Posted on Apr 27, 2017
Is the United States military truly ready to allow and accept women to serve in male-dominated combat arms MOS's and units?
5.24K
65
31
2
2
0
Posted in these groups: 
Women in the Military
Women in the Military
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 17
The US Millitary, I think is ready. It is those individuals with Men Only mentality, those are the ones that are not ready.
(7)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
No I think he means the individuals in the military who think that only men should be on the "front lines." There are some male soldiers out there who are very resistant to females in combat MOSs. I have seen some ignorant, misguided and truly awful statements online in many forums about this topic. There are some women in this category too sadly but they're usually the ones who want to "be like the guys" and don't want to rock the boat and end up harassed.
(1)
(0)
MGySgt James Forward
You don't need a pair to in a Combat MOS. The Army has quite a few women qualified in them, the USMC just our first Tanker Officer.So far we have not had one make it thru the Officer Infantry Course. If they complete the course then they are in. Sort of like "Men of Honor" the movie where a black sailor bucked the trend and make it thru to be a diver. Time to put your prejudices away and grow up. This is not the 1940's where women were severly restricted in what they do in the military. KEEP CHARGING! Semper Fi.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I see zero issue with it. As long as they are held to the same standards then have at it. I know female Marines who kick just as much ass as the male Marines. So I won't begrudge any female who wants to pick up a rifle and get dirty in the field.
(4)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
CPT Pedro Meza - Maybe some standards can be adjusted to compensate for body size, but not all....If you are in an Infantry unit you don't get to hump less distance or carry less weight because you're smaller. Combat doesn't work that way. All that does is push your load off on someone else. I'm guessing that's why we use the term "standards" rather than "variables". Correct me if I'm missing your meaning.
(2)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT Richard H. - Standards based on past conflicts compared to today's in which the battle field is spread out a desert, or mountains on which the our enemies move about on Toyota pick ups, requires us to do like wise move around in our vehicles. In Afghanistan and Iraq we carried our loads in our vehicles, so it is time to stop using the standards of the past and adapt to where we have been for the past 15 + years, Women are an very effective weapon system in those lands, so adapt the standards so that we can use them, just like we adapted standards to the use of the M-4 as oppose to the M-16.
(1)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
I'm not at all arguing that women can be and are an effective addition to the fighting force. To do so would be an incorrect generalization. Saying that we can relax physical standards because the enemy drives Toyotas is likewise a grossly generalized, short sighted, and possibly deadly statement. Again, they are called "standards", not "variables". What happens when you are required to operate in an area that isn't suitable for vehicles? Shall we text the enemy and ask them to meet us at the FOB?
(2)
(0)
Cpl Justin Goolsby
Obviously jumping in this conversation late, but I like what both of you are saying. Yes, we should always be an adaptive combat force. But that being said, standards are standards. Sure... we might have driven all the way out to meet the enemy, but that doesn't guarantee we're all driving back. Who knows... we might have run out of gas???
I am all for having women in combat. Like I said in my original post, I know female Marines who kick just as much ass as the male Marines. But that means they need to meet the standards. Much in the same manner that I wouldn't want someone watching my back if they couldn't carry their own weight, would any one want me watching their backs if I couldn't carry my own weight???
The standards are standards for both men and women in the eventuality that crap hits the fan. Sure we have technology on our side now. But if we didn't have technology to make things easier for us, our lives still depend on us being able to survive. That means if we are in an enemy territory, we need to keep a move on. We can't slow down because our packs our heavy. If we need to pull ourselves up over a fence to escape an enemy, then we need to be able to pull ourselves up. If we need to pass up ammunition or medical supplies to a fighting position, then we need to be able to lift those cans of ammunition and possibly maneuver under fire. If we need to drag a casualty to safety, then we have to be prepared to toss him or her onto our backs and run like hell to get them to safety.
Every year when we did our PFT/CFT evaluations, the only ones I know that were riding in the back of a Toyota pickup were the ones who got broke and hurt themselves during an event.
I am all for having women in combat. Like I said in my original post, I know female Marines who kick just as much ass as the male Marines. But that means they need to meet the standards. Much in the same manner that I wouldn't want someone watching my back if they couldn't carry their own weight, would any one want me watching their backs if I couldn't carry my own weight???
The standards are standards for both men and women in the eventuality that crap hits the fan. Sure we have technology on our side now. But if we didn't have technology to make things easier for us, our lives still depend on us being able to survive. That means if we are in an enemy territory, we need to keep a move on. We can't slow down because our packs our heavy. If we need to pull ourselves up over a fence to escape an enemy, then we need to be able to pull ourselves up. If we need to pass up ammunition or medical supplies to a fighting position, then we need to be able to lift those cans of ammunition and possibly maneuver under fire. If we need to drag a casualty to safety, then we have to be prepared to toss him or her onto our backs and run like hell to get them to safety.
Every year when we did our PFT/CFT evaluations, the only ones I know that were riding in the back of a Toyota pickup were the ones who got broke and hurt themselves during an event.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Here is the beauty of this. The US Military has had the similar challenges throughout its history. Allowing black soldier to serve, then allowing them to be in combat, and finally integration where they were equals. How about sexual orientation. When I first joined just saying you were gay was enough to get you discharged. Then "don't ask, don't tell" and finally being able to openly serve and dress as you identify. Women have had their challenges. Not being allowed to serve, to only being allowed to be nurses, to non-combat roles, to serving in combat in non-combat units, and women serving on combat ships. Now we are looking to integrate into combat MOS roles.
Everyone of these challenges was met with resistance from both the military and civilians, yet they are all are thought of as the norm now. Nobody looks twice at a black fighter pilot, but in 1935 it was unheard of. The US military has always been professionals and when the order comes down to integrate females in combat units it is going to happen, no matter who does not like it. Then 10 years from now people are going to look back at our time in service and wonder how we could think that women were not capable of serving in combat roles, just like we thought about our grandfathers military stigmas about being black or gay.
Everyone of these challenges was met with resistance from both the military and civilians, yet they are all are thought of as the norm now. Nobody looks twice at a black fighter pilot, but in 1935 it was unheard of. The US military has always been professionals and when the order comes down to integrate females in combat units it is going to happen, no matter who does not like it. Then 10 years from now people are going to look back at our time in service and wonder how we could think that women were not capable of serving in combat roles, just like we thought about our grandfathers military stigmas about being black or gay.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
10 years is hopeful...I think it will be a lot longer than that for women to be accepted into infantry and be "the norm." Look how long it has taken women to be accepted since we were integrated into the military and coed basic, etc. We still aren't fully accepted by some moronic individuals out there (as evidenced by Marines United and the other photo sharing scandals where women had threats made against them).
Ideologies cannot be changed overnight. If we haven't learned that after the last 15 years in the Middle East and even before then, we have some issues. Some people will never change their ideologies. That's fine - but they won't continue on in the military if they can't adapt.
There are people who STILL don't like the idea of homosexuals serving openly and definitely don't like the ability of transgender people to serve openly.
Ideologies cannot be changed overnight. If we haven't learned that after the last 15 years in the Middle East and even before then, we have some issues. Some people will never change their ideologies. That's fine - but they won't continue on in the military if they can't adapt.
There are people who STILL don't like the idea of homosexuals serving openly and definitely don't like the ability of transgender people to serve openly.
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SFC (Join to see) - You know how you eat an elephant...one bite at a time. You got to start somewhere.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google