Post: #26

(09-28-2015 02:36 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  I'd suggest joining and seeing for yourself, but the response will probably be "I won't join, the military is being pussified by feminists!"

Perhaps the more relevant concern for many here wouldn't be the military's quality and capabilities as an institution, but rather the interests it's presently made to serve.

Post: #27

(09-28-2015 01:00 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  There are a lot of misconceptions floating around here.

- It's a qualification, not an assignment to a Ranger unit. Basically just a patch to put on your sleeve.
- Once these women are passed through Ranger school, they'll be returned to their original units doing the original jobs they signed up for.
- Women are ineligible to enlist as 11B (which prohibits them from combat or service in infantry units)
- Service in Range regiments is closely regulated and hand-picked, even for men; women will never be on the front lines.

It's politically correct symbolism, not a transformation of the U.S. military. The fact they were paper-pushed through is cause for concern, but it takes a certain amount of paranoia to believe our military doesn't recognize the inherent differences between men and women. I'm not at all alarmed or threatened by this, and you shouldn't be either.

I'm going to beg to disagree with you here, Blick.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's just harmless symbolism. Symbolism means something. That's how the slippery slope begins.
Once they begin there, then they will take it one step further.

The same way they foisted gay marriage on the country. Slowly, steadily. And everybody sat on their fucking asses and were too chickenshit to do anything. They rationalized, rationalized, and rationalized. And now the floodgates are open. And now they're pushing other types of unacceptable behavior, like transsexualism.

I don't see it as just "paper-pushing" women through the system.

Something more insidious than that is going on. They are conditioning the public and military personnel that there is an equivalency here. This is part of the acculturation process, part of the propaganda offensive. They are trying to chip away at barriers that have been up for centuries.

Some things need to be off limits.

Women need boundaries. Women need to know that there are spaces that are inviolate, that they cannot encroach on.

Women in America have lost the concept of boundaries. They think they have free rein to do whatever they want. And the power structure here permits it.

So it isn't just harmless. It's symptomatic of a deep-rooted disease that needs to be eradicated once and for all.

No. Harmless? No way. Once they get qualified, then they're going to want the same privileges that men get, without having to do any of the work or shoulder any of the burden.

There are certain spaces where women just don't belong. I don't even care if they can do the job. They need to know there are boundaries.

They have their space, and we have ours.

Post: #28

(09-28-2015 09:12 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 01:00 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  There are a lot of misconceptions floating around here.

- It's a qualification, not an assignment to a Ranger unit. Basically just a patch to put on your sleeve.
- Once these women are passed through Ranger school, they'll be returned to their original units doing the original jobs they signed up for.
- Women are ineligible to enlist as 11B (which prohibits them from combat or service in infantry units)
- Service in Range regiments is closely regulated and hand-picked, even for men; women will never be on the front lines.

It's politically correct symbolism, not a transformation of the U.S. military. The fact they were paper-pushed through is cause for concern, but it takes a certain amount of paranoia to believe our military doesn't recognize the inherent differences between men and women. I'm not at all alarmed or threatened by this, and you shouldn't be either.

I'm going to beg to disagree with you here, Blick.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's just harmless symbolism. Symbolism means something. That's how the slippery slope begins.
Once they begin there, then they will take it one step further.

The same way they foisted gay marriage on the country. Slowly, steadily. And everybody sat on their fucking asses and were too chickenshit to do anything. They rationalized, rationalized, and rationalized. And now the floodgates are open. And now they're pushing other types of unacceptable behavior, like transsexualism.

I don't see it as just "paper-pushing" women through the system.

Something more insidious than that is going on. They are conditioning the public and military personnel that there is an equivalency here. This is part of the acculturation process, part of the propaganda offensive. They are trying to chip away at barriers that have been up for centuries.

Some things need to be off limits.

Women need boundaries. Women need to know that there are spaces that are inviolate, that they cannot encroach on.

Women in America have lost the concept of boundaries. They think they have free rein to do whatever they want. And the power structure here permits it.

So it isn't just harmless. It's symptomatic of a deep-rooted disease that needs to be eradicated once and for all.

No. Harmless? No way. Once they get qualified, then they're going to want the same privileges that men get, without having to do any of the work or shoulder any of the burden.

There are certain spaces where women just don't belong. I don't even care if they can do the job. They need to know there are boundaries.

They have their space, and we have ours.

Post: #29

The US Military - the experimental play ground for the PC police.

Disgusting. I called this as soon as I heard they passed, complete BS.

Im very surprised this was released in a big name magazine.

Post: #30

(09-28-2015 01:00 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  It's politically correct symbolism, not a transformation of the U.S. military. The fact they were paper-pushed through is cause for concern, but it takes a certain amount of paranoia to believe our military doesn't recognize the inherent differences between men and women. I'm not at all alarmed or threatened by this, and you shouldn't be either.

I'm sure that's what people thought about "civil unions" for gays in 2007: "Don't worry, it's only politically correct symbolism. The institution of marriage is still defined as one man and one woman." Now here we are in 2015 with gay marriage.

When it comes to political change, today's summit will be tomorrow's base.

And yes, I'm sure plenty of people in our military are well aware of the inherent differences between men and women. What I don't believe in is their willingness to speak out about those differences when to do so means they'll be risking their careers.

Post: #31

Women in the combat arms will be just like how the left is handling women in STEM and in corporate boardrooms, they'll fight tooth and nail to achieve their fantasy gender symmetrical utopia one way or another. They may struggle getting the numbers they want, but they won't relent.

Post: #32

When I was in the Air Force my tech school was the same base as the Paratrooper school and I will never forget seeing those guys everyday at the chow hall. They would roll up outside looking like zombies with a huge log on their shoulder. Get their food and sit down to eat it and a lot of them just fell asleep, some guys faces would fall in their plates. Hardly any of them every really got to eat. Some days as soon as they would sit down the instructors would yell at them its time to go and they never got to even take a bite of their food.... Thats the only part of their world I saw but from what I understand the rest of it was just as harsh. Maybe I am just a misogynistic asshole but I just don't see many women making it through those kinds of circumstances, and in all honesty I don't see many men surviving it either.

Post: #33

(09-29-2015 11:51 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  When I was in the Air Force my tech school was the same base as the Paratrooper school...

I'm assuming you mean Pararescue. Paratrooper School aka Airborne School, is a joint school with women that is pretty easy, all things considered.

Post: #34

(09-28-2015 12:45 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

Quote: She claimed that women were allowed to repeat a Ranger training class until they passed, while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard. That is false. She charged that women regularly practiced on Ranger School’s land navigation course while men saw it for the first time when they went to the school. Again, false. She accused an Army general of calling female candidates together to tell them they could not quit the course. Yet again, false.

There are so many errors and falsehoods that it may be better to cite two snippets that actually had a modicum of truth. Yes, Maj. Gen. Miller did personally observe this Ranger course – as he has every Ranger course since assuming command. That’s his job; but while he may view or even participate in training events, he has never graded or influenced the grade of a Ranger patrol.

It’s also true that the women were in their own platoon prior to attending the Ranger course. This occurred as part of routine continuing education and training in preparation for Ranger School. But this was much the same as what male infantry officers do between completing the infantry officer basic course – which female students cannot take – and the start of Ranger School. Quite frankly, that actually placed them at tremendous disadvantage, since they were not with a unit that trains nearly every day on many of the same challenges and obstacles faced by most Ranger students.

There is a lot of hate and emotion in this subject.
Giving the women classes before ranger school doesn't sound like problem.
Infantry school is essentially pre camp before ranger school, considering infantry officers are expected to go to ranger school right after.

Males are also allowed to recycle. For both medical and failures.
A friend of mine has a spouse sitting out for the next six months for getting in a fight during ranger school.

I'm starting to lean towards these women actually making it thorough.
The last thing ranger want is their rep tarnished by hiding the info.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Infantry school is not "pre camp".

Males are allowed to recycle but not as many times as they wish. Sometimes not at all depending on why they failed a phase.

Lastly, this is a leadership school, these are not "rangers". They have a patch on their shoulder but are not assigned to Ranger Regiment because they passed Ranger School. It's two different things completely.

Post: #35

(09-29-2015 03:12 PM)kleyau Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 11:51 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  When I was in the Air Force my tech school was the same base as the Paratrooper school...

I'm assuming you mean Pararescue. Paratrooper School aka Airborne School, is a joint school with women that is pretty easy, all things considered.

Yes you are correct it was Pararescue... that was over 15 years ago (closer to 20), forgive me if I don't recall the exact terminology. I'm lucky I remember what branch I was in.

Post: #36

Now. Yes. Infantry officer school is essentially a school to prepare you for Ranger school.
Why? Because every infantry officer will get his shot at ranger school and ranger school is an more strenuous and advanced version of the tactics and leadership learned in officer school.
Whether he passes or not is still a factor.

And yes.. I acknowledge that Ranger school is not RASP. It's the am premier leadership school of the army.