Sec of Defense to open all combat jobs to women

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."

If so, they need to be open minded and seek advice from sources outside their comfort zone. Your assessment of a female cadet's physicality will be different from mine. My outlook on if a female cadet can meet the challenges based on my personal experience (IOBC, Ranger School, Mechanized Infantry Uuits) will be different from your outlook. It's probably obvious that I am not a big supporter of females going into Infantry. So my perspective will be different from those that are supportive.
 
I had to offer my 2 cents on this...

DD is AF, AD, enlisted. DD scored high 90's on her ASVAB, applied for WP was qualified academically and physically but did not receive a nomination. She is smart and is in great physical shape. Her first job choice going in enlisted was linguist but at then changed to EOD. For those of you that don't know AF EOD is trained by the Navy and is widely considered one of the most academically and physically challenging schools there is. DD went to the pre EOD screening school in Texas after boot camp. While there she excelled at the academics, received her TS clearance and was doing by all accounts very well. DD regularly hung with and often times beat many of her classmates on the run, weighted ruck march and held her own on the other challenges as well like lifting 75lbs? . Then came the dreaded pull-ups... to advance in the course one needs to do 3 pull-ups. She could only do 2!!! Heartbroken she was given another chance. ( Now if you look through my posts you will see I am not one to exaggerate but I will tell you nobody on the face of the earth worked harder during that time to perfect their pull -ups, so much so that she was told to stop for fear of doing permanent damage to her already mangled hands and palms.) 2 was the best she could muster. The standard is the standard and I get that but the question begs....

In a field where the motto is "Intial Sucess or Total Failure" would I rather have the person who is a PT stud but scored at the bottom of their class academically or would I rather have the person that can do almost every physically challenging thing the unit does, was near the top of their class academically and would risk permanent damage to their hands just to pass the initial screening?

In the case of defusing bombs I'll take smart over big any day of the week.

Not every combat job requires feats of superhuman strength or Ironman stamina, some combat jobs require very good levels of fitness and high levels of intelligence.
 
Every combat job does require any team member to carry their buddy. I am strong as heck but suck at pull ups. I have no problem carrying a man in full gear. I can do the rope even in a flak and Kevlar with no issue. If pull ups are the standard for that school then that should be the standard. If we start to second guess every standard now then it will be considered a drop because of women and that is the last thing any woman needs to succeed in this field.
 
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.

If so, they need to be open minded and seek advice from sources outside their comfort zone. Your assessment of a female cadet's physicality will be different from mine. My outlook on if a female cadet can meet the challenges based on my personal experience (IOBC, Ranger School, Mechanized Infantry Uuits) will be different from your outlook.

Knowing multiple recent WP grads who went IN and are in various stages of IBOLC and RS, it's very clear to me even as a civvy that very few understand what IN/RS really entails. Based on the commentary here and in other forums anyway. What MemberLG is saying above is absolutely accurate based on what I see the current IN 2LT's doing. In buckets. (Or I should say, Rucks)

Forget Female APFT & sports performance... even male APFT 300-350 range performers, lifters, and D1 Athletes are routinely challenged in IBOLC, and in better conditions (food & sleep) than they will see in RS.

Forget that 35lb Air Assault ruck march... DS when home on weekends is on the treadmill in full combat gear plus 60lb ruck. Probably 75 lbs with ACH, boots, FLC, etc. Just to keep from losing the fitness developed in IBOLC while waiting for RS to start! Their lightest rucks in IBOLC averaged over 45lbs most of the time, and if tagged as SAW gunner (or 240B to a lesser extent) add quite a bit to that. Testing was done with RS spec rucks and similar, but most of the training was above that as they will encounter far higher loads in RS.

Not that there may not be females who can handle the rucking and similar physical aspects. Just that it catches many very fit, strong PT grads by surprise. And it's going to take some very above average females to even meet the current minimum IBOLC graduation requirement. This is not just a score or rank matter, physicality is a major perception thing and surfaces in the peer ratings. Ex: falling back in formation ruck marches typically has a major negative impact on peers. As in, lowest. Peer too low, you will recycle IBOLC. Can't meet the RS RPFT standard? You will recycle IBOLC. Don't complete the 4 ruck marches in time? Recycle IBOLC. 5 Mile run on the RS course per RS std? Recycle IBOLC.

This is not a willpower/desire thing. By all acounts that becomes a factor later in RS. This is physics and physiology.

This brings me back to: If a female WP cadet is interested in going IN, they should do Sandhurst and attempt to be a strong member of the team. (Not the one who has to be pulled along to make it up the hill) If they don't like or can't handle the Sandhurst experience/routine, they will be very unhappy in the first several months of their life as an IN 2LT. Sandhurst won't have the ruck loads they will see later, but the overall PT expectation (hills, stretchers, etc) will be similar.

