# Sec Mabus and Lady SEALs



## Laxmom723 (May 31, 2011)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/30/women-in-the-military-inc_n_868736.html

that door is inching open.
"As a philosophical thing, there shouldn't be anything that's closed off as a career," said Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. And while he is quick to note there is a ban on moving women into combat and infantry jobs, Mabus said more and more women are working with special operations forces in support roles. And he did not rule out the idea that a qualified woman could eventually become an elite commando.
Still, Mabus cautioned that it would take time. "We're going to have to take some careful, well-thought-out steps in that direction," he said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed a similar view late last year, telling North Carolina ROTC students that he believes women will eventually be allowed to serve in special operations jobs. At some point, he said, "there will be a careful step in that direction."


----------



## DA SWO (May 31, 2011)

Eventually it will happen.
How management impliments it will be key, and the women pressing for it to happen will fail selection and cry that it was because they are female.


----------



## Manolito (May 31, 2011)

There are some things in nature denied each sex regarless of how badly we may want them.
1. A male can not carry a child or give birth to a child.
2. A woman can not become a sperm donor.
If we accept these physical differences why can't we accept other limitations and areas of excellence?
If these restrictions did not exist I would have shamed my Mother and had the big white house on the hill.
Together through synergism the two can create a power never possible through individual efforts.
Bill


----------



## LibraryLady (May 31, 2011)

There are some basic fundamental differences between men and women, mostly as a result of what Mano just stated - the basic physiological differences between the sperm donor and the egg carrier - they manifest in the shape/structure of the physical parts of the body and in the psychological makeup of the attendant roles the genders play in our species.  Granted there are the rare individuals who are ideally suited to accomplishing their opposing genders traditional roles, but they are not the norm.

That being said, I think there is a place for women on the front line.  But _only_ because the way the front line as viewed today is different than the front line of a hundred years ago, and even 50 years ago.  I could, but won't, cite/source tons of real world experiences in the GWOT that have hinged upon the successful interactions with the feminine portion of a society; successful due to distaff/distaff communications.  From this outsider and definitely biased viewpoint, I think that's due to the SOF world being willing to try "unconventional" means to accomplish their goals.

LL


----------



## Johca (May 31, 2011)

> There are some things in nature denied each sex regarless of how badly we may want them.





> 1. A male can not carry a child or give birth to a child.
> 2. A woman can not become a sperm donor.
> If we accept these physical differences why can't we accept other limitations and areas of excellence?


A valid point if excellence established a performance standard in an operations environment demarcation.

The medical condition of pregnancy does impact capability more than being a sperm donor. The direct observable capability difference is the must adhere to weight and physical fitness standards during pregnancy. Waiver from requirement to comply with this standard begins moment pregnancy is diagnosed and typically continues for 6 months after child birth.

Indirectly this potentially causes impairment to unit’s combat readiness in that the more pregnant members present in the unit the less trained, qualified and ready to deploy and perform capability the unit has available.

The more specialized small in numbers or leadership unique the duty position such as squad leader in tactical unit , or platoon leader in a tactical unit the greater the lack of capability impairment becomes as a missing for medical reasons leader at the company/squad potentially takes out a squad being led by a trained up and experienced leader. The context being as the numbers of potentially being pregnant leaders when the unplanned for crisis happens the less combat effective and ready the unit is.

There is no shortage of news articles and complaint posted on forums of ladies unable to meet fitness standards after their pregnancy. Thus, getting the trained, qualified and physically fit member back into duty position after a pregnancy has a question mark already pertinent to getting back into fighting level of fitness.

There is also regaining lost trained up and task performance proficiencies as temporary training profile for pregnancy is 15 months. I can’t speak for all special operations career fields but even a 3-level PJ or "J" at first line unit (operational) assignment, the medical condition of being pregnant would effectively remove this individual to be used for any operations for at least 24 months (2-years or half an enlistment).

Bottomline is the smaller in numbers of an all members are highly trained physically demanding career field who are all expected to be available at all times career field, the greater the impairment as the number of females of child bearing age increases in the small tactical unit. The mission impairment has greater unit/team potential impairment consequences as percentages in critical positions such as trainer, squad/team leader/platoon leader increase.

The Coast Guard Helicopter Rescue swimmer is open to females, how many sustain their readiness and qualification to perform such duties for a full enlistment? How many for the duration of two or more consecutive enlistments? The answer to these two questions concern performance reliability and demonstrates excellence is a politically correct hide behind nothing of any substance talking point that uses truths such as sperm donor and child birth as an emotional rather than the being there performance availability and reliability of capability requirement.

BTW front line defines location of an operations environment, not what is being asked to be performed capability requirements. Might as well use stripper bar someplace around any Navy port of call when the fleet-is-in. Stripper bar and fleet-is-in describes an operations environment too, but not necessarily how the capability required to provide and accomplish any skills or tasks proficiently differs from when the fleet is out- at-sea.


