What do you "Honestly" think about women attending Ranger School?

1SG David Lopez — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 14:56:52 -0500

Myself and hundreds of other Retired Rangers are tired of all this nonsense of women attending Ranger School. Why is the Army leadership encouraging special preference to attend a premier infantry and leadership school. It is a hard journey for qualified Male Infantrymen to compete for and get an extremely limited slot to attend the Ranger Course. Many of Rangers had to prove themselves to be hardened Infantry Sergeants in order to even be considered to attend the local Pre-Ranger Course, before even thinking of attending The Ranger Course. Normally an Infantry Company and/or Battalion could only send "one" representative soldier to the Pre-Ranger Course (per course). Infantry Soldiers competed amongst each other to get that slot. The 21-day Pre-Ranger Course, was definitely tough as or tougher than Ranger School itself, was hell to get through. And even after passing, was not a guaranteed slot to attend The Ranger Course due to budget, deployment, and training issues for the unit (not the individual soldier). If you did not get the opportunity to attend The Ranger Course within six months, well it was a requirement to attend the local Division 21-day Pre-Ranger (assessment) Course again. Once again, the male soldier had to pass all standards in order to be recommended to attend The Ranger Course. The Ranger Course had the toughest standards. To begin day one of the Ranger Course, during the APFT, the Ranger Instructor (RI) would not allow you to pass the push up or sit up event the first time. Every Male Ranger Student failed the push up event and had to perform the push up event a second time (five to ten minutes later) to Standard! My first attempt at the push up event, we had to complete at least 62 push ups. The RI was counting, 59, 60, 61, 61, 61... and so on. We were warned that we could not stop during the two minute event or else we would be considered a failure at this event. So I kept knocking out the push ups and asked the RI what it was that I was doing wrong. He answered with, shut up Ranger and keep knocking them (push ups) out or you will fail. I kept my mouth shut and knocked out approximately 120 push ups. The RI failed me. I got back in line and had the same RI grade my push ups again about ten minutes later. 59, 60, 61, 61, 61, once again I asked what it was I was doing wrong while I cranked out those push ups, and once again the RI stated shut up Ranger and keep knocking them out or else you will fail. That was the first moments of Ranger School and every standard was just as tough. If you were just there to earn your Tab, you were surely going to drop out of the course. But if you were a fully prepared Infantry Stud with the attitude that you attended the Ranger Course to test yourself and understood that you were going to have to push beyond all personal limitations in order to merely make it through the relentless day of Ranger Training. The one thing I really appreciated about Ranger School is that the Standards were set so high, every Infantry Soldier knew it was the very best training and test that any soldier can volunteer for. When finished, with an average of one hour of sleep per day, moving with heavy (very heavy) loads about 10 to 25 kilometers per day, performing tactical maneuvers, and being graded in leadership positions. It was far more harsh than I ever expected, every bit the hardest single accomplishment as far as physical and mental exhaustion in a training environment is concerned. Even for the most hardened and gruesome Infantryman. Ranger School was no joke. I'm not thinking it is at all a place for females. There is no way possible to keep the standards the same. We were not taken back to the rear with the gear to shower when we smelled. That is what Infantrymen do. It is dirty and frankly stinky, to say the least. I eventually became an RI in the Desert Phase and then later in my career a Senior Ranger Instructor in the Mountain Phase. It was a humbling experience serving with top notch soldiers / world class athlete Rangers. To say the least it was an Honor serving with the Ranger Training Brigade and maintain the standards. Let us not lose that, the standards. Let us not add the nonsense of preferential treatment. The RI's were hard as nails but fair. Let us not give away the farm to break the glass ceiling. You will rarely hear any news of Rangers in action, it is a quiet professional tight knit unit that prides itself on operational security. I can see no way to not change the standards once women attend the Ranger Course. This course will become a political agenda which will cause the truly dedicated Ranger Instructors to lose their jobs as RI's as we once knew it. Is it too late to turn back? Let the nonsense begin, female issues, separate but same, political agenda, media scrutiny, RI unfairness, sexual harassment, preferential treatment, male students No-Go's due to (female) not performing to standards during patrols... The list can go on, just ask any RI that has served a full term as an Ranger Instructor. Let us not forget the original intent for this course is to train men to lead soldiers into combat. When we give these limited (Ranger School) slots to female soldiers/officers, then we take away from the Infantryman, the soldiers themselves, and the Infantry Units. Let us not take this away.

Retired Ranger 1SG David D. Lopez

Paso Robles, CA

Response by PV2 Abbott Shaull made Feb 4 at 2015 4:56 PM

PV2 Abbott Shaull — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:56:26 -0500

Hey not a bad rate for the cycle class. What were you expecting 88%. Let's keep it realistic as we move forward with one Standard.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 4 at 2015 5:09 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:09:29 -0500

I believe we're at 0 out of 26 women on the USMC Infantry Officer Course now TSgt Joshua Copeland if that provides any insight.

I can't compare the Ranger Prep to the IOC, however let's just assume both courses had a baseline that was "gender neutral" but established on a male level.

The fact that you have 5 women passing Ranger Prep is probably a good sign, and as the first class, I'll "assume" they are being VERY cautious about lowering the baseline standard.

The real question is total pass rate through Ranger.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Feb 4 at 2015 5:09 PM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:09:42 -0500

Assuming it's the same course, I think it's great. I would have expected less.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 5:10 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:10:01 -0500

I'm with PV2 Abbott Shaull, TSgt Joshua Copeland. On the surface of things it's not an impressive percentage, but if 55% of men get through the prep course, 19% for women is understandable and may even be good, especially because the course is probably heavily weighted toward physical "feats" that men are naturally going to be better at.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 4 at 2015 5:15 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:15:45 -0500

I agree with PV2 Abbott Shaull not bad for the first cycle and if they are being held to the same standard and only 55% of the men passed that is saying something.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 4 at 2015 5:28 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:28:10 -0500

Ranger School places high emphasis on upper body strength and stamina. Considering women generally have 20%-30% less upper body strength than males, that ratio seems about right.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 5:32 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:32:04 -0500

As a grad of RTAC I understand what they went through. It is a great school. We started at 90 and ended with 45. As I stated in the past I wonder if the success rate is enough to warrant changing the whole system. Of those that pass RTAC even less will pass Ranger school. In reality we are looking at about 2 passing Ranger if they maintain the statistics of their male counterparts. I have a feeling they are not going to much the same statistics of their males counterparts. If they get 1 to pass they will have about a 3% pass rate from the start of the program.

But if one does pass she is pretty much a bad ass and I will go with her to combat any day.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Feb 4 at 2015 5:40 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:40:41 -0500

19% qualify to gain a spot in the Ranger School, less than 50% will graduate.....so out of the 26 that started, roughly two graduate - and wont be assigned to the unit. From a pure question perspective, that is not a good graduation rate whatsoever.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 5:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:47:58 -0500

I honestly believe that this is a situation that needs to be studied over a greater period of time than the short period of time we have had since these changes were impliented. There are alot of outside influences that are going to effect those numbers. For example, for many of the men they have been prepping to attend Ranger School for years, for these females it has only been a possibility for a short period of time. The way I see it is those 19% that completed Ranger School whatever hard number that is have accomplished an amazing task. One that I believe I myself could not accomplish, even though I am in fact a man.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 6:31 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:31:39 -0500

I'm curious what the percentage is for non-combat MOS's. Not MOS bashing, but I am curious if there is a substantial gap between combat arms and support MOS's. If support has a lower completion rate then you can knock their odds down a little. But hey, if they pass to the same standards as males, congrats.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Feb 4 at 2015 6:49 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:49:41 -0500

Same standards it is good. Cherry picked women to look good, this is bad.

Be interesting to see when it becomes open season for female candidates.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 7:20 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:20:51 -0500

My Soldier was forced to stop medically b/c of how sick she was TSgt Joshua Copeland.

She was asked multiple times if she was O.K. and she kept going but was finally forced out medically 3-Days before completion due to health concerns.

I would say for the percentage that it is about right as some were not mentally ready for the challenge which ensued. It is not for the faint of heart and they are not going to go easy for anyone.

My Soldier found it demanding but not unrealistic. Of course she has been training since before the ALERACT came out.

She is slated to return to RTA in March and stay for the Pilot Course.

It is my belief that they will take the Soldiers who pass the Pilot course and make them RI's as they will need Female RI's for the Fiscal Year start of having the integration process.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 8:38 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 20:38:32 -0500

I think if those 5 female officers were able to withstand just a taste of the actual school, then maybe they'll be able to complete the assessment in April. Heck even if it's less than the original 5, that's still progress. I understand that females are not as strong as males, however there are still females who can break this stereotype. Maybe you should stop being critics and instead support your fellow Soldiers. However I think until more females go through this course, the real passing rate will show. Not much can be said from just one group.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Feb 4 at 2015 8:53 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 20:53:29 -0500

Another stat that can be used is that those 19% of women who passed pre-Ranger beat me by 100%.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 2:57 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 02:57:44 -0500

That is out-insert expletive-standing!!! I couldn't even imagine the stress those female Soldiers were feeling. It's bad enough as a male Infantry Soldier having a basic knowledge of patrolling/feeling the suck of being in the field with nothing but your woobie but going into the "unknown" like that must have been intense! Sure those young ladies were selected and trained by their units prior to attending but so were the male Soldiers.

They will definitely be tested as they enter the mountain phase as CPT Private RallyPoint Member has continually pointed out but, just because you were recycled don't be mad sir lol, I hope you know I am joking.

I have posted before that this is a good thing and "old school" leaders need to adapt with the change as the Army transforms. The lessons these Soldiers learn in Ranger school, whether they graduate or not will make them better leaders.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 3:15 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 03:15:17 -0500

19% seems like a good start to me.

Now we'll see how many pass the actual course.

Remember, if the pass number > 3 than Army beats the Marines! (based off the 3 graduates from Marine School of Infantry)

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Feb 5 at 2015 12:54 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 12:54:21 -0500

First, congratulations to all who attempted it and especially to those who succeeded in passing. That is an outstanding achievement.

Time will tell if those who passed will be able to withstand the rigors and demands of the actual course. If they do, that is awesome, although I personally think it is just yet another attempt at liberal social engineering with no real military purpose and just another chink in the armor of our military.

I hope the Army is true to its word that the standards will not be reduced to allow females to be successful in this course. If they do, what does it prove?

Call me old fashioned, but I see no benefit from this whatsoever.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Feb 5 at 2015 1:10 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:10:54 -0500

Whether a 19% pass rate for women at Ranger prep is good or bad depends upon perspective.
- Organizational. Good and bad. Good that evidently the same standards are being upheld regardless of gender. A drop in the standards required for Ranger Prep and Ranger School is bad for both individuals and the Army. Bad that 19% will not produce the numbers of female ranger students that are needed.
- Individual. Obviously bad for those women who did not pass but good for the women who did pass since this will give them confidence during Ranger School and credibility with others during Ranger School.
- Temporal. Bad in the near term but good in the long term since individuals will work to come into Ranger prep better prepared and data will be collected from the first group to determine what is causing the most failures. Analysis from this will help to provide guidance on how follow on women to Ranger Prep can come in better prepared and therefore better able to pass Ranger Prep and eventually Ranger School itself.
- Bottom line. The first group of women through Ranger School is a process not a destination. This is like making a final decision in MDMP right after mission analysis is complete but before COA development has begun. Be patient and let the process work as it should and is supposed to work.

Response by PV2 Abbott Shaull made Feb 5 at 2015 4:09 PM

PV2 Abbott Shaull — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:09:27 -0500

And trying to avoid where some out side organization comea in and demands more pass when they haven't earned it. it is the one thing most if us includein many of the women who are going through this class will agree with. There should be one Standard that everyone strives for.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 5:36 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 05:36:25 -0500

The Army’s first pilot program for women going to Ranger School suggests that there is an expectation that only one of the five candidates that recently passed pre-Ranger will likely graduate the course.

But, first, there seems to be some confusion about what Ranger School is or isn’t on these threads. Here’s a good, sort of detailed brief to help answer some of these questions: http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20web11.pdf. Ranger School is hard--really hard. Most candidates fail. Many candidates try and try and try again and fail.

Second, we should have fully gender integrated units across the military. We’ll be a stronger military, as long as the same standards apply to all. Solid, sensible, equal, and enforced standards make a better Army.

Third, statistics. The Army’s first pilot program for women going to Ranger School suggests that there is an expectation that only one of these five candidates will likely graduate the course.

For the pre-Ranger course that just finished, of the 30 women candidates, 16 finished, and 5 will be going to the Ranger School that starts in April. 5/30 = 16.6%. The statistic for men passing this same pre-Ranger was 55%. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0205/In-a-historic-first-five-women-qualify-for-Army-Ranger-School)

For stats on Ranger School overall, go to http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/. The graduation rate from FY06-FY11 was 50.16%. The graduation rate from FY2000-FY2012 was 48.99% (http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20web11.pdf. ). 57% of total failures occur during RAP week.

Basic assumptions: The same percentage of women will graduate from Ranger School as men. Given the available data, and some rounding, 50% of women who go to Ranger School should be expected to graduate from Ranger School. Five women are going to Ranger School in April. 50% of 5 is 2.5, so using the basic assumption and rounding, 3 of these 5 should graduate Ranger School.

But we have additional data to evaluate. First, the 30 women who attended this pre-Ranger course were selected from the best candidates from across the Army. The typical Ranger course has 366 candidates on Day 0, about a third of which are 2LTs. I focus on this group because it is the largest by rank, and because, from my experience and understanding, almost all infantry 2LTs “volunteer” for Ranger School, but far from “almost all” infantry 2LTs actually want to go to Ranger School. Many quit the first day, or “purposefully” fail RAP events, or refuse recycle when it is offered to them. I don’t have the data, but it is likely a safe assumption that many of those who fail RAP week didn’t “really” want to be at Ranger School in the first place. And remember that RAP week represents 57% of all failures. My point: the five women going to Ranger School really want to be there; they’ve been selected from among the best candidates across the Army; and they already passed pre-Ranger. This skews the expected graduation rate upwards, based on what I’ll call a “motivational skewing factor.” Ranger School is almost entirely mental (several experienced CSMs on this thread have said Ranger School is 80% mental, and I’d agree with that).

“Peers” account for five percent of Ranger School failures. I’d expect the number of “bad peers” to be higher for women in this first Ranger course--and only because I’d expect that a large percentage of the very young men who comprise the majority of Ranger candidates espouse the anti-women-in-Ranger-School-and-combat-arms views many on this thread have espoused, not least because about a third of any Ranger course is comprised of E3-E5, and most E3-E5 at Ranger School come from the Ranger Battalions, which aren’t well known for assimilating to Army integrative programs (ie, the whole “you want to wear black berets, too? Ok, then we’ll wear tan ones! incident comes to mind.) This skews the expected graduation rate downwards, if only slightly.

“Administrative” failures account for about 2.5% of failures. There’s no reason to think this would increase or decrease based on gender.

“Student actions” account for 7.5% of failures. This includes LOM and serious observation reports. I’ve already noted that LOM is probably a lower likelihood from this group of 5 females. And there is no compelling reason to assert that females are at greater risk of a bad spot report. Ranger Instructors are ornery and mean and very standards-based, but the controls seem to be in place to ensure these female candidates are treaty equally.

“Medical” accounts for 6.76% of failures. Many on these threads have argued that women will fail Ranger School at higher rates because of injury. Nonsense, I say. Again, I don’t have the data, and my argument would be stronger if I did, but I recall that most injury-based Ranger School failures were from things like a candidate stepping in a hole and breaking a leg, or falling off a cliff at night, or getting bit by a snake, or other accidents. Women will be as lucky or unlucky as men in this regard.

But, we also have to adjust expectations based on the data from the pre-Ranger course. Women passed at a rate 3.3 times lower than men (16.6% vs. 55%). Men graduate Ranger School at a rate very close to 50%. 3.3 times lower than 50% is 15.5%.

15.5% of 5 = 0.75. Rounding this to 1, which seems logical due to the “motivational skewing factor” above outweighing the potential for “bad peers”, would suggest one of the five female candidates will graduate.

That means 4 of these female candidates will likely fail. As 57% of failures occur during RAP, it is likely that 2 of these failures will occur during RAP.

Of the 3 who pass RAP, two are likely to pass Darby Phase and move to Mountain Phase. One of these two is likely to recycle Darby, Mountains, or Florida. And only one is likely to graduate.

I wish the five female candidates, and their 361 or so male peers, the best of luck this coming April. I’d encourage all of them to remember that most who start do not graduate from Ranger School; that Ranger School is mostly mental, so just don’t quit; that Ranger School is a team sport, so always volunteer to help your Ranger buddies; remember to take care of your feet; and don’t be a chow thief.

Finally, as an aside, many on this thread have complained about the choice of April for the first pilot program. Ranger School is hard at any time of the year. It is cold in the winter, spring, and fall. Hot in the summer. Again, statistics would help, but I’d guess that the pass/fail rates for the April course are pretty similar to courses held at other times during the year.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 3:02 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 15:02:34 -0500

1SG David Lopez; I think it is a sign of changing times. A transition so to speak.

I have a female Soldier who is going and she just got back from RTAC.

As you stated it is a Leadership School. Women are Leaders as well.

It will also open it up for Boards to look at that course stronger across the all M.O.S.'s

Response by Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce made Feb 7 at 2015 3:14 PM

Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 15:14:39 -0500

ISgt Lopez, I have a question would non qualified female soldiers be admitted to this school in some sort of afermative action situation or quota to be politically correct? If so that would be stupid and wasteful of the tax payers money. However if there are a few GI Jane's out there that could make the grade I say go for it. I would never make it but why let a uturous and mamery glands get in the way...

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Feb 7 at 2015 6:17 PM

MAJ Jim Steven — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 18:17:52 -0500

Mixed....
On the one hand, I believe we should question every belief, policy and method. We grow through change, we should seek better ways of doing stuff.
Should women be allowed to vote? Own property? Be lawyers, judges, cops, etc?
Black used to be slaves, and everyone was cool with it (minus the slaves, I guess). Now, they are judges, US President, etc etc.
Now, on the flip side, nit a fan of social experimentation. True equality will not always exist, and some bias always will.
Point being, we may need to change with the times, or, at least be open to the ideas...
In college, I presented an opinion in ROTC that the Citadel should remain all male...another cadet, wh I had been a student there, disagreed....and referenced one of our female cadets as being more hardcore than the guys who drop out of the Citadel.

Why don't we deny women admission to West Point because war is a man's thing?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 6:36 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 18:36:15 -0500

I was mesmerized by your post, 1SG David Lopez. Props to you! Thank you for sharing insights from someone who has been there. I think I agree with you. If they don't change the standards and there are women who can make it, then I say good for the Army and good for those women who can make it. But really they've already changed the standards by having some sort of special selection (or quota) of women to attend the school. I guess that's necessary because they would otherwise never get in.

The thing is, despite all the talk of equality, men and women are different. Plain and simple. That's not bias, it's scientific fact. And many on RallyPoint worship at the altar of science, so I would think that scientific fact would be well received.

Will we next be clamoring for men to give birth (somehow)? That's something that's not likely going to change. Am I right? Is that unfair? Biased? Should we keep experimenting until we can make it so? I think not.

Bottom line, giving women the chance seems like the right thing to do, but if standards are changed one iota, I'm against it.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 7:14 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 19:14:13 -0500

Can't wait until a woman graduates from Ranger School. If they can make it, they can make it. If they can't they can't. 15 made it through Pre-Ranger. Looking forward to the right people making it through...male or female.

Response by Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce made Feb 7 at 2015 7:48 PM

Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 19:48:42 -0500

If you are correct and the Army plans to put 60 women into the class how are they supporting the decision? Placing non qualified personnel in a program would be fraud, waste and abuse. Doesn't the government monitor that anymore? Sorry No free rides here Ladies!
Now if they earned their way in and can hang with the Big Dawgs I say game on...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 8:09 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:09:35 -0500

1SG I would say if they meet the exact same standard and make it... Who cares if they are female... These issues sorry are getting monotonous... I joined the Marines in 1993... And back then they had these standards that were ridiculously low for females and so we were never looked at as equals by other Marines... I was the only female in my unit in maintenance and one of only three in the entire Marine Corps in my MOS.. I heard all the jokes, got razzed, pushed down perverbally and never treated as an equal... I PT'd with the men every morning and never fell out... I also requested special permission to run a male PT test to male standards to prove a point... The Gunny laughed at me and " sure" and then made an announcement to all the men "I know you all are not going to let HER best you!!!". I maxed the sit-ups, did 12 dead hang pull-ups and ran 3 miles in 19:38...I wasn't first, but I definitely wasn't last either. Not even close. I also took honor grad in 2 out of the three schools I went through for my MOS first female to ever do it... I wanted it that bad!!! Maybe this isn't ranger standard, but I did do it to their standard because I wanted it... I think everyone under estimates females in general... If they really want it and can do it to the standard with no preferential treatment then I don't understand the issue... Oh and because they couldn't use what I ran as my official score they made me rerun the entire PT test again under the female standard right after I was done and I still scored a 273... If you want it bad enough, politics aside, you will accomplish it... I think we need to just stop with the gender BS and just say it is for the elite Soldiers... We want the cream of the crop regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.... How can we say we defend and support the Constitution of the United States allow freedom to all if we still discriminate based on sex...

Response by SGT Richard H. made Feb 7 at 2015 8:17 PM

SGT Richard H. — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:17:52 -0500

1SG David Lopez and SFC Greg Kemp you both make some really great points. I think the most important one that people should take away is that Ranger School isn't PLDC/WLC. It's not a leadership school in the generic sense like those courses are, it's an advanced infantry tactics school where people learn leadership traits.

You could really even take women out of the equation for the sake of argument, since it's pointless for someone without basic infantry skills to attend an advanced course. We don't send non-Airborne qualified people to jumpmaster school either....and it would be a stupid question to ask why.

If we really think women should be allowed to go to Ranger school, then great. Start with Infantry OSUT/IOBC, serve in an Infantry Platoon, and go when there's a point to it. That's what men do. Equality.

Response by SGT Aaron Olivas made Feb 7 at 2015 8:22 PM

SGT Aaron Olivas — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:22:20 -0500

It all starts with a 888 and a Packet, if these Soldiers we speak of did not have such things and where allowed to just jump in for the fun of it, then I think we see the Big issue from the start. Standards must be kept for all ranks and sexes

Response by CPL Brendan Hayes made Feb 7 at 2015 8:27 PM

CPL Brendan Hayes — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:27:45 -0500

If women can get in via the same process as men, and I mean the EXACT same process, why not? The standards have to stay the same. The expectations for a Ranger School graduate are very high. The instant the bar lowers it should be addressed. I don't know what the future holds in this regard, but if I had to guess I would say that there will be women in most of the elite combat schools in the next 10-15 years. It seems like an inevitability.

Response by SSG John M. made Feb 7 at 2015 8:38 PM

SSG John M. — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:38:04 -0500

Question The "Pre Ranger" School were female solders "Passed" Is this the Ranger Assessment Selection Program 1 Run by 75th Ranger Regiment? or was it 4th Ranger Training Battalion? I am not familiar with "Pre Ranger" If/ and when you or anyone gets through the RPA (Ranger Physical Assessment)

Standard: The RPA is administered to the standard as depicted in FM 3-22.20. The event
consists of the push-up, sit-up, FIVE-mile run, and chin-ups. Regardless of age, the student will be tested in the 17 to 21 year old age bracket, and you must score 70 points per event. This means 49 push-ups, 59 sit-ups, 5 mile run in 40 minutes or less, and 6 chin-ups (with palms
facing you), as a minimum, must be achieved.

then you have to do the Combat Water Survival Assessment

then the Combination Night/Day land navigation test

A 3-mile terrain run

then the 12 mile road march

that's just Day 1 of RAP you got Ranger Stakes Too!!

Demolitions training and airborne refresher training

Modern Army Combatives Program although I heard the got rid of/"spread out Combatives

Darby Queen will eat em up

As long as the Standard is applied as is 15 aren't getting past RAP.

I hope the best for ANYONE trying but don't social engineer and kill the standards

Response by SSG John M. made Feb 7 at 2015 8:43 PM

SSG John M. — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:43:42 -0500

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoqw8CyRgKc

Ranger Students tackle the Malvesti Obstacle Course during their RAP Week on Fort Benning

It's one of Ranger School's toughest gut busting obstacle courses and Ranger students get a taste of it on Day 2. Melissa Bell brings shows us how Ranger Stu...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 8:46 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:46:46 -0500

With all due respect to male Soldiers, I do not understand the mentality that males are automatically elite physical studs in comparison to females. I out-run and out-ruck the vast majority of male Soldiers that I have encountered. (I recently completed a 12 mile ruck with 45 pounds in 2:04.) If I can out-PT a male because I have more toughness, drive, and intestinal fortitude, why should I be deprived of the opportunity to go to the best schools simply because I lack a Y chromosome? In my opinion, that is asinine.

Response by SSG John M. made Feb 7 at 2015 9:04 PM

SSG John M. — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 21:04:51 -0500

RIs will tell you they loose most drops between day 1 and day 2

Response by SSG John M. made Feb 7 at 2015 9:09 PM

SSG John M. — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 21:09:53 -0500

This first iteration of an integrated RTAC has provided significant lessons learned as we conduct a deliberate and professional way forward to the integrated assessment in April," said Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning.

The second iteration of RTAC began Friday at Fort Benning. As many as 21 women were scheduled to participate in that iteration,

including one of the women who did not successfully complete the first iteration of RTAC.

WTF?

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 7 at 2015 10:02 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 22:02:54 -0500

In my honest opinion the standards need to be the same and if the female soldier passes she is entitled to the tab and beret. Do not change the standards. I know there are some female soldiers up to the challenge.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Feb 7 at 2015 10:43 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 22:43:14 -0500

All I will say is that they better join RallyPoint and tell us how it went.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 10:51 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 22:51:09 -0500

I see Ranger School as the most hardcore of the non-SF schools. If they can meet the pre-determined standards and not given anything that made the course easier for them. I am all for it.

Response by SPC David S. made Feb 7 at 2015 11:04 PM

SPC David S. — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 23:04:41 -0500

No I never went to Ranger school but I thought 'Rangers Lead the Way'. Not only in their energy in which they meet the enemy but also in thinking and in esprit de corps. Don't Rangers also push, challenge, and lead others by example? Are you not an example for your female warriors? Should they not strive to be more like you and also want to lead the way? If nothing else don't they deserve the chance to at least give it a go?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2015 12:31 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 00:31:34 -0500

So with only 19% (5 females) advancing to attempt the Ranger course, and given the historically high fail rate of that school, only 1 or 2 will get the tab. Could be more, but I doubt it.

If I am generous, and 4 get the tab, does that indicate success? Less than 10% of all the female candidates? Just to wear a look what I did patch? I don't understand why any female successes will not be put into the 75th RR. With these numbers, will there be a second try in the future?

I also found it interesting that no NCOs or enlisted made it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2015 2:07 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 02:07:16 -0500

So for everyone out there I know that I may ignite a firestorm with this, but who cares and here goes...

Ranger School is not just for Infantrymen.

Yes it is a school that teaches (broad construct) small unit infantry tactics. I am not an Infantryman, I did go and make it through Ranger School, and yes I am more proud of that little tab on my uniform more than just about anything else. But for many other units/branches out there it is a leadership school. It tests your inner resolve to see if you have what it takes before you are in the thick of whatever you are in. Just as iron sharpens iron, Ranger School sharpens one's leadership skills.

If a woman can embrace the suck and make it through then good on her, as long as she makes it through where the standards aren't changed.

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2015 2:25 AM

A1C Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 02:25:14 -0500

One day a woman is going to graduate from your ranger school. She will wear her tab with the same pride as every man before her, but never get the respect they do. She will have upheld every standard and passed every test, and yet, no man will think she earned it. Only her, and her Ranger Instructors will know how much of herself went into earning it. After her, there will be others, inspired by her strength, never as many as the men, but we will never give back the rights we have gotten. Someday we will truly be equals, but for that to happen, men need to stop viewing us as the weaker gender. We are getting closer to equality, and in many ways we are, but even now, we are not. They give people more rights, they tend not to take them away.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Feb 8 at 2015 2:44 AM

SSG Trevor S. — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 02:44:01 -0500

I say HOOAH! The best should be the best. If you have a hard time keeping up with them then you should try harder. I never met that standard. I respect ANYONE who has.

Response by MAJ David Vermillion made Feb 8 at 2015 6:41 AM

MAJ David Vermillion — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 06:41:59 -0500

Retired Ranger of class 8-69.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2015 7:04 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 07:04:12 -0500

I look at it this way.

Many civilizations in history successfully fielded women in combat. The Celts regularly fielded women as infantry, as well as intelligence/reconnaissance roles. The French rebellion against the Germans in WW2 saw a lot of women performing as snipers very successfully

There are many examples throughout history. I don't think that the fact that someone is female prevents them from being able to kill someone, or perform combat tasks successfully.

However, America is a country full of spoiled brats as civilians. Instead of being a well-educated, liberated society, we have become dumb, lazy, and spoiled... and expect others to accommodate for our failures.

The problem in our thinking, regarding women in the military, is that we keep mistaking opportunity for competence. The military is supposed to be opening the door to women, but it's not up to the military to give women a free ride, especially if it's going to risk lives. It's up to the ladies to show that they have the skills, and conditioning, to make it through that opened door successfully.

Considering that Ranger School is grueling, even for the highest caliber of men... and that the current PT standards for women are lower than basic combat requirements, I think that either one of two things will happen:

1. Most, if not all women who go to Ranger School will drop out, at least initially.
2. The standards will have to be lowered for women to pass Ranger School.

And that's just touching on the politically correct aspect of the whole thing...

That's not even approaching the "other side of the story" that as soon as women start serving in combat roles, the amount of sexual activity/sexual assault on the battlefield is going to skyrocket... and a lot of men will start competing for the attention of women, women will start competing for the attention of men, etc...

Instead of the whole unit working together, now we've just made it awkward, and extremely dangerous for our soldiers. I've seen this happen first hand during JRTC deployments, where such distractions caused increasing failure in command judgment, and resulted in a "notional" catastrophic level of casualties because the men were too concerned with impressing the ladies in-unit, and not paying attention to the OPFOR character that apparently had a suicide vest.

And the fact that, medically, this kind of distraction, and competition among the two genders is genetically engrained in us... no amount of policy/regulation is going to stop these behaviors from happening.

I'm just trying to be realistic here. We want to be fair to our own soldiers, which is noble and everything, but do we honestly expect ISIS to be fair to our soldiers? What about North Korea? Russia? They now have the luxury of utilizing the intrigue of gender politics against us.

This isn't one of those situations of "Is this the right thing to do?" This is one of those "Is it the SMART thing to do?" sort of situations. Whatever we decide on this issue, as a society, we must be willing to accept the good and the bad consequences, and be willing to learn from the experiences to come.

Response by 1SG David Lopez made Feb 8 at 2015 8:35 AM

1SG David Lopez — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 08:35:46 -0500

Thanks every body, we beat this dead horse over and over. The Big Green Machine (Army) is gonna do what it wants to do. We'll just have to stay tuned and see what happens. Good Luck to the Females that make it to Ranger School, "It is not for the weak or faint hearted".

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2015 10:15 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 10:15:39 -0500

This is all I have to say about this: read Brad Thor's "The Athena Project". If anyone's read it then you'll know what I'm talking about.

Response by SPC James Mcneil made Feb 8 at 2015 10:51 AM

SPC James Mcneil — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 10:51:28 -0500

My opinion is that since I couldn't pass Ranger school, I should really have no opinion on any woman that can pass Ranger school. If they can pass, more power to them. If they can't pass...

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Feb 8 at 2015 3:21 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 15:21:25 -0500

Since you put the word honestly in quotation marks I will be honest. It is a monumental waste of time, energy, money and slots for men to get through the Ranger course which as I understand for the Army are pretty coveted slots.

We are at 26 women who have tried and failed the Infantry Officer Course. That is a FACT. These were the best of the best in Marine Corps female officers. That is 0 for 26. If the goal is to get one through I am sure it will happen. Standards will get lowered, a blind eye will be turned and it will likely happen. Everyone involved will know it was BS.

If we think Women are ready to take on men in close combat there is an easy way to test it. Go hand pick a platoon of women Marines or Army and put them in a hand to hand contest with a platoon of men. That is what it comes down to sometimes, brutal hand to hand combat. It is not about running or jumping or even humping or shooting straight although those are all important. Can the average female soldier or Marine stand toe to toe with their male counterpart and take them out?

None if this is to say women do not serve honorably and do great work in many occupational fields. Sometimes we just have to face the brutal reality. We do not even integrate sporting events (track/field, swimming, golf, tennis etc.). We do not because women would be shut out of the ability to win. If it is not good for any of these sporting events why would it be good for the most martial of activities?

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Feb 8 at 2015 6:45 PM

SPC Angel Guma — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 18:45:56 -0500

You know what would be a big irony:

One of those females passes, then kicks a proud chest thumper's ass in combatives.

I have no quarrel if they meet standards. Bravado is not a standard.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2015 7:38 PM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 19:38:05 -0500

Why do some many people have to be so sexstis. Women can do anything a male can do. So why should women be told they can't do something just because they were born a women? It doesn't make any scene. ........

Response by MSG Dan Foster made Feb 8 at 2015 8:26 PM

MSG Dan Foster — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:26:41 -0500

As you stated 1SG Lopez, not a good idea on a number of levels. The DC PC crowd strikes again.

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made Feb 8 at 2015 8:36 PM

Cpl Brett Wagner — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:36:48 -0500

1SG David Lopez - Sir I could not agree with you more. I have had the same silly discussion on a Marine Corps site about WMs in infantry and now I hear a rumor about letting them attend RECON and other such type training. I have DVDs on each services SPEC OPS training and after seeing what a Ranger goes through I don't know how the Army would ever consider such a thing.

I'm old school and see things very different from a lot of the young bucks here on RP who do not see anything wrong with this so I guess I'm truly one of the few. :-) I honestly do not understand why a woman would want this? What to go to war and see such horrible things that will haunt them the rest of their lives... Why? What have we become when we want to send our women off to war?

BTW 1SG David Lopez - That is a helluva good looking dog.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 8 at 2015 11:26 PM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 23:26:46 -0500

Well, I think under current fabricated, and non-realistic pilot is dumb. I think we are ensuring women will make through, so we can then surmise that women can make it. Why aren't they going to Infantry OSUT and/or BLOC first? Yes, I know it is not an Infantry only school.

If we want to see if they can make it, then have them show up like the rest of us, and do it under the same conditions. Show up to any regular class and go for it.

All these experiments are skewed in one way or another.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 12:37 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:37:53 -0500

It's a leadership school, so what's wrong with sending the best qualified SOLDIERS to attend the school, regardless of gender. If they meet the standard, good on them.

It still won't make them Rangers, just ranger qualified (as I suspect many of the infantrymen are). It's like going to airborne school and jump qualified versus being airborne.

In the end, it's not really that big of a deal, if they meet the standards, good on them!!!

Response by SFC Richard M. made Feb 9 at 2015 10:00 AM

SFC Richard M. — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:00:36 -0500

I don't understand what the problem is. If you maintain the same standards for women as you do men, why would there be an issue?

Response by 1stLt Johnnie Incog made Feb 9 at 2015 10:59 AM

1stLt Johnnie Incog — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:59:50 -0500

Are there American women who could complete Ranger school? Most likely. Are all those women in the military, specifically the Army? Most likely not. Are all of those of this small group that ARE in the Army going to apply, or even want to be in the infantry? Absolutely not.

Response by PO1 Brenda Villanueva made Feb 9 at 2015 12:25 PM

PO1 Brenda Villanueva — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:25:06 -0500

I think that there just needs to be the female side to these specialties. Statistically females are better shooters. Not employing them in the Rangers or other special forces positions in other branches may be denying the nation the protection it deserves. Maybe they can be trained in a non co-ed environment so the males don't get distracted!

Response by TSgt Jackie Jones made Feb 9 at 2015 1:17 PM

TSgt Jackie Jones — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 13:17:48 -0500

I respect your opinion 100%.

Response by TSgt Jackie Jones made Feb 9 at 2015 1:29 PM

TSgt Jackie Jones — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 13:29:41 -0500

Sorry, I prematurely posted! I support your opinion 100% based on what you have accomplished and what you have gone through. You are an elite soldier and a 'bad ass' in all arenas.

The things I can think of to even come close to compare, will fall short. But as a woman who served in a male based field, I have to say if there is a woman who thinks she can and has passed all the standards, let's evolve and move past the gender discrepancies.

I played football in High school.

I was on the wrestling team.

I've pooped in a field and in the middle of a desert and out a Humvee window. Shit happens.

I was ridiculed and made fun of for my interests and physical abilities. I hit as hard as those guys and fought hard. I didn't run less laps or do less push ups.

You talk about the money- I can't argue there...

All I say is don't change standards. If a chick can do it, let her do it.

Response by MAJ David Vermillion made Feb 9 at 2015 2:31 PM

MAJ David Vermillion — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:31:16 -0500

If the Ranger School standards stay the same (which they Won't) it will be a great day. Here is what happens, you have a commander who is goal oriented and has the pressure of the higher commanders to see positive results and because the (highers) want success so badly, the standards will change. I hope when they start this class the RIs don't receive any undo pressure from the highers to pass people. I have seen this pressure and I have felt this pressure, OERs and EERs are real and fear of not be promoted sometime gets in the way. My attempt here is this, I am for females to attend Ranger School, and it's not the females I am worried about because they are going to go out there and give it their best shot, it's the chain of command that's the problem. My message, let the females do their thing. Not all will make it and that's fine, neither do all men make it. Don't change anything, it will work itself out. Good Rangering!

Response by SSG Andrew Neeb made Feb 9 at 2015 4:08 PM

SSG Andrew Neeb — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 16:08:53 -0500

LT, I commend you for being such a bad ass in PT. A 2:04 12 mile ruck is no joke, and you would surely smoke many men in combat arms on a road march. The Army has gotten soft in that regard and it is leaders like you who continue to set the standard for others to follow.

I disagree with women in Ranger school though, unless they serve in a Branch/MOS that required that type of training. Ranger school was designed for Rangers and Infantry who will actually use what they learned in combat during dismounted patrols. Why should anyone be allowed to go to a school, which requires American tax dollars to fund, if they have no use for those skills in their job.

It would be like sending a cook to Sapper school, or a rigger to the SFQC. I would prefer the Army to design a relevant gut check school for non-combat arms jobs instead of hijacking an advanced infantry school for political bullshit.

CA and PSYOPS are combat branches that allow women, but rarely require the skills learned in Ranger school. They would do better going to some kind of shooting school.

I am sure you could make it through any of these schools, but that should not be the justification for your attendance. As a tax payer, I find social experiments in the military to be wasteful at best.

Now I do agree with women being allowed into Spec Ops like the Green Beret's or the units in JSOC (CAG, The Activity, etc.). My wife was offered a chance to go to JSOC, to do exactly what was never explained, but we were on our way out of the Army. If done the right way, I think women can be a great asset to the Spec Ops community. Those types of units operate in a dynamic small group environment that have the flexibility required to accommodate women.

The same does not apply to the infantry or Rangers. Those are very rigid operations by design, and it would force the current commanders to "redesign the wheel". A wheel that was forged over hundreds of years and thousands of battles. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Then there are the Grunts. These men Make fine soldiers, but many of them are very rough around the edges. They are full of testosterone and even the foulest of females start to look good to them after a few weeks of training in the woods. I could see them getting themselves into a lot of trouble if they had a female in their ranks. They are men after all. This kind of trouble can hurt moral and cause dissension in the ranks, and eventually lives on the battlefield. Fight for women in Spec Ops, but please leave the Grunts alone. Their lives and jobs are hard enough already doing what they do.

If you really want to be a bad ass then check out JSOC, they are always looking for badasses like you. You may even get a Ranger school slot if you end up in one of their special units, along with many other cool schools. I've herd it is pretty much a requirement for many jobs over there. I know some people over there that could help you open that door if you are interested.

Response by SSgt Robert Haney made Feb 9 at 2015 4:53 PM

SSgt Robert Haney — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 16:53:53 -0500

In this day and time, all qualified candidates, regardless of gender or race, should have the
oppurtunity to become a Ranger. Additional slots should be opened if necessary.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 6:16 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:16:39 -0500

So long as no standard is changed for them let them try Exact same standards as males

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 7:35 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 19:35:14 -0500

If she can meet the standard, then she has earned the tab. One standard.

Response by PFC Kristina Caler made Feb 9 at 2015 9:36 PM

PFC Kristina Caler — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 21:36:21 -0500

Males and females are built differently, with our own strength and weaknesses. Rangers should not have to change their standard based on females perception of discrimination. There may be females that could handle it, but could doesn't always mean should...

Response by SPC Christopher Dunbar made Feb 9 at 2015 11:28 PM

SPC Christopher Dunbar — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 23:28:38 -0500

I wasn't a Ranger, tabbed, RIP, or in a Bat. I was, however, in a combat hardened, infantry unit.

My opinion about females attending Ranger school it is doomed. Let's say standards aren't actually lowered. They will be. Instructors will have to be more PR conscious, as well as male students. Females won't get peered out because it looks bad on the cadre and training bat. There will be at least one who will pass, not because she passed, but she was passed.

Just the suggestion of women in combat orientated MOSs makes one automatically pass and it's not a gamble against the odds or the hardship, but against the other females to be the baddest of the females to try to be the one or two that will pass.

Here's where the military started getting it wrong. All the cooks, AHA guard/ammunition specialty MOS, CIF (92W MOS) and others, have been taken over by civilians. Then the question is, "What do we do with the cooks who are currently serving when we go to a combat theater?" We put them in Humvees and Deuce-in-halfs and have them do log pacs. We give them the idea that they aren't support and they are instead "just like the infantry" (I hate that saying), and they have limited training in anything but a week long of field training before they deployed.

Now, this mentality builds and evolves from false motivation to full on Stolen Valor and now is becoming doctrine and letting women into Ranger School. What's next? Green Beret females? Master HALO wings?

In 2004, there was talk of a Close Quarter Badge, the starting idea for the Combat Action Badge. It would have gone to Non-Infantry, Non-Medic Combat MOSs. Tankers, Scouts, Artillery, Fisters and Combat Engineers, only. Again, it wasn't equal enough for everyone, so now the PAC clerks on the FOB hear a mortar round and it gets blown out of proportion and everyone gets a CAB, while I know of an Infantryman who has been on 2 combat tours in Iraq who hasn't received a CIB.

In short, no, women shouldn't go to Ranger School, and the Army as a whole needs to take some of the Liberal/Progressive steps that it has taken over the last 10 years, do an about face and retrace those steps.

Response by Cpl Bill Foster made Feb 9 at 2015 11:51 PM

Cpl Bill Foster — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 23:51:14 -0500

My opinion is if a female can make the cut, let her do the job. She should held to the exact same standards as males, but if she can make it, she deserves it. But lowering physical/training requirements just to fill female slots is dangerous, especially for Rangers or any combat MOS, and that will get people killed.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 1:33 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 01:33:19 -0500

If a woman wants to attend ranger school, and she passes based on the SAME standards as men, then so be it; more power to her. However, I only agree that they should be allowed to attend the school for the tab, not to be put into a ranger unit as one.
I don't believe fitness should be a reason to exclude women from doing anything a man can do. I do, however, believe in the scientific, physiological reasons. There are hygienic standards females require that cannot be met when you find yourself isolated on a mountaintop for 3 weeks setting up an OP.

Response by PO1 Ken Johnson made Feb 10 at 2015 7:59 AM

PO1 Ken Johnson — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:59:20 -0500

As long as there is one set of standards and a person meets or exceeds those standards, they should be qualified. The key is ONE SET OF STANDARDS, not just one cut off for the run, I mean on set of STANDARDS. No changes to the training guide, at any point. If a Ranger has to do it, a Ranger has to do it. Not a Male Ranger has to do it this way and a Female Ranger has to do it this way...

My first experience with a workcenter with male and female, I got some great advice from someone who had never been in the military.... he said "All you need to look at is the left sleeve or the collar!" or as we used to say "STRIPE COUNT!" That is a PO3 and that is a SN, so now hand out assignments.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Feb 10 at 2015 11:35 AM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:35:13 -0500

Ridiculous! It is not just about Ranger School, it is about the mission of the Ranger unit. I started out in the Infantry (airborne) and I ended up in aviation. I will share the aircraft with any female pilot who completes flight school. But, raid behind enemy lines is no place for a woman.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 12:10 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:10:33 -0500

Its a pretty horrible pass rate! I'm sure there are some senior officers right now trying to figure out what standards to change to get a higher pass rate.

Not enough pass, change the standards until enough do.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 1:21 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:21:58 -0500

I understand that all Officers out of IBOLC go to Ranger school but for the rest of the Branches it is something that is highly competitive way before Pre-Ranger. Does requiring spots for females to go the Pre-ranger already lower the standards? I am only speaking from the O side of this of course.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 1:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:43:04 -0500

More power to them. There are females out there today that can run faster and do more push-ups and sit-ups than I can. And they probably have a better aptitude to grasp the material that is taught. Enough of females being attached to the unit while deployed. They have every right to wear the tab if they earn it. That way the more females you have with the tab and in Ranger BN, the faster female standards can be hashed out

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Feb 10 at 2015 1:46 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:46:00 -0500

I think the photo (that appears to have been added by a fellow RP admin) is funny....since that uniform appears to be AF cammies.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 1:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:49:07 -0500

I'm not sure why women should or need to attend ranger school unless they have a combat arms MOS I don't see a reason period.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 2:33 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:33:26 -0500

I believe that it is possible that a female Soldier will make the standards and graduate ranger school. However, with what I've only read and been told, the chances of graduating is low even amongst men who go in prepared for it. That isn't to say that no woman will ever graduate.

No quarter should be given and none should be expected though. It should be the same standard. There is only the quick and the dead in combat.

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Feb 10 at 2015 2:43 PM

Cpl Matthew Wall — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:43:57 -0500

If they can pass why not?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 3:46 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:46:55 -0500

Let them go, no issues, but do not change the standard. Let there be no question to whether or not they've truly earned the tab.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 4:04 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:04:01 -0500

I think it pretty awesome. If a female can make it through the course, then they are just as deserving to wear the ranger tab. I personally, probably wouldn't make it through, but I give the highest respect to the both men and women that do.

Response by SGT Brian Gibbs made Feb 10 at 2015 4:10 PM

SGT Brian Gibbs — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:10:56 -0500

Honesty. I welcome it. It is supposed to be an equal right country and if woman have the courage to join, they should have the same benefits and opportunities that every soldier should. With my experience in the Army it was divided. Female soldiers and Male soldiers were viewed differently by the higher chain of command. But I on the other hand treated my female soldiers the same way I treated my mail soldiers. I pushed them the same and commended them the same. In my eyes they are all soldiers and should be treated as such.

Response by SSG Michael Velez made Feb 10 at 2015 4:21 PM

SSG Michael Velez — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:21:09 -0500

I'm old(er) and my issue with females in the military came down to standards: female's were lower than the men's. If the the standards were the same across the board, I wouldn't have any problems with a woman in a combat MOS.

Response by SFC Benjamin Parsons made Feb 10 at 2015 4:33 PM

SFC Benjamin Parsons — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:33:51 -0500

There are unquestionably women who can take the heat. Some even likely to outperform some of the males.
How much are we gonna spend in both time and money to find those few?
And what real role will they fill for all the effort?
A costly exercise in Political Correctness.
I served with several female soldiers during one fairly long assignment and came away impressed and with a wholly changed attitude.
But this is too much and fiscally dumb.

Response by SPC Larry Buck made Feb 10 at 2015 5:09 PM

SPC Larry Buck — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:09:43 -0500

1ST Lopez , forgive my chiming in, I'm not qualified for eather Rangers or be a Woman...
But I would love them to atleast try, cause if they make it that's a victory.. On other hand are all recruits american and true? I've watched foreign nationals walk into overseas offices to join.. Are they true? They could be "isis" gonna blow up the transport plane y'all on! Who do you want as your Battle Buddy now!!?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 5:15 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:15:29 -0500

I look at all these posts and i dont think these people get it. This is not equal oppertunity this is not fairness. The ranger tab is not some bling that you put in you shadow box or hang in your office to say look how good i am it is a sign to your men that says you have had the besttraining the army can give an infantryman and they can depend on you. Sending non infantrymen is a waste of resources so if you are going to send non infantrymen you have to have a better reason then it is the fair thing to do because that doesnt matter. Fair is not important always remember the most important thing ..... Killing the enemy with such effectivness that the dead haj you just killed friends cannot sleep from fear of the infantryman that hunts them. Women and all the other pogs can go ti rangerschool when there are no more infantryman waiting to have the oppertunity....... I guess cav guys can go too

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 5:18 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:18:52 -0500

I fully respect and support females being able to attend Ranger school. Guys stop bashing the females. There are countless females who can out-performed some of our male soldiers in the APFT. So guys allow the females to try their capabilities in the Elite Ranger School. I once saw a female Senior Drill Sergeant who knocks out 75 push-ups at a go at Ft Lee VA...outperformed 80% of male trainees. So guys give our females heroes thumbs up by support them 100%.

Response by SPC Kortney Kistler made Feb 10 at 2015 5:26 PM

SPC Kortney Kistler — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:26:20 -0500

As soon as a gender distinction has been made it becomes the problem. Concessions need to be made in any given situation to accommodate females. Concessions do not need to be made to accommodate soldiers.

Whether or not she is equal to or better than her male counterparts is irrelevant. The plain and simple truth is, it's a female in a sea of males. She will be looked upon as different. To be quite frank it is out of uniform.

The gender lines will always be there as long as there is a dual standard.

The dual standard I was referring to is what distinctively make someone male or female and the problems that come with coupling in a mixed gender unit.

If you want to get a tab, go get it. I couldn't care less. It's a very big accomplishment to earn it.

There is enough of the sex and dating and high-school bs that goes on when not deployed, it gets worse during. Infidelity, hurt feelings, resentment, and people not doing their jobs because they are otherwise concerned with matters of the opposite sex.

Again, go earn your tab. But 1 or 2 females in an otherwise all male unit is a big problem.

It's bad deal when you have Joe's from other unit stalking around your AO because you have females.

We actually had a shuttle that would grab a group of females and physically take them outside the wire to an adjacent camp. I was told these were SF running the shuttle, but I never verified. I will do that though.

This does happen. It will continue to happen. Your focus should be the mission and not your boyfriend/girlfriend in the next squad.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 5:56 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:56:13 -0500

My patience for people who don't understand there are no standard changes was left on my 8 mile run.... somewhere... on the road... stay physically fit my friends.

Response by SMSgt Todd Wagendorf made Feb 10 at 2015 6:13 PM

SMSgt Todd Wagendorf — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:13:52 -0500

If a woman want's to be a Ranger and live up to everything that goes with the title, than so be it. Word of caution though, and this might be getting deep. When does a woman stop being a woman, when does a man stop treating a woman as a woman? I have three daughters and I teach them to be who they want to be, but don't forget that a mans job is to care for and honor you for who you are. Am I rambling, or is any of this making sense?

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 6:28 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:28:49 -0500

my pg-13 answer is make the standards fucking equal and give them the green light. If a woman can Rock and shoot and move and communicate just as well, then why not? the other side of that is my R rated xxx version answer which is you would probably have to have female only infantry units because that's what other countries militaries have done successfully but overall you would have an increase in sexual assault and STDs and pregnancy in the US Armed Forces. Pretty sure this is why the policy hasn't gone through yet because it is inevitable. Men and women in the field even training as two separate units are going to intermingle and it's going to go to shit.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 6:44 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:44:25 -0500

Here is my honest opinion. It is a waste of money and resources...right now. The military will continue to let female Soldiers attempt to pass ranger school. Eventually, there will be a female Soldier who passes, I have no doubt. But.....how many will fail before that? 50? 100? 1000? It's a waste of a slot to give it to ANYONE, MALE or female, if they do not posses the physical attributes to pass. It's the mental that can only be judged during the course. All due respect to the female Soldiers who are out running, out tucking, and out classing their male counterparts. However, take a look at those you leaving in the dust. Do you think they are the bar you should set to answer if you got what it takes to pass ranger school? If the answer is yes.... Go get em.

Response by SPC John Decker made Feb 10 at 2015 7:38 PM

SPC John Decker — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:38:50 -0500

Women should be required to meet the same standards that men have t meet. I don't care what job they're trying to get.

Response by Sgt E5Marty35 . made Feb 10 at 2015 8:34 PM

Sgt E5Marty35 . — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:34:43 -0500

Don't know why this is in the news...I WAS married to a woman that claimed she was a Ranger back in 1993, and served in Somalia. Captain bars on the collar, and Ranger tab on the shoulder, all captured in a nice photo. She wouldn't have lied to me would she???? Still wonder what happened to the photo, and why she could never find her Military records, or DD214.

Response by 1SG David Lopez made Feb 11 at 2015 4:28 AM

1SG David Lopez — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:28:03 -0500

Thanks to whoever put the picture up, adds a real face of our Future Female Ranger candidates.

Response by CSM Steve Slocum made Feb 11 at 2015 8:32 AM

CSM Steve Slocum — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:32:38 -0500

Another case of this administration and current Army leadership being PC. It is a waste of time and will only lower the standards for Ranger school. Women have a place in our Army but Ranger School is not one of them!!! All you weak Generals need to retire as you have fallen victim to the PC Police.

Response by CPT Keith Steinhurst made Feb 11 at 2015 8:57 AM

CPT Keith Steinhurst — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:57:54 -0500

Well, I'll put it like this - Ranger School is a school, Ranger Regiment is a unit. Having the Tab makes one Ranger qualified, having the Scroll makes one a Ranger. It could be fairly stated that Ranger School is that special place where soldiers can be trained to act like Marines, though I did not get to wear a 'Marine' tab when I got my Army commission. If one uses this calculus, then females have been proving for years that they have the quality to be Rangers, and all the young female Marines that have of late passed the School of Infantry, well that simply underscores the point - the problem with the integration is not the females (the Israelis proved that), the problem is with the males - the challenges will only be resolved by leadership.

Response by SSG Buddy Kemper made Feb 11 at 2015 10:40 AM

SSG Buddy Kemper — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:40:23 -0500

Just don't lower the standards, Top. If they can get thru jump school...do EVERYTHING to same standard as the fellas...I say have at it. Just my 2 cents which don't get near a cup o' joe anymore. I went to jump and air assault schools with several soldiers, who happened to be female, who were tough as nails and had no problem with the physical aspect of the training. BUT I saw a few who sluffed some and the got away with it. To their credit, I saw female officers, who were on the standard and performing well chew the a$$es of the enlisted troops who were not working hard, both male AND female. My units were always all male at Campbell and in Afghanistan because females hadn't been cleared for 11B at that time. BUT in the last few years I've heard good things from the schoolhouse regarding female trainees. Even saw where a female airman had passed Sniper school AND the counter sniper course. Impressive to say the least. I'll finish as I started. Don't lower the standards. If they are rocking on basic soldier skills, pushups, situps, 2-mile run and can hang with some pullups they should be fine. My advice to any lady OR dude before heading out to Fort Benning....be able to hold an 8:00 to 8:30 minute 5 mile run in ACU pants and running shoes AND.... get your 12 mile ruck (w/45 lbs minimum) as far UNDER 3 hours as possible. KNOW YOUR LAND NAV!!! God bless, thanks for your Service and Strike and Kill!!!!!!! ps. Don't show up down there not knowing the Soldiers creed and Ranger creed front and backwards! The Drills and Instructors will MURDER ya! Hooah

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 12:08 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:08:53 -0500

I can honestly say that if a female Soldier can meet all of the same requirements both physical and mental I don't think there should be an issue with them joining any part of the military. Its when you start making separate standards that I begin to disagree.

But I can say that there are some females in EOD and other jobs that I would choose to fight beside over some of our males. It shouldn't be about gender, it should be strictly based on physical and mental abilities.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Feb 11 at 2015 1:53 PM

LTC John Wilson — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:53:26 -0500

This almost means an instant washout for the female candidates. No it is not a good enough percentage for any school.

Response by COL James Stevens Roach made Feb 11 at 2015 5:27 PM

COL James Stevens Roach — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:27:06 -0500

Should women soldiers be allowed to go to Ranger School? Ranger School is designed to produce effective small unit combat leaders. And the training is conducted through small unit patrols, conducted in very tough conditions. When I worked in the Ranger Department in the early 1970s the average student lost 10% to 15% of his body weight during the eight week Ranger Course. But Infantry COMBAT is even tougher. ( I served two tours as an Infantry Platoon Leader and Company Commander in Viet Nam) And that is what Ranger school prepares it's students to do: be an effective Small Unit Infantry Leader in COMBAT. There is no doubt that have some outstanding women soldiers, and I am sure that some of them could even pass the Ranger Course. But Ranger School is not Combat.

We should not make women Infantry for the same reason that women do not play in the National Football League. Infantry requires physical strength, but also the ability to perform the brutal acts of close combat without hesitation. By nature men are more agressive than women. And I like that difference, and do not see the necessity to try and resocialize some of our women soldiers to the necessary level of brutality for Infantry Combat. Less than 10% of the US Army is Infantry. Infantry is a dirty dangerous job.

In training I have no doubt that women could serve very well in any Infantry unit. They can go on field exercises, make the marches, stay up for 72 hours. But the problem is that all of that activity is merely preparation for COMBAT. The Army already has problems in making the transistion from Peace Time Army to Combat Operations. Including women in the infantry will only make that transistion to the harsh realities of Combat more difficult. And that has the clear potential to cost lives, of both men and women soldiers.

And the other large issue is that with Infantry Soldiers we are talking about young men. And even if women are allowed to serve in the Infantry, (I don't think there would be many women who will be interested), the majority of the Infantry Soldiers will still be young men. And Infantry Squad (8-10 men) Platoon (20-30 men) is like a suspension bridge. It only works when the load is evenly distributed, that is every one is carrying their load. I think the great problem ISN'T the women soldiers, the problem would be the young male soldiers trying to protect the women soldiers in their unit. Young men are going to try to protect the young women (and I think they should) but including women in the Infantry complicates the chaos of Infantry small unit combat. Gives the small unit leader (Fire Team Leaders, Squad Leaders, Platoon Leaders) another variable to consider when they are trying to survive and kill the enemy (which is often the critical issue in surviving).

Young men are going to look after women who are near them in dangerous situations. That instinct is part of human nature, and regulations or laws will not change human nature.

Response by COL James Stevens Roach made Feb 11 at 2015 5:27 PM

COL James Stevens Roach — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:27:58 -0500

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 7:57 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:57:41 -0500

Go for it! Women serve all combat positions in the Isreali Defense Force.. and everyone knows how robust that force is! Our women veterans served with great honor in OEF/OIF!

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 8:13 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:13:59 -0500

If they can make the cut through selection then by all means these women deserve to serve side-by-side and wear that tan beret with pride.

Response by SSG Paul Lanciault made Feb 11 at 2015 8:45 PM

SSG Paul Lanciault — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:45:20 -0500

I'm sure many females are ready and able. Not sure about some of the males, or most of America. As long as the standard is the standard for everyone. Its going to be interesting.

Response by SFC Cindy Paris made Feb 11 at 2015 8:51 PM

SFC Cindy Paris — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:51:44 -0500

So I have read through all the comments made so far. And initially I was not going to respond but .... I guess seeing as the male "old timers" have commented I will too.
When I joined the military 34 years ago (wow don't I now feel old :-) ) the physical standards between men and women were a lot closer than they are today. Why have they widened the gap between expectations? Because of the complaints that the standards were too hard. I understand that there are some women out there that can pass Ranger School BUT the majority cannot. And once complaints start rolling in, the standards will most likely change. Look towards history for proof that it will happen. When that happens, it will not be better because it is equal, it will be worse cause we will have weakened our ability to protect each other and our country. If I thought that the standards would remain the same, I would be all for it. But unfortunately I fear that it will not.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2015 8:15 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:15:06 -0500

Sounds like you're whining just as much as you would accuse women of whining. I'd love to see one of those "tough as nails" females hammer you down to the ground like the sexist you are. It is oh so simple, if they pass they pass, if they fail, guess what? They fail.

Women time after time have proven themselves and the reasoning you have provided sounds petty and unrealistic. Women of our Armed Services, continue to make your brothers proud!! We all know there are female service members that are tougher than a lot of the male service members we know personally. Personally, I'm proud and excited to see women climb these barriers.

Response by SSG Jeffrey Spencer made Feb 12 at 2015 8:16 AM

SSG Jeffrey Spencer — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:16:12 -0500

If she's that badass, don't mess with her.

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Feb 12 at 2015 10:04 AM

Cpl Peter Martuneac — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:04:20 -0500

If they can hack it, why not? It's not like they're trying to get into SFOD-D or SEAL's. There's plenty of fat-body, weak-minded men who get the opportunity and promptly flunk out, so if a woman has the guts, the desire, and the ability, let her.

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Feb 12 at 2015 11:11 AM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:11:59 -0500

Honestly? If they can do the job to the same standards as the male candidates, I encourage them.

We need soldiers who are dedicated to doing their jobs and doing them well. Don't discourage someone from a job simply because a particular demographic traditionally did it.

Response by SPC Lee Burner made Feb 12 at 2015 12:02 PM

SPC Lee Burner — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:02:07 -0500

I guess my outlook on it is they have to pass all the same physical demands as the men. Having trained in Martial arts for several years now, I have to say that I have come across a lot of woman who can do physically what men can do and often more, however, I also know that the military is no exception to its stressful environments and super demanding physically, but I think that if they can complete the same training as the men without helping hands, then why not? Woman have been serving in combat for years in Israel for example but the real question is how can they avoid infections and deal with their biological differences over long periods of forced field work. It's definitely a crazy issue and I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

Response by CPL Joshua Wood made Feb 12 at 2015 9:57 PM

CPL Joshua Wood — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:57:37 -0500

I want to begin by making it very clear where I stand on the subject of gender equality. I will always be someone who fights for equal opportunity among men and women in almost every aspect of our modern lives. However, there is one area that I must be very transparent about what I believe. The United States military crossed the line when gender equality in combat operations became more important than human life.

Thomas Brennan accounts, “When my squad arrived at our outpost in Afghanistan in 2010, one of the first things we did was outfit our living quarters with trash bags, cardboard and salvaged wood to ease the vicious winds…We urinated into a metal pipe fed through a Hesco barricade filled with dirt and burned our feces in a metal drum. There were no showers or water for showers, so, after each day’s long and grueling foot patrols we pulled on new socks and used baby wipes and body powder. It was miserable, but we endured the misery together.”
There were times we had to be in our vehicles for three or more days. When we needed to relieve ourselves it would be in plastic bottles or bags. With women in the vehicle the patrol would have to stop. All doors would be open for a tarp wall to be constructed no matter how dangerous the situation is. This exposes the troops and makes them vulnerable for ambush.
This can’t be a matter of equal opportunity or political correctness.It has to be about operating at max efficiency and speed to ensure that there are no casualties.

A man is biologically programmed to be a protector, a provider, and a fixer. That is not new knowledge, and neither is the knowledge that failure to carry out these desires is internalized by most men.
During combat there is an immediate kinship developed between soldiers. They become like brothers. Sacrificing their own life would be done without hesitation if it meant saving the lives of their brothers. With women in combat it is only natural that our biological instincts would take over, and we would immediately assume the role as their protector. Therefore, it should be no surprise that a woman dying under our care would affect us differently than if it were a man. Both are equally tragic, but the thoughts would begin pouring in. “I should have protected her. I should have been there.” Yes, these are thinking errors, but that does not stop a man from having these thoughts in a horrible situation like this. Mentally, the scenario would get much worse if she had a husband and children at home.

Did you know one out of every five national suicides is a veteran of war? According to http://www.cnn.com, twenty-two veterans take their lives daily, which equals about one every hour. The Department of Veterans Affairs released this information in February of 2013. (Read More) The 1994 ban keeping women from combat roles was lifted in January of 2013, and young veteran suicide has only increased since then. I can not say this is merely a coincidence.
I can not imagine the horror I would feel if someone sexually assaulted my wife, sisters, or my mother. That is why this topic is very difficult for me to discuss, but it is so very important. The numbers do not lie. The Department of Defense has claimed that “tens of thousands of unwanted sexual contacts occur in the military every year, yet only a fraction of those get reported.” Another report showed that in 2012 there were 3,374 sexual assaults recorded that were directly related to the military. In 2013, there were 5,061 reported. You may wonder why there would be such a drastic climb in numbers. As I mentioned in a previous post, the 1994 ban keeping women from combat was lifted in January of 2013. That means the number of women in combat positions has steadily been increasing since the ban was lifted. In the past you would have had roughly twenty men in one platoon. Now you may have eighteen men and two women.There are many issues that this can cause, but the one that concerns me the most is the likelihood of there being an unwanted sexual encounter. It is true that men need to be respectful, accountable, and self-controlled, but if all the men in this world were perfect there would be no need for this conversation. The harsh reality is this world is not perfect, and combat overseas is far from normal civilian life. Take a bunch of immature eighteen-year-old boys, and add in some anger and rage caused by ten-twelve months of war. Combine that with little to no contact with women for almost one year, and you have a situation that can quickly get very bad.

We live in an age where the push for equal opportunity in this nation has crossed the line of fair and down right absurd. I don’t understand how and when it became “sexist” to say that men are physically stronger than women. Lately I have heard, “Women are not stronger because men don’t want them to be stronger” or “Women face many more challenges than men, which makes them stronger”. This list could go on and on. I am not saying that women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. I believe it would do us all some good if we could relax a little and stop being so sensitive. It is commonly accepted in the medical field that men have 50% more brute strength and upper body strength than women. “Men naturally have a higher percentage of lean muscle mass than women… ‘Men not only have more muscle, but pound for pound, their muscle is slightly stronger than a woman’s — about 5 to 10 percent, says Lou Schuler in “The New Rules of Lifting for Women.’ ”
It appears as though this is a concept that even the United States military understands and accepts as truth. In the Army, men ages 22-26 must be able to do 40 push ups, but for women in the same age bracket, they are only required to do 17. Likewise, men must be able to run two miles in sixteen minutes, thirty-six seconds, yet women are allowed three extra minutes to compete the same distance. (See physical fitness requirements here) This is only a small portion of the different physical requirements between men and women. I once had to carry an unconscious man on my back down an incredibly steep mountain to get him to a medic. How is a woman going to carry me down a steep mountain when she weighs less than me and is required to perform much less than I am on a physical fitness tests? In that situation she would definitely perform at her full efficiency, but it would not be the efficiency needed to ensure her safety and the safety of those around.

Did you know that since 1970, the majority of our military interventions have been in Muslim countries? Contrary to popular belief, we are not only in these countries to subdue an enemy; rather, much of our job revolves around winning the hearts and minds of those around and creating more friends than we create enemies. We must be able to earn the respect and trust of the local leadership before they will ever be comfortable about giving us information that will lead to what we need. We must be able to communicate effectively and learn what their needs are. We build mosques, schools, wells for clean water, and more. Allowing women to serve in these roles would be detrimental to the military’s success in Islamic countries. Most native men refuse to even look at a women if her head and face aren’t covered, much less allow them to have any type of authority or leadership. They would find it humiliating and disrespectful, and we would be creating more hostility than we would be building the quality relationships we desperately need. If a Muslim man doesn’t even look at his own wife as if she is equal, how will he look at someone he has never met as if she deserves respect as an authority figure? It is the senior officers and those in combat positions who are carrying out these tasks, and these duties just can not be done by women in these countries. I do not agree with the social standards muslim women are held to nor do I believe it is acceptable, but my belief does not make this reality go away. We are not in these countries to force a different belief. We are in these countries to carry out the missions set forth by the U.S. government, and we need to be able to do so as effectively as possible.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2015 7:10 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:10:55 -0500

As a 75th Ranger Regiment Alum, I'll say this for the record.

If a female Soldier can hack it in an unadulterated manner, to the exact same standards, if not beyond, as males, then those individuals and those individuals alone should be afforded the opportunity to join the ranks.

I would advise strongly against opening the Ranger Regiment and RTB to women for the sole purpose of political correctness. What they do day in and day out is very serious business and is not meant for everybody. Hence why if you cannot hack in, you CAN quit.

Just my two cents

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Feb 13 at 2015 1:41 PM

LTC Stephen C. — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:41:59 -0500

1SG David Lopez, I think the soldier in the introductory photo needs to work on her salute!

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Feb 15 at 2015 4:59 AM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Sun, 15 Feb 2015 04:59:50 -0500

well not my specialty....However you guys are suppose to be badass....I trust the instructors will have a honest assessment.
I myself don't think it can done...I been proven wrong before

Response by SSG Selwyn Bodley made Feb 15 at 2015 10:16 AM

SSG Selwyn Bodley — Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:16:08 -0500

Honestly, l am tired of this PC mentality driving our society and now invading our military. There are major differences between men and women, this is not a negative thing, it's simply the truth. I will never give birth to a child and no amount of PC will change that and honestly, God bless women because I don't think I could handle what they handle!! With that being said and having served in the 75th I am against women going to Ranger a School, serving in the 75th or any infantry unit.
....if you show this to my wife, I will deny all knowledge of this post, claim I was hacked and beg for mercy (in a manly way of course) RLTW

Response by SGT Edwin Claudio made Feb 16 at 2015 1:32 PM

SGT Edwin Claudio — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 13:32:50 -0500

So you're telling me the females who are out doing combat patrols, dragging fallen Soldiers out of kill zones, getting wounded or killed doing "infantry" duty don't have the right to go to a course because they're female? Hmmmm.

I am by no means bashing any Ranger or infantryman, but I've seen some females that would put some to shame.

Yes I inderstand there are certain female problems, but that didn't seem to effect any of the ones in my squad from completing a mission.

But get what's an a retired MP know, right?

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Feb 18 at 2015 3:15 AM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:15:35 -0500

Response by SPC Benjamin Hartog made Feb 18 at 2015 4:16 PM

SPC Benjamin Hartog — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:16:44 -0500

Colonel Darby is probably seething in unappeasable discontentment in heaven at this moment in time. He would have guffawed at the very notion of female Rangers. Rogers also would be disconcerted over the inclusion of women in Ranger Battalions. Women should be totally excluded from any combat arms. In retrospect I clearly can't imagine women storming Point De Huc and successfully occupying it. Women lack the stamina to overcome extreme adversity like Normandy, Tarawa, Pellelui, Iwo Jima and the Bulge. Try to imagine women assaulting Omaha beach. It's inconceivable.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 5:29 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:29:17 -0500

First I apologize for my absence. As the unofficial "Most Infantryman of RP" I must weigh in on this.

First, this is not an equality argument. It is a skill set argument. It sounds all great and dandy to say they should go and they will all make it and the Army will a better place. That is just not the case. Ranger school was designed by males for males. That is just how it was designed. Next, combat arms are the primary source for ranger candidates. So we have soldiers that are familiar with what they will be doing. I am not saying that anyone can't make it but they have to work a bit harder.

Second, all the encouragement and pat on the backs is worthless in combat and in realistic combat training. Telling someone that they are going to do great should be left to the ball field. A soldier should go only when they are trained and are prepared. We don't fight with hope and encouragement.

Next, all of these "experts in Ranger schoolness" that know that it will go well is like the Army of Belize telling the US Army about Combat Operations. Or high school graduate advising you about going to in a Master's Program. There are things that you one may fail to realize until they are in such a place.

With all of this being said I am not trying to be one-sided but it is going to be extremely difficult and challenging. It is not impossible but one need not look any further the Marines and their Infantry Officer School. The are 00-29. There is a reason that is. It is not because of sexism or anything else. It is damn hard to do some things. Women can make it but they are going to have to reach the same standards as the males do.

Response by PO2 Terri Myre made Feb 18 at 2015 5:57 PM

PO2 Terri Myre — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:57:53 -0500

Women should NOT be in combat roles such as Rangers, SEALs, etc. There are soooooo many reasons why. We are "the fairer sex" and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. We are built differently and let's face it, men are built to be stronger, faster and they don't have that pesky time of the month. I just want to say that I'm all behind women pursuing whatever goal they're trying to attain but this is just opening up a can of worms that is a waste of time, money and resources. If you can pass the standards as they stand for men AND pull your weight and then some then go on with your bad self. Other than that, this is yet just another horrible idea from this current administration.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 18 at 2015 9:00 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:00:26 -0500

I really don't care... It's a school. Nothing more. If they graduate, great. If they don't, who cares? It's just a school. I'm more interested in the day to day performance of the Soldiers around me, not what schools they attended.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Feb 19 at 2015 2:32 PM

SFC Collin McMillion — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:32:57 -0500

I would follow any capable, qualified leader regardless, but experience in my time showed me that to put your people into harms way because you didn't have the ability to handle the situation had bad results. Some didn'the even make it back to the fire base. A piece of cloth or tab, whatever, regardless of what it indicates won't protect you, only those around you will.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 19 at 2015 3:36 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:36:23 -0500

I think anyone, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity, should be able to attend any training or leadership school funded by the tax payer...That is all.

Response by PO2 Terri Myre made Feb 19 at 2015 3:43 PM

PO2 Terri Myre — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:43:58 -0500

Ok, as I'm reading all of these comments, to me it seems as though these females have something to prove. They keep talking about the physical shape that they're in and how they can out ruck this or that guy. Cool. But to the guys out there my question is this.....for those that have specialized and gone Ranger, etc., what are your living conditions like? Is there any privacy? I'm sure it's in close quarters if you're on a mission and there's no room for modesty. With that being said, women being put into that environment is just asking for trouble. Most out there might be able to conduct themselves professionally but you have those immature types that can't control themselves.

Response by SMSgt Judy Hickman made Feb 19 at 2015 11:34 PM

SMSgt Judy Hickman — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 23:34:06 -0500

I haven't read any comments yet...but I will just say if they meet all requirements to be a Ranger, then they are a Ranger. No exceptions, no making the standards easier, no mollycoddling....they met the standards.

There you go my honest opinion. Now that I've read a few comments. I will just say there doesn't need to be female vs males slots, if they are the best soldier to attend the course, then they are the best soldier to attend the course.

I've said it before in many comments, you think you can stand up and do one of the hardest, grueling jobs in the Army then prove it. Meet the standard that has been set and prove that you earn the opportunity to be an Army Ranger.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2015 8:10 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:10:30 -0500

If they can do the job what does it matter what race or sex they are?

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2015 3:58 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 15:58:29 -0500

Should they meet the requirements of the school, there is no reason why they shouldn't. However, if the requirements are different based upon gender, I could see how that would be a problem.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2015 3:35 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:35:35 -0500

As a graduate of RTAC I have some idea of what those females who passed went through. RTAC is tough, roughly half of my class didn't make it through either. Good on them for their intestinal fortitude thus far.

With that being said, one of the problems I have with this whole initiative is there are not enough slots to go around as it is. I have PL and PSG slots on my MTOE that hold the Ranger ASI. With the current budget cuts I can't afford to send them. How many Infantrymen are missing out on slots simply so these women can participate in a social experiment?

Secondly, if no females pass will the trial end or do we continue wasting slots until some do? I'm sure there are probably a few extraordinary females out there who can cut it, but even the majority of males don't make it through the first time out. My impression is that this experiment will unfortunately continue until our senior leadership gets the result that they desire.

I don't necessarily believe males are inherently better Soldiers than females. Each gender brings something to the fight. However, in the case of Combat Arms and Ranger school I do believe males are ultimately better raw material and candidates. It will be much easier for a scrawny male PVT to build muscle mass than it will be ever be for most females. While mental strength is also important, no amount of grit will make it easier for a 100 lb female to carry a 240 lb male off the battlefield. Ultimately I see very little return on investment for this initiative. We're focused on fairness when there is nothing "fair" about war.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2015 3:59 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:59:28 -0500

You problem, 1SG, is that you think women are inferior to men. I've met some great Rangers! Real bad asses. One was one of my best buds before he passed. But I've also met some dirt bags. I've met some ladies who were better than their male counterparts. So why not let them try out. Women have proven their worth in combat. Don't get me wrong, I have a little concern myself. But not that the girls can't do it. But that I'm not ready to see one of my sisters dragged naked through the streets of some hadji country. Or raped by them goat eff-ers. So the problem isn't the women. It's the men.

Response by SGT Frank Leonardo made Feb 22 at 2015 4:44 AM

SGT Frank Leonardo — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 04:44:22 -0500

If they can pass pre then let them go fail give them the boot like anyone else

Response by SPC Tiffany Ivanov made Feb 22 at 2015 7:27 PM

SPC Tiffany Ivanov — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:27:12 -0500

I agree with points made in each of the answers as well as the original statement. If the standards are not lowered, if the females are treated to the exact same standards as the males, and she's got the stones for it..... Sure. But, I personally have no desire to put myself in what I consider a man's boots. It is more than just physical endurance and I think a lot of women disregard the rest of it. Im all for equality, as long as it really IS equality in every way.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2015 12:46 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:46:19 -0500

I have no problem with women being allowed to attend the schools and being integrated into the units. I do fully agree in not discriminating against someone because of their sex or other reasons. Now this goes both ways. If we are going to NOT discriminate against women then we also have to not cater to them. We have to keep them to the same standards and challenges. They shouldn't automatically get a slot because they are female they should earn it just like the rest of the candidates. They should not get PT Scores tailored to their gender, they should be held to the same raw performance scores as everyone for an elite type unit like that. Make the decision based on ability, raw ability, everyone having the same raw standards. See who really deserves it based on that.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Feb 23 at 2015 3:07 PM

SGT Tyler G. — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:07:38 -0500

If a woman is capable of completing Ranger school meeting all the same standards as everybody else, I don't see why she doesn't deserve that chance. I sure as hell probably don't have what it takes, but I'm sure there are plenty of women who do. By all means don't make it easier, but let them prove themselves.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2015 12:23 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:23:05 -0500

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/02/24/number-of-women-set-to-attend-army-ranger-school-inches-up/

I am just going to say that this is going to be an issue. Out of 17 women that made it only one was successful. Altogether out of 43 only 6 have made it past Pre-Ranger. That is a 13% success rate. I think this may be adding up. If this were any other military school it would not be viewed as a success. If you take the gender out of it what you would you think.

Number of women set to attend Army Ranger School inches up

An Apache helicopter pilot is the latest woman to pass the prerequisite course needed to attempt Army Ranger School, which has never been opened to women before.

Response by SSG Bill Butler made Feb 24 at 2015 3:19 PM

SSG Bill Butler — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:19:05 -0500

And one more thing to think about... http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/02/24/women-ranger-school-preparations/23945361/

Ranger School adds packing list for women

Preparations are underway for the integrated Ranger School class in April, and officials are looking at everything from accommodations to hygiene.

Response by Sgt Christopher Allen made Feb 24 at 2015 5:39 PM

Sgt Christopher Allen — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:39:33 -0500

Are there any statistics that exist that shows the drop out ratio of males and the same for females. Once again I find myself on the fence here because I have served with some pretty darn good female Marines and some pretty bad ones. But in the same token I have served with both bad male Marines and some rock Stars. So the concept of are females equal is based on the individual.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 2:55 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 02:55:57 -0500

Here's the thing...

Nobody's talking about lowering standards. Nobody's talking about giving women a pass if they can't meet the physical standards. In fact, that's the single biggest thing that virtually *everyone* in the military seems to agree on - that physical standards should not be lowered to allow for co-ed classes or MOSes.

The only thing you and yours are doing, Mr. Lopez, is feeding the arguments of the ignorant civilians - the non-veterans - who *want* to change the things you don't want changed.

There are not qualified male Infantry soldiers being denied Ranger school slots because female soldiers are being given them because of affirmative action. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that a retired First Sergeant can't seem to understand this, and seems to be so pettily afraid of change.

I'm an MP. I hear about maybe a half-dozen Ranger slots being filtered down to our units a year. If that. I don't know what Army you retired from, but in the one *I'VE* spent ten years serving in, those combat MOSes, those ALL MALE MOSes that you're so worried are getting shortchanged, already get the overwhelming majority of Ranger school slots, because it's a lot more logical to have a Ranger-qualified Infantryman or Cavalry Scout than it is to have a Ranger-qualified fueler or PAC clerk.

The females you're so terrified of getting slots, of cheating those hard-working, dick-swinging male soldiers out of what they DESERVE...They're already having to prove themselves above and beyond their male peers to be considered for these slots - obviously barring a few (To the tune of double-digits, max) politically incentivised candidates (And even these candidates are not going to be drastically inferior to the average Ranger candidate). They're already having to meet an OML for their Battalion or Brigade or Regiment. They're already having to be outstanding soldiers.

Maybe they fail out. Maybe they ALL fail out for the next few years. What does that matter? How is that relevant? The female candidates for this school are still surpassing an incredibly large number of male soldiers' proficiency at being soldiers - both physically and mentally. Ranger school has something like, what, a 60% or 80% attrition rate? Should we start compiling statistics on height or race or bone dimensions, or something equally uncontrollable, to determine eligibility for Ranger school, because, hey, maybe brawny white males are statistically far less likely to pass the course?

No. Of course not. And it's shameful that you think the same should apply to female soldiers.

Are the overwhelming majority of female soldiers unavoidably less physically capable, by simple virtue of physiology and biological differences? Absolutely, this is indisputable.

The majority of female soldiers are not being sent to Ranger School, however. The female soldier that far exceeds the performance of her peers is, just as with male soldiers.

So, to be blunt, get your undies untwisted, and accept that this IS happening, and realize that it's not screwing anyone over in the process.

Response by SPC Kimberley Kerr made Feb 25 at 2015 7:18 AM

SPC Kimberley Kerr — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 07:18:02 -0500

If a female soldier can hack it I say more power to her if she can't no exception should be given. Its not just the boys playground anymore. It not about a coveted slot in Ranger School its about a women being in a boys club and the boys don't like it.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Feb 25 at 2015 9:21 AM

SFC Collin McMillion — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:21:25 -0500

I could care less about gender. If the standards stay the same and the bar not lower at all, then if you succeed, you will hear no complaints from me, if you fail I don't want to hear complaints from you.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 12:03 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:03:33 -0500

Ranger school is not only for infantryman. I have. Few buddies that were commo and made it through perfectly fine. Why shouldnt females be able to tryout? I know some females that outperform alot of malea

Response by COL Vince Lindenmeyer, Ph.D. (Retired) made Feb 25 at 2015 12:37 PM

COL Vince Lindenmeyer, Ph.D. (Retired) — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:37:26 -0500

1SG, I do not approve of your question as it does not attempt to move the issue forward but "stir the pot." Far too many "discussions" on RP are more "pot stirring" rants than productive conversations. How could you positively discuss the issue to advance a discussion?

Response by Lt Col Kurtis Sutley made Feb 25 at 2015 12:55 PM

Lt Col Kurtis Sutley — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:55:03 -0500

Don't think I've ever heard a more sound logical argument for making Ranger School male only. 1SG Lopez is on time and on target.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Feb 25 at 2015 1:22 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:22:30 -0500

With all the scrutiny on this, my concern is that there will be so much pressure on the ARTB for this to happen that it will be very painful on them if there is a higher wash out rate among females than males. The official line is that standards will be the same but I can see where "unofficially" that might not be the case especially when it comes down to having to answer inquiries all the way up the chain of command. The truth will come out after the first class and if there is any hint of any variances in grading and standards, females with Ranger Tabs will always be tainted.

I also think it is wrong that not all Infantry lieutenants get to attend but this is happening. I personally know two that were not given the chance to go after IBOLC.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 2:34 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:34:41 -0500

As a 11B and now a 13A, it's a tough call. I went almost 15 years before serving with females. I'm sure there are a few female Soldiers who could handle both the physical and mental aspect, but I believe it may have an internal affect on unit moral. Can't prove that, but just my thoughts.

Response by SGT Beau Thomas made Feb 25 at 2015 3:43 PM

SGT Beau Thomas — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:43:31 -0500

As I get older, (44) I have younger women do much better on PT tests than me consistently, but I've never had a woman beat my on a heavy ruck march and have never had a woman beat my score on any weapons range....ever. Just my experience. But hey, if a woman can meet the Ranger standard without concessions, then that's good enough for me. I'm pretty sure I could hit the standard.

Response by CW4 Juan Morales made Feb 25 at 2015 3:53 PM

CW4 Juan Morales — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:53:20 -0500

I'm on active duty. I was 1-75 in the 90's and now I'm company senior warrant of an air assault blackhawk company. I'm in favor of anyone who is qualified having a shot at the course. My experience with women sevicemembers after becoming an aviator has been overwhelmingly positive. If the argument is that it's hard for a male service member to get a slot, then a woman getting a slot using the same channel should not be an issue. If the issue is enough slots for combat arms folks then that is an issue tha isn't attached to gender. I'm a leader of soldiers, not a leader of males or females. If an NCO or officer has the drive and ability to attempt the course, then we as leaders should not stand in their way. I got a lot out of that course when I went in 1998, and if a woman shows up at my unit wearing a Ranger tab, I'll be just as proud to have her as part of my team. Moreover, men have been failing that course since it was created, and no one has made a case to stop men from going. We need to be professionals and allow capable soldiers to succeed based on their ability, not our pre-conceived assumptions on what a male or female should be.

Response by MAJ Mark N. made Feb 25 at 2015 4:34 PM

MAJ Mark N. — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:34:59 -0500

Besides the physical fitness and technical knowledge qualifications, which will be debated for years to come, my major objection is just the basic facts of human sexuality and modesty. Unless Ranger school has dramatically changed, I can remember many times where we had to strip down to nothing for river crossings or change "out in the open" after getting wet doing anything in the swamps - and do it often (I was a "winter" Ranger). Same with striping down and running thru the outdoor showers, with nothing on, after a fun encounter with the worm pit or hand-to-hand training. Also, I recall a one-hole pit (hole in the ground) in the center of our patrol bases or hunker down positions. All "business" was done in the open - no privacy offered or expected. Guess the course has....

Response by SSG Ike Garcia made Feb 25 at 2015 9:07 PM

SSG Ike Garcia — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:07:54 -0500

I agree with you 1ST López, I spend 20 yrs as a Infantryman. Always trying to get that one slot for Ranger School. Always going to pre ranger course. Then when you think your going something comes up. Just glad I'm retired with all the BS going on.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 9:29 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:29:37 -0500

I don"t care if a woman can go or not. If they can do the job to the same physical standards not gender biased, i have no issues with that. I feel the school will weed the mentally and physically weak ones out. Never met a ranger who said I can't.

Response by MAJ Sitz Randy made Feb 26 at 2015 1:01 PM

MAJ Sitz Randy — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:01:49 -0500

To any female that is able to make it through Ranger School (without special treatment) Congratulations in advance!! Ranger school is not the end but the beginning for you! Do your sisters proud and make believers of your brothers!! Remember one thing...it is not what you have done but what you can do!!

<1> RLTW! FRRF!

Response by SFC Keith Cotton made Feb 26 at 2015 2:37 PM

SFC Keith Cotton — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:37:45 -0500

it not going to work it a waste of time

Response by SPC William DeBlase made Feb 26 at 2015 8:47 PM

SPC William DeBlase — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 20:47:24 -0500

Only if they can can carry a 180 pound man out to safty. It would suck if my battle body was female and I got left for dead becouse she could not carry me out. Thats why I say no but if they can fine. But from what I see very very few will be able to and they must complete the same standards on pt as the men.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Feb 26 at 2015 8:56 PM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 20:56:35 -0500

I was shocked and surprised when I heard the CoS announce it. Personally, I had just enough motivation for Airborne School and the additional 37 jumps when I served. I don't remember getting any additional slack on the pull-up bar then and always did my APFT to my age and men's standards and I was never alone with that. I think that everyone's gonna hear the same ole "it was tougher back then..." The same stuff we've ALWAYS heard. I believe that the integrity of the Regiment is in place and always will be. I think the women who ultimately complete it are going to live up to the Ranger Creed. I am rooting for the women Ranger candidates and am not really worried about the standards.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Feb 27 at 2015 5:30 PM

SGT James Elphick — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:30:32 -0500

I'm just going to leave this here.....
http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/01/infantry-women-study/

Study Finds Most Infantrymen Want Females In Their Platoons

THE PENTAGON — A new gender integration study set to be releasedthis week found that nearly 96 percent of infantrymen in the Army and Marine Corps would be “very excited” to have women integrated into their units, especially during combat deployments, Duffel Blog has learned. “Naturally there were some patterns we saw after issuing the …

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 6:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:53:13 -0500

Keep the standards, and if the women can meet those standards, let them. Simple.

Response by PO2 Charlotte Seals made Feb 28 at 2015 5:45 AM

PO2 Charlotte Seals — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 05:45:34 -0500

Women have a right the right to defend USA, children to which we give birth and our family. Its's no longer a sexual thing or right or wrong, all it is for me is my family fought and given their lives to see my family and others the freedom of CHOICE and SPEECH. So ladies if you are reading this; this world challenge will take bumps, bad treatment from men and even some women. Believe in yourself and take all that treatment and use it to push forward and your support is all around you. Prove nothing to everyone but yourself!

Response by PFC Robert Boone made Feb 28 at 2015 11:10 PM

PFC Robert Boone — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:10:49 -0500

God never intended for a woman to be over a man. For you women can put the blame on eve. After the fall of man women became property of man. Man was given the ultimate responsibility to take care of his wife. His wife is to come before children or anyone else. We as a country have totally lost our way. I'll serve and fight for this nation again. Women do not belong in the armed services. The men are to protect the wife and the wife is to be caretaker.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 6:17 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:17:06 -0500

Arms? Check. Legs? Check. Functioning cardiac, nervous, muscular, skeletal, and respiratory systems? Check, check, check, check, aaaand check. What's the problem then?

Response by SGT James Hunsinger made Mar 4 at 2015 10:51 AM

SGT James Hunsinger — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 10:51:53 -0500

I personally believe that all aspect of military service should be opened to women BUT that comes with one condition:

- Physical requirements, especially in schools like Ranger school, SF etc should have ONE standard. No gender norming. The battlefield does not gender norm and women need to be able to effectively "pull their own weight".

I believe women can operate just as effectively as men in a combat environment. I served on LLVI teams during my career. We had women on our teams. They performed just as well as the men in most aspects. That being said, there were women that didn't quite pull their full weight but then again, there were men that didn't either.

I carried an M-60 for quite some time. In that time I had three different A gunners. The best of them was a woman. So I fully believe that if a woman can hold her own then I say open it all up to them but with no preferential treatment, i.e. gender norming. I think that should be applied service wide anyway. If there are physical standards they should be the same for all service members.

Response by CW2 Eric Scott made Mar 4 at 2015 10:52 AM

CW2 Eric Scott — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 10:52:44 -0500

What do I think?

Better them than me.

#retired

Response by SGT Dylan Epp made Mar 4 at 2015 11:31 AM

SGT Dylan Epp — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:31:56 -0500

I recently talked to one of the females that just passed pre-Ranger and will be attending the April class (same class I did two years ago) and she has nothing but a Ranger mindset, was very humble and going for 100% the right reasons. So I have no issue with her attending and attempting to earn the Tab. Now I do feel sorry for the RIs cause yes certain people have turned this into a very PC topic/ issue so they'll be damned if they do and damned if they don't. However if the standards are upheld whats the issue? I'm a communicator and I went to school but since I was from Ranger Regiment no-one complains that I'm taking away from infantry dudes. Also 1SG David Lopez please don't refer to yourself as a Ranger I checked your bio at no stage did you serve in the only Ranger unit in the military the 75th Ranger Regiment, you're Ranger qualified.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2015 4:01 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:01:33 -0500

Sounds like the same crying and bitching about women being allowed to test for the EIB, a couple ladies in Korea just earned their EIB and even went true blue. If they can haul ass to the same standard, what's the issue with them going after their ranger tab? It's just a leadership course. Sure some chicks are getting prioritized right NOW to collect data and otherwise comply with DOD directive (orders are important right?) but after that they'll be in the pipeline for Ranger school same as any other non-infantry leg who wants to grab another one of y'alls boy scout merit badges to pretty up their uniforms with. Non-issue. If you can hang at the standard you should be good to roll.

Response by SSG Paul Pattat made Mar 4 at 2015 4:30 PM

SSG Paul Pattat — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:30:09 -0500

Progressivism is a big part of the military today. Standards are Standards and I only hope they're followed throughout Ranger School.

Response by SSG Paul Pattat made Mar 4 at 2015 4:51 PM

SSG Paul Pattat — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:51:02 -0500

A female grunt would be a great starting point. You gotta crawl before you walk.

Response by PO1 Dustin Adams made Mar 4 at 2015 5:15 PM

PO1 Dustin Adams — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:15:51 -0500

What is the end goal?

To have a woman pass the Ranger course, integrate women into a Ranger Battalion, "progress", force shaping for future conflict?

Regardless of whether the standards are "adjusted" or not there will be a perception they were. So one or two or maybe even all 5 complete the Ranger course and go to a Ranger Bn. What effect will that have on unit integrity if there is a perception they got through because of their gender and not on the merit of their performance?

You can argue the misogynistic boys club needs to get with the times but the fact remains that more likely than not most of the men in the unit will not fully accept them nor trust them (right or wrong that is just the reality.) Distrust in the ability of the person next to you let alone leading you in small units can lead to disastrous results. It could be a short-term issue, but all it would take is one uh-oh to cement the distrust.

To be frank it seems people are so busy arguing whether or not they can, that nobody seems to be asking if they should.

I have no doubt there are women fully capable of completing the Ranger course and some would be successful as Rangers (in an ideal world). But again I ask what is the end goal? Does the risk of the "experiment" equal or surpass the reward?

And this is not just an Army issue. As most know the Marine Corps has been conducting its own version of integration of women into combat roles with allowing women to attempt the Infantry Officers Course which has resulted so far with 0/26 graduating. The Navy is integrating women into the submarine service and observing the Army and Marine Corps results before making a determination by the end of 2015 on whether or not to open SEALs to women. Additionally some of our Allies such as Britain and Australia are observing American results before making determinations to open SAS and SBS to women.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2015 6:30 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 18:30:25 -0500

Does anybody remember when the Army went to black berets? Yeah, the "Ranger Community" went banana's. Well here's another scenerio, same reaction. The Army will live to fight another day and keep rolling along...

Personally, I'll be glad when the "keepers of the badge" culture becomes a thing of the past. We are an Army that is smaller and lighter. We need to focus on becoming a swift and deadly force within all branches of the Army and we need to be able to teach leaders of all branches light infantry tactics at the platoon and squad level.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2015 7:04 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 19:04:28 -0500

I say if they can meet the already established standard then by all means. But we should not lower the standard for them.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2015 3:22 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 03:22:27 -0400

I never earned the coveted title of Ranger. Therefore, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this topic.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2015 3:25 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 03:25:51 -0400

I'm not a ranger. With that disclosure- I wonder where the feminine Hygiene products will be carried as part of the combat load. How many will be on the packing list?

Response by SFC A.M. Drake made Mar 10 at 2015 5:01 AM

SFC A.M. Drake — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 05:01:16 -0400

Am I the only one out of 10k+ that thinks this retired 1SG remarks about women and Ranger school is way out of line, and borders on the old mentality of sexist and 1950ish way of saying a woman's place is in the home!? Hell yeah you get a down vote from me. Glad you retired to your private "women should not serve in a Ranger BAT black hole" What an idiot statement by a senior NCO....no wait a private remark

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 7:21 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:21:38 -0400

Eh... Ranger if she can then why not??? if not why not left em try?? eh!!!

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 7:54 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 07:54:31 -0400

as long as the same standards are upheld then I say give them their shot. There can be no "turning of a blind eye" or any shady BS like that.....but if I know RIs and I know more than a few, this will NOT be an issue. All I say to the women is "cinch 'em up because it is going to be one HELL of a ride......". I say a silent prayer that this doesn't turn into an EO/SHARP fiasco.....which I am sure it will be.

Response by SGT Joy Turpin made Mar 12 at 2015 9:09 AM

SGT Joy Turpin — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:09:32 -0400

To be quite honest, your post is the reason female Soldiers want to attend Ranger School. It is the ultimate test of one's physical and mental fortitude. Frankly, it would not be the same if they changed the Standards. I do not see where they would need to be changed in what you have posted. A female Soldier is not going to break from retesting and not quitting a 2 minute push up drill. They are there to push through and test themselves, same as you. Does it matter what their minimum is when they need to go beyond the maximum? If they have prepared themselves physically for the challenge, they can hack it. I have seen and know females who can do 140 push-ups under 2 minutes. One was in my unit.... as to being stinky and needing a shower. What female Soldier would request that after humping it all day? None that I know. I think a lot of the negative is ego driven and based on a misguided concept that ALL females are inherently physically and mentally weaker that their male counterparts. I think there are those that can and will succeed and there are those who will fail; same as the males. Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not so that if a male Soldier fails the pre-course by a small margin he is invited back to try again? However, this test run for females does not include that privilege. I think it will push a female Soldier to give it her all, and those who are only their for the recognition will drop away quickly.

Response by SSG Byron Napoleon made Mar 25 at 2015 12:04 PM

SSG Byron Napoleon — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:04:06 -0400

The stupidest thing about political correctness is.... stupidity always wins.

Response by SPC William DeBlase made Apr 2 at 2015 9:18 PM

SPC William DeBlase — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 21:18:40 -0400

If they can do the same pt as the male counter parts and be able to carry at least 180 lb guy uot of harms way then all for it. But I would not want to be that guy with a female battle body that has to leave me for dead on the field just becouse she can't carry or drag me to safety. And I would be worried about there safty look what happens on bases let alone on a battle field with a bunch of young and some times dumm and immature guys that have not seen or been with a girl in one or so plus years. You know that's just a lot for bad going to happen. Sorry to say. When I was in I seen a lot of very bad behavior and well on a base just think what would happen in more. Bad for the service to even put a girl in that position let alone all the press. Just the average age of special force men. Not a good idea. But if they can pass the mustard and they want to do it I think we are a free country and well . Who am I to say. Good luck girls/ women. :)

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 9:22 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 21:22:37 -0400

If they can meet the same standards...more power to them! I'm all for it!

Response by SSG Thomas Brousseau made Apr 9 at 2015 1:28 PM

SSG Thomas Brousseau — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 13:28:20 -0400

If a female Soldier is tactically sound, technically proficient and has the maturity, physical strength, endurance and mental toughness needed to earn a Ranger tab than they should be allowed to do so. I don't believe that they should be assigned to a Ranger Regiment nor do I believe that any standards should be lowered to accommodate
them.

Response by SFC Christopher Perry made Apr 9 at 2015 7:13 PM

SFC Christopher Perry — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 19:13:59 -0400

I guess I am confused here. I thought the in today's Army we were all soldiers. When I turned to face my platoon I did not see the their sex or the color of their skin, I could care less about their religion or their sexual preferanence. I saw soldiers... Period. You see, in today's Army anyone wearing the uniform could end up doing damn near anything at some point in their career. Therefore, why would we prevent any of them from being the best trained and prepared for this reality they can possibly be?

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made Apr 13 at 2015 8:47 AM

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:47:44 -0400

If they can pass the hard standards, congratulations! There will be a few who do. Not if but when.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Apr 14 at 2015 6:17 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:17:09 -0400

I have an honest question about women in Ranger School. I understand that when a rope bridge is required in Ranger School, the RI will select a student who will strip naked and swim across with a rope to make the bridge. How does the integration of women into Ranger School work with this? Will women automatically be exempt from the possibility of this duty? Would that be fair? If they are selected for it, how do you keep all the male Ranger students from ogling her? Would it even be tactically sound for all of them to look away?
Also, winter Ranger students commonly report very intimate cuddling to stay warm. How would spouses feel about this, with mixed Ranger classes?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 9:12 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:12:50 -0400

Honest truth? Keep the standard the same. Keep it hard, because this is a hard job. And if a female graduates by the same standards as the males do? To hell with anyone else; she just passed Ranger school, and deserves it! That's all anyone should have to say. If the standards are the same (and, as far as I know, they are), she passed the Pre-Ranger Course, then Ranger School... she's a Ranger.

That's how it should be in every aspect of life. If they can do the job, they do the job. If they can't, they can't. Regardless of gender (or anything else).

Response by SFC Trevor Sauders made Apr 23 at 2015 2:04 AM

SFC Trevor Sauders — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 02:04:33 -0400

I was lucky enough to attend Ranger School as a PFC in 1988 and was a first time "GO". Ranger School is the premier combat leadership school in the Army. The most common comment I hear is let women go so long as the standards are the equal for both sexes. The standards can be the same but the course will never be equal between men and women. Aside from being a leadership school it is a gut check as well. Women are biologically different then men as we all know, and have very different hygiene needs as well. They will need showers more often than men will get especially during their monthly cycle. I would have loved a hot shower during Florida and Desert Phase in Dugway Utah. I don't doubt their fitness, or ability to learn. Aside from hygiene differences, those that have attended surely remember spooning with a Ranger Buddy to stay warm when you where lucky enough to get a couple hours of sleep. Having a male and female student spooning opens another can of worms. As far as women in the Infantry, I was taught from a young age to protect women from harm at all costs. I know that during my tour in Iraq as an Infantry Platoon Sergeant this would be nothing but a distraction I couldn't afford to take. I had a hard enough time trying to keep my male soldiers as safe as I possibly could. I think those that are trying to push this agenda need to take some of these facts in mind before trying to be PC. RLTW!

Response by 1SG Lori Greco made Apr 24 at 2015 8:36 AM

1SG Lori Greco — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:36:04 -0400

After 27 years as an active duty Soldier, I still don't think women need to be Rangers. Some areas of the military need to remain males only. Why doesn't the military create something along the same lines, but for women?

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Apr 24 at 2015 8:45 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 20:45:51 -0400

I wish them a fair, and even shake. Best of luck to all who attend that challenging course, and kudos for volunteering to do so when so many others do not! Excelsior!

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 8:53 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 20:53:03 -0400

As long as they can pass the same standard that is set and not a special one then let them.

Response by SGT Joe Sabedra made May 9 at 2015 6:00 PM

SGT Joe Sabedra — Sat, 09 May 2015 18:00:18 -0400

One standard for combat arms schools.
If Pilots can pass it then we all should have one standard when it comes to combat MOS and schools.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2015 8:02 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 May 2015 20:02:23 -0400

I've said the same thing since this first started getting put out there as an idea/possibility. No. It's incredibly difficult to get a Ranger School slot in the 173rd. Now we have to compete with females taking precedence simply because they're females and the army is worried about PR and equality? There are only 8 left. All those other females that failed could've been a slot that one of our guys could've had. If and when the last female has either quit or failed, this will be more heavily scrutinized than it already is, if that's possible.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made May 11 at 2015 1:00 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 11 May 2015 13:00:47 -0400

Being honest, a few women maybe be able to pass Ranger School, but I would prefer that the power that be stand up more Cultural Support Teams, we need to recognize facts One Female from the CST team in today's religious misguided guerrilla wars can accomplish what 100 of your Ranger School graduates can not.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 11 at 2015 1:44 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Mon, 11 May 2015 13:44:47 -0400

As I have said in other posts about topics such as this "If they can hack it, let them pack it"

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 1:45 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 13:45:07 -0400

1SG David Lopez Thanks for the information on the school, in the Air Force if you need the PME, Education, course you typically can get in within a decent amount of time, however I did know previously know how hard it was to get into Ranger school which CPT Private RallyPoint Member brought to my attention in another post. So with the education I believe if they are competing with the males for the slots and get in let em tear it up, if not cycle through like anyone else would have if they didn't get in. I think for all of the combat positions/special operations if the women want in they all need to meet the same qualifications if you have to carry a battle out some where you need to be able to do it, not check the box for a demographic. Im all for it for the same standards and same amount intestinal fortitude. I mean we are the military we all wear the same uniform and if you want that special status be it Ranger, Force Recon, SEAL, PJ ect meet that standard for that job or move along.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 1:53 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 13:53:54 -0400

Who cares, honestly I'm just really tired of hearing about it! I've got better things to do like, flying a kite.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 3:16 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 15:16:30 -0400

If they can handle the same standards, and we don't lower it in future, then I say have it. It's not just an Infantry school anymore. It hasn't been that way for a while. Hell, each SF Group has an 18 man Detachment called a Chemical Reconnaissance Detachment (CRD) of 74Ds (CBRN guys) that hold "V" slots. As long we prove ourselves in our unit, we can go to RTAC and Ranger School anytime we want. As long as there are no deployments.

Response by PFC Tuan Trang made May 13 at 2015 7:29 PM

PFC Tuan Trang — Wed, 13 May 2015 19:29:07 -0400

If they work hard and put they mind into it, they'll earn that tab. It just depend on the individual.

Response by PO1 Donald Hammond made May 13 at 2015 7:41 PM

PO1 Donald Hammond — Wed, 13 May 2015 19:41:56 -0400

What about the bias against tall people on submarines? Why shouldn't a 7 ft person be allowed on submarines?

Look, if the person can do the job just like everyone else, then they should get the chance. Just like everyone else.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 9:54 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 May 2015 21:54:50 -0400

What I believe on this issue doesnt matter. The results of this little experiment will speak for themselves... but even still, those results will be ignored. That is the very reason that I know that this whole thing is being done for the absolute worst reasons possible.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 10:23 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 May 2015 22:23:41 -0400

I personally do not have an issue with it if the standards do not very. They have a standard for a reason.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2015 6:37 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 May 2015 06:37:48 -0400

Any school should be open to both sexes. Don't change the requirements. Whoever can pass gets the privileges and responsibilities that come along with passing the course. 161 males failed that course along with 19 or twenty women. Still making men the primary failures of the course. Those women should be recycled just like any of their peers and given a second chance like any of their peers.

Response by SSG Paul Setterholm made May 21 at 2015 4:10 PM

SSG Paul Setterholm — Thu, 21 May 2015 16:10:22 -0400

Good for them. Wish them the best.

Response by SGT Mary Sweezy made Jun 13 at 2015 9:34 PM

SGT Mary Sweezy — Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:34:01 -0400

As a female, I don't like it. It's a huge risk and could cause more problems.
Best thing I head... None, zip, zero even made it passed part 1 !!

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 13 at 2015 9:40 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:40:35 -0400

Top, women are 16% of the army, they've engaged in combat since the Revolution. Women fought, were wounded and died in the last 14 years. Women ARE a part of the Army and will stay a part of the Army whether you like it or not. Women have a right to try out to make Ranger School.

Now I know that you're give me the old nonsense about strength etc. the old BS about female mechanics not being able to carry their tool boxes...well I've seen males who couldn't carry their toolboxes and soldiers who couldn't load 120mm tank ammo above their heads.

We are in a recruiting crisis, roughly 1 in 8 potential recruits meets the physical, mental and moral (police record) standards to enlist. This is one reason why we have to maximize every soldiers potential.

Like it or not sooner or later a woman is going to make it thru Ranger school.

Look at armies around the world... Fierce Kurdish female fighters in the Peshmerga, female tankers in the Israeli army and so on.

I can't help but feel that their masculinity is threatened by the thought of a female holding their MOS. it's a reality females will be accepted into more and more MOS. no ones man card will be revoked.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Jun 14 at 2015 10:57 AM

LTC Kevin B. — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:57:54 -0400

I see no reason to keep them out, simply because of their gender. If the women can meet the standards, they should have the chance.

Response by MAJ Luis Fernando Hernandez made Jul 2 at 2015 3:38 PM

MAJ Luis Fernando Hernandez — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 15:38:38 -0400

If they can meet the existing standards without watering down any requirements, more power to them. No special preferences or treatment for anyone, regardless of gender.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Aug 18 at 2015 5:28 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:28:58 -0400

I was surprised two women passed the Ranger Qualification Program. Now we have to wait to find out if they will actually serve with the 75th Ranger Battalion. But I still have reservations with having women serve in combat although I know some have.

Response by Cpl Brad MarkW made Aug 20 at 2015 4:12 PM

Cpl Brad MarkW — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:12:55 -0400

I don't think there was ever any doubt that a female could eventually pass Ranger school, or SOI or any other combat course. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should. Being a grunt is more than just finishing SOI, it's an attitude and a state of mind. It's also the most un-PC place on earth. There is no room privacy, for being sensitive when you are tasked with killing, up close. There is no room or provision in the infantry for political correctness. It's one thing to go through a tough but standardized course with every politically sensitive officer and press jockey documenting your every move, ready to declare the experiment a success. We’ve all heard by now that the two that did pass were retreads, proving once again that training is just that, training. So we call them grunts now is that it? I am pretty sure these women were given special considerations of privacy which the men in their platoon were not. No one wants a sexual harassment complaint on the first trial run. Special considerations that do not and cannot realistically exist in the Fleet.

I went through SOI back in 1990 and can honestly say, SOI was not easy, but definitely not impossible. It’s been many years but I can only recall a few in my entire series dropping out and being recycled. Some didn’t finish because they were in the Brig for being stupid. Some were injured and recycled once healthy again. The ones that failed the course weren’t recycled, they lost their MOS and moved on to other MOS’s. But the vast majority finished. Two out of 19 women “completed” the training and we cheer this? That’s over a 90% fail rate, 100% fail if you count that the two that did pass, only did so on their second try. Can you imagine if the actual dropout rate for male Marines/Rangers was that high? We’d never be able to field enough Marines or soldiers to fill the attrition rate in our active duty units! SOI was really just an additional phase of boot camp. Of course I patted myself on the back too after my "accomplishment" but then the cold reality of life in 2/7 woke me up fast. The hardest tests were what came after - after the training program ended. In hindsight, I see now that infantry school or taken to the next level the Ranger school training programs were not designed to weed out the weak, but to pass a trained 0311 on to the Fleet for the real indoc. A lot of guys who passed SOI did not make it long in the Fleet, physically or mentally. Try going 60 miles in 3 days with full pack and rifle - a pack that doesn't weigh 25, 40 or even 60 pounds but more like 90. Throw a SAW or 203 in there and now you have a little slice of hell. Which one of these ladies got to carry the 60 mike mike base plate for 25 miles? How many extra bandoliers of SAW ammo did they get? Do that for 3 straight days, with no porta-potties, no portable shower or hygiene facilities, then we'll talk. Forget about grunt filthy but light hearted humor like the occasional elephant head or grandma's tongue – can you say “sexual harassment”??

Speaking of that, unless you fully integrate, (i.e. common showers), you'll never achieve the level of camaraderie that is needed to keep a unit together when the actual fighting starts. And that won't ever happen; no matter how many times Hollywood portrays it. Biologically, you can't put 19 year old men in close proximity to 19 year old women and not expect things to happen. Anyone who thinks you can is living in a fantasy world where unicorns jump over candy rainbows. These aren’t lawyers and doctors in the professional world, this is the infantry. Which contains some of the filthiest bastards I ever served with or had the pleasure of knowing. Some barely made it through High School, or in fact didn’t and got their GED later. Others barely passed the ASVAB or were given a choice of join or jail. Many were dumber than a box of rocks. These ladies are going to serve with or lead a group of men like that? LOL, some were gang-bangers, neo-Nazis, redneck hicks and other were just plain old criminals. And these are the guys you’re going to give sensitivity training to so they can serve with women and expect them to not get into trouble??? LOL, laugh out loud. We’ll spend millions prosecuting the offenders and trying to regulate their behavior - Then spend millions more on removing them from service after their court-martial, only to have to recruit new ones to replace them. Then there’s the millions and millions of pay-outs for damages to the victims. Thousands of soldiers and Marines will have an otherwise honorable career destroyed because honestly, some of these men do not come to the USMC with even the social skills of a 4th grader. I know, I was one of them. You’ll have an entirely new class of dishonorably discharged vet who can’t get a job now due to the dishonerable discharge and conviction and will probably use their infantry skills in other ways – probably not for the greater good, that’s for sure.

So sure, a giant leap forward for womankind - I for one never doubted that women could not. I am sure there are women out there who could kick my ass. But that’s not the point. The longer term effects are completely being ignored. I was a 155 pound 5’11” Marine who could hump (as in march) all day and patrol all night. I lifted weights and scored several 300 PFT’s and never thought about what I was doing to my body: My average male body, which pound for pound, is built to take a lot more punishment than the average woman’s body. Now I have back and knee problems at 45. Nothing debilitating but I feel every mile now, every pound. All of which can be traced back to my USMC time as a grunt. It’s a rare woman softball player or even basketball player that doesn’t wear a knee brace. How will they do after four years of ground pounding? I think they won’t fare very well, physically over the long term. So we'll spend more millions to train a demographic that very likely won't won't finish a full term enlisment or commision. Estimates range women are from 2-10 times more likely to injure themselves in sports. And we’re not talking sports. I played many sports in high school and in college, to include rugby. I’d take a rough rugby game any day over a day in the infantry.

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov10/research3.asp

http://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/issue/2014/june2014/sports-injuries-are-women-more-at-risk

But who am I? I am not a doctor, or researcher. I am just someone who’s been through it and knows from experience what it takes to be a grunt in an actual rifle platoon. It takes a lot more than feel good BS like this. Women have valid roles in the USMC and all armed forces: Important, critical jobs, often in combat roles. They are pilots, ship’s captains, missile technicians, and much, much more. Women were on the front lines of my war (the Gulf War of 1990/91) and every conflict beyond driving supply vehicles up through artillery fire and into ambushes. But there are some barriers and MOS’s that are not suited for women and 03 is one of them. Until we are all wearing “power armor” and the physical aspect of the job is minimized, we are wasting our time on a social experiment. There will always be exceptional circumstances and brave women who have fought alongside men in many conflicts. History has plenty of examples of heroines that saved the day. But the mass integration of women in the infantry hasn’t been done, never in a large scale military. Not even Israel puts women in enlisted roles (i.e. grunts) into the infantry. Sure, maybe New Zealand, Sweden or other small countries allow it but when was the last real conflict they really fought. What is the actual size of their fighting forces? And no country puts women in the Special Forces. I think there are plenty of Rangers out there who would characterize themselves as Special Forces. Let’s not talk about how the Soviets put women into battalions either. They made 100% all women units and used them as cannon fodder - We all know how the Soviets did things.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe my way of thinking is old. Maybe I know something you don’t because I did it. Maybe I don’t think it’s worth the immense expense to integrate women into the infantry of the huge US military just to make a point when there are so many other opportunities open to them. Mostly because it will end in failure or endless problems as it has in other services - http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/10/the-problems-with-the-navys-sex-integration

For those who really do think this is a good idea, I doubt you made it this far in my post. You’ve already tuned me out to go back to cheerleading this liberal experiment in social equality and nothing will change that. For some, it’s more important that we prove a woman is a man’s equal in theory, actual consequences be dammed.

Why women have an increased risk of ACL injury

Female athletes who participate in jumping and pivoting sports are 2 to 10 times more likely to sustain a knee ligament injury, such as an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, than male athletes participating in the same sports. The substantial increase in the number of women and girls participating in athletics, coupled with the 2- to 10-fold higher injury rate, widened the gender gap in the number of serious knee ligament injuries.

Response by 1LT Alan Ernst made Aug 20 at 2015 4:58 PM

1LT Alan Ernst — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:58:07 -0400

Ranger School should remain all male. Send women to Rangerette School.

Response by CPT Kerry McCown made Aug 20 at 2015 10:01 PM

CPT Kerry McCown — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:01:04 -0400

I have read a number of posts on this topic and would submit that most folks have completely missed the point. The US military exists for one thing and one only and that is to fight and win the nation's wars. This not about fairness or social justice or giving women a chance to prove themselves in a new role...this is about creating and maintaining the most lethal fighting force on earth. Very few folks on this thread have mentioned combat...instead it sounds like we are preparing for a long sporting event. The problem is we have been embroiled in a conflict for over 13 years that has fooled our military and politicians into believing this is actual war.....it is not....it is a long low intensity conflict that has actually involved very few combat troops. Allowing women into Ranger school and/or pushing for them to serve in additional combat roles will only serve to degrade our military capabilities. It is that simple. The team is only as strong as it weakest link. Frankly, most folks simply have no frame of reference for the type of war our military will face in the future (and it looks nothing like what we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.) In WWII the global population was reduced by 60 MILLION people (3% of the world population.) We didn't play Army and experiment...if we had done so we would have lost....instead we sent MEN into the field to kill our enemies and in a manner as lethal as fast as possible. Folks, this is real, its not a game but unfortunately our society is in such as state of fantasy that we are now destroying the last great institution left in the nation. KDM (2d Ranger Battalion, 89-91, 94-97, 101st Airborne
(AASLT) 91-93.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Aug 27 at 2015 10:22 PM

LTC John Wilson — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 22:22:14 -0400

Two new Rangers have been added to the list and all Rangers should accept them as fellow Rangers being they completed the same requirements. How they will turn out is in the eyes of the future and the commander that commands them. If he is truly bias free they may succeed, if he has preconditioning against them, they will fail. The Army should not be used as a social experiment when lives are at steak. Finding out your buddy cannot cope with combat conditions is a blow that is hard to swallow. The Army says they are qualified! Salute these two and pray the standards stay the same as WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Army strong.

Response by PFC Tuan Trang made Aug 29 at 2015 7:11 PM

PFC Tuan Trang — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:11:13 -0400

Nothing is wrong with this honestly, I think it great that they willing to put time and commitment knowing this course is hard and challenging but they still try and succeed.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 8:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:46:27 -0400

I think it's great that women can do ranger school

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 8:59 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:59:02 -0400

They have done better than i could. Kudos to these young Officers.

Response by SSG Stephen Arnold made Aug 30 at 2015 8:03 PM

SSG Stephen Arnold — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 20:03:03 -0400

I am not entirely opposed to women attending the school.

I AM opposed to opening slots for the sole reason of demonstrating our "diversity."

Training standards MUST BE EQUAL. Period. No observers. No brass facilitating the success of participants.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Sep 12 at 2015 2:06 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 14:06:35 -0400

I have to weigh in on this because I see so many questions about women wanting to get into more combat roles such as Rangers, SEAL's and other SOF.
I just wonder if every guy who is complaining that their penis is shrinking because of the thought that some women are going to pass every phase of a combat school and eventually be assigned to SOF units.
I personally don't know if I could pass the grueling testing required to be a Ranger or SEAL, I would like to think I would do pretty well but if I am outdone by a woman than that means she had more drive and determination to pass than I did.
I respect every service member who goes out and gives it their all but I don't begrudge anyone for trying and not making it.
I refuse to say fail because the only way you fail is when you never try. I can try and not pass but that does not equate failure it equates that I just didn't make it and that maybe that particular job wasn't for me.
Every time you take an opportunity you succeed because not taking that opportunity and trying is failure.
If anyone is upset with what I said then its on you as this is my opinion, like it or not.

Response by SPC George Long made Sep 13 at 2015 8:34 PM

SPC George Long — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:34:51 -0400

I as an old soldier would like to congratulate all who passed the course. It is quite the accomplishment. Now as an old soldier I also know this has only come up because when the draft ended women volunteered to fill the shortages.. If those women can fill the slots let them. My wife lost a female cousin in Iraq. Seems to me she did what most American Males wont do. She joined the Army to serve her country. So if there are insufficient males to soldier up then we must let women.

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Sep 27 at 2015 10:11 PM

SPC Luis Mendez — Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:11:32 -0400

Honestly I think they don't look pretty. Their demeanor is kind of "manly", not exactly a pretty or elegant thing for a woman not to look Feminine. I can tell by the photos something "different", affected in the facial expression and skin, it does not look "soft" like almost all women. Is kind of goofy to say the least, I could say worst.

I think they may be getting a "Pass" at any and all costs or that they've received additional previous training. I also think that they're allow to take "supplements" even Steroids or so. This whole "Experiment" like so many others with Military people, is not going to Explode until a few years from now. Even worst, life experiences tells us that some men, down or up the line, are going to demand "something" from them in exchange for the "Pass", if you all know what I mean.

Maybe a decade from now, when these women enter into their late 30's early 40's, and Menopause begins it won't look well for them. This women need to be medically followed-up to see what will be the end results in their overall health, including reproductive and child bearing capabilities, etc. etc. Hope they won't regret it all or suffer in their health. I'm sure a VA compensation will take care of that also. BTW to all who read this and disagree; Pardon me for NOT being a Politically Correct, Left winger, Patronizing Liberal Male. Is because I pay too much Taxes due in part to Military Spending and Experimentalism like this one charade.

Response by COL John Maus made Sep 29 at 2015 8:22 PM

COL John Maus — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:22:45 -0400

Well said 1SG Lopez. The Army physical fitness standards have never been equal. For a reason. Now that the Ranger School standards are in question, we will see more and more females "meet" the standard.

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Oct 1 at 2015 3:56 PM

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:56:43 -0400

The real question in my mind is why the Army spent the dollars, time, energy, and scarce slots to train people (females) who can not fill a combat billet to use their training? That smacks of favoritism.

Response by CPL Carolyn L. Day made Oct 2 at 2015 8:03 PM

CPL Carolyn L. Day — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 20:03:05 -0400

How do you feel about a MAN, becoming a NURSE???

Response by SPC Adriel Martinez made Oct 18 at 2015 1:10 PM

SPC Adriel Martinez — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:10:11 -0400

So a third female has graduated Ranger School , the army's premier leadership school-now regardless of how you feel about ladies in the combat arms, this is quite a feat-Major Jaster was in the school for 6 months. There has been talk of standard dropping, standard changes or downright ignoring the standard-either way many graduates from the school have had to restart for one reason or another-to me this shows that a certain type of female soldier can and will make it in the combat arms world-not many but some-and this is where my beef comes up.
Firstly-yes chicks CAN do this, however the number will be miniscule and RS is the top tier so maybe more can come in as regular old combat arms 11,12 13, and medic MOS's, but the number will be small still, so where do they go? Are they going to same all female infantry platoon/company or mixed in the units at a 1 to 13 female to male ratio??? This isn't an argument on whether than can do it or not -its what's the best way to utilize them for the fight.
Secondly the school itself- The stigma of the tab versus the scroll is known rampant across the army even us regular guys hear of it the moment any one brings up our top tired badasses. I feel a name change for the school and tab is in order -not to diminish eithers prestige but to more accurately describe the training and purpose of both the school and the elite infantry Regiment. Even if these ladies can get into the combat arms jobs and gradate the grueling courses of advanced schools, will they even get to show it in actual combat and get leadership positions at all? Not doubting their skills but will they actually be able to put thier training to use in combat?-Graduating RS is amazing and all but come on we cant just have that effort in specialized training given to someone and then have them sit at a desk the rest of thier TIS. In a sense this is another version of the airborne school versus actually being in an airborne unit-do we really need Joe Schmoe from an S1 shop get training for jumps that will likely be his first and last? Do these folks who go to the school then go to thier unit and collect the extra pay but never again use that training have to have it? Again this is all my modest opinion from a vet whose been out so what do I know anymore and Im grateful and proud that that ladies are advancing in this day and age in the warfare duties. Some people can do this job, some cant - and if there some who want to do this job and they are females, who cares- let 'em at it. However the head honchos need to come up with answers for mitigating unnecessary training and develop practical applications for utilizing the training given to the ladies and all SM's in general especially in the downsizing era the military is in.. Any thoughts on this?

Response by SSG Gene Carroll SR. made Oct 26 at 2015 8:10 PM

SSG Gene Carroll SR. — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:10:21 -0400

I believe they can handle it if that's what they want. who's to hold them back. if they make good, but if not give them a 100% for effort in trying to be one of the best. God bless them. I don't see many men qualifying either.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Oct 26 at 2015 8:26 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:26:39 -0400

It's a waste of a boat space.

Walt

Response by MAJ Christine Zawadzki made Oct 27 at 2015 9:10 PM

MAJ Christine Zawadzki — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:10:31 -0400

I think it's awesome and if they make it through, they should be able to serve as Rangers. I was in an infantry brigade (1st Bde, 25th ID) as a LT, and the women did the same training as the men did. They deployed like the men did. They supported the infantryman as logisticians like their male counterparts did.

Response by SFC Mark Bailey made Oct 28 at 2015 8:49 AM

SFC Mark Bailey — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:49:06 -0400

I have no problem with Women attending Ranger School, even though I was denied the opportunity to do so myself because I was a Mechanized Infantry Soldier. As long as they can pull their own weight and they will be placed into a position where such a School can be applied, then it is fine with me.

I will admit, the fact that I was at the top of my OML (Order of Merit List) to be selected to be allowed to attend Ranger School for many years and was never allowed by Ranger School policy to attend was something that irritated me over a decade. By the time DA (Dept. Army) changed its policy, I was 37 years old and the Mech INF MOS was being merged with the regular INF MOS.

Response by SCPO Edward Westerdahl made Nov 6 at 2015 10:57 AM

SCPO Edward Westerdahl — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:57:07 -0500

I went out with the first woman to complete Ranger training a few years ago. She was a Captain when she completed the school, and she was a TOUGH GAL. If the women can hack the same training regimen as men, more power to them.
I also think our women soldiers and marines should be allowed to be in combat arms positions like the Israelis do.

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Nov 19 at 2015 3:02 PM

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:02:24 -0500

I've been retired quite awhile now. Are there now Combat MOS in which females are accepted?

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2015 5:57 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 17:57:12 -0500

I honestly believe if they can do the job, let them. I'm not a Ranger and probably never will be, however peers of mine that I had the honor of commissioning with were one of the first female FA Officers in the Army and they can do their damn job very well. So if a female can make the cut, let them attend and earn that tab

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Nov 22 at 2015 8:58 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 20:58:25 -0500

Waste of taxpayer money to satisfy the PC Progressive idiots who think the military should be used for social experimentation and who place a higher importance on gender neutrality and marriage equality than common sense, sound fiscal policy, and National Security.

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Apr 13 at 2017 6:25 PM

SFC Jim Ruether — Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:25:25 -0400

I agree 100% 1SG Lopez.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made May 10 at 2017 6:53 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Wed, 10 May 2017 06:53:09 -0400

I believe they should be given a chance to prove themselves.

Response by LTC Orlando Illi made May 10 at 2017 8:54 AM

LTC Orlando Illi — Wed, 10 May 2017 08:54:03 -0400

My OCS (1977-78) Classmates. They were in our platoon and achieved EVERY standard we did. They NEVER complained and always gave 110%. One of them went on to fly fixed wing Army Reconnaissance Aircraft. I am not much for this macho crap. If a woman is capable of making it through the crucible of RANGER School - fine. I say go for it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2017 2:48 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 May 2017 14:48:33 -0400

When I hear this crap about the women slots taking away from all those poor deserving male soldiers, I say give me a fucking break. How many women have gone to ranger school so far? A couple of dozen or so? And THAT's the reason poor Joe Snuffy can't get a slot. Here's a better idea. If the graduation rate is still around 50% overall (I don't know the latest stats) how about tell all those units with all the studs to quit giving their slots away to unprepared soldiers who bolo out the first week, mainly due to PT reasons. Yeah, weed those people out at the units, and there would be Ranger School slots out the ass for those those who are truly prepared to meet the standards, male or female.

But they aren't weeded out. And that's exactly the issue. If you're a male, you can apply for and receive a slot at Ranger School. Nobody says "nope, you can't go, because you're a male.' Nobody says ahead of time, without any consideration of your own personal fitness, drive, motivation and skills that you are unqualified to go to Ranger School. Just because you are a male.

But until very recently, if you were a female, you were excluded from the Army's best leadership school just because you were a female. If you were a PLT LDR in an MI battalion, your male counterparts in the same jobs could go, (and fail) but you couldn't even apply. So it didn't matter if you could run circles around your fellow male platoon leaders, or read a map way better than them, or whatever. You didn't get a chance to try, but they did. And so off they go, failing by the hundreds if not thousands a year, while you are told you "don't have what it takes". All those failures get the chance to see if they have what it takes or not, but the female soldier is simply assumed to not have what it takes.

As the CG of Ft Benning said (who was a former SFOD-Commander, and an operator during the battle of Mogadishu) if anyone thinks the standards were lowered, you are welcome to come back to Benning and have your Ranger Tab revalidated.

The real reason so many are whining about this, and insisting that the standards must have been lowered, is that they feel like their own macho self image is lessened if a "girl" did it. It's nothing but ego that is bothering these whiners. Get over it. If you think women are at such a physical disadvantage in terms of muscle mass, etc, then you should respect and applaud those women who meet the standards despite starting out without the advantages the men have. It's also an ego thing when the failures go back to the units and have to explain why they couldn't finish the roadmarches in time, while females carrying the exact same rucksacks did.

So let's cut through all the bullshit about lowered standards and taking up slots. It's a bunch of crap.

Response by Col Dona Marie Iversen made May 13 at 2017 8:21 AM

Col Dona Marie Iversen — Sat, 13 May 2017 08:21:33 -0400

If an individual achieves the standard, their gender is a non issue.

Response by SCPO Edward Westerdahl made May 16 at 2017 9:51 AM

SCPO Edward Westerdahl — Tue, 16 May 2017 09:51:43 -0400

Very good points covered here. The PC people are trying to make everyone "equal" by having everyone attend "check the box" training. All of us are not equal in all ways. Ranger and Special Forces (Green Beret and SEALs) training slots should be allotted to those who can pass the pre-testing.

Response by SCPO Edward Westerdahl made May 16 at 2017 10:12 AM

SCPO Edward Westerdahl — Tue, 16 May 2017 10:12:15 -0400

I think that anyone who can carry the loaded pack that I have seen in videos of Ranger training should be given the chance to complete the training. Ranger school is SUPPOSED TO BE HARD, because the people who EARN that patch on their uniforms are supposed to be the best of those who tried to complete the course of instruction.
I also think that making special slots for certain people to attend ANY course diminishes the meaning of that course, whether it be truck driver, or ditch digger, or Ranger school. Not everyone CAN complete specialized schools - that's why the SEALs have Hell Week - and the pre-training that prepares the students for that testing phase of that Special Forces Schooling.

Response by SGT Anna Kleinschmidt made May 16 at 2017 1:44 PM

SGT Anna Kleinschmidt — Tue, 16 May 2017 13:44:19 -0400

Not all men and women are created equal. I have met men that I can out pt and out march any day. There are plenty of women that can out do me. Of course there are plenty of men that can out do me to. But I will break it down. When I was young and in the military I qualified on my pt test with around 110 push-ups every time. Sit ups were a breeze (that is where women shine in strength) they were over 100 every pt test and my 2 mile was my hardest and worst number @ around 11 min. But i was able to qualify for my EFMB with 70 lbs on by back and I actually broke my foot about 2k into the march! I kept going and just pooped a Motrin every 3 or 4K and finished my 20k well under time and realized that I had actually broken my foot when I took my boot off. As far as showers go. When I went to Saudi I was not able to go back to to the rear to shower for 2 weeks. I stank but hey, I made it, as far as female "issues" most of today's birth control stops women from having those monthly visits. Sexual harassment is going to be an issue everywhere if the men can't control themselves. I would hope that the discipline that is required of the mission of the rangers would also give them the discipline to not harass a member of their team. If they harass a part of their team they they are the ones not fit to be a ranger.

I was not one that would have ever wanted to be a Ranger. But I have met females that were actually the type that would be just right. And if you think about it females could add a different element to the team that could improve the mission.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2018 1:24 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:24:12 -0400

I really don’t care. I know my daughter is considering it, after her basic course.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2018 2:45 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Mar 2018 14:45:55 -0400

More power to them, just don't modify the training for them so they can qualify.

Response by SSG Don Williams, CBCP made Mar 21 at 2018 1:54 PM

SSG Don Williams, CBCP — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:54:29 -0400

As long as there is NO degradation of standards, NO female-specific accommodations, then more power to them.

Unfortunately, I know RIs from the first round of female Ranger candidates and they stated unequivocally that the standards were lower. If that’s true, then it’s a disservice to the candidates and graduates alike.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2018 2:19 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:19:49 -0400

Looking at this three years later kind of makes me chuckle seeing where we are now with no more combat exclusion, women completing Ranger school, in infantry units, etc.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Oct 26 at 2018 9:04 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 21:04:05 -0400

1SG David Lopez Scary ! You said what Ranger was really about ! Well said ! Your eloquent statement made my evening!

It is nice that you are retired and do not have to conform to the new standard as the rest of the military and the world is compelled to!

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2020 5:31 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Feb 2020 05:31:54 -0500

As a woman veteran, I agree with 1Sgt Lopez in his assessment and opinion of women attending Ranger School. When I served as a patrol officer in the Military Police in the 1970s, I came to realize that type of duty was not an appropriate role for a woman nor an asset to the team.

Response by 1LT W. Ashford made Aug 6 at 2020 12:17 AM

1LT W. Ashford — Thu, 06 Aug 2020 00:17:53 -0400

Honestly, the defense of the nation takes all..we should embrace the reality that actually battlefield soldiers will one day be obsolete..hopefully in my life time and until then all who answer the call should have equal access and opportunity to compete for the highest levels of training and proficiency. Hooah!
Sua Sponte RRD
W