Military Bootcamp

DrumzumrD · 2015-04-27T15:12:45+00:00

In Army. Can confirm. In my Basic Training class it was split 50/50 male/female. There were four platoons of 60 recruits; 30 male and 30 female. We slept in 60-man open bays (think Full Metal Jacket) with the males/females from two platoons combined in each bay. For the males everyone had his group, and there was a lot of playful shit-talk; but we all more or less got along. More importantly when it was time to ~~clean~~ do something, we could work together and get it done.

The females couldn't do it. They had their groups just like the males, but when we were together I'd hear about what went down "up in the bay." No one got any sleep because someone was always screaming at someone for something. There was a group of lesbians that creeped on the straight girls in the showers (there were no curtains). And there were constant fights between the various "Alpha-females" and their little entourages.

Every night we had to have "fireguard" which is where two people stay up in two-hour shifts to make sure nothing happens. Now, no one wanted to do it but in the male bays we came up with a rotation, complained when it was our turn, then did it. Some of the more entrepreneurial guys would do peoples' shifts for money.

As you can imagine, there was always drama in the female bay over fireguard. Sometimes someone got shitty when they were woken up for their shift. Other times (and I think this says a lot about how petty females can be) if the outgoing shift didn't like the incoming shift they wouldn't wake them up. Then when the Drill Sergeant came through, everyone in the bay would have to get out of bed and stand there while he figured out who was supposed to be on guard and depending on his mood everyone would have to push. They told us every night that this would happen if our people weren't up for their shifts but it didn't matter to (some) of the females.

This dynamic carried through till the very end of Basic. The last thing we had to do was thoroughly clean the bays and the next day we graduated. Now keep in mind by this point we've been together for 10 weeks. We've learned how to shoot, thrown grenades, done ruck marches, and all kinds of things that should allow people to relate to each other. The males came up with a plan, everyone had his role, and in two hours we were sitting on our bunks waiting for the floor to dry. In the female bay there were 10 people trying to clean while the rest were arguing about who was "in charge."

Everyone I've talked to--whether they just came from basic, or went through 15 years ago--experienced the exact same thing.

CopperFox3c · 2015-04-27T13:28:57+00:00

All primates form hierarchies. It is in our nature. It's interesting that so many modern philosophies make the assumption that a few thousand years of cultural evolution can completely erase our biological instincts. It is an assumption based on nothing, other than wishful thinking. It's the same assumption that the universe is centered around the earth, that we were made by god, that humans are special. We may able to suppress our instincts to some degree, but they are still there ... they still underlie much of our behavior.

As far as men vs. women forming hierarchies, there seems to be some evidence in humans that they tend to form around men (e.g. the recent Bear Grylls Islands example comes to mind). It is interesting because females do form social hierarchies in some primate species (e.g. baboons), but less so in other species (e.g. chimpanzees, see this).

Gadnuk_ · 2015-04-27T16:54:39+00:00

Can confirm. I was in charge of my platoon but after the second week I had to appoint the most alpha female as second in command to deal with all the bullshit bickering and conflict among the females.

They needed official subordination and somebody to follow, and at night in the barracks they were leaderless. Frankly they were a fucking anarchic wreck as soon as the drill sergeants weren't around, but giving someone official authority helped keep them in line.

jamesford32 · 2015-04-27T14:51:59+00:00

Im glad im not the only one to notice this. While guys will often fight and many do hate each other at the end of the day if something needs to be done all that is thrown away. The fights themselves are the quickest most efficient way to resolve issues. Once its over, the order is restored and their mates again.

Of course the one thing that destroys the hierarchy is women. Put a woman into any group of young men and theyll be throwing spiteful barbs and fists at each other (and not the cheeky jokey type either) constantly in a lame effort to impress the broad. Arguably a great reason to keep women out of the military, or at least the Army's combat roles.

Ive also noticed generally for female friendships to truly flourish (that is not break down into incessant bitching and cattiness,) a perpetual level of comfort must be maintained. That is no adversity, no problems, and a steady stream of stimulation. Oh and no (Alpha) men either. The moment any of these come into play their so called sisterhood falls apart.

And yeah that niceness you speak of as most here will know is a facade.

There was a great post here where they talked about how men work together the best but compete on a broad scale (using sports teams and militaries as an example). Where as women will cooperate on a broad scale (ie feminism and putting down betas) but compete individually (ie cattiness, bitching and competing for attention)

leftajar · 2015-04-27T19:24:37+00:00

Women are designed to have their hierarchy imposed on them by men. They're simply not equipped to sort it out internally.

See: all-female production company quickly goes to hell in a handbag.

docbloodmoney · 2015-04-27T17:46:31+00:00

Men are willing to follow a good leader, women would rather sabotage them

seattleron · 2015-04-27T20:44:27+00:00

I can't imagine the shitshow that is a women's boot camp. That many chicks together doing the hardest things that they've ever done before. Physically exhausted, cranky, scared, emotional highs and lows constantly, and no men around to shit test. They can't emotionally let it out, they just have to take being screamed at.

Lol - that would be something to see.

BlueFreedom420 · 2015-04-27T20:42:06+00:00

The military is literally based on male social interaction.

altra_hex · 2015-04-27T14:07:11+00:00

I think you're basically correct here, and I have anecdote that generally supports this.

Something I noticed from my own coed division boot camp experience several years ago is that the women's side of the division had a lot more infighting. The prime example that comes to mind is what they did to their "alpha female". From the outset the women's side had a clear leader in a girl named "Park". She was smart, had obvious leadership qualities, and athletic abilities close to a below average male (which put her above 90% of her peers). The men even came to respect her as camp went on, and she managed to earn herself whatever the hell that division leader title was.

About mid-way through (week ~4-5) shit hit the fan with the females. Some bullshit along the lines of hazing where some of the leadership tried to do their own discipline to shit-bags in the middle of the night. A group of females ratted on them to the RDCs the next morning.

Interestingly we did similar things on our side multiple times to take care of problems, and nothing came of it.

Park and all her underlings got busted and subjected to a faux-court marshal. So, all new leadership has to be selected for the females. A man is of course selected to replace her as the division leader.

Anyway the point is the females apparently hated Park for one reason or another (probably jealousy), and were quite pleased to see her get crushed. This is in spite of what was most efficient for the division overall also, as the replacements were generally downgrades.

The guy that took her spot at the helm was a moron, but the ladies couldn't have cared less about it.

I do realize this is just an anecdote, so I'm not trying to say this proves anything.

tldr: girls toppled their clear alpha female to their own detriment within a few weeks of boot camp over something the men were doing routinely on their side

cover20 · 2015-04-27T20:51:17+00:00

Not so sure the women are actually nice to each other at the beginning, there's a sort of veneer to their behavior that's used to hide and gloss over their natural mutual distrust and dislike. So it starts off as tolerance.

Then the veneer is worn away and what's left is, well, just shit. And why? They aren't especially good as soldiers in any discipline, are they?

BlaiseDB · 2015-04-28T02:16:40+00:00

My basic training was completely male. However, when I did my junior leadership course (to qualify as a mastercorporal) we had a section of women in the platoon. It was all fucked up because political correctness was rolling in during the early 90s.

Being on the JLC meant that you had a few years in so we were not dealing with teenagers. At first the powers that be insisted that we set up screens each night, and then took them down in the morning, so that the men could not look at the women. After a week of this the women insisted that it was nonsense and took too much time out of our training day. For the rest of the course every morning involved me having naked girls 10 feet away as we got dressed but nothing came of it because we had a job to do.

On the downside, only one out of the 8 or 9 girls could pull her weight physically. The rest were a complete mess when they had to carry a ruck sack into the woods for a week. The exceptional girl - who we nicknamed "Vasquez" - got tapped to be enemy force and ambushed us on occasion.

The thing is, they put all the women into one section so we never really got to see what level they were at or to observe the dynamics within that section. What I do know is that when we practiced section assaults, Vasquez always got stuck with the machinegun because she was the only one who could pepperpot 150 metres with an M249 (C9).

foldpak111 · 2015-04-27T17:41:51+00:00

Marine here and I will confirm. It was an amazing experience to watch us all go from individuals trying to survive to thriving team mates. As for top dog, it was this little 5'3" Mexican dude that trucked everyone in pugil stick training and would always lead the runs. He even managed to lead the ruck marches, which are infamous for killing the little guys. I still talk to him to this day. Man those were the days....

DaphneDK · 2015-04-27T18:48:33+00:00

Girls form hierarchies. At least in school they do. There's always the two or three pretty girls who're running the show and mercy on the poor girl who try to upset the balance.

bsutansalt · 2015-04-27T16:10:08+00:00

During Bootcamp there is a noticeable difference between men and women and how they interact with each other. The first few days for the men is rough whereas the women all seem to get along well. Then after a few weeks the men transition into working (and living) together well whereas the women are in disarray.

The reason this is all happening is because the men instinctively develop a social hierarchy. The first few days are spent jockeying for position but after a few weeks the men have "set" a hierarchy and know their place. They know who are the top dogs and they know who are most like them. This allows them to interact with each other more easily and they naturally follow whatever place they are put into.

In the women's camp they are all nice to each other from the get-go. They try and maintain this niceness but after a few weeks it is impossible to maintain. There is no hierarchy and there are no set places for each woman in the camp and this is not a sustainable model.

This is exactly what happened when I went through bootcamp for the Air Force. The girls ended up sneaking out one night and begged us to help them with stuff about 3-4 weeks into bootcamp. They were in complete chaos and the bickering, my god the bickering. They couldn't agree on anything except to get us to help them. Had we not who knows what would have happened.

Dev_on · 2015-04-27T14:04:05+00:00

Everyone does that.

In basic, or during deployments, they actually briefed us on how things will function in yourhead.

first 3 weeks, everyone will be polite with each other. afterwards, you'll have your spats, or like the famous 'when things stop getting polite, and start getting real. and a few weeks later, you get over these things and work cohesively, accepting of a large change in lifestyle takes hold. The women will either get along famously, or be at each others throats constantly... it's all over the map, and the less they are sexualized in the workplace, the better off it gets. Same as when you put a hot girl on a ship. All of a sudden, 200 guys are all competing with each other like it's a fucking high school event. It's not pretty, and kind of sad to watch really. It's how the term 'navy hot' was coined. it creates a feedback loop of toxic. and usually good coxns will remove the girl ASAP... usually after a string of summary trials over the fistfights that ensue.

anyways... when you return, a lot of guys have problems with their familes too. they have the idea of being the breadwinner/problem solver of the family. they have to basically function without him, and when he returns, he starts to lose his identity. It's usually the most common time for a service member to abuse their spouse...

So yeah, I'd suggest that unless you've been to basic training, or served for a length of time, you refrain from speculating... the last thing we need is more musing over things we don't understand.

theres a lot of lessons to be taken from military training and workplace. yours isn't one of them

goodboy · 2015-04-27T17:58:48+00:00

There are many types of Organizational Structures (OS). Each structural type has costs, benefits, and is useful depending on the purpose of the organization that takes the structure.

The objective oriented Pyramidal Sphere-of-influence, or top down, OS type is common in the military for both historical reasons and efficiency in goal attainment. One of its greatest benefits is single objective goal attainment when man power must be optimized and firepower is a scarcity. Typically, with top down type OS each individual has influence on 1-3 peers and are directed by a superior. The superior also has influence on 1-3 peers- this is why we have the the buddy system and fire teams.

Another common OS type in male dominated organizations is Design\Subject Matter Expert Team OS. These OSs have a team leader directing a medium sized cohort of highly skilled peers. Each peer has a unique skill set that contributes to the team but each team member has essentially the same status as any other member. This type of structure is often beneficial for engineering design teams and special forces\special operations teams. Each member has unique skills to contribute. However, one of is costs and biggest disadvantage is it creates many single points of failure during objective attainment. If any team member with unique skills is unable to perform his task then the entire objective might be lost or delayed- which is why spec ops guys are so closely nit and the teams can be devastated with the loss of any of its members. There is very little built in redundancy of its systems.

Another type of OS that has become more common since the War on Terror started is a matrix OS. Here, each member has both highly advanced and also commonly shared skill sets with every other member. There is no real status elevation of any member over any other. This is why it is no longer uncommon to see 23 year old Signals jackasses keeping the attention of battle hardened 3 Star Generals. This type of OS is the most adaptive, responsive, and robust to external threats and opportunities when firepower is abundant and manpower is not a concern. However, it is also the most expensive to implement and maintain. It requires near constant and expensive training of all the members of the OS.

The other type of OS sometimes seen in the military is the lone wolf model. This requires a very technically proficient gaggle of individuals reporting to other OS groups. Generally, they left to their own devices. This is usually used with sniper teams and the motor pool who each report to their Sergent, but otherwise do fuck knows what. Strangely, few people in the military ever want to mess with with either sniper teams or motor pools.

Anyways, back to the point. When women organize, they rarely self-assemble into either pyramidal sphere-of-influence OSs or most of the others common with male OS. Females usually form vertical, linear, and dynamic hierarchical OS. They generally perceive and incentivize group status over objectives obtained.

Women typically form Status-defined Power Obscured OS. This type of OS is efficient and highly effective at scaling to large and amorphous groups and is defensively oriented. However, they are highly inefficient at obtaining specific objectives and individual achievement is discouraged as it disrupts intrinsic group hierarchies. In this type of structure, the perceived intrinsic status of members is valued and objective attainment is secondary to group harmony.

The male dominated sphere-of-influence OS typically assemble behind the idea of "Captain, take that hill by 1700 or we're all going to die tonight!" Whereas female dominated OS typically assemble around the idea of group harmony and perceived social ranking. It requires constant and subtle shifting in those rankings. It would be more like: "Captain, you allowed your private to get out of step while marching, fix it or we're all going to die tonight!"

Basic Training is almost exclusively an indoctrination into a pyramidal sphere-of-influence OS. Women don't often fare well in that environment as member status has almost no advantages or disadvantages, beyond the top physically performing troops and marksmen.

Niordd · 2015-04-27T15:00:42+00:00

Well, this seems to be natural result. If we are assuming females have perfected the art of manipulation and creating an impression of themselves - then first day must look very peaceful. But when you need to get the job done - boy, I would love to see that shitstorm in the middle of battlefield.

I was always interested in one thing - if females are so great at manipulation and directing emotion of others (especially males) - why have I saw so very few female leaders? (as those skills come very in handy when you want to inspire people or make them do something)

My guess is that to be a leader you have to posses a larger frame of view, vision and a passion. To care about the thing you want to achieve more than you care about yourself. I have seen tons of guys like that, willing to sacrifice everything for the case. But never seen a woman with the same commitment. (but hey, I still young)

wh0p00ted · 2015-04-27T17:33:41+00:00

I can personally confirm the validity of this, being in the Air Force. Our MTIs told us that they would hate it if they had to push a female flight through basic training for this exact reason. This was the opinion of both male and female MTIs.

JohnCashMoney · 2015-04-27T21:01:54+00:00

Male chimps also form hierarchies, while the females it's not so clear.

Chuckwagon1645 · 2015-04-28T00:58:30+00:00

Can confirm. Air Force BMT was like that too. The women would constantly bicker with each other and couldn't work together for shit.

wae55 · 2015-04-28T16:36:33+00:00

Relevant is why William Golding chose only boys in "Lord of the Flies"

Title	Military Bootcamp
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	269
Comments	109
Date	April 27, 2015 1:12 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/340ymd/military_bootcamp/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/military-bootcamp.31898 https://theredarchive.com/post/31898

Comments