Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Let Women Go to Ranger School Already
Uncle Jimbo of Blackfive highlighted an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago arguing that women should not be allowed to attend U.S. Army Ranger School. There might well be some very good reasons for not allowing women to attend Ranger School, but this op-ed neglected to make any of them.
I graduated in Class 5-01 (that a 22-year old me, right below the N in RANGER, which stands for "Nowledge"). I then went on to serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
It's only my opinion, and I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I see no compelling reason why women should not be allowed to attend Ranger School. As far as I am concerned, if a woman really wants to run around a sawdust pit at two in the morning screaming "Ranger!" while periodically stopping to low-crawl for 50 meters, we have a constitutional -- nay God-given -- responsibility to allow her to do so.
The only thing about which I feel strongly -- quite strongly, in fact -- is that women and men be held to the same very strict physical standards. The U.S. Army always screws this up, and it's unfair -- to women. Unequal physical standards for men and for women encourage men -- and women themselves -- to think of women as lesser soldiers. It may be true that men, on average, have a significant advantage over women in terms of testosterone and muscle mass. My wife, for example, may be a far superior athlete to me, but, when we play sports together she, being the competitor that she is, is constantly frustrated by my natural advantages in terms of size, strength and speed.
But here's the thing about people, on average: they don't, on average, tend to volunteer for or graduate from Ranger School. Only people who are mentally and physically tough to begin with volunteer for Ranger School, and only the most physically and mentally tough people among those people end up graduating.
I may be older and more injury-prone than I used to be, but I am a lot stronger today than I was when I attended Ranger School. And you better believe there are women who are stronger and physically tougher than me. I know there are women out there who, if given the chance, could attend and graduate from Ranger School.
The U.S. Army will screw this up only if it relaxes the physical standards to lower the bar for admission. The last time I checked, for example, you had to be able to do six strict chin-ups to attend Ranger School. That's pretty easy for a reasonably fit man, but even very physically fit women have trouble doing strict chin-ups. The temptation will be to relax the standard, because only a very select group of women would be able to do six strict chin-ups.
But that, of course, is exactly the point. When I was selected for service in the Ranger Regiment, the Regimental psychologist told me, "Well, the bad news is, you are not normal. The good news is, we're not interested in normal people."
Only a very select group of mental and physical freaks volunteer for and graduate from the toughest military training programs, and that is how it should be. If a female freak of nature can meet the same physical standards that we male freaks of nature can meet, she should be afforded every opportunity to attend the toughest schools and courses. If the U.S. Army -- Happy Birthday, by the way -- relaxes the standards to allow more women to qualify to attend, though, which it has a habit of doing, the Ranger tab will mean a lot less in the future.
Now, "normal" women might prefer to stay home and do normal girly stuff like bake cookies in the kitchen and overhead squat their body weight 15 times consecutively. And hey, if they want to do that instead of attending Ranger School, fine. I don't judge.
But just as surely as we need to be honest about the real physical differences between men and women and how those differences should inform defense policy, we should also be honest about the fact that there is a very small minority of women out there who can kick my ass and yours and ought to be allowed to sua sponte their way to Ranger School.
Before going down this road,
Before going down this road, let's backtrack a bit. What is the purpose of Ranger School? I graduated one month before you and I still don't know what the hell that course was for.
Sent from my iPhone
Is there anywhere in the
Is there anywhere in the entire military right now that DOESN'T relax it's fitness standards for women? The practical choice is almost certainly going to be between lowering the fitness standards and not letting women in at all - what then?
And given the messes that having them cohabitate at all the military colleges creates, shouldn't the military be moving towards less integration instead of more? Given the political realities of our modern military, don't you think allowing women in will create a lot more issues than it "solves"?
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=30379
Well said, Ex. I love those
Well said, Ex.
I love those that argue that there may be only one in 1,000 women who can even qualify. So what? Using that metric, I would posit that out of the 50 women of 50,000 who qualify only five would even want to try. Not because it is physically and mentally too tough for them, some ladies (and many men) just do not want “to run around a sawdust pit at two in the morning screaming "Ranger!" while periodically stopping to low-crawl for 50 meters.”
But if she does, why should anyone prevent her from trying only because of her gender.
Stephen Kilcullen certainly continues to hold high the torch for misogynism.
Good stuff Ex. On a more
Good stuff Ex. On a more important note, can we all agree that CrossFit kipping pull ups ≠ dead hang pull ups?
I thought Ranger School was
I thought Ranger School was for learning how to hallucinate in a swamp.
Exum, What do you get when
Exum,
What do you get when you put women and men on a aircraft carrier and send it to sea for months?
Answer: An aircraft carrier full of seamen.
Not sure why the Army should operate any different. Getting pregnant is a new age way of getting out. Always suspected this blog was about gathering arguments to strengthen a view by countering the opposing discussion. First you have to know the opposing discussion to find work around arguments, it is all practice for the policy. CNAS calls itself bipartisan but for a group of people that took time off to promote one view, I find that bipartisanship hard to believe.
Women in the Rangers? Heck I have known some biker chicks that could take your arms out of your sockets while pulling an all night train. Not really sure what came first. Exum, you know as well as anyone else that this is a slippery slope, once the door is open the court system will keep opening it wider. The court system is not responsible for determining the fighting force capabilities of the Rangers, but they will interpret your argument. Your physical standards of the Rangers that you hold dear will suffer. That is why prayer and discipline is out of public schools and drugs are in. As diversity has entered the University system since the 60's, the quality of an education has been reduced while the cost increased beyond affordability. You can not deny the causal relationship, you cannot impact one standard while not changing another.
How do you push an energy policy and counter global warming? You promote policy that increases the cost of fossil fuel and coal. The administration tightens soot emission levels. Is energy policy linked to how fast America recovered from our financial mess? (yes, a penny of fuel is a billion in purchase power). Fiscal growth is Europe's only solution (they can have public spending, it will increase the pain without growth). How do you push rights of women while promoting democracy in the Middle East? You create a policy that Saul Alinsky would be proud of by asking the people of the Middle East to question authority. Are the people of the Middle East better off today then they were three years ago? How many people has Hillary Clinton's meddling killed by pushing for a fast solution to an age old issue. Clinton is not going to change Islam but she does have to take the responsibility for amplifying the ground conditions in the Middle East . I am taking a broad view because the mention policies have linkage to your question of should women be in the Rangers, they are coming from the same source.
The military recruits from an age group of the young. When we hear of solders pissing on the enemy we also hear about how the military takes young people trains them to kill and puts them in an environment to stress the hell out of them. The solders come back with problems. What does the US military do? The US adds staff to the VA hospitals to layer in a fix. Personally, I think it best to have not gone to war unless it was absolutely necessary yet the drum beats can be heard of more humanitarian wars and US based operations in Africa. We have transformed the meaning of national security interests. America moved its boarders into airports in foreign countries.
The US is promoting the homosexual agenda, that has changed our military. It will continue to change the military and cause layering of solutions that the US will have to throw money at (like training for sexual related issues, how do we bunk them, what kind of bathrooms and showering arrangements will they need.). Don't ask don't tell never keep anyone from serving their country. If you want native population growth in America, you might want to consider simple biology. The court system is not responsible for maintaining the future of America. Is the National Defense budget (that includes CIA, TSA, HLS, DOD, etc) getting anymore sustainable with these layered bureaucratic solutions?
I am not promoting a conservative agenda although that is what it sounds like.
What I am really talking about is what is best for America's future? With Freedom comes responsibility. We are so interested in personal freedoms we are risking our national interests.
Everything that we are doing is creating social unrest at a time when the best course is stability. If America truly has a national defense issue that impacts domestic soil, women will have a chance and always had a chance to protect their country including dieing for it and getting raped.
What's new?
I graduated Ranger School
I graduated Ranger School class 11-01. and spent 10 years in 1/75 RGR Bn. If I thought the Army would allow women to attend Ranger School without adjusting the standards or the course in general, I would not have a problem. This would never happen though. after the first several women failed, got injured, or quit, there would be investigations and adjustments, and the course would be changed. I have never argued that a woman could not meet the physical fitness requirements for the course. I know that there are women who are faster than I am, can do more pull-ups, push ups etc.... the problem is that Ranger School subjects trainees some pretty unhygenic environments for weeks at a time. Everyone gets skin infections, prickly heat, cellutlitis, bursitis, atheletes foot and every other nasty rash you can think of. You get rained on, wadde through swamps and walk. In Swamp phase, you are soaking wet the entire phase and live out of what is on your back. There are mandatory foot inspections every day to watch for injuries and infections. Without getting graphic, let's stop to imagine what will happen when we drop a female in waist deep water for a week. The Army's answer will be to change the structure/length of field problems...I'm sure I misspelled half of this...there's no spelling phase in Ranger School.
My brother went to West Point
My brother went to West Point when women were just starting to be admitted. I was a frequent visitor.
There was one woman cadet that was frequently pointed out to me by the other cadets, With some awe in their voices, they'd tell me that she had passed all the original standards for physical fitness, not the reduced standards for women.
I've long thought the reduced standards in all cases are insulting to women.
The problem with the idea of
The problem with the idea of letting women go to Ranger School without relaxing the physical standards is that it won't happen. There is no doubt in my (formerly) military mind that once we start sending women to Ranger School and almost none of them succeed, there will not be significant, and ultimately successful, pressure to lower the physical standards. When VMI was forced to admit women, they tried very hard not to lower standards, but they have been under tremendous pressure not to use the same PT test for both men and women because few of the women can pass the male PT test. Overall, there is a strong perception that even at VMI, the Rat Line (the freshman system) has been significantly eased due to the presence of women. The Trade School is a shadow of its former, pre-women, self when it comes to the freshman system.
No. Letting women into
No.
Letting women into military positions other than administrative was a mistake in the first place.
Combat roles? No.
We're trying to run an effective military, not get little gold stars and extra points for political correctness.
Did I mention this: No.
I'm not in the military, but
I'm not in the military, but I am female and, well, what are you implying would happen to me if I were waste-deep in water for a week? My menstrual would attract water critters? I'm NOT calling you sexist or misogynistic or anything of that sort, but I'm *genuinely* scratching my head about what would happen, or what would be "graphic" about whatever it is you're imagining
For what it's worth, I've seen Discovery Channel's excellent documentaries "Two Weeks in Hell" and "Making The Cut", both of which captured the stunningly rigorous process of becoming a Ranger (former) or a Marine specialist (latter). Viewing both made me proud to be an American to know what kind of standards the people who protect my freedom are held to!
To clarify, I was posing the
To clarify, I was posing the above question to "Comment by Visitor at 10:27am -
I graduated Ranger School"
Now you know as well as I do
Now you know as well as I do that the first thing to go will be the physical standards as they did when they integrated women into basic training. Does anyone credible person doubt that? Unless you have been on a different planet than I have, women can't cut it physically or emotionally in combat. I was in during the Vietnam War and I don't need some study sanctioned by a feminist to tell me that the most basic aspect of common sense screams that they can't cut it. You want to send girls to do something that is rigirous for most men. Who do you think they will square off against when they go into combat---Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm? The Emperor has no clothes.
"Let women go to Ranger
"Let women go to Ranger School already"
Ok, then we send them on exceptionally dangerous missions with the Rangers?
