Women in Combat Branches

[cb7893]

I'm certainly not advocating avoiding the draft or not registering if required. I'm just not convinced that we should have women in combat positions (see previously posted oped from WSJ), and I believe that requiring women to register is a bad idea (see goaliedad's point #2 above). Just saying...

Fair enough.

I posted the WSJ Oped. Even though I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion, that is a voice which must be considered.

 

[AcademyFriend1]

There was an article today in the NYTimes about Canada, which has allowed women to serve in combat (including infantry, apparently) for several decades. I'm not equating our military to Canada's in terms of the scope of the mission or our capabilities, but it was interesting to me that, although the move was controversial, it may not have had a great impact on a day to day level: the article stated that in a decade in Afghanistan, Canada has had approximately 300 women in combat.

The same may be true here -- even if ground infantry is opened up (and I tend to doubt it will be) -- it may be that not very many women will volunteer and/or qualify and this ultimately won't be that huge an issue once the initial media spotlight has moved on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/w...canada-resolved-issue-long-ago.html?ref=world

 

[pilot2b]

This article has been posted on these forums before, but I think it's appropriate to bring it back up. I obviously will not be in the fleet for several more years, but out of all the women I have met at USNA and NAPS, there is not one that I would want to have beside me in combat. I have no problem serving beside women in a noncombative role, but I don't feel that 99.9% of women are capable of performing at the same level in sustained combat operations that the average male infantryman can. It's simply not worth the effort and expense to find and train the .1% who are capable and actually have a desire to serve in a combat unit.

I will note that the dozen or so prior enlisted Marines here at NAPS (one of whom was infantry) collectively are very upset over the change as well. I believe that this change is not because we wish to make our forces more "flexible", as was claimed earlier in this discussion, especially since our military is enduring cuts at this time, but rather for political purposes, without enough regard to the potential consequences.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

 

[usna1985]

Depends on how you define combat. If you're truly a pilot-to-be, you must know that women are already serving in combatant roles as pilots. I hope you don't mean you don't want them as pilots in your squadron; that's not going to stand you in very good stead in the fleet.

 

[pilot2b]

I specifically had infantry in mind when I wrote this. Since women have been allowed to fly combat aircraft since the Clinton years, that isn't as hotly debated of an issue.

 

[AcademyFriend1]

This article has been posted on these forums before, but I think it's appropriate to bring it back up. I obviously will not be in the fleet for several more years, but out of all the women I have met at USNA and NAPS, there is not one that I would want to have beside me in combat. I have no problem serving beside women in a noncombative role, but I don't feel that 99.9% of women are capable of performing at the same level in sustained combat operations that the average male infantryman can. It's simply not worth the effort and expense to find and train the .1% who are capable and actually have a desire to serve in a combat unit.

I will note that the dozen or so prior enlisted Marines here at NAPS (one of whom was infantry) collectively are very upset over the change as well. I believe that this change is not because we wish to make our forces more "flexible", as was claimed earlier in this discussion, especially since our military is enduring cuts at this time, but rather for political purposes, without enough regard to the potential consequences.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

This is a good, thought-provoking article and well worth re-posting. I do agree that in the military one has to think about institutional interests and economies of scale, not just the capabilities or opportunities for advancement of a few.

With that said, I recall that my young Marines back in the day (ages 18-20) often had fairly knee-jerk responses to announced changes. (Not that different from young enlisted in general -- if you asked sailors about women going into the submarine community I would think it likely "very upset" was a common response, and so far it sounds like that change is working fine in terms of mission capability and readiness.)

But, bringing it back to the article you posted, there are legitimate issues stemming from very real physiological difference between men and women. Thus, it's worth seeing how this plays out as it gets studied -- I would surmise women will get more opportunities in more mechanized MOS's such as Artillery or Armor, but I think the chances of all infantry being opened up is much lower. I've also seen some unimpressive Army infantrymen in my day (to be fair, maybe that was just my USMC bias at work, of course), not in any of the more elite Army units, of course, and some very fit women seem to me could keep up with some of those units. HOWEVER, what CAPT Petronio called the "longevity issue" -- women are fit enough to qualify, but the size to weight-carried ratio (I think she is 5'3") may mean their bodies cannot withstand the grind of operations regardless of ability to qualify. But my 20-years-out-of-date operational experience/memories won't determine this, the current Fleet/USMC/Army/USAF leadership will.

