Women in Combat Branches

CSTCOACH said:
When it comes, and it will, who here really thinks that a 115lb female can pull a 275lb (with gear) male free from a Stryker or HMMWV that's burning from an IED strike? I realize and acknowledge that there are women currently in combat zones, and even attached to certain first tier units in PSYOP roles, but the liability to benefit to date is woefully skewed.
Click to expand...

I don't think I can pull someone that is 275 lb. out of HMMWV and I am almost 200 lbs. There are also some small male soldiers. I believe Audie Murphy was rejected for Infantry service several times based on his physical attribute.

However, we need to make our decisions based on the norm, not exceptions. If only one could do it, it is worth it doesn't work for me.
 
MemberLG said:
I don't think I can pull someone that is 275 lb. out of HMMWV and I am almost . There are also some small male soldiers. I believe Audie Murphy was rejected for Infantry service several times based on his physical attribute.

However, we need to make our decisions based on the norm, not exceptions. If only one could do it, it is worth it doesn't work for me.
Click to expand...

if you were in a situation where you NEEDED to pull someone out of a HMMWV, you probably could. Adrenaline is a powerful force. One of my Infantry squad leaders reached into one of my tanks that had just been hit by a big EFP (while standing on the turret getting shot at) and he pulled out the Tank Commander and the Gunner. While he was a big guy, I don't think he made it a habit of doing 200lb negative deficit dead lifts every day.
 
As long as the standards for specific AFSC/MOS don't change, and ALL Women and Men in those fields have to meet the standards; then I'm fine with women in any job or in a combat zone. I'm not worried about many of the petty things being brought up like sex, men protecting women, etc... But I know for a "FACT" that the standards will change, because the military will have their quotas that they need to fill for political reasons.

And I assume that women graduating high school will now have to sign up for "Selective service" in case a draft is ever reinstated.
 
Christcorp said:
As long as the standards for specific AFSC/MOS don't change, and ALL Women and Men in those fields have to meet the standards; then I'm fine with women in any job or in a combat zone. I'm not worried about many of the petty things being brought up like sex, men protecting women, etc... But I know for a "FACT" that the standards will change, because the military will have their quotas that they need to fill for political reasons.
Click to expand...

I guess someone could enlighten me if there are physical standards written somewhere to be an Infantry officer. Being a former Infantry officer, I only had to pass Combat Arms Commissioning physical and AFPT, before I reported to IOBC. While at IOBC, only physical test I had to pass was AFPT, combat water survival test (not 100% sure, might have been for Ranger School prep), three road marches (it's been a while so I don't remember if it was graduation requirement or not), and perhaps a 5 mile run. So, unless I missed it there is no other physical "standard" to be an Infantry Officer. Many great Infantry Officers that didn't greate from Ranger School.

On a side there are definite physical standards to be meet at Ranger School -15 mile force road march, Darby Queen (Obstacle Course), Warm Pit, 6 pull ups

vr
 
LG; the moment they opened up "Women Allows in Combat", they by default, opened up AFSC/MOS/etc... That's why I specified jobs. This opens up women in seals, PJ, or ANY AFSC/MOS/JOB. You're right. For infantry, you simply need to be qualified to be in the military in the first place. Nothing special. But as you mentioned with Rangers, there are quite a number of jobs that were not available to women, because they were direct combat related. This all changes.

And I still wonder if that means women too will have to register for selective services when they graduate high school.
 
I totally agree. I'd like to see/hear what "AMERICA" will start saying, debating, arguing, protesting, etc... if starting this June, ALL female high school graduates, have to register with Selective Service.

Matter of fact; I now CHALLENGE any female reading this thread, who isn't yet in the military, who has graduated high school, and is under the maximum age for "Enlisting", (Age 27-42 depending on the branch of service), to voluntarily register at Selective Service. Definitely let us know what they say when you try.
 
On the Selective Service homepage it says:

Attention: Even though the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat jobs, the law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages 18 thru 25. Women still do not register. (January 24, 2013)
Click to expand...

On the registration page, if you click on "female" (kind of funny they have a male and female option) it redirects to this page: https://www.sss.gov/FSwomen.htm

I'm a female and would be glad to register (once I turn 18), I have no issues whatsoever with it.
 
97133M said:
On the Selective Service homepage it says:



On the registration page, if you click on "female" (kind of funny they have a male and female option) it redirects to this page: https://www.sss.gov/FSwomen.htm

I'm a female and would be glad to register (once I turn 18), I have no issues whatsoever with it.
Click to expand...

YOU may not have any issues with it, but there are plenty of females who do. For example, there are girls who, for religious reasons, only wear skirts or dresses (I think of some in the homeschooling community here). I can't imagine these girls going into combat.
 
I understand that, I was just saying that I would have no issues with it myself, I wasn't speaking for women as a whole. I know a few girls at my school who are German Baptist (who wear long dresses and all that) and I definitely couldn't picture them going into combat.

To be fair, there are also guys like that and they still have to register. But I understand the thinking regarding women registering is different.
 
futuremarinemom said:
YOU may not have any issues with it, but there are plenty of females who do. For example, there are girls who, for religious reasons, only wear skirts or dresses (I think of some in the homeschooling community here). I can't imagine these girls going into combat.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's lots of males who'd rather have beards and long hair who would have to suck it up if they got drafted. I don't really see anything morally objectionable to having women having to suck up wearing their hair in a bun and looking not-so-hot in uniform for a couple years.

Besides, historically there's been exceptions for conscientious objectors or people who have legitimate religious or philosophical objections to military service. As recently as WWII the Pilgrim-Quaker side of my family had members who refused to serve because of their admittedly tenuous religious status (after the war this went over GREAT with the other three sides of the family, all recent immigrants who sent literally everyone, male and female, who was eligible to serve).

Maybe I'm reading the tea leaves wrong, but I would be extremely surprised if the draft actually needed to be instituted, to where it's almost a moot point. I seem to remember during the Iraq War that it was brought up semi-seriously, but I just feel like the backlash would be so huge that any administration would be highly reluctant to take that step.
 
Come on. If they tell you to register...then register. Period.

I was raised in a decided anti-war (not anti-military) home in the 60's. Father could have gotten brothers GW Bush type slots in the guard if they asked. One brother volunteered, went to Vietnam. Second brother had legitimate medical condition and was deferred. I was too young. Walked from college dorm to Selective Service National office on F St. in DC and registered. Got a 17 lottery number.

If you object to registering then go for CO or C1O (if that's what they still call them) or use the Ted Nugent method of avoiding the draft.
 
cb7893 said:
Come on. If they tell you to register...then register. Period.

I was raised in a decided anti-war (not anti-military) home in the 60's. Father could have gotten brothers GW Bush type slots in the guard if they asked. One brother volunteered, went to Vietnam.
Click to expand...

When getting out of service, you should probably refer to Clinton or Gore.... not someone who went to the Guard.
 
I personally take affront that just because someone can be qualified for service that automatically means they are capable of serving in the infantry. Maybe it is because I am a Marine, and we are an infantry-centric organization compared to the branch-centric Army. However, competition to become an infantryman in the Marine Corps is very high. Enlistments for infantry contracts are highly sought after. Competition for invitation to the Infantry Officers' Course in Quantico is tough, and the course is even tougher. I can say that the minimum physical requirements for service are not good enough to succeed or even survive as an infantryman (enlisted or officer). IOC has many physical requirements. However, the Combat Endurance Test is the only formal physical test administered, and the contents of this test nor the minimum requirements to pass this test are not published. Additionally, this test is not solely physical nor is the course. Mental and physical toughness are evaluated subjectively by experienced infantrymen. Women have had an extremely difficult time surviving past the first week. One failed the first day. The other failed to complete a movement (whether due to injury or not is irrelevant as many male Marines are treated in the same manner). Women will continue to have difficulty. So long as the curriculum is not altered or relaxed, I personally do not believe an average female Marine or even an above average female Marine can pass this course. The Marine Corps does not and cannot deal in exceptions. It is not worth the organizations' time and limited resources to find that one-in-one-thousand. This is not and can never be about personal desires or advancement, but rather what is best for the mission and the organization. The many over the few.
 
LineInTheSand said:
When getting out of service, you should probably refer to Clinton or Gore.... not someone who went to the Guard.
Click to expand...

Line, I did not mean to single out GW Bush.

Clinton got student deferments. All I know is that the publically released documents suggest that he knew that avoiding service could be politically fatal. Gore enlisted, but I have to believe that his MOS (as a journalist) was related to his decidedly anti-war and anti-civil rights father Sen. Albert Gore Sr. and his connection to the other Southern Democrat buddies who ran the Armed Services committees. I grew up in Nashville. I saw all this up front.

If you are going down the road of "who got out of going?" start a new thread and start it with Ted Nugent's story.

I heard the conversations around the dinner table. I know who of my bothers' friends went and who didn't. I know whose parents did what.
 
OK folks.

I get the fact that some folks are upset about the concept that a few women who qualify for a few more MOSs (nobody has guaranteed Special Forces duty here yet to my knowledge) are a bit upset. Now equating that to having passed the ERA (the proposed Equal Rights Amendment that came up a couple states short of implementation 30+ years ago) and now we should require all women to register for the draft is stretching things a bit. And there are several reasons.

1) First, as previously stated, not all MOSs will be open to women. Most MOSs have been open for a long time, but somehow now we should open up the draft issue? And if your argument goes that we should have done this long ago, lets see how far this should have been done... WWII is easy. Joan of Arc... This brings me to my second issue.

2) Just because some women who are highly motivated CAN be trained/drilled into the ability to function in various military roles (not necessarily all) doesn't make all women (most who have been raised in a manner that would not make them readily prepared) draft material and thus subject to registration. A much higher percentage of males can be trained/drilled into military preparedness than females for a wide variety of reasons.

3) And just because maybe you think you could prepare enough females to serve, doesn't make it practical policy to do so. Historically, we have drafted young men and have left men in their 40's and 50's on the homefront. There are probably quite a few men over the age of 40 who COULD be trained/drilled into military preparedness. We don't require them to register. Registration requirement expires at 25. Why, because for the number of people that could possibly be needed (or even trained) beyond what is in AD/Reserves/Guard for a massive war could be done with this population.

Yeah, we could randomly pull in everyone over the age of 18 to the draft induction center and waste lots of resources watching large number of people who couldn't possibly be prepared for war flunk out of boot camp in the name of equality for all. Meahwhile we've tied up a bunch of troops in this endeavor who could very well be defending our country. My point here is that there is a certain practicality that needs to be applied when desperate times call for asking for involuntary contributions to the country beyond taxes. Asking for the physical exertion of those most able to exert makes as much sense for fielding an army as asking those who can pay most to fund the war. You can't buy too many F35's by taking 38% from those who make minimum wage.

Bottom line here is that somehow now that some women volunteering to serve (we've never said we were going to draft women) are allowed into some additional MOSs as a way to expand the flexibility of our fighting forces doesn't mean that all women are now suddenly more qualified and thus draftable and need to register.

Let's not confuse these 2 issues any more. Let go of the anger...
 
cb7893 said:
Come on. If they tell you to register...then register. Period.


If you object to registering then go for CO or C1O (if that's what they still call them) or use the Ted Nugent method of avoiding the draft.
Click to expand...

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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top