Posted on Jan 8, 2014
Women in combat, can we stop with the BS and just make it happen?
11.2K
71
43
14
14
0
4th British woman in history to earn the Military Cross.<br>Kudos.<br>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1375233/Mother-told-Military-Cross-hero-daughter-Kylie-Watson-Oh-Kylie-What-did-Next-time-don-t-.html<div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/09/article-1375233-0B8E4B [login to see] -385_1024x615_large.jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1375233/Mother-told-Military-Cross-hero-daughter-Kylie-Watson-Oh-Kylie-What-did-Next-time-don-t-.html">'Oh, Kylie! What did you do? Next time, please don’t...': What mother told Military Cross hero daughter who twice braved hails of bullets to tend war wounded</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">Lance Corporal Kylie Watson, 23 - who stands just 5ft 1in tall in her Army-issue boots - is one of only four women in history to bear the coveted initials MC after her name.</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>
Gender
Women in the Military
Honor
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 22
8
8
0
The "no women in combat" clique tends to overlook that there are actually a lot of *men* who aren't suited for combat arms, either. Strength and abilities vary widely from person to person, and what matters is whether you can shoot-move-and-communicate, and look out for your buddy when bullets are flying, not what parts you have between your legs.
They also forget that "combat arms" has long since ceased to mean they are the only ones likely to engage in combat.
They will lose this battle, just as they lost the battle against gays serving (even as far back as Barry Goldwater this was clear, as when he said "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.") and against racial integration in the service.
And when they eventually lose the battle, and the childish kicking and screaming stops, the nation and our military will be all the better for it.
They also forget that "combat arms" has long since ceased to mean they are the only ones likely to engage in combat.
They will lose this battle, just as they lost the battle against gays serving (even as far back as Barry Goldwater this was clear, as when he said "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.") and against racial integration in the service.
And when they eventually lose the battle, and the childish kicking and screaming stops, the nation and our military will be all the better for it.
(8)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
True, but there is also a difference between CA who go out looking for a fight as part of their job and CS and CSS who just happen to get into fights as part of their job. My concerns is that women just need to be able to meet the same standards as men have to meet. If they can do that, no problems in my book. Just don't lower it for affirmative action.
(5)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Couldn't agree more LTC Paul Labrador. In the argument regarding Ranger School I've always argued that it wasn't a "Civil Rights School" so to speak. If someone can pass the standards then good for them but if someone, male or female, cannot make the standards then end of story. Standards are there for a reason and some things are supposed to be hard.
(3)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
This isn't the same as gays serving in the military. This isn't even the same as blacks serving the military (reference WWI and WWII ideology). Sexuality and race have zero bearing capability. Sex however does. It is a physical thing. To deny it is to deny simple biology.
Point blank, for every slot they give to a woman to try out for a combat arms mos, they give away a slot for a man who has a higher chance of graduating. The number of women who can physically compete with a man is not in proportion with a successful venture in terms of financial cost for training slots and the successful graduation of candidates.
If you support women for combat arms, you are literally supporting fewer bodies to serve in already undermanned (literally) duty positions.
If you want to base it on the paper thin merit of a woman getting an award, let's count the number of women who have gotten the Silver Star since WWII...the number is one....out of tens of millions who have served...of which women have served in the millions....just one....in 75 years+....and your justification is the actions of a woman in a foreign military.
Point blank, for every slot they give to a woman to try out for a combat arms mos, they give away a slot for a man who has a higher chance of graduating. The number of women who can physically compete with a man is not in proportion with a successful venture in terms of financial cost for training slots and the successful graduation of candidates.
If you support women for combat arms, you are literally supporting fewer bodies to serve in already undermanned (literally) duty positions.
