How It Really Went Down in the First Class to Graduate Female Rangers

SOFREP ^ | 8/21/2015 | Rudy Mac

[pfflier]

My point too. It is a term so out of character with the image you would expect of a ranger. I would more expect to hear something like “f#^k ‘em”.

[dila813]

Having a female will be distracting and affect unit cohesion, doesn’t matter if they can do it.

I still believe that if females can do the job, then they should compete head to head with all male units.

This would solve the problem and finally illustrate if whether having female combat soldiers make sense

[T-Bird45]

Well-stated from an experienced perspective. It’s unfortunate your years of wisdom are being overlooked by those with a “fairness” agenda and they’re making it a career-ending choice to provide that kind of input.

[fr_freak]

..Rhonda Rousey could...take punches from any man.

No, she couldn't. Not even close.

[rlmorel]

As I said in a previous post, if physical capability is graphed on a curve, it will be some variant of a bell curve. I just created this graph below to illustrate the point, because I think it is easier to visualize rather than explain. I want to stress this is only one aspect of my objection, the simple, average physical capability disparity. I don't even mention the unit cohesion or logistical issues, which have been shown in fact to play out in the US Navy, which is "ahead" of the Army and USMC in this regrettable aspect.

If they are tested the same way as men, the curve will look different. Here is what I think it would look like (below) Note that there are assumptions I have made such as the placement of the graphs which I guessed at, but the following assumptions are codified by reputable, main stream medical studies that treatment and assessment can be based on (male vs female muscle mass (40%>torso, 33> greater lower extremities), male vs female bone structure (15%> in men, male vs female individual muscle strands (15% greater in men, and male vs female strength which is on average, 25-35% less for women when normalized for age and weight)

I just created this graph in Adobe Illustrator, and I readily admit I guessed at the placement of the curves, but in a population of normalized men and women where mens highest volume occurs at 50% on a uniform strength test between men and women, women are going to have their highest volume on the same strength test at 25% less than the men.

You will see that the women's curve stops at 75% of the max mens strength, which reality tells us is true. I don't care what physical specimen of a woman can be found somewhere, if you put her up against a prime athlete such as NFL players like JJ Watt or Rob Gronkowski, there will be no contest whatsoever. That is the reality.

So my objection to women in combat roles in the military is based on the red striping in the graph above. When the outcome of a battle or ultimately a war can come down to one person doing what is required, I believe we should ALWAYS be putting our armed forces into the absolute 100% best fact and statistically based advantage we can give them.

This has zero to do with respect or disrespect for women, and has everything to do with individual, unit, and overall capability of our armed forces.

[rlmorel]

See my post at 125.

This is one (the physical aspect) that I (and many others, both in and out of the military) base our opinions against this on. I am sure there are men who just “hate” women and believe they should be barefoot and in the kitchen, and even some of those on this thread.

This isn’t about respecting or disrespecting them. It is about seeing “A” and calling it “B”, knowing full well (or rationalizing to yourself) that it is NOT.

I wish we could stop with the idea of calling people “haters” and “unbelievers” as the author did, because they may (as I feel I do) have an opinion based on an understanding of biology, human behavior, and logistics.

I have said time and again that this battle is lost, because this foolishness is liberalism, which is a creeping cancer that is a one-way ratchet that never returns lost ground. If we don’t put an end to social experimentation and other foolishness in the combat units of our military, we are going to pay a price in blood, and that note will come due at the worst possible time.

[Eagles6]

I agree.

[Sequoyah101]

The retorts always come down to the pejorative.. racist, hating, sexist, homophobe whatever.

Fact is, I love women who want to be like women. Not bare foot and pregnant but Godly, strong and wise worthy of being placed on a pedestal in their rightful place.
Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

THIS is Strength, Honor and Courage:

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

A man would.. Should.. Must be compelled to do anything for such a woman. She will make him far greater than he could be alone and he will protect her as long as they both shall live. Some people just don’t get this.

[PROCON]

Thanks and I agree; the bottom line is women, physically, are the weak link in the Military.

[T-Bird45]

No argument here - your graph captures the situation for any who are willing to live in the real world.

[PLMerite]

“But she says the real test is when you have to keep passing that test, day after day, for months and years. “

I don’t know the rules, but I don’t think you ever have to re-qualify, and if these women aren’t assigned to The Regiment, they most likely never will have to perform as Rangers, at least not to that degree.

[Mr Rogers]

They won't. But because they wear Ranger tabs, most folks will assume they could handle being assigned to a Ranger regiment.

My daughter, in the Marines, noticed there was a big difference even for guys between passing a school and serving for years. I agree with her.

BTW - my 5'2" daughter bulked up to 140 lbs of muscle when she entered the Marines. After she married, she dropped down to 110...something about not wanting to spend so many hours in the gym and live on protein shakes. Her husband, however, maintained the fitness he needed in the infantry without spending 2-4 hours a day in the gym. Hmmmm....

[ZULU]

Absolutely agree with you.

[ZULU]

Absolutely agree with you.

[donna]

Is this in the Rangers’ future:

Minimum Height Rule for LAPD Officers Eliminated
February 19, 1997

The Los Angeles Police Commission on Tuesday abolished a
requirement that officers stand at least 5 feet tall to join the LAPD.

[Psalm 144]

‘2.) Referring to the females as “studs”. I cannot imagine why a man would refer to a woman as a stud in any description, even colloquial usage. Again, just to show how “equal” males and females are.’

The article reads like it was written by a peevish queen. Note the name for down the road. I strongly suspect the author is a Theban Sacred Band type. The site it comes from has whiffs of it too.

[Chode]

the only thing a 60" nothing can do in a confrontation is pull it's gun since it can't stand toe to toe to do it's JOB... wonderful

and wait for the first criminal to laugh at them, they'll get shot for sure

[usconservative]

From the article: They f*****g earned it. Every last thread of it.

As long as they earned it and the standards weren't lowered for them (they were not ....) then I agree with you. They earned it!

Good on these two women and good on the military for standing it's ground re: standards.

[rlmorel]

I had to look it up...ugh. I confess my grasp of that segment of history is not as deep.

I went to the site and poked around. It seemed to be bending over backwards to justify this move, and there was a link that said something like "Apocalypse due to female rangers fails to materialize".

This is precisely what I have referred to in other posts, to wit: "...And in the next 5-10 years, you will see pieces in the media talking about how wrong the naysayers were (as footage of women humping gear and walking through tall grass with ready weapons is shown in the background) and that the force being shown is so much the better for having added women. And you won't hear otherwise, except the ripping sound of purging taking place for the people who didn't stick their fingers in the air, and didn't go with the flow..."

This is a typical liberal approach that website apparently takes. Throw up a straw man, to tear it down. No thinking person has, or will say the Rangers, or any other elite military unit is going to collapse within days of females gaining admittance. Hence, no "apocalypse". But this type of rhetoric is their MO. We who oppose this are concerned that this incremental and corrosive approach to military operations is going to jump up and bite us in a war that might happen in five years, or twenty. When the disaster does happen, the tools and dies once used to craft the superb military we once had will be long gone, and we will have to learn to to rebuild them from scratch after humiliating and bloody defeats.

[rlmorel]

Not in the least surprised at that. And yes, that is eventually where it will go. And everything will be fine until we have our future Edson’s Ridge or Chosin.