Can we finally end the horrible social experiment of women in direct combat units now?

2015-05-30T02:50:42-04:00

First they ALL failed the USMC Infantry Officers Course then they ALL failed Ranger school. The DOD's prime war-fighting functions are not the place to run this social experiment.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0529/All-8-women-fail-Ranger-School-Some-Rangers-say-standards-should-change

All 8 women fail Ranger School: Some Rangers say standards should change (+video)

On Friday, the Army announced that all the women who attempted to graduate from Ranger School had officially failed to meet the standards, according to a military source.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 30 at 2015 3:07 AM

2015-05-30T03:07:24-04:00

Not likely!

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made May 30 at 2015 3:13 AM

2015-05-30T03:13:39-04:00

There were many things we once considered "horrible social experiments" that are now the norm for our military. Off the top of my head, it was once seen as detrimental to a unit's effectiveness to have African Americans in combat units both air and ground. The 54th Infantry (Massachusetts) and the Tuskegee Airmen proved that wrong. Then the goal post was shifted to "coloreds can't command military units", again that was proven wrong. You can't reach a conclusion on the feasibility of women in Combat units based on the failures of a few. Give it time. Some will surprise you.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made May 30 at 2015 3:15 AM

2015-05-30T03:15:21-04:00

There is nothing horrible about it, and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying so, it shows a definite male privileged toward women to use the word "horrible". There is no reason not to push the limits of what someone can do men or women, the more we discover about what can and can't be done, the better we are vs just speculating.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 3:35 AM

2015-05-30T03:35:59-04:00

A ton of men fail Ranger School and these other courses----by your gender logic, these courses should then be off-limits to men, too? Nonsense, for both genders.

Response by PO1 John Miller made May 30 at 2015 3:37 AM

2015-05-30T03:37:41-04:00

Absolutely not. Allow women to continue to try and eventually they WILL qualify.

As CPT Ahmed Faried stated, blacks at one time were not considered "worthy" of being in combat units and were even segregated in the US military.

Just a few years back, women were not allowed to be combat pilots.

Around that same time, women couldn't serve on combatant Navy ships. Now the Navy not only has its first female Four Star Admiral, but she, ADM Michelle Howard, is also the first black female Admiral.

The Navy recently integrated women Officers into the submarine community. Yes there have been setbacks in that program (the recording incident comes to mind) but those Officers all qualified in submarines and from what I have heard they had to meet the same arduous standards that their male counterparts have had to meet since Day 1.

As long as standards are in no way lowered, I say let them continue to try out. Eventually they will be able to meet the standards and will probably out-perform a lot of men!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 3:38 AM

2015-05-30T03:38:19-04:00

Oh, also, not all the women attempting Ranger School have failed. Three have been given Day 1 recycles. (And before you get all upset about folks being given a third chance at Darby, it happens from time to time).

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 4:35 AM

2015-05-30T04:35:38-04:00

1SG Private RallyPoint Member, I don't see it as a social experiment at all. It is straight talent management, and falls right in line with "the right person for the right job" mentality we are known for. You and I both know there is a place for women to effectively serve on specific SF teams. There are females being groomed as we speak, and some are already conducting the training at home station and TDY. In fact, I think we will see a female Captain as an SFODA Team Leader before we start seeing females in the Infantry or Armor Branches.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 6:18 AM

2015-05-30T06:18:25-04:00

Can anyone give me a valid, specific reason how including women in Ranger Bat, SF, infantry will benefit the effectiveness of the unit in their war-fighting ability?
Special operation jobs where women can effectively contribute to the mission are already open to them: PsyOps, Civil Affairs, 160th SOAR.

Now that all the women have failed Ranger school, here are the rumblings that career officers are starting to make.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0529/All-8-women-fail-Ranger-School-Some-Rangers-say-standards-should-change

I was a proponent for women having the opportunity to try Ranger school, but if the 20 best, most motivated cannot pass the first phase, does it really make sense to continue to allocate slots to women? If 75th, SF, LRS, R&S units don't open their doors to women, why are we sending them to a school that teaches small unit tactics? So they can collect tabs? I believe that there are certainly a few women capable of making it through and doing extremely well; however, the logistics and cost of sending women when they would have a 1% pass rate does not make sense when men are graduating at about 46%. We do need a few more classes to confirm the data, of course. I actually believed that they wouldn't change the standards, but reading some of the quotes in that article makes me a little angry and a little protective of quality of training that I received.

Regardless of all that, I genuinely hope the three left that were granted a Day-1 recycle graduate the course. It takes a lot of heart and figurative balls to have just done Darby twice and still say "yes" when offered a Day-1 recycle.

All 8 women fail Ranger School: Some Rangers say standards should change (+video)

On Friday, the Army announced that all the women who attempted to graduate from Ranger School had officially failed to meet the standards, according to a military source.

Response by SGT Anthony Rossi made May 30 at 2015 6:47 AM

2015-05-30T06:47:17-04:00

Except for public relations with a foreign country I can see no real benifit to adding the psychology of females into the direct combat arms.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 6:56 AM

2015-05-30T06:56:18-04:00

Oh, I nope not! The fact that eight people failed to progress beyond Darby is, and this is important, something that happens every single cycle of Ranger School. Dozens do this every cycle, representing a significant percentage. It should be unremarkable, but unfortunately we have lingering, stubborn small-mindedness about our SMs' capabilities. It is not an anomaly that the group of recycles and drops happened to contain the entire body of female candidates.

I saw a grown man, from the 173rd, acting as squad leader in Darby raise his hand and say "I quit" one second *after* the squad got attacked en route to the objective. I saw a Major, an SGI at the MCCC, fail the RPFT; how sad. And I saw a specialist from 3rd Battalion refuse to cross the log walk rope drop; he wouldn't even let go of the top of the ladder.

These eight women surpassed those MFE male Soldiers. "Social experiment" is a useless phrase, like calling someone a Nazi. This is a positive development in our military, and it is inevitable that women will wear the Tab.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 7:06 AM

2015-05-30T07:06:48-04:00

As long as the standards stay the same, who cares? Those who don't want women in those jobs can gloat as they fail and those who do can still say the opportunity is there.

Response by SPC Don Stringer made May 30 at 2015 7:17 AM

2015-05-30T07:17:05-04:00

Maybe when a real man is again occupying the White House, all these policies of deliberately damaging combat readiness and effectiveness will come to an end.

Response by SSgt Everett Jones made May 30 at 2015 8:03 AM

2015-05-30T08:03:28-04:00

There are currently 8 countries that allow females in all combat fields, including our neighbors to the north. Although I say 8, France does not allow them on submarines or riot control. Israel seems to be the country that has best led the way with the integration, but Russia had female combat soldiers in World War 2, and they had some pretty stellar records. I do not think it is necessarily the ability of the women so much as it is they way in which our society trains us to think about what is supposed to be male or female. Female warriors go back thousands of years, it seems that as we became more "civilized", we decided that women should be sheltered and protected rather than allow them to fight along side us. As a former Infantryman, I do harbor a bit of resentment that a woman might be allowed (correctly read able) to do the job I used to do. I think most combat troops feel that way, that is the way we have always been trained by society to feel. Yet, keeping women from combat jobs denies valuable resources from the front lines. Since I am now retired, I think I'll just say that if they can pass the requirements, then let them serve, and all the people still serving can fight it out.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 8:46 AM

2015-05-30T08:46:22-04:00

I'm throwing a downvote on this one- You are out of line Top. Women deserve this because they're women, not because of some useless SOCOM study that you mentioned. Plus, not to mention, Nazis or whatever... Either way, there are plenty of dudes that fail Ranger school and the Q Course. I should know, I've never been to either.

Your comment was bad and you should feel bad.

Your 4856 will be waiting for you on your desk.

Hillary '16

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 8:55 AM

2015-05-30T08:55:19-04:00

Like the tattoo issue, just make a decision and let's all move on. I think this Army needs a war to function like it's supposed to.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 8:56 AM

2015-05-30T08:56:46-04:00

Disagree with this question as posed.

I think it is working as it should, and don't care that all females have failed to date. Yeah, this small group of women failed to pass, but what they accomplished is breaking that barrier of women at least attempting the courses, which will encourage other females, including a few who may have what it takes to give it a go.

Women have only asked for the opportunity and that opportunity has been provided. I see no reason why the opportunity shouldn't continue to be provided, regardless of results to date. Honestly, how does it hurt you or any other male if women continue to fail any more than all of the males who have failed out of these courses?

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made May 30 at 2015 9:14 AM

2015-05-30T09:14:23-04:00

I'm glad you made the this post 1SG Private RallyPoint Member but you will take a tongue lashing from the folks that think women are as capable as them in combat. Perhaps it is true for some/many of them. I never felt that way. This is the product of a society that tries to push the alpha female at every turn. Too many Power Puff girl episodes for some perhaps.

I don't question that women serve admirably and honorably in many ways and places. I simply use my experience, observation and basic physiology to reach the conclusion that they are not the peer of a man physically which is a larger component of combat arms. Strength, stamina, endurance, and a harsh existence.

We've been lulled into a false sense of security that combat will always be like it is today with big FOB's, air conditioning, showers, internet connection, chow halls. PX's etc. etc. etc. and all the comforts of a larger installation. Some might want to read up on conditions that faced those in previous wars and generations.

I never met a woman Marine that I felt was even remotely able to do what male Marines did. Women Marines are some of the best in the US Military too.

No matter the proof of actual tests there will be a push to get women into the infantry and related combat arms MOS's. Why, because we are a soft society that men now believe women should do their fighting for them. It is embarrassing to watch.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made May 30 at 2015 9:15 AM

2015-05-30T09:15:41-04:00

I can see some people saying "keep/hold the standards as they are", I can see people saying "change the standards".... I am not tabbed, I don't have a dog in this fight, so I really don't care.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made May 30 at 2015 9:17 AM

2015-05-30T09:17:53-04:00

Yeah we should end this horrible experiment exactly like we ended segregated units by accepting realities and understanding the demographic changes occurring in our society and accepting them.

Women are 16% of the force and are an essential part of the force.

No one is going to revoke your "man card" boys if you accept the reality.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 9:30 AM

2015-05-30T09:30:10-04:00

I'm surprised at your sentiments 1SG considering the integration of CSTs in SF and Ranger units. Wouldn't you want the soldiers integrated with you to have to best training? Keep it open to them, don't change the standards. Simple. One team, one fight.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 11:32 AM

2015-05-30T11:32:59-04:00

I will say that the Christian Science Monitor has done the worst reporting on this. I like how they say "some" Rangers think it is only a means for pounding on your chest more than a school that prepares you for war. I don't know what Ranger School they went too but I think they asked some Stolen Valor Rangers.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 11:35 AM

2015-05-30T11:35:03-04:00

Personally, these are all valid points some with great ideals and some with misguided takes on female capabilities or others rejecting the idea of ever seeing women wear a Ranger Tab.
The main point for me is the wonder...think of the Death Tolls from OIF/OEF, Is America (Parents mostly) really ready for the psychological effects of receiving their daughters coffins accompanying that of their sons?

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 11:52 AM

2015-05-30T11:52:56-04:00

Have any of you seen that .gif of a female marine at Camp Pendleton, with two male marine instructors, being shown how to throw a grenade? She throws it like a girl, what else, it doesn't even clear the sandbag barricade, and falls right at her feet. The two male marines quickly respond to the situation by pitching her like a rag doll into a bunker, and diving for cover themselves a second before the grenade explodes. And all in the name of political correctness and for career advancement opportunities. Balderdash!!! Letting women into combat and this nation will be invaded and conquered by the Luxembourg Sea Scouts!!!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 12:01 PM

2015-05-30T12:01:21-04:00

Using Ranger school as a measuring stick isn't perhaps the best way to assess a Soldier ability. It's a tough school even for men to get through. A better assessment is perhaps sending them through Basic 11B training at Fort Benning.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 12:20 PM

2015-05-30T12:20:02-04:00

All opportunities should be available to anyone in the military service.
Personally, I never cared nor did I vote for this women equality fight into certain specialties. However, given the right person with the mindset and physical ability gender shouldn't matter.
I do think that these women should not be a spectacle in the news. Do we really need weekly updates on who made it? And if the stats are published they need to be done so equally males and females that move on or fail.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 12:22 PM

2015-05-30T12:22:27-04:00

There's a large percentage of men that fail ranger school the first time. Let them keep trying. It's an all volunteer school, so eventually a few women will make it. Let them push on, and us guys need to stop bashing them.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 30 at 2015 12:24 PM

2015-05-30T12:24:59-04:00

Two officers are up for promotion.
Both have the necessary skills and experience.
One has a Ranger tab, the other doesn't.
Who gets the promotion?
Perhaps that's why women want the tabs

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 12:35 PM

2015-05-30T12:35:21-04:00

The fact of the matter is the SECDEF removed all restrictions from women serving in combat MOSs in January 2013. The Army must concluded it's evaluation of the effects of this removal of restrictions by EoFY 15. If they find readiness will be negatively effected, the Army must request an exception to policy, that could then be granted or denied by the SECDEF.

So it's not a social experiment, it's an evaluation of impact to readiness in support of the policy as is, or to support the request for an exception to policy.

Source - CSA Odierno at the town hall meeting on Fort Campbell. I personally heard him state this.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 12:50 PM

2015-05-30T12:50:27-04:00

The only part that puts me off is the part about "standards should change." And that's because I do not believe standards should ever change to make a social experiment point. I'm still all for women in those jobs (a) if they want to be there, and (b) if they can "cut the mustard."

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made May 30 at 2015 1:02 PM

2015-05-30T13:02:07-04:00

only if we can get the guys who cant cut it also out. which wont happen. some women are pretty tough and could hang for the most part.

Response by PO3 Jeremy Hastings made May 30 at 2015 1:53 PM

2015-05-30T13:53:15-04:00

I'm confused, they were marines, going to ranger training? Needs a lot more explanation

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 1:54 PM

2015-05-30T13:54:25-04:00

Just because some women failed doesn't mean all of them will. Now they know what it is like to go through those tough schools and will learn from their experience.

Response by SSG John Erny made May 30 at 2015 2:20 PM

2015-05-30T14:20:00-04:00

It is nature that is to blame; males produce testosterone which is needed to produce muscle. Males have more red blood cells to carry oxygen, more muscle mass, and more lung capacity. If you base a course of instruction based on physical strength then by natures design men will do better than women. If you look at a lions the females are in charge of the pride for the most part. But it is the male lion who is the King of battle, it is he who has the brute strength to bring down the largest of prey, and to defend the pride. Nature is what it is and we humans cannot change that unless you want to start messing around with the genetics of the human being. I think that an unwise choice.
At an academic level women excel in most fields with the possible exception of math. For some reason a few select men do very well with mathematics, so much so that the rest of us have no idea what they are talking about, Einstein, Hawking, etc.; Other than that women tend to do better than men.
So here we are second guessing millions of years of evolution. Is it fair that men have more physical strength; is it fair that women can multi task circles around men? Well none of that matters because there is nothing that anyone can do about aside from genetic engineering. Look at female body builders who have foolishly used steroids and other body enhancing drugs; they no longer look like women. The East German Olympic team did a pretty good job of proving that.
So if you have an issue with the millions of years that it took to put us humans where we are I do not know who you can blame, other than nature. On the other hand people have been getting taller and stronger over all compared to times past. Who knows what the future will bring.

Response by SGT Alicia Brenneis made May 30 at 2015 2:44 PM

2015-05-30T14:44:45-04:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL16x45NnN0

This girl can do more (correct) pushups, at 10 years old, than this Marine. If she continued to improve and say fit she would be a force to be reckoned with physically. But at 18, if she wanted to join, some man will tell her she is not good enough because she is a female and "females or just physically different than males". ..... because no male soldier ever was under 5'7 or weighed 110lbs.

Girl does more pushups than Marine

10 year old girl does pushups longer than a Marine can at a mall.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made May 30 at 2015 3:09 PM

2015-05-30T15:09:24-04:00

8 women failed Ranger School... OK Lets just give up on the whole gender. 1SG Private RallyPoint Member by your logic I guess no men should go to Ranger School then. How many men failed in the same class? I'll try not to go First Sgt. Katrina Moerk here, but I suggest you adapt to your surroundings and find ways to train women up rather than block their path.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made May 30 at 2015 4:09 PM

2015-05-30T16:09:56-04:00

So when was Ranger School or the USMC the baseline for women in direct combat units? I mean I GET IT. I don't want to see standards slip in our elite units. And I don't want to see standards slip in the combat arms generally. But women in combat arms units is a reality, not a social experiment. The combat arms are Infantry, Armor /Armored Cavalry, Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, Army Aviation Attack Helicopter and Air Cavalry units, Special Forces, and Combat Engineers. Women have a role in all of them - IF THEY CAN HANG. If it takes a while to see an woman Infantry Officer in the Army or USMC so be it. If a woman never passed SFAS, or Ranger - so be it. The doors been open.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made May 30 at 2015 4:32 PM

2015-05-30T16:32:38-04:00

I would challenge everyone to consider the term "social experiment..." & decide whether it is the best word for things. We don’t have to look far back to see the neg connotation associated with the term. IMHO many of the social experiments in last 60 years have done nothing but SUSTAIN and ENHANCE OUR MILITARY as the premier force for GOOD on the planet. SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS in the DOD = Desegregation of USMC (’42), Integration of African Americans into the Service (’48), Women in Service Academies (’76), Dismantling of Women’s Army Corps (’78), Woman in USN Combat Ships & A/C+USAF Combat A/C (’93), DADT Repeal (’10), Women in Field Artillery (’13), Women attending USMC IOC/Ranger (’15).
Change is painful. Pain is real. Pain is “weakness leaving the body.” (sorry if I missed anything)

Response by CPT Bill McNeely made May 30 at 2015 5:42 PM

2015-05-30T17:42:58-04:00

1SG this is not a social experiment. the Isreali and British Armies along with other forces do have women in combat roles.

2nd we all need to accept people will fail and be ok with that. in Marine OCS you have a 50% failure rate for females and a 30% failure rate for men. Does not mean the standards have to drop. however comma how much bullshit is involved in the training course ie "Ranger school" (more selection than education)

3rd if you are a female or you lead a female who want to be in combat arms find out how to train for it. Crossfit and navy seal workouts are the best place to start. They worked great for my soldiers.

4th Heaven forbid we go to other Armies and find out what works.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 7:35 PM

2015-05-30T19:35:10-04:00

So much judgement - can, can't will won't etc.

So what is wrong with a person who qualifies being given the chance? OK they should have to compete and prove they are qualified to take the course. And they have to complete the course satisfactorily.

To bar them from trying, or to pass them if the did not qualify is wrong.

Taking the discussion to the extreme, when I entered women were definitely treated as inferior and not welcome. Many proved themselves to be very valuable.

Response by 1SG David Lopez made May 30 at 2015 8:03 PM

2015-05-30T20:03:44-04:00

I am glad that the standards did not change. Open it up to those willing to work for it. But let's not give preferential treatment just because she is a female. A Soldier should adhere to the policies and procedures that ALL Soldiers adhere to to attend any military school. The PT standards should also be the same across the Army, since we are talking equal rights, equal opportunity, equal standards, etc. The (Female) Observers / Monitors are not there to also look out for male students, then let's eliminate this double standard.

As an American Taxpayer and Retired Soldier, we only want the very best and capable to lead our Soldiers, specifically our Special Operations Units. I believe some people term this a "Social Experiment" because the females did not go through the normal try-outs and/or Pre-Ranger Courses like the Male Soldiers are required to compete for (excluding the 75th). Fact is, the stadards to attend were already changed, and it did bother a lot of people, including those young Soldiers still waiting to go to RS.

Ranger School is Hard, It is not for the Faint or Weak Hearted. We want it to stay that way, no sugar coating it, with all its cursing, hands on, no slack, etc. Do not change the Standards.

A female will eventually make it, we all know females that can probably make the cut. They ALL should be given the opportunity. But without changing any Standards, Hoo-Ah!

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 30 at 2015 8:20 PM

2015-05-30T20:20:15-04:00

No, the media still has some stops to pull out. Also, politicians also need to get their place in the media for it as well.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 30 at 2015 8:52 PM

2015-05-30T20:52:36-04:00

Mysogyny Much? 21 years I served and I've seen women in much better shape than men and much more capable in any situation. So they didn't succeed today. Tomorrow they probably will. While in A School the most pull ups I've ever seen were done by a Female Marine. I was part of the Navy 5k Group in DC, I always came up in 3rd Place behind my Ensign and LTJG both Female. Mysogyny in the Military needs to be thrown out with the Trash off the Fantail.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 9:12 PM

2015-05-30T21:12:30-04:00

Idk what kind of military all these people talking about privilege and sexism are in? Oh ya that's right. Non combat MOS.

I'm not a "combat" MOS by the book, I'm a combat medic. We have a very unique line we get to stand on and I write this with experience.

I've known some amazing women who I'm proud to have served beside as a medic that can hold their own. Even them are few and far between. And over our recent years women have been exposed to more direct combat than in the past but it's not like they were exposed to the hardships that come on the line.

I'm talking about loading up, and humping your shit up the side of a fucking mountain, taking a break to fire some rounds downrange, then diggin in. That sort of living. Moving daily with around 120lbs of shit on your back. Traveling "light". I'm sorry people are to blinded with our over sensitive filled fucking society. That's fucking biology that it can't be done.

There is a lot to the life of combat arms than "being in combat" I learned that sucking with my brothers to the left and to my right, and it's not a place for women.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 30 at 2015 9:54 PM

2015-05-30T21:54:13-04:00

The experimentation is good for confirming and denying facts.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made May 30 at 2015 11:08 PM

2015-05-30T23:08:08-04:00

First Sergeant, do you honestly expect politicians that play to emotions and special interest groups, yet have never served in a uniform as we have done to care one little bit about what is best for the service?

Hell No, they have sacrificed our status and our security in the name of the Left-wing Liberal Agenda. It will not stop so long as there are foolish "Sheeple" that vote in those who would sacrifice our freedom on the alter of Socialism and Marxism....

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 12:31 AM

2015-05-31T00:31:38-04:00

Let them try, men fail too. If they pass good for them. We have a voluntary force, I'm just not fond of the forced social experimentation. The volunteers should have a say.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made May 31 at 2015 12:35 AM

2015-05-31T00:35:47-04:00

Hands down, the most misogynistic post I've seen on RP. At some point, a woman WILL graduate from one of our elite warrior schools. And when this happens she WILL be the exception. But, isn't that who we want to pass through these gauntlets? --Exceptional people?

I hope some of you are holding your DD-214's when that first woman graduates from Ranger/BUDS/PJ schools. For the rest, I hope you're not too busy holding on to your nad-sack --when you should be saluting her.

Response by SGT Anthony Bussing made May 31 at 2015 3:23 AM

2015-05-31T03:23:25-04:00

speaking of Tuskegee Airmen...there was a young fella from my hometown who was one...I seem to recall he was in the first class, but I could be wrong...

Hall, Charles B. 42-F-SE 7/3/1942 2nd Lt. 0790457 Brazil IN

https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Captain-Charles-B.-Hall

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 7:33 AM

2015-05-31T07:33:21-04:00

Woman do not belong in combat units. I understand that some woman think that they deserve the opportunity but ok they were given it and failed. I am a woman and I truly do NOT believe that we should be in combat units.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 31 at 2015 9:34 AM

2015-05-31T09:34:08-04:00

just a thought ...
After 60 years of observing humanity...
Men and women are different!

Looking at the molecular level (DNA) and considering the weight / mass difference between of the XX / XY chromosome package, human males have more in common with chimpanzee males than they do with human females.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 11:02 AM

2015-05-31T11:02:50-04:00

All people with one brown eye, one blue eye, and one green eye should immediately be barred from any special schools and should not be in the military at all.

After all, the standard will have to be changed to allow them to succeed.

Also no one may comment unless they also have one brown eye, one blue eye, and one green eye.

Sorry but this comment makes more sense than many that have been made on this topic.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 12:40 PM

2015-05-31T12:40:32-04:00

I have served in both Air Force and Army....and I have yet to meet a more powerful leader than my mother.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 1:25 PM

2015-05-31T13:25:13-04:00

I am not discriminating women because we all came from one, but we need to realize that there are jobs that the toughest woman can't do, but all this situation about equal opportunity has gone too far.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 4:29 PM

2015-05-31T16:29:06-04:00

How were these women chosen for this "experiment"? Were they volun-told? I understand that women want to be able to do the same things men do, but most of us aren't cut out for it.

Response by SSG VNicia Young made May 31 at 2015 7:01 PM

2015-05-31T19:01:59-04:00

I believe women have just as much right to be in combat and may even do better then some men. You just have to be willing to give them a chance to prove themselves.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 8:10 PM

2015-05-31T20:10:03-04:00

Once upon a time "they" also said women shouldn't be on ships. Look at us now. When you begin to eliminate entire groups then you lose out on the exceptional ones. The ones that change history. The military has ALWAYS been ahead of society on acceptance but the fact that there are still people, SENIOR people with this sort of mindset, worries me for our junior troops and the message that they send us all.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 9:32 PM

2015-05-31T21:32:00-04:00

If one can make it they simply should be In it. but I don't believe changing standards is a smart idea. the standard has been set for years and it shouldn't change and just as CPT Ahmed Faried said there was multiple examples of this working in history like the Tuskegee airman. But one thing stayed the same all those ones before in history all had to strive to meet the standard or they raised the standard. now if a female can make it to the standards now then they should be pinned as a ranger point blank.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 10:10 PM

2015-05-31T22:10:00-04:00

Response by SGT Timothy Rocheleau made May 31 at 2015 10:57 PM

2015-05-31T22:57:34-04:00

The standards shouldn't change just to allow for a weaker person to complete the course. When I say weaker person I am not referring to the gender of women. I am referring to the fact that if you lower the standard then you are allowing a weaker person, male or female to complete a course. Whether you are a male or female the requirements of being a Ranger are the same across the board. Whether you are a man or a woman your job duties and responsibilities will be the same therefore the training and requirements to wear the tab should be the same.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 11:04 PM

2015-05-31T23:04:46-04:00

I completely and utterly do not care. At least they tried, you won't catch my old behind at Ranger School.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 11:48 PM

2015-05-31T23:48:08-04:00

Although I support your position that 'women in combat' is a social experiment. I am reminded that until 1978, we had the Women's Army Corps (WAC) as a separate branch and prior to 1947, we had segregated (Black and White) organizations. As the military falls under civilian control, then we have but two choices, agree with the 'social experiments' or get out. If, we choose to stay in, then we enforce the regulations and standards, lead and mentor others, and remain silent on our personal position. If, we choose to leave, then we can advocate for or against the decisions of our civilian leaders, including the option of running for office and becoming part of the leadership. The choice is pretty clear, I got out.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 5:29 AM

2015-06-01T05:29:09-04:00

I understand that these women failed and that this is just another unsuccessful "test". Recently we did a climb in southern Kosovo with a few other nations. We had a Hungarian female, I believe that she is a medic, that outperformed us with ease. (it's not like we are a bunch of overweight guard POGS Soldiers either) I would guarantee that if she attended the Ranger Course, that physically she would demolish the course regardless of standards. I say this being one of the largest doubters and being an airborne infantryman. I believe that it can be done, why these women are struggling I don't know, but I believe it can be done.

Response by SGT David T. made Jun 1 at 2015 7:02 AM

2015-06-01T07:02:24-04:00

The fact that they failed a course tells us very little. Ranger school has a high attrition rate to begin with so I would say that this isn't the best way to determine their suitability to perform in such roles. I am interested to see what happens in infantry OSUT and IBOLC and their performance in an actual unit.

Response by SGT James Hastings made Jun 1 at 2015 8:25 AM

2015-06-01T08:25:28-04:00

The standards were set before women tried to meet them and were set for a reason.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 8:28 AM

2015-06-01T08:28:39-04:00

I don't like the comment in the article gender neutral standards. I am sorry if this offends anyone however there are differences in both genders. The male version should stay the same.

However I agree that the female standards should be looked at and tested to see what is an acceptable level to push women to find the best of the best!

I do not know what basic female standards are in the army, however I would not want some of the females I see in the AF in these type of units struggling to meet the 17 "Pushup Limit" every six months on their PT tests.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 9:23 AM

2015-06-01T09:23:41-04:00

1SG, sometimes that just what we need, that Vitamin E. Evidence. Rock-solid, documented, real-life actual and factual cold hard facts. And now the FACTS have spoken. Sad for some, but they're indesputable and must be accepted as such. We can give those women A for effort, but we just must accept their failure and move-on.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 9:39 AM

2015-06-01T09:39:52-04:00

I executed convoy security operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; two of my best turret gunners were female. They operated flawlessly in combat and came out decorated warriors.

This is not a social experiment, but a cultural shift in thinking. Many have stated it before me; women on ships; women on submarines; African Americans, Native Americans, and Japanese Americans in combat units; etc...

If they can do the job, let them! I will lay my life on the line for my fellow warrior any day, and I expect the same from them...what gender they are matters not to me.

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made Jun 1 at 2015 9:56 AM

2015-06-01T09:56:25-04:00

I vote yes, only because women are at a distinct disadvantage of trying to meet standards that were not designed for them.

We have to face the fact that men's bodies and women bodies are different (Thank God!), when you look at children, you don't notice a lot of difference between boys bodies and girls bodies, but when mother nature decides to release those two essential hormones called testosterone and estrogen, wonderful changes take place in both.

Boys start to develop muscle mass and hair growth in areas that previously had no hair. Voices start to change. Boys also go through a change mentally. They start to look at girls in a whole different fashion.

Girls start to develop broader hips and breast and other physical changes. These changes are to prepare them for motherhood and the perpetuation of the human species.

These physical and mental changes exist for the survival of mankind through procreation.

Even if you factor in "performance enhancing drugs" men and women bodies do not respond the same. If you look at a male body builder who has taken steroids, you will see massive muscle mass. If you at a female body builder who has taken steroids you see massive muscle mass, but not to the same volume as a man.

It really places women at a great disadvantage to expect them to meet standards that were designed to eleminate the "average" or sub par male.

Ground combat demands certain physical and endurance skills a lot of people just do not possess. This includes men and women. It is rigorous and harsh. That is just the environment of ground combat.

There are many roles in the military that require women to be in harms way. Yes, women have performed admirably in these positions that are not direct combatant roles such as the infantry.

Women have flown helicopters and provided direct logistical support that can and did bring them in combat action.

The fundamental issue is that the standards set forth are for men and to expect women to meet those standards is not very realistic. Yes, there are some women who can meet and exceed any standard set forth, but that is the rare exception and not the norm.

IMHO, I don't think women want the standards lowered, because then some people would feel the only way "she" made it was because of lower standards. That is why I say that to expect women to be able to meet the "standards" for a ground combatant places them at a distinct disadvantage.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jun 1 at 2015 10:32 AM

2015-06-01T10:32:41-04:00

Oh boy...this is why we can't have nice things.

Response by SGT Curtis Earl made Jun 1 at 2015 10:35 AM

2015-06-01T10:35:14-04:00

I don't see the big deal. Let women try. If they all fail, then that's fine - I'd have failed just like thousands of other men have failed. I doesn't make me less of a man. It means we're upholding the standard. If one lone, exceptional female makes it through, then it's a good deal that we caught her.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 10:41 AM

2015-06-01T10:41:53-04:00

As long as standard stays the same, all I see is an opportunity for women.

Response by Sgt Christine Forshee made Jun 1 at 2015 11:10 AM

2015-06-01T11:10:33-04:00

I am a women vet and feel strongly about this. If we (women) want to do a job then we need to also meet the qualifications for the job. The qualifications are there for a reason. No one (women included) wants to be with a person that is not able to do the job. I know several women that are more than capable of doing the job and passing the qualifications. I would question how these women where chosen for ranger school and if they were poorly prepared or setup to fail. Headlines say 8 women failed. How many men failed and how many passed. This is a hard core training for Special Forces not just to be in the service. Most of the applicatates for this training fail anyways. You show not judge this on gender but on overall performance.

Response by SPC Joshua H. made Jun 1 at 2015 11:29 AM

2015-06-01T11:29:06-04:00

So these females failed, the next ones might be able to pass. I have NO issue with this, as long as they can pass without lowering the standard.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jun 1 at 2015 11:51 AM

2015-06-01T11:51:17-04:00

I personally don't think the standards should be changed. I think that if you can ruck, up then fine. If it takes all the gear you need and ammo and grenades and weapons, explosives and tool and that weighs 205 lbs then you SHOULD BE ABLE TO RUCK IT! I was Infantry. I had 180 Lb ruck! I carried it. (paying for it now) Womens bodies are not made to do the thing males are. Does that mean they don't have the grit and gut. NO! I put my wife toe to toe with anyone in an argument! she is a beast! but she know that there are thing she can carry or do. Be realistic. I am not a whatever you want to call. I have seen the girls in my unit buck up and carry there ruck. go back and get the rest of there bags like the rest of us did. Then I have seen some whine and cry and get help! so be it!

Response by SGT William Harding made Jun 1 at 2015 1:35 PM

2015-06-01T13:35:47-04:00

No, women should not be in combat units or situations or participate in the schools that train you. Women can assist in many other roles that they do extremely well. Men were created and designed to protect and provide for women and children. Men need to do our job well also. I have been associated with some great female leaders, but not in the army.

Response by SSG David Ursini made Jun 1 at 2015 1:46 PM

2015-06-01T13:46:20-04:00

Women don't belong in any combat roles. It doesn't work. The Israelis proved that...and have since only allow women in combat support roles. Men are instinctively protective of women....and you cannot have that in combat. It degrades morale and offers a woman more protection than a man would receive. I've personally this in peacetime, and it doesn't work.

Response by SSG Jeff Binkiewicz made Jun 1 at 2015 1:54 PM

2015-06-01T13:54:50-04:00

AS I STATED BEFORE ON A SIMILAR SUBJECT, IF WE WANT WOMEN TO SUCEED IN RANGER SCHOOL , FIRST INTIGRATE THEM INTO ALL COMBAT ARMS FIRST, KEEP ALL THE STANDARDS THE SAME THEN MAYBE EVENTUALLY AFTER BEING PART OF THESE INFANTRY SQUADS etc, THEY WILL SUCEED. BY NO MEANS CHANGE THE STANDARDS. I BELIEVE SOMEONE SAID, DOWE NEED TO STILL CARRY 60 TO 70 LBS RUCKS 12-MILES, HELL YEAH. THAT IS PART OF THE SUCK FACTOR, IF YOU CAN MAKE IT THEN YOU EARN IT. JUST CAN'T START HANDING THEM OUT TO EVERYBODY BECAUSE THEY WANT ONE AND IT'S JUST NOT FAIR, BOO HOO. START WITH PLACING THEM FULL TIME IN COMBAT ARMS , ALL COMBAT ARMS, DO SOME TESTS THERE ON MORAL, LOGISTICS, PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES, ON SO ON THEN GO FROM THERE.

Response by Cpl Charles Vadnais made Jun 1 at 2015 3:15 PM

2015-06-01T15:15:12-04:00

My roommate (who happens to be a woman) made a great point about this topic: At one point a 5 minute mile was considered impossible. Then after the first guy did it, several other people managed it within a month. It may take some time for a woman to pass, but once a woman passes, you'll see plenty more that are able to meet the same standards as men.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 4:38 PM

2015-06-01T16:38:03-04:00

How about not making it experiment, but let everyone have equal opportunity to be all they can be? This isn't fair towards those who are genuinely willing to be in combat MOS (some of them like tanker for example are do-able) and putting serious effort into it to such degree, where they are on par with their male counterparts, but because other women around them are not pulling their weight, they get punished for it.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jun 1 at 2015 4:53 PM

2015-06-01T16:53:01-04:00

I'd say just keep em coming, someone's gonna make it eventually.

Response by SSG Jed Fisher made Jun 1 at 2015 5:07 PM

2015-06-01T17:07:39-04:00

When it comes to the mission of deterrence, it doesn’t matter what we think. What does the enemy think? Their perception is what causes them to invite us to a gunfight in the first place. Our enemies are not impressed. They won’t be impressed with our politically correct, affirmative action, openly LBGT military until our military turns their countries into smoldering ruins. It seems a lot more sensible to invest in an all-male military that our potential enemies will fear. As a way, you know, to keep the peace.

Response by LTC Mark Maitag made Jun 1 at 2015 7:37 PM

2015-06-01T19:37:07-04:00

So, 20 female candidates of about 74000 females, 8 made it to Darby but eventually failed. Let's assume that 5 eventually pass...that's .0067%. What is this validating?

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 7:58 PM

2015-06-01T19:58:57-04:00

So what about the 300+ female Marines who successfully completed the Infantry Rifleman course at SOI in Camp Lejeune? Do they not count?

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 8:13 PM

2015-06-01T20:13:41-04:00

I'm not in a combat unit, but I guess I'm not really seeing what is wrong with holding the standards the same for everyone but at least giving that chance to everyone that is willing to give it a shot.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 8:44 PM

2015-06-01T20:44:55-04:00

First, Ranger School does not determine if a service member is capable of serving in a combat unit. The school's purposes is to train leaders to handle operations under extreme duress. You are not required to be in a combat arms MOS or branch to attend (though a majority are).
Second, many of the women proved physically capable of passing RAP standards, however, their deficiencies, much like the men recycled, were in leadership. This does not mean females are incapable of leading small unit tactics. In fact, I have witnessed many female officers put males to shame in this very same area. This tells us that females are capable of physically able to pass the standards but may need extra training in small unit tactics, the same as any young male infantry officer or infantry private. I see no reason why women cannot serve in combat. If they pass the standards then they earn their place, just like I did and my brothers before me.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jun 1 at 2015 8:53 PM

2015-06-01T20:53:16-04:00

This is the most ridiculous post I've read (horrible social experiment)...and from a Senior NCO, you should be ashamed.

Just because women did not initially pass a predominantly male course, doesn't mean women won't eventually get better and earn their tab.

KUDOS to these women for being pioneers in today's military!

Response by PO2 Kimberly Wilkins made Jun 1 at 2015 8:59 PM

2015-06-01T20:59:44-04:00

All men do not pass either. We should all have equal opportunity to try.

Response by SFC Benjamin Varlese made Jun 1 at 2015 9:14 PM

2015-06-01T21:14:23-04:00

I honestly don't care as long as the training standard is upheld. I am not opposed to women going to Ranger School, SFAS and SFQC, or even being in the Infantry...as long as they can meet the standard. Let us not forget the laughable spectacle that went viral when a female soldier stumble and crawled to finish a 12 mile road march in 3 hours, which is the Army standard, and not a motivating testament to her willpower.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda will see these failures as a sign for some sort of renaissance for training and lower the standards to accommodate female applicants, and that is when I will care and voice my displeasure

Response by SSG Marvin Graham made Jun 1 at 2015 9:46 PM

2015-06-01T21:46:59-04:00

Women have 40% less upper body muscle mass than men , no amount of political correctness is going to change that fact . Women have strengths and weaknesses and men have theirs too . The best thing is to identify strengths and maximize them and stop trying to make men and women the same .

Response by MAJ Antonio Benedini made Jun 1 at 2015 10:58 PM

2015-06-01T22:58:21-04:00

Do not lessen the standards to accommodate women. If the Rangers are to remain effective, the standards must be upheld.

This is not to say there is no place for a lesser-standard subset of "Lady Rangers." That is, if there is a need for their certain skills - those that only a woman can provide. If that is the case, then have a separate course with a lesser but just as relatively tough on women set of standards to be met. Then, put them to work with their own missions to be met.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Bly made Jun 1 at 2015 11:19 PM

2015-06-01T23:19:51-04:00

Let the women form their own elite force them to their highest possible standards. I think that would be an interesting social experiment. Then let's see if the men can pass the woman's courses.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 1:15 AM

2015-06-02T01:15:59-04:00

1SG Private RallyPoint Member Why is it a "horrible social experiment"?? What is so wrong with woman serving in direct combat units?

Plus, woman attending Ranger school is not the same as being placed in direct combat units. Ranger school is simply that, a school. It gives you a set of skills to be used out in the force. You don't actually become the "Ranger" until you serve in a Ranger Battalion or Regiment. Just like Airborne school, you are not Airborne until you have served in an Airborne unit, you are simply Airborne qualified.

I would think we would want to encourage all members of our service to attend all the leadership / skill enhancing schools they can, regardless of the type of unit they are going to serve it. Doesn't it make them better????

Just my two cents.

Response by Sgt Richard Bass made Jun 2 at 2015 4:53 AM

2015-06-02T04:53:00-04:00

My only objection has nothing to do with physical ability. As an infantryman, knowing the infantry the way I do, most Marine companies consisted of about 150 Marines between 18 and 20. In combat zones tensions are extremely high and fighting and squabbles happen over the dumbest things imaginable. I've seen Marines duke it out over a bag of pistachios and a vat rat meatball at one point. With tensions running that high all the time for 7-14 months straight. What would happen if you threw 10 females in that mix? I'm concerned about it damaging unit cohesion in the sense that people will perceive favoritism. The chances of people within a unit dating is certainly going to make waves. Unwanted advances followed by someone playing "knight in shining armor". With all those situations in mind, they are all armed to the teeth and have explosives.
I'm not saying women can't be in combat arms units. My expierience just tells me it's not a good idea.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jun 2 at 2015 6:10 AM

2015-06-02T06:10:19-04:00

Women have been in direct combat for the last 20 years. Sure they can't pack a 80 pound ruck for log distances, but don't count them out of all rolls. Not sure exactly what roll they would play, but you are limiting a force multiplier by saying only one sex can pull a trigger.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 9:45 AM

2015-06-02T09:45:45-04:00

I think SMA Dan Dailey says it best: ""Is the Army ready for women in combat arms? I think we are past due. I think we should give every Soldier, regardless of gender, the opportunity to serve in any military occupational specialty. What I am excited about is that we are using a standards-based approach, just like we should for everything we do in the Army. Regardless of gender, those Soldiers who are physically capable and want to compete and try out for these schools and military occupational specialties will be eligible to do so. I think it will make our Army better."
http://www.army.mil/article/142029

Dailey shares ideas about leadership development, fitness, women in combat arms

The 15th sergeant major of the Army shared his thoughts regarding physical fitness, leadership development, women in combat, and an Army that must remain prepared during an interview before being taking office, Jan. 30.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 11:23 AM

2015-06-02T11:23:15-04:00

As this thread continues to steam roll here is something to think about...THIS was a social experiment in itself and the outcome was just as suspected! I was accused of misogyny, bigotry, a lack of professionalism, being myopic, insensitive, and out of touch with today's ways. So for those of you who chose to use the fuel of this fire to lambaste me on the internet instead of using this venue as an opportunity to put forth advantages to the program congratulations and thank you for helping me prove me right.

Not ONE person offered up ONE advantage to adding women to direct ground combat units. In fact the most common thought and I paraphrase was women should be able to try because they're women and they're entitled to. Not to mention the overwhelming majority of people who are all for this are NOT in ground combat specialties! That is like saying "I fully support this because in a life and death scenario it wont be my problem anyways".

A little note on direct combat units or branches as they pertain to us Army folks. I am referring to Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Engineer (Combat), and Special Forces. Having a logistic MOS and making contact does not make you a Combat Arms branch. Your mission is to move supplies or people from point A to point B. A tanker moves from point A to point B to close with and destroy the enemy.

Those of you who share my thoughts, I am glad I am not alone in seeing the detriment forced on us. Besides, if women are equal then why bother with separate ANYTHING? Clearly if women are the same as men everything should be gender neutral to include pro sports and bathrooms right?

In closing, I would just like to say thanks to to majority voice proving me right. When it doesn't go your way then automatically resort to excuses, name calling, and entitlement. Also, MAJ Private RallyPoint Member is actually my Company Commander and his comment was a plant just to see how many lemmings would follow him off the cliff, we weren't disappointed. Proof a that an Armor Officer and an SF guy can work together.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 11:29 AM

2015-06-02T11:29:51-04:00

It becomes a social experiment when they begin shoe horning women through Ranger School. Until then, it's just an experiment to challenge status quo and to see if there is a better way of doing things. The scientific community tests and retests established scientific theories and laws. I see no reason why the military cannot do the same.

Those who can do, should do. And this is to see if women can do.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 11:58 AM

2015-06-02T11:58:10-04:00

I believe that women should be allowed to try out for any occupation they would like in the armed services, however, they need to be upheld to the same standards. If they lower the standard for say, a female at BUDS, then that will potentially lower the quality of their overall performance as a SEAL. You still need to score the same on all the physical and mental aspects of the evaluation. Everyone preaches equality, yet to lower the standards simply to make it easier on females, is simply saying they are not as capable as the men. If you want to be an Army Ranger, or a SEAL, or a Green Beret, then fucking prove it by excelling in the same way that all the others have before you.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 11:58 AM

2015-06-02T11:58:36-04:00

Let's face it, most Army training has little to do with actual training and a lot more to do with hazing. Ranger School is a legacy school that teaches skills that were relevant in Vietnam. What difference does a Ranger tab make 20 years down the line when considering who to promote to O-5 or O-6? It doesn't say anything about the current skill set at all.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jun 2 at 2015 12:05 PM

2015-06-02T12:05:08-04:00

Not so fast! Do you consider fighter pilots to be in direct combat? What about submarine duty or duty aboard ships? Are forward observers in direct combat?

Response by SSG Brian Kresge made Jun 2 at 2015 12:38 PM

2015-06-02T12:38:35-04:00

I would hesitate to term this a "social experiment." Citizens have petitioned their elected representatives to see if the military could assess putting females in combat arms roles. That's how our Republic works. To call this a "social experiment" is an insult to democracy and our military.

I've been infantry up until last year, enlisting in 1994 and serving with the Rakkasans, 1/501st PIR, a Guard LRSD unit and a Guard Stryker infantry battalion. I feel like I have the bonafides to offer my subjective opinion on the merits of females serving in combat roles, but I don't have to. The women who want it will speak with their feet and rise and meet the requirements.

I wish, however, that we could do what the IDF does, and allow individual units to set their own training and physical demand standards.

The IDF has one 70% female infantry battalion, the Caracal battalion, which has served in combat operations in Lebanon and Gaza, and performed so well that the IDF is standing up another 50% female infantry battalion, the Bardelas, in July of this year.

But because their model doesn't require a ubiquitous standard across the force, they can be more flexible in their implementation. The Caracal Battalion has one standard for its male and female troops, but it doesn't have the same standards as the infantry battalions in the Golani Brigade, where women can't serve.

It's a call out and a caveat should anyone reference the IDF in support of female integration. They do it in a way that recognizes cultural dynamics that our culture and government cannot sustain. But it's a way forward that I wish we could evaluate.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 12:58 PM

2015-06-02T12:58:12-04:00

This isn't a full failure of women in Combat Units, just in an elite Unit.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 1:15 PM

2015-06-02T13:15:24-04:00

Just keep the standards the same across the board. Other than that, I couldn't care less.

Response by Amn Scott Dean made Jun 2 at 2015 2:15 PM

2015-06-02T14:15:56-04:00

I fully believe there are some women who are perfectly capable. The issue, really, is that they need to have the same standards as anyone else doing that job. I don't see failure in these eight women not making it through Ranger school - most men don't make it either. The victory was that they were smart enough not to change the standards for women to be more "inclusive".

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:16 PM

2015-06-02T14:16:46-04:00

It is just costing us money now. Keep this up and worse, life if they lower the standard to meet some type of quota

Response by SrA Jeremy Roy made Jun 2 at 2015 2:40 PM

2015-06-02T14:40:37-04:00

First let me make this clear, I do not in any way support lowering any standards. I do stand for equal opportunities. This was one class of 8. How many male ranger candidates drop out/wash out every year? Give it a little more time, and see what they can do. It never makes sense to close the door to everyone simply because of their gender, if they do the job, then they can do the job. They should have to pull the same standards as men, but if they can do it, let them.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:46 PM

2015-06-02T14:46:23-04:00

I got a female SPC who is a stud, she could put up a hell of a fight for the TAB. She is Air Assault/Airborne, 300+ PT, expert weapons qualification and just an overall super soldier. I asked her last week if she could make it, she said all she need was a shot! I had my negative thoughts and views about it, but having a soldier with that awesome character; well it makes you think differently about the situation. I say, let them have the chance, because one of those young ladies with that drive and dedication will pass! Then what is the Army going to do?! They will have to honor their decision of putting a female in a Ranger Line Unit. We all know where that young soldier would end up when it happens!

Response by SPC Lindsay Siegfried made Jun 2 at 2015 3:05 PM

2015-06-02T15:05:35-04:00

I'm kinda disgusted that anyone in a senior leadership role would both harbor and voice this opinion. Cool story bro, women failed the course. So did a ton of men. So here's an idea. We set these things called "standards." Then we allow anyone who wants to try, to attempt to meet these "standards." then, if they pass them, those people are awarded! How is this difficult? Why should a capable and motivated woman in the future be barred from ranger school because a different woman in the past failed at it?

What should stop is all of this exploratory crap where they are actively seeking women to try to pass. Just open it up, let those who want, try, and if they wash out then they wash out. It's really not that complicated.. People wash out of ranger school all the time.

Response by LTC Donell Kelly made Jun 2 at 2015 3:24 PM

2015-06-02T15:24:48-04:00

I down voted your comment for a simple reason. It's discrimination, pure & simple. There WILL be women who can and will pass the Ranger course WITHOUT standards being lowered.
If integrating black soldiers into the military had been considered a "social experiment" we'd still have separate entrances, separate drinking fountains, separate areas/dining halls, separate quarters. We'd also have white POW's being treated better than our own black service members.
This is NOT a "social experiment." It's the opportunity for women to join combat units, for the opportunity for women to break the glass ceiling of rank structure that is closed to so many because they have no "combat experience" no matter how many times they've served as "attached" to combat units.
Women will be be able to pass Ranger school, sooner or later and without changing the qualifications.

Response by SPC Samantha Greenlee made Jun 2 at 2015 3:39 PM

2015-06-02T15:39:45-04:00

In order for woman to get in the door in the combat arms they need to be respected. The only way men will respect their counterpart to join them in the ranks is if they do not change any standard in the school, one standard physically. That way the few woman who do make it will be worthy of wearing the ranger tab, and those men can’t get their panties in a wad when a woman sets the standard. When I was in I had a 298 on the male score board and 361 on the female score bored in P.T. at one time. Some women can do it physically, not all. Don’t lower the standard. If she can make it, then she’s one woman who can stand with men.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jun 2 at 2015 4:11 PM

2015-06-02T16:11:44-04:00

I only have one question, ok a couple.
Were these women chosen for this training?
Did these women want to be chosen?
And were these women the best choice of all that wanted to be chosen?
All of these questions has a factor of whether or not this was something that was set up to fail

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 4:56 PM

2015-06-02T16:56:18-04:00

The enemy is not going to change what they do to us based on our gender. If you can not meet the standards that have been around for years you should not be allowed to join. Not to mention lowering standards for females is sexist implying they are inferior to males.

Response by SPC Julia Sell made Jun 2 at 2015 4:59 PM

2015-06-02T16:59:32-04:00

I am so proud of these women! It's a few steps in the right direction and each one adds up to the change that women deserve. Not every man makes it through these courses so it should not be expected that every woman would either. There is a reason that the standards are set in the way in which they are. I did notice a few different articles noting that the specific standards don't really reflect the jobs but I don't know that I ever did a sit-up while I was out in the field running my telecommunications equipment. So, there are basic reasons for these standards. The general consensus among women veterans is that we don't want the standards to be changed, it is frustrating at times to be measured against men, but that never stopped me from beating many of them on road marches and PT tests. There's nothing wrong with allowing women to compete head to head with men. The bottom line is that women are just as capable of handling the stress and rigors of combat as men are. It would be nice if women were allowed to train properly before being put in to combat situations, though. When training is 2 months vs a year there is bound to be a learning curve. I have heard the comment "we care for women, that's why we don't want them in combat", if anyone truly cared for women they wouldn't be stuffed in to a box and forced to do "women's work". Stop categorizing and stigmatizing what women are capable of and let us compete for positions just as men do.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 5:36 PM

2015-06-02T17:36:14-04:00

I think they should be allowed, but the politicians advocating integration need to lay off the liberal koolaid for a second, sober up, and realize that not very many are going to meet the physical requirements. There are definitely women in the military that are capable of it, but finding them and getting them to try out is going to be like catching a unicorn. Lowering the physical standards shouldn't even be a topic up for discussion.

Response by MSG Angel Garcia made Jun 2 at 2015 5:45 PM

2015-06-02T17:45:19-04:00

Not No but hell no. I don't care if you are female , male. Make the standards or go home.

Response by SSG Peter Ludlum made Jun 2 at 2015 6:27 PM

2015-06-02T18:27:41-04:00

Wow REALLY? First off my daughter graduated MARINE Infantry school in February. She qualified on her weapon in the top 3 in fact out of the top 10 in the class 4 were female. There were no standard changes just for females. Tell SSG Hester she didn't deserve her Silver Star? Women have been defending and dying in combat since the Revolutionary War. I was deployed during OIF 3 04-06, do some research folks, INsurgents attacked a column outside of Fallujah and got their butts handed to them by Female Marines. If the elite don't want females in their units too bad and too sad it is gonna happen. Get over it. We do not make policy we enforce it. Women on the subs was a success, some scumbag decided they wanted to be jack wagons. I think they should have let those female officers dispense justice. I can only speak for myself but I am a PROFESSIONAL NCO. My job is to train my soldiers so that they get to come home. I don't care what they are packing in their pants. Their success or failure falls on my soldiers. If I do my job, they will do theirs. I took women into harms way and they performed no better or worse than their male counterparts. Sorry it is not the 1950's anymore. We have evolved past females being in the kitchen. Instead of whining we should be working to make this successful. If your females are falling short don't blame them. Blame yourself, your the one letting them down. *****Rant over****

Response by CPT Abigail Adams made Jun 2 at 2015 6:52 PM

2015-06-02T18:52:15-04:00

The only failure will be that these, or future women, give up in the face of adversity. Keep at it ladies!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 6:54 PM

2015-06-02T18:54:50-04:00

Let’s make an accurate assessment of the situation. Around 3% of the Army is even qualified to be a Ranger. Secondly, 101 Men didn’t finish the first phase of the course either. Our Nation’s history demonstrates many moments that the “MAJORITY” believed that another race, gender, etc. was unqualified or not worthy enough for equal rights, or to vote. Only recently have homosexuals who have been serving in our military for as long as I can think of, allowed to be openly homosexual. Yet people continue to rationalize their prejudice or bias opinions of “Justified separation” is somehow logical. The reality is women are currently in some combat MOS, have served on the front lines, serve with SPECIAL OPERATIONS units, and eventually WILL PASS RANGER SCHOOL, I don’t know when but it’s time that some of these people just start accepting that! CHANGE IS INEVITABLE! GET WITH THE PROGRAM OR GET OUT! NCO VISION 2020 LET’s GO. In the mean time, I will sit here and wait while these irrelevant people are QSP, QMP, and natural attrition removes them from amongst my ranks.

Response by Sgt Daniel V. made Jun 2 at 2015 7:07 PM

2015-06-02T19:07:40-04:00

Tell the nearly 200 Gold Star families of Service Members, who are women, who died serving this country in Iraq and Afghanistan that women aren't good enough to meet the enemy as combatants. Tell the Battalion Commanders that their female warriors don't rate to aspire to be combat professionals. Would you tell that to the Marines who silently and professionally watched my back behind the sights of a .50 cal, MK-19, S.A.W, and 240 to their face that they weren't real combat Marines as we risked our ass in Fallujah, Ramadi, Baghdad, T1, Skandaria, Karma, Gannon, Korean Village, Haditha, Hit and all up and down MSR-1 and Michigan and all over AO Topeka in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Because I have respect for ranks and order I will not say the things that I am thinking but my loyalty lies with whoever will fight with me, whoever will bleed, sweat and die for me. I don't need to be told that women have the right to enter infantry schools because I am a real man and Marine. I don't need to be convinced that a woman is capable of defending her country in ANY capacity like I dont need to be told that women have the right to vote or to be president of a country or persue any life that she sees fit for herself.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Jun 2 at 2015 7:20 PM

2015-06-02T19:20:18-04:00

It will take the deaths of a few thousand young men before the will have their pound of flesh.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 7:43 PM

2015-06-02T19:43:08-04:00

TRADOC is exactly the place to run experiments. Just because they failed doesn't mean someone won't.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 7:53 PM

2015-06-02T19:53:09-04:00

I will caveat by stating up front that i am in agreement with capable women having every opportunity capable men have. However, let me ask you this; what do you think about instead of this "social experiment" as the OP refers happening in combat schools, we instead change the selective service laws to include women. How can we expect equality for women in the military, if from the very beginning, they are being treated differently?

Response by MAJ Haris Balcinovic made Jun 2 at 2015 7:57 PM

2015-06-02T19:57:12-04:00

As long as standards are not lowered

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 8:01 PM

2015-06-02T20:01:25-04:00

Response by MSG Greg Kelly made Jun 2 at 2015 8:20 PM

2015-06-02T20:20:18-04:00

I do not think women in combat units is bad because of the abilities of the women. Hey if a female can complete Ranger school without changing or lowering the standards good for her. Same for anything else never count out a women. Were my problem arises is males and females in a combat unit together because boys and girls will be boys and girls and I understand trust and all that crap but relationships of boys and girls in the same unit while at this time against regulations it will occur and will be such a distractor. Combat units must have tight small team cohesiveness, I could not imagine a male and female on the same fire team or even squad working together without any issues after a break up. Or one being promoted over the other after a nasty break up. Or even worse another soldier in the platoon or Company starts dating one or the other after a break up. I can imagine a bad guy walking up on a position were to soldiers are fooling around and get themselves and others killed. Or a really pissed off X letting someone step on IED or take a hit from a sniper I know this all sounds terrible but I have talked about this with other soldiers for years before I retired and may have talked about every possible scenario.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Jun 2 at 2015 8:45 PM

2015-06-02T20:45:37-04:00

No, these are not attempts to show that women do not belong in these places or make them look bad. What this needs to be is a national discussion amongst women and they need to decide what equality between men and women is/are. I do not believe the ability to see the horrors of combat is 'equality'. I have seen what mankind can do to each other and if my wife and little girl never have this understanding, I am ok with that. One area that needs to be decided is if men and women are equal across all jobs, then they can be equal in registration and the draft. Equality is not, "I want it this way today but not this way tomorrow," and is a discussion I want no part. I have a feeling you will find as many or more women that do not wish to be eligible for the draft as does those that want into infantry units. Let them decide.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 9:01 PM

2015-06-02T21:01:17-04:00

whatever you do, don't change the standard. Given that challenge, more women will rise to try, and fight to succeed. Those are the ones we want. If we change the standard and women then succeed, all will hold their success under scrutiny.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 9:10 PM

2015-06-02T21:10:49-04:00

I am all for giving a chance to the women who want to be the best and go ranger. What I am not for is waisting tax payer money to do social experiments. I believe that no standard should be changed to accommodate the females trying to enter. That is not fair to the current rangers who had to train their asses off to meet and exceed the standards that are currently set to earn their tab and join their ranks. It seems like a slap in the face to all who have come before to lower the standards for anyone else to enter be it female transgender or whatever.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 9:27 PM

2015-06-02T21:27:33-04:00

I don't think it's a failed experiment. I think they should be given the same opportunity with the same expectations. Don't lower any of the standards. The training that these schools provide is for particular units that provide a particular function. They can't afford to lessen the quality of the training to get women through. So if they can do it with the exact same standards as the men then I am for it. If not then do away with it.

Response by LCpl Chad Parson made Jun 2 at 2015 9:35 PM

2015-06-02T21:35:09-04:00

There will be a few who do make it and do make a difference eventually. The standards don't need to change at all. What saves lives in combat and makes for successful operations doesn't weigh on whether the operators are male or female. What matters is that they are physically and mentally capable. Period.

Response by SPC Robert Kennedy made Jun 2 at 2015 9:41 PM

2015-06-02T21:41:27-04:00

I think of a quote from Jurassic park, where it says, "your scientist were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they did not think to stop if they should." With 22 vets committing suicide a day, you would think we would be more aware of the risks for psychological trauma. However, this debate shows that we have not.

Every argument for, I hear is if they can complete the training, then they should be allowed to fill these jobs. But what job are we exactly asking them to fill? The one job in the military, the infantry, were we ask our soldiers to close with and engage the enemy, or to enter into intercourse distance and kill the enemy.

Look, I have no doubt, that EVENTUALLY one genetic freak of a woman will be able to pass the TRAINING to become an infantryman. To me, that means nothing. I really don't give a damn if a woman can do a bunch of push-ups. I don't want a disgusting fatbody in an infantry unit, but I know plenty of PT studs that would not make good infantry soldiers. And it's not meant to be insulting to women. I simply have an understanding of what the infantry is tasked to do, to kill, and to kill at a sexual distance. And I will be blunt, the infantry is the ONLY occupation in the military where a soldier will be asked to kill at that distance, and asked to do the same tomorrow, the next day, and the next day.

I also know the dirty secret, it's actually extremely hard to get people to kill at that distance. Therefore, I ask the question, what happens when an infantry unit has a combat ineffective rate of soldiers who will not kill? The answer is we all know that we are going to start losing more soldiers, more battles, and more wars. So, what does an infantry unit need in order to ensure that their soldiers will kill?

I recommend the book, On Killing, for those who have not read it, as it discusses what is needed for the average soldier to overcome his natural instinct to not kill.... one of these aspects being group diffusion.; which I hear in this context, as there needs to be significant unit cohesion and a espirt de corps, in order for that soldier to overcome his natural instinct to not kill.

In other words, you would need to guarantee that there would be no disruption in unit cohesion, in order to say it is a good idea. I would call anyone a fool to say that there would be no disruption. Our problem is that there is too much of a focus on the individuality of a soldier, and a complete lack of how that individual soldier more importantly fits into the unit. Really, ask yourselves, does any individual soldier make a difference? I would strongly answer no. The only difference is how that individual soldier fits into his unit and enhances the killing power of that unit.

I do not mean this to offend anyone nor take away the service that women have done for our country; but for the sake of protecting unit integrity and protecting the psychological health of the individuals in that unit, it is a really bad idea to put women into an infantry unit.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 9:55 PM

2015-06-02T21:55:25-04:00

I can't believe a 1SG is posting this crap. It's not a social experiment. It's basic human decency. If you pull your head out of your ass and look at some of the other military organizations in the world which resoundingly kick ass (like Israel), you would see that women are quite capable of serving in combat units. Race, sex, orientation, all of that stereotypical redneck crap is not determinate of whether someone is qualified to be in a combat unit.

Response by SSgt Joel Miller made Jun 2 at 2015 10:04 PM

2015-06-02T22:04:37-04:00

Women want combat unit equality they should have all the same standards as men, if not then you are lowering the quality of the force as a whole. No separate Standards for PFT and no more doing half the work when it comes to heavy lifting.

Response by SFC Michael Hair made Jun 2 at 2015 10:37 PM

2015-06-02T22:37:26-04:00

There are a few women that can pass the real requirements and training and then what. Is it really wo r having it to have 1,2, maybe 3 women in an Infantry company? It isn't necessary to disrupt the norm for a very few

Response by SGT Kevin Brown made Jun 2 at 2015 10:59 PM

2015-06-02T22:59:25-04:00

I don't think it is a social experiment. I see it more as the Army recognizing that female soldiers are equal to male soldiers. With that said, I dispise any use of affirmative action to make this happen. The people selected should be selected on ability and merit alone. It shouldn't matter if they are man, woman, black, white or what not, but if they don't meet the standards or can't beat out the competition, then it is time for them to evaluate were they need improvement and make changes accordingly. I know woman soldiers who can out do me and many other male soldiers in many events, so I know they (the ones able to make the cut) are out there.

Response by PV2 Alaina Norman made Jun 2 at 2015 11:35 PM

2015-06-02T23:35:48-04:00

Horrible experiment, what does that mean? men and women should all have equal rights to try, its not like every man can pass the thing. All it means is they are not personally ready but there is someone out there who might be. its not an experiment its an oppertunity and a chance. THere also needs to be standards; that is how it works, should there be a standard from men to women like they do with ages and genders for pt, maybe but someone might have what it takes

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 11:36 PM

2015-06-02T23:36:48-04:00

While those specific individuals may not have passed the testing, there are other deserving individuals who are deserving of the honor. To lead combat troops is a tremendous honor and must be done with the greatest of care. There are even men in combat units who are not deserving of the responsibility.

Response by SGT Wendell Vining made Jun 2 at 2015 11:47 PM

2015-06-02T23:47:11-04:00

standards are just that...IF YOU SLOW DOWN A UNIT to make exceptions, you are putting personnel necessarily in harms way...that is the reason behind standards, All that should be said is I'm sorry you don't meet the standards. THERE IS ALREADY ENOUGH BLOODSHED. I wouldn't want someones blood on my hand because I made the decision to make an exception to not hurt someones feelings...you don't play with peoples lives to make someone feel good about themselves

Response by CW4 Larry Curtis made Jun 3 at 2015 1:08 AM

2015-06-03T01:08:11-04:00

One thing that runs through my own mind about this is that I am wondering about the type of pressure which might be applied to the cadre of these schools. I don't think, despite what anyone might be thinking, that they are receiving pressure to fail all of these women, but rather quite the opposite. Having worked in the TRADOC arena for a few years in Aviation, I have seen pressures applied for a variety of political reasons. I've seen flight students come through who were given an enormous amount of consideration and many more opportunities to "pass" than your average flight student due to political issues. I could write a book about it. But as in anything else, there ARE limitations and if you are unable to meet the standards to perform within these limitations, you are a wash. Plain and simple. And just as I don't think anyone would care to ride on a helicopter with a pilot who may not be capable of getting to your destination safely, I don't think we need people tasked with performing specialized, and quite deadly tasks who may not be able to perform them successfully, and this is why we have established standards for ANY vocation.

Hey, I am all for you if you can make the cut. But I don't think we need to be lowering the bar on ANYTHING for ANYONE regardless of gender, race, nationality, or whatever the political winds are blowing into the situation. We are doing not only a disservice to our fighting force's capabilities, but we are also doing a terrible disservice to the individuals who may not be capable of doing the jobs, as well...setting them up for their ultimate failure.

My 2 cents...for what it's worth, and to coin a phrase from Yogi Berra, we all know that a nickle isn't worth a dime anymore.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 1:54 AM

2015-06-03T01:54:17-04:00

“I think it’ll be contentious, but I think it’s equitable and sensible to ask the question about what are the [Ranger School] standards that are only related to the fact that only men have ever done it," says retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, who served as the top commander of United States forces in Afghanistan, as well as three tours in Army Ranger battalions.

This is precisely what the "against" part has been afraid of. Eventually, the standards are going to be lowered, and it is going to be directly due to women being able to be in these elite units.

The problem has always been, if you give up a little ground, kiss the rest of it goodbye.

I would normally be impressed with how women have so keenly engineered their way (socially and politically) into a control position in every aspect of American Society, as this is also a form of shadow-warfare, and such things impress me...

...however the problem is that this sort of thing has brought us to the brink of socialism, and has been the intent of the Soviets and Russians ever since Lenin came to power (read: "useful idiots")

In the end, feminists have been duped, and their social prowess counts for nothing.

When it comes to women being in combat roles, I don't have a problem with it... but it has to be for the right "reasons." It's not the "what," but the "why."

"It's not about whether it's the right thing to do, but whether it's the smart thing to do. Pride comes before the fall, and righteous action is commonly the veil of corruption in disguise. It's simply not enough to have noble intent anymore."

Response by SGT Erik Prano made Jun 3 at 2015 3:28 AM

2015-06-03T03:28:48-04:00

I have to admit, the performance thus far has been less than stellar, but I will plays devil's Advocate here and suggest, their might be some successes in the future, so lets give the ladies a chance for a little longer.

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Jun 3 at 2015 3:39 AM

2015-06-03T03:39:44-04:00

Its at times like this I'm glad for that DD-214. The military is quickly becoming the next Politburo of politics and backstabbing nonsense.

The obvious answer should be, let the qualifications of the candidate speak for itself.

Somehow it turns into flame wars instigated by those with warped opinions.

No matter which side you take, its bad.

But honestly, looking at the Female Kurdish fighters roaming around Syria and Iraq, Shiite death squads trucking around with female suicide bombers, Russian spies infiltrating the US not to long ago and even building careers pumping information from people who should have known better...

...somehow throughout it all, the ENEMY seems to have no problem finding perfectly good combat roles for women. Why?

Why is the ENEMY doing a better job of utilizing females on the battlefield?

I rest my case. Focus on the ENEMY. Not each other! Other Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are not your ENEMY!

Response by Cpl Adam Brooks made Jun 3 at 2015 10:17 AM

2015-06-03T10:17:02-04:00

This isn't about social experimentation. This is about establishing equality of opportunity between men and women in the military. Not allowing women to serve in combat roles or go to certain schools is detrimental to their career prospects. It also contributes toward the systemic sexism in the military, because taking advantage of these opportunities garners the respect and admiration of one's peers. This goes beyond military values, because denying equality to women in the military is contradictory to our national values.

Keep the standards the same and allow everyone to go to these schools. Ensure that there are checks in place to ensure that women are not discriminated against in the selection processes. This isn't rocket science.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 10:40 AM

2015-06-03T10:40:22-04:00

Standards must be the same to make this work. I will not accept any of my Soldiers falling behind regardless of gender. As long as you can pass the male standard PT test for appropriate age group, carry your full kit with 70lb ruck(at least) and be able to carry your fallen buddy with full kit, lets do it. Oh, keep in mind that the weapon may be a 240B with a few hundred rounds of ammunition. Have at it.

Response by SSgt Christopher Kellam made Jun 3 at 2015 11:42 AM

2015-06-03T11:42:32-04:00

Meh, a lot of that is probably due to the schools being designed for men. I don't have any direct combat experience, so I have no examples of feats of strength performed by men that couldn't be performed by women but I'm sure there are some bad-asses that will make it eventually. One class is hardly a large enough sample size to determine women should be allowed to compete.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 11:44 AM

2015-06-03T11:44:30-04:00

Gender-bending standards should not be enforced. There are requirements, and anyone should be given the chance to be able to meet those.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jun 3 at 2015 12:31 PM

2015-06-03T12:31:56-04:00

As long as the standards aren't lowered then let the games continue. If they make it, they make it. If they don't, then they don't. That's the reason for standards. The standards will sort out who should and shouldn't be there, unless the standards are lowered.

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Jun 3 at 2015 12:50 PM

2015-06-03T12:50:33-04:00

Women, whether we like it or not, are becoming increasingly involved in combat operation. The better we prepare them to fight the better off everyone in uniform will be. No we should not alter the standards for Ranger, Special Forces, and SEAL training and qualification. But there's nothing wrong with giving women the opportunity to qualify. Even those that wash out are better off for the attempt. When the day comes that a male warrior ends up in a foxhole with a woman warrior, he won't care what she qualified for only that she can fight and help keep them both alive. http://about.me/ed.ross

Ed Ross (ed.ross) on about.me

View Ed Ross on about.me. About.me makes it easy for you to learn about Ed Ross’ background and interests.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jun 3 at 2015 1:01 PM

2015-06-03T13:01:36-04:00

The ignorance of few never cease to amaze me.

I can't pass ranger school, but hell I am 51 years old. If there is a woman who can , and their will be, all the power to them.

But Sergeant would you say this soldier should not be able to go to sniper school?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko
She has more confirmed kills than Carlos Hancock and Chris Kyle combined, but I guess she wouldn't count in your good old boys testosterone club would she? I am betting in her prime she would of given it a good run for the money.

Their will be women who pass, when, I don't know, but their will be.

Lyudmila Pavlichenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liudmyla Mykhailivna Pavlychenko (Ukrainian: Людмила Михайлівна Павличенко; Russian: Людмила Михайловна Павличенко, tr. Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko; July 12, 1916– October 10, 1974) was a Ukrainian Soviet sniper during World War II.[2] Credited with 309 kills, she is regarded as the most successful female sniper in history.[3][4]

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 2:02 PM

2015-06-03T14:02:25-04:00

I think the standards should remain firm, if not become more challenging and tough.
Those units are elite. If you can do them, do them. but The military should not be making decisions based on political correctness. They should make decisions based on what makes the military a stronger fighting force.
People will say that it isn't fair to women, but it is fair to everyone. If you meet the requirements and are capable to perform at that level, then so be it. It's part of our human genetic code that a substantially lower percentage of women will be able to reach that goal.
So, i'm not blindly saying we shouldn't allow women in combat roles, I'm just saying if anything they need to be able to meet the same standards and that i believe the standards should probably be raised in the first place.

Response by CPL Norma Brown made Jun 3 at 2015 2:10 PM

2015-06-03T14:10:25-04:00

Don't change the standards..... They are there for a reason, proven under fire.... There's a reason that the Rangers are the best. Let females go through if they want....at the same exact standard.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 3:46 PM

2015-06-03T15:46:03-04:00

I think it's truelly sad that there were so few female volunteers.....just saying.
I've seen a few females in the Army that might have been able to make the cut, but that could all just be the way they were raised in the army. If you give a group of people lower standards than they will never be better than a group that has more expected of them. Real life isn't like the movie heavyweights. It's going to take a new class of female soldiers to run alongside the infantry. On the other hand I welcome it. Some of these fat-bodies need the embarrassment of a woman out performing them. Cut em Down real nice!

Response by MGySgt Scott Martin made Jun 3 at 2015 4:03 PM

2015-06-03T16:03:19-04:00

I think it is criminal that as we discussed integration plans for women into combat arms we identified that the injury rates for females that were seen in the integration of the Engineers was double the rate males. We were told that this would not be a factor in the decision whether or not to integrate. The commission didn't care if we broke every one of them and crippled them for life as long as they had the opportunity to participate. At the very least they need to make sure every volunteer for combat arms is given this startling fact, but we cant of course because we would be discouraging women. Informed consent in medicine, but not in enlistment contracts.

Response by SP5 Roberta Sanchez made Jun 3 at 2015 4:03 PM

2015-06-03T16:03:21-04:00

The initial group of women will fail. However the subsequent group of women will do much better. Today's woman knows her mind and her body and will be able to muster the skills needed. The other obstacle-the males who do not want them there, will do anything they can to keep them out. The latter is more of a threat them the former.

Response by SSG Ralph Innes made Jun 3 at 2015 4:04 PM

2015-06-03T16:04:27-04:00

According to the Army Times website, there are 6,825 fallen warriors on their Honor the Fallen page. I don't know the exact number, but there are a lot of female warriors that have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Last I checked, their uniforms said US Army, just like the males. I have personally had the pleasure to work around some female soldiers that I would have much rather had in my all male combat arms unit than some of the males. So long as they can pass, let them serve in the units. Failure to give them the opportunity, though, is closed-minded and archaic.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 3 at 2015 5:10 PM

2015-06-03T17:10:27-04:00

We should think outside the box and look at something like the Kurdish female infantry brigade.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 7:13 PM

2015-06-03T19:13:25-04:00

8 Women. I'm sure we can make a totally reasonable conclusion off of the results of 8 women. Give me a break, I know plenty of men that failed out of Ranger School too.

Response by Sgt Michael Smith made Jun 3 at 2015 11:20 PM

2015-06-03T23:20:05-04:00

Who cares if women joins the infantry. We can't win wars anymore anyway because we have too many panty waisted (pun intended) leaders that care too much about politics rather than keeping America safe. You think ISIS, Russia and China are trying to be all political and make war all nice and happy for everyone to play fairly? We are all doomed. So, f**k it, the American experiment is about over.

Response by PFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 11:30 PM

2015-06-03T23:30:05-04:00

Do you have female subordinates? I sincerely hope that is not the case.

If you don't test the system, the system will fail. There were a lot a hidden gems that have been in our military being rendered utterly useless until their values were realized. If this helps the fight, it helps. If it doesn't, screw it. But based on evaluation not based on the opinions of people who don't even view their female counterparts as fellow soldiers. This isn't Hogwarts, there is no magical Ranger sorting hat.

I'm sure many people feel the same way about affirmative action. If the issue is merit: what is true meritocracy if only some can prove their merit?

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 1:12 AM

2015-06-04T01:12:30-04:00

If they can meet the physical requirements, who cares? I don't think readjusting standards to accommodate women in the infantry is responsible or ethical but if they can hang (no pun intended) bring'em in.

Response by PFC Michael Conner made Jun 5 at 2015 2:24 PM

2015-06-05T14:24:23-04:00

When my Combat Supply Company deployed to the middle east, within 90 days of our arrival, we lost nearly half the women to pregnancy. And of the hundred or so left? Three actually understood the concept of work and doing their fair share. The rest were good for STDs and complaining.

Response by PVT Mark Spellacy made Jun 5 at 2015 3:10 PM

2015-06-05T15:10:03-04:00

please

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 3:20 PM

2015-06-05T15:20:29-04:00

So everyone wants equality huh? Well, right now the Army is one of the largest promoters of inequality. Women have equal pay, equal promotion time, and in the MOSs the Army has for men and women, an equal shot at each job. But, as of right now women do not have the same standards as men. The current physical fitness standards allow women to have significantly lower level of fitness then men. But they still have equal pay and equal chance at promotion. As far as pregnancy goes, women can get pregnant, and essentially take 9-12 months off from any type of basic Army task. Regular PT, firing range, deployments...etc. And, the last time I checked women cannot be drafted. Are we ready to conscript our wives, mothers and daughters in this country? Or are we still going to promote different standards?
If today, we were to wipe away the PT standards and just go with the male standards for all soldiers, how would that 16% of the force look at the end of the year? I would bet the retention standards for women in the military would drop as well. So, I'm all down for equality, but make it truly equal, just don't pick and choose what's equality and what is not.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 3:46 PM

2015-06-05T15:46:47-04:00

To the argument that men and women not being physically different: The Army has not seen fit to hold women to the same fitness standard as men. I, for one, hope that changes. The same applies to sports teams and the Olympics. Men and women compete separately. Why do you think that is? The peak of physical fitness for men and women are two different ranges. There is no getting around that simple fact.

To the argument of some women out-performing men: absolutely. That happens. It will continue to happen. There will always be women out there who train their asses off or are just naturally gifted and will perform better than their male counterparts in areas of physical ability. There are female UFC fighters that could kick my ass. There are female track stars that can run circles around me. But our focus is on women in the military and can those women who CHOOSE to enlist perform the hardest jobs in the military? That's debatable. We just put the cream of the crop of female Soldiers through Ranger School and they're failing. That's not to say there isn't ANY females in the WORLD that can pass Ranger school. But it looks like those capable females are not interested in joining the Army and being a Ranger.

As to the argument to the training and it's difficulty: There's a reason why it's that difficult. Do we want candidates to carry 120 pound rucks while enduring food and sleep deprivation just to feel macho after they've done it? No. The training is built to weed out people who are either not physically able to do it or don't have the mental stamina to endure it. That ability to go on when you have nothing left is a core part of the "rite of passage" into the elite fighting forces. Will we commonly encounter these conditions in combat? Maybe not. But we must train for the most extreme conditions, not the common ones.

Response by PO2 Sean Flanagan made Jun 5 at 2015 3:54 PM

2015-06-05T15:54:47-04:00

There are obvious hurdles to overcome and I hope the military doesn't lower the set standards to accommodate sub-par performance simply to increase diversity in these units. With that said, inevitably, the women who do complete the training will only make our military forces stronger.

Response by SGT Kristjan Rahe made Jun 5 at 2015 4:36 PM

2015-06-05T16:36:45-04:00

I have served with women in the military and in civilian law enforcement that can have my back any day when the proverbial fecal matter strikes the rotary cooling device. Women are capable , just not all, just like some slaccard men I have served with.

Response by Cpl Jason Avila made Jun 5 at 2015 6:20 PM

2015-06-05T18:20:28-04:00

reguardless of gender its a TEST.........pass or fail..... they shouldnt change shit...... equality or silver platter ....... pick wisely

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 7:06 PM

2015-06-05T19:06:39-04:00

I am fine with them in the Military; so long as they meet the same standards across the board. If those standards are adjusted, then they must adjust for all.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 9:00 PM

2015-06-05T21:00:10-04:00

Feminism has people thinking that they can simply ignore reality and basic human physiology in the name of some misguided cause. The military routinely washes men out of these tough schools. But you possess female genitalia and can't hack it? Well too effing bad. Get back to the personnel section where your frail frame won't get someone else killed.

Response by Sgt Candy Lundgren made Jun 5 at 2015 9:00 PM

2015-06-05T21:00:43-04:00

The Standards should NOT be changed.. if you cant meet the standards then you DO NOT belong in the rangers

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 9:02 PM

2015-06-05T21:02:13-04:00

Totally agree. I can carry a wounded buddy with his gear, they cant...

Response by Cpl Justin Sowell made Jun 6 at 2015 12:23 AM

2015-06-06T00:23:06-04:00

My theory is if you can meet the requirements and pull your own weight then by all means ruck up. If you can't then you can't. I think men are traditionally more adapt for infantry type roles, but I don't think it should be forbidden for worthy women to be grunts. my issue is when they lower the standard in order to incorporate women. Keep the standard. If they can hack it then cool, but if they can't then suck it up buttercup. I could care less what gender has my back as long as they can do their job.

Response by SPC Silas Smith made Jun 6 at 2015 1:10 AM

2015-06-06T01:10:35-04:00

i have trained with female's and while training in combat situations were there was an injured soldier, everyone that tried to drag or carry me and other men alike, failed to do so. With rules and regs certain accomodation's must be in place for female soldiers, like separate showers, latrines, and sleeping quarters. Women was not built to carry the loads that men can. Also the mentality of most women doesn't fair good were situations arise in combat. Like Iraq for example, women can be truck drivers moving heavy equipment and supplies but continually found there selves in combat situations, which cannot be helped at times. But putting women in direct combat units such as special forces units like Ranger School, Seal Teams, etc. is out of the question. Women aren't like men when it comes to strength, mentality health etc. In units like these you may be required to lay in filth for days on end with no showers etc. When it comes to being a POW, its bad enough being a guy being captured let alone a women. When haveing female's in combat units, the rise of sexual misconduct, such as rape and assault is greatly increased. I know that there is alot that would disagree with my view on this subject, but i have seen it first hand with experience through out my carrier.

Response by SSgt Austin Hill made Jun 6 at 2015 9:18 AM

2015-06-06T09:18:07-04:00

I say, let them try. Leave it open. If any women want to do these jobs and they can meet the set standards, then let them in. Don't adjust standards for them.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 2:21 PM

2015-06-06T14:21:07-04:00

Its important see this matter through objective eyes.

Response by Cpl Dean Williamson made Jun 6 at 2015 2:36 PM

2015-06-06T14:36:16-04:00

End it now, there are to many variables just to please a few people, what is the end all cost?

Response by SGT James Sims made Jun 6 at 2015 2:50 PM

2015-06-06T14:50:36-04:00

Why did the "experiment" start them off in one of the most difficult schools available to the infantry? And why is it an experiment? If your going to open it up, finally, to women then open 11b to all and be done with it. And when it comes to "standards" they should be infantry standards not male/female standards! For the record I was infantry for roughly 15 years.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 2:52 PM

2015-06-06T14:52:57-04:00

Good luck to the remaining 3. Hope I get a chance to give it a go. No negativity here!

Response by CPL Rebecca Mendez made Jun 6 at 2015 4:01 PM

2015-06-06T16:01:44-04:00

I was a part of one of these "experiments." I was a member of the Female Engagement Team at Fort Lewis, and deployed with a cav scout unit to Zabul. I can say that I was in better shape than most of the men in my unit. HOWEVER, there are plenty of things they could do that I would never be able to accomplish.
For instance, the heaviest guy in my unit was over 200lbs, not including kit, uniform, weapon, etc. Do you think I, a 5'2", 130lb female, would be able to drag him to safety if he went down? Doesn't matter how strong I am, I'm not carrying that guy without some help, which can't always happen in some cases.
I'm not saying women can't be studettes. Passing the PT test, land nav, or doing some tactical drills doesn't make a woman proficient at combat or anything relating to it. It takes a great deal of prowess and mental capacity that most women, quite frankly, just don't have.
I am a woman and I'm tired of seeing these projects of other women trying to do jobs that were meant for men. It's just the way of the nature.

Response by Sgt Mike Morehead made Jun 6 at 2015 5:20 PM

2015-06-06T17:20:11-04:00

I see no reason to end it. If a woman comes along who can meet all of the requirements, then she should be able to fully participate, if that's her choice. I absolutely disagree with anyone who says that the standards and qualifications should be reduced to accommodate anyone, male or female.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 5:29 PM

2015-06-06T17:29:13-04:00

I say open em up and if they can make the standard great. Though i only believe i know 3 women that without a doubt in my mind they could make it. Otherwise no they don't belong. Does anyone know if they sent these ladies to PRC before they went to RANGER like most units require or were they just like hey social experiment lets send em.

Response by Cpl Eric Houser made Jun 6 at 2015 11:38 PM

2015-06-06T23:38:45-04:00

I am in full support of ANYONE of any gender to give it their best to enter any group, MOS, etc. as long as all qualifications remain unaltered and equal across the board. Male and female need the exact same requirements. If a specific PFT score is needed, if a set number of kill shots are required, if an obstacle course needs to be conquered etc. it needs done by everyone. If the candidate cannot hack it for whatever reason, their gone...period. No crying about and no claiming any wrong doing. It's been a long time coming for this so embrace it, don't fight it BUT, you better not bitch when you can't hack carrying a 150 pounds worth of gear, or you can't make the time cut for a hump. The reqs are there for a reason--male or female.

I have done a lot alongside women can kick ass doing some great feats of physical endeavors so they're out there. I have ran ultra-marathons with women who kick everyone's ass, even all the men so it's not a question of whether women can do it, it's just a matter of finding them. Men attempt selection daily. Some go home and some make the cut. Those who don't learn from it and go home a better person. Complaining maybe but more down on their selves but not claiming they were discriminated against. Women who do not make the cut, just learn and go home, don't complain and whine, plain and simple, you didn't make it.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 11:48 PM

2015-06-06T23:48:55-04:00

If you can hang with the top dog's than let them. But lowering the standards for it to happen is not the way to do that. Historical or not it should be authentic.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jun 7 at 2015 12:18 AM

2015-06-07T00:18:54-04:00

Unfortunately, for the Army, they picked the wrong test 1SG Private RallyPoint Member. Ranger school was not the correct measure in my view. Why not Infantry OSUT or BOLC? More than Infantrymen already go to Ranger School and have thru the years. Either way, success in any course does not answer can or should women be assigned to traditional frontline combat forces. I can actually see women in special operations units, but not in traditional/conventional infantry, armor units. Nevertheless, back to your question, I don't think this will end til the desired results are achieved to support the agenda.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jun 7 at 2015 12:28 AM

2015-06-07T00:28:54-04:00

a former girlfriend of mine was forced out of the Air Force because the Sr NCO of the squadron couldn't handle women doing a man's job - "the Man's Job??" - anything on the flight line! she was a camera specialist on the observation jets

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jun 7 at 2015 1:01 AM

2015-06-07T01:01:16-04:00

LOL 1SG. It struck me as funny to hear one of such rank to phrase it that way. I mirror many in the opinion, if they can make it through on the CURRENT standard, so be it. Good Job.

My experience has taught me otherwise. In my 5 years, I have never seen a woman, even once, finish a run, let alone with the rest of the group. Not to say all are like that, just my experience.

Response by SGT Eric Kesseler made Jun 7 at 2015 1:25 AM

2015-06-07T01:25:43-04:00

YES! Let politically motivated experiments happen outside our most elite units! Women simply do not belong in the Infantry, Ranger Regiment, SF A Teams, Delta, etc. They have a role to play, but let's stop the trend in society to expect things to be simply because we say so! Like that Bruce Jenner freak, have all the surgery you want partner, your DNA is still made up of XY chromosomes. You are a dude with a lot of plastic surgery and got your junk removed. Calling a pig a princess doesn't get the job done!

Response by SPC Robert Kennedy made Jun 7 at 2015 1:46 AM

2015-06-07T01:46:31-04:00

As short as I can say this, and hope it is somehow changes the minds of the ones in favor of allowing women in the infantry....

(1) What impact is this going to have on unit cohesion? Can you guarantee that most males will not be impacted by the inclusion of females? In other words, can you guarantee that the males will not either be distracted by trying to have sex with the female or overprotect them? Their needs to be some study on the impact it will have on the males; especially, considering, the unit will consist of say, 99.9% of these males?

(2) Will women be able to meet the "infantry standard?" which for instance, is to score at least a 270 on a PT test, and not just a 180; and be able to live up to all the advanced standards of not just passing, but being able to prove that they belong? In other words, "just passing" means that you are a shit bag. So far, no woman has even been able to pass. To me, this is just gross. In the infantry, you need to do more than "just pass," you need to fucking excel. This means, I don't want to see a woman just pass through training; I want to see her put herself in the top ten percent in that unit. I struggle to see that happening; as I have a hard time seeing women being good enough even making it out to college football team or being able to compete against males in UFC.

(3) Can you guarantee that enough females will be able to pass in order to justify the inclusion? Right now, we are at a 100% fail rate. I'd say that the fail rate needs to be no more than 75% to justify allowing women to serve, and that there would be at least enough woman to serve in every single infantry company in the United States military and to be able to form their own squad that are capable of meeting the same physical standards as the males; in order to serve as their own support system within the infantry. People need to seriously ask themselves, is the infantry so easy, that the average athletic woman can pass it? If not, it's a fail right there.

(4) Are women going to bemoan when they are treating like shit, like the rest of everyone who has served in the infantry? So far, I hear a lot of women asking for special treatment; and I don't see too many feminists enjoying watching their favorite female hero being choked out on the regular as part of her daily hand-to-hand combat drills. More, I have a hunch that the same feminists would cry "unfair" if that female soldier was asked to be carry spare barrels, CLS bag, and the breach kit. In the infantry, it's a right of passage, for every soldier to have to prove their worth by carrying more than all the other guys in the unit. Joe will be smoked endlessly for no good reason; other than to just break him in the unit. If that goes away; than our infantry soldiers will lose their killer's edge. And, that just does not end in training... that extends and even gets worse when a soldier reaches their unit. This means that the woman is not only going to have to pass the piss poor standards of the Army; but she is going to have to prove herself to the guys she is going to have to actually serve with... in order, to earn their respect. If a woman is going to cry about being hazed, then I wouldn't want her in the unit.

(5) Are women really prepared to live like animals, next to men, away from any comfort for weeks to months on time? Welcome to the infantry... where we don't return to the FOB every day, and sit back and drink espressos. Fact is, the infantry lives a completely different lifestyle than other occupations in the military. From my experience, most people who deployed, Iraq was like a damn vacation away from their crazy families. They did not endure the countless missions outside the wire like the infantry. Are women really prepared for this shitty lifestyle? I think women and probably most people have a completely distorted view of what the infantry actually does. We embrace the motherfucking suck. The military sends the infantry out; and they don't promise them anything, like they do every other job in the military. For some reason, I have a hard time believing that it is a good idea to put a woman out with a pack of stressed out Alpha males out in the middle of nowhere for an extended period of time. Again, I see her kind of sticking out as the one who should not be there.

....In short, I see a lot of feminist posting pictures apparently of some superhard UFC fighter, as all females are like this woman. The fact is that first off, it's going to be a 99% (right now, it's 100%) chance a woman is going to fail the lowest fucking standard possible for a woman to even be considered a shit bag in the infantry. Secondly, I really want a feminist to prove to me that that there will be zero impact on unit cohesion.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2015 4:50 AM

2015-06-07T04:50:50-04:00

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/army-ranger-school-trainers-say-women-earned-chance-to-recycle-1.351129

"What it says about them is they are outstanding soldiers and they have grit and determination," Arnold said. "They are not asking for any special favors. They are not asking for anything but the opportunity to earn a Ranger tab. We do this with the male soldiers, as well."

Army Ranger School trainers say women earned chance to recycle

Three soldiers remain at Fort Benning awaiting the opportunity to become the first women to complete the most physically and mentally demanding training offered by the U.S. Army.

Response by PO3 Jon Doe made Jun 7 at 2015 10:51 AM

2015-06-07T10:51:45-04:00

You guy's do know that' statistically speaking, due to hormone difference between women and men, it is significantly easier for women to become sharp shooters than it is for men?

Also, women of the Israeli Assad kind of put this myth to the test already. Honestly I think 90% of the women wash out is cultural, we AS A CULTURE, do barbie doll and Betty Crocker our women in America. so being raised in that environment, I will concede it is more difficult for a women to acquire the mental toughness required to succeed. But apparently if they are raised in a harsh desert with Palestinians shooting rocket's at them every other day, they grow up just as capable as the men in our infantry and rangers.

Cultural observations aside, I totally have the women's back on this subject. When I served in the Navy, there were plenty of females that lived up to the negative lady condescension all you guy's throw out there, but there were also plenty of females I served with who could cut it in the mans work. that's my $.02

Response by 1LT David Moeglein made Jun 7 at 2015 1:56 PM

2015-06-07T13:56:17-04:00

I have worked with the criminally insane for most of my 16 year mental health career, in minimum to maximum security environments. The work has often times involved wrestling dangerous patients to the ground. When this happens, the chances of someone getting hurt increases dramatically. In my work, if we can avoid take downs, it is preferred. When we are able to do this and effectively resolve the situation, we end up having better outcomes, and no injuries. This increases unit effectiveness, cohesion and morale.

Women often have a way of finding the less confrontational solutions better than most men do, and when they do men get to emerge uninjured. Does this happen all of the time? No. Are all women good at this? No. Are some women good at this? Yes. Does having the right women in these situations benefit men? Yes. Do I believe that special operators could benefit from our experience in professional mental health settings? Yes.

It seems to me that part of a good war fighting skill repertoire is the ability of being strategic. If we are able to choose wisely regarding which battle to fight, we will more likely be ready for the battles that are critical. I envision times when special operations units could benefit from having women as a part of their team. It could give them greater flexibility in problem solving as they deal with a diversity of complex situations.

If we want to look to history for an example of the efficacious use of a woman in a combat leadership role, Joan of Arc is a good example. I am not advocating that women become men, or that men become anything less than who they are. However, if our only tool is a hammer, we tend to see our problems as nails. In the military, our tools are weapons. Perhaps we could use more weapon delivery systems in our special operations arsenal.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2015 2:44 PM

2015-06-07T14:44:31-04:00

While i am strongly against hanging any requirements to make it easier, i wouldn't say pull the plug on this. keep the option there, and if every one that signs up fails then so be it. but we all know there is the exception to every rule, just as there is that one female that will come along and excel in the field. do i think most of today's woman can do it, no. that's due to the same facts that more and more men are having a hard time either mentally, physically, or both. Our culture and society isn't breeding the same quality of men and woman necessary for these types of positions. Physically the male part of the species will always have the easier time, but lets not rule out that one exceptional female that may come along, every QUALITY person that can meet ALL requirements as they are set should be able to serve if that's their wish.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2015 3:20 PM

2015-06-07T15:20:52-04:00

This reality show has gone on long enough. If the remaining women fail again they're out. The last 3 already got day 1 restarts. Can we stop this now?

Response by Cpl Patrick Reade made Jun 7 at 2015 6:32 PM

2015-06-07T18:32:45-04:00

If they don't make it they don't make it. Same goes for the men. Not saying it should be ended only that if you don't pass you don't go. But if you do pass then kudos to you and it should be accepted.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2015 7:19 PM

2015-06-07T19:19:56-04:00

This is not a social experiment. Women will be allowed in the infantry branch of the U.S. Army in the near future. I asked this question of the Army's Chief of Infantry, BG Rainey, during a Q&A session here at Benning, and he simply stated it was not a matter of if, but of when. He is fully supportive of women serving in combat units and is working towards that. The reason for sending them to Ranger School to gauge their performance is because all infantry lieutenants are required to go after IBOLC, and when females branch infantry, they too will go. This is a matter of seeing how to integrate women into the infantry world, especially at Ranger, so they can be competitive with their male counterparts for promotion opportunities, schools, etc. I have been to tactical schools as an NCO and now as an Officer where I served next to females who outperformed many males in small unit tactics and physical fitness. One was a female Canadian serving in a recon unit that specialized in mountain/arctic warfare. I am confident women can rise to the challenge of leading infantry soldiers, and can handle the stresses of combat.

8 Other Nations That Send Women to Combat

As the United States prepares to officially send women into combat, it is studying the experiences of foreign militaries. So how have they fared with women on the front lines?

Response by CPL James Cummins made Jun 7 at 2015 8:42 PM

2015-06-07T20:42:16-04:00

They will probably lower the physical requirements, say they are outdated and no longer relevant to the Ranger mission.

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Jun 7 at 2015 8:58 PM

2015-06-07T20:58:14-04:00

Yes, they have failed at the OCS, but there are a few that are making it through SOI. If they make it through SOI I don't see why they can't serve in an infantry unit. Of course they probably aren't going to be machine gunners or mortar men, but they can carry a M4 and shoot. If they can pass SOI and make it through all the humps I don't see why not. Hell, we had a MP 1st Sgt come over to be our company 1st Sgt and he couldn't do the humps we did. Complained of blisters on his feet.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2015 9:40 PM

2015-06-07T21:40:07-04:00

That's what EO is, having the same opportunities to succeed as well as fail as everyone else. Also, you really shouldn't use the phrase "horrible social experiment." It sounds extremely sexist.

Response by LT Jerry Lee made Jun 7 at 2015 9:44 PM

2015-06-07T21:44:38-04:00

This is about equal opportunity that everyone has and I whole heartily believe should have - this is not about equal results...... Too many lives in danger for that - don not lower the standards - if fact - every service branch should have one standard - not male or female standard....

Response by SP6 Randy Linder made Jun 8 at 2015 12:48 AM

2015-06-08T00:48:16-04:00

i'm all for anyone who can meet the standards as they are, man or woman if they make the cut they deserve a shot. That said, i think its insane to even consider lowering the standards especially in elite units. the job doesn't change regardless of sex, race, religon. There should be 1 standard, that's true equality.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 2:23 AM

2015-06-08T02:23:15-04:00

Here are three things I think is wrong with this whole issue: (Please note: all (a’s) are my responses to the 3 issues.
1. The Subject: “Can we finally end the horrible social experiment of women in direct combat units now?”
(a) Why End it? Because a few females failed? Does that mean there are no females out there that can make it? When men were put through these training for the first time, were there only 8 men? How many of those men failed?
2. “First they ALL failed the USMC Infantry Officers Course then they ALL failed Ranger school.”
(a) Please tell me, 8 women equal to what percentage of the total women in military? Why are you basing total failure rate on a few women…that said, can we give them credit for trying rather than scrapping the program entirely?
3. “The DOD’s prime war-fighting functions are not the place to run this social experiment.”
(a) Who/Where else would you run this experiment? I’m confused. If you think my village square with my grandma as prime candidate (rather than motivated military females) is the answer to #3, then we have serious issues.

In response to other comments: First let me applaud TSGT Logan Hunter for speaking up (a bit over the top, but necessary), I found the topic offensive as well. Personally, I wouldn’t put myself through what these 8 women endured, yes to all that said some women just don’t want to deal with this even if they are capable. I also think politicians or whoever should not make decisions on what every female in the military want without asking ALL of them. Surveying a handful will never give a true representation of the truth. For those who want to try, give them the opportunity to do so but don’t for one minute think every woman in the military wants to be in direct combat… I believe the same goes for men.

In general, I like to add that regardless of how we feel about a subject, we still need to maintain our military bearings and be mindful of our language (I’m awed by some language/comments in some of the threads).
NOW LET THE BEAT DOWN BEGIN!!! LoL!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 3:23 AM

2015-06-08T03:23:38-04:00

@ 1SG Andrew McKenna
Kudos to you for speaking out on the subject, apart from constraints. The truth is a bobbing entity, constantly treading water, in the sea of political correctness. More and more, people overlook common sense for the heroine of emotion. This was never a good idea, most likely started by the ego of a few long time NCO's and officers who want that last beltnotch for rank or retirement. While it's true some women ended up in combat, non-combat MOS's are soldiers first, then whatever job they do, and they weren't deployed to be intentionally sent into combat, they arrived there based on the needs of the mission. Generally speaking, whenever you throw females into the mix, a lot of times it causes competition rather than cohesion.

Response by SPC Ben Chambers made Jun 8 at 2015 5:26 AM

2015-06-08T05:26:15-04:00

first off, theyfailed. No need to 'end' the experiment, cuz theyf'n failed. If they 'passed', then the experiment could start, lolz.

Second, if they passed, hooah, drive on Ranger.

Response by Sgt Victor Matos made Jun 8 at 2015 11:25 AM

2015-06-08T11:25:13-04:00

Diversity in military units can be very beneficial to the success of the mission. Just because a woman can't physically compete against her male counterparts, with respect to physical fitness, doesn't mean she can't be a deadlier shot with a sniper rifle.

Response by CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar made Jun 8 at 2015 1:04 PM

2015-06-08T13:04:35-04:00

I can only speak from my experience. I served in the VN war where the enemy used women in combat roles. They made great fanatics but poor soldiers, ie they would die for the cause but that isn't the point - you make the enemy die for his cause.

The purpose of armies is to win battles. ANYTHING that lessens an army's ability to win battles must not be permitted. This isn't polo we are playing here where one team gets a handicap because it is markedly superior to an other. People get killed in this "sport". If women can not make the grade, either physically or mentally, they should not be permitted to "participate". That requirement is also requisite for men.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 5:29 PM

2015-06-08T17:29:01-04:00

1SG Private RallyPoint Member I do not believe in double standards (make it easier for women for PC purposes) but there are women out there who are capable of completing this training. You may think, "Well where are they then?" but I don't believe it's fair to lump a gender into a category simply because we have brass ovaries instead of other brass "attributes." While I have absolutley no desire to do this type of traning, other women who are capable should be given the opportunity should they meet the qualifications. Women have come a long way to be where they are today in the military. It's no longer a mans' Army.

Response by SGT Anthony Bussing made Jun 8 at 2015 7:28 PM

2015-06-08T19:28:18-04:00

have any of you ever watched "ACTION FIGURE THERAPY"? its a youtube thng...pretty funny...pretty spot on...however it is NOT SAFE FOR WORK OR CHILDREN

https://youtu.be/XHAVN_k9lGk

The United States Of Butthurt

Action Figure Therapy’s Angry Ranger explains why people need to quit being so easily upset and outraged online and how this is turning the country into the ...

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 3:00 AM

2015-06-09T03:00:24-04:00

I personally do not think it was a failed social experiment; I feel as a society men want to think they are better than women and it would have been tough for them to pass regardless of the effort they put in, I have seen many good female leaders in the last 20 years and they have every right to go to ranger school or anything else they want to accomplish in there careers. We are all Soldiers and should respect each other as such. I hope they do make it one day soon and we can put see retyping behind us and make this a stronger more cohesive Army. This post should have read what are the challenges facing female Soldiers to become Rangers!

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jun 9 at 2015 12:40 PM

2015-06-09T12:40:20-04:00

Anytime you make generalizations about people and what they can and cannot do based on a physical attribute you're treading on thin ice.

For instance can someone 5'5" tall dunk a basketball?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6uLKJQhOns

How To Dunk A Basketball For Short People

http://2jumphigher.com/ Learn how to dunk a basketball for short people. If you are like 5'5, you can dunk the basketball on a 10" rim. These techniques work...

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 8:09 PM

2015-06-09T20:09:12-04:00

When can we get rid of this sexist thinking?

Response by SGT Nathan Huff made Jun 9 at 2015 9:40 PM

2015-06-09T21:40:51-04:00

ranger standards must not change.
females in combat has already happened. Though I think an all female combat unit would be best for all parties. Considering the lack of privacy in combat units.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 10:13 AM

2015-06-10T10:13:04-04:00

How about the original poster of this thread explain to women veterans who were combat wounded or to the families of women killed in combat and explain to them how women don't belong in combat units.

Response by COL Jeff Williams made Jun 10 at 2015 10:15 AM

2015-06-10T10:15:13-04:00

If we were to take the same stance on treatment of diseases and other illnesses, well there would be many people walking around with polio, smallpox, etc., etc

Response by MAJ Chris Ballard made Jun 10 at 2015 2:25 PM

2015-06-10T14:25:15-04:00

I a word: no. First, we have not seen a sufficient sample size. Fourteen women attempted the USMC Infantry Officer course. Seventeen attempted Ranger School. Thirty-one is not a sufficient sample size to "end this horrible social experiment." If 31 male soldiers or marines signed up for a course and all failed, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't be calling for the program to be shut down.

Breaking out my Magic 8-Ball and my tea leaves, here is my prediction of the future: it's going to happen. Maybe next year, maybe in a decade, maybe in fifty years, but it's going to happen. Women have already completed the Marine enlisted infantry course. It is only a matter of time before they complete Ranger School - without having lowered the standards.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 3:35 PM

2015-06-10T15:35:43-04:00

I noticed a comment earlier, that I can't find regarding more women weighing in on this. I think this thread has become a Charlie Foxtrot, honestly.

Nobody is really reading to understand opposing opinions. They see a sentence that infuriates them and go er, balls-to-the-wall keyboard warrior.

I don't believe it's sexist (a term that's just as overused as racist), to acknowledge that most women cannot physically sustain themselves in Ranger School. Do they deserve a chance? Sure. Should the standards be lowered to allow for completion? Hell no.

"The Army's mission is to fight and win our Nation's wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders."

What?! Our purpose is to fight and win wars? No way.

Let's take a breather and let that sink in.

Response by PO1 Donald Hammond made Jun 10 at 2015 4:22 PM

2015-06-10T16:22:05-04:00

First, whoever made the statement that men and women were equal physically at some point is wrong. But we'll let that one go by.

There is more here than just physically being able to pass the training. There is the fact that women vets are committing suicide at an alarming rate. Why is that? Is being in the front lines harder for women, mentally, that for men? Possibly mothers who are expected to kill see the child in the enemy and it hits them harder?

One theory thrown out there is that there is a higher percentage of people with suicidal thoughts volunteering and this tendency manifests itself in the military or after.

Now for statistics. I'm seeing the "stupid statistics" come out. 100% of failures before this were men. That is meaningless because it can be turned around to 100% of the graduates were men. This still holds true but now it is no longer 100% men failing. These stats mean nothing and shouldn't even have been brought up as an argument. Just remember, everybody who is born, dies. 100% fatality rate from being born.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jun 10 at 2015 5:09 PM

2015-06-10T17:09:33-04:00

"Can we finally end the horrible social experiment of women in direct combat units now?"

No, but we can institute a more rigorous screening process to ensure that the RIGHT women are accepted as candidates.

Lower standards? Hell no.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 5:55 PM

2015-06-10T17:55:42-04:00

1SG Private RallyPoint Member, while you do raise some valid points, I feel you are equally dismissive of the capabilities of female Soldiers in a Combat environment as well. As an MP Officer who has had the opportunity to lead both men and women in direct combat, my firsthand personal experiences inform me that women are far more capable than we initially want to give them credit for. But when given the opportunity, when placed in that exacting and demanding environment, they can and will rise to the occasion and perform their duty with skill, courage, and honor. Is it for every woman? Absolutely not! However, the ones who will persist in achieving the goal of completing Ranger School or Infantry School, or one of the other Combat Arms Schools will be equal to the task. They will surprise you, and exceed your expectations, if you give them an opportunity to do so.

1SG, I want to compliment you. When you first started this post, you initially came crashing into it like you were taking down a hostile objective; hot and violent! You pissed a lot of people off, stepped on a lot of toes, caused a great deal of butthurt, and even had this post shutdown for a short time. I've been checking in and reading the comments each day, and as time has passed, you have not changed your opinion one bit, but you have managed to become more tactful and professional in your response to those who disagree with you. That's professional growth and development occurring right here as we discuss a highly controversial topic. I just wanted you to know that someone recognizes and appreciates the change!

Response by SSgt Joe Bromley made Jun 10 at 2015 8:24 PM

2015-06-10T20:24:30-04:00

Gather 'round and take a knee or pull up a chair if you wear the shiny stuff (not you NAVY!)

I begin with a simple statement. YES, this social experiment should be scrap-binned.
Let's investigate why. There need not even BE a question of whether women are qualified to fill these positions. That answer is individual, just as it is for men who wish to serve in the same capacity.

The standard is and should remain, "if you can pass you can play". Why is it then that we encourage groups of women to participate in a hunger games parody? This idea that women can be generalized and stuffed in a little box marked "not fit for frontline combat" based on those few brave/foolish/arrogant enough to try is just disturbing. Even discussing disqualifying the entire gender for future attempts is insane.

Oh and by the way, NO we should not lower the standard. You wouldn't toe the line for my 5ft nothing sorry sack to get easier criteria, so why should it be so much easier for women?

Response by PO2 Allen Essensa made Jun 10 at 2015 11:29 PM

2015-06-10T23:29:40-04:00

The

Response by SSG Tina Herndon made Jun 11 at 2015 7:33 AM

2015-06-11T07:33:19-04:00

Every time I see this come up in my list of Updates I cringe. Personally I would not want to be in most combat positions but that doesn't mean I would take the opportunity away from other female service members who feel they are up to the challenge. It may not be today or tomorrow but soon or later there will be a femal who completes Ranger school and she should be granted the opportunity to work in the MOS if she meets the same criteria her male counterparts did!

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Jun 11 at 2015 7:45 AM

2015-06-11T07:45:36-04:00

I've been out for a little over 25 years. My experience with females revolved around training female recruits that came to the range in boot camp and permanent party from the Air Station and Parris Island. Most were good professional Marines, and the rest aren't worth talking about, just like some male Marines I met.
I saw a video the other day of a young soldier, from the 10th Mountain I believe, in Afghanistan. He stepped on the scales and weighed 170 pounds. He stepped off of the scales, put his gear on, got back on the scales and they went to 310 pounds. Then up into the mountains they went.
Are there women in this world that can do that? Yes. But how many? And is it worth the life of one male or female soldier, sailor, airman or Marine to lower the standards? Eventually a woman will pass the standards, and all of the courses the US military offers. But they need to be equal across the board. From registering for the draft, to putting on that heavy pack and humping the mountains.

Response by SFC Joseph Bosley made Jun 11 at 2015 1:49 PM

2015-06-11T13:49:17-04:00

My personal opinion is open up all schools in all services to everyone no matter what. Don't drop the standards. whoever makes it give them the job.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 2:21 PM

2015-06-11T14:21:53-04:00

Let's count the number of men who failed also, shall we? It is common knowledge that instructors (many of them) engage in gender-based discrimination and make it harder for females than they do the men. Would you like to carry a 70pound pack and be only 110 pounds yourself? Also, this is the officers course...I believe I read that there are several platoons of enlisted females who have passed the endurance standards.

Check you testosterone at the door please.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 3:54 PM

2015-06-11T15:54:59-04:00

Several people asked how women could possibly add value. I'm not sure why it's necessary to prove that they add value in addition to that of a male, but I can't understand why noone has brought up the fact that women are among the best shooters in the world?Women regularly out shoot males, female teams beat male and mixed shooting teams, and a female Marine holds the record in the USMC. So how does it make sense to exclude women from Sniper training? This would also placate some of your social concerns, as it is my understanding that snipers typically operate in two person teams. It would be too easy to form 2 - woman sniper teams. And in regular units, all other things being equal, if the primary job of an infantryman is to shoot, move, and communicate, clearly superior shooters would add value.

Response by MAJ F. Patrick Filbert made Jun 11 at 2015 5:51 PM

2015-06-11T17:51:19-04:00

This is not a "horrible social experiment" this is how the military works to evolve. What you're noting in your thread title is that women do not belong in the combat arms and, to date, that would be an inaccurate statement. They fly combat jets, helicopters, have been on the front lines in small unit fights (and awarded valor awards for it), and there are some women who appear capable in meeting the challenge.

Like men, not all women can meet the standards nor do some want to be in combat arms. However, that means there are those who want to try and they should be allowed to.

After all, hundreds of men fail Ranger School every rotation. They are allowed to recycle and many do. Gaining a Ranger Tab is not tantamount to being assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment; far from it because every male that completes Ranger School does not trot off to the 75th.

Response by PO3 Jordan Davis made Jun 12 at 2015 12:02 AM

2015-06-12T00:02:37-04:00

I don't agree with changing the programs to make them easier, but I believe that women should have the ability to try and succeed. I look forward to the day I read about the first woman to pass!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 8:43 AM

2015-06-12T08:43:55-04:00

I think my favorite part of this as it continues to linger around would be the drive by down votes by those would be the furthest from affected by what comes of this.

Response by SSG Donald Mceuen made Jun 12 at 2015 3:36 PM

2015-06-12T15:36:06-04:00

Well men crap out also. So give it a chance. The females i was with in ds were awsome
better than some of the men..

Response by PVT Douglas Stewart made Jun 12 at 2015 8:19 PM

2015-06-12T20:19:40-04:00

It is a tough subject. I believe that no woman should endure active combat roles. But, in this day and age it cannot be stopped. I am not sexist, it is just what would happen if they are caught alive by the enemy. So may different tortures could be used on a woman. I dare to even think about it.

Have a nice day,

PVT. Stewart

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2015 11:39 AM

2015-06-13T11:39:01-04:00

My fear is that the standards will change in order to accommodate women. Some politician will look at the course and say why do we need to do X? They will not be satisfied with the answer and force the Army to change the course so that women can pass an "artificial" Ranger School. Ranger School would no longer be what it is and our soldiers will be less off for it.

If they do change the standards for Ranger school. I think the next step will be for men to say the military is bias against them. For example at my age 17minutes and 24 seconds maxes the run for a female. If I (a man) run an 18:42 I would FAIL my PT test and be kicked out of the Army but that would score me 91 points as a female! On my way to earning a PT Badge as a female or getting kicked out as a male. That seems unfair. Either everything is the same...or it is not. And that's OK.

Response by SPC Ken Sawyer made Jun 14 at 2015 7:45 AM

2015-06-14T07:45:43-04:00

There may be one woman in a 10000 that could pass it. So in the end if they don't end it this administration will lower the standards to the point it will degrade their fighting ability

Response by Sgt Ron Danielowski made Jun 18 at 2015 3:44 PM

2015-06-18T15:44:34-04:00

I apologize if this is a double post, I don't see my original up yet and I have to get back to work so I error on the side of re-posting.

I have work that must be done, so just a quick shotgun blast of ideas on the subject:

The short answer is no. The political climate is non-permissive, and decentralization is as desirable as it is inevitable.

I think that women should be allowed to compete.

Because of the seriousness of the subject (life and death if individuals, teams, units, and nations), competing fairly is assumed, and by competing fairly I mean that those in the competition must be allowed to compete against the same accepted standard.

I would assume the current argument rightly rests on an idea that women (some of whom "abide by the social contract" via paying their "fair share" of taxes) who have fight the political fight to earn the ability to fight and potentially die on the battlefield for her country, family, and friends, should have the same rights of men to do exactly that.

This is the democratic way after all.

They have proven this on numerous fronts and they have shown that they have the political clout to get this far.

Boyd would say that you need to see reality (observation) for what it is, not what you want it to be, or what is being presented to you (i.e. a decoy).

This is so ingrained that there is a military maxim that states "Understand the reality on the ground and learn to adapt to it."

This then ties in nicely with Boyd's Destruction and Creation, his Decision Making Process, and with what Leon C. Megginson comments on what he felt was a good summary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species "...it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Applying this theoretical concept to us as individuals, we can state that the civilization that is able to survive is the one that is able to adapt to the changing physical, social, political, moral, and spiritual environment in which it finds itself."

After all, "Boyd is - as a good friend of mine likes to point out - in the details."

Which, unless someone can tell me a reasonable (political?) plan that can stop this, then the reality is that women not only want in, and they are making it in.

I think it may be a good time to quit fighting the decentralization of what group or gender gets to wield the credible use of force on the battlefield.

In the "world" women are changing the face of gun ownership and changing the tide in favor of the Second Amendment (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/28/women-are-a-driving-force-in-nations-shift-from-gun-control-to-gun-rights/).

It seems inevitable to me that in a warrior culture (which America was and may still be) you would inevitably end up with heartier women than may naturally be found in places where rugged individualism may be less respected as a virtue.

Would I trust a woman to have my back? Sure, just as long as she can perform as well as the guy that she is replacing.

Perhaps it is the time to focus more on keeping the bar set high, and not lowering standards to enforce the political will against the reality that some women (like some men) will not be able to pass the basic tests.

I do suspect that there are and will be women that can "compete fairly," and those who do, will be glad that they did.

Be cautious of those who take the easy path to victory via imposing their ideologies via legislation that dumbs down the organizations standards to achieve a temporary political gain. I would assume that few of warriors (or potential warriors) of either gender would argue for lower standards.

Making a unified stand on the standards seems like a natural starting place to discuss true integration which will be needed to be the most "fair" to all parties involved, and would be a much stronger position to defend than the gender argument which seems to be over at this time.

Certainly open to your thoughts on this...

Response by SSG Jason Robinson made Jun 18 at 2015 4:49 PM

2015-06-18T16:49:24-04:00

Women, in general, will never have the physical strength of men. So, unless we start allowing steroids, this should have been a no brainer...

Response by MAJ F. Patrick Filbert made Sep 18 at 2015 5:03 AM

2015-09-18T05:03:10-04:00

One of the stupider posts in Rally Point. How is this a "social experiment" when women are interlinked though all of American society? Everyone who notes that all but 2 women were washed out of Ranger School failed to note that over 100 men were as well. Further, the two women who made it through spent nearly 5 months in Ranger School and made the grade, no standards were lowered (in fact the overall graduation rate for this particular class was about 42% which is well under previous classes which ran at 51-52%). The "back in my day" crowd are those I'm glad to see out because they are the "women in the kitchen" types who are either divorced (several times) or to stupid to realize that there are women (not all, some) who can actually make the grade. These ar the same losers who note "but women can't drag a 250 pound Soldier with full pack off the battlefield when wounded!" Really? Me neither and that's where the teamwork aspect comes in in a squad, tank crew, etc. Teamwork completes the mission.

Response by CW3 Eric W. S. made Sep 25 at 2015 1:16 PM

2015-09-25T13:16:38-04:00

Not until everyone has their own PC version of the way the world power should be... the military is the microcosm for the social macrocosm of the nation. those in power feel that if we can get the military to change their policy, the nation will follow suit. we are the test-bed for social change; that will never change.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 24 at 2016 1:26 PM

2016-01-24T13:26:22-05:00

No, no, not again. But it's always guaranteed to bring out the masses.