US-Army. Women & Ranger School

I don't see this ending very well if they are ever allowed to serve in infantry battalions.

As mentioned a few posts above, what steps will be taken to accommodate these women in combat? Last time I fought, I carried everything on my back to sustain me for multiple days, and that sucked for me at 180 lbs of muscle. Not sheik muscle but I was a big guy, as were all of us because we had to be in order to live. Combat fitness is real, and in plenty of instances has meant life or death.

Who carries machine guns? In the post 9/11 infantry, everyone does at one point. Everyone. Spare barrels and linked ammo aint light, and thats on top of your 100+ pounds of life sustaining crap on your back.

Its cute some women can hack some training. Its funny that whenever I have had this conversation with my girlfriend or our female friends, they all agree with what I am saying. I can understand the desire to want to serve in a fighting unit. I respect that desire, but not everybody is allowed to, because any slack in combat creates deadly outcomes.

I thought we cherished and loved women in this country. I guess we are all "equal" now and can all go bleed out in a sandbox together. Disgusting.

 

you're a Ranger, i take it?

 

Nah, just a lousy reserve Marine a few years back. I was infantry and had the honor of serving in Iraq.

 

The question is if a particular woman can run faster, do more pull ups, work on less sleep, and shoot straighter than men who meet the standards, then what are you basing the decision to not let them in on? When it comes to endurance there are women out there who can outperform all but the most elite male athletes. If you don't believe me go run a marathon and see how many women decimate you.

 

If your marathon is representative of the overall population, lots of fast women will outrun lots of slow men. If your sample contains only extremely fit examples of both sexes, it won't even be close.

 

These two women that graduated this morning with their other 94 classmates have proven something. Through hardheaded perseverance they have accomplished something that other women could also do it if those other women convince themselves that they can. The deep seated issue is that our society has always placed women on a pedestal that must be protected at all costs. Plenty of women could take the physical demands of combat but we simply have too many men that, in the back of their minds, are in fear that those women may need protecting and are deathly afraid that they will be captured, raped, and otherwise mistreated by an enemy. We're men, we can take it. Women need to be pampered and taken care of.

I saw an interview yesterday with the two women and two of their classmates. One of the men was saying that he had been carrying an M60 and was just about to fold his tent because he couldn't go any farther when the shorter of the two women grabbed the M60 and told him to come on. She was also, of course, carrying her own pack. He was impressed with her strength and determination.

 

My understanding is that these two women met all the same physical requirements as their male counterparts. Stop referring to them as women and address them as they deserve: Ranger.

Why do we need to 'accommodate' gender if it doesn't affect ones ability to perform the required tasks? This just seems like such a non-issue to me...

Equality means equal requirements. Trying to legislate "fairness" is a huge PITA, and I think these women have shown that it's not necessary.

/$.02

 

IMO, Preferential treatment is nothing more than a boot on the throat of people. Once a group gets used to this treatment they come to rely on it. These 2 Rangers show what is possible when you set your mind to something and just do it. Social engineers should look at this and realise how counter productive they really are.

 

To bad it was only 2, otherwise we could have an all female group. In some parts of the world that would be an extra kick to the enemy when the beat down is given

 

Yeah. Right. They'd have to stop at every tin hut to ask directions to the enemy, and pee.

 

This is still laughable to those who have deployed with an infantry battalion, doing infantry things in war. Ranger school, though I have not completed it, still is just a school. It really isn't that big of an accomplishment, nor is it a good measure of how one would preform in actual combat, over a sustained mission.

Who the hell wants equality on the battlefield? Ya'll make it out to be some kind of physical sport or something, like a marathon. You cannot compare any form of physical training or whatever with what happens over the course of a 2-3 day mission or multiple hour firefight. You simply can't count all the variables. A man will always be able to fight harder and for a longer duration than ANY woman if all things are equal (3 mile run time, for instance). Every time. Ranger school is not a good measure of combat, not even close.

 

But if it takes the course to qualify and no requirements were relaxed good for them.
I do agree with much of what you posted though.

 

are you serious? have you ever had a girlfriend?

 

LOL tophyr, touche! Sheep i'm with ya man. I'm not going to shit on their accomplishment but what does it really accomplish besides a feel good story for those who want to make fighting units coed? Its never going to be a reality to have women in the infantry. Period.

 

Having been to both ranger school and combat, I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

 

On the actual topic, I disagree with that. They'll likely never be very prevalent.. but obviously these women are capable, in the Army Rangers' eyes. The numbers/percentages seem rather fitting.. 100 of 200 men passed the course, 2 of 20 women passed: A standard that only 50% of self-selecting men are able to pass, only 10% of self-selecting women are able to pass, and ultimately the unit is only 2% women. Is that really that unreasonable?

 

I never really looked at Ranger School or BUDS as actual training. Rather, it is approved, legal hazing to gain entry to a very elite club. The training happens after that...

 

I respectfully disagree. The training is real and valuable. Anyone who has completed the course will tell you that the things they learned in ranger school saved lives when applied in actual combat.

 

Then Howlie you should know that success in a "school" does not equate to success in your unit or in combat. Give me a break, real combat and training are worlds apart, no matter how realistic you make it, or what school you attended. Anyone who says training or a school "prepares" anyone for combat has not seen any.

edit: Yes the skills learned in training certainly matter, but you can't make the conditions anywhere close to the same.