Women Rangers

| May 16, 2012 | 145 Comments

COB6 sends this link to an Associated Press article about the Army’s discussion whether they’re going to let women in Ranger School;

Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, says he’s asked senior commanders to provide him with recommendations and a plan this summer. He says if women are eventually allowed to serve in the infantry, they would have to go to Ranger school in order to be competitive with their male counterparts as they move through the ranks.

Going to Ranger school does not automatically mean they would be allowed to serve in one of the Army’s three elite Ranger battalions, which are Army special operations forces. Women are not allowed to serve as special operators.

COB6 says “Every time we put a tanker in charge Rangers get f*cked!”

Category: Military issues

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (145)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. JustPlainjasin says:

    You know why I don’t care how hard the school is? Because I am NEVER going to the school and I am not going to be fit judge those who wear the tab how fucking hard is that for your half retarded ass to understand? When you go get your tab then you can sit in judgement, until then let better people than you make the call fucktard.

    I was making fun of your what if game assmaggot.

  2. 68W58 says:

    Well, so long as it’s all about you then,

    I think I may have been giving you too much credit Jason. It seems that your inability to argue a coherent line of reason inevitably descends into ad hominem. I was probably wrong to try to engage you in a debate, given that you obviously do not have the faculties to do so.

    I mean, it’s better than the mumbling gibberish that you tried before, but still.

  3. 68W58 says:

    Well so long as it’s all about you then. There are a couple of posters here who do have the Ranger tab and who saw fit to comment. I didn’t notice that you were particularly deferential to them.

  4. Tman says:

    68W58, from what I read I think Ranger School is mostly about the gut check experience, a rite of passage if you will. I am sure they do teach a lot of skills and tactics, but not sure how much of Ranger School is actually designed to teach as each candidate is so fatigued from lack of food and sleep.

    I’m not sure how it is now, but for infantry officers especially, not having that Ranger tab makes it harder to reach the upper echelons. And if a Ranger from Battalion doesn’t make it through Ranger school, they will be re-assigned. So I think Ranger school is more of a promotional thing or expected rite of passage.

    So as discussed above, being how important Ranger School is to one’s career in certain situations, that is where women in Ranger School discussion started I believe.

    But again, two different issues I think. Ranger School standards one thing, combat effectiveness of women another thing entirely. Because as I said before many fine soldiers who have performed valiantly in combat have never gone through Ranger School. So the discussion of lowering standards in Ranger School leading to loss of lives is irrelevant.

  5. 68W58 says:

    Tman-I think it’s part of the larger argument about relaxing standards overall.

  6. Hondo says:

    Tman: I beg to differ. Lowering the standards will indeed lead to deaths in combat.

    While many of those attending Ranger school will never serve in a Ranger unit or SF, a substantial number will. Lowering the standards for Ranger school thus means these individuals will be less well trained than they otherwise would have been. Less well trained = more casualties when the shit hits the fan.

    As I’ve said repeatedly: I personally have no problem with women who can meet the current standards attending either Ranger school or SFQC. But I have a huge problem with lowering the standards across the board for no other reason than to allow a relatively small number of females attending either course to get an undeserved “PASS”.

  7. David says:

    Starting too quickly. What they need to do is open billets in Infantry and Armor units to women that are not 11-series or 19-series billets.

    Once you’ve done that, monitor through an entire ARFORGEN cycle and see the results. If that works, do the same for 11-series and 19-series jobs…If that works, THEN you alter Ranger school.

  8. Just Plain Jason says:

    The only reason I am even bothering to continuing to discuss this with you 68tard is because you keep making it about other things. I made my point long ago and you keep ignoring it. I called your leadership into question because you made it an issue by saying that you couldn’t handle the issues caused by female troops. Then you keep calling into question the integrity of the Ranger School by saying they will undoubtly lower their standards with no evidence other than what you believe they will do politically. I don’t defer to other’s here because of previous relationships built on this site and honestly I don’t know who the fuck you are other than some asshat who has good googlefu. Now it is devolving into who is going to get the last word and you know I am really trying to make some progress so I will for the last time call you a fucktard and have dinner with my family. Go fuck yourself!

