309 confirmed kills.
Simo Häyhä: 705 confirmed kills.
Some men still better than all women.
You guys don’t get out there much on the dating scene, do you?
That’s a largely simplistic view of the purpose of the military and doesn’t really speak to the specific skills required to effectively “kill people and break things”.
As I understand it, however, the physical requirements for the Rangers is so high because they are expected to operate as small self sustaining light infantry units in any terrain under all conditions for extended periods of time. So I imagine the main challenge for women is not that they lack the ability or desire to “kill or break things”. It’s that they are on average physically smaller and weaker than their male counterparts. So even having the same stamina, they will get tired sooner carrying the same loads (I assume they don’t make “his and hers” sizes in anti-tank rockets), start falling behind and potentially compromise the mission.
It would be a different set of physical requirements than say, a civilian police SWAT team that deploys from a van a few blocks from the incident site instead of hiking 100 miles through jungles or deserts and carries only their immediate tactical gear instead of 50 lbs of whatever they would ever possibly l need.
Notice that you don’t actually show that the “attitude” (which is itself the totally wrong word, it’s an analysis, not an attitude) is incorrect or misguided; you simply suggest that some people are too lazy to analyze whether they’re using reasonable standards.
If your claim is that the heads of the ranger program are too lazy to do so, that they’re worried about having a headache, perhaps they should find someone to fill this position–a woman?–who’s willing to work hard.
Edit: I’m not saying the paucity of women proves the test has a disparate impact on women. That’s not even roughly what I said.
Which is why Finland continues it’s military dominance to this day.
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.
One encounter with Simo and you’re finnished.
Not laziness. It’s very difficult to prove that a given test has a direct correlation to effectiveness in a particular job. Most of these tests are based on some sort of common sense approach that doesn’t necessarily stand up in court when disparate impact is shown.
This is true of employment/certification tests generally. I highly doubt anyone has run tests to scientifically prove that the bar/CPA/actuarial/etc. exams correlate with success in those fields, for example. Rather, some guys experienced in these fields put together tests that in their experienced opinions measure necessary knowledge and skillsets. But if the standard becomes scientific proof of correlation, it’s a lot easier just to redesign the tests.
I agree that’s not what you said. I didn’t claim otherwise - sorry if this was confusing.
I said that the attitude that you expressed here is often used in the manner that I described, not that you personally had used it that way.
We should be very suspicious of “common sense” when it can’t be backed up by data.
Again, it’s not an attitude, it’s an analysis. Unless there’s a reason to use the term “attitude,” I’d appreciate your abandoning it: it implies that there’s not a rational basis for calling for a rational basis for job requirements.
It’s frequently not at all practical to get data. That’s the way the world works, in many aspects, and WRT tests in particular as noted.
That might frequently be true. In the case of the rangers–one of, if not the, most expensive and intensive job training in the history of our species–I suspect the practical hurdles can be leapt.
They can, and not just in the case of the Rangers. The danger being that if you send women into combat as part of the Rangers, and it turns out that women don’t do as well as men, the mission is endangered and people die.
It’s not quite the same thing as combat, but a person named Brian Mitchell back in 1989 wrote a book called Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military in which he describes some war game exercises matching an all-male unit against a unit containing both men and women, and one of all women. In the scoring of the exercise, the units finished in that order.
You are correct that common sense doesn’t always have a shit load of peer-reviewed studies to back it up. OTOH if you are going to send a group into harm’s way to achieve something important, most people recognize that a group consisting of people who can do 100 pushups and 20 chin-ups and march twenty miles with 50 pounds on their back and handle a boat and and run two sub-6:30 miles consecutively and climb a mountain and survive weeks in the jungle without tampons is going to be more successful overall than a group where any of the members can’t do all those things.
Regards,
Shodan
Excellent points and congratulations for your hard work. 
I think you’re viewing this wrong. So we’re gonna send a group into harm’s way to accomplish a key objective. Here are some of the traits we can consider:
- Can do 100 pushups.
- Can do 20 chin-ups.
- Can march 20 miles with 50 pounds on their back.
- Can handle a boat.
- Can run two sub-6:30 miles consecutives
- Can climb a mountain
- Can survive weeks without tampons
- Can survive weeks on a low-calorie diet
- Can move very quietly.
- Can stay still for hours at a time
- Can make instant, correct decisions about whether a person presents a danger.
- Can prioritize conflicting objectives in a manner that maximizes success.
- Can function in a group in a way that promotes group cohesion and group focus toward a goal instead of getting in a battle of wills with other group members.
- Can negotiate successfully with non-enemy combatants in order to achieve objectives more quietly and efficiently.
Which of these are most important? Is being able to do 20 chin-ups more important than being able to move stealthily? Is being able to do lots of push-ups more important than being able to negotiate in hostile territory?
And the “tampon” one is a gift to my argument, for which I thank you. It’s hard to imagine a requirement more tailor-made to support male soldiers over female, and it’s precisely this sort of thinking that I believe distracts from true requirements for the job instead of draw-the-target-around-the-bulletholes requirements.
The Rangers don’t have to be the only elite combat unit. As it is the Rangers concentrate on a very high level of physical ability difficult for women to meet in general. If there are requirements that only give an advantage to men but don’t improve the capabilities of the soldiers then the standard should change, but for both men and women alike. Otherwise a better approach might be to consider additional special units that don’t rely so greatly on physical skills unlikely to be achieved by women. Some of the skills mentioned in the OP though aren’t purely physical such as land navigation and shouldn’t by themselves disqualify women even if for some reason women are less likely to excel. If women tend to do poorly at land navigation and the requirements are reasonable for the job there’s no reason to give women special treatment. But even an adjunct to the Rangers which concentrates less on physical ability could prove useful to the military and allow women to participate in particular missions where women would be a desirable asset such as missions into territories where culturally men and women aren’t treated equally. Some expansion of the program could create more opportunities for women in the military without compromising the existing mission of the Rangers. And that mission is already something the vast majority of men can’t qualify for either. We don’t need to define women out of the system but we can expand the system to provide more opportunities for them without redefining the existing Ranger program.
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
Yes, and a group of members who can also perform differential equations in their head is better than a group that can’t. My point is that there may be some requirements that currently aren’t being considered but that are more important than other requirements that are being considered. They’re currently not considered because emphasis is placed on the traits that the men who have been rangers up until now have been able to do.
I did some research and it turns out that many women actually did survive to adulthood before the invention of the Tampon in 1929.
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. 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?
Back then they didn’t have jungles, so it’s not a fair comparison.
…