Miss USA 2016 is… (Military Related)

[OldSaltUSN]

Obviously a very attractive girl, though it wouldn't hurt her to down a few dozen double cheeseburgers.

But after seeing her, I have to take back my criticisms.  She definitely looks like she could carry 80+ pounds of gear, plus haul that 60mm mortar baseplate over broken terrain, no problem.  I've seen lots of infantry types built exactly like that.

When the hell did winning a beauty pageant become something for which our military should be lauded? This is the kind of crap that fosters a completely naïve, unrealistic image of what our military is supposed to be doing.

I doubt it.  My daughter (who I just wrote of) is a petite 5'6" Asian-American, yet she had clearly stronger shoulders and legs.  Her body was so lean and well developed that she had flexibility problems in gymnastics - just couldn't bend her back.  (She told me the other day "Dad, I finally got it!!  That yoga stuff is amazing.  Only took 10 years ... "   

[r9etb]

It's not me that has it backwards.

Obviously it is.

[mirraflake]

 

I'm not sure what that poster believes the military should be doing to earn credit, but winning beauty contests would not have been on my list.  And I'd add that as a supply officer in the Reserves whose actual job is with the Department of Commerce, and who does not ever seem to have deployed to a combat zone, perhaps she ought to be a bit more hesitant on opinion on what it takes to be in the infantry.

I meant her resume besides beauty pageant. Business management degree,  followed by an MBA etc.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And, she exudes a whole lot of integrity.  With her combat service, she's on the fast track for 05 or 06 in a very small lineal numbers pool (i.e. #1 Marine Officers, #2 Female Marine Officers, #3 COMBAT TESTED Female Marine Officers).  She probably just screwed her career future, by opposing the progressive "assumed facts" meme.

Semper Fi, Marine.   

Many moons ago, I was an instructor at The Basic School in Quantico, where all newly commissioned male and female Lts. go for 6 months of grunt-ish training before going off to be pilots, lawyers, engineers...or even grunts.  So I probably observed 2-3000 Lts. go through that training first hand, everything from long marches, to tactical ops, live fire exercises...everything.  Probably 120 or so women among them.

We tried, even back them, to give them mostly the same training.  Even when we weren't supposed to.  But the differences were just huge.  On the conditioning hikes, fully loaded, there wouldn't be a female still up with the guy after the first 2 miles.  A few guys also would be drifting back, but it was every single female.  I vividly recall one company-level exercise where the female platoon was assigned a movement route (commonly used in this particular exercise) and some of them simply refused because it required movement through some hip-deep, nasty water.  They were ordered, and simply wouldn't do it.  Listened to the whole argument over the radio between the major in charge. and this female captain helpless that some of her officers refused the movement.

The great thing, though, was that they generally tried just as hard, and were just as dedicated as the guys.  And the vast majority of them knew they couldn't do the full-on grunt stuff up to standards, but they were mature enough to realize they could still be great, valuable officers in whatever MOS they eventually were assigned.  Remind me a lot of this Captain of Engineers.  She just gets it, and understands that this push to force women into the infantry is actually insulting, because it implies that what they have done so far in their careers just isn't good enough.  Heck, a lot of guys aren't best suited to be infantry officers either -- it's just a matter of best fitting talents and abilities to the job.

I'm waiting for Trump in particular to be asked about that, and to hear his answer.  It's a big deal for me.

[OldSaltUSN]

Many moons ago, I was an instructor at The Basic School in Quantico, where all newly commissioned male and female Lts. go for 6 months of grunt-ish training before going off to be pilots, lawyers, engineers...or even grunts.  So I probably observed 2-3000 Lts. go through that training first hand, everything from long marches, to tactical ops, live fire exercises...everything.  Probably 120 or so women among them.

We tried, even back them, to give them mostly the same training.  Even when we weren't supposed to.  But the differences were just huge.  On the conditioning hikes, fully loaded, there wouldn't be a female still up with the guy after the first 2 miles.  A few guys also would be drifting back, but it was every single female.  I vividly recall one company-level exercise where the female platoon was assigned a movement route (commonly used in this particular exercise) and some of them simply refused because it required movement through some hip-deep, nasty water.  They were ordered, and simply wouldn't do it.  Listened to the whole argument over the radio between the major in charge. and this female captain helpless that some of her officers refused the movement.

The great thing, though, was that they generally tried just as hard, and were just as dedicated as the guys.  And the vast majority of them knew they couldn't do the full-on grunt stuff up to standards, but they were mature enough to realize they could still be great, valuable officers in whatever MOS they eventually were assigned.  Remind me a lot of this Captain of Engineers.  She just gets it, and understands that this push to force women into the infantry is actually insulting, because it implies that what they have done so far in their careers just isn't good enough.  Heck, a lot of guys aren't best suited to be infantry officers either -- it's just a matter of best fitting talents and abilities to the job.

I'm waiting for Trump in particular to be asked about that, and to hear his answer.  It's a big deal for me.

Bravo-Zulo

I will add that in my personal experience, with the women I served with, they were really the best officer in any wardroom.  I had heard stories about women, even officers getting "knocked up" while on deployment, or fraternizing with enlisted men, but I personally observed nothing but professionalism.  The same applies to the enlisted females and NCO's in my crews.   

First, women have a steeper cut than men.  I only had t be, perhaps, in the top third of applicants to make it in (and trust me, I sure wasn't any higher  ), but they had to be in the top 3% or better.   Though this may have changed, i.e. I've heard more people in general talking about "economic opportunity" in regards to "service", but the ladies I served with where 100% dedicated, patriotic, generally hot runners, and just all around great people to serve with.   Unfortunately, that didn't make them combat ready.

Who this country picks to lead her men into battle, matters.

It decisively matters, physical abilities aside.  Men don't need a masculine female to follow; they need a male leader.  This is not the place to apply progressive social engineering.  Leave that stuff at the universities.