Women in Combat Arms Roles

[Will1701]

Hello Rangers,

Currently, I am working on a research project for a Contemporary Issues class where I am supposed to research and learn about both arguments as to whether or not women belong in combat arms roles in the military. I will then present my findings to the class. As part of this project I am supposed to get direct feedback from public officials, veterans, and others. My reason for this post is to try to get as much feedback from combat arms veterans or active duty soldiers, from any unit or branch. My goal is to get a large number of responses so I can generate a poll as well as note more lengthy responses such as why it is or is not a bad idea. The question is below, feel free to reply with a short response ("good idea" or "bad idea" responses) or with a more lengthy answer with reasoning; alternative responses are fine as well.


Is allowing women into combat arms roles in the military a good idea?


Thank you.

[fatboy]

Interesting question. Instead of spoon feeding you answers, I will ask 2 questions of you:

1. Have you actually searched this topic out on this website? Seems to me that it may have been mentioned once or twice around here.

2. What are YOUR thoughts on women in combat arms- what are the pros and cons? What does it do to our existing military?

Answer these, and you might get a good start on your project.

[Will1701]

Ranger fatboy,

1. I have searched the website and haven't come up with a dedicated and expansive thread yet, just mostly articles people have posted on the topic with one or two answers. Also, my teacher preferred to have me set up an independent thread to form poll numbers from and get direct responses to a post created by myself rather than someone else.

2. Personally I believe the opinions of those who have served in combat arms roles are superior to mine as a civilian, but so far from interviews I've listened to and other research I would have to say that I don't really see the issue in positions such as artillery as much as I see integration being a problem in infantry or special operations. I believe that the infantry and special operations units truly relies on brotherhood in order to achieve great things. I also worry that if an infantry platoon comes to attain women that it might lower combat readiness in the event that they join during peacetime and then a massive war breaks out and they do not feel ready that they might go get pregnant and not be able to deploy and thus lowering the platoon's ability to go to war and succeed. I also know that women are 33% more likely to get injured such as breaking bones, which is a huge disadvantage in combat. A lot of people say that if a women meets the standard then she should be let into the unit; however, I feel this is a flawed perspective because if you go to an infantry or special operations unit and can only achieve the standard in your maximum physical ability then you are going to potentially your squad in training or in a firefight from what I understand. I really don't see the need to 'fix' a system that isn't broken especially after examining the broader implications I stated previously.

Some pros to allowing women in is that it would be a big step for equality. Many would say that the military has always been a place where equality has made progress such as the integration of African Americans into combat units. Another pro is that opening these positions would allow for women who are desperate to serve in combat roles to do so. Finally, many make the case that there are plenty of women who are stronger than men who get to become infantrymen when they don't.


Thank you for the response Ranger.

[RangerX]

FWIW, most of the detailed conversations on this topic have taken place in the secured areas of this site.

Not going to run through the cons, but you mention "equality" in your comment above. I'll say this - it's not equality if it's handed to you. Case in point.

[fatboy]

FWIW, most of the detailed conversations on this topic have taken place in the secured areas of this site.

Not going to run through the cons, but you mention "equality" in your comment above. I'll say this - it's not equality if it's handed to you. Case in point.

Screw diversity and equality. Celebrate competency. Being competent means being able to do all aspects of your job at all times. There is no time out in combat.

Will1701- you mentioned women in artillery. How much upper body strength does the average female have? Now let's subtract some of that because they have body armor, a helmet, maybe even a rifle strapped on. Now you want them to load 155mm shells that weigh over 60lbs each? Apply that same argument to an average male now. Which one do you want working arty for you if your ass is on the line?

My body armor alone as a squad leader in a rifle platoon weighed in a 48 lbs. That's armor only. Add in water, ammo, grenades (smoke and frags), radios, night vision, batteries and any other mission essential items and what do you think that weighed? The grenadiers and machine gunners had heavier loads to bear as well.

Something you should ask yourself- why aren't women playing the same professional sports as males at the same time? Is it because of a performance gap between top level athletes? And that is just a game.

Brotherhood will get you through some rough times. The ability to count on the people next to you, to know they are physically strong and morally straight, willing to shoulder more than their share of the task, that is what will get you through combat. Not equality.

