Female servicemembers sue US government

[sprog]

I got a "Combat Readiness Medal" for sitting on nuclear alert in North Dakota. In fact, my AFSC was "Missile Combat Crew Commander."

I know it's ridiculous.

In fairness, were we to ever engage in combat, it would be of the global holocaust, permanant orange afro variety. Hasn't happened in the history of the ICBM force and probably never will.

And it's tater tots. When there are no tater tots, Air Force people are upset.

"Permanent" that should say. Brain fart.

 

[Pima]

Now that the fist-bumping testerone fun is over, can any of you say without a doubt that there won't be 1 woman that can meet the std. set for men, including the 100 lb ruck walk?

If you can say, sure there will be at least 1, than your position is the flaw in the sense that women should not be allowed. Have you ever seen a female body builder? I am pretty sure she could carry 100 lbs with ease. There are military members, both female and male that compete in body building within each branch.

There are 4 women suing, and I am not aware of their attorney/s releasing their PT scores, however, any smart attorney would be prepared for that argument you are adamantly standing behind as the reason to exclude them from combat. Every smart female military member is aware of it too. You are assuming they can't meet the standard. I am assuming that they know this is the 1st line of defense, and can prove they meet the male standards at the same rate.

Shannon Fualkner killed women because that is where she failed. She fought for a yr to get into the Citadel, during that yr she didn't train, and busted within a week or so after arriving, setting women back, and making it harder for others to follow. It was a lesson learned by every woman.

A good attorney will make sure that error is not repeated. If that is the case, and these women can perform at the exact same std. where is your defense?

It is moot.

My defense still remains in place. Medically. Medically there is precedent within all branches not granting waivers due to mission requirements even if you meet the physical requirements.

Yes, pregnancies have and will occur, but you are also missing what I was really talking about as a woman, it wasn't so much pregnancy, it was a period. Hence, how long is a mission in a tank? Since, you are not a woman, let me tell you, sitting in a tank with no bathroom break for 10 hrs., is an issue. Also, if you throw me out on the front line, my biological clock isn't down to an hr. A day, yes, an hr..no! I don't know when I wake up in the a.m. that 3 hrs later the flood gates will open. What am I suppose to do, ask you to pull the tank over at the closest gas station to use a bathroom? Ask everyone in the tank to turn their backs and lower my pants as I deal with my hygiene needs? Throw up my hands in a T position during a fire fight for a time out? Have you ever dealt with cramps? I have, and trust me, a bottle of Advil and thinking about do I need to deal with a bathroom break is on your mind every 4 hrs or so. Ever heard of Toxic Shock? It is rare, but do you know why it occurs? I do! As a female it is pounded in our cranium of why and how it occurs. Hence, medically, it is a factor, a factor that impacts the military mission, especially in a sandbox theater from a TSS perspective. Is it uncommon? Yes, but the worse the hygiene conditions, the higher the risk for a woman.

I am sorry if that is too vulgar, or TMI, but don't you think that is exactly going to be an argument from the DOD for why it won't work for women in combat? They know physical stds is a losing battle and even if they win on that battle with this one, a yr or two from now there will be 4 women who will meet that 100 lb ruck issue. It only delays the when, not the if.

So laugh, ding, ding, ding me, but before you do, ask yourself, if they meet the same stds. as men, where is your case for keeping them out of combat? If you have no issue of them meeting the exact same stds given to men, than your position that they should not be in combat is moot. That being said, if that is your defense, IMPO, than the stds should be changed. A 40 yr old should meet the exact same stds as a 25 yo. There should be only one std for everyone regardless of age. Afterall, a 100 lb ruck weighs 100 lb no matter what age or sex, and a mile is a mile.

I am not a feminist by any manner. I think that the mission must always come 1st, and that woman can be integrated, but instead of it occurring because the hand is forced through legal measures, they do it with a well thought out process which may take time.

 

[BigBear]

That being said, if that is your defense, IMPO, than the stds should be changed. A 40 yr old should meet the exact same stds as a 25 yo. There should be only one std for everyone regardless of age. Afterall, a 100 lb ruck weighs 100 lb no matter what age or sex, and a mile is a mile.

The problem with that is that there are very few 40 year olds who will have to carry a 100lb ruck in combat, while there are plenty of 25 year olds who will, just like there are plenty of soldiers in support MOS's that won't either. If the Army switches to one universal standard and leaves that sandard in the current male 18-25 range, yes, there may be some females who can meet it, but the majority will not be able to.

Regardless, I think almost everyone here is in agreement that this is a bad idea and we have devolved into arguing over who's arguement is better.

 

[osdad]

The problem with that is that there are very few 40 year olds who will have to carry a 100lb ruck in combat, while there are plenty of 25 year olds who will, just like there are plenty of soldiers in support MOS's that won't either. If the Army switches to one universal standard and leaves that sandard in the current male 18-25 range, yes, there may be some females who can meet it, but the majority will not be able to.

So all should be excluded?

Regardless, I think almost everyone here is in agreement that this is a bad idea and we have devolved into arguing over who's arguement is better.

Count me in the minority.

The case also involves a lack of promotional opportunity. While it may not be stated in B&W, I'm guessing that to rise to be Commandant of the MC, you have to be able to check the box for infantry command. If those positions are closed to women their ladder does not rise to the top. And maybe that's OK. But where is the line?

But it's not just about hauling 100lbs up a mountain. It's about hauling yourself up as high as posisble.

 

[scoutpilot]

The case also involves a lack of promotional opportunity. While it may not be stated in B&W, I'm guessing that to rise to be Commandant of the MC, you have to be able to check the box for infantry command. If those positions are closed to women their ladder does not rise to the top. And maybe that's OK. But where is the line?

But it's not just about hauling 100lbs up a mountain. It's about hauling yourself up as high as posisble.

Great point, because the one thing that we promise everyone is the chance to climb the corporate ladder in the military and became a general. God forbid not everyone end up with a 6-figure retirement income.

As an aviator, there is almost no chance that I could be CSA or a Division CG. I guess I should sue, since my ladder doesn't go to the top.

The feminist push is just another form of disgusting careerism. You hit the nail on the head. It isn't about service. It isn't about fighting the good fight for your nation. It's about getting to the top and grabbing the brass ring.

We have Wall Street for that.

 

[LineInTheSand]

We have Wall Street for that.

We have Washington for that. At least Wall Street, generally, has a machine that keeps going. Of the two, only Washington takes 30% of my paycheck each month.

 

[LineInTheSand]

CSA or a Division CG.

You cannot be the Confederate States of America or the Coast Guard. Correct.

 

[Jcleppe]

The case also involves a lack of promotional opportunity. While it may not be stated in B&W, I'm guessing that to rise to be Commandant of the MC, you have to be able to check the box for infantry command. If those positions are closed to women their ladder does not rise to the top. And maybe that's OK. But where is the line?

But it's not just about hauling 100lbs up a mountain. It's about hauling yourself up as high as posisble.

Just for the record, Gen. James Amos, the current Commandant of the Marine Corps is an Aviator.

See Scout, there is still hope for you....Reach for the stars.

 

[Pima]

Sorry, osdad, but YES, not even just a yes, but HELL yes if they can't meet the same standards as men! OBTW, I would be opposed to reducing stds if it meant getting women in,

I am assuming you have a DD. If so, like any parent you want her to have her dreams, and would fall apart if she died.

I have a DS at UPT. I would fall apart if he died, but right now according to AF standards he has to perform at a higher level than your DD.

When they put up flight schedules they don't place that into the equation.

That is the irony here. People assumed something that never existed. I get the physical aspect. I am actually demanding a higher level than how the current system exists regarding APFT. I am saying women and men meet one set standard.

We love our children, but tell me if it was my child, a son, that went into the wash and because of female physical stds; she lived, yet couldn't get my child out due to physical stds set by the military would you feel the same regarding why it is unfair or unjust to set the physical std.

