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
The stupidest thing about political correctness is.... stupidity always wins.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
You are 100% correct. My attitude has changed since I first wrote this piece, and yes it keeps biting me in the ass daily. I really hope the standards did not change to accomodate anyone in Ranger School. I know they said that the standard would not change, but... there are many of men, competing to attend RS, they still are; why have female observer/monitors? I did not have a mother figure looking out for my interest when I was a Ranger Student, nor did any body else, until now - for females; There is some talk that the forced 16 mile march in the first phase has mystriously gone away since the inception of this test; some other mystrious things like the females did not recieve a passing grade until a two star general walked the patrols; but hell, what do I know, I;m just an old retired Ranger. Been retired for a long while. I know there are a few select females that will make it through, there have already been two female graduates, one more is just started the Florida Phase. You are Right 100%. Now let's change the entire Army standard to One Standard, not two; one for males and one for females. Let's have mandatory selective service sign up for females also, not just for males, hell let's include illegal aliens for selective service, since they are reeping benifits from our tax dollars. Why stop there, lets force females into any and all combat branches, such as light Infantry. Every soldier I knew growing up in the Infantry hated it (not NCO/Officer/leaders), but every soldiers lower enlisted would have prefered to have a different MOS, especially an MOS that did not require walking/foot marching every where we go-ooo! Ranger School is just that, a school! But where are we going to draw the line? Is assigning females going to make the infantry squad/platoon better? Will they make the squad/platoon more lethal? Will her assignment make the squad/platoon a force multipier? If the answer is not YES to all three questions, and we assign females in order to be politically correct; then we are forgetting what our mission of our combat arms/military is for. Just my two cents. But what the hell do I know.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Eh... Ranger if she can then why not??? if not why not left em try?? eh!!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I never earned the coveted title of Ranger. Therefore, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this topic.
(1)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
You have an opinion, it qualifies also. Don't ever think that you opinion don't count, it does matter.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I say if they can meet the already established standard then by all means. But we should not lower the standard for them.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT Robert Chestney, I am not a financial planner, that's a 4 function. I am a financial manager and damn proud of what I do. Now, please explain exactly how what I posted above "supports a gross misuse of government funds."
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT, if what you stated is accurate, they you have nothing to worry about as only men will be able to be Rangers because of their superior biology. So, when are you attending Ranger School?
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I have no idea what your question is...I seriously doubt that sending female Sodiers to Ranger School is going to cause financial ruin. And you've disproved your own theory that men are superiorly suited biologically for Ranger School than women, when you admit to not having the physical ability to attend (and that's ok). I don't think your value and worth as a Soldier is comprised of patches and badges. I, as a professional, don't put too much emphasis, nor care who attends what school. Set a standard, meet a standard, become trained. I'm looking for Soldiers and teammates, that when the selector switch is changed to semi, they can effectively put violence on the objective and accomplish the mission. I'm not trying to poke you, I'm making a point.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT Robert Chestney, I'm losing my patience with the tone of your message. If you want to continue this discussion then I ask that you watch your deportment.
Your position has been that males are superior to females biologically (irt Ranger School). Is that correct? Since you didn't quote the source of your stats, I will post here:
http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7
You point to anatomical differences between males and females, which nobody disputes, and come to the conclusion that females in general cannot accomplish the "Ranger Mission" whatever that might be. So let's look at some additional information from your source:
Most of the data collected from the report posted above came from BCT/AIT, levels of training that one would assume means trainees enter at a lower level of fitness then when they exit the training. Quote:
"The strongest evidence (supported with five or more
studies) suggests that female gender, low aerobic fitness, high and low
extremes of flexibility, low levels of physical activity prior to BCT, and
cigarette smoking prior to BCT are risk factors."
My understanding of the report is that a primary cause of injury isn't just a result of female anatomy, but also not being in shape. I don't disagree that it is harder for women, in general, to reach certain levels of fitness. But I do disagree that it is unattainable specifically as a result of their anatomy. There are real world cases that prove the opposite.
The reality is that the Army has changed and will continue to change. As leaders our responsibility is to provide each Soldier with the best training available to ensure mission success at tactical, operational, and strategic levels. Period. I want all my Soldiers highly trained.
My lack of detailed responses were due to your inward focused bias irt to this subject, not my lack of knowledge. You are welcomed to your opinions, but don't incinuate I don't have the knowledge or experience neccessary to engage in this converstation. Agree?
Your position has been that males are superior to females biologically (irt Ranger School). Is that correct? Since you didn't quote the source of your stats, I will post here:
http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7
You point to anatomical differences between males and females, which nobody disputes, and come to the conclusion that females in general cannot accomplish the "Ranger Mission" whatever that might be. So let's look at some additional information from your source:
Most of the data collected from the report posted above came from BCT/AIT, levels of training that one would assume means trainees enter at a lower level of fitness then when they exit the training. Quote:
"The strongest evidence (supported with five or more
studies) suggests that female gender, low aerobic fitness, high and low
extremes of flexibility, low levels of physical activity prior to BCT, and
cigarette smoking prior to BCT are risk factors."
My understanding of the report is that a primary cause of injury isn't just a result of female anatomy, but also not being in shape. I don't disagree that it is harder for women, in general, to reach certain levels of fitness. But I do disagree that it is unattainable specifically as a result of their anatomy. There are real world cases that prove the opposite.
The reality is that the Army has changed and will continue to change. As leaders our responsibility is to provide each Soldier with the best training available to ensure mission success at tactical, operational, and strategic levels. Period. I want all my Soldiers highly trained.
My lack of detailed responses were due to your inward focused bias irt to this subject, not my lack of knowledge. You are welcomed to your opinions, but don't incinuate I don't have the knowledge or experience neccessary to engage in this converstation. Agree?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT Joy Turpin
While you have a valid argument; female Soldiers who want to take this journey are all aware they will be facing an uphill battle when it comes to being integrated and trusted by their units. Let us keep in mind that this was the same argument that kept openly gay and lesbian Soldiers silent for many many years. Yes, female Rangers SHOULD be allowed, the same as being openly gay SHOULD be allowed. We preach a message to ourselves and our Soldiers of oneness. We should live by that rule, it is what brings us back home.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
A female grunt would be a great starting point. You gotta crawl before you walk.
(1)
(0)
SSG Paul Pattat
I've never been through Ranger school. I'm saying a female in the infantry is a great start.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Progressivism is a big part of the military today. Standards are Standards and I only hope they're followed throughout Ranger School.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google