Women Rangers
COB6 sends this link to an Associated Press article about the Army’s discussion whether they’re going to let women in Ranger School;
Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, says he’s asked senior commanders to provide him with recommendations and a plan this summer. He says if women are eventually allowed to serve in the infantry, they would have to go to Ranger school in order to be competitive with their male counterparts as they move through the ranks.
Going to Ranger school does not automatically mean they would be allowed to serve in one of the Army’s three elite Ranger battalions, which are Army special operations forces. Women are not allowed to serve as special operators.
COB6 says “Every time we put a tanker in charge Rangers get f*cked!”
Category: Military issues
Without reading all the comments above, I learned from someone within the Ranger Training Brigade; that they will first lower the general requirements a couple of classes before the first girls enter so that “they will be competing on the same level as males”……
And, “There will not be a higher percentage of women who drop out than men who drop out, no matter what.” This move is NOT to improve the Rangers, but to accommodate women who “need” the tab to be able to compete with men in the promotion mill.
What a crock of Political correctness and pandering to the minority elements again.
The discussions For and Against women in combat:
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/ps/2011/01/discussing-the-arguments-for-women-in-combat-units.html
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/ps/2011/01/discussing-the-arguments-against-women-in-combat-units.html
It turns out that to many Veterans, the question is more one of whether or not it will improve, hurt, or have no effect on combat readiness.
@51: If they are intentionally lowering the standards for all in order to placate the females, then earning Ranger tab loses a bit of the prestige. Where will be the incentive to go to the school if the standards have been lowered? Dear G-d I’m glad I’m not in now.
I couldn’t give a flying fornication about any loss of “prestige”, Old Trooper. But lowering standards in training means we shed more friendly blood in combat. That I care about.
I have no problem with allowing women to attend Ranger School (or SFQC, for that matter) if they’re qualified and can meet the same criteria as male applicants. But that means meeting standards as they exist today – not some watered-down set of standards designed to ensure their success.
I am laughing because this is devolving very quickly. BV has already gone into his confused old man routine, someone has mentioned the scary periods, and someone else has brought up that all male soldiers are potential rapists…
SMH…so guys are you going to hang the no gurls allowed sign?
I just wonder how many of you won’t take a medivac, close air support, epw extraction, etc… From women…
I offer the following link into evidence http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html
As Fred Reed notes-the Navy determined that there were some tasks that females could not preform even after training. I’ve been in units with females and those without them and I’ve had some females who worked for me who were really good troops. But when you were doing tasks like loading tentage onto the back of a truck, they were mostly useless. We seem to think today that muscle mass and upper body strength don’t matter very much, but one day a serious enemy will show us how wrong we are in combat and we will pay a price in blood for our delusions.
Real combat like the battle of Stalingrad…
All that can be eliminated if we just have standards for jobs and then stick to those standards.
This really isn’t all that difficult, folks. There are some jobs (both in and out of the military) which require physical strenghth and some which don’t. Some require mental genius while most don’t. What made this country great was being able to realistically know and measure the difference.
Figure out the standard and apply it. Not easy to do if we throw out all standards this afternoon, but most jobs already have tested standards in place.
Yes Jason-what did the Soviets do after the war? The Red Army was desperate and made what sacrifices that they had to, but that was a policy they were forced into, not one that they chose.
Earlier you mentioned MEDEVAC, which involves female pilots, crew chiefs and medics. Suppose for a moment that you are the crew chief on one of those flights and that your bird is forced down by a fire. I don’t know you, but let’s say you weigh 180 pounds or so. Maybe you suffer an injury that immobilizes you in the crash landing-tell me honestly, on average would you rather have a male or a female medic or pilot pulling you out of the wreckage?
Doesn’t matter, Stalin starved who he didn’t like to death.
I don’t care, whoever is going to get me out.
Who is more likely to get you out Jason?
You know the answer, you just don’t like it.
I really don’t see what your comment on Stalin has to do with the topic at hand. What did the Soviets do once the war was over (or, to put it another way, when they had the choice)?
