I like ripping the Air Force as much as anyone, but that was just ass backwards.

Yes the obvious physiological (boobs) differences of males and females is obvious, but the shoulder room in male uniforms more than make up for any “rack” I’ve seen.

How many “more qualified males” do you think washed out of flight training to make room for her?

We need, after 10 plus years of war need some success stories out of our military instead of all the homeless vets, sexual assaults and vets smoking their 12 gauges. I think we deserve more success stories like this.

I wouldn’t really care if they are wearing a burqa or doo-rag under their helmets – if they are doing their jobs and completing the mission.

Standards are standards, you either make the standard or you don’t. She has obviously exceeded the standard and I for one am very proud she is an American in uniform doing her best for her country, you have to admit she has accomplished a lot more than most of us and has shown limitless potential.

Baron, while I agree with you in principle, the one over riding thought in my mind is this....I don't want my wife or daughter going into combat. While there are certain times of the month I think they could take an ISIS brigade and come out victors, I don't believe they would make good soldiers. Could they meet the standards for letting women in combat or fighter school....maybe, I doubt it but maybe.
If my daughter (or son) was a decorated fighter pilot I would be dang proud but I would still be a worried father.
It's hard to rid one's mind of worrying about your daughter....hell, teenage boys are enough to worry about.

We all live in fear – I cringe when my son (14) says he is going to join the military before he goes onto secondary education, because his father, grandfather, uncles and aunts did and it’s what you do as an American, he says.

The altar of freedom demands sacrifice or we don’t have any freedom. If I could go for him I would and be the pound of flesh as the price freedom demands, but we cannot. Most generations have to earn or defend freedom and sometimes we as a nation have to bear the heavy fee of freedom – it will never be gratis.

I still have 100% confidence in our military (male & female) to engage and destroy our nations enemies in combat, even outnumbered and out gunned while sustaining minimal casualties. If you don’t believe this you should be getting your wives, daughters and mothers fitted for burqas now or preparing to work at the peoples tractor factory, gentlemen the reality is there is a lot of evil people out in the world and I am just glad they hate each other more than they hate us – for now.

Baron, I couldn't imagine having my children off at war. I worry enough when they are out around here. I know God gives us what we need but he would be working overtime on me.
I agree with you Baron, as Americans we make sacrifices for our freedom, but it still scares the hell out of me. I would certainly go in their place, plus I'm a better shot.

All eight women recycled the Darby phase. What this means is they will be afforded the opportunity to go through the phase again. Reasons for recycle include failing patrols, getting peered too low in the squad, receiving too many major minuses, injuries etc usually to get recycled. Usually if you fail patrols you get recycled, or you receive too many major minuses (sleeping, eating when not supposed to, lack of effort etc), and get peered too low. They all go before a board chaired by the BN CDR on whether to continue to next phase, recycle or recommend release from school. BDE CDR is approval to release from school.

I don't know what the reasons for the recycle are as of yet. I am assuming based on the visibility of this course that they were given a lot of leeway to recycle. My experience is that they performed extremely poorly for all eight to have been recycled. Odds are against them now, as the hardest phase is still yet to come.

Might as well add a requirement that they grow penises, too, but then do we really need more two headed soldiers.

No need to grow penises. Either lower standards to allow women to earn the Ranger tab or not allow women in the Infantry Ranger or Special Forces.

We need to admit that women are not physically able to meet the demands of strenuous combat operations. If only 1% of the population serve in the military, apx a quarter of those serving in the Army, with about 85k 11 series (infantry soldiers) in the army. We produce at best 1300-1500 ranger qualified Soldiers a year. That's 15% of the infantry population that earn the Ranger tab a year. Now apx 20-25% ETS retire etc. my numbers are only meant to show that even for males, Ranger school is tough. Living the batt boy life is much more difficult than Ranger School. 19 females attempt Ranger school. Counting the 70 plus females who tried out for pre ranger and failed to make it there before Ranger school. We are already below the 50% level with the 8 remaining students. The odds are at best 2-3 may make it now that they have been recycled.

Typing on my iPhone and my comments are scattered but What I'm trying to get at is at what cost are we trying to prove that women can make it through Ranger school?

At best less than 5% of the females who initiay tried out may make it through.

Roughly 40% of males who attempt earn the tab.

women are 15% of the active army or 74k. Less than the number of 11 series infantrymen.

Mudweiser - outstanding post. The numbers matter.


here are a few other questions:

How much is this costing the America Tax Payer? The cost of housing 70 females at Fort Benning prior to the pre-ranger course, the cost of units having to do without these female officers while they were gone, the cost of sending female medics, and female lane walkers..... All of this adds up to millions to the American tax payer, and all so you might produce less than 5% with a Ranger Tab

What physical cost to the actual females that go through the training? Infantry schooling, training, and life takes a big toll on the body. It is hard on the back, the knees, and other joints. What long term effects will carrying that ruck sack and gear have on the smaller weaker female body, and is it ethical? Will it hurt her in regards to child bearing, osteoporosis, bone density.....

Here is a link to the article

http://www.defenseone.com/management/20 ... ol/112270/


The army looked at thousands upon thousands of women, and selected the 70 best to send off to pre-ranger course. The top 20 were picked to go to ranger school. nineteen started, and after a week, eight remained.

Of the eight, not one will advance to the next phase.

The Army has to play the giant political correct game, and will not word it like I just did, but will instead spin in how many men failed. Do the math any way you like, but 100% of females failed to make it to the second phase, Tell me if that is cost effective to the American tax payer.

another way of wording this is that of all males that started the Ranger course 45% will move on to Mountain Phase. Of all females that started the Ranger Course, 0% are moving on to the Mountain Phase.

How is that for a cost effective way to spend your tax dollars?

Doesn't sound very effective at all, Ranger...typical government bs though....it ain't their money...

I fell at least 10 times when I tried to ride a bike for the first time.

Dguidry stated "I fell at least 10 times when I tried to ride a bike for the first time."

How many millions of dollars did that cost the American Tax payer?\

Did it decrease the combat effectiveness of the US Military when you fell?

.....and thank you for not posting up two pages of copy and past of articles arguing that bicycles are the devil.

The day is young.

A picture is worth a 1000 words.

This is a very interesting article out today concerning our Military and Political Correctness.

This should alarm you.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/11/polit ... nd-morale/

U.S. commandos enter Syria, kill Islamic State commander in charge of oil fields

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... syria-rai/

How were our elite able to pull off such a dangerous mission with no female rangers or lesbian colonels to lead them into battle? They say it went the hand to hand combat route. Perhaps it was best that we had men there to get the job done.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ions-abou/

This is the best article I have seen yet on the topic of women in combat units.

The answer is clear. It is the feminists that are fighting for this. Women were given a chance to compete, and they selected the top women. They cannot cut the mustard, and yet they are still not happy. They are demanding a lower standard, which equates to a less fit Army.

This is costing the taxpayers a considerable lump of change, and we get nothing in return.

Some interesting cuts from the article.

“Meanwhile, a feminist legal group has issued a report broadly critical of how the Pentagon is running the two-year transition assessment leading to a decision by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to open infantry and special operations to women by Jan. 1.”


“Twenty-nine women attempted to pass the Marine Corps‘ Infantry Officer Course at the combat development base in Quantico, Virginia. All failed.”

“At the start, 113 women volunteered and entered the Ranger Training Assessment Course, a demanding, two-week exercise that also eliminates many men. Of the 113 women, 20 passed. One dropped out at the start of Ranger Course. Subsequently, the remaining 19 (16 officers and three enlisted) failed to complete the course”

“The question then becomes, if you are recruiting for occupational specialties, where’s the next cohort? Where are the next 100 women?” Mr. Gregor said. “You just culled the Army for over 100 women, so where’s the next cohort? The same is true for every one of these programs.
“You’re expending valuable training time on populations that are unlikely to succeed. So what cost do you want to bear in continually trying with these experiments? This has nothing to do with raising an army.”

