Women in Combat branches

[Just_A_Mom]

Calm down JAM. It may not be THE reason, but it probably is ONE of the reasons. What would you say the reason is then? Because the military is discriminatory?

Sam - hate to break it to you but.... it's not the military that is discriminatory it's Congress. You don't haul a 100lb pack up a mountain in Afghanistan as a FA officer. The reason women are banned from certain occupations is because they are female. dictated by congress. inherent danger as well as questioning the ability (not physical) of females to pull the trigger.

PT tests - females who go to Airborne and Air Assault perform the same physical tests and skills as their male counterparts.

 

[LineInTheSand]

In general, operationally speaking, Congress generally defaults to the judgement of the military, as the Supreme Court does from many Court Martial cases. Not ALL the time, but many times. The CNO says "we should have females on subs" and it happens.

 

[LineInTheSand]

For the record, I am VERY fine with having women drafted as well....just wouldn't want it to be my girlfriend.

 

[Pima]

LITS is correct it is not Congress, but it comes up from the DOD. If it was Congress, DADT would have been repealed a long time ago.

As far as PT, nobody said they didn't perform the same tests as men, the difference is they are given different requirements, running as an example. Women must run the same distance, but are allotted more time to pass. Water survival, women must tread water, but the amount of time is less. They must get into the life raft, but they are given more time to do it.

That is what burns my goat...let me use our DS as an example. Our DS is 5'9 and weighs 147 lbs...pretty darn thin, actually to the point that if he loses 10 lbs this summer during 3 weeks out in the field training, he will be in trouble. Now you can't tell me that there is no female in any of the branches that is not close to the same build. Our DS because he has an XY chromosome is expected and demanded to run faster than his female counterpart. He is expected to tread water longer.

I have no issues with women serving in combat, but if you want to play with the boys, than you must play on their field. If you can pass the male PT test, I say GO FOR IT! If you can't don't expect me as a wife or a mother to feel comfortable with the fact that my loved ones might have to risk their life to save them because of the stds. Last time I checked, a bullet does not magically track onto the slowest runner like a bear in the woods. And when it comes to war, the military does not believe in leaving people behind because they didn't keep up, they stick together.

You can't say treat me as an equal, but give me an edge because I am a girl. This is not about classrooms or theory, it is real life, life or death that they will face.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

For the record, I am VERY fine with having women drafted as well....just wouldn't want it to be my girlfriend.

LOL.
For the record, I would not want my son to be drafted either -


To your other post - Congress actually put the hammer down back in the early 90's. I read the book "In the Men's House" by Carol Barkalow and she branched Air Defense back in 1980 (first class of women). She noted in the book that she was allowed certain jobs back in the mid-80's that females are prohibited from doing today. No part of her job was extraordinarily physically strenous.
IIRC - this directive came from Congress, NOT the Army.

 

[goldfarb1]

Calm down JAM. It may not be THE reason, but it probably is ONE of the reasons. What would you say the reason is then? Because the military is discriminatory?

Another important reason is unit cohesion. I'm only a junior in HS, but I'm going to take a stab that 0311's and 11B's would be pretty harsh on a woman looking to fight alongside them. I'm not saying all would, but I am saying its a very fraternal structure.

100 years from now females will be a non-issue in combat branches. But it's what happens until then. Its not an overnight thing. My guess is various tests/experiments/trials will occur at the platoon level and then work there way up. All I can say is those first few women will be very brave!

 

[BeatNavy]

I have no issues with women serving in combat, but if you want to play with the boys, than you must play on their field. If you can pass the male PT test, I say GO FOR IT!

Exactly. Women already see combat: anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq can get ambushed, no matter their MOS. If people want to support true gender equality, it needs to also come along with the same standards.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Another important reason is unit cohesion. I'm only a junior in HS, but I'm going to take a stab that 0311's and 11B's would be pretty harsh on a woman looking to fight alongside them. I'm not saying all would, but I am saying its a very fraternal structure.

100 years from now females will be a non-issue in combat branches. But it's what happens until then. Its not an overnight thing. My guess is various tests/experiments/trials will occur at the platoon level and then work there way up. All I can say is those first few women will be very brave!

I don't agree with this, although I will say that that certainly the unit cohesion Law and Order would like o portray for the military.

Women are your shipmates like anyone else. Maybe it takes some time to get used to new comers, but I am not 100% sold the members of the unit would be harsh on them, unless they deserved it like anyone else.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Pima - The APFT does have different standars for males and females. But that is the test to pass only in order to keep wearing the uniform. Passing the APFT only qualfies you for a desk job.

The physical requirements and standards for Airborne and Air Assault in the Army are EXACTLY the same for females as for males. The running test for Air Borne requires females to run with the males. Females do the same obstacle course and the standards are the same.
When you see a female with AirBorne wings - she completed the same course to the same standards to her male counterparts.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Congress and females in combat - then tell me why did the Army get a reprimand from Congress after a female medic earned the Silver Star for her valor in combat?

LITS - You actually might be on to something, though. The issue of females in combat affects USMA far more than the other service academies. Right now, West Point is required by Congress to commission 80% of men and 20% of women to Combat Arms branches. This in effect limits the number of women who can be appointed and graduate since females are by law prohibited from the vast majority of combat arms jobs. The other service academies don't have this male/female rescriction (to this degree) and can (theoretically) eventually achieve a 50/50 male/female mix.

Given this, I suppose you could say the Army "good ole' boy" network would preserve the male environment at West Point by not supporting females in combat. This may have been true. But - seriously I think that as women have proven themselves in this war and really stepped up - the attitude in Army leadership has changed as well.
Army leaders (Col's and Generals) really seem to enjoy and take pride when females perform well. By now the Army leadership has realized that their male pool of soldiers is dwindling and females can do many jobs well that they are prohibited from doing, legally.

 

[Pima]

Pima - The APFT does have different standars for males and females. But that is the test to pass only in order to keep wearing the uniform. Passing the APFT only qualfies you for a desk job.

Actually, if you are female pilot and sent to water survival school(common and required) your standards are lower than your male counterparts. Thus, it is not only the AFPT.

I will reiterate that I want the door open to women for every segment of the military. I don't believe that just because they have 2 X's they need to be protected. I believe that there are women in our country who are just as physically fit as any member of the Delta Force. I think it is sexist to believe that women are the weaker sex.

I believe the true problem is women do not say "BRING IT ON!" If they truly want to enter into this arena, they should say "I will pass the male test". Not only would they break the barrier, but they would immediately gain the trust and respect from them.

I don't believe it is right to use your chromosomal make up as a reason to get a pass. Please don't take this wrong, but this is not about just a female issue, this is about every son/daughter, every husband/wife that has loved ones at home entrusting their brethren. How would you feel if you were like me, a wife and a Mom of a DS, knowing that maybe the ability to perform at a lower physical level as a woman cost me my family member? Can you say you are okay with it because it open doors for females? Can you say with a straight face that it is okay while I watch dirt shoveled over their grave?

Like I said, I want women to break the barrier, but like SA's, they should gain entry from an even playing field. Sorry, but I want to know if my DS is injured in combat that they are all on the same level when they need to carry him to safety. JAM, you have a DD and want her to have every option in the military. I have a DS and want him to have the safety knowing that be it a female or male they both will be able to save him. I had no problems with females flying fighters, but I always did have the problem that Bullet at 5'11 and 190 lbs would be hard for her to pull him out of the water. The AF by giving her lower standards ticked me off, because our best friend, Bullet's crew mate was 5'7 150 lbs and was required to pass a higher standard than her. That made me feel safe because I knew he had to perform at the same level as Bullet, that is not the fact for women.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

I was specifcally referring to the Army - APFT is the Army physical fitness test. I was not commenting on other services.
The fact is the team is only as strong as the weakest link -regardless if that link is male or female. It is entirely possible that if two male pilots went down one would not be able to carry the other to safety. If the Air Force wants to deploy personnel who are not capable of doing their job - you should direct your concerns to them. With the advent of drones, that may no longer be an issue with you.

 

[Pima]

It is entirely possible that if two male pilots went down one would not be able to carry the other to safety

I 100% agree!

That being said, the fact still remains that both male pilots were asked to perform at the exact same level. That is not true for the female.

With the advent of drones, that may no longer be an issue with you.

You obviously don't understand what the UAVs do...they don't dog fight! They will never replace manned aircraft.

Also, please elaborate on this statement

If the Air Force wants to deploy personnel who are not capable of doing their job - you should direct your concerns to them

Are you saying that because they have female fighter pilots (front line) they are not capable? Or are you saying they should not have female fighter pilots? Either way, the AF is putting women in the cross hairs regarding combat, heck one of our friends was an ALO for the AF with Army. The AF was willing to put her butt on the front lines.

This is not an AF V Army issue, and please don't make it into that. This is an issue that ALL women deserve the same rights and abilities to serve in the same positions as every man, if they can prove that they are on the same level regardless of gender.

I am sorry, but I believe there are women who can whip men's arses and I think to get rid of sexism we need to prove that we are true equals. I would never want a job or position because I was deemed weaker and given a lower pass than a man. I love our DS, but I don't think he is more able to do a job than our DD. Our DD is a spitfire, and smaller than DS, but I bet you bang for buck she would be able to keep up with our DS, just because she is like me...she believes she is an equal and would be darned to lose, she is not a Shannon Faulkner.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Are you saying that because they have female fighter pilots (front line) they are not capable?

No you said that, when you made the claim the lives of your husband and/or son could be endangered because their was a female on their team.

 

[Pima]

First off

No you said that, when you made the claim the lives of your husband and/or son could be endangered because their was a female on their team.

BTW Bullet flew with females, I never worried that he was endangered because they were good regarding the stick...than again they were graded as equals, no special treatment because they had 2 XXs, in other words men and women were never given an easier route based on sex.

Are you stating that they are just as safe if the female is allowed to perform at lower standards? My point is a 5'6 male will be required ti a higher standard than a 5'8 female.


Second,

I know a lot of female fighter pilots who could pass the male test. All I am saying is they should pass the exact same test.

The SA's don't give points to females regarding PAR because they are female, why should the AD military give an advantage regarding PT or test standards?

Please tell me why females should get that advantage? Explain it to me.

You are playing the game of divert, you have not once said why they should be given that edge.

Heck, if you want to take it out even further, I don't believe that there should be an age differentiation either regarding the PT. Bullet when he is working out could pass the 21 yo test even at 46.

I see the PT requirements as a PC issue. Bullet and I discussed this last night, he stated and I agree because of the physical build of a woman that some things like upper bidy strength needs an adjustment, but he also understands my point, don't ask for equality if you are asking for special compensation.

I think our difference is I believe that women are not weaker, and that they can pass the physical aspect if they really want to! Shannon Faulkner had the ability, but she was wrapped up about her gender and lost site of her goal to prove she is an equal.

Sorry, but I don't understand as a mother of a girl how you would defend giving them a "pass" even with PT, don't you want your DD to quash the attitude that she needs an edge? I know my DD would be the one screaming BS I want to to be scored like a guy....then again that also says a lot about why I chose her name...I wanted her name to to reflect the strength woman have...there is a poster on this site who personally knows her, and he will tell you her name fits because she is strong, and her name means defender of man kind. It fits her.

Why on earth would you want special treatment because you are a woman?

 

[Maximus]

Pretty sure in field artillery women aren't allowed to advance past the rank of major... which is strikingly archaic, but odds are in years (and wars) to come that will all change.

On a similar note, you know what's "strikingly archaic" in todays world, listen to the current radio PSA's announcing that young males from 18 to 24 (I think it's 24, might be higher or lower) need to register with the Government for selective service, or else they can't get things like: a drivers license or student loans.

Things that just make you go "huh"......

 

[BeatNavy]

Pima - The APFT does have different standars for males and females. But that is the test to pass only in order to keep wearing the uniform. Passing the APFT only qualfies you for a desk job.

You can not label "non combat" jobs that simply require the APFT as "desk jobs" In our current conflicts, the MOSs you label as desk jobs (transpo, quartermaster, medical, etc) still go outside the wire and get ambushed in their convoys like everyone else, just look at the casualty lists for OEF/OIF, I am sure you will see plenty of females. Even worse, the apft tasks are body weight exercises, meaning that a 110 pound female who can do 20 pushups is not nearly as capable as a 170 pound man of performing strength based activities in combat such as carrying an injured person who may be way heavier. The argument Pima is making is absolutely analogous to the army, the physical standards are different for the same job which may require strength/endurance to save lives. It is inconsistent for you to say that women are already performing to the same physical standards in the army by pointing to obstacle courses, air assault, abn, as being the same when the common physical test which is the only requirement some soldiers are required to meet, is different.

 

[Pima]

On a similar note, you know what's "strikingly archaic" in todays world, listen to the current radio PSA's announcing that young males from 18 to 24 (I think it's 24, might be higher or lower) need to register with the Government for selective service, or else they can't get things like: a drivers license or student loans.

I agree. I think it is sexist, and let's be real, does anyone believe that we will ever face a draft again? Why should women get out of serving? I have no problem if the govt asked for our DD to sign up. I guess the only fear that he govt might have is women getting pregnant to get out of serving
Ludicrous and again sexist!

 

[Chockstock]

Maybe the best thing to do would be to completely revamp a particular unit in the Army to make it co-ed, thrust it into a hot spot, and see how it goes. I don't want it to sound like an experiment, but thats what it would essentially be - a test to see if trained men and women can successfully fight alongside each other. Depending on the outcome, the military could then consider its options.

 

[vampsoul]

Maybe the best thing to do would be to completely revamp a particular unit in the Army to make it co-ed, thrust it into a hot spot, and see how it goes. I don't want it to sound like an experiment, but thats what it would essentially be - a test to see if trained men and women can successfully fight alongside each other. Depending on the outcome, the military could then consider its options.

I think knowing they were a guinea pig unit would cause disruption among unti cohesion and their ability to perform their job. Women already serve among combat units. It is the definition of "direct combat" and "front line" that keeps them out of a few particular fields and jobs within other fields. Perhaps it could begin by opening up comba6 jobs in branches they are already allowed in before introducing them to whole new branches.