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

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.

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

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.

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 (Join to see) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.