Women Fail Army Ranger Course

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



|King Joker|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/30/ranger-women/28179303/

So 8 women failed the Army Ranger course -- 5 left and 3 are going to start over. Some people are asking themselves if the standard should be lowered or if women are fit to serve in combat roles. What does this mean in your opinion?

Robtard
Standards should not be lowered, should be the same test/requirements for everyone.

snowdragon
It means that women are going to have a tough time getting through this course, more so then men.

Probably not a good role for women in the military.

Ushgarak
Depends on the standards. We cannot immediately connect all standards 1-1 to someone;s ability to do their job.

Some things tested on courses like this don't relate directly to the job but are trying to gauge a relative level of fitness. That's the sort of standard that should definitely be adjusted for women, because they might be, practically speaking, more fit than some men that pass it but still fail the standard because it is mis-calibrated for them.

You end up throwing out people that might be better at the job than people you are keeping in.

Star428
Originally posted by |King Joker|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/30/ranger-women/28179303/

So 8 women failed the Army Ranger course -- 5 left and 3 are going to start over. Some people are asking themselves if the standard should be lowered or if women are fit to serve in combat roles. What does this mean in your opinion?



I know lots of people are going to give me flak for this and perhaps even ignorantly call me a sexist but, imho, women have no place in any kind of combat role. Especially not in any special forces like Rangers or SEALs.


Let the flaming begin. Won't change my opinion, regardless.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Depends on the standards. We cannot immediately connect all standards 1-1 to someone;s ability to do their job.

Some things tested on courses like this don't relate directly to the job but are trying to gauge a relative level of fitness. That's the sort of standard that should definitely be adjusted for women, because they might be, practically speaking, more fit than some men that pass it but still fail the standard because it is mis-calibrated for them.

You end up throwing out people that might be better at the job than people you are keeping in.

Fitness is only one aspect of the training though and this isn't the first type of program women miss out on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fourteen-women-have-tried-and-failed-the-marines-infantry-officer-course-heres-why/2014/03/28/24a83ea0-b145-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

The USMC infantry course isn't even a "special" operations unit. There are women in roles where they do engage in combat however that isn't their primary job.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Standards should not be lowered, should be the same test/requirements for everyone.

I agree with the second part. The first part is the question.

I agree with Ush, we need to look at standards and test and see if they actually get us what we need. It's perfectly possible, that the test as it is designed excludes people based on inflated fitness requirements who bring skills that would be much more useful in the actual job.

Originally posted by Star428
I know lots of people are going to give me flak for this and perhaps even ignorantly call me a sexist but, imho, women have no place in any kind of combat role. Especially not in any special forces like Rangers or SEALs.


Let the flaming begin. Won't change my opinion, regardless.

You're sexist.

Surtur
Nah, you don't lower the requirements. Women love to talk about equality, right? They can't have it both ways, and only ask for it when they benefit. Sorry ladies, complete the same tests as everyone else.

If you want to talk about changing tests to more accurately reflect what the job requires, sure fine, as long as those changes are done across the board.

Impediment
Speaking as a former Infantryman of the United States Army, requirements should NOT be lowered, altered, or made to "be equal" in any way shape or form.

I'm not a misogynist and I never have been, but I will state that women don't belong in a combat occupational specialty in any branch of the military.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
Nah, you don't lower the requirements. Women love to talk about equality, right? They can't have it both ways, and only ask for it when they benefit. Sorry ladies, complete the same tests as everyone else.

If you want to talk about changing tests to more accurately reflect what the job requires, sure fine, as long as those changes are done across the board.

The issue is that these tests may be myopic because they were designed by men for men. The ramifications of that are hard to assess. I agree with you that the test should be equal, that is, if the fitness standard is lowered, it should be lowered for men as well.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42


You're sexist.

You obviously don't understand, men can't handle seeing women die in combat. Has nothing to do with sexism. Ignorant and clueless you are.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You obviously don't understand, men can't handle seeing women die in combat. Has nothing to do with sexism. Ignorant and clueless you are.

Seems like an issue men have, perhaps they shouldn't work in combat roles, if they can't deal with that.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Seems like an issue men have, perhaps they shouldn't work in combat roles, if they can't deal with that.

Speaking of which you have what have more experience in, combat and seeing women die, or dating teenage women?

Impediment
IMO, it's not about men seeing women die. I've seen people of both sexes die and I was equally affected when it occurred.

Speaking in terms of biology and evolution, men are larger, stronger, and taller than women (for the most part). A 5'4" woman who weighs 150 pounds would probably have a very hard time picking up a wounded man who weighs 250 pounds and is 6'3" while in combat, under fire, and trying to get that man to safety.

Time Immemorial
Most def.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Impediment
IMO, it's not about men seeing women die. I've seen people of both sexes die and I was equally affected when it occurred.

Speaking in terms of biology and evolution, men are larger, stronger, and taller than women (for the most part). A 5'4" woman who weighs 150 pounds would probably have a very hard time picking up a wounded man who weighs 250 pounds and is 6'3" while in combat, under fire, and trying to get that man to safety.

Yeah, obviously there need to be some fitness requirements for that job. Perhaps they don't need to be as high as they currently are. And if a woman can pass them, they should have the chance to work in that position. I mean there are armies that have women in combat roles already, it's not that big of a deal.

Lek Kuen
Originally posted by Impediment
IMO, it's not about men seeing women die. I've seen people of both sexes die and I was equally affected when it occurred.

Speaking in terms of biology and evolution, men are larger, stronger, and taller than women (for the most part). A 5'4" woman who weighs 150 pounds would probably have a very hard time picking up a wounded man who weighs 250 pounds and is 6'3" while in combat, under fire, and trying to get that man to safety.

I personally would be fine with having it so the physical exception regarding women are the only ones that can get in. Allowing them but keeping so that as you said, only the ones who can easily do things you mention can get in roles that require it.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, obviously there need to be some fitness requirements for that job. Perhaps they don't need to be as high as they currently are. And if a woman can pass them, they should have the chance to work in that position. I mean there are armies that have women in combat roles already, it's not that big of a deal.

Clearly you didn't read op.. Mr. Pedo..

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...women/28179303/

So 8 women failed the Army Ranger course -- 5 left and 3 are going to start over. Some people are asking themselves if the standard should be lowered or if women are fit to serve in combat roles. What does this mean in your opinion?

They didnt didn't pass them.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Clearly you didn't read op.. Mr. Pedo..

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...women/28179303/

So 8 women failed the Army Ranger course -- 5 left and 3 are going to start over. Some people are asking themselves if the standard should be lowered or if women are fit to serve in combat roles. What does this mean in your opinion?

They didnt didn't pass them.

Hence why I said "Perhaps they don't need to be as high as they currently are".

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hence why I said "Perhaps they don't need to be as high as they currently are".

So you want to lower standards for women but then want things to be equal across the board? Sounds like you are sexist.

Won't work Mr. Pedo.

Star428
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You obviously don't understand, men can't handle seeing women die in combat. Has nothing to do with sexism. Ignorant and clueless you are.


Bingo. We have a winner.

|King Joker|
Originally posted by Impediment
IMO, it's not about men seeing women die. I've seen people of both sexes die and I was equally affected when it occurred.

Speaking in terms of biology and evolution, men are larger, stronger, and taller than women (for the most part). A 5'4" woman who weighs 150 pounds would probably have a very hard time picking up a wounded man who weighs 250 pounds and is 6'3" while in combat, under fire, and trying to get that man to safety. That's true, but couldn't there just be woman only squads or something? So they fight alongside other woman?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So you want to lower standards for women but then want things to be equal across the board? Sounds like you are sexist.

Won't work Mr. Pedo.

No, I am saying lower standards for everyone, not just women.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I am saying lower standards for everyone, not just women.

Yes lower standards, lets make the military worse because women can't pass the test.

Won't work Mr. Pedo.

Impediment
Knock off the name calling.


Those standards are there for a reason. If a man can't pass the requirements, then he shouldn't become a Ranger. Same with women. Period.

Bardock42
Like I, and some other people said, making it "worse" in one aspect, may actually make it better overall.

Additionally there are armies that have women in combat roles, and it does work, so your claim is incorrect.

Time Immemorial
Bardock has no idea. Its all sexist to him.

We must lower standards and make the military worse in order not to be sexist.

Star428
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Speaking of which you have what have more experience in, combat and seeing women die, or dating teenage women?



LOL. Good one. I'd like to see how any country's military would last in a real war if women outnumbered the men in combat roles.
My guess is that it wouldn't end well for them.

Impediment
Altering the requirements for elite combat roles so everyone can participate so nobody will have hert feelz is no different that schools lowering the passing grade so everyone can feel smart and get an A+ to make the schools look good.

Lowering and changing the requirements for Ranger School for females is a bad, bad idea. If other countries have women in combat, then huzzah. This isn't another country. The standards are set for a very good reason.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Like I, and some other people said, making it "worse" in one aspect, may actually make it better overall.

Additionally there are armies that have women in combat roles, and it does work, so your claim is incorrect.

His claim is not incorrect. You don't even understand what a Ranger is.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
His claim is not incorrect. You don't even understand what a Ranger is.

I was calling your claim incorrect. Impediment posted in between your post and my reply.

Star428
Originally posted by |King Joker|
That's true, but couldn't there just be woman only squads or something? So they fight alongside other woman?


Again, how long do you really think they'd last in a real battle against a trained military that was mostly or all men? I don't mean to sound mean but half of them would probably run away before the fighting even started.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
I was calling your claim incorrect. Impediment posted in between your post and my reply.

Imp and me have the same opinion. Keep dodging though.

Lek Kuen
Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Good one. I'd like to see how any country's military would last in a real war if women outnumbered the men in combat roles.
My guess is that it wouldn't end well for them.

Well women in combat roles doesn't mean it becomes any woman. If only the upper tier of fit women were able to pass (basically the small percentage of women who do fit qualifications) would you still be against them joining?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Impediment
Altering the requirements for elite combat roles so everyone can participate so nobody will have hert feelz is no different that schools lowering the passing grade so everyone can feel smart and get an A+ to make the schools look good.

Lowering and changing the requirements for Ranger School for females is a bad, bad idea. If other countries have women in combat, then huzzah. This isn't another country. The standards are set for a very good reason.

Your school example is actually really good. It's no different to a school lowering the passing maths requirements from an A+ to a B, so that more people who may not be skilled in maths, but have other really valuable qualities can pass and become productive members of society. Now we could say everyone needs to have A+ maths skills, but perhaps that's not actually the case, even though we've traditionally always done it that way.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Well women in combat roles doesn't mean it becomes any woman. If only the upper tier of fit women were able to pass (basically the small percentage of women who do fit qualifications) would you still be against them joining?

Sure if they want to join, and they can pass the same test, go for it, the idea that we have to lower the standard is being idiotic.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Your school example is actually really good. It's no different to a school lowering the passing maths requirements from an A+ to a B, so that more people who may not be skilled in maths, but have other really valuable qualities can pass and become productive members of society. Now we could say everyone needs to have A+ maths skills, but perhaps that's not actually the case, even though we've traditionally always done it that way.

Thats not what he said. He didn't say we have to change the passing grade, there is a different between getting an A and B in math vs being able to run 10 miles in a bad situation with a pack, or only making it 2 miles, its called life and death.

|King Joker|
Originally posted by Star428
Again, how long do you really think they'd last in a real battle against a trained military that was mostly or all men? I don't mean to sound mean but half of them would probably run away before the fighting even started. Unless they engage in a CQC fight against the men, I honestly don't know.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Unless they engage in a CQC fight against the men, I honestly don't know.

I could not tell you how many times I had to put grown men on there ass in clearing rooms. And this is without a gun. You think a woman can do it now? But they can't pass these tests?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Thats not what he said. He didn't say we have to change the passing grade, there is a different between getting an A and B in math vs being able to run 10 miles in a bad situation with a pack, or only making it 2 miles, its called life and death.

Surely you agree that the rules for passing should be assessed from time to time to ensure no mistakes in the thinking of the creators of the test?

This is basically what is being suggested, with people advocating that the creators of the tests have made a mistake with some of their standards.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Surely you agree that the rules for passing should be assessed from time to time to ensure no mistakes in the thinking of the creators of the test?

This is basically what is being suggested, with people advocating that the creators of the tests have made a mistake with some of their standards.

More meaningless rhetoric.

Test's in Math are not the same as combat.

End of story

Bardock42
Surely you agree that the rules for passing should be assessed from time to time to ensure no mistakes in the thinking of the creators of the test?

This is basically what is being suggested, with people advocating that the creators of the tests have made a mistake with some of their standards.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
More meaningless rhetoric.

Test's in Math are not the same as combat.

End of story

The Nuul
I know people in the military on both sides of the border. Imo no, they should not lower the standards for women. Most men are unable to meet the requirements to work on the front lines. Even as a medic, women would have a hard time dragging men to safety. Being an elite..... that's even harder. Elite needs the best of the best, period.

Imp knows what he is talking about, anyone who says other wise, don't.

Impediment
I'd also like to say that G.I. Jane is a f*cking movie.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Impediment
I'd also like to say that G.I. Jane is a f*cking movie.

I agree, its one of my faves..I remember her demanding the same standard as the men..

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by The Nuul
I know people in the military on both sides of the border. Imo no, they should not lower the standards for women. Most men are unable to meet the requirements to work on the front lines. Even as a medic, women would have a hard time dragging men to safety. Being an elite..... that's even harder. Elite needs the best of the best, period.

Imp knows what he is talking about, anyone who says other wise, don't.

I agree, the standards are there for a reason, because when shit hits the fan, you fall back on your training. If your training has been altered and lessened over gender equality issue, everyone has been put in danger, men and women.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with the second part. The first part is the question.

I agree with Ush, we need to look at standards and test and see if they actually get us what we need. It's perfectly possible, that the test as it is designed excludes people based on inflated fitness requirements who bring skills that would be much more useful in the actual job.


I've no problem with reevaluation. If a flaw is found and there's a better path, sure

But lowering fitness and mental duress standards so more people can pass Special Forces training (which is a physically and mentally demanding job) makes for a "weaker" soldier overall, imo. This isn't just for women either as it's something like a 50%+ fail-rate for men as is. The tests are hard, for a reason.

Conversely, reevaluation might lead to standards actually needing to be raised. Spartan style, only the top of the top pass, regardless of gender.

I've also no problem with women in combat roles, iirc, test have shown that women are generally better at multitasking. Get them in the jet-fighters and controlling drones.

|King Joker|
thumb up

Surtur
Originally posted by Bardock42
The issue is that these tests may be myopic because they were designed by men for men. The ramifications of that are hard to assess. I agree with you that the test should be equal, that is, if the fitness standard is lowered, it should be lowered for men as well.

Well yeah, but the problem is if they lower the standards and thus have to do it for both genders, doesn't that just lower the quality of soldiers we get?

I'd be curious to know though which parts of the course people feel should be removed or rethought of in order for the tests to better reflect what will be expected of you.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
Well yeah, but the problem is if they lower the standards and thus have to do it for both genders, doesn't that just lower the quality of soldiers we get?

I'd be curious to know though which parts of the course people feel should be removed or rethought of in order for the tests to better reflect what will be expected of you.

Well, like I said, it's about lowering one aspect, in hopes to get better overall quality. It could be that this one aspect (in this case fitness) had been given too much weight, and therefore excluded candidates who would have performed better than some that exceeded at the one aspect.

Surtur
Though now if they DO change it..it really will come off like they changed it because women were too weak to pass the test, as opposed to just changing it because the overall standards are out of whack.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
Though now if they DO change it..it really will come off like they changed it because women were too weak to pass the test, as opposed to just changing it because the overall standards are out of whack.

Yes, it would likely be interpreted that way. However that's not a good reason not to do something, obviously.

The Nuul
I know a female officer here in Canada in rl. Just had just started off as a rookie, night shift, some small country town. She pulled over a truck, she stepped out, as soon as she got near the truck, four men came out to rush her. She ran, hid, then called for back up. She just didn't have the time do defend herself. She was not mentally prepared and they would have beaten her before she could have drawn out her firearm.

This is just being a woman rookie cop, being in the military, okay some can do the job, but being in the elite.... no way. Sorry, women do not belong.

Surtur
I also have to ask..I'm reading some comments from people in articles about this, from some of them..it seems to imply that in the past..the bar for something WAS lowered for women? Is there any truth to that? I've just seen a lot of comments to the tune of "don't lower the bar again". Makes me wonder when the bar was first lowered and why?

Omega Vision
Determine how necessary each requirement is for performing the duties of special forces soldiers. If they're all necessary, then by no means should we lower them for the sake of "giving a fair chance." But if they're not absolutely necessary, then it might turn out that we're placing arbitrary rules that are keeping out lots of good potential recruits, male and female. That's my principle on this issue.

Branlor Swift
Why would the instructors or army want a less in shape person just because some people can't pass a test?

It's clearly doable. And it seems to be weeding out the mentally weak from the mentally strong. Are they lazy or just physically incapable of doing it? And if they're physically incapable of doing it at any stage then why should a reliance be put on them if/when shit hits the fan?

The army is not a place to go if you want an easy road. You tried and failed. End of discussion. If women can't do it then they shouldn't be in that specific branch. Not everything should be a feel good olympics. They need "the best" not people they have to cater to. And correct me if I'm wrong but women have completed this course before. Which should only make you take a look at the people who failed. They were not cut out for it when others passed. They either did not take it seriously or they were too weak. Why does the army need them?

An extreme example but you wouldn't change the course based on a couple overweight people failing. They were clearly not ready for it. The army wants people who can pass the passable test, not just anyone who can pass a gimped test. The army wants in shape people. What need would it have for lowering standards?

Ushgarak
The simple fact is that some standards designed for men might be a totally inappropriate way to define if a woman is fit for the job.

To take an isolated example- the US army often has a bit of an obsession with straight bench-press style lifting. You don't actually need to bench-press to fight in combat but there is a vague correlation between that and a person's broader fitness (in a lot of people's opinions, not a very good one, but let's run with it). But that's going to give you the totally wrong result if you use the same benchmark for men and women, because the amount a woman would need to bench press to show she is broadly fit by that correlation is a lot less than a man would need to be able to do. So by applying the same standard, you are actually discriminating against women that could do the job well.

Now, if this was a weightlifting job (if you can imagine such a thing), then the standards would have to be the same as that is literally what the job is. Likewise, if the women here are failing on, say, marksmanship (and let's remember, their reasons for failing are not being made clear here), then that's a standard that should be identical and that's a good reason to fail them.

But broadly speaking, you cannot simplify the world into treating men and women in the exact same way and calling that equality. Equality is more nuanced than that- sometimes it involves adjustments to get a fair result.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The simple fact is that some standards designed for men might be a totally inappropriate way to define if a woman is fit for the job.

To take an isolated example- the US army often has a bit of an obsession with straight bench-press style lifting. You don't actually need to bench-press to fight in combat but there is a vague correlation between that and a person's broader fitness (in a lot of people's opinions, not a very good one, but let's run with it). But that's going to give you the totally wrong result if you use the same benchmark for men and women, because the amount a woman would need to bench press to show she is broadly fit by that correlation is a lot less than a man would need to be able to do. So by applying the same standard, you are actually discriminating against women that could do the job well.

Now, if this was a weightlifting job (if you can imagine such a thing), then the standards would have to be the same as that is literally what the job is. Likewise, if the women here are failing on, say, marksmanship (and let's remember, their reasons for failing are not being made clear here), then that's a standard that should be identical and that's a good reason to fail them.

But broadly speaking, you cannot simplify the world into treating men and women in the exact same way and calling that equality. Equality is more nuanced than that- sometimes it involves adjustments to get a fair result.
I remember when I was taking pre-law classes, they told us about how police forces used to keep women out by having a bench press test. But when civil rights groups cried foul they did evaluations and found that in almost every case, being able to bench press a certain weight had no significance to policework, and the most important test of fitness (being able to run up a flight of stairs without getting winded) would actually have disqualified a lot of serving male officers if it had been a requirement.

However, there are some actual operative requirements in special forces service for weight lifting (or weight bearing) ability. With all their gear, they're usually lugging around 50-100 lbs or more. A lot of women simply can't run with that kind of weight, and they shouldn't be admitted, but there are some who can and I say let them fight if they can.

Ushgarak
That's not bench press, that's stamina (the SAS have a particular way of looking down on US special forces for this reason, as the SAS has a stamina focussed regime and doesn't care how much you can lift- they seem far more sensible).

Stamina does not really have a gender difference of the sort I describe so if a woman cannot run X distance bearing Y weight, like a man, that's a good reason to fail, because that is indeed something you directly need to be able to do.

But I used bench pressing itself as an example because that is a test where you literally need a different scale for men and women to get a useful result. We're not interested in how much they can lift but in how fit they are, and a fit woman would lift less than a fit man.

jaden101
If women want to get blown up on the orders of a government that hates them then let them.

Branlor Swift
http://www.army.mil/ranger/


There is no mention of bench pressing that I saw there.

And it blatantly says that 50 percent of men fail. 50 percent of all men trying it is a little more than 19 (?) women. Guess we should just lower the test as it's being biased towards men?

It's purposefully hard because it tries to simulate possible scenarios to get you ready for anything. If women can't do it, then they are unprepared.

As well as I finally watched the video in the op link. A lot of what they showed was picking up wounded soldiers on the battlefield. Which makes sense. If women can't do that, save another soldier, then why should they be admitted? If a women can't accomplish a task in the actual battlefield, then would lowering the standards actually be good just because we got some women there? It's not about feeling good, it's about being right for the job.

You need requirements, just like most jobs. And they do not fit them. There are other jobs in the military to try out for.

Ushgarak
Well it doesn't specifically mention anything there. It doesn't make any difference to my point- there are some physical tests by which you get an inaccurate result by trying to apply the same numbers for men and women and end up excluding people that could do the job for arbitrary reasons.

If they are not failing on such things and are failing on necessary skills where there is no gender difference at all then that is entirely fair. We don't know what they are failing on though.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The simple fact is that some standards designed for men might be a totally inappropriate way to define if a woman is fit for the job.

To take an isolated example- the US army often has a bit of an obsession with straight bench-press style lifting. You don't actually need to bench-press to fight in combat but there is a vague correlation between that and a person's broader fitness (in a lot of people's opinions, not a very good one, but let's run with it). But that's going to give you the totally wrong result if you use the same benchmark for men and women, because the amount a woman would need to bench press to show she is broadly fit by that correlation is a lot less than a man would need to be able to do. So by applying the same standard, you are actually discriminating against women that could do the job well.

Now, if this was a weightliftin is more nuanced than that- sometimes it involves adjustments to get a fair result.

