Posted on Aug 17, 2015
This is why standards should not be lowered in order to get anybody into SF's. Do you know Lt. Kara Hultgreen's story?
73.3K
424
154
69
68
1
This is NOT a thread to demonstrate why women shouldn't be in combat. It's a thread to demonstrate why standards shouldn't be lowered to get them (or anyone) there. Please be civil.
In the early 90's, the White house and Congress were fairly desperate to rid themselves of the stink of Tail Hook, and so instigated a program to allow women to become combat pilots in the Navy. Lt. Hultgreen was the first of these. During her training, she received several 'down' marks, any of which would have sent a male packing. Yet she continued to advance through her training. It cost her her life.
"Documents obtained by Elaine Donnelly, director of CMR (Center for Military Readiness), shows that Lt. Hultgreen not only had subpar performance on several phases of her training but had four "downs" (major errors), just one or two of which are sufficient to justify the dismissal of a trainee. The White House and Congress' political pressure to get more women in combat is the direct cause of Lt. Hultgreen's death. But the story doesn't end there. A second female F-14A pilot, identified by Elaine Donnelly only as Pilot B, has been allowed to continue training despite marginal scores and seven "downs", the last of which was not recorded so she could pass the final stages of training." -- "Costly Affirmative Action" -- Walter E Williams.
In the approach that killed her, she made five identified errors, causing a stall that had, up until that time, never been caused in such a manner in the F-14. She died for political correctness.
I am sure that Lt. Hultgreen was a fine person. She should have never been in that cockpit. Her RIO nearly died as a result. Her death lies squarely at the feet of the White House, Congress, and the Naval leadership that allowed this to happen.
Soon after her death, policy was changed that required females to meet the same standards. And as you know, today, there are plenty of excellent female fighter pilots who SHOULD be where they are.
Because they met the bar.
No more. No less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen
In the early 90's, the White house and Congress were fairly desperate to rid themselves of the stink of Tail Hook, and so instigated a program to allow women to become combat pilots in the Navy. Lt. Hultgreen was the first of these. During her training, she received several 'down' marks, any of which would have sent a male packing. Yet she continued to advance through her training. It cost her her life.
"Documents obtained by Elaine Donnelly, director of CMR (Center for Military Readiness), shows that Lt. Hultgreen not only had subpar performance on several phases of her training but had four "downs" (major errors), just one or two of which are sufficient to justify the dismissal of a trainee. The White House and Congress' political pressure to get more women in combat is the direct cause of Lt. Hultgreen's death. But the story doesn't end there. A second female F-14A pilot, identified by Elaine Donnelly only as Pilot B, has been allowed to continue training despite marginal scores and seven "downs", the last of which was not recorded so she could pass the final stages of training." -- "Costly Affirmative Action" -- Walter E Williams.
In the approach that killed her, she made five identified errors, causing a stall that had, up until that time, never been caused in such a manner in the F-14. She died for political correctness.
I am sure that Lt. Hultgreen was a fine person. She should have never been in that cockpit. Her RIO nearly died as a result. Her death lies squarely at the feet of the White House, Congress, and the Naval leadership that allowed this to happen.
Soon after her death, policy was changed that required females to meet the same standards. And as you know, today, there are plenty of excellent female fighter pilots who SHOULD be where they are.
Because they met the bar.
No more. No less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen
Military History
Political Correctness
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 53
0
0
0
That my friends is the VERY BEST reason why a female should not be in a combat situation !!!!! EVER !!!! Its not that she was sub standard, not the point I wish to make at all. Its the fact that people (males) chose to exercise sympathy and cover for her. In a combat situation males will NOT focus on the mission at hand but will try to protect a female thus causing more harm than good as well as more casualties. I am not against Females in these positions because I think THEY cant hang, I know quite a few who can hang better than most males. I am against females in these positions because I know how males will think and act.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SN Greg Wright, Please explain why you single out SF, when your argument is with the Navy? SF can speak for it self.
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
CPT Pedro Meza Captain, I disagree with the characterization that my argument is with the Navy. Women are being pushed through things hastily (plenty of them qualified, I'm NOT talking down women at all, here) all over the military.
As for why I singled out SF's: simple. Because of the hubub around the women the Army pushed through the ranger school, and whether or not standards were lowered for her. It was timely and relevant. In no way a jab at SF's.
As for why I singled out SF's: simple. Because of the hubub around the women the Army pushed through the ranger school, and whether or not standards were lowered for her. It was timely and relevant. In no way a jab at SF's.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SN Greg Wright - You are aware that the 2 women soldiers were not pushed through ranger school, you ASSUME the standards issue. And Ranger School and SF are two different BEAST!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
In the 80s and 90s they lowered standards in many rates to up the #s of females. Poor evals were sent back for revision.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google