Integration plans for females into combat arms- to include ARSOF- detailed

[bailaviborita]

This article mentions some of the details for the integration of females:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...to-combat-arms

The signs of the second wave feminist control of the integration process are seen in the latest plans to integrate females:

- Combat arms training and selection courses will have 4 unqualified female observers assigned to them in perpetuity until a cadre of female leaders is established in their higher units
- Female observers will be assigned down to company level to ensure fair treatment of all females in training courses
- Females will be assigned to operational units in such a way- called “pooling”- as to prevent the isolation of single female combat arms soldiers (for some units this will require females to be “pooled” arguably at the team or squad level if that is the level at which interaction is “favorable”)
- Higher HQs (division level and lower) are tasked to specially manage and supervise female combat arms soldiers individually in operational units
- A minimum of 3 pooled females in training courses is required in order to ensure an adequate population for training
- Female packets for combat arms will be screened and expedited specially by HQs in order to expedite female leaders arriving to units
- 1 female infantry officer must be assigned to a company before any female enlisted are assigned to that company, in order to ensure they have the best shot at being mentored and being successful
- Commands must provide monthly reports detailing a host of measures specifically aimed at assessing female success in combat arms and units’ successes in integration
- All units will conduct special sexual harassment and sexual assault classes, will establish reporting mechanisms and processes specially for all female-related incidents, and will establish pregnancy policies that address the unique circumstances of their career fields and any detrimental effects being pregnant can have on a female officer within the combat arms

Surprisingly, or not for that matter, special operations forces such as the 75th Ranger Regiment and the U.S. Army Special Forces are being held to even greater standards in order to ensure the success of women in those two units. The amount of reporting, sexual harassment training, and planning and preparation in advance of receiving women into these units is breathtaking, taking into consideration that these units continue to experience high deployment rates into combat zones and other places around the world. The pressure from the second wave feminists and their allies within the Pentagon is perceived as too grave a threat to higher-ranking commanders throughout the combat arms, but more so within the special operations community. The commanders’ intent of these organizations is clear and has had an adverse effect on the community- a community that is 85% against this in the first place: “we do not want to be seen as dragging our feet on this issue.” That the real issue is the threat to careers of these higher ranking commanders is the de facto conventional wisdom and has deepened a feeling of late that the command cares more about field grade, general officer, and sergeants major careers than they do about their forces.

[sinjefe]

There needs to be a mass exodus (if the 85% number is accurate). Let them reap the whirlwind.

[BrokenSwitch]

- Combat arms training and selection courses will have 4 unqualified female observers assigned to them in perpetuity until a cadre of female leaders is established in their higher units

"Who's the CO in this [unit/school/whatever]?"
"LTC John Smith, sir!"
"COL Lauren Schmidt will observe the training here."

- Females will be assigned to operational units in such a way- called “pooling”- as to prevent the isolation of single female combat arms soldiers (for some units this will require females to be “pooled” arguably at the team or squad level if that is the level at which interaction is “favorable”)

- A minimum of 3 pooled females in training courses is required in order to ensure an adequate population for training

School slots that could have gone to qualified candidates will be wasted to meet this quota. What happens if one of them is recycled, injured, voluntarily withdraws, or is dropped for other reasons?

- 1 female infantry officer must be assigned to a company before any female enlisted are assigned to that company, in order to ensure they have the best shot at being mentored and being successful

Which means West Point and ROTC cadets aren't safe from the above, which means wasted slots at IBOLC until they find enough people to meet the minimum standard. Speaking of, does that mean a 300 on the female APFT, or the male APFT?

- Higher HQs (division level and lower) are tasked to specially manage and supervise female combat arms soldiers individually in operational units

The lawyers weren't satisfied to judge drone operators' every button-press; now, they want to sit in judgement of the rest of the force.

[sinjefe]

Never before now has there been institutional permission to G2 a course. Disgusting.

[Go Devil]

Gentlemen,

What is the counter attack to this "assault" ?

White Flight, "equality", and "acceptance" is leading our culture into a 3rd world ghetto.

[Dusty]

"Surprisingly, or not for that matter, special operations forces such as the 75th Ranger Regiment and the U.S. Army Special Forces are being held to even greater standards in order to ensure the success of women in those two units. The amount of reporting, sexual harassment training, and planning and preparation in advance of receiving women into these units is breathtaking"


LOFLIPPIN'L

The high brass has flipped its collective lid.

You can't taint standards without collapsing the ideal.

[The Reaper]

Vilkommen, Damen Commisar!

TR

[blue02hd]

Originally Posted by Go Devil

Gentlemen,

What is the counter attack to this "assault" ?

White Flight, "equality", and "acceptance" is leading our culture into a 3rd world ghetto.

A DD214 isn't a bad start,,,,

[Remington Raidr]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Vilkommen, Damen Commisar!

TR

10th Group?

[Sohei]

I like when they have to create special "plans" for integration into existing units.

Ah...but, there are no changes being made.

[Joker]

And the mandatory tacticool beard.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Joker

And the mandatory tacticool beard.

Damn you, I just ripped out my hernia stitches.

Pat

[VAV1500]

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Doc...te%20Team2.pdf

JSOU "study" results. Didn't see it on here/the other thread.

Mostly more of the same bullshit, with a few strange twists. Worth a look, know your enemy.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by VAV1500

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Doc...te%20Team2.pdf

JSOU "study" results. Didn't see it on here/the other thread.

Mostly more of the same bullshit, with a few strange twists. Worth a look, know your enemy.

That paper is a thinly veiled liberal paper that is written to support integration. Like all liberal political papers there are a high amount of variables not really presented, tons of information missing as far as the data for the consumer. It is a biased paper that used poor examples for comparison without in depth backgrounds on how the situation and integration of the mentioned jobs got to where they were when the paper was written. I personally would prefer to see the talent pool of candidates and test results the females allegedly beat out for the job, the laws that were enacted and legal ramifications for selecting a better candidate over a female.

For example the surveys we took from Rand were biased and asked question that gave us no where to go with the answers such as questions about fine motor skills. Another variable is the culture of SF when it comes to any survey their is a prevailing opinion that leaders like to remind us that they don't matter so just mark neutral and get it done so I can give %100 to higher. Or here is a classic when it comes to command climate surveys "I don't say anything because they know who writes what and you get fucked". These morally heroic turds like to brag about how they just marked neutral and go about their day.

Do you think the above info would be important to know before you accept the probability of accuracy. Silence is consent

[VAV1500]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

That paper is a thinly veiled liberal paper that is written to support integration. Like all liberal political papers there are a high amount of variables not really presented, tons of information missing as far as the data for the consumer. It is a biased paper that used poor examples for comparison without in depth backgrounds on how the situation and integration of the mentioned jobs got to where they were when the paper was written. I personally would prefer to see the talent pool of candidates and test results the females allegedly beat out for the job, the laws that were enacted and legal ramifications for selecting a better candidate over a female.

For example the surveys we took from Rand were biased and asked question that gave us no where to go with the answers such as questions about fine motor skills. Another variable is the culture of SF when it comes to any survey their is a prevailing opinion that leaders like to remind us that they don't matter so just mark neutral and get it done so I can give %100 to higher. Or here is a classic when it comes to command climate surveys "I don't say anything because they know who writes what and you get fucked". These morally heroic turds like to brag about how they just marked neutral and go about their day.

Do you think the above info would be important to know before you accept the probability of accuracy. Silence is consent

Yes, I think this piece actually illustrates that --literally-- better than the Rand survey. They all but state their bias in the abstract. All of the trick-fuck aspects of the Rand survey seem out in the open on this one, right down to manipulative graphic representations at the end.