Oh wait, we still can't send them into combat... so we fill up a training slot with someone who will never see combat so you can feel better while not improving our combat effectiveness.
Thank goodness this isn't the military or degrading our combat effectiveness for political idiocy might be harmful... oh wait, it is.
I myself vote for no change
I myself vote for no change in standards. If select woman can make the standard without dilution it would be OK, however, it seems improbable that dilution would not occur. If that happens we end up with Rangers that are 10 or 20% less hardened than before. I just read some things about Tour de France racers and doping could make a 5% difference. However, just a few percent is the range from first to average. So instead of having the Best of the Best, we have the Best of the Pretty Good which might not be sufficient to accomplish the mission.
I have worries about Group Dynamics with the presence of sex partners in the squad. It is clearly a different group and there is jealousy as well as pregnancy. Isn't that a distraction.
Women are different than men, would it be good to have a separate 'Amazon' school vs 'Ranger' that works on different standards. Afterwards, they could be in separate all-women platoons the perform where they are best at.
This is from someone that thinks women could be the best fighter pilots, best drone operators, best long distance runners, and a lot of positions. In football, they could be great receivers and tight ends but I doubt we will ever see lineswomen in the NFL.
Is there anyone here who
Is there anyone here who actually believes that this would be implemented without significantly reducing physical standards? Has it ever happened before in the military?
Nope. So how about arguing from that almost certain reality, and not the pie in the sky hypothetical that lets you look good around your Re[Pro]gressive buddies.
The less than one percent of women who can hack it physically will not be the ones the course is re-normed for.
Whenever someone promotes an
Whenever someone promotes an idea that is so absurd on its face you have to ask yourself what is the motivation for this nonsense. Usually it is accompanied by someone who claims to know all about the subject and approves of it. This is no exception. During Vietnam you had vets who supported the war and others who did not. All claimed to have the inside scoop on the truth.
Career females, especially the officer ranks, know to fast track you need combat experience. So they end up trying to change the system because the change benefits them. Usually there is NO consideration what the change will do to the Service or the Country. It is MY career that is important. Combined with the radical extremism of feminism then you have all that is necessary to promote a really stupid and dangerous idea. I really feel for the guys in the Service today. They have to deal with the challenges of fighting wars and the politics of feminism. Eventually the women will do to the military what they have done to the culture as a whole---feminise it.
Unless you plan to send your
Unless you plan to send your women into the swamp with diflucan pills and antibiotics, I can definitely attest that many would have a problem in swamp water for a week. Women have a ph balance and flora in their lady parts that dirty water upsets which = a yeast infection. They also have much shorter urethas than their male counterparts which when exposed to bacterial conditions = urinary tract infections. People need to study up on their physiology. If women could be sent in with a pill packet to handle these conditions as best as they can, then I think that would be a reasonable accommodation that doesn't impede with either mental or physical strength requirements. Every other requirement should be the same, no exceptions. Military cohesion only makes sense.
I went through the five week
I went through the five week Navy SCUBA school in 88. One of my class was a Naval Academy cheerleader of about 115 lbs. She carried the same twin steal tanks, did all the same training and passed the same physical fitness test I did to include dead hang pull ups which is often the killer for women. I had no issue with her at all. I also got to watch a what appeared to be overweight out of shape female chief do more flutter kicks on the edge of the pool wearing steal tow boots than the guys from the USNA swim team could do in bare feet.
Don't lower standards. There are women that belong.
Only those who are
Only those who are illiterate, ignorant and stupid mindless lawless fascists fail to oppose women in combat. To say it is "constitutional" and "god-given" is laughable lunacy knowing absolutely nothing about the Constitution of our Founders or the God of the Bible of those same Founders. It's merely the same tired old lawless fascism of stupid moderns who couldn't pass the college ENTRANCE exams of the 1700s and think their useful idiot babbling is worthy of attention merely because they're born in a later time, typical lawless fascism that destroyed Nazi Germany and the USSR as it's also destroyig the West in our egotistical godless age fast slide back into the barbarism whence Christian civilization retrieved it. If it weren't so sick it would be hilarious to hear fools babble on their self-refuting asininity of how they're absolutely sure there are no absolutes.
Mr Navy Scuba---have you even
Mr Navy Scuba---have you even been in combat? Being a grunt has NOTHING to do with 'flutter kicks', sweetheart. Until you have had your 'a__ in the grass' don't presuppose that you know how well women will deal with combat.
I graduated from Ranger in
I graduated from Ranger in '97 and the experience is defiantly not from mixed sexes. Not to be too graphic, but “it is what it is”. Imagine having to “take a dump” in front of 30 other Ranger students. Yes, this happens at Ranger School in the field environment and no one thinks anything of it because you live like an animal. Can women be Rangers? I’m sure there are some out there that can do, but the standards should not be changed and the “sexual harassment” feelings should be null and void before one starts.
Perplexed, I have been shot
Perplexed, I have been shot at, and have shot at people but not what you would call combat but that is irrelevant. Women are in combat all over the world. We have had women in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan who have done quite well by themselves. If they can make it, they can serve. I would put up a bunch of female Israeli soldiers against a bunch of straight infantry knuckleheads.
Female Visitor, I'm not the
Female Visitor, I'm not the original poster of the comment you replied to but I think I can tell what he meant: infections. As somebody who's been in swamps in the Everglades, lemme tell ya - the gunk gets everywhere, even with clothes on. (I'm assuming Ranger school doesn't provide its applicants with state-of-the-art protective undergarments or galoshes to wade through those swamps.) The original poster mentioned folks getting every type of rash you can imagine and plenty of foot infections - and your feet are fairly waterproof! (No sebaceous glands, etc.) I can just imagine what would happen if women were stuck in a humid, damp, swampy environment for an extended period of time. Ask any OB/GYN what he/she would think about putting most women through those conditions and I think you'll get an interesting reply or two.
Facts are facts - internal female ecology (yes, there's a whole ecosystem down there of organisms, including bacteria) is susceptible to some truly horrifying things. (If you're interested just check Google... or if you'd rather save your appetite for the rest of the day, speak with a medical professional.)
Am I saying all women who went through the course would suffer the problems I mentioned above? No, but the risk would be pretty darn high. (Just think of all the infections women get down there in normal circumstances!)
There is ZERO chance that the
There is ZERO chance that the Army will not lower the standards to let women become Rangers. If they open the school to women and none make it (or vanishingly few), they'll be in political trouble. So they'll guarantee that enough women make it to look good. The only good thing about that is that I'm not an Army Ranger and therefore will not _personally_ be put in jeopardy by political correctness when fellow soldiers find they are unable to help me because they are not up to the task physically. But it sucks for the Rangers, the Army, and for America. Not that I think the Democrats/feminists give a flying crap about that.
I would tend to agree with
I would tend to agree with the point that it should be ok if the women are held to the same standard. But for as politically correct as the Army is now (I'm surprised we don't have Political Officers officially), the Army will dumb down the standard, or will 'cheat' to ensure that some female passes.
There's the issue of cost for making accomodations for females in all male billeting - but I'd like to hear what the command response is going to be to the pregnancies? (and there will be, just look at what happens in a MIBN that has a LRS company assigned - particularly with the female LTs).
But really, maybe more important than any of that is that this is for some woman who only seeks promotion, this isn't about being a ranger, or serving in combat arms (remember that Army value Loyalty? loyalty to unit? Loyalty to corps? ). It's a check-the-block for promotion. Why is it that we're trying to accommodate an attitude that is universally held in all services and branches as repugnant?
I think Ranger School can
I think Ranger School can serve as the perfect wind dummy by proxy for all of SOF in the "will they? won't they?" debate over allowing women in SOF. There are basically three ways that this can go and no matter what it would end up being helpful for the discussion.
First, they could go your route and maintain the training standards as they currently exist. This would show everyone two very important statistics. 1. How few women actually want to participate in this kind of training. 2. How few of those through massive attrition either at the pre-qualification (chin ups) or during the training itself would actually complete it.
Second is the "let's tailor the qualification and training to the capabilities of women" approach. While this course of action would have catastrophic effects on the entire Ranger program going forward, it would nevertheless serve as a warning to other SOF courses that a) if you allow this in your program it will also suffer grievously and b) there is at least the chance that this diminution in quality would create a public backlash that could help to protect other SOF units from this disaster.
Third is the combination where they start out with option 1, find out that few women are interested and fewer still graduate and then graduate to option 2 of destroying the curriculum to save face. If option 1 is even attempted, then you can be sure that option 2 is not far off.
Uncle Jimbo can make jokes that Demi Moore already went to BUD/S (SEAL Training) in the movies, but this threat to SOF quality is all too real. As a SEAL, I fully support the Rangers jumping on this grenade since it really is the only hope for the SEAL Teams to avoid this fate.
P.S. This has been tried before in a way. Back in the 90's during the DEA Snowcap program where DEA agents were forward deployed to Columbia, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Venezuela to assist local security forces in counter narcotics interdiction at the source. I had the misfortune to work with some of these trainwreck DEA agents at the time, and let me just tell you that wearing a yellow lifejacket on a jungle patrol is not very tactical. Just sayin'. Anyway, how did these guys "qualify" for jungle ops that included assaulting cocaine labs? That's right, they went to "Ranger School". But they really didn't go to Ranger School, they went to DEA Ranger School which is exactly like Ranger School except only DEA guys went and it was kind of set up like a gentleman's course. Three square meals a day and all the classes under the shade structure that you could take. They started out trying to send some of their studs to the real Ranger School, but they didn't make it so they made their own! Sound familiar?
I have a son who is
I have a son who is currently in the second (Mountain) phase of Ranger school, as I type this. We discussed this very issue when he had an 8 hour pass between first and second phase and he (as well as the other candidates, and instructors that talked about it) are dumbfounded that they will potentially allow women in Ranger School. Even if they do not lower the standards (which they will) there are a very limited number of slots to get into Ranger School (approximately 4000 per year) and allowing women to attend will only limit the number of slots available to soldiers from front line (combat) units which will limit the effectiveness of those units. This is nothing but PC to the nth degree, padded by female soldiers who will primarily be doing this to obtain promotion points!!! BAD IDEA!!!!
Rarely discussed fact to
Rarely discussed fact to follow:
I worked as RTB for almost three years, and there is a piece to this argument that everyone is ignoring and it saddens me greatly. Namely, that RTB has been ignoring standards for years...
...for its own people.
The sad fact is that, while I was there, a good number of guys graduated the course because of one factor and one factor only: that they were, themselves, RTB personnel. They would not have received their "Go's" on patrols or, in some cases, would have been dropped based on honor violations had they been from any other unit. But because they were on home turf, so to speak, they received preferential treatment.
This also happened with "friends" of Ranger Instructors who held positions of authority. If 1SG so-and-so had a buddy at 75th, and that buddy called up the 1SG and said "hey bro, this kid needs to get through," RI's were "encouraged" to make sure the Stud in question passed his patrols.
Peers? Forget it. I've seen guys get so many negative peers that he should have been kicked out of the Army -- much less not graduate the school. Yet, they passed because of where they were from/who they knew, etc.
Instructors? I knew well over ten instructors who could not pass Ranger Standards. At all. If being a Ranger really is a way of life, as it is portrayed, then why were the rules ignored for the ones who should be the best example?
My point is this: this whole idea of "standards" is fantastic....if they are upheld in all cases, all the time. What I find ultimately fascinating is that some of the guys who scream the loudest about women being allowed are those same someones who graduated only because of standards being ignored for their case. I had to listen to recycled Rangers, rightly furious, complaining about "how in the hell can Ranger _________ possibly graduate???" when I knew full well the answer. Because the standards were ignored in his case, that's why.
The first comment on this post has a very legitimate point: What is this course for? And, that being said, why are we so up in arms about a change to a school that lost a great deal of its prestige long before I got there...
"I have been shot at'---being
"I have been shot at'---being in a combat zone is not the same as being in a combat infantry unit. If you don't know the difference then I won't waste the time to explain it to you. In Vietnam some nurses and 'donut dollys' were killed because they were in a combat zone but not because they were manuvering with a rifle platoon. Please, the Israeli female soldier has been debunked too many times. Females in the Israeli army are EXCLUDED from manuvering infantry units. They are located at the Regiment HQ level.
Funny that some of the
Funny that some of the commenters who oppose letting women undertake Ranger training fear those women getting yeast infections from swamp water. Last time I perused the headlines, the American military was engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Djibouti, and other desert places where fording a swamp would seem more like a recreational activity than a combat necessity.
And in those same countries, the arid Muslim world, local women are both victims of oppression and participants in the conflicts in which the US is engaged.
Doesn't it makes sense for the Army to stand up a group of the most rigorously trained and professional women soldiers whose skills, insights, and judgment would surely have a positive bearing on these conflicts?
Preston---Hey, good idea.
Preston---Hey, good idea. When we are fighting in arid climates we can use the Women Rangers. When we fight in jungle then we can exclude them. Makes about as much sense as allowing women to be Rangers
I graduated from class 02-08.
I graduated from class 02-08. I learned useful things, but by and large Ranger school was just a lot of frat hazing. I remember the President being referred to by an instructor as "that communist Hussein Osama" (he was still a candidate at the time). The same RI told us that, once we earned our tabs, we needed "to shoot motherf****s in the face, and find all these faggots they've been letting into the Army and kick them out." I remember one might in Darby where I was holding my rucksack over my head and chanting, "The tab doesn't make the man -- the man makes the tab!" over and over again (for some reason).
And then, in Mountains, an RI explained to us why Ranger school was important: "Ranger school is the last thing the male gender has to prove that we are genetically related to the men who used to club bitches in the head and drag them back to caves." That should be indicative of why people start posting about it with so much vehemence: if we don't treat it like it was this sacred warrior vision quest, we wind up forced to acknowledge that all we did was play herp derp Cowboys and Indians with really heavy backpacks and no food or sleep.
My take on Ranger school, however, has little to do with me, and a lot to do with Ranger cadre.
One of my former NCO's received a formal EO complaint for having screamed racial slurs while see-the-future drunk at a battalion ball. Knowing that his career was in the toilet, he had but one choice: go to Ranger school. So, he did: Darby, Darby, Mountains, Mountains, Darby, Mountains, Florida, Florida. It took him eight months to pass. When he finally did, he almost immediately came up on orders to:
...You guessed it: the Ranger Training Brigade. In his final weeks at the unit, we had to get staff duty to pick him up at the PX because he had shown up drunk and started calling the cashier ladies "tabless bitches." He also barely dodged another EO complaint from a female lieutenant he was harassing. He now decides whether or not students have earned a "go" or not. He's a leader among leaders.
Ranger school may be a gut check, but by and large it's fared just as poorly as the rest of the Army in this past decade. I agree with everything you've said, Ex, but honestly I don't see the leadership doing this very well. When they invariably ruin it, I imagine some people will be upset, but I don't think it's worthy of tears. It's already in pretty bad shape. Unless they've /really/ rooted out the systemic problems that I saw in 2007-08.
Lower or Just Different
Lower or Just Different Standards? Female soldiers (or Ranger candidates, in that event) should not be held to a lower standard of physical fitness than their male counterparts. But that's not to say that they can't be held to a different standard.
Consider: why do soldiers have to perform a certain number of chin-ups, push-ups, and sit-ups as part of their physical fitness test? Theoretically, one might have to do any of those alone or in combination at one point or another in a combat situation. But would you ever have to do, say, 10 push-ups in a fire fight? Would it matter if you were resting on your knees while doing them?
Obviously, these are not tests of combat skills or abilities. They are basic exercises with no relevance to combat as such, but that are used as markers for general physical fitness (which is relevant to combat). And they are standards derived from a combination of tradition and science around what constitutes a physically fit *man.* I see no obvious reason that a woman who can't do 6 pull-ups can't be a Ranger, unless pull-ups feature in combat a lot more than Hollywood has led me to believe.
Consider this from the other direction: imagine if military fitness tests were designed such that women had an advantage over men. Women are more flexible, have a higher pain threshold, and are supposedly better at long distance running (http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ycn-10625005), precision and risk assessment, all skills and abilities that would seem to have real combat relevance. If you had to be able to do a full side split to be a Ranger, I think you'd see a drastic reduction in the number of men making it in.
The real question in my mind is, what physical skills and abilities do you actually need to be a top notch soldier, or Ranger in this particular case? This answer should come from an analysis of what a soldier/Ranger would need to do in combat, and not so much the traditional hallmarks of male upper body strength.
@ Ben Ryan, You're a lawyer,
@ Ben Ryan,
You're a lawyer, aren't you? Actually what you propound is exactly the Military's policy on physical fitness standards for decades. And it's complete nonsense. But it allows women's careers to advance, and it's not like we're in the business of winning wars in any case. However for your posterity - our physical fitness test and regimes, training have been developed over centuries in the case of the United States Military and millennia of Human experience of War. For instance a side split has no real applicable use in combat, upper body strength does. But like I said, fuck it.
=-==============================
Now for laughs only if they can pass the same standards fine. If not I propose that males be held to the 36-44 female standards as a quid pro quo.
Lighten up guys. It's not like we're winners in any case. We checked our balls with agreeing to ROE.
Hell let the Girls have a shot at combat arms, even Combat Arms Generals. Our career feminists are so hateful and ambitious we just might have hit upon a winner with them... they're so eager to prove themselves and full of venom at mankind they may just go and get us a victory. Or at least the crushing defeat we need to wake up.
Q: Why can't women attend
Q: Why can't women attend Ranger School?
A: That's a clown question, bro.
Wow. Nathan Bradley, you
Wow. Nathan Bradley, you nailed it. Combine that with "Visitor's" post two above yours about the RTB, and I find it difficult to argue for keeping status quo for a broke system... Disclaimer: I wanted to go to Ranger School, but didn't get the opportunity - there were no slots available for aviators when I graduated flight school in September. I regretted it for years, but after 27 years wearing the uniform, I no longer do. I have met my fair share of tab-wearers that were awesome soldiers and leaders, and never flaunted the tab. I have also seen my fair share of those that shoved the tab in your face, and that they thought they were better just because of it... When in reality they were just little pricks with a "small-man" complex. Anyway, a man I admire once told me: It doesn't matter where you go to school; It matters what you do with it.
I would be fine with women
I would be fine with women attending Ranger School if they meet the same physical standards as everyone else, but I can see that has been stated several times.
As for the comments regarding what does and does not constitute skills you would use in combat: RAP week test that. 5 miles in 40 minutes or less, 16.2 road march from Darby to Rodgers (or vice versa, I can't really remember), Ranger stakes, etc..
If women get yeast infections or urinary tract infections, so be it, its the price of choosing to go to ranger school.
Ex has it right, but let me
Ex has it right, but let me add to this...
First of all, Ranger School is a leadership school. I graduated in 1987 (rumor has it that it was the last hard class; however, I am certain that if I were to go today, it would be MUCH harder:).
Leadership must be taught/developed in our basic NCO and Officer courses (NCOES & OES) for men and women alike. Take the PROVEN Ranger School [leadership training] model and implement it as part of leader development at every level of junior leadership training. Keep Ranger School as training for the 'Brave and the Bold' to ensure that the school maintains it rightful place as an 'elite' Army course open to ANYONE that can meet the SAME physical entry standards/requirements.
I am always struck by the attitude that Ranger School is viewed as the culmination of Infantry training for our young Infantry Officers. The problem with this is that MANY of our young Officers never make it past the Ranger APFT, thus a HUGE part of their education is not completed. An additional eight weeks added to IOBC would better develop our young Infantry Lieutenants - I am certain of this as I see the newly minted Infantry Officers (with and without Tabs) arriving to our formations.
Lastly, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that women 'fighting' in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters is indicative of their [physical] ability to lead across the full spectrum of conflict. Operating out of FOBs, mounted in an MRAP/MATV is NOT the same as doing so forward of friendly forces, DISMOUNTED on patrol (a la Ranger School) for days/weeks on end with all combat gear.
Been to Ranger school didn't
Been to Ranger school didn't make it, not from physical or mental ability, but because of injury. However, after four deployments I have been through harder events then anything Ranger school could have thrown at me. Ranger school helps Soldiers experience the extremes prior to having to go through it for real to show them that they can go on and they can operate under extreme conditions.
Women are already in combat. In non- contiguous environments everyone is; even the contracted civilians. To say women are not on the front lines is a joke. Female MPs have been working with SF in Afghanistan since the beginning. I took females on missions in Iraq every opportunity I could because they could search and talk to women better than I could. I female in particular was a SAW gunner and carried her weapon and assault pack on numerous dismounted patrols trough palm groves, cities and open dessert during high heat without fail. She is not the exception, she is the example.
Don't lower the standard, just give them a fair chance. The same fair chance that every other Ranger tudent is given, which is not very fair. Luck, chance, desire, mettal, and consistently meeting or exceeding the standards are the parameters that make Ranger school "fair".
Give them the opportunity and they too can leave the school with the same reasons other drop outs give: I got screwed, the tab protectors just didn't want me to make it, bad luck, I went through the hardest class, I could hack it, they changed the standards, I got hurt, my squad peered me out, et al. There just will be a new one, it was because I was I was a women. 1 in 5000 might be able to complete it, but 75% drop rate will only mean 1 in 20000 will actual earn a tab. Dare I even mention a female only class.
I remember when there were no women in the old guard and as airborne school. What is another barrier over come?
Go Army, keep leading the country in progressing women's equal opportunities.
what happened to being elite
what happened to being elite and seperate from the other guys. this is bullshit. women have no place on the battlefield on ly in the kitchen. if the army goes through with this im going to get myself a discharge and join the legion where there is still some honor and eliteness left. why not open sf while you're at it even better why not let them join delta the guy thats pushing for this is ray odierno who isnt even ranger q'ed
Graduated Ranger School Class
Graduated Ranger School Class 4-92. Started with 3-92 before spending a little winter vacation time in the Gulag in the mountains. Ahh fond memories. Zero week, Darby, Desert, Mountains, Mountains and Florida. As anyone who has gone to Ranger School knows, it's a meat grinder and gut check. It becomes a litmus test for those things and situations that are suckish..."this sucks pretty bad but at least it's not Ranger School bad". Probably the one thing that a solider can take away from Ranger School is that regardless of how utterly miserable you are, how crappy the weather, how bad you or others are hurting, you learn that just about anything is possible given enough "intestinal fortitude" and sheer force of will....assuming you're not a soup sandwich and you're technically and tactically competent. Starving to death all the time, no sleep, brutal rucksack wieght, constant stress hoping you don't discover that you're now the new PL at 0200 hrs in the middle of a swamp leading a lost patrol, hallucinating, etc.. You all know the experiences. "Motivating" tired and hungry men who are near collapse and jeopardizing your or another Rangers patrol evaluation often requires more than a rainy midnight pep talk or pat on the back...think a smack to the face, kick in the ribs, punch to the head, etc. All part of Ranger School and encouraged by your nearest friendly RI. The torture starts the second you arrive and doesn't stop until you're out or get your tab.
Lot of arguments about whether female soldiers can pass the initial physical standards. Personally the first week of assessment is pretty suckish and a lot of soldiers are washed out at that point (PT, night land nav, forced 5 mile run, worm pit in the winter (oh the horror), etc. I'm sure there are female soldiers that can perform equally well on these assessment type tasks. It's the rest of Ranger School that's the gut check. Performing to standard and completing missions with men physically and mentally wiped out, spooning with your Ranger buddy "nuts to butts" to keep from going hypothermic, dropping a deuce inside the perimeter within feet of your patrol members and not thinking twice about it, injuries, wrecked feet and hands, back, knees, and ankles taking a beating continuously moving from mission to mission without fail.
If female soldiers can perform at the same level and to the same standards required to complete Ranger School as those male soldiers that have come before them, "hey have at it". Being able to pass the requisite X number of push-ups, pull-ups, etc. is the easy part, great you've made it in....and now Ranger School begins. If Big Army dumbs down the training for female soldiers or any soldier for that matter, it risks losing what Ranger School is about. Providing the opportunity for a solider to succeed and lead others in brutal conditions, under severe stress, over an extended period of time without excuses for failures, time outs for hurt feelings or boo boo's, or any other parameter outside of completing whatever mission you've been given and then learning from it.
The standards and treatment
The standards and treatment of Ranger students are the same regardless of rank, age, race, religion, even nationality in regards to foreign military candidates. As another poster indicated, there may be some favoritism for so-in-so who is the son of a Colonel somewhere or a "batt boy" handpicked by some SGM. I don't doubt that exists on occasion. Sure it occasionally happens in every branch of service in every "school". It's just human nature. I've seen some really outstanding RI's and some real douchebags in the RTB too. Have personally seen at least one student pass through a phase after stepping all over himself but because this aviator was the son of someone and got though the phase. Unfair but the Army is small enough that word travels and respect is hard earned. Seen plenty of "tough guys" break down and others LOM in the middle some pretty miserable conditions. Plenty of nasty injuries (some accidental and others self-inflicted as a means to try and get out of Ranger School by a semi-honorable means...ie without LOMing) and unfortunately even death at Ranger School. Also seen guys with broken bodies sucking it up and popping Motrin to get them through at all costs to earn their tab. If woman want a shot at earning a Ranger Tab and can perform the brutal dance that is Ranger School, then feel free to saddle up and give it a shot.
Unfortunately I have to agree with many of the posters here that the normal attrition process that happens at Ranger School will be circumvented by outside forces and politics. If the standards and schedule of training stays the same, the people watching and waiting with baited breath to see their female ranger students pass with flying colors thus proving some point in their heads, will instead see washouts, LOM's, injuries, patrol failures, peer evaluation failures, and every other conceivable thing that happens to prevent you from earning your tab. It happens every class and is what is expected in an attempt to weed out the "weak and feint of heart" from the ranks of those who earn the coveted Ranger Tab. Standards will be changed, schedules modified to reduce time in field, packing lists altered to reduce weigh and equipment, hand picked RI's to grade female students to a less strenuous standard are all foreseeable outcomes to this echelons above reality decision. It's a shame. I've seen a few, very few, hard charging, copenhagen dipping, tough women who might be able to at least be on equal footing at a chance to make it though Ranger School. At about a 50% wash out rate, even "super stud" men have a hard time at it. Something ends up being their downfall (sleep, food, stupidity, motivation, injury, whatever). If a female solider was given the opportunity to attend and perform at the exact same standards and level of expectation as the men around her....and she graduated, congratulations to her and those that follow in her path, men as well as woman. If the standards are changed or modified, shame on those that ruined what was once considered a right of passage for many warriors to test their metal against and the gold standard for testing one's leadership abilities under extreme hardship both physically and mentally by making them a more hardened leader more capable of leading soldiers in combat regardless of the difficulties of their given task. Is the Army wise enough to keep this training one of the few places left that actually rewards "winners" or will it become just like everything else in today's society by giving everyone a "trophy" for participation. Unfortunately the Army does not have a good track record of being wise.
:(
"The U.S. Army always screws
"The U.S. Army always screws this up, and it's unfair -- to women. Unequal physical standards for men and for women encourage men -- and women themselves -- to think of women as lesser soldiers. "
Hahaha One place where men can still claim superiority, though as it stands now, the strongest "woman" can be better than men, is also unfair on women because of cruel stereotypes.
Poor women athletes face the same unfairness, while earning millions. Too bad, so sad.
"My wife, for example, may be a far superior athlete to me, but, when we play sports together she, being the competitor that she is, is constantly frustrated by my natural advantages in terms of size, strength and speed. "
and you don't see the idiocy of her being an athlete?
"better believe there are women who are stronger and physically tougher than me."
yup, modernity with its gyms, steroids, diet has thrown up such dilemmas.
"female freak of nature can meet the same physical standards that we male freaks of nature can meet"
Men being hypermasculine is not the same as women being hypermasculine.
