"Army's Recruiting Problem Is Male" Topic

…Since 2013, male enlistments have dropped 35%, going from 58,000 men enlisting in 2013 to 37,700 in 2023, according to the service data. Meanwhile, female recruitment has hovered around 10,000 recruits each year…

Military: link

"Saying without evidence," no sign of auctorial bias in a statement like that, now, is there? Man, at least in the old days they used to pretend to objectivity- this looks like it's carefully coded so those who need it will know this article is an approved product of the Media-Industrial Complex.

By narrowly defining the "woke" issue, the author is able to give some of TMP's less astute commentators an opportunity to repeat their talking point that "it's not about woke"- but they then go on to describe the retreat of men from participation or responsibility in society as a whole as if that's not a phenomenon driven by the same set of policies. This is a complex phenomenon, but the question "why would men feel like taking on a difficult or dangerous job for a society that devalues them" never gets asked.

While this will no doubt fill the gaping void in some souls who need articles to regurgitate onto this site and others, the fact that they're taking in a division plus a slice's worth of Cat IVs ought to be ringing some alarm bells.

Every industry of which I am aware is having staffing issues and has been having these for a long time. That the Military is having the same issues as the rest of society is hardly a surprise at all.

Read a article couple weeks ago England is in the same situation as the US with male enlistment

Right, but these predate the pandemic.

I tend to agree with you Nine, felt that way for some time.

Seems we might be able to do something with all those illegal immigrants after all…

Saw that article on Military.com too … But I still think woke, DEI, CRT, etc. plays some part in this situation … The Military is not a what some in power think it is. I'd think most males don't really like being emasculated like much of the current trends seems to be pushing. Nor I'd think many males are not really happy about the push for LGBTQ+, etc. thing being in the forefront and in their units. Do that 💩 on your own time. The military especially in combat arms is about cohesion, teamwork, aggressiveness, etc.

The military's #1 Priority is not Global Warming. That was a ridiculous comment for our top leaders have made in the past 3+ years. Nor is it to put people in positions based on DEI, not the capabilities of the individual. Nor is it a social experiment based on all the woke DEI, CRT, etc. dogma 💩 that has been inserted into the military. Which does not make the military any more effective, efficient, deadly, etc.

Illegal aliens drafted ? Hmmm ? Don't our leaders remember what happened to ancient Rome ? Regardless, it certainly might keep some of them out of the US. Many are not here to be Americans, but for the freebies, commit crimes, etc. E.g. another Illegal alien raped and killed another female American. This seems to be happening much too often.

I do wonder how MS-13, Cartel members etc. would do vs. Chinese, islamic terrorists, IRGC, Russians, North Koreans, etc. ? High body count all around would be my estimate.

Soon we'll make them cops, and then we can have lawbreakers selectively enforcing the "law."

Oh, wait- we've got that already.

"Seems we might be able to do something with all those illegal immigrants after all… grin"

Chief do we really want to give those people a gun?
or we can make them mine field clearer's.

I think they'd work fine as Russian Penal Bns like in WWII …

Most people don't realize this, but troops in the combat arms branches of the US Army tend to be pretty sharp- in particular, MOSs like the infantry, SF and armor. They aren't cannon fodder- they typically knew what they were volunteering for, and meant to do well. Not invariably, of course, but the moral and intellectual quality of those organizations was well above any average I've seen in civilian life. You're not going to fit draftees into those types of organizations very easily.

CSS units, by contrast, had a lot less of that type of excellence. Often seemed like civil servants who had to take the APFT. Slightly better physique, similar mentality.

I see the drop as mostly legacy recruits not signing up (i.e a long family tradition of each generation serving in the military, only this 'next' generation of potential legacies sees how bad/nonsensical things are getting, and don't want any part of it…)

That initially quoted statistic definitively does not say that the recruitment problem is male:

…Since 2013, male enlistments have dropped 35%, going from 58,000 men enlisting in 2013 to 37,700 in 2023, according to the service data. Meanwhile, female recruitment has hovered around 10,000 recruits each year…

For every female recruit there are almost four male recruits.

If they reached parity – 37700 male and 37700 female – they'd be recruiting more than 70,000 a year, which is on a par with the 2013 recruitment figure of ~58000 male and ~10000 female recruits.

Ya'll need more women. Make the army a more attractive career for women and problem solved.

Most people don't realize this, but troops in the combat arms branches of the US Army tend to be pretty sharp- in particular, MOSs like the infantry, SF and armor. They aren't cannon fodder- they typically knew what they were volunteering for, and meant to do well. Not invariably, of course, but the moral and intellectual quality of those organizations was well above any average I've seen in civilian life. You're not going to fit draftees into those types of organizations very easily.

Bingo ! I agree totally.

For every female recruit there are almost four male recruits.

Regardless, of Obama opening combat arms to females, how many females today did or will join combat arms ? You can fill out all the support units with mostly females but that is not really a good balance, IMO. Many females are very capable. My experience as to what makes a "good" Infantryman is testosterone. Of course, in both sexes' survival instincts kicks in at times. And even females have earned Ranger Tabs[no easy feat] and are in some Infantry units.

Do Infantry as well as e.g. tank, FA, CE have a 4-1 ratio in their ranks currently ? My Mech Inf Co., '87-'89 at Benning[now Moore] was authorized 112 troops … so about 28 using the 4-1 ratio would be females. yes ? Hmmm ? I don't know if that would change the "aggressiveness", etc. of the unit ? I'd say yes …

However, do we need to be reminded of what Hamas, etc. did to all those Israeli females both IDF and civilians ?

Make the army a more attractive career for women and problem solved.

I'd say make the males today more patriotic, teach accurate American history, drop the woke, DEI, CRT, progressive etc. 💩 … Bring back what being a male is or used to be … Don't emasculate males in the media, etc. Not the frat boy, jock, etc. paradigm, that is not what I'm talking about.

Some may not understand what I'm getting at. But I'd think guys here who served in the military in combat arms probably get where I'm coming from.

Bottom line the US Military needs more males in their ranks. And yes females too, but IMO 4-1 is not a good ratio.

Maybe I'm just too "old school" ?

I would be surprised if there is a 4-1 ratio of males to females in combat arms units even now.

I have to agree …

I read a news article, that the Dems want women to have to register for the draft like the males.[DEI in affect ?] To help with the shortfall of new recruits not joining the military. Of course, there is no draft currently occurring. I thought this was shelved long ago.

However, the GOP is against it. Which IMO is a good position.

But with Obama opening up combat arms to females, years ago. Again, a DEI move IMO.

The military can't run on policies that deal with woke, DEI, CRT, 1619, etc. dogmas.