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!”
May 16th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Well since women will be eventually allowed 11X MOS (sooner rather than later), why not.
Not much those who disagree with this concept in general can do to stop the tide.
May 16th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
If they eventually do this(and I pray they dont), there better not be a different set of standards for the split-tails. Either they can pass the course as is or they don’t deserve the tab, regardless of whether they’re able to serve in a Ranger Battalion or not.
May 16th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Sure, let’s git er done!! When the standards are too tough, they will just lower them for the women, so it’s all good.
May 16th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Ranger school – So easy even a girl can do it
May 16th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
There is no “if they eventually do this”. First females will be part of the class in January 2013.
Thanks for posting this, Jonn, and getting my blood pressure up all over again. I heard about this last week from some of my guys who are in RTB and I blew a gasket then. “Theoretically” there will be no difference in the requirements for the chicks. However, they are trying to figure out how to “accommodate” then regarding housing, latrines, etc.
That’s all I’m gonna say cuz anything else I say is going to be ugly.
May 16th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Word is that it will happen late this year/early next year–early enough that there will be females at least in the pipeline before Obama potentially leaves office. And, best of all, that females “will” graduate at a rate comparable to males.
May 16th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Long story short; you either do what it takes to pass the course, or you don’t pass. Do I believe there are women out there who can pass Ranger School? Of course there are. Do I believe that the standards will be sacrificed because the COSA will get pressure from NOW and other feminist organizations to ‘ease up on the girls.’ no doubt in my f#@king mind. Do I believ
May 16th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Long story short; you either do what it takes to pass the course, or you don’t pass. Do I believe there are women out there who can pass Ranger School? Of course there are. Do I believe that the standards will be sacrificed because the COSA will get pressure from NOW and other feminist organizations to ‘ease up on the girls.’ no doubt in my f#@king mind. Do I believe soldiers will die from standards bring lowered thanks to social engineering? Yes. That is the sad truth of this, the only ones who will suffer from this will be the soldiers.
May 16th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
As much as I ever dreamed about being as tough as a guy, let alone a Ranger or a SEAL, I. don’t. like. this. I love my proverbial balls much more than trying to pretend I’ve got the real thing.
Get over yourselves, ladies…MEN are Rangers and SEALS. Females are merely strac, airborne soldiers. I will say, that if a chick can pass the same male standards than, at least she gets some kudos. But no. No female Rangers. IT. just. ain’t. right.
By the way, I hate female sportcasters, too. They just don’t have it.
May 16th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Let us wait until we see more details first, and perhaps from those in charge of administering this program, before judging whether standards will be loosened or completely different for females.
May 16th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
When females and males are required to meet the same standards across the board in the Army as a whole… sure go ahead and continue your precious social experimentation….
If they do not meet the same standards as their male counterparts now, how is they are going to be expected to meet the same grueling standards as their male counterparts, in a course not meant to only test ones “leadership” but test their mental and physical endurance to be able to lead in Hell.
No, I never went to Ranger School but isn’t that the point of the school? If it is just a leadership course then everyone should go. It should be required even….
May 16th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Good female soldiers deserve a shot at Ranger School; it’s the most important leadership school in the Army. It’s a professional course, not a combat billet, so if they can hack the same standards as the men are subject to now then good. At the same time, to echo others here, I don’t think that’s actually going to happen. Women will get crushed on the per capita graduation rates which will require “tweaking” of the course for women.
May 16th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Hell I just wish they would open up sniper school…
May 16th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
I think it is funny that so many people here get their panties in a bunch that a gurls are being allowed in the school. That is it, nothing more goddamn. Holy shit the world is ending and the military is going to stop existitng. No it isn’t things will cary on like they did yesterday and the day before. Some guy will get pissy and decide that his ranger tab isn’t as cool as it used to be because a woman might be able to earn one. OOOOO scary…it may be experimentation, but hey not all expermintation comes out with negative results. I remember some damn good female apache pilots covering my ass a time or two. There was a time that no women were allowed in the army all together and now that they are is the military better or worse off? I would argue it is better. In years to come will this pay off for the better…I don’t know, but what is wrong with giving someone a shot?
May 16th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Not only no but HELL NO!!!
May 16th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
COB6….I assume you mean the tanker is a General O?
General O is a Red Leg.
May 16th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Well, I wonder if they’d just use the school as a check mark in the promotion process.
Question: How many officers who went to Ranger School actually served in a Ranger unit?
May 16th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
My son started ranger school this past Sunday and he and a couple of the other candidates came to our house for a big feed (I imagine they needed it) and were talking about this. I couldn’t believe it, but they were saying a couple of the RI’s were pissed about it (imagine that). Like others have said, if they can meet the same standards as the men, fair enough, but having different standards in BS!!
May 16th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Hopefully they don’t have different standards like they do at sapper school…..reality is they will and the instructors will have to tip toe around and let people (women) slide that cant take the physical exertion let a lone the mental. Why not first do the social experiments on the army as a whole by making on physical standard then one mental standard then one set of rules then one set of punishments. Etc etc etc. I am all for women doing whatever the men do as long as it is the same standard.
May 16th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
#8 said: Do I believe soldiers will die from standards bring lowered thanks to social engineering? Yes. That is the sad truth of this, the only ones who will suffer from this will be the soldiers.
That right there! This civilian (female…lol) agrees.
May 16th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
There was an essay a few years ago (I can’t remember who wrote it) that talked about women in the military by reminding us about how the Greeks classified the different kinds of love. Eros (romantic love) exists between sexual partners and is exclusive while Philos (brotherly love) can be inculcated within certain institutions-such as the military-and is inclusive. But love tied to something as primal and basic as sex is very powerful and can overwhelm brotherly love which is based largely on concepts like duty and loyalty. I don’t think we appreciate this in modern society.
Sexual relationships pervert the institution because individuals will go to great extremes to protect that significant other often at the expense of those less significant. I have seen time and again situations where leaders were involved (or, just as bad, believed to be involved) in sexual relationships and either showed, or were believed to have shown, favoritism based on that. That’s cancer in an organization where merit has to matter and where people are in close quarters with one another for extended periods.
