Women in the Infantry?

[gunner1zeus]

The debate is over the OPTION being open for women. That does not mean throw a helmet and camouflage cover on every mother you talk to. Respectfully, I must state that your arguments are becoming more of a personal battle than a debate on the actual topic.

Not to say I agree with the "white males" comment, but rationale behind it includes that fact that white males have always, throughout American and European history, had every right that others lack. Voting, military, land ownership, freedom, jobs, etc, the list goes on. Now as you state that your military experience (which I admire greatly) deems us unworthy of debating a specific policy, could the same not be said towards you, a white male, considering you have never faced oppression of rights based on racial/ethical/gender/etc background?

SVG:
I use every tool availble to me to defend my view on this or any other topic I post about. I have all the tact and diplomatic skills of a 16 pound bowling ball, I don't hide my opinions with carefully weaved verbage if you view this as a personal attack oh well.

how do you know that I'm a white male?
Are you using generalization? just lump him in with the rest of the stupid men.
by my views you assume that I'm white. aren't you showing some racist traits
by my opinions you assume that I'm a male aren't you showing a little sexism?
never assume anything.

 

[caroline]

The debate is over the OPTION being open for women. That does not mean throw a helmet and camouflage cover on every mother you talk to. Respectfully, I must state that your arguments are becoming more of a personal battle than a debate on the actual topic.

Not to say I agree with the "white males" comment, but rationale behind it includes that fact that white males have always, throughout American and European history, had every right that others lack. Voting, military, land ownership, freedom, jobs, etc, the list goes on. Now as you state that your military experience (which I admire greatly) deems us unworthy of debating a specific policy, could the same not be said towards you, a white male, considering you have never faced oppression of rights based on racial/ethical/gender/etc background?

I was given one hugely significant piece of advice by my Dad from the time I was a very young girl, SVG and he told me I could be whoever or whatever I wanted to be in life. He told me in order to achieve this goal I should ask question after question after question. Question old policies, old ideas and old ways of thinking. I'm sure many times during my life he wished he would never have told me this as I questioned many things he probably got sick of talking about, but he always answered. I wish he was still around ... I've got lots of questions in this world we're living in today.

So keep asking, keep questioning and don't stop when someone becomes offended or attempts to turn the tables on you by labeling you a reverse "sexist" ... actually laughing to myself at that one. Way to try and scare off a young woman interested in contributing to her country! I notice it's been weeks and she doesn't seem to be running away.

 

[Maximus]

I was given one hugely significant piece of advice by my Dad from the time I was a very young girl, SVG and he told me I could be whoever or whatever I wanted to be in life. He told me in order to achieve this goal I should ask question after question after question. Question old policies, old ideas and old ways of thinking. I'm sure many times during my life he wished he would never have told me this as I questioned many things he probably got sick of talking about, but he always answered. I wish he was still around ... I've got lots of questions in this world we're living in today.

Sounds like one of the rare good old white men

 

[caroline]

Sounds like one of the rare good old white men

Oh, he was ... especially if the "rare" part you're referring to taught me to question all of the "good old white men" I met!!! Man I miss him ... they don't make them like that anymore.

 

[gunner1zeus]

Caroline:

Do you think it's good advice to someone considering the military for a career and even more one contemplating going to one of the academies and becoming an officer in the military to (1) question authority (2) question policies. What's next question direct orders? I could agree with your question hypotheses if you would add "in the proper time and place" but you won't,so I don't.

Are you shaking the old boy tree looking loose nuts to fall out. again

 

[Xyz]

SVG:
I use every tool availble to me to defend my view on this or any other topic I post about. I have all the tact and diplomatic skills of a 16 pound bowling ball, I don't hide my opinions with carefully weaved verbage if you view this as a personal attack oh well.

how do you know that I'm a white male?
Are you using generalization? just lump him in with the rest of the stupid men.
by my views you assume that I'm white. aren't you showing some racist traits
by my opinions you assume that I'm a male aren't you showing a little sexism?
never assume anything.

Thank you Caroline. Good advice your father gave.

And it is not sexism, Zues, because why would a female possible advocate the oppression of her own sex? I do not mean to sound rude when I point out that it seems you have absolutely no fact nor argument to back up your opinion, so you have resorted to a weak form of slander. Trying to knock on my character in order to try and nullify my credibility in the eyes of who knows who. Give me the cold truth behind reasoning as to why women should remain with fewer rights than men in the military.

However, if this is a ploy to try and fuel my determination to achieve my best, then by far, you have done a great job of it.

Another response, there may be some who will hide behind every archaeic tradition, but there will always be those for innovation. How do you think the first women joined the military? How do you think the first woman voted? How do you think the first african-Americans gained these rights? And every other possible account of this?

"When men are easy in their circumstances, they are naturally enemies to innovations" -Joseph Addison

And I plan on going with the flow and having life take me where it does under current circumstances, so I will agree that there is a time and a place. But there will always be that anamoly.

 

[Chockstock]

Women are blessed with that special ability to create life where there was none. Its something that we guys dont have and what I think is the more meaningful difference between the two sexes.

Patriotism does not cross party lines, races, and definitely not gender. Although I commend those women who are willing to go to the frontlines and possibly give their lives for their country, I am against sending women into battle. In addition to other reasons, I dont think its morally right to let people who can give birth to new human beings risk their lives and die. Women are too valuable of a part of society to be killed.

You might snort at this now - even if we are engaged in two "wars" right now (if they can be classified as wars at all) where the casualty rates are the lowest ever and the survivability rates the highest. But we need to look into the future and consider the worst case scenarios. If a conflict occurs at the scale of WWII or Vietnam, a total assimilation of women into the military would mean that a great number of female soldiers would die along with their male counterparts. During times of war, the most basic and most important unit of society, the nuclear family, already faces fragmentation and instability due to the vast amounts of men fighting and dying. Its completely unhealthy for a child to grow up without a father. I would say its even worse to have to grow up without a mother.

This is in addition with some of the reasons already stated above: difficulty of assimilation, risk of rape, distracting male soldiers, etc...I dont think women should be sent to the frontlines.

 

[Maximus]

Ahhh, to be young and naive again!

 

[gunner1zeus]

Ahhh, to be young and naive again!

MAX:
After reading some of the past entries in this thread from a few of the contributers you shouldn't group young with naive. Some have retained their naivety well past the young stage. I would settle for Ahhhh, to be young again..

 

[America's Finest]

Women are blessed with that special ability to create life where there was none. Its something that we guys dont have and what I think is the more meaningful difference between the two sexes.

Patriotism does not cross party lines, races, and definitely not gender. Although I commend those women who are willing to go to the frontlines and possibly give their lives for their country, I am against sending women into battle. In addition to other reasons, I dont think its morally right to let people who can give birth to new human beings risk their lives and die. Women are too valuable of a part of society to be killed.

You might snort at this now - even if we are engaged in two "wars" right now (if they can be classified as wars at all) where the casualty rates are the lowest ever and the survivability rates the highest. But we need to look into the future and consider the worst case scenarios. If a conflict occurs at the scale of WWII or Vietnam, a total assimilation of women into the military would mean that a great number of female soldiers would die along with their male counterparts. During times of war, the most basic and most important unit of society, the nuclear family, already faces fragmentation and instability due to the vast amounts of men fighting and dying. Its completely unhealthy for a child to grow up without a father. I would say its even worse to have to grow up without a mother.

This is in addition with some of the reasons already stated above: difficulty of assimilation, risk of rape, distracting male soldiers, etc...I dont think women should be sent to the frontlines.

Wow, where to begin...

Okay so according to you, women are too valuable to have the right to die for our country? Should we have IQ tests for those entering combat arms and if they score too high we disqualify them because they are too important to society and would be better off being a scientist? After all, we don't want to let "precious people" in our society in in combat, that right is reserved for the people who have no other use to our country.

Women do not create life alone, life is the product of a female AND a male. Just because they carry the fetus until it is born does not make them holy. Men and women are two halves of a whole, each as important as the other. The human race depends on both.

If women are sent to combat, they will die just as much as men. If so many men have died in wars yet the population remains stable obviously the death rates of women in war will not affect it any more than men dying.

If women die in war it will make the same impact that the men dying in all past wars has made. You are acting as if were going to ship 100% of the female population to the front lines...do you realize that less than 1% of our population is in the military? Out of that 1%, less than half are women, and out of that 0.5% I will guess less than half would volunteer for combat roles. Out of that 0.25% of women in the combat role, not all will see combat and certainly not all will die. Tell me how losing less than 0.25% of the female population will hurt our reproduction?

If a conflict the scale of WWII comes again, God help us all because women will be the least of our problems.

I will also give a quick solution to the last few problems you mentioned.

difficulty of assimilation? It was difficult to assimilate other races into the military and society in general but difficulty is no excuse for withholding rights. I believe you said you were a minority in an earlier post. Does that mean your race should have never have been allowed in the service because it was so difficult assimilating them?

risk of rape? Women risk rape by being near men, so we should completely segregate women from working with men in any career field right? Any human being risks being hurt by another just by being near them, this doesn't mean they should be segregated. Women can also be raped in the non combat arms branches yet they serve there.

distracting male soldiers? That is the problem of the male soldier. They can be trained to avoid such distractions. Women should not have their rights taken away just because some men lack self control.

 

[RascalFlatts5858]

I will also give a quick solution to the last few problems you mentioned.

difficulty of assimilation? It was difficult to assimilate other races into the military and society in general but difficulty is no excuse for withholding rights. I believe you said you were a minority in an earlier post. Does that mean your race should have never have been allowed in the service because it was so difficult assimilating them?

risk of rape? Women risk rape by being near men, so we should completely segregate women from working with men in any career field right? Any human being risks being hurt by another just by being their them, this doesn't mean they should be segregated. Women can also be raped in the non combat arms branches yet they serve there.

distracting male soldiers? That is the problem of the male soldier. They can be trained to avoid such distractions. Women should not have their rights taken away just because some men lack self control.

I absolutely agree with your response. Just because something is difficult does not mean it shouldn't happen. Difficulty of assimilation is NOT an excuse for not allowing women in combat.

RascalFlatts5858

 

[BeatNavy]

I think the issue is not if women should be allowed to "be in combat". Women serve in aviation as pilots in the army, and navy, and air force. Women can serve as MPs. Women in transpo units see combat if their convoy is ambushed. Any job can face combat. The question is if women can handle the physical demands of serving in an infantry unit, and the answer is no.

 

[America's Finest]

I think the issue is not if women should be allowed to "be in combat". Women serve in aviation as pilots in the army, and navy, and air force. Women can serve as MPs. Women in transpo units see combat if their convoy is ambushed. Any job can face combat. The question is if women can handle the physical demands of serving in an infantry unit, and the answer is no.

Really? So you have tested every woman and none of them are stronger than men? If you enlisted now I am sure you would be allowed in an infantry unit. Does this mean you consider yourself stronger than every woman in the nation? Don't put a blanket statement without it being true. Ignorance will get you nowhere. The answer to your question is: Yes, there are some but they are a minority. Should we discriminate on them because they are a minority? That seems to be the opposite way our nation has worked so hard to go.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

back to the original question:

Women are entering the infantry as medics, now, women are fighting their way onto submarines, etc, etc... but what about as regular infantrymen? What are the reasons for the restrictions, anyways?

BeatNavy - You can argue women's role or lack there of in the branch of Infantry but not until you argue the larger question of excluding women from certain jobs.

The exclusion policy includes infantry but not only infantry.
For Army - here is the exclusion, the latest info I have:
http://www.usma.edu/dmi/pdf/femalesincombatarms.pdf
Females may not branch Infantry, Armor and are excluded in certain jobs in Air Defense Artillery and Field Artillery.
Here is the FA memo:

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.
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.

What this says is that females can branch FA but can't do the jobs they need to do to get promoted. This exclusion has nothing to do with the lack of physical strength of females but of the danger of the job.

The rationale for excluding females from infantry are the same as for Armor, ADA and FA explained in this report from 1998:
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ns99007.pdf

From this document:

Approximately 221,000 of DOD’s 1.4 million positions are closed to women,
who comprise about 14 percent of the armed services. About 101,700
(46 percent) of these positions are closed based on DOD’s policy of not
assigning women to occupations that require engagement in direct ground
combat. The remaining 119,300 positions are closed because they are
collocated and operate with direct ground combat units, are located on
certain ships where the cost of providing appropriate living arrangements
for women is considered prohibitive, or are in units that conduct special
operations and long-range reconnaissance missions. We found no
positions closed to women because of job-related physical requirements.
DOD’s current rationale for excluding women from direct ground combat
units or occupations is similar to its rationale when it first formalized the
combat exclusion policy in 1994. At that time, DOD officials did not
consider changing its long-standing policy because they believed that the
integration of women into direct ground combat units lacked both
congressional and public support.

SVG - the short answer to your second question is - It's political.


Chockstock - If you are going to West Point, pm me and I will give you a reading list before you get to Beast.

 

[goaliedad]

Seeing that it is primarily the "dangerous job" issue from JAM's quote, I can see that barrier falling in the next serious discussion of the issue, if one is considered in the near future.

Consider how many women end up violating the "collocated and operate with direct ground combat units" idea expressed. Let's face it. Women are delivering the ordinance and supplies (probably one of the most dangerous missions in our current operations in theater), providing critical translation services to our boots on the ground (and not from a remote location mind you), and conducting the business of the infantry in the towns and cities where local custom makes women better suited to perform operations (exposing themselves to the risks of suicide bombers et. al.).

Strangely enough the only thing sexist about the whole arrangement is that while women get to do many of the most dangerous jobs out there, they don't get to do the ones that allow them to be on the offensive - only to respond after the enemy has had their first shot.

While current policy seems to be to aimed at protecting women, the current practical application of such policy would appear ineffective at implementing that aim. Sooner or later they are going to figure out that the plans are the first casualty of war and that it is futile to try to protect women in theater and you may as well make the best use of your resources.

While I wouldn't go as far as to require women to take assignments in the so-called "dangerous" MOS, I would not restrict them from doing so, if qualified to carry out the job.

 

[BeatNavy]

Really? So you have tested every woman and none of them are stronger than men? If you enlisted now I am sure you would be allowed in an infantry unit. Does this mean you consider yourself stronger than every woman in the nation?

No, I do not. But both bruno and tpg have both given their professional opinions based upon years of experience that there is a very small chance a woman could qualify for the job, and the vast majority of women simply would not be able to qualify for the job.

"They have to work harder, but everyone knows that every woman is capable of being as physically fit as every man"

I strongly disagree with this statement.
As much some want to deny it, there ARE differences between men and women, and one of these is physical size and strength. If this statement were true, women would compete in the same athletics as men. There is a reason there are no female NFL players.

And JAM- It seems as if the policy is designed in such a way so women are not going to be in a situation where the primary nature of a job is to be in a dangerous situation. I think this, as you said, is a political decision because some are not comfortable with the idea of women being in a combat situation. I think this opinion comes out of a fear of women facing combat, and is rooted in concepts of traditional gender roles. That being said, it is not one I agree with. I see no problem with women serving in field artillery or ADA.

 

[gunner1zeus]

Beat NAVY:
Becarefull with thinking like that or posting your opinions, some of them may not meet with approval of team MOM and it"s leader JAM if that happens you will become a uninformed, knucke dragging, neanderthal white male. you must march in lockstep with team MOM or you will be labeled as a despised male.

 

[Maximus]

I have zero problems with women in combat or any job for that matter, as long as they display the required skills and don't get any special privileges, everyone is exactly equal in living conditions and respect. <period

One other thing to consider, what are the percentages of female enlisted? We may just need to start the Draft again because I don't for see a huge influx if GI Jane infantry soldiers from the organic volunteer enlisted female army, and, one thing I've learned from these forums: enlisted will only follow the same gender, race or ethnic background officer.

 

[America's Finest]

No, I do not. But both bruno and tpg have both given their professional opinions based upon years of experience that there is a very small chance a woman could qualify for the job, and the vast majority of women simply would not be able to qualify for the job.

"They have to work harder, but everyone knows that every woman is capable of being as physically fit as every man"

I strongly disagree with this statement.
As much some want to deny it, there ARE differences between men and women, and one of these is physical size and strength. If this statement were true, women would compete in the same athletics as men. There is a reason there are no female NFL players.

Men are generally stronger but that does not mean ALL men are stronger than ALL women. While rare, some women can meet and exceed male standards in combat units. I will agree the above statement is false since it claims EVERY woman is capable of being as fit as EVERY man, however, I do believe SOME women can do it.

Women should be permitted to fill combat roles in the U.S. ground forces because women are physically capable. Despite the evidence, opponents still talk about physique and lack of strength as a reason why women should not fill combat roles. When we look at the evidence, however, we see that women are physically capable of filling combat roles. In a June 22, 1997 New York Times Magazine article, Rayner explains, that if the one looks at the Military Occupational Specialties, few actually demand great strength (40). In fact, wrote Linda Francke in her book Ground Zero, a 1996 Army study found, that after six months of specialized strength and stamina training, 78% of the women could qualify for "very heavy" military jobs (jobs requiring the lifting of up to 100 pounds) (248). Not only did this training bring the women up to par with almost all the men, but, in a January 13, 1997 U.S. News & World Report article, another effect of this training was an increase in the group's self-confidence (Gest, et.al 20). Additionally, the premise that all men are stronger than women is not true. Francke, citing a study in her book, that 32% of women (202 out of 623) had met or exceeded the minimum male standard test scores on the Army Physical Fitness Test (248). A July 21, 1991 New York Times article reports that 20% of women are as strong as the weakest 20% of men (McNeil A3). Another question posed in Stiehm's book, Arms and the Enlisted Woman, is how little strength is needed and how it could be balanced by an enlistee's other desirable qualities like education and experience (204). With the exception of elite units, strength has not been an issue for men. Additionally, the way war is fought is changing, modern infantry now ride in armored personnel carriers or helicopters, so marching long distance with heavy packs is not as much of a factor. Previously and to some degree now, the military has always accommodated men of many sizes and strengths. Individuals are used as needed (Stiehm 204). The services are making an issue out of something that doesn't apply to the male portion of the military population. Strength seems to be an "objective, or gender free" method to preclude women from combat.

 

[Chockstock]

Wow, where to begin...

Okay so according to you, women are too valuable to have the right to die for our country? Should we have IQ tests for those entering combat arms and if they score too high we disqualify them because they are too important to society and would be better off being a scientist? After all, we don't want to let "precious people" in our society in in combat, that right is reserved for the people who have no other use to our country.

You just twisted my post into something that I did not say. I definitely did not say that some people are more expendable than others and I definitely did not imply that in any way.

Women do not create life alone, life is the product of a female AND a male. Just because they carry the fetus until it is born does not make them holy. Men and women are two halves of a whole, each as important as the other. The human race depends on both.

You are correct.

If women are sent to combat, they will die just as much as men. If so many men have died in wars yet the population remains stable obviously the death rates of women in war will not affect it any more than men dying.

Explain how a population of any nation sees no change after a war that drastically drains it of lives?

If women die in war it will make the same impact that the men dying in all past wars has made. You are acting as if were going to ship 100% of the female population to the front lines...do you realize that less than 1% of our population is in the military? Out of that 1%, less than half are women, and out of that 0.5% I will guess less than half would volunteer for combat roles. Out of that 0.25% of women in the combat role, not all will see combat and certainly not all will die. Tell me how losing less than 0.25% of the female population will hurt our reproduction?

If a conflict the scale of WWII comes again, God help us all because women will be the least of our problems.

You failed to consider the effects of greater scale conflicts. Your numbers are meaningless if the big picture changes. During WWII, the % of our population employed by the military was almost 13%, and a very tiny fraction of that were women. If another world war erupts, heaven forbid, the assimilation of women in our military would spell disaster for them and America's families, as I mentioned before.

I will also give a quick solution to the last few problems you mentioned.

difficulty of assimilation? It was difficult to assimilate other races into the military and society in general but difficulty is no excuse for withholding rights. I believe you said you were a minority in an earlier post. Does that mean your race should have never have been allowed in the service because it was so difficult assimilating them?

Women have different physical and medical needs than women. You are erroneously comparing the assimilation of minorities, who also happen to be male, to the assimilation of women, which is a completely different story. Many of our generals today are expressing their opinion that the military is simply unready for such changes to the military's living quarters, redistribution and redesign of equipment, and other logistical problems facing a large influx of a different gender in the military, not to mention the costs.

risk of rape? Women risk rape by being near men, so we should completely segregate women from working with men in any career field right? Any human being risks being hurt by another just by being near them, this doesn't mean they should be segregated. Women can also be raped in the non combat arms branches yet they serve there.

You are missing the point by a mile. Would you consider the situation of men and women together in a battlezone in a world war the same as the situation of men and women together in an office cubical? When both are thrust into highly destablized, chaotic situations, it is much more likely that rape can occur than male and female coworkers chatting over their morning coffee at the workplace.

distracting male soldiers? That is the problem of the male soldier. They can be trained to avoid such distractions. Women should not have their rights taken away just because some men lack self control.

That is not the problem of a male soldier. You cannot "train" men to suppress their sexual instincts as much as you can "train" men to shoot a weapon. We are not taking away anyone's rights here. Females and males alike have to consider the consequences before deciding whether to fully "equalize" society, as in destroy traditional gender roles by allowing women into the military.

;;