~ archived since 2018 ~

Stephen Kilcullen: Women Don't Belong in Ranger School - WSJ.com

genuinemra

June 13, 2012

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577448821376681662.html

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Stephen Kilcullen: Women Don't Belong in Ranger School - WSJ.com
Author	genuinemra
Upvotes	0
Comments	51
Date	June 13, 2012 5:50 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/v05dw/stephen_kilcullen_women_dont_belong_in_ranger/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/stephen-kilcullen-women-dont-belong-in-ranger.1019883 https://theredarchive.com/post/1019883

Comments

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (74 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuickBASIC 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]toptrool -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]johnsmithindustries 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

Can't speak to much of the science, but I can provide some anecdotal evidence:

My wife is in the Army, and is about as badass as they come. She quite literally could kill me if she wanted to.

Even she admits that females do not do well with the types of physical duress they go through. Of the females she went to basic with, nearly all of them left with long-term physical injuries (including my wife). Of those that she currently works with, over half are "on profile" (meaning unable to physically train in some area) for injuries, mostly hips, shoulders and back from carrying heavy load.

My wife's opinion is that the anatomic and physiological differences cannot be ignored when you are talking about life and death. She knows she can't do this stuff and she doesn't want to put her bros in that position. Rucking with heavy packs and gear all day is one thing, but being able to reliably drag or carry the 180+lb guy next to you with HIS 75lbs of gear is another.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

No, the men are not shit. That's actually exactly my point.

You act like men are these hypermasculine stubborn people who refuse to change their perception of women to one of equality. You think "Since social attitudes now make men treat women differently, we can't possibly trust them in combat because they will change group dynamics." I have a far more positive attitude towards men and society in general. I think men can see women soldiers as equals, rather than stubbornly remaining a closed off group of gender police. The same argument could be made for not allowing gay men in the military. If Big Gay Al is the roughest, toughest, badass soldier that ever existed, would it be a bad idea to put him in combat because it might make some of his traditionally masculine fellow soldiers feel kinda funny?

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Does it? What basis do you have for that claim? Are there qualifications that can uniquely be satisfied by someone with a penis - is there a literal pissing contest involved, or a ball-measuring examination? Don't be ridiculous.

There are plenty of things men can do that no woman has ever done that doesn't require a penis, like running a sub 4 minute mile for instance.

My girlfriend plays rugby and does kickboxing. She could probably kick my ass. Why can't some girls GI Jane it?

I'm rather slim and still stronger than 90+% of women. Men don't just have more muscle, they have longer sarcomeres which makes each muscle tissue stronger, and they have longer bones putting their muscles in more mechanically advantageous positions. Their bones are also denser and along with a higher RBC count per unit volume that has muscle fatigue slower are far less susceptible to fractures, all which affects military readiness which is definitely a qualification.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There are plenty of things men can do that no woman has ever done that doesn't require a penis, like running a sub 4 minute mile for instance

Not a justification to fiat a rule that explicitly forbids women from even being able to apply.

Men don't just have more muscle, they have longer sarcomeres which makes each muscle tissue stronger, and they have longer bones putting their muscles in more mechanically advantageous positions. Their bones are also denser and along with a higher RBC count per unit volume that has muscle fatigue slower are far less susceptible to fractures, all which affects military readiness which is definitely a qualification

Again, not a justification to flat-out forbid women. And, if you're right, then nothing will change anyway EXCEPT the organization is no longer a sexist one.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Not a justification to fiat a rule that explicitly forbids women from even being able to apply.

It was merely a response to the "need to have a penis" argument because that was a bad analogy.

Again, not a justification to flat-out forbid women. And, if you're right, then nothing will change anyway EXCEPT the organization is no longer a sexist one.

Simply testing people costs money as well. I'm sure there are a handful of amputees that could pass the test, but failure rate for them and for women would again just have unnecessarily increased costs when manning requirements are met if not exceeded most every year. Your idea would require testing anyone who wanted to try out.

Additionally, implementing this would increase the number of "qualified" candidates, but the military to a degree adjusts its standards to control the supply of qualified candidates to meet its manning requirements but not exceed them. So if anything, standards would increase shortly after this to maintain manning requirements, further reducing the portion qualified that are women, making the entire thing an exercise in futility.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Bullshit and bullshit. Let's break it down with bullet points and bold font:

Status quo: women are forbidden from joining the Rangers on the sole basis of their sex. This is sexism and that is unethical.
My assertion is that letting women apply but leaving the fitness requirements unchanged will solve this sexism.
Justification of my assertion: Equality is ethically good. Sexism for no reason is ethically bad.
Net benefits to my plan: If women are in general unable to meet the strict fitness requirements, then nothing will change anyway. The Rangers will continue as a more ethical but otherwise unchanged version of what they are now.
Your objection: "But when men and women are in combat, men readily sacrifice themselves to the detriment of the mission in order to save those female lives
Your objection is irrelevant and nonunique because we as MRAs are fighting against the idea that men should lay down their lives for women. As a result of the movement, your problem disappears.

In other words, fuck you and your sexism. You're no worse than the people you're fighting against.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

But there is a reason

What? None of your comments have pointed to a reason to FORBID women from applying. You've said elsewhere that women aren't strong enough, etc. That's fine, big deal - so most women wouldn't be able to make the Rangers. Most men can't either. I don't care about that - it's about the friggin opportunity to apply and flat-out forbidding women from applying is sexist.

No I believe most of us are against men being forced to do so.

So it's about equal choices, right? Men should be able to choose what to do with their own lives? Great. I like it. I want it, support it, talk about it with my peers, and try my best to convince people that feminism isn't fighting for male rights and opportunities. One of the biggest criticisms of feminism that I've seen on this forum is that it, as an ideology, is not concerned about equality but instead about female supremacy; "Feminism is a female interest group!" and so on. But then why are you advocating for not giving women the same choice? How are you different from them?

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link