Women joining combat arms; your thoughts?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 00:16:09 -0500

I whole heartedly believe that if a person can make it through a program, they deserve to be there. I do not believe that the standards for that program should be changed to accommodate anyone though. If someone were to enter my MOS, all I care about is that they can drag me, or my battles, if we were to get hit. With that all being said, if women were to be allowed into the combat arms MOS', would women across the United States, ages 18-35, be required to sign up for selective service as well? If we're going to get rid of the gender separation in our military, we need to get rid of it altogether.

Note: Image added by RP Staff

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 12:21 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 00:21:13 -0500

Unfortunately, some people are more equal than others. I do agree with you that if all MOS are going to be opened up to everyone then the standards should be made the same as well as the gender separation.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2014 1:21 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:21:01 -0500

I heard this story on NPR this morning. It's a very interesting story: "Women Sweat The Test To Show Marines They're Combat-Ready." You can read the story and/or listen to it at this link:

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/23/366075916/women-sweat-the-test-to-show-marines-theyre-combat-ready

Women Sweat The Test To Show Marines They're Combat-Ready

The Marine Corps is running a test to see if women can serve in ground combat. "A lot of people think that we can't do it," says one Marine who's trying to make the cut. "I don't think the same."

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2015 1:34 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 13:34:54 -0500

I am so grateful for this tasteful discussion on the subject matter. Similar topics broached on FB (via Stolen Valor) have spawned comments that make me want to throat punch. Lol

On the topic, I do not think that the standards should be watered down for anyone in any way. If an individual can pass the already established criteria needed, then press on smartly. One knows (theoretically) what they are getting into and those incredible challenges are difficult for anyone. That is why they are SPECIAL Forces, not "Mediocre Forces". No whining, no b*tching. Get it done and your team will respect it.

I have an incredible respect for tab-wearers. Personally, I have no desire to try nor could I imagine doing it. There are some that will try and fail miserably--male and female. Good luck and Godspeed to all. :)

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2015 2:26 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 14:26:23 -0500

I always find this a troubling debate. It rears it's head here so often. I am not going to say some happy line like "if they can then why not." It isn't that simple. Life never is. I am not really on a side but I side with the facts.

1. Women are not physically endowed as men. Yes, I said it. It is just the way it is. Please don't complain to me as I didn't make it that way. This is why there are different scales for every services PT test. Some tasks are more suited to a male soldier than a female. You need not look further than the Marines Infantry Officer Course. Out of 27 females not one has made it past the ruck. It is not about meeting the bare minimal standard but we should only take the best in our combat leadership positions. If one makes it I will have no issue. Males even fail out there. If they can't handle it they shouldn't be there either. It doesn't make you any less honorable to serve in another capacity. I am just thinking of the combat load of a 11B M240 gunner with rounds or a 11C with a 81mm mortar base plate.

2. There is a culture of unity that will be changed in the combat arms. To be honest if they say that women will be in the infantry they will have to deal with it but there will be some time till they are accepted. If they are not able to perform on the same levels as a male soldier, reason #1, they may never be accepted. You would pretty much put women in isolated locations with a group of soldiers for long duration of time. I would be concerned about her mental welfare in that environment.

I understand the accommodation part of this. The question I have is accommodating a group of soldiers impacting the overall readiness of a unit? If not, fine. I don't even know what other issues would arise. This is something that we can't say just say "Sure" and that equal rights must prevail. It isn't that simple. I have a daughter. I would want nothing more than for her to be the first Airborne Ranger in the Army but It would put some huge demands on any female soldier. I think the Army is looking into it and will do a fair analysis of the situation. We will see how this turns out.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Jan 2 at 2015 2:24 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 14:24:51 -0500

If they can hack it, let them pack it! After all they get shot at too, don't they?

Response by MSG Martin C. made Jan 2 at 2015 2:28 PM

MSG Martin C. — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 14:28:30 -0500

If they meet whatever standard is set and they are willing why not? They can catch a bullet jus like man do and if they opt to be in that field leave them alone

Response by Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce made Jan 2 at 2015 2:43 PM

Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 14:43:17 -0500

I want to respond to the selective service portion first. At 21 I enlisted in the Air Force and met all the qualifications of my job in the supply sq. I worked in various areas of the warehouse and docks. When items were too big and heavy I picked them up with a fork lift. I see nothing wrong with extending equality to women by requiring them to sign up for selective service. I also think a mandatory time in the armed service like Israel would be good for our young men AND women.

As for women in combat roles I believe that should be voluntary for those physically and mentality qualified. The ones that can't make it get cross-trained into another field.

Response by Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce made Jan 2 at 2015 4:18 PM

Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:18:10 -0500

I spent some time this year with Jessica Lynch (first female POW) and she is lovely and brave and strong. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Don't you suppose women can handle some positions in combat as well as some men? Women Pilots go through survival school, drive Tanks...etc. I enjoyed qualifying with an M-16. Not all combat positions are army rangers or navy seals. Women have been deploying to forward bases for years and they didn't stay in hotels.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2015 4:30 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:30:27 -0500

As long as they meet the metrics and can perform the job, then they should not denied. Standards should not be lowered just to fill a quota. Yes they should have to file for selective service as well.

Response by CPT Brian Kent, PhD made Jan 2 at 2015 4:30 PM

CPT Brian Kent, PhD — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:30:30 -0500

Women in Combat Arms has been a discussion as long as I can remember. I have had discussions with woman and the results are mixed. I concur the SS issue should be an immediate issue to resolve. However, i am not sure our elected officials have the intestinal courage to make the leap that far. The biggest issue with the draft, mixing specialties and other areas is to make sure we don't drop the standard. I remember when the first female was admitted to the Citadel and the costs associated with crossing the line with just one female. I think if we are going to address females in combat, lets put all of the issues on the table once and for all so we can put it to bed. Lets talk draft, billeting, fitness, etc. The best way is to air all items and see where they fall. This is not a strength only issue!

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2015 4:42 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:42:39 -0500

If they are fit for it why not allowing them to be infantrywomen, but now only time will tell if the infantry is a good career choice for a woman in the Army. How they will shine through the tribulations to come will either infirm or confirm the decision of big Army.

Response by FN Mike McCormack made Jan 2 at 2015 4:42 PM

FN Mike McCormack — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:42:47 -0500

I'm against it...

I know there are a rare few (women) who are tough enough for combat and won't agree with me, but the majority are not. There is something disturbing and wrong about seeing a female injured or tortured in any capacity...much less war.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2015 7:08 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 19:08:17 -0500

honestly no one care what my thoughts are! its all political anyway.
maybe next year it's going to be ok to ask for a sex change operation being paid by the military.
after reading foreign press I totally understand why the US military is not being taken seriously by our enemies when it's come to character and disciplined.

I'm not a female hater more power the ever can make it in Ranger School

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 3 at 2015 7:16 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:16:24 -0500

I say go for it. I welcome the change. Change is good. However, you can't have part of the cake, you must take all the cake. Women should be subject to selective service as well.

Response by SFC Cindy Paris made Jan 3 at 2015 7:38 PM

SFC Cindy Paris — Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:38:59 -0500

When I joined the military in 1981, there were women in the military but not even close to the percentages that you see today. I think that if a person .. male or female .. can meet the current physical and mental requirements, they should be given the opportunity. However keep in mind .. sexual tension and the distraction that causes, physical differences that could cause issues (example women's menstruation cycles), male chivalry and how males are raised to protect women, and the female independent movement that cause some to over estimate their abilities and responses to them (course you might also have that in males). My opinion is if we were to allow this, it should be implemented in a time of peace to work through issues prior to testing in time of conflict. Myself .. I am quite happy being combat service support but I also recognize that others want more

Response by SFC Patrick R. Weston, MPH made Jan 3 at 2015 9:53 PM

SFC Patrick R. Weston, MPH — Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:53:36 -0500

All I have to say to the naysayers that believe women cannot function in combat arms/SOF to take into consideration that not every male makes it through the training/selection processes. So gender alone does not make anyone special or an inherently better Soldier/Operator.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2015 9:55 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:55:26 -0500

If they can make it with no gender norming!! Then let them! Same standards for everybody!!!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2015 10:41 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Jan 2015 22:41:04 -0500

I won't start discussing how I personally feel about it, because it doesn't matter. It's going to happen, it's just a matter of when. What matters is that the integration is done properly. From what I've read it seems that the Army is going to reclass staff sergeants first, then start sending females through OSUT. This is absolutely necessary. I don't think I should even have to explain all the reasons why. This will cause some resentment among the NCOs who feel that reclassing females robbed themselves or buddies of a slot. Oh, well, they'll get over it. I don't know how this will be achieved, but the most important thing that the Army needs to do is create an atmosphere where there aren't "male soldiers" and "female soldiers," but SOLDIERS. Drop the petty crap. But, on the flip side of that, ensure that females are treated with respect, and any SHARP/EO issues are taken care of promptly and fairly.

Response by SPC Stephanie Oanes made Jan 4 at 2015 1:44 PM

SPC Stephanie Oanes — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 13:44:26 -0500

As long as the standards don't change, then I'm all for it. There are some badass women in the military that make some guys look weak! Granted, I could never do it, but more power to those that could. If they can make it, then they deserve it. It's 2015, and I firmly believe that women should have the same rights as men as long as they can prove themselves. But on another note, you have some females that make being being in a more male dominated career look bad but we won't discuss that here but I'm sure ya'll know what I mean.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 1:26 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:26:22 -0500

gender shouldn't be the determining factor, ability. However the ones to determine a soldiers fitness for combat arms units should not be some damn bureaucrat going off affirmative action guidelines handed to them by politicians. Fitness ought to be determined by the commander of the unit themselves, and whether they believe the soldier to be an asset or a liability.

As for the draft I don't think it should exist period, if the reasons for war are not clear enough to convince people to volunteer then there ought not be a war.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2015 3:37 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:37:38 -0500

Despite assurances to the contrary, I can't quite believe that there won't be a lowering of standards across the board as more and more female applicants fail to meet standards.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 5:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:48:57 -0500

If they can do my PT test and carry my 91 pound ruck welcome aboard. When training soldiers in CFF it is alway the girls who hit the target 1st round the 1st time. Multi tasking and 3d thinking come easy for them. Don't have to knock testosterone based chips off their shoulders to reach them. They just get it. So as long as they can abide by the same physical standards that even guys can't do sometimes so be it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2015 11:59 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:59:43 -0500

SGT Alicia Brenneis It may work in those countries. But it WON'T work in the US because it WON'T work in such a large scale. Look at how much bigger the US military is.

I am just using the same argument from those on universal healthcare, gun ban, and what not.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 16 at 2015 12:17 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:17:53 -0500

First, I have zero opposition to women in any of the roles. However, I do have to point out that we have to be cautious when comparing the US to other developed nations. There is the matter of "scale" to consider.

The United States has approximately 320M people. The countries in the article have the following; Australia (24M), Canada (36M), Denmark (6M), France (67M), Germany (81M), Israel (8M), New Zealand (5M), and Norway (5M). That is a combined 232 million populace. Additionally, three of the Countries listed are Commonwealth States (Canada, Australia, & New Zealand).

If you take a look at the military missions of these countries and compare it to the US, there is a stark difference. The US military is geared for "Global Stability" whereas almost every other country is geared for "National Defense."

My point is, that we are neither comparing apples to apples, nor are we looking at similar missions. What works for Israel with its 8 million total population and mandatory conscription doesn't make sense for the US with its all volunteer force coming from 320M possible applicants.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Feb 16 at 2015 2:11 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:11:54 -0500

A good argument is not that other countries do it so whay shouldn't we. Other countries do lots of things we wouldn't do such as; They don't allow women to vote, they cut limbs off of people that commit a crime, they do not allow freedom of speech, assembly or religion. I could go on.

You might want to ask when the last time any of the countries listed in your article entered into a large scale conflict and actually won it. It isn't just scale although that is important. There is no substitute for winning. Integrating women into combat arms will not increase the combat efficiency or effectiveness of a unit. That is all we need to know not to do it.

Response by SPC Anthony Davis made Feb 16 at 2015 2:19 PM

SPC Anthony Davis — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:19:18 -0500

We can do it, it's truly no big deal. I hate to say the problem is men and women that are scared of change and are close minded. Gender for a reason to say you can't do a job is FBAR. Gender doesn't matter, if you can do the job first physically and you believe you can handle it emotionally then everybody should have the same chance, that simple. I know a lot of people are say our armed forces is to large it would cause problems, HOW?? If they make it one physical standard for the job then everybody earners the the same respect for doing it. Stop thinking back to the old days and let's get it fixed and stop being out dated. It could turn out to be bad, but what if it turned out to be the best thing we ever did??

Response by SFC Jason Porter made Feb 16 at 2015 3:14 PM

SFC Jason Porter — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:14:15 -0500

Can the men a women control their hormones...not being disrespectful here..in my 20 yrs of service I have seen what happens when you mix both. I am blunt and rough around the edges but it's a fact issues will erupt. Not about if women can't do it they can do it.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Feb 16 at 2015 3:18 PM

SGT James Elphick — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:18:06 -0500

I think the one thing that stands out to me in this article is how small the numbers of female serving in combat units are and how that should guide our implementation. Most of these countries have militaries that are much smaller than our own so there are less logistical issues in handling an influx of females. Also, no matter the size of the military there seems to be a trend that no more than 5% of combat arms are females. I think the way forward is to work toward the Israeli model of having, in their case one but for the US multiple, battalions that are integrated while leaving the rest as is. So have an integrated Heavy battalion (combined arms), Stryker battalion, and a light battalion. More can be raised as needed as well. This helps logistically because it will allow females to be housed together and serve together in which they can create a "sisterhood" (you know how us infantrymen love our brotherhood) that will help moral and ensure each female soldier is properly supported with other female soldiers. Also this will allow for all levels of enlisted soldiers and up to 0-5 to serve in these units enhancing promotion potential (an issue that helped start this debate). Anyway, that would be my plan for implementing the integration of females into combat arms units. What I stated was pretty much for infantry but I think it can be modeled for other MOS's units as well.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Feb 16 at 2015 9:37 PM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 21:37:45 -0500

I'll be straight here with you Sgt, when my wife stops handing me the pickle jar to open because the lid is to tight, then maybe I'll accept women in combat.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2015 9:48 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 21:48:38 -0500

As a woman, I can honestly say what is holding us (women) back is those women who demand equality and in the same breath want easier PT standards, breaks from field exercises for female problems (when frankly speaking, pads and baby wipes can get you clean and I'm a germaphobe saying this) when you know you take a few to relax in modern comfort, and any other case were a woman has demanded kinder or more comfortable treatment simply because we're female. We want equality? Stop friggin demanding equality without the willingness to put in equal effort.

Response by SrA Andrea West made Feb 16 at 2015 10:02 PM

SrA Andrea West — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:02:27 -0500

I guess the biggest question I have about women in combat roles is, "Will this help the U.S. win wars?" If the answer is yes, then I'm all for it. If the answer is no, then I'm against it. If that makes me a bad feminist, then so be it.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2015 11:32 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:32:57 -0500

If either gender can train to excel the standards for combat arms, why not?

I think that discipline will be the biggest hurdle. There will be individuals on both sides that allow their hormones/emotions/pride/whatever get in the way and destroy the morale of the unit. People would need to understand that they're in combat arms to destroy the enemy, not find someone to shack up with. If you're training and have time to have sex, you're not training hard enough.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 3:30 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:30:58 -0500

Some of those countries while successful have higher standards for women. But when a leaders says he will do whatever it takes to get a women into Ranger school which includes lowering the standard; he has just regressed the arguement. Progress will require stepping up and I have met women that can but no excuses.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 7:39 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 07:39:27 -0500

Just do it already. Put the people that can't change in their place. There are many guys right now being booted for not being to pass a PT test. There are guys that can't hit a freaking barn with their m4 and CCO... if they can do it, do it.

I think its more or less my brothers in arms that can't handle it. However once a female makes it in, selective service comes in to play for everyone.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 4:54 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:54:59 -0500

I think it may have some merit but that not worth lives in combat. We already send women to combat and they do a great job but none of their countries have been exposed to a long duration of war. Israel is the best military on that list but they haven't invaded a county in a while. I don't think the equality of Armies should ever be a deciding factor of the composition of our Army.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Feb 18 at 2015 5:40 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:40:12 -0500

"Because other Armies do it" should never be our standard for proof of conept. You know who else does it? ISIS. So are we to copy their example as well? There are many militarized that foo things differently than we do but there's only one number 1 military in the world and it's ours.
I don't think the patriots were worried about copying the Raiders playbook.

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Feb 18 at 2015 6:06 PM

SGT Francis Wright — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:06:59 -0500

I think it's fine for hard charging females to go to a specialty school. My daughter had to be attached to the patrols; when she was in Afghanistan, because the local women could not speak to our men. So guys if we are going to get Intel the female troops should at least have the school behind doing the mission.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 18 at 2015 11:36 PM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:36:21 -0500

As I have said in more than one post, I am OK with it, so long as the standards are job based and not gender specific per job. That is I believe the Army needs male and female fitness standards, but I also believe there are jobs, skills, schools that need a gender neutral fitness standard for that job, or mission set. Yes, I believe women should be required to enroll in selective service, as regardless of where they serve, they are still serving and will need in the time if crisis that would necessitate a draft. I am for job specific fitness standards, and if you can make it, so be it. The concern we all have is lowering the standard to enable women to be part of MOSs or skills they previously were excluded from.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2015 1:24 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 01:24:02 -0500

I was delighted after hearing that Infantry and Ranger schools were now open to woman. The pt standard for Rangers being the same made it even better. Now they just need to fix the infantry one.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 5:30 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:30:46 -0400

I believe that if women want to be truly seen as equal, they should sign up for selective service. And, I still feel we should reinstate the draft. Nuff said

Response by PO1 Cleve Ikaika Waiwaiole made Mar 24 at 2015 2:12 PM

PO1 Cleve Ikaika Waiwaiole — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:12:33 -0400

I have absolutely nothing against women being in any unit or force. In my opinion... Units that go into heavy reconnaissance missions, high chance of being captured... The things they can do to woman are such more harsh and breaking than a man. I just feel that woman are so valuable that I could not picture or even bear to witness or hear of what happends to a fellow female soldier being captured, tortured, other things... I'd rather give my life, be the one to go through that than any service woman. And that's the truth.

As for woman serving alongside me in battle, wherever my mission may be, I feel they do deserve the right to fight for our country just like everyone else, as long as they can meet all requirements whether it be mental, physical, and emotional. As an example, special forces units, their training should not be dropped whatsoever. Same amount of physical, mental, and emotional training as any other man, because when the time comes to back up your team, squad, your buddy when that's all thats left you need to be on the same level as everyone else. You need to be ready to complete the mission with your brothers and sisters in arms.. Everyone comes back home in that c130. No caskets due to a weak link in the chain. And I am speaking for men AND women. This is an honest opinion and I'm sorry if this offends anyone. Cheers--

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Mar 24 at 2015 2:44 PM

SGT Tyler G. — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:44:03 -0400

Anyone willing to put themselves in harms way to serve this nation deserves the chance to prove themselves capable, and if capable the chance to serve.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 4:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:56:58 -0400

If they physically and mentally qualify then why not? Like I said before, a soldier's primary mission is to be able to pick up a weapon and any point at given time and defend the soldiers to their right and left but also exterminate the enemy putting them in danger. That is every soldier's primary mission. So if the standards are kept and the requirements are met then I see no problem in my book. There is always a possibility for RFS and I see it happen in my unit from time to time. I know plenty of women who can hack it and pack it. Let it happen.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 10:07 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 22:07:33 -0400

Women in combat arms. Why? I would like a answer other than to be equal or because. I would like a legit answer and if someone has one tell me. To go back to the original question, my thoughts about women in combat arms. Personally I don't like it. I know there are women out there that could probably pick me up and toss me around out ruck me or run me and that's all fine and dandy but it's not just physical reasons I believe women shouldn't be in combat arms. One big reason for me is being in a hostage situation. Having been through SERE I've had a tiny taste of that world. Now yes any normal soldier that is a woman has the potential to be a POW but not like in combat arms. I've been in the simulated situations where a woman was used against me and human nature got the best of me I won't lie. No man wants to sit there and see a woman beat and tortured while you go untouched for information. Some of you guys may think I could but when it's someone you have trained with, been through the suck with, made a bond with you wont be able to TRUST me. I could go on with more points why I don't think women should be but I won't. I'll let my main point be my only but also a request to those that read this, please don't put me or another man in that possible situation

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Mar 24 at 2015 10:27 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 22:27:24 -0400

My thoughts... It'll work itself out.

Response by CPL Aaron Cottingham made Mar 25 at 2015 12:29 AM

CPL Aaron Cottingham — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:29:16 -0400

Without sounding like a bully. I agree the gender gap can be closed. However the loosening of the programs should not. If you want to be EQUAL to everyone else, do not expect the standards to be lowered to allow your pass, if you didn't earn it. Special Operations are not Halloween candy, you do not get a tab, for the mere want of one. If you want to be viewed as equal act equal, don't cry inequality, then cower behind the weakness you are contesting.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Mar 25 at 2015 12:41 AM

Maj Mike Sciales — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:41:07 -0400

If an applicant can meet the physical and mental challenges of selection and complete the training, there is no legitimate reason to exclude except for some 19th Century views on the place for women.

Response by Lt Col James DeLoach made Mar 25 at 2015 8:26 AM

Lt Col James DeLoach — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:26:33 -0400

Across the board, lower standards and recruitment/grad/promotion quota management has & will continue to hurt talented women. Differential standards artificially inject people (various reasons) into places they lack skills for. This sets the member up for frustration, undermines/demeans the truly qualified & creates bitterness/resentment.

A female cohort and I joked about this because of how people treated her ("you blew that checkride, do you need a minute to gather yourself? It's ok you'll get 172 rechecks don't be afraid..." When at Pentagon one of my GS14s (first AF pilot training class w/ Females) would rant about this since SHE met non-differential standards & dud not respect those who she preceded.

BL - for this to work standards must be uniform & outcome quotas can't be mandated...if we can't get there we'll keep hurting DoD & those we mean to "help" with positive injury.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 1:41 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 13:41:39 -0400

What is there to talk about? Anyone who passes the program is a GO at this station. It's like talking about racial issues back from 60's. This issue will go away as it becomes more accepted as the people who can't let go of it retire and the new generation comes in to replace it. Wonder what the next debate will be.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 6:59 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 06:59:34 -0400

The debate about women and combat always gets stuck in the strength debate. Biologically men and women are different. But we are not trying to take a group of average women and pair them with Recon Marines. The basis for this discussion needs to be, if a female can meet or exceed the physical standard, should she have the opportunity to fight for her country in any capacity?

Asks yourselves this, is combat arms ONLY about raw physical strength? Could our military improve by including people who bring other attributes to the fight? Once the pain of the initial integration is complete, is there really any addition cost to the military? Can we integrate without lowering the standards and reducing our combat effectiveness?

Should our leadership decide that strength is the deciding factor, I would like to see physical requirements developed based on MOS rather than gender. I hear so many Infantrymen say that a women couldn't drag them plus their gear out of a firefight. Could all the men currently serving doing that?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 2:32 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:32:26 -0400

Sooner or later a female is going to roll thru a program (Ranger, PJs, etc.) and not just pass but excel, putting and end to at least part of this debate. The only bit of this I find shocking is that it hasn't happened yet.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 26 at 2015 2:34 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:34:11 -0400

All I wanna know is where is there dag gone head gear in this picture? Say it aint so.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Mar 26 at 2015 3:01 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:01:52 -0400

There is a problem here, which is that Combat Arms is a concept for conventional warfare, to which men are more capable of being pack mules.
However we have been engaged in guerrilla warfare since Afghanistan to which women fighters are better suited because of the simple fact that armed women are the greatest fear of the enemy. If we use properly trained women Fighters, (Women As A Weapons System), a lot more can be accomplished more so then their male counterparts. Properly trained does not mean being a pack mule and carrying a heavy load, in fact the Marines solved that issue by the establishment Female Engagement Teams (FET), in the ARMY we now call them Cultural Affairs Teams. The choice is either adapt to the current warfare or hang on to old notions that have proven are not working and continue to loose or win. Wars are won by being flexible and adopting.

Response by SGT William Hamm made Mar 26 at 2015 3:51 PM

SGT William Hamm — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:51:50 -0400

We all have our lane.

Response by LCpl James Robertson made Mar 26 at 2015 6:37 PM

LCpl James Robertson — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:37:22 -0400

I must be getting old Infantry in the 1970's were the last MOS anyone wanted to go into. The problem back then with that MOS, is that once you got out of service, all of us in Infantry would say there are only two occupations we are good for either a Hit man are police officers. Infantry back then you stayed in the field two weeks at a time eating C-rations, humping and force marching everywhere we went, mostly full pack and gear.

Response by LTC Lewis Cox made Mar 26 at 2015 8:42 PM

LTC Lewis Cox — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:42:02 -0400

If she can do the jobs required of the Infantry, bring 'em on!!! But insure they can carry me to a Medic (I weight almost 200 lbs).

Response by SFC Michael Peterson made Mar 26 at 2015 9:00 PM

SFC Michael Peterson — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:00:01 -0400

I think that anyone who can meet, or exceed, the standard should be allowed to serve in any organization. If a female can pass the pre-Ranger course should be eligible for a slot in Ranger School. The same goes for SFAS and SFQC. But, I do not believe that the standard should be altered for "political correctness".

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 9:42 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:42:41 -0400

I believe our voices are being heard loud and clear. It has been hard enough for women in the military period. We have to make sure that we are seen as equals and we can hold our own. i say, more power to the women who can endure the same mental and physical toughness as our male soldiers.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 12:17 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:17:51 -0400

I agree. I think the military should allow women to serve in combat positions but, held to the same standards as men. Some women could have some really great ways of implementing themselves in these types of roles. We all know men and women are hardwired differently so, sometimes different perspectives in high stress situations could give a leg up. My question is, would a man in a combat position feel as safe with a woman watching his 6 as he would if were a man?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 12:30 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:30:20 -0400

One standard then. Either raise the female standards up to the men's, or create a middle ground for ALL.

Equal is equal, fair is fair (and I know - nothing is fair), and the mission is the mission. Put the best qualified PERSON in the job. If a woman can do it, by all means let her....to the same standard as everyone else.

I've been broke for a long time. No shame in it. Some would say I should have been released awhile ago...but I fight hard to meet the standards, but I am not ego to avoid the truth, I am a broke old man. Even before I was broke...there were women in the AIR FORCE (yes, the AIR FORCE) that could outrun me, out-pushup me (and I can do pushups all day long), and just generally kick my ass. HOOAH! Good on them. I worked for one female Lt Col that outran everyone, out-pussup'ed (is that a word) most...and could stand her ground in any situation. Mad respect for that lady (now a civilian) because she led from the front.

The whole "genetic differences" argument is pretty worthless. Samoans are genetically different than Asians. If a white guy, a black guy, a tiny Asian guy, and a really beefy Samoan guy can all qualify at the same standards, why not women? If you can shoot the 10 yr old kid running towards your squad with a suicide vest on...more power to ya (for any gender...hell I know guys that would hesitate. Hell I might even hesitate, and hesitation in that situation is the death of a squad).

DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that all Asians are tiny or all Samoans are 'really beefy'. Using this in an example context with generic stereotypes (not to be confused as accepted)...so right away I am wrong, so I apologize and beg forgiveness. Bad Sgt Mac...bad bad.

(btw: sad world we live in where I literally HAD to put that disclaimer up there, isn't it?)

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Mar 27 at 2015 8:00 AM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:00:01 -0400

"Women and children first"...

This has always been the mantra everywhere in the world, when saving people from a mass casualty, ship going down, or whatever.

As long as the ethos of society is that women are linked with children as being weaker, and needing to be saved, this will be debated furiously. It will really take a sea change in society as a whole, for this to fully work.

Military culture is in some ways easier to change and in some ways harder. When the Puzzle Palace or 1600 says to make a change, we may grumble about it, but we make the change.

The problem comes with mantras such as "Women in the Navy will not fail". The first woman to attempt Carrier Quals crashed and burned. She failed her check flights as I understand it, but because of PC, she was sent out for CQ, and look what happened.

I have related the case of the female officer on my ship who was sleeping with the XO in his cabin on the ship. He was fired, she was, but then the Force Commander (3 star) ordered her reinstated, and I was ordered to convene a board and qualify her as a Surface Warfare (staff specialty) officer.

I bring these issues up because the standards were deliberately relaxed in order to put women into roles they were not traditionally in, and we put substandard sailors out there, just to check a box.

The standards issue has been discussed here quite a bit. The Pentagon MUST establish equal standards for all, irrespective of gender for this to work.

There are a couple other factors at play in this as well. These surround sexual misconduct. With integrated forces, come a lot of sexual misconduct in the ranks, under two categories: consensual and rape. When the forces were essentially all male, you rarely if ever heard of these issues. Lately, they have been huge problems.

The women I've counseled who have been in the worst shape after deployments in IQ and AF were the ones who were raped by their squad mates or superiors. That their own coworkers were uncontrolled animals who attacked their fellow workers is unconscionable. MST (as it is euphemistically known) is probably the biggest issue women face in the military today. This horrid breach of trust is setting us back big time. If it weren't for the Constitutional prohibition against Cruel and Unusual punishment, I would advocate for total emasculation of any military man who rapes a coworker, no mercy.

The women survivors of MST I've worked with were all dead inside. It's like their attackers took their souls, even though their bodies were still alive.

Okay, I'll get off my soap box now - you all know what I'm saying here...

Response by CPL Brian Clouser made Mar 27 at 2015 8:34 AM

CPL Brian Clouser — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:34:28 -0400

If a woman can do the job then I'm all for it,BUT they should be and need to be held to the same standards that men are. That including the PT standards.

Response by SFC John Rivera made Mar 27 at 2015 10:34 AM

SFC John Rivera — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:34:04 -0400

If she can drag my 200 lbs carcass out of the line of fire, l don't see why not. I do believe that a female infantry, SF, Ranger, or Fister should have to pass the APFT for the current male standards, Complete a 12 mile foot March in 180 minutes or less, and be judged on performance not gender. I knew Women in the Army that could do it. I believe that only a small percentage of Women have a combination of the ability and willingness to to join us " dumb grunts". I think that certain Artillery, and Armor, and ADA positions that require more brains then brawn should be open under the current female APFT standards. I would not encourage Reuters to hard sell 11B, 11 or 13F to female's ....or males for that matter

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 12:25 PM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:25:26 -0400

Personally, i could give a damn about anyone who can pass the physical rigors of being an infantryman, i'm more concerned with how it will detract from unit cohesion, anyone who's been inside a fully functioning infantry platoon can attest to. We're "young, dumb, and full of cum". The average infantry platoon will look out for the most hated person in their platoon in any circumstance, whether it's combat or a drunk asshole at the bar. We train, bleed, suck, drink, and fight together. IMHO I see no conceivable way to continue that with females. We give each other shit constantly, We talk about the nasty sex we had with various females with loose morals we had well below our standards. we make fun of things people can't change (race or otherwise), and at the end of the day, we're closer for it.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 2:36 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:36:09 -0400

I think that if females are going to be in combat arms then they should be required to meet the same standards as male Soldiers. That is my only reservation.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 3:17 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:17:07 -0400

I don't have a whole lot of time to write what I need to at the moment, so I will briefly outline why I think it is a terrible Idea. First off, hygiene, During my first deployment, which was not bad at all compared to others, I went 3.5 months without a shower, wearing the same 2 pairs of frogs on every patrol. It was too cold to wash your gear, we essentially wore them until they fell off our bodies. Second is going to be male instinct to protect women. For example, if the male Marine on my right was shot in the chest, and a female Marine on my left was shot in the stomach(a much less serious injury) natural instinct would push me to go to her first, causing the injuries to the other Marine to become more severe and life threatening as time goes on. Third, pregnancies. If a woman were to be expected to deploy, and go through an entire work up so that she was combat ready, then get pregnant, that is one less gun in the fight. As I said earlier, there are many more factors that make this a bad idea, however I am tight on time. If possible I will return and continue my debate.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 4:25 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:25:00 -0400

The original question - should women register for selective service if all branches of the military are open? I personally think so, but I also believe that serving in the military is the best decision I ever made. I would be curious to hear arguments against it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 4:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:32:53 -0400

My thoughts:

I don't care what you have between your legs but I do care about the standards. I think the biggest concern across the board is that women will not face the same standards as men. I think this is a valid concern considering the current APFT standards. If the Army lowers the standards of institutions like Ranger school just for women, I think those women (regardless of their own capabilities, even those that could have met the original standards) will lose all legitimacy.

We should have one standard across the board, whether it's an MOS school or the APFT. No special gender standards. No special age standards. Maybe it would be MOS-based. However it works out, we should figure out what standards soldiers need to meet to be effective and then hold everyone (barring medical profiles) to that standard.

Response by SSG John Bacon made Mar 27 at 2015 4:55 PM

SSG John Bacon — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:55:16 -0400

It's about time. Women have been shouting for equal rights. Sign them up for selective service, let them join any Service Skill that they can qualify for.

Response by PFC Mike Mcdermott made Mar 27 at 2015 6:42 PM

PFC Mike Mcdermott — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:42:20 -0400

Who cares? The military needs to be fixed at EVERY level.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 9:45 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:45:04 -0400

this has been a huge debate im sure all across the branches. as an infantryman would i want women to be along side me or my unit? my answer is no, now i dont mean because they are women. i know there are women out there that can out perform some males physically and mentally. i believe thats not the issue. there is many i feel psychological issues that are at play here. the first squad i ever led was honestly the best squad i ever had. they were far from the strongest, fastest, smartest, and mentally strong. however we were so close because we did everything together. we ate, slept, bled, sweated, everything together. it was a bond i cannot explain in words and one that you cannot just make out of nothing. now throw a few females into my squad. they need there own sleeping area, there own heads, there own everything. you completely take that 24/7 bonding away from my squad. you create a separation there you cant fill. reguardless of what anyone says no branch would allow there to be coed living spaces even in combat zones. i feel it breaks up the connection the bond. you create a certain gap there. ok so lets say they deem its ok for everything to be coed. everythings fine now right? we get to create and keep that bond right? yes sure the bond will still be there however there still the fact that males are embedded in there heads to protect females. now lets say a guy gets critically injured in my squad and a female less critically injured. the males in my squad would go to save the female first based on pure natural human instinct. some of you may argue that can be solved by training and treating everyone as grunts or whatever you want to call it but i think when those bullets start flying most males would still attend to the female first. so as i said should women be beside me or my men in combat no but that does not mean i say they cant serve in combat roles. so what is the solution? how bout create all female combat units. they dont need males in there unit to be a combat arms unit so go ahead if we want to bring women into combat roles give them there own commands. just my idea but the infantry isnt just strength and mental toughness. anybody whos a grunt knows this. its the bond you share with your brothers and the fact that you know everything about them. so let females in combat arms under there own commands.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 1:05 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 01:05:59 -0400

I totally agree if no requirements are changed to support the inclusion of women.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 1:37 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 01:37:04 -0400

I disagree 110%. I'm sitting in 29 palms Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center as 0341 and I'll tell you right now watching these women try and compete and keep up with RESERVISTS! It's disgus and I am ashamed to think that they would continue to let these people try and do my MOS. Women do not belong in the infantry. Plain and simple. The USMC is wasting 10 Btn's worth of training money on these girls that can't make it and are wasting our time

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 2:38 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 02:38:31 -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 MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2015 6:54 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:54:20 -0400

So? Why were they not allowed to before? Women have wanted (and deserved) equality for years. I say give our sisters in arms the chance to do what they want to do in the armed services. But let's not pretend there are no differences in physical characteristics between the sexes. If they are physically unable to perform a job, then they are out, just like males would be. Why is this so hard?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2015 12:21 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 12:21:08 -0400

The question I always ask is as follows: 'If women share all the same capabilities as men, wouldn't an infantry unit totally comprised of women be viable in combat?'

I agree that those who can and wish to should be allowed, but the fact is those few women (who seem to be rare as unicorns) aren't actually in the military, they're competing in the Olympics. But not against men, because that WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO THEM. You can indulge in this fantasy all you want. But it seems to me that the only reason we're having this national discussion is because we've been involved in open-ended small-scale combat for over a decade, and women in support units have taken part in combat actions, leading people to ask why they aren't included in line combat units.

The next question I ask is this: How many lives is this social experiment going to be worth? When will we realize that we should leave well enough alone? We have the most lethal military in the history of warfare, why are we trying to change it?

Response by SGT Richard Ellis made Mar 31 at 2015 7:55 PM

SGT Richard Ellis — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:55:14 -0400

I know some females whom I'd rather have watching my 6 than some males. If they can perform to the same standards, including P.T. I'm all for it.Why should I have to do more push-ups, sit-ups and run faster to be able to do the same job at the same rate of pay? talk about gender inequality.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 7:55 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 19:55:42 -0400

I personally have no problem with people DOING whatever they want to do. But many of the people passionate about these kind of questions are not DOING it, they are politicking for a point of view. The military doesn't need to be a place for social engineering campaigns, enlightenment, or whatever floats their boat.

I expect people in the military to be concerned with doing their job well, and protecting their buddy, their unit, and their country. If ANYTHING is more important than that, go elsewhere and do it to your heart's content.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 12:54 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:54:07 -0400

I have had the opportunity to train and work on deployments with other nations that allow females in their combat arms. The females were just as competent in their skills and fitness as their male counterparts, and just like males, they had a couple super stars.

The biggest issue is the standards will most likely be compromised because America has a equal opportunity and rights problem. Our military leaders are being pressured to force this into action from our civilian government and outside special interest groups. Their focus is not fielding best, well trained, specialized military. Their goal is to make sure everyone can join the team regardless of their inability to meet the current standards. In my opinion, our standards are a little weak and should be even harder.

America is so focused on not excluding anyone at the risk of everyone, this might work for Wal-Mart but DOES not belong in our military. Our military is based on exclusion, the ASVAB for starters, I am sure there a many that wanted to do something but was told no based on their ASVAB.

If the soldier meets and completes the standards, then by all means they should have the opportunity. If not then better luck next time. Keep the standards, maintain them, enforce them.

Response by SGT Stephen George made Apr 22 at 2015 1:40 PM

SGT Stephen George — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:40:16 -0400

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2015 11:48 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 May 2015 23:48:33 -0400

Before we try to integrate the SF side, why don't we start with the regular troops. Get rid of female and male standards and go ahead and just use the male standard as the standard. I think everyone will agree that we do not want watered down standards so we should not make things easier just to increase the pass rate. I am not sure why the senior leadership has to make things so complicated. When I first came in, female Marines only had to run 1.5 miles for their PFT. Around 1998 the standard started to change to the male 3 mile. Yes, their was a lot of whining but eventually they pulled their big girl panties up and did it. Senior leadership just needs to set the goal and the goal will eventually be achieved by those who are prepared. We cannot say that the standards are equal until male and females are held to the exact same standards. No more extra time to finish the 3 miles, 20 pull-ups should be the maximum for both genders. This may seem like a simple solution because it actually is.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 20 at 2015 2:54 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Wed, 20 May 2015 14:54:32 -0400

YES ... hasn't this question been beaten to death already?

