In our current joke societies, we’re told that everybody is equal. The problem however is that a lot of people misunderstand what equality actually means in this context. Equality just means that we’re entitled to the same rights, protections, and opportunities as anyone else. Idiots however think it means that we all are exactly the same in every way and there therefore should be equality of outcome whenever multiple people attempt to do the same thing. Any time somebody fails at something, it’s only because someone else is oppressing them in some way, and not because of their own inability.
In the United States, several women have expressed interest in becoming army Rangers. The Rangers are the most elite of all soldiers and in order to become one, a candidate has to pass some very grueling physical and mental tests. Very few people are able to meet the standards necessary to become a Ranger, but those who do are considered “the best of the best”. So far, not one woman has been able to meet the standards necessary to become a Ranger. Rather than accepting the obvious reality, that we’re a sexually dimorphic species with different strengths and weaknesses, with men having natural biological advantages over women to meet the necessary criteria to become Rangers, feminists have instead decided to complain that the tests are sexist and that standards should be lowered to allow more women to pass.
On Friday, the Army is expected to announce that all the women who had attempted to graduate from Ranger School had officially failed to meet the standards, according to a military source.
Ranger School, which grooms the Army’s most elite special operations fighting force, opened its doors to women for the first time this year. Eight of the 20 women who originally entered the school’s first co-ed class were allowed to recycle through the program after they fell out in their first go-round. The Friday announcement will confirm that this happened again.
To many, this means the system is working as it should.
The Rangers are the best of the best, and being a Ranger means passing a physical test that pushes body and mind to the breaking point. If women can’t do it, the argument goes, then they shouldn’t be Rangers.
This of course makes perfect sense. If they physically can’t do it, they can’t do it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s no different than if a man who is out of shape can’t do it either. If they can’t meet the standards necessary, then they shouldn’t do it.
But there is another opinion quietly being voiced as well: that Ranger School is more akin to a rite of passage – an opportunity for men to “thump their chest,” as one Ranger puts it – than a realistic preparation for leading in war. That women can actually make Ranger units more effective. And that the standards that keep them out are outdated.
How is it outdated?
How can women make units more effective exactly? What is it about women specifically that could make them more effective to the Rangers than men? If we’re all supposed to be equal, then surely there’s no difference between us, and it doesn’t matter whether the new Rangers are men or women. All new Rangers will be equally able to make the Rangers more effective. Or is this just another case of doublethink where you hold the contradictory views that we’re all exactly the same, yet there are differences between us which necessitates the need for female Rangers?
Please explain your arguments rather than just making these bullshit feel good comments.
It is an opinion, perhaps surprisingly, that comes from two current Rangers.
This is the sort of suggestion that has long been guaranteed to create a robust outcry in many soldierly quarters – one that involves, put most politely, the charge that this would amount to lowering standards in order to meet some goal born of political correctness.
And I agree with that line of thought
It isn’t a way of thinking likely to gain great traction anytime soon. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army’s top officer, made this clear during a breakfast with reporters Thursday. While praising the performance of the women at the Ranger School, he added: “I’m actually fairly adamant about not changing the physical standards.”
Now just watch as this guy is attacked by a bunch of demented harpies for being a misogynist.
But a discussion is percolating.
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times this week that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. “First, we’re going to make sure there are standards. Second, that they are gender-neutral, and third, that they have something to do with the job,” he said.
- There are indeed standards.
- They are gender neutral already. They are simply the mental and physical standards necessary to become a ranger and perform the duties that position entails. If you don’t have the physical strength necessary to carry a 200 pound wounded comrade to safety from the battlefield, you wouldn’t be an effective ranger. That has nothing to do with being a man or a woman. It’s just how things are.
- See above. It has everything to do with the job.
It is increasingly men who are doing the talking about standards because, they say, they’ve trained in the schools, served in the field, and they believe it’s the right thing to do.
“Of course women don’t want to change the standard – they don’t want to be accused of lowering it,” says Col. Jason Amerine, a Ranger and West Point graduate. “And men don’t want to change it either, because it lets us thump our chest.”
As a result, “women will always fight to meet the male standard, even if it’s arbitrary and kind of stupid,” he adds. “I’m often pretty horrified at the adversity they face, while they keep their mouths shut and deal with it.”
So if women are willing to try and meet the standards as they are, then what’s the fucking problem? Who is complaining exactly?
And how exactly is it arbitrary and stupid? You’re not actually explaining why the current standards as they exist are flawed. You’re just making a baseless statement and expecting people to believe it.
Other agree that the time has come for a conversation.
“I think it’ll be contentious, but I think it’s equitable and sensible to ask the question about what are the [Ranger School] standards that are only related to the fact that only men have ever done it,” says retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, who served as the top commander of United States forces in Afghanistan, as well as three tours in Army Ranger battalions.
What’s more, “it needs to be a Ranger qualified leader,” he adds, one with “intestinal fortitude” to ask: “What’s the ‘secret sauce’ of Ranger School? How do you not dilute that, but make sure the standards make sense?”
I’m sure leadership is an important part of it, and I’m not saying women can’t be leaders, but it’s not the only part of it that matters. Being able to survive in enemy territory, being able to overpower enemy combatants, being able to carry wounded comrades to safety etc. are all potential scenarios that Rangers may need to engage in. Therefore they should be capable of doing all these things.
This argument is less about gender equity than the firm belief that women can make Ranger battalions better. In modern warfare, relations with local populations are crucial, and women Rangers would provide unique value added in places such as Afghanistan or Iraq, where cultural norms often prohibit contact between male soldiers and women. Ranger School also showed women were innovative problem-solvers who offered fresh approaches in the field.
First of all, thanks for actually admitting the obvious truth…that there are differences between men and women (though of course being the spineless coward that you are, you only focus on the areas that women are superior in while continuing to ignore the areas that men are superior in). Second of all, if it’s really that important to have women to perform certain roles, then why not create another position for women then that utilises these talents then? Instead of making them Rangers, and sending them on Ranger missions, make them something else, and send them to perform duties that they are more suited for. How fucking hard is this to figure out?
On the battlefield itself, they have proven themselves. While at war, Colonel Amerine says, “I was rarely with female soldiers who couldn’t hang.”
The average soldier is not the same as a Ranger. I’m sure they could perform just fine as soldiers. It doesn’t mean they’re suitable to be Rangers, anymore than the average male soldier who performs his duties just fine.
To him, this raises the question of what Ranger School is actually about. As new technologies potentially make raw physical strength less important, the real challenge, many say, becomes bringing women’s leadership skills into the upper echelons of the armed forces.
Please explain what makes women’s leadership skills specifically so good that you need them instead of men? Are they somehow automatically superior in leadership roles than men? Can you provide evidence to support this?
Also, what are these new technologies that make physical strength less relevant? Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no possibility in the future than Rangers will not be in a situation which necessitates superior physical strength? Because unless you can 100% guarantee that greater physical strength will never again be necessary, why take the chance? Are the feelings of these women more important than their lives, or the lives of their comrades?
For Col. Jason Dempsey, a fellow Ranger and West Point graduate, this points to a need for “reassessing what war-fighting is, and what’s really important,” he says, rather than “having 100,000 guys who are essentially pack mules.”
Ranger School could be made better, says Amerine, who was awarded a Bronze Star with “Valor” for Special Forces action in Afghanistan in the opening days of the war, and is currently under whistleblower investigation by the Army for criticizing US hostage rescue policy (Amerine has served on special forces hostage rescue missions).
“Nobody is saying, ‘Are the standards kind of stupid?’ ” he adds. “What’s interesting is that no one had this much love for the standards when it was only men.”
I’m sure they didn’t, but that’s human nature because nobody likes having to endure rigorous testing. I don’t like having to do assignments or exams in college but whether I like it or not, I have to be able to do them well in order to show my competency to perform tasks for an employer. It just has to be done.
As it stands today, Ranger School involves, say, “carrying 60 or 70 pounds on your back and walking for 12 miles – it’s not brain surgery,” Colonel Dempsey says.
But it is potentially something that will have to be done when on a mission. Hence, it’s necessary to be able to do it.
Despite this, “Any effort to change that is ‘changing the standard.’ ”
The question, he adds, is: Are these standards a fair measure of the challenges of combat?
Dempsey recalls being in violent Kunar province in Afghanistan and hiking up to the rugged Pakistan border. Along for the mission was a male first sergeant who was also a Ranger-tabbed Golden Gloves boxer. The unit had to stop for the first sergeant because he needed to rest during the strenuous march.
“No one’s going to say that the first sergeant is a deadbeat. We need him, and we’re just going to take a break.”
On other occasions, he adds, the combat patrols would simply make the decision not to bring along their heavy packs.
“The equipment we carry is just insane,” Amerine says. “We all have back injuries at the end of our careers.”
The No. 1 Department of Veterans Affairs claim – made by 58 percent of all claimants – is muscular-skeletal injuries.
“If we really are serious about integrating the force, the equipment we carry is going to be one of the things we have to have a hard conversation about,” Amerine says. “It’s in our grasp technologically to make things a lot lighter.”
So maybe when you change the equipment, you can change the standards. Right now, you’re putting the cart before the horse. As long as that equipment is carried, you need to be able to carry it. When the weight of the equipment is lowered, you can lower the standard to reflect the new weight. Why is this so hard to figure out?
Take away brute strength as one of the pillars of Ranger School, and its purpose begins to preparing Army soldiers to be excellent leaders, which has long been the promise of Ranger School, he adds.
Could they not just train to be leaders by earning a commission and steadily rising through the officer ranks? Isn’t that the whole point of becoming an officer? Officers are the leaders.
In that context, the Ranger pass-fail rates look different. After West Point invested four years building the men in Amerine’s class into leaders, “All of us were expected to go to Ranger School, and all of us were expected to pass,” he says.
But that’s not true of women, “and I have a problem with that,” he adds. “I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with that structure.”
What he remembers from the six months it took to get his Ranger tab was that “my feet didn’t feel the same for literally two years,… but I can’t honestly say I learned much.”
“If Ranger School is actually about teaching soldiers how to lead and how to fight, then maybe the rite-of-passage aspect of it needs to be lightened,” he says. It might make more sense to figure out “what is the standard for serving in combat, then deal with the rite of passage.”
I’m sure the standard for serving in combat is actually being able to engage in combat. That could very easily include hand to hand combat. Therefore, an ability to hold your own in hand to hand combat and defeat your opponent is necessary. Having the physical strength necessary to overpower your opponent would obviously help in this situation.
For now, there’s no indication that the Army is even considering such a move. But neither is it considering closing off women from trying for their Ranger tab.
“We’ll probably run a couple more pilots,” General Odierno said. “I don’t think we’re going to give up on it.”
Please just give up on it. It’s a stupid idea.
This is what political correctness has led to. They want to believe that we’re all equal but the problem is that some people are naturally better at some things than others. It’s physically impossible to raise the inferior to the level of the superior so the only way that equality can be reached, is to lower the superior to the level of the inferior. And this is exactly what they’re doing because reaching equality and making sure nobody has their feelings hurt is more important than anything else, no matter what.
This really is incredibly stupid.