Ranger School to Accept Females

[BridgeRunner]

...complaints of rape while said women were in said military....

Couldn't be!

We have it on good authority that American men protect women.

[roo_ster]

Going out on a limb, I highly doubt that. If an all-female battalion simply got used to mow lawns and rake dirt at some FOB, they'd be more combat useful than the entire F-35 program. My impression that raking dirt and operating a floor buffer is more important than combat. Because I spent more time cleaning and raking dirt than I EVER did learning how to kill people and break things.

Think we've spent $300+ billion on the F-35, with no combat deployments. Actually, don't think there has been a single F-22 combat deployment either? That's another $100 billion, and has a problem with cutting off the oxygen in flight.

Way too much truth in that.  More or less true of some units.

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?  

Men under 30 have better recovery times, but male peak strength performance usually peaks mid-30s.  If you want to read good literature about the interplay between strength/performance vs recovery, the MLB steroid mess is fascinating.  Specifically, look at Barry Bond's career and the hard data as to where top MLB players peak and then degrade.  Steve Sailer is a good generalist resource and place to start.

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.

See, this is why we can't have anything nice reasonable discussions.  Playing the race/misogyny/hater card is a sign of a losing argument.  

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.

My comments regarded training only.  Actual shots-fired-in-anger is likely to be a mite more demanding than training.  

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?

The only benefits are political and accrue to the left.  "Pour encourager les autres(1)" in the violent sense.  See what they can do to the military?  If they can do that to them, what can they do to us or me?

Nothing more sophisticated than a mobster breaking some dude's kneecaps for non-payment.


(1)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pour_encourager_les_autres
"As they arrive in England, they see an admiral (based on Admiral Byng) being shot for not killing enough of the enemy. Martin explains that Britain finds it necessary to shoot an admiral from time to time "pour l'encouragement des autres" (to encourage the others)."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pour%20encourager%20les%20autres

[Fitz]

BridgeRunner, I really am not sure what side of this argument you fall on.

One one hand, you say that women aren't suited to roles such as Rangers (I would add infantry and Special Forces to that list)

then on the other hand you say there are benefits to women in the military, which I and many others here certainly do not dispute.

I think you may agree with me and not know it.

I'm not trying to be snarky or provoke you. I appreciate the fact that your level of fitness and your gender make you very qualified to discuss this issue

[BridgeRunner]

Men under 30 have better recovery times, but male peak strength performance usually peaks mid-30s.

See, my misgiving in making those comments was endurance as opposed to strength, what with ultra-runners tending to peak in their 40's--possibly a consequence of the long training/acclitimization period most people need for running 50+ miles, but seems I've read about endurance peaking much later.

I'll accept the factual issue with my argument--was just basing it off the various military fitness standards.

See, this is why we can't have anything nice reasonable discussions.  Playing the race/misogyny/hater card is a sign of a losing argument.

With all due respect to your valid point, I'd like to point out that that was a response to accusations of "butt hurt." I don't feel much obligation to play fairer than my opponents.
  

My comments regarded training only.  Actual shots-fired-in-anger is likely to be a mite more demanding than training.

I defer to Micro's experience.

[Fitz]

The only reason I haven't commented yet on women in actual shots-being-fired situations is because my sample size is too small.

The training aspect, however, I have loads of experience with.

[BridgeRunner]

Fitz, if there are two sides, I'm on neither one.  One some aspects of the argument, I have pretty firmly held opinions. On others, I have some ideas that are less fully formed.

I lose patience with some of the less reasonable arguments on both sides. I also am impatient with some (not all) of the military culture arguments, because they are often used to justify unnecessarily bad behavior and unreasonable and dangerous prejudices.

[Fitz]

Fitz, if there are two sides, I'm on neither one.  One some aspects of the argument, I have pretty firmly held opinions. On others, I have some ideas that are less fully formed.

I lose patience with some of the less reasonable arguments on both sides. I also am impatient with some (not all) of the military culture arguments, because they are often used to justify unnecessarily bad behavior and unreasonable and dangerous prejudices.

Fair enough.

I guess I just prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to servicemembers lives. I recognize that this is a bias I have, and am unlikely to overcome.

Regarding culture, however, I think maybe the reason you lose patience with some of those arguments is because you lack experience with the issues involved. I don't think it makes your arguments any less valid, but perhaps you might feel differently if you had a direct connection to the culture in an infantry unit

Hazing the new guy, using foul language and things that would be considered "mistreatment" in the civilian world can be effective tools when building a warrior.

[makattak]

Couldn't be!

We have it on good authority that American men protect women.

  You are far too smart to play dumb.

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. 

