E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA group of female pilots, Marines and soldiers gathered in San Francisco on Tuesday to announce the filing of a lawsuit challenging the military's policy of excluding women from many combat positions.
The four women plaintiffs, along with the Service Women's Action Network headquartered in New York, are suing the Department of Defense, and the suit names Defense Secretary Leon Panetta specifically. A representative at the DOD in Washington, D.C., was not immediately available for comment, but he did say it is common policy not to comment on ongoing litigation.
The American Civil Liberties Union is representing Marine 1st Lt. Colleen Farrell, Marine Reserves Capt. Zoe Bedell, Army Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt and Air Guard Major Mary Jennings Hegar in the suit, which was filed Tuesday afternoon in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The four women have all served in Afghanistan or Iraq, and two are Purple Heart recipients.
Their careers and opportunities have been limited by a policy, the suit states, which does not grant them the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts. The combat exclusion policy also makes it harder for them to do their jobs, the suit alleges.
Though the Pentagon is reforming the policies directed at servicewomen, the rules still bar women in the U.S. military from specific combat positions -- positions that are available to men.
"To this day, that same part of me doesn’t understand why someone’s gender would have any bearing at all on what job they ended up in," wrote Major Mary Jennings Hegar, who is based at Moffett Field -- about 40 miles south of San Francisco -- and is a member of the U.S. Air National Guard. "I always thought that your skills, strengths, and interests would be better qualifiers. I remember watching the news when I was in high school and hearing that they were opening combat aircraft up to women for the first time. My first thought was, “Cool! What do I need to do to get one!” followed closely by my second thought, “What changed? Why weren’t we allowed to fly in combat before?”
Click here for more military-related coverage from NBC News.
Hegar has served three tours over two deployments to Afghanistan, and trained as a search and rescue pilot after serving five years in the Air Force. She was also awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross with a Valor Device for heroism while participating in an aerial mission near Kandahar Airfield in 2009.
According to the suit, women make up more than 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel, yet the rule categorically excludes them from more than 200,000 positions, as well as from entire career fields. Consequently, the suit states, commanders are stymied in their ability to mobilize their troops effectively. In addition, servicewomen are:
- Denied training and recognition for their service;
- put at a disadvantage for promotions;
- prevented from competing for positions for which they have demonstrated their suitability and from advancing in rank.
"That’s the problem with the military’s combat exclusion policy," Hegar wrote." It makes it that much harder for people to see someone’s abilities, and instead reinforces stereotypes about gender. The policy creates the pervasive way of thinking in military and civilian populations that women can’t serve in combat roles, even in the face of the reality that servicewomen in all branches of the military are already fighting for their country alongside their male counterparts. They shoot, they return fire, they drag wounded comrades to safety and they engage with the enemy, and they have been doing this for years. They risk their lives for their country, and the combat exclusion policy does them a great disservice."
NBC Bay Area's Cheryl Hurd contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- PTSD may be overdiagnosed, but deniers are 'wrong,' psychologists say
- Older vets to post-9/11 vets: 'We had it harder'
- Double amputee to potential congressional foes: 'Bring it'
- Vet injured in parade crash: I heard someone yelling 'train!'
- Panetta orders review of ethical standards amid misconduct allegations
- Hearing loss the most prevalent injury among returning veterans
- Your 'thank you' to veterans is welcomed, but not always comfortably received
Leave a Comment:
They did this before then complained that they didn't want to fight and now their repeating
i would think a judge would know it's they're and not their
Yeah, and now they're going to accuse you of being the "grammar police." But you know, spelling is usually the first indicator of intelligence.
If they are physically fit, let them go out and get killed. They can play football too, -- doesn't, bother me.
How utterly ridiculous.
I can just imagine enemy combat soldiers taking lots over who will be in the attack that overruns the women's platoon. Then have our brave women soldiers crying over how the ruthless enemy raped them after they were overcome.
But hey, if the women want to take my place on the front, that's fine by me. I'll just go home and take care of the kids instead. Hey, works both ways.
Mark twain said "I pity a man who can spell a word only one way."
Would the relatives of soldiers (men or women) who are killed because a fellow female soldier reached her physical limit in combat be able to sue that female soldier also? We all know women that have done their best to mimic the abilities of men and I have yet to meet one that has succeeded other than to dress and try and look like one. In the eyes of the court, I can't see how they can stop them, but at what cost in lives might this policy be? Don't get me wrong, a combat pilot, why not? But a soldier in the trenches trying to keep up with the men is just ridiculous.
I think spelling and grammar would only be true signs of intelligence if the computer didn't correct it for us. It doesn't take much brains to click "Spell Check". Do they even give spelling tests anymore???
Ron,
If they pass the training courses at the same standards of men, what is your reasoning behind believing they would perform any differently in combat than the men who passed those courses?
Sarah, that's what makes it even MORE unforgivable.
I think the Military should take up their offer and send them to Afghanistan. Let them be one of the ten thousand that will remain there.
It's a question of physiology that these women want to ignore and that will cost their male counterparts their lives. For the ACLU, how about representing the male soldiers whose lives will be endangered because their front line combat units are going to be filled with others who are slower, weaker, with less stamina based on the physiology of their sex. Explain that to the wives and children of the dead male soldiers.
In combat, muscle mass matters as does bone density. The cost is extremely high. What right wins out, the right to a job or a right to ones actual life?
Physical limitations Sarah. You can ignore that all you want, but it's a fact. Generally, men and women are not equal in that regard. I wish I could remember where I it happened, but a perfect example of women trying to get through a military training school and none completed the program because of their inability to keep up with the rest physically. In combat, that's comes with a deadly consequence. Not just to those that can't do it, but to those that are serving beside them.
Absolutely right on Mike!
Ron,
What are you basing those limitations on if they pass training at the same standards as men?
Why is passing those courses at those standards good enough for you to trust a man, but not a woman if she passes the same course with same standards?
How many MEN haven't completed them? Why do we allow all men to try, knowing some will fail and allow almost NO women to try knowing some WILL pass?
Women are intrinsically nurturers, not killers. I just can't see women killing other human beings, sometimes women and children. I certainly could not.
"If they pass the training courses at the same standards of men, what is your reasoning behind believing they would perform any differently in combat than the men who passed those courses?"
You see, that's it right there - they don't have to pass the same physical requirements. If they did, I'd have no problem with it - but when they don't, they put the lives of their fellow soldiers at risk in combat situations.
Sarah, although I support women in combat roles they don't have the same physical training standards as men...As far as actual job training, if they can pass like men then more power to them...But if that training includes heavy physical activity should their training be easier because they are women??
And spell check here checks for spelling....Not for grammatically correct sentences...So even if he WOULD have hit spell check it would have come up ok since he spelled it correctly...But it is funny how many don't even try to hear what someone has to say because he/she had a typo or used a word incorrectly....And Styro whining about spelling is usually an indicator of buttholism....
Brings to mind what a former commander, who had been an assignment officer in MIPERCEN, said one time, "don't think for a second that there aren't women assigned to SPECOPS and they are some stone killers."
Rob/El,
No, not in any universe would I ever believe those standards should be lowered.
No one who advocates for women being in combat roles is advocating for lowering the standards. If a woman wants to fight a war, do you really believe she wants to be coddled in training?
Lowering those standards is under our control, ergo it is merely an excuse.
Woman Helicopter Rescue Swimmer here. No changes were made to the requirements of the school or continued physical requirements. Nearly one third of my class dropped because of the physical standards (I was the only woman in that class).
Some women may have to work harder to attain and maintain that level of fitness. And some smaller, weaker men have to do the same. As long as they are willing to do what it takes for the job why should some be forbidden to have a particular job? Would it make you feel better if the women in these positions promise to carry a dildo with them during work hours? Because that is the only difference between them and thier equally qualified male co-workers.
Men and women shouldnt be in combat positions together because of men, not women. Sexual attraction is a strong force, particularly for young men. It is also a MAJOR DISTRACTION to young men in the military. Like it or not, that's the way it is and WILL BE for hundreds of thousands of years between the sexes. It cannot be wished away in favor of political correctness. A female soldier may not even know that another soldier's attraction to her is the reason he's neglecting his responsibilites, leaving the unit vulnerable. Believe it or not, young boys do STUPID THINGS, particularly when women are involved. It undermines the chain of command and is not subject to debate by the civilian courts. This is for the military to decide. It also causes dissention in the ranks. What if a commanding officer does not send Sgt. Jane Doe on point several times in a row? How soon before other recruits start to believe that he's protecting her because he's into her? How long before dissention in the ranks because they believe their lives are put at risk more times than hers? You people need to recognize that the military is not a lab room for cultural or political engineering. Its primary job is to kill the enemy for the nation. Period.
Bobby,
If a guy is ass deep in bullets and bombs and is more focused on his "crush" than his life and the lives of his colleagues, than HE shouldn't be there. If you can't keep your head in a game as important as that, you shouldn't be playing.
No paramed, but it would make for a more relaxed and fun workplace =o)...
And Bobby...Lets just take women out of the military all together because, you know, there is sexual attraction...Really? That's what you have?? What do you think that a squad of a few men and women will go out on a combat patrol and turn it into a desert orgy??
Women have every right to serve in a combat position should they choose to do so. When they take an oath to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, they have the right to fully serve their country. When are some people going to get OVER their sexist bias.
Bobby H.
I hate to tell you this, but men take advantage of women even when it's not in a combat situation, although our military likes to sweep that under the table to ensure it doesn't draw any attention. We have already seen where the GOP (some in Congress) ignores women who are raped and end up pregnant. They prefer to blame the woman instead of the man who did it.
j70141 in Colorado
Men have been raped when they are captured in a military combat role as well. They just simply chose not to talk about it. So restricting a woman over the fear of being raped in a military combat role is mute.
I agree with the posters who bring up the physical aspects of this issue. I would hate to see more guys dying in combat because some woman was too tired out and did not have the strength to drag the guy to safety wen he was wounded. Also, there are some personal hygiene issues that women have to deal with that men do not. A man in combat can end up having to go for days with seeing running water or getting a change of clothes. I can just see a woman at that time of the month having to do the same. Then we would have these women complaining about their needs not being taken into account when they start getting infections that incapacitate them. This may sound sexist, but it is a very real issue that must be considered. Men are just physically different from women and that makes them better equipped to deal with certain situations and environments than women are. I will not even go into the issue of women being captured by the enemy and what they will do to them, particularly in a Muslim nation. They would have no problem with raping any women they captured, as the have proven time and again. This is all about the career advancement issue and has nothing to do with these women really wanting to be in combat. They are just upset that they can not get certain promotions because they are restricted to combat eligible personnel and because there are fewer senior level billets available in non-combat roles. If these women were not pushing for promotion they would not care about whether or not they were allowed in combat. The reasons for this suit have nothing to do with these women wanting to be equal and serve in the same combat roles that men do, if they were forced to do that they would complain about that as well. This is just about promotions and the money/prestige that goes with them, not abut these women actually wanting to be on the front lines.
Sarah, again physiology matters. Physiologically it is harder for women to retain muscle mass and women lose muscle mass at a much greater rate then men. In front line units (FOs, etc.) there is limited time, space and resources to allow for the necessary extra training that women will require to maintain the same level of required real-life fitness.
BTW, in the combat unit I was in the physical fitness standard required just to be eligible for duty was not the standard our unit felt was acceptable. We held ourselves to a higher standard and maintained that higher standard because we knew not only our wives, children, girlfriends, parents wanted us home but also our buddy's wives, children, girlfriends, parents want them home also and we were all accountable for that. I can almost guarantee that were a woman to face the consequences for not meeting those higher standards of that unit, she would be going straight back to the ACLU suing for discrimination based on the lower entry standards.
Mike,
Perhaps. And the long term pay out of having more available combat troops would be worth it. These same types of arguments have been used to justify inequality since the dawn of time. It ISN'T too difficult, nor too expensive. We CAN do it, if we want to.
The only questions that need to be answered are the ones I already posted, the rest will be worked out...
What are you basing those limitations on if they pass training at the same standards as men?
Why is passing those courses at those standards good enough for you to trust a man, but not a woman if she passes the same course with same standards?
How many MEN haven't completed them? Why do we allow all men to try, knowing some will fail and allow almost NO women to try knowing some WILL pass?
paramed, it's easy to maintain fitness when you're in the rear. Watch Restrepo and tell me how easily women would be able to maintain the same fitness level as their male counterparts in an FO.
ItsAboutTime you had me up until you had to spew GOP crap...Had to add political parties into this huh?? I am a Registered Republican, does that mean I fall into that same stereotype?? I mean if you read my posts you'll see I agree with the thinking that women should be allowed in combat, so what does that say about your GOP "theory"?
Rob68
In case you missed it 'some' republicans in Congress. Some doesn't mean all. The comment I made about the GOP is based upon recent events this year, where the republican congress blocked allowing raped military women to use their insurance to pay for an abortion.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/shaheen-amendment-military-rape-abortion
Don't take it personally, the comment was a simple one based upon research.
Mike in SA
If a woman could meet every single fitness test you went through, why could she not serve in a combat role? Women have the right to earn their place in a military combat role. Simply restricting them without giving them a chance is discrimination.
Sarah-3043284
Outstanding posts as always.
As a woman, my views are somewhat mixed. I don't think women are suited to those military roles requiring physical strength, but that doesn't mean they can't be in combat. Fighter pilots are one obvious example, and indeed, we have female pilots now. Those women are eligible to command fighter squadrons and move on up the chain.
But should they be in the muck carrying 100 lbs of gear while targeting enemy positions? I would say not. A few of them probably could do it, but the logistical problems they bring with them wouldn't be worth it.
The dos and don'ts of combat are defined on the ground, not the courtroom.
Bravo finally in court , these whiners will finally get the slap down they deserve , No women could drag a man to safety if he wasn't able to help !! The Liberals want to give a couple of their friends a chance to put a fellow American in jeopardy !!!
Sarah, please explain to me how a black man is physiologically different in physical capacity than a white man, because I can certainly explain to you the difference in physiological capacity between men and women.
...with the lives of dead male soldiers before figuring out that women aren't physiologically as fit for the duty as men??? Nice.
As for your constant repetition of your utopian mantra, are you trying to bait me into saying, "And see...women don't listen either"? Because you really are getting close to getting me to say that. I mean you obviously read...and then ignored my post to you. You know if you say that enough while clicking your heels, you'll end up back in Kansas with Toto.
I already answered this question with two reasons.
First meeting a standard once does not mean one will or can maintain that standard. Women physiologically have a much harder time maintaining muscle mass, bone density and endurance than men. They therefore would be much more likely to fall below that standard while serving in front line units with limited access and/or ability to strength train. There also is not capacity to continually test for fitness standards. Women therefore would be much more likely to fall below standard without notice. And once they fall below that standard?
Secondly as I stated, our unit standard was over and above the base military fitness standard. Base military standard was not considered acceptable and we were penalized for it. Would a woman sign a waiver saying she agreed she would not be allowed in a specific unit if she did not meet that specific unit's standards? I doubt it, not without one crying discrimination again. That unit would then have to lower it's standards to meet that of the woman and the base military standard...again, endangering the lives of the male soldiers in that unit.
Undoubtedly these women have more balls than some of your hypocritical congressmen who love to start wars, but were never in the Military.
What the heck. Let them do anything and everything the guys do.
Mike in SA
So basically you are saying. Women should not be given a chance to meet or exceed the same standards and maintain those same standards that are in place for a man. That's discrimination and if you presented that in a court room, you would lose. Women deserve the chance to serve their country in a combat role. No where does the oath to serve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution say "Women shall not have the same opportunities as a man".
Thank you for the post.
if muscle was all that mattered then david would never have bested goliath.
one well trained martial artist at 160 pounds could kick the cr?p out of any 240 pound football star on the battlefield.
It also seems clear that the average woman could equal any man in the effort required to aim and fire your average weapon. In fact, if men are so superior on the battlefield then why are most fields now won by automated airpower, drones, and robots? The era of hand-to-hand combat ended a while ago. The typical enemy today is an IED or a sniper.
I absolutely support them, provided they can meet the same physical fitness standards as men. In a combat situation, your 240-75 lb (in combat gear) buddy isn't gonna care if you passed your PFT (Physical Fitness Test for the sillyvilians) if you can't get him to safety after he gets hurt.
I think there are many women who can meet the same standards as men and I absolutely support them in making this long overdue change as long as they meet those standards.
ItsAboutTime and thank you for doing your best to make sure that there are more dead soldiers to appease your female ego...nice.
Mike in SA
Welcome. Thank you for doing your best to satisfy the male ego that women should be treated like second class citizens. I don't have a female ego, but I do believe that all MEN (and women) are created EQUAL and have every right to serve, protect, and defend the United States of America.
P.S. If a woman in combat saves one soldiers life, the price that woman took to PROVE herself worthy of a combat role is PROOF that this country is in 2012 not 1912.
how come they never sued to have their required number of push-ups the same to that of men's?
I can really appreiciate the responses and can see both sides (as much as a male can) of the argument. I'm a 20 yr vet (medic) and it goes far beyounda difference in physiology... Women need different support in the field... Logisticaly, medicaly... this is different for men only platoons and those that are "co-ed". This FACT is undiniable and can't be ignored. How will you "adjust to this in the field?... Though I appreciate Sarah's and otheres feelings but. Woman in general cannot lift more thatn men... that is why there are no woman on front lines of Infantry, Artillery, recon... etc. Yes there maybe a few... but to make it truly equitable... you have to lower standards... Look at the PT test... in order for the woman to score a "100" in a event, they do 'less than men... if you make all the standards (physical) the same, then you would either have very fwew women or a redusced fighting capacity... that is not a bite on the opposite sex... just a FACT....
