http://www.people.com/people/mobile/article/0,,20955065,00.html
Well, thats an understatement. Look at the reactions here, especially to any notion or reality that women just aint exactly like men. oh yes, the endurance part but just ignore the redundant the outcome when its males.
It seems the women may have been given some slight advantages but dont quote me type of scenario.
Whether this was just preliminary pressure remains to be seen.
There is nothing to substantiate the claims made in the People Magazine link. For example, the article states the following:
Once in the school they were allowed to repeat key parts – like patrols – while special consideration was not given to the men.
The reality is that
recycling through "key parts" is also given to men and have been for a long time.
If student performs successfully, but suffers an injury that keeps him from finishing, he or she may be medically recycled (med recycle) at the discretion of either the battalion or the Ranger Training Brigade commander; the student will be given an opportunity to heal and finish the course with the next class. Students recycled in the first phase are temporarily assigned to Vaughn's Platoon (informally known as the "Gulag" to Ranger students). Recycled students typically receive classes on Ranger School tasks and perform a variety of general tasks for their respective Ranger Training Battalion. While marking time at Ranger School is not always pleasant, those who have been recycled typically perform well when reinserted back into the course, with pass rates well over 80%.
Students can also be recycled for a variety of other reasons, including failing their patrol evaluations, peer evaluation, collecting 3 or more bad spot reports in a phase, or receiving a Serious Observation Report (SOR). Students may receive SORs for actions including, but not limited to, negligent discharges, safety violations involving demolitions or mountaineering, not looking through their sights while firing, or throwing away ammunition to lighten their load while on patrol. If a student fails a phase twice for the same reason (patrols, peers, etc.) he or she will usually be dropped from the course, but may possibly be offered a "day one restart," and will restart on Day 1 of the next Ranger School class. In rare cases, those assessed of honor violations (lying, cheating, stealing) and SORs may be offered a day one restart as opposed to being dropped from the course.
Ergo, the claim in the article is false and misleading. Here is another false and misleading statement from the People Magazine article you linked:
Women were first sent to a special two-week training in January to get them ready for the school, which didn't start until April 20. Once there they were allowed to repeat the program until they passed – while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard.
Afterward they spent months in a special platoon at Fort Benning getting, among other things, nutritional counseling and full-time training with a Ranger.
How nefarious and unfair...
The training, the so called "special" courses and training these women were allegedly on is called the
Army National Guard’s Ranger Training Assessment Course. Which all who wish to undergo the Ranger training course, must complete in the lead up to Ranger school. Funny that, huh? But the interesting thing about that statement that they were allowed to keep going until they passed is that it is wrong.
The women opted to continue with the training, even though they failed. They knew they weren't getting in, but they chose to continue with the training anyway. They didn't drop out.
So much for those advantages, huh? In other words, they did not get any special or different advantage to the men who were completing the same course.
And really, don't you love unnamed sources and instructors who are desperate to keep the male bastion solely male? The articles I linked.. No one is hiding their name and it isn't a gossip magazine like People Magazine.
Come on Birch, you can do better than People Magazine that is full of misleading statements, surely?
