Final 8 females at Ranger School fail Darby Phase again, 3 to restart from beginning

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by lowendlinux, Jun 1, 2015.

  1. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #1
    http://www.stripes.com/news/army/fi...se-again-3-to-restart-from-beginning-1.349755

    I think if the Army is serious about integrating women into combat rolls they're going to have to address the peering issue somehow.

    This Captain obviously has the physicality to make it and 7 months of train up should be enough to get through Benning.
     
  2. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #2


    That last statistic suggests, to me at least, that while the Ranger School is no doubt extremely physically challenging, that at least some of the superbly conditioned female soldiers ought to have been able to pass the course. And that the likelihood of bias in the peer-ranking process that caused their failure seems high.

    I'll confess to a little unease over the prospect of women in some combat specialties. If the military can address issues like billeting and bathrooms, I've got no problem with female tank drivers or helicopter pilots, submarine commanders or artillery loaders.

    But at the very bloodiest, raggedest, stinkiest and nastiest end of the spear? SEAL and Special Operations ground combat units? Where the probability of capture is high; where resources may be extremely limited, and where small groups might have to live under horrendous conditions for days or weeks at a time?

    I believe in the social, economic, political equality of women. But I don't believe men and women can ever be the same.
     
  3. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #3
    I have reservations also but simply put Benning phase is the first phase and isn’t a whole lot more than a long suck fest.
     
  4. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #4
    If the women can hack it physically and mentally/tactically then I think they should be apart of any special forces team. Peer evaluations are an important part, but yeah the pessimist in me says there's a little bit of of the boys club being picky.

    One thing you got to give Capt. Kelly for is she doesn't give up easily. That trait is something that you want in your elite soldiers.
     
  5. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #5
    Women do not possess the same potential for physical athleticism as men, because they have a different hormonal predisposition. That is why traditionally men gravitate towards certain professions and the military is one of those.
    I do not think it is a good idea to have women serve in any military, but for the sake of equality they need to be given the same chance to pass the entry requirements.
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    There's a bit of an echo...maybe it's because I'm hearing the remnants of the patriarchy from the 50's?

    Women can be cops, firefighters, give birth, there is nothing physical preventing them from being soldiers. Ever seen women athletes? Far tougher than you or I.
     
  7. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #7
    Please explain to me then why they do not compete against men at sports events.
    I am very curious to hear that explanation. :rolleyes:
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    Because each of the major sporting leagues were set up decades ago and still harbor the ridiculous notion that hormones will prevent athletes from competing at similar levels.

    Are you going to tell me next that women shouldn't run marathons, or ride bikes, because their uterus may fall out? I'm asking because thats the exact same era your hormone argument is from.
     
  9. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #9
    That is just nonsense now. The top performance by men in sports are far superior to the top performance by women. (track and field records for example)
    Women have a lower percentage of muscle mass and are on average less able to perform. That is a fact.

    Yes. That is exactly my point. Their uterus will fall out and tits spray milk everywhere :eek:
     
  10. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #10
    Why in the world does that have any bearing on military service? It doesn't take Lebron James levels of athleticism to be a ranger. Are we going to go back to hormonal differences?
     
  11. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    standards should not change/be lowered to let anyone pass.
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    No, they shouldn't, and the article clearly states that they won't.

    But the problem here is that the failures had nothing to do with PHYSICAL ABILITY, as again clearly laid out in the article....yet some here seem to think that's the thing we should focus on.

    Nice tidbit here: "Had any of the women graduated, they would not have been able to join the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment, but would have worn the Ranger tab on their uniform." <- I wonder what that's about?
     
  13. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #13
    Yes, but they should be applied equally and without bias. Which it sounds like they're not, in this case.
     
  14. QCassidy352, Jun 1, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2016
  15. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #15
    The odd thing is from the article it sounds like your peer's opinion of you somehow factors into whether you will get a passing mark....that's exactly how an "old boy's club" functions. Anyone here have any understanding why popularity (which I'm sure is dressed up behind phrases like "strength, leadership, etc.") has any function in the military? :confused:
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #16
    On the first part, great.

    As for the underlined...why the **** are we even having this conversation? Why do men (and some women) continuously bring up athletic prowess when top level athletics are far and away beyond the requirements of these positions? No Ranger/Marine/SEAL team member has dedicated trainers, cooks, physicians looking to eek out that last tenth of a second on a sprint. What the hell does any of this have to do with military service? It just reeks of old dogma to me, especially because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand!
     
  17. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    .
    2 guys failed along with the women
     
  18. QCassidy352, Jun 1, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2016
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    It's nonsense in this discussion though. I expect this thread to derail into a macho man's echo chamber when certain posters show up. I've always seen this type of topic do that. Regardless of the seconds faster a man may be on the track, as you've stated that extreme end of the athletic scale is far beyond the requirements of service...so other than people that want to discuss men's "superiority" in regards to X or Y (which the reasoning for bringing up is usually a proaction issue) it really is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
     
  20. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #20
    I wondered about that as well, and was just discussing it here with our S1 staff. We don't understand doing something just to say you've done it.

    There are things in the physical makeup of a human body that allow men to outperform women. However, there are plenty of women who can outperform some men. It all depends on the standards. I've known lots of men who couldn't make it through basic. Just sayin.
     
  21. QCassidy352, Jun 1, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2016
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22

    It should be noted that my yelling is at the "royal" you, and not you as a poster. My apologies if you (rightfully so) thought it was directed at you, I used posts as a springboard most of the time.


    Does anyone have any information as to why these women wouldn't be in the Ranger division if they passed? Are women not allowed or was the article saying that specific division wouldn't accept them?
     
  23. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    2 guys also failed as noted earlier, perhaps the women & the guys have the same thing in common.
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    Which brings us back to the "approval of peers" question. Why does that play a role at all unless its institutionally a structure to keep the pool full of certain homogenous traits?

    Does anyone have any insight to the weight of peer evaluation in these matters?
     
  25. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #25
    Even after reading back through the entire conversation twice, your reasoning still seems weird to me. Why would denying something be the default behavior? Women have less upper body strength on average, but this doesn't tell you anything about its distribution among women in the appropriate age bracket for enlistment. It also ignores non-combat roles and those that are demanding in different ways (eg the airforce).
     

Share This Page