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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by UshgarakWell, I don't see why we should start applying tasks that may be gender specific based on an assumption.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by UshgarakUnless 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 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.
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.
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.
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.