Posted on Jul 1, 2015
Much Ado About Nothing? Army Expects Few Women To Opt For Combat Arms If Fields Are Opened To Them.
9.13K
14
7
3
3
0
Despite the heavy publicity and heated debate both within the Army from the lowest levels all the way up through the rings of the Pentagon and to Capitol Hill, polling research conducted on behalf of the Army indicates that if and/or when MOSs and Combat Arms Branches of Infantry and Armor do remove current gender restrictions, only a small percentage of Army women would consider pursuing reassignment to one of these fields.
What say you, RP Nation? Does this research match your reality in the field today? Why or why not?
What say you, RP Nation? Does this research match your reality in the field today? Why or why not?
Army
Combat Arms
Women in the Military
Gender
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
6
6
0
I think that any number of women who would opt in for such an assignment or opportunity would still be a relative number in comparison with the size of the total force strength. That being said, I have personally witnessed women under fire in combat and I have no doubt that there are those capable. If the country can accept everything this administration has done and continues to do, regardless of controversy, then it is up to those who choose to.
(6)
(0)
2
2
0
MAJ (Join to see)
I know it's a far cry from the Army, sir, but I couldn't help thinking "Hell, Security Forces have had females forever & we have combat roles (well, as much as one can in the Air Force :) )" I found this article:
I know it's a far cry from the Army, sir, but I couldn't help thinking "Hell, Security Forces have had females forever & we have combat roles (well, as much as one can in the Air Force :) )" I found this article:
Security Forces - Not SOF, but Impressive Still | SOFREP
The military is ripe with their own acronyms; put a few veterans together and a language is spoken few civilians could truly follow. As interesting as the
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
AT some point the needs of the Army will outweigh personal preference so once the doors are open all's fair in branch assignments. At that point there will probably be complaints arising that men are given preference over women for combat arms assignment/reassignments/branch detailing but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I would think that if the needs of the Army require the women to get into Combat Arms MOSs; then we need to re-evaluate the Army and the military as a whole. Nobody has ever answered my question; "Why has it become so all encompassing necessary to put our women in harms way?" Women serve admirably in jobs that release men to go forward and fill the lines. Why mess with this just because Israel does it or because any one of a bunch of other countries does it? We are America! We set the standard.
Call me "Old School" but I never want to look around and see a woman beside me that I'll feel an obligation to protect thus distracting me from my personal mission of protecting myself.
No disrespect meant or intended to MAJ. Petrarca. His use of the term; "...needs of the Army..." jumped out at me.
Call me "Old School" but I never want to look around and see a woman beside me that I'll feel an obligation to protect thus distracting me from my personal mission of protecting myself.
No disrespect meant or intended to MAJ. Petrarca. His use of the term; "...needs of the Army..." jumped out at me.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I love numbers games.
15%~ of the total force structure is Female. However that is Service wide. If you look at each service you will see marked differences. The Marine Corps only has about 7% women, while I think the USAF is closer to 20+%.
The Combat Arms field is "self selecting" (at least in the USMC) in other words, no one ends up there "open contract." You have to choose to go there. So it's really a question of how much the needle is going to shift?
The first question that must be asked is:
"Is the inability to serve in a specific role preventing someone from choosing to serve at all?"
I don't think this is happening. I don't think we have a "Grunt or Bust" situation, because (at least in the USMC) you choose an OCCFIELD, not an MOS. Even so, they have four services to choose from, and a variety of options.
The USMC recently did some testing out in lovely 29 palms, and there estimation was 0-2 females in a PLATOON, if I recall correctly, where 2 was considered HIGH. That would place an Infantry BN around 20-30 tops including H&S Company.
In other words "Much ado about nothing."
15%~ of the total force structure is Female. However that is Service wide. If you look at each service you will see marked differences. The Marine Corps only has about 7% women, while I think the USAF is closer to 20+%.
The Combat Arms field is "self selecting" (at least in the USMC) in other words, no one ends up there "open contract." You have to choose to go there. So it's really a question of how much the needle is going to shift?
The first question that must be asked is:
"Is the inability to serve in a specific role preventing someone from choosing to serve at all?"
I don't think this is happening. I don't think we have a "Grunt or Bust" situation, because (at least in the USMC) you choose an OCCFIELD, not an MOS. Even so, they have four services to choose from, and a variety of options.
The USMC recently did some testing out in lovely 29 palms, and there estimation was 0-2 females in a PLATOON, if I recall correctly, where 2 was considered HIGH. That would place an Infantry BN around 20-30 tops including H&S Company.
In other words "Much ado about nothing."
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google