Women in the Infantry?

SFC Josh Watson — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:29:11 -0500

I keep getting these surveys from the TRADOC Analysis Center wanting to know how I "feel" about Females joining combat arms positions, and jobs currently closed to them. Not so sure I believe the Army really cares how I "feel" about the topic and not sure it matters.

This has been an ongoing debate in a couple units I have been in and I'd like to hear something other than: "that's a ridiculous idea", "If they can hack it, let them" and "the sexual harassment/assault rate will go up". I'd like to hear from other branches and females as well. 

So, tell me, what's your take on it?

Note: Image added by RP Staff

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Nov 4 at 2013 1:25 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:25:33 -0500

I think we can look at how women in line combat units have worked for other countries to see what will work. I don't think that we should reduce standards to force equality, but we can look at countries like Israel to form a basis of how we should integrate women into combat roles, they don't have the luxury of giving people the option of not serving in the military but their decades of experience can be useful to us. The writing is already on the wall and regardless of how anyone feels about it, it is going to happen (we already have women on combat ships, women fighter pilots, and our recent experiences have shown us that no units are immune to combat). What we do need to do is make sure that we do bring women in ways that make sense and do not reduce effectiveness. With respect to my personal feelings I've never cared about he gender, orientation, religion or any other intangible of the people I served with, all I cared was that the people I served with were willing and capable of carrying out the mission (can't really say much about a combat role as my MOS was ground radio repair, and I served between wars). People make a big deal about addressing social issues through the military but there is a good chance that we can look and learn from the experiences of other countries in addressing those issues without having to reinvent the wheel and think it is something drastic and new.

Response by Sgt John Henry made Nov 4 at 2013 1:28 PM

Sgt John Henry — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:28:05 -0500

If they can hack it, let them join.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2013 1:48 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:48:53 -0500

My take on this position is simple. Every person deserves a
chance to succeed. If a female truly believes that she can endure the hardships
that come with the infantry MOS then by all means go for it. I too have heard
the "feelings" of other men and women who have no valid reasoning or
studies on whether women can stand to the challenge of infantry person instead
they piggy back off of an insane comment from someone else. Each time I hear
these comments I simply revisit the discussion on homosexual in the military.
These same statements were made before the destruction of DADT. People need to
open their eyes and learn to accept that there is no such thing as a "man’s
job", females around the military know that they must work harder and
longer just to get the minimum respect as any male Soldier would get. If you as
a Soldier cannot control yourself around the opposite sex in a work environment
then maybe you should seek other employment in a male oriented field outside of
the military.....oh wait there aren’t any.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2013 5:00 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:00:54 -0500

what i believe there should be women in the infantry but the only thing that would stand in the way is the sexual harassment issue, because with no disrespect its that when you have 30 men that have trained as infantrymen and never had females among the ranks your throwing fresh meat at a wolf because you have 30 men who have joked, and grab assed with each other and have moments of inappropriate stories of the opposite sex, on my belief to have for this is no females should not be among the ranks with infantry because of to many sexual harassment charges.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2013 9:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:49:24 -0500

I been in the infantry and to be honest seeing duds all the time gets really old, I do not have a problem with females in the Infantry, as long as NCO's do what they are supposed to then there should be no problem.

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Nov 29 at 2013 1:03 PM

PFC Stephen Eric Serati — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:03:24 -0500

My question is.How would the draft work,if we were to get in fight were we had to build up quickly?

Response by SFC Michael Boulanger made Nov 29 at 2013 1:36 PM

SFC Michael Boulanger — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:36:57 -0500

Not only the sexual harassment/assault rate will go up but also the unreported incidents as well. They, in most cases will be too afraid to tell someone and that will also create a variety of other problems.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 29 at 2013 1:44 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:44:10 -0500

This is a great article on the issue by a female marine officer. <div>http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal<br></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.mca-marines.org/files/Gazette_Web_Header_Centennial-120.png"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal">Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal | Marine Corps Gazette</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">The Marine Corps Association is the professional association for ALL Marines. The MCA publishes Leatherneck Magazine and the Marine Corps Gazette for the professional development and connectivity to ...</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 29 at 2013 1:45 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:45:26 -0500

7 Myths About Women in Combat<div><br></div><div><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><strong>Myth #1</strong> – <em>“It’s about women in combat.”</em></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">No, it’s not. Women are already in combat, and are serving well and professionally. The issue should be more clearly entitled, “Women in the infantry.” And this is a decidedly different proposition.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><strong>Myth #2</strong> – <em>“Combat has changed” (often accompanied by “There are no front lines anymore”).</em></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">This convenient misconception requires several counters. First, any serious study of military history will reveal numerous historical examples about how successive generations (over millennia) believed that warfare had changed forever, only to find that technology may change platforms, but not its harsh essence. To hope that conflicts over the last 20 years are models of a new, antiseptic form of warfare is delusional.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">The second point is that the enemy gets a vote – time, place, and style. For example, war on the Korean Peninsula would be a brutal, costly, no-holds-barred nightmare of mayhem in close combat with casualties in a week that could surpass the annual total of recent conflict.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">The final point on this myth reinforces the Korea example and it bears examination — Fallujah, <a href="http://topics.time.com/iraq/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Iraq</a> in 2004, where warfare was reduced to a horrific, costly, and exhausting scrap in a destroyed city between two foes that fought to the death.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">The standard for ground combat unit composition should be whether social experimentation would have amplified our opportunity for success in that crucible, or diminished it. We gamble with our future security when we set standards for warfare based on the best case, instead of the harshest one.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><strong>Myth #3</strong> –<em> “If they pass the physical standards, why not?”</em></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Physical standards are important, but not nearly all of the story. Napoleon – “The moral (spirit) is to the physical as three is to one.”</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Unit cohesion is the essence of combat power, and while it may be convenient to dismiss human nature for political expediency, the facts are that sexual dynamics will exist and can affect morale. That may be manageable in other environments, but not in close combat.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Any study of sexual harassment statistics in this age cohort – in the military, academia, or the civilian workplace — are evidence enough that despite best efforts to by sincere leaders to control the issue, human instincts remain strong. Perceptions of favoritism or harassment will be corrosive, and cohesion will be the victim.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><strong>Myth #4</strong> – <em>“Standards won’t be lowered.”</em></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">This is the cruelest myth of all. The statements of the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are telling.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">They essentially declare “guilty until proven innocent” on anyone attempting to maintain the standards which produced the finest fighting force in the world. There are already accommodations (note that unit cohesion won’t be a metric), there will be many more, and we will pay a bloody price for it someday.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Pity the truthful leader who attempts to hold to standards based on realistic combat factors, and tells truth to power. Most won’t, and the others won’t survive.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><strong>Myth #5</strong> – <em>“Opening the infantry will provide a better pathway to senior rank for the talented women.”</em></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Not so. What will happen is that we will take very talented females with unlimited potential and change their peer norm when we inject them into the infantry.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Those who might meet the infantry physical standard will find that their peers are expected, as leaders, to far exceed it (and most of their subordinates will, as well).</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">So instead of advancing to a level appropriate to their potential, they may well be left out.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><strong>Myth #6</strong> – <em>“It’s a civil rights issue, much like the integration of the armed forces and allowing gays to serve openly.”</em></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Those who parrot this either hope to scare honest and frank discussion, or confuse national security with utopian ideas.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">In the process, they demean initiatives that were to provide equally skilled individuals the opportunity to contribute equally. In each of the other issues, lowered standards were not the consequence.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><strong>Myth #7</strong> – <em>“It’s just fair.”</em></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Allow me two points.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">First, this is ground warfare we’re discussing, so realism is important.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">“Fair” is not part of the direct ground combat lexicon.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Direct ground combat, such as experienced in the frozen tundra of Korea, the rubble of Stalingrad, or the endless 30-day jungle patrols against a grim foe in Viet Nam, is the harshest meritocracy — with the greatest consequences — there is.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">And psychology in warfare is germane – the force that is respected (and, yes, feared) has a distinct advantage.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Will women in our infantry enhance a psychological advantage, or hinder it?</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Second, if it’s about fairness, why do women get a choice of whether to serve in the infantry (when men do not), and why aren’t they required to register for the draft (as men are)?</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">It may be that we live in a society in which honest discussion of this issue, relying on facts instead of volume, is not possible. If so, our national security will fall victim to hope instead of reality. And myths be damned.</p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><em>Gregory S. Newbold served 32 years as a Marine infantryman, commanding units from platoon to the 1st Marine Division. His final assignment before retiring in 2002 was as director of operations for the <a href="http://topics.time.com/pentagon/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Pentagon</a>’s Joint Staff.</em></p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br><br>Read more: <a href="http://nation.time.com/2013/03/14/seven-myths-about-women-in-combat/#ixzz2m3spc7Jr" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 153);">Seven Myths About “Women in Combat” | TIME.com</a> <a href="http://nation.time.com/2013/03/14/seven-myths-about-women-in-combat/#ixzz2m3spc7Jr" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 153);">http://nation.time.com/2013/03/14/seven-myths-about-women-in-combat/#ixzz2m3spc7Jr</a></span><br></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/120111-m-kw153-212.jpg?w=600"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://nation.time.com/2013/03/14/seven-myths-about-women-in-combat/">Seven Myths About “Women in Combat” | TIME.com</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">Myth #1 – “It’s about women in combat.” No, it’s not. Women are already in combat, and are serving well and professionally. The issue should be more clearly entitled, “Women in the infantry.” And this...</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 29 at 2013 1:52 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:52:23 -0500

