Devildoc
Verified Military
I see your point; that wasn't my interpretation on first blush of what he said, but when I read his comment again, I read it this way, too. I took it as "combat" units. Standing by to allow him to affirm or refute.
Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
I see your point; that wasn't my interpretation on first blush of what he said, but when I read his comment again, I read it this way, too. I took it as "combat" units. Standing by to allow him to affirm or refute.
Words have meanings, as an Officer, he should know that.
FWIW- I assume by direct combat you mean Infantry/Armor combat, and not, oh, AH-64 types of "direct combat".
FWIW- I assume by direct combat you mean Infantry/Armor combat, and not, oh, AH-64 types of "direct combat".
And you're entitled to that opinion. I'm of a similar one, I was simply offering an alternative perspective from a female combat veteran. While I agree with your last statement, the reality is, if the DoD's plan is going to work out like they want, you and I both know that's not how it's going to be. Right or not.
Why would you say that? I neither agree or disagree, because I'm unsure what you're trying to say here. If you're saying our civilization will end because women are integrated into our Infantry type units at say the same percentage rate as the percentage rates of women enlisting, I would strongly disagree with that. If you're saying we will be doomed because our forces will be weakened by women in Infantry types jobs, that would be a foolish assumption as we have no quantitative data to say it will in fact make us weaker. Outside of that, I'm not sure what you are saying?
DocIllinois
Verified Military
As an applicable aside, the British are following suit, to include the SAS.
The arguments and opinions in the article from those who have BTDT will be quite familiar. Misery loves company.
"(British Colonel Richard) Kemp said: 'Why do feelings run so high? Because every infantryman knows the price for this social engineering experiment will be paid in blood.'"
Military chiefs say 'yes' to women joining Special Forces in frontline combat roles
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/military-chiefs-say-yes-women-7703761
The arguments and opinions in the article from those who have BTDT will be quite familiar. Misery loves company.
"(British Colonel Richard) Kemp said: 'Why do feelings run so high? Because every infantryman knows the price for this social engineering experiment will be paid in blood.'"
Military chiefs say 'yes' to women joining Special Forces in frontline combat roles
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/military-chiefs-say-yes-women-7703761
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,301
Everybody should know goddamn well what he is talking about, this is a thread about women in the fucking infantry.
This is a warning, stop being a dick for no reason.
DocIllinois
Verified Military
Male unit level leadership -
Gender Integration: make it happen.
Male leaders will make or break the Army's combat integration of women
Gender Integration: make it happen.
Male leaders will make or break the Army's combat integration of women
It's not equality we want- it's justice.
Do I care that a good number of candidates (men and women alike) will need to seek out specific intention just to make it through any SOF selection/pipeline- um, no, why would I? I actually had someone make the argument because one of the women I know went out and got a running coach, and a physio, and a strength/conditioning coach to prepare for selection. His response was; "I made it on my own, if a fucking girl can't then that's bullshit" sorry, that's not the way this works. When we say things like that we knowingly ignore "the standards" we all rail on about. If youre not willing to accept that someone else passed because you personally disagree with it solely on the grounds that you did it differently, it shows that you don't care about "the standards" at all. If you show up, and you make the standard- you pass. How you got there? 100% inconsequential. Verify that your standard is vetted and immovable. If someone makes that standard? Well, they pass and they do so without an asterisk.
People that want to engage me in this conversation aren't nearly as entertained as they were say, 2 years ago. I had a lot more opinions, a lot more to say- but in the end, here is where I land.
Every single candidate I see gets 2 things from me- equal opportunity and a fair assessment to the given standard. No more, no less. I don't care if you're black, homosexual, a woman, if you identify as mayonnaise as a gender, or if I personally don't think youre right for the job or just a dickhead- I don't care. Equal opportunity, fair assessment. That's not equality- that's justice.
I agree with you. My problem is if the government is prepping women but not men, running courses before/ after Basic or whenever that are only available to women. If they build themselves on their own time, that's fantastic and I'm 100% serious. Get coaching through the base gym or resources available to them? Again, no issues. Have a special course set aside for them to prep? No. AF enlistees go from Basic to Indoc, right? I'm talking about adding a course solely for women before sending them to Indoc, some training not available to the men.
Got you. Well, rest assured that won't happen from our side. If the AF has done anything right, it's that there won't be special/segregated training for women, at leas not under the sanctioned AF flag.
I just got an idea of Diamondback 2/2's ladies Infantry prep course. Although I'd have to hire everything out because my broke ass can't keep up anymore. 
DocIllinois
Verified Military
I just got an idea of Diamondback 2/2's ladies Infantry prep course. Although I'd have to hire everything out because my broke ass can't keep up anymore.
Whatever that would look like, ensure Gender Neutral latrine access at your facility.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
The Royal Marine Commando has been open for the attendance of women
Freefalling is correct, it's well publicized and documented in base newspapers that women received special prep for Ranger School. At Bliss the women first were carefully selected, ok no isssue, but then stopped doing their regular job to specifically prep for RTAC. Those that passed, then had three months off and spent that whole time rebuilding their bodies and working with the same instructors they had previously. All the while not doing their normal job. That doesn't happen for men in this Army, all of our prep for anything is done on our own time. That is what I've seen here at 1AD. YMMV.
This woman is one of the reasons for this nonsense, it needs to end. I'm all for it being open, but they must maintain the same exact standards as males. It's not like the male minimum standard is a lot anyways.
Freefalling is correct, it's well publicized and documented in base newspapers that women received special prep for Ranger School. At Bliss the women first were carefully selected, ok no isssue, but then stopped doing their regular job to specifically prep for RTAC. Those that passed, then had three months off and spent that whole time rebuilding their bodies and working with the same instructors they had previously. All the while not doing their normal job. That doesn't happen for men in this Army, all of our prep for anything is done on our own time. That is what I've seen here at 1AD. YMMV.
Last edited:
Brill
SOF Support
I'm not following how commanders' inappropriate use of SOF (e.g. using them like GPF) is relevant. Are you saying that women could make up the losses?
Agree.
I'm going to ramble a bit.
Standards will change, maybe that's not a bad thing (I am probably joining the minority here).
Standards are always changing, the Airborne PT Test was run in boots, changing just before I went to jump school.
Those before me groused that it was easier, and the standards were lower (true); but we all hit the ground the same way (like a bag of rocks), so was doing the PT test in boots necessary (probably not)?
The key is changing the standards so they reflect mission requirements, and not changing for the sake of change.
The AF was actually in the middle of a 4 year test (female volunteers from Lackland) where everything was being evaluated, and leadership had to say why each evolution was conducted. The test was OBE with the forced integration, and I am bummed because it would have provided a lot of good data.
My major concern is the damage we are doing to our Service Members (spines/hips) by making everyone wear 30 lbs of protection. I see (on a constant basis) the damage we do to men and women in the 68W course (and other medic courses), and the women seem to be more broke coming out of basic than the men, so will women break down faster in Combat Arms?
Will the Services improve female specific medical care? Will the VA get better at caring for female vets? It's one thing to open the doors, but I don't think many have looked at 2nd or 3rd order effects.
I also think the Army needs to start screening it's female applicants before offering a contract, the 95lb cuties being paraded before the camera probably won't make it. That's a wasted Combat Arms slot (Combat Arms is more than Infantry) in a time of tight budgets and more applicants than openings. The AF makes a new recruit pass a PT test before getting a Battlefield Airman slot, and the Army could do the same for it's Combat Arms slots (note, this should apply to men and women).
I don't think the integration will be smooth initially, but it'll work because the NCO Corp is still more professional and less political than the Officer Corp, but all sides have to be fair. That may mean a GO telling a Congressman/woman that your constituent did not make the cut based on her performance, and not gender. Females need the same re-test standards as men, and men should get the same breaks as women.
Woman will excell in a few areas that some will find surprising, there was a Master's (Phd?) study done by a (now retired officer) Ricky Lynch that showed women made better gunners than men, the limiting factor was their ability to load shells. There were a few other areas that women excelled at, but were limited because of upper body strength.
I also think automation will get a boost, eliminating some strength issues (though some stuff just requires brute force), and maybe we get lighter gear down the road.
But I could be wrong.
Interesting you bring this up. When I went through the 25B AIT, they used us as mass casualties for the 68W class' final exercise. At 215 pounds I wasn't the heaviest guy in our class. The 68W class (mostly female) tried to do a two person carry of me and couldn't even drag me (in uniform, not combat equipped). One of the two or three guys in their class had to come over and help. He just threw me up in a fireman's carry to move me where they needed me. It was about 30' from where I was to the casualty collection point across a bay floor (smooth concrete). My point is... If there wasn't a pairing of two females from that class (they ALL tried) that could drag me 30' across a slick floor, what happens in combat if I'm wounded?
Were ther wearing body armor etc?
no, completely admin they even had the ACU blouse off, just t-shirts. they didn't have their aid bags either, those were stacked by the collection point.
metalmom
Verified Military
Adrenaline.Women are essentially caretakers.In my mind a female would come get you in a heartbeat in combat. On the other side men are about protecting-that could also lead to issues. 43 Pages later-no solutions-only opinions-which are great.
I do not accept lowering standards-in fact -I would have questioned if females would get more of a rough ride than their brothers.Apparently not.
No one's questioning their heart or desire. If you're banking on adrenaline to carry the day and overcome existing physical limitations, you've done a poor job of selecting and training your personnel. Sex, age, size...it doesn't matter.
Similar threads
