Posted on Sep 22, 2015
What are your thoughts on Oklahoma Congressman asking for test results of female Ranger grads?
16K
115
80
3
3
0
Women in the Military
Regulation
Standards
Ranger
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 36
1
1
0
Cpl Mark McMiller I hope there was no misconduct on the scores and testing for these ladies. This would not look for the Army if they cheated on the scores or made exceptions. Let's hope this is just a bad rumor. That is just my opinion!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm not a feminist but I know it's been common practice to allow individuals a chance to repeat part of their training, male AND female. The term was recycle in the 80's when I was in the Air Force. I believe that both individuals would perform all the duties of an Army Ranger if given the chance. I have no way to know what happened but I believe everyone has at some point in their life repeated a test, course or assignment without causing huge problems.
I can't say all women could perform as well as men but I would like to see women given the chance. I was never strong enough but I found my own purpose in life.
I can't say all women could perform as well as men but I would like to see women given the chance. I was never strong enough but I found my own purpose in life.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce Where in the article does it mention it has anything to do with allowing the women to repeat the training?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Is Rep. Russell a Ranger? If not, than he has no room to comment or speculate. Just because they are female doesn't mean that they cheated in some way. They earned the Ranger tab!
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
SSG (Join to see) Yea; the article says he's a graduate of the Ranger course and that it was Ranger instructors who blew the whistle and asked him to investigate.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
What concerns me is not how they completed their training, but how they will perform now that their training is over. Let their professional career experience speak for them, not the completion of their training.
I doubt I'd make it through that training, personally. Congratulations to them.
I doubt I'd make it through that training, personally. Congratulations to them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Bottom line...
Extra observers and an abundance of brass changed the conditions. Yet, such "conditions" will not be in the records. Make no mistake, "conditions" either grace or hinder the road to a "standard." And a "standard" itself, is only the "end-zone."
Undoubtedly, there was a lot of "field" and a bunch of "players" in the overall play...
Lastly, from my experience and what I assume, it appears that only the "commentators" and "spectators" in the stands, can open up about this topic.
Extra observers and an abundance of brass changed the conditions. Yet, such "conditions" will not be in the records. Make no mistake, "conditions" either grace or hinder the road to a "standard." And a "standard" itself, is only the "end-zone."
Undoubtedly, there was a lot of "field" and a bunch of "players" in the overall play...
Lastly, from my experience and what I assume, it appears that only the "commentators" and "spectators" in the stands, can open up about this topic.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Predictable. This took longer than I though it would. "Sources" Well, who are they??? If it is true they should have no issue telling it publicly. If any kind of special treatment or cheating as I call it happened then those that as supposedly making the accusations should have no issues being open enough to face the public and those they are accusing. That would be seen as an action of integrity. Don't hide behind the word "sources. That makes you a coward.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
PO1 Sojourner "Chancy" Phillips According to the article, Ranger instructors blew the whistle to the congressman and asked him to investigate.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Sojourner "Chancy" Phillips
You are correct that the article states instructors (unnamed) supposedly made the allegations but the paragraph before states "A source on Capitol Hill told People that the lawmaker was concerned because "sources at Fort Benning are coming forward to say the Army lied about women in Ranger School, that the women got special treatment and played by different rules."
To say sources in one paragraph and then call them instructors in the next is bad journalism.
If the women did get some sort of special treatment or cheated in any way I have no issue with that coming out. However, this article is crap.
Every bit of it quoted from People magazine which most people think of as a tabloid. The Hill did not even have the decency to research the article and write their own story. What is written is all hearsay. No direct quotes or any credible "sources" that support the article. The only direct quoted statements in the article are from people who are named in the article and their statements do not support the articles claim.
BS is BS.
To say sources in one paragraph and then call them instructors in the next is bad journalism.
If the women did get some sort of special treatment or cheated in any way I have no issue with that coming out. However, this article is crap.
Every bit of it quoted from People magazine which most people think of as a tabloid. The Hill did not even have the decency to research the article and write their own story. What is written is all hearsay. No direct quotes or any credible "sources" that support the article. The only direct quoted statements in the article are from people who are named in the article and their statements do not support the articles claim.
BS is BS.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Sojourner "Chancy" Phillips
My problem with this article and these accusations are that they don't just attempt to make the two women look bad. They put the entire Army and specifically Ranger School in a position to look bad. But it seem that no one seems to have a problem with that as long as someone can make the two women look bad.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
"Sources" Well, who are they??? If it is true they should have no issue telling it publicly.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
From what I've read recently, It would appear that the standards were not lowered for the women, they were lowered for everyone. For example, the women's required pack weight was not reduced from 80lbs to 40lbs, everyone's required pack weight was reduced. So technically the ARMY is right, the standards were not lowered for just the women. LOL Anyway, I haven't heard a credible response to these Instructors complaints yet, but a simple, short, investigation should clear things up quickly.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google