May 16th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
As John Travolta said in Grease: “Don’t make me laugh!”
May 16th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
BWAHAHAHA…
A SMA with a P3 profile pushing for physical training he can’t do.
Women in the Rangers. (I’m sure they won’t change the standards /snort)
No tattoos because something something I don’t like teenagers dancing (or was that Footloose?).
Hey we already have LDRSHIP but what else can we add or change to that to reflect our MODERN, FOCUS GROUP DIRECTED ARMY?
Yeah. This is getting better and better each day.
May 16th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Jeez, you guys make this tough. Just issue the tabs in Basic Training along with the black berets. See? Simple!
May 16th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
sigh
May 16th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Ranger school will, like the Q Course, return to the days of being a ‘Gentleman’s Course’ without the sadistic rigor it’s had over the past forty years.
There’s never been a school, or job, that women were allowed to attend or perform without there being a separate, lower standard for women.
Except corpse. One standard there. Death don’t give a shit.
May 16th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
i guess every patrol base will have port-a-johns now? can’t imagine the women using the same slit trenches as the men. Not against women in the IN, just no possible way you can accommodate their hygiene needs at Ranger.
-Tabbed Tanker
May 16th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
I see Jason’s points. I believe that many people do have legitimate concerns in terms of Ranger school being ‘diluted’ for women, a separate set of standards if you will.
But I also suspect that there is a somewhat sexist element to the animosity. Saying this probably won’t make me the most popular person around here but one can’t deny there is some of it.
Think about it, Ranger school is one of the hardest, if not THE hardest, military leadership school in the country. I do not profess to know what it is all about, but from reading and seeing videos of Ranger School, I can’t imagine the determination and intestinal fortitude it takes to make it all the way through.
I think the thought that women passing Ranger School and earning a tab probably rubs some the wrong way, as it is no longer as ‘exclusive’ as it used to be. Maybe there was some element of that when combat support soldiers were allowed to attend Ranger School. Once women start getting tabs, where does it end? Women Ranger units? Special Forces qualified?
The bottom line is that we won’t know exactly what standards are going to be in place, until the first class goes through or we hear more from those in the know. Until then anything else is just pure speculation.
May 16th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
No. 15 DOC BAILEY “Not only no but HELL NO!!!”
I can not say it better, Doctor:
Affirmative (= NO !! )
May 16th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
No. 29 above: It is I, forgot again .
May 16th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
“I suspect a somewhat sexist element to the animosity.”
I suspect a degree of somewhat smug arrogance in that comment.
Why would females fare any better in combat now than ever before? What has changed to make that the case? What miracle of biology has occurred?
Who denied them their rightful place in cemeteries from Arlington to Normandy, Bataan to Gettysburg? Lincoln? FDR?
Or, is it more to the point that we no longer intend to actually compete in this world, and sell-outs like Ray Odierno and Martin Dempsey are okay with rapid force degradation.
May 16th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Swamp phase infections… oh yeah.
May 16th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Blank Slate… I wonder if that is supposed to mean something.
Honestly, I don’t think there was no smugness behind that comment. Maybe he is just stating an opinion. There is a lot of people here that think that someone doesn’t belong because of a chromosome and not wether or not they can make it. Sure they will say standards will lower, but if you ask 90% of the people here they will tell you that standards are always lower than they used to be and it was harder when they went. It is an unending argument that will never end. 20 some years ago it was fighter and helicopter pilots and now we don’t think anything about pilots. If a rachet works better than an impact I want a rachet… Same thing here another tool in the toolbox. Or do we want to play the “no gurls allowed” game?
May 16th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
@ #26 You said, “There’s never been a school, or job, that women were allowed to attend or perform without there being a separate, lower standard for women.”
That simply is not true. But keep telling yourself the lie if it makes you sleep better at night.
May 16th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
I think it is funny that some people really haven’t seen women squat pissing in a trench before? Did you know they have things so that women can piss standing up? Really hygiene arguments, are you in jr high? Grow up people.
May 16th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
@ #31 “Why would females fare any better in combat now than ever before? What has changed to make that the case? What miracle of biology has occurred?”
You might want to check out the complete history of women in combat. There have always been women in combat in one way or another. I would especially suggest that you look into the mandatory military service of Israeli women from around 1950 into the 1980′s or so.
May 16th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
OWB now don’t you go bringing in history into this or we might discover Tsarist Russia, 1800s Nigeria, or a few other places that aren’t usually mentioned.
May 16th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
As others have said, I don’t have a problem with women in Ranger School as long as the standards aren’t compromised. I haven’t been yet (hoping to go though), but I’ve heard stories of how legendarily hard it is. The problem is that there will be two sets of standards again, if they want a 50% graduation rate for women instead of, say, a 10% rate.
Nothing against women, but they’re not as physically strong and lack the endurance of males, biologically. I’m sure mentally, the same percentage would be able to hack it, but if they’re held to the same physical standards as males, the politicians won’t get the results they want.
May 16th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Jonn:
We can avoid the Christmas rush…let’s all get COB6 a pink RANGER tab and drop it in the mail.
May 17th, 2012 at 12:24 am
Leaving aside for a moment the entire women in combat argument, am I reading correctly that women will not be permitted to be assigned to a Ranger unit, whether they pass the course or not? If this is so, why waste the time?
May 17th, 2012 at 12:59 am
Pandora, it’s for their careers, doncha know?
May 17th, 2012 at 1:03 am
re #40
Ranger school is not a pre-req for the Ranger Regiment. Quite a few E2 to E4s in the Regiment have never been, even more, including NCOs, in the Regiment’s Special Troops Battalion, which provides support. It’s also not a gateway school for the Regiment.
The specific course material is out of my lane (I’m a former Marine who’s never been) but my understanding is that it’s basically an arduous leadership course centered around a tactical and combat environment. As the premier leadership course in the Army it’s basically required for career minded infantry officers above O3 and hard charging senior NCOs.
May 17th, 2012 at 1:14 am
Whenever this issue gets brought up in the infantry regarding females joining combat units, or attending male-only schools and billets the same points get brought up over and over again. I’ll summarize here for everyone’s benefit
-There are woman who can, and should be, in combat units. We’ve all met at least one. They are physical studs who can put most of us, myself included, to shame. Unfortunately for every one woman you know like that, you can rattle off the names of 10 more who do not possess the desire, nor the physical abilities to function at even the basic minimums required of combat soldiers. In order to open the doors for those few qualified women, the rest must be allowed entry. I realize that most, if not all would be cut in the selection process for the more elite units (SF, Rangers, etc), so in this case I’m talking about the trickle down effect on infantry units specifically.
-The culture of our Army is too focused on the “differences” between men and women while still trying to promote equality. On one hand we yell and thump our chests about how we’re all one army, and everyone deserves equal treatment. One the other we change the physical standards for women, the hygiene requirements are taken to the limit (here I reference porta-potties at training events, you all know what I’m talking about). There’s also the very real physical seperation issue that we seem to be obsessed with. Women must have their own tents, their own lockable showers and bathrooms,guards are posted if the facilities must be shared. I understand the threat of sexual assault is out there, but to assume that we’re all rapists-in-training does not seem to fit with the image the Army is trying to project. Even if women are allowed in Ranger school, I can’t see us making the required mental shift to allow women into the line units, or male-only combat slots
-#36 OWB mentioned Israel. I’ve had the pleasure of dealing with the Israeli military and they have the right idea. I’m not agreeing with OWB, since he seems to have been using it as an example of equality in a military. Over there it’s not about equality, it’s about realism. They don’t just allow women into the combat and line units because it’s “PC”. They have the same physical standards as those required for the men. Israel doesn’t have enough people to waste on frivolous social experiments. If they cut it then they’re in. The women that don’t end up working in personnel, service support, or as aides (best looking ones get assigned to the generals IMO!)
-As an infantryman who’s served with females in other capacities as attachments (EN, FET, CA, etc.) I can say I would have no issue with them having the same opportunities as men, as long as the standards were the same across the board. I mean shaved heads in basic, PT standards not adjusted for sex, no special dispensation for hygiene matters, and serious-career ending penalties for pregnancies that interfere with missions (no one seems to have addressed the pregnancy issue.)
I know this post got a little off track from the original Ranger school debate, but I think the general idea remains on track. Summary: Idea is good, execution will undoubtably be terrible. The culture of our military is not what needs to change. Those who want female equality in combat have to realize that war is violent, unforgiving, and the last place on earth where you’d want to force cultural change for the sake of political correctness.
May 17th, 2012 at 3:28 am
Why the fuck are girls going to Ranger School theres no ponit. They cant even pass SAPPER school. And if they do fucking get to go to Ranger school then they better be shitting in the same fucking hole and getting kicked when they get tired to complete the mission. O yea and when then get on there mensterual cycle they better suck it up because i know we dont stop the fight for bullshit like that and carry the same fucking weight.
May 17th, 2012 at 5:52 am
“I know women who can graduate Ranger School”….yada yadya yada… what school? Ranger? Are you serious?
Combat is physical. I’m not talking about getting sniped at on a convoy. Dak To Pork-Chop Hill etc… When you call in a unit to save the day, or have to take a hard objective, you need a tough hard-core unit trained for that.
As for the leadership thing… the NCO Academies, IOBC etc.. are leadership schools… Ranger/Q course is a gut check… and after you passed, you know that you and your fellow grads accomplished something that 99% of the other soldiers could not/chose not/ or would not do. That puts you in a group that you can be assured, that when the gut check is called upon… the failure rate would be diminished due to the past training.
How many women cadets at West Point, Air Force Academy, Naval Academy, Coast Guard Academy are on the football team?
The 20 miler humping the 4 duece with base plate… any takers?
May 17th, 2012 at 8:11 am
I see a lot of people saying that Ranger school is a leadership school. BS!!!! I was career Infantry but was never granted approval to attend Ranger school for one simple reason. While I far exceeded the physical standards the docs would never sign off on my application because I could not reach the required body fat index to survive. No, I wasn’t fat, just the opposite. I am a skinny minny. They would not approve my application unless I could get to at least 6% body fat and they would prefer something in the range of 10 – 12%. The reason. That layer of body fat is what you survive off of with the reduced food intake you experience while going through the course. It is also necessary to help stave off hypothermia that you may experience in the swamps of Eglin or the mountains of Dahlonega in the winter time.
For the record I did pass the SFOD-D (Delta) Selection and Assessment Phase just to give you an idea that yes I was in excellent physical shape.
May 17th, 2012 at 8:25 am
defendUSA – I am TOTALLY with you on this. TOTALLY.
It has nothing to do with hygiene at all. It merely has to do with certain roles being for men. I’m am SICK AND TIRED of entitlement.
May 17th, 2012 at 8:36 am
Captain J: It sounds rather like we are on the same page on this issue. I have not had the pleasure of dealing with Israeli troopers in over 20 years, so have no direct knowledge of how things have changed with them. Appreciate your insight. It sounds as if things are philosophically much the same.
Will never understand the objection some seem to still hold that we have the luxury of eliminating from any job those who want to do the job, are mentally and physically able to do the job, and can be trained to do it well.
And, yes, the pregnancy issue is a serious one. I had a preggers female commander once. It was just icky! But, in her defense, she timed the pregnancy carefully and the worst issue we had with it was getting her seat belted into a Jeep late in the pregnancy. She asked no special treatment and had her command in order to deal with her time away.
May 17th, 2012 at 8:39 am
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time! Slowly the left devours the military that they love to hate!
May 17th, 2012 at 8:52 am
“Standards will not be lowered…” Where have I heard that before?
Another military program being turned into a pump instead of a filter. Just fuckin great.
May 17th, 2012 at 8:58 am
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 9:01 am
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 9:28 am
@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.
May 17th, 2012 at 9:48 am
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 9:56 am
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?
May 17th, 2012 at 10:00 am
I just wonder how many of you won’t take a medivac, close air support, epw extraction, etc… From women…
May 17th, 2012 at 10:00 am
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 10:03 am
Real combat like the battle of Stalingrad…
May 17th, 2012 at 10:19 am
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 10:24 am
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?
May 17th, 2012 at 10:35 am
Doesn’t matter, Stalin starved who he didn’t like to death.
I don’t care, whoever is going to get me out.
May 17th, 2012 at 10:41 am
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)?
May 17th, 2012 at 10:41 am
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!
May 17th, 2012 at 10:45 am
@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.
May 17th, 2012 at 10:49 am
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 10:56 am
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?
May 17th, 2012 at 11:07 am
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 11:18 am
“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.
May 17th, 2012 at 11:22 am
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 11:37 am
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 11:39 am
BV in 1994 I was a 127lbs pfc humping an m60, what do you think kept me going?
May 17th, 2012 at 11:46 am
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 11:56 am
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 11:57 am
@71 Sgt Hulka?
May 17th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
BV we have crossed paths before but goddamn it don’t you talk shit about my beloved sgt hulka!
May 17th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
@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.
May 17th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
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?
May 17th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
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…
May 17th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
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 …
May 17th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
@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.
May 17th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
(Sorry, OT – my comment was directed at #91, not you!)
May 17th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 4:53 pm
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”.
May 17th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
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.
May 17th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
…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.
May 17th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Odierno himself said it best: “Its just Officer Bling Bling for the Promotion Boards for females, otherwise the infantry careers get slowed”
May 17th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
You know why I don’t care how hard the school is? Because I am NEVER going to the school and I am not going to be fit judge those who wear the tab how fucking hard is that for your half retarded ass to understand? When you go get your tab then you can sit in judgement, until then let better people than you make the call fucktard.
I was making fun of your what if game assmaggot.
May 17th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Well, so long as it’s all about you then,
I think I may have been giving you too much credit Jason. It seems that your inability to argue a coherent line of reason inevitably descends into ad hominem. I was probably wrong to try to engage you in a debate, given that you obviously do not have the faculties to do so.
I mean, it’s better than the mumbling gibberish that you tried before, but still.
May 17th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Well so long as it’s all about you then. There are a couple of posters here who do have the Ranger tab and who saw fit to comment. I didn’t notice that you were particularly deferential to them.
May 17th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
68W58, from what I read I think Ranger School is mostly about the gut check experience, a rite of passage if you will. I am sure they do teach a lot of skills and tactics, but not sure how much of Ranger School is actually designed to teach as each candidate is so fatigued from lack of food and sleep.
I’m not sure how it is now, but for infantry officers especially, not having that Ranger tab makes it harder to reach the upper echelons. And if a Ranger from Battalion doesn’t make it through Ranger school, they will be re-assigned. So I think Ranger school is more of a promotional thing or expected rite of passage.
So as discussed above, being how important Ranger School is to one’s career in certain situations, that is where women in Ranger School discussion started I believe.
But again, two different issues I think. Ranger School standards one thing, combat effectiveness of women another thing entirely. Because as I said before many fine soldiers who have performed valiantly in combat have never gone through Ranger School. So the discussion of lowering standards in Ranger School leading to loss of lives is irrelevant.
May 17th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Tman-I think it’s part of the larger argument about relaxing standards overall.
May 17th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Tman: I beg to differ. Lowering the standards will indeed lead to deaths in combat.
While many of those attending Ranger school will never serve in a Ranger unit or SF, a substantial number will. Lowering the standards for Ranger school thus means these individuals will be less well trained than they otherwise would have been. Less well trained = more casualties when the shit hits the fan.
As I’ve said repeatedly: I personally have no problem with women who can meet the current standards attending either Ranger school or SFQC. But I have a huge problem with lowering the standards across the board for no other reason than to allow a relatively small number of females attending either course to get an undeserved “PASS”.
May 17th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Starting too quickly. What they need to do is open billets in Infantry and Armor units to women that are not 11-series or 19-series billets.
Once you’ve done that, monitor through an entire ARFORGEN cycle and see the results. If that works, do the same for 11-series and 19-series jobs…If that works, THEN you alter Ranger school.
May 17th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
The only reason I am even bothering to continuing to discuss this with you 68tard is because you keep making it about other things. I made my point long ago and you keep ignoring it. I called your leadership into question because you made it an issue by saying that you couldn’t handle the issues caused by female troops. Then you keep calling into question the integrity of the Ranger School by saying they will undoubtly lower their standards with no evidence other than what you believe they will do politically. I don’t defer to other’s here because of previous relationships built on this site and honestly I don’t know who the fuck you are other than some asshat who has good googlefu. Now it is devolving into who is going to get the last word and you know I am really trying to make some progress so I will for the last time call you a fucktard and have dinner with my family. Go fuck yourself!
May 17th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Hilarious-actually what I did was point out a problem that I actually had having to do with the differences between men and women in the ranks (and I even offered to let you tell me how you might have done things differently-which, I note, you declined). But given that you don’t pack the gear to follow a line of reasoning, I’m not surprised that you got it all twisted
Anyway, I’ve pointed out that standards have consistently been relaxed and your response has been that you don’t care that that’s so or if that happens to the Ranger school. That tells me a great deal about you. Well, that and the fact that you continuously resort to profanity and name calling.
May 17th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Ya know JPJ, I have thought rather highly of you until now. Personal attacks and vulgarities are a sign of a weak or non-defensible position. Man, I thought you were better than that.
May 17th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
68W58, I’ve been following this whole thread just waiting for Jason to make a point. Don’t feel bad, you’re not the only one who has no clue what he is talking about or his reasoning for anything.
You are exactly right, allowing (or inviting as it seems to be) women into the infantry will lower standards. The Army simply can not try an experiment like this without first raising the women’s standards overall to be equal to men’s WITHOUT LOWERING THE MEN’S STANDARDS. They need to first see what it will do to put women on exactly the same footing as men, that means the same standards men currently have, not a middle ground. If women want to prove that they are equal, they need to first show it on a general level, Army-wide in the jobs women are currently allowed to do, before trying to shoot up the special guys. I’m not saying that there aren’t uses in the military where women are valuable, there are many spots where women are needed and do well, and many where they aren’t needed but they excel anyway. We don’t need women in infantry, and ought not shoehorn them in. Jason would do well to answer the simple question “why do we NEED women in the infantry?” It’s nothing but political wrangling, putting their careers ahead of our lives.
The long and short of it is, some women are as good as most men (in military things). However, I have yet to see a woman in my four years who is anywhere close to as good as the best men. Even the most motivated, in-shape, hooah, competent, hard-charging females in the military are at the level of the most mediocre of infantrymen. We don’t need mediocre leaders. Women aren’t equal to men by any yardstick. Trying to force that… well, Welcome to the Monkey House.
May 17th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
” . . . the differences between men and women . . . ” —
Oh no, now you’ve done it .
May 17th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Yes I let someone annoying get to me. I admit it and when I do I kinda sink a little. I made my point and I was pretty much done but sometimes I get obsessed and I go a little nutty. It was one of those deals where I knew he was trying to play the I’m going to go the high road and I have no problem going the low road. He has issues with women on the military in general which he admitted to, that kinda pisses me off because I have dealt with a lot of women veterans and guy with that attitude kinda push them away like they don’t belong. Sorry if our sisters can bleed and die along side us then they deserve the same options as the rest of us. If they are making similar sacrifices then they deserve similar rewards. I hate this word, but I will use it here, fair is fair. If our sister are fighting with us then let them do it also. If they cannot make it they can’t, if a politician doesn’t like it the it’s their problem. Let the instructors decided who has earned the tab and who hasn’t. If you are worried standards are going to be lowered well go take it up with the people who run the school.
May 18th, 2012 at 4:45 am
I REALLY hope they screen them carefully. Otherwise I’m foreseeing a scandal involving PFC Skankosaurus Rex who was sent to meet a quota, and once again degrades the reputation of every other military woman.
May 18th, 2012 at 11:27 am
“Sorry if our sisters can bleed and die along side us then they deserve the same options as the rest of us”
The point is that, realistically, only about 30% of MEN in the military (and that is probably being generous) can make it through Ranger School.
There’s an axiom…”I showed up to Ranger School in the best shape of my life; I left Ranger school barely able to stand”.
May 19th, 2012 at 10:25 am
Wow, thanks all of your sexist bastards who have nothing but negative and critical words to say. Thanks for the morale boost. I can’t believe i serve alongside men who continue to think this way when some of us go out alongside you and equally risk our lives- especially when some of us can run faster, ruck farther and shoot better. We’d go out of our way to help you and be your teammate, not your f*ckbuddy. Not every woman in the military wants to sleep around or be held to the lowest standard. We’re not even asking for lower standards – we’re asking for an opporunity to rise to our potential and be treated equally with equal standards. Those of us who WANT to be infantry and want to do ranger school already hold ourselves to a higher standard.
May 19th, 2012 at 10:42 am
116…..most believe that there is women that can out ruck us. With that said most believe those women are done a disservice by having lower standards, a differernt set of rules, different punishments, etc. I have a disdain for the age brackets on the army afpt let alone gender inequalities. Do not be so upset that that there are a huge population of men who want to protect women, and on the flip side there is a population of boys that just see you as pleasure tents…or even a threat. You can take compliments in some form from each scenario.
If you are one of the very few that you tried to describe keep your head up. Request to be graded judged and scored on THE standard not your gender standard or the “higher standard” you refer. Have you ever had a negative counciling for scoring below 300 on your pt test? Honest fact is just because you want to be infantry and want ranger school does not and should not mean you have to get it or should for that matter.
May 19th, 2012 at 10:50 am
I’m not asking to be scored on the gender standard. The army does that and if they changed it to be equal, that would be fine with me. It wouldn’t affect my score.
I want to be infantry – so even if i can mentally make it, am motivated to do so and can physically handle it…still, you’re telling me that “should not mean you have to get it or should for that matter”. Not asking for that. I’m asking for a chance to be evaluated to do so – and not on a sexist standard, on an equal standard. And if i meet that standard, then i’d like the opportunity.
May 19th, 2012 at 11:07 am
If you do indeed want to simply be given an opportunity to meet “the standard,” you might consider dropping the attitude. What you have perhaps done with this little hissy fit is risk alienating a bunch of people who would otherwise have been on your side in that effort.
May 19th, 2012 at 11:23 am
OWB – thanks for the head check. you’re right. hissy fit is uneccessary. i’m overly defensive. a lot of this stuff above hurts to hear though, especially when i know its coming from other soldiers. i’ve waited out several years hoping for the change to become a reality. Im concerned now that the one opportunity where this might become available will disappear due to reasons outlined above (by other people- i.e. personal opinion, perspective etc.). Just to be offered the opportunity would be enough.
May 19th, 2012 at 11:37 am
On the thread about the two Marines who were awarded the Navy Cross it was described how one of those Marines found himself fact to face with a jihadi in very cramped quarters. The Marine, described as a 220 pound former football player, wrestled with the man and beat him to death with his own rifle.
That’s the reality of combat: one man lived to tell the tale and the other man was brutally beaten to death (I’m thankful that it was our guy who lived). Ideas about “fairness” or “sexism” don’t enter into it. One man died and the other one lived=combat.
May 19th, 2012 at 11:44 am
female: you might want to take the chip off your shoulder, lady. Frankly, very few of the comments above are overtly sexist. Most comments above clearly take issue with the realistic potential for lowering existing standards for political purposes in order to ensure women’s success – not with the possibility of female attendance at Ranger school.
Please don’t tell me that’s not a possibility. I’ve been around long enough to see it happen before. “Gender-appropriate” physical standards are bull; the only defensible ones are either the same for all, or variance by specialty. During combat, the enemy doesn’t care about your gender – they care about how well you can fight. For some military specialties, physical strength and stamina are critical.
Infantry happens to be one of those specialties where strength and stamina are critical. Ranger school is perhaps the most intense Infantry training in the US military.
And spare me the “oh, that will never happen” argument. I’ve been around long enough to have seen it happen personally. Physical standards have been “adjusted” for both males and females repeatedly over the last 35 years. At one point, if I recall correctly it was literally possible for a woman to max a PT test with a raw score that would fail a man. And still it’s fairly close to that even today – check out the current 2-mile run standards for males and females.
