# Females in Ranger School



## goon175 (May 16, 2012)

Ive been hearing the rumors...and here is a little opinion column on the issue. Neither the CoS nor the SMA have a Tab, so I'm not sure how they get off pushing this. Neither does secdef...neither does potus...etc. etc....

http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814


----------



## Karoshi (May 16, 2012)

I wonder, what is the success rate of women who attend "Sapper" school. If there is not a high success rate there, why even bother trying to push this through?  I can only shake my head at the comments I have seen recently from the CoS and SMA.

Odierno noted that nine out of ten senior infantry officers have graduated from Ranger school and wear the Ranger tab on their uniforms. Not allowing women to earn their own tab could hinder their infantry careers, Odierno said. "As we look at our senior infantry officers, 90 percent of our senior officers are Ranger qualified. If we determine that we're going to allow women to go into infantry and be successful, they're probably at some time going to have to go to Ranger School," Odierno said. "We have not made that decision but it's a factor that I've asked them to take a look at."


----------



## AWP (May 16, 2012)

Odierno is a tool. That he has a fourth star, much less is the CSA, is hideous.

I love the "9 out of 10" comment because if those numbers are true then it is essentially invalidating IOBC and the MCCC.


----------



## Karoshi (May 16, 2012)

That was taken from the military.com article I read about an hour ago. Link


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 16, 2012)

I don't know what the big deal is to let women suddenly be in these combat roles and schools all of a sudden. Anyone who's worked a infantry/combat MOS job will tell you women (not all but for the most part) simply are not built from a physiological standpoint for the strenuousness of the job, related schools, and subsequent training. It's as FUCKING SIMPLE as that. I could go on into more detail, but anyone that's humped a pack weighing over 50 lbs for more than 5 miles up and down some steep ass hills will say the same thing.

My brother in law has been a Army medic for years. When I broached the subject of later going SOF after my college is behind me, he told me to be prepared for some long ass, slow as FUCK run's at jump school cause the pace set is by the slowest one up front, and is almost always a female in a MOS like cook or something. Don't feel I really need to say more on that, cept I feel this just isn't the time or place for this sort of silliness.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 16, 2012)

Maybe it's different now, but when I went through jump school the pace was set by the guy in front of the formation, and that was the the company commander, the First Sergeant, or our platoon TAC.   Yeah the runs were slow but I got the impression that they were to help identify people who were injured than a gut check.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 16, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Maybe it's different now, but when I went through jump school the pace was set by the guy in front of the formation, and that was the the company commander, the First Sergeant, or our platoon TAC. Yeah the runs were slow but I got the impression that they were to help identify people who were injured than a gut check.


 
Can't say from experience, just what my brother in law told me last Christmas during a visit. Sorry if I derailed slightly, was just giving a example as to the idea that while people may think allowing women into every aspect of the military is a good thing, it isn't, not out of some sexist ideology but out of biological and psychological factors.


----------



## AWP (May 16, 2012)

I went to jump school in '93 and the females were always in the front. Whether that was "All women to the front" or "short people to the front, tall to the rear" I don't recall but I suspect the latter. Runs were 9 minute miles +/- 5 seconds. Yeah, I was "that guy" who took a watch to PT and wasn't caught.


----------



## Worldweaver (May 17, 2012)

Exactly right,  "short people to the front".  As was stated elsewhere, they will water down the requirements and time hacks prior to Women starting Ranger School so that when it does happen it won't appear as if the standards are being changed for their benefit.


----------



## 0699 (May 17, 2012)

Karoshi said:


> I wonder, what is the success rate of women who attend "Sapper" school. If there is not a high success rate there, why even bother trying to push this through? I can only shake my head at the comments I have seen recently from the CoS and SMA.
> 
> Odierno noted that nine out of ten senior infantry officers have graduated from Ranger school and wear the Ranger tab on their uniforms. *Not allowing women to earn their own tab could hinder their infantry careers*, Odierno said. "As we look at our senior infantry officers, 90 percent of our senior officers are Ranger qualified. If we determine that we're going to allow women to go into infantry and be successful, they're probably at some time going to have to go to Ranger School," Odierno said. "We have not made that decision but it's a factor that I've asked them to take a look at."


 
Maybe they could come up with a different tab for women...


----------



## Boon (May 17, 2012)

They should change the tab all together and call it the Infantry or Patrolling Tab


----------



## RustyShackleford (May 17, 2012)

When the standards are the same across the board, fine.  But until then...


----------



## Loki (May 17, 2012)

Same PT, same combat load, same standards? As a former grunt; get to the front, ruck up Suzy, move out, get some! Hummmm

http://www.military.com/news/article/Ranger-school-considers-going-co-ed.html


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 18, 2012)

IMTT said:


> Same PT, same combat load, same standards? As a former grunt; get to the front, ruck up Suzy, move out, get some! Hummmm
> 
> http://www.military.com/news/article/Ranger-school-considers-going-co-ed.html


 
question is, aside from some Olympic style body builder women and some that have just a insane amount of stamina, how many females can they expect to send through and pass? Again, this isn't a sexist thing, it's simply how women are built body wise and mental wise. I'm all for equality and such, but truth is harsh standards are in place to weed out those that don't make a cut and those that do, it's not fair but it ensures the best candidates are chosen. Females, overall, I'm just not seeing a high number making it through course like Ranger School, Marine SOI, SFAS, etc....

Another thing I think should be brought up to mind is this: can the already squeamish American public really take all this? If one were to follow the obvious logic, would mean the military as a whole in the near future would be opening up not only schools but combat MOS that are (right now) restricted to males and open them to females. How long before the American public, which is already risk aversive, hardly knows there are wars on, and cringes and screams "pull the troops out" at the first footage of combat on tv, will start going insane at the site of large numbers of women dieing in combat situations, coming home in flag draped coffins?

I'll be one of the first to admit I'm a protective male, it's a male thing and a warrior thing to protect your woman and your family, it's biology. The American public as it is can barely stand seeing it's son's coming back in the number they have wounded or KIA, let alone their precious daughters.


----------



## goon175 (May 18, 2012)

JohnyboyUSMC: word on the street is that the females attending Ranger School WILL pass, at or above the current rate of males passing.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 18, 2012)

goon175 said:


> JohnyboyUSMC: word on the street is that the females attending Ranger School WILL pass, at or above the current rate of males passing.


 
hey if they can do it, good on em, they have clearly made a lot of us eat shit. my older sister is in the army, and if you knew her well enough you'd say "Ranger School? that won't pose any challenge to her", I just don't see majority wise a lot of females being able to live up to current standards, though honestly I hope I'm proven wrong!


----------



## goon175 (May 18, 2012)

> I just don't see majority wise a lot of females being able to live up to *current* standards


 
Exactly.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 18, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Exactly.


 
So your saying the standards are being lowered for female students or that we have to "adapt" to female students coming into these courses and that standards will be set diff for them?


----------



## 18C4V (May 18, 2012)

I think the standards will be lowered or there will be two standards (male or female) or even a stand alone Ranger class or a platoon of female RS students.


----------



## Boon (May 18, 2012)

Or no more MREs while in the patrol base, but home cooked meals. 


Too soon?


----------



## CDG (May 18, 2012)

I was talking with an Army Reserve officer (Engineer Branch) who has been thorugh Ranger School and he had an interesting take on it. His opinion is that RS brought this on themselves by moving away from being a samll-unit tactics school and promoting itself as the Army's premier leadership school. Now that women are being placed in Infantry leadership positions, they have made it tough to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to attend. Of course the disagreement is still there about the mandatory passing rates and lowered standards, but the rest is an interesting premise. Thoughts?

A second argument that I have seen brought up time and again in regards to women serving in Infantry, SOF, etc. is the gym aspect. The explosion of CrossFit in popularity and the athletic women it produces has led many people to point at top CF women as being examples of women who would theoretically have little difficulty with the demands of being an Infantry or SOF unit. I think it's interesting that if a man performs well in the gym, it's almost a detriment at times as he is expected to prove out his gym performance in the field or risk being labeled a "pretty boy" who only can perform in a gym environment. Yet, when women perform well in the gym the attitude is that they are proof of the fact that women could breeze thorugh any physical challenge a training cadre could throw at them. The idea that being good at CF or whatever else is indicative of an ability to handle the day in and day out beating your body and mind takes at certain training courses is laughable. The gym may have some carryover to success in these courses, but it is far from a concrete indicator. It's indicative of the double standard in place, whether people admit to it or not, that women are almost handed a graduation certificate by some before even attending a course because they have a fast Fran time, while men who perform the same or better in the gym are looked at that much harder to see if they can hold up outside the controlled environment of a gym.


----------



## goon175 (May 18, 2012)

I don't even know if its so much about there ability to do it, but when you think about what has happened to all these co-ed support units (pregnancies, sexual harrasment, etc.) we can't have that in combat arms. It's one thing if the NCOIC is out on maternity leave in the 123 quartermaster battalion and some supply orders get messed up, the worst that will happen is some longer work days. In the case of combat arms, it will put peoples lives at risk. That, and you just have the general dynamic of men and women working in close proximity for long periods of time, romances will naturally generate, which will effect the combat readiness of of that squad or platoon or w/e. The average females ability to keep up physically is only one slice of the pie when it comes to the overall issues that are going to rise from this


----------



## Salt USMC (May 18, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Integrated units


 
Personal anecdote to add to this: I've served with 2 units that are male-only, and 2 that are integrated.  In the non-integrated units, the usual male dynamic was present and had to be dealt with, but there wasnt really much of a problem.  In one of the integrated units, there was a big fraternization problem that I dont think was really addressed.  Married SNCOs messing around with junior NCOs and whatnot.  The command didnt seem to do much about it.  The other integrated unit got along just fine, although I think that may have been because it was smaller and had better leadership overall (It was also a higher echelon unit so that may have contributed).  I would hope that any ranger qualified women would be mature and capable enough to deal with this kind of stuff.


----------



## Squidward (May 18, 2012)

Asked an instructor a year or so ago about his view on the issue, and his answer was pretty solid.

- "Every day I come to work with a new plate of shit I have to eat. I don't too much care what's between your legs or what you do in your off time. As long as my plate of shit doesn't get larger, I am content to stay in my lane."

Equality in every sense of the word, not just what's comfortable. In a perfect world a seamless integration without compromise in standards, principles, or effectiveness should be the status quo; however, I fear that will not be the case. In this case there is a very high price for failure.


----------



## Brill (May 18, 2012)

I just hope I'm in the first female class. Perhaps their focus will be on them and have less "who the fuck is that old guy?".

Regardless, they'll be peered out. The shitty thing is if thry're allowed to attend RS, you WILL see female 35Ps serving as SOT-As (V-coded billets have prevented it previously).


----------



## goon175 (May 18, 2012)

> Regardless, they'll be peered out.


 
They may be peered, but probably not peered _out_. The powers that be will not allow it.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 18, 2012)

You also have to think, combat arms and schools like RS are a brotherhood and boy's only club for the most part. I get as warriors we're all supposed to be mature and act like professionals, but you have to think that there will still be a good number of individuals (from instructors to fellow students) who are gonna have a "fuck this chick" attitude and try in their own small way to make em look bad/fail the course. I'm not saying it's right, just saying it's bound to happen, which will lead to plenty of sexism accusations founded or not.


----------



## Brill (May 18, 2012)

goon175 said:


> They may be peered, but probably not peered _out_. The powers that be will not allow it.



I wonder if I can ruck with a Rascal scooter then.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 18, 2012)

lindy said:


> I wonder if I can ruck with a Rascal scooter then.


 
Wouldn't worry about that, once DARPA get's that exoskeleton system perfected rucking with 150lbs will be like taking a nice stroll along the PFT trail


----------



## reed11b (May 18, 2012)

goon175 said:


> I don't even know if its so much about there ability to do it, but when you think about what has happened to all these co-ed support units (pregnancies, sexual harrasment, etc.) we can't have that in combat arms. It's one thing if the NCOIC is out on maternity leave in the 123 quartermaster battalion and some supply orders get messed up, the worst that will happen is some longer work days. In the case of combat arms, it will put peoples lives at risk. That, and you just have the general dynamic of men and women working in close proximity for long periods of time, romances will naturally generate, which will effect the combat readiness of of that squad or platoon or w/e. The average females ability to keep up physically is only one slice of the pie when it comes to the overall issues that are going to rise from this


My experience down range with a unit acting in something very close to a combat role (MP's that shared our mission to clear MSR Tampa of insurgents in the northern section of the multi-national zone) did not have any of that going on. Nor was hygene an issue (they had been there 60 days prior to us and had zero hygene facilities). Not a single female MP was sent home early, though Male MP's and soldiers were for a variety of reasons. All the female MP's returned fire and engaged the enemy when it was appropriate to do so. I can not say the same for some of the infantry guys that were with us. When I got to Arifjan and women had all these special rules to "protect" them, then I saw a shit load of pregnancies and sexual assaults.

So I am reluctant to assume that pregnancies and sexual harrasmet, etc, are forgone conclusions if women are treated as equals and allowed to do the job. This doesn't mean I think they should be in the infantry, I just take most of the excuses of why they can't be in the infantry with a grain of salt. (Iwonder if the UCMJ could get tweaked so that getting pregnat downrange could be considered deriliction of duty or something?)
Reed


----------



## reed11b (May 18, 2012)

lindy said:


> I just hope I'm in the first female class. Perhaps their focus will be on them and have less "who the fuck is that old guy?".


 
I actually thought exactly the same thing! lol.
Reed


----------



## Loki (May 18, 2012)

The only road to success regardless for the political body is to water down standards or sliding scale standards with false positives espoused by all in the command structure.  Bottom line; the gear weighs the same, the distance to travel is the same, the obstacles faced are the same and the enemy is the same. Political correctness has no place in the process. If you're in, you're in all the way, Ruck up!


----------



## TLDR20 (May 19, 2012)

I will say that I have seen women in a SOF school and they have not succeeded. They have all had shitty attitudes and were defeatest. This may be a small sampling, but it is what I have witnessed first hand while assessing/grading @ a SOF schoolhouse.


----------



## surgicalcric (May 19, 2012)

They are looking for "equality" with a different standard. 

If it happens in Ranger School look for it to happen within SF in the next couple years, especially with SWTG wanting to be a TRADOC School (another great idea brought from the fairy.)


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 19, 2012)

This was a topic of discussion as we came out of scout gunnery this week and turned on our phones and saw this article come up.  The rumor down here a week ago had been that the Army was going to push 8 females through IBOLC this summer...and then it became ABOLC...which, honestly so far a female could do what we've done and not have any issues.  At IBOLC...well it's one big long hump.  I don't see how they could send them down here for either because as of right now the 11 and 19 series officer MOSs are not open to women, whereas there are female 13 Series officers, yet extremely few of them.

So my opinion is as such...I'm sure there are females out there that are physically capable of completing Ranger School, but do they know the tactics the OPORDs to be successful...heck are those physically capable females even in the Army?


----------



## Brian1/75 (May 19, 2012)

I remember being somewhat impressed with the female West Point cadets in Airborne School. Given nothing was terribly hard there, but they at least didn't seem to be struggling compared to all the other chicks there including the ones that were already commissioned officers. IMO really physically fit women don't generally join the Army. Then again if we start opening up 'prestigious' positions to them maybe they would. As for OPORDS and tactics, if a Pre-Ranger course can get a brand new Private to go straight through Ranger School, I'm sure we can also get officers to pass as well. It's just sad that instead of keeping the standards and letting the few women capable earn their tab, politics will make the Army lower  standards so many can be handed it.


----------



## chewytri (May 19, 2012)

Here's a good one ...... it's o'dark thirty in the a.m., oporder has begun. What's by the briefing area?  Oh, the slit trench.  Everyone with a tab knows what i'm talking about, and we have all witnessed the horror during these oporders when people had to go... now put a female in the picture.  She has to go during the oporder... do you stop so she can do her business?  I tell you what, I'm not missing my hard time ... I can just imagine all the sexual harassment claims that are going to come out of this,"he was looking at me when I was utilizing the slit trench" or " he failed me 'cause I'm a woman" or " he wanted me to perform sexual acts, or he would fail me and that's how I failed."  Just imagine this going farther than ranger school and going up the SOF ladder, USASOC, NAVSPEC, MARSOC, AFSOC, all of SOCOM imagine you had to standown a unit because of a possible sexual harassment investigation.  Do me a favor... whoever is deciding on this matter, save yourselves the heartache and public ridicule, and have the testicular fortitude to make the right decision, and do not let the public sway your decision....... I'm not carrying tampons because it's a new item on the packinglist efff that...


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 19, 2012)

I recall about a year ago, when SgtMaj. Kent was still the top enlisted man in the Corps talking to a group of us at Pendleton, someone straight up asking him if females were gonna get into the infantry, to which he said straight up "it's NOT gonna happen". Now, they are letting females attend Marine Corps SOI. It's a slippery slope we're all on.


----------



## Centermass (May 19, 2012)

It's a RUMOR that has run a muck recently and nothing else. The message about the ACoS directing this is not true. There has been NO official announcement or decision regarding their attendance. Weaponsman has jumped the gun based on hearsay and pure speculation. Could it happen? Perhaps, but for now, no. 

This is the OFFICIAL word: *Women Soldiers are not currently eligible for attendance to the US Army Ranger Course nor are there any plans to open the course to Women Soldiers.*


----------



## medicchick (May 19, 2012)

It seems to rotate which school/pipeline women will now be allowed into.  I seem to remember this one going around about 5 years ago, SF pipeline before that, Marine Recon, and of course who could forget BUDs after a certain movie.  I'll believe it when there is actual proof to back it up, or even better pictures of a women getting the award for passing whatever course she went through.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 19, 2012)

medicchick said:


> It seems to rotate which school/pipeline women will now be allowed into. I seem to remember this one going around about 5 years ago, SF pipeline before that, Marine Recon, and of course who could forget BUDs after a certain movie. I'll believe it when there is actual proof to back it up, or even better pictures of a women getting the award for passing whatever course she went through.


 
Women are already going through SOF courses. Some have already passed, others are currently in certain pipelines. Are they full fledged SF/SEAL/Rangers? No...For now.


----------



## Muppet (May 19, 2012)

So, all this reading made me have a dream that 3/75th got a female Batt. C.O. I woke up screaming for you poor Rangers. :)

F.M.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 19, 2012)

cback0220 said:


> Women are already going through SOF courses. Some have already passed, others are currently in certain pipelines. Are they full fledged SF/SEAL/Rangers? No...For now.


 
Really? I hadn't heard that! Last I had heard a few had tried but none had made it. If they can make it without standards being lowered or anything like that, I don't have any reason to complain or whine.


----------



## goon175 (May 20, 2012)

I just don't see why they aren't starting with IOBC (similar to what the usmc is doing). The CoS says you need the Ranger Tab to move through the ranks in the infantry, but I'm pretty sure Infantry officers have to attend IOBC to be succesful in the Infantry as well...ya know...since thats how they get MOS qualified and all....

Starting with R.S. is like saying "eh, skip BAC and head right up to do MFF - if you can do MFF than we know you'll be able to do static line!"


----------



## surgicalcric (May 20, 2012)

goon175 said:


> ...The CoS says you need the Ranger Tab to move through the ranks in the infantry, but I'm pretty sure Infantry officers have to attend IOBC to be successful in the Infantry as well...ya know...since thats how they get MOS qualified and all....


 
Brother:

This issue of women attending Ranger School isn't about women really wanting to lead Infantry soldiers in combat or really be in the Infantry; it is about promotions.  Women feel slighted by being held back from promotion to certain positions because they lack a Tab and having held certain positions - they are interested in career advancement not being a Ranger.

If women, as a whole, thought they were physically equal to men there would be equal efforts to dissolve gender lines in both professional and amateur/collegiate sports. However I really haven't seen a big push to get women into the NFL or the NBA or powerlifting, etc... When women are competing equally in arenas where lives and national security aren't hanging in the balance I will reconsider...

Crip


----------



## goon175 (May 20, 2012)

I absolutely agree with you, I was just using the CoS's argument against him. His reasoning makes no sense, and we all see it for what it actually is.


----------



## goon175 (May 20, 2012)

Although I suspect it goes higher than the CoS.


----------



## Scotth (May 20, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> Brother:
> 
> This issue of women attending Ranger School isn't about women really wanting to lead Infantry soldiers in combat or really be in the Infantry; it is about promotions. Women feel slighted by being held back from promotion to certain positions because they lack a Tab and having held certain positions - they are interested in career advancement not being a Ranger.
> 
> ...


 
Spot on.  If people don't want women in Ranger school remove the promotion aspect from attending the school.  If you removed the promotion aspect you would probably remove half the males attendees as well.  Same with jump school.


----------



## Loki (May 20, 2012)

Firstly this school should be restricted to Infantry branch / Infantry MOSs only. Which as well would eliminate support MOS personnel from an Infantry small unit tactic skills course. Secondly I don't feel this is or ever was an officer leadership course. As a former Infantry Squad leader and Infantry platoon Sergeant it has always been extremely frustrating process to get slots for this course for our Infantry NCOs and enlisted personnel. Our young new boot Lt.s and O staff slugs always got first shot. The slots were always held in the Battalion. Everybody wants the tab for career enhancement but don't want to be in the Infantry...Now they want to muddy the waters with further political intrigue. Thirdly the Army provides solid training for all personnel being deployed currently relative to weapons, tactics, convoy operation and a long list of basic combat skills. Why do any support slugs even need to be in this course taking up valuable slots is beyond me. I can guarantee if you took the tab away and only made a notation in the SRB / Personnel file the demand would drop greatly and immediately. I will say this it was nice to see my Platoon Leader recycle three times as well as peered. He came back a new man, ego broken and 50 pounds less ass. He even started listening to the squad leaders... Just my 2 cents.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 20, 2012)

Scotth said:


> Spot on. If people don't want women in Ranger school remove the promotion aspect from attending the school. If you removed the promotion aspect you would probably remove half the males attendees as well. Same with jump school.


 
While I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, I dislike the entire idea of any school, Ranger or otherwise, being a career tick in the box. It should be something that compliments the warrior/leadership skills of the individual and be a source of pride for themselves and their unit for completing a tough course rather than "I gotta do this to get promoted". I agree with Scotth, remove the promotion aspect.


----------



## goon175 (May 20, 2012)

It may have used to be hard to get into, but over the last few years they are taking any infantryman they can get their hands on. They even made it so that anyone who attends ALC/SLC has the chance to go afterwards - and the unit doesn't even have to pay. When I went to ALC last summer, I would say less than 10% of the class actually jumped at the opportunity, everyone else just rolled their eyes and talked about how they had a CIB what do they need to go walk around the woods for.


----------



## Loki (May 20, 2012)

goon175 said:


> It may have used to be hard to get into, but over the last few years they are taking any infantryman they can get their hands on. They even made it so that anyone who attends ALC/SLC has the chance to go afterwards - and the unit doesn't even have to pay. When I went to ALC last summer, I would say less than 10% of the class actually jumped at the opportunity, everyone else just rolled their eyes and talked about how they had a CIB what do they need to go walk around the woods for.


 
The badge collectors working on the tower of power... We would have loved such an opportunity. This course should be absolute mandate for all Squad leaders.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 20, 2012)

Considering that SL/PSG/PL positions were V coded in the Stryker Bn I was in.... it's supposed to be.


----------



## Brill (May 20, 2012)

IMTT said:


> Firstly this school should be restricted to Infantry branch / Infantry MOSs only. Which as well would eliminate support MOS personnel from an Infantry small unit tactic skills course. Secondly I don't feel this is or ever was an officer leadership course. As a former Infantry Squad leader and Infantry platoon Sergeant it has always been extremely frustrating process to get slots for this course for our Infantry NCOs and enlisted personnel. Our young new boot Lt.s and O staff slugs always got first shot. The slots were always held in the Battalion. Everybody wants the tab for career enhancement but don't want to be in the Infantry...Now they want to muddy the waters with further political intrigue. Thirdly the Army provides solid training for all personnel being deployed currently relative to weapons, tactics, convoy operation and a long list of basic combat skills. Why do any support slugs even need to be in this course taking up valuable slots is beyond me. I can guarantee if you took the tab away and only made a notation in the SRB / Personnel file the demand would drop greatly and immediately. I will say this it was nice to see my Platoon Leader recycle three times as well as peered. He came back a new man, ego broken and 50 pounds less ass. He even started listening to the squad leaders... Just my 2 cents.


As an MI support slug in a SF unit, I strongly disagree. I believe RS will enable me to be a better leader and integrate more effectively in an ODA. I plan on going back after this deployment.


----------



## Brill (May 20, 2012)

IMTT said:


> Firstly this school should be restricted to Infantry branch / Infantry MOSs only. Which as well would eliminate support MOS personnel from an Infantry small unit tactic skills course. Secondly I don't feel this is or ever was an officer leadership course. As a former Infantry Squad leader and Infantry platoon Sergeant it has always been extremely frustrating process to get slots for this course for our Infantry NCOs and enlisted personnel. Our young new boot Lt.s and O staff slugs always got first shot. The slots were always held in the Battalion. Everybody wants the tab for career enhancement but don't want to be in the Infantry...Now they want to muddy the waters with further political intrigue. Thirdly the Army provides solid training for all personnel being deployed currently relative to weapons, tactics, convoy operation and a long list of basic combat skills. Why do any support slugs even need to be in this course taking up valuable slots is beyond me. I can guarantee if you took the tab away and only made a notation in the SRB / Personnel file the demand would drop greatly and immediately. I will say this it was nice to see my Platoon Leader recycle three times as well as peered. He came back a new man, ego broken and 50 pounds less ass. He even started listening to the squad leaders... Just my 2 cents.


As an MI support slug in a SF unit, I strongly disagree. I believe RS will enable me to be a better leader and integrate more effectively in an ODA. I plan on going back after this deployment.


----------



## Loki (May 20, 2012)

lindy said:


> As an MI support slug in a SF unit, I strongly disagree. I believe RS will enable me to be a better leader and integrate more effectively in an ODA. I plan on going back after this deployment.


 
Well we disagree, respectfully


----------



## AWP (May 20, 2012)

If the Army did a better job of building leaders, properly assessing, selecting, and training them then Ranger School would not need to exist. If the bulk of the course focused on learning new skills it would be one thing, but to make it a leadership course with major career implications is garbage. RS essentially invalidates the Army's methods for raising generations of combat leadership.

Since it is a leadership course and everyone in the Army is now a "warrior" then let anyone of any MOS who can meet the posted standards attend the course. How many 11 series were denied a school date due to a support MOS (which I consider to be just about every other MOS in the Army) taking his spot? How many 11 series NCOs and O's will never even attempt the course?

Ranger School exists because the Army is incapable of properly creating combat leaders.


----------



## Loki (May 20, 2012)

I fully agree with this statement above; _"the Army is incapable of properly creating combat leaders." _But they do one hellavu job of making managers, highly sensitive folks and treating everyone in accordance to a cohesive non-hostile work environment. ,

I believe and I'm convinced & know many slots never reached the grunt level guys and many are denied slots due to other MOSs filling those slots in the school house. I also know for a fact we had many support guys in the HQ taking slots that should have gone to the grunts. My knowledge is from 2002-1991. Perhaps that has changed but the Army needs to study the Marine corps model more closely and stop trying to be so PC. My opinion of course, what little that is worth. If RS is the model of combat leadership then there is a huge problem. Considering the small percentage of personnel attending these courses annually (approx. 1000 successful students Army wide per year from all services to include foreign students) this doesn't seem to be an effective tool based on the stated objective above. Also consider the fact that many of these folks will get out of service within a short period of time (2-3 years after completion). Hence my support of restricting this course to combat arms. This further validates and lends credence to not allowing females into the course. Unless of course they can and are accepted to combat arms MOSs.
;)
*Personnel End Strength US Army - July 2010 - *​*1,375,600*​ 
​_"Ranger school cadre mission; Conduct Ranger and Reconnaissance and Surveillance Leader Courses to further develop the combat arms skills of Officer and Enlisted volunteers eligible *for assignment to units whose primary mission is to engage in the close-combat, **direct fire battle.* Produce as many Ranger and RSLC leaders as possible within standards."_

http://www.Ranger.org/Resources/Documents/Ranger website brief.pdf

With deepest respect


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 20, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> If the Army did a better job of building leaders, properly assessing, selecting, and training them then Ranger School would not need to exist. If the bulk of the course focused on learning new skills it would be one thing, but to make it a leadership course with major career implications is garbage. RS essentially invalidates the Army's methods for raising generations of combat leadership.
> 
> Since it is a leadership course and everyone in the Army is now a "warrior" then let anyone of any MOS who can meet the posted standards attend the course. How many 11 series were denied a school date due to a support MOS (which I consider to be just about every other MOS in the Army) taking his spot? How many 11 series NCOs and O's will never even attempt the course?
> 
> Ranger School exists because the Army is incapable of properly creating combat leaders.


 
Your not really doing a good job of selling a future in the Army to me, NEVER be a recruiter, just a helpful suggestion lol! Though personally, I prefer the ones who are honest and will tell you how things are, so maybe you should go recruiter


----------



## Spider6 (May 21, 2012)

Crip....once again hit the nail on the head.  I'll put a slightly different way though....how many women did you guys see get drafted by the NFL last month......0 that's how many......women do not complete against or alongside men in any professional sport!

DA Form 705.....you will see 2 different standards....another name for 2 is double.....these standards are lower from when I joined the service in 1992....In units I have been a member of, if you didn't max your pushups and situps at 82 and 92 respectfully you were given a "hard time".  The 2 mile run we got a little lee-way on for genetics...had some short guys around!


----------



## Marauder06 (May 21, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> Crip....once again hit the nail on the head. I'll put a slightly different way though....how many women did you guys see get drafted by the NFL last month......0 that's how many......women do not complete against or alongside men in any professional sport!


 
http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/10/28/9-female-athletes-who-competed-against-men/


----------



## reed11b (May 21, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> Crip....once again hit the nail on the head. I'll put a slightly different way though....how many women did you guys see get drafted by the NFL last month......0 that's how many......women do not complete against or alongside men in any professional sport!


When I was on active duty I weighed between 125 and 135lbs, and I was NEVER the smallest guy in my unit. How many 135lb guys did you see get drafted into the NFL last month? That argument is a strawman. There may be very good reasons to not allow women in the infantry (such as lowering standards to ensure an "acceptable" percentage of women pass) but that one is not one of them.
Reed


----------



## Marauder06 (May 21, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> DA Form 705.....you will see 2 different standards....another name for 2 is double.....these standards are lower from when I joined the service in 1992....In units I have been a member of, if you didn't max your pushups and situps at 82 and 92 respectfully you were given a "hard time". The 2 mile run we got a little lee-way on for genetics...had some short guys around!


 
I don't think there should be any gender-based or aged-based norming on the PT test.  A can of 7.62 weighs the same no matter what age or gender you are... 2 miles is the same length no matter how many years you have on you or what you have between your legs.

I think we should have the same points standards across the board, but if any norming is necessary we could have a sliding values scale, something like: fail, pass, average, excellent, elite, based on age-normed standards.  So points system the same across the board, but with a rating based on age.  I think that would give commanders, NCOs, and individual Soliders a truer look at the fitness level of every individual while not punishing people for longevity in the service.


----------



## 18C4V (May 21, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> Considering that SL/PSG/PL positions were V coded in the Stryker Bn I was in.... it's supposed to be.


 
My old unit ,  all of the leadership positions were coded "G". I think that all the females should go to PRC prior to going to RS.

When I went to RS, it was combat arms only so I didn't have issues like when I went to the SFQC with dealing with non combat arms guys (cooks, clerks, riggers, supply clerks) in SUT phase.  I was pretty frustrated with dealing with non combat arm guys in phase 2 (SUT) of the SFQC so I can imagine what RS is like now with non combat arms guys and now females going through RS.  Not knowing basic skill level 10 tasks and tactics means that someone will have to carry that person and that's not going to go well when it comes to peers.

The road march from the DZ to Camp Rogers on those sandy trails was a gut check especially with no slings on your weapons.  Plenty of dudes fell out on that and if a guy who got on the truck has SII, that items had to be cross loaded with the remaining squad members. I would like to see a female with a 240/249 (without a sling) or a tripod with ammo try to hang with that.


----------



## 0699 (May 21, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't think there should be any gender-based or aged-based norming on the PT test. A can of 7.62 weighs the same no matter what age or gender you are... 2 miles is the same length no matter how many years you have on you or what you have between your legs.
> 
> I think we should have the same points standards across the board, but if any norming is necessary we could have a sliding values scale, something like: fail, pass, average, excellent, elite, based on age-normed standards. So points system the same across the board, but with a rating based on age. I think that would give commanders, NCOs, and individual Soliders a truer look at the fitness level of every individual while not punishing people for longevity in the service.


 
IMO the pass/fail standard should be the same for everyone, regardless of age or gender.  As you say, a can of 7.62 ammo...

If the services want to add a score standard on top of that (for fitness report/evaluation purposes) that's fine, but the bottom line should be the same for everyone.


----------



## Loki (May 21, 2012)

0699 said:


> IMO the pass/fail standard should be the same for everyone, regardless of age or gender. As you say, a can of 7.62 ammo...
> 
> If the services want to add a score standard on top of that (for fitness report/evaluation purposes) that's fine, but the bottom line should be the same for everyone.


 
And there in lays the problem with regard to the PC establishment that possesses no military experience. The SEC DEF is in my opinion worthless and out of touch completely with the military, their needs or requirements. I think the issue of openly serving homosexuals in the military is but a perfect example. Whether for or against is another issue in itself and not relative to this discussion.  Those choices were in general taken away from the organization and driven from the top down through the political party in power currently. I further don't believe the top commanders fought with the level of motivation required to stop this from happening as well as concerns of their personal careers.  Hence it is my feeling if the same happens and this becomes politicized then in fact Women will be in combat arms and every facet of the military with reduced standards or gender neutral standards. At some point whether now or in the near term the political winds are blowing. It will effect many other areas of national defense since in my opinion that is a secondary concern of the Defense department, political parties and the American public that is largely detached from the US Military.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 21, 2012)

IMTT said:


> And there in lays the problem with regard to the PC establishment that possesses no military experience. The SEC DEF is in my opinion worthless and out of touch completely with the military, their needs or requirements. I think the issue of openly serving homosexuals in the military is but a perfect example. Whether for or against is another issue in itself and not relative to this discussion. Those choices were in general taken away from the organization and driven from the top down through the political party in power currently. I further don't believe the top commanders fought with the level of motivation required to stop this from happening as well as concerns of their personal careers. Hence it is my feeling if the same happens and this becomes politicized then in fact Women will be in combat arms and every facet of the military with reduced standards or gender neutral standards. At some point whether now or in the near term the political winds are blowing. It will effect many other areas of national defense since in my opinion that is a secondary concern of the Defense department, political parties and the American public that is largely detached from the US Military.


 
The current and most recently former SECDEF each served in the military.  

You might be surprised to learn how many senior military leaders supported the repeal of DADT not because of PC-ness or career-mindedness, but because they thought it was the right thing to do.  I don't think DADT should have ever been in place to begin with; either something is illegal or it isn't, don't tell me something is contrary to good order and discipline and incompatible with military values, and then tell me to ignore it if I suspect it in a unit I command.  It was a worthless, cowardly "compromise" from the very beginning, and I'm glad it is gone.  I'm not certain that allowing homosexuals to serve openly is going to be good for our military, but at least we're not half-assing it anymore.

I'm more pissed off that we conducted a "*responsible drawdown*" in Iraq and now we're looking to conduct a "*responsible withdraw*" from Afghanistan.  Seriously?  That's our endstate for those wars?  If so, then we could have easily accomplished that by never going to war with those countries in the first place.  If we're going to talk about "responsible" anything, how about a plan for "responsible" victory, or how about "responsibly ensuring that we won't be threatened by attacks originating from those countries ever again?"  "Responsible withdrawal" and "responsible drawdown" smack of face-saving defeatism and are an insult to the men and women who have served in those conflicts.


----------



## Spider6 (May 21, 2012)

Marauder06 please see

http://flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/default.asp

This is a letter signed by 1,164 retired officers asking that DADT not be repealed.

With the troops levels being cut wouldn't it make sense to require everyone to meet the same high standards?  Granted this is simplistic but those that remain will have the confidence that everyone deserves to be there.

Here is a quote from the SGT. MAJ of the Army
*Service is a privilege … it’s not a right. You’ve got to continuously work hard to truly posture yourself as someone who is among the best.*

— SGT. MAJ. OF THE ARMY RAYMOND F. CHANDLER III

*My take from that is raise and enforce the standards.*


Reed,

  Who said anything about weight?  Its physical ability.  In boxing and or the UFC you have different weight classes but you won't see a woman fighting a man.  Interestingly when I was at the police academy they never paired the females against any males during "survival" training.

Please see http://cmrlink.org/coedTraining.asp?docID=206 for further.


----------



## Boon (May 21, 2012)

There are a lot of angry people out there.  This is all over FB:



> *The Rangerette Creed
> 
> Recognizing that I volunteered as a Rangerette, fully knowing that I was ruining a time honored profession, I will always endeavor to lower the standards, discipline, and combat effectiveness of the Rangers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marauder06 (May 21, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> Marauder06 please see
> 
> http://flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/default.asp
> 
> This is a letter signed by 1,164 retired officers asking that DADT not be repealed.


 
Yep; I remember that.  Google a couple of those guys though and see when they served, and ask yourself if maybe their views might be different from the current crop of generals/flag officers we have in the military (i.e. the ones who are making the decisions on DADT, etc.).  Also, there is this:

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010...ines-officers’-letter-supporting-‘don’t-ask’/



> A number of high-ranking military officers whose names appear on a well-publicized letter supporting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were involved in career-ending scandals or have said the letter doesn’t represent their views, according to Servicemembers United.


 
There are also a number of general/flag officers, with more recent service, who supported the repeal:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774058/page/2/#.T7rmgtxtq8A



> The list of 104 former officers who signed the statement appears to signal growing support for resolving the status of gays in the military. Last year, 28 former generals and admirals signed a similar statement.


----------



## goon175 (May 21, 2012)

Taking into consideration what I have seen on here, FB, AR.com, and other sites, I think the general concern is more towards the lowering of standards, and not as much the fact that chicks would be attending. This whole thing would be much more pallatable if nothing was compromised, but unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will turn out that way.


----------



## reed11b (May 21, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> Reed,
> 
> Who said anything about weight? Its physical ability. In boxing and or the UFC you have different weight classes but you won't see a woman fighting a man. Interestingly when I was at the police academy they never paired the females against any males during "survival" training.
> 
> Please see http://cmrlink.org/coedTraining.asp?docID=206 for further.


But they DO in wrestling and in my correctional restraint and self defense training they certainly did pair men and women up to show that the training worked against individuals with size differences. You chose an example of a sport that requires the absolute top physical athletes to show that women are not as capable as men. I pointed that many many men in the infantry would never come close to your choice of example either, including many that are physically fit and very capable of doing there infantry jobs.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 22, 2012)

I've got quite a bit to say about it, but I'm tapping on my Android, so it will be a summarized post. I speak from experience on this. When I left AIT for my first duty station, I was the anecdotal female. In other words, when a guy was in a different unit five or ten years down the road talking about the one female who could do 70/85/15:25, and loved a good ruck march, he was talking about me (I was never a great runner). In my entire career, I've only met two other women who could post numbers like mine, especially posting faster run times. That did not include the track stars who ran in high school, but couldn't do push-ups for shit, or cried at even a 35lb ruck. What did it get me? Chronic bursitis in one hip by the time I was 34, chronic tendonitis in one shoulder, and VA still trying to figure out what's wrong with the other. Bear in mind I got a late start, enlisting just shy of my 25th birthday.  Perhaps I'm of slightly inferior breeding stock for physically breaking down so fast, but I highly suspect that to not be the case...

Also, just because a woman can hang in the run, bust out the ruck, shoot with an eagle eye, and curse to make Chesty Puller flinch, does NOT mean that she will ever really be "one of the boys." She'll be close, but never really as close as the brotherhood. Estrogen being the bitch that it is, very few women will actually be able to cope with that. She's not one of the girls, either. What I see becoming a possibility, if this goes through, will be in-fighting amongst the women between the more accepted and the less accepted by their male peers. Several women who will sign up will be doing it to make a point, those usually are the ones who get very catty towards the females who integrate better without flat-backing it. You want to talk about a break-down in good order and discipline? Let the catty victors of today's cutthroat army start duking it out for a new piece of prestige bling. There's a reason I hated having lots of females in my unit.

I could write a great deal more just from my personal experience alone that could support why this is a bad idea, but I'll let that wait until I've finally gotten some sleep.


----------



## Spider6 (May 22, 2012)

Reed,

I have read and reread your last post. What are you talking about man? The point Crip and I were trying to make is that women do not compete against men. Please go to the link provided and you will find some medical reasons why.

What wrestling are you watching? I would like to revisit this after the Olympics and we can confirm or deny if we saw any men wrestling women.

I found the article below after digging around on PS.

*Should Women Go Into Combat?* *By Catherine L. Aspy * 
Inside my boots my feet had turned to hamburger. My uniform, even my belt, was soaking with sweat, and my back and shoulders were numb from the 40 pounds of gear in my rucksack. The climax of Army basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C., a 12-mile march, was almost over. 

Determined to keep up, I forced my muscles to move. But few of the other women in the company remained with me near the front. Many were straggling, and some rode the truck that followed to retrieve discarded rucksacks. The men, meanwhile, were swinging along, calling cadence. They seemed to relish the whole thing.
       That march confirmed something which had struck me often during the previous eight weeks: with rare exceptions, the women in my unit could not physically compete with the men. Many were unable to lift heavy weights, scale barriers or pull themselves along a rope suspended above a safety net. Mixed running groups had inevitably sorted themselves out by sex; in final tests on two-mile runs, the average woman took 18 minutes, the average man about 14. It was apparent that too many of the men weren't challenged enough by the training regimen.
       There certainly were good soldiers among the women in my company; later on, during regular duty at a military-intelligence installation, I saw women of all the service branches perform as well as or better than men in a variety of capacities. Nevertheless, the huge physical performance gap, so obvious in basic training, forced me to consider the implications of placing women in ground combat units.
       Today the nearly 200,000 women in the nation's armed forces (14 percent of all active-duty personnel) serve as everything from Air Force fighter pilots to military police officers to captains of Navy ships. But the direct combat arms of the Army and Marines—including infantry, armor and field artillery—are closed to them.
       Should women be allowed into these units as well? Many believe they should. After all, we Americans resent being barred from anything; it's part of our instinct for freedom. Former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D, Colo.) declared, "Combat-exclusion laws have outlived their usefulness and are now nothing more than institutionalized discrimination."
       It's not an issue I thought about much when I enlisted. I'm sure if I had been asked at the time whether women should be allowed in combat, I would have at least said, "maybe." 
       Now I say "no." Everything I observed during my hitch in the Army, and later, as I studied the issue and talked to others inside and outside the military, has convinced me this would be a mistake. 

       Combat is not primarily about brains, or patriotism, or dedication to duty. There is no question women soldiers have those in abundance. Combat is about war-fighting capacity and the morale of the unit. Here physical strength can be a life-and-death issue. And that is why the physical disparities between men and women cannot be ignored. 

*Unequal Load.* For years, Sgt. Kelly Logan* believed that women should be allowed into combat units, that "it didn't matter if you were a man or a woman—there is one standard, we all meet it, bond, and drive on with the mission." Then came her 1997 tour of duty with peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. "I had a complete change in attitude," she says. "When we had to do things like digging and reinforcing bunkers, the guys ended up doing most of the physical work. The women tended to move themselves to the sidelines." Logan watched resentment build until it undermined the unit's morale.
       She also observed that many women were "so unprepared for heavy-duty soldiering that they would have endangered the unit in a crisis." Patrolling in Bosnia required soldiers to remain on high alert and in full battle gear, including flak vests and ammo. Says Logan: "The equipment prevented many of the women from moving as quickly as men, let alone being combat-effective."
       While some women may be up to the rigors of combat, she says, "they are the rare exception. And for some individuals, it was only a matter of time before the platonic bonds progressed to sex, and then all kinds of disruptions ensued."
       Logan has reluctantly concluded that "women cannot bond with men in a unit the same way men do." But she cannot say so openly, and insisted that her real name not be used. "It can definitely hurt your career to speak your mind publicly about these things."
       The expectation in military units has always been that you pull your own load. But an Apache helicopter pilot told me that his female crew chief simply refused to carry her tools, which weighted 60 to 80 pounds.
       "The Army is supposed to be about not showing favoritism," says Desert Storm veteran Sam Ryskind, who was a mechanic in the famed 82nd Airborne Division. "But the females I trained with were de facto exempted from any heavy-lifting jobs."
       Whether it was changing truck tires, loading cargo, or even moving heavy cooking pots into position on the chow line, Ryskind says men "always pulled the hard work. Pretty soon this made it an us-and-them situation." 
       While these experiences do not reflect actual combat conditions, they point to the kinds of intractable problems that would arise if women were in combat units.
       In 1994 an Army rule barring women from hundreds of "combat support" positions was eliminated. Meanwhile the Army tried to institute tests to match a soldier's physical strength to a specific "military occupation specialty," or MOS. Then it was discovered that the tests would have disqualified most Army women from 65 percent of the more than 200 MOSs. The tests were scrapped. 

*The Strength Factor.* To deal with the male-female performance gap, the Army has increased emphasis on "teamwork." No one is against teamwork—that's the essence of the military. But in some cases it has become a euphemism for defining down military tasks, as when three or four soldiers are needed to carry an injured comrade instead of two.
       "From a combat stand point this is just ludicrous," notes William Gregor, a veteran of combat in Vietnam who is now associate professor of social sciences at the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "You may not have extra people around. And battle wears you down. A unit where one person can't pull his or her weight becomes a weaker unit."
       I'm five feet, six inches tall, and I arrived at basic training weighing 135 pounds. I was taller than many women in my unit. But the average female soldier is 4.7 inches shorter and 33.9 pounds lighter than her male counterpart. She has 37.8 pounds less lean body mass. This is critical because greater lean body mass is closely related to physical strength.
       A U.S. Navy study of dynamic upper-torso strength in 38 men and women found that the women possessed about half the lifting power of the men. In another Navy study, the top seven percent of 239 women scored in the same range as the bottom seven percent of men in upper-body strength.
       Even though I had been athletic in high school and had been toughened by two months' training, that final 12-mile march was a killer. One reason: cardio respiratory capacity—the rate at which the heart, lungs and blood vessels deliver oxygen to working muscles. Trainers know that this capacity is key to sustained physical performance. And numerous studies have revealed differences by sex. "In general," summarized the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, "women have a smaller heart mass, heart volume and cardiac output than men."
       Some who want women in combat units acknowledge these differences, but claim they're based on stereotyping and can be minimized by extra training. It isn't that simple.
       In a 1997 Army study, for example, 46 women were given a specially designed 24-week physical-training program to see if they could improve their ability to do "very heavy" lifting. During the training, the number of women who qualified for these jobs increased from 24 percent to 78 percent. Still, on average they were unable to match the lifting performance of men who did not undergo the program.
       But what about those few women who might qualify for combat units? Gregor, who has done extensive research on male-female physical performance, questions how realistic it is to train 100 women for combat on the chance of finding a handful who will meet—or in exceptional cases exceed—the minimum requirements. 

*Tougher Standards?* The interchangeability of every soldier in a combat emergency is an enduring principle of an army's effectiveness as a fighting force. It assumes that each has received the same training and can perform to the same basic standard. That's still true for men who sign up to go directly into the Army's combat arms. They train "the old way," in a harsh, demanding environment.
       It's no longer true elsewhere. Under mixed-gender basic training instituted in 1994, men and women are held to different standards. The regimen became less challenging, to hide the difference in physical performance between men and women (although the Army denies this).
       Eventually, the softness of basic training became an object of such widespread public ridicule that "tougher" rules were drawn up. Even with these new standards, scheduled to take effect this month, women can score as well as men who are being tested against a tougher standard. In the 17-to-21 age group, for example, to get a minimum score of 50 points, a male recruit must do 35 push-ups, a female, 13. If women were allowed into combat units and these double standards were made universal, the result would be to put physically weaker forces into the field.
       An Army publicity release defended these "tougher" standards on the ground that they "promote gender equity" and "level the playing field."
       I don't know about the "playing" field. But somehow I think the field of actual combat will not be very level.


----------



## 0699 (May 22, 2012)

racing_kitty said:


> I've got quite a bit to say about it, but I'm tapping on my Android, so it will be a summarized post. I speak from experience on this. When I left AIT for my first duty station, I was the anecdotal female. In other words, when a guy was in a different unit five or ten years down the road talking about the one female who could do 70/85/15:25, and loved a good ruck march, he was talking about me (I was never a great runner). In my entire career, I've only met two other women who could post numbers like mine, especially posting faster run times. That did not include the track stars who ran in high school, but couldn't do push-ups for shit, or cried at even a 35lb ruck. What did it get me? Chronic bursitis in one hip by the time I was 34, chronic tendonitis in one shoulder, and VA still trying to figure out what's wrong with the other. Bear in mind I got a late start, enlisting just shy of my 25th birthday. *Perhaps I'm of slightly inferior breeding stock for physically breaking down so fast, but I highly suspect that to not be the case...*
> 
> Also, just because a woman can hang in the run, bust out the ruck, shoot with an eagle eye, and curse to make Chesty Puller flinch, does NOT mean that she will ever really be "one of the boys." She'll be close, but never really as close as the brotherhood. Estrogen being the bitch that it is, very few women will actually be able to cope with that. She's not one of the girls, either. What I see becoming a possibility, if this goes through, will be in-fighting amongst the women between the more accepted and the less accepted by their male peers. Several women who will sign up will be doing it to make a point, those usually are the ones who get very catty towards the females who integrate better without flat-backing it. You want to talk about a break-down in good order and discipline? Let the catty victors of today's cutthroat army start duking it out for a new piece of prestige bling. There's a reason I hated having lots of females in my unit.
> 
> I could write a great deal more just from my personal experience alone that could support why this is a bad idea, but I'll let that wait until I've finally gotten some sleep.


 
While I agree with most of what you write, I cannot agree with this.

I would go to war with you any day.


----------



## reed11b (May 22, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> Reed,
> 
> I have read and reread your last post. What are you talking about man? The point Crip and I were trying to make is that women do not compete against men. Please go to the link provided and you will find some medical reasons why.
> 
> What wrestling are you watching? I would like to revisit this after the Olympics and we can confirm or deny if we saw any men wrestling women.


 
High School and college. i.e were our recruit pool is coming from, not Olympic level athletes. Yes you are right, women even on a pound for pound basis will not equal men's upper-body strength. Your choice examples just had very little to do with the athletic levels required to excel in the infantry, and I called you out on it, for it did not add to the discussion.
Reed

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1032333,00.html


----------



## Spider6 (May 22, 2012)

Well allow me to retort.........I have played football in college and guess what a lot of guys in my old LRS Company did....powerlift and run intervals.....powerlifting is one of the best overall workouts you can do!  I remember pushups, situps, intervals and the gym when I was playing football.....we had to run 2-3 miles on the track after practice.......then I went to basic training. 

I have been in the Infantry for 19 years.  Got my Ranger Tab in class 5-98. 

I have reported your post.


----------



## pardus (May 22, 2012)

OK, first of all, *relax*.

If you have a disagreement discuss it until you both come to a conclusion. Whether thats agreement or not is meaningless, that you do it in a reasonable manner and bearing in mind who/what you are and who/what the person you are talking to is/was etc...

Spider, please keep your posts together, Ive had to merge several consecutive posts of yours now in this thread. Thank you.


----------



## reed11b (May 22, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> Well allow me to retort.........I have played football in college and guess what a lot of guys in my old LRS Company did....powerlift and run intervals.....powerlifting is one of the best overall workouts you can do! I remember pushups, situps, intervals and the gym when I was playing football.....we had to run 2-3 miles on the track after practice.......then I went to basic training.
> 
> I have been in the Infantry for 19 years. Got my Ranger Tab in class 5-98.
> 
> I have reported your post.


 
Did you report it as AWESOME!?! 

The point is not that college and profesional level athletes don't make great soldiers, the point is it is not required for the infantry or to pass a tough school. My last LRSC had one former college level football player in it (he was an 18X who did not get selected) and due to a back injury he was no longer at the same level physicaly. Heck, I may not have as many years as you or been to Ranger school, but I have been an airborne 60mm mortarman, 81mm mortarman, RTO, 240B AG and gunner, and LRS RTO/SO, so minus AT weapons I have had every stupid large ruck in the infantry. I would never have been a profesional athlete, and never a college level athlete for strength and speed based sports, though I know that if I had not played HS football, I probably would have done much more poorly in the Army.
I am not stating that women should be in the infantry or that you are stupid, I am stating that the level of fitness you are using to support your stance is an unrealistic expectation for the infantry as a whole.
Reed


----------



## surgicalcric (May 22, 2012)

reed11b said:


> ...I am not stating that women should be in the infantry or that you are stupid, I am stating that the level of fitness you are using to support your stance is an unrealistic expectation for the infantry as a whole.
> Reed


 
It wasnt so much the level of fitness thats the issue; its different standards with respect to "equality." Equality in the physical arena is a joke at whatever level: HS, collegiate, olympic, pro, etc...


----------



## reed11b (May 22, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> You have chosen a poor example to support your argument.
> 
> Of the tens of thousands of kids who wrestle at the HS/collegiate level how many of them are females? How many female football players or hockey players are there that play on male teams...I dont know but I imagine its about the same as wrestling...not many. They are the exception, not the rule. And since we are talking about recruits, even the vast majority of males graduating OSUT - BCT/AIT would have issues at Ranger School.
> 
> Now, no one has said there arent females who could physically meet the same standard as the males but that they are few and far between. And to get enough females who give two shits about the Tab through the course to support the politics of gender equality the standards have to be dropped. Just like the first female candidate that sued her way into Citadel so she could be a part of the Brotherhood there concessions will be made and gender norming will be a standard practice.


 Sir, to be clear, I do not disagree with anything you have stated. I was refuting the argument that NO females could ever compete on an equal level with males.
Reed


----------



## surgicalcric (May 22, 2012)

reed11b said:


> Sir, to be clear, I do not disagree with anything you have stated. I was refuting the argument that NO females could ever compete on an equal level with males.
> Reed


 
I think you took S6 a lil too literally.  The numbers dont support the changes that would be required (cause equality ends with showers and latrines to name a few) to allow a couple/year into the course at "the standard."  

And since you quoted the article about the HS female wrestler, there are deaf and blind people who wrestle as well but I dont want either of them in RS with me.


----------



## AWP (May 22, 2012)

I'm on vacation and as a result I'm in a good mood. This thread.....I've seen a few posts that are absolutely the stupidest thing I've seen all week (and that includes being patient #2 at the doctor's office and yet not leaving until 10AM), but the week IS young.

I'm not going to call out anyone, but as Pardus said "Relax." Pardus is a garden-variety asshole so for him taking the high road shows an unusual amount of professionalism and tact on his part...I guess being a fobbit is paying dividends for someone... Seriously, a few of you need to chill out. I don't feel like being a dick...not on vacation.


----------



## pardus (May 22, 2012)

I'm going out to punch a TCN in the face now... BRB LOL


----------



## Brill (May 22, 2012)

When I went through Naval Aircrew School many years ago, we had a female Marine in our class who had trouble climbing the 6 foot wall.  So on the "final" test of the O-course, we simply piled sand up so she could jump up and hook a leg.  She got over the wall but were the standards lowered?  No, they were raised actually. 

All us boys felt ok with our decision: she had big boobies.  Wait, can I say boobies here?  Should I have used mamory glands instead?  I didn't see anything in the rules so I just went for boobies.

Flash forward many years later to the "incident" in Greece.  Had I become injured and in capacitated, the females on my crew would probably have trouble dragging me from the burning plane.  Dunno and don't want to find out.

I really hope that RS does not become like BAS, which is gay...super gay and not in a good way either.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 22, 2012)

lindy said:


> *snip* Wait, can I say boobies here? Should I have used mamory glands instead? I didn't see anything in the rules so I just went for boobies. *snip*


 
Rather surprised you didn't just stick with "Tits."  It's only four letters long.  It's all about efficiency in what you do, to include typing... ;)


----------



## 0699 (May 22, 2012)

racing_kitty said:


> Rather *surprised you didn't just stick with "Tits."* It's only four letters long. It's all about efficiency in what you do, to include typing... ;)


 
Plus it sounds like a snack food.  Cheese tits, sesame tits, tater tits...


----------



## dirtmover (May 22, 2012)

Well I for one would love for the opportunity to go to Ranger School.  With that being said IF they change the standards then F*#& it I would refuse to go.  If you can't do something right then why even bother going.  My reasoning for going would be to learn and have tools in my tool box to make me even more effective not for a frickin tab.  I see it every day the bs that females try and get away with.  We just picked up a new group of soldiers only 10 females and over 150 males and on that first day I saw most of the damn females trying to get out of the heavy lifting stuff....needless to say I put a stop to that.  I wonder though if that society is part to blame for creating these unequal gender norms.  I played football on my high school team.... was I the best no but you can bet that I worked my ass off so that I wasn't a liability to my team.  I have the same philosophy in the Army.  

If they wanted to let females in to combat arms I thought it would be better to let them try out for Regiment or SF, for the reason that the Devil aka TRADOC (BTW can't even say the F-work its hazing now) doesn't have their grimy hands in the process.  In those organizations either you are what they are looking for or you aren't plain and simple.  If you want everything to be all sunshine, flowers and PC get out of the military.


