"The U.S. Army is considering putting female soldiers through Ranger School"
With that, my "I don't talk politics; it's pointless" went right out the window. I'm a hypocrite. I've had several discussions/postings about the topic.
One such commenter, against the grain of "This is idiotic", stated:
"...that is the responce every
time a system or program is considered for change to allow the entry of
women. It is a position designed to bet on failure. I think that there
are a few capable women who would prefer to bet on success.
With the military the way that it is today the roles of women are already blured. Women can command any number of units in combat areas and the current wars and number of women killed and wounded in combat demonstrate that the line has already been crossed. If a female MP goes to Ranger school and passes out she will be a better leader and the MP unit will benefit.
You use boxing as an example of a skill that will have to change. There are any number of martial arts other than boxing. I took classes for years and am a pretty big guy. One of my instructors, and co-owner of the school was a woman who could whup ass with the best of them.
BTW, I can assure you that when the day comes that a woman can run and throw like Eli Manning, some team will pick her up. Is there a rule in the NBA, MLB, or NFL that bars women?"
With the military the way that it is today the roles of women are already blured. Women can command any number of units in combat areas and the current wars and number of women killed and wounded in combat demonstrate that the line has already been crossed. If a female MP goes to Ranger school and passes out she will be a better leader and the MP unit will benefit.
You use boxing as an example of a skill that will have to change. There are any number of martial arts other than boxing. I took classes for years and am a pretty big guy. One of my instructors, and co-owner of the school was a woman who could whup ass with the best of them.
BTW, I can assure you that when the day comes that a woman can run and throw like Eli Manning, some team will pick her up. Is there a rule in the NBA, MLB, or NFL that bars women?"
Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who argues with him? I get it. I'm aware. That's my typical position.
But, however
Proverbs 26:4-5 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you
yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or
he will be wise in his."
For which I found the rather brilliant paraphrase "So: It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his
own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him
soundly, lest his foolishness seem to be confirmed by your silence." http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/bible.show/sVerseID/17146/eVerseID/17147#ixzz1vDhpoANc
So off I went:
"...that is a beautiful, lofty
position and one that has been propounded by such heralded minds as
Plato. The problem is that it's beautiful in theory and not reality. You
speak of the Righteous Amazon [let's call her Camilla (Virgil's
Aeneid) to keep with classical concept since the idea is nearly two
thousand years old] who will break the mold and not only be on the same
field as men but lead and possibly dominate. You say "when the day comes
that a woman can run and throw like Eli Manning, some team will pick
her up". Quite right, but I wouldn't bet my paycheck on that being
likely.
To keep with the metaphor, I say that there are 32 teams in the NFL and there are 53 roster spots. That's 1696 possible positions. If she made a team she would represent, of course, not the vanguard of an onslaught of dominant women players, but an oddity, a statistical aberration, a commendable and impressive one to be sure, but an outlier nonetheless. She, alone, would be not 1% of the NFL, nor a tenth of 1%. She would represent .05%.
And that's saying she plays the premier position (QB). Little girls can play football, and have. The crucible of reality has, and will, dictate that no, they will not be quarterbacks. When they have played against men, and they have, they play kickers typically. Why? That's where their obvious physical limitations hold them back least. IF a woman made an NFL team, I'd bet solid money she will be a kicker or punter.
IF that woman punter or kicker achieves the highest level (NFL) she will be a specimen and a sight to see, but she'll still be a kicker or punter and still represent .05%. No one, and I mean NO ONE with any sense is gonna tell you the kicker is the Acme of NFL Athletes. A kicker can be a hell of an athlete, yes. He/she can do a billionty pushups and walk on his/her hands for hours and at the end of the day he's/she's a sight to see at 195lbs. And yet football requires so, so, so much more. That's why kickers and punters don't get drafted first (other than Sebastian Janikowski, who looks like a lineman, coincidentally). Merely being an impressive specimen ain't enough. You need to also fit in the game.
THEREIN lies the problem with your Camilla theory. The NFL, of course, is not the Army, but it's an easier stand-in. Instead of a spectator sport that ultimately can vanish and not truly cause a problem, we're talking about the Army. The Army that is not a social concept. The Army that is not a "We Can Do It!" jingo-istic application.
We're talking about the people, men, who will face death and deal in it. The army, men, who protect the rest of us so that we can watch silly spectator sports that might one day, theoretically, have a woman compete with hundreds of men. This is not to be considered intellectually. Killing is not an intellectual exercise. Viscera, guts, brains, severed limbs, intestines, feces, urine, screaming agony. That's the bottom line of the Army. Common sense, reality, and history, not beautiful, lofty theory, have proven as much.
And yet, women have and will continue to face combat and succeed. This is not to be ignored or played down. We do have female warriors and thank God we do. With non-linear combat now a part of modern combat and one that will be for the foreseeable future, we will see a female Medal of Honor recipient (and not a PC one, but a deserved one). I stand by that.
When women have been in combat in the US, it has not been on purpose. It has been a coincidence of circumstance. "Our supply convoy got ambushed and the female driver exited her vehicle, laid down suppressive fire while her fellow soldiers found cover, and..." That story and it's ilk have happened repeatedly during the War on Terror. That's not to take away from what women have achieved. Well done. But it doesn't change the fact that it was unintended.
Rangers and infantry are not about coincidence, nor should they be. We don't put weaklings in the infantry (well we do, but that's because the Army is a bureaucratic machine and has problems...the weak typically wash out). They're the tip of the spear, as it were, and we need/want/require the best. The Rangers represent the best of the best. No, they're not Special Forces (I think women much better, if still unlikely or unnecessary, candidates for Special Operations). They are Elite Infantry.
"Rangers lead the way." They are symbols. They are also a very real force. Outside of Ranger Qualified soldiers and officers, there are Ranger Battalions and/in the Ranger Regiment (75th). When we need the best of the best, we use them.
Ranger School is a gauntlet of physical hell. Men die at Ranger School. (My cousin's) case of losing 55lbs in just over 2 months isn't an outlier. That's about the norm. Ranger School is designed to break men, to push them past their limits. The men who get sent to Ranger School aren't plucked from the street. They are tough to begin with. I was an artilleryman. I tried to go to Ranger School and got hurt just doing the training to qualify for a slot (Caveat: I am in NO way pulling the "I'd have been a Ranger if I hadn't blown out my knee" excuse/lie that one will hear from time to time; I sincerely doubt I could have made it through had I even gotten there). I was a 22yo LT (6'2", 195lbs) in the best shape of my life and could not hack it.
For us, the United States, to upend our system of selecting those Titans for an implausible, hypothetical, truly miniscule number of women (probably singular, woman) is nothing short of abject foolishness.
To keep with your NFL metaphor it would be like saying that hypothetical female kicker should be able to compete for a Pro Bowl Middle Linebacker slot.
To keep with the metaphor, I say that there are 32 teams in the NFL and there are 53 roster spots. That's 1696 possible positions. If she made a team she would represent, of course, not the vanguard of an onslaught of dominant women players, but an oddity, a statistical aberration, a commendable and impressive one to be sure, but an outlier nonetheless. She, alone, would be not 1% of the NFL, nor a tenth of 1%. She would represent .05%.
And that's saying she plays the premier position (QB). Little girls can play football, and have. The crucible of reality has, and will, dictate that no, they will not be quarterbacks. When they have played against men, and they have, they play kickers typically. Why? That's where their obvious physical limitations hold them back least. IF a woman made an NFL team, I'd bet solid money she will be a kicker or punter.
IF that woman punter or kicker achieves the highest level (NFL) she will be a specimen and a sight to see, but she'll still be a kicker or punter and still represent .05%. No one, and I mean NO ONE with any sense is gonna tell you the kicker is the Acme of NFL Athletes. A kicker can be a hell of an athlete, yes. He/she can do a billionty pushups and walk on his/her hands for hours and at the end of the day he's/she's a sight to see at 195lbs. And yet football requires so, so, so much more. That's why kickers and punters don't get drafted first (other than Sebastian Janikowski, who looks like a lineman, coincidentally). Merely being an impressive specimen ain't enough. You need to also fit in the game.
THEREIN lies the problem with your Camilla theory. The NFL, of course, is not the Army, but it's an easier stand-in. Instead of a spectator sport that ultimately can vanish and not truly cause a problem, we're talking about the Army. The Army that is not a social concept. The Army that is not a "We Can Do It!" jingo-istic application.
We're talking about the people, men, who will face death and deal in it. The army, men, who protect the rest of us so that we can watch silly spectator sports that might one day, theoretically, have a woman compete with hundreds of men. This is not to be considered intellectually. Killing is not an intellectual exercise. Viscera, guts, brains, severed limbs, intestines, feces, urine, screaming agony. That's the bottom line of the Army. Common sense, reality, and history, not beautiful, lofty theory, have proven as much.
And yet, women have and will continue to face combat and succeed. This is not to be ignored or played down. We do have female warriors and thank God we do. With non-linear combat now a part of modern combat and one that will be for the foreseeable future, we will see a female Medal of Honor recipient (and not a PC one, but a deserved one). I stand by that.
When women have been in combat in the US, it has not been on purpose. It has been a coincidence of circumstance. "Our supply convoy got ambushed and the female driver exited her vehicle, laid down suppressive fire while her fellow soldiers found cover, and..." That story and it's ilk have happened repeatedly during the War on Terror. That's not to take away from what women have achieved. Well done. But it doesn't change the fact that it was unintended.
Rangers and infantry are not about coincidence, nor should they be. We don't put weaklings in the infantry (well we do, but that's because the Army is a bureaucratic machine and has problems...the weak typically wash out). They're the tip of the spear, as it were, and we need/want/require the best. The Rangers represent the best of the best. No, they're not Special Forces (I think women much better, if still unlikely or unnecessary, candidates for Special Operations). They are Elite Infantry.
"Rangers lead the way." They are symbols. They are also a very real force. Outside of Ranger Qualified soldiers and officers, there are Ranger Battalions and/in the Ranger Regiment (75th). When we need the best of the best, we use them.
Ranger School is a gauntlet of physical hell. Men die at Ranger School. (My cousin's) case of losing 55lbs in just over 2 months isn't an outlier. That's about the norm. Ranger School is designed to break men, to push them past their limits. The men who get sent to Ranger School aren't plucked from the street. They are tough to begin with. I was an artilleryman. I tried to go to Ranger School and got hurt just doing the training to qualify for a slot (Caveat: I am in NO way pulling the "I'd have been a Ranger if I hadn't blown out my knee" excuse/lie that one will hear from time to time; I sincerely doubt I could have made it through had I even gotten there). I was a 22yo LT (6'2", 195lbs) in the best shape of my life and could not hack it.
For us, the United States, to upend our system of selecting those Titans for an implausible, hypothetical, truly miniscule number of women (probably singular, woman) is nothing short of abject foolishness.
To keep with your NFL metaphor it would be like saying that hypothetical female kicker should be able to compete for a Pro Bowl Middle Linebacker slot.
Of course (OF COURSE) the gentleman could not let that go as the final word.
"I have no problem being in league with Plato. You do know that my use of QB was just an
example. The question remains: is there a rule in the NBA, NHL, MLB or
NFL that bars women? I don't think so, and a woman who can cut the
mustard will make the team. The ham-fisted analogy, was in response to
Bill's reference to pro sports. It is a meritocracy and entertainment.
The sport and the crowd must be fed.
I have heard your arguments and Bill's arguments that women were not capable in reference to the inclusion of all "minorities." I say, let them try and let them succeed or let them fail just like the significant percentage of men who don't make it. "
I have heard your arguments and Bill's arguments that women were not capable in reference to the inclusion of all "minorities." I say, let them try and let them succeed or let them fail just like the significant percentage of men who don't make it. "
This time I kept it short:
"I say that just because one
man might be able to run around the bases faster than a horse (might),
you don't therefore put him in the Kentucky Derby."
No comments:
Post a Comment