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

[SamuelA]

Here’s a couple of videos of actual modern combat. I’m linking these because I’m hoping to inject some new information into this debate that is a bit more convincing that “a Pentagon study showed…”

WARNING : This is actual combat. People are trying to kill each other, though no one is seen to die on camera :

For those who didn’t watch part 1 and 2, here’s what you might notice in this video :

a. In this video, combat is like playing Battleship, except the other side doesn’t say “hit” when someone is shot. It’s a lot of flinging thousands of rounds downrange blind. Also sprinting while carrying that ammo. Men - large men, even - do much better at carrying large amounts of ammo and sprinting while carrying heavy loads. This is one reason infantry has a minimum height requirement.

b. Specifically, you might notice that the man with the camera in this video is running low on ammo. What if the squadmate he has as an ammo carrier couldn’t quite carry as much ammo or water? You might also notice they toss some grenades at one point.

This combat video is from a different unit in a different situation : M240B HELMET CAM AMBUSH - YouTube

But it’s the same physical requirement - carrying full load, which includes ammo, water, and body armor and is going to be at least 80 lbs, or ~60% of the body weight of a fit woman or just 30%-40% of the body weight of a large, fit man for miles. It then involves needing to sprint for cover or else you are shot, and then lots more playing Battleship blind with the enemy.

Here’s another one : SPECIAL FORCES HELMET CAM FIREFIGHT | FUNKER530 - YouTube

As a side note, the Rangers are essentially tier 2 special forces. Delta Force is the Army’s version of tier 1. Also you might notice, again, in modern combat it’s about firing semi-blind as much ordnance as possible. In this one they unload M203 grenades and an AT4. Those are both extremely heavy (a large quantity of grenades is). Explosives and rocket propellant are heavy because this is the best chemistry can do. (if you made them lighter either they will be less effective or more likely to explode spontaneously)

Conclusion : Real combat is not a place you want a weak link. And it involves a number of tasks that the optimal person able to do them needs both physical endurance and also high peak strength, simultaneously. For women to reach this level of strength, they’d generally need to be given growth hormone all through puberty (to enlarge their skeleton) and then do a lot of steroids. Neither of which are currently legal and both carry serious medical consequences.

[Poysyn]

@Marcus_Flavius

It’s a fact of nature that women can’t perform on the same level physically as men, and women should be barred from entryto ranger school for that reason alone. However, there’s a deeper problem that I don’t see getting much attention- the fact that women dissolve social dynamics in all-male groups. When you integrate women into all male groups, that group will become less cohesive and operate less effectively. The men will become less cooperative and more hostile towards each other. Also, inevitably, the women will start demanding for rules and policies to be enforced that make them feel more “comfortable,” and further their own interests. It happens every time. But in the 21st century Western wold, and especially America, we’ve reached a point of total confusion and delusion about the nature of the sexes. We deliberately lie to and delude ourselves to protect women’s feelings and to prop up the fantasy of “equality.”
Placing women in combat roles is an unwise move, even if they can meet the physical standards. A soldier cannot be reduced down to a set of numbers on a PT chart.

At first, I thought your post was merely misogynistic, but it’s also anti-male since apparently, they lose all control around women.

I have tried a few times, I will try once more - women have already made it into SOF in Canada, and they are doing well. The standards were not lowered. Unit cohesion was not affected.

Must be end days.

[Marcus_Flavius]

@slash2k

So you’re saying that men have to be protected from being around women, because otherwise they’ll lose their psychological stability?

@Poysyn

At first, I thought your post was merely misogynistic, but it’s also anti-male since apparently, they lose all control around women.

My point was not that men lose their minds around women. My point was that placing females into all-male groups will degrade overall morale, as well as any sense of brotherhood that drives men to risk their lives for each other.

[Marcus_Flavius]

Not to mention that women will bring with them their political correctness and wagging fingers that prevent men from being men, and will demand that policies be put into place that protect them and make them feel “safe.”

[Icerigger]

NVA soldiers did not carry 100 lbs of gear yet they were effective soldiers, yes? I am so sick of this argument, look up the female partisans in Yugoslavia in WW2.

[slash2k]

@Marcus_Flavius

My point was not that men lose their minds around women. My point was that placing females into all-male groups will degrade overall morale, as well as any sense of brotherhood that drives men to risk their lives for each other.

My point was that you are arguing that placing females into all-male groups causes the men in those groups to lose their focus and their sense of purpose and drive, lowers their morale, and degrades their psychological stability such that they are no longer willing to do the job they trained to do. If men are that easily disturbed, that’s not exactly an argument for having them in elite units in the first place.

Or do you not really mean to be arguing that in the first place?

[Kobal2]

@Marcus_Flavius

Not to mention that women will bring with them their political correctness and wagging fingers that prevent men from being men, and will demand that policies be put into place that protect them and make them feel “safe.”

You’ve never even *seen *a female soldier, have you ? :rolleyes:

[Ludovic]

@Kobal2

You’ve never even *seen *a female soldier, have you ? :rolleyes:

just look at popular culture, even in fiction, all the female soldiers are just looking for the men to protect them and definitely are not orders of magnitude more tough than the average civilian man.

[Poysyn]

@Marcus_Flavius

Not to mention that women will bring with them their political correctness and wagging fingers that prevent men from being men, and will demand that policies be put into place that protect them and make them feel “safe.”

Yes. Now that you mention it, so much time on Basic Training and Infantry Phase one digging a special area for me to sleep and feel safe in…why they had to special order my pink digital camouflage!

Ridiculous. There was no degradation or special requirements for me to feel safe. We have a job to do, and we do it - I know, it seems crazy, right?

It is unfortunate, that in a time of fewer and fewer people joining (and staying) in the military, you feel that we should automatically exclude 51% of the population because they have different genitalia.

Maybe you are projecting? Do you find yourself having to be reminded constantly not to sexually assault women you work with?

If so, seek help.

[tomndebb]

@Poysyn

If so, seek help.

Let’s stick to the topic and avoid personal attacks.

[ /Moderating ]

[BigT]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

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.

In any situation where that is the case, common sense is not the solution, either, since common sense is going to be influenced by our inherent biases. If you can’t test the exact thing in question, you test something similar. And, if you can’t do that, you fall back on equality.

90% of the time, anything we thought only men could do, it turns out women can, too. So that is the null hypothesis.

As for the OP: I am not for lowering the requirements just to get women in. I am, however, for making sure the current requirements are necessary. If they are, fine. If they aren’t, then put them where they should be.

If the job really requires things that women can’t happen to do, that’s not sexist. If the job has false requirements that exclude women, that is sexist. It may not be intentional, but even unintentional sexism should be fixed.

The results of making the requirements fit the job may seem like it’s pandering to women, but it’s not. It’s just making sure that you do actually get the best people for the job at hand.

The whole reason why sexism and such are wrong is because they lead to bad outcomes. Sexism means that a woman who could do the job better than a man may be excluded. Avoiding sexism doesn’t mean that unqualified women should get in.

[outlierrn]

@BigT

In any situation where that is the case, common sense is not the solution, either, since common sense is going to be influenced by our inherent biases. If you can’t test the exact thing in question, you test something similar. And, if you can’t do that, you fall back on equality.

90% of the time, anything we thought only men could do, it turns out women can, too. So that is the null hypothesis.

As for the OP: I am not for lowering the requirements just to get women in. I am, however, for making sure the current requirements are necessary. If they are, fine. If they aren’t, then put them where they should be.

If the job really requires things that women can’t happen to do, that’s not sexist. If the job has false requirements that exclude women, that is sexist. It may not be intentional, but even unintentional sexism should be fixed.

The results of making the requirements fit the job may seem like it’s pandering to women, but it’s not. It’s just making sure that you do actually get the best people for the job at hand.

The whole reason why sexism and such are wrong is because they lead to bad outcomes. Sexism means that a woman who could do the job better than a man may be excluded. Avoiding sexism doesn’t mean that unqualified women should get in.

Well said.

[DrDeth]

@BigT

As for the OP: I am not for lowering the requirements just to get women in. I am, however, for making sure the current requirements are necessary. If they are, fine. If they aren’t, then put them where they should be.

If the job really requires things that women can’t happen to do, that’s not sexist. If the job has false requirements that exclude women, that is sexist. It may not be intentional, but even unintentional sexism should be fixed.

The results of making the requirements fit the job may seem like it’s pandering to women, but it’s not. It’s just making sure that you do actually get the best people for the job at hand.

Exactly, the requirements need to be re-evaluated. And by a team that includes some tough female veterans, not just a sausage party.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@BigT

In any situation where that is the case, common sense is not the solution, either, since common sense is going to be influenced by our inherent biases. If you can’t test the exact thing in question, you test something similar. And, if you can’t do that, you fall back on equality.

This makes some sense if your overriding obsession is equality over actual results, and it’s not surprising that this approach would be popular in circles who adhere to that value system.

But if you think actual results are important too, then you need to weigh that more heavily in the balance and subjective expert opinion will count for a lot, even when you can’t do scientific tests to prove things one way or the other.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

This makes some sense if your overriding obsession is equality over actual results, and it’s not surprising that this approach would be popular in circles who adhere to that value system.

But if you think actual results are important too, then you need to weigh that more heavily in the balance and subjective expert opinion will count for a lot, even when you can’t do scientific tests to prove things one way or the other.

Do you think that subjective opinion can be marred by sexism? If so, do you think that can lead to suboptimal results?

Obviously I think the answer to both question is “yes.” If you disagree, can you explain why? If you agree, what do you think would be a good way to minimize the influence of sexism on a decision, such that the suboptimalization of the decision is minimized?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

“Yes” to both questions. (This should be obvious.)

That said, ignoring expert and experienced opinion is even more likely to lead to suboptimal results, and in addition, depending on what’s at stake, can lead to results which are far more suboptimal.

[msmith537]

@Poysyn

I disagree that no women can make it though. Of course there are women that can, maybe not EVERY woman, no, but it’s ridiculous to say none could.

A penis is not a required piece of kit for being a Ranger.

Apparently a couple of women graduated going back to 2015.

History in the making: 2 women will graduate from Army Ranger course | CNN...

It doesn’t say if they were later issued penises.

@Shodan

Because on the kinds of missions the Rangers are expected to fulfill, you are a lot more likely to shoot people than to bargain with them. For those missions, we want Rambo, not Dale Carnegie.

Besides, if you kill some people, it’s easier to negotiate with the rest.

Regards,
Shodan

Which may explain America’s track record with low-intensity conflicts since the 60s.

If some foreign army came into your town and killed a bunch of friends and/or family, would YOU be easier to negotiate with?

@Left Hand of Dorkness

This sort of flip comment is something that I suspect is a common actual belief among rangers, who aren’t selected much for their ability to negotiate with non-combatants. While in the short term it may lead to success, the US (and other powerful militaries, admittedly) has a long history of making enemies through just such thinking. If ranger school emphasizes not pissing off people who don’t need pissing off, that might be better for national interests, and for the next group of US soldiers who come through, or near, the same community.

My understanding is what you describe is more like what Special Forces (AKA “Green Berets”) would do. Speaking five languages and integrating with local cultures, acting as combat advisors, training insurgents and whatnot. Rangers, as I understand their mission, are more like elite light infantry used to perform missions like securing airports and taking down mountain strongholds.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

“Yes” to both questions. (This should be obvious.)

That said, ignoring expert and experienced opinion is even more likely to lead to suboptimal results, and in addition, depending on what’s at stake, can lead to results which are far more suboptimal.

I don’t think anyone is calling for ignoring expert and experienced opinion. I certainly am not.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

My comment (#114) was in response to a guy named BigT.

[Shodan]

@msmith537

Which may explain America’s track record with low-intensity conflicts since the 60s.

If some foreign army came into your town and killed a bunch of friends and/or family, would YOU be easier to negotiate with?

You get further with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.

… Rangers, as I understand their mission, are more like elite light infantry used to perform missions like securing airports and taking down mountain strongholds.

I don’t think any lack of success by the US is because the Rangers failed to negotiate their way into a mountain stronghold.

As you say, the Rangers are an elite combat unit, not a group of negotiators.

Regards,
Shodan