  9. 68W58 says:

    Hilarious-actually what I did was point out a problem that I actually had having to do with the differences between men and women in the ranks (and I even offered to let you tell me how you might have done things differently-which, I note, you declined). But given that you don’t pack the gear to follow a line of reasoning, I’m not surprised that you got it all twisted

    Anyway, I’ve pointed out that standards have consistently been relaxed and your response has been that you don’t care that that’s so or if that happens to the Ranger school. That tells me a great deal about you. Well, that and the fact that you continuously resort to profanity and name calling.

  10. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    Ya know JPJ, I have thought rather highly of you until now. Personal attacks and vulgarities are a sign of a weak or non-defensible position. Man, I thought you were better than that.

  11. CAvFSO says:

    68W58, I’ve been following this whole thread just waiting for Jason to make a point. Don’t feel bad, you’re not the only one who has no clue what he is talking about or his reasoning for anything.

    You are exactly right, allowing (or inviting as it seems to be) women into the infantry will lower standards. The Army simply can not try an experiment like this without first raising the women’s standards overall to be equal to men’s WITHOUT LOWERING THE MEN’S STANDARDS. They need to first see what it will do to put women on exactly the same footing as men, that means the same standards men currently have, not a middle ground. If women want to prove that they are equal, they need to first show it on a general level, Army-wide in the jobs women are currently allowed to do, before trying to shoot up the special guys. I’m not saying that there aren’t uses in the military where women are valuable, there are many spots where women are needed and do well, and many where they aren’t needed but they excel anyway. We don’t need women in infantry, and ought not shoehorn them in. Jason would do well to answer the simple question “why do we NEED women in the infantry?” It’s nothing but political wrangling, putting their careers ahead of our lives.

    The long and short of it is, some women are as good as most men (in military things). However, I have yet to see a woman in my four years who is anywhere close to as good as the best men. Even the most motivated, in-shape, hooah, competent, hard-charging females in the military are at the level of the most mediocre of infantrymen. We don’t need mediocre leaders. Women aren’t equal to men by any yardstick. Trying to force that… well, Welcome to the Monkey House.

  12. DR_BRETT says:

    ” . . . the differences between men and women . . . ” —
    Oh no, now you’ve done it .

  13. Just Plain Jason says:

    Yes I let someone annoying get to me. I admit it and when I do I kinda sink a little. I made my point and I was pretty much done but sometimes I get obsessed and I go a little nutty. It was one of those deals where I knew he was trying to play the I’m going to go the high road and I have no problem going the low road. He has issues with women on the military in general which he admitted to, that kinda pisses me off because I have dealt with a lot of women veterans and guy with that attitude kinda push them away like they don’t belong. Sorry if our sisters can bleed and die along side us then they deserve the same options as the rest of us. If they are making similar sacrifices then they deserve similar rewards. I hate this word, but I will use it here, fair is fair. If our sister are fighting with us then let them do it also. If they cannot make it they can’t, if a politician doesn’t like it the it’s their problem. Let the instructors decided who has earned the tab and who hasn’t. If you are worried standards are going to be lowered well go take it up with the people who run the school.

  14. Ann says:

    I REALLY hope they screen them carefully. Otherwise I’m foreseeing a scandal involving PFC Skankosaurus Rex who was sent to meet a quota, and once again degrades the reputation of every other military woman.

  15. David says:

    “Sorry if our sisters can bleed and die along side us then they deserve the same options as the rest of us”

    The point is that, realistically, only about 30% of MEN in the military (and that is probably being generous) can make it through Ranger School.

    There’s an axiom…”I showed up to Ranger School in the best shape of my life; I left Ranger school barely able to stand”.

  16. female says:

    Wow, thanks all of your sexist bastards who have nothing but negative and critical words to say. Thanks for the morale boost. I can’t believe i serve alongside men who continue to think this way when some of us go out alongside you and equally risk our lives- especially when some of us can run faster, ruck farther and shoot better. We’d go out of our way to help you and be your teammate, not your f*ckbuddy. Not every woman in the military wants to sleep around or be held to the lowest standard. We’re not even asking for lower standards – we’re asking for an opporunity to rise to our potential and be treated equally with equal standards. Those of us who WANT to be infantry and want to do ranger school already hold ourselves to a higher standard.

  17. badams says:

    116…..most believe that there is women that can out ruck us. With that said most believe those women are done a disservice by having lower standards, a differernt set of rules, different punishments, etc. I have a disdain for the age brackets on the army afpt let alone gender inequalities. Do not be so upset that that there are a huge population of men who want to protect women, and on the flip side there is a population of boys that just see you as pleasure tents…or even a threat. You can take compliments in some form from each scenario.

    If you are one of the very few that you tried to describe keep your head up. Request to be graded judged and scored on THE standard not your gender standard or the “higher standard” you refer. Have you ever had a negative counciling for scoring below 300 on your pt test? Honest fact is just because you want to be infantry and want ranger school does not and should not mean you have to get it or should for that matter.

  18. female says:

    I’m not asking to be scored on the gender standard. The army does that and if they changed it to be equal, that would be fine with me. It wouldn’t affect my score.

    I want to be infantry – so even if i can mentally make it, am motivated to do so and can physically handle it…still, you’re telling me that “should not mean you have to get it or should for that matter”. Not asking for that. I’m asking for a chance to be evaluated to do so – and not on a sexist standard, on an equal standard. And if i meet that standard, then i’d like the opportunity.

  19. OWB says:

    If you do indeed want to simply be given an opportunity to meet “the standard,” you might consider dropping the attitude. What you have perhaps done with this little hissy fit is risk alienating a bunch of people who would otherwise have been on your side in that effort.

  20. female says:

    OWB – thanks for the head check. you’re right. hissy fit is uneccessary. i’m overly defensive. a lot of this stuff above hurts to hear though, especially when i know its coming from other soldiers. i’ve waited out several years hoping for the change to become a reality. Im concerned now that the one opportunity where this might become available will disappear due to reasons outlined above (by other people- i.e. personal opinion, perspective etc.). Just to be offered the opportunity would be enough.

  21. 68W58 says:

    On the thread about the two Marines who were awarded the Navy Cross it was described how one of those Marines found himself fact to face with a jihadi in very cramped quarters. The Marine, described as a 220 pound former football player, wrestled with the man and beat him to death with his own rifle.

    That’s the reality of combat: one man lived to tell the tale and the other man was brutally beaten to death (I’m thankful that it was our guy who lived). Ideas about “fairness” or “sexism” don’t enter into it. One man died and the other one lived=combat.

  22. Hondo says:

    female: you might want to take the chip off your shoulder, lady. Frankly, very few of the comments above are overtly sexist. Most comments above clearly take issue with the realistic potential for lowering existing standards for political purposes in order to ensure women’s success – not with the possibility of female attendance at Ranger school.

    Please don’t tell me that’s not a possibility. I’ve been around long enough to see it happen before. “Gender-appropriate” physical standards are bull; the only defensible ones are either the same for all, or variance by specialty. During combat, the enemy doesn’t care about your gender – they care about how well you can fight. For some military specialties, physical strength and stamina are critical.

    Infantry happens to be one of those specialties where strength and stamina are critical. Ranger school is perhaps the most intense Infantry training in the US military.

    And spare me the “oh, that will never happen” argument. I’ve been around long enough to have seen it happen personally. Physical standards have been “adjusted” for both males and females repeatedly over the last 35 years. At one point, if I recall correctly it was literally possible for a woman to max a PT test with a raw score that would fail a man. And still it’s fairly close to that even today – check out the current 2-mile run standards for males and females.

    Physical standards exist for a reason. Relaxing them simply to be politically correct means we’ll see more casualties in future conflicts.

  23. WOTN says:

    JPJ has already admitted that women and men have different physical capabilities. He said he uses his female “tools” differently, because that’s what the Army sends him. He admits he uses his male “tools” to do the physically demanding stuff. In other words, JPJ is already one of those that lowers the standards for the “weaker,” rather than assigning the taskings equally amongst all, because it is THEIR jobs.

    The difference in strength is but one of the differences, and but one of the things that would be detrimental to “integration.”

    The Ranger Tab is not just a decorative item on the uniform. It is recognition of tested abilities. Ranger school is not open to a Logistics Officer of either sex, period, hence it does not effect promotions. While Ranger School IS a gut check, it is far more than that. It is an intense infantry course, as well as a leadership course.

    And the Eschelons Above God have already made known they will have a lower standard, so women can pass the course and get an extra piece of cloth on their uniforms, and an extra line on their ERBs.

    Men and Women ARE different, and there ARE things they are best or only performable by members of one sex or the other. It would be equally idiotic to put men on FETeams. FETs are NON-combat, even if one of their officers was killed while in a vehicle with a VERY combat oriented unit like the Rangers. Her job that day was NOT to hump a ruck, nor to seek out and destroy the enemy.

