Women in combat arms

[Tireman]

This debate goes back a long way. I'll start by saying women are some of the best we've got. You can argue back and forth, that women can hang in the infantry. I know some definately could. Thats not the issue. The Israeli's have done a lot of research on this. The've had women in combat units. However, they currently do not. They use physical restrictions as their basis for this judgement. I think, if this issue goes before congress, we will use this reason as well. It's the Black and White way to keep them out. You know women average 130lbs. and men 180lbs. yada, yada... It's the PC way to do it.
I think the reason this wouldn't work is that you would throw off the dynamic. I can only speak of the infantry, but i'll assume the other combat arms branches are the same. The infantry is a different world. It has a different mission. I know in Iraq everyone is patroling and putting it on the line right now, I was there. But, most of the time I was there we did MP type patrol missions. We did some infantry missions but mainly patrolling like cops.
In all my years as a grunt, Marines and Army, we trained for the Vietnam fight. We lived like cave men and acted like it to. We hazed like it was was going out of style. Smokings and sometimes physical altercations were SOP. The term PC doesn't exist, it can't. This is not the office, we were training to "take the hill" without question. You have to be serious and bruttal. Having an EO atmosphere would jepordize the infantry dynamic.

Now, I know some women can handle that life style. But, I'm afraid of all the sexual harassment, chaplain calls, tailhook scandals, and IG complaints that would come of the intergration. I stess the "cave man" term. These guys are all alpha-males. You can't change that reallity.

The arguement in the Army Times 2 weeks ago was that women are precluded from a lot of General officer slots. Also, their hope was that by opening it up to females, they could get more black combat arms officers. They say there are a shortage of blacks in these fields. I know in the infantry it seems that way. But, thats their choice. I don't think it makes a good arguement for letting women in. Maybe they should figure out another way to promote more women to General.

My arguement to keep them out of the male infantry doesn't mean I don't think they have a right to serve as grunts. Personnaly, I think they could have all female infantry units. However, if they did that it would prove they could do it physically, and that would bring about the intergration anyway. It's a bit of a quagmire for me. I think women make great warriors but I'd hate to alter the unique dynamic in the infantry.

When I was an instructor at MCT(SOI-east)USMC, they started sending females through in 1997-8. Of course female NCO's had to be trained to train the female privates. These we're some hard core female NCO's. My hat was off to them. By that token I think it worked well for them to be segragated. If our privates ever crossed paths they would lose focus in what they we're learning. And infantry training is not something to joke about. It will save your life. Your learning how to kill and also how to kill in groups. The infantry's sole mission is to kill bad guys. it's not a job that you can use white-out if you screw up. Complicateing the dynamics would add more problems than it would solve.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

You make a couple of good points:

I'll start by saying women are some of the best we've got.

That's one of them.

The infantry is a different world.

That's another.

I'm afraid of all the sexual harassment, chaplain calls, tailhook scandals, and IG complaints that would come of the intergration.

That's a third (unfortunately one based on lack of experience).

Personnaly, I think they could have all female infantry units. However, if they did that it would prove they could do it physically, and that would bring about the intergration anyway.

And that's the best.

Set reasonable standards based on actual tasks that the people are likely to have to do and then allow anyone who wants to attempt the program do so - with the understanding that evaluation will be based strictly on measurable and objective standards.

The Canadian Forces are working on developing just such a test. One of the "standards" is to be able to dig a set amount of standardized "pea gravel" in a set period of time (simulating the soldier's ability to "dig in" which probably gives a better idea of a soldier's survivability than their ability to do push-ups does), another is to be able to move and stack a set number of standardized "sand bags" in a set period of time (simulating the soldier's ability to move supplies). As I understand the direction that the CF is going in, "the run" is going to be replaced by "the march" (around 10mi - which would be done with a full set of kit, a load of 75 pounds, wearing all PPE and carrying weapons - since the likelihood of a soldier going into battle empty-handed and wearing PT gear is generally considered pretty low).

:cheers:

[Tireman]

thats a good idea. is it the new "PT" test or is it like a qualification you have to pass to get into certain branches?

if it's a PT test, maybe you could combine them with a regular PT test for a good overall assesment.

if it's a qualifier, then it will keep a lot of men out. lol.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

thats a good idea. is it the new "PT" test or is it like a qualification you have to pass to get into certain branches?

if it's a PT test, maybe you could combine them with a regular PT test for a good overall assesment.

It's the basis for the proposed PF standards for the Infantry (and likely all of the three other combat arms). The "traditional" PFT is, I understand, being retained for the remainder of the Canadian Forces but this type of "job oriented" PF testing is one hell of a lot more important for the fields where your life depends on "meeting standards" (and those standards have something to do with staying alive so that you can do your job).

if it's a qualifier, then it will keep a lot of men out. lol.

True, but are they men that you want to let in?

(Lest you misunderstand, the proposed standards are standards to be met AT THE END OF training, and not to get into the program - i.e. they are "graduation standards" not "entrance standards".)

If you combine "job oriented" standards with a "personalized" training program - some body types start out much closer to "standard" in some areas than others (and further away as well). Someone who enters service with experience running marathons [A], might well not need anywhere near the "endurance training" that someone who enters service with experience pumping iron [B] and it would be silly to have a PF training program that was the same for both of them - since [A] probably needs one hell of a lot more building up of upper body strength than [B] does and [B] probably needs one hell of a lot more C-V building up than [A] does.

:cheers:

[ranger1stbat_guest]

When those who want to give women or allow women into combat arms lobby for a single PT standard regardless of age and gender. Then I will take this discussion serioulsy. Until then they are 2 standards thus there will be different criteria and allowable MOS's

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

When those who want to give women or allow women into combat arms lobby for a single PT standard regardless of age and gender. Then I will take this discussion serioulsy. Until then they are 2 standards thus there will be different criteria and allowable MOS's

And somehow you think that I don't advocate that there be a single PT standard regardless if age abd gender?

Now why on earth (other than possibly not bothering to read my posts) would you think that.

BTW, I got out seven years ago (I was 55 then) and I can still make the PT standards for a 20 year old - which isn't all that bad considering that I smoke, drink, eat whatever I feel like (including junk food and candy), and avoid anything that looks like "working out" like the plague. (Oh yes, I did exactly the same thing when I WAS still in the infantry - admittedly I wasn't as successful then as I am now.)

:cheers:

[ranger1stbat_guest]

Did I mention your name, don't think so. You are right I did not read your post becasue I was not replying to YOU. I was giving my opinion on the whole women in combat arms debate or what ever you want to call it. You can figure unless I mention you specifically or take a quote form you then I am just giving an opinion not personally attacking or debating you. However I can see where your name comes from, take a vallium and have a drink you will feel better

[ArmyWife1992_guest]

When those who want to give women or allow women into combat arms lobby for a single PT standard regardless of age and gender. Then I will take this discussion serioulsy. Until then they are 2 standards thus there will be different criteria and allowable MOS's

Women are physiologically different from men -- that's not discrimination, that's basic anatomy. Their hearts are smaller, their lung capacity less, muscle mass less, fat ratio higher -- and that's nature, not being politically incorrect. A female in top physical condition will likely not out perform a male in top physical condition. So, should there be different standards based on age and gender? Of course -- it makes the playing field for advancement and promotion equitable, otherwise females would not likely make the scores that would help them advance professionally when it comes to PT and promotion points.

That does not mean MOS requirements cannot be standardized regardless of gender. For example, if the "standard" is to march 12 miles in full combat gear with a 40 pound rucksack (a more likely weight for a combat patrol than a heavier pack which reduces speed and mobility) and the Soldier (be it male or female) meets that standard, then so be it. To my knowledge, the Army still uses "physical demand ratings" as part of the criteria for enlistment in a given specialty.

As to comparing our military to that of the Israelis, the biggest difference is necessity. We have no need as a nation to train our children from adolescence to handle weapons and endure tactical training. Our country is not surrounded by enemies who would cheerfully and overwhelmingly swoop down on our cities and towns and kill every man, woman, and child WITH the means to do it. Israel is a country, in part, founded by the survivors of concentration camps and displaced persons camps who have fought against governments, politics, Arab enemies, and the desert itself to build a nation that they believe was literally their God given homeland. Of course their women will fight. So will their elderly and their children. As Americans in the year 2007, most of us have very little knowledge or understanding of the Israeli people or what it truly means to defend one's country and home. Comparing the Israeli Army to that of the U.S. Army is illogical.

[ranger1stbat_guest]

That sounds to me like you are advocating the same opportunities for people but a different standard. If I want to receive an excellence on my NCOER in the Physical Fitness area I must meet a higher standard then a woman. Yes men and women are different but if you truley advocate a gender neutral total equality system then you must have a truely equal standard. If a enemy male Soldier and female U.S. Soldier engage in hand to hand is the enemy Soldier going to only use 75% of his strength since he is facing a women and they are physoclogicaly not as strong as a man?
You weight standards are way off as well, my LBE alone weighs almost 40 pounds, and my ruck is much heavier than 40 pounds; and no I am not carrying a bunch of pogey. Just radio, batteries, ammo, a little food, water, etc. If you want to debate the whole weight in combat issue that is fine, I would probably agree we should be lighter, but you have to carry what you need and it is almost always more than 40 pounds.

I am not saying that there are not women who could met the same physical standards as men. There are, however before I am willing to even listen to there argument I think they should lobby for a one standard for all sexes before they try and agrue for positions in combat arms. That would show me they are serious and not just a bunch of feminists trynig to make waves.

With regard to the Israeli histroy on females in regular infantry units. You need to do some research, yes they tried it and it was an utter disaster. Shortly after the first engagement they pulled the females out of the units and went bak to male infantry units. It had more to do with the men showing their chivalry than anything else, but regardless it disrupted the combat effectives of these units.

[ArmyWife1992_guest]

That sounds to me like you are advocating the same opportunities for people but a different standard. If I want to receive an excellence on my NCOER in the Physical Fitness area I must meet a higher standard then a woman.

No, in regards to your NCOER, you must meet a PT standard that is appropriate for the physiological differences between men and women. Is it fair that I should always fall short of "excellence" in PT solely based on my gender? The only other option is reduce overall standards of physical fitness which reduces readiness.

I am advocating the SAME physical standards for qualification in military occupational specialty and standards of individual fitness based on age and gender. I don't expect a 45 year old woman to perform on the same physical level as her 23 year old counterpart, male or female. I do expect her to meet a reasonable physical standard of individual fitness for duty for a woman of her age. I am sorry if I was confusing. Physical standards to qualify for an occupational specialty should be gender neutral. Personal physical fitness standards should be based on gender and age. In other words, you might be in great shape for a 26 year old male, but that doesn't mean you could meet the physical demands of the Infantry. Everyone always seems to point to women as being unfit for the rigors of combat Infantry duty, but there are also a large number of males who can't handle it either.

Yes men and women are different but if you truley advocate a gender neutral total equality system then you must have a truely equal standard. If a enemy male Soldier and female U.S. Soldier engage in hand to hand is the enemy Soldier going to only use 75% of his strength since he is facing a women and they are physoclogicaly not as strong as a man?

Actually, I don't advocate opening combat arms specialties like armor, Infantry and Special Forces (the only branches with no female positions) to women. What I am saying is that IF it were done it should be based on rigorous duty qualifications that supersede or are in addition to APFT standards based on gender and age. In other words, everyone (male and female) meets the SAME standard or you don't get the specialty. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe, for example, the standards for Air Assault School and the award of the AASLT badge are gender neutral. It is also my understanding that in order to qualify for Ranger School, all males must meet the minimum APFT qualifications of a 17-21 year old male regardless of age.

If you think about it, the majority of military specialities in the Army are already gender neutral.....while PT standards may differ between the sexes, the MOS qualifications for most MOSs do not. For example, does a female have to meet a lower standard to be a supply clerk or a petroleum specialist than a male in the same MOS? Nope. They have to make the same PULHES and pass the physical exam.

You weight standards are way off as well, my LBE alone weighs almost 40 pounds, and my ruck is much heavier than 40 pounds; and no I am not carrying a bunch of pogey. Just radio, batteries, ammo, a little food, water, etc. If you want to debate the whole weight in combat issue that is fine, I would probably agree we should be lighter, but you have to carry what you need and it is almost always more than 40 pounds.

I believe I said full combat gear and a ruck that weighed 40 pounds. I admit I am very likely to be off as I have never had to go on a combat patrol or wear an assault pack. I do know that when my husband put on 'everything" he weighed 300 pounds (his body weight was 230) but that was with a full ruck, not an assault pack.

I am not saying that there are not women who could met the same physical standards as men. There are, however before I am willing to even listen to there argument I think they should lobby for a one standard for all sexes before they try and agrue for positions in combat arms. That would show me they are serious and not just a bunch of feminists trynig to make waves..

I don't believe that there are women who could consistently meet the same physical standards as men. There is a big difference between making it through AIT or passing a PT test and serving full-time in the Infantry. My point is that you CAN have it both ways. You can maintain gender neutral standards for an MOS and still have personal standards of fitness based on age and gender that all Soldiers must meet at a minimum. Personally, I'd think the Army would be better overall for it whether they open combat arms to women or not. And frankly, I have been in , around, and married to the Army for almost 18 years and have yet to meet ONE female who seriously wanted to serve in combat arms. The female Soldiers I knew were perfectly content in their jobs and proud of their service and their branch.

With regard to the Israeli histroy on females in regular infantry units. You need to do some research, yes they tried it and it was an utter disaster. Shortly after the first engagement they pulled the females out of the units and went bak to male infantry units. It had more to do with the men showing their chivalry than anything else, but regardless it disrupted the combat effectives of these units.

The first Israeli Army, the Palmach, included women in all specialties. During the war of liberation that begun shortly after the UN voted to recognize Israel as an independent nation (November 29,1947), not only did women serve in combat units, some of those women were teenagers. I am not sure of which engagements you are speaking of, however. I just dont' see any comparison between our Army and Israel's as being valid.