We talk about just passing standards as being good enough but I submit that it's not. I've spent several years in the infantry and simply meeting the standards was not enough.

Scoring 180 on your APFT in the infantry will make your life very painful. In order to succeed in the infantry you have to consistently EXCEED the standards just to be average, let alone compete for promotions, etc.

It's not about just meeting the standard let alone lowering them as has been discussed.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2013 2:07 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:07:29 -0500

We can't ignore the physical differences. Biologically, men are just stronger than women. Do you trust a 100lb woman to pull a 200lb man in full gear off the battlefield? Let's set that aside-- say that she could. A man's instinct is to protect a woman. If she's next to him on the front line, do you think he's not going to end up taking unnecessary risks to protect her? You can say no, but its innate. Now forget about the battlefield for a moment. Let's pretent she's just as strong and capable and the instinct to protect doesn't exist. Think about everyday life in the barracks. Part of the infantry culture is not having to watch what we say-- cursing, vulgarity. It's kidney punches, gut checks, wall-to-wall counseling. As neathrathol as that all sounds, its the way infantrymen bond. Put a woman into the mix and you now have assault charges and are being accused of sexual harrassment. This has IG complaint written all over it. You can argue that in other MOSs and in the civilian world, men and women work alongside eachother just fine. I don't dispute that. But other MOSs and civilian jobs are NOT the infantry. Throw women into the mix and you change the entire dynamic of the infantry culture. I'm not saying women aren't good enough or aren't capable. I'm saying that all of this equality stuff is bull. When it comes down to it, in the very basic sense, men are better at some things, women are better at some things-- on every level (biologically, mentally, emotionally, etc). It doesn't mean one gender is better than the other. It means we're different- and we should stop trying to pretend we are the same. 

Response by SPC Gary Basom made Nov 29 at 2013 6:34 PM

SPC Gary Basom — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:34:58 -0500

With all due respect to the subject. There are a lot of countries that have females in their combat arms branches, including infantry. The best thing is to talk to the Israelis.

To me they must be able to hold their own and perform their duty the same as the men. They must understand they are prone to rape, abuse and manipulation by an enemy if captured, they become a liability if any male who was captured with her, because they will sacrifice their lives to just protect her from such crimes,I believe there may be possible psychological issues with her just as men have in combat. I am of the old school of soldiering and hope it offends no one.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2013 7:16 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:16:45 -0500

As an MP officer I have worked with many outstanding Females that I know would meet any standard the Infantry could require. I don't want to water down the infantry by having another standard for females. Integrating females in to the Infantry can be done in 2 steps:

1. Make one standard all infantry Soldiers must meet.

2. Ensure "has a penis" is not one of the requirements.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2013 10:03 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 22:03:05 -0500

I am notorious for my support for females in combat arms.

However, I must say that there must be prescreen that needs to start ahead of shipping out from MEPS.

The Marines just received a lot of notoriety and publicity for having 3 females graduate their School of Infantry (not MCT). A fourth one was medically rolled back a class. There were approximately 20 females started with this course. That is a 80% failure rate!

We just can not afford for only 20% to pass. From a personnel and budgetary POV, that would be unacceptable.

I am not trying to advocate against females in Infantry or Combat Arms. I just think that we need to ensure a greater than 20% pass rate. This is NOT by lowering the standards, but finding qualified candidates....not just those who want to pioneer a new way ahead for females. Frankly, I do not see room for crusaders, but plenty of room for those who want to work and have the fire to meet the standards and work to become great leaders.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2013 7:29 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:29:00 -0500

I support it SPC. If she can pass all the same requirements, good for her. I feel the same about the schools also.

Response by LTC Jason Bartlett made Dec 15 at 2013 7:57 PM

LTC Jason Bartlett — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:57:08 -0500

This topic was beat to death in this forum earlier check it out and you can read all the responses you want.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Dec 15 at 2013 8:40 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:40:06 -0500

Oh no you didn't start this conversation all over! You about to get some corrective training there young buck.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2013 7:52 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:52:50 -0500

It'll seem like a good idea to me as soon as the Bruins start actively recruiting women.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2013 8:22 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:22:41 -0500

Lets just leave this subject, I mean it is what it is.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2013 8:49 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:49:10 -0500

I will admit that I am on the fence about this.

As an Engineer, I have seen some Sapper qualified females who were beyond the capability of meeting almost any standard. They were freakin' amazing Soldiers. Conversely, I have seen many who could not meet the standard. The exact same thing could be said for males.

Normally, I would have said that if they meet the same standard, then I have no problems with it. However, the USMC sent 20 females through SOI as 0311. 3 graduated on time, 1 was medically rolled to another class, and 80% failed. This has shifted my opinion just a bit. I feel that there must be a vetting process prior to accessions. If you assumed that 20% of an Infantry OSUT Company may be female, to have 80% of them fail would have a negative affect on assignments and strength. It could create major issues. So far, we only have one study to utilize for numbers so we can not assume that 80% would be the standard for failure....but I do think that it shows that we must be aware of the potential for such high numbers of failures and develop some vetting process prior to accessions.

The other issue I see is how to inject female leadership at all ranks that will be competent. Learning basic Infantry tasks can be more complex than many give it credit for. To become an expert and a leader at this while coming from a support MOS (since they could not pull female 19D's, 12B's, 13F's, etc...because they don't exist) would be a challenge for anyone. This is where we may have an even larger issue. Just getting competent, well-trained, Infantry-vetted, female leadership in the ranks would need to be addressed as well. I am not certain that reclass and NCOES could accomplish this task. I would not want to transfer into an Infantry Company as a Squad Leader or PSG if I did not have the experience to back it up.

Response by SFC Josh Watson made Dec 17 at 2013 10:34 AM

SFC Josh Watson — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:34:18 -0500

Where did the idea of females in an Infantry unit come from? What I'm asking is who came up with it? Was it a band of hardcore women's rights activists or a few female service members? Or maybe in the midst of all the SHARP issues we are having, someone at the top said "you know what, I think we should let females join combat MOS's, that'll fix things". Where did it all start and why did it happen? Does anybody know? I posted this question a while back about how it will affect Infantry units, but now I want to know what or who seeded this action and why it seemed like such a great idea. People say "Look at Israel and their Army", I say go ahead, look at it and what? That's comparing apples to oranges. Those countries that allow females to fight in combat units are also the ones who have been persecuted and threatened by neighbors for thousands of years. Those countries had no choice and it was bred into its citizens. Our society isn't threatened by anyone outside of our boarders to an extent that women should have to fight or even have the option to do so. There are enough able bodied men that can do it. We need to stop the "everyone gets a trophy", "well it might hurt someone's feelings if we do/don't do it" attitude that is plaguing our society.