Physical standards exist for a reason. Relaxing them simply to be politically correct means we’ll see more casualties in future conflicts.
May 19th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
JPJ has already admitted that women and men have different physical capabilities. He said he uses his female “tools” differently, because that’s what the Army sends him. He admits he uses his male “tools” to do the physically demanding stuff. In other words, JPJ is already one of those that lowers the standards for the “weaker,” rather than assigning the taskings equally amongst all, because it is THEIR jobs.
The difference in strength is but one of the differences, and but one of the things that would be detrimental to “integration.”
The Ranger Tab is not just a decorative item on the uniform. It is recognition of tested abilities. Ranger school is not open to a Logistics Officer of either sex, period, hence it does not effect promotions. While Ranger School IS a gut check, it is far more than that. It is an intense infantry course, as well as a leadership course.
And the Eschelons Above God have already made known they will have a lower standard, so women can pass the course and get an extra piece of cloth on their uniforms, and an extra line on their ERBs.
Men and Women ARE different, and there ARE things they are best or only performable by members of one sex or the other. It would be equally idiotic to put men on FETeams. FETs are NON-combat, even if one of their officers was killed while in a vehicle with a VERY combat oriented unit like the Rangers. Her job that day was NOT to hump a ruck, nor to seek out and destroy the enemy.
But feel free to peruse the FET mission stories, for their combat orientation and actual mission: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/fet/ Their role and mission is incredibly important, but it is NOT combat.
May 19th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
OWB-Looking back through the thread, I realize that I owe you an answer from post 93. “They” are the politicians in uniform at echelons above reality who will be under pressure from DACOWITS and feminist congrescritters to make sure females tab out. In which case one of two things will likely happen 1) graduation rates for females will resemble those for males (which as other posters above have pointed out are not true for civilian courses like firefighter and which would indicate that there was pressure from above to relax standards for females so that they graduate at similar rates to males) or 2) we never get to see statistics on the difference between male and female graduation rates because those for females are significantly lower which would indicate that it is a better bang for our training dollar just to send men to the limited slots that are highly prized. Even now we don’t get to see stats on any differences between males and females on likelihood to deploy (or miss deployment) or finish deployment-ever wonder why not?
Fire departments and police training centers do enforce a standard, but they don’t exist in the same media spotlight as the military and the generally don’t have members of congress or interest groups that score serious points from advancing their agenda with high profile graduates.
May 19th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
In response to #123 above, combat support soldiers ARE eligible to attend Ranger School (and it sure seems to help in promotion points):
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/10/army-going-ranger-for-more-pay-101110w/
As for the argument about loosening of standards in Ranger School leading to potential loss of life in the future, sure it can happen but I don’t particularly agree on this point as an absolute. Take this link for example:
http://www.johntreed.com/rangeremail.html
“I can honestly say that I didn’t learn a single thing in Ranger School that I hadn’t already learned better somewhere else, either in the Regiment, at West Point, or on my own time. Though there are a handful of places in Iraq and Afghanistan where one might successfully use Ranger-like patrols and ambushes, I completely concur with your argument that those places are few and far between, and the current Army is not engaging in “best practices” by using those tactics. In fact, Ranger School would be far more valuable for members of the Taliban operating behind our lines than it is for our own soldiers.”
These are the words of one person that attended the school. With all due respect to those in the uniform and actually have experience (I’m just a civilian), to me it seems like one doesn’t necessarily attend Ranger School to learn skills in combat or war that one doesn’t learn at their own units (and sometimes more thorough and better retained at individual units instead of trying to retain anything in Ranger School when fatigued from lack of food and sleep). It is more of a rite of passage and a gut check, one that stamps a person as part of a brotherhood that can fight through the pain and suffering and never quit. But not something that is required to make one a fine soldier, because many fine and brave soldiers have never attended Ranger School.
May 19th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
@female This blog and it’s readers are a long ways from being sexist. I and the other women who post here have always been treated fairly.
May 19th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Tman-who said anything about any of this being “absolute”?
My understanding of the way all this evolved is this: The U.S. needed troops similar to the British commandos for particular missions during WWII. The British had (and still have) the commando course which served a couple of purposes one of which was to separate out those who were of a higher standard to serve as more elite troops and the other was to give those troops some degree of training as to what their missions might actually be like.
We emulated that by creating the Ranger school (in fact, I think the first Rangers attended the Commando course). Now, it is true that many fine combat soldiers never attended the Ranger school and that the conditions there are perhaps not very conducive to learning the finder points of tactics, techniques and procedures. But the intent of the course is probably better understood to be that those who attend will be given the opportunity to see just how difficult it is to overcome combat-like conditions (lack of food and sleep coupled with great physical exertion) and execute combat missions so that when the time comes that they are actually faced with combat they will have a more realistic idea about what they will face (and this principle is also true or should be true of all military training).
Those of us who are arguing that relaxing these standards by admitting women to the Ranger school-an area where up to now a high standard has been maintained-reasonably ask where leaders (especially leaders in the combat arms-the target demographic for the Ranger course up to now) might now get such realistic training. One thing that you can retain from lack of food and sleep is how hard it is to accomplish anything from lack of food and sleep. On a battlefield where you might be engaged with the enemy for long periods with little food or sleep, this might be a very valuable lesson indeed.
May 19th, 2012 at 11:47 pm
TMan, While there are individuals outside of 11/18 Series that do attend and graduate Ranger School, they are assigned to positions that females are not authorized. In other words, those promotion points do NOT prevent females from getting promoted. In fact, females have attained the highest ranks in the military: 4 Star Generals, Command Sergeant Majors, AND Chief Warrant Officer 5. And since there is a limit to how many promotion points one can earn in ANY category, those points for the Ranger, while earned, are not the only way to max out those points.
Does it surprise me that a West Point Graduate, who apparently had prior time in Ranger Regiment, believes he had already learned everything there is to know? No. That article (email) bears no weight in the value of the discussion, as far as I am concerned. I don’t put much weight in two ring-knockers that think they are too smart to be taught anything, badmouthing a school that creates combat (Infantry) leaders.
