Posted on 09/26/2015 7:57:01 AM PDT by gwgn02
The first two women to graduate from Ranger School have had their elite status questioned amid claims that Army officials vowed to pass at least one of them before the course even started. Back in January a general is claimed to have told his subordinates that 'a woman will graduate Ranger School' this year, as part of the first ever class to include serving female soldiers. The general, who has not been named, reportedly added: 'At least one will get through', according to People. In August, Capt Shaye Haver and First Lt Kristen Griest became the first two women to graduate from the school, having taken four months to pass all the tests.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
What a joke. People will unfortunately die if these affirmative-action women are in combat. What a politically correct laugh.
me too...
Gee, what a shock!
I know the lack of sourcing weakens my argument. However, it would not be appropriate for me to give my sources in this situation. I consider them reliable and non-political, but it is not my place to give more details.
As for the do-overs, about half the men I know who passed had a chance to recycle and chose to take that recycle rather than fail [overall, twenty percent pass on the first try, 34% after at least one recycle]. As I understand it, at least one of the two women who passed also recycled. Perhaps they are not at the level of Rangers who earned the tab on a first try (mostly mental toughness and physical fitness, but there is an element of luck in who gets injured, along with physical issues for smaller soldiers leading to the women having a much higher injury rate). Still if they were held to the standard then they are on the level of Rangers who passed after a recycle.
But despite what the Army did to given women a chance, only 2 of 100 succeeded.
The women were also sent through the Pre-Ranger Course, which is an official Army course that some but not all men going through Ranger School get, and they still had a low percentage of successes. I would agree with your comment on the low pass rate. It is easy to make the case that it is not cost-effective to send women through the Pre-Ranger Course and then Ranger School under the real standards, and I would not argue with that point. I agree. I was only addressing the narrow point that these two women were given lowered benchmarks at Ranger School itself.
My contacts indicate the opposite and support the allegations of favoritism and lowering of standards; Instances where they were not forced to carry their share of crew-served weapons, lighter packs, more time to rest, etc. . .this does not surprise as it aligns with my personal observation:
It would not have surprised me if the story had been true, since it matches my own observations of women being integrated into other aspects of the military. I initially inquired into the standards used for those two women expecting to hear that they had been babied, and I was surprised to hear that the school itself had been done fairly (although they did stack the deck as much as possible before the women started).
That's just my views and the reports I heard. I could have been misinformed (and you'd have to read my other posts on various topics to see if you trust me not to make stuff up). But I am more willing to believe that these published reports are made up than that they stacked the deck and still only got two women to pass.
All women were recycled more than once, excepting those who failed on the first phase. Eight of the women who failed the first phase were offered an opportunity to recycle. Only women who met all of the physical requirements were offered recycle. The Army reported that these eight failed tactical requirements or the leadership and peer ratings. Reports that I have received indicate that deficiencies on patrol reports was the most common reason for recycle. Since those reports are subjective, these reports could be most easily by leadership guidance that at least one female would graduate. Whether that actually occurred, I do not know and can’t speculate beyond.
The question is what happens going forward. In every single case, the services have subsequently adjusted standards in order to raise the success rates, these standards certainly include physical tasks but also include decision making, aggresive behavior, and leaderhip. Women and men are not only physically different, they have different personalities influenced by their hormones and other genetic differences and by the influence of culture. Politicians can wish these things away, but they can’t change them.
Nobama already did that. It will have to be done again.
More than once is actually FOUR TIMES. They took the course FOUR TIMES.
I graduated class 8-85 when I was 19yrs old. I wasn’t a hard ass, just a young private out of 2nd Ranger Bn. at the time trying to learn my trade and continue my career in the Ranger Regt. No way, no day did the 2 young women meet the same standards. Just my opinion.
A politically incorrect truth about the difference in physical strength between men and women:
Take 100 men and 100 women, both groups young, healthy & fit.
“The ten strongest women are only as strong as the ten weakest men.”
Biology is destiny, folks. Deal with it.
You think it’s that lopsided?
It may be. I hadn’t thought it to be quite that bad.
It’s certainly lopsided enough not to want that model for our military. I’ll sure grant you that.
I wish I could locate the study. It may have been part of, or in response to, DACOWITS, which emerged in the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal in 1991. That was the year the questionability of women in combat roles really blew up. The execrable Patsy Schroeder was demanding that admirals lay down their stars on her committee table.
Followed soon by Demi Moore as G.I. Jane or something.
Then there was the affirmative action Navy female pilot who rode an F-14 into the drink.
Fair point.
We simply disagree.
Cheers.
You know it, and every other Ranger knows it. The course standards and ultimately readiness have been compromised for the feminist agenda.
Your memory of the study is very close to my own.
Regards,
Yes I remember those times.
It’s quite clear this is not a good idea.
It is human nature to treat women differently, that’s why we’re build differently. Since the “wom men” of the 1960s began their media treatment of men, they metastasized into thinking they were equal to men. Women are NOT the same as men, physically. Thank goodness. Not as strong, and cannot take the rigors men are put through in a lengthy battle.
USMA grads, “Ranger” Tabs, cherry-picked assignments for the next 15 years...one (or both) will be GO’s.
regards,
I got a hard lesson on females in the army many moons ago. Here is my story: I am an ROTC cadet attending the US Army Airborne school during the summer of 1985 (Class 11-85). It’s the 2nd week of training (Tower week) and I am in the same ‘stick’ with a female Adjutant General Corps 2LT, who was already wearing “Air Assault” wings, denoting graduation from that course.
Part of the week’s training consisted of jumping out of a 34ft. tower mock-up of a C-130 in harness, and sliding down a cable. In other circumstances it would have been fun to do! When it was her time to “jump” she refused, not once but several times, screaming in terror as the Black-hat, who by this time was livid, shoved her out the door.
I ran into her that evening after duty hours at the little hamburger stand outside the unit area, and I asked her whether she was worried about graduating. Her response (and my lesson learned) was, “The army has spent too much on me NOT to let me graduate from this course.”
And so she did. I didn’t actually see her jump, because they moved all the females into one group during “jump week”. But bottom-line, she was wearing the same jump wings as me. Thus endeth the lesson...
“Super” ring-knockers.
Oh, they will get married, thereby exceeding 100% certainty they will become GOs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.