Women as Army Rangers and Navy Seals by 2016

[Kleves]

@ Meri:

Would you be fine with the military setting standards that would result in very few (if any) women being able to make the cut?

[11B4V]

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.

so does the FBI and ATF

https://www.fbijobs.gov/11131.asp

http://www.atf.gov/careers/special-agents/physical-task-test.html#footnote-1

[Admiral Yi]

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

It would require a radical shift in attitudes about gender equality on the part of the American people.

[Phillip V]

They want women in special operations by 2016 to boost Hillary Clinton's chances.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

Take 11B's answer below yours and combine it with Alfred's observation earlier about the purposes of basic Army fitness standards, relating to those specialties where women can now participate.  Presumably the reason the armed forces has fitness requirements for medics or transport pilots or logistics officers is not because the ability to perform powerful physical feats is key job function.  Rather the DOD just wants to make sure that everyone in the forces is reasonably physically fit.  Equal treatment on that plane requires taking into account the physiological differences 11B talks about.  The number of pushups a reasonably physically fit woman can perform is arguably an indicator of less than adequate physical fitness is a man.

But where that arguably breaks down is if there are certain jobs - let's say being an Army Ranger - where a base level of mimium absolute physical performance is a strict necessity and/or there is a clear correleation between being able to do chinups or speedy 5 miles runs and job performance.  I am not in a position to assess whether that is true and what jobs it would apply to.

[11B4V]

They want women in special operations by 2016 to boost Hillary Clinton's chances.

The Sea Hag needs to go away. 

[11B4V]

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.

Yi and MM hit it on the head IMO. See were I post differing standards for male/female in the ATF/FBI, so it's not just the military.

[alfred russel]

I'm curious about the standards....

The Ranger School standards were posted earlier. But this website says:

To be competitive in any of these physical tests, the future Ranger students must not strive for the minimum standards above, but must maximize their personal physical effort and strive for the following:

- Pushups - 80-100
- Situps - 80-100
- Chin ups - 15-20
- 2 mile run - under 13:00

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-special-operations/army-ranger-school-prep

The difference between the standards and what I just posted is obviously huge. I want to cry thinking about trying to achieve those.

[11B4V]

I'm curious about the standards....

The Ranger School standards were posted earlier. But this website says:

To be competitive in any of these physical tests, the future Ranger students must not strive for the minimum standards above, but must maximize their personal physical effort and strive for the following:

- Pushups - 80-100
- Situps - 80-100
- Chin ups - 15-20
- 2 mile run - under 13:00

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-special-operations/army-ranger-school-prep

The difference between the standards and what I just posted is obviously huge. I want to cry thinking about trying to achieve those.

It's telling you not to prepare for just the minimum, because that wont cut it. It is very true. It is also one of the best weight loss courses concieved  . I went in the summer and you know what the SE US is like. I started at around 215 lbs and after 76 days weighed 173 lbs. I was cut like a mother fucker, but was weak as hell. A 35 lbs ruck was smoking my ass in last phase.   

This is why. An example I posted earlier.

How we did it at Camp Rogers.

Do them to fast; I tell you to slow down and none will get counted until you slow down. That is only said once you get past the first ten (see above).

The speed they should be done at, is a cadence roughly when you say to yourself, "I go down and break the plane and i come up and lock my arms". Yes you will break the plane.

The infamous " one, two, three, four, five,...etc till ten (see above). Then it turns into eleven, eleven, eleven, twelve, twleve, thirteen, fourteen, fourteen...etc, till you reach muscle failure prior to 49 because your all fucked up anyway (a favorite technique this one is). Then it's to the back of the line.

and that is on day 1.

When I was at Camp Rogers as an RI, it was a 12 mile road march in 3 hours. A retestable event at that time to be sure.  How did we retest...I'll tell ya.

On a 1/4 circular track. Talk about a mind fuck, eh. How many times was that?

[alfred russel]

Thanks for clarifying that.

Those standards posted as minimums: not impressive for our guys that are supposed to be the best of the best.

Those standards I posted are badass. I know you explained that they mess with you on the minimum standards, but seeing recommended standards is relatable. You made it through? I'm saluting you from my computer desk, that is intense.

In the advice on the website they recommend going in a bit heavy because you won't be able to keep weight on.

[11B4V]

Thanks for clarifying that.

Those standards posted as minimums: not impressive for our guys that are supposed to be the best of the best.

Those standards I posted are badass. I know you explained that they mess with you on the minimum standards, but seeing recommended standards is relatable. You made it through? I'm saluting you from my computer desk, that is intense.

In the advice on the website they recommend going in a bit heavy because you won't be able to keep weight on.

True fact. 

The PT test I took at my unit prior to leaving for the school, I did mid 70's in push-ups, high 80's in situps, and in the high 12's for the run IIRC. At the time I was staioned in Wildflecken a rather "Hilly" region in germany, so i wasnt worried about the endurance so much. Loved doing long runs around the Wildflecken area. Served well in the Mountain phase of the school.

[grumbler]

The current Ranger minimums are designed to wash people out, not designed to eliminate all but those physically fit to be Rangers.  You could have the same "top 30% of the Army" or whatever washout minimum for women, and that wouldn't be changing any standards.

The problem will come when the Army has to stop and actually think about what the minimum standards are, not to prove you are badass enough to be considered, but for actually performing the job.  From what friends have told me about their Ranger deployments, it sounds as though upper body strength was an incredibly important attribute.  badass or not, it will be a rare woman with that kind of upper-body strength.

[merithyn]

@ Meri:

Would you be fine with the military setting standards that would result in very few (if any) women being able to make the cut?

If the job requires certain physical standards, then it requires certain physical standards. Whether you're male or female should be irrelevant.

But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements. To date that seems to be the limitation in the US.

[11B4V]

@ Meri:

Would you be fine with the military setting standards that would result in very few (if any) women being able to make the cut?

If the job requires certain physical standards, then it requires certain physical standards. Whether you're male or female should be irrelevant.

But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements. To date that seems to be the limitation in the US.

It's not irrelevent.

[merithyn]

If the job requires certain physical standards, then it requires certain physical standards. Whether you're male or female should be irrelevant.

But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements. To date that seems to be the limitation in the US.

It's not irrelevent.

I know, and that has to change.