Women in Combat Roles

[Isgrimnur]

Those standards are for the base PFT for Army service. There are already different standards for women in the pushup category, which are also scaled for age.

Audie Murphy wasn't drafted. He enlisted in the Army after being turned down by the Marines, the Navy, and the Army paratroopers.

[Gavin]

Those standards are for the base PFT for Army service. There are already different standards for women in the pushup category, which are also scaled for age.

Audie Murphy wasn't drafted. He enlisted in the Army after being turned down by the Marines, the Navy, and the Army paratroopers.

I didn't say he was drafted. I said during wartimes where we have to enact a draft because we are hurting so bad we also throw some requirements out the window. Audie Murphy's story is great, but it doesn't mean the strength standards should be ignored because some people who would have failed it did a good job.

[Isgrimnur]

If those standards aren't a solid indicator of success, then why are they using them? When was the last time a set of insurgents were repulsed by a platoon busting out 60 situps in two minutes?

[Gavin]

If those standards aren't a solid indicator of success, then why are they using them? When was the last time a set of insurgents were repulsed by a platoon busting out 60 situps in two minutes?

Who says they aren't a solid indicator of success? Strength plays a significant role in the day to day operations and in combat situations. It isn't just point and click with the guns. They just aren't the only indicator of success. There are situations Audie may have failed at had he faced them.

Would you appreciate knowing that you got left behind enemy lines because your squadmate couldn't drag your bleeding ass to safety because they weren't up to male standards?

These are very real combat situations. You need to be able to depend on the members of your unit physically. Lowering the requirements for people just to allow women in this role is not just sexist (e.g. why wouldn't weaker men then also be allowed?) but it puts our troops in danger.

[Isgrimnur]

Physical training for combat units is always the suck. The government is giving the forces time to determine which ones might require exceptions for exactly those reasons.

Each service will be charged with developing policies to integrate women into every military job. For instance, the defense official said, it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral.

[Gavin]

Physical training for combat units is always the suck. The government is giving the forces time to determine which ones might require exceptions for exactly those reasons.

Each service will be charged with developing policies to integrate women into every military job. For instance, the defense official said, it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral.

Good, equality is what we need to see.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Equal rights. Signing up for the armed forces means that you might end up paying with your life at the government's direction. African Americans fought for the right to go into service during the Civil War, WWI, WWII. Interned Japanese-Americans fought for the right to serve their country in WWII. Should we deny women the right to serve in combat operations because "they might get hurt"?

Were physical and physiological standards and requirements lowered for the purposes of admitting black or Japanese members into the military, though?

Rights should be denied only when there is reason to do so. Allowing women to shoulder a rifle and go on patrol isn't going to impact the OCS attrition rate.

As she says, there's a shortage of data. So lets put the policy in place and gather the data. If it turns out it was a bad idea, I would much rather be able to point to that as a reason to backtrack than not allowing it because "we don't know what will happen".

Given that the 'data' you are referring to translates to the long-term health of female members of the military serving on front lines, which in turn could be a matter of life or death for fellow servicepersons, it would seem prudent to conduct research and gather such data prior to enacting any sweeping political agenda in matters of national security.

As Captain Katie Petronio points out in the above-linked article, there are perfectly valid reasons that members of our fighting forces must meet certain criteria:

Finally, what are the Marine Corps standards, particularly physical fitness standards, based on—performance and capability or equality? We abide by numerous discriminators, such as height and weight standards. As multiple Marine Corps Gazette articles have highlighted, Marines who can run first-class physical fitness tests and who have superior MOS proficiency are separated from the Service if they do not meet the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards. Further, tall Marines are restricted from flying specific platforms, and color blind Marines are faced with similar restrictions. We recognize differences in mental capabilities of Marines when we administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and use the results to eliminate/open specific fields. These standards are designed to ensure safety, quality, and the opportunity to be placed in a field in which one can sustain and succeed.

If it's a bad idea to lower those standards in the name of fairness and equal rights for the colour-blind, the obese, and the diminutive or lanky, it should be every bit as dubious if 'equal rights for female servicemembers' means lowering military standards and requirements in order to qualify an arbitrary quota of women for front line service.

[Isgrimnur]

And, as cited two posts above, the requirements to fill a position are going to be rendered gender neutral, just like a warehouse position where they specify "Must be able to routinely lift 80 lbs." Whether the soldier in the next foxhole has internal or external plumbing is irrelevant if they meet the specifications to do the job.

They've made no indication that they're going to lower any standards for any job requirements. Those that can pass the Army PFT test can stay in the Army. If they want to be a combat engineer, they'll need to pass the tests for that MOS. They're not going to throw the command's secretary pool into the front lines just because women can now serve there.

[El Guapo]

If it's a bad idea to lower those standards in the name of fairness and equal rights for the colour-blind, the obese, and the diminutive or lanky, it should be every bit as dubious if 'equal rights for female servicemembers' means lowering military standards and requirements in order to qualify an arbitrary quota of women for front line service.

Am I missing something where they are lowering the standards? Aren't they just allowing for women to serve if they meet whatever standards there are? Isgrimnur's link sure seems to indicate that.

[El Guapo]

Also:

WASHINGTON—Female veterans and feminist activist groups are commending the Pentagon this week following a watershed policy change that will lift the ban on women in combat roles, rendering the battlefield an equal-opportunity death zone. “The U.S. Armed Forces have been gender-neutral in their victims for years, and now they’re finally leveling the killing field for female combatants as well,” said Nadine Hynes, a retired Marine Corps Lance Corporal who was unable to add to the carnage of Iraq’s blood-soaked, limb-strewn slaughterscapes due to the Pentagon’s 1994 rule barring women from infantry and artillery roles. “Now, women will have the same opportunity to accidentally gun down innocent civilians or be ripped apart by insurgent rocket fire as men.” At press time, servicewomen were celebrating the likelihood of additional policy gains that would include the right to return from service equally haunted by their ordeals, and the right to face just as many hurdles to proper mental health care as their fellow servicemen.

[Anonymous Bosch]

And, as cited two posts above, the requirements to fill a position are going to be rendered gender neutral, just like a warehouse position where they specify "Must be able to routinely lift 80 lbs." Whether the soldier in the next foxhole has internal or external plumbing is irrelevant if they meet the specifications to do the job.

Perhaps so, but as Captain Katie Petronio explains, there's a great deal more to sustained front line combat operations than "Must be able to routinely lift 80 lbs".

They've made no indication that they're going to lower any standards for any job requirements.

Alas, simply because the word "modify" is used rather than "lower" in formal discussions surrounding what changes to the standards would be necessary to better accommodate both genders, does not rule out the possibility of lowered standards, as Petronio makes clear:

At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.

There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death. For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?

[GreenGoo]

I don't see how any of that is relevant. The change isn't so ALL women can be front line combatants. Just the qualified ones. Given that it is fact that males on average are bigger and stronger than women, I absolutely would expect more female dropouts than males. Males are genetically more capable of feats of strength than women, on average. But that does not mean that some women can't meet the requirements.

As for combat loads, give me a break. The current combat load exists because it contains as much as possible while still being carryable by a soldier. If we were a race of super gorillas, the combat load would be greater. If we were of smaller and weaker stature, we'd carry less. Changing the combat load based on a different standard than the men's is perfectly reasonable, assuming they are still capable of carrying "enough". What is defined as "enough" is open to interpretation, and has changed many times over the decades and centuries.

I absolutely think that front line combat qualifications be as gender neutral as possible. But as long as they can show they are combat capable at a trained and skilled level, I'm good.

I do not want a subpar soldier covering me. But just like there is variance in the combat performance in the current all male combat teams, there will be variance of performance in male/female combat teams. The key is to keep everyone competent. If that means a lower percentage of women qualify than men, I'm good with that. Equality does not mean identical, but neither does it mean completely separate either.

[Isgrimnur]

You're speculating that modify means lower. There's an entire industry of people that observe people at work to determine what the requirements are to succeed at a job and determine how to improve them. They just announced the changes. It's going to take time. And I'm sure that if the standards get lower than what the people doing the job feel is appropriate, the higher ups will hear about it.

Any job is more than "must be able to lift 80 lbs." You seem ready to shut down even the effort of codifying it. This isn't affirmative action, it's equal opportunity.

The world runs on meeting standards, from grade school tests to drivers licenses to firearms certification. Set the standard that's required and let people test against it to get the ability to do the job. If they fail, wash them back to their replacement depot or old unit, same as you would with a sick-call Ranger.

[Gavin]

You're speculating that modify means lower. There's an entire industry of people that observe people at work to determine what the requirements are to succeed at a job and determine how to improve them. They just announced the changes. It's going to take time. And I'm sure that if the standards get lower than what the people doing the job feel is appropriate, the higher ups will hear about it.

Any job is more than "must be able to lift 80 lbs." You seem ready to shut down even the effort of codifying it. This isn't affirmative action, it's equal opportunity.

The world runs on meeting standards, from grade school tests to drivers licenses to firearms certification. Set the standard that's required and let people test against it to get the ability to do the job. If they fail, wash them back to their replacement depot or old unit, same as you would with a sick-call Ranger.

Yeah, specifying the minimum requirements should only help us as long as they don't hit a lower mark to make it possible for more women to make it.

On the other front, how do you feel about the other criticisms? Like the idea that soldiers would give the females preference in combat situations and such? Is there any legitimate concern that simply stems from including women in with the boys for no other reason than they're female?

[GreenGoo]

If men are willing to open doors for women while they'll let doors slam in the faces of other men, just imagine what acts of super human ability they will be capable on the battlefield with women about.

[Isgrimnur]

On the other front, how do you feel about the other criticisms? Like the idea that soldiers would give the females preference in combat situations and such? Is there any legitimate concern that simply stems from including women in with the boys for no other reason than they're female?

I discount it completely that, in the middle of a firefight, that infantry soldiers are going to stand by and let any of their squaddies suffer because there's a female standing ten feet away. Show me evidence of that instead of raw speculation.

My main point is to let them try it. If it needs adjustment, modification, retraction, whatever, so be it. But you seem to want to come up with reason after reason of why it won't work.

[Gavin]

On the other front, how do you feel about the other criticisms? Like the idea that soldiers would give the females preference in combat situations and such? Is there any legitimate concern that simply stems from including women in with the boys for no other reason than they're female?

I discount it completely that, in the middle of a firefight, that infantry soldiers are going to stand by and let any of their squaddies suffer because there's a female standing ten feet away. Show me evidence of that instead of raw speculation.

My main point is to let them try it. If it needs adjustment, modification, retraction, whatever, so be it. But you seem to want to come up with reason after reason of why it won't work.

I can show you cities that have burned to the ground just to appease women. Well... I can't, but the remains thereof.

[Rip]

Equal rights. Signing up for the armed forces means that you might end up paying with your life at the government's direction. African Americans fought for the right to go into service during the Civil War, WWI, WWII. Interned Japanese-Americans fought for the right to serve their country in WWII. Should we deny women the right to serve in combat operations because "they might get hurt"?

Rights should be denied only when there is reason to do so. Allowing women to shoulder a rifle and go on patrol isn't going to impact the OCS attrition rate.

As she says, there's a shortage of data. So lets put the policy in place and gather the data. If it turns out it was a bad idea, I would much rather be able to point to that as a reason to backtrack than not allowing it because "we don't know what will happen".

Just to be clear, serving in the military is not a right as far as I know. In fact you lose a number of rights by by enlisting.

[Isgrimnur]

Of that, I'm fully aware. But as with most things, there should be a demonstrable reason for removing it.

[Rip]

If men are willing to open doors for women while they'll let doors slam in the faces of other men, just imagine what acts of super human ability they will be capable on the battlefield with women about.

We have already seen favoritism on a political level so no reason to expect it not to exist in the field. There is no way that the same attention and resources would have been paid to rescuing Jessica Lynch if it had been John Lynch instead.

[Rip]

Of that, I'm fully aware. But as with most things, there should be a demonstrable reason for removing it.

It being the privilege and honor.

[Isgrimnur]

Which I was denied due to medical reasons.

[GreenGoo]

An article that sprung up on the topic, due to the announced changes. It's sparse, and I'm sure there are more detailed reports out there, but it'll do for now.

For the women who did sign up and ended up fighting in Afghanistan, many found the experience rewarding. As part of a two-person, heavy machine-gun team, Infantry Cpl. Katie Hodges regularly carried 80 pounds of equipment, including 220 rounds of ammunition, and sometimes went out on patrol for up to four days in a stretch. "It was great," she said.

It's great?! Omg, she's belittling war! She thinks killing people is like a fun past time or something! Castrate her...oh, wait.

But seriously, there are a number of countries that already allow women in combat roles. Israel for one, and I think we can agree that that is a very well trained and equipped military that is more than for show.

And as has been said lots, American women are already finding themselves on the front line. The only difference is that now they are going to be there intentionally.

Read the article. It discusses briefly the probability that officers were favouring the women, keeping them out of combat as much as they thought they could get away with.

Also

One former senior Canadian commander in Afghanistan, who declined to be named, said that while women performed well in combat roles, male colleagues often had a counterproductive desire to "protect" them. Men looked to carry women combatants' gear or protect them in the battlefield, he said.

Carry their gear, or rape them, which seems to be another problem with mixed gender military forces. No cites. Too lazy and I don't have any specific event in mind. A quick google has several articles on the "hidden epidemic".

[LawBeefaroni]

But seriously, there are a number of countries that already allow women in combat roles. Israel for one, and I think we can agree that that is a very well trained and equipped military that is more than for show.

And yet even Israel has very different service lengths and service role exemptions for women and men.

Length of service should depend solely on the job, rather than on one's gender, it said. Currently, compulsory service is three years for men and two for women.

It also said the criteria for exemptions from service should be the same for both men and women.

All jobs in the army should be open to both sexes, as long as the candidate meets the relevant criteria, the report continued. "There should be no jobs or units categorically closed to either women or men," it said. "Service in all units, postings and missions would be joint, subject to the rules of appropriate integration."

The report supporting greater gender equality in the IDF mentioned in the article also proposed quotas for female promotion. The report was never acted on by the IDF. Clearly it's not all ass-kicking and equality in the IDF.



Expanding combat roles for women is almost always the result of manpower (no pun intended) and resource squeezes rather than a belief in gender equality. As such it will always result in the least possible combat for women that still allows for sufficient manpower/resources.

[Gavin]

Which I was denied due to medical reasons.

To which I'll add, being weak enough to be a liability to members of the unit that would otherwise rely on you is also a "medical" reason to be passed over.

[Isgrimnur]

Which we've covered and has already been addressed in the article. They're not going to slap an 80-lb ruck on Yeardley Smith's back and send her out to defend a fire base.

[Isgrimnur]

USAF: Ahead of the game:

While 99 percent of Air Force positions are currently open to women, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III said the service will now pursue opening the final 1 percent.

"2013 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Department of Defense allowing women to serve as combat pilots," Welsh said. "By rescinding the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule, we can pursue integrating women into the seven remaining Air Force career fields still closed, all associated with special operations. We're focused on ensuring America's Air Force remains capable and ready with the best-qualified people serving where we need them."
...
Officer / Enlisted Air Force Specialty Codes closed to women:
- 13DXA (Combat Control Officer - special operations forces / direct ground combat)
- 13DXB (Combat Rescue/Special Tactics Officer - special operations forces / direct ground combat)
- 15WXC (Special Operations Weather Officer - special operations forces / direct ground combat)
- 1C2XX (Enlisted Combat Controller - special operations forces /direct ground combat)
- 1C4XX (Enlisted Tactical Air Command and Control - some special operations forces /direct ground combat)
- 1T2XX (Enlisted Pararescue - special operations forces /direct ground combat)
- 1W0X2 (Enlisted Special Operations Weather - special operations forces /direct ground combat)

[Gavin]

Which we've covered and has already been addressed in the article. They're not going to slap an 80-lb ruck on Yeardley Smith's back and send her out to defend a fire base.

Hold on now, we may be missing an opportunity here. What if it was an entire unit of Yeardley Smiths? Can there be a movie tie-in? How much more taxes do I need to personally contribute to make this happen?!

On a serious note regarding your followup, I would expect the airforce to be more compliant than the Army or Navy. They just have fewer direct ground combat scenarios which is the only position that really hinges on strength. I mean, except for maybe the potato sack hoister unit. Those guys have to be strong!