May 20th, 2012 at 12:30 am
Please allow me to interject again. A few years ago there was a Marine tv commercial that said, “If everyone could’ve a Marine, we wouldn’t be the Marines.” My SSgt nephew passed the same physical fitness standards in 1999 that his dad passed in 1972 and that I passed n 1977. Of course there were advancements in training but you get my point.
I agree with the calls for allowing EVERYONE to be allowed to apply and try as long as the standards are the same for EVERYONE. No age or sex allowances permitted. Either you can cut it or you can’t. If a female can cut it, she lives with and like the rest of the outfit. No menstraul chits, no privacy claims, no jack shi’ite. You’re a grunt or Ranger or tanker or whatever, just like very other swingin’ d1ck.
May 20th, 2012 at 3:09 am
The possible appropriateness of women allowed in different jobs aside, I will say there is one in certain ways military personnel treat women. One of the most frustrating things I dealt with was the idea that women should get dedicated hygiene facilities and living quarters no matter how rugged the op was.
The grunts seemed the more prone to this mentality. Some of the higher ranking grunts seemed almost perplexed of even afraid of a women sharing their workspace. was assigned as a liaison to an RCT in Afghanistan. My job was strictly communications based, and would require me to never leave the COC. There was some pretty heated debate about whether I should go forward when they did despite the COC they built being located miles from any actual combat. I ended up not being able to go which was frustrating because I wanted the opportunity to do my job in a different context. I’m not foisting all the blame on them because of previous encounters with LCpl Slutty McSlutsers and women who use their sex appeal to get preferential treatment would sour even the most neutral opinions on the issue.
They often act like women will melt should they be forced to dig a cat hole, or not have access to shower facilities like the guys for the duration. That is often used as a reason for not including them. Some went as far as exempting us from standard military duties like filling sandbags. One of the RCT SNCOs I worked with actually forbid his junior Marines in the COC from talking to women, me included.
May 20th, 2012 at 6:57 am
Ann: Part of that behavior may indeed be a reaction to previous experiences with those playing the “sex card” to get favorable treatment. However, I think a more likely explanation for the behavior that you describe is that the males doing so are simply running scared. A single allegation (even unproven and unprovable) of sexual harassment can often end an officer’s or senior NCO’s career these days. Avoiding serving with females in highly stressful situations avoids that threat.
Not saying it’s right. Just offering an explanation.
May 20th, 2012 at 7:59 am
Ann-I’d like to echo Hondo and say that another thing that might explain some of what you encountered is this: if there were to be a sexual assault on someone such as yourself in a remote location, then there would be an investigation. Part of that investigation would involve the investigator determining if the commander and others responsible for the welfare of that troop (NCOs included) did everything possible to prevent that assault from occurring. If it was determined that they did not, then they would be held to account. Easier for them just to tell their troops to stay away from you.
May 20th, 2012 at 10:14 am
Once again, a couple of points:
1. For every woman capable, willing, and stubborn enough to adhere to the same standards and “suck” that infantrymen and rangers adhere to, there are about 100+ that can’t. It’s a simple fact that no blowhard in Congress can magically change with the stroke of the pen.
2. Gender Integrated Basic Training needs to go. There have been several studies that prove that the Marines have it right. They segregate their trainees and drill instructors based on gender during basic and have the fewest injuries and issues of all the services.
3. Opening up staff billets in combat arms units is the correct call. In some branches, the promotion scale is actually biased against men in the ranks of O3-O5 and E6-E8 due to females having to serve in the prime jobs based on the others not being open to them.
May 20th, 2012 at 10:36 am
I served in all male and co-ed units, as well as units that had a few females for the first time.
The first thing that happens when a unit introduces females to a unit is that professional communication is effected. The record of EO complaints and the effect on careers on those alleged to have offended is enough to inflict fear in leaders. The communications become strained and lack conciseness.
No, leaders cannot put males and females in the same lodging, showers, or latrines. These often results in privates (female) getting lodging equivalent to a Senior NCO (male), or if there are a number of females, lodged with other females of much higher rank, creating a relationship that is not professional, and would otherwise be considered fraternization. Because of that relationship, the private feels empowered to use the rank of their friend to intimidate their superiors.
Every single time I have seen females (though not every female) deployed in a co-ed unit, there have been substantiated allegations of illicit sexual relations, often involving the leadership. These allegations led to the appearance of favortism. Sometimes there was a basis for the perception and sometimes there wasn’t, but the perception alone was sufficient to wear on the morale and effectiveness of the unit.
I have supervised females in combat zones and stateside. Unlike JPJ, I did not assign them the lightwork, and I did not tolerate harassment or bias. Each was expected to do their jobs and perform in a professional manner. Humor was of course encouraged.
I have seen female NCO’s use their positions to maintain unprofessional and illicit sexual relationships. I have seen real cases of EO complaints and false allegations used by females in order to get out of substantiated allegations of wrongdoing, effectively. I have seen good Soldiers’ careers ruined by unsubstantiated allegations, as well as substantiated allegations (due to sex/race) swept under the rug.
As per Military investigations, ONE-THIRD of Sexual based allegations, are proven false. (Another third are unprovable one way or the other.)
No, not all females lodge false accusations, engage in illicit relations, or participate in other negative behavior. And most females are not victimized. Cases of sexual assault are NOT tolerated, and very rare. But these things occur regular enough that they MUST be considered by leaders in co-ed units. These events DO undermine unit effectiveness. While, that can be overcome in a support unit, there is no place in a combat unit for diminished effectiveness. Sexual tensions and ineffective communication cannot be allowed to undermine a unit that has to ruck 80lbs each 50 kilometers, in order to seek out and engage the enemy.
And those false allegations are an important reason why leaders MUST consider that possibility when new allegations arise.
But is there a double standard? A 17-21 yo female passes her APFT with 19 pushups, while a 52 yo male fails with the same number. She maxes her pushup event with 42, but the 52 yo male needs 56 to max. She has 19 minutes and 36 seconds to run 2 miles, and a 52 year old male has 19:48, but a 51 year old male fails with 19:36. To max, he must run a 14:42, but she needs only a 15:36. To pass a 17-21 yo male must run 15:54 and do 71 pushups. http://armyrotc.syr.edu/Files/apft/APFT_scorecard.pdf
To be considered a “go,” a 17 year old female needs to have the same capability in pushups and 2 mile run, as a 52 year old male.
And those standards (which will be changed in October) are already lower than the standard I entered the Army on, when a 17-21 year old male needed 82 pushups and 11:54 to max the APFT. (The standards were lowered during the Clinton Administration.)
May 20th, 2012 at 11:44 am
Because of that relationship, the private feels empowered to use the rank of their friend to intimidate their superiors.
WOTN-sing me a verse of that. Three years ago on a deployment I went and picked up an order at the Class VIII warehouse. I noticed that there were several things in the order that I had placed an order for just that morning. When I got back to my unit I said to SPC Q.T. Pie “when you place an order, please tell me to prevent duplication.” Little did I know but that SPC had just broken up with her deployment boyfriend a little earlier and was emotionally fragile. Apparently my comment drove her over the edge and she went to the latrine to have a good cry where she ran into her workout buddy SSG Ima Hottie one of our full-timers who was, let’s just say, very close to the CO. The next thing I know the 1SG has me in his office for a dressing down about how mean I was to my SPC.
Now, I ended up thinking less of the 1SG, the CO and that SSG, but I also found it difficult to say the least to trust that SPC ever again.
May 20th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I’ve been reading with dismay… 68W58… no matter how many valid points you make in the argument, it seems that you are talking to those that won’t or can’t reason, or have only the capacity to use their experiences and plug them into an ugly equation. Some of these people think that over that horizon is what Chris Columbus did. Name calling and dinosaur references are pointless.
Again I am not a tab(s) protector, I am a realist. I never was from the school “I got mine, you get yours”. However, I know a few who were. This argument that we should let women try is baseless. I’ve never met a women who would graduate… ever. Yes a girl or two did beat me when I competed in sprint distance triathlons, but they would NEVER graduate from the tab(s)school(s) (Crapper tab doesn’t count- it was not around when I was, so I can’t use that one). No matter how hard core or in shape the girl was (determination notwithstanding) she would fail. Period.
“We must be equal.. its the Army- “Be All you can be!” Give EVERYONE a chance!
Really? Are we that stupid to waste valuable resources and time to make a point?
OK- Equal in Battalion is sharing the hump of the four duece (and base plate) during the twenty miler. Equal in Group is sharing the generator and batteries to make the team members’ rucks >100lbs.
In regular units, after actions reports/totals for a unit PT test … the key is how many FAILED the PT test. In SF and Ranger’s it is how many MAXED the PT test.
“Those that know, know, those that don’t, watch the Military Channel and surmise.”
May 20th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
BeretVerde, there are too many people that truly believe that this issue is one about promotions, or “the old boys club,” and refuse to believe it is an issue of life & death, and mission readiness.
There are others that are not effected by such decisions and see only the political expediency of supporting the popularity of polls. As with so many decisions made for political expediency, the lives risked are not those that made the easy decision.
But, it is American Citizenry, not the Warrior, that can change the body politic from this course, and they must be convinced of why it is a bad idea.
May 23rd, 2012 at 11:38 pm
WOTN do not put words in my mouth and misconstrue what I wrote. I said that I would use the tools the army sent me to their greatest use. I didn’t make any sweeping generalizations as you suggested. If you can quote where I did Ill gladly retract my statement.
68w you are full of annecdotes that really don’t prove much other than you like to tell stories. So what you have bad experiences with some females, sounds like a personal problem. For every one of your annecdotes there is female soldier that kicks ass. I know quite a few of them and they have earned my respect because they have traveled the roads I have cleared. As far as your “scenerio” I answered your question you just haven’t figured it out. If you need a mentor look for one in your NCO support channel.
Beret Verde, really honestly I couldn’t respect you any less. Just remember next time you see a female vet that she actually earned her way and treat her with respect she deserves.
May 24th, 2012 at 7:44 am
I knew Jason would not be able to leave this thread alone and his response is as predictable as it is irrelevant. For the fourth or fifth time he accuses someone of “putting words in his mouth”. It’s funny that several of us have apparently misconstrued his words-maybe he should learn to express himself more clearly. Anyway, I don’t think any fair reader of this thread would say that he comes within several standard deviations of a rational argument, but at the very least he is persistent.
May 24th, 2012 at 8:55 am
68w honestly I admit it I lost my cool with you, because you aren’t very good at coming up with any argument other than you don’t like girls. Cool that’s your gig. You baited me which isn’t hard, in real life I have gotten a lot better at walking away from idiots and letting them run their mouths, unfortunately here I haven’t. Your argument has consisted of anecdotes of your interactions with some women. Like I said sounds like a personal problem, not an army problem. Yes WOTN did misconstrue something I said and just because you can make it up and try to bait me again doesn’t mean it will happen again. Now there is a new thread for you to tell more of your wonderful stories…
May 24th, 2012 at 9:00 am
My favorite saying in “group”:
“When you can do what I do, you can go where I go.”
May 24th, 2012 at 9:04 am
Which right now for you is golden corral for breakfast buffet. Doesn’t if feel good that age is the great equalizer…
May 24th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Right Jason-When you use a word it means exactly what you want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less (that’s what we call a literary reference Jason). Anyway, one of us lost his cool and that’s the best indicator or who had the superior argument.
November 24th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
The Army does not serve the individual and the outside world is meant for political experiments. Lowering standards for gender equality is bureaucratic non-sense that should have been crushed decades ago. When women serve with Infantry Platoons they sleep with married men then point fingers at the Chain of Command saying it was their fault, then threaten suicide when that doesn’t work until someone finally feels sorry enough for them that they can go back to the big FOB and eat steak and lobster on Fridays with little to no punishment, they also fall out on missions and require everyone to stop what they are doing for a MEDEVAC for sorry feelings. That’s my experience from Afghanistan.
November 24th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
female @116:
Take MY apft, and score within the standard deviation in my squad, then I’ll be willing to listen to your drivel about equality.