I agree. Anything that starts off by referring to someone as a "nutter" makes me a bit suspicious.
Females in Ranger School
- Thread starter goon175
- Start date
I agree. Anything that starts off by referring to someone as a "nutter" makes me a bit suspicious.
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.
Interesting proof of what most of us already know:
Short bastards...
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:
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"
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.
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"
Every woman who graduated Air Assault School has met this standard, it's not that hard...
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
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.
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.
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
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
SOF Support
Wow, that's a big snatch. 
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
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.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
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.
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.
*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
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.
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.
