PDA

View Full Version : Here We Go!


The Reaper
05-26-2004, 20:14
Army Times
May 31, 2004
Pg. 54

Women Unfairly Denied Shot At Ranger School

By Victoria A. Hudson

Combat service and combat service support soldiers soon may attend Ranger School, yet the majority may never serve as Rangers. The idea is to strengthen and better prepare soldiers for leading under fire, regardless of their military occupation specialty assignments.

Just one thing: No girls allowed.

Justification for the gender exclusion is that only support soldiers assigned to a battalion-level combined-arms task force, which excludes female soldiers, would be eligible.

Yet, the ambush of the 507th Maintenance Company in Nasiriyah, Iraq, is identified as a reason why we need more combat-savvy soldiers. You may recall there were women who fought, died and were captured in that ambush.

Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that women do fight the enemy. Women are subjected to hostile fire and must react to attack. Women accompany combat patrols, yet there remains an earlier-century gender bias that dictates women should not be trained for combat.

If non-combat arms soldiers are to attend Ranger School, they should include female soldiers.

If we are to ensure all soldiers have a greater warrior ethos, that can’t stop based upon gender. I don’t advocate assigning women to the infantry, but if it truly is “important to the warrior ethos that we engage as many soldiers as we can with the Army’s best school in combat leadership,” as Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Kelso of the Infantry Center was quoted in the April 12 issue of Army Times, then there is no justification to exclude women.

After all, there are some branches with women who are a bit closer to combat possibilities than the cooks, clerks and grease monkeys of the rear area. Pardon me, the transporters and signal jocks of the combat task force, military police, psychological operations and civil affairs, for example, come to mind. Who will deny these troops are out on the front line, if not in front of the front at times?

If the issue is logistics and plain discomfort about mixing genders in training, then hold a women-only training cycle.

Given current accounts of soldier-on-soldier sexual assault, putting the stress of mixed genders in such a demanding environment as Ranger School is likely not a scenario any commander wants.

The resentment of men in the course itself would be a significant distraction for all involved, creating an environment of hostility both unprofessional and inappropriate.

But that is not sufficient reason to deny women access to training that could very well save soldiers’ lives and enable them to better lead in combat.

Maybe it’s just too hard to swallow that some women would wear the coveted Ranger Tab. Fine. While we’re at it, take the tab off those men who are not, or who never have been assigned, as Rangers.

The warrior ethos is not something to pick and choose by gender. All soldiers must have this quality ingrained and reinforced. If non-combat arms soldiers who will not be assigned as Rangers have access to the highest quality of combat leadership training, then that training should include all soldiers.

Tradition should not deny soldiers access to training that is important to their development and fulfilling their responsibility to their subordinates. We are soldiers in the 21st century fighting a 21st-century war. We are all subject to the enemy and there is no safe haven for anyone because of gender. Gender, therefore, should not be a factor in determining who has access to the best training in combat leadership we have to offer.

The writer is a Reserve military police major with 24 years of service. She has mobilized four times, most recently completing a year with the U.S. Transportation Command as a joint anti-terrorism officer supporting operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. She is executive officer of the 6405th Reinforcement Training Unit, Intelligence and Security.

Gypsy
05-26-2004, 20:34
Good grief, here we go is right. Next thing you know they'll want in on SF.

The Reaper
05-26-2004, 20:42
Already happened, the door was closed after one.

She failed and complained that she was discriminated against, so they basically gave it to her.

Now that the SFQC is an MOS producing course, it shouldn't happen again till they decide to let women into SF.

TR

Gypsy
05-26-2004, 20:54
Ahh the D-word. I have little regard for women that claim that tired old stance. I'm not really "old fashioned" but there are some places women just don't belong.

Brother Rat
05-26-2004, 21:03
My dad once knew a Ranger who had a plaque on the wall of his office that said,"No amount of politics will ever make a 90lb. woman do anything but sit on a 100lb. ruck."

I always thought that was funny.

Eagle5US
05-26-2004, 21:28
I really do not know what to say...I am angered and speachless at the lack of awareness that some people have about the training that WARRIORS undergo.
This isn't a simple arguement of lowering the standards on the PT test or spatial requirements for hygiene...this training involves arduous physical stamina and ability.

This is strictly a badge hunting / "barrier bending" attempt by yet another part time "expert" on the military.
Once the course is attended...then what? There will be little to no practical application of skills...no sustainment in the motor pool or the PAC office.
The Army used to send support bubbas to school...in addition to higher washout rates (which translates into wasted instructor / student time...money...effort...quality of product due to distractors) soft skill grads had little to no way to employ their knowledge...so it wasted away, forgotten, underutilized.
A shameful example of a slot taken up by a guy who didn't need to be there...when some other bubba was humping the line or doing his best as a non tabbed fire team leader.
These columnists (military and otherwise) talk of "Warrior Ethos" without ever putting a bullet downrange aimed at another human being. They talk of "being a true warrior" and have never had the hair on their neck stand on end as they hid from a patrolling enemy, gripped their knife handle, and held their breath...every drop of sweat falling to the jungle floor sounding like a bass drum in their own ears. They are experts in modern warfare, but have never walked a pair of boots to the point where the soles fell off, literally walked the ass out of a pair of BDU pants, or put their digits into their buddys bloody body to save his life.
This major can kiss my ass with her 24 years in the reserves and 4 "mobilizations" .
OK...so I found some stuff to say...let me end it with calling her a stupid bitch...
Stupid bitch :mad:

Eagle

NousDefionsDoc
05-26-2004, 21:47
the ambush of the 507th Maintenance Company in Nasiriyah, Iraq

Big difference in my book in being ambushed in a convoy and being an offensive hunter-killer. From what I understand, there were similar convoys run throughout Vietnam and no truck drivers were sent to MACV Recondo or Ranger School.

Maybe Ms. Reserve military police major with 24 years of service. executive officer of the 6405th Don't Ask Don't Tell Reinforcement Training Unit, Intelligence and Security, should worry about training her own fookin' truck drivers instead of pawning them off on the Ranger School cadre so she will have someone else to blame when they get killed. Basically what she is saying, to me, is "I can't train my own troops, I need somebody else to do it for me."

Ranger School, for those that don't know, is designed to train small unit leaders (squad and platoon) in small unit infantry tactics. Not to train truck drivers.

I fail to see how learning to patrol and set up a patrol base is going to help react in a convoy ambush.

If I was her CSM, you'd be able to hear me kicking her ass still and yet for those assinine comments. Somebody needs to lock her heels up like the nuts on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Stupid Bitch

Ma'am

Footmobile
05-26-2004, 21:53
You guys covered every angle, and I can't really add anything more except for a " What a stupid bitch...":rolleyes:

NousDefionsDoc
05-26-2004, 21:54
These columnists (military and otherwise) talk of "Warrior Ethos" without ever putting a bullet downrange aimed at another human being.

Damn straight. Good reason to put Hand to Gland and Spirit of the Bayonet Training back in the PO fookin' I.

Fox has an Air Force General Colonel on as an analyst for the war in Iraq and the 'Stan. What the hell does the AF (no offense to the Air Force pukes on the board) know about counter-insurgency/counter-terrorism. Hell, Jimbo knows more about it than some AF General.:munchin

Sorry ladies, that dog won't hunt.

NousDefionsDoc
05-26-2004, 21:56
Oh yeah, I almost forgot - stupid bitch.

Ambush Master
05-26-2004, 22:23
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the ambush of the 507th Maintenance Company in Nasiriyah, Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hell, why don't they spend more time on BASIC Land Nav so's they know WTFTA !! If they'd have gone where they were supposed to have gone in the first place, NO PROBLEM !!! With GPS today, there is no excuse for that kind of F-Up !!

Roguish Lawyer
05-26-2004, 22:41
Stupid bitch.

LOL

CPTAUSRET
05-26-2004, 22:41
Originally posted by Eagle5US
I really do not know what to say...I am angered and speachless at the lack of awareness that some people have about the training that WARRIORS undergo.
This isn't a simple arguement of lowering the standards on the PT test or spatial requirements for hygiene...this training involves arduous physical stamina and ability.

This is strictly a badge hunting / "barrier bending" attempt by yet another part time "expert" on the military.
Once the course is attended...then what? There will be little to no practical application of skills...no sustainment in the motor pool or the PAC office.
The Army used to send support bubbas to school...in addition to higher washout rates (which translates into wasted instructor / student time...money...effort...quality of product due to distractors) soft skill grads had little to no way to employ their knowledge...so it wasted away, forgotten, underutilized.
A shameful example of a slot taken up by a guy who didn't need to be there...when some other bubba was humping the line or doing his best as a non tabbed fire team leader.
These columnists (military and otherwise) talk of "Warrior Ethos" without ever putting a bullet downrange aimed at another human being. They talk of "being a true warrior" and have never had the hair on their neck stand on end as they hid from a patrolling enemy, gripped their knife handle, and held their breath...every drop of sweat falling to the jungle floor sounding like a bass drum in their own ears. They are experts in modern warfare, but have never walked a pair of boots to the point where the soles fell off, literally walked the ass out of a pair of BDU pants, or put their digits into their buddys bloody body to save his life.
This major can kiss my ass with her 24 years in the reserves and 4 "mobilizations" .
OK...so I found some stuff to say...let me end it with calling her a stupid bitch...
Stupid bitch :mad:

Eagle

J:

Good post!

Terry

Roycroft201
05-27-2004, 00:19
No matter how hard I try, I cannot picture in my mind a woman accomplishing the same things in Ranger school. Maybe my problem is with the term 'woman'.


Roycroft201

ThinAir
05-27-2004, 01:14
If there is to be so much gender equality why don't we start with evening the PT standards first, then worry about whether or not women should be given slots to Ranger school. :boohoo



















Stupid bitch.

37F5V
05-27-2004, 07:06
Gents,

This is just another example of the Army looking for a quick fix solution to its training shortcomings. If units out there would just plan and implement EFFECTIVE training, and stick to it, a whole lot of deficiencies would be overcome. Attending Ranger school doesn't teach you how to clean your weapon or shoot. Solid leadership and good training plans do. I am sick and tired of the bullshit abuse of our "train to fight" doctrine. It seems that the only time this applies is when some asshole wants you to wear a ballistic helmet.....
"Put on your helmet troop!!!", "But Sir, it's 110 in the shade, I'm eating chow, and I'm in the bleachers???", "Train to fight soldier!!!"........ Mindless bullshit.

I teach this stuff and let me tell you.... The looks of bewilderment and disgust that I get from my students when they figure out just what their units are not doing is enough to make you sick......

But what the hell... Lets send them to Ranger School, then we can blame the school if someone dies....

Man this shit pisses me off.....

John

NousDefionsDoc
05-27-2004, 07:16
Originally posted by Roycroft201
Maybe my problem is with the term 'woman'.


Roycroft201

I've had the same problem since I was about 14.:D

echoes
05-27-2004, 08:04
Originally posted by Eagle5US
These columnists (military and otherwise) talk of "Warrior Ethos" without ever putting a bullet downrange aimed at another human being.
They talk of "being a true warrior" and have never had the hair on their neck stand on end as they hid from a patrolling enemy, gripped their knife handle, and held their breath...every drop of sweat falling to the jungle floor sounding like a bass drum in their own ears.
They are experts in modern warfare, but have never walked a pair of boots to the point where the soles fell off, literally walked the ass out of a pair of BDU pants, or put their digits into their buddys bloody body to save his life. Eagle

Sir, the above reasons in your post are exactly why this Columnist' rant is full of shit.
I am angered when I read about Equality for All in "Special Operations"!
To me, as a woman, it would get more Soldiers killed or worse.
There are just some places, and things, that should be left to The Men IMHO.
Holly:munchin

CommoGeek
05-27-2004, 08:12
This Major has an agenda, and Ranger school is but a piece of it I think....

Clowns like her are one reason why the Guard and Reserves has such a bad rep. I'd bet that some of her 4 "deployments" are actually 2 week AT periods OCONUS. I've seen that happen before in the Guard.

She is yet another example of a 90's bred Field Grade O with minimal troop leading experience yapping her pie hole about topics that she is unfamilar with, yet assumes that her rank allows her the right to do so. I'd bet that the majority of her uniformed time has been on a staff at a BDE level or higher.

She is probably a BG Karpinski supporter and I'd also bet that her unit has a regimental crest attached to their ear plugs, which is then dangled from a pocket or upper button hole. I notice this trend in units that suffer from badge envy and feel the need to have SOMETHING shiny on them.

Rather than send someone to a school, what if the unit NCO's actually trained their soldiers? Horror of horrors!

If I was her BC she could expect a below center mass OER.

Stupid, lazy, non-leading, DACOWITS, standard-lowering, head up her ass bitch.

ma'am.

Team Sergeant
05-27-2004, 08:31
Desert Storm; a female MP wanted a CIB for trading lead with Iraqi’s. She got her 15 minutes of fame and no CIB. IIRC she was read the regulation which clearly states just who can earn the CIB, MP’s were not on the list. I thought the ability to read was a must for MP’s?

TS

Razor
05-27-2004, 10:50
Any effort to provide opportunity based on artificialities is a grave disservice to those who gain the same through genuine merit.

NousDefionsDoc
05-27-2004, 16:53
Originally posted by Team Sergeant
Desert Storm; a female MP wanted a CIB for trading lead with Iraqi’s. She got her 15 minutes of fame and no CIB. IIRC she was read the regulation which clearly states just who can earn the CIB, MP’s were not on the list. I thought the ability to read was a must for MP’s?

TS

If I remember right, same same happened in Panama and I think they gave it to her. Attacked a dog kennel or something.

24601
05-27-2004, 18:42
Originally posted by Gypsy
Ahh the D-word. I have little regard for women that claim that tired old stance. I'm not really "old fashioned" but there are some places women just don't belong.

I agree. I've seen and met some of those who went to Ranger school and didn't make it. I may be able to carry my husband around, which makes me a freak, but I still am no where near the level they are at, mental of physically. It takes a tough man to do the job they do. I wouldn't even consider going to a school I knew was closed to me. It's that way for a reason.

Can you imagine when "that" time of the month rolls around. No showers, no toilets, nothing. I seem to recall hearing about the wild animals around. Wouldn't the excess blood causes a problem?

Then again, I was pissed women were let into the Citadel.

The Reaper
05-27-2004, 20:10
Originally posted by Razor
Any effort to provide opportunity based on artificialities is a grave disservice to those who gain the same through genuine merit.

AMEN!!

For those who are not soldier or are unaware of the dual grading used for men and women on the Army Physical Fitness Test, follow this:

Men age 17-21 have to do 42 push-ups in two minutes to get the minimum passing score of 60 points. 42 push-ups by a woman gets you 100 points or the max score in that age range. Max of a male of that age takes 72 push-ups.

There were separate sit-up standards as well, which was a farce because women have a lower center of gravity, and on the average, shorter, stronger abdominal muscles. 53 sit-ups in two minutes required for minimum score, 78 for max. They have now been equalled, but there is no requirement for females to do more than men for the same score.

The same young male has to run two miles in 15:54 to pass with 60 points, the female gets 96 points for that. She maxes points at 15:36, he has to break 13:00. It gets worse. A 37 year old male gets an entire extra 30 seconds to max his test at 13:30. The 37 year old female gets 17:00 to max it, 22:42 to pass. People, at 37, I could have carried the female on my back and still passed on her scale, which probably replicates the combat situation I would be in after an hour or two.

For those who say that females in general are shorter, not as strong, have less aerobic capacity, or are more prone to stress injuries, you are exactly right.

The enemy will pursue the integrated unit no more slowly than an all male unit, a 56 lb. crate of ammunition weighs the same regardless of the sex of the carrier, and a 135 lb. ruck will not get any lighter because are the girl on the team. The team is only as fast as its slowest runner, swimmer, rucker, etc.

You want to go to my schools? Meet the same standards and then we can talk.

I have eight years commanding all male units. Never lost a single soldier for pregnancy, sexual harrassment, or sexual assault.

I love women. I married one, and have a daughter I want very much to succeed in life. Do I want her to be President, or a CEO? Very much. Do I want her to experience life as an infantryman, an SF soldier, or at Ranger School? No.

Sorry, just my .02. Rant off.

TR

Gypsy
05-27-2004, 21:16
Originally posted by 24601
Can you imagine when "that" time of the month rolls around. No showers, no toilets, nothing. I seem to recall hearing about the wild animals around. Wouldn't the excess blood causes a problem?

Then again, I was pissed women were let into the Citadel.

Well that's definitely another huge problem if you ask me. And I have to agree on the Citadel as well.

As an American I get mad as hell when standards are lowered in our Military's testing so that women can "pass" the grade. Like The Reaper said, if a woman can meet the high and exacting standards that are required to produce Warriors...well maybe then they might be considered for a shot. BUT in reality I still don't believe females have the 'right' to infiltrate the HSLD units, that is a man's world.

CommoGeek
05-28-2004, 07:25
You men need to get over yourselves. I think reduced standards are acceptable, especially for political purposes. What could possibly happen as a result?

Signed,
LT Kara "Revlon" Hultgreen, USN

Ghostrider
05-28-2004, 08:52
Concur regarding the APFT "standards" for women....total joke. To reemphasize.....a 120mm tank main gun round weighs 50-65lbs ALL the time (loading standard is 7 seconds....but if it takes my loader that long I'm gonna kick his ass), one track pad weighs 75lbs ALL the time, a "bitch plate" is called that for a reason....it's a bitch to move.

As so eloquently put by several posters: "stupid bitch, (ma'am)."

The Reaper
05-28-2004, 09:26
Nice avatar, Tank Boy.

TR

Ghostrider
05-28-2004, 10:33
Originally posted by The Reaper
Nice avatar, Tank Boy.

TR

Thanks TR.....for those who don't know, the avatar is Frank Frazetta's classic "Death Dealer" (Gath of Baal) from the James Silke series...... :)

(yes, a little geeky, but I like it.)

Guy
05-28-2004, 11:42
Originally posted by The Reaper
I love women. I married one, and have a daughter I want very much to succeed in life. Do I want her to be President, or a CEO? Very much. Do I want her to experience life as an infantryman, an SF soldier, or at Ranger School? No.

Sorry, just my .02. Rant off.

TR

On another note:

Having spent almost six months in Iraq around the media for the most part. I have yet to see a single female camera person...

I wonder why? :munchin

Solid
05-28-2004, 18:39
I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, but I was wondering-
For the sake of argument, if a woman can meet the physical and mental requirements (non-degraded) for, say, Ranger school, should she be allowed in?

Again, this isn't a rhetorical device, I'm honestly curious about the arguments for and against this.

Thank you,

Solid

Airbornelawyer
05-28-2004, 19:05
MAJ Vicky Hudson said:
... hold a women-only training cycle. That part of her argument I actually like. I am picturing it right now. Mud and rain and women in T-shirts...

:D

The Reaper
05-28-2004, 19:14
Originally posted by Solid
I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, but I was wondering-
For the sake of argument, if a woman can meet the physical and mental requirements (non-degraded) for, say, Ranger school, should she be allowed in?

Again, this isn't a rhetorical device, I'm honestly curious about the arguments for and against this.

Thank you,

Solid


No. It is a combat leadership school, primarily combat arms.


AL:

Steady, men, steady in the ranks there....

Guest Instructors?

TR

ghuinness
05-28-2004, 19:37
I resisted asking, maybe not long enough; what about the first female to make it through to the Royal Marines last year?
Were standards altered?

Just curious.

Airbornelawyer
05-28-2004, 20:04
Originally posted by Solid
I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, but I was wondering-
For the sake of argument, if a woman can meet the physical and mental requirements (non-degraded) for, say, Ranger school, should she be allowed in?

Again, this isn't a rhetorical device, I'm honestly curious about the arguments for and against this.

Thank you,

Solid A couple of observations:

1. The problem with hypotheticals is we live in the real world. Standards inevitably lower. 48% of Ranger attrition is in RAP, and most RAP attrition is physical preparedness (35% APFT, 28% 5-mile run, 2% road march, 14% swim test). Sit-ups, the one event where standards are the same for both genders, account for only 8% of APFT attrition. Push-ups, where the difference in standards is greatest, account for 69%. TR noted that 42 push-ups is the minimum for 17-21 year old males. The Ranger School minimum is 49, and RIs are notorious for enforcing the letter of FM 21-20 ("Ready...begin...that's 1...2...2...2...3...").

I have been to two schools that were mixed gender - BAC and OCS. In both, standards were lowered and corners were cut for female students. With the chin-ups before getting into the chow hall, one got to see that lowered standard three times a day.

2. Just because one "can" do something does not mean one should do something. Army training is not about individual opportunity, it is about creating units that will win wars.

Ranger School is primarily for training infantry leaders - that's why the Chief of Staff of the Army tightened the attendance policy in April 1997*. Prior to then, Ranger School was not limited by branch/MOS. From then to today, it is limited to infantry and special forces personnel, cavalry officers (and armor officers in cav positions), and combat engineer officers, artillery FSOs, ADA officers, 12Bs, 13Fs and 14Ss in direct support to infantry battalions. This policy change was also meant to reduce attrition - too many Ranger drops turned out to be non-infantry or combat arms soldiers who either weren't adequately prepared or motivated (it was a hooah school for them, not a part of their job).

Frankly, if the major is right and Ranger School is going to be just another combat leader's course, there is no good justification for keeping women out. Of course, by the same logic, we should close all other basic training courses and send everyone to Infantry OSUT.
_________________________________

* "The function of the U.S. Army Ranger Course is to develop the combat arms related functional skills of officer and enlisted volunteers who are eligible for assignment to units whose primary mission is to engage in the close-combat, direct fire battle. Attendance at Ranger School is linked to those who require the special skills developed at this course. The soldiers most likely required to possess these skills are those assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment; selected infantrymen in other than Ranger units at the infantry battalion and company level; Special Forces personnel at the A-Team level; Cavalry soldiers at the troop level; combat engineers who directly support infantry battalions at the company level; fire support personnel habitually associated in direct support to infantry battalions and air defense personnel habitually associated in direct support to infantry battalions." - GEN Shinseki

Airbornelawyer
05-28-2004, 20:33
Originally posted by ghuinness
I resisted asking, maybe not long enough; what about the first female to make it through to the Royal Marines last year?
Were standards altered?

Just curious. Captain "Pip" Tattersal failed the course twice, in May 2001 and August 2001. She passed on her third attempt, in May 2002. I have no idea whether any material standards were altered. The course has a maximum of three bites of the apple for any candidate, so the fact that she got three shots is not itself an issue.

Among less material changes, though, when women were allowed to attend the course, training instructors were ordered to no longer use obscenities or make sexist jokes.

Solid
05-29-2004, 05:10
Thanks AL, appreciated as always.

Airbornelawyer
05-31-2004, 19:43
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
1. The problem with hypotheticals is we live in the real world. Standards inevitably lower. 48% of Ranger attrition is in RAP, and most RAP attrition is physical preparedness (35% APFT, 28% 5-mile run, 2% road march, 14% swim test). Sit-ups, the one event where standards are the same for both genders, account for only 8% of APFT attrition. Push-ups, where the difference in standards is greatest, account for 69%. TR noted that 42 push-ups is the minimum for 17-21 year old males. The Ranger School minimum is 49, and RIs are notorious for enforcing the letter of FM 21-20 ("Ready...begin...that's 1...2...2...2...3..."). I wrote all that crap, and I forgot to write my point, though I expect it was fairly evident. Since most Ranger School attrition is in the very areas where gender differences are the greatest, it is inevitable that women would fail at a much higher rate. The DACOWITS types would once again ignore reality, and call this higher rate evidence of discrimination. The only way to avoid the charge would be to lower the standard so the percentage of female APFT, run and road march drops would lower.

Gypsy
05-31-2004, 20:53
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
The DACOWITS types would once again ignore reality, and call this higher rate evidence of discrimination. The only way to avoid the charge would be to lower the standard so the percentage of female APFT, run and road march drops would lower.

AL couldn't their own argument also be used against them? IE: DACOWITS feels women are equal and should be afforded the same opportunities. Thus it stands to reason that these "equally qualifed" women should be held to the same exacting standards that are set in place for the men that they are "equal" to. No?

DanUCSB
05-31-2004, 21:20
Originally posted by Gypsy
Thus it stands to reason that these "equally qualifed" women should be held to the same exacting standards that are set in place for the men that they are "equal" to. No?

Logically, yes. In the real world, no.

That being, this is what would happen: you would open it up under these terms, and women would flock in. They would, by and large, fail out, with a couple exceptions. This, as AL notes, would be blamed on further discrimination at first (phenomenon: if the women pass, then it's on their own merits, if they fail, it's because the RIs are discriminatory), then there will be grudging acceptance that women have physical differences from men.

At this point, logic would say, the experiment has failed and is to be discontinued. But under how politicians really work, they would scale down the standards to such an extent as women can pass the training. Why? Because, like in all parts of life, it's very easy to give someone something, but near impossible to take it away.

So we'll be stuck with a combat school dispensing substandard training, doing a disservice to both our servicemen and servicewomen. Just ask Kara Hultgren.

Gypsy
05-31-2004, 21:34
Thank you for the explanation of how it would probably play out Dan. Obviously I believe politicians need to stay out of this but they tend to try to placate their constituents without regard to consequences. It is best that RS and SF not be opened to women imho and with them being limited by MOS hopefully it will stay that way.

CommoGeek
06-01-2004, 07:30
Originally posted by DanUCSB
So we'll be stuck with a combat school dispensing substandard training, doing a disservice to both our servicemen and servicewomen. Just ask Kara Hultgren.

I had the good fortune to take a computer class with a former CO of the U.S.S. Forrestal, CV-59. This gentleman was a former NFO (Naval Flight Officer) from the Vietnam era. We discussed Hultgreen, Tailhook, and other facets about the military while on breaks from class.

He had no use for DACOWITS or for those that forced Hultgreen's instructors to pass her. To wit, the cadre at the RAG Squadron were "ordered" to see to it that she passed. Remember that she was an A-6 aviator that transitioned to F-14's. Her scores at almost all levels of training were substandard. She didn't fail once or twice, but repeatedly. This wasn't even a question of could a woman do the job or not, she couldn't do it at all. Were she a man, HE would've washed out, but because of the pressure at the time to have women as combat aviators she was pushed through. Her RIO almost paid the price for this; when he punched out he was at about a 60 degree angle to the horizon. Martin-Baker saved his ass.

Regardless of who you are, when the standards are bent to accommodate you, you've just screwed the rest of us. You may even get someone killed. Maybe I'm wired differently, but a badge or tab isn't worth that to me. I'll meet the tough, exacting standards or I won't. Should I fail I can sleep soundly at night knowing that only the best are watching over us, not those with a political agenda.

Okay, I'll shut up now.

Oh, as an aside while spell checking this I noticed that DACOWITS isn't listed but the suggested alternative is: DIMWITS.

Roguish Lawyer
06-01-2004, 09:51
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
*. . .

_________________________________

* . . .


A footnote! I love it! LMFAO!

larfive
06-01-2004, 12:36
Quoted by NouisdefiousDoc


If I was her CSM, you'd be able to hear me kicking her ass still and yet for those assinine comments. Somebody needs to lock her heels up like the nuts on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Stupid Bitch

Ma'am

FUNNY SHIT:D

Doc you crack me up! Good post.

LarV