Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Women and the Rangers: Is the Experiment Worth It?
So I finished reading Marcus Luttrell’s Lone Survivor last night. Afterwards, I went online to look up the differences between the Navy Seals and Army Rangers. While googling Rangers, I came across this headline from just a couple of weeks ago: 19 Women washed out of Army Ranger School. That’s actually a good thing.
All 19 women who were allowed into Ranger school have failed to meet the standards necessary to become a Ranger. Now, the article points out that many men wash out of Ranger School. During the first four days, for example, 197 out of 381 men washed out along with 11 of the 19 women. The remaining 8 women continued to the next phase of Ranger school, but all washed out before getting to the leadership school’s mountain phase. Of these 8 women, 3 will be allowed to try again. (Many men who become Rangers washed out on their first attempt and then tried again.)
Gayle Lemmon, the article’s author, points out:
And now, they said, for the first time ever, women soldiers knew the standard from first-hand experience, so that the fittest and most committed could train to it with the knowledge that they could enter and potentially graduate from Ranger School.
I am glad that the Rangers applied the same standards to the women as the men (though, apparently, there are some already arguing that standards should be adjusted), and I do believe that a few super-Amazons might eventually pass the course. But I don’t think it’s worth the time and resources and possible complications of women soldiers serving in co-ed units to find those few wonder women.
I’m also old-fashioned, and dubious of the idea of women serving in any infantry combat positions, let alone elite special forces. I sympathize with the sentiment expressed by C.S. Lewis through the character of Father Christmas in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. After giving gifts to the Pevensie children, including a bow for Susan and a dagger for Lucy, he tells the girls they are only to use their weapons in great need and he does not intend for them to fight in the coming battle.
“Why, sir?” said Lucy. “I think – I don’t know but I think I could be brave enough.”
“That is not the point,” [Father Christmas] said. “But battles are ugly when women fight.”
Of course, all battles are ugly, but I feel society loses something when it deliberately puts women into close-quarters combat roles unless in greatest need.
What say you, Ricochetti? Is it a good thing that we are allowing women into Ranger school, provided the standards remain the same? Or is it just politically correct folly for the Army to be trying this experiment?
Published in General
I ran out of words (I only get 250) in my “background” comment. If it’s not cheating, I’ll comment a second time.
In response to “is it good” or is it “PC folly” (on the premise that standards are maintained), I’ll respond with a confident “I don’t know.” The “good” thing is that the services are holding firm on standards and that this seems to enjoy institutional support. I am not tracking a movement among service women to seek alteration of standards provided the standards have some semblance of relevancy to the mission/task. As I mentioned in my previous comment, however, the distraction issue is real (both hetero and homosexual), and it has had effects. The severity of the effects are the relevant measure, but I don’t know how to measure that even though the effects could in theory be catastrophic. However, the military tends more towards empiricism than theory, and in the case of the Air Force and gender integration that has been a good thing in my estimation – we tried it and it worked. Nevertheless, as an outsider I’m pretty skeptical that this would be good for a fighting infantry unit.
I’m an outsider, too, but I can report that it seems to work OK in Russian movies. It’s interesting how Russians (and Russian film) commonly deal in gender stereotypes that would be shockingly impolite even in Red-State America, yet they also continue to glorify the female soldiers and fighter pilots of WWII. (Combat films about Afghanistan show military females in more traditional roles.)
There is a dated documentary called “Navy Blues” that covered the challenges of gender integration in Navy aviation. What I recall was not a change of standards per se, but allowances for extra attempts and allegations of pressure to give passing grades. The documentary asserts that there was political pressure to get a female F-14 pilot certified. There’s a very sad ending to this tale on multiple levels, but I thought the documentary did a good job of showing the Tailhook fallout.
I agree with most of the above comments but still have one question. What about Joan of Arc? She wasn’t a grunt, but by the standards of the time a highly skilled commander. Maybe we could have an army in which the grunts are male, but some officers are female.
Joan of Arc did not, however, retire after a long career. Being a woman changed how the English saw her participation as well as her own army. They went after her with a vengeance.
Well, some females are officers already. . .do you mean have female combat arms officers who didn’t get see combat?
I once knew a Navy obgyn (he said he was one of the first combat gynecologists in the Navy). His opinion was that women should get nowhere near combat conditions, for health reasons related to hygiene. He said he actually had to prescribe showers for women, as infections and such were so common. And that was in the MidEast, where it was generally pretty dry; I would think it would be far worse in any sort of combat conditions where it actually got significantly muddy, let alone some of the swamps and jungles our forces get sent to.
It was interesting. I went to all male basic at Benning and then went to tech school at Gordon, and the guys from Jackson (coed) were generally not as capable.
But I could be biased against relaxin’ jackson.
It would be interesting to see comparative information on the guys in all male basic or coed basic per MOS choice.
Like never looking a female in the face in case she used EO as a weapon of malice? That kind of tailhook fallout?
I wrote on this on Australia’s ABC website. I don’t think they understood my argument, or I doubt that they would have published it.
The problem is that that the numbers are wildly disproportionate. If you assume that the cut-off for selection for soldiering is, say, the top 5%, then:
Of course, for special forces the cut-off is rather higher than the top 5% of males. The nature of normal distributions blow out those already daunting ratios.
But the politics are such that sooner or later someone will notice that despite the policy change there are still no women in the Rangers, and pressure will be applied. The only way to get them in will be to have two standards, or lower the general standard.
Well, that is heartening to hear. But I do worry that regardless of the study results the military will be forced/pressured to lower standards.
1. Back in the old days, I think about 1984, the Army spent countless dollars and man years (person years?) developing physical fitness standards directly related to each MOS. The theory: you don’t need to hold a parts clerk to the same standards of strength and endurance as a grunt. This investment was discarded because in part, it would be difficult to administer. This was the old Army’s attempt to prove the female MOS restrictions were based in practice, not prejudice. We no longer need that kind of science, we just order the Army’s leaders to get on board because the train is leaving the station.
2. How much does it cost to send someone to Ranger School? It’s comforting to know 1/3d of combat brigades are not rated fully ready, but we have more than enough funds for social science experiments.
There’s a piece of this that is going to bypass the normal civilian, but will make sense once stated. The integration of the combat arms is not really about social engineering writ large (though, if the Left can get it, hey, bonus). Instead, it is about breaking glass ceilings for the few women who desire to progress to the highest levels of command. Senior commands in the Army are the preserve of the combat arms, and those with advanced credentials such as Ranger school have a leg up. If these are barred to women, then the number of women who can be promoted as Generals is severely limited: they are competing for the 10% of general positions that are hard coded for the support trades. They certainly would not be given Divisional or Corps commands on the CV that are vital for getting that 4th star.
So, as applied to Ranger school, the social engineers don’t just need to find the 1 in 140,000 women that has the physical capability to pass, because they also need to get that women from among the 1 in 25,000 or so people overall that has the cognitive capacity to be a general. This means that the odds of getting that right woman to achieve their ends is a little better than 1 in 3.5 billion. Which means that there might be 2 of them on the planet. Possible, but I don’t like those odds.
Oh, one other piece: the 1 in 140,000 odds of finding someone with the physical capacity to pass Ranger school sounds about right to me. It’s possible- hey, just look at the female competitors in the CrossFit Games. The top dozen probably have just about the right makeup to pass Ranger school. Beyond that, no chance- and I base that on my own level of fitness: on a good day, my fitness level is around those girls placing around 20th-30th, outside of a few bodyweight exercises. But I also know that I wouldn’t have a chance to pass Ranger school. Those guys are beasts.
But you generally wouldn’t know it when you meet special force operators.
Yup. Had 2 guys on one of my early career courses who ended up going SOF, and then a guy more recently in my group on Command and Staff who just came out of SOF. Very understated guys. I’d still say that they’re beasts physically.
Keep in mind that joining the military means a loss of some of your civil rights. I’ve never heard of a lawsuit by a military member against their service.
One example of this might be medical malpractice by a military doctor on a member. While that military member might ask the military to court-martial the doctor, actually suing the doctor civilly and having him pay personal damages is not available to the member.
The same applies to class action lawsuits.
This is the answer!!!
Just for reference:
Minimum Scores
Recommended Scores
Tyr,
How many actually pass with the minimum? I mean: do they even make it past week (let me randomly select a #) 2? Or is the minimum just to get an audition?
Nobody passes with the minimum across the board. The point of the minima is that you have to be at least at that standard on each of the measures individually. Anybody who passes with any single score approaching the minimum usually has 2 or 3 scores that are well beyond the “recommended”.
@ comment #49
Those minimums are not too hard. Are you sure those are the mins? I’m 53 years old and I can still do all those except for the two running ones. I can’t quite meet those times.
Edit: Don’t know if I could hike 16 miles either or swim with gear.
They look to me to be about right to be minima. For reference, here are the minimums for Canada’s JTF2:
1.5mi run: 9:45
Pushup: 40 consecutive
Situps (60s): 40
Pullup: 5
1 Rep Bench Press: 65kg (143#)
get below any of those scores and you fail. It is a little more complicated than that, in that each of those scores gets you only 11 points, and you need 75 to pass overall (to my comment earlier that you need to over-perform on other measures if you’re approaching any minimum score). I am also led to understand that you need to be able to pull off those minimum scores pretty much at will, not only while fresh.
Also for reference, the following are the results you need to hit max score (30 pts per)
1.5mi run: 7:41
Pushup: 78
Situp: 78
Pullup: 24
1 Rep Bench: 160kg (352lbs)
The groundwork for doing away with separate facilities for women is pretty much laid, particularly in the public colleges and universities, and, in California, even elementary schools. Unisex restrooms are here. And I’m not talking about one-holers with a locking door. These are multiple stalls, notably lacking urinals. This weekend I did a show in a beautiful , modern theater complex on a college campus. The restrooms available for the guests were of the standard variety. Backstage, however, all the restrooms were unisex. The ones in the dressing rooms were complete with showers. The showers did have curtains.
Yeah, Dad was a JAG officer so he probably corrected me at the time. (Actually, his favorite way to “correct” me is just to look at me quizzically and wait for me to hear myself.)
It was simply shorthand for my actual question: Why haven’t these guys who “failed” (despite better fitness scores than many women who “passed”) joined forces – – to fight a inequitable criteria that keeps them from . . . joining the Forces?
Women have achieved great success by banding together to bring much-needed change and progress to places, people, policies, and institutions that popular wisdom once told them would always and ever be unassailable and immovable. So much success, in fact, that many self-proclaimed “feminists” my age or younger now have the luxury of hurling accusations, filing suits or just indulging in good old-fashioned whining over “bias” without feeling any obligation at all to employ outdated, oppressive, speech-smothering, artificial constructs like ”well-reasoned arguments,” “coherent thoughts” or (who can forget this old chestnut) “facts.”
I’m not saying your average group of guys will have anywhere near that kind of success rate but it might not hurt to at least glance over the ladies’ playbook and see if they can borrow anything useful.
They are called MRAs
All of SPare’s comment #43, especially this: Instead, it is about breaking glass ceilings for the few women who desire to progress to the highest levels of command. That is probably the most relevant point in the entire comment thread. In order to break that ceiling, they will diminish what it means to wear a Ranger Tab. They’ll keep the standards tough for a while but eventually the progressive social engineers will succeed in forcing them lower until they get their Rangerette. I would not be at all surprised if Obama pinned her tab on before he leaves office. If not him, then President Hillary. Won’t that be special? Sorry but this is kind of personal for me. I got mine 31 years ago this very week, Ranger Class 8-84, RLTW.