Sir, to be clear, I do not disagree with anything you have stated. I was refuting the argument that NO females could ever compete on an equal level with males.
Reed
Females in Ranger School
- Thread starter goon175
- Start date
Reed
I think you took S6 a lil too literally. The numbers dont support the changes that would be required (cause equality ends with showers and latrines to name a few) to allow a couple/year into the course at "the standard."
And since you quoted the article about the HS female wrestler, there are deaf and blind people who wrestle as well but I dont want either of them in RS with me.
I'm on vacation and as a result I'm in a good mood. This thread.....I've seen a few posts that are absolutely the stupidest thing I've seen all week (and that includes being patient #2 at the doctor's office and yet not leaving until 10AM), but the week IS young.
I'm not going to call out anyone, but as Pardus said "Relax." Pardus is a garden-variety asshole so for him taking the high road shows an unusual amount of professionalism and tact on his part...I guess being a fobbit is paying dividends for someone...
Seriously, a few of you need to chill out. I don't feel like being a dick...not on vacation.
I'm not going to call out anyone, but as Pardus said "Relax." Pardus is a garden-variety asshole so for him taking the high road shows an unusual amount of professionalism and tact on his part...I guess being a fobbit is paying dividends for someone...
Seriously, a few of you need to chill out. I don't feel like being a dick...not on vacation.
Brill
SOF Support
When I went through Naval Aircrew School many years ago, we had a female Marine in our class who had trouble climbing the 6 foot wall. So on the "final" test of the O-course, we simply piled sand up so she could jump up and hook a leg. She got over the wall but were the standards lowered? No, they were raised actually.
All us boys felt ok with our decision: she had big boobies. Wait, can I say boobies here? Should I have used mamory glands instead? I didn't see anything in the rules so I just went for boobies.
Flash forward many years later to the "incident" in Greece. Had I become injured and in capacitated, the females on my crew would probably have trouble dragging me from the burning plane. Dunno and don't want to find out.
I really hope that RS does not become like BAS, which is gay...super gay and not in a good way either.
All us boys felt ok with our decision: she had big boobies. Wait, can I say boobies here? Should I have used mamory glands instead? I didn't see anything in the rules so I just went for boobies.
Flash forward many years later to the "incident" in Greece. Had I become injured and in capacitated, the females on my crew would probably have trouble dragging me from the burning plane. Dunno and don't want to find out.
I really hope that RS does not become like BAS, which is gay...super gay and not in a good way either.
Rather surprised you didn't just stick with "Tits." It's only four letters long. It's all about efficiency in what you do, to include typing... ;)
dirtmover
Verified Military
Well I for one would love for the opportunity to go to Ranger School. With that being said IF they change the standards then F*#& it I would refuse to go. If you can't do something right then why even bother going. My reasoning for going would be to learn and have tools in my tool box to make me even more effective not for a frickin tab. I see it every day the bs that females try and get away with. We just picked up a new group of soldiers only 10 females and over 150 males and on that first day I saw most of the damn females trying to get out of the heavy lifting stuff....needless to say I put a stop to that. I wonder though if that society is part to blame for creating these unequal gender norms. I played football on my high school team.... was I the best no but you can bet that I worked my ass off so that I wasn't a liability to my team. I have the same philosophy in the Army.
If they wanted to let females in to combat arms I thought it would be better to let them try out for Regiment or SF, for the reason that the Devil aka TRADOC (BTW can't even say the F-work its hazing now) doesn't have their grimy hands in the process. In those organizations either you are what they are looking for or you aren't plain and simple. If you want everything to be all sunshine, flowers and PC get out of the military.
If they wanted to let females in to combat arms I thought it would be better to let them try out for Regiment or SF, for the reason that the Devil aka TRADOC (BTW can't even say the F-work its hazing now) doesn't have their grimy hands in the process. In those organizations either you are what they are looking for or you aren't plain and simple. If you want everything to be all sunshine, flowers and PC get out of the military.
Agree and disagree. Just looking at it from an active duty perspective... This is going slightly off topic from the thread, but: You're in a "V" slot, which is V coded for a reason. However, the main benefit for going would be for first-impressions / ego reasons when you're integrating with guys you haven't worked with before. Would two months of small unit tactics benefit you? Definitely. Will you be in a leadership position requiring those skills? Probably not.
Then, since there are so many young 18 series guys in Group without Ranger tabs these days, they have priority. So, depending on your unit, you might not get to go if you wanted to.
There is so much technical / MOS training out there, you could never keep up even if you spent all your dwell time going to it, and I think that ultimately brings more to the table.
As for the whole women in the Infantry/Ranger School blahblahblah. I've already stopped giving a shit. Hopefully it all works out, because I almost guarantee it's coming.
Great attitude.
The powers that be (those who need NC/OER bullets) at USAJFKSWCS are looking to get the SFQC accredited by TRADOC, thus making it a TRADOC course. In so doing the SF Regiment will be taking yet another step away from relevancy and towards forced lower standards.
If only SF was still a career killer for officers, and SrNCOs were the voice of reason instead of being spineless yes-men who are also looking to make the next rank by stepping on the men below them...