    But feel free to peruse the FET mission stories, for their combat orientation and actual mission: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/fet/ Their role and mission is incredibly important, but it is NOT combat.

  24. 68W58 says:

    OWB-Looking back through the thread, I realize that I owe you an answer from post 93. “They” are the politicians in uniform at echelons above reality who will be under pressure from DACOWITS and feminist congrescritters to make sure females tab out. In which case one of two things will likely happen 1) graduation rates for females will resemble those for males (which as other posters above have pointed out are not true for civilian courses like firefighter and which would indicate that there was pressure from above to relax standards for females so that they graduate at similar rates to males) or 2) we never get to see statistics on the difference between male and female graduation rates because those for females are significantly lower which would indicate that it is a better bang for our training dollar just to send men to the limited slots that are highly prized. Even now we don’t get to see stats on any differences between males and females on likelihood to deploy (or miss deployment) or finish deployment-ever wonder why not?

    Fire departments and police training centers do enforce a standard, but they don’t exist in the same media spotlight as the military and the generally don’t have members of congress or interest groups that score serious points from advancing their agenda with high profile graduates.

  25. Tman says:

    In response to #123 above, combat support soldiers ARE eligible to attend Ranger School (and it sure seems to help in promotion points):

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/10/army-going-ranger-for-more-pay-101110w/

    As for the argument about loosening of standards in Ranger School leading to potential loss of life in the future, sure it can happen but I don’t particularly agree on this point as an absolute. Take this link for example:

    http://www.johntreed.com/rangeremail.html

    “I can honestly say that I didn’t learn a single thing in Ranger School that I hadn’t already learned better somewhere else, either in the Regiment, at West Point, or on my own time. Though there are a handful of places in Iraq and Afghanistan where one might successfully use Ranger-like patrols and ambushes, I completely concur with your argument that those places are few and far between, and the current Army is not engaging in “best practices” by using those tactics. In fact, Ranger School would be far more valuable for members of the Taliban operating behind our lines than it is for our own soldiers.”

    These are the words of one person that attended the school. With all due respect to those in the uniform and actually have experience (I’m just a civilian), to me it seems like one doesn’t necessarily attend Ranger School to learn skills in combat or war that one doesn’t learn at their own units (and sometimes more thorough and better retained at individual units instead of trying to retain anything in Ranger School when fatigued from lack of food and sleep). It is more of a rite of passage and a gut check, one that stamps a person as part of a brotherhood that can fight through the pain and suffering and never quit. But not something that is required to make one a fine soldier, because many fine and brave soldiers have never attended Ranger School.

  26. Ann says:

    @female This blog and it’s readers are a long ways from being sexist. I and the other women who post here have always been treated fairly.

  27. 68W58 says:

    Tman-who said anything about any of this being “absolute”?

    My understanding of the way all this evolved is this: The U.S. needed troops similar to the British commandos for particular missions during WWII. The British had (and still have) the commando course which served a couple of purposes one of which was to separate out those who were of a higher standard to serve as more elite troops and the other was to give those troops some degree of training as to what their missions might actually be like.

    We emulated that by creating the Ranger school (in fact, I think the first Rangers attended the Commando course). Now, it is true that many fine combat soldiers never attended the Ranger school and that the conditions there are perhaps not very conducive to learning the finder points of tactics, techniques and procedures. But the intent of the course is probably better understood to be that those who attend will be given the opportunity to see just how difficult it is to overcome combat-like conditions (lack of food and sleep coupled with great physical exertion) and execute combat missions so that when the time comes that they are actually faced with combat they will have a more realistic idea about what they will face (and this principle is also true or should be true of all military training).

    Those of us who are arguing that relaxing these standards by admitting women to the Ranger school-an area where up to now a high standard has been maintained-reasonably ask where leaders (especially leaders in the combat arms-the target demographic for the Ranger course up to now) might now get such realistic training. One thing that you can retain from lack of food and sleep is how hard it is to accomplish anything from lack of food and sleep. On a battlefield where you might be engaged with the enemy for long periods with little food or sleep, this might be a very valuable lesson indeed.

