"Four Women Pass Marine Corps Infantry Test For The First Time" Army headed in same direction?

2014-02-17T19:14:20-05:00

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. <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? </div>

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 17 at 2014 7:30 PM

2014-02-17T19:30:08-05:00

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...

Response by Cpl Lyndon Villone made Feb 17 at 2014 7:32 PM

2014-02-17T19:32:57-05:00

I find the issue here not to be about defining one another, as to what makes a soldier, marine, sailor, airman etc. The issue here is, when in the work place, the mix of genders relating to job description should be a case by case (job by job) decision. When you are in a combat MOS, either an all female platoon / company / battalion can be formed to conduct the tasks in the same manor as men, or you just don't mix genders. It will cause more problems than it solves. I think it is among common agreement that standards shouldn't be lowered for a male or female to pass a test. If the male doesn't pass the test, they don't get a job, that part is easy enough. Its the un-measurable's that have this being a tricky debate. I say if we can get a whole platoon of Women together that can do the same job as the men infantrymen, I AM ALL FOR IT!!

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2014 9:18 PM

2014-02-17T21:18:43-05:00

SPC Lyndsay M.  ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING PROGRESS!!!  Women have been exposed to combat for many years.  In OIF/OEF 159+ women died and 800+ women were wounded.  It is time to stop pretending women are safe behind some imaginary and/or occupational lines and recognize servicewomen are continually placed in harms way; and give them the training, equipment, and status needed to fight the enemy on the same terms as our servicemen.  Also, maybe if women are armed with M60s, M1911s, and K-Bars, we might see a rapid decline in the number of SHARP complaints.  Warmest Regards, Sandy<div><br></div>

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2014 10:22 PM

2014-02-18T22:22:49-05:00

im 50-50 on this ive seen women perform infantry tasks the same as a male counterpart so women are capable but there few far and in between. we can debate health issues on this but in all honesty being an infantryman is not about physical fitness its a big part yes but its also a attitude. its about going beyond the standard across the board. the infantry doesn't go by the regular standard the army goes by it has and always will have a higher standard of military bearing, its not for the weak of fainthearted, its about knowing your better than the average joe who thinks hes tough because he goes to the gym every day. its the guy who doesn't get offended easy and is usually really arrogant, the infantryman is not nice and he always goes for the kill, and he never settles for second best. so its more than just being one of the guys its about being the scariest mother f*#%er in the valley of the shadow of death, and expert of combat, and is death himself. i personally think some women can do it, and the infantry is about a few good men not standards across the board. and if we keep the infantry that way and not treat women any differently then lets see what they got, anybody can pass the basic stuff. its after that is when you earn the title of infantryman   

Response by SSG Shawn Vann made Feb 19 at 2014 3:55 AM

2014-02-19T03:55:59-05:00

I have a couple of thoughts on this topic, that I didn't notice in any of the other comments. First of all let it be known that I do believe that females have the ability to physically handle anything that males can. I've know many in my career that could out do 90% of the males around them and keep up with the other 10%.

My issue is the psychological impact on the male infantryman. Follow my logic if you would. In the American culture men are raised to protect women from day one of our being. If daddy goes away on business first words to son are "take care of mommy while I'm gone". Now for those of us that do have children consider this scenario. You have two children. A son and a daughter. You have to make a choice of which one gets shot, not necessarily killed but just shot in general. There are no other options you have to decide between them. Based on the way we were raised the mass majority are going to choose the son. Now let's apply this to combat. If you are in a fire fight and you see your male battle buddy take a round or jump on a grenade you will be able to continue the fight a little easier, than if it were a female battle buddy. We will have more of an I failed to protect mentality. We may hesitate and cost more lives. Agreed with either case we will just about all need some form of counseling regardless of their gender. But it's the immediate impact on the battlefield is the concern that should be addressed. I've had this conversation before with both male and female soldiers and most took it to heart and gave it consideration and possibly changed or confirmed their stance on the subject. Others simply said that the males would just have to suck it up.

The other thought I have has been addressed a little as far as hygiene. Take the march to Baghdad in Iraq for example. Say for instance females were in those type of units. It was 3 weeks to a month to get there. Somewhere during this time the females cycle would come into play and the facilitation of addressing those needs isn't practical in that type of environment. That's not even including medical needs from potential infections. That's all I'll say on that thought.

