Secretary of Navy ignores Marine Corps study on gender-integrated infantry

[LittleLebowski]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/14/navy-secretary-threw-us-under-the-bus-say-marines-in-gender-integrated-infantry-unit/


Mabus questioned the findings of the research after a four-page summary of the results was released Thursday, saying he still thinks all jobs in the Marine Corps should be opened to women. He said results that found women were more than twice as likely to be injured and ultimately compromise a unit’s combat effectiveness were an “extrapolation based on injury rates, and I’m not sure that’s right,” he told NPR.

Once, long ago, a tyrannical majority captured the government. They said they would make all individuals equal. They meant they would not let any individual be better than another at doing anything. Excellence was to be suppressed or concealed. The tyrants made their government act at great speed 'in the name of the people.' They removed delays and red tape wherever found. There was little deliberation. Unaware that they acted out of an unconscious compulsion to prevent all change, the tyrants tried to enforce a gray sameness upon the population. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007PRZP0G/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B007PRZP0G&linkCode=as2&tag=ratio07-20)

[JHC]

The Congress can impeach the Secretary of the Navy can't they? I might expect something like that from Congressman Duncan Hunter and he'd better step lively about it.

Mabus is unbelievable.

[Alpha Sierra]

This will last up until the first American military woman is raped and beheaded on video

[GardoneVT]

This will last up until the first American military woman is raped and beheaded on video
Females have been captured by enemy personell, err "combatants" before.

The biggest danger IMO isn't combat related activities. It's the social damage one or two women in a company of twenty horny dudes can cause. The Air Force has the highest number of women in the ranks, and you'd think that's a good thing. It isn't under the current system of "assign women with the boys" , unless you're a fan of pointless unit drama and severe morale issues.

When an all male or all female unit gets down to business, that is exactly what happens. But toss one girl into an all guy group -because we won't get a 50/50 mix of women in the military without a draft- and you get half the dudes trying to bang her while she develops a crush on , say,the unit commander who's probably married. Toss in good ol' Article 134, and we've ensured the folks in Hollywood wont want for saucy screenplays.

Male unit leadership likely wont discipline the female(s) if she screws up because politics and the appearance of harassment , so now you've got discipline standards fail on top of the hormones.

From an intellectual standpoint I fully support women in combat and military service. If a group in society exercises the right to select and run the government, that same group needs skin in the game should said government they helped pick decide to go to war. But women ,until our social customs and biology catch up to that lofty goal, need to serve in their own units with direct female leadership and supervision.

No mixing men and women in permanent assignments . As anyone whose ever dated a crazy woman -or worked a DV case -knows firsthand, females are more then capable of serious violence when called upon.

[Alpha Sierra]

Females have been captured by enemy personell, err "combatants" before.
I know that

I didn't think I had to explain my point, but I shall anyway: wait until an American servicewoman gets raped and brutally executed on video. It's just a matter of time. THEN, watch the policy change.

As for your other comments, 100% concurrence. I am SO glad I EOADS right before women started to be assigned to combatant ships. I wanted NO part of that discipline shitshow.

[Kevin B.]

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/what-tempers-the-steel-of-an-infantry-unit/

[TCinVA]

I know that

I didn't think I had to explain my point, but I shall anyway: wait until an American servicewoman gets raped and brutally executed on video. It's just a matter of time. THEN, watch the policy change.


If the people pushing this stuff don't really care about women getting damaged and broken, do you think video of one being brutally executed by some booger-eating savage would push them off their agenda? If people are busying themselves willing into reality things they know to be false because it's a requirement to be seen as a "good" person in today's age, would listening to a woman's horrible scream through a slit throat or seeing her charred corpse being drug through the streets really make much of a difference? Would such things make it past the media filters that many/most people willingly adopt?

I wish I shared your optimism. I don't see much of a willingness to acknowledge the costs of feel good policies. I don't believe that these things are unknown or unknowable...in my view they're actively suppressed and ignored which is why we have some of the problems we have in western civilization today.

I don't think your proposed scenario is going to change that. I hope it never comes to pass in the first place, and if it does come to pass I hope we have the fortitude to learn from it...but I'm not optimistic.

[Jeep]

The biggest danger IMO isn't combat related activities. It's the social damage one or two women in a company of twenty horny dudes can cause. The Air Force has the highest number of women in the ranks, and you'd think that's a good thing. It isn't under the current system of "assign women with the boys" , unless you're a fan of pointless unit drama and severe morale issues.

When an all male or all female unit gets down to business, that is exactly what happens. But toss one girl into an all guy group -because we won't get a 50/50 mix of women in the military without a draft- and you get half the dudes trying to bang her while she develops a crush on , say,the unit commander who's probably married. Toss in good ol' Article 134, and we've ensured the folks in Hollywood wont want for saucy screenplays.



If America was governed by adults, and if adults elected our leadership, then the fact that boy/girl games will always go on in a military unit filled with 18-25 year old men and women would be obvious.

Sadly, the American electorate is increasingly not made up of adults but of children inhabiting adult bodies--children who still believe that if you close your eyes and wish things were different it will happen. And the people who are elected by those voters are the types who promise Utopia in which the evils of gender roles can be wiped out by government diktat and military discipline.

It won't happen because it can't happen. Men and women always will be attracted to each other, and especially those who are in the 18-25 category. Even the best and most disciplined will develop crushes on soldiers/sailors of the opposite sex no matter how hard they try not to.

We have been experimenting with mixed sex units for over 40 years now, the results are always the same and they will continue to be the same no matter how many rules we pass because no amount of rules can overcome human ontology.

Putting aside the fact--and it is a fact--that the vast majority of women are not built for combat, neither men nor women are psychologically built to be integrated into mixed-sex units, and especially combat units. Only ideological lunacy--something to which many politicians, especially in this administration, are enslaved--supports continuing on this course.

[LittleLebowski]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/07/grunt-life-marines-dish-corps-women-combat-experiment/71632666/


Before opting out of the task force, Sheffield, 23, had decided the infantry wasn't for her.

"It sucked; it really sucked," she said. "I wouldn't do this experiment again."

Within the integrated rifle platoons, Sheffield and other volunteers said unit cohesion became quite strong. In dirty and charmless field conditions, male and female Marines got serious about the tasks at hand and developed close sibling-like relationships, they said. But Sheffield said most of her female colleagues in the unit agreed with her by the time the assessment was done. It wasn't for them, she said.

"Over time, your body breaks down," Sheffield said. "Our backs were hurting. Out of 100 female Marines, I'm going to say a good 20 could do this."

[TCinVA]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/07/grunt-life-marines-dish-corps-women-combat-experiment/71632666/

I appreciate her honesty.

Infantry service breaks people. I don't know very many guys who did it for more than one tour who didn't leave with some sort of injury or damage that plagues them for the rest of their life...and that includes guys who were in when there wasn't a shooting war going on. It's brutal.

I remember reading an article penned by a female Captain in the USMC (I think) who ended up in the field trying to keep up with her male Marines but her body simply couldn't handle the strain.

If it was an individual making a choice on their own and they were willing to risk it, that would be fine...but war is not an individual endeavor. It's a team sport, and when somebody on the team breaks it impacts the whole team.

[TGS]

That was Capt Petronio.

I believe she was part of a FET (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQLH-FUc1rA), and her main sticking point was that women can undergo severe hormonal changes that simply don't happen to men. Herself, IIRC, was sterile for some time afterwards.

[breakingtime91]

I worked with a FET team doing drug interdiction in 2011. They were awesome marines and I trusted them both with my life but they simply couldn't stay out as long as we could because of hygiene reasons. The mission we were running, we stayed out for a month at a time and only went to FOBs for resupply missions and maintenance.. After the first two times out, we realized it wasn't working. Our month trips turned into two week trips and simply defeated the purpose of our mission. As far as women in combat roles, I don't give a shit. If they can hang, who am I to say anything? There are a lot of men that shouldn't of been in the infantry and I would of taken anyone over them into combat.

[Wondering Beard]

And now there's this :cool:

Women’s Rights Activist Demands More Women Killed In Combat (http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/07/women-in-combat-activists-celebrate-mediocre-war-experience-to-bolster-calls-for-female-infantry/)

[TGS]

I worked with a FET team doing drug interdiction in 2011. They were awesome marines and I trusted them both with my life but they simply couldn't stay out as long as we could because of hygiene reasons. The mission we were running, we stayed out for a month at a time and only went to FOBs for resupply missions and maintenance.. After the first two times out, we realized it wasn't working. Our month trips turned into two week trips and simply defeated the purpose of our mission. As far as women in combat roles, I don't give a shit. If they can hang, who am I to say anything? There are a lot of men that shouldn't of been in the infantry and I would of taken anyone over them into combat.

Point, and not just combat.

One of my roommates in the Marines was a mustang, was with Charlie 1/7 years before coming back to the Corps and commissioning. His experience as an 0311 in a peace time Marine Corps rifle company at 29 Stumps was being on field exercises for weeks to a month at a time before coming back to the barracks. It was suicide Charlie, of course, so that may have had something to do with it.

[imp1295]

I appreciate her honesty.

Infantry service breaks people. I don't know very many guys who did it for more than one tour who didn't leave with some sort of injury or damage that plagues them for the rest of their life...and that includes guys who were in when there wasn't a shooting war going on. It's brutal.

.

On my 5th knee surgery, fourth collapsed disk and arthritis everywhere and I'm only 42.

Here is a perspective. I went from over a decade in airborne infantry to a mixed gender non-assessed branch. All volunteers, has a selection process, and a long term qualification course. This weeded out those most that didn't belong or want to be there. . I've had plenty of female NCOs and Officers harder than hell who were great soldiers.

But, you know what we couldn't eliminate even under a pretty hard threat of dropping the hammer. Inter-unit dating. I just couldn't get people to look somewhere besides where they work day in and day out.

And it wasn't dirt bags doing it. Two of my very best NCOs started dating, from the same dame company and it drove me crazy and we had to do,some significant shuffling of pax to make sure they wouldn't deploy to the same country.

So, from my experience, we were able to get more than enough capable women. But neither the guys or gals could keep from being interested in each other. This causes so much unit turmoil that it would take a whole weekend and a case of whiskey to go through all the stories I've seen.

And this is just NCOs And officers. I remember what my lower enlisted Paratroopers were like and their self awareness and control was that of a four year old.

Just some thoughts. Our senior Leaders at the CNOs level aren't military leaders. Their appointed political leaders and that is how most react and now seethe world


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ranger]

Let me provide an alternative view - after the Viet Nam war the US went to an All Volunteer Military and had to start actively seek female members of DOD to meet the recruiting goals. Fast forward to today and the Army (the largest group in DOD) seems to be struggling to meet its recruiting quota even as the Army is reduced to 450,000 and may be headed to 420,000. When I talked to recruiters, I was told (anecdotally - no, I do not have hard facts) that approximately 3 out of 10 Americans in the prime recruiting ages were eligible to serve. Issues were lack of high school diploma, medical issues (asthma for example), obesity, and legal issues (felonies). I wonder if part of the interest in opening all military jobs to all genders is not only a social experiment but also realization that we are struggling to fill DOD (specifically the Army). Background - I am an Infantry officer, graduated from Ranger school in 1981, and just retired after almost 34 years of AC, USAR, and ARNG service in Combat Arms).

I agree with comments above that 1) Combat Arms service especially Infantry breaks people, and 2) Combat Arms units especially Infantry depends on unit integrity for success

[Lomshek]

I wonder if part of the interest in opening all military jobs to all genders is not only a social experiment but also realization that we are struggling to fill DOD (specifically the Army).

I agree with comments above that 1) Combat Arms service especially Infantry breaks people, and 2) Combat Arms units especially Infantry depends on unit integrity for success
What's the point of getting people into slots who will not be able to perform their jobs? If we know only 1% or 2% of the hardest most fit women can survive a combat arms school (not combat patrols) why would we waste time throwing 98% away in failed bodies and ruined careers? Moreso when we're dealing with unit morale and integrity as you correctly state. The answer is 100% political correctness.

The politicians are more than happy to sacrifice young women and men by the planeloads to further a political goal.

[TGS]

Let me provide an alternative view - after the Viet Nam war the US went to an All Volunteer Military and had to start actively seek female members of DOD to meet the recruiting goals. Fast forward to today and the Army (the largest group in DOD) seems to be struggling to meet its recruiting quota even as the Army is reduced to 450,000 and may be headed to 420,000. When I talked to recruiters, I was told (anecdotally - no, I do not have hard facts) that approximately 3 out of 10 Americans in the prime recruiting ages were eligible to serve. Issues were lack of high school diploma, medical issues (asthma for example), obesity, and legal issues (felonies). I wonder if part of the interest in opening all military jobs to all genders is not only a social experiment but also realization that we are struggling to fill DOD (specifically the Army). Background - I am an Infantry officer, graduated from Ranger school in 1981, and just retired after almost 34 years of AC, USAR, and ARNG service in Combat Arms).

I agree with comments above that 1) Combat Arms service especially Infantry breaks people, and 2) Combat Arms units especially Infantry depends on unit integrity for success

Sounds like part of the problem is the military's inability to adapt to what the nation as to offer.

People are fat these days. Barring the elimination of subsidies for farming corn (as a start), that isn't going to change. We need to just realize that society is what it is instead of pointing to it as a scape-goat and not doing anything to work with what we've got.

Perhaps they should invest in a 12 week physical preparation program for anyone obese. Even the British Royal Marines do, though admittedly not for obese people. They still realize that society is not as hardy as it was 50 years ago. They have an extremely methodical, realistic and professional approach to the issue instead of the American response; 1) Put our heads in the sand, 2) Lower the standards, 3) Deal with the ensuing injuries resulting from people not physically prepared, 4) Issue everyone some silly beret to make them feel like they're elite.

It's frustrating, and just a small reflection of the failure and incompetence that has become our senior military leadership. Chesty, Patton, Grant and Lee would be bitch-slaping the shit out of these rank-wearing-politicians that call themselves leaders.

[scw2]

Issue everyone some silly beret to make them feel like they're elite.

Is that the military version of the participation trophy/ribbons they give kids these days for just showing up?

[ranger]

Perhaps they should invest in a 12 week physical preparation program for anyone obese.

The Army is doing that - they are investing a lot if effort into candidates to get them to meet the MINIMUM standard for weight. In one specific case that I have first hand knowledge, the soldier finally was able to enlist, went through the modern version of boot camp (Cav Scout at new Armor School at FBGA- I went to his graduation ceremony), then struggled to maintain height-weight and pass APFT at his AC unit. In less than a year, he was discharged. He is now going to school on the GI BILL.

[nalesq]

Is that the military version of the participation trophy/ribbons they give kids these days for just showing up?

Not so much in reference to the beret, but it does seem like the Army hands out awards like candy for just showing up in some cases (I myself had 4 ribbons by the time I graduated from BASIC for heaven's sake!). But then in other cases, it can be unbelievable how hard it is to get soldiers who really deserve an award proper recognition.