Response by SGT David T. made May 20 at 2015 3:02 PM

SGT David T. — Wed, 20 May 2015 15:02:54 -0400

Yes. For the life of me I have no idea why this is such a big deal. Women perform combat roles all the time.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 20 at 2015 3:13 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Wed, 20 May 2015 15:13:16 -0400

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2015 9:37 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 May 2015 09:37:43 -0400

You are 100% right about the precedent. If women are "allowed" in combat arms then nothing stops their draft eligibility if Congress decides to do so. Short answer is no, the American people couldn't handle their daughters, mother's sisters and wives being ordered off to war. Society and economy couldn't handle it either.

Also, there is no drag/carry, heart examination in IET for combat arms do a female making it through basic likely still cannot carry or drag you if need be. Not to mention that fitness test standards are not equal because men and women are not naturally equal. So a female meeting the standard to graduate still only has to have done 50% or less of what their male counterpart had to.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2015 9:36 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 May 2015 09:36:45 -0400

This thread has been beat down with all sorts of opinions. The simple solution is to allow women to serve in any capacity they want with the caveat that there will only be one standard both mentally and physically. We cannot continue the track we are on by telling certain groups of service members that they are equal yet allowing different standards. Call it what you would like but to say someone is equal when you are not be judged on the same scale is just a feel good experiment.
Are we going to allow the weaker males to use the female standards to get into combat if they cannot hack the normal standards? Probably not. Let's cut all the mushy, feel good, social experiment stuff and just "keep it simple stupid" by having one standard. We have all agreed that the standard should not be lowered.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2015 10:23 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 May 2015 10:23:48 -0400

There may never be a final answer on this, but I say let women try. I don't care about acceptance, I simply want the same opportunity. If a woman can meet the already set standards, then there shouldn't be an issue. We all raised our right hands just the same, so if I want to go kick in doors and blow shit up, or whatever, I should be afforded that opportunity. If a woman meets said standards and isn't accepted by fellow soldiers, shame on them.

As far as the draft goes, go for it. We haven't used it in a while, but no one should be exempt from service when the country needs a surge.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2015 7:53 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 May 2015 19:53:08 -0400

I am all for it, they should also have to sign up in the selective service too.
Being in Field Artillery if a woman can complete the taskso of being a 13B Then great; but that means being able to move 60-120lb rounds so many meters over and over again there is team work, keep everyone safe, and not fall behind then I'm cool with it.

Response by SPC William Sobiesczyk made May 24 at 2015 11:52 AM

SPC William Sobiesczyk — Sun, 24 May 2015 11:52:18 -0400

I would of had no issue with a female entering my MOS either, as said in main statement they were capable of carrying, dragging fellow battles but also capable to perform MOS duties as equals with less complaining than the "Gomer Piles".

Response by PFC Tuan Trang made May 26 at 2015 3:24 PM

PFC Tuan Trang — Tue, 26 May 2015 15:24:55 -0400

That fine with me sgt, i think women can contribute alot. They has been contribute since ww2.(wasp)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2015 6:40 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 May 2015 18:40:08 -0400

Perhaps there should be an Infantry wide vote?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2015 8:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 May 2015 20:32:45 -0400

They already were. Combat Medics, Mechanics, Engineers and any other MOS that had to trav to an OP, COB, FOP to assist with mission accomplishment. We can give this a break now. Women in direct combat will help with a lot of organization strains. It may add some difficulty at first like any other change but we will be fine this is Anerica and we behind a lot of other forces in this department. But hey we are done bad ppl when it comes down to teamwork, organization and tactics. Open Arms here because my job as a recruiter just became easier for the simple fact the women in my are wants to do more combat jobs than their male counterparts.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2015 8:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 May 2015 20:56:42 -0400

One Standard. I don't care, so long as each pulls their own weight. Period

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2015 6:51 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:51:45 -0400

I am all for it. These pioneers can open the door to Selective Service for all regardless of gender. Such equality can only bring such things as equal PT scoring that has yet to occur. How about those grooming standards? I can't wait to grow my hair out and hey I get blemishes too, so what is a little make-up? Ear rings have always accentuated the shiny buttons on my dress uniform so I certainly look forward to that equality as well. The future is now and this blatant discrimination can finally end so we will all be happy. Then maybe everyone will quit walking on eggshells around the female soldiers.

Response by SGT Scott Bailey made Jul 21 at 2015 4:55 PM

SGT Scott Bailey — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:55:11 -0400

Can all my good friends pass this info along ? It may be helpful to some; Join representatives from VA, Team Rubicon, and others in the Veteran community for a Twitter chat about VA life insurance. During this chat, participants can:

Learn about eligibility for VA life insurance, including deadlines for applying. This information is especially important for separating Servicemembers and those with disabilities.
See the answers to the most common questions about VA life insurance.
Ask their own questions about VA life insurance, and share stories and tips with other Veterans and family members about VA life insurance.
Use and follow #VALifeIns to join the conversation.

Response by SGT Richard Ellis made Jul 23 at 2015 7:26 PM

SGT Richard Ellis — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:26:44 -0400

I think that there should be ONE standard for the PT test. Men and Women in the military receive the same pay, so both should have to meet the same standards on everything, thereby if a woman can meet the standards, why not let them in the combat arms roles. I personally know some females that I'd rather have watching my 6 in a firefight than a lot of males that I know.

And Yes, I think females should have to register with selective service too.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 7:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:49:44 -0400

I agree. As a medic, I have seen both sides of the spectrum, from both males and females. If they are able to move a 200+ lb guy plus gear from a firefight and give him effective treatment, who says that they cannot perform other duties while in combat. However, as others have said on this forum, I think that the standard should not be lessened in order to provide them an easier time in the unit. The standard is just that, a standard. It should be enforce regardles of gender.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 24 at 2015 2:16 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:16:59 -0400

If they can perform as good as the Female Peshmerga, I'm all for it.

Response by SSG Sean Gallagher made Jul 24 at 2015 2:52 PM

SSG Sean Gallagher — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:52:29 -0400

No.

Response by CSM Michael Poll made Jul 28 at 2015 4:21 PM

CSM Michael Poll — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:21:47 -0400

I don't care if a person is of any race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or anything, as long as they can lay down cover fire, put bullets on target and complete the mission. As long as they can do this, anyone is allowed by my side in combat.

Response by Jacob Casaus made Jul 31 at 2015 1:46 AM

Jacob Casaus — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 01:46:36 -0400

Let them do whatever the hell they want

Response by SPC James Martin made Aug 1 at 2015 3:13 AM

SPC James Martin — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 03:13:22 -0400

As a 13B veteran I believe that there ain't very many women that can do that job. I mean picking up 102lb rounds and loading them or putting 90 rounds into the CAT. I mean if a woman can load rounds and not get muscle fatigue then I am all for it

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2015 12:19 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:19:06 -0400

Yes

Response by LCpl James Robertson made Aug 20 at 2015 7:07 PM

LCpl James Robertson — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:07:31 -0400

In today's modern military, if they want it bad enough let them have it. But I do believe the majority of military women, do not want combat arms. From being in Infantry from the past, the accommodations for a women did not exist, such as digging your own (cat hole) for the use of a bathroom, not bathing. Most conversation consisted of talking about females in a negative way from our superiors. Plus it wasn't my choice to join the Infantry the military volunteered me, if I had my choice I would stay as far away from Infantry as possible, unless it have gotten easier since I left the military.

Response by SFC Harold Benton made Aug 27 at 2015 9:37 AM

SFC Harold Benton — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:37:54 -0400

Same standards, do the job, OK. Nothing less, nothing different.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 27 at 2015 8:24 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:24:36 -0400

I believe the crux of the matter with equality in combat arms is, not all females can do the job not because they are incompetent, they just don't have the build males do. I am all for equality, but what I want to know is can she sling 40 lbs rounds in the breach of a tank within seconds.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Sep 5 at 2015 4:19 PM

SGT Scott Bell — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:19:17 -0400

The day of a man job is over now

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2015 2:37 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:37:18 -0400

Prove yourselves.
Otherwise, prepare to be trampled under foot!

In combat,we don't have time for bullshit. Because the enemy doesn't play fair, or do time outs.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 9:21 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:21:10 -0400

I have no personal issue with females serving or serving in a combat capacity. There is a reason why our Combat units work, we do everything together. There is no segregation (minus the section/plt integrity) when we are formed. Not saying males and females should be housed in the same room in garrison, but when we go down range, the segregation and special needs that the army enforces and affords females will drive a wedge between the cohesion of an otherwise tight knit combat unit. If it is going to be integrated then all barriers need to be removed. There is going to be some issues when the transition happened but there always is, but we as professionals will move past it and it will become second nature. This is not different that having homosexuals in our ranks. They do not get segregated or special needs based on their sexual orientation. It should be no different for females. We are adults, we are professionals, its time we start acting like it.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2015 10:37 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:37:32 -0400

This all goes back to standards. If the standard is based off of the job and not gender then we can do this. If men are capable train them. If women are capable then train them. If not go home?

Response by Capt Michael Halpin made Feb 5 at 2016 5:50 PM

Capt Michael Halpin — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:50:45 -0500

Apparently, according to politicians and folks totally unfamiliar with the military, when women enter combat arms they will no longer be women, men will no longer be men, both will become some unisex creature with no sexual desire with each one performing equally on the battlefield.

Response by CPL Brian Clouser made Feb 18 at 2016 2:05 PM

CPL Brian Clouser — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:05:15 -0500

Why not. I has seen women in the combat zone and they did just as will as the men did. With that said they need to up the women's PT standard even with the men. Once that is done then and only then should be allow to apply the schools. Women want equal right then it should be all or nothing. They shouldn't be allow to "pick and choose" what they want to be equal in

Response by SPC Michael Mullins made Apr 22 at 2016 6:54 PM

SPC Michael Mullins — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:54:50 -0400

I whole heatedly agree the only problem on the selective service front is that all a woman would have to do to get out of selective service is to get pregnant, thus making them medically nondeployable. Also just like with WW2 and Vietnam women that do not volunteer for service during a draft serve an essential function on the home front by maintaining our economy and the manufacture of the tools necessary for the men and women of the military to fight and win a war. To simplify it would be far to easy to get out of the draft and we need strong young workers at home to win a war.

Response by Sgt Jamie Grippin made Apr 24 at 2016 9:08 PM

Sgt Jamie Grippin — Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:08:21 -0400

As far as gender differences go, men and women are different but if you can do the job then go do the job. But if you can't then leave and don't start complaining about the standards. This came up when women were integrated into the pilot training programs and it has come up with firefighters. below is a link to the NY Post about a woman whole will graduate from training without meeting the standards because of politics. This is my concern.

http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/

Woman to become NY firefighter despite failing crucial fitness test

The FDNY for the first time in its history will allow someone who failed its crucial physical fitness test to join the Bravest, The Post has learned. Rebecca Wax, 33, is set to graduate Tuesday fro…

Response by LCpl James Robertson made Apr 28 at 2016 6:28 PM

LCpl James Robertson — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:28:41 -0400

We can call it equality with women joining combat arms, but that will be the least of there problems, there problems now will be just like men at the VAMC medical assistance from injuries, a lot of people may not know this but read: Ken Krause's website. Some veterans are being turned away from the VAMC, being told they are to full or no eligible.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2016 1:58 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 01:58:48 -0400

Once the so-called combat exclusion rule was rescinded it was only logical to require women to sign up for the draft. There you go, just as predicted in my original posting. Please reference, "Why should women be excluded from professional 'contact' sports and yet be considered for the profession of 'combat arms'."

Response by CPT Chris Newport made Oct 12 at 2016 12:49 PM

CPT Chris Newport — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:49:44 -0400

A disaster in the making just like having them on Navy ships - ask their Wives and the Sailors when no one is looking and you would be surprised at what you hear. Another political expediency decision from Washington. They cannot measure up, cause discipline and morale problems, no matter how smart they are. At best they belong in admin and related rear area fields and do them well and be an asset, any other way, you see reenlistment numbers drop. I can say this without being punished because my career is done.

Response by LTC Lewis Cox made Jul 28 at 2017 12:34 AM

LTC Lewis Cox — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:34:42 -0400

Bring in the females; if they an hack it, let them do it!!!

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2017 3:10 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:10:19 -0400

Personally I have no issues with it but I am coming from a support MOS as well. When I was with Civil Affairs the females could hold their own over there.

I think the stardards should be the same across the board though to graduate infantry based schools, assessments and selections, etc. This is because a female would then be expected to carry the same as men, drag/carry a wounded soldier (male or female), and anything else that may potential occur in an infantry enviornment.

I fully support the original post

Response by Sharon Lee made Oct 19 at 2017 5:47 AM

Sharon Lee — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:47:17 -0400

To each, his/her own.

Response by 1SG Alex Larson made Oct 19 at 2017 6:36 AM

1SG Alex Larson — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 06:36:28 -0400

I think the only people who should answer the "women in combat arms" question, should be the men in combat arms. If you're not in combat arms, you don't have a quantifiable opinion. Just because women in combat support have fought successfully in the defense does not mean automatically they are desired on the offense.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2017 9:20 AM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:20:48 -0500

I agree that ANYONE who can pull the weight and make it through the program deserves to be in the program, regardless of religion, orientation, gender, etc.