Posted on Feb 7, 2015
What do you "Honestly" think about women attending Ranger School?
236K
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
11
11
0
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?
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?
(11)
(0)
SPC Benjamin Hartog
"The Dead and Those about to Die" or Eugene Sledge's "With the Old Breed" should be compulsory reading for all Ranger candidates especially females. These works draw on the combat experiences of male soldiers who were expected to neutralize and destroy heavily defended enemy strong points in the Pacific and Western Europe. I cannot imagine females storming the Eastern sector of Omaha beach or the caves of Peleliu and Iwo Jima or battling in the Hurtgen Forest or The Bulge in the Ardennes. Severe infantry fighting is the preserve of men and men only. To cheapen the standards of Ranger training in order to fill a quota of females is both existentially absurd and historically unprecedented. The feminist insistence on "leveling the playing field" in the military is a misplaced myth that needs to be unraveled . Sergeant Alvin York and Lt. Audie Murphy exemplify a male ethos that must never be abrogated by Political Correctness.
(0)
(0)
SPC Benjamin Hartog
Cynthia: Thank you for your astute and insightful observations. I am aware that there are historical precedents for appointing women to combat slots in the post-modern US military. Yet, I remain skeptical whenever the issue of "inclusivity" is proposed to make the personnel profile of the US Military more heterogeneous. Integrating qualified women into the combat branches of the US military makes sense both tactically and existentially. On the morale level male warriors in elite combat units must be psychologically and physically prepared to fight alongside their female counterparts. Could women have been able to demonstrate the tenacity and perseverance of the men of Merrill's Marauders, for example? As the late Colonel David Hackworth indicated "(soldiers) must be perfectly trained in the basic fundamentals of the killing trade." This axiom is imperative in forming and sustaining any infantry unit facing the prospect of imminent battle with a formidable enemy like the Germans and Japanese of WWII and more recently the Taliban and ISIS. On the strategic level, however, even though it might take 4 to 5 decades, women will be expected to assume leadership positions in America's future wars. I for one doubt that the Pentagon will ever be able to reproduce the female equivalent of David Petraeus, David Hackworth, Creighton Abrams, Matthew Ridgway, James Gavin, "Bull" Halsey, Raymond Spruance, Curtis Lemay, Chester W. Nimitz, John Shirley Wood, George Patton, Manton Eddy, Omar Bradley, Douglas MacArthur, Dick Winters, John Pershing, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and many other notables in the pantheon of American military history. It is leaders such as these men who helped shape and determine America's destiny in both the 20th and 21st Century. Based on the historical record my opinion in this matter will evolve in the same manner that the international situation evolves. Should America remain "isolationist" and withdraw from the world order or practice Wilsonian "interventionism" in which America takes a foremost role in world affairs militarily, morally, economically and diplomatically. It would be wise to reassess what the role of female warriors will be in America's future. Whether America is capable of producing such outstanding female warriors remains to be seen. But again, as I must reiterate...I doubt it.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
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!!!
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!!!
(8)
(0)
MAJ John Douglas
MAJ John Douglas - BTW, saying the Ranger School is a "leadership school" is like saying the Indy 500 is driver training school
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MAJ John Douglas I haven't demanded for anyone to attend or play anything. My original point is, its just a school, nothing more. Doesn't make them rangers, just ranger qualified, as I mentioned above.
(0)
(0)
MAJ John Douglas
OK, have your written or recommended that the NFL or NBA play females? It seems that if its good enough for the Army, it would be good enough for civilians too.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
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...
(7)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
And I agree with that.... I don't believe they should be held to a different standard... That is politics... If you ask most women who wear the uniform believe the same as the men, it is the politicians who just want to make a name for themselves... Also by them doing that they are setting women up for failure and creating a stigma still saying women are inferior... Maybe they need to make better choices as who they pick and instead of trying to get 30 or 40 to pass to make ink... Why not have that one who actually might make it... It shouldn't be about numbers but about quality... I guess I am just saddened that after over 20 years since I first came in that this is still a fight... And my predecessors had it worse... Things have gotten better, but why is it the Israeli's and Brits have women all over their military, yet in the US we are still weaklings that can't make it in a man's world... They need to make better choices as to who goes...
(3)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
You definitely would make the cut for Ranger School Marine.....drive on with your hard self and don't ever lose it.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
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.
(6)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
Wow, you really put a lot of thought in this and you really had a lot to say. Good points brought to light, "Is it the Smart thing to do." I do believe that there will be several sexual harrassment cases that will get alot of good men in trouble. My roomate, who was a Mechanic in a support unit, used to tell me about the trouble he had with his young female Lieutenant, she would sleep in the same tent as her platoon, she slept in her panties. Well in the morning as everybody woke, all the male soldiers were looking at their still sleeping LT lying there in panties for the whole world to see. Young soldiers had one thing in mind ;) and my roomate, the PSG had to chase his soldiers away and tell them to stop drueling over the female Lt. He also had to wake the female Lt. and counsel her on her sleeping attire, it was not condusive to leading men in the Army. It was halarious to say the least, the stories my roomate had concerning his Lt. were a shame to our profession.
(1)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
Yeah. Its really a mindjob...
I get it... as a society, we want to do the noble thing and all... but at some point, reality has to set in.
What will be the cost of our political correctness, and will the cost truly be worth it in the end?
I get it... as a society, we want to do the noble thing and all... but at some point, reality has to set in.
What will be the cost of our political correctness, and will the cost truly be worth it in the end?
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
1SG Lopez I can agree with you story, I have seen it in the FA world. I have seen female Soldiers get victimized by male Soldiers and this in no way is right, but when do we as leaders understand that mitigating the risk is essential to ensuring the safety of others. I don't think placing a female Soldier in a foxhole with three other sexually deprived men is a really good idea. I do not condone their actions and think they should be thrown under the prison, but this is something that is being created by these new policies. We talk about society, but we have too look at this in a realistic perspective.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
6
6
0
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
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
(6)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
I respect your opinion, I once taught at ROTC and had a female cadet that was a Stud, but in my opinion, could she have possibly make it through on her best day, possibly Yes. But do I think the standards will change because women have different standards in the regular Army, yes I think the standards will change in Ranger School to allow more people to pass. Just my opinion.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
Assuming it's the same course, I think it's great. I would have expected less.
(6)
(0)
Cpl Michael Strickler
Sgt Packy Flickinger, I am in total agreement. Any success rate is a good thing. Lowering the standards just to have more people able to succeed defeats the entire purpose.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
SPC Benjamin Hartog
I have no intention of being an obstacle to women's self-determination - of her yearning to achieve autonomy independent of men. Do women seriously think that the masculine ideal is embodied by the Rangers, however? I am a Freudian by training and education and I have come to the conclusion that the women who are striving to be Rangers and SF qualified are suffering from a modern form of "penis envy." The Ranger tab is simply a symbolic penis that woman want to grow in order to establish their dominance. Statistically aggression is predominantly a male attribute which women want to claim not to demonstrate their prowess but their superiority. Possession of a emblematic penis like a CIB, for instance, is both psychologically and neurobiologically unattainable to women. These combat awards deservedly are limited to men and no amount of PC hysteria will change that fact. Women will always suffer from "penis envy" but the military is not a venue for them to resolve their psychosexual struggles.
(0)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
First off I don't think your symbolism is appropriate for a public forum. Secondly, if these women wanted to change their gender don't you think they'd be pursuring that instead of ranger school? I understand that you aren't a woman, so you can't possibly understand pushing the limitations that society put on your gender. If someone comes to you and asks to serve the country in one of the most demanding jobs and they are capable of meeting the requirements, why would you say no?
Stand two men next to each other, is one man just as capable in every aspect as the other? No. On average, men have more physical strength than women. That does not mean that all men are more physically capable than women. If you want to put this to the test than please take a professional female athlete and compare her to an average male athlete. I bet the female would be physically superior. Despite sharing genes and a gender with my sister, I am by far the superior athlete. A biological predisposition of physical strength means nothing if they don't put in the work to develop that trait. Being physically capable means nothing if you don't have the skills to make the goal.
Stand two men next to each other, is one man just as capable in every aspect as the other? No. On average, men have more physical strength than women. That does not mean that all men are more physically capable than women. If you want to put this to the test than please take a professional female athlete and compare her to an average male athlete. I bet the female would be physically superior. Despite sharing genes and a gender with my sister, I am by far the superior athlete. A biological predisposition of physical strength means nothing if they don't put in the work to develop that trait. Being physically capable means nothing if you don't have the skills to make the goal.
(1)
(0)
SPC Benjamin Hartog
I am sorry for offending you but I don't think you have a monopoly on what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate perspectives. I maintain, nonetheless, that anatomy is destiny. Why not form an independent infantry battalion composed exclusively of women and parachute them into ISIS territory and let them demonstrate their combat skills. I can't imagine an airborne force like the Germans at Crete or the 101st at Normandy battling a determined enemy and sustaining high casualties if woman had been deployed to fight those battles. . Historically, women fought in the Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War and they generally performed well but most were withdrawn when the fighting became prolonged and sustained. What would be the result if a woman is captured by asymmetrical cutthroats, for example. It's unthinkable. Anthropologically, no culture has ever produced a cohort of women warriors that were instrumental in determining the outcome of a war. Thus,"biological predisposition" has been a determinant in waging military conflicts. An elite class of "Amazons" would be a solid deterrent to stem the forces of "evil" but incorporating them into hitherto male units might be problematic and in the long run would not be strategically or even tactically wise.
(0)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
I stated that I find your symbolism inappropriate; I never said anything about your perspective. We could form an independent infantry battalion, but that type of segregation could be harmful to the camaraderie of the armed forces. I also foresee women succeeding, and men taking offense and working to prevent their assignment in infantry roles that could allow them to outshine their male counterparts.
If women are captured by cutthroats, yes they’ll likely be raped and killed. Just like men get raped and killed, this could happen regardless of having a combat arms MOS. With sexual assault at the rates it is in the military, do you really think women have more of a chance to be raped in combat when compared to a garrison environment? Women have fought in wars since the beginning of time, just read through history. They’ve led, fought, and won battles.
“Joan of Arc – While still a teenage girl, Joan of Arc inspired French troops and successfully led men into battle during the Hundred Years’ War. Joan lived on the front lines, fought with the men, and was even wounded in battle on more than one occasion. In spite of being born an uneducated peasant girl in the French countryside, her tactical instincts proved more successful than many of her educated male counterparts. “
“Artemisia of Caria – Artemisia was a ruler in the 5th century BCE over a client kingdom in the Persian Empire. She was one of the most trusted advisors of King Xerxes and is best remembered for the role she played in the Battle of Salamis. Her skill was such that even the Greek Historian Herodotus commented on more than one occasion about her prowess in his Histories. Her skilled naval tactics, in the wake of failure of her male colleagues, prompted Xerxes to state: “My men have become women and my women, men.”
“Ahhotep I – Was an Egyptian Queen of the 16th century BCE. She led an army against the Hyksos, an Asiatic people that had invaded the Egyptian Delta, and was pivotal in establishing the 18th dynasty.”
“Queen Boudicca –The Warrior Queen of the Britons was a well-disciplined fighting animal. Born into the British Iceni Tribe, Queen Boudicca would lead an uprising against the Roman occupation of Britain and burn London. She inspired her people to take up arms against a larger and more powerful force. The Iceni did not make distinctions in the battlefield – both men and women fought. She struck fear in the hearts’ of Roman soldiers, generals, and statesmen.”
Countless women have successfully fought in battle throughout U.S. and world history, some in the disguise of men, some as leaders of men, and others as basic combatants.
If women are captured by cutthroats, yes they’ll likely be raped and killed. Just like men get raped and killed, this could happen regardless of having a combat arms MOS. With sexual assault at the rates it is in the military, do you really think women have more of a chance to be raped in combat when compared to a garrison environment? Women have fought in wars since the beginning of time, just read through history. They’ve led, fought, and won battles.
“Joan of Arc – While still a teenage girl, Joan of Arc inspired French troops and successfully led men into battle during the Hundred Years’ War. Joan lived on the front lines, fought with the men, and was even wounded in battle on more than one occasion. In spite of being born an uneducated peasant girl in the French countryside, her tactical instincts proved more successful than many of her educated male counterparts. “
“Artemisia of Caria – Artemisia was a ruler in the 5th century BCE over a client kingdom in the Persian Empire. She was one of the most trusted advisors of King Xerxes and is best remembered for the role she played in the Battle of Salamis. Her skill was such that even the Greek Historian Herodotus commented on more than one occasion about her prowess in his Histories. Her skilled naval tactics, in the wake of failure of her male colleagues, prompted Xerxes to state: “My men have become women and my women, men.”
“Ahhotep I – Was an Egyptian Queen of the 16th century BCE. She led an army against the Hyksos, an Asiatic people that had invaded the Egyptian Delta, and was pivotal in establishing the 18th dynasty.”
“Queen Boudicca –The Warrior Queen of the Britons was a well-disciplined fighting animal. Born into the British Iceni Tribe, Queen Boudicca would lead an uprising against the Roman occupation of Britain and burn London. She inspired her people to take up arms against a larger and more powerful force. The Iceni did not make distinctions in the battlefield – both men and women fought. She struck fear in the hearts’ of Roman soldiers, generals, and statesmen.”
Countless women have successfully fought in battle throughout U.S. and world history, some in the disguise of men, some as leaders of men, and others as basic combatants.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
I agree with you 100 % and then some. As a Proud Ranger, we hope that the standards do not change to accommodate females as has every other military school. US males already jokingly say that we went to the last hard class. But seriously good luck and I hope you get the opportunity.
(1)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
Honestly, I never thought of myself as a bad ass. I was just doing my job, taking advantage of the opportunities the Army allowed me. Although there are many truly bad ass Rangers that I looked up to and tried to emulate. I was just an Infantry Grunt that had the opportunity to rub elbows with some of America's best, the elite of Spec Ops, I learned a lot from those men. I had to retire due to being a single father. Msm I hope you get your chance to prove your self, as I did. My wife is a Correctional Officer working in a men's prison. I know how you feel more, each day as I read these responses on rally point, it's professional discussions such as this that assure Ole 1SG like me that there are female studs that do not want the standards changed in our beloved Ranger School. Thanks and good luck.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
Another stat that can be used is that those 19% of women who passed pre-Ranger beat me by 100%.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google