The US Army announced Friday the last eight women remaining in Ranger School failed to graduate, the latest blow to putting women on the front lines.
The women were admitted to the two-month class as part of a broader effort by the Pentagon to lift the ban on female soldiers serving in "ground combat" jobs, such as the infantry.
The Army said Friday that five of the women will leave the course, but three will be given another chance to start the class from the beginning.
Initially, 19 women had volunteered to enter the course when it was opened to women last month. Of those, 11 failed to complete the first four-day phase of the course.
So what we see is Hell Week took out 60% of the applicants.
I would like to see the Pentagon do a serious impartial analysis of the course, the parts the women failed, the parts where the loads were disproportionate to the size of the soldier, etc. with the goal being to see if there is a way to design a course for something like Ranger, but more withing the expectations of what a female can do in combat.
As I wrote elsewhere a lot is cultural bias in how young women are raised in America. In Junior High, and HS, they believe thin is in, so they don't do the upper body mass building the boys in their grades do.
Now at 18, in the military, we want them to climb a rope with another soldier on their back, etc. The boys with their beefy biceps have little problem. The girls with their thin biceps can't, so they fail.
I submit that if they were raised equally, not encouraged to be svelte, but given the same strength training as the boys at an earlier age, more females would pass this kind of course.
Ken_19: The US Army announced Friday the last eight women remaining in Ranger School failed to graduate, the latest blow to putting women on the front lines.
The women were admitted to the two-month class as part of a broader effort by the Pentagon to lift the ban on female soldiers serving in "ground combat" jobs, such as the infantry.
The Army said Friday that five of the women will leave the course, but three will be given another chance to start the class from the beginning.
Initially, 19 women had volunteered to enter the course when it was opened to women last month. Of those, 11 failed to complete the first four-day phase of the course.
So what we see is Hell Week took out 60% of the applicants.
I would like to see the Pentagon do a serious impartial analysis of the course, the parts the women failed, the parts where the loads were disproportionate to the size of the soldier, etc. with the goal being to see if there is a way to design a course for something like Ranger, but more withing the expectations of what a female can do in combat.
As I wrote elsewhere a lot is cultural bias in how young women are raised in America. In Junior High, and HS, they believe thin is in, so they don't do the upper body mass building the boys in their grades do.
Now at 18, in the military, we want them to climb a rope with another soldier on their back, etc. The boys with their beefy biceps have little problem. The girls with their thin biceps can't, so they fail.
I submit that if they were raised equally, not encouraged to be svelte, but given the same strength training as the boys at an earlier age, more females would pass this kind of course.
Ken_19: The US Army announced Friday the last eight women remaining in Ranger School failed to graduate, the latest blow to putting women on the front lines.
The women were admitted to the two-month class as part of a broader effort by the Pentagon to lift the ban on female soldiers serving in "ground combat" jobs, such as the infantry.
The Army said Friday that five of the women will leave the course, but three will be given another chance to start the class from the beginning.
Initially, 19 women had volunteered to enter the course when it was opened to women last month. Of those, 11 failed to complete the first four-day phase of the course.
So what we see is Hell Week took out 60% of the applicants.
I would like to see the Pentagon do a serious impartial analysis of the course, the parts the women failed, the parts where the loads were disproportionate to the size of the soldier, etc. with the goal being to see if there is a way to design a course for something like Ranger, but more withing the expectations of what a female can do in combat.
As I wrote elsewhere a lot is cultural bias in how young women are raised in America. In Junior High, and HS, they believe thin is in, so they don't do the upper body mass building the boys in their grades do.
Now at 18, in the military, we want them to climb a rope with another soldier on their back, etc. The boys with their beefy biceps have little problem. The girls with their thin biceps can't, so they fail.
I submit that if they were raised equally, not encouraged to be svelte, but given the same strength training as the boys at an earlier age, more females would pass this kind of course.
They believe thin is in a lot more everywhere else in the world.
But yes you're correct, if a woman puts twice the effort into strength training as a man she might be able to lift two-thirds as much as him and pass the course. If we could only encourage more people to play to their weaknesses and put their worst feet forward the world just might be a worse place than it is.
tomcatwarneOcean City, Plumouth, Devon, England UK17,106 posts
1948: Congress makes women permanent members of the peacetime military, with restrictions capping them to 2 percent of personnel, barring them from the rank of colonel or higher, and keeping them out of combat.
1950-53: During the Korean War, female reservists are involuntarily recalled to active duty for first time. More than 120,000 women serve, many as battlefield nurses. At least 16 die, mostly in plane crashes.
1965-1975: During the Vietnam War more than 265,000 women volunteered for active duty and some 10,000 served in Vietnam, mostly as nurses. Eight died.
1967: During the civil rights movement, Congress passes the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act lifting the 2 percent cap on women personnel and restrictions on rank.
