US to allow women in combat roles - Good idea or bad?

The Army announced in January that it was opening Ranger School as part of that research, and required that female volunteers first attend an existing 17-day preparatory course known as the Ranger Training and Assessment Course (RTAC).

---

On average, female soldiers in RTAC have completed 39 push-ups, 10 less than required.

---

In 2014, about 1,100 soldiers went through RTAC, and 57 percent graduated, Riely said. By comparison, women have attempted an RTAC 138 times since they were opened, and are on pace to graduate 20. That’s just under 15 percent.

---

It will get more difficult in a week when Ranger School begins. The 62-day course is famously grueling, with about a 50 percent graduation rate overall.

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-to-train-and-assess-women-for-ranger-school/

They must have the cream of the crop there. I don't know that I ever saw a female do 39 push ups; that's a pretty high score for any of the female age brackets. At 37 when I got out, 39 push ups would have been passing for me, barely.

No Women Pass Marines Infantry Officer School by Experiment's End.
The Marine's tried, and the women washed out. No gender-norming of standards .
I'd bet there was some pressure put on the Corps to let them graduate, but it would seem the USMC passed the ethical test.

Tidewater said:

No Women Pass Marines Infantry Officer School by Experiment's End.
The Marine's tried, and the women washed out. No gender-norming of standards .
I'd bet there was some pressure put on the Corps to let them graduate, but it would seem the USMC passed the ethical test.

Click to expand...

When I was ** (not even in the same galaxy as the USMC), I would state I was opposed to female ground combatants. To prove my point, I'd pick up a guy and throw him over my shoulder and run a la Forrest Gump in the Vietnam scene.

Then I'd say, "Now, throw me on your shoulders and carry me up the hill - and keep in mind I weigh less than the average soldier with gear."

When they couldn't go more than a step I'd say, "Case closed."

formersoldier71 said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-to-train-and-assess-women-for-ranger-school/

They must have the cream of the crop there. I don't know that I ever saw a female do 39 push ups; that's a pretty high score for any of the female age brackets. At 37 when I got out, 39 push ups would have been passing for me, barely.

Click to expand...

I think women get to do pushups by keeping their knees on the ground. That's about the only way a typical female could do 39 pushups.

Bama Reb said:

I think women get to do pushups by keeping their knees on the ground. That's about the only way a typical female could do 39 pushups.

Click to expand...

Not in the Army. The form of the pushup is the same for both. The number of pushups gets "gender-normed."

Special Operations Command also facing pressure to integrate women.
Special Operations Forces Are Worried about Adding Women

Navy SEAL Adm. Geo. Washington said:

“It’s not marathon times. It’s not your speed in a 400-meter run or swim. It’s how do you do it after 52 hours of being totally awake. Sand in your crotch and leeches and mosquitoes. How do you take that? It’s military conditioning, not Olympics stuff.”

Click to expand...

Special operations troops doubt women can do the job

Wonder where they got that idea? How about what happened to airborne school after gender integration. Or the first female F-14 pilot in the Navy, consistently failed to meet standards, was passed anyway, and ended up crashing her plane and killing herself because she lacked the necessary skills.

This part was comical:

One survey, by RAND Corp., reflected doubts that women could meet the overall job demands, found concerns that sexual harassment or assault could increase, and cited worries about "unequal treatment" of special operations candidates and personnel. Some worried that if women were let in to some jobs, they might be treated more harshly.

Click to expand...

The "unequal treatment" concern is that women who fail to meet standards will be passed despite that failure.
As for the environments in which Special Operations folks work, the risk of capture is significantly higher and a captured woman is statistically more likely to be raped by her captors than a man is. That is not US policy, but it is more likely to happen given the scum the US fights against. I would make that abundantly clear to candidates. "If captured, you will be raped and there will be nothing we will be able to do to stop it from happening. Sign here to acknowledge that you were forewarned."

All eight female soldiers who survived the initial days of the first-ever Army Ranger School course to include women failed to make it to the second phase, but can still try again and pass, Army officials said Friday.

The women were attempting the famously difficult 62-day course as the Pentagon weighs which combat jobs women will be allowed to hold in the future. Army officials at Fort Benning, Ga., said that 115 men in the class had moved on to Ranger School’s second phase — mountaineering at Camp Merrill, Ga. — but that eight women and 101 men will be left behind at Fort Benning, Ga., to attempt Phase One again.

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ers-fall-short-at-ranger-schools-darby-phase/

No-go at this station, for now.

formersoldier71 said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ers-fall-short-at-ranger-schools-darby-phase/

No-go at this station, for now.

Click to expand...

I was hoping a couple would make it through. This signals (my opinion as a former instructor) the start of, how did the minimum standards become the standard and should it still be the standard probe. Which will be the trigger to forever modify something that has remained constant throughout all major conflicts since Korea.

Silverback said:

I was hoping a couple would make it through. This signals (my opinion as a former instructor) the start of, how did the minimum standards become the standard and should it still be the standard probe. Which will be the trigger to forever modify something that has remained constant throughout all major conflicts since Korea.

Click to expand...

If some politically-favored group fails to meet the standard, then the standard is obviously flawed.
I'm just amazed that the Army had the backbone to stick to the standard. Plus, as a former RI, you know how grueling that course is, and how small injuries can easily become aggravated into major medical issues. It is not any one individual standard that kills, it is the cumulative effect.

formersoldier71 said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-to-train-and-assess-women-for-ranger-school/

They must have the cream of the crop there. I don't know that I ever saw a female do 39 push ups; that's a pretty high score for any of the female age brackets. At 37 when I got out, 39 push ups would have been passing for me, barely.

