Women: The New Face of a Ranger

Recently, the Army announced its plan to open the prestigious Ranger School to females. This was a previously all-male unit, just as other combat roles have been until this past year. By 2016, the military is forcing all branches to open up combat roles to women willing to serve. The issue of women in combat has long been debated, especially with the news of combat roles officially opening to incoming soldiers. Soldiers are very outspoken on this topic. Many veterans harshly condemn the possibility, but others view the change as positive.

The debate stems from those who believe the Army is using this as a simple social experiment to those who agree that if women can fill the shoes of a combat role, they should be there. Personally, I believe it is essential for women to fulfill the same duties of their male counterparts if they want to fill the same roles. If they can fill the roles, put them in those roles, but at absolutely no counts should the military lower the standards simply to open new roles to females. These women must prove their worth if they want to do the duty. The only way the military can stay strong and successful is with the same tenacious fight and effort; if women in combat (especially women in Ranger School), are allowed to be weaker than the men, they are doing nothing but hurting the army.

This being said, Army Secretary John McHugh has approved women to enter the next Ranger School that will begin on April 20th, 2015. He also stated that in order to receive the tab of a ranger, the women must meet the same standards and requirements of the men. Previously, the army opened up Sapper School to women without any major disruptions to the program. While the Sapper School recruits passed without issue, the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course has seen nothing but failure upon opening its gates to women; there is yet to be a female marine pass the course.

Ranger School includes vigorous and demanding training; in the past, this was an extreme concern when it came to opening the doors to female recruits. Over the two-month training period, soldiers get little to no sleep frequently, and they are expected to complete long foot marches with heavy amounts of combat gear on their person. The soldiers are also put through a rigorous physical fitness test, which has seen many failures even among the men. There are three phases in total to the school, and in order to complete Ranger School, individuals must pass each phase.

In order for these women to even be considered for Ranger School, they need to pass the pre-Ranger course located at Fort Benning, Georgia. As of one week ago, five women passed the course and will attend Ranger School. The five women who passed began with a class of 26 women. The 53 males who passed originally had a class of 96. There will be three other pre-Ranger courses before the school takes place, and women will have the opportunity to test for Ranger School at these as well.

Even with the opening of Ranger School to women, those who pass will not be able to serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment; that will still remain closed to women. The women who pass will have extra opportunities and duties within infantry and combat units instead. This is still an important role for women; they have previously seen front line deployments through attachments, but never as a full bodied member of the unit. This opportunity allows the women to become a sister in the brotherhood of frontline combat; this small change can hold great power in the way women are viewed in the military.

Unfortunately, the military still worries about soldiers handling interactions between the sections on front lines, and if there are any incidences throughout Ranger School that support this possible issue, women’s roles will have to be reconsidered once again. Sexual assault is never taken lightly, nor is fraternization during deployment. The new recruits will be closely watched as they enter these roles. There is no questioning the differences of the sexes, but if the two can work cohesively as a unit with one purpose, standard, and goal there should be no problem integrating women into these traditionally male roles.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/15/combat-women-army-ranger-school/21814747/

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/05/women-ranger-school-students/19950227/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/01/16/the-army-approved-women-going-to-ranger-school-and-reaction-is-mixed/

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/05/first-five-women-green-lighted-for-ranger-school.html

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Women: The New Face of a Ranger

  1. Timothy Feng says:

    There was a really good piece on this particular topic a few weeks ago on 60minuets. They looked at the Marine Corps School of Infantry for officers. They found that out of the 6 female officers that tried out none of them made it past the first day. It is important to note that they did not quit but were rather forced to leave because they did not meet the standards. I think women should be included on the front lines however, they must meet the same standards as the men. Women can provide skills that men can’t, like the ability to communicate and relate to the local women in Afghanistan and Iraq. I remember reading somewhere about how this group of infantry soldiers were taking a village but were having a hard time with the local women. However, when a female officer arrived the villagers began to cooperate.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/female-marines-women-in-combat-60-minutes/\

