Should women be given special treatment in order to become Rangers?

Multiple sites on the net, as this one, claim that the Rangers were pressured by top brass to pass at least one woman.

The article goes on to reveal just how differently the women candidates were treated. Some, special training and the like, which men didn’t get, women allowed retakes while men weren’t, could be seen as acceptable. Others such as women being allowed to familiarize themselves over several days with the land navigation course while men were thrown into it blind are more worrying.

Probably the most troubling fact is that, after all the women had repeatedly failed to pass one of the most challenging parts of training a two-star general showed up to observe.

Interruption to say, yeah, right.

Gender equality is great and I’m all for it. This, if true and many sources confirm it including some of the female candidates, isn’t great and could end up getting people killed.

Pretending that men and women are equally capable of all tasks is pointless and foolish. And since warfighting is a very serious matter, it literally could and probably will result in deaths, to make some sort of pointless political statement where we pretend that men and women don’t have differing physical abilities.

There are no shortage of Ranger applicants. Plenty of strong, fit men who are suitable for Ranger training are regularly turned down simply because a lot of people want to serve in the Rangers, and they can afford to take the pick of the litter.

This isn’t the average soldiering. It’s not being a fuel truck driver. It’s not even being an infantry grunt, a demanding job within itself. It’s a place where people with, among other traits, rare strength and physical (for a man) fitness are absolutely required.

This is as ridiculous as making men and women’s weightlifting into one sport, except it isn’t just a stupid publicity stunt, it has the potential to literally get people killed and have important missions fail.

This is just a bizarre experiment in denying that not all people can do all things. To people who would support this, would you also support designing ranger training so that it could qualify a paraplegic person? Why not? Wouldn’t that be more inclusive?

The Rangers are not a feel good squad for special feelings and inclusiveness. They have extreme physical demands that the vast majority of men cannot meet, and almost certainly no woman. They kill people and get killed.

No, women should not be allowed special exceptions in the actual training, because we want our Rangers to be able to do certain things.

On the other hand, women have had different upbringings. In the Boy Scouts, boys do things that actually prep them for stuff like the Rangers, while girls sell cookies.

What is necessary to even the field is a remedial prep program for women, a pre-Rangers, sort of, which should be either voluntary, or assigned by assessment.

The Army I know for sure, and probably the other branches as well, have a remedial “pre-basic” for people (men and women) who arrive at basic training and can’t pass a basic fitness assessment.

Whatever gives women trouble in the rangers, that men seem to be already able to do, should be remediated in a say, three to six week program, that a woman can take up to two times. After that, she goes to Ranger training, and gets no do-overs or anything else.

FWIW, fitness standards have always been less for women than men, and then that has been used as an excuse for keeping women out of combat. I have always said that women should be allowed in combat, but the ones who are should be held to the male standards. If anyone cares, I passed my PT test at the male standards, albeit just barely. I know, because they accidentally scored me that way, and my DS looked at my total score, and asked what happened that it had dropped so much (this was AIT, and my basic score had been something like 278/300, then it dropped to just barely passing by a handful of points). I looked at it, and said I had male scores. He rescored me, and I had 292/300, with over 100% on my run and my push-ups.

A friend of mine is responsible for recruiting postmen and women. It’s hopeless. He needs the staff, has given countless women the opportunity and perhaps 1:20 last six months. There are currently 3 women in his office of about 90.

And that’s carrying mail …

Why would we want a remedial training program for the Rangers? It makes sense for basic if the army is short of recruits and wants to get people through it so they can be truck drivers and cooks and various other needs the army has that don’t necesarily require high physical fitness.

But the Rangers are awash in recruits, more than they would ever accept. They get the pick of the litter. Why would they want to institute remedial training to try to get people through the minimum standards when they’re flush with people who can do more than meet the basics already?

The Rangers don’t want to be forced to take remedial recruits. They know it will compromise their effectiveness. Why do we want to force this on them? In the name of a PR stunt?

I absolutely support gender equality–equality in general, really. That’s not equality of outcome, that’s equality of opportunity. Thus, women absolutely should be able to apply for and be given equal consideration for any position in the military but they should also have to have the same required training, and pass the same tests under the same conditions. This is particularly true when it comes to the Rangers, because they are the elite. If those standards are lowered for some to make some kind of political statement, it might look good in the papers, but then if that person is later called on to perform a duty that he or she cannot because he or she got a pass on a test that would have otherwise filtered out that lack, that may not only jeopardize an assignment, it could cost people their lives.

Yes, there are some unfortunate situations surrounding how differences in gender, or perhaps even race or sexuality or religion or what-have-you, are raised, educated and trained as kids that that may affect their long-term carrier aspirations, but the way to fix that isn’t to put potentially under-qualified people into positions, it’s to address those differences at the source of those differences. Putting gender aside for a moment, consider a theoretical ranger candidate who is able to pass all the tests, but perhaps part of that is because he was raised in a military family and thus had military aspirations from a young age and had the fortune of getting focused and specialized training because of connections his parents have, participating in sports and other activities to improve his physical skills and teamwork, even possibly gearing his education toward that. And then take the same person and have him grow up in a more typical modern household where he may not have had a childhood preparing him for that and he doesn’t decide to apply for the rangers until he’s nearly out of high school so time he could have spent training in his youth was instead spent playing video games or whatever. That could easily make the difference.

