When I posted this I wasn't trying to act like I knew what should be done because I have never served. I plan on joining the Army and just wanted to speak my mind and voice my opinion because I feel like it's going to impact me. I'm sorry if I offended/aggravated anyone because of what I said.
Women in Combat Branches
- Thread starter Jcleppe
- Start date
I talked to a group of Marines about it yesterday (who were infantry) and one of them basically said he will continue to do his job as squad leader and that while he has some doubts, he doesn't care if a woman is sent to his unit or not....he will treat them the same as his men, and if a woman can do a better job than some of his male Marines (the ones who don't do a great job) than he has no issue with them. He said that as a Marine, he'll adapt and press forward.
That's pretty much what he said, an infantry Marine with about 3 combat deployments.
I'm sorry, but this is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. I really think this would be the last thing on people's mind after 2 weeks of being out in the field.
That's pretty much what he said, an infantry Marine with about 3 combat deployments.
I'm sorry, but this is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. I really think this would be the last thing on people's mind after 2 weeks of being out in the field.
Last edited:
SamAca10
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,045
I'm confident that this will be handled appropriately, and by the experts. It's interesting that not very many women are gung-ho about it though unlike the sub opportunity (I've met a few female mids who really wanna do it). Do you think they'll force any women into going infantry Hurricane?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2011
- Messages
- 869
I've gone without showering for over a month. I had hairy legs and pits. Somehow, I persevered.
I've gone to the bathroom and changed in front of guys before in an "outdoorsy" setting.
I've slept in between two guys in a (very tiny) tent for an extended period of time.
None of these things were crises. This may come as a surprise to you because you're in high school and I remember what high schoolers are like, but men and women can function with one another and be open about bodily functions without it being weird.
To SamAca10: Not in the foreseeable future. There's enough males who want those positions and are qualified that I don't see there being a need.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,059
MP- you probably ought to take a breath and let it go a little because some of your apologies are just making it worse! You don't have to apologize for your opinion- the gist of your first post was rational- there is definitely a discussion to be had about the physical strength differences and capabilities of men and women and how that impacts their abilities to serve in Infantry and related MOS's. I think that TPG expressed it pretty well and has pretty much the same opinion that I do- that the physical demands are going to quickly make this nonfunctional for 11 and 18 series in the Army and the equivalent units in the USMC, along with several direct support type positions that go with those (firesupport teams etc that have to hump with the Infantry unit). While theoretically they will be able to set a rigorous physical standard for those MOSs, but in the way of the military-my concern is that strict physical standard will quickly get"normed" to produce an "acceptable " success rate. I guess what really gets me concerned is the line that I heard the SECDEF use about accomodating the changing demands of warfare. But that's wrong- the changing force structure accounts for the changes in 21st century warfare- there are far less 11Bs on the battlefield in 2013 than in 1943 and far more intelligence and support assets and those assets account for a great deal more combat power than in the past. But the roles that those 11Bs play hasn't appreciably eased in those 70 years- if anything the average load has gone up. But the people parroting that line don't seem to understand the difference. Women have been serving "in combat" for the last 12 years and the society and the Army are long since past the shock value of women KIA/WIA. That' s not the issue . One hopes the study that they are going to perform now will actually honestly assess the demands of life in Army and Marine Infantry and Special Operations rather than pitching platitudes about "modern warfare".
Last edited:
I guess I'll try and help you out… Making this about who is genetically stronger isn't going to get you far at all. There will always be a percentage of women that can meet the standards defined for the job.
There are basic needs that are different for either sex. PIMA had a good post on it a while ago so I won't go into it. But in short are the changes the military will need to make to accommodate some of those needs compromise the combat effectiveness of the unit as a whole.
The other main worry is that standards will be modify to allow more women to meet those standards therefore more women in those combat slots which will compromise the effectiveness of the unit.
So when you came into this post with that angle you were already on bad footing. I understand it may bother you but you need to analyze why that is before posting something like that is all I recommend.
EDIT: Sorry Cross Post with Bruno... listen to him he explained it a lot better than I ever could.
Last edited:
AcademyFriend1
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 200
I suspect that that change will happen, either by Congress making the change as this issue plays out (no doubt many have raised this issue with them) or possibly after it is raised via a lawsuit (hard to tell who the plaintiff would be but generally somebody/some group steps up if there is publicity involved
).I agree that, logically and as a matter of fairness, women should be added to the Selective Service regimen. After all, it does not mean that the military is required to draft everyone who registers. I am going to assume that most ground infantry will stay all male based on what is legally sometimes called a BFOQ ("Bona Fide Occupational Qualification") after the review and input from the branches. There are women who could satisfy infantry training requirements but I do think that the Load Bearing Equipment issue, in concert with the smaller average size of women, would mean women are more likely to have injuries from longterm patrolling with the heavy equipment loads. This is a long-winded way of saying that, even if women are required to register with Selective Service, if women are not eligible for ground infantry they would not be needed in equal numbers as men if there were a general call-up -- but the Selective Service Act would not require that women be called up in the same proportions as men.
