Women in U.S. infantry (USMC, Rangers, etc. - merged)

[daftandbarmy]

Not yet time for women to serve in infantry

Recently The Post reported that four women serving in the Army, two with Purple Hearts, had filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the military’s combat exclusion policy. “Combat exclusion” is code for being kept from serving in the close-combat arms of the Army, Marines and special forces. These units are made up of soldiers whose purpose is to kill the enemy directly. They also do virtually all of the military’s dying: Since the end of World War II, four out of five combat deaths suffered by men and women serving in the U.S. military have been in the infantry, which includes more than 6 percent of the active-duty military.

I’m torn by this issue. My family has served in the military for three generations. My father fought in World War II and retired a colonel. Both of my kids served as officers. Both commanded their ROTC battalions, at Wake Forest and Notre Dame, respectively. Both were paratroopers. Both served in combat divisions, one in Bosnia and Kosovo. And both are women.

So I have some emotional skin in this game. First, I’m disturbed that these four soldiers are using the courts to decide the issue. The courts know the law of the land, but they know nothing about close combat and the intimacies of fighting and dying within a small unit. Second, while the ground services have done a spectacular job of integrating minorities including African Americans, Hispanics and now gays, they still have a long way to go to achieve perceptual equality for the female rank and file. One need only read the statistics about personal assaults among serving women to make the case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/not-yet-time-for-women-to-serve-in-infa
ntry/2012/12/06/3870cd08-3a72-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

 

[George Wallace]

Well.  It wasn't the CF that decided that women could suddenly join the Combat Arms.  It was pressure from the courts, with cases before the Human Rights Commission and claims that the CF was not following the spirit of the law as laid out in the Charter of Human Rights.  So their taking it to the courts, seems like the logical step if they have similar laws governing Equal Rights/Human Rights in the States.

http://sistersinarms.ca/history/women-in-combat-pros-and-cons/

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/930155--u-s-to-allow-women-into-combat-a-move-canada-made-decades-ago

 

[brihard]

Nothing wrong with using the courts to right an inequality. If the military has very compelling reasons not to allow it, they can defend them in court- rights in the U.S. aren't much more absolute than they are here. There is still consideration for bona fide occupational requirements if they can be shown to exist.

For myself, I consider the whole 'women harm unit cohesion' thing to be so much B.S.

 

[FJAG]

Nothing wrong with using the courts to right an inequality. If the military has very compelling reasons not to allow it, they can defend them in court- rights in the U.S. aren't much more absolute than they are here. There is still consideration for bona fide occupational requirements if they can be shown to exist.

For myself, I consider the whole 'women harm unit cohesion' thing to be so much B.S.

:goodpost:

I remember back in 1989 when we were first faced with having women enter the combat arms there were hundreds of old salts with twenty years in the army but not a day of combat experience wailing that the end of the Earth was nigh and that the army would fail miserably if and when we went to war. Well now that we've been to war with women (and gays) amongst our ranks we know just how much BS all the wailing was.

Its unfortunate that it requires courts to weigh in on these issues but sometimes that what it takes. Human rights law recognizes an exemption if the employer can show that there is a "bona fide occupational requirement" to restrict equality. DND tried that argument and (except for submarines) failed massively.

If you are interested in the CHRC decision at the time, you'll find it here:

http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/3_89.pdf

 

[Devo3733]

For myself, I consider the whole 'women harm unit cohesion' thing to be so much B.S.

It's certainly a point that comes up a lot, I suppose you can blame hollywood for that one too with so many tales of young love in the ranks and buddy jumps in front of bullets for his lady love, so romantic.
I had a lot more written on the subject, but figured I was getting quite out of my lane, so I'll just go with some anecdotal experiences of women in traditionaly "male" industries (oilfield, firefighting) that it's really no different than guys.  Some are fantastic and do the job amazingly, lots are average, some are utter crap.  I think the big difference is sample size.  You don't remember the numerous useless guys you worked with because, well, that's nothing out of the ordinary.  If you have only really worked closely with two or three women though and one was terrible it stands out in your memory a lot more. 
But I'm getting off topic I think

 

[brihard]

:goodpost:

I remember back in 1989 when we were first faced with having women enter the combat arms there were hundreds of old salts with twenty years in the army but not a day of combat experience wailing that the end of the Earth was nigh and that the army would fail miserably if and when we went to war. Well now that we've been to war with women (and gays) amongst our ranks we know just how much BS all the wailing was.

Its unfortunate that it requires courts to weigh in on these issues but sometimes that what it takes. Human rights law recognizes an exemption if the employer can show that there is a "bona fide occupational requirement" to restrict equality. DND tried that argument and (except for submarines) failed massively.

If you are interested in the CHRC decision at the time, you'll find it here:

http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/3_89.pdf

Thanks for the link. I'm enough of a law nerd that I do find this stuff interesting.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Personally I believe women NCMs in the infantry section and platoon ruin team cohesion and creates a new set of problems which necessarily aren't the fault of women or fair to them but are additional problems never the less. 

In my experiences the "bad examples" FAR out weight the good ones.

That said in Canada we allow them in the combat arms- there just isn't a whole lot of them females that wanna be in the infantry or fit in and can deal with the BS.

 

[brihard]

Personally I believe women NCMs in the infantry section and platoon ruin team cohesion and creates a new set of problems which necessarily aren't the fault of women or fair to them but are additional problems never the less. 

In my experiences the "bad examples" FAR out weight the good ones.

That said in Canada we allow them in the combat arms- there just isn't a whole lot of them females that wanna be in the infantry or fit in and can deal with the BS.

How many of those 'bad examples' could be weeded out if, for instance, identical PT standards were applied?

I recall on my Mod 6 we had one woman from 3rd battalion who from what I heard did quite well as a MCpl on our tour. And of course we've now had a platoon and company commander, both of whom commanded buddies of mine who've only had good things to say about them.

I'm inclined to think the 'bad examples' are probably no worse than the similar 'bad examples' of male soldiers who are allowed to linger in units or roles they shouldn't be in. Simply expect professionalism, and ruthlessly enforce it- on both genders.

 

[PMedMoe]

I'm inclined to think the 'bad examples' are probably no worse than the similar 'bad examples' of male soldiers who are allowed to linger in units or roles they shouldn't be in. Simply expect professionalism, and ruthlessly enforce it- on both genders.

:goodpost:

 

[Jarnhamar]

How many of those 'bad examples' could be weeded out if, for instance, identical PT standards were applied?

I think identical PT standards are a great idea if anything than to simply shut guys up and not give them the opportunity to bitch about women having different standards than men.  Level the playing field.

I recall on my Mod 6 we had one woman from 3rd battalion who from what I heard did quite well as a MCpl on our tour. And of course we've now had a platoon and company commander, both of whom commanded buddies of mine who've only had good things to say about them.

I see a big difference between officers and NCMs in that there are a few levels of authority between 'the boys' when dealing with a female officer.  A female officer can easily say Sgt sort that shit out and the Sgt starts cracking heads and kicking asses. When females are at the NCM level in the infantry it's a different environment. Infanteers know how we speak to each other, how we get along with each other and how we interact with one another.  Because of gender, harassment and the differences between how boys and girls play together a female fitting into that small team environment is a very difficult thing.

At a guess not many women work well in an environment where the person next to them will say something akin to "Hey f**k face get your fat ass over here before I punch you in the eye".  And even then it's more sexually explicit, censored due to the public nature of this board. That's how it is in the infantry as we know.

Of course that's not to say it (women infanteers) can't happen, it can and does. Anyone can come up with an example of tough women that "pass the test" and are assholes right along side the boys and manage to fit in. I haven't seen it but I accept the examples of others as truth. They're some tough warriors for sure.  I think they are the exception rather than the norm (in the infantry).

I don't think women should be banned from combat arms or the infantry, if that's how they want to serve than that's their right and I support it 100%. I just feel that when it does happen it creates a lot of problems, headaches and the chances of them setting themselves up for failure is high.

I'm inclined to think the 'bad examples' are probably no worse than the similar 'bad examples' of male soldiers who are allowed to linger in units or roles they shouldn't be in. Simply expect professionalism, and ruthlessly enforce it- on both genders.

For sure. There is a huge unfair bias against women in that women garner much more negative attention and ridicule from their peers when they fail because of their gender. That's not right. Once again gender plays a role when dealing with bad apples.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I just want to see more female soldiers like the ones I saw in the UK. For example, the female drill NCO who addressed her platoon thusly:

"When I say 'Shun' I want to hear 30 Fannies simultaneously gasping for air"

Must be a popular saying as I've seen it quoted online alot. Still hilarious. :nod:

 

[jollyjacktar]

Personally I don't give a damn what gender, age, religion, sexual orientation (if any) or ethnic background you come from or are.  My only real concern is that you are willing and able to do your job and be there with everyone else when it counts.  This is a team effort and my only desire is that you want to and will be a member of the team.  I do what I do at sea or elsewhere for my shipmates and comrades as they demand and expect it of me as I do of them.

I did hear once some time ago that the IDF removed their females from active combat as they found it to be counter productive from the standpoint that the enemy tended to put up a bigger fight whenever they discovered they were fighting against females.  The Arabs took offense at being beaten by a mere woman.  Don't know if true, but if so I could see the logic of removing an incentive for the enemy to put up that extra effort.

 

[Privateer]

US Secretary of Defense Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions, according to Associated Press.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/panetta-removes-military-ban-women-combat-opening-thousands-front-line-positions

 

[MikeL]

US Secretary of Defense Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions, according to Associated Press.

Have to wait and see what happens now,  I don't see this happening as an immediate lift and they can now hire women into a Combat Arms MOS.

Plus there is this

Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

 

[cupper]

All branches are required to submit plans for implementation by May of this year, but have until 2016 to request waivers for specific positions.

 

[Maxadia]

Most of the comments are pretty negative:

https://www.facebook.com/gruntworks11b/posts/153436781472780

 

[dangerboy]

Most of the comments are pretty negative:

https://www.facebook.com/gruntworks11b/posts/153436781472780

I think over time it will pass.  When Canada talked about allowing Females in the Cbt Arms there was a lot of negativity, now nobody really cares.  Don't get me wrong if women are permited to serve in the American army as Infantry the first couple of years will be rough for them.  However I think that give it 15-20 years nobody will care there either, at least I hope so.

 

[Old Sweat]

tThis is going to get messy if our experience is any example, and I think it is. And on top of what we went through, there also will probably attempts in Congress to block it, and a bunch of legal challenges.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Just wait till them God hatin' lesbians try to get into the infantry, it will be sheer pandelirium.

 

[observor 69]

The first thing I thought of upon hearing this news story was :

"The statistics revealed in The Invisible War, which won the audience award at this year's Sundance film festival, make shocking reading: a female soldier in combat zones is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire, over 20% of female veterans have been sexually assaulted while serving in the US army, of 3,192 sexual-assault reports in 2011 only 191 members of the military were convicted at courts martial.

More at LINK.

And coincidentally this story while from the USAF still speaks to the same problem.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/lackland-air-force-base_n_2535035.html