Posted on Sep 15, 2015
What do you think of this perspective from a female Army officer?
6.1K
69
27
13
13
0
Sorry ... I did not know you had to sign in to the WSJ to read the full story when I posted the link.
Here is the complete article:
With Capt. Kristen Griest and First Lt. Shaye Haver recently becoming the first female soldiers to complete Army Ranger School, demands for the complete integration of women in the U.S. military are growing. In 2013 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground-combat roles. On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions.
As a former captain and airborne soldier in the Army’s Second Infantry Division Support Command, I say be careful what you wish for. Overturning a long-standing tradition in a martial organization like the U.S. military will undoubtedly have unintended consequences. I am particularly concerned with demands that the Army permit women to join its Infantry Branch.
Don’t misunderstand, I was thrilled when Capt. Griest and First Lt. Haver earned their Ranger tabs. I was especially pleased when Army cadre and peers assured me that the Ranger School’s high standards were maintained. As a woman, I support equal rights to a sensible point. At the same time, women must acknowledge that equality does not mean selective equality. I wish it did. I want to see those hard-charging, superwomen sisters of mine pursue every career opportunity the military offers men. No doubt they can do it—and do it well. But Ranger School for these two exceptional individuals is not the same as allowing women to serve in the infantry.
First, opening the infantry to women necessitates revisiting Rostker v. Goldberg, the 1981 Supreme Court ruling that only men are required to register for the draft. If the infantry is compelled to include women, the argument against women registering for the draft will be invalidated. If women are to be treated “equally” and serve in the infantry, shouldn’t they be drafted into the infantry at an equal rate?
The unlikely event of a draft aside, should women in an all-volunteer Army serve in infantry positions in equal numbers alongside men? If so, how would this affect American military families and morale? Would such changes dissuade women from voluntarily joining the Army? And most important, would significant numbers of women in the infantry serve to strengthen or weaken national defense?
From a practical standpoint, I believe the impact would be negative. Many civilians, veterans and active-duty service members will disagree. Many will view me as disloyal to women in arms. I respect and understand opposing perspectives. I also appreciate the sacrifices of women before me who suffered and overcame countless barriers so that I could live big dreams, choose to attend the United States Military Academy at West Point, and serve my country without feeling professionally inhibited, marginalized or disrespected.
But questions persist. Can the general population of fighting-age American women be expected to perform equally with their male counterparts? According to a U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center study released in 2004, the average fighting load carried by an infantry rifleman operating in Afghanistan was 63 pounds before adding a rucksack. The average approach-march load in combat, which includes a light rucksack, was 96 pounds. The average emergency-approach-march load, which includes a larger rucksack, was 127 pounds.
Would the infantry have performed as well in past wars had half the billets been filled by women instead of men?
Can fighting-age American women be counted upon to fulfill their duties without causing an increased administrative burden in time of national emergency? Around the time my company received orders to deploy to Afghanistan in 2002, a number of women in my unit became pregnant. My company, stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C., attached soldiers from two other Army posts to fill the vacancies caused by the inability of these female service members to deploy.
Will women serving in the infantry be injured more frequently or more seriously? In a 2011 article, the Seattle Times estimated the Department of Veterans Affairs paid over $500 million in benefits annually for degenerative arthritis, cervical strains and other musculoskeletal injuries. Will disability payouts increase with women serving in the infantry? I believe the defense leadership must conduct an objective study of basic training and military-school injury rates by gender to more accurately predict answers to such questions.
I don’t raise these questions because I am a “hater” or a naysayer. I ask because I am a mother of both a son and a daughter. As a former service member, I wouldn’t have wanted to be forced into a job in which I was severely disadvantaged. I do not want my daughter mandated to fill a position in which she will have to put forth significantly greater effort than her peers just to survive in a time of war. I do not want my son forced into a job where he is at greater risk because those serving alongside him are disproportionately taxed physically.
My hope is that the dialogue regarding the opening of all military branches will be thoughtful and realistic, unclouded by agenda and emotion.
Ms. Pulley, a 2000 graduate of West Point, is a former captain in the U.S. Army.
Here is the complete article:
With Capt. Kristen Griest and First Lt. Shaye Haver recently becoming the first female soldiers to complete Army Ranger School, demands for the complete integration of women in the U.S. military are growing. In 2013 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground-combat roles. On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions.
As a former captain and airborne soldier in the Army’s Second Infantry Division Support Command, I say be careful what you wish for. Overturning a long-standing tradition in a martial organization like the U.S. military will undoubtedly have unintended consequences. I am particularly concerned with demands that the Army permit women to join its Infantry Branch.
