Stephen Kilcullen: Women Don't Belong in Ranger School
This is an excellent article and hits the major points.
My problem is that everything is about "me" in the military now. If they want to play the equality card, then they must ALWAYS play it. By that, I mean that if men and women are supposed to be equal, that means ALL women in the military should be required to pass the same PT test as their male counterpart, regardless of branch or MOS. You cannot play the equality card only when equality is beneficial.
Women go into combat as small unit leaders. The reserve MP unit that drills next to my unit has plenty of women in leadership roles. Most of them have combat patches. Some have CABs.
This isn't about equality as much as it is about opportunity. If a woman wants to go to Ranger school, why not let her? Because she's not a grunt? Neither are the cav, armor, intel, logistics and aviators I see with the Ranger tab.
Ranger school is a school with a "core mission of cultivating leaders willing to sacrifice everything for our nation." So women, because they have a ****** and ****, don't sacrifice for the nation?
I don't see the Rangers bending the standards for women. If that's the harsh reality for women in Ranger school, then that's their reality, not a limitation imposed on them by the old boys club.
And yes, Ranger school is "about improving the career prospects of individual candidates." That is why nearly all infantry officers are, for all intents and purposes, required to graduate to have a career.
Also, this article seems to blur the lines between serving in a Ranger batt and going to a course.
So all the infantrymen who have died that didn't go to Ranger school were selfish pricks who weren't deadly serious enough?It is this culture of excellence and selflessness that attracts young men to the Ranger brotherhood. The Ranger ethos is designed to be deadly serious yet self-deprecating, focused entirely on teamwork and mission accomplishment. Rangers put the mission first, their unit and fellow soldiers next, and themselves last. The selfishness so rampant elsewhere in our society has never existed in the Ranger brotherhood.
The guy left the Army in 2004, then writes an article about how fvcked the Army will be if it allows women to go to Ranger school. Not saying he doesn't have an opinion, but seems to me he's just bitter to see old ways change is all. Things aren't going to stay the same for ever and ever, this was bound to happen.
I don't think the Army should gender-norm the training to cater to female candidates, but if they can rough it through to the same standards as men. Then why not? Yes I know: The same old issue of men and women in the armed forces will still apply, the big fear is women will be too much of a distraction and their will be rampant fvcking and pregnancies. blah, blah, blah... Well, females are already allowed on ships/subs, where the populous is predominantly male, in isolated close quarters... Of course their has/will be some ****ing, but I don't see how this would detract from Ranger school. Even if this did happen, during training somehow, they would probably just be reprimanded (or sometimes NJP) and fail out of the training (obviously if the female was pregnant). But this isn't ground-breaking really, females are already allowed into EOD training in the Navy, it's a tough training pipeline, and is mostly male. Like I said, keep the standards, let 'em hack it. I don't see a problem, it's the "gender-norming" that's got to go.
I read an article, supposedly only 45% of female Marines can lob grenades far enough away to not injure themselves from the blast... How the **** do you gender-norm that one?
What is your experience in the U.S. Military?Originally Posted by Dhood
I KNOW football isn't like the military and warfighting, even though they like to say they go to "war".Of the 32 NFL head coaches that started the 2011 season, 28% played in the NFL ...
1) Ken Whisenhunt, Cardinals - TE for the Falcons, Redskins, and Jets between 1985-1992.
2) Ron Rivera, Panthers - LB for the Bears between 1984-1992.
3) Jason Garrett, Cowboys - QB for the Cowboys and Giants between 1993-2000.
4) Gary Kubiak, Texans - QB for the Broncos between 1983-1991.
5) Jack Del Rio, Jaguars - LB for the Saints, Chiefs, Cowboys, and Vikings between 1985-1995.
6) Leslie Frazier, Vikings - DB for the Bears between 1981-1985.
7) Sean Payton, Saints - QB for the Bears in 1987 (replacement games during the strike).
8) Jim Harbaugh, 49ers - QB for the Bears, Colts, Ravens, and Chargers between 1987-2000.
9) Mike Munchak, Titans - OG for the Oilers (now Titans) between 1982-1993 ... elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2001.
But I wonder if there's some relevance.......IF the vast majority of senior Army officer leadership have the Ranger Tab, wouldn't that sort of equate to the vast majority of the NFL coaching staff and management having played in the NFL as a player(soldier/junior officer) professionally before joining the coaching staff in the Battalion or higher HQ?
I've got no problems with women in the military.
In some ways I don't have a problem with women being allowed the opportunity to attend Ranger School....but only in the same way I don't have a problem with women trying out for the Philadelphia Eagles as Quarterback, Strong Safety, or Linebacker......they can TRY......but the time/money/energy/resources expended in simply finding out that 99.99% are physiologically unsuitable is a waste better spend on developing male talent with a decent shot at making the team...most guys can't(mentally or physically) make it either.
In the end, all the pomp and circumstance would result with like 2 female placekickers and 1 female special teams player.....they'd probably have to increase NFL team sizes and create new off the field support player positions to justify the failed effort.
ALL done just to get some women into head coaching positions....why take the long and bumpy way around the objective of getting women into head coach positions? The way riddled with failure and/or false success.
I understand how important it is to have both hands on and command/coaching experience......and I would have no problem with a woman being an NFL special teams coach, quarterback coach, assistant coach, or even head coach....as long as she can prepare and lead the guys from the sidelines to victory.....it's about results isn't it?
Wouldn't this problem be solved by simply removing Ranger School as an identifier for career advancement?
Does it mean removing the requirement of "doing" in order to be offered the opportunity at "leading"(above the COY coalface level)?
Plus shouldn't Ranger School be something you WANT to do, rather than HAVE to do(for officer career advancement)?
I would think you would want the people willing to kill each other for a SHOT at a 0.50 cent piece of flair on VALUES/PRINCIPALS........instead of a TICK IN THE BOX.
It would be interesting to learn the following from a god like all knowing perspective:
How many female officers would stick their hand up for Ranger School if it had ZERO positive impact on their career?
How many male officers would decide NOT to stick their hand us for Ranger School if it had ZERO positive impact on their career?
Hell, if might even HURT careers......serious injury could leave you unsuitable to continue in your role, and you could miss out on activity/course that WOULD have positive career benefits.
I wonder how that would go?
In fact gender differenciated physical tests are certainly and paradoxicaly the major obstacle to a fair and smooth integration of women in the armed forces! On the other hand, there are always a few chauvinists who will ever complain and whine as the military career is (or was) the last man-only stronghold within occidental societies... It was exactly the same debates and arguments when women were allowed to vote, to attend political position, to apply for police and military academies, or more recently to serve aboard ships... Here in France we even have a few women serving as commandos (and other combat positions with infantry, armour, JTAC...) but on the same physical, intellectual and psychological tests as men... We can count them on one hand digits, but that is the only true equality!By that, I mean that if men and women are supposed to be equal, that means ALL women in the military should be required to pass the same PT test as their male counterpart, regardless of branch or MOS. You cannot play the equality card only when equality is beneficial.
Very interesting questions!!!How many female officers would stick their hand up for Ranger School if it had ZERO positive impact on their career?
How many male officers would decide NOT to stick their hand us for Ranger School if it had ZERO positive impact on their career?
You MADE me do this.
is it true they will lowe the standards for women?
I can't imagine ranger school would lower their standards, it would kill the entire point.
for OIF 07-09 I had a female medic attached to my PLT. She did PT with us to the male standard to include IBA runs, buddy carrying etc without complaint and was therefore accepted by the entire formation. As a test initially, while we were both in IBAs w/ plates, I had her pick me up and fireman carry me about 100 yards as fast as possible. I weigh in over at a bit over 200 without armor, and had no issue whatsoever picking me up and sprinting the 100 meters at a pace no one could question. Females like that I have absolutely no problem having with me in combat, but unfortunately they are the exception, not the rule.
Can that not be said about Rangers and Special Forces? They look for the exception and not the rule.
They will, if they get "briefed" on the minimum acceptable graduation rate of female personnel. Judging from the utter blackout over at RTB, that's probably what has happened.
I wasn't a soldier and didn't have a lot of contact with soldiers while serving, but I think it will be dependent on how much pressure is placed on the political generals by the politicians. If the politicians want a certain percentage or number of women to successfully complete the Ranger School I can envision in the future a lowering of the standard to meet political expectations.
In the Corps one of the gripes from male Marines is that female Marines are held to a lower physical standard, which can be an advantage when cutting scores are calculated. The Marine Corps has chosen never to address this discrepency in physical standard. The Marine Corps is saying standards won't be lowered should/when women are integrated into the currently closed combat MOS's, but saying it and holding to it are two different things if politicians perceive not enough women are serving in combat specialties or the drop rate is too high.
With the pro football analogy already at play in this thread, I'll paraphrase part of a letter written by a retired Marine Corps 1st Sergeant, which was published in the Marine Corps Times. In effect he wrote when women are playing the "game" of pro football, the Marine Corps should allow women to serve in currently segregated combat units that are in the business of making war.
I'm a relatively old jarhead retiree, so I might be out of touch, but the issue strikes me as primarily an opportunity for advancement issue and only secondarily and issue of maintaining combat effectiveness.
I suppose none of it matters, since I foresee these changes being implimented within the next five years.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote