RANGER AGAINST WAR: Front Line Woman <

Monday, October 01, 2012

Front Line Woman

--Pat, from SNL

Are you tough enough
-- can you take the heat?
Are you tough enough
-- to walk in the burning street 
--Tough Enough, Johnny Clegg 
 
I am woman, you are man,
I am gentle so that you can be barbarian
I'm all pleats and pins and rouge
Mostly sham but ma'am
I love the subterfuge 
--I am Woman, The Supremes 
 
The waging of war knows no romanticism -- 
there is no place anywhere for so-called 
ideas on emotions 
--Heinrich Boll
 __________________

The role of women in Combat MOS's and on the front lines of battle has always been contentious.

Why the big push to make women into men, and perhaps concomitantly pushing men into more combat support roles?  Is American manhood so deficient that we really need (or want) women in combat?

The psychology of this drive escapes Ranger as he views combat as nasty, brutal and dehumanizing behavior . . . bad enough that men must be so exposed, but why foist this misery off onto women? In addition to being considered for regular combat units, The Army's Ranger School is considering enrolling women under the rubric of allowing them to be "successful", according to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno (Army May Train Women for Rigor of Front Lines).

Britain's Army conducted studies comparing the success of women in a “gender-free” training system versus“gender fair” system of separate fitness requirements.  In the gender free system (where women must meet the same physical standards as men), less than 1% could qualify.  In 2010 Britain decided to keep women out of combat as, “To admit women would, therefore, involve a risk with no gains in terms of combat effectiveness to offset it."

From the same piece,

"William Gregor, a professor of social sciences at the Army’s Command and Staff College . . . concluded: “The physical capacity of women is significantly less than that of men and even more difficult to sustain. Women are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to performing military physical tasks because they have a significantly higher percentage of body fat and generally much lower total lean mass.”
"As an example, Gregor examined physical fitness test results from Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) dating back to 1992 and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers. Looking at pushups and the two-mile run, he found that only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men’s mean score. ...
"In tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 ROTC women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men.
"'No training system can close this gap,' he said. 'The reason men and women cannot truly be trained together is not a matter of attitude. It is physical.
“The difference in male and female body composition and the components of strength and endurance training are firm obstacles to designing mutually beneficial training events.”

If women were to graduate from Ranger School, would they then be assigned to Ranger Battalions?  Would women become trainers in Ranger School?  Would they command a Ranger Regiment?

Philosophically-speaking, when will women cease to be women?  Is a gender-neutral society a good, or a goal?   Is androgeny possible, probable, or even desirable?  Is subjecting women to combat yet one more brutalization of women, or is it a way to allow them parity?  Are there some realms of action which are simply gender-exclusive?

What is the point in placing women near combat areas?  The Army is not a social experiment, and does not exist for the purpose of imposing sexual equality.

The purpose of the Army is to win wars.

4 Comments:

Blogger Underground Carpenter said...

Jim,

"The purpose of the Army is winning battles."

Armchair strategy about particulars won't change the immoral nature of war. Stay RAW.

"Ranger … views combat as nasty, brutal and dehumanizing behavior . . . bad enough that men must be so exposed, but why foist this misery off onto women?"

You never met my first wife. Nasty, brutal, dehumanizing behavior--that pretty much describes her. She had no fear and she enjoyed inflicting pain.

No one should be "exposed" to war. It is a great tragedy to send gullible young tools, men or women, to murder strangers.

Dave

Monday, October 1, 2012 at 7:30:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Dave,
Roger that.
jim

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 10:22:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Britain's Army conducted studies comparing the success of women in a “gender-free” training system versus“gender fair” system of separate fitness requirements. In the gender free system (where women must meet the same physical standards as men), less than 1% could qualify."

Surprise, surprise! Perhaps next they will conduct a study to see if there is a high or low likelihood of rain when the sky is blue and there are no clouds. GSJ

Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 9:15:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

To all,
i must amend my final statement of closing.
the purpose of the Army is to win wars.We've won a lot of battles since 1945 , but this is different than winning wars.
jim

Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 9:31:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home