Women in Combat Branches

[Christcorp]

I don't think I understand your point. Physical capabilities is what's needed to perform certain tasks. And if a combat related job requires certain capabilities, then it shouldnt matter if the person is male or female assuming they can do it. What does the academy have to do with this. They dont measure physical capabilities. They measure physical fitness. And if you meet a minimum fitness standard, then you are qualified in that area to attend the academy or to be in the military. Remember, the academies are trying to teach you teamwork and leadership. They arent trying to teach you a certain job that requores certain capabilities.

 

[BigBear]

I don't think I understand your point. Physical capabilities is what's needed to perform certain tasks. And if a combat related job requires certain capabilities, then it shouldnt matter if the person is male or female assuming they can do it. What does the academy have to do with this. They dont measure physical capabilities. They measure physical fitness. And if you meet a minimum fitness standard, then you are qualified in that area to attend the academy or to be in the military. Remember, the academies are trying to teach you teamwork and leadership. They arent trying to teach you a certain job that requores certain capabilities.

Your physical fitness determines your physical score, which currently determines 25% of you class ranking. Your class ranking in turn determines what branch you get.
If branches require certain capabilities (as opposed to a level of fitness), shouldn't the test that determines what branch you get also require you to perform at a certain level of ability, rather than a certain level of fitness?

 

[goaliedad]

Re-reading this, I need to place an emphasis on the difference between “Women in Combat” and “Women in the Infantry.” Women have served supremely well in combat. They have proven themselves both brave and capable. Honestly, some of the best shooters I have ever trained were Woman Marines. I have served with women in combat. I have stood side by side with Women Marines in a defensive position and know that they can perform. I have trusted them to do their job and they did not let me down. I do not have a problem with them being there and I see no reason why they should not continue to be. I also have no problems with opening up as many MOS ‘s as possible for them.

My concern and one that I share with others is women serving in the infantry. The infantry’s primary mission is "to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or repel his assault by fire and close combat" (Thanks Malachy Marine for stating this before). It is extremely physical. Of course the next question always is, “how physical?” Well, while I will let Malachy Marine tell us how it is now, I feel very confident in giving an idea of how “it used to be.”

Carried weights by the infantry

When I first enlisted in1976, I was a machine gunner. At the time I weighed roughly 155 pounds. My assigned weapon was the M-60 that weighed roughly 23-25 pounds. On average our full patrol load was 75 pounds of gear plus ammunition. Overall I carried roughly 125 pounds of gear. At the time, that was 75 -80% of my body weight. Now my fighting load (when we dropped packs) was less. It consisted of 25 Lbs weapon system, 35 Lbs of 782 gear, and about 25 lbs of Ammunition. Keeping it simple, I was prepared to go into combat with 85 pounds of gear. That was roughly 55% of my body weight.

30 years later and close to my retirement in 2006, the Naval Research Advisory committee did a study on the weight that Marine Infantry carried into Combat in Iraq. They found that the average Marine Infantryman carried close to 98 lbs. of gear. Some carried as much as 135 lbs. depending upon weapons system. As you can see, not much changed.

Training

This is just to give you an idea and is not meant to be all inclusive of what the infantry does! We Marines prefer to train like we want to fight ( I am sure the army does the same). In 1976 , we still had Regimental and Division Commanders who had fought in World War II. They firmly believed in the idea that the best training was to do. To them that meant that 3-5 days a week we would conduct force marches under normal patrol loads. We would perform actual patrols, we would conduct actual clearing operations, we would dig actual fighting positions….and anything else that would prepare our minds and bodies for war. On average we would start at 3am. We would march 15-20 miles a day with the weight above. Sometimes we would get ambushed…sometimes we just walked. Our Breaks consisted of “Classroom Instructions”, followed by more walking. We would train to climb over walls and onto rooftops. We would climb rock faces and mountains. Sometimes the training would get broken up by a day/night land navigation exercise. Every night we would dig in and build defensive positions. We would finally get to sleep around 12 am, unless you had first watch which was four hours (if you did not do watch the first night, you did the second night either way, at some point during the training you would go 48 hours without sleep ). A light training week consisted of walking 10-15 miles each day under fighting loads to and from a weapons range. We did this every day, every week and every year.

So why do I bring this up. I have a daughter who is a 2LT in the Corps. She weighs 115 lbs. She is a 300 PFT (She got that from me). 110% of her body weight is 126 lbs. 85% of her body weight is close to 98 lbs – the average weight of a Marine riflemen’s combat load in 2006.

