Women's integration in the military: To what extent? With what qualifications?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:41:19 -0500

The only reason I'm creating this discussion is for the anonymous straw poll. This is an important developing issue in our national defense.

I hope the RP Admins will recognize that this is a distinct question from those concerning women in Ranger School, combat MOSs, Special Operations Forces, or others. There appears to be no similar Question on RallyPoint. Please let the data compile.

Feel free to provide justification for your position below, but again the main purpose is the straw poll. This is not meant to be inflammatory.

My position on this issue is decided: I think women deserve full integration into all MOSs and schools, as well as proportionate (but distinct) physical standards.

Response by Cpl Michael Strickler made Feb 12 at 2015 4:46 PM

Cpl Michael Strickler — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:46:14 -0500

Full integration. Standards really are not as important since they are a baseline. Everyone should be well and above those, but they should be the same across the board.

The only issue I have with full integration is when there are those that bring their relationships into the work place. Long story short we should not have to deal with John and Jane fighting during a combat drill or that Jane will be more worried about John's well being when she should be assaulting an objective... etc. (these feeling also branch out into the gays in the military for the same reasons. I have no problem fighting with beside a man or woman, so long as we are all still a part of the same team and we have no weak links.)

but that just comes along with professionalism in the workplace and I like to think that those issues will never arise

That's my two cents for my thoughts...

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2015 5:35 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:35:36 -0500

I believe that if females can perform to the alpha male standards for first hand combat warfare then they should be allowed into those programs. I believe that even now, we as a human race continue to evolve. Today's standards for fitness are far higher than those from WW 2. What's to say females can't evolve more to be equal in strength to males? I also believe that they shouldn't lower the standards just to try to satisfy the thought of a female joining special warfare.

Response by MSgt Steve Miller made Apr 10 at 2015 6:49 PM

MSgt Steve Miller — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 18:49:27 -0400

We talked about this a "little bit" in a different post about women in the special forces. I voted for full integration, exact same standards. I welcome them aboard any crew as long as they are qualified. I've known awesome women runners, and shooters as well. If they can get through the schools with the same standards, why not have them with the men in battle. They are every bit the Americans we are, so why would we suggest they cannot love and die for their country as well.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 10 at 2015 6:55 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 18:55:21 -0400

I am all for equal opportunity as long as standards are not lowered. If a female tank loader has to sling 30 pound rounds into the breach every 8 seconds, then she better be able to accomplish that. In the end we all bleed red.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 7:54 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:54:42 -0400

At the end of the day, the standard is the standard. If you are able to physically, mentally and emotionally meet the standard, there should be no barriers to your pursuit of your goal. I have no desire to become a Ranger. I'm good being Finance where I get to play with money when I go down range. If a female Soldier with the ability to successfully meet the Ranger standard is able to do it, she should be given the opportunity to serve in that capacity with the full support of her brothers in arms. Israel has had women as grunts for years, and they seem to be doing just fine.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Apr 10 at 2015 8:20 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 20:20:45 -0400

I have no issue with women in the military. Just as with the guys, as long as they do their duty to the best of their ability they cannot be faulted. I know some guys argue that women are not as strong physically and emotionally, but plenty of guys fall in the same category. Do your job and do it well and everyone is relatively happy.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 8:44 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 20:44:52 -0400

If they can do the job hell yes. I have worked with many woman coworkers. Most out work their male counter parts cause they have something to prove.

Response by LTC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2015 5:04 PM

LTC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 17:04:54 -0400

I voted for exclusion from combat roles. There a host of reasons for this. It is not arguable that female bodies are different from males due to the female ability to bear children (less muscle mass, shorter legs, smaller lungs, thinner bones, wider pelvis). The Army has two standards of physical fitness because of this simple biological fact. I am well aware that there are individual females who can meet the male standard, but meeting the minimum standard is not good enough for combat arms. Having served as a plain old Infantryman when I was enlisted, I feel that most men don't belong in these roles either.

My real concern in this debate is that in the political zeal to integrate women into combat arms units, they will either maintain the current two standards (which need to be scrapped) or lower the male standard. Further, training will be modified to ensure women can pass, thus lowering the standard for all and weakening the force. I would be more favorable to the idea if women were required to meet the highest male standards, but I've been in since 1992 and have seen that this is not usually how it works. We don't demand people rise to the standard, we lower the standards to make it easier for people to meet them.

There are other reasons I believe these roles should be male-only, but I'll leave it at that.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 9:14 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 21:14:45 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member With all due respect, sir, I am curious as to your rationale for including the last option in the survey. Speaking frankly, anybody who would seriously contend (in this day and age) that women do not belong in the military at all is an utter moron.

Response by HN Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 11:35 PM

HN Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 23:35:53 -0400

In other countries they have fully integrated females into the frontlines, however I believe that if your going to the frontlines you should be able to meet the same requirements as any other person in there

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 8:08 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:08:17 -0400

The standard is not the "male standard". It is the standard and many males do not meet it either ie, Airborne criteria, Ranger, SF etc...
Set a high standard for combat readiness. Our nation depends upon it.