Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Another update on this subject, I would have utilized the last update thread but it is about 4 months old so probably not a good idea to rehash those old comments

ANYWAY

https://gma.yahoo.com/first-women-set-graduate-armys-grueling-ranger-training-074400475--abc-news-topstories.html#

2 woman are about to graduate as Rangers, success story!
except that 17 other females failed in the same class, leaving this experiment with a 10.5% passing rate while men have a 42% passing rate. They don't mention injuries but if it stays true to form from the other experiments it should be noticeably higher as well.

thoughts?

Good for them.

Hopefully we don't have a push to have women have different fitness standards so we have "equal representation", and a lacking in ability as a result, for the Rangers.

I think it's great. I've always felt that all roles should be open to women, and that the standards (as long as they reflect what is actually required in the real world in that role) should not be relaxed one bit. I'm glad that didn't happen here, and that they were able to pass it on their own merits.

Equality means equality, be it selective service being compulsory, be it opportunities, be it whatever.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Good for them.

Hopefully we don't have a push to have women have different fitness standards so we have "equal representation", and a lacking in ability as a result, for the Rangers.

Of course. Fair is fair and men are generally physically more suited for combat.

That said, there are still a fair few Briennes out there who should not be underestimated!

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Another update on this subject, I would have utilized the last update thread but it is about 4 months old so probably not a good idea to rehash those old comments

ANYWAY

https://gma.yahoo.com/first-women-set-graduate-armys-grueling-ranger-training-074400475--abc-news-topstories.html#

2 woman are about to graduate as Rangers, success story!
except that 17 other females failed in the same class, leaving this experiment with a 10.5% passing rate while men have a 42% passing rate. They don't mention injuries but if it stays true to form from the other experiments it should be noticeably higher as well.

thoughts?

I think it shows that women are capable of filling these roles (assuming no standards were changed, etc), and that it's a win for everyone, but that, yes, there are physiological differences between the sexes that will result in the lower pass rate with regards to extremely physically demanding roles, however not such that it is impossible for some women to make the cut.

I think it's a good thing as long as one has realistic expectations and standards are not changed to artificially increase pass rates.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Another update on this subject, I would have utilized the last update thread but it is about 4 months old so probably not a good idea to rehash those old comments

ANYWAY

https://gma.yahoo.com/first-women-set-graduate-armys-grueling-ranger-training-074400475--abc-news-topstories.html#

2 woman are about to graduate as Rangers, success story!
except that 17 other females failed in the same class, leaving this experiment with a 10.5% passing rate while men have a 42% passing rate. They don't mention injuries but if it stays true to form from the other experiments it should be noticeably higher as well.

thoughts?

I think it shows that women are capable of filling these roles (assuming no standards were changed, etc), and that it's a win for everyone, but that, yes, there are physiological differences between the sexes that will result in the lower pass rate with regards to extremely physically demanding roles, however not such that it is impossible for some women to make the cut.

I think it's a good thing as long as one has realistic expectations and standards are not changed to artificially increase pass rates.

I agree completely, I am however worried that this will result in a significantly higher injury rate for females. Which in turn will create an even bigger problem for the VA which realistically needs a complete overhaul.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Good for them.

Hopefully we don't have a push to have women have different fitness standards so we have "equal representation", and a lacking in ability as a result, for the Rangers.

Of course. Fair is fair and men are generally physically more suited for combat.

That said, there are still a fair few Briennes out there who should not be underestimated!

I'd feel safer with Brienne watching my back. She's a tough ol bird