View Full Version : Female Rangers and SEALs
uspsmark
06-18-2013, 06:11
Just heard on FoxNews Radio, proposal for Female officers and NCO's to beging Ranger training in 2015 to set a base for support structure to allow females to become Army Rangers and SEAL training shortly thereafter. Can't find an article in "print" yet. How long until females are put into the SF pipeline?
uspsmark
06-18-2013, 07:32
Here's a link to the article...
Military plans would put women in most combat jobs (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/18/military-plans-would-put-women-in-most-combat-jobs/?test=latestnews)
The move follows revelations of a startling number of sexual assaults in the armed forces. Earlier this year, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the sexual assaults might be linked to the longstanding ban on women serving in combat because the disparity between the roles of men and women creates separate classes of personnel -- male "warriors" versus the rest of the force.
Yeah, that's it :rolleyes:
It could be the fact that some of these females serving today are pretty slutty and only press charges when it suits their interests; which leads to "sexual assault" charges being filed to begin with. I'm not saying actual assaults do not happen, it's just MOST of the time the charges are erroneous, and the command will believe a females word over a males word from jump street. Combine that with the fact that all you have to do is look at a female wrong and they can bring you up on charges.
For the record it has not happened to me, but it has happened to some fine Soldiers I've served with whose reputations never recover after being found innocent.
This is like putting the cart in front of the horse.:eek:
Damn "senior" leadership within the military has lost its mind!
Two more female Marines flunk infantry officers training
Apr. 2, 2013 - 05:55PM (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130402/NEWS/304020020/Two-more-female-Marines-flunk-infantry-officers-training)
Two more women have washed out of Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course, putting a quick end to the latest iteration of an experiment into which roles female Marines might be able to fill in combat.
The women failed the introductory Combat Endurance Test, a punishing test of physical strength and endurance, officials at Marine Corps headquarters said Tuesday. The latest class began March 28 at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., with 110 lieutenants participating. Ninety-six men passed the initial endurance test. Twelve men and two women — the only female Marines taking part — failed.
Now! If they can't pass the basic Infantry Course in the USMC...WTF makes people think, they can pass Ranger School and/or BUDs?:confused:
I'd at least run them (females) through the Army Infantry School initially, before even entertaining the idea of a SOF course... then again as the saying goes:
The Marine Corp will soon have female "minders" present at their IOBC to "make sure their is a smooth transition".
Yeah, that's it :rolleyes:
It could be the fact that some of these females serving today are pretty slutty and only press charges when it suits their interests; which leads to "sexual assault" charges being filed to begin with. I'm not saying actual assaults do not happen, it's just MOST of the time the charges are erroneous, and the command will believe a females word over a males word from jump street. Combine that with the fact that all you have to do is look at a female wrong and they can bring you up on charges.
For the record it has not happened to me, but it has happened to some fine Soldiers I've served with whose reputations never recover after being found innocent.
As a female who served, I agree, that was a stretch connection.
IMHO, making an actual physical assault and broadly defined sexual innuendo/harassment fall under one umbrella is causing the most harm. It causes resentment and an atmosphere of placating one special group. That is not equal.
Women who serve, like men, join the Army for different reasons and with different capabilities. Luckily, most MOS's which require higher standards get better candidates. So any MOS that is considered to drop -- rather than raise -- standards will see this problem worsen rather than improve. That does not bode well if integration "must" work. To get enough women, standards may drop.
The worse guys for females to deal with in my time in the Army were also the worst soldiers. Whether at shooting, PT , their job, etc., they had something to prove. SF were by far the easiest. They had nothing to prove. They might flirt, but certainly were respectful once they had figured out who you were and what you could do.
GridSquare
06-19-2013, 09:16
This is like putting the cart in front of the horse.:eek:
Damn "senior" leadership within the military has lost its mind!
Two more female Marines flunk infantry officers training
Apr. 2, 2013 - 05:55PM (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130402/NEWS/304020020/Two-more-female-Marines-flunk-infantry-officers-training)
Now! If they can't pass the basic Infantry Course in the USMC...WTF makes people think, they can pass Ranger School and/or BUDs?:confused:
I'd at least run them (females) through the Army Infantry School initially, before even entertaining the idea of a SOF course... then again as the saying goes:
Maybe if they change the standards, and force the teams to have x amount of females they will feel equal. :rolleyes:
Maybe we should integrate the "senior leadership" with people with recent demonstrated intelligence, common sense, and fortitude.
Common sense, an attribute so rare that it is now considered a super power.
Badger52
06-19-2013, 10:17
This is now considered a Special Class, and will require observation in test groups to determine their suitability to serve in the upper levels of leadership. ;)Never happen. That would cause inward-looking feelings of lack of self-worth by the observers = "candidate deemed unsuitable."
Anecdote: Awhile back there was a requirement for civs to all endure the online Army Foundation Course, regardless of tenure or previous experience. This was a good use of the time for many who've served 30-40 yrs in varying capacities, but apparently were deemed unable to recognize the difference between a PV2 and a LTC. Naturally it was put on everyone's Annual Performance Objectives, and happily announced in a G1 newsletter.
The DCG blasted an email congratulating his Per officer for putting out such a fine newsletter and in the next sentence said the requirement was "stupid" and immediately rescinded, except for first-time hires after 2007. Jaws dropped, followed by jubilation among the masses & then everyone went back to meaningful work. He is probably screwed.
The Reaper
06-19-2013, 17:04
Silly me.
All these years, I thought that the purpose of the Army was to fight and win the nation's wars.
Obviously, I missed the true purpose of being a testing grounds for social experimentation.
Expecting the orders to the re-education camp anytime now, Kommissar! :rolleyes:
TR
Dreadnought
06-19-2013, 18:06
I consider myself a very tolerant person, but I still have many reservations and conflicting opinions on this issue and I wouldn't be able to properly express them unless I were to type a substantially long paper on it, and by that point I probably would have changed or modified some opinions anyways.
At the least, I think it will be very interesting to see how this pans out. I do believe that there are women who can pass these selections and perform better in the job than some men who pass these selections. I also believe that for a multitude of reasons, in the current atmosphere of social dynamics in these units, a woman's presence will cause more negative effects on mission capability than most probably anything gained from her strengths, although I do not necessarily blame this theoretical woman for that problem. I also believe that we will not always have a society, including in these special operations units, where that will always be the case and where a woman's presence will deteriorate the mission capability. Basically, I don't believe in many of these 'absolutes'.
In the meantime, going to have to see how this plays out.
US Army Infantry Officer Basic Course = Officer
US Army Infantry AIT = Enlisted
Then do an evaluation for proceeding in to SOF training.
K.I.S.S.
Peregrino
06-19-2013, 20:55
Having witnessed a US Service Member explaining to host nation personnel that the female Soldiers accompanying his unit were not there for MWR purposes and no, the HN personnel couldn't "borrow" them; I'm looking forward to letting the women do their own damn explaining. I'm also thankful to be retired and not having to deal with the inevitable BS.
Course that's MOO which doesn't account for much in the current PC BS climate. But that's OK too. After all - I've got an ex-wife; so I know what it is to always be the evil one just because I've got a penis.
Badger52
06-20-2013, 06:09
At another forum I attend some while back, a firefighter mentioned that when the NYC fire department first let women in, none could meet the standards. He said this was because the physical standards are very high to the point that even for the men, it is very tough. Since the women couldn't meet the standards, some decided to sue, and the judge required that the fire department allow the women to serve. So the fire department kept the standards for the men and created a separate set of standards for the women. The firefighter said the result was some of the women who became firefighters ended up getting badly injured on the job and had to retire early.
I wonder if the fire at the incident scene discriminates between the two and moderates its behavior so as not to violate one standard or the other.
:rolleyes:
Dreadnought
06-20-2013, 21:09
SOCOM may request an exemption
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130618/CAREERS/306180035/Spec-Ops-may-need-exempt-from-integrating-women-SOCOM-official-says
SOCOM may request an exemption
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130618/CAREERS/306180035/Spec-Ops-may-need-exempt-from-integrating-women-SOCOM-official-says
Finally you figured out where to post about this issue.:lifter
Dreadnought
06-20-2013, 22:54
Finally you figured out where to post about this issue.:lifter
This actually has nothing to do with the book, but you following me around is cute :lifter
Should I expect a sequel to Warrior Princess, from a different author?
This actually has nothing to do with the book, but you following me around is cute :lifter
Should I expect a sequel to Warrior Princess, from a different author?
What ? No but when you can not follow rules you have a tend to stand out.
Are you about to finish your book RANGER Princess? We always knew 2nd Bat was a little light in the loafers out there in tree hugger land.
Remember this is not RGR.com
Dreadnought
06-20-2013, 23:10
What ? Are you about to finish your book RANGER Princess? We always knew 2nd Bat was a little light in the loafers out there in tree hugger land.
