Army women are not currently allowed to serve in frontline squads, platoons or rifle companies. But they can serve on battalion staffs: groups of 10 to 15 headquarters personnel who coordinate the actions of the smaller units in the organization. These roles do not involve small-unit combat leadership, tactics or direct combat—core aspects of the infantry mission. Ranger School develops those men best suited for precisely this infantry mission.
"Ninety-percent of our senior [infantry] officers are Ranger qualified," Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno recently said. "If we determine that we're going to allow women to go into infantry and be successful, they're probably at some time going to have to go to Ranger School."...
The Ranger ethos is designed to be deadly serious yet self-deprecating, focused entirely on teamwork and mission accomplishment.... The notion of allowing women into Ranger School because denying them the experience would harm their careers makes Ranger graduates cringe. Such politically correct thinking is the ultimate expression of the "me" culture, and it jeopardizes core Ranger ideals.
१३ जून, २०१२
"Ranger School isn't about improving the career prospects of individual candidates."
Says Stephen Kilcullen who opposes letting in women.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४२ टिप्पण्या:
Let them in if they qualify on the same grounds as men. If not don't. No shorter courses. No lighter weights. No slower times.
Why don't we just go ahead and pin a general's star on every woman who joins the Army?
Second star after 6 months good behavior.
The purpose of the United States military is to kill people and break things. Will allowing women in the Rangers help or hinder this mission?
There is absolutely no way women could be including in Ranger training without negatively affecting that of the men. The ONLY way it could POSSIBLY be done is what they have always done and segregate the sexes, sending the women through in groups of women only. And, if they're only doing it to "punch their ticket" then it's a gross misapplication of DoD resources.
Ranger training is one of the toughest schools in the entire military. You get little food, and less sleep over the course of a couple months of constant, tactical movement with full loads of gear. It is physically punishing unlike just about anything else.
There are a ton of MOS' that allow women to serve honorably and ably, most in fact. There are good reasons why front-line infantry combat is not one of them.
@Harsh Pencil,
Not sure if you'll like the answer or not, but the answer is clearly: hinder.
That's a strange article. He goes on and on quite reasonably about how Ranger school is not a right, but a privilege, not a "me" thing but a way to get the best army we can.
But he never says why women should not be allowed in Ranger school. The unwritten implication is, of course, that no woman could possibly qualify. If that's what Kilcullen believes, he should be as bold as the Rangers he admires, and simply say so.
The dropout rate...among men...has always been roughly 50% and that's usually in the first seven days (Ranger Assessment Program, if memory serves).
So...50% of the men in the infantry that attempt to "punch their ticket" fail.
Its a catch-22. The fast-track for officer promotion is through the Victor units.
I'm fine with it on two conditions:
1) no lowering of standards. Yes, women have 10% less hemoglobin and bone density, and 10% more body fat. Too bad.
2) Segregation. Introduce women into a male combat unit, and the males stop working together as a "wolfpack" and start competing with each other for the women's attention. Keep the sexes separate.
I wonder if any woman not doing steroids could complete the Ranger training using the same criteria as men. If they can't, forgetta about it!
"Keep the sexes separate."
I'm all for sending companies of Amazons to kill our enemies.
Where's Wonder Woman when you need her?
Women have been spoiled their whole lives and they have to screw up everything for men. They get to have their exclusive clubs but men aren't allowed.
General Odierno wasn't being completely honest. No active duty military man can say what they all know to be true but cannot say because of the political correctness (can you say Major Hasan) that would end their careers. Go to the link below and read one of the best, most concise and honest pieces I've read on the physical differences between men and women. Then, google the phrase "exercise physiology." The data is all there and is incontrovertible. Bottom line: it's physical.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/WomenInCombat.shtml
Affirmative action.
Why not? It worked great for choosing a President.
My guess is they'll make a Ranger-Lite for women, much as it's unlikely the program would would survive failing 99% of them, which is likely. Why aren't there any women in pro football, for example? Nature cannot be faked.
It's part of the nation's self-defense.
What could possibly go wrong?
This will surprise some, but I'm with Fen, sort of. I'm all for women being allowed to join the Rangers, so long as the standards aren't lowered.
I don't think sex separation is necessary. How about a rule: You engage in a relationship, and you're gone -- both male and female.
It's not about the people. It's about defending the country. Any decisions should flow from that principle.
Didn't Demi Moore already go through ranger training and prove women could do it?
I don't think sex separation is necessary. How about a rule: You engage in a relationship, and you're gone -- both male and female.
Sorry no. By the time you discover they are in a relationship, its too late.
And the consequence is not simply someone's hurt feelings, its dead Rangers.
There is no woman on this planet that can complete ranger school. If there is, then the Rangers should be embarrassed and make it harder. By definition, it is too hard for any woman.
"Didn't Demi Moore already go through ranger training and prove women could do it?"
That was the SEALS, which is arguably even harder to get into.
Madman
How about a rule: You engage in a relationship, and you're gone -- both male and female.
Engaging in a relationship has nothing to do with it. We're talking about the very real group dynamics, not individual relationships.
Yes, count me in too. No lowering of standards, period. You run X miles, you demonstrate you can carry X pounds effectively for X distance, can handle the water courses to whatever standard exists, can handle the sleep deprivation, and manage to not simply be able to lead soldiers, but lead them well.
In short, keep the requirements at the "Outstanding" level. Whoever passes, passes. Whoever washes out, fails. And whether it's a guy or a gal who meets or fails to meet those standards is not predetermined; it is established on the training grounds.
At the same time, it must be accepted by advoates that there almost certainly will be a disparity in the number of women vs. men if such a thing happens. And as long as the Army can point at the standards and say "That's the bar, that's who passed, that's who failed, no discriminations or special allowences were made", then the disparity will be all right. As long as the standard is applied and the opportunity is fair, people will live with uneven numbers. The only thing that'll matter is that the standard was fairly applied.
There is a reason women should not be police officers, fire fighters, or soldiers. That is statistically, the number of women with the ability to match men in sheer physical strength approaches zero. I've known women who were physically strong, and at my age andpoor shape I could easily best them in strength contests. It is biology, it is not bigotry.(I would easily loose an race to the women I mentioned).
Here's a dirty little secret the LEO's don't let out...the reason there has been an increase in multiple cops beating on single suspects is because of having to train for allowing women to pursue police careers. Instead of the trainers showing how 1 cop that stands 6' 6" how to subdue an equal sized opponent, they have to teach gang fighting techniques to allow several 5' 6" women subdue an opponent thats a foot taller and 100 lbs heavier than they are. AND, it would be bigotted to train each one seperately so we see videos of 6' 6" cops mobbing a 6' 0" opponent.(I'll take heat for this, but I got family in law enforcement, and it's the truth)
I got no problem with women in support roles, and specialties that don't require actually having to face opponents 1 on 1. As long as they understand that the enemies America fights don't really believe in equal rights for women, and if they get captured... well...don't get captured.
From my experience, its the 10% less bone density that gets the best women. Stress fractures are a bitch. And in the infantry, will get you a medical discharge.
"Here's a dirty little secret the LEO's don't let out...the reason there has been an increase in multiple cops beating on single suspects is because of having to train for allowing women to pursue police careers. Instead of the trainers showing how 1 cop that stands 6' 6" how to subdue an equal sized opponent, they have to teach gang fighting techniques to allow several 5' 6" women subdue an opponent thats a foot taller and 100 lbs heavier than they are. AND, it would be bigotted to train each one seperately so we see videos of 6' 6" cops mobbing a 6' 0" opponent.(I'll take heat for this, but I got family in law enforcement, and it's the truth)"
Funny. 28 years as a LEO and no one ever shared this secret with me.
Not all male police officers are 6'6" and that's not likely to happen, well, ever.
As to a smaller officer (male or female)taking on a larger subject or subjects, well, that's what pepper spray, tazers, batons, and backup are for. And, if the difference is significant enough, and the facts articulated well-enough concerning the use of deadly force, your firearm is for.
Women actually make good police officers, having a natural talent at deescalation that many male officers do not possess. They also can make good firefighters assuming they can physically manage the rigors of that career.
They aslo serve admirably in many careers in the military, front line infantry being the exception.
I am an infantry officer with 20 years of service. I served in combat, and wear the Combat Infantryman's Badge. I've served with fantastic women, too, in noncombat arms units I've been in. I've served with women attached to infantry units as truck drivers, medics, engineers, admin clerks, and the like. Absolutely fantastic soldiers.
I'm telling you, based on 20 years' experience, not a damn one of the women I served with belongs in Ranger School. Trying to turn Ranger School into a co-ed experience is absolute, PC, total fucking garbage.
I cannot overstate that case enough. Ranger School is an extremely physically challenging course. 2-mile run times of sub-13 minutes is routine among students reporting in, and nearly unheard of among young women in the Army, other than college track stars.
Further, combat loads of 90 to 120 pounds of gear, through tremendously challenging terrain, (mountain phase, swamp phase), is also routine. A fit young woman may weigh 110-130 pounds. There is no soldier alive that can be expected to hump 80 percent of his or her body weight. And they don't make rifles, mortar base plates, ammunition, radios and batteries in mini-sizes for women.
There have been many studies, going back to S.L.A. Marshall and before, analyzing combat loads and soldier capacities.
Add to that the smaller lung capacity of females (VO^2 capacity at that level of performance ain't just an exercise science theory!), and the different hip and pelvic structure women have, and it's hopeless. Utter stupidity, without radically changing the course.
It happened with Airborne School. A couple of generations ago, students at the Basic Airborne Course were expected to run 7:30 miles at a minimum. Now, we refer to a 10 minute pace as an "Airborne Shuffle." They put women at the head of the column on Airborne Runs to keep the pace down. And these are not average women in the Army, but a select group of volunteers for Airborne School and duty.
Verily I say unto you... unless the Ranger School curriculum is radically changed (probably to something similar to precommissioning training we already have!), we will see life-threatening cases of heat exhaustion and heat stroke on nearly every cycle, and many, many potentally career-ending hip and pelvic injuries among women trying to keep up.
I don't care how tough and determined these women are, you cannot "suck it up and drive on" through a cracked pelvic bone. And I don't want them to try. These are fantastic soldiers, and we need them. Elsewhere in the Army.
First, Ranger School slots are allocated by combat MOS and unit assignment, so 99% or MEN in the Army do not get the chance to attend Ranger School, and a discrimination argument is a stretch.
But beyond that, I'd say let women compete for entrance based on the same exact physical criteria as men once their allowed into the jobs that are eligible. Ranger School is combat simulation, so no exceptions to physical testing, sleeping in the same foxhole, stripping down to cross a river, or carrying a hundred pound ruck of gear and ammo. Just add one more piece of combat realism: no gender discrimination lawsuits. If a woman can hack it, great. If a male candidate lets a woman distract him from his tasks and he flunks out, or volunteers to carry her pack until he collapses, so be it. Ranger School (and I assume, the Q Course and SEAL training) are the ultimate merit only, no excuses, mental toughness, combat leader development programs. Meet the standard or don't. As perhaps the only Ranger Qualified commenter here, I'd opine that Rangers aren't scared to let women compete, but are very scared that standards won't be upheld.
Minor FACT. Only women who are Olympic athletes at the very top of the upper quintile of physical strength for women are equal to the lowest quintile for men.
Minor FACT. There is not a SINGLE STUDY EXTANT which proves that women, taken as a whole, add ANYTHING to the combat effectiveness of the armed forces. Rather, EVERY SINGLE ONE EVER CONDUCTED suggests a degradation in combat effectiveness from 5-20% (depending on study) due to both physical and sociocultural factors. (morale, unit cohesion, retention of most capable males due to both personal and spousal dissatisfaction, etc.)
This is PC run amok..
What Jason said.
What I'd like to see is this:
Every feminist who is pushing this, sponsor a female candidate for Ranger School.
If she fails, we shoot you dead.
Put your own life on the line for your PCBS, not ours.
@TWM
"Didn't Demi Moore already go through ranger training and prove women could do it?"
That was the SEALS, which is arguably even harder to get into.
That was a movie. If your response was intended to indicate awareness of the irony, it missed the mark.
Ok, it's time for the ol'sarge to way in. My creds? a tour in combat, time as a Drill, married to a female officer. Nope, no Ranger school. I was a Tanker as an officer...
1. women can be excellent combat pilots, though the size requirements in high perf jets are an issue. (height and forearm length mostly). That and diapers...
2. It's all about force effectiveness. Not female officer ticket punching, which is what the "women in combat" amounts to. Opening Ground combat (Inf, Armor, Artillery, Combat Engr) to women makes the military less effectve, not more. end of story.
3. It's about physical capability. Do you civilians understand that it takes an exceptionally fit infantryman to complete Ranger school? and an exceptionally fit soldier to be an infantryman, and that, at any age bracket, the failing grade on the PT test for men is the max score for women?
4. Do you understand that it's about carrying 60 pounds for 20 hours in 100 degree temps through the swamp?
5. It's about raw numbers. Let's take a swag here. 500000 in the active army. 15% female so that is 75k. 1 in a hundred is physically able (I think it's one in 1000, but will give feminists the benefits). so that is 750 females physically able. Now say 1 in 10 what to give up their current careers and play in the mud. We're down to 75. Ok, the actual TOE units amount to less than half the Army, so let's say that 40 are available in troop units at any given time... Now the Army has 45 Brigades. 1 each of those female grunts in each Brigade of 4,000 troops? Big impact there. Maybe instead, 1 Platoon of 40, in 1 company, of one battalion, of one Brigade, in one division in the whole f'ing Army? Big impact there.
so back to the basic question:
Does making grunts out of women, help or hurt force effectiveness?
"That was a movie. If your response was intended to indicate awareness of the irony, it missed the mark."
Really? It was a MOVIE? You mean Demi Moore really made the SEALS? Get out of here. Next you'll be telling me her boobs are real.
As to what your remark indicates I've no clue past you're the kind of guy who feels the need comment on stuff that should be so fricken obvious it doesn't take any measurable sense of awareness that I was simply pointing out that the movie was about the SEALS, not the Rangers and how it would be even more difficult - actually impossible - for a woman to complete their training.
Sigh . . .
"Ok, it's time for the ol'sarge to way in. My creds? a tour in combat, time as a Drill, married to a female officer. Nope, no Ranger school. I was a Tanker as an officer..."
What about women driving tanks? I would think they would be great at that what with not having to worry about denting them.
Oh c'mon, Nancy just wants to get to the top on Pointe Du Hoc.
