Panel: Let women serve in combat roles

[Casey]

Why must they have prior combat roles to be promoted? Why not change the promotion criteria?

What rank haven't they achieved due to not having served in a forward infantry unit or an armor battalion?

Is some female 3-star somehow being denied a higher rank because she has not been in combat?

I dont think they're saying that its unachievable for a women to reach any rank, but combat branches promote faster then noncombat branches almost across the board. Don't think you can argue with that. With women being restricted to noncombat roles, they lose out on the opportunity to be in the faster promoting roles within in the Army.

 

[Pima]

I agree with Luigi, who says they can't make rank? I am sure Gen. Anne Dunwoody would disagree with that assumption. They have had female generals since 1970 starting with Anna Hayes.

As for fast tracking promotions, does that mean this is the mitigating reason to do this?

Is it harder? Probably, but nobody ever said the military was 100% fair in how they promote who they promote when they promote them.

Making rank is not a reason to include women in combat roles.

I do believe they are the equal sex and deserve the right to opt this route, but like others place the issue of physical ability in the equation.

 

[TWinter]

I dont think they're saying that its unachievable for a women to reach any rank, but combat branches promote faster then noncombat branches almost across the board. Don't think you can argue with that. With women being restricted to noncombat roles, they lose out on the opportunity to be in the faster promoting roles within in the Army.

But you can argue with that.... the cutting score for 0311(rifleman) and almost any 03xx (Infantry) MOS in the Marine Corps is ridiculously higher than other scores. Pogs are picking up Corporal and Sergeant in one four year pump, and Marines in Combat Arms are promoting to Lance weeks before they get out. It is much easier to get promoted in a Combat Support or Combat Service Support MOS. That is for enlisted.

For Officers, I'm honestly not sure. But there are proportionally much less female officers than male officers, so if there are only two or three general ranked female Marines (and 57 in the entire military) it is because there are much fewer females than males, not because they 'promote slower' than combat arms.

Just my 0.02

 

[scoutpilot]

I dont think they're saying that its unachievable for a women to reach any rank, but combat branches promote faster then noncombat branches almost across the board. Don't think you can argue with that. With women being restricted to noncombat roles, they lose out on the opportunity to be in the faster promoting roles within in the Army.

Hi there, I'll argue with that.

What's your basis for your belief that combat branches promote faster across the board? Tribal lore?

 

[Pima]

Twinter makes a valid point, is there any empirical proof that women are being promoted at a lower or slower rate?

Xposted with Scout, but the same point.

 

[trackandfield08]

I have mixed opinion on this, and maybe I am biased because in the US Coast Guard, women can do any of the jobs men can do; they can be rescue swimmers, boarding team members, etc. If they meet the standard, then they have the job.

Going back to what futureAFA was talking about with PT scores, I slightly disagree. For the specialized teams such as the SEALs and Rangers, make the standard the same because people's lives depend on it when you are only working with a small group of people. Otherwise, the standards do need to be slightly different because of anatomy. Women are naturally weaker in upper-body strength and cardio, but tend to have very strong cores. Is it fair to make the standard 71 pushups for both genders when very few women fit that profile? And why is it that the women must adapt to the men and not the other way around? Why don't the men do 42 pushups? Now someone might say, well life and the military isn't fair. I won't dispute that. But does the number of pushups you can do equate your ability to save a life or pull a 220 pound person out of the water? I don't think so. In a high stress or adrenaline moment, people are capable of great things.

 

[futureAFA]

I have mixed opinion on this, and maybe I am biased because in the US Coast Guard, women can do any of the jobs men can do; they can be rescue swimmers, boarding team members, etc. If they meet the standard, then they have the job.

Going back to what futureAFA was talking about with PT scores, I slightly disagree. For the specialized teams such as the SEALs and Rangers, make the standard the same because people's lives depend on it when you are only working with a small group of people. Otherwise, the standards do need to be slightly different because of anatomy. Women are naturally weaker in upper-body strength and cardio, but tend to have very strong cores. Is it fair to make the standard 71 pushups for both genders when very few women fit that profile? And why is it that the women must adapt to the men and not the other way around? Why don't the men do 42 pushups? Now someone might say, well life and the military isn't fair. I won't dispute that. But does the number of pushups you can do equate your ability to save a life or pull a 220 pound person out of the water? I don't think so. In a high stress or adrenaline moment, people are capable of great things.

Why lower the standards so females can have as much of a chance of passing the minimums? why make it easier for men? There was a thread recently about the military getting too fat, we can’t lower the fitness standards further. As Pima said they cant just say “we are women we are just as good to do all that men can do” then when testing comes they can’t say “we are women how can you expect us to do all that men can do”. No maybe it isn’t fair maybe, but guess what if you don’t make the cut to a combat role, at least they were given a chance. Thats what they want right? A chance to try out and be equals? And yes, the amount of pull-ups, push-ups, sit-ups, the speed of running a mile determine the ability to pull a 220 lb. male out of water. How do you thing people train to get stronger? They run, do push-ups sit-ups etc. If you don’t train your muscles I don’t care how much adrenaline you have pumping, there is a limit which you can get an idea of by a PT test. If women want to fight along side men, keep up or they are just holding men back.

 

[Pima]

No, it doesn't have to equate automatically you can pull out a 220 lb man, but you have a choice as you are splashing around in the water...do you want the one that was mandated to perform at a higher physical level or the one that was allowed to pass at a lower level...both are equally good swimmers.

Bullets are flying and you are carrying a 70lb rucksack, as other have stated they don't target the sex of the member, and military members for the most part operate as teams. They are not going to leave someone behind, that means if the female gets to run slower, somebody is going to stick with her and now 2 or more people are in harms way. All because the reg stated she could run slower.

I agree they are capable of doing great things with adenaline pumping, but that is not the issue. The issue is standards.

I really don't think anyone here has said "OMG we don't want women in combat", what the majority are saying is that if you are in a combat position than you must perform at the men's level.

Personally, I am sure there are women biting at the bit to become a Ranger or a Seal. I bet they know how hard mentality it will be to overcome this issue and will perform at the men's level. They will not allow them the opportunity to say, see, we told you all, women can't cut it when it comes to being on a men's level.

Than again, I thought Shannon Faulkner would have used that yr to prove the Citadel wrong, and I was wrong about that! To this date, if you ask many women, they will say she did horrible damage to the female cadets that took yrs to get over.

Also, I will say any woman who becomes the 1st in the combat arena, esp. Rangers or Seals, can go out the next day and buy her Stars, because she will now be the poster girl, and will be promoted at every earliest opportunity. She can be the best seal or the worst ever, but she is going to be golden.

Future I think you missed the big bold letters CGA 2014. Nobody infer I was slamming CGA, I was just saying 2014 means they have yet to experience theory over reality. Theory is great, but does nothing for you when you are being shot at in Afghanistan and getting to safety.

 

[Casey]

Hi there, I'll argue with that.

What's your basis for your belief that combat branches promote faster across the board? Tribal lore?

Talking with my dad who is going on 30+ years as enlisted and as an officer in the Army for one besides other people we've had the chance to interact with on post. That's his impression, I wasn't meaning offense either way, probably poor choice in wording. Also, I wasn't saying women get promoted slower, I was just talking about branch comparisons. There are some branches that careers end up in dead ends just like in civillian life as compared to some branches that have many more opportunities for advancement.



Edit: Just to stay on topic, disclaimer, whatever - I realize that I have a lot to learn about the Army that I hope to serve in (part of the reason I'm reading stuff here ). I'm female and I don't have to agree with every single policy as I think there are females that could meet the standards set for men for any position, but its what I know in 4 years I will be agreeing to. Progress is nice, but the end result comes down to doing what's best for our country. If that's opening up more areas to women as we become more and more reliant on technology and people realize women can do the same jobs as men, that's cool. We shouldn't suffer in quality though to do so. This is just one of those things that gets beat to death in discussion where we don't have any power over it. I just found this thread on these forums for earlier this year that has a lot of the same discussions mentioned here: http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showthread.php?t=11193 (America's Finest also mentioned the thing about combat v non-combat being at different rates)

 

[trackandfield08]

Why lower the standards so females can have as much of a chance of passing the minimums? why make it easier for men?

This was kind of what I meant, it doesn't work either way. The bodies of men and women are so different that a one level standard just does not work. It is unfair to expect women to have to work so much harder just to be in the military and it does not suit the military to have men work to a lower standard.

If women want to fight along side men, keep up or they are just holding men back.

Another theory, what if women have something to contribute to combat roles that we just do not know because it has never been done? If they are slower, can they make up for it in a way that the men could not? We won't know until we try. Point in fact: women and men can both be boarding team members in the Coast Guard...they wear the same armor, carry the same weapons, and perform the same operations. This is all done with different fitness standards.


And I will not comment on the slight at being a part of 2014...it does not merit a response.

 

[futureAFA]

This was kind of what I meant, it doesn't work either way. The bodies of men and women are so different that a one level standard just does not work. It is unfair to expect women to have to work so much harder just to be in the military and it does not suit the military to have men work to a lower standard. .

Yes, they should work that much harder. It is the same career they are going after right? Why should they lower the standards to appease to females wanting to fight along side males? The goal isn’t to make people happy, it’s not to be fair. It is to protect this nation.

Another theory, what if women have something to contribute to combat roles that we just do not know because it has never been done? If they are slower, can they make up for it in a way that the men could not? We won't know until we try. Point in fact: women and men can both be boarding team members in the Coast Guard...they wear the same armor, carry the same weapons, and perform the same operations. This is all done with different fitness standards.

What could women provide that men cant? I’m just curious of what a woman would be able to provide in a combat role that men cant.

 

[hornetguy]

What could women provide that men cant? I’m just curious of what a woman would be able to provide in a combat role that men cant.

Different perspectives. New ideas. A larger pool of creativity. Not everything people have to provide is merely physical. The more you limit the pool of people eligible for a career, the less brain diversity you get. That leads to a more limited pool of talent and ideas which can ultimately impact war-fighting capability as some good ideas may never reach the pool.

There are so many variables beyond just push-ups and pull-ups to define a good warfighter! Why don't we limit a war-fighter to >220 lbs, >6'5", able to bench 300lbs cause they have the greatest skull bashing and brute force power like some old civilizations did? Because there is more than just being big and strong. I even look at myself. I maxed the pull-up test at USAFA for several years but have quite a bit of trouble tossing someone my size off of me. While the pull-ups make it look like I am very strong, they don't realistically represent my actual strength, at least in throwing a person off of me in wrestling.

Limiting the talent pool can limit war-fighting capability too. Again, why is it imperative to have a female personnel officer or a female intel analyst have to meet the same standard as the male? If she is fit by female standards, her inability to lift an additional 20lbs over the male, if she is not in combat, is moot. If you keep her out because, despite being fit, she can't bench 200lbs, you may have just lost a very intelligent and effective part of the war-fighting whole.

I don't like to view war-fighting abilities so narrowly. That's why I think we need empirical evidence and to evaluate if the assumptions are really TRUE.

 

[futureAFA]

Different perspectives. New ideas. A larger pool of creativity. Not everything people have to provide is merely physical. The more you limit the pool of people eligible for a career, the less brain diversity you get. That leads to a more limited pool of talent and ideas which can ultimately impact war-fighting capability as some good ideas may never reach the pool.

There are so many variables beyond just push-ups and pull-ups to define a good warfighter! Why don't we limit a war-fighter to >220 lbs, >6'5", able to bench 300lbs cause they have the greatest skull bashing and brute force power like some old civilizations did? Because there is more than just being big and strong. I even look at myself. I maxed the pull-up test at USAFA for several years but have quite a bit of trouble tossing someone my size off of me. While the pull-ups make it look like I am very strong, they don't realistically represent my actual strength, at least in throwing a person off of me in wrestling.

Limiting the talent pool can limit war-fighting capability too. Again, why is it imperative to have a female personnel officer or a female intel analyst have to meet the same standard as the male? If she is fit by female standards, her inability to lift an additional 20lbs over the male, if she is not in combat, is moot. If you keep her out because, despite being fit, she can't bench 200lbs, you may have just lost a very intelligent and effective part of the war-fighting whole.

I don't like to view war-fighting abilities so narrowly. That's why I think we need empirical evidence and to evaluate if the assumptions are really TRUE.

I’m not doubting there would be different ideas. Men can give different perspectives too. I got the impression of what TrackandField meant was there were traits exclusive to women. Is it worth having a women being slower than the men because her standards are lower to have a new perspective? She can give her perspective, but she should still be able to preform at the same level.

 

[hornetguy]

I’m not doubting there would be different ideas. Men can give different perspectives too. I got the impression of what TrackandField meant was there were traits exclusive to women. Is it worth having a women being slower than the men because her standards are lower to have a new perspective? She can give her perspective, but she should still be able to preform at the same level.

And I didn't argue that statement. For the third time, I'm SEPARATING FITNESS FROM COMBAT REQUIREMENT. There is NO reason that the standard needs equalizing in non-combat areas when the goal is FITNESS. You ARE losing something if you limit them by a physical standard which is UNNECESSARY to performing their job well. And no one has disagreed yet on females in COMBAT roles needing to meet the same standard as men. The only caveat I entered into that piece was if the physical requirement in COMBAT roles accurately measured the physical requirement needed for COMBAT such that someone theorized to be a hazard to a combat unit may not be.

 

[basilrathbone]

Okay. But..... the US Military cannot be arbirtary and capricious when determining who is eligible to serve and who is not and at what rank.

Who gets to decide what is arbitrary or capricious? Is it arbitrary and capricious that BUD/S won't take an E6 but will take an E5 who didn't promote as fast as the E6? I bet that E6 thinks that is pretty arbitrary. Does NSW get to decide it's own standards for the SEAL Teams and training or does Big Navy and/or Congress get to vote?

 

[futureAFA]

And I didn't argue that statement. For the third time, I'm SEPARATING FITNESS FROM COMBAT REQUIREMENT. There is NO reason that the standard needs equalizing in non-combat areas when the goal is FITNESS. You ARE losing something if you limit them by a physical standard which is UNNECESSARY to performing their job well. And no one has disagreed yet on females in COMBAT roles needing to meet the same standard as men. The only caveat I entered into that piece was if the physical requirement in COMBAT roles accurately measured the physical requirement needed for COMBAT such that someone theorized to be a hazard to a combat unit may not be.

Ok, I guess I misread it the first time. I will agree on that females may have a different standard when the goal is fitness, such as in non-combat roles where they will not hold anybody back by being less fit.

 

[hornetguy]

Cool, now we're on the same page.

 

[goaliedad]

What could women provide that men cant? I’m just curious of what a woman would be able to provide in a combat role that men cant.

The problem I see here is that everyone here is working with a WWII/Korea/Viet Nam perception of what a combat role is (i.e. trench and guerilla warfare against a defined enemy on a field of combat). They get the enemy to surrender and install order on the now obedient population.

The one thing we are learning in today's war is that the combat role is often (between the firefights) sifting through civilians mixed with hostiles in an ambiguous environment who because of cultural differences don't relate to male and female soldiers the same way. Adding women to units allows the women to employ skills (let's face it they have some social reading skills especially with their own gender that men by and large don't have) that are necessary to effectively control a population that is not necessarily friendly towards an all-male conquerer.

Today, women get into these valuable roles through hook and crook in the vagueries of how troops are deployed. If they were integrated into the normal infantry and artillery (tell my why girls can't shoot the big guns please), they will be where they need to be when they need to be there in today's combat environment.

Setting standards for and effective force needs to take into account all attributes (not just physical) of the job are balanced will get you the best overall team to accomplish the WHOLE task. Just like the Herb Brooks wasn't looking for the most talented players, but the players who would play well together to make the best team, you need a complimenting set of skills in a combat unit to most effectively accomplish ALL the tasks required of a combat unit.

That being said, I do agree that for highly specialized units, physical standards specific to its narrow task (remember, pilots have height requirements) are a way to get better performance for that narrowly defined task. And by and large, participation in these units are not required to move up effectively in the military.

However, whole branches such as infantry and artillery have far too broad of a task list to exclude women and if participation in those units are holding women back from promotion, it needs to be corrected.

 

[usna1985]

Here's a thought -- what if intelligence is more important than physical strength. So, for example (hypothetically), if women score much higher on testing to be an artillery officer, should they be given the billets ahead of males who are physically stronger but not as "smart"??

People fixate on physical strength but, in today's military, relatively few specialties depend on brute strength or speed. Some clearly do -- no argument. But, for those that don't, consider that women may bring other attributes to bear.

 

[futureAFA]

The problem I see here is that everyone here is working with a WWII/Korea/Viet Nam perception of what a combat role is (i.e. trench and guerilla warfare against a defined enemy on a field of combat). They get the enemy to surrender and install order on the now obedient population.

The one thing we are learning in today's war is that the combat role is often (between the firefights) sifting through civilians mixed with hostiles in an ambiguous environment who because of cultural differences don't relate to male and female soldiers the same way. Adding women to units allows the women to employ skills (let's face it they have some social reading skills especially with their own gender that men by and large don't have) that are necessary to effectively control a population that is not necessarily friendly towards an all-male conquerer.

Today, women get into these valuable roles through hook and crook in the vagueries of how troops are deployed. If they were integrated into the normal infantry and artillery (tell my why girls can't shoot the big guns please), they will be where they need to be when they need to be there in today's combat environment.

Setting standards for and effective force needs to take into account all attributes (not just physical) of the job are balanced will get you the best overall team to accomplish the WHOLE task. Just like the Herb Brooks wasn't looking for the most talented players, but the players who would play well together to make the best team, you need a complimenting set of skills in a combat unit to most effectively accomplish ALL the tasks required of a combat unit.

That being said, I do agree that for highly specialized units, physical standards specific to its narrow task (remember, pilots have height requirements) are a way to get better performance for that narrowly defined task. And by and large, participation in these units are not required to move up effectively in the military.

However, whole branches such as infantry and artillery have far too broad of a task list to exclude women and if participation in those units are holding women back from promotion, it needs to be corrected.

I’ll give you that point. It is definitely valid. The battle field is different. The standards I still believe should be the same. Women can fire big guns, I am not saying they shouldn’t be able to be in roles where physicality directly effects functionality women should be equal to males. Hornet and I already discussed that, so I won’t repeat myself. There are easily enough females to be able to pass the standards with flying colors to make them a significant fighting force in what the military deems combat roles.

What about “true” combat roles? Special forces for example. I’m not in a SEAL team but I can guess they go on a lot of missions involving what in generally associated with a combat role (correct me if I am wrong). Would what you say still apply? What about PJs? Combat Divers? Neither of those are going into cities/villages to do “social reading” and make use of that skill that will help make arrests of suspected terrorists(that I know of, and that was poorly phrased but I think I got the idea across). Now assume they have equal intelligence for what I have stated, because that is a different(yet very similar in ways) topic.

@USNA1985: Thats true, isn’t that how it works for pilot slots? And at the academies? I would assume they would have a similar system and let the smarter female get a slot above the male. I get what you are saying, I don’t know if anyone doubts that here.