Women Fail Army Ranger Course

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
What if NBA had a rule where you had to be all around good enough to be in the NBA? Even seemingly miniscule details.

What if the Rangers which is an extremely specialized branch of military and they want people better than "just good enough" had a rule where you had to be all around good enough to be in it? Even seemingly miniscule details.

Does the current criteria match up in what a good Ranger needs to be successful.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lets take that one.

What if the NBA had a rule that you have to shoot 50% 3-pointers to play. That would get you a lot of good shooters, but would it necessarily get you the best Basketball players? No. People like Shaq would not be able to do that, yet he's a great player, so that test should be reevaluated and the 3 pointer percentage lowered, so people with other amazing and relevant qualities can play as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, looking over those, I think 48 pushups and 57 sit ups should be enough. Do we agree?

No. I think it should be an even 50 and 60, respectively. Commando crawling behind enemy lines, over rough terrain, for 2 miles, is stuff that has been done by the Rangers. Ensuring that a potential ranger can support their own body weight in things like pushups, pull ups, and situps seems quite relevant. If it was a benchpress test, however, I'd say that it should be changed to push-ups.

And this is where females can get an advantage over males (if it is a body weight type test rather than a lifting weights type test). Go find the big and fat power lifter at your gym. Then find the thin and fit woman. The thin and fit woman can probably do more pushups, situps, and pull-ups than the big brubba. She is also far more suited to doing Ranger-esque missions that mr. Strong man.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why not raise the standards then? Get even better people? Run 10 miles in a minute or you're out, you'll get the best of the best of the best!

And the Rangers aren't the best of the best anyway. They're just up there in a higher plateau than the average in terms of requirements. Because life or death and all.

As well as if you're lacking in one of the areas you previously failed to pass, you can retry. 50 percent of people pass, now you know exactly what to expect, get better or don't get in. Seems simple enough to me.

Originally posted by Mindship
Well ... given that basketball does not involve life/death situations, I could accept that ... though I suppose the bottom line here would be monetary, ie, basketball games would have to attract as much attention and bring in as much revenue for the changes to be considered positive/beneficial.

B-basketball doesn't have that rule...that as my point...

Originally posted by Bardock42
B-basketball doesn't have that rule...that as my point...

Originally posted by dadudemon
She is also far more suited to doing Ranger-esque missions that mr. Strong man.

Originally posted by Mindship
When I used to watch "Survivor," seemed more often than not that the bodybuilder-types did the worst in the physical challenges.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yes but what are the criteria that is needed to be good enough to be a Ranger?

Does the current criteria match up in what a good Ranger needs to be successful.

And being fit enough to drag a man off the battlefield, have enough stamina to continue moving for long periods of time, be able to climb up rough terrain and other things relevant to what you would be theoretically doing.

And the arbitrary numbers are just 49 push ups, 59 sit ups, 6 pull ups, and 5 miles in 40 minutes or less. If you can't do that, then why are you already in the army?

Everything else physical is basically shit you'd be doing in the field.

So yes, I think it does match up. TBH, there's not a lot they could be doing that wouldn't help.

Relevant link (from Fox of all places):

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/14/female-soldiers-help-army-craft-new-physical-standards/

Examines specifically this area of re-evaluating standards in light of female recruits so they actually test what is useful, unlike old-fashioned obsessions with the likes of push-ups etc. The US Army is taking this seriously.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Relevant link (from Fox of all places):

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/14/female-soldiers-help-army-craft-new-physical-standards/

Examines specifically this area of re-evaluating standards in light of female recruits so they actually test what is useful, unlike old-fashioned obsessions with the likes of push-ups etc. The US Army is taking this seriously.

And for Rangers the basic push ups, sit ups, chin ups, and run are things I could do in my current atrophied state. If a current supposedly in shape member of the army who's had rigorous training for weeks on top of their army training and boot camp can't do easy things like that, then they probably shouldn't be a Ranger.

Not saying the army recruiting does/doesn't need to change, but it isn't exactly relevant to Ranger training.

Of course it is relevant- it is all based on the same theoretical base (there's nothing magical about the rangers that would suddenly make push-ups more relevant- it;s just a type of fitness gauge, and possibly an irrelevant measure). Besides which, the thread is actually about women in combat roles in general, not rangers specifically; that's just the latest example.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course it is relevant- it is all based on the same theoretical base (there's nothing magical about the rangers that would suddenly make push-ups more relevant- it;s just a type of fitness gauge, and possibly an irrelevant measure). Besides which, the thread is actually about women in combat roles in general, not rangers specifically; that's just the latest example.

The thread is specifically about women failing Ranger training and if standards should be lowered for them, and if they're fit for combat roles (which doesn't mean standards, just women in general in combat). Just because it went off tangent doesn't mean the original purpose has changed.

The whole reason the "changing the rules" started was because being a Ranger seemed impossibly hard for a woman based on a handful failing. Maybe other roles in the military do need to be changed, but that doesn't mean the thread was originally about that, nor does it mean that's directly attributable to being a Ranger specifically.

Maybe the current discussion/pages back is about standards being changed in general for any branch, but all I'm saying is that your link doesn't answer the original Ranger question.

Let's be clear here that none of these women are failing out because they can't do 49 push-ups or some number of sit-ups.

I have a hard time believing that women of this caliber are dumb enough to know exactly what is going into this test, are going to these camps and failing in the first hours on the first day of the Ranger camp. These brave women breaking new ground into an absurdly male-dominated profession are going to be the best of the best of the female US military. They are going to be among the smartest and most fit. Let's also be clear that they each could run circles around us if we were to do the same tests.

They are definitely not failing out at the most simplistic and easy to pass tests like push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups. I think that entire argument is an absurd red-herring by some of you.

Most physically fit people can train for and be ready to pass those particular tests in a month. 49 push-ups is not hard to do.

Here: follow this program: 100 pushups in 100 days.

http://www.hundredpushups.com/index.html

Bam. Now you can do more than twice what the minimum requirement is for Army Rangers with just 100 days. Oh boy. Such tough standards.

But wait, if you don't want to stop at pushups, try the 50 pullups program, too!

http://www.50pullups.com/

No roids required.