Posted on Feb 7, 2015
What do you "Honestly" think about women attending Ranger School?
235K
1.43K
750
93
89
4
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
Retired Ranger 1SG David D. Lopez
Paso Robles, CA
Women in the Military
Ranger
Ranger School
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 240
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
Obvious you have not read many of the discussion responses. I have been learning and accepting from the professional input by active duty and former Soldiers. All I can say to you is, you may be right! You are active duty and know what is currently occuring in our Army. As long as the standards do not change and there is NO preferential treatment, then as of now, I'm okay with females attending RS. We'll see how it fairs out.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I will admit I saw this, and rather jumped on it. I'm very frustrated with the attitude many of my peers have on this subject, and as such have become much more passionate in my opinion on the matter. I apologize if I came across as inappropriate or overly aggressive/harsh.
(1)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
I fully understand, I was and am still passionate about this subject. But there has been alot of learning for us all concerning this. I wish our female warriors the best of luck and a safe quest through it all. It will make them better Soldiers and Leaders.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
Thank You for educating us on the new and improved Tactical Go Girl Urinating Device for Female Ranger Candidates (FRC's).
(0)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
Second thought, where can we get these, Mrs. Lopez might need one, since she is a Bad Ass Correctional Officer. That would put me in the dog house quick like.
(0)
(0)
SSG Bill Butler
I mentioned this to my wife (never served or liked camping) 1. thats gross and I wouldn't trust it. 2. learn to pee standing up.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If they can pass pre then let them go fail give them the boot like anyone else
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
I respect your opinion. But I disagree. I do not think women are inferior to men. I just think that changing the standards and opening a can of worms for the sake of political correctness is going to change an established premiere infantry course. Ranger School is expertly put together, purposely harsh, and if you read some of my posts, you may catch a glimpse as to what is pissing us off. Preferential treatment and changing standards! If it's not a big deal for females to attend Ranger School, then let them compete for the limited slots similar to every male soldier. But do I honestly think they could make it, some - a few- hand picked above average females will succeed. But the average Joe Male Soldier/NCO/Officer, with the will to enjoy and conquer Ranger School will succeed. But the average Female, No! Just my thoughts.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Agreed top. To a certain extent. Everything in the military is genderized. But I could never say no until the results are out. If the standard for ranger school in genderized, than that is the basis in which they need to pass. Standards change all the time. The physicals standards and process of becoming a ranger is different today than it was 30 years ago. From what I understand, they used to make them do harsher things back then. Same as every school. From what I've read. Again, I have absolutely no basis to compare. I'm not a bad ass ranger. I've met quite a few and the majority of them are stellar. I am and always will be impressed by the feats they've accomplished. But if the standard was made and they pass them, whether genderized or not, that's what they've gotta do. Apologies for remarking that you felt they are inferior to you. I may have misspoke there. Either way, I may personally be unprepared to see the hardships that these ladies will endure. But I'm not the woman trying out. It's their choice to go for it or not.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
Thank you Lt. Goenner for your honest insight in this matter. I could not agree with you more. RLTW!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google