This is an issue though, the test for rangers is not based off bench press. It's usually extensive land navigation training, combat training drills, deploying out of a chopper and many other things.

However strength is a vital in the field. What if you got hit by an IED in a truck and had to carry bodies. Or was trapped under something?

Branlor Swift
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well it doesn't specifically mention anything there. It doesn't make any difference to my point- there are some physical tests by which you get an inaccurate result by trying to apply the same numbers for men and women and end up excluding people that could do the job for arbitrary reasons.

If they are not failing on such things and are failing on necessary skills where there is no gender difference at all then that is entirely fair. We don't know what they are failing on though. Well, I don't see why we should start applying tasks that may be gender specific based on an assumption.

I mean sure, if that is the case, then yeah there may need to be a revaluation of the course. But there's nothing actually outlined there that would be gender bias. Everyone should be able to pass it based on that link... as long as they want to/are prepared.

From the outline, it just seems like the women are being pushed too hard. They were either expecting something easier, or they're mentally/physically "weak" people.

-Pr-
Assuming the training they use for rangers is the absolute best way of training that can be used, then I honestly don't like the idea of "making it easier" just to give more people a chance, whether they be men or women.

If it were me being shot at, I can't imagine how frightening it would be to realise that the girl or guy beside me only got in because they lowered their standards, and wouldn't have passed otherwise. if they're the best of the best, then it needs to stay that way imo.

Branlor Swift
Originally posted by -Pr-
Assuming the training they use for rangers is the absolute best way of training that can be used, then I honestly don't like the idea of "making it easier" just to give more people a chance, whether they be men or women.

If it were me being shot at, I can't imagine how frightening it would be to realise that the girl or guy beside me only got in because they lowered their standards, and wouldn't have passed otherwise. if they're the best of the best, then it needs to stay that way imo. thumb up

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
This is an issue though, the test for rangers is not based off bench press. It's usually extensive land navigation training, combat training drills, deploying out of a chopper and many other things.

However strength is a vital in the field. What if you got hit by an IED in a truck and had to carry bodies. Or was trapped under something?

If the women are failing on land navigation then that's fine- and no-one, anywhere, is calling for that sort of standard to be lowered.

I understand most failures at this stage are actually due to failing the squad leadership test- again, this is not controversial.

But if they are failing on, say, chin ups or sit ups, then that's the sort of area where you might be getting a distorted result that does not accurately test their physical capacity for the role.

And like the news report linked to says, some standards get put in there as a rite-of-passage rather than because they are needed.

Tzeentch
I think you guys are all more or less in agreement with each other. If the metric being used to test compatibility is proven to be an adequate simulation of real battlefield experiences, then that metric should be upheld regardless of who passes or fails it.

^ Don't think anyone disagrees with that notion. The point of contention is whether the metrics being used are relevant to real battlefield situations. To that end, I personally have no idea. Is being able to do 80 chin-ups an important ability on the battlefield? My gut says yes but with no military experience or knowledge I can't make any objective judgments.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by -Pr-
Assuming the training they use for rangers is the absolute best way of training that can be used, then I honestly don't like the idea of "making it easier" just to give more people a chance, whether they be men or women.

If it were me being shot at, I can't imagine how frightening it would be to realise that the girl or guy beside me only got in because they lowered their standards, and wouldn't have passed otherwise. if they're the best of the best, then it needs to stay that way imo.

But what if the person who could have saved your life wasn't even there because they were disqualified due to an arbitrary test that was not accurate in determining their combat capacity? Your initial assumption is actually the complicated heart of this whole area.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Ushgarak
But what if the person who could have saved your life wasn't even there because they were disqualified due to an arbitrary test that was not accurate in determining their combat capacity? Your initial assumption is actually the complicated heart of this whole area.

The problem is, how do you decide which tests are arbitrary and which ones aren't? To me, strength training would be essential. Alongside cardio obviously, but dragging a 180-200 pound man through the desert is just as important as knowing the direction to drag him in. Obviously strength isn't the only test. I'm just very wary of them changing things when, as far as I know, rangers have been pretty ****ing solid as a unit for their existence. They're obviously doing something right.

Honestly, it reminds me a little of the controversy over the lowering of standards to become Firefighters. Not exactly the same obviously, but some common principles that I think apply here too.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
But what if the person who could have saved your life wasn't even there because they were disqualified due to an arbitrary test that was not accurate in determining their combat capacity? Your initial assumption is actually the complicated heart of this whole area.

You don't go into battlefield without having the right people or number of people. If the standard is lowered you actually have the chance of the effectieness of the team being reduced because now the standard is lower. Lowering the standard in elite ranks, such as the Rangers is how people will end up dead. By not allowing it to be lowered, you actually raise your chances of survival.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You don't go into battlefield without having the right people or number of people. If the standard is lowered you actually have the chance of the effectieness of the team being reduced because now the standard is lower. Lowering the standard in elite ranks, such as the Rangers is how people will end up dead. By not allowing it to be lowered, you actually raise your chances of survival.

is there a way to change it without lowering it? are some skills more important than others?

Ushgarak
Of course strength training is essential- but it's the sort of thing that might actually need different approaches for men and women.

A woman perfectly fit and able to do her job as a soldier almost certainly cannot do as many pull ups as a man of the same level of fitness, so judging them on the same number is an unfair metric- you can end up excluding women who could do the job just fine.

And as mentioned, some of the metrics might be irrelevant rite-of-passage stuff anyway.

However, I really am suspecting that none of these people failed on straight strength fitness anyway, so it all seems a bit moot.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You don't go into battlefield without having the right people or number of people. If the standard is lowered you actually have the chance of the effectieness of the team being reduced because now the standard is lower. Lowering the standard in elite ranks, such as the Rangers is how people will end up dead. By not allowing it to be lowered, you actually raise your chances of survival.

Time and time again understrength units end up on the battlefield. And no army can afford to turn down people capable of doing the job for spurious reasons.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course strength training is essential- but it's the sort of thing that might actually need different approaches for men and women.

A woman perfectly fit and able to do her job as a soldier almost certainly cannot do as many pull ups as a man of the same level of fitness, so judging them on the same number is an unfair metric- you can end up excluding women who could do the job just fine.

And as mentioned, some of the metrics might be irrelevant rite-of-passage stuff anyway.

However, I really am suspecting that none of these people failed on straight strength fitness anyway, so it all seems a bit moot.

Not really sure I get what you're saying about strength, but all right, moot it is.

Branlor Swift
Originally posted by Ushgarak
But what if the person who could have saved your life wasn't even there because they were disqualified due to an arbitrary test that was not accurate in determining their combat capacity? Your initial assumption is actually the complicated heart of this whole area. Unless your whole squad gets wiped out, or you for whatever reason are completely separated from your squad, the numbers shouldn't be a factor. There should usually be another around you under "We only take proven candidates" and "This guy/girl is only in because we lowered the standards".

But under both scenarios, that's assuming that extra person wouldn't be separated from you, or wouldn't have been killed too. It's a two way street. Certain unforeseen factors can't adequately show how beneficial another body is, or how they wouldn't impact anything at all in a theoretical situation.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by -Pr-
is there a way to change it without lowering it? are some skills more important than others?

Sure for a woman that goes through basic training received all the same training and then goes into her specialization. Say she did regular grunt infantry which is 11 bravo in the Army. The grunts don't recieve the type of missions Rangers do. Therefore they are not trained the way the Rangers are.

So if the Rangers start lowering standards. What makes them any more specialized then 11Bravos, nothing really.

But now they are going on harder missions.

Where it changes is the elite units. Lowering the standard, lowers the outcome of success. It's not right minded thinking to lower standards based on gender.