Remember this is not RGR.com
It doesn't have quite the ring that Special Princess has :o
And yeah I know that full well, I'm just knocking you because you got a cheap shot, with a lame helo reference, in that forum that I can't respond in ;)
It doesn't have quite the ring that Special Princess has :o
And yeah I know that full well, I'm just knocking you because you got a cheap shot, with a lame helo reference, in that forum that I can't respond in ;)
No cheap shot Junior. Not your house and you continued to post when told not to.
When you earn the right then you can jump in.
You need to work on your SA.
SOCOM may request an exemption
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130618/CAREERS/306180035/Spec-Ops-may-need-exempt-from-integrating-women-SOCOM-official-says
This is what I hope SOCOM is thinking...
1. It is easier to divert a movement than stop it. So slow it down with concerns and -- as the article ended -- focus on their roles where they are now -- PSY OP/CA. Females are still limited in their roles there. The results are mixed, so a great starting point to tie up discussion and work on incremental improvements.
2. When you lack power over a decision, you may still have influence. Roping in like-minded groups expands influence. So a joint forces press conference with a female with them as a photo op -- smart. I have watched lobbyists do political forecasting/influence decision making for almost 30 years. It is amazing what a small number of people can do if they focus on the problem using influence to a. modify position or b. modify salience ... when they lack their own power. It is out of print now, but there is a book called the PRINCE Analysis that covers the math and strategy behind it. I tried to describe it on another site but I think the term used by what was most likely a SEAL was that it was bat shit. (Not the book, but rather my antihistamine induced attempt to "simplify" a complex book and problem set into a few paragraphs and a chart). So I will just recommend the book. :o
Maybe there is a light at the end of this tunnel. And with luck it is not an oncoming train.
I consider myself a very tolerant person, but I still have many reservations and conflicting opinions on this issue and I wouldn't be able to properly express them unless I were to type a substantially long paper on it, and by that point I probably would have changed or modified some opinions anyways.
At the least, I think it will be very interesting to see how this pans out. I do believe that there are women who can pass these selections and perform better in the job than some men who pass these selections. I also believe that for a multitude of reasons, in the current atmosphere of social dynamics in these units, a woman's presence will cause more negative effects on mission capability than most probably anything gained from her strengths, although I do not necessarily blame this theoretical woman for that problem. I also believe that we will not always have a society, including in these special operations units, where that will always be the case and where a woman's presence will deteriorate the mission capability. Basically, I don't believe in many of these 'absolutes'.
In the meantime, going to have to see how this plays out.
This post should earn you a spot on The View.
SF Hunter
06-21-2013, 09:55
We always knew 2nd Bat was a little light in the loafers out there in tree hugger land.
Hey, Hey, Hey...I was former 2nd Batt.
Now I dont know how they role now-days. But, back in the day, There were no "light loafers". Not that there's anything wrong with that (Seinfeld).:D
Hey, Hey, Hey...I was former 2nd Batt.
Now I dont know how they role now-days. But, back in the day, There were no "light loafers". Not that there's anything wrong with that (Seinfeld).:D
Yeah....when they found out you could read and write they shipped you off to the Q.:p
Stay Safe Brother....
I got to thinking about the fact that there really is nothing we can do about this happening. At this point I think we are past debating the reasons why women shouldn't be in SOF or combat arms. The politicians have made up their minds. So, like any good soldier, we need to come up with the best way to implement this lack luster policy. It is a bit of a read, but this is what I came up with, I look forward to hearing your views on it!
https://hitthewoodline.squarespace.com/militaria/2013/6/24/females-in-combat-arms-problem-solution-implementation
I got to thinking about the fact that there really is nothing we can do about this happening. At this point I think we are past debating the reasons why women shouldn't be in SOF or combat arms. The politicians have made up their minds. So, like any good soldier, we need to come up with the best way to implement this lack luster policy. It is a bit of a read, but this is what I came up with, I look forward to hearing your views on it!
https://hitthewoodline.squarespace.com/militaria/2013/6/24/females-in-combat-arms-problem-solution-implementation
There is a big difference in the "perspectives" of males and females in your approach.
As reported in this week's Army Times the Army has come up with a 5 phase plan to implement a basic strength level for MOSs.
Right now males can be involuntarily assigned to the infantry. Females can't but they want to be allowed to volunteer.
What do you do with a guy who doesn't want to be in the Infantry and fails the strength test?
See? Not the same at all.
There is a big difference in the "perspectives" of males and females in your approach.
As reported in this week's Army Times the Army has come up with a 5 phase plan to implement a basic strength level for MOSs.
Right now males can be involuntarily assigned to the infantry. Females can't but they want to be allowed to volunteer.
What do you do with a guy who doesn't want to be in the Infantry and fails the strength test?
See? Not the same at all.
Agreed. The inconsistencies abound. And I am not sure how many active duty females want to serve in combat MOS's. I have not found that data yet.
Getting all the females in one unit -- even if it is not an all female unit, is at least a practical approach to testing it out and limiting the diversion. The unit who gets "stuck" with it could be one that needs a break from deployments for a while. It strikes me as smart to focus on one area to be the start rather than several at once.
In an extremely optimistic line of thinking, maybe some stronger women could lessen the requirement for assigning those weak men to the infantry. Way back when in my day, they made them cooks instead.
Whatever compromise, the worst one is lowering the standards. I would feel as bad for the wounded soldier who cannot be carried/dragged by a weak male or female soldier. Weak is weak.
As it stands right now, males are not involuntarily assigned to the Infantry - we have an all volunteer force and everyone picks their MOS. If there were to be a draft, then I would agree, it would have to be changed so that the draft was applied the same across the board - male or female.
As it stands right now, males are not involuntarily assigned to the Infantry - we have an all volunteer force and everyone picks their MOS.............
Picks their MOS?
Would you say it is more correct to say they are allowed to select from the MOS's they are qualified to pick from?
Yes. They pick from MOS's that they are 1) qualified for and 2) the MOS has slots open, as determined by HRC. No one makes anyone pick Infantry or any other MOS for that matter though. When Joe or Jane walks into the recruiters office, if they don't like what is on the system that day, they either get talked into what is on the system by the recruiter, or they say "thanks, but no thanks" and come back in the next day or next week to see what is available.
That goes the same for re-enlistments, if they are being involuntarily re-classed due to the needs of the Army, they have the option to sign a declination statement and get out of the service after their contract is up. And even in the case of forced re-class, the soldier generally has a few options to pick from.
Peregrino
06-25-2013, 18:45
Interesting. IIRC there were some ADA and other "low-utilization" units that were re-designated Infantry and deployed to Iraq at the height of the action there. I'd call that more like "Voluntold" than volunteered.
Yup, I'm aware that there were ADA, MP, and other such units that were utilized as infantry. That is not converting them to the Infantry MOS though, even though they acted in that capacity. As we are told from day one, you are a soldier first, and (insert MOS) second, so I would still say they volunteered - but I can see where you are coming from on this. But, as we all know, just because you do a job on deployment, does not mean you are that. That would be like saying an Infantry unit that was doing a FID-like mission on deployment is SF.
But since those ADA, MP, etc. units were brought up, that is precisely where I would say we started to get leaders for this all female infantry unit. Many of the female soldiers who saw a lot of combat were a part of those units that were given an Infantry mission overseas, so it only makes sense to draw on them for the skeleton of the new unit.
Badger52
06-27-2013, 08:07
WaPo link blew up for some reason, so this plucked from my eBird feed this morning.
--------------
Washington Post
June 27, 2013
Pg. 20
The U.S. Army's Job Is Not To Act As A Social Experiment
Regarding Anne M. Coughlin and Ellen L. Haring's June 21 Washington Forum column, "The Army's disservice to women":
The Army is not a social cauldron subject to experimentation with progressive ideology's latest notions of equality. Neither is the Army a job corps, nation builder or relief agency. Its mission, pursuant to a congressional declaration of war, is to kill people and break things in defense of U.S. strategic interests and security. There is nothing about this mission that argues for more women at West Point, nor for us to "look forward to an Army in which 100 percent of occupational specialties will soon be open to women." This will almost certainly lead to a compromise of standards in the Combat Arms and Special Operations specialties, followed by the inevitable ideological rationalizations as to why they are not compromises, while readiness and capabilities suffer.
But Ms. Coughlin and Ms. Haring go further to promote their ideas as a cure for sexual harassment and rape. An argument could be made that the situation could worsen, as young men and women are put together in increasingly intimate situations, from serving together on submarines to sharing foxholes. There is absolutely no military rationale for either; it is purely a feminist fantasy of equality.
Donald J. Mitarotonda, Lorton
The writer is a retired U.S.Army lieutenant colonel.
Editor's Note: The column by Anne M. Coughlin and Ellen L. Haring appeared in the Current News Early Bird, June 21, 2013.
--------------