Lastly, as USNA 1985 pointed out, if you're worried about women in the infantry (or armor, or artillery), best to be specific about it when you talk about it, as "women in combat" folds in not just aviation communities, but the surface warfare and submarine communities.

 

[MemberLG]

But, bringing it back to the article you posted, there are legitimate issues stemming from very real physiological difference between men and women. Thus, it's worth seeing how this plays out as it gets studied -- I would surmise women will get more opportunities in more mechanized MOS's such as Artillery or Armor, but I think the chances of all infantry being opened up is much lower. I've also seen some unimpressive Army infantrymen in my day (to be fair, maybe that was just my USMC bias at work, of course), not in any of the more elite Army units, of course, and some very fit women seem to me could keep up with some of those units. HOWEVER, what CAPT Petronio called the "longevity issue" -- women are fit enough to qualify, but the size to weight-carried ratio (I think she is 5'3") may mean their bodies cannot withstand the grind of operations regardless of ability to qualify. But my 20-years-out-of-date operational experience/memories won't determine this, the current Fleet/USMC/Army/USAF leadership will.
.

I think the current leadership also have out-of-date and out of perspective experience and memories to make good decisions. Visiting an infantry unit for few hours is not going to give you a good insight on the "grind."

FYI - breaking track, changing road wheels, loading ammunition (especially TOW or 120 mm), and etc are no walk in the park.

 

[goaliedad]

This is a good, thought-provoking article and well worth re-posting. I do agree that in the military one has to think about institutional interests and economies of scale, not just the capabilities or opportunities for advancement of a few.

With that said, I recall that my young Marines back in the day (ages 18-20) often had fairly knee-jerk responses to announced changes. (Not that different from young enlisted in general -- if you asked sailors about women going into the submarine community I would think it likely "very upset" was a common response, and so far it sounds like that change is working fine in terms of mission capability and readiness.)

But, bringing it back to the article you posted, there are legitimate issues stemming from very real physiological difference between men and women. Thus, it's worth seeing how this plays out as it gets studied -- I would surmise women will get more opportunities in more mechanized MOS's such as Artillery or Armor, but I think the chances of all infantry being opened up is much lower. I've also seen some unimpressive Army infantrymen in my day (to be fair, maybe that was just my USMC bias at work, of course), not in any of the more elite Army units, of course, and some very fit women seem to me could keep up with some of those units. HOWEVER, what CAPT Petronio called the "longevity issue" -- women are fit enough to qualify, but the size to weight-carried ratio (I think she is 5'3") may mean their bodies cannot withstand the grind of operations regardless of ability to qualify. But my 20-years-out-of-date operational experience/memories won't determine this, the current Fleet/USMC/Army/USAF leadership will.

Lastly, as USNA 1985 pointed out, if you're worried about women in the infantry (or armor, or artillery), best to be specific about it when you talk about it, as "women in combat" folds in not just aviation communities, but the surface warfare and submarine communities.

I think your evolution of perspective from your youth goes to show indeed the military can adapt to the reality of the day.

That being said, your perception of what women can physiologically do is perhaps a bit too focused on the larger majority that you see performing to the current standards in place.

One thing I've come to understand is that the more institutionalize barriers you remove from the path of people, they higher they will perform in their duties.

Are there many women in today's armed forces who COULD qualify for infantry? I will agree that the most could not, even if they stepped it up now that they have been given the opportunity.

Let's just say only 1% of the women in today's Army have the physiological makeup necessary to hang with their male counterparts in the Army infantry over a career (I would argue that it is a bit higher). That would be about 750 women - a drop in the bucket when it comes to the size of the infantry, I'll agree.

However, to these 750 women the opportunity to compete to be whatever they can be - whether they choose to or not - sends a bigger message to them and ALL other women in our military that their value to the country is measured by what they can do, not by what someone say they are allowed to do. It says you are only limited by your own self, not by a government bureaucracy.

And what is the cost to the military? As others have mentioned, women currently serve right along side their male counterparts in infantry units. The infrastructure investment is minimal, when you consider what the Navy is spending to make submarines duty available to women.

Some others have pointed to the first couple of women in the Marine experiment, but that does not say no women can or will complete that training. If that avenue is left open, there will be those who will prepare themselves to complete and will be successful. Dreams do not come true overnight for these women, but with time and commitment, there will be plenty of achievers who make their goals.

Plenty will pooh-pooh this as fairy-tale thinking, but it seems that every time the military has opened a door to someone who has been excluded, it has worked out pretty well. I'm betting on this working out just fine.

 

[kfacademy]

However, to these 750 women the opportunity to compete to be whatever they can be - whether they choose to or not - sends a bigger message to them and ALL other women in our military that their value to the country is measured by what they can do, not by what someone say they are allowed to do. It says you are only limited by your own self, not by a government bureaucracy.

From my humble candidate point of view, this statement is spot on. As a female looking to enter the military, I don't see combat arms as the area where I personally would best serve, but I really like that it could be an option. One of the things I am most grateful for in my life is options and the government opening up this route for women would send a message to me that gender alone isnt a barrier. Just my two cents. Thanks for the great post goalie dad!

 

[Malachy Marine]

I would also refer to you to the following article:

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/women-combat-issue-hasnt-been-settled

Well written, though I think his statements about his personal attractions are are not well conveyed, and therefore appear lacking in professionalism. However, his arguments are sound.

I can also say that currently women stationed with infantry Marines is in fact a distraction. However, I believe that is predominantly because it lies outside of the baseline of our current experiences.

I currently reside on a FOB with 300-400 Marines.
There is 1 female, who provides support services.
Whenever a new female arrives (contractor, Marine, or sailor), word quickly spreads to all Marines.
IMO this is a function of the fact that these Marines haven't seen a real life woman in several months.
It is a leadership issue. (There has already been issues with a Marine and a visiting Sailor involving PDA)
It is still a distraction from the task at hand.

 

[usna1985]

Previously, physical standards at the SAs have been debated on this site. I have been one who has advocated that, if the goal is to measure physical fitness, there should be different standards, as there are in the Olympics, etc. Asking women to run a mile as fast as their male counterparts requires them to be more physically fit. If you don't believe that, ask why men and women don't compete against each other in track events.

However, if there is a need to have meet certain physical standards in order to accomplish the mission, those standards should be the same for men and women. If women can meet them, they should be allowed to participate. If not, they should not be allowed to join that "group" as that would undermine combat readiness.

As a former member of the military (and a female) I would hope that this standard would be enforced. If all that's needed for a task is skill and brains, that's one thing -- muscle not required. If it's brawn, then women (and men) must be able to demonstrate that brawn.

 

[kinnem]

Previously, physical standards at the SAs have been debated on this site. I have been one who has advocated that, if the goal is to measure physical fitness, there should be different standards, as there are in the Olympics, etc. Asking women to run a mile as fast as their male counterparts requires them to be more physically fit. If you don't believe that, ask why men and women don't compete against each other in track events.

However, if there is a need to have meet certain physical standards in order to accomplish the mission, those standards should be the same for men and women. If women can meet them, they should be allowed to participate. If not, they should not be allowed to join that "group" as that would undermine combat readiness.

As a former member of the military (and a female) I would hope that this standard would be enforced. If all that's needed for a task is skill and brains, that's one thing -- muscle not required. If it's brawn, then women (and men) must be able to demonstrate that brawn.

If one were to blend jcleppe's and usna1985's comments above, I would be in complete agreement. Guess we can close this thread now.

 

[BigBear]

Previously, physical standards at the SAs have been debated on this site. I have been one who has advocated that, if the goal is to measure physical fitness, there should be different standards, as there are in the Olympics, etc. Asking women to run a mile as fast as their male counterparts requires them to be more physically fit. If you don't believe that, ask why men and women don't compete against each other in track events.

Now how will that impact branching, etc.? If the argument is that girls should not be held to the same standard as boys, what about in the classroom? Should there be different grading scales for those who are not as smart? If the end state is a force that is measured on an equal scale, shouldn't the scale be equal from the beginning?

Imagine this: A girl has scored above the max on the APFT and got in A in Military movement; both times with scores that would be near falling for men. Now it comes time to branch. Her class rank is higher because her physical ranking is higher, so she gets an armor slot over a guy whose raw scores are higher than hers. Is that fair to the guys who are outperforming her to miss an opportunity like that because the Academy says girls cannot perform on the same level physically but the Army says they must be able to?

 

[NorwichDad]

Women serving in combat branches - I dont think it is a big deal. It will work out, just like everything else.

BTW my card reader and spiritual adviser thinks it is a good idea. She is usually spot on. She has won me a lot of money through fantasy football. She is great, I never need an apointment she knows when I coming.

 

[kinnem]

Interesting, reasonable, and rational debate on this on Fox News Sunday today. I was surprised that the proponents on both sides says this means women should register with the Selective Service. Check your local listings or (I believe) Hulu.

 

[GoSox]

Now how will that impact branching, etc.? If the argument is that girls should not be held to the same standard as boys, what about in the classroom? Should there be different grading scales for those who are not as smart? If the end state is a force that is measured on an equal scale, shouldn't the scale be equal from the beginning?

Imagine this: A girl has scored above the max on the APFT and got in A in Military movement; both times with scores that would be near falling for men. Now it comes time to branch. Her class rank is higher because her physical ranking is higher, so she gets an armor slot over a guy whose raw scores are higher than hers. Is that fair to the guys who are outperforming her to miss an opportunity like that because the Academy says girls cannot perform on the same level physically but the Army says they must be able to?

At Navy the issue of women getting higher class ranks because of lower standards for physical fitness also came up relatively frequently. I see how it plays into the branching thing, so here is my two cents on the "testing at the academy" vs. "how it affects branching" issue.

On the testing at the academy, I don't know if they perhaps already do this, but I'd think most remotely fair-minded people would be okay with a system in which the raw standards might not be the same, but the proportion of men and women who qualified for the "A" range was. So if only the top 10% of men can get an A on the PFT, and only the top 10% of women can get an A on the PFT, that should satisfy fairness concerns for the most part. Again, maybe this is already the case, but at least when I was at USNA the one part of the PFT that seemed to be lower than the real capabilities of women was the run -- hard to max for guys unless you were a varsity track or running type, but maxable by very fit, hard-training non-track athlete women.

I get that this would still mean that a woman with a lower raw score on an absolute scale might be able to branch armor over a guy if they are equal in academics, etc. Then she would still have to qualify physically or risk washing out once she is doing her training in the branch, by meeting whatever standards Armor sets (and I agree with USNA85, if real standards tied to the job are tough for women to meet, they should still have to meet them). To a certain extent, some of this is life in the service -- they worry about their needs, not what is most "fair" to you. For example, at Basic School for the Marines, they have something called the "thirds rule" for MOS selection (equivalent to branching). The class is divided into thirds, and they'll take Infantry officers from among middle and bottom thirds as well as from the top third of the class (and Infantry tends to be highly sought after). So let's say you have a company of 120, and there are 30 infantry slots up for grabs. They don't give those slots to the people ranked 1-30. They may give them to those ranked 1-15 and 40-50 and 80-85. Is that "fair"? If you're ranked #16 in TBS and don't get infantry, it doesn't feel fair to you, I guess, but the Marine Corps doesn't want to skim off all the cream of every TBS class for infantry, they want more of a bell curve. If you don't like it, it's all volunteer, right?

BUT I think in this situation, you might not want to send women into their branch schooling after West Point with the rest of their newly minted lieutenant classmates thinking they don't deserve to be there. So, maybe West Point should consider changing its branching to either (a) encompass a physical test that is set by the branch (Armor or Infantry); or (b) set up more long-term screeners like the SEAL Screener or USMC Leatherneck at USNA.

