My experience with women in the military was very limited during the Vietnam era. The only female military personnel I ever saw were the Navy nurses at 1st Med Btn in Danang. I loved those gals. They were such wonderful liars. They held our hands and told us we would be OK while we died.
I did see enemy (Viet Cong) women soldiers. From this personal experience, comments about relative physical attributes (strength, stamina, etc) may be true but they are also irrelevant. Although she was only 4 ft something and weighed 100 lbs, looking at a woman down the barrel of a 30 caliber rifle she might as well be 9 feet tall.
Operation Desert Storm was daylight to dark different. Women were there but strictly confined to rear area admin (S1) type jobs. I did see two female truck drivers sitting on the ground doing their make-up.
As far as I could tell, the women were competent at their jobs. But, I do have one objection. They are so damned disruptive in that they make the males act so silly. They (the males) would follow the females around in a manner that reminded me of a pack of male dogs on a female in heat. Then there were the fist fights (between jealous males). Then there were the pregnancies. Then there was the extra hassle and expense of having to build separate head facilities each time the battalion moved.
With respect to the two women who graduated from Ranger School, if indeed the standards were lowered to their level, the male graduates were cheated. They will likely be ostracized (or hassled) by their piers for not being “real rangers” or being “girly rangers.”
But if the standards were NOT lowered, there is still a problem. Those two women will never serve in combat with a ranger battalion. They used up two “quotas” that could have been filled by strong healthy males headed for the 75th Rangers. A clear cut case of government inefficiency and all in the name of political correctness. — jtl, 419
Upon hearing that two women just graduated from the Army Ranger school, Army Infantryman and Purple Heart recipient, Sgt. Omar Avila, sent this note of disapproval to ClashDaily.com’s, Editor-In-Chief, Doug Giles. Check it out…
Since day one, the Rangers have been dominated by males because it takes mental and physical strength that females just don’t have. There are often decisions made in combat in which you have to take the life of a child because they are a threat to your battle buddies – at this point, motherly instinct would kick in and they won’t be able to do it.
I had a friend dismissed from the military because he hit a female soldier in the back of her helmet when she froze and wouldn’t shoot back. Once he snapped her back into duty, she started doing her job but she complained about it. The Army kicked him out even though he saved her life.
I wouldn’t have a problem with female Rangers if the Army didn’t lower the standards – but thanks to the Obama administration, who keeps pushing for this historical moment to happen, standards have been lowered. It’s an injustice to both of these women at the end of the day because, technically, they didn’t earn the Ranger tab.
Echoing Omar’s comments is also John Kirkwood, a regular columnist for ClashDaily.com. Check it out….
A man’s thumb is thirty times stronger than that of a woman. This is standard biology. A woman with training can defeat many men without, but it’ll be in spite of the normal strength deficiencies. But when the best face the best, there is no contest. Ronda Rousey can defeat the majority of the men that she meets on the street, however she would be defeated in short order by any of the 135lb UFC males. This used to be common sense. If no woman in the world has the physical ability to compete with men in professional tennis, in the PGA, in the NFL, in the NHL, in the NBA, in the UFC, and in the NFL, what makes you believe that they could compete with men in Ranger School or on the battlefield against our enemies most elite warriors? If the New York fire department had to drop its standards for women to earn a job, do you really believe that Ranger school wouldn’t?Our elite special forces are not a social experiment. Nor is it a slight to women that when it comes to the physical realities of the job, biologically they are inferior. As a matter of fact, so are 90% of the men that try for a Ranger tab and fail.
Here is also a female Marine officer admitting women can’t do special forces:
“Marine Capt. Katie Petronio, writing in the Marine Corps Gazette about Officer Candidate School, states, of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS [The Basic School] in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males.
We females can train as hard as we like, and we may increase strength, stamina, and fitness. Nevertheless, our increased fitness still will not put us on par with that of the men who are training to their utmost, like men in combat units and the Special Forces. They are the top ten percent of the top ten percent. We also bear too many other risks to be cost effective. No matter how widespread feminism becomes, our bones will always be lighter, more vulnerable to breaks and fractures.
Our aerobic capacity will still be 20 to 40 percent less, and we will still be less able It is not for lack of training. Throughout 2013, the female recruits going through Marine Corps boot camp were being trained to achieve the men’s minimum pull-up standard. They were trained to pass the test, yet 55 percent of them could not make that minimum, according to an Associated Press report. Ninety-nine percent of male recruits can, whether or not they were particularly athletic before shipping off to boot camp.”
The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.
You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.