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.
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
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."
"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."
SFC Robin Gates
Good point Maj Jeff Jager! That would take some rewriting of the reg's and the MOS Skill Identifier! Direct assignment, support role, ect. If they got the Tab, they should be able to wear it and document it and OMPF. A lot of personnel get tabbed but, never serve in a Batt. Same standard arise's. Now could that effect Rangers readiness if a lot of candidates fail or don't get assigned to Batts. A lot of issues here. other then letting them try to. But higher then my pay grade (retired) and some skull crusher and pencil pusher, higher up will float that boat.
SGT(P) (Join to see)
I had not heard about them not getting the skill identifier, how is that possible? If they graduate the school/course they get the identifier and tab.
MAJ (Join to see)
not according to the ALARACT.
Cpl (Join to see)
Why spend the money for training if those that may graduate aren't included in the reindeer games?
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.
SSgt (Join to see)
I like how the NBA had tried with women in the league and according to Cheryl Miller, "The slowest men race past us like we are standing still." This is not a slam to women but the hard physical reality.
If top flight males cannot hack it, then how can most women?
If top flight males cannot hack it, then how can most women?
CPT (Join to see)
I am not saying that women shouldn't try for Ranger. I would welcome them to the challenge. I fear that the school will change the standards for females. As I posed the statement earlier. If it wasn't about females competing with the male standards they would be there.
SFC (Join to see)
No standard should be changed. If it takes a woman 3 years to make it then so be it. The issue should be the opportunity to try, not the standard being compromised.
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.
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.
CPL (Join to see)
Well the big problem I see for women going to Ranger school, just means that the next step Politicians want, is to integrate women into the combat arms of SOF communities. I for one careless about women going to ranger school, because personally from my point of view the RI's are going to have pressure on them to pass the female candidates. So in the long run there are going to be females who pass Ranger school one way or the other.
Now for somewhere like a Ranger battalion, If women were allowed to try out for the Regiment. I fully believe that having one female in a line platoon will destroy the integrity of how we work.
Now for somewhere like a Ranger battalion, If women were allowed to try out for the Regiment. I fully believe that having one female in a line platoon will destroy the integrity of how we work.
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.
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
SSG V. Michelle Woods
By far one of the shortest, simplest and most brilliant words Ive read on RP. Love it MSgt (Join to see) :)
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.
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.
SSG V. Michelle Woods
With all due respect SFC, what good did it do to let men in the kitchen? Nothing.
And yet...men are still in the dang kitchen.
And yet...men are still in the dang kitchen.
SGT(P) (Join to see)
Most men stay out of the kitchen for fear of burning the place down! This guy stood tall and learned how to cook and bake food, mostly because I wanted to be able to eat and impress the girls lol ;)!
SFC (Join to see)
SSG Woods,
Well I have cooked allot of meals and I have the upper body strength to drag 195 lb. wounded soldier to cover. So what is your point?
I have seen women serve in both Iraq and Afghanistan as terps, PA's, on FET, as intel types and even a gunners on a convoy. I'm not down-grading their service. But you tell me, what benefit does the Army get from sending women to Ranger School? Or putting them into a light infantry unit?
Well I have cooked allot of meals and I have the upper body strength to drag 195 lb. wounded soldier to cover. So what is your point?
I have seen women serve in both Iraq and Afghanistan as terps, PA's, on FET, as intel types and even a gunners on a convoy. I'm not down-grading their service. But you tell me, what benefit does the Army get from sending women to Ranger School? Or putting them into a light infantry unit?
1SG Frank Boynton
Absolutely agree with you SFC Ross. It's the dumbing down of a tradition. They did it in Airborne and they did it when they attempted to train men and women together in basic training. It's all about the politics.
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.
More power to any female who goes period. If you can make the standard and drink rabbit's blood, then you are a Ranger!!!!!
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.
1LT (Join to see)
Maybe, it'll take 100 but how many times did Thomas Edison have to fail before he successfully made a light bulb? Sounds corny but at the end of the day I do think that there will be someone to make it.
CPT (Join to see)
1LT (Join to see) I have to agree with you that it does sound corny. With there only being about 500 ranger qualified NCOs in infantry units in the Reg Army, outside of Ranger Bat and RTB, I don't think it would be worth the 100 lost slots for a soldier that wouldn't even be in an Infantry unit. Now that the wars are over there are going to be sending more infantrymen. I recall that we had a 200 man back log of infantry officers that couldn't get in due to slots.
The question I have is what is the worth of having a Ranger qualified Log Officer. It really won't help them. I would think to go the way of the Marines. Put them into IBOLC or Infantry Basic and then try for Ranger. Not the other way around.
The question I have is what is the worth of having a Ranger qualified Log Officer. It really won't help them. I would think to go the way of the Marines. Put them into IBOLC or Infantry Basic and then try for Ranger. Not the other way around.
SFC (Join to see)
I like the idea to send females to IBOLC first. I think it would greatly increase the success rate. Most females don't/haven't had any type of that training. I feel if I were to go and be successful I would need to pick up manuals and learn these things on my own in whatever way I can (sand tables, drills, writing OPORDS). I would have to put in hours of training on tasks my current duties don't require me to do. After reading the ranger manual, I know a lot of areas I would need to work on!
CPT (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) I like to step back and analyze things for every possible outcome. I wonder if they are using this as a "Sink or Swim" test. If they fail they will just say no women in combat arms.
I would have thought they would have worked them into the initial training settings first like the Marines. Even if they do a two week Pre-Ranger they will still be behind their peers.
I would have thought they would have worked them into the initial training settings first like the Marines. Even if they do a two week Pre-Ranger they will still be behind their peers.
Read This Next