I bet 12-24 months she assess for CAG, assuming she gets a CIB, which is now doubtful.



Just so the military can say tier 1 has females, or because she is that much of a beast?


----------



## DasBoot (Feb 27, 2020)

lindy said:


> I bet 12-24 months she assess for CAG, assuming she gets a CIB, which is now doubtful.


1. Probably not. Those timelines don’t add up.
2. SF is getting a lot of boogaloo, pretty much only ones other than us consistently doing so these days. So I wouldn’t be shocked if she’s wearing one soon.


Kaldak said:


> Just so the military can say tier 1 has females, or because she is that much of a beast?


3. They’re already there. And have been since before I was born.


----------



## Brill (Feb 27, 2020)

Kaldak said:


> Just so the military can say tier 1 has females, or because she is that much of a beast?



Just an assumption based on the personality trait of folks who want to do hard stuff aren’t satisfied after they reach a hard goal. They covet the quest for the hard and always push themselves.


----------



## Brill (Feb 27, 2020)

DasBoot said:


> 2. SF is getting a lot of boogaloo, pretty much only ones other than us consistently doing so these days. So I wouldn’t be shocked if she’s wearing one soon.



Give peace a chance!!!!


----------



## Cookie_ (Feb 27, 2020)

DZ said:


> Not coming at you, but I hear this sentiment a lot about the "optimized" Q course. I graduated in one of the last "Legacy" Q course classes before the changes. I remember being pissed when I first heard they were shortening the course cause if someone hasn't gone through what I had, then some how I'm better than them. That's just a "last hard class" mentality I think.
> 
> I always thought the course was too long, so I'm glad it's shorter (although I was hoping they would shorten language instead). For anyone that doesn't know, students will now spend 11 weeks straight out at camp Mackall as opposed to the old 6 week SUT I went through. And everyone likes to forget about the 6 month Q course Vietnam era SF guys went through. Is anyone saying they had an "easier" course?
> 
> ...



To clarify; That's not my sentiment about the course being relaxed. I don't have anything other than secondhand knowledge from people such as yourself who have been there/done that, so i can't make that judgement.

I make the comment purely because I know there are people who have this idea that clearly it must be "easier" if a female did it. 

In my mind, anyone who can make it through the pipeline is harder than most, whether it was the short course in Vietnam, the legacy course, or the new optimized one.


----------



## Bypass (Feb 27, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> That was Marine Corps, she is Army.
> 
> In regards to the maternity leave "joke", whether she made it 'to standard' or got a little help from Cadre, the woman has accomplished more in her military career than I ever did on my best day.  She'll get no disrespect from me.


I agree she is worthy of respect for her accomplishment but I still have questions that'll never be answered.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 28, 2020)

DZ said:


> I always thought the course was too long, so I'm glad it's shorter (although I was hoping they would shorten language instead). For anyone that doesn't know, students will now spend 11 weeks straight out at camp Mackall as opposed to the old 6 week SUT I went through. And everyone likes to forget about the 6 month Q course Vietnam era SF guys went through. Is anyone saying they had an "easier" course?



We might still have a few paper tabbers out there. Probably not a shorter course than that.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 28, 2020)

Florida173 said:


> We might still have a few paper tabbers out there. Probably not a shorter course than that.


No way, Paper tabs took 2-4 years.


----------



## AWP (Feb 28, 2020)

Florida173 said:


> We might still have a few paper tabbers out there. Probably not a shorter course than that.



They're at the plus 30 year mark then or had a long break in service. That process went away when SF became a branch, if not before.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 28, 2020)

AWP said:


> That process went away when SF became a branch, if not before.


Before.  Last paper tab was in 1981 or 1982, and it was grandfathered as "in-process" before the program was scrapped.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2020)

x SF med said:


> Before.  Last paper tab was in 1981 or 1982, and it was grandfathered as "in-process" before the program was scrapped.


Readers digest what a paper tab is?


----------



## x SF med (Feb 28, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Readers digest what a paper tab is?


A correspondence course with minimal contact at Training Battalion, some only showed up for Robin Sage, some didn't even do Robin Sage, they got credit for a field problem with their assigned unit...  usually USAR or NG.  A cheap way to fill officer and R/NG slots.  Highly ineffective.


----------



## AWP (Feb 28, 2020)

x SF med said:


> A correspondence course with minimal contact at Training Battalion, some only showed up for Robin Sage, some didn't even do Robin Sage, they got credit for a field problem with their assigned unit...  usually USAR or NG.  A cheap way to fill officer and R/NG slots.  Highly ineffective.



For awhile it was almost the only way NG soldiers could get a tab. By the time I was in SPT CO, early 90's, the team guys were saying all of the trash who had paper tabs were gone and the guys who could contribute stayed. All of the Guard paper tabs I knew were Vietnam vets, so they brought something to the table.

As an outsider to both paper or schoolhouse, I can't blame a guy for a paper tab if that was his only choice. Paper tabs take a lot of shit, but I get it if that was their only way to an ODA.


----------



## Brill (Feb 29, 2020)

AWP said:


> By the time I was in SPT CO, early 90's...



Was there the Team vs Support mentality back then too even though everyone wore same berets? When & why did that change?


----------



## AWP (Feb 29, 2020)

lindy said:


> Was there the Team vs Support mentality back then too even though everyone wore same berets? When & why did that change?



Same berets? We wore maroon, I don't knkow when the "candy stripe" went away, but support guys wearing green was before my time. There was definitely a Team vs. Support mentality or friction. I got along with the 18E's, but not some of the other 18 series. I think a lot of that came down to we worked with the Echos and several of them came from the "old" model where an E fresh from the Q would spend 6 months in the Base Station before moving to a team. We had both a personal and professional familiarity and like anywhere if you know your job and have a work ethic, people will notice. 

A Co.'s SCUBA ODA though...they didn't like me. My mouth landed me in some shit at JRTC...


----------



## Brill (Feb 29, 2020)

AWP said:


> There was definitely a Team vs. Support mentality or friction.



I definitely don’t miss that. Rangers seem to have figured out a way to destroy that “line vs support” but are still able to identify friction points.  As an outsider, it seems RFS is an asset to the org.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 13, 2020)

Scrolled back a couple of pages and did not see anything about Rosie Wild, .  Although women have passed All-Arms Commando Course (Many have failed), CPT Rosie Wild, Royal Artillery, is the only woman to ever pass All Arms Pre Parachute Selection or P COY: 'Trailblazer' woman is first to pass Para course

She's a stud. Won the sword of honor at RMA Sandhurst, the award given to the intake honor graduate, in 2017.  Raced Ironman Talin under 10 hours...

Here's an interview with her, she's also a member of the British Army Triathlon team: ‎The Triathlon Brick Session: Against all the odds  (Capt Rosie Wild RA) on Apple Podcasts


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 14, 2020)

lindy said:


> I definitely don’t miss that. Rangers seem to have figured out a way to destroy that “line vs support” but are still able to identify friction points.  As an outsider, it seems RFS is an asset to the org.



It's not RFS. It's that everyone goes through RASP.  RFS? Yeah, being able to snap kick shitbags is a fantastic thing, but the bonds built by everyone having the same standards, being in the suck together for woods time, everyone helping push the rigs for Banner Day, there's plenty of stuff that ends up making "us" band together. Some people, yeah, they have problems for whatever reason with softskills, but when it boils down to it, everyone's got their part of the puzzle to make shit happen, and if you wear a Scroll there's a guarantee that there's a minimum standard of what the fuck they're good for, nevermind their MOS.

That's the difference.  I'd take a squad of "insert random MOS other than 11B here" from HHC 3/75 in a heartbeat over a company size element of Cavalry.  I'd get more shit done, eat better, and my leave paperwork would be approved when we strolled in looking Tacti-Gucci Crye bukakke post-mission.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 17, 2020)

> The graduation at the end of the month definitely will not be typical. Because of this historic milestone, graduation will be held in a closed hangar to conceal her identity. A Special Forces Engineer Sergeant (18C) with the 3rd Battalion, 20th Special Forces Group, the female soldier has big hopes of going active duty. *However, her warm welcome may not be as welcome as she may like. *



Why add that?

Exclusive: Woman makes history by becoming the first to graduate Special Forces training | SOFREP


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 17, 2020)

Florida173 said:


> Why add that?
> 
> Exclusive: Woman makes history by becoming the first to graduate Special Forces training | SOFREP




... because it’s SOFREP?


----------



## LimaPanther (Jun 17, 2020)

Curious. Why is it that only NG women seem to make it through Q and Ranger?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 17, 2020)

LimaPanther said:


> Curious. Why is it that only NG women seem to make it through Q and Ranger?


Is that true?  I did not know what.

assuming it is, better access to extreme sports training and CrossFit type gyms?

I am just spitballing here.


----------



## LimaPanther (Jun 17, 2020)

I stand corrected on the first 2 women as both are West Point Grads. At present they are Company Commanders of an active duty  Infantry company. At the time I remember the controversy that they were NG.

There were 2 enlisted female NG women that made it through but for some reason I can't post the web site on here.

First female Army Reserve graduate of Army Ranger School. She went through with the 2 active.

Should be noted that the first 3 women are West Point grads.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 17, 2020)

LimaPanther said:


> Curious. Why is it that only NG women seem to make it through Q and Ranger?



The first two women to make it through Ranger School were both West Point Grads on active duty status. No idea about the ones getting through SFAS and the Q though.

ETA: Seems like you caught it before I pointed it out. 



Ooh-Rah said:


> Is that true?  I did not know what.
> 
> assuming it is, better access to extreme sports training and CrossFit type gyms?
> 
> I am just spitballing here.



Not sure how it would work if they happened to come in under an OP 63 contract, but if they were prior/current service they may run through a SFRE(mini 3 day selection), be with the SWTD(training detachment) for a year or until they hit all benchmarks, and then go to SFAS. Basically, you get a prep course before even going to selection, in the idea that it will increase you chances of succeeding in the process.*

*This is the way it works at my unit; not sure if it's exactly the same everywhere across 19th/20th, but I imagine it's probably similar.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 17, 2020)

Florida173 said:


> Why add that?
> 
> Exclusive: Woman makes history by becoming the first to graduate Special Forces training | SOFREP



To generate clicks...or as my lady lawyer partner would say: "he's a chotch."


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 17, 2020)

LimaPanther said:


> Curious. Why is it that only NG women seem to make it through Q and Ranger?



Numerous active duty women made it through Ranger School.  IIRC the first two were both AD, West Point grads.  There have been several others since.


----------



## LimaPanther (Jun 17, 2020)

See my correction above.


----------



## LimaPanther (Jul 9, 2020)

Just saw this. Think she will be on an A Team as an Engineer? I read in another site she completed the Engineer MOS.

Soldier Makes History as First Woman to Join the Green Berets


----------



## compforce (Jul 10, 2020)

LimaPanther said:


> Just saw this. Think she will be on an A Team as an Engineer? I read in another site she completed the Engineer MOS.
> 
> Soldier Makes History as First Woman to Join the Green Berets



She'll go to an ODA with whatever MOS she earned.  They don't send Soldiers through the Q course to land behind a desk.


----------



## compforce (Jul 10, 2020)

Female Soldier Graduates Special Forces Training | SOF News

The author is a retired CW5 (180A) from 20th SFG, the Group that she is in.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 10, 2020)

compforce said:


> Female Soldier Graduates Special Forces Training | SOF News
> 
> The author is a retired CW5 (180A) from 20th SFG, the Group that she is in.


Admittedly not knowing fact from fiction, I thought this was a great article that did a good job of laying out multiple perspectives of the story.


----------



## Steve1839 (Jul 10, 2020)

LimaPanther said:


> Just saw this. Think she will be on an A Team as an Engineer? I read in another site she completed the Engineer MOS.


Hopefully, she learned those four words we were taught as SF Engineers..."Hey, sir, watch this..."


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 10, 2020)

Speaking of female engineers (Seabees, although not SOF, has a storied history):

All-female Seabee team makes history

This was 2012 I believe.  

Edited to add, not taking away from this soldier's accomplishments, but rather to add, if she can do it, they all the more power to her...


----------



## LimaPanther (Jul 10, 2020)

Did anyone pay attention to the Bullet item "Changes in SF Training"



compforce said:


> Female Soldier Graduates Special Forces Training | SOF News
> 
> The author is a retired CW5 (180A) from 20th SFG, the Group that she is in.


----------



## Blizzard (Jul 10, 2020)

LimaPanther said:


> Did anyone pay attention to the Bullet item "Changes in SF Training"


Yes, I thought @DZ addressed that topic pretty well in an earlier post in this thread:
Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion


----------



## Steve1839 (Jul 10, 2020)

I can't say I  was excited to see a brief mention of the Katie Wilder episode, but at least that brought the officers' course into line with what the EM and NCOs had to deal with...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 10, 2020)

Steve1839 said:


> can't say I was excited to see a brief mention of the Katie Wilder episode


Are you willing to discuss why?  Are you thinking that Wilder and this woman from 2020 are not analogous?


----------



## Steve1839 (Jul 10, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Are you willing to discuss why?  Are you thinking that Wilder and this woman from 2020 are not analogous?


Katie Wilder was accused of cheating, not carrying her weight, etc.  She was accused of caching her rucksack to make time on the land nav course, and of failing the land nav course....  I was told this by peers who attended the same O course she did...and from my vantage point in the Q course, officers had it pretty easy...we had a 17-night land nav exercise, they had 7....and I could go on....but I won't ....
I suspect the woman who just graduated was under more scrutiny than Ms. Wilder...and she may have had more help...but my suspicion is she earned her spurs...at least, I hope so...


----------



## digrar (Aug 21, 2020)




----------



## Andoni (Aug 21, 2020)

digrar said:


> View attachment 35376


That little guy in the 3rd block looks like Sloth from the goonies.


----------



## Locksteady (Aug 21, 2020)

Andoni said:


> That little guy in the 3rd block looks like Sloth from the goonies.


If he and Stewie Griffin had a lovechild with missing sclera.


----------



## Andoni (Aug 21, 2020)

Locksteady said:


> If he and Stewie Griffin had a lovechild with missing sclera.


True.


----------



## digrar (Aug 21, 2020)

Andoni said:


> That little guy in the 3rd block looks like Sloth from the goonies.



He's the LID, the brunt of all the jokes.


----------



## Andoni (Aug 21, 2020)

digrar said:


> He's the LID, the brunt of all the jokes.
> 
> View attachment 35383
> 
> View attachment 35384


Got it. Thanks!


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 30, 2020)

Now, I've known guys who full-out beat the shit out if their spouses and others who sold military equipment to pawn shops, and none of those made national media.  A ND is messed up, but I think it's only national news because it's the SF chiquita....

https://www.radio.com/connectingvets/news/first-female-green-beret-has-first-accidental-discharge


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 30, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> Now, I've known guys who full-out beat the shit out if their spouses and others who sold military equipment to pawn shops, and none of those made national media.  A ND is messed up, but I think it's only national news because it's the SF chiquita....
> 
> https://www.radio.com/connectingvets/news/first-female-green-beret-has-first-accidental-discharge


I've had 3 NDs in my military career.  All were in training, with blanks; two were while I was in ROTC.  The first time, I had my finger in the trigger and the safety off during a deliberate attack.  We were still so far away from the objective when it happened that the OPFOR didn't even hear it.  There were no cadre with us an no one narc'd on me so I kind of got away with that one.

The second time was with an M60. I was given the weapon in the field with no block of instruction how to use it. I was able to figure out how to use it pretty easily, but after charging it, I held the bolt to the rear and squeezed the trigger and eased the bolt forward, because I thought that would make the weapon more safe. Through that experience, and courtesy of an angry NCO, I learned the different between "closed bolt" and "open bolt."

The third time, I was in Infantry Officer Basic and we were getting ready to do the blank-fire portion of the dry-blank-live iteration of squad attack. I was carrying my favorite weapon, the SAW. I couldn't get the bolt back, I had the bipod legs extended and the weapon tilted forward and was trying to manhandle the bolt back. The lane NCOIC was trying to help, he told me to yank it back as hard as I could. I did, and the bolt handle slipped out of my hand... but not before the bolt pulled back just enough to seat a blank round. The bolt then slammed forward and... well... bang.

I never had an ND with a live round, or where I lived.  "But for the grace of God" though...


----------



## GOTWA (Dec 30, 2020)

The real story here is that there is no such thing as an accidental discharge.


----------



## Cookie_ (Dec 30, 2020)

> the first female Green Beret accidentally discharged a firearm in her home, and the incident is now being investigated by the Colorado Springs Police Department. The incident occurred on Dec. 12....The female Special Forces soldier has never been named publicly due to personal and operational security concerns.



Ya think Jack Murphy is aware of the fact that CSPD has a blotter which shows all calls responded to, not just arrests?

It wouldn't have her name, but I bet my left nut you could find her home address if it was put on the blotter.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 30, 2020)

Since N/D’s are going to be the topic Du Jour for a few days, thought I’d share this.

