Women Fail Army Ranger Course

Originally posted by Newjak

That I said almost half of them agreed with Ush and I?

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

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

Originally posted by 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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

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.

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

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

Originally posted by 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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

Originally posted by 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?

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

Originally posted by -Pr-
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.

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

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

Originally posted by 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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

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.

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

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

Originally posted by 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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

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.

Didn't mention anything you said he did or agree with you.

Not anywhere close to 42% agreed with you.

Man your copy and pasting is horrible.

Let's start with PR. His whole assumption starts by saying ASSUMING. Meaning if that is not the case then there things need to change.

You didn't even get Surtur or Omega in there.

You also added two more people, snowdragon and lek kuen, then what was in your original multipart quote.

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.

Same thing.

Originally posted by Newjak
Man your copy and pasting is horrible.

Let's start with PR. His whole assumption starts by saying ASSUMING. Meaning if that is not the case then there things need to change.

You didn't even get Surtur or Omega in there.

You also added two more people, snowdragon and lek kuen, then what was in your original multipart quote.

Sorry there was too many people that I missed one and found some others that didn't agree with you..

But yea. I accept your concession.

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 Newjak
This is the one you quoted before TI where he clearly says changing the tests to more accurately reflect the Ranger's job facepalm

Thats why I posted it. facepalm

I assuming you think he was agreeing with you.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Thats why I posted it. facepalm

I assuming you think he was agreeing with you.

And the one you originally posted does agree with Ush and I. That if the the current standards are the best don't change them but if they aren't do change them.

Originally posted by Newjak
Except the one you posted on this page and the one you quoted on page 7 are not the same one.

And the one you posted does agree with Ush and I. That if the the current standards are the best don't change them but if they are do.

Do I need to get on my computer and fine tooth comb this? Its obvious you didn't have the support you thought you did, for your maybe opinion.

Seriously man at this point you are trying to hard to discredit me based off of one claim I made in this thread even though it doesn't change how wrong you've been.

Originally posted by Newjak
Seriously man at this point you are trying to hard to discredit me based off of one claim I made in this thread even though it doesn't change how wrong you've been.

Same as you did. 😉

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
That's 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.

This is the best post in this thread.

👆

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Same as you did. 😉

I've been discrediting things you have said that is directly related to the topic. Like if women are okay with the standards they must be okay crap you spouted.

You're trying to discredit me because I may have been wrong on the number of people that agree with me.

You do see how they are not the same right. For your sake I hope so 🙂

Originally posted by Newjak
No they're not the same...

I've been discrediting things you have said that is directly related to the topic. Like if women are okay with the standards they must be okay crap you spouted.

You're trying to discredit me because I may have been wrong on the number of people that agree with me.

You do see how they are not the same right. For your sake I hope so 🙂

I actually said here if there was apparently something wrong, lets examine it. As there has been nothing to prove this; this is all baseless claims of a bunch of would be warriors on the internet.

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.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I actually said here if there was apparently something wrong, lets examine it. As there has been nothing to prove this; this is all baseless claims of a bunch of would be warriors on the internet.

Or do you believe that something can not be wrong unless someone is in an uproar over it?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is the best post in this thread.

👆

Thanks.

Originally posted by Newjak
And once again this does mean that the standards today are correct or that they do not potentially disqualify qualified candidates.

Or do you believe that something can not be wrong unless someone is in an uproar over it?

The standards today are correct, why would they not be? The army does not stick to 1956 training manuals, they update things annually and even quicker on training..if something happens in one cycle that goes wrong, they fix it so the next cycle does not have the same problem.

What is leading you to assume they are not?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The standards today are correct, why would they not be? The army does not stick to 1956 training manuals, they update things annually and even quicker or training. What is leading you to assume they are not?

Originally posted by Newjak
And how do you know this. There has been a history of the Military being slow and resistant to needed change. Perhaps that is not the case now but if it was the case I'm okay reevaluating the current system.

Because when I used to be an instructor in the marines, we changed training from one cycle to the next to ensure a high standard of training, while maintaining fairness and safety.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Because when I used to be an instructor in the marines, we changed training from one cycle to the next to ensure a high standard of training, while maintaining fairness and safety.

Originally posted by Newjak
Thanks for your service but simply because you were an instructor does that mean that the training you were told to give could not be modified to be better?

What needs to be modified in your opinion with the Ranger program?