Professional Soldiers ®

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)
-   -   Pentagon Mulling Separate Combat Training For Men, Women (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42924)

Richard 07-26-2013 10:22

Pentagon Mulling Separate Combat Training For Men, Women
 
Guess we'll be sending men and women to different wars, too, IAW the parameters of their combat training - a "Tier 1 SF Bn" (male) for Syria and a "Tier 2 SF Bn" (Female) for Aruba? :confused:

Richard


Pentagon Mulling Separate Combat Training For Men, Women
WashTimes, 25 July 2013

The military is looking at ways to modify its training for women to help them qualify for direct ground combat roles in the infantry, tanks and special operations.

Senior officers revealed the new effort this week at a hearing of the House Armed Services subcommittee on personnel.

The armed services have pledged that their standards for ground combat and commando operations will be the same for men and women.

But now commanders are raising the possibility of a two-tiered training system.


The idea was presented by Rep. Niki Tsongas.

“To put in place a training regimen that is ill-suited to maximizing the success of women is not really the outcome any of us want to see,” she said.

Army Lt. Gen. Howard Bromberg, deputy chief of staff for personnel, agreed.

“We are looking at that, and we’re not looking at it just for the integration of women,” Gen. Bromberg testified. “We’re looking at it for the total soldier, because just as you have a 110-pound male who may lack some type of physiological capability or physical capability, he or she may both need to be trained differently. We’re trying to expand our understanding of how we train.”

Lt. Gen. Robert Milstead Jr., deputy Marine Corps commandant for manpower, put forward a pitch for gender-segregated boot camp. The Corps is the only service that has maintained gender-segregated initial training.

“I think an excellent example of what you’re talking about is our gender-separated boot camp,” Gen. Milstead testified. “We don’t start teaching the [occupations] there. Our boot camp is about the transformation of individuals, men and women, from being a civilian to being a United States Marine. We have it separated for that reason, because we feel that this transformation, it goes on a separate track. It needs to be handled different.

“They need to be nurtured different. They just need different steps as they go. They end up in the same place, the United States Marines.”

The Marine Corps has charged to the front of the women-in-combat issue by asking female officer volunteers to try to complete the officer combat qualification course at the base in Quantico, Va.

Women are expected to perform the same tasks as men. All six women who have entered the course have dropped out due to injury or failure to complete the course.

The Pentagon lifted the ban on women in direct combat roles in January. The services and U.S. Special Operations Command are studying combat standards to validate or change them before a decision is made to move women into those roles in January 2016.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2aAXnlPOy

The Reaper 07-26-2013 10:26

Why not do the same for the handicapped and special needs citizens and make them Spec Ops soldiers as well?

These idiots making the rules without any real knowledge of ground combat are going to be responsible when we lose the next war.

TR

spherojon 07-26-2013 10:36

One word: Politics.

Maybe we will get a movie sequel to J.I. Jane.

sinjefe 07-26-2013 11:29

Is anyone really surprised that they are headed this way? I mean, come on, Dempsey and Odierno (among others)?

98G 07-26-2013 12:13

Operation Aruba is Calling
 
At first I thought, this just gets dumber or it is another Duffleblog. But no, when training is already under-funded, our bloated Federal budget is a joke of program and discretionary spend that is woefully out of date, elected officials spend more time raising campaign money than doing their jobs, they have time to meet and discuss asinine ideas? But then.. it makes sense. Lower standards, better locations. After all, we can't risk sending sub standard combat troops to military hot spots, but what about to civilian hot spots? Those cocktails can be lethal and navigating the bar scene comes with its own hazards.

Aruba? Genius.

Too bad I passed the age limit. I could really stand to deploy to Aruba for a while.

Sometimes, being female can really pay off. Must go train and get a fake birth certificate. Hope I get credit for prior service and keep some rank. :lifter

Badger52 07-26-2013 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 516904)
The idea was presented by Rep. Niki Tsongas.

“To put in place a training regimen that is ill-suited to maximizing the success of women is not really the outcome any of us want to see,” she said.

Army Lt. Gen. Howard Bromberg, deputy chief of staff for personnel, agreed.

I promise - Scout's Honor - I did NOT skip out on English and go surfin'...

That poorly written crap up there isn't gonna yield their next catch slogan...
:rolleyes:

Surf n Turf 07-26-2013 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badger52 (Post 516919)
I promise - Scout's Honor - I did NOT skip out on English and go surfin'...

