Women in the Infantry and Ranger Battalion

[mgriff]

Army beginning study on sending women soldiers to infantry units, Ranger school - The Washington Post

Where are my fellow grunts? You have got to be shitting me! Feminine hygiene is the first and least serious reason that pops into my head. The ruck marches and the decreased standards that they are touting to get through this is total bullshit. Now I'm not saying women have no place, but they can't do it, and it's that simple. My wife has a bigger **** than most guys I know, but she can't ruck with me, she can't physically keep up with me. It's a culture by men and for men, these women are going to be in for a hell of a rude awakening. I honestly am pretty much at a loss for words, I just can't believe this.

 

[johnnykillz]

Wow.

Speaking of *****.

Have you not read the forfeited baseball game thread?

And then you post this with your nut sack hanging to your knees like a whole fresh pack of juicy fruit...?

Damn.

#reckless

 

[mgriff]

It's because they want women in SF teams and front line units so they can talk to the women and children in a different culture, but until the standards are the same I'll be opposed.

 

[johnnykillz]

That's like Swahili to me man. What the **** did you just say?

Exacary.

 

[johnnykillz]

That's like Swahili to me man. What the **** did you just say?

In other words: Ellen Degenerate is on the phone, line 2.

She's pissed. Said something about wanting to sword fight...

 

[mgriff]

In other words: Ellen Degenerate is on the phone, line 2.

She's pissed. Said something about wanting to sword fight...

Hahah alright man, thanks for the clarification. I messaged you too, so disregard.

 

[Grahambo]

Army beginning study on sending women soldiers to infantry units, Ranger school - The Washington Post

Where are my fellow grunts? You have got to be shitting me! Feminine hygiene is the first and least serious reason that pops into my head. The ruck marches and the decreased standards that they are touting to get through this is total bullshit. Now I'm not saying women have no place, but they can't do it, and it's that simple. My wife has a bigger **** than most guys I know, but she can't ruck with me, she can't physically keep up with me. It's a culture by men and for men, these women are going to be in for a hell of a rude awakening. I honestly am pretty much at a loss for words, I just can't believe this.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts about it:

 

[TDHeysus]

as long as any standards to qualify are NOT changed so that it makes it easier for women to become eligible; and as long as they go thru the process and meet all the same standards that men do, then I think you have to let them in. They need to put in devices that weed-out the females who are there 'to prove that they can do it' so that they only keep the females that are supremely qualified.

I must admit tho, I was never in the military, and I dont what it is like to trust my life to another soldier (female). But if I had to trust my life to another soldier, I damned sure wouldnt want that other solider there just to 'prove that they can do it.'

contrary to what the political-correct world thinks, sometimes 'good enough' is NOT good enough

 

[BGIF]

Pretty much sums up my thoughts about it:

Calabrese's "people"?

 

[johnnykillz]

Calabrese's "people"?

AKA Vinny, and the boys.

"You don't owe me nothin. I do you a favor. And someday, you do me a favor."

"We're family!"

 

[ndcoltsfan2010]

I honestly have a hard time with this. Having worked with SF and in the Infantry...., there are very few women that can hang with the vigorous physical demands that are put on a body. In my twenty years of service there were only 3-4 women that could come close to hanging with our elite forces. My biggest concern is that standards will be lowered to fulfill quotas. Not a big fan of lowering the bar so women can be an 18 series special forces soldier.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

I guess my initial reaction would be that you guys were being short sighted and quite frankly, chauvinistic...

...but I've never served our country as you fellas have, so I'll defer to those of you whom are better able to speak on this.

 

[Buster Bluth]

It won't be too long before machines and drones do everything anyway...

 

[PJWhitfield]

The Rangers would be happy to let Kate Upton in.

 

[ACamp1900]

The Rangers would be happy to let Kate Upton in.

Or more correctly for Kate to let them in.......


I am all for this, our fighting men need someone who can deliver a well made sandwich in a pinch.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I guess my initial reaction would be that you guys were being short sighted and quite frankly, chauvinistic...

...but I've never served our country as you fellas have, so I'll defer to those of you whom are better able to speak on this.

They really aren't being chauvinistic at all, honestly. Although it almost always looks bad.

Women just aren't anywhere close to men, physically speaking. We shouldn't be expecting that women on the "front lines" and have the ability that 99% of men have, there's just no way a woman can do the hand-to-hand combat against a man, except in rare instances.

Now we don't have a lot of hand-to-hand combat these days. No one wants to fight our people on the ground, and we own the skies. We have a pretty stacked deck. BUT, I have read a few reports from Israel (whose military has mandatory service from both men and women), that when they are fighting Muslims (which is...all of the time), it's very common for a Muslim to fight to the death--instead of give up--if he knows he is fighting a woman. He would rather die, and take as many of us as he can with him, than surrender to a woman. It's a bit of a problem over there. That said, if the presence of women on the front lines not only puts a physically inferior soldier in harm's way, but also strengthens the resolve of our enemies and thus puts her fellow soldiers in even more danger....then I'm against it 100%. I'm all for women serving, but only in jobs in which they can perform 100% as well as men.

 

[phork]

 

[mgriff]

Maybe I'll send my wife and have Ranger sammiches, better than regular.

My main gripe is the standards and the problems that crop up when women and men serve together. When my wife gets home and tells me all the bullshit that happens in her unit, I tell her weekly, that I'm so happy to women were in my unit. It's so much simpler.

Now, if a woman can carry the weight, run the run, ruck the ruck, and pass everything in Ranger/Infantry battalions as is, then let her in. Inevitably, there will be standard reductions, and a changing of the culture as well. I have no problem with a strong woman asserting herself and wanting to stick it to the men, that's my wife, where I have a problem is when they get a different set of standards to do it.

 

[BobD]

I've never met a woman that could come close to completing the Ranger School, and I don't want to.

Putting women in these units would be a disaster waiting to happen on many levels.

 

[pumpdog20]

Standards will absolutely go down. I wasn't Ranger or a grunt, but I was in an all-male basic and AIT and you can easily see the differences between all-male and co-ed training. I will admit that there are females that are definitely as mentally tough as the average grunt, but no way they can hang physically without lowering the standards.

For the uninformed, just take a look at PT standards between male and females. Rangers/SF have to maintain 100+ in all exercises based on the youngest/hardest male age group regardless of age.

 

[Black Irish]

I think all of you are forgetting about a little documentary called "G.I. Jane." The Special Forces gender barrier was broken 15 years ago. Geez, and I thought people on this site knew stuff.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I don't think this is a very complicated issue:

If you can do the work then you should not be estopped from doing so based on your race, gender, creed or orientation. That is true across the board, from elected office to business leadership to military service. The judgment should be gender neutral, but the standard should not be compromised one iota.

If the concern that some of you are expressing is about the deterioration of standards, then that should be the issue that you are raising. If you do not want women to do jobs that they are otherwise qualified for based solely on their gender, then that is sexist and I do not believe that is a valid position. I cringe when I see people saying "[gender/racial group] shouldn't be allowed to do X, Y and Z." We need to be past that. If the work is such that women are not physically equipped to handle it, then the issues you are raising will be self-correcting. There is no need to discriminate based on gender.

 

[Irishnuke]

There is also a debate about putting women on submarines. It's a terrible, terrible idea. It's not that they can't handle it or that they can't do the jobs on the boat that men can. It's the fact that you're putting a few women on an enclosed boat with 100+ men. Bad things happen with those numbers. Same thing will happen anywhere where women are grossly outnumbered by men.

 

[woolybug25]

My wife has a bigger **** than most guys I know.

say wut?....

 

[mgriff]

say wut?....

She's a very headstrong, proud, and passionate woman. She puts a lot of men to shame, and myself and some of the people in her unit always tell her she wishes she had a dick. Just a friendly joke, and I was trying to accentuate that I understand women can be mentally tough enough to do the job, I'm not saying women shouldn't be doing it because they're women, but because they will receive different standards. The culture really isn't fit for women either, but that's pretty a pretty archaic reason.

So many more problems when women serve with men. As I stated before my wife comes home and I get all of this drama and bullshit she has to deal with because SGT Snuffy, SSG Cack, and SFC DBag gang banged some private because they abused their rank. Then some girl gets pregnant down range, and has to go home, compromising mission capability. I'm not even joking the amount of bullshit that accompanies men and women serving together. It's just ridiculous. Ours was, PVT Joey got caught underage drinking, or So and so got into a fight.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I honestly have a hard time with this. Having worked with SF and in the Infantry...., there are very few women that can hang with the vigorous physical demands that are put on a body. In my twenty years of service there were only 3-4 women that could come close to hanging with our elite forces. My biggest concern is that standards will be lowered to fulfill quotas. Not a big fan of lowering the bar so women can be an 18 series special forces soldier.

That's the real issue here.

Removing legal and cultural barriers so otherwise capable demographics can compete is laudable. Lowering standards so arbitrary demographic quotas can be reached-- diversity for diversity's sake-- is a sure-fire way to cripple an organization's competitiveness.

This has already happened for most of the military; our special forces are among the few remaining government-funded organizations where performance still takes priority over diversity. As it rightly should when life and death are on the line.

On average, men have 50% more upper-body and 30% more lower-body strength than women. For any profession in which strength and endurance are important factors-- sports, war, etc.-- there is simply no way for women to compete without lowering standards.

It's biology, not discrimination.

 

[Grahambo]

What the debate has turned into now in this thread is essentially what a lot of us have seen first hand when it comes to male/female in the military. They get special treatment and the PT standards are different. For example, in the Marines, men have to do pullups as part pf the PT test but women have to do flex arm hang instead (I think 90 seconds is max points for them).

I have seen quite a few struggle with that. Then when we would go on humps, some did okay, most didn't. When it came to fighting, I never saw (not saying it hasn't been done) a woman get the best of a man who was at least average in strength.

Just some observations.

 

[Black Irish]

That's the real issue here.

Removing legal and cultural barriers so otherwise capable demographics can compete is laudable. Lowering standards so arbitrary demographic quotas can be reached-- diversity for diversity's sake-- is a sure-fire way to cripple an organization's competitiveness.

This has already happened for most of the military; our special forces are among the few remaining government-funded organizations where performance still takes priority over diversity. As it rightly should when life and death are on the line.

On average, men have 50% more upper-body and 30% more lower-body strength than women. For any profession in which strength and endurance are important factors-- sports, war, etc.-- there is simply no way for women to compete without lowering standards.

It's biology, not discrimination.

Even though what you are saying is spot on, we have seen how the PC grievence machine has consistently put politics above common sense. I really hope it will not affect our military more than it already has but the trend is not encouraging. The worst part is when a group has to lower standards to let people in, and the amount of previously "disenfranchised" people who apply is laughably small. The kicker is that it somehow becomes the organization's fault that their numbers do not reflect the general population's as far as race, gender, ethnicity.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Open the doors to everyone, and don't change the requirements. Problem solved.

If women can't do it, they won't. If they can, more power to them.

 

[ACamp1900]

Open the doors to everyone, and don't change the requirements. Problem solved.

If women can't do it, they won't. If they can, more power to them.

Gloria Allred would LOVE to see this step taken I'm sure.