[LawBeefaroni]

On a serious note regarding your followup, I would expect the airforce to be more compliant than the Army or Navy. They just have fewer direct ground combat scenarios which is the only position that really hinges on strength. I mean, except for maybe the potato sack hoister unit. Those guys have to be strong!

The first female combat pilot to die was a Navy pilot though.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Food for thought from the first woman to lead an all-male field force in the British Army re: lowering modifying standards to better accomodate gender equality requirements:

Fitness standards for British Army recruits including men have been reduced so that more women can join and equality targets can be met, it has been claimed.

Major Judith Webb, the first woman to lead an all-male field force in the Army, warned that standards would deteriorate further if the UK followed America in allowing women soldiers to fight on the front line.

She said women should not be given roles in infantry units where they would be expected to “close with and kill the enemy at close quarters”.

But Major Webb, who left the Army in 1986, said she had been “horrified” to learn that changes had already been brought in that watered down recruitment standards for both genders for “military fitness” and “combat effectiveness”.

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We don’t want to reduce standards of fitness for male soldiers, for infantry soldiers, in order to meet what women can do and that is, I am afraid, what is likely to happen, and is already happening.”

Major Webb said it was part of a drive to “meet gender equality requirements”

Just to clarify, I have nothing against women serving in front line combat operations. If they're able to meet the exact same physical fitness standards as their male counterparts, then have at it. For that matter, if it's ultimately determined that women make for more militarily-effective infantry than men, then by all means have an all-female fighting force on front lines. Do whatever it takes to maintain the best fighting force out there. My concern is with the notion of political correctness ultimately trumping military effectiveness and efficiency, as mentioned above.

[GreenGoo]

Where do you guys think this push to put women into combat roles comes from?

[Anonymous Bosch]

Where do you guys think this push to put women into combat roles comes from?

FWIW, the article written by Marine Captain Katie Petronio touched on that topic:

Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in. As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.

[LawBeefaroni]

This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS).

DACOWITS? Really? "In the" gets acronym letters now? Did that get spun out of the National Initiative Towards Women in the service (NITWITS)?

Oh wait, I guess it's better than DACOWS.

[Biyobi]

Where do you guys think this push to put women into combat roles comes from?

Their husbands.

[GreenGoo]

Where do you guys think this push to put women into combat roles comes from?

Their husbands.

I didn't realized husbands had such a powerful lobby. Can we get our slippers and a scotch brought to us too? Now that would be useful legislation.

[hepcat]

Where do you guys think this push to put women into combat roles comes from?

Their husbands.

BAM!

[Gavin]

The first female combat pilot to die was a Navy pilot though.

Yeah? Just telling me a fact or was there something in my comment that warranted the use of it?

Where do you guys think this push to put women into combat roles comes from?

I think people like fighting for a cause. As the really big issues start to go away thanks to big civil wins you'll see people tackling smaller and smaller ones all the way to the bottom. While this isn't the very bottom of the pile, we certainly don't see people pushing for women in men's sports where they'd be unable to compete. So at least we know we're getting close when we start to see pushes for equivalency in physically demanding positions regardless of obvious and verifiable biological differences between the sexes.

[GreenGoo]

No one thinks the women themselves have a hand in this? No one thinks (some) women in the military want to fight, just as (some) men in the military want to?

[hepcat]

Which we've covered and has already been addressed in the article. They're not going to slap an 80-lb ruck on Yeardley Smith's back and send her out to defend a fire base.

Can i just take a second to note the genius in using Yeardley Smith for this analogy?

[Gavin]

No one thinks the women themselves have a hand in this? No one thinks (some) women in the military want to fight, just as (some) men in the military want to?

They may exist. I'm not saying they don't, but the people doing the arguing seems to be special interest groups that have never been in the military and just want equality.

Regardless, I'm not sure why it matters who is seeking this. If the position being closed is just bigotted and we don't actually need strong men in these combat roles then it's important to be pointed out regardless of where the point originates and who is actually making it. I would be surprised if there were 0 women who wanted to fight on the front line. If nothing more than to prove their worth as every bit as good as the guys even though Football and other sports have a lot to tell us about which sex is better at physical activities.