Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion

[Brill]

Have to admit, it's probably time for the draft to be for both sexes. You can't cherry pick what you want to be equal for and what you don't want to be equal for.

That’s sexist!

 

[chickenrappa]

Well yeah, about time women have to sign up for the draft too. I wonder what kind of stipulations they'll put on it though, because there's no way they're going to make it 100 percent the same. At least I think on the base level they'll make the way it works basically the same, but probably have some different ways of going about it. Interested to see if they can pull it off.

 

[amlove21]

Well yeah, about time women have to sign up for the draft too. I wonder what kind of stipulations they'll put on it though, because there's no way they're going to make it 100 percent the same. At least I think on the base level they'll make the way it works basically the same, but probably have some different ways of going about it. Interested to see if they can pull it off.

Why would they need to make it any different?

If the only male version is unconstitutional, why wouldn’t simply including all SSNs through selective service registration be as simple as that?

 

[chickenrappa]

Yeah, everyone would have to sign up on their 18th birthday, that would be standard for both males and females. It could be that simple, the complicated portion would be during the actual draft (if activated again), would they pull 50/50 male/female draftee numbers? What would the ratio be? That was more what I was thinking about, I over complicate shit sometimes in my head. But you're correct @amlove21 The process of signing up shouldn't be different, and including all SSN's would probably be the way they go about it. I was speaking more for the actual draft (if activated again), more of a curious thought than anything that anybody could answer yet.

 

[amlove21]

If they activated the draft, you wouldn’t partition it out; you’d just pull numbers out the hat. Everyone is equal now, right? So no need for a split.

That post has some sarcasm in it, I hear what you’re saying.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

 

[Box]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

 

[SOSTCRNA]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

One of my favorite lines. Useful when dealing with the entitled.

 

[Marauder06]

An older article, but relevant to this conversation: When It Comes To Gender Integration In The Military, “Equality” Starts With “Apathy”

However, in the military, the unit is more important than the both the individual and any demographic to which an individual may belong. Gender neutrality, or better yet gender apathy, should be the norm. Singling out women for special praise or privileges damages male soldiers’ trust in their leadership and the policymakers that made this decision. It puts female soldiers in the most awkward of positions with respect to their peers. They don’t need it. They don’t want it. So stop doing it.

 

[Johca]

The draft, is involuntarily conscripting civilian into military service. Any gender equality arguments based on registering for the draft disappeared in 19973 when U.S. Congress implemented the All Voluntary military policies. Regardless, all the arguments of the draft are further complicated in warfighting needs much support for every combatant put on the front lines. This then puts the needs to win the fight overrules the desired job choice. Its unlikely that everybody drafted would want placement in a unit or job most likely to get them killed and even if they did the need for special warfighters that these forums focus on will be much less than the need for conventional warfighters.

Soo... being required to register for the draft is a nothing gained or lost argument as far as doing and being there in combat is concerned. Most will join the new Space Force to avoid being put into harms way anyway.

 

[Board and Seize]

From the article:

"Yes, to some extent this is symbolic, but it does have some real-world impact," said Marc Angelucci, the lawyer for the men challenging the Selective Service System. "Either they need to get rid of the draft registration, or they need to require women to do the same thing that men do."

It's amazing to me that we still have the vestiges of the straight-up, government-run, legalized slavery known as the draft - and that it seems so unproblematic to most people. If this ruling leads to the end of Selective Service, it would be the biggest and, to my mind, most meaningful step towards freedom that this country has taken in a long time.

View attachment 26577

I've been saying this for years (going full on Starship Troopers is the logical conclusion). Ever since we had our first town hall on the repeal of DADT and the issue of housing hetero/homo Marines of the same gender together was brought up. It's not only the logical conclusion, but going full on Starship Troopers is the only logically consistent position to take now that gender segregation is politically untenable. From housing, to bootcamp showering, to standards (physical, grooming, or otherwise) - complete

gender apathy

is the solution. It's also the only natural Schelling Point solution other than a male-only military.

 

[Gunz]

The bad thing about the draft is that people don't want to be drafted and will do just about anything to get out of it...especially in a war where there's just the slightest wiggle room for moral arguments. Plus, you get soldiers who refuse combat assignments. Having said that, lots of brave draftees have sucked it up, done their duty and kicked ass when it counted. But it's not a good thing.

"...However, in the military, the unit is more important than the both the individual and any demographic to which an individual may belong. Gender neutrality, or better yet gender apathy, should be the norm..."

Absolutely. And yet people being what they are, can gender apathy ever truly exist in any hormone-rich environment? Biology may come in to play at some point in any unit.

