Posted on Oct 28, 2014
2 Korean Soldiers First Women to earn U.S. Army Expert Infantryman Badge
16K
15
13
4
4
0
First off let me say that these women are role models to women in the military community. Out of 530 individuals tested only 94 recieved the EIB. That's over an 80% failure rate. I think it says a lot that our allies in South Korea allow women to serve in the Infantry and these women are capable enough to earn an U.S. Army EIB. But to all the military women out there, does it make you feel a little bitter that U.S. women have never been tested for this badge, yet we give the testing freely to women from our ally's military?
I understand giving respect to our allies and their way of doing things, but I also feel it reflects poorly on the U.S. military to not grant U.S. women the same opportunities. If you notice in the article 3 women were tested, 2 out of 3 passed. If women were allowed in the infantry, and those who choose that path had a 67% success rate for first time testing for an EIB doesn't that say a lot about those women's capabilities? I think the U.S. military is overthinking allowing women in combat roles. Approximately 14% of the military are women, the military represents less than 1% of the total U.S. population. Of that seemingly small percetage of women, how many actually want to join a combat MOS?
I know this question keeps getting asked again and again, but all I hear in response are excuses. Ex: Women can get raped! Yeah, but so can men, and both could also lose their lives! Women and men in the military are also getting sexually assaulted and harassed regardless of combat roles!
My stance is that the standards shouldn't be changed to 'accomodate' women. However, I do believe the military needs to capitalize on the unique skills women bring to the table and if that means implementing different standards for the good of the U.S. military then that's what should be done. I think all women just want the opportunity to be available, not necessarily pursue that option. If we try it and it fails, so be it. How can you succeed if you don't try?
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20141028/NEWS/310280049/2-Korean-soldiers-first-women-earn-Expert-Infantryman-Badge
I understand giving respect to our allies and their way of doing things, but I also feel it reflects poorly on the U.S. military to not grant U.S. women the same opportunities. If you notice in the article 3 women were tested, 2 out of 3 passed. If women were allowed in the infantry, and those who choose that path had a 67% success rate for first time testing for an EIB doesn't that say a lot about those women's capabilities? I think the U.S. military is overthinking allowing women in combat roles. Approximately 14% of the military are women, the military represents less than 1% of the total U.S. population. Of that seemingly small percetage of women, how many actually want to join a combat MOS?
I know this question keeps getting asked again and again, but all I hear in response are excuses. Ex: Women can get raped! Yeah, but so can men, and both could also lose their lives! Women and men in the military are also getting sexually assaulted and harassed regardless of combat roles!
My stance is that the standards shouldn't be changed to 'accomodate' women. However, I do believe the military needs to capitalize on the unique skills women bring to the table and if that means implementing different standards for the good of the U.S. military then that's what should be done. I think all women just want the opportunity to be available, not necessarily pursue that option. If we try it and it fails, so be it. How can you succeed if you don't try?
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20141028/NEWS/310280049/2-Korean-soldiers-first-women-earn-Expert-Infantryman-Badge
Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB)
Women in the Military
Combat Arms
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
I see why they let the females test for the EIB. It for infantry soldiers and they were technically infantry. Also, 18 series can also go to EIB. In the US we don't have any women with an 11 series MOS so that prevents them from even testing. EIB is intend challenging. I did mine with the 82nd. About a third pass. My company had 12 go with 9 earning it and 4 going true blue. True Blue is without a No-Go.
I am vehemently apposed to changing the standards, as you are, but the military is hunting for the good. If they can't find any they go out and make it up. I know other countries have female infantry soldiers but then I would only compare us to that Army. I don't know of any Army on our level that does that yet. I may be wrong. I worked with the Canadian Army in the past and they had female infantry soldiers. There were no where on our level. Our Army has the highest expectations than any Army in the world. We are a war fighting Army, and not a conflict and skirmish focused Army. This should play a role in how we structure our forces.
I do believe that it will happen in the years to come but I only hope that they truly maintain the standards and not carter a new training plan to female soldiers.
I am vehemently apposed to changing the standards, as you are, but the military is hunting for the good. If they can't find any they go out and make it up. I know other countries have female infantry soldiers but then I would only compare us to that Army. I don't know of any Army on our level that does that yet. I may be wrong. I worked with the Canadian Army in the past and they had female infantry soldiers. There were no where on our level. Our Army has the highest expectations than any Army in the world. We are a war fighting Army, and not a conflict and skirmish focused Army. This should play a role in how we structure our forces.
I do believe that it will happen in the years to come but I only hope that they truly maintain the standards and not carter a new training plan to female soldiers.
(3)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
CPT (Join to see)
Sir,
I agree with you on many of your points. My only thought is if we are truly a better Army, then many of our women should be capable of passing the requirements for an EIB. We cannot say that our Army operates with the highest expectations then any other Army , but then diminish that statement by giving the perception that our female soldiers are incapable of meeting those expectations.
Sir,
I agree with you on many of your points. My only thought is if we are truly a better Army, then many of our women should be capable of passing the requirements for an EIB. We cannot say that our Army operates with the highest expectations then any other Army , but then diminish that statement by giving the perception that our female soldiers are incapable of meeting those expectations.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I would argue that we are the better Army. It is not that women can't get an EIB it is that they shouldn't. Only Infantry should get the EIB. That is they way it was meant to be. I have no doubt if you trained up that you could get it but that is not what it is for. It was for the infantry. As I stated, if they can get it why can't I get EFMB.
Until, they are 11 series coded then they should not get the EIB or CIB. I am speaking form the result from the MC Infantry Officer Course. They are finding the truth. Although they have had some enlisted Marines pass their School of Infantry but it would be unlikely they would have any female enlisted Marine Infantry without any female Infantry officers.
Until, they are 11 series coded then they should not get the EIB or CIB. I am speaking form the result from the MC Infantry Officer Course. They are finding the truth. Although they have had some enlisted Marines pass their School of Infantry but it would be unlikely they would have any female enlisted Marine Infantry without any female Infantry officers.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I feel the same as I stated for women going to Ranger School/Q-Course/Etc.(shhhhh...there are already women in SpecOps but don't tell anybody). It MUST be an even playing field with no accommodations for gender/race/religion. I have no problem with it if they can make it. I don't believe that we are ready for women as combat commanders yet but if it takes a Tab to get promoted, and they can meet the standards, more power to them. Congrats to the Women. They were in the 20% that made it.
This is the current atmosphere in the Military. Unfortunately you either go with it or look for another job. As a Contractor in Iraq I was amazed how many positions were filled by women that were not a part of my Army(66-87). They did very well including a certain Navy Commander (LTC) who was in charge of keeping tabs on all contractors and contracts in country. A Very Sharp Lady. She could bust chops like any man I've seen.
This is the current atmosphere in the Military. Unfortunately you either go with it or look for another job. As a Contractor in Iraq I was amazed how many positions were filled by women that were not a part of my Army(66-87). They did very well including a certain Navy Commander (LTC) who was in charge of keeping tabs on all contractors and contracts in country. A Very Sharp Lady. She could bust chops like any man I've seen.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree that women should be given the opportunity to serve in Infantry and other combat arms roles, and if they can meet the standards they absolutely should be welcomed in. However I also absolutely believe it is the opposite of being "for the good for the U.S. military" to implement different standards for women just to allow them to fill those roles.
The standards should be there to give Soldiers the best chance to survive in battle. Survivability is not going to change just because of gender. In life-or-death situations, running speed will be just as critical, obstacles will be just as high, and the weight of gear or wounded battle buddies that need to be carried will be just as heavy regardless of a Soldier's gender.
I do think that the standards do need to be checked to ensure that they are a proper reflection of what is needed to excel in combat, and those standards maybe should be more stringent than those for an MOS that doesn't regularly experience combat. Are there women who will still make it? Yes, just as I've seen females who do more pushups and situps and run faster during the APFT than some of their male counterparts, although that is the exception more than the rule. Not all females will meet those standards, which is fine just as it is fine that there are males who wouldn't make that cut either, possibly even myself.
The standards should be there to give Soldiers the best chance to survive in battle. Survivability is not going to change just because of gender. In life-or-death situations, running speed will be just as critical, obstacles will be just as high, and the weight of gear or wounded battle buddies that need to be carried will be just as heavy regardless of a Soldier's gender.
I do think that the standards do need to be checked to ensure that they are a proper reflection of what is needed to excel in combat, and those standards maybe should be more stringent than those for an MOS that doesn't regularly experience combat. Are there women who will still make it? Yes, just as I've seen females who do more pushups and situps and run faster during the APFT than some of their male counterparts, although that is the exception more than the rule. Not all females will meet those standards, which is fine just as it is fine that there are males who wouldn't make that cut either, possibly even myself.
(1)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
SSG,
I think you misread my statement "My stance is that the standards shouldn't be changed to 'accommodate' women. However, I do believe the military needs to capitalize on the unique skills women bring to the table and if that means implementing different standards for the good of the U.S. military then that's what should be done."
I specifically state that the standards should not be changed to accommodate women, rather the U.S. military needs to take a hard look at the standards to ensure that the skill sets of men and women are capitalized on. If it benefits the military to set different standards to more effectively utilize individual skills (combat related or not) then that is what needs to be done. If evidence shows that women are more adapt in certain areas, then women need to be held to higher standards in those areas.
I believe it would beneficial to the U.S. military to make positions more competitive by implementing standards based on the position. One E-5 does not equal another E-5. In my current position, I write papers that Staff Officers would typically write. I also have a BA that was heavily associated with writing similar papers. If you put another E-5 in my position (same MOS) without the equivalent or higher experience/education they would likely 1) take longer to adapt or 2) fail to adapt to the roles and responsibilities of their duty position. This is no fault of their own, because regulations and duty position do not specify that an E-5 needs to know how to write at this level. If the requirements to perform that specific position are outlined, there is no need for gender stipulations. You will either be able to meet the requirement or you won't.
If you have a valid reason to request a male (ie. there are no shower accomodations for a female, and any accomodations that COULD be arranged would take significant time and resources; as well as males would feel uncomfortable sharing shower facilities), then that is reasonable request. Using blanket terms/requirements such as females cannot/should not perform in combat roles is essentially limiting the U.S. Military from taking advantage of 14% of the military population's skillsets.
I think you misread my statement "My stance is that the standards shouldn't be changed to 'accommodate' women. However, I do believe the military needs to capitalize on the unique skills women bring to the table and if that means implementing different standards for the good of the U.S. military then that's what should be done."
I specifically state that the standards should not be changed to accommodate women, rather the U.S. military needs to take a hard look at the standards to ensure that the skill sets of men and women are capitalized on. If it benefits the military to set different standards to more effectively utilize individual skills (combat related or not) then that is what needs to be done. If evidence shows that women are more adapt in certain areas, then women need to be held to higher standards in those areas.
I believe it would beneficial to the U.S. military to make positions more competitive by implementing standards based on the position. One E-5 does not equal another E-5. In my current position, I write papers that Staff Officers would typically write. I also have a BA that was heavily associated with writing similar papers. If you put another E-5 in my position (same MOS) without the equivalent or higher experience/education they would likely 1) take longer to adapt or 2) fail to adapt to the roles and responsibilities of their duty position. This is no fault of their own, because regulations and duty position do not specify that an E-5 needs to know how to write at this level. If the requirements to perform that specific position are outlined, there is no need for gender stipulations. You will either be able to meet the requirement or you won't.
If you have a valid reason to request a male (ie. there are no shower accomodations for a female, and any accomodations that COULD be arranged would take significant time and resources; as well as males would feel uncomfortable sharing shower facilities), then that is reasonable request. Using blanket terms/requirements such as females cannot/should not perform in combat roles is essentially limiting the U.S. Military from taking advantage of 14% of the military population's skillsets.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SGT Kristin Wiley I do seem to have misread your opening post. Per your response we seem to agree re: implementing standards based on position, although I did focus more on the MOS itself. There is a lot of validity to further tailoring requirements to specific positions even within an MOS. I do feel that gender should never be a consideration in the development of a standard, simply job requirements, and that anyone meeting those requirements should have a fair shot at the position.
I have never felt that blanket prohibitions on females in combat or any other roles is good policy. Any given Soldier is either able to do a job well or not.
I have never felt that blanket prohibitions on females in combat or any other roles is good policy. Any given Soldier is either able to do a job well or not.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google