“Mr. Gregor has his doubts that can happen unless combat physical standard are lowered, and he suspects a lowering eventually will occur. Senior Pentagon officials pledge that they are committed to keeping standards the same, or gender-neutral, but have not ruled out lowering standards.”

Dean Guidry - a couple questions for you based on my post above. You were high on the hog for women serving in infantry units, attending Ranger School and such, thus the reason I ask you.



It is obvious that this experiment failed for the feminists. Of 151 that were selected for Ranger and Marine Infantry, 100% failed. What now? Do you keep wasting tax money on something that is a proven failure; do you lower the standard, drop the lethality for our military, all to appease radical feminists?


The lib press like the Huffington Post and such were kicking out all manner of articles when it was decided that women could attend these schools. Now that all the females of failed, they ceased to report. Why do you suppose they are not reporting that 100% of the original 113 women sent to ranger failed?

If Valerie Jarret and crowd say “damn the truth and statistics”, full speed ahead with Lady Rangers and Women Marines, and if standards are lowered to make it happen, would you be supportive of such a decision?

If my google research is correct, there are about 2000 "tabbed" rangers at any given time. I think "tabbed' means one has been assigned to and served in the 75th.

Lets add 10 of the best ranger qualified women to that, for whom maybe a few of the physical standards have been lowered. There will come a time when a woman will be needed with superior mental and physical abilities beyond even the above average...the best of the best, who will be better suited for a particular mission than a man. I can think of one: dealing with captured female combatants. Or, using women as an element of surprise. I can see a couple women disguised as civilians in sexy outfits entering a facility under a ruse, and killing every target inside.

But I think eventually, even without lowered standards, a couple women a year might make it through.

"tabbed" does not mean assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment.

"tabbed" means you completed the Ranger School which is a TRADOC run school.

There are other wickets that need to be passed through to make it into the Ranger Regiment.

The article stated that the best 100 women were already selected. What it did not tell you, is the cost of having the extra female medics, the extra female lane walkers, and all to net ZERO ranger qualified females.

We already have female MPs that can be used to handle and captured female detainees. No one needs a Ranger Tab to interrogate a female detainee. Everything that you spoke of can already be done by females who serve in their specified branches/.

Lowering the standard to allow for female ranges, means having a lower standard across the board, which lessens lethality. The standard was not set to keep women out, it was set because that it is what is needed to accomplish the mission.


You stated "There will come a time when a woman will be needed with superior mental and physical abilities beyond even the above average...the best of the best, who will be better suited for a particular mission than a man"

Where in the word do you come up with such nonsense? If this were the case, how did we accomplish spec ops in the past without these women? What missions in the past required such as this?

If that is the case, then why did Rangers and Marines throughout history succeed without these 10 magical Ranger women who passed with lower standards?

How is it Marines succeeded at Iwo-Jima and they had not a single female? How is it Rangers scaled the cliffs at Point DuHoc with no female rangers on the beaches of Normandy? How did Rangers kick ass in Somalia with no female rangers? How did Marines perform at the Chosen Reservoir with no female marines?........



Is it not interesting that this whole conversation originally just wanted women to get a change at the current standards. When that failed now they want a lower standard?

If you "lower the standard", that has been the standard for decades, then your "female rangers" would not actually be "rangers", they would be sub standard Rangers, which is not a ranger.

so a lawyer who never served in our military, has no real knowledge of combat arms, special operations, or being a Ranger, wants to change what a Ranger is, knowing it will lower combat readiness, and all to appease liberals and feminists.

I find that interesting

if you greatly lowered the standards to pass the lawyer bar exam, what would that do to your profession?

Are you for changing the meaning of the word "lawyer"

What if we greatly lowered the standards for medical doctor, would you want to redefine "doctor"?

you stated "Lowering standards for lawyers: We call them paralegals.

Lowering standards for doctors: They are called Physician Assistants."

The lowering standards for Rangers would have to be called by another name than "ranger".

I took a while to get truth from you.

...but my point is there is a place for everyone, including women and they serve a very important role in our military, even if they may not be able to pass ranger school....today.

Dguidry stated ...but my point is there is a place for everyone, including women and they serve a very important role in our military, even if they may not be able to pass ranger school....today."


You have no point then. Women already serve in our military, they serve in all manner of branches. Women are not as strong as men, they do not have the same level of endurance, so the Army has a completely separate Physical Fitness standard for the women. Women can serve in support units, they serve in the medical field, they serve in MPs, Engineers....

Women do not have the physical ability on par with men when it comes to combat arms. They do not have the same abilities as men when it comes to basketball and other sports. That is the reason for Title 9. Women have to have sports set aside for just them, because they can not compete with me. If men were allowed on the girls basketball team, there would be no more girls on those teams.

Our military does not have a "need" for sub-standard special operations folks. Coming up with a sub-standard would create a sub-standard operator or ranger, and no one in combat needs sub-standard on their flanks.


If the standard is lowered by the libs, it will have nothing to do with a "need", but will be completely based on a desire to appease feminists and those looking to weaken our military.

I can guarantee you, the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans, ISIS, Al-Qaida.... all desire a US Army with lower standards and female rangers. They would be foolish to not desire such a thing. So when you want things like "female rangers" consider the company you keep.

Very well said ranger.

You know what would help this debate? I would like to hear what a few Isreali soldiers think about female special forces soldiers in their country.

Dguidry stated - "You know what would help this debate? I would like to hear what a few Isreali soldiers think about female special forces soldiers in their country."

This aint much of a debate. You provide nothing with any meat on it. It was tried, it failed, and those of us who told you it would fail were right. The only way to have any significant numbere female rangers is to lower the standard, and we already showed you that it would no longer be rangers then.


As far as the Isreali females, in the history of their military, they had two make it. One was a prior olympic athlete. Neither were able to stay with it, as it was to much stress on their body. They came to the conclusion that it does not work, and stopped allowing them to try out. .

Saw this the other day rangerp. I thought you might appreciate the message.

Lt. Ashley White special ops with rangers in Afganastan KIA . No she was not a Ranger but that does not make her less of a warrior.

Band of sisters on Special Ops battlefield
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/23/opinions/ ... index.html

Dying does not make one a “warrior”.

Special ops may take selected interpreters, mechanics, doctors, veterinarians, intel folks….. and all manner of other people, if needed.

That does not mean the folks taken along for their special skill have to be graduates of Ranger, Special Forces Q-course, Navy SEAL BUDS course, Delta’s OTC, or many of the other spec ops schools.

The helicopter mechanic does not necessarily have the training to fly the helicopter. The man changing the NASCAR car tires is not a race car driver, the hospital janitor is not a heart surgeon…..

You can give examples of a thousand women that have died, and the fact remains the same – 113 highly selected women got additional training to prepare them for pre-ranger. Only 19 made it through the pre-ranger, and started ranger school. After the first two weeks of Ranger School, not one woman was left in the course. It was a giant failure, a giant waste of tax payer money.

The only way women are going to make it through ranger in any significant number is to change the standard. Changing the standard changes the meaning of what a Ranger is. None of this will make America better on the battlefield, it will not save money, and it will definitely not help with the problem of sexual assaults in the ranks.

The only reason for sending women to Ranger, is to appease libs and feminists.

Russian female soldiers are fine

http://youtu.be/Fnd0FK3Le7o

All 8 females failed to move on to the mountain phase. Three of the eight received a day one recycle. They failed due to patrols but what they really failed at was the mental toughness, sleep deprivation and cumulative effects on their bodies and mind where they could not coherently function and lead their patrols under stressful conditions.