Replies

So, let them attend Ranger School. They will fall out by your own admissions.

And how much would that cost? You don't seem to realize that training has a cost in time, resources, and money associated with it. Not to mention the males who may have passed that will not because they lost a slot to a woman who had no chance.

If one out of every 100,000 men under 6' tall could pass Ranger school, would you have a problem limiting Ranger school to 6' minimums? I wouldn't (and I'm under 6' tall). Because the cost of finding that one short guy who can will be waaaay more costly from weeding out the thousands who can't.

Besides, that really has nothing to do with it. Any society that allows its women to fight on the front lines when not faced with total destruction is a sick nation (morally, ethically, and spiritually). Period.

The standards are the standards. They should remain what they are. If the standard is 6’ then it should remain 6’. I have no problem with that. None. I cannot imagine a Soldier feeling slighted. The standard is the standard.

Now regarding your statement:

“Any society that allows its women to fight on the front lines when not faced with total destruction is a sick nation (morally, ethically, and spiritually). Period.”

1. Too bad you can't debate your logic with a pioneer woman or a released indentured servant. I think it would be a very interesting discussion. (Please, don't fall back on your caveat - unless faced with total destruction. Although, it would be nice to have a few women trained for that scenario, don't you think?)

2. What's wrong with a having a 6+’ American Soldier who is highly motivated, challenge loving, has the heart of a lion, the cunning of a fox, and can shoot like a Texan fight with you? Oh shit, that's right, she's a woman. (slapping hand on forehead)

“....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.”

We agree we cannot and will not erode the unique Ranger ethos and culture.

We agree the rigorous physical requirements must remain in place.

We agree that the core mission of cultivating leaders willing to sacrifice everything for our nation must remain.

Am I correct in this?

“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.”

We have to assume the stats stated above are correct. This means out of the tens of thousands of American Soldiers available in the pool, only 4,000 Soldiers are eligible to participate at the Ranger School.

We agree on that, correct?

The only thing we are quibbling about is f vs m. Am I correct?

Now, I am only saying if an f Soldier can do what her fellow eligible m Soldier can do let her attend. If she cannot then she may not and can not attend the Ranger School. To make sure we understand each other. This imaginary f Soldier has to do everything as well or better than her eligible fellow m Soldier. Again the standards are the same and have not changed from today's standards. If the f Soldier's genitalia get in the way of her successfully completing any of her tasks she is OUT.

Now, I have seen posts stating that this imaginary f Soldier is taking a slot from an m Soldier. OK, assuming that not many f Soldiers are willing/capable to put up with Ranger School, allow an m Soldier as backup to replace this Amazon Annie should she fail.

Gentlemen, please debate the points not the genitalia. : )