Experience alone tells me that you cannot expect a person to carry that much percentage of their body weight over extended periods of time without it compromising the unit integrity and ability to fight. To me, that is the main problem with Women being assigned to an infantry unit. It is indeed very much a physical barrier. At this time, I do not see a way around that.

Point well taken.

I wouldn't expect any woman of "normal" stature (5' 2" - 5' 6") to handle such a load. The 1% of women who I was referring to are the most physically capable. There are women who are 5' 8" - 6' who have the build to carry the load. I've known a few in my lifetime. One ended up an Olympic Gold Medalist (a holder of multiple world records for a couple decades). Others actually worked "men's" type jobs (tool and die, construction, etc.).

One thing they had in common was a competitive nature - not just with other women, but with their male counterparts.

I think these are the types that might make a run at some of the new MOSs to be opened to women. I wonder how many of them do not choose to enter the military because of a perception that they will be limited in their career choices not by what they can do, but what others say they cannot do.

I'm in agreement with everyone here that MOSs with high physical demands should have thorough screening for entry that should not be gender normed. And I don't think these highly competitive women would want that either.

My other point is that we have to trust those military leaders who send our troops into battle not to put them in danger by watering down the requirements. I hope people have enough trust in their leadership.

 

[GoSox]

Your physical fitness determines your physical score, which currently determines 25% of you class ranking. Your class ranking in turn determines what branch you get.
If branches require certain capabilities (as opposed to a level of fitness), shouldn't the test that determines what branch you get also require you to perform at a certain level of ability, rather than a certain level of fitness?

PDB, I thought I read/heard that West Point was looking at changing branching procedures so it's not so class-rank dependent? Is that wrong, or was the reality that they aren't changing much, it's just sort of lip service? I personally think it's a great thing if the branching decision (for us at Navy, service selection) encompasses something more than class rank (which is mostly controlled by academics) -- I mentioned the SEAL screener and Leatherneck in my prior post.

 

[BigBear]

PDB, I thought I read/heard that West Point was looking at changing branching procedures so it's not so class-rank dependent? Is that wrong, or was the reality that they aren't changing much, it's just sort of lip service? I personally think it's a great thing if the branching decision (for us at Navy, service selection) encompasses something more than class rank (which is mostly controlled by academics) -- I mentioned the SEAL screener and Leatherneck in my prior post.

The changes so far have been primarily lip-service.

 

[GoSox]

The changes so far have been primarily lip-service.

Gotcha. Well, good luck, maybe one consequence of this change will be re-thinking branching procedures at USMA. As much as it pains a Navy grad to admit it, you guys do a lot of things better (military training during the summers, training of plebes during the academic year in my view) than USNA. Maybe branching/service selection is an area in which USNA has some better practices.

What branch are you hoping for? Sounds like something in the combat arms!

 

[Malachy Marine]

Carried weights by the infantry

When I first enlisted in1976, I was a machine gunner. At the time I weighed roughly 155 pounds. My assigned weapon was the M-60 that weighed roughly 23-25 pounds. On average our full patrol load was 75 pounds of gear plus ammunition. Overall I carried roughly 125 pounds of gear. At the time, that was 75 -80% of my body weight. Now my fighting load (when we dropped packs) was less. It consisted of 25 Lbs weapon system, 35 Lbs of 782 gear, and about 25 lbs of Ammunition. Keeping it simple, I was prepared to go into combat with 85 pounds of gear. That was roughly 55% of my body weight.
...
They found that the average Marine Infantryman carried close to 98 lbs. of gear. Some carried as much as 135 lbs. depending upon weapons system. As you can see, not much changed.

Training
...
We would perform actual patrols, we would conduct actual clearing operations, we would dig actual fighting positions….and anything else that would prepare our minds and bodies for war. On average we would start at 3am. We would march 15-20 miles a day with the weight above. Sometimes we would get ambushed…sometimes we just walked. Our Breaks consisted of “Classroom Instructions”, followed by more walking. We would train to climb over walls and onto rooftops. We would climb rock faces and mountains. Sometimes the training would get broken up by a day/night land navigation exercise. Every night we would dig in and build defensive positions. We would finally get to sleep around 12 am, unless you had first watch which was four hours (if you did not do watch the first night, you did the second night either way, at some point during the training you would go 48 hours without sleep ). A light training week consisted of walking 10-15 miles each day under fighting loads to and from a weapons range. We did this every day, every week and every year.
...
Experience alone tells me that you cannot expect a person to carry that much percentage of their body weight over extended periods of time without it compromising the unit integrity and ability to fight. To me, that is the main problem with Women being assigned to an infantry unit. It is indeed very much a physical barrier. At this time, I do not see a way around that.

I'd hate to have to do that kind of training. This last PTP was heavily focused towards performance at EMV and in theater, so a lot of emphasis on patrolling and counter IED. Also, with your standard mix of annual training (rifle range, PFT/CFT, required classes, etc.) it makes it difficult to train to everything. However, patrolling is the good old standby. It doesn't cost anything, and you can generally do it anywhere.

The loadouts for riflemen are in the 90-110 lbs. range, fairly accurate as detailed by tpg in his graphic. However, given the weapons-specialty MOS's its gets much worse. There were ranges, typically the platoon/company-sized evaluations, where machinegunners were carrying 600-800 rounds of 7.62mm ammo per man in addition to the gun and associated equipment. It became a specific and deliberate part of the plan to ensure the Marines were could carry enough ammo to complete the mission while not overly burdening them. 200 rds weighs approx 17 lbs., M240/tripod itself weighs ~25 lbs (as divided up by the Marines). This weight is in addition to their body armor. These Marines then had to conduct a tactical foot movement for 1-1.5 km and ascend a hill (200 ft high) to establish a support by fire by force (which means on the run, with rifles at the ready). All in all these Marines were carrying anywhere from 50-100 lbs more gear then the riflemen. In theater, machinegunners can expect to carry the M240 and 600-800 rds of ammo by themself, with riflemen carrying a few hundred rounds of additional ammo.

This doesn't even mention the mortarmen or assaultmen. Both of which were carrying extensive loads in terms of ammunition (60mm) or rockets and demo (SMAWs, bangalores, APOBS). The assaultmen especially do a large amount of movement at the front of these attacks carrying especially large loads.


If you open the 03xx MOSs to females, these women will likely be eligible to be more than just riflemen. I feel as if this reality has not been given its due consideration.

 

[goaliedad]

Thank you for your kind words. I two have two thoughts that I wish to share.

First, regarding those very few (1%) women who might be able to become Infantry personnel. I personally like what Malachy Marine wrote and I concur with his view.

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.

Second, regarding leadership, I trust "most" of our military leadership to tell the civilian leadership "how it is truthfully." However our civilian leadership tends to bend to the political winds of the time and the latest poll. That concerns me a great deal.

Right now we do not have the studies to recommend a position one way or the other and I am not sure the time period given will allow for this to happen, especially given the budget cuts that are going to be coming. To me, it is an issue of do we spend money on studying a social integration issue or spend that precious resource refurbishing a military that has been at war for over a decade.

I do share your mistrust of our civilian leadership's motives. Unfortunately, that is what we live with and as any good Marine knows, you ultimately report to them and have to fight their wars with what they give you to fight with. Worrying about what they might be up to does nobody any good. I think you'd be telling your subordinates just that.

That being said, I disagree with the concept that we need to study the social integration aspects of these changes. The troops have to deal with open homosexuals in their ranks, they will deal with women in places they've never been either. And as to Malachy Marine's assertion that the Marines to have the resource to FIND exceptions, I don't believe they need to and shouldn't. The exceptions will find their places just fine without any help. They just don't want to be told (explicitly or implicitly) don't even bother because we know that you can't do it. Just leave the door open.

This whole thing takes me back to the first year my daughter played mite hockey. She had been through the "learn to" program at the facility (a top level 3-sheet facility used by a NHL team as their practice facility as well) the previous year and came to try out for their 8-team (160 player) league along with about 500 other kids.

They did their drills and skills stuff and to me (not a person with much hockey knowledge at the time never having played the sport), I didn't see why she was selected (as one of only 2 girls in the league - the other being a coach's daughter) for a team, but was very happy to see it.

A while into the season, I had an opportunity to talk to the coach and finally asked why he took my daughter over all those boys he didn't take. I thought it rather brave of him to take a chance on her, with the thought that her long-term future wasn't exactly the NHL. His answer surprisingly enough was that he didn't take her because she was a girl, but because when she missed a cone in one drill, she stopped, went back and re-did the drill correctly without being asked. "Coachable!" was his final comment. Other than the fact that she played a lot of defense that season (because she tended to cover for the boys who forgot where they were supposed to be playing), she wasn't treated any different than anyone else on the team.

It wasn't until many years later that we ran into the "she won't be able to keep up with them in a couple years" syndrome where she was cut from team tryouts where she was expected to start. Funny thing happened that season - she found a team that needed her (they had an injury issue) and even when that was no longer the case, they kept her as the #1. And her team did far better that season because of her. And to this day, she comes home for summer hockey (men's league) and gets called up to play with the local minor league players. Go figure.

It is also what drove me (literally and figuratively) to send her to boarding school, as I was sick and tired of playing political games. When an institution tells you they don't want you because they don't think you can compete despite being highly qualified, you go find another institution.

And to that end, I think the military may be missing out on a lot of talent because the impression out there is that they don't think any women can do the toughest jobs. Many of them just do their time and move on. Others don't even bother to apply.

I can't prove it, but ask your daughter what she would think of the Marines that DO allow these women who qualify (under the same standards as men) and perform with men. That pride within the ranks of women will pay much bigger dividends than you might expect. Perhaps many men don't get that part of it.

 

[Malachy Marine]

[A]s any good Marine knows, you ultimately report to [the SecDef/POTUS] and have to fight their wars with what they give you to fight with. Worrying about what they might be up to does nobody any good. I think you'd be telling your subordinates just that.

I don't think anyone is under any delusions about this. I am not worrying about "what they are up to." I am worrying about the second and third order effects and how this will effect combat effectiveness. This is my job as an officer. Not *****ing down to my subordinates.

The troops have to deal with open homosexuals in their ranks, they will deal with women in places they've never been either.

Homosexuals are not, to my knowledge, physiologically weaker than heterosexuals. Homosexual men are easily capable of maintaining the same standards as heterosexual men. As they share many of the same broad physical capabilities.

They just don't want to be told (explicitly or implicitly) don't even bother because we know that you can't do it. Just leave the door open.

There isn't even a definable "door" to leave open. This is because there exists no current physical standard for entry into the infantry. One would need to be developed, which takes time, research dollars, and manpower away from other areas. Additionally, the closet thing to a standard is the Combat Endurance Test at IOC. As all prospective infantry officers must successfully complete this evolution. However, no one who is or was involved in this test will notify you or anyone else of the standards. The biggest factor measured during this test is one's ability to deal with uncertainty. I can say it involves a tremendous amount of upper body strength, stamina and mental agility.

Finally, neither the Marine Corps nor the Infantry is comparable peewee hockey or even semi-pro hockey. It is an elite warfighting organization. We deal in both strong men and women. We must find jobs that are appropriate for those, who serve, leveraging their capabilities for the benefit of the service. I challenge you to consider your daughter in a hand to hand fight with a physically powerful male 6'0 200 lbs between the ages of 18-24 with similar training in basic to intermediate mixed martial arts. My money is on the man everytime. Consider my earlier examples of carrying loads. I do not know of a single female Marine that could even carry those weights for the duration required.

 

[goaliedad]

I don't think anyone is under any delusions about this. I am not worrying about "what they are up to." I am worrying about the second and third order effects and how this will effect combat effectiveness. This is my job as an officer. Not *****ing down to my subordinates.

I'm not sure what second or third order effects you are worrying about, but that would be the job of the folks developing the standards for qualifying infantry and other more physically demanding MOSs.

Homosexuals are not, to my knowledge, physiologically weaker than heterosexuals. Homosexual men are easily capable of maintaining the same standards as heterosexual men. As they share many of the same broad physical capabilities.

The issue I was addressing here was the mention of spending money on studying the social issues of integration mentioned in an earlier post. Money was spent on studying the effects of homosexuals openly serving which didn't exist. There is a long record of women serving alongside men in the military, so the expense of this study should not exist. I did not mean to infer that homosexuals (of either gender) are physiologically different from their heterosexual peers.

There isn't even a definable "door" to leave open. This is because there exists no current physical standard for entry into the infantry. One would need to be developed, which takes time, research dollars, and manpower away from other areas. Additionally, the closet thing to a standard is the Combat Endurance Test at IOC. As all prospective infantry officers must successfully complete this evolution. However, no one who is or was involved in this test will notify you or anyone else of the standards. The biggest factor measured during this test is one's ability to deal with uncertainty. I can say it involves a tremendous amount of upper body strength, stamina and mental agility.

Interesting paragraph... You say there is no standard, but then you go onto say that no one will notify you or anyone else of the standards. Confusing. What I read into this is that there is a test (Combat Endurance Test at IOC), one that measures a prospects physical (and psychological) ability to deal with the workload expected of the infantry. If one passes that test, they are judged to be qualified to be in the infantry.

I believe you like to point out the failure of the 2 female Marines who have attempted this test and point to that as proof that women cannot pass. From a statistical perspective, this is an illogical conclusion, because this is too small of a sample of the population. Beyond that, I find that accepting these failures as proof of the hypothesis (women cannot qualify) as having a limited view of the capacity of others based upon your socialization. It is not based upon scientific study, of which there is little evidence either way.

And since 2 have tried and failed, why do you see a problem with allowing any others who wish to try? Please don't give me the wasting their time argument. There are plenty of smaller men (and larger for that matter) who also come up short (pun intended). They are respected for trying and sent onto do something else. Nobody says that guys under 5' 6" and 140 lbs aren't allowed to sign up.

I just can't understand why people have a problem with letting them try?

Finally, neither the Marine Corps nor the Infantry is comparable peewee hockey or even semi-pro hockey. It is an elite warfighting organization. We deal in both strong men and women. We must find jobs that are appropriate for those, who serve, leveraging their capabilities for the benefit of the service. I challenge you to consider your daughter in a hand to hand fight with a physically powerful male 6'0 200 lbs between the ages of 18-24 with similar training in basic to intermediate mixed martial arts. My money is on the man everytime. Consider my earlier examples of carrying loads. I do not know of a single female Marine that could even carry those weights for the duration required.

I have never said that hockey is like the military. What I was talking to is the attitude that somehow all females are physiologically inferior to all males (i.e. the weakest male is still more qualified than strongest female) and that there is no use in any female even trying. The problem lies when one female accidentally gets through and outperforms a male counterpart. There are hockey parents who go nuts when their boy is shown up. And unfortunately, there will be a few boys in the military who will not accept the first woman who passes the same testing. This is the problem I am talking about.

But once that first female passes and is accepted, the idea that being in a unit is about what you can do will say more about the military as being "all about the mission" than all the years of denying the possibility ever can.

I agree 100% with your statement "We must find jobs that are appropriate for those, who serve, leveraging their capabilities for the benefit of the service." The disagreement I am having here is how the M or F question on an application disqualifies someone from taking a test. And no, my daughter doesn't have ideas about going infantry. I know she would respect the candidates who do attempt regardless of the outcome. And that has value, believe it or not.

And if you are worried that our test is defective and might let an unqualified prospect through (whether male or female), perhaps we need to fix the test, as I wouldn't want to put a weakling male in a position to endanger his peers either.

 

[Hurricane12]

In my time, there was no written standard for selection and entrance into the Infantry Officer’s Course. Any qualified male 2Lt who successfully completes TBS can select IOC if it is available when the time comes. However, the Staff at TBS has a way of influencing this process based upon the evaluations of the staff during TBS. At least that is how it used to happen….but that was during my time there which admittedly has been awhile. I will defer to others with more current experience than I for more up to date information.

However, while there is no written standard for entrance besides completing TBS, there is a hard and fast written standard for completing IOC. In my day, that was the completion of the Combat Endurance Course. It is one of the most physically and mentally challenging course one will ever complete. In fact it is really three courses in one. It used to be run in full utility uniform with 40 Lbs of combat equipment, including the service rifle. It used to include the standard O-Course at the beginning and then a 7 mile run through rugged terrain that had both natural and man-made obstacles. A Candidate had to complete the course in 70 minutes. BTW - IWOC students had the same standard.

Back in my time the WOBC students, which included male and female Marines, ran the same course. The male Marines had to finish the course in 80 Minutes to pass the event and the female Marines had to finish the course in 90 minutes. In my time there, both as a student and as an instructor, I never witnessed a Female Marine finish the course in less than 75 Minutes. That occurred twice that I can think of.

Now those standards, as well as the course, have probably changed. I cannot speak for how it is today.

The current (TBS standard) E-Course is the O-Course followed by 5 miles with gear (40-50 lbs)
The passing/maxing scores are 80/60 min for men and 90/70 for females. The record scores are something like 45 minutes for men and around 50 minutes for females, but those were also apparently done without gear and just a rifle.

I was surprised how much of an equalizer the E-Course turned out to be: a lot of Marines (male and female) who are fast runners in green-on-green or just boots really got bogged down by the extra weight and got broken off.
Most males in my platoon/company finished in between 65-75 minutes (top score in my platoon was 52!) with a decent amount maxing. Most females also finished around 75 minutes. Very few finished north of 80 and a good number, one or two per platoon, maxed. There were a couple females, including a couple USNA grads, in my company that came dangerously close to maxing by the male standard.

The CET in its current form is administered as a prerequisite for starting IOC. Supposedly the exact events involved change slightly every time.

This NY Times article may be a helpful primer for those asking about the CET. As the Marines with actual USMC experience (tpg, MalachyMarine, USMCGrunt, GoSox) can probably attest, infantry guys are fairly secretive about what IOC really is like aside from "it sucks."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/u...n-its-doors-to-women.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As tpg mentioned, while technically IOC is open to all who pass TBS (now male and female), it seems that the instructors at TBS have a lot more say in who actually goes where than the "thirds" system of MOS selection would imply. Putting infantry first and being (by standing within the company) "good" enough to go to IOC is no guarantee that you'll actually go. I know of a couple guys from the last TBS class, which had lots of spots to go to IOC, that put infantry first who are going to do other things.

 

[MemberLG]

I am side tracking a bit, but anyone have visbility on the two female Army officers that graudated from the Sapper school recently? My understanding is that the Sapper school is like a mini-Ranger school. I am assuming there are some physical standards. So did the standards stay the same or not?

 

[Jcleppe]

I am side tracking a bit, but anyone have visbility on the two female Army officers that graudated from the Sapper school recently? My understanding is that the Sapper school is like a mini-Ranger school. I am assuming there are some physical standards. So did the standards stay the same or not?

According to a few articles written the women were subject to the same standards as the men.

In the Sapper Leader Course, “there has been no change to the expected performance of graduates,” she said. “In Sapper school, the [physical training] test is the male, 17-21 [years old] standard regardless of what is between your legs.”

Since 1999, nearly 60 women have made the grade

 

[BigBear]

Recent quote from GEN Dempsey:
"When a reporter mentioned that the Pentagon’s stance appeared to keep open the possibility that some occupational specialties would be off limits to females, Gen. Dempsey responded: 'If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”

 

[MemberLG]

According to a few articles written the women were subject to the same standards as the men.

In the Sapper Leader Course, “there has been no change to the expected performance of graduates,” she said. “In Sapper school, the [physical training] test is the male, 17-21 [years old] standard regardless of what is between your legs.”

It must been a relatively old article as 17-21 old standard is not the toughest standard.

Wondering, why neither side mentions Sapper School as a case study?

 

[SamAca10]

Women's Rights Activist Demands More Females Killed in Combat

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a highly-anticipated press conference held in the nation’s Capitol today, a leading women’s activist announced that she would be taking up the cause of having more female service-members killed in combat.

U.S. Representative Judy Chu (D, CA) announced the creation of Femme Fatal, a movement specifically tasked with ensuring that women get the same opportunities to be shot, killed, wounded, and suffer debilitating emotional stress as men throughout the military.

She appeared with Private Ellen Brown, an active-duty female soldier serving with the 10th Mountain Division in southern Afghanistan.

Private Brown, a supply clerk, is currently a member of a Female Engagement Team whose duties include speaking with local women on patrol and searching female civilians. She appeared via Skype from her base’s Morale Welfare and Recreation center.

“Women make up 14.6% of the active duty military, but just 2.3% of the casualties,” complained Rep. Chu.

“Did you know that in the past decade, our military has only had 140 women killed in combat?” asked Rep. Chu. ”Compare that to more than six thousand men killed, and it paints a disturbing picture of a military reluctant to let women near the front lines. Obviously we have to find a way to narrow the casualty gap.”

The idea of women serving behind the front lines has largely disappeared in Iraq and Afghanistan as more and more women have experienced combat at some level.

But Femme Fatal says a “camouflage ceiling” still exists, blocking women from serving in Special Forces, Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery, a ceiling that Rep. Chu believes can only be shattered by, “blood… lots of blood.”

In recent years, the military has seen multiple cases of heroism from women in combat but divisions have continued to grow on both sides of the debate.

Some detractors have said females cannot handle the stresses of infantry life, while proponents have noted examples of women who have excelled in a male-dominated military.

During the conference, James Durst, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, asked Rep. Chu about how the physical differences between the sexes would affect the standards and methods used in training to produce America’s most elite warriors.

“If a man can do it, a woman can do it!” Rep. Chu responded.

“Private Brown is just as capable of having her arms and legs blown off by IEDs, her face ripped away by hot shrapnel, her throat torn open by a sniper’s bullet…”

At this point Private Brown doubled-over vomiting and was heard saying, “**** this ****, I’m just here for the college money.”

“… before she’s unceremoniously kicked out of the Army because there are too many trigger-pullers and spends the rest of her life ****ting in a colostomy bag, begging the VA for her disability money,” Rep. Chu finished.

Some people remain unconvinced.

“It’s called infantry-MAN, not infantry-LADY, and that’s a scientific fact,” said Ron Meyer, a former infantryman who served in Korea and Vietnam, and avid Duffel Blog commenter.
Female Marines With All The Gear Needed For War, Including Their Favorite Stuffed Animals

Female Marines With All The Gear Needed For War, Including Their Favorite Stuffed Animals

“I don’t care what the studies or the polling show. Some things just need to stay the way they are.”

Others, including some women in uniform, were upset over Rep. Chu’s eagerness for a higher female body count.

“Who the hell are these women and why are they so eager to get me killed?” demanded Sergeant Jacquie Williams, a female combat veteran of Iraq. ”Do any of them plan on going anytime soon? I’ve been in combat. I’ve done the job. But groups like this don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.”

Faced with that criticism, Rep. Chu also announced that as soon as the ban on women in combat units was lifted, she intended to immediately resign her congressional seat and enlist in the Army as an infantry-person.

“Why should Private Brown get to have all the fun?” Rep. Chu laughed.

“Besides, I’ve always wanted to see what the inside of a human head looks like after I’ve smashed it open with my E-tool.”

Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/07/w...ster-calls-for-female-infantry/#ixzz2JIrAkX1K
Follow us: @theduffelblog on Twitter | duffelblog on Facebook

http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/07/women-in-combat-activists-celebrate-mediocre-war-experience-to-bolster-calls-for-female-infantry/

 

[Jcleppe]

It must been a relatively old article as 17-21 old standard is not the toughest standard.

Wondering, why neither side mentions Sapper School as a case study?

The article that mentioned the standards was written in June 2012.

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[GoSox]

The article that mentioned the standards was written in June 2012.

I was wondering the same thing.

I'm assuming that Sapper School, while no doubt physically and mentally demanding, might have more of a technical emphasis to it after an initial weeding out phase, and would not approach the giant physical suck-ish-ness that is BUDS (at least the first phase), USMC IOC, or Ranger School. Maybe people recognize that to emphasize the Sapper School thing too heavily would be to lead with their chins on this.

To combine responses, interesting post with the quotation from GEN Dempsey. The quickest way for this whole effort to "go pear shaped," as our Brit brothers and sisters in arms used to like to say (pear shaped is bad), is for the services to ram changes in "standards" for signature courses like BUDs or IOC or Ranger School through. Anybody who is honest knows that getting through an experience like IOC has an element of luck to it (my knee didn't blow out in 2 places because my foot didn't land wrong on that rock), but if you get through those courses nobody thinks you skated. Nobody. Even if all the studies in the world show that you don't need to beat BUDs candidates down with log PT to produce good SEALS, if you start messing with the mojo of these courses it will taint the achievements of any woman who makes it through and make it that much harder for combat troops to give that soldier/Marine/operator the respect she might deserve.

I'm open minded on all of this, I really think I am, but it would be a terrible idea to move the goal posts right now, even if you think they were set too far apart to start with.

 

[MemberLG]

. . .

I'm open minded on all of this, I really think I am, but it would be a terrible idea to move the goal posts right now, even if you think they were set too far apart to start with.

The sad thing for me is that I lost faith in the leadership to not change the standard.

I think they still do peer rating at Ranger school. It is what it is as fair or unfair I can feel future, if any, female Ranger students getting peered out. Personally, I think the peer rating works most of the time, not all the time. If the system was good enough for last x years, will the Army leadership change it if too many future female Ranger students get peered out?

Ps. Had a chaplain get peered out.

 

[TheUnderdog]

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/27/some-advice-on-women-in-combat-from-a-female-veteran/

Interesting perspective from a female combat vet.