Quote:
Originally posted by Solid
I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, but I was wondering-
For the sake of argument, if a woman can meet the physical and mental requirements (non-degraded) for, say, Ranger school, should she be allowed in?
Again, this isn't a rhetorical device, I'm honestly curious about the arguments for and against this.
Thank you,
Solid
|
A couple of observations:
1. The problem with hypotheticals is we live in the real world. Standards inevitably lower. 48% of Ranger attrition is in RAP, and most RAP attrition is physical preparedness (35% APFT, 28% 5-mile run, 2% road march, 14% swim test). Sit-ups, the one event where standards are the same for both genders, account for only 8% of APFT attrition. Push-ups, where the difference in standards is greatest, account for 69%. TR noted that 42 push-ups is the minimum for 17-21 year old males. The Ranger School minimum is 49, and RIs are notorious for enforcing the letter of FM 21-20 ("Ready...begin...that's 1...2...2...2...3...").
I have been to two schools that were mixed gender - BAC and OCS. In both, standards were lowered and corners were cut for female students. With the chin-ups before getting into the chow hall, one got to see that lowered standard three times a day.
2. Just because one "can" do something does not mean one should do something. Army training is not about individual opportunity, it is about creating units that will win wars.
Ranger School is primarily for training infantry leaders - that's why the Chief of Staff of the Army tightened the attendance policy in April 1997*. Prior to then, Ranger School was not limited by branch/MOS. From then to today, it is limited to infantry and special forces personnel, cavalry officers (and armor officers in cav positions), and combat engineer officers, artillery FSOs, ADA officers, 12Bs, 13Fs and 14Ss in direct support to infantry battalions. This policy change was also meant to reduce attrition - too many Ranger drops turned out to be non-infantry or combat arms soldiers who either weren't adequately prepared or motivated (it was a hooah school for them, not a part of their job).
Frankly, if the major is right and Ranger School is going to be just another combat leader's course, there is no good justification for keeping women out. Of course, by the same logic, we should close all other basic training courses and send everyone to Infantry OSUT.
_________________________________
* "The function of the U.S. Army Ranger Course is to develop the combat arms related functional skills of officer and enlisted volunteers who are eligible for assignment to units whose primary mission is to engage in the close-combat, direct fire battle. Attendance at Ranger School is linked to those who require the special skills developed at this course. The soldiers most likely required to possess these skills are those assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment; selected infantrymen in other than Ranger units at the infantry battalion and company level; Special Forces personnel at the A-Team level; Cavalry soldiers at the troop level; combat engineers who directly support infantry battalions at the company level; fire support personnel habitually associated in direct support to infantry battalions and air defense personnel habitually associated in direct support to infantry battalions." - GEN Shinseki