HERE'S WHY WOMEN IN COMBAT UNITS IS A BAD IDEA [Archive]

View Full Version : HERE'S WHY WOMEN IN COMBAT UNITS IS A BAD IDEA

The Reaper

11-18-2014, 11:19

A great article by an author who wrote one of the better books about SF and came to know them pretty well.

TR

HERE'S WHY WOMEN IN COMBAT UNITS IS A BAD IDEA

Anna Simons

November 18, 2014 • in Charlie Mike

http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/heres-why-women-in-combat-units-is-a-bad-idea/

Three problems plague the debate over whether all combat units should finally be opened to women. (Actually, there are four problems: The fourth and most important being the likelihood that there will be no real debate, something that I hope this article will help to mitigate). Most career soldiers and officers I know believe the integration of women into Special Forces teams, and into SEAL, Ranger and Marine infantry platoons, is already a forgone conclusion. From their perspective, politicians in uniform (namely, top brass) don't have the intestinal fortitude to brook the vocal minority in Congress - and the country, really - who think mainstreaming women into ground combat units is a good idea.

As for the other three problems, the first is that every sentient adult knows what happens when you mix healthy young men and women together in small groups for extended periods of time. Just look at any workplace. Couples form. At some point, how couples interact - sexually, emotionally, happily and/or unhappily - makes life uncomfortable for those around them. Factor in intense, intimate conditions and you can forget about adults being able to stay professional 24/7. Object lesson for anyone who disagrees: General Petraeus.

Problem number two: Those who favor lifting the combat exclusion ban engage in a clever sleight of hand whenever they equate women serving in combat with women serving in combat units. Given women's performance over the past decade in Afghanistan and Iraq, who but a misogynist would doubt their capacity for courage, aggressiveness or grace under fire at this point? But battles are like exclamation points. They punctuate long stretches when there are no firefights. Spend time around soldiers when they are coming down from adrenaline highs, or are depressed or upset; they are prone to all sorts of temptations. Alternatively, under Groundhog Day-like conditions, troops invariably grow bored and frustrated. How quickly we forget Charles Graner and Lynndie England, and the dynamic between them that helped fuel the sadism at Abu Ghraib.

Problem number three involves a different elision. Proponents of lifting the ban love to invoke desegregation and the demise of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Their intent in doing so is to suggest that all three are of a piece: Blacks now serve in combat units, as do (at least in theory) openly homosexual soldiers, and there have been no untoward effects. It is therefore past time to let women be all that they can be as well. Except that attraction between the sexes is nothing like the denigration of another race or the disinterest (or disgust) heterosexual men feel when it comes to the idea of one man pursuing another.

Indeed, racism and bigotry lie at the opposite end of the spectrum from attraction. Lumping all three together is a canard.

There is no clearer way to put it than this: Heterosexual men like women. They also compete for their attention. This is best captured by the Darwinist aphorism: male-male competition and female choice. Or, try: no female has to leave a bar alone if she doesn't want to, whereas at 'last call' lots of men do.

Cast back through history or just look cross-culturally: Men's abiding interest in women (and women's interest in having men be interested) creates limitless potential for friction. Is this really what we want to inflict on combat units?

More than a decade ago, I described the critical ethos on teams, and in squads or platoons, as 'one for all and all for one.' Introduce something over which members are bound to compete, that the winner won't share, and you inject a dangerous dynamic. Worse, introduce the possibility of exclusivity between two individuals and you will have automatically killed cohesion.

Interestingly - tellingly - proponents of lifting the combat exclusion ban routinely dismiss the significance of cohesion. Take the recent story about the Marine Corps' new experimental mixed gender combat unit that appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. In it, correspondent Michael Phillips writes: "The debate over women in combat - similar to arguments about gays in the military - used to focus on so-called unit cohesion..."

That value-laden qualifier, "so-called," made me sit bolt upright. Its use signals just how successful military sociologists and others have been at dismissing the idea that social cohesion might (still) matter. Their preferred cohesion is something they call 'task cohesion,' which refers to soldiers' ability to do a job regardless of whatever inter-personal differences might exist among them. This, according to these academics, is the only kind of cohesion military units need. Forget shared interests, past-times or proclivities. Remaining effective over the long-haul in combat no longer requires that individuals have anything more than the mission in common.

Except - dig beneath the political correctness that those in uniform know they better parrot, and it quickly becomes apparent that academics have split an impossible hair. For instance, U.S. Army Special Forces Command has been waging a quiet dissuasion campaign against Special Forces soldiers joining motorcycle 'clubs.' And though some wonder why any special operator would feel the need to join a bunch of wannabe outlaws when SF teams already constitute the 'baddest' gangs around, operators enamored with biker subculture are clearly seeking something SF does not provide. For many that something is camaraderie.

No question, stateside camaraderie is not what it is OCONUS (outside the continental U.S.). Family life looms large, wives have careers etc. There are a host of reasons why cohesion frays whenever teams return from deployments (to include how strained families are thanks to the sheer number of deployments). However, this fraying has consequences. Individuals go on benders and get into trouble; combat veterans commit suicide; PTSD festers. Old timers' assessment is that team members no longer have each other's backs except in combat. Ironically, their observation fits exactly what focusing only on 'task cohesion' prescribes.

Talk to team leaders and they will describe how much effort it takes to get team members and their families to want to socialize once everyone is home. But they will also describe how rewarding it is once they do - all of which should be an indicator that social cohesion still does matter. It matters to those who join Special Forces in order to belong to something other than just a job. It also matters to those responsible for leading them, who recognize what a difference it makes downrange when a team 'hangs together.'

Consequently, one question that should be posed to those who fixate on 'task cohesion' as the only glue the military needs is: Don't social scientists owe it to those who already serve in special operations (and infantry) units to pay attention to what they say (and do), rather than rely on what members of mixed gender non-combat units self-report regarding 'task cohesion'?