Don’t misunderstand, I was thrilled when Capt. Griest and First Lt. Haver earned their Ranger tabs. I was especially pleased when Army cadre and peers assured me that the Ranger School’s high standards were maintained. As a woman, I support equal rights to a sensible point. At the same time, women must acknowledge that equality does not mean selective equality. I wish it did. I want to see those hard-charging, superwomen sisters of mine pursue every career opportunity the military offers men. No doubt they can do it—and do it well. But Ranger School for these two exceptional individuals is not the same as allowing women to serve in the infantry.
First, opening the infantry to women necessitates revisiting Rostker v. Goldberg, the 1981 Supreme Court ruling that only men are required to register for the draft. If the infantry is compelled to include women, the argument against women registering for the draft will be invalidated. If women are to be treated “equally” and serve in the infantry, shouldn’t they be drafted into the infantry at an equal rate?
The unlikely event of a draft aside, should women in an all-volunteer Army serve in infantry positions in equal numbers alongside men? If so, how would this affect American military families and morale? Would such changes dissuade women from voluntarily joining the Army? And most important, would significant numbers of women in the infantry serve to strengthen or weaken national defense?
From a practical standpoint, I believe the impact would be negative. Many civilians, veterans and active-duty service members will disagree. Many will view me as disloyal to women in arms. I respect and understand opposing perspectives. I also appreciate the sacrifices of women before me who suffered and overcame countless barriers so that I could live big dreams, choose to attend the United States Military Academy at West Point, and serve my country without feeling professionally inhibited, marginalized or disrespected.
But questions persist. Can the general population of fighting-age American women be expected to perform equally with their male counterparts? According to a U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center study released in 2004, the average fighting load carried by an infantry rifleman operating in Afghanistan was 63 pounds before adding a rucksack. The average approach-march load in combat, which includes a light rucksack, was 96 pounds. The average emergency-approach-march load, which includes a larger rucksack, was 127 pounds.
Would the infantry have performed as well in past wars had half the billets been filled by women instead of men?
Can fighting-age American women be counted upon to fulfill their duties without causing an increased administrative burden in time of national emergency? Around the time my company received orders to deploy to Afghanistan in 2002, a number of women in my unit became pregnant. My company, stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C., attached soldiers from two other Army posts to fill the vacancies caused by the inability of these female service members to deploy.
Will women serving in the infantry be injured more frequently or more seriously? In a 2011 article, the Seattle Times estimated the Department of Veterans Affairs paid over $500 million in benefits annually for degenerative arthritis, cervical strains and other musculoskeletal injuries. Will disability payouts increase with women serving in the infantry? I believe the defense leadership must conduct an objective study of basic training and military-school injury rates by gender to more accurately predict answers to such questions.
I don’t raise these questions because I am a “hater” or a naysayer. I ask because I am a mother of both a son and a daughter. As a former service member, I wouldn’t have wanted to be forced into a job in which I was severely disadvantaged. I do not want my daughter mandated to fill a position in which she will have to put forth significantly greater effort than her peers just to survive in a time of war. I do not want my son forced into a job where he is at greater risk because those serving alongside him are disproportionately taxed physically.
My hope is that the dialogue regarding the opening of all military branches will be thoughtful and realistic, unclouded by agenda and emotion.
Ms. Pulley, a 2000 graduate of West Point, is a former captain in the U.S. Army.
Posted in these groups: 
Women in the Military
Women in the Military
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 13
6
6
0
There are two issues here that need to be brought to the forefront. First, the women who have passed Ranger School and Marine Infantry School are in no way representative of your typical American female. Training troops is very expensive, and all this silly talk about the possibility of drafting females into combat MOS's is only asking for a 90 to 95 percent failure rate. The women who have succeeded so far are highly motivated, physically conditioned professionals. They represent a solid 2 to 3 standard deviations apart from the mean average of future female draftees. When you factor in the 'piss and moan" attitude about being drafted in the first place, the training commands had better brace themselves for the 'cost per recruit' to run off the chart.
The second issue is that up to this point, the discussion has been the pros and cons of women serving in combat. Very little has been said about the possibility of a dramatic impact on an unsuspecting civilian society when these female combat veterans return from the horror of war. Civilian society in general has not been properly prepared for the unavoidable influx of females with combat injuries. Ma and Pa in North Platte NE are not expecting Bo and Edna's daughter to return from the Army with one leg missing and the scars on her face from third degree burns. This will be a first for the country and it is my personal opinion that we are not ready. Just look at the suicide rate for high tempo units and the silent nightmare of PTSD. We should only assume that female troops will succumb to similar cause and effects. Once again, I doubt that society in general is prepared for little Johnny's mom to blow her brains out at the Saturday morning Soccer match.
The second issue is that up to this point, the discussion has been the pros and cons of women serving in combat. Very little has been said about the possibility of a dramatic impact on an unsuspecting civilian society when these female combat veterans return from the horror of war. Civilian society in general has not been properly prepared for the unavoidable influx of females with combat injuries. Ma and Pa in North Platte NE are not expecting Bo and Edna's daughter to return from the Army with one leg missing and the scars on her face from third degree burns. This will be a first for the country and it is my personal opinion that we are not ready. Just look at the suicide rate for high tempo units and the silent nightmare of PTSD. We should only assume that female troops will succumb to similar cause and effects. Once again, I doubt that society in general is prepared for little Johnny's mom to blow her brains out at the Saturday morning Soccer match.
(6)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
MAJ (Join to see) - Very good point. The type of combat encountered can be either of the types you describe. Our military must be able to fight in both.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Raymond Haynes
MAJ (Join to see) - A very valid third point, from my MOS, that of a pilot. There is no question that a female can squeeze the trigger in the cockpit just as well as a male. The issue becomes complicated when the aircraft is shot down. Almost always it is behind enemy lines, and if the pilot survives, they are usually captured. Females captured by the enemy provide an unusual circumstance for the theater commander. It is easy for the solder to say "don't worry about it, I knew what I was getting into when I joined", but society in general, and the military in particular see the situation different. Captured females provide the enemy with a physiological advantage they would not normally posses, and without going into the details, a powerful tool with the news media.
(2)
(0)
Jennifer Lee (Doerflinger) Hill
Very few women of fighting age can pack an equal amount of weight. The two female Rangers appear to be so far above the norm, I'm gobsmacked! (That Brit word seems fitting for the situation!)
Big issues during 1973 BT, were primarily geared to making a good showing.
Light years away from any real readiness.
Today, women have a real purpose in the field, changing minds & hearts, gaining Intel from women, building friendship in a time & place where that job might seem to be impossible. These important missions don't rely on a woman's ability to lift pound for pound with a man.
She is able to enter the homes of residents, getting to know what these ladies fear & what could be done to improve verbal & non-verbal communication.
These are vital missions, no less so that being a tank driver or infantry or maintaining their rig & getting repairs done with no appropriate parts.
Women do not, as a whole, & will never have it in the normal body, be as strong as men, run as fast as men, or lift heavy objects that men could lift with ease.
Women should NEVER be drafted & put on the front lines. When a woman soldier shows up, she volunteered. Instead of female clones, each gender & each individual should, saving the needs of the military, be given a job that enhances the gifts & talents each one has.
Big issues during 1973 BT, were primarily geared to making a good showing.
Light years away from any real readiness.
Today, women have a real purpose in the field, changing minds & hearts, gaining Intel from women, building friendship in a time & place where that job might seem to be impossible. These important missions don't rely on a woman's ability to lift pound for pound with a man.
She is able to enter the homes of residents, getting to know what these ladies fear & what could be done to improve verbal & non-verbal communication.
These are vital missions, no less so that being a tank driver or infantry or maintaining their rig & getting repairs done with no appropriate parts.
Women do not, as a whole, & will never have it in the normal body, be as strong as men, run as fast as men, or lift heavy objects that men could lift with ease.
Women should NEVER be drafted & put on the front lines. When a woman soldier shows up, she volunteered. Instead of female clones, each gender & each individual should, saving the needs of the military, be given a job that enhances the gifts & talents each one has.
(0)
(0)
Jennifer Lee (Doerflinger) Hill
MAJ Raymond Haynes psychologically, perhaps, instead of physiological or I'm not getting your point in that sentence. Not trying to not pick, but to clarify. If I'm incorrect in my interpretation, my apologies.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
COL Jean (John) F. B. thank you posting this letter.
I appreciated CPT Pulley's closing statement: "My hope is that the dialogue regarding the opening of all military branches will be thoughtful and realistic, unclouded by agenda and emotion."
She raised some great questions:
1. Can the general population of fighting-age American women be expected to perform equally with their male counterparts?
2. Would the infantry have performed as well in past wars had half the billets been filled by women instead of men?
3. Can fighting-age American women be counted upon to fulfill their duties without causing an increased administrative burden in time of national emergency?
4. Will women serving in the infantry be injured more frequently or more seriously?
I sincerely doubt that a legitimate dialogue will be allowed with in DoD about fully integrating women into all military branches. There are many at the higher echelons of DoD and in the liberal congress members who have been pushing this change for along time.
I appreciated CPT Pulley's closing statement: "My hope is that the dialogue regarding the opening of all military branches will be thoughtful and realistic, unclouded by agenda and emotion."
She raised some great questions:
1. Can the general population of fighting-age American women be expected to perform equally with their male counterparts?
2. Would the infantry have performed as well in past wars had half the billets been filled by women instead of men?
3. Can fighting-age American women be counted upon to fulfill their duties without causing an increased administrative burden in time of national emergency?
4. Will women serving in the infantry be injured more frequently or more seriously?
I sincerely doubt that a legitimate dialogue will be allowed with in DoD about fully integrating women into all military branches. There are many at the higher echelons of DoD and in the liberal congress members who have been pushing this change for along time.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
I really wanted to read the full article but I don't have a membership to the WSJ. I would say though that this is one female's point of view and may not be echoed by all. Just as the opinion among males differs, I'm not surprised to see female point of views differ as well.
(5)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SGT Ben Keen - Did not know you had to sign in. Here is the complete article:
With Capt. Kristen Griest and First Lt. Shaye Haver recently becoming the first female soldiers to complete Army Ranger School, demands for the complete integration of women in the U.S. military are growing. In 2013 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground-combat roles. On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions.
As a former captain and airborne soldier in the Army’s Second Infantry Division Support Command, I say be careful what you wish for. Overturning a long-standing tradition in a martial organization like the U.S. military will undoubtedly have unintended consequences. I am particularly concerned with demands that the Army permit women to join its Infantry Branch.
Don’t misunderstand, I was thrilled when Capt. Griest and First Lt. Haver earned their Ranger tabs. I was especially pleased when Army cadre and peers assured me that the Ranger School’s high standards were maintained. As a woman, I support equal rights to a sensible point. At the same time, women must acknowledge that equality does not mean selective equality. I wish it did. I want to see those hard-charging, superwomen sisters of mine pursue every career opportunity the military offers men. No doubt they can do it—and do it well. But Ranger School for these two exceptional individuals is not the same as allowing women to serve in the infantry.
First, opening the infantry to women necessitates revisiting Rostker v. Goldberg, the 1981 Supreme Court ruling that only men are required to register for the draft. If the infantry is compelled to include women, the argument against women registering for the draft will be invalidated. If women are to be treated “equally” and serve in the infantry, shouldn’t they be drafted into the infantry at an equal rate?
The unlikely event of a draft aside, should women in an all-volunteer Army serve in infantry positions in equal numbers alongside men? If so, how would this affect American military families and morale? Would such changes dissuade women from voluntarily joining the Army? And most important, would significant numbers of women in the infantry serve to strengthen or weaken national defense?
From a practical standpoint, I believe the impact would be negative. Many civilians, veterans and active-duty service members will disagree. Many will view me as disloyal to women in arms. I respect and understand opposing perspectives. I also appreciate the sacrifices of women before me who suffered and overcame countless barriers so that I could live big dreams, choose to attend the United States Military Academy at West Point, and serve my country without feeling professionally inhibited, marginalized or disrespected.
But questions persist. Can the general population of fighting-age American women be expected to perform equally with their male counterparts? According to a U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center study released in 2004, the average fighting load carried by an infantry rifleman operating in Afghanistan was 63 pounds before adding a rucksack. The average approach-march load in combat, which includes a light rucksack, was 96 pounds. The average emergency-approach-march load, which includes a larger rucksack, was 127 pounds.
Would the infantry have performed as well in past wars had half the billets been filled by women instead of men?
Can fighting-age American women be counted upon to fulfill their duties without causing an increased administrative burden in time of national emergency? Around the time my company received orders to deploy to Afghanistan in 2002, a number of women in my unit became pregnant. My company, stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C., attached soldiers from two other Army posts to fill the vacancies caused by the inability of these female service members to deploy.
Will women serving in the infantry be injured more frequently or more seriously? In a 2011 article, the Seattle Times estimated the Department of Veterans Affairs paid over $500 million in benefits annually for degenerative arthritis, cervical strains and other musculoskeletal injuries. Will disability payouts increase with women serving in the infantry? I believe the defense leadership must conduct an objective study of basic training and military-school injury rates by gender to more accurately predict answers to such questions.
I don’t raise these questions because I am a “hater” or a naysayer. I ask because I am a mother of both a son and a daughter. As a former service member, I wouldn’t have wanted to be forced into a job in which I was severely disadvantaged. I do not want my daughter mandated to fill a position in which she will have to put forth significantly greater effort than her peers just to survive in a time of war. I do not want my son forced into a job where he is at greater risk because those serving alongside him are disproportionately taxed physically.
My hope is that the dialogue regarding the opening of all military branches will be thoughtful and realistic, unclouded by agenda and emotion.
Ms. Pulley, a 2000 graduate of West Point, is a former captain in the U.S. Army.
With Capt. Kristen Griest and First Lt. Shaye Haver recently becoming the first female soldiers to complete Army Ranger School, demands for the complete integration of women in the U.S. military are growing. In 2013 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground-combat roles. On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions.
As a former captain and airborne soldier in the Army’s Second Infantry Division Support Command, I say be careful what you wish for. Overturning a long-standing tradition in a martial organization like the U.S. military will undoubtedly have unintended consequences. I am particularly concerned with demands that the Army permit women to join its Infantry Branch.
Don’t misunderstand, I was thrilled when Capt. Griest and First Lt. Haver earned their Ranger tabs. I was especially pleased when Army cadre and peers assured me that the Ranger School’s high standards were maintained. As a woman, I support equal rights to a sensible point. At the same time, women must acknowledge that equality does not mean selective equality. I wish it did. I want to see those hard-charging, superwomen sisters of mine pursue every career opportunity the military offers men. No doubt they can do it—and do it well. But Ranger School for these two exceptional individuals is not the same as allowing women to serve in the infantry.
First, opening the infantry to women necessitates revisiting Rostker v. Goldberg, the 1981 Supreme Court ruling that only men are required to register for the draft. If the infantry is compelled to include women, the argument against women registering for the draft will be invalidated. If women are to be treated “equally” and serve in the infantry, shouldn’t they be drafted into the infantry at an equal rate?
The unlikely event of a draft aside, should women in an all-volunteer Army serve in infantry positions in equal numbers alongside men? If so, how would this affect American military families and morale? Would such changes dissuade women from voluntarily joining the Army? And most important, would significant numbers of women in the infantry serve to strengthen or weaken national defense?
From a practical standpoint, I believe the impact would be negative. Many civilians, veterans and active-duty service members will disagree. Many will view me as disloyal to women in arms. I respect and understand opposing perspectives. I also appreciate the sacrifices of women before me who suffered and overcame countless barriers so that I could live big dreams, choose to attend the United States Military Academy at West Point, and serve my country without feeling professionally inhibited, marginalized or disrespected.
But questions persist. Can the general population of fighting-age American women be expected to perform equally with their male counterparts? According to a U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center study released in 2004, the average fighting load carried by an infantry rifleman operating in Afghanistan was 63 pounds before adding a rucksack. The average approach-march load in combat, which includes a light rucksack, was 96 pounds. The average emergency-approach-march load, which includes a larger rucksack, was 127 pounds.
Would the infantry have performed as well in past wars had half the billets been filled by women instead of men?
Can fighting-age American women be counted upon to fulfill their duties without causing an increased administrative burden in time of national emergency? Around the time my company received orders to deploy to Afghanistan in 2002, a number of women in my unit became pregnant. My company, stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C., attached soldiers from two other Army posts to fill the vacancies caused by the inability of these female service members to deploy.
Will women serving in the infantry be injured more frequently or more seriously? In a 2011 article, the Seattle Times estimated the Department of Veterans Affairs paid over $500 million in benefits annually for degenerative arthritis, cervical strains and other musculoskeletal injuries. Will disability payouts increase with women serving in the infantry? I believe the defense leadership must conduct an objective study of basic training and military-school injury rates by gender to more accurately predict answers to such questions.
I don’t raise these questions because I am a “hater” or a naysayer. I ask because I am a mother of both a son and a daughter. As a former service member, I wouldn’t have wanted to be forced into a job in which I was severely disadvantaged. I do not want my daughter mandated to fill a position in which she will have to put forth significantly greater effort than her peers just to survive in a time of war. I do not want my son forced into a job where he is at greater risk because those serving alongside him are disproportionately taxed physically.
My hope is that the dialogue regarding the opening of all military branches will be thoughtful and realistic, unclouded by agenda and emotion.
Ms. Pulley, a 2000 graduate of West Point, is a former captain in the U.S. Army.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google