# Should women be given special treatment in order to become Rangers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2017, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537 "2017-02-23T10:51:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/42 "2017-02-23T17:24:20Z")
Can you describe a combat mission where doing differential equations in your head is more important than carrying a rucksack and shooting people? I’m coming up blank. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/43 "2017-02-23T17:24:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A group of members who can do all those things is better than a group who can only do some of them. What if the group of people who are best at 1-7 are men, but the group who are best at 8-14 are women? > [@](#): > > A mission may require risk assessment, small boat handling, and upper body strength. A group of male Rangers can achieve that mission. A group of female Rangers would not - they don’t have one of the requirements. And what about a mission that requires surviving weeks on a low-calorie diet, moving very quietly, staying still for hours at a time, and making instant, correct decisions about whether a person presents a danger? A group of female Rangers can achieve that mission. A group of male Rangers would not - they don’t have one of the requirements. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/44 "2017-02-23T17:27:37Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I guess the question is what is the relation between these tests and the actual requirements physical and mental requirements that make up a good ranger. > > From my understanding a lot of the tasks are designed to physically breakdown the recruit and determine those who cave under pressure. So asking them to do grueling hikes with heavy weights is a good way to weed out those who can’t withstand physical adversity. If so then, if carrying a 150 pound pack on a 15 mile hike provides as much adversity to a woman as making the same hike with a 200 pound pack for a man then I have no problem with there being a difference. > > Also the tasks were designed to test the very limits of what a man could succeed at, not to test the very limits of what a woman could succeed at. As an alternative consider the following. I would imagine that part of being a good ranger would be the ability to survive with reduced rations. So we could have as a requirement that recruits be able to survive for 4 weeks on say 1,000 calories and 2 liters of water/day while maintaining a certain amount of physical activity. Women having smaller bodies and better distribution of body fat and matabolism are [better suited to survive in such adverse conditions](http://articles.latimes.com/1992-01-12/local/me-151_1_donner-party). If the primary recruit was women the physical activity bar could be set to the point that only the most hardy women would be able to complete it, and simply as a matter of calories and physics no man could succeed. Should we then conclude that only women have what it takes to be Rangers? I think it would be nice if we let the Rangers, with their expertise in the area of what-it-takes-to-be-a-good-Ranger, decide the appropriate requirements. Is that too wild of an idea? FWIW, I’d be shocked if they prioritized able-to-survive-4-weeks-on-1,000-calories over able-to-ruck-15-miles-with-200-pounds-of-equipment. I suspect they have to do stuff along the lines of the latter far more frequently than the former. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/45 "2017-02-23T17:33:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A group of members who can do all those things is better than a group who can only do some of them. > > A mission may require risk assessment, small boat handling, and upper body strength. A group of male Rangers can achieve that mission. A group of female Rangers would not - they don’t have one of the requirements. > > Regards, > Shodan I think a better analogy is that it’s sort of like professional sports. You can certainly find a group of women who can do all the requirements required to play football. But you aren’t going to find a group that can do it as well as the New England Patriots. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/46 "2017-02-23T17:36:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think it would be nice if we let the Rangers, with their expertise in the area of what-it-takes-to-be-a-good-Ranger, decide the appropriate requirements. Is that too wild of an idea? Russian snipers decided the appropriate requirements for being snipers, which included “not being female”. Until losses to the Germans made it important for the women to start fighting too. And then (surprise!) it was discovered that women made very good snipers. I posted figures above showing that female snipers were several orders of magnitude more effective than male snipers. But if you’d asked a sniper team prior to WW2 if women would make good snipers, they’d have said something like “hurr durr, tampons” People stick with what they know until they’re forced to change. Sure, upper body strength was important in the days when we beat each other to death with sticks. Probably less important nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/47 "2017-02-23T17:37:45Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I did some research and it turns out that many women actually did survive to adulthood before the invention of the Tampon in 1929. A Presidential commission after the Gulf War found that female soldiers were [three times more likely to be un-deployable](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-016.pdf), largely due to pregnancy. I did some research and men don’t have that problem. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/48 "2017-02-23T17:39:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think it would be nice if we let the Rangers, with their expertise in the area of what-it-takes-to-be-a-good-Ranger, decide the appropriate requirements. Is that too wild of an idea? I agree. I’m having a hard time understanding the outrage. Never in my lifetime have I lay awake at night worried that our armed forces were unable to do their job. I’m sure female Rangers, SEALS, and pilots will be able to get the job done at about the same percentages as their male counterparts. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/49 "2017-02-23T17:43:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A Presidential commission after the Gulf War found that female soldiers were [three times more likely to be un-deployable](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-016.pdf), largely due to pregnancy. I did some research and men don’t have that problem. > > Regards, > Shodan Interesting paper. I only skimmed it, but I noticed the following: The Army has no official position on the issue, but unofficially an Army readiness officer says that pregnancy does not impact readiness in the aggregate since less than 1% of the Army is non-deployable due to pregnancies at any point in time. … A recent Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) research paper also concluded that pregnancy does not impact military readiness So… ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/50 "2017-02-23T17:49:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Can you describe a combat mission where doing differential equations in your head is more important than carrying a rucksack and shooting people? I’m coming up blank. > > Regards, > Shodan Oh, so now you’re interested in ranking them according to utility? I thought all you wanted to do was to say that having all qualities was better than not having them all, which is both obvious and trivially true. If you recognize that a person isn’t going to have all traits at maximum ability, then we’re back to my point, which is that the current priorities built when only men were eligible may not truly reflect the best priorities for skills for the mission. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/51 "2017-02-23T17:53:12Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Number of female snipers in the Russian army in WW2: 2,000 > Number who made the top-10 list of deadliest snipers of all time: 2 (Roza Shanina, Lyudmila Pavlichenko) > Top female snipers as percentage of total female snipers: 0.1% > > Number of male snipers in the Russian army in WW2: 430,000 > Number who made the top-10 list of deadliest snipers of all time: 2 (Fyodor Okhlopkov, Vasily Zaytsev) > Top male snipers as percentage of total male snipers: 0.000% > > Seems like women do better overall. I would say it seems to me as if the Russian army effectively had a higher “entry requirement” for women to become snipers than men in WW2. If you consider the total pool of Russian men and women who might have become snipers, I’d assume that they were roughly equal, and both produced 2 “top 10 deadliest snipers.” But many more of the women who were less-deadly shots didn’t become Russian army snipers, that’s all. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/52 "2017-02-23T18:03:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Oh, so now you’re interested in ranking them according to utility? I thought all you wanted to do was to say that having all qualities was better than not having them all, which is both obvious and trivially true. If you recognize that a person isn’t going to have all traits at maximum ability, then we’re back to my point, which is that the current priorities built when only men were eligible may not truly reflect the best priorities for skills for the mission. Part of the problem here - beyond the issue of which are the correct criteria for success as Rangers - is that some of the criteria you’ve apparently inserted (post #33) as possibly favoring women are not easily testable. You’ve picked some criteria that women are stereotypically assumed to be better at on average, but it’s very difficult if not impossible to test individuals for these things. So use of those criteria - again, even assuming that those are the more important ones - is more likely to be along the lines of “_let’s ease up on physical standards for women because they’ll be better at negotiating with non-enemy combatants_” than a gender neutral test for negotiating with non-enemy combatants that both men and women would take. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/53 "2017-02-23T18:11:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think it would be nice if we let the Rangers, with their expertise in the area of what-it-takes-to-be-a-good-Ranger, decide the appropriate requirements. Is that too wild of an idea? > > FWIW, I’d be shocked if they prioritized able-to-survive-4-weeks-on-1,000-calories over able-to-ruck-15-miles-with-200-pounds-of-equipment. I suspect they have to do stuff along the lines of the latter far more frequently than the former. Really, you don’t think that being caught in hostile territory with limited supplies is something that Rangers need to worry about? Yes they do [test food deprivation](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/08/women-army-ranger-military/401984/). > [@](#): > > Students spend long hours walking with heavy gear, sleeping outside, and eating one to two fewer meals per day than normal. Many students lose 20 to 30 pounds over the course of the program. The thing is that it is possible that both are equally important, but we have a choice as to where to place the limits. Suppose we have the following options of where to set limits Task ruck sacking: Option A: 200 lbs pack 1% males succeed 0% females succeed Option B: 150 lbs pack 10% males succeed 1% females succeed Deprivation survival: Option A: 1000 calorie diet 0% males succeed 1% females succeed Option B: 1500 caloire diet 1% males succeed 5% females succeed. If both tasks are of equal importance and you just want to choose the top 1% for the job which limits do you choose. Sure you wold like it if the recruits could survive on a 1,000 calorie diet but if all your recruits are male and you set the bar so high you wouldn’t get any recruits. So you are forced to only require Option B for the deprivation. But as far as Ruck sacking goes, you can push the limits and require 200 lbs to get the very best recruit. Now a woman who could do 150lbs of ruck sacking and but manage survive on 1,000 calories might be just as good a ranger as the other guy but there is no way to test it given a system that is designed to find the best male candidates. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/54 "2017-02-23T18:22:47Z")
Here’s an article from Army Times that describe women doing as well or in some cases better than their male counterparts. > **[Army stats: Women performed comparably to men in Ranger School](https://www.armytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2015/11/11/army-stats-women-performed-comparably-to-men-in-ranger-school/)** > > Former Army Secretary John McHugh defended the Army's decision to open Ranger School, amid allegations the service eased the standards for the first female graduates. They claim they are going through the exact same course. So if that is the case, I wonder what that does to some people’s argument. > [@Shodan](#): > > A Presidential commission after the Gulf War found that female soldiers were [three times more likely to be un-deployable](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-016.pdf), largely due to pregnancy. I did some research and men don’t have that problem. > > Regards, > Shodan I’m surprised it’s only 3x then.😉 ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/55 "2017-02-23T18:43:21Z")
> [@chrisk](#): > > I would say it seems to me as if the Russian army effectively had a higher “entry requirement” for women to become snipers than men in WW2. If you consider the total pool of Russian men and women who might have become snipers, I’d assume that they were roughly equal, and both produced 2 “top 10 deadliest snipers.” But many more of the women who were less-deadly shots didn’t become Russian army snipers, that’s all. Although there’s certainly an element of selection bias in these numbers, that can’t account for all the difference. Consider that the vast majority of Russian males were required to serve. Since snipers have higher survival rates than infantry, and therefore there would be competition for those positions, it makes sense that the group of Russian male snipers would include the best male snipers in the country. On the other hand, only a tiny majority of Russian women even attempted to join. Sure, many of the women who attempted to join would include those who thought they would be good snipers, but the total talent pool wasn’t nearly as deep as the male talent pool. Given the disparity in outcome, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that women have an advantage as snipers (though I’m willing to consider alternative information). ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/56 "2017-02-23T18:53:53Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Although there’s certainly an element of selection bias in these numbers, that can’t account for all the difference. Consider that the vast majority of Russian males were required to serve. Since snipers have higher survival rates than infantry, and therefore there would be competition for those positions, it makes sense that the group of Russian male snipers would include the best male snipers in the country. I don’t know that there was as much competition for those positions as you seem to think. I’m not even sure snipers have a higher survival rate than infantry. Do you have a cite for either of those assertions? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/57 "2017-02-23T18:59:42Z")