I know it may appear I am on both sides of the fence regarding this issue. I am not. I just believe there should be a PT for specific career fields, regardless of age or sex. I think push-ups, sit-ups and Pull-ups are BS. Make it like lifeguard certification...lifting X amt body weight and doing real life scenarios within Y amt of time. Can't pull a 150lb dummy into a raft wearing your entire gear that you would have on if you ejected, there you go. Seriously, how many times are you fighting/running for your life in PT gear in a gym that is temp control? That's fine if you will never be on the front line.

My son's life relies on every military member to perform at a physical level. If he can't hack it, than so be it, That is reality, and in the long run better for the military. Yet if is a stad in 18 yrs from now when he is 40, and passes someone else's kid knows that there wasn't different stds and even a 25 yr old wouldn't have been expected to do more physically. That is the problem with the current system. Women have their stds., men have theirs, age is placed into the equation for stds, but none of these are considered when it comes to the mission.

 

[Hurricane12]

The case also involves a lack of promotional opportunity. While it may not be stated in B&W, I'm guessing that to rise to be Commandant of the MC, you have to be able to check the box for infantry command. If those positions are closed to women their ladder does not rise to the top. And maybe that's OK. But where is the line?

But it's not just about hauling 100lbs up a mountain. It's about hauling yourself up as high as posisble.

That we currently have an aviator Commandant (okay yeah whatever I know he's the first) sort of proves this wrong. Women have been serving in the same aviation roles as men for ~20 years now, so it's feasible that we could have a female in that position somewhere down the line.


From the article:

Marine Corps Capt. Zoe Bedell said she left active duty, in large part, because of the combat exclusion policy. Bedell said she was frustrated that her advancement in the Marines was blocked by her inability to serve directly in combat units.

It doesn't say what her MOS was, but to me this sounds like a stupid reason. By getting out as a Captain, is she saying that she couldn't have been promoted to Major because she wasn't in a combat arms MOS? I personally know several female Majors in MOSs from MP to Ground Supply to Aviator. There are female Marines commanding CLBs, Intelligence Battalions, Squadrons, Support Squadrons, etc.
Sure, promotion above O-5/O-6 starts getting very difficult for a number of MOSs. We will never have an Aviation Supply, DASC or PAO Commandant. That's fine. It doesn't make it "unfair" for Marines, male or female, currently in those MOSs. It's just the nature of the Marine Corps. Frankly, it also makes more sense to have officers from the MOSs that emphasize expertise in "MAGTFery" (infantry and other combat arms, logisticians, aviators, etc.) in senior leadership positions.
Could she get to be Commandant or have a Combatant Command? Probably not. Most men wouldn't either (not even mentioning that really not that much of the Marine Corps is infantry). But there's no bar to having a successful 20+ year career in the Marines due to MOS or gender. Getting out as an O-3 because you think your chances of being an O-10 are too small seems silly.

 

[Pima]

scout,

Do you intend to do 20 as an aviator? No PME in residence or desk assignments ever? Just curious because if so, I agree it is all over for you now.

 

[Jcleppe]

I do have a question.

The focus here seems to be female officers, if women are allowed into an Infantry branch or MOS there will be a much larger percentage of enlisted females then officers. The argument can't just revolve around whether a female officer will have the opportunity to some day become a General.

My question is, how many women would need to successfully complete Infantry school to make it viable for the Army to make the needed accommodations for women in the field. Will the Army be required to make special and separate facilities for women at all FOB's, will this mean extra equipment sent on each mission to accommodate the female soldiers?

I know this was the argument against letting women serve on Sub's in the Navy. The difference is that serving on a sub did not require women to meet physical requirements that may be out of their reach. Theoretically a Sub could be operational with a totally female crew. My point is that it is physically easier for a women to serve on a sub then in the infantry, so the argument the Navy used about the cost of separate facilities didn’t work.

Even though there are women that would like the chance to go to Infantry school, how realistic is it that there will be a large enough number graduating to make the needed changes cost effective.

The top Female cadet in my son’s battalion went to AAS last summer. This cadet has a 295 APFT, has competed as the female member of the Ranger Challenge Team for 3 years, winning 1st and 2nd the past two years, in short she is very fit and highly capable. She was unable to make it through the Obstacle course at AAS. If her APFT score was graded at the same standard as the male cadets, it would have been to low to meet the mark needed by the male cadets to attend AAS.

My fear is that if they make the standards the same for males and females to go to Infantry School there will not be enough women to make it through to make it worth the changes. If that happens then I’m afraid Scout may be right, they will again lower the standards for females.

Infantry School will be hard enough for females, for officers they will then go to Ranger School, that will be a whole different story.

 

[catchthefever]

The case also involves a lack of promotional opportunity. While it may not be stated in B&W, I'm guessing that to rise to be Commandant of the MC, you have to be able to check the box for infantry command. If those positions are closed to women their ladder does not rise to the top. And maybe that's OK. But where is the line?

But it's not just about hauling 100lbs up a mountain. It's about hauling yourself up as high as posisble.

I have to say that this quote scares me very much.

I am a female and an Air Force veteran from 1985-1989 -- a time when young people considering enlistment thought less about ending up on the front lines and more about the great training and job experience we could acquire while earning our GI Bill to complete a college education. Even the recruiters made this their primary pitch at that time. Admittedly, these were my reasons for joining the Air Force and my service set me up for a very satisfying and productive corporate career.

While I'm proud of my service, I would never hold my contributions up to the tremendous sacrifices of those who have served in combat because, given the fact that, at that time, the United States was not embroiled in any major conflicts, I was never in harm's way.

I've gotten hooked on these message boards over the past couple years as my daughter pursued an appointment to the Coast Guard Academy (which she just received notice she got).

One of the things I am most grateful for about her getting a service academy education is the emphasis on critical thinking versus rote learning. And I say that because of how my own opinion on this topic has evolved reading through all these posts and various opinions.

I think it was the very first poster who made a comment about the promotion argument being "selfish." My knee-jerk reaction was to become a little off-put, wondering how it was selfish for a female to want the same promotional opportunities as a man. As I read further from people distinguishiing between a "jobs program" and the "military mission," I gained more clarity about the overarching point.

In parallel to reading these posts, my father (a retired Army officer, graduate of the U.S. Army War College and Vietnam veteran) and I have been sending a series of emails back and forth discussing the lessons of the battle of Ia Drang. This battle first intrigued me when "We Were Soldiers" first hit theaters because I found out that my father had a connection and personal friendships with many men involved in that battle. My interest and my dialog with my father about Ia Drang resurrected again with the recent passing of CSM Plumley.

This renewed interest has sent me surfing the Internet again to read all the accounts of the battle, and here is one of significance written by the infamous Joe Galloway related to this thread topic and the posters quote I'm referencing above: http://www.northofseveycorners.com/write/galway-2.htm

Click through and specifically read about the Ambush on Day 4.

Here's a highlight:

Tully, an experienced commander, marched his men out of X-Ray the same way they had arrived: Two companies abreast with artillery fire pounding the brush ahead of them. In less than 2 hours, his men covered the 2 ½ miles to Landing Zone Columbus. But McDade, who only three weeks before had been the division's personnel officer, had not commanded troops in 10 years. Staff officers needed a battalion command in order to make colonel, and Maj. Gen. Harry W.O. Kinnard had given McDade his battalion, but not without reservations. He had sent his personal aide, Maj. Frank Henry, to serve as McDade's second-in-command and to "keep things going till McDade could get his feet wet."

Then scroll to read about Counting the Cost on Day 5, and here's another highlight:

When the sun rose, McDade's battalion had lost 155 killed, 125 wounded and at least five men missing in action. A lieutenant stood in front of Specialist 5 Jon Wallenius, a Bravo Company mortar observer, and asked for volunteers to bring in the American dead. First they brought in the whole bodies; then the pieces. Wallenius and the others dragged the ghastly cargo to waiting Chinook helicopters, stacking the last one full to the ceiling. "When we raised the tail ramp, blood poured through the hinges," he says.


This debate about women in combat roles will continue:

• Yes, men are biologically bigger and stronger than women. And yes, there will be uber women who will emerge capable of competing with them.
  
• Yes, periods are medically detrimental in a war zone, but there's medication that can purposely prevent menstruation.
  
• Yes, there's room for leeway in considering the nature of a combat role (flying a T38 versus carrying a 100 lbs. pack) in determining whether or not a woman would be a liability in the role.
  
• Yes, it's reasonable to consider the more strategic role in combat of a 45-year-old Colonel who may not be as physically strong in justifying a more rigorous level of fitness for a 25-year-old Army Ranger. (In other words, maybe it's okay that one size does not fit all in this argument. And let me just say that I think the distinction between physically fit and physically capable is very insightful.)

But I think the most compelling argument based heavily on my reference to the Ia Drang battle is also the most important consideration -- and I dare say the ONLY consideration. Is it detrimental to the mission?

So ...

• No gender-based standards for the purpose of equal opportunity.
  
• No combat assignments (male or female) because someone wants to haul themselves up as high as possible.

I didn't come to this opinion on my own, but rather after taking in all the points of the collective posts and opinions of the contributors to this thread and my own personal interest in the battle of Ia Drang.

And with my daughter counting down the days to R-Day this July, there are two things this thread made me conscious of as her mother and a female veteran myself:

• First, I'm very glad that her education has been and will continue to be designed to promote critical thinking because just when we think we know the right answer it may not fit in "context."
  
• Second, as she leaves our home and the government assumes responsibility for her future, I want to know that said government will never put her in a position to fail or cause the failure (or worse the life) of another service member or civilian.

Sort it out however you want, but the objective of the mission is the only thing that matters.

IMHO

 

[scoutpilot]

scout,

Do you intend to do 20 as an aviator? No PME in residence or desk assignments ever? Just curious because if so, I agree it is all over for you now.

Pima, your lack of understanding about the Army is so severe that I will not even attempt to engage you in discussion on career progression, nor do I care whether you "agree it is all over." I and others have tried numerous times to inform you of the fact that the Air Force is not the model for all services and that your understanding of how the USAF worked 20 years ago does not apply to the other services, both then and/or today. Those friendly attempts to inform appear to have gone unheeded.

Let's stick to the topic at hand.

 

[MemberLG]

Now that the fist-bumping testerone fun is over, can any of you say without a doubt that there won't be 1 woman that can meet the std. set for men, including the 100 lb ruck walk?

If you can say, sure there will be at least 1, than your position is the flaw in the sense that women should not be allowed. Have you ever seen a female body builder? I am pretty sure she could carry 100 lbs with ease. There are military members, both female and male that compete in body building within each branch.

What makes an Infantry soldier is not being able to do a 100 lb ruck walk OR running 2 miles under 13:00 minutes. What it comes down to is the ability to do multiple physical tasks repetitively over a sustained period.

Yes, there are many females that could do a 100 lb ruck walk or run 2 miles faster than many males - but how many can do both and again and again?

As I shared before a female that runs 13 minute 2 miles does not resulting her mean beating a male that runs 15 minute 2 mile on a 12 mile road march with 35 lbs or vice versa.

 

[EDelahanty]

This story (excerpted from Wikipedia) about the extraordinary General James Gavin and his invasion preparation methods may be of interest.

Gavin became the commanding officer of the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment in August 1942. He was promoted to Colonel shortly thereafter. Gavin built this regiment from the ground up, seeing this as the best way to reach their vision and goals. Gavin led his troops on long marches and realistic training sessions, creating the training missions himself and leading the marches personally. He also placed great value on having his officers "the first out of the airplane door and the last in the chow line". This practice has continued to the present day in US Airborne units; for example, during Operation Urgent Fury the commanding officer of the 1st Ranger Battalion was the first man out the door.

After months of training, Gavin had the regiment tested for one last time:

"As we neared our time to leave, on the way to war, I had an exercise that required them to leave our barracks area at 7:00 P.M. and march all night to an area near the town of Cottonwood, Alabama, a march about 23 miles. There we maneuvered all day and in effect we seized and held an airhead. We broke up the exercise about 8:00 P.M. and started the troupers back by another route through dense pine forest, by way of backwoods roads. About 11:00 P.M., we went into bivouac. After about one hour's sleep, the troopers were awakened to resume the march. [...]In 36 hours the regiment had marched well over 50 miles, maneuvered and seized an airhead and defended it from counterattack while carrying full combat loads and living off reserve rations."

***********************************************************************************

Gino Auriemma, coach of the Uconn women's basketball team, has his Huskies scrimmage against men. He pushes his team so hard in practice that they describe the actual games as fun. Obviously, combat is a different matter, but the analogy of intensive preparation is valid, as is LG's point about repetition.

 

[BigBear]

But it's not just about hauling 100lbs up a mountain. It's about hauling yourself up as high as posisble.

That is the attitude I see so clearly displayed by many here at West Point, and it's terrifying. The whole concept of leadership revolves around putting your soldiers first, not the other way around.

As others have said, what happens if a unit takes a casualty? I personally do not want someone who is only there to get a promotion trying to drag me out of harm's way. All the lawsuits and APFT scores in the world are not going to help move close to 300lbs. worth of man and gear out of danger.

While I would not have a problem serving with a woman who could demonstrate that she has the physical strength to keep up with the guys, the myriad of political factors that have already been pointed out can only lead to greater cost for the military in terms of reorginization, construction, reduced training standards, and ultimately, lives.

 

[MemberLG]

. . .While I would not have a problem serving with a woman who could demonstrate that she has the physical strength to keep up with the guys, the myriad of political factors that have already been pointed out can only lead to greater cost for the military in terms of reorginization, construction, reduced training standards, and ultimately, lives. . .

Would you mind sharing your experience during CFT? It is what it is, I don't know if cadets still do patrols during CFT, but when I did it I don't recall any of my female classmates carrying Radio or M60 during our patrols. Even many male cadets stayed away from being RTOs or carrying the pig (M60).

One way we can make field training more realistic is simulating carrying full combat load - having something like 100 rounds of blank ammuntion doesn't compare to e to carrying "full" load of ammuntion (to include grenades), 600 rounds of 7.62 mm, and/or M203 ammuntion vest with 40 mm rounds.

Yes, an infantry platoon leader don't usually carry M60 or wear M203 vest but he or "she" should be able to.

 

[BigBear]

Would you mind sharing your experience during CFT? It is what it is, I don't know if cadets still do patrols during CFT, but when I did it I don't recall any of my female classmates carrying Radio or M60 during our patrols. Even many male cadets stayed away from being RTOs or carrying the pig (M60).

One way we can make field training more realistic is simulating carrying full combat load - having something like 100 rounds of blank ammuntion doesn't compare to e to carrying "full" load of ammuntion (to include grenades), 600 rounds of 7.62 mm, and/or M203 ammuntion vest with 40 mm rounds.

Yes, an infantry platoon leader don't usually carry M60 or wear M203 vest but he or "she" should be able to.

I would say that my Buckner experience doesn't seem to different than yours; I do not recall seeing a single girl carrying a 240, SAW, or radio the entire time. While there were certainly a lot of guys who had no interest in carrying any of those either, I think it is more telling to look at the number of injuries. I saw significantly more girls going to sick call for non-major injuries (bumps and bruises, rolled ankles, shin splints).

The fact remains that somewhere there is a woman who can meet and exceed the current male standard in the Infantry. However, I do not believe that there is a large enough group of women who are both capable of and willing to undergo that process that acheive a satisfactory political image and to make the extra costs to the military worth it. I personally believe that it is not worth the risk of lowering standards for everyone to allow women to serve in the Infantry because they think it will help them advance their careers.