If you want to base it on the paper thin merit of a woman getting an award, let's count the number of women who have gotten the Silver Star since WWII...the number is one....out of tens of millions who have served...of which women have served in the millions....just one....in 75 years+....and your justification is the actions of a woman in a foreign military.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
The country needs to get it's head around the issue and accept it - we live in a 'free' society where equal rights are talked about - but not always in practice. I have known plenty of women that I would rather have backing me up then some men. Each individual is different - not all men are suitable for combat type roles and some women aren't either. It should be - let all try and those that succeed in making the grade are put into those positions. It shouldn't be based just on gender.
(8)
(0)
5
5
0
My question to everyone is:
If having women in a direct ground combat role is so vital to the defense of our country, why have we not had them in the past?
We can go even further back, why wasn't there woman who was a Roman Legionnaire? Or instead of one Joan of Arc, why not hundreds of female knights? Or a say a regiment of grunts in history who happened to female?
You can argue whats fair, upholding standards and so forth. But you can't change biology, how men and women interact with each other.
Yes, women are in combat in a variety of jobs. Thats fine and they do great stuff. But why are so many obsessed with ensuring that women are in the Infantry, Armor & SOF? Heck many men can't cut it there ether.
Ground combat is stressful enough as it is, without throwing this dynamic in there. Shouldn't we more concerned about making our forces more lethal on reducing budget than placating political correctness?
If having women in a direct ground combat role is so vital to the defense of our country, why have we not had them in the past?
We can go even further back, why wasn't there woman who was a Roman Legionnaire? Or instead of one Joan of Arc, why not hundreds of female knights? Or a say a regiment of grunts in history who happened to female?
You can argue whats fair, upholding standards and so forth. But you can't change biology, how men and women interact with each other.
Yes, women are in combat in a variety of jobs. Thats fine and they do great stuff. But why are so many obsessed with ensuring that women are in the Infantry, Armor & SOF? Heck many men can't cut it there ether.
Ground combat is stressful enough as it is, without throwing this dynamic in there. Shouldn't we more concerned about making our forces more lethal on reducing budget than placating political correctness?
(5)
(0)
Maj Frank Thomas
Solid facts there, SFC. I have a tough time believing that the ones on the hill who mandated this move did their research before placing the ink on the paper. An increase in costs and injuries is what scientific research reveals. That can only lead to a decrease in readiness.
(3)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
So Hunter, let's do a simple task. Let's carry a 65lbs rucksack for a minimum of 5 miles a day, sometimes 10, for 10 days in between those those movements we are going to induce food and sleep deprivation. Except for this competition we only have 10 slots. You can pick who those 10 people are (male or female) except you can only pick them by sex. You have zero information about who they are but you need to pick a group where 7 of 10 personnel can complete the task.
I guarantee if you were faced with that task you would not pick a woman to be in the group. Why? Because the law of averages say that to add a woman into that mix would increase the rate of failure.
Every slot you give a woman for this kind of job is literally one less slot you can give to a man who has a higher chance of passing and...here's the kicker...can't get pregnant and needs to take a year off.
This isn't a job where you should be allowed to be a princess and do what you want. Bottom line, Combat Arms units are always undermanned. Every slot you give a woman is one less slot that has a chance to successfully meet even the basic standards to be in the unit.
I guarantee if you were faced with that task you would not pick a woman to be in the group. Why? Because the law of averages say that to add a woman into that mix would increase the rate of failure.
Every slot you give a woman for this kind of job is literally one less slot you can give to a man who has a higher chance of passing and...here's the kicker...can't get pregnant and needs to take a year off.
This isn't a job where you should be allowed to be a princess and do what you want. Bottom line, Combat Arms units are always undermanned. Every slot you give a woman is one less slot that has a chance to successfully meet even the basic standards to be in the unit.
(0)
(0)
SGT Anthony Rossi
Jerry, you hit the nail on the head. Show me one nation that adopted this kind of thinking that weatherd the storm of time. There isn't one. Whenever women are moved into these kind of rolls (as a norm) it's simply a display of the weakness of the masculinity in a given nation. People that pro women in combat always state the exception instead of the norm. Normaly speaking there is no benifit to adding the unique psychology of women into the combat picture.
(0)
(0)
SGT Anthony Rossi
If women are alowed to serve in combat rolls as a norm VA disabilities will increase damaticly.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
BLUF if they can do the job let them go why not. I have worked side by side of many of females that I would go into comat with.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Why physical standards still dog the fight about women in combat units
The question of what physical standards women should meet to serve in ground combat jobs continues to dog gender integration in the military.
(3)
(0)
SrA Daniel Hunter
While I think women should have a shot changing the standard makes it no longer a standard. It becomes variable. Same standard, you're in or you're out.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Okay, first of all, there is no reason why a persons age, gender, sexual orientation, race, shoe size, handedness, or preference of toppings on a pizza should have any impact on the job they can do. The only deciding factor should be: are you able to do this job.
If the qualifications to be in a combat arms MOS is to Ruck 12 miles with a 35 pound ruck, get 75% in each event on a PT test, carry a 150 pound dummy 500 meters, and qualify expert on the range with their assigned weapon, awesome. If a female can do it, let her do it. There is no reason to keep women out of that job. It is the men in those units with the issues. So long as the standards to do such a job don't change.
An example I continue to go back to is a female sued a fire department about 15 years ago because one of the qualifications was to carry a 100 lbs dummy down a ladder, claiming it was gender biased. She won the case.
I am all for equal opportunity, so long as the person who is doing the job truly is the right person for the job.
If the qualifications to be in a combat arms MOS is to Ruck 12 miles with a 35 pound ruck, get 75% in each event on a PT test, carry a 150 pound dummy 500 meters, and qualify expert on the range with their assigned weapon, awesome. If a female can do it, let her do it. There is no reason to keep women out of that job. It is the men in those units with the issues. So long as the standards to do such a job don't change.
An example I continue to go back to is a female sued a fire department about 15 years ago because one of the qualifications was to carry a 100 lbs dummy down a ladder, claiming it was gender biased. She won the case.
I am all for equal opportunity, so long as the person who is doing the job truly is the right person for the job.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
Well actually there are good reasons why some of those things should matter, above and beyond the ability to do one's job. We currently discriminate for age, shoe size (ie height), weight, health, moral character, etc.
We do this because we're not putting together a local pick up basketball team, but formulating policy for the armed forces which defends the Constitution and the nation. Those policies must have macro applications based on probabilities of a good return on investment (ROI).
There are some 66 year olds who are more fit than their grandchildren who are of prime recruiting age, but--by and large--we don't allow them to participate. In a non-military scenario, you and I will pay more for car insurance by virtue of being men and then again as inexperienced drivers when we first get our license. We haven't given any reason, by way of our actions, to show insurance companies that we are a bad bet, but statistics prove it out.
We do this because we're not putting together a local pick up basketball team, but formulating policy for the armed forces which defends the Constitution and the nation. Those policies must have macro applications based on probabilities of a good return on investment (ROI).
There are some 66 year olds who are more fit than their grandchildren who are of prime recruiting age, but--by and large--we don't allow them to participate. In a non-military scenario, you and I will pay more for car insurance by virtue of being men and then again as inexperienced drivers when we first get our license. We haven't given any reason, by way of our actions, to show insurance companies that we are a bad bet, but statistics prove it out.
(0)
(0)
SFC Larry Bennett
I'm just another old retired SFC, who was an MP, worked with many females along the way, and I will say this. There are a select FEW that could actually pass, lowering standards gets other Soldiers KILLED. Time will tell the tale! My prediction, they will attempt it, test it in a combat scenario, and they will be reclassed. But, that's just me...
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
We've had women in combat for a long time. They just haven't been allowed the distinction of being in a combat designated position.
