The thing that armchair warriors such as yourself do not seem to understand is that behind every man in the field there are a whole team of support staff. This started even before the revolutionary war when armies were followed into conflicts by “camp followers” many of whom were women. The services they provided were considered essential enough that the British actually sent many of them to America to assist their troops.
During WWII General Douglas MacArthur said of the “WACs were my best soldiers”. He said that “they worked harder, complained less, and were better disciplined than men.” Eisenhower said of the WACs, “”their contributions in efficiency, skill, spirit, and determination are immeasurable”.
You are not the only one in this thread that posted negative stories and claims about women in uniform, but as usual you were one of the more vicious and presented your typical exaggerated claims, “170 lb packs”. Right!
I seriously doubt whether there are more than a handful of women in the entire country who would even be interested in going to Ranger School. The thing that I object to here is mischaracterizing the women who have served and are currently serving our country right now. I have a big problem with that... I recently finished a slideshow that was used at the funeral of a friend of ours who was the first Marine Officer woman sent to Vietnam. I couldn't care less about your foolish comments in the other thread. They stand by themselves... you've been debating the origins and fine points of the term baby boomer for years! That gave me a good laugh; thank you! I almost posted back that I'd give you a big kiss if you were standing next to me. So there is no grudge there.
You really ought to take a critical look at what you have been writing however. there is really no need to be a bully on this forum. We can disagree and teach each other without being nasty. Your accusation is pretty funny considering the vitriol that you routinely spread. I guess that you have had the rules explained to you a few different times.
Like I said, you are stalking and carrying grudges.
Almost three hundred posts on this mostly dead thread and you jump on solely to attack me personally, dragging in references and baggage from some other thread.
*************************************
The only "mischaracterizing" that's going on here is yours.
It somewhat surprises me that there are such antiquated opinions towards women in the Military. Presently with such high unemployment the Military can be very selective. Where I am in total agreement with possibly a majority of posters here, are quotas. I am against quotas. There need to be standards and those standards need to be met. If they are not met, then those candidates are not qualified. Now determining what those standards are and how to apply them can get political.
Having said all that, usually Military personnel are up on history. You would think they know how tough certain types of American women can be. For example, the Pioneers and indentured servants were the 1st Frontier Community Organizers. They were amazingly brave, tough, willful and in many cases successful. You mean to tell me now, all of a sudden a certain type of American Woman could not handle wars especially a war against the Jihadist culture? Especially when the Jihadist culture is such a threat to everything that is American including American Womanhood?
But here is may caveat. When I am talking about “a certain type of American Women”, I am talking about those who are not motivated by Free Education but by the challenge. And like you said there most likely would be just a handful of such women who are that motivated to be all that they can be, Rangers.
Yup, I'm paraphrasing the old Army slogan. : )