In Fort Benning, US Army Shuts Down Misogynist Trolls

[2aguy]

All far right and far left and libertarian trolls should follow Correll's excellent counsel: Calling people who do not agree with you names and implying that their disagreement with you is based on a personal failing on their part reveals nothing but the inability of the accuser of understanding that reasonable people can reasonable disagree with them.

No one is calling anyone names in this thread except for you.

Not really, not like you just did to me in another thread. We went through this when you came on the Board, and tried doing it and then crying when it was done to you.

Don't dish what you can't take, podjo.

Don't call names when you get mad.

To the OP: their peers and those who served with them give them high kudos. Those that don't were not there and don't count.

You are calling people who disagree with you "misogynist trolls".

There is nothing misogynistic about thinking the women can't do Ranger Training.

there isn't? that's not a prejudice?

NOpe. Women are generally smaller and weaker than men, and have lower upper capabilities.

I was always under the impression that those lower maximum capabilities were not high enough to pass Ranger Training.

That is not a prejudice.

they also suffer from the marching and weight carrying over long periods of time…..

 

[2aguy]

It is not misogyny to think that women are generally not as strong as men or to think that women are incapable of passing a Ranger training class without a lowering of standards.




it is not misogyny to think that the military would lie or hide information under orders in order to serve the agenda of their civilians superiors.


Calling people who do not agree with you names and implying that their disagreement with you is based on a personal failing on their part reveals nothing but the inability of the accuser of understanding that reasonable people can reasonable disagree with them.

I would have no problem with women in a combat role.

In Israel women fight right alongside the men so women can fight.

Women in combat just aren't allowed in our military.

Actually I don't believe women serve in combat arms in Israel...

No one cares what you believe. Do you have any evidence? Educate yourself.

1. Women of the IDF - IDF - Israel Defense Forces
   http://www.idf.il/1589-en/Dover.aspxThe IDF is a professional organization that considers equality a leading ethic and incorporates womenin almost every mission. The State of Israel is the only ...
2. IDF Women | Facebook
   IDF WomenIDF Women serve for at least 2 years in various units including on the frontlines. ... 'When you come visit Israel, ask any IDF Women you meet to pose for.
3. Women's combat roles in Israel Defense Forces exaggerated ...
   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/?page=allMay 25, 2015 ... Military traditionalists say women's combat roles in the Israel Defense Forces are exaggerated by advocates in the U.S., noting as an example a ...

Ask.com

Yeah….artillery is a combat arm but it is still not the infantry, I just posted an article…educate yourself…...

 

[2aguy]

Not really, not like you just did to me in another thread. We went through this when you came on the Board, and tried doing it and then crying when it was done to you.

Don't dish what you can't take, podjo.

Don't call names when you get mad.

To the OP: their peers and those who served with them give them high kudos. Those that don't were not there and don't count.

You are calling people who disagree with you "misogynist trolls".

There is nothing misogynistic about thinking the women can't do Ranger Training.

there isn't? that's not a prejudice?

NOpe. Women are generally smaller and weaker than men, and have lower upper capabilities.

I was always under the impression that those lower maximum capabilities were not high enough to pass Ranger Training.

That is not a prejudice.

Good comment. I have seen some women in action who would clean your clock, some who might clean mine. They have passed the course. Good for them.

So the initial reports claim.

Perhaps it's true.

TO many people invested in the lib agenda for me to assume that none of them might have interfered with the normal training.

There is wiggle room, the peer evaluation phase at the end…..the fact that they are West Point cadets on top of being women…...

 

[2aguy]

Meh, whether it is or not..it's true.

except the two graduates are proof that it isn't.
no wonder you have such a hard time here, you don't understand the difference between true and false.

You believe everything the military tells you?

is there reason to believe they aren't telling the truth? that the men that went through the school with them are all lying?

Two good reasons.

ONe: The training is supposed to be so very hard that only the best of the best of the men can pass it. That seems to me to indicate that it is likely out of reach of even the best of the best of the women.

Two: It serves the lib agenda of which the President and his administration are part of. And they have the power to order the military to do stuff, like get some women to pass ranger training and lie about it to show that woman are just as good as men at everything.

so you find it more plausible that a conspiracy involving god knows how many people, including the president, decided to change the training of these two women and then decided to go out and lie about that training to everyone, even going so far as to praise the women, and that nobody has decided to contradict that story - you find all that more plausible than the possibility that they earned it just like every other graduate?

There is also the concept of never leaving someone behind….so they may have gotten assistance from their squad mates we won't know about….until the peer reviews, and we don't know how those are used or how they are done. If only the instructors see the peer reviews it might be easy to ignore bad ones…..

 

[ogibillm]

except the two graduates are proof that it isn't.
no wonder you have such a hard time here, you don't understand the difference between true and false.

You believe everything the military tells you?

is there reason to believe they aren't telling the truth? that the men that went through the school with them are all lying?

Two good reasons.

ONe: The training is supposed to be so very hard that only the best of the best of the men can pass it. That seems to me to indicate that it is likely out of reach of even the best of the best of the women.

Two: It serves the lib agenda of which the President and his administration are part of. And they have the power to order the military to do stuff, like get some women to pass ranger training and lie about it to show that woman are just as good as men at everything.

so you find it more plausible that a conspiracy involving god knows how many people, including the president, decided to change the training of these two women and then decided to go out and lie about that training to everyone, even going so far as to praise the women, and that nobody has decided to contradict that story - you find all that more plausible than the possibility that they earned it just like every other graduate?

There is also the concept of never leaving someone behind….so they may have gotten assistance from their squad mates we won't know about….until the peer reviews, and we don't know how those are used or how they are done. If only the instructors see the peer reviews it might be easy to ignore bad ones…..

the squad mates said the women were the ones doing the assisting...

 

[2aguy]

No. 1 has some merit, Correll, and No. 2 is only your opinion.

Civilian control of the military is part of our system.

As is political abuse of that control.

Those are very general statements with no evidence. You border on conspiracy theory.

I am suspicious of our military telling us the truth. Yes. I have no evidence.

I was Cadre at the Airborne Training Battalion at Fort Benning when the first women came through. There was no favoritism, the opposite actually until we found out just how ballsy they were. They convinced all of us.

Women have made it through airborne training for decades…it is 2 weeks long…...

 

[2aguy]

One, trolls be a trolling; it's what they do.

Women see combat all the time. They are just not in the combat arms in the Army or the Marines.

They will be great officers.

Yeah…not the same thing.

lol. based on what?
doesn't matter, that policy is out the door.

Being in the infantry is not the same as riding in a vehicle and getting fired on. The infantry is much more problematic physically for women…….

you are welcome to that opinion. you're also wrong in the belief that the only combat women see is while riding in a vehicle and getting fired upon.

Did I say that…no…..but the point is they are not infantry doing the job the infantry do……and shooting a rifle is not the issue…getting that rifle where it needs to be, day after day in a combat zone is where the difficulty is…….

 

[2aguy]

You believe everything the military tells you?

is there reason to believe they aren't telling the truth? that the men that went through the school with them are all lying?

Two good reasons.

ONe: The training is supposed to be so very hard that only the best of the best of the men can pass it. That seems to me to indicate that it is likely out of reach of even the best of the best of the women.

Two: It serves the lib agenda of which the President and his administration are part of. And they have the power to order the military to do stuff, like get some women to pass ranger training and lie about it to show that woman are just as good as men at everything.

so you find it more plausible that a conspiracy involving god knows how many people, including the president, decided to change the training of these two women and then decided to go out and lie about that training to everyone, even going so far as to praise the women, and that nobody has decided to contradict that story - you find all that more plausible than the possibility that they earned it just like every other graduate?

There is also the concept of never leaving someone behind….so they may have gotten assistance from their squad mates we won't know about….until the peer reviews, and we don't know how those are used or how they are done. If only the instructors see the peer reviews it might be easy to ignore bad ones…..

the squad mates said the women were the ones doing the assisting...

Yeah……I read that as well and we'll see over time how true those statements were….

 

[ogibillm]

One, trolls be a trolling; it's what they do.

Women see combat all the time. They are just not in the combat arms in the Army or the Marines.

They will be great officers.

Yeah…not the same thing.

lol. based on what?
doesn't matter, that policy is out the door.

Being in the infantry is not the same as riding in a vehicle and getting fired on. The infantry is much more problematic physically for women…….

you are welcome to that opinion. you're also wrong in the belief that the only combat women see is while riding in a vehicle and getting fired upon.

Did I say that…no…..but the point is they are not infantry doing the job the infantry do……and shooting a rifle is not the issue…getting that rifle where it needs to be, day after day in a combat zone is where the difficulty is…….

we'll see what happens in january, but my guess is infantry will definitely be integrated

 

[JakeStarkey]

No. 1 has some merit, Correll, and No. 2 is only your opinion.

Civilian control of the military is part of our system.
As is political abuse of that control.

Those are very general statements with no evidence. You border on conspiracy theory.

I am suspicious of our military telling us the truth. Yes. I have no evidence.

I was Cadre at the Airborne Training Battalion at Fort Benning when the first women came through. There was no favoritism, the opposite actually until we found out just how ballsy they were. They convinced all of us.

Women have made it through airborne training for decades…it is 2 weeks long…...

It was three weeks long in the seventies: ground, tower, and jump weeks. The 34 ft ground trolley was much harder for me than tower or jump.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah…not the same thing.

lol. based on what?
doesn't matter, that policy is out the door.

Being in the infantry is not the same as riding in a vehicle and getting fired on. The infantry is much more problematic physically for women…….

you are welcome to that opinion. you're also wrong in the belief that the only combat women see is while riding in a vehicle and getting fired upon.

Did I say that…no…..but the point is they are not infantry doing the job the infantry do……and shooting a rifle is not the issue…getting that rifle where it needs to be, day after day in a combat zone is where the difficulty is…….

we'll see what happens in january, but my guess is infantry will definitely be integrated

Hope so.