I don’t know how long it has been since y’all went through training but I have one son who is in less than a year. I was and still am horrified by his training…Yes, he is Infantry. He was in a “low stress” basic at Fort Benning!!! 20 SIT’s could not pass the minimum PT test 2 days before graduation, yet miraculously they all graduated. Several had gotten the “yuk” sickness and did not participate in FTX, so they drove them to the top of Honor Hill to receive their Cross Rifle and then drove them down, like I said before, 20 of them had not passed their PT Test yet. Then onto Airborne School….just so happens that when he attended it was the anniversary of the first women to graduate…….so guess who were the honor grads??? Yes, the women who had to be literally kicked out of the plane and cried!
@46… a “buddy” asked me advice for Ranger school. I told him to “Go in heavy, and come out light”… put on at least 10 more pounds. He was a stud PT guy and couldn’t bring himself to do it. When he had the break to call for graduation, he asked me to come down to his graduation. I met him before graduation started and the first thing he mentioned was my weight advice… he then told me he was burning muscle around day 6.
One other thing..when my older son when through basic, if I remember correctly the lowest PT score was 220, the majority of those was with were 280 and above. In fact the award for the highest PT was 347, that soldier is a Ranger. Very few from his class even made it through RASP. My middle son’s OSUT class, nobody even had a 300 PT score yet everyone one who had a Ranger Contract made through RASP, several even recycled.
How do you know what goes on in my head I barely know what goes on in my head. Hence the stalin comment. When it comes down to it, honestly it doesn’t matter size or strength. The person with the most determination is going to get you out of the helicopter. Man or woman, hell I have seen little guys with huge balls and I have seen big guys with little balls and visa versa. You honestly don’t know what someone is going to do on any given situation until the time comes. I want the person I have been working with the most and have a close bond with who isn’t going to ditch me. Does that make sense?
How do you know what goes on in my head I barely know what goes on in my head.
Well, I have to believe that given: “When it comes down to it, honestly it doesn’t matter size or strength.”
Come on man, really?!?
Of course it matters-and I’m pretty sure everyone here except you knows it. I’ve seen very determined females try physical tasks that they failed to preform that males accomplished without a lot of effort. I hope whoever is coming after me is determined (and maybe you’re the patient and not the crew chief, which throws the whole “…person I’ve been working with the most and have a close bond with…” out the window), but I’d rather have almost any male trying to pull me out over almost any female. This is a for real, life or death issue and upper body strength matters whether you think it does or not.
“When it comes down to it, honestly it doesn’t matter size or strength. The person with the most determination is going to get you out of the helicopter.”
Really?
I know a determined 9 year old that tries and tries and tries…very determined …but just can’t climb the wall!
Determination doesn’t carry the 100lb ruck with the M-60 at night in the mountains… determination helps, but muscle mass, stamina and a few other things come into play!
Get real. Not a protector of the Tab(s) but a realist.
I’m going to tell one war story and then quit. In early 2010 I was flying on a Blackhawk from Adder to Garry Owen. We took SAF from the ground, which missed, and continued the mission. On that flight we had a female crew chief (who was maybe in her 20s or 30s, but she had her helmet on, so I really don’t know), but I was travelling with a 58-year old E-7 Vietnam veteran and a 55 year old 0-7 (the Brigade commander) and in all honesty, I would rather have had either one of them trying to pull me from the wreckage if we would have been hit and gone down than her. This isn’t really an academic exercise as far as I’m concerned.
Sometimes having the Thog to pull you out is nice, but sometims having Roy to grab a bar and pry two things apart when brute strength isn’t necessary is also good. You are wanting to use an impact when a ratchet is just as good. On average men are stronger yes but you aren’t arguing that. If you said you need a triple strand put in and you have a choice of a squad of women or men to do it then I’ll choose the men. If I have to choose between an all men or mixed I would probably choose the mixed just because I can handle the challenge and I could figure out places for all the people on the team. Likewise if I had to assault an objective. Use your people how you need to and learn their strengths and weaknesses. For fucks sake are we the army or do we whine and bitch because we didn’t get the troops we wanted? As an NCO I trained my guys (some were better than others) to do their jobs, and I didn’t have the luxury of choosing who the army sent me. Train your guys and gals and get them ready if by chance they are shit hot…which until you go and do your stuff. Which in my case was find IEDs among other things you’ll find out really quickly you don’t know shit and that you learn as you go. So all your fucking bellyaching about gurls being allowed in your club won’t matter because in the end tommorow will be the same as yeserday. Just maybe you won’t have to depend on half tarded Thog to pull you out of the burning helicopter, he may have a bit smarter friend.
BV in 1994 I was a 127lbs pfc humping an m60, what do you think kept me going?
Now who can argue with that?
I think we’re all indebted to Just Plain Jason. For clearly stating what needed to be said.
I’m particularly glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech.
Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.
Oh go fuck yourself you know exactly what I am talking about. Quit being a pussy and being afraid that a girl can kick your ass. Your little anecdote? For real come on you gotta have something better than that story.
@71 Sgt Hulka?
Jason-I have absolutely no idea what point you were trying to make in post #70. But, since I doubt that you know what you were trying to say, I’m not sure how I’m supposed to.
BV we have crossed paths before but goddamn it don’t you talk shit about my beloved sgt hulka!
I was saying man the fuck up. Be an NCO figure out your people’s strengths and use them. It doesn’t matter if they are male or female. The army is going to send you whoever they want anyway. Sorry of I use some engineer talk and some similes. Use the tools you are given and sometimes a more tools are better. Quit being a pussy.
@54: Hondo, the prestige I’m talking about is earning something that takes a special kind of toughness borne out by high standards of physical and mental endurance. So, yeah, with the lowering of standards does come a loss of prestige.
The sad thing is; the standard was created the way it was for a reason. To lower it for a political reason means that not only do the troops get shorted, but so does the Army and the mission.
Jason-are you saying that I shouldn’t argue against what I think is bad policy? Well, sorry but I think I have the duty to do that. What the Army (and, apparently, you) want me to do is to hold in my mind two diametrically opposing facts: 1) strength and stamina matter-that’s why we test for those things and 2) I’m supposed to ignore that when it comes to a group that has a demonstrated biological deficiency in that area.
Sorry, I refuse to engage in doublethink, that’s the death of the rational mind.
The rest is just you posturing-that really doesn’t impress me.
I’ve got some errands to run this afternoon, so I will be away from the computer. I’ll check this when I get home.
Wow I am glad that you are putting words in my mouth. All I have ever said us give them a shot like everyone else. You have said that because women as a group are weaker physically we can eliminate the entire group. Even if a few can meet the minimum standards?
By the way I think your argument had strayed away from women in the rangers to women in the military in general. Now granted I could be putting words in your mouth…
No argument that the current standards are there for a reason, Old Trooper. That reason is to minimize friendly blood spilled – and maximize that spilled by the enemy – in future conflicts.
The prestige angle to me is an irrelevant “feelgood” item. The fact that lowering standards could well lead to US soldiers needless coming back in coffins isn’t.
I couldn’t give a hoot in hell if those attending Ranger School or SFQC have 2 balls or zero. But the standards need to remain where they are today, and be applied equally to all attendees. Otherwise, we’re doing nothing but playing feelgood games that will end up costing US lives in combat.
And even one extra coffin coming home needlessly is one too many.
As we argue about a school we should remember there already are women out there fighting alongside men in combat. If I recall there was a 2nd Lt Smith killed along side two Rangers in Afghanistan when their truck was hit with an IED. This is just to remind some of you this hasn’t happened in a vacuum, women didn’t go from donut dollies to combat troops over night.
Ladies and Gentlemen, please allow me to add to the conversation. I know for a fact that if women are held to the same standards, they lose. How do I know this? By virtue of my time in the fire service. I was a FIrefighter with the Tempe, Az Fire Department until the roof of a burning building decided to collapse on me. I’m medically retired.
The Phoenix Fire Department did the initial testing, written and physical, for all departments in the metro area. The standards were the same for both males and females. Getting through this process is like recruit training, something you never forget. The year I made it, there were 5,000+ applicants, 2,200 passed the written test, 1,200 passed the physical test, 54 were selected for class 94-1. Of those 54, four (4) were females. More than 300 women passed the written, < 25 passed the
physical.
Jason-I don’t really have a problem making the argument that the role of women in the military should be greatly restricted, it follows from the point that I am trying to make, to wit: We have an Army for warfighting, when we engage in warfighting we should do everything possible to secure an expeditious victory and minimize the suffering of everyone involved. To that end we train soldiers to a high standard-mentally and physically (and Ranger school is one of the schools that we use to try and realistically train those warfighters). To the extent that we have a greater role for women in the ranks we have to water down those physical standards to accommodate the physical realities of their sex (and I think most of us have seen this time and again). Furthermore, to the extent that we substitute women for men we create situations where men are expected to do an unfair share of the physical labor (see my example of loading tentage on trucks above, though I can provide lots of other examples) which is reflected in morale.
And so no, none of this happened in a vacuum. What happened is that we made the political decision to pander to the delusions of the feminist left against solid military reasoning with a focus on the realities of warfighting. As others have said, some individuals have probably already suffered from the predictable consequences of this decision, likely even with their lives, though big Army will never admit it.
BTW-above I asked a question and used the word “apparently”, does that really equate in your mind to putting words in your mouth? I think what I did was expand your argument by implication, but given that a certain part of what you were arguing was openly questioning my masculinity I suppose that I might be forgiven for misunderstanding you, poor little pussy man that I am.
I see a few things being confused here.
I think we can all agree and it goes without saying that there should only be ONE standard for things like Ranger School (not like Basic training with different standards for males/females/age).
That said, along the lines of #45/46, it seems like Ranger School is more of a gut check than teaching leadership or battle skills. Earning the Ranger tab isn’t a prerequisite to going to war or being in combat. How many soldiers that have seen combat have the Ranger tab? It seems like a pretty elite and select group that does earn the tab, period, with many guys that can’t pass the course.
So my question is, what relevance does standards for Ranger School have to do with combat effectiveness of women in general? It’s like two completely different issues, since many male soldiers do not have the Ranger tab either and still see combat.
Standards for elite Army schools is one thing, combat effectiveness is another.
Ooops! Sorry. Do the math. Four of 300+ made it to be ‘on the job’. The difference? They were held to the same standard. They pulled the same hose, swung the same axe and used the same pike as us guys and proved they could do it. I never had any doubt any of them could save my butt, if necessary, on scene. One of the firefighters who pulled me out of that warehouse is named Gretchen.
Unless women are held to the same standard, people are going to die that didn’t have to, all in the name of Political Correctness.
We are a great nation and maintain best military in the world because of the tough standards set before our respective generation. Therefore, in my humble opinion, keep the already tough standard and allow any qualifying candidate to attempt the course. If upon successful completion of such course an award of the RANGER TAB should be made. Then comes real world battle testing … which is another story …
Tman-I’ve never been to any kind of high speed “hooah” school so I really can’t say what the focus is in Ranger school (that is, do they focus on a “gut check” or on battle skills). I do know that infantry and other combat units want their leaders to attend Ranger school as much as possible because they want them to gain something from the experience and I can only surmise that they believe that translates into better combat leadership-I think this goes to your last point about about combat effectiveness which is a reflection of training.
But more to the point, I believe that this is part of the bigger issue of what role should women have in the military and I’ve already said that I have no problem making the case for a more restricted role for them. As has already been stated by others on this thread, it has been put out that women will have a similar dropout rate as men in Ranger school and I can’t see how they are going to do that without relaxing the standards.
Already we can’t get reliable statistics on things like the difference between men and women on deployment (things like likelihood to miss or complete deployment would be interesting). It has been put out that women suffer from higher rates of PTSD than men (I saw that in some news release from the VA). There are probably good evolutionary reasons for some of this, I’ve come to think that sociobiology explains a great deal about human nature, though I don’t presume to know what they are.
All this seems to me to be driven by political, not military, reasoning. We are a part of government so that can’t be avoided, but I think it translates into suffering on the battlefield. That stinks IMHO.
I get what you are saying doc, you would like to limit the use of available tools until they are absolutely needed. Like the Russians and the Israelis and forget testing what we currently have because you have a preconceived notion of what is going on and that this is a purely political decision and not being made because there have been some women earing a spot on the battlefield…got it. You have issues getting men and women working together loading tents onto a truck…if you are an nco, please turn in your stripes now I think you are a bit of an embarassment for making that admission.
Now can I once again reiterate my point, what is wrong with giving anyone a chance to go through the school? Don’t change the standards just let anyone try. That is part of what I loved about the military in general. Hell if they let my PWT ass in and do something with myself why not anyone else.
I get what you are saying doc, you would like to limit the use of available tools until they are absolutely needed.
No see what I think is that there is a right tool for the job-men. The politicians keep insisting that I use a less than optimal tool-women, and I think that creates a lot more problems than solutions.
Oh and I just used the tentage as an example from my experience, though there are any number of others. But since you obviously believe that you are a superior NCO, I’ll ask you how you would have solved the problem given that the females who tried were physically incapable of lifting the required material.
Oh and the point is that they are going to relax the standards-they always have to relax the standards, though I’m certain that I can’t get you to admit that. Well integrity means that you have to tell things like they are, but why would that matter? It’s not like it’s one of the Army’s core values or anything.
@82: Couldn’t agree with you more, Hondo. My opinion is; if the Ranger tab was easy to earn, everyone would have one. The requirements are what they are and politics has no place in deciding them.
Who are “they?” As was covered before, there are plenty of examples of tough jobs (firefighting, street cops, etc) with standards applied to all applicants. A single set of proven standards which everyone must pass.
(Sorry, OT – my comment was directed at #91, not you!)
So you are telling me that the Ranger school is going to relax its standards? Why don’t you go tell the Ranger School Instructors how they are going to make it easier to allow for women to make it through. I bet they would be interested to do this. You are the one making assumptions based on your evidence, not me. I don’t know what they are going to do. They may never graduate a female through Ranger school, and actually I don’t care if they ever do. Just give someone a chance to go.
So I noticed that you didn’t answer the other question.
Others have already asserted what Ranger instructors have said about women graduating the course (see for instance post 18). I have no idea as to the truth of this, but I do believe the truth of the statistics I posted in number 57 and those tell me a great deal about how standards have been relaxed elsewhere. It seems reasonable enough to assume they will be relaxed again-but you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “nuh-huh”.
Oh and giving that “someone a chance to go” of course means that someone else does not get a chance to go. That might be an infantry E-5 who might learn something to help him on the battlefield. But sure, let’s send the female AG officer who will work in the 1 shop just to “give her a chance”.
How about give a female Military Intellegence officer who has been working with SF chance? We can both play this game. What if a june bug had a fiddle would he play Devil went down to Georgia?
You have already made it clear that your problem isn’t with women going to Ranger School it is with women in the military in general. I have seen women doing a lot of jobs that hell 15-20years ago people would have argued they couldn’t do. I don’t care if they get a tab or not. You have sand in your vagina that standards may be lowered so that they can get through hell I don’t know time will tell. No matter what there will be guys who from this day forward will say that the Ranger tab doesn’t mean as much because of this. I don’t have a tab so really I don’t know and frankly I don’t give a shit how hard the school is. I do know that tommorrow or next year if the change goes through the Ranger School Instructors are going to do their jobs and graduate the best Rangers they can. If a few of them happen to be women then they earned it and if someone without a tab wants to call them into question, well I bet they better be prepared to stand the fuck by because I bet there will be a fight on their hands.
I suppose the MI officer might be on one of the FET teams, but I doubt that she is going to be directing the SF soldiers under fire (like the infantry squad leader would with his soldiers) so it seems to me that there is less benefit to sending her to the hooah school than him.
And “couldn’t do” I would not have argued, but can’t generally do as well as males-sure, I’m happy to make that argument.
“…frankly I don’t give a shit how hard the school is.”
You should have just admitted that from the start. It would have saved us all a lot of time, but I think it’s hilarious that you consider yourself a superior NCO and don’t care about training standards.
…frankly I don’t give a shit how hard the school is.
You might just have said that at the start and saved us all a lot of time.
Odierno himself said it best: “Its just Officer Bling Bling for the Promotion Boards for females, otherwise the infantry careers get slowed”