Click to expand...

I have met some women who absolutely destroyed the pushups on their scale. One did 75 PUs. Now whether those were all really to standard might be up for debate; I have seen some really lax grading during PT tests where the "plane" is pretty high and the straightness of the back is ignored. But that is about 5x higher than their minimum.

It is annoying however, when a female does worse in all events but due to the gender-normed scale scores say a 400 on the extended scale and gets that score taken into account for schools, promotions, awards, etc over a male who did the same or better but due to the scaling scores lower and therefore misses out on the school slot or whatever is up for grabs. I mean if a female who scores a 300 on her scale transplanted her results to the male scale, as a male she would be told to quit lounging around and get in shape.

Tidewater said:

If some politically-favored group fails to meet the standard, then the standard is obviously flawed.
I'm just amazed that the Army had the backbone to stick to the standard. Plus, as a former RI, you know how grueling that course is, and how small injuries can easily become aggravated into major medical issues. It is not any one individual standard that kills, it is the cumulative effect.

Click to expand...

I am still skeptical that they will keep this backbone if pressure intensifies.

These women failed patrols. From what I hear, they just weren't very good on their missions. As I am sure you know, that can be fairly arbitrary based on the RI. We will see how many times they recycle. The majority of guys do not go through unscathed.

RammerJammer14 said:

I am still skeptical that they will keep this backbone if pressure intensifies.

These women failed patrols. From what I hear, they just weren't very good on their missions.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but you know the drill, go into sleep deficit, educed chow, and your brain doesn't work quite as well. One guy in my class told us to be quiet because he was afraid we were going to "scare away the donuts" that he saw walking down the trail. When the RI got a little miffed and loudly ordered the patrol to move out, the guy was in tears because the RI "scared away the donuts."

As I am sure you know, that can be fairly arbitrary based on the RI.

Click to expand...

My first NO GO was in Florida. SFC Rondinone introduced himself and said he was known as "NO GO Rondo." Then he asked "Now, Ranger, where do you suppose I got that nickname?"
I later learned that the cadre would look at who was doing well on patrols thus far and throw Rondo at him to ratchet up the pressure.

Silverback said:

This signals (my opinion as a former instructor) the start of, how did the minimum standards become the standard and should it still be the standard probe. Which will be the trigger to forever modify something that has remained constant throughout all major conflicts since Korea.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah. That debate has been on-going, but it will intensify. One recent article, with a USMC combat vet as a co-author:

We propose that this is not an issue about women, but one of standards. Impartial officers already know this. Few of them, however, question how current guidelines were developed or when they were last re-evaluated; they just maintain that standards should not be lowered.

--

Re-evaluate the standard, publish the standard, and hold the standard. For everyone.

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...evaluate-standards-for-women-in-the-military/
Are there any expectations that a re-evaluation of standards will result in higher standards? They will remain as they are, or more likely, be relaxed. And, to take the Rangers as an example, is there anything in their combat record during the last 15 years that suggests standards should be relaxed?

To relax a performance standard, one must show that not enough people are able to meet the current standard to begin with...regardless of any demographic criterion.

Tidewater said:

My first NO GO was in Florida. SFC Rondinone introduced himself and said he was known as "NO GO Rondo." Then he asked "Now, Ranger, where do you suppose I got that nickname?"
I later learned that the cadre would look at who was doing well on patrols thus far and throw Rondo at him to ratchet up the pressure.

Click to expand...

Steve "No go" Rondeau was my Platoon Sergeant in 3-75. I am FB friends with him. He is an awesome guy and had a huge influence on me as a Ranger and Leader. I can reunite you two if you like [emoji33]

He is a Hawg fan BTW

Silverback said:

Steve "No go" Rondeau was my Platoon Sergeant in 3-75. I am FB friends with him. He is an awesome guy and had a huge influence on me as a Ranger and Leader. I can reunite you two if you like [emoji33]

Click to expand...

Rondeau (I thought it was Rondinone, but it has been a while), was angrier than most RIs, but I had no problem with his eval. He had a role to play. His job was to ratchet up the pressure. He did it with style.
I have heard from SGM Sitzler that Rondeau took care of him (Sitzler) when Sitzler was a young pup. Said he was a great guy. I knew Rondeau for 24 hours. 24 interesting hours.

formersoldier71 said:

Well, yeah. That debate has been on-going, but it will intensify. One recent article, with a USMC combat vet as a co-author:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...evaluate-standards-for-women-in-the-military/
Are there any expectations that a re-evaluation of standards will result in higher standards? They will remain as they are, or more likely, be relaxed. And, to take the Rangers as an example, is there anything in their combat record during the last 15 years that suggests standards should be relaxed?

Click to expand...

Not that I am aware of. There is nothing in the record of Rangers dating back to 1756 that suggests that their standards should be lowered.

There are those, however, who will cite the veterans of the Regiment who have gone on to great things and that those who are denied ab initio entry into that career path are somehow cheated against. I couldn't possible care less about such arguments. I just cannot stand gender-norming standards. I think that cheats the service and the nation.

Tidewater said:

Rondeau (I thought it was Rondinone, but it has been a while), was angrier than most RIs, but I had no problem with his eval. He had a role to play. His job was to ratchet up the pressure. He did it with style.
I have heard from SGM Sitzler that Rondeau took care of him (Sitzler) when Sitzler was a young pup. Said he was a great guy. I knew Rondeau for 24 hours. 24 interesting hours.

Click to expand...

Hank Sitzler?

Silverback said:

Hank Sitzler?

Click to expand...

That's the one. Good man. Bama fan (and part-time Georgia fan). He's at Rudder, now, I believe.