 

[bvvanes]

In college they talked about “androgeny”. Knowing of the era of the demise of paper flashes and candy stripers I thought SF would prevail unabated. That was before SF was sold out to mother Army. SF was thrown under the bus with the enlisted / officers that only wanted to do the mission. The guys with a little larceny in their hearts, the guys that cared more about the mission than themselves, the 18A that would grab a beer with you at the GB club. I suffered through MacKall, a few MOSs and years later was commissioned. There’s a mission to do on a team. You lead from the front or you enable those leading. Or get the hell out of the way.

My success never relied on my maleness. I achieved what I did by sheer will/determination/perseverance. Is there a place for those traits to be tested, yes it’s selection. So if we default to SFAS to weeding out “weak” ones, we then have only the school house to trust to produce those that have been tested. Or can we? We are seeing in the national media now, some (allegedly) at the school house that may have an agenda very different. As rumors go, historically others in positions of power within the community have tried to make SF more PC or inclusionary, In OEF I “volunteered” for some “trips” that could have ended badly for me.

Would I care that the one covering my 6 was a female, of course not. Is there a place for a woman in SF/SOF? Ask the Israelis, our Intel services etc If there is, is the crucible in a male training environment? I would say no. I don’t know that you can expect a woman to pass standards that only a few men can pass. Can a woman, provided the standards aren’t changed, pass; maybe. Can a woman run a marathon like a man? Of course. But as I understand it, the fastest woman will always be slower than the fastest man, it’s the anatomy! Those inclusionary folks don’t want to acknowledge the differences or turmoil they will cause, for them a greater ‘good’ is being served. We have sown the seeds of our own demise.

I accepted being in the SF association when it was the Decade Club and knowing I couldn’t talk at meetings until I had my time in. In an ideal world, I’d say: you want to be in SF, get tabbed. You want to assist in the mission, get a tab. If you can’t get through selection, go somewhere else. How many more contrived windmills are we going to knock down? What’s next, the NFL, military academy football teams? Standards exist, even Hell requires you to be a sinner to get in!

The ‘enablers’ in SWC need to enable the teams’ prosecution of the mission with quality personnel. Two 18 series instructors are getting the boot over this, fair or not? As I’ve come to realize, ones’ perception is ones’ reality. A valuable teaching point has been lost if these 2 leave.

I’m reminded of a few anecdotes. One being: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and as Pogo said, I have met the enemy and he is us.

- mod edit -
@bvvanes - you had a lot to say, I did not change any words, but added some paragraphs so that it would be easier for folks to read.
Ooh Rah

 

[bvvanes]

In college they talked about “androgeny”. Knowing of the era of the demise of paper flashes and candy stripers I thought SF would prevail unabated. That was before SF was sold out to mother Army. SF was thrown under the bus with the enlisted / officers that only wanted to do the mission. The guys with a little larceny in their hearts, the guys that cared more about the mission than themselves, the 18A that would grab a beer with you at the GB club. I suffered through MacKall, a few MOSs and years later was commissioned. There’s a mission to do on a team. You lead from the front or you enable those leading. Or get the hell out of the way.

My success never relied on my maleness. I achieved what I did by sheer will/determination/perseverance. Is there a place for those traits to be tested, yes it’s selection. So if we default to SFAS to weeding out “weak” ones, we then have only the school house to trust to produce those that have been tested. Or can we? We are seeing in the national media now, some (allegedly) at the school house that may have an agenda very different. As rumors go, historically others in positions of power within the community have tried to make SF more PC or inclusionary, In OEF I “volunteered” for some “trips” that could have ended badly for me.

Would I care that the one covering my 6 was a female, of course not. Is there a place for a woman in SF/SOF? Ask the Israelis, our Intel services etc If there is, is the crucible in a male training environment? I would say no. I don’t know that you can expect a woman to pass standards that only a few men can pass. Can a woman, provided the standards aren’t changed, pass; maybe. Can a woman run a marathon like a man? Of course. But as I understand it, the fastest woman will always be slower than the fastest man, it’s the anatomy! Those inclusionary folks don’t want to acknowledge the differences or turmoil they will cause, for them a greater ‘good’ is being served. We have sown the seeds of our own demise.

I accepted being in the SF association when it was the Decade Club and knowing I couldn’t talk at meetings until I had my time in. In an ideal world, I’d say: you want to be in SF, get tabbed. You want to assist in the mission, get a tab. If you can’t get through selection, go somewhere else. How many more contrived windmills are we going to knock down? What’s next, the NFL, military academy football teams? Standards exist, even Hell requires you to be a sinner to get in!

The ‘enablers’ in SWC need to enable the teams’ prosecution of the mission with quality personnel. Two 18 series instructors are getting the boot over this, fair or not? As I’ve come to realize, ones’ perception is ones’ reality. A valuable teaching point has been lost if these 2 leave.

I’m reminded of a few anecdotes. One being: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and as Pogo said, I have met the enemy and he is us.

