Why are some outfits all-male and how were they chosen?

25,304 Views | 148 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by Talon 07
Serotonin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:32p, 2/7/17
AG
Did a few quick texags searches and couldn't find a discussion on this subject. Apologies in advance if I missed one...

The CT and BQ integration of women has been an interesting subplot in the Corps over the last 40 years. Whereas the band's integration history was straightforward and public in the '80s, the integration of the Corps seems more murky.

There was strong pushback in many outfits (including probably Gator 2) to integration in the mid- to late-90s. Members of my own outfit helped found PMC and the outfit was something akin to combination of E-1 and L-1 from the 60s through 90s, from what I can gather. Hence the Country Club/Athletics theme. Why was Gator 2 chosen for integration, and not say, Squadron 17, which didn't have the same type of history? I have no idea.

When I was a CT there were always rumors of outfits having been disbanded for refusing to integrate or based on female retention. There is the example when I was a CT of an outfit that had been integrated for a few years when they had all male classes in '05 and '06. On their way to becoming all-male again, they became subject to a Trigon investigation and were "encouraged" to resume recruiting females.

Seems like the whole process was pretty arbitrary and ended up being a huge benefit to some outfits (E-1, E-2, 17, etc) while everyone else got dragged off kicking and screaming. Thanks in advance to anyone who could shed more light on the history. I'd find it pretty interesting personally.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
AGhistorian
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:15p, 2/7/17
I don't think there is one answer, or a singular policy on the matter. The time period that you mention spans 3 or 4 commandants so there is bound to be a bit of variation.

I do think that in some cases units have been on the verge or shriveling away because of poor recruiting, or poor grades and integrating them was a way to breath new life into a unit. This is just an educated guess on my part.

I also think that these decisions are made on an individual outfit basis rather than broadly. As far as I can remember one or two outfits a year might end up coed. So each year the Commandant with his staff probably took a look at the options out there and make the decisions based on a variety of factors.

I doubt this moves the conversation forward much at all. So sorry if I only made the issue more complicated.
Reply Quote
Serotonin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGhistorian • 6:02p, 2/7/17
AG
Thanks for the response. Seems like I recall E-2 or E-1 having had a female at some point. I guess maybe the better question is, why give some outfits the designation of "all male" and others as integrated? If an outfit naturally became all male due to recruits not being interested or if 3 females wanted to join Sq. 17, what is the drawback? Do the Citadel and VMI maintain all male units? Seems like a strange system to maintain and wondering what the reasoning is behind it.
Reply Quote
2
Trident15
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18a, 2/8/17
AG
I'm interested to know the 'why' as well. Also, E-1 has had a few females in their history around Class of 2000 I believe.
Reply Quote
1
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Serotonin • 12:35a, 2/10/17
AG
Quote:
Do the Citadel and VMI maintain all male units?
Last weekend, we just passed "Breakout" for the Class of 2020 at VMI so I can get more details there and disclose them as necessary.

EDIT: I just got confirmation that all cadet companies at VMI have some females.

VMI's system is very different from A&M with respect to the relationship between the 1st class and 4th class cadets. So, what I do know is that each 4th class cadet or "Rat" is assigned to a 1st class cadet. And the 1st class cadet is not necessarily in the same cadet company (for females anyway). So, the "Rats" get that mentoring from a 1st class cadet even if it isn't one in their outfit.

Other interesting things I've learned about VMI. They assign the males to cadet companies by height. So Alpha and Hotel are the tallest while Delta and Echo are the shortest. Females are assigned to cadet companies seemingly randomly so the tallest girls are not necessarily in Alpha or Hotel. But, it is funny to take a look at Alpha or Hotel where all the athletes are because you have to be about 6'0" or 6'1" to be in those two companies. And then you've got Delta or Echo with all the 5'4", 5'5" Napoleon complex guys.

For the VMI Class of 2020, there were 511 admitted and confirmed that they planned to attend VMI. 506 showed up on Matriculation day including about 60 females. I think the Rat Mass is down to about 480 or so by now. But, I was also told that it is impossible to fail out of VMI in your first semester so... the 25 or so who have departed by now were all kids who couldn't deal with it, or couldn't afford it ($50K/yr, I think it's $30K/yr in-state). I definitely feel sorry for the couldn't afford it folks. But, I've been told that another 80 or so VMI cadets might not make it back due to academics. Their upper class classes usually hover around 400 cadets.
Reply Quote
2 edits
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:09p, 2/10/17
AG
Another major difference between the way A&M does the Corps outfits and VMI as an example is that A&M has something like 44 cadet companies that vary in size. The Band units are gigantic and there are a lot of smaller outfits.

At VMI, there are only 8 companies plus the Band. So, at A&M, you've got 5x the opportunity to be in a leadership role. But, when it comes to distributing the 10%-15% females, it's easier to have a few in each outfit where there are only 9 units. If you've got 40+ units, you wind up in a situation where there just aren't enough females to go around. I can tell you from my era in the Band where females were only 1 or 2 per company, that's not what you want. You need some concentrated mass of females in each company that has females.
Reply Quote
1
Serotonin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HollywoodBQ • 8:52a, 2/11/17
AG
Great info, thanks for sharing. I loved being in a large outfit. I think Gator 2 had ~100 cadets my zip year and it was a lot more fun than ~60 when we joined in '99. When you have a large outfit you get a lot of different personalities and leadership styles and you can find the right mentors for any fish.

Sounds like VMI has a good setup. You have a kid going there?
Reply Quote
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Serotonin • 8:09p, 2/11/17
AG
Gator03 said:
Great info, thanks for sharing. I loved being in a large outfit. I think Gator 2 had ~100 cadets my zip year and it was a lot more fun than ~60 when we joined in '99. When you have a large outfit you get a lot of different personalities and leadership styles and you can find the right mentors for any fish.

Sounds like VMI has a good setup. You have a kid going there?
Yes, Class of 2020. It's been quite an experience so far.
Reply Quote
Hincemm
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:40p, 2/13/17
AG
Bq, do you have a kid there?

I am an Aggie (01) but my dad was VMI class of 68.

I admire the irony if so! Both good schools.
Reply Quote
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hincemm • 6:25p, 2/14/17
AG
Hincemm said:
Bq, do you have a kid there?

I am an Aggie (01) but my dad was VMI class of 68.

I admire the irony if so! Both good schools.
Met several outstanding VMI grads over the years and one crazy one.

The timing on this discussion is funny. Yesterday, I got a message from an Army buddy of mine who went to VMI - Class of '93. He told me that his son just got accepted for next year and he was looking for advice as a parent of a "Rat". I never thought I'd be giving him advice on his own school.
Reply Quote
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:32p, 2/15/17
AG
Could it be related to wealthy contributors to the corps that wish to keep their old outfits XY only?
Reply Quote
2
Trinity Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 7:39p, 2/15/17
S
BQ78 said:
Could it be related to wealthy contributors to the corps that wish to keep their old outfits XY only?
No.

I'd be cautious about thinking there is any sort of conspiracy. But what might have been true 20 or 30 years ago isn't true now.

The Corps is subject to Title IX, just like the rest of the University. Similarly, as a Senior Military College, A&M has to prepare officers for the environment in which they will serve once commissioned. That is a gender-integrated environment, and that isn't changing.

The bottom line today is that there are X number of women in the Corps, and X number of outfits.

More are in the Band and Air Force, because that is where their interests lie.

For the rest of the units, there is a lot of data and experience that shows that units generally need a "critical mass" of females for integration to be successful. Sure, there are women who could thrive just fine as a lone female in an outfit, but that is not the norm. And there are not enough women in the Corps to get that "critical mass" in every unit. So some remain "male only".

If the Corps were 30-40% female, I would bet that every unit would be integrated.

Maybe the Commandant will comment here.

Reply Quote
1
Warrior 66
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53p, 2/15/17
No need for comment. Trinity Ag nailed it. No conspiracies out there, no money changing hands, and certainly no intent to just keep certain units all male just because.

Of the 46 company-sized outfits in the Corps today, only 9 are still all male (as opposed to almost half the Corps being all male when I got here). I have reactivated 11 outfits in 6 years (G-1 and SQ-5 reactivated this school year), and all have been reactivated as gender-integrated outfits. As we continue to grow the female population in the Corps (currently at 16%), we will do our best to gender integrate more outfits.

I hope this helps answer the mail. Again, Trinity Ag did a great job of addressing the question.

Thanks for your support of our Corps! Gig 'em!
Reply Quote
1
Serotonin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Trinity Ag • 8:54p, 2/20/17
AG
Quote:
More are in the Band and Air Force, because that is where their interests lie.

For the rest of the units, there is a lot of data and experience that shows that units generally need a "critical mass" of females for integration to be successful. Sure, there are women who could thrive just fine as a lone female in an outfit, but that is not the norm. And there are not enough women in the Corps to get that "critical mass" in every unit. So some remain "male only".
First off, thank you both for taking the time to respond. I especially appreciate the Commandant's responsiveness on this forum. Thank you sir.

I guess E-2 and Sq. 17 are the curious cases to me. During my time in the Corps there were always enough females interested in AF outfits to have Sq 17 comfortably integrated. Every year some wing outfit would end up with a ridiculous number of females in a fish class (it seemed to rotate) and you'd think "There are plenty to siphon off and integrate 17." A good example is the '04 class in Sq. 2 which started out FOW with 13 or 14 female cadets. I believe Gator 2 had 5 or 6 females in the fish class this year.

Another curious example is E-2. It is obvious why there is lots of interest in the Band or other outfits (especially AF outfits who have the perception of being easier). Are you telling me that E-2 isn't high on the popularity list? I find that extremely hard to believe. E-2, in a vacuum, should be one of the first and easiest outfits to integrate.

We had these same discussions when I was in the Corps almost 20 years ago. Ultimately it was hard to get a great answer. Maybe most of it is inertia. All I know is that if I were a betting man I'd have a lot of money on Sq. 17 and E-2 being all-male 10 years from now. Whether it is big donors or whatever else they seem to hold out against all odds!
Reply Quote
1
TXAggieMom11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:11a, 2/21/17
Retention of females is lacking. There is only one female fish left in each of the following Sq 1, Sq 8, Sq 16, Sq 20, Sq 21, A-2, F-1, F-2, and I-1.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Ol Jock 99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Trident15 • 7:26a, 2/21/17
AG
Trident15 said:
Also, E-1 has had a few females in their history around Class of 2000 I believe.

Yep. I'll write out the story when I get to my computer.
Reply Quote
Gator2Wes05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Trinity Ag • 9:28a, 2/21/17
AG
I agree with your assessment of what it takes to make integration successful. The issue I take is why there are still outfits that get labeled "All-Male" in the first place. I fully realize that in an open marketplace certain outfits won't be able to support integration each year, X female cadets to Y outfits, I get that. What I don't understand is why certain outfits are still allowed to remove themselves from that marketplace. It's contradictory to the mission of preparing officers to serve in an integrated military as you mentioned above.

It's like if when integration of public schools was mandated by law, the US Gov't said "except for you Mississippi, you guys just keep doing what you're doing."
Reply Quote
1
Ol Jock 99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:52a, 2/21/17
AG
E-1--A Story of a Failed Integration (a non-definitive history)

Disclaimer: I have zero doubt that I'm going to miss some points. I'll try to get a few of the guys on here to double check me and I'll correct. It's been 20 years.

Spring 1995: E1 has grown so large, that the decision is made to split it in 2 and reactivate D1. They do a fair job of keeping the future leaders evenly spread.

Fall 95/Spring 96: Enter the class of 99 (whoop), which, unknown to us at the time, will be the last non-integrated class for a while. Great CO, Good 1SG, who doesn't make grades (important). Typical all-male hijinks. Some growing pains from losing 1/2 the outfit, but a good time had by all.

Spring 96 Leadership selections: 1SG doesn't make grades and isn't up for CO. The guy who was assumed to be next in line, super hard-core Army contract, was tapped to start a new outfit (A2). Several good options left, but the Trigon went with a guy we'll call Joe. Joe was a kinder, gentler CT. In fact, the Trigon had asked him to write the book on how to be a good pisshead...by playing nice. Joe was also terribly overweight and out of shape. He couldn't lead the JOCKS on outfit runs. As you can imagine, Joe was not a popular choice. Several of the best zips-to-be went staff rather than stay under Joe.

Spring 96 Integration Time: The Trigon is on an integration push, and who better to lead it in one of the biggest (and best ) companies than Joe. So E1 is slated for integration. To help, a top-notch female c/o 99 is transferred in at the very end of our fish year. We'll call her W99 (she wore "wag" as a badge of honor). W99 is a great cadet. She was actually c/o 98, went non-reg her true fish year, and then joined as a Corps fish her 2nd year. She tried very hard, sometimes too hard, to be one of the guys. For our part, while we weren't excited, we accepted her and decided to make the best of it.

Fall 96/Spring 97: We are assigned 4 female fish. We hadn't recruited them; they were trigon assignments (which makes sense given the timing). 1 doesn't last FOW. The other 3 are committed to stick it out. 2 of them are perfectly average cadets, fine members of any company, but not "game-changers". 1 is a weirdo who I'm still shocked didn't punch. But she didn't. They follow W99's leadership well. However, the tone of the outfit has changed. A big part of this is having a CO we don't respect. But the typical all-male hijinks are gone, making things a lot more "all-business".

Spring 97 Leadership selections: This was where the integration failed in my opinion. The new c/o 98 CO is a good dude. The c/o 99 1SG is too, as are the other leadership positions. So why the failure? Because W99 went to Corps Staff (so did I for full disclosure). None of the W00s were strong enough to drive the integration agenda.

Fall 97/Spring 98: Memory is a bit fuzzier here as I'm a staff rat, but our female census is 1 Jr staff rat, 3 PH, and 1 fish. There might have been another who punched; I don't recall. W01 is like the 2 W00s, nice enough and an average cadet, but not a needle mover. The 3rd W00 gets weirder, which doesn't do the integration movement any favors.

Fall 98/Spring 99: W99 becomes a Battalion CO, so is still away from the outfit. The 3 butt W00s are still there, as is the 1 pisshead W01, but there are no female fish that made it past 1st semester. There wasn't a move to keep them out, it just kind of happened. E1 had won the Jouine (best grades) award, and had been assigned a ton of fish who had little business being there ("well, sir, I'm worried about sonny/daughter making grades..." "no problem, we'll put them in E1"). The fish class was a bit of a mess due to this, so we had poor retention all around. It just included all of the females.

One note here: when the female fish punched out, it was a HUGE headache for outfit leadership. Much more so than when the guys punched. While I never saw this attitude expressed from my buddies, there had to be a "is this worth it" thought process, especially with recruiting.

Fall 99/Spring 00: The class of 99, including W99, are dead and gone. Things finally come to a head with the weird W00 and she transfers to a different outfit. Left are the 2 zip W00s and 1 butt W01. No female pissheads or fish.

2 years later: All male once again.


There is no real moral to this story other than I agree with the needing a critical mass of females to make it work. Doing it on a shoestring is tough, especially when the leader decides to go staff.

I'll also argue from a personal point-of-view that the idea "you have to be integrated to function in military/society" is complete and utter horse crap. The Corps isn't the military. It isn't the business world. It is a leadership lab in a setting where young folks are learning and growing up. You want every outfit integrated? Fine. But don't get caught thinking it is an imperative. It isn't.
Reply Quote
7
4 edits
74OA
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ol Jock 99 • 10:29a, 2/21/17
AG
I agree that outfit integration is useful but not imperative, after all, our cadets spend their entire academic day off the Quad experiencing a fully integrated environment. I think it's far more important for contract cadets to interact with nonregs in general since, after commissioning, every enlisted person they supervise will have come from that pool. IMO, it's an advantage our cadets have over academy cadets who spend four years sequestered in a military compound and, from my observations, are often under-prepared at graduation to effectively lead young enlisted who see the world from a completely different social perspective.

As for designating a few units as "all-male" or "all-female", I have no problem with it. Our integrated world does not require people of both sexes to live together, just to work together. Some people are simply more comfortable residing in single-sex outfits that do not force them to deal with the complexities of integrated living on top of everything else. All other aspects of their cadet, academic and social lives are fully integrated and I suggest it is more than sufficient to deliver the necessary learning experience.
Reply Quote
2
12 edits
Swing Your Saber
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:22a, 2/21/17
Why do we want to remove choice and be like everyone else? Part of what makes A&M special and unique is the fact we do some things differently. The real question to me, is why don't we have an all-female outfit? With 300+ current female cadets I imagine* at least 20% would prefer to give an all-female outfit a shot. Why deny them this opportunity?

As to maintaining unintegrated units:
1) As has been stated you need a critical mass. The question of critical mass has been researched and litigated ad nauseam.
A) In a 60-person outfit, four per class would be the minimum to have a full and beneficial experience for all involved. Fewer and you have all the common problems associated with a lack of critical mass.
B) This probably requires recruiting at least six fish per outfit to avoid possible retention issues.
C) Thus with 150 female fish you would really only want to integrate 25 outfits.
D) Spreading them thinner than this would do a disservice to all involved.

2) Choice, there are some unique and special things that can only happen in an all-male outfit. There are probably unique and special things which can only happen in an all-female outfit. Why deny adults the opportunity if they want it?
A) This is not an academy, the military or corporate America. We are a unique learning laboratory. Give adults the choice between integrated and non-integrated outfits.
B) Women should get this choice as well! More than anything I believe we need an all-female outfit.
C) Even in the military the overwhelming majority of Army and Marine combat arms units are not integrated. This is unlikely to change in the next decade. Outside of his confirmation hearing Secretary of Defense Mattis has been very clear on the topic. Even if the Army and Marine Corps wanted to integrate every combat arms unit, they cannot without radically altering standards, or dramatically increasing recruitment to those MOSs.
D) I currently work in an all-male office**, they still exist, and are not rare.
E) Regardless of the existence of unintegrated organizations outside A&M, cadets should have the option to join a non-integrated outfit. They provide valuable opportunities which simply do not exist elsewhere.

3) We are not discussing if the Corps experience should be integrated, only the outfit experience.
A) Cadets from un-integrated outfits still interact with opposite sex cadets every single day.
B) Staff is still integrated and provides all cadets with additional leadership opportunities.
C) The greater university is completely Co-Ed, and normal day to day life provides anyone with all the benefits of being in normal integrated organizations.
D) There is only a negligible benefit extending this experience to the outfit.

Edit to remove my derailing complaints about the cost of office space.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Gator2Wes05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:30a, 2/21/17
AG
I see a lot of support for "choice." I don't have a real problem with that, except for the fact that it's only selectively applied. Getting back to the OP's original thought, why are only some outfits allowed this choice?
Reply Quote
1
74OA
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gator2Wes05 • 11:36a, 2/21/17
AG
I imagine it's based on demand. If a surge of incoming fish asked for single-sex living, I'd hope the Trigon would accommodate them with further unintegrated outfits. As has been said earlier, since all other aspects of their cadet, academic and social lives are fully integrated, that's enough teaching moments for those living in a single-sex outfit.
Reply Quote
4 edits
CharlieBrown17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggieMom11 • 12:18p, 2/21/17
AG
TXAggieMom11 said:
Retention of females is lacking. There is only one female fish left in each of the following Sq 1, Sq 8, Sq 16, Sq 20, Sq 21, A-2, F-1, F-2, and I-1.
16, A-2, and 20 all have more than one female fish left.

Reply Quote
Trinity Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gator2Wes05 • 12:36p, 2/21/17
S
Gator2Wes05 said:
I see a lot of support for "choice." I don't have a real problem with that, except for the fact that it's only selectively applied. Getting back to the OP's original thought, why are only some outfits allowed this choice?
At this point, I don't think it is a "choice" -- it is where they are on the progression, and historical decisions have left some outfits integrated, and some not.

An outfit can't choose whether they will or will not be integrated. But if you only have a small percentage of females, some will remain all male. It doesn't make sense to shift around which are and which are not, as this adds even more disruption to that caused by other personnel movements.

Note that as the Regular Army is integrating females into combat arms units, they are doing so in much the same way: within single brigades, and not sprinkling them into every formation. In 1st Cavalry, 1st Brigade (IRONHORSE) Infantry and Armor formations will be gender integrated. 2nd and 3rd brigades will remain all male. For now.

Until there are enough females enlisting/commissioning into the Infantry and Armor to support broader integration, many (most?) company-sized units will remain all male.

Reply Quote
Gator2Wes05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:59p, 2/21/17
AG
So you're telling me if a female cadet showed up FOW and said she wanted to join (insert "all-male" outfit here, I've been out too long to know which still hold to that label) she could? Because I don't believe it.

I'm not advocating for forcing female cadets into "all-male" outfits. That's been done before with terrible results. I'm saying that no outfit should be allowed to call themselves, or be designated as "all-male." It's a double standard and bad for the corps. I don't like the concept of driving female cadets to certain outfits while allowing others to turn away female cadets.
Reply Quote
3
Trident15
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:18p, 2/21/17
AG
Just out of curiosity (in response to swing your saber), what "unique and special things" can only be accomplished in an all male unit?
Reply Quote
2
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Trident15 • 5:32a, 2/22/17
AG
Trident15 said:
Just out of curiosity (in response to swing your saber), what "unique and special things" can only be accomplished in an all male unit?
99.9999% sure whatever it is, is nothing that needs to be written in a public forum.
Reply Quote
8
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ol Jock 99 • 6:29a, 2/22/17
AG
I thoroughly enjoyed your description although it was a little difficult to track all the jersey numbers at times. I'm going to selectively point out a few parts that made me laugh or cringe.
Ol Jock 99 said:
[snip]Good 1SG, who doesn't make grades (important).
Reminds me of the situation we had in my outfit when the guys who were the most hardass pissheads on the quad failed to make grades. The class ahead of me had about 20 cadets and exactly 1 guy who was academically eligible to be 1SG (plus one guy who went to Corps Staff).

Quote:
Spring 96 Leadership selections: 1SG doesn't make grades and isn't up for CO. The guy who was assumed to be next in line, super hard-core Army contract, was tapped to start a new outfit (A2).
Interesting, there was an A2 (Navy-Marine) only 5 years earlier. I guess they got disbanded.

Quote:
Joe was a kinder, gentler CT. In fact, the Trigon had asked him to write the book on how to be a good pisshead...by playing nice.

Whiskey Tango Chingao?
In my era, that would have sold exactly zero copies and "Joe" would have been ridiculed beyond all belief. We didn't have cyber-bullying on the VAX.
Quote:
She was actually c/o 98, went non-reg her true fish year, and then joined as a Corps fish her 2nd year.
We had a very bad experience with a gal who did that during my era. The key problem was that she was a serial perpetrator of what I have been told is completely haram at VMI. They call it "SIB" or "Sex in Barracks". One of my buddies had his way with her and then it got really bad the next year when she accused her CO of rape, took him to Cadet Court, etc. Might have even gotten the local authorities involved, I was already gone to Fort Knox by the time it all played out. I've visited with him (her CO) a couple times over the past few years and frankly, I don't think he's ever recovered - reputation wise from those allegations.

Quote:
She tried very hard, sometimes too hard, to be one of the guys. For our part, while we weren't excited, we accepted her and decided to make the best of it.
We had a female who tried hard to make it in our class. Unfortunately, almost 30 years ago now, it just wasn't going to happen. I'm not proud of that, that's just the way it was back then.
Quote:
The 3rd W00 gets weirder, which doesn't do the integration movement any favors.
As I read that, I thought of a female in my class who got PMC temporarily disbanded, a bunch of guys kicked out of the Corps and then later, it turns out, she made the whole story up. Bad bull in the worst way. It wasn't quite Duke Lacrosse but it was bad.

Quote:
E1 had won the Jouine (best grades) award, and had been assigned a ton of fish who had little business being there ("well, sir, I'm worried about sonny/daughter making grades..." "no problem, we'll put them in E1").

Further to previous comments on the outfit recommendation threads about how outfits change over time, E1 making the best grades in the Corps to me is like B-Battery winning General Moore - you've got to be joking

Quote:
There is no real moral to this story other than I agree with the needing a critical mass of females to make it work.
I think you did a great job of describing how the numbers have to be there so that even if retention is poor, some critical mass will remain. I don't know what the Corps female percentage is but, I'm guessing it's probably 15% +/- a few percentage points.

So, if you take 15% of X incoming cadets and assume that retention will be 50% +/- 25% and your desired outcome is that each unit has a female fish class where a minimum of 4 survive until their white belt years, you probably need to put a minimum of 10 female fish into any outfit that has females. Take that number from the numbers of incoming female fish and pretty quickly, there is a limited number of outfits that can take females. Probably 8-10 units in total. Maybe less but, it would be more than the two dedicated all-female units of W-1 and Sq. 14 way back when.

The other wrinkle to this conversation is that probably half of the females who join the Corps, join the Band. I don't have the actual numbers but this is just my casual perception from observing the number of females in the Band these days (keep in mind, you could count all of them on one hand when I was a BQ).

Quote:
I'll also argue from a personal point-of-view that the idea "you have to be integrated to function in military/society" is complete and utter horse crap. The Corps isn't the military. It isn't the business world. It is a leadership lab in a setting where young folks are learning and growing up. You want every outfit integrated? Fine. But don't get caught thinking it is an imperative. It isn't.
Some others on this thread also mentioned getting exposure to females and civilians by going to class. I was an Engineering major and I gotta say, the females were few and far between.

During the past 20 years that I've been in Information Technology, the number of females I've worked with is almost statistically insignificant. In all seriousness, I've been involved with on-boarding for the past 5-6 years at the tech company I work for. During that time, I've trained 800ish so-called "Engineers" and of that 800 or so, there have probably not been more than 20 females. In fact, there have been so few that we usually have no trouble remembering them by name.

Quick math 20/800 = 2.5% which not surprisingly coincides with the recent blog post about Uber's treatment of females where they wound up with 3% female Engineers.

I'll accept that A&M is a learning experience and the Corps is definitely a leadership laboratory where things change dynamically. From what I've observed at a university with a Corps Only experience, in order to decrease female attrition and provide a quality experience for all, there needs to be a concentrated mass of females who can become buddies and enough upper class females charged with providing them guidance and mentorship. And to minimize drama, "SIB" has to be taboo.
Reply Quote
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Trinity Ag • 6:47a, 2/22/17
AG
Trinity Ag said:
Until there are enough females enlisting/commissioning into the Infantry and Armor to support broader integration, many (most?) company-sized units will remain all male.
You just gave me the idea to go see what the current demographics look like. I found this report for 2014.
Quote:
Active Duty Member Highlights

Gender. Women, who number 200,692, comprise 15.1 percent of the DoD Active Duty force, while
1,125,581 men comprise 84.9 percent of the DoD Active Duty force. Compared to 2000, both the
percentage of Active Duty enlisted members and the percentage of Active Duty officers who are women
has increased (from 14.7% and 14.4%, respectively, in 2000 to 14.8% and 16.7%, respectively, in 2014).
Overall, the number and ratio of female enlisted members (161,415) to female officers (39,277) is 4.1
female enlisted members for every one female officer, while the number and ratio of male enlisted
members (929,524) to male officers (196,057) is 4.7 male enlisted members for every one male officer.
Also in the 2014 report:
Quote:
1.10 Gender of the Total Military Force Trends: 20002014
This graph presents the gender distribution of the total DoD military force since 2000. The percentage of female military personnel has increased from 15.4 percent in 2000 to 16.5 percent in 2014.
Interesting, in 14 years the number of females in the military has barely budged. So, I would expect similar demographic trends with respect to the numbers of female cadets in the Corps of Cadets.
Reply Quote
Outlaw0206
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:34p, 2/22/17
AG
I think that plenty of people look at the Corps as a stepping stone for the military, despite that, not all who join want to go that direction. I think some males do enjoy the option of being in the Corps, opposed to a fraternity, due to the discipline and life lessons you learn. I personally believe that it is nice to see a few all male outfits giving some guys the choice of having a brotherhood and not having to join a fraternity, or other men organization for that matter. Furthermore, these "all-male" outfits still interact with females in the Corps everyday.

Some men may want that, and some may want to be in a gender integrated outfit. My opinion is not better than any other persons opinion, just throwing out a possible example for the existence.
Reply Quote
2
Outlaw0206
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:39p, 2/22/17
AG
Quote:
Getting back to the OP's original thought, why are only some outfits allowed this choice?
I believe that the outfits currently with the choice have proven to be a positive influence for the Corps. If an all-male outfit had a terrible reputation as an outfit that broke many rules/laws, you would instantly see them integrated. Not so much as punishment, but to gain a positive identity and move forward. As long as the all-male outfits continue to produce great cadets, why ruin the positive identity they have established.
Reply Quote
2
TXAggieMom11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CharlieBrown17 • 6:37p, 2/22/17
Are you sure? I was told as of last Friday there was only one in left in 20. It is hearsay on the others.

No matter, if the Wags continue to punch at such a high rate there will never be enough to integrate every outfit. My oldest was in an integrated outfit my youngest is in an all male, neither would have chosen their opposites.
Reply Quote
CharlieBrown17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggieMom11 • 6:53p, 2/22/17
AG
That was based off the rosters online when I posted.
Reply Quote
tgray99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HollywoodBQ • 7:15p, 2/22/17
AG
HollywoodBQ said:
Hincemm said:
Bq, do you have a kid there?

I am an Aggie (01) but my dad was VMI class of 68.

I admire the irony if so! Both good schools.
Met several outstanding VMI grads over the years and one crazy one.

The timing on this discussion is funny. Yesterday, I got a message from an Army buddy of mine who went to VMI - Class of '93. He told me that his son just got accepted for next year and he was looking for advice as a parent of a "Rat". I never thought I'd be giving him advice on his own school.


My brother is a VMI Grad '01 (was in on stealing the Citadel's jeep). Interestingly, his was the first class with women.

While I was at A&M & my brother was at VMI, my mom "adopted" 2 VMI cadets here on an exchange. Meanwhile, a Texan family living in VA adopted my brother. It's a great school.
Reply Quote
Ol Jock 99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HollywoodBQ • 7:20p, 2/22/17
AG
Thank Hollywood. Enjoyed your commentary.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.