Women in Combat Branches

So...I happened to watch the Daily Show last night, I know it's the "Fake News" and is base in comedy, at least it used to be.

They addressed the women in combat issue with their usual tongue in cheek manner. During the show they had an interview with a Marine Capt. that is one of the women suing the Military to allow women in combat. While the interview was done with sarcasm it was interesting to hear a couple statements from the Capt.

When asked about why women should be allowed in combat her answer was:

"Women have been in combat zones for years now, they get shot at and return fire. These women are not allowed to have an official combat position which hurts their chances for promotion"

Being in a combat zone is different then being in a FOB miles away in the mountains.

When asked what she would say to all those that feel that women should not be in combat positions she replied:

"I don't have to say anything to them, one day they will all die off and we will just keep doing what we are doing"

Interesting opinion.

To me this Capt. is not the best spokesperson for women in combat.

I'm trying to keep an open mind on this whole policy but it's hard sometime when the talking heads on both sides don't seem to know when silence is golden.
 
"Women have been in combat zones for years now, they get shot at and return fire. These women are not allowed to have an official combat position which hurts their chances for promotion"

Everytime I hear "chances for promotion" mentioned regarding women in combat, I become less receptive to the idea.

Any large institution + careerism = bad
 
. . .

They addressed the women in combat issue with their usual tongue in cheek manner. During the show they had an interview with a Marine Capt. that is one of the women suing the Military to allow women in combat. While the interview was done with sarcasm it was interesting to hear a couple statements from the Capt.

When asked about why women should be allowed in combat her answer was:

"Women have been in combat zones for years now, they get shot at and return fire. These women are not allowed to have an official combat position which hurts their chances for promotion"

Perhaps our Marine Corps expert can chime in if the promotion system is different for the Marine Corps.

In the Army, the promotion rate up to LTC or COL is pretty much same across different branches.
 
Things like "Promotion Opportunities" keep being brought up. I wonder; if promotion wasn't tied some how to being in combat, would there be such a big push by certain women to be allowed into combat career fields? For the guys, their job is their job. If they have to go into combat, that's what they have to do. They don't get the choose: "I don't really care about getting promoted, I think I'll turn down going into combat".

And what about the women who don't care about promotions at the O-7 and above level? Will women in combat ONLY be open to volunteers? What about those who don't volunteer? Can the guys then opt out of going to a combat zone? What about the women who don't want to deploy or go to a combat zone, so they get medically waivered. e.g. They get pregnant. And yes, I witnessed this first hand a few times when I was active duty by women who didn't want to deploy. They got pregnant and was excused from deploying. Actually, during the gulf war, there were a lot of pregnancies on my base.

But seriously, there seems to be a lot of noise by those who talk about career advancement, but not by the majority of women where such career advancement isn't tied to being in a combat role. If this is going to progress, then I hope women in combat is just as equal as men in combat. I supported the ERA in the 70's. I'm all for a woman having an equal chance as a guy to get blown up, captured, injured, killed, etc... I just hope it's not only open to volunteers. If guys don't have choice if told they are going, neither should a woman.
 
One would assume that the promotion rates for women in the Coast Guard would be much higher. Not sure if that's true. Beyond berthing limitations, there are no restrictions.
 
I think one of the most important peices of this arguement that has yet to be clearly defined is what exactly makes something a "combat" role. I certainly agree that in today's operational environment, just about every MOS has seen "combat." But I would also argue that there is a big difference between experiencing "combat" - being directly engaged by the enemy and fighting back - and being a part of the Infantry. Similarly, there is a difference between the "combat" experienced by pilots in the air and that experienced by tankers on the ground. These differences cause quite a bit of confusion; as we have seen, proponents argue that women have already been in combat for years, which may not be entirtely accurate depending on your definition of the term.

I think a better definition of "combat" will help everyone understand what exactly they are arguing over.
 
. . .
I think a better definition of "combat" will help everyone understand what exactly they are arguing over.

Some people don't want a clear definition as to it will be harder to argue against a clear definition.

If I recall correctly, past discussions about combat exclusion focused on higher chance of engaging in direct combat situation (or something close to it). So Infantry more. Quartermaters, less. We all acknowledge that non-combat branch soldiers both male and females have been in combat for last 12 years. Enemy is not going to care what your branch is.
 
General Dempsey

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff came and addressed the Corps of Cadets this afternoon, and he provided a really interesting perspective on women being allowed in combat positions. He not only pointed out that women have been serving in combat zones for years now, but that there is going to be a real need for women to be eligible for these positions looking ahead. Statistically, only 1 in 4 American males are eligible to join the military. According to him, we need as many qualified people as we can get, and that includes females.
 
Not sure if I think that is a good answer. I would assume, if 1 in 4 men are eligible, then regardless of the population size, that would be the average over many years. In the 80's, the military was MUCH LARGER.

So with LESS SLOTS and a LARGER POPULATION, and the economy in the toilet; the branches of the military have not had any problem meeting their quotas or requirements.

In other words, 1 in 4 is irrelevant if that number equals 35,000,000 (35 million) but you only need 1,431,000 total; to include officers, enlisted, and cadets.

Yes, I agree women have served in combat in the past. Just like gays have been in the military forever. But sorry to say, you Chief Of Staff's answer isn't even logical. We don't "Need as many qualified people as we can get". Our military is smaller than it use to be, will probably get even smaller, the population is growing, and as long as the economy stays in the toilet; recruiting will stay at all time highs.
 
According to him, we need as many qualified people as we can get, and that includes females.

Follow up question would have been.... if we're started to downsize, wouldn't that suggest we have more than enough qualified people, including females?
 
Follow up question would have been.... if we're started to downsize, wouldn't that suggest we have more than enough qualified people, including females?

I can agree with General Dempsey if he meant to say "best qualified" or "most qualified" or something along the line of more qualified applicants so we can pick and choose.
 
This girl is. If they let women in the Rangers by the time I need to make the decision (I am 14), I will definitely consider it, and I want to branch Infantry. Not that my mom knows... So excited...

Ashleigh
 
Back
Top