1
16

[–] daskapitalist 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

Good for them for graduating while maintaining the same high standards!

9
3

[–] fuck_communism 9 points 3 points (+12|-9) ago 

Except that the standards for ALL rangers were dropped when they knew women would be entering the program.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

18
-15

1
13

[–] Gerplunckamo 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

Good for them. I'm glad they didn't have to lower the standards to do it.

14
-12

0
8

[–] lissencarak 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Ranger Assessment and Selection Program Lowers Standards Source: http://sofrep.com/9028/why-are-standards-plummeting-in-the-ranger-assessment-and-selection-program/

If this fairly old article is any indication, standards have been dropping steadily so this current point can be reached. Basically, it seems like they have been dropping them until the president can get a politically correct check-mark for "fixing" the army. If anyone has some additional research on that, please link.

0
1

[–] Dontcensormebro 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

the reason is because they are downgrading every "non-essential" standard with the cover story that those standards are not helpful, when in actuality they were specifically picking out the ones that women can't pass.

9
3

[–] Dontcensormebro 9 points 3 points (+12|-9) ago 

the problem is that they downgrade the standards in anticipation of having women join that service in order to be able to say "hey, they met the standards." Women are not men and they never will be. This politically correct military is just ridiculous.

3
11

[–] reed 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago  (edited ago)

0
0

[–] Dontcensormebro 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/19/marine-corps-weighs-lower-standards-for-women-afte/?page=all

Yes, they do. "Gen. Dempsey laid down the law this way: “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”"

The way they get around it being a huge deal is they downgrade everybody's requirements and say the requirements weren't necessary for the job, but everyone knows that's actually bullshit and they are just cutting every corner they can to get more women in.

0
4

[–] Cybersoldier8 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I'm not exactly an expert in the field, but I can find sources from 2011 that show the exact same push up, chin up, sit up, and five mile run requirements. It looks like these women actually did it right.

0
2

[–] Ragnar1234 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I am all for being fair and equal, but I just don't see the value of continuing to push for women in combat roles. The military is not the place for social experiments. The military is supposed to defend the country. The leaders need to ask themselves "does this idea improve the fighting ability of our military?" If not then don't do it.

Lowering standards of a course or unit to pass women through a course does not improve the military's fighting ability.

And everyone should realize that for this first class the women they selected to attend the course are the best most physically fit women in the Army who may have been able to meet the strict standards of the course. Good for them, but what happens when less cherry-picked female students go through the school and washout in record numbers? Command will want to know why women aren't completing the course and incrementally lower the standards until the pass rate for women matches that for men. They have adjusted the physical standard for women everywhere else in the military, anyone who thinks they won't eventually do the same to the Rangers or SEALs is delusional.

4
2

[–] ShampocalypseWOW 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

Gender equality is not a good enough reason to open combat MOS's to women. Even if there were more than just a couple of women who could actually hack it, the logistics and planning that would then be required would be absolutely ridiculous compared to what is being added to whatever unit they are sent to. What is being added? Nothing. Not a goddamn thing, and that's the most optimistic view of it. There is simply no shortage of men willing to do those jobs and the average man will naturally be better capable of doing them, period. A woman cannot possibly hope to bring anything to the table that a man couldn't bring, except for the mere presence of a female for when certain sensitivity issues demand it, like searching and frisking women in parts of the world we like to pretend we actually give a shit about when it's politically convenient (we bomb whole families to dust, but we don't let our male soldiers search their homely women, because that would be too much!). So to get a few females who can do that one, very specific, very non-combat-related job, you would then need to factor them in to all logistics. That's not just lady needs gear, that's female bathrooms and showering facilities and sleeping facilities and female-specific gear (because body armor fits differently on men than they do on women because boobs). Aside from that, sensitivity would be forced into units that do better the less sensitivity they have, because they're soldiers and they are meant to kill and be killed, not care about feelings and offending people (which is why you should never send soldiers on "humanitarian missions", because that's retarded).

So yeah, these women have proven themselves to be pretty badass. But that doesn't mean they should be placed in combat units. They proved they can do what the boys do, so whoopie for them, but nobody really cares.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] ourgalfriday 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Over and over again, I hear this nonsense about "logistics," as though a female Ranger is going to need a separate place to go potty. Thank you for pointing out that it's bullshit.

0
1

[–] 96threpublic 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Gotta call bs on women being better marksmen. Gonna need some sauce for that.

1
1

[–] KleanRider 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Wow gratz.

0
0

[–] samsammich 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I wonder if the Navy has a similar plan for the SEALS

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)