Women Fail Army Ranger Course

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.

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.

Ush, Also here on this source:

http://time.com/3902652/women-army-rangers/

"The program is tough for men and women alike, and the majority of soldiers who enter training typically do not pass. “We’ve set standards for Ranger School for a very long time,” Odierno told the Times. “I’m adamant about maintaining that.”

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Ush, Also here on this source:

http://time.com/3902652/women-army-rangers/

"The program is tough for men and women alike, and the majority of soldiers who enter training typically do not pass. “We’ve set standards for Ranger School for a very long time,” Odierno told the Times. “I’m adamant about maintaining that.”

That pretty much proves that there is discussion about lowering the standards. Why would he have to be adamant if there was no opposition?

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

Standards should not be compromised for accommodating a gender.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.