Your Opinion: New Army Report: 8% of Army Women Want Combat Jobs

Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:59:07 -0500

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 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. 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: </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” </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: </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>

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 7:09 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:09:57 -0500

its better to have 8 lions then 100 sheep as long as standards are the same and doesn't change the infantry culture then i'm ok with it. when bullets start snapping around you nobody cares about anything as long as somebody has your back<div> </div>

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 7:29 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:29:04 -0500

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.  This whole endeavor is a waste of resources.</div>

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Feb 25 at 2014 7:41 PM

SFC Stephen P. — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:41:35 -0500

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>

Response by MAJ Samuel Weber made Feb 26 at 2014 10:06 AM

MAJ Samuel Weber — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:06:20 -0500

No real opinion to share here, just a comment on the Colonel in your photo. She is now a Brigadier General and was the first Deputy Commanding General for Support in Army history with the 1st CAV. I met her in Afghanistan when she served with ISAF in Kabul. Fast burner who made BG in less than 25 years Commissioned Service. BG Laura Richardson. Also a strong advocate for successful women in the military. 

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2014 12:20 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:20:27 -0500

<p>I am so shocked by the results of this survey, is not possible, I demand a recount </p><p> </p><p>P.S. Hopefully the sarcasm translated well from thought to text</p>

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made Feb 26 at 2014 5:00 PM

SSG Ralph Watkins — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:00:02 -0500

I served along side women in combat in Fallujah & most were adequate for the given job.  I have done missions with women during a time when the insurgents were aiming at kidnapping a female GI & doing terrible things to her on the internet.  During that period of time I was told I had to take the female soldier with me on mission yet pull one of my men to be her body guard.  That was an issue.  So despite all of the ethics, social engineering, & politics, there will always be times where female soldier will & must be treated as different.  We can't always chose how enemies or allies will act.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 4:46 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 04:46:13 -0500

Meet the standard and all is fine in my book.  My main concern; when i called in as an Infantry Squad Leader by the people that were going post to post asking this question to combat leaders was:  Sexual assault is already a big issue in the military, I have been with those joes in the field and on an all male FOB.  When the female finance officer comes around they are all trying to sneak a peak.  I hope not, but I think that putting female soldiers with male combat guys will lead to bad situations.  I feel it may be smart to start with female leaders and slowly bringing in the female soldiers.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 27 at 2014 7:38 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:38:36 -0500

I don't think it really has anything to do with combat vs non combat jobs. I would imagine these ladies are joining the military looking for good, solid careers with prospects for technical/professional certifications and an easy transition into a worthwhile career after eventually leaving the military. I would imagine anyone thinking long term would be, regardless of gender.</p><p> -</p><p> Well, those jobs are largely non combat. They can choose a support MOS, which will likely have technical schooling, further education, and a civilian equivalent when they get out, or they can play gun bunny and be qualified for a lovely career as a mall cop/ security guard.</p><p> -</p><p>Not really rocket science.</p>

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 8:53 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:53:57 -0500

Only problem I see is the previously stated sexual assault issues this could bring up and pt standards.<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I don't understand how some females can get a 300 but will fall out of a simple double-time or short ruck march</div>

Response by CW2 Stephen Pate made Feb 28 at 2014 5:17 PM

CW2 Stephen Pate — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:17:34 -0500

I have to say, I am getting irritated.  With some females fighting to "be the same" as the guys but then other Soldiers are trying to stand out by wearing religious Headgear, grow beards, or get tattoos on their face, wear their hair in pigtails...what the heck are we REALLY trying to get accomplished here??  

Response by SSG Randall P. made Mar 2 at 2014 12:09 AM

SSG Randall P. — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 00:09:26 -0500

Wait...  You mean the media made such a big deal over females being allowed into combat jobs for 8%?<br><br>Seems like some politician's pocket's got lined with cash for that one.<br><br>In any case, I think it's a step in the right direction for females to be aloud in combat.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2014 4:52 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 04:52:19 -0500

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>

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2014 9:28 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 09:28:28 -0500

Not many Black people want to go to country music conserts, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to buy tickets.<div><br></div><div> I don't think it matters how many females want these jobs or if any qualify for them, the point is a group of people should not be denied the opportunity because they don't have a penis.</div>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 8:01 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:01:55 -0400

Then we're all in agreement, Don't lower standards in combat MOSs! 

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Apr 12 at 2014 3:04 AM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 03:04:57 -0400

I think is does not matter as long as the standards do not change. I will say that as long as the standards do not change.
One post said it best when the bullets start flying I do not care who is next to me as long as they pull their weight and cover my back.
I will say this (going out in a limb) if the women want combat arms so bad then they need to sign up for the selective service just like every 18 yr old male

Response by SSG Rodney Farrar made May 2 at 2014 12:10 AM

SSG Rodney Farrar — Fri, 02 May 2014 00:10:50 -0400

This is going to make some people mad but my opinion on women in combat units is that they shouldn't be there. It has nothing to do with their ability it is pregnancy working with aviation particularly if a woman gets pregnant they are no longer useable for their MOS for at least a year. Now take that to a very small unit like 160th and that creates a higher optempo for the other guys in the shop. I had a total of 11 males in my shop 2 deployed at all times 2 in school most of the time and 2 TDY training a large majority of the time that would leave 5 guys to accomplish day to day tasks and that was very tight now add a soldier on the books but not working in the shop because of the petroleum product fumes and exposure you hurt the ability of the unit to operate smoothly now add to that multiple pregnancy's and the guys that are left just get more overworked. The ability of females to perform my job I have no questions of it's the overstressed situation it puts on the other personnel. This will be particularly evident as force size shrinks in the standard post war drawdown. The other issue comes with pre-deployment pregnancy tests for the true military first responders with only 2 hours from notification to wheels up when do you work in the pregnancy test.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2014 11:44 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:44:04 -0400

I personally would love a combat job. Guess I am part of that 8%.

Response by SFC Gary (Bigsarge) Portier USARMY RET. made Jun 20 at 2014 3:50 PM

SFC Gary (Bigsarge) Portier USARMY RET. — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 15:50:38 -0400

I did not think the % of women wanting to take a Full Combat roll would be very High. But if they go for it do not Lower the Standard. Standards should be set the same for all Military wide for what
ever they choose to do.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 30 at 2014 12:29 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:29:45 -0400

One thing about all this that bothers me is that do these women want combat jobs because they want to DO the job or because they think it will look good for promotion?

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Nov 13 at 2014 1:11 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 01:11:08 -0500

If they can pass the physical and mental tests exactly as they are on the books now, then so be it. They better make sure they're in peak physical shape.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2014 2:20 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:20:05 -0500

I know Female soldiers who are very adamant in joining forces under infantry positions, and quite frankly I am all for it. It all goes back to a post I saw on RP about women having equal rights. If they want the equality I think this is a good opportunity to prove it. As long as they have other infantry soldiers backs, i dont see an issue with it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2014 10:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:39:43 -0500

If that's the case then stop with the social experimentation.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2015 11:40 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Jan 2015 23:40:49 -0500

I can say that I personally have ZERO desire to be in a combat MOS.

However, I do believe that the females who DO want to be in a combat MOS should have the opportunity to attempt it, just like any other Joe. But, just because you are a female does not mean that the standards for graduation, physical standards etc should be lowered. If you want to be in a male dominated MOS, then you need to be able to perform your job at the same level with out any exceptions.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jan 4 at 2015 12:25 AM

SPC David Hannaman — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 00:25:36 -0500

The standard should be ability to complete the mission. Gender is irrelevant.

There should never be double standards, not for gender, race, religion, sexual preference or anything else the bean counters can dream up.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 2:27 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 14:27:40 -0500

Considering that 74000+ serve in the AD Army, 118000 serve in the Reserves and almost a half a million women currently serve in the National Guard the number reported by the AP for this poll would be a fraction of the female force. Also taking into consideration that men are not polled about their interest in combat jobs leaves this article a bit shallow for consideration. In my humble opinion I believe all jobs should be open to open to candidates who meet and exceed the performance standards without limitations based on gender. This matter has been up for debate for far too long. Women in uniform have been in combat operations and subject to enemy fire in every conflict. I have served for 22 years - active duty, reserves and national guard. I have served as a member of the enlisted force and now as an officer. I have always aspired to serve in a combat role. It has been my experience that not all men or women have an interest in combat jobs. It has also been my privilege to serve with women who easily exceed standards and expectations. I have participated in hiring boards where I have seen female packets shuffled to the bottom under those of Soldiers with combat MOS because leaders and hiring officials readily trust that an infantryman is an expert in operations and tactics. Having attended military training for non combat MOS and served as a plans officer for an IBCT I can personally attest to the steep learning curve for what was lacking in my non combat MOS training compared to my infantry officer peers. I did not get a chance to participate in this survey but if I had I would have elected to serve in the combat arms field.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2015 4:25 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:25:53 -0500

When less than 8% can carry my 190lb dead-weight body, plus thirty lbs of irreplaceable 'strategic' tac one km to an extraction - ok. By the way, who's the cute Colonel? ( :' See? I'm already distracted.