Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[reed11b]

After serving along side female MP's in poor living conditions and not seeing any of the many excuses I have often heard against women in combat come to reality, I disagree with you. That being said, your logic is sound and the burden is on us that disagree with current policy. The "pregnancy excuse" I always hear roled out due to the Navy's bad experience on ships, I have not seen in units w/ female soldiers that often go outside the wire, but I saw a ton of it in Kuwait and the larger FOBs. Probably something to that, but my face hurts due the dentist, so I am done for now.
Reed

[OfTheTroops]

My Soldiers were judged on individual merit regardless of sex by me and my direct chain of command. However we were constantly bombarded by senior combat arms and sister services who had ZERO experience with female Soldiers in combat or anything close. I would not propose that we shoot for a demographically representative Infantry on the front lines of Z-Day or the like but when a Soldier has a job (like MP) that they are train for and meet the mission and training requirements they should do the job. In many places they fail to train their female troops to boots on the ground reality and refuse to assign them below certain levels. My MP's told me they became that because it was the closest they could get to the fight. I was damn proud of them. They were not each the greatest but every Soldier on their individual merit.

[OfTheTroops]

Guess I shoulda read the article. What a sham? Train the Troops. There is no front. "NUTS!"

[Perpetual_Student]

I have tried to search the blog to find this topic and see the arguments that have already been posted, only to find that this specific issues seems to have not been talked about. Therefore, I would like to discuss whether women should or should not be allowed to have a combat arms MOS.

I was educated this weekend on the fact that Canada and Germany both have Female Infantry Officers. I do not know if this is correct but I am coming here to find the facts and get others opinion.

[82redleg]

GEN Chiarelli has a discussion about this topic in the CAC blogs

http://usacac.army.mil/blog/blogs/gu...-the-army.aspx

[SJPONeill]

We've allowed women in all the combat trades for some years now, the arbiter being their ability to do the job rather than where where their bumpy bits might be. The only area in which women have yet to gain entry is into the badged SAS - there is no legislative barrier to this, just that none has attempted Selection yet. Women have successfully served in many SF support roles, flying roles including strike, and infantry and armour roles.

Once all the talk prior was over, the actual opening up of these roles was pretty painless and, to date, there have been no more or no less incidents with women in these roles than with women in more traditional support roles. IMHO, by offering to treat women differently for no good reason (as opposed to where such reason may apply) we are doing some very professional operators a disservice.

[Brett Patron]

How about: "When will women have the same PT test standards?"
or
"When will women publish professional articles on combat service support functions in combat zones (e.g. counter ambush, small unit defense, etc)?

You know...stuff they are doing now.

[Perpetual_Student]

I know in the USMC women do a flex arm hang instead of pullups. This is a whole different topic but instead of doing dead hang pull ups (which your body isnt naturally built for) we should do kipping pull ups and raise the standard on the number that needs to be accomplished. I am from the crossfit community and there are PLENTY of women that can do plenty of pullups. Same thing for the run. The standards are set lower for the amount of time that it takes them in achieving a 100 pts for the run or for passing it in general. It does not just stop at the PFT either.

But why should it change in relation to them having a combat arms MOS? If they can pass the PT standard they should be combat arms? I know you did not directly say that but is that what you are implying?

[Adam L]

This is a whole different topic but instead of doing dead hang pull ups (which your body isnt naturally built for) we should do kipping pull ups and raise the standard on the number that needs to be accomplished.

Kipping pull ups are a nice trick, but more a test of technique than physical strength.

But why should it change in relation to them having a combat arms MOS? If they can pass the PT standard they should be combat arms? I know you did not directly say that but is that what you are implying?

I believe what he is saying is that there should be ONE PFT standard for combat arms. For that matter, there should be one PFT scale for all service members regardless of age or sex.

Adam L

[SJPONeill]

For that matter, there should be one PFT scale for all service members regardless of age or sex. Adam L

Well...no....The fitness scale should be relevant to the trade and employment group...those relevant for a pilot are not the same as those required in the infantry or armour and those may be different again from those necessary for SF or CSS or staff...

It's all very well to want a force all at the same high standard but I'd suggest that would be a very small force indeed...

Certainly my current requirement to navigate the Zimmerframe around the circuit in less than a week is less than the standards that had to met in my infantry days but the current requirement for me is certainly adequate for my (non-op) staff role...

[JMA]

I believe what he is saying is that there should be ONE PFT standard for combat arms. For that matter, there should be one PFT scale for all service members regardless of age or sex.

Adam L

Exactly

[Deus Ex]

I know in the USMC women do a flex arm hang instead of pullups. This is a whole different topic but instead of doing dead hang pull ups (which your body isnt naturally built for) we should do kipping pull ups and raise the standard on the number that needs to be accomplished. I am from the crossfit community and there are PLENTY of women that can do plenty of pullups. Same thing for the run. The standards are set lower for the amount of time that it takes them in achieving a 100 pts for the run or for passing it in general. It does not just stop at the PFT either.

But why should it change in relation to them having a combat arms MOS? If they can pass the PT standard they should be combat arms? I know you did not directly say that but is that what you are implying?

You couldn't be more wrong. Kipping pull ups are generally worthless and that is why most sensible crossfit websites (crossfit football, military athlete, etc.) have moved away from it. If you need to pull yourself up in a military zone and you're on a wall, please explain how the F you would do a kipping pull up. You have 40 lbs on gear on at a minimum, and being able to pull yourself up dead hang when a wall is dead smack in front of you is more important than being able to do 50 kipping pull ups.

[JMA]

You couldn't be more wrong. Kipping pull ups are generally worthless and that is why most sensible crossfit websites (crossfit football, military athlete, etc.) have moved away from it. If you need to pull yourself up in a military zone and you're on a wall, please explain how the F you would do a kipping pull up. You have 40 lbs on gear on at a minimum, and being able to pull yourself up dead hang when a wall is dead smack in front of you is more important than being able to do 50 kipping pull ups.

Here is a good enough resource on PT in the military.

I asked this question earlier... and no one responded.

Is it necessary to have the same physical fitness standard and physical capability for male and female soldiers doing exactly the same job?

I would take this further by asking whether the same level of fitness is required across the board within a platoon all tasked with the same duties?

Does a recce platoon take a member on a (heavy load) 8 day patrol because he is a good signaler but is in reality unlikely to be able to make it up the first hill? Of course not. The same basic fitness/strength level is required across the whole platoon (in this example) to be able to a) complete their mission and b) be able to perform operationally when contact is made.

The gender thing does not come into it. There is a minimum fitness/strength level required.

And I would say that by adding a sub-group to the mix who can do some of the tasks and not others (due on physical limitations) makes no sense at all.

Maybe its time for some honesty on this matter and that would go something like this:

There is a societal/political requirement for women to be absorbed into the military in increasing numbers in all areas of the service. As such, for better or for worse, a dual set of standards and requirements need to set up and any negative organisational and operational effects need to just be absorbed. Just get on with it.

[Perpetual_Student]

What I am saying is that if EVERY Marine is a rifleman than there should be one rifleman standard. Once a student gets to their specific MOS producing school there should be another standard for PT that needs to be met. For instance when you go to IOC to become a Marine Infantry Officer you have to pass the Combat Endurance Test. That is not the standard for the Communications Officer that is going to his/her follow on school after TBS.

Kipping pull ups are a nice trick, but more a test of technique than physical strength.

Not an entirely true statement. There is a technique, I do not disagree with that at all. But there is a techniques to climbing a tree as well and I guarantee you that it looks more like a kipping pullup that a dead hang pullup. And also I would doubt that on a consistent basis you would be capable of jumping through multiple windows and over multiple walls in country (full combat load) without executing some sort of kipping.

Which brings about the question WHY do we have a PT standard at all? Is it for promotion? Is qualify people to be a part of the service? Is it to separate the services? Why don't we look at that question as well. Regardless though going back to the original argument the reason I said kipping pullups is because it is functional and then you wouldn't have to scale that portion for women. Also it would tie into the concept that every Marine is a rifleman. The implied statement there is that you will be exercising the muscles that make it capable for you to be able to climb over walls and through windows amongst many other things a strong back and abs will do for you.

Which brings me back to if every Marine is a rifleman and we all need to be able to accomplish the same task, the standard needs to be that when I ask a female to get over a wall in country or she needs to get through a window she has the ability and has been held to the standard of exercising those muscles that will allow her to accomplish the mission. I do not believe that a flex arm hang mental prepares her for the challenges she may face.

[Adam L]

Not an entirely true statement. There is a technique, I do not disagree with that at all. But there is a techniques to climbing a tree as well and I guarantee you that it looks more like a kipping pullup that a dead hang pullup. And also I would doubt that on a consistent basis you would be capable of jumping through multiple windows and over multiple walls in country (full combat load) without executing some sort of kipping.

Yes, but kipping pull up technique can be taught with relative ease. Physical strength isn't as easy. Give me 15 minutes and I'll have 50 men doing Kipping pullups. Training on properly conditioned muscles is a whole other thing. I think your comments about whether you would do much in reality without some sort of kipping pull up is very weak. You could also make the argument about push ups. How often do you have to keep your body that straight? When would you be unable to get to your knees before pushing yourself up? Push ups and pull ups are simply effective time tested methods of increasing strenghty (when used as an exercise) and/or measuring strength.

Adam L

[Rifleman]

OSS and SOE both used women agents in WWII in Europe. So women have successfully served in some sort of special ops capacity in modern war.

Having said that, I don't know the details of how the were used but I don't think they were members of Operational Groups or Jedburghs.

[Have Gun - Will Travel]

For what purpose?

The only valid purpose is: in order to increase the likelihood of victory in combat (military necessity). All other purposes (such as equal opportunity) are irrelevant.

[Fuchs]

Actually, no.

Equal opportunities are seen as a right, and a military cannot defend the freedom and well-being of its country by violating its values and rights of its citizens.


There are more possible reasons anyway; the recruitment pool is widened, thus recruitment might become cheaper, saving taxpayer money.

[jmm99]

Fuchs

We've discussed this somewhere else; but the bottom line is that Germany and the US have different values and rights re: employment and the place of the military vice general society, in their basic laws (for us, Constitution) and statutory laws.

So, neither did the older US policy (no women in the military) violate US values and rights of that time; nor does the current policy (women in limited combat roles) violate US values and rights of today.

Cheers with the rest of the debate.

Mike

[82redleg]

Actually, no.

Equal opportunities are seen as a right, and a military cannot defend the freedom and well-being of its country by violating its values and rights of its citizens.


There are more possible reasons anyway; the recruitment pool is widened, thus recruitment might become cheaper, saving taxpayer money.

So the military should have to accept the mentally retarded, the overweight and the physically handicapped? It is, after all, a right. We'd save money in recruitment, too, since we might not have to recruit so hard. Military effectiveness be damned, right?

And I am not equating the three groups, just pointing out three other groups that have even fewer options for service than women.