"Gender Equality"

Yep. I know I can likely meet the minimum fitness requirement for the USMC and I am in no way fit enough to do the job. The thing that always sticks out in my mind is the pullup portion. If a female can not do at least as many pullups as my old out of shape busted up ass can do they just don't belong. Full stop.

 

I am reminded of a chick I hated in the seventh grade. Hitting her was obviously not an option but I knew and hated someone dumb enough to do it. The school principal's son. He happened to have a disagreement with her that escalated, partly with my input, to the point where he decided to wait for after school and settle it. So obviously, I stayed to watch.

I can't remember how that worked out but somehow everyone was gone from the building but the three of us, and he went for it. That poor white boy. The fight immediately ended with a swift kick to his balls and she left in a hurry. I left too, as I no longer had a use for his corpse.

 

That's about mixed gender.
And all information that gets thrown in my face when I listen to the corn fed good old boys club from the department down the road from us (Heman woman haters club, no vag allowed unless its serving coffee and cake). I know we aren't in combat, but we take care of each other in a similar manner and our lives depend on one another. They ask how "the one with the tits" is going to help bail them out. When a) I pass the same physical test with no breaks for having tits. b) we go in as a solid unit of 3 or 4, no one will ever be alone with tits-McGee. c) some of those bastards have bigger titties than I do.


I asked about all female units. What would be the issue with an all female unit in combat?

 

My respectful answer is: Because it does not make the slightest bit of sense in any logical fashion whatsoever - period.

My specific comments here are targeted toward the units I mentioned (some of which I served in). Those would be US Army Ranger units, units of the 82nd, 101st, 10th Mountain, units in for example 5th and 7th SF Groups, SEALS, Force Recon, etc. For the moment I'm avoiding the discussion about normal Rifle Battalions - though the argument is effective there, but not to the same extent.

I also respect the idea that you're a firefighter, and give you props for that. However, please don't try and apply the same circumstances and issues from Firefighting to small unit combat effectiveness, in a foreign country, very often after having dropped in and having no support (other than air support "sometimes") with only the equipment that you bring in on your back and have to carry out. There is no other profession that is remotely similar to these types of issues. General George Patton once said "you fight like you train". That means every aspect of training - for Rangers meaning from Jump School, to RIP (pre-Ranger School), to Ranger School (including RAP), to eventually an assignment to one of the Battalions, not including all the other training, should be executed as close as possible to how you expect to operate in reality. And then subsequent training has GOT to be as realistic as possible. And even then, only the very best should be there. The failure rate - among men - is 60% for the past 5 years. At times, it was as high as 65%. There is no room for mediocrity. In 2015 alone, more than 36% failed in the first 4 days of RAP (which includes 12 mile march, Ranger Physical Assessment, Land Nav and combat water survival - all with higher standards obviously than "standard"). And those stats are all men. Men aren't allowed to see - or even be on the land nav course prior to the timed test. The female ranger candidates were trained ON THAT COURSE time after time before they started RAP. But that's not the point. And while the Ranger program is tough (and there is, btw, a difference between completing Ranger School and serving in a Ranger Bn), SEALS have it even tougher. SF is "different". In some ways harder - in some ways not as tough - but certainly a very very difficult program.

The point is that in a Bn, we all have roles - and are expected to be able to almost seamlessly swap in and out of small units - because it's UNIFORM. We're all trained to standard, with very very specific task, condition and standards. For a reason. Adapt and Overcome. In our types of units, injuries and losses are expected. We must be able to rotate people in and out.

So, there are so many reasons why it makes zero sense for an "all female" unit. First is you can't ever really count on having one, because you can't ever insure that you'll have enough "exceptional women" all trained for the same roles ready to fill in when you lose one (or more). And, you'd never ever be able to field a unit of all women that would be able to match the capability of the male unit - not because they are inferior people - but because you're effectively comparing the best of the men against the best of the women. And physically, as a unit, it means you're fielding a sub-average unit if they're all female (purely based on standards - not their value as people).

The military is NOT a social experiment. We do not build Tables of Organization and Equipment (TOE) in order to satisfy the need or want of a particular group of people. We build them in order to fill a specific mission purpose, to the best possible effectiveness within budget. TOEs, and MTOEs (Modified Tables of Organization and Equipment) are the framework upon a units existence.

So what it means is that you'd be building a structure that would absolutely and certainly fail. Simply adding women to the other units would have a higher likelihood of succeeding - though almost certainly while at the same time reducing unit effectiveness. Because until the entire country and every single person in it is willing to completely abandon ANY and ALL observation of gender, meaning zero privacy, no difference whatsoever, none permitted - then it's impossible to train like you'll fight. And on top of that, because of the social and cultural demands imposed by our left wingers, even the logistical costs would be higher.

Again - nothing in the slightest meant to diminish the value of any woman at all. It's just reality.

I don't see an issue with women in combat. I see an issue with women in specific roles in combat.

Sorry - that's a different discussion. There are protections, such as sole surviving son status, etc that try to protect the bloodline of the family, but that gets pretty complicated these days.

I don't even want to get into the transgender thing.

 

Some formatting needs to happen urgently in here.

 

I should also have mentioned another thing about the failure rates.

Every single one of those 60-65% that failed were soldiers that were FULLY QUALIFIED to meet MENS Army standards. That meant that before they could even get in, their application had to include a physical fitness test, scored, meeting standards that EXCEED normal mens standards in the Army. So, the 60-65% that failed were the ones that had already passed normal Mens physical standards, which most female soldiers do not meet.

 

I think I fixed it, right?

 

[/QUOTE]

I am going to try and read and understand that with its formatting - I promise. But for what it's worth - I was not comparing anything to draw your ire. It's the only frame of reference I have for understanding how men and women work together in stressful situations - and more than most people have. I was applying that experience to understand the situation you are addressing.

You go into a burning building with only a hose and an axe and tell me that isn't a stressful situation that requires a cohesive unit that knows how to interact.

I will respond to the rest soon.

 

Seriously - you didn't draw any ire at all - and I absolutely respect what you do. There are tons of examples of jobs or roles that require a cohesive unit. They are ALL very different from those select units that are at the very tip of the point of the spear.

 

I stated it was a good place to start

I will search some more, but google is your friend too ya know

I served in the MP corps, where our Company comprised of about 5-10% female. While MP's are not classified as combat arms, a single squad carries more weaponry and ammo than an infantry platoon. MP's operate between the FEBA (forward edge of battle area) and the TOC (tactical operations center) and are responsible for route security, escorts etc. We trained in infantry tactics. 99% of the women in my company were worthless and the ones that weren't wanted to be treated like "the boys". Soldiers are rude, crude and socially unacceptable, and that's they way you want a soldier.

While I believe that there are women who can and do outperform men, they are few and far between in the Army.

Serious question: Could you physically and mentally handle the stresses of fighting a 5 alarm fire (I assume that's the correct term for all hell has broken loose fire?) for 24 straight hours? It's not a trap question, I'm just trying to put into your terms what combat may be like. I am in no way attempting to ridicule or insult you.

 

Not buying that. They happen in other parts of the world.

You don't - or the correct response would have been: I respect that you are a firefighter.

As far as the rest of it goes - so what? Can't fill an all female unit? There will be no unit. I am not advocating for lowering the bar or mixing units. I am only suggesting the opportunity for a female unit that has the same merit requirements as men. That would essentially mean there will be no unit. But the equal opportunity will be provided.

 

As a retired Armor officer I want to see an all female tank crew put a thrown track back on in the rain and dark with the tools assigned to the tank after they haven't slept for three days, showered for three weeks and ate crappy food. Just another fun thing to do at Grafenwohr, Hohenfels and the National Training Center.

 

We would have to draft out of lake Minnetonka. Mentally? Yes. Physically? No. I have no issue admitting it. Those dudes that do wildland firefighting have huge balls.

People in combat? I don't want that fucked up job. I would never in a million years choose it.

I have no doubt in my mind that many of the women that end up in the military ruin it for the small percentage that could actually hack it. Women in general fucking suck. I have a few close female friends, the rest of them I wouldn't trust farther than I could throw them.

 

Get Dern to throw them for you

 

Um, sorry, but a single MP squad does not in fact carry even as much weaponry and ammo as an Infantry Platoon. I have not the slightest idea where you're getting your information, but this is absolutely untrue. Period. If you like, I can probably dig up some MTOEs for both MP companies and Rifle Companies. And that's not even considering that in the Rangers, etc we also have weapons platoons which give us our RAWS (you probably have never seen one of them but they are pretty fierce), mortars, and snipers. Both light and medium MGs are in a squad in every Platoon. Also, there is no FEBA or FLOT any longer. Those terms are relatively gone in todays lexicon. The TOC is a Battalion and higher function, and is NOT located directly in combat. As a Battalion S3, A Bn XO, and a Brigade S3 I am very aware of what a TOC is. I've run them. I am extraordinarily familiar with combat arms. Started enlisted, went back through OCS, got commissioned, and spent about 23 years solely either directly in these units or in support of them including tons of deployments. And let's just say I've exited the back end of an aircraft while in flight more times than I've been at the track - meaning in the hundreds. To be honest, probably half of them "hollywood" (meaning daytime, non-tactical) but the other half, well....

Here's my question. Please tell me how many times you and your MP platoon were dropped out of an aircraft, in a country with no support within 200 miles, carrying only what was on your back, executing an operation that provides nothing but "some intermittent" air support, and where the host nation you're operating in is hostile?

That is what the units I'm talking about are all about.

I can't say for sure, but my guess is with the proper training yes. Not taking it as an insult. That being said, I'm only trying to answer the question with what little knowledge I have. I'm not and never was a firefighter. I just don't know of any reason why I would not be able to do it - or probably more accurately, at well as anybody my age.

So here's a question back at you to try and describe the difference. Nobody can describe in words what combat is like. But to try and give you perspective, think about this.

Could you physically and mentally handle the physical requirement of jumping out of an airplane 2000 miles away with 4 hours notice carrying over 120 pounds of equipment (or more), hitting your RP, moving 20k to the ORP, setting up, waiting while in the midst of hostile forces for 5 days, then executing a mission, fighting your way in and out, and making it to your extraction while trying to break contact, with only intermittent contact, no support, only the ammo you carry, no med support other than your own Rangers?

 

They aren't fighting as a female unit, just training. It says most will be security guards.
It does say that some will be sent to the front lines, but says nothing about what they will do there, or what their survival rate is if they see actual combat.
It's an "I am woman, hear me roar" puff piece.

 

So you were a kind of perverse Tom Sawyer.