Women Don't Belong in Ranger School - Stephen Kilcullen

[scoutpilot]

For the military to have the absolute best quality available personne, the base must include as many diverse groups as possible, within reason. Any time any of these diverse groups have a glass ceiling imposed upon them, it will discourage careers, especially for the "best and brightest". This will have a negative impact on military readiness.

Does it? Has it? That's always the trope people fall back on to justify diversity for the sake of diversity. But is there any evidence or logical argument that that is true? If we were looking at an unvetted, unknown group, it MIGHT be true. But to get to the point of going to Ranger school, these individuals have already been vetted and held to a higher physical standard than their female counterparts.

So who are we missing out on? And how does adding them increase readiness and capability?

 

[AJM7680]

Anyone who thinks Ranger training is mainly a leadership stepping stone for career progression and doesn't have significant operational and wartime purpose, doesn't understand and simply sees the political side.

If the army wants to reevaluate how they select their top leadership, and readdress that 90% of top tier leadership have ranger training, then that's fine.

Ranger training produces better leaders, and if females, not having the same training, at top levels, are promoted at the same rate as those males who have undergone the training, would certainly have a negative effect on the male officers and would cause a similiar migration of the "best and brightest", only this time, it would be the males resigning.

 

[Aglahad]

Ranger training produces better leaders, and if females, not having the same training, at top levels, are promoted at the same rate as those males who have undergone the training, would certainly have a negative effect on the male officers and would cause a similiar migration of the "best and brightest", only this time, it would be the males resigning.

I think years of history are a testament to prove that this mass exodus would not happen. The pride that goes along with having been tabbed is on a whole different level.

 

[Christcorp]

Ranger training produces better leaders, and if females, not having the same training, at top levels, are promoted at the same rate as those males who have undergone the training, would certainly have a negative effect on the male officers and would cause a similiar migration of the "best and brightest", only this time, it would be the males resigning.

But does ranger training ONLY produce better leaders, or does it also serve a vital Mission/Operational function. If it's only a "Leadership Training" forum, then i would agree with some things said. However; if it has operational purposes where mission accomplishment comes in; then the standards have to be the way that ensures mission success. I'm not a ranger. Never had ranger training. But in the air force, I have had joint missions where I've worked with some rangers. And considering that most of the rangers are "Enlisted", I would say that "Producing Career Officers" is not it's primary purpose. Therefor, I stand by my original statement that ranger training has a lot more purpose behind it than producing career officers. Therefor, the standards should NOT be lowered to accommodate a higher female success rate.

 

[Jcleppe]

It feels like the Army is in a tight spot here, there is a push to have women in Infantry units. When it comes to officers branching Infantry, this is where it starts to get muddy. Almost all if not all officers that branch Infantry go to Ranger School, if the Army allows women to branch Infantry they are faced with the decision of whether to send the women to Infantry school. It will not sit well if female Infantry officers are exempt from Ranger School, so now what? Do you send women to Ranger school with the same standards as are currently set for the men, and I will add that I don't believe the standards are gender related, I'm sure they are Ranger related. If women are then required to go to Ranger school at those standards and fail at extremely high rates, what does the Army do now. Add on top of that, if female officers are allowed to attend Ranger school the enlisted females will follow as well, what happens if the success rate is as low as 1% to 5%, what does the Army do then? Having split standards is the next logical step to get the success rate up for females, can anyone honestly say that will not have a negative impact.

The Army has a lot to consider when making these decisions, it should not be a knee jerk political decision.

Don't get me wrong, if a women can pass the course as it is run today, then great.

My younger sister is a Firefighter, she went through all the taunts from the men and heard every joke and dig they could throw at her. The difference is that she had to pass the same test the men did, no double standard. Carry the same weight, run the same distance under the same time. Big brother was proud of her, she beat most of the men...they don't joke much anymore. if a woman can do the job at the standards that have been set then I'm all for it, I'm sure there are those that can.

Christcorp, I think your assessment is pretty good.

 

[raimius]

Does it? Has it? That's always the trope people fall back on to justify diversity for the sake of diversity. But is there any evidence or logical argument that that is true? If we were looking at an unvetted, unknown group, it MIGHT be true. But to get to the point of going to Ranger school, these individuals have already been vetted and held to a higher physical standard than their female counterparts.

So who are we missing out on? And how does adding them increase readiness and capability?

...because you will have trained more people to be highly competent infantry combat leaders. That is assuming the purpose of Ranger school is combat effectiveness and not careerism, and that standards reflect that combat focus.

 

[scoutpilot]

...because you will have trained more people to be highly competent infantry combat leaders. That is assuming the purpose of Ranger school is combat effectiveness and not careerism, and that standards reflect that combat focus.

That's a false premise, or at least only half an answer. Using the metric of "we've trained more people" isn't an argument for how women would increase our capability. It's an argument for increased through-put adding to our capability.

If more bodies is what we need, hundreds of men don't get their branch or MOS of choice (infantry) yearly. The bodies are there for the training with the current system.

 

[Chockstock]

Ranger School isn't about improving the career prospects of individual candidates. Our motto is "Rangers lead the way." Many a Ranger has lived these words before being killed in action—certain that if a Ranger couldn't accomplish the mission, nobody could. This unique culture lures the kind of young, smart soldiers needed to get the toughest jobs done. The promise of something bigger than oneself—bigger than any career track—is what motivates these men.

I really like that part