Why is it so critical to have women in Army Ranger School NOW?

In full disclosure, early in my military career I twice requested to attend the U.S. Army Ranger School but was denied due to my follow-on assignments — first the 325th Airborne Battalion Combat Team in Vicenza, Italy and second, the 4th Battalion, 5th Field Artillery, First Infantry Division. In both instances the necessity for reporting to those units superseded an additional 70-day delay while attending Ranger School and probable leave.

I still keep up with my PT routine and back in the day, my best two-mile PT run was 10:35 — I was a skinny 2LT then. When I showed up in Vicenza, Italy I had to do my “indoc” run as a new Airborne officer — the vaunted 8-mile run from our base, Caserma Ederle through the city to Monte Berici (Mount Berico) to the Basilica that overlooked the town. I still shudder thinking about the final climb to the top — and then you had to run back.

That was an unwritten standard, just like the six-mile ruck sack runs out the “back 40” to the local village and back. Today things have changed — no more running in boots. I guess it was proven to be not good for the body. Then again, neither is being hit by a bullet.

Now, why am I confiding all of this with you? Because it’s 2015 and according to the decree from the lords of social egalitarianism, we now have female soldiers allowed to attend U.S. Army Ranger School — next year the lords have declared the same for U.S. Navy SEAL training.

And so 60 females were allowed to enter Ranger Training Assessment Course (RTAC) beginning in January this year. According to Defenseone.com, “A dozen women have now qualified for the Army’s Ranger School, putting them one step closer to becoming the first females to complete one of the military’s most elite special operations training programs alongside men. Six servicewomen successfully passed the latest round of the Ranger Training Assessment Course, or RTAC, qualifying them for the first gender-integrated full Ranger Course beginning on April 20, the Army announced on Wednesday. The two-month combat training course is considered to be one of the toughest in the military.”

“Five women qualified during the first RTAC in January, and one in the second round in February. “As we’ve seen from the Ranger Course, women are able to take on the challenges,” Army Secretary John McHugh told Defense One recently. “Not all men can be infantrymen, and not all women can and would want to be infantrymen.”

I will leave it up to those who have completed Ranger school and earned the coveted Ranger Tab to make comment, but I’d like to offer these thoughts.

First of all, is this being done because there’s a requirement in the force, or is this just an experiment in social justice? Just for the layperson let me explain what I knew about the Ranger School PT assessment.

Regardless of your age, everyone was evaluated against the Army PT standard for the 17-21 year old male — and those were the toughest standards for pushups, sit-ups, and two-mile run. Now in reality there are several age categories as well as a separation between PT standards for males and females.

So my first question is whether or not the female candidates had to pass the PT test based upon the 17-21 year old male standard — or was that changed?

“The standards are the same during the gender-integrated RTAC iterations, and they won’t change,” Maj. William Woodard, company commander at the Army National Guard Warrior Training Center at Fort Benning, Ga., said in the Army release.”

Hmm, that statement reminds me of the Reagan quote, “trust but verify.”

Are there women out there capable of exceeding the standard, sure, but is that the exception or the rule? And why is it now, during wholehearted degradation of U.S. military capability and capacity does anyone feel this is the right time?

Because, as the article states, “Even if these women pass the Ranger Course and get their Ranger tab, that doesn’t mean they’ll join the 75th Ranger Regiment — beyond more training and schooling, it is currently only open to men. “

So I suppose this will all be a very nice feel good moment and will provide the Obama administration a cute Rose Garden photo op and a “legacy” bullet point of having advanced the cause of women with the first female Ranger School graduate. I suppose I’d rather have that than a nuclear Iran as a legacy.

So what is this really about? These words sum it up succinctly:

“The Army’s gender-integrated RTACs and Ranger Course are part of an ongoing, military-wide assessment of the remaining barriers to full gender-integration in the military, ordered by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Unless a service requests and is granted an exemption, by January 2016, all military occupation specialties, or MOS, across the services will be opened to women. “I will tell you that the assessment course has been very, very valuable experience,” McHugh said. “It’s also been valuable for the Army because it’s helped us understand some of the challenges that are attendant to integration on the battlefield.” “We are very methodically determining what the required physical skills for the MOS’s may be,” McHugh said, “not to lower the standards, not to accommodate women, but to better posture every soldier, male or female, for success and also to ensure that whatever job they’re doing, they’re actually physically able to do it.”

So there you have it. The mentality of “every kid gets a trophy” has finally come to the U.S. military. The idea of guaranteeing success and making it equal for all has breached the defenses of the warrior elite.

It’s no wonder that all of a sudden NBC has a new show called “American Odyssey” depicting what? A female Special Forces officer — just as during the Clinton Administration we had the movie “GI Jane” and Anne Bancroft’s character really seemed to resemble Colorado Congresswoman Pat Schroeder who was the first female to sit on the House Armed Services Committee.

So what do I think? I think that if we were in a time of peace, we could embark on this type of experimentation. However, at a time when we have such a volatile global security situation, the time is not now. If we weren’t decimating our military capability and capacity, then this would be a bit more palatable. What I don’t want to see is another political photo op by the Commander-in-Chief Obama a la the Bergdahl fiasco that in the long run ends up being an embarrassing moment for our country.

This could have waited — and don’t give me the false equivalency narrative to integrating blacks into the military. They had long since proved they could meet and exceed the defined standards in heroic fashion.


  1. IF they pass the EXACT same standard that the men in training, I see no issue. But if they change it one push-up, shave one second off the run, take one pound out of that ruck, they are placing good soldiers at risk. Because anyone that has see what has happened to the “New” Army, if its “OK” to shave one, it should be safe to shave 20, in the search for “Gender Equality”…

  2. I am so sick of Liberals trying to use our Armed Forces as a massive social experiment! The military’s job is to defend the nation in the most effective manner, with the minimal loss of life on OUR part. Forcing women into combat roles will get our soldiers killed unnecessarily. GOD MADE MEN AND WOMEN DIFFERENT. GET OVER IT!

  3. Here’s the thing with blacks being integrated into the military…THEY WERE HELD TO THE EXACT SAME PHYSICAL STANDARDS as their white compatriots…and they met or exceeded those standards. I don’t know about the Army but in the Corps womyn don’t do pull-ups…they do dead-arm hangs (that’s right, they HANG from the bar). They do crunches like the males but are not required to do as many and they run the same 3 miles as the men (and in all honesty, that has only been the case since about ’96 or so…before that they only ran a mile and a half) but the allowable run time is much lower. And there has yet to be one female who has passed the Marine Infantry Officer’s course. some counter than “Well, men drop out of the IOC, too.” and that is absolutely correct. But no one tries to lower the standard to force those men to successfully pass it and you don’t see men whining that they failed the course. Men pass, or fail, the IOC with ONE set of standards.

  4. Lowering standards for everyone, in order to allow women to pass, will make for a weaker overall fighting force. Even if not allowed in combat, there will be unqualified men allowed to pass. If you are fighting for your life and the guy on the left isn’t up to par, you will be killed. PC kills when forced into the real world.

  5. If they don’t change the standards for women and they can pass the same tests as the men, fine. If they lower standards to get women through the course, it’s going to cost lives in combat.

  6. It’s just another way of forcing “equality” in areas that should be left alone. Gone will be the days of manners, chivalrous acts, and honor. Treating a woman like a queen will be replaced with bar room brawls with them. Soon abuse will no longer be the horrid thing it is now, but simply an equal expression of “emotions. “

  7. Totally agree that this is not what our military needs to be focused on now. Even in peacetime, there would be no point to it. There are significant innate differences between men and women. That is a fact of nature — not just our “social conditioning” or whatever the feminist marxists want to lead us to believe. A bull and a cow are two very different kinds of animals, and it has everything to do with their biology, and nothing to do with their culture.

    Sexual differences are natural and innate; and until very recently in human history, most people thought that was a beautiful and wonderful thing. But now we have so many people who are politically and ideologically opposed to what is natural and beautiful; and they want to believe that Nature can be overridden with politics, and the more gender-bending the better, until we all live in a sterile, passion-free world world of neutered androgynous beings.

    Why is it that the feelings and opinions and ideologies of those relatively few people who who hate the differences between men and women are supposed to outweigh the feelings and opinions and ideologies of the many people who love the natural differences between men and women?

    Denying the natural differences is not a road to harmony. What is needed is for men to value, respect and honor women and femininity, and for women to value, respect and honor men and masculinity. THAT would mean the end of the so-called “War Between the Sexes” — a war that nobody can win, because we’re all in it together.

    And let’s be realistic: there is No Way that women can compete with men in highly demanding physical skills — unless the military lowers their standards. So, Of Course they’re planning on lowering the physical standards. That’s why this experimental period is being used to “assess” the problem and find “solutions” and all that. The “solution” will come when the military suddenly decides that the standards for fighting men were “unnecessarily high in the first place” — or some such excuse — so they can lower them to accommodate women.

    And the relative lack of physical strength in women is not the only problem with integrating women into combat troops. There are other logistical considerations with hygiene, increased risk of sexual liasons and sexual assault, a demoralizing effect on troop morale, and the risk that women who are captured on the battlefield might well face horrors at the hands of enemies that male soldiers never would.

    The Center for Military Readiness has done a great job of following this issue for years, and documenting the many inrumountable problems raised by trying to integrate women into combat troops. Here’s their archive:

    Issues with women in military combat:

  8. As someone who lives in the real world, I have to ask if anyone else but me knows that there is a fundamental difference between men and women. Physical AND mental. Now don’t get me wrong, there are lots of women out there more than capable of taking down and even competing with men head to head. Example would be Ronda Rousey. She’s a fantastic athlete. And I believe and exception to the rule. Women as a whole were never meant for combat roles. Plain and simple. Physically or mentally. If you think I’m being sexist, go back to biology 101.

    • lefties would have us beLIEve that if you take female hormones & have your body IRRECOVERABLY cut up (sex reassignment surgery) you can change from one to the other. FALSE. All you end up with is a cut up, drugged up version of your former self (STILL THE SAME) sex you were born with. WHY do you think the suicide rate of transgenders is 80% HIGHER than that of the normal population. They eventually figure out what a MISTAKE it was & now they are FOREVER to live in that mistake. They CAN NOT go back & many realize SUICIDE is the only way out. It is TRULY sad!!!!

      • Not sure what transgenderism has to do with this subject… but as to your comment about suicide rates among them… maybe it’s not because they can’t go back, but because they are constantly demonized and have people attacking them

      • I agree that it is biologically impossible for someone who was born male to become a “female” or vice-versa. And there are some transgender people who have come to regret their decisions, and after “sex reassignment surgery” there is no way to go back; and that is deeply tragic. So that may be a factor in the higher suicide rate, yes.

        But there are also many people who are born *neither* male nor female — they’re born with “intersex” conditions from birth defects, that result in them having mixed sexual plumbing and secondary sex characteristics. And they have a problem finding a place in society too — unless they artificially adopt one sex or the other, and have their bodies surgically mutilated to match their chosen sex/gender. There are not that many intersex births — only about one in a thousand, most of which is Klinefelter syndrome (XXY ‘male’) . But even 1 in 1000 means that there are some 300,000 intersex persons in America alone.

        So I think what we will really need to do, in the long term, is to recognize that we have THREE sexes or genders, not just two. There are males, females, and androgynes. (Maybe we can come up with a better term for androgyne.)

        The androgynous category would include not only those people born with intersex conditions, but also those people who are transgender or transsexual. Especially if they are post-surgery; because then they are clearly a MIX of male and female characteristics.

        And IF we were to allow for androgynous persons in our society, and make them feel more welcome, THEN there is a good chance that some “transgender” people might instead choose the path of androgyny; and thus decide to NOT permanently mutilate their bodies with surgery. They might be satisfied with cross-dressing and/or maybe some hormonal treatments. I think that would be a lot better for all concerned.

    • *Mental* differences??
      I would say that the non-physical differences are mainly EMOTIONAL differences — not “mental” differences.

      For example, men tend to be more aggressive and inclined towards seeking dominance directly; while women tend to be more nurturing and more inclined to pursue social influence via indirect means.

      The biological differences between a bull and a cow are not only physical — with the bull being bigger, stronger, and equipped with larger horns for fighting — but also emotional. That’s why we talk about a “raging bull” but not a “raginig cow” and it’s “like a bull in a china shop” and not a cow. Cows are more placid and tranquil; bulls are more aggressive and full of fire. And the same *emotional* differences hold throughout almost all mammal species. (And many birds and reptiles as well.)

      Saying there are “mental differences” implies a difference in intelligence and reasoning capacity; and the data from cognitive testing does not support that. It shows that women and men are pretty much equal intellectually.

      (There may be slight cognitive differences, on average, that incline women more to verbal skills and men more to spatial/math skills. But that could also very well be a product of how children are raised. Just look at the differences in toys for boys and girls through the decades, and then add that to the role models that have been offered to them. It’s pretty clear that there is a huge cultural influence at work in terms of how boys and girls see themselves.)

      So: Women as scientists and engineers and inventors and computer geeks? No problem. That should be encouraged as much as possible. It’s both a tragic loss and a ludicrous injustice that humanity has been ignoring and discarding 50% of its geniuses all throughout history, just because they were women.

      But: Women as combat soldiers, boxers, football players, firemen, cops on the beat, etc? No. Careers that depend upon physical strength and aggression are MASCULINE careers, pretty much by definition of the terms “masculine” and “feminine.” And, as a society, we should be encouraging men to be masculine and women to be feminine — and not vice-versa.