[LittleLebowski]

The Marine Corps is fighting back with tests to ensure that Marines can actually physically do their jobs.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/10/02/marines-unveil-new-gender-neutral-standards-29-jobs/73173524/


It could get a whole lot tougher for Marines to make it into more than two dozen ground combat jobs as Corps officials unveil new physical standards that troops must meet before shipping off to the fleet.

Marines who leave boot camp or Officer Candidates School hoping to join infantry, weapons, artillery and mechanized units will now face a host of new requirements before they can graduate from their military occupational specialty schoolhouses, Marine Corps Times has learned.

The new rules, which require Marines to prove they can accomplish some of the toughest tasks related to their jobs, are gender-neutral. That means all Marines — male or female — will have to meet the requirements before they're cleared for graduation.


The Marine Corps was the only military service to launch a physical requirements study on the scale of its Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, ahead of the Defense Department-wide mandate to open all jobs to women. About 400 Marines, including about 100 women, were hooked up to heart rate monitors and GPS tracking devices as they carried out a host of repetitive assessments.

Initial findings from that study indicated that all-male teams outperformed those that included women in nearly every area. Not only did the female Marines sustain higher injury rates, but were also slower, fired weapons with less accuracy than men, struggled to clear walls, and sometimes failed at simulated casualty evacuations.

[BaiHu]

This is my surprised face. You (the uninformed public) might not be interested in reality, but reality is interested in you.

[LittleLebowski]

I am very proud that my service is fighting to maintain real world combat efficiency where the Army and the Navy have thrown in the towel. I do not mean that to imply some sort of intra-service rivalry or insult on my part.

[JHC]

I am very proud that my service is fighting to maintain real world combat efficiency where the Army and the Navy have thrown in the towel. I do not mean that to imply some sort of intra-service rivalry or insult on my part.

I get the Sec Navy thing. Can you point to me the news that Army Infantry has opened to females? The Ranger thing was shown to be gender neutral standards.

[LittleLebowski]

I get the Sec Navy thing. Can you point to me the news that Army Infantry has opened to females? The Ranger thing was shown to be gender neutral standards.

Fuck, I knew I should not have said anything. Never fucking mind.

[JHC]

The Marine Corps did a great job with their integrated trial to prove the point. This latest change would seem to be a firewall and it is another good move.


Still closed to women http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/combat/infantryman-11b.html


And I asked nicely straight up. I got to my last nerve with USMC cheap shots in 1993 about two days after the Blackhawk Down when I listened to a Marine say the problem was they sent boys to do a man's job; should have sent Marines.

Your post was nowhere near that foolishness at all. I actually had my fingers crossed Googling a few minutes ago to insure there wasn't tragic news on the wire.

[rcbusmc24]

This was the other point of the intergrated task force, to gather data for implementing job based standards, which is something that we had lacked in the entry level pipeline for a while, I could go on about it forever but suffice it to say that it is about to get a lot harder to graduate from Infantry Training BN while at SOI, as it should be.

[breakingtime91]

This was the other point of the intergrated task force, to gather data for implementing job based standards, which is something that we had lacked in the entry level pipeline for a while, I could go on about it forever but suffice it to say that it is about to get a lot harder to graduate from Infantry Training BN while at SOI, as it should be.

I thought it was pretty tough before. This was in 2009 though. I have friends at SOI as instructors, I'll see what's up.

[LittleLebowski]

Marine Corps report finds that women cannot cut it in special operations forces.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/07/report-finds-female-marines-cannot-meet-some-standards-for-special-forces/

[Jeep]

I get the Sec Navy thing. Can you point to me the news that Army Infantry has opened to females? The Ranger thing was shown to be gender neutral standards.

Nothing has opened yet, but I think the deadline is 2016, and certainly the Army is hinting it will open all specialties (though which, if any, SOF units will be opened seems to be anyone's guess right now). It is hard to imagine that the White House will go along with a continued combat arms exclusion.

[BWT]

What's the point of getting people into slots who will not be able to perform their jobs? If we know only 1% or 2% of the hardest most fit women can survive a combat arms school (not combat patrols) why would we waste time throwing 98% away in failed bodies and ruined careers? Moreso when we're dealing with unit morale and integrity as you correctly state. The answer is 100% political correctness.

The politicians are more than happy to sacrifice young women and men by the planeloads to further a political goal.

This is the gist of it.

When we get in a real war again; not a third world country that we wreck with UAV's, sanctions, air superiority, satellites, vastly superior night time operation capabilities, and other distinct advantages.

Basically people better armed and organized than with IED's, large blades, AK-47's, and RPG's. Our efforts to make sure that we have a multi-cultural and gender neutral fighting force over pursuing efficiency first simply will cost us dearly.

ETA: Here's how I see it to put it plainly, and add a bit more perspective. I've never served in the military but I have known those at have, and I've had family that have. We will not accept individuals in the military who have had asthma symptoms after the age of 13; because of perceived liability. We will not accept individuals with a heart murmur into the military. Why do we do that?

Because of concern for an individual not being capable to perform their duty. For me, this is about an individual that has a higher probability to be injured, has less physical strength typically (there are outliers such as smaller stature men and larger stature women but that's not the norm), and that's not even touching the social complications that different genders bring into an issue. For an organization that failure means lives; I would do everything I could to ensure that failure was minimized.

Simple perspective.

God Bless,

Brandon

ETA: I'm not saying women have no place in the military, but in the last large scale non-voluntary conflict we fought in; we generally drafted the most eligible individuals gave them a bit of training and sent them to war (My Dad and Uncle joined and were not drafted). If we end up in a situation where we start drafting people from a bowl between the age of 18 and 36 again http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-imposes-the-draft because we're going to war and we need the most capable people, and everyone's sitting in front of the TV again waiting to find out if their name is drawn.

I think men and women should be in roles that they are most likely to succeed; this is simply a logical conclusion.

[breakingtime91]

This is the gist of it.

When we get in a real war again; not a third world country that we wreck with UAV's, sanctions, air superiority, satellites, vastly superior night time operation capabilities, and other distinct advantages.

Basically people better armed and organized than with IED's, large blades, AK-47's, and RPG's. Our efforts to make sure that we have a multi-cultural and gender neutral fighting force over pursuing efficiency first simply will cost us dearly.

ETA: Here's how I see it to put it plainly, and add a bit more perspective. I've never served in the military but I have known those at have, and I've had family that have. We will not accept individuals in the military who have had asthma symptoms after the age of 13; because of perceived liability. We will not accept individuals with a heart murmur into the military. Why do we do that?

Because of concern for an individual not being capable to perform their duty. For me, this is about an individual that has a higher probability to be injured, has less physical strength typically (there are outliers such as smaller stature men and larger stature women but that's not the norm), and that's not even touching the social complications that different genders bring into an issue. For an organization that failure means lives; I would do everything I could to ensure that failure was minimized.

Simple perspective.

God Bless,

Brandon

ETA: I'm not saying women have no place in the military, but in the last large scale non-voluntary conflict we fought in; we generally drafted the most eligible individuals gave them a bit of training and sent them to war (My Dad and Uncle joined and were not drafted). If we end up in a situation where we start drafting people from a bowl between the age of 18 and 36 again http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-imposes-the-draft because we're going to war and we need the most capable people, and everyone's sitting in front of the TV again waiting to find out if their name is drawn.

I think men and women should be in roles that they are most likely to succeed; this is simply a logical conclusion.

Sorry I didn't know my war wasn't a real war? As someone who has never served, your pretty insulting.

[BWT]

Sorry I didn't know my war wasn't a real war? As someone who has never served, your pretty insulting.

You know what, You're 100% right.

I apologize, and I was wrong for the implications of my statements. I clearly didn't think that through before I spoke. I didn't serve, and I certainly haven't been to combat. I honestly don't have much of a leg to stand on in this discussion.

At risk of digging myself any deeper. I don't know how to say this any other way... I'm concerned that we're losing our capability to be effective militarily because of political wrangling and not ground breaking studies of what improves our capabilities.

At this point, I think the respectable thing for me to do is to not participate in this thread further. I apologize sincerely,

Brandon

ETA: Let me go ahead and apologize again because part of the reactionary statement I made was to defend my position rather than just apologize for cheapening anyone's sacrifice over the course of warfare spanning multiple decades by my statements. How freaking stupid... I certainly deserve whatever repercussions come for saying such a careless/generalization. I'm just stunned at how obviously dumb that was.

[LittleLebowski]

You know what, You're 100% right.

I apologize, and I was wrong for the implications of my statements. I clearly didn't think that through before I spoke. I didn't serve, and I certainly haven't been to combat. I honestly don't have much of a leg to stand on in this discussion.

At risk of digging myself any deeper. I don't know how to say this any other way... I'm concerned that we're losing our capability to be effective militarily because of political wrangling and not ground breaking studies of what improves our capabilities.

At this point, I think the respectable thing for me to do is to not participate in this thread further. I apologize sincerely,

Brandon

ETA: Let me go ahead and apologize again because part of the reactionary statement I made was to defend my position rather than just apologize for cheapening anyone's sacrifice over the course of warfare spanning multiple decades by my statements. How freaking stupid... I certainly deserve whatever repercussions come for saying such a careless/generalization. I'm just stunned at how obviously dumb that was.

I think you handled that just right.

[breakingtime91]

I think you handled that just right.

Agreed. Brandon pm'd me and he is a really good guy and what he said just came out wrong. Happens to all of us and he shouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[ranger]

Nothing has opened yet, but I think the deadline is 2016, and certainly the Army is hinting it will open all specialties (though which, if any, SOF units will be opened seems to be anyone's guess right now). It is hard to imagine that the White House will go along with a continued combat arms exclusion.

The writing is on the wall that all specialties in the Army will be open to all genders. There has been a series of tests at FT Benning (home of the Infantry and Armor/Cav Schools - the Maneuver School of Excellence) where they are trying to develop a quantifiable, testable (Go-NoGo) standard for Infantry. Example - pick up and drop a 120mm mortar round into a 120mm mortar; complete the Bradley Gunner Skill Test tasks such as assemble/disassemble 25mm Bushmaster cannon (heavy, awkward, strenuous); pull a simulated wounded soldier out of the turret of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle; etc. In theory, any future Infantryman of any gender would have to pass these tests in order to serve in Infantry units.

One thing I have not seen commented on yet - women probably (should?) now be required at 18 to sign up for selective service as all specialties/branches will be open to females - the whole "equality" thing.

[GardoneVT]

One thing I have not seen commented on yet - women probably (should?) now be required at 18 to sign up for selective service as all specialties/branches will be open to females - the whole "equality" thing.
Whatever one may think about gender rights,women registering for selective service may be a material necessity . They'll be the only ones remotely close (http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/Pages/overweight-obesity-statistics.aspx) to being in shape for military service.


Males-light ,females -dark
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/PublishingImages/bySex.jpg

[Jeep]

The writing is on the wall that all specialties in the Army will be open to all genders. There has been a series of tests at FT Benning (home of the Infantry and Armor/Cav Schools - the Maneuver School of Excellence) where they are trying to develop a quantifiable, testable (Go-NoGo) standard for Infantry. Example - pick up and drop a 120mm mortar round into a 120mm mortar; complete the Bradley Gunner Skill Test tasks such as assemble/disassemble 25mm Bushmaster cannon (heavy, awkward, strenuous); pull a simulated wounded soldier out of the turret of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle; etc. In theory, any future Infantryman of any gender would have to pass these tests in order to serve in Infantry units.

One thing I have not seen commented on yet - women probably (should?) now be required at 18 to sign up for selective service as all specialties/branches will be open to females - the whole "equality" thing.

Let us hope they enforce those tests and others. For example, any tanker needs to be able to break track, swap the bore of the main gun, and pick up and lift main gun rounds, etc. It won't work if any member of the crew can't do that. And Cavalry scouts need to be able to do all Bradley related tasks plus most of the stuff that infantry does, which includes walking long distances carrying too much weight.

[SamAdams]

I am very proud that my service is fighting to maintain real world combat efficiency where the Army and the Navy have thrown in the towel. I do not mean that to imply some sort of intra-service rivalry or insult on my part.

I knew the Navy was in trouble when I saw some guys filling up at a gas station. They were wearing camo in shades of blue. I thought " WTF ? Must be Air Farce." No, they were Navy 1st & 2nd class POs - perfectly attired if they ever need to hide behind a blue bush. Hey guys - sailors are in big assed gray ships ! Wearing camo, especially silly assed blue polka dot camo ain't gonna hide yah.

When did sailors stop looking like sailors ? And what twit in the Pentagon thought this was a great way to spend the taxpayers money ?

Off topic regarding women in combat, I know. But the stupidity shown by these folks is often rant worthy. Sorry, not trying to throw the conversation off.

[Drang]

I knew the Navy was in trouble when I saw some guys filling up at a gas station. They were wearing camo in shades of blue. I thought " WTF ? Must be Air Farce." No, they were Navy 1st & 2nd class POs - perfectly attired if they ever need to hide behind a blue bush. Hey guys - sailors are in big assed gray ships ! Wearing camo, especially silly assed blue polka dot camo ain't gonna hide yah.

When did sailors stop looking like sailors ? And what twit in the Pentagon thought this was a great way to spend the taxpayers money ?

Off topic regarding women in combat, I know. But the stupidity shown by these folks is often rant worthy. Sorry, not trying to throw the conversation off.
I wrote a blog post (http://thecluemeter.blogspot.com/2009/11/haze-gray-and-under-way.html) giving the Air Force and Navy some crap their new uniforms (while admitting that the Army screwed up the ACUs), and a retired CPO posted this comment:

I have to admit that I had reservations when the new Navy working uniform (what I affectionately like to call "aquatic camouflage") came out, but now that it's become ever-present, I'm warming to it.

It actually is the result of years of input from sailors and extensive testing. It is RIDICULOUSLY expensive, but the sailors like it as it is hugely more comfortable and easier to care for than the old utilities or the dungarees that I grew up in.

Compared to those uniforms... dungarees, of course, closely resembling that of a prison inmate's uniform and utilities that of your typical Jiffy-lube employee...aquatic camouflage is a huge improvement.

And, although expensive, the gore-tex jacket that comes with it is a HUGE improvement over the old, most distinctly not waterproof, field jackets, Navy utility jackets or Woolen pea coats.

Sailors aren't trying to be wanna-be ground-pounders which is why the pattern is not designed for camo...it's designed to look "military" while hiding the stains and grime that are inevitable when operating on the world's largest and most complicated machines.

As I said, when they first started coming out I had my reservations, but considering the support this uniform has in the fleet, the more I see them around, the more fond of them this old Chief is becoming.

[SamAdams]

Thanks Drang. I went to your link and got a chuckle from your comments.

That CPO's comment that they went with polka dot high speed/low drag blue camo to hide stains is hilarious.
How did they get by the previous couple hundred years ?


P.S. - I have my doubts that the guy who said he was an 'old Chief' is that. Maybe I'm too cynical. But, the actual old retired Chiefs I've talked to think the blue camo is moronic. Theories include someone wanted to look 'tacti-cool' or maybe the powers-that-be in the Navy thought they would be disadvantaged recruiting against the other services if they didnt also offer camo to the movie watching/video game playing target audience. Of course, they need a good CYA cover story.