I saw this 'same' solution in the VN war, only 'sex equality' was not the basis as only males were involved. In order to get your ticket 'punched' for promotion above LT COL you needed to command a battalion. Solution, give EVERY LT COL in the army command of a battalion. Too many LT COL's not enough battlions? Then assign EVERY LT COL to a 6 month command of a battalion. Didn't matter if the LT COL was good, bad or indifferent to the job. In 6 months, in a war, a LT COL may be able to find the latrine but know NOTHING of the enemy, tactics or his own troops. Didn't matter--he got his promotion box checked--that's 'fair' right? 4 years of watching this cluster fuck in VN taught me the sociology or large organizations. I'm writing a 'family lore' letter to send to my siblings where our italian and polish ancestors sailed with Columbus, one taking a black slave woman as pay, the other a squaw in pay. Thus I got the whole family covered--we're 1/362nd native-american and 1/634th african-american.
In the article, it said 99% of Infantry officers who make general go through Ranger School.
Somebody correct me, but I thought women weren't allowed to go Infantry (or Armor, Cavalry, or Artillery).
This is about making nice with Senator Ma'am so she won't cut the appropriation.
TWM said...
Didn't Demi Moore already go through ranger training and prove women could do it?
That was the SEALS, which is arguably even harder to get into.
Actually, even SEAL Team guys, after they get their Budweiser, go to Ranger School.
"3. It's about physical capability. Do you civilians understand that it takes an exceptionally fit infantryman to complete Ranger school? and an exceptionally fit soldier to be an infantryman, and that, at any age bracket, the failing grade on the PT test for men is the max score for women?
4. Do you understand that it's about carrying 60 pounds for 20 hours in 100 degree temps through the swamp?"
That's why I went Air Force.
TWM said...
That's why I went Air Force.
Which is why the Army and Marines don't cosnider that Air Force to be a military service
j/k
[cough]
edutcher said: "Actually, even SEAL Team guys, after they get their Budweiser, go to Ranger School."
Yeah, but one told me it was like a Hawaiian holiday after BUD/S.
I kid. Seriously, I do.
Drill Sgt said:
"Which is why the Army and Marines don't cosnider that Air Force to be a military service
j/k"
Hey, not so fast. I've played some really difficult golf courses during my career. We all have our burdens . . .
Agreed with most of you that the value of introducing gender diversity into elite special forces does not outweigh the value of maintaining the current effectiveness of the unit.
However, to the person who has an issue with female cops: sorry dude, but if an advanced level of physical fitness were a requirement for the job, my city wouldn't have a force full of 5'8" fifty-year-olds with beer guts. Few cops are expected or encouraged to engage in lone wrestling matches with gigantic suspects, so the physical capability to do so is less a requirement for the job than you are suggesting.
TWM said...
"Ok, it's time for the ol'sarge to way in. My creds? a tour in combat, time as a Drill, married to a female officer. Nope, no Ranger school. I was a Tanker as an officer..."
What about women driving tanks? I would think they would be great at that what with not having to worry about denting them.
6/13/12 9:37 AM
If you drive a Tank you still need ot be able to sling ammo as a loader and repair treds. You do not just do one job. A crew has to be abble to do all the jobs in a tank. Artillery the same. Those two jobs are the real heeavy lifters. Infanty are the heavy carriers. When I went into Panama in 1989 I had over 100lbs in my ruck. a buttpack with essentials PLUS a 60mm mortar round...add to that a main parachute and a reserve.
a Hardship post in the USAF is one with only 2 golf courses.
TWM said...
What about women driving tanks? I would think they would be great at that what with not having to worry about denting them.
The problem is that everything on a tank weighs at least 100 pounds. Except of course the ammo. Those weigh 50 pounds each once you get them out of the packing. The crew need to be able to jerk and press a 50 pound load 40 times to reload.
That's why I went Air Force.
Most of my family are Ranger qualified. Most have also done time in SF and/or Delta (sshhh). This is what I was going to do as well, until I realized I was red/green deficient.
Wanting to join the military, but not wanting to put up with all the Army/Marine crap without getting a chance to shoot at something, I chose the AF as well.
Say what you want, but if you're in a non-combat arms job, you WANT to be in the AF. Better everything.
"Somebody correct me, but I thought women weren't allowed to go Infantry (or Armor, Cavalry, or Artillery)."
They aren't. But the whole concept of "front line" is very murky now. Women serve in Army units that,while technically support, often put them in harms's way and require some of the same skill sets as combat units. The difference as I see it is being prepared to defend yourself and others if attacked versus taking the fight to the enemy on a day in/day out basis. Women, if properly trained and physically fit, can do the former, but not the latter. At least not without degrading mission effectiveness and unit cohesiveness.
Then again, what do I know. I'm just a zoomie.
frank said...
I saw this 'same' solution in the VN war, only 'sex equality' was not the basis as only males were involved. In order to get your ticket 'punched' for promotion above LT COL you needed to command a battalion.
Frank, after he retired, I had the wonderful opportunity to work with General DePuy, who while commanding the !st ID in Nam, had a reputation of relieving poor Bn Cdrs. It came from his experience in Normandy as a CPT. He felt that BN Cdrs could either perform on day one or get out. They could not be allowed to train with GI lives.
The biggest problem with this is that the idea cannot be debated on its merits.
"The problem is that everything on a tank weighs at least 100 pounds. Except of course the ammo. Those weigh 50 pounds each once you get them out of the packing. The crew need to be able to jerk and press a 50 pound load 40 times to reload."
I know. I was joking. Except for them not denting the tanks. That is certainly a plus.
TWM said...I see it is being prepared to defend yourself and others if attacked versus taking the fight to the enemy on a day in/day out basis. Women, if properly trained and physically fit, can do the former, but not the latter. At least not without degrading mission effectiveness and unit cohesiveness.
That is the difference between being a female MP, valiantly defending your convoy from within 30 feet of your hummer and unloading the hummer into 100 pound loads and heading uphill for a 3 day stroll as a light grunt.
"Say what you want, but if you're in a non-combat arms job, you WANT to be in the AF. Better everything."
I went AF because my uncle was AF and pushed me to join by talking up the quality of life and the technical skills I would learn. He was a CMSgt with SAC in the 60s and 70s and he was so very jazzed about that mission.
I went OTS, then AF Security Police, and then AFOSI.
From Army site:
.............
To be competitive in any of these physical tests, the future Ranger students must not strive for the minimum standards above, but must maximize their personal physical effort and strive for the following:
- Pushups - 80-100
- Situps - 80-100
- Chin ups - 15-20
- 2 mile run - under 13:00
However, the most important pre-training exercise to do prior to Ranger school is walking fast in your boots with 50 pounds of weight on your back. You will do this everyday you are at Ranger School. Running at least 5 miles, 3-4 times a week and swimming in uniform 2-3 times a week is recommended as well. Pack on 5-10 pounds of body weight prior to going so you have a little to lose when you are consuming fewer calories a day.
TWM said...
Somebody correct me, but I thought women weren't allowed to go Infantry (or Armor, Cavalry, or Artillery).
They aren't. But the whole concept of "front line" is very murky now. Women serve in Army units that,while technically support, often put them in harms's way and require some of the same skill sets as combat units.
That I understand.
We've seen that from 'Nam onward (technically, from Bataan and Corregidor), but I was only making the point that this idea was contingent on women being promoted on the Infantry list and seemed to me an exercise in futility unless women are allowed in combat arms.
Which is another post.
When I was in the Canadian Army, women had been allowed to serve in any role they wanted (except subs) for about a decade already. We had a very few in the Engineers, and there were a few in Armour and Arty. There were a couple in Reserve Infantry units (they never lasted) and none in the Regular Infantry, never mind the Airborne Companies.
I'd note that the Armour branch was most happy to have women - they made good gunners and drivers (not so much loaders), they took up less space in the crowded tank or recce vehicle and they tended to have good observation skills. That said, they didn't want more than one per crew because they weren't strong enough for most maintenance tasks, especially tasks involving the tracks.
In the Engineers, women were quite good at a lot of our tasks, and a more delicate touch is appreciated when dealing with blasting caps and other things that go boom, but when it came to bridging, whether MGB or Bailey, most of the women were nothing but a liability. Think Lego weighing between 400 and 800lb per piece - generally that's 100lb per person - so imagine spending a full day or more carrying 100lb loads at every position from a crouch to pressed above your head.
On the topic of Cops and Firemen, two points:
1. Women can make great cops. They do well, better than men in many situations that call for conflict resolution, etc, BUT. They have fewer options on the force continum. Talk, talk, pull a gun. A man always had the option of pulling out the baton and slapping it into his palm a couple of times. Women don't intimidate the same way.
2. Firefighters. long ago, feminists made the departments stop using those PT tests that involved running up stairs carrying 50 feet of hose line. Wasn't fair, wasn't a job requirement they said. But when 9/11 came around it was 300 fire MEN, who strapped on airtanks, shouldered hoselines and went up the stairs of the towers to their deaths... There may have been female firefighters on the scene, but every death in the FDNY that day was a man. A Fireman
I went AF because my uncle was AF and pushed me to join by talking up the quality of life and the technical skills I would learn.
I went AF because my future self came back and said, "Go Air Force. You'll get stationed on the beach in FL, you'll live in the newest dorm in the entire Air Force, your suitemate will be a female firefighter with hot AF girlfriends, and you'll never, ever, have to do formation PT.
"I went AF because my future self came back and said, "Go Air Force. You'll get stationed on the beach in FL, you'll live in the newest dorm in the entire Air Force, your suitemate will be a female firefighter with hot AF girlfriends, and you'll never, ever, have to do formation PT."
My beach was Myrtle Beach AFB, SC. After that Germany, Korea, the Philippines and DC. And one of the hot AF girlfriends became my wife.
And one of the hot AF girlfriends became my wife.
Ouch. So you both have ridiculously-looking Lackland pictures in common.
"Ouch. So you both have ridiculously-looking Lackland pictures in common."
I think so. I met her at Little Rock AFB (forgot about that one, along with Lackland x 2) so I've never seen hers. She probably burned it.
As long as they can keep up with the Ranger standard, work load,..., and promise not to whine or sue for harassment, why not?
Ranger school is roughly 60 days long. That's two full months, girls. What do you suppose will happen roughly twice in that time period?
edutcher said...
That was the SEALS, which is arguably even harder to get into.
or at least way harder to pass.
BUDS has to be the toughest of the courses the military offers from one angle. It produces graduates who are NOT.CAPABLE.OF.QUITTING.
My SF friends say that SEALS aren't as smart, don't have the language, cultural, or tactical skills of the SF, but they never quit.
As for the suffering quotient for women. SEAL training is more physical, more group physical, more food, more sleep, cleaner sheets, and more pain.
I can't get the picture out of my head, of 5 guys running down the beach carring their log and the gal tryig to jump up to touch it once in a while :)
Scott M:
So how often do Ranger candidates get to stop on patrol to take care of hygiene and personal business? toxic shock anyone?
The second go around they may be too malnourished and exhausted for anything to happen.
elkh1 said...
As long as they can keep up with the Ranger standard, work load,..., and promise not to whine or sue for harassment, why not?
because knowing today's Army, it means lowering the standards to get the desired PC outcome
@Michael
Let them in if they qualify on the same grounds as men. If not don't. No shorter courses. No lighter weights. No slower times.
No. Still don’t let them in. Women negatively affect group dynamics in infantry units. I wouldn’t let women be fighter pilots either, for similar reasons.
@Scott
And, if they're only doing it to "punch their ticket" then it's a gross misapplication of DoD resources.
Completely agree.
They will have to lower the standards or be accused of sexism. Ranger school is brutal. Women at West Point get A's on Physical Fitness tests with scores which would be D's for men. It will be the same if women are allowed to go to Ranger School. The tab will no longer mean what it always has.
Letting women on submarines was a huge mistake. It should be reversed.
Yes, count me in too. No lowering of standards, period. You run X miles, you demonstrate you can carry X pounds effectively for X distance, can handle the water courses to whatever standard exists, can handle the sleep deprivation, and manage to not simply be able to lead soldiers, but lead them well.
In short, keep the requirements at the "Outstanding" level. Whoever passes, passes. Whoever washes out, fails. And whether it's a guy or a gal who meets or fails to meet those standards is not predetermined; it is established on the training grounds.
NO!!!
Just tell the feminists Hell No.
Aside from women being far weaker and less tough than men, they will mess up the group dynamics of ranger combat units something fierce.
So how often do Ranger candidates get to stop on patrol to take care of hygiene and personal business? toxic shock anyone?
When your platoon stops and sets up a perimeter, the PL designates the percentage of the platoon that's supposed to be on watch. 50/50, 80/20, etc. Those not on watch take care of the personal stuff...but that usually just means grabbing a very quick bite and sleeping in place.
YMMV, but that was what I directly observed as an OPFOR.
All of this back and forth aside, if a person is not able, by Army regulations, to be assigned to a Ranger battalion, said person should not be considered for Ranger school.
You know another job that is terribly unfair? NFL coaches. Most of them have played football before, so many in fact that it's a defacto requirement that NFL coaches have played college or pro ball in the past.
From now on, we should allow women to be line backers or else they'll never be coaches. There's no physical reason why a woman can't coach football and this career trajectory stunts their potential.
If I were a Ranger, I would cringe at the thought that I was being commanded operationally by a woman in just the same way that a football team should cringe that their head coach was a woman. In both cases they cannot be trusted to really understand how to do their job.
Paraphrasing someone elsewhere on another thread, the first flat tire or spider sighting would bring Ranger School to a complete halt.
Letting women on submarines was a huge mistake.
That's because submarines are full of seamen.
How about this:
Everybody knows that east asian men are much smaller than the average men and would never be able to reach the top 1% who make it into the Ranger program, so we shouldn't let east asian men try. After all, what are they missing out on? The benefit to their career? Boo hoo. This is about military readiness and those little boys can't hack it.
How is that any different?
Doug1. I agree because I do not believe a single female could qualify. If the guidelines are not relaxed not one female could pass.
How is that any different?
Because you don't know what you're talking about.
I know a physician whose father was a Nazi soldier who survived the Battle of Monte Cassino. Googled the battle and found a documentary about it, consisting of interviews with snipers the Red Army had deployed to thin the ranks of the Nazis holed up in a mountaintop monastery. Apparently the Soviet experience was that women made much better snipers than men..
Iron my shirts. Make me a sandwich.
Iron my shirts. Make me a sandwich.
In Ranger School, it would simply be sit still so I can lean on you and go to sleep, or, keep your boot through my web gear so I don't fall asleep and fall in while we paddle this boat down the river.
