Women and Ranger School

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:00:47 -0500

As we move forward with the trials of integrating women in combat arms Ranger has became a focal point of this. We all have opinions. How do you feel about this and what do you think the impact of such an integration will have on the military overall?

*This is an attempt to consolidate all the women in Ranger School discussion under one thread.

Response by SFC A.M. Drake made Apr 26 at 2014 6:20 AM

SFC A.M. Drake — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 06:20:20 -0400

You are correct as in anything departing from the "norm" it will take time to get accustomed to, my personal feelings are if she can do it and pass then the Army and DOD will be better off for it. Time to drop the 'shackles' and let this happen as I believe it is the best course of action....just my thoughts.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2014 11:24 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:24:49 -0400

I am not a ranger, for the record. That being said, I am all for it. That is the direction things are going and as leaders we need to embrace it. The only caveat I will add is that the standards are across the board. The moment you have separate standards, you'll find yourself on a slippery slope. Not only will it detract from the training, but it will take away from the value and prestige of the award. And on the practical side, by setting different standards, it opens the door for under-achieving. You need to be able to trust the folks around you, and it's harder to do that when soldier X had a different set of standards than soldier Y. Bottom line, we are all soldiers first, so gender shouldn't matter. Im all for it, personally. But every soldier should have to meet the same set of standards.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2014 12:51 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Apr 2014 00:51:11 -0400

It is outrageous. If it wasn't about dropping the standards they would be there already. They are going to lower the standards to give the a chance. There is no way that a women can pass ranger in its current configuration. The PT test would knock out many of them and what is left would suffer in patrols. I am not sure how a women that is about 120 pds could carry a M240 in Mountains or be a AB. The men in the squad would be left to carry the weight. They would be prime targets for peers. I just left Ranger and I think there may be some that may be able to pass it but is it worth running 100 women through Ranger School to get one that can pass. I think not.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Apr 27 at 2014 10:26 AM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:26:39 -0400

In the United States....

* Women could not vote until 1920
* Women could not study at most Ivy League schools until 1969
* Women could not run in the Boston Marathon until 1972
* Women could not attend West Point until 1976
* Women could not become an Air Force fighter pilot until the early 90s
* Women could not attend Marine Corps Infantry Basic until 2013

All these changes came in the face of many people who found many excuses as to why women would not be able to handle the rigor or the responsibility involved with their new found rights, or why their participation would compromise the fortitude of the institution in question.

Whether one likes it or not, the tide of history is against those who would protect certain male-only institutions. The path towards equal opportunity is a driving force in our country's history. Will women ever play in the NFL? Maybe, and maybe not. But why make an artificial law that prevent NFL owners from choosing who they think is best?

I think that equal opportunity is an inevitability, and that energy would be better spent discussing how to make sure that standards are not lowered and how we ensure that everyone is treated fairly without compromising the integrity, rigor, and historical purpose of the institution in question.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Apr 28 at 2014 2:18 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:18:15 -0400

If the standard is not lowered or adjusted, then have at it! Same with Infantry Branch.

The real issue for me is: Will there be more male battle casualties trying to save females in battle due to our protective culture or will we be able to accept that a body is a body is a body? I have more problems with that then the gender issue. It's just the way I was raised. I still open doors for females and elders. Of course I am elder now. It's a joke OK?

Response by SFC Gary (Bigsarge) Portier USARMY RET. made Jun 20 at 2014 3:45 PM

SFC Gary (Bigsarge) Portier USARMY RET. — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 15:45:26 -0400

Let the women try whatever is available, just do not lower the Standard to help them thru. Same standard for all.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Jun 27 at 2014 1:02 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:02:02 -0400

In my 27 years of service, I have known one who really wanted to go, she was a JAG NCO, former drill sergeant and honestly I beleive she could have done it, she drank straight shots and would open a can of whoop ass at the drop of a hat. One other female NCO I knew was equally as strong physically and also a former drill sergeant, but she had no aspirations of attending or wanting to go to Ranger School. This was of course 1989, well before the integration we have today. Both these fine NCOs I honestly believe were two of the only females I have ran across that would hold a 9mm and just shoot someone........in the face!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2014 11:11 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:11:07 -0400

This discussion should not even occur until women have been tried, tested, and proven on a level playing field in all male professional contact sports. Sooooo no more WNBA or women's UFC fighting division

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2014 6:27 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Jul 2014 06:27:09 -0400

There has been a lot of discussion about physical standards ect..

A few things come to mind outside of those...

Fraternization-not just in Ranger School but on the battlefield...Joe and Jane share a fighting position...Joe and Jane really like each other, are young and may be irrational...may or may not lead to inappropriate acts in the field...Jack is in the other fighting position, likes Jane, is jealous that Joe and Jane are together, starts competing against Joe for Jane, possibly making irrational decisions on the battlefield because of his feelings...leadership would have to ensure that every female had a female battle buddy at all times on patrols, ect...if there was an odd number, ect...issues arise, extra complications...

Passion- wounded male and female on the battlefield...male has open chest wound, female gunshot wound to the leg, not that severe...both screaming in pain...medic arrives on the scene, assesses the situation...many would say the male medic automatically tends the female out of instinct before even thinking of it

Sexual harassment/related issues- In Ranger School, we were often in a patrol base, I went during the winter time...all of us were basically on top of each other/huddled EXTREMELY close together in our fighting positions or sleeping areas (depending on what our task at the time was) in order to keep warm (all winter ranger students know of this)...could lead to issues with male/female...also, every patrol base has a slit trench within the perimeter, totally exposed to everyone on the perimeter/in the patrol base....would we need separate slit trenches one male, one female? What if someone glanced at a female or male real quick at the slit trench? SHARP complaint? Hide the female slit trench somewhere? outside the perimeter...not tactically sound at all....

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2014 1:02 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:02:09 -0400

As a female (Engineer Officer) I, personally, see women in Ranger School, combat arms MOSs, etc. as one of the great blunders that the Army has made.

1. One of the major reasons there have been these changes in the Army is a pressure from the United States citizens to promote a culture of equality. However, equality does not ensure the success of an organization or a team. Lets look at the numbers; I dont know the exact number of Soldiers in Active Duty service right now but, for example, I'll use 100,000 (to make the math easier!). Of those Enlisted, 14% are female, of those Officers, 16% are female. Since the number of officers is much smaller we'll say 14% of the Army is 14,000. I received a newsletter from one of those automated Army emails and it stated that only about 7% of all females would CONSIDER joining a combat Arms MOS. Assuming that is true, that brings out number down to 980 individuals. We are changing the Army for a SUPER MINORITY of individuals that want to change their MOS. But the ripple affect of making this change will certainly affect EVERY individual in the Army. Does equality actually mean catering to the minority? I think not.

2. To address the physical standards. Many women cannot meet the physical demands of attending Ranger School or being in an Infantry MOS. Of those who can we, applaud them for being able to accomplish those tasks. What people fail to look at is how that affects females in the long run. The physiological changes that are required of a female to attain the level of physical fitness required to stay competitive with the males is actually harmful to the female body. Exercise releases many hormones, one of which is testosterone. Elevated testosterone levels in females can be very harmful (worst case - infertility). Is this a choice that we really want females in the Army to make? From reading about testing done so far, it has been very isolated. Women compete in a few events with men, but how do they hold up over time? That is the challenge of Ranger school (I believe, obviously I haven't been), being able to keep pushing for weeks and months.

3. Culture does not just CHANGE. It is a slow, slow, slow process. The US Military has been trying to change the culture in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade and looking at the news shows how well that has worked out (extreme example). I refer to the culture and society of the every day American citizen - maybe they are ready for this change, but the Army culture is not. My boyfriend is in a Sapper Company and I spent a day with him at work. We played a joke on one of the other Platoon Sergeants, telling him I was going to be his new Platoon Leader. I cannot begin to describe the animosity I experienced from every Soldier in that company. Can we really force change on to our Soldiers? Or does change have to come internally, not from external pressures?

4. Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment. Its an issue. We know its an issue. Nothing excuses sexual assault or harassment, but that doesn't mean that we need to allow women to be in situations where they are more vulnerable. We also know that reporting is low, SUPER LOW. If a female worked SOOO hard and sacrificed so much to get into an Infantry unit, and she was sexually assaulted, do you think that Soldier would report? Risk being removed from the unit. Lose everything she worked for. Or would she bottle it up and not tell anyone? I think a lot more thought needs to be put towards how we ensure the safety of female Soldiers if they were in a Combat MOS.

5. Winning. The mission of the United States Army is to fight and win our nations wars. Plain and simple. I want the BEST Soldiers to do that. I dont want to lower standards, I dont want to appease a tiny portion of the Army population, I dont want disgruntled Soldiers because they hate the Army culture change. I want Soldiers who are mission focused on WINNING and doing their job. I think, someway, somehow, that could be compromised by allowing women into combat MOSs.

All of this is my personal opinion, professionally I will support any action my higher mandates but.... It just seems that we, the military, are rushing into change for the wrong reasons.

Go America.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2014 4:07 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:07:38 -0400

The last time I checked there was this big sign that said "Not for the Weak or Fainthearted" The way I see it Ranger School is an elite school that has a sole purpose, and that is to train and qualify soldiers to fight harder and better than anyone else. It's no secret that it's a hard school but it's that way for a reason. It's not a civil rights course. The standards are high for a reason and if someone cannot make it then they cannot make it. Simple as that.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2014 6:04 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:04:07 -0400

Another thought that comes to mind based on a lot of the responses is females adjusting to privacy. In Ranger School, you dig a slit trench in your patrol base for obvious reasons. Would you dig one for males and one for females? Females may be uncomfortable doing their business in the middle of a fully operational patrol base...could lead to an awkward glance and a SHARP complaint. Would you need to sacrifice security and dig one outside the patrol base?

Also, strong pointing defensive positions...during the winter cycles, which I went through, we basically piled on top of each other to stay warm and survive...especially the to gun teams which rolled about 5-6 deep per team. There could be a SHARP complaint or some issues that arise if you pair up males and females in defensive positions on a large perimeter.

Just some thoughts and possibly issues that may come up...maybe there are other issues that I have not thought of yet...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2014 3:41 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 15:41:50 -0400

The bottom line to me is that ALL soldiers, regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation, meet the identical standards and do not expect special treatment, quarters etc., that would reduce mission readiness. If I go to SFAS and fail because I am too weak or physically not qualified, no one would shed a tear. This should be the same for anyone who does not meet the standard. Equality under the constitution means EVERYONE is equal under the law. No one possesses more or less civil rights.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Sep 12 at 2014 5:13 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:13:09 -0400

If they can pass at male standards, then let them have at it.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 5:15 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:15:25 -0400

For the record I completely support females having the same opportunities as every male in the Army. As long as they can meet the same pre requsites and could pass Ranger school while being held to the same standards!

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 5:24 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:24:41 -0400

More power to them! I know I could never do it, and there are women out there tougher than I am. I ain't afraid to admit that. It takes a special kind of person (man or woman) to survive and conquer Ranger school. And I admire and respect that!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 5:33 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:33:00 -0400

If they can do it, let 'em do it! :)

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 12 at 2014 11:35 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 23:35:52 -0400

RLTW! I didn't hear anything about males or females in that slogan. Are you going first 1LT Private RallyPoint Member ?? I think you should!

Response by SPC David S. made Sep 13 at 2014 12:18 AM

SPC David S. — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 00:18:34 -0400

Through the hard work and vision of vanguards they drag the rest of us into progress.

This reminds me of a parable of sorts. A man goes into a bar a sits down. He notices the guy sitting next to him has a dog. He asks if the dog bites. The dog owner says no. As the patron goes to pet the dog he's badly bitten. He scolds the owner,"Hey i thought you said your dog doesn't bite.". The owner smugly replies,"Well there's a first time for everything". 2LT Carlino, I say bite away!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 6:55 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:55:11 -0400

The only issue I have with this is that those who graduate from Ranger School won't be given the Ranger skill identifier. While I can't find the actual ALARACT to read, it seems this is just wrong-headed policy. Why not give all graduates the skill identifier? For records, would graduates be able to add Ranger documentation to their OMPF? Would Ranger Tab show up on their records brief?

"If selected, female volunteers who successfully complete and graduate from Ranger school will receive a graduation certificate and be awarded and authorized to wear the Ranger tab. However, pending future decisions about whether women will be allowed to serve in combat arms MOSs, they will not receive the associated Ranger skill identifiers or be assigned to Ranger coded units or positions."

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 6:56 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:56:19 -0400

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 13 at 2014 6:59 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:59:32 -0400

Cool! What's your school date?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 7:02 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 07:02:21 -0400

Response by LTC Paul Heinlein made Sep 13 at 2014 8:03 AM

LTC Paul Heinlein — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 08:03:03 -0400

Officially I say good luck and enjoy!

Since this change is being driven Politically and not by need as identified by a gap in the Army's capabilities, my unofficial answer is:

This recruit believes that regardless of how he answers the Senior Drill Instructor that the Senior Drill Instructor will say that the "Recruit is wrong" and the Senior Drill Instructor will just "continue to unmercifully torture the Recruit more!"

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Sep 13 at 2014 9:37 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:37:07 -0400

And....BOOM Goes the Dynomite!!! Lol!! Will be interesting to see the numbers, I think there will be a few but not too many that will attempt it. As for being successful well, I would assume that as long as there is no changing of the standards for or against, there could be some that are successful. Have to play the wait and watch game to see!!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 12:25 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:25:46 -0400

If a woman can meet the current requirements to attend, go for it! If they are able to meet the standards of Ranger School, they've earned it. I believe it is wrong to not award them the Ranger Skill Identifier. It's understood the decision of future assignment to Ranger Battalions has not been determine, OK, so what! We have Ranger School graduates (males) who have never served a single minute in a Ranger Bn, however, they possess the skill identifier. If women prove tough enough and demonstrate the skill sets required to graduate, then award the Skill Identifier. Bottom line, as long as the requirements remain the same for both Female and Male. I wish them all the best and total success in their attempt and opportunity.

Response by SN Kevin Townsend made Sep 13 at 2014 2:51 PM

SN Kevin Townsend — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:51:47 -0400

Let em go for it!!! simple as that.....

Response by SSG William Patton made Sep 13 at 2014 3:25 PM

SSG William Patton — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 15:25:44 -0400

I am all for women as long as the requirements for combat arms are not watered down for them. They must perform at the same level as their male counter parts.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Sep 13 at 2014 8:09 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 20:09:25 -0400

As long as the standards are EXACTLY the same (not proportional, not male/female, etc). If you want to play with the boys, you gotta prove you belong there.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 9:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:33:43 -0400

If they are able to go through and maintain the standards and endure the same hardships the school provides you and the torment that the RI's dish out, without complaint, then they should be allowed.
The Army has a standard and Rangers have a standard which is above and beyond that. The Ranger standard does not discriminate between age(18-60yr is the same, but 49yo is the oldest grad; Class 10-13) so keep it that way for gender.
How your peers look on you, if you cant pull your weight or contribute in some way you will be booted. Now you may comment that males will automatically look down on females and give them negative peers, I have to disagree. I have seen a few females hump a load and firemans carry with less complaint and more aggression than some males I have served with.
Finally Ranger school is the premier leadership school in the world. The way in which they teach you, and you must demonstrate your leadership ability, is through OPORDERs, FRAGOs, patrols, battle drills, ambushes, and raids. If you cant conduct basic task organization and dissemination of information you have no chance. Oh and let's not forget the lack of sleep and food throughout.

Now having them actually serve in The 75th is another issue altogether.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 11:51 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 23:51:28 -0400

That is fine. This will go the way of the Marines Infantry Officer School. Everyone they sent failed by the second week. It was just not something a person just go to. It is a struggle for men. Women would have to have similar muscle mass to a man to be competitive there. RAP week kicks the poop out of you but the mountains reconsider your decisions in life. I just don't see it being something that is possible while making without being peered. I have seen strong guys go there and break in days.

I would like to see if they can pass a Pre-Ranger first.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 5:06 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 05:06:24 -0400

Didnt they already do something like this not that long ago. Im pretty sure there was something about sending a few female officers to ranger then if they passes they would go to IBOLC and they didnt make it. Im not completely against it if i could go i would but i have to wait till im E-7 with a smaller possibility of E-6 if my state will even pay for it. The thing is i dont think that there will to many that will make it through but if women want to do combat jobs they need to meet the same standards as the men or not be allowed in those positions.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Sep 14 at 2014 5:24 AM

SGT Suraj Dave — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 05:24:03 -0400

I can tell you the future.

Not as many females as the DoD hopes will get in, so standards will be lowered to be PC.

You can down vote me all you want, but deep down you know I am right. Todays U.S. Military is much more concerned with being PC then anything else.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Sep 14 at 2014 10:25 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 10:25:59 -0400

As a former member of the Ranger Cadre at Ft Benning, I have no problems with this, if the standards are maintained. There should be no "male/female" standards, nor any loosening of the standards to ensure females can be successful to prove some social engineering/political point.

I fully support females in the military and have worked with them in my units and staff sections foe many years. I just do not agree with different standards for anyone. Set the standard for the mission at hand and require everyone to meet them or leave/fail, regardless of what it is. Make the standards fit the job/mission requirement and allow anybody who can meet them participate.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 11:03 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:03:20 -0400

Good for them, and us!

Sooner or later, a woman will meet the challenge and successfully complete the course.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Sep 15 at 2014 1:39 AM

SSG Mike Angelo — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 01:39:35 -0400

In 1976, front and center, women were invited to attend the military academies, West Point in New York and Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. 38 years later women have been invited to the US Army Ranger school. New things and new challenges await, as it was in the late 70s. I believe that this era is a test of 21st Century leadership conditioning for our military's future.

Change is coming and our military is just as diverse as it is with operational and organizational dynamics. It is no use in hiding behind a salty military uniform or old worn out standards. I believe new uniforms will be designed and new leadership skills will be developed like in the academies. New standards will be set and the military will move forward in a post modern era.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 2:26 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 02:26:02 -0400

One thing I really question about this is the cost of it overall on the Army. Not only the financial but all that is included. I see the Marines trying to get a female Infantry officer and one has passed. They sent many and found that it didn't work out the way they intended. I would have started at looking to send females to IBOLC before going to Ranger. At the end of the day, there will be a female Ranger but at what cost. Will it take 10, 20, or even 100 to try for one to make it.

Response by SSG Laureano Pabon made Sep 15 at 2014 2:46 AM

SSG Laureano Pabon — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 02:46:59 -0400

1LT Private RallyPoint Member : If you plan to go to Ranger School, let me know as well I will be rooting up for you,
In the words of one of our NY Senators :

"I have no doubt there are qualified women who can serve in any role in our military," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) told The Huffington Post, "and when all of our best and brightest serve in combat our country is stronger for it.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/women-in-combat-special-ops_n_3461065.html

The Next Barrier To Fall For Women In Combat

Women may begin to train in some of the most elite units of the U.S. military under plans announced Tuesday, in another step forward following the Pentagon's lift of the longstanding ban on women in c

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Sep 15 at 2014 2:48 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 02:48:51 -0400

My apologies ahead of time but I think this is stupid. In my 5 years and countless unit/squadron/group runs I have yet to see a woman finish the run let alone stay up with the pack. Yes, I'm saying every one. Maybe weve just had alot of out of shape women in the pt sessions, but it certainly says something with a 100% drop rate.

Women Marines say their boot camp is a hard as men yet their packs are lighter and the speed is slower.

Here in Phoenix many years back there was an all woman fire fighter trainee class. The initial test was pretty rigorous but designed to weed out the weak. Again, 100% failure rate on the test. But because of a court order to fill quota, they all went through.

The enemy isn't going to lower its standards or fight easier for women and the average woman is no where near as strong as the average man.

For those who can pass the SAME tests as a man, thats great. Otherwise, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and cares not about being politically correct.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 6:08 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:08:12 -0400

This is an example of what will happen. I think they are pushing this too hard almost. As if they know they will fail. The Marines have a higher success rate at their school than Ranger and all but one failed on day one. Equal rights doesn't mean you have equal capacity. I am fine with them going and I hope one of them are successful but I know that some the strongest soldiers in the Army fail this and yet pulling female soldiers from non-combat roles that won't have a strong understanding of the tactics employed here for patrolling or planning is yet another set back.

What do you think SGT Suraj Dave

Fourteen women have tried, and failed, the Marines’ Infantry Officer Course. Here’s why.

A female Marine says a double standard is holding women back.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 16 at 2014 7:53 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:53:22 -0400

I'll take a battalion to go. Power to anyone of either gender that can make the grade. Rangers lead the way! Go get'em!

*** warning the following statements contains gender-based levity ***

I feel bad for ANYONE who has to go up against my wife at "that time" let alone a whole company of women trained to kill!!! The PR value alone is like nuclear deterrent. Imagine this headline - "ISIS leaders commit suicide by beheading after first all-female Ranger team takes out 100 jihadists in pre-dawn raid."

*** this concludes the levity portion of this post ***

Response by LTC Barry Hull made Sep 16 at 2014 8:12 PM

LTC Barry Hull — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:12:58 -0400

My first comment is, if we want men and women to be equal, lets start with requiring every female of 18 years of age register for the draft just like their male counterparts. Then, lets talk about where they will serve.

Response by LTC Barry Hull made Sep 16 at 2014 9:23 PM

LTC Barry Hull — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:23:15 -0400

In combat, bullets and bombs do not discriminate between male and female. They do, however, discriminate between the strong and the weak. As a Ranger and an Infantryman, I can tell you all I really cared about the Soldier next to me is that he/she was the best that could be there. Sorry to disappoint he feminists but there is a physiological difference between men and women. It is an undeniable fact. that said, I am not sure I want to spend much time in the ring with Rhonda Rousey. I am sure it would be a short date. Ground combat (I am not talking about rolling up in a HMMWV and firing a CSW into a building) a la Afghanistan, humping rucks at high altitude and low air density is excruciatingly demanding. Even male in top shape struggle. So, is the risk of comprising the high standards of one of the world's premier leadership schools worth the sprinkle of female Soldiers who both want to attend and can complete the course? (Assuming the standards are not lowered.) What is the benefit to the force? We get to proclaim that we are gender fair. Well, if no one has noticed, let me pop your balloon. There is nothing fair about combat. Sorry, I don't see that benefit.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 11:33 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:33:21 -0400

More power to any female who goes period. If you can make the standard and drink rabbit's blood, then you are a Ranger!!!!!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 12:48 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:48:56 -0400

As a past graduate, I think I can speak for all graduates when I say that we highly encourage any capable female to attend. I do worry that EO and PR may come into play and female soldiers that might never have made it through RAP week will get shuffled through to a tab. If that's not the case, I'd be more than happy to pin that tab on them at graduation myself. Ranger school crushed me mentally, physically, and emotionally. Anyone that has the metaphorical balls to get through the course should have their shot regardless of their lack of actual testicles.

I believe the only ones against females attending at all are those that failed to make it through the course or those that believe it will take away from the instruction. No offense to those that disagree; I would love to hear your take.

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Sep 17 at 2014 1:54 PM

MAJ Bill Darling — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:54:10 -0400

I was surprised by this. I would think that IN, AR, and cannon FA would be test bed before they went to SOF.
I'm pretty convinced that standards will eventually be lowered when enough student complain to the media and their congressional representatives. Double standards have been the norm for the entirety of full integration and there's no reason that it will change now. We can look to the Marines, who are pretty good about doing their own thing, with the pull up event. When "enough" women didn't make the cut, they put the implementation on hold. And GEN Dempsey said as much when the policy was first introduced: if the standard is too high, it will be incumbent upon the service to prove that the standards are correct, not upon the service member to meet the standard.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 2:16 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:16:27 -0400

No!!! Not that they're aren't women who can do it. N it's just they are very few who can so I believe it is waste of funding. Not the fact that the army pushes sharp every where it can. Be ready for a sharp rise in cases. Every pun intended. Infantry is a different breed. Coming from 13 years of USMC infantry and training with 2nd rangers and the 101st. We grunts have a type of bond and brotherhood that can't be compared to and that will be compromised. Which in turn will reduce readiness. This is my opinion. Women should be kept in other combat arms like artillery, and maybe even armor.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 5:31 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:31:16 -0400

If they can pass the same standards that Ranger school has always had, then let them go. The schoolhouse should not lower any standards just to allow females to graduate.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 6:18 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:18:31 -0400

Interesting posts.

As a Ranger School grad and 20 years of being Infantry. Whats the point?

For starters women do not bring anything special to the fight. Allot of men don't ether, thats why most of the military don't even try to go to Ranger School, SFAS or even want to be a 11B self-propelled human mule/bullet stopper.

The question that should be asked is what benefit does opening up the course to women bring to the Army? As a old 1SG asked me once, "is the juice worth the squeeze ". Are standards going to be lowered? Oh heck yes, we can't let the experiment fail! Then the Democrats in Congress won't approve a increase in DoD's budget.

Don't trot out the "we have to be fair" argument. Fighting and killing is inherently a very un-fair business. Every time I was trying to kill a bad guy I wanted every edge I could get.

But its not about fairness, its about getting female officers into combat arms, so they can punch their ticket and one day……we can have a female GO's because thats the liberal mindset. A woman can do anything a man can, thats what they have been pushing for 30 some-odd years. Political correctness!

Political correctness gets young Americans of both sexes a free trip home in a body bag.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Sep 17 at 2014 8:44 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:44:35 -0400

I have no issues with women attending ranger school if they can meet the requirements. I do, however, believe the military needs to deter from the mindset that opportunties and jobs between male and female soldiers need to align for equality purposes. Men and women are different, they have different skill sets. Instead of trying to mold the standards or mold the women into fitting the standards, why aren't we creating new standards and jobs for women that play to their strengths and puts them in a position to augment combat units? Why do the duties and responsbilites have to be the same? Take some pointers from Israel or Russia who have commonly used female snipers for this very reason. Unless you dose me with a whole lot of testostrone I am never going to have the physical capabilities a man has. Anyhow, last I checked you can't outrun a bullet and women typically present a smaller target. They are easier to disguise as non-military assets, and less likely to be a noticable threat.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 12:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:47:17 -0400

I think this is a great opportunity and I am very happy the Military is making efforts to place the right person in the right job.

I think the issue shouldn't be male/female, I think the question should be, how can we best utilize the strengths and weaknesses of each individual person to lean forward in the foxhole and make the U.S. Military remain strong and relevant?

I whole heartily believe in the U.S. Army and it's approach to make things better. We are an adaptive Army and that is part of the reason we are an elite fighting force!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 2:40 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:40:33 -0400

I read through all the posts and the word "they" is repeated so many times. We are one Army, one unit, it isn't female versus male, it isn't "us" versus "them." As leaders we should bring up the topic, discuss it, and find the best way to adapt to the situation. Regardless if the reason Congress passed the bill to allow positions to be open to all service members is for political gain, the fact is, it is now law. Let's use our energy to discuss how we can take this and make it a positive change. We have this great tool to discuss and find the best ways to implement change, instead of turning the situation into a conflict.

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Sep 18 at 2014 4:43 PM

MAJ Bill Darling — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:43:15 -0400

Not many will, as with previous openings women to heretofore all-male jobs. But then the standards will slide which will probably make it attractive to more women the and percentage will probably reach the vaunted "critical mass" being sought.

In one way, it's quite odd, akin to allowing 10th grade football players to play in the college level and, oh while we're at it, invite them to try out for the NFL too. I would have thought that IN, AR, and cannon FA would have been the proving grounds for SOF and they wouldn't try it concurrently.

On the other hand, elements in the Army have been pushing this for decades, with little known and unsuccessful attempts. But kind of like national healthcare, if you keep pushing and pushing, you might find that moment when everyone buys into it and then it's hard to close Pandora's box after that.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Sep 19 at 2014 11:22 AM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:22:30 -0400

I used to know a Sergeant that was a female back in 1999 who wanted to be the first female Ranger. She was tiny, petite and from New York. She came to our post with her drill sergeant badge on and I met her in college there. She was mean as a snake and for a lack of better words, bad ass. She took nothing off anyone and was a PT stud, there was nothing a guy could do that she couldn't. I expect she would relish in this moment, but probably she is retired now. If anyone meets the criteria, has the pre-requisites and can meet the standard, then so be it.

Response by SGT William Howell made Sep 19 at 2014 2:56 PM

SGT William Howell — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:56:43 -0400

Hey they let Marines in...that is practically like letting anybody in.

Just kidding Devil Dogs! :)

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Sep 19 at 2014 3:20 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:20:24 -0400

It seems like history keeps repeating itself with questions like this. Should women be in the Army? Should the WACs be disbanded and women integrated into non-combat arms MOS? Should women be allow to serve in the combat arms? Should women be allowed to attend Airborne School? Should women be allowed to attend Ranger School?

Over the years, when each and every one of the questions above were answered (although some have yet to be implemented), the answer always seems to be "Yes - if they can meet the qualifications" and the Army/DoD always states that there will be no reduction of the qualifications or standards. Well, the fact is that standards have been and will be reduced to ensure females can meet the standards. The reduction will be official or unofficial, but they will occur.

My opinion is that there needs to be a standard for every job, position, school, promotion, etc., and anybody who can meet that standard should be able to fill that position, regardless of sex. The key is to make the standard relevant to the position/job/school and then allow no deviations.

I also think that the so-called "full integration of women in the Army" needs to be just that or should be done away with. By that I mean that it should not be the current thinking of "if women want to do it". They should have no more right to opt out than a man does. Women should not be excluded from draft registration or the draft; involuntary assignment to combat arms; or anything else. If there is not full integration, I see nothing wrong with excluding women from certain things, like the combat arms and Ranger School. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Ranger School is a great course that is physically demanding and does a great job of teaching small unit leadership. Can women be integrated into Ranger School without changing the course? Sure, if women want to give up their privacy, hygiene, etc. Will that happen? Of course not. Even if a female student does not care, the Army will not allow that to occur so, as a result, the course will change. They will have to completely redesign the course to accommodate females, or at least adjust to allow for female participation. Either way, it will change the course and probably reduce the standards, despite assurances to the contrary. I saw that happen, to some extent, when they started allowing ROTC cadets to attend Ranger School during the summer. There were no wholesale changes and nothing drastically obvious, but there were, nonetheless, changes in standards in some of those classes.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2014 3:48 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:48:57 -0400

Let them try to their limits, some will succeed, some won't. Me, not interested at all. I pass.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2014 8:46 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:46:23 -0400

I think it is fine. I agree don't change the standards. I knew a couple females back in the day that I imagine would have been able to it. We had one girl in our flight school class who was a weght lifting champion at the acadamy and could bench three plates on either side with no issues. She would jog around the track a few miles with a backpack full of rocks.

Not every female is going to be able to do it obviously, just like not every male is going to pass this type of course. I am 37 and meet the standards physically, but I would be out after being a wake the first 24 hours. At my age I like my sleep, as well as I am not a big fan of being in military training environments where I am being screemed at anymore.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2014 12:32 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:32:28 -0400

Too many times in society women have have been deemed inferior to men, and the US military is no exception to policy. However, I know first hand the extraordinary things my sisters are capable of achieving. I've seen some shoot Hawkeye at range qual, purposely performing to the all "male" standards during an APFT, and saving our entire unit during a premob training exercise. When I was down range in Iraq, I knew a few of these women. It's as if a mother's instinct kicks in and the sense of fear becomes a motivator to push through anything. I'm sure we've all read where woman have done such things in The Army Times and so on. The only issues I would have is the monthly cycle and standards. Some woman take certain birth control or medications not to have one, but even that isn't always 100% effective. If the standards were set before allowing women to attend, the same standards should remain effective. I still say give women the chance to continue to show that they can equally do the same thing men can do and not the chance to prove themselves as equal to what men can do. I'm sure within 3 years or less of women actually attending the school consistently, we will see the first woman to complete and graduate ranger school.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Sep 22 at 2014 5:20 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 17:20:42 -0400

duplicate conversation.

Response by SFC Don Stewart made Sep 23 at 2014 9:23 AM

SFC Don Stewart — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:23:46 -0400

As long as standards remain the same it should not matter what gender a soldier mighty be.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 1 at 2014 8:04 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:04:25 -0400

They would - and likely will - rule. But I suspect it will be in relatively small numbers. FWIW.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 1 at 2014 8:43 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:43:50 -0400

I'm behind the program 100% but

Fix that f--king head gear or this whole operation is a non-starting, no-go at this station. Like "GI Jane" - the military community will pay more attention to pictures like this than anything else.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 1 at 2014 8:54 PM

SGT Richard H. — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:54:20 -0400

Surprisingly of all the "stolen valor" photos I've seen, she did about the best job of putting a uniform together. (other than a cockeyed screwy looking beret)

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 1 at 2014 8:59 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:59:49 -0400

Alot of awards for a 2dLt. I guess the character is Prior service. Not sure where she would have got the MSM unless she was SNCO, too young for that. I know the director probably wanted to make the hero look. The ribbons look to be in the correct so there must have been some tech advising going on.

Response by PO3 Shaun Taylor made Oct 1 at 2014 9:42 PM

PO3 Shaun Taylor — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 21:42:12 -0400

I have no problem with a female being side by side with me in combat.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 1 at 2014 11:14 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 23:14:01 -0400

People are insane if they do not believe the standards will be lowered. Both Airborne school and Sapper school are glaring examples of that. And I can barely get slots to send my infantry men to go to Ranger School, and now they are going to end up wasting countless slots on this pointless social experiment.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2014 7:34 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 07:34:08 -0400

Oh Lord, I almost broke my phone before realizing it was a movie. Lol

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 2 at 2014 9:54 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:54:05 -0400

Looks like the movie must portray her as being court-martialed as it appears that she is stepping out of the courtroom under guard. Have seen many such pictures of real-life situations.

Will probably be an "entertaining" movie.

As I have stated before, I have no issue with females in Ranger training, as long as the standards are not lowered for them or anyone.

Having women assigned to Ranger units or the Infantry, for that matter, is another story. I don't believe it would be good for the unit or the Army, in general. More bad than good would come of that. Not meant to be a sexist comment; just my opinion of the issues it would cause the unit for no good purpose except to meet some social engineering agenda.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2014 10:53 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:53:08 -0400

Just to clarify a few things. Ranger School is NOT open to females. They are merely seeking potential candidates who are willing to try. We are still not at the point where a female soldier can show up to Ranger. Even before that every division sends their soldiers to Pre-Ranger. That is the first test. That is really the first test if they can go to Ranger school. In my Pre-Ranger we went from 90 to 45 soldiers when we were done. Lets not put the cart in from of the horse.

Females are already in combat. That isn't a factor. Ranger should be a factor in that really. Soldiers currently go to Ranger school from other branches than combat arms. We had a supply guy and a MI guy in my class.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2014 12:19 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 12:19:00 -0400

I think it is great that Ranger School will be open to women. As long as the standards remain the same, let all who volunteer get the opportunity to prove themselves. I don't care at all if the Soldier watching my back is male or female as long as they can pull my butt out of a burning MRAP if need be. As long as they can do their job and do it well, it shouldn't matter.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2014 2:18 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:18:47 -0400

I know of a few high speed female Soldiers that would be able to hack it. I know a few that could not. Same said for the male Soldiers that I know.
I agree, the standards should be kept the same. Only advice: Train up and get your head right for what you are getting into. My hat is off to anyone who completes that course!

Response by SGT(P) Jason D. Wendel made Oct 2 at 2014 3:07 PM

SGT(P) Jason D. Wendel — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:07:47 -0400

when it comes to being prepared to lead men who are highly trained machines that drink motor oil, piss nails, and eat snakes for breakfast ... it is in my opinion that these women who get the chance to take on the challenge, will end up failing a good majority of the time. 4 hours of sleep a day, 20 hours locked and loaded ready to conduct combat mission objectives. Water survival, humping 90 lbs over 200 miles by day 61 ... mountains in GA, swamps in FLA, night patrols, land nav, combatives, force on force FTX's, mountaineering, air assaults, demolitions, etc .. the list goes on. This woman will need to have superior strength, mental focus, and a never quit attitude. She must be a fast learner, be able to handle the harsh terrain, the motivation for over 2 months of training against all that says the odds are not in her favor to complete every task to standard. This kinda woman better be able to grow some chest hair, she better be able to carry a battle under fire in a near ambush, she must not fear anything. Add all this together with about 100 other variables... i just don't see how it can be done large scale, and for what purpose, other than for equal opportunity and for women to feel accomplished. What will this say to those infantry grunts who do not attain Ranger status. Will they feel inferior. Will we always trust that this woman could lead like a man could? Will Ranger school start catering to women, and soften up to allow them to pass through easier than years past? Im not against them trying, I'm against them because I don't believe in having female tier 1 level operators at the ranks. Call it sexism, call it discrimination. There will always be things in life that are naturally intended to be a certain way. But For Gods sake, Let men do what men were meant to do.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 2 at 2014 7:16 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 19:16:30 -0400

All the way!

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 2 at 2014 7:16 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 19:16:12 -0400

I think some of them will be meaner and tougher than the guy!

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Oct 4 at 2014 9:53 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 04 Oct 2014 09:53:00 -0400

Should be interesting. If they can make it through the program, why not. I am reminded of the Most Pull-Ups I've ever seen. It was a Female Marine.

Response by SPC(P) Angel Christopher made Oct 5 at 2014 4:20 PM

SPC(P) Angel Christopher — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 16:20:06 -0400

Good luck to the female soldiers who are interested in trying out for this. Good luck to all soldiers who go for it! I think it's good. If you want it, and can work to achieve it, it should be available to you :)

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2014 6:42 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:42:48 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member Can we get Might Mouse a slot? I bet she could do it!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2014 7:40 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 07:40:45 -0400

I just found out that this female soldier are going to the Ranger Training and Assessment Course (RTAC) at Fort Benning. This is the Pre-Ranger that is ran by the National Guard. It has the highest success yet in the Army. I went there right before Ranger. I am eager to see the result of this. I don't think it favors the females attempting this but I have been wrong before and will be wrong a few more times. I am curious how many women put in a bid to try out for Ranger.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 4:03 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:03:41 -0400

As many others have said, so long as they achieve the same standard as every male alongside them then I have no issues with this. That said this is the school known for soldiers going into in the best shape of their life, and coming out of it in the worst. The fact that it's physically demanding is obvious and shouldn't be too surprising if females have issues graduating due to the physical strain on their bodies. What I think the real s***storm will derive from is the possibility of all, or even just a significant amount, of females getting peered out.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 7:50 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 07:50:58 -0400

If they keep the standards the same, I will try out for it. I would love to earn the tab, but I wouldn't want to achieve it on a lower standard.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 1:47 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 01:47:20 -0400

I have a number of problems with this whole situation. Big changes like this need to be made for the correct reason. The ONLY acceptable reason to make a big change like this is that it will make the Army better at fighting and winning our nation's wars. No other considerations should be taken into account. One of my main concerns is that there are other motivations behind a decision like this. Should we allow women into Ranger School? If doing so will make our Army better at warfighting, then yes. Argue that point successfully and I will be convinced.

The Army does not exist to provide equal opportunity for women to succeed as men. It does not exist to advance people's careers. The idea that the lack of a Ranger tab has held back the careers of female Soldiers is completely irrelevant. The Army is supposed to be bigger than any single Service Member. Arguing a point based on "it's not fair to me" is already a losing proposition.

Moving on to the next problem I have- will standards be exactly the same? To quote from the article, "female soldiers can volunteer to serve as observers and advisers to the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade." Why do they need those? What exactly are they going to do? I don't remember having an adviser follow my RI's around who represented my minority (I was one of three ABOLC LT's in my class). I read a different article which mentioned that RTB is preparing for female Ranger students with regards to billeting. Why? They won't be showering and sleeping in the same barracks as the guys? Will this carry over to the field, where we were expected to use slit trenches and not shower for ten days at a time? RTB shouldn't have to prepare at all for females if standards are indeed going to stay the same. There shouldn't be advisers, cameras, media (including Army media), special preparation programs, people looking over RI's shoulders, none of it. Figure it out like we all had to and prepare yourself as best as you can.

Sure, the article says they'll be held to the exact same standards. But is that the reality? Will they spend 200 days there like my buddy did, because he ND'd with his 240 in Mountains and got peered the second time in Mountains because his new squad had to peer someone, and it fell on the new guy? Will guys volunteer to carry the 240 for the female in the squad because they can tell she's sucking, or will she carry it just as often as the guys? What about the rest of the squad equipment? What happens when they get peered out- will the leadership send them on to the next phase because to do otherwise would make the guys who peered them look sexist, or will they have to suck it up and repeat the phase? When it's 10 degrees in the Mountains and snowing, will the men have to worry about an EO complaint if they snuggle up to a female?

I have my doubts about the standards. I'm worried that political motivation will push them through, standards will drop, the legacy of the tab will diminish and the training will be less valuable. See: BAC.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 11:38 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:38:25 -0400

Ranger School, Seal training, Marine Recon my hats off to anyone who makes it man or woman. If it's something you really want you would never forgive yourself for not trying. Although standards should not be adjusted they should also not be set to make sure women fail. Just my .02

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 7:46 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:46:53 -0400

I don't expect a large graduating class of females. So far, 39 women or so have applied for the advisory slot. Here's going to be a big hurdle:

"Female volunteers also must have their commander’s validation letter for in-processing. That letter certifies that the soldier is proficient on Ranger tasks and Ranger assessment phase requirements. This includes the Ranger physical assessment, which consists of 49 pushups, 59 situps, a 5-mile run in 40 minutes, and six chinups. Other tasks include a 12-mile foot march in three hours, the combat water survival assessment, and land navigation."

Additionally, there is the 2 week Ranger Assessment course.

Less than 1% of female service-members even want combat jobs, much less qualify, and even fewer when it comes to Ranger.

The ones that jump those hurdles, though, and graduate (if any) will sure have earned their tabs!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 8:35 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 20:35:44 -0400

People are so worried about this, but there is never going to be a flood of women into these roles. If the few who try it can make it, I don't see a big chaotic mess within the ranks. With the rare qualities of physical strength and endurance, they are exclusive exceptions to the rule. A woman who wants something that bad, and is willing to get down and dirty, haul the loads and hump the hills, she isn't going to compromise her determination. She is going to fit in and roll with the punches, just like everybody else.
Let's take the focus off stereotypes for a minute and focus on ability. If standards are lowered to allow females in and through the course simply because we want to be PC about it, I don't believe that there will be many female or male soldiers (and families) who won't be pissed about it. The policy-makers, if this is their intent, will have a lot of explaining to do if this is the agenda, because war isn't PC. Special operations communities are unique for a reason and they don't deserve to be compromised on that basis.
It's all conjecture at this point anyway. Every one of us are just going to have to wait and see.

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made Oct 15 at 2014 9:39 AM

Cpl Glynis Sakowicz — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:39:50 -0400

What it all comes down to, is that all we want is the CHANCE to try! I doubt that many women will want a career path in this area, but we just want the chance to attempt it. When I first went into the Corps, we only familarized with M16's, when my mother was in, she was given the choice of cook or secretary... nothing else was open... Seventy years of nudging, pushing and just outright begging to let us try, and it looks like we might have pushed that heavy glass ceiling to the side a bit more...

90 researchers & 650 #Marine volunteers and staffers are involved in a 9 month experiment at MCB Camp Lejeune, NC to test the dynamics of co-ed units in combat. “This is an opportunity to do [the integration] right,” Weinberg said. “We should have done this a long time ago, and we didn’t.” Col. Anne Weinberg (Marine Corps Force Innovation Office Deputy Director) #USMC #Trailblazers

Marine Corps prepares for historic gender test
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com
In the coming month or so, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, will be transformed into a laboratory as some 90 researchers and 650 Marine volunteers and staffers embark on a first-of-its kind experiment to test the dynamics of co-ed units in

Home | Marine Corps Times I U.S. Marine Corps news including pay & benefits, careers and more

Independent military news and benefits information for Marines, spouses and veterans.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2014 1:07 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:07:47 -0400

I am all for it, IF and only IF they DO NOT lower the standards for females. The females going in need to be able to do what the males do, the males dont need to pick up the slack b/c a female cant hang. Will there be negativity? Yes, its a HUGE change and people who have been in a long time, will be hesitant to this. I myself have been in for 10yrs, I got the email for the invite as I am sure thousands of females got. Am I going to do it....I dont know.
As long as they keep the standards the same, I see no issue with it.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2014 1:25 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:25:29 -0400

As a Leader who attended the Sapper Leader Course long before they allowed Female Soldiers to attend, I have heard this discussion, and most of your thoughts, a million times before. When the Sapper Leader Course (SLC) first started allowing Females to join their Male counterparts in the course, folks from both sides talked about the same things-quotas, lowered standards, and PC issues changing the course. I challenge you all to look at that school today. It has the exact same physical standards and events, but a significantly greater educational side that actually makes the course much tougher. As a 1SG on Fort Leonard Wood, I visited the. Ourse often. The SI team treated all students the same-no "G.I. Jane" stuff. I was proud of the way the course did NOT lower their standards, but actually raised them by adding a bit of intellect to an otherwise physically challenging course. Big Army can only set the guidelines. The local Commanders and the outstanding Professional Non-Comissioned Officers assigned at ground zero are the ones who will set the conditions and execute. I think folks are over thinking it. You have your orders, (Females now have a chance to earn the coveted Ranger Tab), now find every way possible to make it work! Just my 2 cents.

Response by SSG John Erny made Oct 15 at 2014 1:57 PM

SSG John Erny — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:57:23 -0400

As long are the standards are met go for it. Women can get away with things men can't in a special warfare situation. Blend in, appear not to be a threat.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2014 12:35 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:35:33 -0400

As a female I know I wouldn't not be able to handle it nor make it so myself would stay clear of it. I believe though if a women can pass on a male standard for Ranger School & have the mentally/physical fitness why not allow them? A few women that I have ran into over the years are more men then some of these men in the military right now.

Yes there will be issues as anytime the sexes are combined as one but eventually it dies down and it makes no difference. I am proud of any women in the military that can do this!

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Oct 17 at 2014 10:31 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:31:18 -0400

I'll put it like this. I know a lot of people who have not succeeded in Ranger School. I'd say there's been women in ranger school for years! ;-)

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2014 7:50 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 07:50:20 -0500

1SG Private RallyPoint Member, I think we are ready for it. If "they" (not just women, but anyone who attends - in this case - Ranger school) can hang, then they should get the tab.

For me, the key portion of what you posted is this: "TO ENSURE THE BEST QUALIFIED SOLDIERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN ANY POSITION WHERE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING TO STANDARD"

That's it exactly. The best qualified should should have the opportunity, and if they can meet the standard, then they should be allowed to serve in that role.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2014 7:57 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 07:57:25 -0500

It begins....is the Army ready for it. Are you ready for it SSG William Squires?

Response by SFC Vernon McNabb made Nov 9 at 2014 8:35 AM

SFC Vernon McNabb — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 08:35:43 -0500

I think we're ready for females to do whatever they put their minds to. What I don't think we're ready for is the sexists jokes about the ever elusive "Ranger Panties". If a female can do it, she should not only get the tab to go with it, but more importantly, she deserves the respect. I am curious to see how this turns out. You can bet, I will be the first to say, "Great job!" and a pat on the back.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 2 at 2014 11:14 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 23:14:32 -0500

Good Luck!

Response by MAJ David Vermillion made Jan 25 at 2015 1:45 PM

MAJ David Vermillion — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:45:37 -0500

I am not sure what the numbers are for washouts in Ranger School but I know they are high, probably along the lines of 50% or better. It stands to hold with the woman being the weaker vessel as the bible proclaims, it makes sense that a program like Ranger School was originally designed for men and not women. I believe the military is a place for both sexes but Ranger School is not one of them. This is not about pride or exclusion but about the unit on the battlefield being mixed with both men and woman. This would cause the unit to erode from within.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Feb 11 at 2015 8:43 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:43:07 -0500

Well I think they finally found a way to have equal standards for all:

http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/01/ranger-school-replaced-by-9-week-long-online-game/

Response by 1SG David Lopez made Feb 15 at 2015 9:45 PM

1SG David Lopez — Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:45:04 -0500

The standards have already changed! Why do we have Female "Monitors" to observe Ranger Training while females attend the Ranger Course? I'm assuming they are there to make sure the untrusting RI's do not act unprofessional towards the female candidates; or to make sure they identify sexual harrassment; or to offer a second assessment on their evaluation; We can go on...

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 6:03 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:03:18 -0500

As I've said in other threads, CPT Private RallyPoint Member, I'm all for it -- so long as they don't change the standards. If women can do the job (pass the course), they deserve a chance to prove themselves.

One of the questions is this ... Are "they" changing the standards just by making special allowances for women to get into the course? And I ask that semi-rhetorically, because it seems to be a bit of a Catch-22 to me. On the one hand, if they don't make some sort of accommodation, women will never get the chance. And on the other, are those women who will get into Ranger school displacing a man who would otherwise have made it to the course?

My questions are all kind of rhetorical/theoretical because without some sort of change, women will never even get the chance to prove themselves, and I think women deserve that chance.