Posted on 06/13/2012 3:41:24 PM PDT by kingattax
The United States Army is debating whether to admit women to Ranger School, its elite training program for young combat leaders.
Proponents argue this is to remove a final impediment to the careers of Army women. But the move would erode the unique Ranger ethos and culture—not to mention the program's rigorous physical requirements—harming its core mission of cultivating leaders willing to sacrifice everything for our nation.
The Army's 75th Ranger Regiment traces its roots back to World War II, when it won acclaim for penetrating deep behind Japanese lines. Founded in 1950, Ranger School teaches combat soldiers small-unit tactics and leadership under extreme duress. It pushes men harder than any other program in the Army's curriculum.
Competition to attend the course is fierce, with about 4,000 men eligible to attend each year. Only about half graduate. Of those, only 20% make it through without having to retake various phases.
For decades, completion of Ranger School has been the best indicator for determining which young men can handle the enormous responsibility of combat leadership
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
as long as men and women are together there will be sex... and those not getting it will not be happy with those that are and when it comes right down to it, if there are two people on the same squad/team/platoon having sex, they will sacrifice you and anybody else they have to to save their sex partner when the times comes.
The very bottom line for the military is its goal is to win - everything else is secondary, if that. Failure to win can mean the destruction of the Republic and everything it has stood for. To win you need to cast out the liberal drivel that “we are all equal”. Liberals want to be inclusive and deal with feelings.
The only feelings that the military deals with is the feelings generated by a 7.62 x 39 mm round hitting you or an IED going off a few meters away.
My bottom line - if they can keep up with the men then more power to them. But, there will be absolutely NO changes tot eh current training programs to accommodate females.
~ Or ~
IIRC, the army regs state that women, when in the field, MUST be afforded the opportunity to shower no less than once every 3 days. To my knowledge, there is no corollary reg for men (they shower when they get done, or when they have a chance).
The regs for females are there due to hygiene issues turning into medical ones.
This, alone, is an insurmountable problem.
“They did it with cops, firemen, etc.”
How many female firefighters died on 9/11? I believe the correct answer is zero. While the men were carrying the heavy equipment up the stairs the ladies stayed on the fire trucks.
If they want to let them try, let them try, but do not lower a single standard in any of the training.
Everyone should have a chance but none should have a different standard. From that point on, what happens, happens.
Retired Ranger
Nobody is going to read this thread or do anything about it. I am a dinosaur and don’t know any better
**********
Great post. You are not a dinosaur and I agree with you. I am female and I’ve had enough of the femnazi nonsense.
As Dirty Harry said, “How fashionable.”
I agree with you but the marathon was probably not a good choice to compare performances. Of course men run it faster but women compete closer than just about any other race.
Events which require strength and power are where men would totally dominate. In fact a very good high school boy could beat the women’s world record in just about all events. Some people don’t realize that women throw lighter weight objects in events such as shot put and discus. Also women run the 100 meter hurdles while men run the 110 meeter over higher hurdles.
I too have watched some of the elite military units on TV while they trained. You are correct, there are no women who could pass these tests if they had to compete on equal basis. Of course they would make them easier and then say women can do anything men can do.
Oddly enough, I think there are some women who could be effective fighters in a lot of situations. they are clever and capable of killing.
I happen to think that the dividing line should be combat support vs. combat arms - at least for most types of combat arms. Combat support roles include transportation, MPs, etc. IIRC, field artillery and air defense artillery are both combat support roles.
Combat arms are armor, infantry, etc.
The integration of women into combat support bothers me little - even though I have seen the issues it raises first hand. They can be overcome by good unit discipline, especially discipline at the platoon and company levels.
In a combat unit, designed to be the front line of offense and defense, I’m not convinced that integrating women won’t cause insurmountable issues. To integrate in the face of dangerous issues is simply to say “the soldiers’ lives don’t count”.
JMHO, naturally.
ph
If you ever watch “Cops” on TV, you see the female cops standing next to the action, ready with the cuffs.
All will be returned to normalcy, eventually.
And God is in charge.
Even as a half-crippled, middle-age man, I'd choke that DS out in about two minutes. I like how she does the poseur push to pretend like she has biceps. And spare us the pics of the Scandanavian military, please.
Let me know when they don't surrender to invaders.
What crap.
The problem is that we, as a nation, don’t want to win, we don’t want to do our best, and do a perfect job. It isn’t our focus, or our reason for being anymore.
Now it’s all good enough, and often, not good enough, but who will ever know?
The tide will turn soon, since these things cycle, and we have an economic collaspe coming which should again produce people who are conditioned to try to win, since they have had to in order to survive.
When the tide turns, we’ll have an opportunity to see a lot of this over-reaching stupidity turned back. I hope we take advantage of it.
My problem is we’re blown off without even having a shot at it. Let us try. If we don’t make it, we don’t make it but don’t go pushing us off because we’re women. I’m a pilot. I fly jets. I had a bf who was a pilot (is a a pilot). I waxed his butt so many times when we flew air combat sim’s in real planes it wasn’t funny. We’re pulling almost 9g’s and he couldn’t take it. So, some people can make it and some can’t. We shouldn’t be discounted because of our sex. Just saying.
Surrender, AND collaborate.
Or getting in the way when the SHTF.
My problem is we’re blown off without even having a shot at it. Let us try. If we don’t make it, we don’t make it but don’t go pushing us off because we’re women. I’m a pilot. I fly jets. I had a bf who was a pilot (is a a pilot). I waxed his butt so many times when we flew air combat sim’s in real planes it wasn’t funny. We’re pulling almost 9g’s and he couldn’t take it. So, some people can make it and some can’t. We shouldn’t be discounted because of our sex. Just saying.
Oh, and sorry. I didn’t know Scandinavian women were less athletic than American men. My mistake.
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.