The end of the first female Ranger experiment
The Army announced that the last of the female candidates for Ranger school have failed the first experiment. Of course, according to the Christian Science Monitor, this has sparked a debate about whether or not the standard is realistic.
The Rangers are the best of the best, and being a Ranger means passing a physical test that pushes body and mind to the breaking point. If women can’t do it, the argument goes, then they shouldn’t be Rangers.
But there is another opinion quietly being voiced as well: that Ranger School is more akin to a rite of passage – an opportunity for men to “thump their chest,” as one Ranger puts it – than a realistic preparation for leading in war. That women can actually make Ranger units more effective. And that the standards that keep them out are outdated.
Of course, I predicted this debate when the idea was floated about allowing women into the elite forces – that when women didn’t meet the minimum standard, it would be because the standard was unrealistic. That’s why I was pulling for one or several women who would complete the school successfully at the current standard. The whole point for Ranger School is not create chest-thumping neanderthals, it’s to create or test leaders under combat conditions without an actual enemy shooting at them. It is to create conditions that test a student’s ability to successfully complete the mission even though he, and his subordinates, are exhausted, famished, and sore.
Rangers have to be able to operate at 100% far from any other American troops, with all of their equipment to survive and fight on their backs and their only means of arriving at the battle or the objective of their mission is their own two feet. So where do you compromise the standard?
Of course, Ray Mabus, the Navy Secretary, is ready to throw the SEALs under the bus;
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times this week that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. “First, we’re going to make sure there are standards. Second, that they are gender-neutral, and third, that they have something to do with the job,” he said.
Why would there be a standard if it had nothing to do with the job? Obviously, Mabus doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But we knew that from some of his other stupid decisions in that job.
All 20 of the women who took part in this experiment have nothing to be ashamed about. A lot of men didn’t make the standard right along side of them. I hope and encourage the Army to continue to allow women to try and make the standard, but a lot of soldiers depend on the current standard to be led by only the best graduates of those schools and lowering the standard has nothing to do with chest-thumping and everything to do with bringing soldiers home safely from war.
Category: Politics
So can we bury this poor dead horse now?
Aren’t ye a wee bit auld t’be a believin’ in leprechauns, lass?
Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that my country expects me to move further faster and harder than any other soldier.
Where is there room to lower the standard, sorry, reevaluate the standards, with out throwing that away?
Not saying the standard should be lowered, Smitty. Just saying that we’ll continue to see pressure to do so in order to further a political agenda.
There you go again Hondo, makin’ fun of the Irish!
KMRIA!
Ha!
That horse in a zombie and is never going to stop.
Is not in.
Word.
Mabus wondering if the SEALs have standards in place already shows he’s clueless.
The standards that are in place are there for a reason. They weren’t pulled out of thin air. They were created from many years and many battles. Changing them for political/social convenience will create a less effective force. But; what the hell do they care? They get to have photo ops.
“Mabus wondering if the SEALs have standards in place already shows he’s clueless.”
No kidding. And, ” … Second, that they are gender-neutral … ” – right out of the nutball Left-wing playbook.
Gender neutral. Dear God, I despise those words.
I shudder when I even begin to contemplate what the SJW types and social engineers on Capitol Hill will try to do in order to water down the standards?
After the French Lick Indiana men’s high school varsity basketball team beat the U.S. women’s national Olympic team 112-12, Obama administration secretary of basketball Nancy Manhater declared that basketball was just so much male “chest thumping” and that the administration had put in place a more gender neutral standard for playing basketball. “All baskets scored by women are now worth 20 points,” said Manhater, “thus the women’s team actually won 120-112.”
“Women can actually make a men’s basketball team more effective,” Manhater added. “Because shut up,” she added, summarizing the administration’s position.
This is funny as hell !!!!
No, it isn’t funny. It just shows how much you dislike women.
He’s being satirical, of course, but he’s not far off. The US women’s Olympic hockey team prepared for the Sochi Olympics by playing (and going 2-2) against boys high school hockey teams. http://nesn.com/2014/01/u-s-womens-olympic-hockey-team-preparing-for-sochi-games-by-playing-boys-high-school-teams-in-new-england/
The Canadian women’s team plays a slightly higher caliber league (midget AAA, for those in the hockey know) but it is still against guys 5-10 years younger than them. The Olympic gold medal hockey team does not do well in those leagues. It’s not about disliking women, it’s about reality.
No checking in those games either, if the comments are to be believed.
I notice you are often, for a “woman,” rather angry, contrary, and looking for a fight on this blog. Bitter old maid syndrome, perhaps?
Few people love women more or are more chivalrous toward them than I am. And women have told me that. I have a great wife, daughters, several sisters, granddaughters on the way, and I hardly dislike them.
But I *am* starting to dislike you.
Idiocy, absolute idiocy.
We know it’s coming. No question about that.
It’s okay, though. In 2016, all of us racists will just become sexists.
As well as “homophobes”, “islamophobes”,… All brought to us by the hetero-phobic, intolerant, hate-mongering Christianophobic left!
No all Female RANGER calendar!
I was cheerin’ them on.
They tried and they deverve a BZ for it!
They all tried and ALL FAILED! A BZ for failure? What about the men failures as well?
Some schools are out of reach for many men…for a variety of reasons. Graduating from an elite school doesn’t mean you were just in great physical condition. Many men will not or cannot comprehend fully because they did not or could not…
Yup–even if I had been so inclined (I wasn’t) and physically a beast (I’m not, although I love to run long distance) I would never have been qualified for a number of programs back in the day. Why?
Glasses. And back in the day, Lasik didn’t exist.
Great shape does not guarantee graduation. In the last 3 days of Florida phase our “Morale Officer” — a 6ft 3in football-type “hooah” type — just sat down on his ruck and quit. He said he just couldn’t take it anymore.
Surprised the hell out of everybody — he was in line to be an Honor Grad contender.
He …. just …. couldn’t …. take …. it ….. anymore.
Something I’ve always wondered about and some senior officer type reading here may be able to provide the answer, does dropping out of Ranger School effectively kill an infantry officer’s career even if he is an excellent officer in every other capacity? It seems to me that even those who try and fail should be held in a bit higher esteem by their peers than those who never try.
On the other hand, as someone mentioned, he was limited in his military aspirations because he wore glasses. As someone who wore glasses in ground combat in Vietnam, I can tell you it is a real handicap, especially in the chaos of a firefight.
however, it was no hindrance in my job as a battalion and brigade staff NCO so I was quite happy to be the only person in my battalion to hold my MOS, BN CBR NCO, and I recognized that I was a more effective NCO operating at the battalion level in S-2 and S-3 than in a rifle company. Yeah, I was a staff wienie, but that’s where I provided my battalion the most value. Seems to me it’s a simple matter of being honest with yourself about your own capabilities and limitations.
More or less.
You will have a tough time making Major (although it can be done) and you will get second and third tier commands.
In the 82nd the company commanders tended to order the junior officers back to ranger until they earned the tab or were to broken to try again. It was the threat of their OER over their heads that did it for most.
I’m pretty sure he gave them a “BZ” for having the fortitude to attend the course.
I’d rather have female servicememembers that are willing to strap on a ruck and challenge themselves than a bunch of delicate flowers afraid to get some dirt under their polished nails.
Hey… those women tried, a big damper was put on the liberal wet dreams of ferocious and “equal” female warriors, and now it should all just quietly be let go.
But given that liberalism is a mental disorder (to quote Michael Savage), you just know this nonsense won’t go away.
It seems to me that if you start with a group of 120 candidates who have volunteered, who have met the basic physical requirements, and you end up with a group of maybe 15 graduates, the standards are fairly high and are that way for a REASON.
This applies to both the Rangers and the SEALs. The fallout/fail rate in both groups is high for a REASON.
While I have rooted for my female counterparts, I have NEVER said the standards should be changed or lowered becuase I know better.
The people who want to do that have no concept of the purpose of these teams and never will, because they only know what they see in movies and TV shows, and that makes them just plain STUPID.
Yeah, hollyweird didn’t do them any favors with bs movies like GI Jane. I personally know women who think that way.
And the other side of that coin is that the women that should be recruited for this kind of training are not interested in getting themselves killed.
That’s an interesting point, actually. It’s always dangerous to generalize (exceptions always exist and people are always eager to spotlight them) but, that said, you have identified one of the psychological aspects of the issue. Warriors train to kill the enemy and anyone who doesn’t believe he will prevail in a fight has all ready lost. One of my favorite sayings, taken from a sign atop a hallway entrance to the D Troop barracks of the 2/17 (40+ years ago!) is this: “The American paratrooper is the enemy’s means to give his life for his country.” It, shall we say, captures the essence of the matter you raised.
Exactly. I could bring up the longhair army in Vietnam, women who manned antiaircraft weapons and shot back when necessary, but their main contribution was logistics for the Viet Cong. They had been doing that for decades, and had the ‘kill or be killed’ mindset but it was NOT their main function.
Even I know that. There were more women functioning as spies for the VC than as fighters.
Or, as GS Patton said, and I paraphrase “you don’t want to die for your country, you want to make the other poor sonavabich die for his”.
I think the purpose of the training is to learn how to not get yourself killed
Hear, hear! I understand that at least one of the female Ranger candidates also insisted that the standards should NOT be lowered.
I don’t have to be a Ranger to justify the standard. The standard is what it should be and I can explain it with one example, one date, and three words: June 6, 1944 Pointe du Hoc.
Amen! Reply of the day!
Stand at the top of that cliff and look down.
Stand at the bottom of that cliff and look up.
Go to Omaha Beach, walk across the beach, stand in the water, turn around, look at the dune behind the beach. See the bunkers. Imagine the machine gun fire.
There was a helluva lot of courage displayed that day.
The best women soldiers the Army could find were trained up like no others…and they ALL failed. They even were sent to attend during the best climatic conditions.
The women never even got out of Benning.
There is no such thing as GI Jane…only in Hollywood.
Roger that.
Ranger that.*
Not so long ago, it was thought that women could not ride horses astride, but only sidesaddle, because they were too delicate.
I’m not saying that women can be Rangers. What I’m saying is that it’s wrong to say “This (gender) can’t do (job/activity) because they’re (stereotype).” Let them try. It will be a learning experience, and then comments will be made on facts and hard evidence, rather than conjecture.
It’s not just a matter of making it through Ranger school, BUD/S, or SFQC. There is also the matter of the conditions under which those forces operate on a daily basis. NOT a place for mixed genders. And then there’s the lower bone mass of even the strongest women, which would crumble under the rigors of those operations.
Hmmmm…looks like they did try…and ALL FAILED.
Conjecture? No.
The women soldiers were HEAVILY recruited and screened…they were given a train-up to prepare for the course that was beyond anyone’s imagination. They ALL barely just got out of the starting gate and FAILED.
There are no females on males sports team for a reason. It’s NOT because of sexism OR “woman hating” or bathroom facilities.
Combat is physical. Elite units are called in to do dangerous missions that call for more than just being physical. But the physical portion is key.
For all of the Helen Reddy “Women hear me roar” advocates, Why is the women’s college basketball smaller than the men’s?
No conjecture just facts.
Reality can be tough…delusional is easy.
This isn’t working out at all. Recall that the USMC Infantry Officer Course saw no women succeed either (0-29.) I don’t think that we need to return to the days of boys-to-shop and girls-to-home-economics but physical limitations are, well, limitations. Then there’s the psychological aspect, the highly competitive, never-quit mindset of many American males who have had that ingrained in them since pee-wee sports. Sure, the standards will change. Political correctness can be fatal.
Until the ‘political correctness’ meme is replaced by a severe reality check, these silly things will continue.
This is not what women meant by equality in the 1960s. That was about getting paid the same wages and getting the same benefits as men, for doing the same jobs. It opened up a lot of jobs that were previously closed to women. That is now taken for granted, and women have cardiac events at a rate 3 times higher than men in the same jobs.
The idiot women who think these slots are about getting promoted faster seem to be completely ignoring the other women who have achieved high rank, both enlisted and officers, WITHOUT going through this kind of training. As long as that attitude continues, this ridiculous nonsense will go on.
I’ve been watching “the fighting season” on Audience, and the 1SG of the supply/logistics support unit is a female and she swears worse than the men. She has a no bs attitude and is very effective in her job. That doesn’t make her qualified to hump a patrol, because it showed the infantry troops saddling up and my wife took one look at the packs these guys were putting on and she said “they have to walk and fight while carrying all that?” I said “yep, that’s the way it’s done”. She said “no way in hell”. I laughed.
I think that the weight th3ey carry is interesting, because they didn’t carry that in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. There has never been an explanation for it. It just exists.
In the wars you mention, they didn’t have body armor like they do today. There are other things that add to the weight in the modern warfare loadout, also, that wasn’t in the previous wars.
This isn’t happening because of idiot women. It’s happening because of idiot women who would never dream of joining the military and running any risk themselves. Women in politics (both in the US and Israel) who believe that they won’t be seen as a viable Commander in Chief unless all combat units throughout the military are open to women. And there are enough women in those units. There can’t be just one or two who make it or as a matter of politics the policy won’t be a success.
Since this is about politics, not readiness, the standards will be lowered.
Yep – they want to see the first female JCS ‘in charge of men’ I’ve been reading dozens of women’s social media posts, tweets and comments and it’s mostly about respect from men & being in charge. I screen shotted a few of the more outrageous statements.
Precisely!! The women who are pushing this the hardest are those who will never muss their hair or soil their manicure by actually enlisting.
Yep – it’s all about trying to be the 1st female JCS sitting opposite the 1st female President. Nothing to do with selfless service. It’s careerism at it’s worst.
I think that sports events clearly show that women have plenty of competitive, never-quit drive. If we didn’t there would not be any female athletes in any sport, period, and the trash talk that frequently goes on wouldn’t show up anywhere at all.
The real issue is that men and women handle stress differently. That’s something that has not been addressed and should be.
Well I will give them this much, they tried. That is more than some of their male counterparts have ever done.
That being said,the standard is the standard for a REASON. Because we are trusting the people who graduate this course with America’s most Precious Resource; Her sons and daughters. They are expected to lead them into combat and win.
It is not unrealistic, it is not ‘unfair’. It has been designed to be brutal and unforgiving the way that war really IS.
Sadly, I can see ranger school being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness so that our idiot politicians who have NO IDEA what we do day in and out can ‘feel good’ about integrating the genders in the military.
A friend, retired MSG, and former 11B with a CIB he earned while a SGT with 3/75(RGR) had an excellent take on this. Essentially the standards for the Rangers are high because the required quality of the soldier is high.
My take on it is that, as soon as anyone who can score a 270 in the male 22-26 age range can make it though a school that teaches patrolling techniques and some land nav, you’ll have a regiment full of slightly better than average, in shape soldiers who are airborne qualified. Welcome to the 18th ABC.
“First, we’re going to make sure there are standards. Second, that they are gender-neutral, and third, that they have something to do with the job,”
Mabus is one dumb SOB! First…yes there ARE standards. Ask any fucking SEAL who’s been through BUDS. Second…gernder-neutral? Depends Mabus, actually, they already are, just like Ranger standards, if the gender in question can meet them. Third…again you dumb MF’r Mabus, just like Ranger training and standards, they have EVERY FUCKING THING TO DO WITH THE JOB! How the hell did Mabus get where he is? Don’t answer that, he’s another Obama dick and ball licker and sucks the grape jelly out of Obama’s ass.
Sorry for the profane rant but this shit really gets me. The wash out rate for males in SEAL, Ranger, Green Beret, Delta and Air Force Para Rescue training is tremendous among those who try out. Why? Because they are looking for the best operators in the worst of situations and conditions. The ones who can get the job done when all seems lost. When mental processes say I can’t go on, they do. When bodies ache and demand rest, they press on to the mission. I want that kind of person in those jobs and nothing less.
You beat me to it, and were much more thorough.
As a fellow washout…welcome to the club! The tent is big and we have plenty of room (and s’mores). You’re in good company!
Shhh…….Don’t post stuff like that. It will set a bad example. If people man up like that the posers might see it. If it catches on, next thing you know we won’t have anything to do around here.
Semper Fi.
You got pizza, too?
Mabus is such a fucking turd! Will someone PLEASE flush him!
My understanding is that being Ranger qualified (as in, earning the tab through completing Ranger school) is different from being in a Ranger battalion.
Being Ranger tabbed is a huge accomplishment and I’ve always admired those who made it through. But they are not ‘true’ Rangers as in those who served time in the Ranger Regiment.
Is this an accurate assessment?
Fundamentally, yes those who have a tab still have to attend RASP to gain entry into the 75th. But the public doesn’t understand the difference and even most of the Army and military doesn’t. So it’s irrelevant because decisions will be made regardless of what you’re asking.
About 8 years ago numba’ one son was at Ft Wainwright in Fairbanks. They offered some sort of special operations tryout. He was in uniform with a helmet and a weapon. He was blindfolded, they spun him around a few times then threw him off the 10-meter deck into a pool. If he made it to the side of the pool with his weapon, then he got to take the next step. He had to be rescued. He tried, so we were both good with the result.
I think that there are standards. That particular eval seems gender-neutral and job-related to me. They could have made it a little more realistic by hanging a jump bag off of them and doing it in the dark, outside, from a helo and into really cold water but that is probably not necessary. In my opinion, that was a reasonable way to sort out people for that job.
Go ahead, change the standard. Doing the job will sort out who is suited for it. The problem with that approach is: how much ground do we lose and many good people have to die before the correct standards come back? Those standards didn’t get pulled out of thin air, they are there for a reason. The military is not a high school glee club where the popular kids get the best parts.
Can someone do a check on the two morons they quote in the article? No actual Ranger would advocate changing the standard,let alone trivialize them as “chest thumping”. None. What a joke. He actually says don’t make Ranger school a rite of passage, and have some other course be the rite of passage. Does he not understand the same thing would then happen to that new rite? Where do these people come from.
CSS.
Upstream when I replied to Ex-PH2 I meant to my first sentence to read “This isn’t happening because of idiot women in the military.”
“First, we’re going to make sure there are standards.”
Did this ass-munch just learn about the military last week?!
How in the 9 levels of hall is he in any way qualified for his job>
‘hall’=’hell’.
Damnit, I want an ‘Edit’ button.
I’m not arguing the point that these specialized combat warfare schools have to be kept tough or no one will survive combat. The lack of understanding by the idjits who think it’s about promotions, etc., – all that twaddle – is not going to change. None of them have to go through the training or face its real purpose, which is killing the bad guys before they kill you. Some people are tougher than others. Those are the people who make it through this kind of training. The very stupid people, like Mabus and those loudly proclaiming ‘bias’ and ‘sexism’ have no understanding of any of it. They point to people like Harriet Thompson, a 92-year-old cancer survivor who recently completed the San Diego marathon, because she WANTED to, not for any other reason. The PC crowd does not WANT to understand the difficulty, because it throws their agenda out of whack. They know nothing about leadership, nothing about real achievement, nothing about real competition, and they think that equality has nothing to do with equal pay for equal work or the right to vote. They think that everyone should get a prize for just showing up. I can get those awards by taking my cat to a CFA cat show. It’s called a participation ribbon. I have dozens of them. I also have a box full of Best Household Pet awards and another one with some of the stuff I won competing in figure skating and horse shows. Competition is a driver that none of those whining spoiled children understand. They don’t like it. They think everyone should win so their feelings won’t get hurt. They should get promoted for just showing up. This mentality comes from that generation who have truly not had to struggle to get ahead like their parents and grandparents did, and do NOT want to be told ‘sorry, you don’t get the prize’. No one told them the truth: that real life is a tough row to hoe, and when they get that message, they don’t like it and start whining again. Frankly, the… Read more »
I was stationed in Korea 84-87. As far back as that time, the Republic of Korea Army had female special operators in the 707th Special Missions Battalions (The White Tigers). The ladies were hand selected, static line and HALO qualified,all were high level martial arts experts (taekwondo/hapkido) and were all Scuba qualified. They numbered somewhere in the platoon sized element and were used in the missions were the enemy would rarely expect a female to be, i.e.hostage rescue, recon etc. Out of a nation of around 48 million you had around 30-40 of these very special women. I’ve seen them work out, practice their taekwondo with the male operators, and from what I heard from the ROKs, these women were pure shooters. Yeah, it can be done, but we are talking a different society and culture.
No they can’t. Not to standards. Period.