• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Women in U.S. infantry (USMC, Rangers, etc. - merged)

The upward mobility of women throughout the US military is a red herring. I think the real goal is to weaken the military. Women have no place in the infantry. Armor,artillery and engineers are wide open. The "lets give women " a chance crowd really want a woman as Army Chief of Staff or Chairman of the JCS. They can have that just as we now have minorities as general officers. I dont want to see special treatment.If a woman earns her position I'm all for it.Just not in the infantry.
 
Personally, I don't think that this is the right time for "The Women in Combat Debate" as right now we're still actively engaged global operations and at home we're faced with downsizing and cutbacks.

Once we hit a point of equilibrium, then perhaps the DOD can begin a sensible and well studied debate on whether or not women would be a valuable inclusion into the combat arms, but until such a point has been reached, I personally favor the continued restriction of women serving in combat roles.

 
Ex-SHAD said:
Personally, I don't think that this is the right time for "The Women in Combat Debate" as right now we're still actively engaged global operations and at home we're faced with downsizing and cutbacks.
...

From my POV, the above is exactly why it's high time for the US to move forward with modern "equilibrium".  In times of limited staff, budget cuts and decreased positions they should be ensuring they hire the best possible person for the job/task at hand vice excluding roughly half their population from consideration/competition based upon nothing but their gender.

There's that old saying, "I don't give a shit if my child's teacher is black, white, male, female, gay, straight as long as they were the best teacher available to be hired."  I hold the same belief to soldiers.
 
Ex-SHAD said:
.....right now we're still actively engaged global operations and at home we're faced with downsizing and cutbacks
Out of curiosity, when do you see either of those conditions ending, such that everyone can just put their feet up and have a "well-studied debate"?


[I intentionally left "sensible" out of your quote because this is one of those topics where many actors cannot meet that criteria regardless of external factors, such as budgets or op tempo]
 
Ex-SHAD said:
Personally, I don't think that this is the right time for "The Women in Combat Debate" as right now we're still actively engaged global operations and at home we're faced with downsizing and cutbacks.

Once we hit a point of equilibrium, then perhaps the DOD can begin a sensible and well studied debate on whether or not women would be a valuable inclusion into the combat arms, but until such a point has been reached, I personally favor the continued restriction of women serving in combat roles.

The problem with that is there will ALWAYS be some war/conflict somewhere in which the US is engaged.  There will never be that equilibrium of which you are referring.
 
ArmyVern said:
From my POV, the above is exactly why it's high time for the US to move forward with modern "equilibrium".  In times of limited staff, budget cuts and decreased positions they should be ensuring they hire the best possible person for the job/task at hand vice excluding roughly half their population from consideration/competition based upon nothing but their gender.

There's that old saying, "I don't give a crap if my child's teacher is black, white, male, female, gay, straight as long as they were the best teacher available to be hired."  I hold the same belief to soldiers.

Absolutely, very well said. There are men, just as women, in certain positions who are not a correct fit. Hopefully we reach the full ideal of best-person-for-the-job sooner rather than later. I think society has progressed substantially in recent decades, but there's still a lot of room for growth.
 
http://www.brokenandunreadable.com/broken%20and%20unreadable%20207.jpg
 
Now I'm  Civy and not sure if this was mentioned but has anyone considered that women are excluded form infantry due to the squad mates. Note I did not come up with tthis theory this was one of an american ranger I believe. He said that Women are not incluced in the infantry due to the fact that if they get injured men are more likely to stop the mission and protect her due to are natural instincts. Again I'm  civy and not sure if it was considered just wondered what people thought of this and maybe why it explains why girls arent allowed to be infantry. This is not my opinion but it has some sense to it.
 
So you maybe heard that from a Ranger?  Anyways,  this isn't a new discussion and that isn't a new idea or insight.  Before jumping into a discussion,  it would serve you best to read it from the start and see what has already been discussed.


There are a number of factors as to why women were excluded from the ground combat arms.  Physical fitness(endurance/strength, etc) were also a factor,  among others.



 
Willing To Learn said:
Now I'm  Civy and not sure if this was mentioned but has anyone considered that women are excluded form infantry due to the squad mates. Note I did not come up with tthis theory this was one of an american ranger I believe. He said that Women are not incluced in the infantry due to the fact that if they get injured men are more likely to stop the mission and protect her due to are natural instincts. Again I'm  civy and not sure if it was considered just wondered what people thought of this and maybe why it explains why girls arent allowed to be infantry. This is not my opinion but it has some sense to it.

Don't see a lot of men rushing to their aid...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gng3sPiJdzA

 
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57589691/pentagon-to-begin-putting-women-in-combat-roles-by-2015/

AP/ June 17, 2013, 5:04 PM
Pentagon to begin training women for combat roles by 2015

WASHINGTON Women may be able to start training as Army Rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy SEALs a year later under plans set to be announced by the Pentagon that would slowly bring women into thousands of combat jobs, including those in elite special operations forces.

Details of the plans were obtained by The Associated Press. They call for requiring women and men to meet the same physical and mental standards to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reviewed the plans and has ordered the services to move ahead.

The move, expected to be announced Tuesday, follows revelations of a startling number of sexual assaults in the armed forces. Earlier this year, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the sexual assaults might be linked to the longstanding ban on women serving in combat because the disparity between the roles of men and women creates separate classes of personnel — male "warriors" versus the rest of the force.

While the sexual assault problem is more complicated than that, he said, the disparity has created a psychology that lends itself to disrespect for women.

Under the schedules military leaders delivered to Hagel, the Army will develop standards by July 2015 to allow women to train and potentially serve as Rangers, and qualified women could begin training as Navy SEALS by March 2016 if senior leaders agree. Military leaders have suggested bringing senior women from the officer and enlisted ranks into special forces units first to ensure that younger, lower-ranking women have a support system to help them get through the transition.

The Navy intends to open up its Riverine force and begin training women next month, with the goal of assigning women to the units by October. While not part of the special operations forces, the coastal Riverine squadrons do close combat and security operations in small boats. The Navy plans to have studies finished by July 2014 on allowing women to serve as SEALs, and has set October 2015 as the date when women could begin Navy boot camp with the expressed intention of becoming SEALs eventually.

U.S. Special Operations Command is coordinating the matter of what commando jobs could be opened to women, what exceptions might be requested and when the transition would take place.

The proposals leave the door open for continued exclusion of women from some jobs, if research and testing find that women could not be successful in sufficient numbers, but the services would have to defend such decisions to top Pentagon leaders.

Army officials plan to complete gender-neutral standards for the Ranger course by July 2015. Army Rangers are one of the service's special operations units, but many soldiers who go through Ranger training and wear the coveted tab on their shoulders never actually serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment. To be considered a true Ranger, soldiers must serve in the regiment.

In January, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed an order that wiped away generations of limits on where and how women could fight for their country. At the time, they asked the services to develop plans to set the change in motion.

The decision reflects a reality driven home by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where battle lines were blurred and women were propelled into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached, but not formally assigned, to battalions. So, even though a woman could not serve officially as a battalion infantryman going out on patrol, she could fly a helicopter supporting the unit or be part of a team supplying medical aid if troops were injured.

Of the more than 6,700 U.S. service members who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 150 have been women.

The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex.

The military services are also working to determine the cost of opening certain jobs to women, particularly aboard a variety of Navy ships, including certain submarines, frigates, mine warfare and other smaller warships. Dozens of ships do not have adequate berthing or facilities for women to meet privacy needs, and would require design and construction changes.

Under a 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines, and they often included top command and support staff.

Last year the military opened up about 14,500 combat positions to women, most of them in the Army, by allowing them to serve in many jobs at the battalion level. The January order lifted the last barrier to women serving in combat, but allows the services to argue to keep some jobs closed.

The bulk of the nearly 240,000 jobs currently closed to women are in the Army, including those in infantry, armor, combat engineer and artillery units that are often close to the battlefront. Similar jobs in the Marine Corps are also closed.

Army officials have laid out a rolling schedule of dates in 2015 to develop gender-neutral standards for specific jobs, beginning with July for engineers, followed by field artillery in March and the infantry and armor jobs no later than September.

Women make up about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active U.S. military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or neighboring nations in support of the wars

© 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
 
Ah the old pc monster raises its ugly head.Maybe 1% of female applicants might be able to pass Ranger School.I doubt any could pass BUDS.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Ah the old pc monster raises its ugly head.Maybe 1% of female applicants might be able to pass Ranger School.I doubt any could pass BUDS.

Hey, if Demi Moore could do it ..... >:D
 
I think they will find that women are not passing buds/ ranger courses in sufficient numbers. My bet is there will be a handful in the initial trial. But the amount of applicants will die out. And it won't be an issue.
 
Army officials have laid out a rolling schedule of dates in 2015 to develop gender-neutral standards for specific jobs, beginning with July for engineers, followed by field artillery in March and the infantry and armor jobs no later than September.
The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex.

I'm curious what the new standards will look like.  Was the physical standards due to be reexamined or is this only happening now because females will soon be allowed into these jobs?  I haven't seen anything about the Marines changing their standards yet, and they've already have a few females on the Infantry Officer Course, AFAIK none passed due to injury, or not meeting standards(failing obstacle course)

Military leaders have suggested bringing senior women from the officer and enlisted ranks into special forces units first to ensure that younger, lower-ranking women have a support system to help them get through the transition.
Tomahawk6, you can probably give some insight into this.  If female NCOs and Officers reclass from their former MOS into a Combat Arms one would they still retain their rank and be put into a leadership position right away?

The bulk of the nearly 240,000 jobs currently closed to women are in the Army, including those in infantry, armor, combat engineer and artillery units
I think there is a number of Engineer and Artillery jobs that have been available to women for awhile, and I believe some others opened up last year.  AFAIK it is just Cannon Crew member, Forward Observer, Combat Engineer that is male only at this time and perhaps a couple others.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Ah the old pc monster raises its ugly head...

I'd have to agree. I admittedly know very little about the job (Special Ops, Seals, Rangers)...factual anyway. But from what I do know and also speaking as a female, I don't think it's necessary and/or a good idea. I'm all for equality of the sexes *as much as possible*, but I feel there are certain circumstances/dynamics where a female presence will not add positively to the big picture. (Granted, specific types of circumstances might be few and far between, but I think this situation is applicable.) Just like there are certain situations where a male presence will not be beneficial in any way.

(And I'm not speaking solely about careers/employment, I'm speaking about a wide variety of sometimes intense situations where one gender or the other complements the overall scenario more effectively.)
 
The move, expected to be announced Tuesday, follows revelations of a startling number of sexual assaults in the armed forces. Earlier this year, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the sexual assaults might be linked to the longstanding ban on women serving in combat because the disparity between the roles of men and women creates separate classes of personnel — male "warriors" versus the rest of the force.

This seems like a very stupid attempt at justification to me.
 
-Skeletor- said:
Tomahawk6, you can probably give some insight into this.  If female NCOs and Officers reclass from their former MOS into a Combat Arms one would they still retain their rank and be put into a leadership position right away?
Yes they would retain their rank if they reclassified.Typically the Army would limit what ranks could make the MOS change say Private to Specialist.Usually that individual would have to go to an MOS school to obtain their new MOS code.A female LT would attend the Basic Officers Course before becoming  infantry qualified.As was stated previously ADA and Field Artillery are already open to women.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Ah the old pc monster raises its ugly head.Maybe 1% of female applicants might be able to pass Ranger School.I doubt any could pass BUDS.

Sure they will, after they lower the standards  ;D
 
Back
Top