Women in the Infantry

Another interesting point brought up by SWAN is a limitation to career advancement for female officers as being one of the points for integration into the infantry. This point is null in the Marine Corps as, unlike the Army, the Combat Action Ribbon is not limited to MOS...though I believe the Army does have a device recognizing combat participation for non-infantry MOSs but is considered less prestigious.

SWANs policy director, a form Army enlisted and infantry officer, suggests the best person qualified for the job of leading soldiers into battle should be in that position, regardless of gender. This makes a lot of sense on the surface but brings with it complications. Any newly implemented policy is going to take priority for coofftopicnders compliance. Quotas will be set, and filled, and the result could very well be the opposite of what Director Jacob is hoping for. There's just so many considerations and variables to take into account, I really hope people don't attempt to affect policy by emotion rather than reason or facts.
 
Excellent discussion gents, can I make a request as a non military person?

When using abbreviations, could you please type the words in full at least once, just so we know the meanings. Abreviations from then on will be fine.

Thanks and keep it going.
 
Forgive us, sometimes we forget. Here's a rundown of some of them.

SOI - School of Infantry
MOS - Military Occupational Specialty (this is your job in the military. They also have a 4 number word associated with them. Anything that starts with 03 like 0302,0352,0311, etc. it's an infantry job)
ITB - Infantry Training Battalion (also SOI, but nobody calls it ITB)
MEU - Marine Expeditionary Force (this is basically a presence patrol. Bunch of Marines on a Navy ship floating around a certain region in the world and ready to react at a moments notice in that region if something goes down.)
CAR - This is your Combat Action Ribbon. Highly sought after, given to those who don't deserve it, if you wear it on your chest others respect you.
IOC- Infantry officer course. Where the guys who think they do something get trained and weren't hard enough to be enlisted
IED- Improvised Explosive Device. Weapon of choice by the current enemy, highly effective and hard to find.
FOB- Forward Operating Base
PB- Patrol base
Difference between a FOB and a PB is generally that supplies and equipment come from a major base in country (a camp), to a FOB, then to a PB. If you're stationed at a 'camp' you're not on a real deployment, if you're on a FOB you may engage in deployment activities such as patrols depending on your job, and a PB is a base in which patrols go out of and the actual combat part usually takes place. There are exceptions to the rule in every one though.
MAP- Martial Arts Planet (whoops, I'm literally just scrolling through the posts and adding the acronyms, didn't catch this until I was writing it. Will be funny for anyone who actually reads this though)
FET- Female Engagement Team. They do patrols and get in contact with the people males can't culturally in the current war.
WAG bags- You crap in them, then throw them in the burn pile. I've never used one, always had a hole or big barrel some poor soul had to burn.
LOG train- Bunch of vehicles loaded with supplies to deliver to FOBs and PBs.
Recon Coil- "We're going to sit out here in the open with everyone looking out in a 360, hope nobody attacks us and wait for engineers to get here to build us some fortifications. Dig a hole to sleep in so you have something to duck into when we start getting shot at.
SWAN- Service Woman's Action Network. Don't know what this is as I'm not a woman and had to google it.

If I missed anything let me know, if you want anything else explained hit me up. I'm more then willing to describe something or get in touch with somebody who does for better understanding.
 
Completely understandable. Heck, acronyms become a language at some point while you're in and they actually have classes for people getting out on how to not use all the acronyms in interviews for jobs and stuff. Definitely something we should keep in mind for this kind of discussion, and thank you for bringing it up!
 
Here is a picture difference of what a Camp and a PB is. A FOB is somewhere in-between those. Some FOBs are closer to Camps, others closer to PBs. Camp is the top portion, PB the bottom.
 
I've never liked this argument. It's obvious that some men aren't ready for integration, but if we waited for everyone to be ready, nothing would ever be integrated. Men who think women need saving aren't going to get over it by isolating themselves from women. They're going to get over it by serving alongside them. If we have women who can hack it (and I think it's pretty clear we do), put them in and let the men adjust.
 
The IDF has women serving in teeth arm units for the past 12 years

I don't see any problem with female Infanteers personally, though considering the high level of rape within the ranks of the US Army, I would think twice about encouraging my daughter to join up

Didn't the US military go through the same angst and navel gazing when racial intergration became the norm in the 60's. Now it is totally normal

Mistaken for a man - YouTube
 
I've always struggled with this one since I don't treat women any different to men so its hard for me to empathize with. That said the impression I've got of the infantry is that they'll go to some severe lengths to save one of their own already. Not sure how much further they could go just because its a girl.

But yeah, I did a thread like this a while back and it boils down to: They pass the same tests as men (God the dumbing down of tests for women was stupid...) , Other countries do it already and don't have any major issues, and women are already combat tested since limiting them form the infantry hasn't stopped them ending up in "front line" combat.
 
I commented on her own given account of her experience.

If you're offended by my post, you need to grow a thicker skin. This aint kindergarten.
 
It was hyperbole...oh wait, sorry - see here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

I never bashed her service and it's not a data pool when it only has one data point in it - it's called an anecdote and should be treated as such when cited in an adult conversation. As for unnecessarily antagonistic - that's how I roll brah.
 
Thank you for the valuable information. This really displayed proper content and context relevant to, as you say, an adult conversation and helps it to progress in a natural and informative manner.

Data Pool

"At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women."

She is correlating this to her personal experiences. The above information is taken from training at Officer Candidate School (officer selection) and The Basic School (officer basic training). These schools are both 'easier' than IOC and have alternate standards for females and males. Also, these schools are only for officers...the minority in Marine infantry...and is absolutely nothing like an actual deployment (which is where Petronio had her experience vice IOC).

Other things to keep in mind:

-Assigning the term 'standard' to something in no way means it represents equality or will be executed equally, especially in the military.

-The military is designed to execute policy enacted by government. This means a political agenda, used by politicians to emotionally manipulate constituents, will be executed regardless of feasibility once a decision is made. People think 'the standard' is this wonderful buzzword they can use ass they armchair quarterback as evidentiary proof (to borrow a term from the legal field). Its just not that simple, unfortunately. The regulating standards are way too subjective, in nature, to warrant proper evidence of a scientific nature.

-Petrionio isn't arguing some women can't successfully pass physical standards...and neither am I. Her argument is physical sustainment in a field environment, on a deployment. I would argue, from personal experience as well, that introducing females into an environment like a Patrol Base in the Upper Sangin Valley with an infantry unit creates more problems than benefits.
 
I don't need to see data showing higher attrition rates for women, that is bound to happen because, as a population, women are less robust. That doesn't mean, however, that all women are less robust than all men. Some women will be physically and mentally capable of serving in the infantry. Those that can, should be allowed to.

The physical sustainment issue hasn't been properly studied, but I don't think it is as pronounced an issue as Petrionio claims. I'd need to see long term data that shows women are more badly affected than men by prolonged tours of duty - that data shouldn't be hard to obtain. Medical before deployment, medical after deployment, compare and contrast.

And the 'more problems than benefits' argument has been applied to black soldiers and gay soldiers in the past. It don't wash no more. It's been abused as an argument.
 
A big thing in the military is the functionality of a unit as a hole. It's something a lot of people not exposed to the environment don't understand. When you change a policy, it has an effect on everyone and while it's nice to sit back and talk about civil rights and equality it's usually done so out of a lack of experience and understanding of the possibility of destroying unit integrity. Sure, you can say "well they need to get over it" all you want . . . . but you're not ready to charge in at death's doorstep at any moment are you? Most civilians don't understand the severity of that.

Data showing attrition rates are very relevant. Females drop out of those schools with physical training programs that are designed for women, not men. The men have it much harder for passing physical standards. The point is that women already have a much easier program to follow physically, and the attrition rate for failing physically is still higher. If they now have to do the male physical standards I think it's safe to assume that the attrition rate is going to be even higher. That leaves you with a VERY small and select group of females that could partake in the infantry and the question as to if they will fall apart physically quicker then males in the short term is something that should be asked.

Another thing that is often misunderstood about the military is that units really don't give a crap about a small group of individuals. When in training the majority need to pass, the majority need to be able to function and at a decent standard. This goes back to afhuss' point about this all being a political statement to have women serve in the infantry. If it is found through the current training going on in IOC that only a few females can meet the standard it is not a civil rights/equality thing for the military. It's a "we're going to spend time and money to get maybe 10 people out of an entire class that takes up instructors and resources to make politicians happy" sort of situation.

Black and Gay soldiers in the past don't really apply to this. Those were based in racism and bigotry as well as intolerance. What's being presented for women (as far as this thread goes) is the question on whether physically they can hack it, if they can hack it then is there a difference in longevity between males and females in the short and long term, is it going to cost way more and be detrimental to the military's cause rather then benefit it, and are the effects on the individual (because of possible physical differences in being able to endure) going to be too harsh.

While I agree that there is a similarity to what Black and Gay soldiers faced (in this case sexism), it's definitely not exactly the same. I think more information gathered through testing should be done (which it is being done) for integration into the military. There really is no question on whether or not females can operate in a combat environment . . . . the questions being asked and opinions being presented within this thread are of a different nature.
 
Did you copy and paste that from a thread from the 1950's about black soldiers, or from a 2007 thread about gay ones? I certainly hope you didn't bother writing such a cliched point of view from scratch.

I've been quite clear that if they can meet the same standards - not lower ones - that they should be allowed to serve.


If only a few women meet the standard, then only a few women meet the standard. Select the women more appropriately and the attrition rate would drop. I wouldn't be surprised if they are deliberately taking on women who they know wont meet the standard just so they can point to the attrition rates as a reason not to do it in the future.

Of course - that was bad discrimination, whereas this is good discrimination.


How do the experiences of countries with female infantry troops answer those questions?


I agree with the testing, but to say this thread is different to the same old same old 'this group of people are not good/strong/white/straight/brave enough' argument is simply not true.
 
It's going to be a pretty boring discussion if you just throw out quick, disapproving remarks all the time.

Black and Gay soldiers have always been present in the infantry. Their integration wasn't based on physical performance. If the argument was "females are different things and can't deal like a man physically or mentally! They aren't equal!" without an actual presentation involving certain key elements (like attrition rates) then you would have a point. I think you're getting too wrapped up in the civil rights/equality speech which I was trying to avoid. There are most certainly differences physically from males and females and there is a lack of evidence and study to determine just how much and whether or not it will have a negative or positive effect on things.

You're also missing the point that if "only a few meet it then only a few meet it and they should be allowed to do it!" Nobody cares about a few, and to find a few out of a bunch costs a lot of money, time and resources. This is not a special forces area where this sort of screening is beneficial. You also have no idea how people are selected in the military. The military doesn't say "you're going to take part in this" with something like this. People volunteer. Every single one of the women going through this program I guarantee you feel like they have something to prove. Good for them, hopefully because of that mindset they are capable of proving critics wrong.

I would have to look into other militaries using women in combat directly through the infantry. The IDF was brought up earlier, but there is a difference from a drafted military and a volunteer one.

Please don't bring up stuff like: "the same old same old 'this group of people are not good/strong/white/straight/brave enough' argument is simply not true." That's not at all what's being discussed or said. Many times already in this thread it has been stated that Women ARE good enough, are strong enough, and are brave enough to serve in combat. Again, that's not the question being asked and you're taking it down a different route.
 
I think a case can be made both for and against women serving in forward areas. The fact is, though, that nobody knows what will happen during a combat situation. People train like hell so that in the shock of combat, rote memory takes over, but anyone can freeze-up, go into shock, panic or what-have-you.

IMHO its asking a lot for an average female to hump standard issue as, say, Long Range Recon. But for a Quick Response force, SWAT, Base security and relief I can't see why a female soldier would be all that different from a female Cop. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce
 
That is a very good point and I believe it's been addressed in a different way earlier by afhuss. If it's found that it's not beneficial in the long term for women to serve in the infantry because of prolonged deployment issues, then take away the long part. One particular unit I'm a little familiar with would be FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Team) that I don't believe currently allow females to serve in. Those guys train for in and out.
 
Here's my $0.02 coming from a background of my time as an active duty Marine, an engineer in the Army Reserve, and two overseas deployments. Obviously this following opinion is shaped primarily by my own experiences.

I personally feel gender integration in combat roles has far more disadvantages than advantages. The physiological reasons have been covered fairly well to this point so I will address more of the logistical and discipline side. I actually did not have much close experience working with female service members until my combat engineer company became vertical construction and thus no longer a combat unit. I have served with some great female soldiers and bad ones, just like I have served with some good and bad male soldiers.

Logistics is something we can face issues with regarding females. They need their own sleeping quarters and hygiene facilities which often have them integrated with other units. Sometimes these places require providing females with transportation to and from these same places. Obviously in most cases this is not an issue. With regards to combat arms however this proves to be troublesome. Sometimes you may just be a small group living in tight quarters for long periods of time. You are essentially living and defecating in the same hole and barely have any elbow room much less privacy. Bathing is not always an option so sometimes the only way to clean yourself is to strip naked and get a dry shower. You need to be pretty comfortable with your manhood in many ways to hang with combat arms.

This also goes for discipline. Two shooters sitting in an observation post for hours (or days) at a time is common. When you get the dynamic of a male and female sitting in that hole however the sexual side takes over. If they're engaged in hanky panky they're not watching their sector and thus putting their squad/platoon in danger. Any non-commissioned officer (NCO) can tell you you can never trust a male and female private together for long without supervision. There is always the risk of sexual assault as well hence why we always had our females travel in pairs and never left a female alone with any number of males without a leader present. Sure you could put two females in the same post but there's never a guarantee you will have two females to do that with. Obviously she could do other roles instead of sitting in the post but that's going to build resentment towards her as she won't be doing her fair share. Sentry duty sucks and pulling an extra shift for someone else does not make them near and dear to your heart.

Carrying your weight also goes to ruck marches and the like. As cool as the heavy weapons are you have to get them there in the first place. Often there's a lot of ammo for each so it typically get spread loaded amongst the squad/platoon. You may be only trained as a rifleman but could be carrying ammo for the crew served weapon (machine gun typically) and possibly 40mm grenades for the launcher or even mortars for your mortar guys. Someone's gotta carry the radio too which is deceptively heavy. All of these add a considerable amount of weight to your pack. People who are unable to carry a comparable load typically do not last long. It's unrealistic to expect a female to carry the same load as a male yet I don't think gender equality will be too keen in anyone's mind when you're running low on ammo because you couldn't carry all you wanted without her risking injury.

There are many other instances that come to mind but I wanted to share my own thoughts and experiences to add to this interesting discussion. If I can think of more I will share.
 
To Kuma's post -

I think those are a lot of valid points, but I also think a lot of that can be overcome. As I said in my original post, I think the way gender roles are established socially in current times is what would be the main issue for a lot of the things you brought up. I deviate quite a bit from what's seen as the norm and I can tell you with confidence I could stand a post next to a woman without being sexually interested, see them naked in a fox hole trying to take a shower (I don't see how that would be a turn on for anyone . . .), or treat them just like anybody else. But the subject isn't about what I think I could do, and it's very much about what usually happens with the majority of people.

I'm very interested to see how the test group does performance wise through IOC physically (assuming the same standards for males is kept, if not it's really not providing any sort of legit evidence to promote females in the infantry). I also think more then one test run should be done. Hopefully some more in depth discussion can go on in a few months when it's over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
15 Best States to Retire for Women in the US
Replies
0
Views
20
admin
A
A
2024 Hot Docs 'The Day Iceland Stood Still': For 24 hours in 1975, 90% of women in Iceland took a day off
Replies
0
Views
9
admin
A
A
Canadian rugby women blanked 24-0 by France in Singapore Sevens Cup quarterfinal
Replies
0
Views
4
admin
A
A
Two more women file suits alleging sexual assault by Newfoundland police officer
Replies
0
Views
11
admin
A
A
Loose Women star reveals heartbreaking reason for sharing first breast mammogram live
Replies
0
Views
85
admin
A
Back
Top