Few women will qualify for land combat

While not familiar with Ranger training, I was told in the Marines and Air Force recycling may well not be related to anything of physical performance, but rather a violation of rules or other minor misconduct. People are also recycled if they become ill or otherwise are delayed.

Many people join the military because they are NOT in shape and want to get in shape. If they devote the effort most will succeed and some will become superior to those who came in already if fairly good shape. Recycling can be recognizing yet-realized potential and effort sometimes counts for more than initial capabilities. There also can be highly desireable traits outside of strength/speed for which physical measures are then of lesser importance for that particular individual. And there can be individuals of acceptable physical abilities but are determined to otherwise be undesirable.

All branches of the military now have far more people wanting to enlist than are needed, a lot more. However, once accepted the $$ is being spent on that person. If a person is washed out all the $$ spend on that person was wasted.

 

Why are you so stuck on Ranger school I watched a 60 Minute piece on this and women are training in the Infantry in the army, and there are ample combat roles for women not in the special forces which are for the elite and few women as well as few men could cut it. I would bet you stick a woman crewman in a tank or in a forward position as a sniper they could prove very capable. What matters is now women are no longer ineligible for the Selective Service and to fill roles deemed qualified for in the branches of the service and those women who do cut it can now enjoy more opportunities to serve in the noblest of commitments to place themselves between the innocent and the horrors of war if that is something they care called to do.

 

The "arm chair warrior" is you, isn't it?

Every command is not out to get her. She's going into areas where women never were before. There are a lot of men in the military of attitudes as in your messages, their focus on male-ego as their definition as their worth and to protect the way things always were. It is little different than someone claiming they are superior because they are white, their claimed superiority isn't earned.

She never complains nor takes a feminist attitude, but she will not play the adoring female service member either. Yet those COs ultimately are self defeating as, fortunately, at least her branch of service is still foremost mission and goal focused, not protecting-the-male-ego oohrah status quo. In short, she is moving past deadweight - and moving beyond her male counterparts.

Here's an example of the overall attitude of ex-military men such as you portray. She was only 1 of 2 people who entered the local VFW's Voice Of Democracy Award. She is an outstanding speaker and greatly enjoys public speaking. She gave the HS graduating class speech, had lectured to PhDs at seminars, one of the keynote addresses at state science fair as examples.

The other competitor, male, stumbled thru a nervous speech about the Marines, basically reading what he copied from Wikipedia, ending with Oohrah. She spoke from memory, telling of some of her military ancestors and some who died in combat in military service, from the Civil War, granted the Confederacy, to Spanish American War to China-Burma-India in WWII to Vietnam, and pondered why anyone would join the military and fight, and possibly die, voluntarily. The reason is not because we were always in the right. Rather, it is because of the concept of we-the-people, our nation. We fight for our the interests of our nation because it is our nation, right or wrong, because that is what a nation of we the people does. No feminist topic nor ever mentioned her gender. She also dressed sharply, him in jeans and a T-shirt.

It was no contest. But they gave the little $300 award (all judges were men with a retired Colonel in charge of course) to the man. While the Colonel's wife kept her mouth shut, other women there didn't. One said "he's a fine young man but this is outrageous." The Colonel explained it bluntly. "He's joining the Marines. Marines win battles. Squaws don't." My daughter kept her mouth shut - she knows to pick her battles. (But she would have been willing to then-and-there physically battle either that male teenager joining the Marines or that retired colonel - or both at the same time. She has a lot of martial arts training and a fair amount of full contact MMA ring time.) A couple of the women later phoned her to apologize for "those (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s."

This week, like last, she is filling a role that is actively finding and killing the enemy. And I'm confident that young marine is on a base somewhere meeting his quota of pushups and full pack run-times.

There is divisions between the branches of service over this, and other, preserving the status quo versus moving forward into the future. Most Airmen (male and female) are being trained in combat, because the Air Force wants to shift to provide their own airbase security and defense. By adding women to the potential personnel the resource base to select from is increased 200%.

It isn't a real challenge to teach a technical geek how to fire a rifle. It is essentially impossible to teach a grunt how to also be a technical geek. Grunts who can do pushups and run wearing a heavy pack are easy to come by and far more are trying to enlist than wanted.

Branches that use male-based minimal physical standards as if they are picking a football team will fall behind in fighting ability. The Air Force already created a backdoor path around this for highly desireable enlistees, meaning measured on intelligence, not pushups. It also means such as the Rangers will be increasingly highly dependent on others, incapable of serious independent action.

Your logic is only self-serving circular. I could use the same logic to disqualify all men by picking a different set of valid requirements. The Rangers do not want women, therefore no woman can pass. It is that simple. If the Rangers wanted no men, no man could pass.

 

What is the value of on-foot battleground-combat capable ONLY troops when not in combat justifying their cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars each? What do they do that earns a return worth their expense?

I don't mean to be disrespectful of ground combat troops. There are situations where it may be necessary to have someone with a rifle in a hostile environment standing on street corner or on patrol in a jungle or thru a hostile village in clearly very life-threatening ways. We should appreciate those willing to do that.

But it is an entirely different matter to claim that they are the military experts and that they are the essential element of the military, ie the best of the best. Such soldiers or Marines are easily trained, there are vastly more volunteering for that level of service than needed or can be afforded, and while their service definitely should be praised it also isn't more than it is.

Could a pilot, programmer, or teckkie be trained to stand on that corner? Yes and without a great deal of time or expensive involved. But it would take months to never to train and make capable to the opposite.

Because the military is based on essentially a seniority system, those in charge tend to be thinking decades in the past. This the curse of the military and caused many a battle, war and nation to be lost, plus leads to needless casualities. For decades it was a truism that whites and blacks could not be in the same units. For decades it was a truism that no education was needed to enlist to combat roles. For centuries is was believed that women should not be in any role in the military other than nurses and certainly not military doctors.

Refusal to replace obsolete designs with new ones. Refusal to modernize battle tactics and planning. In is the nature of old people to claim they way things were is how things always will be, and to rage against anything new. They are the true arm chair warriors, for which their glory days are in the past and more often than not the stories of their pasts they tell get better with each passing year.

The military has been a macho-male bastillian in most of the world, just as societies themselves had men totally in control of all and women as their inferior subordinates. It will take two generations of military for this to die off, just like it took 2 generations for racial segregation in the military to die off. The days in which the army that can do the most pushups and run the furthest carrying the most weight is the best military has long since vanished, though the military largely clings to that ancient concept. There will always be a need for some strong-back male grunts, but they are now only sometimes a necessary element of a far greater concept of battle and warfare and will be of increasingly diminishing importance.

Still, I salute them for putting their willness to put their lives on the line.

 

The shift that is coming, and facing HUGE opposition, is a reversal of priorities in enlistees and training. Now, as in the past, the priority and absolute disqualifier is based on physical standards. Only from those who can make it thru that filter are then their people whose skills are instead intelligence based in terms of educational training available. It is a horrifically damaging funnel and is now intermixed with a way to avoid discimination accusations.

Yet that leads to absurd conclusions. A person with an IQ of 200, but with flat feet, is disqualified. But someone with an IQ of 90 who played high school football is qualified. This makes NO sense. What is being realized that it is INTELLIGENCE and the willingness/ability to learn very specific technical and tactical skills is what is critical. The priority should be - for most (some muscle-head types will likely always be needed, meaning then a usage of average-at-best intelligence people) - the priority should be on intelligence and the willingness of a person to spend the time and focus to learn specific technical and geeky-type skills.

Which is more difficult and harder to find young people willing to do? Making yourself capable of doing enough push ups and running fast enough? Or learning how to read and write computer software? Granted, physical training can be gruelling, but it is far harder to find people capable of and willing to learn in practical ways specific areas of advanced electronics.

Then you come to the question of which is easier to cross train for dual roles? A person with PhD knowledge in a specific area of computer science to also be able to shoot a rifle and do some pushups? Or to train someone who knows how to shoot a rifle to also have PhD computer science knowledge?

This issue is NOT JUST whether women can meet male-designed physical standards. It goes well beyond that to whether those physical standards are THE ABSOLUTE AND 100% OF THE TIME most important - so important that anyone who can't meet it is vetoed and disqualified from service?

I don't know about the other branches of service, but the Air Force, which is highly technically oriented, backdoors around those LEGALLY REQUIRED standards basically by having doctors and other staffers who essentially lie so the Air Force CAN get around that ancient standard to get their committed genius types. They'll outright ignore disqualifying physical flaws and will pass thru basic those who give it effort but just can't do it. Why the hell do they care how many pushups or running speed of someone capable of quickly being taught how to rebuild a sensor array and rewrite the software running it?

Now we get to the issue of the Rangers. Is it wise to make so that Rangers are entirely dependent upon others for technical issues skills? If a computer, communications system, or GPS system they are using craps out it'd probably be a good idea to have a Ranger along who can resolve it, rather than having to call for help from other branches of the service and wait for a tekkie to arrive - or have to scrub the mission entirely. While various units and branches of the military need to work together, self sufficiency also is needed - a lesson of WWII and others. This is the reason the Marines have their own aircraft, not to depend the on Air Force or Army.

It is the brainy types the military tacticians and planners need, not the grunts because there is no shortage of those. Geeks can be easily be cross-trained to a fairly sufficient level of combat ability, though not as well. A grunt can not be cross-trained to be a geek.

The obsticles thrown up against women are NOT just keeping women out. They are keeping the brainiacs out too. And the macho-men of the military preventing this shift from physical strength to intelligence being the priority is growing real problem.

 

The problem arrives when you have to run with a heavy load. Men are less likely to sustain an injury doing that - denser bone structure.

Women have been great assassins - forever. (see Judith and her maid). Snipers? Perfect.

 

It is more than just about women. It is also about the male-macho-thing.


Brainiac/academic types tend to know other academic types, and some of those she knows also opted to join the military. Most the Air Force, but a couple the Navy. Only one of those was really suited for basic training being highly athletic. Not only the Valedictorian of the school, but champion swimmer and captain of the football team. (He also is gay, but kept that to himself when signing up. LOL).

Other than him and her, the others were concerned, greatly, when reading the basic training minimal requirements. All were told not to worry about it by their recruiters. To give it their best and they'll make it - meaning the books will be cooked so they do. They all were male. Few females are willing to go up against the macho-men-crap. Brainiacs - male or female - have too many options otherwise.

Now, if the books were cooked to get a genius female thru basic without meeting the minimals? Imagine the raging by the men! But, at least for the Air Force, it is done. If you're a true brainiac and your history shows you are willing and able to apply it, the Air Force wants you, period.

I don't know about the Marines or Army (including Rangers). But I have little doubt that male enlistees do make it past basic without meeting the minimal standards. To spot those would likely be little more than examining aptitude testing and looking for those off-the-charts in intelligence. But no one is watching for that about men.

But pass a woman? OMG it's time for a Congressional investigation to make absolutely certain she in fact did meet the standards - as military men rage claiming it MUST be a damnable liberal feminism conspiracy at work dooming the nation to future military defeat.

 

Because the recent Ranger School experience is a perfect example of the failure of women to meet the standards, and of the meddling of the politicians and the PC upper echelons of the military to make sure women get in no matter how poorly they perform.

As I posted earlier, Israel removed women from tanks because the women did not have the upper body strength and the close quarters proved incompatible for mixed gender living. And Israel has one majority female infantry brigade, and does allow women into some parts of their special forces, so they are not biased against women, and pulling women out of tanks sends a clear message.

And since several have made the same argument as you - women would be fine in tanks - it also shows that the pro-women people don't have any real understanding of the military.

The same for snipers, its not just shooting on the range, its not like on tv where all you see is a guy traipsing through the forest and then shooting someone and then running back to the boat or helicopter. Its days of working through difficult terrain, usually carrying a lot of equipment, more days observing, then maybe shooting or maybe just taking some days working your way back out. Are there parts that a women could do? Certainly. Can women do the entire package? Unlikely.

 

Your post shows you have absolutely no experience or exposure to the military. You're going on the idiot list.

 

Really? A tank? The crew maintains the tank and just about everything is heavy. Is she going to be the loader where speed and strength is needed? What is she going to do if you throw a track? Watch? Who is going to load the ammo? You or her? If you have to refuel by hand how much is she going to help? Let me guess, she'll put on a cheerleaders outfit complete with pompoms and cheer you on?
And snipers? Who is going to carry the Barrett? After all it's only a 32lbs and that is without optics or suppressor. Add another 5 or 6. If you're working at night what about the night sight? Add more weight How about the ammo? Are you going to carry her personal weapon and ammo? Water and Food?
Geez liberals.

 

Or you could just post that you can't respond.

 

Your all missing the point the women must qualify under the same conditions as the men for combat roles and if not would do other roles in the armed forces all five of them but if there is a draft and women are sensibly included they would fill many positions freeing up men to be focuses on combat roles if its deemed better for the war effort. Some women will qualify for combat roles and many won't the point is not they have a chance to try.

 

Respond to what? Your comments about your daughter, who I know nothing about except from a biased relative? Or your wild comments about what it takes to be a soldier, comments from someone who has no experience with the subject? How am I going to respond to someone who is closed minded and wallowing in ignorance?

As others have as their signature, someone might not respond to a post simply because the poster is not worth responding to.

 

Your messages are just repeating Oohrah as if that proves something.

 

My brother cannot begin to keep up with my wife...despite being eight years younger. She can beat him in ANY physical contest. (Except marksmanship...she cannot shoot an AR-15/M-16 pattern rifle easily.)

My brother is an active-duty Marine NCO. He flatly told her that she could ace the Marine PT regimen in her sleep.

 

Good for her, but that's anecdotal and exceptionally rare.

Because there is that 1 in 1,000 woman who could pass does not mean its a good idea to let every woman try. That's why I keep going back to the Army Ranger School experience - the Army setup an extensive program to prepare women for the school, gave the women more preparation than any man gets including a sneak peak at some of the more difficult tests (such as the land navigation test), and after all that and selecting the best of the group, all the women failed. All that wasted effort could have been used to much more productive ends.

 

You have yet to tell of your fighting experience and I gather you have little to none. Ever been in a close gun fight? Been shot? Shot anyone? Ever had anyone coming at you with a knife? Club? Bottle? Hammer? Pipe? Been in any fights other than school yard nothings? Ever beat anyone into the ground? Ever been beaten into the ground? Ever broke anyone bones in fights? Ever broken anyone's bones in fights? I have quite a bit of experience in such as those - all of those. How many real life, life-death fights have you been in? What was your highest rank? Since you claim I have no experience contrasted to yours, do tell of your fighting experiences since you claim you know all about fighting and who can and who cannot.

You're having been a low ranking grunt in the military, if that, means you know next to nothing nor had what it took to advance, which suggests fundamentally being a failure at what you claim expertise at. Knowing how to keep a barrack to specs and the correct way to fold socks for inspection does not qualify as military expertise. Your measure of combat skills appears to be the ability to mindlessly dig ditches and replace a pack mule. But do tell me if I misread you - and how.

 

My posts stand on their own merit. I do not base my arguments on personal information and do not accept others personal information as proof of anything because such information is unverifiable. Your repeated requests for my personal background are not going to be answered, either base your argument on something that is of value in this anonymous forum, or move on.

 

Kinda means how "combat" is defined. The Soviets had many, many sniper aces and they can pull the lanyards on big guns as well as men. Today, women are doing a great job manning Patriot missile batteries and such. It ain't breaking down doors to houses, but it is combat.

 

As I thought. You claim I have no knowledge or experience - and then duck the topic you raise yourself.

You have never shown anything other than the male leadership of the Army doesn't want women to avoid being made to look bad and to challenge claims of inherent gender superiority. Do you call women "squaws" like many old military men do? Men are "warriors" and women are only "squaws."

 

Women are superior snipers. But shhhhh, you'll upset some old military low rankers who endless relive their warrior years, though actually weren't in any significant combat. What else do they have to claim superiority than to claim they were born superior by their gender.

If you ever ask what they personally did to make their point? They won't answer because they got nothing.

 

No, I have provided numerous links to all kinds of sources which anyone can access. That's how its done. Simply claiming "that's the way it is because I say so" does not work.

Yes, I claim you have no knowledge or experience. You have provided nothing of substance in this subject, your entire evidence is based on one relative.

 

No its not. But to extent I reference her, at least it is a reliable source. Your's are not. You sources are basically "us men claim we are superior" and little more.

Your assertion is false. Your assertion is that if most women do not met standards set for men and those based upon outdated and ancient concepts of warfare, then women are not capable. That's just nonsensical circular reasoning. Nor do you even pretend to have a response with inherent superiorities of women over men are pointed out.

 

No its not. But to extent I reference her, at least it is a reliable source. So is the Marine squad leader who was in combat in the Helmann District of Afghanistan - who completely changed from his opposition to women in combat after actually being in REAL combat including extended combat patrols. Your sources are not. You sources are basically "us men claim we are superior" and little more.

In fact, when women in combat experiences have been studied, the problem is not with the women at all. Rather, it is with the men in the same units or same battle. In short, the bottomline to reasons given to not allow women to remain in combat is due to shortcomings and lack of discipline of male troops, not under performance of female troops. Yet that same logic was used to so-called prove that racially integrated troops would not work and would weaken the military - that black and whites could not work together as a combat unit.

Have you shown any military with women in it that lose wars or battles because of it? No. Any response to the the FACT that not only were women in combat in Russia in war effective, they were actually braver and more effective, accomplishing on their own what the men claiming it cannot be done and abandoned the female troops - who then succeeded on their own. You have NOTHING to show your claims OTHER than men who assert a truism within nothing to back it up.

Your assertion is false. Your assertion is that if most women do not met standards set for men and those based upon outdated and ancient concepts of warfare, then women are not capable. That's just nonsensical circular reasoning. Nor do you even pretend to have a response with inherent superiorities of women over men are pointed out. There are many.

In terms of muscle mass itself, women are stronger than men - meaning far more efficient in terms of support needs. Women's bodies more efficiently use food and water, meaning they need to carry less - something the male military refuses to acknowledge or adjust loads for. Women can withstand more physical pain than men on average. In stress and if militarily trained, women are more emotionally stable, less likely to panic and will more closely follow orders. Men are more likely to mutiny against command if they deem the mission to dangerous. Women are less likely to engage in attrocities against civilians, which harms the ultimate goals in many war and battle situations, and the presence of women reduces the likelihood of men committing attrocities. Women are more patient and methodical than men, making them superior as snipers and for forward observation. There are potential positives having female troops in relation to civilians, when often civilians can be decisively helpful or the secret ally of the enemy. That is a partial list - and one you fully disregard to claim that the reason men are superior is because they can carry a heavier pack for extended remote operation - when in fact women don't need as heavy a pack and it is all but an irrelevant measure anyway.

In addition, the exceptions I and others cite proves your claim to be false on its face, for which you have to fall back on a statistical comparison - and that a comparison of men who can meet physical standards exclusively designed for men over women who can meet standards exclusively designed for men.

Further disproving your claim is that military overall has reduced the physical required standards for men - and despite the rantings of older military men that this will destroy the US military it has done no such thing.

Your standards apply if you were a recruiting agent for ISIS, the most simplistic and primitive of fighting techniques. But even ISIS uses women, don't they?

One last comment, all military positions are considered potential combat roles, aren't they? There is no instance where anyone in the military can decline being ordered to pick up a rifle and fight stating "sorry, you can't make me do that because I'm non-combat." Virtually ever position within the military is a "combat" position.

 

A literal reason that has been given by militaries to pull women out of combat roles is NOT women can't fight. Rather, it is that the troops - male and female - become so aggressive in combat that they are difficult to restrain. This particularly becomes true if there are casualties. The men try to prove they are men to the women and become aggressive if women are wounded, and it seems the women take a motherly attitude towards wounded men - meaning wanting to kill those SOBs who hurt that man/those men. In short, in combat a mixed male/female combat force becomes an extremely aggressive killing team. They toss out the PC Nice warfare crap and slaughter the enemy.

Extremely aggressive troops when in actual combat would seem to be more of an advantage than drawback. I think that was Patton's idea of warfare anyway, wasn't it?