One such case is laid out in the account of Kentucky National Guard Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hester.html
One such case is laid out in the account of Kentucky National Guard Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hester.html
Badass of the Week: Leigh Ann Hester
The ultimate list of all badasses past and present.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The BS started when the DoD began integration in 1976. The US military, from the inception, has set different standards (or the euphemism "goals" if you prefer) which ensures their current proportion of the military, of course with the idea of growing that number.
If ending the BS is the objective, then we can start by treating women like men, quit walking on eggshells, quit praising them endlessly while ignoring the shortcomings, and all without regard for how many comprise the armed forces.
If ending the BS is the objective, then we can start by treating women like men, quit walking on eggshells, quit praising them endlessly while ignoring the shortcomings, and all without regard for how many comprise the armed forces.
(2)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
What in the work are you talking about? 1) Your first paragraph makes no sense. 2) Women in the military, or combat arms for that matter- dose not compromise the armed forces.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
SPC (Join to see) 1. What part don't you understand of this paragraph? It's just a synopsis of the basic fact about the large scale integration of the women into the armed forces in the 70s. 2. Clearly I disagree with your second assessment. It will be less compromised if male standards are maintained but, since that is the opposite of the history of women in the armed forces, the logical conclusion is that they will be lowered once again to accommodate women. Lower standards, by definition is, in fact, compromise.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Just like MAJ Ryan Jean said, there are men that do not belong in combat. I am sure that we have all seen some women that can outperform ourselves in quite a few ways as well.
The only problem i used to have with the issue is related to a situation we had on my second deployment where less than a month after my unit was in country an Army servicewoman claimed she had been raped. The 'site' was cordoned off, NCIS came in, etc. I'm not sure how it all turned out but I know that no one in my unit was charged or anything...
Long story short I had an issue with relationships in general (same reason I was not for homosexuals in the military). Combat is tough enough, and there are enough ruffled feathers, without adding the pain of broken hearts and so on.
I had a buddy who helped me realize two things. First, that has to do with people being cruel (instead of the correct word i wish to use) to one another. She claimed rape for her own reasons and bad break ups would be on those individuals as well. Hopefully we can be respectful to one another about those types of situations and not let them degrade. And second, along the same note, there is a reason we have professional lives and personal lives. Keep them separate. The issues I had with one of the guys in my unit had no influence on the fact that I would have taken a bullet for him.
Long story short, i used to be against it, had my eyes opened, and now i am for anyone/ anything serving so long as they muster up.
The only problem i used to have with the issue is related to a situation we had on my second deployment where less than a month after my unit was in country an Army servicewoman claimed she had been raped. The 'site' was cordoned off, NCIS came in, etc. I'm not sure how it all turned out but I know that no one in my unit was charged or anything...
Long story short I had an issue with relationships in general (same reason I was not for homosexuals in the military). Combat is tough enough, and there are enough ruffled feathers, without adding the pain of broken hearts and so on.
I had a buddy who helped me realize two things. First, that has to do with people being cruel (instead of the correct word i wish to use) to one another. She claimed rape for her own reasons and bad break ups would be on those individuals as well. Hopefully we can be respectful to one another about those types of situations and not let them degrade. And second, along the same note, there is a reason we have professional lives and personal lives. Keep them separate. The issues I had with one of the guys in my unit had no influence on the fact that I would have taken a bullet for him.
Long story short, i used to be against it, had my eyes opened, and now i am for anyone/ anything serving so long as they muster up.
(2)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
Many men fail to meet the standards for Combats Arms MOSs...at that point the debate should stop. Let's be honest. If many men fail to meet the standard, even fewer women will. Every slot we give a woman is one less slot that a man would have had a higher chance to successfully graduate.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I say open all the positions to women, but don't for even a second lower the standards. I don't want some sub-par performer sharing a helicopter with me, so why would I feel comfortable with sub par of any other MOS? Male or female. If you cant meet the rigorous challenges of training, you have no right to be in that position. I think women will find their combat niche, but lets not confuse equality with entitlement.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google