I'm not opposed to females in combat roles, *where it makes sense*. Ex: I believe females have the capability to be better pilots based on my experience in the aviation world.
 
Last edited:
Better learn to like rucking:
173rdairborne201.jpeg
 
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.

That was probably me parroting cadet comment I heard in a casual discussion at USMA: "The females I know who would have a chance of making it in IN/RS have no desire, as they have learned via Sandhurst and similar. And ironically, the ones making the most noise about opening up IN are having a hard time passing APFT/IOCT."

I'm sure there are exceptions. But the point is valid, knowing some of the individuals they were referencing.

My Ruck Rant aside (Ruh-Roh) and way out of my lane as a civvy... I'm told barracks stuff won't be that big of a deal for IBOLC as they have private housing. And it seems the female RS grads indicate not an issue in RS. It will require some changes in IBOLC around field hygiene facilities, which USMA has already dealt with. (I have to chuckle when I hear derogatory comments about CFT/CLDT having access to portapotties, etc)

Team dynamics might be an issue, as it can be in Sandhurst and (by all accounts) in the real world. I've heard horror stories by NCO's, and officers say it was not an issue. (With one exception)

One last thing: The IN 2LT's I know firsthand very much view the RS tab as mandatory. As in, they most likely would not be able to report to their unit without one. Certainly would not be given a platoon. I know DS believes this as a matter of fact for his unit. Don't know if it's policy or not, though.

Point being: it would be a mistake to assume they just need to make it through IBOLC. I understand there are occasionally untabbed IN LT's, but their fate also appears not to be a happy one. Maybe serving officers can comment on if this may change.
 
Forget Female APFT & sports performance...

Forget that 35lb Air Assault ruck march...

Their lightest rucks in IBOLC averaged over 45lbs most of the time, and if tagged as SAW gunner (or 240B to a lesser extent) add quite a bit to that. Testing was done with RS spec rucks and similar, but most of the training was above that as they will encounter far higher loads in RS.

And it's going to take some very above average females to even meet the current minimum IBOLC graduation requirement. This is not just a score or rank matter, physicality is a major perception thing and surfaces in the peer ratings. Ex: falling back in formation ruck marches typically has a major negative impact on peers. As in, lowest. Peer to low, you will recycle IBOLC. Can't meet the RS RPFT standard? You will recycle IBOLC. Don't complete the 4 ruck marches in time? Recycle IBOLC. 5 Mile run on the RS course per RS std? Recycle IBOLC.

This is not a willpower/desire thing. By all acounts that becomes a factor later in RS. This is physics and physiology.

This brings me back to: If a female WP cadet is interested in going IN, they should do Sandhurst and attempt to be a strong member of the team. (Not the one who has to be pulled along to make it up the hill) If they don't like or can't handle the Sandhurst experience/routine, they will be very unhappy in the first several months of their life as an IN 2LT. Sandhurst won't have the ruck loads they will see later, but the overall PT expectation (hills, stretchers, etc) will be similar.

All I can opine as a civilian is - That was then. It's been a steady current in this thread, in the news, on Yik Yak, etc. of "the change is happening, accept it." SWAN will just say that such rigors as you describe "over-select" the qualities needed to be in the infantry. "Gender-neutral" is the new hotness. If a standard "over-selects" one gender over another, then it's not neutral. And our SECDEF has proclaimed that changes will be made to reduce injuries in females. All of what you describe sounds overly injurious.

But certainly, God will be on the side of the egalitarian battalions.
 
All I can opine as a civilian is - That was then. It's been a steady current in this thread, in the news, on Yik Yak, etc. of "the change is happening, accept it." SWAN will just say that such rigors as you describe "over-select" the qualities needed to be in the infantry. "Gender-neutral" is the new hotness. If a standard "over-selects" one gender over another, then it's not neutral. And our SECDEF has proclaimed that changes will be made to reduce injuries in females. All of what you describe sounds overly injurious.

Understood. But they also said that equal opportunity does not equate to equal outcomes, etc. They won't erode the standards. etc.

I suspect there will be political pressure for sure.

That won't change the weight of the combat load a paratrooper has to waddle out with, though.

USAIS did a bunch of work on this, and it's a problem even for males: Current 50 percentile weight of IN soldier is 160 lbs. They found long term combat loads of 30% (48lbs) were manageable, with a maximum of 45% (72 lbs) periodically. Other Armies found this too high, it resulted in degraded performance.

