Skip to comments.Women Don't Belong in Ranger School
Posted on 06/13/2012 3:41:24 PM PDT by kingattax
The United States Army is debating whether to admit women to Ranger School, its elite training program for young combat leaders.
Proponents argue this is to remove a final impediment to the careers of Army women. But the move would erode the unique Ranger ethos and culturenot to mention the program's rigorous physical requirementsharming its core mission of cultivating leaders willing to sacrifice everything for our nation.
The Army's 75th Ranger Regiment traces its roots back to World War II, when it won acclaim for penetrating deep behind Japanese lines. Founded in 1950, Ranger School teaches combat soldiers small-unit tactics and leadership under extreme duress. It pushes men harder than any other program in the Army's curriculum.
Competition to attend the course is fierce, with about 4,000 men eligible to attend each year. Only about half graduate. Of those, only 20% make it through without having to retake various phases.
For decades, completion of Ranger School has been the best indicator for determining which young men can handle the enormous responsibility of combat leadership
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Make a movie starring Demi Moore. If the movie succeeds so will Femenazi Ranger school. /s
The old rule about ‘if the rabbit died so did your
Army career’ needs reinstated too.
If anybody ever watches military channel and shows on special forces there is no way in hell any woman could make it through based on physical standards required to get t hrough.. If they allow women, they then have to lower standards and that means people will die. Ultimtely, the repupblic dies.
Now imagine a female tough enough to do my late father’s job in World War II. Sneak onto Japanese held islands to place stakes with communications wire attached for the various units about to invade said island.
I knew an olympic ranked lady shot putter. I figure she could have made it, if her knees held out.
I went-and washed out. Went on to Europe and was the fastest runner in my infantry company.
I know there are people who will disregard my objections as simple chauvinism.
I have worked for and with smart, talented, hardworking and dedicated women. Women who could think on their feet, make decisions and would inspire me to work my tail off for them.
But this has nothing at all to do with that. There are people, male and female, who insist that 18 year old men and women can work together as if there is no such thing as sexual interaction, that sex can be regulated away.
Secondly, men and women simply are not the same physically. They aren’t. Women, on average, cannot achieve the same level of physical output for the same duration that men can.
There is a reason that there is a separate category in marathons for men and women. Women cannot compete at the same level as men. In the Boston Marathon, the first woman finished nearly twenty minutes after the first man, and would have come in 28th place overall.
I find it interesting that they do not list the results for men and women together at the official site, and as far as I can tell, there is no option to do so, but I could simply be missing it. But year after year, you hear female athletes analyzing the results and saying that “...with more women running marathons, eventually women will compete at the same level as men...”
Really? They are living in a fantasy world, and they put things like this in newspapers. A lot of people fall for it hook, line and sinker. I am no marathoner, but I will say that when seconds, or fractions of seconds separate first and second place, twenty minutes is insurmountable, no matter how many women run in marathons or how the numbers increase each year. If they take steroids, they might close it up a bit.
And marathons are simply one example. In the military, look at the SEALS, Delta, and the Rangers. It is no coincidence there are no women, or at least women who could get there on the same path the men do. Those units are the top of a pyramid, and in the former selection process, only the top physical and mental performers could clear the bar. If true that the Rangers have begun accepting female candidates, they are finished as an elite unit in the niche they currently occupy. They may be better than a standard infantry unit, but they won’t be the same as the Rangers we have seen, and they certainly won’t have the same mission capability.
They will likely all get to wear nice Ranger berets, though, and wear the snappy Ranger tabs and badges that will label them as elite troops.
Lastly, logistical issues ranging from pregnancy to habitation may not seem like much to some people, but that is only going to be true if they DO treat men and women exactly the same in the field with respect to equipment and habitation. Apart from if that is a good idea or not, does anyone think that is going to happen?
Raise your hands if you think it will.
It WON’T happen, that is guaranteed. But you know what? Nobody will notice. In 5 years after women join the Rangers/SEALS/Delta, you will hear talking heads in and out of the military who will say things like:
NEWS ANCHOR/POLITICIAN/MILITARY COMMANDER: “When we integrated women and homosexuals into these units, people were saying it was going to be a disaster, that it would hurt mission capability, morale and such. We are more capable now than we have ever been, and have the moral buttress of diversity and equality. Remember how they said the same thing about the military when blacks were going to be integrated back in 1946? Same result here...the world didn’t end, and it won’t. It was the right thing to do, and we can all be proud of the diversity we now see.”
And you know what? There will be no dissenting opinion.
The next time this comes up is when we go head to head with an opponent who is going to make our elite units use every single ounce of capability to complete a mission, and it isn’t going to happen. We may find ourselves in a situation where we don’t control the air or the sea. Our avenues of supply have been cut off, and our units have to do with their brains and brawn and endurance to win. And we are going to lose, and lose badly.