      • I believe by your extensive reply that you knew what I was saying. I just happen to think these things “mentality” reside in the “BRAIN”, I don’t believe I even suggested that women are in any way mentally deficient or inferior to men. Just fundamentally different. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and as individuals build upon them and know our own limitations.

  9. Gee….and here I thought the primary purpose of our military was to defend us by being superior to our enemy in killing people and blowing stuff up. I didn’t know that it’s main purpose was to be “fair”.

  10. They don’t really want equal rights they want special rights that they can pass off as equal rights. If they dont get their special rights then they will scream discrimination. I’m all for equal rights as long as the standard is not lowered to gain that right.

  11. The Left kills two birds with one stone in this operation. The barefoot Lefties I met in college loved to hate the U.S. military. From their safe spots in school on Mom and Dad’s (and the U.S. taxpayers’) dime, they loved to fantasize about a world devoid of American power. Their other persistent delusion had to do with the physical equality of men and women. The upper body physical strength deficit of women was caused by differences in training – in their view. The very idea of the elite and honored warrior is anathema to the Left. They would be more comfortable with the idea of the elite and honored hippie nihilist. They are not about building excellence in the warrior culture. They want to eliminate it. A phony appeal to feminism is a convenient vehicle for achieving that elimination. Meanwhile, those of us who live in the real world must be the adults in the room. We know that American military power is a force for good in a dangerous world, that women (while stronger in some ways) as a group lack the upper body strength of men, and that Lefties intend to destroy rather than build. When you ask them what they will replace American power with, they have no answer. Defeating the conservative American patriot and shutting his or her mouth is their terminal goal. So, we must go to the ballot box in 2016 and wrest the greatest country in the world from the spoiled boys and girls who want to ruin it.

  12. Two points. First, as a backdrop, although I once had an opportunity to attend Army Ranger School (as a USAF Security Policeman), I got orders to return to Korea. Like you, LTC West, my orders to a specific assignment took priority over a school opportunity. (A few weeks later my orders got canceled, but it was too late to get booked for Ranger School.) To dispell a common myth, not only are there Air Force members that go to Ranger School (and most of them are Security Policemen), but also I met the first USAF honor graduate of Ranger School.
    With that background, I do know (from first-hand experience) that the standards for training, and even for duty performance, were lowered in the late 1970s when the role of women was expanded in the Security Police. Excuses were made, because nobody wanted to run afoul of US Rep. Patricia Schroeder (who never served in the military) nor of Pres. Jimmy Carter (who did serve — aboard a submarine, where there were no women). Their hypocritical double-standard hung over the heads of anyone that dared try to apply common sense. As you said, there were women that did well — but, they were the exception and not the rule.
    I also know that Airborne School was forced to use a double-standard when women were introduced there at about the same time. I do not have first-hand knowledge of that, but did hear it from school graduates and from a detailed report in Soldier of Fortune magazine at that time.
    My final point is minor, but must be stated in the interests of accuracy and fairness. Ranger School graduates, whether male or female, do not earn a Ranger “tab”. They earn a Ranger “arc” — which signifies that the individual is Ranger-trained. But, the only way to get a Ranger “tab” is to be assigned to a specific Ranger battalion. That point is what distinguishes those that are “capable of becoming” Rangers versus those that “really are” Rangers.

    • It’s a ranger tab from school and a scroll from the regiments. So you’re either a tab wearer or a scroll bearer.

    • You earn the Ranger tab when you graduate Ranger school and you can call yourself Ranger qualified.
      But the men of the 75th, whether tabbed or not, are the only ones who can call themselves Rangers.

      As to making Airborne School coed and lowering the standards….
      I graduated Airborne School nearly 30 years ago an there were plenty of women and the physical training part of the school was easy.

      lowering the standards for Airborne school made sense.
      The tough PT part that used to exist served no purpose other than to make the wings harder to earn and boost morale.
      Learning how to jump is just learning how to be an effective participant in a way of deploying troops.
      All that needs to be learned is confidence in yourself and your equipment and how to properly jump and land.
      Support troops, including women, in Airborne units all need to know how to jump so that the Army has the capability to deploy them all in an Airborne operation.
      Many support personnel, including women, have done combat jumps. some alongside the first wave of infantry paratroopers.
      No, they weren’t attacking out from the dropzone like the infantry were, but they were needed in theater on day one.

      Ranger School, however, should never lower its standards.
      it is a combat leadership school that teaches men who to conduct and lead assorted patrol under the most stressful conditions that peacetime training allows. The physical hardships are a big part of that training

  13. The military is not and never has been a democratic institution for very good reasons. Gender integration is not something they should be forced to participate in. When they are forced to participate in these social experiments, their effectiveness is degraded. There may in fact be a few women that can do this, but they will be few and far between. Sorry, but BS, BS, BS, BS.

  14. LOL, I have to straddle the fence on this one. Quick personal sketch: I went into the military (navy) during the dark days of Carter, and served active and reserve until ’96. Many changes in those times. Some good, some bad.

    I started as a Hospital Corpsman in a hospital, moved to field hospital (upscale MASH), and then got the chance to try to become an FMF Corpsman. I jumped at it. Not because I’m female or trying to prove something, but because the challenge was irresistible and I need a challenge. A lot of the females didn’t make it. I did.

    I am not comparing playing with the Marines to Ranger school, but I think if woman can meet the standards they should be allowed to go for it. By the time you have gone through that kind of training, no one sees you as a female anyway. you are either one of the team or you are not. You are bloody, dirty, stinking, bruised, and have chopped your hair off to keep the bugs out of it.

    I get the issues and I’m sure everyone has listed every one of them, but warfare has changed. It’s completely asymmetrical and what we needed and wanted in the past, will not do for the future.

    Post Script: My youngest was a young officer on a destroyer. The crew was mixed gender. I made some comment about it not being in the best interest of the Navy to mix genders on a small ship. He just rolled his eyes and informed me that the women did a fine job and the problems were almost non-existent. Biggest problem for him? The self appointed PC police

    • I’ve never seen a female FMF Corpsman. I honestly did not know they could be one, where did you get stationed? I only ask because I can’t think of one Marine unit you would (could?) be put in.

      • I was trained at Pendleton. I was not assigned to a unit because I was female and we were not allowed to be assigned to combat units. My roll was to hump the hills with the training groups 😀

        I finished my career as a reservist and things had not changed much by the time I left. It was ok. It was worthwhile training and wherever I might have ended up, It would have made me a better corpsman. Had a female friend assigned to a MEF reserve unit, but when she deployed it was with a SBU.

      • “My roll was to hump the hills with the training groups.” Wow, that sounds like a special kind of Hell, at least you were able to keep in shape with all that humping, although I don’t envy your assignment. But as you made it through and are a FMF Corpsman….Semper Fi ‘Doc’

  15. Retired, female, Senior NCO, USAF. Very, very bad idea. I was one of those young women that were placed into non-traditional career fields (USAF speak for MOS) back in the late 1970s under the “volunteer force stuff.” Yes, I passed the “strength tests” but those strength tests were NOTHING compared the the actual, daily physical demands of working the flightline. That is where the job is removing and replacing avionics components (some weighing 300 lbs) in a space big enough for one person only. There is no such thing as “two person” lift in those spaces.

