Why were women not allowed in combat arms before?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:10:41 -0400

A fellow OC has written a paper for an English class saying in her 1 year experience of the Army she’s seen so much favoritism towards males. That male get opportunity’s while women have to earn them. Women are rarely chosen to lift heavy things, get selected for schools...etc. (Rest of the details I will put in the comments)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2017 12:13 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:13:59 -0400

She also says that every platoon she has led us said crap behind her back saying “She’s too bossy, enthusiastic, and has no idea what she’s doing.” Although all of us OC’s have never been outside of TRADOC and the only platoon she’s ever led was possible basic and AIT, not to mention only 1 year in the Army National Guard.

So my question is what to say when someone asks for your opinion. When she’s telling civilians how terrible the military is and that women are just now able to be in combat arms.

Mainly why did it take until today for women to be in combat arms? The history of it? I would like to know before I say something and so others will know what’s true

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2017 12:15 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:15:58 -0400

P.S. She’s only in to get college money and to have a resume saying retired 2nd. Lieutenant and plans on getting a medical discharge and receive benefits so she can be a stay at home mom, she has said this many times so I’m not making this up

Response by COL Charles Williams made Sep 28 at 2017 12:46 AM

COL Charles Williams — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:46:39 -0400

SGT Private RallyPoint Member .... Is your point about the history of this... or do your think woman don't belong in the Army or Combat Arms? I am not tracking your three sequential posts.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Sep 28 at 2017 1:27 AM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 01:27:18 -0400

Because you need testosterone to build and maintain the strength and stamina required to perform effectively in combat arms. Young men's bodies produce an abundance of testosterone. Women's bodies produce very little. This is why I think it's a mistake to allow women into combat arms. But that decision wasn't up to me, so oh well.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2017 2:42 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 02:42:13 -0400

A combination of societal norms in place since before medieval times and a lack of women training physically in order to even come close to having the ability to do the job. Now that women know how to make themselves stronger, and a loosening of these archaic values, it's slowly changing.

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made Sep 28 at 2017 5:52 AM

SFC Kenneth Hunnell — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 05:52:12 -0400

The question should come from a woman
Then how many women really want the equality to be held to the same chances

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2017 7:08 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:08:45 -0400

Unsure what "OC" means. Officer candidate?

In either case, let me respond this way:

SPC,

There are going to be times in your Army career where you are going to run across topics that you'd be better off just leaving for other people to worry about.

This is one of those times.

Also, regardless of what the female OC is saying or has said about her intentions for the future, if you're in a school with her, just ignore it and drive on. Focus on your own performance, do as best you can, and graduate. Then you'll move on and likely never interact with her again.

Either way, good luck.

Response by SGT Jim Arnold made Sep 28 at 2017 8:23 AM

SGT Jim Arnold — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 08:23:45 -0400

reading your statements on that OC she's needing an adjustment to her plans and ways of thinking.

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Sep 28 at 2017 8:30 AM

PO3 Donald Murphy — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 08:30:41 -0400

Remember that the period post-WW2 was called the baby boom for a reason. Re-population. Total War as a concept was introduced to America in 1918 and America did not like what it saw (nor did the rest of the world, for that matter...). This is why sobriquets like "the war to end all wars" was bandied about. Following WW2, Rosie the Riveter was exhorted to hang her goggles and gloves up, and go find a nice G.I. Such was the fear from the massive loss of life. This bestowed upon the female sex, the highest purpose in life/society. As a result, "a woman's place" was decided to be as far as away from combat as possible.

From a personal standpoint, I joined the Navy in 1985, a mere handful of years after women were allowed to serve onboard "combat ships." Prior to that, women onboard cruisers, destroyers, etc, was strictly forbidden. The fear's main root was that losses would be so great in the next war that there would be no one left to re-populate. There were other ideas like "women don't have the same strength level," etc, but the majority rule from a history perspective is the fact that we can't have all the wombs destroyed. As the Cold War kicked in to gear and atrocity-warfare came to light, the next fear would be rape. We don't want our mommy's and girls being raped and upon capture, they will surely be.

Response by LCpl Shane Couch made Sep 28 at 2017 9:49 AM

LCpl Shane Couch — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:49:11 -0400

From what I have been told, and it actually made sense to me, was that men are natural protectors. We take pride in being able to protect the women we care so much for. When a woman is introduced to your unit, you tend to care for her, just like you care for everyone else that you are fighting beside. It's a family, and she is now a part of your family. If she is there by your side fighting with you, you will possibly have that natural instinct to protect "your female" and focus more on keeping her safe. In doing this you may put yourself or other members of your unit at risk to protect her. And that is where the problem with women in combat comes to play. Can they do the same as us? Most definitely. Do they need to prove it? No they don't.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2017 9:53 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:53:06 -0400

This can be summed up with: "in her 1 year experience" That's basically zero experience in which she's forming her opinion on. This sounds like her opinion was solidified long ago and now she's just grabbing whatever she can to support it.

Response by Cpl Mark A. Morris made Sep 28 at 2017 8:33 PM

Cpl Mark A. Morris — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 20:33:20 -0400

It was not because anyone disliked women. There use to be want is called a PFT with other requirements that a lot of young men could not pass to make it into Victor Units.
That's all changed now. Except SOCOM. I suspect, Special Operations still maintain a very high PFT requirement. Along with a host of other requirements that require physical and mental strength that will weed out the non-hackers. Male, or female.
I just love gender neutral PFT's. It makes us, what's the word, oh yes, strong.
Dam! I just got a paper cut. I will have to take the rest of the day off and find a puppy to play with.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2017 12:03 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:03:23 -0400

Ask yourself this question again, then ponder for a moment. Your mother, your sister, your wife, your granddaughters, their granddaughters. Now if you can imagine the question that you have asked, what would you do if it wasn't a choice? What if there was no men around anymore who could fight a real fight? If you could answer this question for yourself then by all means you would understand the purpose for not having them in a real fight.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Sep 29 at 2017 4:29 PM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:29:51 -0400

Why were women not allowed in combat arms... there's probably many reasons. Some true, some not so true. Ask a million people, you'll probably get a variation of the same answers. For starters, men and women are built different physically. We are biologically suited to different tasks.

In the Marine Corps, if you're not a combat MOS, you still get a month's worth of combat training, and even in that month, a good portion of the women we trained with encountered some sort of injury because their bodies aren't designed to do the things males do.

The training standards have always been different and women have not been held to the same standards as men. When I was still in, they were talking about having women do pullups for the PFT. When it came time to implement it, most women still couldn't do it, so they delayed the implementation of it. Now that I've been out for 2 years, they only recently started having women perform pullups to pass the PFT. But the standards still aren't the same as they have to do less than half the pullups the males have to do in order to pass.

How can you reasonably expect women to perform at the same level of their male counterparts when we hold them to standards far lower than their male counterparts.

Then you have the social standards/biological urges that influence our judgment. Men are protectors while women are the caregivers. It's ingrained into our biology and much of society revolves around that idea. Kinda like when a boat is sinking and they put women and children first on the life rafts. We might believe in equality and believe that all life is sacred, but our brains are wired to put the welfare and safety of women above our male counterparts.

So if you're on the battlefield and 2 of your fellow soldiers get wounded, but you can only save 1. In a choice between the man and the woman, most people are far more likely to choose the woman. Because our brains are wired to think she needs more protection than the man.

I have zero issue with women being in the military or serving in the combat elements. I've known a handful of women who can PT just as hard as their male counterparts. But I can understand the arguments against women in combat because those examples of hard charging go-getter female Marines are few and far between.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2017 11:05 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:05:58 -0500

SPC Slavens, in 1948 congress passed a law integrating females into the Navy, Marines, and Air Force. one of the stipulations of the law was that they could not serve in aircraft or ships that would be involved in direct combat. The same law established the WAC as a part of the Army. However, it did not provide restrictions to females serving in combat. The reason is more than likely because the jobs available to women in the WAC did not pertain to being in direct combat. Once the WACs were fully integrated into the Army there was never a law passed by congress restricting such duty. The Army decided to restrict females from serving in direct combat and developed regulations preventing such in order to maintain what Army leaders at the time felt was Congress's intent behind the 1948 law. This regulation went into effect a couple years after female integration. During my research on the subject I never found any official document that validated an official reason behind the ban but it basically comes down to a belief in 1948 that a woman's place was in the home and not in combat and societal norms/expectations. Fortunately many people's minds have changed over the years and now this is becoming a possibility for those female service members that 1) want to join a combat arms MOS and 2) can meet the prescribed standards to join the MOS.
On a side note, there are many people who feel that females just cannot cut it in the combat arms when reality says that there are numerous men that cannot cut it. Some female Soldiers will and some will not but that is the same no matter what MOS someone plans to go into. Some say that females should have to meet the same standards as males to join the combat arms. As someone listed above, the APFT is only one measure of fitness and has no bearing on how well someone will perform their duties or perform in combat. However, as a result of this, the Army created the OPAT which has prevented both male and female Soldiers from entering combat arms. In my discussions with combat arms senior NCOs currently attending USASMA, they all agree that the implementation of the OPAT has reduced the number of male Soldiers that have been getting injured because they were identified prior as not being able to meet the physical standards and therefore not allowed to join combat arms.