Women Graduate Ranger School

[Bigshankhank]

I read the article. Thanks for sharing. Similar things have been said by teachers of low income students. The schools and teachers unions are constantly pushing back against higher test standards but there are a few teachers out there who have written about how damaging lower standards (expectations) are towards that demographic.

Man that's an entirely different topic. A friend of mine taught for a while in a lower income school district in Texas (part of Austin ISD) and while there, they "prepared" their students for jobs like court reporter, Probation officer, gubmint clerk, etc. Once he moved to a new school in a more affluent area his students were being primed for software developer, accountant, engineers, et al. Not because of the students, this was just what the schools were preparing their respective students for.

Back on topic; why force unit integration? I am fine with women serving in combat, regardless of what testing standards they have to meet. But socially men and women naturally segregate themselves except for very specific purposes (said purpose being obviously detrimental to combat-readiness) and this should not be forced to be otherwise. This doesn't mean either gender isn't suited for combat roles, but mixing them together within the unit is just a bad idea. I can imagine single-gender units serving side by side would be effective, however and might even lead to some proper intra-unit competition. This may sound anachronistic, but it just makes sense to me.

 

[Borebrotherbore]

Damn I was on leave in Hawaii and missed this whole discussion! I feel so left out!

I'm glad they passed. Now the real test comes when they get back to their units and they either perform or they don't.

They are going to live or die by their OER's now that they have those tabs. I'm guessing that from now on in their career they will be judged on their tabs. If their CO's or BC's don't get a long with them..... good luck climbing up the food chain past Captain.

 

[Thai]

Not sure if it has been posted but just saw this on YAHOO: The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones, and the results were pretty bleak - Quartz

Mixed gender group did poorly...and did poorly where lives count the most.

There is a quote in the article (at the end):

"A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."

Frankly, I agree 100% with the quote. Battlefield is not where gender equality movement need to be.

 

[Borebrotherbore]

You and I sir should go and get a beer! We would get along!

 

[Inferno1]

Personally if they can meet the same standards as the males then sure but we know they didn't and we're given multiple chances whereas males aren't always.

What's next females going through the Q course?!?

 

[Kryptoroxx]

Might as well toss my opinion in on this.

12 year Marine vet 3533/3531 Motor T Sgt. Sadly my career is coming to an end this year but I had good fun and I gained a lot from the experiences. Gonna miss my brothers and sisters.

I have been in all the different units within the USMC air/division/logistics/base and I have worked with many females. Some are great sisters and some were not. It's about the same as the 10% rule. There's always one bad apple that spoils the lot.

With that being said I have no problem with females being in these units however I refuse to believe in a different standard or changing a standard. Either you can hack it or not. End of point.

My question is why are we forcing this? All of these tests were voluntolds for the coming from the political arena sponsored by people on the outside looking in. That's not where the change should come from. The military is a very different universe than 1st Civ Div and I wish mothers of America and the rest of the political world would butt the hell out. They only come to see us on deployment because it helps them win elections.

Also if the jobs are to be opened anyway then why are we fighting it? The military has had its balls cut off by politicians for quite some time. Now what would really put a snake in my boot is forcing females into these jobs as an equality quota. All the supporters of the idea would think it was great except for the poor soul who ends up with hip fractures and severe fertility problems (not saying 100% would end up with this but a lot of the military is not vonluntary after you voluteer)

Now for my direct opinion on females in combat. Once again it comes down to the individual (regardless of sex) and how they perform. If the pull their weight and contribute great....if not we have a plentiful and colorful collection of adjectives reserved to describe them that I will not repeat here.

 

[BrianSD_42]

Report: Generals Decided Female Graduation Before Ranger School | The Daily Caller

Sources: Generals Decided Long Before Ranger School That ‘A Woman Will Graduate’

 

[02SE]

Report: Generals Decided Female Graduation Before Ranger School | The Daily Caller

Sources: Generals Decided Long Before Ranger School That ‘A Woman Will Graduate’

It seems that those who claimed in this thread that the Women were given extra special consideration, in order to pass, were correct.

I'll call it what it is: Politically Correct BS.

 

[ben550]

Report: Generals Decided Female Graduation Before Ranger School | The Daily Caller

Sources: Generals Decided Long Before Ranger School That ‘A Woman Will Graduate’

Very disappointing article. Only confirms my original suspicions... How sad.

 

[CombatBevo]

Report: Generals Decided Female Graduation Before Ranger School | The Daily Caller

Sources: Generals Decided Long Before Ranger School That ‘A Woman Will Graduate’

Gona add my .02 to this: Look at the ‘source’ of the article; People Magazine-which is nothing more than a gossip rag used to make $$. Nothing in that article is based on facts. Not one person has come forward to prove that they were given a special treatment.

One of the Squad Ldr’s that used to be in my Platoon years ago when I was a PSG is currently an RI in Mountain Phase, and he has told me repeatedly that no-one has ever been given ‘special treatment’.

I have also talked to many others who were RI’s & they have no knowledge of these two Officers being given special treatment. Now there is a Congressman, Steve Russell-Retired LTC, who used to be my BC in 1-22 IN back in ’03, who is calling for all their training records from the Course. They have (the Female Officers) turned the tables on him and asked for HIS complete records; which I think is hilarious, because he’s pretty much a douche-canoe and always has been.

Do I think this presents a dangerous precedent, that women can be allowed to attempt going to Ranger School; Yes. But there have bee women in Combat Arms roles for years; One of the best Medics we ever had was a female, who would walk patrol w/us in ’06-’08. Women have been in attack Aviation for years also; piloting AH-64’s and OH-58 Kiowa Warriors; as well as in Engineers BN’s, Artillery BN’s and BDE HQ’s as support personnel. Also if you know anything about the makeup of a Combined Arms BN, you know that there are females in the FSC (Forward Support Company); Leading convoy’s, pulling Security for CLP’s, etc.

Everyone is making a bigger deal than this needs to be.

 

[737AMT]

Our military is not a social experiment. Our military's sole function is to protect our nation which means killing our enemies and blowing things up. If a woman can do the job, fine, but no special treatment and no affirmative action.

 

[Thai]

But there have bee women in Combat Arms roles for years; One of the best Medics we ever had was a female, who would walk patrol w/us in ’06-’08. Women have been in attack Aviation for years also; piloting AH-64’s and OH-58 Kiowa Warriors; as well as in Engineers BN’s, Artillery BN’s and BDE HQ’s as support personnel. Also if you know anything about the makeup of a Combined Arms BN, you know that there are females in the FSC (Forward Support Company); Leading convoy’s, pulling Security for CLP’s, etc.

Everyone is making a bigger deal than this needs to be.

I am NOT in military...but I often pretend to be a SEAL in my head.

All of what you listed is good. But the bottom line...in combat situations (e.g. clearing houses, storming a village, etc.), would you like the person next to you be a woman? Can she drag you from harm (e.g. burning house after getting wounded)? Can she carry equipment for communication if that is her job or if she has to take over for a fallen soldier? Can she rope down with heavy equipment on her back? Can she handle an RPG when the time comes? Can she chase after squirter(s)? Can she do all this while having her menstrual cycle (and thus being relatively anemic)?

I am NOT digging at woman in Armed Forces. BUT, battlefield is the last place you want to have a weak spot. Just my non-military way of thinking. I believe in equality in workplace, in administration, in medicine, in military support roles...but in battle?

 

[CombatBevo]

I am NOT in military...but I often pretend to be a SEAL in my head.

All of what you listed is good. But the bottom line...in combat situations (e.g. clearing houses, storming a village, etc.), would you like the person next to you be a woman? Can she drag you from harm (e.g. burning house after getting wounded)? Can she carry equipment for communication if that is her job or if she has to take over for a fallen soldier? Can she rope down with heavy equipment on her back? Can she handle an RPG when the time comes? Can she chase after squirter(s)? Can she do all this while having her menstrual cycle (and thus being relatively anemic)?

I am NOT digging at woman in Armed Forces. BUT, battlefield is the last place you want to have a weak spot. Just my non-military way of thinking. I believe in equality in workplace, in administration, in medicine, in military support roles...but in battle?

It depends on the person. I’ve personally seen MEN that can’t do all the things you have listed/mentioned. In 22 years of being in the U.S. Army Infantry I have seen things that made me double-take and question what I was looking at/seeing; and I’ve seen some females out perform men at the same task.

Some are cut out to do it, some are not.

Example: I’ve seen women run the 2 mile PT test faster than some men. I’ve seen women finish a 12 mile ruck march w/35lbs. (standard packing list) faster than men; but I have also seen the complete opposite of this also. It depends on the person.

Our Medic at the time, Whitney, was strong enough/capable enough to pull every single one of us in my Plt. out of a vehicle (HWMMV & M2A2 Bradley) from every position in each vehicle. That was a requirement for her. But another Medic we had, John F., could not.

Again, it all comes down to the person and their desire.

 

[nevada]

It seems that those who claimed in this thread that the Women were given extra special consideration, in order to pass, were correct.

I'll call it what it is: Politically Correct BS.

if that is true, like I said earlier, then they didnt actually pass.

it would be like literally cutting a corner in a race, then claiming a win. not so much.

 

[Thai]

It depends on the person. I’ve personally seen MEN that can’t do all the things you have listed/mentioned. In 22 years of being in the U.S. Army Infantry I have seen things that made me double-take and question what I was looking at/seeing; and I’ve seen some females out perform men at the same task.

Some are cut out to do it, some are not.

Example: I’ve seen women run the 2 mile PT test faster than some men. I’ve seen women finish a 12 mile ruck march w/35lbs. (standard packing list) faster than men; but I have also seen the complete opposite of this also. It depends on the person.

Our Medic at the time, Whitney, was strong enough/capable enough to pull every single one of us in my Plt. out of a vehicle (HWMMV & M2A2 Bradley) from every position in each vehicle. That was a requirement for her. But another Medic we had, John F., could not.

Again, it all comes down to the person and their desire.

Thank you. But those weak men that you know...how did they pass the training?

If a woman can show enough brute strength and proving herself (without extra assist), then I support it.

BUT, as the study I posted above, without assist, woman in combat situations do worst...not just for them, but for the whole team. That is a bad thing when lives count.

My above post again:

Not sure if it has been posted but just saw this on YAHOO: The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones, and the results were pretty bleak - Quartz

Mixed gender group did poorly...and did poorly where lives count the most.

There is a quote in the article (at the end):

"A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."

Frankly, I agree 100% with the quote. Battlefield is not where gender equality movement need to be.

 

[CombatBevo]

Women graduating Ranger School has nothing to do with their units effectiveness; Ranger School is a School, not an automatic assignment to a 1 of the 3 Battalions in the Ranger Regiment.

It is seen as Combat Multiplier School, specializing in small unit Infantry Tactics and Leadership. Both women that graduated/earned the Ranger Tab will be an asset to their respective Units; Aviation and Military Police.

The Marine Corps study was for integrating women into Combat Arms Units, such as the Infantry (which if you have ever been in one, then you would know the physical demanding nature of the Infantry is rarely suited to most Men, let alone women.)

There are already women in Combat Arms/Combined Arms Battalions such as Engineers & Field Artillery. Some of those units sawsee direct action (read: Combat) in Iraq and Afcrackistan, and most performed exceptionally well.

This is not a free pass for women to join the Ranks of the 11B’s and 0311’s or even frontline ‘jobs’ kicking in doors & slinging lead. It merely let them, The Army, visualize what it would take for women to pass the Pre-Ranger Course and Ranger School. They now have a baseline to measure what the attrition rate would be for females (19 started, 2 passed=89.5% attrition rate including a full course recycle) in a School that has a 30%+ attrition rate for males; of which 25%-30% are Recycles (meaning they have to repeat one of the three phases).

SOCOM units have been utilizing females in their ranks for quite some time, as TET’s (Tactical Engagement Teams) Medics, Nurses, etc. conducting missions, raids, HVT snatches. Why has no one *****ed about that? This is a ‘Political’ ***** about morality, and MSM drumming up/dredging up Feminism Support.

Just remember this: If everyone was a Ranger, Green Beret, SEAL, Delta Operator or Marine Raider (Love that they brought that name back!) then there wouldn’t be anyone left to do the menial tasks that are required to support the overall fight.

 

[Inferno1]

^correct. 75th RR has their own separate selection post graduation of Ranger. Ranger is just a leadership course and it doesn't mean you're a Ranger post graduation, just that you earned the Ranger tab.

I've worked with all the tier 1 units in some capacity and they actually have a shit ton of female support but you certainly won't see any of them being operators. Not that I don't think any wouldn't make it but it's just not an atmosphere they wouldnt survive in. Hell I'm an alpha type and working with those cats took its toll on me.

 

[jstim]

^correct. 75th RR has their own separate selection post graduation of Ranger. Ranger is just a leadership course and it doesn't mean you're a Ranger post graduation, just that you earned the Ranger tab.

I've worked with all the tier 1 units in some capacity and they actually have a shit ton of female support but you certainly won't see any of them being operators. Not that I don't think any wouldn't make it but it's just not an atmosphere they wouldnt survive in. Hell I'm an alpha type and working with those cats took its toll on me.

Good thing 75th is tier 3, and low tier 2, and all ODA's are tier 2, low low tier 1, if they get a shot at it.

I don't get why people are all up in arms about this. There are lots of men who can't hack it today. We have turned into a society full of pompous PU**IES. Lots of infantrymen, etc who can't do what it takes. Almost literally.

Most closed minded people absolutely fear change. It is a school, to me its no different than allowing women to read and write.

 

[Thefishguy77]

Agree. Lots of friends in 75th. It's a media field day that is getting used for a political pat on the back. None of my friends. Most have the tan beret btw are remotely threatened by this.

The only problem they see is the media circus this is creating. Keep the media out and let the chips fall where they may. Who know there may be a woman or 2 that can pass selection. And if they can then more power to them. I doubt I could at this point. When 2 of my buddies went in I help train with them as we are all alphas and have fought and worked out together forever. They said basic was cake. Ranger school was about keeping your head and realizing the sleep is actually optional. And food is nearly a suggestion. They each recycled 1 phase for sleep walking. But to just hear glimpses of what ranger selection is like made me have more respect for them than I had before. And that's saying something.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk