Posted on Jun 1, 2015
Females fail first phase of Ranger experiment. What are your thoughts?
19.2K
92
49
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 And that the standards that keep them out are outdated.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 >1 y ago
Responses: 17
7
7
0
The proliferation of women and combat topics is astounding. I dotn think there's actually much debate in the military itself. Here there are two camps: "same standards, same treatment, equality" and "not in my Corps/Army etc".
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
SGT (Join to see)
Maintain the standards. Those who pass deserve the Tab. Those who don't, don't.
I predict the Army will buckle to pressure and change the standards for women or, perhaps, for everyone, to ensure women can be awarded a Ranger Tab. I hope that is not the case, but I fear it is inevitable. The Army tried to do it the right way and none passed. Now they will be pressured to have some pass. With the current Administration, the Army will be forced to do it.
Maintain the standards. Those who pass deserve the Tab. Those who don't, don't.
I predict the Army will buckle to pressure and change the standards for women or, perhaps, for everyone, to ensure women can be awarded a Ranger Tab. I hope that is not the case, but I fear it is inevitable. The Army tried to do it the right way and none passed. Now they will be pressured to have some pass. With the current Administration, the Army will be forced to do it.
(6)
(0)
SSG Paul Headlee
COL Jean (John) F. B. I appreciate that Sir. Its always been kind of a sore spot with me.
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SSG Paul Headlee - Me too, buddy...
Inwouid not survive in today’s kinder/gentler, gender neutral Army.
I have never been accused of being a politician.
Inwouid not survive in today’s kinder/gentler, gender neutral Army.
I have never been accused of being a politician.
(1)
(0)
SSG Paul Headlee
COL Jean (John) F. B. I get frustrated just reading about it. I don't know how they get things done these days. I'm a dinosaur.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Politicians need to let the Army run the Army. Nobody was crying about the standards before. It's supposed to be hard. Somewhere out there, there's a woman who can meet the standard. We shouldn't lower the standards because certain candidates have hello kitty bandaids on their booboos.
(5)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
SGT (Join to see) I don't doubt that. Most men fail the course. If enough women try, eventually someone will make it. A big salute to those who tried.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SPC Nathan Freeman, thanks for the reply. I was hoping you aren't a woman bashed. Lol
(0)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
I try not to. I've seen a woman come into the army in my AIT who enlisted the day before her 42nd birthday max out her pt test doing well enough to have gotten 300 points for 18 yr old male. I bet she could have done it. I've also seen females who fell out of a run before we got out of the parking lot, another one dragging her weapon around like a dog. Her NCO allowed it for whatever reason. There should be one standard. We shouldn't lower the standard because it's too hard for someone.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
It's too hard on everyone. Knowing what to expect makes everyone understand their expectations.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
19 women were given a chance at Ranger School. That is roughly the equivalent of one squad as assigned on Day 1 for Ranger School (squads start larger to account for attrition). A 19 man squad starting on Day 1 will usually have between 1-4 graduates who finish the course with no recycles or failures. A few more will generally finish the course after recycling at least one phase.
That is 1-4 fewer Rangers the Army lost for a social experiment as the total slots available for training are finite. The law of averages state that if you throw enough women into the school, one of them will eventually graduate. The entire concept will not produce female graduates anywhere near a number that is cost effective or worthwhile.
Keep in mind, these women were specially selected and screened by their commands before they even got a chance to even be considered to attend the Pre-Ranger Course. The Pre-Ranger Course they attended (there is usually one for each Infantry division) is one of the best. I'm already seeing arguments that they weren't prepared enough, yet their male peers, though reduced in number, will finish the course and they had far less screening to get a chance at Ranger School.
Bottom line, if you had a to select 100 men and 100 women randomly from the US population to accomplish a task that requires strength and endurance, you will almost always have significantly more men than women finish the task, especially given the current physical standards.
Some of you will argue are the physical standards realistic for the task and are they really necessary. I challenge that men have been graduating Ranger School and a host of other elite courses for decades at these standards. Not everybody deserves a trophy.
Others will argue they failed not because of physical standards, but because of academics (failed patrols). Anyone who ever done any selection course or Ranger School knows that cognitive ability decreases exponentially with physical stress. The further you fall behind physically, the more more mistakes you make. Without a doubt, the physical exertion they put out trying to keep up with their male counterparts directly contributed to them failing their patrols.
Some of you will say they lack experience. Well, Ranger School and Pre-Ranger will teach you everything you need to know. Privates have been going to Ranger School for decades and I doubt any of you will argue that they are bastions of experience.
That is 1-4 fewer Rangers the Army lost for a social experiment as the total slots available for training are finite. The law of averages state that if you throw enough women into the school, one of them will eventually graduate. The entire concept will not produce female graduates anywhere near a number that is cost effective or worthwhile.
Keep in mind, these women were specially selected and screened by their commands before they even got a chance to even be considered to attend the Pre-Ranger Course. The Pre-Ranger Course they attended (there is usually one for each Infantry division) is one of the best. I'm already seeing arguments that they weren't prepared enough, yet their male peers, though reduced in number, will finish the course and they had far less screening to get a chance at Ranger School.
Bottom line, if you had a to select 100 men and 100 women randomly from the US population to accomplish a task that requires strength and endurance, you will almost always have significantly more men than women finish the task, especially given the current physical standards.
Some of you will argue are the physical standards realistic for the task and are they really necessary. I challenge that men have been graduating Ranger School and a host of other elite courses for decades at these standards. Not everybody deserves a trophy.
Others will argue they failed not because of physical standards, but because of academics (failed patrols). Anyone who ever done any selection course or Ranger School knows that cognitive ability decreases exponentially with physical stress. The further you fall behind physically, the more more mistakes you make. Without a doubt, the physical exertion they put out trying to keep up with their male counterparts directly contributed to them failing their patrols.
Some of you will say they lack experience. Well, Ranger School and Pre-Ranger will teach you everything you need to know. Privates have been going to Ranger School for decades and I doubt any of you will argue that they are bastions of experience.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
I was not surprised by the results to be honest....it is a physically as well as demanding leadership course that has a high failure rate for males as well. I do not have a dog in this fight any longer, but I hope for everyone concerned that the standards in this course and others are never lowered, there is a reason why they are the way they are. Not everyone is cut out to be a Ranger or a SEAL or a member of SF or other elite units and it should remain that way. We should not prescribe to "the everyone gets a trophy for participating" mentality that has pervaded a lot of society outside the gates of the military installations.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC William Swartz Jr, that is what I believe in also. During jump school, some of the candidates couldn't handle the 35 foot tower and washed out. Some couldn't handle the 15 foot tower. They needed to be out. If they (men) couldn't handle the easy things I wouldn't want them to be by me during a firefight.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Tough, most people dont make it even adding women into the mix doesnt change the failure rate.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I graduated Ranger School in 1987. When I started, i weighed in at a little over 120 pounds. I was a first time go, no recycles. I was rucking a significantly higher % of weight than the bigger guys. I performed in every position in the platoon to include M60 gunner, ammo bearer and AG. I tabbed out in day 2 the in FL phase and since I was done with patrol leader positions, I became a pack mule for the platoon. I carried the radio or was on the MG crew from that point on. I watched as bigger and more physically fit guys bit the dust. Some outright quit, some used an injury to "honorably" leave, some were legitimately broken. Some failed patrols. Might I add that I am sure most of those females who recently attended the course were of bigger frame and in better shape than I was when I went through. I didn't have a dedicated prep course, though IOBC at that time did work to prepare you for Rgr School to some degree. I'll tell you the secret to Ranger School. You have to walk in there with the mentality that there are two ways out of the course. 1) graduate and become a Ranger, 2) Die trying. Why is that the case? Because that is the very essence of combat. In it's most important moments, the most critical situation, the idea is that a Ranger will give EVERY LAST measure to compete the mission. What if the Airborne troops on D-Day decided that they we too scattered to fight as a cohesive unit and surrendered? Bastogne? Pick your desperate battle and there you will find the spirit that Ranger School attempts to propagate in our force. It is not about gender or gender friendly standards. Bullets and bombs don't give a rats butt about gender. It is about MENTAL toughness: instilling that idea in a leader's head that I can overcome any situation if I just keep driving on. Good leaders lead and good followers follow. That is how we win battles. So if a female can pass the standard than by all means..I'll pin the tab on them myself, but these idoits that say "may be the standards aren't relevant" are wrong. The essences of combat has not changed in 4000 years. When it is at its most critical, combat will always be the most horrid, grueling, unimaginable terror a person can experience. Ranger School is about building that mental toughness that carries a leader through no matter what. PC Police be damned. You are wrong.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I believe retired General Dunwoody (first female 4-star general) articulated my personal viewpoint perfectly. Quartermasters lead the way!
"I have strong opinions on this. It takes me back to Airborne School, when they had just started letting women officers go to Airborne School. It wasn't a popular decision. The bottom line for me is if you let others dissuade you from something you want to do, something you believe you can do, something you're passionate about, they win. You have to follow your passion. If I had not been to Airborne School, I couldn't have gone to rigger school. I would never have been in the 82nd Airborne Division. That one door for me was the foundation of many follow-on assignments.
I've watched doors open my entire career. Some are opened for you, some you have to kick down. I believe if someone is qualified, and I mean fully qualified, they should be able to go through that door.
I think it is smart the Army and the military are methodically looking at each one of these branches and career fields to determine what the standard is. They can't lower those standards, once identified, to accommodate women coming into those fields. That would be a failure. We're not a social experiment. We're a war fighting institution, and that's dangerous business."
"I have strong opinions on this. It takes me back to Airborne School, when they had just started letting women officers go to Airborne School. It wasn't a popular decision. The bottom line for me is if you let others dissuade you from something you want to do, something you believe you can do, something you're passionate about, they win. You have to follow your passion. If I had not been to Airborne School, I couldn't have gone to rigger school. I would never have been in the 82nd Airborne Division. That one door for me was the foundation of many follow-on assignments.
I've watched doors open my entire career. Some are opened for you, some you have to kick down. I believe if someone is qualified, and I mean fully qualified, they should be able to go through that door.
I think it is smart the Army and the military are methodically looking at each one of these branches and career fields to determine what the standard is. They can't lower those standards, once identified, to accommodate women coming into those fields. That would be a failure. We're not a social experiment. We're a war fighting institution, and that's dangerous business."
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see), ma'am I agree a 100%. I would love to see it happen. I saw many men turn into mush after only jumping out of the 35' tower. Women can do it. They're soldiers and that's an awesome step to begin with. Thank you for your great post.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) Thanks so much, Sergeant! I think we can all agree one team, one fight, one standard, and let the cream rise to the top! Hooah!
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Yes ma'am. There's cream there some where . They'll find it. I hope, sooner than later. Hooah ma'am. Thanks.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The standards are there for a reason. Those who never served or in this case is not a Ranger or even tried out for Ranger wouldn't understand.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
PO1 John Miller, I understand fully. I was Airborne and I saw many men fall out, and some kicked out, for not following the standards by cheating on their runs, or not showing up for training. I love structured training.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
The standard is the standard it's been that way since the school was conceived . All I hear about is equality , well you got it . I served in the 2nd Ranger Bn. I have nothing but respect for those who earn the tab. The standard needs to remain the standard, you don't dumb down or water down Ranger school.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google