The bias is in how you present the numbers of the top 10, which isn’t composed of only Russians. You could also say that from the top 10, 8 are men and only 2 are women. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/58 "2017-02-23T19:31:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Oh, so now you’re interested in ranking them according to utility? I am not interested in ranking them at all. You identify a mission or set of missions that you want the Rangers to do. You identify the qualities that are necessary to fulfill that mission. Then you find the people with the highest level of those qualities. When it turns out that only men have those qualities at the highest level, you do not then complain that maybe women are better at qualities that have nothing to do with the mission. That’s why I asked for an example of a combat mission, of the sort you want an elite group of soldiers to achieve, where differential equation-solving would increase the likelihood of success. Maybe women are better at things that don’t make for a good Ranger. So what? We are talking about who makes the best Rangers, and it turns out it ain’t women. Because they can’t do the things that are relevant. > [@](#): > > If you recognize that a person isn’t going to have all traits at maximum ability, then we’re back to my point, which is that the current priorities built when only men were eligible may not truly reflect the best priorities for skills for the mission. If those priorities are wrong, one would expect that in training for the real thing, and war-game simulations of the real thing, women would succeed more than they do. Do you have any evidence for this? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/59 "2017-02-23T19:34:34Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Here’s an article from Army Times that describe women doing as well or in some cases better than their male counterparts. > > [Army stats: Women performed comparably to men in Ranger School](https://www.armytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/11/11/army-responds-congressmans-ranger-school-records-request/75584150/) > > They claim they are going through the exact same course. So if that is the case, I wonder what that does to some people’s argument. From your cite > [@](#): > > The Army on Sept. 2 announced that Ranger School is now open to all qualified soldiers regardless of gender. The first integrated class since that announcement kicked off Nov.2. The five women who started the course did not qualify to move on past the Ranger Assessment Phase, commonly known as RAP week, according to media reports. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/60 "2017-02-23T20:00:41Z")
The standards, if they are fair, should not be adjusted. Does that mean most women won’t cut it? Probably. So, either train harder, or accept that you won’t be a Ranger. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537/61 "2017-02-23T20:16:10Z")
A quick point that I don’t believe has been mentioned yet in the thread. We need to differentiate between two somewhat alike-sounding terms that aren’t interchangeable. The course we’re talking about here is the Ranger Course or School. (I’ve seen both used.) From the [horse’s mouth](http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/ARTB/StudentInformation/), “The Ranger Course is a mentally and physically challenging school that develops functional skills directly related to units whose mission is to engage the enemy in close combat and direct fire battle.” Per that link, passage is about 40%. I’m not sure how they count recycled students—students who have to repeat one or more of the Phases within the Course. Many successful graduates of the Course nevertheless for a variety of reasons, had to repeat one or more of the Phases before finally graduating. Graduating is a _de facto_ (and controversial) requirement for promotion to high rank within the Infantry Branch of the US Army, and that’s the reason why women have petitioned to be able to attend the Ranger Course. Graduates who are in the Army have earned the right to wear the "[Ranger Tab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_tab)"on their uniform. Members of other Services like the Navy or from foreign armed services are also allowed to attend, space permitting, and those graduates may or may not be allowed to wear the Tab on their visible uniform. Someone like **Bear Nenno** (who I’m surprised hasn’t chimed in here yet) can explain what weight other US Army Branches like Armor or Artillery place on successful completion of the Ranger Course. All of the preceding dealing with the Ranger Course is different from membership in the [75th Ranger Regiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75th_Ranger_Regiment_(United_States)), a US Army Infantry unit within the Joint Special Operations Command. Graduates of the Ranger Course get to wear the Ranger Tab, but aren’t “Rangers.” Members of the 75th Ranger Regiment are known as “Rangers” and wear, among other things, a “[Ranger Scroll](http://www.rhinoden.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/75th-Ranger-300x157.jpg).” Interestingly, passage of the Ranger Course is not absolutely required for membership within the Regiment, though my understanding is that in practice nearly every member within the combat arms sections of the Regiment does pass the Course either before entering the Regiment, or shortly thereafter. Membership within the Regiment, like every other part of Special Operations, is very selective, demanding, and expensive. Ranger School is usually part of that selection process. So, just because these women passed Ranger School doesn’t mean they’re Rangers, _per se_, and IMHO it is highly unlikely either of them will ever become members of the Regiment or other Special Operations units. Of course, five years ago, I would’ve thought it unlikely that women would pass Ranger School, so who knows. Anyway, it does mean though they passed one of the most grueling leadership schools the US Army has to offer. And it would be a shame if the Army watered down the standards of that school in order to gain a victory for social justice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-women-be-given-special-treatment-in-order-to-become-rangers/780537.md?page=4)