How my negligent discharge in Iraq pretty much ruined my Army career


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 30, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> Now, I've known guys who full-out beat the shit out if their spouses and others who sold military equipment to pawn shops, and none of those made national media.  A ND is messed up, but I think it's only national news because it's the SF chiquita....
> 
> https://www.radio.com/connectingvets/news/first-female-green-beret-has-first-accidental-discharge



I had one ND in my career, it was in training and with blanks. The only cadre there at the time were MSIV cadets. We were tired as shit and pulling security as the dude who was the PL at the time was prepping their OPORD. It was not the worst ND I ever witnessed or had to deal with in training. But the only one I was responsible for. I received a negative spot report.

When I was at Benning there was some Armor LT in another Troop that had an ND in his house. When police arrived they also found a belt of 7.62. I have no idea how that happened, we never saved small arms at AOBC when I was there.  He was arrested and dismissed from the Army faster than the Infantry LT who got three DUIs at IOBC during the same time.


----------



## SOSTCRNA (Dec 30, 2020)

Never had one but we were always told in JMAU that if we had an ND or even a accidental laser discharge that we would be on the next flight home and out of the unit right then.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 30, 2020)

I have not had one, yet.  I say "yet" because I'm told that there are 2 types shooters if you shoot long enough: those who've had a ND, and those who haven't had one yet.

I was doing a state-wide LE SWAT event and a guy on our team had a ND with a M4, in the back of a van, shot himself in the foot.  Otherwise never had one/saw one in the military.

I think this story would be a non-story if it was someone other than the first female Green Beret.


----------



## Brill (Dec 30, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I was carrying my favorite weapon, the SAW.


Ah, yes. I can see why. Concur with your assessment.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 30, 2020)

lindy said:


> Ah, yes. I can see why. Concur with your assessment.



I've never met him, but I don't think that's @Marauder06 ....


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 30, 2020)

lindy said:


> Ah, yes. I can see why. Concur with your assessment.



neither my SAW, nor anyone in my IOBC class, looked anything like what is shown in that video :)


----------



## Kaldak (Dec 30, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> I've never met him, but I don't think that's @Marauder06 ....



Definitely better looking 😏😈


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 30, 2020)

Bagram 2002...a member of red team had a AD with a M203...just missed the PX hut....which was right next to our compound.

If your gonna do a AD...go big!


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 30, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> Bagram 2002...a member of red team had a AD with a M203...just missed the PX hut....which was right next to our compound.
> 
> If your gonna do a AD...go big!


Is this the one that went into the soft drink pallet just outside of the Dragon DFAC?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 30, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> Bagram 2002...a member of red team had a AD with a M203...just missed the PX hut....which was right next to our compound.
> 
> If your gonna do a AD...go big!



Pfft.

Try Mk19 ND over an UN compound.

ETA:

No, it was not me.
Beautiful thing was how Mk19 rounds don't really do anything in flight, unlike hearing the zip of near miss rifle rounds... They only knew they got shot "at" by the explosion that was on the OTHER side from where it was fired from.
This wasn't the worst one, believe it or not. The worse ND was a 5 meter away bounce from a Mk19 that was a direct hit to the entire MSS' shower system water feed. Didn't even actually go off, just straight fucking took out the pipe with an accidental direct hit that didn't have round det due to min arming distance.  Yay to munitions engineers safety designs.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 30, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Is this the one that went into the soft drink pallet just outside of the Dragon DFAC?



Nope...hit by the only PX hut by the large antenna array.


----------



## frostyred (Dec 30, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> Bagram 2002...a member of red team had a AD with a M203...just missed the PX hut....which was right next to our compound.
> 
> If your gonna do a AD...go big!


That's one way to expediently clear out any local food that was blocking up your colon.


----------



## Kheenbish (Dec 31, 2020)

Qualifying before a deployment on the M4 and an officer had 3 NDs, never knew who he was or why they let him just keep going.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 31, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> Now, I've known guys who full-out beat the shit out if their spouses and others who sold military equipment to pawn shops, and none of those made national media.  A ND is messed up, but I think it's only national news because it's the SF chiquita....
> 
> https://www.radio.com/connectingvets/news/first-female-green-beret-has-first-accidental-discharge


I'm willing to bet it's not the first time something has gone off in her hand ;)
Seriously, no one was hurt, and she'll be extra careful from now on.  Ask me how I know :0
She may lose a stripe, but I hope the CS DA doesn't go for an easy kill.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 31, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> Now, I've known guys who full-out beat the shit out if their spouses and others who sold military equipment to pawn shops, and none of those made national media.  A ND is messed up, but I think it's only national news because it's the SF chiquita....
> 
> https://www.radio.com/connectingvets/news/first-female-green-beret-has-first-accidental-discharge



I was thinking about the DV portion of this sentence...