1973: The draft ends and the military tries to recruit more women.
1974: Under threat of lawsuits, Pentagon decides to stop mandatory separation from service of pregnant women.
1975: The United States Coast Guard Academy becomes first to admit women.
1976: Congress opens other military academies to women.
1977: U.S. Coast guard opens all its jobs to women.
1978: Women allowed to serve on Navy hospital and transport ships, after restrictions deemed unconstitutional.
1981: U.S. Supreme Court upholds exclusion of women from Selective Service registration and military drafts.
1983: Women deploy for Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada as military police officers manning checkpoints, interrogators, and helicopter pilots.
1988: Pentagon task force establishes a “Risk Rule” to determine where women could serve.
1989: Women engulfed in combat during Panama invasion, including female pilots heavily fired on and military police officers engaged in an infantry-style firefight.
Ken_19: So what we see is Hell Week took out 60% of the applicants.
I would like to see the Pentagon do a serious impartial analysis of the course, the parts the women failed, the parts where the loads were disproportionate to the size of the soldier, etc. with the goal being to see if there is a way to design a course for something like Ranger, but more withing the expectations of what a female can do in combat.
As I wrote elsewhere a lot is cultural bias in how young women are raised in America. In Junior High, and HS, they believe thin is in, so they don't do the upper body mass building the boys in their grades do.
Now at 18, in the military, we want them to climb a rope with another soldier on their back, etc. The boys with their beefy biceps have little problem. The girls with their thin biceps can't, so they fail.
I submit that if they were raised equally, not encouraged to be svelte, but given the same strength training as the boys at an earlier age, more females would pass this kind of course.
You’re on the right track but one may wish to bring over the experts on successfully teaching female soldiers and special forces/ commandos from Israel France and certainly Algeria who now has the largest number of qualified combat female soldiers and their own equivalent of the SAS ‘long range desert force’ and I believe, now have not only a full admiral but fully active female general. All three countries seem to have no problems in female s succeeding as combat soldiers. Algeria has had a long tradition of it since before the Algerian war of independence against France, after which women were welcomed into their armed forces. South African Defence forces have also had no problems in fully training their female volunteers and certainly, neither did Rhodesia whose female soldiers were favourably compared to the Israeli forces for their training and stamina. Their instructors had no kid’s gloves approach. The only unit that did not have female volunteers or even auxiliaries were the Selous Scouts. They were the envy of every country in Africa let alone Europe. (Shame Nigeria didn’t have their expertise in finding all those missing girls kidnapped over a year ago and eliminate the terrorist group Boka Haram totally!) Women warriors are nothing new to several African armies and neither was their ferocity in combat. Females fought beside their men in both the Visigoths and Goth hordes and destroyed the Roman armies sent against them. Women as soldiers are invaluable despite the desire of men to keep them safe and out of harms way. They are precious indeed…in so many ways.
Ken_19: As I wrote elsewhere a lot is cultural bias in how young women are raised in America. In Junior High, and HS, they believe thin is in, so they don't do the upper body mass building the boys in their grades do.
I submit that if they were raised equally, not encouraged to be svelte, but given the same strength training as the boys at an earlier age, more females would pass this kind of course.
Nah. If it's just down to strength? lol It's more to do with hormones and genetics. Gender genetics. What strength training is there in HS?
MADDOG69: Nah. If it's just down to strength? lol It's more to do with hormones and genetics. Gender genetics. What strength training is there in HS?
You have *obviously* never been on an American varsity HS Football team or you would know, quite a bit. Girls are usually excluded from those teams and encouraged to be cheerleaders instead. And that is the cultural bias.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
The women were admitted to the two-month class as part of a broader effort by the Pentagon to lift the ban on female soldiers serving in "ground combat" jobs, such as the infantry.
The Army said Friday that five of the women will leave the course, but three will be given another chance to start the class from the beginning.
Initially, 19 women had volunteered to enter the course when it was opened to women last month. Of those, 11 failed to complete the first four-day phase of the course.
Details at
So what we see is Hell Week took out 60% of the applicants.
I would like to see the Pentagon do a serious impartial analysis of the course, the parts the women failed, the parts where the loads were disproportionate to the size of the soldier, etc. with the goal being to see if there is a way to design a course for something like Ranger, but more withing the expectations of what a female can do in combat.
As I wrote elsewhere a lot is cultural bias in how young women are raised in America. In Junior High, and HS, they believe thin is in, so they don't do the upper body mass building the boys in their grades do.
Now at 18, in the military, we want them to climb a rope with another soldier on their back, etc. The boys with their beefy biceps have little problem. The girls with their thin biceps can't, so they fail.
I submit that if they were raised equally, not encouraged to be svelte, but given the same strength training as the boys at an earlier age, more females would pass this kind of course.