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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
CPT (Join to see)
Sir,
A. Yes, I think everyone is agreeing that the standards should remain the same, but
B. People see the trend of standards being lowered and believe this will happen in Ranger School (BAC comes to mind). The whole "advisers and observers" thing is a perfect example. Why should RTB need female advisers and observers at Ranger school looking over the RI's shoulders? That's a special consideration other "minorities" at Ranger school don't have (my class, for example, had one Chaplain's assistant in it. He did not have an adviser telling the RI's anything on his behalf).
C. Soldiers are not guaranteed equality under the constitution. The Bill of Rights does not apply to us (look at freedom of speech or the 2nd amendment). That's one of the freedoms we relinquish. That's why people can be medboarded out of the Army or barred from service because of a physical condition. It's an inherently unfair and selective organization because we have to be in order to fight our nation's wars. Which takes us back to my first point- standards.
A. Yes, I think everyone is agreeing that the standards should remain the same, but
B. People see the trend of standards being lowered and believe this will happen in Ranger School (BAC comes to mind). The whole "advisers and observers" thing is a perfect example. Why should RTB need female advisers and observers at Ranger school looking over the RI's shoulders? That's a special consideration other "minorities" at Ranger school don't have (my class, for example, had one Chaplain's assistant in it. He did not have an adviser telling the RI's anything on his behalf).
C. Soldiers are not guaranteed equality under the constitution. The Bill of Rights does not apply to us (look at freedom of speech or the 2nd amendment). That's one of the freedoms we relinquish. That's why people can be medboarded out of the Army or barred from service because of a physical condition. It's an inherently unfair and selective organization because we have to be in order to fight our nation's wars. Which takes us back to my first point- standards.
Suspended Profile
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...
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...
CPL (Join to see)
When i went in 2012, I remember in Florida phase during the summer that people were chafing so bad between there groin region that they would deliberately have there tool taped and flapping around in the patrol base to ease off some of the pain. At the time, you just did what you had to do to get the mission done. I agree sir that there are just certain things that happen in ranger school just to get by, that would make females uncomfortable.
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.
CPT (Join to see)
I agree completely with everything you said except your last sentence. Unfortunately it's not that simple, due to the politically charged nature of the situation. In a perfect world, the Army would simply allow women to apply to Ranger school, they would show up for class 4-15 (or whatever), and everything would continue as it already is. But this isn't a perfect world.
Just read a few of the articles on the Army inviting women to Ranger school and if you look closely enough, you'll see what I mean. "Advisers and observers"? What the hell does that mean?
"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,'" Jones said." -Referring to Gary Jones, a spokesman at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Referring to the 12 mile ruck: "The march, by the way, must be completed while carrying an assault rifle and wearing the Army Combat Uniform, boots, fighting load carrier, patrol cap and rucksack weighing at least 35 pounds (excluding water)."
Now they're saying the ruck weighed "at least" 35 lbs dry on the 12-miler. No, it definitely did not. When I went through it was more like 50lbs dry. Are they going to start weighing it now to make sure they meet the publicized weight of 35 lbs? And we wore our ACH's not the PC. Makes a difference. But if a spokesman from Benning is publicizing these standards and they turn out to be more like what I faced, will a woman who fails claim that the standard was unfairly increased? What does "at least" mean- it could be 65 lbs dry?
See what I mean?
Just read a few of the articles on the Army inviting women to Ranger school and if you look closely enough, you'll see what I mean. "Advisers and observers"? What the hell does that mean?
"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,'" Jones said." -Referring to Gary Jones, a spokesman at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Referring to the 12 mile ruck: "The march, by the way, must be completed while carrying an assault rifle and wearing the Army Combat Uniform, boots, fighting load carrier, patrol cap and rucksack weighing at least 35 pounds (excluding water)."
Now they're saying the ruck weighed "at least" 35 lbs dry on the 12-miler. No, it definitely did not. When I went through it was more like 50lbs dry. Are they going to start weighing it now to make sure they meet the publicized weight of 35 lbs? And we wore our ACH's not the PC. Makes a difference. But if a spokesman from Benning is publicizing these standards and they turn out to be more like what I faced, will a woman who fails claim that the standard was unfairly increased? What does "at least" mean- it could be 65 lbs dry?
See what I mean?
Suspended Profile
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....
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....
CW5 Sam R. Baker
In 1989 during Panama there were wounded women that were 88M that were driving trucks, MPs and a huge number of support MOSs out there. Women have served in these times side by side for a century actually and statistics prove it, just not in what some call combat arms. Is not every service there for times of distress and conflict? In any DoD uniform the basics come first before the occupation specialty. I consider myself a SOLDER first, a officer second and a pilot third......just saying!
LTC Paul Labrador
Women in combat and women in combat arms are not necessarily the same thing. Any soldier can be unfortunate enough to be caught in an ambush during a convoy, or come under indirect fire barrage. That is combat, make no mistake. But it is altogether different having women in combat units that are intentionally going to send them into a firefight. There has been a lot of the former, not a whole lot of the latter. One example to look at is the IDF. Isreal is a nation surrounded by enemies and must essentially be a nation under arms. EVERYONE serves, but even they do not have mixed gender combat units. Why? They because they tried it in the past and it did not work.
LTC Paul Labrador
Now my own personal opinion is that only part of the issue is physical ability. Yes, while some women may not be able to physically hack it, some will be able to. This is the easy barrier to overcome. The other part is cultural norms. It is not culturally acceptable for women to express aggression and violence. But if you look at most cultures, this is a also a common theme. Why? Because in a species that reproduces sexually, you don't ensure the survival of the species by putting the sex that actually produces the young in danger. In mammals, males tend to be excess. You really only need a handful of males to carry on the population, but you can't say the same for females. Maybe it's just hardwired in us to keep females protected and out of the fray.
Suspended Profile
LTC Labrador, you brought up some great points outside of the common physical standards comeback...here is my thoughts on those nonphysical standard issues...
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....
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....
Let the women try whatever is available, just do not lower the Standard to help them thru. Same standard for all.
Suspended Profile
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....
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....
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
"Female lieutenants aren’t as prepared as male lieutenants for the Infantry Officer Course’s tests of strength and endurance because they’ve been encouraged to train to lesser standards." This is utter BS. She is blaming her failure on the fact that the women's PT test is set at a lower standard, and she never had the personal motivation to push herself any harder than the minimum expected.
Every female service member should be profoundly disappointed that this is the type of individual getting media attention. If females are to make their way into the infantry field then this sort of mentality has to be squashed.