Men do you feel pressured to support women in combat roles?

2016-02-25T14:35:47-05:00

I see a lot of men being supportive about women in combat positions. I'm wondering if this is real support or just paying tribute to the current politically correct band wagon.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Feb 25 at 2016 2:36 PM

2016-02-25T14:36:50-05:00

No I don't CPT Private RallyPoint Member. I was part of the first USMAPS class 1975-1976 and the first USMA class 1976-1980 which included women as cadet candidates in USMAPS and as cadets at USMA.
I served with women in many assignments throughout my career which included periods when certain leaders wanted to ensure that diversity was included in promotion rates - distribution rates by gender and race were both being looked at.
I hope that the leadership exercises wisdom and does not make rash judgments.

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Feb 25 at 2016 2:36 PM

2016-02-25T14:36:53-05:00

Not at all CPT C, I respect and support women in combat. If a woman wants to be in a combat role go for it!!

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 2:44 PM

2016-02-25T14:44:28-05:00

My only major concern in the "PT Test effect". If they can perform the job to the same standard (there are many who can) then I have nothing against them being in combat roles. If they are meeting reduced PT standards, or other reduced standards, for the sake of making it "fairer" for them to pass the qualification tests, then I have a problem with it. Or, if they are being unfairly allotted limited slots in the interest of making sure they amount to x-amount of combat roles, then we got a problem too...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 25 at 2016 2:49 PM

2016-02-25T14:49:04-05:00

I follow the data, and my opinion has evolved according to the release of the data. As new data is released, my opinion will continue to evolve.

As current, the most comprehensive data set is the USMC integration training from last year. The take away from that was that "as a class, while in ground based roles (as opposed to mounted), females suffered SIGNIFICANTLY higher injury rates, while simultaneously losing efficiency in combat metrics." This is counter to the Marine Corps philosophy of "Mission Accomplishment, Troop Welfare." That said, why would we do it?

This is not to say women shouldn't be in combat. Just that they shouldn't be in those specific roles, until we can overcome those issues. All other roles had already opened up, and the USMC was already working towards that goal anyways.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Feb 25 at 2016 2:55 PM

2016-02-25T14:55:27-05:00

This is a classic "results will vary" discussion. Although "front line" as an ENL, I wasn't by definition being a Seabee as an officer. We brought women into the Bees in the late 80's and early 90s. The dinosaur factor was more prevalent then vs. now. But there were things going to make it work out like no Seabee was required to schlep 140 pounds over 20 miles just over marathon time. It's the extremes which we see the most push back. I'm not qualified to judge the extremes. I will say a lot of hesitation vanished when a petite female Bee was a Picasso on Ma Duce. There's skill and then then there is artistry. So the new normal seems to be headed to even more integration. Rather than look at it as a pure potential casualty delta, maybe the service and the Nation are better off for it. Time will tell and people will tend to cherry pick aspects to match their gut.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Feb 25 at 2016 2:57 PM

2016-02-25T14:57:17-05:00

For me, me alone, it gets down to, can you do the job male or female. If you want to be a heavy track mechanic and can't lift your tool box or come with a way of moving it around, or break that bolt free. You are going to have issues. I think for some things a lot of women in the OD branch would be well suited for track mechanics. I am 6'2", I can't say how hard it is some times to get into to some of those smaller areas to tighten a bolt or remove a nut, hook up a cable. Some places just weren't meant for guys my height and size to go. My fiancée is a scientist, she does her own break jobs, and oil changes, while being able to disassemble and reassemble a device that analyses Gene Expression and interpret the Data. Me, the only thing I know about splitting jeans come after thanksgiving dinner.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 2:58 PM

2016-02-25T14:58:25-05:00

I absolutely do. I know that it is going to happen, one way or another, but I also know that the harder I push back, and the more times I point out my disagreement, the more of a sh*tbag that I look like, and the more of a misogynist and a bigot that I appear. Which in turn, impacts my reputation in my unit, which subsequently affects how I am treated and dealt with. So I honestly feel that, though I VERY STRONGLY disagree with their integration, I have no choice but to stand behind it.

Response by LTC Thomas Tennant made Feb 25 at 2016 3:09 PM

2016-02-25T15:09:50-05:00

WATCH THIS .... think we have a lot to learn from tiny Israel? Since 1948 (and earlier if you count Palestine Mandate Period) women have served in combat roles. Both Israel and Switzerland have a total draft system where men and women serve from 18-60 in some military role. Another neat thing about the IDF is you can not be and officer until you have successfully served your first four years as enlisted.

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/the-women-that-sacrifice-everything-to-keep-israel-safe/

The women that sacrifice everything to keep Israel safe

Explosive documentary reveals what it is like to be female combat soldier in the IDF.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Feb 25 at 2016 3:10 PM

2016-02-25T15:10:53-05:00

There's no pressure. I've had women in my combat formations in OIF, OND and OEF when i was still active. Doing their jobs alongside my guys. Pulling security, part of raids, patrols etc. so we should all get over it. It's been happening and this is the next step.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Feb 25 at 2016 3:24 PM

2016-02-25T15:24:49-05:00

I'm not biting! I would feel equal pressure to support any soldier going into a combat role while they'er preparing CONUS or when they deploy!

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Feb 25 at 2016 3:25 PM

2016-02-25T15:25:26-05:00

I will answer based on experience against well trained, well armed and well used/employed women fighters of Colombia 1985 M-19 Guerrilla Fighters, these women were excellent and deadly as a weapons, they did not surrender and fought like demons. We need to copy that.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Feb 25 at 2016 3:29 PM

2016-02-25T15:29:08-05:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member the Military is evolving. If the person can do the job regardless of sex let them. I feel no pressure it is time for open minds

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 3:35 PM

2016-02-25T15:35:37-05:00

No. I have always advocated for an end to all forms of discrimination. I was very active in advicating for the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", for all combat roles to be open to women and for transgender soldiers to be permitted to serve.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Feb 25 at 2016 3:39 PM

2016-02-25T15:39:09-05:00

No pressure in the least. I support women in combat arms with the caveat that no changes are made to current standards..which I don't envision happening. Its actually easier to be on the opposition on this issue.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Feb 25 at 2016 3:42 PM

2016-02-25T15:42:30-05:00

If I was still in, I would have a vested interest seeing women succeed.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Feb 25 at 2016 3:42 PM

2016-02-25T15:42:58-05:00

If you want to know why the voice is minimal refer to Art 88 UCMJ. If you speak out your career is on the line.
I'm voluntarily resigning so I feel more liberty to speak. Many in the military are muzzled by their oath and professionalism to keep their opinions to themselves or their mouths shut. If you disagree with homosexuals serving, to say so would be an EO issue. If you disagree with Transgenders serving you can say so currently, but in the coming months you'll be silenced. If you speak out strongly regarding females in combat arms again an EO issue. And the list goes on. If you value your retirement and providing for your family you better keep your mouth shut is the reality. So if those behaving as professionals are silenced except for annomous surveys who does that leave?
The vast majority of people stating their opinion are the peanut gallery and not in the service or in combat arms themselves, but they never state that as a preface to their opinion.
A lot of things being debated today are hypothetical and in theory. The peanut gallery has a loud voice and we aren't hearing much from those actually impacted because they are muted.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Feb 25 at 2016 3:45 PM

2016-02-25T15:45:37-05:00

If you feel "forced" to support your Sisters in combat....I'm going to be nice on this thread. But suffice to say what I'd say here, I'd say to you personally.

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Feb 25 at 2016 3:48 PM

2016-02-25T15:48:52-05:00

As a 95B, I went to the field and worked many a bar fight with females. They handled their business honorably and professionally. It is about time that they get to serve to their potential.

Response by PO3 Michael James made Feb 25 at 2016 3:50 PM

2016-02-25T15:50:57-05:00

CPT Cannonie, Primarily, the Feelings for Our Women in Combat Roles is: RESPECT; Total RESPECT.. AS for the "Current politically correct Band Wagon" I am sorry.. they missed the boat, they are stuck in LaLa Land !!

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 3:57 PM

2016-02-25T15:57:03-05:00

It is my observation that military men tend to be pretty independent in their views and not too easily swayed. They usually are pretty vocal when they disagree with something.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 4:24 PM

2016-02-25T16:24:59-05:00

In Army surveys of white soldiers prior to integration, 80% said that they would be OK with working with blacks as long as they didnt have to eat with them or live with them, and they should have separate service clubs from white soldiers. The Service Chiefs all recommended to the president that he not integrate the military, because the Army had just won WWII so why mess it up with social experiments. Fortunately, the country had a president who could see the larger issue and overruled the generals and forced them to integrate the military.

The military is a bastion of maintaining the status quo. Because the senior leaders came to power under the current system, and fight to maintain it. Congress forced the military to form US Special Operations Command. All the Services fought its creation tooth and nail. They insisted they could handle SOF requirements and there was no need to give SOF their own budget. They ridiculed Congress for thinking they knew better than the Services how to irganize the military.

But the truth was that the "Big Army" leadership at the time considered special forces as a backwater field that routinely took the lowest priority in budget battles. And most officers who spent too much time in special forces officers stood little chance of making COL, much less general. If it wasn't for Congress overriding the generals protecting the status quo, we wouldnt have the tremendous SOF forces and capabilities we have today that have played such a key role in operations over the last decades.

I believe in 20-30 years soldiers will look back and wonder what all the resistance to gays in the military and women in combat roles was all about. It will look as out of touch as those who fought integration look today. And if there are officers or NCOs who do not feel that they can support the decisions made by their commanders, then they should get out. The Army won't miss them anymore than it missed those who refused to live in the same barracks as black soldiers or take orders from a black officer or NCO.

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Feb 25 at 2016 4:34 PM

2016-02-25T16:34:56-05:00

Its sadly a double edged sword. On the one hand, women should be entitled to "try out" and attain combat roles for promotion prospects. After all, there are some ranks/pays that are only attainable to combat personnel. But the standards and regulations should not be diluted to accomplish that. If they can't do the job, then they can't do the job and it should not be made so that they can get it.

Response by SFC Thomas Howes made Feb 25 at 2016 4:38 PM

2016-02-25T16:38:02-05:00

I don't I know there are a lot of guys out there that don't want it but let me tell you I have seen how the Israel army women fight and you piss off a women man

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Feb 25 at 2016 5:12 PM

2016-02-25T17:12:39-05:00

My only concern is what is the real motive behind the change. Is it politically motivated to force social change on the military, similar to other policies? Or is it to legitimately give females new opportunities? Personally, I think if a female wants to do it and can meet the standards, then by all means do it. I also believe that in the long run, there will likely be very few females volunteering for combat arms. I see there being more female officers choosing that route for career progression, but female recruits enlisting off the street right out of high school, not so much. Female enlistments make up less than 20% of the Army's annual recruits. 80% of MOS's in the Army are non-combat arms. Females have an overall lower propensity to enlist in the first place. I think there will be an even lower propensity to enlist for a combat arms MOS, given the other career fields available to enlist into. Bottom line- Ok with me, a Soldier is a Soldier. But I really don't think there will be very many female Soldiers going that route. There will be more female officers than enlisted in combat arms. But good luck to them all!

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Feb 25 at 2016 5:24 PM

2016-02-25T17:24:51-05:00

If I've felt pressure, it's been to NOT support women in combat roles. As a tanker, my branch is one of the ones that will be affected, so there's a lot of push back. Some guys lose their minds at even the suggestion (even though women have qualified as tank crew members and have been serving in maintenance roles for years). I think it's hysterically amusing how PC the anti-PC crowd is...just another angle at controlling the conversation by claiming offense.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 5:31 PM

2016-02-25T17:31:18-05:00

Even posting this, I'm hoping there's not some DoD spook or field grade officer heavily invested in progressive EO looking me up in the GAL to send me a NPLOC. The evaluations of the Marine Corps was laid out clearly in the 1994 study as well as the most recent Gender-Integration Study with some great factual evidence. I believe that was the best expression of opinion by many of our combat arms officers. Now, regardless of our opinion, we now have our marching orders.

I do find it ironic that so much support for these measures come from people outside of combat arms specialties. These people won't be humping 20k with 100lbs of gear on the regular and won't see the effects on hyper-masculine combat arms units when, at the same time, I saw their males doing the heavy lifting for females or picking up their slack just as a casual observer in the Fleet. The one elephant in the room that I haven't heard addressed is sexual assault. It's a massive problem in the military and there seems to be no plan to do anything addition to address it at these combined units.

Regardless, this has forced us as a service to take good hard looks at our minimum standards, since in some cases they weren't present. Now they'll be more clearly articulated and we'll weed out the weak better than ever before, hopefully resulting in stronger combat arms communities.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 25 at 2016 5:50 PM

2016-02-25T17:50:37-05:00

I serve in a MOS that is predominately female, so serving next to females doesn't bother me in the least. And being exposed to females more, I've had the opportunity to see some incredible female Soldiers who would easily make it in Infantry. So, for me, as long as they can hack it without dispensations that may reduce combat effectiveness, go for it. That being said, I've always wondered where this push to open combat MOS's really comes from....

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 5:54 PM

2016-02-25T17:54:33-05:00

Drawing from my experience from both the combat arms world and also the medical world I strongly oppose this change.
Has nothing to do with a belief that women preform worse in combat(actual combat) they don't.

Instead it stems from a believe I've gained through personal observation and many many many many hundreds of years of research.
The belief? Men and women are physically differant.

Women currently are 70% more likely to be med boarded because of service based muscleskeltol injury than males. Primary problem. Hips and lower extremity... And that not even having jobs in physically demanding roles such as the infantry and as much as people want to say it's all the same, well it isn't. That grunt life is more taxing in every aspect than what is experienced working in a shop or motorpool. It has to be. Because we have to be better.

"But if a woman can do it, she should be allowed" ... Last time I check our army doesn't operate on individuality. No other aspect is based on a person but an average. Our average females currently active duty if given bare minimum PT to male standard would fail.

Body composition:
Again. We need to look practically. Patrolling for hours on end downrange and also while training in Garrison everything added up fully loaded near 100lbs? More depending if I stuck in more medical gear just in case... Decided to carry extra rip it's or dip, or extra ammo for the 249s I'm a big guy about 230ish lbs... Sure that stuff is heavy but ain't no thing! Now put your average female under that load is nearly 80% body weight... We do have small people though in the combat arms. I had a 5ft Joe weighing in at 170 of lean muscle... Which brings me to the next point.

You don't see the Nfl, nba, nhl bring women into their sports. Why? Because of physical differances...

Lastly. What's the point. Equality? Equality has no place in combat. That 5.56 or 7.62 round is the great equalizer I guess. The only question that should have been asked is this
"will allowing women to serve in combat missions roles possibly hinder or improve our ability as an army to maneuver on, engage, and kill our nations enemies? Since that wasn't a resounding "yes it will improve of effectiveness to do so" supported by research... It should never have happened. We're going to pay for this with lives at the lowest level. In combat and in Garrison.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Feb 25 at 2016 6:16 PM

2016-02-25T18:16:53-05:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member I have no doubt there is intense political pressure to support this regardless of what the person actually thinks. For senior officers (and some senior NCOs), it would be political suicide to speak out otherwise. Very few will be willing to throw away years of service and along the way, they have probably seen a lot of things they did not like but realize that fighting it is useless. You can read about how special operations troops feel that women cannot do it but yet, the officers at SOCOM say they will be given the opportunity to try out. So yes, I would bet a paycheck there is pressure to support it. I also think that it falls into two general categories. Those that feel the most pressure are probably those who are in combat arms while those that have not served in those branches are probably more open to it.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 7:17 PM

2016-02-25T19:17:27-05:00

Is that an order, ma'am?

jk

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Feb 25 at 2016 7:26 PM

2016-02-25T19:26:22-05:00

You know I was concerned when my daughter joined the Army; I wanted her to be an admin type. But she chose combat communications, and she was chosen as a Lioness. Scared the bejesus out of me; but she made it through and she went to Airborne School. I'm so proud of her.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 8:21 PM

2016-02-25T20:21:43-05:00

TL;DR - Yes, men have definitely been pressured into it (not all of them), even if it was through a psychological process that made you feel like you were making the decision. Adapt or find a new career. Although that is the way in all things military. Another part of it is that when it was brought to the forefront of peoples thought process that this is a reality, a lot of people immediately knew right from wrong. Where as prior to it becoming a real issue, it was treated more like a joke that could never happen.

Prior to the political correctness the military shoved down our throats, I heard a lot more men in the Infantry and SOF community (at all levels or rank) opposite it extremely. I was in the other camp. The point is, there is no way everyone suddenly supports it when there were so many that vehemently opposed it for so long. Psychological Operations is not only used for military purposes.

I have read the reports and statistics from the Marines as well as the Female Captain that spoke out against it after having fought for it and enduring* the extreme long term physical problems afterwards.

Once the war slowed, and the PC garrison military BS started taking over again attitudes change. Adapt or die (in this case peoples careers). So yes, we were absolutely pushed into agreeing with it.

A lot of us supported some amount of women in Combat arms. That being said, this is only if we changed NO standards from PT test to Ranger school to selection. If a woman can do all of those things on the men's scale then they should absolutely be allowed to serve. They should not expect separate quarters, separate showers (yes of course there are ways around this, when we had women on our outpost I as a squad leader made a schedule and leadership rotated guard during the female hours), they should not expect preferential treatment. They should expect vulgar comments, non PC comments to happen regularly, and they should expect to have to pea outside on patrols or SKTs with men a couple feet away.

All of these things being said, combining women into (large division size regular army combat arms units) is a bad idea. The 2 problems I have with it are this:

1) As said previously, Sexual Assault (actual assault not some numbskull saying let me see your boobs)(which will happen among a bunch of testosterone filled 19 year old Infantrymen). Sexual assault is a real problem, false accusations is another real problem (although we shouldn't talk about it because that is not PC). These things WILL worsen by creating this environment.

2) Women are a distraction (no it is not there fault and they should not be discriminated against it because of the issue, but that does not make the problem go away). To elaborate on what I mean- There will be relationships, "fuck buddies", leadership cheating on there spouses. (Yes all of these things already happen but now they will be at the heart of your unit) this will crush morale and tear units apart from the inside. There will be jealousy, fights, hatred, even suicide and all of the causes will be in your home (your unit).

If women are to be allowed into combat arms, I believe it would be best suited at the SOF level. As we have already learned with Active Duty Civil Affairs and FET teams, this works.
The major differences are the small unit climate and level of professionalism. While I was at JFKSWCS, I got to meet some of the most amazing women I have ever met. I met women that make my IQ (127) look more like the number on a stamp, I met women who beat me on the men's extended scale, women who could beat my ass, and could do just as much or more than most of the men. I DO NOT mean to take anything away from the amazing women out there with this post. I mean to bring light to the type of units we should consider when integrating these policies.

Whether it be making SF groups specifically for women, or some other sort of all female SOF group, or integrating women into the top tier of military units (as little known groups like (former grey fox) has already done) or creating some sort of all female units with identical standards to SF or the like... I do think there are plenty of women out there that are more than capable of this change. It is how we do it that will make or break the the concept.

I would have happily taken females into my unit that had proven themselves just like the men had. That being said, I know the risks and complications that I would have to be vigilant in trying to prevent. The bottom line is that if they decide to integrate women, leadership will adapt and drive on just like it always has.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Feb 25 at 2016 8:43 PM

2016-02-25T20:43:47-05:00

Yep, there's a lot of such pressure.
Nope, it hasn't affected my opinion.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 8:45 PM

2016-02-25T20:45:11-05:00

I don't feel any pressure to support women in combat. I am conflicted about this subject, because as a father of a young girl I want to believe she can do anything she wants and puts her mind to. However, I know exactly what it means to serve in a combat role. And just like my parents, I'll be proud of my child for serving, but I'm not crossing my fingers that she ends up in combat arms.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 10:33 PM

2016-02-25T22:33:02-05:00

I wouldn't say "pressure" as much as a sense that the opinions of those in combat arms units didnt matter

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 11:27 PM

2016-02-25T23:27:27-05:00

Not for me, I've always thought it was a bit odd to ban ALL women from combat MOS's. Standards have to remain high and strictly enforced, but to not even allow an entire demographic to even test themselves seemed absurd.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Feb 26 at 2016 12:01 AM

2016-02-26T00:01:25-05:00

In 2003 my unit was getting ready for deployment. One of the sections needing a SAW gunner. The section leader assigned it to a female in the section. When inspecting the section, I grabbed a SAW and told her to disassemble it. She couldn't. I looked at the section leader and told him get a real gunner.
The Army is no place for social experiments and being politically correct. Standards are set for a reason, so meet the standards and get on with the job.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2016 7:22 AM

2016-02-26T07:22:58-05:00

Yes! we do feel pressured. because if we don't we are sexist!!! lol even if you supported this idea, you still pressured!!

Response by SFC Justin Scott made Feb 26 at 2016 8:21 AM

2016-02-26T08:21:51-05:00

I'll be honest, I've got to kind of laugh at all the misogynistic push against it. As an infantry Soldier, almost 20 years now, I've seen numerous men in the infantry that should have never been there because they didn't have what it took. I've seen women that I know could handle it. Instead of railing against it, we should be railing for an MOS based physical fitness assessment that does away with gender standards! Set a minimum requirement for an MOS and then let those who can meet it serve! It's really that simple!

Response by LTC Thomas Tennant made Feb 26 at 2016 8:41 AM

2016-02-26T08:41:33-05:00

I say amen....let them serve. Some of my best troops were women and closeted gays. I say let them serve if they can make the cut....and that is from a knuckle dragging Neanderthal from the 70's.

Edit

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Feb 26 at 2016 9:29 AM

2016-02-26T09:29:43-05:00

I would imagine that the higher up the ranks one goes, the more pressure there would be as this is official policy. In my opinion, women have absolutely no business being in combat units or deployed to combat zones at all. Men and women are sexually dymorphous, meaning that there are biological differences based upon gender.

Broadly speaking, men are taller, heavier and a higher proportion of their body mass is muscle which leads men, in general, to be stronger than women, even when a man and woman of the same weight are compared. As such, women are less physically capable of performing the tasks of combat. For example, I was branch detailed through Field Artillery and I question the ability of women to physically be able to load a 155mm howitzer, especially over time as in a FPF situation. Even better, would anybody here, man or woman, that was under attack and had to call in an FPF get a warm & fuzzy if you knew that the entire gun crew of the battery assigned to you were women?

More importantly, from a group survival perspective, men are FAR, FAR more expendable than women in general and young men especially when compared to young women be that group a family, town, clan/tribe, nation or our entire species. Again, biology is behind this; under 'ideal' conditions, a man could easily father more children in a month than a woman could bear in her entire life. As a group, our survival is more impaired by the loss of 1 woman than 100 men, at least in terms of continuing our group's existence into the future by having children.

Whether its instinctual or realized, even at the subconscious level, men know this. During WWII, the Soviets used co-ed units and these suffered appalling casualties. Some of this was from the women not being up to the task but a lot more of it derived from the men taking too many risks to try and protect the women. So much so was this the case that Stalin discontinued the practice citing unacceptable casualty rates. I'm going to repeat that as it bears repeating; women in combat roles led to such high casualties that they were unacceptable to Josef Stalin.

Nor do I believe that the 'if you can do the job you should be allowed regardless of gender' argument will stand up for very long. I give it less than a year before the social engineers are concluding that there's just not enough women in combat roles to suit them. Then you'll see the standards watered down, either directly via gender-specific requirements or just lowered across the board. This cannot help but decrease combat effectiveness, increase casualties and hurt us badly in the long run.

I don't think that it takes a very high level of intelligence or investment in time and thought to see what I've discussed above. Sadly, we live in a culture that conflates equality of rights and before the law to mean equality of outcome and sameness of circumstance peddled by most of the influential in the media, politics and academia. This is simply not true and it will result in a lot of wasted money at best, a lot of flag-draped caskets of KIAs that need not have been at worst. We're going to be spilling a lot of blood on the altar of political correctness, diversity uber alles and stupidity before this is through and it's pathetic.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Feb 26 at 2016 9:35 AM

2016-02-26T09:35:27-05:00

My take on the subject has been consistent going way back to my first enlistment. Every singke person who joins the military, regardless of branch, MOS or gender should be a basic warfighter. That means you should be fit and be able to fire a weapon and know enough basics to man a defensive position. The idea that you expect people with smaller frames and a penchant for lower extremety and hip injuries to run around with full combat loads in nuts.

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Feb 26 at 2016 9:47 AM

2016-02-26T09:47:20-05:00

While I cannot address your topic specifically, I can share what I experienced. When I was in I definitely felt the pressure to "celebrate" the roles of women in the Army (serious discussion about women in land combat units below the bde level hadn't started yet in 2006). Consideration of Others was the cringe-worthy program de jour of the pre-911 era. It didn't help that my last few years were in a Reserve Human Resources Command (St Louis), a majority-female organization commanded by--in my last few years in--a female COL with a female director of staff (who happened to be a lesbian who married a member of her staff upon retirement). I have a contrarian nature to discussion so I resisted a bit and even had a few letters to the Army Times published which I took some heat for.

What I've noticed is that this subject is not discussed professionally among adults who have a genuine and heartfelt disagreement on policy or tactics such as, say, whether the M4 was superior to its competitors, 9mm vs 45, light vs wheeled vs heavy, or the best NCO or officer evaluation method. I found people who questioned the policies on the merits of those policies, regardless of how dispassionately and logically, were treated more like heretics, nonteam players, or even misogynists. And so the word gets out (it probably started with Tailhook 91 and the Aberdeen scandal), and people stop voicing there opinions and you get what we have today: a lot of people nodding publicly while, I believe, (some) having deep reservations about the efficacy and wisdom of the arbitrary nature of these policies.

Response by SSG Drew Cook made Feb 26 at 2016 10:38 AM

2016-02-26T10:38:49-05:00

I've fought alongside women- AF women also

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2016 11:09 AM

2016-02-26T11:09:09-05:00

Short answer is yes. I think it is a move that will result in tons of EO complaints, SHARP violations and other negativity. But of course the political correct move is to just praise the big army in it's omnipotence. What will happen is that the Infantry (for example) will get a terrible rumour, and then we will create even softer Infantrymen... and those will die faster.

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Feb 26 at 2016 12:12 PM

2016-02-26T12:12:31-05:00

I think the bigger question, to steal a line form a movie title, is "What Do Women Want?". Perhaps it has been out there, but to my knowledge there hasn't been a whole lot of lobbying on the part of female military service-members to ban gender restrictions on MOS's. I understand, and agree, that for female officers, lifting the gender ban does open up new opportunities for career progression in the officer ranks. Perhaps this is what sparked the change in the first place. But my point is, is the change really for the wants, needs, and desires of female service-members? Or is it politically motivated as another peg in a "legacy". As I mentioned previously, I really don't see there being a large influx of new female recruits rushing to the recruiting station to sign up for the Infantry just because they can. Mom and dad are the biggest influences on recruits male and female alike, the biggest concern is always their safety and the career training they choose. Given that less than 20% of the Army's annual recruits are female, and an overall (both genders) IET attrition rate of 10-12%, there probably will not be that very many females in combat arms units Army wide. The biggest impact will be female officers, "checking the block" just as their male counterparts do. I would really like to hear the perspective of female Soldiers, particularly the enlisted, as I believe there is a difference between the two when it comes to choosing this career path.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2016 5:06 PM

2016-02-27T17:06:52-05:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member, I'm supporting women because, right now, they need support. If women are in direct combat roles, and it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out. But, I support the women because I'm proud of them for volunteering to be in the military. What I would like to know is, has anyone seen anything on how the women feel about being in direct combat roles? If they are forced and they are against it, it's going to be a huge mistake forcing them into combat roles. The camaraderie won't be there, and I can see males attitudes shifting. This woman was in the Navy and was a nurse on Iwo Jima. She's 98 years young now, and she made it.

Response by PFC Tuan Trang made Feb 28 at 2016 8:43 AM

2016-02-28T08:43:36-05:00

Not at all, there's nothing wrong with supporting a women in combat.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Feb 28 at 2016 9:47 PM

2016-02-28T21:47:15-05:00

I'm getting fairly offended by those who are trying to elicit a different response with different wording. This happens to be a straight forward question that addresses a truly different angle.
I support women in combat because of observation not because of undue influence. Women should have to meet the same standards as men to be in the units they populate. Also, women should have to sign up for selective service.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 28 at 2016 11:21 PM

2016-02-28T23:21:52-05:00

No, I do not.

Response by MAJ David Vermillion made Feb 29 at 2016 5:37 PM

2016-02-29T17:37:41-05:00

Yes

Response by SPC Andy Gibson made Mar 24 at 2016 10:36 PM

2016-03-24T22:36:37-04:00

No women in combat roles!!!

Response by SFC William Stephens made Dec 13 at 2016 10:03 AM

2016-12-13T10:03:28-05:00

How do you think the new Sec of Defense is going to support women roles in combat? Like I been saying there are places for them and places not for them, I can see them on a M1 Tank because the rounds are much lighter and they have a self-loading system and an a women officer could command a tank but I'm not sure if that will go in combat operations. we will see. Let's get to the King of Battle Artillery women are being used in Artillery but not in the hard roles, so my thing is the Paladin, does not have a self-loader and not to many women are walking around in a Artillery unit lifting 100 lbs. artillery rounds because have the guys can't even do it, so the command have to balance out the crews. Now give any women crew that can shoot a Time on Target and I will take back everything I said about women in combat but I don't see the M109A7 platform changing anytime soon. So women can talk all they want and the military can say all they want about women in combat roles but are they really in combat operation roles in Iraq, are they really actively engaged in combat operations? are woman rangers in a ranger BN with ranger men? Who drawling the fine line and who wiping who's ass when the bullets are flying because if that women is sexy looking I'm not going to have a lot of my guys drooling over her in combat operations because they haven't had any in a long time because that's not allowed in combat (sex) Guys are going to fight over that kind of thing. trust me, I saw in Kuwait and Iraq in non-combat type units or whatever they were called. units that are not deployed forward, we came back to relax from being in combat and soldiers have girlfriends in Kuwait, what kind of shit is that. Queen for year. So please who ever is making the choices you haven't lived with combat unit or trained with a combat unit for more then 30 days because they (women) won't last in tank or in Paladin or in foxhole.

Edit