The unfortunate aspect here is not only that men generally have a distinct physical advantage in general, but especially at the elite level, which is why it’s extraordinarily rare to have women competing on equal footing with men in most physical competitions and sports. So, when we’re talking about just physically skilled women capable of serving in combat, I’ve little doubt there are women out there able to meet those requirements, but when we’re talking the elite forces, probabilisticly speaking, that number will necessarily be even more lopsided towards men. I don’t think it’s zero, and I’d love to see the day that a bad ass woman could show up, compete for, an earn that spot, but I think it’s a disservice to her, undermining her accomplishments, and particularly her fellow soldiers she’d need to support, if a woman gets a spot by passing tests with a lower bar.

In short, please, just decide what the requirements are and then pick the best candidate regardless of gender, or race, religion, sexual preference, or whatever else too.

We should have equality of opportunity but also realistically assess the needs of our forces. Perhaps the strength is not needed as much as other qualities. Also, integrating women into any given force even if they cannot pass the current requirements is the ultimate assessment. Even if it turns out they are not as capable, it may (or may not!) be worth the risk if it could result in a better applicant pool and thus less risk later on.

None of that applies in any way to something like the Rangers and special forces. They turn down recruits regularly who are more physically capable of doing the job than any woman. There is no need to expand the applicant pool - the entire purpose of elite forces is that they’re only taking the best applicants.

A realistic assessment of the needs of our forces says “we have far more qualified people applying for the Ranger training than will ever be accepted” - and if it expanded, it would expand to an already large pool of rejected applicants from men. There is absolutely no need for the Rangers to change their criteria to include women, and no benefit to it. This is purely being forced on to them for political reasons.

That’s begging the question – that men already constitute the best applicants.

AIUI, the ranger program has been designed for many years to find the best men. It’s therefore looked for traits that the best men who were rangers had, and built the testing protocol around these traits. There’s a very strong argument to be made that this is drawing the target around the bullet-holes.

At this point, i tmay be worth re-examining what traits are truly necessary for a ranger. What’s the ultimate goal, and what do folks need to have to meet this goal? It may turn out that some traits are less important than initially thought, and others are more important.

If, after such re-examination, it turns out that no women meet the requirements, I’m not too worried about it. But the program should be certain it’s not drawing the target around the holes.

The fact that they passed when the general showed up could mean:
[ol]
[li]The instructors lowered their standards[/li][li]The instructors stopped holding the women to a higher standard.[/li][li]The women became more motivated due to the general’s presence.[/li][li]Other candidates who were discouraging or interfering with the women were unwilling to do so in the general’s presence.[/li][/ol]
and probably other possibilities I haven’t thought of.

How do we know the people saying it’s (1) aren’t just bitter about women being accepted into the Rangers?

A smoking gun would be if there were a clear-cut requirement like “All potential Rangers are required to complete this course in 30 minutes”, and we found out that women were accepted even though they only completed it in 35 minutes. But I don’t see anything like that in the article. I basically see variations of “The women were given extra encouragement.” But they also probably faced extra pressure, trying to be the first women to make it into the Rangers, and knowing that a lot of the men probably didn’t want them there.

I also agree with LHoD’s point. You should have requirements you expect everyone to meet, but the requirements should be based on the actual needs of the job – not just based on the physical attributes of the existing male Rangers, regardless of if those attributes are needed to do the job.

No amount of training, six weeks, six months, or six years, is going to close the average gap between men and women in physical training.

This is because no amount of training is going to close the average gap between men and women in physical training.

The purpose of a military is to kill people and break things. The purpose of an elite unit like the Rangers is to be the best at killing people and breaking things.

Most men are better than most women at killing people and breaking things. Some men are better than all women at killing people and breaking things. No women are better than all men at killing people and breaking things. Therefore an elite unit like the Rangers is going to be virtually all men.

Regards,
Shodan

No one tell Lyudmila Pavlichenko this. You might upset her.

I didn’t realize she was a Ranger.

Regards,
Shodan

The enemy won’t hold American women soldiers to a lower standard.

I was watching that show American Ninja Warriors a few nights ago and there were these women doing crazy-ass acts of physical fitness that I am pretty sure 99.999% of ANYONE can’t do. Now granted we aren’t sending our special operations forces into enemy territory to parkour over obstacles, but given that there are women who do Iron Man triathlons, Tough Mudders, MMA fighting, professional sports and (at times) military combat, I’m curious as to why there aren’t ANY women who can meet the standards of the Rangers?
Although I did look at their standards, and they are pretty hard core:

It’s an interesting paradox because the “best of the best” of anything rarely seek out jobs carrying the mail.

But there are plenty of female letter carriers and FedEx / UPS drivers, so I’m not sure what your friend’s problem is.

That’s constructive. You must feel quite clever.

IMO situations like this are the result of political correctness filtering through the process. If you start with the notion that some women can pass, then if no women pass then that proves that you’re biased against women. No one wants that, and it’s a lot easier to rig the system so that some women can pass then to hold to your standards and risk being called a bigot/misogynist.

And the attitude expressed here by LHOD is a big part of it. He did not invent it himself for this thread - it’s been used in legal challenges in cases involving firefighters and the like. Essentially the way it goes is (roughly) that the relative paucity of women (or minorities) is used to establish that the use of these tests has a disparate impact on women (or minorities). This then puts the burden of proof on whoever administers the tests to proof that the tests are relevant to the job, or else come up with another test that these groups can pass more easily. Again, it’s a lot easier to just give them easier standards and avoid the headache.

na