Women as Army Rangers and Navy Seals by 2016

[Ed Anger]

I get all sweaty thinking about doing one push up.

[Neil]

I get all sweaty thinking about doing one push up.

There's no shame in that.  Just think of yourself as handi-capable.

[crazy canuck]

Again read what has been posted.

I have read it   Your argument is that no female could possibly meet the standard based on assumptions based on average test scores.  Rather odd given the fact there are always outliers who could meet the male standard.

[crazy canuck]

I get all sweaty thinking about doing one push up.

These are the non sexual kind

[Valmy]

Again read what has been posted.

I have read it   Your argument is that no female could possibly meet the standard based on assumptions based on average test scores.  Rather odd given the fact there are always outliers who could meet the male standard.

That was not his argument.

[crazy canuck]

Again read what has been posted.

I have read it   Your argument is that no female could possibly meet the standard based on assumptions based on average test scores.  Rather odd given the fact there are always outliers who could meet the male standard.

That was not his argument.

I will break it down for you.  He has argued that the military must necessarily provide a lower standard for females because holding them to the same minimum standards as males would be unequal.  He comes to this conclusion in part from an observation that certain of the male standards would be over 100% of what a female can do.

The fatal flaw in his argument is that the special forces could, if valid, make a case that the male standard is the minimum standard which both males and females must now meet.

[Ed Anger]

I get all sweaty thinking about doing one push up.

These are the non sexual kind

I just lay there then.

[Valmy]

I will break it down for you.  He has argued that the military must necessarily provide a lower standard for females because holding them to the same minimum standards as males would be unequal.  He comes to this conclusion in part from an observation that certain of the male standards would be over 100% of what a female can do.

The fatal flaw in his argument is that the special forces could, if valid, make a case that the male standard is the minimum standard which both males and females must now meet.

He was saying this was what has been done in the past and based on that this is what he suspects will happen in the future.  Now he could be wrong, as you say, but he never said no woman could ever meet the standards which is what you said he said here:

I have read it   Your argument is that no female could possibly meet the standard based on assumptions based on average test scores.  Rather odd given the fact there are always outliers who could meet the male standard.

Which is the part that was not his argument...so far as I could see.

[Jacob]

I just lay there then.

Might as well enjoy it.

[Valmy]

I just lay there then.

Might as well enjoy it.

Ah Clayton Williams, your fame is everlasting.

[11B4V]

Again read what has been posted.

I have read it   Your argument is that no female could possibly meet the standard based on assumptions based on average test scores.  Rather odd given the fact there are always outliers who could meet the male standard.

No again.

[The Minsky Moment]

I will break it down for you.  He has argued that the military must necessarily provide a lower standard for females because holding them to the same minimum standards as males would be unequal.  He comes to this conclusion in part from an observation that certain of the male standards would be over 100% of what a female can do.

That is what I thought he was saying as well, but now I understand it is not so. 
I think he is saying that the Ranger Physical exam is based on earning a certain number of "points" in defined physical tasks.  Under the existing Army Physical regs, for some of those tasks "70 points" corresponds to a different raw number (time., # of reps) for men and women.  So for those tasks, the standard is already lower for women under the existing regulations.  Right now, that doesn't matter for Ranger qualification because women aren't eligible but if that rule is changed it would be become relevant.

[crazy canuck]

Ok,

Glad you could put his argument better.

Here is a question for you Minsky.  Under American law how can there be two separate minimum standards - one for women and one for men?  Under Canadian law a considered decision would have to be made as to the minimum standard for a given activity and that standard would be applied to both men and women equally.

[11B4V]

Ok,

Glad you could put his argument better.

Here is a question for you Minsky.  Under American law how can there be two separate minimum standards - one for women and one for men?  Under Canadian law a considered decision would have to be made as to the minimum standard for a given activity and that standard would be applied to both men and women equally.

Glad you can understand it.

How? Males and Females are not the same in physical ability/or physilogy. No amount of PC BS will change that. Generally males have more upper body strength, hence why the low standards for the females on the push-ups. Sit-up standards are the same. Run is also lower for the females. Dont believe me look it up.

[merithyn]

Here is a question for you Minsky.  Under American law how can there be two separate minimum standards - one for women and one for men?  Under Canadian law a considered decision would have to be made as to the minimum standard for a given activity and that standard would be applied to both men and women equally.

Glad you can understand it.

How?

By making the standards job-dependent, not gender-dependent. In other words, the requirements to do the job are the only way to judge the standards.

That seems to make the most sense, though it requires a radical shift in attitude in the military, which doesn't come easily.