# "Equal" Rights or "Special Rights" for Women?



## Marauder06 (Aug 24, 2015)

I posting this here in the hopes that it will spur useful conversation and not quickly go off the rails like the thread where I was originally going to post this.

We hear a lot of making things equal for women in the military.  I, like most of the people I know, fully support this idea.  But doesn't equal mean "equal?"  What about the "special" privileges women are allowed simply based on their gender, that men are denied?  PT standards, personal grooming, clothing options, etc.

Is this kind of discussion even useful, or is it just whining on the part of men, who need to "suck it up?"

full article here




> "Let's stop making things "special" and start making things "equal."  So while we’re working towards true equality for women in our Army, let’s make things equal for men, too."


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 24, 2015)

Maybe not across all departments, but in the fire service, there's pretty reliably one single standard.

The hoses weigh what they weigh. The ladders are all the same length. We all had the same physical standards and tasks to complete in order to be qualified for our positions. Doesn't matter where your dangles lie.  Lightest women had to recover me on a denver drill, as a prime example of doing full on worst case scenario. A Denver Drill is basically a rescue through a shoulder width window with about 7ft of space lengthwise, shoulder width otherwise, and a downed firefighter. It's not easy by any means, but it's accomplishable. It sucks even when you're all same size. 2 150 lb bad ass ladies did that. They also had to do full building recovery of me (At the time, I was the biggest guy in the department so in lieu of a dummy, we literally trained on worst case scenario rescue/mayday drills.) to include below grade. 

If anything, I had it easier because I had the vast reserves of Ranger/Sasquatch strength to call upon.

I fully support a single standard for a job. I think that there should be specific unit requirements laid out by DA, in order to maintain unit cohesion. Example being Ranger Regiment. Doesn't matter your MOS, there's the Ranger standard within the Regiment. Mostly because there's only..... 4? Maybe 5 now? noncombatants IN Regiment, and that's the Chaplains. At least in the incipient GWOT kickoff, everyone had a combat job. Don't need to detail them all, but everyone got their hands dirty in one way or another. 

That standard cohesion means that as a rule, while you might not be able to fully swap positions between a Cook and an Infantryman (Unless the cook's Tabbed, in which case he's got more 11B in him than a private out of 11 series OSUT honestly), you know they'll be able to hang and with RASP, everyone will have a minimum standard of training as well. 

Doing the same for all of the 101st, 82nd, etc, as far as it can go with Line vs Support vs CSS, would honestly improve the force as a whole. You'd be able to draw the line in the sand and either reclass or just remove those that didn't meet the standard. One thing you would also have to do is address promotion competition as well as manning through an actual increase in MOS'es through identifiers.  A "soft-skill" in Ranger Regiment, for example, shouldn't be competing against full rear-gear soft-skills in say a FSB, for promotions, because they're not held to the same standard. The points system and requirements would need to be adjusted off of those identifiers, just like it's off MOS now.  

Implementation of the standards would have to hit army-wide at the same time, and "offer" an Up route if people qualify for a higher (more direct role unit) position, and a regressive role for those that don't meet the standards.  Physical would be the big one, but you could implement further standards as far as requirements for PULHES and line scores on the ASVAB at a later date.

It's not to say you want all the fat idiots in the rear at all.... but for those who are most likely to be shooting or punching the enemy in the face, it sure would be nice to put your best foot forward in that regard.

I also think that there should be a larger framework for retention. Especially those that self-identify that they have problems and work towards trying to rectify to the best of their ability. Plenty of roles in the Army, let alone other services, are non-deployable and would be fine places for those that wanted to continue to serve, either enroute to full capability or in a redirection of skill and drive.  That's another discussion though.


----------



## AWP (Aug 24, 2015)

Any talk of equality in the military is utter nonsense so long as PT tests are divided across gender and age.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 24, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Any talk of equality in the military is utter nonsense so long as PT tests are divided across gender and age.


Agree and disagree.
Agree that the sexes need to have a standard, would like to disagree on the age thing, but I really believe we could reduce the number of age categories if their was a single standard fo all sexes.

I am still trying to figure what the PT test measures?

On my last team assignment I had a partially torn bicep tendon, two small tears in the rotator cup and a broken shoulder bone that didn't heal properly (all 3 fixed on my last surgery).  I couldn't pass the pull-up/chin-up portion of the PT test, and I slowed down on my run.

Yet I didn't have a problem slipping a T-10, and could ruck faster/farther than 90% of the unit (same with shooting).

So I was routinely a marginal PT performer, did that make me combat ineffective?   don't think so.

Come up with a PT standard that reflects what is needed, I favor ruck marches, gear carries, etc.  Do something that reflects your operating environment, and like @Ranger Psych  said, a MOS standard may be better than a one size fits all.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 28, 2015)

What happens when the non-combat arms softies are cross leveled into infantry, armor, etc units running/gunning? 

If it's equality they want then give it to them, but selective service comes along with that, one PT standard - the male one - comes along with it... The enemy doesn't care whether men or women are in their sights.

SOF is completely different.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 9, 2015)

Hoping it is okay to post this article in this thread - interesting to me that Daily Mail seems to keep better tabs on what is happening in the U.S. Military than our own press.  Links to both Daily Mail and Washington Post.  I did not even know this experiment was taking place.  It began with a  four-month work-up, at Camp Lejeune, followed by a five month simulated deployment to the Mojave Desert in Twentynine Palms.  Certain elements of the task force also participated in training at Camp Pendleton, and mountain warfare in Bridgeport, Calif. 

_Over the past nine months, the Marine Corps tested a gender-integrated task force in both Twentynine Palms, Calif. and Camp Lejeune, N.C. in an attempt to gauge what the Corps might look like with women in combat roles.

According to a recent report in the Marine Corps Times, only a small number of women were left by the experiment’s conclusion — two of the roughly two dozen who started — mostly in part because of the physical and mental stress that comes with combat roles. Both the men and women in the task force also reported a breakdown in unit cohesion with some voicing  a perceived unequal treatment from their peers._

Marine Corps’ test out women in combat roles but many drop out

Marine Corps’ women-in-combat experiment gets mixed results


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 9, 2015)

Read that this morning. Seems like a disaster is on its way


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 9, 2015)

Based only on what I have been able to read online, it certainly seems like the Corps has worked hard to give the perception that they have pro-actively gone out of their way to test current Women Marines against the standards for both officers and enlisted in combat roles.  I was not surprised to read that fraternization was an issue, or the belief that special treatment happened - Unlike what the Rangers went thru, I did not see anything in the articles I could find on this experiment, where there were female monitors to watch and ask questions about what they were seeing the Marines doing.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 10, 2015)

When you water down the whiskey, you don't get more whiskey...you get more water.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 12, 2015)

Gee, color me shocked - SecNav "rejects" report from Marine Corps claiming that male-only units out performed integrated units.   

Navy chief rejects report showing female Marines less capable


----------



## Hillclimb (Sep 12, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Gee, color me shocked - SecNav "rejects" report from Marine Corps claiming that male-only units out performed integrated units.
> 
> Navy chief rejects report showing female Marines less capable



That seems to be the trend.

"Here's the results sir"

"Your test and results are wrong. They don't match my endstate."


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 12, 2015)

"When you start out with that mindset, you're almost presupposing the outcome," he said. 

Helllllllooooooooooooooooooo, irony.


----------



## Teufel (Sep 12, 2015)

It is disappointing to see how quickly this thorough and professionally executed study was dismissed by our civilian leadership.  I'll throw out some assumptions since that seems to be in vogue now.  Who do you think volunteered for this social experiement?  I'm going to assume the best women in the Marine Corps and.....not the best male Marines.  It was an all volunteer unit remember.  Who wants to leave a deploying infantry unit and go to an experimental unit for 9-10 months?  Probably guys who find themselves in the bottom third of their unit and are fed up with the grunts.


----------



## Teufel (Sep 12, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Agree and disagree.
> Agree that the sexes need to have a standard, would like to disagree on the age thing, but I really believe we could reduce the number of age categories if their was a single standard fo all sexes.
> 
> I am still trying to figure what the PT test measures?
> ...



The Marine Corps has an age scale for the PFT but it only changes the minimum scores, not the maximums.  You can get a 1st Class PFT with a lower score but who doesn't get a first class PFT.  Boards look at your score, not what class PFT you got.  Women have a totally different scale.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 12, 2015)

It seems to me the Army is completely willing to give up.  And I agree with the original post.


----------



## AWP (Sep 12, 2015)

If that's how it goes down many of our worst fears will come to pass, namely lowering the standards.

You know, that will cause men to resent women more than saying "Hey women can be in the infantry if they meet x standards." Now it probably becomes "We don't have enough women, let's revise the standards." That will actually make it harder on some women, so nicely done. Watch careers fall from the sky as one group tries to maintain a standard and another group does everything in their power ot have "more" women in their units. Guess which side will win that debate and press on to GO rank?

Lower the standards and they'll prove all of the naysayers to be correct.


----------



## Grunt (Sep 12, 2015)

SecNav is a politician and not a Warrior....

I would never expect him to think like a Warrior...of course he rejects the findings...they don't agree with his political agenda and that of his puppet masters.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> It seems to me the Army is completely willing to give up.  And I agree with the original post.



Why does it seem that way?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 13, 2015)

Because the way they did the Ranger School build up, the Marine Corps opened up IOC to women and said come and take it.  Whereas the Army didn't do that with Ranger School, they said we're opening up Ranger School, but we need female O/Cs.  There were no female O/Cs for any of the Marine Corps experiments with women in their infantry schools, infantry units that integrated etc.  And then instead of taking a scientific look at what physiologically occurred to these women who braved Ranger school, and graduated, they flung the doors open.  To me, the Army did theirs in such a way that there was only one controlled outcome.  @racing_kitty can talk more about the physiological effects of jobs dominated by men from the female perspective.


----------



## Teufel (Sep 13, 2015)

This is a post from Sgt Maj Lehew, SgtMaj of TECOM, from his personal Facebook page:

"Ok, been silent long enough on this. I have been a part of this process from the beginning and I am just going to put it out there. The Secretary of the Navy is way off base on this and to say the things he is saying is is flat out counter to the interests of national security and is unfair to the women who participated in this study. We selected our best women for this test unit, selected our most mature female leaders as well. The men (me included) were the most progressive and open minded that you could get. The commander of this unit was a seasoned and successful infantryman. The XO of this unit was as good as they get, so good the USMC made her the CO of the Officer candidate school. I just selected the SgtMaj of the unit to head up our senior enlisted academy at Camp Lejeune, NC. No one went in to this with the mentality that we did not want this to succeed. No Marine, regardless of gender would do that. With our limited manpower we cannot afford to not train eveyone to the best of their abilities. This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. SECNAV has stated that he has made his mind up even before the release of these results and that the USMC test unit will not change his mind on anything. Listen up folks. Your senior leadership of this country does not want to see America overwhelmingly succeed on the battlefield, it wants to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to persue whatever they want regardless of the outcome on national security. The infantry is not Ranger School. That is just a school like any other school and is not a feeder specifically to the infantry. Anyone can go to that school that meets the prereqs, just like airborne school. Kudos to the two women who graduated. They are badasses in their own right. In regards to the infantry....there is no trophy for second place. You perform or die. Make no mistake. In this realm, you want your fastest, most fit, most physical and most lethal person you can possibly put on the battlefield to overwhelm the enemy's ability to counter what you are throwing at them and in every test case, that person has turned out to be a man. There is nothing gender biased about this, it is what it is. You will never see a female Quarterback in the NFL, there will never be a female center on any NHL team and you will never see a female batting in the number 4 spot for the New York Yankees. It is what it is. As a country we preach equality. But to place these mandates on the military before this country has even considered making females register, just like males, for the selective service is in all aspects out of touch with reality. Equality and equal opportunity start before you raise your right hand and swear and oath to this country. Yes, we are an all volunteer force at the moment. Should this country however need to mobilize rapidly again to face the threats of the world like our grandfathers did, it will once again look to the military age males of this country to fill the ranks because last I checked, we did not require women to register for the selective service. Until that happens, we should not even be wasting our time even thinking about opening up the infantry to women. To my female Marine friends out there, I love you to death, you are the best of the best and you have my continued admiration for what you do and to the Marines of the GCEITF....you are tops in my book for taking up the challenge...regardless what the SECNAV says about you not being the best that we could have put in that unit because you were....on all accounts."

I've served with SgtMaj Lehew three times now in my career and he is a man I respect.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 13, 2015)

When I read something like this from the SecNav or the SgtMaj what comes to mind is what the Rangers say/do; "THE STANDARD" (correct me if I am wrong but I have seen Rangers here type that phrase in all caps....(?) ). There should be A STANDARD and that STANDARD should be upheld. Period. If women can't hack it oh well. Does it suck? Sure. There are men who can't hack in (meaning in the infantry). @racing_kitty wrote a very nice post in another thread about the physical, mental and psychological effects thereof (which I'd like to see her write it here or copy and paste it).


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 13, 2015)

Teufel said:


> This is a post from Sgt Maj Lehew, SgtMaj of TECOM, from his personal Facebook page:
> 
> "Ok, been silent long enough on this. I have been a part of this process from the beginning and I am just going to put it out there. The Secretary of the Navy is way off base on this and to say the things he is saying is is flat out counter to the interests of national security and is unfair to the women who participated in this study. We selected our best women for this test unit, selected our most mature female leaders as well. The men (me included) were the most progressive and open minded that you could get. The commander of this unit was a seasoned and successful infantryman. The XO of this unit was as good as they get, so good the USMC made her the CO of the Officer candidate school. I just selected the SgtMaj of the unit to head up our senior enlisted academy at Camp Lejeune, NC. No one went in to this with the mentality that we did not want this to succeed. No Marine, regardless of gender would do that. With our limited manpower we cannot afford to not train eveyone to the best of their abilities. This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. SECNAV has stated that he has made his mind up even before the release of these results and that the USMC test unit will not change his mind on anything. Listen up folks. Your senior leadership of this country does not want to see America overwhelmingly succeed on the battlefield, it wants to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to persue whatever they want regardless of the outcome on national security. The infantry is not Ranger School. That is just a school like any other school and is not a feeder specifically to the infantry. Anyone can go to that school that meets the prereqs, just like airborne school. Kudos to the two women who graduated. They are badasses in their own right. In regards to the infantry....there is no trophy for second place. You perform or die. Make no mistake. In this realm, you want your fastest, most fit, most physical and most lethal person you can possibly put on the battlefield to overwhelm the enemy's ability to counter what you are throwing at them and in every test case, that person has turned out to be a man. There is nothing gender biased about this, it is what it is. You will never see a female Quarterback in the NFL, there will never be a female center on any NHL team and you will never see a female batting in the number 4 spot for the New York Yankees. It is what it is. As a country we preach equality. But to place these mandates on the military before this country has even considered making females register, just like males, for the selective service is in all aspects out of touch with reality. Equality and equal opportunity start before you raise your right hand and swear and oath to this country. Yes, we are an all volunteer force at the moment. Should this country however need to mobilize rapidly again to face the threats of the world like our grandfathers did, it will once again look to the military age males of this country to fill the ranks because last I checked, we did not require women to register for the selective service. Until that happens, we should not even be wasting our time even thinking about opening up the infantry to women. To my female Marine friends out there, I love you to death, you are the best of the best and you have my continued admiration for what you do and to the Marines of the GCEITF....you are tops in my book for taking up the challenge...regardless what the SECNAV says about you not being the best that we could have put in that unit because you were....on all accounts."
> 
> I've served with SgtMaj Lehew three times now in my career and he is a man I respect.



Is he still on AD?  If so, he might want to pull that post.  He's going to get slammed for calling out SECNAV like that.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 13, 2015)

If the powers that be want fucking tits in the infantry that goddamn bad, and maintain the standard, then they need to recruit Fallon Fox, or other transgendered athletes. Kill two PC birds with one stone.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 13, 2015)

Teufel said:


> This is a post from Sgt Maj Lehew, SgtMaj of TECOM, from his personal Facebook page:
> 
> "Ok, been silent long enough on this. I have been a part of this process from the beginning and I am just going to put it out there. The Secretary of the Navy is way off base on this and to say the things he is saying is is flat out counter to the interests of national security and is unfair to the women who participated in this study. We selected our best women for this test unit, selected our most mature female leaders as well. The men (me included) were the most progressive and open minded that you could get. The commander of this unit was a seasoned and successful infantryman. The XO of this unit was as good as they get, so good the USMC made her the CO of the Officer candidate school. I just selected the SgtMaj of the unit to head up our senior enlisted academy at Camp Lejeune, NC. No one went in to this with the mentality that we did not want this to succeed. No Marine, regardless of gender would do that. With our limited manpower we cannot afford to not train eveyone to the best of their abilities. This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. SECNAV has stated that he has made his mind up even before the release of these results and that the USMC test unit will not change his mind on anything. Listen up folks. Your senior leadership of this country does not want to see America overwhelmingly succeed on the battlefield, it wants to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to persue whatever they want regardless of the outcome on national security. The infantry is not Ranger School. That is just a school like any other school and is not a feeder specifically to the infantry. Anyone can go to that school that meets the prereqs, just like airborne school. Kudos to the two women who graduated. They are badasses in their own right. In regards to the infantry....there is no trophy for second place. You perform or die. Make no mistake. In this realm, you want your fastest, most fit, most physical and most lethal person you can possibly put on the battlefield to overwhelm the enemy's ability to counter what you are throwing at them and in every test case, that person has turned out to be a man. There is nothing gender biased about this, it is what it is. You will never see a female Quarterback in the NFL, there will never be a female center on any NHL team and you will never see a female batting in the number 4 spot for the New York Yankees. It is what it is. As a country we preach equality. But to place these mandates on the military before this country has even considered making females register, just like males, for the selective service is in all aspects out of touch with reality. Equality and equal opportunity start before you raise your right hand and swear and oath to this country. Yes, we are an all volunteer force at the moment. Should this country however need to mobilize rapidly again to face the threats of the world like our grandfathers did, it will once again look to the military age males of this country to fill the ranks because last I checked, we did not require women to register for the selective service. Until that happens, we should not even be wasting our time even thinking about opening up the infantry to women. To my female Marine friends out there, I love you to death, you are the best of the best and you have my continued admiration for what you do and to the Marines of the GCEITF....you are tops in my book for taking up the challenge...regardless what the SECNAV says about you not being the best that we could have put in that unit because you were....on all accounts."
> 
> I've served with SgtMaj Lehew three times now in my career and he is a man I respect.



He's toast.  I hope he is on terminal leave.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 13, 2015)

Nope:
Marine Corps Training and Education Command > Leaders

Also, Teufel might be able to see it, but I cannot, I think it's a Friends only post.


----------



## LibraryLady (Sep 13, 2015)

Basic physiology dictates human females and males are different.  Period.  Get over it people (meaning general public, feminazis, timid leadership).  Wimmenz will never (in general, a rare individual might) be the equal of men in certain physical circumstances without the use of modern pharmaceuticals.

Standards for uniforms, hair cuts, and earrings?  meh... Sure, whatever.  A hundred plus years ago, men were just as much peacocks as women.  I'm in favor of getting rid of all the boring dull formal colors, like black tuxedos and such in fashion in general.  Why not make dress uniforms a bit more interesting?  :-"

LL


----------



## Teufel (Sep 13, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> Nope:
> Marine Corps Training and Education Command > Leaders
> 
> Also, Teufel might be able to see it, but I cannot, I think it's a Friends only post.


It was a friends only post but F'n boot got a hold of it and published it everywhere.  HQMC has seen it for sure.


----------



## Teufel (Sep 13, 2015)




----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 13, 2015)

One could say, he's earned the right -


----------



## AWP (Sep 13, 2015)

I hope more come forward, I just hope they have their 20 or a Plan B.


----------



## Grunt (Sep 13, 2015)

I, for one, am grateful that there are still those who are willing to go against the flow and say what needs to be said. I certainly wish him the best!

Semper Fi, Sergeant Major!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 13, 2015)

Navy Cross recipient...that man has a big set of balls.  Semper Fi Sgt Maj.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 14, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> One could say, he's earned the right -
> 
> View attachment 14043



It's a wonder he hasn't been purged from the ranks long before now.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 17, 2015)

Couple of Articles:
Navy secretary threw us ‘under the bus,’ say Marines in gender-integrated infantry unit

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...avy-comments-on-women-in-combat-way-off-base/

http://freebeacon.com/uncategorized...ess-accurate-with-weapons-marine-study-finds/

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...not-asking-women--combat-exemptions/72306514/


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 17, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> Couple of Articles:
> Navy secretary threw us ‘under the bus,’ say Marines in gender-integrated infantry unit
> 
> Marine Sergeant Major: Sec Navy Comments on Gender Study ‘Way Off Base’
> ...



Good articles. It shows what really goes on.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 22, 2015)

Not the Marine Corps, but an article about the Army...the Article says the Army has been deliberate in it's approach and I'm laughing.  Becuase, the Marine Corps was deliberate, maintained standards and came up with a resounding no.


----------



## AWP (Sep 22, 2015)

I won't be surprised if the services "shop around" for a group of boot-licking lackies to "confirm" the secretary's views. Politics will destroy our military, not women or gays or martians in the military, but politics. It might take 5 years, it might take 50, but fatass gamers, lazy smart phone kiddies, even Nickelback won't break our military; politicians in uniform and out looking for that next pay grade, just give it time.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 24, 2015)

The saga continues: West Point women seek Congressman's Ranger School record

I will point out that the leader of West Point Women is not a Ranger School graduate and I'm unsure as to whether the newest Rangers put their ok with that FOIA request.


----------



## AWP (Sep 24, 2015)

Him asking for their records may be unusual, but understandable. Them asking for his is just an effort to smear him should anything come of the FOIA request.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 24, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> The saga continues: West Point women seek Congressman's Ranger School record
> 
> I will point out that the leader of West Point Women is not a Ranger School graduate and I'm unsure as to whether the newest Rangers put their ok with that FOIA request.



Attention whoring is all they are doing.

The Army says standards were not changed or lowered, give the Congressman the data to prove it and everyone is happy (except the guys who failed that particular Ranger Class).


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 27, 2015)

By Mark Rippetoe

Women in Ground Combat | T Nation


----------