But even this load is virtually impossible to meet with current gear and mandatory loadouts. (NVG, etc) And by all accounts, has not been able to be met in any of the major light engagements from the 80's to the current.

With average female fit body weights, these loads would not be sustainable. Based on documented studies, injury rates go up, long term profiles, etc.

Maybe females go mech, and a different standard for light units. But an IN officer will normally swap light/mech at some point, so you are still left with an issue.

But I agree, it appears we are hell bent to do the experience. I just hope it does not compromise the fighting force doing so.
 
All I can opine as a civilian is - That was then. It's been a steady current in this thread, in the news, on Yik Yak, etc. of "the change is happening, accept it." SWAN will just say that such rigors as you describe "over-select" the qualities needed to be in the infantry. "Gender-neutral" is the new hotness. If a standard "over-selects" one gender over another, then it's not neutral. And our SECDEF has proclaimed that changes will be made to reduce injuries in females. All of what you describe sounds overly injurious.

If so, things will get easier for everyone. Just saw on the Facebook, first female Bradlye leaders course graduate. Got me wonder that she must be very strong as unless thing have changed, disassembling 25 mm cannon was a one person task and it takes some strength. If I remember correctly, the upper body assembly was about 35 to 50 lbs and the lower assembly was about 75 lbs. It was very challenging as the cramp space in the turret and the odd shape of those parts made it very difficult. It wasn't just about the strength. I can't see it now, either damaged assemblies or hand/arm injuries. So, an easy solution will be make it a two person tasks, except I don't think there is enough room in the turret to make it a two person task.
 
Maybe females go mech, and a different standard for light units. But an IN officer will normally swap light/mech at some point, so you are still left with an issue.

As a former mech infantry, I feel insulted, just kidding. We definitely rode our vehicles, but there are different challenges associated with mech infantry (just posted about the 25 mm gun). If folks think dragging/carrying someone is hard, try pulling a body from a Bradley fighting vehicle. We do conduct dismounted operations.
 
I had to offer my 2 cents on this...

DD is AF, AD, enlisted. DD scored high 90's on her ASVAB, applied for WP was qualified academically and physically but did not receive a nomination. She is smart and is in great physical shape. Her first job choice going in enlisted was linguist but at then changed to EOD. For those of you that don't know AF EOD is trained by the Navy and is widely considered one of the most academically and physically challenging schools there is. DD went to the pre EOD screening school in Texas after boot camp. While there she excelled at the academics, received her TS clearance and was doing by all accounts very well. DD regularly hung with and often times beat many of her classmates on the run, weighted ruck march and held her own on the other challenges as well like lifting 75lbs? . Then came the dreaded pull-ups... to advance in the course one needs to do 3 pull-ups. She could only do 2!!! Heartbroken she was given another chance. ( Now if you look through my posts you will see I am not one to exaggerate but I will tell you nobody on the face of the earth worked harder during that time to perfect their pull -ups, so much so that she was told to stop for fear of doing permanent damage to her already mangled hands and palms.) 2 was the best she could muster. The standard is the standard and I get that but the question begs....

In a field where the motto is "Intial Sucess or Total Failure" would I rather have the person who is a PT stud but scored at the bottom of their class academically or would I rather have the person that can do almost every physically challenging thing the unit does, was near the top of their class academically and would risk permanent damage to their hands just to pass the initial screening?

In the case of defusing bombs I'll take smart over big any day of the week.

Not every combat job requires feats of superhuman strength or Ironman stamina, some combat jobs require very good levels of fitness and high levels of intelligence.

I have ask, did your DD know that she had to do three pull ups when did she decided to go EOD? If she knew, what was her plan?
 
If folks think dragging/carrying someone is hard, try pulling a body from a Bradley fighting vehicle.

Pretty sure there was a similar evolution in the Marines integration assessment. I hear tank track repair can be taxing also. I also saw that FB post about the female graduating the Bradley Leader's Course. Why was she even enrolled if the decision hadn't been made yet?
 
I had to offer my 2 cents on this...

DD is AF, AD, enlisted. DD scored high 90's on her ASVAB, applied for WP was qualified academically and physically but did not receive a nomination. She is smart and is in great physical shape. Her first job choice going in enlisted was linguist but at then changed to EOD. For those of you that don't know AF EOD is trained by the Navy and is widely considered one of the most academically and physically challenging schools there is. DD went to the pre EOD screening school in Texas after boot camp. While there she excelled at the academics, received her TS clearance and was doing by all accounts very well. DD regularly hung with and often times beat many of her classmates on the run, weighted ruck march and held her own on the other challenges as well like lifting 75lbs? . Then came the dreaded pull-ups... to advance in the course one needs to do 3 pull-ups. She could only do 2!!! Heartbroken she was given another chance. ( Now if you look through my posts you will see I am not one to exaggerate but I will tell you nobody on the face of the earth worked harder during that time to perfect their pull -ups, so much so that she was told to stop for fear of doing permanent damage to her already mangled hands and palms.) 2 was the best she could muster. The standard is the standard and I get that but the question begs....