Response by SPC David Wyckoff made Dec 17 at 2013 1:12 PM

SPC David Wyckoff — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:12:43 -0500

Read the OP and read through the comments and a question came to mind. What about an all female Infantry unit?
Seems that the biggest hurdle when trying to integrate female soldiers into Combat Arms is their interaction with males and the possible consequences such as assualt/sexual assault/pregnancy and the non-traditional work/training environment that First Sergeant C. pointed out. But what if the standards were the same? What if the unit was all female? Female NCO's, female Officers, female grunts.

I wasn't Infantry so I don't know how you would integrate that unit with male units in a battlefield assessment. Just throwing it out there to see what others think.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2013 1:21 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 01:21:25 -0500

Some but there are other issues as well and not because one meets the demands does not mean the average lady can.

Response by PO2 Pete Haga made Dec 22 at 2013 1:58 AM

PO2 Pete Haga — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 01:58:40 -0500

I wont say it wont happen but I will say it shouldn't happen nothing against female armed forces personnel but these jobs require a special type of person and I don't think females could do what needs to be done in some instances.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2014 2:40 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 14:40:59 -0500

I believe it will happen very quickly. Inevitable based on our society.

Response by SFC James Baber made Jan 11 at 2014 10:47 PM

SFC James Baber — Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:47:39 -0500

I think this is a good thread for those we are trying to get to join can see the substance of some things we discuss between us as current and former military, soft spoken as well as informational and mentoring types of postings.

We also have fun at times while remaining professional.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 12:21 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:21:02 -0500

I absolutely do not think women should be in the infantry the Army is already getting soft. It will happen, but what am I supposed to do other than brace for the incoming.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 12:37 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:37:08 -0500

As a career infantryman I absolutely say yes! Odd right? Over the course of the last decade how we as infantrymen fight has drastically changed to fit the missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan and will continue to focus on environments where we are engaging pockets of enemy resistance instead of an Army like the Iron Curtain. If a woman feels she is better fitted to volunteer to serve in the infantry then let her. I know, the physiological argument of them being weaker but are our infantryman anymore fit then the average woman. I know many men that struggle with fireman carrying their battle buddy and have met women that can carry more weight in their rucks for longer distances. I am not saying they need to have Airborne Ranger contracts, I am just saying that yes they could serve in any regular infantry unit just as easily as any of the new Privates we are getting today. I think if the Army wants to really asses if this is an option they need to set up a COED infantry company and test the theory out to its fullest before saying yes women can serve in infantry or combat arms units.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jan 19 at 2014 12:43 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:15 -0500

It will take a lot longer, if at all. You have to remember, the Marines are recruiting much higher quality candidates than we are, and their training is far more intensive. They are a smaller branch, so they can afford to do that. So the Average female Marine is going to generally be a superior specimen to your average female Soldier (sigh.. I know, here come the HEAT rounds). Will there be exceptions or deviations from the norms in both groups? Sure, but I am discussing averages.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 1:09 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:09:58 -0500

Honestly, it doesn't matter and is just for publicity. The real test comes in the operational Army.

tl;dr - Passing a male APFT at 60/60/60 or better, shooting 23/40 or better, and meeting all other MOS-Q standards does not a successful infantryman/woman make.

AIT/OSUT doesn't count: I don't think that anyone honestly questions if -any- women can meet the MOS-Q requirements for the infantry. Even the USMC pullup standard of 3 or better is within the realm of the possible. The institutional standard for qualifying in any of the combat arms branches is achievable for the average male that meets recruitment criteria and so it can be reasonably assumed that some of the women who meet recruitment criteria can meet that standard as well.

The female Marines who went through SOI were then sent to further training and will serve in something other than an infantry position. Why? Because the actual, operational military doesn't currently have an active plan for coed combat arms units.

The actual test of females in combat arms will occur once we are enlisting them from the general population in large numbers and are utilizing them in the regular units they'd be assigned to. The question of physical & psychological performance, cultural integration, and operational readiness as it relates to a coed environment and women in specific will be answered outside of a controlled institutional environment.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 1:51 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:51:43 -0500

SFC Baber, according to the surveys we females were asked to complete, I have a feeling it'll happen within two years or so.

The survey asked if I think females should be in combat MOSs. (For the record, I always answered "No".) It then went on to ask if I would benefit from a pre-OSUT physical training program, what length the course should be, and some other things. I've responded to all surveys given to me, and I think there were about 3 of them.

So I have a feeling there will be extra training given to females who want to be grunts, and if such a program gets implemented this year, it won't be long before a few females graduate OSUT. I give it 2 years, tops.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2014 11:48 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:48:34 -0400

As a fellow Infantryman I can personally care less if they allow women into the infantry. As long as they can perform there job. The issues I do have with it will they get pregnant to get out of going to the field or deployments. Also the amounts of sexual assaults will raise due to this. The marines have already had some success with women passing there infantry school. Had female searchers attached to us in Afghanistan they slowed down are operations at times having to conduct patrols to send them back to conduct personnel hygiene. Will males now be allowed to leave the field mid way through to get a warm shower if the move on with this issue. gone weeks with out showering in Afghanistan only to use a bottle of water and a rag or baby wipes can females do the same thing. I haven't personally seen one be able to go that same time.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 5:43 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 05:43:11 -0400

Do I think that the average female is going to be physically capable of performing to the male infantry standard, much less excel beyond the standard? No. Do I think that any female that has a desire to try should be given a chance like any male? Absolutely. <br><br>Most will fail, but the few that make it should have the ability to serve in my opinion.<br>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 3:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:32:31 -0400

I have a question...what exact standards are you speaking of? PT?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 8:04 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:04:58 -0400

I am of the opinion that most females can not cut it in the Infantry.  I definitely think some can, but I think the majority could not.  Due to this, I think it becomes a question of investment.  Is it worth the money that would be spent, in an decreasing budget, to push this issue?<br><br>However, there is one point that I continually see that drives me crazy.  I really hate when people say that women can't be in the Infantry because it will cause sexual harassment issues and the men won't be able to control themselves.  I think that is crap.  If a man can't respect a fellow soldier and keep his hands and other body parts to himself, he doesn't need to be in the military in general, much less the infantry.  <br>

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 11:41 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:41:31 -0400

As long as they can keep up with everything the guys have to do (PT, rucking, shooting, communicating, etc etc) then they are fine. <div>And yes, there will be a pretty significant amount of Soldiers kicked out or punished for EO and/or SHARP issues.</div>

Response by SGT James Elphick made Mar 21 at 2014 12:56 AM

SGT James Elphick — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:56:54 -0400

Why don't we just have separate female infantry units? That seems to me like it would solve all the problems

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Mar 21 at 2014 8:57 PM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 20:57:43 -0400

I have seen a lot of discussion in this entire thread that sounded a lot like the stuff the I read about when When President Truman first integrated the Armed Forces. Back then everyone "knew" darkies could never be used for anything more that servant roles in the Navy and they were regulated to being Cooks and Stewards.

I have even seen people suggest separate units for women. Guess what, Navy people also came up with this brilliant idea as early as the late 1980s and early 1990s. Of course back the there were not enough women in the Navy with Sea Duty experience to make this feasible, but I think that was part of the plan. Put the women into a ship that was designed to fail and then say, "Here is the proof that women cannot do it." So, how many women have the experience needed to forma a Combat Infantry Unit in the Army?

Yes, WAVES served in the Navy, but we all "knew" they did not have the physiologically to actually serve at sea. Their bodies could not stand the constant rocking and rolling on ships, especially small ships like destroyers and submarines. The worst thing of course would be that rough tough male sailors would go wild if women were on ships. Rape and orgies would be commonplace and the navy would go to hell.

In spite of what naysayers predicted, African Americans have served in every rating. It is even rumored that some have become officers and Admirals. Women have also proven that they can serve in all areas of the Navy. If there is a job to be done, they do it. Women are serving on all types of ships and submarines are close to being next. Seals, probably, but not at all like that idiot GI Jane movie.

Infantry? Is the United States Army not as good and effective as the tiny Army of Israel? Look there and take a lesson. Many other countries have fully integrated their armed forces, we should be able to do the same.

Response by SGT George Peterson made Apr 6 at 2014 8:19 AM

SGT George Peterson — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:19:48 -0400

Yes I have seen a lot of tough females in my 18 years in the Army, most of them hard charging , Medics that had 300 plus pt a Scores. And I have seen a lot of worthless men too. So I do believe that women can make cut just as men can.

Response by SGT Isaac Woods made May 26 at 2014 2:00 PM

SGT Isaac Woods — Mon, 26 May 2014 14:00:21 -0400

what i think goes along with what you think if they can hack it let them in. the sexual harassment/assault it may go up but it takes a bigger man or woman to address the situation than it does to ignore.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 9:09 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 21:09:22 -0400

This is a great topic SFC Watson. I had a unique job while in the military, I was a Chaplain Assistant, I say unique because I deployed with a Combat Engineer unit and the guys would allow me to do Route Clearance missions with them. I know combat and I know how to survive it. I was taught a lot while out with them but I will tell you its not something I would want to do as a MOS. Do i think females should be allowed to be 11B? Yes and no....if they can handle it i think they should be allowed to. I think it raises a big question of safety. When in contact my guys tended to gravitate toward me, HAHA I thought it was because I was a good shot :) but i think it was more for my safety, was it cause I was a Chaplain Assistant or a female? Not sure.

Response by SPC Daniel Edwards made Jul 15 at 2014 10:24 PM

SPC Daniel Edwards — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:24:44 -0400

being a former artilleryman, I understand why people are upset of the idea. Think about this: while out in the field, the females are going to need an secluded area to change, won't they?

I personally don't care one way or the other. I have seen female MP's role out the gate during deployment and there was no problem. I have seen a female in that unit probably 5'5" or shorter weighing a little over 100 lbs man-handle a fully assembled (barrel and all) .50 M2 into the back of a MaxxPro by herself like it was a Barretta M9 (spelling?) all the way up to the top. But at the same time, I have seen cases of women having affairs all over the place. It really comes down to being one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of deals.

Response by CSM Christopher Irwin made Jul 17 at 2014 5:55 AM

CSM Christopher Irwin — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:55:01 -0400

From a basal-level.....yes they can and have been for some time. They've stood side by side our male Soldiers for decades and performed as well (sometimes better, sometimes worse) as their male counterparts. My fear in the current trend is that we're going to feel a ripple in the water when they finally open the MOSs. Combat units are fraternities, let's face it. All male units act VERY differently than units with both sexes.

I worry not about the physiological probabilities that women can serve because we all know they can. Rather, I worry about the environment of the Soldiers and the espirit de corps and how it will be impacted (at least initially) when the ladies come. The boys' club dynamic will have to change at least initially until the "butt-sniffing" stages are through and the women prove they are truly part of the team.

Historically, strength has little to do with whether a Soldier belongs in a unit. Rather, its how they fit in and more important, how they interact with their peers to form the whole of a good team. I've deployed with women many times in my career and quite frankly ran in to very FEW that cared about squatting next to me to pee while I stood to do the same.

So long as leadership - Here is the biggest trouble-spot not mentioned - don't over-react to females in their unit, thereby making them feel uncomfortable while intending to do the exact opposite. As long as there is very little by way of briefings and every attempt is made NOT to treat them differently, the all male units will be fine given time.

I concur that they will never dominate the combat arms jobs. Women don't get their jollies off ripping the wings off flies and causing others physical harm (generally) but are very capable of doing so. Ergo, they will never dominate these types of units.

I just hope our highers up are doing this for the right reason and not to cater to a simple minority in hopes to gain a few people's laudatory praise.

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Jul 17 at 2014 6:25 AM

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 06:25:30 -0400

I don't care what gender a Soldier is so long as they can do their job. If a woman is capable of meeting the standards for an MOS, they should be allowed into it. I know plenty of women who would have been great infantry(persons?), but weren't allowed to because of their gender. For us, it's a cultural thing... it needs to die though, women should register for the Selective Service just like men have to do and they should be afforded the same opportunities men have. Plain and simple.

Here's a question: What is one job a man can do that a woman can't?

My only answer is King.... but a Queen is the equivalent so that doesn't work...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 20 at 2014 12:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:14:46 -0400

During OEF XI-XII, I was asked to select three female medics for a Long term mission. Two months later, That unit gave two of them back on the count that those two female Soldiers (per their request) could not keep up. They would not give back the one that withstood the harsh grueling tasks that comes from such mission. Upon their return, I ask what happened, they both agreed it was extremely physical and could not keep up. Bottom line, let the female Soldiers decide what they want to do. If they can stand it let them embrace the suck like every Soldier does.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Sep 2 at 2014 10:45 AM

SGT Richard H. — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:45:01 -0400

I have no problem with women in the Infantry, as long as the Infantry doesn't adopt a second set of standards for performance. Case in point, in PLDC, I had a woman (MP) in my platoon (PLDC (WLC) wasn't MOS specific in those days). She could navigate, march, and shoot with the best of them. I'd fight beside her any day. Truth be told, we're still friends today, 20+ years later.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 9 at 2014 4:06 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:06:56 -0400

SFC Josh Watson As a grunt, in my wildest dreams I never considered females as able to be grunts because that was the way it always was. My blinders were "pre-installed" because it has been that way for centuries. Then again, in the past blacks are inferior to whites. Gays are morally corrupt. Women can't (weren't allowed) fly fighter aircraft and attack helicopters. We can go on and on. In the past, the Secretary of War was given report after report from Generals echelons above reality of why some people are inferior to others. I hope that these modern surveys are elicited to get feedback from all across the board. Please fill them out any time you get one and answer from your heart. You might have that bit of input and wisdom that was a critical piece in a complex puzzle. Out Front! Mark

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2014 4:34 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:34:54 -0400

My two cents, there are women out there that can perform physically in the Infantry, probably better than some of the men doing the job. However as stated already no gender standards etc. However ponder this scenario. You're at a Platoon/Company sized FOB/COP. There are a handful of females in your Platoon. For arguments sake lets say that Female Soldier A is dating Male Soldier B in either thier Platoon and they have a falling out. Female Soldier A starts dating Male Soldier C in same Platoon. How do you think this is going to play out for the cohesiveness of the unit?
I understand that this won't be a problem with every Female in the Infantry, but in my experience if it can happen, it will happen. You can counsel, give Female Soldiers Battle Buddies, give them Orders from the PL etc. However Soldiers are going to do what the hell they want at the end of the day because lets face it, they feel that they will be the ONE out of all to not get caught doing something they're not supposed to.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2014 10:05 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Dec 2014 22:05:07 -0500

SPC Private RallyPoint Member If they are physically able to pick up, drag, carry to safety their left or right and are able to sustain themselves in the field, it's worth a try. Check out the feamel Kurdish fighters.

One of the risks is getting male soldiers to overcome the instinctive will to come to a female's aid when anything goes wrong. Right or wrong it's a reality and would need to be addressed in training.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2014 3:56 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:56:49 -0500

I agree that if they can handle the rigors of the job let them go. But we have a problem with sexual harassment/assault that we need to get a handle on first before we try to implement this.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 4:22 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:22:09 -0500

I say if they do that there better be a limited few that actually attempt it as the 11B world is like no other. Its fierce and dirty along with unforgiving. They better be able to carry their own weight plus their battle buddies weight. Hopefully a female in a unit compromised of nearly 100% males does not compromise the mission or focus on the mission. Good luck.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Feb 4 at 2015 12:24 PM

SGT James Elphick — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 12:24:10 -0500

I think everyone sees this issue in black and white but in reality it is a grey area. It is a grey area because no one is sure how to implement it. Women are coming to the infantry, that's pretty much a fact at this point. We know they have done well in combat, we know there are some who can hack it. The real question is what is going to be the best method of implementation? To me that is standing up female only units at first, then transitioning them to co-ed as the unit grows and the number of females in the infantry increases.

I think this will work and quell most of the unrest about the issue for several reasons. First, with an all female unit they will build the "sisterhood" that is important to the infantry. Also, there are not going to be any (or very few) high ranking female infantry leaders so this would give them time to develop and progress in the field on learn best practices for infantrywomen. This also alleviates the issues of "strength" that everyone is concerned about.

Second, ensure that each type of combat arms is represented in the initial units (light, Stryker, Mech., Armor, Artillery, etc.) and as those units grow create a battalion of each type. I think the co-ed units should be limited to a battalion for a few reasons. A battalion seems to be the combat unit of choice when it comes to deployments, AO's, etc. Also, a battalion commander is pretty much the pinnacle of infantry command, everything after that is pretty much a staff command. This will allow for the progression of female officers into the higher ranks of command. Battalions also are usually grouped together for housing and activities. This would allow a greater number of females to be in the same unit and provide for better cohesion. If the females are simply scattered across all combat arms units it will be very difficult for them.

Finally, as to the issues of fraternization, that starts with command and unfortunately military command has not done so well in the fraternization/harassment arena as of late. If the chain of command can handle it, so can their soldiers.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2015 2:09 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:09:26 -0400

Why not? Yes there are unique challenges associated with this both for the unit and for the member. The military is a professional organization and will adapt. If the member is made aware of the personal challenges they will face both physically and mentally and still wants to proceed, then why does it matter rather they are male or female?

Unfortunately sexual assault/harassment are factors. Deal with them as they come up by giving a dishonorable discharge to the offenders. Why punish someone who wants to fight defending their country due to the possibility of a few morons who have no discipline and do not belong there anyway?

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Mar 18 at 2015 1:25 PM

PFC Stephen Eric Serati — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:25:34 -0400

The YPG Female Fighters seem to be doing just fine.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 3:00 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 03:00:02 -0400

Women in Combat Arms/Contact Sports; Serious Questions For Army Leadership:
02 February, 2015

  As Super Bowl, XLIX settles into the record books, what contemporary lessons might be applicable to those in leadership within the combat arms branches, and for the Infantry specifically to reflect on, in the highly politicized and fiscally constrained atmosphere that the U.S. Army finds itself in today. I first pondered the pending sociological/physiological dilemma for the Infantry Branch while reading an article in the Army Times three years ago (HEADLINE: “The New Rules On Women In Combat” 04 Feb. 2013).

Of course, as a former  Infantryman (MOS 11B), the front page caught my attention, as I’m  sure it was meant to. This article came out not long after the former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, made his “infinitely wise” and timely (on his way out) decision to open up “all” combat positions to women, across the entirety of the U.S. Armed Forces. This proclamation was imposed on those in the highest positions of leadership, whether the civilian armed service secretaries, the Joint Chiefs, or down to my fellow rank and file NCOs. We were to implement this new policy, or come up with reasons why it could not be done feasibly, by FY 2016.

The question I pose here is whether professional sports have any bearing on this issue? For those who have served in the Armed Forces, the comparisons between the profession of arms and professional sports are obvious. The soldier/marine, and or “special operator” must keep him or herself in a high state of physical readiness, and at all times, for when the proverbial “balloon goes up.” However in professional sports, there is one glaring difference. Men and women’s events are gender exclusive!

No sport makes this as obvious as professional football. We might have a Women’s National Basketball Association, and all female semi-pro softball, or pro-soccer, but a female football team (despite ill fated attempts) seems to be all but laughable, conjuring up misogynist scenes of cheerleaders in lingerie and shoulder pads. But American Football, that’s serious business, that’s a “man’s sport!”
I then thought to myself, why do we now, not  take the defense of this country (as it relates to the “Combat  Arms”), as “serious” as we do professional football?! Why is it  permissible, and even reasonable to exclude women from one  institution and not from another? Is it merely tradition, unfounded discrimination,  the “physicality” of so-called “contact” sports, pure unmitigated sexism, or just a lost sense of perspective or proportion?

Should the “combat arms” be considered a “contact sport” after all?” This, not just due to the prospect of “closing” with the enemy hand to hand, but even in garrison, now more than ever, as mixed martial arts (MMA) are the current template for combatives training! Even the Octagon has yet to sink so low as to allow coed MMA (it’s coming though, to be sure, if only for the shock factor, and profit motive)

Women serving in our armed forces are also serious business. Like their “brothers in arms,” they must keep themselves physically fit, and train regularly as athletes, ready for the physical demands potentially placed upon them, when deployed into a combat zone. However the difference is that they will be faced with a predominantly male enemy!

Why are professional women in sports given a special dispensation, in deference to their differing physiology, so as not to be confronted with male opponents? Our “sisters in arms” are not to be shown similar consideration? Is it a class distinction, or outright sexism that makes provision in the public consciousness, and the public space, for such a glaring difference between the high society of “proper” professional female athletes, and women in the military, soon to be faced with the prospects of direct combat, serving in the Infantry or the other combat arms (Armor, and Artillery)

 The policy makers are quite serious about pushing “willing” women into these rolls. The two most recent and obvious examples/experiments, evidently designed to sanction, if not validate this concept, was the recent class of the United States Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer’s Course (IOC), and now the premier combat arms professional development course in the U.S. Army, namely Ranger School (the first class with female students/observers now underway, at the time of this writing).

They say common sense is not so common anymore.  Perhaps everything we do or say now is based on political  expediency. This is especially obvious as it is the  politicians making these decisions (almost always, with no experience  in the field), that we in positions of responsibility are expected  to implement and enforce (despite what may be our personal opinions, and the better judgment of those with relevant  experience).

After all, we must by necessity, ask if this new policy strengthens, or even enhances our  capabilities in a time of increasing threats, and instability across  the globe. The obvious and unquestionable applicability and effectiveness of “Female Engagement Teams” aside, are we just returning to another perceived period of  “peace-time mentality,” when we can afford to cut our defenses, and  conduct social engineering experiments? Not if the actions of ISIL/ISIS have a say in the matter!

As an Army health care professional and National Registry Emergency Medical Technician, and in  this era of data and information saturation, I am compelled to ask,  “where’s the science” in this decision? What studies have been  conducted and where is the empirical data supporting the new  policy? So far one experiment, the Marine’s IOC, has been telling. We have yet to see if the women in Ranger School will be so challenged, and fare as well.

What Army leaders need to ask, at a minimum, is how this  new policy is going to affect our sisters in the service,  especially among the enlisted ranks. We hear from many in the  officer ranks who believe that not being in the combat arms, and in a command billet,  is a sort of “glass ceiling,” an impediment to their advancement.  In reality, promotion rates for women in the military are now in fact, comparable if not better than their male counterparts.

However, it will be the (up to now, mostly voiceless) women in  the enlisted ranks that will endure the greater burdens, the new  levels of austerity, lack of hygiene, or privacy as required at the  small unit (Platoon/Squad/Section/Fire Team) level, in the field. Those individuals potentially faced with this prospect, who  have spoken out in opposition, such as Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Duff,  have been for the most part, ignored.   

The US Army’s Physical Training manual, (FM 21-20, 1992 Edition)  had an appendix in the back describing the “physiological  differences” between male and female soldiers. It was to be used  as a leader’s guide to effectively plan physical training, manage expectations and maximize outcomes.  It were these very differences between males and females that we were told,   justified the different scoring standards for male and female soldiers  respectively, on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).

“Appendix A,” went into detail describing biological and  physiological factors for female soldiers such as, their average smaller  frame size having an effect on workload capacity, fat distribution and  accumulation points anatomically, resulting in what amounts to greater  drag to weight ratios. Bones being less dense (an added musculoskeletal  injury factor for women on active “jump status” for example), wider pelvic  structure, smaller heart size and lung capacity, limiting overall physical efficiency  and endurance, relative to training. There were circulation issues, response  to heat, and pregnancy considerations as well. Women having up to 50%  less total muscle mass by weight, are thus limited to at best, 80% of  overall strength conditioning potential as compared with their male coleagues.

To quote the  manual, “men usually have an advantage in strength, speed and power  over women.” These facts were not meant to in any way disparage women  soldiers but rather to allow for realistic "train the trainer" goals and objectives (will our potential enemies “play fair,” and only allow their women to fight ours?).   

What the manual does not mention however, as a concern in combat,  is that with up to a liter, less total blood volume, and coupled with an elevated  heart rate, a seriously injured woman would also be at risk of bleeding  out faster on the battlefield. Knowing this, and the unavoidably inherent  protective instinct that “real” men are supposed to have for women  (that is, if we are still teaching that to our boys anymore, as they punch, kick and hack away at female video game opponents), might be a  determining factor in whether or not, you give life saving aid to her, or your mission  essential patrol leader, likewise injured (then again, I suppose we'll  just have to suppress that instinct). It might surprise you to  know (or not) that this appendix has since been omitted,  and no longer appears in the most recent version (TC-22.20, Aug 2010).

  Regardless of whether or not a woman could do the job, the question  is, should she have to? This does sound cold and callous, but facts are  facts. These are hard economic times, especially on the DOD. Given the pending budget limitations for finite training  dollars, one might also logically ask, why spend that same training dollar and get a less  efficient “product” for the combat arms? If we were talking about  professional football, these factors, even choosing among the male "players," would be obvious.  Army leaders have much tougher decisions to make than football team owners/managers;  because lives are literally "on the line." For instance, ball players are not expected  to pull each other off the field when injured (much less with the  heavier equipment, and body armor of a soldier, I might add). What should be  obvious is that these factors ought to be all the more  significant, in the combat arms.  

 Some might argue that physical strength is no longer a factor  because we are riding around into combat now, in up-armored  vehicles. That does not preclude a future (or present) conflict from not being fought  that way exclusively, if at all. And, in the all too often absence of rotor -wing support, ground combat as in times past, would require extremely  long distance foot movements, “forced marches” if you will (with no  time to “pop a squat”), slogging through some jungle hell somewhere, or  in the frigid mountains (as in Afghanistan today) for days if not weeks at a  time, with little to no rest, privacy or personal hygiene.

  Since when has being in the combat arms become a “right” all of a sudden? There are many physical standards which might prevent one from being in the military, much less the combat arms. These standards typically include, but are not limited to, visual acuity, height, weight, and physical disability. These standards may be “discriminatory” by definition, but they are not prejudiced in their motivation or intention. To serve in any particular branch of the Army is not based on “rights,” but rather on the “needs of the Army,” and that in this case, most dramatically!

At the end of the cold war, there was a common misperception of  future wars being fought “at the push of a button.” Well, war has a  funny way of being unpredictable, as to where, when, how, and the  conditions and resourses one might expect to have once there. Is anyone at the highest levels of Army leadership being proactive enough  about this policy to ask what the second and third order of effects  might be, the unintended consequences, or the ripple effect into  the greater American society?   The politicians aren’t going to ask the hard questions; that is our responsibility as Army leaders.

Another consideration is the classic “two theaters of operations simultaneously” conflict scenario, or a “super power” conflagration that has justified the continued  registration for the draft. This is now the proverbial “elephant in  the room!” A conflict of this magnitude has always theoretically  required a rapid expansion of “man power” to meet the threat. It  would also require the bulk of personnel resources (at least  initially), be channeled into the combat arms. Will this remain a  “freedom of choice” issue for women only (reference the, “They should be allowed to, if they ‘want’ to,” egalitarian argument)? Would that not be a  sexist policy by design? And, If they’re going to start registering our  daughters for the draft, out of “fairness,” the public ought to demand that it had better not be, before every congressman’s son, and  every professional ball playing athlete/entertainer, is a part of the “big  green machine!”   

As an anthropological issue, how does this affect our young men in the American society/culture at large? Around the world most indigenous cultures have  initiation rights (or "rights of passage") into “manhood.” The only  one still left (besides football and the Infantry) in the U.S. apparently, for young men (that sets them apart, as anything  different or special), is registration for the draft. As we continue to  devalue any special contribution that men in general, and young  men in particular can make in today’s society, as men; should  we be surprised with a corresponding rise in the numbers of young  urban males looking for “manhood” in a youth gang?!

  I couldn’t help but find it ironic that in the President’s 2013 State of  the Union message, after having just touted the merits of having  previously passed the “Violence Against Women Act,” that mere minutes later he  virtually said that it was time our women faced “combat!” That is  to say, it’s time we pushed our women out in front, and closer to the  enemy (not his daughters of course), granting them in the process,  the greater likelihood, or “equal opportunity” one could say, of being  captured as well! One might ask Jessica Lynch about her  experiences, and whether or not that should be considered “violence  against women!” Although supportive of this dubious agenda, BG Rhonda Cornum,  is usually rather “close hold,” and even dismissive, about her  similar experiences in captivity.

Can we really justify this added  specter of trauma that future female combatants would have to  endure? And would their suffering at the hand of their captors (torture being back in vogue, these days)  place unnecessary pressure on their fellow male prisoners “to talk,”  thus inviting the added potential for mission compromise! Oh, and by the way, they won’t be using the GITMO or CIA Interrogation handbooks; they’ll do it the “old fashioned” way, where you may not come out intact, physically or mentally, if at all.

The Israelis discovered that during their 1948 War for Independence, that Arab units facing co-ed IDF units, were incited to greater “acts of valor!” As it turned out, they fought harder as if being insulted, and trying to save face. Thus they had given their enemy an unintended boost to their fighting morale! The IDF has been reluctant to put their “women in combat,” ever since. I guess it’s a good thing we’re winding down in the A-stan. We shouldn’t have to face another enemy in the Islamic world any time soon, right?

  There are seemingly few issues upon which military leaders place  emphasis and priority on today, as is the prevention of sexual assault.  It begs the question that since the dissolution, and disbanding of the Woman’s Army Corp  in the '70s, has moving military women into a closer working/living proximity  to their male counterparts resulted in more, or less instances of sexual  assault statistically? This, despite all the mandatory training to the contrary,  designed to curtail it; will putting women into the combat arms  improve these statistics, or just the opposite?

  The previous Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps was allegedly prepared to “fall on his  sword” over this issue, in order to save his Women Marines the  indignity of serving as Infantry (MOS 0311). That is what I would call  ”moral courage” on behalf of, and in the best interests of his people. One wonders if that was a factor in his having been replaced. The mission of the US Army’s Infantry is identical,  namely to close with and engage the enemy directly, and in hand to hand combat as  necessary.

Is putting our women in direct combat really an accomplishment  to be applauded in a State of the Union address, is it truly an act of women’s  ”liberation,” and equal opportunity? Or, is it the ultimate act of disrespect,  in effect devaluing our mothers, sisters and daughters,  bringing them "down," for all intents and purposes, to our level?!    I thought we were better than that as a culture, alas no more.

Of course, this may be intentional, as there are those on the extreme left side of the political spectrum that may intend for this scenario to sap the will to fight, from the American citizenry, as the see their sisters, daughters, wives, and mothers come back “closed casket” with “members missing” stamped on the top. At that point the public may just be willing to accept “peace at any price.”

What else are we trying to prove with this policy in the end?  That we can tolerate women being killed and maimed with impunity , along side our men (why, it's just like in the video games, right?). Is this really a “progressive” sign for our society/civilization?  Haven't we already seen enough of that with OIF/OEF? It is as if it’s not bad enough that we have more than enough men suffering that fate, that we must  continue getting “used to” or “desensitized” to seeing our women as double, triple, or  quadruple amputees in our veteran's parades. No disrespect intended, but that certainly sounds fair  to me (or fair at least in the eyes of the policy makers). Obviously there is no sacrifice too great for equal opportunity, in this case.   

