Replies

I will also clarify my stance on this: It is not that I think that individual women cannot pass the physical test. matching the physical ability curves of men and women, there are ALWAYS going to be some women at the high end of the curve (assuming the same standards are used to create the curve) whose section will overlap the lower end of the curve on the men’s side. And this has nothing to do with the mental acumen of females. I have no problem following the commands of a capable woman. I respect a capable woman as much as any capable man. But that is not the issue. I am against mixed gender combat units.

Point 1: The men’s physical strength side of the curve will ALWAYS be higher. Always. This is NOT disputable, no matter how hard someone wants to disagree, it is indisputable. And this is what we should draw on for combat troops.

Point 2: I disagree vehemently with the concept of mixing young men and women together. This is not an office, regardless of what the people pushing to transform our military want us all to have it as. This is a battlefield, where an enemy with a small advantage can win. To sacrifice any capability (even that much) on the altar of liberalism and feminism is criminal. These people are going to be far from home, in dangerous situations, and you take groups of 18-30 year old men and women and mix them in together, what on earth is going to happen? WE will never hear about it, because all the judicial actions and punishments will be carried out in private, including the ones where officers will be canned for sleeping with their troops, because even with those, only people who read a small blurb will find out about it.

Point 3: Even the smallest hit on logistics or accommodations should be reason enough. That difference can be the deciding one in a critical situation.

But, as I said, this battle is over.

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.