LLAD: Ranger School welcomes women, drops standards

UPDATE 2: There have been several new posts since this went up 15th May, click the Category link to “Rangers and Rangerettes” to see them all. Yes, they will go to Infantry Officer Basic. 

UPDATE: the first of several follow-up posts, A Funny Thing Happened this Week, has been up since Thursday and it adds a few more details from teh cascade of information flowing from the unhappy implementers of this latest outburst from the Good Idea Fairy. In the light of the comment interest in this post, we’ll post links to other, forthcoming updates here as well. Now back to the original post:

It was clear that nobody’s opinion was being solicited. The message came from the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the order seems to have come from echelons above him: Ranger School will admit women within a few months. And the women will pass, whatever it takes.

Female officers have complained that the lack of the school credential disadvantages them for promotions and commands, and in an election year their complaints have found champions among the political appointees in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In a Department whose highest priority is the Secretary’s million-dollar Gulfstream commute, and that has lost interest in two ongoing wars and a dozen other flashpoints where soldiers risk their lives daily, a stroke of a pen can upend a 60-year-old course that embodies a tradition with roots in the 18th Century.

And it just did.

The Ranger Training Brigade has been told to roll the welcome mat and the first class could be 03/13 but will definitely be 05/13 at the latest. Each class in the remainder of FY 13 will receive five to eight women, and the treatment, mentoring, nurturing and ultimate success of those female candidates will be intensively managed by the Chief of Staff and the Sergeant Major of the Army, not to mention civilian appointees. The male candidates in the same courses are not of interest to the command, as long as they don’t interfere with or criticize the women. Even the timing of the feminized classes was established for political reasons: to ensure that a fait accompli of female Ranger attendees, if not graduates is presented to the incoming SecDef and Secretary of the Army if, as the current leaders think likely, their patron is defeated in November. They did not want to put women in class 1/13, which starts in October, to prevent Congress from intervening before the elections, but 2/13 is an outside possibility.

Current Ranger graduates, Ranger veterans, and the Ranger units and Ranger training establishment were never consulted about the decision. Officers who argued against it in Pentagon meetings have already been dismissed or shunted into career-ending punishment assignments.

The RTB has not been directed that all female candidates must pass regardless of performance, and Ranger Instructors will retain a limited ability to dismiss an individual underperforming woman from the course, as long as “enough” women remain to please the higher-ups. But they will have to justify every dismissal to the highest levels of command, who have made their intention clear. Regardless of performance, the majority of women attendees must pass — at least as high a graduating percentage as the men in the same class. For the first time in Ranger history, graduation will be guaranteed — for some.

Currently, the RTB closely monitors candidate performance at the school, and notes the following statistical details about course failures/dropouts:

  • 60% of all Ranger School failures occur in the first 3 days (“RAP Week”): RPFT, Land Nav, Footmarch, CWSA.
  • 30% of all Ranger School failures occur due to Personal Reasons: Admin, Lack of Motivation, Special Circumstances.
  • 10% of all Ranger School failures occur due to Academics: Patrols, Peers, Serious Observation Report, Medical Issues.
    • Only 2.2% of all Ranger School failures are due to Patrols (Academic).
    • Only 5% of all Ranger School failures are due to Patrols, Patrols/Peers, Patrols/Peers/Spots (Academic).
  • 50.13% Overall Graduation Rate last 6 years (FY 06-FY 11) 3
  • 37.2% Ranger Graduates Recycle at least 1x Phase of Ranger School
  • 75% of those who complete RAP week will eventually pass the Darby Phase and move on to the Mountain Phase. Darby Recycle Rate is approximately 15%.
  • 94% of those who start the Mountain Phase will eventually pass and move on to the Florida Phase. Mountain Recycle Rate is approximately 18%.
  • 98% of those who start Florida Phase will eventually pass and graduate Ranger School. Florida Recycle Rate is approximately 18%.
A sergeant-major’s welcome letter notes the following:
The three events that cause most students to recycle or fail Ranger School are the Ranger Physical Fitness Test (49x Push-ups, 59x Sit-ups, 5-mile run in under 40x minutes, and 6x Pull-ups) land navigation, and foot march. Success in those events significantly increases your chance of graduating.

That sergeant major, Dennis L. Smith, just retired (in the nick of time). The standards he outlines here are the same standards that have been in effect for decades, but they’re about to change.

The instructors and cadre have been advised that any public statement is a career ender, and those that have spoken to WeaponsMan.com have done so at considerable personal career risk. Their input wasn’t sought beforehand, and it sure as hell isn’t wanted now.

If physical fitness standards are sex-normed for the women, as Army standards overall are, and women are carefully preselected (trained up in land nav, only strong swimmers) then they can get past that initial 60% drop and have a decent chance of passing. Right now, the plan is for women officers only, and for them to have as much as a two month train-up prior to the course. If the women beat the 50% attrition rate of men, expect a publicity blitz. Some attrition means the initial 5 to 8 in the first class will be winnowed down to a publicity-friendly 3 or 4 junior-officer graduates, a number of whom are likely to be “legacies” of military families and already fast-tracked for promotion.

The question is, is the purpose of Ranger School to prepare leaders for combat or to provide careerist officers with a shiny ticket-punch? The Chief of Staff has answered the question, and his answer conforms to what appears to be his overall policy: get the Army firmly on a peacetime bureaucratic footing, and banish the unpleasant lessons of combat. It’s still unclear whether training evolutions that women would have difficulty with will be dropped or re-normed for all students or just for the women. The introduction of women to Airborne School in the 1970s resulted in a massive easing of the challenge to all troopers, with low levels of attrition coming from arbitrary mind-games replacing high levels of attrition from physical failure.  But that could be done without consequence, because the main point of airborne school was simply learning to parachute, something that’s possible for any healthy person.

In Ranger School, one possibility is sex-norming various standards, to prevent the credibility damage that the feminized jump school suffered. The command-preferred approach is to lower standards across the board now, before the classes containing the women. allowing the initial class of women to claim they met the same standards as the men. While those decisions haven’t all been taken yet, they need to be made within days, because planning for next year’s classes is already well underway.

313 thoughts on “LLAD: Ranger School welcomes women, drops standards

  1. Pingback: Obama admin: Standards dropped, women to Ranger school - INGunOwners

  2. charles

    This is RIDICULOUS if woman want to join and be a Ranger then they should be held to the same standards as their male counterparts. If you relax the standards you put many soldiers lives in jeopardy. I can not see how military official do not see this.

    1. Hognose Post author

      One Lieutenant Colonel who spoke out about it is now on his way to retirement pour encourager les âutres. Don’t think anyone else is going to be handling that particular grenade. Supposedly the Chief of Staff has said that, since the Army’s going to be downsizing big-time, anyone who’s not on board with this kind of thing can be the next one on the beach.

      1. Rob Billington

        Better to be on the beach knowing you have met the standards of the best than to be a part of an organization that lowers it’s standards to accept mediocracy as the standard. Best of luck to the Army CoS, one’s thing is for sure, his days are numbered too and he’ll be out here with the rest of us pretty soon.


      I totally agree with you Charles. My wife agrees 100% too. Women want equality, but they need to step the fuck up and be a soldier, not a play toy in the military. We are currently seeing this problem with the Cultural Support Teams that are attached to SOF units. I have the privlege to training the 1st CST here at Ft Bragg and they were more concerned about hooking up with on of us than doing their jobs, then had the tenacity to complain about a 15 mile ruck with 55lbs. Really, I was carrying 120lbs and not one could keep up with me. It was disgusting.
      1 team, 1 fight, 1 standard.

      1. Nikita

        Before spitting in women’s faces, I’d suggest you first address many of the men in the military; I believe they are dwelling there in larger amounts, and I know that many of them are incapable of competing both physically or intellectually even with females on profiles with a basic high school background. You suggest one standard for both genders, so how about you stop being predisposed towards a certain side in the first place. I pray that they leave the standard intact for RS, so that the first female, who graduates it could shove that tab down all those spiteful throats, those of people that are so insecure and scared of changes. Although, even then some army men and their wives would find so many things to blame on the females in the military, I’m sure of that.

        1. Hognose Post author

          Ah, I haven’t been tracking the logical fallacies, but the one you’ve just committed is called tu quoque, a dumb term in some dumb language invented by dead white guys who knew nothing of war. They built temples to bizarre and capricious godlings — not sure whether one of them was “diversity,” but it would have fit.

          Using the linguistic term “gender” for “sex” is usually the marker of a recent and inadequate post-modern college education, or of getting spun by recipients of same.

          Your suggestion — that the standard remain the same — seems like one many people on all sides of the argument would welcome. This actually was done for the first three or four classes that women were admitted to in Jump School back in the mists of ancient history (1973? 75?). After the first couple classes exhausted the supply of farm-bred Amazons and iron-pumping Women In Sensible Shoes, women started failing, and the standard was kept the same for male and female (apart from the sex-normed and age-normed APFT), but lowered to a level conducive to female “achievement.” You go, grrrrl!

          Now, past behavior of institutions even more than of people is an imperfect guide to future behavior. But it’s the best guide we have. Therefore a lot of old geezers who never learnt about the evils of THE PATRIARCHY are predicting that this will be a similar fiasco. Since the Chief of Staff directive is, “the women will pass,” so far we’re on track for a repeat. If they hold the current standard, relatively few women who attempt the course will pass. They’re trying to work out how to jigger this right now.

          1. JuliusPleaser

            Your 1st paragraph= not relevant to the discussion
            your 2d = again, off topic
            your 3rd = apples and oranges… “Once a long time ago we tried that and it didn’t work…” You sir, have a great future as a GS employee. Some reasons why things don’t work a lack of funding, personnel, development expertise, and people that want it to fail.
            Jump School is your yardstick? Really? Does it take three weeks of yelling and PT that overworks and predisposes candidates to injury to gain the knowledge to manipulate equipment and manage the task? We both know the true answer is no…but if we don’t pump it up then no one feels special wearing wings. Lest we forget all the folks that did the 2-week ‘gentemen’s course’ at Ft Benjamin Harrison years ago. how about all the guys that earned long tabs by ‘correspondence’? Guess what some people are smart and crafty without a banner on their left sleeve.
            your 4th = does completing a school (and holding a tab) make all who completed it competant? No- training, re-training, and of course, actual experience does. Put a 160th medic against an Conventional Army medic and see who is sharper. Perhaps most 160th but some conventional 68Ws just might suprise us.

            Summary- I concur with you–it needs to be sorted out and implemented once they relook with the capability requirement for future ops…and develop a POI to addres the need. There is aplace in the Regiment for women. SO too, in the 160th. I’m not saying it will be much different from today. But in the ranks or all who wear tabs, some are better some things than others…I bet there are things a girl can accomplish than a male Ranger just cannot make happen. Even though I don’t know what that could be.

          2. Nikita

            Usage of the term “gender” instead of “sex” is simply a sign of a language barrier, nothing more.
            Also, would you be so kind to apply all the stats % to the number of females to attend the school. Naturally, there will be fewer females on the grad ceremony. And I am tired reading a bunch of grown up men whining on this page. Do yourself a favor, cut the internet. From Russia with love.

          3. Hognose Post author

            Funny, all your posts are from the same IP, which geolocates to an American military garrison town. And an actual Russian would think of “Nikita” as a male name, and not associate it with the various movie and TV spy/assassin fantasies where it’s a girl’s name. But hey, on the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.


            And at least in the book, “From Russia with love” didn’t end well for Mr Bond, did it?

          4. Nikita

            Now I definitely know that if I am to continue I would just be arguing with a deaf and blind person. What else can I say if you are trying to convince ME that I am not Russian and I am a male? You truly made me laugh, sir. Fort Bragg, Andrea Parker (name is from Polish origin, last name from a husband origin) from Russia (proud American citizen now) with love.
            “Who is James Bond?” – Russia.

        2. Chuck Norris

          You’re the reason men get killed behind enemy lines. 1 team, 1 fight, no catfights.

          1. Nikita

            So far there are no females on ranger teams yet. But I assume that you are blaming casualties on us anyways. Sounds about right, Chuck. Besides, I thought we were all here to express our opinion on the subject; however, if you are considering my piece out of line with the language or arguments, I suggest you scroll down to a certain marine comment for contrast.

          2. Rusty Shackelford

            no airborne school doesnt require all the PT and yelling etc. to teach someone to jump out of a Aircraft. BUT that yelling and PT puts the trooper under stress so that they know how to cope if lines are tangled, if one looses thier air and the miriade of other problems that can occure during a jump. You do what your told to the letter or you will die or kill someone else and by the black-hat i.e. SGT Airborne getting in someones grill about faling to propperly execute a task could savea troopers life.
            We have been the elite force in the world and though I am not apposed to women serving outside the FOB or being in a combat arms role I feel that that they should toe the line just like every man. During OEF I had a man wounded and he weighed approx 175LBS I was able to through him over my sholder after dragging him to cover to get him out of the kill zone. Would a women be able to do the same thing every time?
            And one more thought why is the first group only female officers???? Is so that their thoughts on the male NCO will carry more weight?

        3. Doubting Thomas


          The first standard you should try to meet is spelling followed by grammar. Rangers, I feel for you. The pussification of the famed Rangers has come to the rest of the feminized US Army. God save the Corps because politicians have destroyed the Army.

        4. Neil

          HAHA, I completely agree.. GET EM!! The Army is filled with old narrow-minded dinosaurs who are so insecure the thought of a woman doing anything equal or better than them makes them shudder.. Change is what the Army needs, start with getting rid of the “good ol boys” and it can only get better..


        5. Lil' Wolfe

          Russian women and American women are two entirely different animals. Little Russian girls have more intestinal fortitude than most American men I know. Unless we’re planning on importing only Russian and Eastern European women who live with extreme brutal climates and the hard work that is required to deal with them in countries with 3rd-world infrastructure, this is a lost cause. It’s also a lost cause with them, because while they might show exempliary short-term performance, the long-term physiology will involve osteoporosis-a lifetime debilatating, and early-grave condition.

        6. Yazmannia

          Nikkita, just bc you have been attached to a Alpha detachment does NOT mean you were out on the front lines doing the job of a common infantryman. Ranger School is a elite school designed to pushed the human body to extremes while also having to make sound decisions with the lives of your men hanging in the balance. Feminists continue to try to make the remark that this woman or that woman is stronger than most men but should we make a rule based on the exception? Because you know four women who you THINK could pass we should allow all the headaches women bring to the operation? Out there there is NO privacy. You sleep three men to a sleeping bag just to stay warm for the hour you get to sleep. You use the latrine in the middle of the patrol base, 5 meters from the C2 area while they are pitching OPORDERS. When you come out of the field you have 10 min to shower. The installations are not set up to have separate bathrooms in Darby, mountains, or at swamp phase so there will have to be buildings constructed for them. They will have to hurry and push women through so they can get the first female RI in each phase bc as soon as one of the females claim sexism no matter what the case is they will win bc of fear from higher. Women should not go to RS. The day the first female makes it through us the day I stop wearing that tab. It becomes another SAPPER tab. Just bc you have supported with SF doe not mean you are SF.

        7. The Truth

          Your exactly correct, Nikita. Women do get unfairly blamed concerning the military. It the fault of whatever kneepad-wearing, paper-pushing, never-done-anything-on-deplopyment officer who is looking at a promotion and wants to please. Women should be nowhere near real-world operations, and if you don’t understand that then you obviously have never done anything. They should in fact let women in, so that when those worthless loser males quit, they can feel like even bigger pieces of shit. And then the women will fail in a week or two.

        8. Tyler

          I have no problem with women going to Ranger school. Women are equal in every way to men as far as combat is concerned and should be afforded every opportunity to prove it. However, while we are at it, I believe the NFL needs to open its ranks to women. Not a separate league, but the actual NFL. Every team should be forced to play at least 2 women on every down. That should be interesting as far as game strategy is concerned. Since Ranger school is a combat leader’s course, let’s also put women in the UFC, which is kind of like combat. Again, not women against women, but women against men. Just keep the weight classes. A 150 pound female should do just fine against a 150 pound male in the UFC. I don’t think the entertainment value would suffer at all. For all you who foolishly think that a women going up against Jon Jones in the UFC or attempting blow through Erik Pears to tackle the Bills’ Fred Jackson would be unfair, I say you are just stuck in the old days and are afraid of change. Entertainment aside, Ranger school actually impacts our military’s warrior ethos and esprit decor, especially in the combat MOS’s. Placing women in these ranks can only have a positive effect on our nation’s ability to wage war. Looking forward to the changes. However, once they start putting women through this course, please forgive me if I forget to wear my tab. I am not sexist at all. Just looking to get that ‘Supports EO’ bullet on my next NCOER. Remember, diversity is more important than unity, and careers are more important than actually being effective.

        9. tempest

          No one is spitting in womens faces, the men that fear these changes will be the ones that have met the standards and are currently serving in combat roles over seas. Lowering the standards and allowing any old body to walk on to an elite team will put the whole team at risk. This isnt about high school testing, its about physical training designed to replicate the physical demands of the job. My point being, man or woman, you have to earn a spot on the team. I am willing to bet many will leave our special ops community due to this EO publicity stunt.

      2. ANDY

        In Panama we jumped with !50 pounds from 500 feet. I like to see the women do that. I guess everything gets dumbed down.

      3. REALITY

        I should forward this post to the USAJFKSWCS CSM, CSM Stigall, and let him know that this is the message that his CST Instructors are putting out. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but for you to openly admit on an open source that you are a CST Instructor and that this is what women going through CST Selection are about is pretty unprofessional. Just because there were female Soldiers trying to “hook up” with the instructors does not mean that the rest are the same way. One team, one fight? Very professional manner to lead everyone to believe that this is what women in the Army are about. You are obviously so competent that you are an 18-series Soldier that was selected to facilitate CST Selection. You are obviously so competent that you were sent to SWCS versus staying on an ODA with whatever SF Group that you came from. Ignorance is bliss but please believe that there are women that can/will put you to shame, any day, even if there aren’t that many. So compentent that you actually ran a spellcheck prior to posting your ridiculous blog. You probably don’t even have a Ranger tab yourself. Good luck with the rest of your SWCS tour. I’m sure that Soldiers such as yourself will be in SWCS for the rest of your career. Now that’s pretty disgusting….

    3. hank

      Definition of Socialism (no communism) everybody passes, or at least passing is not a direct relation to performance.

      1. WTF

        Amen…this is kind of like the soccer games where noone keeps score because ‘everyone’ is a winner! Way to go, Liberals…you just took another gigantic chip out of what once made America strong. Hope you’re proud of yourselves

    4. Jillian Weatherford

      I am a woman. I graduated from a military school where the fitness test was not gender-normed. Obviously, it was harder for us than our male counterparts but the pride we experienced was welcomed by being able to hold our own alongside them. That wasn’t a war or a significant job in the Army. A ranger unit and it’s job is far more important than a school situation. I can’t understand why the military officials can’t see how they are weakening their ability to do the military’s job well. It is a shame that women would ask for that – a lowering of standards.

      1. Hognose Post author

        Ms. Weatherford — I’m not sure women are asking for it, especially from the comments here from serving women officers. The institutional Army is asking for it. The Chief of Staff and CSMA are both men. If a physical test were administered equally, fewer women than men would pass (the difference between the standards for men and women in the APFT, as in pro and Olympic sports where you see true elite athletes, is very large). But at any reasonable threshold, say the one that 50% of men pass, it seems reasonable that some women would pass.

        The Army ended racial discrimination — slowly and reluctantly, if one reads the history — but did it by requiring racial minorities to meet the same standards as the majority. As a result of racial disparities in society at large, perhaps, we now have racial assortation by career management field in the Army but not by rank, and no one looks at a colonel or sergeant major and says, “oh, affirmative action hire.” It’s all just shades of green. Nobody ever questions whether the guys standing in Regimental First Formation at the end of an SFQC class met the standard based on other characteristics.

        It honestly is starting to sound like the women want equal opportunity and can live with unequal results, if that’s what happens. But this initiative is oriented towards results, and perhaps the command fears that a standard that only a few women can meet would look like discrimination (this loopy idea actually has a basis in case law).

      2. Nikita

        I hope you understand by now that females are not asking to lower the standard. Mr. Hognose explained it quite well in my opinion.
        As for the ranger units and necessity to join those after graduating the school, well, it is not necessary. I have seen enough people with a ranger tab, who went to the school to get a good training and promotion points out of it. I hope nobody will make an argument that RS is useless for a soldier, because ANY training is crucial for a team, no matter what unit you’re in – ranger, 82, SOF community. And soldiers tend to be females. And as a female I’d like to have an opportunity to get the same training as others. My supply NCO did get it, not that he is using it at all. 21st century, free country of the US; hope you love your other freedoms too.

        1. bob

          -Nikita, I hope you understand that this argument is more based on the fact that women are being sent to the US Armys premier INFANTRY Leadership course. Being a graduate I understand that not all people who go to it are infantry and may be a different MOS, but the fact is that it is a course designed to push the human body to its limits. Spending multiple weeks out in the field, conducting 15k movements every day then conducting an ambush or raid, then moving another 3-4k to get to your patrol base, clean guns, eat, and the sleep for hopefully more than 1 hour. All this every day spent in the field, no showers, no privacy, no toilets. This is a course built around the rigors of actual combat and designed so that soldiers who have or even have not been to actual combat can hone their skills so they can lead their men in any enviroment.

          Now lets talk about an actual land-based war. Were there to be a large scale war in the near future everyone who is in the Army with a ranger tab is going to be in demand. The question is, from here are women expecting to be going into the 11B mos? I dont think anyone knows but if the answer is indeed yes then women are going to go to the front lines with men and/ or lead them into combat. Which means they are going to have to be able to kill. I’m not saying that women cant kill another person in a wartime enviroment, I’m saying men are much more predisposed to be able to. It’s just science, how our brains are wired. Speaking of how brains are wired, in a firefight, we are trying to eliminate the enemy, if I have a clear field of fire and the enemy has my buddy pinned down, I’m going to do my best to engage and kill him without trying to get myself killed. Now replace my buddy with a woman. Every man has a tendency to want to protect women in danger, so now instead of doing the rational thing I may be conducting myself in a way that would get myself or others killed in order to save her life.

          I hope you can understand, Im not downplaying the role of the females in the military, I completely understand how crucial they are to it. But Ranger school is a school centered around men. Bottom line. If the average woman in the military went to ranger school as it is today, she would fail. The only thing that they could do to fix this is rig the course and ensure thaat women pass, which is exactly what they are already planning to do. There has never been fairness to females in the military. They have always had things made easier for them so that they can pass. Even pregnant women in WLC who only walk 1 mile for the PT test can get the “Iron Sergeant” award. (which btw I dont know if you knew this or not but you are not supposed to be on profile when you go to an army school)

          1. Nikita

            Bob, you might not be aware of those jobs, but there are MOSs in the army, where personnel is operating in tactical groups. Those could be separate entities, could be also attached to SOF and rangers, etc. Women along with men are in charge of this groups. 11 B is not the only MOS that does the door kicking, shooting and patrols. The reason why people don’t hear about those women leaders often, leads me to another argument.
            I agree with you 100% about natural tendencies of certain groups (women are weaker, black people are louder, Mexicans are shorter, etc), but here we are taking into consideration those who are different. Men are better killers, fine, but guns shoot for us just as well. RS is considered elite, because many guys cannot pass it. I heard the stories from it and description of the course from my friends fresh from the RS, and I saw them 62 days later and 30 pounds lighter. I understand the bitterness of men, because they think they’d lose that status of an elite soldier, who can do more that a regular person. But there are some women that are able to do just as much. Considering how many women there are in the army, how many of them are taking this job seriously and how many of them you can see in the gym on a regular basis, I suppose there would be one or two graduates to every cycle at most, depending on the number of participants. Again, not so many people would want to even try. I asked all my female friends and only one of them was OK with the idea. Just like an Airborne, not all people like to jump from a perfectly good airplane. Just like there (even with lowered standards) there are female and male dropouts.
            Again, I am not fighting for every female in the army to attend the RS. But those who can, they should get the opportunity. I also hear you, when you are touching the subject of pregnant girls going through training, and I ensure you that this is an issue only in the regular army. All special schools put the training of a soldier to a hold. It sucks to lose a year just because you try to build a family along with the career, but it interferes with our job performance directly, and I agree with you completely, that shouldn’t be happening in the military.
            And finally, please, do not repeat that “what if” argument of Mr. Santorum about females in combat. Fear of death will level that gentlemen impulse to the grounds of common sense, that is my argument back.
            Thank you for your opinion, by the way. Most men on this page are simply pissed off and all they are trying to do is to carve women’s guts out with their arguments. Your piece was argumentative, but not spiteful.

          2. Jack

            Just thought I’d throw this out there Bob is right about men trying to protect women in combat even when tactically unsound. Israel put women into comba alonside men in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the results were completely disastrous. I quote here
            “Women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield.”

            So there is data to support the idea that men act differently in combat when around women. Men were also more likely to “commit atrocities” ex: execute unharmed prisoners, if a woman in their unit had been killed (much more so than if a man had died). Israel already tried this and failed, I do not see why the U.S. should make the same mistake. Not that women do not belong in the military, they do, but not in combat roles. The cost in terms of mission completion, and the lives of both female and male soldiers is too great. This is a PR stunt and its going to make consequences.

          3. Jack

            O here are my sources. Also thought I would add this little nugget on women in the IDF as well.
            “When the Muslim opposition discovered that they were fighting women, the Arabs spontaneously chose to fight to the death.” Again showing how putting women in combat roles is a bad idea given the U.S. military’s most recent areas of large scale engagement.

        2. frank

          Females dont need to ask for the standard to be lowered. Heres an example of the current APFT standards for the 17-21 age group.

          Male Push Up Minimum – 42
          Female Push Up Minimum – 19 Female 100% = 42

          Male Run Minimum – 15:56
          Female Run Minimum – 18:54 Female 100% = 15:36

          The generaly army standard for training run time/mile for 4 miles is 9 min/mile. If a female barely passes the run then there is no way she will last for double the distance at a faster overall pace.

          I do not think that women are weaker or inferior. I believe that equal opportunity means EQUAL. The standards for knowledge and performace should be the exact same reguardless of gender.

          So, with that being said. Sure, let women go to ranger school but dont change a damn thing. They can shower with men, eat with men, shit next to a man, sleep in the same quarters, pass the same standards. I dont think a single man wearing a ranger tab right now would have a problem with that.

    5. Ray

      Charles. I agree with your first statement but you will have a hard time proving the second. Whose lives are in jeapordy if too many people have a Ranger Tab? The new sytem simply devalues the Tab, nothing more.

    6. Hill

      I agree that the standards should not change!!! What’s the point if it’s not the same? There is already TOO MUCH lowering of standards going on!?

    7. Tabbed

      Why is the WNBA not as popular as the NBA. What if the NBA were forced to allow women to play, and not only play but they had to have the same shooting percentages as the men. Would the game be as aggressive and fast paced. Or would the play have to be slowed down to accommodate for the women that cannot keep pace.
      The ultimate issue is that the United States Military is not society. It is not a work place that should succumb to what the rest of America defines as normal and fair. This is not a ‘fair share’ work place. We kill the enemies of our country. We are killed. We can not allow our military to be slowed and weakened because society doesnt think we are fair.

    8. Mac

      I agree; same standards… what’s next, Rangers, with disabilities!? C’mon, let’s be all accommodating, shall we?

    9. Hilary

      I agree. I am a woman that has seen some girls go through BCT and shouldn’t have passed. This hinders not just the individuals performance, but the performance of the team. Gender shouldn’t “help” you in any way. If I can’t do something a guy can do in the same circumstance- then I shouldn’t be awarded that accolade.

    10. Disgruntled Old Ranger

      What the hell? I graduated RS in Feb. 1987, and I couldn’t imagine any woman rucking for miles, sleeping on the cold, hard ground, staying wet above the waist for days, starving, and stressed about failing a patrol…all while she’s pulling ticks off her armpits and getting the wait-a-minute vines out of her hair. Not to mention that she’ll be posting 2 menstrual cycles, unless, of course, the stress stops her flow. Oh, and what about going potty? We often had to piss in our wet cammies. Also, I don’t know of a single woman who can run 5 miles under 40 minutes AND is able to tote a 40lbs ruck for 12 miles in under 3hrs. But I guess there will be in 2013. Anyway, what a travesty. Gentlemen, I’m glad I’m out.

  3. John Gall

    Not being a Ranger, I don’t feel I can even have an opinion on this issue, but I am curious about the recycle percentage figures. Of those who recycle, what is their failure rate?
    I can’t help feeling that the addition of women into this program is not any sort of improvement, particularly if it degrades the level of training overall. But I wish them luck.

    1. Hognose Post author

      It’s possible to work out the recycle’s probability of graduating from the numbers they have at RTB, not sure if the CSM put enough of the detail in the numbers he posted that we copied.

      The vast majority of recycles just re-do one phase and go on to graduate. Army culture believes that the soldier can always be trained to the standard, so if the soldier fails he is retrained and retested until he passes. Most of the people who don’t finish quit — either the overt quit (“I quit!”) or the covert quit (“I gotta go on sick call, my lumbago is acting up…”) which doesn’t fool anybody but lets the soldier feel like he saved face. Another ticket out of the course is any kind of integrity violation.

      I have known soldiers who recycled more than three times, meaning they averaged more than one per phase. (For a while there was a fourth phase, Desert Phase, but it was dropped after a few years… it was very expensive and added a week to the course. When they dropped it, they kept three days). When I attended, soldiers in any phase could be made to recycle just that phase or the whole course. You could finish Florida and the board could decide you needed to begin at what was then called City Week at the Harmony Church area of Fort Benning.

      1. Paul

        As a recycle of every phase I would say that recycling has no effect on your shot of failing out statically. Recycles have the advantage of knowing what to expect, but also the disadvantage of failing out if they No-Go for the same reason as before. I saw from personal experience that the same percentage of 1st timers pass that particular phase as recycles. But then again I was so tired I might be totally wrong.

        1. Hognose Post author

          OK, so you only get one shot per phase at Recycle? I believe a friend of mine got three shots at mountain phase but in between 2 and 3 he had to learn to walk on three toes on one foot. He wanted it pretty bad. You too must have wanted it very much.

          Me,my prayer in Florida was: Please God, don’t let them recycle me… let me pass or fail, I don’t care which, I just want it to stop and I’m out of here… I had to retest on knots in mountain (ridiculously easy test, but we tie the same knots differently in SF) but other than that was a first time pass and I only had the minimum of four graded patrols so I must have passed them all. RTB actually retains every student’s record card, back to the beginning.

    2. doc

      “please recycle” is not just a hippy saying. really if you beat darby then your pretty much in. mentally the rest is just as tough but the peers get the shitbags gone quick. just saying.

  4. Justaclerk

    I find it interesting that females are “demanding” that they be allowed into SOF, but there’s nothing but cricket chirps when it comes to other branches of combat arms such as armor, cavalry and artillery.

    Perhaps it’s the allure of carrying 100 pounds of lightweight gear over slinging a forty pound or better round into a breach.

    Either way, you can lower standards all you want, it still won’t replace upper body strength.

    1. Hognose Post author

      Well, the average Russkiy tank loader is about half the size and strength of one of our buzzcut West Point women-in-sensible-shoes.Which is why the Russians replaced him with automation sometime around 1960. Our rifles have been loading themselves since 1936, but Armor has never been able to figure out how to put machinery in a tank, I guess.

      On the other hand, someone still has to get that APFDS-DUP round off the truck and into the tank. From what I’ve seen in CS and CSS units, when there’s that kind of work, the girls watch the boys do it. But hey, we’ve had a global war on “terror” for 11 years now (although for the first six years I thought it was the “global war on tourism,” what with the TSA and all), we might as well open up a second front and declare war on evolutionary biology while we’re at it. Russia had Lysenko, we have Odierno.

      “War is peace! Freedom is slavery! There is no sexual dimorphism in homo sapiens!”

      We’re getting some more details of the plan from our forward-deployed ISR drones. The stupid waxes even stronger as they hunt the leaks.

      1. ed

        The Russians can have that automated shit. I’ll take a good private who knows how to sling rounds over a machine any day. Machines can breakdown and can’t pull watch. Who wouldn’t want a little extra man power, not to mention an extra gun?

      2. Former Dagger 6

        Hognose – old buddy …

        Two reasons why we don’t use auto-loaders on our tanks:

        1. They are too slow – even an old M60A1 could put the second round downrange while the T-72 was still trying to reload after the first round. I know – I tested the entire man-machine interface on all of my crews, time and time again. Great exercise for .22 subcaliber training. The critical point in our engagements was always the Gunner’s re-lay on target after the first round. The tank turret’s rotational mechanism was so crude that the Gunner could waste a couple of seconds hopping back and forth across the target. In a world of marvelous high tech stuff, you solve that manually in the M60 series – just reach down and grab that little shaft by your left knee and get a 1/2 mil change smooth as silk. The Loaders – well muscled by daily workouts in the Motor Pool – could give an “up” at least 1.5 seconds before the average Gunner was back on target. All of which was another 1 or 2 seconds earlier than that poor Russian Gunner was ready to launch another round in our direction. Lots of Iraqi tankers learned that the hard way.

        2. Second reason to keep a warm-body in the loader’s hatch is that an auto-loader is not worth a damn when the TC and Gunner are trying to wrestle about 2000 lbs of track back onto the support rollers after the Driver popped it off in some meat-headed maneuver.

        1. Hognose Post author

          (Laughing). I was breaking “Justaclerk’s” balls here… I don’t want to out him as maybe having been more than a clerk but he may once have signed a hand receipt with a few M60A3s (with the noisy but magical TTS) on it. You guys have forgotten more about tank-clanking than I’m ever going to learn.

          The problem with learning the hard way as a tanker is that by the time the error of your ways is clear to you, it;s two thousand degrees C inside the tank. I’m with Willie an’ Joe on Rollin’ Foxholes.

  5. Eric Duckworth

    I’ve fought alongside tremendously fit and valorous women in combat for over 10 years and two tours in Iraq. There are already programs that include women for direct action operations. These women will not want the standards lowered for them and they will rise to the occasion. Give me the best soldiers and I’ll take them.

    1. US Marine - 07/09 Ranger School Gradute

      Your a fucking tool, combat isn’t some bullshit REMF who went out for a CAR on a bs patrol. It’s grunt work day in and out. It’s wiping the blood from your brothers off your hands and brow. It isn’t some Hollywood I was shot at garbage. Its going out and seeking a gun fight, hunting fuckers and accepting your fate. It’s training to be a ruthless killer. Not worry about fucking lower standards and a bloody tampon when your a weak whore cunt ass who can’t carry your “lightweight” ruc up starlight in July. If that bitch wants to make the cut there should not be an agenda but the same grading sheet the last 60 years received.

      1. Anonymous

        While I don’t necessarily agree with women going to Ranger School (quite honestly, if a woman can stick it out to the same standards, good for her, get the tab), I will say that your comment is just ridiculous. You completely invalidated any comment you made about the raw seriousness of war when you started your rant about tampons and elicited whatever other foul comment you did. Being a Soldier involves integrity, and by basically degrading every female Soldier by assuming she can’t handle the same rigors you can, you just lost some footing. I’m not a feminist, but I do believe women are capable of a hell of a lot more than we’re given credit for. Just like those who say, “I quit” or become sick call rangers, a few bad apples have spoiled the bunch for the rest of us.

        But that definitely doesn’t mean it’s cool to call ALL female Soldiers the really mature names you used.

        1. Former Dagger 6


          Speaking as a Cavalryman, Tanker, 2-Tour VN Advisor (Inf Recon and Ranger), 1-Tour Beirut, trainer of Saudis, Iraqis, etc., etc. …

          Well said.

          I have 3 daughters. 2 went into the Army. One of the Army girls was a gymnast in HS and college, and the other was a soccer player and X-country runner.

          Both could max the men’s PT test. They could not outrun the best of the men, but they could max on the men’s scale.

          What they could not do, was carry my ruck or – even worse – carry me very far. They were simply not big enough.

          Now I know very well that there are some very big females out there. Over the years, I’ve seen some of them playing pro basketball. I would not have wanted to get on the court with them. I am sure that a female soldier of that size, strength, and with the required grit and gumption could honestly earn the tab … without “norming” anything.

          If they want to do it, I say let them try … but don’t mess with the standards (and I recognize that you are not advocating that – I did read what you said).

          “Norming” PT tests is a cop-out. The most number of pull-ups I ever managed was 23 (at age 18). My 105 lb gymnast could do 40 w/o breaking a sweat. I could have used some “norming” there.

          If they can keep up with the men in all aspects, let ’em in.

      2. Joe (US Marine)

        This is a true Marine grunt response. Anyone that disagrees with this, male or female, hasn’t seen shit. You can talk shit about something that you don’t know about and don’t understand all you want. When lives are on the line and shit hits the fan, I don’t want a 120lb chick that thinks shes just as good as the guys trying to carry me to safety. I’ve had buddies die because they haven’t been carried out of a firefight fast enough. Seconds do matter. Nothing against women, I believe women are capable of a lot of things that men can’t do. Just being a war fighter isn’t one of those things.

        1. Nikita

          According to your story here you are not doing such a great job either. Most of women, unless they are 5f3in are at least 140 by the way. Just a thing to consider.

        2. Anonymous

          Once again, you’re generalizing. I don’t disagree with you on how people romanticize war – if you haven’t seen it with your own eyes, of course you’re going to think of the Hollywood picture of it. And I myself am not going to chase any of the “glory” of war down. If I have to experience anything like that, I’m going to do all that I can to protect and save the guy (or girl) next to me. But I’m not going to go out looking for that stuff, or expect that it’s as great of a picture as the movies make of it. But you can’t go spouting off the C-word, complain about how women are inherently weaker (sorry, that’s physical make up, we are not physically built to have the same upper body strength), and more or less shit on every female Soldier, then say you have nothing against women and claim that they’re capable of a lot. It makes zero sense.

          I’m not saying I know or understand the hardships of the frontline AT ALL, but I know for a fact that any female Soldier worthy of her title would stick it out and do all she could to save someone’s life in a firefight. But that doesn’t have a whole hell of a lot to do with a Ranger tab.

      3. Nikita

        I’ll tell my girls to think twice before covering a Marine male in a ff (I’m allowing myself a generalization here as well). I almost cried reading your description of the combat, by the way. Also, I suggest you never show this tasteless writing to your significant other (if only significant other isn’t a “he”, then it will only improve the intensity of your sexual life), otherwise she’ll probably stick that tampon up in your available slot, and you will become permanently single. Although, with that vocab and set of mind, I even doubt you are in a relationship. Blessings (cuz you’ll need those).

        1. Sir Brutus

          One comment after reading this page. Everyone has, for the most part, reasonable arguments. We have the “don’t drop the standards because if women want to be equal they should have to rise to what the men must do,” We have the “stop being old fashioned women should be allowed in any part of the military if they earn it,” and we even have the “women should be allowed to participate and be rated by separate standards but still be considered equal.” NIKITA – Regardless of how you feel about the issue, stop trying to back up your arguments with petty personal attacks and acting like your a hard-ass. Your comments are doing nothing more than hurting your own argument, because you are proving a female stereo type that all you do is create cat-fights. Every single reply you have involves trying to make the other guy look like an idiot and yourself like super woman. Go complete ranger school with the standards of the men and STFU. End of story. Now, please confirm my argument by replying with some witty yet distasteful reply.

          1. Nikita

            Sir Brutus, saying “STFU” to a person you don’t know (even on a web site) is more distasteful than any of my comments could be. As for the main point of the discussion here, I only want women, who decide that they want it, to have the same opportunities and the same treatment as men: advanced tactical training, promotion points, sleep deprivation, shaved heads and “boot in the chest”. I am strongly against the changes of standards, because I am sure that some women will be able to pass the school without lowering the requirements. So many men are trying to stress here that physical strength is the most important virtue to have to pass the RS. I have an example at work that proves them wrong. The person I know has passed RS along with many other mentally and physically tough army schools. About 5,8 and looks like he’d curl 35s in the gym, 45s on a “heavy-weight” day. To my knowledge, he was not recycled even once. I’ve seen women, who’d be able to carry him on a 12 miler (a joke, an exaggeration). I am NOT degrading the physical challenges of RS, and I understand that physical part is extremely hard. However, very often most of us fail to succeed because of the weakness of our minds, not muscles. In the army they call it a “tiny heart” syndrome. I want women to be able to go to the RS and do the best that they can, and if it will not be good enough, I want instructors to fail them just like anybody else. I wouldn’t want to wear the tab just because a politician just gave it to me; I’d like to earn it, or fail trying with the best that I have. Finally, if you think that my comments contain personal attacks its because I was taught to hit back when someone slaps me in the face, and so many people here are doing just that, but with words. However, after a certain individual here blamed Russia to be a country with the 3rd-world infrastructure I have come to understanding that it’s impossible to fix stupid (not addressed to you, unless you believe in the above-mentioned nonsense).

        2. Bowden

          The Marine is right, albeit not particularly “politik” or well politically versed. Which is exactly why his comment is completely appropriate. The affects of political policy are exactly what this discussion elaborates upon. In a sense, political agendas from higher dictating policy for what purpose? Whatever the outcome of this scenario, the military should never lose sight that its primary mission, granted through valiant service via soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, is to support and defend the constitution of the united states…national interests, preserve peace loving society.etc etc and for those in particular who have ever held a right hand up should have a clear understanding about what I speak. The question I ask, is does this policy support this mission or undermine it. The lack of understanding pertaining to highers intent may allow someone to say it does not. Such as the marine. I assume there is careerism involved, perhaps the ranger tabbed female 11a may rise to be the next 4 star who could have the potential to induce world peace, thus ultimately saving millions. Unlikely. The military is obviously male dominated and certain feminists would argue masculinity or maleness directly contributes to the innateness of war. Perhaps, but nature has set its course and RS now is the ever shifting battleground. Is the military not fair in this regard. Sure. But this is also the point and that of the marine. War is not fair and it is also our duty as a nation to produce a product capable of successfully encontering, overcoming such challenges. This is poignant especially when lives are at stake which brings me back to the utterly appropriateness of the inappropriate terminology utilized by the marines. Their vulgarity reflects what war is, undisciplined, rude, ruthless, unforgiving, an instrument of politics yet not “politik. Ultimately, this forum is what gives our country credibility and our ability to overcome. Either way, the soldier will overcome.

    2. Kud

      Duckworth? Any relation to Tammi “Democratic Party and Shinsheki Shill” Duckworth?

      1. Hognose Post author

        Ms Duckworth’s husband, also a Guard pilot, has a different last name and is not named Eric (no need to bring him into this as he’s not a pubic figure). The only Eric Duckworth that comes up is an MP killed in 2007 (RIP), who was by all accounts a great guy, and is not connected to the officer/politician. The IP for the message traces to NIPRNET in Uijongbu, South Korea.

  6. WGBJR

    A long time ago I was a low speed high drag infantry soldier, I knew some guys who earned their tab, and this is as wrong as it gets.

    1. Hognose Post author

      The old Ranger expression was “as wrong as two boys [bleep]ing” but they make you walk the plank for that one now, too.

      1. WGBJR

        That was my first thought we cops use it also but I wasn’t sure of the level of decorum I needed to maintain.

  7. John Marking

    This is hilarious. I went through class 5-00, and it took me months to stop waking up in the middle of the night thinking I was still in it. You know what one of the funniest memories of ranger school was? Trying to listen to a patrol order inside the patrol base, while watching feces ejecting from some guy who is taking a dump 10 feet from you..priorities of work. Oh well, I am sure nothing will change when its a woman. When you have a squad leader position, if someone is sleeping on the line instead of pulling security, you just failed a leadership position. Knowing this, I wasn’t afraid to kick some guy in the chest just because out in the real army, he was a captain. Somehow if it was a female sleeping, and I kicked her in the ribs, I think there would be repercussions.
    But hey, we swore to defend against all enemies, and the domestic enemies are all too aware of this. Society may now be a zoo, but you still got to worry about the military. And by military I mean the guys actually doing the killing, not the pregnant females wearing their tennis shoes down at the motor pool. Look at the pictures from Ranger schools of the past and you will start to notice the lack of “diversity.” Janet Napolitano was right, some of us veterans are a danger. Anyone who is ready to go through the hell that ranger school was is a person who can accomplish pretty much anything they put their mind to, like maybe taking their enlistment oath seriously.

    1. Mark Schulz

      MARKING!! What’s up! I still remember 5-00 to this day! You are right about waking up in the middle of the night months later, that and getting the numbness out of my fingers weeks later. Sadly though I think allowing women in for the reasons they seem to be claiming would go against the logic of keeping the standards the same. Even if they did hold women to the same standards as the men, at that point they probably wouldn’t look to much like women anymore. I’ve encountered a lot of in shape women in my time, but not any that could keep up on a ruck up and down the TVD or any other hill with 75 plus pounds of gear. All that aside the politicians that are driving this can make or break the RTB, the perception of those that wear the tab, the validity of what the tab means to the individual and the unit. Off this logic then…why don’t they just start letting anyone into MIT or the IVY league college of their choosing and “pass” them right on through all the while making sure the standards are never to hard?

  8. Alice Massimi

    where do you get your information from? The Army has NOT made any decision yet. They have decided to do a study. Check your facts before getting everyone worked up over an issue that may not even be one.

    1. Hognose Post author

      Where do YOU get your information from? Oh, the Washington Post. Aren’t those the guys that just edited out a fabrication by one of their reporters without issuing a correction? Why yes, they were. Less contemporarily, but more germane to the subject at hand, aren’t they the ones that ran (and have never retracted or corrected) the completely fabricated, unsourced “Jessica Lynch, Warrior Princess” story? Why, yes, they were.

      Our facts come from: Officers and NCOs in the RTB who have been briefed on the plan, seen the briefing slides, and/or been read the “we defend democracy, not participate in it” riot act. Also, two separate officers in the Pentagon who were there at the inception of the plan (not including the decorated-for-valor LTC who was made to walk the plank, we haven’t heard from him). Several government contractors. And the facts are still coming in. We can pretty much guarantee that the sources this blog blog has in the Ranger and SF world are better than the sources anyone at the Post has — including Tom Ricks.

      More information is coming in and we expect further revelations.

        1. Hognose Post author

          Good criticism of Ricks’s latest brainfreeze at your link, I’ll keep an eye on your blog. The guy does have the best military Rolodex among Washington reporters. Rowan Scarborough is probably #2 and Eli Lake is up there also. Of course, WeaponsMan.com has tentacles where they can’t reach.

    2. Kud

      In our world, that of the military, a study is a foregone conclusion. See the studies on “women in combat” which were nothing more than cover your ass material for people to say “ok, let’s do it”. Remember the stories of the miltiary doing studies on studies? Come on…

      Also, if you are the same Alice Massimi of WSAV you should go down to Hunter Army Airfield today and start asking questions.

      1. Hognose Post author

        Hunter AAF won’t hold any answers because nobody’s talking about “scroll” Rangers, just “tab” Rangers. “Ranger Barbie” is all about equal shinies for careerist chicks. The answers are at RTB at Benning, where they are bracing for scheduled implementation, but they’ve been read the riot act about talking to the press… not that anything good ever comes to a combat soldier from talking to the press anyway.

        1. ABN

          The fact that you believe the tab equates to simply stars for female officers shows you seem to not understand the full picture. Change in the army comes from the top leadership positions. The top leadership positions have always been combat arms men and most often those with tabs. Changes in the army lead to positive progress, better opportunities for any branch, personality, gender, race, among other things. Changes in the army mean that maybe someday people would be mature enough and respectful enough of the gender that is working alongside them as their colleague, battle, and friend, to not refer to their desire to improve their self as trying to be “Ranger Barbie.” Clearly we’re not there yet. Being given the opportunity to compete for a tab isn’t all about selfish female officers concerned about OERs and legacies, it’s about a more realistic picture of today’s army, and about being a part of its future.

          1. Hognose Post author

            Great. I’m being given the “full picture” lecture, in poor ninth-grade grammar and syntax no less, by some lieutenant recently incarcerated in an institution that produces credentialed but uneducated graduates. Allow me to submit to your august instruction. Let’s just hit the high points, I won’t shame you by correcting your paper in red ink.

            1. “Stars for female officers.” Funny, that’s what GEN Odierno said it was about — first, in his telephonic FRAGO to MG Brown at Benning, then in his spin job to AP reporter Lolita Baldor.

            2. That’s reinforced by the fact that the students in the pilot class must all be — what else? — USMA grads.

            3. “positive progress” — Congress is charged in some document or other to “provide for the common defense,” which they have done since 1775 by raising an Army. Contrary to the opinion of many of its inmates, the Army is not about their careers or about achieving nebulous social milestones that will look good when some GEN takes a victory lap on The View.

            4. “all about selfish female officers concerned about OERs and legacies” — well, actually, I refer you back to GEN Odierno on this. Lord Love a Duck.

            Actually, there is one other really big reason that GEN O decided to labor mightily and bring forth this gem of an idea right now. It’ll be in a future post, time permitting. It also is not responsive to the Constitution’s task, but really, what percent of the Army really is?

    1. Hognose Post author

      Alert to readers. Ms Massimi — who’s made her position clear — wasn’t going to mention it here but one of our sources says she’s a journalist — well, a TV reporter, so a bleached-blonde journo with a better clothes budget and twenty fewer IQ points. In college journalism class, one of the ethical points the prof made was that you always lead with your ID and affiliation. But then, journalistic integrity isn’t what they teach in schools any more, is it?


  9. Upset canadate

    I have been waiting to go to school for 7 years. Seven I finally get my chance and I hear this crap. This sex norming for women in the army is fucking bullshit! At no point in time is a woman going to be held to the same fricken standard as a man. NONE. And the fact that our higher ups make us pass them even more bs. I am loosing faith.

    1. Be Real

      First, learn to spell “candidate”. Second, I am a 25 year old female SSG who just scored a 300 on the men’s PT test (18-21) AND rucked the 12 miler with 45lbs in 2:34. Not capable of meeting the same standard? Please.

      1. cool story bro

        I have no problem with women going to ranger school, HOWEVER they must be held to the same standards. Ranger school is elite and prestigious because it has tough standards. Lowering the standards for Ranger school goes hand-in-hand with lowering the prestige of the Ranger tab.

        1. Hognose Post author

          I’d take her word; I’ve known women who can max the men’s PT test. They’re rare, but they’re out there. (Back in the day, they stopped counting reps once you hit 300). There are some very impressive women at crossfit workouts. There’s a physiological skeletal arrangement that makes pull-ups (and similar exercises) much harder for women, so I’m always impressed when a lady overcomes that.

          A male PT max is adequate prep for Ranger school (more is naturally better). An EIB-standard march is too short, far too light, and too slow.

      2. jodark

        Congrats. But females don’t push nearly as high a percentage of their body weight when they do a push-up (body weight is distributed lower in their hips rather than shoulders) so strap an extra 15% to 20% of your body weight to your shoulders and then see how you perform.

        Let’s get down to brass tacks. What’s your 1-rep max for bench press and dead-lift? If both aren’t over 200lbs, you have no business setting foot into Ranger School.

        1. Nikita

          Jodark, you must be kidding me. I bet you just deprived so many MALES, who passed the RS of their earned tabs. Some of the argument here are quite ridiculous and I regret to say that yours falls in that category.

      3. Class 06-10

        I’d be impressed with your score if every single man who maxed the APFT could pass the RPFT. The fact of the matter is grading at RTB is way harder than big army, and both times that I went (yes, I double failed Darby and fought for a year to go back and finish what I started) I watched countless dudes fail push ups, all of them swearing they max the APFT. Bottom line, no one knows standards like Ranger School.

      4. Wait do I hear some whining.

        Ok first of all congrats on passing a pt test, that’s real hard. Man or women I’ve seen plenty of people pass and fail their pt test. BR we aren’t talking about rucking a 12 mile In controlled conditions. Please come on I carried a 130 lb rucksack for 3 days in school up and down on mountain phase. Not including only 15 mins’ish of sleep over those 3 days with no food and in the rain at 40 degrees. Keep your chest pounding down and stick to facts people. Just saying.

        1. TP

          The point is that there are both women AND men who do not meet the physical requirements to pass Ranger school. Constantly talking about who’s dick is bigger does not prove anything. A female Olympic athlete is stronger than a top Ranger school graduate – therefore there are women that can meet and surpass the physical requirements. Not many women train in such a way because it is not required of them – same as men. However, once trained properly it is entirely possible for almost any person to surpass these standards.

          1. Hognose Post author

            I think you’d be surprised if you A/B’d special ops soldiers and pro athletes on speed, strength, agility and most especially endurance. I made the proposal to have a sports-medicine doc consult for my group when I was on active duty and the group commander made fun of the idea. Since then, sports medicine has taken its place in SOF.

            But yes, if they set a single bar up, no matter where they set it some men and some women will pass and some will fail. The problem is that if they set a single bar, the impact on men and women will be disparate (which is why MLB eagerly adopted racial minorities, but no woman has yet had anything to bring to a ball — no pun intended — club). Women do succeed in fields where their size can be an advantage, like horse racing (lots of women jockeys) and, perhaps, someday, hockey goalies (a position that’s all about speed and skill, where a 6’3″ guy’s at a disadvantage).

      5. Lil' Wolfe

        A 45lb rucksack is what a fighting load and body armor weigh in an Infantry unit. At no time in my 10 years of service did my field or mission ruck weigh less than 50lbs, and that was a summer packing list with more of an administrative force posture.

        Add on batteries, water, and other mission essentials, with no change of clothes (pointless, other than socks), and you begin to feel the reality of what’s going on. Then conduct break-contact drills with that ruck in the thick of the woods, and tell me a woman can do this, month after month, year after year?

        I have a word for you: osteoporosis. I have another concept, which is what this is really about: the enemy within, dividing and conquering. Let’s be real. Even the exceptional amazon officers who might be able to pass a watered-down, special “Ranger” School will not be leading men into combat. They will self-select themselves as unifit, by nature of the job.

        I’ve seen a prototype of this concept attempted with an Infantry Platoon during a real, full-honors ceremony in Arlington National Cemetery, because Hillary ordered it in the early 1990’s. They brought in a female MP 2nd Lt. to “lead” my Infantry platoon while burying one of our Nation’s fallen.

        There wasn’t one single command that escaped he rmouth that wasn’t whispered to her from the guidon bearer. After the female MP’s started doing funerals, they dropped 3 caskets during live full-honor ceremonies in front of the familes, because they could not handle the upper body demands of hefting a casket. This was nothing even close to combat conditions-no gear, no weapons, no rucksack…just ceremonial belts and white gloves.

        As such, they were banned from doing funerals in Arlington indefinitely. Hillary’s dream failed.

      6. Arnie Johnson

        you bitches are so fucking stupid. its not all about PT. who gives a fuck if you are a 25 year old SSG

      7. Mike P

        Be Real. I have been out for several years as a cake-eating civilian. I routinely ruck an 11 mile loop on the Appalachian Trail in Southwest Virginia for an exercise routine. Be warned though, this iinvolves significant elevation gain and loss. These are mountains and not bumps.

        If you can beat me on that loop carrying an equal load-out, I will write you a $200 check on the spot.

  10. B J Gardner LTC (ret)

    More lowering standards to “make us all equal”.
    Soon the Boy Scouts ( until the do gooders mess them up) will be a larger greater fighting force than the US Army… but we will be happy in our socialist utopia.

  11. Bubba

    Fuckin PC COCKSUCKERS! I served in the 75th and was a RI at 4th. Women have no business going to Ranger school. If you are a woman and disagree go fuck yourself and make me a sammich. RLTW, Bubba

    1. 1/75 rgr

      Fuck yeah!!! You see that over there *looks through compass* That’s the kitchen make me a fucking sandwich!

    2. Lene

      Bubba, if your an example of what has passed then I doubt they would be lowering their standards by much. W/ that said, being a female I completely disagree w/ having standards lowered. If a female wants to go to Ranger school then she should expect to receive the same treatment as the guys. Boot in chest included. Women want to walk around talking about how tough they are cause they can go through child birth, then its time they put on their big boy boots and step up and meet the standards. Not the lowered ones but the same ones men have been facing for 60 years. I appreciate and thank every soldier for stepping up and defending our country.

      1. 101st LRSD

        Easy, Lene. If Bubba was with 75th, then not only did he (have to) pass the course, but was in a Ranger Unit. He was not only a U.S Army Ranger, but an Airborne Ranger, in Ranger Battallion, the type of people that regular soldiers sing cadences about. He was selected as an RI on top of that. His service, fidelity, bravery, or valor is not to be questioned, by anyone. Tread softly.

    3. 5-11

      Bubba you should come back to Benning to help the boys train these new Rangerettes on the RANGER standard.

  12. Matthew W. Yates

    Being a graduate of class 6-96 (61 days and a wake-up), I would welcome some split-tailed officer ladies in my foxhole…the female nurses used to love us at Martin Army hospital when I was in 3rd BN…plus, maybe some more legs, AF and Marines would make it through now that the standards are lower…make gettin’ your tab the cool thing to do throughout the services…

    What a crock of shit…first they take away our black berets and now they want to give away our tabs…pretty soon it won’t be ‘Rangers Lead the Way’ anymore…

  13. Female Army Veteran

    I am a Veteran of the U.S. Army. I worked in Finance at Hunter Army Airfield, home of the 1/75 Ranger Battalion. I have MANY friends who are Rangers. I was married to one for over 20 years. This should NEVER happen. Ever. I’m not even offended by any of the wording because the truth is, women are just NOT as strong as men. It’s the way we were made.

    1. Hognose Post author

      Thanks for serving and for commenting. We’re not trying to offend anybody here at Weaponsman.com. Some of the commenters, might not have that same aim, but they don’t speak for us (although we might laugh at their jokes. Sandwich, indeed). We’re allowing anonymous comments on this post because the command has ordered active duty people not to comment publicly and is looking for a good excuse — reason not necessary — to fry somebody.

      Women contribute hugely to today’s Army. But yes, there are physiological and innate behavioral differences that some people seem to be in deepest denial about. Simple sexual dimorphism is one: men are larger and their skeletons are constructed differently. Hard to be King Canute and order Mother Nature around (ask King Canute), but you’ve got to give GEN Odierno and SECDEF Panetta credit for nerve.

      From the surveys we’ve seen, results of which have been widely published, enlisted women have other issues and changes they’d like to see, but they’re not the ones pushing combat-units and Ranger school. Women officers, particularly career-first, mission-later, troops-whodat Academy grads, are the ones who see this as a benefit and are willing to degrade the school to get the shiny. And feminists outside the military are full of “you go, grrl” nonsense but they have no earthly clue what service is like.

    2. Nikita

      I’d gladly invite you to see how our unit trains, with girls included. You’d be impressed, ma’am, I promise. I believe that things did change greatly. For the good, for the bad, but they did. And keep changing. These days we believe that we belong anywhere we want to belong to.

  14. Z. Kentel

    I feel as though there should be a woman’s point of view on this article and I challenge any other woman to debate me on this. After being an enlisted medicine myself for a few years I’ve had discussions with fellow female soldiers on whether or not this sort of thing should happen. My opinion is; it should NOT by any means. I will not say that females are unable to handle the stress or “handle” there shit on the “front lines” but I’m saying that when it comes to brute strength and speed the men have it handled. If a female “expects” or accepts anything less than

    1. Hognose Post author

      As noted in a reply to another woman vet, it’s not the enlisted women who want this, it’s a subset of officers: the careerist ones.

      As far as perfectly equal treatment goes, here’s a quote from the recently-retired CSM’s welcome letter. It’s actually the first instruction in the letter.

      All Ranger students will have a Ranger haircut prior to arrival on Zero Day. A Ranger haircut is defined as: stubble-entire head, shaved with hair clippers with no guard attached. There is no requirement to shave your head with a razor.

      Sure, there’s a subset of Army women that will welcome the butch look, a small one. But do you think that’s going to happen to some general’s West Point legacy Daddy’s Girl? The double standard starts here, at sign-in, but it will permeate the whole course.

      To you and all vets, regardless of how long that last chromosome is, or what the service assigned you to do: thanks for doing your part. We SOF guys may sometimes talk smack about being on the tip of the spear, but the spearhead only works if there’s enough force in the shaft driving it!

    2. Nikita

      I am an enlisted personnel. I am a woman. I want it happen. I believe this should and will happen. And I believe that if one person did something, then it is possible for somebody else. If two people did it, then it is even more possible. If so many men have passed RS for the past 60 years, then some females will do too. It is all a matter of training. When I got in the army I ran 2 miles in 17 min. I never ran before. Now I can do it in 13. Training and knowing what you want to become. I respect your point of view, but you should never say never.

      1. Arnie Johnson

        its not just about pt scores dumbass. thats what you women dont get

        1. Nikita

          I used the run time as an overall example of the human ability to progress. If you are to try, you shall maybe succeed in the ability to express your opinion rather than emotions.

  15. Z. Kentel

    Perfectly Equal treatment then I know I myself would be ashamed and appalled. Not only is it not fair to the men that have proven themselves worth of the title of Ranger but also, females would you really want to be the dumb bitch whose slack everyone carries? I think not. So before a female deems herself worthy for the tab and the training and experience to go with it I’d beg of her to know that she best have some sort of fire in her belly and super human strength before making a mockery of the whole idea.

  16. Jeff Zamarripa

    Why even have school and training if you are just going to give it to them? If they want the Tab and Beret, they should earn it like everyone else. It’s not politics, womens rights, or anything else, it’s about earning the right to wear the Tab and Beret. It’s about people’s lives, the lives of real solider’s, the history and tradition of such great men who came before the few who walk with this tradition. It’s about having the right to be called a RANGER!

  17. AncientRifleman

    My daughter is a Soldier. Mechanic, strapping lass who can break track, sling batteries, and wields a mean breaker bar. Has her CAB and a Purple Heart. I said “Now’s your chance.” She looked at me and said “You’re insane. You and [her brother] can have that Infantry nonsense.” She gets it.

    Blessed retirement. And they wonder why these kids won’t reenlist.

      1. AncientRifleman

        One of the BSBs in 25ID. She was an early recipient of the Koran burning anger. She’s motivated, loves her job, is well respected, and does not for one instant think women belong in a ground combat arm.

        I’ve known several women in my career who could outrun me. They learned very quickly why I called a ruck “The Equalizer.” Hello, orthopedic injuries. That will sort all this out very quickly: They can’t keep the farce up in the face of blown out bones.

    1. Lil' Wolfe

      I never met one female soldier who had any fantasies about doing infantry work. They thought we were all crazy, and wanted nothing to do with a profession that involved lack of showers, carrying heavy rucksacks, conducting actions on the objective, and sleeping in the mud.

      Heck, female soldiers dreaded going to the field, which included sleeping in GP Mediums, having out-houses, mermites, hot meals, pogue bait, and starched uniforms around the TOC.

      None of the above are part of an 11B’s world, unless he was some dirtbag that couldn’t hack it in the line, and got sent up to Battalion as a driver for one of the officers or SGM.

      I never once slept in a formal shelter on any field exercise, or mission, and when I did have solid overhead cover, it was because my team had dug a hide into the ground for an extended-duration static surveillance mission. All other times were under my beloved poncho hooch, if the tactical situation allowed it. More often than not, I was laying in the freaking mud behind my rucksack, facing out and pulling security, checking my watch, waiting to pass off security duty to one of my brothers.

      Any females who really want to do that, please sound off, because that’s what you’re asking for. Oh yeah, there are chiggers and ticks galore, that love dark, warm places…nevermind the mosquitos. Warrior-up!

  18. 1st Batt Rgr

    I have nothing against women going to ranger school but I agree with everyone that there should be one standard. There is no time out in combat because the female can’t pick up her wounded male counterpart, who even if he is a small male, would weigh well over 200 lbs with gear. This is why 1 standard is important. Because if it waivers it WILL cost lives.

  19. Nate101

    For everyone posting about SOF or the 75th; I have no idea why you’re bringing either into this post. Ranger School has nothing to do, directly, with admittence to any Special Operations Force. Yes, to become a leader in one of the Batts you have to complete the course. Yet women are still not allowed to enter any of those roles or attend RASP/RIP or SFAS. But, shit I’m sure its only a matter of time. “I heard a women’s menstreuation attracts bears.” Great bears, now the whole patrol base is at risk! 1/75th RLTW!

    1. Nikita

      Women are not directly allowed into the SFAS and we are not an organic part of ranger units, but we’re being attached to those with different MOS’s. There are a few females serving as leaders of tactical teams as well. Also, the CST (FET) teams could be operating along with them. Recently, the first female was pinned 1SG in the SOF community. So, now you can see why it is a concern for SOF representatives and rangers that women are weak and wouldn’t be able to hold the standard. Recently our marine told us a story about one commo guy attached to their unit, who was genius about radios, but couldn’t climb a hill without going into a hyperventilation attack. Bottom line, out of shape. So they simply sent him to a fat camp, no bitching no hard feelings. 5 minutes later we were talking about CST teams and the same marine almost yelled that females should not be in combat, and how it took “her” two attempts to charge a 50 cal. There is still a great deal of chauvinism and sexism in the military, so don’t get angry and don’t be surprised when you hear it.

      1. s.tyler

        When you say “leaders of Tactical Teams” What teams are you referring to? It is well known that women play a role in support for SOF. When I use the term support I’m talking more of the intel side of things which as we all know is a key role.

        1. Nikita

          Mr. Eadasnake explained everything explicitly well in his comment, I couldn’t have done better. I was not very clear on some parts of mine; however, I was just trying to tell Nate 101 about the SOF community and women in general terms. As for the main subject, I believe that when you are on a Tteam (with or w/o rangers or SOF) RS is a great training to have, because naturally any Tteam could get in a firefight.

      2. eadasnake

        Okay, I am compelled to step in here to provide the other side of your statements to round out the picture.

        First: Yes, women are attached to SF and Ranger units. Many women are on the objective doing interrogations, intelligence work, translating, etc.

        Two: Yes, women attached to SF and Ranger units do find themselves in leadership roles. They lead the elements of their parent unit (intelligence, MP, etc.), but they do not command SF or Ranger platoons.

        You use these examples to qualify women as being capable of being in SOF missions. I have no issue with that. Women have performed invaluable services to ensure that SOF mission are successfully carried out. Women and males in support units play important roles in SOF missions and have done great things.

        My issue, however, is the fact that you are disregarding context to further a point. Showing up on a daytime objective in vehicles or working on a secured objective are NOT the same as doing SR in the mountains for days, or leading ISOF/ASOF door-to-door after a four day movement in the Kush.

        From my personal experiences, and from experiences of my colleagues, attached personnel (males included) were never directly doing what SOF/Rangers ‘do’. Again, this is not to diminish their service. Mounted operations are not traditionally SOF/Ranger roles; it’s just what these wars have become.

        OIF and SOME of OEF is not even true SOF/Ranger work. The SR, the long range patrolling, the foot movement to contact, the rucking, the E&E, the mountaineering, the hand-to-hand; that’s where we leave the attached personnel behind, because they are not *qualified*(see below for definition of qualified) to come along.

        When and if a woman becomes qualified to perform at the same standards as males, is comfortable with the discomfort and ‘intimacy’ that is SOF, and realizes that PT score means absolutely nothing when rucking 120lbs of food/water/batteries/ammo/e&e kit/plates/etc. for days on end, defecating in an MRE bag so as to not compromise a hide site, then I will gladly welcome it. Hell, women shoot better than most men anyway.

        *qualified: as in meeting the standards of the unit, having the designation on MOS, etc.

  20. Layman

    This kind of pantywaist nonsense is why I pulled myself off the line after 5 tours. It’s a REMF life for me until retirement. Good luck high speeds. Voting with my feet.

  21. Dwayne

    It is a fact that the female body in order to maintain the level required must have optimum sleep and nutrition and does not possess the density required for a sustained period of time lacking those things.
    Yes I am aware that there are females who do possess the initial strength and stamina but that cannot be maintained under the rigorous conditions required by Ranger school or most Airborne/light units. There are also the hygienic requirements. Men and women are not the same physiologically and let’s quit pretending they are in order to make ourselves appear enlightened. In the Ranger Batts, light units and 82nd the musculoskeletal injuries sustained by the female soldiers are exacerbated by the pounding, particularly with the hips and lower back. This is not an issue of discrimination or gender bias.

  22. DK-2/75

    Disgusted. What a Joke. Let’s fire and demote the leaders of our Army because we need to please the masses and be a kinder and gentler Army. WHAT IN THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE???? Is this a prank? How in the world does this even make any sense? Ooh ooh…i want a tab…but i dont want to earn it I am entitled to one because of my gender and because I want a PROMOTION/career advancement. Give me a break. What a disaster. If this really happens, this will be much worse than when the smart guys took away our black berets just so they could dump the idea a few years down the road. Yeah, great idea…REMF dickheads. I got KIA Ranger buddies turning in their graves right now. Let’s just start letting non performing people into my Ranger Regiment and create a policy to keep them there because we need to have a quota of dbags on-hand so some dipshit congressman and his/her constituents will feel fuzzy inside about making a “difference”…wake the fuck up people!!!! Go balance the budget, go to dinners, drive your fancy cars and do your back door deals with CEOs of fortune 1000 companies….don’t dip your grubby dick beaters into things like this. You’re gonna create a mess of things…but, you don’t care so why not, right? These turds need to stop watching GI Jane and quit bumpin their gums about nonsense.

  23. MarinePMI

    I think I can say, unequivocally, my grand father is rolling over in his grave right now. :( 5307th, 1stBn, C Co/Red Team aka “Merrill’s Marauders”

    1. Hognose Post author

      One of my exes had two great uncles who served in the Marauders. They were pretty well known because they were the only twins in the unit. Alas, they have since passed away like most of our WWII heroes, but they both lived long after the war and had good and full lives.

      1. MarinePMI

        Yes, the same with my gran father (passed away in 2000). 3,000 went to Burma, only a little over 600 came back. Brutal times and conditions.

        1. class 10-02

          my respect and gratitude to all 3 of those gentleman. congrats on being relatives of some of the toughest bastards who ever did it! RLTW

  24. Ed

    Why not start a separate leadership course? Since when do women fight in combat arms units? Why waste time and money training women small unit tactics and patrolling? Are they now in turn joining our Special Operations Units on missions? All I hear is budget cuts this and budget cuts that. Lets save these slots for guys that are going to use it on the battle field! Whats the average cost per soldier attending Ranger school? Hmmmmm………..Glad this old door kicker got out and went private! Sorry for you Ranger Buddies!

  25. Andrew

    There should be one standard. I am not a Ranger or even in the Army at the moment. I have to sort out a legal mess before I can swear back in. I have always held Rangers in the highest regard because there are no mediocre Rangers, they are the best of the best. It’s disgusting that the quality of future Army Rangers is being compromised at the sake of political correctness. Political correctness cant protect this country from our enemies.

  26. Ranger Kaufman

    If the idiots in the suits do not change the standards, or make it easier for women to accomplish the Ranger School standards, no woman will every graduate from RANGER School; it is too tough; IF (and if is a big word) the standards are kept the same. Ranger School is designed to teach a soldier how to deal with the peers and subordinates to accomplish tasks in a combat setting. Your physical and mental prowess is tested to the point of breaking.

    I graduated class 9-84, which included the extra week for the desert phase in White Sands, New Mexico. It would be a mockery to afford the opportunity to women to participate in the time honored tradition of Ranger School. It is not just a tradition that everyone can accomplish. It takes every fiber of your being and just raw brute strength to complete the standards and afford them the opportunity to earn and wear the Black and Gold Ranger Tab.

    This is not G.I. Jane. Just the rucksack alone is approximately 50 plus pounds, not to mention all combat gear that is carried by each Ranger candidate. If that standard is modified it is not completing the school to its standard as written. When we parachuted into Grenada my rucksack weighed 110 pounds, I want to see any female jump that, let along hump it in the jungles of Panama, Central America, not panama city beach in a bikini.
    We have an army to promote peace, but the training is preparation for war. Sometimes it is another country and sometimes it is to fight a demonstration right here in the United States that gets out of hand.

    My rant is over and I’ve said my bit, I think the suits are fumbling for a platform to promote themselves into higher and greater positions. Well they need to get their hands out of their pants and quit playing with themselves and smell the burnt coffee. This event will go horribly wrong and many, many good no, no, no I mean great soldiers; NCO’s and Officers will be discharged just because they disagree. Mark my word they are flirting with disaster and upsetting the very fabric of our military, starting with the Army and Ranger School. IF THIS HAPPENS WHERE WILL IT END?

    1. Lil' Wolfe

      I want to see any female just get a mission ruck from the chute shed across the tarmac, onto the bird. That is one of the most dificult individual tasks I ever did regulalry, comparing to some of the events during SFAS.

      When I was in Airborne School, we has this cute little hispanic female who was the number one jumper in her stick, 1st bird on the pass after my flight. I had policed up my chute, and went to the assembly area, where we watched her suspended in the air on a thermal that wouldn’t let her down. We were worried that the next flight was going to mid-air her. All the guys behind her in her stick were on the ground before she painfully descended to terra firma. It was entertaining. She was well under 100lbs. I guess a mission ruck would make her descend faster, but she’d never be able to drag it out to the bird-too short.

    1. Elizabeth

      As a female company commander who physically smokes all the males in my formation (rucking, running, etc) I am disappointed to see all of the negativity here. My boyfriend recently graduated, and throughout the time he was in the course, I thought to myself about how it was too bad I didn’t have the same opportunity, because I knew I was comperable physically. I guess it’s just something people won’t believe until they see, and it probably will hurt some egos when a 5 ft 3, 120 lb chick can do something that not all guys can. Oh, and by the way, being co-ed did not make Sapper school any easier.

      1. Hognose Post author

        Gee, it’s too bad your company are such a gang of slackers — MI unit? (Kidding!) More seriously, thanks for commenting, Captain, and good luck with your career. I have seen women who can PT to the male Ranger standards, although I’m doubtful about long-term carrying more than half your body weight (then again, we know the women in OIF are carrying the equivalent of a Ranger ruck in body armor in 115 degree heat, so…). But those specimens are as rare as Olympic athletes. I can count the ones I’ve met on my fingers, and I’m pretty old — probably older than your Dad.

        If we thought they would hold the standards that would be one thing. Nobody who has seen the Army address personnel issues thinks they will, or that they even want to, or that even if they did want to they could. The moment some stat chart showed a sex disparity in outcomes, thunderbolts would fly down from Olympus.

        There are opportunities for women in important SOF jobs in units that don’t have a PAO. Those women have to be exceptionally fit (as do the men they work with). The best of them come looking based on reputation. As you well know, reputation is something that starts on day one and that you reinforce on every day thereafter.

        I’m fairly unfamiliar with Sapper school, even when it started up it was closed to personnel in SF branch, the only ones we have with that tab earned it prior to selection.

      2. Dan

        Well “ma’am”. That’s the whole problem isn’t it? You don’t care what the Tab stands for, just what it’ll do for your career. I spend half my career active in a non integrated infantry unit, to being a member of a LRSC surrounded by co-ed units. You bragging about being able to smoke the sorry excuses for men in support roles is a joke. Never did I once see anyone outside our company doing anything more than the bare minimum. It’s always amazing to see how much shit support MOSs talk without any idea of what goes on in the Infantry world.

      3. Ranger Kaufman

        If you get the opportunity to go to Ranger School and you pass performing to the EXACT same standards as my former and future Ranger Brothers, I will make an appointment to meet with you at any conus duty station and I will eat my Ranger Tab in front of your formation.

        If this happens my email address is ssg1stbat@aol.com email me and I will make arrangements to come to your formation.

      4. 1SG (Ret)

        Hmmm….a Company Commander and a Captain who doesn’t know how to spell “comparable”???
        Wonder if she writes after-action reports with spelling errors? How about EER’s & OER’s ???
        Kudos if you actually made it through Sapper.

      5. Nikita

        I am glad to read your post. I am sure that one of these days your formation will have a joy to see a guy chewing on his ranger tab. I would love to see that too and to shake your hand as well, so please consider letting me know at parker.v.andrea@gmail.com. Good luck.

      6. Lil' Wolfe

        Ma’am, I guarantee you that a 5’3″ woman will receive a crushed spine from an AG rucksack. If you are truly out-performing your entire company, they are in-fact non-performers, however, I suspect that you have embellished your capabilities some.

        To shut me up, you could actually lead from the front and make a video demonstrating the standards of how to execute physically-demanding tasks, such as:

        Don an 85lb rucksack from a long security halt while wearing appropriate combat equipment (basic load of M4 mags on vest, water, NVD’s, etc., uniform), from the prone.

        Standards: Within 5 seconds, go from prone, to wearing ruck, ready to move out. There is no 5’3″ female that can accomplish that task, however, I have seen a few Ranger-tabbed studs do it without 2nd thought. They had exceptional upper-body development from years as an 11B in LRS and Ranger units.

        A female’s body would fail under a LRS mission ruck. It’s just that simple. For people that don’t know what we’re talking about when describing mission rucks, there aren’t a lot of pictures out there of them. They are bigger and heavier than you think, and only a few real men can manipulate and carry them over extended distances. Most men cannot, even with larger-framed bodies.

      7. TheGiant

        Wello lets roll! Combatives go. Do you really think that 5ft3 120lbs frame has a chance against 240lbs and 6ft 4 inch old POG? Not a chance go ahead grab my nuts by then I will squash you like a bug under my boot.
        Rangers are elite for a reason. Its about being a complete soldier, a killer, trained to react in a instant and to never quit. Like Hooch says “its about the man next to you” not the skirt. That is something women can not ever understand.

  27. james

    I am glad to be out. I was in 87-93 as an 11 b with the 2/325 and got out when Clintion was pres. and re-enlisted in 03 if this goes they can have my tab

  28. Morrison

    I flunked Ranger School, my feet were frozen. They wanted to recycle me and I said “Fuck No!”, not in the Winter! So, I was a “Lack of Motivation” drop. Worst decision of my life, and I have always regretted it. Maybe I would have made it the 2nd time around, maybe not, who knows. I respect the men that have the Ranger Tab. I understand that it’s not a cake walk, you have to REALLY want it, and KNOW that you can achieve it.
    FACT: Most Americans will view this issue as the same gender discrimination issue at work at the Augusta NAtional Golf Club. “They have a boy’s club, they hate women, they are threatened by women, they discriminate against women.”
    BULLSHIT! It’s not about discrimination or hate or preference.
    It’s about the pain, and the head fucking, and the incredible physical effort.
    It’s about STANDARDS!

  29. Morrison

    ALSO, this all started with that weaseldick motherfucker GEN Shinseki. He should be shot in the dick.

    1. Hognose Post author

      Don’t hold back, tell us what you really think. I can’t vouch for his reproductive tackle but I will say in his defense (and I don’t like him either), he’s definitely seen the elephant, in Vietnam. (He left a leg there as a junior officer). He’s also extremely intelligent. His later career has been a disappointment to many.

      1. Morrison

        Oh yeah, did i hit “submit” when i had foot in mouth again? I respect Vietnam (and all Combat) Vets, no doubt about that. Just not the one that one issued black berets to a buncha legs. Oops, did i hit “submit” again…

        1. Hognose Post author

          Heck, I was at the Ranger protest in DC when that went through. A friend of mine had a long string of correspondence (email) with then-CSMA Jack “Aunt” Tilley, who was GEN Shinseki’s attack dog, and is about as dumb as a bag of hammers. It seems like every few decades we have to let leg tankers run the Army for a while. Handicapping, like “Harrison Bergeron,” maybe?

      2. class 10-02

        all due respect for his service in nam. i also dont doubt for a second that he is highly intelligent. but being intelligent doesn’t give you common sense and getting a purple heart doesn’t equate to stellar soldier/leader. bottom line, standards are standards for a reason same as tradition. you choose to ignore standards/traditions in the military, you choose to fail as a soldier/leader.

  30. RGRgalt

    Now that we’ll have “normalized” (female) standards I suppose the CSA and the SMA can finally go and graduate. Non-tabbed legs…

    1. MtnWarfare

      Don’t you just love how people that have nothing to do with certain things make the rules for those things? Civilians make the rules and laws the military has to abide by, and people who have never been to Ranger school are currently making some of the biggest decisions for it. War is a disgusting and ugly thing and those who choose to stare it down are put on leashes by those who will never glimpse it.

  31. RangerMatt

    If females want equality in the army it can start with the PT Test and Haircut standards. I am getting out and I am glad it will happen before this shit starts. RLTW! 75th RSTB

  32. Mrs. Anderson

    I am an Army wife who is very proud of her RANGER HUSBAND! The standards to be met in Ranger School are so difficult both mentally and physically and graduating from this school is a huge accomplishment for every single man who earns his tab. What a shame that this administration would degrade the US Army by lowering it’s standards and reshaping its history by allowing women to join in something that is truly far beyond even their best efforts.

    I do realize that there are hard-core, intelligent, physically fit women officers in the Army. However, I do question how can they have any pride at all to wear a Ranger tab, when they clearly know that the bar has been lowered in order to accommodate them. Where is the integrity in that?? I would be offended. Greatly offended!

    Just hearing the stories my husband has of Ranger school makes me want to run to the kitchen to make him a sandwich! He deserves it! In fact, if I could, I would make sandwiches and for every Ranger in his graduating class!! (probably be bar-b-que brisket, being a Texan)

    I enjoy my role as a woman. I embrace it. I would not need a physical competition with any man or need to complain about unequal opportunity and cause massive reform within my job, especially one that carried the proud history of what it takes to be an Army Ranger, to gain a foothold for a promotion. This is destroying the eliteness for so-called “fairness.”

    Also, I understand that there are times, such as mountain phase, when soldiers are freezing cold from wading around in the river and once they reach the banks, they are allotted a very short amount of time to strip down and change clothing. Hmmm, so these ladies will need to go find some bushes right? Or, will there be arrangements made so they can have their privacy? I don’t know. It’s situations like this as well as others that I saw mentioned above that does make one wander.

    You know, women in combat didn’t work out so well for Israel back in the day. What in the world makes our officials think we can do any better? I will not ignore that Israel, does train their women to use combative types of weaponry, but they are placed in non-combative postions. This is because when they did include women in combat (for either 3 wks or 3 months, I don’t recall) and they were being shot at, the men were being killed in their attempts to protect these women on the frontlines. They couldn’t help it. Men have an innate sense to protect a woman who is hurting or stuggling. This is a huge obstacle men will face here. Do these women really think these guys will not treat them differently? Of course they will. There is a certain, protective mechanism within every man that will separate him from treating a woman the same as “one of the guys.” This isn’t rocket science.

    We ladies are not designed to tote around 120 lb. rucks, along with weapons for long periods of time. We’re just not, and there’s nothing wrong with that. How many women complain about packing around 30 lbs. of pregnacy weight? I’ll tell you how many; almost all of them! Hurting backs, feet, and many times hemorrhoids. Think those symptoms would be much different for a woman in combat? Yeah, right! Some may be more capable than others at physcially demanding challenges, but at the end of the day…you’re still woman. You still have less upper body strength, and you still have wayyy more estrogen floating around in your body. And, as much as you may want to change that, there’s nothing you can do about it.

    I personally am very glad that my husband finished Ranger school when he did! There was still honor in meeting the TRUE rigorous physical demands of the terrain, the severe sleep deprivation, hunger, and separtion. Men stood out among men. For the future Ranger students; Unfortunately, you will not have the same experience. Therefore, you will not carry the same legacy as the Rangers before you, and for that, I am truly sympathetic.

    1. Hognose Post author

      One thing I will tell is is that no one in mountain phase is thinking about sex. Sleep, yes. Food, yes. The usual primary motivating driver of the male Ranger is temporarily supplanted by things more basic on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

      1. Mrs. Anderson

        So true! I can imagine that would be a very distant thought to process for someone who has gone a couple of weeks without proper food or sleep. My reference was more along the lines of what is deemed as appropriate and whether the higher officials has considered these things in order to make special arrangements for the prospective newcomers. Anything made “special” is changing what the Ranger tab is. Will more showers be allowed now since we all know what 5 days soaking wet and filthy can do to a womans…well you get the point. I think the ones who argue to let women go about this business do not get how much heart goes into earning a Ranger tab and what that means to these men. What I think these ladies need to seek is perhaps their own special school with equal points. I’m not sure where Obama is going with this one. Doesn’t he know that many women would go nuts over him for creating an elite school for female enlisted soldiers?

        1. Hognose Post author

          Now that I think about it I have no recollection of stripping down in Ranger school, except on the two brief breaks (8 and 4 hours off in my day). Might have showered during Harmony Church week. I imagine by the end of the last evolution on Santa Rosa Island we were ripe. All we wanted was food and sleep.

        2. mel6453

          I’m glad there are women like who (who are not in the Army and like to pretend like they know what their talking about because their spouse is in it) commenting on issues that absolutely dont pertain to them. You have no idea what it’s like to be in the Army, so shut the f**k up. Maybe you should consider not being a domestic slave and try doing something productive for society, instead of sitting at home waiting for your “Ranger” husband to come home.

          1. Hognose Post author

            Geez, I thought the other chick was truant from Anger Management therapy. There’s an epidemic out there! (Yeah, some of the guys are getting cranky too).

          2. jodark

            My jealousy detector is pinging like crazy.
            She’s clearly doing something more productive for society than you. She’s raising well-adjusted children, rather than letting them sit at home and watch TV like most single moms.

          3. Nikita

            I feel you, mel6453. However, if I’m home making him dinner, then I am “a domestic slave”. If I am trying to be a soldier, then I am told that I won’t be able to make it. If I am actually succeeding and doing my job as well as men, then I am called a bitch. Choices, choices…

          4. s.tyler

            @Mel6453……coming from a Ranger Unit and being married the whole time I’m going to disagree with you. Yes she is not literally serving in the Army but yes she does know what she is talking about and I will even say if her husband is in one of the batts she probably has a better understanding of combat and the losses that come with it than yourself.

    2. female

      Mrs. Anderson:

      With no due respect, STFU. You’re a goddamn wife. You have no idea what the Army is really like unless you’ve personally worn the uniform. Tell me about combat, wife, since I’m sure you know what the air assaults, raids, and patrols are like in 130 degree heat.

      To the men ranting and raving on this partial Internet forum: I think you’ll find most of us don’t really care about going to ranger school. Ranger school is not the only “hard” thing that exists for people in the world to test themselves. I don’t need the Army to tell me that I’m good, or to provide the medium to prove to myself that when things get bad I do well. For example, mountaineering on certain movements provides physical, mental, and emotional tests while you concurrently rely on your buddies next to you tovstay alive. I think a lot of people think the same way. Ranger school is only important to those who make it important to themselves. No one else cares.

      To those old fucks who have already gotten out of the Army who think everything is the same as when they ETS’D: c’mon. You’re outdated. A lot of females have been on the same exact missions as the infantrymen. Long missions, shitty ones where you’re worried about running out of water and taking that next step. Ones where things go poorly and one where things go right but bad stuff still happens. I’ve seen the shitty stuff the same as the next guy, and there are lots of other females who have done the same.

      The Army is going to keep changing forever, and there’s not much use fighting things you can’t control. And again, Mrs. Anderson, keep your fucking mouth shut and keep your tiny heart syndrome to yourself, not all females suck as bad as you apparently do in your apparently oh so difficult physical life tasks.

      To the old

      1. Shorty

        “Ranger school is only important to those who make it important to themselves.”

        Such as the soldiers who rely on the 61 days of training their platoon and company leaders receive to catch them up to speed with the experience their NCOs have learned over their lifetimes.

        Your projection is noted.

      2. houndawg

        What an IDIOT LOL!!!! An Army wife knows as much about being in the Army as you do retard! WTF do you know about combat WOMAN?? Did you hear about it back at the FOB? Did somebody take a pot-shot at your convoy of up-armored vehicles…or gasp…did one of them get hit by an IED? When the fuck did you ever break down a door or call in a 9 line under fire. When have you ever been…or when will you ever be in a situation where you will need the training provided at Ranger school? For every slot a woman takes it deprives an actual combat unit from the benefit of a real Rangers experience, leadership, and skill. YOU STFU until you get a fucking clue!!! Comparing mountaineering to combat…what a stupid bitch!! LOL You’re the kind of dumbass bull dyke that gives women in the military a bad rep. Know your fucking role!!

        1. Nikita

          Your arguments would have sounded better without so many unnecessary swear words and more factual information. Please, educate yourself, because there are women in the army conducting tactical operations. I am also sure there are currently soldiers in the army that are wearing their tab, but not using the training provided in RS. Want to argue?

    3. Ranger Kaufman

      Very well said Mrs. Ranger Anderson. My wife is the same way. She supported me in every way during our time in 1st battalion.

    4. Nikita

      If you see your role as a woman making sandwiches for your husband, please go on if it makes you happy. There are different people out there and I can understand you to some extend. But I’d go insane and end up in a DUI car crash if my life was rotating just around my house, my husband and the fridge. There are people who need extreme in their life – skydiving, water rafting, cliff jumping. And if you are not one of us, please don’t judge basing on your standards. I also agree with others, who said that you have no right to speak of the RS and assign it to those, who are capable of going through it. Neither you nor I know who’d be able to make it through. I knew one guy, who was in great shape, and we were all sure that he’d make it through. He was out of the RS in less than two weeks though. He said f.. them, I know I’m a great leader without a tab. Some people are not really interested in being stamped as a “better material”. RS is not really that special. It is extremely tough and shows you the limits of your body and your mental strength. Some people are capable of extraordinary things, when pushed to the limits, men and women. And please, consider doing something for your life, but for making sandwiches for your husband.

  33. Awbs

    I’m sorry what does this have to do with weapons?

    More importantly, the primary reason to go to Ranger School isn’t “to provide careerist officers with a shiny ticket-punch” and since men are already allowed to do that (I mean who has been kicked out for that, if they can mask their reason and avoid getting peered out), why give women the third degree for their reasons for wanting to go?

    If given the opportunity, there will be women who go and who blow the male set standards out of the water. I agree the standard shouldn’t be dropped for the sake of adding women, but women shouldn’t be barred purely because of gender.

    1. Jim

      It has everything to do with weapons and kit. Kit is what old-timers like me refer to as rucksack, LBE (load bearing equipment – bullets, grenades, compass, light, knife, 2-4 quarts water, etc.), weapon, helmet, NVGs (night vision goggles), etc, and etc. Here are todays weapon systems:

      M4 carbine, 5.56mm: 6.36 lb (2.88 kg) empty, 6.9 lb (3.1 kg) with 30 rounds
      M240B Squad Assault Weapon: 27.6 pounds (12.5 kg)
      M240G: 25.6 pounds (11.6 kg)
      M240L: 22.3 pounds (10.1 kg)
      M249 Light Machine Gun: 7.5 kg (17 lb) empty, 10 kg (22 lb) loaded
      M136 AT4 Anti-Armor Weapon: 14.8 lb (6.7 kg)
      Radio; varies on type used/weight.

