Sec of Defense to open all combat jobs to women

[Sledge]

I want someone who's for this, and doesn't think there will be lowered standards or quotas, to explain to me why the Superintendent of USMA said, referencing the two females that requested Infantry this year (and will now be allowed to get it), "I'm gonna need more than two." Why?

 

[Jcleppe]

A recruiting statement??

 

[MemberLG]

I want someone who's for this, and doesn't think there will be lowered standards or quotas, to explain to me why the Superintendent of USMA said, referencing the two females that requested Infantry this year (and will now be allowed to get it), "I'm gonna need more than two." Why?

I am not "for this," but you might be reading too much into the statement. Like it or not, to complete the integration of females into all positions, the Army has to have more female soldiers wanting go combat arms. What we are concerned is how we get there.

Are you assuming or have a reliable source that two females that requested Infantry will now get Infantry? The branching decisions were made before the Sec Def opened all positions in the military to females. Is West Point/Army going to make an exception and increase Infantry slots for West Point?

My biggest concern about opening all positions in the military to females is having enough qualified and interested females. We see it now where some female soldiers are saying this is great, but not for me. There are females soldiers that wants to be Infantry, but are not capable. I was on a nomination panel last week and a question I asked about was the opening up on call military positions. And to female candidates, I asked if they were interested in going into combat arms positions. Most of them said not sure.

So as you suggest, can the military leadership do the right thing instead of lowering the standards or having quotas when there are not enough females soldiers going into combat arms and or passing Ranger/SF/SEAL courses?

 

[Sledge]

I want someone who's for this, and doesn't think there will be lowered standards or quotas, to explain to me why the Superintendent of USMA said, referencing the two females that requested Infantry this year (and will now be allowed to get it), "I'm gonna need more than two." Why?

I am not "for this," but you might be reading too much into the statement. Like it or not, to complete the integration of females into all positions, the Army has to have more female soldiers wanting go combat arms. What we are concerned is how we get there.

Are you assuming or have a reliable source that two females that requested Infantry will now get Infantry? The branching decisions were made before the Sec Def opened all positions in the military to females. Is West Point/Army going to make an exception and increase Infantry slots for West Point?

My biggest concern about opening all positions in the military to females is having enough qualified and interested females. We see it now where some female soldiers are saying this is great, but not for me. There are females soldiers that wants to be Infantry, but are not capable. I was on a nomination panel last week and a question I asked about was the opening up on call military positions. And to female candidates, I asked if they were interested in going into combat arms positions. Most of them said not sure.

So as you suggest, can the military leadership do the right thing instead of lowering the standards or having quotas when there are not enough females soldiers going into combat arms and or passing Ranger/SF/SEAL courses?

Thank you for answering my question. Your answer is exactly what I expected. A few females will be both capable and have the propensity for Infantry. To make Infantry possible for this small group, we'll need a bigger population of females to accompany them. Why? Can't the females share the same barracks or training regimen as men? Why not? Are they "different?" Might there be problems? You don't say. What I read by your statement highlighted in red is that we are going to make the 99% (men that are capable and women that don't want any part of it) suffer for the 1%.

To answer your question, I have no authoritative guidance that I can link. Just heard that the two were told when they received branches in November that could change if the the integration decision was made as expected in December.

 

[MomWPgirl]

My biggest concern about opening all positions in the military to females is having enough qualified and interested females. We see it now where some female soldiers are saying this is great, but not for me. There are females soldiers that wants to be Infantry, but are not capable. I was on a nomination panel last week and a question I asked about was the opening up on call military positions. And to female candidates, I asked if they were interested in going into combat arms positions. Most of them said not sure.

My biggest concern as well. It is not going to happen overnight though. This is new policy that I believe will take time to see the numbers increase. Many young female officers that are capable of this are currently serving in branches/positions in which they excel and love. Now, they are trying to navigate and decide on whether they should jump or stay put on their current path. If the option, had been there for them from the get-go, things would have been different. I do know that there are more than 2 Firsties considering branch switching. Will the numbers be high? No, but many more underclass females now striving for this goal. As for female candidates...as a mother of a recruited female athlete who just happened to end up at USMA, I can say she truly had no clue what she was getting into and had not thought that far ahead. She took the one day at a time approach and ended up excelling in all pillars and drank enough Army Kool-aid that she often talks about making Army her career. Prior to R-day and her stepping foot on USMA....I would have laughed at the idea of her finding her passion and purpose in the military. With the high number of recruited female athletes I have to think there are many like my DD....who just haven't thought that far ahead. I believe numbers will increase substantially as time goes on...just hope the Army allows for this cultural/policy change to evolve naturally....high standards etc etc. This is huge policy change and there will be problems and issues to figure out but... do I know women who would be an asset to combat arms and infantry? Absolutely! Do I know young male LTs that branched infantry that dislike it, do not excel at it and are counting their days until commitment over? Also a yes.

