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
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.
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.
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!"
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!"
1LT (Join to see)
Sir I think this is just one of those things that we'll have to see it play out. It's not going to shock me when someone makes it through I think its just a matter of time. But these next few months are going to be interesting to say the least.
LTC Paul Heinlein
2LT Katherine Carlino,
I'm absolutely sure there are female Soldiers that can make it through, and will. But, Ranger School as currently designed plays to the strengths of Male Soldiers and their Attrition rate is through the roof. Ranger school is one of those schools (in my opinion) that could care less (currently no broad scale pressure) if anyone graduates (yes, I know they can't fail everyone, but you get the idea).
So, because Politics are involved, it is inevitable that there will be pressure (whether it is overt or subvert) to have more graduates...In my opinion, this will lead to a watering down of the standards (or at least that will be the perception; perception = reality, whether true or not) to reach a success rate that meets the Political motivations. And this perception will be unfair for those Soldiers (male and female) that would have made it through successfully, regardless of any changes.
Being an MP for my entire career, I have always had female Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers in my formations and I have had many female leaders. Some where great, some average, and some below average...no different than Male Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers.
I'm absolutely sure there are female Soldiers that can make it through, and will. But, Ranger School as currently designed plays to the strengths of Male Soldiers and their Attrition rate is through the roof. Ranger school is one of those schools (in my opinion) that could care less (currently no broad scale pressure) if anyone graduates (yes, I know they can't fail everyone, but you get the idea).
So, because Politics are involved, it is inevitable that there will be pressure (whether it is overt or subvert) to have more graduates...In my opinion, this will lead to a watering down of the standards (or at least that will be the perception; perception = reality, whether true or not) to reach a success rate that meets the Political motivations. And this perception will be unfair for those Soldiers (male and female) that would have made it through successfully, regardless of any changes.
Being an MP for my entire career, I have always had female Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers in my formations and I have had many female leaders. Some where great, some average, and some below average...no different than Male Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers.
1LT (Join to see)
Sir I see your point and it makes alot of sense. Unfortunately we see more and more of politicians butting their heads into the military's business and in my opinion its making the military weaker. We'll see what happens in the future. But I could see you point where they would start pressuring military leaders to make Ranger "fairer" without realizing that they are doing more harm than good for us.
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!
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
CPT (Join to see)
Sir, to take your point further, I can't fathom why the Army is integrating Ranger School before integrating IBOLC (like the Marines have tried) and IN OSUT. It just seems like a recipe for disaster... it would be like becoming a starter on a varsity team before you've even made JV.
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.
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.
As long as they keep the standards the same, I see no issue with it.
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.
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.
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!
"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!
SSG Keven Lahde
SGT (Join to see) Hell I wouldn't count out any female. There are a lot out there that I would take into battle over some males. I think by the end of this year we will have at least 1 female graduate it.
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.
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.
SGT (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see), valid questions. Time will time. We'll see what happens with this rotation.
The female advisers are there because:
“We thought it would be helpful to bring women into the course prior to the arrival of the first women students” to ease “isolation” issues or concerns among female students, LTC David Fivecoat (Bde CMDR) said, and give them “an opportunity to succeed.”
A Fort Benning spokesman said, "If they know, as women, they had particular difficulty with something, they might be able to look out and see what these students are having similar difficulty with and let the Ranger instructor know, ‘You need to bear this in mind' or ‘Hey, I think she can handle it."
The female advisers are there because:
“We thought it would be helpful to bring women into the course prior to the arrival of the first women students” to ease “isolation” issues or concerns among female students, LTC David Fivecoat (Bde CMDR) said, and give them “an opportunity to succeed.”
A Fort Benning spokesman said, "If they know, as women, they had particular difficulty with something, they might be able to look out and see what these students are having similar difficulty with and let the Ranger instructor know, ‘You need to bear this in mind' or ‘Hey, I think she can handle it."
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.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
History tends to repeat itself. I am looking at this from a statistical stand point. If I use the decisions that have been made for the past couple of years, to predict how they will handle their problems in the next couple of years.... the result isn't really my opinion. The result is a trend.
I really hope I am wrong. If standards are lowered its not going to effect me at all. I am not going to be the one serving with sub-standard troops. Take notice I used the word "Sub-Standard" and not women. There are women who can do it, I know for a fact there are. There are just a whole bunch who cant. Just like there are a whole bunch of males hat cant.
I used to be friends with a couple rangers, some officers and some enlisted. From what I gathered from them, they have a requirement that you need to "Look like a Ranger". There are people who perform well, but because they do not "Look like a Ranger" they don't get in. Of course, that could just be made up, I never went to the school I don't know. I am really interested o see how this is going to play out.
When you start to see ranges, training, and combat operations ceasing for EO, SHARP, and MRT briefings, you can deduce what direction the Army is going.
If I told you that Hams will continue killing civilians, that wouldn't be my opinion. That would be my predications based on their actions of the past.