Posted on 07/21/2019 7:04:19 AM PDT by Macoozie
Women, however, have increasingly made it through the nine-week Ranger course, and the numbers of those trying out for other special operations jobs is slowly inching up.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtontimes.com ...
“kill the women first”
It may also have to do with the instinct of men to ‘protect women’ (at least until the feminist movement, that is). Obviously any hesitation or confusion on the part of our boys is risky as hell, so you kill them first, and then think about it.
I went thru Ranger School back in ‘85 as a 19 year old PFC out of 2nd Ranger Bn, and that course kicked my a$$. No way, no day, did those chicks not have the standards changed for them. It’s absolutely disgusting that the military is continuing to let this happen.
Aren’t there stories of them changing the standards and men helping out/cutting the women slack? That isn’t going to fly in battle.
Women are better at language, and live longer.
Every business and school is expected to have gender neutral dressing rooms, showers, and toilets these days but the military has to make extra effort in the field to give womyn some privacy?
They knew they’d be roughing it in the field when they signed up.
I actually suspect that the new Army Combat Fit Test (ACFT) is, in reality, a passive-aggressive means of getting women out of the Army.
There are three standards for passing: light duty (such as admin duties), medium duty (for those whose job requires some heavy lifting, such as mechanics or regular infantry (iirc)), and heavy duty for special forces types.
The “light duty” test begins with a dead lift starting at 140 pounds (the weight at the highest test difficulty is 300) at the highest difficulty level. Already, I see difficulty ahead: I have no confidence that I can lift more than my own weight. This event must be repeated three times. Another event involves dragging a 90 pound sled for 50 yards, then running sideways for 50 yards, then running the 50 yards while carrying two 40 pound kettlebells, then sprinting the 50 yards twice.
There are 6 events total, all very difficult. The ACFT finishes with a 2 mile fast run. There are no adjustments in standards for gender or age. So far, the JAG rejected the test because there were no alternate events for people with certain limitations. The video to introduce the ACFT only showed a female participating in the dead lift event, where she was clearly struggling while her male counterparts seemed to do the event fairly easily.
The ACFT is being conducted Army wide in October on an introductory (and non graded) basis. In October 2020, it becomes the official fitness test. Given its difficulty, I can foresee many injuries from the test itself.
Several years ago, there was a plan to introduce pull ups to the APFT; this never happened. I wonder if the ACFT will be scrapped when almost no females or middle aged people pass during the trial runs in October 2019 and April 2020.
As I said above, I suspect this new fitness standard is a passive aggressive way of getting women out of the Army. If this is the case, it is almost certainly a reaction to putting women into situations like special forces schools where they are not held to the same high standards expected of men (and which are too difficult for many men to pass). Women can certainly contribute to the Army mission. But, the current gender confusion fad notwithstanding, we are not men and cannot physically perform like men.
It will be interesting to see how the ACFT plays out.
Must be hotter than the hinges of Hades if the grunts have to remove their body armor. God bless ‘em!
Women have no place in combat MOS’s. Israelis learned that decades ago. PC run amok.
We're about to witness the first deaths on the moon due to affirmative action.
My wife has two nieces in their early 50’s, who played soccer and volley ball in high school and for college teams.
They are in still in great shape. They and their daughters and nieces get their butts beat at every family reunion by their male sons, nephews and cousins in volleyball and soccer.
We have a grand daughter, who has been competitive dancing since she was 3 and is on a major college dance team. She lettered in soccer in high school and can run a mile in 5 minutes easily.
Her younger brother, who is the same height and weight wrestled for 3 years in high school. He can pin her with one arm in about a minute. Even when he gets down on the mat on both knees and again using only one arm, she cannot hold him down. He reverses in secs and has her pinned.
None of these women, who are in great shape can chin themselves more than a couple of times. None of them can climb up a rope that is just suspended from the roof.
These days, the question is _when_ will they get through such courses.
Part of the appeal of special warfare teams and what draws its recruits and maintains esprit de corps is that they are units that have uniformly high standards that are strictly enforced. They are groups not everyone can join and are not for everyone anyway. Any appearance of laxity, double standards, or “getting over” erodes morale, harms reputation, and could reduce combat effectiveness.
The true test will be when feet are in the fire in a zone far away. I doubt we civilians will hear the whole story, but how such units are formed and maintained afterwards will tell us whether today’s “wide net” approach makes any sense or not.
But training up young American women to their maximum fitness levels and giving them the skills and confidence to handle themselves in such situations? No problem. Viking shield maidens supposedly were extremely disconcerting and demoralizing to opposing forces, and one can only imagine how your typical goat molesting misogynist Muslim would react to getting his head handed to him by a "girl".
It’s not morally right, that’s for sure.
I can understand your not wanting to debate this, really. Not a flame here.
I think you understand that those skills won’t help someone defending themselves against a bayonet wielding foe leaping into their fighting hole, or having to lug a 155mm howitzer round 20 yards from a truck to stack it.
There are a lot of things women are exceptional at, but in issues of strength and endurance (those that count in combat) the average woman is far less capable than men.
I think youre onto something. The attacking force is assigned to take out the women first (I presume that means if the attackers are presented with an obvious choice). That would better ensure 2 things: 1) the objective is taken, and 2) the attacking force takes no unnecessary risks taking female prisoners once #1 happens. There may be more “shock effect” for the male defenders as well, but I suspect that’s a cultural thing. IOW’s, do you think Hamas would give a rip if a few females serving with them got whacked? Probably not.
Agree...they’re Muslims first, and second, they have the women there.
They carry 40lb packs on their road trials, not the 70lb packs of their male counterparts.
Other accommodations have been made.
But do not think they are not very, very fit women.
Uh huh. Sure.
A general gets another star by doing the bidding of his civilian masters (feminists in Congress, for example) who order him/her to “make it happen”, and the grunts pay for that star in reduced readiness, morale and combat effectiveness...
All the above have another price, and that is blood when the real war starts and these PC poseurs deploy...
There,wasn’t a millenial in sight 4 decades ago when this nonsense started.
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.