Ranger School to Accept Females

[Waitone]

It was bound to happen at some point.  Females will be "permitted " to attend Ranger school.
So I guess the question at this point is how will the standards be affected.

I'll refrain from comment because I'm a male chauvinist sexist pig.  I am also a hard nose when it comes to dealing with reality and this particular gambit smacks of ideological delusion the likes of which normal humans rarely see.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814
 

[RoadKingLarry]

If they can handle the current standards more power to 'em.

[erictank]

If they can handle the current standards more power to 'em.

Agreed. I've no problem with women trying for slots in Ranger school, or for SEALS, etc - but the standards applied must be based on the job requirements, not on whether the applicant's genitals dangle or are stored in the body cavity. If a woman can drag a "wounded buddy" the requisite distance in the requisite time, run fast enough, do pullups rather than the "bent-arm hang", then let 'em try out for the school (and complete it, if they can). Don't lower the standards just to say, "We've got Female Rangers now!"

[roo_ster]

It was bound to happen at some point.  Females will be "permitted " to attend Ranger school.
So I guess the question at this point is how will the standards be affected.

I'll refrain from comment because I'm a male chauvinist sexist pig.  I am also a hard nose when it comes to dealing with reality and this particular gambit smacks of ideological delusion the likes of which normal humans rarely see.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814
 

Just like with the rest of the Army, there will be two standards: the real one and the new wholly inadequate & debased one when no women recognizable as women manage to attain the real standard.

This is just a precursor to women in the combat arms.  Remember, when the muslim fanatic killed a bunch of our folks at Ft Hood, the POS general was more worried about duh-versity than soldiers' lives.

[MicroBalrog]

Don't know about Rangers, but I've definitely seen women who hacked it as infantry or as drill instructors and were quite recognizeable as women. Whatever that means.

[RevDisk]

If they can handle the current standards more power to 'em.

Agreed. No double standards. If women can hack the standard, they should be able to do whatever they please. If they individually can't, they should wash out like anyone else.

[Balog]

Does the Army have a different and easier physical fitness standard for women like the Marine Corps?

[Perd Hapley]

Does the Army have a different and easier physical fitness standard for women like the Marine Corps?

They did when I was in.

[RevDisk]

Does the Army have a different and easier physical fitness standard for women like the Marine Corps?

For run and pushups, yes. Sit ups, no.

[Jamisjockey]

I fully expect it will include an absolute double standard.  These girls won't be "GI Jane". 

[Viking]

I fully expect it will include an absolute double standard.  These girls won't be "GI Jane". 

The police had a curious take on this over here. After years of complaints about double standards for male and female applicants, they put men and women on the same standard. Previously, men had to run 2 kilometers in 9 minutes 30 seconds, women in 10 minutes. Now both men and women have to make it at 10 minutes 15 seconds IIRC

[MicroBalrog]

And shall America, tomorrow, be engaged in a war with a nation that does not have women in the combat arms, that nation will lose lopsidedly.

[MrsSmith]

There's a part of me that wants to jump up and say, "Wait a minute, so if I can't do 50 push-ups as fast as you or as easily as you, I can't be as good of a soldier as you?" Because I can't do 50 push-ups like you can, but I don't know many men who can handle crisis, deal with pain, keep moving through anything that's thrown at them, or maintain their resolve like SEVERAL women I know. All of which are key ingredients in a good soldier. But the key word there is soldier, not Ranger or SEAL.

Our special forces are among the best in the world because of the standards we set to be inducted into them. If ANYONE can't hack it, they don't belong. Period.

[Jamisjockey]

Sorry, but even basic combat soldiering requires a basic level of fitness.  If you can't hack it to the same physical level as the men, you shouldn't be allowed on the pointy end of the stick.
I have no problem with women being allowed into a combat role. I have a real problem with the standards being lowered for it.

[BridgeRunner]

Um, so with the whole "no women recognizable as women thing" are we talking just about Rangers? The whole "just like the rest of the Army seems to indicate that no "women recognizable as women" could meet male standards in "the rest of the Army."

'Cause I am entirely capable of exceeding the men's ages 17-26 minimum PFT standard for the USMC. Or I was several months ago, haven't been working out much lately. I haven't looked at Army standards. I'm 33 and have it on good authority that I am recognizable as a woman.  Feel free to poll those APS-ers I've met in person. 

Actually, I made damn sure I could meet a male standards because of a couple similar threads a couple years back.  In the interim, I've become a lot less certain on a whole lot of things, and see both sides of this issue, but I don't like feeling weak, so once I got my 5k time under 27, I put a bit of effort into rounding out my training to ensure I could meet the USMC standard. For 17-26 y.o. men.  Yeah, sorry, I squeak in there with just a couple points to spare.  I don't meet the standards military.com recommends for Ranger school candidates.  I haven't tried. 

Israel's experience seems to be a pretty positive one.  A lot of the negative arguments--not here, but some of you gentleman have been having this conversation on fb--seem to revolve around "American guys can't treat women servicemen the same way they treat their male colleagues."  That is a ludicrous argument, to which the only reasonable response is "get over it." Although I have noticed a certain entrenched sexism in some career military guys of the worst kind--not rational arguments about physical difference and standards, but "I'm in charge here because my junk dangles; you are subject to my whims."  Obviously there is jackassery everywhere, but it makes sense that that sort of character would be attracted to the perceived macho-ness of the military.  The "we can't treat you like people" argument seems to come in third, right behind "Women can't cut it" which is clearly debatable, and "women's standards shouldn't be easier to meet."  I tend to agree with that one. 

I think the bent-arm hang thing is silly, because being able to do a couple pull-ups seems much more likely than running a minute faster pace in the course of military duty.  Obviously, that is just a guess.  I also think it's silly because it wasn't that hard for me to do it, and I've had my left shoulder surgically repaired twice.  Perhaps they are trying to avoid causing injuries, rather than weakening the standard?  I understand that the Army has revamped much of their physical fitness program to reduce injuries.  

But on the whole issue of a different standard for women, there's a pretty valid parallel with different standards for older people.  It seems clear that a 28 minute or faster 3 mile run is not inherently vital; if it was, why would guys over 26 not have to meet the same standard as everyone else?  Seems that the goal is for physical fitness, and the objective criteria for meeting that standard vary with sex and age.  

But then there's also research that suggests that women feel more pain than men proportionate to injury/illness.  (Child-bearing is an exception due to massive amounts of hormones that increase endurance.)  Obviously, this is very difficult to measure objectively, but it is a potential argument against having women in elite combat units. 

[MrsSmith]

Sorry, but even basic combat soldiering requires a basic level of fitness.  If you can't hack it to the same physical level as the men, you shouldn't be allowed on the pointy end of the stick.
I have no problem with women being allowed into a combat role. I have a real problem with the standards being lowered for it.

I did not say or imply that any standards should be lowered or that basic levels of fitness should be changed. In fact, I believe I said the exact opposite - that they should not be lowered or altered.

That said, every individual has different strengths and weaknesses. A good leader recognizes them and uses them accordingly.

[RoadKingLarry]

A little personal experience with "flexible" standards.

This was about 1991 or early '92.
Navy fitness standards were of course less strenuous for females.

Part of a submarine squadron includes a submarine tender ship for our intermediate maintenance activity (IMA) to handle things that can't be done routinely on the boat. This includes things like making and repairing lockers and shelves (tin benders), and things like repairing the RADAR absorbent material (RAM) coverings on  the ice caps on our hydraulic masts.
Of course anytime you have multiple organizations working together somebody has to be top dog. Well, it came to pass at the time that the IMA won out and insisted that their personnel would remove and re-install our ice caps when they had to go in for repair.
During one of our upkeep periods I requested  the RAM on my ESM mast be replaced.
On a friday afternoon the tech from the IMA managed to drag the ESM mast ice cap down to the ship and promptly informed me the SHE needed ships company to install it as it was too heavy for her to work with. Remember that the IMA was the ones that insisted they their people do the install work.

