Pardus...The Man, The Legend. 
Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
Philopalope
Unverified
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 22
I can't really speak from experience but the impression I've gotten over the years is that they're just trying to appease the public. If they really were interested in the well being of Soldiers / Sailors / Marines / Airmen ... they'd have identical standards. It's not about what bits you've got between your legs... but what you're capable of physically and mentally. Sadly though, I don't see that changing.
The standards have never been equal. Both sexes break out according to age groups. I'm leery of politics causing the standards to erode, but we need to be honest...the standards were never the same and haven't been for decades. If we want true equality (which I support) then we need to drastically overhaul the PT standards. An 18 YO male and a 25 YO male do not have the same requirements.
I think we are talking about 2 different things-IMO, "equality" means everyone is judged to an objective standard that is fair and just. "Uniformity" means everyone is judged to the exact same standard, regardless of age/sex/focus group. No one wants "uniformity", because that's stupid, for the reasons @AWP laid out, among a ton of others. It's why the AF will tell me that "regular" AF cats are just as fit as me because we both score 95's on our AF PT test- because the test is uniform in nature and doesn't take into account entire domains of fitness, to include job/task related evaluations.
The BA community is at least moving in the right direction here (with the BA Operator PT Update/New BA PT tests), which allow for age discrepancies and have a wider range of scores, meant to speak to an individual operator's readiness to perform the actual mission. If we assume that the exercises in this new test were derived from actual job stressors and physical movements necessary for the job, then what you have is a sliding scale of the individuals ability to perform the job, from the low end (not capable) to the high end (very capable). Currently, we have a collection of random crap that's supposed to be all inclusive (the run measures cardiorespiratory fitness; pushups measure musculoskeletal endurance, etc). That's rank horseshit. Time and again here at the schoolhouse, we fail students that can run an 18:00 3 mile cause when you put 1/4 of their bodyweight in kit on them, they can't climb a ladder or carry their buddy. That means our fitness test doesn't judge an operator's ability to do the job- it judges their ability to do well on that specific test.
Instead, having a test that states, "to be a PJ, you have to complete a 100 yard farmers walk with 50lb dumbbells in each hand in under 30 seconds. Less than 15 seconds is max points, and the scale of points is X; :31 seconds or more earns you a score of 0" is "equality". Carrying a litter for 100 yards while moving a CCP is a necessary, validated and objective task, and the time cap adds in the stress of realism. Throw on an extra 5 seconds per 5 years over 30, and poof- there's your standard. Add that to a battery of other tests that are as equal and valid, and you have a PT test that can be applied across sexes to all candidates "equally", not "uniformly". You can be crappy in one area- like grip strength- but smoke everything else and still score well.
Doesn't matter who you are, if you identify as mayonnaise, or whether or not you find Rachel Maddow attractive. If you start with an objective evaluation based on job-specific taks, those questions about the "fairness of the standard" and all the other nonsense go away. Can't carry a litter? Can't be a PJ. Can't climb a rope ladder with 50lbs of gear? Can't be a PJ.
The BA community is at least moving in the right direction here (with the BA Operator PT Update/New BA PT tests), which allow for age discrepancies and have a wider range of scores, meant to speak to an individual operator's readiness to perform the actual mission. If we assume that the exercises in this new test were derived from actual job stressors and physical movements necessary for the job, then what you have is a sliding scale of the individuals ability to perform the job, from the low end (not capable) to the high end (very capable). Currently, we have a collection of random crap that's supposed to be all inclusive (the run measures cardiorespiratory fitness; pushups measure musculoskeletal endurance, etc). That's rank horseshit. Time and again here at the schoolhouse, we fail students that can run an 18:00 3 mile cause when you put 1/4 of their bodyweight in kit on them, they can't climb a ladder or carry their buddy. That means our fitness test doesn't judge an operator's ability to do the job- it judges their ability to do well on that specific test.
Instead, having a test that states, "to be a PJ, you have to complete a 100 yard farmers walk with 50lb dumbbells in each hand in under 30 seconds. Less than 15 seconds is max points, and the scale of points is X; :31 seconds or more earns you a score of 0" is "equality". Carrying a litter for 100 yards while moving a CCP is a necessary, validated and objective task, and the time cap adds in the stress of realism. Throw on an extra 5 seconds per 5 years over 30, and poof- there's your standard. Add that to a battery of other tests that are as equal and valid, and you have a PT test that can be applied across sexes to all candidates "equally", not "uniformly". You can be crappy in one area- like grip strength- but smoke everything else and still score well.
Doesn't matter who you are, if you identify as mayonnaise, or whether or not you find Rachel Maddow attractive. If you start with an objective evaluation based on job-specific taks, those questions about the "fairness of the standard" and all the other nonsense go away. Can't carry a litter? Can't be a PJ. Can't climb a rope ladder with 50lbs of gear? Can't be a PJ.
Philopalope
Unverified
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 22
You're right, they've never been equal. I think the main issue is from those who are trying to push more women into combat roles. When you try to up the numbers usually the standards drop, and there are lots of people demanding standards to be dropped to allow more women into these positions, including the SOF community.
I don't feel that push at all. I can't speak across the enterprise (only PJ community), but the only drama this has caused has been in the general public.
We have a standard. It's always been the standard. If you don't make the standard, you don't get in, and we aren't getting any pressure for numbers- well, let me clarify. We ALWAYS get pressure for numbers. But AETC and AFSOC and ACC aren't telling us "get women". It's just not a conversation we even entertain.
I'm on board, but there's a larger issue with the "women shouldn't in combat arms/ SOF" argument. People like to say "combat has one standard." Okay, try grading that on a PT test, but if combat has one standard, what about PT tests?
The hard reality is if you make a score where large numbers of say 35 YO men can pass, then you're lowering the standards. If you apply ONE standard across a branch regardless of age or sex, then you either really reduce the standards or accept a mass firing of military personnel. All of the pro/con arguments ignore this reality. How many 50 YO CSMs can match some stud 22 YO's PT score? "We shouldn't lower the standard." Your standard isn't the same, so you accept that while you want women to meet the men's standards?
Our military as a whole needs to accept the hypocrisy of these arguments and good luck making a standard for combat arms versus combat support like a dental tech. Assigned vs. attached? Unit-based (now your NBC or supply NCO in an SF company meets the same standards as an 18 series)? MOS-based (your Ranger Regt. 25-series and a garbage-ass NG Signal Battalion now have the same standard)?
Great point about equality vs. uniformity, because equality is the buzzword these days when people mean uniformity. We're still back to the above arguments.
(Note: "You" is in the generic sense, not a direct challenge to amlove in case anyone is curious)
That should be always clear, my main man!
So I agree overall with your argument. But here is the thing; I think at least as far as SOF is concerned, our leadership has smoked this issue and led really well. I think your argument comes out in the wash.
With the now 10 year long push for "recruit the right candidate; look for the whole person; look for someone who is going to be a good operator, not good at the selections" all of SOF has been moving to, we actually have a lot more freedom to apply that "sliding standard" of PT and holistic evaluation.
BA is in deep with our human capital optimization programs- literally quantifying intangibles like leadership, integrity, effort- and we are continuing to professionalize our process. At my organization, we have gotten to the point where we can say, "Listen- this guy, although he hasn't failed anything, isn't the right guy. He's not going to be able to be successful, and here is why." And AETC listens and supports our "professional subjectivity".
In the end, we are going to get the right candidates through the door, give everyone an equal opportunity for objective evaluation, from a place where every single instructor wants every candidate to graduate. It logically follows that we then produce more end-product. But inherent in that statement is that we are also going to be able to non-select the wrong candidate, whoever that may be and whatever sexual organs they posses.
To quote a very smart SEAL 2 star- "The amount of women that even want to try SOF is infinitesimally small. Miniscule. The percentage of those that are going to make it? Smaller than that. So that percentage- decimal points of a small percentage point- is exactly equal to how much worry and effort I am going to give this issue. Make the standard. If you do, you're a team mate."
Philopalope
Unverified
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 22
Right, I mean with the public. It might just be more apparent to me because I live in a VERY Liberal city but it's a hot topic where I'm from. That and Trump's recent "ban" on Transgenders in the military.
Yeah, I assure you, it's not even the smallest blip on our radar. I'll get excited when I see a female at my point in our respective pipeline, and I think that isn't feasible for another 4 years.
There it is.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,946
I enjoy reading The Times, even after all these years. Don't I remember that one former Commandant hated it so much he tried to get it removed from PX's?
At boot camp, 3 out of 4 women fail to meet combat standards
Some pretty interesting back-and-forth in the article, to include:
- allegations that male recruiters shy away from helping female poolees in fear of being accused of something inappropriate
- suggestions that The Corps is not going out of their way to hold recruiters accountable for actually trying to bring females into the ground units
- less than 1% of female recruits are coming to Bootcamp with a combat arms contract
At boot camp, 3 out of 4 women fail to meet combat standards
Some pretty interesting back-and-forth in the article, to include:
- allegations that male recruiters shy away from helping female poolees in fear of being accused of something inappropriate
- suggestions that The Corps is not going out of their way to hold recruiters accountable for actually trying to bring females into the ground units
- less than 1% of female recruits are coming to Bootcamp with a combat arms contract
Devildoc
Verified Military
Of these three points, one should be easy to track: the third. The question then is, why? Are recruiters talking them out of those MOSs? Or are they simply deciding to not go into combat arms if they are qualified?
Those first two..."allegations" and "suggestions"....smack of all sorts of subjective interpretation.
Recruiters and women made me think of this story: There was a woman who wanted to get away from her life, so she went to the recruiting station in Raleigh, NC to join the Marines. The recruiter talked her out of it, told her the Marine Corps was no place for a woman. Nine weeks later they got married. That was in 1959, they were my parents. I will say this: if ever there was one woman I would want in combat, it was my mother. She could kick anyone's ass.
Another problem with this too is that recruiters talk recruits into something different all of the time. If people become hung up on "they didn't recruit women into combat arms" they are overlooking the tried and true process of talking guys into slots other than combat arms or from one support job to another simply because of quotas. Possibly the last time recruiters didn't talk a recruit out of a job was at a little tavern in Philly.
Different force but does it all lead to this? This is a bold move and they better hope the attrition rate doesn't suddenly surge.
Australian Army reportedly shuns male recruits in favour of women
Australian Army reportedly shuns male recruits in favour of women
D
Deleted member 11415
Guest
Jesus Fuck. That's a lot of females. It sounds like a terrible idea.
It's a beat up and they're quoting a peanut who was arseholed from army for actively being a peanut.
The reality is that they're well over on numbers, they don't need to recruit for a year for most of the "combat" trades.
However they will recruit every suitable woman that walks through the door, for any trade. For trades like Infantry, Cav and Artillery, that might be a couple of dozen women, most won't make it, but they'll be in and corps transferred into sigs, MPs or transport etc and will have boosted the gender ratio.
Social media images from the recruit training battalion still show platoons that are mostly male and mostly white, which will come as a shock to those who are convinced that they're not only solely recruiting women, but racial minorities too.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,946
The author's assertion that no woman could ever be his "brother" in the SEAL Teams got my attention.
The writer's overall message is more emotional than fact and data driven, bur those emotions are real to him.
This statement stood out:
A female who chooses to go to BUD/S has already chosen herself over the mission, as her mere presence indicates a change in training standards. She will never be able to complete training without lowering standards, because standards were already lowered to allow her to train.
I have always fallen on the "if they can meet the standards" side of the coin, but if the initial standards are modified just to give them a chance to train?
A very respected member of this board recently shared a story where a Marine Corps sniper class had a 100% graduation rate vs. the 30% that had been projected...because the General willed it.
If that is the game that can be played...well then color me skeptical about the whole system, to include the two women who recently passed Ranger school with allegedly no deviation to the standards or additional chances to redo something they failed at.
I've read a number of "because that's the way we've always done it" posts and articles, but this is one of the more well written....
Females in SEAL Teams: They Will Never Be My Brothers
The writer's overall message is more emotional than fact and data driven, bur those emotions are real to him.
This statement stood out:
A female who chooses to go to BUD/S has already chosen herself over the mission, as her mere presence indicates a change in training standards. She will never be able to complete training without lowering standards, because standards were already lowered to allow her to train.
I have always fallen on the "if they can meet the standards" side of the coin, but if the initial standards are modified just to give them a chance to train?
A very respected member of this board recently shared a story where a Marine Corps sniper class had a 100% graduation rate vs. the 30% that had been projected...because the General willed it.
If that is the game that can be played...well then color me skeptical about the whole system, to include the two women who recently passed Ranger school with allegedly no deviation to the standards or additional chances to redo something they failed at.
I've read a number of "because that's the way we've always done it" posts and articles, but this is one of the more well written....
Females in SEAL Teams: They Will Never Be My Brothers
Last edited:
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
If the standards remained the same for all top end schools like they did in the UK, you would have women pass. The hardest of these that is open to women is the Marine Commando course, 20 or so women have passed the course in the 20 years it's been open. None of them have chosen to serve in the units that qualification gives them right to serve in.
D
Deleted member 11415
Guest
I cannot like this post enough. This is the most accurate article I have ever read using an eloquence that I lack. I am a female and directly supported the gwot as an individual augmentee on SOF small teams outside of the United States. It was always as a onsie or twosie tasking and I did not ever apply for a SOF pipeline. It took ten years to talk about it and I'm still fairly reserved, mainly because...it's weird as fuck. But yeah. That article is badass. I'm glad the author said it. He is spot on.
Edited to add the point/grammar: The training standard for females is lowered from the gate: there is nothing that can truly replace any SOF pipeline, imo. Add I was trained using an oxygen depriving black hood...a lot. Still not the same.
Edited to add the point/grammar: The training standard for females is lowered from the gate: there is nothing that can truly replace any SOF pipeline, imo. Add I was trained using an oxygen depriving black hood...a lot. Still not the same.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