Of course, the idea that there can be any social 'science' answer to whether the U.S. military should integrate women into ground combat forces is silly. Proponents might like to think that objective metrics can be devised. But metrics that measure what? Whether a unit can gel? Whether it will stay solid? Whether it will be able to recover from disaster effectively?

Granted, there are some critical performance criteria - such as the ability to meet physical standards - that can be gauged in advance. But it is essential to remember that just because an individual meets these does not mean he or she will fit well into any group. Nonetheless, physical standards now amount to the Rubicon in the combat exclusion debate.

Opponents of lifting the ban believe that so long as standards remain high - and do not get gender-normed - few women will either want to serve in the combat arms or be able to make it through selection. Thus, certain Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs) - they hope - will remain protected. For their part, proponents question the relevancy of the physical standards that special operations units and the Marine Corps infantry do still use. Their position is that if you look at any unit, tasks are rarely undertaken by individuals alone. Instead, members shift and share burdens, and help each other out. Invariably the group finds creative ways to get the job done regardless of individuals' weaknesses.

The Reaper

11-18-2014, 11:19

Ergo the Marine Corps' new experimental unit, the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force (the subject of Phillips' article). What the Marine Corps tests will find as they train up both male and female volunteers for combat should be interesting, to say the least. Forget just the gender dimension. Each service should ensure that today's standards reflect real world requirements, and not some arbitrary, holdover notions of what combat pre-9/11 entailed. After all, it could be that numerous physical standards will need to be raised, not lowered - something that is all too imaginable given the sheer weight of today's combat loads. If so, it will be interesting to then see what tack proponents take, since thus far they have shown zero interest in acknowledging why we even have combat units. Their impetus all along has been equity instead.

Equity is a quintessentially progressive and thus classically American goal. It is also a goal that increasingly attracts uniformed fathers who want to see their uniformed daughters excel. This reflects a remarkable societal shift. Proponency by men who have served in the combat arms is powerful and persuasive. It can also be extraordinarily moving. However, no decision about the future makeup of ground combat units should be influenced by what opening such units will do for anyone's offspring, or sibling or spouse. Instead, the only thing that should matter is whether the presence of women will contribute positively to the combat effectiveness of combat units.

No question, women are a boon for certain types of missions, especially certain special operations missions. No one I know disagrees with that, and in fact most special operators are anxious for more qualified women to be able to work with them. But there is a world of difference between women participating on certain missions and women serving alongside men as permanent members of ground combat units.

This difference has everything to do with why combat units exist - they exist to be sent into harm's way. Maybe they won't take casualties. But the military can never count on that. The prospect of attrition requires that the military treat individuals not as individuals, but as interchangeable pieces of a complex system. Not only does every combat soldier need to be capable of accomplishing the same essential tasks as every other combat soldier (according to rank, MOS etc.), but every potential replacement has to be able to easily fit into an already-stressed group. This introduces the equivalent of a Goldilocks challenge: Groups must be flexible enough to quickly absorb new members, while new members need to be sufficiently similar to both old members and surviving members that they readily fit.

Unfortunately, proponents of lifting the combat exclusion ban don't seem to get this. So, while it might make academic sense to assume squads, platoons and teams will simply be able to work out their own division of labor (read: task cohesion) under duress, what invariably happens when new members of the opposite sex arrive on the scene? In any setting, group chemistry changes - in predictably unpredictable ways.

Unfortunately, the services aren't likely to use their sexual assault data to make the case that injecting women into hard-charging, all-male units isn't a sound idea. But surely other statistics exist. For instance, how much time do command staffs already spend on boy-girl troubles? Anecdotally, fraternization and related issues eat up way too much time. Is this really what Washington should now saddle combat units and commanders with as they fight ISIS or whomever else in the future?

Or what about combat soldiers' spouses, who already have more than enough worries? Why don't their concerns count? This is a question that leads to a cascade of others for anyone who truly cares about equity. Whose equity should most matter? And who should get to determine this?

The irony is that combat units are 'it' when it comes to protecting all the other equities we Americans value. That is inconvenient truth number one. We have no other front-line/behind-the-lines first responders. Why would we want to do anything that jeopardizes their cohesiveness and integrity?

Inconvenient truth number two is that men and women have been each other's most consistent distraction since the beginning of time. To pretend that we don't know what will happen when men and women are thrown together for prolonged periods in emotionally intense situations defies common sense. Being overly academic and insufficiently adult about adult behavior isn't just irresponsible but imperiling, and belies the deadly seriousness with which we should want combat units to perform.

Anna Simons is a Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School. She is the author of Networks of Dissolution: Somalia Undone and The Company They Keep: Life Inside the U.S. Army Special Forces, and is most recently the co-author of The Sovereignty Solution: A Commonsense Approach to Global Security. The views expressed are the author's and do not reflect those of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, or the Naval Postgraduate School.

sinjefe

11-18-2014, 11:45

Agreed, a good article overall. However, an observation. Her characterization of "Problem #2" is influenced (or at least seems to me that it is) by the "everyone-other-than-infantry/SOF" belief that warfare is what is shown on television. That we all move around on the battlefield by vehicle and only conduct "battles" at a specific place and time and there is no 'humping" (forgive the pun).

This is further evidenced by her statement:

"Each service should ensure that today's standards reflect real world requirements, and not some arbitrary, holdover notions of what combat pre-9/11 entailed"

Not sure what she meant by this but, the way I see it, there are some aspects of combat that are unchangeable. At the end of the day, at least in the immediate future (all technology aside), light infantry and SOF are still going to have to hump heavy loads for long distances and time in varying types of terrain and weather. They are going to have to fight with that gear on and they are going to have to have the upper body strength as well as the stamina to carry wounded comrades over natural or man made obstacles, potentially for long periods with little to no sleep or food.

This point, I think, is totally missed by everyone (except us) because they just have no frame of reference and, likely, won't until it is too late.

Old Dog New Trick

11-18-2014, 13:00

Sinjefe, or any and all -

Remember the recruiting poster in the eighties where it showed a gal in uniform sitting behind the wheel of a M923A1 (5-ton) and the caption said:

"It doesn't matter to the truck who the driver is."

And I use the M939/923 series because unlike the M35 (Deuce and Half) is "Power Steering." :rolleyes:

Not that even all men who joined in the eighties could change a flat tire! :lifter

I think the writer hits all the important parts that everyone wants to gloss over for "equality." We ain't equal!

PedOncoDoc

11-18-2014, 13:06

I'll stand by my statement in another thread that if the military was truly serious about fielding females in combat they should first field all-female football teams at their respective academies and see how well that goes as a "dry run". :munchin

MR2

11-18-2014, 13:17

I strongly recommend reading this piece of fiction by Tom Kratman - The Amazon Legion (2011), fourth in a series called Desert Called Peace/Carerra.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/k/tom-kratman/

Peregrino

11-18-2014, 20:52

I strongly recommend reading this piece of fiction by Tom Kratman - The Amazon Legion (2011), fourth in a series called Desert Called Peace/Carerra.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/k/tom-kratman/

Concur. His insight into the problems and his approach to addressing them is novel. (And lib-progs HATE him - passionately!)

PSM

11-18-2014, 22:09

I use the M939/923 series because unlike the M35 (Deuce and Half) is "Power Steering." :rolleyes:

As I recall, the Deuce and a Half had power steering too. It was a hell of a lot easier to drive than the 3/4.

Pat

miclo18d

11-19-2014, 07:17

As I recall, the Deuce and a Half had power steering too. It was a hell of a lot easier to drive than the 3/4.

Pat
I thought that it didn't. Maybe it was just "our" 2.5. It was a workout to drive, but would go anywhere on the back of Ft Campbell. Didn't have a top. Froze our asses off in the winter.

Then we got those POS LMTVs. :confused:

recon4adventure

05-16-2016, 18:28

plato

05-16-2016, 19:32

Sinjefe, or any and all -

And I use the M939/923 series because unlike the M35 (Deuce and Half) is "Power Steering." :rolleyes:

The M939 Series was designed to be operated by drivers ranging from the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male. While not part of the central discussion about women in combat units, I couldn't hold back my minor contribution, as chief engineer for the M939 program development. ;)

SF-TX

05-16-2016, 21:35

posting this vid as night to day in shifting character of the general officers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywASmcwFlNI

here is another vid showing the less politically correct

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk

Good finds. Seems the Marine Corp is the only service left that has leaders that speak 'truth to power.' Who really cares about women? Those that would send them into combat, knowing that they are at a disadvantage? Or, those that know they are at a disadvantage, and don't want to send them into combat?

SittingElf

05-17-2016, 02:08

Box

05-17-2016, 06:02

SF-TX

05-17-2016, 06:50

"...truth to power"

Holy fucking shit - that is some of the funniest shot I have read in a while.
Truth to power... that is awesome....
ok ok ok ..... wait, here is another one....
did you hear the one about the farmers daughter?
truth to power.... that is fucking hilarious

I was trying to adopt a liberal phrase for effect, that apparently wasn't effective.

How about these instead:

Diversity is strength

Violence never solved anything

Power Corrupts

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter

Hand

05-17-2016, 07:22

Great article....but there is an additional issue coming.

The DoD is being pressured to allow transgenders to serve as well, and once in, there will be a clamoring for THEM to be able to serve in combat as well, and is it long before the forced "choose your gender" and use any bathroom/shower edicts from the current Administration will be forced on the military as well??!!

What happened to MY country? It's gone MIA.

I wonder if the libs have an outer boundary for gender switching. Like, could I identify as a college chick this morning and make it into the girls locker room after volleyball practice AND identify as a middle age male in the afternoon so I could make it into the hoity toity golf club men only locker room?

Maybe I'm being too shallow. *shrug*

SF-TX

05-26-2016, 09:15

From the diversity is strength crowd.

Vice President Joe Biden told the U.S. Military Academy’s class of 2016 on Saturday that greater diversity, including more women and openly gay soldiers, will strengthen the country’s armed forces.

“Having men and women together in the battlefield is an incredible asset, particularly when they’re asked to lead teams in parts of the world with fundamentally different expectations and norms,” Biden said in his speech at a graduation ceremony at Michie Stadium on the West Point grounds along the Hudson River. {According to this moron's logic, it would be an incredible asset to have child molesters and goat fuckers leading US troops in the Middle East}

Article (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/21/biden-diverse-military-of-women-gays-strengthens-u-s-forces/)

Box

05-26-2016, 09:32

VPOTUS Biden 'gets it'... why is everyone else having such a hard time figuring it out?

Team Sergeant

05-26-2016, 09:36

I'd like to see biden, muslim boy, etc remove all the men from their secret service detail and replace them with trannies and females only. (Hell Slick Willie would do it in a heartbeat.)

Here that joe moron biden?

Put up or shut up, replace all the men in your secret service detail with trannies and females only.

PedOncoDoc

05-26-2016, 09:38

SF-TX

05-26-2016, 09:42

Team Sergeant

05-26-2016, 09:46

And they wouldn't have to be armed, since they could simply declare a 'safe space' around Vice President Joe Moron Biden.

LOL, nice!

PedOncoDoc

05-26-2016, 10:10

And they wouldn't have to be armed, since they could simply declare a 'safe space' around Vice President Joe Moron Biden.

If they're not armed, how will they ever fire off that warning shot, then? :rolleyes:

SF-TX

05-26-2016, 10:30

If they're not armed, how will they ever fire off that warning shot, then? :rolleyes:

Repeat after me, Diversity is Strength. They don't need shotguns. Maybe rape whistles, but definitely no shotguns. Besides, weapons aren't allowed in safe spaces.

Sdiver

05-26-2016, 10:43

If they're not armed, how will they ever fire off that warning shot, then? :rolleyes:

I believe the Raising of the Eyebrow is their Warning shot ...

bailaviborita

06-14-2016, 17:20

What's sad is about 30-40% really believe what they are saying (that diversity is strength, etc.). 50% don't- but say it because it is the thing to say nowadays. My country is MIA indeed...

frostfire

06-15-2016, 04:04

What's sad is about 30-40% really believe what they are saying (that diversity is strength, etc.). 50% don't- but say it because it is the thing to say nowadays. My country is MIA indeed...

LOL :D Sigh :(

Reminds me of the unintentional diversity-is-strength experiment I had not too long ago http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50693

I wonder what Legion Entrangere thinks of diversity...
They sure have it, along with uncompromising standard.

TFA303

06-15-2016, 13:41

The new motto for these Vibrant times:

Vielfalt macht Frei

That's look great on some gates somewhere, I think.

Streck-Fu

04-17-2017, 09:08

Something to keep an eye on......LINK (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/inside-world-s-first-all-female-special-forces-unit-norway-n746041)

Inside the World’s First All-Female Special Forces Unit: Norway’s Jegertroppen

The unit was started after Norway's Armed Forces' Special Command saw an increased need for female special operations soldiers — particularly in places like Afghanistan where male troops were forbidden from communicating with women. The exclusion of half the population was having a detrimental impact on intelligence gathering and building community relations.

"When [Norway] deployed to Afghanistan we saw that we needed female soldiers. Both as female advisers for the Afghan special police unit that we mentored, but also when we did an arrest," said Col. Frode Kristofferson, the commander of Norway's special forces. "We needed female soldiers to take care of the women and children in the buildings that we searched."

So they created the all-female unit specifically designed to train them.

"One of the advantages that we see with an all-female unit is that we can have a tailored program and a tailored selection for the female operators," Kristofferson said, adding that at the end of the one-year program the female soldiers are just as capable as their male counterparts.

"We're carrying the same weight in the backpack as the boys," said Tonje, who did not provide her full name due to the unit's rules. "We do the same tasks."

Those tasks at Terningmoen Camp, about 100 miles north of Oslo, include parachuting out of military aircraft, skiing in the Arctic tundra, navigating the wilderness and fighting in urban terrain.

She added that the weapon, backpack and other gear she carries on long marches, weighs over 100 pounds.

To qualify for the Jegertroppen, applicants have to run about four miles carrying 60 pounds of military gear in under 52 minutes. That's just three minutes less than their male counterparts who have to do the same thing in under 49 minutes.

At a recent exercise, one of the female soldiers shot better than some of the men in the elite platoon, Capt. Ole Vidar, the officer leading the training program, said

Pete

04-17-2017, 09:18

So it's not the same standards "...That's just three minutes less than their male counterparts who have to do the same thing in under 49 minutes...."

Streck-Fu

04-17-2017, 09:49

It reminds me of the Cultural Support Teams the Army used in Afghanistan.

Flagg

04-17-2017, 14:52

For reference, there was a 2 part documentary series on the same female soldiers under assessment in Norway last year:

Part 1: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PkhgC2CEmcA

According to the doco, timing standards were "the same" except for weight carried(lower, proportional).

Not that the job cares how much you weigh or can carry.

I like what the Norwegians are doing, superficially.

But would want to withhold judgement until I saw the "bang for buck" capability gained over resources expended to add the limited incremental intercultural and esoteric/UW capability.

I would also speculate it could be used to push a few female officers up the rank elevator quickly in kinetic/combat corps command/staff positions.

I'm all for encouraging female opportunity in the forces, particularly on the cognitive side of the house.

But I wonder how this program would compare if all the money and resources invested were used exclusively to keep more individually selected end of career SOF soldiers another 3-5 years, or just retaining more SME "greybeards' as contractors.

sinjefe

04-17-2017, 23:08

According to the doco, timing standards were "the same" except for weight carried(lower, proportional).

Then it's not the same. And if they have a different standard for that, makes me wonder what else is not the same?

Streck-Fu

04-18-2017, 05:24

According to the doco, timing standards were "the same" except for weight carried(lower, proportional).

Are there proportional standards for men? What if you have a 5'4" 135lb man and 6'2" 230lb man required to carry 80lb rucks for 12 miles....? Why isn't that proportional?

JimP

04-18-2017, 06:18

The battlefield does not "gender-norm". To manipulate standards based upon social science, or focused on anything other than "winning on the battlefield" is insane and criminal.

On one OC compass circuit down in Key West I was sucking pond-water I was so smoked but I don't recall being issued a "you have sand in your giny" adjustment for the time.

Team Sergeant

04-18-2017, 12:19

cbtengr

04-18-2017, 13:38

To qualify for the Jegertroppen, applicants have to run about four miles carrying 60 pounds of military gear in under 52 minutes. That's just three minutes less than their male counterparts who have to do the same thing in under 49 minutes.

And we will continue to lower the standards until all can qualify........:munchin

Same thing is happening in the US Army Special Forces, lowering the standards until women can pass the course.

Has the climate changed any regarding the watering down of the standards since DJT took office? I know he has not been in very long but I think this would be easier to fix than the healthcare fiasco.

Flagg

04-18-2017, 14:28

Then it's not the same. And if they have a different standard for that, makes me wonder what else is not the same?

Hard to say. The docos are interesting.

In my experience Norwegians(Scandinavians in general) are pretty laconic, especially the males.

What I found funny(not in a sadistic way) was how loud/noisy a few of the female candidates were during the ruck. I couldn't help but laugh a bit.

Working on an assessment programme(NOT our Selection) I've always found "noisy theatrics" from candidates to be an indicator of them in need of external validation.

Those giving 100% don't have enough left to squeak or moan.

I met a couple of current/retired FSK guys back in 2014. I'd love to have a chat with them about this programme.

Flagg

04-18-2017, 15:17

Are there proportional standards for men? What if you have a 5'4" 135lb man and 6'2" 230lb man required to carry 80lb rucks for 12 miles....? Why isn't that proportional?

The only candidate(out of several hundred I've assessed) I ever had to repeatedly remind other staff to observe more closely for safety reasons was a small stature female.

One of my favourite military photos is one I took of her carrying >average weight distributed across her patrol. Between personal kit, patrol stores, and patrol task she was carrying approx 150% bodyweight. Not a complaint or a squeak out of her, unlike some members of her patrol.

She didn't have any quit in her, and surprisingly was quite durable and didn't break.

But one month of very high intensity work tempo doesn't mean she could/should live the life of high performance Infantry or SOF.

But she had less quit in her than anyone else I ever met. It's a shame physics/physiology trumps her mindset.

One of my peers is a female. She had been working her ass off for the last year to prep for Selection. She achieved a very high level of fitness. And I'll admit to her beating me on runs and crushing me in the pool. Hey, I'm getting old!

But despite the programme we've been thru and work on greatly enhancing one's chances of completing Selection, she didn't meet the Selection standard.

We've broken a few people, males and females. A few people quite seriously, and we're not even in the same league as the rockstars.

Nobody wants to break anyone, and females are at greater risk of short-term injury and long-term disability due to physics/physiology.

A forklift rated for 2 tons, carrying 3 tons everyday, will break more quickly/often than a forklift rated to 3 tons.

No one selects 2 ton forklifts to do 3 ton jobs, except politicians.

But I strongly support females having opportunities to challenge themselves being placed under physical, mental, emotional, and social stressors, because we learn best/most when we push past perceived boundaries and fail.

And that's why I would be a big supporter of creating or expanding opportunities for assessment for personal growth/development completely seperate to selection for SOF units.

Remington Raidr

04-18-2017, 17:43

Are there proportional standards for men? What if you have a 5'4" 135lb man and 6'2" 230lb man required to carry 80lb rucks for 12 miles....? Why isn't that proportional?

You hater.:cool:

frostfire

05-30-2017, 07:08

The only candidate(out of several hundred I've assessed) I ever had to repeatedly remind other staff to observe more closely for safety reasons was a small stature female.

One of my favourite military photos is one I took of her carrying >average weight distributed across her patrol. Between personal kit, patrol stores, and patrol task she was carrying approx 150% bodyweight. Not a complaint or a squeak out of her, unlike some members of her patrol.

She didn't have any quit in her, and surprisingly was quite durable and didn't break.

But one month of very high intensity work tempo doesn't mean she could/should live the life of high performance Infantry or SOF.

But she had less quit in her than anyone else I ever met. It's a shame physics/physiology trumps her mindset.

One of my peers is a female. She had been working her ass off for the last year to prep for Selection. She achieved a very high level of fitness. And I'll admit to her beating me on runs and crushing me in the pool. Hey, I'm getting old!

But despite the programme we've been thru and work on greatly enhancing one's chances of completing Selection, she didn't meet the Selection standard.

We've broken a few people, males and females. A few people quite seriously, and we're not even in the same league as the rockstars.

Nobody wants to break anyone, and females are at greater risk of short-term injury and long-term disability due to physics/physiology.

A forklift rated for 2 tons, carrying 3 tons everyday, will break more quickly/often than a forklift rated to 3 tons.

No one selects 2 ton forklifts to do 3 ton jobs, except politicians.

But I strongly support females having opportunities to challenge themselves being placed under physical, mental, emotional, and social stressors, because we learn best/most when we push past perceived boundaries and fail.

And that's why I would be a big supporter of creating or expanding opportunities for assessment for personal growth/development completely seperate to selection for SOF units.

Concur (including the getting old part! :D)

I saw the high injury rate during my ER rotation as the CST program was picking up. Wrist fracture from crew-served training, coccyx fracture from fast rope fall, etc. We were breaking their bodies with permanent lasting effect. I hope the CST pay off was worth it.

Ladies bring tremendous asset to SOF. During an SMU briefing, one SF explained it succinctly to us when he described how Abu Haji (or anyone) would respond differently to a blue-eyed golden haired personnel working elicitation tradecraft versus a 6'2" barrel chested freedom fighter.

At the same time, I am against gender integration in SF, SEALS, Ranger, PJ, CCT, usw for reasons ad nauseam in various threads.

FWIW, here's the Jegertroppen minimum standard. I know plenty guys who would get smoked by it with the last event included. They recruit from elite athletic high schools and still only dozen pass out of 300 applicants. They remind of South Korea's 707th
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39434655

◾15km (9 miles) speed march in full gear (22kg backpack, weapon, boots) through forests within two hours and 15 minutes
◾Six pull-ups
◾50 sit-ups in two minutes
◾40 push-ups
◾3km run - maximum time 13 minutes
◾400m swim, first 25m underwater - maximum time 11 minutes

One of the trainer in the article gave a pretty level-headed assessment:
He recognizes that there are some valid concerns: most pertinently, the ability of a female soldier to quickly carry a wounded male counterpart to safety.
"I don't think you should view it as the girls are gonna do the exact same as the guys.
"They are not going to win hand-to-hand combat, but most of the time we use guns and a lot of the time they shoot better than the guys."

I think plenty of us would concur that ladies win on teachability when it comes to firearms :) My best student, a female MD who never touched pistol before, did an inch group at 15 yards with M9 first time out after 30 min dry fire and .22. Likewise during last qual, it was easier to instruct the 120 lbs female MAJ (shot 36/40) than the 230 lbs male CPT (shot 22/40)

I wouldn't mind having Captain Ole Vidar Krogsaeter job :D .....or not

Team Sergeant

05-30-2017, 13:48

At the same time, I am against gender integration in SF, SEALS, Ranger, PJ, CCT, usw for reasons ad nauseam in various threads.

Why PJ and CCT? They do not have a combat role?

Their role is rescue, not raids, not ambushes, not kill or capture.

I do love how some think PJ's are right up there with SF, SEALS and Rangers. ;)

glebo

05-30-2017, 17:47

Why PJ and CCT? They do not have a combat role?

Their role is rescue, not raids, not ambushes, not kill or capture.

I do love how some think PJ's are right up there with SF, SEALS and Rangers. ;)

Not degrading them by any means, but hey...just ask them...and they'll tell ya.

bailaviborita

05-31-2017, 06:14

This doesn't really sound like the "true" story- way too many in favor vs not- interviewed- but, tellingly- not only does he mention double standards, he mentions the Army is looking to lower them for the men...

http://taskandpurpose.com/true-story-army-made-first-female-infantrymen/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share&utm_content=tp-share

. Asked if he agreed, the male infantryman wasn't so sure. "A lot of them were pushed through because they were females," he said, explaining that he thinks the female soldiers were given more chances to stay in the course than their male counterparts were afforded. The instructor took issue with that assertion though. "Everyone did the same thing, and that's why not all 34 that started, graduated," he said. "If anything, the standards were upheld even more because there were females in the unit."
There was one notable exception though: The standard Army Physical Fitness Test. "They [the Army] still grade them on the female scale," the instructor admitted, "however, they are also part of a pilot program to do away with separate gender grading. This will in turn lower the standards for males, yet make the playing field pretty even when it comes to physical fitness test."
"I don't think they realize the magnitude of what they've done."
As it stands now, female infantryman have to complete 23 fewer push-ups than their male counterparts, and they have more than three additional minutes to complete their two-mile run. "Even some of the females were pissed about the PT test," the male infantryman said, "because they feel like they didn

sinjefe

05-31-2017, 07:29

^^^^^So, they are lowering the standard to accommodate females. They are saying "you only have to be as strong as a girl to be in the infantry"

rsdengler

05-31-2017, 11:18

^^^^^So, they are lowering the standard to accommodate females. They are saying "you only have to be as strong as a girl to be in the infantry"

Does that mean that the guys now have to run like "Girly Men"? LOL :o.....I know as a woman I could not even compete in that type of training no matter how fit mentally and physically I am; standards should never be lowered because you are a woman. Either you go through the course as everyone else, or don't go at all.

echoes

05-31-2017, 11:47

Does that mean that the guys now have to run like "Girly Men"? LOL :o.....I know as a woman I could not even compete in that type of training no matter how fit mentally and physically I am; standards should never be lowered because you are a woman. Either you go through the course as everyone else, or don't go at all.

Rita,

Great response! I have had the same attitude since way back when, when this topic first came up, and a certain female attempted to pass the Q Course. Beeotch!

That thread was a great learning tool for me as a female, and only one of the reasons I completely agree with topic of this thread, and its author, The Reaper.

The other reasons can be found in the trove of threads on this topic, here at PS.:)

Holly

bblhead672

08-08-2017, 12:48

Should Women Go Into Combat? By Catherine L. Aspy (http://bobjust.com/womenincombat/)

Combat is not primarily about brains, or patriotism, or dedication to duty. There is no question women soldiers have those in abundance. Combat is about war-fighting capacity and the morale of the unit. Here physical strength can be a life-and-death issue.

Ran across this old article (Readers Digest Feb 1999), the truth she writes about from her experience wouldn't gain her any friends in today's Army.

ddoering

08-08-2017, 14:03

The truth is rarely popular.

cbtengr

08-08-2017, 16:40

Should Women Go Into Combat? By Catherine L. Aspy (http://bobjust.com/womenincombat/)

Ran across this old article (Readers Digest Feb 1999), the truth she writes about from her experience wouldn't gain her any friends in today's Army.

A good read, I think the article is timeless and the points made back then are every bit as valid today.

PSM

08-08-2017, 17:33

Nature is only interested in procreation. Men are expendable since they can not birth and nurture the next generation . . . which includes their own replacements.

Pat

trinity

08-08-2017, 19:33

Should Women Go Into Combat? By Catherine L. Aspy (http://bobjust.com/womenincombat/)
This article is right on the money, and matches my experience as well as that of my sister. We, too, started out believing that with sufficient desire, hard work, and proper training, a woman could do any job a man could do. We both did a complete 180 on that over the course of our time on active duty.

One issue that the author doesn't touch on is the psychological changes that take place when a woman makes the shift from being naturally a nurturer to becoming a warrior (even notionally). I noticed it most when I became a mother and realized that I had to work at recovering that nurturing that my children needed.

TFA303

08-09-2017, 09:21

Or, to put it in Greek-language terms:

Unit integrity is based on phillia. Introducing eros into the equation destroys it.

And no, the Jannisaries don't disprove this.

WarriorDiplomat

08-10-2017, 12:18

I noticed they still have not made the PT standards the same for men and women, yet all are equal.

I thought we had gender neutral standards in combat MOS,s at least as I understand it in combat MOSs the standards are related to the job has this not happened?

It's a good thing we were not in full peer to peer war during Obama's reign he would have surrendered and then apologized with the promise of Americans in permanent serfdom with our military resources in full humanitarium mode in the enemies country building mosques and Stalinist statues

Box

08-10-2017, 13:03

The equal PT standard is a myth. It only gets you through the door of the school house.

For example...
a 20 year old soldier
a 30 year old soldier
a 40 year old soldier

...all must meet the same standard when taking a PT test to get into "elite" aRmy schools.

Once they get to a unit, they are held to the standard that matches their age/gender

So in theory - a female that graduates from 11B school will compete against other infantrypersons while being graded on the female PT scale.

Just like the same classmates that scored a 290 on the PT test to get into school will have different scores based on age when they take a PT test at their unit.

Equality in standards is a lie.
It is only "temporary" equality.
but hey.... as long as everyone gets a chance - the terrain on the Korean peninsula is being gender normed even as I type this snarky and misinformed post.................

Pete

08-10-2017, 13:36

I thought we had gender neutral standards in combat MOS,s at least as I understand it in combat MOSs the standards are related to the job has this not happened?....

OPAT is here. Occupational Physical Assessment Test.

An officer's take on it.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2016/10/08/commentary-officer-takes-on-the-army-s-new-opat-and-pulls-no-punches/

"...The current standard for combat arms, according to the OPAT, requires you to have the lower body power of mediocre 12-year-old, the upper body power of an elite 14-year-old, the strength of an average 13-to-15-year-old who works out, and the endurance level of a fit senior citizen..."

Article on it.

http://www.fortgordonglobe.com/news/2017-01-13/Front_Page/Physical_test_aligns_with_MOS_standards.html

cbtengr

08-10-2017, 14:39

OPAT is here. Occupational Physical Assessment Test.

An officer's take on it.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2016/10/08/commentary-officer-takes-on-the-army-s-new-opat-and-pulls-no-punches/

"...The current standard for combat arms, according to the OPAT, requires you to have the lower body power of mediocre 12-year-old, the upper body power of an elite 14-year-old, the strength of an average 13-to-15-year-old who works out, and the endurance level of a fit senior citizen..."

Article on it.

http://www.fortgordonglobe.com/news/2017-01-13/Front_Page/Physical_test_aligns_with_MOS_standards.html

Thanks for sharing those links Pete. The kid in the pic doing the deadlift must have been showing off I total that up to 400# on the bar, who cannot deadlift 160#'s ?

WarriorDiplomat

08-10-2017, 17:15

Thanks for sharing those links Pete. The kid in the pic doing the deadlift must have been showing off I total that up to 400# on the bar, who cannot deadlift 160#'s ?

Those are the new rubber weights the bigger ones weight 25 lbs and the thinner one on the end weighs 10?. The sound of clanking steel is not seen as often as it once was.

WarriorDiplomat

08-10-2017, 17:20

OPAT is here. Occupational Physical Assessment Test.

An officer's take on it.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2016/10/08/commentary-officer-takes-on-the-army-s-new-opat-and-pulls-no-punches/

"...The current standard for combat arms, according to the OPAT, requires you to have the lower body power of mediocre 12-year-old, the upper body power of an elite 14-year-old, the strength of an average 13-to-15-year-old who works out, and the endurance level of a fit senior citizen..."

Article on it.

http://www.fortgordonglobe.com/news/2017-01-13/Front_Page/Physical_test_aligns_with_MOS_standards.html

OMG that is what they came up with?? and there is something like that already in Group I just realized?? the THOR program does an assessment like that with weighted pull ups I heard there is a guy who can deadlift 700+ lbs.

cbtengr

08-10-2017, 20:41

Those are the new rubber weights the bigger ones weight 25 lbs and the thinner one on the end weighs 10?. The sound of clanking steel is not seen as often as it once was.

Thanks for that info, rubber weights?? In my day anything that size was 45# and we did PT in combat boots. I guess I have become a FOG not as old as some FOG's but a FOG none the less.

WarriorDiplomat

08-11-2017, 07:17

Thanks for that info, rubber weights?? In my day anything that size was 45# and we did PT in combat boots. I guess I have become a FOG not as old as some FOG's but a FOG none the less.

Yeah I think all this stuff is a carry over from the Olympic and Professional sports world as far as equipment and techniques......I don't think the assessment described was voted on or researched my suspicion it was a collaboration between an enterprising Officer with an eye towards promotion and the gender neutral(pro female) agenda...

I will say though that the newer fitness will more than likely produce more lifelong fitness types and reduce long term injuries........but joes are joes even with all the exercise ad rehab specialist joe finds a way to get on profile and avoid doing anything. and all the experts in the world cannot dispute claimed pain

Badger52

08-11-2017, 11:05

I guess I have become a FOG not as old as some FOG's but a FOG none the less.Apparently you have put away older things & moved toward great Brisket - embrace the evolution! :D

Not to derail the thread but (since this FOG can't recall), I'm curious what the WACs of my era were doing for PT at the time we had M-14's and the PCPT was 5 events/500 pts overall? (late 60's, weren't they all sexistly segregated down at Ft McClellan?)

160lbs? I never once encountered another guy (smelly, 1 each, w/o weapon but w/ALICE gear) that weighed less than that when it came time for the man-carry event. Sheesh, what luck. Excuse me, I have to go now & tell some kids to get off the lawn.

PSM

08-11-2017, 11:31

160lbs? I never once encountered another guy (smelly, 1 each, w/o weapon but w/ALICE gear) that weighed less than that when it came time for the man-carry event. Sheesh, what luck.

I weighed 118 in basic. EVERYBODY carried me!. Then it was my turn. :D

Pat

Pete

08-11-2017, 15:06

- quits after a week

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/candidate-to-be-first-female-navy-seal-officer-quits-after-a-week-report/article/2631205

"...The unidentified female candidate dropped out in early August during a three-week course in San Diego that began July 24. It was the first assessment of potential SEAL officers before they can be sent on to more grueling courses, according to the website, which cited "multiple Naval Special Warfare Command sources."..."

cbtengr

08-11-2017, 16:25

34069 And so is becoming a Special Forces soldier or a SEAL.

bailaviborita

08-11-2017, 23:59

In the past, the strong exploited the weak. "Civilized" behavior was thought to be different- that the strong protected the weak. Chivalry meant men protected women, smart folks protected idiots, and the strongest and wittiest ruled- protecting all others. It made groups able to accomplish what everyone individually couldn't even dream of.

Today our technology has progressed to a state that the weak literally protect the strong (or in some cases, simply steal from them). Chivalry, of course, is no longer needed- in fact it is viewed as oppressive. Our myth in the past- of chivalry- has been replaced with the myth that everyone is equal- or, not really- but should be made that way- and, more importantly, that there is no responsibility to earn said equality of outcome.

This may be dangerous, as- really, who really cares if the weak are slaughtered? If we go to war and a lot of our weakest - and potentially most dim-witted- are killed? We in some areas may think everyone else is chivalrous- but look at the current pop culture and honestly tell me chivalry is still alive outside of a few pockets. Even though we think moms and dads won't like their daughters coming home in body bags- I think the reality is and will be that most won't really care.

What has this "progress" from technology given us? Women getting their faces pounded in by men in cage fights at Hood and other places. Women boxers and MMA fights (and, curiously, a war on American football). Women in combat arms and tremendous upheaval within SOF and combat arms attempting to incorporate them in in a way in which they will be as successful as possible. War medals for drone pilots. Talk of recruiting otherwise losers into Cyber Command to protect "the strong". SHARP, EO, diversity classes, women's month speeches in the military, LGBT celebrations and speeches in the military, and the idea of a "right" to serve in the military. A "rape crisis" on campuses and in the military.

Once the strong protected the weak. Now the weak will protect the strong. Men won't lift a finger to help a woman in distress (outside of a few areas), because "we're all equal" and they "cage fight anyway." Is this really progress? Is this why our grandfathers and great grandfathers fought in World War II and other wars?

I'd say the standards arguments- on both sides- are a waste of time. In time of war- whether low intensity or high- we will make the standards such that we get the amount we need or are authorized to have. We have always done so- as has every other group or nation. And for every person who says, "as long as they meet the standards..."--- who really says that about men? I"ve heard no-one ever say, "as long as that guy meets the physical standards, he should serve in x unit." Because we all know that's just the minimum. You also have to be able to function on a team. Handle stress on a team--- which is a social phenomenon. That's why we have Robin Sage and subjective instructor evaluations. If all we needed was a minimum physical standard- we could just do Selection and then send them to Group.

No- what counts is something that isn't objective and can't be measured. It is tacit- hard to describe, much less detect. It is largely social. And that is something that a woman, a homosexual, a transgender, or a terrible team player just can't overcome and thus would hurt a team. A team can't have a bunch of non-team players that simply meet physical standards. They have to have something innate that we all know when we see it, is different based on the personalities present and the situation, usually has something to do with the dominant culture of the team, and is ultimately beyond the data-nerds' crunching of "standards."

Our technological progress allows us to get away with this stupidity.... for now. But I fear for the future generations---

Badger52

08-12-2017, 04:54

Our technological progress allows us to get away with this stupidity.... for now. But I fear for the future generations---+1 Those telling everyone who gets disappointed about anything in life that they have a right to a mantle of victimhood & redress will be eliminated, but only when the crumbling bricks of a culture have reached street-level. An appreciation of traditional nurturer/provider roles, that one is not less important than the other & that one is more suited to one role than the other, is likely to come too late. Many have never had the occasion to be part of something bigger than themselves when, perhaps, it is in front of them. They need only look at their children and reflect on whether they've managed to raise a good person. Some have been told that isn't "enough" - the people doing the telling of that need to be run out into the wilderness.

Stobey

08-15-2017, 14:28

Even though I've never been in the military, I understand that what every combat unit - particularly small unit[s] - values is "cohesion". Women in combat roles negatively affect this cohesion, as most of you QPs have pointed out.

This article appeared on Canada Free Press today. Just another article demonstrating [again] why you gentlemen are right; and the "social engineers" should keep the @#*& out of the military. I'll post the link:

http://canadafreepress.com/article/special-ops-should-be-off-limits-to-women

Pete

02-12-2018, 15:28

And in the category of "we will not lower standards - we will just change them".

"Marine Corps Eases Requirement that Has Inhibited Female Infantry Officers"

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/marine-corps-eases-requirement-inhibited-female-infantry-officers/

"...Marine Training Command officials rejected the notion that the change slackens service standards and said it brings the exercise back to its original intent of assessing the "retention of knowledge, skills, and fitness achieved" at IOC, Military.com reported.

"Over the past 40 years, the Marine Corps has made multiple modifications to Infantry Officer Course (IOC) program of instruction (POI) to reflect the requirements of the operating environment," Training Command said in a statement. "The quality of the course remains the same."..."

Team Sergeant

02-12-2018, 16:27

And in the category of "we will not lower standards - we will just change them".

"Marine Corps Eases Requirement that Has Inhibited Female Infantry Officers"

And a pig is still a pig.

Doesn't matter what you call it, lowering the standards is lowering the standards.

Army Infantry has done it as well as Army Special Operations, lowering the standards to accommodate the low physical strength female.

Next the army plans to lower the standards to the point 3rd world countries all have a chance to win battles against the United Diversity States. :munchin