We will lose badly, because our opponents won’t be stupid enough to do what we have done to our military.
For an analogy, think of what might have happened on Edson’s Ridge on Guadalcanal in 1942 if we had women integrated into those Marine units fighting the Japanese. That is your answer.
But hey. Nobody is going to read this thread or do anything about it. I am a dinosaur and don’t know any better, can’t change with the times...it is embarrassing for some to even read a post like this one. And if anyone even gave a rat’s patootie anymore, they might get angry and attack me personally.
But they won’t. This fight is over.
I agree. The back flips necessary to accommodate the very few olympic quality females seems to not be worth the added value they would bring.
Just as we don’t permit below the 5% and above the 95% in height, as we don’t want to redesign all the equipment, and the added value of such people wouldn’t justify the cost of redesign (and the dead weight loss associated with making every tool lighter and every tank bigger).
I am a woman; I read your thread; I agree with every word.
Leaving out the steroid junkies, there is not a woman alive that could equal physically the top 70% of the rangers.
Dead people on the Feminist pyre - gifts to their goddess.
God bless you. A ground-pounder is number one in my book.
Maybe 1 in 1000 women could handle the physical requirements. If they can, let them in.
Don;t lower the standards, but I think it is inevitable that even the most elite of our fighting forces are going to include women in the future. Simply not in proportion to men; look at the bell curve and there are going to be the exceptional specimens who can cut it (having had by ass kicked in Judo by a female half my size I have no doubt of this).
It is inevitable, it makes more sense for us ‘old guard’ to set the preconditions that there will be no diminution of any standard. Better to have a few in a hundred be female than to lose the eventual battle and have to change standards so that half are women,
Disclaimer- guy who tried like hell to join the service but was disqualified on grounds or really poor hearing. Just my .02
...and have it rung any more true...
Best. Post. On. The. Subject. Period.
My comments on another thread:
Because, really, that's what the Army is all about - making sure women get their tickets punched as they climb the career ladder.
Thank you, I appreciate your saying that. I hope it came clearly through in my post, my stance has nothing to do with respect for women, their leadership or their decision making.
I take my marching orders at work from several different women, all of whom I have an enormous amount of respect for, and will go to the mat in effort to give them what they need.
I don’t care if Chuck Norris is reincarnated as a woman, and goes on to hold the record in every drill necessary to attain Ranger status - there is still no place for them.
You want a separate team of women? Go ahead.
The job is tough enough without adding the distraction of women. It’s like asking them to put weights in their packs, or taking rounds out of their clips.
The only - the single - question that matters is:
Does the policy change enhance the ability of the team to meet their objectives?
With a female on the teams, the answer is a flat no.
Now, in espionage? I say we recruit all the females, homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders, etc that we can. Espionage is tough, dirty business, but it is in many cases an INDIVIDUAL effort.
I say OK, provided that there are absolutely NO, repeat NO waivers given for anything at any level. Suzie gets to do EVERYTHING the males have to do, no matter what. That applies to the physical as well as mental tests.
Better yet, make all the rocket scientists who are for Suzie Soldier going to Ranger School complete Ranger School before the first Suzie Soldier gets to play in the mud. If these folks cannot or will not go to Ranger School, that tells you something about those beating the drums for this.
and when it comes right down to it, if there are two people on the same squad/team/platoon having sex, they will sacrifice you and anybody else they have to to save their sex partner when the times comes.
The very bottom line for the military is its goal is to win - everything else is secondary, if that. Failure to win can mean the destruction of the Republic and everything it has stood for. To win you need to cast out the liberal drivel that “we are all equal”. Liberals want to be inclusive and deal with feelings.
The only feelings that the military deals with is the feelings generated by a 7.62 x 39 mm round hitting you or an IED going off a few meters away.
My bottom line - if they can keep up with the men then more power to them. But, there will be absolutely NO changes tot eh current training programs to accommodate females.
IIRC, the army regs state that women, when in the field, MUST be afforded the opportunity to shower no less than once every 3 days. To my knowledge, there is no corollary reg for men (they shower when they get done, or when they have a chance).
The regs for females are there due to hygiene issues turning into medical ones.
This, alone, is an insurmountable problem.
“They did it with cops, firemen, etc.”
How many female firefighters died on 9/11? I believe the correct answer is zero. While the men were carrying the heavy equipment up the stairs the ladies stayed on the fire trucks.
If they want to let them try, let them try, but do not lower a single standard in any of the training.
Everyone should have a chance but none should have a different standard. From that point on, what happens, happens.
Nobody is going to read this thread or do anything about it. I am a dinosaur and dont know any better
Great post. You are not a dinosaur and I agree with you. I am female and I’ve had enough of the femnazi nonsense.
As Dirty Harry said, “How fashionable.”
I agree with you but the marathon was probably not a good choice to compare performances. Of course men run it faster but women compete closer than just about any other race.
Events which require strength and power are where men would totally dominate. In fact a very good high school boy could beat the women’s world record in just about all events. Some people don’t realize that women throw lighter weight objects in events such as shot put and discus. Also women run the 100 meter hurdles while men run the 110 meeter over higher hurdles.
I too have watched some of the elite military units on TV while they trained. You are correct, there are no women who could pass these tests if they had to compete on equal basis. Of course they would make them easier and then say women can do anything men can do.
Oddly enough, I think there are some women who could be effective fighters in a lot of situations. they are clever and capable of killing.
I happen to think that the dividing line should be combat support vs. combat arms - at least for most types of combat arms. Combat support roles include transportation, MPs, etc. IIRC, field artillery and air defense artillery are both combat support roles.
Combat arms are armor, infantry, etc.
The integration of women into combat support bothers me little - even though I have seen the issues it raises first hand. They can be overcome by good unit discipline, especially discipline at the platoon and company levels.
In a combat unit, designed to be the front line of offense and defense, I’m not convinced that integrating women won’t cause insurmountable issues. To integrate in the face of dangerous issues is simply to say “the soldiers’ lives don’t count”.
If you ever watch “Cops” on TV, you see the female cops standing next to the action, ready with the cuffs.
All will be returned to normalcy, eventually.
And God is in charge.
Even as a half-crippled, middle-age man, I'd choke that DS out in about two minutes. I like how she does the poseur push to pretend like she has biceps. And spare us the pics of the Scandanavian military, please.
Let me know when they don't surrender to invaders.
The problem is that we, as a nation, don’t want to win, we don’t want to do our best, and do a perfect job. It isn’t our focus, or our reason for being anymore.
Now it’s all good enough, and often, not good enough, but who will ever know?
The tide will turn soon, since these things cycle, and we have an economic collaspe coming which should again produce people who are conditioned to try to win, since they have had to in order to survive.
When the tide turns, we’ll have an opportunity to see a lot of this over-reaching stupidity turned back. I hope we take advantage of it.
My problem is we’re blown off without even having a shot at it. Let us try. If we don’t make it, we don’t make it but don’t go pushing us off because we’re women. I’m a pilot. I fly jets. I had a bf who was a pilot (is a a pilot). I waxed his butt so many times when we flew air combat sim’s in real planes it wasn’t funny. We’re pulling almost 9g’s and he couldn’t take it. So, some people can make it and some can’t. We shouldn’t be discounted because of our sex. Just saying.
Surrender, AND collaborate.
Or getting in the way when the SHTF.
My problem is were blown off without even having a shot at it. Let us try. If we dont make it, we dont make it but dont go pushing us off because were women. Im a pilot. I fly jets. I had a bf who was a pilot (is a a pilot). I waxed his butt so many times when we flew air combat sims in real planes it wasnt funny. Were pulling almost 9gs and he couldnt take it. So, some people can make it and some cant. We shouldnt be discounted because of our sex. Just saying.
Oh, and sorry. I didn’t know Scandinavian women were less athletic than American men. My mistake.
Then too, that DS would eat your lunch and not even burp.
As I understand it allowing women in the previously all male military occupations inevitably involves a serious reduction in physical and psychological requirements.
Sorry, Field Artillery is a Combat Arm.
All of the women playing football in the NFL should try out.
Women are rarely the physical equals of men.
My daughter could take almost anybody apart. Repeat - "almost".
Try passing something the size of a watermelon though a body opening then come back and tell me women are rarely the physical equal of men.
As for combat pilots - I don’t know. I just don’t have the personal knowledge to make form an informed judgment on the matter.
If all goes well in a sortie, the pilots return to a (relatively) safe place, where they recuperate and plan the next mission.
There are some psychological issues that arise if a woman is captured - and I’m speaking of the nation, and fellow soldiers/airmen/marines/seamen/etc. Remember the female transportation spec4 during the Iraq war?
But a combat pilot role is different than an infantry or armor role, where physical strength and stamina are specific reasons for survival or not. And not just the individual, but the whole unit is imperiled.
Thank you for discussing this with me reasonably, and I hope I have risen to that same standard.
The same woman would have to pass the orienteering. Women are naturally disadvantaged versus men when it comes to orienteering. So, a big part of the women passing the physical qualifications would wash out because they can't naturally figure out where they are or how to get where they need to be.
Finally, there's the general mental aspect that washes out many male candidates who show up in supreme physical condition. The end result being, no woman could regularly qualify based on present criteria.