Women as Army Rangers and Navy Seals by 2016

[Berkut]

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.

But this begs the question of...oh never mind.

[merithyn]

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?

The best person for the job should get the job, regardless of gender, race, sexual preference, etc. If the job is based solely on physical ability (though I can't imagine that is the case for Navy Seals anymore than it is for Quarterbacks), then the person who is most physically able to do the job should get the job.

Generally speaking, there's more to it than just physical ability, though. It is one criteria of many. Mental accuity, emotional strength, etc., are usually an important aspect of doing the job, too. The problem comes in when the assumption is that a man will be smarter and more emotionally capable than a woman simply because of gender stereotypes.

The problem, from my perspective, is that society has a very difficult time divorcing gender from the equation. If Soldier A is physically superior to Soldier B, but isn't nearly as intelligent as Soldier A is, should Soldier A still get the job over Soldier B? I don't think so, and yet, if Soldier A is a man and Soldier B is a woman, the instinct is to give the job to Soldier A because physically, he's more powerful, even though he would likely cause serious harm due to stupid mistakes that Soldier B wouldn't have made.

This is not, imo, a man vs woman thing. This is about giving the best person the job with zero regard for gender. I just don't see that happening in my lifetime, however, and people like 11B4V is why. They cannot divorce gender from the equation.

[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.

Why?

Because a person's gender has no bearing on their ability to do the job?

[merithyn]

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.

The thing is, while these scenarios are great for discussion, they are rarely found in real life. Finding two candidates who are equal in all aspects of a job's qualifications except one is exceptionally rare. The nuances are where the differences lie, especially when discussing special forces.

In your scenario, where everything is exactly even except strength, then Soldier A should be given the job. Given that is an unlikely scenario, however, I'm not sure of the point of this exercise.

[derspiess]

Because a person's gender has no bearing on their ability to do the job?

Women lack warrior instincts.  They can fake it sometimes & while that's cute & all, it doesn't win wars.

[Maximus]

 

[Eddie Teach]

One laughs, but that doesn't mean one disagrees. 

[Valmy]

Women lack warrior instincts.  They can fake it sometimes & while that's cute & all, it doesn't win wars.

I don't know.  Apache women were pretty good and shooting down our cavalrymen.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Yeah, that is really the point.  If the other minimums are arbitrary in the sense that they are not necessary for performing the job then they are not minimum standards in the legal sense.  If the Rangers do have a bona fide minium standard which everyone must meet in order to maintain combat effectiveness (which is likely) then that could be used for both women and men who wish to become rangers without the kind of double standards some here are concerned about.

As for how one establishes a bona fide minimum standard that translates into an objective physical test that is of course the trick.  Since our SCC decision which set the law regarding the creation of bona fide minimum standards a considerable amount of work has been done to develop such standards.  I assume the US military will have the resources to be able to produce such a standard if it is required.

[merithyn]

One laughs, but that doesn't mean one disagrees. 

I think he's laughing because of the two of us, I'm most definitely the one with the killer instincts.

[Maximus]

One laughs, but that doesn't mean one disagrees. 

One laughs at the monumental volume of bullshit/trollbait.

[Kleves]

The best person for the job should get the job, regardless of gender, race, sexual preference, etc. If the job is based solely on physical ability (though I can't imagine that is the case for Navy Seals anymore than it is for Quarterbacks), then the person who is most physically able to do the job should get the job.

Don't see a lot of female quarterbacks though, do you?

[crazy canuck]

The best person for the job should get the job, regardless of gender, race, sexual preference, etc. If the job is based solely on physical ability (though I can't imagine that is the case for Navy Seals anymore than it is for Quarterbacks), then the person who is most physically able to do the job should get the job.

Don't see a lot of female quarterbacks though, do you?

Not at the NFL level, but amongst younger children, when most girls are ahead of most boys in terms of physical development, girls clean up.  Years ago when I was coaching baseball I bored you all with stories of how my teams were going undefeated in part because few other coaches wanted girls on their teams.  I took as many as I could get because they were on average far more coordinated and stronger than the boys. 

[derspiess]

So since you coached baseball you're an authority on using girls as QB in youth football teams?

Anyway, in my day the girls who were let in to play baseball (rather than the more gender-appropriate sport of softball) were always the worst players.  Had to respect them because they had the guts to go out there every day in spite of the odds, but they were just awful.

[merithyn]

The best person for the job should get the job, regardless of gender, race, sexual preference, etc. If the job is based solely on physical ability (though I can't imagine that is the case for Navy Seals anymore than it is for Quarterbacks), then the person who is most physically able to do the job should get the job.

Don't see a lot of female quarterbacks though, do you?

Given that girls are forbidden from playing at the high school and college level in a lot of places, that's not so surprising, either.

I think you misunderstand my point, though how, since I've been pretty clear, is beyond me. I do not believe that women should be given jobs simply because they are women. I believe that the criteria for the job should be set so that the best person for the job can be given it. If physical prowess is the best criteria for the position, then you're not likely to find many women in that job. But to block them simply because they are women is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

What's happened up until now - and still continues to be a prevalent belief among many men as can be seen here - is that women should not, by the very fact that they do not have a dick, be given the opportunity to TRY for the jobs. If a woman is talented enough, strong enough, and capable enough to be a quarterback, she should be given the opportunity to tryout for the team. However, that's not the case, and that's where the breakdown occurs.