First Female Ranger School Gaduates

[Bengalzona]

(08-19-2015, 11:59 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No what? 

I think I was quite clear in my post that as long as they didn't lower the standards it was fine with me, and said that if they lowered the standards in any way it was nonsense. 

No, they didn't lower standards.

Did you miss that?

[Bengalzona]

(08-19-2015, 01:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Kind of mixed on this. First absolutely nothing can be taken away from the women; secondly, they will never use the training they received. I wonder what the purpose was except to show women can do it. All this means is that they wiil be able to wear a Ranger Tab.

From female soldiers I've talked to, wanting a Ranger tab has mostly to do with credibility (translated as "the appearance of credibility") and the promotion value of having that in your file. There are a lot of male soldiers who try to go through Ranger school for the same reasons.

[*bfine32*]

(08-20-2015, 11:08 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: From female soldiers I've talked to, wanting a Ranger tab has mostly to do with credibility (translated as "the appearance of credibility") and the promotion value of having that in your file. There are a lot of male soldiers who try to go through Ranger school for the same reasons.

I agree with this 100%.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-20-2015, 10:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't answer your question because you get overly excited about everything (must be that calm under pressure you learned at Ranger School).

I say again, Ranger School is a leadership school.  It's not Miss Manners' School of Etiquette for Politely Dealing with Stupid People.

Quote:No where did I state anyone who wants to go to Ranger School should not and I said absolutely nothing should be taken away from these females; I simply said my opinion is mixed. If we are looking for ways to trim the budget there are much more inexpensive and effective ways to teach leadership. Sorta like the guys we saw walking around with Jump wings having a total of 5 jumps.

Right, you simply stated they will never use the training, you wonder what was the point, all it means is they will be able to wear a tab, suggested there are other schools they could attend instead, suggested there are school to teach "more appropriate tactics" to women as if tactics are gender specific, suggested they are just tab chasers with no intention of using the training, suggested they are only participating for promotion reasons, and Ranger School teaches minimal TTPs. 

Still waiting for you to know those other leadership schools.  Still waiting for you to define more appropriate tactics.  Please explain how women react to contact differently then men react to contact.

Quote:If we are looking for ways to trim the budget there are much more inexpensive and effective ways to teach leadership. Sorta like the guys we saw walking around with Jump wings having a total of 5 jumps.

And here you suggest they aren't worth the cost of the training.  But, you didn't state anyone who wants to go should not?  You questioned the basis of why women should even go in the first place because they will never use the training.  You're are asking why should someone go when there is no reason for them to go?  You implied answer is:  they shouldn't go.  Lucie is wearing off on you.

Quote:You mention the modern day battlefield and fail to mention that there is no longer a desert (where we are currently engaged) phase in Ranger School. I'm not even sure if the modern cirriculum addresses unconventional warfare, mostly just squad level tactics.  

It is a leadership school.  Leadership applies to any environment.  They don't have to teach leadership in Dugway or White Sands to apply the lessons in Afghanistan.  It is not an MOS producing school which you seem to think it is.  Why does Ranger School need a desert phase when you claim you can teach leadership elsewhere?  Do you know why Desert Phase was eliminated?  To save money.  The defense budget needs to be trimmed because it has grown for over 10 years while we have scaled back dramatically in Iraq. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-20-2015, 11:08 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: From female soldiers I've talked to, wanting a Ranger tab has mostly to do with credibility (translated as "the appearance of credibility") and the promotion value of having that in your file. There are a lot of male soldiers who try to go through Ranger school for the same reasons.

The "appearance of credibility" is a funny thing.  I would show up to a new unit in a sterile uniform on day 1.  I'd wear all the boy scout badges on day 2 and the way I was treated was totally different.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-20-2015, 11:03 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: No, they didn't lower standards.

Did you miss that?

What part of "SO LONG AS THEY DIDN'T LOWER STANDARDS IT'S FINE WITH ME" do you have trouble grasping exactly?  

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-20-2015, 02:26 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: What part of "SO LONG AS THEY DIDN'T LOWER STANDARDS IT'S FINE WITH ME" do you have trouble grasping exactly?  

Probably the part where you didn't say that in the post he replied to.

Quote:jakefromstatefarm

Congrats to them but I can't get behind lowering standards in the name equality, which in itself is disingenuous.

IF women can get through training and tests using the same standards as men, I'm all for it.

Otherwise this is complete nonsense.

Dude...Your khakis are all up in a bunch....Jake...from State Farm.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-20-2015, 02:37 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Probably the part where you didn't say that in the post he replied to.



Dude...Your khakis are all up in a bunch....Jake...from State Farm.

I said IF they can make it in without the lowering of standards, I'm all for it.

I'd say that's a pretty clear-cut statement.

Find somebody that knows how to read and have them explain it to you.  

[Benton]

(08-20-2015, 02:42 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I said IF they can make it in without the lowering of standards, I'm all for it.

I'd say that's a pretty clear-cut statement.

