I’ve not followed this (or anything else really) closely so I’m unsure. If these two completed and passed training without gender consideration, I’m all for putting them in it.

A warrior is a warrior.

I’ve never been a fan of “gender normalization”. Which is to say, “balancing” the requirements for non-men. If these two hit the mark at the same scale as all the other Rangers, then I think it’d be wrong to deny them their right to kill and/or die.

The general argument is that men would be too protective of the women to be effective in a mixed team. Maybe. But I really do think (hope) that if said women have actually proved themselves equal to the task as the men around them, the protective instinct would be (mostly) a non-issue.

Yes, I’m sure it introduces complications … but in my experience with “elites” of any sort, if you’re truly qualified (in their eyes) then you’re not a woman or a man. You’re a warrior.

And the US needs all the warriors it can get.



  1. Boy you opened up a can 😀 I’m sure XBradTC will fill you in though. It was not as clear cut as the media portrayed it to be.

  2. I tend to agree. If there are reasons that the Tangers have the standards it has (and presumably, they have reasons behind their standards), then anyone meeting those standards ought to be able to have a go.

    That doesn’t really feel like a controversial position. But maybe it is.

  3. Your comment about the men would be too protective over the women in the field reminded me of a movie – Courage Under Fire. War is war and our soldiers die, but if these individuals (not per se women) met the requirements, they should be allowed to do the job.

  4. Yeah, I agree. If you can make it on your own merit and and ability, then you’re in. I’ve served with men and women who couldn’t hack it in Basic, on course and on board. But I’ve served with outstanding people as well. Damn good leaders and competent operators that I’m proud to have known.

    So, yeah. The regs were changed to let them qualify, now change the regs to let them use their qualification.

  5. Most officers who go through Ranger School never go to the Regiment. It’s more a career enhancement thing.
    Lotta enlisted that go to the school never go to the Regiment.
    One’s an MP the other is Aviation.
    The Regiment doesn’t have any MP or AV slots. They’d have to pass IOBC before they were qualified for the regiment.
    And by law, they still can’t reclass to IN.

  6. You have a couple of “ifs” in your post.

    “If these two completed and passed training without gender consideration…”
    “If these two hit the mark at the same scale as all the other Rangers…”

    There is no If.
    They DID.
    This isn’t just some claim by higher up in the Pentagon and DC… This has been stated again and again by the men who teach the school. The men who went through the school. Their Peers.
    Fellow Rangers, both instructors and students and graduates have stated time and time again that there were no double standards.

  7. There are 70,000 women in the Army. In a recent survey, only 7% polled indicated they would be interested in ANY combat arms billet. Ranger School usually has an attrition of about 40% passing. In this case, of approx 130 women, two passed. There are approx 30-40,000 infantrymen in the Army, or so. If the standards are upheld, the number of qualified women will be incredibly small. So small it is a waste of money to change the barracks, policies, etc. for the one in 300 or one in 400 infantrymen who will be female. If the standards are dropped to build numbers this is a horrible idea. We actually don’t need every warrior we can get; the Army is downsizing from 45 brigades to 30. We are cutting loose combat veterans and could fill infantry ranks without needing any females at all. I am a ranger school grad and while this is an accomplishment, it is as rare as women going to the olympics or climbing the Himalayas. A great accomplishment but so rare you cant change policy because of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.