----------



## moobob (May 22, 2012)

lindy said:


> As an MI support slug in a SF unit, I strongly disagree. I believe RS will enable me to be a better leader and integrate more effectively in an ODA. I plan on going back after this deployment.


 
Agree and disagree. Just looking at it from an active duty perspective...  This is going slightly off topic from the thread, but: You're in a "V" slot, which is V coded for a reason. However, the main benefit for going would be for first-impressions / ego reasons when you're integrating with guys you haven't worked with before. Would two months of small unit tactics benefit you? Definitely. Will you be in a leadership position requiring those skills? Probably not.

Then, since there are so many young 18 series guys in Group without Ranger tabs these days, they have priority. So, depending on your unit, you might not get to go if you wanted to.

There is so much technical / MOS training out there, you could never keep up even if you spent all your dwell time going to it, and I think that ultimately brings more to the table.

As for the whole women in the Infantry/Ranger School blahblahblah. I've already stopped giving a shit. Hopefully it all works out, because I almost guarantee it's coming.


----------



## surgicalcric (May 22, 2012)

dirtmover said:


> ...If they wanted to let females in to combat arms I thought it would be better to let them try out for Regiment or SF, for the reason that the Devil aka *TRADOC* (BTW can't even say the F-work its hazing now) *doesn't have their grimy hands in the process.* In those organizations either you are what they are looking for or you aren't plain and simple. If you want everything to be all sunshine, flowers and PC get out of the military.


 
Great attitude.

The powers that be (those who need NC/OER bullets) at USAJFKSWCS are looking to get the SFQC accredited by TRADOC, thus making it a TRADOC course. In so doing the SF Regiment will be taking yet another step away from relevancy and towards forced lower standards.

If only SF was still a career killer for officers, and SrNCOs were the voice of reason instead of being spineless yes-men who are also looking to make the next rank by stepping on the men below them...

(Yes I am bitter in case it wasnt picked up on)


----------



## dirtmover (May 23, 2012)

Surgicalcric were u being sarcastic when you said great attitude?  I have dealt with alot of BS thrown my way due to being a Drill Sergeant because of TRADOC.  In the eyes of the powers that be as long as the civilian does the mandatory training events, qualifies with their weapon and passes their PT test at 60 points in each event they are good to go.  What they don't take in to consideration is the human factor.  It is hard to quantify the necessary intestinal fortitude need to fight on the modern battle field.  From the outside looking in, SF seems to pride itself on the ability to find that person that is physically capable of doing the job but even more so finding that guy that has appropriate personality (can't think of a better way to put it) to be successful in the environment that you all operate in.


----------



## surgicalcric (May 23, 2012)

dirtmover said:


> Surgicalcric were u being sarcastic when you said great attitude?
> 
> ...SF seems to pride itself on the ability to find that person that is physically capable of doing the job but even more so finding that guy that has appropriate personality (can't think of a better way to put it) to be successful in the environment that you all operate in.


 
No sarcasm intended.

It really is unfortunate that SF still prides itself still in what made SF great at one time - we are 180 degrees from that at the moment. The senior leadership would be better served in taking pride in selecting, training, and subsequently promoting some of the most conventionally minded soldiers in the military for thats what is happening. The yes men have been promoted into positions where they have changed SF ODAs into little more than a highly trained infantry squad who are expected to think and act like the average CF soldier from garrison to combat operations while the outspoken Team Leaders and Team Sergeants and pushed out/off to the side as rogue or bad SF guys because they dont support the command - makes me wonder what Gen Yarborough would be labeled as if he were still alive today.

I was recently asked why I don't think and act more like an infantry Squad Leader and just conform.  I was somewhat speechless...

If you ask many of my Brothers here they will more or less echo what I have said here and in many previous rants on this very topic over the past couple years. Bottom line is the younger generation that came to SF to do UW, to be SF are leaving in droves after their first enlistment with the more experienced yet outspoken guys in tow.

I could go on and on but I am just pissing myself off.

Crip


----------



## Marauder06 (May 23, 2012)

dirtmover said:


> Surgicalcric were u being sarcastic when you said great attitude? ....


 

Usually, sarcasm on the site is accompanied by -->     Example:  "Sure, Pardus isn't a wanker.  "


----------



## Brill (May 23, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> I was recently asked why I don't think and act more like an infantry Squad Leader and just conform. I was somewhat speechless...


 
It'll never happen.


----------



## 0699 (May 23, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> No sarcasm intended.
> 
> It really is unfortunate that SF still prides itself still in what made SF great at one time - we are 180 degrees from that at the moment. The senior leadership would be better served in taking pride in selecting, training, and subsequently promoting some of the most conventionally minded soldiers in the military for thats what is happening. The yes men have been promoted into positions where they have changed SF ODAs into little more than a highly trained infantry squad who are expected to think and act like the average CF soldier from garrison to combat operations while the outspoken Team Leaders and Team Sergeants and pushed out/off to the side as rogue or bad SF guys because they dont support the command - makes me wonder what Gen Yarborough would be labeled as if he were still alive today.
> 
> ...


 
Wow.  I don't know if this is going to come out the wrong way, but I still hold SF guys I meet in pretty high regard.  Even xSFmed.   To hear things said like this are disappointing.


----------



## surgicalcric (May 23, 2012)

0699 said:


> Wow. I don't know if this is going to come out the wrong way, but I still hold SF guys I meet in pretty high regard. Even xSFmed.  To hear things said like this are disappointing.


 
SF is still a better place than any place in Mother Army but as more individuals with the wrong mindset that gets selected those lines will blur more and more.  There are a lot of good SF soldiers, the unfortunate part is there are too few of them in a position of authority IMHO.  

Crip


----------



## JackMurphyRGR (May 23, 2012)

Surgicalcric, we are of a like mind.

I went from 3/75 to 5th SFG and wished I was back in the Regiment most days.  I ETS'ed in 2010 with eight years in for the reasons you mention.  It wasn't just me.  It was 18X-Rays who came, saw, hated it, and left with tons of training already invested in them.  It was all the guys who had degrees ranging from International Relations to Chemistry.  It was former Law Enforcement.  It was anybody who had anything going for them on the outside and wasn't locked into the system because they had a wife and kids.  Everyone was popping smoke.  It's worse than just that though.  They are also reporting false retention numbers up to higher to make it appear as if it isn't happening...


----------



## Loki (May 24, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> The current and most recently former SECDEF each served in the military.
> 
> You might be surprised to learn how many senior military leaders supported the repeal of DADT not because of PC-ness or career-mindedness, but because they thought it was the right thing to do. I don't think DADT should have ever been in place to begin with; either something is illegal or it isn't, don't tell me something is contrary to good order and discipline and incompatible with military values, and then tell me to ignore it if I suspect it in a unit I command. It was a worthless, cowardly "compromise" from the very beginning, and I'm glad it is gone. I'm not certain that allowing homosexuals to serve openly is going to be good for our military, but at least we're not half-assing it anymore.
> 
> I'm more pissed off that we conducted a "*responsible drawdown*" in Iraq and now we're looking to conduct a "*responsible withdraw*" from Afghanistan. Seriously? That's our endstate for those wars? If so, then we could have easily accomplished that by never going to war with those countries in the first place. If we're going to talk about "responsible" anything, how about a plan for "responsible" victory, or how about "responsibly ensuring that we won't be threatened by attacks originating from those countries ever again?" "Responsible withdrawal" and "responsible drawdown" smack of face-saving defeatism and are an insult to the men and women who have served in those conflicts.


 
With the up-most respect for you and your position Sir; No I don't think I would be surprised. I respectfully disagree with your veiled assertions that no political correctness was involved in the support by certain officers for the repeal of DADT. The current Commandant of the Marine Corps expressed strong disagreement with openly serving gays in the military. I for one am completely against openly serving gays. I further believe they should have separate barracks and quarters away from non-homosexuals. In the same manner females are housed separately from males. This issue is deeply disturbing to me as well as many of my friends who are still serving on active duty. I think it is also fair to say that no adverse issues relative to this policy will be voiced by anyone for fear of career suicide. But I have strayed, this is a side bar issue and not relative and will cause a very wrong turn if dialog expands.

**The DADT policy not unlike the issue of females in Ranger school; if the powers that be force the situation and exert political leverage on the command structure they will fold regardless of personal and professional beliefs.

Once again correct you are about Mr. Panetta's military service. *Military service:*US Army (1963-65, 1st Lt.) I must admit I despise this guy and have no use for him personally or professionally so I have a deep rooted biases against him. Which in fact led to my incorrect assumption & assertion that he possessed no military service. I based this on what I perceive as his lack of support for service members and track record as I interpret it. I don't know what his combat record is but my searches indicate no service in combat operations in any capacity during this time frame. Which further increases my suspicions about him, his intentions and his service record. My apologize, I stand corrected, please accept this as a retraction of my earlier statement that the SECDEF never served in the US Military.

I further agree with and support your opinion and statements relative to the draw downs and the ill-responsible time tables, methods and insulting manner in which the current administration is handling this issue.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (May 24, 2012)

IMTT said:


> With the up-most respect for you and your position Sir; No I don't think I would be surprised. I respectfully disagree with your veiled assertions that no political correctness was involved in the support by certain officers for the repeal of DADT. The current Commandant of the Marine Corps expressed strong disagreement with openly serving gays in the military. *I for one am completely against openly serving gays. I further believe they should have separate barracks and quarters away from non-homosexuals.* In the same manner females are housed separately from males. This issue is deeply disturbing to me as well as many of my friends who are still serving on active duty. I think it is also fair to say that no adverse issues relative to this policy will be voiced by anyone for fear of career suicide. But I have strayed, this is a side bar issue and not relative and will cause a very wrong turn if dialog expands.
> 
> **The DADT policy not unlike the issue of females in Ranger school; if the powers that be force the situation and exert political leverage on the command structure they will fold regardless of personal and professional beliefs.
> 
> ...


 
As to the bold, may I ask why?  Specifically the 2nd sentence.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 24, 2012)

Same reason you don't dorm males and females by protocol.


----------



## Loki (May 24, 2012)

Ranger Psych seems to understand my point and stated it. This would be considered off topic so further discussion here will hit choppy water quick. I possess strong, in-sensitive and offensive opinions on this topic. They are frictional and not politically correct so it wouldn't be productive. For further discussion with me relative to Gays in the US military it should be relegated to PM or e-mail. As for females in RS; bottom line, same standards and same requirements. No slack! 

Respectfully


----------



## Marauder06 (May 25, 2012)

IMTT said:


> With the up-most respect for you and your position Sir; No I don't think I would be surprised. I respectfully disagree with your veiled assertions that no political correctness was involved in the support by certain officers for the repeal of DADT. The current Commandant of the Marine Corps expressed strong disagreement with openly serving gays in the military. I for one am completely against openly serving gays. I further believe they should have separate barracks and quarters away from non-homosexuals. In the same manner females are housed separately from males. This issue is deeply disturbing to me as well as many of my friends who are still serving on active duty. I think it is also fair to say that no adverse issues relative to this policy will be voiced by anyone for fear of career suicide. But I have strayed, this is a side bar issue and not relative and will cause a very wrong turn if dialog expands.
> 
> **The DADT policy not unlike the issue of females in Ranger school; if the powers that be force the situation and exert political leverage on the command structure they will fold regardless of personal and professional beliefs.
> 
> ...


 
With regard to my position as what, a college student?  ;)   That's about the only position I'm holding down these days.

There are no veiled assertions here, I think that your assumption that the decision to allow gays in the military was politically motivated is as likely as my assumption that it might not have been.  In the absence of anything empirical, then I think we will have to agree that the one assumption is therefore as valid as the other, until one of us can post up conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Now, as for the issue about Mr. Panetta's military service, that is an example of the way people can undermine our arguments completely or at least distract us from our main points when we don't take the time to do basic fact-checking and just let our assumptions or emotion get ahead of our logic.  I say "we" because I do it sometimes too.  You made a much better argument in support of your rationale in the post I quoted above than you did in your initial post.  I suspect that was because you took some time to think about your position on the subject and you did a little research to support it. 

Another problem I see frequently here on the site and that I've seen in this thread are over-generalizations that are demonstrably untrue.  We should be careful when making statements that include absolutes like "never" and "always," or coloring a whole group of people with one overly broad statement.  This is because it only takes one example to disprove our whole argument.  It's better to caveat our statements with something like "it has been my experience" or "most of the time I have found;" not only does it make for more accurate statements, it ensures that our arguments are not derailed by a one-off event.  An example unrelated to this thread:  "You will never make general officer as an Infantry officer without a Ranger Tab."  ORLY?  --> *Bolger,  Honore* .  A more accurate statement:  "Statistically, you see very few Infantry generals who have not earned the Ranger Tab."  It's also important to check some of our internal assumptions from time to time; just because we have been told it over and over, doesn't mean it is necessarily true.  Example of a myth I see over and over here on the site, that everyone believes is true because they have heard it so many times:  "you can't use the .50 cal against troops; you have to shoot their equipment.

The repeal of DADT and the issue of females attending Ranger School are pretty closely related, so I see no reason why people can't have a parallel discussion in the same thread as long as the emotion is kept tamped down.


----------



## surgicalcric (May 25, 2012)

IMTT said:


> ... They are frictional and not politically correct so it wouldn't be productive.


 
Dont confuse non-PC and friction with being counter productive. If the military leadership was a lil more frictional with the civilian leadership half of the issues the military has, with regards to being weakened wouldnt exist. Instead they take the PC road because God forbid they put the nation ahead of their own career goals.

If only the Department of Defense was still a War Department instead of a laboratory for social experimentation...


----------



## SkrewzLoose (May 25, 2012)

IMTT , I think the conversation could have been continued here.  But, PM sent per your request my friend.


----------



## Etype (May 25, 2012)

reed11b said:


> But they DO in wrestling...


This guy wrestles. too, but he's not going to Ranger School.


----------



## Loki (May 25, 2012)

*Women Sue Pentagon Over Combat Exclusion*​A colonel in the Army Reserve assigned to a Suffolk unit has sued the federal government in hopes of overturning the military's ban on women in combat.Attorneys for Col. Ellen Haring and Command Sgt. Major Jane Baldwin filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the legality of Pentagon and Army policies that exclude women from certain ground combat units because of their sex. Haring, who lives in Bristow, Va., is a 1984 graduate of West Point with 28 years of experience. She serves on the staff of the Joint Coalition and Warfighting Center in Suffolk.​http://www.military.com/daily-news/...er-combat-exclusion.html?ESRC=eb.nl#community

What a wonderful and tolerant world...Hummmm, you go Ranger-ets!


----------



## pardus (May 25, 2012)

I have nothing nice to say...


----------



## goon175 (May 25, 2012)

Yeah, they are real concerned with being in combat positions by being in the army reserve... the component that has next to no combat positions. The USAR is almost exclusively CS and CSS jobs....

Give me a fucking break.


----------



## Loki (May 25, 2012)

They want it give it to them! Same standards, same field time and same everything. Ruck up little Suzy show me what you got. This should no longer be choice it should be a requirement. Equal one & all and exactly the same...We're for sure going to have to get some liter weapons, smaller packs, smaller mortar rounds better field showers larger tents and pass out birth control as mandated by the Obama administration. Tolerance, liberalism and full (_of course selective equality_) level playing field (_with subjective standards that are gender neutral, measured and take into account the femininity __considerations_). I think​Col. Ellen Haring needs to be the first female Ranger candidate, "what are you going to do PL?!"...​ 
My service time was concluded just in time...


----------



## surgicalcric (May 25, 2012)

IMTT said:


> They want it give it to them! Same standards, same field time and same everything...​


​​Along with registering for the draft...  They want it that bad because they are that equal then the draft should be a part.​​I would love to see someone bring that idea up when this goes to trial....​


----------



## 0699 (May 25, 2012)

The old saying "Women have choices, men have responsibilities" seems to fit here somewhere.

Yes, I know it's sexist... :ehh:


----------



## Loki (May 25, 2012)

Somehow I see a Presidential order coming down very soon. He's got to pull the trigger quick to make this count. Call me crazy or better yet Madam Cleo... His popularity is dropping with women in the poles. This is perfect timing and would make great news in the press.  Pass out the party line mantra to the SGMs and the Commander's and lets get this party started. This could be great for votes and campaign contributions. Not unlike his Gay agenda.


----------



## Loki (May 25, 2012)

Go French Foreign Legion!  They don't worry about such things. 
http://www.legion-recrute.com/en/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordel_militaire_de_campagne
http://www.amazon.com/Marching-Devil-French-Foreign-Legion/dp/0733626327


----------



## surgicalcric (May 25, 2012)

0699 said:


> The old saying "Women have choices, men have responsibilities" seems to fit here somewhere.
> 
> *Yes, I know it's sexist*... :ehh:


 
And ever so true.


----------



## surgicalcric (May 27, 2012)

Pretty well said...

http://thesoldiersload.com/2012/05/24/women-do-not-belong-in-the-infantry/


----------



## Loki (May 28, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> Pretty well said...
> 
> http://thesoldiersload.com/2012/05/24/women-do-not-belong-in-the-infantry/


 
Hoorah!


----------



## policemedic (May 28, 2012)

IMTT said:


> *Women Sue Pentagon Over Combat Exclusion*​A colonel in the Army Reserve assigned to a Suffolk unit has sued the federal government in hopes of overturning the military's ban on women in combat.Attorneys for Col. Ellen Haring and Command Sgt. Major Jane Baldwin filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the legality of Pentagon and Army policies that exclude women from certain ground combat units because of their sex. Haring, who lives in Bristow, Va., is a 1984 graduate of West Point with 28 years of experience. She serves on the staff of the Joint Coalition and Warfighting Center in Suffolk.​http://www.military.com/daily-news/...er-combat-exclusion.html?ESRC=eb.nl#community
> 
> What a wonderful and tolerant world...Hummmm, you go Ranger-ets!


 
Sooo... A full bird colonel and a SGM, the former one rank below the top of the rank chain and the latter at the top, are arguing that they have been discriminated against and that their careers have been unduly negatively affected because they weren't eligible to serve in combat arms?


----------



## racing_kitty (May 28, 2012)

Fucking ring knockers....  Who the fuck does that woman think she is?  Kurtz with tits?  Oh, no no no no, wait, I know!  She's going to make a movie called "Tam-pocalypse Now!" Yeah, that's the ticket.  Does she and her CSM plan to fast-rope into the old soldiers' home on a tampon string?  Fuck me runnin' backwards with a chainsaw.  If their goal was to get women into the infantry, all they had to do was wait.  But noooOOOOOOOooooooo....  Apparently the generic Midol that they were given at the TMC just didn't quite cut it.  Fucking frivolous lawsuits like this are what's going to set them and their cause back several years, and go that much further towards making women in the military look bad, if not worse.  I can't stand sue-happy motherfuckers.


----------



## dirtmover (May 28, 2012)

I hate females like this.   They are doing way more harm than good.  By trying to force the issue they are going to push even more supporters away.  How about you just do your job to the best of your fucking ability oh and by the way THIS IS NOT YOUR FUCKING JOB!!!!  I sincerely doubt that these individuals are going to Reclass/ branch transfer to combat arms.  Majority of women won't want to do this job any damn way.  Stop acting like you are talking for everyone.  Would I love the chance.....yes but going about it this way is going to create more animosity in the ranks.  If you can't hack it then you don't need to do the job doesn't matter if it's combat arms or being a pac clerk.  Just uphold the fucking standards no more no less.


----------



## Loki (May 28, 2012)

Mobile field showers, sanitary napkins the new mobile field out houses and sensitivity training for all Ranger instructors. Female Ranger instructors as well to enforce the special standards fairly. If they become pregnant in Ranger school do they get to re-cycle, how about heavy flow days, we have some planning to do here. How about peering? what officer in command is going to allowing peering of a female via an all male squad. Ain't gonna happen! So many very important issues to solve and so far to go, what a bright tolerant future. The first new priority military objective of inclusiveness, tolerance and equality (kind of...) will soon be a dream fulfilled. Soon our military will be just like our European partner forces. I have a nightmare...


----------



## Loki (May 28, 2012)

lindy said:


> I just hope I'm in the first female class. Perhaps their focus will be on them and have less "who the fuck is that old guy?".
> 
> Regardless, they'll be peered out. The shitty thing is if thry're allowed to attend RS, you WILL see female 35Ps serving as SOT-As (V-coded billets have prevented it previously).


 
If females are accepted no one is going to do any controversial calls for fear of career retaliation. In fact the big award will go to the guy that graduates the first females to demonstrate it can be done. That will be a big browny award for the O that can make that happen. And one very happy CSM at his side back slapping him with a big smile. The US Army has a bright future ahead...


----------



## reed11b (May 28, 2012)

IMTT said:


> Mobile field showers, sanitary napkins the new mobile field out houses and sensitivity training for all Ranger instructors. Female Ranger instructors as well to enforce the special standards fairly. If they become pregnant in Ranger school do they get to re-cycle, how about heavy flow days, we have some planning to do here. How about peering? what officer in command is going to allowing peering of a female via an all male squad. Ain't gonna happen! So many very important issues to solve and so far to go, what a bright tolerant future. The first new priority military objective of inclusiveness, tolerance and equality (kind of...) will soon be a dream fulfilled. Soon our military will be just like our European partner forces. I have a nightmare...


Again, I agree that RS is not the place for females, and that guidance behind this is not based on need, however your specific examples are a lot conjuncture with ZERO evidence. I used to be one of the people shouting the same things at the top of my lungs, but again, my real world experience when I served with women in a remote 1 company camp with no existing hygiene facilities was that none of that shit happened. ZERO women lost due to hygiene issues or pregnancies and zero losses due to sexual harrasment charges. You an believe it as strongly as you want, but till I see it in the real world, I'm going to doubt it's legitimacy.
Reed


----------



## AWP (May 28, 2012)

RE: hygiene, I've never encountered that to be a problem with female soldiers.

RE: One week of the month I have seen a huge impact in how female soldiers conduct themselves.  know some who have performed wonderfully when Aunt Flo is in town...some you didn't even know she was there...they were that professional about it. Here it comes, but I have personally been around when up to 50% of the female soldiers suddenly had a heavy period and couldn't participate in the field or more strenuous garrison activities like O courses and even PT. I've had female soldiers admit that they did that to get out of a ruck march or an extra night or two in the field....outright admit it to their fellow soldiers. Quite a few of my OCS class suddenly had "medical problems" and had to ride the CQ desk AFTER (here's the RS tie-in), AFTER receiving their last GO in a leadership position.

Was that every female soldier? Of course not and the numbers were consistently around the 30% mark with some instances higher or lower....but 30% was the average across Basic, AIT, PLDC, and OCS.

There's one loophole that needs to be addressed IMO. I'm not so much against women in combat as I am the degradation of the standards or double standards when compared to their male counterparts. Until they make ovary- or testicle-seeking bullets the battlefield won't discriminate.


----------



## Loki (May 28, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> RE: hygiene, I've never encountered that to be a problem with female soldiers.
> 
> RE: One week of the month I have seen a huge impact in how female soldiers conduct themselves. know some who have performed wonderfully when Aunt Flo is in town...some you didn't even know she was there...they were that professional about it. Here it comes, but I have personally been around when up to 50% of the female soldiers suddenly had a heavy period and couldn't participate in the field or more strenuous garrison activities like O courses and even PT. I've had female soldiers admit that they did that to get out of a ruck march or an extra night or two in the field....outright admit it to their fellow soldiers. Quite a few of my OCS class suddenly had "medical problems" and had to ride the CQ desk AFTER (here's the RS tie-in), AFTER receiving their last GO in a leadership position.
> 
> ...


 
My experience serving with and supervising females wasn't as positive as REED11B. This maybe a minority view and only but one example of many views out there.  I think the main point is regardless of all the sarcasm and criticism in my post is and will remain the holding of the standards and the fact there is going to be allot of PC stuff to facilitate this. If the powers that be decide this is the new priority it will be come a taboo to speak out against it immediately. We will make it happen and we won't have choice.


----------



## Etype (May 28, 2012)

reed11b said:


> I served with women in a remote 1 company camp


And we keep women in remote mud huts and don't have issues. The issue is, it wouldn't be the same having them in the field for a month. On top of that, the field is a controlled environment, whether it's Ranger School, SFQC, etc. Heaven forbid we have to engage in a real war and there are women in combat arms.

The invasions saw people living in some pretty rough conditions, but since we we're the world champs and were fighting the special olympics alternates, they didn't last for very long. Imagine getting locked into a real fight against a real world power- not likely, but that's what we should be preparing for. We're already seeing our world power status slide fiscally, we don't need to degrade it militarily.


----------



## Etype (May 28, 2012)

Contingency planning-
What if Sally loses her ruck during a river crossing?
risk mitigation- Every soldier carries 5 tampons.

And that's how tampon cross loading was born.


----------



## Loki (May 28, 2012)

Etype said:


> Contingency planning-
> What if Sally loses her ruck during a river crossing?
> risk mitigation- Every soldier carries 5 tampons.
> 
> And that's how tampon cross loading was born.


 
thinking inside the box...


----------



## Etype (May 28, 2012)

IMTT said:


> thinking inside the box...


This is why we can't have females around.

I guess I'm wrong for assuming Sally prefers tampons.


----------



## AWP (May 28, 2012)

Etype said:


> This is why we can't have females around.
> 
> I guess I'm wrong for assuming Sally prefers tampons.


 
Now you have to carry 5 of those and 10 pads: 5 regular and 5 thin/ slim or whatever.

Actually, this is how we end all of this nonsense. We allow the Army/ PEO Soldier to design/ bid on a universal feminine hygiene product...not unlike how UCP was approved. Since UCP is clearly a superior camouflage pattern to other alternatives our female soldiers can be assured that their needs will be met just as well. And if you want to use a civilian hygiene product? See also: PMAG's.

I should be in charge.


----------



## Etype (May 28, 2012)

Shadow Spear is full of win.  This place is a win network.  In fact, I think the Army should become a republic and Shadow Spear should be it's senate.


----------



## Spider6 (May 29, 2012)

Etype....LMAO....Just sent you a PM about a female LTC recommending that us guy cadets carrying tampoons in our ammo pouches if we really wanted to be senistive to our female counterparts!  Needless to say we (male and female) were flabbergasted.  That was back in 1995 at Fort Bragg.


----------



## Muppet (May 29, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> Etype....LMAO....Just sent you a PM about a female LTC recommending that us guy cadets carrying tampoons in our ammo pouches if we really wanted to be senistive to our female counterparts! Needless to say we (male and female) were flabbergasted. That was back in 1995 at Fort Bragg.


 
Sir, where were you @ Bragg in 95? I was there same time.

F.M.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 29, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> Etype....LMAO....Just sent you a PM about a female LTC recommending that us guy cadets carrying tampoons in our ammo pouches if we really wanted to be senistive to our female counterparts! Needless to say we (male and female) were flabbergasted. That was back in 1995 at Fort Bragg.


 
For the love of whatever god I've picked off the list today, PLEEEEEEEASE tell me that's a joke.  Please?  With tears in my eyes, I'm begging you, tell me you're kidding.  FFS, at least my unit was kind enough to lie to me and say that tampons were good for plugging up bullet holes.  


Shit like that makes me want to go sit in a corner with a rusted spoon, gouge out my ovaries, and sew on a big rubber dick just for looks....


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 30, 2012)

racing_kitty said:


> For the love of whatever god I've picked off the list today, PLEEEEEEEASE tell me that's a joke. Please? With tears in my eyes, I'm begging you, tell me you're kidding. FFS, at least my unit was kind enough to lie to me and say that tampons were good for plugging up bullet holes.
> 
> 
> Shit like that makes me want to go sit in a corner with a rusted spoon, gouge out my ovaries, and sew on a big rubber dick just for looks....


 

That'll get you a date in the navy, or a posting on a submarine.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 30, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> That'll get you a date in the navy, or a posting on a submarine.


 

I hate you.....   ;)


----------



## reed11b (May 30, 2012)

racing_kitty said:


> Shit like that makes me want to go sit in a corner with a rusted spoon, gouge out my ovaries, and sew on a big rubber dick just for looks....


 
 traumatized! 
Reed


----------



## racing_kitty (May 30, 2012)

reed11b said:


> traumatized!
> Reed


 
My good deed for the night.


----------



## AWP (May 30, 2012)

racing_kitty said:


> Shit like that makes me want to go sit in a corner with a rusted spoon, gouge out my ovaries, and sew on a big rubber dick just for looks....


 
I've seen movies with a similar theme, PM inbound.


----------



## goon175 (May 30, 2012)

that was the most awesome combination of words ever!


----------



## Loki (May 30, 2012)

During my time in the Infantry my platoon had mascots. You know honorary members as well as my Sniper detachment the same. My Sniper Det. even had a Mother and daughter team that were both strippers. The same girls who were "hang arounds" that were let us say adopted by the platoon and kind of property of thing. As a Sniper det. NCOIC, Squad leader and platoon Sergeant it was never really comforting to see the girls in the area on weekends after duty hours. Grunts and "Joe" in general is a filthy nasty beast with very basic motivations. He requires a special kind of direction and management at times, sensitive guidance if you will. In "Maslows scale of hierarchy of needs" he is a basic animal that breaks the rules of humanity. Just saying...







"Joe" treads water in the PHYSIOLOGICAL area for many years. At least until the rank of Specialist sometimes SSG maybe even SFC in really hard cases . The SAFETY area is very fluid at times. Then at about Sergeant generally he hits his stride at Semi-LOVE/BELONGING. A true career Grunt stops at ESTEEM and never passes it as a CSM, maybe. ;) Like I used to tell one of my CSMs who really greatly disliked me "Sergeant Major there's no E-10, HooOah!"...

*O*s tend to skip everything and go right to SELF-ACTUALIZATION just ask any new LT. "You can't spell lost without LT." 

Combine my personal observations and conclusions above and I think you can begin to see my view of this topic clearly. I just don't see this working out well for anyone. But hey what the heck the ride should be fun... I'm retired now so the show should be good from my seat.


----------



## Etype (May 30, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> That was back in 1995 at Fort Bragg.





Firemedic said:


> Sir, where were you @ Bragg in 95?


 
In 1995, I was at Fox Hollow Elementary School in 4th grade.


----------



## reed11b (May 30, 2012)

Etype said:


> In 1995, I was at Fox Hollow Elementary School in 4th grade.


 milk breathed whelp. ;)
Reed


----------



## DA SWO (May 30, 2012)

Firemedic said:


> Sir, where were you @ Bragg in 95? I was there same time.
> 
> F.M.


I was at Star Fleet Command then.  Working for Harley.


----------



## Spider6 (May 30, 2012)

Combine my personal observations and conclusions above and I think you can begin to see my view of this topic clearly. I just don't see this working out well for anyone. But hey what the heck the ride should be fun... I'm retired now so the show should be good from my seat.[/quote]

Sir agree with everything you have covered.  I would like to add that this has been tested by the us (under President Clinton during 1990s), United Kingdom, Canada, and Israel have all tried this with the same results.  It is therefore very frustrating to watch.  I used to command the LRS Company here in Georgia.  A lot of my guys are RIs at PRC.  Needless to say their livid right now.


----------



## Spider6 (May 30, 2012)

racing_kitty said:


> For the love of whatever god I've picked off the list today, PLEEEEEEEASE tell me that's a joke. Please? With tears in my eyes, I'm begging you, tell me you're kidding. FFS, at least my unit was kind enough to lie to me and say that tampons were good for plugging up bullet holes.
> 
> 
> Shit like that makes me want to go sit in a corner with a rusted spoon, gouge out my ovaries, and sew on a big rubber dick just for looks....


 
Not kidding and please don't!


----------



## Loki (May 31, 2012)

Etype said:


> In 1995, I was at Fox Hollow Elementary School in 4th grade.


 
Man, I feel really old right now...


----------



## Muppet (May 31, 2012)

IMTT said:


> Man, I feel really old right now...


 
Me also bro. Me also.

F.M.


----------



## Loki (May 31, 2012)

I stopped by the PX at Hunter Ligot on my way home today from Northern California. I picked up a few things including Army times 26 May 2012, page 18; "March Toward Infantry, Odierno expects plan for women in combat arms by Fall". Article by Michelle Tan. Here we go, awesomeness, the PC pukes have stepped up the game and the party line speak is being distributed. This has to happen before the election exactly as I predicted before in my earlier post. This is going to be great for females voters. I just can't wait to see these standards for the road march, time distance and weight. How fucking predictable, Obama strong! The link is the only reference I could find close. Well, well little Suzy get some! Well kinda; no longer is it "Light-fighter Hoorah!" it's now "fighter light, whahoooo!"... 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/odierno-women-succeed-infantry-Ranger-training-may-be-necessary

CNS News.com) - The U.S. Army officially moved more than 200 women closer to direct ground combat this week, and that's just the beginning of the "new opportunities" that await women in the U.S. military, Army Gen. Raymond Odierno said. He indicated that Army Ranger training also may open to women. "As many of you know, earlier this week, more than 200 women began reporting to the maneuver battalions in nine of our brigade combat teams," Odierno told a Defense Department briefing on Wednesday.

_Look here, what amazing timing;_ "Odierno said he expects final recommendations on the policy changes to come in November." _why November I wonder... _

Girl power!


----------



## Etype (Jun 2, 2012)

New questions on the RTB in-processing worksheet-


> 11.) Are you      ___ male           ___ female
> 12.) If answered female to #11 do you prefer      ___ tampons           ___ pads, and what size? __________


----------



## policemedic (Jun 2, 2012)

IMTT said:


> I stopped by the PX at Hunter Ligot on my way home today from Northern California.


 
The Hungry Lizard has a PX? All I ever saw were the stinking woods.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 2, 2012)

Adjacent the movie theater and a block from the bowling alley and gas station.


----------



## 03cpl (Jun 4, 2012)

So kinda in line with this thread... I keep getting a request to fill out a survey on what I think about women in combat arms. I bummed because I don't have access to a gov't computer to fill it out right now...


----------



## Etype (Jun 4, 2012)

> Air Force Tec sergeant becomes first female to finish US Army's famed Ranger School...


----------



## 03cpl (Jun 4, 2012)

they must have really lowered the standards... ;)


----------



## Loki (Jun 4, 2012)

03cpl said:


> they must have really lowered the standards... ;)


 
Not yet, they won't call it lowering the standards. It will be referred to as gender neutral and performance skill based evaluation. This will level the playing field for individuals with reduced upper body strength and smaller stature. It will be roundly touted and supported by the Commander(s) and hailed as progressive evolution of the force. This will increasing our diversity making us a more balanced and professional force for the future battle space. It will also better mirror our national morals and beliefs as inclusive. Everyone will be issued their opinion and the mantra enforced. Now move out and make it happen NCOs!

Everyone happy? Good! Now Drive on, continue to march!


----------



## 0699 (Jun 5, 2012)

IMTT said:


> Not yet, they won't call it lowering the standards. It will be referred to as gender neutral and performance skill based evaluation. This will level the playing field for individuals with reduced upper body strength and smaller stature. It will be roundly touted and supported by the Commander(s) and hailed as progressive evolution of the force. This will increasing our diversity making us a more balanced and professional force for the future battle space. It will also better mirror our national morals and beliefs as inclusive. Everyone will be issued their opinion and the mantra enforced. *Now move out and make it happen NCOs!*
> 
> Everyone happy? Good! Now Drive on, continue to march!


 
Isn't that how every shit sandwich gets eaten?


----------



## Loki (Jun 5, 2012)

0699 said:


> Isn't that how every shit sandwich gets eaten?


 
Right you are brother!


----------



## Loki (Jun 6, 2012)

As a side bar; More news of General Odierno, from the Onion...   
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/05/army-nutter-ray-odierno-goes-full-stalin-plus-at-crf/


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 6, 2012)

> As a side bar; More news of General Odierno, from the Onion...





> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/05/army-nutter-ray-odierno-goes-full-stalin-plus-at-crf/




That rant by Mr. Duff was a bit hard to follow.  



> “Where appropriate we will also dedicate active-duty forces, especially those with niche skills and equipment, to provide civilian officials with a robust set of reliable and rapid response options.”…Odierno


 
Isn't this the way we have always done it?  As an officer I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic.  Sometimes there are things that the local sheriff's office just can't handle.  In the past I think that the military was called in unnecessarily, but I think it's a bit naive to think that in today's time that there aren't some things that have to be handled by the military.




> There is a problem with that.  Yesterday, the “famous terrorist leader” we just killed with a drone strike didn’t exist.  Nobody had heard of him.
> We made the whole thing up.




 Nobody ever heard of him?  We're talking about Abu Yahya al-Libi, right?  Yeah I've heard of him, and we've even discussed him here on the site.  When I was in a task force overseas, we were regularly looking for the guy.  In fact we thought we killed him twice.  He was very good at what he did, and he was a very dangerous guy. Trust me, he existed.


----------



## goon175 (Jun 6, 2012)

I don't think Odierno is as big of an idiot as that guy made him out to be, nor do I think he has done anything treasonous by any standard. Do I agree with everything he has done as CoS? No. Do I like the direction the Army is going under his command? No. But the claims by the author of that article were a bit out of line, if you ask me.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 6, 2012)

goon175 said:


> I don't think Odierno is as big of an idiot as that guy made him out to be, nor do I think he has done anything treasonous by any standard. Do I agree with everything he has done as CoS? No. Do I like the direction the Army is going under his command? No. But the claims by the author of that article were a bit out of line, if you ask me.


 
I agree.  Anything that starts off by referring to someone as a "nutter" makes me a bit suspicious.


----------



## Loki (Jun 6, 2012)

Guys this is the "Onion" and not a completely truthful report. However there are many quotes that give me pause from the General. This is a fully laced sarcastic report with some not so flattering comments on both sides. I for one am no fan of this General. But it gives me pause for further research. Much of what he says doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling regarding his commitment to speak out against Politically driven agendas.


----------



## goon175 (Jun 18, 2012)

Interesting proof of what most of us already know:


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jun 18, 2012)

Short bastards...


----------



## Loki (Jun 18, 2012)

*Lets just begin here*

*Perform 12-mile tactical foot march*

PREREQUISITE - TACTICAL FOOT MARCH
*TASK:* Perform 12-mile tactical foot march.
*TEST CONDITIONS:* Given the following equipment to carry at a minimum. Units may add to this load IAW unit SOP but may not delete any of the items listed:

Pistol belt with suspenders.
Ammunition pouches (2) with M16 magazines (6).
Canteens with water (2), canteen covers (2).
Canteen cup (1).
First-aid packet and case.
Poncho.
Kevlar helmet or steel helmet.
Bayonet and scabbard.
Protective mask and carrier.
M16 series rifle or an M4 carbine, with sling and magazine inserted.
Rucksack with load weighing a minimum of 35 pounds.
*NOTE:* Based on unit issue, this could be a medium or large rucksack.
*TEST STANDARDS:* Complete the 12-mile tactical foot march within three hours.
*REFERENCE:* FM 21-18.
*EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR POINT:* Stopwatch, clipboard, pen, and FB Form 20-10-R.
*SITE SETUP:* Measure a 12-mile course for the foot march. Choose relatively level terrain for the course; the start point and the finish point should be at the same location. Clearly mark the route of the foot march.
*NOTE:* The EIB board establishes standards for participation in a road march. For example, spectators must be in the candidate's chain of command and must wear the same uniform as the candidate, minus a weapon. EIB board will determine if the individual protective mask is worn or stored in the rucksack.
*INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CANDIDATES:* Say to the candidates--
"Let me have your attention. At this point, you must complete a 12-mile tactical foot march in three hours. You must wear all equipment properly, you must have Kevlar helmet on your head, and you must carry your M16 rifle at the ready position. This means that the rifle must be ready for use against the enemy (high port, port, carrying handle, cradled in arms, sling arms, or inverted sling arms).
Discuss appropriate safety precautions and candidates' responsibilities for helping injured candidates. Then say--
"What are your questions?"
If anyone has questions, repeat the instructions but do not elaborate on what you have read.
Pause five seconds and then say--
"BEGIN"


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 18, 2012)

Every woman who graduated Air Assault School has met this standard, it's not that hard...


----------



## Etype (Jun 18, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Every woman who graduated Air Assault School has met this standard, it's not that hard...


Do they take the PT test on the male scale?

As far as I'm concerned, the male 17-21 age group is the only set of standards that should apply to "hard" schools.


----------



## Spider6 (Jun 18, 2012)

Etype said:


> Do they take the PT test on the male scale?
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, the male 17-21 age group is the only set of standards that should apply to "hard" schools.


 
I agree sir and I believe that's where a lot of the "debate" really lies.  If they are to receive the same promotions, awards etc......then meet the same standards. 

However based on a study I read by Dr William Gregor LTC (ret) about 70 to 80 percent of the women in the Army would be released from the service if they were held to the current male standard.  His study included a class at West Point and an ROTC Advance Camp.  In my opinion obviously that would incur a lot of back lash but the women that remain would certainly have a lot more credibility.


----------



## Spider6 (Jun 18, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Interesting proof of what most of us already know:
> 
> View attachment 6254


 
I dont know the name of the study but the Army had some female Soldiers conduct strength training for about 24 weeks. They did increase in strength however male Soldiers who did not participate in the training could still lift heavier loads. According to the Military Medicine Jounral (Oct 1997) men have about 35 more lbs of muscle than women.


----------



## Loki (Jun 18, 2012)

News flash; men are built different than women and designed for a different function in nature. Through "intelligent design" or "evolution" whatever your taste. But there will always exist abhorrent or unique examples within the group that don't comply with known data. These are exceptions in the statistics and must be removed from the test group just as you would remove the bottom 5-10%. In order to make this work on mass and demonstrate a false positive we will have to be alter and manipulate. This has taken place in other vocations as well. Firefighting is a prime example and model of things to come. The frictions of integration of females into the fire service is a picture of the event horizon for the military. Which still of course creates it own unique problems even today. This was and is a very politically driven focused subject. Much pressure has been exerted on agencies to accept women. The real problem came in when the same standards were applied to the physical requirements. Special training ensued and tutoring programs emerged to assist the candidates through the courses. Regardless of obstacles, reality or objective criterion once implemented the program will be a success as dictated by the national command authority. Certainly women can out perform or perform s well in many tasks but this one area has some very different requirements that cannot be excluded. In order to prove success false positives must be instituted; complacence with political correctness, avoidance of litigation issues, highly volatile scrutiny from elected officials who possess vested interested in the program will dictate it. My wife is in better shape physically then me. She PTs twice a day, runs, lifts weights and swims among other things. We are pretty equal in many areas but my natural upper body strength far exceeds hers even without focused training. I can carry greater loads farther and in more difficult terrain. That is not to say I'm smarter than her or superior. In fact in other areas she is superior to me on a balanced equal scale. Math, science, organizationally, high intensity short term endurance among others. We possess different strengths and weaknesses naturally that can't be ignored. However these will be ignored or measured differently in order to accommodate the political goals of the organization. Hence the mission will become women in these roles and standards will reflect these objectives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_firefighting
http://www.i-women.org/issues.php?issue=9
http://www.i-women.org/images/pdf-files/35827WSP.pdf
http://www.laweekly.com/2009-01-01/news/lafd-boondoggle-the-firefighting-jobs-women-don-39-t-want/
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-24/news/the-gender-boondoggle/
http://books.google.com/books?id=tj9uUlGE1zoC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=problems with women in firefighting&source=bl&ots=uLmNJ63wSS&sig=66IGgehUWFqPIU0jd9NCYhK5kEI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2nrfT43ZJYLs6gGp19i4Cw&sqi=2&ved=0CGcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=problems with women in firefighting&f=false


----------



## Brill (Jun 18, 2012)

Wow, that's a big snatch.


----------



## 0699 (Jun 18, 2012)

IMTT said:


> *Lets just begin here*
> 
> *Perform 12-mile tactical foot march*
> 
> ...


 
What? No body armor?  Hell, that was the worst part for me during my last few years.  The standard load didn't change, but another 35-50 pounds of soft armor and hard plates added on top makes a difference.  Plus, the vest holding in the heat compared to having your blouse un-buttoned to blow off excess heat really aggrivated my vaginitis.


----------



## Spider6 (Jun 18, 2012)

0699 said:


> What? No body armor? Hell, that was the worst part for me during my last few years. The standard load didn't change, but another 35-50 pounds of soft armor and hard plates added on top makes a difference. Plus, the vest holding in the heat compared to having your blouse un-buttoned to blow off excess heat really aggrivated my vaginitis.


 

That's what I want to know....that looks pretty easy....my teams had to where body armor on Mount Sinjar during missions....that of course is in addition to everything else they had to carry for a 3 to 5 day mission


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 18, 2012)

Etype said:


> Do they take the PT test on the male scale?
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, the male 17-21 age group is the only set of standards that should apply to "hard" schools.


 
I don't even remember if I took a PT test for Air Assault School.

There are plenty of legitimate ways to underscore the fundamental physical differences and capabilities between men and women, an "EIB-standard" footmarch is not one of them.


----------



## Etype (Jun 18, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> There are plenty of legitimate ways to underscore the fundamental physical differences and capabilities between men and women, an "EIB-standard" footmarch is not one of them.


Nope.  I see a lot of women at the combat cross country races on base and a lot of them have no trouble making the 3 hour EIB standard.


----------



## Loki (Jun 18, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't even remember if I took a PT test for Air Assault School.
> There are plenty of legitimate ways to underscore the fundamental physical differences and capabilities between men and women, an "EIB-standard" footmarch is not one of them.


 
I fully agree with you however the "task, conditions and standards" for all schools and MOSs are relative and what will be contested for selection / success. I don't support females in the Infantry or at this school house. But that doesn't matter. I said; "starting point" meaning an objective test which will be shown as evidence of acceptable performance. Hence what the Command will use to shove this down our collective throats. I for one don't remember attending a school and or qualification without taking a PT test. Any subjective or opinion based criterion will be attacked and defeated. But here is something more relative.

In the fire service many responsibilities that were listed as two person requirements were increased to three person responsibilities in order to be more inclusive of females. Other upper body strength requirements were reduced overall and the objective standard changed. Hence standards of performance changed for the group as a whole in order to allow females to increase success in the posting. In my own career we battled this exact issue within our agency for 13 years. Finally we were successful in maintaining a performance based measurable standards. Meaning all tasks / skills required to be performed were mission driven. All gear weighs the same, all our missions possessed certain skill requirements and physical abilities. All missions, requirements and tasking were evaluated for commonalities. We were the subject of litigation and oversight by independent appointed outside individuals. As a result the standards became stricter and more difficult across the board with definable measurable objective skill performance requirements. We lost many team members to these standards and one female has been successful in ten years. The female was operational for 5 years and resigned. This organization consists of 650 operational personnel. The original intent was to lower standards by our command and introduce more females which was politically driven from our governors office. Our position was to define strictly what the job required and develop testing around that only.

If it is not a requirement of the job to lift 247LBS above the head it's not relative to the argument. Mere reduced upper body strength is not relative either. How does it relate to the post and job responsibility. What gear is he/she required to carry, what distances do they likely have to travel on foot, what type of terrain and how long must they operate without sleep among other things. All of this must be based on mission requirements and equipment specs. It is highly unlikely if the Command authority institutes this policy even in the face of the best information, research and objective data we will preclude it from happening.

A close friend of mine was instrumental in developing standards of performance for BUDs and was the commander of that school house at one time. He changed many things and according to him the old Chiefs hated him for it. This was all in response to a number of deaths of students. The changes and evaluation was order by the national command authority and closure was considered. However now the standards are stricter and more stringently applied objectively while increasing the safety of the student. All of the research was based on actual mission profiles, skill requirements and equipment. No opinions, no emotion and no assumptions.

You must be able to answer the why with static non-dynamic facts.

*Ranger School*
Ranger School is mentally and physically draining and prepares the soldier for battle by placing him in situations very similar to true combat. A normal day in Ranger School is typically 20 hours of grueling training with an average of 3 1/2 hours sleep. During different phases of the training soldiers often have to go for over 24 hours without sleeping. Not only are Ranger students sleep deprived, they also are expected to subsist on two meals a day or less. These perspective Rangers also conduct much of their training carrying* 65-90 lbs* of equipment on their backs. Ranger School is broken up into three phases, which are called Benning Phase, Mountain Phase and Florida Phase.

*Mountain (Walk Phase)*
The Mountain Phase, which takes place at Camp Merrill, in the Georgia mountains, also lasts for a period of 20 days and teaches survival techniques in the hostile conditions of the mountains. Dealing with extreme sleep deprivation, hunger and emotional stress are a key part of this phase of training.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 18, 2012)

IMTT said:


> News flash; men are built different than women and designed for a different function in nature. Through "intelligent design" or "evolution" whatever your taste. But there will always exist abhorrent or unique examples within the group that don't comply with known data. These are exceptions in the statistics and must be removed from the test group just as you would remove the bottom 5-10%. In order to make this work on mass and demonstrate a false positive we will have to be alter and manipulate. This has taken place in other vocations as well. Firefighting is a prime example and model of things to come. The frictions of integration of females into the fire service is a picture of the event horizon for the military. Which still of course creates it own unique problems even today. This was and is a very politically driven focused subject. Much pressure has been exerted on agencies to accept women. The real problem came in when the same standards were applied to the physical requirements. Special training ensued and tutoring programs emerged to assist the candidates through the courses. Regardless of obstacles, reality or objective criterion once implemented the program will be a success as dictated by the national command authority. Certainly women can out perform or perform s well in many tasks but this one area has some very different requirements that cannot be excluded. In order to prove success false positives must be instituted; complacence with political correctness, avoidance of litigation issues, highly volatile scrutiny from elected officials who possess vested interested in the program will dictate it. My wife is in better shape physically then me. She PTs twice a day, runs, lifts weights and swims among other things. We are pretty equal in many areas but my natural upper body strength far exceeds hers even without focused training. I can carry greater loads farther and in more difficult terrain. That is not to say I'm smarter than her or superior. In fact in other areas she is superior to me on a balanced equal scale. Math, science, organizationally, high intensity short term endurance among others. We possess different strengths and weaknesses naturally that can't be ignored. However these will be ignored or measured differently in order to accommodate the political goals of the organization. Hence the mission will become women in these roles and standards will reflect these objectives.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_firefighting
> http://www.i-women.org/issues.php?issue=9
> ...


 
*queue Shaneequa "OH NO YOU DIDN'T*

Firefighting is quite literally a single standard job if there ever was one, and my station in Alaska had 3 women assigned to it.

They could denver drill my ass out a window without a hitch and I'm 6'3 and about 330 with all my gear on. 

Our initial training is specifically designed to demonstrate all the worst case scenarios of weight, exertion, and uncomfortable circumstances specifically to cull the herd of applicants.... and this was for a paid-on-call "Volunteer" department.  2 females in the class. One broke (again, 2nd shot at the basic indoc) and one passed.  I would venture that pass rate was about 70% for the men, either failures to train/adapt or LOM'ed.  Truth be told, it's pretty hard to FAIL regardless. There are techniques to get over/around/through the size/weight difference that WORK for firefighting. The other fact is that in firefighting you work as a team.  I know that I can swing the TNT tool hard, and if another member on the crew can't get the gap, then I'm gonna put my weight into it and help.  I also know that same 120 lb female that might just not be able to gap that door CAN handle a 2 1/2 line on her own, because she's DONE it right there with me.

Biggest thing, just like Ranger school... the standard must not change, period.  The standard for my station was that for specific circumstances that involved firefighter rescue (below grade, denver drill, etc) they had to rescue ME because I was the biggest firefighter at the station. *Worst case scenario is what we always trained for.*

If you can't do it due to size/sex, figure out how to.

Can't figure out how to?

Go do EMS. LOL


----------



## Loki (Jun 18, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> *queue Shaneequa "OH NO YOU DIDN'T*
> 
> Firefighting is quite literally a single standard job if there ever was one, and my station in Alaska had 3 women assigned to it.
> 
> ...


 
*EXACTAMUNDO!* The real problem as I see it is the WILL of the organization to engage in the discourse, resist and work to show with facts that this is a flawed course of action. I don't believe organizationally the Army possesses the Political courage to fight against it or prepare correctly for it. They in my opinion won't do the work to objectively demonstrate why this is a bad idea. It is easier and more productive for careers to roll over and accept what ever edicts are issued from the burning bush. No different then the Navy with women on warships and Submarines now. And to a lesser degree openly serving Gays in the military. You have to protect the standards of the organization and validate them as requirements to perform the function. To do otherwise leaves you open for attack and failure. This going to happen, it only a matter of time. That means you have to choose the hill to die on and the battle to fight.  Hold the line with standards and you win.  Attempt complete resistance you will fail and they will dictate the terms of the surrender.


----------



## goon175 (Jun 18, 2012)

Ive said it before and I will say it again: I think MOST Rangers don't care if women attend Ranger School, it's the assumption that standards will be lowered to accomodate them that bothers folks the most. I believe they are rightly bothered, as the assumption that standards will be lowered is probably going to turn out to be true.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jun 18, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Ive said it before and I will say it again: I think MOST Rangers don't care if women attend Ranger School, it's the assumption that standards will be lowered to accomodate them that bothers folks the most. I believe they are rightly bothered, as the assumption that standards will be lowered is probably going to turn out to be true.


 
I agree, but does anyone here see a instance where standards WON'T be lowered due to the inclusion of females? The only way I can see the standards not being lowered to accommodate females is to do something along the lines of establishing a all female version of Ranger school, same in almost every instance to the male version except fitted to the general female fitness standards as laid out by the Army, or perhaps same school/course and same instructors just set aside slots for all female classes. Just a thought. I don't like the idea of segregating like that (even though to a extent it's already done in many aspects of all branches of service) but to keep the standards where they are and still allow females to attend the school, I think this is possibly one of the only viable options.


----------



## 0699 (Jun 19, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> I agree, but does anyone here see a instance where standards WON'T be lowered due to the inclusion of females? The only way I can see the standards not being lowered to accommodate females is to do something along the lines of *establishing a all female version of Ranger school, same in almost every instance to the male version except fitted to the general female fitness standards* as laid out by the Army, or perhaps same school/course and same instructors just set aside slots for all female classes. Just a thought. I don't like the idea of segregating like that (even though to a extent it's already done in many aspects of all branches of service) but to keep the standards where they are and still allow females to attend the school, I think this is possibly one of the only viable options.


 
Then it won't be "Ranger School", will it?


----------



## dknob (Jun 19, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Interesting proof of what most of us already know:
> 
> View attachment 6254


 
Male Snatch is 247, female Snatch is 144 on average.. that means the females can snatch 58% of what the men can.
Male Clean and Jerk is 309 on average, and the female average is 178. Females clean and jerk 57% of what the men can.
Male Dead lift 508 on average, and the female average is 304. Females on average deadlift 59% of what the men can.

Average male weight is 194, average female weight is 137.. that means females weigh about 30% less then men, but lift less then 40% of their male counterparts. It's not a weight issue.. its anatomy. It's not a proportionate ratio of how much they weigh vs how much they lift compared to the men. There is a discrepency. They simply don't have the ability.

I say send them to Ranger School... without lowering the standards and see how they do. In reality... 99.99% of women on the same standards as men at RS will fail. 70 pound ruck and carrying the 240B? That's 100 pounds on a person that weights 140 pounds on average. Give me a fucking break.


----------



## Spider6 (Jun 19, 2012)

dknob said:


> Male Snatch is 247, female Snatch is 144 on average.. that means the females can snatch 58% of what the men can.
> Male Clean and Jerk is 309 on average, and the female average is 178. Females clean and jerk 57% of what the men can.
> Male Dead lift 508 on average, and the female average is 304. Females on average deadlift 59% of what the men can.
> 
> ...


 
Agreed:  I think we read the same study!  I found one on the British military who kept the same standards during a "trial" with the results you mentioned above.  In the end in 2001 they kept the ban on women serving in combat units.


----------



## Loki (Jun 19, 2012)

_I say send them to Ranger School... without lowering the standards and see how they do. In reality... 99.99% of women on the same standards as men at RS will fail. 70 pound ruck and carrying the 240B? That's 100 pounds on a person that weights 140 pounds on average. Give me a fucking break.[/quote]_

And that is but one of the many objective standards as defined by the responsibility and the equipment. I was a bottom feeder Grunt nothing special (JOE) and as many of us know you end up carrying allot of junk a long way. Sometimes allot of junk you may need but never use. But its all required for the mission. The dragon gunners, squad, platoon gunners and mortar guys even more. These are just the tip of the ice-berg. Not to even discuss the many other considerations.


----------



## 275ANGER! (Jun 19, 2012)

Ranger School is not that hard, the course actually gets annoying after some time (I was on the 5 month plan). There is a minimum standard and it is not very hard to attain. There are tons of less than physically stellar individuals who have completed the course. Women probably won't pass at the same rate as men but they will pass.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jun 20, 2012)

dknob said:


> Male Snatch is 247, female Snatch is 144 on average.. that means the females can snatch 58% of what the men can.
> Male Clean and Jerk is 309 on average, and the female average is 178. Females clean and jerk 57% of what the men can.
> Male Dead lift 508 on average, and the female average is 304. Females on average deadlift 59% of what the men can.


Holy fuck, I read this without looking at the attachment and was scared. I was like damn females on average are deadlifting 304...I need to go lift more weights.


----------



## dknob (Jun 20, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> Holy fuck, I read this without looking at the attachment and was scared. I was like damn females on average are deadlifting 304...I need to go lift more weights.


 that chart was for the Crossfit Games competitors haha


----------



## dirtmover (Jun 20, 2012)

Sapper school has been allowing females in since 1999.  I had the honor of serving with the first female to be awarded the Sapper tab CPT Hicks.  She was pretty badass when we were in 864th together.  The standards are the same males and females...carrying the 240 and whatnot.  Nobody pops out of the womb grabbing a 90lbs ruck sack and taking off running, you had to build up to it.  Last year I was up to a 70lbs ruck with only working at it maybe 3 weeks off and on.  

The whole argument about the increase in sexual assault...well a fucking predator is a fucking predator no matter how you cut it, if it’s not someone who is in your unit then it’s someone else, they are a stain on the army and should be dealt with.  Now if you are talking about something that starts consensual and then one party throws the flag well that can happen at anytime and anywhere so just make them sign a release form with witnesses, two forms of ID and a DNA sample.


----------



## Spider6 (Jun 20, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> Holy fuck, I read this without looking at the attachment and was scared. I was like damn females on average are deadlifting 304...I need to go lift more weights.


 
Got my attention too!  I was dead lifting 275 the other day.  Got some work to do!


----------



## Etype (Jun 20, 2012)

The average Crossfit games competitor eats my lunch in the snatch and CJ.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 23, 2012)

So the word from my roommate who graduated MAN School Friday, having made it all the way through on one shot he said that it was luck and said nothing about him as a leader.  However, supposedly the 8 Women they were going to send to IBOLC were specially selected girls from Hudson River Valley High School are already there...but my friends that just started IBOLC have made no mention of women.

But the word on the block for Ranger School is that these females will be trained up to specifically meet the standards of MAN School, and that they will have a 50% or higher pass rate.  Which is already 17 to 20% higher than the normal graduation rate of 33%.  He said it's gonna be just like when VMI admitted females...so the Men that earned their tabs before the admittance of women will recall it..."Last Class with Balls..." as the class of 2000 calls themselves.


----------



## Brill (Jun 23, 2012)

ThunderHorse said:


> So the word from my roommate who graduated *MAN School* Friday, having made it all the way through on one shot he said that it was luck and said nothing about him as a leader. However, supposedly the 8 Women they were going to send to IBOLC were specially selected girls from Hudson River Valley High School are already there...but my friends that just started IBOLC have made no mention of women.
> 
> But the word on the block for Ranger School is that these females will be trained up to specifically meet the standards of MAN School, and that they will have a 50% or higher pass rate. Which is already 17 to 20% higher than the normal graduation rate of 33%. He said it's gonna be just like when VMI admitted females...so the Men that earned their tabs before the admittance of women will recall it..."Last Class with Balls..." as the class of 2000 calls themselves.


 
Are you serious?

http://www.manschool.cc/


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 23, 2012)

They really do have websites for everything don't they...


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 23, 2012)

275ANGER! said:


> Ranger School is not that hard, the course actually gets annoying after some time (I was on the 5 month plan). There is a minimum standard and it is not very hard to attain. There are tons of less than physically stellar individuals who have completed the course. Women probably won't pass at the same rate as men but they will pass.


I think you may be the first person in the history of ever to say this.


----------



## Etype (Jun 23, 2012)

You're in a patrol base, and you just finished briefing everyone in your squad on the security plan.  It's time to take a quick nap, but first, you need to visit the slit trench.  You head over there to relieve yourself, and look down to see-


----------



## Brill (Jun 23, 2012)

Bravos are some sick phuks. Remind me of submariners!


----------



## Etype (Jun 23, 2012)

And I'm the bravo who's best friends with the Deltas and always getting in on medical procedures.


----------



## Loki (Jun 24, 2012)

Etype said:


> You're in a patrol base, and you just finished briefing everyone in your squad on the security plan. It's time to take a quick nap, but first, you need to visit the slit trench. You head over there to relieve yourself, and look down to see-


 
fucking epic, thread just hit rock bottom. Sweet...

BEST SONG EVER!




 
Best Ranger Promo,


----------



## Etype (Jun 24, 2012)

IMTT said:


> BEST SONG EVER!


That song was made by a bunch of SWTG students.


----------



## 275ANGER! (Jun 25, 2012)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I think you may be the first person in the history of ever to say this.


 
Like I said there is a minimum standard and it is no secret, certainly you must get the approval of your walker (RI). Most can argue "well you recycled twice, I thought you said it wasn't that hard". Well fack I was a private with less than a year being in my unit and my lack of maturity got the best of me at school. With that said I still outperformed NCOs and Officers with far more experience than I. Don't get me wrong the suck factor is pretty good but you are not doing anything really that advanced.  You are conducting basic task that are complicated by the environment, and the lack of sleep and food.


----------



## 0699 (Jun 27, 2012)

Etype said:


> You're in a patrol base, and you just finished briefing everyone in your squad on the security plan. It's time to take a quick nap, but first, you need to visit the slit trench. You head over there to relieve yourself, and look down to see-


 
This happened to me in DS.  Our OIC and SNCOIC came up to visit us south of Khafji.  She went to the pisser before she left and the next Marine to hit the can found one laying on top of the crap.


----------



## Etype (Jun 27, 2012)

0699 said:


> This happened to me in DS. Our OIC and SNCOIC came up to visit us south of Khafji. She went to the pisser before she left and the next Marine to hit the can found one laying on top of the crap.


See???  So it's not just a hypothetical situation anymore.


----------



## Loki (Jun 27, 2012)

And on a semi-related note; http://www.military.com/daily-news/...vent.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=9#community


----------



## Brian1/75 (Jul 1, 2012)

I actually imagine they might stop having periods from the lack of sleep and food. Not sure how that works. If not, adding 'on your period' to the list of suck could make for some bitchy chicks.



Deathy McDeath said:


> I think you may be the first person in the history of ever to say this.


It's actually somewhat a common statement in Battalion.


----------



## Ravage (Jul 1, 2012)

Brian and Anger, does that somewhat diminish the stature or legend of Ranger School?
I remember when GROMs former CO wrote a memuar about his stint in Ranger School. Many military commanderes were shocked, media had something to write about, and military geeks (like me) were like "oh man this must suck, if I pass this I'll be a though, cool guy".
Now, many years later, you read this. Makes one really think about how they percieve stories like that.


----------



## Brill (Jul 1, 2012)

Stolen from another site but appropriate here. General Robert H. Barrow, 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps testimony before the SASC on Women in Combat. June 1991.

"If you want to make a unit combat ineffective, assign women to it." 





!


----------



## Loki (Jul 1, 2012)

Wow; Outstanding Lindy! Gen. Barrow was the Commandant when I served. Semper Fi! Oooorah, a true warrior and a great American! A real leader with real words with depth and sense. How refreshing to watch history before we all became PC bedwetters and rolled over.


----------



## Brill (Jul 1, 2012)

IMTT said:


> Wow; Outstanding Lindy! Gen. Barrow was the Commandant when I served. Semper Fi! Oooorah, a true warrior and a great American!


 
Not to derail but to add credibility to Gen Barrow's words:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/washington/01barrow.html


----------



## Loki (Jul 1, 2012)

lindy said:


> Stolen from another site but appropriate here. General Robert H. Barrow, 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps testimony before the SASC on Women in Combat. June 1991.
> 
> "If you want to make a unit combat ineffective, assign women to it."
> 
> ...


 
What a refreshing and amazing speech. Wow, honesty from a by-gone era of truth. No holding punches, no candy coating just right in the mouth.​


----------



## Brill (Jul 1, 2012)

Definitely no longer accepted in military circles and DEFINITELY not within the USG.


----------



## Loki (Jul 1, 2012)

lindy said:


> Definitely no longer accepted in military circles and DEFINITELY not within the USG.


 
Sadly the truth is no longer acceptable or survival-able.


----------



## goon175 (Jul 3, 2012)

Interesting article from a USMC female officer. Well researched, well written, but I do disagree with her sentiment towards integration being ok for the Army Infantry as opposed to the USMC infantry.

EDIT: My bad.... http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 3, 2012)

link?


----------



## QC (Jul 7, 2012)

Couldn't be fucked reading the most of this, respect the opinions but FFS. 






With due respect to RK & Cupcake et al, gimme a call girls...you can run the show. I'll be will be working on my tan, placing a bet or sitting with my claw wrapped round an ale. Run the show. See ya!


----------



## Chris16 (Sep 17, 2012)

IMTT said:


> Mobile field showers, sanitary napkins the new mobile field out houses and sensitivity training for all Ranger instructors. Female Ranger instructors as well to enforce the special standards fairly. If they become pregnant in Ranger school do they get to re-cycle, how about heavy flow days, we have some planning to do here. How about peering? what officer in command is going to allowing peering of a female via an all male squad. Ain't gonna happen! So many very important issues to solve and so far to go, what a bright tolerant future. The first new priority military objective of inclusiveness, tolerance and equality (kind of...) will soon be a dream fulfilled. Soon our military will be just like our European partner forces. I have a nightmare...


The instructors should be ranger school graduates correct me if I'm wrong, where are they going to get qualified Female instructors for the first class, and once then the Females who graduate won't want to come back and be an instructor right ?


----------



## Lefty375 (Sep 17, 2012)




----------



## Muppet (Sep 18, 2012)

Chris16 said:


> The instructors should be Ranger school graduates correct me if I'm wrong, where are they going to get qualified Female instructors for the first class, and once then the Females who graduate won't want to come back and be an instructor right ?


 
First, let me preface this by saying that I am not a Ranger. Second, I am not a mod and if I am out of line, forgive me. With that being said. I see your 14 / freshman in highschool and while I applaud your desire to serve let me start by telling you that, and we tell all the young-in's this: Live your kid life. Do good in school and then think about the service. Chiming in on things you don't know about just makes you look, um, a know it all with no life experience. You can listen to me or not, I don't care. I try to keep to myself but it has not been a good night and I felt I needed to say this. Take it as you may. Mods. If I acted out, sorry.

F.M.


----------



## Chris16 (Sep 18, 2012)

Firemedic said:


> First, let me preface this by saying that I am not a Ranger. Second, I am not a mod and if I am out of line, forgive me. With that being said. I see your 14 / freshman in highschool and while I applaud your desire to serve let me start by telling you that, and we tell all the young-in's this: Live your kid life. Do good in school and then think about the service. Chiming in on things you don't know about just makes you look, um, a know it all with no life experience. You can listen to me or not, I don't care. I try to keep to myself but it has not been a good night and I felt I needed to say this. Take it as you may. Mods. If I acted out, sorry.
> 
> F.M.[/quote
> Will do.


----------



## dknob (Sep 18, 2012)

any females in RS? Nope

another bullshit RUMINT


----------



## Brian1/75 (Sep 18, 2012)

dknob said:


> any females in RS? Nope
> 
> another bullshit RUMINT


Well, it was suppose to happen, what class 2-13 or 3-13 according to RUMINT? That's still a little ways off if it's going to happen.


goon175 said:


> Interesting article from a USMC female officer. Well researched, well written, but I do disagree with her sentiment towards integration being ok for the Army Infantry as opposed to the USMC infantry.
> 
> EDIT: My bad.... http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal


It was well-researched until she started remarking about Army doctrine. If I had a nickel every time a Marine smugly talked about Army doctrine...


----------



## dknob (Sep 18, 2012)

I just clearly remember internal emails from RTB personnel saying it was bullshit


----------



## Centermass (Sep 20, 2012)

dknob said:


> I just clearly remember internal emails from RTB personnel saying it was bullshit


 
You would be correct. I posted it on page 2 a while ago and here we are 10 pages later. Nothing's changed.


----------



## 1C_Slackman (Jan 26, 2013)

I remember these talks in the late 80's, hell they probably been happening before that (old timers chime in, older than me anyway). Hopefully they will continue for another 20+ years as just that..... talks. I do think with all the political correctness going on of not wanting to hurt peoples feelings (boo f*#king hoo) some dkweed politician will try to push this thru, lets hope for our guys safety it doesn't happen.


----------



## Loki (Jan 26, 2013)

1C_Slackman said:


> I remember these talks in the late 80's, hell they probably been happening before that (old timers chime in, older than me anyway). Hopefully they will continue for another 20+ years as just that..... talks. I do think with all the political correctness going on of not wanting to hurt peoples feelings (boo f*#king hoo) some dkweed politician will try to push this thru, lets hope for our guys safety it doesn't happen.


 
The PC liberal bedwetting anti-American communist pukes have taken over. Our perimeter is compromised, call fire our position. I say again, send it, fire for effect, splash!


----------



## Future_Leader (Feb 9, 2013)

Women I will be brutally honest within the boundaries of the site rules and I don't care if I get multiple hates. To me, women in the elite forces, men's sports, men's anything is pissing me off. It sounds sexist I know but I honestly think that most men are kinda sexist on the inside anyway due to the thousands of years of them being below us and pathetic in most cases. Don't get me wrong, there are some women out there willing to grow some balls and do things a real man would do and I respect those women for it. But you don't hear ppl saying "Come on be a woman" no it is a man. Even in the dang bible, religions/cultures all over the world and in the majority of nature, the male is supposed to be dominant in these areas. But if you're a woman and you wanna act like a man then do me a favor, be prepared to be treated like one because right now a lot of little things are in your favor and some of you just can't appreciate that. No you gotta do EVERYTHING we do. What's next? men wanting to dress like w-....ah damn it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 9, 2013)

Future_Leader said:


> Women I will be brutally honest within the boundaries of the site rules and I don't care if I get multiple hates. To me, women in the elite forces, men's sports, men's anything is pissing me off. It sounds sexist I know but I honestly think that most men are kinda sexist on the inside anyway due to the thousands of years of them being below us and pathetic in most cases. Don't get me wrong, there are some women out there willing to grow some balls and do things a real man would do and I respect those women for it. But you don't hear ppl saying "Come on be a woman" no it is a man. Even in the dang bible, religions/cultures all over the world and in the majority of nature, the male is supposed to be dominant in these areas. But if you're a woman and you wanna act like a man then do me a favor, be prepared to be treated like one because right now a lot of little things are in your favor and some of you just can't appreciate that. No you gotta do EVERYTHING we do. What's next? men wanting to dress like w-....ah damn it.


 
You've served in many "elite forces" then, that you can comment on whether or not women belong in them?


----------



## Muppet (Feb 9, 2013)

I usually stay out of this but maybe and this is MY opinion... You should shut it, learn, grow older and earn your stripes, where ever that may be...Military, civilian world, etc. Again, I may be emotional but I believe in what I think.

F.M.


----------



## Future_Leader (Feb 9, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> You've served in many "elite forces" then, that you can comment on whether or not women belong in them?


I said nothing of the sort. I've stated my opinion on women and I admit it may have something to do with my upbringing just as a racist white man is meant to believe that my people (blacks)and other races are inferior to him. I have seen my share of strong willed women but I've seen more than my share of weak willed ones too. I'm just putting out my opinion and from what I've read of most everyone else on this thread, my opinion is more or less lined up with theirs. But hey what do I know? Next to nothing. I posted that knowing there will be those who don't like and there will be those who will think and there will be those who agree.


----------



## Muppet (Feb 9, 2013)

Future_Leader said:


> I said nothing of the sort. I've stated my opinion on women and I admit it may have something to do with my upbringing just as a racist white man is meant to believe that my people (blacks)and other races are inferior to him. I have seen my share of strong willed women but I've seen more than my share of weak willed ones too. I'm just putting out my opinion and from what I've read of most everyone else on this thread, my opinion is more or less lined up with theirs. But hey what do I know? Next to nothing. I posted that knowing there will be those who don't like and there will be those who will think and there will be those who agree.


 

Oh hell. Anybody got popcorn and skittles?

F.M.


----------



## Future_Leader (Feb 9, 2013)

Firemedic said:


> I usually stay out of this but maybe and this is MY opinion... You should shut it, learn, grow older and earn your stripes, where ever that may be...Military, civilian world, etc. Again, I may be emotional but I believe in what I think.
> 
> F.M.


Noted.


----------



## DasBoot (Feb 9, 2013)

Future_Leader said:


> Women I will be brutally honest within the boundaries of the site rules and I don't care if I get multiple hates. To me, women in the elite forces, men's sports, men's anything is pissing me off. It sounds sexist I know but I honestly think that most men are kinda sexist on the inside anyway due to the* thousands of years of them being below us and pathetic in most cases.* Don't get me wrong, there are some women out there willing to grow some balls and do things a real man would do and I respect those women for it. But you don't hear ppl saying "Come on be a woman" no it is a man. Even in the dang bible, religions/cultures all over the world and in the majority of nature, the male is supposed to be dominant in these areas. But if you're a woman and you wanna act like a man then do me a favor, be prepared to be treated like one because right now a lot of little things are in your favor and some of you just can't appreciate that. No you gotta do EVERYTHING we do. What's next? men wanting to dress like w-....ah damn it.


 I foresee a slew of really healthy relationships in your future with that attitude.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 9, 2013)

Future_Leader said:


> Women I will be brutally honest within the boundaries of the site rules and I don't care if I get multiple hates. To me, women in the elite forces, men's sports, men's anything is pissing me off. It sounds sexist I know but I honestly think that most men are kinda sexist on the inside anyway due to the thousands of years of them being below us and pathetic in most cases. Don't get me wrong, there are some women out there willing to grow some balls and do things a real man would do and I respect those women for it. But you don't hear ppl saying "Come on be a woman" no it is a man. Even in the dang bible, religions/cultures all over the world and in the majority of nature, the male is supposed to be dominant in these areas. But if you're a woman and you wanna act like a man then do me a favor, be prepared to be treated like one because right now a lot of little things are in your favor and some of you just can't appreciate that. No you gotta do EVERYTHING we do. What's next? men wanting to dress like w-....ah damn it.


 
Oh hell fuck no.  I don't care if you are 16, you are posting here so take it.  Because you are 16, and because your hard headed ass may get into the military at some point and be in a position to lead people (that may include women too by the way), please at least open your young mind to the following:

Crap, I just can't.  I'm rereading your post again and cannot find the energy to even begin to help you.  So please, grow up, be a man, and make decision based on your experiences; not on what you hear family/friends state.  At your young age I question whether you have actually "seen" enough of life to actually experience the concerns you write about.  I knew some real pussy's who were supposed to be "men" (one in particular who cost me my Good Cookie but I'll save that for another day) and some women who were hard as hell.  There are people I work with who like to talk politics, they obviously get their opinions from talk radio and repeat them word for word.  Go off script and try to debate their points and they get flustered...that's what you bible comment sounds like to me.  

And I gotta ask...what is the word you were trying to edit out?  _"What's next? men wanting to dress like w-....ah damn it"_


----------



## 0699 (Feb 9, 2013)

Future_Leader said:


> Women I will be brutally honest within the boundaries of the site rules and I don't care if I get multiple hates. To me, women in the elite forces, men's sports, men's anything is pissing me off. It sounds sexist I know but I honestly think that most men are kinda sexist on the inside anyway due to the thousands of years of them being below us and pathetic in most cases. Don't get me wrong, there are some women out there willing to grow some balls and do things a real man would do and I respect those women for it. But you don't hear ppl saying "Come on be a woman" no it is a man. Even in the dang bible, religions/cultures all over the world and in the majority of nature, *the male is supposed to be dominant in these areas*. But if you're a woman and you wanna act like a man then do me a favor, be prepared to be treated like one because right now a lot of little things are in your favor and some of you just can't appreciate that. No you gotta do EVERYTHING we do. What's next? men wanting to dress like w-....ah damn it.





Future_Leader said:


> I said nothing of the sort. I've stated my opinion on women and I admit it may have something to do with *my upbringing just as a racist white man is meant to believe that my people (blacks)and other races are inferior to him*. I have seen my share of strong willed women but I've seen more than my share of weak willed ones too. I'm just putting out my opinion and from what I've read of most everyone else on this thread, my opinion is more or less lined up with theirs. But hey what do I know? Next to nothing. I posted that knowing there will be those who don't like and there will be those who will think and there will be those who agree.


 
It's funny that you are both a racist AND a sexist. Amazing that your upbringing has been so screwed up that you are willing to brag about your value system here.  You sure don't sound like any leader I want to work for.  And I've worked for some fucked up leaders.

I'd offer you the same advice my brother Firemedic offered, but you'd probably ignore that too.  Good luck.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 9, 2013)

I just don't have the energy.


----------



## AWP (Feb 9, 2013)

Future_Leader said:


> What's next? men wanting to dress like w-....ah damn it.


 
I don't think it's my place to address your other comments, but I can speak with authority on this point. I thought the same thing for years, but then I tried the Body by Victoria Seamless Cheekini Panties.

My mind was blown like Lincoln.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 9, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I don't think it's my place to address your other comments, but I can speak with authority on this point. I thought the same thing for years, but then I tried the Body by Victoria Seamless Cheekini Panties.
> 
> My mind was blown like Lincoln.


Pics or it didn't happen.


----------



## DasBoot (Feb 9, 2013)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Pics or it didn't happen.


I think we should just take his word for it... Lol


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 9, 2013)

DasBoot said:


> I think we should just take his word for it... Lol


Absolutely not.  Believe, then verify.

On a separate but related note, someone needs their avatar changed.


----------



## Future_Leader (Feb 9, 2013)

All posts have been read in response to my previous idiotic comments. Deepest apologies. I'll take the ass chewing, be butt hurt for a while, learn, move on. Again I apologize to everyone, to God, to women everywhere, to JROTC for representing us badly. Won't happen again.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 10, 2013)

Just do us, and yourself a favor, and shut the fuck up before you get buried in the hole you're digging.


----------



## 8654Maine (Feb 10, 2013)

Confucius say to be a future good leader means present quiet learning.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 10, 2013)

Future_Leader said:


> Women I will be brutally honest within the boundaries of the site rules and I don't care if I get multiple hates. To me, women in the elite forces, men's sports, men's anything is pissing me off. It sounds sexist I know but I honestly think that most men are kinda sexist on the inside anyway due to the thousands of years of them being below us and pathetic in most cases. Don't get me wrong, there are some women out there willing to grow some balls and do things a real man would do and I respect those women for it. But you don't hear ppl saying "Come on be a woman" no it is a man. Even in the dang bible, religions/cultures all over the world and in the majority of nature, the male is supposed to be dominant in these areas. But if you're a woman and you wanna act like a man then do me a favor, be prepared to be treated like one because right now a lot of little things are in your favor and some of you just can't appreciate that. No you gotta do EVERYTHING we do. What's next? men wanting to dress like w-....ah damn it.


 


Future_Leader said:


> I said nothing of the sort. I've stated my opinion on women and I admit it may have something to do with my upbringing just as a racist white man is meant to believe that my people (blacks)and other races are inferior to him. I have seen my share of strong willed women but I've seen more than my share of weak willed ones too. I'm just putting out my opinion and from what I've read of most everyone else on this thread, my opinion is more or less lined up with theirs. But hey what do I know? Next to nothing. I posted that knowing there will be those who don't like and there will be those who will think and there will be those who agree.


 


Future_Leader said:


> All posts have been read in response to my previous idiotic comments. Deepest apologies. I'll take the ass chewing, be butt hurt for a while, learn, move on. Again I apologize to everyone, to God, to women everywhere, to JROTC for representing us badly. Won't happen again.


 
As someone who has been assigned to three "elite units" and served overseas in support of most of the rest of them, I can tell you that women most definitely have a place in SOF.  I can also tell you that someone displaying the lack of maturity you have shown so far most likely won't make it in a SOF unit of any stripe.  I know for a fact that you won't make it on this site.  

I'm giving you seven days off the site to reflect on this thread, including why no one has voiced support for your point of view.  If, after your temp ban expires, you ever disparage the service of any military members (male or female), make extraordinarily uninformed posts about subjects you know absolutely nothing about, or do anything else that irritates the site staff or causes a disturbance on the site, I'll change your username to "Futile Leader" and make the ban permanent.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 10, 2013)

Future_Leader said:


> Women I will be brutally honest within the boundaries of the site rules and I don't care if I get multiple hates. To me, women in the elite forces, men's sports, men's anything is pissing me off. It sounds sexist I know but I honestly think that most men are kinda sexist on the inside anyway due to the thousands of years of them being below us and pathetic in most cases. Don't get me wrong, there are some women out there willing to grow some balls and do things a real man would do and I respect those women for it. But you don't hear ppl saying "Come on be a woman" no it is a man. Even in the dang bible, religions/cultures all over the world and in the majority of nature, the male is supposed to be dominant in these areas. But if you're a woman and you wanna act like a man then do me a favor, be prepared to be treated like one because right now a lot of little things are in your favor and some of you just can't appreciate that. No you gotta do EVERYTHING we do. What's next? men wanting to dress like w-....ah damn it.


 
You are a 16 year old JROTC high school student, and you think you can come onto a professional forum like this and insult every woman who has worn the uniform you wish to wear? You think you have an opinion on anything regarding the military, much less who is qualified to serve in that military, when you have not even graduated high school?

Young man, you need to pull your head out of your ignorant ass and wake up to the world around you. The service women (past and present) who fought for the freedom to allow you to form and voice you ignorant beliefs deserve your respect and gratitude. If you cannot educate yourself enough to respect these women, you have no business ever serving in any branch of the armed forces…period.

You owe these service women an apology and you had better check your moral compass before you proceed any further with aspiration of joining the military.

Army Values:

Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage

Do you think you utilized any of the Army values when developing that post?

From your profile:



> Aspiring 1st SFOD-D operator. I plan on joining the Army, becoming a Ranger and then make an attempt to join Delta Selection. This is now my official plan whereas before I was still deciding between Marine Corps and the SEALs. I am currently in practice of living by Army values as my uncle and family is teaching me and ROTC is promoting them. Hooah!


 
I think not.....so to break it down nice and slow for you, STFU - pull your head out of your ignorant ass and show the service women of this country some respect.

ETA: Just saw his response to Fire Medic's post. This kid should not be on this forum, disrespect like that and his disrespect towards the service women on this forum is beyond forgivable. $0.02


----------



## Centermass (Feb 10, 2013)

JAB said:


> You are a 16 year old JROTC high school student, and you think you can come onto a professional forum like this and insult every woman who has worn the uniform you wish to wear?


 
Hey, he can't do that!!!!!!






















Only I can do that.....


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm giving you seven days off the site to reflect on this thread, including why no one has voiced support for your point of view. If, after your temp ban expires, you ever disparage the service of any military members (male or female), make extraordinarily uninformed posts about subjects you know absolutely nothing about, or do anything else that irritates the site staff or causes a disturbance on the site, I'll change your username to "Futile Leader" and make the ban permanent.


 
You know what makes me mad? Going into the Banned Users queue and seeing your name next to theirs. It makes me feel like I've failed the members when the alledged "Good Admin" conducts a banning.

Very sad.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 10, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> You know what makes me mad? Going into the Banned Users queue and seeing your name next to theirs. It makes me feel like I've failed the members when the alledged "Good Admin" conducts a banning.
> 
> Very sad.


 
It's all good brother, I'm got "good" admin, not the "nice" one.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 10, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> As someone who has been assigned to three "elite units" and served overseas in support of most of the rest of them, I can tell you that women most definitely have a place in SOF. I can also tell you that someone displaying the lack of maturity you have shown so far most likely won't make it in a SOF unit of any stripe. I know for a fact that you won't make it on this site.
> 
> I'm giving you seven days off the site to reflect on this thread, including why no one has voiced support for your point of view. If, after your temp ban expires, you ever disparage the service of any military members (male or female), make extraordinarily uninformed posts about subjects you know absolutely nothing about, or do anything else that irritates the site staff or causes a disturbance on the site, I'll change your username to "Futile Leader" and make the ban permanent.


*Stands, Starts Slow Clap*

That was just- beautiful. I'll bet Free gets mad butthurt that you beat him to that thrashing.



Freefalling said:


> You know what makes me mad? Going into the Banned Users queue and seeing your name next to theirs. It makes me feel like I've failed the members when the alledged "Good Admin" conducts a banning.
> 
> Very sad.


Yup.

Seriously though, well played.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 10, 2013)

I need to stop sleeping in on the weekends.


----------



## Muppet (Feb 11, 2013)

Future_Leader said:


> Noted.


 
I don't know if this term is used at any other places but Philly but you sir are a TOOL BAG...

F.M.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 11, 2013)

I think he gets the point. Or doesn't. I'm done talking about it.  He's wasted enough of our time.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Edit: already enough bitching about him, don't want to take away anymore from thread's original topic.


----------



## pardus (Feb 11, 2013)

I think Future_Douche has occupied enough bandwidth on SS.

Please forward all further complaints to his CoC at his JROTC unit.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 11, 2013)

Let us all move forward and bring this conversation back to the issue at hand:

Females in Ranger School.


----------



## Spider6 (Feb 12, 2013)

pardus said:


> I think Future_Douche has occupied enough bandwidth on SS.
> 
> Please forward all further complaints to his CoC at his JROTC unit.


 
LMAO....thank you for that sir....I'm sitting in a very boring class at the moment!


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 12, 2013)

While in Great Lakes, I saw 6-8 females come into the EOD/DIVE prep program.  None of them made it through because the standards were the same for everyone involved.  In each case, their short comings revolved around a lack of upper body strength.


----------



## Locksteady (Feb 12, 2013)

SkrewzLoose said:


> While in Great Lakes, I saw 6-8 females come into the EOD/DIVE prep program. None of them made it through because the standards were the same for everyone involved. In each case, their short comings revolved around a lack of upper body strength.


 When I went through, I knew two females going through the pipeline (EOD), one of whom made it.  When I got to my first command, my LPO's wife turned out to be an EOD Tech.  She was (and still is) a hard little badass who rucks at the same standards as the rest of the team.  She is the physical 'exception' that justifies allowing women to pursue certain SOF in this service branch.


----------



## Spider6 (Feb 12, 2013)

KISS alert: Women meet the same standards men have to currently meet. Then there would be no debate. I believe that should have been step 1 in this "transition". Then there would be no doubt AT ALL as to whether or not she should be there. The problem is, IMHO, that women have never been held to same standards.

http://sofrep.com/16753/truth-about-women-combat/

Jack Murphy writes in the above article that the standards are always and eventually lowered to accomodate a quota. This is now being called "critical mass" by certain leaders. As has been said countless times on this forum and elsewhere there are women that can do it. However they are very, very rare. For example of the 74,000 cadets that passed through ROTC Advance Camp between 1992 and 2011 only 72 female cadet met the minimum male standard on the APFT.

Standardization and uniformity are vital for unit cohesion. With the "drawdown" IMHO we should have started by enforcing the current standard then brought women up to the male standard. Yes we would have less females but we would have the most fit personnel remaining and the espirit de corps and pride in each other would go through the roof!


----------



## Rabid Badger (Feb 12, 2013)

Locksteady said:


> When I went through, I knew two females going through the pipeline (EOD), one of whom made it. When I got to my first command, my LPO's wife turned out to be an EOD Tech. She was (and still is) a hard little badass who rucks at the same standards as the rest of the team. She is the physical 'exception' that justifies allowing women to pursue certain SOF in this service branch.


 
Here's a funny little "item" that goes with allowing women into SOF or combat of any sort.

As of this writing you would be investigated for an EO complaint for calling her a "hard little badass"......huh-uh, oh-no. ...counseling statement, sign here - Block 12, and don't let it happen again. Now you look like a putz in front of the command and she gets promoted, and all for what once was considered a great compliment.

I should know.....I mentioned to someone in a totally different company that a co-worker, yes, in a combat zone, was a "stateside 10". Now, to anyone who knows what a "stateside1" is, a 10 is exactly what it says.....a 10....sign here -----> Block 12. Don't let it happen again..... :wall:

So now the Infantry and SOF have to tiptoe on eggshells around women in the foxhole as well as be prepared to carry the wounded women out because the woman can't carry the wounded man out....makes total sense to me....:wall:

Not a fan.

2c


----------



## Ravage (Feb 12, 2013)

Even if they pass all the PT standards and all, won't it be a problem when they will simply not get Selected by the cadre that runs SFAS/RASP/RS/GP/whatever?
Will it only be a matter of time when they will demand female instructors to do the selecting, to make sure it's all 'equal' ?


----------



## Spider6 (Feb 12, 2013)

Ravage said:


> Even if they pass all the PT standards and all, won't it be a problem when they will simply not get Selected by the cadre that runs SFAS/RASP/RS/GP/whatever?
> Will it only be a matter of time when they will demand female instructors to do the selecting, to make sure it's all 'equal' ?


 
No idea sir. I can say that after a good while in Infantry units and now in a "co-ed" unit, the women here are most emphatically against being assigned to a combat battalion. Australia opened up its combat units to women and so far they haven't had any takers. Short answer there just doesn't seem to be much interest from female servicemembers.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/01/ap-women-want-toughest-fighting-jobs-010513/


----------



## dirtmover (Feb 12, 2013)

Ravage said:


> Even if they pass all the PT standards and all, won't it be a problem when they will simply not get Selected by the cadre that runs SFAS/RASP/RS/GP/whatever?
> Will it only be a matter of time when they will demand female instructors to do the selecting, to make sure it's all 'equal' ?


 
Well being a female DS, I was worse on the female wannabees because I wanted to minimize the sorry ones getting through and expected and demanded more out of females than the males.  When I was training for my school, that cycles females were inspired because on the final graduation PT test we had the best PT scores for females that BDE made us give another one with BDE CSM and Commander observing to make sure we weren't inflating the scores.  Over 60% ( about 30 pvts) of our females passed the male standards for BCT which is 50 points in each event. 

My case in point is no matter what happens we still need to separate the wheat from the chaff.  I say if they want a gound pounder job make it part of the pipeline to be able to pass Ranger school.  I would not take part in any school that was dumbed down just because they allowed females to go, it then minimizes everything that those before us accomplished and begins to undermine any female that makes it. 

Wasn't there a thread about how Ranger school wasn't what it once was, that it is more of a leadership school than anything else.

oh BTW thanks for taking care of "future leader", I was getting quite aggitated reading his horse shit.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 12, 2013)

RB said:


> Here's a funny little "item" that goes with allowing women into SOF or combat of any sort.
> 
> As of this writing you would be investigated for an EO complaint for *calling her a "hard little badass"......*huh-uh, oh-no. ...counseling statement, sign here - Block 12, and don't let it happen again. Now you look like a putz in front of the command and she gets promoted, and all for what once was considered a great compliment.
> 
> ...


 
I once told a WM friend that she had "big brass ovaries".


----------



## dirtmover (Feb 13, 2013)

I think it's kinda funny, because almost everyday somebody makes a comment about me having the dick in the company...if you don't know I'm a girl.  Most women that are in a male dominated mos take that shit in stride.  I take it as a compliment.  It's not a job for everyone but that's why basic training needs to be harder, and I think that maybe how we let people choose their jobs across the Army needs to change, that way we can get the best person for that particular job.


----------



## Spider6 (Feb 13, 2013)

dirtmover said:


> I think it's kinda funny, because almost everyday somebody makes a comment about me having the dick in the company...if you don't know I'm a girl. Most women that are in a male dominated mos take that shit in stride. I take it as a compliment. It's not a job for everyone but that's why basic training needs to be harder, and I think that maybe how we let people choose their jobs across the Army needs to change, that way we can get the best person for that particular job.


 
Couldn't agree more!  I think it was Military Times reported that well over 1,000 Soldiers had been discharged in 2012 for weight problems.  This was part of "attrition" that Gen Odierno talked about in reducing the size of the force.  There is most certainly a need for reform and that should probably start by enforcing the standards we currently have!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 13, 2013)

Pretty much like I said in the “women in combat arms” thread. The only way to put all this to rest is to keep the standards the same and allow them to try. If they can make the cut, nobody has anything to bitch about regarding physically capabilities. However, if they fail, if they cannot meet the standards, the buck stops there. Do I think women in the Infantry or SOF is a good idea? Absolutely not, it is completely absurd and a waste of time and money to study something so stupid. A majority of the males can't pass Infantry OSUT, and what is the attrition rate for Ranger school? Some of the best soldiers in the Army (physically capable, tactically proficient, ect) have failed ranger school. I mean really, we want to throw science out the window and say they are just as capable, okay whatever. This book will never be closed until they get the opportunity, so fuck it let them have at it. Good luck, if they make it, good for them, and if they fail, STFU about it and focus on something that will help the Army.

$0.02


----------



## digrar (Feb 13, 2013)

Spider6 said:


> Australia opened up its combat units to women and so far they haven't had any takers. Short answer there just doesn't seem to be much interest from female servicemembers.
> 
> http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/01/ap-women-want-toughest-fighting-jobs-010513/


 
The wheels are not yet in motion, so you can't use Australian as an example in this scenario just yet.


----------



## Centermass (Feb 14, 2013)




----------



## AWP (Feb 14, 2013)

Spider6 said:


> Couldn't agree more! I think it was Military Times reported that well over 1,000 Soldiers had been discharged in 2012 for weight problems.


 
If they discharged those who are actually overweight, Bagram would see a net reduction of about 10% of its personnel. 1k overweight soldiers is a drop in the bucket and I'd hope the Army doesn't try to drag that out as an example of "upholding the standard."


----------



## Spider6 (Feb 14, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> If they discharged those who are actually overweight, Bagram would see a net reduction of about 10% of its personnel. 1k overweight soldiers is a drop in the bucket and I'd hope the Army doesn't try to drag that out as an example of "upholding the standard."


 
You got that right sir!


----------



## CDG (Feb 15, 2013)

Saw firsthand how the standards are not being applied across the board.  ALO slots are now open to females.  There are currently two females at the TACP Schoolhouse.  A LT who passed the FTX on her second attempt and is in the final block of training, and a Captain who failed the FTX twice.  Now, you are supposed to be eliminated from training if you fail twice at the FTX.  You are washed back once and if you fail again you are gone.  A male LT also recently failed twice.  He is gone.  The female Captain was washed back a second time in order to have a THIRD attempt at the FTX.  Neither of her failures had anything to do with medical reasons, or other extenuating circumstances.  She just failed, but is still being given another opportunity.


----------



## Spider6 (Feb 15, 2013)

CDG said:


> Saw firsthand how the standards are not being applied across the board. ALO slots are now open to females. There are currently two females at the TACP Schoolhouse. A LT who passed the FTX on her second attempt and is in the final block of training, and a Captain who failed the FTX twice. Now, you are supposed to be eliminated from training if you fail twice at the FTX. You are washed back once and if you fail again you are gone. A male LT also recently failed twice. He is gone. The female Captain was washed back a second time in order to have a THIRD attempt at the FTX. Neither of her failures had anything to do with medical reasons, or other extenuating circumstances. She just failed, but is still being given another opportunity.


 
Saw something similiar a few years back at Airborne School. One of the Black Hats pulled a female out of training because she just couldn't correctly perform a PLF. They put her on the back of the truck and she started screaming "I wanna be Airborne sergeant" over and over again until he yelled at her to keep her bearing. She was back the next day.


----------

