Thursday, October 15, 2015

And are we really surprised?

Pentagon Could Be ‘Shredding’ Docs About Female Rangers.


Anonymous said...

Airborne Ranger Airborne Ranger where have you been? I keep getting recycled, again and again.

Anonymous said...

Jessica Lynch.
Women in combat means women get captured.
Captured women get raped. And raped again. And raped again.
A woman in a unit causes problems among the unit cohesion. For one, good men will die trying to ensure a woman isn't raped. Good men will compete for the attentions of a female, as our DNA compels us to do. Both of these examples are inherent and compelling reasons that show women in combat means military eyes are taken off the objective, which in and of itself proves that women in combat is a detrimental decision.

It isn't about the fact that some women can compete, it isn't about holding women back. It isn't about gender discrimination or even about the female gender itself.

If anything, denying women in combat roles is because of inherent failures of man on the inherent level.

Put proof int he pudding. Put all woman teams together. No, not for segregation purposes, but for proving purposes. Pit teams against each other - over and over, where nobody knows who is competing with whom. Keep track of the successes and failures.

Yeah, I can see why some would want to do some shredding.

Women - please understand, we men do not aim to see you come to harm. It is in our nature to defend you, as part of our families, as part of our kin, as part of our inherent nature to defend Liberty itself. it isn't about trying to bring you harm or brow beat you or own you. So knock off the bullshit.

Women - prepare us, help us, and more than anything, fill us with the desire to go get the job done and come home to you.

Anonymous said...

Women's PT and physical fitness qualifications are different from men's in the US Army. Why would it be any different in the Rangers? My brother tells stories of having to carry his gear, and that of a female because she couldn't keep up. Women don't belong on the front lines.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line it reduces combat effectiveness. Sure woman can compete in boot camp /AIT. And some woman are really gorillas. Talk about Rosy the riveter all you want. The family unit was co-opted during WW2.Woman belong home ,raising kids. Its really all part of the narrative to destroy the family unit. Combat effectiveness of American troops, is surely compromised. In favor of the enemy. We men are the last hired and first fired now. How many man hating butch cops .With an ax to grind are out there. Had a few run ins with 2nd lt.'s black woman in the military. More than my comfort level can take. Fuck p.c. An old Italian saying, woman- barefoot in the winter ,pregnant in the summer. My Noni had 19 kids. Kids screw up a lot less. When Mom is at home .When they get home from school. Behind enemy lines ,Ct. I will never comply. Nor stand down. AAA/O.11B20.

Anonymous said...

Who cares; simply don't let them into combat areas. Problem solved.

Anonymous said...

While I agree that women really do not belong in grunt units,just like I do not believe they belong in a fire with me, they have been put there due to the new style of no front line warfare. To see how some can be an asset read, "Ashley's War" by Gayle Lemmon and how the Rangers reacted to their inclusion in their units. Another good read is "Band of Sisters", a collection of stories about women in the two sand pits. especially the story about a few BAMs in the Lioness program. Knowing a young lady who spent time in Iraq, 7 years later she is still having issues with PTSD. It changes women and not for the better.

Anonymous said...

I'm reminded of a young (looking) USMC LtC. testifying before congress something like this:

"Congressman, you buy us the fastest most capable shredders money can buy. What did you think we were going to do with them?"

But that was a while back. And really, "after all this time, what does it matter?"