"we should also be honest about the fact that there is a very small minority of women out there who can kick my ass "
We should be honest about how these women came to be, and that they are overwhelmingly not freaks of nature but nurture.
Why would men like to turn them into one, or see them turn themselves into one, is the question. Much like that of female athletes.
Better way to cure it is by making women-only teams, instead of they getting to piggyback on other men so that the freaks don't have to arise in the first place and then don't get a chance to validate their freakishness.
It is fascinating that men would go along with the mantra that a woman should be able enter whatever field she likes if she wants, what about the wants of the men who represent the field themselves? After all the rangers is not some entity thought up by aliens in space. Come on, feminism has not only made you non-sexist, but also given you the chance to voice your emotions. Granted, they don't like it if your emotions stand against feminism itself, but why play along and see your institutions being brought down instead of the other way round?
"My menstrual would attract water critters? I'm NOT calling you sexist or misogynistic or anything of that sort,"
LOL and you better be afraid of the labels! Especially when they are alongside you in the battlefield.
"Imagine having to “take a dump” in front of 30 other Ranger students. Yes, this happens at Ranger School in the field environment "
And? The rangers environment will improve if women join and bring along their better sensibilities!
"imagine if military fitness tests were designed such that women had an advantage over men. "
Then men will have to face the same standards without question, and the male inferiority will be laughed at every opportunity. Not to mention that the article that you gave had some grave flaws.
I am a female NCO and I read
I am a female NCO and I read all the articles about females wanting to go to ranger school,infantry and any "all boys" schools. I see both sides, but mostly side with the males! My reason being is they are ELITE schools. meaning they should be way above the standard of regular army. So since it is an ELITE school that means it should only have one standard. The minute they change that standard, the tan beret and tab won't mean as much pride to the men anymore. As a female, I guess I can see where you are coming from where you want to be equal. but would you really feel good knowing that they are just passing you through because they need a quota for female graduates. I mean lets be honest, men are way stronger then us and will always be unless you are a body buldier. Could you really carry a 180lbs man with all his gear on to safety on the battle field? I mean I am sure there are female out there that could do that, but don't try and tell me out of to >10 females each class could do that. I am in regular army and its rare to see a female soldier actually run under 1500s. now if a female can go to ranger school and pass without any standard going away. Then you would have my respect and you would be one bad female. and I do believe if the guys that you are in training with see that, then you will get that respect. Just like I feel I have that respect with the males I work with, because I keep up with them and I am not that lazy female.
But some things just need to be left because of tradition, out of respect for the men that die for this country in the pass.
A few questions: Has the
A few questions:
Has the impact of gender based instinctual reaction been studied? In order to accommodate an extremely small minority, should we re-tool the program? My thoughts are that the move to integrate women into elite schools is politically motivated like all other social experiments that get forced on the military regardless of any negative impact on force readiness.
Yes women are now fully integrated into combat support. The ugly result is that fraternization, pregnancy, sexual harassment and assault in Iraq impacted force readiness. Right or wrong, it is a fact. We have compromised readiness to accommodate the latest political agenda and having successfully done so at the combat support level, are moving on to the elite forces.
Combat readiness should not be placed at the altar of political correctness. I get the gut feeling that the new definition of women and gay rights outweigh any quantifiable negative impact to readiness. The price will be payed in blood.
Have any combat readiness impact studies been published? I doubt it. God help us all if they discover in these studies that there are physiological and psychological gender differences.
I am a combat vet and those of you who are as well know that you cannot speak the truth without career ending blow-back. I think we need another generation of public school indoctrination to change the public's definition of gender. Faith in God is a threat to these policies and will result in the destruction of the chaplaincy.
Where in the hell do you draw the line?
There are the guys that join
There are the guys that join up for ther badges, and there are the guys that join up for the chicks (Marines do look hot in those fancy uniforms) then there are the idiots like me that join to "serve my country". (not even the college fund)
It's only a damned badge, change the course, let EVERYONE in and give them the badge...I guarantee everyone will be happy. THEN, for the real soldiers, keep the original course as is, don't issue a badge, see how many takers you get then!
For the record, I went to 'badge' school and spent 26 of my 28 year career in that community. I got there after they started issuing a badge. However, it was significantly better before becasue you only got guys that wanted to be there for the intended purpose now more than half the population are ticker punchers...go figure!
We did this with jump
We did this with jump school...go take a look, ain't gonna work bud! They do however get the same badge and pay, not ofr the same standards though!
If you're a male/guy and have
If you're a male/guy and have NEVER served your country by serving a stint in our US Armed Forces. Your comments and opinions about whether females should or should not be allowed to attend US Army Ranger School has NO value or merit at all. Why? Simple, if you HAVEN'T been there and DONE THAT yourself, served your country. You're just talking outta the other end of your mouth and have no idea what the military nor what Ranger School is all about, PERIOD! It's easy to express your opinion on something that you have never done yourself while living OUTSIDE the fish bowel - the military. The only ones, male and females who's opinions have merit are those who have had the BALLS to serve in our US Armed Forces. Been There - Done That and Served 20+ Years in the US Army myself...
"Ranger Rick" F. Tscherne - SFC, Ret, 1972-93, Author, The Ranger DIgest Series I-IX
A TAB IS A SCHOOL, A SCROLL
A TAB IS A SCHOOL, A SCROLL IS A WAY OF LIFE
Don't get the Tan Beret confussed with being any part of Ranger School. Only REAL RANGERS earn a Tan Beret.
Does the whole argument of women going to Ranger School piss me off? YES... I know the standard will change as it already has from previouis years... "Back When It Was Hard." Thats just how it is...
Let the women earn their Ranger Panties as they always have...
I have a Ranger TAB... personaly... My Combat Scroll means alot more to me than the TAB
Add your comment