Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion

[Marauder06]

I'm not confident of the source, but this site says it's 6.8% in the Corps.

 

[Devildoc]

It's one thing to open the field. It another entirely to find women who want to do it. I think the DOD expected a shitload of GI Janes to put in packages for combat MOSs and ooh-rah schools, but I think most women are pretty self-aware about what they can/can't do, and what they want out of their career.

 

[Serenity]

You have no idea what you are talking about, not in this context.

That’s your opinion. Maybe it’s you who don’t know what you’re talking about because this conversation affects young women who are trying to gain entry in a male dominated profession. Were you that girl once? Do you know how it feels to be a young woman facing a career choice that might be hostile to their gender? I hear only one side and it’s the same story. I’m still waiting for stronger female military voices to make some sense of this thread. Unless, you’re a woman and many of the voices complaining the loudest are women too? This is mostly an echo chamber and the sentiments expressed is not a positive one for men in the military in general. While I get the concerns, I find myself less and less sympathetic. The lack of feminine voices in this profession disturbs me.

Take that however you wish or ignore - it’s just an opinion.

The Colonel never shook my hand until I graduated VMI, I didn't know who the Brigade Commander even was until half way through OBC...they have better stuff to do than shake hands of privates getting off a bus.

So you would know this is not reality and just a marketing campaign? You’re not threatened right? Because it’s so posed to me and as I said, highlights a bigger issue. I seriously doubt the system will collapse from that one handshake, and that suddenly all the young women will be demanding special privileges and one-on-one time with senior officials. But I appreciate that you shared.

I’m sorry, but you just don’t understand the issues here. This may be one of those things that people who haven’t served just won’t get.

I don’t think so. I’ve been reading this thread with interest for while and the opinions are unconvincing. All I’m really reading is an unwillingness to adapt to change. My understanding is that if the military is serious about integrating women, they need to accommodate for the differences. But when they do, people complain.

I doubt the combat arms will ever attract many able-bodied women or the kind of women with the will to succeed. Women like that would have a lot of self-worth and have better options. I cannot imagine these kind of women subjecting themselves to the kind of resentment I read in these kinds of threads. They have better things to do.

For the record, I’ve been looking into my own backyard more as it’s a way to compare. I like the stuff I’m seeing on our end; I think the ADF is making a genuine effort to integrate women. We’re not a big population, and beyond politics, it would be pragmatic and sensible not to make women feel excluded. If they need a little more encouragement to apply and a little more guidance to reach standards, then so what? At least they’re willing to sign up and stand for something. They should be respected. There’s no need to make people feel unwelcomed when you need more people.

 

[DC]

That’s your opinion. Maybe it’s you who don’t know what you’re talking about because this conversation affects young women who are trying to gain entry in a male dominated profession. Were you that girl once? Do you know how it feels to be a young woman facing a career choice that might be hostile to their gender? I hear only one side and it’s the same story. I’m still waiting for stronger female military voices to make some sense of this thread. Unless, you’re a woman and many of the voices complaining the loudest are women too? This is mostly an echo chamber and the sentiments expressed is not a positive one for men in the military in general. While I get the concerns, I find myself less and less sympathetic. The lack of feminine voices in this profession disturbs me.

Take that however you wish or ignore - it’s just an opinion.


So you would know this is not reality and just a marketing campaign? You’re not threatened right? Because it’s so posed to me and as I said, highlights a bigger issue. I seriously doubt the system will collapse from that one handshake, and that suddenly all the young women will be demanding special privileges and one-on-one time with senior officials. But I appreciate that you shared.

I don’t think so. I’ve been reading this thread with interest for while and the opinions are unconvincing. All I’m really reading is an unwillingness to adapt to change. My understanding is that if the military is serious about integrating women, they need to accommodate for the differences. But when they do, people complain.

I doubt the combat arms will ever attract many able-bodied women or the kind of women with the will to succeed. Women like that would have a lot of self-worth and have better options. I cannot imagine these kind of women subjecting themselves to the kind of resentment I read in these kinds of threads. They have better things to do.

For the record, I’ve been looking into my own backyard more as it’s a way to compare. I like the stuff I’m seeing on our end; I think the ADF is making a genuine effort to integrate women. We’re not a big population, and beyond politics, it would be pragmatic and sensible not to make women feel excluded. If they need a little more encouragement to apply and a little more guidance to reach standards, then so what? At least they’re willing to sign up and stand for something. They should be respected. There’s no need to make people feel unwelcomed when you need more people.