----------



## Muppet (May 31, 2011)

SOWT said:


> Eventually it will happen.
> How management impliments it will be key, and the women pressing for it to happen will fail selection and cry that it was because they are female.



G.I. Jane did it. :)

F.M.


----------



## AWP (May 31, 2011)

If women in the military truly wanted equality, truly wanted to be in combat arms, truly wanted to be in SOF then they would start with the most basic and visible measure of (in)equality today in the form of their respective PT tests. All of this talk about women in the Infantry, much less SOF, is nonsense given the different physical standards we see today.

At the risk of drawing hate mail, I don't think a woman in uniform should be paid the same as a man. The standards are different, the pay should reflect that.

So, where's the outpouring of mail to senators and congresscritters calling for an end to the dual PT standards? The blogs devoted to ending dissimilar PT standards? I would love to compare those numbers with the number of letters/ posts saying women should go to BUD/S, SFAS, Ranger BN, etc.


----------



## LibraryLady (May 31, 2011)

Yo, IWP - here's hoping you like the new PT standards IF they ever get implemented... Oh. Wait.  That's just Army - not your beloved Chair Force... :-"

LL


----------



## AWP (May 31, 2011)

LibraryLady said:


> Yo, IWP - here's hoping you like the new PT standards IF they ever get implemented... Oh. Wait. That's just Army - not your beloved Chair Force... :-"
> 
> LL


 
Oh the sarcasm in your post....LOL

I'm serious. Make the standards the same. Until then, the "women in XXXXX" argument is a bunch of garbage. I'm far from a misogynist, but if we're going to talk about equality and preach equality then we need to live the argument. Words are hollow, deeds matter.

What I fear will happen is woman will be allowed into combat arms with a different PT standard than the men and that is setting yourself up for failure on a massive scale.

And I think EVERY service should have their own unisex PT test. Let the Marines do Marine stuff, the Army do their thing, the Navy, AF, etc. One sex, one team, one fight, one standard....I should work in Public Relations. :)


----------



## Johca (Jun 1, 2011)

The fitness standard is the same for both genders in USAF SERE and EOD career fields.  Fitness standard for Coast Guard Helicopter rescue swimmers is the same for both genders.


----------



## AWP (Jun 1, 2011)

Johca said:


> The fitness standard is the same for both genders in USAF SERE and EOD career fields. Fitness standard for Coast Guard Helicopter rescue swimmers is the same for both genders.


 
Good info and good to see. Thank you.


----------



## Seajack (Jun 1, 2011)

I read something about women doing patrols, standing watch, etc. Why are there such exceptions if the guys up top are so adamant about "no women in combat"?


----------



## AWP (Jun 1, 2011)

Seajack said:


> I read something about women doing patrols, standing watch, etc. Why are there such exceptions if the guys up top are so adamant about "no women in combat"?



There's a difference between "combat" and "combat arms." Women are excluded from the latter and not the former though they are allowed to be pilots which I'm sure makes sense to someone, somewhere.


----------



## Dame (Jun 1, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> There's a difference between "combat" and "combat arms." Women are excluded from the latter and not the former though they are allowed to be pilots which I'm sure makes sense to someone, somewhere.


Where the fuck is Cupcake?


----------



## AWP (Jun 1, 2011)

Dame said:


> Where the fuck is Cupcake?


 
What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## Dame (Jun 1, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?



FNULNU. I'm just kinda waiting for her to chime in.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 1, 2011)

Ehhhh, this argument again?


----------



## Chopstick (Jun 1, 2011)

Dame said:


> Where the fuck is Cupcake?


She is probably out killing someone with her bare hands..and then of course she will have to get a manicure cause she will break a nail.  She always does...but Im sure she will be along here eventually. ;)


----------



## Pistol_Pete (Jun 1, 2011)

It’s likely to happen and the powers that allow it to happen will simply degrade the standards for the protected class.  Whether or not one likes to admit it – that is irrelevant to the facts.  Women  do fall in a “protected class”, in hiring, education, government contracts, quota’s for firms and institutions, the military and discrimination.   That’s not misogyny.  That’s not hating on women.  *It’s indisputable FACT.* 


In fact there is only one gender /race combination singled out in our society that does not get these *government mandated *extra perks and advantages.  In any other society it would be called discrimination and oppression.  Here, we simply put our tails between our legs and agree with the forces of Political Correctness.   The truth of it is that bending to Political Correctness is a form of cowardice and capitulation.


Given the trend, I foresee women both commanding and being on SEAL teams, ODA’s, Rangers and the like.  The first step is likely to be Infantry to get the foot solidly in the door. Again – they will be allowed to perform to their “own” set of standards.   Not today, not tomorrow, but slowly over time they keep up the attack. There are already two sets of physical fitness standards so we have already accepted the premise.  Standards which BTW, figure significantly into promotions.  Eventually when the Left consolidates enough political power and places enough people in positions of power in the military, they’ll make it happen by hook, crook, or other means.  None of this stuff happens overnight in one fell swoop.  It is incremental and occurs slowly over the decades.  Constantly pushing at the boundaries’ and then everyone patting themselves on the back and marveling at how “enlightened”, hip, open-minded and cool they have become.

Over time as a nation we have bent to the will of Political Correctness.  Case in point; Illegal immigrants are also in a “special protected class” in light of the fact that if any other American citizen  fraudulently produces a federal document – it’s a felony.  The politicians on the Left have made it so that it’s not a felony if you are an illegal.


To further demonstrate the mindset of the political left – The DNC chairwoman just declared that Republicans are wrong for thinking that illegal immigration is a “crime”.  Yeah, it’s gotten that stupid.  And we are collectively that stupid for allowing things to degrade to this point.  The silly naiveté of it all. The standards just keep being lowered and lowered both in society and in institutions that are a reflection of society.

Again, the cause is because over the decades we have continually retreated in the face of Political Correctness all the while thinking how enlightened we are for doing so.  Study Communism and hard-left ideology in depth.  They are laughing up their sleeves and much of what they predicted in their long term strategies are “chicken’s coming home to roost.”

DADT went down in defeat –  bending to PC.   Not hating on gays, just stating the facts.  I do regard gay activism as a predominantly Left political movement, which politically it is. There are countless examples but these demonstrate that over time, as the nation continues to yield to PC and is more concerned with sensitivities than maintaining the standards, our national standards are slowly disintegrating.   Now that they have achieved this, it’s the next stepping stone to legitimize gay marriage in all 50 states. Not overnight, but slowly over time as we become more "enlightened".  Meanwhile the no-nonsense Chinese are undergoing a MASSIVE military build up that has "government officials alarmed"...


Many of us noted the start of a new push of Political Correctness in the military under Clinton.  I find it astounding how much more so it seems to have become since then.  Sensitivities never won a single battle.  Fighting men always have.  Just keep lowering the standards America. Must be why other nations own us in student scores in math and science nowadays - and the trend does not seem to be improving. We lowered the standards on what we will accept from teacher performance and we lowered the standards for students. Beware the lesson of the empires that thought they were invincible and just kept lowering their standards.


----------



## LibraryLady (Jun 1, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> ... What I fear will happen is woman will be allowed into combat arms with a different PT standard than the men and that is setting yourself up for failure on a massive scale...



This is what I fear also.

Guess I didn't state it earlier... but I'm all for equality in the PT standards - but I also feel like there should be a basic standard for all with more rigorous standards for certain jobs.

LL


----------



## Johca (Jun 1, 2011)

LibraryLady said:


> - but I also feel like there should be a basic standard for all with more rigorous standards for certain jobs.


Very difficult to implement a basic core fitness ability standard accross several different job classifications and duty positions as the typical skills and tasks performed in the typical operations environment determine the level of fitness to do the job. 

In actuality how fast and far a person can run or the number of calisthenics that can be done is a poor direct indicator of body characteristics having capability to do task and skills in the operations/mission environment.  Such job/duty specific standards are actually the last nail in the unable to perform to standards coffin or the first assessment showing adequate fitness exists to begin the assessment individual is regaining an operational level of fitness as the starting point of being fit enough to do proficiency training and requalification training.



> COMDINST M6200.1A, chapter 4, Physical Fitness Program:
> 
> Coast Guard personnel have a duty to be operationally ready to respond to situations affecting public safety and/or national security. A physically fit member has a greater chance of successfully coping with physical requirements and higher stress levels placed upon them in operational and emergency situations. Although the Coast Guard does not currently require mandatory physical fitness testing for all members, Command and individual responsibilities with respect to physical fitness do exist and are covered in this chapter. Specific duty assignments including BTM, BO, LEDET, TACLET, MSST, MSRT, boat crew, and rescue swimmers do have mandatory physical fitness requirements not covered here.






> The Physical Training Exam Requirements for performing Helicopter Rescue Swimmer duties (no gender differences and test is a monthly requirement) ref http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/3000-3999/CIM_3710_4C.pdf an interesting read to get an understanding of specific duty asignment fitness requirements:





> Shoulder Width Push-ups
> 50 (2-minute time limit)
> Sit-ups
> 60 (2-minute time limit)
> ...


----------



## Rapid (Jun 1, 2011)

Those requirements seem remarkably low (though of course you should never settle for just scraping by). I suppose a Rescue Swimmer's duties are a bit far off from the PJs, but still. When 5 pull ups is all that's required, the fact that it's "gender equal" doesn't really seem that special.


----------



## Johca (Jun 1, 2011)

Rapid said:


> When 5 pull ups is all that's required, the fact that it's "gender equal" doesn't really seem that special.


I recommended reading the document (page 3.5 and subsequent) as there are other performance activities they must do monthly that may change your mind. Also notice chin-up and pull-up requirement. One is palm towards and the other is palm away. Try doing five of each and let me know how you do. Not saying its hard, but for both genders it is a fair standard for the operations environment and job they are expected to do.


----------



## Johca (Jun 1, 2011)

BTW the objective of operational fitness is not how high you can set the standard just because you can for example cause a gender discriminator, but rather what is the reasonable fitness standard that establishes safety by reducing injury risks in training and represents reasoned survivability in the operations environment. The fitness standard cannot by itself do this because the job tasks of for instance saving somebodies life is not having the person being rescued count how many push-ups you can do.

What the fitness standard does establish is the minimum level of fitness capability exists that reduces susceptibility to injury and is the minimal fitness for core task sets and skill performance all members of the classification (MOS, AFSC, NEC/Rate) must have a level of proficiency in doing.

Actual occupation fitness is actually demonstrated in the frequent assessment performance of core task sets and skill performance. A lack of required occupation fitness is often noticed by team members and supervisors long before a documented fitness test failure. The fitness test is the last documentation needed to document an individual’s lack of operations suitability or the first documentation showing fitness is improving towards having operations suitability.

Operational Suitability is the degree to which a person can be placed in the operations environment and sustain satisfactory (for PJs it would be better described as survivability) performance with consideration given to interoperability, reliability, wartime usage rates, maintainability, environmental, safety and occupational health, human factors, manpower availability and training requirements.

To see how Physical Ability and Stamina Test (PJ physical fitness test) is integrated into and augments Operational Suitability standards read http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI16-1202V2.pdf particularly chapters 3 and chapter 4.

This might also be an interesting read http://www.alaska.net/~jcassidy/pdf_files/Functional%20Fitness.pdf


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 2, 2011)

You're right, someone being rescued doesn't count your pushups.

They do count your upper body and core strength single rep lift max  into the firemans/buddy carry as a pass or fail event.
They do count your endurance of a skedco drag over unknown terrain for unknown distance...etc, etc etc.

you know this, i know this.

You have to set a minimum bar that all must pass to be able to play... sorta like the minimum height at disneyland. You either can ride, or you're stuck in the teacups.

Segregating physical requirements solely by MOS would introduce a nutroll, the proportions of which would exceed the diameter of Jupiter.  There needs to be a higher minimum standard anyway overall simply because congrats:

Non-linear battlefield.
You'll have to get to that FOB somehow, and it probably means a convoy or a bird... either of which can get shot up or shot down.  Hey, that infantryman who's part of convoy security needs someone to come with him flanking, you're there with that M4 in your hand... but you're an intel dude who only needed to do 2 miles in 2 decades and a pushup for extra credit... but sarge, 670-1 said pt was optional for 69 hotels...

This is why the RPAT, and the new PT test that's supposed to be coming out, is fucking awesome. Combined scored event and physical capability assessment rolled up into one. Only thing they need to do is toss a rifle qualification in at the end with targets from 0-300m... the 0 meter target you bayonet then buttstroke.


----------



## Etype (Jun 2, 2011)

In the Army specifically, I'd like to see one scale for PT. Everyone should be graded on the same scale, but given different standards based on age and sex- not given a different scale based on age and sex. This way, soldiers can be compared directly to another based on their score. A 37 year old female getting a 300 and me at 26 years old getting a 300 are two different things. Lets compare:
I have to do 80 sit ups, she has to do 76.
I have to do 75 push ups, she has to do 40.
I have to run 2 miles in 13:00, she has 17 minutes.
On paper, we would be considered equal, however, anyone who's not a neo-sexist (aka- a blind feminist) and has half a clue about how the PT test grading scale works knows that is not the case.

There are women that can do pushups, women that can do situps, some who can run, some who can shoot, and some can ruck- but there are very few that can do all of these things to any type of standard; just as there are men who can knit, men who can tolerate the crying of babies, and men who can find other men attractive- if these apply to said individual, it's a rare and unnatural case.

Here in the natural world, my wife takes care of my kids because I don't have the patience to do so, she cooks because she enjoys, and cleans the house because she has an eye for where the throw pillows should go. I work hard and support the family because I have the strength and stamina to endure hard work, I change the oil/brakes/light bulbs/air filters, mow the lawn, take out the trash, etc. because women shouldn't have to lift heavy loads, get blisters, bust their knuckles, etc. or any other thing that doesn't hurt a real man if she doesn't have to.

I'm done.


----------



## is friday (Jun 2, 2011)

There was an article in the Marine Corps Times about this and how some women thought "they can do it". While I'm sure that a few women actually can be decent grunts, they're an exception. If you put 50 women straight out of boot into an 03xx MOS and 50 men into an 03xx--you're going to get a better success rate in training from the latter group. This doesn't even include all the psychological issues with combat and how women would adversely affect a combat unit.


----------



## Rapid (Jun 2, 2011)

Johca said:


> I recommended reading the document (page 3.5 and subsequent) as there are other performance activities they must do monthly that may change your mind. Also notice chin-up and pull-up requirement. One is palm towards and the other is palm away. Try doing five of each and let me know how you do. Not saying its hard, but for both genders it is a fair standard for the operations environment and job they are expected to do.



I know what chin ups and pull ups are. I still think that isn't much (especially the chin ups, which I didn't even feel was worth mentioning). Firefighters in Paris are recommended to do at least fifteen _pull ups_, at initial selection, to be even considered to pass on to the next stages. They also pass a whole host of other assessments, including aquatic tests, which are in another league compared to the rescue swimmers' standards. Granted, the firefighters of Paris are an elite corps, and are part of the military, but so are the rescue swimmers (at least in regards to "part of the military"). Firefighters' PT standards go up after initial selection, too.

The female firefighters pass the same tests too, and for those reasons there aren't many of them. So perhaps the standards for rescue swimmers are lower because they want more women, while still claiming that they have "gender-equal" tests? It might also be because rescue swimmers don't need to be as physically fit (all around) as elite firefighters, due to their jobs being quite different (more focused on swimming-based tasks, I guess). In that case though, citing them as an example of a unit which uses "gender-equal tests" is surely a poor choice when we're talking about elite forces (in which you do need to be very fit, all around).


----------



## dknob (Jun 2, 2011)

After joining a Crossfit gym.. I have realized there are women out there that can physically keep up in a SOF unit. 

But what about the other factors?

What if she is good looking? A good looking woman in a den of Alpha males. Because there will ALWAYS be a tremendous difference in ratio between Males and Females maybe 1 to 100? Some guy likes the chick, one guy bangs her, she bangs another guy a few months down the road and it creates drama. Even if there is no banging going on, sexually and female deprived guys will grow more "Attached" to the woman of the platoon.

As you said, a presence of a woman creates other serious problems and not just an issue of physical fitness.


----------



## Gypsy (Jun 2, 2011)

Etype said:


> In the Army specifically, I'd like to see one scale for PT. Everyone should be graded on the same scale, but given different standards based on age and sex- not given a different scale based on age and sex. This way, soldiers can be compared directly to another based on their score. A 37 year old female getting a 300 and me at 26 years old getting a 300 are two different things. Lets compare:
> I have to do 80 sit ups, she has to do 76.
> I have to do 75 push ups, she has to do 40.
> I have to run 2 miles in 13:00, she has 17 minutes.
> On paper, we would be considered equal, however, anyone who's not a neo-sexist (aka- a blind feminist) and has half a clue about how the PT test grading scale works knows that is not the case.



IMO you're not equal on paper or otherwise.  When a female soldier can do what you can do in the time YOU are alloted...then you may be equal.  Key word is still *may*...


----------



## Servimus (Jun 2, 2011)

Rapid said:


> The female firefighters pass the same tests too, and for those reasons there aren't many of them.


My father has worked for Miami-Dade Fire Rescue for years now, and while he's worked with several women (they're being hired more and more) and has had nothing but good words, there have been issues with women not keeping up with fitness. Getting a 300 lb man on a stretcher is difficult when the woman on the rescue you're working with has gotten accustomed to not exercising. Carrying fire hose if they're on a truck and responding to a fire, etc.

It's something that he hasn't encountered often, but it's still a problem.


----------



## Pistol_Pete (Jun 2, 2011)

dknob said:


> After joining a Crossfit gym.. I have realized there are women out there that can physically keep up in a SOF unit.
> 
> But what about the other factors?
> 
> ...



Can they hump a ruck and carry a man a significant distance and keep up the pace? Or is it the other way around? I'm "confused" :cool: (jk, damnit!)

Seriously though, the only true test IMO is doing it exactly the way SOF teams do it, and they do it to a level that most men can't even keep up with. Damn near killed a lot of us just doing routine day to day training. Rough terrain, carrying tremendous loads, weeks on end living in the dirt. Or how about in a hole as part of a sniper/recon team with another dude or two. Sounds just "peachy".

I agree with you, there are a lot of factors that people don't think of let alone have a clue about as they cast their resentment from their Ivory Towers and accuse SOF of being all sorts of non-Politically Correct things. I've heard every accusation leveled at SOF from the typical hater / "resenter" crowd. We need to learn that sometimes the best adage is; "if it ain't broke don't fix it" - at least in the military, if not as an entire nation.


----------



## Johca (Jun 2, 2011)

Rapid said:


> …citing them as an example of a unit which uses "gender-equal tests" is surely a poor choice when we're talking about elite forces (in which you do need to be very fit, all around).


The minimum fitness standard of the Coast Guard Helicopter Rescue Swimmer Program is certainly influenced by the policy decision of giving as much opportunity for women to do these duties if they so desire.

However it is exactly because it is a special duty not required to hold and perform duties of the Aviation Survival Technicians enlisted job classification for a career combined with duty positions for performing such duties numbering at about 360 that makes it an excellent comparison choice.   Elite has many perspectives, most often it means simply highly trained.  The capability connected to elite changes as you pointed out from occupation to occupation and from organization to organization. Elite also changes in a career progression perspective as promotion generally means (especially in the commissioned world) more rear element HQ staff and support duties and less direct action tactical being there.




> http://www.gocoastguard.com/get-the-answers/faqs#What is a rescue swimmer and how do I become one?





> What is a rescue swimmer and how do I become one?
> 
> They are a small group within the U.S. Coast Guard, only about 300 of them service-wide. To join their ranks, candidates must endure physical and mental challenges that rival those facing any potential Army Ranger, Navy SEAL, or Air Force Pararescueman.
> 
> ...




A side-by-side gender comparison of all who sustain qualifications does nothing as it will always result in finding a few women can be trained and qualified to perform duties at the initial entry level operations capability.  The struggle to keep up is a valid capability point, but it is not any gender’s fitness test failure that documents the impact to unit or team capability, but rather the inability to sustain a level and develop a higher level of unit/team operations capability.

When I introduced Coast Guard Helicopter Rescue Swimmer program and operations as my comparison choice I posed two questions.




> The Coast Guard Helicopter Rescue swimmer is open to females, how many sustain their readiness and qualification to perform such duties for a full enlistment? How many for the duration of two or more consecutive enlistments?


These two question were aimed directly at the serviceability (continued career operations availability) of the initial entry level operations capability.

This is immediately directly aimed at full operational capability or unit’s combat readiness.  In general this means the unit maintains a capability and has the ability to immediately employ it.  A too low of a fitness standard and the unit has both males and females struggling to keep-up.  A too high of a standard results in a pointless manpower availability shortage.

A gender neutral fitness standard lacking purpose of lowering risk of performing core skill tasks in all expected operations environment is a pointless politically correct endeavor. It results in ever increasing percentages of members (both genders) in the unit/team struggling to keep-up and causes impairment of the unit’s/team’s full operational capability.  Eventually the unit’s/team’s operational capability is so compromised it lacks availability and usability.  

The Coast Guard Helicopter Rescue Swimmer fitness standard meets the operations and manpower costs acceptable to the UC Coast Guard.  Helicopter Rescue swimmers promotions and career progression is as an AST as this is their enlisted job classification.  The US Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer does not provide a small unit/team tactical capability and lacks a force development need for any level of small tactical unit leadership. The unfit helicopter rescue swimmer remains a fully trained interchangeable Aviation Survival Technicians that perform duties of inspecting and repairing equipment. 

Many military occupations that are considered special operations are specific occupations with possible exception of duty assignment to 75th Ranger Regiment into a Ranger coded manpower position.  As far as I know there is no specific Ranger MOS as there is for Special Forces (18 series).  However generally all exist to execute missions organized at some level as a small tactical unit/team.  This brings with it the force development requirement to build new/replacement competent leaders, trainers, and instructors.   Thus a gender neutral fitness standard that allows increasing numbers of members unable to sustain personal mission readiness and availability (pregnancy, frequent illness, and frequent injury) is a mission reliability and availability problem (The probability that the small tactical unit is available and will perform its required mission-critical functions for the duration of a specified critical or crisis mission needing to be accomplished).

Thus:



> Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed a similar view late last year, telling North Carolina ROTC students that he believes women will eventually be allowed to serve in special operations jobs. At some point, he said, *"there will be a careful step in that direction."*


It will be an operations risk analysis and manpower costs analysis decision with some political appeasement of convenience included and not a minimum fitness level standard to do the job decision.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 4, 2011)

You show me a group of women who can pick up my limp 200lb body(without kit, 270+ with kit) alone without any help and carry me 100+m I will say they are good to go. I haven't seen one in the army, ever.


----------



## Centermass (Jun 5, 2011)

Too lazy to retype all this, so I just reposted it. Just my .02 fwiw.

Put together a course thats fair and realistic. PT, Marksmanship, Obstacle Course, 20 mile Road March, 15km Forced March (50lb ruck minimum for both) Water Confidence Course, Drownproofing, Hand 2 Hand Combatives, Assault Course, Land Navigation, Shoot House, CQB Drills, Immediate Action Drills, Stress shoot, Cas Evac (Of men 160 lbs and more) No showers, no washers, dryers, clean uniforms, clean underwear, access to feminine hygiene products, and all this without the variables of the desert heat (100 degrees plus) arctic (-50 degrees or more) or a jungle environment, 100% humidity, constant rain, 99 degree heat, sweating your butt off, just getting downright filthy and nasty, still carrying your combat load just for starters and see how they fair.

Then, there are the actual realities of war that can't be replicated in any degree, that if they've never been there, they wouldn't understand it or grasp the reality of such. Most people in general don't know or have a fucking concept as to what a bullet does to the human body. Can you look your adversary in the eye and actually pull the trigger without hesitation at the moment of truth? The grotesque reality of what combat and war is really like, up close and personal is what they say they want, but in fact, do they really? Be careful what you truly wish for, because you may just damn well get it handed to you in spades.

There have been these panels and those who are the target audience, who sit there, discuss equality, and say there are those who have what it takes. I'd say have at it, except for the fact they would wind up being a burden, security risk and in a perfect position to jeopardize the lives of men capable of doing what they have no business of doing or somewhere they were never meant to be in the first place. And rather than have this little experiment costing the lives of others for no reason, and that includes getting themselves into a position of compromise on the battlefield and 30 guys lose their own lives in the process of bailing them out, trying to rescue them, I would say hopefully, there are those out there who know better (GROUND Combat experience in a congressional seat) and are in a better position than I am, to make the right call.

The fact is there are the physical realities to all this and then, even more-so in my book, the mental aspects of which most of them, in the end, don't have a clue about what it is in real life, up close and personal. See how much a ruck or kit really weighs when you're being fired upon and someone is trying to kill you, 50 lbs will seem like 200. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not saying any of this to put anyone down, it is what it is.

On the heels of DADT being repealed, I knew this was coming next.

This is not someone who believes women should be barefoot, pregnant, subserviant or neanderthal in their thinking either. Women have always had their place in the Military and always will. They have made great sacrifices and significant contributions to its success.

The front lines of intense, all out, hell on earth combat, in combat arms, let alone SOF type units however, ain't it.


----------



## Unstoppable (Mar 9, 2012)

Its taken the bigwigs this long to "allow women in combat" or whatever BS they're saying(as though they weren't already in combat unofficially anyway), I'd imagine it'd take quite a few more years for there to be women SEALS.


----------



## Unstoppable (Mar 9, 2012)

If such a thing were to occur that is.


----------



## reed11b (Mar 10, 2012)

nevermind...
Reed


----------



## AWP (Mar 10, 2012)

Nice necrothreading...


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 10, 2012)

Johca said:


> A valid point if excellence established a performance standard in an operations environment demarcation.
> 
> ...


 
Good post.


----------



## LibraryLady (Mar 10, 2012)

Unstoppable said:


> Its taken the bigwigs this long to "allow women in combat" or whatever BS they're saying(as though they weren't already in combat unofficially anyway), I'd imagine it'd take quite a few more years for there to be women SEALS.





Unstoppable said:


> If such a thing were to occur that is.


 
So speaks the wisdom of youth and inexperience.

LL


----------



## Unstoppable (Mar 12, 2012)

LibraryLady said:


> So speaks the wisdom of youth and inexperience.
> 
> LL


 Well fair enough, in the way of SOF I have no idea about how that will progress and for all intents I'll admit I was talking out of my ass. As for the posts about women in combat I happen to have a family member who ended up running convoys through Irish in Baghdad, then she ran throughout the rest of Iraq with 19D. So mentally I think (again speaking out of my league here) that there are quite a few women who can keep up in combat, but as with everything its person to person. Physically I don't have any info for me to make a judgement but for anyone with doubts about dealing with the stress mentally it can and has been done. I'll take whatever flak for those statements but I stand behind what I said.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 12, 2012)

Unstoppable said:


> Well fair enough, in the way of SOF I have no idea about how that will progress and for all intents I'll admit I was talking out of my ass. As for the posts about women in combat I happen to have a family member who ended up running convoys through Irish in Baghdad, then she ran throughout the rest of Iraq with 19D. So mentally I think (again speaking out of my league here) that there are quite a few women who can keep up in combat, but as with everything its person to person. Physically I don't have any info for me to make a judgement but for anyone with doubts about dealing with the stress mentally it can and has been done. I'll take whatever flak for those statements but I stand behind what I said.


Driving a truck is one thing, humping your body wieght plus is another.
Women are serving well, but I don't want positions opened up so we can prove how progressive our society is.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 12, 2012)

SOWT said:


> Driving a truck is one thing, humping your body wieght plus is another.
> Women are serving well, but I don't want positions opened up so we can prove how progressive our society is.



If a woman can pick me up and carry me to cover (with both of us in kit) she meets my standard... We have women in the SOCM course as students now, they have to meet the male PT standard, and have to pick up and move with their male counterparts. I think 1 female has passed so far. Out of maybe 20 or so that have tried.


----------



## LibraryLady (Mar 12, 2012)

Unstoppable said:


> ... blah blah blah...


 
You have no experience.  You_ are_ talking out your ass.  Best to quit talking at all.  We are not interested in your third hand opinions.  Just because you have a family member of the female variety who's been in the sandbox and furthermore, outside the wire in said sandbox does NOT equate to you personally have any sort of experience.  Until you've had that same sand grinding in an open sore on your gonads for 3 days straight with no hope of ever getting it cleaned, SHUT UP!

Listen to the previous two posters, cback and SOWT.  This is a board composed primarily of and about a small segment of the military world, Special Operations.  Their world is NOT about running convoys.  There are places in the military for women in general and some rather special places where a very few might be useful.  