  28. WOTN says:

    TMan, While there are individuals outside of 11/18 Series that do attend and graduate Ranger School, they are assigned to positions that females are not authorized. In other words, those promotion points do NOT prevent females from getting promoted. In fact, females have attained the highest ranks in the military: 4 Star Generals, Command Sergeant Majors, AND Chief Warrant Officer 5. And since there is a limit to how many promotion points one can earn in ANY category, those points for the Ranger, while earned, are not the only way to max out those points.

    Does it surprise me that a West Point Graduate, who apparently had prior time in Ranger Regiment, believes he had already learned everything there is to know? No. That article (email) bears no weight in the value of the discussion, as far as I am concerned. I don’t put much weight in two ring-knockers that think they are too smart to be taught anything, badmouthing a school that creates combat (Infantry) leaders.

  29. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    Please allow me to interject again. A few years ago there was a Marine tv commercial that said, “If everyone could’ve a Marine, we wouldn’t be the Marines.” My SSgt nephew passed the same physical fitness standards in 1999 that his dad passed in 1972 and that I passed n 1977. Of course there were advancements in training but you get my point.

    I agree with the calls for allowing EVERYONE to be allowed to apply and try as long as the standards are the same for EVERYONE. No age or sex allowances permitted. Either you can cut it or you can’t. If a female can cut it, she lives with and like the rest of the outfit. No menstraul chits, no privacy claims, no jack shi’ite. You’re a grunt or Ranger or tanker or whatever, just like very other swingin’ d1ck.

  30. Ann says:

    The possible appropriateness of women allowed in different jobs aside, I will say there is one in certain ways military personnel treat women. One of the most frustrating things I dealt with was the idea that women should get dedicated hygiene facilities and living quarters no matter how rugged the op was.

    The grunts seemed the more prone to this mentality. Some of the higher ranking grunts seemed almost perplexed of even afraid of a women sharing their workspace. was assigned as a liaison to an RCT in Afghanistan. My job was strictly communications based, and would require me to never leave the COC. There was some pretty heated debate about whether I should go forward when they did despite the COC they built being located miles from any actual combat. I ended up not being able to go which was frustrating because I wanted the opportunity to do my job in a different context. I’m not foisting all the blame on them because of previous encounters with LCpl Slutty McSlutsers and women who use their sex appeal to get preferential treatment would sour even the most neutral opinions on the issue.

    They often act like women will melt should they be forced to dig a cat hole, or not have access to shower facilities like the guys for the duration. That is often used as a reason for not including them. Some went as far as exempting us from standard military duties like filling sandbags. One of the RCT SNCOs I worked with actually forbid his junior Marines in the COC from talking to women, me included.

  31. Hondo says:

    Ann: Part of that behavior may indeed be a reaction to previous experiences with those playing the “sex card” to get favorable treatment. However, I think a more likely explanation for the behavior that you describe is that the males doing so are simply running scared. A single allegation (even unproven and unprovable) of sexual harassment can often end an officer’s or senior NCO’s career these days. Avoiding serving with females in highly stressful situations avoids that threat.

    Not saying it’s right. Just offering an explanation.

  32. 68W58 says:

    Ann-I’d like to echo Hondo and say that another thing that might explain some of what you encountered is this: if there were to be a sexual assault on someone such as yourself in a remote location, then there would be an investigation. Part of that investigation would involve the investigator determining if the commander and others responsible for the welfare of that troop (NCOs included) did everything possible to prevent that assault from occurring. If it was determined that they did not, then they would be held to account. Easier for them just to tell their troops to stay away from you.

  33. David says:

    Once again, a couple of points:

    1. For every woman capable, willing, and stubborn enough to adhere to the same standards and “suck” that infantrymen and rangers adhere to, there are about 100+ that can’t. It’s a simple fact that no blowhard in Congress can magically change with the stroke of the pen.

    2. Gender Integrated Basic Training needs to go. There have been several studies that prove that the Marines have it right. They segregate their trainees and drill instructors based on gender during basic and have the fewest injuries and issues of all the services.

    3. Opening up staff billets in combat arms units is the correct call. In some branches, the promotion scale is actually biased against men in the ranks of O3-O5 and E6-E8 due to females having to serve in the prime jobs based on the others not being open to them.

  34. WOTN says:

    I served in all male and co-ed units, as well as units that had a few females for the first time.

    The first thing that happens when a unit introduces females to a unit is that professional communication is effected. The record of EO complaints and the effect on careers on those alleged to have offended is enough to inflict fear in leaders. The communications become strained and lack conciseness.

    No, leaders cannot put males and females in the same lodging, showers, or latrines. These often results in privates (female) getting lodging equivalent to a Senior NCO (male), or if there are a number of females, lodged with other females of much higher rank, creating a relationship that is not professional, and would otherwise be considered fraternization. Because of that relationship, the private feels empowered to use the rank of their friend to intimidate their superiors.

    Every single time I have seen females (though not every female) deployed in a co-ed unit, there have been substantiated allegations of illicit sexual relations, often involving the leadership. These allegations led to the appearance of favortism. Sometimes there was a basis for the perception and sometimes there wasn’t, but the perception alone was sufficient to wear on the morale and effectiveness of the unit.

    I have supervised females in combat zones and stateside. Unlike JPJ, I did not assign them the lightwork, and I did not tolerate harassment or bias. Each was expected to do their jobs and perform in a professional manner. Humor was of course encouraged.

    I have seen female NCO’s use their positions to maintain unprofessional and illicit sexual relationships. I have seen real cases of EO complaints and false allegations used by females in order to get out of substantiated allegations of wrongdoing, effectively. I have seen good Soldiers’ careers ruined by unsubstantiated allegations, as well as substantiated allegations (due to sex/race) swept under the rug.

    As per Military investigations, ONE-THIRD of Sexual based allegations, are proven false. (Another third are unprovable one way or the other.)

    No, not all females lodge false accusations, engage in illicit relations, or participate in other negative behavior. And most females are not victimized. Cases of sexual assault are NOT tolerated, and very rare. But these things occur regular enough that they MUST be considered by leaders in co-ed units. These events DO undermine unit effectiveness. While, that can be overcome in a support unit, there is no place in a combat unit for diminished effectiveness. Sexual tensions and ineffective communication cannot be allowed to undermine a unit that has to ruck 80lbs each 50 kilometers, in order to seek out and engage the enemy.

    And those false allegations are an important reason why leaders MUST consider that possibility when new allegations arise.

    But is there a double standard? A 17-21 yo female passes her APFT with 19 pushups, while a 52 yo male fails with the same number. She maxes her pushup event with 42, but the 52 yo male needs 56 to max. She has 19 minutes and 36 seconds to run 2 miles, and a 52 year old male has 19:48, but a 51 year old male fails with 19:36. To max, he must run a 14:42, but she needs only a 15:36. To pass a 17-21 yo male must run 15:54 and do 71 pushups. http://armyrotc.syr.edu/Files/apft/APFT_scorecard.pdf

    To be considered a “go,” a 17 year old female needs to have the same capability in pushups and 2 mile run, as a 52 year old male.

    And those standards (which will be changed in October) are already lower than the standard I entered the Army on, when a 17-21 year old male needed 82 pushups and 11:54 to max the APFT. (The standards were lowered during the Clinton Administration.)

  35. 68W58 says:

    Because of that relationship, the private feels empowered to use the rank of their friend to intimidate their superiors.

    WOTN-sing me a verse of that. Three years ago on a deployment I went and picked up an order at the Class VIII warehouse. I noticed that there were several things in the order that I had placed an order for just that morning. When I got back to my unit I said to SPC Q.T. Pie “when you place an order, please tell me to prevent duplication.” Little did I know but that SPC had just broken up with her deployment boyfriend a little earlier and was emotionally fragile. Apparently my comment drove her over the edge and she went to the latrine to have a good cry where she ran into her workout buddy SSG Ima Hottie one of our full-timers who was, let’s just say, very close to the CO. The next thing I know the 1SG has me in his office for a dressing down about how mean I was to my SPC.

    Now, I ended up thinking less of the 1SG, the CO and that SSG, but I also found it difficult to say the least to trust that SPC ever again.

  36. Beretverde says:

    I’ve been reading with dismay… 68W58… no matter how many valid points you make in the argument, it seems that you are talking to those that won’t or can’t reason, or have only the capacity to use their experiences and plug them into an ugly equation. Some of these people think that over that horizon is what Chris Columbus did. Name calling and dinosaur references are pointless.

    Again I am not a tab(s) protector, I am a realist. I never was from the school “I got mine, you get yours”. However, I know a few who were. This argument that we should let women try is baseless. I’ve never met a women who would graduate… ever. Yes a girl or two did beat me when I competed in sprint distance triathlons, but they would NEVER graduate from the tab(s)school(s) (Crapper tab doesn’t count- it was not around when I was, so I can’t use that one). No matter how hard core or in shape the girl was (determination notwithstanding) she would fail. Period.

    “We must be equal.. its the Army- “Be All you can be!” Give EVERYONE a chance!
    Really? Are we that stupid to waste valuable resources and time to make a point?

    OK- Equal in Battalion is sharing the hump of the four duece (and base plate) during the twenty miler. Equal in Group is sharing the generator and batteries to make the team members’ rucks >100lbs.

    In regular units, after actions reports/totals for a unit PT test … the key is how many FAILED the PT test. In SF and Ranger’s it is how many MAXED the PT test.

    “Those that know, know, those that don’t, watch the Military Channel and surmise.”

  37. WOTN says:

    BeretVerde, there are too many people that truly believe that this issue is one about promotions, or “the old boys club,” and refuse to believe it is an issue of life & death, and mission readiness.

    There are others that are not effected by such decisions and see only the political expediency of supporting the popularity of polls. As with so many decisions made for political expediency, the lives risked are not those that made the easy decision.

    But, it is American Citizenry, not the Warrior, that can change the body politic from this course, and they must be convinced of why it is a bad idea.

  38. Just Plain Jason says:

    WOTN do not put words in my mouth and misconstrue what I wrote. I said that I would use the tools the army sent me to their greatest use. I didn’t make any sweeping generalizations as you suggested. If you can quote where I did Ill gladly retract my statement.

    68w you are full of annecdotes that really don’t prove much other than you like to tell stories. So what you have bad experiences with some females, sounds like a personal problem. For every one of your annecdotes there is female soldier that kicks ass. I know quite a few of them and they have earned my respect because they have traveled the roads I have cleared. As far as your “scenerio” I answered your question you just haven’t figured it out. If you need a mentor look for one in your NCO support channel.

    Beret Verde, really honestly I couldn’t respect you any less. Just remember next time you see a female vet that she actually earned her way and treat her with respect she deserves.

  39. 68W58 says:

    I knew Jason would not be able to leave this thread alone and his response is as predictable as it is irrelevant. For the fourth or fifth time he accuses someone of “putting words in his mouth”. It’s funny that several of us have apparently misconstrued his words-maybe he should learn to express himself more clearly. Anyway, I don’t think any fair reader of this thread would say that he comes within several standard deviations of a rational argument, but at the very least he is persistent.

  40. JustPlainjasin says:

    68w honestly I admit it I lost my cool with you, because you aren’t very good at coming up with any argument other than you don’t like girls. Cool that’s your gig. You baited me which isn’t hard, in real life I have gotten a lot better at walking away from idiots and letting them run their mouths, unfortunately here I haven’t. Your argument has consisted of anecdotes of your interactions with some women. Like I said sounds like a personal problem, not an army problem. Yes WOTN did misconstrue something I said and just because you can make it up and try to bait me again doesn’t mean it will happen again. Now there is a new thread for you to tell more of your wonderful stories…

  41. Beretverde says:

    My favorite saying in “group”:

    “When you can do what I do, you can go where I go.”

  42. JustPlainjasin says:

    Which right now for you is golden corral for breakfast buffet. Doesn’t if feel good that age is the great equalizer…

  43. 68W58 says:

    Right Jason-When you use a word it means exactly what you want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less (that’s what we call a literary reference Jason). Anyway, one of us lost his cool and that’s the best indicator or who had the superior argument.

  44. Rick says:

    The Army does not serve the individual and the outside world is meant for political experiments. Lowering standards for gender equality is bureaucratic non-sense that should have been crushed decades ago. When women serve with Infantry Platoons they sleep with married men then point fingers at the Chain of Command saying it was their fault, then threaten suicide when that doesn’t work until someone finally feels sorry enough for them that they can go back to the big FOB and eat steak and lobster on Fridays with little to no punishment, they also fall out on missions and require everyone to stop what they are doing for a MEDEVAC for sorry feelings. That’s my experience from Afghanistan.

  45. 11B3P says:

    female @116:

    Take MY apft, and score within the standard deviation in my squad, then I’ll be willing to listen to your drivel about equality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *