Women as Army Rangers and Navy Seals by 2016

[11B4V]

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.

Why?

[Berkut]

But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements.

What about when the issue is not about meeting standard, but about choosing the best person to do a job, even if they both meet the basic standards?

Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.

Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.

Is it ok if we pick A over B, even if A is a man and B is a woman, and B is incredibly fit for a woman, say top 1% of all women in the military?

Does A get the job?

[Barrister]

But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements.

What about when the issue is not about meeting standard, but about choosing the best person to do a job, even if they both meet the basic standards?

Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.

Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.

Is it ok if we pick A over B, even if A is a man and B is a woman, and B is incredibly fit for a woman, say top 1% of all women in the military?

Does A get the job?

It does sort of beg the question of whether or not physical strength is the best and only means of measuring who would be the best green beret.

[Berkut]

But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements.

What about when the issue is not about meeting standard, but about choosing the best person to do a job, even if they both meet the basic standards?

Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.

Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.

Is it ok if we pick A over B, even if A is a man and B is a woman, and B is incredibly fit for a woman, say top 1% of all women in the military?

Does A get the job?

It does sort of beg the question of whether or not physical strength is the best and only means of measuring who would be the best green beret.

Only if you very carefully do not read my post.

[11B4V]

Candidate A should be picked. Whether male orfemale would be irrelevant.

[Barrister]

But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements.

What about when the issue is not about meeting standard, but about choosing the best person to do a job, even if they both meet the basic standards?

Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.

Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.

Is it ok if we pick A over B, even if A is a man and B is a woman, and B is incredibly fit for a woman, say top 1% of all women in the military?

Does A get the job?

It does sort of beg the question of whether or not physical strength is the best and only means of measuring who would be the best green beret.

Only if you very carefully do not read my post.

I very, very carefully read your post, and still ask the same question.

[The Brain]

But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements.

What about when the issue is not about meeting standard, but about choosing the best person to do a job, even if they both meet the basic standards?

Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.

Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.

Is it ok if we pick A over B, even if A is a man and B is a woman, and B is incredibly fit for a woman, say top 1% of all women in the military?

Does A get the job?

It does sort of beg the question of whether or not physical strength is the best and only means of measuring who would be the best green beret.

Only if you very carefully do not read my post.

I very, very carefully read your post, and still ask the same question.

Obviously the answer to your question is no, but the question doesn't take us forward does it?

[11B4V]

Berkut says,

Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.

Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.

I read that as everything thing else is equal between soldier a and b except the physical aspect.

So, soldier A is selected.

[Eddie Teach]

So what if Soldier A can do 10 more pushups, but Soldier B scores 5 points higher on an IQ test? What if Soldier C beats them both but has high cholesterol? These are pressing questions indeed. 

[Habbaku]

What's soldier D's credit score?

[Eddie Teach]

625

[11B4V]

625

Not a good candidate for a clearance. 

[The Brain]

Vector, Victor?

[Eddie Teach]

625

Not a good candidate for a clearance. 

Why do you think I left him out of consideration? 

[Ed Anger]

Dames are going to ruin this country.