Posted on Feb 25, 2014
1px xxx
Anonymous
16K
177
53
Army women pilot
Nightstalker6
AP Report (2/25/2014): Few Army women want combat jobs<div><br></div><div>In a sampling of 170,000 Army women, less than 8% said they wanted combat jobs. Of those, 30% wanted to be a Night Stalker in the&nbsp;160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment - a specialized unit used to fly Special Forces very fast and very low under cover of darkness. Seventeen women already work in the unit in administrative, intelligence and logistics posts.&nbsp;Hundreds of additional pilot and crew positions were formally opened in this unit to service women in 6/2013.</div><div><div><br></div><div>The second most popular choice was infantry, followed closely by combat engineers. Far fewer said they wanted to be in the field artillery, where unit members move and work with massive rocket and cannon systems. And the least popular branch of the Army they named was armor — jobs that involve working in the hulking tanks and armored vehicles.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps most reassuring to everyone involved:&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>(1) “The men don’t want to lower the standards because they see that as a perceived risk to their team”&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>(2) “The women don’t want to lower the standards because they want the men to know they’re just as able as they are to do the same task.”<br></div><div><br></div><div>Warmest Regards, Sandy ( http://www.linkedin.com/in/armynurse )</div><div><br></div><div>Sources:&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>http://www.armytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= [login to see] 011</div><div><br></div><div>http://www.army.mil/article/18853/army-honors-its-first-female-helicopter-pilot/<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
Edited 10 y ago
Comments have been disabled
Responses: 26
SGT 94 E Radio Comsec Repairer
Ma'am,<div><br></div><div>It makes sense to me that the percentage is low. When I answered the survey asking if I wanted a combat job, I answered "no" because "hell no" was not an option.</div><div><br></div><div>Eight percent of Army women is equal to only 1% of the entire Army, and the percent who are physically qualified is even lower. &nbsp;This whole endeavor is a waste of resources.</div>
SFC Stephen P.
SFC Stephen P.
10 y
SPC Thundercloud, I can't speak for the senior leadership who makes these decisions. <br><br>The cost associated is optional. It would take nothing more than a memo to implement.<br><br>The fact that we are looking at revamping the APFT is not a result of gender integration, but the fact that the APFT does a poor job at evaluating a soldier's fitness for a specific job. Gender integration simply illustrates the deficiency. <br><br>Quarters are not much of an issue. Colleges have had mixed gender dorms for quite a while. <br><br>I've not seen any news on maternity PT. If you have any links to that I'd be happy to take a look.<br>
SSG Robert Burns
SSG Robert Burns
10 y
<p>We just spent $6 million dollars "revamping" a APFT that we then scrapped.&nbsp; Now we are cutting Soldier's, benefits, and retirements.&nbsp; </p><p>Should the focus (and scarce moeny) really be on getting 1% of women into new jobs that are already being done and cut for that matter?</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
SFC Stephen P.
SFC Stephen P.
10 y
I'm not seeing how the PPPT is a result of removing the restrictions on where women can serve. <br><br>If the issue at hand was whether or not women should serve at all I might consider this as an associated expense, but that ship has sailed.<br>
CSM Christopher Irwin
CSM Christopher Irwin
10 y
SGT Newman,<br><br>I took that finance class as well. All of what you're saying briefs well but consider the second and third order effects to the organization and the bottom line. The Army (despite popular opinion) should not be the test bed for every social experiment...simply because John Q. Taxpayer (once they see the price tag) will not want to absorb the cost. We're in a current time where we've already over spent our budget, there are already (albeit vastly overinflated) problems with SHARP and EO issues; it seems to me that we would want to prevent more in the future. If it's at the expense of a small percentage not being able to prove their worth, than so be it. Military leaders need to re-establish their stones and tell higher-ups no.<br>
SGT(P) Section Leader
This really forces me to ask one fundamental question, "Who is really pushing this thing?"<br><div><br></div><div>I'm talking specifics, not Congress, or DoD, or some faceless acronym that we can blame. I want to know the specific individuals involved in this that think this is a great idea that will somehow magically become cost effective over any period of time.</div>
SGT(P) Section Leader
SGT(P) (Join to see)
10 y
Why is it that the most cliche' crap is the most fundamentally true? It really is all about the guy to the left and right of you, and not in some cheesy "Black Hawk Down" monologue kind of way. The trials we endure are usually only possible because you have people right there with you going through the same damn thing. That's why you go back. You don't want them to have to go through it alone.&nbsp;
SSG Drill Sergeant
SSG (Join to see)
9 y
"cheesy "Black Hawk Down" monologue " Baaaaaa Haaaaaa !! oh sorry, I'm just rude crude and socially unacceptable. too funny Jaynes
SFC Stephen P.
Compare a hospital unit to a firefighter unit. Both contain 100% gender interchangeable positions, but the density of female soldiers is drastically different.<br><br>Policy itself will not overcome culturally ingrained gender roles. <br>
CPT Richard Riley
CPT Richard Riley
10 y
Good comparison.<br>

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close