Services on track to open all military jobs to women

Army Times — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 10:42:30 -0400

From: Army Times

Pentagon officials say all four of the services are on track to open all military jobs to women by next year, and expect rules for those changes to be in place by this fall.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, defense officials said each of the services are reviewing the final male-only occupations within their ranks, to see what accommodations, if any, will need to be made in coming months.

Under current law, Pentagon officials have until the end of September to develop gender-neutral standards for all military occupations and until the end of December to finalize plans to allow women to compete for those jobs.

Service officials can request a hardship waiver for certain specialties, but officials from the four services offered no indication Tuesday that they expect to do that. Army and Navy officials said reviewing the requirements for some posts within special operations forces may stretch into the late fall.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said his service is facing a different problem when it comes to female service members: recruiting.

"We don't have enough women in our service," he told lawmakers. "One of the reasons we're having problems is that we do not have enough flexibility in how we manage our force."

Mabus and other service secretaries said they will submit legislative proposals for targeted recruiting of women and transfer of women to newly opened specialties in the upcoming defense authorization bill debate.

Women comprise roughly 15 percent of the current active-duty force. In recent years, Congress has made eliminating male-only rules in the services a priority, noting the combat service of many women in the recent Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Earlier this month, Army officials announced plans to open more than 4,100 officer and enlisted positions in special operations units that had been male-only.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/03/17/women-military-jobs-deadline/24912351/

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 7:51 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 07:51:12 -0400

What? The Army Times beat CPT Private RallyPoint Member to a female in combat arms story? He is definitely slipping, must actually be doing LT things.

Regardless of your feelings, this is going to happen. I would suggest to all ranks that if you are actively serving you get your head right if it is not already. If you are a leader your job is to lead and take care of your Soldiers.

You can voice your opinions all you want, I would advise caution.

Welcome ladies, hope you are ready to get dirty!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 20 at 2015 1:13 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:13:19 -0400

Alright. Let's look at some math here and try to take emotion out of this.

Women comprise 15% of the military. That's less than 1 in 6 (16.6%). This means that "if" a woman was worth 0 what a man was (which they are not), our combat effectiveness in the average unit would drop to 85%. As women in most roles have no functional difference in capability, there is no change.

But let's play the game. Let's say these women opt to join combat arms. Remember, you have to OPT TO join combat arms. No one ends up in Infantry on an open contract (at least in the Marines). If a female has 75% the PHYSICAL capability of a male counterpart, combat effectiveness would then be 96.25% of baseline, or in other words negligibly different.

That's "if" they pass the MOS school. Remember after you OPT IN, you still have to pass the school. Just because you join to be Infantry, doesn't mean you are Infantry. If you can't cut it, you can't cut it. There's 30~ Female Marine Lt's out there who didn't make it through IOC.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Mar 20 at 2015 2:49 PM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:49:03 -0400

I have to agree @ CSM Mike Oldsen it's gonna happen so embrace it and make the best out of it.
I personally have never agreed with it but as long as the standards are not lowered then go for it.
But never use gender as a crutch