Posted on 05/16/2012 11:04:05 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. Army leaders have begun to study the prospect of sending women soldiers to the service's prestigious Ranger school - another step in the effort to broaden opportunities for women in the military.
Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, says he's asked senior commanders to provide him with recommendations and a plan this summer.
(Excerpt) Read more at kgwn.tv ...
And lets not forget while in training she received so many “downs” (failures) that by training standards, she should have been washed out. A male with that many downs would not be flying the F-14 and most certainly would not have been deployed.
So! When will the NFL be going co-ed???
More info. . .sad. . .
http://www.cmrlink.org/CMRLawsuit.asp?docID=152
“What the Navy Did Not Want Known
From 1993-1994, then-Lt. Patrick J. Burns was a naval flight officer and instructor in VF-124, a west coast (San Diego) squadron that trained Lts. Hultgreen and Lohrenz to fly the F-14 Tomcat. On several occasions, Lt. Burns warned local commanders that the two women were not fully competent to fly the Tomcat in carrier operations, but to no avail. In the post-Tailhook scandal era, the Navy was eager to win a “race with the Air Force” by getting women into combat aviation.
At an all-officers meeting attended by Lt. Burns in the summer of 1994, then-Cmdr. Thomas Sobiek, who was the commander of the training squadron VF-124, informed a group of concerned instructors that the women would graduate to the fleet, no matter what. At that point Burns began to realize two things: One of the women pilots would die, and Navy officials would deny reasons why it happened. Lt. Burns asked for the help of CMR because communications up and down the chain of command had completely broken down.”
More info on the Tailhook ‘91 Temptress:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2721109/posts
A sacrifice on the alter of political correctness.
1993 Les Aspin, William Jefferson and Ms Rodham, no cram down,no finger prints.
A victim of fashion.
What generally happens is the lowering of standards for all making us less safe.
Worse yet, women who've never been in harm's way yet demanding other women do so to gain higher office for themselves.
Nice job! Congrats!
> SEAL training too? God help us.
I can’t see a woman ever passing BUDS. 80+% of the men can’t pass it.
Actually it’s not that they can’t, you only get the boot for safety violations, everything else is the candidate giving up and quitting on his own.
Might be a bit illuminating if they maintain the current Ranger physical standards (which they NEVER do when women ‘integrate’ and formerly all-male institution).
“I can’t see a woman ever passing BUDS. 80+% of the men can’t pass it.”
They will force the SEALs to pass a woman by whatever means necessary. They did it with pilots and other career fields. They’ll even go so far as to create a new “women only” unit and claim it is the same as the male units (*snicker* I said ‘units’.) then give women all kinds of awards and medals for nothing just to prove it. Before you know it a women will be commander of the male unit. (*snicker* There I go again.)
I know a career field where there were only men for a good reason. The military decided women should make it so they recruited a few. While they were at it, the military thought the current 75% washout rate for classroom was ‘ridiculous’, so they mandated that the program be ‘altered’ to ensure at least 96% passed, which met the usual training pass rate. The women were given the answers to all written exams. The men were given multiple tries to get answers correct including instructors asking test takers, “Are you sure that’s the answer you want to give?” The women graduated the written portion of the training with ‘honors’. The training command performed the classroom portion of training and the duty command completed the remaining training over several years. In field training the physical training washed the women out. The career field was extremely lucky a real commander refused to allow lower standards and there wasn’t any way in Hell the women could pass it. That was in the early 1980’s. That career field no longer exists. It ceased to be viable by 1988. The military is far more PC now to the point that they don’t even try to hide it anymore.
Careful - I hear Navy guys LIKE “two on one”. ;)
If Roger Goodell keeps taking the physical play out of the game, you might see female cornerbacks pretty soon. Most of 'em don't tackle anyway!
I agree, but it’ll never happen. Day 1, the first thing you do is take the APFT (plus 6 chin-ups from a dead hang), which has different standards for men and women.
Day 2, the first thing you do is a 5-mile run in formation at an 8-min/mile pace.
I certainly know some women who could do those things to the same standards as men, but not many—which would negate the point of allowing women into Ranger school in the first place.
Standards for the school will be lowered. This will just reinforce the opinion of many in the Ranger community that Ranger School is just another badge nowadays anyway. Ranger isn’t a tab, it’s a way of life that you learn in a Ranger unit. I’d rather have a guy in my unit with no tab and a scroll on each shoulder than somebody with a tab and no scroll. The guy with two scrolls hasn’t been to the school because he’s been in combat with fellow Rangers and hasn’t had the time or opportunity. As long as they don’t let them into Ranger units, it works for me.
Which was my point (see my post #27). Especially for tests of upper-body strength, there are only a tiny percentage of women who could pass. Which means that women will necessarily be held to a very different standard.
I honestly don’t even understand the point of this, though I don’t really understand non-combat arms folks being allowed to Ranger school period. Ranger school is supposed to simulate protracted combat, but, since you can’t actually shoot Ranger students, they simulate the stress through sleep deprivation and a lack of food while holding the students to very high standards of planning and execution.
So, it prepares people for combat without putting them in combat. Why do women need to be in such a school? Even with a non-combat arms guy, he has the ability to transfer into the Infantry or Armor. A female? She gets to wear the tab......and that’s about it.
Ok, so it looks like this world-class female Olympic athlete would be able to do well on Ranger quals. What does that say about the number of Army women who would pass male standards?
DRILL DRILL SARGENT: "OK, ladies drop down and give me 5."
You've been on this forum since 1998 and can't spell the word "Sergeant?"
I can see the point for men: these days, even if you're in a support unit, you can find yourself in deep kimche.
For women, the reason is combat command. The feminists will not be satisfied until at least 50% of senior combat commanders are women. If the path to senior combat-arms command requires the Ranger-School ticket punch (being Ranger-qualed is a requirement for combat-arms company commanders ), then they will demand to be allowed to pass Ranger school.
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.