History Being Made.....

MemberLG said:
Your points are not particular to females only. What you described above happens to males all the time. High ranking or low ranking, smart or dumb, physicall fit or not fit, or whatever, there are many cadets that don't get what they want or forced into a situation they don't like.
Click to expand...
Again, agree force branching happens. Need of the Army come first and foremost, cadets get that. But typically top 10% of the class (male or female) in the past could rely on getting one of the top choices. The branching system has changed in recent years, combat arms has begun to open up for women and rank counts for much less these days. Cadets are fully aware.
MemberLG said:
If we want no difference between males and females, we need to treat them equally.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%, they are all soldiers. I never intended to "highlight" challenges...if I did I am very sorry and owe a huge apology to female cadets.
MemberLG said:
On a side note, my opinion on your comment about "they do not seem to be out-processing in droves," most femals cadets are not thinking about it or telling themselves "it's not going to happen to me."
Click to expand...
I knew it would happen eventually, this I disagree with. :) They are thinking about future branches and discussing it with family, friends, and mentors. They are trying to decode and analyze the process and political storm around them. They are thinking about how to navigate a successful career in the Army and trying to choose options that align with their goals AND the needs of the Army...all cadets are doing this.
 
@MomWPgirl, I just wanted to tip my hat to you for hanging in there and helping make this a really interesting exchange of ideas.

That same hat is off to the two women who are getting the Ranger tab -- it's hard as hell to be under a microscope and they must be exceptionally mentally tough as well as having the physical chops.

I'm an optimist on this stuff overall. If the powers that be open up infantry to women, we will continue to have the best armed forces in the history of the planet. If I had to guess, this will play out as it has in Canada and Australia and NZ (from what I've read). There will be a relatively small percentage of women who go infantry (and I mean proportionally small compared to their percentage in the overall force). They will do fine overall and there will be some issues as well. There will be collateral debates over things like USMC's IOC or Ranger School (or the SEALs). But the caissons will keep rollin' along in the end.
 
As to forced branching, conjecture is it will likely play out like 2015... just further:

- Highly ranked females will likely get their choices just like males
- Males will see slightly improved odds to get into JAG, Medical, MI without branch detail, etc. Females had a bit of statistical edge previously. But not many slots there anyway, so not a big impact
- Infantry & Armor will become slightly more competitive for males (fewer slots due to Female forced branching... 50-60 less?)
- Females will start seeing some forced branching into IN and AR similar to what happened in FA for 2015.
- Males will continue to get forced branched based on priority. (Nothing new)

The big variable would be what would the branch composition goals be. My bet is it will be the same as class composition targets.

But once that was determined, I'd expect the current hybrid branching process to work without much change other than # of slots and open branches. We'll see what happens to 2016 branching.
 
Wait, they're going to have females force-branched Infantry and Armor just because they're females? 50-60 slots? That's the height of stupidity. Once again, the whole point of this perverse experiment was to dupe the public into thinking all the females, or even a goodly percentage, are of the same physical caliber as the ones that just passed Ranger School.

I thought the whole FA-female-force branching was because FA went out so low in the class. Now you're going to be taking Infantry slots from males that want it just to get a certain percentage of females. some of which don't want it.

It's exactly as I predicted. Percentages, quotas.

Can we get a one-standard APFT now? Of course not.
 
Sledge said:
I read that it's not a done deal as far as the Infantry and Armor fields integration goes. Apparently the new CJCS, General Dunford, was in charge of the whole IOC assessment, from which we know that no female passed. Career guys I'm following on this subject say it would be impossible to allow women in Army infantry but not Marine infantry. We'll know soon enough. I think October is the deadline for the services to request an exception. The only exceptions requested so far were for enlisted females on older Los Angeles class subs, due to the difficulty and expense of retrofitting for mixed enlisted crews.
Click to expand...

Dempsey was on record with policy stating that any exceptions would need to present evidence (not just opinion) why the integration could not occur. And if it was due to not meeting a standard, then why that standard was a mission requirement.

It will be very hard for General Dunford to change that.

For Army IN, that barrier was mainly RS. Logic chain: IN officers without opportunity to earn RS tab would be a significant disadvantage by missing key leadership skills and also in terms of promotion, etc.

But with the grand experiment showing that females can pass RS, that barrier is no longer in effect. Arguments about whether the experiment was statistically or qualitatively valid will not matter.

Or relevance... the real question is not "if" women can pass, I think we all knew there were women capable of passing. But instead, can enough make it through ranger school to make a meaningful difference?

The concern is that it will be opened up. But not enough pass, or attempt. So something must be wrong, and the gold standard will be revisited, and ultimately watered down. That's what most of the stakeholders I know are concerned about.

None of the cadets, USMA grads, and currently serving that I know really have an issue with Females serving as peers, as long as they are truly peers. Same performance standard, same measures, no forced quotas, etc. But that's the hard part, we know from past experience.

The Army knows how to deal with logistics issues... even did it in RS. And has already dealt with it elsewhere. So that won't be a barrier.

The annoying thing is now the Army will have to deal with "RS is a chick's school" comments relative to IOC. It's already started. :)
 
hawk said:
But with the grand experiment showing that females can pass RS, that barrier is no longer in effect. Arguments about whether the experiment was statistically or qualitatively valid will not matter.

Or relevance... the real question is not "if" women can pass, I think we all knew there were women capable of passing. But instead, can enough make it through ranger school to make a meaningful difference?

The concern is that it will be opened up. But not enough pass, or attempt. So something must be wrong, and the gold standard will be revisited, and ultimately watered down. That's what most of the stakeholders I know are concerned about.

None of the cadets, USMA grads, and currently serving that I know really have an issue with Females serving as peers, as long as they are truly peers. Same performance standard, same measures, no forced quotas, etc. But that's the hard part, we know from past experience.
Click to expand...

That's what I've been saying all along.
 
GoSox said:
@MomWPgirl, I just wanted to tip my hat to you for hanging in there and helping make this a really interesting exchange of ideas.
Click to expand...
Thank you GoSOX. On this forum and others, I try to remain respectful and balanced. Sometimes, unfortunately words and thoughts are misconstrued but I will always continue to support amazing accomplishment of soldiers/cadets. Politics should not take anything away from those accomplishments. Too often, broad sweeping generalizations are made here and elsewhere. Male/female they are all soldiers. There are outstanding cadets/soldiers who are exceptional leaders and some that are well ..not so much. It is difficult for me not to become defensive when generalizations are made…esp in regards to females but I try. Yes, there are female cadets who struggle with the IOCT (shelf mostly), who did not participate in Sandhurst, and might possible get their “feels” hurt with crude comments, and yes they may be very vocal about combat arms opening up or RS. Yet, it seems many forget on this forum that there are also females that have 270+ PT scores (male scale), who are striving to achieve goals unheard of 20 years ago, who have peers that respect them and think of them as not one of the guys, but as a damn good leader and soldier. When people here generalize females as sharp wielding, incompetent, standard lowing soldiers…I gain a voice. Why? Because those qualified female soldiers often do not become vocal. They like most exceptional soldiers are humble. They use actions as their voice and often those actions are much louder than words. Thank you again for your post. It means a lot.
 
Sledge said:
Wait, they're going to have females force-branched Infantry and Armor just because they're females? 50-60 slots?
Click to expand...

That's just my conjecture applying class composition stats to IN typical numbers. Not all that would be forced branched... some presumably would volunteer. From memory there were many FA female volunteers, so I don't think they had to force branch many.

I've not seen 2015 official branch stats, but they will be surfacing soon. (Did see informal ones) But you could see the effect of forced branching play out in the 2014 slides RC's shared.

It will be interesting to see if they go to the approach where branching has to allocate certain percentages of high ranked rather than pure Order of Merit with qualifiers.

But all this is conjecture contingent on opening IN and AR up. But were I a betting man I know what I'd bet.
 
Hawk, what do you suggest the highly qualified and capable outliers do? In "your" Army what would you do with them? I do not know the answer but as everyone has said they are all soldiers first...not male, not female.. soldiers. If a female proves herself to be more than capable of being a integral valuable part of a team, of a mission.. what do you do? In your world, what happens to the statistical anomalies? Do you deny them valuable training and opportunities simply because they are female? Wait, aren't they soldiers first? I dont know the answers like I said, but am curious what you think.
 
The topic addressed in this thread was discussed for quite a period of time on Rush Limbaugh today. Just thought I would pass that on.
 
MomWPgirl said:
Hawk, what do you suggest the highly qualified and capable outliers do? In "your" Army what would you do with them? I do not know the answer but as everyone has said they are all soldiers first...not male, not female.. soldiers. If a female proves herself to be more than capable of being a integral valuable part of a team, of a mission.. what do you do? In your world, what happens to the statistical anomalies? Do you deny them valuable training and opportunities simply because they are female? Wait, aren't they soldiers first? I dont know the answers like I said, but am curious what you think.
Click to expand...

If I may, "highly qualified and capable outliers" or "the statistical anomalies" have to cast out based on the cost benefit analysis. This is a gender nuetral discussion. It's not about what females can or cannot do. Why does military have maximum height for serving? Military equipment are designed to fit people of average size, from weapons, protective equipment, vehicles, and etc. Are we going to make our submarines, airplanes, tanks bigger so someone that is 6 ' 9" can serve? Why do military separate service members that are overweigh, when they can perform their jobs regardless how much they weigh? One simple reason is, he or she is not going to have that specific job for forever. Why not make an exception to keep the person in the job. But how do manage the promotion or do we keep rotate hardship tours among others to keep this person on the job? Or why not allow blind folks to serve, I am sure if we spend enough money we can make accommodate them (one a side note, there wa a blind USMA grad on active duty and commanded the Warrios Transition Unit at West Point, I don't know how much accommodation was made). And any cost benefit analsysis costs money and that comes out the DoD's pocket.

From my perspective, perhaps this is where my military background comes in, the miltiary functions on the collective needs, not the individual needs.

Is it unfair, perhaps. But serving is a privileage, not a right.
 
MemberLG said:
If I may, "highly qualified and capable outliers" or "the statistical anomalies" have to cast out based on the cost benefit analysis. This is a gender nuetral discussion. It's not about what females can or cannot do.
Click to expand...
Thank you, always appreciate your input. The examples you mention though are all failures to meet standards, whether weight, vision etc so I do not think they apply in this circumstance as "outliers" meet standards. Cost benefit analysis I get...and hopefully this is being looked at in the incredible amount of research going on. As a parent of a female soldier I am probably not the most unbiased but I find it a little disturbing the Army can hypothetically skirt the combat arms issue, assign females to teams/CST's, give them a portion of the training their brother's received when it is convenient for them (I know..collective needs vs individual needs). I am sure cost/benefit analysis did not come much into play when CST's were formed...more so they were probably more concerned with the possible combat arms political firestorm that could erupt. If my sons (yes, I have 2, one serves) were serving with females on a mission that could go south I would most definitely want that female to have the same caliber of training. Serving IS a privilege, not a right...but I feel perhaps it is unfair that outlier females could be/are pawns in this military political mess. The lines are blurry these days, I just feel if qualified capable women are going to be placed in situations (attached to infantry units etc) and they meet the standards, they should be offered the training benefits of RS. Again...my comments are geared to debate on accessibility to RS.
 
MomWPgirl said:
Hawk, did you delete your post about outliers or is there a glitch on the forum?
Click to expand...

I did chose to disengage, as I felt we have all expressed valid opinions, and there was not much new to cover. I'm also sensitive about getting out of my lane. :) Ultimately, I feel the decision has already been made, and while it's an interesting discussion... a moot point.

MemberLG said:
If I may, "highly qualified and capable outliers" or "the statistical anomalies" have to cast out based on the cost benefit analysis.
Click to expand...

This was essentially what I had indicated in my deleted post. MomWPGirl mentioned females scoring 270 on a male scale, which is fantastic. But that would be borderline remedial in IBOLC, much less Ranger School by the time it was scored by RI's and done in Benning heat. The IBOLC 2LT's I'm in contact with are seeing 50 pt reduction in APFT's over what they felt it would have been at ROTC/USMA. And this from some who were in the 325+ range.

As to what I would do with outliers... (Extremely strong female types)... I'd be asking if this will make IN capability stronger or not. Are there enough female candidates who: A) Want to be in the Infantry and B) Are capable of meeting the standard. And if that number is not representative of females in the army (percentage), then it's not worth the disruption.

There are already so many places females can serve and excel that I'm not convinced there is a big gap to close. I personally think in some combat MOS's females could have an edge. (But that's getting out of my lane and into conjecture)

I do believe for Armor is much easier, and I don't fully understand why it was not included with FA. Less negative perception for those without RS, etc. And physical requirements are well within reach of some females.

the miltiary functions on the collective needs, not the individual needs.
Click to expand...

This seems to be a fundamental perspective difference. Some are viewing RS as an opportunity, become a better leader, etc. And not fully correlating that it's really a proxy decision for women soldiers in Infantry. But that's just my opinion.

As we have this discussion at an abstract level, there are multiple parents reading this thread with 2LT's either in RS or headed there shortly for whom this is not an abstract discussion. Some impacted now, perhaps unfairly. Others likely to be. They'll deal with it. But it feels a bit insensitive for me to be discussing while they are living it.
 
MomWPgirl said:
I find it a little disturbing the Army can hypothetically skirt the combat arms issue, assign females to teams/CST's, give them a portion of the training their brother's received when it is convenient for them (I know..collective needs vs individual needs).
Click to expand...

I'm trying to connect how RS will make CST's more effective for female officers? Being a better leader, under any conditions, would not hurt for sure. But the heavy emphasis on dismounted Infantry tactics?? There is a reason the other Army branches do not send a majority of their people to RS. Just not relevant. (Actually, I could see it being more relevant for CST than for Aviation, FA, etc)

I am sure cost/benefit analysis did not come much into play when CST's were formed...more so they were probably more concerned with the possible combat arms political firestorm that could erupt.
Click to expand...

Clear benefit to creation of CST's, and done in a way that did not compromise the 18x MOS mission/function. Not the first time, won't be the last. But they did not compromise the 18x SF MOS to do so.

Yes, people love to think of them as the Female SF, (Tigress), etc. But that's not really their mission. Do we really think having an RS tab is going to improve the CST mission?

They seemed to have done well with their existing training. Most of us are simply not in a position to know if they would benefit from RS. But if there was a training gap, it would be addressed.

Again...my comments are geared to debate on accessibility to RS.
Click to expand...

with all due respect, this is back to "badgefinder" mindset, a denied opportunity. Maybe I'm missing something basic, but if it's not about females in IN/AR and ultimately SF, then what current MOS would females be at a disadvantage not having RS?

Maybe the answer is to be equally unfair... quit sending non ground maneuver troops to RS. Make it IN/AR only. And remove the RS tab from promotion consideration for all MOS's other than IN/AR. (Oops, out of my lane again) :)
 
I don't know why they teach at Ranger school now. One thing my instructors constantly mentioned was that they we're teaching us a technique, not the technique, something for us to refine when we go back to our unit. Of course being assigned to a mechanize infantry unit, I didn't get too many opportunities to practice and develop what l learned at Ranger school.

One thing I learned at Ranger school was that I could be pushed pretty far but still function. I have known many soldiers that could perform under extreme pressure without having the benefit of attending Ranger school. I also knew some Ranger school graduates that were bad.

Supposed it is easier for me to say or think a soldier doesn't need a Ranger tab to be a good soldier because I have one.
 
Read an interesting comment in another forum about the Ranger School - the media is making Ranger school to be something magical where graduates instantly become great leaders/soldiers.

That reminded me of some conversations I had in my Infantry days - "2 seconds." That's what an Infantry officer gets as folks looking at his (for now) left shoulder to see if he is tabbed or not, than business as usually. Whatever position I held, my soldiers didn't care too much if I was tabbed or not, they cared if I got them lost, they cared if training was screwed up, they cared if I was goofing off. Now I am wondering as to how much my Ranger tab contributed to success I had with my military career :rolleyes:
 
I caught most of it at work today. I was just transfixed, watching all of them. They had the purposeful ease of a real team of people.

I can't help being struck by the historical path - not that tired old cliche that they're making it (love how CPT Griest blinked instead of rolling her eyes when someone asked her that). No...the history I'm talking about is this. I would have been in the class of 1993 - the same year Congress repealed the Combat Exclusion Act. I believe my female classmates would have been in the first class to service select from the same combined pool. I'm pretty impressed with how rapidly attitudes and beliefs can change, and I look forward to seeing where we go from here. There will be bumps and trainwrecks (in my day it was the woman chained to the urinal and Tailhook). With the qualities of leadership, humility, and service I saw today from all of those soldiers, we'll get through them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top