Know what? After this post I’m going to leave this for others to judge. You asked for a general when in fact you know well that was not the point of the debate. The point was the rumors that instructors were being pressured to pass women. By narrowing it down in this manner you created a straw man. Why is the rank so important to the substance of this debate? It isn’t and mere reiteration on your part will not make it so.
By insisting that we deal only in proven fact you once again obscure matters. I used the phrase if true advisedly in the OP. You may well have missed that. The debate is ‘if the rumors are true should women really be given special treatment?’. Do you follow now? The truth or otherwise of the accusations is immaterial to the debate.
As for Moonie Times the unreliability of that source, and I quite agree it’s not a good one, is irrelevant. It simply established the fact that the rumors were out there.
We are clearly talking at cross-purposes here, with you trying to shoot down the sources and with me insisting that the quality of the sources is irrelevant. The fact that this question was raised in the House by a Republican congressman would have been sufficent to ground the debate. I see that I would have been wise to use just that,
But, as the poet has it, wherefore waste I words? You will be persuaded by nothing that I write were I to continue till the Greek Kalends. Let us leave it there, with you clothed in your own good opinion and I in mine.
When did I bring up rank? I never bought up rank. I never asked for a “general.” “Top Brass” was the phrase that you chose to use, not me. I quoted you. I never created a strawman. Do you know what a strawman is?
I haven’t insisted on anything. You can deal in whatever you want to deal with.
I didn’t miss that at all. I stated I doubted the veracity of the cite in the OP, and asked for alternative cites. The alternative cites you provided were worse than the ones in the OP. It is all very well deciding to argue a hypothetical. But you based your hypothetical on a bunch of rumours that most likely aren’t true. According to all the official sources you have cited woman haven’t been given special treatment in order to become Rangers.
And establishing the fact that only rumours are out there only increase my skepticism of the cite you chose to use in the OP.
But you didn’t choose to ground your debate around that. You chose to ground your debate around a bunch of unsubstantiated rumours instead. You claimed in the OP that “This, if true and many sources confirm it including some of the female candidates, isn’t great and could end up getting people killed.” You can’t both state “if true” and “many sources confirm it.” Both can’t be true. Which female candidate “confirmed it?” Do you still think people are going to get killed because of this?
“Ranger School is an intense 61-day combat leadership course oriented toward small-unit tactics. It has been called “the most physically and mentally demanding leadership school the Army has to offer”.”
I don’t know. AFAICT, the infantry veterans I know are all a bit more macho than the average dude and buy into the alpha male thing at least a little bit more than the average dude. A ranger tab commands immediate respect from these guys and even the hint that standards were watered down for women is going to make the tabs less useful for women who get them. The instant credibility that goes with the ranger tab is no longer there. There is going to be an asterisk next to their ranger tab in the eyes of many of these guys.
I think that the ranger tabs function as a signaling device loses its effect if things are easier for women in any way. Women are kind of fighting an uphill battle to begin with because of ingrained prejudices within the military, if they get help overcoming those prejudices, then that leveling of the playing field is going to look like special treatment to a lot of these guys. If these guys have a problem because their leader is a woman, then fuck em. Some guys had problems with being led by a black man in Vietnam too. But if their problem is that different standards were applied for one set of leaders over another, its hard to tell them to just shut up and follow this person into live fire combat.
Are we satisfied that Ranger School is a leadership school (and not a special forces school) or were you taking issue with the notion that it is the primary school for infantry leadership?
Yes, that was probably a misunterstanding on my part. I only thought of the “first” definition of primary. I guess it could be considered the “most important” for all I know.
It just seemed to me that a lot of posters were debating on the premise that ranger school was the training course to join the Ranger Battalion. I don’t know why the army uses the term ranger everywhere, it confusing and it turns arguments about women and ranger school into something it isn’t.
Once you get past the physical stuff (which AFAICT the women all passed), the rest seems to be a subjective assessment of how well you exercised leadership during training.
NOONE wants to water that stuff down just for the sake of providing more avenues for promotion in the military for women, but I don’t really see any reason why women can’t be very effective leaders. Joan of Arc comes to mind.
Damuri, “Ranger” is an almost ancient word in the military for a forward or scouting force/soldier. They probably don’t think of using it more than once any more than they think of using artillery or cavalry more than once.
For purposes of argument, would there be an issue of an all-female Ranger regiment? Goose, gander, some assembly required. Why or why not?
There are a lot of issues with people working together in close quarters, never mind combat. My experience in the military was, 17 to 25 year old men and women have raging hormones and it is extremely problematic, there is no way around this.
17-25 year olds are stupid for a bunch of reasons. Never noticed a homogenous group being particularly smarter than a mixed sex group. Have you, Common Tater? If anything I’ve noticed the opposite.
If I’m understanding correctly, “ranger” as in “75th Rangers” means forward or scouting force, while “ranger” as in “Ranger School” just means infantry. Is that correct?
Ranger school is a training school for infantry small unit leaders. Almost every Ranger (as in 75th) I know has a Ranger tab. They acquired their tabs AFTER they became Rangers. So while almost all Rangers have ranger tabs not everyone with a ranger tab is a Ranger.
The reason it is important is because no one wants to stick some inexperienced lieutenant in charge of a platoon that is going to see real action. But if they have gone to ranger school and have a ranger tab then they have all the leadership experience you can reasonably get without actually leading a group in combat.
Its especially useful for women because during time of war, some inexperienced men might be put in charge of a combat unit and gain experience and credibility that way. Women don’t get these sort of opportunities. With a ranger tab, they will, or at least they should.
once again, having a ranger tab is not part of the selection process to become a ranger. But almost all Rangers end up getting their ranger tab.
What exactly is this test supposed to measure, how good a job does it do of measuring what it is supposed to measure, and how do the skills measured relate to what teachers actually do?
I don’t know the answers to these (the article didn’t really address them). The fact that the test says “literacy” doesn’t necessarily mean that it is even trying to measure the basic ability to read and write, and certainly not that it is successful at that measurement.
Please start another thread. This is an entirely different issue. I can make a really good fucking argument that having more black and hispanic teachers in a school system where 60% of the students are black or hispanic can be a really important thing that enhances the educational experience of the students. I can argue in favor of affirmative action for teachers, police, primary care physicians, etc. Its harder to do in cases like firemen, soldier, airplane pilot, truck driver, etc.