Having said all of that, women are necessary to the armed services, both in peace and in war. Combat arms isn't for everyone. Male or female.

[Will1701]

Thank you very much for the input Ranger fatboy and Ranger RangerX,
I would like to say that I am on your side about women in combat arms roles, I had previously thought that women would do more harm in infantry units than in artillery units rather than none at all. Thank you to Ranger fatboy for the very insightful information on that. This is some excellent feedback.
I would like to respond to Ranger fatboy when you say that we should celebrate competency; the opposing side may argue this by saying why shouldn't a competent women get the job? They also might say if they meet the same standards then why not and they may suggest that there are women out there who are more capable and competent than some men in infantry or other combat arms roles. It would be great to hear your responses to some of these arguments I've heard from the opposing side.

Thank you Rangers.

[fatboy]

The opposing side regularly makes the argument that if a female can perform to standard then they should be able to do the job. Problem is, they will not go to one standard to settle the issue. Currently there is a male standard and a female standard. Everything from fitness to hair styles.
The only standard that really applies in combat arms jobs is the ability to move soul crushing amounts of weight across varied terrain to close with and destroy the enemy. Inherent in that statement is the ability to perform at the top of your game after a 12 mile over land foot insertion when you make contact with the people you are there to kill. Because if you fail in that, the wrong people will die.
When the other side makes one standard (the harder standard), and then holds everyone accountable to that standard, then women might be considered equals.
Which leads back to my statement about equality. The military is no place for social engineering. You are either competent and capable of performing a combat arms job or you should walk your happy ass over to a support unit.
Are there some women out there that can out perform men? I'm sure there are. But again, the average male would smoke the average female. It's not until you get into the high performing females that they are almost the physical equals of the average male.

[Will1701]

Excellent input Ranger fatboy.
How would you feel about the argument that there is far more to being an infantryman than what the Army PFT tests? So even if fitness standards were made equal for combat arms roles the test couldn't accurately test a woman's ability to carry a man and his gear or an ability to take years of life in the infantry on base or on deployment to a war zone without total wear on the body.

[fatboy]

Excellent input Ranger fatboy.
How would you feel about the argument that there is far more to being an infantryman than what the Army PFT tests? So even if fitness standards were made equal for combat arms roles the test couldn't accurately test a woman's ability to carry a man and his gear or an ability to take years of life in the infantry on base or on deployment to a war zone without total wear on the body.

The standard Army PT test was a joke. Most times we took it, we were borderline hung over and had no issues with it.

Being physically fit is just the start of being an average Infantryman. The studs are the ones that are smart and strong, and can multitask and prioritize numerous events simultaneously. Dragging someone to cover, applying first aid, calling in an evacuation chopper, coordinating air support, and maneuvering your element to effectively suppress or eliminate the bad guys. That's a typical Infantry job in a combat zone.

Realistically, there isn't a whole lot that will give an accurate test of someone's ability to excel in combat short of actually putting someone in combat and trying to shoot or blow them up. Advancing under fire, sticking your head out to find the enemy, moving away from cover when the bad guys know where you are and placing accurate fire back on them. Those are things that can be simulated in a variety of ways, but nothing compares to the real thing.

[Will1701]

Thank you Ranger fatboy.

[Jim]

Following 9-11, Army deployed combat troops to Afghanistan. There they ran into a lot of problems dealing with Islamic rules about men dealing with local female civilians. Army introduced female MPs Into the combat environment to deal with female civilians. These efforts showed promise, so we began to train females to expand the capability. As time passed, USSOCOM took the lead in this training. The role of women in combat has been expanded as the need for trained combat forces has increased.

[Will1701]

Thank you for the input Ranger Jim.
That is definitely an excellent point. Would you say that women should only be allowed into roles where they are necessary to mission success and not into areas where they are not needed such as infantry?

[fatboy]

Just for your awareness Will1701, a few terms you can research and see what the government originally intended with the GI Jane initiatives and how their performances fared.

Lioness teams, Female engagement teams (FETs), and Cultural support teams (CSTs). All variations on a common theme.

There are additional female service members that have performed admirably while under fire. Their stories are out there as well; but the overriding theme is combat generally found them instead of them going out looking for it.

[Will1701]

I will definitely look into those terms. Thank you for the advice Ranger fatboy.