  2. Kylie Rose Doran says:

    I could not agree with you more about the role of women in the military. I know I have seen things in the news for the past few years about how the military was considering giving women a role in combat and at first, I was shocked that women were so restricted in so many roles in the Army and Marine Corps in particular. It was 2013 when the Pentagon officially opened combat jobs to female service members, and still there continue to be so many problems with integrating women equally into these positions. The Marine Corps and Army are the two branches with the largest number of occupational specialties still closed to women. They both claim to have plans in place that would fully integrate women into the forces by January 2016, and yet these plans are unclear and inconsistent.
    Additionally, the Marines have had little progress in integrating women into jobs that they are already well-qualified for. Many positions in the Marines that are closed to women are based on physical screening tests that do not actually target skills needed for work. Former Marine and policy director of the Service Women’s Action Network, Greg Jacob claims that many physical tests do not actually look at the jobs themselves, which women are more than capable of performing. Jacob questions whether the standards are actually gender-neutral. Since the military has historically been male-dominated, standards were created with men in mind. And even though many women alongside men can meet the standards, does not mean that they are gender neutral. One example that I learned about in a political science class last semester involved men and women taking a physical test based on their performance with load-bearing equipment. When tested with traditional equipment that put most weight on the shoulders, men outperformed women. However, when the equipment was modified and placed more weight on the back and hips, women outperformed men. This just shows the inherent inequality that has been built into the military from its very beginning.
    That said, I agree with you that women should be held up to the same standards as men in the military. If women go through all of the same training and are able to meet all physical standards, there is no reason why they should not be allowed in combat positions. What truly matters as a member of the military is whether someone can get their prescribed job done. By not allowing women to take part in all military jobs, I think the military is doing not only a disservice to women, but also to itself. In an age where women are supposedly respected and given as much freedom as their male counterparts, they should be allowed access to the same jobs. But also, I think the military has a lot to gain from allowing women into combat positions. Women are just as capable as men in these jobs and have a lot to offer. Gaining input from a new demographic could be incredibly helpful in combat situations. Sexual harassment and fraternization have been cited as problems, and yet this is not exclusive to just the military. Mainly, though I think that denying anyone the opportunity to serve their country is just plain wrong.
    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/01/31/militarys-progress-on-women-in-combat-criticized.html

  3. Michael Adam Pronin says:

    This is a very relevant and interesting post. I actually didn’t know that women were still not allowed in certain parts of the armed forces, so this was pretty eye opening. I agree that women should have an equal opportunity to be in any part of the armed forces they would like, but at the same time I do believe that they should be held to the same standards as men.
    This is also very interesting from a political perspective. Indeed, equal opportunity for both sexes in the professional sphere has been an issue for a very long time. By integrating the Ranger School, there are a lot of positive political and social consequences. It first sends a very strong message that women are able to do what men are, and thus they should be allowed to have the same opportunities as men. This gives way to even more women vying for jobs that were previously male dominated, or only for males. It also sends a message internationally. Claiming to the world’s beacon of freedom and democracy, the United States is in a unique position when it comes to making fair social policies. Since the U.S. attempts to spread freedom around the world and uses its own policies as an example, it is a necessity to have equal opportunities for women. The message is amplified as the integration is in the armed forces, which has historically been male dominated, and there are many countries around the world that don’t allow women in their armies at all. Women everywhere now have an example of gender equality, which could possibly lead to uprisings and demands for gender equality in places where there is none. Clearly, this is a huge step for women, not just in the U.S., but around the world.
    While I believe that this a very good idea and should be implemented, there are some that don’t agree. I found Allen West’s commentary on this issue to be particularly interesting. He feels that allowing women to join the school is essentially a waste of space since they aren’t allowed to go into the actual regimen. In other words, West argues that the very limited spots should be open to individuals that are actually going to be working in the designated field. He goes on to argue that we are facing one of the biggest threats ever in ISIS and that this isn’t a time for experimentation, and those sixty slots designated for women need to go to men in order to fight the enemy. He believes that this makes us look weak in front of the enemy, as we are more concerned with political correctness rather than strength. He calls those in charge of integrating the forces as progressive socialists, which seems to be a bit of a stretch in my book. Indeed, there are going to be people that feel strongly that women shouldn’t be allowed in the forces that have historically been male only, and it is important to also analyze their point of view. Unfortunately, some, like West, use such issues as ways to push their own agenda, like insulting the president and others in power.

    http://allenbwest.com/2015/01/zero-women-pass-marine-combat-endurance-test-army-allowing-women-ranger-school/

  4. Timothy Feng says:

    I think it is about time women begin to serve in the military. The military is supposed to represent the best of what this nation has to offer. How is the United States going to portray this image if they are discriminating against women? Throughout the world our nations military is seen as ambassadors of peace, freedom and the American Dream. By opening frontline role for women it will demonstrate to the world how great the United State really is.

    However, I do not believe the nation’s primer military schools should lower their standers just to accommodate women. I believe that no matter what everyone should meet the same standards. If I am on the frontline fighting the enemy I do not care if you are black or white, male or female, gay or straight all I care about is if you got my back and are willing to engage the enemy. This nation was build on the principle that all men are created equal, how is the U.S. going to defend this claim if they are not going to allow women to serve in the frontline.

    It was just yesterday I was talking to a fellow ROTC student, who I will not mention, about this topic. He said that he doesn’t believe women should serve in the frontline. He went on to say that women always mess things up and do not belong on the frontlines. He believes that women are weak and cannot hold their own. I cannot disagree with his believes more. Senator John McCain, a Vietnam Vet and POW, recently wrote a book on his 13 favorite warriors. In the book he feature then Private First Class Monica Lin Brown. She was on patrol with her unit when the lead Humvee was it by an IED. After the explosion the enemy began to ambush them with small arms fire and mortars. She ran and risked her life to save the causalities and at one point jumping on top of them to shield them from the shrapnel. She was awarded the Silver Star in 2008, become only the 2 women to earn the medal and the first of the War in Afghanistan. Also just to put this in a little perspective she was only 19. However since women are not allowed to serve on the frontline she was forced back to Base Khost after the engagement. So I agree with you 100% that women should definitely begin serving in the front lines and allowed to participate in Army Ranger School. A women who can anything a man can do deserves to be on the frontline.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-09-silverstar_N.htm

  5. Brad J Stuby says:

    Wow, I think you actually read my mind when you wrote this. I think I agree with everything that you actually said in this blog post which I find surprising because I usually don’t agree with people whole-heartedly on a subject. I believe that women should be allowed to join any branch of the army and perform any role that they want. On the same notion, and you mentioned it as well, these women should not be held to a different standard than the men. In combat, you rely on the person to your right and left and if they are held to different standards can you really trust each one equally? “Testing at Fort Stewart and other U.S. bases is breaking away from the Army’s longtime standards for physical fitness – pushups, sit-ups and 2-mile runs – to focus instead on battlefield tasks, such as dragging a wounded comrade to safety or installing and removing the heavy barrel of the 25 mm gun mounted on Bradley vehicles.” In this quote of wjla.com the army is starting to move away from their normal standards and moving to more relative tasks which I don’t necessarily believe in. I think this new “battlefield tasks” are a good idea but they should still be keeping the same standards that we’ve used for countless years before. This is why the United States military is such a powerhouse. We are strong, fast, smart, and courageous and those traits should not be lost just to let more people join the army. We aren’t Stalin, we believe in quality over quantity.
    The issue of sexual violence and fraternization are also issues that need to be looked at and you pointed them out as well. Both of these are not to be taken lightly in the military. I have friends that joined the military after high school and during the time before they left all they heard about were the statistics on sexual violence and rape, which is prevalent everywhere. The military is also a professional environment and you shouldn’t just have people sleeping around either. The same stigma of office relationships applies to the military as well, it’s probably better if those kind of relationships weren’t formed.
    I don’t know how true this is but it seems logical to me. I know during times like World War 1 and 2 occurred the long amount of time spent on the frontline without washing caused a lot of men to get infections and sick. I don’t know if physiologically speaking women might be more susceptible to infections in while spending long amounts of time in dirty places while on the frontline without access to a shower could make them more susceptible to infections or sickness than men, which may be a concern. Pulling soldiers off the frontline because of illness does happen, but it is preventable to a point and I believe it is one that should be very low as well.
    Again, I thought this was a great post and I’m glad to see someone with a common sense idea of how to allow women into combat roles and special units.
    http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/women-military-research-roundup#
    http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/02/army-preparing-to-allow-women-in-combat-roles-100585.html
    Hold on to what you believe,
    Brad Stuby

Leave a Reply