Consider this.  How many men actually make it through the Q Course, Ranger School, the Green Platoon, Hell Week, Recon School, etc..?
They are the elite of the elite, their physical and mental toughness has been tested by a common standard in those schools.  Why on earth would they want to risk their lives with a team mate who hasn't been tested to those same standards?  If a woman can manage to pass those same standards then I'm all for it.  Remember, we're talking the Special Operations world, not the general military.  Now in the general military, there may come a time when Joe/Jane Snuffy, the admin clerk/dishwasher/mechanic is called upon to rise far above to accomplish the impossible and they do.  (and remember history is littered with ones who don't)  THAT is NOT the same.  I don't expect Joe/Jane to be trained/prepared to do what the men of the SO world train for and prepare to do.  Not everyone can do what they do - and I respect them for that.  Until you've done what they've done, you have no clue.

LL


----------



## AWP (Mar 12, 2012)

Unstoppable said:


> (again speaking out of my league here)...Physically I don't have any info for me to make a judgement...


 
Protip: If this were a philosophy class you'd be fine, sports or politics and you'd be fine, but some topics require experience not second hand or anecdotal information.


----------



## Unstoppable (Mar 12, 2012)

Fair enough guys, shutting up now


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Mar 12, 2012)

That's twice LL has been called a dude in the last few days!


----------



## LibraryLady (Mar 12, 2012)

Sigh... counter to what most peeps think, I AM just a little cognizant of the modren hip world, and I DO know that the younger generation has taken to using the words, "dude" and "guy/s"  as generic non-gender specific terms.  I think I'm fighting a losing battle in the proliferation of such an atrocity.  There is something to be said for the specificity and formality of "old-fashioned" words.  

LL


----------



## AWP (Mar 12, 2012)

LibraryLady said:


> Sigh... counter to what most peeps think, I AM just a little cognizant of the modren hip world, and I DO know that the younger generation has taken to using the words, "dude" and "guy/s" as generic non-gender specific terms. I think I'm fighting a losing battle in the proliferation of such an atrocity. There is something to be said for the specificity and formality of "old-fashioned" words.
> 
> LL


 
Dude, let it go, man.


----------



## LibraryLady (Mar 12, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Dude, let it go, man.


 
Changing title from Crusty Old Female Vet to Crotchedty Old Female Vet...

LL


----------



## Etype (Mar 12, 2012)

Unstoppable said:


> I happen to have a family member who ended up running convoys through Irish in Baghdad, then she ran throughout the rest of Iraq with 19D.


 
I'm so tired of hearing this BS line being repeated on the news, by politicians, and now by you.  Driving in a convoy is not "combat".  Convoy operations are not deliberate operations meant to kill or capture the enemy.  

The military used to differentiate (and not very long ago, <5 years) between _combat _patrols, _reconnaissance _patrols, and everything else.  Up until FM 3-21.8 superseded FM 7-8, only ambushes and raids were _combat _patrols.  Now, it's all combat.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 12, 2012)

cback0220 said:


> If a woman can pick me up and carry me to cover (with both of us in kit) she meets my standard... ~snip~ while still looking somewhat like a woman.


 

Fixed it for you, Ugly Betty who use to beat up on her brothers and looks like she has a 5:00pm shadow need not apply.




LibraryLady said:


> You have no experience. You_ are_ talking out your ass. Best to quit talking at all. We are not interested in your third hand opinions. Just because you have a family member of the female variety who's been in the sandbox and furthermore, outside the wire in said sandbox does NOT equate to you personally have any sort of experience. Until you've had that same sand grinding in an open sore on your gonads for 3 days straight with no hope of ever getting it cleaned, SHUT UP!
> 
> 
> LL


 

Well said LL! 



Etype said:


> I'm so tired of hearing this BS line being repeated on the news, by politicians, and now by you. Driving in a convoy is not "combat". Convoy operations are not deliberate operations meant to kill or capture the enemy.
> 
> As someone who has been deployed on both mission, light Infantry in Baghdad 04-05 and Convoy Security in Anbar 08-09, I fully agree with Etype. Riding down the road with a once in a while IED, harrassing fire is a far cry from going into a denied area and having to hunt down the enemy to capture or kill them. Different like, I could have slept my whole last deployment......wait I think I may have.......yeah whatever. They are not even remotely close to the same thing.
> 
> The military used to differentiate (and not very long ago, <5 years) between _combat _patrols, _reconnaissance _patrols, and everything else. Up until FM 3-21.8 superseded FM 7-8, only ambushes and raids were _combat _patrols. Now, it's all combat.


 
Spot on Etype, I get about sick and tired of people claiming heroic fairytales of world coming to an end gunfights, while they were pushing fule trucks around in some wild-wild-west area of Iraq. "Combat" is a two way gunfight where you are shooting and moving on the enemy, or the enemy is doing the same to you (Ambushing the enemy, the enemy ambushing you, deny and disrupt patrols, raiding the enemy, etc). That is not the same as laying down some fire and hitting a gas peddal trying to get out of the A/O...


----------