Craig,
Yes - the Red Army snipers were a huge factor at Monte Cassino.
Women have functioned as snipers in WWII in Russia.
Snipers are not Rangers, though Rangers are occasionally snipers. Don't confuse the two, nor confuse the circumstances under which they accomplish their missions.
Apparently the Soviet experience was that women made much better snipers than men..
Monte Cassino was in Italy, no Red Army units there. The USSR pressed women into combat service (snipers, pilots[two of whom qualified as aces]) mostly due to horrendous losses early in the war, but Russian women had been active in the military (including all female police and support units) since the October Revolution.
exhelodrvr... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I had totally glossed over the Monte Cassino bit! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Craig said...
I know a physician whose father was a Nazi soldier who survived the Battle of Monte Cassino. Googled the battle and found a documentary about it, consisting of interviews with snipers the Red Army had deployed to thin the ranks of the Nazis holed up in a mountaintop monastery. Apparently the Soviet experience was that women made much better snipers than men..
So much crap, I don't know where to start.
You know that Cassino was on the Italian front? And the Russians weren't?
and that snipers are mostly a defensive solution that the Germans would have used while the Allies came up the hill?
Now Stalingrad maybe.
As for female snipers, sure. The Russians used them effectively. Like being fighter pilots. Lots of hand eye coord, less testosterone, etc.
But sniping from the top of a mountain is not the same as saying follow me to a bunch of rangers and carhing up a mountain, carrying the world on your back. Or picking up your wounded ranger buddy and carrying him down the hill.
sniping isnt the issue. Carrying a 100 lb ruck, or a 200 lbs buddy is
And as long as the Army can point at the standards and say "That's the bar, that's who passed, that's who failed, no discriminations or special allowences were made", then the disparity will be all right"
It's a good theory but in practice this won't work. We have an industry whose sole purpose is to corrupt standards to benefit women. Two years after we adopt the standard you recommend the program will change. Regular training used to require candidates to carry a certain weight (standing in for a standard warfigher) to safety. Far fewer women than men could manage it, so it was replaced with map reading. The same thing will happen in Rangers once you let the gender advocates in. More slowly perhaps.
Simple - only let men in the Rangers who won't let the presence of women have any negative impact on their warfighting abilities. Problem solved.
Who "negatively affects group dynamics?" Women?...or men because a woman is there?
In a combat unit where real lives are on the line, is there a difference? It's the outcome that's in question.
always fired up--
Everybody knows that east asian men are much smaller than the average men and would never be able to reach the top 1% who make it into the Ranger program, so we shouldn't let east asian men try. After all, what are they missing out on? The benefit to their career? Boo hoo. This is about military readiness and those little boys can't hack it.
How is that any different?
There isn’t intense political pressure to lower the physical standards for East Asians in the US military so they aren’t. They are, massively for women. As well E. Asian men aren’t nearly as much weaker than white males as females are compared to males, and E. Asian men are probably just as tough as white men are on average. As well I’d guess there are a good lot fewer E. Asians in the US military than there are women.
As far as E.Asians e.g. the Japanese or Vietnamese operating within their own national armies in WWII and the Vietnam war go, yeah they probably couldn't carry as heavy packs as American soldiers could, though not as much lighter as US females could deal with, but then their whole army was arranged around what they could do. Maybe took larger numbers to carry the ammo and shells. Had more spartan food, cooking and sleeping provisions, etc. Doesn't work well when you have a small minority that just aren't nearly as capable but you have to for PC reasons pretend they are.
Further women just aren't as aggresive as men are on average. They aren't as physically retributive. They don't take satisfaction in killing their enemies as much. They're more inclined to flee rather than stand their ground and fight to prevail. Different emotional balance.
As well there is the very important factor of how women affect the group dynamic in combat roles in the military. There’s a natural tendency for most men to want to protect the woman in their squad more than other males, and in fact to compete to do that, which messes up the mutual buddy but got to be tough and competent and pull your weight (if male) to be worth it dynamic in combat units. Males tend to apply none of that to females esp. if cute but even if not so much so, and scarcity makes mediocre cute.
As well according to an infantry officer writing at the Spearhead on a similar topic, he said that women in the military are a much bigger logistical tail than men do, and have a lot more health issues. They sound in fact net negatives in any forward operating area for the most part. Not just less effective than men but detracting from unit strength.
The Battle of Monte Cassino was in Italy near Rome. The Red Army was never anywhere near there.
But yes the Red Army did employ many women as snipers.
Simple - only let men in the Rangers who won't let the presence of women have any negative impact on their warfighting abilities. Problem solved.
That would cut out most of the best and most effective men, if not all of them.
A horribly inefficient "solution".
No, just tell rad feminists (and I'd guess it's mostly man disdaining lesbian ones the the US military officer corp who are pushing hard for this) to pound sand.
As in no. No dice.
The Battle of Monte Cassino was in Italy near Rome. The Red Army was never anywhere near there.
But yes the Red Army did employ many women as snipers.
I was about to say about the same things.
Some women do seem to make more or less equally good snipers. Few women want to be that though. Snipers operate in teams of two, at least US and Brit ones do, but I'd guess most do. Shooter and spotter/defense.
This whole push into the Rangers and other combat roles is by heavily lesbian rad feminist military officers to reach higher military rank, through affirmative action type reasoning.
Women simply aren't worth as much in the military, and mess it up. They can do certain jobs like nurse and office worker fine, but no they can't do line command jobs as well when they don't have front line lower level command experience and empathy for the men they are potentially sending to their death.
As far as I'm concerned letting women into the military at all is iffy, but moving to affirmative action them into elite front line combat units like the Rangers just so they can get promoted further in the military is absolutely repugnant.
@ alwaysfiredup
"Everybody knows that east asian men are much smaller than the average men and would never be able to reach the top 1% who make it into the Ranger program, so we shouldn't let east asian men try. After all, what are they missing out on? The benefit to their career? Boo hoo. This is about military readiness and those little boys can't hack it."
1. I was born in Korea, joined USMC and at that age (17) I was 5' 9", 190lbs and could bench press 400lbs, leg press 1,000lbs and ran 5-9 miles every morning.
You might want to keep that in mind when talking about "east asian men".
2. I invite you to discuss the ROK (Republic of Korea) Marines.
3. Frankly one of the toughest Marines I served with was a Puerto Rican guy named Vasquez who was exactly 5' tall. Muscle density was so high he couldn't swim and sank right to the bottom of the pool every time.
Leslyn--
2. You're about 20 years behind the times, buddy. The world has moved on.
No, you're behind the times. The push back against radical feminism and it's lies is on and growing rapidly.
I still think it is a terrible idea, but if they must let women into Ranger School, then they should be run though in all-female classes:
1) No distractions for the men (or women) from sexual BS.
2) Preserve group dynamics.
3) Ensure that women are not sponging or cheating off the men - i.e. making sure they get their chance to carry the GPMG, etc.
4) When the standards are lowered for the women, as they inevitably will be, it won't corrupt the training for the men.
"Still, any good cop's best weapon is the ability to de-escalate a situation."
We can already see the path gender advocates will take to redefine Ranger training so more women can pass.
Leslyn, is a small, weak person intrinsically better at de-escalation than a big, strong person?
Leslyn,
We don't deploy Ranger battalions to "de-escalate," sweetie.
leslyn--
Still, any good cop's best weapon is the ability to de-escalate a situation. Many men I've known seem unwilling to do that. But the best cops I've known will use every ability to de-escalate. They were the best at that, and at making lots of good arrests.
I'm open to more data and persuasion on female cops. I do take this point, and also that female cops can make good detectives. Still I strongly suspect we have way too many female cops in most cities,based on affirmative action and disparate impact type bs "anti-discrimination" adminstrative law and so on decisions, as compared to how many are really equally competitive with most male cops. You can't compare the best female cop with the worst male one, and make an argument that they're generally equally as capable of doing the overall job well. But that tends to be what feminists do.
Firefighters however are another thing. I pretty much don't think there should be any. When they're really earning their pay, physical strength is very very important, together with some smarts yes, but with physical strength. I certainly don't think physical standards should be lowered for them at all.
As for the argument that fat middle aged fire fighters aren't the best either, well yeah, but there are competing considerations there. There is the impulse to give long serving initially top notch firefighters some job security. The obesity rate among American women is somewhat worse than among American men, so how much worse are fat middle aged female fire fighers going to be compared to male ones?
I don't think there should be one iota of easier physical standards applied to female fire fighers, as is required by the feds under their absolutely absurd, and science contradictory, disparate impact doctrine for employment qualification tests and the like.
Why is disparate impact EEOC doctrine absurd, and contradicted by science?
Because it's based on the assumption, coming entirely from sixties and since cultural Marxism (new left) ideology, that there are no significant differences between either the races or the sexes, other than the obvious plumbing ones between men and women.
There's absolutely no balance of science that supports this ideology.
There's a TON that refutes it. The left which predominates in the MSM piles on in attacking any refutation that reaches wide popular audiences, citing science, with charges of raciss, raciss, raciss.
It's becoming ineffective. It's sputtering.
Reading through this thread is better than gay porn.
women just aren't as aggresive as men are on average. They aren't as physically retributive. They don't take satisfaction in killing their enemies as much. They're more inclined to flee rather than stand their ground and fight to prevail.
Have you ever been house-hunting with a wife? Forgotten an anniversary? Had an argument end with the wife saying "You were right, I'm sorry"?
Re: the science though,
there are a ton, probably a large majority, of social scientists, who lie about the net results of social science on these issues. They lie less often in their own funded research. Some standards do remain, usually. But in assessing the landscape, yeah they lie for ideological reasons tons. Well it's starts as ideological but it really is mediated for most by just group acceptance, "enlightened views", type motivations.
furious-a-
Yeah I know but that's a different category of social interaction. Further it's extremely enabled and any male contrary reaction disabled by American feminism reflected in our mass entertainment media.
Or sixist, sexist, sexist, and
misogynist, misogynist, misogynist.
Loads of rubbish.
Leslyn wrote: "I always found it annoying when big guys would pester me to subdue them. It's simple technique and leverage."
I love these! Absolutely love them. There they are on the gym mat or in the dojo. And the small person is showing how easy and simple it is to roll a huge guy. But the huge guy is never trying to shove his fist down the little person's throat, is never abandoning the polite ethics of the dojo and knocking the shit out of the little person when they aren't looking. In other words these demonstrations are never about anything other than the obvious which is to trick people into thinking there is an easy way.
It is very rare today to see two kids fighting, actually fighting. Thus it is that society does not know what it feels like to be hit really hard, unfairly hard, by someone larger and stronger and madder. It is a lesson we will regret having forgotten.
My last assignment in the Air Force before I retired was an Air Liaison Officer at Fort Hood. As part of the Air Force detachment there we did have a lot of women who were communications and logistics type.
Their job would be right at the edge of the real battle area.
How about a rule: You engage in a relationship, and you're gone -- both male and female.
Take a bunch of healthy fit male and female people between 18 and 30 years of age, drop them in the middle of some wasteland, far away from any of the normal creature comforts that they are used to. Little or no internet, no cell phone, no movies, no Starbucks, no nothing except work 12 hours and hang around tent city for 12 hours.
No power on earth will prevent 'relationships' from occurring. You might as well try to stop the sun from moving across the sky.
The best you can hope to do is to keep relationships from occurring between senior and junior people.
And as far as women in the Rangers, SEALS, or Air Force pararescue, admiting women is a very bad idea for the reason enumerated above.
It really is a fact that when new recruits show up at basic training the strongest women will be only a little stronger than the weakest man. And the weakest man is way out of shape and has lots of room for improvement. The strongest woman is certainly already a fit athletic type, she will gain only a little more fitness during training.
You have to be fit to fly an F-16, you have to have a low BMI and good muscle strength and endurance to perform at 6-9s. You have to have an aggressive and confidant personality. You have to be very smart. Some women can meet those requirements.
You have to be smart to be a Ranger also, but that's not enough.
You have to have almost superman level physical strength and endurance. There might one woman in ten thousand who possess the bone structure and raw physical power that an Army Ranger, Navy Seal or Air Force Pararescueman need.
Look.
The question isn't just, or even... am I going to *be* a Ranger.
The question is... do I understand in my bones what Rangers do.
And I'd bet that the drop out rate for Rangers (and for other SF) is, other than injuries, primarily a mental thing, not physical.
It doesn't surprise me if people who go through the process also advance in rank and command. I can't see that it's a "punching your ticket" thing at all, but a test. Plus anyone under the command of that person knows that they've had all the hard core training and are probably a tough SOB.
Presenting it as a matter of equality and women needing those check-marks to advance does make it all seem very "me". And that bothers me. It's not just contrary to the ethos of the Rangers, it's even contrary to the pseudo-military organization called the Air Force. It bothers me on that bone deep level.
But women officers do need both the knowledge of how those front line units operate, and the mental conditioning. Even if they most certainly will never be serving directly in those conbat roles. They do need the winnowing and testing so that their troops see the patch or ribbon or badge and think, "she's some tough SOB". It's got to *mean* something.
How to offer that in a legitimate way is a different question.
I also don't want man hating or disdaining rad feminist lesbians making life and death decisions about American combat infantry troops.
Big time.
1
And I'd bet that the drop out rate for Rangers (and for other SF) is, other than injuries, primarily a mental thing, not physical.
You would lose that wager. Almost 50% of men wanting to get their Ranger tab wash out in the first seven days and that's a pure, physical grind.
I think there needs to be some clarification here - passing Ranger School does not automatically make one a Ranger. A few of the people who pass Ranger School will go on to join the 75th Ranger Regiment, and thereby become Rangers. Just like most people who go to a Jesuit School do not themselves become Jesuits.
Ranger School is run by the Rangers as sort of an extreme finishing school for the best small unit leaders, with a curriculum geared towards small-unit, light infantry operations. It's not quite special forces - more like light infantry to the max.
Synova said...How to offer that in a legitimate way is a different question.
Jump school. Women do it, there are units that women command in the 18th Airborne Corps. And yes, they did water it down when they let women in.
One of the concerns that some of us have, that I think you share is that letting women into Ranger school would ultimately water it down. AA for Female Academy grads, because that is what this argument boils down to. I can see it now. After women go to Ranger school, the entire army will snicker at the men also and whisper. "So are you an Old School Ranger Grad, or did you do the Coed Course?" Tell me how that is going to help anybody :)
Scott M said...
You would lose that wager. Almost 50% of men wanting to get their Ranger tab wash out in the first seven days and that's a pure, physical grind.
I think you are arguing past each other. Every Ranger candidate should have been pre-screened and be able to do all the standard PT stuff.
On day one of week one, at hour one, they all can do their pull ups, runs etc. Like BUDS, her point is that when it gets tough, its a mental thing to be able to grind oout another 5 mile run at the END of a long day. Never giving up physically, is a mental thing, not so much whether your leg muscles can oxygenate.
You would lose that wager. Almost 50% of men wanting to get their Ranger tab wash out in the first seven days and that's a pure, physical grind.
EVERYONE gets injured in Ranger School to some extent. Some injuries (broken bones) leave no question about continuing. Most involve a personal decision about continuing though and most certainly include a mental component.
Ranger School also uses a peer review process for each phase, with the "weakest links" voted out. In addition to lowered physical standards, I'm sure there would be interference with this process on behalf of women as well which would lead to resentment.
...it's even contrary to the pseudo-military organization called the Air Force.
Although there are differences between branches of the military, the greatest differences are between the people at the pointy end of the stick and those needed to support them.
Most people overlook that fact that the 8th Air Force, alone, lost more men in WWII (26K+) than the entire Marine Corps (24K+).
In all, over 88,000 airmen lost their lives in that war - about 25,000 more than perished while serving in the navy.
You were more likely to die serving in the USMC (3.66 percent). In the army, 2.8 percent died; in the army air forces, 2.5 percent and in the navy, 1.5 percent. Safest haven was the coast guard, 0.78 percent. The deadliest outfit to be a member of was the US Merchant Marine (3.9)
FWIW, my cousin was a Ranger and told me once that the leading cause of drop-out at Ranger training was foot blisters.
"Jump school. Women do it, there are units that women command in the 18th Airborne Corps. And yes, they did water it down when they let women in."
When I was in AFROTC (I decided against continuing at the point I was required to commit to it or not -- enlisting came several years later) I had thought that going to Airborn between my junior and senior years was probably a career necessity. I'm simply not an imposing person.
I suppose that what I want to say is that even if I've not done it, I've thought rather a lot about how one establishes command, how one gains legitimate authority, how one prepares to lead.
Ultimately I'm an enlisted person at heart and would have hated being an officer. I loved being enlisted.
Presenting the question as career advancement makes me the next best thing to crazy.
And then I notice that I used the term "career necessity".
Ugh.
Maybe the right words don't exist. How about "leadership necessity."
Leslyn wrote, "Snapping the baton out and hearing it Crack! as it locks is quite effective. Don't know why you think women can't use them. Pepper spray as well. They get issued to both genders."
Hee hee. Women cops make me giggle.
It's okay if we giggle at women cops. We need fewer cops anyway, so the ineffective ones aren't so important.
But Rangers don't "intimidate." They kill. They fight. They attack.
If there is a woman anywhere on this earth that is capable of passing the Ranger course, then we have utterly failed in designing our Ranger curriculum.
Rangers are meant to be the strongest, baddest killers on this planet. If we settle for women fitting in that category, then we've already lost.
Leslyn, you can kid yourself that your "de-escalation" techniques are so handy, but in truth, you cannot be as effective as a man in a fight. You might occasionally win because you luck out or you catch a man who is scared or high, but seriously, do you really think it's possible that in the past twenty years that we have succeeded in overturning all of human history? Get real.
The question that needs to be answered is: does Ranger school help win America's wars, or is it a "good old boy" gatekeeper intended to keep some soldiers out of senior posts?
Answer that question and we can address the issue.
My definition of a good cop is someone who keeps crime away from me and my family. Otherwise, why have them?
leslyn said...
Bob Ellison said... "Leslyn, is a small, weak person intrinsically better at de-escalation than a big, strong person?"
No. It's attitude. And willingness.
So attitude and willingness are equally likely in the small, weak person and in the big, strong one?
Let me give you your pick, then: Hero A is a small, weak person who is good at de-escalation. Hero B is a big, strong one who is also good at de-escalation. Which one do you want protecting your country?
You have to have almost superman level physical strength and endurance. There might one woman in ten thousand who possess the bone structure and raw physical power that an Army Ranger, Navy Seal or Air Force Pararescueman need.
Right.
And she would badly fuck up the group dynamic of any group she was posted to. So totally not worth it for leftist feminist overwhelmingly lying ideology.
I seriously doubt, oh hell, I'll just say that there isn't a woman alive today who could take ranger school or sf training. If someone knows of one out there, please, by god, name her. The idea that women should be integrated into these roles is preposterous. Shit, most men can't handle these regimes.
Leslyn--
Snapping the baton out and hearing it Crack! as it locks is quite effective. Don't know why you think women can't use them. Pepper spray as well. They get issued to both genders.
Getting issued to both genders is political correctness, aka soft Marxism. New left.
Getting used equally by both genders would be factually informative. But we don't get those reports, do we? And why not, feminist cop?
Leslyn--
My definition of best is making the most good arrests and going home safe at the end of the shift.
My definition is the first part of that but not the last, which naturally as a chicken female you'd include. And do a way less good job as a result.
Chicken.
I like guys who giggle at girl (you missed an opportunity there) cops. It's so much easier to surprise them into handcuffs.
So men are stupid, and you like that?
Girl cops would be hopeless without a huge majority of male cops supporting them.
They'd be totally overwhelmed by opposing criminals otherwise. Or just males pissed at their presumption. Truth.
And you know it.
Leslyn, I should warn you that we're all baiting you. It only seems fair.
Ok, lets step a back out.
Women as Army elite front line infantry Rangers is a feminist ideological laugh riot. It's totally ridiculous.
I'll stop paying taxes if the dems put this through. And yes I can and it's hard for them to figure out.
Leslyn--
"My definition of best is making the most good arrests and going home safe at the end of the shift."
I'm not sure why the police have come into this equation at all. The Rangers are not police. Police might go home at the end of their shift. Rangers are expected to keep going day and night for very long weeks and months.
When I went through the USMC The Basic School, women were not completely integrated yet. There was a separate platoon for the women officers.
There were three grade categories: Academics, Military Skills, and Physical Fitness. Military skills and physical fitness were adjusted for the women's performance levels. Therefore by design they were within the normal distribution the same as the men. Of course, that means that they only had to perform at much lower levels.
But the company that followed my company had the women's platoon and only three women were in the top third of their company, and only at the bottom third. These were the best physically fit women in the company, and they still were only in the bottom of the top third.
One of them I dated later and she explained to me that when they came back to the barracks after a day of vigorous training, the men would hit the books and study, but the women were exhausted and went to bed. Therefore, their academic scores suffered.
The USMC is a tough bunch, but I admit that their generic officer school doesn't approach the level of difficulty that the Ranger school has. Not a single woman Marine I have ever met in all my years can operate at the level of the Ranger school. The only way women can graduate from that course is if they make it easier.
If women can pass it, then they need to make it harder.
Leslyn, you numbskull,
Infantry doesn't fucking "de-escalate."
We kill.
We go in with that mindset, you half-wit. I'm happy you took down a cooperative cop on a mat in a training facility somewhere, or slapped some cuffs on someone who cooperated because he'd rather make bail on your dumb ass than expose himself to bigger problems later or risk getting a gun pulled on him.
But we're talking about Ranger school, here, the premier light INFANTRY school in the world, and you're making yourself look like an idiot.
You're right, leslyn: I don't like the answer, because it's stupid. If you want someone to defend you, you should want someone strong. It's stupid to ignore the quality of strength. You did so, and the reason is obvious: you favor political correctness over efficiency.
Let me go back: I gave you a very simple hypothetical. The Professor probably does this routinely in class. It's not hard to figure out. If you make the stupid decision, you betray political correctness.
Leslyn imagined, "So the toughest are not always the most aggressive, and the most aggressive are not always the best. It seems to me that it's important to combine physical courage with judgment."
Just keep deluding yourself, if that makes you feel better about your job.
Maybe you could and should not fight as a policeman. Seriously, there should be an awful lot more restraint among the police nowadays.
But we're talking about the army Rangers. They are not designed for restraint. They are designed to kill and do so quickly and remorselessly. They aren't supposed to be unaggressive. They are supposed to be as offensive, aggressive, assertive and combative as possible.
If we want someone skilled at de-escalating a situation, we'll send in the State Department. When the time for de-escalating is over, we'll send in the Rangers.
Your silly little hand cuffs mean nothing. If you put handcuffs on an enemy soldier and then tried to subdue him without any help or other weapons, there is no woman on this earth that could stop him, because he will kill her with the handcuffs still on his wrists. Men are just that much stronger than women, and no amount of "technique" will change that result. Most people don't really want to kill police officers but there are no such reservations in combat.
I'll say it again: If there is any woman alive that can get through Ranger school, then we have a serious deficiency in our Ranger school and we need to make it harder.
Jason, if you'd read the entire thread, you'd know that someone else brought up the 'yeah, and get rid of the girl cops and firemen too' topic, not Leslyn. Don't blame her if you're annoyed by the digression.
Erika,
If you had read the entire thread, you would know that that's not what I'm responding to.
Skyler said...
But we're talking about the army Rangers. They are not designed for restraint. They are designed to kill and do so quickly and remorselessly. They aren't supposed to be unaggressive. They are supposed to be as offensive, aggressive, assertive and combative as possible.
a couple of minor comments to provide a framework.
1. Rangers at their inception were organized to be superb light infantry, reserved for those operations where success was needed, "at all costs". Sort of marines without the boats. Non- subtle, direct combat operations. It was said that Ranger SGTs could be officers in regular line units and Ranger privates were equal to SGTs in regular line units.
2. Ranger school has 3 purposes:
a. provide bodies for the Ranger RGT
b. serve as a proving ground for the best of the rest of the Army's infantry officers and NCO's.
c. serve as a merit badge for regular army REMF LT's, (if they can get a slot)
realistically, the women in question are angling for purpose 3.
3. Ranger school is not needed to be competitive in any branch except Infantry, because of rule 2c. most boards dont see non-infantry officers with Ranger tabs. The bonus points for a ranger tabs wore off by Captain. From then on, success in your commands outweighted a merit badge. One of the skills that ranger schools does test and demonstrate is the ability to make good fast decisions under great stress while exhausted. In a world where most boards see everybody with combat tours, a ranger tab is evne less valuable. Women need to go to A-stan and serve at Brigade or below in their MOS, period...
4. The USMC is all about "every Marine is a rifleman. If the Marines had Ranger school, I could see it mattering to female Marines. Keeping up with the big dogs, etc. But the Army has a bigger cohort pool and Femle officers compete aginst officers who also never got a chance for Ranger school. And to General, again, there are combat Arms Generals and the rest. Women are competing among, non Rangers already....
leslyn said...
No. It's attitude. And willingness.
Which fail every time in the face of overwhelming opposition. Whether that opposition is someone or something intent on maiming or killing you. I'm sure if you were on any of the flights on 9/11 you would have been able, through your attitude and willingness been able to get any of those terrorists to give up their jihad into the twin towers. No?
Just stop already and save your pathetic drivel for the other leftards who will knee-jerk a nodded head at your summation of what you think is right. For you are an idiot.
"Jason and Skylar:
What was it about "not in defense of country" that you didn't understand?"
Honestly, leslyn, it was a wee bit of an ambiguous statement if what you meant was "in areas other than defense of my country."
Guns jam. It's useful to be able to beat the other person to death with the jammed weapon if necessary.
Of course, in the light infantry context, if you can't hump your ruck plus your share of the platoon's heavy weapons, you won't even make it to the fight in the first place.
I have no doubt that fit, well trained female soldiers and Marines can fight and kill with skill and determination. What they can't do (or can't do as well) is to dismount and take the fight to the enemy when you have to traipse across the Hindu Kush to get there.
"I have no doubt that fit, well trained female soldiers and Marines can fight and kill with skill and determination. What they can't do (or can't do as well) is to dismount and take the fight to the enemy when you have to traipse across the Hindu Kush to get there."
But what officers might well have to do, at some point, is command those who have to dismount and take the fight to the enemy across the Hindu Kush.
It's a very serious training question.
I don't advocate trying to send women through special forces training and certainly fostering some delusion that physical ability doesn't preclude women from those or infantry type positions doesn't solve any problems for anyone.
"It's holding my career back," is probably a good reason said career ought to be held back.
But if we're talking about training leaders and training soldiers (or airmen or sailors, etc.) the alternative to "me" is one's corporate identity *as a warrior*, as a part subsumed to the purpose of the whole.
And, in my opinion, women have a real problem with fully realizing that identity and partly it's because they're treated like the women's auxiliary. It's something that gets inside your brain. How can it not?
Probably it's less of a problem now than it was in my experience. There are far more role models to engender that identity mindset and no expectation of being a "warrior" while holding the expectation of avoiding war.
"I'm female so they can't make me fight," is a debilitating mindset to have, but it's pretty much truthful, or has been in the past. It may be different now, but I don't expect it is entirely gone.
I don't think young men, even ones going in as support troops, ever think that thought. They might not expect to end up in combat, but they don't think that it *can't* happen. But if you, no matter what you'd be willing to do or how you personally feel about killing people and breaking things, if you *know* that you're not a real soldier, then it's in your *head*.
Leslyn, good. Chillax. You're not up to this level of argument.
Synova:
Huh? If a woman is not Combat Arms, she's not going to be commanding a combat formation or theater, so I don't get your point. You can certainly reach flag rank in the support arms (just look at that winner, former BGen Karpinski), but you're not going to be put in command of a division or corps. Maybe you'll be the staff Int, Log or Pers Officer, but you won't be the "3", the XO or the Commander.
Even if they opened up combat arms like armor and arty to women, it wouldn't matter, since very few male arty or armor officers complete Ranger School.
Well, how about we look at that winner Karpinski?
Don't you think that the people she was responsible for would have been better served if she'd actually been run through the crucible? Do you think she could have skated on her incompetence and blame shifting to end up a General if someone kicked her ass up one side of a mountain and down the other and then told her to suck it up and get over herself?
The woman disgusts me to no end. How dare she behave in such a damaging way to the people in her charge? And then have the gall to go about acting like the injured party.
No, it may well be that a female officer will not be directly commanding an infantry division, but she's going to be commanding *someone* and if she hasn't been adequately acculturated and actually tested and proven then there are a number of levels of failure involved.
Karpinski was in charge of MPs, male and female. None or vanishingly few of whom would have been through Ranger School - maybe a few men who transferred from the Infantry?
There are other leadership courses and schools besides Ranger School. As noted above, a male armor officer can command a division or corps without going to Ranger School.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा