Posted on Feb 17, 2014
SGT Enlisted Management Branch Nco
11.9K
58
36
14
14
0
Interested to hear what people's thoughts are with this. It continues to be highly debated and I can see both sides. That said, if we make the standards THE SAME across the board, what other objections could there be? Is it that easy? Well, I know it isn't, but are we ready to explore these options? A soldier shouldn't be defined as male or female. A soldier should be defined by their ability to accomplish the mission. The ability to lead and be a member of the team.&nbsp;<div><br></div><div>That said, I do understand the obvious concerns. Female health/wellness in a combat environment and the potential for an increased amount of sexual harassment cases among many other possible concerns.</div><div><br></div><div>Once we identify those concerns, we can make a plan to overcome any adversary. We understand this topic isn't going away anytime soon. What are your thoughts?&nbsp;</div>
Posted in these groups: Images Women in the Military
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 17
SFC Explosive Ordnance Disposal Specialist
7
7
0
I love this topic. It's hot news and it has magnified at least my own personal "downfall" of not winning the apparent gender lottery at birth.
My opinion on this remains as such: the standards for the Infantry and other male only combat service MOSs should not be lowered just to integrate females. It won't sit well with the males, and eventually it will eat at the morale of the females. If a female is strong enough to make it through training and survive the mission physically and mentally she should have a shot.
I am not infantry. I have never thought I was ever close to doing the same job; no matter what my job presented at any given cinema worthy point in my mission.
I have my doubts that the integration of women in the Infantry will ever be successful. The almost genetic quality of transmission through the ranks from senior to junior of which the attitude towards women in combat is transmitted will be the inevitable brick wall. Males in Infantry are proud of their achievements. They are proud to have overcome things that females cannot.
I am not Infantry so I have to settle for just serving my country when many other women in my peer group cannot or will not.
There are real general differences in the way men and women are built both physically and emotionally. There are exceptions on both sides however. There are males who didn't make it through Infantry Training and there are females who can. The numbers on both sides are small no doubt. The standards for the training shouldn't be lowered. The occurrence of females in Infantry should be rare. Limited to the ones who truly make the cut and who take it upon themselves to take care of themselves in such a way as to never slow the mission for any reason specific to being female. I would hope for any females who earn the Infantry MOS on such standards would be taken seriously as a part of the team.
Just my opinion.
(7)
Comment
(0)
SFC Explosive Ordnance Disposal Specialist
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
SGT (P) Jaynes, thank you in turn for your input. I assure you PT is not an area I excel at. I do ok for a female but no where near the male standard. The two exceptional exception females you spoke of are the type of rare I spoke of in my original post. Maybe even they with their outstanding fitness accomplishments could keep up in an Infantry mission. I have no way to tell. Physical abilities aside the mental, hygienic and emotional aspects would all also be a challege. There are methods of addressing them all though. I have in the past with fair success. I am not necessarily trying to stand on a soap box and shout demands for women to be ushered into combat MOSs here but I am saying if there are the rare few that can then I think they should be allowed. The training should stay as difficult as the mission will undoubtedly remain demanding. I don't believe that watering down the ranks as you put it will solve anything. The rare few should be tough enough to not even make a difference in the status quo other than another Soldiers to help get the job done.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SGT(P) Section Leader
SGT(P) (Join to see)
>1 y
I hear you, SFC Warden. Part of me really wants to agree that for those exceptional Soldiers, yes, there should be openings. I just know that the Army will never work that way. For the same reason that USASOC has no problem letting women try out to be selected among its ranks, it has a stringent series of selections processes that safeguard the quality of the applicants who make it though to the operational side of the house. We unfortunately do not, and it is for that reason that I just can't get behind it. The benefit to the few doesn't outweigh the potential damage it could do to the many. Just my thoughts.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Explosive Ordnance Disposal Specialist
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
SGT (P) Jaynes I know the army won't work that way. I know the reasons that women integrating into Infantry and other Combat Arms will not work even for the rare few. I appreciate your opinions though and the degree of diplomacy you use in giving them.
(3)
Reply
(0)
SGT(P) Section Leader
SGT(P) (Join to see)
>1 y
Thank you as well SFC Warden, as for my ostensible professionalism....even a broken clock tells the right time once a day.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Michael Hasbun
5
5
0
I believe the Army will let the Marines do all the testing, and use those results to determine the road ahead. There's no point in retesting when the Marines are already applying the more stringent criteria of the two branches...
(5)
Comment
(0)
SSG Cannon Crew Member
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
"applying the more stringent criteria", such as changing the standards since a bunch of them failed pull-ups/chin-ups?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Cpl Tim Kirk
3
3
0

Participating in combat operations is not the same thing as being trained, equipped and deployed for the purpose of offensive combat operations in combat arms specialties.  Defensive perimeter patrols and manning a turret for security are not the same. 

 

Is the object here equality?  Okay, let's drop bifurcated fitness standards for men and women.  Why should women be able to take a substantially easier fitness test and get the same/better consideration for promotion than a man--and if you think that making fitness tests easier for everyone is the answer you already show your bias.  Why are women not required to register with the selective service in order to receive federal educational benefits?  Is anyone railing for equal treatment under the law in these respects?

 

When a man enlists he is usually given a first, second and third choice for MOS preference.  Even if infantry is listed nowhere, many men find themselves in the 0300/XXB occ-field.  Now they are expected to serve alongside and rely upon people who are inherently physically weaker and frail, and this increases risk to life and limb.  If weaker team members only got themselves killed that would be one thing, but this is not the case. 

 

In other endeavors these differences are acknowledged.  In which sports do women compete for top ranks with men.  Boxing?  Women can qualify for male weight classes--why is this not being pursued?  Basketball?  Let's unite women's college basketball and the WNBA with men's programs.  Football? (Right.) 

 

But let's look at less strenuous sports.  Women don't even compete with men in golf, bowling or curling.  When I noticed that women and men don't compete with one another in top tier curling I was baffled.

 

Rowing is a very good example.  Not only do men and women not participate together, women's' times are consistently lengthier than men's'.  Even more relevant: stress fractures to the ribs are very common among women in crew--their skeletons are less able to endure the same strain as men in the SAME sport. (Even though they are slower.)  It is a fact that women, though mentally tough, are physiologically weaker and more frail.  This isn't a bigoted rant; it is science.  Basic science.

 

This doesn't mean that there aren't some women who can't out perform some, or even most men, in certain physical tasks, but the fact that these cases are very exceptional proves my point.

 

 Offensive combat ops are extremely physical and, at times, push military personnel beyond their training.  Relevant, objective objections to women's inclusion within the infantry are not the same as reasons utilized in arguments against integration of persons of diverse ethnicity or sexual orientation.

 

When I was in, I consistently performed 20 dead hang pull-ups, over 60 sit-ups in less than 2 minutes and ran 3 miles in under 18 minutes to earn points towards cutting score.  Where are the politicians/civil rights activists clamoring to give women the same opportunity to prove themselves by the same tests as men? (Queue crickets chirping here.)

 

...that's what I thought.  (For the record, civil rights activists have maintained that requiring women to meet the same physical standards as men is an exclusionary practice--which is an acknowledgment that women are inherently physically weaker and more frail.)

 

Let's keep in mind that we are currently discussing these issues in desert conditions.  I have participated in combat ops in forests, jungles--both in Asia and Central/South America--as well as deserts.  At times I had to carry up to three radios, two PRC 77's and an FM--for coordinating air.  And let's not forget the encryption gear.  Let's see these women hump in Panama and Honduras under these conditions.  Mount Mammer-Jammer and a certain Ridge near San Onifre seemed demanding at the time, but the rigors of SOI didn't compare to duties actually performed in the FMF.  

 

These women's SOI graduations are not strides in equality; they are a tribute to making exceptions in the name of inequality--that is, a tribute to hypocrisy.

 

Require women, across the board, to register with the selective service, require women to meet the same physical standards as men--without making tests easier, and put female recruits in the same pool for occ-field selection as men--those would be steps towards true equality.  (This should be the order in which these steps should be implemented.)

 

What we see here is a dog and pony show that will make our Corps less combat effective and result in unnecessary casualties.

(3)
Comment
(0)
SGT Cda 564, Assistant Team Sergeant
SGT (Join to see)
>1 y
Kudos to you sir for extending my understanding of our vernacular... I had to google bifurcated! LOL!
(1)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Tim Kirk
Cpl Tim Kirk
>1 y
The founding of today's selective service took place in 1947, long after our nation was founded.  The civil rights act of 1964 was signed into law 50 years ago.  There has been plenty of time to rectify disparate treatment because of gender.  The reason women don't register with the Selective Service is the same reason women take less strenuous Physical Fitness Tests, which is the same reason women shouldn't be in combat arms MOS's: they are inherently physically weaker and more frail.  That is science, not bigotry.  My point is that if the object is equality for women we should start with registration with the selective service, then move on to the elimination of disparities in physical fitness requirements across the board, then, if all of that works out, we can address the issue of inclusion of combat arms.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close