USMC Study on Females in the infantry

[Johnopfor]

THere have been studies that have shown women do better in close quarter environments than men... IE submarines specifically.

Please post a link to these studies.

The sexes are just very different. Women can do some things far better than men and vice versa... You cant deny that men and woemn are just wired differently...

You mean like childbirth and breastfeeding (if you have proof that a guy did this , please post a link too)........they aren't just "wired differently", the biology is different too

Isreal have used women in infantry and special forces for a long time with good results...

As stated earlier, only as support and trainers.

But I think the US military takes a misogynistic approach.

Most western militaries have women serving in the same positions as those in the US Military.

[fulcrum1]

This is not going to go over well with the establishment....

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/18/ap-sources-marines-seek-close-combat-jobs-women/72398172/

Edited September 18, 2015 by fulcrum1

[TaiidanTomcat]

This is not going to go over well with the establishment....

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/18/ap-sources-marines-seek-close-combat-jobs-women/72398172/

Even if it doesn't work I appreciate him sticking his neck out

[11bee]

If this article is accurate, looks like those women had some significant help getting through Ranger School. Pretty damn disappointing that even the Rangers diluted their standards in the name of political correctness.

I'd like to see a full investigation into this and no disrespect to the two that passed but if this is true, they should lose their tabs and the Benning Commanding General should lose his job. I'd also like to see an investigation on whether the pressure to pass these women started with this general or higher up the chain.

http://www.people.com/article/female-ranger-school-graduation-planned-advance

Edited September 27, 2015 by 11bee

[fulcrum1]

If this article is accurate, looks like those women had some significant help getting through Ranger School. Pretty damn disappointing that even the Rangers diluted their standards in the name of political correctness.

I'd like to see a full investigation into this and no disrespect to the two that passed but if this is true, they should lose their tabs and the Benning Commanding General should lose his job. I'd also like to see an investigation on whether the pressure to pass these women started with this general or higher up the chain.

http://www.people.com/article/female-ranger-school-graduation-planned-advance

Below is a statement from Brigadier General Malcolm B. Frost, Chief of Army Public Affairs, about the story by Susan Keating -- "Was It Fixed? Army General Told Subordinates: 'A Woman Will Graduate Ranger School,' Sources Say," PEOPLE Magazine,

25 SEP 2015.

"The latest attack on the integrity of the United States Army by PEOPLE magazine's Susan Keating is more than inaccurate, it is pure fiction.

Ms. Keating continues to question the tremendous achievement of the first two women to pass the Army's elite Ranger School. In her latest article, she makes a number of very serious allegations, which are flat out wrong.

She claimed that women were allowed to repeat a Ranger training class until they passed, while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard. That is false. She charged that women regularly practiced on Ranger School's land navigation course while men saw it for the first time when they went to the school. Again, false. She accused an Army general of calling female candidates together to tell them they could not quit the course. Yet again, false.

There are so many errors and falsehoods that it may be better to cite two snippets that actually had a modicum of truth. Yes, Maj. Gen. Miller did personally observe this Ranger course – as he has every Ranger course since assuming command. That's his job; but while he may view or even participate in training events, he has never graded or influenced the grade of a Ranger patrol.

It's also true that the women were in their own platoon prior to attending the Ranger course. This occurred as part of routine continuing education and training in preparation for Ranger School. But this was much the same as what male infantry officers do between completing the infantry officer basic course – which female students cannot take – and the start of Ranger School. Quite frankly, that actually placed them at tremendous disadvantage, since they were not with a unit that trains nearly every day on many of the same challenges and obstacles faced by most Ranger students.

Ms. Keating has requested to interview dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals associated with Army Ranger training. The only person she has not asked to interview is its commander, Maj. Gen. Miller. And it was Maj. Gen. Miller who briefed and planned for the possibility that no women would pass Ranger School; he neither guaranteed nor promised their success.

Celebrity gossip may not require fact-checking, fairness or objectivity, but serious journalism does. On that count Ms. Keating has failed PEOPLE magazine, its readers, and, quite frankly, every man – or woman – who has ever earned the coveted Ranger tab."

[11bee]

Below is a statement from Brigadier General Malcolm B. Frost, Chief of Army Public Affairs, about the story by Susan Keating -- "Was It Fixed? Army General Told Subordinates: 'A Woman Will Graduate Ranger School,' Sources Say," PEOPLE Magazine,

25 SEP 2015.

"The latest attack on the integrity of the United States Army by PEOPLE magazine's Susan Keating is more than inaccurate, it is pure fiction.

Ms. Keating continues to question the tremendous achievement of the first two women to pass the Army's elite Ranger School. In her latest article, she makes a number of very serious allegations, which are flat out wrong.

She claimed that women were allowed to repeat a Ranger training class until they passed, while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard. That is false. She charged that women regularly practiced on Ranger School's land navigation course while men saw it for the first time when they went to the school. Again, false. She accused an Army general of calling female candidates together to tell them they could not quit the course. Yet again, false.

There are so many errors and falsehoods that it may be better to cite two snippets that actually had a modicum of truth. Yes, Maj. Gen. Miller did personally observe this Ranger course – as he has every Ranger course since assuming command. That's his job; but while he may view or even participate in training events, he has never graded or influenced the grade of a Ranger patrol.

It's also true that the women were in their own platoon prior to attending the Ranger course. This occurred as part of routine continuing education and training in preparation for Ranger School. But this was much the same as what male infantry officers do between completing the infantry officer basic course – which female students cannot take – and the start of Ranger School. Quite frankly, that actually placed them at tremendous disadvantage, since they were not with a unit that trains nearly every day on many of the same challenges and obstacles faced by most Ranger students.

Ms. Keating has requested to interview dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals associated with Army Ranger training. The only person she has not asked to interview is its commander, Maj. Gen. Miller. And it was Maj. Gen. Miller who briefed and planned for the possibility that no women would pass Ranger School; he neither guaranteed nor promised their success.

Celebrity gossip may not require fact-checking, fairness or objectivity, but serious journalism does. On that count Ms. Keating has failed PEOPLE magazine, its readers, and, quite frankly, every man – or woman – who has ever earned the coveted Ranger tab."

Hopefully that entire article is fiction. I'd still like to see a full, impartial investigation. As has been seen in other services, there is a bit of push from higher up to get women into combat roles and if standards have to be altered, so be it. If those two women had the same training standards as men, with no extraordinary assistance or preparation - great. However, if they received anything beyond what a male candidate would have received for preparation / assistance, then their achievement (IMO) is tainted.

[fulcrum1]

All the "points" about females being given the chance to recycle is true, it's also true for males. The difference lies within each persons Command. With the exception of Infantry Officers and some NCO's stationed at Benning, most are given a finite amount of time to complete the course and if you're injured or recycled you can count on going back home with a slim chance of the unit ever paying for you to attend again. The "special PLT" wasn't special, it was separate because they needed a place for females to stay who were there for an extended timeframe like every other pilot or test study group. Everything leading up to the actual start of Ranger school is fair game. In BCT's you pair a guy who just graduated with a guy who is about to go to ensure his success. At the 75th all of the E-4's sent have the dog walked with them to again, ensure success. There isn't a secret nor is there any one thing that guarantees success in the school save pure determination and grit. You can say there was undue Command influence because MG Miller walked their lanes with the RIs, but then that calls into question the integrity of MG Miller who himself is an outsider to big Army. Not to mention all the previous times a full bird or GO would walk a lane, which is not uncommon. Tremendous effort went into ensuring standards were not changed so it is a direct attack on the integrity and a slap in the face of those involved when allegations like this are brought up.

[fulcrum1]

Hopefully that entire article is fiction. I'd still like to see a full, impartial investigation. As has been seen in other services, there is a bit of push from higher up to get women into combat roles and if standards have to be altered, so be it. If those two women had the same training standards as men, with no extraordinary assistance or preparation - great. However, if they received anything beyond what a male candidate would have received for preparation / assistance, then their achievement (IMO) is tainted.

It's based on hearsay and assumptions. Most in the military do not understand the process and systems in place so it's easy to pull a quote from someone who is ignorant. There is a definite push from the civilian side to fully integrate women and there is a definite push from the military to do so, but in a way that does not effect readiness or reduce standards. I would also argue that the greatest preparation and assistance is given to male Infantry Lieutenants so if anyone has an unfair advantage it is that specific group of folk.

[GEH737]

The sad thing is that this has never been about making the military more combat capable. The military is controlled by civilians who run the government. The government has pre-determined outcomes based on social ideology acceptable to whomever is currently controlling the power structure. So, when people who have never, or will never see combat decide they want a certain social outcome - then that's what it will be. The rest is a "Dog and Pony Show" to give the appearance of fairness.

In the end however, improving combat capability will not happen (and all too often is the opposite). It's really not surprising since these decisions are being made by those who don't really believe in the military - but view it as simply a "career field".

Just my opinion - but it seems to be the common view of most with first hand military experience. Of course, many will be able to cite specific contrary examples - but those seem to be the exception, rather than the rule.