This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

The opinion section of the Wall Street Journal has been an unmitigated garbage disaster for years, but this barfatorial is embarrassing even by their usual cavernous void of standards.

Actual Headline: "Women Don't Belong in Ranger School."

Actual Subhead: "Do individuals serve the military or does the military serve them?"

Actual Lede: "The United States Army is debating whether to admit women to Ranger School, its elite training program for young combat leaders. Proponents argue this is to remove a final impediment to the careers of Army women. But the move would erode the unique Ranger ethos and culture—not to mention the program's rigorous physical requirements—harming its core mission of cultivating leaders willing to sacrifice everything for our nation."

Following is eleventy paragraphs elaborating on the hand-drawn sign stuck outside the scrap-wood playhouse in Frankie Flunderton's backyard: "No Girls Allowed."

Stephen Kilcullen does make a valiant effort to convince us his argument is not, in fact, that girls are icky and totes have cooties, but is instead that opening up the Rangers to women just because denying access limits their career opportunities is BULLSHIT, man!
Ranger School isn't about improving the career prospects of individual candidates. ... The promise of something bigger than oneself—bigger than any career track—is what motivates these men.

It is this culture of excellence and selflessness that attracts young men to the Ranger brotherhood. The Ranger ethos is designed to be deadly serious yet self-deprecating, focused entirely on teamwork and mission accomplishment. Rangers put the mission first, their unit and fellow soldiers next, and themselves last. The selfishness so rampant elsewhere in our society has never existed in the Ranger brotherhood.

And that is the secret of the brotherhood's success. Some call it "unit cohesiveness" but what they are really describing is a transition from self-interest to selfless service. The notion of allowing women into Ranger School because denying them the experience would harm their careers makes Ranger graduates cringe. Such politically correct thinking is the ultimate expression of the "me" culture, and it jeopardizes core Ranger ideals.
I'mma go ahead and let you parse in comments alllllll the irony (ALL OF IT!) inherent in defending privilege with charges of selfishness.

I will, however, just quickly note that the Army has been selling itself (literally) as a great career opportunity since the 1980s. It doesn't seem very reasonable to complain that women want access to the same possibilities for career advancement as men in an organization that explicitly markets itself as a job corps.

When, of course, it's not celebrating its members each being an "Army of One."

I don't think women pursuing equality is evidence of a "me" culture. "Army of One" adverts, on the other hand... Well, let's just say if people signing up express some modicum of self-interest, there are other sources you might explore besides "political correctness."

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus