Here We Go!

[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

[Airbornelawyer]

MAJ Vicky Hudson said:
... hold a women-only training cycle.

That part of her argument I actually like. I am picturing it right now. Mud and rain and women in T-shirts...

[The Reaper]

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

No. It is a combat leadership school, primarily combat arms.


AL:

Steady, men, steady in the ranks there....

Guest Instructors?

TR

I resisted asking, maybe not long enough; what about the first female to make it through to the Royal Marines last year?
Were standards altered?

Just curious.

[Airbornelawyer]

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

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by ghuinness
I resisted asking, maybe not long enough; what about the first female to make it through to the Royal Marines last year?
Were standards altered?

Just curious.

Captain "Pip" Tattersal failed the course twice, in May 2001 and August 2001. She passed on her third attempt, in May 2002. I have no idea whether any material standards were altered. The course has a maximum of three bites of the apple for any candidate, so the fact that she got three shots is not itself an issue.

Among less material changes, though, when women were allowed to attend the course, training instructors were ordered to no longer use obscenities or make sexist jokes.

[Solid]

Thanks AL, appreciated as always.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
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 wrote all that crap, and I forgot to write my point, though I expect it was fairly evident. Since most Ranger School attrition is in the very areas where gender differences are the greatest, it is inevitable that women would fail at a much higher rate. The DACOWITS types would once again ignore reality, and call this higher rate evidence of discrimination. The only way to avoid the charge would be to lower the standard so the percentage of female APFT, run and road march drops would lower.

[Gypsy]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
The DACOWITS types would once again ignore reality, and call this higher rate evidence of discrimination. The only way to avoid the charge would be to lower the standard so the percentage of female APFT, run and road march drops would lower.

AL couldn't their own argument also be used against them? IE: DACOWITS feels women are equal and should be afforded the same opportunities. Thus it stands to reason that these "equally qualifed" women should be held to the same exacting standards that are set in place for the men that they are "equal" to. No?

[DanUCSB]

Originally posted by Gypsy
Thus it stands to reason that these "equally qualifed" women should be held to the same exacting standards that are set in place for the men that they are "equal" to. No?

Logically, yes. In the real world, no.

That being, this is what would happen: you would open it up under these terms, and women would flock in. They would, by and large, fail out, with a couple exceptions. This, as AL notes, would be blamed on further discrimination at first (phenomenon: if the women pass, then it's on their own merits, if they fail, it's because the RIs are discriminatory), then there will be grudging acceptance that women have physical differences from men.

At this point, logic would say, the experiment has failed and is to be discontinued. But under how politicians really work, they would scale down the standards to such an extent as women can pass the training. Why? Because, like in all parts of life, it's very easy to give someone something, but near impossible to take it away.

So we'll be stuck with a combat school dispensing substandard training, doing a disservice to both our servicemen and servicewomen. Just ask Kara Hultgren.

[Gypsy]

Thank you for the explanation of how it would probably play out Dan. Obviously I believe politicians need to stay out of this but they tend to try to placate their constituents without regard to consequences. It is best that RS and SF not be opened to women imho and with them being limited by MOS hopefully it will stay that way.

[CommoGeek]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
So we'll be stuck with a combat school dispensing substandard training, doing a disservice to both our servicemen and servicewomen. Just ask Kara Hultgren.

I had the good fortune to take a computer class with a former CO of the U.S.S. Forrestal, CV-59. This gentleman was a former NFO (Naval Flight Officer) from the Vietnam era. We discussed Hultgreen, Tailhook, and other facets about the military while on breaks from class.

He had no use for DACOWITS or for those that forced Hultgreen's instructors to pass her. To wit, the cadre at the RAG Squadron were "ordered" to see to it that she passed. Remember that she was an A-6 aviator that transitioned to F-14's. Her scores at almost all levels of training were substandard. She didn't fail once or twice, but repeatedly. This wasn't even a question of could a woman do the job or not, she couldn't do it at all. Were she a man, HE would've washed out, but because of the pressure at the time to have women as combat aviators she was pushed through. Her RIO almost paid the price for this; when he punched out he was at about a 60 degree angle to the horizon. Martin-Baker saved his ass.

Regardless of who you are, when the standards are bent to accommodate you, you've just screwed the rest of us. You may even get someone killed. Maybe I'm wired differently, but a badge or tab isn't worth that to me. I'll meet the tough, exacting standards or I won't. Should I fail I can sleep soundly at night knowing that only the best are watching over us, not those with a political agenda.

Okay, I'll shut up now.

Oh, as an aside while spell checking this I noticed that DACOWITS isn't listed but the suggested alternative is: DIMWITS.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
*. . .

_________________________________

* . . .

A footnote! I love it! LMFAO!

[larfive]

Quoted by NouisdefiousDoc


If I was her CSM, you'd be able to hear me kicking her ass still and yet for those assinine comments. Somebody needs to lock her heels up like the nuts on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Stupid Bitch

Ma'am

FUNNY SHIT

Doc you crack me up! Good post.

LarV