On I-Day, every other dude said he wanted SEALs. By second-class year, that number was way down (reality had already hit) but we probably had over 100 guys take part in the SEAL screener (a winter weekend spent PTing and immersed in the Chesapeake Bay without sleep, NOT fun) and a bunch of them dropped out. If there were no such screening process, you'd have had a lot more people who didn't get SEALs in service selection, some of whom thought it wasn't fair, etc. The Leatherneck example might be even more relevant to West Point's branching for things like Armor or Infantry. Leatherneck is four weeks at Quantico before first-class summer. Performance at Leatherneck is a big factor in service selecting Marines, and can knock higher class rank types out of the running if they bomb physically or on the leadership evaluation. Maybe West Point would go to some kind of Armor or Infantry version of Leatherneck, run by those already in the branch, not detailed to the Academy, and that will help some with the issue of resentment for women taking combat arms slots in the branching.

 

[futuremarinemom]

On the testing at the academy, I don't know if they perhaps already do this, but I'd think most remotely fair-minded people would be okay with a system in which the raw standards might not be the same, but the proportion of men and women who qualified for the "A" range was. So if only the top 10% of men can get an A on the PFT, and only the top 10% of women can get an A on the PFT, that should satisfy fairness concerns for the most part. I get that this would still mean that a woman with a lower raw score on an absolute scale might be able to branch armor over a guy if they are equal in academics, etc.

If this country is more concerned about being "fair" than we are about the effectiveness of our armed forces and whether they can get the job done, then we are in big trouble. I'm sorry, but we are dealing with people who want to destroy and kill us, and we are talking about making sure that "every kid gets a ribbon".

 

[GoSox]

If this country is more concerned about being "fair" than we are about the effectiveness of our armed forces and whether they can get the job done, then we are in big trouble. I'm sorry, but we are dealing with people who want to destroy and kill us, and we are talking about making sure that "every kid gets a ribbon".

(Futuremarinemom, I have a "currentmarinemom" because I'm a current Marine infantry officer!)

Since you quote my post, I will respond, but I'm not sure that when it comes down to it we really disagree on anything. If you read my whole post, I'm trying to distinguish between what goes on at the service academies, where cadets and mids do talk a lot about what's "fair" and "unfair," and what goes on out in the Fleet/Corps (or Army or Air Force, I'm sure).

I think that the brass at the academies, if they cared, could cut down on the griping about unfairness of differences between the absolute physical fitness standards at the academy by giving out the grades proportionally. That griping by male cadets/mids is not a great feature of academy life, in my opinion. I've got a younger sister, USNA grad, who has always been top of the heap physically and intellectually (leaves me behind on the latter one) and maybe I'm more sensitive than most Marine infantrymen (though we're a sensitive bunch, don't get me wrong ) to people denigrating all of the female cadets/mids over things that are either (a) out of their control; (b) aren't accurate; or (c) aren't relevant to the academy's mission of producing a supply of officers for a range of future jobs.

My discussion of changing the Army's branching standards to incorporate something like Leatherneck, where there is a specific performance-based screening element, is dealing with the "life at the academy" component of choosing a branch (or service, at USNA). It's about how branching is done, and it is not saying what the standards should be to actually qualify for a branch/MOS once out on active service -- believe me, as someone who has had the joyful experience of living in an FOB in Afghanistan and whose life/health depended on top notch combat performance by everyone around me, I'm not advocating doing anything to "make a point" or "give every kid a ribbon."

When it comes to to life in the Fleet/Corps, the service most definitely does not care what is "fair" to you as an individual and I was trying to make that point by discussing MOS selection out of TBS for the Marines. The Marines are definitely not trying to give everyone a ribbon with the "rule of thirds," they are doing what they think works for them as an institution.

Once out in the Fleet/Corps/Army, I've said that I think the standards need to be the same to qualify if there is a job-related need (on the other hand, if you think a female pilot needs to be able to do "X" number of pullups to be allowed to be a pilot I would say that's not job-related, from what I know of aviation). This is the same point made by USNA 1985, I believe. So yeah, my current thinking is that women will need to pass IOC to qualify to lead Marines in the infantry in 03XX positions based on the existing, very difficult, standard. I'll keep an open mind but that's my current view.

