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.
*This is an attempt to consolidate all the women in Ranger School discussion under one thread.
Ranger
Standards
Posted 10 y ago
This is a duplicate discussion. Click below to see more on this topic.
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
Responses: 99
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.
CPT (Join to see)
I agree sir. The standards are there for a reason and it wouldn't feel like much of an accomplishment making it through an easier ranger school.
SFC (Join to see)
LTC Paul Labrador I agree 100%. I'm not saying it can't be done but the standards have to remain the same.
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!
SGT Corey Hitchcock
I agree that everyone should have the same opportunity. However the standards should be the same as well. Tommy Taliban doesn't care if you're female or male and had different standards in training. Equipment weighs what it weighs. The life of the infantryman revolves around what and how far you can carry things. Your ruck, your weapon, maybe your wounded buddy. The standards for the infantry are set to take into account what is required of the infantryman. What is required will be the same male or female. So the standards should be the same. With that being the case I'm all for it. I don't believe however that the army will maintain the same standards even though that's the current stance.
CPT (Join to see)
Though I think females shouldn't be excluded from trying out for a slot at school, I will say that I have yet to meet a woman in the military that I believe could physically make it. They may be out there, but I certainly haven't met them.
SSG William Jackson
anyone that has been in real combat would not want to fight alone side a female. Again its not that some are not able but females are different, this seems hard for many political correct people to grasp. The have different strengths and weaknesses then men which can be deadly in combat. Especially as a RANGER which requires special skills, if females were allowed the standards would be lowered for them, few men can make it.
SGT William Howell
I have served with a female in firefights. I have no issues. My gunner was fearless and she could shoot. Could she pass Ranger school..no. Could I pass Ranger school...Hell No! If she wanted the chance should she be allowed to go...absolutely! The standards should be the same for all genders no exceptions. Everybody should able to tryout.
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.
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.
CPT (Join to see)
I don't think that will be much of an issue. If they uphold the standard and vet them like they should. They shouldn't just send any female that wants to give it a go.
1LT (Join to see)
So as an engineer officer, do you think women should also not be allowed to go to Sapper school?
1LT (Join to see)
Ah Sapper School, a great topic!
1. My opinion is really moot since women are already allowed in Sapper School. We know that the army will not retrogress so even if it is a bad idea its not going to change.
2. I know 3 females, all in my Battalion, with Sapper Tabs (1 CPT and 2 x 1LT). They are all studs and rightfully so. They met all the standards of the course and earned their tab. I believe they all had to recycle but lots of people do that and then earn their tab. However, even knowing that, there are still MANY people who truly believe they only got the tab because of being females instead of because they deserve it.
3. To my knowledge the standards in Sapper school are the same for men and women. One of those key aspects being that women must perform 5 pullups to get in the Sapper course. Women, having much less upper body strength than men, obviously spend a lot of time working on this aspect before attending the course. A point that has been brought up is that during the Patroling Phase women tend to carry much less weight in their rucks in order to keep up with their squads and platoons. This is a double edged sword. If you had a 5' nothing 100lb man would you expect him to carry as much as a 6' 220lb guy? A squad is supposed to work as a team, and that means divying up squad equipment to BEST EQUIPT the Squad. Again, making things "equal" does not necessarily mean you will be more successful. Its not about what is fair, its about how you maximize your team, squad, platoon for success.
4. As I mentioned in my previous post, one of the things that makes Ranger School so grueling is the duration. Sapper school is significantly shorter than Ranger School. A big difference to consider.
All that being said... comparing Ranger School and Sapper School is like comparing Red Delicious Apples with Granny Smith Apples - both Apples, but a different taste, color, shape, etc. Women have showed success in Sapper school and it is one things that was considered when allowing them in Ranger School. Also, women having a Sapper Tab is not a requirement for their job, nor does it ensure they are moved in a certain job.
1. My opinion is really moot since women are already allowed in Sapper School. We know that the army will not retrogress so even if it is a bad idea its not going to change.
2. I know 3 females, all in my Battalion, with Sapper Tabs (1 CPT and 2 x 1LT). They are all studs and rightfully so. They met all the standards of the course and earned their tab. I believe they all had to recycle but lots of people do that and then earn their tab. However, even knowing that, there are still MANY people who truly believe they only got the tab because of being females instead of because they deserve it.
3. To my knowledge the standards in Sapper school are the same for men and women. One of those key aspects being that women must perform 5 pullups to get in the Sapper course. Women, having much less upper body strength than men, obviously spend a lot of time working on this aspect before attending the course. A point that has been brought up is that during the Patroling Phase women tend to carry much less weight in their rucks in order to keep up with their squads and platoons. This is a double edged sword. If you had a 5' nothing 100lb man would you expect him to carry as much as a 6' 220lb guy? A squad is supposed to work as a team, and that means divying up squad equipment to BEST EQUIPT the Squad. Again, making things "equal" does not necessarily mean you will be more successful. Its not about what is fair, its about how you maximize your team, squad, platoon for success.
4. As I mentioned in my previous post, one of the things that makes Ranger School so grueling is the duration. Sapper school is significantly shorter than Ranger School. A big difference to consider.
All that being said... comparing Ranger School and Sapper School is like comparing Red Delicious Apples with Granny Smith Apples - both Apples, but a different taste, color, shape, etc. Women have showed success in Sapper school and it is one things that was considered when allowing them in Ranger School. Also, women having a Sapper Tab is not a requirement for their job, nor does it ensure they are moved in a certain job.
MSG (Join to see)
The Sapper Leader Course is a small unit tactics LEADERSHIP course, whereas Ranger School is a gut check from hell. That being said, I, and most other Leaders in the Engineer Branch, welcomed the Female integration. We had Female LTs in the Engineer Support Units, and the knowledge and skill set that they obtained and/or developed at the SLC was put to very good use when those units would be re designated as Route Clearance Assets ISO OEF or OIF. That just further explains the "Granny Smith" comparison by the young LT above. Just my 2 cents!
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.
1LT (Join to see)
Couldn't agree more 1SG (Join to see) changing the standards, I believe, takes away from the integrity of the school and ultimately the prize of a Ranger Tab. If anyone can meet the standard then they have earned the tab. But changing the standards discredits everything about the school.
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 ***
*** 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 ***
CMDCM Gene Treants
76 Ranger Women waiting for each and every ISIS "Martyr." I will be waiting in FIddlers Green to buy each of them their favorite brew afterwards!
SFC Robin Gates
I was Infantry for 20,if they want to go for it, let them. I was Light Fighters instructor, some of the females held there own, even made some of the Joe's look bad, and rode them hard motivational wise. Some are more motivated and want to prove they can hang and some could/can.
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.
* 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.
LTC Paul Labrador
Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. I am for women going into these expanded roles as long as we don't stack the deck to ENSURE that they are "successful". Same standards across the board. If they can hack it, good on them, but don't alter the standards or create "female" ones to make it "fair". Combat is not fair.
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.
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.
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!!
SGT Robert Hawks
Ranger school has one of the highest atricion rates in the Army I say if they make it good for them. If not they will at least be able to say they were allowed to try.
CPT (Join to see)
SGT Robert Hawks I was hoping they would go to some initial infantry training such as infantry AIT or Infantry BOLC. I am sure they will be going to the Benning Ranger Training and Assessment Course, Pre-Ranger, first.
SGT Robert Hawks
I respect your point of view but we have to learn that just because there have never been women before that does not mean there won't be women who could do the job now or in the future.
1SG Frank Boynton
Actually, I think RIP has a higher attrition rate than Ranger School. I know the RIP course at Ft. Lewis Washington in the early 70's had a 95% drop out rate. The 5% that passed got to go to Ranger School and they typically pass the school unless it's an administrative issue. Like they broke a bone, or became ill or died in training.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google