Right. The tests and tasks were designed for men. But who is to say they are tasks and test that are actually needed in war?
Endurance, sure, but how much upper body strength is really needed?
The tests and tasks may be unconsciously biased towards things males can do but find difficult, not stuff that is really necessary.
A metric fuckton. See, e.g., this thread we had about Women and front-line combat. In particular read the study I linked about how much weight the US Army expects infantrymen to carry in battle. 80-120 pounds isn’t out of line. And this doesn’t mention how much effort it takes to move another of your armored tortoise-like compatriots when s/he gets wounded.
The effort breaks down grown fit men in their 20s. I’d be interested in seeing any VA stats, but I’d really suspect that a majority of ex-Infantry have, along with the tinnitus they all seem to suffer from, have significant joint and back degradation beyond that expected in men in their age cohort.
The Soviet female snipers’ accomplishments, like those of famous Red Army personnel, were frequently exaggerated for propaganda purposes. (See, e.g, Antony Beevor’s translation of Vasily Grossman’s “A Writer At War: A Soviet Journalist with the Red Army 1941-1945,” discussing the exploits of Vasily Zaitsev at Stalingrad. Among other things, Grossman claimed Zaitsev was a medical orderly slated for execution before having his sentence commuted and his transfer to a sniping unit.) Nevertheless, they carried nowhere near the loads we expect modern American infantrymen to routinely carry.
60 # is standard.
In Roman times, they carried up to 100#, and on a smaller guy.
Napoleonic Infantry= 60#
WWI Infantry= 80 #
WW2 Rifle man = 80#
and that’s not “upper body strength” that’s carrying capacity, which is mostly your legs and endurance.
My Dad had the Combat Infantry Badge from WWII, but altho they trained with heavy packs, usually nothing but ammo, two+ canteens , a couple krations, and a tarp was carried- and of course lots of ciggies.
I’m not going down that rabbit hole for a flippant comment. If you didn’t realize it was flippantly mocking your BEST IN EVERYTHING approach, which is clearly unobtainable, know now that that’s all it was.
The point is you can’t max out for everything. Look at Buck’s post above to see a lovely breakdown of what I’m talking about.
I found this article to be relevant:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/01/10/the_overweight_infantryman_110609.html
Missed this.
First, you’re exaggerating what I’m saying. I’m not saying the priorities are wrong; again, I’ve said they should be re-examined. It may be that, after they’re re-examined, they turn out to be excellent priorities.
Second, I don’t think the current training/simulation regimen will definitely show the errors in their priorities, for the same draw-the-target-around-the-bulletholes effect. The entire program was designed to take advantage of male physiology, so it’s going to emphasize things that dudes do best. The re-examination may involve things like adding sections of ultra-low-calorie diets to training/simulation, things that may be important on certain missions. For all your ridiculous talk about tampons, imagine what an advantage it would be to have to pack in 33% less food per soldier.
Can you be more specific about what you think the overlooked requirement might be? Perhaps pain tolerance?
You might not need to hump 200 pounds if you only eat one cheese sandwich a day. But then you might just want smaller rangers. Its just tough to overcome the strength advantage that men have over women.
To be honest, I’m surprised that no women made the cut, there’s a lot of tough women out there. I’d like to know if the women met all the objective criteria (push ups, running, etc.) and only failed on how they handled stuff where instructors could beat down on the women harder or judge them subjectively.
Is there any other sector of government you feel deserves that sort of deference? “The EPA are the experts on the environment - who are we to question the regulations they say are necessary?”
Anyway, I’d be more comfortable taking the military at their word on this sort of thing if it weren’t for the fact that, within living memory, the US military has argued strenuously that they couldn’t possibly perform their duties if they were forced to allow black people to serve alongside white people. And, more recently, that letting gay people in would also destroy their ability to protect the nation. So, I think at least a little skepticism is appropriate when they insist that there’s no way women could do a particular job. I’m not saying that this is absolutely, unquestionably, sexist - I’m overall inclined to believe them on this one. But we shouldn’t accept it just on their say-so. They’ve been wrong about this sort of thing a whole lot.
They’ve never argued that blacks or gays are physically incapable of doing the job. They were following social prejudices. I feel like I’m in some fucking looney bin or at least some sort of Harrison Bergeron world where we’ve all decided that anyone should be able to do anything they want regardless of physical limitations that come from the laws of nature.
Should the army allow a parapalegic to be passed through Ranger training? Should they make special accomodations for him?
What if he really really wants to be a Ranger?
What if the army has traditionally excluded certain socially ostracized groups?
What if it the diversity of the Rangers is really low?
What if it would be a good PR move for the army to look more diverse and inclusive?
So just to be clear, you’re claiming that some of the very best trained and highly skilled women in the world are roughly equal to a parapalegic in physical skills? Because otherwise this sure looks like a strawman to me, and I’m sure you’d never do that.
“Best trained” and “highly skilled” have nothing to do with lacking the physical attributes necesary to get the job done. You could have a paraplegic that’s highly skilled - maybe he was a special operator who was injured in a parachuting accident - and the reality is that even though he has the will, the mental aptitude, and knowledge of all he needs to do, he can simply not fulfill the physical requirements of the role.
Sexual dimoprhism is a thing. For reals. No woman can match Usain Bolt, or a thousand other examples in sex-segregated athletics. You would have to redefine what the job is and what the qualfications are to push them through. And that would be politically motivated, not motivated towards improving the warfighting capabilities of the Rangers. We’d literally be sacrificing people’s lives to create some feel good message about inclusiveness.
Omar Bradley “A Soldier’s Story”:
Previous combat had taught us that casualties are lumped primarily in the rifle platoons. For here are concentrated the handful of troops who must advance under enemy fire. It is upon them that the burden of war falls with greater risk and with less likelihood of survival than any other of the combat arms…Prior to invasion we had estimated that the infantry would incur 70 percent of the losses of our combat forces. By August we had boosted that figure to 83 percent.
I laid out some possibilities earlier, and they have been discussed at length, in this very thread.
Yes, I realize that this is what you were trying to do. But you didn’t address my point - you mentioned a factor (differential equations) that is not relevant to any mission the Rangers could conceivably attempt.
No one is talking about maxing out on everything. We are talking about maxing out on all the factors reasonably likely to make for a successful Ranger.
It happens that those factors are ones that no woman can do. That’s politically incorrect - in theory, women can do anything a man can do. In practice, they can’t.
Why? Because women can’t do them?
They do that already as part of Rangers training.
Cite.
And still women can’t make it thru Rangers training.
Regards,
Shodan
2 MREs is like 2500 calories.
Correction: a woman has not made it through Ranger training yet.
No. We are talking about maxing out on all the factors that have historically led the male-only rangers to succeed. And even then, we’re not talking about maxing out on them; we’re talking about setting cutoffs for these factors high enough that a few men can succeed, but most cannot.
Now that women may be rangers, we should take another look: are there factors that we need to raise, because where previously nobody could succeed at these high requirements, now some women can succeed? When we do that, will we discover that some of these folks who can succeed at these higher cutoffs can’t succeed at the high cutoffs for other things?
Stay focused for a bit on dietary requirements. What if we discover that some women can only do 80 pushups, but they can survive for weeks on a diet of 1 MRE instead of two daily; and that no man can do this? Is there the slightest possibility that a person who can meet the lower pushup requirement and the more stringent low-calorie requirement will be more suited for certain ranger missions?
That’s the question that needs to be asked, as do other questions like that.
This is a silly example. No man can match Usain Bolt, either.
Just so we are clear, we are talking about the ranger tab and not the ranger battalion, right? Because they’re different things.
The Ranger tab is important in the progress of the career of a military officer because that ranger tab means that you will get assignments leading squads and platoons into dangerous situations. Most of the time, they won’t just assign some inexperienced officer to lead a squad or platoon into a dangerous situation. But if you have ZERO experience and a ranger tab, they might give you an assignment. The sort of assignment that can get you noticed and promoted.
Ranger tab candidates don’t really need to be big and strong. They don’t need to survive on low calorie diets. They don’t need to run 15 miles with 200 pounds on their backs. The ranger tab wiki page has a video from the US army that sorta gives you a 50,000 foot view.
They need the leadership skills to take a squad into hostile territory, do the job and bring everyone back alive. I don’t think you are expected to carry them back on your shoulders or be out in the field for days or weeks. Ranger training is supposed to help us identify and develop leaders not tanks or assassins or snipers. Almost all the candidates at ranger school are junior officers or NCOs.
The training course is at least partly subjective because instructors get to decide if the candidate has shown sufficient leadership to proceed. I think its conceivable that ranger school instructors are sexists.