Females in Ranger School

Ranger Psych seems to understand my point and stated it. This would be considered off topic so further discussion here will hit choppy water quick. I possess strong, in-sensitive and offensive opinions on this topic. They are frictional and not politically correct so it wouldn't be productive. For further discussion with me relative to Gays in the US military it should be relegated to PM or e-mail. As for females in RS; bottom line, same standards and same requirements. No slack!

Respectfully
 
IMTT said:
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.
Click to expand...

With regard to my position as what, a college student? ;) That's about the only position I'm holding down these days.

There are no veiled assertions here, I think that your assumption that the decision to allow gays in the military was politically motivated is as likely as my assumption that it might not have been. In the absence of anything empirical, then I think we will have to agree that the one assumption is therefore as valid as the other, until one of us can post up conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Now, as for the issue about Mr. Panetta's military service, that is an example of the way people can undermine our arguments completely or at least distract us from our main points when we don't take the time to do basic fact-checking and just let our assumptions or emotion get ahead of our logic. I say "we" because I do it sometimes too. You made a much better argument in support of your rationale in the post I quoted above than you did in your initial post. I suspect that was because you took some time to think about your position on the subject and you did a little research to support it.

Another problem I see frequently here on the site and that I've seen in this thread are over-generalizations that are demonstrably untrue. We should be careful when making statements that include absolutes like "never" and "always," or coloring a whole group of people with one overly broad statement. This is because it only takes one example to disprove our whole argument. It's better to caveat our statements with something like "it has been my experience" or "most of the time I have found;" not only does it make for more accurate statements, it ensures that our arguments are not derailed by a one-off event. An example unrelated to this thread: "You will never make general officer as an Infantry officer without a Ranger Tab." ORLY? --> Bolger, Honore . A more accurate statement: "Statistically, you see very few Infantry generals who have not earned the Ranger Tab." It's also important to check some of our internal assumptions from time to time; just because we have been told it over and over, doesn't mean it is necessarily true. Example of a myth I see over and over here on the site, that everyone believes is true because they have heard it so many times: "you can't use the .50 cal against troops; you have to shoot their equipment.

The repeal of DADT and the issue of females attending Ranger School are pretty closely related, so I see no reason why people can't have a parallel discussion in the same thread as long as the emotion is kept tamped down.
 
IMTT said:
... They are frictional and not politically correct so it wouldn't be productive.
Click to expand...

Dont confuse non-PC and friction with being counter productive. If the military leadership was a lil more frictional with the civilian leadership half of the issues the military has, with regards to being weakened wouldnt exist. Instead they take the PC road because God forbid they put the nation ahead of their own career goals.

If only the Department of Defense was still a War Department instead of a laboratory for social experimentation...
 
reed11b said:
But they DO in wrestling...
Click to expand...
This guy wrestles. too, but he's not going to Ranger School.
armless-wrestler.jpg
 
Women Sue Pentagon Over Combat Exclusion​
A colonel in the Army Reserve assigned to a Suffolk unit has sued the federal government in hopes of overturning the military's ban on women in combat.Attorneys for Col. Ellen Haring and Command Sgt. Major Jane Baldwin filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the legality of Pentagon and Army policies that exclude women from certain ground combat units because of their sex. Haring, who lives in Bristow, Va., is a 1984 graduate of West Point with 28 years of experience. She serves on the staff of the Joint Coalition and Warfighting Center in Suffolk.​
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...er-combat-exclusion.html?ESRC=eb.nl#community

What a wonderful and tolerant world...Hummmm, you go Ranger-ets!:ROFLMAO:
 
Yeah, they are real concerned with being in combat positions by being in the army reserve... the component that has next to no combat positions. The USAR is almost exclusively CS and CSS jobs....

Give me a fucking break.
 
They want it give it to them! Same standards, same field time and same everything. Ruck up little Suzy show me what you got. This should no longer be choice it should be a requirement. Equal one & all and exactly the same...We're for sure going to have to get some liter weapons, smaller packs, smaller mortar rounds better field showers larger tents and pass out birth control as mandated by the Obama administration. Tolerance, liberalism and full (of course selective equality) level playing field (with subjective standards that are gender neutral, measured and take into account the femininity considerations). I think​
Col. Ellen Haring needs to be the first female Ranger candidate, "what are you going to do PL?!"...​

My service time was concluded just in time...
 
IMTT said:
They want it give it to them! Same standards, same field time and same everything...​
Click to expand...
​
​
Along with registering for the draft... They want it that bad because they are that equal then the draft should be a part.​
​
I would love to see someone bring that idea up when this goes to trial....​
 
The old saying "Women have choices, men have responsibilities" seems to fit here somewhere.

Yes, I know it's sexist... :ehh:
 
Somehow I see a Presidential order coming down very soon. He's got to pull the trigger quick to make this count. Call me crazy or better yet Madam Cleo... His popularity is dropping with women in the poles. This is perfect timing and would make great news in the press. Pass out the party line mantra to the SGMs and the Commander's and lets get this party started. This could be great for votes and campaign contributions. Not unlike his Gay agenda.
 
IMTT said:
Women Sue Pentagon Over Combat Exclusion​
A colonel in the Army Reserve assigned to a Suffolk unit has sued the federal government in hopes of overturning the military's ban on women in combat.Attorneys for Col. Ellen Haring and Command Sgt. Major Jane Baldwin filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the legality of Pentagon and Army policies that exclude women from certain ground combat units because of their sex. Haring, who lives in Bristow, Va., is a 1984 graduate of West Point with 28 years of experience. She serves on the staff of the Joint Coalition and Warfighting Center in Suffolk.​
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...er-combat-exclusion.html?ESRC=eb.nl#community

What a wonderful and tolerant world...Hummmm, you go Ranger-ets!:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Sooo... A full bird colonel and a SGM, the former one rank below the top of the rank chain and the latter at the top, are arguing that they have been discriminated against and that their careers have been unduly negatively affected because they weren't eligible to serve in combat arms? :rolleyes:
 
Fucking ring knockers.... Who the fuck does that woman think she is? Kurtz with tits? Oh, no no no no, wait, I know! She's going to make a movie called "Tam-pocalypse Now!" Yeah, that's the ticket. Does she and her CSM plan to fast-rope into the old soldiers' home on a tampon string? Fuck me runnin' backwards with a chainsaw. If their goal was to get women into the infantry, all they had to do was wait. But noooOOOOOOOooooooo.... Apparently the generic Midol that they were given at the TMC just didn't quite cut it. Fucking frivolous lawsuits like this are what's going to set them and their cause back several years, and go that much further towards making women in the military look bad, if not worse. I can't stand sue-happy motherfuckers.
 
I hate females like this. They are doing way more harm than good. By trying to force the issue they are going to push even more supporters away. How about you just do your job to the best of your fucking ability oh and by the way THIS IS NOT YOUR FUCKING JOB!!!! I sincerely doubt that these individuals are going to Reclass/ branch transfer to combat arms. Majority of women won't want to do this job any damn way. Stop acting like you are talking for everyone. Would I love the chance.....yes but going about it this way is going to create more animosity in the ranks. If you can't hack it then you don't need to do the job doesn't matter if it's combat arms or being a pac clerk. Just uphold the fucking standards no more no less.
 
Mobile field showers, sanitary napkins the new mobile field out houses and sensitivity training for all Ranger instructors. Female Ranger instructors as well to enforce the special standards fairly. If they become pregnant in Ranger school do they get to re-cycle, how about heavy flow days, we have some planning to do here. How about peering? what officer in command is going to allowing peering of a female via an all male squad. Ain't gonna happen! So many very important issues to solve and so far to go, what a bright tolerant future. The first new priority military objective of inclusiveness, tolerance and equality (kind of...) will soon be a dream fulfilled. Soon our military will be just like our European partner forces. I have a nightmare...
 

Similar threads

Marauder06
Combined/Joint SOF Panel at West Point--Your Thoughts?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Gunz
Gunz
Chief_Gunny
  • Locked
Am I enough?
Replies
0
Views
1K
Chief_Gunny
Chief_Gunny
Chief_Gunny
  • Locked
Assess me
Replies
4
Views
2K
AWP
AWP
TLDR20
Progress Report from Q Course
2 3
Replies
43
Views
82K
amlove21
amlove21
Ravage
In the line of fire
Replies
3
Views
4K
digrar
digrar
Back
Top