Initially I was agreeable to help her out, hell we were all on the same team, and was getting things set up to reinstall the cap until I inspected it and saw that the new RAM covering was already damaged from her beating it around and was ready to peal off.
I informed her that the work was defective and I would not allow it to be installed. She went psycho on me and informed me and the ships duty officer that we were engaging in sexual harassment and she was going to report me. She took the cap back to the tender. I got a duty relief and went up to discuss the problem with the Electronics Material Officer (EMO, her direct superior) about the problem.
She had gone straight to him and reported me for sexual harassment telling the EMO that I wouldn't let her install the cap because she was female, I actually saw her written statement, it was in interesting work of fiction.
I  went to the EMO's office as he was about to unleash the fires of hell on the SOB that had wronged his tech.
I explained my reason for not allowing the cap to be installed and also informed him that she had insisted that we re-install it. I also informed him that while I had been willing to help intsall it the problem wasn't her or the need to help her but that there was a defect in the RAM coating. We went to their shop and he verified my complaint.

It just so happened that the IMA EMO and I were members of the same motorcycle club but didn't know what the others job was till then. Had we not had that connection I have absolutely zero doubt that I wouldn't have had the opportunity to challenge her accusation until I was already on my way to Captains Mast (article 15). And with the way those things worked at the time, since I had been accused that meant that I was guilty, zero tolerance for sexual harassment don't you know.

[BridgeRunner]

Is that a standards problem?  It looks like a lying problem and a lack of due process problem.  

The trouble with stories like that becoming an argument against women in the military is that when you use it to argue against women in the military, it's less "women aren't capable" and more "women are perfidious bitches."  The trouble is that there's never a shortage of perfidious bitches.  They are hardly universally female, though.  And females are far from universally perfidious bitches.

Of course, it's mostly the women who leverage the "due process doesn't apply here if I use the magic words" gambit.  That's a procedural problem and a definitional problem.  It is one that tends to crop up mostly where women are involved, but hey, drowning mostly crops up where is water.  Still think we should keep the stuff around.  

[Strings]

I was in the surface fleet around the time RKL is talking about. And things were just as bad there.

Not sure if that mentality has changed yet, being that the military does NOT like adapting to new realities.

Personally, I have zero problems with women in any role in the service, so long as they can do the job and meet the standards. Doing otherwise really doesn't make much sense...

[makattak]

Personally, I have zero problems with women in any role in the service, so long as they can do the job and meet the standards. Doing otherwise really doesn't make much sense...

I have a problem with women in most roles in the service, even if they can do the job and meet the standards. Doing otherwise doesn't really make much sense to me.

Women, in general, are not able to meet the physical standards set to weed out unfit men. There are a very few number of women who can still meet the same standard.

Now I know this is a VERY controversial thing to say, and it can be very hard to accept, but, in my experience (and a significant number of scholarly studies) men act differently when they are around women. Thus, I would prefer just one sex be involved in a military setting. Since, on average, men are more physically capable, I prefer that sex to be men.

Sometimes men acting differently is a good thing. Men can be less violent when a woman is around. Men can be less boorish when a woman is around.

However, men can also be jealous, petty and distracted by the fairer sex. They also have a tendency to drop other considerations (even the primacy of the mission) to respond to a female in distress. Some studies think this is biological programming.

For that reason, women should not be in the military, especially not combat. Combining the sexes creates significant distractions that make our men and our units less capable.

Now, as to Micro's point, yes, we would likely still have the greatest military in the world and still be capable of dealing with any threat. We would simply be trading a few more soldier's lives for greater diversity.

And, given that the most important value of any culture is diversity, isn't it worth it?

[Jamisjockey]

Just sayin
https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=10151440109895715&set=a.232638210714.181716.65907730714&type=1&theater

[Fitz]

I fully expect this thread to devolve into ignorance, and be locked. But i'll get my two cents in before it does.


BridgeRunner is definately recognizable as a woman. If she can pass the PT standards, i don't see why other women can't.

The problem is, in the Army there are MANY women who can not pass the male PT standards. Many of these women not only aren't removed from service, but rather EXCEL, because A.) Promotion packets are still heavily weighted by your APFT score, and B.) An abysmal score for a male is a damn good score for a female.

I have always said that I have no problem with women in hard charging combat roles as long as they can maintain the standard.

It has been my experience, both stateside and in combat, that a HUGE chunk of them can not maintain the same standard as their male counterparts.


The military needs to DECIDE what the APFT is for. If it's a measure of physical fitness, then fine... I get the differing standards.

However, in an infantry capacity, it's not just a measure of general fitness. It's a measure of whether or not an individual can , for example, march a huge distance with a lot of gear, then still assault a building afterward. That's why EVERYONE at ranger school has to pass at the 18-21 age group standard, regardless of age.

The male standard.

If women attend the school, they need to do the same. MALE 18-21 standard.

[MicroBalrog]

For that reason, women should not be in the military, especially not combat. Combining the sexes creates significant distractions that make our men and our units less capable.

1. Human beings are not statistics. If a given, specific woman, Jane E. Doe, can pass the physical and pass the various tests which actually measure the aptitude of an individual for military service, she should serve. It does not matter what the average woman is capable of, as you're not looking for average.

2. In actual fact, women have been serving in the military for decades, and in combat since at least WW2. IT's only for American women that this is somehow new. These women (And the forces they served in) do not, in actual combat have a record of military failure that separates them from men-only units.

[makattak]

1. Human beings are not statistics. If a given, specific woman, Jane E. Doe, can pass the physical and pass the various tests which actually measure the aptitude of an individual for military service, she should serve. It does not matter what the average woman is capable of, as you're not looking for average.

2. In actual fact, women have been serving in the military for decades, and in combat since at least WW2. IT's only for American women that this is somehow new. These women (And the forces they served in) do not, in actual combat have a record of military failure that separates them from men-only units.

People aren't statistics. Statistics are EXTREMELY useful, especially when the numbers of women who have both the inclination and ability to outperform the very fit men in the military number in the hundreds out of a population of ~300 Million.

For those hundreds of women, we will be making our force less prepared because we will screw up the dynamic of an all-male unit, unless you dispute my point that men act differently in the presence of women.

Secondly, many other countries already have women in their military service. We could easily adapt and do the same. We will likley still have the greatest fighting force on earth. We'd just lose a few more lives than previously. After all, what's a few hundred more lives in the pursuit of diversity?

Besides, who in their right mind would make such a big fuss over just a few hundred people?

[MicroBalrog]

People aren't statistics. Statistics are EXTREMELY useful, especially when the numbers of women who have both the inclination and ability to outperform the very fit men in the military number in the hundreds out of a population of ~300 Million.

Why do they need to be performing better than said "very fit men"? Is it not sufficient that they perform as well as they do?

For those hundreds of women, we will be making our force less prepared because we will screw up the dynamic of an all-male unit, unless you dispute my point that men act differently in the presence of women.

A highly irrelevant fact. It's irrelevant how 'men' act because you are not enlisting men. You're enlisting the specific men and women who are serving. It's the role of training and discipline to get people to act not naturally, but the way they were trained to act.

Secondly, many other countries already have women in their military service. We could easily adapt and do the same. We will likley still have the greatest fighting force on earth. We'd just lose a few more lives than previously. After all, what's a few hundred more lives in the pursuit of diversity?

Has the performance of these militaries declined in a measurable way after the introduction of women into the armed forces, and in a way that can be directly attributed to that?