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 ...
Make a movie starring Demi Moore. If the movie succeeds so will Femenazi Ranger school. /s
The old rule about ‘if the rabbit died so did your
Army career’ needs reinstated too.
If anybody ever watches military channel and shows on special forces there is no way in hell any woman could make it through based on physical standards required to get t hrough.. If they allow women, they then have to lower standards and that means people will die. Ultimtely, the repupblic dies.
Now imagine a female tough enough to do my late father’s job in World War II. Sneak onto Japanese held islands to place stakes with communications wire attached for the various units about to invade said island.
I knew an olympic ranked lady shot putter. I figure she could have made it, if her knees held out.
I went-and washed out. Went on to Europe and was the fastest runner in my infantry company.
I know there are people who will disregard my objections as simple chauvinism.
They aren’t.
I have worked for and with smart, talented, hardworking and dedicated women. Women who could think on their feet, make decisions and would inspire me to work my tail off for them.
But this has nothing at all to do with that. There are people, male and female, who insist that 18 year old men and women can work together as if there is no such thing as sexual interaction, that sex can be regulated away.
Secondly, men and women simply are not the same physically. They aren’t. Women, on average, cannot achieve the same level of physical output for the same duration that men can.
There is a reason that there is a separate category in marathons for men and women. Women cannot compete at the same level as men. In the Boston Marathon, the first woman finished nearly twenty minutes after the first man, and would have come in 28th place overall.
I find it interesting that they do not list the results for men and women together at the official site, and as far as I can tell, there is no option to do so, but I could simply be missing it. But year after year, you hear female athletes analyzing the results and saying that “...with more women running marathons, eventually women will compete at the same level as men...”
Really? They are living in a fantasy world, and they put things like this in newspapers. A lot of people fall for it hook, line and sinker. I am no marathoner, but I will say that when seconds, or fractions of seconds separate first and second place, twenty minutes is insurmountable, no matter how many women run in marathons or how the numbers increase each year. If they take steroids, they might close it up a bit.
And marathons are simply one example. In the military, look at the SEALS, Delta, and the Rangers. It is no coincidence there are no women, or at least women who could get there on the same path the men do. Those units are the top of a pyramid, and in the former selection process, only the top physical and mental performers could clear the bar. If true that the Rangers have begun accepting female candidates, they are finished as an elite unit in the niche they currently occupy. They may be better than a standard infantry unit, but they won’t be the same as the Rangers we have seen, and they certainly won’t have the same mission capability.
They will likely all get to wear nice Ranger berets, though, and wear the snappy Ranger tabs and badges that will label them as elite troops.
Lastly, logistical issues ranging from pregnancy to habitation may not seem like much to some people, but that is only going to be true if they DO treat men and women exactly the same in the field with respect to equipment and habitation. Apart from if that is a good idea or not, does anyone think that is going to happen?
Raise your hands if you think it will.
It WON’T happen, that is guaranteed. But you know what? Nobody will notice. In 5 years after women join the Rangers/SEALS/Delta, you will hear talking heads in and out of the military who will say things like:
NEWS ANCHOR/POLITICIAN/MILITARY COMMANDER: “When we integrated women and homosexuals into these units, people were saying it was going to be a disaster, that it would hurt mission capability, morale and such. We are more capable now than we have ever been, and have the moral buttress of diversity and equality. Remember how they said the same thing about the military when blacks were going to be integrated back in 1946? Same result here...the world didn’t end, and it won’t. It was the right thing to do, and we can all be proud of the diversity we now see.”
And you know what? There will be no dissenting opinion.
The next time this comes up is when we go head to head with an opponent who is going to make our elite units use every single ounce of capability to complete a mission, and it isn’t going to happen. We may find ourselves in a situation where we don’t control the air or the sea. Our avenues of supply have been cut off, and our units have to do with their brains and brawn and endurance to win. And we are going to lose, and lose badly.
We will lose badly, because our opponents won’t be stupid enough to do what we have done to our military.
For an analogy, think of what might have happened on Edson’s Ridge on Guadalcanal in 1942 if we had women integrated into those Marine units fighting the Japanese. That is your answer.
But hey. Nobody is going to read this thread or do anything about it. I am a dinosaur and don’t know any better, can’t change with the times...it is embarrassing for some to even read a post like this one. And if anyone even gave a rat’s patootie anymore, they might get angry and attack me personally.
But they won’t. This fight is over.
I agree. The back flips necessary to accommodate the very few olympic quality females seems to not be worth the added value they would bring.
Just as we don’t permit below the 5% and above the 95% in height, as we don’t want to redesign all the equipment, and the added value of such people wouldn’t justify the cost of redesign (and the dead weight loss associated with making every tool lighter and every tank bigger).
I am a woman; I read your thread; I agree with every word.
Leaving out the steroid junkies, there is not a woman alive that could equal physically the top 70% of the rangers.
Dead people on the Feminist pyre - gifts to their goddess.
God bless you. A ground-pounder is number one in my book.
Maybe 1 in 1000 women could handle the physical requirements. If they can, let them in.
Don;t lower the standards, but I think it is inevitable that even the most elite of our fighting forces are going to include women in the future. Simply not in proportion to men; look at the bell curve and there are going to be the exceptional specimens who can cut it (having had by ass kicked in Judo by a female half my size I have no doubt of this).
It is inevitable, it makes more sense for us ‘old guard’ to set the preconditions that there will be no diminution of any standard. Better to have a few in a hundred be female than to lose the eventual battle and have to change standards so that half are women,
Disclaimer- guy who tried like hell to join the service but was disqualified on grounds or really poor hearing. Just my .02
...and have it rung any more true...
Best. Post. On. The. Subject. Period.
My comments on another thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2894717/posts?page=28#28
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2894717/posts?page=27#27
Because, really, that's what the Army is all about - making sure women get their tickets punched as they climb the career ladder.
Thank you, I appreciate your saying that. I hope it came clearly through in my post, my stance has nothing to do with respect for women, their leadership or their decision making.
I take my marching orders at work from several different women, all of whom I have an enormous amount of respect for, and will go to the mat in effort to give them what they need.
I don’t care if Chuck Norris is reincarnated as a woman, and goes on to hold the record in every drill necessary to attain Ranger status - there is still no place for them.
You want a separate team of women? Go ahead.
The job is tough enough without adding the distraction of women. It’s like asking them to put weights in their packs, or taking rounds out of their clips.
The only - the single - question that matters is:
Does the policy change enhance the ability of the team to meet their objectives?
With a female on the teams, the answer is a flat no.
Now, in espionage? I say we recruit all the females, homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders, etc that we can. Espionage is tough, dirty business, but it is in many cases an INDIVIDUAL effort.
I say OK, provided that there are absolutely NO, repeat NO waivers given for anything at any level. Suzie gets to do EVERYTHING the males have to do, no matter what. That applies to the physical as well as mental tests.
Better yet, make all the rocket scientists who are for Suzie Soldier going to Ranger School complete Ranger School before the first Suzie Soldier gets to play in the mud. If these folks cannot or will not go to Ranger School, that tells you something about those beating the drums for this.
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.