Women Fail Army Ranger Course
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?
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.
Re: Women Fail Army Ranger Course
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".