 

[MemberLG]

To make Infantry possible for this small group, we'll need a bigger population of females to accompany them. Why? Can't the females share the same barracks or training regimen as men? Why not? Are they "different?" Might there be problems? You don't say. What I read by your statement highlighted in red is that we are going to make the 99% (men that are capable and women that don't want any part of it) suffer for the 1%.

I don't like what's happening, but it's the future and our opinions are not going to change anything. Best we can do is support the changes best we can. The supporters of the changes will argue that the same rational used to oppose opening combat arms positions to females have been used against desegregation, admitting women to West Point, repealing don't ask don't tell, and etc, but adverse impacts never materialized. Well, my simple reply is that each situation is different and how the DoD manages the changes will ultimately determine if there will be any adverse impact or not.

In a way, West Point is the perfect place to start grooming future female Infantry officers. There is only minor if any training differences for male and female cadets (yes IOCT and APFT are difference point scales, but no IOCT in the active duty and APFT are also scored based on age group. Boxing is optional for female cadets). Females rooms right next to male rooms in the barracks.

I think barracks space is something that can be worked out. The days of open bay barracks are long gone. I believe enlisted soldiers barracks are two to a room, so a female soldier might luck out not getting a roommate. Will there be issues? Yes. I think sleeping arrangement in the field is also a minor issue. Back in late 90s, I was in an Infantry battalion. We were doing a field exercise and staying in a tent complex. Had an aviation unit training with us and their female officers ended up staying in our tent (GP large). Except of one officer, we didn't care. Yes, we couldn't walk around in our tent naked, but is there a need to do so? All of us have seen females before.

So, my personal opinion is that as long as the standard is not compromised, things could work out.

 

[NavyHoops]

I think there are ways to put qualified women into combat arms without forcing other women into the field. Look how the Navy recently integrated females into subs. They sent a new Ensign to a sub and then sent a female LT that is Supply qualified to be the Suppo. This teaming put 2 women on the subs, put an experienced female officer on the sub, allowed women to start to grow in the ranks of the sub community. It was a very small number, but it is allowing the community to grow with willing qualified participants. A year or two down the road and now they had a qualified female submariner who can now lead and mentor a new female ensign submariner. And the cycle continues. The first female submariners are now a thing of the past and will be department heads in the not too distant future. In not too long a time, they have grown in the officer community, the issue has pretty much become moot and now they can look at how and when to integrate female enlisted. When the Marine Corps a few years ago started to expand women in certain fields... they started with proven leaders. They sent some women to places to places like Combat Engineer Battalions and LAAD Battalions with supply, logistics, admin MOSs. These women were qualified, solid leaders and are helping to pave the way. I think they keys are not lowering the standards, enforcing the standards across the board and have willing qualified Soldiers and Marines. This will take time, patience and won't happen overnight. Don't force the issue, let it happen. If its 1% then its one 1%. That number will grow with time.

The bottom line is this happening. Its not going to happen, it is happening. Regardless of any personal opinions a young LT, Capt or even Batt CO might have, they will have to embrace this change and set up whomever they receive in their chain of command for success. A Company Commander could end up with the first female Infantry Platoon Commander. Just like any other LT who reports in, they will have to support them and set them up for success. If they aren't cutting it, just like any guy, then it will come out and be handled it. I know many fear that politics will take over, standards will be lowered, etc, but I like to choose to have faith in those who will take this challenge on. To the females who take on this challenge, I wish them luck. I hope they knock it out of the park. To the men who work with these ladies... treat them the same, that is all they want.

As a former female Marine who was often the lone female on deployments I can speak to how living arrangements work. You live how everyone else lives. We are all adults, this wasn't earth shattering or everyone freaked out. I was on a 10.5 deployment as the lone female. We had enough officers we lived open squad bay style and I live with the other Officers. It was never an issue to any of us. We had a shower tent and either set it up to shower the 15 minutes before the tent opened to men or 15 minutes after. I just let the LCpl know so he was there early or knew to keep the water on. Other deployments I lived with my team in a tent or in the field. If we had junior enlisted females on deployments or ops and they lived their teams, we just put them next to the SNCO. Not once was it ever an issue. The days of garrison barracks being open squad bays are gone, for junior enlisted its 2/room. Heck SAs have had females living in the barracks for decades now, so have none combat arms units. Sure there might be 1 or 2 female soldiers or Marines in the barracks, but that doesn't mean there won't be a female admin clerk or supply clerk in the battalion either. They just room together.

 

[MemberLG]

No, but many more underclass females now striving for this goal.

The above is another concern I have. Do these female cadets want to be Infantry for the right reason and know what they are getting into (it also applies to male cadets)? Because three female West Point graduates graduated from Ranger school, doesn't mean all West Point female graduates that goes to Ranger school will graduate from Ranger School. Infantry officers are expected to be Ranger qualified. Although, two of my Infantry battalion commanders I served with were not Ranger qualified and they made General officers. Any female cadets wanting to branch Infantry need to keep in mind that they are ready for Ranger school, not I go Infantry but not Ranger School (this applies to male cadets also). Just like applying to West Point, no amount of heart, commitment, dedication, and will overcome the law of physics.

 

[Sledge]

I know you have to go along to get along in the military/USG, but still, the fatalism, it hurts

 

[Sledge]

No, but many more underclass females now striving for this goal.

The above is another concern I have. Do these female cadets want to be Infantry for the right reason and know what they are getting into (it also applies to male cadets)? Because three female West Point graduates graduated from Ranger school, doesn't mean all West Point female graduates that goes to Ranger school will graduate from Ranger School. Infantry officers are expected to be Ranger qualified. Although, two of my Infantry battalion commanders I served with were not Ranger qualified and they made General officers. Any female cadets wanting to branch Infantry need to keep in mind that they are ready for Ranger school, not I go Infantry but not Ranger School (this applies to male cadets also). Just like applying to West Point, no amount of heart, commitment, dedication, and will overcome the law of physics.

Might there be a new paradigm where you can promote more easlily in the Infantry without the tab? I mean, we need females in the Infantry, badly, right? There's some arbitrary critical mass we've got to get to. So, it's either that or we drop the standards at Ranger School.

 

[MomWPgirl]

The above is another concern I have. Do these female cadets want to be Infantry for the right reason and know what they are getting into (it also applies to male cadets)?

I have to believe they want it for the right reasons. These are intelligent young women. They are not making this decision willy nilly without much thought or critical reasoning. They are aware of the extreme challenges that they will be facing....the whole last year of debate on the topic has taught them it wont be easy and they will face adversaries among them that which they serve. These are not the women that scream "I am going Infantry" yet have miserable PT scores. The young women I mentioned speak softly on the topic and I see their numbers growing.

 

[MemberLG]

Might there be a new paradigm where you can promote more easlily in the Infantry without the tab? I mean, we need females in the Infantry, badly, right? There's some arbitrary critical mass we've got to get to. So, it's either that or we drop the standards at Ranger School.

A new paradigm will happen when Army soldiers stop wearing badge(s) and tab(s) on their uniform. To me, the connection is between Ranger tab and promotion very complex topic. First, what I know or from what I understand, any selection/promotion board is driven by OERs. An Infantry officer without a Ranger tab with better OERs (i.e. a future general officer, a future BDE commander, must select for COL) and competitive duty assignments will always beat out another Infantry officer with the tab and average assignments on promotion/selection boards. Where it gets complicated is that getting those competitive assignments. Being Ranger qualified helps with getting those assignments.

Infantry needs young people that are willing to engage the enemy in direct combat to defend our country . Can we meet the requirement alone with males? Perhaps. Not even time will tell if allowing females to serve in Infantry was needed or the right decision. We don't have an alternate universe to compare the future outcome.

 

[MemberLG]

These are not the women that scream "I am going Infantry" yet have miserable PT scores. The young women I mentioned speak softly on the topic and I see their numbers growing.

Again, this is what I am afraid of. Good intentions aside, cadets only know what they know. Good PT scores is just a fraction of what both male and female cadets need to become a good Infantry officer. I wish that no cadet is thinking that because they score 300+ APFT and play a NCAA sport so they have what it takes to be an Infantry officer physically. A decent chance they do, its not automatic.

 

[USMCGrunt]

+1 Excellent point.

 

[NavyHoops]

Again, this is what I am afraid of. Good intentions aside, cadets only know what they know. Good PT scores is just a fraction of what both male and female cadets need to become a good Infantry officer. I wish that no cadet is thinking that because they score 300+ APFT and play a NCAA sport so they have what it takes to be an Infantry officer physically. A decent chance they do, its not automatic.

As much as I 100% agree with this, it still seems to be the single major item that is looked at. I had average PT scores. My goal was to always be above the male times as a Marine and if possible hit the average mark for male times. I am no PT beast by any means, but I was strong. I could hike with any any pack forever. I could of handled many parts of the training but not sure I enough speed to make the times required for just the straight running portions (I hate running and suck at it). I know some women who score a 300 Marine PFT, but break under pack weight. This is a huge part of the infantry. It takes speed, strength, and physical/mental stamina. 110 lb cross country runners may have the speed, but will break with a 110 lb pack. 175 lb woman who has the strength, might not have the speed.

 

[Sledge]

Again, this is what I am afraid of. Good intentions aside, cadets only know what they know. Good PT scores is just a fraction of what both male and female cadets need to become a good Infantry officer. I wish that no cadet is thinking that because they score 300+ APFT and play a NCAA sport so they have what it takes to be an Infantry officer physically. A decent chance they do, its not automatic.

As much as I 100% agree with this, it still seems to be the single major item that is looked at. I had average PT scores. My goal was to always be above the male times as a Marine and if possible hit the average mark for male times. I am no PT beast by any means, but I was strong. I could hike with any any pack forever. I could of handled many parts of the training but not sure I enough speed to make the times required for just the straight running portions (I hate running and suck at it). I know some women who score a 300 Marine PFT, but break under pack weight. This is a huge part of the infantry. It takes speed, strength, and physical/mental stamina. 110 lb cross country runners may have the speed, but will break with a 110 lb pack. 175 lb woman who has the strength, might not have the speed.

Ma'am, do you believe your Marines' integration study was biased, as has been stated by SECNAV, SECDEF, and their fellow travelers?

 

[NavyHoops]

No clue. Never read the study itself. Some of my close friends read every word and I have heard their opinions. I don't have one on it as I never read it. At this point I won't. It doesn't matter, the change has been made.

 

[MemberLG]

As much as I 100% agree with this, it still seems to be the single major item that is looked at. I had average PT scores. My goal was to always be above the male times as a Marine and if possible hit the average mark for male times. I am no PT beast by any means, but I was strong. I could hike with any any pack forever. I could of handled many parts of the training but not sure I enough speed to make the times required for just the straight running portions (I hate running and suck at it). I know some women who score a 300 Marine PFT, but break under pack weight. This is a huge part of the infantry. It takes speed, strength, and physical/mental stamina. 110 lb cross country runners may have the speed, but will break with a 110 lb pack. 175 lb woman who has the strength, might not have the speed.

A frustration I have discussing integrating females in combat arms is that some well meaning folks don't truly understand what they are referencing. Sports or AFPT/PFT references are the prime example. I like telling stories, so here it goes. I went to Air Assault school as a cadet at West Point (Camp Smith). The instructors told us that cadet classes were the most fit class they have instructed. There were females cadets that were NCAA athletes and probably scored better than me on APFT even with raw numbers. The top female finisher for the road march was somewhere around 25 to 30 out of 200 +/- and did not beat me. And I will gladly admit that my PT scores were average and I was probably below average physically). I share this story not make myself feel good, rather make a point that a civilian will probably think that NCAA athlete and/or higher PT score female cadet will naturally do better than a below average or average male cadet in 12 mile road march.

In case someone is thinking that a 12 mile road march with 35 lbs (old Air Assault School standard) will never happen in combat or it's an made up standard to discriminate against small soldiers. I agree, but there has to be an mechanism to determine that Infantry soldiers are ready to meet physical demands of combat. I hate running, but I rather do 12 mile road march any day over being in full combat gear for several hours.

 

[NavyHoops]

LG, you and I are on the same page. An NCAA D1 athlete is in great shape... For their sport. I was a basketball player. I can run the length of court for days and days. In the preseason we did a lot of running and I could jog a PRT at Navy in 10 mins. Don't ask me to do that while in season in January unless that 1.5 miles is done on a basketball court! I could but it would be ugly. My room mate was a swimmer... Set all kinds of records... Put her on land and she broke. We spend years developing muscle memory and perfecting our sport. It's the same thing that women will have to do to succeed in the infantry! At the end of TBS I could hike and ruck for days with any weight they threw at me. My MOS we didn't do tons of it and it would have taken my body some conditioning to get back to that level. I would rather road March any day than run! I actually did well on any runs with gear than just regular running. I wouldn't have made it through IOC, I wasn't fast enough. I could of done all the hikes and field work, but my run times wouldn't have made it so I would of been cut. A PFT score is just a measure of fitness. I think it's part of the equation, but not the entire puzzle.

 

[MomWPgirl]

Again, this is what I am afraid of. Good intentions aside, cadets only know what they know. Good PT scores is just a fraction of what both male and female cadets need to become a good Infantry officer. I wish that no cadet is thinking that because they score 300+ APFT and play a NCAA sport so they have what it takes to be an Infantry officer physically. A decent chance they do, its not automatic.

I only brought up the PT scores because on this site in previous discussions it was mentioned that the female cadets being the most vocal about opening up combat arms have dismal PT scores. The cadets I know that are considering this are full of good intentions, as well as gumption, drive, intelligence and physicality. Will they be successful at Ranger School? Who knows. I do know they will go into branch selection with as much information and knowledge as they can get their hands on. As one of them stated "Branching Infantry will be the biggest decision and challenge of my life in today's environment. There is no room for doubt so I have to be sure."