Panel: Let women serve in combat roles

trackandfield08 said:
"Social Reading" aka Forensic Profiling. Its a very valuable tool where traits and patterns of terrorists, criminals, etc. are studied and these tools are employed in order to capture these people. Since women are typically known for their intuition, this would be a strong point for them. Don't tell me you think that the Special Forces you mentioned do not do their homework before a mission...they just don't run in with guns blazing. Tracking a person's pattern, their background, how they act, is very hard to do.
Click to expand...

They do their homework, of course. But I doubt that they are the ones interrogating arrested people, going into villages and trying to gather all the information. I’m pretty sure they have people who specialize in that( not positive). So no I dont thing that special forces just run in, with guns blazing, nor did I intend to imply that at all.

What I meant by “true” combat role. Honestly, simple as this I dont know. I am not in the military, and I have never talked to SEALS Green Berets, PJs, CCTs etc. So I how could I know? I just meant that some probably do a lot more things that people generally associate with a combat role. Hope that cleared things up.
 
Off topic a bit, but if they allow women in combat roles, how many people believe the military will do an end run, and change the fitness stds to a dual track system...combat has 1 that is higher and 1 that is the traditional for non-combat?

If they do this I would assume it would be even harder if not impossible for women to get into these fields.

If you look at even our candidates for our SAs, many of them come close to maxing out their CFA. However, the females still have a lower std, thus, even if they max their std, where does that place them on the male counterpart scale? Just by raising the min for combat stds to the high end of the traditional, you may see that it is already out of their physical reach.

Thus, this would be a false hope for women breaking into combat positions.

What shocks me about doing this is it seems like Gates is trying to do everything at once before he retires...repeal DADT, women in combat, women on subs. It is an insane amount of change regarding the military in a very short time span.

The military does need to change these positions, but they have never been known to be very effective in implementing quick changes for 1 issue, let alone 3 at one time while fighting 2 wars, bringing new military hardware on line and downsizing at the same time. Why he is at, why not just have another round of BRAC too? What the heck, just pile everything on the table like a Thanksgiving feast.
 
Luigi59 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Luigi - good points. Maybe someone with promotion board experience and explain the limitations for females and rationale for it.

Here is a quote from an Army Memo directed to females who are considering branching Field Artillery:


It is important for all female officers considering the Field Artillery as their branch of choice to fully understand the implications of the current DOD policy excluding females from service in MLRS and Cannon units based on the collocation exclusion criteria. This policy limits the opportunities for female officers to gain credible Field Artillery leadership experiences and tactical and technical training proficiency. This policy places an additional burden on female Field Artillery officers to remain competitive with their male peers.
Click to expand...
​

Currently female officers cannot be assigned to Field Artillery tactical battalions (TOE units - cannon or rocket). Therefore, female officers are excluded from many of the primary leadership positions (platoon leader, fire direction officer, and fire support officer) that are the foundations of experience in building a successful Field Artillery career. Female officers will routinely be assigned to the Field Artillery Training Center (Basic Training or Advanced individual Training units) or other TDA assignments at Fort Sill (1-78 FA or 2-2 FA - training support units), or at Brigade or higher levels (HHB DIVARTY, HHB FA BDE, HHB Corps Artillery). Females are limited to commands outside the tactical Field Artillery battalions. Therefore, female captains must seek battery commands at Brigade level or higher (usually headquarters type batteries) or in training center batteries. At the Major level, a female officer can become an executive officer or S3 of a training battalion but would lack the TOE experience to perform duties as a S3 or XO at a brigade level TOE unit.
​
Click to expand...


​
​
 
Oh and besides, how many times have I been told here that the "troops" need to have a peer leading them, that's why we have diversity? Remember? It's why we have the "Whole Person Concept" to even out the odds. I notice that USNA1985 wants to eliminate those odds even though she has championed that the last Class at Annapolis, as being the most "Diversified" last year, due to the leveling of the playing field. That same playing field that she wants to use in reverse against males, because they might have a lower score on their SAT's score now? lol
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying. First, I have not "championed" any class at USNA (other than 1985 of course!!) for any purpose. I have tried to explain USNA's thinking on the need for diversity -- as a BGO, that is one of my roles. My role is to explain, not to champion.

My points on this thread are quite clear. There are many officers who cannot be submariners b/c, in the view of the USN, they don't have the grades/academics/brains -- take your pick on how you describe it -- to handle the technical aspects of nuclear power and subs. There is a standard that the USN believes is necessary to do that job and everyone -- male and now female as well -- must meet it.

If the USN or USMC believes that a certain physical standard is required for an artillery officer or any other combat billet, then everyone should have to meet that standard -- male or female.

Finally, I don't agree that you must have someone who looks just like you leading you. When I started out as an officer, the most senior woman in my career field in the entire USN was an O-4, so my leaders were by default entirely male. In my civilian career, all of my mentors have been males. So I totally reject the notion that you must be led by a "peer." However, the USN -- and maybe other services -- believes it has validity and I am willing to accept that there is a basis for those beliefs. It may be as simple as today's young people have different expectations/needs than we did year ago.

If you want to challenge or debate my beliefs and comments, which you are free to do, please at least state them accurately when you do so.:smile:
 
Really, as a previous poster observed, we are just rehashing old arguments. If you really want to gain a perspective on why diversity is important, racial, cultural, ethnic, geographic, economic, gender, all of it, go to the website of the Military Leadership Diversity Commision, the organization which was quoted at the beginning of this thread:
http://mldc.whs.mil/
At the top, click on 'Issue Papers'. Some very informative reading. For this thread, one on why women excluded from tactical billets do not promote as well as white males.
 
USNA85 has been very clear regarding their position with women in combat. She has agreed that if physical abilities are required for that combat position, than they support the removal of the stds to create a balance. At least, that is what I read.

If serving on a sub, is considered a combat position, their physical ability should not be as a criteria for selection.

There are combat positions that do not require you to be a Navy Seal or an Army Ranger.

They will probably segregate combat positions even more.

For someone like 85, and I do not know what her field is/was, there was a lot of uphill climbing throughout their career. Look at Jeannie Flynn, she is now an O6, she was the 1st female fighter pilot, she had no mentors. Even 3 yrs ago when she became a squadron commander, people said it was because she was a woman. She is a strong pilot, and did everything her male counterparts did, but to some, it was a chromosomal reason she was the commander of the Lancers. Afterall, she was the poster child for female fighter aviators, they needed to promote her to look good, right? That was their position, not mine. Jeannie entered the pilot world yrs after 85.

Fifi Malachowski, the 1st female Thunderbird (08) probably would have never made it there without Jeannie being there to pave the way.

Being a female in the military is hard, especially in combat situations. Guys will feel that they get the plum jobs because she is a she. They will have to fight for respect 2x as hard as anyone else. They live in a no mans land (no pun), they are still women, but they don't have the ability to find colleagues to hang/beeacch with about their life, because guys don't get them and wives are wives; they don't use their hands to describe how as red air they were here and blue air was there. Most wives don't know the difference between a missile and a bomb, let alone what LANTERN stands for or a GBU.

I respect any woman who walks down this path, and I understand it will be harder than Hades to do it. I am a woman, a wife who spent 20 yrs as an ADAF/DW and now a Mom of a future AF officer. I never cared about women serving, all I cared and care about is the safety of my loved one. If they can do it in combat to the same stds as men, good on them, and I say YOU GO GIRL. If they can't than don't pull the girl card. Pulling the girl card only reinforces the theory that it wasn't your ability to get there, but the fact that you have 2 XX's and are getting special treatment because you had the luck of the chromosomal draw.
 
Last edited:
Just_A_Mom said:
This is timely:

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/09/5616457-all-female-us-marine-team-in-afghanistan

Female Marines are already serving in combat. Female Army soldiers as well.

The question is not so much - "should they be allowed to serve?" as they are already serving - but should certain military occupations be opened to females. They are doing these jobs anyways - why not make it official?
Click to expand...

Looks like the Military will take care of the messy social issues again for Gate's boss. Kind of how he's mopping up the whole Gay agenda for the Government with his DADT :thumb:

Baby steps and at the end of the day, we all know it's Politics driving the issues.
 
usna1985 said:
I have absolutely no idea what you're saying. First, I have not "championed" any class at USNA (other than 1985 of course!!) for any purpose. I have tried to explain USNA's thinking on the need for diversity -- as a BGO, that is one of my roles. My role is to explain, not to champion.

My points on this thread are quite clear. There are many officers who cannot be submariners b/c, in the view of the USN, they don't have the grades/academics/brains -- take your pick on how you describe it -- to handle the technical aspects of nuclear power and subs. There is a standard that the USN believes is necessary to do that job and everyone -- male and now female as well -- must meet it.

If the USN or USMC believes that a certain physical standard is required for an artillery officer or any other combat billet, then everyone should have to meet that standard -- male or female.

Finally, I don't agree that you must have someone who looks just like you leading you. When I started out as an officer, the most senior woman in my career field in the entire USN was an O-4, so my leaders were by default entirely male. In my civilian career, all of my mentors have been males. So I totally reject the notion that you must be led by a "peer." However, the USN -- and maybe other services -- believes it has validity and I am willing to accept that there is a basis for those beliefs. It may be as simple as today's young people have different expectations/needs than we did year ago.

If you want to challenge or debate my beliefs and comments, which you are free to do, please at least state them accurately when you do so.:smile:
Click to expand...

I simply don't have the time to quote your every post here, you know what you've written. :wink:

I'm also directing this toward other posters here. I happen to agree with most of your posts (ie: diversity, oh and btw, it was a matter of time till someone like Mongo et al put up the "White Male" pigeonhole :shake: ), it's when people start tailor making the rules to fit their agenda. If I had the time, I'd go back and cut and paste quotes you and others have made in regards to the diversity issue, and how you're using the exact opposite criteria for this issue. You can't have it both ways. '85 I'm sure you're a great B&GO and I know you had to break that glass ceiling folks like Mongo breezed through, I applaud you for your determination and service.

The crux of this issue is "Combat" I think it's time the Military changed some of their designations of "Combat" for Service Selection or Branching, and let everyone participate with the rules in place.
Also, since the pool of qualified applicants for the enlisted ranks is shrinking, allow women to enlist in combat arms, we'll see how many apply and then descide if we need to change the standards. For many here, the argument is whether their 'daughter' can get the...let me see...how did a member express this here the other day....well allow me to paraphrase..."Promotion Enhancing billit on their service record." It's sad when you think about the millions of service people under those Officers, that have to live with lowered standards so that the Officer Corps can remain happy for a very small minority of Women.

I agree, allow women on ships, jets, helo's and subs if qualified, that's a no brainer.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Like......you JAM? :confused:
Click to expand...
??????????? :confused: :confused:
LOOK - READ THE LINK IN POST #1. PERHAPS YOU NEED HELP BUT I WAS SIMPLY PARAPHRASING THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE PANEL.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE SERVING ON THE PANEL ARE FORMER OR CURRENT MILITARY OFFICERS AND NCO'S.

THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ARE RETIRED GENERAL LESTER LYLES (USAF) AND LT GENERAL JULIUS BECTON (USARMY).

IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE TOPIC, THEN DO SO AND ADD SOMETHING INTELLIGENT. IF NOT THEN GO MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD AND POST YOUR OWN CRAP.
 
This is a paraphrase from the article? "Luigi - good points. Maybe someone with promotion board experience and explain the limitations for females and rationale for it. "

So then you are saying that you are not the greatest authority on military promotions because you've not been in the military or been promoted? Perhaps the sections I quoted wasn't clear enough for me to determine where you were going with your comment to Luigi?


While women in the Coast Guard can serve anywhere or do anything, there are limitations on ships due to berthing. That does not affect their promotion rates.

We've had a few people here, some in the Army, who have served, and have been promoted, and they didn't seem to agree with your assertion. You have seemed to ignore their expert knowledge...
 
Maximus said:
, it was a matter of time till someone like Mongo et al put up the "White Male" pigeonhole
Click to expand...
Here is the full report from which the OP's link was derived:
http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Issue Papers/Officer_Occupational_Choice_23.pdf
To paraphrase, a disproportionally large percentage of senior officers in the military come from a tactical background. A disproportionally large percentage of these senior offricers happen to be white male. It only stands to reason, current 'experts' notwithstanding, that lesser career opportunities will effect promotion rates.
 
Mongo said:
Here is the full report from which the OP's link was derived:
http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Issue Papers/Officer_Occupational_Choice_23.pdf
To paraphrase, a disproportionally large percentage of senior officers in the military come from a tactical background. A disproportionally large percentage of these senior offricers happen to be white male. It only stands to reason, current 'experts' notwithstanding, that lesser career opportunities will effect promotion rates.
Click to expand...

If put into perspective, there's not much wrong with such results. I'll use the air force as an example. A typical base with a runway and either cargo or fighter planes as their MAIN mission. Would the wing or base commander to be chosen, have a better chance of being selected if S/He was a pilot as their primary AFSC, and they've been involved in aircraft duties their career; or the officer that has always been in the "Public Affairs" office? When you look at the entire wing or base, you have to look at the primary mission of that base. As such, tactical missions/jobs tend to have more officers available, and therefor more senior officers and career opportunities.

The misleading word used is "Disproportionate". I don't believe that it's naturally disproportionate. Then again; the first thing I learned about statistics in college, was that you can make them say and mean anything you want them to. When I see at the academy, approximately 1000 graduates, with 500 usually going to pilot training. Some of the remaining 500 going into intel, ops, and other tactical jobs; a good percentage of the remaining doing a "Five and Dive"; it makes sense to believe that a very large percentage of air force academy officers are going to be tactical in nature. Especially when many of these jobs, like pilot, requires a long commitment and encourages longevity. Thus MORE of these individuals. In the ROTC/OTS world, the percentage of tactical officers would shift to the other direction. But consider most "MISSIONS" of a base, AOR, Wing, etc... are tactical in nature; it makes sense that those selected to be assigned in these senior positions, will most likely be tactical officers.

And, considering that of the 1357 cadets entering the air force academy class of 2013, 20.3% (277) were women. Of the entire 1357 cadets, (Men and Women) 77% (1045) are white. (Non-Minority). Now, worse case scenario, we will assume that ALL 277 women in the class were white. That means that 768 of the class were "White Men". That's still more than 50%. (56.60% to be exact).

So they can use that "Disproportionate" word all they want. It doesn't sound disproportionate in the least. Most senior leaders need to be tactical in nature, because they are going to be responsible for a tactical mission. The experience requires such a background. White's make up 77% of the academy; and men make up 80% of the academy. Chances of a "White Man" becoming a person in a position of high authority is not disproportionate. Only people who want to see the numbers mean that, will see it that way.

P.S. They didn't mention the "Disproportionate" number of senior level assignments/promotions for individuals who are academy grads compared to ROTC or OTS. But there is that crowd who complains about that too.
 
Christcorp said:
If put into perspective, there's not much wrong with such results. I'll use the air force as an example. A typical base with a runway and either cargo or fighter planes as their MAIN mission. Would the wing or base commander to be chosen, have a better chance of being selected if S/He was a pilot as their primary AFSC, and they've been involved in aircraft duties their career; or the officer that has always been in the "Public Affairs" office? When you look at the entire wing or base, you have to look at the primary mission of that base. As such, tactical missions/jobs tend to have more officers available, and therefor more senior officers and career opportunities.
Click to expand...
The issue is that the PAO type command billets are available to the tactical officers while the tactical billets are not available to the PAO type. The tactical types will 'trickle down' into other billets, diminishing the chances of those who have been in these non-tactical billets.
 
Mongo said:
The issue is that the PAO type command billets are available to the tactical officers while the tactical billets are not available to the PAO type. The tactical types will 'trickle down' into other billets, diminishing the chances of those who have been in these non-tactical billets.
Click to expand...
Agree. But it seems that there's more tactical background individuals to begin with. I was electronics tech/engineer. I have degrees in electronic engineering and computer science. An individual who knows how to install, repair, design, etc... radios, satellites, computers, etc... definitely knows how to "Operate" such equipment. But does the radio, satellite, computer operator know how to "Fix" such equipment. Most unlikely. Easier example. Does the maintenance tech at the local ford dealer know how to drive/operate a ford car? Yes. Does the customer/operator of a ford car necessarily know how to repair the car? Probably no; or at least much less likely. So, is a tactical background officer more likely to be able to perform a PAO type of job, or is the PAO background officer more likely to perform a tactical type of job? But the comment was about senior type positions. Not simply a squadron/company or even battalion commander. But when you get into the Group/Wing/Brigade/Division level; a tactical background officer is much more likely to be able to handle and command Non-Tactical issues, than a non-tactical officer trying to handle tactical issues.
 
Pima said:
USNA85 has been very clear regarding their position with women in combat. She has agreed that if physical abilities are required for that combat position, than they support the removal of the stds to create a balance. At least, that is what I read.

If serving on a sub, is considered a combat position, their physical ability should not be as a criteria for selection.

There are combat positions that do not require you to be a Navy Seal or an Army Ranger.

They will probably segregate combat positions even more.

For someone like 85, and I do not know what her field is/was, there was a lot of uphill climbing throughout their career. Look at Jeannie Flynn, she is now an O6, she was the 1st female fighter pilot, she had no mentors. Even 3 yrs ago when she became a squadron commander, people said it was because she was a woman. She is a strong pilot, and did everything her male counterparts did, but to some, it was a chromosomal reason she was the commander of the Lancers. Afterall, she was the poster child for female fighter aviators, they needed to promote her to look good, right? That was their position, not mine. Jeannie entered the pilot world yrs after 85.

Fifi Malachowski, the 1st female Thunderbird (08) probably would have never made it there without Jeannie being there to pave the way.

Being a female in the military is hard, especially in combat situations. Guys will feel that they get the plum jobs because she is a she. They will have to fight for respect 2x as hard as anyone else. They live in a no mans land (no pun), they are still women, but they don't have the ability to find colleagues to hang/beeacch with about their life, because guys don't get them and wives are wives; they don't use their hands to describe how as red air they were here and blue air was there. Most wives don't know the difference between a missile and a bomb, let alone what LANTERN stands for or a GBU.

I respect any woman who walks down this path, and I understand it will be harder than Hades to do it. I am a woman, a wife who spent 20 yrs as an ADAF/DW and now a Mom of a future AF officer. I never cared about women serving, all I cared and care about is the safety of my loved one. If they can do it in combat to the same stds as men, good on them, and I say YOU GO GIRL. If they can't than don't pull the girl card. Pulling the girl card only reinforces the theory that it wasn't your ability to get there, but the fact that you have 2 XX's and are getting special treatment because you had the luck of the chromosomal draw.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for your rational and "Salt of the Earth" reply PIMA.

Sometimes I question my sanity here when "one of the usual" give my "real World observations" the "I don't understand" and then stamp it with the "usual white male disagreeing with change" (lol, if they only knew...) pigeonholing remark.

Your opinions above, are exactly what I usually hear from people that I happen to get into discussions with, about current events during the course of my day. I talk to a lot of people daily with a huge cross section. I'm in the service industry and usually during my visit, we engage in conversation. Then, I come on here and it's like I'm some "Racist, sexist, bigoted homophobe" incapable of understand even what a college semester is lol! :yllol::yllol::yllol:
 
Read and heed !

All,

Before this thread goes further I would recommend that people think twice about mentioning another poster by name or using the words "You", "Your" or another pronoun to reference another poster.

You can debate the facts and state your opinions, but if you are needing to use someone else's name you are more than likely posting something that could be construed as a direct attack on that member.

The easy answer: Don't do it. Stick with your opinions and read your post twice before hitting "submit reply"
 
Someone must have already brought it up but considering the recurring feminist argument of modern and classical literature, I feel the need to cast a few pennies into the fountain and hold in question why women, while of a biologically predisposed disadvantage in terms of neural-secretions, (e.g. a combination of prevailing hormones that prohibit most women from transcending their male counterparts in developing physically - despite allowing them a more socially-sound behaviorism for caring and socializing, especially for children); as well as in terms sympathetic nervous functions associated with lower levels of high-alert secretions such as noradrenaline, crucial to stressful or combatant environments, continue to badger their male neighbors over issues that must have reached an end at least some time in the year 1920.

We must realize, the United States was developed upon free-market, capitalistic principles, and despite the skeptics of today that criticize the administration because of it's suddenly "colorful" nature :confused: (those that refuse to depart from screaming "socialist" even though it was a perfectly functional economic platform in some nations), the United States still is a laissez-faire economy. This means that our dear citizens have the ability to perform a civil duty and take on employment in a field other than fishing, farming, or even defending the nation stock-to-shoulder, but tasks suitable to their own desires and needs. Yet regardless of one's desires, capitalism not only gives options, it produces a necessary competition. Those wanting to perform in a specific detail must be chosen by those already associated with the detail and thus must prove themselves more worthy of the task, considering its requirements, than others who desire the job.

For women, competing in a field dominated by men who in theory, stand greater probability of survival and efficiency in some of most demanding, physical tasks around, may not be the wisest choice if they do so for pure appeasement of their desire to carry a ruck and a firearm as their job.

One can debate this topic indefinitely, but the logic is quite solid. Some jobs just are more gender-specific than others. Sure, there are women serving in the IDF just as there are male nurses... But in a country dominated by a precise and efficient executive branch, there is little room for error in executing foreign policy in response to war when human resources are at stake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top