Latest news women in combat roles

goaliedad said:
If they are not worse, then the Army is better for showing that it can be the place where you rise based upon your performance. This isn't just about the unit, but the Army as a whole. When the forces were integrated, it lifted up the morale of those who had been excluded from higher ranks even if they themselves didn't achieve it.

And if the Army is smart, the first congressman (or congresswoman) who brought out the proportional representation line would be greeted by the female who did make it who doesn't want the slackers of her gender putting her life at risk because of Congress' micromanaging of military training.

And trust me, the women who do make it will not want their achievement watered down. Please understand that women take as much pride in military achievement as men when held to the same standards and will defend that achievement even more fiercely than you might think.
Click to expand...

What was your branch in the Army?
 
tpg said:
I too will duck out of this conversation at this time because I see no point in continuing. None of us here are in a position of changing the policy that has been set.

I know the Infantry. I spent the better part of 30 years in the infantry and saw combat with the infantry in multiple theaters and operations spread out over 20 years.

I know beyond a shadow of doubt that a Male Marine in the Infantry who cannot perform in his MOS will be gone quickly. He will not get a second chance. I also know from experience that a female Marine will be given multiple chances to succeed in this experiment.

What Bruno stated above about the Army is just as true in the Marine Corps and I concur with his thoughts. This experiment in my view can and will cost people their lives! And you know what, I know far too many Marines, both male and female to support this for the sake of political correctness.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel this way, TPG. I am disappointed that you think that your fellow Marines would treat women differently. I'm not sure if it speaks to a distrust in the senior leadership or what, but there is only one way to get over treating people differently (which is both the current standard and what you see if things are "changed"). That is to treat people the same and have the ability to defend your actions.

This all being said, here is a link giving more details in how this is to be carried out. Actually reasonably well planned out by Army standards...

http://www.army.mil/article/105814/
 
goaliedad said:
My apologies General Scoutpilot. Parents are to be seen and not heard. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I was just asking a question. You critique and comment on the military as though you've seen it from the inside. I was asking to see if you were in a branch with women or not.

Your sensitive reaction is telling. I suppose it's sort of like LITS said earlier. His dad's a doctor, but that doesn't mean he's smart about medicine. That axiom works both ways.
 
scoutpilot said:
I was just asking a question. You critique and comment on the military as though you've seen it from the inside. I was asking to see if you were in a branch with women or not.

Your sensitive reaction is telling. I suppose it's sort of like LITS said earlier. His dad's a doctor, but that doesn't mean he's smart about medicine. That axiom works both ways.
Click to expand...

My comment was about women and how they react to barriers being lifted. And no, I am not a woman. This is my observation of women's reactions. The question to you is why women in the military would be any different? Do you think the women around you in your military experience WANT watered down standards? Go ahead, tell us your observations! Are you arguing against what I said?

My "sensitivity" (sorry, I forgot to put enough sarcasm emoticons in my post) to you is based upon your pulling the experience card out when you don't have a better argument.

I have a daughter who does read this forum and does not want watered down standards. She also didn't complain (and in fact laughed about it) when she discovered at the weigh in afterwards that she had a lot more rocks in her ruck than the guys during her German Arms Proficiency Badge ruck march. And she wasn't dragging up the rear either, thank you.
 
goaliedad said:
My comment was about women and how they react to barriers being lifted. And no, I am not a woman. This is my observation of women's reactions. The question to you is why women in the military would be any different? Do you think the women around you in your military experience WANT watered down standards? Go ahead, tell us your observations! Are you arguing against what I said?

My "sensitivity" (sorry, I forgot to put enough sarcasm emoticons in my post) to you is based upon your pulling the experience card out when you don't have a better argument.

I have a daughter who does read this forum and does not want watered down standards. She also didn't complain (and in fact laughed about it) when she discovered at the weigh in afterwards that she had a lot more rocks in her ruck than the guys during her German Arms Proficiency Badge ruck march. And she wasn't dragging up the rear either, thank you.
Click to expand...

So in summary, your experience is limited to your daughter's ROTC anecdotes. (By the by, I've noticed that most people think experience is very important when discussing complex issues, until a subject comes up where they have none, and suddenly they don't find it so important.)

We all know your views on this and your vociferous arguments are your way of politicking on your daughter's behalf. I'd expect no less from a good father. It's natural.

Consider this, though. Do you suppose that all the people on this thread with experience are in some form of cahoots, taking part in a vast conspiracy against your "enlightened" view? Or do you suppose that maybe there's something to all those voices of experience saying that this is not the great idea you make it out to be? Occham's razor applies.

Everyone wants equal standards. Until certain people can't reach their career goals.
 
tpg said:
I actually watched the briefing that was given on this subject. Sadly I have been around long enough to know what they mean by the term ( If I recall correctly) "gender-neutral standards." That is senior leadership talk for "we will do what we have to to make this work because we have been ordered too."
Click to expand...

Then the generals implementing this truly are careerists, pandering for the next star, not due respect.

50 years ago, they didn't think women could survive at West Point. Everyone was sure that they would water down the academy to make sure women commissioned. What is your observation on how that played out? Can we learn anything from that experience to defend the institution from unnecessary congressional interference?

While all you see is the end of the world coming, I think there are a few smart enough to make this work as it should (women performing in as many MOS' as they can without diluting the performance of the unit). They just have to outsmart the ones who will give Congress what they want to prove their point, killing a few good troops along the way and then say "I told you so!" and dismantle the whole thing.

Your pessimism is showing. I can understand. I had a young retired (medical) Marine (Recon) who worked for me for a while. Had an outlook like yours with regards to what women could and couldn't do in the Marines and didn't think a change could work. I've met a few other Marines all of whom seem to fit the same thinking. It is a cultural thing, I think. And that is the most difficult part of change or even exploring the opportunities.

It is really nice that every Marine Infantry has a common set of traits that have been honed for the mission they carry out. They do things the Marine way (being the butt of a lot of jokes for that mentality). And perhaps women are more cut out for a different method of accomplishing a different mission. However, being so rigid in a thought pattern does not do anything to adapt to the changing nature of warfare.

I just hope that when the order come down to adapt, that someone will be brave enough to resist both the hold on the past and the illogical order in front of them to find a way to improve the working model without destroying the culture, which I do respect. This requires optimistic leadership.
 
scoutpilot said:
So in summary, your experience is limited to your daughter's ROTC anecdotes. (By the by, I've noticed that most people think experience is very important when discussing complex issues, until a subject comes up where they have none, and suddenly they don't find it so important.)

We all know your views on this and your vociferous arguments are your way of politicking on your daughter's behalf. I'd expect no less from a good father. It's natural.

Consider this, though. Do you suppose that all the people on this thread with experience are in some form of cahoots, taking part in a vast conspiracy against your "enlightened" view? Or do you suppose that maybe there's something to all those voices of experience saying that this is not the great idea you make it out to be? Occham's razor applies.

Everyone wants equal standards. Until certain people can't reach their career goals.
Click to expand...

As I said in my last post, this is about the experience of women and how they react to achievement of a standard. I've observed my share of women in my life. I argued that women in the military should be no different. Yes I only have 1 ROTC cadet as datum. Considering that you probably have observed that women in the military, you should be in a better position to validate or argue against that theory. So I ask again, do women in the military want watered down standards?

I find that when folks don't answer a question asked twice, they find misapplied arguments to use to keep avoiding the question.

And please, I'm not politicking. You guys can't do anything for her career. And I don't politic for her where someone could because that sends the message that she can't get there on her own. I haven't talked to her cadre since freshman orientation (It would be awkward if I didn't introduce myself considering that I had to drive her there).

Yeah, I take pride in her accomplishments. I would say that this is not uncommon around here.

Finally, as to all the "experience" arguing against me, let me describe the circular argument that is being created by the "experienced" crowd (not intentionally, but still it is being created) :

1) "Experienced" folks haven't seen a woman who can do X MOS.
2) The Politicians are going to make us define the standards for X MOS that don't really qualify people for X MOS.
3) If we are good soldiers and implement the Politically defined standards (our leadership won't do otherwise), we have a standard that doesn't really qualify anyone for X MOS.
4) Because of this lower standard, people are going to get killed or we won't accomplish the mission. All failures from this point forward are because of the new standard.
5) Which brings us to "I told you so, we are failing because women coming in under lower standards." Women can't do X MOS.

Now if the "men" running these "all male" MOS's would have the guts (not going to use the male anatomical part here) to defend their performance standard (aside from the gender part) and welcome all comers, they might find that few if any women qualified. I seriously doubt those who came up short in their qualification would have the guts (they don't have that male anatomical part by definition) to complain that the standards are too tough. I don't think they would want any more embarrassment. And any that do, would not last long.

I actually suspect that the people running this operation may actually figure this out and do the right thing (don't change the standard except to remove gender from qualification). If they understand politics right now, the Generals understand getting that next promotion can be held up by either party and that there is no politically correct solution and at least you can explain using the same physical standards.

Don't get me wrong. They will have to justify the existing standards, but I seriously doubt any MOC can win that argument.

And if there is a lack of intestinal fortitude in military leadership with regard to modifying the standards, please do not blame the military women for the failings, blame your leadership. They know better. And women don't appreciate being a token any more than a minority appreciates it.
 
goaliedad said:
. .

1) "Experienced" folks haven't seen a woman who can do X MOS.
2) The Politicians are going to make us define the standards for X MOS that don't really qualify people for X MOS.
3) If we are good soldiers and implement the Politically defined standards (our leadership won't do otherwise), we have a standard that doesn't really qualify anyone for X MOS.
4) Because of this lower standard, people are going to get killed or we won't accomplish the mission. All failures from this point forward are because of the new standard.
5) Which brings us to "I told you so, we are failing because women coming in under lower standards." Women can't do X MOS.
Click to expand...

Who is looking out for the interest of individual woman?

I talked a few female soldiers, to include one that ran faster than me in the last APFT. They all agree that this is not a bad idea, but not for them.

A step should be included above where female soldiers will be encouraged to try out for combat arms and fail out because that is not what they really wanted to do.
 
goaliedad said:
As I said in my last post, this is about the experience of women and how they react to achievement of a standard. I've observed my share of women in my life. I argued that women in the military should be no different. Yes I only have 1 ROTC cadet as datum. Considering that you probably have observed that women in the military, you should be in a better position to validate or argue against that theory. So I ask again, do women in the military want watered down standards?
Click to expand...

No woman will ever tell you she wants "watered down standards." Yet, I've never seen a female soldier volunteer to be graded on the men's standard for her APFT (which, as we noted is not a good test nor a combat test, yet we use it for so many things from schools to OERs...did goaliegirl asked to be graded on the mens scale at LDAC? Or was she happy to get a higher score on the women's?). So while they may say they don't want "watered down" standards, I've had plenty of women be willing to climb into a cockpit with me. Not a one of them wanted to be held to the same fitness standards, especially when job/schools/promotion were effected.

I find that when folks don't answer a question asked twice, they find misapplied arguments to use to keep avoiding the question.
Click to expand...

The answer was there.

Finally, as to all the "experience" arguing against me, let me describe the circular argument that is being created by the "experienced" crowd (not intentionally, but still it is being created) :

1) "Experienced" folks haven't seen a woman who can do X MOS.
2) The Politicians are going to make us define the standards for X MOS that don't really qualify people for X MOS.
3) If we are good soldiers and implement the Politically defined standards (our leadership won't do otherwise), we have a standard that doesn't really qualify anyone for X MOS.
4) Because of this lower standard, people are going to get killed or we won't accomplish the mission. All failures from this point forward are because of the new standard.
5) Which brings us to "I told you so, we are failing because women coming in under lower standards." Women can't do X MOS.
Click to expand...

That's actually not circular. It may not be what plays out, but it's possible. You're confusing the anecdotal "woman who can do it" with an organization full of average human beings. No one will be satisfied with one woman in the infantry. The standards will be built for the average.

Now if the "men" running these "all male" MOS's would have the guts (not going to use the male anatomical part here) to defend their performance standard (aside from the gender part) and welcome all comers, they might find that few if any women qualified. I seriously doubt those who came up short in their qualification would have the guts (they don't have that male anatomical part by definition) to complain that the standards are too tough. I don't think they would want any more embarrassment. And any that do, would not last long.
Click to expand...

This is the part that fires me up a bit. One, you've got an awful lot to say from the cheap seats. Two, you obviously have no concept of the current political climate we're facing with regard to standards and how we apply them to women, especially in the SOF community. The fact that you think the maintaining of standards and applying them to women is about leaders having "guts" is sad and it's example of why experience matters in this regard. This whole campaign is spearheaded by the civilian leaders at the top. There is a lot of rock-paper-rank that gets played, and when Congress and the DoD secretaries are involved, Colonels and generals lose every time.

The single biggest impediment to effective leadership in the application of rigorous standards to women is the belief up high that any attempt to apply those standards is merely an effort to keep women out. Again, after a decade of experience, including the last 5 years in all-male units which will soon be admitting women for the first time and are dealing with the change, I can tell you that the answer has been made clear: women will be in our formations. Period. High standards that keep them out will be viewed as "old boy clubs" and misogyny.

We have also been told that no standard that applied

I actually suspect that the people running this operation may actually figure this out and do the right thing (don't change the standard except to remove gender from qualification).
Click to expand...

Sounds great until women don't make it in representative numbers.

If they understand politics right now, the Generals understand getting that next promotion can be held up by either party.
Click to expand...

Not really sure what you're saying here.

Don't get me wrong. They will have to justify the existing standards, but I seriously doubt any MOC can win that argument.
Click to expand...

Rock. Paper. Rank. Winning means getting what you want, not being the logical or philosophical victor.
 
Last edited:
goaliedad said:
. . . They will have to justify the existing standards, but I seriously doubt any MOC can win that argument.

. . .
Click to expand...



I will say Army's 18 series (Special Forces) can easily win the argument. In order to be 18 qualified, you have to successfully complete the SF qualification course. In order to attend the SF qualification course, a soldier has to pass the assessment course. There are various physical standards/task associated with the assessment course.
 
MemberLG said:
I will say Army's 18 series (Special Forces) can easily win the argument. In order to be 18 qualified, you have to successfully complete the SF qualification course. In order to attend the SF qualification course, a soldier has to pass the assessment course. There are various physical standards/task associated with the assessment course.
Click to expand...

And this is how it should be for all soldiers.
 
goaliedad said:
50 years ago, they didn't think women could survive at West Point. Everyone was sure that they would water down the academy to make sure women commissioned. What is your observation on how that played out?

.
Click to expand...

But they did water down the Academy...perfect example of how this will play out
 
pathnottaken said:
Please define water down and provide some data...

Here is how the Army is planning on getting gender out of combat rolls.

http://www.army.mil/article/105814/
Click to expand...

What data would you like? The different standards for Military Movement and the APFT? The 5 push up limit? Ask any old grad, they'll tell you that "the corps has..." and while a lot of those changes were brought on as an effort to stop "hazing," they have allowed female cadets to make it through that otherwise wouldn't have even been accepted
 
Any old SA grad will say "back in my day when it was hard...." That's pretty consistent. I mean, look at these new basics inprocessing these days, total wimps! Training is as easy as pie! Rabble rabble. :) It was ALWAYS harder in the past.
 
Within the Armor Branch and the Infantry Branch, the Army will also offer junior officers and junior NCOs the opportunity to transfer branches or reclassify into these occupations as a way to build a cadre of experienced female Soldiers prior to the arrival of Soldiers who are new to the Army.
Click to expand...

Just curious about one thing.

When they decide to allow female junior officers the opportunity to branch transfer to Armor or Infantry, what will be the standards that need to be met for the transfer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top