Ranger School welcomes women, drops standards

[USRanger]

I cannot believe this is happening.  I am truly heartbroken.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814

[jimson]

Well that's the real problem. Not they welcome women, but that they have to modify their standards in order to do so.

[shotgunneeley]

Truly respect women wanting to do their part to serve their country just like any male soldier, but standards are standards. Just using the Rangers because of the OP but this goes for any outfit: in order to succeed as a team you've got to be able to trust each of your teammates (in this case with your life) to perform. If they can't complete the demands expected of male Rangers, then I'd say "too bad".

[Plawranc]

I think Women in the front-line , and especially women in the front-line Elite. Is a very very good thing.

THAT, being said. The idea, that you would lower standards to admit more members, destroys the whole point of being a Ranger.

The Rangers are the Rangers, if you can't run 50 miles without sweating, kill 20 men single-handedly and then hold the position you took from those men for a week. Then you shouldn't be a Ranger. Its what they are trained for, its what they do, and any drop in TRAINING standards, will exponentially damage their combat standards.

[madhogg]

Effing WoW!  I dont like that, but thinking about it, in ww2 Russia had some fierce female snipers. I would allow them in ARMY sniper school but not as Rangers or much less Green Berets. Green Berets are truly the best warriors in the world, even when there are no wars, Green Berets are still conducting top secret combat missions that you will hear about 40 years from now on the military ch.
  All Green Berets
  Delta Force
  Rangers
  Paratroopers

[MarineUS]

I think Women in the front-line , and especially women in the front-line Elite. Is a very very good thing.

Until they end up being P.O.W.'s - they won't just be beaten...

[Stalwart]

If SHE can't carry HIM off the battlefield, she shouldn't be there.

[Motherland]

Lowering standards is another thing altogether

[Volron]

I'm not against women being Elite's, not by a long shot.  One can only hope the dangers of being in said spot are well known to them, because as Marine pointed out, if they are captured, they won't just be beaten.


That being said, lowering the standards in this particular case will only accomplish one thing, getting others killed.  They will likely still be tasked with the same goals as their earlier, more well trained comrades.  Since they are lowering the standard, one must question if they can continued to be called Elites.  I am not talking about those who were trained prior to the standard drop mind you.

[DaveJ]

This is absolutely absurd. Cannot believe it.

[Plawranc]

Any of you who have been married, or had a girlfriend as tough and stubborn as mine.

KNOW

That a woman is a more terrifying enemy than anything this Earth.... then you give her a weapon.

[RedBull1]

I am in no way against any woman being in the Military, I think it's a great thing, however ladies I don't care who you are, if you can not complete the standards we have/they have to be lowered for you - you should not be there and it will likely cost us lives in the long run because they are unable to pull a casualty out, or unable to pull themselves over a wall etc. etc. etc.

Rangers are supposed to be the best of the best, Elitists ...

Come on Rangers, really?  sigh

[Stalwart]

Any of you who have been married, or had a girlfriend as tough and stubborn as mine.

KNOW

That a woman is a more terrifying enemy than anything this Earth.... then you give her a weapon.

Didn't the Israeli Army prove women are effective, and even ferocious in combat?   I certainly don't doubt it.

But STANDARDS are another matter entirely.

[MarineUS]

If SHE can't carry HIM off the battlefield, she shouldn't be there.

[guncrasher]

I cannot believe this is happening.  I am truly heartbroken.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814

for the sake of truth can you post a link to the actual standards and not to a website that has it's own interpretations of what they are?  I mean everybody should be measured by the same standard, but I just wonder what the actual new policy is.

when I joined in 89  I heard other marines how the standards were lower than whey they joined.  I still have some friends that have served and retired and they talked about how the standards have been lowered since they joined.  every generation of servicemen always think that the new generation has a lower standard to meet.


semp