My Reaction to DoD opens 14,000 Army jobs to women

My feelings on this can pretty much be summed up in the quote from Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law Center,

"It's good, but it's not very much more of a step forward."

I totally concur.  I've written very passionately about this.  I guess I would have mixed feelings if the barriers were removed right now because I've already started my military career and I'm generally happy being a Transporter, but it should still be changed.  I'm really thrilled General Odierno is pushing for more changes, even though I know a lot of his quotes come from a similar article about a month or so ago.  He expressed disappointment the deadline for reviewing the gender policy was not met and he spoke highly of the real contributions women make in our Army.

Unfortunately, I believe a larger percentage than are speaking openly and plainly in interviews and from podiums are reluctant to see the change.  Someone said to me today referencing the article with a shrug about women being in combat:

[Just saying...] "Could you pull me out of a burning vehicle?"

I wish I'd had a better retort on hand, but I was off guard and tired.  I wished I had mentioned Sgt. Monica Brown, the medic who may not have pulled anyone who weighed a ridiculous amount more than her from a burning HMMWV, but who shielded Soldiers with her own body in Afghanistan one day, risking her life to treat the wounded.  And beyond that, on countless missions she provided much needed aid to the unit she was attached to.  Though just doing her job she was awarded a Silver Star for valor.  A few days after the flurry of media attention though, she was pulled from the area because she was too close to combat according to current policies.  According to the unit taking her out on missions though, there was no other medic to take at the time.

Now, reading a story like that, why turn to me and ask bluntly if I could carry you out of a burning vehicle?  I think of the guys who already push 200 lb when they are in plain clothes.  Could he pull that guy with a full combat load and body armor on out of a burning vehicle if the seat belt is in place?  I mean let's quit with the what if statements, these hypothetical scenarios don't address the real issue.

The real issue is that women deserve as much fair treatment in this government job as they receive in any other.  The real problems are not about the chivalry of men, the emotional reaction to combat, or the physical demand of their jobs.  Real problems may be privacy, and preventing affirmative action from debilitating the fighting force.  Additionally, the article mentioned the so few women in high ranks because the best career jobs in the army are in fields closed to women.  For me it is not really about the 'Brass Ceiling'... though that part does have some legitimate backing and research.  If the Army is viewed from purely a career standpoint, than it is a problem, but from a more traditional standpoint, call it nostalgic maybe, but from the the standpoint that the Armed Forces are the real life heroes of a nation - the defenders and upholders of the Constitution - it's just plain heartbreaking.  Ask me can I pull you from a burning vehicle... but then let me try.  Don't look at me, my gender, and simply shake your head.  Defense officials say there is no Brass Ceiling, and that women have "no disadvantage in... promotion rate."  Wonderful, so women have not been detrimental or performed any worse than men in all the jobs they are allowed?  So, give us a chance in the Infantry.  Give America's daughters a shot at Eleven Bravo (11B)!  I think she may surprise you if you'd give her half the chance.

I Will Never Quit

Somewhere along the way to where I am now, I lost track of what was important.  My aspiration:  contributing to the end of the gender barrier in combat arms.  The wall is already crumbling, look at the Female Engagement Teams.  Yet it is not fair that women are asked to put their lives on the line doing a cultural or SF (Special Forces) assignment, without recognition for taking the very same risks their brethren take in combat arms.

As a woman, I have struggled internally with choosing a path where I could get my dose of adventure and adrenaline high; and choosing a path where I can help women who join the military in the future not have any doors closed to them.  Some days I am frustrated beyond belief because of the opposition from both genders, but I am not disheartened.  I know what I am passionate about beyond all else is true:  that qualification and not gender is how personnel should be assigned.  Archaic ideas of what women should and shouldn't be doing is not how they should get their branch.

There are women who have served who are opposed to this idea because they don't ever want to be in combat arms, but that's putting themselves on a pretty high pedastol isn't it?  Are they saying they shouldn't be asked to make the same sacrifice as any man who has signed up to don a uniform and be a Soldier?  These women would probably never repeat this, but I've heard it muttered before that they don't mind the gender barrier because they sure as hell don't want to be Infantry.  Well, I have news for them:  they wouldn't have to.

First of all, my proposition is that combat arms be open to women, not that women must be integrated into combat arms.  I would propose no minimum quota in the combat arms, at least initially.  Unwilling women already get assigned to Field Artillery and Military Police because minimum quotas are attempted to be met by the Army.  I know from watching one or two Branch Nights at West Point.

Second of all, and more importantly to me, I would like to say for the record:  Puh-leeze!

If one is scared of being roped into Infantry (Queen of Battle, Hooah!) or having to go to Ranger School, I assure you the commander will readily sign the memorandum to get you out of his or her branch since you probably wouldn't offer much to it.  And as for Ranger, don't worry just refuse to do one of the obstacles, and easy, you're out.  I'm not trying to be snide... well, not too snide, just pointing out that commanders should have a large amount of leeway to reassign disqualified candidates.  Which brings me back to my first point, that minimum quotas are a bad idea.  They leave a bad taste in everybody's mouth.  I am not just trying to call out the timid, I also think that the most enthusiastic woman who cannot meet the demands of combat arms should not be allowed to stay on in that role.  Not everyone wants to serve their country, and not everyone who wants to is capable.  Ask any recruiting office; they will tell you.

But do an experiment and have a couple recruiting offices be allowed to put women into combat arms in a few different locations nationwide, and you might hear some surprising reasons from women why they want to join the Army.

MOOTW - Why Modular Units Excite Me

In the Army the overhaul of the organization of units from the old style of armies and divisions is exciting because it acknowledges the assymmetrical nature of modern warfare.  In fact the Army is seems to be constantly engaged in MOOTW:  often small-conflict and sustainment operations.  I just learned today how the Army is moving away from labeling the Front Line and instead referring to a 'Non-Contiguous Battlefield'.  The fact that support and maneuver units are more closely resembling each other in risk is also indicative of the whole Army approaching the moment when gender barriers can be lowered and eventually -hopefully - dropped.  On top of being the absolute right thing to do, the new structure is part of improving the entire organization.  Loosening the restrictions on what positions women may have serves to expand our society's ideas of gender roles in a way which allows both male and female employees to be more productive.  Diverse organizations are more successful organizations.  Success is more and more dependent on drive and innovation than gender.

Second, I was not the only little girl who loved G.I. Jane.  I am not the only motivated young woman in the Army.  And I'm certainly not the most qualified when I think of the high-speed I know who have been to SAPPER or who express an interest in EOD.  The problem is it really takes the wind out of your sails if you know you don't have to try as hard because you aren't allowed to pursue all the different avenues of advancement in the Army.  And on top of that, RANGER school is a Leadership School.  A leadership school, and why do guys go?  Is it because it's an all-male environment?  Is it because men love that sort of thing?  No, it's because they want the challenge.  Well, some women want that challenge too.  A friend told me that people are afraid standards will drop because of false charges of sexism.  They should be afraid at all times that standards will drop for all sorts of reasons, whether based on gender or the national level of fitness.  Obesity is a real and rising problem in the United States, but you can change your level of fitness through training.  You can't change your gender no matter how many pushups you do.