      You should have a complete picture of this by now Awbs. Anyone of these weapon systems will be added to your load.

      For the record, I carried a rucksack for 25 years, my weight was 172 (at prime age of 34 and the best shape I was in), add ruck (70 lbs), LBE (another 30) and last but not least a parachute; 70 lbs. My math says 514 lbs going out the door and I am not counting at least 2 weapons; my rifle or pistol.

      De Opresso Liber

      And I’ll colose with this: “…Day seven at the JRTC and it showed on the faces of the young infantrymen. Typical central Louisiana weather in November, the nights were turning, often marked by heavy rains. The platoon sergeant worked hard to keep the troops motivated and moving under their combat loads. No one wanted to be cold or wet, so the rucks were especially heavy. With ammo, rations, and water, each soldier carried well over 100 pounds of gear. After seven days of constant operations, the effects of that weight were showing. Even the fittest of the platoon were hollow-eyed with fatigue. Their reactions were slow and their minds fuzzy. They rucked up and moved on toward their next mission, an attack on a suspected strong point five clicks away. Less than 500 meters into the movement, the tired point man missed seeing movement ahead as he cleared the edge of a small grove. The opposing force (OPFOR) ambushed the platoon with complete surprise. No one survived…”

      To view the full story:

      1. Hognose Post author

        Basic points solid. Redo your math and beat your boots.

        I recall having to put a guy’s ruck in the door bundle because someone pointed out the max trooper+equipment weight of the MC1-1B parachute in use at the time was 350 lb. 225 lb trooper plus HF commo ruck and you’re already in the yellow. Add rifle (then the lightweight M16A1) and LBE and you’re over.

        You have the nomenclature on the SAW and LMG reversed. One constant theme of the small arms presentations at NDIA has been reducing the weight of the soldiers’ weapons, sometimes by exotic materials (i.e. titanium receiver) or by changing design (i.e. Mk48, a scaled-up SAW, replacing M240s). This is hardly news. SLA Marshall (whose stuff is problematic, as he seems to have faked data at least in some of his work) addressed this sixty or so years ago in The Soldier’s Load and yet the soldier’s load hasn’t been lightened appreciably since his individual weapon was a bronze sword.

        On modern weapons, optics and other mission adapted equipment pluses up the weight. Nobody carries a 6 point anything pound M4. Mine weighs more than many WWII battle rifles “suited up,” and I don’t even have the A1 barrel in it.

        The weapons system, though, is a small part of the soldier’s load. The enemy can engage and disengage our dismounted patrols at will, because he isn’t burdened (or blessed) with 100 lbs of lightweight gear. And if you take 10 pounds off the soldier, his commander will add six and the dumb-ass GI himself will add six of his own.

          1. Hognose Post author

            I thought I replied, but apparently not. First, good blog. The story about the WWII remains recovery is something that happens all the time. A lot of SF guys have worked in JCRC and successor organizations like JPRC and JTF-FA. Of course, Personnel Recovery is one of our wartime missions. Just because it happens all the time, though, doesn’t mean it’s not newsworthy and emotion-filled when it does. They actually ID’d a WWI guy last year.

            Here are some links on Marshall’s integrity issues. Marashall was proud of his rank, but he actually was a newspaperman by training and experience, someone concerned with a flowing narrative rather than a factual training.

            You always have to take HNN with a grain of salt, full of po-mo nonsense, but this article is fairly solid:

            Here’s a bash at Marshall, I have the original RUSI Journal article referenced here in hard copy somewhere in the library:

            And this one has several nasty sentences that sum up the problem with Marshall:

            And this one from Newsweek also exposes Marshall as a WWI combat wannabe. Remember what we say about poseurs? It’s never just one fraud with those guys (Giduck, for example, has been a phony athletic champion and member of a phony martial arts hall of fame as well as his stint as a phony soldier and the credibility problems with his lectures and books. He’s not only none of those things, he’s not even exceptional as a phony — they’re all like that). Anyway, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas:


            Here is a somewhat inept defense of Marshall by another controversial essayist, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Grossman is beloved as the originator of the excellent “wolves, sheep and sheepdogs” analogy which is often distributed without crediting him. (Actually, I think he credits the concept to a friend, but he’s the one who wrote it up). Grossman recently did his career a lot of damage by going all in for military wannabe and fabricator John Giduck; I have no idea what their personal relationship is.


            Grossman’s defense is inept because what he proves is that the Army reacted to Marshall’s writing, not the question most people have answered “no” to, which is whether Marshall’s writing is based on facts. Personally I think that some of Marshall’s intuition about training is right on, but the idea that most infantrymen did not fire in the presence of enemy fire and enemy targets was always puzzling to infantry soldiers and company grade officers. Personally (again) I think Army concepts like trainfire popup ranges and instinctual fire training improved combat speed and accuracy, not sheer firing rates. So they did the right thing, but for Marshall’s wrong reason.

            I think it’s interesting that Grossman supports both Giduck, who tells an engaging story but is as full of shit as a six-hole latrine, and Marshall, to whom the same applies.

          2. Darkwater

            Wow, thanks for the detailed reply — you’ve done some heavy background work on the issue, & I have some homework to catch up on. I don’t post as often as I would like (retired from the military, but still working — the curse of the leisure class), so I’ll catch as catch can.

            It’s been quite some time since I read Marshall’s works, but I still carry the general conclusion, which I think is apt (although, as you say, the data may be inaccurate) that physical fitness affects not only one’s ability to handle physical stress, but mental & emotional stress as well. Whatever personality defects he had (& I’m certainly not denying that), that is the major lesson I bring from the readings. And yes, it struck me as odd about so few riflemen actually firing their weapons in combat (huge population of draftees? rapid training & straight to the front? large volume of fire from opposing forces, with tanks & aircraft?), but my main thrust was the idea of shouldering the combat load & maneuvering under fire. It falls into line somewhat with Weigley’s ‘American Way of War’ (dated by now) which makes the point that our experience in the Civil War gives us a preponderance of attention to the idea of bludgeoning the enemy into defeat as opposed to out-thinking him (i.e., more large calibre weapons, far better logistics, &c).


            Again, thanks — I appreciate the thought & effort. I like your web log too — keep up the good work.

          3. Hognose Post author

            To me — maybe as a weapons man I’m biased, although people seem to be figuring out that I wasn’t only a weapons man — the Civil War can be explained, in part, by tactics and the operational art not adapting to technology in a timely manner. 18th Century battles were often less bloody than one would expect, simply because smoothbore muskets and cannon meant that every shot was addressed “to whom it may concern.”

            The Civil War introduced the rifled musket, the rifled cannon (such as mass-produced Parrott guns), and even the sniper rifle to a divided Army, one led on both sides by intelligent and brave officers well versed in the maneuvers of Napoleon and the siege tactics and defensive works of Vauban. Apart from William T. Sherman, who figured out that you could dislodge the Rebels by making an end-run around them, and cutting their railway line of support, and who did that time and again in his campaigns, the generals on both sides seemed blind to the implications of technology. They weren’t stupid, they just didn’t have a vision of where they could go with their new tools.

            (You’d see a repeat of that in WWI, where only the Germans figured out how to use automatic weapons effectively in the assault, and then only very late… meanwhile generals on all sides were throwing men at machine guns, and everybody had “defensive use of” pretty well figured out). Ian at ForgottenWeapons.com has been posting some interesting WWI books and manuals from time to time.

        1. Jim

          Holy blank Adapter Hognose!! Thanks for the bye on the math; I was using the Jethro Bodine naught time naught formula…

  34. SGT Armstrong

    Horseshit… They are weaken us over all. That spear tip that many of us are/where is becoming brittle, and will break the next time it gets thrusted into a target….

  35. joeblow

    What’s difficult about change? Accpetance seems to be the biggest draw down, ever known a kid who wasn’t ALLOWED to do something because of sex that 2 genes determined well before birth. To tell women they can’t do something would be unjust, no different than telling a minority the same thing because of the color of their skin. Equality should be one standard, good, bad or indifferent. There should be the same grading standards for all military members to include whats required in Ranger school. Besides, if women can go and EARN “their” tab, then what excuse does that leave to the 80% tabless bitches we have in the military. RLTW 1/75; Ranger School 04-98.

  36. Billy Martin

    Having spent 37 yrs training warriors in all branches and having been a SME for both DOD and DOS, this info about RTB should make Col. (R) Tex Turner give up his stogies. Being a former West Pointer and major sponsor of both the Benevides Room at West Point and a former sponsor of Best Ranger Competition, I find that the command staff of the Army is just too damned heavy with political wannabes. Thank God for the MEN who stand fast and make the difference. I have never met a female who could have passed even my Level I course, let alone the other four levels. Gentlemen, the time is fast approaching when this country will really need you. But never forget——- you serve the people of this country and its principles, not some entity that does not value you or your input. REMEMBER TO DO THE HARDER RIGHT INSTEAD OF THE EASIER WRONG. Signed, Preacher

  37. Recruit

    What I am about say, I say as a member of the general public. If everything goes smooth, lots of steps between now and then, I would expect to be beginning Ranger School summer or fall 2013. I have an 11X contract with an option 40 and will arrive at Benning 9 October 2012 for OSUT.

    I think this policy is being driven by the idea that Ranger School is simply a leadership course. The army recruitment website even states “Ranger School is the most physically and mentally demanding leadership school the Army has to offer.” I do not agree with this idea; as current training and standards from the outside make it a distinctly combat and combat leadership course. Unfortunately if women were to be excluded the course would have to re-brand itself, and be realligned by the Army as meeting the Combat Exclusion Policy. I think what would have to happen is this course be administered by the 75th Ranger Regiment, and its subordinate battalions on a rotational basis in preparation for ground combat. I.E. Whatever NCOs and Officers who have already gone through the course would form the cadre to their peers in their battalion completing the course for the first time.

  38. Old Rgr Bryce

    When Clinton told DA to issue everyone in the Army black berets so they would aspire to ranger standards, a friend of mine from 3rd batt and a fellow who jumped in to Panama road marched the beret of a fallen ranger from Georgia to DC. Got all sorts of media attention, interviews, lunch with senators, etc. and liked to have gotten the decision reversed. Sure made it easier for the Regiment to get away with adopting the tan berets immediately thereafter. I still have an “earned not issued” coffee mug i use often. Anyone have the time to come up with a similar protest?
    When I went thru Hooah High in ’85 there was no combat arms requirement to be a student. Slots were just allocated to units, and if no one in CA was interested, they could be taken by whoever. One of the best guys in my Rgr School squad was an O3 in Hospital Administration. He was getting the tab because his dad had been SF, and to prove to him he could do it. No other job-related reason. He was never going to hold an M-16 again after the school. For many back then, the tab was just a really difficult – to – get merit badge. These kind of rules and restrictions on who get into Ranger School change over time, just like the number of calories and hours of sleep allowed have changed over the years. Not to mention the different standards applied to the annual West Point class, ever hear any of the horror stories about those privileged few?
    I always thought the goal of Ranger School was to stress you to the point of breakdown/quitting with hunger, sleep deprivation, and mental pressure, then, when you are weakest, put you in a leadership position and then grade you there. However, looking at the low number of failures due to patrols nowadays, maybe things are different now. Maybe it is currently mostly just a physical fitness evaluation, not a leadership evaluation. I hope not.
    Whatever the reality is, I know for sure that any female that makes it thru the course will have undergone some hard core physical and mental stress and evaluation, and triumphed. I think it is wrong and inappropriate to let females thru that particular door, for the reasons outlined above by many. However, if it happens, I will sure as hell respect females with tabs, because it’ll never be easy, at least for most of them after the pampered first few get thru. Many of the hardest rangers I knew were little bitty skinny guys who just would not quit. And a lot of big apes with muscles in their ears just up and quit without making it, in Ranger School and at Battalion.

  39. VinnyT

    Not a good idea. This is an idea born in a committee indoctrinated by the Hollywood feminist idealized version of women, you know, the fantasy world in which a 115 lb chick knocks out a 200 lb man with one punch?
    Where are the level headed thinkers? These politically correct, emasculated senior leadership of the military, who are afraid to speak up and state the obvious; WOMEN DO NOT BELONG IN RANGER SCHOOL OR IN THE RANGER REGIMENT – G.I. Jane was a MOVIE – make believe, fantasy.

  40. Maggie Wass de Czege

    Ok boys lets stop thinking that every women wants them to lower the standards. I want a chance, yes! But if i make it now it will just be said that they gave it to me. I think that if it makes sense to run every male officer through the school then it make sense for all officers. I’m a QM officer with an airborne BN. 95% of them are Rangers. I’m the only female officer i don’t want anything taken away from what they have done or what the boys will so after them. I don’t want to mess with thier cohesion…I just want to be a soldier. I’m proud to support these boys but i just want to play by the same rules. I’m the mother of three boys and i want to set a good example for them. That you play by the rules and sometimes you make it and somethings you don’t. But to not let me try because you asume i can’t is just has foolish. With the downsizing of the Army it is time to cull the herd and take only the best of the best from where ever you can find them…no mater if gay, a women or even has a sleeve tattoo.

    1. Hognose Post author

      Thanks for your comment and your service (and that extends to all the rest of you). Your last name will be familiar to many Weaponsman.com readers. But a sleeve tattoo… now you’re really threatening good order and discipline (grin — in my generation any tattoo was problematical in SF). Do you really think women are not getting their share of promotions (specifically, the Chief of Staff says, GO promotions) over the Ranger tab? Never sat on a GO selection board, obviously, but it seems irrational that they would gouge women for not having a shiny that they can’t get. By the time they’re looking at you for a star, a school that is most taken by 2LT and under seems less relevant.

      1. Maggie

        It’s not going to keep me from anything! But with that said….I know that the leadership training that you get there is the best. I want to be the best I can be. Don’t we all?

        1. Lil' Wolfe

          Do any of the female soldiers out there think that an opportunity for them to go to Ranger school should outweigh an opportunity for an 11B or Combat Engineer to attend, MOS’s that actually use the lessons learned for their jobs?

          When I was in, most 11B PFC’s and Specialists were told to pound sand when they asked to go to Ranger school, because the Brigade wasn’t willing to spend the money on a 1st-termer. They would often demand that you re-enlist with 3 of those years promised to the unit, that is how valuable many units esteem Ranger school. It busually breeds successful leaders, even if they are complete jerks.

          How many Ranger school slots should be sacrificed to female officers that just want the career punch? This could backfire on female officer promotions.

          “Why don’t you have a Ranger Tab?” Pass, next candidate for Colonel. It would put men back in a decisive advantage for promotions over women for key combatant commands, since very few women would have tabs. They didn’t think this one through, clearly.

  41. RLTW

    Thats what’s killing this army, I have been in for 8 years, 3 deployments, and every year it’s gets worse, all across… The standards are beeing lowered. The politicians come up with ideas to promote them selfs. Trying to fix what was not broken. I will agree with females going through ranger school and being in combat arms when they will be accepted in the NFL or NHL. Why they aren’t trying to do that? Bottom line I DON”T want the tab any more, and i WILL NOT WEAR IT if they go through. And definitely not staying in. I want to serve my country. I love the job. But thats nonsense whats going on now!!!

    P.S. I had more PTSD from reading news, army times, and internet for last year then from 3 deployments combined.

  42. RLTW

    Here is prime example of standards being lowered. REP week Used to be 6 days and now it’s only 3 days. It’s too hard apparently for this generation. POLITICIANS killing this country and the rest of the world is laughing at as. IT’S EMBARRASSING.

  43. Jeffrey Bennett

    I think this is a slap in the face to all RANGERS. what’s next Special Forces, armor, infantry school. Nothing against female soldiers but I thin the need to have at least an EIB and be able to pss Best Ranger Competition

  44. John Puzzo

    ‘Femmnized’ is not the most accurate term. They may like their gonads but also want to wear a nadsaq on their sleeve or chest which makes the gender thing moot. Having served from Viet Nam (K/75th Rangers) to Iraq (PSD Operator on three contracts) I can’t say that watching women gunned up and weighed down with tactical equipment was either attractive or inspiring. THis is as PC as it gets, along with intermediate-gendered homosexuals of both ‘sexes’ flaunting their queernes and the strange form of martial leadership that can only emmanate from a female brain, I do not care how bloodthirsty they think they are.

  45. Tony Allens

    This whole news article sounds ridiculous. Talk about pandering to a target audience. How embarrassing. Did the integration of women into Airborne school degrade the force? Did it make the 173rd or 75th less capable of jumping into Iraq or Afg? Don’t woman attend Halo as well, does that decrease the combat readiness of Devgru, CAG or STS? Stop the fear tactics, let them go to Ranger School and if they pass they pass, if they don’t they don’t. The best part about being a quiet professional is that no one has to think about the “why” just get your mission and drive on. For a group of people who would appear so proud of earning a tab, ya’ll seem to be doing a lot of whining and refusing, which is making me wonder just how ya’ll got Tabs in the first place. Ranger School is about leadership training, not combat training (that’s what Basic, AIT and home stations are for). If you don’t believe me the ya’ll haven’t been to Ranger School in the past 10 years or you would agree. I would recommended getting over this issue and moving on with your lives, there is certainly a lot more to be wary of in this world than if woman are given a chance to enter Ranger School.

    1. RLTW

      It’s not about women going to Ranger school it’s about the reasons why they want to do it. It’s About lowering the standard so they could pass.
      Thats the main reason why I’m against it.

    2. Ranger Kaufman

      Ranger School is a leadership course designed to teach leaders how to lead soldiers in the face of adversity in combat. That is why the course is so difficult, lack of sleep, humping heavy rucks, limited food. In combat you cannot guage exactaly how a battle will play out and you have got to fly by the seat of your pants and not crap in them in a tough situation.

      Kris Kristofferson did an interview several years back. Remember he was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam. He was asked what the hardest thing he ever did in his life, and his answer was, “he went to Ranger School.”

      Leadership is taught in NCO academies, PLDC, BNOC, ANOC and officer candidates courses also advanced officer academies.

      I will say it again, if any female makes it through Ranger School, following the EXACT SAME STANDARDS as my future and former Ranger Brothers I will travel to their conus duty station and eat my Ranger Tab in front of their troops in formation.

  46. Bco3/75Rangerdude

    I think I’m gonna send Leon Panetta a nice letter telling him how bad hes fucking up. This is just ridiculous. If there is no more leadership standing up for Rangers (past, present, and future) and Ranger School then they don’t deserve to have their jobs. A true leader will stand up for whats right no matter what the Secretary of Defense says. Ranger School is one of the best schools the Army has to offer and some suit wearing bureaucrats are trying to screw it up.

  47. Pingback: A funny thing happened this week… « WeaponsMan

  48. Bco3/75Rangerdude

    @Tony Allens. They will lower the standards just so females can pass. It will happen. As soon as the first female fails, it will happen, an EO complaint will be filed and people will be punished just for doing their job. Combat effectiveness will drop dramatical. You brought up jump school. Why does the Army even send non-combat arms to jump school anyway? Its wasting money. Jumping on a drop zone is in infiltration method used for combat forces. Ranger School is about leading troops into combat while the element is suffering from sleep deprivation and hunger. Its not a sexist issue. Do you know any woman who can hump 16 miles with 55lbs of gear, assault an objective, or carry a wounded soldier to safety while they are suffering from sleep deprivation and hunger? If they can’t, it makes the force weaker. The force is only as strong as its weakest link. Plain and Simple. The Defense Department is trying to fix something that isn’t broken.

  49. HockeySoldier

    This is CRAP!!!

    I AM a female in the Army right freaking now and this is total garbage!! We do NOT belong in Ranger school. What the hell happened to “train as we fight”?!?

    If female officers are bitching and whining that they don’t have enough chances for points then haul your ass to Captains Career Course or Battle Staff or ACLS or PALS or some damn thing! Do what the hell you need to do inside your lane/branch but leave the Door Kickers the hell alone!

    At NO POINT should someone else’s training suffer and be put on hold while they sit around and wait for you to meet the lowered double standards. If you can’t hack it with the standards AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW then haul your commissioned ass back to your office and stay there! You have NO reason and NO right to be in Ranger school you over grown shiny privates. Ugh!!!!

    1. Hognose Post author

      Funny you should mention the Captains’ Career Course. One of the sticks used by the Chief of Staff to beat MG Brown about the head and shoulders on this was that Benning already admits female officers to the Maneuver Captains Career Course, which evolved from Infantry Officer Advanced Course and prepares officers for battalion and brigade staff positions. So, since women are in there with no problems we’re aware of, IOBLC (yes, we didn’t mention Infantry Officers Basic Leadership Course in the initial article, but guess what?) and Ranger School ought to open up — that’s their reasoning. The folks at Benning were not invited to offer a counterargument.

      Ever see The 10 Commandments with Charlton Heston? Yul Brynner has spoken. “So it is written, so let it be done.”

  50. Hilary

    I can believe this, this is a disgrace. You know what let the rag head come over and just take our country already. Let’s.not hurt anyone feelings, everyone is a winner right? Screw this idea, if women need to go then they should have to meet the same standards as men. If we want to get rid of the weak minded stop setting weak standards.

  51. Jim Matthews

    DUMB—had to be brought about by the no-guts individuals who could nt make it thru Ranger School and want to water it down. Glad I retired many years ago before some of our no-guts leaders got into decision making positions.
    Class 568

  52. Michael Magyar

    I am like many on this list an old Ranger. I graduated in July 1984. I was the enlisted Honor Grad. & the Merrills Leadership award winner. I only add the self congratulatory parts because when I got back to 1/75 I was dogged by every Ranger who had been there before me about how easy the course was getting when a someone like me could do that well. Some of the comments were in good fun not all. Point being, It was alittle easier for my class then for many who had gone before me and we only Graduated 68 of a starting class of 269 after picking up 13 recycles. Big time attrition.
    My class was 58 days long and I don’t think I could have done one more, I admire all recycles you guys were studs. Don’t think I could have done it.
    I remember 1sg Nick Abramo telling us in formation one day that all who had attened the 58 day course would have to return for a 14 day refresher after the school had changed to 72 days. It was a joke but, the screams that came from the formation were’nt. I yelled pretty loud myself and maybe panicked alittle.
    My point being is that when it was 58 days they cared more about how tough you were instead of what kind of leader you were and the course instructors treated you with that thought in mind. IT HURT!
    When the school went to 72 days and I was instructor at the time we were told to concentrate on leadership potential, not so much performance. Still the school is the biggest physical challenge most men will ever imagine.
    Everything changes and evolves. Ranger school is designed now to evaluate leadership potential under a stressfull environment with difficult physical conditions, very little sleep and not much food. Where I do not agree that women should be allowed to attend because what ever there job is in the military, Ranger School is not requirement for them to advance. Therefore this is being done purely for political reasons and not for the soldiers welfare. This seems to be a theme under the current administration.
    I, as have every Ranger who has ever been in the military have meet female soldiers who if given the shot could probably make it through Ranger school. Lord knows I’ve seen many men make it that should’nt have. That’s not the point of my comment or of this shift in policy. Women perform admirably and with great distinction and honor throughout our military and I for one am proud of all they do and will continue to do. I don’t believe our military would be able to accomplish what it has and will without them.
    I say… if this change, which has been discussed many times before is going to happen, is it happening for the right reasons and to the right people? I would say at this time, probably not.
    What ever happens now will not tarnish or lesson the accomplishments I achieved while at the course. Nor should mine have tarnished any who went before me. Those who continue through the course from this day forward will know what they did and know if they earned what they got for it. Those of us who live to say, “well back when I went to Ranger school”, will still be able to say the very same thing. Those from what ever that first female class date will say it 10 years after they have finished. Only the individual Ranger knows if he earned what he got. I had help, he was my Ranger Buddy, I am proud to say I would’nt have made it without him but, I earned what I got. I can only hope that when the day comes that the 1st female soldier stands on that field and has that Tab pinned on her shoulder, she can say the same thing. Sadly, because of our politicians, she probably won’t. Is that her fault or theirs! “Rangers Will Always Lead The Way”!!!!!
    Master Sergeant
    Michael W. Magyar
    U.S. ARMY

    1. Hognose Post author

      Nick Abramo! Now there’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time. I believe Nick was a plankowner at the batt, and went to SFQC as a senior SFC in 1983-84. He was one of several career Rangers who were making the SF transition at the time. They were in Phase II light weapons (mostly) when Grenada went down. Nick’s face got longer than usual (while he was in SF he had a mustache. It was nearly mandatory, as much as not having one was in Batt). I believe the guy that took Nick’s platoon over when he went to SF was either KIA or WIA on the island. I remember going with several other Rangers from that class, to visit a Ranger WIA at Womack who subsequently died. I was not a battalion Ranger (aka a “real Ranger”) but I was tabbed and they let me hang around. I hope Nick’s doing well.

      The Ranger Refresher joke was a standard of his. I concur on the recycles. We peered a guy and he subsequently did the thing and passed. Nobody held it against him; he’d worked out his issues and got his stuff in one bag. A lot harder to do that than breeze through (eh) like us non-recycles did.

  53. Obi Wan

    Sad. I have watched the Army deteriorate over the last 16 years, from the inside out. Politics has driven this. Today’s Army in not ready for a high intensity conflict.

  54. Bill Braniff

    I am 67, saw combat with the 25th before during and after Tet 68. I was schedled for ranger School but rapid movememnts in 67/68 put a hook in my placns. I can only say as an outsider that tearfully looks in that this is a sad momdnt for the military in general and teh Rangers in particular. Political correctness has once again won in facor of reality.

    Bill Braniff 2/12, 25th ID, Vietbnam 1968E% squad leaader ann tunnel rat

  55. klaw

    You want women to go out and die beside you, but you won’t let them train beside you?

    1. Hognose Post author

      Can’t recall asking any of ’em to die, either. Trained more than a few of them in this or that. This issue doesn’t resolve well to a slogan.

    2. 18Delta

      No I don’t want anyone to die beside me!? What are you crazy? The idea is to make the other guy die! Anyone can train next to me but if they slow me down or put my patrol at risk they are going to enter a world of suffering, train as you fight and all that.

    3. Shorty

      “You want women to go out and die beside you, but you won’t let them train beside you?”

      Considering the still-imposed restrictions on women prohibiting their placement in roughly 30% of the Army’s Combat MOS billets, the short answer is “no”. I would suggest reading more and leaving the half-assed slogans to the Huffington Post.

  56. DUDE

    If women are accepted into Ranger school and pass simply because standards are lowered so they can meet the criteria, I will tear my Ranger Tab from my shoulder and never wear it again as I would encourage others to do as well. This is an absolute disgrace.

  57. Zippo

    When a tactical officer from Camp Darby in 1971 for a non-combat arms West Point Class(with others), it became obvious what a mere pair of glasses could do to an otherwise fully ready Ranger student. My NCO tactical partner was then SFC(later Captain) Ranger Roger ‘Hog’ Brown and from day one we dealt with these motivated but not totally combat oriented young officers. They had to be there to compete with their peers but many would have preferred to be researching the latest changes to the Signal or Quartermaster manuals. After all,even with elastic bands sweat made their glasses fall down and the cold fogged them up(‘somebody get these studs some contacts’). There were those hovering around trying to promote the case of some weak students but Hog Brown and I held the line.

    The Secretary of the Army,Stanley Resor had a son who attended Ranger school but no political consideration was given;”Ranger Resor,name sounds familiar but drop and give me ten,and then tell me where you are on this map floating on the freezing water of Hollis Branch Creek while still in the front leaning rest.” Why was he there? Because he met the same standard as everyone else volunteering to be a Ranger.The same cannot be said for females unless all standards are met across the board.

    In the last forty nine years I have dealt with armies around the world and seen the cover stories used to promote the prowess of females and also gays in battle to attack the minds of current or potential foes as being beaten by weaker individuals. The Israelis played this tune to the max and it has been played to justify female participation in our own combat arms and elite forces. That this was in most cases,a psychological warfare myth has been lost somewhere along the line.

    An Army can never be run based on myths or managed catering to a small group who may be able to meet a standard that the vast majority cannot meet. There is a contingency which requires all males to register for a potential draft even with our ‘All Volunteer Force.’ This will be based on ‘needs of the service’ in time of general war. If women and others are basically qualified to become ‘fighting men’ and even Rangers, then all must be prepared to do it and not a mere minority who wish to do it,when the needs of the service dictate it.

    The bottom line is very simple as the fireman said;”She can run marathons and pass the test running with that heavy hose but can she carry my dying body out of the terrible inferno in a place where politics plays no role? The answer is simple,No!!”

    My daughter served our country and made me proud in the USAF as an Intelligence Analyst and then became a skydiver and marathon runner. Would I send her to Ranger school? The answer is simple; No because she cannot meet the standard required every day. I have loved a number of fit and beautiful women and ladies except for a few days every month they could keep up with me. Unfortunately we cannot wage war based on only fighting those who do pushups on their knees and cease operations because of ‘backaches’ three days every single month.

    As with the failed long hair and erosian of discipline during the terrible VOLAR years decisions made to cater to personal desires and not operational needs have always resulted in a lousy army.

    There is no operational requirement for females in the combat arms and certainly no need for them in the Rangers and SF.

    A dumb decision made by pussies without the courage to ‘just say no.’


  58. Locke

    The issue runs deeper than just PT standards or the meaning of the tab. I don’t like the idea because its another steps towards women’s involvement in combat. Ranger school is meant to prepare for the physical and mental rigors of combat. Sending women through–and passing them–means that we are just that much closer to putting women in the fight. And there’s a problem with that.

    The biggest issue I have is an issue with trust. If I’m going to be going into the fight, I damned well want to know that I can rely on the soldiers on my right and left to pull the trigger when they have too. There may be some exceptional women out there who can fight, kill, and engage in combat effectively, and there sure are plenty of men who can’t. But most soldiers just aren’t going to trust a woman the same way they would a man. Can she kill when she has to? Can she protect herself, or am I going to have to cover for her? Am I going to carry her out of here–or if I get hit, can she even carry me?

    Men are, by nature, protectors and fighters. Look at militaries through history, violent crime statistics, or hell, even most of the animal world. Its in our genes to be aggressive, and in our culture and biological legacy to take the responsibility for killing and being killed in war. Women, by and large, don’t have this disposition. Their archetype is the mother, and we as a society need them to take care of families or work in domains other than the combat branches of the military. There are always exceptions to the rule, but we need to acknowledge the existence of the rule, and think about what we are sacrificing in terms of combat effectiveness when we try to change our institutions to accommodate exceptions for this rule.

    It may not be entirely ‘fair’ for women to be excluded from combat, since that exclusion means sexual discrimination. Women can serve their country in plenty of other ways, but when it comes down to it, we need “rough men stand ready in the night” to do bad things to bad people. Men are physically and mentally more prepared to do what that takes, and we want to protect our women from having to bear that responsibility.

    I think what we will find if we integrate women further into combat will be a general softening within, and harsher criticism from without. The public doesn’t much have a taste for women KIAs, so war would become politically less acceptable. We have already seen politics hamper our nations ability to tough out a prolonged fight; imagine this amplified because the public is sick of seeing women getting killed.

    1. ABN


      Are you aware that women are actually already in combat? I’m pretty sure that telling women they don’t belong in the fight while there are thousands already there doesn’t make any sense. I’ve met many women I’ve worked with (YES in the army) who have done incredible things downrange, while there have been some men I know and have worked with, who did not do as much. Of course there are both men and women on the flip side of that as well. But on this blog there’s a lot of people with a lot of opinions about something that is not rooted in reality. The public had better start getting used to women getting injured and killed in combat because it’s been happening for over 10 years now.

      Also, the comment about ‘protecting your women’ is nauseating. If you’d really like to ‘protect them’ then how about taking their skills and efforts seriously instead of belittling women who actually want to make an honest career out of the military and get promoted by merit and not looking cute? Or how about you look at the women you work with as people or Soldiers, not “chicks” you want to “bang?”

      The women worth a damn (just like the men worth a damn) who want to participate in this school are not selfish monsters who want watered down standards and who wish to dissolve the tradition and experience of many tough, hard-working men who came before them. They simply want a fair shake at a job they have also worked very hard at, and at which they would like to become even better. These same women also are not the ones who complain about the “backaches,” like the gentleman above you commented so knowledgeably about.

      Finally, to those who have commented about women going to regiment, how many men who are not 11-series go to Ranger school and do not have an opportunity to go to regiment?

      1. Ranger_Adams

        I was a 35E (Commo) and was in Regiment. Turned down a NATO slot just for the opportunity to go to Battalion. They called us “soft skills”, but a Commo Guy on mission carried the same combat load as the grunts, plus usually two extra radios and extra batteries. I weighed 195lbs, but jumped at 300+ lbs. Rate of decent was ALWAYS faster than anything around me… then we had to hump it. Is a female going to Ranger School, because she wants to do that? I doubt it.

  59. Jay Torres

    Woulda been nice to get a free pass through Ranger school..just saying. As a communications soldier I have female soldiers in my section. Heck I have to say I know of at least ONE of them that would probably pass Ranger school at the MALE PT standard, those are the females that need to be going to this. This is some straight up bull pucky. I am all for equality, but this isn’t it and I really hope that we notice that before some female Ranger who didn’t earn it starts training her soldiers wrong, after all that’s a big part of being tabbed in a non-ranger unit actually TEACHING the combat skills.

  60. 18Delta

    Why fight it? No one here who actually worked as a kinetic force can be surprised that the dummies in the Pentagon and Washington are going to screw things up. At some point they are going to let females in and it is going to lower the standard and who cares, real warriors prove themselves on the battlefield. It happened at Airborne school which has turned into three days of training crammed into three weeks. The military will recognize the need for a new standard and start a new group and all the guys worth a damn will go there until Washington screws that up. I am not beating up on the females because it is all the sh-tbags you run into in the military. How many times have you been yelled at by some poag SGM because your uniform is covered in blood overseas, the army is full of that kind of crap so you just stand at parade rest and say “roger SGM” and go back to your work. When you are actually going on missions you just tell all the dirtb-gs who can’t pull their weight to “shut the f*ck up and stay in the FOB where they can’t infect the mission with their uselessness.” If Washington wasn’t f*cking everything up I would be scared, plus my job would stop being a challenge. I hate to see the Rangers have to go through this because it is a slap in the face. But military is a toy for risk averse career minded politicians and upper officers to play with for political reasons and they don’t give a crap about how their decisions endanger us. De Oppreso Liber.

  61. Ranger 681

    For me, Ranger School was begun when I was about 42.5 years old. Before my first day was over I was sent to the office of the commander to be counselled. It was not the Commander but one of his subordinates. Basically he told me I was probably not going to finish the course because my age would likely contribute to an injury or it would simply be such a liability in terms of keeping up with 19-22 year old soldiers that I would not make it. He strongly encouraged me to return home. Then there was the issue that I was a National Guard (Major) soldier and (implied) everybody knew that Guardsmen are not as good as Active Duty personnel. Then we sat and looked at each other for what seemed like a long period of time. Then I stood and told him “I came to complete the course and this is my intent; may I be excused sir?” He stood, returned my salute, stated “You are excused; and good luck”. He extended his hand, we shook hands, I did an about face and departed.

    Still, the school was not convinced I would make it. Typically they select the most senior student (rank, time in grade, etc) and make that person the Company Commander on day one. A Company Commander usually (unless he drops out) commands for one of the three phases. As I was a Major, I was the ranking student but they opted not to make me the Company Commander because they figured I would drop after a few days and they would simply have to appoint a replacement for me. Since I survived Phase I, they made me the Company Commander in Phase II, the Mountain School; a very challenging Phase since it was a winter course and the snowy mountains quite a tough environment requiring strong leadership.

    Apparently the word spread quickly about the counselling session and the Ranger Instructors (RIs) began a wager pool on how long I would last (this I found out much later). Only one RI bet that I would complete the course; Sergeant Brock.

    I survived the course and I saw many students (Army and Marines) drop out at various points in the course. The three phases of the course (Benning, Mountain, and Florida swamps) all have their own unique weeding out factors and each phase claimed various soldiers in accordance with their individual weaknesses or due to an accumulated weakness or willpower to stay the course. It is a full 2 month course and taxes the students mentally, physically, and emotionally as well as testing their skill sets as an infantry soldier, their experience, their adaptability, and most important their will to persevere against pain, discomfort, cold, heat, bugs, snakes, spiders, fear, mud and other environmental crap, stumbling through the dark, cuts and bruises (which are ignored), the constant harassment of the RIs, performing to standard (very difficult standards) in both a leader position and a follower position, lack of sleep, lack of food, and the constant weight of that grinding, gnawing 60-90# rucksack that joins you on day one and never leaves you. I did note one comment by a female soldier who stated that she had successfully passed a male-level PT and the ruck march with 45#. In the Ranger Course I attended, we all had an identical packing list as a minimum, then, some students had additional items to carry. But in addition to having carried considerably more than 45#, we did not just do it one day and have a week or two to recover, rather, we would carry this load for days on end and for hours and hours each day.

    In my opinion there are appropriate MOSs for female soldiers and in these they have done an excellent job. 11-B is not one of them. In my opinion there are appropriate schools for female soldiers to attend. Ranger School is not one of them. I know of what I speak because I attended one of the toughest Classes (6-81), saw good soldiers drop out, and did so from the perspective of a 42 year old Major whose judgement was quite different from my 19-22 yr old classmates.

    This may be one of the most insane decisions that the Army has ever made and they surely are doing this for the wrong reasons. The Ranger Tab is my most prized possession. It is a special source of pride for me in part because of the rest of the story. I Was the Distinguished Honor Graduate of my class (6-81), at the time the oldest student to ever achieve that status, and to my knowledge, remain the oldest graduate to have been designated the DHG status. Again, my pride is great, however, a Ranger Tab is not necessarily a rung on the ladder to success. I would venture to estimate that MOST 4 star generals did not wear the Ranger Tab and I have known many of these in the last 20 years or so since I have been noticing which Generals wear the Tab and which do not. So if female soldiers are trying to sell the story that a Ranger Tab is a promotion enhancement, they need to go back and re-assess the data.

    But, if you want to find out about what Ranger School is, raw footage, go to LULU.com and search for a book titled Driving On. All proceeds go to the US Army Ranger Association of the US.

    Good Luck future students

    Major General (Retired)

  62. emjay

    I concur with much that is being expressed here. I am a mother to two sons and one daughter. My oldest son and daughter are acti

    1. emjay

      Sorry hit the return too quickly. As I was saying…. oldest son and my daughter are active duty Army and my middle son active duty Air Force. I respect all they are doing in their military careers. If I’m not mistaken your motto is “Army of one ” not one standard for men and one for women. From what I understand, Ranger training is an elite group. There should be one standard only. If a woman can pass the training right beside the men -nmore power to them. I would feel uncomfortable if there is a double standard. I want to know that a Ranger unit is sent into battle, they all would respond with like mind and skills.

      1. Hognose Post author

        Actually, “Army of One” is an old slogan that was so hated that the guy that starred in one ad, preparing to go SF, was smoked nearly to death when he showed up at Bragg — as I understand it, he then quit. The current slogan, much more popular in all precincts of the Army, is “Army Strong.”

          1. emjay

            Point being whatever your branch “mantra” is…. if all pass like standards, you all know that your battle buddy has the same training as you do and can help, protect, serve and have your back…

  63. kevin

    Getting a tab makes you a Ranger as much as passing jump school makes you a Paratrooper. If it’s really a leadership school, keep the standards the same (including the haircuts) and let them all try and earn it.

  64. Derek

    I am an Airborne Infantry soldier and I say if they can do it to the same standards as men, which some can, “more power to them”. I kept trying to tell the guys in my unit it was going to happen sooner or later. I mean the Israelis with their pretty awesome Army have been doing it for awhile now and they don’t seem to have any problems. Also, I really doubt that women Spartans were push overs either. In fact according to history the lady Spartans and Amazons were some of the most effective fighters in the world. Granted the Spartans didn’t send them out with the Army in great numbers but a Spartan woman was expected to hold her own with her man and be tougher than any other man who might be an opponent to Sparta. I personally fight it to be a turn on when a woman is just as hardcore and ready to throw down as I am. I mean how can you beat a woman who would be battle buddy if some random shit went down somewhere and was hot to boot?? I say Ranger on baby, Rand on ;) HOT!!


    1. Hognose Post author

      It’s a common misperception that Israel assigns women to combat billets. My understanding is that they experimented with it and discontinued it. There are many women in the service, and women are subject to national service (the draft). Of course Israel has no safe rear area for anyone, their enemies abjure the laws of war and mark no distinction between combatant, civilian, and protected person.

      This online post from 2005 addresses the Israeli women in combat legend:

      Mac Owens is a former combat Marine and was an academic dean at the Naval War College — not sure if he still is, but probably. Has written several books.

    2. Tabbed

      Derek i notice you mention that you are airborne infantry but not Ranger qualified. I wonder if that has something to do with you sounding like such an idiot

  65. RI-95

    I have trained hundreds of Ranger Students, and obviously was one myself. One thing is for sure there are women out there that are capable of earning the Ranger Tab, and I guarantee the one’s that are capable probably have no want or need to go through the suck fest we currently call Ranger School! Standards are there for a reason, and i don’t believe any woman that would want to wear the tab would want the standards to be lowered for their benefit. Women that would want that would be in violation of the honor code, and therefore make themselves eligible to be dropped from the course. Being a Ranger is more than a school, and a piece of clothe that is what people need to step back look at!

  66. Zippo

    The question remains if the United States Army is a fighting force entrusted with the most critical mission of all or a mere social experiment existing to make people,of any gender, feel good about themselves?

    The answer today seems to be, ‘who cares as long as we satisfy the civilian leadership and get promoted?’and that is a shame because down through history our nation and army have only faltered and failed when self-thinking replaced honor.

    It is not about if there is a woman out there who can pass the Ranger course or any other course but whether the United States Army is filling that school slot because it needs her.

    It is obvious that there is no need for women in the combat arms or in the Rangers.

    How the National Football League,Major League Baseball and etc can say ‘surely you jest’ when the subject of women joining the leagues is mentioned and an Army entrusted with a much more vital task than securing a little flag to fly next to the scoreboard cannot, is rather amazing.

    In my POW camp in the jungle in Cambodia the camp commander’s wayward wife was the reason for many a little NVA/VC to be sent to the An Loc front to die or be shot outright.Finally this was noticed by the communist leadership and stopped.I was sorry because I loved to see them kill each other as they starved us.

    The problem is that when this stupid experiment in ‘social awareness’ fails nobody will go back and change it or send the weak decision maker, who caved, back to the front to die.


  67. Jonathan silvas

    Another reason why the army is failing us…………………The Ranger Tab represents so much to just be tarnished in less than a year. SO sad

  68. Ranger_Adams

    Well Hell… If women are allowed to Ranger School, they should also be allowed to go through the Q-Course too? I guess now-a days its all just training for a promotion right? I guess the training really has nothing to do with what your job is. Wondering if the Army be pushing women into Ranger Regiment to make that point too? This is ridiculous… and sad.

  69. Lt.Straitghttothepoint

    The point of ranger school is not about the tab. It’s about learning to accomplish the mission when everything else (no food, exhaustion, fatigue) are things you have to fight along with the enemy. Not only that, but it is usually followed by a application to be accepted to a Ranger battalion. this article says that women only want the tab for personal recognition. So they can get promoted. Completely wrong reason to want the tab.

    Now, I have no doubt that there are a select amount of females (most of which have enough testosterone to be male) that could go to RS for the purpose it was designed.

    For the rest of you, I guarantee the next female I see with a tab that got it for the sole purpose of making herself look good on a promotion board is not going to have the respect of me or my Soldiers…

    Ladies, if you want “shoulder candy”… get the fuck out of the Army!

  70. Bobcat03

    I had to go twice to finally earn my tab, ROTC class 1-77, and Class 6-81. In ’77 one of my squad mates decided to quit during the city phase. He was convinced by the ROTC TAC to come back, and they let him. First day of the country phase he gets a heat injury. The RI’s kicked him down to a stream to lower his core temperature. During an after action briefing, I was on a knee while the student next to me was standing. His M16 slipped out of his hand and the front sight hit me in the head, cutting it (my patrol cap was off). A little while later, I dozed off and re-awoke during another brief back by an RI. He had me turn my head down, the launched a small branch which hit the cut. That woke me up.
    Does anybody really think that women are going to get that kind of treatment? Or if they do, allow it to go “unpunished?” I spent two years as a signal officer before branch transferring to the Infantry. I had females in my platoon. There may be a small minority of women who could make it through the course without adulterating the standards, but the number would be so small as to make it meaningless. I don’t care what you did on a PT test, or how long you rucked on a road march. You weren’t in the woods for two months, plowing up and down mountains and wading through swamps with only 2 hours of sleep for the last two days. And there is no way to run the class, without corrupting the standards, and allow for the necessary hygiene that is needed during your period.

  71. Verdna Kelley

    If women want to join the Rangers they should have to meet the same standards as the men. They should have to take the same harsh treatment all the men are subject to. The ones who can do that without “crying” about it deserve to make it. The standards are what they are because the men who come Rangers are expected to go into some of the worst conditions and must be able to preform at a high standard. Will women accept going for days w/out sleep, being knocked around because they fall asleep during a briefing, or other such occurrences? Something to think about.

  72. Ranger_Adams

    What part of the Ranger Creed mention promotion points? Didn’t think so. RLTW!!

  73. Briana Stremick

    In my opinion, as long as the standards do not change, women should be allowed to attend Ranger school. If you change the standard or set quotas, any woman who does attend and pass will be told that she didn’t earn it. It would be unfair to the men who have already earned the tab, those who are currently going through the course, and to the women who have their first chance at proving themselves. I can name at least a handful of women that I know that can meet the current Ranger school standards. If you can’t meet the current standards, then Ranger school is not meant for you. Along with physical standards, treatment by classmates and RIs should not change based on gender. This is harder to control and has more to do with others in the class than the women, but all should be judged by the same standard. As my final point, women already attend Sapper school. I realize that this is not the same, but they are in the field for a few weeks straight and find ways around issues of hygiene without compromising the integrity of the class. I think if it’s gone about the right way, without changing the standards, women will have a chance to prove themselves and some people may be surprised.

  74. Erik

    When I went through Ranger school in 1989, the push ups were 52 in two minutes, and sit ups 62 in two minutes, the 2 mile run, had to be completed in 14:54 I believe. So the article here, makes a erroneous claim that the standards have always been 49 push ups and 59 situps for “decades”… WRONG. They lowered the standards…And the 5 mile run had to be completed in a GROUP, no less than 40 minutes. I was an Ranger Instructor from 1994-96 at 4th RTB Camp Rogers, and after the four (4) Ranger student s died at Camp Rudder in Florida Phase, the ripple effect created some Spoken and “unspoken” changes in how we Ranger instructors handled the students. Students who had been recycled, from the last phase, were “amazed” at how EASY Ranger school became, and how “Nicer” the Instructors were to them…The recycled Students noticed this extreme drastic CHANGE, even approached me and other instructors and pointed this out to us (as if we didn’t already know). The harsh, roughness of the school was becoming polished to a smooth finish, so anyone could feel comfortable “handling” the course. Ranger School is supposed to push a man to his limits, with lack of creature comforts, free time, very little food, very little sleep, and a continuous barrage of “Missions”, and endless amount of planning and execution, day after day after wearisome day. This challenges a person, they either sink or swim in this environment. I personally saw junior officers in Combat, OIF 1…and some of these officers were lazy, not wonderful, but they “rose to the challenge”, and planned executed lead troops on Convoys, having no prior experience. Other junior officers I witnessed, fell by the wayside, basically were overwhelmed and collapsed internally, and didn’t want to accept personal responsibility for their troops or their actions….and none of these officers were Infantry, or even saw a fucking Ranger (myself excluded). The stress of actually having to plan, execute and lead soldiers on a mission, and be successful is not EASY and not for EVERYONE. Regardless of how much time one spent in College ROTC, West point VMI or the Citidel. Education Helps, but it can’t help someone who isnt educated properly in WARFARE and Ranger school puts the HEAT on.

    1. Hognose Post author

      My personal take-away from Ranger school was that I didn’t learn a GD thing. Only months later did I realize that I had completely internalized troop leading procedures and orders development/issuance, and was able to do them by rote under stress (What’s now called muscle memory). Also, I had a pretty good idea of where my limits were. For example, lack of sleep affects me more than some people. That was murder in Ranger.

      Frederick the Great said “the more sweat on the training field, the less blood on the battlefield.” He would approve of Ranger school.

  75. Patrick

    The point of letting women into Rangers is because they’re equal, right? Then lowering the standards is just showing that women cannot compete at the same level in this aspect. Its bullshit. I have no problem with allowing women to try out for special forces IF they complete it at the same standards as men. If not, quit fucking crying about not being counted equal if they’re not. They’re putting american lives in danger just because they want women to feel equal, though they’re contradicting themselves by lowering the standards. Fucking bullshit

    1. Robert

      This ‘argument’ as to women attending the Ranger Course is obviously quite contentious, but extremely interesting. Based on a career in Airborne forces, Commando forces and as an intimate IEDD operator support to the SBS and other UKSF forces I would like to make a few comments based on the ‘ brit’ experience where we have already gone through some of these arguments and upheavals. As such, my comments are:
      All modern armed forces, due to the constant conflicts in the last few decades have switched from promoting ‘peacetime, barrack room soldiers’ within the organisation to those with combat experience or tours under their belt. The Soviets promoted a lot of Airborne and SF commanders to the Army command that had Afghan experience and replaced all the previous ‘combat experienced’ officers that had been armoured forces in WW2. The brits even started promoting senior officers from those officers with SF experience, just look at the brit commanders in Gulf war 1, Bosnia etc. This was primarily because during the cold war the only forces that were gaining the most combat experience were SF. Now that we have all had decades of Iraq and Afghanistan, it therefore follows that commanders and service people at all levels that have performed well in wartime conditions should be promoted over those that have not (whether SF or not). This may seem unfair to those who haven’t been on, or preformed well on tour, but let’s not forget that military forces exist to fight and do well in wartime and that the essence of war is violence. I would rather promote people who may seem ‘a little rough’ in the mess that can command effectively in wartime than those people who do fantastically well in peacetime by marching up and down the square, looking good but never make a decision in case they get it wrong and affect their careers. Due to these decades of change where more robust/ ‘tabbed’ commanders have been promoted to the top levels, it of course makes sense for women to assume that they need to be ‘tabbed’ or ‘badged’ to compete with the male peers and they want (in some cases) to attend the same courses to achieve this. Of course, it must be said, being ‘tabbed’ or ‘badged’ doesn’t mean that you are any better than those who aren’t, just ask any Ranger or Airborne soldier, whom I’m sure can tell you that they have suffered under egotistical but ineffective commanders at some point in their career. I have certainly even worked for some fantastic man managers/ leaders that, believe it or not, were Air Force! Yes I can’t believe I just admitted that either. But the purpose of these ‘badged’ courses is, of course, to implement certain standards that must be maintained to ensure operational effectiveness. All of us are acutely aware that combat involves carrying heavy weight, over long distance, with not enough food or sleep and normally on a public holiday to. At the end of this demanding time, we are then required to close with and kill the enemy. Arduous and realistic, harsh training is required to replicate these conditions and pull people out of their comfort zone to see if they perform well under combat conditions. These standards are either physical, such as performing a certain amount of heaves/ push ups or completing a certain distance in a certain time or mental by combining tests with combat conditions such as completing these tests in the field with reduced sleep and comfort. If women want to earn the badge or tab they should volunteer for and complete the relevant selection courses alongside their male colleagues to the same standard! If they pass, they have earned their right to serve in those forces, and be promoted to the same criteria. There is no place in modern forces for a male egotistical environment that is resistant to change for the sake of it. That must be balanced; however, by saying there is no place in Airborne, Ranger, Command, or SF units for anyone that does not pass the required standards to serve with them. There must be no weak link that unravels the forces capability to achieve its mission, whether male or female.
      The argument, as to whether someone can kill or not, is irrelevant to the selection standards. All of us are capable of killing, whether at range or ‘in close’. Some are more predisposed to kill due to their risk index as part of their psychological makeup, and there are external motivating factors at the time of act, but all can be ‘conditioned’ to kill by the right hard, robust, challenging training. Believe me; we would all stand on another’s corpse if it’s a case of them or me.
      With both the physical and mental aspects there is a sliding scale. This can be seen by the fact that we all know service women who are ‘hard’ , robust and highly motivated who would stand a good chance of passing the various selection courses, whilst we all also know men who couldn’t and or never will. This means there is no argument over whether it’s a case of men or women being capable or the political loading/ passing of courses. If women want to do the course because they are ‘warriors’ or because they want to be seen as equal for promotion then let them attend and pass the course to the same standards as the men. They can volunteer just like everyone else. They should not be placed on course by any command for any other reason than they want to serve and complete combat tours with that unit, whether Airborne, Ranger or SF in its primary role.
      Women can have specialist roles and work in SF units, such as women surveillance operators working within the UKSF group. There has always been the gripe from males that they do not complete the selection procedure or course to the same standard and are politically pushed through the system because it needs them. It should be said that women have a place in all units in one role or another; they convey advantages and disadvantages to a unit capability just as do their male colleagues. The bottom line is intelligent task/mission management. Why do you expect a women to carry heavy weights over long distances to man a long term subsurface OP if you would be better off putting her into a role where it would be harder for a man not to be compromised. An example in the surveillance regiment would be using women in ‘hard’ estates of Northern Ireland where men would stand out and be compromised and let the men insert with weight to carry out OP’s. It’s all ‘horses for courses’.
      A comment on Airborne forces, would be that whilst yes, anyone can technically parachute, regardless of fitness; the parachuting part is only the beginning. Once on the ground, all personnel are required to carry heavy weight, over long distance, at speed, and then (whilst exhausted) close with and defeat the enemy (combat). This is why the UK has ‘P’ company as its pre parachute selection test. As it is extremely demanding no female has yet passed it, as they have the commando course. That doesn’t mean women can’t serve in the airborne forces, they can in non parachute roles.
      To summarise; all women have a place in the current operating environment to some degree, as do their male counterparts. All of them confer advantages and disadvantages on the unit capability, as do their male counterparts! If women wish to work alongside their male counter parts in specialist units such as Airborne, Ranger and SF in its wartime role, then they should volunteer for the course and pass it to the same standard. No one, regardless of gender, should be loaded onto a course politically, all should be volunteers. That’s why we have professional, capable forces not national service! No one should ever be loaded onto the course to increase their chance of promotion. But then the system should not just be promoting ‘tabbed’ personnel, it should be promoting its best people all across the spectrum if they have completed tours and performed well whilst on tour. Our armed forces are in their operationally busiest times, we cannot afford to drop any standards, especially where it affects the mission or lives. Women do have a place in ‘tabbed’ forces in specialist roles and this means their training and selection should reflect that role. If they are not going to lead rangers into combat, then why should they do the ranger course, they simply need to be capable of doing their job within their assigned role.
      I look forward to any comments on the above.
      ‘ For those that have to fight for it, life has a flavour the sheltered never know’.

  76. Patricia Picker

    I am a retired police officer of 25 years. I am felmale. I think it is CRIMINAL to pass anyone who is not physically capable of the standards which have been set for a REASON (Males included). If my husband were serving with any woman who was allowed to pass because she was a woman, I would be marching on the steps of the White House protesting this obvious endangerment of all our troops. Washington, get real!

  77. I got my SH!T

    If a women can pass the school with out changing the standards then good on her. I got my tab in class 11-07, and we drop somewhere around 50-60% of the originall class that started RAP week. I see week hearted men who fail at all level of events in Ranger school and tons of them in units and IOBC who refuse to go or are scared so, don’t change the standards and let them in if they want

  78. Lil' Wolfe

    If anyone thinks that women have a place in Ranger Regiment, they have never spent a day amongst those brazen, testorone-crazed killers, a place most men could never exist in and keep up.

    As far as Ranger School goes, notice that the focus in on complainers who say they are kept from key promotions because they are tabless, not because they want to gain the leadership experience of a massive continuous suckfest that Ranger school is, crushing the will and spines of the majority of male 11B’s that attempt it.

    If any woman wants a Ranger tab, just get this worthless Secretary of the Army to summarily issue them one without the self-induced and needless suffering Ranger school would inconvenience them with.

    If this does go forward, how many female students will warrior-up to the AG ruck! I’ve made many females cry just by showing them my empty mission rucksack, let alone my fighting load without armor. Did the Spartans send their women to the forefront of battle?

    When squads and platoons are formed for the patrolling phases, how many male students will be burdned with the heavier loads more frequently, making their injury-rate probability higher?

    The Army Research Institute alread cloncluded that womens’ physiology doesn’t support extended physical stress with weight, and leads to early osteoporosis. I’ve seen it first-hand with my friend’s wife (a soft-skill E-6) when I was in physical therapy for gunshot wounds at Womack Army Medical Center on Bragg. Her bones were so porous, just from years of leg unit road-marches with nerf rucks.

    A woman’s physiology doesn’t work like a man’s when it comes to these things. It’s just nature. You could get a few amazon beast-chicks to maybe pass a watered-down, shortened course, where they were given cushion duty positions, but the long-term effects on these lab rats will be devastating to their physical health in the long-run. Facts don’t matter though, this battle is about demoralizing the warrior class, and Team Obama does an excellent job of doing just that.

    To all the feminazis out there: Do you really seek to shoulder the monster rucksack, conduct forced marches at 4 miles/minute pace, with no showers, no sleep, while being required to make logical decisions about the movement of men, weapons, and equipment to the objective area, where you will bathe in hot brass, bloody knuckles, fire, and everything going wrong?

    If so, I’ll offer a civilian preparatory course to help you with this potentially life-changing decision. By the end, there will be no qualms about what the right move is for you.

  79. George G. Van Riper

    Who did you vote for in 2008? Don’t make the same mistake next time!

  80. john

    I have not met a single woman that can do what the rangers do. But it’s cool, lets help them out guys… Lets drop the p.t requirements, lower the amount of stress, insert them in the spring time, and hell ill even carry their weight for two months. In the end, if I get shot trying to make up for you on the battle field; no big deal. Youll still have a worthless piece of clothe on your sleeve to prove that the army loves you.

  81. Frank Badder

    I’m a retired Black Hawk pilot who watched the deterioration of standards in Army Aviation when women were initiated into the program. What’s happening in Ranger school now looks like the same thing. Consider: Women can (and have) piloted AH64 helicopters in combat, hovering 100 feet above an M1 Main Battle Tank–an MOS they refuse. The AH64 is climate controlled (air conditioned and environmentally sealed. The M1, of course, is not. Men, unfortunately, don’t have a choice due to “The needs of the Army” which don’t–and never will–apply to women.

  82. Fay

    General Odierno doesn’t have a Ranger tab ….what does he care about tradition.
    He probably failed out. Is there nothing sacred?

  83. Heywood Jablomi

    Both the CSA and SMA are tabless pukes without a minute of service in an elite unit of any kind. How they rose to the highest positions in the Army after ten years of war is perplexing. Were there no warriors to call upon?

    Oh, right. Warriors would have refused to implement stupid orders like this one.

    The CSA and the SMA are both corrupt. They care more about their own financial well-being than they do about the Army. They should both resign. Now.

    You do not ignore a million years of human evolution because some chicks want a black and gold tab on their left shoulder. The reason why women will never survive Ranger school is physiology. They will never be able to hump a GPMG up the TVA.

    Simple as that.

  84. E. R.

    Do I believe that a woman can make it through Ranger school? Of course. The only issue here is to what purpose. Promotion points? Just to prove that women can hang with the men? There needs to be another purpose other than personal gain and pride. The tab is earned to teach, and to mold a better soldier. If you want promotion points, blow some Colonel and see that it will get you further along in your career than a Ranger tab. A great soldier is not concerned with his rank, pride, and self. A great soldier is concerned with the mission, his men, and his country. Women can wear the tab, if they can earn it. Perhaps they need to look deep within themselves and reconsider why they wish to earn the honor of wearing the tab. If its promotion you seek, then you may as well earn it for that reason, and spit in the face of every ranger or soldier for that matter, that died doing what we swear to do. To be above self, and to be about God, fellow man, and Country.

  85. eadasnake

    Don’t change the standards: male PT requirements, same rucks, same 240b with 1,000 rounds between gun team, same tripod, same slit trench piss/shit, no taking off every 3 days for showers, no complaining when spooning with a male under a poncho liner in the freezing rain, same fireman carry of a KIA in full kit, all of it. As long as you keep it all the same, more power to them.

    1. eadasnake

      And if they get the tab and want to SOF it up on my team, come on down. Women tend to be better shooters than males anyway. If she can handle infil and exfil with the ghillie ruck & long gun, double basic load, 3 days of food/water, range finder, radios, batteries, plates (in case we need to do actions on) etc., and doesn’t mind ‘firing for effect’ into a MRE bag with me doing the same from strawberry milkshake bubble guts, then let’s make it happen. Plenty of teams need shooters.

  86. MJ Gray

    The closest civilian analogy to this would be police training, where the “Cooper Standard” was used for physical evaluation. Basically, Cooper is both age and gender (sex, for those who don’t care for the “gender” term) configured, so that a subject may be tested, evaluated objectively, then a score arrived at where a 20 year old male can be quantitatively compared to a 50 year old female. It was (past tense) used until some enlightened folks decided that, and I quote, “males and females performing the same job will be tested to the same physical standard”. I’m sure these nice folks are much brighter than I am, but I’m still waiting for an answer to my question about what fair test is there that your average 50 year old woman can take and pass that your average 20 year old male can’t sleep through and still pass?

    It seems that the new American standard is that if everyone can’t pass, lower the bar until they can. I’m pretty sure that Sadaam and Osama’s fan club aren’t encumbered by our kinder and gentler, politically correct training standards.

    Semper Fi.

  87. Dusty

    absolute stupidity beyond recognition. So will they also serve in a Ranger Bn? This type of thinking serves only the self serving and is a slap in the face of all past and present wearers of the Tab

  88. Gilbert Black

    The USN changed the rules that you had to carry a man up a ladder many years ago to serve on a ship so women could qualify. That was the beginning.
    I enlisted in USMC in 1967 and was lead by men (WW2 Marines) I left the USN in 2008 and my last CO in the vaunted Sea Bees was a woman. Not quite equal to what I had served under in 1967 to 1970.
    A friend had a woman Lt in Pentagon who used to have temper tantrums on the floor she was gauaranteed command when she was an ensign and nothing he could do about it.
    God help us if we have a real war. maybe we need to change the Ranger slogan to ” Rangers Lead the Gays” that will make for a few votes for politicians.

  89. G.I JANE

    This is CRAZY! As a female, I am outraged! I am all for women who want to do a mans job.. BUT DO THE JOB THE SAME EXACT WAY A MAN DOES!

  90. G.I JANE

    If you want the same respect that a RANGER gets you need to have the same HIGH STANDARDS! I feel bad for the guys who ACTUALLY worked their asses off and went through complete hell to get the HONOR to wear that tab and be called a ranger. As a woman I would trust my life 100x more with a RANGER male than a female any day because I know that they were not just handed a RANGER TAB. I could respect a female who actually worked for it. But honestly how could you be proud of something that was just handed to you?????!!!!!!! I would be embarrassed! Females already get ZERO respect in the military, why do you wannt make it worse. Lazy women who want a RANGER TAB handed to them…. CAN YOU REALLY MENTALLY, EMOTIONALLY, AND PHYSICALLY DO WHAT THESE BRAVE MEN DO?

    1. Nikita

      If you are actually in the military, please get out. The set of mind like yours ruins female’s credibility in the military working environment. As a soldier, no matter of what gender, you should have knowledge, training and professional determination to do your job to the best of your ability. I want to be sure that I have all of those, and the rest of my squad/team/platoon will not suffer from my incompetence or inability to make a decision, to take action. Finally, you sound like some second grade human being. I also respect men for their intellectual and physical professionalism, and mental toughness. I respect them until they tell me that my place is behind the desk, that I am somehow disabled just because I have a different set of genitals. It doesn’t matter what gender you are after all; if you don’t overcome the fear of failure, you won’t become anything more, won’t ever progress. And that’s just boring.

  91. Devil Dog

    Wow… There has always been inter-service rivalry, and none more than the trash talking between the Army and the Corps. I got a chance to work in a joint unit, and found that there really isn’t a lot of difference between the services. We all have the same problems, just in different uniforms. Yeah, each service has a specific role that we each do better than the others in the bigger picture, but at the same time each can hold their own if they have to. (We are all on the same team)

    I thought it was a low blow to take the coveted black Ranger beret and issue it out to all the soldiers so they could have a sense of belonging (or to build pride, espirit de corps, whatever). Pretty bad when I can walk around an Army base and can correct some Joe on how to wear his beret (instead of looking like a french chef).

    One thing I learned from working with Rangers… They are a special breed. I have NEVER met a Ranger I didn’t like, or wouldn’t trust to have my back. This should not be about making things fair, the military’s job is to wage WAR (and win). If someone wants to boost their ego and get a fair shake from society, go somewhere else. This will only tarnish the Ranger mystique further, and will weaken the ability of the Ranger regiments to do their job. Could a FEW women make it through Ranger School? Maybe, but if they want the tab, make them EARN it. No changes in standards, no special accomodations (how sanitary are those field conditions going to be for the ladies… but they get extra opportunities to clean up for medical reasons), no pressure to keep a certain percentage around for graduation day. Put VERY close scrutiny on why people are dropped, and keep the same standard that has been in place… and let actions speak for themselves.

    Then if those women pass; then they can say what they want (cause they will have already walked the walk)… If they fail, stop trying to play with the military to make a political statement.

    1. Bravofour

      As a multi tour combat vet, as well as someone who attended Ranger school (did not complete, torn rotator cuff) All I got to say is that Ranger school is not a life or death school. while i grit my teeth at the idea, i also say if a female can do it then so be it. Ive meet plenty of Sh#* bag ranger tab pukes. the tab does not make the man (or woman)

      If you want to go be a real ranger join one of the Ranger Battalions. Youll see majority of the lower ranks do not have a tab, but i dare you to call them anything but a ranger. and if you happen to be a tabbed ranger try telling them youre one of them, theyll laugh you out of their AO…

      So back to the point what does the tab really mean? it means for three months you got yelled at and ate the suck. but its not a life or death school…
      also means you can color code an op order and always ask for more time in face of impossible time tables :) I think this is a task that both males and females can pull off…

      the biggest issue you have to contend with is a bunch of half starved grunts, (oh wait thats not true anymore you get three square and weve opened up ranger school to other MOS as long as your male)

  92. Gilbert Black

    The problem is not just with Army PC it is with US PC. We have programs starting in the 1970s to award degrees, jobs, titles ect to people who are just not qualified in order to rectify some past wrong.
    The wrong is that you can not change the past by lowering the standards in the future. After 50 years of playing the game we have 50% who now do not pay taxes, drugs, and politicians who cater to this voting scum. Lower the standards and what do you get, lower performance lower results.
    God help this country we certainly are unwilling to help it.
    My wife said she is glad her Father , a USA captain PH BS, is no longer alive to see the decay.
    A USNR Captain, direct commision officer with less than 8 months active duty, bragged to me about his combat action ribbon as the drove through an IED attack and thout he deserved it. Again people feal they are intitled to something others earned.
    I am glad I am out and take great pride in my USMC service with WW2 Marines.Leadership mattered, There was nothing else. You earned the uniform you and you had the priveldge of wearing the same uniform that men had earned and paid dearly to wear.
    If it is just given out and not awarded it is meaningless.

  93. Former Marine/Army

    Ranger school is just a leadership course. If women want to attend – let them. No biggie…Just don’t lower the standards. In regards to Combat Arms, women should not serve in direct combat units. There are too many complexities. And to toss tax payer money at a social experiment would be a white elephant. If women want to serve in an all female combat unit (e.g., LIONESS) – no problem! I myself would not want to bear the responsiblity of protecting a female in a hot zone; also, she would never walk point because of my protective nature. Just the way it is…

  94. SSMcDonald

    No different than the Naval Academy and the Military Academy standards. Lower the standards until women can pass the requirement and tests.

  95. CSMAJ

    Going for the training is one thing, lowering the standards of the current school so they can make it is another. Did anyone stop to think that maybe a separate toned-down course should be put in place specifically for females since the majority of them are in support roles where Infantry skills are not primary? This would make a great testing platform before going forward as it would allow the ‘kinks to be ironed out’, and the program could be tailored accordingly.

    1. Hognose Post author

      This is part of a larger program, it turns out, to run women through IOBLC and, ultimately, commission them as unrestricted Infantry officers. See today’s post. (Click the “rangers and rangerettes” category link to see them all. This was just the first post in a series).

  96. Gilbert Black

    Well lets just change the womens tees on all golf courses no more womens tennis no more womens golf no more womens soccer no more girl scouts no more brownies no more camp fire girls no more Oprah and of course no more womens clothes.
    Just because the Navy thinks there are no manly jobs do not ruin the Army and the Marines STAND YOUR GROUND ARMY a career is based on HONOR and STANDARDS not a bunch of badges and pins. That is the USN where everybody gets a badge and everybody takes SEXUAL Harassment and Diversity Navy Knowledge On Line Courses every year as the admirals do not think the junior people have enough brains to remember what they should have learned in BootCamop and OCS or haven forbid their parents.

  97. Curtis Peeler

    I feel like letting women into Ranger School for the sake of being fair is not condusive to what Ranger School is all about. Ranger School is about learning how to be a leader in some of the harshest combat environments. If they don’t plan on letting women into ground combat teams, then there is no point in letting them into Ranger School. The tab didn’t come about because people wanted to get promoted. It came about to produce better infatrymen. If they want to “norm” the standards for Ranger School to let women in, then they are discrediting women by “lowering the standards”. I think that would be hard on the women of our armed forces. If they lowered the standards and/or guaranteed some female soldiers to pass, then I would look at women with tabs differently than men with tabs, and that in affect would not change wether a woman can get promoted with a tab or not. The reviewers of thier promtion would still know that they did not meat the same standards as thier male counter-parts. So I guess in conclusion this would just be some huge PR stunt to make the military more “fair.”
    I was a Drill Sergeant in a gender integrated BCT as an 11B for two years. I treated all of my female soldiers the same as the males, and thier attrition rate was a lot higher. On average the female soldiers that I trained when treated the same as grunts could not handle the mental stresses that we tried to replicate as a combat environment. Now argue what you want, but this is from personal experience. Yes there were males who would have the same reaction when faced with “combat simulated stress”, however they were much fewer and farther between. I am only talking about a basic combat training environment. These guys want to give them a shot at Ranger School.
    If it’s what the female soldiers want then so be it, but don’t do it at the expense of the training experience. They MUST be held to the same physical standards as the male soldiers, APFT and everything. If they don’t make it, they don’t make it, but that would be the only fair way to get them into the school.
    The way I see it if the standards are lowered then they didn’t earn the same tab or even have the same experience. The School is about training tougher soldiers, not getting promoted. I have never met anyone that went through ranger school and said “E-7 here I come.” They went to become part of a brotherhood of elite soldiers. It goes way beyond career advancement.

  98. Jb487

    I want to go to RTB so that I can be the first RI to come up on Ranger sleeping while (and I believe this is the technical term) “balls deep” in one of his co-eds, who is also sleeping, at the Twelve O’clock gun position in the patrol base. Does that constitute a day one recycle? I would probably hand out a major plus and a major minus. For any of you that say this would never happen, think back to basic training. I had the pleasure of going to basic training at co-ed Fort Jackson, where constantly, soldiers were getting caught having sex in anything from dumpsters to drainage ditches. Pretty much anywhere you could find enough privacy for a quicky. In or out of the field. Lets fast forward to war, and being deployed. Having had the chance to see the CST program in action (and being SO disappointed). I had the pleasure of seeing first had and hearing some incredible stories, about some very promiscuous women. Female captains sleeping with E-5 fire team leaders, CST members being kicked off bases. Sex is natural, and instinctual, it is the way we were designed. That being said, it throws a huge wrench into the dynamics of a combat unit. It turns guys into competitive, jealous, retards, and the women just love the attention. How is it going to affect an infantry platoon when the PSG has a crush on the PL, but she is banging one of the SLs? It will tear at the cohesion of the platoon, making that unit a less effective fighting force. There are so many aspects of this issue that I have problems with, but I believe this is the most critical. This is just my $.02. I will leave this final thought…. Have pound cake want BJ or at least a handy.


  99. AlreadyThere

    “The three events that cause most students to recycle or fail Ranger School are the Ranger Physical Fitness Test (49x Push-ups, 59x Sit-ups, 5-mile run in under 40x minutes, and 6x Pull-ups) land navigation, and foot march. Success in those events significantly increases your chance of graduating”

    A female, I can already pass all of the above standards. Having been in for 6 years I have Never met a female soldier who wants Standards lowered, for them or anyone else. They know that if they are admitted to a school, they should pass the same physical fitness standard as the men–and are willing and ABLE To do do. Those who want standards lowered aren’t the women who will have the guts and physical stamina to even request to get into, or complete, the course.

    I only skimmed the comments–until the last one. I already know what many of them say… The Same things people in the Army said when women were admitted into the Main Army, Airborne School, integrated BCT/AIT and “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” was repealed. And the same thing will happen here. Nothing. The instructors, Schools, Commanders, and Soldiers will adjust fire and move on. Ranger School will move on.

    If someone is sleeping “balls deep” in their Ranger buddy, then they aren’t the kind of person or soldier who should be in Ranger School. That the above poster Fears this happening is a testament to His lack of faith in the integrity of his counterparts.

    As a member of a female engagement team, let me tell you what is Wrong with the CST Program. You only allow officers and higher ranking NCO’s in (Princesses)–you don’t have any control over the immature, inexperienced soldiers fresh out of MEPS they’ve recently been allowing into SF willy-nilly in an effort to make numbers–and CST selection/training is too short and lacks depth. I had more training as a FET by a non-SF unit than CST operatives, including infantry tactics and Language. Not a single female on my 8-man team has ever acted inappropriately in theater. We do our jobs, and we keep up with the infantry teams we patrol with. We’ve come under fire and done an amazing job. If there are problems with the CST program, you can blame the Program for not doing It’s job to properly screen and train the soldiers, not the Soldiers. Leadership starts from the top, and the buck stop there, as well.

    I’m sorry that the Army finally stood up and said to it’s Males, “Time to grow up, Boys! Learn to be Adults who can control yourselves, BE PROFESSIONAL, keep it in your pants, deal with equality like the Real world, and stop acting like children in the ‘He Man Woman Haters Club’. Change is Hard–Adapt Or Die.” But as sorry as I am, Growing up is a part of life and I’m sure the rest of you will adjust.

    1. eadasnake

      Oh, AlreadyThere, how I despise anecdotes. I have no doubt that your female engagement team served admirably overseas, but to insinuate that your teams performance somehow reflects the performance of all female engagement teams would be be the same as saying that all “nilly-willy SF soldiers,” as you call them, are mar the SOF community. Though I am no big fan of the “nilly-willy SF” movement, I will use an anecdote myself (yes, I’m a hypocrite) and say that I know several who have served better than more seasoned vets. I digress.

      With regard to you passing the Ranger Physical Fitness Test; are any of us on this board under the illusion that the PT test has any bearing on real life combat arms missions?

      With regard to your unit being attached to and completing “patrols” with combat unit; are any of us here on this board under the illusion that the majority of OIF/OEF patrol missions are true SOF/Infantry missions?

      Do not mistake my second point as denigrating anyone’s service in OIF/OEF. I only illustrate that (1) PT test performance means nothing in true SOF/Infantry mission-sets, and (2) current, short range and/or mounted OIF/OEF patrols are sex-neutral. Basically, you get move a cook out to an objective in a convoy and have him/her patrol with “battle rattle,” but that doesn’t make him/her infantry/SOF qualified.

      TRUE SOF/Infantry missions require individuals to carry 120lbs + rucks with combat equipment for excessive distances; these missions are few and far between, but still take place in OEF. Mostly for Sniper/Observer teams, but I’ve heard of mother army units doing similar missions at the platoon level. These missions make push-up/situp/2-mile run score meaningless. Furthermore, they make the “cook in a combat zone” illustration, that I made above, as a basis of qualifying one for combat arms units, a farce.

      Combat Arms/SOF units must be prepared for EVERY possible mission-set. Just because we currently do short range patrols and mounted operations does not mean that it’s time for a kumbaya, feel good, army. If we keep the same standards, and women can handle the ruck (the great equalizer), then I have no qualms with women in combat arms unit, Ranger school, or even an ODA.

      However, I am absolutely against lowering the standards, which I am sensing that you are, too. I also loathe service members (women and men), and our all-knowing civilian leadership, using OIF/OEF as evidence for pushing women through Ranger school, and ultimately combat arms. I am not against the act (women in combat arms), just the blatant and affirmative misapplication of facts to force a political agenda.

      In sum: (1) sex-neutral standard, thank you; (2) OIF/OEF service does not mean all cooks are infantry/SOF operators; and (3) this is going to happen, with lowered standards, regardless. Our discussion is moot, but I’m sure we’ll “adjust.”

  100. Pingback: On Women In Combat: Part 3 – More About Rangers Going Co-ed « The Patriot Perspective

  101. Pappy

    Let me start by saying that I started out serving this great country with the 2/75th Rangers. I have served in three sepearate Special Forces units. (yes I am Ranger and SF qualified). I can say that in the 30 some years of service I have seen a drop in standards. It is most disappointing to see that the Army is even considering women for this elite leadership school. I further can attest that I have seen women in the SOF community down range, however, to say that they are out kicking doors I have never seen. Further, when women have been co-located it is always a distraction from the mission. To keep on point, women have a key role in the military, however, it is clear that there is an agenda that is more social than tactical in mind. I feel I need to turn my Tab up-side down as a sign of distress.

  102. Former Marine/Army

    Here is the problem. Say, out of 100 women, theorectically, only five will apply for Combat Arms. Probaby 2 out of 5 will qualify physically and mentally to the continue the course. At the end of day, only one will – possibly – graduate. A waste of tax payer money. The women championing this cause are less than 1% of the military. Most women know their limitations and obstacles will not request a Combat Arms assignment. I am not against women attending infantry leadership courses; however, realistically, they have to realise that if you push a cause you have to eat the whole cake ( i.e., Selective Service, Infantry MOS’, etc). If you passed a vote 99% of women will be against this. Btw, I trained with women in the Army and the standards were lowered to help them compete.

  103. 74th LRSD

    Hold them to the same standard, if they want equality give it to them.
    1. Cole Range will eliminate most. If you have ever been then you know what I am talking about.
    2. Put ’em in the pool. It’s funny seeing grown men cry in panic.
    3. That is if they make it past the 15 miler to Darby with 85lbs.
    (if they hold ’em to the same standard)

  104. Mike

    I do agree that if they do send them then they MUST hold them to the same standards (haircut and everything).

    I will attack this from a purely physiological standpoint. Women, while sharing the same exact bone structures as men, do not however possess the same musculoskeletal system. Women cannot (without steroids) ever possess the same amount of muscle mass on their bodies as men even if they worked out twice as much and three times as hard. Women also have a different Q-angle due to their need to be able to push a fucking baby out of their pooty-poo. This q-angle is why women are more pre-disposed to tearing their ACL’s as compared to men who play the exact same sport.
    These are just SOME of the many SCIENTIFIC reason’s why if the Army does decide to send women to Ranger School they will be putting women at undue risk to severely injure themselves and thus ruin their careers by carrying a P3 profile.
    Women: You can’t argue with science, im sure some of you are shit-hot on PT and could brief an OPORD better than anyone in your BN. That’s not all of Ranger school and to understand that you have to go, and suck, and suck, and want to quit every fucking day because your tired of getting 45 minutes of sleep a night so that your Ranger buddy can get a “GO” on his leadership position tomorrow.
    Let the women be 4 star’s I could really care less, but please don’t destroy the Infantry, and Ranger school because of bullshit politics.

  105. REALITY

    COMBATDIVER- I should forward this post to the USAJFKSWCS CSM, CSM Stigall, and let him know that this is the message that his CST Instructors are putting out. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but for you to openly admit on an open source that you are a CST Instructor and that this is what women going through CST Selection are about is pretty unprofessional. Just because there were female Soldiers trying to “hook up” with the instructors does not mean that the rest are the same way. One team, one fight? Very professional manner to lead everyone to believe that this is what women in the Army are about. You are obviously so competent that you are an 18-series Soldier that was selected to facilitate CST Selection. You are obviously so competent that you were sent to SWCS versus staying on an ODA with whatever SF Group that you came from. Ignorance is bliss but please believe that there are women that can/will put you to shame, any day, even if there aren’t that many. So compentent that you actually ran a spellcheck prior to posting your ridiculous blog. You probably don’t even have a Ranger tab yourself. Good luck with the rest of your SWCS tour. I’m sure that Soldiers such as yourself will be in SWCS for the rest of your career. Now that’s pretty disgusting….

    1. Hognose Post author

      Yeah, by all means show how well women do on the “team player” thing by running to the CSM to have the heretic burned at the stake. Well played, Hermione Grainger, here’s a star for your forehead.

      Perhaps there’s a middle ground between Diver’s tarring all women with the brush of those misconducting themselves, and your preference for them to go uncriticized.

      By the way, an assignment to SWC is not what you get when you’re thrown out of group. It’s what you get when the Magic 8-ball in the detailer’s office lands on you. A SWC tour is inescapable in a career, except by dumb luck, or banging out into the Guard SF. Some guys actually learn from it.

      Nobody in the Army (at least since about 1975) thinks women are there just to hook up with guys. Plenty of them are there to hook up with the other girls! And most of them are there for the same reason most guys are: patriotism, challenge, adventure, contrasted to the crushing dullness of civilian life. The Army’s not a big green mass, it’s a million individuals (counting the Reserves and Guard). It’s usually pretty good at finding individuals a place to fit in. Sometimes the Good Idea Fairy whacks a general upside the head and you get twenty years of stupid.

      1. Reality

        Hognose- Hermione Grainger? Didn’t even know who that was. Had to google this person. I must say that you could have made a better reference to someone other than a Harry Potter character. A fan? Nice, well played!

        My preference is not to let those actions go uncritcized. Trust me, actions as such make it 10x harder for women are doing the right thing. You just don’t advertise that you are actual Cadre for these specific schools knowing that people like me know better. On another note, we all know the old saying “It takes two” and instead of making it look like these women are solely at fault, maybe you should emphasize that those Cadre are also idiots for getting involved. Of course, that will never get mentioned. You have to love those double standards.

        As for plenty of women being there to “Hook up with other girls,” you would be surprised at how many more men there are to hook up with other men. Astonishing but we won’t go there. Again, capitalize off women being gay but make no mention of the men. CMF/MOS background makes no difference. Still have to love those double standards.

        Be angry and ignorant all you want; this will not change anything. Accept it or not, this phase of women in Ranger School is only the beginning. As time passes, more and more doors will open. Post all the chauvinistic comments you desire; that will still change nothing.

    2. Jb487

      @ REALITY. Threats on an open form. REALLY? You should buy an effin clue before you go spouting off, you clown. Typical. Stay classy!

      1. Reality

        Jb487- Maybe you should take the time out to address all the other ignorant/innappropriate comments that were left by all your other male counterparts. My response was minor compared to some of the other shameful things that were posted here. You are another prime example of the how close-minded and chavinistic that men can be. Buying an “Effin clue?” Now that’s classy. Name-calling? A little elementary, are we? Practice what you preach.

        1. Jb487

          @reality- I’ve sat and read all of these post and yes, there are quite a few that are a bit out of line, so we can agree on that. But what gets me is your willingness to threaten to run, and tell Senior Enlisted Advisors about what people are posting on an open form. It’s laughable, and childish at best. Tattling is something that preschoolers do, not hardened folks aspiring to attend, or people making a case to send their sex to a physically demanding military school, such as Ranger School. If you have any sort military career, then I can easily see how you’ve obtained it.

          All of this aside, you still have no “EFFIN clue” about how people end up at SWCS, so you should refrain from commenting on it. Sometimes people want to go, sometimes they need to go, and sometimes they have to go, but dodging SWCS bullet is hard work, good timing, and tons of luck! I cannot speak for COMBATDIVER, or on his path to SWCS, but by you saying he is substandard for the simple reason that he is in SWCS, is like saying that every women on a DA assignment is sub-par, because they are not in a real unit. The notion is ridiculous.

          Oh, and you should be happy I chose not to say say fucking. I’m trying not to offend those with delicate ears, you know, with the beginning of the new weaker army and stuff.

          I will leave you with some logic. By your statement above, I am elementary, and clowns entertain mostly elementary children, and your posts entertain me, so by that logic you’re still a clown. It’s not really name calling if its true. Continue staying classy.

          P.S. I’m going to post the quote below on all of my official emails from now on. Sarcasm, loving it!

          “You are obviously so competent that you were sent to SWCS versus staying on an ODA with whatever SF Group that you came from.” – reality

    3. Stu

      You misspelled “competent”, yourself, moron… Just sayin’ (look, and you’ll find it).

  106. 9CavScout

    This would be fine if women were held to the same standard. I have no problem with women doing the same as man if there held to the same standards. When a solider is held to a less standard lifes are at risk! If I get wounded overseas, I do not care what sex it is I just want to know they can carry my 225 frame to saftey.

  107. Lisa

    I am a female in the Army and I agree that if women are allowed the standard should not be dropped. If they do allow females to attend; I am going to train up and see if I will be allowed to attempt to make it on the current standard regardless of what the standard may or may not be dropped to. I would not want to cheapen the legacy of Ranger School by making it through on gender-normed standards as I believe that the current standards are beyond crazy. I do think we need to stop generalizing all women in the military. Not all are only concerned about hooking up and having others carry their weight. We are a minority so when that happens it makes us all look bad. Keep the standard. Ranger School is a leadership school open to all MOSs anyway so let females try ON THE CURRENT STANDARD only. This way those who make it truly deserve it.

  108. Rich

    I just left an awesome two month course for a job I will not name. The primary problem we had was with one of the two females in our class. One of them failed out when she couldn’t perform one of the required exercises. The other, performed well enough to make it through everything. The issue many of us had was that she was having sexual relationships with the director of training for the course (he had to fingerprint her three times and pulled her out of class right before he flew out the last day to “fingerprint” her). I saw with my own eyes she had no fingerprint ink on her hands once he finished “fingerprinting” her that last day. This was so frustrating. She had a safety violation at the range, and should have been dismissed instantly, now I know why she wasn’t.

  109. Killer shamrock

    As I thought about women in Ranger school I realized that I have yet to meet a single woman during the almost 12 years I have been I the military that I thought could pass if the standards were not lowered. I have known some female officers and NCO’s who were phenomenal physically, but putting a 120 pound ruck on a 110 pound woman and asking her to carry it 8 miles through the sand in the Florida Phase of Ranger School and doing so repeatedly after little food and sleep just does not happen. How are women Soldiers going to pass Ranger School when they don’t have to meet anywhere near the same standards on even the APFT? A male Soldier who runs 15:56 on his PT test will fail the run on his APFT, a women with the same time will score 100 points maxing the run. That doesn’t even take into account the push-ups. Are we really going to sacrifice national security for the sake of political correctness or continue to do so? The idea of women in Ranger School may be great for those who like catching another flick with a female superherone, but Most of us who live in real-ville are shocked to hear about something as outlandash as this. What I would ask is that we appeal to our alumni groups, the people who cannot be affected by the politics of the army anymore. The ones who can do the same thing this COL is doing, http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/05/25/women-sue-pentagon-over-combat-exclusion.html. Yeah, bring a lawsuit against the pentagon. That’s what they do to get these ideas implemented, and we have the same rights. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “let us be shy no longer”. Come on alumni, help us out here.

  110. Doc Swwop

    I have read some of this crap from the supporters of allow chicks to go to Ranger School. You are flippin nuts. Woman are not second class citizens but there is only maybe 1 chick in about 100,000 that can get through Ranger School as is. I don’t care if they go through it, but it will not change one bit, you go through it as is. I have seen the woman in combat/hazard fire zones for the last 30+ years and if a woman can’t do something physical then a man has to do it get it done, if that happens – it is called “teamwork” then, but if a man can’t something, he is called pussy and is shunned and ridiculed until he does get it done. Can’t do that to a woman – that’s harassment. Ranger is a leadership school – it is designed to test and measure a man in a stressful environment using the patrolling model. It is not the commando school that Darby started and trained his men to kill silently behind enemy lines. It is not the school that prep’ed men to go to LRRP teams in Viet Nam. this is a political move to further disassemble the military further.
    B Co. 2/75th
    RRD 75th Regt.
    Ranger Dept – RI
    ODA 154 HALO tm
    ODA 325 SCUBA tm
    Test Board –
    It is not like I have not been there and done that – but I have, so sue me. I have more MOSs and qualifications then most will ever see. I am sick and tire of suit making f*cking decisions that affects our military fighting capability, to be more to the point, it is actually our military killing capabilities. they are idiots. political correctness is going to get good soldiers killed.

  111. Frank Rizzo

    I was a “winter Ranger.” Rumor has it that winter Ranger’s used to sew their tabs on with white thread as a point of distinction. Will our female graduates be permitted to sew their tabs (lowercase intentional) on with pink thread?

    1. Disgruntled Old Ranger

      I graduated RS in Feb. 1987, and I couldn’t imagine any woman rucking for miles, sleeping on the cold, hard ground, staying wet above the waist for days, starving, and stressed about failing a patrol…all while she’s pulling ticks off her armpits and getting the wait-a-minute vines out of her hair. Not to mention that she’ll be posting 2 menstrual cycles, unless, of course, the stress stops her flow. Oh, and what about going potty? We often had to piss in our wet cammies. Also, I don’t know of a single woman who can run 5 miles under 40 minutes AND is able to tote a 40lbs ruck for 12 miles in under 3hrs. But I guess there will be in 2013. Anyway, what a travesty. Gentlemen, I’m glad I’m out.

  112. majrod

    One overarching fact EVERYONE fails to recognize, at no time in our history have women been held to the same standard as men. (Even Sapper school uses gender normed standards.) What makes ANYONE think the inclusion of women into Ranger school is going to be different? Furthermore the Army will not state it as such (like the do in Sapper school).

    This is going to happen and really wish the best for the junior leaders that have to execute this insane idea.

  113. RobertInAz

    Winter Ranger 1978.
    Do Ranger candidates still hump the modern equivalent of M60s, radios and mortar base plates. I know studly women who can smoke me in most activities when dealing with their own body weight, but I am not sure how they would hump all of the gear and make it. It’s a muscle mass thing.

Comments are closed.