Changes to Women's roles are coming...

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by goaliedad, Feb 9, 2012.

  1. goaliedad

    goaliedad Parent

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    35
  2. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    443
    From the article,

    "But they will formally allow women to serve in other jobs at the battalion level, which until now had been considered too close to combat."

    I guess the key word is "formally"

    Female soldiers have been serving at battalion level before 2001. Back in 97 when my Bn TF force deployed to Kuwait for training, our attached MP platoon leader was a female, female MPs, female medics, and females in our logistic support element.

    When I was in a Div Cav squdron, had female pilots flying OH 58s scouting for the division, had a female chemical officer, but the assistant intelligence officer position was coded male only.

    Personally, this "close to battle" is stupid thing as OIF/OEF have shown there is no battle front anymore. I also don't object females serving in the infantry or armor as long as all members meet a minimum physical standard.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2012
  3. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it is ridiculous that women are not permitted to serve in the Infantry, so long as they are able to meet the same physical fitness requirements as men (with no "allowances" made to account for statistically weaker upper body strength among women). Gender should not be the determining factor; strength needed for the job should be. Arbitrarily basing assignments to combat roles on gender inappropriately assumes that all women are not capable of handling the job, while all men are. Not true. Rather, the standard needs to be how heavy a rucksack can you carry over a given distance and whether you capable of dragging a wounded Infantry soldier to relative safety.

    That said, this action is a necessary first step in the process of achieving true equality over the long term. The new APFT is a good first step as well, because it measures what is important.
     
  4. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    If that ever happens, I think Selective Service registration should be mandatory for everyone (not just men).
     
  5. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,272
    Likes Received:
    605
    Wouldn't that be nice?

    I'll do Bruno's job for him and suggest we let this thread go. It's already headed toward the inevitable conclusion that we've seen every time.

    1. Poster A argues for women in combat roles
    2. Poster B argues that the physical standards should be the same
    3. Posters C-Z create fracas over PT standards, gender bias, gender norming, and anecdotes fly in support of both sides.

    Nice article. Now let's not have another 13-page feminist/anti-feminist debacle...it's coming, and we all know it.
     
  6. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny post, scout. And probably accurate.

    sprog, I totally agree with your point about selective service. Equality can be a double-edged sword.
     
  7. usna1985

    usna1985 USNA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    447
    WRT Selective Service, I doubt things will change. The reason, IMHO, is that the mass public is OK with women who WANT/choose to serve in the military being allowed to serve in combat but is NOT ok with forcing women into the military, even in non-combatant roles.

    I'm not suggesting the above position is right or wrong, but I think it's what you'd generally hear if you surveyed the masses. And that's what Congress listens to.
     
  8. goaliedad

    goaliedad Parent

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    35
    :yllol::yllol::yllol:

    OK, I'll stop being cynical...

    Actually, I was fishing not for opinions of what the role of women should be, but what they are actually trying to do here.

    Is this the administrative change that codifies what is actually happening on the ground through backdoor methods and makes it easier to get things done?

    Or is this the first step towards what people here don't want to debate (and I too don't need another wash/rinse/repeate)?

    Where is this thing originating and what is their thinking?
     
  9. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    My experience may be too dated to provide information, then. FWIW, in my day, I didn't see ANY women in ANY forward deployed Armor or Infantry units until I left my Infantry battalion for a job on the Division Staff. I recall thinking at the time (while begrudingly removing my crossed rifles and replacing them with General Staff brass) that I had landed on an entirely different planet.
     
  10. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    You're probably right, but that's a bullsh#t reason (I note that you said you didn't agree or disagree with it, so I don't direct it to you).

    My understanding of the draft was that it was used, primarily, as a way to fill positions in units in the Army and Marines participating in things like infantry and armor. In WWII, I understand people were drafted into the Navy as well.

    If you take away the ban on women serving in combat directly, what is the continual legal justification for keeping involuntary service a luxury only afforded to the male of the species? In my view, such a sex-based distinction should not survive intermediate scrutiny under judicial review (if it were to come to that).

    My dad was drafted during Vietnam. He served honorably and was always proud of his service. IIRC, for a draftee to have a larger selection of MOS/branches upon completion of Basic, he had to sign up for a third year of service. Thus, a true draftee with a two-year commitment was almost assured to be put with the infantry or an armor unit. My dad signed on for the extra year and was in the Engineer branch.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2012
  11. SamAca10

    SamAca10 Ensign - DWO

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since you mentioned Vietnam, and the number of youth rights that changed during that time, could someone explain to me why people in the military have to be 21 to consume alcohol? I'm going to be 21 soon anyway, but I just think that it's ridiculous that someone can die for their country or be drafted but can't be served a draft of beer. :rolleyes:
     
  12. bruno

    bruno Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    300
    :cool: excellent question which as you might have seen in a few other threads dedicated to that topic, will generate much disagreement. Since that is rather a diversion from this thread- I would recommend starting a new thread asking that question and leave this one on course. Thanks
     
  13. usna1985

    usna1985 USNA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    447
    My personal view is that, b/c there is almost zero likelihood of this country ever reintstating the draft, it doesn't make sense for either gender to register.

    I have no problem with women being required to register. However, even with gender equality, I don't see the "average" American willing to see women drafted. Thus, if Congress tried to change the law to force women to register, there would be a huge hue and cry. Given the above (no one's going to be drafted), it doesn't make sense to endure that hue and cry (if you're an MOC, that is).

    So, basically, it's reduced to an esoteric discussion.
     
  14. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Women's roles may be changing, and that's good. But at least there's still one thing that men will always have going for them.

    They can write their name in the snow! :thumb:

    Sorry, topic was getting stressful.
     
  15. goaliedad

    goaliedad Parent

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    35
    Agree with your assessment.

    One other thought... With the increasingly larger number of volunteers coming into the armed forces out of shape and overweight, I would imagine that draftees would be in even worse shape and not even be worth the effort. The cost to get them into shape (in both time and money) would be better used in raising signing bonuses to those who are ready (in shape) and willing.
     
  16. goaliedad

    goaliedad Parent

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    35
    This brings up the question posed briefly in the article of whether these new opportunities will equalize the opportunities for advancement or not. With the large number of male officers getting points in areas not open to women, will the new options make a meaninful difference or is this a difference that is even needing addressing. Are there enough other ways to raise women's OML scores that "combat arms" experience (especially given the recent opportunities) won't matter much in the overall outcomes?
     
  17. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,272
    Likes Received:
    605
    Blah blah blah. Boilerplate argument that means nothing. Crying like babies that we can die for our country but can't have a beer never has nor ever will change anything. That argument is no different than saying that you can be trusted to choose a President at 18 but not have a beer.

    We can die for our country at 18 but not drink until 21 because that's the law. Life's tough that way.

    When you're actually in charge of folks, you won't want your 18-year-old subordinates drinking. Hell, you won't want most of your 21-year-old subordinates drinking.

    We can't whine about deserving to drink younger when we can't stop field and flag grade officers from getting DUIs.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2012
  18. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is perhaps one of my biggest gripes about the policy of not having women afforded the same opportunity as men. The fact is, the "front-line" or "combat arms" branches are where the combat generals come from. It may take several careers to remedy this.
     
  19. dunninla

    dunninla Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    5
    I'm sure a sufficiently limber female could accomplish the same critical task. :eek:
     
  20. dunninla

    dunninla Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    5
    Actually per the white papers I've read about diversity in the Flag Officer ranks (primarly focused on Black, Hispanic, Asian), combat arms branches experience, now called "Maneuver, Fires, and Effects " branches, is almost a prerequisite for fast tracking.

    So, "formally" assigning females to MFE Battalions, to which they are now only informally attached, is a significant development. Future promotion panels naturally lean toward MFE experience as vital and necessary, and the lack of "formal" experience in MFE branches materially impairs advancement.
     

Share This Page