Posted on Jun 1, 2015
Females fail first phase of Ranger experiment. What are your thoughts?
14.7K
92
56
4
4
0
The Army announced that the last of the female candidates for Ranger school have failed the first experiment. Of course, according to the Christian Science Monitor, this has sparked a debate about whether or not the standard is realistic.
The Rangers are the best of the best, and being a Ranger means passing a physical test that pushes body and mind to the breaking point. If women can’t do it, the argument goes, then they shouldn’t be Rangers.
But there is another opinion quietly being voiced as well: that Ranger School is more akin to a rite of passage – an opportunity for men to “thump their chest,” as one Ranger puts it – than a realistic preparation for leading in war. That women can actually make Ranger units more effective. And that the standards that keep them out are outdated.
Of course, I predicted this debate when the idea was floated about allowing women into the elite forces – that when women didn’t meet the minimum standard, it would be because the standard was unrealistic. That’s why I was pulling for one or several women who would complete the school successfully at the current standard. The whole point for Ranger School is not create chest-thumping neanderthals, it’s to create or test leaders under combat conditions without an actual enemy shooting at them. It is to create conditions that test a student’s ability to successfully complete the mission even though he, and his subordinates, are exhausted, famished, and sore.
Rangers have to be able to operate at 100% far from any other American troops, with all of their equipment to survive and fight on their backs and their only means of arriving at the battle or the objective of their mission is their own two feet. So where do you compromise the standard?
Of course, Ray Mabus, the Navy Secretary, is ready to throw the SEALs under the bus;
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times this week that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. “First, we’re going to make sure there are standards. Second, that they are gender-neutral, and third, that they have something to do with the job,” he said.
Why would there be a standard if it had nothing to do with the job? Obviously, Mabus doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But we knew that from some of his other stupid decisions in that job.
All 20 of the women who took part in this experiment have nothing to be ashamed about. A lot of men didn’t make the standard right along side of them. I hope and encourage the Army to continue to allow women to try and make the standard, but a lot of soldiers depend on the current standard to be led by only the best graduates of those schools and lowering the standard has nothing to do with chest-thumping and everything to do with bringing soldiers home safely from war? According to statistics, only 3 percent of the U.S. Army is Ranger-qualified..
http://news.yahoo.com/8-women-fail-ranger-school-rangers-standards-change-214600870.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/01/none-8-remaining-female-candidates-pass-first-phase-ranger-school/
The Rangers are the best of the best, and being a Ranger means passing a physical test that pushes body and mind to the breaking point. If women can’t do it, the argument goes, then they shouldn’t be Rangers.
But there is another opinion quietly being voiced as well: that Ranger School is more akin to a rite of passage – an opportunity for men to “thump their chest,” as one Ranger puts it – than a realistic preparation for leading in war. That women can actually make Ranger units more effective. And that the standards that keep them out are outdated.
Of course, I predicted this debate when the idea was floated about allowing women into the elite forces – that when women didn’t meet the minimum standard, it would be because the standard was unrealistic. That’s why I was pulling for one or several women who would complete the school successfully at the current standard. The whole point for Ranger School is not create chest-thumping neanderthals, it’s to create or test leaders under combat conditions without an actual enemy shooting at them. It is to create conditions that test a student’s ability to successfully complete the mission even though he, and his subordinates, are exhausted, famished, and sore.
Rangers have to be able to operate at 100% far from any other American troops, with all of their equipment to survive and fight on their backs and their only means of arriving at the battle or the objective of their mission is their own two feet. So where do you compromise the standard?
Of course, Ray Mabus, the Navy Secretary, is ready to throw the SEALs under the bus;
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times this week that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. “First, we’re going to make sure there are standards. Second, that they are gender-neutral, and third, that they have something to do with the job,” he said.
Why would there be a standard if it had nothing to do with the job? Obviously, Mabus doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But we knew that from some of his other stupid decisions in that job.
All 20 of the women who took part in this experiment have nothing to be ashamed about. A lot of men didn’t make the standard right along side of them. I hope and encourage the Army to continue to allow women to try and make the standard, but a lot of soldiers depend on the current standard to be led by only the best graduates of those schools and lowering the standard has nothing to do with chest-thumping and everything to do with bringing soldiers home safely from war? According to statistics, only 3 percent of the U.S. Army is Ranger-qualified..
http://news.yahoo.com/8-women-fail-ranger-school-rangers-standards-change-214600870.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/01/none-8-remaining-female-candidates-pass-first-phase-ranger-school/
Posted in these groups: 
Ranger School
Women in the Military
Ranger School Women in the Military
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 18
2
2
0
Is this over yet? This is just something to talk about to pass the time. It's almost a reality tv show. Let me know when a female can meet the Ranger standard.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see), I don't know anymore about it than others. I guess just keep watching the news to find out. Thanks.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
The mental and physical thresholds is too high for a significant shift of female ranger graduates.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Anne McGee
Not everybody that goes to Ranger School comes from the Infantry. Generally those selected to go study up on small unit tactics - the Rangers are comprised of many different MOS'.
(2)
(0)
LTC Barry Hull
If we are talking about equality let start registering women for the draft and then end Title 9 and have men and women compete on the same teams in College and in schools? It all seems a little hypocritical to me.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
I wonder how the "right" to attend these elite classes has become such an issue. There were several events courses that I wanted to attend while on active duty, and because of the "Needs of the Army" I wasnt granted the opertunity. That was fine with me. I joined to serve not for my benifit but for my country! ASK NOT WHAT YOUR ARMY CAN DO FOR YOU, BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR ARMY!" It's about sacrifice and service and not about how can I bring attention to my accomplishments. These woman should be placed in the military where the "Army" can be best served, and if that as a Tanger than fine. This "rights" to serve argument is unsettling!
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT Anthony Rossi, I would assume they applied and were hand picked by the CO of the training Bn. to follow orders and maybe put this away forever. It's still up in the air whether it will be tried again, but I would suspect it will.
(1)
(0)
SGT Anthony Rossi
Thanks SGT Keith Bodine, I just hope the needs of our combat force is the primary focus and aim of all this. Unfortunately I don't believe that's the real motive here?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
My first thought would be, don't read disreputable news outlets like The Christian Science Monitor.
There's no debate being had about lowering the standards for Ranger School. From General Odierno down to the females that competed, every single person has said, "maintain the standard." I challenge anyone to find an actual quote of an actual human being, military policy makers - not a vague reference in a blog - saying that we need to review the standards for Ranger School.
The girls don't want a watered down standard or then passing means nothing. The generals don't want to change it because they all attended. The instructors who work there refuse to water it down because they own it.
There's no debate being had about lowering the standards for Ranger School. From General Odierno down to the females that competed, every single person has said, "maintain the standard." I challenge anyone to find an actual quote of an actual human being, military policy makers - not a vague reference in a blog - saying that we need to review the standards for Ranger School.
The girls don't want a watered down standard or then passing means nothing. The generals don't want to change it because they all attended. The instructors who work there refuse to water it down because they own it.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see), I know, right? That's the first thing said when the news came out about them not passing. I believe in the news as much as I could throw a car.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
The events are part of the standard. RAP week is the easiest part, there are plenty of women who can pass the APFT, obstacle course, and 5 mile run. Plus, I guarantee no females got the, "41, 41, 41..." pushup count that happens to guys. It's the lack of sleep, food, and the stress of patrols that is the real killer. You can't remove patrols from Ranger School, because Ranger School is patrols.
(1)
(0)
LTC Barry Hull
Might want to check on the Army Times. They quoted some West Point Cadre stating that the standards might be outdated. And so we begin the journey down the slippery slope.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The first run is always the most tenuous. I think there will be more, & I think there will be successes!!!
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see), you really think so? I would like to see it, but not at the expense of lowering the rules for them to succeed.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Oh no. I don't think they will lower the standards, SGT (Join to see). I also don't think you can find many who would want them to - at least no on RP, that is. I know the general consensus is to keep the standards & allow the build up to meet those standards. Set a goal & celebrate like hell when you hit that goal!!!!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Clearly, the standards have been lowered, just as the APFT requirements have been for many years. Until there is one, and only one, standard and no extra chances are given, there will always be bias. Open positions in the 75th Ranger Regiment will be next regardless of what the current party line is now being expressed by our leadership.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
COL John Maus, With the two females accepted into the elite Ranger program, I don't think the standards were lowered. I think these two women Rangers should be proud of what the have accomplished, so should we be proud of them too.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google