Author Topic: Ranger School to Accept Females  (Read 33714 times)

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #50 on: May 29, 2012, 05:39:51 PM »
I am a man of very below average fitness, yet I could do most of it rather well (this I know because the IDF fitness test is broadly similar).

Boris, I do believe you are significantly over-estimating average fitness, at least in the US.  One factor that may be driving this standards issue is that an increasing proportion of prospective recruits are too fat.  A good many of these are inactive.  Americans aren't all fat, lazy slobs--but that is an area of American preeminence.

Quote
In what way has the performance of the U.S. military, the IDF, the Soviet military, been degraded by the presence of women therein that can actually be detected and you can report to me?

Ah, so it's not only Israeli women who are not recognizable as women, but Russian women too.  It's mostly American women who are categorically unfit for arms.  Mostly because American men purportedly can't handle American women working hard and taking risks and getting hurts. 

Seems to me this speaks at least as much to the fitness of American men as American women. 

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2012, 06:25:03 PM »
The root of the problem was that she couldn't physically do the job required of her. In her mind the reason she couldn't do the job was because this evil male wouldn't let her.

Ok, well, I think "wrong and slightly loony" is on the charitable side. 

Quote
It is a verifiable fact that men are generally on average larger and stronger than women.

Yep.  I'm stronger than most women, and I'm less strong than most men.  But I'm as strong as a man who is deemed capable of serving in the US military. 

Men under thirty are generally stronger than men over thirty.  Do you advocate cutting off enlistment age at 26?  That's where the physical fitness standards start relaxing.  Obviously there's an investment-in-training issue in terms of keeping people on past their optimal strength--but for how long? 

Quote
It is also a fact that there are jobs that require a certain level of physical strength to perform.

Yes.  And there are women that can perform those jobs better than some military men.  It's just not about sex. 

Quote
When a minimum physical standard is determined to be a requirement for a given job then it doesn't matter what the persons gender is so long as they can perform to that minimum standard.

I think just about everybody who has commented here has said that. 

Quote
The problems arise when in the name of fairness and political correctness and gender equality those physical standards are "adjusted" only for women so that women can also do the same job as men.

That too.  I am in agreement.

Quote
If we as a country and culture decided that we are indeed going to treat men and women equally in the armed forces then certain cultural things will have to change.

That too.  I think everyone here agrees that things like the "flexed arm hang" are stupid and cause problems.  It seems to me the only military advantage in being able to dangle helplessly in the air for a period of time is if there's a shortage of convenient targets. 
 
Quote
My military experience was 20 years ago so things may have changed some since then but as women generally expect/demand some deference to their gender from men in civilian life, military women do as well, it is a cultural bias. If that deference isn't given then things like harassment, discrimination, hostile work environment, and other nasty things start flying around and peoples careers go down in flames.

I've only worked where I've worked, and it may be that those areas are not average, but this has not been my current experience.  Not remotely.  Example: Last week, my employer wanted 10+ hour days.  I have to pick up kids from daycare before it closes, so I can't ordinarily work more than 8-1/2 hours or so.  I did not get a pass on working the extra hours because I'm a woman/mother.  I got in at 8:30, left at 3:30 to spend close to two hours picking up kids and shuttling them across town to relatives and driving back to work so I could work until 9 or 10 to try to get to twelve hours on the clock. 

While we're validating gender stereotypes, there's this notion that men are more competitive than women.  Yeah, well, I'm a lawyer...there's some competitiveness.  I've never had a classmate or colleague back down from getting an edge over me because I'm a woman.  I've sure as hell never attempted to suggest it, not only because it would be stupid, but because I'd be laughed out of the office.  I was bumped from a competition to alternate because I am not a man--more women than men placed high in the competition, and we decided to go for gender-balanced teams to get an edge in competing.  The mix of campuses and sexes was such that I got bumped. 

I had a kid the last week of the term.  Yes, my male teammates were generous and agreed to come to my house to prep for our mock trial the night I got home from the hospital, which was the following morning.  And yeah, I showed up in heels and a suit.  Because that's what you do.  Some chick in California took the bar exam while she was in labor, had the kid an hour after she'd finished.  Pretty much, my experience has been that women had better make damn sure that they work as long if not longer than men, as hard if not harder, etc. 

Quote
But if some people want to get all butt hurt when those of us with actual experience in the area of how women in the military actually works out tell it like is well that's to bad. Sometimes life isn't fair or politically correct.

Yeah, y'know, I noticed that.  A lot.  I also haven't noticed anyone disagreeing with you on the problems with current policy.  But I also noticed that it's the misogynists here who are showing signs of butthurtedness, as expressed by increasingly circular logic, restatement of fallacy, and generalized snark.


BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2012, 06:27:08 PM »
Cultural differences are not easily overcome.

Especially not when so much effort is put into maintaining them.

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2012, 06:40:06 PM »
Men protect women.  Whether it is coded into our DNA or merely a product of our culture, the natural inclination for men is to put the welfare of a female above their own.

ROFLMAO.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,781
It is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,781
It is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I


cassandra and sara's daddy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,781
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #57 on: May 29, 2012, 07:14:40 PM »
Surely you're aware that the words "law review" are synonymous with the words "fantasy land"?



irony alert
It is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #58 on: May 29, 2012, 07:37:48 PM »
Surely you're aware that the words "law review" are synonymous with the words "fantasy land"?



irony alert

Yep. When the choice is between ironic and moronic, I'll usually go with ironic.

Hell, when the choice is between *anything* and ironic, I'll usually go with ironic.

Fitz

  • Face-melter
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,254
  • Floyd Rose is my homeboy
    • My Book
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #59 on: May 29, 2012, 07:46:14 PM »
Not me. I love the stupidz
Fitz

---------------
I have reached a conclusion regarding every member of this forum.
I no longer respect any of you. I hope the following offends you as much as this thread has offended me:
You are all awful people. I mean this *expletive deleted*ing seriously.

-MicroBalrog

RoadKingLarry

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,841
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #60 on: May 29, 2012, 09:58:50 PM »
Quote
Yeah, y'know, I noticed that.  A lot.  I also haven't noticed anyone disagreeing with you on the problems with current policy.  But I also noticed that it's the misogynists here who are showing signs of butthurtedness, as expressed by increasingly circular logic, restatement of fallacy, and generalized snark.

Really? Name calling already?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #61 on: May 29, 2012, 10:27:23 PM »
Really? Name calling already?

Ah, c'mon, that's not name calling, that's a characterization.  A fairly civil one too.  I was right proud of how I cleaned that one up.

Fitz

  • Face-melter
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,254
  • Floyd Rose is my homeboy
    • My Book
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #62 on: May 29, 2012, 10:45:05 PM »
Who's misogynist?
Fitz

---------------
I have reached a conclusion regarding every member of this forum.
I no longer respect any of you. I hope the following offends you as much as this thread has offended me:
You are all awful people. I mean this *expletive deleted*ing seriously.

-MicroBalrog

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #63 on: May 30, 2012, 02:02:16 AM »
Anyone who's experience in the US military leads them to believe that women in certain roles in the US military would be problematic can't be motivated by anything but a searing hatred of women, obviously. Just like folks who think life begins at conception.

And while we're at it, if you oppose illegal immigration the only possible reason is because you hate non-whites. And if you oppose expanding the fed.gov's licensing and subsidy powers in a ham handed attempt at social engineering acceptance of homosexuality you obviously just have a pathological fear of gays. Only possible explanation, really.

I love the arguments where the only possible reason anyone could oppose you is because of what a vile and terrible human being they are. Sure does make it unecessary to refute their actual arguments, and that's a huge time saver.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #64 on: May 30, 2012, 04:46:06 AM »
Misogyny does not mean "searing hatred of women".
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,245
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #65 on: May 30, 2012, 08:00:53 AM »
I should also note that I'm quite certain that the military will do no such thing as suppressing men's instincts and the plan is simply to ignore all the problems that arise from combining the sexes.

This is perhaps confirmed by the number of women who, now that they are out of the military, are suing the military for not having acted appropriately (or at all) upon complaints of rape while said women were in said military. The number of incidents is high enough to be indicative of a significant problem ... if the numbers were allowed to stand. Thus, the solution arrived at by the military has been to accuse the accusers, classify the reports as false or unproven, and insert organization head deeply in sand.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #66 on: May 30, 2012, 08:10:30 AM »
I have to ask this: what is the benefit of placing women in combat and combat situations?

I believe there are significant costs. What benefits are there to outweight these costs?
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

lupinus

  • Southern Mod Trimutive Emeritus
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,178
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #67 on: May 30, 2012, 10:11:41 AM »
Your original comment is more insulting than you probably meant it to be, Lupinus.
My apologies
That is all. *expletive deleted*ck you all, eat *expletive deleted*it, and die in a fire. I have considered writing here a long parting section dedicated to each poster, but I have decided, at length, against it. *expletive deleted*ck you all and Hail Satan.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #68 on: May 30, 2012, 10:55:29 AM »
Were "women in combat roles" or "women in the military" financial investment opportunities, they would be dismissed out of hand for their significantly lower ROI (return on investment) relative to the alternative.  It just plain takes more investment to get an equally performing product/soldier out at the end of the process when you start with a woman.  Also, operating costs for women are greater and (if one insists on the male standard) it doesn't scale up.

If you want hard data, many studies have been done on injury rates (while training to the current, lesser female standard), washout rates for the various training programs, readiness rates for deployment, time spent on physical profile (~light work/training load due to physical reasons), etc., etc. 

An automotive analogy might be the purchase of a mid-1970s Brit or Italian sport coupe to be your commuter car, grocery getter, and family transport.  It does all the mundane functions of such an auto worse than a Honda Accord or Ford Taurus.  It costs more to keep on the road.  Its reliability blows chunks.  Yet, some folks make it it work for them.  They pour more resources into it for non-monetary reasons.  They get some sense of satisfaction being a zebra in a herd of horses.  Good for them.  May the blue smoke always stay firmly embedded INSIDE their electrical components.

The problem with doing something similar for the military, is that the investments are tax dollars and men's lives.  I am not OK with that, since those are my tax dollars and it maybe my son's life in the future who may pay the marginal cost for some folk to get a sense of satisfaction.

All in all, calls for such social engineering are a sign of poor stewardship of our tax dollars by our elected, appointed, and hired officials.

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

T.O.M.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,400
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #69 on: May 30, 2012, 10:57:14 AM »
Surely you're aware that the words "law review" are synonymous with the words "fantasy land"?

Now that's sig worthy!
No, I'm not mtnbkr.  ;)

a.k.a. "our resident Legal Smeagol."...thanks BryanP
"Anybody can give legal advice - but only licensed attorneys can sell it."...vaskidmark

TommyGunn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,956
  • Stuck in full auto since birth.
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #70 on: May 30, 2012, 11:57:44 AM »
Misogyny does not mean "searing hatred of women".

 ???  It would be a degree of misogyny....

To wit, someone who had a "searing hatred of women" would be considered a misogynist. Someone who dislike women but who did not carry it to an extreme, would also be a misogynist.  Sherlock Holmes, the fictional detective, would be considered an example of the second.
Not ... quite ... sure ... what ... your ... point ... is.  ???
MOLON LABE   "Through ignorance of what is good and what is bad, the life of men is greatly perplexed." ~~ Cicero

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #71 on: May 30, 2012, 12:00:03 PM »
Um, so with the whole "no women recognizable as women thing" are we talking just about Rangers? The whole "just like the rest of the Army seems to indicate that no "women recognizable as women" could meet male standards in "the rest of the Army."

No.

BR, I am no stranger to exceptionally fit & disciplined women.  Before I enlisted in the Army, I trained with pro & competitive amateur female athletes (as well as similar male athletes).

Professional:
Body building
"Fitness"
Tennis

(Nationally) Competitive Amateur:
Olympic weightlifting
Power lifting
Triathalons
Kickboxing

So, it is not like I have no experience with how young, healthy, genetically gifted, and exceptionally disciplined women can train up to their potential.  Make no mistake, these were Sixth Sigma(1) women(2).  Likely no more than 100,000 of them in America, today, if we are lucky.

Of the many such women I met & trained with, a grand total of one might have been able to cut it at my unit(3) without biochemical enhancement.  If we leave anabolic steroids, HGH, stimulants, and some other performance-enhancing drugs on the table, shift that number from one to to ten.

Yeah, if we are willing to get our most fit and able gals to use large amounts of illegal, performance-enhancing drugs; "women in the military" would still likely be un-doable from a sheer population numbers standpoint.  Might be do-able as a stunt, though, kinda like Kadaffy's female bodyguard unit.

Which brings me to the "no women recognizable as women thing."  Large doses of roids & HGH have both short-term & lasting effects.  Increased muscle mass/recovery is only one.  Toss into the mix a deeper voice, more & thicker body hair (to include the face), enlargement of the genitalia, and acromegaly (not an exhaustive list).    Seen it happen to men and women who thought the price worth it.  The men carried it off better than the women, aesthetically-speaking.  

     Try not to go, "ewww!":
     http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/anabstereff/anabstereff.html#3

     Let me translate from medicalese into English:
     "clitoris hypertrophy" = "Looks like she has a dick."

Speaking of roids & HGH, they are used quite a bit in the SOF units.  The more rarefied, the more juice.  This is at or near professional sports level performance.  Heck, one of the guys I went through RIP with had played major league baseball(4).  Some guys feel the need for the edge.  Some really do need it to operate at that level.  I feel like I am living up to my sig line when I write that women are not going to be competitive at this level of performance.












(1) Top 0.00034%

(2) WRT athleticism & discipline

(3) 75th RR

(4) If you consider baseball players athletes, unlike Tom Sellick.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #72 on: May 30, 2012, 12:18:13 PM »
No.

I don't disagree with anything in your post, except the quote above.  Your post addresses your unit.  I was speaking about the rest of the Army.  I am highly skeptical that a woman, much less women, could successfully serve as a Ranger.




longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #73 on: May 30, 2012, 12:26:23 PM »
The point is inclusion, not the equivalent competency. We all know that.  Liberalism is about wishful thinking.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Ranger School to Accept Females
« Reply #74 on: May 30, 2012, 12:26:49 PM »
I have to ask this: what is the benefit of placing women in combat and combat situations?

I believe there are significant costs. What benefits are there to outweigh these costs?

Maintaining a high-quality, all-volunteer military in the face of shifting demographics, including the rise of obesity and the red/blue state polarization that has resulted in increasing segments of American culture rejecting the military as a potential career choice.  This is the same reason for not disallowing enlistment on the basis of one's preferences in sexual partners.

That, of course, mostly answers the question "why have women in the military."  However, many women may not consider the military because of their perceived status as secondary to the mission which may translate as less significant.  

Opening combat MOSs to women could combat this perception and increase the both the number and the quality of female recruits.  It might to argued that even women who would enlist anyway could have an increased attitude of equality and therefore equal responsibility.  I'm not arguing this, because that requires a more intimate knowledge of the psychology of military women than I possess.  But it is a possibility.