Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion

[Centermass]

ALARACT RELEASE AUTHORITY WASHINGTON DC

PAAUZYUW RUJAAAA2055 2542234-UUUU--RUJAAAA.
ZNR UUUUU ZUI RUEWMCF1570 2542234
P 112045Z SEP 14
FM ALARACT RELEASE AUTHORITY WASHINGTON DC//CMOC//
TO ALARACT
INFO RUEAUSA/ALARACT RELEASE AUTHORITY WASHINGTON DC
BT
UNCLAS

SUBJ/ALARACT 222/2014 - FEMALE STUDENTS FOR THE UNITED STATES ARMY
MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE (MCOE) RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT
THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED BY US ARMY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AGENCY (USAITA) ON BEHALF OF HEADQUARTERS, US ARMY TRAINING AND
DOCTRINE COMMAND (TRADOC)

SUBJECT: FEMALE STUDENTS FOR THE UNITED STATES ARMY MANEUVER CENTER
OF EXCELLENCE (MCOE) RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT
NARR/(U) PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO SEEK ARMY-WIDE SUPPORT OF
ELIGIBLE FEMALE STUDENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MCOE RANGER COURSE
ASSESSMENT(DECISION REGARDING EXECUTION OF ASSESSMENT WILL BE MADE IN
JANUARY 2015).

1. (U) BACKGROUND: AS PART OF THE ARMY SOLDIER 2020 INITIATIVE TO
ENSURE THE BEST-QUALIFIED SOLDIERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN
ANY POSITION WHERE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING TO STANDARD, THE
MCOE MAY CONDUCT A RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT IN 3RD QTR FY15 (EXACT
DATES TBD).

1.A. (U) MCOE MAY CONDUCT A RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT TO INFORM FUTURE
DECISION MAKING.

1.B. (U) FEMALE VOLUNTEERS SELECTED TO ATTEND THE RANGER COURSE
ASSESSMENT (EXACT CLASS TBP) WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL COURSE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.

2. (U) ARMY COMMANDS (ACOMS), ARMY SERVICE COMPONENT COMMANDS
(ASCCS), AND DIRECT REPORTING UNITS (DRUS) WILL CONDUCT A RECRUITING
EFFORT TO IDENTIFY FEMALE VOLUNTEERS FOR THE RANGER COURSE
ASSESSMENT.

3. (U) PREREQUISITES FOR ENTRY INTO THE RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT CAN
BE FOUND IN THE ARMY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND RESERVATION SYSTEM
(ATRRS). ADDITIONAL STUDENT INFORMATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
CAN BE FOUND ON THE AIRBORNE AND RANGER TRAINING BRIGADE (ARTB) WEB-
SITE UNDER THE STUDENT INFORMATION LINK
(HTTP://WWW.BENNING.ARMY.MIL/INFANTRY/RTB/)

3.A. (U) ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITING WOMEN FROM ATTENDING
THE RANGER COURSE ARE SUSPENDED FOR SELECTION INTO THE RANGER COURSE
ASSESSMENT.

3.A.1. (U) THE RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT IS OPEN TO ALL FEMALE
VOLUNTEERS IN THE GRADES E4-O4.

3.A.2. (U) FEMALE SOLDIERS MUST BE VOLUNTEERS. FEMALE SOLDIERS WILL
NOT BE DIRECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT.

3.A.3. (U) ALL FEMALE VOLUNTEERS MUST HAVE AN END TERM OF SERVICE
(ETS) NO EARLIER THAN 01 OCTOBER 2016.

3.A.4. (U) FEMALE VOLUNTEERS MUST COMPLETE AN APPROVED RANGER
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION (DD FORM 2807-1, DD FORM 2807-2, AND DD FORM
2808) AND AUDIOGRAM (DD FORM 2216) PERFORMED IAW AR 40-501, CHAPTER
8. FEMALE VOLUNTEERS MUST PROVIDE COPIES OF ALL LABORATORY OR
SPECIALIZED CONSULTATIONS SIGNED BY A DOCTOR AND DENTIST, DATED
WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF COURSE START DATE. VOLUNTEERS MUST MEET MEDICAL
FITNESS STANDARDS IAW AR 40-501, CHAPTERS 2, 5-3, AND 5-4.
ADDITIONALLY, VOLUNTEERS MUST PROVIDE A CURRENT COPY OF MEDPROS THAT
INCLUDES A ROUTINE ADULT + H1N1 MODULE AND A ROUTINE IMMUNIZATION
SUMMARY.

3.A.5. (U) FEMALE VOLUNTEERS WILL BE ADMINISTERED A PREGNANCY TEST
DURING IN-PROCESSING. POSITIVE TESTS WILL RESULT IN DISENROLLMENT.

3.A.6. (U) ALL FEMALE VOLUNTEERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE US
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, RANGER TRAINING AND ASSESSMENT COURSE (RTAC)
CONDUCTED AT FT BENNING, COLUMBUS, GA PRIOR TO ENROLLMENT IN THE
RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT CLASS.

3.A.7. (U) ALL RTAC COURSE (ATRRS) RESERVATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF THE
RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT, WILL BE COORDINATED THROUGH THE US ARMY
INFANTRY SCHOOL (USAIS).

3.A.8. (U) ALL FEMALE VOLUNTEERS WILL HAVE A COPY OF THEIR COMMANDERS
VALIDATION LETTER FOR IN-PROCESSING. IN-PROCESSING PREREQUISITE
INFORMATION, INCLUDING AN EXAMPLE COMMANDERS VALIDATION LETTER, CAN
BE FOUND ON THE ARTB WEB SITE UNDER THE STUDENT INFORMATION LINK
(HTTP://WWW.BENNING.ARMY.MIL/INFANTRY/RTB/).

3.A.9. (U) THE COMMANDERS VALIDATION LETTER WILL CERTIFY ALL
PARTICIPANTS ARE PROFICIENT ON RANGER TASKS AND RANGER ASSESSMENT
PHASE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING: THE RANGER PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT (49
PUSH-UPS, 59 SIT-UPS, 5-MILE RUN IN 40 MINUTES, and 6 CHIN-UPS); 12-
MILE FOOTMARCH IN 3 HOURS; THE COMBAT WATER SURVIVAL ASSESSMENT
(CWSA); AND LAND NAVIGATION. THE 12-MILE FOOTMARCH IS CONDUCTED IN
THE ARMY COMBAT UNIFORM, BOOTS, FIGHTING LOAD CARRIER (FLC), PATROL
CAP, AND RUCKSACK WEIGHING A MINIMUM OF 35 LBS (WITHOUT WATER) WHILE
CARRYING AN INDIVIDUAL WEAPON.

3.B. (U) VOLUNTEER IDENTIFICATION AND ENROLLMENT TIMELINE.

3.B.1. (U) UNITS WILL PROVIDE USAIS THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL
ASSESSMENT VOLUNTEERS NLT 3 NOV 14.

3.B.2. (U) UNITS WILL PROVIDE USAIS STANDARD NAME LINE INFORMATION OF
ASSESSMENT VOLUNTEERS NLT 1 DEC 14.

3.B.3. (U) DETAILED SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION WILL BE
PUBLISHED IN A SUPPLEMENTAL MESSAGE. ALL ATRRS RANGER COURSE SEATS
FOR THIS ASSESSMENT WILL BE HELD AND MANAGED BY THE USAIS.

3.C. (U) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

3.C.1. (U) FEMALE VOLUNTEERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE THE 90-DAY
RANGER COURSE PREPARATION PROGRAM ON THE ARTB WEB SITE
(HTTP://WWW.BENNING.ARMY.MIL/INFANTRY/RTB/).

3.C.2. (U) ALL WOMEN WHO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE AND GRADUATE FROM THE
RANGER COURSE WILL RECEIVE A GRADUATION CERTIFICATE AND BE AWARDED,
AND AUTHORIZED TO WEAR, THE RANGER TAB. UNTIL FUTURE INTEGRATION
DECISIONS ARE MADE AND REQUIREMENTS UNDER TITLE 10 US CODE, SECTION
652 ARE SATISFIED, FEMALE GRADUATES WILL NOT RECEIVE THE ASSOCIATED
RANGER SKILL IDENTIFIERS OR BE ASSIGNED TO RANGER CODED UNITS OR
POSITIONS.

4. (U) FUNDING INFORMATION FOR ASSESSMENT PARTICIPANT ATTENDANCE AT
RTAC AND THE RANGER COURSE ASSESSMENT WILL BE PUBLISHED IN A
SUPPLEMENTAL MESSAGE.

5. (U) POINTS OF CONTACT (POCS).

5.A. (U) INITIAL REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL BE SENT TO
THE USAIS AT USARMY.BENNING.TRADOC.MBX.OCOIWEB@MAIL.MIL OR BY VOICE
MESSAGE AT (706) 545-0458; DSN 835-0458

5.B. (U) INDIVIDUAL POCS (FOR FUNDING, ORDERS, AND ATRRS) WILL BE
IDENTIFIED IN SUPPLEMENTAL MESSAGES.

6. (U) EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS MESSAGE WILL BE 365 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE
DATE.
BT
#2055

 

[Centermass]

Continued emasculation of the american fucking male.....

 

[BloodStripe]

I think this has been covered elsewhere on this forum but I didn't see it; Lt. Serrano does a great job explaining why women do not belong in the infantry (see link below). While the Ranger tab does not indicate someone as a Ranger, the school is designed in principal for those in combat arms. While the Army is not looking to place those women who pass Ranger School into RASP, by allowing women into the course at this present time, it takes away slots from those who would benefit more from going through the school. Can females pass it? Well I have never been to Ranger course but I am smart enough to know that there are very highly fit females in the world who are also great leaders, so I think the answer is yes (just like sooner rather than later, a female IOC candidate will pass IOC). With that said, what could they take away from the school that they could pass on to their peers at their home command? Where as if you send an 11B through, he is more likely to take that knowledge and not only apply it in the real world, but he can then also train and share with others to make them better soldiers. Isn't that a big reason why non-Rangers attend Ranger School?

https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/why-women-do-not-belong-us-infantry

 

[Viper1]

Continued emasculation of the american fucking male.....

I respectfully disagree.

It's about damn time the Army did this. Here is why...we use the wrong definition of diversity. We think of diversity as differences in color, gender, religion, ethnic origin, when it reality it doesn't mean squat. Let's use race as an example. I can find you a black, white, latino, asian, and mixed SF guy and as x sf med says, they are the same "rifle green". Crossed Arrows worn proudly, I can guarantee they are all type-A, aggressive, savvy, smart, talented guys that want to keep swinging the bat for America. That doesn't mean they think different or act different. They could all be arrogant rapport crushers (I've met them all) I can also find you men of all five color groups previously mentioned who "grew up in poor/broken homes, went to bad schools, had bad parents, no parents, or single parents, never had any money, and overcame a metric ton of adversity to achieve their goals but someone mentored them correctly (coach, parent, teacher, etc.)" Different skin colors, but the same experience. That quoted line is the contextual background for affirmative action, minority admissions, and other such programs. Just having the color wheel represented within an organization does not denote diversity. It is the breadth of individual experiences which creates diversity.

Breadth of experience, broad experiences, DIVERSE experiences. This is what we, the military, civilian companies, other organizations should strive for.

The best boss I ever had before going into SF was a female from the Transportation Corps. She was also homosexual, at a time when it was illegal to be open. She was the best for a number of reasons, not the least of which were her competence, common sense, and focus on the mission. She was an exceptional leader for all the reasons we define leaders as exceptional (competence, integrity, aggressive, physically fit, ability to accomplish the mission, care for soldiers, etc). The point is, the fact she is female or homosexual should not matter. She was the best boss I ever had between 2005 and 2011, period.

Ranger Psych is correct. Plenty of men tried and failed at Ranger School, SFAS, the Infantry, or any number of difficult things within the military. There are certain men and women I've encountered that I never trusted in combat or training. Thankfully, they left units quickly or were marginalized to minimize negative impact on the force. There are men and women I've encountered who are exceptional Soldiers in combat and training. I've been lucky and fortunate to fight the enemy by their side. Sure, there may be only 1-2 women who could pass Ranger School or Infantry School but hell, why not? They bleed the same as us, they are as smart as us, can be as aggressive as us, etc. This is where Capt Serrano is incorrect.

The mission is gender-neutral. Combat is gender-neutral. Physical fitness is gender-neutral. The ability to carry a ruck, weapon, and your buddy under fire is gender-neutral. The word Soldier is gender-neutral! The right Soldiers will accomplish all of those tasks successfully, and then some. Uphold the one same standard we all know to be true, and our survivability on the battlefield is not negatively affected. Any boss worth his salt is going to select the best team to accomplish the mission, period. There were days I didn't take my female CST on patrol but it wasn't because they were women...it was because they were not going to help me accomplish the mission. I took both ladies in support of a commando op once and it proved most successful. The same goes for the female CA medic I worked with. Some teams didn't want a female on their firebase but a couple others, including mine, took the approach of "well, we have three SOCM trained medics now...better for us!".

The brotherhood exists whether there are women around or not, and truly exists overseas. Ask any Soldier...a man can ruin the feeling of Brotherhood just as easily. It's called "personality conflicts." Sure, the CA folks, CSTs, and other enablers knew that they weren't SF Soldiers but they never tried to act like SF soldiers. They performed as competent, aggressive, well-trained Soldiers and on that foundation we built successful teamwork. Performance matters, and mission accomplishment with the best team has primacy.

Assault and harassment occurred with women outside of the Infantry, and unfortunately will continue within it. It's a leadership issue and a character issue. Men and women of good moral compass will not participate in such acts, period. Our entire SOTF did not have a signal incident occur over the last five years. That is more common than people think or know.

Capt Serrano is right on two counts: it isn't about the individual, and the infantry isn't broken. I counter that all team members should have opportunities to serve in all capacities and just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it can't become something better. Soldier is a gender-neutral, ethnic-neutral, color-neutral term. The same goes for Airman, Marine, Sailor, and Guardsman. The mission we conduct is gender neutral, as are the known requirements to conduct that mission successfully. Meet the requirements, accomplish the mission.

Who cares about whether the Soldier in charge, getting an award, getting promoted, or getting kicked out for doing something dumb is black, white, asian, latino, mixed, male, female, gay, or straight? If the Army is serious about diversity, it will get rid of those metrics. If it is serious about diversity, it will focus on the Soldier, breadth of experience, and proper talent management throughout the ranks.

The End!

 

[AWP]

Physical fitness is gender-neutral. The ability to carry a ruck, weapon, and your buddy under fire is gender-neutral. Uphold the one same standard we all know to be true, and our survivability on the battlefield is not negatively affected.

If the Army is serious about diversity, it will get rid of those metrics.

Dai Uy,

I disagree with the first and it kind of contradicts the last, though I'm onboard with the overall message. The APFT isn't gender-neutral and a grave concern many of us have regards your last, the metrics. "If the Army is serious..." but I think many of us are jaded enough to believe it isn't serious about this. The concern is this is will start out as "one standard" but morph into two standards, one male and one female just like the APFT. Another fear-inducing option is one lowered standard for all.

I honestly think this is less of an issue of "I don't want a woman in my platoon" than it is of "I don't trust the Army to send us qualified and competent women." One or two make it through and earn a Ranger tab. Then comes the slippery slope of "Why don't more women have a Ranger tab" (or whatever argument) and then the standards erode to meet politically correct goals. The military already speaks with two tongues when it comes to one standard for all, and I see this in CSS roles, so why should we trust Big Army to hold everyone to a single standard in the Infantry?

 

[Viper1]

Dai Uy,

I disagree with the first and it kind of contradicts the last, though I'm onboard with the overall message. The APFT isn't gender-neutral and a grave concern many of us have regards your last, the metrics. "If the Army is serious..." but I think many of us are jaded enough to believe it isn't serious about this. The concern is this is will start out as "one standard" but morph into two standards, one male and one female just like the APFT. Another fear-inducing option is one lowered standard for all.

I honestly think this is less of an issue of "I don't want a woman in my platoon" than it is of "I don't trust the Army to send us qualified and competent women." One or two make it through and earn a Ranger tab. Then comes the slippery slope of "Why don't more women have a Ranger tab" (or whatever argument) and then the standards erode to meet politically correct goals. The military already speaks with two tongues when it comes to one standard for all, and I see this in CSS roles, so why should we trust Big Army to hold everyone to a single standard in the Infantry?

Your right, the APFT isn't gender neutral; however I didn't say the APFT. I said, "physical fitness." Two different things and yes, there should be one, single, tough, APFT standard.

Has not the Big Army tried to tinker with standards and pass rates for Ranger School or SFAS concerning men? Has not an Army leader or DoD official asked "why is the selection rate only 42% at SFAS?" or "How come only X% graduate Ranger?" The length of SFAS changed three times in three years (21, 14, and now 19 days) in part to get more men into the Q course. It went against a SOF truth of quality vs quantity. We can't be afraid of what might happen. We must be prepared and develop plans so that particularly bad decisions e.g. dangerously lowering APFT standards are negated and not placed into regulation.

 

[Ranger Psych]

Physical fitness IS gender neutral.

Task requires specific capacity. Measure those currently doing it in a unit that has proven recently to be combat effective. That's the standard.

Meet it. Period.

I don't care about an innie or an outie as long as you can hang... back when I was active duty? Good luck finding a female that could hang in any PT event. When we're rucking around the PT track out in front of building 4 faster than you're running on your APFT, something's wrong.

Would it have made the living situation slightly more complicated? Yes, but not overly so in all honesty.

Anyone who's a Grunt knows they aren't going to shit/shower/etc in good conditions all the time. Most choose the job because the field is fun to them even before they got to introduce belt fed weapons to camping. I know I did. I prefer the woods. I didn't mind slit trenches and had been using them since I was 12 off and on. Walking long distances carrying everything I needed to live was an enjoyable thing.... only thing Rangering brought to it was getting to jump out of aircraft, ride helicopters, automatic weapons and making shit blow up... all in the service of my country and the ultimate goal of getting to pop nugs of dicks that wanted to do us, as the US, harm. Rock on.

If they can meet the standard, unadulterated, the way it sits now? fuck it, congratulations, now get back out on the line.

 

[Viper1]

Let me clarify a few points as well.
1) I am willing to accept people attempting to accomplish a task and failing. Plenty of Soldiers do it every year, at every school for various reasons.
2) The standards are hard for a reason. Combat is hard, the load is heavy, and the consequences of poor performance are dire. That is all gender-neutral stuff. Again, some Soldiers of all types try and fail at hard standards.
3) Capt Serrano's arguments about other cultures needed women in Infantry for cultural survival may be true but it also irrelevant.
4) Slippery slope arguments are going to happen but as we recently saw with the surprising uproar about hairstyles, Soldiers and the civilian populace do have the ability to affect leadership decisions and make changes. Imagine the uproar if the PT standard went to something akin to middle school fitness?

 

[AWP]

Your right, the APFT isn't gender neutral; however I didn't say the APFT. I said, "physical fitness." Two different things and yes, there should be one, single, tough, APFT standard.

Has not the Big Army tried to tinker with standards and pass rates for Ranger School or SFAS concerning men? Has not an Army leader or DoD official asked "why is the selection rate only 42% at SFAS?" or "How come only X% graduate Ranger?" The length of SFAS changed three times in three years (21, 14, and now 19 days) in part to get more men into the Q course. It went against a SOF truth of quality vs quantity. We can't be afraid of what might happen. We must be prepared and develop plans so that particularly bad decisions e.g. dangerously lowering APFT standards are negated and not placed into regulation.

You are right that physical fitness is gender neutral, but it is irrelevant as long as the Army recognizes two different APFT's; really there are more than that by the time you include the age groups. If the Army were truly serious about equality, then it would have a standard, not a bunch of standards.

 

[Viper1]

You are right that physical fitness is gender neutral, but it is irrelevant as long as the Army recognizes two different APFT's; really there are more than that by the time you include the age groups. If the Army were truly serious about equality, then it would have a standard, not a bunch of standards.

Agree!

 

[Centermass]

The mission is gender-neutral. Combat is gender-neutral. Physical fitness is gender-neutral. The ability to carry a ruck, weapon, and your buddy under fire is gender-neutral. The word Soldier is gender-neutral! The right Soldiers will accomplish all of those tasks successfully, and then some. Uphold the one same standard we all know to be true, and our survivability on the battlefield is not negatively affected. Any boss worth his salt is going to select the best team to accomplish the mission, period. There were days I didn't take my female CST on patrol but it wasn't because they were women...it was because they were not going to help me accomplish the mission
The End!

Sorry Sir.

This is one we will just have to agree to disagree. The foot in the door is the W/O just issued (Actually, not just issued, just made official as this has been a draft in holding for the last year)

Once don't ask was repealed, the writing was on the wall. I knew back then this was next. Sure, the lines have been blurred many times and females have found themselves in the midst of combat and performed admirably. No argument there from me. If and when the shit ever hit the fan to the point where it didn't matter if you were a fetus, if you had 10 and 10, then by God, you had better be armed and shooting back scenario, that, I fully understand as well.

But the dynamic of actually having co-ed front line combat units to close with and destroy the enemy is a nuclear can of worms that need not and should not be opened IMO.

But rather than go into all the specifics (Which I've done in other threads and don't want to sound repetitive) this little experiment has got nothing but whitewash all over it. Mark my words, once the standards start to get fudged (And they will) that's when all your "Neutral" examples will turn to exceptions and modifications for the sake of someone's agenda.

Selection will become a buzz word and direction will replace it.

All I can tell you is wait and see. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[dmcgill]

Excellent arguments all around, this is turning into a really good thread guys. I am still far from decided on my stance. Part of me looks at the situation wondering if it's comparable to the Truman administration's decision to desegregate the military. Looking back on that, it is laughable (and horrendous) that we could be so archaic in our thinking as a society to believe that because someone was a darker skin complexion, they were inferior and unable to contribute to certain missions. Same thing with being homosexual. It's absolutely preposterous. Are we in the same boat with this issue?

The times now are less prejudicial, but still are on this issue alone in most combat-arms circles in my experience. It is a very slippery slope and I can see both sides. I've read the word diversity a few times in this thread, and it has reminded me of one of the most atrocious times in our recent history. In November 2009 when the terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 American soldiers and wounded 32 others, General George Casey made a comment at a memorial service for the fallen at Fort Hood. I remember hearing the words live and it stopped me in my tracks.

"As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well," Then it got even worse in a February 2010 interview (at least this time he wasn't in front of the fallen's families) when he clarified just what he meant, "Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse". He literally said with that quote that 13 American lives mean nill in the grand scheme of diversifying our military. Our military always will be diverse, because this is AMERICA. Now you may be wondering why I am referencing a terrorist attack to women serving alongside us. The situations themselves don't correlate at all. It's the type of thinking from our bosses in the Pentagon that worries me. I feel like their motives are just COMPLETELY fucked up. I feel like if this women in the infantry/SOF etc gets implemented it's not going to be the for the right reasons and bad things may come of it.

Opinions?

 

[firstpig151]

I am truly impressed with the all of the intelligent dialogue regarding this subject. Viper, sir you must be a member of the Mensa Society and express your opinions like a college professor.

Me, not an exceptionally brilliant man but smart enough to have a 120 GT score which is overkill for my MOS. What I am however is a very seasoned 1SG, too seasoned in fact. Now I am fortunate enough to have been combat arms my entire career so for me it has not been an issue. On the flip side if you talk to any 1SG who stands in front of the formation of a support company and he'll tell you the horror stories of having to deal with coed company.

You can kill soldiers with mandatory SHARP power points every day but given the opportunity there is always going to be that one fucknut that doesn't get it and pushes the envelope with females. More often than not it is the consensual mating rituals that take place that causes the most issues when one of the parties decides that they no longer want to have coitus with that partner and said partner gets butthurt over it. Then there's the always famous scenario when one of the parties wakes up in the morning, feels like a total slut and cries rape.

My point with this is that I get my ass kicked in the gym on a regular basis by a couple of badass females. Are there females that can ruck all day and night then fuck people up when they get to the objective, possibly? But as a professional cat herder of 11B knuckle draggers having to deal with boys and girls playing together, the drawbacks of such an arrangement would far outweigh the benefits in an infantry squad.

 

[racing_kitty]

If all of this comes to pass, and women do attend/graduate Ranger school with a few years' follow on in the Regiment, I sure hope to hell that they are ready to spend their middle age years hoping that they can even find a date after they're done at the physical therapist's office.

Perhaps that's a crude way to put it, but I've made my point regarding the physiological aspect before. You might be able to produce a female that's trained hard enough to at least meet and maintain the standard, but how long will she be able to maintain that level vs. her male counterparts?

A true "one of the guys" mentality a female would need to be in possession of to mitigate most of the potential drama in a co-ed Regiment doesn't exactly lend itself to making her marketable on the dating scene. If she's serious about it, though, she won't have time to worry about that until she gets out, and she may not even think about it then. However, not all women are capable of that kind of emotional disconnect for an extended period of time, and may not be able to handle the psychological stress, whether they are listening to their biological clock or not. It would not be unreasonable to expect that to lead to possible substance abuse or psychologically damaging relationship choices later on. Would the VA be ready to treat those issues?

Everyone is focusing on the potential for lowering PT standards and the deleterious effects that it will likely have on mission readiness, and rightfully so. However, as is tradition with the people who come up with ideas such as these, they aren't looking at the second and third order effects of this little foray into social engineering. The VA has already been overwhelmed by the number of veterans of both sexes thanks to GWOT, and there isn't exactly an adherence to a uniform standard when it comes to "women's services" at the VA clinics. Throw PTSD on top of that sudden realization that "hey, I'm not one of the guys anymore," and the risk of suicide in female veterans will likely increase.

I honestly don't see how this is going to end well, at all.

 

[ODA]

I just don't seem to be able to follow the rules!

 

[AWP]

Post

Per the Site Rules, post an Introduction. This should be your next post.

Thank you.

 

[Viper1]

Sorry Sir.

But the dynamic of actually having co-ed front line combat units to close with and destroy the enemy is a nuclear can of worms that need not and should not be opened IMO.

But rather than go into all the specifics (Which I've done in other threads and don't want to sound repetitive) this little experiment has got nothing but whitewash all over it. Mark my words, once the standards start to get fudged (And they will) that's when all your "Neutral" examples will turn to exceptions and modifications for the sake of someone's agenda.

Selection will become a buzz word and direction will replace it.

All I can tell you is wait and see. I'll just leave it at that.

I understand your concerns. I don't want to see standards get lowered either. I hit a decade in service next May and I have yet to see lower standards through the various infantry/Ranger/SF courses. We can't keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. We have to ensure we let women attempt entry into our fields before that happens because the current standard is the right standard.

It's a hard call but it doesn't cost any additional time, money, or resources. It's about time all people shared the fighting, the bleeding, and the dying in a more equitable manner. This isn't a game, and the more people figure it out through hard experiences, the better. They want to be on the front line humping the M240B? As long as they can do it, fine by me.

If leaders lower standards it will cost us dearly. Soldiers will die unnecessarily, Soldiers will leave service, and we will go through some hard times. I'm on the side that will enough knowledge and input from the field, our leaders will do the right thing and leave the standards the same. I know hope isn't a method, but it's the best we have right now.

 

[Viper1]

"As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well," Then it got even worse in a February 2010 interview (at least this time he wasn't in front of the fallen's families) when he clarified just what he meant, "Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse". He literally said with that quote that 13 American lives mean nill in the grand scheme of diversifying our military. Our military always will be diverse, because this is AMERICA. Now you may be wondering why I am referencing a terrorist attack to women serving alongside us. The situations themselves don't correlate at all. It's the type of thinking from our bosses in the Pentagon that worries me. I feel like their motives are just COMPLETELY fucked up. I feel like if this women in the infantry/SOF etc gets implemented it's not going to be the for the right reasons and bad things may come of it.

Opinions?

This is why I said the Army gets the word "Diversity" wrong. This is exactly why.

As far as the right reasons... The right reason is that combat is a shared responsibility between all military members, period. Sure, it'll get politicized, aggrandized, and become a media fire-storm. We are the best Army in the world because of our Soldiers and leaders. If anyone can make this happen correctly, we can and we should.

 

[x SF med]

My biggest issues with this argument/tasking is that the standards are likely to be lowered, and as soon as women are in SOF units there will be a media and political firestorm about the inequities for those women who chose to attempt this life.... and also about the 'exclusivity' of SOF .... there is a reason the word 'Special' is the lead word in Special Operations Forces...

If you are the tasked machine gunner or AG... you better be able to carry the gun and the ammo and your standard load. If you are the medic, the aid bag and your standard load.

Be technically and tactically proficient, pull your own weight, literally, and be able to drag or carry anybody on your team, in your squad/platoon, with gear, to safety under fire, while prepared to return fire immediately when needed. Field shit is heavy, you have to be able to move it , for long distances, in poor conditions, under stress and be able to function.

Current Standards, current load, current POI... If you are transgendered, purple and have your entire body covered in tattoos while wearing dreadlocks... if you can meet and maintain the standard, 100%... go for it.... if you quit, it's on you.... if you fail, you were not ready.... if you were peered, you pissed off enough of your fellow students and instructors that you are not trusted.... and yes, it is that simple.

 

[Squidward]

I think I share the same worry as everyone on here: a lapse in capability and capacity. I've had someone (a male enabler) quit on me shortly after infil and again during exfil down range. That experience made me take special interest in every person I worked with from that point on. However, sometimes we can't choose who we find next to us when it counts.

Whether we hate, love or are completely indifferent with the idea of having female team mates, it's happening. Who knows what will happen with the standards at the entry level? What I do know is that every soul that shows up to group, battalion or any line unit shows up as a basically trained individual in need of guidance, mentoring and education. We all know what right looks like. I'll do what I have to to make sure whoever ends up next to me knows and practices the same. We're in the business of making the extraordinary commonplace, and this is just one more challenge for the books gents. Come at me political requirement......