Army Suspends Former 1st Special Forces Group CO after Arrest on Domestic Violence Charges

Not really related to the current topic, but...


----------



## Teufel (Dec 31, 2020)

I saw a Major put three rounds into a clearing barrel at the Abu Ghraib DFAC because he couldn't fathom why his pistol kept firing as he kept racking the slide with a full magazine inserted in his weapon.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 31, 2020)

Nothing better than a SFC PSG ND'ing in the back of a LMTV  (Live round) and throwing a fit about his weapon was fucked up, and getting away with it because the supply sgt was a pussy/buddy...

I've had a few ND's on KD ranges when using match rifles, little to tight on the trigger, etc. No excuse,  but totally controlled situations and nobody knew...🤞🤦‍♂️👌


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 31, 2020)

Tying into my little story earlier, who knows why you have the funky number of rounds in a Mk19 box?

Anyone?

Following onto that, while there's some aircraft design issues with regards to physical characteristics between sexes that need to be addressed, they also apply to things like the infantry. Even something as simple as a Mk19 has a minimum size of human to be able to operate it properly, as there's a specific distance from butterflies to handles forward that even while mitigated by proper steps for loading/operating.... still, if you don't have fucking long enough arms and not a bunch of bullshit on your kit, you're gonna mash the butterflies and then you're relying on the mechanical safety alone to prevent CHOONK Kapoom.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 31, 2020)

I love how the article rambles about not releasing the soldier’s name due to OPSEC but cites her colorado springs vicinity, her eastern euro heritage, her unique proficiency in languages, and the active duty group she is speculated to transfer to if she leaves the reserves to go full time, along with said group’s designated AO... smh


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 31, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> Bagram 2002...a member of red team had a AD with a M203...just missed the PX hut....which was right next to our compound.
> 
> If your gonna do a AD...go big!



Had a female soldier shoot a few 40mm from her MK19 over our FOB in Iraq while she was clearing the weapon from returning from a convoy. I guess that's one way to clear it, just away from the berm and towards all of us.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 31, 2020)

I can't count the number of NDs we had during my first deployment to Iraq... with 5th Group.  And no, not all of them were support guys.

Somewhere I think I have a photo of a clearing barrel outside one of the DFACs on Balad in Iraq... riddled with bullet holes from NDs :)


----------



## Andoni (Dec 31, 2020)

The only ND/AD I saw was a guy at a state funded funded contractor's range, accidently squeeze one off, downrange while the cadre was pulling targets, in between firing rounds. The entire group instantly was taken off (it was instant-- so fast that it went from everyone on the range to just me, and it made my butthole pucker a bit, because it meant a lot of eyes assessing one person still on the range, me) and several hours later they were sent home. It was very professional and super fast.  My eyes were probably like saucers but I haven't forgotten it. They got trained somewhere else.


----------



## AWP (Dec 31, 2020)

Tarin Kowt, May/ June 2006, an Army patrol coming in the wire had a gun truck dump 3 MK-19 rounds into the TOC. Fortunately they hadn't travelled far enough to arm.

Fall 2008, AF Security Forces had a vehicle-mounted 240 crank a burst into the old Russian control tower in Camp Cunningham. Fortunately, ATC ops had moved to the new tower on the east side. VERY fortunately, the Wing commander and DVs on a tour of the tower had departed about 5 minutes prior to the "accident."

The real moral to all of our ND stories is thus: we should have killed more of our own than the Taliban could ever dream of killing.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 31, 2020)

The Hate Ape said:


> I love how the article rambles about not releasing the soldier’s name due to OPSEC but cites her colorado springs vicinity, her eastern euro heritage, her unique proficiency in languages, and the active duty group she is speculated to transfer to if she leaves the reserves to go full time, along with said group’s designated AO... smh



Yep, all you need to do is request an open records request for the PD report...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 31, 2020)

The Hate Ape said:


> I love how the article rambles about not releasing the soldier’s name due to OPSEC but cites her colorado springs vicinity, her eastern euro heritage, her unique proficiency in languages,





Spoiler: Alleged pic&bio on her - 



It’s coming out that her name is Ziva David and she is actually Mossad trained.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 31, 2020)

The Hate Ape said:


> I love how the article rambles about not releasing the soldier’s name due to OPSEC but cites her colorado springs vicinity, her eastern euro heritage, her unique proficiency in languages, and the active duty group she is speculated to transfer to if she leaves the reserves to go full time, along with said group’s designated AO... smh



It reminds me of the scene from the movie Airplane! where the guy was talking to his girl about the raid, gave her all the juicy operational details like direction and altitude and target, she asked what time he was leaving and he replied "I can't tell you, it's classified."