Alternatively, the Selective Service Act might be scrapped. At any rate, I believe that it will be equalized in terms of treatment of men and women, and that that is as it should be.
Last edited:
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
I wish Just_A_Mom would chime in. She makes these much better.
If a service member (male or female) can make a unit (any unit) more effective in accomplishing its mission, then I'm all for it. If a woman can meet the physical demands and doesn't mind giving up the "privacy" that women in other career fields receive, then why not let her in? Infantry units deserve to have the best qualified soldiers / marines assigned to them, period. If some women fit into that category, then I think they belong there. And I believe that decision as to "who's qualified" should be the commanders who've spent their careers in those units, NOT politicians in Washington.
Realistically, I don't see many women (or men for that matter) being truly qualified for the job simply due to the physical demands. I understand the point that women have proven themselves in combat. But from my extremely limited knowledge of the infantry, I believe there is a significant difference between serving in harm's way and serving in an infantry platoon.
My career field is heavily populated by females. They've deployed into harm's way and been effective. Many have been shot at. Some have been wounded and even killed in action. But that fact alone doesn't mean those same women would be effective in an infantry unit.
Realistically, I don't see many women (or men for that matter) being truly qualified for the job simply due to the physical demands. I understand the point that women have proven themselves in combat. But from my extremely limited knowledge of the infantry, I believe there is a significant difference between serving in harm's way and serving in an infantry platoon.
My career field is heavily populated by females. They've deployed into harm's way and been effective. Many have been shot at. Some have been wounded and even killed in action. But that fact alone doesn't mean those same women would be effective in an infantry unit.
Last edited:
I agree, As long as she doen't have hairy legs and arm pits.
Amazing how much speculation and generalization happens in these threads.
From what I have been reading, they've been instructed to open more MOSs to female participation based upon the ability to do the job. Nobody has told the Army/Navy/AF/Marines what their standards for any MOS should be. It is not a wide-open free-for-all where everyone is held to no standards.
Whenever the military has had to change rules for certain classes of people, it seems they have not let the professionalism slip. Are there many women qualified for Infantry/Special Forces today? Probably not. Of course, without that as a possibility, I would suggest that few have ever held the goal of qualifying. Perhaps this change will encourage more who will better prepare themselves both physically and mentally. Right now, given the input from top military brass, they seem to think there are some females who can handle some additional MOSs. Unless you think all the top brass are brown-nosing the administration for more stars, I would hope they wouldn't put our men in a dangerous situation just to advance their own careers.
If you worry-warts have so little faith in your leadership to do the job professionally, perhaps civilian work is better suited for you.
From what I have been reading, they've been instructed to open more MOSs to female participation based upon the ability to do the job. Nobody has told the Army/Navy/AF/Marines what their standards for any MOS should be. It is not a wide-open free-for-all where everyone is held to no standards.
Whenever the military has had to change rules for certain classes of people, it seems they have not let the professionalism slip. Are there many women qualified for Infantry/Special Forces today? Probably not. Of course, without that as a possibility, I would suggest that few have ever held the goal of qualifying. Perhaps this change will encourage more who will better prepare themselves both physically and mentally. Right now, given the input from top military brass, they seem to think there are some females who can handle some additional MOSs. Unless you think all the top brass are brown-nosing the administration for more stars, I would hope they wouldn't put our men in a dangerous situation just to advance their own careers.
If you worry-warts have so little faith in your leadership to do the job professionally, perhaps civilian work is better suited for you.
USMCGrunt
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,498
I was with you GoalieDad until your last comment
Racial integration, DADT, repeal DADT, etc have all been begrudgingly accepted and professionally handled. This mission will be accepted and solutions will be arrived at. The outcome will not be a weakened military.
But it is fair to say that none of us can accurately predict what this will look like down the road.
Racial integration, DADT, repeal DADT, etc have all been begrudgingly accepted and professionally handled. This mission will be accepted and solutions will be arrived at. The outcome will not be a weakened military.
But it is fair to say that none of us can accurately predict what this will look like down the road.
This is the Oped from WSJ which I referred to earlier. Would love to hear some responses from real live Marines and Army infantrymen.
By RYAN SMITH
America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.
Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.
Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.
I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.
The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.
Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.
During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.
Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.
When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.
Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?
Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.
Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.
Mr. Smith served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq. He is now an attorney.
By RYAN SMITH
America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.
Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.
Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.
I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.
The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.
Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.
During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.
Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.
When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.
Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?
Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.
Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.
Mr. Smith served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq. He is now an attorney.
This is the nose of the camel.
If you remove the restriction, the next issue will be that the standards are 'unfair'. Then the standards will be changed, based on gender. And so forth and so on.
Two female Marines applied for and were accepted into the Infantry officer program this year and both failed to complete the course due to physical requirements within 2 weeks. And by all accounts these were hard chargers within the female Marine community.
When it comes, and it will, who here really thinks that a 115lb female can pull a 275lb (with gear) male free from a Stryker or HMMWV that's burning from an IED strike? I realize and acknowledge that there are women currently in combat zones, and even attached to certain first tier units in PSYOP roles, but the liability to benefit to date is woefully skewed.
If you remove the restriction, the next issue will be that the standards are 'unfair'. Then the standards will be changed, based on gender. And so forth and so on.
Two female Marines applied for and were accepted into the Infantry officer program this year and both failed to complete the course due to physical requirements within 2 weeks. And by all accounts these were hard chargers within the female Marine community.
When it comes, and it will, who here really thinks that a 115lb female can pull a 275lb (with gear) male free from a Stryker or HMMWV that's burning from an IED strike? I realize and acknowledge that there are women currently in combat zones, and even attached to certain first tier units in PSYOP roles, but the liability to benefit to date is woefully skewed.
Malachy Marine
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 41
Infantry
Haven't posted for a while, but here's my two cents. I personally believe the current COIN fight has skewed what people think of war. Granted it is the current fight, but the military trains and still needs to be capable of more traditional force-on-force conflicts.
Being deployed to a Combat Theater does not equal being in combat. Life is definitely very different at the big, logisitical hubs (i.e. Leatherneck, Kandahar, etc.) compared to a squad/platoon-sized patrol base. I personally see hygiene as being a potential issue, during extended ground operations (without the comfort of FOBs, chow halls, and shower trailers).
As tpg will tell you, the mission of US Marine infantry units is:
"To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or repel his assault by fire and close combat."
Being able to effectively protect yourself and your fellow servicemembers during a IED strike, complex ambush, or direct fire ambush which are predominantly defensive in nature, does not automatically translate into proficiency at offensive operations. The physicality required of the two things are very different. I believe that women will struggle physically to keep up on combat patrols, clearing operations, movement to contacts, etc.
Some might argue that they have already serving on combat patrols. While this is true, these women were attachments. The security of the patrol was not their primary mission. They do not carry the same loads as the other infantry Marines. (I am using the past tense as the FETs have been disbanded for some time in Helmand Province)
Standards most not be dropped, but I believe that 03 MOSs will end up being exempted from this policy after the due diligence is completed. The lack of volunteers and failures at IOC are not indicative of future success IMHO.
Haven't posted for a while, but here's my two cents. I personally believe the current COIN fight has skewed what people think of war. Granted it is the current fight, but the military trains and still needs to be capable of more traditional force-on-force conflicts.
Being deployed to a Combat Theater does not equal being in combat. Life is definitely very different at the big, logisitical hubs (i.e. Leatherneck, Kandahar, etc.) compared to a squad/platoon-sized patrol base. I personally see hygiene as being a potential issue, during extended ground operations (without the comfort of FOBs, chow halls, and shower trailers).
As tpg will tell you, the mission of US Marine infantry units is:
"To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or repel his assault by fire and close combat."
Being able to effectively protect yourself and your fellow servicemembers during a IED strike, complex ambush, or direct fire ambush which are predominantly defensive in nature, does not automatically translate into proficiency at offensive operations. The physicality required of the two things are very different. I believe that women will struggle physically to keep up on combat patrols, clearing operations, movement to contacts, etc.
Some might argue that they have already serving on combat patrols. While this is true, these women were attachments. The security of the patrol was not their primary mission. They do not carry the same loads as the other infantry Marines. (I am using the past tense as the FETs have been disbanded for some time in Helmand Province)
Standards most not be dropped, but I believe that 03 MOSs will end up being exempted from this policy after the due diligence is completed. The lack of volunteers and failures at IOC are not indicative of future success IMHO.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 15,994
I'm going to tread lightly here and only talk to the Selective Service issue. I don't think women will ever be required to register... at least for decades. Although societal norms might say that women deserve a chance to serve in a combat unit, I also believe societal norms would say a woman should never be forced to serve. But since there is no draft these days and I can't foresee a condition where it would be brought back (major war with a major power - at least in my mind) then I guess the point is moot for now.
As evidence I present the fact that women have served in many various roles already, but women are still not required to register.
As evidence I present the fact that women have served in many various roles already, but women are still not required to register.
Sgt. Maj. of the Marine Corps on the lifting of the combat exclusion law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAy7eDS8JY0&feature=youtu.be
pilot2b
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2011
- Messages
- 357
Does anyone know the reason behind the Combat Exclusion being overturned so quickly? It was obvious that it was coming with such actions as allowing female USMC officers to attend IOC, etc., but it still seemed somewhat abrupt, as opposed to DADT, where the change occured more slowly and could be seen coming from further away.
I am a cynical person, so a distraction. In my opinion there are more important things for the sec def to work on.
Last edited: