did you see post#457?
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 ...
Thank you, sir.
That's a policy problem, not a demographic problem.
The guys who complete Ranger school are probably in the top 0.1% of the male population in endurance and the top 1% in strength.
The number of women who can meet those (male) standards is effectively zero.
did you see post#457?
I’m sure the enemy will allow time for battlefield shower facilities for the women.
As long as we can always fight little wars on our terms, with full control of the battle space....
I hope our future enemies always cooperate with our fantasies and delusions.
For some reason, I’m reminded of the Children’s Crusades. Or unarmed Quakers crossing Comanche territory, sure in their faith and the goodness of all mankind.
These stories never end well, when PC fantasies strike the reef of reality.
The likelihood of an "eligible f" soldier successfully completing Ranger school is effectively zero.
Therefore, dividing the cost of operating the school by the number of graduates, to compute a "cost per graduate", increases the cost per graduate.
Sending a male instead, who at least has a chance of graduating, lowers the cost per graduate.
A pound of coffee used to cost $3. Now, 11 ounces of coffee costs $3. Certainly you wouldn't say that since both containers cost $3, the cost hasn't increased.
Let her try and fail. When she fails, she will then not be serving with the Rangers, SEALs or any other Special Forces.
In my youth there were God Damned few males who could better me. They tried and they failed.
Like you they were not only ignorant they were arrogant. But me being a God Damned cunning female managed to beat them at their game not only physically but mentally and emotionally as well. They went home with their tales between their legs.
Now, there are many awesome males who are my better and I will gladly bow to them. Unfortunately, you are not one of them
Now take your testosterone laced idiocy and leave me alone you stupid stupid man.
****************************
Your thinking is worse than naive. It is dangerously naive and frighteningly hostile.
Hello ansell2: “Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military” by Brian Mitchell documents your points very well.
The Center for Military Readiness is an excellent organization that presents facts examining the issue of females in combat: http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp.
Hello Chgogal: Maintaining the same physical standards is not the only issue regarding females in combat: see Post 271.
I happened to be the guy at Wing Headquarters who was sent over to the Comm Center to pick up a classified message which happened to be the one announcing that Saigon had just fallen.
Excellent post. Thank you.
“I hope men don’t mind visiting a f medic in combat should they need their private parts examined.”
From Post 463, “Create a simple kit that allows women to self-test for urinary or vaginal infections without having to approach a company medic, often a man, about symptoms.”
One can say “back at ya” but that would be petty.
“the question posed tonight is already answered—yes, women may serve in combat duty—but that a correlative point has also been made, namely that anyone who disagrees with this position is backward, uncommitted to equal rights, something of a male chauvinist, a Tailhook type. And to the extent that he does not believe in gender equality, he or she is an undeveloped, metaphysical fetus. And of course, we all know what we do with unwelcome fetuses.”
“The first point is utilitarian: Given that combat duty exacts the most that the human body can deliver, does it make sense to admit to combat duty a gender whose members are physically weaker than males?
“The second point is sociological: In combat conditions, is it realistic to suppose that traditional deferences to sexual identity and derivative customs relating to privacy can simply be ignored? Isn’t it likelier that any such assumption is an invitation to distractions which in tight and anxious military situations could prove lethal?
“And finally, third, are we not, in suggesting that the male predisposition to protect the female should be ignored, sticking our meddling little fingers into the chemistry of biological relationships from which much that is concededly civilized issues? For instance, the call to protect the hearth, to honor the mother and care for the child, to shoulder that burden that corresponds with the incremental capacity of the male to carry greater physical burden, even as the woman bears so many burdens distinctive to her own sex? We plant our flag on a sound tradition, ladies and gentlemen, and warn our dogged adversaries that whatever sophistries they hurl up against it, that flag will continue, bruised but proud, to stand high over the madding crowd.”
William F. Buckley
http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=328
I encourage reading the entire debate at the link.
“I am not advocating social engineering. You are mistaken.”
But you are.
See Post 532, William F Buckley’s third point.
“Now take your testosterone laced idiocy and leave me alone you stupid stupid man.”
Wow. . .I called it. . . (Post 271).
Heck, that would be his second point.
Heck, Buckely’s entire argument covers it.
What I’ve learned from this thread: feminists are angry, perpetual victims who don’t like men.
I learned that decades before reading this thread. It does prove the point, though.
“when PC fantasies strike the reef of reality.”
Such as when 30% of women become pregnant, something men cannot do, when required to deploy to get out of service? Or when another 30% come up with “female problems” to also get out of deployment? Nothing like having 2/3rds of the troops unfit for deployment from the start.
Or this: A few days before we were to deploy for Operation Desert Shield, I was in the outer office of the brigade commander. Needed to discuss some logistics support issues for my Air Force team and I. A VERY pregnant female Army soldier was waiting to speak with the First Sergeant in the next office.
She was called into the First Sergeants office and began to make her case (loudly) that she wanted to deploy, that she would induce labor, have a c-section, whatever, just so she would not miss the deployment.
Gawd.
Something is not right when the mother thinks nothing of carving out her baby just so she could go to war.
Thing is, I’m sure there are many feminists in this world that would fully support her decision.
Needless to say, she did not deploy.
Hmmm. . .I wonder who was sent in her place. . .
Deployments can add points to promotions and fitness reports, so many people want them. There are not simply reserve troops in the closet waiting to be activated to deploy. If she didn’t go then in effect no one went. This is why our taxpayer dollars are wasted, we have females and males in non-combat positions getting training such as jump school such as to add to their promotion points. They don’t need the training for their job, they are simply military welfare recipients.
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.