----------



## Brill (Dec 31, 2020)

Teufel said:


> I saw a Major put three rounds into a clearing barrel at the Abu Ghraib DFAC because he couldn't fathom why his pistol kept firing as he kept racking the slide with a full magazine inserted in his weapon.



I was at a USG pistol qualification course (required for all civvies to deploy) and REPEATEDLY saw students at the barrel trying to clear Glocks with mags inserted. Ejecting ONE live round was expected but 5...finally they got it after they verbally talked through procedures.

Near the very end of the same course, they had us go hot on the range in pairs as we “shoot, move, communicate“ to get off the X in a simulated vehicle malfunction/stoppage under fire. As we put on our body armor, I wrote “B+“ on some tape and put in on my front. Female proctor smirked & asked “Is that your hopeful grade?” ”No, it’s my blood type.”, I replied. The HR-type students in class looked horrified but the GRS instructors nodded in approval.

My critique after was the USG should have Pistol100 (intro) and Pistol101 (qual) so instructors could focus on those areas respectively. At least their pistol classes culled the idiots for the M4 class.

Jumping to a military deployment, my ATL & I were farmed out to a commando team getting ready to clear a village but by the time we flew up from Salerno to BAF, the place was socked in and we missed the window to arrive before the ODA went out. Our uniforms, appearance, weapons, etc opened doors (e.g. due to all that AND the fact that I was old as fuck, they most likely thought we were with another org) and we got two seats on a C-12 going back to Salerno. As we boarded, the crew chief asked all pax if their weapons were clear: RA dudes nodded but I said no. Both of us removed M4 mag, ejected round, racked the slide a few times, and locked the bolt back.  Did same with pistols.  The crew chief and RA dudes were shocked.  As soon as we got off the aircraft, we loaded up with weapon on safe.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 31, 2020)

lindy said:


> As we put on our body armor, I wrote “B+“ on some tape and put in on my front. Female proctor smirked & asked “Is that your hopeful grade?” ”No, it’s my blood type.”, I replied. The HR-type students in class looked horrified but the GRS instructors nodded in approval.



Nice job Dwight, you just failed your evaluation in flirting.


----------



## frostyred (Dec 31, 2020)

The Hate Ape said:


> Nice job Dwight, you just failed your evaluation in flirting.


I mean he's a crypto, so is this reeeeeally surprising?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 1, 2021)

1st Female Green Beret Faces 'Minor Misdemeanor' Charge for Accidentally Firing Gun, Police Say



> In July, the soldier, whose identity has been kept secret, graduated from the grueling, 53-week Special Forces Qualification Course (Q Course) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, becoming the first woman to earn the Special Forces tab and coveted Green Beret.





Why keep her name secret?  If she's in the Guard then I'm guessing she's not on the DASR and not permanently assigned to a unit where that would be required, and SFAS/Q Course isn't a classified course.  This perplexes me.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 1, 2021)

Marauder06 said:


> 1st Female Green Beret Faces 'Minor Misdemeanor' Charge for Accidentally Firing Gun, Police Say
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't be perplexed brother...if it was a *he* we wouldn't be hearing about it at all. Plus, it sounds so much "cooler" when they use that lingo....


----------



## Brill (Jan 1, 2021)

Sohei said:


> Don't be perplexed brother...if it was a *he* we wouldn't be hearing about it at all. Plus, it sounds so much "cooler" when they use that lingo....



If the incident was under civilian jurisdiction, why would USASOC have any involvement in releasing names?

Is she related to a Democrat?


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 1, 2021)

Marauder06 said:


> 1st Female Green Beret Faces 'Minor Misdemeanor' Charge for Accidentally Firing Gun, Police Say
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My understanding is that keeping her identity under wraps was to not make her into a celebrity (IE Tim Kennedy) so as to maintain the "quiet professional" ideal SF wants to maintain.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 1, 2021)

Marauder06 said:


> 1st Female Green Beret Faces 'Minor Misdemeanor' Charge for Accidentally Firing Gun, Police Say
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are any of the local papers reporting on this?  Because I bet they'll get a name soon.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 1, 2021)

Sohei said:


> Don't be perplexed brother...if it was a *he* we wouldn't be hearing about it at all. Plus, it sounds so much "cooler" when they use that lingo....


The article makes it sounds like it's the military not releasing the name, which seems weird to me.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 1, 2021)

Marauder06 said:


> The article makes it sounds like it's the military not releasing the name, which seems weird to me.


That's exactly how I read it as well. The only thing I could think of -- and I am really stretching it to come up with something -- is that she is in the reserve component and they are possibly trying to keep her name out of the spotlight within her local community. But, to be honest, I don't have a clue....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 1, 2021)

Captain Eve Newton, is the first woman from the Royal Logistics Corps to complete the British All Arms Commando Course.  She is a member of the British Army Triathlon, Cycling, and Cross Country Skiing Teams.  She is the latest woman graduate of the All Arms Commando Course.  Here's her interview with Mark Livesey on The Brick Session podcast.

‎The Triathlon Brick Session: Capt Eve Newton COMMANDO on Apple Podcasts


----------



## ODgreen (Jan 16, 2021)

Forgive me if it's already been touched upon (100 pages of thread ) but I served in proximity to women in the IDF.

The dog handlers we had during many incursions into villages and built up areas were women. They were outstanding in their jobs as dog handlers.
When it comes to stock-standard infantry combat operations in the field, they are atrocious. 

We had a company from the mixed-gender infantry battalion training outside of our base when we were doing field training. They had their little tent encampment in the desert, complete with a gas generator and lights. As we trudged past them with our backs breaking under our gear, the aroma of shampoo and junk food greeted us. They were in crocs and half-BDUs, looking about as hot as Marylyn Monroe in a USO show. Each one of us momentarily regretted our decision to join the regular infantry, eyes burning from the face paint and balls burning from the chafing. 

The stories we heard were true; the debauchery, the affairs, the abuse of power from officers sleeping with their soldiers. 

Is there a comparable dynamic in the American military?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 16, 2021)

ODgreen said:


> Is there a comparable dynamic in the American military?


I may take SO much shit for this... Women Marines, all fucking day long.

Literally everything you described above was true when we’d do field shit. Hell, it was true when we were not doing field shit.

By all accounts it still goes on today and it breaks my heart that they are now training women Marines in San Diego and mixing them with the men.

No good will come from this and I shutter to think how many male Drill Instructors will be pushed out of the service for some type of “harassment” bullshit.

I blame the officers. They know, they know which of their Staff NCOs are sleeping around with GD Sgts and Lance Corporals.

Makes my blood boil the shit I saw them get away with while “we” suffered in silence.  Cause...who ya gonna tell?

ETA-
It was literally one of the reasons I left.  Missed being promoted at a meritorious Corporal board to the WM LCPL I was up against. She was sleeping with one of the members of the
Board.

And that’s not sour grapes, that is fact.  It’s been a lot of years now, I remember that shit like it was an hour ago.



Spoiler: What does WM stand for?



Weekend Mattress


----------



## ODgreen (Jan 16, 2021)

I'm sorry that you had to go through that. It's a big injustice to get the cold, hard, tungsten dick of crooked authority. It infuriates me.

I held the record number of disciplinary hearings in my brigade- I stood in front of my battalion commander 7 times for various breaches of conduct. What I found out at the end of my service was that this battalion commander was universally hated by everyone on Earth and that our battalion disciplinary officer (I'm not sure what the equivalent rank is... this is the guy who stalks around making sure everyone is in line and doles out punishments) actually tore up the prison sentences my battalion commander issued to me. 

Anyways: I think women are fucking fantastic at piloting, field intelligence (they can track more targets than men, apparently), light patrol and dog handling... basically they are good at the things that don't require brute strength, which is stating the obvious lol. I think they should be in their own units and only mix with guys on their terms. The abuse of power and sexual dynamics ruins units, as you revealed to us with your own experiences.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 16, 2021)

ThunderHorse said:


> Are any of the local papers reporting on this?  Because I bet they'll get a name soon.


Not that I've seen yet.


Sohei said:


> That's exactly how I read it as well. The only thing I could think of -- and I am really stretching it to come up with something -- is that she is in the reserve component and they are possibly trying to keep her name out of the spotlight within her local community. But, to be honest, I don't have a clue....



I'm not sure if she's part of the RC in the local area or not.

Not that I know all (or even most)of the tabs in the unit, but I think news of that nature would have made it's way around by now if she was.


----------