When we honor these aforementioned heroic female veterans (one has only to see such a  self sacrificial sister once, as it makes a lasting impression), is it merely the fault of the terrorist, or should the so-called "women's movement"  be willing to accept part of the blame, having put her there in that position, in the first place.

In conclusion, the issue is not “could she,” but “should she!” Does “she” really “need” to be there? Or is this merely, as I would contend, the ultimate act of  Political Correctness, to the inevitable detriment of our sisters in uniform.  Obviously the “needs of the Army” are not relevant to the argument. After all, where is the “honor” in it, by the way?

The different scoring of the Army Physical Fitness Test based on sex, must come to an end, or it belies the justification of common standards, whether in Ranger School, or in the Combat Arms, as being just as arbitrary and subjective as the hygienic “crew cut” for males only. Of course if there is no deference to our women in the military, then as the military reflects the values and morays of the society it is meant to serve, it truly portends the final death of chivalry,  at least in the US Army!

But, what are the unintended consequences potentially, to the greater society and culture? With no concept of chivalry, can there correspondingly be the so-called “gentleman” any longer?! Will there be a man willing to step in, and confront another, engaging in sexual harassment or assault, in defense of a woman? Or will it be every man/woman for themselves? As if we are not narcissistic enough now, as a people, we may actually be regressing as a society when men loose their sympathy/empathy for the suffering of women (seemingly, a popular theme in Hollywood these days).

So, if the “Band of Brothers” era is truly at an end in the combat arms, I fear the consequences whether intended or not, will be more dire than the “policy makers” or those in positions to implement these changes, could possibly realize.

Opinion humbly submitted,

SFC Ernest Hoppe
Okinawa, Japan

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 3:03 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 03:03:37 -0400

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 29 at 2015 3:36 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 03:36:37 -0400

Have we not discussed this enough?

Women in combat has been long settled, as CPT Carrie P. stated below. There have been women in my branch since I entered the Army in 1980; the Commander of Fort McClellan at that time was a female MG.... MP... Women in the MP Regiment have been in Combat (actively) since at least Operation Just Cause. During OIF, a female MP was awarded the Silver Star... That was 10 years ago...

The Infantry, Ranger Regiment, SEALs, etc... that is an entirely different issue/topic. I am OK with any of that, so long as we agree on job based standards vs. a men's and women's standard. If we (MP) can figure out how to operate in remote areas with men and women together, than so can everyone else... That is.... if they want to.

The crux of this issue is not can women do this, but rather that men in these last bastions of military manhood don't want them. There stated rational, in my view, are largely created by fear vs. empirical data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17medal.html?_r=0

To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Apr 3 at 2015 11:39 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 23:39:07 -0400

Her eye pro are not regulation.

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made May 21 at 2015 1:55 PM

SSG Richard Reilly — Thu, 21 May 2015 13:55:32 -0400

I went on my first deployment with a Infantry Battalion. We had a support company on our FOB. In that company there were 9 women. 8 went home pregnant.

I have no issue with women in infantry but when it comes to unit numbers men can't get pregnant.

Response by SGT Mike Lehman made May 25 at 2015 12:58 PM

SGT Mike Lehman — Mon, 25 May 2015 12:58:20 -0400

Since when should the Army care about how you "feel"?... clearly you belong in the infantry

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 11:48 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:48:31 -0400

They should be allowed to serve but in my opinion no standards should be lowered. I know a lot of thought went into the separate standards that exist now, but they need to be the same in physically intense, combat situations.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Aug 21 at 2015 11:59 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:59:52 -0400

How can anyone say how effective they would or wouldn't be without giving them the chance? I'm not sure how many threads we need here to say that as long as we don't lower the standards or bend the rules to allow for an individual's success than let them try.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 12:16 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:16:02 -0400

It's not a question of SHOULD they serve, but when WILL they serve. Only those that meet the standards set by HQDA will be able to, but we don't have those standards yet. Once we do, we will open the MOS positions necessary to begin. Once those authorizations are changed in the MTOE of organizations, we'll see it. They are capable. They will do it. The Army just needs to figure out how it's going to happen and when.

Response by SFC Jon Vandeyacht made Aug 21 at 2015 2:05 PM

SFC Jon Vandeyacht — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:05:19 -0400

I wish I could comment on this topic and not sound like an ass. Having been in Both Artillery and Infantry units, (ALL MALE) while in combat zones in Iraq, and then having deployed in a mixed sex unit, I prefer the all male unit. There were so many fewer problems and issues. So much less worry about hurting feelings or offending anyone. No worries about being a dirty stinking rotting pig because we didn't have enough water to drink much less wash clothing or our bodies for 46 days.
Then again, I worked with women that could or would put the average guy to shame, both physically and mentally.
There are positives and negatives to both sides of this argument. I liked being in the all male unit, there were fewer problems overall.
I guess, keep it to one standard and if one qualifies, they should serve in it, but also give the command the ability to move a Soldier out if they start to cause a problem or destroy camaraderie. Be it male or female or one that became another. We need to keep the trust in each other and comradeship a priority, forcing things to work and having a crappy unit will just get everyone killed and I would hate to see that happen just because someone thought it best to force mix oil and water together.
Am I a jerk? Yes I am, but I am a jerk to everyone equally....

Response by SFC Maury Gonzalez made Aug 21 at 2015 5:41 PM

SFC Maury Gonzalez — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:41:32 -0400

Back in the early 80's the was a recruiting poster with a female soldier sitting in the driver's seat of a 2 1/2 ton truck, the caption was " The truck doesn't know the driver is a woman "
Its time to stop beating the dead horses

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 21 at 2015 5:54 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:54:35 -0400

They need to be able to be physically prepared for their jobs and put steel on target. I have the utmost confidence they will be able to do battle drills well.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 21 at 2015 6:14 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:14:46 -0400

The reality is this is just semantics. Whenever a convoy came under fire, the women in the convoy became front line soldiers. If they can meet the physical and emotional requirements, open the Infantry billets up to them...

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Aug 21 at 2015 6:32 PM

SPC George Rudenko — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:32:28 -0400

Women serve in the Israeli military, we all know that. I don't think America in and of itself is ready for female infantry... no disrespect to anyone.

Response by MSgt Niclas Svensson made Aug 21 at 2015 6:40 PM

MSgt Niclas Svensson — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:40:03 -0400

The topic has already been discussed so much there is nothing more I can really add...My only question is: Why is the word women in quotes in the original question?

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Aug 21 at 2015 7:03 PM

SSG Robert Webster — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:03:47 -0400

Yes they should. However, I would like to qualify how I see that it should happen.

First thing I would like to state is that putting women in an infantry unit as an 11B initially without a great amount of preparation is a disaster waiting to happen.
Secondly, the Army has been doing some preparation for this for a number of years without many lower enlisted or some officers realizing it.
Third, now that they have women soldiers down to the Brigade Combat Team level and some have been employed at the Infantry Battalion level, they should continue in the current trajectory that they have been following for some time.
Last but not least, the first integration into the Infantry Battalion and Company level should be in the support/supporting MOS's such as Supply, PAC's (if that is what they are still called or their equivalent), Field Dining Facilities (I believe that this may have already occurred), Support Platoon's, and Medical Platoons(specifically Combat Medics). A female medic will be a lot easier for men in the Infantry to accept.

Once that has been accomplished, then they should allow them to go to Infantry School to become 11 Series soldiers. From the initial group that become Infantry, they should probably select some of the top Expert Marksman and send them to Sniper School. We do have some excellent women marksman in the Army.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2015 2:11 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 02:11:30 -0400

They would be as effective as their training. If not, chapter them out the same as you'd chapter any other Gender/MOS for failure to perform

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2015 11:38 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 23:38:58 -0400

Unfortunately it is no longer about effectiveness but inclusiveness. I relate it to height and being an NBA player. Can short people due to work in NBA? They are being discriminated against. I have no issues if EVERYONE meets the same standard as it stands now, not an adjusted standard to be more inclusive. I want the toughest solider possible available to serve. In combat no one gets points for inclusive. They win by overwhelming the enemy, period. As long as we don't not compromise on the most qualified get selected I have no issues

Response by 1SG David Lopez made Aug 25 at 2015 12:15 AM

1SG David Lopez — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 00:15:47 -0400

Are we talking just "Special Volunteers" such as only the studs of the female species? Or are we talking total equal oportunity, females get thrown into the (flame) Infantry like their male counterparts so that the recruiter makes his/her quota? Are we ready to be equal across the board? Or are we talking another test of only volunteers? Do women realy want this? I can think back to my younger years and bet that just about every Infantry soldier (not NCO/Officer/Leader) I served with would have rather had a different job in the Army, especially a job that did not require footmarching every where we went. The true question is, would this make our Infantry Squads/Platoons better. Would it make us more effective? Would it be a force multiplier? If the answer is not yes, then we have our answer. Fact is, our leaders need to realize real quick, that the Combat Arms Branches are to combat the enemy, ONLY. We are not in a support role. The mission is to meet with and eliminate the threat. The mission is not to be the poitical and gender testing ground for the U.S.A. If your blood is boiling at my comments, refer to first sentence. What is our true goal? To open all branches to both genders or have the most lethal military force?

Response by MSgt Steve Miller made Aug 26 at 2015 12:27 AM

MSgt Steve Miller — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 00:27:53 -0400

This must be at least the 5th time someone has asked this question! If a women can make it through all of the training with the exact same standards she has earned her right the same as a man. Is there really much more to say; without being sexist? Lets not worry guys, as there are plenty of tango’s to go around. They just want to fight for their country the same as the men. If you can meet the standards…..welcome aboard!

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 7:21 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:21:25 -0400

If they can do it so be it, about SHARP complains going up, is all about perception and education, I had seing this program abuse by males and females, in my point of view, I think I won't matter if the females joint those units or not, aviation is full of females and the complaints are relatively low compared to the males counterpart.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2015 12:49 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:49:46 -0400

I have talked to people, including women, who argue the physical differences. Here's my take. I would agree that, on the average, men are more muscular , but there are many exceptions both ways. A man who is slightly built is not ineligible for the infantry (for that reason alone) In fact many slightly-bulit people make excellent fighters,; what they lack in strength can be made up in flexibility. In fact it an asset in many martial arts. Yes, many women and the slightly-built men may need help in lifting heavy objects, or carrying an injured soldier. Solution--teamwork. It would, however, be helpful to assign soldiers with a wide range of physical build characteristics in each squad. For many years, women have been assigned to logistical and transportation units where you have tasks like lifting heavy tires, or moving boxes of supplies; Ive haven't read about issues there. As I have said before, the women in the Israeli Defense Force make formidable soldiers indeed! ..and it goes without saying, women have served distinctively in combat in the US Armed Forces for many years!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 15 at 2015 6:11 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 15 Nov 2015 18:11:39 -0500

I say we should come up with minimum physical standards for each combat branch and test the females. There is no point in designated them Infantry if they can't carry 70 lbs. of gear on a march. If females can't load 50 lbs. Tank Heat rounds every 6-8 seconds then they become a liability.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Mar 17 at 2016 8:39 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:39:39 -0400

It could be they are gauging your feelings on the subject to help them figure out how much more of an attitude adjustment you need to more fully embrace the idea.

Response by GySgt Randy Stiltner made Oct 9 at 2017 2:53 AM

GySgt Randy Stiltner — Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:53:51 -0400

Women in front line units are fine however I think they should be all female units not interspersed with male units other wise they become a liability. example The last time I was deployed to Iraq we had females interspersed within the unit and our CO had 1/3 of our perimeter security looking inside the compound trying to catch people fooling around instead of looking for enemy movement,

Response by SSG Harry Outcalt made Jun 12 at 2018 1:26 AM

SSG Harry Outcalt — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 01:26:40 -0400

It's really a simple issue it's about proper preparation for the women before they start training, you know the old you gotta crawl before you can walk thing this applies in this case ,not a question of if women can it's wether or not they are properly trained so they can , it is one of the primary task's of the Infantry to adapt to overcome the enemy , so Ladies in the Infantry only means more adapting .... Bottom line if it was done right the first time this chat wouldn't be happening

Response by SSG Marshall Paul made Jan 18 at 2019 5:35 PM

SSG Marshall Paul — Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:35:03 -0500

I met in girl teaching patrolling at Ft Chaffee, ARK, years ago. It really annoyed me. I was there as a reservist taking the instructor course. I was 11B combat vet, Recondo, 82d Abn, I knew my stuff. She was really good. She instructed in the field phases as well. And she was very attractive and so, yes, we did violate protocol. And that is the problem.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jan 20 at 2019 10:19 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sun, 20 Jan 2019 10:19:49 -0500

Other countries do,I have no problem with it.

Response by SPC Melissa Lee made Jan 20 at 2019 8:10 PM

SPC Melissa Lee — Sun, 20 Jan 2019 20:10:43 -0500

Years ago I was a track vehicle mechanic ( it was 63H, think it was changed). I was attached to 1/15th infantry, I was in 203rd FSB 3rd Battalion 3rd ID, Kelly Hill Ft. Benning Ga. I was the only female mechanic on my team attached to 1/15th. I went to the field with these guys, went everywhere they did. We went to Jordan in 96 for training and I was right with them. I loved them like brother's. I was a small gal back then 5'2" 98lbs. Did my job great, stayed late never asked for special treatment, never got it either. While in Jordan I was sexually assaulted by a group of Jordanian soldiers. My fellow soldiers got them off me. I was attacked on 3 different occasions, each time my fellow soldiers saved me from a horrible situation. I owe my life to them. My command failed me but not those guys. Point is if we were in a war zone they shouldn't have to worry if their female soldier is going to sexually attack. I was then and now weaker than a male. They did everything they could to protect me, but if I was a guy they wouldn't have had to because I was attacked because of my sex.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Feb 8 at 2019 10:47 PM

LCpl Cody Collins — Fri, 08 Feb 2019 22:47:18 -0500

I'm gonna have to be honest about this one I don't like it. I don't like the fact that women are serving in the infantry. And a has nothing to do would be in a female per say. This is just my personal pay in which doesn't me very much in the larger scheme of things. Let women and close combat with men cause men to be distracted, The majority and then on a battlefield will always feel this instinctive need to protect the woman and that instinct is always rise in up then that man cannot possibly concentrate on the mission 100%. Also that distraction would cause a man to stay in a firefight when they should be retreating but because a woman is there in the middle of it no one wants to be that guy that left that woman behind if something ever happens. And no one wants to be that guy that's capture a long with that female knowing what they would do to her and he will have to listen to her screams.

Response by SPC Alexander Witmer made May 29 at 2019 11:46 AM

SPC Alexander Witmer — Wed, 29 May 2019 11:46:31 -0400

It comes down to how their bodies are built, pure and simple. Speaking from an infantryman's perspective, your body gets destroyed quickly doing combat operations- carrying large amounts of weight over long distances.

The Army has done studies on this, and combat load operations destroy a woman's musculoskeletal system much quicker than a man's. This isn't sexist, it's biology. Angle and spread of hips, arch of the back, different pelvic structures, and lower bone density and iron content all are contributors. This is one of the most positive research papers on it, and it's still brutal.

https://jmvh.org/article/load-carriage-and-the-female-soldier/

Lest we all forget, the Army is not about inclusiveness, it's about efficiency. If you have the choice between a tool that generally breaks after 1 use, or one that generally breaks after 4 or 5, which is more economical to use until it's broken?

load-carriage-and-the-female-soldier

Response by SGT James Murphy made May 30 at 2019 1:53 PM

SGT James Murphy — Thu, 30 May 2019 13:53:48 -0400

Worse Idea Ever! For Obvious Reasons. Men will do stupid things when women are involved in combat.