Well, yes and no. Simple fact is that there's no guarantees that you have to go straight to school from *any* PRC. It's just that it usually works out that way.
Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
Another metric I wish were public.
I keep seeing these articles about women attempting to get a slot at Ranger School and every one of them talks about all the (seemingly) special attention they get. It sounds like their only job once they decide they want to go is to be coached and mentored every step of the way. Is this something male soldiers also get? Or am I reading too much into this?
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/fema...ping-to-earn-berths-at-ranger-school-1.329712
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/fema...ping-to-earn-berths-at-ranger-school-1.329712
No. Pre-Ranger is not a mandatory requirement across the Army. the 75th Regimental Training Detatchment conducts a "Regiment and Friends" Pre-Ranger. Basically who goes there is anyone from the 75th (since all MOS'es in the 75th can/will attend given time) as well as rather permanent attachments IE assigned and scroll wearing SOWT, TACP's etc. Other elements, provided space, can attend as well. Other units conduct Pre-Ranger as they can afford to. The former RI's that were in Alaska with me, for example, conducted a 2 week PRC for all the male soldiers going... but that's not always the case. ARNG all attends the PRC @ Benning.
For the most part, there's little to no mentoring of individuals going. Regiment does what I would consider the most, to be blunt. Primarily because Regiment requires a tab for promotion past E-4 for 11 series, and it's pretty hard to get promoted even as a softskill to be an NCO without getting your shit. Also, the only thing that Regiment did (while I was in) that was even remotely close to Ranger school was have similar opord structure and 3 240's in line platoons for dismounted movement..... from then on, it was Reindeers and fucking rabbits as far as Regiment and Ranger school being alike. Hence the permanently manned PRC, we generally actually needed to learn to dumb it down considering we could properly count on everyone to stay the fuck away as a general rule, etc.
There's a lot of trainup these women are getting that they honestly wouldn't be getting if their plumbing was reversed.
For the most part, there's little to no mentoring of individuals going. Regiment does what I would consider the most, to be blunt. Primarily because Regiment requires a tab for promotion past E-4 for 11 series, and it's pretty hard to get promoted even as a softskill to be an NCO without getting your shit. Also, the only thing that Regiment did (while I was in) that was even remotely close to Ranger school was have similar opord structure and 3 240's in line platoons for dismounted movement..... from then on, it was Reindeers and fucking rabbits as far as Regiment and Ranger school being alike. Hence the permanently manned PRC, we generally actually needed to learn to dumb it down considering we could properly count on everyone to stay the fuck away as a general rule, etc.
There's a lot of trainup these women are getting that they honestly wouldn't be getting if their plumbing was reversed.
Thanks @Ranger Psych. It feels a little like the Army is skirting the issue of the standards. Ok, they're the same, but now you're giving these women prep resources not available to a male soldier. It's no surprise some will make it through if the Army essentially treats them as being there solely to go to RS and their daily structure is built around preparation for that task. I'm tracking the Pre-Ranger Course requirements and who attends/doesn't attend. It also sounds like these women are basically doing PRC at their home station for X amount of time before going to official PRC.
To help get the TACP Pipeline thread back on track as requested I'm responding to this here. @Wild Bill, I gotta disagree with this argument completely brother. I think there are plenty of arguments to be raised about attempting to integrate women into SOF and ground combat MOSs. This ain't one of them though. This argument makes us look uninformed and petty.
Florida173
SOF Support
Ranger school is just a leadership school. Might as well let them in once they stop the gender bias physical fitness requirement.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
No, men do not receive the same amount of time to prepare/be mentored. As far as pre-ranger not being a requirement for the school house it is quite often a requirement from Divisions filling slots, they don't want: he didn't go/pass pre-ranger to be an excuse. Before I got injured in 2013 and was told I was going, I had to prepare myself on my own time. I had to do regular PT, the brigade had a separate ranger prep for all enlisted Soldiers going that took them offline for three weeks prior to the Pre-Ranger course. The only folks I know that get this sort of time off are on the Division Best Ranger team, all they do is eat, sleep, workout, jump out of blackhawks etc.
Everyone tells me "it's just a leadership school" I personally think sucking for that long is, not for the faint of heart. I also do not wish to attend, but did not discourage my Soldiers from going. But I could care less for Ranger Candidates, I wanted all my section leaders to put in for ARC and dismounted team leaders for RSLC...that didn't happen either.
Everyone tells me "it's just a leadership school" I personally think sucking for that long is, not for the faint of heart. I also do not wish to attend, but did not discourage my Soldiers from going. But I could care less for Ranger Candidates, I wanted all my section leaders to put in for ARC and dismounted team leaders for RSLC...that didn't happen either.
Last edited:
USA COL(Ret.) Ellen Haring figured out the problem. It's the USMC's fault!
http://ciceromagazine.com/features/is-the-marine-corps-setting-women-up-to-fail-in-combat-roles/
Critics cite a lack of any possible incentive for women officers to volunteer
Since when does being an Infantry Officer require incentives? You get paid right? You have food, water, shelter, equipment, access to medical care, etc., right? So what the fuck else do you need? You either want to lead Marines in combat or you don't. It's bullshit to attempt to blame the USMC for not making the prospect lucrative enough.
“If a volunteer is unable to successfully complete the program of instruction, it is unlikely they will be recycled due to impact on delaying attendance at their PMOS school, possible negative impact on fitness reporting cycles, potential harm to the volunteer’s career path, and complication with equitable career designations.” In short, a female officer failing would see their career in the Marines suffer for trying—a rather large disincentive.
Actually, what this says is that they would be negatively affected by recycling due to the fact that it's in a testing phase. If they don't make it, then they need to get on with becoming a productive USMC officer somewhere else. This DOES NOT appear to equate to a career suffering for trying.
Rather than look for ways to exclude women the Marines should seek out the toughest, smartest most capable women this country has to offer and vigorously recruit them to join the ranks of the infantry.
Why? Why should the USMC put forth time, money, and effort to recruit the top 5% of women in the hopes that some of them make it? They should be doing what the USMC has always done. Lay down the gauntlet and see who wants to accept the challenge. If women need to be courted into trying out, then they don't really want to be there. Last I checked, the USMC has plenty of material out there that the "toughest, smartest most capable women" can find if they put their minds to being a USMC Infantry Officer.
This whole social experiment is rife with hypocrisy.
"We don't want different standards. We just want extra incentives, more time to prep for the standards, and resources not available to anyone else."
http://ciceromagazine.com/features/is-the-marine-corps-setting-women-up-to-fail-in-combat-roles/
Critics cite a lack of any possible incentive for women officers to volunteer
Since when does being an Infantry Officer require incentives? You get paid right? You have food, water, shelter, equipment, access to medical care, etc., right? So what the fuck else do you need? You either want to lead Marines in combat or you don't. It's bullshit to attempt to blame the USMC for not making the prospect lucrative enough.
“If a volunteer is unable to successfully complete the program of instruction, it is unlikely they will be recycled due to impact on delaying attendance at their PMOS school, possible negative impact on fitness reporting cycles, potential harm to the volunteer’s career path, and complication with equitable career designations.” In short, a female officer failing would see their career in the Marines suffer for trying—a rather large disincentive.
Actually, what this says is that they would be negatively affected by recycling due to the fact that it's in a testing phase. If they don't make it, then they need to get on with becoming a productive USMC officer somewhere else. This DOES NOT appear to equate to a career suffering for trying.
Rather than look for ways to exclude women the Marines should seek out the toughest, smartest most capable women this country has to offer and vigorously recruit them to join the ranks of the infantry.
Why? Why should the USMC put forth time, money, and effort to recruit the top 5% of women in the hopes that some of them make it? They should be doing what the USMC has always done. Lay down the gauntlet and see who wants to accept the challenge. If women need to be courted into trying out, then they don't really want to be there. Last I checked, the USMC has plenty of material out there that the "toughest, smartest most capable women" can find if they put their minds to being a USMC Infantry Officer.
This whole social experiment is rife with hypocrisy.
"We don't want different standards. We just want extra incentives, more time to prep for the standards, and resources not available to anyone else."
Last edited:
RetPara
SOF Support
Retired CSM Jeff Melliger just posted the following on FB. Mellinger is on the advisory committee for the whole women in Ranger School thing.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,913
How many people here took a career risk moving into a "high-speed" pipeline? There are a few who could take a run at a selection program and/or training pipeline without any penalty, but I know people who have gone back to their original branches with significant career delays and are behind the metaphorical 8-ball and significantly behind their peers because of their decision to pursue an opportunity (as well as many others who were at serious risk if they didn't complete their pipelines). This isn't unique to this instance (females in Marine infantry school), and frequently comes part and parcel with making a significant career move. It's an issue that the appropriate elements (in the Army it should be the branch at HRC and the course cadre themselves) should acknowledge and address so that people aren't getting screwed, but this is NOT a "female" issue.
Last edited:
http://www.defense.gov/news/MarineCorpsWISRImplementationPlan.pdf Date of the document is 2 May 2013. Each of the services originated and implemented a plan during period from April to May 2013. Lt COL Retired Haring is overstating what the USMC is and is not doing.
The author is also confusing tactical leading as being an occupation. It is not and tactical leading requires more than being smart, it requires not only being competent but ability to not freak out under duress. Here's a few videos that emphasizes the freak out concern.
The critical links pertinent to disclosing leading fail under duress in the video below is at: 00:34-0:45, 03:49-03:59, and 04:39-05:23.
Initial Intel was 200 enemy NVA, what the force of 400 US Infantry actually encountered were 1600 or more NVA.
Last edited:
Here's an excellent piece by 60 minutes on Women attempting to become USMC Infantry
officers.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/female-marines-women-in-combat-60-minutes/
Well done and very insightful
officers.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/female-marines-women-in-combat-60-minutes/
Well done and very insightful
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,943
General George Smith: "We could make the bars lower, David, but that's really not the issue. The issue is the realities of combat aren't going to change based on gender. The enemy doesn't care whether you're a male or female."
Ooh fucking Rah, General. Ooh fucking Rah!
ETA - take the time to watch the video and not just read the transcript. Those bees, holy crap...I can handle a lot, but I think I'd be f'd when the bees started to swarm.
Question: When she was climbing the rope and fell off, it seemed she was trying to muscle her way up that thing. Granted it has been a while, but I seem to recall being taught a technique (S-Technique?) where you wrapped your boots around the rope and essentially climbed up - made the obstacle course a whole lot easier once I mastered it. Is that not taught anymore, or are candidates for that course not permitted to use it?
Last edited:
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
She was using the J-Hook, which is taught in the Army as well...I never used it.
Marine Corps has stuck to their guns on this, I wish the Army had.
Marine Corps has stuck to their guns on this, I wish the Army had.
The USMC will hold the line as long as possible. I believe the Corps is less political than the Army and other branches. They will fight the good fight until the end.
Semper Fi!
Semper Fi!
Last edited:
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
There is no need to use any upper body strength on a rope climb sans holding on while you reposition your feet higher.
Shit, on my first basic training they made us climb up with a full pack, and then let go with our hands to be supported only by your legs.
A sphincter tightening exercise lol
Shit, on my first basic training they made us climb up with a full pack, and then let go with our hands to be supported only by your legs.
A sphincter tightening exercise lol
Similar threads
