Posted on 08/21/2015 8:26:48 PM PDT by T-Bird45
lol!
My view at the outset of this experiment was that the Army could find a very few individuals capable of graduating the Ranger course, and I thought that once they were found, they would graduate even if they had to execute the Weekend at Bernies scenario. That last part was unfair to these two women.
Consider the numbers: With a pent up demand by women, 400 of them showed an interest. 100 or 25% of those interested made it through some screening and entered the Pre-Ranger course. This course is designed to weed out too weak to make it through Ranger School. 20 of them made this screen, 20% of those who attempted. Through several recycles, 2 women graduated, 10% of those who started the Ranger course, and 2% of those who actually began the total training cycle. This suggests to me that the standards were not changed and these 2 women earned their Ranger tabs along side all of the other men who have earned a tab.
At these rates, the Army could expect that between 1 and 5 women per year could graduate from Ranger School, perhaps even less considering that we had a large pool for this first effort. This demonstrates that Ranger School is not for women and that women should not be assigned to ground gaining combat units and Special Operations units. The Army gave it a fair test and the results show that the infantry, ranger, and armor combat unit exclusion is sound policy.
This will not please the Feminazis and the politicians bent on destroying our military, so they will twist these result to justify their goal, something that can only occur by lower the standards, and lowering them by a considerable margin. I expect that graduation numbers will go up, and that other courses will be opened with standards adjusted to accommodate femailes. It will be a mistake.
Even these two washed out twice before finally making it through.
There were two things about this article that made me think this is not the dispassionate observation of an objective observer:
1.) Referring to people who disagree as "plethora of haters". That is the way liberals talk.
2.) Referring to the females as "studs". I cannot imagine why a man would refer to a woman as a stud in any description, even colloquial usage. Again, just to show how "equal" males and females are.
On an additional note, the segregation of facilities, and someone to watch over things to ensure nothing untoward happened. As if it won't, and having an assignment to do that. Are they going to add that to the watch list each day, who gets assigned that duty? This was the segment:
"...I quickly found, however, that the gender issue was a non-issue. The barracks at Camp Rogers are shaped like a ‘U’, with a latrine and shower facilities forming the center of the U, connecting two long bays of bunk beds and wall lockers, with doors at the end of the bays. The female students in our company slept towards one end of the bay, where an enclave of wall lockers formed an area for them to hurriedly change in when the need arose. In the latrines, during the absurdly short time hacks we were given to use the bathroom, the women simply walked past the men and used the stalls. After the first real smoke session of the week on day one, nobody cared much about using the same latrine. We were all just Ranger students. (shades of GI Jane here)
During the few times we were able to take showers, the cadre dedicated the showers on one side of the bay to female students for one quarter of the shower period, and a Ranger instructor and female NCO stood in the center of the ‘U’ to avoid confusion..."
To avoid "confusion". Got it.
I will also state I do not harbor any negative feelings towards these women as individuals. They want to do what they are allowed to.
My issue is with them being allowed to.
The result proved your point.
It is not hate to logically want an all male military.
2 dykey split tails were given 3 chances to beef up on steroids to pass Ranger school all to promaote Obamas leftist socialist agenda. Again ra ra ra.
All because I complimented two women for passing the Rangers test (if the standards weren't lowered.)
Then I said I had concerns that their bodies weren't designed for all this physical activity long term?
And all of a sudden, I'm as liberal as Hillary? If you two are honorable gentlemen, then please debate on the issues here rather than calling me names.
These wymen were hand picked, drugged up to pass this course ONE time and then go back to being women.
Link please.
What may had happened is that those women were freaks of nature. Maybe they're in top 1%.
These two beefed up on muscle mass. They will probably lose weight and look like women again. But there will be no follow up to this story. None. You can count on it.
Foisted by those who despise military power
My daughter was in the Marines. She made the point that there are women who can do very demanding things, who lift weights, work out, and can pass tests. But she says the real test is when you have to keep passing that test, day after day, for months and years. She thinks the women will break down because it already stresses male bone structure to the breaking point - her 200 lb husband has shoulders and knees like a man 3 times his age after 2 tours in Marine infantry.
Like you, I think some small percentage of women can do it. I’m not convinced that means it is a good idea. My experience deploying with women is that sex causes lots of problems that are not there with an all-male force...at least, that were not there when homosexuals couldn’t openly serve.
I’m also reading a book now about the Marines in WW2. Given that the Japanese held up to the rigors of combat, and many of them were no larger than women here, the physical “Can you move X in Y time” part is probably OK. But going on patrols and bayoneting men, or trying to haul a 200 lb guy with his gear out of an open area after he’s injured? I don’t buy it.
Chapter and verse, please.
My last combat tour was sitting in a FOB. I was 49 years old. I could do 80 pushups for my PT test, run 1.5 miles in 9 minutes, and was overall in pretty good shape for a 49 year old guy.
But the truth was that I could do an honest 6 hours of combat-level field work, provided I had a week to recover afterward. I could do fine for a few hours, but the 20 year old guys would keep going for 12 or 18 hours, and then do it the next day, and the next, month after month.
My suspicion is that women will prove to be similar. A few will be able to pass the test. Many will be able to put in a good day’s work. Some a good week’s work. And if they are on a FOB, like I was, it won’t matter. But if they are in real field conditions - something I didn’t do at 49 (in part because no one WANTED me at 49) - they won’t cut it long. And they will be the weakest link. They may be good. But like me at 49, they won’t be close to the best. So why bother?
At 57, I’d volunteer to go fly jets again in a heartbeat. But in my honest moments, I have to admit I can’t handle the strain of flight line operations like I could at 25. The military would be STUPID to seek me out and recruit me instead of a young guy. And it is STUPID to seek out women in the interest of “fairness”. If a motivated old guy is still an old guy, then a woman is still a woman.
As a Japanese fighter pilot a friend of mine knew used to say, “You no have will to cheat, you no have will to win!” There is no place for fairness in combat.
No. It was the Emory S. Land. I imagine every ship that had women on it experienced the same or similar problems. One other thing that you mentioned..pregnancy..back in the 1980’s if a woman got pregnant she wasn’t transferred out of her division. She was put on light/lighter duty and then at some point sent Temporary Assigned Duty to a hospital.
What that did was make the division short handed. They couldn’t get someone else into the division to fill her billet because technically she was still billeted to that division. It was viewed by others in the division as extra leave because being TAD to a hospital meant that the hospital didn’t really keep tabs on you except for doctor appts. It also wound up cutting into and causing other sailors leave being cancelled because after all, you can’t cancel pregnancy.
All in all, it did not make units or the ship operate at a efficient rate. If women weren’t on the ship, I guarantee it would have been far more efficient.
Ground combat is an environment best handled by young men. The Left have a fantasy that they can wish away all of realities that support this simple fact. Acting out your fantasies in combat will get people killed.
BINGO!....The male species hasn't “evolved” enough to do away with that “tension” yet <<<< (and IMHO thank God!)...
In my 2 years in Viet Nam I observed way too many fights among enlisted men and officers alike over “hoochmaids” and especially over “overweight round-eyed Donut Dollies” to be convinced otherwise!!!....
IMHO....the failure rate of a regular GI and a female in an uneventful perimeter foxhole for 2 weeks together would be greater then Ranger School!!...but all I have to go by is my experience with the former...
The force is weakened. Politically-correct nonsense has taken a front seat over common sense. You think it's great? Good for you. You probably think Bruce Jenner's switcheroo is great as well.
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.