 

[Christcorp]

Now how will that impact branching, etc.? If the argument is that girls should not be held to the same standard as boys, what about in the classroom? Should there be different grading scales for those who are not as smart? If the end state is a force that is measured on an equal scale, shouldn't the scale be equal from the beginning?

Imagine this: A girl has scored above the max on the APFT and got in A in Military movement; both times with scores that would be near falling for men. Now it comes time to branch. Her class rank is higher because her physical ranking is higher, so she gets an armor slot over a guy whose raw scores are higher than hers. Is that fair to the guys who are outperforming her to miss an opportunity like that because the Academy says girls cannot perform on the same level physically but the Army says they must be able to?

PDB; I understand your argument, but you're comparing apples with oranges, and trying to come up with a fuel injector.

Physical FITNESS and Physical CAPABILITIES are 2 totally different things. Let me make up some numbers, because I'm not a doctor. If a 25 year old male, in order to be considered 100% "PHYSICALLY FIT", has to be able to do 10 pullups; 60 situps; run a mile in less than 6 minutes, have less than 7% body fat, cholesterol level below 140, etc... That makes the individual 100% "PHYSICALLY FIT". Now, for a woman, because she has a totally different physical/chemical makeup, for her at age 25, to be 100% "PHYSICALLY FIT", she would need to do 5 pullups, 50 situps, run a mile in under 6min 30sec, have less than 9% body fat, cholesterol level below 160, etc... These are NOT 2 DIFFERENT STANDARDS!!! They are physical and chemical differences.

Put it in a simpler form. Would a 100% PHYSICALLY FIT 10 year old boy, have the same PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES as a 100% PHYSICALLY FIT 21 Year old boy???? No, no way in hell. Yet, they are both 100% Physically FIT; for what they are. That's what the weight standards have HEIGHT as a factor. You can't say that the maximum weight for a 6 Foot male is 200 lbs, and make that the SAME weight standard for a 5ft 1inch male. He would look like a PORKER compared to the 6 foot male. Worse yet; what if the weight maximum for the 5ft 1inch man was 152 lbs; should that be the SAME weight maximum standard for a man who is 6ft 3inches. He'd be a fragile bean pole.

Now; that's PHYSICALLY FIT. Physically CAPABLE is totally different. If a special forces soldier is given a STANDARD WEIGHT to CARRY of 150lbs, because the military deems that weight the proper weight that the soldier might need to carry in order to ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION; then that's the standard. Whether it's a girl, boy, gay, straight, etc... Same with your education analogy. In order to accomplish the MISSION of academics, there is a certain GRADE LEVEL that must be achieved for the particular class. Doesn't matter if you're male, female, etc... There aren't different academic CAPABILITIES for men and women.

Bottom line: There's a difference between FITNESS (Determining if you are healthy within certain standards); and CAPABILITIES (Determining if you are ABLE to perform a specific TASK).

 

[BigBear]

Now; that's PHYSICALLY FIT. Physically CAPABLE is totally different. If a special forces soldier is given a STANDARD WEIGHT to CARRY of 150lbs, because the military deems that weight the proper weight that the soldier might need to carry in order to ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION; then that's the standard. Whether it's a girl, boy, gay, straight, etc... Same with your education analogy. In order to accomplish the MISSION of academics, there is a certain GRADE LEVEL that must be achieved for the particular class. Doesn't matter if you're male, female, etc... There aren't different academic CAPABILITIES for men and women.

Bottom line: There's a difference between FITNESS (Determining if you are healthy within certain standards); and CAPABILITIES (Determining if you are ABLE to perform a specific TASK).

I agree that there is a difference between fitness and capabilities, but I would also argue that it is capability, not fitness, that determines effectiveness. There is a certain level of physical strength, raw, not relative, that is required to be effective. If percentages or relativity don't matter in the real world, why should they matter at the academy?

Edit - I realize my comment about academics was a bit of a stretch