    I could lift 75 lbs above my head, but I had a terrible time holding up my part of a Search radar antenna on a B-52D aircraft (which was about 75 lbs) while my partner screwed in the 126 screws holding it to the airframe.

    I have NO CHOICE in the matter, neither did the NCOs and Senior NCOs. It was MAKE IT WORK. I was off the flight line and out of avionics and aircraft maintenance within 18 months. I was breaking physically. I failed. I tried and I failed. Is that what we want our best and brightest to endure?

    I met a medical board that decided whether to retain and retrain me or discharge me on a medical disqualification. I stayed, I went into another equally demanding career field but without the daily physical labor requirements. I had a good career.

    There are MANY duties women CAN and DO perform, but there are some, faced it, we physically can’t.

    The goal of the Left, the Progressives, the Libbers and the Democrats IS NOT national security or survival. Nor is it really to have every citizen be the best at what they can do.

    • I was the second woman assigned to my Avionics Squadron, so I can identify with your experience. EVERY SINGLE DAY, I had men telling me that I didn’t belong on the flightline–that they tried it in WW2 and it didn’t work then either. However, men come with different abilities, strengths and sizes as well. A big 6′, 250 pound guy might not be a good fit working on a fighter avionics either, so a little upfront discretion might have been nice, but not realistic. So that’s where the squadron commanders, the training NCO’s, the shop/section leader’s discretion are so important to come in without an agenda. If they wouldn’t send out a skinny 5′ guy to do the job, then why send out a skinny 5′ woman to do it? My point is that there always was so much work that needed to be done to run an efficient operation, that there was enough work suited for everyone to do, AND without having to boot them out of the AFSC to a “more womanly” type of work.

  16. If women can pass the same standard the men are required to meet, then by all means let them join what ever special force will have them. If they can’t and they are still brought in, lives will be lost. American military lives are too important to play politics with just to show how enlightened we are. It’s the duty of the military to be the stopping force or crushing blow to enemy forces. We will not benefit by softening up these forces to achieve a political ideal.

  17. I am strongly opposed to women serving in most combat arms units.
    Women do not belong in a Ranger Battalion… or even in a regular infantry battalion.
    I do not doubt a woman’s desire to fight nor am I one of those people who say they don’t belong in combat because they lack the killer instinct.
    Support units see combat and women have performed very well in combat with these units.

    My argument has nothing to do with those who are worried about what happens to female prisoners or how the American public will stomach female casualties.
    Those points are moot and absurd.

    Those who argue in favor of women serving in the infantry often cite examples of female athletes with an endurance similar to or exceeding men.

    That thinking is ignorant of the rigors of the infantry and comes from people whose impression of the infantry in combat is that of well rested, well fed soldiers out on a single day patrol.

    I remember in the 70’s there was an argument from the ignorant masses that women could serve in the infantry because in modern warfare “it doesn’t take much strength or endurance to pull a trigger.”

    Our bodies are different.

    That female athlete who is just as strong or stronger than her male counterpart, removed from her diet and training regimen, in the field, after several weeks of rucking through harsh terrain with 60+ pounds on her back and low rations is going to discover that her body is no longer stronger than her male counterparts she was
    able to outperform back in garrison.

    It amazes me that, after a decade of war, there are still those who think the job of the infantry and special operations is physically easier than it was years ago.

    As to Ranger School… so long as they don’t lower the standards, I see no problem allowing them to attend.
    The only argument I would have against women in Ranger school is the same argument that I have had for years against non infantry personnel attending Ranger School…. it takes slots away from men who could actually apply the lessons learned to their job.

    When some officer from a support unit gets a slot for Ranger school just so he could wear the tab and help his career, he is taking a slot that could have gone to a junior NCO in some infantry unit who could use those patrol leadership skills in combat some day.
    So my opposition to women in Ranger School is the same as my opposition to an air-defense officer going to Ranger school.
    But as long as they are continuing to let non infantry soldiers go, and as long as they don’t lower the standards, why not?

    • I really have to ask. If the Army trains it’s combat soldiers to fight, and then to “really be big, bad, and tough” send them to a super specialized school with super specialized training, why not give the same training to all the troops so the Army can be all that it can be? Shouldn’t all be able to sneak up on the enemy, use super duper guns, and wear snazzy uniforms? During a rapid military build up as in Viet Nam or WWII, it was a turn out mill of bodies. During the military cut back times or during the little bit of peace we might enjoy, why not use the big Army bases and train EVERYONE regardless of gender on doing what is expected of them. That way the standards will raise themselves. You just might find a female is better suited to some specialized fields than the male counterpart. Or are you afraid your feeling may get hurt by being outdone by a female? If the girls can hang, send the best person to do the job.

      • Did you even read what I wrote?

        I wrote that I have no problem with women attending the school so long as the standards are lowered.
        My only gripe is the same gripe I have regarding the limited number of slots for Ranger school being given to soldiers who do not need it… mot because of their gender, but because of their job in the Army.

        Ranger school is an excellent school to learn how to lead assorted types of infantry patrols in a high stress, and very critical, setting.

        My gripe is when these slots are given to officers or NCOs from support units (regardless of gender) who just want to advance their careers, when those slots should go to infantry NCOs who could apply the lessons learned in their resepctive units after they graduate.

        As to your other point that maybe the Army should provide that kind of intense and advance training for all… sure… that would be great.
        But that’s not going to happen.

        And as to women in the infantry or beyond… if you are arguing that should be allowed to try, I don’t think you understand what the infantry actually does.
        All the motivation and drive in the world is not going to let them overcome their physiology.

      • I have coached women/girls in sports since 1981, and officiated women’s fast pitch softball for the past several years. I have seen their dedication, determination, work and drive and desire to succeed despite the odds against them from all sides. I raised two daughters, one became a world class umpire, the other earned three All American honors all in softball. A team I coached in travel ball all earned a scholorship to college and everyone finished school and graduated. The large majority continued on and earned their master’s degree. While doing this, I was in law enforcement for over 30 years. I was in patrol when the male dominated profession finally relented and allowed women to go to patrol. Sure some failed, but those who understood the pressure put upon them, stood up to the challenge and succeeded. The failurte rate of men to women was a higher percentage wise for men than women. I also as a supervisor worked in the women’s jail, and had women work for me in the men’s high security jails. No exception was made for the women, except they could not run a module where the men were in various state of dress or undress. Noi so in State Prisons BTY. They all excelled and most were better than their male counterparts. Even in jail riots, they did not shy away, and stood their ground and won every fight. Just as there were some men I’d not want backing me up in any situation there were some women. But the vast majority of the women in patrol, I’d love to have them have my back. I was just as critical of the women in LE as the men. In a life or death occupation you must be hard and critical, yet honest in your elevations. You have not seen violence until you have worked in a woman’s maximum security jail as I did as a supervisor. Nothing you have seen or read comes close to the dangers faced every day in the jail system. They are more dangerous and violent that state or federal prisons. It is because of the four+ years in the Marines, and the 30+ years in law enforcement and coaching girls from 5 years old through 18+, and umpiring women from all over the Untied States can I say, if women want it hard enough, they can do it. For you to try to protect the “brother”hood of the elite element of Army combat units, is chauvinistic at best. Any 5’6” 140 pound female that can take on the Bloods or Crips, or the Mexican Mafia or Hells Angeles or Aryan Brotherhood jail gangs in a jail riot and win, has my vote every time.

      • First… i apologize if I came off as antagonistic before because clearly, from reading this last comment of yours, I see that I misread the tone of your earlier post and thought you were belittling women in general.

        My previous responses were based on that misunderstanding.
        now that I see you do support the role of women in combat… perhaps you may have misinterpreted my argumentative response to believe that I don’t.

        The fact is that I do support the right of women to be in combat.
        All the naysayers who oppose them because they think they are protecting them or think that women lack the dedication or the courage are all wrong.

        Women have proven themselves in combat.
        The last decade of war has seen numerous examples of female soldiers and Marines showing valor and sacrifice, killing the enemy up close… and sometimes paying the ultimate price.

        I do not doubt a woman’s will to fight.

        And this is very important …. this is the big distinction between women in support units that see combat and the idea of women in the infantry or in a more specialized unit like a Ranger Battalion…
        And this is the big difference between women in tough civilian jobs and women in the infantry.

        Women can have all the motivation and the will to fight in the world… but that does not change their physiology.
        Please don’t dismiss my remark… read on and you’ll see the difference in jobs that I am trying to illustrate.

        A female police officer may be tough as nails and she may be as physically strong as, or even stronger than, her male partner.
        She has motivation and dedication and works hard to compensate for the limits of her female physiology.

        Women’s bodies are harder to build muscle than men’s bodies… so that female police officer probably has to work out longer to build muscle than her male partner…. but she is dedicated so she does. She spends an hour at the gym every day because….

        Women’s bodies, without constant exercise and protein intake, lose muscle mass very quickly.
        To maintain muscle mass to be as strong as an athletic man, that woman not only had to work harder to build muscle… but she has to work even harder to maintain that muscle mass.
        the female body is not designed to maintain muscle mass the same way a man’s body is… that may be unfair… but it’s a fact.

        A female police officer can maintain her athletic muscle mass because every day she eats properly, works out hard, and, after her long day of work, gets a normal amount of sleep at night.

        The same is true for a female soldier in a transportation unit or military police woman, or female helicopter pilot…. or any other female in a military support role…. access to exercise, proper food intake, and rest.

        But that is not the case in the infantry.
        It is not all relaxing back at the base, eating in the chow hall, sleeping on a bed, and then going out on a day long mission and coming right back.

        It can be grueling rigorous work… weeks of humping heavy rucksacks over rough terrain on almost no sleep, with less than one meal a day.
        Under those conditions, the body breaks down…. a healthy young athletic man will lose several pounds of muscle mass after a grueling mission that lasts more than a week.

        All that eating and working out before long missions isn’t to look buff or impress anyone… it’s so your body can endure the stress it is going to endure on that mission and so, after a couple of weeks of that stress, you still have enough muscle mass so you can still have the strength to continue to carry all that weight and fight if need be.

        Ranger battalions and Special Forces teams endure even more physical stress.

        Women soldiers have the will to fight and have courage and determination… but their courage and determination can not change their physiology.

        Back at the barracks, thanks to her workout and diet regimen, that woman athlete put in an infantry unit may be stronger and faster than her athletic male counterparts….

        But after more than a week of carrying over 60 pounds on her back over rugged terrain, with little food intake and little rest…. removed from the diet and workout regimen that kept her able to compete with the men… while the male infantrymen with have lost a couple of pounds of muscle mass, she will have lost almost all her muscle mass because women’s bodies can not maintain muscle mass the same way men’s bodies do.

      • Good point and well taken. The first time this experment fails and because of the physical limitations, the female soldier is at fault for getting her comrades in arms killed or wounded, or she her self is killed or captured, the “I told you sos” will really be beating the soap boxes. Same as 10,000 young boys play football every year but less than 100 make it to training camps and a lot less are on the 40 man teams. Also there is a reason Vietnam does not field a pro football or basketball team. Size does matter, as does the gender. Stay safe my friend. Thanks for the banter.

      • Well stated. I’ve been a wildland firefighter for 20+ yrs. There have been several elite females that I’ve supervised that were better than a lot of the men. Not a lot, but the handful that were, wow, they were tough as nails. They worked side by side doing the same thing as everyone else; sawing, digging line, packing extra equipment, long hikes, no sleep, no showers. They endured the same grueling days/nights as the guys, there’s no special treatment. Believe me, if they don’t cut it, they wash. You have to keep up or you’re just done, there’s no sympathy out “on the line.” So I believe it can be done. I just think it takes a special gal, not most. The military isn’t a testing ground. There’s a standard and it certainly shouldn’t be lowered, but they damn well better pass if they take a spot from a man.

      • Thanks Ken. To fail in the midst of a forest fire means risking death for sure. Cut bait or go home.

    • This is the result we get when armchair politicians have the ability to interfere and micromanage professional warfighters and their training. That strategy didn’t work in Vietnam, yet we as a nation are quick to forget history and try it again.

  18. I would allow women in combat, however; I would assign them to fight along side the Kurdish women against ISIS. I know that this is silly, but I do admire the Kurdish women who do fight on the front lines. They know the score if they are caught or killed.

      • We (most of us anyway) know that Brendan. Women have been in the theater of war and exposed to combat, but they have not nor should they be assigned to direct ground combat units whose specific role is to engage and destroy the enemy.

      • I agree. i was simply responding to a post that seemed to suggest women were not already in combat.

  19. This part of the military and any other elite units need to be made up of the the most qualified by current proven model. This is not a place for experiments based on feel good PC models

  20. Same as they started with all black platoons and companies, start with all female platoons and companies. Let them prove their worth. Put them behind the lines, lead the charge, take care of “their own” and prove once and for all they can do. Now the motto has to be changed, “looking for a few good…” Will all combat soldiers get maternity leave now? Laugh as you will, there will come a day when there will not be the question of anyone’s ability. I still remember women not allowed to run a marathon, half court basket ball games, and men trying to beat women at a game of fastpitch softball and getting their hats handed to them. There is a place and time for everyone. Somethings men can do, but not all men. Women can do what some men can do, but not all women. Never piss off a woman who is already pissed off feeling she has to do better than men to prove she belongs. They are mean, nasty, and not much fun to be around. Getting “6” women through the elite combat Army school does not mean all women can or will be able to follow. All Marines are considered combat Marines, but not all Marines can be Force Recon or snipers. How many able bodied men wash out of Navy Seal’s school? Not all men can do it.

    • Nice thought but the standard will simply be lowered so the girls will be able to accomplish it and shout “Girl Power!”, and then bitch when they are asked to do the actual work.

      • You don’t have a very high opinion of women in the military 😀
        Perhaps you were the old gunny standing on my helmet explaining how I, and all my Marines were dead because I picked up my head?

        Good times, those! LOL

      • Actually I think women can and do have roles in the military. I was trying to exaggerate to make a point and I can see that I went too far in my use. My intent was to show that hte standards are constantly being lowered (and not just for women) in an attempt to make everyone feel special and capable, but the world just doesn’t work that way.

      • Can’t argue with that. Maybe we’ll get to the robo-soldier in my lifetime and none of it will matter 😉

      • I keep thinking and visualizing the Private Benjamin movie staring
        Goldie Hawn. As far as lowering the standards, hell yes I’d lower it
        and draft Barbara Boxer, Dianne Finestine, Oprah, Hanoi Jane Fonda, and
        others. Drop their fat asses behind the lines and see if they survive.
        As a Marine during the Vietnam era, 68-69 in I-core, I wonder if
        there’d be any more bitching than was there. Of course the topic might
        be a bit different. They’d not be concerned about cold beer, or Pabst
        Blue Ribbon vs. Budweiser. It’d be having packed the wrong shade of eye
        color for the camouflage. Can you imagine tailored tight BAM jungle
        utility pants? High heel combat boots? Gunny, suck it up and dream.

        Would it turn out like it did with the Red Cross Girls in Nam? The bitches had nothing to do with the enlisted men, only hung out with the officers and their liquor cards taken from the enlisted. Even when they were wearing their PX Timex, we couldn’t get the time of day. So would the women be happy rubbing elbows with a 19 year old PFC instead of a handsome 1st. LT or Captain? And rider237, Gunny is more of a realist than not having your standard of “high” opinion of the ladies. Some people are more realistic and can see the hand writings on the wall. Cut the nuts off the officers, since they really don’t have them or use them anyway, and it might work. Sgt. J

      • I do not believe women belong in the infantry or anything more rigorous than that because our bodies are different and they are not physically up to the job.

        But your whole anti-woman tirade is out of touch with the reality of women in combat.
        Many women in support units have been in combat and gone head to head with the enemy and fought bravely.
        Many have also been wounded or killed in action.

        They do not belong in the infantry or anything harder because their bodies are not built to handle the long term physical stress.

        But do not doubt the resolve or ability to fight of many women in the military.

      • Brendan, who made you the moral compass? You’re a walking conflict with your opinions. You must be a politician or Democrat with your, “What do you want to here. I’ll tell you just that.” You cut me down for my “anti-woman” sounding off, yet you stated you don’t want women to prove themselves worthy in combat? The females I want to put in combat were the very ones that are ant- establishment and in my opinion, which you sure don’t value, are bringing the Untied States down with their actions and power votes. My opinion of the Red Cross women in Nam is a fact Jack. Can’t rewrite history to fit your views unless your in power like our current administration. If this is not about the President, then he sure has his blinders on and is a very weak and ineffective leader.

      • high heels, eye color… bitches in the Red Cross… bitches because they wouldn’t sleep with you, it seems.

        yeah… I don’t think I was too far off when I called what you wrote an anti-woman tirade.
        That you doubled down is impressive because you seem to have know every Red Cross female in Vietnam.

        And I never said I don’t women to prove themselves in combat.
        Women have proven themselves worthy in combat.

        I said they don’t belong in the infantry or anything more elite because of their physiology, not a lack of courage.

      • No Brendan, I have a high moral standard and wouldn’t cheat on my wife. Never have in the 49 year we have been married. Yes, I will be the first to admit, Marines coming in from the field are a bit on the rowdy side, but just to sit down and talk to some freckle faced kid from Kansas or New York, or anywhere, would be nice and a bit of comfort. No I have not been to II, III, or IV Core and observed the the ladies that sacrificed everything to help the troops in an unwanted war. My hat’s off to them. I can only state what I experienced and observed and heard from other Marines that were in and around Da Nang and Chi Li. See my answer below.

  21. Where Congress Colonel? Under the Constitution, aren’t they supposed to make rules governing the armed forces? Why is the GOP congress just sitting back and letting the president decimate readiness, not to mention turn millennia of social convention on its head as far as protecting women from violence.

  22. And now for every girl that goes through Ranger school and every follow on course, we have a man that is capable of actually functioning as a Ranger NOT going. They (the girls) are simply going to suck up valuable training resources for zero return.

    • Yes, exactly.

      Nobody bothers to think of all the highly qualified MEN who are being LEFT OUT — missing a chance to serve their country in a way that they could excel at — while the military dabbles around squandering its resources in gender egalitarianism training and giving opportunities to women who would make mediocre combat soldiers at best.

    • Ranger School slots being wasted on soldiers looking to boost their careers is nothing new.
      Ranger School is the best school the Army has to teach soldiers how to plan and lead assorted patrols under extremes stress and close examination.

      An Infantry NCO who graduates, returns to his unit a better leader and takes some of those lessons learned with him into combat where he will be planing and leading patrols.

      An Air Defense artillery officer who graduates, returns to his unit with a tab on his uniform and some promotion points to help his career… nothing that is actually going to make him a more proficient Air Defense Artillery officer.
      All that that officer did was take a slot that could have gone to an Infantry NCO who needed it.

      So women taking slots from men is no different than what is already happening.

  23. I was going to add a comment to a post, but realized that a lot of people had said the same thing. That is, that women don’t belong in combat. Because women don’t belong in combat, they don’t need to be combat trained. I believe this is an error.

    You can make the argument that women don’t belong in combat. What you can’t do is have women serve and not have them end up in combat. There are no front lines in these new wars. The supply person of days past, who might never have picked up a weapon, is in the middle of battle, being swarmed by the enemy as they try to supply troops, in todays wars.

    To accept women into the military in any position, and then not give them adequate combat training is a wrong. To have that training made available and not take advantage of it, is stupid. There is no such thing as a non-combatant in these new conflicts.

    • That is actually a good point. I do believe that women in the armed forces should be trained in the use of firearms. (Isn’t that part of basic training anyway?) Also, I believe that all military personnel should be fitness trained, and get some basic instruction and practice in unarmed martial arts as well. (Also fighting with whatever happens to be at hand — even if it’s only a short stick. Even a stick can do some damage if you think to use it right.)

      But the issue here is the highly specialized, intensive training required for Army Rangers. There are limited resources that the military has to work with, in terms of funding and personnel and time lost due to training. And that kind of specialized training would BEST be spent on men who can actually perform those kinds of tasks.

      There is also the “slippery slope” problem — the radical feminists will never stop pushing for more and more and more “equality” between men and women. (Even in areas where they are decidedly unequal, by nature.) So IF the women are trained in combat, THEN the feminists will be saying that it “proves” that “women can perform as combat soldiers” and why are we spending resources to train them and then not let them serve in combat, and etc.

      So in some ways, I can see why those who understand the problems with women in combat might want to prevent the whole thing from moving in that direction to start with, by opposing any combat training at all.

    • I think you may be misunderstanding the point.
      Women are in combat. Support personnel see combat. That is the nature of war… especially when fighting an insurgency.
      the enemy would much rather hit our supply convoys and check points than go head to head with an infantry unit.

      But there is a huge difference between a woman being in combat in a support unit and a woman being in combat if she is allowed to join an infantry unit.

      • Perhaps. But not in the minds of those who train us. Because women are/were not assigned to combat units, they were not properly trained for combat.

        My point was that regardless the assignment or outcome of training for these women, combat skill should be taught to all because combat comes to all.

      • Combat skills are taught to support troops.
        And some of the basics of infantry skills are taught to support troops.

        Ranger School is a combat leadership school that teaches, under stressful conditions and close examination, how to plan and lead assorted types of infantry patrols.

        If a female (or male) in a transportation unit does not know how to fight when their convoy is ambushed… or if a female (or male) in a military police unit doesn’t know how to fight when their check point comes under attack… those are failures of their unit to properly train its soldiers for the missions they do.

        Having attended Ranger School would not have helped them be better prepared because that transportation soldier or that military police soldier was not leading a combat patrol to set up an ambush or on a movement to contact.

        Sending a support soldier to Ranger school is a waste of resources just as sending an infantryman to a helicopter repair course is a waste of resources. Both would return to their units having gained new skills, none of which relate to the job they do in the Army.

      • There are services other than yours. Perhaps I was in one that was not as good at teaching or making available to “non-combatants” that training.
        you guys must have been using all the bullets 😉

        No one is suggesting that a supply clerk go to ranger school. Getting some real infantry training, such as basic infantry as taught to the Marines, is not unreasonable. Simply spending some time on the range doing famfire is not adequate in todays military.

        I get that you don’t like women in YOUR space. That’s ok. I probably agree with most of your points. Fact is, they are out there and SH no matter where you are on the battle field. They also volunteer for the same reasons the boys volunteer. They deserve adequate training if they are going to be deployed at all.

      • You completely misunderstood almost everything I wrote.
        What makes you think I don’t believe women should be adequately trained?
        Did you read some invisible words that I didn’t write?
        Women in MY space?
        What are you talking about?

        I know full well that there are women in the service and that they are in combat and have the will to fight.
        I have no idea why you are suggesting that I am saying anything contrary to that.

        Also, you completely ignored that I was not talking about Ranger School slots being wasted on women… I was talking about Ranger School slots being wasted on support troops (male or female) who will not be using the skills learned in Ranger school.

  24. A Navy Seal has to be able to spend a lot of time in the water, sometimes days. The smell of blood attracts sharks and can start a frenzy which can interfere with a mission

  25. It’s silly to think women are the same as men. I’m a woman and a desert storm vet. A woman on her cycle in a combat situation isn’t fun and the odor can be a problem in the extreme heat. Trust me I don’t think females in the Rangers, Seals ladies you may have the ability, but why can’t we have women in the support roles and the guys are doing the other, there are many other roles that besides in the actual combat role.

    • We got us some kick ass tough as nails females – but no can do. You cannot be a Seal or a Ranger. You can do all they do if you are at the top, but as for the job, no way. In combat, no way. Not only that, you are asking all those others, the rest of the Seals or Rangers to depend on you. How selfish does that seem? Are you really ready to fail your brothers at the singular moment when their lives depended on you? I just don’t know how any female despite how amazing she may think she is can follow this thinking having known and worked with as many Seals as I have. For f___k’s sake, think about someone else, that is what it is all about in the end. We love you females but find some other avenue to lay down some hate on that enemy, you got nothing to prove by making ranger, or Seal. Check.

  26. Allen and others who understand the reality of combat are correct. Women and men are anatomically different, including a woman who wants to be able to go through Navy Seal training, admits this. They cannot carry a 250 pound fellow soldier out of harms way. They will eventually get people killed.

    • how does Allen understand the reality of combat? He was a field artillery officer and got FORCED OUT of the military for violating ROE in a pretty despicable way. How many men do you know who can carry 250lb soldiers? Not all of them, that’s for sure. Stop holding women to a standard men aren’t even held to. Your battle buddy is probably going to be of similar size/weight as you. They’re not going to pair up the high school football linebacker with a dude who is 5’2. seriously you sound dumb.

      • You seem a tad judgmental concerning this matter. Why are you belittling those who served their country? Because someone is a field artillery officer, they are less deserving of respect? Combat is chaos, You cannot plan for people ‘paired’ in this fashion to remain that way in combat. I am not holding women to a standard that I would not hold a man to. I don’t believe women who want to be in combat want to be held to a different standard either. If they can do the job, they should be able to serve in that capacity. It sounds like you seem to think they should be held to what? A lower standard? A different standard?

      • dude you actually do plan for this, it’s called your battle buddy. i’m not belittling his service (besides the fact he was kicked out?) i’m just saying that he uses his service as an artilleryman to fake out civilians into thinking he has some sort of ungodly ground combat experience that justifies his opinions on women in the infantry– truth is, he never was in the infantry and never went to Ranger school. So his “expertise” as an artillery officer matches an accountant’s expertise as a traveling salesman.

        you ARE holding women to a different standard. there is no standard that says you must lift 250lb man + kit above your head and do 10 shoulder presses. Or anything similar. There are the set standards and that’s it. And I”m saying women should NEED to meet those in order to be in. Not these made up standards that no one else is held to. Saying “they cannot [this] and they will get people killed” is painfully ignorant. There are plenty of soldiers male and female who suck, and plenty male and female who I’d trust with my life. But categorizing men into “soldiers” and women into “they” who will get people killed… right…

      • I never said anything about being able to lift a fellow soldier or drag someone to cover was a military standard. It is, however, a fact of life in many instances of combat. You plan for the best and prepare for the worst. Everyone in combat is depending on their battle buddies. Still don’t think women should be put into situations that special forces are trained for. that was all I was saying. The original comment went to the anatomical differences between the genders and, there just might be a point concerning physical limitations.
        That was actually a quote from an extremely fit and dedicated female who was attempting to qualify for special forces. She noted that there might be new tactics she could learn to compensate. As of now, she has not been able to complete the course. I already said, if a woman can qualify and met standards, they should not be excluded. I am saying that special forces is a unique situation and the exclusion of the opposite sex from these units is hardly a minority opinion.

      • And for all the potential downsides, we have yet to see anyone arguing that this change will actually <> military effectiveness – which, in an ideal world, would be the actual point of discussion, right?

      • already argued that, dude, and you brought up some shitty human being from Abu graib. Clearly you are under self-serving biases.

  27. Women f—k everything up in combat – they need to use their brains and be the ones in charge instead. That’s the truth. We got us some bad assed females that can put a hurting on when needed, but. . . .sorry let those men go and do it and that is just the best way. Females alter those around them, and therefore they alter the flow of the mission. They should lead with their brains, not their might, as they will be no match for most men in combat. The reality of combat situation must be realized. However, sniper is good for females – yes, be a sniper if you got what it takes.

      • There are many females with the warrior spirit strong upon them. And they would love nothing more but to face the enemy straight up and as prepared as they may believe they are, they are not – for it is something that once realized despite being righteous is a regret. Sinking a combat knife into a combatants neck seconds before he sinks one into yours is something that changes you forever, in some ways for the good and in other ways not so good. It is the rare female that can actually handle all this as it is also difficult for the male solider to deal with. It is an ugly brutal harshness this whole business, really unique to the individual of course. There are other avenues in which a female can pursue this sort of career for our country beyond the military, but again she must truly be very very special to be among that select group and be able to step up to the training and all. It is quite a thing, but in the regular military, no females should be put into the position especially for some half assed equality crap. People will die over that.

    • I just hate the idea of asking a man to do for me what I should be doing for myself. Is it fair to ask a man to get himself killed in some stupid political sh*t storm if I’m not willing to go myself?

  28. Apart from fears that standards may be lowered, there is the fact that women being fought by men overseas would not be treated the same as men. You can beat, torture, and kill a man that you have captured, but rarely is rape used by the enemies of the US as a weapon against men. I feel that if women were in more combat units, there would be a high risk of rape if captured, not to mention that they’re a few bad apples even in our own Army. As a psychological weapon, I am sure most can assume that this would be a very severe price to pay for their service. I am not ignoring the fact that hundred if not thousands of men are sexually abused in war torn areas of Africa or elsewhere, but this is applying to US soldiers.

  29. I’ll tell you why it’s now. Because we’re supposedly in a “lull.” And during the surge, etc, when we desperately needed bodies, they were letting convicts and psychopaths into our ranks. That’s how you get dudes raping 4 year old kids. Yup, our dudes. And this is the best time because this is the lull. Right now we have the chance to test and train good soldiers who happen to be female — who want to do it and could prove a huge asset in terms of replacing those convicts and psychopaths. God damn, the only people I’ve ever known “fall out” in movements IN COUNTRY were men! If there was a kick ass female soldier who KNEW to make the standard I’d replace he with her any day. It’s about combat effectiveness and if you are under the impression that currently every single male we have in combat right now is the most effective, you are sadly mistaken and have likely never set foot near the Army.

  30. West needs to stop with this rhetoric because honestly he just sounds ignorant. Truth is, sir, and the rest of you commenting — it doesn’t f—ing matter what you think. PERIOD. It does not matter. Repeat it again. It does not matter who male, female, puerto rican, chinese, you think should not be in the military or in the infantry. Fact is, it’s happening and you should be focusing on how to get them the best training possible and develop them as soldiers. Stop whining about letting women in, and start thinking about how YOU are going to be a positive leader and ensure they make the damn standard.

    • And you would be saying the same thing, if the military were enlisting 2-foot tall midgets, paraplegics in wheelchairs, 75-year-old spinsters, and guys with no arms. Right???

      You don’t think there should be any fight to maintain ANY physical standards of fitness and excellence at all. Just passively accept whatever recruitment or admission policies the military has these days — no matter how low the bar sinks — and try to “help them succeed” no matter how totally FUTILE that attempt will be?

      Not Everyone belongs in the military. It’s a very demanding profession, physically and psychologically. And even more so when it’s this kind of elite, highly specialized combat training that they are put through for the Army Rangers program.

      “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”
      Do you even understand what that old saying means??

      Maybe you don’t. Maybe you’re young, and like so many younger people today, have been indoctrinated with this ridiculous notion of total egalitarianism in all things. It’s a strange alternate reality where nobody is innately better at anything than anyone else is — no matter if they’re male, female, handicapped, Everyone has an equal potential to excel at basketball, for example — no matter whether they’re seven feet tall or two feet tall. Because thinking that people are different in their abilities is Politically Incorrect and therefore “Wrong.”

      Maybe if you took a brief tour of duty in Reality for a change, it might open your eyes to a new perspective.

      • the fact that youre comparing women to disabled people in terms of physical capability means you aren’t even worth responding to. your own poor fitness doesn’t reflect an entire sect of the populations.

      • A strong man has about three times the upper body strength of a strong woman.

        So, yes: when it comes to physical challenges involving upper body strength, then women are relatively handicapped as compared to men.

        That was the entire point here, which you seem intent on disregarding.

      • Seriously? Muscular athletic women are ugly and repulsive to you, so they shouldn’t go to an Army premier leadership school? I think I hear the sound of knuckles dragging on the ground…

        That upper body strength is simply at BASE level and ELITE level. Sorry, Rangers and infantry are simply not at an elite level of fitness and I know that hurts them to know that. Elite is olympic, etc. Anything in between is fair game. I know women 5-feet tall run faster, and lift more than some men. Where are you getting your statistics from? A hair salon?

      • No, the fact that many people, including myself, find mannish women repulsive was just a tangential afterthought. The reasons that I already gave for excluding women from elite combat training had nothing to do with their repulsiveness.

        As for the idea that some men could be beaten by some women, etc; Any man who could be beaten in strength competitions by a mere woman ALSO does not belong in military combat roles — not to mention elite training like the Navy Seals or Army Rangers. Men who can be beaten by women are wimps; and women who can beat men are amazons; and neither should be encouraged in any way.

        And it’s absurd to try and limit the adjective “elite” to the Olympics. If you’re in the top 1%, then that is elite, by any reasonable standard. And probably there are a lot of Olympic weightlifters who would not be able to compete with elite armed forces troops on ALL the physical challenges they have to go through. Olympic competitors are mostly one-trick ponies; while specialized combat requires a whole array of diverse athletic skills.

      • I’m just getting this weird feeling you have never been in the Army and have no idea what you’re talking about. It doesn’t take an elite level of fitness to hump a pack for miles on end. It just takes a whole lot of suck. Infantry is not elite.

        Ranger is simply a leadership school. Many men outside the 11 MOS go there as well. Its for leadership. And I know women that deadlift over 500lb, and bench over 300 for reps. I know women as well who can run 2-miles in 11 or under minutes. Can you do that? No? I guess you’re not fit for shit, then because a woman can beat you.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here