(1) Is there a current enlistment problem necessitating an increase in potential volunteers?

(2) Exactly how many women capable of passing the requirements for infantry soldiers are there and how many have an interest in volunteering? Will that number be significant enough to outweigh the costs?

(3) And, since we all know that the requirements will not be the same for females as it will be for males, is it worth getting lower quality soldiers in exchange for a larger pool? And, if so, why not simply lower the requirements for males to the female level and avoid the other problems?

[Fitz]

You are far too smart to play dumb.

(1) Is there a current enlistment problem necessitating an increase in potential volunteers?

(2) Exactly how many women capable of passing the requirements for infantry soldiers are there and how many have an interest in volunteering? Will that number be significant enough to outweigh the costs?

(3) And, since we all know that the requirements will not be the same for females as it will be for males, is it worth getting lower quality soldiers in exchange for a larger pool? And, if so, why not simply lower the requirements for males to the female level and avoid the other problems?

1) Most certainly not. In fact, we're CUTTING soldiers from our ranks.

2) No idea. I suspect there aren't many... this is solely based on my experience as a drill sergeant training troops. There were very few that would have raw PT scores or road march capability that would be considered "acceptable" in an infantry unit.

3) No. Not in the infantry, rangers, etc. I strongly object to lowering of standards for combat arms MOSs, REGARDLESS of the reason, be it letting women in, softening up on our trainees, whatever.

[BridgeRunner]

You are far too smart to play dumb.

Interestingly, that's the second time in recent history that someone here has stated that a woman is too smart to have said something she is quite demonstrably not too smart to have said. Iirc, that thread was ultimately closed for excessive woman-bashing.

But no, use of sarcasm is neither a measure nor a reflection of relative intelligence.

[/quote](1) Is there a current enlistment problem necessitating an increase in potential volunteers?[/quote]

Do you usually advocate for military basing its long-term policy on its current needs? There have been troop shortages in recent history.

[makattak]

But no, use of sarcasm is neither a measure nor a reflection of relative intelligence.

That may have been sarcasm, but it misrepresented my point willfully to do so.

Do you usually advocate for military basing its long-term policy on its current needs? There have been troop shortages in recent history.

No, I don't. What long term problem will be sufficiently addressed by adding females to the pool of volunteers given:

(3) And, since we all know that the requirements will not be the same for females as it will be for males, is it worth getting lower quality soldiers in exchange for a larger pool? And, if so, why not simply lower the requirements for males to the female level and avoid the other problems?

[Fitz]

Interestingly, that's the second time in recent history that someone here has stated that a woman is too smart to have said something she is quite demonstrably not too smart to have said. Iirc, that thread was ultimately closed for excessive woman-bashing.

But no, use of sarcasm is neither a measure nor a reflection of relative intelligence.

(1) Is there a current enlistment problem necessitating an increase in potential volunteers?

Do you usually advocate for military basing its long-term policy on its current needs? There have been troop shortages in recent history.

Considering that even during the shortages in recent history, infantry MOSs in the Army as a whole (and Ranger billets) have not been in any kind of critical shortage status, I'd say there's little to no personnel need that justifies the inclusion of women into combat arms MOSs

[Waitone]

An update that goes into more detail on Ranger physical requirements along with historical what-iffing with different standards.
http://weaponsman.com/?p=2861

[BridgeRunner]

That may have been sarcasm, but it misrepresented my point willfully to do so.

It did not misrepresent your point.  It contradicted your point.  Because your point is wrong.

We've all agreed that when speaking of averages, men and women have some inherent differences.  Assuming your thesis is correct that these difference go beyond muscle mass and body shape/size and that there are certain traits more intrinsic to average men and certain traits more intrinsic to average men, we should probably recognize that being "protective" is not a male trait.  It's arguably a female trait.

Male traits may include: Highly aggressive, territorial, sexually dominant.  If you want to strip it down to hard-wired traits, men don't protect women.  They dominate them.  

But it's not all about hard-wired traits.  Most lawful men dominate "their" woman/en to the degree negotiated between them (generally non-verbally).  They've figured out that sex is more fun when it's consensual, for a variety of reasons ranging from affection to not going to jail.  But the whole "men protect women" thing not only bullshit, but it also reinforces the idea that men's will takes precedent over women's will.  

The idea that men are inherently protective of women--whether the woman in question wants/needs to be protected or not--is an attempt to justify a man satisfy his lust for dominance by demanding that a woman submit to his will.

You know how most people are are kinda' opposed to the increasing militarization of police, and the attitude that "civilians" are not like them, but are different and subject to the whims of the police, because the police are the arbiters of law and order and you WILL submit to the will of the police, no matter how unlawful, because they're the (heavily armed) arbiters of law and order?  

Yeah...me too.

But in my world, you're arguing that it's good to foster and reinforce that attitude in men towards women.  Particularly military men towards women.  

No, men don't inherently protect weaker people like women and children.  Men inherently dominate them.  When men don't keep their inherent dominance within the bounds of acceptable behavior, depending on the degree, that might be called rape.  It might also be called "protecting you whether you want it or not, because that's just the way we are."

If, of course, we are going to accept that there are inherently male and female traits.  I'm gonna go with on average, there are.

No, I don't.

So, what you're saying is, you deliberately made a spurious argument in an attempt to "win" a conversation, despite the clear irrationality in the argument?  

Ok.  Just so long as we're clear on that.

[Fitz]

Jesus christ,  can we get back to the *expletive deleted*ing topic and stop with the *expletive deleted*ing dumb *expletive deleted*it?

[BridgeRunner]

Jesus christ,  can we get back to the *expletive deleted* topic and stop with the *expletive deleted* dumb *expletive deleted*?

Why the *expletive deleted*ck should we do that?

[BridgeRunner]

Regarding culture, however, I think maybe the reason you lose patience with some of those arguments is because you lack experience with the issues involved. I don't think it makes your arguments any less valid, but perhaps you might feel differently if you had a direct connection to the culture in an infantry unit

Nah, I couldn't be more clear earlier today which of those arguments I lose patience with, because I was on my phone, and then the work I'd been waiting for showed up.  Pretty much the ones I lose patience with are the ones that are irrational and/or self-contradictory.  See above.

Especially when the user then retreats into "it's a military thing, you wouldn't understand."  Well, yeah, I would or could understand a military thing.  What I have a problem with is using "it's a military thing you wouldn't understand" to avoid the issue.  

Kinda' like how I lose patience with my friend who insists that men aren't "allowed" to have an opinion on abortion because they don't have uteruses.  It's an avoidance tactic, not an argument.

Hazing the new guy, using foul language and things that would be considered "mistreatment" in the civilian world can be effective tools when building a warrior.

That's not what I was referring to. I have no problem with foul language or non-lethal, non-seriously-injurious hazing.  I'm not necessarily opposed to gender-based language or hazing in that context.  

I was alluding to stuff like rape.  

[BlueStarLizzard]

Jesus christ,  can we get back to the *expletive deleted* topic and stop with the *expletive deleted* dumb *expletive deleted*?

If a women can hack it, then she should be allowed to hack it, and if the men can't deal with the "little women in DANGER " then clearly he can't hack the *expletive deleted*it.
I may not be in this little circle of inclusion since I didn't serve, but, as I have overies and boobs, I AM a person that may be judged worthy of determining what a women is and is not potentially capable of, and history backs me up.
Plenty of women are capable of handling the stress and emotional hardship of war as a soilder.
Based on that, well, like I said, if she can hack it on the PT, then let her fight.

[Fitz]

I said the same thing. BW, you are turning this into the typical bullshit. Women will of course be able to hack it, because the "woe is me, women are mistreated " crowd will ensure the standards will fall.

BW, you not only have ignored much of what I said, but you took an innocent attempt by me to establish some rapport, and turned it into "Fitz is avoiding the issue"

Rape has nothing at all to do with combat standards,  and is incompatible with military service. Abhorrant behavior has nothing to do with anything I've talked about.

What I'm hearing now is "you don't want women in combat, you must be pro rape"

Really read my posts. You have not.

And no... you can't understand or appreciate much of what I've talked about. Its not  avoidance, its fact.

I'm finished with this thread. I'm sick to death of every single gender issue turning into "men are pigs, we're all equal, you must be rapists if you disagree"

I'm truly sorry, bw,  that you've been soured on men. I'm even sorrier that it has warped you so.
 
*expletive deleted* rape ... really? What the *expletive deleted* does rape have to do with the topic?

This is why you wouldn't hack it in the infantry. The "woe is me" *expletive deleted* that creeps into every thread you participate in betrays an insecurity and attention mongering mindset that would immediately get you shunned in infantry school or an actual combat arms unit.

Every single thread you participate in goes to *expletive deleted*

Mods, do your jobs.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Ummmm... Fitz, actually, I think I just agreed with you. Like, get subject back on topic and since we have the same veiw on the subject, them I guess that would make us allies in this debate.

[Fitz]

Ummmm... Fitz, actually, I think I just agreed with you. Like, get subject back on topic and since we have the same veiw on the subject, them I guess that would make us allies in this debate.

Apologies, I misread your post.

I agree with it.

If women can hack it, then let them do it.

My vast experience with female trainees tells me otherwise. And, as said above, my definition of "hacking it" absolutely does not include lowering standards, which will happen. I was angry and read straight through BWs and into yours. Apologies.

[BridgeRunner]

I said the same thing. BW, you are turning this into the typical bullshit. Women will of course be able to hack it, because the "woe is me, women are mistreated " crowd will ensure the standards will fall

Yes, you did.  I haven't actually disagreed with anything you've said, I don't think.  

Rape has nothing at all to do with combat standards,  and is incompatible with military service. Abhorrant behavior has nothing to do with anything I've talked about.

Yes.  I know.

I wasn't talking about what you were talking about.  I was talking about what mackattack was talking about.  

What I'm hearing now is "you don't want women in combat, you must be pro rape"

I can't help what you're hearing, I can only control what I'm saying.  But be assured, it ain't that.

Really read my posts. You have not.

Yes, I have.  Now read mine.  Especially the bits where I haven't disagreed with you

And no... you can't understand or appreciate much of what I've talked about. Its not  avoidance, its fact.

Congratulations.  You have found something to say that I disagree with.  

I'm finished with this thread. I'm sick to death of every single gender issue turning into "men are pigs, we're all equal, you must be rapists if you disagree"

Y'know, it's touching how much you care about my opinion.  It's too bad that you haven't bothered to read what my opinion actually is.  

It is possible to use the words "rape" and "men" in the same sentence without stating that men are rapists.  

I'm truly sorry, bw,  that you've been soured on men. I'm even sorrier that it has warped you so.

O rly?  If we're gonna make this personal, I've actually been soured on girlymen who demand that I dominate the relationship in all ways.  How clear a picture do you want me to paint for you of my preferences for dominance in men?  Be warned, in involves leather goods.  

But however much I appreciate dominance in a man, I don't think that these issues are all that simple.
 

*expletive deleted* rape ... really? What the *expletive deleted* does rape have to do with the topic?

I dunno.  Ask Hawkmoon, he raised it.

This is why you wouldn't hack it in the infantry.

O rly?  I didn't have the opportunity to try because I was crazy as *expletive deleted* when I tried to enlist, and on top of that I had a ripped up shoulder.  Pretty sure that having a dick doesn't give potential recruits a pass on those things.

The "woe is me" *expletive deleted* that creeps into every thread you participate in betrays an insecurity and attention mongering mindset that would immediately get you shunned in infantry school or an actual combat arms unit.

Could be.  But see, I went to law school...there are actually all kinds of different subcultures, and even ones that aren't yours carry some validity.

Every single thread you participate in goes to *expletive deleted*

 
Why don't you go take a hot shower and have a drink?  You need to calm the *expletive deleted* down.

Mods, do your jobs.

Why no, you're not dealing with an uncomfortable situation by being aggressive and attempting to dominate AT ALL. 

Btw, ibtl 

[Fitz]

Ok, so we're not rapists. We just LOVE to dominate, and don't take care of women, etc etc.


Your man hate is mind boggling


You didn't get the chance to "try" to join the infantry because the infantry still is closed to women.


This thread is not about women joining or not joining the military.

It's about sending them to ranger and/or infantry school.



Leather goods?

Oh look, another "look at me" comment.


So surprised.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Apologies, I misread your post.

I agree with it.

If women can hack it, then let them do it.

My vast experience with female trainees tells me otherwise. And, as said above, my definition of "hacking it" absolutely does not include lowering standards, which will happen. I was angry and read straight through BWs and into yours. Apologies.

It's alright. Sometimes the personal attacks and "OMG! Outrage!!1!" around here is enough to set anyones teeth on edge.

I think more American women could hack it if our culture didn't raise them (and men) with such insane mixed messages.
The sex intergration of the military has coencided a lot with the increasing "everyone is special" ideals and the so called womens lib insainity. Instead of going in with the understanding that, admide the lower levels you are not suposed to be a special little butterfly, they go in with the idea that because they are diffrent, they are special. Men get a lot more of that trained out of them, but the women don't, because they do have those damn double standards as well as other specail considerations.
I think I would like to see how many of those special considertions we could wittle away and see what happens when men and women are forced to deal on the exact same level. It could be benificial, and at the very least, would be an interesting social experiment.

[Fitz]

I have been TOLD by senior folks at military bases to "watch how I talk around the females"

But sir, I thought I was supposed to treat em the same!

Guess not.


Spend some time at a gender integrated TRADOC post and you will see why we have a problem. For every 10 solid, outstanding female soldiers, there's another 10 that are skating by because THEY. ARE. ALLOWED. TO.

Say what you will about male shitbags, but they are fewer and farther between in the infantry, and we NEED to keep it that way.