I disagree. This is about women not being held to standards...whether it's for a Ranger tab or something else doesn't matter. It's about using the Army and lives of soldiers as a social experiment. It's about making people feel good about themselves at the expense of other's. It's about life and death for the those lead by the unworthy.
Fair enough, but if your profile tag is true, then you should know as well as anyone that the military has always been a platform for social experimentation (amongst many other kinds). I'm all for standards being upheld but we all have to be realistic here... This is just another day in the world of military politics and is as old as any combat element. It is part of the military life cycle. While it is unacceptable, if true, and standards should never be lowered, but we have to look at the quality of the candidate pool we have entering MEPS (or lack thereof). Is it right? No. Will it work itself out? Yes, just as it always has.
Every generation, even when as short as 4 years apart, looks at the newer generation and the lax standards they were"held" to. I mean fuck, when you have grunts that pound their chest about being grunts but can't fucking get a 1st class PFT or shoot expert (let alone pick up rank or perform at any level), there is a problem..... And that was with a heavy deployment cycle in the 05 era. Those same shitbags would be pissed if women were allowed in conventional combat arms units back then but yet they couldn't perform the most basic of tasks (1st class PFT and Expert Rifle).
Personally I believe that for every 1,000 women who are pushed into it, there's one who is a fucking rockstar and earned her way. Same concept with an infantry battalion. For every battalion, there's maybe only about two platoons worth of solid rockstars who are that example to emulate. So if we have a 400+ man BN but only 40-60 should be there, how can we expect even 50% of females to meet the standard? Due to this, we have to look at the candidate pool of females entering the combat arms world. The best case example is to compare it to those who get a BUDs contract. ...The candidate pool that goes Navy isn't the same pool as those that go combat arms in other branches. So naturally they have a high attrition rate.
I hope no one takes this the wrong way because I am 100% in favor of no standards being changed for anyone and am a huge proponent that current standards need to be raised across the board. The problem with raising the bullshit standards we have is that a lot of dudes would be pushed out of combat arms, let alone the military. Doesn't matter who the fuck you are, if you're in the military, you better be scoring a 1st class PFT and expert rifle. IF you're combat arms, there is no gender or age specific standards and you better be getting a 275+ PFT. Honestly the (conventional) combat arms PFT needs to be something similar to, or the same as, the UBRR. Fucking standards in the conventional military are a fucking joke and need to be revamped. Then the chest pounders can point at women and bitch about them being there.
IF there is a woman, dude, tranny, non-binary entity that can ruck, swim, run, jump, shoot, and critically think while not falling asleep in a hide, then I want it on my team. What I don't want is the fucking fat fucking grunt who can barely shoot, cant think of his feet, or be trusted to not fall asleep in a hide.
All that being said, I stand by my opinion that unless you have graduated ranger school, you don't rate an opinion in the matter. When we start talking females going to SSBC, then I'd be happy to have that discussion with anyone who rates.
?
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/S2AKAGKWKBH3RAM3S7ALZ3BG24.jpg)
www.airforcetimes.com 