The right candidates pass the selection process, then pass the training which is all geaed towards the types of missions they will recieve.

Omega Vision
I think as long as women are allowed to take the test (I remember a thread started by Zeal Ex Nihilo some years back where he said women shouldn't be allowed to even try out) I'm not going to cry "unfair."

Tzeentch
No one is really asserting that standards be lowered, so much as that they be looked at and *possibly* changed so that they're more relevant to the job. Women being able to more easily pass those standards is a by-product.

Analogy: What if for the past 50 years, passing a marksmanship test was required to be a physical fitness trainer? In order to get your certification to be a trainer, you have to be able to shoot a target that's 300 meters away with at least a 75% success rate.

Some would argue that since that's been a requirement for 50 years, you shouldn't "lower" the standards by getting rid of it, while some would argue that being able to shoot a target is completely irrelevant to helping fat people lose weight. So if potentially good physical fitness trainers are being turned away because they can't pass this marksmanship test, maybe the marksmanship test should be dropped.

Similarly, what people are arguing is that being able to do X amount of pull-ups or whatever isn't a requirement to be a ranger or a Navy SEAL, and thus the test should be altered. I don't know how relevant sit-ups and pull-ups are to being a good special forces soldier, but that's the argument being presented.

The Nuul
Ah2VTWDi1Zg

I don't see Gina or Cyborg doing as well as these male MMA fighters or Elite soldiers. These male MMA fighters had a tough time doing these trainings/drills, no where as good as the real Elite soldiers. So how are women supposed to be elite? There are a lot more than just physical aspects. War is not like MMA, not a sport, "men" are trying to kill you that are trained, highly trained and elite trained. This is just not about strength, there are a lot of skills, unknowns as well like ieds in combat, women cannot just think like men in terms of battlefield awareness or other areas.

Surtur
Originally posted by Ushgarak
To take an isolated example- the US army often has a bit of an obsession with straight bench-press style lifting. You don't actually need to bench-press to fight in combat but there is a vague correlation between that and a person's broader fitness (in a lot of people's opinions, not a very good one, but let's run with it). But that's going to give you the totally wrong result if you use the same benchmark for men and women, because the amount a woman would need to bench press to show she is broadly fit by that correlation is a lot less than a man would need to be able to do. So by applying the same standard, you are actually discriminating against women that could do the job well.

I get what you are saying, but it sounds like this would not be a male/female problem, would it? I mean, wouldn't important factors in deciding what a person should be able to bench press depend more on weight and size, not gender?

Or are you saying even if you had a man and a woman who are identical in weight and size..the benchmark for the woman should still be lower?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by The Nuul
This is just not about strength, there are a lot of skills, unknowns as well like ieds in combat, women cannot just think like men in terms of battlefield awareness or other areas.
See, you moved from something that might be true (women can't be expected to have the same physical capabilities as men) to something idiotic (women can't be expected to have the same mental capabilities as men).

Tzeentch
If anything you could argue that women might actually have superior combat awareness, as biologically men are more prone to tunnel vision while women are more cognizant of their surroundings. Studies show that women have superior sense of smell, superior peripheral vision, superior auditory processing abilities and superior multi-tasking abilities.

Mindset
Originally posted by Tzeentch
If anything you could argue that women might actually have superior combat awareness, as biologically men are more prone to tunnel vision while women are more cognizant of their surroundings. Studies show that women have superior sense of smell, superior peripheral vision, superior auditory processing abilities and superior multi-tasking abilities. Feminist lies.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Tzeentch
If anything you could argue that women might actually have superior combat awareness, as biologically men are more prone to tunnel vision while women are more cognizant of their surroundings. Studies show that women have superior sense of smell, superior peripheral vision, superior auditory processing abilities and superior multi-tasking abilities.

Confused if they are superior to men, why are they not passing the tests.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Tzeentch
If anything you could argue that women might actually have superior combat awareness, as biologically men are more prone to tunnel vision while women are more cognizant of their surroundings. Studies show that women have superior sense of smell, superior peripheral vision, superior auditory processing abilities and superior multi-tasking abilities.
It's been pretty much proven women are disposed to be better fighter pilots than men.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Sure for a woman that goes through basic training received all the same training and then goes into her specialization. Say she did regular grunt infantry which is 11 bravo in the Army. The grunts don't recieve the type of missions Rangers do. Therefore they are not trained the way the Rangers are.

So if the Rangers start lowering standards. What makes them any more specialized then 11Bravos, nothing really.

But now they are going on harder missions.

Where it changes is the elite units. Lowering the standard, lowers the outcome of success. It's not right minded thinking to lower standards based on gender.

The right candidates pass the selection process, then pass the training which is all geaed towards the types of missions they will recieve.

...That wasn't what I asked.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by -Pr-
...That wasn't what I asked.

You said is there any way to change it, I explained why there is not.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You said is there any way to change it, I explained why there is not.

I asked if there was a way to change it while maintaining the highest standards. Not the same thing.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by -Pr-
I asked if there was a way to change it while maintaining the highest standards. Not the same thing.

No there isn't. Training evolves and get's harder because so do the enemies tactics. Making it easier will set you back. Why does it need to be changed I might ask? I'm not understanding this.

NemeBro
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Confused if they are superior to men, why are they not passing the tests. Because women are physically fragile flowers who can't withstand pain as well as men.

That has nothing to do with what he said.

Branlor Swift
Originally posted by -Pr-
I asked if there was a way to change it while maintaining the highest standards. Not the same thing. Take away... sit ups?

While I see people having issues with the chin ups, those are a massive physical stamina booster and strength. Plus it helps in case they need to pull themselves up somewhere. And the only quantity mentioned is 6...

The only thing that seems unneeded is sit ups. Not that they don't have a benefit, but it's pretty minor compared to everything else.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by NemeBro
Because women are physically fragile flowers who can't withstand pain as well as men.

That has nothing to do with what he said.

These women that they sent to Ranger school did not look like fragile flowers.

Time Immemorial
On another note..

Everyone here is busted who is complaining about sit up's and bench press.

Video flat out says basic physical test is a run, and pushups. No situps or bench press.

The video also says "The women themselves insisted the standard not be lowered to accommodate them."

So the question is why is everyone here saying it should, when they are not even in this program, and the people who are, do not want it lowered.

JLt7zOaqzV0

-Pr-
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
No there isn't.

That's literally all I wanted to know. You could stop being so damned testy and assuming everyone is having a go at you, you know.

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Take away... sit ups?

While I see people having issues with the chin ups, those are a massive physical stamina booster and strength. Plus it helps in case they need to pull themselves up somewhere. And the only quantity mentioned is 6...

The only thing that seems unneeded is sit ups. Not that they don't have a benefit, but it's pretty minor compared to everything else.

Ah. Okay then. Thanks.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by -Pr-
That's literally all I wanted to know. You could stop being so damned testy and assuming everyone is having a go at you, you know.



Ah. Okay then. Thanks.

Np wasn't trying to be, really just trying to understand what the up roar is about. Even the women do want the standard changed or lowered. Its one thing if there was a huge out cry of women saying they were being treated unfairly, but it seems the opposite, they have been glad to get the opportunity and want to be treated equally. If there really was a case to be made for un equal rights, lets examine it, but nothing has been claimed or made by anyone other then the people in the thread.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Robtard
Standards should not be lowered, should be the same test/requirements for everyone.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Confused if they are superior to men, why are they not passing the tests.

The question you are begging here is "does the test as it is designed ensure that superiority in the field is favored".

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
Standards should not be lowered, should be the same test/requirements for everyone.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
The question you are begging here is "does the test as it is designed ensure that superiority in the field is favored".
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
On another note..

Everyone here is busted who is complaining about sit up's and bench press.

Video flat out says basic physical test is a run, and pushups. No situps or bench press.

The video also says "The women themselves insisted the standard not be lowered to accommodate them."

So the question is why is everyone here saying it should, when they are not even in this program, and the people who are, do not want it lowered.

JLt7zOaqzV0
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Np wasn't trying to be, really just trying to understand what the up roar is about. Even the women do want the standard changed or lowered. Its one thing if there was a huge out cry of women saying they were being treated unfairly, but it seems the opposite, they have been glad to get the opportunity and want to be treated equally. If there really was a case to be made for un equal rights, lets examine it, but nothing has been claimed or made by anyone other then the people in the thread.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
On another note..

Everyone here is busted who is complaining about sit up's and bench press.

Video flat out says basic physical test is a run, and pushups. No situps or bench press.


Basic training for rangers involves push ups, sit ups and pull ups.

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-special-operations/army-ranger-pft

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Surtur
I get what you are saying, but it sounds like this would not be a male/female problem, would it? I mean, wouldn't important factors in deciding what a person should be able to bench press depend more on weight and size, not gender?

Or are you saying even if you had a man and a woman who are identical in weight and size..the benchmark for the woman should still be lower?

I am saying that if the justification for things like sit-ups- which have no direct practical application in the field, unlike running with a heavy load- is that they indicate general fitness, then the numbers for men and women would indeed need to be different.

If you take a man and woman of pretty much the same general fitness, the man would almost certainly be able to do more sit-ups. As it is general fitness you are testing for, not the literal skill of 'how many sit-ups can you do' (which is a useless skill in isolation), you'd need to adjust the numbers to measure what you were actually trying to measure.

-

I get a bit hazy about this "What if someone is stuck under a truck?" idea too- this was echoed in the firefighters debate.

Let's accept for a moment that women soldiers are, on average, less likely to be able to lift a truck to free someone than a male solider (though I'd also submit that a heck of a lot of men wouldn't be able to do it either). That would mean in a VERY specific situation (the tiny chance of someone being stuck under a truck where the margin of strength needed to lift it is the same margin of difference between equally fit men and women) you might get an issue.

But if such a specific situation is why you are disallowing a soldier who is fully capable in every single other way to do her job, that seems crazy to me. One of the big things to remember here is that you are opening up a massive talent pool to the armed forces by allowing women to serve.

That's why this debate has caused this focus on "What is it a soldier actually needs to be?" And it may well be that the exclusively male soldier culture of the past has skewed that a bit in some areas, and that changing some standards is not so much dumbing down but removing irrelevancy.

Newjak
Originally posted by Star428
I know lots of people are going to give me flak for this and perhaps even ignorantly call me a sexist but, imho, women have no place in any kind of combat role. Especially not in any special forces like Rangers or SEALs.


Let the flaming begin. Won't change my opinion, regardless. Tell that to Israeli women.

Surtur
I just keep thinking if I was female and wanted to do this..I'd want to be able to say I passed the same test everyone else has to.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Newjak
Tell that to Israeli women.
He's so blantantly a troll. He makes stupid posts and then ignores anyone who disagrees with him.

Newjak
Originally posted by Surtur
I just keep thinking if I was female and wanted to do this..I'd want to be able to say I passed the same test everyone else has to. That's nice and everything but like some people have said if the tests are ill conceived and contain natural bias that discriminates against women who could perform the job as needed then there is a problem.

Now if that is not the case then everything is fine. All some people are saying is we need to reevaluate these things from time to time to make sure this is not the case.

Also to the people who say if we lower the standards we will produce inferior special units. That may or may not be the case. It could turn out you could lower the standards some certain degree and the effectiveness of the Ranger unit on the battlefield will not change.

EX) Say 10% of Ranger dropouts fail because they miss the timed run by 10 seconds or less. Say research has shown that a Ranger's combat effectiveness doesn't drop when you lower the timed run by 10 seconds.

In this hypothetical situation you have lowered the standards but the Ranger combat effectiveness is still the same. In fact your elite force has now increased 10% while maintaining it's deadliness.

Of course maybe research has shown that is not the case and you can not lower that number without lowering the effectiveness of your Ranger fighting force. I don't know and I doubt anyone here would really know either.

Star428
Originally posted by Newjak
Tell that to Israeli women.




Good for Israel. This isn't Israel though last time I checked.

Newjak
Originally posted by Star428
Good for Israel. This isn't Israel though last time I checked. You're right Israel is a small nation bordered by multiple hostile powers and has had to spend vast amounts of time and resources making themselves a highly skilled, deadly, and efficient fighting force.

To the point where they can not afford arbitrary testing. They have to research and make everything just right to maintain the appropriate combat effectiveness for the various combat forces and roles.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Star428
Good for Israel. This isn't Israel though last time I checked.

Yes, this is a multinational forum owned by a British guy.


Why is that relevant again?

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Basic training for rangers involves push ups, sit ups and pull ups.

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-special-operations/army-ranger-pft

I looked at several sources and no one said they failed because of some sit ups. On the contrary the women asked for no special treatment. Why are people claiming that things need to be changed when the actual women in the program insist on the same standard.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, this is a multinational forum owned by a British guy.


Why is that relevant again?

He's talking about this being an American Military program. Or did you miss that.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I looked at several sources and no one said they failed because of some sit ups. On the contrary the women asked for no special treatment. Why are people claiming that things need to be changed when the actual women in the program insist on the same standard.

Are you actually following the discussion? I've had to mention this recently already- it is discourteous to pretend other people are saying what they are not. No-one at any point has said that they failed because of sit-ups- in fact I have specifically said I suspect they did not fail on pure physical strength tasks.

The original post asked whether standards need to be lowered. This started a discussion about how it is possible some physical standards are not necessarily relevant and/or appropriate. That's why that part of the discussion was going. If you didn't want a discussion about why maybe standards should be changed, it was rather ridiculous to join a thread asking that specific question.

You then later claimed that there were no sit ups in basic ranger training. I was simply posting to inform you that you were mistaken in that regard.

Pay respect to other posters by reading and following their posts in full, please, instead of trying to score cheap shots based on falsehood.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
He's talking about this being an American Military program. Or did you miss that.

And Newjak is using an example of where female soldiers work very well as part of the mainstream as a potential means of criticism of the current state of that programme. Again, follow the argument.

Robtard
Originally posted by Star428
Good for Israel. This isn't Israel though last time I checked.

Isn't Israel the chosen land and it's people the chosen people? Maybe we should take lessons from them?

Time Immemorial
The video didn't mention about situps, but the link you did said so. So I didn't bother to challenge it. I simple said they didn't seem to be an issue.

But no one has really countered with why people are concerned with the standard if the women who are actually in the program want it the same.

This seems like a non issue then.

Ushgarak
Again, that is untrue- the whole discussion has been about potential reasons for changing the standard, and those reasons have been provided. Disagree if you want but don't pretend that the debate does not exist, particularly as it is a major debate with the US military right now.

Bardock42
Obviously the question of what standards to use for branches of the military (regardless of country) is one that's relevant to the population as a whole. As such people will have an opinion on it, and the opinions of people who are partaking in the program isn't really more valid. Additionally, you may say these women, rather than thinking about what is best for the military and society, are looking to prove that they can live up to the current standards, in that case their opinion is based on a personal desire, unrelated to what's the best course of action overall.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, that is untrue- the whole discussion has been about potential reasons for changing the standard, and those reasons have been provided. Disagree if you want but don't pretend that the debate does not exist, particularly as it is a major debate with the US military right now.

Can you point out where the source says the standard needs to be changed, or are we basing this whole thing off OP's one hypothetical thought that it should. If that's true, this is my last post here.

Bardock42
The source post specifically opens up the question of whether standards should be lowered:

Originally posted by |King Joker|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/30/ranger-women/28179303/

So 8 women failed the Army Ranger course -- 5 left and 3 are going to start over. Some people are asking themselves if the standard should be lowered or if women are fit to serve in combat roles. What does this mean in your opinion?

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, that is untrue- the whole discussion has been about potential reasons for changing the standard, and those reasons have been provided. Disagree if you want but don't pretend that the debate does not exist, particularly as it is a major debate with the US military right now.

Ush, Further checking of the source:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/30/ranger-women/28179303/

Reveals no such as a hint of changing the standard for the Army Rangers. It also goes on to say that there is some great irony that as the military is drawing down in the middle east. And that interviews with male soldiers, speak highly of the women, one saying "I was never with a women in the field that couldn't hang with the men."

So OP is misleading as well as his initial statement.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Ush, Further checking of the source:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/30/ranger-women/28179303/

Reveals no such as a hint of changing the standard for the Army Rangers. It also goes on to say that there is some great irony that as the military is drawing down in the middle east. And that interviews with male soldiers, speak highly of the women, one saying "I was never with a women in the field that couldn't hang with the men."

So OP is misleading as well as his initial statement.

The OP did not claim that his source addressed his questions.

That's also not a requirement for threads on KMC. You are being unfair to the OP, because you are trying to weasel out of the terrible arguments you've been making.

Time Immemorial

Bardock42

Time Immemorial
This must be what its like to be estalked by a creep guy.

S_W_LeGenD
Standards should not be compromised for accommodating a gender.

Bashar Teg
...as long as those specific standards are necessary and not just the product of tradition/dogma. i'm not making a judgement with that statement, just sayin.

Ushgarak
I think one of the video sources you posted earlier talks about the debate, TI. It's a bit weird to pretend this is NOT currently a big debating point, as women in full-on combat roles is a very modern discussion (the rules on where they can serve in the US have only recently been relaxed there). As with all debates, there are a people on both sides, so posting that a lot of people don't want any change is not proof there is no argument. The act there are so many news reports about it is actually proof of the debate.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think one of the video sources you posted earlier talks about the debate, TI. It's a bit weird to pretend this is NOT currently a big debating point, as women in full-on combat roles is a very modern discussion (the rules on where they can serve in the US have only recently been relaxed there). As with all debates, there are a people on both sides, so posting that a lot of people don't want any change is not proof there is no argument. The act there are so many news reports about it is actually proof of the debate.

Thats the point though, now that women are allowed in combat, which was a big battle won, why belittle it by saying the standard needs to be lowered now. That makes women look weaker then men, which the very basis of this is, they want to be treated as equals.

Bashar Teg
before women were allowed into combat roles, the EXACT SAME arguements were presented. that the military would become weak and the entire command structure would collapse. same went for when they started allowing black people in and then when they desegregated the military. it was the end of the world every time.

Time Immemorial
Your point is moot. The standards of training were not changed when they allowed women in to combat.

Also as stated in the video, the women want the same standard as the men.

Bashar Teg
you're refusing to accept the possibility that these specific standards may not be necessary. for example, what if the requirement for dead lifting was lowered by 10 pounds. would that impede? maybe, maybe not. thats what people are arguing. you seem to think it's a matter of them nerfing the requirements so that a 5"1' petite girl can be a ranger because feminism, when this is not the case.

Newjak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Why are people claiming that things need to be changed when the actual women in the program insist on the same standard. So I feel I have addressed this and so have other posters. Still in the fairness of things possibly getting lost in larger posts I will direct one post directly to this point.

Simply put even if the women are okay with it does not mean that the standards are fair or not discriminative against women or that the standards as they exist are an accurate portrayal of how to choose the best candidates.

Simply put just because the potentially discriminated against are okay with the possible discrimination does not make the discrimination okay.

For instance if some African Americans were okay with separate but equal that does not mean the problem didn't exist and doesn't need to be fixed.

All that has been stated in this thread by most people is that there is nothing wrong with looking into the Ranger recruitment process to see if it needs to be updated. Or if the standards being set are unjustly weeding out female candidates that could perform the job as adequate as their male counterparts but aren't given the chance because of bad tests and criteria.

If it turns out that isn't the case the standards are exactly where they need to be no one would care, but reviewing something when there could be a problem is not wrong.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Newjak
So I feel I have addressed this and so have other posters. Still in the fairness of things possibly getting lost in larger posts I will direct one post directly to this point.

Simply put even if the women are okay with it does not mean that the standards are fair or not discriminative against women or that the standards as they exist are an accurate portrayal of how to choose the best candidates.

Simply put just because the potentially discriminated against are okay with the possible discrimination does not make the discrimination okay.

For instance if some African Americans were okay with separate but equal that does not mean the problem didn't exist and doesn't need to be fixed.

All that has been stated in this thread by most people is that there is nothing wrong with looking into the Ranger recruitment process to see if it needs to be updated. Or if the standards being set are unjustly weeding out female candidates that could perform the job as adequate as their male counterparts but aren't given the chance because of bad tests and criteria.

If it turns out that isn't the case the standards are exactly where they need to be no one would care, but reviewing something when there could be a problem is not wrong.

I dont agree. If they wanted equality, it is provided. If they want the standard lowered because of inequality, so be it.

This article stated that a majority of the men that enter the program do no make it.
http://time.com/3902652/women-army-rangers/

The women who entered the program, just like the men, failed, just like the men..and just like the men, they have the option to start over. Which they are doing.

Time Immemorial
Also Newjak, you failed to addess any of these points and seem to be acting like I am the only one not agreeing with you. Your bias is showing..

Originally posted by Robtard
Standards should not be lowered, should be the same test/requirements for everyone.
Originally posted by Surtur
Nah, you don't lower the requirements. Women love to talk about equality, right? They can't have it both ways, and only ask for it when they benefit. Sorry ladies, complete the same tests as everyone else.

If you want to talk about changing tests to more accurately reflect what the job requires, sure fine, as long as those changes are done across the board.
Originally posted by Impediment
Speaking as a former Infantryman of the United States Army, requirements should NOT be lowered, altered, or made to "be equal" in any way shape or form.

I'm not a misogynist and I never have been, but I will state that women don't belong in a combat occupational specialty in any branch of the military.
Originally posted by The Nuul
I know people in the military on both sides of the border. Imo no, they should not lower the standards for women. Most men are unable to meet the requirements to work on the front lines. Even as a medic, women would have a hard time dragging men to safety. Being an elite..... that's even harder. Elite needs the best of the best, period.

Imp knows what he is talking about, anyone who says other wise, don't.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Determine how necessary each requirement is for performing the duties of special forces soldiers. If they're all necessary, then by no means should we lower them for the sake of "giving a fair chance." But if they're not absolutely necessary, then it might turn out that we're placing arbitrary rules that are keeping out lots of good potential recruits, male and female. That's my principle on this issue.
Originally posted by Branlor Swift
http://www.army.mil/ranger/


There is no mention of bench pressing that I saw there.

And it blatantly says that 50 percent of men fail. 50 percent of all men trying it is a little more than 19 (?) women. Guess we should just lower the test as it's being biased towards men?

It's purposefully hard because it tries to simulate possible scenarios to get you ready for anything. If women can't do it, then they are unprepared.

As well as I finally watched the video in the op link. A lot of what they showed was picking up wounded soldiers on the battlefield. Which makes sense. If women can't do that, save another soldier, then why should they be admitted? If a women can't accomplish a task in the actual battlefield, then would lowering the standards actually be good just because we got some women there? It's not about feeling good, it's about being right for the job.

You need requirements, just like most jobs. And they do not fit them. There are other jobs in the military to try out for.
Originally posted by -Pr-
Assuming the training they use for rangers is the absolute best way of training that can be used, then I honestly don't like the idea of "making it easier" just to give more people a chance, whether they be men or women.

If it were me being shot at, I can't imagine how frightening it would be to realise that the girl or guy beside me only got in because they lowered their standards, and wouldn't have passed otherwise. if they're the best of the best, then it needs to stay that way imo.

Newjak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I dont agree. If they wanted equality, it is provided. If they want the standard lowered because of inequality, so be it.

This article stated that a majority of the men that enter the program do no make it.
http://time.com/3902652/women-army-rangers/

The women who entered the program, just like the men, failed, just like the men..and just like the men, they have the option to start over. Which they are doing. YEs the majority of men do not make it because the Ranger unit is extremely selective and their is nothing wrong with that.

Also you're getting obsessed with this lowering standards idea. Most people in this thread have not advocated lowering standards. They have talked about reassessing the Ranger criteria and testing to see if that it accurately defines what is needed to be a Ranger. That reevaluation may show that women that are fit to be Rangers have been rejected because of bad testing standards.

Most people are basically saying hey let's look at this if there is a problem let's fix it if not okay at least we know there isn't now.

You're basically closing your mind and saying no to anything without even listening to what people are actually saying.

Perhaps the standards need to be altered perhaps they don't but reevaluating testing to make sure it is accurate is a good thing.

Heck research could show that by adjusting the standards slightly lower or adding new criteria that we could increase the number of Rangers without reducing their effective combat ability. It could also show we may need to keep the same tests and make the criteria harder.

I don't know but I doubt you know either.

Bashar Teg
it's not about equality. its about questioning the necessity of those specific standards and whether they can be ammended. you're spinning it to make it seem like a quasi-feminist issue.

Newjak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Also Newjak, you failed to addess any of these points and seem to be acting like I am the only one not agreeing with you. Your bias is showing.. Actually I have addressed all of those points...

and most even fall in line with what I've been saying this entire time. That if the Ranger training and criteria is accurate fine but there could be the potential it is not and has possibly rejected fully qualified Rangers based on bad test requirements. So there is nothing wrong with reviewing them to see which one it is.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Newjak

Heck research could show that by adjusting the standards slightly lower or adding new criteria that we could increase the number of Rangers without reducing their effective combat ability. It could also show we may need to keep the same tests and make the criteria harder.

I don't know but I doubt you know either.

Ah so we are arguing to argue, because there has been nothing to suggest from any source posted that the standard needs to be lowered.

Research has not shown any of that, unless you have something to make a substatial claim.

As it goes right now, the Rangers are allowing men and women, the Rangers don't want the standard lowered, and neither do the women or men that are in the program.

Any more of this and we are debating about a unicorn.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Newjak
Actually I have addressed all of those points...

and most even fall in line with what I've been saying this entire time. That if the Ranger training and criteria is accurate fine but there could be the potential it is not and has possibly rejected fully qualified Rangers based on bad test requirements. So there is nothing wrong with reviewing them to see which one it is.

You posted this on page 6.

Originally posted by Newjak
That's nice and everything but like some people have said if the tests are ill conceived and contain natural bias that discriminates against women who could perform the job as needed then there is a problem.

Now if that is not the case then everything is fine. All some people are saying is we need to reevaluate these things from time to time to make sure this is not the case.

Also to the people who say if we lower the standards we will produce inferior special units. That may or may not be the case. It could turn out you could lower the standards some certain degree and the effectiveness of the Ranger unit on the battlefield will not change.

EX) Say 10% of Ranger dropouts fail because they miss the timed run by 10 seconds or less. Say research has shown that a Ranger's combat effectiveness doesn't drop when you lower the timed run by 10 seconds.

In this hypothetical situation you have lowered the standards but the Ranger combat effectiveness is still the same. In fact your elite force has now increased 10% while maintaining it's deadliness.

Of course maybe research has shown that is not the case and you can not lower that number without lowering the effectiveness of your Ranger fighting force. I don't know and I doubt anyone here would really know either.

This was you addressing everyone else arguments? You keep saying "maybe" research has shown.."Maybe" isn't a fact, its a imagined idea you have. Where are the hard facts.

Bashar Teg
nor was it proven that the current standards are EXACTLY what they need to be. thats the point you're missing. again, nobody is suggesting that the standards be nerfed so that short petite women can be rangers and feel included.

Newjak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You posted this on page 6.



This was you addressing everyone else arguments? You keep saying "maybe" research has shown.."Maybe" isn't a fact, its a imagined idea you have. Where are the hard facts. Yeah it pretty much addressed everything mentioned so far in this thread.

And you're right I have used 'maybe' because I don't know if the tests are accurate or not but neither do you. Simply because I do not know if the problem is real does not mean it should not be looked into.

Hence it is called investigating the problem.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah it pretty much addressed everything mentioned so far in this thread.

And you're right I have used 'maybe' because I don't know if the tests are accurate or not but neither do you. Simply because I do not know if the problem is real does not mean it should not be looked into.

Hence it is called investigating the problem.


Which tests specifically are you referring too?

Newjak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Ah so we are arguing to argue, because there has been nothing to suggest from any source posted that the standard needs to be lowered.

Research has not shown any of that, unless you have something to make a substatial claim.

As it goes right now, the Rangers are allowing men and women, the Rangers don't want the standard lowered, and neither do the women or men that are in the program.

Any more of this and we are debating about a unicorn. No we are not arguing for the sake of arguing. We are arguing over faulty logical points that keep getting brought up that hurts proper discussion.

Like if the women are okay with the standards that means there can not be anything wrong line of logic. It isn't true. Even if someone that is being discriminated against is okay with the discrimination it does not make it okay. Or the notion that somehow people keep saying that the standards NEED to be lowered which no one I've seen in this thread has said. All I've seen is that maybe a reevaluation of possible outdated criteria should happen.

And I don't know what the research says because A) it hasn't been investigated yet or B) I haven't seen it.

Newjak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Which tests specifically are you referring too? I don't know what testing is done for Ranger training nor will I try to make inaccurate claims I am not sure off on the subject.

But just because I don't know doesn't mean you do or that there could not be anything wrong with those tests.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Newjak
All I've seen is that maybe a reevaluation of possible outdated criteria should happen.

Where did it say that a reevaluation of possible outdated criteria should happen? If it said that then sure.

Bashar Teg
it wasn't researched because it's a non-issue.
it's a non issue because it wasn't researched.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Newjak
I don't know what testing is done for Ranger training nor will I try to make inaccurate claims I am not sure off on the subject.

But just because I don't know doesn't mean you do or that there could not be anything wrong with those tests.

What you are saying without saying it is.


"Since women have started the ranger program and failed the first round, there must be something automatically wrong with the training and tests."

What you don't know about military selection for special programs is they only take the very best who meet the specifications for the types of situations they will encounter in a real world situation.

They don't train and make Rangers take tests that are based on irrelevant training and tests.

Newjak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Where did it say that a reevaluation of possible outdated criteria should happen? If it said that then sure. That is what people have been trying to tell you throughout this entire thread.

The opening post basically asks should standards be lowered which is asking should they be reevaluated.

Or have you been ignoring everyone's posts in this thread simply because you're trying to argue from the original posted article's standpoint?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
What you are saying without saying it is.


"Since women have started the ranger program and failed the first round, there must be something automatically wrong with the training and tests."

What you don't know about military selection for special programs is they only take the very best who meet the specifications for the types of situations they will encounter in a real world situation.

They don't train and make Rangers take tests that are based on irrelevant training and tests.

Your blind belief that the current testing method is the best testing method seems foolish.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>