Women allowed in the Infantry now.....

[fivepak]

Here is how I would do it if I were boss...

Individual women can physically hack it, but they are few and far between. At the same time, women are needed for FET on the modern battlefield. Breaking your back to accomadate 1-2 women for every hundred men is a pointless waste of money and resources. Women in such small numbers also get shit on as far as sexual harassment and assault goes in the units where they are already present in small number.

Knowing this, I would say they should have a couple companies of female grunts throughout the military, that get fapped out in platoon or at the least squad size groups to where they are needed for female engagement. That way, you never have ones and twos of women amongst hundreds of men. Also, send them with a staff NCO or officer to keep harassment/assault from happening. This will allow for the military to have Female Engagement Teams competent in infantry skills and always brushed up on infantry skills (IE not a burden to their host platoons/companies), while at the same time minimizing the problem of accommodation and harassment.

There is a very defined role for females in the Infantry, but making huge sacrifices to get one or two in amongst hundreds to be "equal opportunity" is stupid... Alas that is probably what they are going to do because politicians are retarded.

It really sucks because there is a "right way" to pull this off which would really benefit everyone.

Mike

I agree. I think segregation is probably the only way it would somewhat work. Maybe have an all female unit at the battalion level and place them in less demanding missions, like force protection or mounted patrols, or just fixing sandwiches for the male battalions. Could work.

 

[mikem317]

Yes, but what about the all important "unit cohesion"?

 

[frenchman]

If they're cute, with big gazongas, there will be more then enough cohesion.

 

[crazymjb]

And therin lies the problem. Not that women are any more slutty than men when it comes to the military, but workplace relationships are inevitable.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[garandman]

Reading the article, it doesn't really emphasize that women can now serve in Combat Arms. It seems more about the fact that women can now be assigned below the Brigade level to me while they evaluate how they're going to do it.

But as one example women have to pass a "modified pullup" test to qualify for Airborne training rather than do regular ones. That was tolerable when women would only be serving in roles like MP or ADA but not direct combat.

It would be downright crazy if a female infantry soldier had different standards for any physical work than men.

 

[ranger4-7]

I have several concerns with this initiative:

1. The premise that excluding women from the Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery and SF, limits their career potential, as promotions and top job selections are then denied to those who do not serve in these branches. If that is the case, then the issue is that the top brass have a promotion/job selection process that discriminates against 80% of their total work force, as only about 20% of the total army workforce serves in the combat arms.
If the military opens these branches to women, who only constitute about 14% of the total force structure, one would not expect to see an unusually high number of women who wanted to serve in those branches. Assuming a similar number of women as men wind up serving in the combat arms (20%), then 20% of 14% (roughly 3%) of all women are served by this effort. The remaining 97% would be no better off than they were before, and neither would the men not serving in the combat arms.
Clearly, the answer to solving the problem of prejudice against the non-combat arms soldiers is only one that can be fixed by changing the mindset of the top brass, not by allowing a slightly smaller number of people to be discriminated against.

2. The concept of the single physical standard. While it is the only way I would ever support this initiative, it is doomed to fail. As we see today, there is a a recognition that men and women are built differently. That is why there is a double standard for PT tests in the military. And even if they went to a single PT test standard, in its current form, it doesn’t take into account the types of activities where men and women really differ, which is the ability to lift and carry very heavy loads, over all types of terrain. While my wife and I were on active duty (I was Infantry, she was Nurse Corps), she consistently Maxed the PT test. However, she is 5’2”, and weighs 100 lbs. There was no way she could ever carry a fully loaded light infantryman’s pack all day, through any and all terrains. So by any standard, she’d meet the requirement, but would be the first to admit that she would fail as a grunt.
What we will invariably see (and Panetta and senior Pentagon leaders have already stated it) is that there will be a single standard, but they will challenge the branches to prove that they need to be as high as they are. If unable to do so, they force the branches to make the standards more “gender neutral”, AKA lower the standard. And even if they don’t force that right away, I have no doubt in a year or two, some female senator from California, or frustrated female soldier, will point out the “shockingly low numbers” of females who are making it through AIT, Ranger, Special Forces, or in the combat arms branches themselves. When that happens, as sure as the sun will shine, the answer will be to point to the gender bias of the standards, fire a few commanders for sexual discrimination, and lower the standards to the point where anyone can be elite.

3. Lastly, is this premise that simply because women are fighting and dying on the battlefields today, that there is a direct correlation between this fact, and their likely success in the combat arms. While it is true that so many women are serving honorably, and paying a high, if not ultimate cost, their jobs are different. They, like most casualties have come from ambushes, and accidents, not in the form of direct fire fights. Anyone who travels outside the secure zones is at risk due to snipers, IEDs, etc. But these support personnel are not humping GPMG,s 150lb packs, claymores, rocket launchers, etc. It just not the same.

The answer to this issue is to change the way the top brass think and act. That would get at the problem much more broadly without jeopardizing the lives of those at the tip of the spear.

Chris

 

[crazymjb]

Like ranger my Fiance is also a Marine (and combat vet) who constantly maxes the PT test but at 120lbs likely could not carry the same load outs we do. She did see combat overseas as a motor transport operator and has a pretty severe back injury as well as knee injuries, and she spent the majority of her time in a turret or inside the vehicle. That said, there were about 3 of 7 women who actually left the wire in her company, which should be an indicator as to how many would be "grunts" if given the opportunity considering the low numbers of women in jobs that require leaving the wire. There were men and women in her company that didn't want to leave the wire, about half the women and one or two men. Personally I think these people should be booted from the mil but to each their own.

I don't know about the Army but in Marine Corps infantry school we have mandatory physical activities such as hikes, guys would drop from the infantry route if they couldn't physically "hack" these hikes. Even in boot camp my fiance said many women dropped due to knee and hip injuries and stress fractures. I have friends I went to infantry school with who were med sepped within a year or two because they were small statured guys who's bodies just couldn't take the constant abuse.

If they are going to integrate women, it better only be women beastly enough to pass the male physical standards and benchmarks to include humping with machineguns and other gear.

Mike

 

[OIFer]

If they are going to integrate women, it better only be women beastly enough to pass the male physical standards and benchmarks to include humping with machineguns and other gear.

totally agree, i did a dozen yrs in the service, & 2 tours in iraq, and while the occaisional female rode in a turret, they were more of a distraction than any true assistance to the mission. they are held to a much lower standard, and quite frankly are the first to seek an inside job, - ie: clerical position - to avoid difficult assignments. the military, as well as civilian police and fire departments are loaded with females who get into clerical positions avoiding their assigned duties. They want the respect as soldiers, cops, and firemen, but they dont want to do the job and instead seek personnel and scheduling deskwork instead. Its the sad truth.
oh and dont get me started on females that latch on to PT 'profiles',,,, there is nothing worse than having to take grief from a senior-ranking female, who has a 'medical condition' that prohibits her from doing physical fitness, but she still runs her mouth about every one else's standards, total hypocrites...

 

[OIFer]

I thought I'd throw some examples from my own experience, so you guys can make up your own minds (PS, the females i will describe are all good people, pleasant personalities, professional bearing, and generally competant in other day to day tasks, but just not aggressive enough or physically capable of combat performance)

Most recently, 3 females i worked with went out for the tactical team, two quit the training on the second day, and the third completed the training and was touted as 'the first female to make the team.' She stayed on the team for less than a year, did nothing more than serve as an extra who carried fire extinguishers or electronic equipment for the folks actually doing the mission. She now left the team and is now serving behind a desk. Of the first two who dropped out of training, one is still w the unit as a desk clerk, the other left the unit.

My previous unit had an older female warrant officer who was 50 pounds over weight and had a PT profile - aka 'medical condition' - that prevented her from performing PT and having to make height and weight standards. She had 25+ years in a military THAT HAS BEEN AT WAR for 10 years straight - yet she has NEVER deployed to a combat zone. She was 'flagged' (prevented) from promotion because of her weight and PT status, but she was allowed to remain in the unit and conducted most of the clerical duties.

My last deployment to Iraq had several females in our small detachment. One was a really nice lady, but on combat missions was assigned as driver and she freaked out so much when we got into stressful 'red zone' conditions, she took a wrong turn and drove away from the convoy jeopardizing the entire mission. (She had the senior ranking person in her vehicle we were providing security for)

That same deployment had another E6 female that demanded a position of responsibility she felt suitied her rank. She was incapable of performing as a member of the seurity force, so she was placed in charge of an advance team that went to meet with other units or Iraqis before the main element got there. She was so incompetant and offensive that she created nothing but altercations with other groups. Her answer was that these people we went to meet (many were arabs) needed to get over their cultural attitudes toward women and cooperate with her fully. This female eventually gave up as well and when her grandmother died back in the states, she begged to go back for the funeral. Because of all the issues she was creating in Iraq, we begged our commander to allow her to go home - to stay. This E6 didnt resist the notion or want to stay with her 'fellow soldiers', she grabbed her ticket home and was gone on the next flight.

None of these woman could EVER complete the tasks we continually trained for, IE fighting room to room, fighting through ambushes, or pulling wounded soldiers out of disabled vehicles - ALL WHILE wearing full gear including ammo, body armor etc. They couldnt do do it, nor did they want to.

I could keep going but i think anybody could get the point. Meeting the same PT standards is one thing, but doing the mission is in a whole other universe.

 

[That Guy]

I like how we're pretending women haven't already been serving in combat. I went on many, many patrols - both mounted and dismounted- with females in Iraq, there are female engagement teams moving with SF teams, etc. Like the males, some are good, some are average and some are worthless. Never once did I see any male soldier behave with the bravado and urge to protect only the females that I hear everyone worry about.

This is no different than when the units were racially integrated starting in 1945. Many of the same arguments from racial desegregation are used today - they can't do it, they're different, the Army isn't a place for social experiments, etc and they are just as wrong now as they were then. The military will adapt. Professionals will adapt. Twenty years ago people were loudly complaining about how gays in the military were going to cause similar problems and when DADT went away last year, guess what? Nothing happened. The end of the world didn't come, readiness wasn't effected and life went on as usual.

Personally, I hope this starts to show some of the male soldiers that female soldiers have value and can be members of the team. Perhaps that will be one way to lower the atrocious sexual assault rate in the military - right now a female soldier is outrageously more likely to be sexually assaulted by a fellow soldier than to be wounded or killed by the enemy.

I may not be an expert in all things military, but I have a pretty diverse military background. I have been an 11B on active duty with the 3-502d IN, 101st ABN, pre-Ranger, air assault and all the foolishness like JRTC. I've also served in combat with women as a 31B in Iraq.


That all said, I do hope they make the male and female standards the same - I've been saying for years that there should only be one standard test. It's already exactly the same for sit-ups - just needs to be adjusted on the other two events.

 

[ochmude]

I like how we're pretending women haven't already been serving in combat.

Again, it's not about females being in combat. It's about females being in the infantry, even stateside.

 

[ptrainerchris]

I don't have any military experience so I don't have a position other than let people who do this for a living make the rules of engagement. I do know research though especially dealing with physical fitness and soldier performance. I think this is not an equal rights decision as much as it is an attempt to increase the pool of available bodies. I was at a conference last year of academics and there were some high up military researchers saying the fear is with the drop in fitness levels of our US population, we will not have enough americans who could pass the PT guidelines by the year 2050 to even have a standing army! This means that they are lowering the standards for pt all across the board. The amount of soldiers discharged for not being "fit enough" since 1911 is laughable to the rates prior. In fact I am also an advocate for wounded warriors and was shocked to learn close to half of soldiers who become disabled in combat stay on active duty just because they are needed.

I think the military is facing the hard fact it will need to lower standards because our societies standards for fitness have plummeted. Not taking a jab at anyone but i see a lot of instructors for tactical courses who can barely get out of their own way. I will however take a jab at the anti gun people for a second, if we remove guns out of our society, it compounds the effect of all of this PC bullshit where it's now not ok to tell anyone they are fat or out of shape because it makes them feel bad. Its the message that your entitled to be coddled and protected by the government alone. You don't need to take care of your self or take responsibility for your own, or in this case, your homeland's protection.

 

[ptrainerchris]

can you tell i have guns on the brain i meant 911 and i wrote 1911.....that has to get a laugh

 

[That Guy]

Again, it's not about females being in combat. It's about females being in the infantry, even stateside.

Exactly. Females serve in combat capacities all the time, yet they aren't eligible for the awards and recognition due for those roles. Females serving on a Female Engagement Team with an SF Alpha team are only eligible for a Combat Action Badge when they are in the same firefight that earns an SF soldier a much more coveted Combat Infantry Badge. It excludes females from being in jobs that are career builders even though they are actually doing those jobs in some cases.

 

[Scarecrow]

I say : good for them, assuming they hold to the same standard. I had two medics who would out shoot, out run, and basically out-soldier at least half of the fat asses that pass as soldiers these days, and both were pissed they were not allowed to go out on patrols with us. Funny side of the story is that they were both involved in more firefights than any other soldier in my unit, given that they had to go out as medical support for the patrols anyway... it was ok for them to go out on patrol as medics, but not as soldiers? Semantics is everything, I suppose.

Anyway, if they hold the same standard, they should be allowed in... can't meet the standard, TFB. If I tried to get into the infantry and couldn't meet the standards, I would not expect the standards to be lowered, and neither should anyone else.

I think the military is facing the hard fact it will need to lower standards because our societies standards for fitness have plummeted.

No offense to you, but **** that noise. I do not want the guy next to me to weigh 300 pounds and not be able to haul my skinny ass out of danger if I get shot, and I'm not going to get my ass shot off trying to drag his fat carcass out of danger. If you don't meet the standards, you do not get in. Period. End of statement. In the real world, not everyone gets a trophy, and not everyone can do what everyone else can do. Life is not fair, cry me a river, get a straw, suck it up, then build a bridge and get over it.

There is a reason I have not tried out of rangers or SF or any of the "elite" in the Army...because I do not honestly know if I have what it takes. If I did, I would not expect them to baby me along and waiver me if I couldn't do an event, I would expect them to tell me what I failed, why I failed it, then kick my ass back to where I came from until I had done the work to be able to make it the next time I tried it...assuming they even let me have a second go.

 

[theGringo]

Hmm ...

The Marines will not lower physical standards for certain specialties, Gen. James Amos told USA TODAY. "We can't afford to lower standards," he said. "We can't make adjustments on what's required on the battlefield.

"That's not why America has a Marine Corps," he said.
Some Marine combat jobs may remain closed to women

 

[Gak44]

I read in another forum that lowering the combat efficiency of our military, may not be bad thing, if it will potentialy be used against us in the end. I find myself beginning to agree with that statement.

 

[ptrainerchris]

Let me clarify, They aren't going to lower the standards. What they have done for years now is invent new ways to keep you on active duty if you fail the pt tests.

 

[That Guy]

I read in another forum that lowering the combat efficiency of our military, may not be bad thing, if it will potentialy be used against us in the end. I find myself beginning to agree with that statement.

I find that sort of logic to be completely without basis or merit.



Here's what I was going to say before I edited it:

The only people floating that sort of nonsense are guys living in their mothers' basements, TIVOing Preppers and arguing the merits of AKs versus ARs on the internet. Good Lord - this country has its problems right now, but it's not even close to having our own troops turned on us. Seriously, put down the Cheetohs and Mountain Dew and go outside and talk to real people once in a while.


Aren't you glad I exercised some restraint?

 

[Scarecrow]

Let me clarify, They aren't going to lower the standards. What they have done for years now is invent new ways to keep you on active duty if you fail the pt tests.

Sadly, working in the medical field for the military, I am inclined to agree with this statement. People who should have gone years ago who are still slogging along, waiting for retirement...

 

[OIFer]

just because a few female medics or interpreters rode in a humvee on a mission doesnt earn them CIBs nor are they considered to be "doing the same job as the SF." Come on guys, yes theres plenty of jobs for females - but infantry is not one of them. anyone thats been down range doing infantry tasks would know it, - riding in a convoy that gets shot at is a respectible and patriotic job, but it doesnt make you SF.

 

[ochmude]

Exactly. Females serve in combat capacities all the time, yet they aren't eligible for the awards and recognition due for those roles. Females serving on a Female Engagement Team with an SF Alpha team are only eligible for a Combat Action Badge when they are in the same firefight that earns an SF soldier a much more coveted Combat Infantry Badge. It excludes females from being in jobs that are career builders even though they are actually doing those jobs in some cases.

No one in the Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps can get the coveted Combat Infantry Badge either, yet somehow they end up serving as joint chiefs as well.

 

[11bway2b]

just because a few female medics or interpreters rode in a humvee on a mission doesnt earn them CIBs nor are they considered to be "doing the same job as the SF." Come on guys, yes theres plenty of jobs for females - but infantry is not one of them. anyone thats been down range doing infantry tasks would know it, - riding in a convoy that gets shot at is a respectible and patriotic job, but it doesnt make you SF.

exactly, the FET teams are worthless anyways. They didn't accomplish shit in Afghanistan because no Afghan woman would dare come up and talk to us, even with our FET. They were just more people we had to babysit.

No one in the Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps can get the coveted Combat Infantry Badge either, yet somehow they end up serving as joint chiefs as well.

exactly.

 

[Secinv]

This is a very bad decision and will destroy the combat forces.

 

[Picton]

Most military observers I've heard about are less concerned about women performing under fire and more concerned about women doing combat-arms tasks when in garrison. Plenty of women have done just fine while being fired at, but then again so have many substandard male soldiers; that's not the point. If somebody's shooting at you, it's easy to fight back.

The trouble is that 99% of what soldiers do is done without being shot at. My infantry unit (82d Abn, therefore "elite" ITO induction standards) still had more than enough crappy male infantrymen that needed everyone else to pick up their slack. Once we deployed and faced minor combat conditions, they could do the job for the 3-5 hours it took them to patrol; we got back in, though, and they went right back to being shitbirds. They were no better once we got back stateside and did JRTC or EIB or DRF-1 or whatever other training cycle we were doing that week.

The point is that the infantry's been making do with substandard Joes for years. I'm very sure they'll survive the occasional woman or two. And, as I mentioned before, nobody's suggested opening up 11-series MOSs to women. This is about assigning women to maneuver units at levels below brigade, nothing more. Don't buy the hype; the sky's not falling here.

 

[hurley431]

The more I read... the more I just want to smoke the hell out of this shitbag I knew. Just hearing about all the double standards and annoying shit makes me glad I only have to put up with it part-time now...

 

[ranger4-7]

And, as I mentioned before, nobody's suggested opening up 11-series MOSs to women. This is about assigning women to maneuver units at levels below brigade, nothing more. Don't buy the hype; the sky's not falling here.

From Army Chief of Staff Odierno:

Odierno said the next step is “to look at, do we open up infantry and armor [military occupational specialties] to females?”

He emphasized no decisions have yet been made on the question, but noted the answer will have implications for all-male Army formations, including the Rangers.

Army Rangers are rapidly deployable, light infantry troops trained to engage conventional and special operations targets. While there are only three Ranger battalions, with a special troops battalion and a separate Ranger training brigade, Odierno pointed out the “Ranger tab” denoting completion of Ranger training is a key to advancement among infantry officers.

Ranger school consists of three phases -- mountain, desert and swamp – over 61 days, and combines rigorous infantry training with famously sparse amounts of food and sleep.

While Odierno cautioned, “I don’t want to get ahead of myself,” he noted that some 90 percent of Army senior infantry officers -- all male -- are Ranger-qualified.

“So, if we determine that we’re going to allow women to go into infantry, to be successful they are probably, at some time, going to have to go through Ranger school,” he said. “We have not made that decision, but it’s a factor that I’ve asked them to take a look at.”

If combat arms jobs open to female soldiers, “We want the women to be successful,” the general said.

The Army, like DOD, is committed to providing maximum opportunity for its members, Odierno said.

“We’re going to move toward it,” he said. “It’s how we do that, what we have to do, [that we’re assessing] as we move forward.”

Defense.gov News Article: Odierno: Army Moving Toward Opening Combat Arms to Women

Only a matter of time.

 

[Hustler One]

Exactly. Females serve in combat capacities all the time, yet they aren't eligible for the awards and recognition due for those roles. Females serving on a Female Engagement Team with an SF Alpha team are only eligible for a Combat Action Badge when they are in the same firefight that earns an SF soldier a much more coveted Combat Infantry Badge. It excludes females from being in jobs that are career builders even though they are actually doing those jobs in some cases.

Are you kidding me dude? So, by your logic, since I (an 11B) have been attached to an ODA while conducting air assaults in Laghman Province, Afghanistan are saying that I should be wearing an SF tab right now? Just... stop..

 

[Scarecrow]

All I can say is: Get half a platoon of women synced up, hand them rifles and ammo, then tell them that Al-baheen ja-har-wazahawidkjhweikuhwskdhckajhds is single handedly responsible for Sex and the City getting taken off the air.



To the person up top OIFer: Agreed. But you obviously had shitty female medics/FET's. The two we had were not women, they were soldiers. One of the airmen(airwomen?) that I work with occasionally is in the same boat: she is there to be a soldier, not to look pretty. Women who accept that the job is tough and dirty and there will be no exceptions made are more than welcome, in my opinion. My biggest concern is how to take care of the first guy that makes the mistake of noticing that they are women, as all three of them are not what one could consider "girly". I saw one of our medics subdue a guy and drop his sorry ass when he decided he didn't want to come back to base for questioning, prior to us getting him cuffed. The other has her CAB and (iirc) a bronze star for actions during a firefight that directly saved the lives of a dozen guys...but she can't have the CIB, even though useless shitbags that never left the wire got one...makes perfect sense. I can honestly say that the women who are soldiering outweigh the women looking pretty, at least in my experience. Then again, I've only done Artillery and Combat Engineer, the only Infantry I've worked with were "mechanized" even though we all rolled out in 113's with 2 bradleys for fire support and then did 10-15 mile circuits around and through villages. It wasn't the women slowing us down on these hikes, even with their full kit on, it was the fat asses who should have retired years before and didn't.

I'm starting to wonder if maybe so many guys are worried about ladies in the combat arms side of the house because they are afraid they might not be able to out perform the "weaker sex"... doesn't bother me, so long as they get the job done. Stop looking at gender and sexuality, and start looking at the god damned soldier skills that'll keep your ass alive... because if you would rather have a dude in the foxhole who cannot even figure out which side of his uniform the name tag goes on over the woman who shoots expert every time and is royally pissed off at the mother ****ers trying to kill her simply because the dude doesn't bleed once a month...maybe you should re-prioritize the criteria you have for success.

 

[Picton]

From Army Chief of Staff Odierno:

Odierno said the next step is “to look at, do we open up infantry and armor [military occupational specialties] to females?”

...
Ranger school consists of three phases -- mountain, desert and swamp – over 61 days, and combines rigorous infantry training with famously sparse amounts of food and sleep.

...

Not for nothing, but Ranger School hasn't had a Desert Phase since the mid-90s. So plainly the writer of that piece had no ability to do any research whatsoever. It's another in a LONG line of media pieces (and from the DoD itself, even) that has no idea how the Army works.

Read Panetta's statement. It rescinds the 1994 policy on not assigning women below brigade. That's all. Everything else is speculation at this point.

ETA: even Odierno's comments in this piece don't say anything about females in maneuver MOSs. These are mostly "jobs women already occupy," now at BN level. Or they can now be artillery radar operators. Either way, we're a long way from letting women into Ranger School...