As far as sexual harassment and assault/rape goes. Whether the number of cases goes up or down doesn't matter, what does is that whatever dipshit that puts his hands on a female soldier against her wishes should be fried to the full extent that the UCMJ allows.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 19 at 2014 6:38 AM

2014-02-19T06:38:52-05:00

Ok we really need to dispel this myth of equality. Equality in importance, but not in ability. Women in the Military are crucially important, their roles are just as important as that Grunt on patrol. Men and Women ARE NOT equal in ability, it has been physiologically proven and psychologically proven. Yes there will always be exceptions, but they are not the rule.

If Women want the Blue Cord and the Crossed Rifles, go for it, but it would be in the best interests of our Military to have segregated Infantry units.

Response by Cpl Tim Kirk made Feb 20 at 2014 2:14 PM

2014-02-20T14:14:09-05:00

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.

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Feb 21 at 2014 2:31 PM

2014-02-21T14:31:23-05:00

Found this blog published in May 2012 on the subject ...

About Nathan Smith

A 2003 graduate of the Virginia Military Institute and
former Marine infantry officer, Nate is the Executive Director of Hire Heroes
USA, a nonprofit organization that helps veterans get jobs. He is a candidate
for a Master's in Public Administration at the University of Georgia.

Women do not belong in the infantry.

It’s a simple statement and one that, until recently, nearly
every civilized culture seemed to accept as a truism. For reasons as
multitudinous as they are apparent and profound, in time of war men have
shouldered arms and marched to the clash of legions or the sound of the guns.
Women as a rule have not. Even in those scattered and wretched societies whose
women prowled the battlefields to torture the wounded and desecrate the dead,
no woman was thrown into offensive action against the massed ranks of the
enemy. Show me an exception and I’ll show you savages.

Yet now, in the bosom of modern democracy and in the heart
of its most disciplined warrior elite, the prohibition against employing women
in the infantry appears about to change. The Marine Corps announced recently that it plans to send women to
the brutal, 11-week Infantry Officer Course in Quantico, Virginia.
Simultaneously, the Corps plans to enroll women into the enlisted infantry
schools at Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton.

Frankly, I am astonished.

If the enrollment of women into previously all-male infantry
schools is designed as an experiment, with the results to be examined and the
suitability of women for combat arms assignments then debated, determined, and
declared, I could save the Marine Corps significant expense and ferocious
opposition by predicting the inevitable result. They will find that women are
different from men and those differences severely prejudice the value of women
to the infantry.

Wait. Women and men are different? Can’t we just gender-norm
the infantry standards, modify the equipment, and make the barracks coed? Don’t
women deserve the same opportunity that men have to fight and die for their
country?

The answer is no. Let me explain.

Physiology

Since the obvious has apparently escaped social reformers
and military planners, I will restate it: there are fundamental physical
differences between men and women. I could quote facts and figures about the
difference in average body weight of men and women, the distribution of muscle
mass, and the capacity for heavy lifting and muscular endurance. But since facts
and figures haven’t deterred those who argue for women in the infantry, I’ll
just use a real world example.

Marine Second Lieutenants at The Basic School – just across
the street from the Infantry Officer Course – conduct at least a half-dozen
conditioning hikes during their six months of basic officer training. The hikes
range from 3 miles to 12 or more, and are conducted with full packs, body
armor, personal weapons, and the machine guns and mortars organic to an
infantry battalion. Since “Every Marine is a Rifleman”, all lieutenants –
male and female – learn the basics of infantry leadership. The hike pace is 3
miles every 50 minutes, followed by a ten minute break. Forever. Or so it
seems.

Most service members will admit that conditioning hikes are
grueling exercises in physical and mental endurance. I personally despised
them, especially when it was my turn to shoulder a 25 pound machine gun or a 45
pound, .50-caliber receiver. Each hike took all of my effort and physical
fitness to complete. Unsurprisingly, during my time at The Basic School no
female lieutenant completed a hike of greater than 6 miles with the rest of the
180 or so male lieutenants. Not one. And that’s with the male lieutenants
carrying all of the radios and heavy weapons.

A hike only gets you to the fight.

