Women in Combat? Yes. Sex integrate units? No.

The training is not based on hoping to not have to climb up a mountain. But you need to be 100% ABLE to in the event you did. You don't know where you will be fighting next year. What war will break out.

Right now, AFGHN is a mountainous warfare hub and every soldier needs to be prepared to fight there. Most females cannot meet the standards. Many female MPs qualify for their MOS but don't meet mission details when deployed and must be reassigned. See it happen all the time. End up being stationed in the TOC

 

That is just self proving assertion. You assert the current standard is necessary and claim your proof is that it is the current standard. So, then, if the standard is lowered for women that also then constitutes the proof that the standard is correct.

White men for the most part can not be 100% physically in relation to black men. Beyond my link, a person only has to look at nearly all professional athletics involving contact from boxing to football to see it also confirmed. Simply, you do not actually believe in a 100% standard because that excludes most white men. Rather, you support a standard allowing downgrading to cover white men, but not women. It is not about a 100% standard. It is about making a standard meant to exclude women - and then claiming the standard is then the proof. That is flawed logic.

You never know when a Ranger would need to fly a helicopter. Training can not be based upon warfare of a nature than no helicopter pilot could ever be hit while in flight with others aboard. All Rangers need to be 100% ABLE to fly that helicopter in that event. You don't know what combat circumstance helicopters with Rangers aboard might happen next year.

You never know when rapidly lugging the most possible weight on foot up a mountain may be necessary. Downgraded standards to allow white men who can not carry as much weight as black men to be fair to white men is not sound from a strictly military perspective. Thus, only white men who can meet standards set upon the abilities of black men should be allowed to be in Army Infantry, the Marines and SOF.

Specialized units is nothing new to the military. If there is no unit available to run of a mountain with a lot of weight, then there is none available. If short the personnel, do not say "you pilots, you nurses, you doctors all grab a rifle, body armor and put on one of those 80 pound packs, we're running 10 miles up a mountain right now" - and wait for the base commander to grab his rifle and pack too. Nor do they ever say "You Rangers, we have more helicopters than pilots, so 9 of you will be flying one. Let's get going!" And if any of the 9 can not fly a helicopter, then obviously he must be sent to TOC being incapable of fulfilling the mission.

Your arguments are all circular in which the proof of your claim is that the claim is the proof. Yet what you post contradicts military practices and you do not accept your method of proof by either existing practices or in any other way unless it applies to women.

But again, we are just repeating ourselves.

And, again, going back to the topic of this thread, just like there is specialization across the military in numerous ways, there is not reason not to do so in regards to women. Army pilots are not expected to nor would be called upon to run up mountains with rucksacks. Rather, that is a separate specialization. In my opinion, while some areas of specialization can be sex integrated, I favor the military having all female and all male units. Each would have a specialization, though cross trained to be capable in other regards - though for either males or females would not be at 100% in tasks outside their specialization - and in most circumstances could act in unison of purpose.

For example, I have pointed out that all-women units in battle proves particularly capable and on occasion superior to all-male units in defense, which would apply to such as base defense or securing a position. Men tend to be more capable on the offense than women, but weaker on defense than women. In nearly all battle circumstances, both men and women both can perform within needed ability. However, on an occasion where running up a mountain with a lot of gear is involved, an all-male unit would be assigned. If not enough available, then it would be a decision as to whether do so slower and/or with less weight using women's units would be viable or not.

Historically, including in the USA, personnel are divided into separate units based upon sex. I see no reason not to do so in terms of combat positions as well. The only reason I see this not done is a mix of PCism on the left and men on the right who want to keep women out of combat roles so want standards designed to exclude women regardless of combat situation.

Specifically, for Army infantry in my opinion there should be all-male units and all-female units, rather than than sex integrated units. Once put into place, the logistics would be easier and it would dramatically reduce accusations of wrong-words and other complaints about men's conduct towards women in the military - and other problems with sex integrated units. In my opinion, this would create the strongest force possible - the best women of the USA in all-female units and the best men of the USA in all-male units. Trained to be the best at what their unit can be - but crossed trained enough so unless the specialization necessary they all can engage in the battle, mission or war. This would make a stronger military than an all-male combat military and women are told they are inferior with that national resource fully discarded essentially for the benefit of white men.

One of the annoyances of forum debating and topics in general, is most people can only think in binary, simplistic terms. Everything is only about absolute opposites, that there are only two exact opposite views - because that is simpleton thinking. The military, like the private sector, like the government sector ALL function upon specialization. It is the MSM who tells people which of only those two sides they may take. On this topic, it is women in or women not in combat roles - pick only one of those two - and only in the context of sex integration.

While that is NOT the history of women in the military, but rather it is a history of sex segregated units, since the MSM doesn't talk about that then therefore it is unthinkable and may not even be considered. Most on this forum and it seems in society don't really think for themselves. The MSM tells them what to think as in which of two diametric complete opposites they must pick from - and whether they are wearing red socks or blue socks dictates which of those two sides to take. Thus, no one can even question "why does the military put men and women into the same combat units?" That is not a permitted thought or topic.

 

This post further proves your ignorance of military MOS structure. It also proves to everyone in service why civilians are so out of touch with reality. Your helicopter example is most amusing. You're comparing a specialized MOS, with a combat arms. No, not every combat arms MOS is trained to fly a helicopter, but all combat arms MOS are trained and cleared for combat standard. Standards are not being lowered just to let women or men in. If women can meet the standard, they should be in combat MOS. So far, hardly any have.

I know you keep talking about your hatred for the standard, but it's there for a reason.

As to the sentence in bold and underlined above...this is just complete nonsense. At no point will our military deploy assets based on gender. That's so far away from reality I don't know how you arrived there.

Your obsession with women in combat roles is distorting your view on reality.

 

You worship the status quo to the extent it serves your opinions and despise it when it does not. I got that.

I'm not writing about anyone's "gender," but about sex integration. Gender is nothing but a frame of mind. Sex is a dna reality. Your usage of "gender" shows just how much the MSM - and leftwing of the MSM - control your brain and thought process, though you likely believe you reject the messages of the leftwing voices.

No, my helicopter example was dead on.

Actually, standards have been lowered standards and is being lowering again. You are factually wrong.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ving-waivers-marijuana-hit-targets/750844001/

However, the lowering of standards is not because not enough are trying to enlist as the article suggests. It is that not enough SMART people are trying to enlist.

FACT: And one the men on these threads always ignore...MILLIONS more women are enrolling in universities than men. The military need more brain power, not more strong back power. Accordingly, the military WILL increasingly seek ways to get more women in - despite your view that 100% of Army combat plans must ALL be based upon your model of running up mountains with heavy packs as THE absolute priority over ALL other considerations.

"Maybe our military is stupidest among advanced countries, but they can lift more weight" is not viable future goal. Now if a person wants to enlist with the best chance of being selected, develop your brain power, not your muscles. Proving you can dead lift 300 pounds is no assurance of being accepted. Being of good health and having any bachelor's degree and you're in - unless there is some other prohibition. Have a PhD and still be young and you're probably in even if you're in a wheelchair or only have 1 eye. If the military has to bring in a special doctor to put down in deliberate wink-wink error that you have 2 eyes, they'll likely do it. But I suppose you believe the military doesn't have such means to get around standards given your deep belief in standards as self proving. In fact, it does - even doctors to do bring in to pass extremely desirable applicants who otherwise can not enlist.

I have stated that all personnel regardless of role who may ever be in any theater of combat should be combat trained, including nurses, doctors, geeks, technocrats - everyone. And in all branches of service. I could give an example of an aircrew finding themselves on the ground in an aircraft that could not take off alone and suddenly under attack by a large force with AK47s and a couple small mortars - those 5 aircrew only have sidearms and no combat training and thus seemingly only the choice of being killed or captured - suicide a better choice than the latter. (Instead, they managed a delay tactic enough to get the aircraft in the air, circled back and killed them all). Anyone in a combat zone can find themselves under attack. EVERYONE in the military should have combat training including specifically with small arms, basic tactics and to a some minimal skill level.

 

Not one 'analogy' you have made has come remotely close to 'dead on'.

Worship the status quo? LOL. Says the guy who never once had to ruck miles up a mountain with bloody heels with no hot meal in sight. Have you not noticed that military personnel here are telling you one thing, and you (someone who has never served) is claiming another?

Do you realize why you're so far from reality?

And two your last part. Every soldier must be fully combat ready. I agree. If they meet the basic standards, they will be.

 

(Addressing underlined above)

SEE! This part is exactly why civilians have NO ****ing clue what "standards" are. You're referencing PT standards such as running 2 miles, or push ups, or situps.

The ACTUAL standards for 11B we're referring to are passing a week long FTX, the 12 mile timed ruck with 65+lbs, the urban combat course, the sleep depravation....THOSE standards.

This is why you need to leave military decisions, TO THE MILITARY. You have no idea what you're talking about

 

Please stop talking about politics. You have never held any political position. You have no idea what you are talking about and that is why you need to leave political decisions to the politicians. Your reasoning so you should follow it. Post on no topic you have no personal experience at.

Do you think you are being clever? Or is it that you can't even remember what you posted and are too LAZY to go back and look? My message was responding to your message. You said standards for MOS will not be reduced. I said they have. In your message I was responding to had you mentioned "11B?" NO. You wrote "MOS." You don't have a "****ing clue" what "MOS" means, do you? I was correct, "MOS" standards have been reduced. They have been. You ranted 11B standards have not, yet had not mentioned 11B. You only mentioned "MOS." Go back and look - if not too much work for you.

Thus, this message confirms that I correct in my agreeing with the US military that the military needs more SMART people, not more men who can hold up 200 pounds on a barbell believing they are now the ultimate warrior.

I'm curious, are you saying that the standards for Infantrymen have never been lowered? That was your claim, wasn't it?

YOU asserted "MOS" means and only means "11B" in your rant that I don't have a "***ing clue" - again go off on your arrogant ranting against civilians. But I know what clearly you do not. I know in fact that MOS does NOT equal 11B. Who has "NO ****clue" in messages is you. You have never heard of MOS 12Y, MOS 09L, MOS 14J, MOS 15K, MOS 68K, MOS 79R or ANY other Military Occupation Specialties. You don't even know they exist. Apparently.

OR you do not understand even the most SIMPLE logic of "if all As are Bs, that does not mean all Bs are As." Seriously, yes, 11B are all MOS. No, you are completely wrong, all MOS are not 11B - contrary to your rant. My kids in or now out of the military would never, ever make that most simplistic error in logic. Maybe that's why none of them were or are 11B, huh? (Just messing with you with that quip)

As I stated, your messages are as if you are if looking down a 3/4 section of PVC pipe and and at the end is a mirror. This, to you, is all of reality, all of the military. "You, yourself and I." All MOS are 11B. All combat is running up mountains.

I know far more than you overall - vastly more - in terms of diversity of knowledge. But - again - you know more about rucksacks and 11Bs running up mountains. Maybe they should create a MOS for that role just for you: "MOS 69x - Mountain Runners Supervisor." LOL

 

Talk about rants...

EX MOS as you just listed are not part of the discussion. In fact, 3 of the MOS you listed are locked. If you checked your MILPER you would have known that.

This is about the infantry and SOF as is with every post I've discussed.

Why can't women pass the 11X FTX?

 

Clarity matters.

Assuming they actually can not pass and are not being bumped because they are women, the reason would because the standards were written singularly to suit men and to exclude women. 60 pounds, 80 pounds, 12 miles, 2 miles etc are not magic numbers.

In the past, I told of a female (not Army) who met male PT standards the first time from the start. Thru the rest of basic, without a word, they kept adding weight just onto her. And, without a word, she kept making the standard until they had reduced her to the female standard - and still kept weighting her down a bit more and a bit more. She never complained nor acknowledged the extra weight. She did not see this as discrimination, but rather understood one purpose of basic training is to "break" a person. To push them to the breaking point, physically and even psychologically - and she is one of those people all but impossible to break. She did not see it as being unfair, discriminatory or picking on her. Rather, they were just doing their job - and correctly so. They were pushing her past her abilities - as they should do.

In the end, she was awarded upfront as best of the class, but not for physical performance. Rather, for leadership in terms of unit cohesion. She had personally taken command of her barracks, organized them and then took a role of assuring all passed - equally. The barracks would pass 100%, because she had converted it to an assembly line complete with their own inspectors. Specialized for each task. Then their own inspection of each task. At the end, on runs, they all would complete it at as exactly the same time as possible. She was asked what she was doing and why, reminding her all were told to only worry about themselves and each should do the best they can individually - yet she was holding back - and the assembly line stuff also wasn't how it was to be done. Her reply? "Because this is my squad. We all pass or we all fail, because in combat all in my squad will win or we all will die." All in her barracks passed PT. No redos, none bounced out. They apparently liked that unit cohesion perspective - and the ability to make it happen. When awarded before all, they quoted her view of what makes a true squad. Some people are natural leaders.

^ The relevancy? Weighting down her pack. Anyone can be failed in PT if that is a goal and in less extreme ways than that. I don't know all women are legitimately failing or not. And it could be the women finally tire of having to contend with men with views such as yours out to prove they are right that women are incapable.

Every time you have avoided my pointing out that white men are physically inferior to black men genetically in bone structure. Standards are set to allow the LOWEST abilities of men allowing for both ethnicity/race and age. They are not set upon a 100% standard.

 

My questions and actual experiences with this- you ignore.

If women repeatedly cannot pass the vigorous testing for let's say (as we've been saying), 11x, then why would they be awarded the blue cord?

The standards for these FTX, combat readiness, and all others, have not gotten easier. Maybe a couple have, but the important ones have not. In many ways, especially in SOF, it's gotten much more difficult. We want the BEST combat soldiers. Not decent ones. It's what we've learned from previous wars.

If women can pass the tough tasks, they too should be awarded the blue cord. If they cannot, they can work another mos

 

If by BEST you mean physically, then we're talking black men.

What we are learning by recent and current wars is that our concept of "winning" in these world police actions hasn't worked and that massive numbers of ground troops is both enormously expensive since there can be lifelong costs and that the public will no longer tolerant large KIA and casualties counts. We have learned our edge is in technology and very different tactics than mass invasion and occupation. If you kill the head of the snake you kill the whole snake. We have learned we need more brains, not more brawn.

Does it ever occur to you that your view on this might be petty in the overall context of the needs and future plans of the US military? Rucksacks and mountain climbing? That determines our nation's fate? Really? You really believe that?

 

You need to prepare for any war. It's why there's all kinds of environmental training. All training which has very low women success rates. We will always prepare for mountainous regional war, desert, everything. Right now, women cannot keep up with the physical demands of the mountain warfare. Very few I should say

 

Again you are talking about things you have no idea about.
Its rather obvious you know about as much about security clearance as you do combat. So nothing.

You should stop talking about things you are clueless on.

 

I understand why so many military men do not want it possible for women to compete with them for enlistment, rank and promotions. Eliminate half the potential competition and you double your chances or have to do half as much to get it. Nothing surprising about that.

 

The problem is that your little are 100% made up and no one believes you.

No one is treated special in basic and Noone has weight added to them just because of who they are.

The fact that you continue with the fairytales not only proves what a dishonest person you are but also just how clueless you are when it comes to the most simple of military topics like basic training.

You should really should just stop as you are only embarrassing yourself

 

You never have much of anything to say, do you? From your messages I will agree you would not be seen as or try to be "special."

 

Pointing out your obvious nonsense is always worth saying. Your BS stories are only believable to people who have zero experience or knowledge of the military. Why you continue making up stories and straight up lying is beyond me.

I am sorry but the opinion of what makes someone special in regards to the military by someone who so clearly doesn’t have the slightest idea about the military means exactly zero to me. And just FYI the Army disagrees with your opinion about me and pays quite a bit extra for it. Think I will stick with their assessment over yours.

 

I think I saw a blue falcon...

 

You're really into military jargon and slang. Is that what you do socially in general? This is not a military members only forum nor solely for military to cheer themselves as some exclusive club. There are other forums for active and former military personnel to stroke themselves and prove they know military vernacular to demonstrate club membership. It seems rather kindergarten, showing the teacher you learned the new word of the day.

Your messages reminds me of Natty Bumpo's messages using a thesaurus seeking out words few people understand as if that makes him appear superior. But doing so is foolishness, anti-social and petty since the purpose of communication is to communicate, not finding ways not to communicate - believing this proves superiority. Rather, it demonstrates being socially dysfunctional in trying to cover for personal insecurity. Like he does in his messages, you sometimes trip up in seeking ways to try to speak in military jargon rather than normal English. You like to try this with me knowing I am a civilian. It doesn't work and has no value whatsoever.

3 kids in 3 different branches of service. Wife the daughter of military parents, father career and a high ranker. Military service across the family and every generation back to the war of 1812. Low rankers, 1 termers, high rankers, career, unique specializations, SOF and black ops. Ordinary to the extraordinary. Every branch except merchant marines. Like you, military and ex-military talk military talk. Sometimes incessantly. I love to listen. Makes me feel quite proud of them - VERY. I do know more than you thru them as a broader picture. But you know you own specific circumstance better of course. Then assert that is all encompassing and of that you don't have a clue.

One of my kids, female, has come under fire in more ways and more times, and has done more destruction and death to "the enemies" than you could comprehend nor I may mention. So as you go on and on of how women are incapable and often in sneering ways, I have to refrain from posting long "FU"s at you. I have little doubt she could kick your ass - pick any weapon or no weapon - your choice. If her choice, she'd pick knives whereupon you'd likely enter the wonderful world of the trangendered.

Few join the military seeking combat. They join because they have few good options otherwise, want the benefits, the resume, and the experience. Most hope never to be deployed to combat and if so, do poorly the first engagement for fear. During deployment into combat they so hope to go home. But some join specifically for combat, specifically to do what the military exists for. Some of those are ideally suited for this - in mindset and abilities. They tend to come from military family heritage because they grow up to that mindset as truisms. I know such people. They are rare and they are amazing. They also are well appreciated within the military and those they serve with. If your ass is on the line, that is who you want with you. If a mission must succeed, that is who the military needs and uses.They are more valuable to the military than a pencil pushing colonel and the military knows it.

Once again, I poise no danger to you. Really. To the contrary, I'm glad you are on the forum and on the majority of political topics otherwise we're on the same page. I hope you actually do vote. From what I see, I suspect we always cast the same votes and for the same reasons. But you seem to sometimes fly off into outer space if the topic involves women.

 

Basic training is not solely about newbies meeting minimal standards. It also is a sorting process. Some - not most - will be offered to shift to officer's training for what is revealed in the process. Others might be pushed or tested uniquely for reasons of testing character, how they act in various situations, and for numerous other reasons.

Yes, some do get favored treatment, though the opposite may also apply. For example, someone we know joined up who is the granddaughter of a well known base commander in the same branch of service. She was not a physically active or highly motivated type personality. While others would speak of many of the difficult challenges of basic - and for most always about the runs, she told of how easy basic training and PT was, and since then how easy her duty area is and how much R&R time she has.

Of course there is favoritism in the military. But for his family connections, John McCain would have never gotten away with his flight antics, dangerous showboating and equipment destruction as an example. He destroyed aircraft, endangered lives and almost sunk a carrier clowning around. Do any of you disagree that his father being an admiral had something to do with all the slack he was given?

For others who may demonstrate superior ability - physical or in personality - they may well push that person to the absolute max to find out what the highest level is and how self-controlled and strong, including psychologically, that person is. If someone's resume suggests a superstar in some area or another, basic training will be used to find out if that has military use application and if so, how and how much?

Basic training is not just to get a person to pass the standards. It is also a filtering and sorting process.

 

This post is a result of alcohol+emotions

You write these long, babbling posts of utter nonsense that I often wonder if you know what you're saying

 

My conclusion from your messages is to predict you have no significant career future in the military. They demonstrate a narrow range of thought capability and rather only inward vision and certain you were born knowing all there is to know. I would guess the #1 reason most do not go far in the military goes back to their school years and study laziness. You appear to dislike readings and instead prefer to listen to yourself convinced you already know all there is to know. Those in the military who saw joining the military as an escape from study, reading, memorizing and learning do not advance except minimally and insignificantly. Everything, accordingly, is amazingly simple and singular.

Your's is a rucksack reality. However, you may occupy a chair and make a 20 year career out of it potentially. Someone has to do that too. Grunts at heart are grunts and will never be otherwise, even if they become low level officers. But some people understand the greatest weapon remains the human brain. That concept appears lost to you.

I understand why you claim experience expertise, but are silent on any actual experience.

 

What you think about me is irrelevant. You've made so many claims I don't even know where to begin. You try to 'outsmart' me by listen other MOS' you believe to be relevant to the discussion without knowing some are locked and no retention. You pretend to have even the slightest insight on military operations, especially deployments, but you're so far from reality.

Ever wonder why the veterans all on this thread agree with each other, and then there's you?

Once again, your opinions are invalid as they are incorrect on every front.

 

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of or unwilling to act under military command structure. I have offered more than once to side step the direct topic for you to indication otherwise. You militantly refuse to do so and instead - as in this message - fall back on your ego an no-thought repetition.

Both military and civilian command have ordered that women be integrated into combat units. For different reasons, we disagree with that policy. However, from that point we are exactly opposite.

The Colonel says: "Civilian and military command have weighed the pros and cons, and ordered that we assault and then hold the position we are discussing. How would you undertake this mission?"

Army Soldier A: "They are idiots and just trying to get publicity. They're going to get people killed. It is impossible to do."
Army Soldier B: "We will have to change our tactics and strategy. It suggest we undertake the mission this way: ___________________."

The Colonel says: "Civilian and military command have weighed the pros and cons, and ordered that women be integrated into combat units. How would you undertake this mission?"

Army Soldier A: "They are idiots and just trying to get publicity. They're going to get people killed. It is impossible to do."
Army Soldier B: "We will have to change our tactics and strategy. It suggest we undertake the mission this way: ____________________"

Both examples are exactly the same matter in terms of the ability to act under military command structure. It is the identical issue. Repeatedly I asked how you would in the military pursue such a mission. Instead, you always have given Army Soldier A's response.

In your messages, you make it clear you are Army Soldier A. To my challenging that position, you make diversionary personal attacks. Army Soldier A will not advance to any importance in rank or otherwise within in the military, though might be able to ride out 20 in some insignificant role. Increasingly, Army Soldier A is being by-passed for promotion, demoted, and re-enlistments declined - as should be done. Anyone incapable of both operating under and thinking within military command structure - agree or disagree - need find other employment. There should be no place in the military for whiners, malcontents or those who disparage others in military service.

All do not agree with you. Grunts do. Grunts are grunts. Think like grunts. Act like grunts. Never anything but grunts their entire lives, in or out of the military. It is maybe likely that you and your rucksack will be your 15 minutes of self declared fame now and forever.

Those who do not have grunt mentality had agreed where they agreed, disagreed where they disagreed, ie thinking military men. And, apparently you did not notice, those who do now and then agree with something I post - while disagreeing on other matters - who have told some of their history all are or were officers, career or more than 1 tour of duty.

I see you are still trying to defend your goof up of asserting all MOS are 11B. LOL

 

Watching you pretend to know military structure is like watching Meet the Parents. It's funny but it's cringeworthy.

No one ever said all MOS are 11B. You managed to list EX mos without checking MILPER which would show you they are locked.

Honestly dude, you should just drop it. You have absolutely no understanding of the military, customs/courtesies, and ESPECIALLY warfare. Luckily for us, you are not in any way involved in any decision making.