Posted on 08/20/2015 3:36:25 PM PDT by jazusamo
Two women have become the first to graduate from Army Ranger School. Therefore, women should be integrated into combat units. That's the "logic" we're hearing.
Perceptions about "whether or not women are capable — physically, mentally or otherwise — those are now broken down," an ex-Obama administration official, whose claim to fame is having piloted military cargo aircraft, told one newspaper. "What's left here now would be the barriers about our social perceptions."
Gee, that was easy! At least, if your goal is to feminize the military. But let's say that the goal is combat mission accomplishment with minimal casualties. Now you have to start taking into account all sorts of pesky factors that two women graduating from a physically tough course doesn't address.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
“Of course you have the Williams Sisters who frankly look like they have taken a huge amount of steroids”. Let’s also not forget when 55 year old Bobby Riggs beat 25 year old Margaret Court, the top female player in the world. Then he played 29 year old Billy Jean King, and threw the match to her.
The three females who were recycled back to Day 1 were not granted special permission, that type of recycle is not unusual. I think a more important observation was that 20 women went through a very intensive preparation period before attending Ranger School. Two are graduating, a rate of 10%. The historic graduation rate is 40%. The difference in graduation rate is a reflection of the difference in physical strength between men and women and that difference would carry forward into combat.
I saw a pro-am match between one pair and I can’t remember any of their names but their opponent was Sean Connery along with his pro.
Well Sean and his pro proceeded to beat the heck out of the other team. They immediately said that Connery was sandbagging. He was way better than his handicap.
Yes, I’ve been asking this question for years. And why isn’t a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Women should have to sign up just like 18 year old males. And why isn’t this question ever asked in a debate.
Yes, I have a book by Rod Laver and he just flat out says that Riggs threw the match to Billy Jean King.
Riggs made a huge amount of money by having people bet on her.
>>”Perceptions about “whether or not women are capable — physically, mentally or otherwise — those are now broken down,” an ex-Obama administration official,”<<
My understanding of the above paragraph is that ‘women’s capability’ is broken down into separate categories, ie physical, mental, and?
There is no question that men are physically stronger than women; that’s not a perception but an actual fact.
Any job has to have pre-established standards (criteria); those standards need to be determined according to competencies and critical success factors required for the job, regardless of gender.
Applicants, regardless of gender, should be able to apply for the job, and must meet the pre-established criteria in standardized tests to qualify for the job. The criteria and related tests should not be altered to accommodate a person or a group of people.
In the commercial world, you’ve to be qualified too; the qualification is ultimately gained through tests & performance. They don’t have separate tests for engineers, lawyers, doctors, psychologists, etc.. based on gender. I don’t see how the military is or should be different in that respect. If it is a matter of ‘social justice’, then women should be able to apply if they want to. IF they successfully meet the *standard* requirements of the job and relevant tests, then I don’t see a problem.
Furthermore, usually people are advised to capitalize on their *strengths*. Not to say they can’t take action to further develop skills requiring improvement. But in any job, you’re hired based on your strengths, not weaknesses. That said, a woman may be a brilliant strategist, but obviously cannot successfully compete with a man if the differentiator is physical strength.
Don Budge also said it was rigged.
One more pro against amateur(s) anecdote. I remember about forty years ago watching Bobby Riggs play a tennis match against Bill Cosby (who was a tremendous athlete when younger) and some other very good amateur celebrity tennis player on tv. Riggs wore a raincoat and carried a golf bag full of clubs on one shoulder. Riggs jerked them around like they were on a string. Riggs used to also saw most of the handle off of a broom and hustle good club players with the sawed off broom. That's how good pros are.
They already did.
beer math from my personal observations:
90% of the males can focus, single task on killing the enemy, and have the stamina to deal with combat. 10% cannot.
10% (maybe)of the females can do this. 90% cannot.
War is a team sport. You can’t have 90% of the team ineffective.
Ranger training will become gender normed [made easier] so women can pass in acceptable PC numbers. This is what has happened to the Airborne school since the 70s. Pre 70s Training was tough and attrition rates were 35 -40 %, now it’s just a training place to get another badge for your uniform and everyone gets their wings! I was shocked when my nephew told me what training was like [this was around 1992] he told me that the Black Hats were not allowed to dicipline anyone, people were allowed to run in sneakers, no pullups to enter the chowhall,only ten pushups max for dicipline [we never did less than 20 and at times I had to knock out 100], running usually limited to just exercise time [We RAN everywhere all day], etc. I had told him how tough it would be but I Guess it is not my Fathers Airborne or even mine. Talking to some friends about what he told me and discovered that standards went downhill after they started to let woman into the training. Now I understand what happened and I am sure it will happen to Ranger Standards too.
From this article, 3rd paragraph down: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3325897/posts
I believe that MAJ Hathaway’s report is somewhat more credible. His comment on your assertion:
2. The females were afforded unprecedented recycle opportunities – The women were not afforded any advantage on recycles. They went through Darby Phase, recycled and were Darby inserts. Upon a second failure they were offered a Day 1 recycle. This means they started Day 1 and had to complete the Ranger Assessment Phase a second time. There is no advantage to this. Would any of you volunteered to go through RAP week twice and take a Day 1 recycle? Most people would not as evident by the several men who were also offered a Day 1, but declined. The Day 1 recycle precedent has been in place for many years, and is nothing new. Unless you have been part of the RTB leadership… and have sat on the academic boards you would not know how common it actually is.
I do not support admitting females to Ranger School and I believe that the results have demonstrated the reasons. These graduates are 10% of a very select group of females. Only the Olympic class athletes have a chance of graduating, which defeats the purpose of providing Ranger trained combat leaders across the force.
I thought it was interesting this morning that of the 7 AM newscasts only Fox News started off when the story of the two females who had “graduated” from Ranger School. Of all the stories in the world more imporant than this, it was their lead story. For ten minutes, or until the first commercial break, Fox thought this was the greatest thing that’s ever happened. They interviewed both women, and interviewed others that thought it was the greatest thing since peanut butter. CNN and MSNBC covered wildfires and Donald Trump for the first 15 minutes or so. Maybe it’s because Fox fancies themselves as being so gung-ho on “the troops”; they see nothing at all wrong in women dying alongside a man. It’s pathetic. If a man or woman, anytime today on Fox, weighs in and says women have no business being in combat, they’ll be ran out of the Fox studio. So tell me how “conservative” Fox is again.
I trust your info. I just wanted you to know I hadn’t made it up out of this air. Even Maj Hathaway in your post, calls the recycle opportunities unprecedented.
The physical emotional demands aside — and no one takes anything from these women who made it through in that regard — there is the issue of learning through repeated exposure to the same type of challenge. That is an advantage that a first time participant doesn’t have....and this appears to have been a third time, so the learning of what to expect would be even greater.
As I said earlier, passing a school test on the 3rd effort is not so impressive as passing it the first time around. One learns what to expect and look for.
Dear Sir: You are incorrect. If you read the article, you will see that MAJ Hathaway is refuting several statements that are floating around the media and the internet. He prefaces his comments with the statement that is not true. His refutation is exactly the opposite of this statement.
Just went with your #2 above. I might have misread what you wrote or the way you intended it, but I did accurately report what it says: “unprecedented”.
However, I didn’t go to the link. I just assumed you were summarizing it.
That doesn’t change what the other article says.
And, it doesn’t change the fact that repeated exposure to the same challenge is an advantage. That’s just a fact. Like I said, passing a school test on the 3rd try is not as impressive as passing it on the first try. It simply isn’t.
Sometimes, you just need to say, “Oops”.
No doubt.
That would be because they have run into two liberal issues that oppose each other.
Issue one, women should be allowed to everything men do, to include military combat operations.
Issue two, the draft is bad, "If the draft returns, I'm heading to Canada."
Hilarity ensues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.