Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion

In my best Admin voice:

This thread is becoming circular in logic and arguments. Some want it locked, but I disagree. I will say that it is only staying open for two reasons:
1. When something new comes to light. Not RUMINT, not a Facebook post, not some blog, but something serious from a reputable source. If you don't know what that looks like, PM me.
2. The "That Guy Rapture." We all know "that guy" and in this case he's the one who will ignore 24 pages of posts, maybe quote one post, but he will drop his opinion on us...and we don't care. Like I said, we're making the same points over and over so a new voice without new information is just noise. Don't be that guy. Don't make me call you out because you couldn't read the thread or missed this post or whatever. Do. Not. Be. THAT GUY.

Counter arguments are done. New info or GTFO.

ETA: The post above was made as I typed, so this isn't in reaction to said post.

#ThatGuyMatters
 
Given, my experience is only one person, and the experiences of others can and will be different, but here goes nothin'...

Any females that are truly interested in taking the infantry route don't want to see the standards degraded. The females that look at their function in Army life without a feminist filter will train themselves to meet the male standard physically if they are so inclined. I can't attest to how many would be interested in actually earning a scroll or living la vida infantry, but I'm reasonably certain that number is quite low, and I'm pretty sure that the majority of the ones who are interested aren't going to be interested in breeding anytime soon, if ever, and not solely because of sexual orientation. Mother Army had better up their supply of IUD's or Essure, because those are the most effective means of inoculating against the physical side effects of "baby rabies."

That said, the reproductive biological clock is not the only clock ticking for females that choose this route; it's just the one that is easily ignored. Females are physiologically different from males. Period. That's it. The physical rigors that will be expected of them to maintain the male standard for an extended period of time, especially in Regiment, will wear them down faster than it will their male peers. Not every female is going to have the physical constitution of Rhonda Rousey for years on end, and who's to say that Rhonda will be able to maintain her level of fitness for 20 years? Hell, she has the luxury of being able to slack off and put on a couple of lbs during the off season when she's not prepping for a fight; Mother Army and the Benning School For Wayward Boys doesn't have an off season (unless you count leave time).

Before I popped out Smallish Child at the age of 28, I could crank out 70-someodd pushups, nearly as many situps, and a 15:30-ish 2 mile run time (yeah, I'm a slow mofo, sue me) for my PT test. I never really recovered my run time afterwards, but I'm not sure if that was pregnancy related, or a physical side effect of OIF 1 (keep in mind I did also deliver a live birth ten years prior and recovered from that quite well). However, once I hit 30, I started to encounter the occasional sprain or strain that I didn't worry about before. My body started to break down, and injuries that I never personally endured --and scoffed at in my ignorance-- were suddenly a real thing for me to deal with. Tendonitis in various places, knee problems, hip issues, and shin splints (one time problem) were suddenly things that I had to account for when I planned my workouts. Yes, it happens to males as they get older, too. Yes, if I were a little more physically fit, I might have been able to stave off the breakdown a little longer, but it didn't work out that way.

Now, here I am at 39, and I still can't do more than 5 pushups without feeling a very sharp pain in a line that runs between my bicep and tricep from elbow to shoulder in my left arm, thanks to my doing one set of pull-ups too many during team PT four years ago, and I'm crossing my fingers that I won't need a hip replacement until I'm closer to 60. Maintaining the male Army standard for fitness, or close to it, broke me down, and I wasn't even infantry or airborne. However, slinging 100lb+ robots, 15m antenna mast assembly bags, or single drawer field safes without a partner to lift was something that I had to do from time to time over the course of my 10.5 year career. It most certainly earned respect from my male peers, not to mention the reputation that I would physically damage you beyond repair in a bar fight, but it also earned me various aches and pains that don't really go away for long at an age where I shouldn't have that problem. Social engineering is not ever going to mitigate that reality for the "average" female once she embarks on a career involving regular ruck marches, heavy gear, and a side order of jumping out of perfectly good airplanes. It may not effect every infantry female at an early age; some females may break down at the same age as their male peers, but who's to say that it will be at the same rate or degree.

Getting into the social acclimation of females in the world of infantry, RP makes a good point. The females who are cut out for a career in infantry aren't going to be the ones who are easily offended, nor throw the EO flag on the field if they get hit with a joke they didn't particularly find funny once it was levied at themselves. Females assimilating into the motor pool or team room won't be as painful as some folks would think, at least once the novelty wears off. Women who have absolutely zero issues with, and excel at shooting a motherfucker in the face that had it coming are wired differently than Suzy Homemaker and her ilk. It's only going to be when they come across the ones who think the Army should never have gone co-ed to start with decades ago that you'll have issues, and you'll run across males of that persuasion in all walks of Army life.

One of the very first things I would do when my team acquired a new security element from a grunt unit was assure them that after hanging around me long enough, they would learn new and exciting ways to use "shit, piss, fuck, suck, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits, fart, turd and twat" (thank you, Blink 182) in a sentence. Once the look of shock and horror passed from their faces, typically after some private giggled and stage-whispered "She said twat," my infantry/cav/arty/engineer guys would visibly loosen up, and goddamn if they wouldn't give 110% plus some every time my team had to go out on a mission. As the only female tech in the company, and oftentimes the first military female they'd worked alongside, I was a novelty to them, and they appreciated that I assimilated into their world, rather than try to change them to fit into the land of estrogen. In fact, one infantry SSG in one of my last dedicated security teams told me that they made the effort to strike up a conversation with me at least once a day just so they could hear me say something so inherently fucked up that it called their sanity into question just for hearing it.

The hard core, foul mouth, perverse, violent persona that I cultivated served to put them at ease. They knew I wasn't looking to be handled with kid gloves, and they didn't have to worry about me trying to mate with another team member because I was one of the guys. I know that there are other females out there of a similar mindset; however, we are a distinct minority. Those females, few as they may be, will be the ones that have a chance to really shine if they choose to make "killin' folks who needed killin'" a career. The fact that they are "blazing a trail" for females in the future really won't be more than window dressing to their dedication to accomplishing the mission. The ones that do it for the expressed purpose of "being the first," or making some kind of statement for feminism are probably going to be the ones who are, at best, mediocre shield maidens who couldn't find their asses with GPS directions and neon signs marking the target.

A very informative and well written post RK. It does give me new perspective on women in the armed force and the possible future of women in the combat arms. I suppose it can be done if your model ( you) holds true.
 

As a side note, CSM Thetford is one of the last Grenada Rangers still on AD.

Ash Carter and our President, both of whom, have NO actual military experience, are doing great things for our country......:rolleyes:
 
Well, being totally honest... and as I have said personally before: D cups or danglenuts, I wouldn't have personally given a shit provided they met the Ranger standard. Will many step up, nevermind achieve the standard? That has yet to be seen. I honestly can't see any women stepping up to the plate that wouldn't have some inkling, between hearsay, RASP holdover into actually participating in RASP, as to what kind of an environment, expectations, and overall structure they're trying to get into has. It's not like there's much dark about Regiment regarding THAT, if one even slightly looks around and asks questions regarding how things were/are.

You might see an influx of women who go totally balls to the wall and studette out because they are capable and haven't been able to do so until now. You might see the token 1/2 women go to RASP and bolo in a spectacular fashion not seen since the last extinction level event on this planet. Won't know if there are those who are truly capable until they try, and won't know if they are sustainable at SOF Optempos for "expected service lifetimes" until they do.

But, I can say that I am absoFUCKINGtootly pleased to see that the bar is set, in exactly the same position it has been (and even raised, considering RPAT/etc vs PT test + 5 mile + pullups of the past as a baseline). Speaking solely from a Batt standpoint, the barracks infrastructure at home stations supports having a mixed environment.

If anything, I actually see more steadfast adherence to The Standard within Regiment, with absolute transparency regarding performance for the failures and successes, than within Hooah High.

The only thing that will require some adjustment is the company locker areas, and even that can be solved by a small shift in terms of AO uniform requirements IE minimum uniform PT's. Couple that with supply spending maybe $100 a company in local purchase hard end items for 2x walmart extendable shower rods and associated shower curtain hangers per squad to put up inside and outside squad areas and 2x extra ponchos per squad bay from CIF to hang up as curtains to make the area strip-down friendly in a mixed gender environment, when it's necessary to do a total uniform swap.
 
The standards remain, but the door is open. Everyone meets/exceeds the standards, everyone does the job. Suck it up, you either get through the selection/training to join the unit or you don't. If you don't meet/maintain the standard, buh-bye, nice seeing you, maybe you can play again at a later date, when you are ready.
 
Last edited:
Combat standards will never change, training standards will lower.
This will increase the number of women in the system, and increase the number of men who make it through.
Manning problem solved.

My SWAG is the standards will initially be maintained. At some point some Congressman or Senator will (probably due to public scrutiny) ask the respective service chiefs why more women don't make it through. The mantra of "standards" will be advanced but quietly pressure will be applied or instructors told to look the other way until the numbers are better. This will be a slow process and "standards erosion" won't begin until this is out of the limelight or after 1 or 2 women make it through some pipeline or another. By then almost everyone involved in this decision will be out of uniform and the new crew more concerned with the next grade than those pesky standards.

The military will continue to remain a massive hypocrite factory as the standards are upheld in SOF or combat arms units, but the rest will continue to have separate PT thresh holds. Hell, the Marines flat out told SECNAV and SECDEF this was a bad idea and they told the Corps to eat a dick.

So yeah, I don't buy the line about "standards" but we'll just have to wait and see what happens. This party IS happening and all we can do is ride along and watch.
 
I'm skeptical the standards will remain the same, but time will tell.
Logistically I don't think it'll be possible for standards to remain unchanged. What'll really impact if/how much standards change will be the number of women that want into Combat Arms/SOF.

Consider Army OSUT for any Combat Arms MOS. I have 0 clue how USAREC & TRADOC are going to handle the requirement to ensure everyone that wants a shot at a Combat Arms MOS gets one, but my hunch is that at some point they're going to have to set aside some slots to guarantee an equal opportunity to attend training. If that happens, attrition will have to be scrutinized/adjusted for out of necessity as there's still unit manning and readiness to consider.

Eventually that'll lead to one of two things happening (please chime in if you can think of any other outcomes):
  1. Each OSUT facility will need to increase its bandwidth (up the number of bodies they can accommodate during a training cycle)
  2. Each OSUT facility will need to increase its throughput (up the number of bodies they output at the end of a training cycle)
Given that budgets are shrinking, I can't imagine #1 would happen any time soon. That leaves #2 (baring any other options you all introduce) - which means standards will have to change or be gender specific so line units get the bodies they need.

Thoughts? Would this rationale hold true for other services and SOF pipelines too?
 
Thoughts? Would this rationale hold true for other services and SOF pipelines too?

I'm going to take the services at face value and presume that women will be integrated into units and training with the minimal effort and money necessary and that the standards will be maintained.
1. You don't increase the number of training slots, you just open those to women. Ranger School setting aside slots was for testing, but in the real world where everyone's equal, the number of slots won't change with women vying for them alongside their male counterparts. Let's say the Army needs 10,000 (or whatever number) new 11B's this year, 10,000 contracts go to recruiting command, and the first 10k qualified recruits are taken into the pipeline. To me that sounds fair and equal....unless I'm missing something.
2. HR Command maintains metrics. All HR organizations maintain metrics, so HRC knows that historically x recruits equals y MOSQ soldiers. It uses that stat along with others to determine how many training slots are needed (assuming a pipeline can accommodate them, but that's a different issue).
3. Now women come into the picture. If they fail at greater numbers than their male counterparts (very likely) the Army is down to fewer MOSQ 11B's going to line companies.

Boom. Now what? The Army has to make up that shortfall. It either restricts the # of female enlistees or finds a way for them to pass at the same rate as the males.

For different reasons I think SOF will eventually fold, but it will take years.
 
I've seen it happen. Somebody bitches, gets a lawyer or goes to the media, claims predjudicial treatment, stirs up the shit and the powers-that-be fall all over themselves to cover their ass and look PC...and even standards written in stone can be degraded.

Combat standards will never change, training standards will lower.

And people can die.
 
Last edited:
Did Airborne training change? I didn't do pull ups...didn't run anywhere except jump week back in 2010.

While I think it has fluctuated somewhat since I went through in '93, I would say there's an overall decline. We didn't take a pT test but I know classes after ours did take PT tests. We did pullups while female students did the 3' bar inverted, legs out whatever pullup. Our runs were 9 min. miles almost to the second with every female in the front ranks.

They've cleared changed and not for the better.
 
Did Airborne training change? I didn't do pull ups...didn't run anywhere except jump week back in 2010.

While I think it has fluctuated somewhat since I went through in '93, I would say there's an overall decline. We didn't take a pT test but I know classes after ours did take PT tests. We did pullups while female students did the 3' bar inverted, legs out whatever pullup. Our runs were 9 min. miles almost to the second with every female in the front ranks.

They've cleared changed and not for the better.

I took a PT test to get into BAC, and our final (after the run) exercise was 10 pull-ups, (with the women getting the 3' bar).
Justification for double PT standard was men were being tested for Combat (Arms) Fitness, women were support.
I see a slew of lawsuits in the near future with the government losing most of them.
The ladies got their wish for equality, hope it works well for them.
 
Come Hell or high water. The list of jobs opened, by branch, is in this link here.

All combat jobs open to women in the military

The Defense Department will lift all gender-based restrictions on military service starting in January, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.

The historic change will clear the way for women to serve alongside men in combat arms units.

Carter's decision comes as a rebuke to an internal recommendation from the Marine Corps that sought to keep some jobs closed to women. In contrast, the Army leaders recommended opening all combat arms jobs to women.

"While the Marine Corps asked for a partial exception in some areas such as infantry, machine gunner, fire support reconnaissance and others, we are a joint force, and I have decided to make a decision which applies to the entire force," Carter said at a Pentagon press briefing Thursday.

"The important factor in making my decision was to have access to every American who could add strength to the joint force," he said.

In effect, Carter's decision will open to women about 220,000 jobs in all, or about 10 percent of the entire active and reserve force. Most of those jobs are in Army and Marine Corps infantry and armor units.

FACT SHEET: What positions are opening? Download the list.

At its core, the decision means that as of Jan. 2, female service members — both current and incoming recruits — will be allowed to serve in any military job for which they meet the gender-neutral performance standards and other requirements.

"They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They'll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men," Carter said.

"And even more importantly, our military will be better able to harness the skills and perspectives that talented women have to offer."


MILITARYTIMES

Congress offers praise, wariness on women in combat


Carter made the announcement at a Pentagon press briefing. Absent from the briefing was Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, the relatively new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was serving as commandant of the Marine Corps earlier this year when the Corps made its pitch to keep some gender restrictions in place.

Dunford was in the Washington area Thursday attending a series of meetings, officials said. His absence raised questions about his support for Carter's decision. The top general issued a statement Thursday that stopped short of agreeing with the decision.

"I have had the opportunity to provide my advice on the issue of full integration of women into the armed forces. In the wake of the Secretary's decision, my responsibility is to ensure his decision is properly implemented," Dunford said in the brief statement.

Earlier this year, the Marine Corps outlined a justification for that stance by publicly releasing some results of a yearlong study that concluded male-only units performed better overall than gender-integrated units.

Specifically, that Marine Corps-sponsored study found that male-only infantry units shot more accurately, could carry more weight and move more quickly through some tactical maneuvers. The study also found higher injury rates for women than for men.

Carter acknowledged that the Marine Corps' recommendation was based on a conclusion that allowing women to serve in combat units would jeopardize readiness and combat effectiveness, but said he disagreed with that assessment.

"I believe that we could, in the implementation process, address the issues that were raised," Carter said.

The Army, in contrast, has shown strong support for opening all military occupational specialties to women. So far this year, three female soldiers completed the prestigious Army Ranger School and earned the Ranger tab. In November, the Ranger School's first fully integrated class got underway at Fort Benning, Georgia.

For the Navy, the impact will be felt mainly in to the SEAL community, which was historically limited to men. The Navy integrated its fighter pilot career fields in the 1990s and began allowing women to serve on submarines several years ago.

For the Air Force, the change will affect six occupational specialties that had been closed to women: special tactics officer and combat rescue officer, and the enlisted fields of special operations weather, combat control, pararescue and tactical air control party. Those gender restrictions affected roughly 4,000 positions.

The contentious issue revealed a rare public disagreement between the Marine Corps leadership and the Department of the Navy, which technically oversees the Marines.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus voiced strong public support for lifting all gender restrictions, including those for Navy SEALs, yet Dunford, commandant of the Marine Corps at the time, disagreed.

The Corps' nine-month study compared all-male units to mixed-gender units and included battlefield simulations examining the impacts of integrating women into combat roles. The Corps released only parts of the study's final report, which highlighted unit cohesion problems and increased rates of injuries for women.

Critics said the Corps' study was flawed because it failed to take into account that many of the male Marines, unlike the females, had prior training in the combat arms, and also because it focused on average results rather than individual results.

Thursday's announcement was greeted with some skepticism on Capitol Hill. The leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, issued a joint statement vowing to take a close look at the issue during Congress's 30-day review period.

"The Senate and House Armed Services committees intend to carefully and thoroughly review all relevant documentation related to today's decision, including the 1,000-page Marine Integrated Task Force report. We expect the department to send over its implementation plans as quickly as possible to ensure our Committees have all the information necessary to conduct proper and rigorous oversight," the statement said.

The Pentagon does not need direct approval from Capitol Hill to move forward on Carter's decision, but strong opposition from Congress could pose problems in implementing related policies.

The Pentagon leadership's final decision on lifting all gender restrictions has been influenced by a pending lawsuit from several former female service members who claim the combat exclusion rules violate their constitutional rights.

The change was also driven in part by support from the White House and President Obama's interest in expanding opportunities for all Americans to serve in the military. In 2011, Congress passed, and Obama signed, a law to end the prohibition on open military service by gays and lesbians.

And the change also was fueled by claims from women that the restrictions limited their ability to ascend to the military's highest level of leadership, which is often filled with officers who served in the combat arms.

It also comes after 15 years of counterinsurgency operations that made rules referencing "ground combat" seem out of step with missions targeting a shadowy enemy that used nontraditional, asymmetrical tactics.

During a decade's worth of conflict, more than about 300,000 women were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 9,000 female troops have earned Combat Action Badges. More than 800 female service members have been wounded and at least 161 have died from combat- and noncombat-related incidents, according to Defense Department data.
 
Back
Top