Post: #1

I love when nature turns political correctness on its ass:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../28179303/

Quote:All eight women vying to become the first female Army Rangers failed to complete the requirements to go on to the next phase of the grueling course, the Army said.

The women were admitted to the two-month class as part of a broader effort by the Pentagon to lift the ban on female soldiers serving in "ground combat" jobs, such as the infantry.

Women fighting in elite forces like men is a joke. This was a victory against feminism.

Post: #2

Only a temporary victory.....they are licking their wounds now, but later they will lower the bar until someone 'passes.' I guarantee it.


I have pondered on how I might respond, God forbid, the first time I encounter a female soldier wearing a Ranger tab. I'm still unsure about it.

Post: #3

(05-31-2015 03:08 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  I love when nature turns political correctness on its ass:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../28179303/

Quote:All eight women vying to become the first female Army Rangers failed to complete the requirements to go on to the next phase of the grueling course, the Army said.

The women were admitted to the two-month class as part of a broader effort by the Pentagon to lift the ban on female soldiers serving in "ground combat" jobs, such as the infantry.

Women fighting in elite forces like men is a joke.

This result is unacceptable. The pressure to put women in combat will not relent. It will only increase with time, across political administrations.

The unstoppable force of feminism will meet with the immovable force of military fitness standards. And the fitness standards will give way. If generals need to be sacked for standards to be diluted, so be it. Generals already kowtow to politicians against good sense already. Once the generals are on board, they will ramrod women in combat down through the military hierarchy.

Naturally, the military will opt to conceal how standards are relaxed. Instead of a hard and fast requirement like "20 pullups," a different, easier course will be arranged, for women, while the military will deny that it is any easier. Women will have easier assignments once in the field, generally, lest the female corpses pile up and prove the naysayers right. The media and the chattering classes meanwhile will condemn anyone who so much as hints that female combat soldiers accomplish less than their male peers counterparts, because there won't be good evidence available to the public to prove it. It will all just get swept under the rug.

Kara Hultgreen crashed her plane and died, as a Navy pilot. Initially, the Navy claimed it was not pilot error, because Hultgreen was the first female Navy fighter pilot, and that would not make the prospect of female fighter pilots look good. Later, reports came out that the Navy deliberately lied and covered up the fact that the crash was the pilot's error. From Wikipedia, "An Accuracy in Media report quotes Cmdr Tom Sobiek, commanding officer of Fighter Squadron VF-124, as saying of the 4 female pilots in his squadron that "the women are going to graduate regardless of how they performed" and reports that "the Navy was in a race with the Air Force to get the first female fighter pilot".[7]" The biggest loser here, obviously was Kara Hultgreen. And the same is true of the future female combatants, most of whom will probably be pressured into their positions, and not go into it entirely willfully.

But, I expect, it won't happen like it did with Hultgreen. The military will hesitate to create another such debacle, and will simply put women in less risky situations to begin with.

Post: #4

LeeEnfield is correct. Sooner or later they will lower some of the standards so a woman gets through.
Frankly, I'm surprised they even made it past the first phase. I'm 160 pounds and even I think assault rifles are fairly heavy for me. I can't imagine a little woman with less strength would have any success lifting all that heavy shit under duress

Post: #5

Do it, put women in the elite branches of the military. See what will happen when they go into the middle east, where women are killed without question, and lose their lives because they're strong and independent. No skin off my back.

I have heard former SEALs say "let the women in! if they can pass BUDS, then they can be SEALs". The good thing (so far) is that 85% of men fail the initial course. So good luck to all them women vying to be a SEAL, or other elite warfighter.

Post: #6

I was wearing my black Ranger Tab t-shirt a month ago when a woman asked me about women in Ranger School. I proceeded to tell her in no uncertain terms that they shouldn't be there (she was a veteran by the way). And my reasoning was because they were cohesion killers who needed additional accommodations. And the way men interact with each other would be adversely impacted.

Post: #7

Quote:three will be given another chance to start the class from the beginning.

They will find a way to get a woman in.

Post: #8

(05-31-2015 04:19 PM)etshella Wrote:  

Quote:three will be given another chance to start the class from the beginning.

They will find a way to get a woman in.

Anyone can re-take those classes, not just the women. There is no intent (that I have seen) of lowering any standards for elite units.

Post: #9

(05-31-2015 03:55 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  Do it, put women in the elite branches of the military. See what will happen when they go into the middle east, where women are killed without question, and lose their lives because they're strong and independent. No skin off my back.

I have heard former SEALs say "let the women in! if they can pass BUDS, then they can be SEALs". The good thing (so far) is that 85% of men fail the initial course. So good luck to all them women vying to be a SEAL, or other elite warfighter.

At the end of the day, performance is all that matters. If the standards don't change, then the selection process should take care of itself.

Post: #10

(05-31-2015 03:17 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Kara Hultgreen crashed her plane and died, as a Navy pilot. Initially, the Navy claimed it was not pilot error, because Hultgreen was the first female Navy fighter pilot, and that would not make the prospect of female fighter pilots look good. Later, reports came out that the Navy deliberately lied and covered up the fact that the crash was the pilot's error. From Wikipedia, "An Accuracy in Media report quotes Cmdr Tom Sobiek, commanding officer of Fighter Squadron VF-124, as saying of the 4 female pilots in his squadron that "the women are going to graduate regardless of how they performed" and reports that "the Navy was in a race with the Air Force to get the first female fighter pilot".[7]" The biggest loser here, obviously was Kara Hultgreen. And the same is true of the future female combatants, most of whom will probably be pressured into their positions, and not go into it entirely willfully.

