I know the lack of sourcing weakens my argument. However, it would not be appropriate for me to give my sources in this situation. I consider them reliable and non-political, but it is not my place to give more details.
As for the do-overs, about half the men I know who passed had a chance to recycle and chose to take that recycle rather than fail [overall, twenty percent pass on the first try, 34% after at least one recycle]. As I understand it, at least one of the two women who passed also recycled. Perhaps they are not at the level of Rangers who earned the tab on a first try (mostly mental toughness and physical fitness, but there is an element of luck in who gets injured, along with physical issues for smaller soldiers leading to the women having a much higher injury rate). Still if they were held to the standard then they are on the level of Rangers who passed after a recycle.
But despite what the Army did to given women a chance, only 2 of 100 succeeded.
The women were also sent through the Pre-Ranger Course, which is an official Army course that some but not all men going through Ranger School get, and they still had a low percentage of successes. I would agree with your comment on the low pass rate. It is easy to make the case that it is not cost-effective to send women through the Pre-Ranger Course and then Ranger School under the real standards, and I would not argue with that point. I agree. I was only addressing the narrow point that these two women were given lowered benchmarks at Ranger School itself.
My contacts indicate the opposite and support the allegations of favoritism and lowering of standards; Instances where they were not forced to carry their share of crew-served weapons, lighter packs, more time to rest, etc. . .this does not surprise as it aligns with my personal observation:
It would not have surprised me if the story had been true, since it matches my own observations of women being integrated into other aspects of the military. I initially inquired into the standards used for those two women expecting to hear that they had been babied, and I was surprised to hear that the school itself had been done fairly (although they did stack the deck as much as possible before the women started).
That's just my views and the reports I heard. I could have been misinformed (and you'd have to read my other posts on various topics to see if you trust me not to make stuff up). But I am more willing to believe that these published reports are made up than that they stacked the deck and still only got two women to pass.
All women were recycled more than once, excepting those who failed on the first phase. Eight of the women who failed the first phase were offered an opportunity to recycle. Only women who met all of the physical requirements were offered recycle. The Army reported that these eight failed tactical requirements or the leadership and peer ratings. Reports that I have received indicate that deficiencies on patrol reports was the most common reason for recycle. Since those reports are subjective, these reports could be most easily by leadership guidance that at least one female would graduate. Whether that actually occurred, I do not know and can’t speculate beyond.
The question is what happens going forward. In every single case, the services have subsequently adjusted standards in order to raise the success rates, these standards certainly include physical tasks but also include decision making, aggresive behavior, and leaderhip. Women and men are not only physically different, they have different personalities influenced by their hormones and other genetic differences and by the influence of culture. Politicians can wish these things away, but they can’t change them.
Fair point.
We simply disagree.
Cheers.