By Here is another media article making the claim that by women not serving in the infantry this hurts their promotion chances:
The new rules keep in place a ban on women serving in the infantry, in combat tank units and in Special Operations commando units. Nonetheless, many women in Iraq and Afghanistan have served in combat as attachments to infantry foot patrols, and in many cases they have come under fire and fought back. More than 140 women in the American military have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Serving in jobs like the infantry remains crucial to career advancement in the military, and critics of the current policy say that by not recognizing women’s real role in combat, women are unfairly held back. Supporters of the policy say that infantrymen in the Army and Marine Corps are not ready to have women serve at their sides in combat, and that the physical demands are too onerous. [New York Times]
The infantry is just one of many MOS’s in the US military, a soldier does not have to serve in the infantry to get promoted. To claim this is either a deliberate lie or incompetence by the New York Times writer Elisabeth Bumiller who wrote the article. Either way it reflects poorly on her and the New York Times and other media that continue to push this myth. The only reason I can think of to continue to push this myth is either political on the part of the media or just incompetence. It is likely both. Of course as is standard practice by the media when it comes to women in the military that have to get a quote from Anu Bhagwati of the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN). At least in her latest media quote I can agree with part of what she has to say:
In the meantime, a number of advocates for women in the military reacted with dismay.
“It’s a really, really tiny step forward,” said Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine Corps captain and the executive director of the Service Women’s Action Network, an advocacy group for women in the military. “We were hoping for more.”
Ms. Bhagwati added: “We’re not talking about opening up the infantry to every woman, but the women who do want to try these jobs, who are we to say that they can’t? A lot of women will leave service early when they know their career path is limited.”
As I have been saying for sometime, I think a standard test to determine fitness and ability to conduct Infantry work might be a good idea. If a female can do things like carry a 200 pound person, road march 12 miles with a 70 pound ruck in a set time, meet marksmanship standards, etc. than they should be eligible to become an Infantryman. The problem is few if any women will be able to meet such standards and thus politicians and groups like SWAN in an effort to justify their existence will demand the Pentagon change the standards for women. All you have to do is look at the Army Physical Fitness test which has two standards, a harder standard for men and an easier standard for women.
As far as Bhagwati’s statement that women will leave service early because their career paths are limited, I would like her to justify that statement. How many women want to be tankers or join the infantry? I am willing to bet it would be a very small number and from that number there would be even smaller percentage that could actual meet infantry standards. Plus there are many males that cannot meet the physical standards of the infantry so are their careers paths being limited to? Should standards be lowered for them as well? A female who is in the Chemical Corps for example in no way has her career limited because women cannot serve in the infantry; her career is only limited if she can’t compete with peers in her same MOS just like for male soldiers.
If SWAN and members of Congress who advocate for equality for women in the military were really interested equality they would be demanding that something as simple as a PT test have equal standards, but they are not.
5:00 pm on February 11th, 2012 1
Elisabeth Bumiller types up whatever her source tells her. She has no independent understanding of the subject she reports on.
6:36 pm on February 11th, 2012 2
It’s not about screening, selecting, training, deploying, and winning with the best, hardest, smartest, deadliest outfits.
It’s about EO/EEO/E-I-E-I-O!
It’s just another career choice, a f*cking job.
I will laugh when we get eaten by savages.
9:42 pm on February 11th, 2012 3
Does anybody remember the SF recruiting poster from the 80′s with a white frog man coming out of the water, with the caption “Join a real minority group”???
Can’t do that now.
I wanna dance with somebody.
10:49 pm on February 11th, 2012 4
They had special recruiting posters for San Francisco? Who knew?
10:55 pm on February 11th, 2012 5
4. 4 the LULZ!
5:34 am on February 12th, 2012 6
My wife is in the US Army. She is not in the infantry. She is in the quartermaster branch. She has made E7 is 7 years. For those that are unfamiliar, that is somewhat remarkable.
Whoever wrote this article doesn’t know her ass from a hole in the groung and obviously didn’t do any research prior to spouting off for what seems to be for purely spouting offs sake.
I know many women who have achieved great success as enlisted personell in the US Army none of which (obviously) are in the infantry.
5:52 am on February 12th, 2012 7
OK, stupid sailor question time:
Are the requirements above (70lbs ruck 12 miles in a set time or lift a 200lb person and move them X number of feet) really required? We had females on my last ship (1997-1999), but not on my first ship (1985-1988) and only a few female Midshipmen for their summer cruise on my second one (1988-1991).
I taught small arms, and knew plenty of females who could shoot straight. If we had to move a person, we could use a pneumatic hoist or even a block and tackle. Lift a 200 lb sailor straight up, 20 feet vertical, no problem. Males or females could get a guy up and out of an engineering space during an emergency evacuation. Just had to use the right tool.
Does 70 lbs in a ruck consist of items that cannot be brought into an area except by humping? You can’t just toss it into a HMMVW and just drive it there? I also served 3 years attached to a SEAL team (tech support, NOT an operator), but the frogs rarely humped that much if they could avoid it. They were more likely to use Rhodesian recon vest or whatever to take only what they absolutely needed.
I heard all the arguments against women in the fleet when I was in: women couldn’t lift as much, weren’t able to do the “manly” jobs. And honestly, many couldn’t. But the same was true for many of the males. As long as the chain of command stayed on top of sexual politics and other bits of horsecrap, having females onboard wasn’t really a problem. We had women manning the guns, women on the Damage Control Parties, women tending the lines for mooring and refuel operations, and women in every position (Rate/MOS) as the males. Some were good, some were slugs. Just like the males.
Having females out in the fleet tended to open up positions on shore for rotation purposes. Weapons (missiles/torpedoes/mines) would go through maintenance cycles on shore, then were used on ships out to sea. Moving women TO the ships made it easier for a sailor to get a shore billet when he came FROM his ship.
What is an infantryman’s job? Shoot, loot, communicate. (Just saying what I’ve heard. Feel free to correct me, as I honestly don’t know.) I have seen plenty of females outrun many of the males. I haven’t seen many outbench the males. I’ve seen females shoot in the 290′s. I’ve seen males of which I had to stand in the lane beside them to “help” them make the minimum score, because we needed the guy qualified for a watch. And I’ve seen both males and females make and send up messages.
Yeah, I know the media has a bias, and usually an agenda. But my question is still valid:
Can women do the core job of infantry, which is: Kill People and Take Their Stuff?
7:11 am on February 12th, 2012 8
@6 – Your wife must be a heck of a soldier to make E7 in 7 years. Quite impressive. The only female I have met in the Army that I think could handle the infantry was a Quartermaster captain. She was high speed and would refuse to take a PT using female standards. She would outscore most guys on the PT test. I asked her if she could, if she would join the infantry and she was not interested.
@7 – Take a look at this picture of an infantryman in Iraq. How many females can carry all of that over a long distance? Watch the documentary Restrepo and think about how many females can cope with the physical demands of carrying loads up and down the mountains plus live in the living conditions those soldiers were faced with? Last year I came back from deployment in southern Afghanistan and the Infantry guys there had a very different fight in the south because they did less climbing mountains and more repeatedly climbing walls and grape rows because they couldn’t stay on trails and walkways because of IED’s. You wouldn’t believe how tiring it is to repeatedly do this on a patrol. There would be very few females in my opinion that could do it. Like I said before I have personally met one female I think can do it. Also like I have said before there are many males that can’t physically handle being in the infantry as well.
So the number of women that could actually handle physically being in the infantry is small. Plus any women in the infantry will have to adjust to not having the privacy and hygiene standards that females in other MOS’s are accustomed to. This will further reduce the pool of females. That is why I think that the infantry fears more the dropping of standards than actually letting females in the infantry because the number of females who could physically handle infantry work is very small.
8:51 am on February 12th, 2012 9
I learned all I needed to know about female strength in 2004, while in Iraq. I was e-vac by UH-60, strapped in a streacher. I tried to tell them I could walk but the TWO females didn’t listen. They proceeded to pull my streacher out and — drop me — head first. Then they asked “do you know how much you weigh?!” I weighted about 185 at that time.
I think that covers it.
I knew better than to join the infantry. So it seems I’m smarter than the females that want to join, as well as stronger. (I knew I wasn’t strong ENOUGH to be infantry.) I would not have been an asset marching, weak knee and all.
I have to wonder at a FEMALE that makes E7 in SEVEN YEARS. That isn’t even a year in each rank.
She was cheated out of some good learning experience. Hopefully it will not negatively impact her soldiers as CSM King surely did.
8:58 am on February 12th, 2012 10
#9: So if a male made E7 in seven years you wouldn’t wonder but if a female makes E7 in seven years it’s probably politics. So do you agree with the article’s idea that females can’t advance on an equal playing field because they can’t be in the combat arms branches? Can men be simultaneously in a more advantageous position by being combat arms but be disadvantaged by politics?
9:31 am on February 12th, 2012 11
Of course I would Kangaji. The reason for the caps on “FEMALE”, I thought self-explaatory.
The Army seems to have a need to promote “FEMALES”.
A male that made E7 in seven years? He got robbed of needed experience as well. I have know some “fast-trackers” in my time. Not having the experience hurts them and in turn hurts their soldiers. But by that time the only option is to promote them away from the soldiers.
Sorry, but experience takes TIME in grade, to be a good NCO.
I do NOT agree with the article. Females can advance just as quickly as their male counterparts in THE SAME JOB SKILLS. With the Political Correctness of today, they even have an edge over the males.
As for me, I welcome females joining the Infantry IF they are big and strong enough. I have seen one or two that could. Scared the crap out me! Let them take the same test as the guys. Put a ruck on them and send them out.
But don’t change your mind when they start getting killed and dismembered. Treat them the same. When they prove they are equal to the males, treat them equal. There are no gentlemen or Ladies in combat arms. Not every one can do it.
There will still ramain one problem. The mind and culture of the American male. We are generally raised to protect females.
If women want to be equal, that must change! Women and men must not be taught to expect or give special treatment to women.
I propose that this begin by women picking up the CHECK when on a date. A good first step. Then men can stop opening doors for a woman, simply because she is a she. See?
I got off on a tangent, if I missed something, let me know.
Currently, females have the advantage in promotions. Earned? No.
10:33 am on February 12th, 2012 12
We tend to set our young NCOs up for failure by today’s promotion system. We are a country at war and one of the benefits we give out is early promotions. In the past, the promotion system used to consider a person’s assignment history and jobs held, promotion to the higher grades, E7 and above were held pretty consistently to a strict time line. It wasn’t unheard of for hard chargers to get promoted early, it was the exception to the rule, but now it is very common to see soldiers getting promoted out of their comfort zone to a position they are not equipped to handle. We eat our young alive. As for humping 70lbs on a 12 miler, in three hours, try to shoot, move and communicat effectively at your destination, without calling for a time out. My experience was that only the support troops were foolish enough to do that, while the grunts went with weapon and pistol belt with canteen. The navy guy almost hit the nail on the head, we in the army do alot that doesn’t survive the common sense test, but because it was done this way in the past, we will continue to do it.
11:43 am on February 12th, 2012 13
I really hope they don’t allow women in the infantry. Infantryperson just doesn’t carry the same mental image as a sleep in the mud grunt does now.
3:26 pm on February 12th, 2012 14
There are a myriad number of covert agendas of those that are
perpetuating the crazy idea of putting women in combat arms
MOS’s. NONE of them have the best interest of the military in mind. Then there are those that are going to buy into the notion these anti military/USA kooks are doing this because it is simply “just and fair”. They are the hopelessly naive that equate the Armed Forces as just another job. They can not grasp the fact that is there is not a job that equates to kill or be killed as it’s sole basic purpose–WAR. Consider this: Does anyone think that if women are in the infantry that the American general population, our culture, values could ever stomach women being blown away in numbers akin to males?? Then those mind numbed robots will be screaming to high heaven. Of course they will never admit to being accomplices in this insane move to place women front and center in the meat grinder by rallying for it instead of against it.
3:47 pm on February 12th, 2012 15
@1 – It sounds like then that you believe she is incompetent? The way she put her article together I think there is a political advocacy slant to it along with incompetence.
8:45 pm on February 12th, 2012 16
#7, Like GI Korea I have met a few women that might meet infantry standards but not many. When I was in Iraq you could tell a lot by the load women choose to put on their IBA.
Typically I only saw the minimum, 6 mags and their medical kit. Male soldiers of all stripes(on the high end of the averages) tended to load for bear, 10-12 mags, radios, water you name it. I know which one I would want in my fox hole.
5:20 am on February 13th, 2012 17
@8, 16,
OK, as I said, I was a sailor, not a soldier. But I’m really trying to understand.
I’ve read some of H. John Poole’s “The Tiger’s Way,” and he stresses that the U.S. lacks a true Light Infantry. That we load our soldiers down with too much stuff for them to be agile and mobile in a firefight. I understand that Infantry can be asked to hump 70lbs of stuff into an area, but do they really need to? Without going into anything classified, is everything in that 70lb ruck needed for a fight?
I realize shipboard tactics are going to be radically different than field tactics. Heck, it wasn’t until I was ready to retire that the Navy finally invested in any sort of body armor. Mostly it was flak jackets and “use cover and concealment.” We weren’t very likely to get into a closeup firefight. And no sailor wants 70 lbs of weight attached to themselves anywhere near deep water.
So what is really needed? I’m not asking to be a dork, I’m asking because I really don’t know. Sailors don’t have to hump in enough food for three days, we just go down to the mess decks. We have Ready Service Lockers set near the weapon mounts, with several hundred 7.62 and .50 cal available, and more below decks. But mostly, we just hit stuff from way back. NGFS, Tomahawk and Standard Missiles, and aircraft from the carriers.
#16 says 6 mags and a Medical Kit is too light, and I can agree with that. So as a guess, 10 mags, 2 grenades, 1 smoke grenade or signal, ground cluster, Camelbak, armor, weapon, Med Kit, what else? Off hand, that’s well under 70 lbs, and an amount that can be handled by any male or female in good shape.
6:24 am on February 13th, 2012 18
@17 – Considering how the military was criticized for lack of body armor by the media the US infantry soldier is never going to be lighter than the enemy. Soldiers in Afghanistan are issued the IOTV which weighs 30-35 pounds depending on size, so unless the body armor requirement goes away or is reduced that is the weight someone in the infantry starts at. The rest of the weight is depended on the mission. If a soldier is going on a short patrol outside the Combat Outpost (COP) or Forward Operating Base (FOB) than the weight will be less. If they are going on a multi-day mission it will be more. Plus in cold weather environment the weight will increase because of the need for cold weather gear and a sleeping bag. Also the position that you have within the platoon will further add weight; somebody has to carry the heavier weapons. Then there are some units that are equipped with the Land Warrior System which adds even more weight.
This report done by the Army breaks down what the infantry guys were carrying in Afghanistan by position. For example the average combat load for a squad leader was 62.43 pounds, the approach march load was 94.98 pounds, and the emergency approach load was 128.35 pounds. This Marine Times article showed that the average combat load for a Marine was 112 pounds with weights ranging from 83 pounds for a squad leader to 144 pounds for a mortarman carrying 60mm rounds.
At the lower combat load weights you would find more women that can handle that weight. However, can they handle that weight climbing up mountains or repeatedly climbing up and over walls and grape rows like the infantrymen in Afghanistan are doing? This will reduce the number significantly. Then you add in the increased loads during longer missions the number of females that can handle that weight drops even further. The bottom line is that the number of females that can physically handle being in the infantry is very small plus of those women in my opinion few of them would want to serve in the infantry anyway due to the privacy and sanitary issues. So you are left ultimately with a very small number of females that would make in the infantry if the current restriction are removed. Such a small number is why I think the infantry community is more concerned about being forced to drop standards than actually having females in the infantry.
You can’t expect to have women in the infantry and have the guys carry all the heavy weapons and gear for them on longer missions because diversity is more important. The same goes for males as well. You can’t have a physically unfit male in the infantry either that can’t be counted on to carry the maximum loads. Being an infantrymen is tough and demanding work and having worked with a number of infantry units over the years I have a lot of respect for what those guys do.
11:59 am on February 13th, 2012 19
The “women in the infantry” proponents are just like the PETA, anti-gun, anti-hunting, etc crowds. Well intentioned, but oh so completely misinformed and totally blind to the realities and consequences of their agenda.
1:01 pm on February 13th, 2012 20
@14 and 19 hit the nail on the head… The only folks wanting this are those who do not understand and those who want us to fail.
1:40 pm on February 13th, 2012 21
DRAGONFLY@19: I agree with your premise. But those you mentioned
are quite innocuous to what is at stake with this issue.
The up shot of these sinister people trying to make these
changes to the military are literally life and death ramifications. That makes them VERY dangerous in my minds eye.
12:35 pm on February 14th, 2012 22
JFisher: Agree 100%. My point is the people who are clamoring for those changes are the ones who are absolutely clueless of the consequences will never have to be there when the consequences hit the fan.
1:53 pm on February 14th, 2012 23
DRAGONFLY: We are on the same sheet of music Brother! Thanks for your comment.
6:22 pm on February 14th, 2012 24
Now this. is another reflection of the modern liberal media, and I’m not talking about Jews.
These are the same folks touting the film “Red Tails”, telling folks that America wouldn’t have won WW2 without the Tuskegee Airmen.
B^LLSH$T!!!
They contributed to the effort BUT were not a deciding factor.
6:54 pm on February 14th, 2012 25
OK, I can see that carrying 100% of your body weight would be problematic. I know it would be for me, as I remember hauling an M60 from the bridge wings to the missile launcher “just in case” the Iranian sailors we had just rescued were’t apprecative. My 140 lb (then, 190 these days) scrawny little drink of water self was feeling his lack of a fitness program after running down two sets of ladders with the weapon, flak jacket, and 200 rds of 7.62 linked.
But I can also see an advantage to having a female present when interviewing locals. In many (most) parts of the 3rd World, woman and men are kept separate. Having a female handing out candy to the kids, asking the women if the Talib are hiding nearby, etc, might be useful. It also might be useful to stress the need to carry less, be more mobile and agile, and of course reduce wear and tear on the knees and back for the rest of the troops.
Since I’m more interested in learning than trying to change people’s minds, I’ll concede the issue. There might be a few small advantages to having a few females in an infantry unit, but the drawbacks seem to out weigh the possible gains. I didn’t understand the infantry mission at the beginning of this conversation as well as I do now, so that’s a +1 to my knowledge.
7:13 pm on February 14th, 2012 26
@24 No, I would consider the “Deciding Factor” to be the Soviet Union…
http://www.cracked.com/article_18389_the-5-most-widely-believed-wwii-facts-that-are-bullshit.html
Or at least the War in Europe. The U.S. did the heavy lifting in the Pacific.
7:28 pm on February 14th, 2012 27
MTB.
Agreed. but I don’t think the Tuscegee airmen would even make the “Top 100″ on the list of why we won WW2.
Which is exactly what I have heard in the multiple promotions for the movie I have seen.
I think the 442 Regimental Combat team actually contributed more, I don’t see many Spielberg movies being made about them…Wait Spielberg? Jewish? Influence? Maybe, but then, there was “Saving Private Ryan”, and “Schindler’s List”!
I think Spielberg likes to tell stories of great signicance most folks wouldn’t normally be aware of. But, PLEASE!! Don’t over state the reality.
You sure don’t see Spielberg doing a story about “Jane Wayne”.
5:57 am on February 15th, 2012 28
The Ole Tanker is correct, albeit non-PC. It took more than one squadron of gayly painted fighters to save our bombers, not to mention win the war (since there are still some folks who believe “Strategic Bombing” had less of an effect than Hap Arnold and the USAAC folks led us to believe… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Effectiveness
I think every war we lost (or should I say “failed to win”) came about us not being “all-in” as a nation. We didn’t care as much about Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. We didn’t do the whole draft, ration books, War Bonds thing. And Hollywood didn’t make movies about how “we have to win or the world will end” like “Stage Door Canteen” or movies about the brave folks we’re defending/liberating/etc. like they did in WW2. Compare “Casablanca” and “Road to Guantanamo”.
Instead, the movie folks disparaged the GIs, painted them as as crazy, murderous cowards (even Saving Private Ryan couldn’t resist the pressure) and sadistic perverts. Or worse.
Red Tails is not being made to honor the Tuskegee Airmen, who do deserve praise, rather, it’s Hollywood paying homage to the guy currently sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…
5:58 am on February 15th, 2012 29
And I’m jealous because I picked the wrong MOS to be a tanker.
9:24 am on February 15th, 2012 30
Well before getting back on track, I just wanted to say I’m mildly pleased we got another movie about Black servicemen in WWII and am utterly sick and tired about hearing about the 442d RCT. But on to the topic…
I don’t think it is so much a matter of lying as ignorance. I’ve taken on a number of people on the internet and in real life who want the restrictions removed. They normally come into the discussion equating being a grunt, tanker, door kicker, etc. with beat cops, SWAT Team members and detectives. After quickly knocking this fantasy apart, they will acknowledge there are profound differences between being part of LAPD and 101st Airborne. The real troubling thing is even then they don’t care. Hey, its not like they or their kids are ever going to suffer from their advocacy!