Why do you think women are not going to Combat Arms MOS's?

CPT Russell Pitre — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 20:37:42 -0400

So now the SMA is asking for more women to step up and join combat arms. In this article the Army opened up 220,000 jobs for women. These must have been all the Combat Arms jobs in the Army but so far they have about 100 volunteers. It isn't looking too good for diversity. So much for fighting to open the flood gates. I think a garden hose would have sufficed.

I myself could think of a few reasons that those women in the military see and understand that these new soldiers coming into combat arms really don't. These new soldier don't really know or understand what they are getting into but then who really does. If you were to think about just the infantry you really don't need to look further than Ranger School and it's relation to promotion. Look at just about all of the leadership in the Infantry and you will see they are Tabbed. I can't really recall seeing any CSMs without one. So when they compete up against these guys for an SFC slot that are tabbed who do you think that is going to selected for promotion and good assignments?

In addition, I have seen what infantry go through in the field. Ask any OIF I vet about taking a shower. It was a luxury. Ask a Dog Faced soldier from the 3rd ID. We lived in our tracks in the dessert only to charge into Iraq to not take a shower for weeks. Do you think any of this could be affecting their decision?

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/08/01/sma-army-needs-female-soldiers-step-up-combat-jobs/87931290/

SMA: Army needs female soldiers to step up for combat jobs

Senior enlisted soldier calls for volunteers to transfer into infantry, armor and other combat jobs.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Aug 1 at 2016 8:47 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 20:47:39 -0400

Just because it's an open bar doesn't mean everyone wants to drink beer.

I'm guessing there are a lot of practical women out there who understand combat arms is not a back yard play ground. We have lots of women in the Services and I have served with and under the command of some really good women, but I really never looked at them as women, I looked at them as soldiers doing their jobs. Also got to keep in mind there are a lot of guys who'd never go combat arms.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2016 8:50 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 20:50:36 -0400

Some people are cut out for combat jobs, others are not. It takes a smart man/woman to acknowledge which side they belong to. At the end of the day we need everyone in every position at the right time and for the right reasons, and god bless any woman willing to do their duty. I think many women recognize the strain men have endured for their country over the years fulfilling these roles, and have a deep respect for it.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Aug 1 at 2016 9:18 PM

SN Greg Wright — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 21:18:28 -0400

The science of the matter, which completely ignores political correctness, is that only statistically-outlying women will be able to meet the standards as they are. Most women are rational and know this, and probably evaluate where they are on that bell curve, and decide that it's not for them. I don't think this should surprise anyone. It's not misogyny. It's science.

Response by MSG Pat Colby made Aug 1 at 2016 9:28 PM

MSG Pat Colby — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 21:28:59 -0400

So now the SMA is wanting to get more females in Combat Arms positions. I'm betting higher forces are steering him. Soon we will have studies that conclude that females deem the Infantry Schooling systems too tough. Then the further lowering of Standards will be in full swing. Of course, the spiral down the porcelain will have all of the current buzzwords like "Fairness" & "Inclusive". Those that argue against the lowering of Standards will be labeled as "Misogynous" and "Afraid of Change".

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2016 9:51 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 21:51:55 -0400

Probably because its not as much fun as the recruiters said.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2016 10:07 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 22:07:13 -0400

No comments on this one, because...

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 1 at 2016 10:21 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 22:21:00 -0400

Because they aren't falling for the feminist agenda.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Aug 1 at 2016 10:32 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 22:32:37 -0400

CPT Russell Pitre Does anyone count the number of female police officers they/we encounter? Police employment has been available to females for years!
A few do, and are successful. The current, elected Sheriff of Orange County, CA is a female who earlier had a successful career w/ the Los Angeles County, CA Sheriff's Department!

Most women choose to not enter into such hazardous, dangerous employment! Has the current emphasis on females in the military skewed their reasoning processes?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2016 10:45 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 22:45:50 -0400

CPT Russell Pitre Because the wrong people were advocating for the opening up of combat MOS's. The numbers show it here if only 100 or so have volunteer. To me, it was all a political issue with people wanting to make their mark on a system that they are not directly affected by. Further, while I have absolutely no issue with women performing combat arms jobs, if they can meet the standards (which a lot of men fail to do), I do think this was "the needs of the few or one outweighing the needs of the many / whole." It should always be the other way around.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2016 11:24 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 23:24:24 -0400

I think the shortage of women signing up to transfer is due to different reasons that have little to do with whether it was worth opening up the MOS. First, most officers/NCOs are likely in the MOS they joined the Army to do. IOW they are in fields they likely chose, are interested in, and have been successful in. Since infantry wasn't a choice for women, it is most probable that the women in the Army now aren't women who always wanted to be infantry but had to settle foe something else. They are far more likely that they wanted to work in a combat support or service support branch to start with and have no interest in being infantry anyway. So those will not desire to transfer.

Next, you probably have some who may have been interested in combat arms had they been offered early, but aren't now. They have already been trained and gained experience and success as an officer or been promoted to NCO. They would correctly assess that to transfer would in many ways be starting over, which meanq they would instantly be behind their peers in their new field. Plus, they would know that a large number of more senior officers and NCOs in the field have been openly hostile to their presence in the MOS, making it very likely they could suffer in evaluations and hurt their careers. Trailblazers often face that obstacle.

Then you have a few that are willing to absorb all those disadvantages to give it a try, and they have signed up.

But the real future of this change lies with those women who grow up seeing the combat arms as an option, desire it and train for it in high school or college, and sign up for it. As those soldiers and officers work their way up the ranks, they will become the leaders and mentors for even more.

So IMO no one should have thought that there was a large resevoir of women already in the Army wanting to give up what they have already earned to go combat arms.but that is not reflective of whether their are women out there who will come forward in the future.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 12:51 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:51:15 -0400

Private Berghdal is an 11B. I'll put up 75% of the women I served with against him. The other 25% would lose but he'd be in some serious pain.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 1:43 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 01:43:22 -0400

I was an MP and being around women was normal. I went to Armor where the only female was the occasional medic These Armor guys could talk frankly, make lewd jokes and not have to worry about EEOC/sharp complaints. Women don't want to worry about any of that crap and yeast infections if they are in another Desert Shield situation where they were out there for over a month or two with no shower and wearing the same stinky clothes for that whole time and nothing but a few changes of underwear.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 2 at 2016 3:41 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 03:41:54 -0400

You can't fool Mother Nature.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Aug 2 at 2016 7:05 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 07:05:39 -0400

The fact that so few women are volunteering for combat arms will simply be the launching pad for the next attack which will be that there is so much organizational bias in the armed forces women just are not comfortable applying. This will end up being the men's fault. We will need to have combat arms sensitivity training for men, then a few standards lowered to entice more to try.

The pushers of women in combat arms will never consider that there may simply not be enough women that have any desire to do it.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 7:14 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 07:14:24 -0400

As a woman and currently serving service member, I have seen the toll a combat arms job can take on a man (I work as part of the legal counsel for MEBs) and I wouldn't wish it on them and cannot see myself as a woman doing the things they do. I'm all for those females who are fit and have the mindset that this is what they desire. I agree with CPT Pitre that women are not flooding the gates to get these jobs and I don't think that'll change in the near future. The purpose was to break the barrier... Not to recruit a specific percentage of women... Or was it? Like I said I am all for those that CAN and are welcome to it.

Response by SFC Richard Giles made Aug 2 at 2016 11:09 AM

SFC Richard Giles — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:09:56 -0400

I think you will see women going into Combat Arms but it won't be at the rate that the ashwipes at the pentagon thought it would be. Like some members have stated here I think this was a behind the scenes ploy of a few people that had the same agenda and wanted to see how far it would go and what kind of controversy they could stir up.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 11:34 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:34:50 -0400

I think that there are quite a few women on the sidelines waiting to see how this goes.
Lots of people want to be "first", even second or third. The line to be the 117th person to do something is much shorter. Pioneers are celebrated, regular joes are not.
No one wants to be the only female in a unit, always having to prove herself and reprove herself.

It is hard to say where this will really go at this point. There is a chance it dies of apathy. There is a chance that it becomes more "normal" and each infantry platoon will have a couple of females in it. I think that the highest echelons are becoming concerned that the former becomes the case.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Aug 2 at 2016 2:14 PM

1LT Aaron Barr — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 14:14:08 -0400

I don't know, why are there so few women working in coal mines? Or as garbage collectors? Or on commercial fishing boats? Or lumberjacking? To paraphrase the late, great, Nobel laureate (when that actually meant something) Dr. Milton Friedman, the problem with the free market is that it allows women to make the choices they want, rather than what the feminists and social engineers think that they ought to want.

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Aug 2 at 2016 2:31 PM

SFC J Fullerton — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 14:31:35 -0400

Because not many are interested in it. Females make up less than 15% of the Army in the first place. Female enlisted accessions on average are around 13.5% annually of the total number of accessions. It was anticipated that there would be an initial surge of female officer branch transfers, but apparently even that is lower than expected. The real telling factor will be female enlisted accessions into combat arms, and the IET attrition rate.

Response by SGT Patrick Reno made Aug 2 at 2016 5:25 PM

SGT Patrick Reno — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 17:25:03 -0400

Same reason that not every guy that joins the army is 11B. If you take all the men in the Army how small is the percentage that is 11B. You hear a lot of comments from different people about women in combat arms jobs. The only people that should be commenting are the ones in Combat Arms. It is amazing how many people have an opinion that have never done the job.

Response by SPC Anna Larson made Aug 2 at 2016 5:59 PM

SPC Anna Larson — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 17:59:28 -0400

Because they don't WANT to. Plain and simple. When I joined, I WANTED a specific job. I wanted to be a vet tech and I refused to sign a contract until I got that job.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2016 12:03 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:03:41 -0400

I haven't even begun to read the comments but I just wanted to say it's because someone argued for us to have this choice but we didn't want it.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Aug 3 at 2016 1:58 AM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 01:58:20 -0400

Because war and fighting are a male thing. Even in the animal world it is the males who stake out territory and fight off other males and animals of the same type. The female do hunt , but for food, the male fight for territory and power. Even in hive behavior it is male drones that fight. Humans being a cooperative animal it is the males who fight in groups against other males. Anyone who think women should be in combats is going PC and PC is against the laws of nature itself. It should be no wonder why female humans do not want to be in the combat arms. It is simple an aberration of nature when it occurs or is forced to occur.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2016 11:27 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 11:27:21 -0400

Imagine that. The females who wanted this policy change by and large never had any interest in wearing a uniform or doing the job to start with. This was never about anything more than ideologues building political capital.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2016 9:27 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 09:27:08 -0400

I do not think it matters if they choose not to go into Combat Arms. I think what does matter is they have that choice.