How It Really Went Down in the First Class to Graduate Female Rangers

SOFREP ^ | 8/21/2015 | Rudy Mac

[PROCON]

Thanks for your Service!

Be advised, we have several FReepers here who have lost sons fighting in the War on Terror, tell them that, not me.

[ScubieNuc]

I was in the Navy from 1983-1989 and served 4 years on a submarine. I know that they are now putting women on subs, and I can not in a million years see that making the boat more effective or battle ready. The other thing that plays into this is how the wives/girlfriends of the men react to their men going to sea with women, especially if they are anywhere close to being decent looking.

However, being decent looking isn’t even required for some sailors. I spent a few months attached to our sub tender and they had women on it and that caused problems. For example, in E division, the women either couldn’t carry the heavy things like shore power cables or took too long so they were given cushy jobs like filling paperwork for the Div-O or someone else had to always shadow them and do their job. It effectively left their division short people who could actually do the jobs. It also created disunity because cushy jobs like being the Div-O’s secretary used to be rewards to the hard chargers but now it was given to the weakest. Cute women got out of jobs just by flirting. When the tender went “to sea” for it’s 3 week qual, even the ugly women got big bucks by horny guys wanting pleasure.

Overall, even though the amount of women on the tender was small, the disruption they caused was huge. Those problems were ignored in the late 1980’s so I can only imagine what is being ignored today to push a visual of a well oiled working machine of both men and women on isolated vessels at sea. The social experimentation in our military is killing it’s real effectiveness and it is quickly becoming a paper tiger.

[pfflier]

Sounds like the indoctination is progressing well, maybe better than expected.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

You can bet on it.

[Chgogal]

BTTT

[Leaning Right]

This also doesn’t even take into account what adding sexual tensions to a combat unit will do to distract it from it’s overall mission.

Consider actual relationships as well. Suppose I become engaged to a woman in my unit. Then - deep down - is my first loyalty to my unit or to my fiance?

Not a big deal if I'm in a supply unit. But if I'm in a combat unit...

[TomasUSMC]

The time is coming when we will need all the bodies we can muster. Period.

Sounds like they WANTED TO DO IT. Sounds like two of them DID IT.

OUTSTANDING.

[SteveH]

there metal -> their mettle

[golux]

let them prove there metal



There. Metal!

[doc1019]

And then there are those that sweat the small stuff. LOL!

[stylin19a]

sorry, they were no gos. they failed in his class.

[ScubieNuc]

I completely disagree that America NEEDS to send it’s women into combat. America has more than enough men to go into combat.

The fact that they supposedly want to go into combat says more about how they’ve been mislead about what combat is about then about anything else. It also speaks very poorly of America’s culture and military leadership who approve of sending women into the combat meat grinder.

The truth is though that women and other soldiers in areas that aren’t combat arms have been jealous of the soldiers in combat arms moving up the chain faster because of how many boxes get checked off by going to Ranger school or other combat schools. It’s more about career advancement than anything else.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Does that make a difference?

[luvbach1]

I have no problem acknowledging that these two exceptional women earned their mettle. The operative word is exceptional, for they are the exceptions that prove the rule; the rule being that upwards of 95% of ordinary women could not have completed this course. Upwards of 95% because the two women who made it were among 19, 17 of whom washed out. And one can safely assume that even those who did wash out were better qualified than the vast majority of other women.

[PROCON]

Does that make a difference?

Whether or not you served our Country?

Why yes it does; if you haven't been in the trenches of the Military and just sit on the sideline and criticize them, get a life, you have no standing to bad mouth them.

The vast majority of our Military are there to kick ass, kill bad guys and take names, not mingle with their boyfriends.

[Psalm 144]

“Nothing we say will change your opinion.”

Yep. A civilization which embraces the concept of women as cannonfodder is perverse, and not worthy of perpetuation. There are times of absolute necessity which changes things. We are not there. We are merely degenerate.

[MinorityRepublican]

If those females actually passed the course without lowering standards so they could pass, well I support them.

One thing though, it would be tough for them to serve as Rangers long term because their bodies aren't built to withstand war.

[BenLurkin]

Where can i find that quote?

[MinorityRepublican]

I have no problem acknowledging that these two exceptional women earned their mettle. The operative word is exceptional, for they are the exceptions that prove the rule; the rule being that upwards of 95% of ordinary women could not have completed this course.

I agree. Especially when there are other roles in the military where females have a decent shot in serving.

[vpintheak]

This is what I have been waiting to see. No lower standards, they did it. Good on them! That being said, no women in the infantry!