Am I disparaging my fellow lieutenants simply because they
were women? Of course not. Many of them were smart, fit, and exceptionally
disciplined and dedicated. Hell, they chose to lead Marines. I’m certain that
the majority of them went on to serve bravely in the stinking streets of Iraq
and the austere mountain valleys of Afghanistan. But not with the infantry.

The fact is that an infantryman’s job is a mix between
professional athlete, police officer, mechanic, and construction worker. It is
a physical job. Infantrymen are affectionately and accurately known as “grunts”
because of the sound made when shifting a 120-pound pack closer against one’s
agonized shoulders. It isn’t good enough to survive the physical requirements
of a 12 mile mountain ruck march if at the end of it an infantryman cannot
fling down his pack and sprint in short bursts of speed across an undulating
farm field while delivering effective and disciplined fire against a concealed
enemy who is desperately trying to kill him.

It would be the rare woman that could meet such an exacting
physical standard. Yet, undoubtedly some could. A 73 year old Japanese woman
summited Mount Everest this past weekend. There must be a few 20 year old,
female athletes that could excel in the infantry. So why not keep the standard
the same and allow women who pass it to enlist in the infantry? This brings me
to my next obvious point.

Sex

There are sexual differences between men and women. I’m
surprised that this point needs elaboration, but unfortunately it has been
downplayed in official circles and formal reports, leading to an
underestimation of the negative effects it can have on mixed-gender military
units and an overly sanguine view of young military members’ self-control. Good
order and discipline are just words to the armchair feminist or social
reformer, but to military leaders they are the ether in which healthy,
disciplined units function and accomplish the Nation’s difficult business.

With mixed gender units inevitably comes sexual tension and
relational drama. Such hormone-induced activity is often no more than an
unfortunate distraction in non-combat units. But in the strict world of, say,
nuclear weapon security, where I commanded platoons of infantry Marines
alongside female Masters-at-Arms, the distractions resulted in potentially
serious security breaches. In the rigidly controlled environment of a stateside
submarine base I was still so disgusted with the sexual antics between security
professionals that I christened the barracks and berthing areas “Bangor Junior
High”. Were the Marines and female Sailors good service members? They were some
of the best in the world. Did that stop them from acting on impulse during long
hours of boring duty and close proximity to members of the opposite sex? Not
always.

When the US Navy assigned female sailors to the formerly
all-male aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower and sent them overseas, the
leaders and planners did not anticipate that 15 sailors would have to be
reassigned due to pregnancies. Forever after, the Eisenhower would be
known throughout the Navy as “The Love Boat”. Less humorous were the scuffles
and stabbings that resulted from jealous lovers quarreling in the close
environs of a warship underway.

If the largest warship in the world is too small of an
environment to diffuse the hormonal impulses of its clean, comfortable sailors
quartered in separate male and female berthing areas, imagine the result of
infantry men and women sharing a squalid fighting hole or passing the time
during a midnight watch in a machine gun tower in Afghanistan. Good order and
discipline is essential to the effective performance of an infantry unit during
the dirty, dangerous deployments to the cesspools of the world. I cannot
foresee a reason strong enough to justify the damage to unit esprit,
discipline, and morale if women are integrated into male infantry units.

Of course, such good order and discipline issues become moot
if infantry women are formed into separate, all-female units. I imagine this is
the direction intended by the Marine Corps. Admittedly, all-female search teams
gained notoriety in Iraq as the “Lionesses”, where they bravely contributed to
mission accomplishment of combat units outside the ”wire”. Nevertheless, the
Lionesses were escorted by regular infantrymen, shielding them from the overt
responsibility to engage and destroy the enemy. This brings me to my last
point.

Psychology

Americans do not want their women hunting and killing the
enemy, nor are their young men psychologically equipped to accept with stoicism
the violent, gruesome deaths of female comrades in arms. This is not a
pervasive, sexist sentiment birthed in our Puritan past and nurtured into
maturity by Victorian prohibitions. It is an honorable mantle of respect and
protection bestowed upon the gentler, softer sex by a culture grounded in
Judeo-Christian ethics and fundamentally aware of the distinct roles that naturally
fall to men and women.

Whether religious or irreligious, Americans cannot but admit
a natural separation of responsibility between men and women. An infant without
a mother cannot be equally succored by a father, in spite of a love that runs
just as deep. A man can never be a mother, just as a woman can never be a
father. This, despite a century’s worth of neutering and gender-norming, is as
much a fact today as it was 2,000 years ago.

It’s Not Fair

I can hear the plaintive cry of the social reformers: But
that’s not fair! That is correct. Combat is not fair. During one assault in
Iraq, we shot at a lone enemy gunman with a tank. An M1A1 Abrams Main Battle
Tank engages a lone enemy gunman in Karabilah, Iraq during the first day of
Operation SPEAR. June 17, 2005. I imagine he thought that was pretty unequal,
too. Then we dropped a bomb on him. That’s why we win.

There are fundamental differences between men and women that
make them better suited for different roles. These differences do not make
women less courageous, less honorable, or less patriotic than men. The Silver
Stars, Bronze Stars, and Purple Hearts awarded to women in Iraq and Afghanistan
emphatically declare otherwise. But there are differences
nonetheless.

Women do not belong in the infantry. But they do belong in
the military. We cannot simultaneously honor their service and dishonor the
vast majority of men and women who serve in combat support roles by inferring
that non-infantry service is less valued than that of the infantry.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2014 7:27 PM

2014-02-21T19:27:35-05:00

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.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2014 11:50 PM

2014-02-21T23:50:07-05:00

Ok, I have two options on this topic. Great that a female Soldier
can keep up with the guys in the Infantry got it.

Where my two concerns come into play:

One, A psychological
mindset, not about women in uniform, but the men. Reason being is there have been training scenarios
applied to a combat zone where there are three Soldiers down with injuries, two
males one female, two females one male, etc.. Each scenario had the males having a
higher risk injury than females, resulting in females being attended to first
with the minor injuries. It is hard wired in a male’s brain that when we see a
female in danger, hurt or in need of help, that men are more likely to help a
woman before we help another male counterpart. Example car broke down on the side of the
road, men are more likely to stop and see if a female needs help, compared to a
lower rate if the car on the side of the road belonged to a man, and the same
principle applies in the Army and combat. A male Soldier will instinctively go and treat
the female Soldier first even though a male Soldier has injuries that maybe more
life threatening resulting in the Army having more causalities, which could have
been prevented.

Two, I serve in the Army Field Artillery. Currently I’m on a Paladin, a tracked
howitzer. My Soldiers and I live inside this vehicle anywhere from a week until
mission complete, this could be a day, week, month, 3 months, 6 months depends
on the conflict. Yes the female hygiene
could be a task in its self. Not trying
to sound like a smart ass, but I could have my Soldiers put a bag over their
head or blindfold themself while my female Soldiers change into a new uniform,
or goes to the bathroom using a bucket inside my gun, that’s practical right ?
Saying she is ok with it of course? Next
comes the work, Infantry yes they do a lot of walking with rucksacks and yes it
can be strenuous,(not comparing MOS’s by any means) but inside my Gun, I will
have 104 lb rounds, (which is about 80% of a females body weight saying the
average female is 130lbs) that need to be picked up from the floor and loaded
to about the height of your shoulders nonstop during fire missions, the slower
my rounds go down range the higher the possibility that Soldiers who are
calling for fire will die. I also have
an ammo vehicle that needs to be loaded, it carries a triple digit number of
these rounds that are also 100lbs plus, all being loaded by hand, and has to be
done within 30 minutes for our time standard to be met.

So in my OPINION, no one elses. I’m saying from a Section Chief point of view in a Field
Artillery MOS. That if a female Soldier
can do, wants to do, what we do, how we do it, then let’s go, I'm about making
the Army as strong as possible as long as possible. I don’t have time for gimmicks and recreating
the wheel. I’m about putting rounds down
range in a timely and accurately way without skipping a beat, but if this all
about politics leave it at the door, only serious inquires please respond, this
is not a “or best offer” type of situation, you either have it, or your don’t.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2014 8:50 AM

2014-02-23T08:50:28-05:00

well, i'm not infantry, but i'll toss in my two cents. evolution and society have played their roles for the last thousand years, but I think women are overall capable of the same things as men.

1. Physical. Assuming everyone joins the Army at roughly age 18, women start out severely behind the power curve. they grow up playing Barbie while men grow up playing sports - which makes their bodies more sucseptical to muscle growth and handling physical stress (wear and tear). this is changing as more women get into sports at a younger age and boys stay inside and play video games - putting them at closer to an equal playing field. Future generations WILL have women that can physically outperform men ON AVERAGE. The fact that men typically have more muscle mass then women is true, but it doesn't have to be. Diet and Training can fix this over time, but they aren't going to join in todays generation and be the same. I always use Ronda Rousey as my example of someone that I think can serve as Infantry right now. She isn't a sasquatch. She trains hard and can still maintain her femininity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpwiVon3EiQ The biggest complaint I have heard is that most women can't carry out a wounded male who is 200+ pounds. And that's why God invented the litter. There is not enough WIA and KIA in todays battles to suggest she would be all by herself and not able to get some help in this task. Many hands make light work. What is more likely is that she cannot charge a MK-19 or single hand her M4 while changing mags. These can be corrected with Rousey-like training. It is 100% true that women and men need to have the same APFT standards to be perceived as equal. I'll one-up that and say age shouldn't matter either. Bullets don't go slower for us older guys. when we try out for airborne, ranger, SF everything is based off the male 17-21 age scale. we should all just go with that until they come up with something better

2. The Dreaded Period. if they are willing to do something medical to put it on hold then more power to them. if not, the stress of hard training might make it go away as well. if it still happens then it can be taken care of as nature intended without putting a lot of stress of a unit. she has to just deal with the cramps by herself the same way men keep pushing forward when their backs hurt or they rolled an ankle. If she has ever given birth then she knows pain management, if she hasn't then she will.

3. The human perception. Although chivalry is dead, many men think that males will take special care to attend to a wounded female when they shouldn't or that America isn't ready to see their daughters come home in coffins. Or wives don't want their testosterone filled husbands working with women, thinking it will cause divorce, sex assaults, etc. which still has to do with our society. The Israelis do it. Their country is in constant threat to the point that mere survival ensures women in their infantry. America either is or will be in that state as our enemies grow and our security is lax. as for the sex assaults and divorce rates, that is because men look at these women as a piece of ass instead of their Sister-in-Arms. I can honestly say I have never been drunk enough to want to fuck my sister. I have never been lazy enough that I would rather knock on my sister's door down the hall then walk down the street to the neighbor that isn't related to me. So our entire society needs to change its way of thinking, but it can be done. The most disappointing comments on this original thread is that many women don't think women can do it! if they have submitted to being inferior to men, a lesser species of human, then they are surely fucked for all future endeavors.

4. Unit Cohesion. women can win over the men by their performance. They can win over their squad first thing in the morning during unit physical training. She must outperform them. During battle drills and training, she needs to pull her weight and have a working knowledge or what needs to happen. She needs to step up, volunteer, and basically do more work than all her counterparts. this is extremely unfair to her, but necessary to win them over. she has to know that. she also has to avoid all drama. she cannot date anyone in her unit, spread gossip, wear provocative clothes, and pretty much be the Virgin Mary. if she fails to perform then she will fail to integrate honorably into her unit, leading to the social aspect...trying to fit in by drinking with them, going to clubs, etc. and for the male that isn't convinced that this is his sister, this will be the prime time for sex assaults. all because she needed a way to fit in and she couldn't earn that respect during duty hours.

5. so how to do it? Pioneering is tough, that's why it is pioneering. if it was easy someone would have done it by now. There isn't going to be hundreds of them to start. maybe onesies and twosies. this lonely one is going to have to be mentally tough and take a lot of verbal abuse while still pushing forward. the problem so far is that the ones out there pushing for this are some minority group that really has no affiliation with the military and are too old to join. the ones out there that are capable are also content in their current line of work and enjoy having a marketable skill set for when they get out. there really needs to be someone guarding the gates to the army that judges potential and puts people in their MOS, cuz line scores don't tell the whole story. Selective Service needs to be equal and APFT standards need to be equal. and if we stay on the same course, someday barracks rooms, bathrooms, and showers will all be communal without regard to gender (which is not what I agree with, but an inevitable event because the guy that wrote Starship Troopers was a visionary).

Response by Sgt John Henry made Feb 24 at 2014 8:28 AM

2014-02-24T08:28:16-05:00

Lyndsay, one matter to consider is, how many females are actually interested in serving in the USMC or USA Infantry?

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Feb 24 at 2014 2:39 PM

2014-02-24T14:39:23-05:00

Our military and its leadership is liberalizing right now. Its not about being combat effective, its about being "Diverse". With that said, our government would much rather see a dead 'diversified' platoon with males and females .... then a living platoon of all males. If our government cared about being combat effective first, this females in combat arms debate would have never started to begin with.

Science has proven then Men as a whole are physically different then females as a whole. Our leadership believes that wasting the millions of dollars sorting out which females can and cant do combat arms, then making them their own separate standard for PT, makes much more sense then the system already in place.

Give it a couple years, and they will start letting people with Asthma and Diabetes in the military because its "Unfair" to them.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2014 2:40 PM

2014-02-26T14:40:13-05:00

I appreciate everyone who contributed to this post. This is such a complex topic and I know it is so controversial. No matter what side of the fence you are, I think it is important for every soldier to be educated on these issues.

I know I speak for many when I say, it is a honor to wear this uniform. It is my personal opinion that a soldier shouldn't be measured by their gender. A soldier should be measured by their unwaivering ability to perform the mission. No matter what the job, give it your absolute all. In our line of work, giving it your all doesn't just mean getting a promotion. It could mean the difference between life or death.

Some people asked me if I posted this because I wanted to be infantry. Let me tell you this much... Before I even knew what MOS's were, I knew what job I wanted in the Army. I wanted to be a soldier. I am an expert rifleman, I have a perfect PT, I ruck competitively against those in my unit... so tell me.. why can't i go infantry? Well, that is why I posted this. I could meet every requirement in the book. However, if my selfish desire for infantry effects the welfare and cohesiveness of my platoon, I don't want to take that risk.

This doesn't mean I am saying women cannot do it. I know plenty (myself included) that could meet the demanding physical requirements. There are other more serious concerns I have though, which were mentioned earlier in this post. Until we can 100% say that unit cohesiveness, hygiene and mental stability are non-issues, THEN SIGN-ME UP!

In the meantime, I will continue to challenge myself physically and educate myself. You can never ask too many questions. You can never push yourself too hard.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 6:43 AM

2014-02-27T06:43:00-05:00

Congrats to them however here is a recent surveys results. The Army surveyed 170,000 females and of them only 8% wanted combat jobs, of that 8% a whopping 30% wanted to join the 160th SOAR.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 12:00 PM

2014-02-27T12:00:08-05:00

Why not? Females graduate from Sapper Leader Course all of the time................... SLTW

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 12:14 PM

2014-02-27T12:14:40-05:00

Take the sex of the person out of it and then ask the question. I am not saying that SPC Lindsay is asking the question. it appears that this was a question that was posed somewhere else and she is just asking it here.

looking at all the statements so far, the underlying concept that is common specifically targets the ABILITY of the individual.

Don't get caught up in the female versus male ideology....I learned this the hard way in Basic Training when my Drill Sergeant scared the living shit out of me, and she was a female.

Was she capable of leading soldiers? Yes! Did she emeluate professionalism? Yes! Did she exceed the standards for Army life? Yes!

To this day, I don't give a second thought as to the capabilities of males versus females, but I do watch actions and abilities very closely.

Many questions, such as the one posed here, already portray females in a bad light because of the context and the way it is worded. Because the word female is used, it already sets the stage for a discriminatory discussion.

As leaders, do not allow the narrative of the question to control your responses, or to allow it to divulge an unprofessional attitude that you may have against women as your statements could be seen by others in your chain of command, and that opens up a whole can of worms.

As with any Military profession, every requirement is waiverable. However, every waiver of requirements has risks associated with it

In the end, it all comes down to how much risk the Chain of Command willing to take to allow a sodlier to function in a unit when they are unable to meet or exceed the REQUIRED STANDARDS for the tasks at hand.

Take infantry for example....What is the REQUIRED physical ability for all infantry soldiers? Is this REQUIREMENT across the board?

I have seen many statements inthis thread that give examples of what women can't do in the infantry, or the doubts about what they can do.....but what is the official standard?