The only place where they can really compete.

Someone is MAYBE waking up, replace the xx with tt, did not want to hyperlink. :D

hxxp://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/10/heavy-loads-could-burden-womens-infantry-role.html?ESRC=eb.nl

WOW...Didn't see that coming...

Wrong. On my first album (LP), I played everything but the drums (piano included). Texas Blues, not hillbilly.

I don't have anything against piano players, or I would have wiseassed that photo of your son.

I don't like Liberace because homosexuals, to me, are disgusting.

Your mileage may vary... ;)

Liberace was a homosexual?!?! No way! Next thing you know, you'll be trying to tell me Rock Hudson was a homosexual. :D

Looks like the Army is slowing down a bit on this idea.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...3317843&rank=9

Wonder if they are watching the struggles the Marines are having?

Good.

Let's go to gender neutral selective service registration and APFT scoring.

Then maybe we can talk Combat Arms.

And if you can't break track or help pull a power pack, I don't need you on my crew, Ma'am.

TR

You may want to reread the rules, and consider starting a new thread in another forum (like General Discussions) to discuss this specific issue.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ad.php?t=22758

TR

You are welcome to your opinions. Many people in this forum share their own on this site. However, those people follow the rules of posting.

Thanks for visiting.

So much for the nice approach....:rolleyes:

First, I don't need to explain myself to you, but since I am feeling generous, the purpose of this specific forum is for non-SF people to ask questions, and for SF qualified personnel to answer them. That means you are entitled to ask questions in this forum, but not to answer them. Grab a big cup of STFU, and read, unless you have somehow acquired a long tab over your many years of service.

That was clearly spelled out in the rules I directed you to, but you either decided you are special, or you have chosen to disregard them.

If you want to change topics, simply start another thread in an appropriate forum. On this specific forum, you are either asking a question, or reading. No need for you to insert your opinion here. This policy applies to everyone, and we have set that precedent adequately here before without consideration of MOS or gender.

You don't know me, and have never worked beside me. If you want to be SF, drop a packet with a request for an exception to policy. But first, follow the same rules and meet the same standards the males in the Army have to.

You also seem to have forgotten a non-disclosure agreement that you should have signed or be aware of before mentioning that facility. Don't do it again.

Finally, this board is not for everyone. Your tendency to ignore rules and your thin skin are likely going to make for a short stay here. Plenty of other non-SF people frequent here, follow the rules, and express their opinions (including opposing ones) thousands of times without ever having to be told what to do. If our rules and manners are not to your liking, or you don't like the way your are treated, refer to the basic board rules. Summary: This is an SF website, you are a visitor, and if you are not happy with your interactions here, stop sniveling, move out, and draw fire.

Now have a very SF day.

TR

And Warrior Princess has what to do with women on combat? He was a male with testosterone and muscles. Women lack that and "she" does now as well. I doubt seriously, that after a year or two on estrogen and missing the testosterone if "she" can perform to standard anymore. :munchin

He was a him on a team (even according to it). Let's keep it that way.


But since POS Dempsey is planning on lowering the standards and allow GI Jane by 2015, The princess can go back to a team

Did you read the "Sticky" at the top of this forum?
 

Special Forces Questions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a forum where civilians can "ask" the Special Forces soldiers past and present "Special Forces" related questions.

Those questions are then answered by Special Forces soldiers, period.

Questions asked by the general public should NOT be answered by the "general" public.

If you do not have the title of "Quiet Professional" you may ask a question, but leave the "answers" to the QP's.

Ye Olde Commander's Adage - "Every plan is perfect...until you cross the LD and begin executing it."

Some have worked better than others - we'll see how this one goes as well.

Note: The briefing only talks about planning for initial accession branches currently closed to women. :confused:

Richard

Army Describes Plans For Integrating Women Into Combat
ArmyNews, 18 Jun 2013

No later than Jan. 1, 2016, women will be able to apply to all military occupational specialties, and to all Army units, across the total force.

"The Army is very excited about the approval of our implementation plan to move forward," said Maj. Gen. Howard Bromberg, Army G-1, during a June 18 multi-service briefing in the Pentagon.

Bromberg and representatives from the Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Special Operations Command explained how they would implement their specific plans to integrate women into all areas of military service.

The Army's plan, like the plans from other services, include first opening closed units to women, and then opening all closed military occupational specialties, or MOSs, to women.

CLOSED UNITS

Today in the Army, some combat units at battalion level and below are still closed to women. One of the first steps the Army will take is to open those closed units. This step will not involve opening closed MOSs to women, but rather, opening closed units to allow women to serve there in MOSs that are already open to both genders.

Already, the Army has made headway in this area, Bromberg said.

In 2012, the Army opened 14,000 positions in closed units to female Soldiers with the elimination of the "co-location restriction" through its "Exception to Policy" program. Women were assigned to maneuver battalion headquarters in nine brigade combat teams, known as BCTs, as an exception to the Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule.

This year, the Army has already signaled its intent to open an additional 6,000 positions within closed units. The Army will accomplish that by opening up an additional eight active-duty BCTs to women -- for a total of 17; nine Army National Guard BCTs; and also positions within special operations aviation.

In a plan submitted to the secretary of defense in April, Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh spelled out the details of the Army's way ahead to integrate women into closed units.

The Army will continue to open positions in closed units, initially within the headquarters of combat arms units such as infantry, armor and field artillery. The Army will also open headquarters positions to women in reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting and acquisition maneuver battalions.

For enlisted Soldiers, about 76 military occupational specialties that are open to both male and female Soldiers are represented within closed units. For officers, there are about 35 officer areas of concentration represented within closed units. And for warrant officers, there are 19 warrant officer military occupational specialties represented in closed units.

The Army will begin allowing women to move into positions within previously-closed units in early 2014, first with officers and non-commissioned officers, and then with junior Soldiers.

"The further assignment of women to companies and batteries below the level of headquarters will be based on assessments, deployment cycles and specific guidance," reads the implementation plan the Army sent forward to the secretary of defense. "This process will be completed at the end of calendar year 2014 and will provide the framework for opening positions that are currently closed to women."

OPENING NEW JOBS TO WOMEN

For occupations currently closed to women, the Army is planning on developing gender-neutral standards to ensure all Soldiers have fair access to jobs.

However, Bromberg said that it is important for the Army to ensure that the standards meet job requirements.

"Whatever that job or that occupational specialty, we have to make sure we have the requirements of that task established -- regardless of male or female," Bromberg said. "The worst thing we could do is change that standard for that position. We have to be absolutely certain that performance can be understood and applied in combat situations. This isn't to set anybody up for failure. This is all about success. We're calling it Soldier of 2020 -- it's not male Soldier or female Soldier."

Beginning in July 2014, the Army will first open military occupational specialties within the Army Engineer Branch. New opportunities for women there include combat engineer and combat engineer senior sergeant. Once those occupations open, the Army will assign female engineer officers and any reclassified NCOs to combat engineer companies. This will open up approximately 10,281 positions to women.

Beginning in the second quarter of fiscal year 2015, the Army will open previously-closed positions within the Field Artillery Branch. After that, opportunities for women will expand to include cannon crewmembers, field artillery automated tactical data systems, fire support specialists and field artillery senior sergeants. Within the Field Artillery Branch, the change will ultimately open about 15,941 jobs to women.

Additionally, the Army will open positions to women with the Armor Branch and the Infantry Branch. Positions there are numerous. Enlisted women will for the first time have the opportunity to serve as cavalry scouts, armor crewmen, infantrymen, and indirect-fire artillery. As a result of this change, about 90,640 positions will open for women in the Army.

Within the Armor Branch and the Infantry Branch, the Army will also offer junior officers and junior NCOs the opportunity to transfer branches or reclassify into these occupations as a way to build a cadre of experienced female Soldiers prior to the arrival of Soldiers who are new to the Army.

http://www.army.mil/article/105814

A bit on the uppitty side especially considering you are talking to the owner of this site.

So, applying the same logic, how soon do you think it'll be before the service academies are required to eliminate separate men's and women's sports teams and only field gender-integrated teams, to include the intercollegiate football teams? Surely, if women can compete on equal footing with men on the battlefield, the sports field would follow suit, eliminating the need for expensive, duplicate teams in these days of fiscal constraint.

Sorry, I have to go...my hypocrisy alarm is shaking the whole house.

Of all the forums on here this is the only one that asks our (Special Forces) specific opinion. And if the question is worthy we answer. You are not the first to inadvertently answer on this forum and be warned afterward, nor I'm sure you will not be the last.

If you feel you the need to answer, then answer outside of this forum, a message or another thread, even an email would work. If you do not wish to follow our rules you are free to go somewhere else and be heard. We will not explain the rules again.

You know I want to say something but I hear a Helo coming up the valley. Wonder if is my exfil Helo or yours. We will see......

PS: Do not respond to me. hint Hint Hint...

They'll never do that
 

They'll never do that - they play football to win.

And we fight wars to... Oh nevermind. :mad:

Are you going to go down the road of Dreadnought?

People pose a question for QP's and QP's answer here in this section.....:munchin

Do not hear the Helo yet....

Would you mind letting Army know that's the objective? :rolleyes:

Well it seems that of the 5 female Marines that were going to try the Infantry Officer Course this time around only 2 reported in. These two also failed on the first event. That makes a 100% failure rate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-infantry-cou/

Is that prior to the new Gender Neutral standard?

:D

They keep trying to sell this as a "good" thing. I am yet to speak with ANYONE in the regiment that supports women in SF. Everyone seems to be on the same page that "Gender neutral standards equal lower standards".

Just so you can sleep better, I read somewhere that ADM McRaven is doing pretty much as you suggested in commissioning studies of the problem. I think the issues are obvious and a case will be made for exempting women in combat roles within SOCOM. I will try to find that information and send it to you.

Sleep well :)

For those of you who have never been on a team or carried a team ruck on a patrol, let me elaborate.

There are twelve people on a fully manned SFODA.

You have your own mission gear. Each MOS has a different load. That may include one of the multiple radios, antennas, kit bags, aid bags, a collapsible litter, demo, breaching gear, machine gun, sniper rifle, shotgun, maybe a mortar (with bipod and baseplate) or AT weapon, binos, LASER targeting designator, spotting scopes, etc., etc.

You have your weapon (normally a pistol, too) and ammo for your weapon. 30-40 pounds of body armor. Helmet. Smoke grenades. Frags. Night vision gear. Cameras. Batteries for all of your equipment. A gallon of water per day. Eye and ear pro. GPS. Maps and compass. Survival gear. Blow out medical kit. MREs (maybe 1-2 per day, because of the weight) Poncho, poncho liner. Maybe cold weather, infil/exfil, or mobility gear. NBC protective gear.

Team gear. Extra radios, antennas, batteries, machine gun ammo, mortar or AT rounds, demo, IV bags, IED jammer, mine sweeper, etc.

THEN, you can add whatever meager personal gear that you can carry. Maybe a spare t-shirt, a couple of pairs of socks, a sawed off tooth brush. For a week's patrol.

This will total somewhere north of 100 pounds, at times, more than 140 pounds. Studies have shown that trying to move with more than 35% of your body weight is injurious to a healthy, well-condtioned adult male.

If you think this is an easy task, go find a friend who weighs between 100 and 140 pounds. Put them on your back and try to carry them around piggy-back for ten minutes. Imagine doing that in the thin air at 15,000', on a 45% slope, for days on end, while remaining alert for IEDs, enemy, hostile wildlife, and generally things that will hurt you, and being prepared to effectively return fire in a couple of seconds. Gravity may be politically incorrect, but on this planet, it is inevitable.

I have a wife and a daughter. All other considerations aside, neither of them could even lift that load, much less do it for an extended period of time.

If one of them were on a team, and could not carry her share, guess who does? Her teammates, as all of the mission gear still has to be carried.

Is that fair? Do you think you might resent having to leave behind your one spare t-shirt, your spare socks, a spare mag, a radio battery, or an IV bag?

I have watched a fellow soldier bleed to death. It was not a pretty sight, but I never bitched about carrying med supplies or other team gear again.

At what cost, do we waive standards for the sake of social experimentation?

More importantly, are we prepared to accept the cost and consequences?

TR

The arguments will soon become:

Why do they have to climb the rope twice?
Why does it have to be a twenty foot rope; why can't they lower it to 20 feet?
Why are they even climbing ropes; what if someone falls and gets hurt !

Did you post in here?
 

If you posted in here (and are not a Special Forces soldier) and were not asking a "Question" your post is now gone. Re-read the sticky (below). This is a forum where anyone can ask a question directed at SF soldiers, and in turn we answer, period. Want to discuss this further, place your own thread in the "Discussions" forum.


Special Forces Questions

This is a forum where civilians can "ask" the Special Forces soldiers past and present "Special Forces" related questions.

Those questions are then answered by Special Forces soldiers, period.

Questions asked by the general public should NOT be answered by the "general" public.

If you do not have the title of "Quiet Professional" you may ask a question, but leave the "answers" to the QP's.

Female Troops Medevaced from Afghanistan at Higher Rate Than Male Comrades
 

Female Troops Medevaced from Afghanistan at Higher Rate Than Male Comrades

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/07/09/fe...#ixzz2YfUIZPrr

"..............Overall, nearly eight times as many males (n=21,046) as females (n=2,673) were medically evacuated; however, the rate of medical evacuations was 22.0 percent higher among females (46.0 per 1,000 dp-yrs [deployed person-years]) than males (37.7 per 1,000 dp-yrs). Of all medical evacuations of males throughout the period (n=21,046), the most frequent associated diagnoses were battle injuries (26.5%), non-battle injuries (15.0%), musculoskeletal disorders (14.6%), and mental disorders (11.4%). In contrast, the most frequent diagnoses among evacuated females during the period (n=2,673) were mental disorders (16.5%), “signs, symptoms, and ill-defined conditions” (15.3%), musculoskeletal disorders (13.2%), and non-battle injuries (8.9%)....................."

“signs, symptoms, and ill-defined conditions” (15.3%) - That is in addition to the mental disorders (16.5%).

Tell me again why we are doing this?

They (Gen Dempsey) have already announced they will not change the standards for the men. Do not clap, as Paul Harvey said. "Here is the other half of the story!"

They plan on coming up a second set of of standards for women. That is so they can say with a straight face "We did not change the standards":mad:

I have a question...
 

I have a good friend (sort of an adopted 2nd dad) who served in the Special Forces in Vietnam. I have a great deal of respect for him, and am only looking to find out if he was conned.

The region I live in has an annual Military Appreciation Day festival. Last year my friend met a woman wearing a green beret along with BDU's while walking around the festival, and she told him she earned the beret and Tab going through the SF course
My question is this: Since SF is a combat force, is it even possible for a female( as of 2012) to take the training and get qualified? From the responses and discussion in this thread and others, I would have said no, but since my friend met this woman and seems to believe her, I am not as certain now.

Thank you for your time.

Only one was awarded the beret after legal action, and she never served on a team.

After she got the beret, the door was closed and no other women have attended the SFQC.

She retired as an MI Colonel, IIRC.

TR

Is her name Katie Wilder??? that's who it was...(that "won" her Beret...through legal means).

I am curious as well. Tried to get old Katie girl captured during an Empire Glacier. The OPFOR didn't want her either. :D

Yes, she was pissed at me. I was so hurt by her stare. Not

When I see a female play linebacker on a legitimate NFL team, I'll be OK with seeing one on an ODA.

I've said it before; I think all colleges that receive "ANY" govt money need to have a mandatory 20% of the players be female. People would have a much bigger problem with there alma mater's sports team not being the best, then they would by having a female in SF.

I'm sorry, but I don't know her name. I can ask if he got it from her, but as this woman was (or at least appeared to be to my friend) active duty, I wouldn't think so. We were talking about women in combat units & he mentioned he met this girl. That's why I wanted to know if it was possible.

Yeah, get her name, rank, unit, blah.

That is the most DEAD ON illustration I have heard on this topic since I was a slick sleeved Private.

The same smug group of pricks clamoring for equality would shit in their designer slacks if they thought that "equality" was going to be forced upon them.
...which oddly i the same group of politicians pushing the affordable health care act while their staff works furiously to exclude them from it.

...who cares if the military has marginal combat effectiveness, the middle linebacker is suffering from menstrual cramps and my team isn't going to cover the point spread.

FUCKFUCKFUCK !!!