In a field where the motto is "Intial Sucess or Total Failure" would I rather have the person who is a PT stud but scored at the bottom of their class academically or would I rather have the person that can do almost every physically challenging thing the unit does, was near the top of their class academically and would risk permanent damage to their hands just to pass the initial screening?

In the case of defusing bombs I'll take smart over big any day of the week.

Not every combat job requires feats of superhuman strength or Ironman stamina, some combat jobs require very good levels of fitness and high levels of intelligence.

I have ask, did your DD know that she had to do three pull ups when did she decided to go EOD? If she knew, what was her plan?

No offense, but anyone who cannot do a simple task like 3 pull-ups, Let alone twice after they let them have time to do a SINGLE additional pull-up I wouldn't trust to don a bomb suit and come pick me up if I was injured near an IED. You can be smart all day, does not make you fit for physical jobs. That's the point. Standards across the board, regardless of sex if the same job is to be performed. EOD is not a job for the faint of heart, both physically or mentally.
 
Zero, I can move big dudes in full gear all day long, suck at pull ups. I can rope climb in gear, pull ups... Suck. Different muscles. I could beast all the heavy stuff without an issue when we did field exercises. Strength wasn't a problem, running fast was! But if that is the standard for the test, then it's the standard. I am good with that. If I was still in... Would have to figure it out. 60 lb ruck maybe happened once at TBS. Average gear load for summer was around 85 lbs. Winter was about 110, that was before additional weapons, ammo and radios. And all the women did this. We had no females break down because of the weight and we all passed. We had about 24 or so women in my company. We all passed, never fell out of a ruck. Heck TBS wasn't that hard physically. Iraq without rucks we were around 65 lbs of gear without a ruck (not a lot of rucking going on in Iraq... Afghanistan mountains - different beast). It does take some body conditioning to wear all that stuff. It eventually becomes second nature. Gear has gotten better since I was in. Much more tailorable to the individual, better boots, etc. All that stuff is a huge help to prevent injuries for all. Bottom line is expecting more, knowing it's the standard and its uncomprisiming. Those who accept this challenge, must be ready to tackle that and be extremely self aware of their capabilities. I have a handful of female Marine officer friends who 100% have the physical chops to be infantry. They are well into careers doing other Marine things and to be honest not sure any of them would have gone that path if available.
 
As a former mech infantry, I feel insulted, just kidding. We definitely rode our vehicles, but there are different challenges associated with mech infantry (just posted about the 25 mm gun). If folks think dragging/carrying someone is hard, try pulling a body from a Bradley fighting vehicle. We do conduct dismounted operations.

No slight intended, you paid your dues! More was alluding to Strykers as pure APC's and maybe a reduced future need for rucking.

Which works in Iraq, but apparently not in A'stan or similar countries where the bridges wash out each spring. And can't carry an MRAP, much less a Strykers or Bradley.

You are making a very good case for branch specific standards relevant to that branch. Bradley gun, tank tread repair, crewman lift, para waddle, light fighter ruck.

Dont mean to beat the dead horse. Maybe I'm just biased by having recently held my "light" IN guy's plate carrier (IOTV?), FLC, ACH, etc. The armor alone had to be close to 30lbs, and did not have the additional coverage attachments.
 
60 lb ruck maybe happened once at TBS. Average gear load for summer was around 85 lbs. Winter was about 110, that was before additional weapons, ammo and radios. And all the women did this. We had no females break down because of the weight and we all passed. We had about 24 or so women in my company. We all passed, never fell out of a ruck.

I'll defer to your direct experience in this, and consider me impressed.

So sounds like this won't be a problem. I'll go back to being observer/supporter
 
If folks think dragging/carrying someone is hard, try pulling a body from a Bradley fighting vehicle.

Pretty sure there was a similar evolution in the Marines integration assessment. I hear tank track repair can be taxing also. I also saw that FB post about the female graduating the Bradley Leader's Course. Why was she even enrolled if the decision hadn't been made yet?

My guess, she is Air Defense Artillery. Back in late 90s, ADA folks had Bradley with Stingers in the back. I guess they still do.
 
I'm torn. I do understand what others are saying. I'm a civilian, have no idea what's is like in the field other than what my dad, grandparents, etc have told me of their tours (Vietnam and WWII). My dad was an Army medic, enlisted, served 4 tours in Vietnam. Needless to say, he didn't much like it there. Grandpa flew B-17s, did 32 missions.

My DD is a candidate for c/o of 2020 at USNA. She's been aiming for EOD since she was in her early teens, very well aware of the standards and has been working on them ever since. At first she couldn't do a single pull up. Asked for a pull up bar for her 14th birthday (DH installed one in her room, alongside the 80lb boxing bag). Now she's 17 yrs and can do 11 good ones, maybe 15 "ok" ones. Pull ups were her one weakness, and she's worked hard to improve Every. Single. Day. She's aiming for the Academy so that she'll have 4 years of more training, with the best of the best, before BUDS.

She's also currently a Sea Cadet, did the FOPS training last summer. First day, the do a PFA/whatever assessment (not sure what it's called there), she came in 2nd place, and they put her on the elite team (the highest 12 made elite). She was the only female to make elite. Only problem was, they'd be rucking the whole week, sleeping in trenches. They couldn't allow her to be the only female cadet on the team....so they put another girl on the team that slowed everyone down (and that made DD quite angry lol). Granted, these are teenage kids/minors, there are rules the leaders must follow because they're minors. But my DD did NOT want any special considerations because of her gender. Btw, she made corps man for the training duration, carried 75lbs ruck for the week, and they were constantly ambushed by the Marines - and she won the Hard Charger award :)

Now SEALS is opening to women, and that's what she's aiming for. She's been boxing, running, swimming, etc, like crazy - all while making great grades - because she knows if she is a graduate of USNA she's got exactly one shot at BUDS because they don't recycle officers.

You can't just be a D1 sport superstar. And you cant be just an academic superstar. You've got to have it all.

I'm all for letting women have the chance - with zero double standards, and with no special considerations (such as putting another female in there just because they need to have 2, etc). If the women can compete, and want the chance at BUDS or Ranger school I just don't see what the problem is. Let them try.

Will my DD make it? I don't know, but I do know she's as capable as any man and wants the same opportunity to try. She's tenacious enough, has the smarts, determination and mental drive, and frankly she has the balls.

Women will fail at it, and women will also be great at it. Same as men.
 
I'm all for letting women have the chance - with zero double standards, and with no special considerations (such as putting another female in there just because they need to have 2, etc). If the women can compete, and want the chance at BUDS or Ranger school I just don't see what the problem is. Let them try.

Women will fail at it, and women will also be great at it. Same as men.

I'm all for it as well with exactly what you said. ZERO double standards. Men and women alike will fail or succeed. A friend in basic wanted to be a PJ failed because he was too short and couldn't get up on a floating helicopter. No exceptions because he was born short. There are women who can kick butt, by all means let them. Problem is the stigma with people wanting exceptions to the standards, otherwise I think many would not care at all from the start.
 
A friend in basic wanted to be a PJ failed because he was too short and couldn't get up on a floating helicopter. No exceptions because he was born short. There are women who can kick butt, by all means let them. Problem is the stigma with people wanting exceptions to the standards, otherwise I think many would not care at all from the start.

A friends son just washed out of PJ pipeline as he passed out twice in the underwater work. His willpower lasted longer than his physiology did. No amount of drive, desire, or even training can change the fact that his metabolism was too fast to meet their job requirements.

And I think that is a good example of a role based requirement. There are many others in place. I would have pursued military aviation career except for the fact that the vision standard for entry was a lockout at the time. (though I could have flown with my vision once in)

Some of these standards are harsh, and appear unfair. We see similar play out every year in the Svc academy medical process.

Then you have some, like pull-ups, which are proxies or general indicators of balanced fitness. Same for obstacle courses, rope work, etc. These are easier for some to criticize. "You can still be a good officer/soldier without being able to do pullups". "How often do we have to climb ropes? Rappel with a buddy?". How do you sort the relevant vs tradition?

I don't know the answer. But I see this playing out in the civvy world with some real problems. Ex: Not everyone can be a fireman, as they have to pull heavy hose, carry out buddies and victims. Clear performance standard tied to the job. Which are now being compromised in some agencies as the gender outcome did not meet political expectations.

It may be fair to examine the standards to see if they are still relevant. But we really do not want to compromise the ones that are relevant and end up with the military equivalent of firemen that can't do important aspects of the job.

I personally am not opposed to allowing anyone who meets the objective standard to serve, not that my vote counts for anything. But I am opposed to allowing the standard to be compromised if it's objective and important for the role. And that's the concern... past history shows we will happily compromise to achieve a political outcome.
 
Back
Top