Anonymous wrote:

women army rangers were allowed to repeat parts of the course, on opportunity not offered to most men. Thats a fact stated in the report. I am surprised the horn was blown so loudly. It should be blown when women pass under the exact same conditions. At that point, I think you then have more questions than answers. How does it effect unit cohesiveness? Should we also draft girls now that they have proven themselves 'equal'? Does combat require something other than physical readiness? Why do we expect all men to have that quality - clearly there were many who did not want to go to Vietnam. Should we stop registering all 18 year old men, and only register the young girls and boys who want to sign up? I have questions and I don't like the top down approach to this. I am glad different forces are conducting these studies. I think we need more of them before we make drastic changes. Many more.I hope they are listened to thoughtfully by the brass and congress, but given the priorities when it comes to managing our defense these days I doubt it.

That's not true. It is obvious you do not know what you are talking about. Men are recycled and allowed to take the course again. Having a women in a Sf would greatly increase units operation capacities(Many SF are recruited out of the Rangers). They are already including women in teams. They are attached but they are not a combat arms. It has to do with fighting and deploying in Muslim countries. Men are not allowed in many areas, are not allowed to talk to women, etc. if you break these customs your cover will be blown. Also in other countries, it is common practice to id SF teams by the lack of women. There is a long history of women in combat. So your argument has been surpassed by facts on the ground.

And I agree with you that it would be an advantage in the circumstance you describe. However, the goal of the Jan 1st deadline is to open every position to women - not to carefully consider where it is an advantage or god forbid, a disadvantage. So please go and sign your daughter up for selective service. Equal is equal.

"On average, more than 37 percent of Ranger School graduates recycle at least one phase of the school. The Darby recycle rate is about 15 percent."

I understand what you are saying. My point is that for the women, the recycle rate for this phase was 100%. All8 who started recycled. Statistically different than from the men. Sounds like 2 made it, one is still trying and eight dropped out.

women army rangers were allowed to repeat parts of the course, on opportunity not offered to most men. Thats a fact stated in the report. I am surprised the horn was blown so loudly. It should be blown when women pass under the exact same conditions. At that point, I think you then have more questions than answers. How does it effect unit cohesiveness? Should we also draft girls now that they have proven themselves 'equal'? Does combat require something other than physical readiness? Why do we expect all men to have that quality - clearly there were many who did not want to go to Vietnam. Should we stop registering all 18 year old men, and only register the young girls and boys who want to sign up? I have questions and I don't like the top down approach to this. I am glad different forces are conducting these studies. I think we need more of them before we make drastic changes. Many more.I hope they are listened to thoughtfully by the brass and congress, but given the priorities when it comes to managing our defense these days I doubt it.

That's not true. It is obvious you do not know what you are talking about. Men are recycled and allowed to take the course again. Having a women in a Sf would greatly increase units operation capacities(Many SF are recruited out of the Rangers). They are already including women in teams. They are attached but they are not a combat arms. It has to do with fighting and deploying in Muslim countries. Men are not allowed in many areas, are not allowed to talk to women, etc. if you break these customs your cover will be blown. Also in other countries, it is common practice to id SF teams by the lack of women. There is a long history of women in combat. So your argument has been surpassed by facts on the ground.

The men were faster "in each tactical movement," had "better accuracy" and were "quicker." They "registered more hits on target" and had "a noticeable difference in their performance" of overcoming obstacles and "evacuating casualties
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marine-corps-study-women-in-combat-at-disadvantage-men-perform-significantly-better/

The bolded above especially worries me.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the question OP is raising. If I am reading correctly, every branch of the military is being asked to open every job to women by Jan 1 unless they ask for an exception. At the same time, they are taking this into consideration-as they must:

"The primary consideration in conducting the research was combat effectiveness, followed by the health and welfare of individual Marines, the report says. It quotes from a 1992 presidential commission concluding that "risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group … is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."

Those of us who have family in the military have no qualm about women serving. However, we want any transformation of how the military handles this done properly, not rushed, with the above in mind.

The military is not the bad guy here. You can be anti-war and still want the people your political leadership sends to war to be treated fairly.

^highly

Anonymous wrote:Well, war is bullshit and only enriches the wealthy and grinds up and spits out our youth and leaves them literally crippled and mentally broken. Plus it fucks over whole countries' populations for generations. All so rich people can get richer.

So I don't fucking care if it's men or women fighting. I think it's all bullshit and you're an asshole if you use it as part of your pathetic MRA argument against feminism. Fuck you.

This pretty much sums up OP's agenda perfectly.

The fuck you is also high appropriate.

OP are you listening?

Anonymous wrote:Well, war is bullshit and only enriches the wealthy and grinds up and spits out our youth and leaves them literally crippled and mentally broken. Plus it fucks over whole countries' populations for generations. All so rich people can get richer.

So I don't fucking care if it's men or women fighting. I think it's all bullshit and you're an asshole if you use it as part of your pathetic MRA argument against feminism. Fuck you.

Ask the victims of ISIS if it's about money, or if it's about Islam...

You seem really angry and irrational. War is BS? They should have 'talked it out' with the Civil War or the intervention in Bosnia?

I agree feminism is not 'to blame'--it's more about a rush to be politically correct, make everything 'gender neutral' etc. when there are real difference between men and women. Not just ones technology can mitigate, but in how we think feel and react. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of places in the military where women might do a better job than men, I'm open to this idea of all female units like the peshmerga. I do think if you throw a bunch of women and men together under fraught circumstances you should probably study it further. I also think that once that day comes both 18 year old men and women should register for selective service. Equal is equal is equal.

Anonymous wrote:Two women recently passed the Army Ranger physical test, and in some cases did better than some of the men. I think if a woman is physically qualified, let her. But no, I don't think they should have aa on a battlefield just for gender equality. I am a woman.

I fully agree.

Well, war is bullshit and only enriches the wealthy and grinds up and spits out our youth and leaves them literally crippled and mentally broken. Plus it fucks over whole countries' populations for generations. All so rich people can get richer.

So I don't fucking care if it's men or women fighting. I think it's all bullshit and you're an asshole if you use it as part of your pathetic MRA argument against feminism. Fuck you.

The women army rangers were allowed to repeat parts of the course, on opportunity not offered to most men. Thats a fact stated in the report. I am surprised the horn was blown so loudly. It should be blown when women pass under the exact same conditions. At that point, I think you then have more questions than answers. How does it effect unit cohesiveness? Should we also draft girls now that they have proven themselves 'equal'? Does combat require something other than physical readiness? Why do we expect all men to have that quality - clearly there were many who did not want to go to Vietnam. Should we stop registering all 18 year old men, and only register the young girls and boys who want to sign up? I have questions and I don't like the top down approach to this. I am glad different forces are conducting these studies. I think we need more of them before we make drastic changes. Many more.I hope they are listened to thoughtfully by the brass and congress, but given the priorities when it comes to managing our defense these days I doubt it.

Anonymous wrote:Two women recently passed the Army Ranger physical test, and in some cases did better than some of the men. I think if a woman is physically qualified, let her. But no, I don't think they should have aa on a battlefield just for gender equality. I am a woman.

If you believe that Happy Horseshit the progressive liberals and Feminists are feeding you, then you're part of the problem this Country is having. It was all orchestrated from the Top Down for those two Officers.

I speak from experience having been in the S.F. A. Very. Small. Percentage of young physically strong men can pass those courses. A woman can not, not on a level playing field. They were coddled, plain and simple. If by some freak of nature a Power lifting woman that ran marathons and had iron for guts did pass the courses legitimately, it would be a total waste of training resources because having achieved such physical and mental strength, she'd be a total narcissist that would be a terrible trait for combat. Those men go thru those courses to die for their Country. It's a disgrace to tarnish their Accomplishments and sacrifice, willingness to die in Combat, while watching those two women do nothing more than be promoted up the chain of command and never serve in an Elite Unit. I won't carry the PC BS so much of this Country is Happy to live.

Anonymous wrote:It's also working quite well for the Peshmerga. Some female Peshmerga units have gotten renown for being the fiercest anti-ISIS fighters out there.

Are they all female units? It can be uncomfortable for spouses to have their loved ones in mixed sex units, close quarters, stressful situations under long periods of time. Why? Human nature is to bond and seek comfort under pressure. When your spouse is gone for a year at a time its a lot of pressure on a relationship. It's hard to fathom throwing that proximity under fire in. Yes, I know men and women serve together honorably but there are lots of shenanigans that aren't discussed /acknowledged by the pols pushing this stuff under current conditions. How could there not be even more if all infantry positions were opened up to coed living/serving? This is very uncomfortable for some.of the men or women staying home.

I am a woman too. Do you think our daughters should be asked to sign up for selective service at 18 and then have all combat roles for which they meet the physical qualifications open to or expected of them? Why or why not? My son just signed up. Wondering what's in the works for my other children.