Posted on Sep 25, 2015
Do you believe the 2 women Rangers passed on their own merits or were they given special treatment?
66.8K
588
331
18
14
4
Women in the Military
Ranger School
Standards
Responses: 134
1
1
0
CW5 (Join to see)
Given the media attention and other scrutiny, I've no doubt they passed on their own.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Why would anyone look to a rag best known for which celebrity couple had a threesome this weekend and where the bikini wax line is for this season to get substantive news on a military topic?
Every source willing to give a name has been overwhelmingly positive. Every negative, special-treatment, unfair grading source is anonymous. So not one person with balls enough to speak out? I call BS.
Every source willing to give a name has been overwhelmingly positive. Every negative, special-treatment, unfair grading source is anonymous. So not one person with balls enough to speak out? I call BS.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Alex Robinson
MAJ (Join to see) why are so many people going after the reporter? What are they afraid of?
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
An entertainment reporter, in a rag magazine, breaking a controversial military story with no named sources. Reliability is not inherently high.
If there were shenanigans, I have no doubt that a few RIs with integrity would be on the record already.
If there were shenanigans, I have no doubt that a few RIs with integrity would be on the record already.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe that until definite proof is released then they deserve the praise for passing under their own merits.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
The Army does many things I don't agree with....but lowering their training standards is something I've never seen them do.
Suspended Profile
SSG Mark Gale - Sorry you think that....But you know in 1983 I had not even started my 20 years career so I can not speak to it.....but I can speak to courses I've attended while I was in (Army, Air Force, and Civilian courses) and the standards were the same for male and female and there was no favoritism played....if anything they were harder on the women because they did not want to be perceived as "soft."
Suspended Profile
MAJ (Join to see) - Was not questioning that the stds were lowered in the 80s....thank you for the verification.....was merely speaking to post Basic Training courses i've attended.
1
1
0
1
1
0
It doesn't matter what I think, the Ranger cadre passed them; they are Rangers.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
(1)
(0)
SSgt Alex Robinson
Thanks for sharing but let's see what the congressional investigation comes up with
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
No matter what is presented or stated, two women soldiers passed Ranger School.
I believe that they were held to the same standards as the rest of their classmates.
Now with that all aside - The Bottom Line is that the women soldiers were given preferential treatment in the form of MANDATORY PRIOR TRAINING. It was mandated that the women that were accepted for Ranger School attend and pass the "two-week Army National Guard Ranger Training and Assessment Course". Most, if not all of the women that were accepted also had to attend their local version of the Pre-Ranger Course, as a matter of course to even get on the list to attend Ranger School. Whether you like it or not that IS preferential treatment AND NOT Equal Opportunity and equal treatment. All of this was done to set those select women up for success. Men are not always afforded those same opportunities, that is where the real issue really is. MSG Steve Howell
MSG Steve Howell - If you attended Infantry ANCOC or whatever it is called now at Ft Benning, then you probably yourself have used the same Land Navigation Course used by Ranger School, it was the same one when I went to ANCOC.
Now for those of you that may disagree with what I just said - I am sorry that you have some type of blinders on, whether they are rose colored glasses or have drank the Kool-Aid of Political Correctness. Maybe you should actually step back and take a more complete look at the whole situation, and you might be able to see it more clearly. LTC (Join to see) TSgt Hunter Logan
From my viewpoint, the women soldiers that could have excelled in this course and could have really benefitted from attending Ranger School, wanted nothing to do with this experiment at this stage. After asking some that I know, and they explained their reasoning, I also understood. One of the most reoccurring statements was that they did not want to become " a pawn or poster child of political correctness or social experiments."
And for those of you that are putting these two women up as PT Studs, I would pit a couple of enlisted female field combat medics that I know up against these two Rangers at anytime for a combat ruck march with what the medics normally carry. Or have them attempt the EFMB. And if you did not know it, PT Studs have failed Ranger School in the past, PT Studs unless they are Mental Studs, also end up failing some courses of study. CPT (Join to see)
I believe that they were held to the same standards as the rest of their classmates.
Now with that all aside - The Bottom Line is that the women soldiers were given preferential treatment in the form of MANDATORY PRIOR TRAINING. It was mandated that the women that were accepted for Ranger School attend and pass the "two-week Army National Guard Ranger Training and Assessment Course". Most, if not all of the women that were accepted also had to attend their local version of the Pre-Ranger Course, as a matter of course to even get on the list to attend Ranger School. Whether you like it or not that IS preferential treatment AND NOT Equal Opportunity and equal treatment. All of this was done to set those select women up for success. Men are not always afforded those same opportunities, that is where the real issue really is. MSG Steve Howell
MSG Steve Howell - If you attended Infantry ANCOC or whatever it is called now at Ft Benning, then you probably yourself have used the same Land Navigation Course used by Ranger School, it was the same one when I went to ANCOC.
Now for those of you that may disagree with what I just said - I am sorry that you have some type of blinders on, whether they are rose colored glasses or have drank the Kool-Aid of Political Correctness. Maybe you should actually step back and take a more complete look at the whole situation, and you might be able to see it more clearly. LTC (Join to see) TSgt Hunter Logan
From my viewpoint, the women soldiers that could have excelled in this course and could have really benefitted from attending Ranger School, wanted nothing to do with this experiment at this stage. After asking some that I know, and they explained their reasoning, I also understood. One of the most reoccurring statements was that they did not want to become " a pawn or poster child of political correctness or social experiments."
And for those of you that are putting these two women up as PT Studs, I would pit a couple of enlisted female field combat medics that I know up against these two Rangers at anytime for a combat ruck march with what the medics normally carry. Or have them attempt the EFMB. And if you did not know it, PT Studs have failed Ranger School in the past, PT Studs unless they are Mental Studs, also end up failing some courses of study. CPT (Join to see)
(1)
(0)
SFC James Needles
SSG Robert Webster - Thank you for the references and a timely response. I was not always an ARNG Soldier, my first four years were on active duty, but yes, the majority of my service was ARNG Still, I have known enough infantry men in the ARNG who were originally AD soldiers and Rangers before they went ARNG. They led me to believe that they were required to do pre RS assessment courses at BN and BDE level before they were allowed to apply for RS. This was done to give the soldiers a better chance at completing RS, and not waste money and resources on soldiers who will wash out because they weren't ready. So how is this really different from having the Female volunteers attend the US ARNG RTAC at Ft. Benning. Would it be correct for me to hazard a guess that though the men werent officially required by higher training doctrine (say DA, TRADOC, FORSCOM) to attend pre assessment courses, their BN and or BDE Commands did require it for the purposes of avoiding a waste of money and resources. I understand that a major point of contention for some people is the fact that the Female volunteers weren't required to follow the exact same steps or path for application to Ranger School. Is this correct? If so would it have made any difference in the women completing the Course? NCO's, Officers and Commands are required to ensure their soldiers are properly prepared before their application to any school is submitted. I view the requirement for the Female volunteers to attend US ARNG RTAC as compliance to ensuring these soldiers were ready for Ranger School. What is your opinion SSG Webster
(1)
(0)
SFC James Needles
It seems I am being redundant, I know, I'm just making sure I read and understand everything you wrote me correctly. Thank you for you time and opinions SSG Webster
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SFC James Needles -
1. Attendance and Passing a Pre-Ranger course may be a LOCAL requirement.
2. Attendance and Passing a Pre-Ranger course IS NOT DA MANDATORY, EXCEPT in two cases as previously described.
3. There are three (4) reasons why there are local requirements for a Pre-Ranger Course.
a. Preparatory training to fill in the gaps.
b. Commanders Validation of Skills.
c. To create an order of merit list of qualified candidates.
d. "Not Waste Money and Resources."
4. The "not waste money and resources" argument is invalid, if you look at it objectively. Think diverted resources and the full cost of running such a course, comparing number of initial students and number of students that actually go on to Ranger School, and other factors.
The first thing that needs to be done is to strip this down to its bare parts. Since I do not know how to create a table within a message in RP, you will just have to create one on paper yourself from the description, I am giving.
Create a table that has four columns, label the columns from left to right as: Task, Active Duty, Female, ARNG. Next in the task column enter the pre-requisite task list as listed in the ALARACT message paragraph 3.A and gender neutralize the items. Those are items 3.A.1 through 3.A.9. You can/should remove the item referencing the pregnancy test. Now use the references that I listed earlier to either put a Red X or a Green Checkmark next to each item on the chart IAW the individual soldiers status.
Now go to the following document from the RTB - http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20Prep%201%202.pdf.
Compare what this document suggest that is done prior to attendance to Ranger School and the Commanders Validation Letter. Note that there are some major differences. In the past, most of the task listed in the Ranger School Prep document was listed as items validated by the Unit Commander. Note that no where in this is a requirement of attending a LOCAL Pre-Ranger course for any one, and that RTAC is only a requirement for ARNG soldiers and at least the women attending Ranger School as part of the Assessment Program for women in Ranger School.
Now go back and take a look at your statement and what you have learned from others that you know and referenced, and your own experience. Yes the Commanders are trying to set their soldiers up for success at Ranger School. Now let's break this down a little bit. And for this discussion, what is listed as the "Ranger Common Tasks" under the "Ranger Stakes" portion of the Ranger School Prep document.
For this exercise, I am going to make an assumption that you have been a "Light Vehicle Mechanic (63B/91B)" for your entire career. I will also make the assumption that you are familiar with the task in "STP 21-24-SMCT" (Soldiers Manual of Common Task)(at least, if it has not changed much since my time in service), and you are familiar with the task related to your position in a TO&E unit, AND NOT in a TDA unit. I will also make the assumption that your unit has light machine guns as part of its assigned weapons.
Taking those factors into consideration, how many of the 27 task SHOULD you and your subordinate NCOs be able to complete satisfactorily? I believe that you should be able to do each one of those task. The only one that everyone, including Infantry has an issue with is "Call For and Adjust Fire"; all other task on this list should be something that every NCO in a TO&E unit should be able to do, and teach their subordinates. Am I wrong? I doubt it.
A couple of additional items to think about, that are directly related to training - Compare the task list for the Ranger Stakes Common Task, to the EIB (Expert Infantryman Badge) and the EFMB (Expert Field Medical Badge) task list. The EFMB task list is not the same, but think about the training and the arduous testing that leads up to the award of this badge and the others.
Now, think about this - "What does this do to the credibility of our NCO Corp today and yesterday? Or, our Officer Leadership?"
1. Attendance and Passing a Pre-Ranger course may be a LOCAL requirement.
2. Attendance and Passing a Pre-Ranger course IS NOT DA MANDATORY, EXCEPT in two cases as previously described.
3. There are three (4) reasons why there are local requirements for a Pre-Ranger Course.
a. Preparatory training to fill in the gaps.
b. Commanders Validation of Skills.
c. To create an order of merit list of qualified candidates.
d. "Not Waste Money and Resources."
4. The "not waste money and resources" argument is invalid, if you look at it objectively. Think diverted resources and the full cost of running such a course, comparing number of initial students and number of students that actually go on to Ranger School, and other factors.
The first thing that needs to be done is to strip this down to its bare parts. Since I do not know how to create a table within a message in RP, you will just have to create one on paper yourself from the description, I am giving.
Create a table that has four columns, label the columns from left to right as: Task, Active Duty, Female, ARNG. Next in the task column enter the pre-requisite task list as listed in the ALARACT message paragraph 3.A and gender neutralize the items. Those are items 3.A.1 through 3.A.9. You can/should remove the item referencing the pregnancy test. Now use the references that I listed earlier to either put a Red X or a Green Checkmark next to each item on the chart IAW the individual soldiers status.
Now go to the following document from the RTB - http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20Prep%201%202.pdf.
Compare what this document suggest that is done prior to attendance to Ranger School and the Commanders Validation Letter. Note that there are some major differences. In the past, most of the task listed in the Ranger School Prep document was listed as items validated by the Unit Commander. Note that no where in this is a requirement of attending a LOCAL Pre-Ranger course for any one, and that RTAC is only a requirement for ARNG soldiers and at least the women attending Ranger School as part of the Assessment Program for women in Ranger School.
Now go back and take a look at your statement and what you have learned from others that you know and referenced, and your own experience. Yes the Commanders are trying to set their soldiers up for success at Ranger School. Now let's break this down a little bit. And for this discussion, what is listed as the "Ranger Common Tasks" under the "Ranger Stakes" portion of the Ranger School Prep document.
For this exercise, I am going to make an assumption that you have been a "Light Vehicle Mechanic (63B/91B)" for your entire career. I will also make the assumption that you are familiar with the task in "STP 21-24-SMCT" (Soldiers Manual of Common Task)(at least, if it has not changed much since my time in service), and you are familiar with the task related to your position in a TO&E unit, AND NOT in a TDA unit. I will also make the assumption that your unit has light machine guns as part of its assigned weapons.
Taking those factors into consideration, how many of the 27 task SHOULD you and your subordinate NCOs be able to complete satisfactorily? I believe that you should be able to do each one of those task. The only one that everyone, including Infantry has an issue with is "Call For and Adjust Fire"; all other task on this list should be something that every NCO in a TO&E unit should be able to do, and teach their subordinates. Am I wrong? I doubt it.
A couple of additional items to think about, that are directly related to training - Compare the task list for the Ranger Stakes Common Task, to the EIB (Expert Infantryman Badge) and the EFMB (Expert Field Medical Badge) task list. The EFMB task list is not the same, but think about the training and the arduous testing that leads up to the award of this badge and the others.
Now, think about this - "What does this do to the credibility of our NCO Corp today and yesterday? Or, our Officer Leadership?"
(1)
(0)
SFC James Needles
SSG Webster. Once again, thank you for the response. I find your discussion points to be valid and well written. I understand better now how you consider the Female Ranger School students mandatory attendance to the ARNG RTAC and other courses to not be within fair and equal treatment guide lines. I do remember the STP 21-24-SMCT and those 27 tasks, and yes, every NCO should be able to get a go on every task. Even "Call for and Adjust fire. Also, having served in three medical companies and supported the EFMB course, I personally observed how tough that course can be and have the highest regard for any one who wears the EFMB.
You asked a question at the end of your response, "What does this do to the credibility of our NCO Corp today and yesterday? Or, our Officer Leadership?" Good question and a good point at the same time. Perhaps that would be a good discussion to post along side this one. Perhaps we shall be corresponding again sometime on that one. Good day, SSG Webster
You asked a question at the end of your response, "What does this do to the credibility of our NCO Corp today and yesterday? Or, our Officer Leadership?" Good question and a good point at the same time. Perhaps that would be a good discussion to post along side this one. Perhaps we shall be corresponding again sometime on that one. Good day, SSG Webster
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SSgt Alex Robinson, ETHICS? Please, someone tell we'uns what really went on. This Ranger qualification discussion is beginning to be tainted w/ a "Clinton" aroma!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I completely believe in equal rights and that both genders should be given the same opportunities. However, if I am ever in combat one day and get wounded, I need someone to be able to drag me out of there. If they bent the standards to allow a female soldier to be in that position and she is unable to carry me to safety due to physical limitations (not that every female is not capable of doing that), then I don't think the rules should of been bent if they were. I see us as all solders, not genders, and should be able to pull the same amount of weight.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
I am not saying females specifically, there are many strong females out there, some stronger then I am. In general the standards should not be lowered for anyone of any gender in order to pass Ranger school, etc.
(1)
(0)
SGT(P) Crystal Marie France
Pretty sure I am a female medic and you are damned right I WILL DRAG YOOU OUT OF THERE! End.
(2)
(0)
SN Alex Tufail
I think we should trust in our service members a bit more. If these women are going into SF/SO MOS's and ratings, then they carry a high amount of integrity, and would completely give the the instructors hell if they felt like they were given special treatment.
(1)
(0)
SGT Thomas McIlrath
Pulling other soldiers out of harms way is awesome and what she did was top-notch. However, it doesn't quite invalidate a soldiers concern that their are logical, scientifically proven differences between men and women when it comes to strength.
This experiment will have huge ramifications down the line and years to come.
This experiment will have huge ramifications down the line and years to come.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google