Change? See that’s the issue Serenity. You do the same vetting and same requirements as we here have then you can be accepted. That’s the issue. No change jus same quals to do the same job. Easy Peasy right? The bar gets lowered and that we’re the animosity begins. It’s not the trainees fault but upper management. They doom you all from the start. I honestly think it may be intentional. I would serve with ANYONE who can qualify the same way I did period.

 

[medicchick]

That’s your opinion. Maybe it’s you who don’t know what you’re talking about because this conversation affects young women who are trying to gain entry in a male dominated profession. Were you that girl once? Do you know how it feels to be a young woman facing a career choice that might be hostile to their gender? I hear only one side and it’s the same story. I’m still waiting for stronger female military voices to make some sense of this thread. Unless, you’re a woman and many of the voices complaining the loudest are women too? This is mostly an echo chamber and the sentiments expressed is not a positive one for men in the military in general. While I get the concerns, I find myself less and less sympathetic. The lack of feminine voices in this profession disturbs me.

Take that however you wish or ignore - it’s just an opinion.


So you would know this is not reality and just a marketing campaign? You’re not threatened right? Because it’s so posed to me and as I said, highlights a bigger issue. I seriously doubt the system will collapse from that one handshake, and that suddenly all the young women will be demanding special privileges and one-on-one time with senior officials. But I appreciate that you shared.

I don’t think so. I’ve been reading this thread with interest for while and the opinions are unconvincing. All I’m really reading is an unwillingness to adapt to change. My understanding is that if the military is serious about integrating women, they need to accommodate for the differences. But when they do, people complain.

I doubt the combat arms will ever attract many able-bodied women or the kind of women with the will to succeed. Women like that would have a lot of self-worth and have better options. I cannot imagine these kind of women subjecting themselves to the kind of resentment I read in these kinds of threads. They have better things to do.

For the record, I’ve been looking into my own backyard more as it’s a way to compare. I like the stuff I’m seeing on our end; I think the ADF is making a genuine effort to integrate women. We’re not a big population, and beyond politics, it would be pragmatic and sensible not to make women feel excluded. If they need a little more encouragement to apply and a little more guidance to reach standards, then so what? At least they’re willing to sign up and stand for something. They should be respected. There’s no need to make people feel unwelcomed when you need more people.

You are missing the entire point of the article. Females are supposed to be treated EXACTLY the same as males, yet there is photo proof that she was not. The article was written by a male who was a student and instructor so he knows how it is supposed to be. You seem to twist everything (even a simple statement) into something that is 180 from the intent. Some (ok a lot) of your posts are actually hard to follow with how much they twist what the actual conversation that is going on to fit your being offended at something unrelated

 

[Centermass]

That’s your opinion. Maybe it’s you who don’t know what you’re talking about because this conversation affects young women who are trying to gain entry in a male dominated profession. Were you that girl once? Do you know how it feels to be a young woman facing a career choice that might be hostile to their gender? I hear only one side and it’s the same story. I’m still waiting for stronger female military voices to make some sense of this thread. Unless, you’re a woman and many of the voices complaining the loudest are women too? This is mostly an echo chamber and the sentiments expressed is not a positive one for men in the military in general. While I get the concerns, I find myself less and less sympathetic. The lack of feminine voices in this profession disturbs me.

Take that however you wish or ignore - it’s just an opinion.

So you would know this is not reality and just a marketing campaign? You’re not threatened right? Because it’s so posed to me and as I said, highlights a bigger issue. I seriously doubt the system will collapse from that one handshake, and that suddenly all the young women will be demanding special privileges and one-on-one time with senior officials. But I appreciate that you shared.

No, but it sure as hell is indicative of the overall tone of appeasement rather than business as it should be.

I don’t think so. I’ve been reading this thread with interest for while and the opinions are unconvincing. All I’m really reading is an unwillingness to adapt to change. My understanding is that if the military is serious about integrating women, they need to accommodate for the differences. But when they do, people complain.

Accommodate? You just answered your own complaint about others "complaining." The better choice of wording would have been "Concerns."

I've bit my tongue reading some of your other posts, but I've got to tell you that this passive aggressive tone you continue to exhibit is really wearing out its welcome.

 

[racing_kitty]

Whole Post

Not sure my opinion carries any weight, what with my XX chromosome pair, asshole swagger, four deployments, and a CAB that was actually earned outside the wire [/sarc], but I’ll weigh in once I get home. I will say this: the posts I’ve made previously in this exact thread have come from first hand experience and careful observation. Read them. Ponder them, as opposed to react to them, and I’ll certainly address this in a few hours.

 

[x SF med]

My responses are in red. Mod hat off, SOF/Infantry Hat on.

I don’t think so. I’ve been reading this thread with interest for while and the opinions are unconvincing. How is this thread unconvincing? Specifics, please. All I’m really reading is an unwillingness to adapt to change. What you are reading is an unwillingness to change standards to meet the demands of those unwilling to meet those standards. My understanding is that if the military is serious about integrating women, they need to accommodate for the differences. The integration of women into the military is working just fine for non-combat positions, the push back you are reading is from COMBAT ARMS/SPECIAL OPERATIONS soldiers and veterans decrying the drop in standards that will, not may, absolutely will get people killed - male and female. A woman who meets the standards, and can maintain them, daily, for extended timeframes is another soldier deserving of the job, have at it. A woman who can't hump the 150Lb tick for 20km a day and perform the job required at the end, same as a guy who can't, GTFOD. There are some small accommodations that can be made without jeopardizing the mission and people, very few, very small - thus the stringent standards for the 1% of the 1% in SOF, and the 10% of 1% in Combat Arms in general. Homogeneity of standard keeps people alive. Look at a Combat Arms or SOF veteran, the limps, the aches, the inability to make certain moves - because of the demands of the job - for the love of the job - for the Team, every school we attend, every training mission, every real mission requires us to love the job, rely on our Team and know each person is capable in every situation, always, no matter what. Accommodation breeds doubt, doubt breeds fear, fear breeds panic, panic brings death. Does this fucking open your eyes to the rest of the thread? Because if you really read what's here, that's what's being said, instead you start your seriously annoying argumentative whining, when we've basically all said, go for it, if they can continuously meet and exceed the current standards - if not, no fucking way. But when they do, people complain. Fuck yeah, you'd complain too if your life was the one on the line.

I doubt the combat arms will ever attract many able-bodied women or the kind of women with the will to succeed. Horseshit, only women with the will to succeed would even attempt it, that's part of the selection. Women like that would have a lot of self-worth and have better options. It's not about options, it's about a solid choice, you'll never understand in 100 lifetimes.I cannot imagine these kind of women subjecting themselves to the kind of resentment I read in these kinds of threads. Those women would not be resented, rather respected, accepted and become teammates. They have better things to do. There is nothing better than being a member of a highly skilled, highly trained, cohesive team that can and will accomplish anything, or die trying, as a team. This is a mindset that will forever be alien to you. Argue all you desire, you will not convince me/us otherwise.

For the record, I’ve been looking into my own backyard more as it’s a way to compare. I like the stuff I’m seeing on our end; I think the ADF is making a genuine effort to integrate women. We’re not a big population, and beyond politics, it would be pragmatic and sensible not to make women feel excluded. If they need a little more encouragement to apply and a little more guidance to reach standards, then so what? At least they’re willing to sign up and stand for something. They should be respected. There’s no need to make people feel unwelcomed when you need more people. I have no words for this last debacle of rhetoric you used as your close...

I so await the response from my little sister in arms... You may want to close your eyes Ms. Seerenity, I do believe the Kitteh is gonna harsh your mellow....

 

[DC]

My responses are in red. Mod hat off, SOF/Infantry Hat on.

Best response ever.

 

[Serenity]

Change? See that’s the issue Serenity. You do the same vetting and same requirements as we here have then you can be accepted. That’s the issue. No change jus same quals to do the same job. Easy Peasy right? The bar gets lowered and that we’re the animosity begins. It’s not the trainees fault but upper management. They doom you all from the start. I honestly think it may be intentional. I would serve with ANYONE who can qualify the same way I did period.

I get your where argument comes from but I don’t agree. People have different strengths and weaknesses, and recognition of that is important to create a healthy dynamic with a broad range of skills. Sure, there’s a base line of fitness required, we can’t have people huffing and puffing and out of breath in the battlefield. But are these standards actually practical or just a rite of passage? From what I’ve read on this site and else where, it’s comes across like a lot of the training in the military causes injuries. How does that make sense? Why the heck is the female failure rate so high? That doesn’t even make sense to me. Anyone with the right motivation and maturity would know the standards and prepare accordingly. It’s either standards are unreasonable or you’re attracting the wrong types. I suspect it’s a combination of both.