Not to sidetrack the topic, but this is why I think it's a subterfuge from the right to make blacks the face of affirmative action. Most the beneficiaries of affirmative action are white females. But we just don't call it "affirmative action" when it comes to them. We call it "closing the gender gap", "equal pay for equal work" or "fighting the war on women".

Post: #11

There are probably a handful of women in the world with the potential to be a Ranger without the standards being altered.

But the kind of woman who was physically capable of being a Ranger would be a genetic anomaly on the level of a medalist Olympic athlete.

Someone with such rare genetics would likely be much more likely to want to be an Olympian or professional athlete instead of a combat soldier.

Post: #12

"Anyone can re-take those classes, not just the women. There is no intent (that I have seen) of lowering any standards for elite units."

Are the Marines elite units? Are Navy fighter pilots elite units? It's just a matter of time.

Of course they're not going to announce that. "Hey guys, thought we'd let you know we're watering down our elite training so women can complete it."

Post: #13

I confess I have mixed feelings on this. Most of me laments the travesty this represents...but part of me says, "Fine. Come out and die like the rest of us."

Maybe Kirsten Gillibrand can take time out from her campus-rape witch-hunts to salute a few female-filled caskets at Dover.

Post: #14

In order to make it possible for females to pass they will lower the bar by arguing that the current standards and training don't reflect the conditions we've faced on actual combat operations, thus they can be changed without hurting combat effectiveness.

They will ignore what everyone knows “The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.” Training should be more difficult than combat so that real life operations are easy in comparison.

Post: #15

If there is a way to prove standards will NOT be lowered, I say let them try. But if it becomes a pattern nationally that they can't pass, then nix women as prospects. It costs tax payers to test these waters however.

I'm a firm believer that the best people should get positions they deserve. Maybe some of the cross fit elite females could physically fall into this category. However, is there a sound emotional quotient test given to all rangers?

Even if a few women get in, can rescue other soldiers, carry the weight, have the stamina.. are they emotionally prepared to perform in live battle and perform missions? The tactics and strategy should be ingrained in all soldiers, it's the shaky emotional state of women, that even the bull dyke he-women have, which can self-destruct an elite fighting unit from within which concerns me most of all. We all know how those emotions repel logic at mission critical moments.

Post: #16

I don't want to offend any Americans here but how is a more effective military a good thing? Having a capable military means that it is more likely to be used in silly adventures than a weaker military.

Post: #17

(05-31-2015 07:15 PM)tom Wrote:  I don't want to offend any Americans here but how is a more effective military a good thing? Having a capable military means that it is more likely to be used in silly adventures than a weaker military.

That isn't true because the elites will send our forces into harms way even with degraded capabilities, it just becomes a lot more costly in casualties for the guys on the ground.

Any female who truly wanted the opportunity to fight in a front line unit they could join the YPJ in Rojava and fight against real rape culture...

Post: #18

The actual effectiveness of our armed forces has never been a factor in where or why they are sent.

Post: #19

I think a woman would need Roids to pass.

Post: #20

Actually, I'm amazed that any of the cadre dared fail them. The Army these days is more likely to inflate their grades to make sure they pass rather than admit a mistake.

Post: #21

(05-31-2015 05:27 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  "Anyone can re-take those classes, not just the women. There is no intent (that I have seen) of lowering any standards for elite units."

Are the Marines elite units? Are Navy fighter pilots elite units? It's just a matter of time.

Of course they're not going to announce that. "Hey guys, thought we'd let you know we're watering down our elite training so women can complete it."

We're talking elite units. SEALs, Delta Force, and foreign groups such as the SAS, JTF2 etc. will never lower standards, these guys are literally the best of the best, they will not allow for sub-standard performance. These groups deal with hostage situations, with counter terrorism that isn't even spoke about publicly.

Also: the training is far more mental than physical (even though its exceptionally physically tough), if you have looked into the process, they try and break these guys down mentally, getting them to quit because they think they can't do it. The SEAL motto is "it pays to be a winner" not "it pays to come out and participate".

Post: #22

According to the comments at the bottom of this article, the standards were lowered for this Ranger class. Previous Ranger classes had to carry 45-60 lb packs, but for this class the requirement was dropped to 35 lbs. If I understand correctly, the Army said that the lowered weight standards were because of stress on the parachute static lines, not because this is the first class to include women.

Post: #23

(05-31-2015 08:23 PM)Carlos100 Wrote:  According to the comments at the bottom of this article, the standards were lowered for this Ranger class. Previous Ranger classes had to carry 45-60 lb packs, but for this class the requirement was dropped to 35 lbs. If I understand correctly, the Army said that the lowered weight standards were because of stress on the parachute static lines, not because this is the first class to include women.

Post: #24

(05-31-2015 08:23 PM)Carlos100 Wrote:  According to the comments at the bottom of this article, the standards were lowered for this Ranger class. Previous Ranger classes had to carry 45-60 lb packs, but for this class the requirement was dropped to 35 lbs. If I understand correctly, the Army said that the lowered weight standards were because of stress on the parachute static lines, not because this is the first class to include women.

Complete horse shit. With combat jumps you're loaded down like a pack mule.

Post: #25

The obvious answer is to lower the bar so they can play with the boys too.