War has been foght for thousands of years.... on the vine (though I'm a creationist) talk of evolution... War has evolved... the womaen role has increasecd... but tthe (font line) fight has not because of the recognized diffference in between men and womaen... no amount of "allowances" will change a fact of war.
forgive my copious misspellings.. add was in the way.. try to correct but hey.. it was too late.
I certainly understand Sarah and other's points, as well, but this point is hard to argue against...
Interesting debate though. Great points on both sides.
Ps. on the vine your point is mure importent then your spillleng.
See that's the issue, their not trying to pass at the same standards.
Ok now for some info for those who are not currently part of nor have ever been a service member. Each service is a bit different in how they go about this but the combat arms fields (the ones prohibited to women currently) have a different physical standard then the one used for combat service and combat service support. Women have to meet a lower psychical standard to service in all branch's, look up the APFT and you'll notice it.
On the other hand you have things like Ranger School, SF, and the various combat related schools. They each have their own physical standard, requiring to march a certain distance within a certain amount of time while carrying a set load of equipment. Requiring a certain amount of pull ups / ect.. or demonstrated upper body strength. These are incredibly hard schools that tend to have a very high failure rate, most of which happens in the first week when their screen the candidates for their physical fitness level.
Something not often publicized is that the service components are currently field testing women attending these schools to see if they can meet the same physical requirements. I don't know of a single women who's passed through them yet, though these schools do have high drop out rates anyway. It's been brought up by MANY supporters of "women in combat roles" of making a set of unique "female" physical standards for these demanding courses. They would have to march shorter distances or with less load or just be given more time to do it in.
In training I've had to personally carry a 200lb squad-mate 100 meters to a casualty evacuation point. I'm 5'11 @170~180lbs, that was no small thing to ask, yet I did it. The combat arms folks are all expected, without exception, to do similar tasks often to further distances or in shorter times.
The point is that women are ALREADY in combat. Many are wounded, many are decorated for their actions and all are doing their jobs just as well as the guys. However, because of the "no combat" rule, they aren't recognized for their service. That is just plain wrong. You go girls.
Sarah,
The physical performance testing of the women is different from the men. However, I do not know if this is relevant to the issue at hand.
I have served in the Navy and can tell you there are definitely differences. Women do not do the same push ups that the men do, we got to put our knees down. Plus we didn't have to do as many. Not to mention the differences in precessing you for boot camp. For instance, men are required to get a crew cut, women are not. Women still wear skirts and healed shoes. Also women where not required to wear the Dixie cup hat. Not sure if they still have that in the navy anymore, but in my time they did. So until we asked to be treated the same as the men, then I would have to say no to combat stations. We can't have it both ways.
Now if we actually pass the exact same physical tests as men, which we do not, then I would say yes to combat positions.
Child Support is a $500 billion dollar industry That turn fathers into criminals for doing what is natural, having kids!!!
A possible side effect from a capitalistic economy such as the United States, the child support system has become a good source of revenue for civil courts & attorneys.1
Parents have no say in the matter but this was created by rogue politicians looking to earn money not only in the US but looking to force it on other nations around the world including Africa....
These are countries where children work with their family to make a better life for all
Never in the history of mankind has this type of robbery been committed on such a world wide level.
Today women use child support as a method to exchange sex for 18 years worth of consistent payments!!!!!
There is no longer a problem where men are having 10 or more kids and then leaving mothers behind to fend for themselves.
We as citizens had no say in the matter and never agreed to these terms.
When did we go so wrong where we allow for civil courts to ruin the lives and families of the majority of people around the world.
IT's TIME TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE CIVIL COURT INDUSTRY LOOKING TO BULLY INDIVIDUALS OUT OF HARD EARNED FUNDS AND LOOKING TO DESTROY THE FAMILY UNIT.
Many women use child support as a crutch to trap men into situations that literally destroy the lives of the child and the men that they are targeting. This "CRAZY IDEOLOGY" attempts to label all dads who are not in a position to have a child as dead beats even if before the first day of pregnancy they inform their partner that they are not ready to be a dad.
"He shouldn't have laid down with her"
God didn't make him the mom so that woman should have been taught that because she bears the child, she will most likely be responsible in the event the guy that she attempts to have a child with doesn't want to have a child with her.
This is not the case in every situation but it tips the balance of power within the family especially when idiots lawmakers can't understand the full scope of how the family works.
I can agree with child support in some instances but, each situation should be viewed differently.
Most men nowadays are great dads and kept from their children and have to pay support.
Somebody has to pay for the pain that those dads are feeling and for me it is those who are profiting off of it.
i.e. "civil court industry"
Placing someone in jail or prison for having a child is just as bad as killing and kidnapping.
If you want to talk abut responsibility then let's talk about what responsibility that lawmakers take when falsely going into war and innocent civilians are killed.
In this situation they should be held responsible and jailed or even placed on death row for the killing of the innocent.
Or else quiet with the responsibility talk.
Even if nothing is done about child support we will target issues where lawmakers get out of taking responsibilities for their actions and I'm cool as long as everyone is held accountable for everything done to others.
This has opened Pandora's BOX.....
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support
IABT....Say what you mean and mean what you say....
Sara, let me give you a real life example. Years ago when I was running a security team in Rota Spain there were both male and female personal in the group. The job not only consisted of physical security of the base but these folks patrolled the town to not only protect our service members but to keep the peace when our service members got carried away.
Bar fights were not uncommon and many of those who reported to me were called upon to restore some sanity when that happened. I refused to send any female into that situation for their protection and the protection of their partner. Of course there was one female who filed a complaint with the Commanding Office and I was later ordered to let her patrol in town with her male counter parts.
The next night I assigned her to ride along with me as the officer in charge. Sure as hell a large fight broke out and we were the first one on the scene. I jumped in the middle of this brawl trying to break up the fight and in the course of doing so the helmets that we wore for such occasions was knocked off my head. I had called for back before getting out of he unit. A few minutes later help arrived and we got the situation under control. As I was looking around to make sure everyone was accounted for and okay I saw my partner standing next to our patrol unit holding the helmet I had lost and she was petrified.
This woman was a great person and did many of her duties very well but that instance wasn’t one of her greatest moments. She never again pushed the issue and in all honesty I don’t think she ever had the desire to patrol the streets with her male counter parts.
Yes she trained and passed the written and physical tests required by the security department but that did not help in that situation. I was lucky no one was hurt, this was nothing, a minor incident compared to being on the front line in a firefight.
I am not being a sexist, most women can do most jobs in the military but that doesn’t mean they should be on the front lines. Not as a pilot, not as a ground troop, not as anything. If a woman was taken prisoner what do you think would happen to her. I will leave that up to your imagination but I am here to tell you I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy. I think all of you in favor of sending women into combat should rethink the issue.
@Sarah:
"Ron,
If they pass the training courses at the same standards of men, what is your reasoning behind believing they would perform any differently in combat than the men who passed those courses?"
That is the problem. Women aren't even held to the same PT standards as men in the military. This will end the same as it started: a set of double standards, i.e. men meet one requirement, and women meet a separate requirement. Sorry if my time in the military lent me a bit of insight here. Perhaps try googling fitness standards for the military if this seems like a lie.
Ahh, the deafening screech of knuckles being dragged forcibly into the 21st century....sounds like victory to me.
Hi Everyone,
Most of your responses boiled down to, "They don't have to meet the same standards", so in the interest of time, I'll address that point...
First, no one, NO ONE, is advocating for lowering the standards, especially in combat roles. Whether we do that or not is completely WITHIN OUR CONTROL, ergo it is merely an excuse.
We can simply agree NOT to lower the standards, and that would NOT be illegal, seeing as there is a compelling interest in meeting those standards and performing at that level. It is a legal defense that would stand if someone tried to tweak it for females.
Ummm..... When they are being recognized for their services. That is why they are decorated with medals, just like the boys. What do you expect? A parade?
Agreed. Women's PT standards are lower than men in the military. Their minimum requirements are less...... pushups with knees on the ground, less situps and longer times to run 1 /12 to 3 miles.
So, change the standards! Make it all equal. It's that simple.
Still doesn't change the fact that women, while not serving in "combat roles," have seen combat.
Sarah-3043284,
The US Military is NOT an Academic Idealistic Social Experiment. Unless you have actually been one of the previous or current 1% of US Citizens Serving do not even attempt to argue (from a basis of NO Firsthand Real World Experience as Fact) as:
http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress
Now the Reality. Ever since the US Military Training Teams attached to the CIA's SAD/SOG sent to US Ally Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars, I have served with Women. These women are NOT "average" usually in their 30s (gave up being Mothers and having Families) and usually as a "hobby" are marathon runners, triathletes, etc.; who trained them to our standards I have no idea (asking them is the best way to get silence.). Some of the lesser (qualified) women that are usually attached are from other US Military Career Fields usually mature US Military Officers or Warrant Officers (translation: They are not recognized as being actually in Combat, as us being attached to the CIA's SAD/SOG, they are actually considered as US Civilians.).
Being that we are the 1% of the 3% (total US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces), the 97% being US Military Conventional Warfare Forces of the 1% of US Citizens currently Serving in the US Military we are the exception not the norm.
I have been a longtime advocate of the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment). I have long argued on behalf of my women to receive their EARNED Combat Awards, Decorations, Qualifications, etc., it is those that YOU Hired at US Congress that refuse to change including the UCMJ and DOD Policies (and do not be fooled this includes especially the Demoncraps and not the minority of Repugnants).
As far as Islamic Nations of the entire Earth's Population of 7 Billion, over 1.5 Billion are Islamic Believers as a MAJORITY Cohesive Population. And yes, the men of Islam will treat women quite differently, as will the Islamic women treating the men (why we must have women to deal with Islamic Women). That is just a Reality.
Am I for Women in Combat, yes, ONLY in the US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces (average age late 30s); NOT, the US Military Conventional Warfare Forces (young kids both male and female with raging hormones). The only situation that would justify US Military Conventional Warfare Forces routinely having women in Combat would be like the Israelis Defense Force of a Nation fighting for survival (after being attacked repeatedly by superior Military Forces (equipment and numbers)), or Women as Combatants at Russia during World War II.
Someone mentioned something really uneducated about hand to hand combat. Those of us that survived UN Mission Somalia II, know from firsthand experience that bayonets do not run out of ammunition. As well as those of us that survived the October 2001 fierce Urban Warfare at the Afghan Cities against the Taliban Militias (Actually an Army fully supported by the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran) would also tell you that bayonets do not run out of ammunition. Fortunely, for us no women were assigned nor attached in both cases; just like I laugh at US Military wearing running shoes during the Physical Fitness Tests, it is not like you can stop and change from combat boots to running shoes in the middle of combat. That too is Reality (what you must do to survive).
The US Military Career Field of US Army 13 Field Artillery, as far as women ended after the retrograde of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF). I was previously part of the INF before being required or resign my commission to switch to US Military Asymmetric Warfare, later on between various US Military Asymmetric Warfare assignments I was "rewarded" (sarcasm) with being part of the INF again during the INF Retrogrades (especially the PIIs and Tactical Nuclear Weapons retrogrades, also parts of Operation Steel Box and Operation Golden Python).
Its really quite funny to read all these justifications and excuses of why women "can't" do these jobs. It boils down to one thing. Men want to be special, if a woman can do their job its not special any more and neither are they. They will grasp at any lame reason to maintain the good old boys club. Typically, intelligent and educated men who are secure in their manhood have no problems working with qualified individuals.
Paramed, my hat's off to you. I respect you for having taken on a challenge at the same level as a man and having completed the training with no adjustments for gender. I think that is all women want - the SAME opportunity to fail or succeed as men. Once they meet the standards then why not give them the chance to pay back for this opportunity by putting that training to use, if it means going to combat then so be it.
Now, where I will have a major gripe is if women are approved for combat and then have the option to opt out. Once women are included in combat then there should be no distinction. I remember this happening during Desert Storm when some women were trying to getting out of being forward deployed to the Middle East because they had kids or what have you. I think if you ask for a right then it's not with a caveat of "only if I want to go".
In all of history, man has gone to do battle while the women stay at home and tend to the mans business while he is away. For thousands of years it has never changed.
Why?
I won't give anyone the reasons I believe it has remained this way and I will admit I've met some strong women in my life.
I've seen battle break many a strong man. Why do women believe they are capable of doing this without becoming a burden themselves? There are no ladies rooms on the battlefield so, as my brother above (Retired_Vet) has stated, what's the catch?
I haven't read all of the comments but here's the deal...a 125 lb woman in full combat gear is not going to be able to carry a 185 lb man who is injured as dead weight with his combat gear. Women have no place on the ground. Period. In fact, in the military...period. My hubs is Navy and he is constantly having to deal with women who can't move their tool boxes to and from planes and the men have to do it for them as well as pregnant women trying to maneuver around with a big belly inside of a plane engine. Seriously? Yeah. Unless you are a 200 lb 6 ft tall beast named Hildegard, ladies, you have NO place in the military. Oh and just so you gals know, joining the military isn't welfare so don't treat it like it is by getting pregnant soon as you enlist and then ride the gravy train because you don't have to be deployed for 18 months after your kid is born, men don't get that freedom. Women want their cake and wanna eat it too but not in the military...they just have no place there at all. My two cents.
Retired Vet, I agree that once you request combat duty, you shouldn't have an "easy out"because of your gender combined with your personal situation (and there are plenty of single parent men who will encounter negative situations when it comes to caring for their children during overseas deployments). You should plan for all contingencies BEFORE you request a combat assignment / volunteer to serve in a branch of service where overseas deployments and service are the norm.
With that said, I still strongly support women being allowed to serve in combat roles (provided they can meet the same physical fitness standards, including run times, as men). One last thing, women in the Army are NOT allowed to do push ups on their knees for a PFT (they just have to do a lot less than men).
Dual Service (U.S. Navy, U.S. Army) Combat (2BCT 1AD OIF 08-09) Veteran.
Sarah - You really have no clue as to what you are talking about do you? Hate to say this, but nobody can take you seriously if you haven't been in the military to know what you are talking about. It's easy to sit at home, safe, behind your computers spouting ideals of great moral positions, but in reality, those ideals just simply don't cut it. Walk a mile in the shoes before you say how the feel.
Brenda,
Well, since our military is under civilian control, as a civilian I have every right to voice an opinion. Second, the concepts I've put forth are universally applicable. You don't have to be in the military to understand the logic behind a position in regards to this. It isn't about specifics, it's about concepts of equality in policies.
How about this, are YOU capable of discussing the issue or just telling people you don't agree with that, because you don't agree with them, they shouldn't speak. Tell me, what's your argument in return? What's your substantive reasoning for disagreeing with what I've posted???
I will try to stick to addressing this from an Army standpoint.
As far as what women can lift goes there have been women in transportation units as truck drivers for years and they can not change a 400 pound truck tire unassisted. Neither can the men.
As far as the medical/hygiene issues go for females in the field how the hell did they ever survive into the 21st century if they are so delicate?
BTW how many of you are aware that the Army has been fiddling around with changing the APFT? At this point it has gotten as silly as when they tried to design a grey shirt to go along with adoption of Blues as the dress uniform (we now have a white shirt -- rolls eyes).
When it comes to fitness standards there is more than one standard. There is the APFT, great for measuring general fitness and the obligatory ticket punch on the efficiency report. There is fitness training designed to keep soldier's fit and able to pass that test. And then there is the unit's standard.with accompanying fitness training which should be designed based on making soldiers fit enough to execute individual tasks derived from the unit's Mission Essential Task List.
Here is what the manual says about that:
It does me no good to have a 13B (cannoneer) male or female who can max out the APFT but then can not lift a 98 pound projectile from the bustle rack or off the floor and shove it into the cannon breech with sufficient force to seat it & then close the breech block without breaking an arm. And by the way I want the soldier to be able to do that over and over regardless if the breech is waist high or ankle high.
Likewise I want both an 11B and 11H who can both take their turns carrying the components to the TOW ground system and the missiles over rough terrain for several kilometers and still be able to fight when we get there.
Those are the kinds of standards that soldiers have to meet. Doesn't matter if you sit or stand to do your business, if you can't meet them then you should not be there.
Sarah,
It doesn't matter if the military is under civilian control or not, the fact of the matter is that you do not have the understanding to comment on the issue as if you do. It would be like me trying to tell a fireman or a astronaut what their job is like and who can do their job. Sorry, doesn't work. Would I like to see more women in the military doing jobs that are predominantly men? Yes! Do I see that in reality? No!
Brenda,
So the answer is no, you can't present a substantive reason why you disagree with what I've posted, or how it's inaccurate, illogical or intellectually dishonest. Got it.
And please quote where I've told someone how to do their job.
Me thinks the green eyed monster has you in its clutches.
If anyone questions whether or not women are fighting, check out the newest Congresswoman just elected from Ohio. She stood proud on her prosthesis that she "earned" after piloting a helicopter that received enemy fire. One that blew off one leg and then her other leg was so badly damaged it had to be amputated. She landed her craft and her crew was saved. Tell me that women aren't deserving of the credit for service they are already performing. Get over it guys, the gals have your back whether you want it or not.
Personally, I wish no one had to fight in combat, but women have been stepping up and fighting along side men since time began. Women may not be as physically strong, but they have the capability to do whatever they need to do. They should receive credit for their efforts.
Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth was elected from Illinois, not Ohio.
It appears to me that they ought to impose the same standards on the women as the men, in order to give the 1% of the women that could pass the opportunity to move up the ranks. However, then the other 99% of women would sue because most women would never be able to meet the minimum standards. It looks to me that this is doomed to end up in court.
Equality is a myth -- no single human being is equal to another -- we are all unique. It is time to dump the wrong-headed notion of equality into the garbage heap of history.
I could speak a little slower or use smaller words, but I really don't think it would help you much.
Brenda,
You say that, yet you've STILL posted nothing about anything except ME. I mean, I know I'm cool, but please answer my questions...
Tell me, what's your argument in return? What's your substantive reasoning for disagreeing with what I've posted???
Sarah, If you can't read my argument above then I am sorry for your inability to read. It's getting redundant and obvious that you don't get what many have posted concerning your first post. You simply do not want to listen. Ta Ta, take care.
Brenda,
You didn't present an argument. Just said that I shouldn't tell people how to do their jobs and that men are stronger. The problem with that is, I had already addressed men being stronger by saying this...
Why is passing those courses at those standards good enough for you to trust a man, but not a woman if she passes the same course with same standards?
How many MEN haven't completed them? Why do we allow all men to try, knowing some will fail and allow almost NO women to try knowing some WILL pass?
Sooo... Your answers???
And you never quoted where I told someone how to do their job.
Oh wait, you CAN'T answer or quote that. Can you???
Ta ta, old lady.
Not sure what your ailment is, but as I stated, the tests are not the same. The women, including me, passed a different test then the men. It has NEVER been the same. But lets say it was the same, let me quote what I already told you from above since you can't seem to read.
Now if you could learn to read, go up and read what I actually said and don't just repeat what you think I said.
So you agree with me?
And I addressed what to do about the standards...
First, no one, NO ONE, is advocating for lowering the standards, especially in combat roles. Whether we do that or not is completely WITHIN OUR CONTROL, ergo it is merely an excuse.
We can simply agree NOT to lower the standards, and that would NOT be illegal, seeing as there is a compelling interest in meeting those standards and performing at that level. It is a legal defense that would stand if someone tried to tweak it for females.
Then why the personal attack? Get over yourself lady. By the way, do you always vote your own posts up?
I'm not attacking you personally, you just simply can't seem to read. Otherwise half your posts would not have been there.
and I said.
then you went on a tangent. I stated that the test is not the same so therefor the women passing the test should not be allowed in combat area's. Then I stated that if the tests where the same and women passed them then by all means, but again... they are not. Don't know how many times I have to say that. Even fireman tests are different for women. They do not have to lift the same amount of weight up a flight of stairs. Sorry, but I want a Man to be there to save my life in a burning building. Especially if i'm unconscious. I want to know I am going to make it out of the building and not be waiting for backup because a woman wanted to play fireman and can't do the heavy lifting.
Right, I get that, so answer the questions...
Why is passing those courses at those standards good enough for you to trust a man, but not a woman if she passes the same course with same standards?
How many MEN haven't completed them? Why do we allow all men to try, knowing some will fail and allow almost NO women to try knowing some WILL pass?
Your fear is only logical and non-discriminatory if you can logically answer those questions.
And again, we've already addressed that lowering the standards is under our control.
1964... Makes sense.
Are you brain dead? I will say again and again, but you will keep asking the same question. I guess stupid is as stupid does. THE TESTS ARE NOT THE SAME, NEVER HAVE BEEN. I trust a man because he is physically built to do the job. We are not.
I don't care about the men that haven't completed the standards, only the ones that complete them.
Sorry you have issues with my age and experience, some day you will get there as well and be able to make comments that do not sound stupid.
Brenda,
I have issues with your age because a complete lack of wisdom comes with it and you seem to be stuck in 1964. How about this, you go enjoy your retirement and let the relevant generation sort this out?
I'm aware the tests aren't the same, for the NON-COMBAT positions. Since women haven't really been allowed to try for combat positions, then we've yet to tweak those standards...
Hence what I've written NUMEROUS TIMES...
First, no one, NO ONE, is advocating for lowering the standards, especially in combat roles. Whether we do that or not is completely WITHIN OUR CONTROL, ergo it is merely an excuse.
We can simply agree NOT to lower the standards, and that would NOT be illegal, seeing as there is a compelling interest in meeting those standards and performing at that level. It is a legal defense that would stand if someone tried to tweak it for females.
Now do you have a substantive argument against that point???
Your entire argument is based merely off the assumption that they MIGHT lower the standards for women. What if we based all policies on "they might"??? I'll tell you what, we'd have rampant discrimination.
And really, you may be older, but you act like a five year old. I knew name calling was wrong by the time I was in first grade.
Why so angry???? Dude, I'm a stranger, you really shouldn't care that much. I'm not that important.
P.S. I can vote my own post up too, see???
Guess your brain dead. The standards have already been lowered for women. That is my whole point and others point in here as well. You seem to not get that. IT'S ALREADY LOWERED. Since you seem to not be able to understand that fact has made me put you on ignore. Stupid is as stupid does and you cornered the market on stupid.
Brenda,
Not in combat positions, they haven't. Please post a source or site that shows COMBAT training standards being lowered for women.
You do realize that women aren't even allowed in these training programs yet, so why would they have already lowered the standards???
Here's the one case of women trying for combat training, and OH LOOK, THE STANDARDS WEREN'T LOWERED.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/10/02/women-marines/1600271/
Otherwise...
Your entire argument is based merely off the assumption that they MIGHT lower the standards for women. What if we based all policies on "they might"??? I'll tell you what, we'd have rampant discrimination.
And shucks, you hurt my feelings with your name calling. Seriously, Zanax should help you with the anger. I'm really not worth it.
Don't know how it is with our allies (other branches of service :p), but with the Army the APFT is the same for male and female. "Girl pushups" or whatever you want to call them were phased out so long ago that I can't even remember which decade it was. All take the same test and are raw scored using the same criteria. The only difference that there has ever been is that the standard you have to meet is different based on the table that converts raw score to points.
The only changes that there have ever been were based on research done over a number of years. They did that because sometime in the early 80s they switched from a 5 event APFT to a 3 event APFT. As they collected data they could see that some standards had to be adjusted based on Army wide performance.
BTW for my age group I would only have to do 18 push ups to pass while a 17 year old would have to do 42. Looks like I benefit from a lowered standard.
Bassai,
Thank You!!! Some sanity, at last.
The Army Physical Fitness School, which played a key role in designing the new test, is building the scoring scales that will separate the average from the exceptional. The school has completed 3,000 of 10,000 initial tests. The final scoring scale is still a long way off, but patterns emerging in the initial tests provide a good look at what you will need to pass the challenging new test.
The school provided Army Times an exclusive look at the average scores for men and women in each of the new test’s five categories, as well as the high and low numbers for each.
The averages, rounded to the closest whole number, are:
Push-ups in one minute: Men, 36; women, 19.
Shuttle run: Men, 16 seconds; women, 18 seconds.
Rower in one minute: Men, 33; women, 31.
Long jump: Men, 79 inches; women, 61 inches.
1.5-mile run: Men, 11:02; women, 13:12.
These scores are not the goal, unless your goal is to be average. But if you hit these numbers, you should pass.
While the fitness school continues to compile the data needed to build the full scoring model, we will use a statistical analysis of the averages and compare them with average scores obtained on the current fitness test to help you see where you are, and where you need to be.
This effort is challenging because the Army does not keep good statistical or historic data on individual fitness tests and trends — a fact bemoaned by fitness school officials. For our purposes, we will compare these new averages with the average scores of trainees at Fort Jackson, S.C., and the average scores of noncommissioned officers whose scores equate to points toward promotion.
Those aren't for combat positions!!!! You do realize there are differences between basic training in the army and the training for combat positions like infantry, right???
And you plagerized that.
(GAH! I always get those mixed up)
No response Bassai?
Seriously, THAT ISN'T FOR COMBAT. You're comparing apples to oranges. Everyone already knows there are different standards for men and women in basic training. This isn't mere basic training. We're talking COMBAT.
Now you're just embarrassing yourself.
Oh well, guess I won that argument. Later Bassai.
LOL some of us have a real world life.
And what argument? Was there a point to all of that? You posted some things about the new test that they have been looking at. Here's more:
http://www.army.mil/article/86147/Three_event_APFT_retained_pending_baseline_Soldier_physical_readiness_study/
I noticed that too, but even today in boot camp, women get special treatment meaning we do not have to do as much as the men. My point is that if they require it of the men, then there must be a reason for that level of requirement. Then why reduce it for women? Why not say this is the standard and if you can't achieve it then you do not pass boot camp, let alone combat situations.
Again, I win the argument. Sarah caved like a little child. Oh, i did have her on ignore though, so not sure what she posted. LOL.
Yes they do, but to date how many have been able to complete training in any of the combat arms branches?
To date, how many times have they been allowed to enter those training programs? How many MEN haven't completed them? Why do we allow all men to try, knowing some will fail and allow almost NO women to try knowing some WILL pass?
I say give them what they want. I have a feeling some of these women are suing to prove a point rather than actually get the opportunity to serve in combat arms MOSs. Once they are able to serve in the infantry and they do a Shannon Faulkner (Google it, kids) that will be the end of that. I can't for the life of me figure out why a woman would want to do first line combat infantry duty.
Cappy,
I would assume they want to for the same reasons men do it. Why would their reasonings be any different or difficult for you to understand?
Some female Marines have attempted to do the Marine Corp IOBC course and washed out not long ago. As for the Army 11,18,19, and 13 series MOS's are all males.
If they could pass the physical qualification at the same requirement as men, then ok, but if they can't pull their battle buddy out of a burning tank then they do not belong there.
So water it down. Really, give the women a chance to get out there and get shot at. They will be rueing what they wished for.
I will say that, although it is inherently unfair, the trailblazing females who give this a go had better finish it. If there's a doubt in their minds that they can't, they shouldn't try. Until this gender barrier is broken, that's simply the sad truth. Those who try and quit, will do more harm to achieving equality in this area, than those who don't try at all.
Paul,
Please quote where one woman who is advocating for this has suggested lowering any of the thresholds. If a woman wants to do this, do you really think she wants to be coddled while trying?
Jon,
You are exactly right.
Sarah, I think the argument I heard against females in combat is that if they get captured by a force like the Taliban, they'll end up wishing they were dead.
However, I don't think the men fare much better in those situations.
Styro,
As you said, that's a risk that comes with battle, for BOTH genders.
It's also a risk that women face in their everyday, civilian life. The problem with that argument here, is that no one advocates for women being locked up in their homes because they may be raped in the states.
Sarah - it's not as straight forward as it seems.
Superficially - yes - anyone who 'can pass' should be able to do it. But there's more to it.
A) So few women want to do this, can do it, and can pass the tests. It's an astonishingly small number of women - the military does not need to accommodate such small numbers.
B) Studies of Navy ships (in Canada) show that there needs to be a minimum 'critical mass' of girls on board in order for it to work out. With so few women, it's tricky to schedule around this 'special need'.
C) Standards will go down. This is sad, but true. Women just break down under physical pressure, it's sad but true. I was in the forces, we had a marathon running, hard-core girl in our troupe - but the moment she had 50 lbs on her back that was it. She couldn't hack it. In addition - she broke down crying under heavy stress. This sounds rather masochist etc.. but this is from my personal experience. Social/genetic - whatever - women deal with stress differently. And because even strong women often can't do more than 1 chinup - the standards change. So both in hard and soft terms - standards get moved, the bar is lowered - and this is good for no one.
D) I worked for a female officer who would eventually become the first Canadian Armored Officer deployed overseas during Kosovo crisis. The Serbian and Croatian commanders would not speak to her. They would go directly to her staff sgt. This is the reality of the world. She had to be re-deployed.
E) Last but not least - nobody has a 'right' to do anything in the military. The very notion that someone's individual needs or desires is put ahead of doctrine is anathemic to the very notion of what they are doing. You join, and do what is asked of you. The military makes do with you the best they see fit. Sure - you have some input, some protections - but generally speaking, it's not a place for your 'aspiration' - it's a place where you submit yourself to the greater good.
I have no doubt the military should be a little more progressive on many issues, but from a pragmatic perspective, there is absolutely no need. The military does not need to experiment with new social orders. They can necessarily be 20 years 'behind' in terms of social progress.
If there were a need for women to fill these roles - it would be a whole different kind of question, i.e. the difference being 'needs of the situation' - not 'rights of the individual'.
If this were another government agency or private corp there would be no question this form of discrimination should not be allowed.
I wasn't bothered by Sarah's take on this until she stated women face the same problems in civilian life here in the states that they would in combat. What a crock.
Good question. Up until now it has been a rather feckless approach to the whole issue. I can remember when there were female Field Artillery officers in the late 80s or early 90s but they could only serve in missile or rocket units, something that this poster alludes to:
http://armystrongstories.com/blogger/dachelle-banks/women-in-combat-units/
All I can say on that is that it has been at least 25 years since I last saw a female wearing FA brass, so my assumption is that the program was killed, but I never really hung around the rocketeers.
Based on this one it is opening up more than I was aware of: http://armystrongstories.com/blogger/kenneth-plant/first-woman-to-be-trained-in-recently-opened-military-combat-arms-specialties/
The only current one I knew of was the two that dropped/washed out of the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course test program.
Good questions and I am sure that the attrition rates are available somewhere. I expect that in the near future we will see a change.
Tell that to the women who do want to do this. Not to mention that those numbers will grow as it becomes a realized possibility.
This is no different than integrating all the other programs we've been allowed to enter. Any "special needs" (I can only assume you mean biological issues) can be controlled through simple birth control, which is no different than dolling out ANY other med in the armed forces.
That's nothing but stereotyping, assuming and justifying. Whether the standards go down or not is under OUR control, ergo it doesn't have to happen and is an invalid reason to ban women.
So because some men are douchebags, women should face the consequences? You're punishing the wrong person there.
You're correct, but what they do/don't have the right to do, should be the same regardless of gender, race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. Right now, SOME have the "right" and SOME don't.
Ron,
It terms of rape, you bet your butt the risk is the same if not higher. About one out of every four women are the victim of some sort of sexual violence.
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
Let them participate send them to Afghanistan. fair enough.
13 is no longer all male, and there have been commissioned and warrant officer females before.
http://armystrongstories.com/blogger/kenneth-plant/first-woman-to-be-trained-in-recently-opened-military-combat-arms-specialties/
Might be so in your neighborhood Sarah, but not in mine. Maybe you should move somewhere else.
Ron,
How about you click on the link and educate yourself. Ignorance is bliss, but it's also, well, ignorance.
http://www.ncdsv.org/images/sexualassaultstatistics.pdf
BTW, when I went through RECONDO school at Ft. Lewis Washington in 1976 there were two women in the course, one who volunteered for it and the other was her "chaperone." Both passed.
As to physical limitations, why are there no women in the NFL? Could it be that God made men physically stronger the women?
They may have been commissioned officers and Warrant Officers but I have seen none that were in a line unit. Never had a FSO or FSNCO that was a female the Fiso was a male. They may be trained or petition this training for women but I have seen none.
Could it be that we don't fight wars in gender specific leagues???
No, from a physiological standpoint pound for pound there is no difference in strength, muscle is muscle and doesn't care if you sit or stand to pee. It has been quite a while since I read anything on it, but IIRC women do have more fast twitch muscle fibers. Stength differences are due to culture.
That said there is a difference in body mass. That is why a female NFL player would not be a good idea.
Bassai-(Yes they do, but to date how many have been able to complete training in any of the combat arms branches?)
When I entered the Marine Corps, it just so happened the DOD decided to do a test program to see if females actually could handle combat training identical to what men experienced. So two platoons were assigned, including the one I was attached to, for entering a trial program.
Our normal training period was altered to match males and we experienced everything males did. Including all the physical training and academic tests without any modifications or watering down of standards. This was in addition to some subjects men didn't have to face. Protocals specific for women serving among males, actually.
Of course the primary goal was to see how well females performed if confronted with the identical conditions males faced.But secondary was the specific areas of troubles females might have. Since the platoons were picked at random, it was seen as a test case from a random population of female candidates. Of the sixty women in each platoon, 8 dropped out of my platoon, and 10 from the other one. The point was however, that the vast majority passed. I don't know if it was because those women had already chosen to join the Marines, and so they were possibly in better physical shape. I only know under the same training conditions, I saw female after female met the challenges.
It was interesting to see the DOD state they wanted some recent information on how well women could handle combat training. It means the testing I and so many other women had helped participate in decades ago, must still be floating about somewhere and counting for something and not totally wasted. At the time, we really thought women might end up being allowed to fight in combat. An idea hotly discussed at the time.
Ironically I do not advocate women be in combat positions at this time. It has nothing to do with any of the reasons I have ever heard.I do think they can do the job. I know I have heard men say they would be distracted from fighting, or they think women couldn't carry their weight, I have heard all sorts of reasons why not, or why they should. I have a totally different reason.
After WW1 and WW2, millions of many men were killed, and that impacted many countries. We ended up with countries struggling with the loss of such lives on their populations. It is far easier to replace a man with another if a woman remarries. But if a woman is lost that is another case altogether.For it take a woman nine months to raise another generation. For that child to grow up and produce the next generation, it takes years. It is estimated 22 years between each generation. So wipe out a woman, you wipe out a potential generation.
I know there are those who believe there are too many people already. And yet many countries are already at a near zero growth rate, including industrial nations.But if we open the door to women fighting voluntarily, should war break out and our government decide to mandatory make women fight, look at what we would have done. We need to stop and look at the possible Pandora's box we may be opening as women.
No reason that most females couldn't do charts & darts. Being a gun bunny is a different matter.
Ironically I don't have a problem with it if they can complete the combat training course. What I don't accept is the premise behind what I originally quoted which boils down to "we should get a chance because we've been shot at too." Meet the same standards and pass the course and then no problem.
Windancer,
There are 7 Billion people in the world. I think we'll be okay.
Now if they want to be taken seriously for this lawsuit they should think about a name change.
There needs to be a distinction between BCT and the advanced combat / specialization courses. BCT, and the other services version of it, is designed to mold and alter the person and ultimately turn a civilian into a service member. Essentially it's designed for you to pass. The more advanced training schools on the other hand are designed to screen candidates for specific qualities and to ensure they meet a minimum level to enter into that area of expertise. Their designed for you to fail and have high attrition rates.
The problem happens when the doors are opened and you get your first year or so worth of class's with females. A statistics analysis will be done and it'll be shown that there is a disproportionate rate of high female drop outs. Someone will say it's "sexist" and demand that there should be more females being allowed to pass, this translates into lowered standards to inflate numbers. It's not something new to the service branches.
I'm 100% for females serving provided they can pass the exact same standards as men, not "modified" or "normalized" faux standards.
To illustrate the difference I'll use the APFT charts for male and females. Age 17-21.
Male:
Minimum (score 60) / Maximum (score 100)
Pushups = 42 / 71
Situps = 53 / 78
2 mile run = 15:54 / 13:00
Female:
Pushups = 19 / 42
Situps = 53 / 78
2 mile run = 18:54 / 15:36
If your scoring a 60 in any event on the APFT your in serious trouble, minimum of 70 is seen to not be a PT hazard and most units want a minimum of 75~80 prior to certifying someone as combat ready. Look long and hard at those numbers, the most basic test to even be considered eligible to be a soldier. The minimum for the male is the perfect score for the female in two out of three events. To even be considered eligible for one of the advanced schools they want you at a 80~90 per event and won't take you seriously unless your close to maxing the damn thing.
So a female who is "at the same level" as their male counterpart on the service standard test would actually be significantly weaker physically then their male counterpart. And what a shock it would be to show up to Ranger school or lord help them SFAS to find out they actually have to pass at a level that is two to three times higher then what they previously experienced. You would get an insanely high drop out rate.
theotherguy1234, so make standards equal. It's that simple. If a woman wants a combat role, she must pass the exact same physical standards test as a male.
Simple enough. If women want to be in combat roles, pass the same PT standards as males. No special needs, less physical loads... nothing.
Agreed. Same problems in civilian life has absolute no comparasion to being in a combat environment.
Being exposed to sniper fire, IED explosives, and mortar/missle attacks everyday for 6-15 months. Constantly carrying 40-100 lbs of gear, mandatory foot patrols, friends dying on you, killing enemy, and no running water or electricity for weeks at a time............ yup, I faced the same problems as a civi here.
-Afgan and Iraq vet.
This has been said many times over again, unfortunately it won't happen this way. Take a long look at the differences in those two charts. A 17 year old female who is what we call a "PT stud", basically their maxing their PT test, has to do 42 PU, 78 SU and run a 15:36 two mile. A male doing the exact same would be considered a PT hazard by their unit and put on remedial PT, much less even considered for those special schools. This is a male who has the same physical strength as the above female.
Now lets look at a candidate for those special schools. 17 Year old Male (actually would be closer to 20) 72 PU, 78 SU and 13:00 two mile. This two to three times the upper body strength of the female and about two times more endurance. That means females who would otherwise qualify for the entry conditions would be failing left and right out of the course. You would end up with a disproportionate drop out rate. If it was 40~50% for males, it would be 90~95% for females. That would raise a bunch of eyebrows and all sorts of accusations of "sexism" would be thrown around, this already happens in non-combat arms MOS's. Eventually they would lower the female standard to get a higher graduation rate so as to not look as bad in the news papers.
And that's ignoring another big problem, senior promotions. In the combat arms MOS's certain schools and assignments are looked at for senior NCO / officer promotions. And 11B trying to make MSG without first attending ranger school is going to be at a severe disadvantage to other 11B's who have graduated ranger. Various advanced courses become career advancement requirements / incentives. Now lets put females in the mix. Come E8 (Master Sergent MSG) yearly promotion boards. They have 20 slots for promotions and 400 candidates (don't laugh, that's actually a fairly good board, some can number in the thousands of candidates). Out of those 400 only 40 are female (I figure 10% is being generous) and none of those females have been assigned to a ranger unit. Of the remaining 360 males, 20% have graduated ranger / been assigned to a ranger unit. So you have.
400 candidates
360 males
40 females
72 male rangers
0 female rangers
20 MSG positions.
Now those 72 males are going to have first crack at those 20 positions, then the 40 females will have to compete with the 288 males for whatever is left after first look. The odds of a female making it to the rank of MSG are incredibly small, much less to the rank of SGM (E9).
What will happen is you'll see this promotional glass ceiling they will slam into at around the E7~E8 level, or the LTC~COL officer level for officers. Being as such a disadvantage to not only passing those courses but getting assigned to those special units will effectively end and chance for equal representation amongst the senior ranks. "Sexism" will be cried and the standards will be lowered to give females a better chance at promotions.
Let them do it. It's not like they are out there swinging bayonets.
Let 'em go at it. After they've been in a few fire fights, they will almost certainly change their minds. I don't know of too many combat vets who actually enjoyed the experience... Of course, to ensure that no one is any "better" than anyone else ("everyone gets a trophy..."), battalions should be made up of just women.
You be surprised. Sometimes all they want is a combat action ribbon. It only takes 1 mortar attack or enemy fire. Once they are qualified, they want out of there.
And as for us guys, we have no choice.
Plenty of guys want out of there too.
Last I checked, no one had any choice of where they were deployed, or for how long. It's not just a "guy" thing.
I was army 11b, if woman can go out pass the pt score and not with sissy push-ups and do a road march with full gear, ruck and weapon in the standard time, survive mountain training ( whch we did in germany ) carrying full gear then hey go for it .... dont think there would be many that could do it though
.
If women truly want equal rights, then they should also have to register for the Selective Service program like males do when they turn 18. They'll never push for it though, feminists only want the perks of gender equality.
Bill,
Really, you're that "in" with the feminists? Please provide a source for your inside info on what "feminists" want, not only in regards to selective service, but in "gender perks" in general.
Well, Bill I'm waiting too....let's hear it.....
Women should not be in combat, period, or in a situation where another service member has to depend on them for thier safety (unless its a woman). Men are physically superior to women, its a fact.....Get over it . Paul has the right idea, all women battalions...... yeah right, go secure t he Tampax Factory. Spent 20 years in the Marine Corps and saw first hand what women can and can not do. Combat is not for the weak. While I do embrace equality, I want the strongest individule next to me in a fire fight, not someone who was forced upon me because of politics. Go for it, but don't forget tell your young girl friends to sign up for the draft....
Ken,
Why is passing those courses at those standards good enough for you to trust a man, but not a woman if she passes the same course with same standards?
How many MEN haven't completed them? Why do we allow all men to try, knowing some will fail and allow almost NO women to try knowing some WILL pass?
Holy crap, is posting on here your job??
Sarah women do not meet the same physical standards as men in roles they serve in already. They have alternate minimum levels because they cannot pass the mens test in large enough numbers. The military could not be efficient washing out huge numbers of basic infantry compared to the numbers that are their currently.
Again women do not meet the same standards as men currently and they could not in large enough numbers to be effiecient for the military logistics.
The end that's it, reality is men and women are very different and the military demands efficiency not being PC
I'll bite. I spent six combat tours total in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 20 years in the military. There are plenty of good women in the military, but it's been my experience, that the more a female service member bragged about being able to keep up with the guys...the less likely they were actually able to do so. I've been in combat situations where we had female support personnel present, and while us guys were fighting, we would have to have the Corpsman keep an eye on the females present because they were ALWAYS crying, blubbering messes (unlike the male Marines) when things hit the fan. They were a hazard in the combat environment, endangering themselves and everyone else with their antics. When you do find women in military units, it's usually in administrative positions that are too often in highly visible places (like next to the CO's office). They would exploit these positions to their advantage to suck-up to the brass who frequented these places...and it worked.
Once in garrison, these same females were all politics, they would use their feminine charms to get their way and get ahead, and they typically got promoted quicker since our superiors were always afraid of wrongly being accused of being sexist. Females would also abuse the EEO system in order to get petty revenge on males they felt wronged them. I knew many a good Marine whose career was destroyed because some female would get them in the sack, and cry 'rape' afterwards, or they would falsely accuse them of sexual harassment. During working parties that required getting dirty or sweaty, they would exploit their physical weaknesses to get out of any ardous work, and it was the same when doing physical training. Too often I've had to carry the pack (in addition to my own) of a 90 pound female who couldn't keep up on the march. Multiple times females would get pregnant to get out of deployment; on more than one occasion, once our unit left, they would often go out in town to get a quickie abortion. Despite all of that, they would always advocate for lower standards so they could keep up...but they would always DEMAND equal perks without earning it like everyone else.
Women want to go to combat? Fine, but throw away the double-standards, and make them do the same job as us guys, and without the special 'kid glove' treatment they think they deserve as females. Rewards for hard work are fine, but they should expect to also be treated like **** like the rest of us military personnel in order to achieve their personal and professional goals in their service careers. Something to think about next time a woman chews you out for not holding the door open...while at the same time expecting to be treated like a lady.
Dennis,
First, no one, NO ONE, is advocating for lowering the standards, especially in combat roles. Whether we do that or not is completely WITHIN OUR CONTROL, ergo it is merely an excuse.
We can simply agree NOT to lower the standards, and that would NOT be illegal, seeing as there is a compelling interest in meeting those standards and performing at that level. It is a legal defense that would stand if someone tried to tweak it for females.
Sarah I do not disagree with your point. However it is all about efficiency and keeping cost to a minimum. If women have to take the mens test they will not pass it in large enough numbers and will waste valuable resources that could be used in a more advantageous way. I have no doubt SOME women (ie few) would be able to pass the qualifications however just because some can does not make it fiscally worthwhile for the military. These are people not going to war they are not desk jockeys.
This is not the civil service or a private corporation - you cannot sue the military. It's not about 'your rights' - it's about what the military wants you to do.
The very notion that someone has a 'right' to fight or serve in the military in any capacity is missing the point.
That said - there should be a way to address these issues.
But the courts should not interfere.
Also - people don't understand how astonishingly few women a) want to do this, b) are able and c) can stick it out.
The numbers are very, very small. So small it's hardly worth it.
Maybe the military should start with the APFT tables. Why one set of standards for women, and one for men if they are in the same age group? I have no problem with women in combat positions, just as long you don't tell me as a squad leader or platoon sgt that I have to train them different. As long as these women can pull their weight, then by all means let them into the Combat Arms.
Go ask Rep. Duckworth.
She had her legs blown off flying a helicopter mission.
Sounds like combat to me.
Flying a plane or chopper is not the same as carrying a full combat load of ammo rations spare radio batteries or radio. Rep Duckworth served honorably, but being a grunt is a world of difference. Having been in the Nam for two tours in the bush, I think that everyone in the military deserves respect, but don't endanger soldiers to have to carry more than their share because others can,t hack it.
Sarah, I was serious. Really. Make it possible for women to pass the physicals. Then put them in women-only teams, and let them get out there pulling the trigger. Women-only makes the question of whether men would have to carry the load moot. And their effectiveness would be proven one way or the other in short order. So would the wisdom of those who advocated the change.
If they can learn to pee on the side of a wall, let them do whatever they want. Then they need execute the mission and shut up after they get what they asked for.
I say if it pisses our enemies off, then go for it. Gays in the military? The last thing Osama bin Laden should have seen before punching his ticket to Hell was a flaming queen in a tied off camouflage shirt pointing a pink rifle at him and shouting, "Oh girl, that beard is not working for you! Let me just rearrange your face!" Female combatants? You betcha. When they run out of ammo, they can STILL use their guns against the enemy. I think anyone who wants to fight ought to be able to.
SNORTing with laughter. Eddie Izzard in pink camo...
Only a small number of females want to be in Combat Arms. Sometimes the best candidate for the job is male.
The military should not be used for a test bed for Political Correctness and Special Interest groups with experiments to integrate women in combat arms, it waste taxpayers money, resources, manpower, and time. Just look at Jessica Lynch.
OK, if women want to be in combat, then eliminate the double standard set up within the military to make them look physically equal! All Soldiers / Marines will take the same physical fitness tests using the same PASS / FAIL and scoring criteria. All physical tests to enter advanced combat training schools, e.g. Ranger, Recon, etc will be identical for both genders.
As a former infantryman I can say with authority that women have no business in the infantry. It was not unusual for us to hump up to 110 pounds of gear 15 miles or more in a day. I know of no woman who can keep up in that environment. There are the hygiene and privacy issues in the field. Yes, women can shoot a rifle as well, or better than men. There are roles in the military where women can and do function. But no one who has not served in an infantry unit in combat has any clue as to the hardships of that life. It is no place for any woman. PC, in this instance, will get people killed.
Michael, as an former Active Duty Army Veteran I TOTALLY agree with you. I believe most women in the Marine Corps and Army would also agree with you as well.
This is a crazy argument which is not based upon logic or reality.
Have you ever seen girls fight. They are meaner than a guy. Make a battalion of them, find a way to induce PMS, and watch them kick butt.
Magic Dragon - I've always said "send a platoon of PMSing women and the war will end." But it's said in jest - this issue is extremely important. If a woman passes the same physical standards test, she should be able to fight in what ever position suits her abilities best, not what gender. Good ole boy mentality is passe, times have changed drastically and we need to learn to adapt to change and get over ourselves. There is many a man I would NOT want to share a foxhole with or have in the line behind me; however, the same can be said for some women. But, I think the choice is a personal one not one to be debated in court by individuals who have never served one day in the military. Just saying...
Before we deployed to Bosnia, one of my female Sergeants reported to me that she was pregnant (2 months after we were alerted) and that she would not be deploying! If women are in combat roles can they by prosecuted under the UCMJ if they become pregnant and affect mission readiness?
The US Military is the best in the world, the civilian court should not have a say in their policy deciscions. Let the general makes the call in combat and not some politically connected lawyer (judge).
Regardless of your opinion, the military is under civilian control with a civilian commander in chief. There are very good and historical reasons for this. For one, studying history will show that the military has been used and abused to enforce the status quo, to oppress civilians and/or topple popularly elected leaders in order to form military juntas. It's a very wise thing to keep the military under civilian control and supervision.
Not in America.
And a problem will never occur, unless a president goes berserk.
Coups d'etat and military juntas can happen anywhere, even in the USA, under the right circumstances. None other than former President and General Eisenhower talked about the growing military-industrial complex and its influence - covert or overt - on civilian and political life during his farewell speech.
legality is one thing, practicality is another matter. if hooters can choose only to hire female as waitress, i think the DOD can choose to hire certain gender for certain job functions too. it should be up to the employer (DOD in this case) to determine practicality and not the court. do you really want to have the justice department run our defense day-to-day operation? really?
This article should read, "Newly liberated Bull Dykes sue for combat positions"
I am sure they are a proud handful.
Wow, homophobic and mysogynist in the same post. Quite a feat! These women are protecting your butt and your sacrosanct right to opine or otherwise spout your mysogynist and homophobic nonsense. These are women who are asking for equal treatment and opportunity because they have already proven themselves.
These are not newbie wannabe soldiers - these are respected veterans who know what they are getting into, who have already faced enemy combat, who are seeking to do the same kind of work that men already do.
Look LaDolce, I served in the military for over 33 years and you cannot tell me sh!t.
I have served with lesbian women who were just as good as any man in mechanics etc.
But most of them had the sense to stay away from combat.
There is no place for women on the battlefield and no place for homosexuals either.
In combat, a man will instinctively stop to help a fallen woman.
A homosexual will do the same.
When what they need to do is press on with the battle and come back later for the wounded.
This is a proven fact, and why the military does not want women in combat and DID not want gays.
THIS was forced down the line by your current "Commander in Chief".
There is no place in the modern military for these misogynist, homophobic, antiquated opinions. Go hate elsewhere. I was raised by a man who served in the military for a very long time and no one could tell him sh!t either. He was also wrong.
Or so you thought.
Your father figure was correct.
You just choose to take a path of least resistance (or to try to conform to peers).
I bet he is proud.
Since those are "proven facts" can you please cite your source of credible evidence and information???
LaDolceVita1 - you are not only a male pig but truly unenlightened. Women have been fighting in wars before you were even a gleam in you daddy's eye. GROW UP - the world is changing whether you like it or not!! and I'm one of those that you better watch over you shoulder for because you are not only a chauvinist. you're truly stupid.
Airheads, this is the internet, spelling is only important if your stance or message is is weak! (besides, what of spellcheck?) People just like to whine, males and females. Fair is for children's stories, it helps adults BS kids until they're old enough to get out of the house.
If it is guaranteed that there will be no more wars that involve long stretches of humping a pack, digging foxholes and setting up positions to be held for weeks, staying out of shelter in twenty below weather for days on end...as long as you can guarantee that we will have no more wars that resemble WW2, Korea and Vietnam and are almost all mobile, there should be no problem. But in any other circumstance, I sure wouldn't want to rely on them.
I say let them have all they want, "Be All You Can BE" "An Army Of One" give it to them. But not next to the male combat units, let them have female battalions, female companies, female platoons, female squads, with female leadership, we have enough West Point Female Officers, setup new units, and pick up your skirts and follow me. But not next to the men, LOOK AT THE SEXUAL ASSUALT #######S NOW!!!!!!! Put them with infantry units within male/female units, these assualt numbers will be off the scale. LOOK at some of the great movies out there, 1) The Lost Battalion, 2) Platoon, 3) Hamburger Hill, 4) We Where Soldiers, 4) Pork Chop Hill, 5) Saving Private Ryan, 6) The Longest Day, etc, etc, etc, These movies some good some ok, but all attempted to show real combat, so in closing, Give these women what they want, let them due what they want, BBBBBUUUUTTTTTT!!!!!!!! give the male troops the option to be in all male unit's. As a former vet, I want an all male unit backing me up. And I love women.... Love ya all!!!!!!
Although I believe woman can be good and excel at many things like men, I don't think it a good idea to send women to the battlefield, because men and women are physically built different.
Majority of women are built smaller than men and not physically as strong. Although there might be women who are 6' tall, 200 lbs, and as strong as cows, that would be an exception rather than the rule.
From policy stand point, women should not be sent to the battlefield, because in many cases, they might become victims of war. Look at what happened to Jessica Lynn. Many of her comrades risked their lives to rescue her. It would have saved more hassle if she didn't go to the war!