Animosity happens because people are threatened by change and differences, rather than just adapt. That article just fuels that mentality - “Oh look, see?! See?! Double standards!” I assume like anywhere, there’s a job description. So as long as the person next to you does her job to spec, do you really care how she got to stand next to you? That she went through your exact initiation? As I said, there’s a need for more people. It might be better to try to embrace those that actually want to be there and better guide them on their journey.

I just hear a lot of men complaining, and no disrespect to you @medicchick, but I’m not sure you’re getting the point either, if your contribution amounted to you discussing your endowments. Because, let’s be honest, why would you or I be relevant to those women who do wish to be infantry? I’m not twisting anything, I am just stating a POV when I read this as a female civilian. You don’t have to like it either. While I may not be military, I’m in a male dominated career. I see a lot of parallels in the subconscious gender biases. I ignore, adapt or move on. I have a job to do that I enjoy. I’ve never whined as much as the kind of whining I read here.

 

[AWP]

@Serenity , I hope you understand it. DO NOT reply in this thread that you do or do not...just go about your business.

post

Failure to follow simple instructions. Points assessed and a 14 day thread ban.

---

Anyone else feel like ignoring a staff member?

 

[DC]

Your whole post is actually foreign to me. You do it or quit. This isn’t corporate world it’s life and death. Standards are developed for you and your team to survive. Strange you don’t see that. Maybe the lens your seeing this needs cleaning or a magnification change. I’m not being a smartass(rare) but you seem to add to this discussion for an alternative idea. What are you looking for?

 

[medicchick]

I just hear a lot of men complaining, and no disrespect to you @medicchick, but I’m not sure you’re getting the point either, if your contribution amounted to you discussing your endowments. Because, let’s be honest, why would you or I be relevant to those women who do wish to be infantry? I’m not twisting anything, I am just stating a POV when I read this as a female civilian. You don’t have to like it either. While I may not be military, I’m in a male dominated career. I see a lot of parallels in the subconscious gender biases. I ignore, adapt or move on. I have a job to do that I enjoy. I’ve never whined as much as the kind of whining I read here.

Wow, you have no fucking clue what that conversation was even about then. How do you know what I wanted when I was looking to enlist? How do you know anything about me? You work in a male dominated career? Great, so did I , several times. Aircraft don't care what plumbing you have when they need to be serviced. The person dying doesn't care either. Don't try to pretend you know anything about my past or what I have to offer.

 

[Ranger Psych]

I get your where argument comes from but I don’t agree. People have different strengths and weaknesses, and recognition of that is important to create a healthy dynamic with a broad range of skills. Sure, there’s a base line of fitness required, we can’t have people huffing and puffing and out of breath in the battlefield. But are these standards actually practical or just a rite of passage? From what I’ve read on this site and else where, it’s comes across like a lot of the training in the military causes injuries. How does that make sense?

The baseline of fitness is a requirement in order to ensure that everyone in the unit is able to perform to a specific capacity. If you can't run that 5 mile in the time required, if you don't have the physical strength to be able to lift the weights as much as necessary, then you're going to hit the wall when everyone else isn't... and then the entire unit has to slow down because we don't leave people behind. That means that we now no longer make our hit time on an objective, and the bad guy gets away. Or the hostages get killed. Or the chemical weapons get fired off instead of destroyed on the ground.

Training causes direct injuries, and wear injuries.

Direct injuries happen due to accidents or specific training events that are necessary, but high risk. An example is Military Airdrop operations. Parachuting is a high impact event with forces that decades of science and technology have not been able to mitigate to a significant extent... The only method that has proven to have the highest rate of injury reduction is ensuring a high level of fitness specifically because tendons and ligaments that can support specific standards have a higher incidence rate of being able to SUSTAIN those forces generated by the events.

Wear injuries will happen, and it's an accepted fact of the job. They happen to everyone over their lifetime, there's no way around the fact that someone who is more active than 90% of the average population is going to have accelerated physical wear on their musculoskeletal system.

There is no way around the fact that a machine gun weighs over 24 pounds.
There is no way around the fact that a machine gun team needs over 2000 rounds of ammunition to be BARELY capable of doing their job, at 7 pounds per hundred rounds.
There is no way around the fact that a recoilless rifle weighs what it weighs.
There is no way around the minimum equipment you have to carry just as a human being let alone Soldier, Marine, or Combat Airman.
MRE's weigh.
Water weighs.
The armor weighs.

All of this you have to WEAR to TRAIN in order to ensure that you can actually FUNCTION with the equipment and be efficient, not leaving a yardsale when you move from position to position, and that you can run when you need to and crawl when you need to. You HAVE to train to not only build up to DO the mission, but you have to PROVE that you can do the mission repeatedly, year after year, as people come and go and every unit in the army regardless of SOF or not, has to DO THEIR JOB in a simulated combat environment and be assessed as a functional unit.

There are no assumptions of capacity, only demonstrations of capacity. This is why assessments for all SOF units have components with full equipment roadmarches and the like. You need to PROVE that you can do what you market you can do. Expecting otherwise is like sending a spec sheet out to a contractor then never doing any Quality Assurance, Destructive/Nondestructive testing, and assessing performance/compliance on the product you receive.

Why the heck is the female failure rate so high? That doesn’t even make sense to me. Anyone with the right motivation and maturity would know the standards and prepare accordingly. It’s either standards are unreasonable or you’re attracting the wrong types. I suspect it’s a combination of both.

The female failure rate is so high specifically because the average female is physiologically less capable than a male with a 20% average reduction being a generously low number. Male VO2 Max is 40% greater, max heart rate capacity is 20% greater, lung capacity and heart capacity is greater. Males are around 10% taller than females.

This means that an average male is going to be out the gate, just as a genetic sexed human, more capable than a female. Where the female can jump to reach the wall and hang, the male can jump and have additional momentum due to reach to actually pull up less. Then the male has more inherent muscle mass to be able to pull themselves up the wall. Then they have the additional endurance to do it in repetition longer than the female will. These physiological differences mean that a genetic female is already behind the power curve versus the AVERAGE man... and guess what sugar, SOF isn't looking for average.

Look at it this way. Selection courses graduate for training and placement around the top 10% of each class, thereabouts. 36 graduates in a class of 240. Some may have passed solely on physical capabilities, but assessments aren't solely for physical capabilities. You can leave at any time, people QUIT. They just decide that the effort isn't worth it and go down the road.

Taking Drop-On-Request out of the equation, even though it's part of the numbers, if females physically perform 20% WORSE than males, that means a female who even wants to have a CHANCE of passing will need to perform well over 20% better than the average to even just make it into the failure stack, let alone if they want to graduate.

Animosity happens because people are threatened by change and differences, rather than just adapt. That article just fuels that mentality - “Oh look, see?! See?! Double standards!” I assume like anywhere, there’s a job description. So as long as the person next to you does her job to spec, do you really care how she got to stand next to you? That she went through your exact initiation? As I said, there’s a need for more people. It might be better to try to embrace those that actually want to be there and better guide them on their journey.

Your only option for adaptation is reduction of standards. This is unacceptable, as the cohesive units that operate now do so with specific capabilities, timeframes, equipment and support requirements. This isn't about embracing those that want to try, just because they tried. This is about being able to function as the sharp end of the sword when the pen fails. You want these units to adapt and take on people just because they want to be there... well, the problem with just taking on people that want to be there versus prove their capability to be there is very simple.

Mission: Take out an enemy camp
Situation: Enemy compliment at camp. Enemy complement of reinforcements tripling the size of enemy personnel on the objective in 1 hour.

Right now, units can get in, do the job, and get out without encountering the reinforcements. Your "Adaptation" ie reduction of standards in order to increase gender ratios synthetically with no regard for performance, means now that entire unit is still ON the objective getting slaughtered because they couldn't get out in time. This is the reality of "adaptation" versus "upholding the standard"

I just hear a lot of men complaining, and no disrespect to you @medicchick, but I’m not sure you’re getting the point either, if your contribution amounted to you discussing your endowments. Because, let’s be honest, why would you or I be relevant to those women who do wish to be infantry? I’m not twisting anything, I am just stating a POV when I read this as a female civilian. You don’t have to like it either. While I may not be military, I’m in a male dominated career. I see a lot of parallels in the subconscious gender biases. I ignore, adapt or move on. I have a job to do that I enjoy. I’ve never whined as much as the kind of whining I read here.

@medicchick has put on my very rucksack that I carried for weeks on end AS an infantryman. She knows exactly how heavy my most basic individually carried load was. She's got more dog in the fight than you ever will, as you've got a civilian job that you enjoy and don't have anything other than opinionated platitudes to share, based solely on trying to parallel civilian work experience with the military. Guess what: The infantry has no civilian parallel. There's no call for a highly refined capacity of our specific skillset in the "outside world" and you should be thankful for that. What this bluntly means is that you have nothing to form any true basis for what you consider a parallel.

The standards ARE practical. The MEN that couldn't meet the standards and subsequently forced to leave the Ranger Regiment were absolutely a detriment to the team. I have personally specifically seen where those that couldn't meet the standards EVEN WITH THE SLIGHTLY REDUCED SUPPORT STANDARDS were a huge problem. Having to drag along someone who's unable to perform to the standard, slowing down the entire element, drags the entire element's overall performance and capability down.

 

[Chopstick]

While I may not be military, I’m in a male dominated career. I see a lot of parallels in the subconscious gender biases. I ignore, adapt or move on. I have a job to do that I enjoy. I’ve never whined as much as the kind of whining I read here.

I am just explaining my dislike. "While I may not be military". THAT. RIGHT. THERE. SPEAKS. VOLUMES.
I am not military. I want to make that clear. I come from a military family. My son was an 0311. 2 tours in Sangin. I know what he and his comrades experienced there. Sangin et. al. is no place for participation trophies and social experimentation. That being said, I repeat I am not military. There are amazing men and women on this site with mountains of real life training and experiences, wisdom they have gained, in many cases with real blood, sweat and yes, tears. They have given a large portion of their lives in service to their respective countries. They are here to support each other and form a community that fosters the next generations of like minded people. PEOPLE. I didnt say men, I said people. I have been welcomed into "their" house and I appreciate the advice and real friendships I have gained over the years. I take offense at your comment about whining. These people are not whiners by any stretch of the imagination. @Serenity you have made your point over and over that women should, by virtue of gender be pushed to the head of the military class and coddled. Ok. That is your position. Being insulting and petulant to the owners of this house is inexcusable, however. If you would stop and read and know the people here the way I do, the sacrifices made not just by these individuals but their families in service of their country you would understand how you embarrass yourself. Please stop. You could have a great experience here if you want to.

Mods please moderate if need be. I just had to say my piece.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

- Mod Request -

If you snooze you lose -

Serenity is on a full forum timeout; no need to take this any further.

Back on track for the actual topic of this thread.

 

[Etype]

... what does shooting have to do with sex?

I don't know the clinical reason, but anecdotal information in the form of USPSA stage times shows they aren't as good.

Honestly, shooting is one area where I’d expect women to be competitive with men.

Have you seen this in any instance? In my experience this is one are where they have been quite lacking.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

The good Colonel wouldn't normally be within 15 klicks of maggoty SOI arrivals. It's all politics now and there's damn little anybody can do about it.

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall of the Colonel's office when he got that directive: "You WILL greet the female SOI arrivals and shake their hands and you WILL act like you are happy about it..."

The more I think of this the more I wonder, did the WM's at least salute the Colonel? To me it would have been a much more powerful picture if it was a photo of the Colonel welcoming the young Marines to SOI (or was it just MCT?) and them saluting each other. I'm picturing the Sgt. Major thinking how has it come to this. A PFC greeted by the Colonel as if they were drinking buddies who have not seen each other for years.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Shit Post

- Mod edit -

Pretty sure we asked the dog-pile to stop. At a minimum, at least take the time to write out something relevant to the conversation instead of just insulting the member you disagree with. There are some well written posts in response to Serenity. This is not one of them.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

You don't know what you're talking about. When it comes to Women, I've already seen the studs that can make it. They don't get resented, they don't ask for special treatment, they just put their ruck on the Bradley and they go. They can dish better insults than the men they serve with and lead. They don't demand showers every 3 days (that's not even a reg, here's your jerry can of water, bath yourself when we pull into the PB).

People who can hack don't get chewed up. People who can't do, that goes for whatever is between your legs.

@ThunderHorse

Did you not just see a user receive a 14 day break from this thread for failure to follow direction?
Did you not see my request just 2 posts above yours, highlighted in Red that asks members to stop the dog pile?
Are you not aware that quoting someone and putting "shit post" in their post will be a no-go?

I am getting tired of thread banning you and then having you come right back and doing the same thing all over again.

Take a 7 day break from this thread and a 7 day timeout from the forum as a whole.