Find somebody that knows how to read and have them explain it to you.  

But they didn't lower standards.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-20-2015, 02:42 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I said IF they can make it in without the lowering of standards, I'm all for it.

I'd say that's a pretty clear-cut statement.

Find somebody that knows how to read and have them explain it to you.  

It's not clear based on your first sentence.  Thus the confusion.  

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-20-2015, 02:50 PM)Benton Wrote: But they didn't lower standards.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-20-2015, 02:42 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Find somebody that knows how to read and have them explain it to you.  

LOL..Find someone that knows how to clearly communicate ideas via the written English language, so they can transcribe your ideas.  Benton would be a good start for you, you know, since he makes a living communicating ideas through the written English language.  I't a meager living, nut he gets by.

Khakis are bunching up your panties there jake.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-20-2015, 02:50 PM)Benton Wrote: But they didn't lower standards.

If they make it in without the lowering of standards, I'm all for it.  

"IF" would be a key word there, would it not? 

That wasn't suggesting that they only made it in because they lowered standards.  I just gave my opinion that nobody should pass a Ranger School with any advantage.  If they weren't given any advantage, FINE.  I'm all for it. 

[SteelCitySouth]

Why is it so difficult for someone to say:

"Oh I see why my post has you wondering. Here is what I meant."

This board has quite a few people with that issue.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-20-2015, 02:55 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: LOL..Find someone that knows how to clearly communicate ideas via the written English language, so they can transcribe your ideas.  Benton would be a good start for you, you know, since he makes a living communicating ideas through the written English Language.  I't a meager living, nut he gets by.

Khakis are bunching up your panties there jake.

Good stuff.

So apparently, if I were to make the statement "if it doesn't rain today it should be a pretty nice day" what I'd really be saying is that "it's going to be a nice day". 

I'm glad that I have people out here so well-versed in the English language that they can tell me what my posts really mean. 

Anyone got the winning Powerball numbers?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-20-2015, 02:57 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Why is it so difficult for someone to say:

"Oh I see why my post has you wondering.  Here is what I meant."

This board has quite a few people with that issue.

How many times do I have to make the statement that if a woman is given no advantages at all, I'm all for it before you find it an acceptable answer?

Just curious, because I said that in the very post I made in this thread, and have echoed that belief multiple times. 

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-20-2015, 02:58 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Good stuff.

So apparently, if I were to make the statement "if it doesn't rain today it should be a pretty nice day" what I'd really be saying is that "it's going to be a nice day". 

I'm glad that I have people out here so well-versed in the English language that they can tell me what my posts really mean. 

Anyone got the winning Powerball numbers?

You keep forgetting the first part of your post.

Your Khakis are now choking you.

[Bengalzona]

(08-20-2015, 02:26 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: What part of "SO LONG AS THEY DIDN'T LOWER STANDARDS IT'S FINE WITH ME" do you have trouble grasping exactly?  

 When you said "... so long as...", it sounded like you had not heard whether it was or not. That's why I was trying to explain what I had read. Not trying to call you out or argue with you, just thought you had not heard one way or another.

I'm glad that it is fine by you under those terms. I agree totally. Now, if they can just make the APFT all under one standard that is still challenging. We used to have female soldiers max that thing all the time in my old units, even the fat ones.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-20-2015, 03:04 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:  When you said "... so long as...", it sounded like you had not heard whether it was or not. That's why I was trying to explain what I had read. Not trying to call you out or argue with you, just thought you had not heard one way or another.

I'm glad that it is fine by you under those terms. I agree totally. Now, if they can just make the APFT all under one standard that is still challenging. We used to have female soldiers max that thing all the time in my old units, even the fat ones.

This is exactly correct.  I didn't know whether the standards had been lowered, and to be honest, considering what has taken place in the armed forces and police departments, I figured that there was some lowering of standards.

Having said that, that's exactly why I qualified my remarks in the very first post of the thread by stating that as long as the standards were not lowered, I'm all for it. 

[Bengalzona]

(08-20-2015, 01:01 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The "appearance of credibility" is a funny thing.  I would show up to a new unit in a sterile uniform on day 1.  I'd wear all the boy scout badges on day 2 and the way I was treated was totally different.

Believe it or not, that trend is far worse among the officers. I was a battlion S-1 and part of my groups' job was write up the unit award recommendations for the LTC. The higher the rank, the less they had to do to get a recommendation to the point that it was ridiculous. And from talking with other people, that is pretty much the way it is throughout the military. Awards are handed out sometimes (not all the time) for the flakiest reasons that it is hard to know if it was deserved or not. But tabs and training badges are a little different. A Ranger tab means you went through that course and it is a rough course. It does symbolize a certain degree of physical and mental toughness. And the Army wants you to feel good about earning it so they can get more people to try the course. But outside of knowing that someone went through a tough course, I learned early on to look for what the guy was wearing on his right sleeve (or if they have a CIB or equivalent). That had a higher credibility for me.