(Yes I am bitter in case it wasnt picked up on)
dirtmover
Verified Military
Surgicalcric were u being sarcastic when you said great attitude? I have dealt with alot of BS thrown my way due to being a Drill Sergeant because of TRADOC. In the eyes of the powers that be as long as the civilian does the mandatory training events, qualifies with their weapon and passes their PT test at 60 points in each event they are good to go. What they don't take in to consideration is the human factor. It is hard to quantify the necessary intestinal fortitude need to fight on the modern battle field. From the outside looking in, SF seems to pride itself on the ability to find that person that is physically capable of doing the job but even more so finding that guy that has appropriate personality (can't think of a better way to put it) to be successful in the environment that you all operate in.
No sarcasm intended.
It really is unfortunate that SF still prides itself still in what made SF great at one time - we are 180 degrees from that at the moment. The senior leadership would be better served in taking pride in selecting, training, and subsequently promoting some of the most conventionally minded soldiers in the military for thats what is happening. The yes men have been promoted into positions where they have changed SF ODAs into little more than a highly trained infantry squad who are expected to think and act like the average CF soldier from garrison to combat operations while the outspoken Team Leaders and Team Sergeants and pushed out/off to the side as rogue or bad SF guys because they dont support the command - makes me wonder what Gen Yarborough would be labeled as if he were still alive today.
I was recently asked why I don't think and act more like an infantry Squad Leader and just conform. I was somewhat speechless...
If you ask many of my Brothers here they will more or less echo what I have said here and in many previous rants on this very topic over the past couple years. Bottom line is the younger generation that came to SF to do UW, to be SF are leaving in droves after their first enlistment with the more experienced yet outspoken guys in tow.
I could go on and on but I am just pissing myself off.
Crip
Usually, sarcasm on the site is accompanied by -->
Example: "Sure, Pardus isn't a wanker. "
Brill
SOF Support
Wow. I don't know if this is going to come out the wrong way, but I still hold SF guys I meet in pretty high regard. Even xSFmed.
To hear things said like this are disappointing.
Wow. I don't know if this is going to come out the wrong way, but I still hold SF guys I meet in pretty high regard. Even xSFmed.
SF is still a better place than any place in Mother Army but as more individuals with the wrong mindset that gets selected those lines will blur more and more. There are a lot of good SF soldiers, the unfortunate part is there are too few of them in a position of authority IMHO.
Crip
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2012
- Messages
- 124
Surgicalcric, we are of a like mind.
I went from 3/75 to 5th SFG and wished I was back in the Regiment most days. I ETS'ed in 2010 with eight years in for the reasons you mention. It wasn't just me. It was 18X-Rays who came, saw, hated it, and left with tons of training already invested in them. It was all the guys who had degrees ranging from International Relations to Chemistry. It was former Law Enforcement. It was anybody who had anything going for them on the outside and wasn't locked into the system because they had a wife and kids. Everyone was popping smoke. It's worse than just that though. They are also reporting false retention numbers up to higher to make it appear as if it isn't happening...
I went from 3/75 to 5th SFG and wished I was back in the Regiment most days. I ETS'ed in 2010 with eight years in for the reasons you mention. It wasn't just me. It was 18X-Rays who came, saw, hated it, and left with tons of training already invested in them. It was all the guys who had degrees ranging from International Relations to Chemistry. It was former Law Enforcement. It was anybody who had anything going for them on the outside and wasn't locked into the system because they had a wife and kids. Everyone was popping smoke. It's worse than just that though. They are also reporting false retention numbers up to higher to make it appear as if it isn't happening...
With the up-most respect for you and your position Sir; No I don't think I would be surprised. I respectfully disagree with your veiled assertions that no political correctness was involved in the support by certain officers for the repeal of DADT. The current Commandant of the Marine Corps expressed strong disagreement with openly serving gays in the military. I for one am completely against openly serving gays. I further believe they should have separate barracks and quarters away from non-homosexuals. In the same manner females are housed separately from males. This issue is deeply disturbing to me as well as many of my friends who are still serving on active duty. I think it is also fair to say that no adverse issues relative to this policy will be voiced by anyone for fear of career suicide. But I have strayed, this is a side bar issue and not relative and will cause a very wrong turn if dialog expands.
**The DADT policy not unlike the issue of females in Ranger school; if the powers that be force the situation and exert political leverage on the command structure they will fold regardless of personal and professional beliefs.
Once again correct you are about Mr. Panetta's military service. Military service:US Army (1963-65, 1st Lt.) I must admit I despise this guy and have no use for him personally or professionally so I have a deep rooted biases against him. Which in fact led to my incorrect assumption & assertion that he possessed no military service. I based this on what I perceive as his lack of support for service members and track record as I interpret it. I don't know what his combat record is but my searches indicate no service in combat operations in any capacity during this time frame. Which further increases my suspicions about him, his intentions and his service record. My apologize, I stand corrected, please accept this as a retraction of my earlier statement that the SECDEF never served in the US Military.
I further agree with and support your opinion and statements relative to the draw downs and the ill-responsible time tables, methods and insulting manner in which the current administration is handling this issue.
As to the bold, may I ask why? Specifically the 2nd sentence.
Same reason you don't dorm males and females by protocol.