- mod edit -
@bvvanes - you had a lot to say, I did not change any words, but added some paragraphs so that it would be easier for folks to read.
Ooh Rah

Thanks. sometimes I can ramble on when pissed. bv

 

[Gordus]

it’s the anatomy! Those inclusionary folks don’t want to acknowledge the differences or turmoil they will cause, for them a greater ‘good’ is being served. We have sown the seeds of our own demise.

Nope. Away with silly facts !

Denialism is the new black.

 

[bvvanes]

Is it Christmas or Halloween?
At Christmas, we spend as much as we can afford, to give our loved ones as much as we can. For Halloween, we spend as little as we can, to provide as much as we can, for as many as we can.
A SWC commander said he had ‘a client, a customer’ he provides the SWC product to (the end-user) the A-team. What would happen if Mackall turned out an 18A that couldn’t make decisions? What would a team do when the 18A said’ ‘should we take that hill or valley or hold our position; or 2 clicks back was a grassy knoll that we could take and hold, what to do?’ It wouldn’t take long for someone to ask SWC what the hell did they turn out at Mackall for the team to use? The demoralizing effect on that team would be palpable. While on a ‘trip’ on the border with Pakistan while in OEF, some started debating where we were (grid coordinate wise) on this mountain. Demoralizing? you could cut it with a knife.
Better yet, when you buy soda, do you buy Coca Cola or the K-mart brand of cola? Even worse, while the 2 colas taste different, what if the K-mart brand caused stomach pains, headaches etc? More than a flavor issue, now you have an aversion to drinking the K-mart cola.
In the medical field, I have seen the effect a “perceived” incompetent physician / nurse / pa can have in the hospital / clinic. Their decisions aren’t trusted, in fact they are questioned / suspect, they garner little respect and and they sew seeds of mistrust / discontent in the end user for those who put the ‘product’ in their positions. I remember an ENT resident physician who according to the RNs was ‘walking death’. It was said if her patients survived it was only because of survival of the fittest. Her actions were always questioned, her decisions / orders second-guessed and reviewed by other physicians etc. So why not take her out of her training program? She had a few ‘pc’ buttons that the program could press and say ‘look what we’re producing’. More importantly, folks found ‘work arounds’ to avoid using her ‘expertise’. So what happens on a team with a female 18D that got through S & A / MOS training and ended up on a team not because she passed the standards her male counterparts had to pass but had the correct ‘pc’ buttons and rumors were swirling that standards were ‘massaged’ to help her correct societal ills?
Having been an 18D and knowing maybe 1/4 of our class finished the complete course because of ‘standards’ and as an officer, having worked in SWC for years, I understand standards exist. Once I heard a doctor trying to convince an audience of doctors why a HIV positive male should have open heart surgery. He pleaded with his audience about their obligation to humanity / their compassion. When some said ‘well, yeah we should allow the operation even though the bypass machine now will be infected with HIV blood, the MDs, RNs etc will be exposed to HIV blood and god forbid they get accidentally stuck! But if they do, the hospital will name a room after them as one did in Texas after the RN died. And yes, the doctor did prevail, but the doctor / advocate for this operation forgot to mention that when the operation was to occur he was to be on a planned vacation. How convenient. So, will those advocating for ‘massaging’ the standards be conveniently ‘on vacation’ or will they be subjected to their dictates also? My experience says they won’t be around to personally witness their dictates in action. This is truly “delegation and disappear”.
Would you want her taking care of you down-range? Would it be survival of the fittest? How demoralizing would it be? As a social scientist, would you say well my life is worth risking for the progress I see her making? Or would you ask is it Christmas or Halloween; or quality or quantity?

 

[Ooh-Rah]

- Update -

MASSACHUSETTS, USA — In the nearly four years since the Pentagon announced it was opening all combat jobs to women , at least 30 have earned the Army Ranger tab, two have graduated Marine infantry school and three have passed the grueling initial assessment phase for Green Beret training.

Their numbers are small, but their completion of some of the military's most arduous physical and mental courses has raised an intriguing scientific question: Who are these "hyperfit" women and what makes them so competitive?

Military studies 'hyperfit' women who pass grueling courses

 

[AWP]

4 years for 30 Ranger tabs, 2 Marine infantry, and 3 SFAS selectees? What's our ROI for the policy, especially since we know some of the female Ranger grads had different "opportunities" than their male counterparts?

 

[BloodStripe]

I think it should state Infantry Officer Course for female Marines.

I'd still like to see them push the females out west for ITB.

 

[Deleted member 2517]

4 years for 30 Ranger tabs, 2 Marine infantry, and 3 SFAS selectees? What's our ROI for the policy, especially since we know some of the female Ranger grads had different "opportunities" than their male counterparts?

I’m actually calling BS on the chicks getting special treatment. I had an RI tell me they’re typically harder on females while I was a recycle. I had one graduate with me and another get held up in Florida who I was with the rest of the time. They didn’t get any special breaks.