That poorly written crap up there isn't gonna yield their next catch slogan...
:rolleyes:

US Army -Maximizing the success of women since February 6, 1775

SnT :D

PRB 07-26-2013 16:28

Any Officer or NCO that supports 'separate but equal' training should be shot at dawn...if not earlier.

Team Sergeant 07-27-2013 10:49

Pentagon Mulling Separate Combat Training For Men, Women
 
Pentagon Mulling Separate Combat Training For Men, Women


At least we will have a front seat watching this joke unfold.....

No leadership in the WH and apparently none in the Pentagon either.

Utah Bob 07-27-2013 13:38

I'd like to say I'm surprised.
I'd like to. But I'm not.

ddoering 07-27-2013 13:41

Separate but equal.... Wasn't that tried before some where and failed according to the SC?????

PRB 07-27-2013 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddoering (Post 517016)
Separate but equal.... Wasn't that tried before some where and failed according to the SC?????

No kidding...I hope someone in authority that thinks this stupid puts that old term to use.
There is no such thing as 'separate but equal' when the command atmosphere, environment, weather, and cadre are different. None.
I cannot imagine the nut rolls MACOM Commanders and Staff have to respond to in this Obama age.

Ghost_Team 07-27-2013 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRB (Post 517017)
There is no such thing as 'separate but equal' when the command atmosphere, environment, weather, and cadre are different. None.
I cannot imagine the nut rolls MACOM Commanders and Staff have to respond to in this Obama age.

It's not just the Obama age. This silly shit has been going on for 20 years, if not a little longer. The "Everyone is equal, everyone is a winner, we'll adjust the rules to the individual" stuff makes no sense to me. It's right up there with "fairness." Well, if something is fair (using the liberal definition of level playing field and all things equal), there can never be a winner or loser. Anything that has a winner or loser, or any kind of ranking system can never be completely fair. Someone will always have an advantage. Smarter, faster, stronger, whatever it may be.

Paslode 07-27-2013 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost_Team (Post 517021)
It's not just the Obama age. This silly fantage has been going on for 20 years, if not a little longer. The "Everyone is equal, everyone is a winner, we'll adjust the rules to the individual" stuff makes no sense to me. It's right up there with "fairness." Well, if something is fair (using the liberal definition of level playing field and all things equal), there can never be a winner or loser. Anything that has a winner or loser, or any kind of ranking system can never be completely fair. Someone will always have an advantage. Smarter, faster, stronger, whatever it may be.

As long as we have Social Engineers there will always be an effort to handicap the score in order to even the playing field.

Peregrino 07-27-2013 15:19

Just remember - this is all being pushed by the same people who thought the school Debate Team deserved the same Varsity Letter as the Football Team.

Paslode 07-27-2013 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrino (Post 517024)
Just remember - this is all being pushed by the same people who thought the school Debate Team deserved the same Varsity Letter as the Football Team.


Revenge of the Nerds ;)

jbour13 07-27-2013 18:35

I keep telling myself.....5 years and I'm retirement eligible.

I'm in a low-density MOS. I have yet to hear any female (even those assigned to support SF and SOF) claim any desire to get out and "Mix it up" with any true believers.

This again, is always pushed by those with no skin in the fight.

I'm in that category myself, and I'm closer to the road than most have or ever will be by the nature of whom I work for and support.

Sad, just sad.

I agree with the shooting before dawn. Shouldn't be hard, apologists never seem to be out of bed before first light anyway. :D

The Reaper 07-27-2013 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 517046)
Will they really have the numbers to be able to have separate combat training for women?

Sure.

They can do it by correspondence course.

TR

PRB 07-27-2013 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 517046)
Will they really have the numbers to be able to have separate combat training for women?

Not presently, but never, never underestimate the power of stupidity.

BKKMAN 07-27-2013 21:30

And the liberal mantra of the primacy of "Equality of Outcome" over "Equality of Opportunity" regardless of the consequences drum beat grows louder...

The death rattle of our country in general and our military in particular is deafening...

JHD 07-28-2013 04:45

Is this a move to get around, or in addition to, allowing women in SF? Frankly, I don't see how it would work either way and is a dumb idea. It seems to me that power brokers with no skin in the game come up with these brilliant plans for social experiments, and then do nothing when there is fallout from implementation. Very bad place for social experimenting.

Richard 07-28-2013 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrino (Post 517024)
Just remember - this is all being pushed by the same people who thought the school Debate Team deserved the same Varsity Letter as the Football Team.

I miss the point. Although I do not agree with all that seems to be happening with the on-going gender wars, I am one of those who believe those who represent a school in interscholastic competition on a sponsored academic team do, in fact, deserve the same "Varsity Letter" as those who represent the school in interscholastic athletic competition.

The "Varsity Letter" is awarded students who represent the school while competing in extracurricular activities - whether academic (debate, robotics, academic decathalon, etc) or athletic - and perform to a specified standard for a specified period of time.

The letter is a symbol of having risen to the challenge, and there are specific pins which are attached to the letter to show the activity in which one excelled. For example, crossed rifles for either JROTC drill team or marksmanship team, a tennis racquet for tennis team, a megaphone for cheerleading, a gavel for mock trial competition, etc. Many schools also use a sew-on patch with a year to indicate sports participation - e.g., a small football or basketball or winged foot sewn on the jacket's sleeve with the year for each year the student played and earned letter recognition in the sport.

Many schools - and we were one - also allow faculty to purchase "varsity letter jackets" for wear to such extracurricular competitions as a show of (1) pride in their students and school as well as (2) recognition of their role in "coaching" (mentoring) them and its importance to their academic and extracurricular success.

Just my $.02 to consider.

Richard

Peregrino 07-28-2013 08:52

It's very simple. In HS I participated in two of the examples you cited: JROTC drill team and marksmanship team; 3-years each, with winning seasons in both "sports". My school district didn't give letters for it and that didn't/doesn't bother me. Perhaps we just weren't/aren't enlightened enough to understand that everybody deserves a trophy simply for "representing the school".

Richard 07-28-2013 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrino (Post 517103)
Perhaps we just weren't/aren't enlightened enough to understand that everybody deserves a trophy simply for "representing the school".

FWIW - it wasn't just representation or participation, and not everyone received them; it was recognition for achieving a specified level of noteworthy achievement in "interscholastic competition."

Richard

Remington Raidr 07-28-2013 11:49

It's ALL about that last star . . .
 
Up there in the thin atmosphere of the Lt. Gens. you will NEVER have a short supply of General candidates willing to agree with whatever harebrained idea floated by the current citizens in charge. Like, um, water isn't wet. They gotta keep eyes on the prize. What you think does not matter to them.:rolleyes:

Peregrino 07-28-2013 11:50

Winning at District and Regional level where every school had a JROTC program isn't "a specified level of noteworthy achievement in "interscholastic competition"? Interesting.

Richard 07-28-2013 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrino (Post 517113)
Winning at District and Regional level where every school had a JROTC program isn't "a specified level of noteworthy achievement in "interscholastic competition"? Interesting.

Huh?

Richard

Roguish Lawyer 07-28-2013 23:06

I got letters for being on the debate team when I was in high school. Didn't wear them because I thought it was really gay to take something historically associated with sports and extend it to other activities.

That said, I find the suggestion that debate is not a difficult and challenging activity requiring tons of preparation, hard work, talent and skill to be completely ignorant.

98G 07-29-2013 07:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRB (Post 517059)
Not presently, but never, never underestimate the power of stupidity.

Or the power of politics. The more ludicrous the suggestion, the harder to implement. So everyone can act like they are taking this "position" without ever actually doing anything.

Training is under discretionary spending. When the budget is proposed for this asinine idea, it may drop back out of sight.

By the way, the Army entrance requirements will have to change first. Those 2 inches difference wreak havoc on a 30 inch step.

Quote:

The cause for rejection for Armed Forces male applicants is height less than 60 inches or more than 80 inches. The cause for rejection for Armed Forces female applicants is height less than 58 inches or more than 80 inches.

Box 07-29-2013 09:14

I am FULLY supportive of a 100% gender integrated force with only a few reasonable caveats...


...I want to see the governmnet DEMAND that the NBA end segregation and start giving contracts to female basketball players. Clearly, there are women that can run circles around men on the courts.

...end womens tennis. Women can beat men at tennis. Desegregate tennis.

...get rid of the different t-box on the golf course. There are women that golf better than men. Its time to end discrimination on the gold course. Eliminate the WPGA and let them play in the same league as men.

...get rid of softball. That shit is just plain stupid. If females can throw a softball fast for strikes, surely they can throw a much lighter and smaller baseball past most men.


If winning doesn't matter, then lets stop pretending that it does.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:43.


Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers ®