Marines wrestle with women in combat discussion
Of course, the Marines, like the other combat arms service, the Army, are preparing for the inevitable integration of women into the combat role. It’s inevitable like the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. All of the numbnut civilians are convinced it’s a good idea, no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. Somehow, national security and actual war-fighting take a back seat to the politically-correct solution to career advancement. From the Marine Corps Times;
That panel, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, said in a March 15 report that the Defense Department should open all military occupational specialties to both sexes. Not doing so stunts career opportunities, according to the commission, which comprised active-duty and retired general officers, and senior enlisted personnel.
“I honestly believe that if you put me in the situation, I will adapt and overcome,” said [Sgt. Michelle Stephens], who works at Headquarters and Service Battalion of Quantico, Va. “I think anyone with the proper mentality in the Marine Corps can do that. If you put 100 women in a room, you’ll probably find five who are perfect to be a grunt.”
The question, of course, is what do we do with the other 95? It’s been my experience that most pogues love to “play infantry” for few days, but quickly tire of it if the experience lasts much longer. I think the novelty of being a woman in the infantry will have the same effect.
Like the cow who was the first woman cadet at the Citadel, Shannon Faulkner, who spent zero time preparing for her time among male cadets and actually gained weight before she was admitted because she expected to be hand-carried through training by virtue of her political status.
Women who haven’t served in [Female Engagement Teams] may not understand how substantial the differences are between serving alongside the infantry and being a part of it, said Sgt. Karina Villatoro, who deployed with an FET in support of 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion in late 2009 and early 2010. The unit included Marines and operators from other branches of service and worked primarily in Afghanistan’s Herat province.
“It’s a totally different thing to augment them than to be one,” said Villatoro, who faced mortar fire and firefights during her deployment. “For the women who want to try it, I think they should adhere to the male physical standards and from there, see how they do.”
Sergeant Villatoro hits the nail on the head – there is only ONE standard in combat – coming out the end of the experience in the same number of pieces that you entered. If women are going to be allowed to serve in combat arms, there can be no alternate standard for their training. Let the politicians justify otherwise.
Category: Military issues
There has never been any justification for reduced standards for females… the sad thing is, like everything the gov’t does- they’ll lower all the standards to allow the bottom to be (or seem) successful.
“…..Marines wrestle with women in combat ….” But shouldn’t they be keeping their mind on the enemy instead of wrestling with women? Never could understand those Gyrenes.
Is there jello involved? I’ll go a round with any WM so long as there’s jello involved.
Heh, the DBS comic in the sidebar is amusingly appropriate today.
I realized something recently regarding the argument that having male-only combat arms “stunts career opportunities.” We are really only talking about general officers here, right? I mean there are tons of E-8 and E-9 slots on the CSS side that are open to women. The same with junior, mid-grade and even officer positions as well. The only place where the lack of combat experience equates to fewer opportunities is at the general officer level. There are only a handful of general officer slots that would be offered to an officer, male or female, without combat arms experience. There will never be a division/corps/army commander that hasn’t been a combat commander. So in the end, we are really talking about a small percentage of ranks that are closed to women. Basically, feminists want a female Petraeus or Patton.
So it’s inevitable, like the repeal of DADT, Jonn? Does that mean you’ll stop grousing and lie back and enjoy it? Living in athletically inclined town in an athletically inclined state, despite being very fit, while out running, cycling, skate skiing or hiking, getting “chicked” is a common occurance. I have no doubt there are many, many women strong enough to make the grade without dumbing down the test. I say we give those that meet the standards a chance.
Joe said: “I say we give those that meet the standards a chance.” That Joe, is precisely the point. The standards for them are not the same as for the men, unless they reduce the standards for men to “level the playing field”. If they could “pack their ruck”, wash their privates with a half cup of water and be clean, and pull/carry/ drag the person next to them as a guy could; would make things a helluva lot different.
I have no doubt Joe that you get “chicked” often.
Tell ya what, Joe–show me where the USMC PFT requirements are EQUAL. For 100 points, a man has to do the 3-mile run in 18:00. Women get 21:00. Men have to do 20 pull-ups. Women do a “flexed arm hang” for 70 seconds to max out. Only in crunches (sit-ups for you civilians) are the numbers the same.
And anyone who has been around women for more than 10 seconds knows that on average, they do NOT have the ability to hump as much gear, do NOT have the same upper body strength, do NOT have the same endurance.
So yeah, in support roles, no worries. Combat arms, no fucking way. Thena again, Joe–anyone who has SERVED could tell you that.
I’ve been on a forced ruck march over uneven terrain with females before. Saying 5 out of 100 females could cut it in the infantry would be generous. As DBS observed, chicks can’t hump a ruck.
Joe, addressing your “chick” comment. Exercise — ANY kind of exercise — can be stopped at the participant’s descretion. In competition, you might lose the race, lose the match, lose the ribbon…whatever, but you can still stop if necessary.
The men in combat don’t have that luxury, and that is where the complaint seems to be. Not even all MEN can be combat soldiers, and even fewer women would make the cut — if any.
Army physical fitness test standards for a 17-21 year old male – 42 push-ups in 2 min, 53 sit ups in 2 min, and 2 mile run in 15:54.
Army physical fitness test standards for a 17-21 year old female – 19 push-ups in 2 min, 53 sit ups in 2 min, and 2 mile run in 18:54.
A 17-21 year old female scores a 256 if completing the same number of repetitions and run time as a 17-21 year old male who scores a 180 (60 in each event, the minimum pass).
I have no idea how internal vice external genitalia buys you 3 min on the run.
Joe obviously has never served in the infantry. I don’t even know why we’re having this conversation about having the same standards. Fuck that, women should not be allowed to serve in combat arms at all. They can’t hump, a lot of em aren’t even strong enough to charge a 50 cal or a mk 19, can’t live in the austere conditions (anybody that thinks a woman can do 15 months at OP Restrepo in the korengal is a liar), women are not inclined to committ acts of heinous violence on another human being, and they cause other sorts of problems (ie her getting passed around an infantry rifle platoon like it’s cool). THe infantry is made up of 20 something year old men, covered in tattoos, that deal death. Lets keep it that way
Trent, you don’t know about the women that live out here. It’s no disgrace getting “chicked”. Make them adhere to the same standards as the men. There’d only be a small percentage that would make it, but they’d be real hard asses.
Here’s the metric being ignored: Success in defeating an armed enemy at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of warfare.
PT score, performance evaluations – every other metric for officers is absolutely meaningless when it comes to success on the battlefield. That’s why the majority of flag officers are combat-types. No general ever won a battle by out-delivering portable privies.
Battlefield success can be a matter of luck, but usually luck is created through intelligence (which women have), experience (that they are not allowed to get), and sheer, unadulterated bravery (which women have). To have women meet this metric, we need to change how we look at equality. We need to have equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome.
Joe, there are two standards: one for men, and one for women. That was done to ensure equality of outcome. The imbalance in standards feeds the corruption of the services’ practice of fostering likely female candidates through the ranks and making them safe for promotion. That was by the design of the last gender/diversity/ justice panel. Had the panel simply stuck to equality of opportunity, instead of equality of outcome – more women would be flag officers today.
Why is there a “Military Leadership Diversity Commission”?
What Joe fails to understand is that the “chicks” he sees are out there of their own accord and can stop when/if they get tired or uncomfortable and get back in their car and go home. When you have 100lbs of gear, not including your weapon, strapped on and humping in injun country, you don’t have the luxury of saying “that’s enough for today” and head back to the car while taking a swig out of your Evian bottle and getting on your cell phone to confirm getting together with your peeps at Starbucks. Not to mention the upper body strength it would take to do this for hours on end. Women aren’t genetically pre-disposed for that type of thing. Their upper body isn’t built for it and to put that kind of stress on it will only lead to problems both sooner and later. This is not a knock on women because infantry is so manly, but rather a fact based on science.
Do you open infantry up to women and in order to open up slots to them, qualified men get pushed out, only to have 99% of them fail and waste not only slots that could have gone to men, but the time, money, and energy wasted just so they could say they tried? That’s not how you train a military fighting force.
Okay, before we start with this argument about how chicks who can meet the requirements should be allow to serve in the infantry, let’s begin with something a little more basic.
Chicks who can’t meet the same physical requirments as their male counterparts SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO SERVE AT ALL.
But even then, women in the military has still been a disaster for reasons such as sex and pregnancy, not to mention seperate facilities.
A woman, awhile back, talked, on this blog I believe, at length about this very topic. She was very realistic, even to explaining the extra hygiene necessary “once a month” for women; and how difficult this would be in the boonies. Open “slots” for women? They come equipped with “slots”, no need for any more.
I am old enough to remember women doing a very good job in the army, even making general officer rank- in the WAC. What in hell was wrong with that? They were damned good nurses, ran bookkeeping slots, and did a valuable service to the Army.
Now,let’s get this thread back on track. Enough on the physical limitations of women. The post is about Marines Wrestling with women while in Combat. That could be dangerous because the marines doing the wrestling wouldn’t have their mind on watching for the enemy. They would be thinking more about womens “slots”. Keep things focused folks.
I always fall back on one of my favorite stories from my years of service. At the end of my career I was an Infantry instructor at Ft Benning, not to be confused with a drill sergeant.
Anyway we had a congressional delegation come down one time and they visited the hand grenade range. I gave them the dime tour and then stood around patiently answering their questions. On this particular day we had a regular Army unit on the range not trainees and there were women in the unit. After observing the unit running the grenade qualification course which consists of throwing practice grenades in different conditions like bunkers or troops in the open one female senator from CO asked me the all time burning question.
Why do women have to throw the grenade as far as men?
I bit my tongue and instead of saying we don’t make grenades with different blast radiuses for male or female, or you need to be able to at least throw the damn thing far enough away so you don’t blow yourself up, which probably would have ended my military career on the spot, I sputtered out some sort of tactical response, I think along the lines of wanting to engage the enemy at the furthest distance possible.
Her question was prompted by the difficulty the females were having in hitting a target 35 meters away. If she had really been paying attention she would have also noticed one female with extraordinary long fingernails which kept interfering with her ability to release the safeties on the grenades also.
I fully expected to see rules coming down from this idiot legislature that would have demanded special grenades for females, probably painted pink with Hello Kitty stickers on them.
Remember the day when we used to embrace the differences between the sexes?
Just A Grunt said: “Remember the day when we used to embrace the differences between the sexes?”
Remember when men were expected to be the warrior, protecting women n children? This was all before the feminazis burned their bras for equality. Since then we men aren’t expected to help with a coat, hold the door, light a ladies cigarette, etc. Good women took a beating with that change in thinking.
Bring back the WAC
OK boys, I was hoping not to have to go through this again, but…Men and women are physically different. Intellectually, I can do anything a similarly educated man can do. Hell, given enough time and the right resources, I could figure out how to do just about anything. However, I also understand that men do have their purposes. These include: lift heavy objects, open stuck jars, tote, heft, slog long distances, get the baby bunnies who committed bunnycide out of the pool, and the like. You get the picture. I prefer to let men deal with men with self control issues as well; but if I must, I am pretty handy with my baseball bat, Mr. Sticky (my knife – yes I named it), my fist, and my high heal shoes. In short, you may win the fight but I am taking a substantial piece of you with me. As to the question at hand: – Combat arms – One standard. Period. Full stop. That standard is established, meet it or shut up. – Positions with physical requirements associated with the job (i.e. firefighter, ordinance handler, etc.) – also one standard. Period. Full stop. – Spec Ops – Sorry, but the tiny number of women who could qualify is not worth the cost to these units, nor is it worth the loss of the “fear factor” that these units inspire in the enemy. These units will be less feared if they include women. Unfortunately, the enemy are misogynists. Deal with it. – As to MOSs that do not require more than a generally physically fit person (sonar operator, JAG, etc.), gender norming is ok. The inability to lift as much as a man does not mean a woman is less qualified for the job. Interestingly, most women I know who have been in command situations which would qualify as “combat” have changed MOS or gotten out of the military saying that the problem is not that they couldn’t do their job, the problem is that the men drawn to those positions seem genetically programmed to protect a woman at the… Read more »
Very well said, Susan.
SC # 22: I sure miss the protectiveness, the door holding… etc etc..
I was in the Infantry for more than 4 years and I met plenty of sacks of shit that could easily be outperformed by a physically fit woman on a PT test. Could be probably be out-marched too. That said, I’d still rather go to war with a flabby brokedick than with GI Jane. The rape argument is the trump card, as are the psychological effects males would suffer from seeing a woman killed or wounded during a firefight. If you think I’m pulling this out of my ass, check out LTC Dave Grossman’s book, On Killing. It’s got lots of good info regarding this and other psychological issues related to combat.
If women want to go to other combat arms, like Artillery or Combat Aviation, that’s fine by me. But they shouldn’t be in the Infantry.
I always thought DATs were kind of girlish 😉
The ignorance of those fools in DC and elsewhere make me puke.
As a retired Combat Aviator (Big Guns over Baghdad, 06-08), I have flown with several aviatrixes in my time. Some of them were good sticks. Some were marginal. But with one exception, none of them had the “fire in the belly” to hunt and destroy the enemy. It is just the way a women’s brain is wired.
Wait, aren’t the Olympics gender neutral? Are women allowed in the NFL, NBA, NHL? When was the last time a woman won the Tour de France? Let’s try and experiment, merge the NBA and WNBA and see how that works out. Can I try out for the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders? Fair is Fair.
I thought this front loaded diversity commission had already had its moment in the news cycle. I guess not. You ever hear of the exception that proves the rule? The number of women who are anywhere near the physical equals of men, is minute, insignificant. It is not pratical or cheap to try such an endeavor of recruitment. Women in general don’t have the upper body strength, lack the lung capacity, and have bones that are less dense and more brittle then the average man. Man was created for utilitarian tasks, woman was not. I know I mentioned awhile back the story of the Canadian military opening all of the MOSs to women. One woman made it into the infantry, former occupation? LumberJack! God knows we already heard of ObamaGirl’s inability to pull the charging handle on crew served weapons. Something I had heard from many diffrent places but had always assumed was an urban legend. Unit cohesion at the all male battalion level and below will be destroyed. Just like it has been at the brigade/regimental level over the last two decades. Most of the expansion of women in the military has been in their traditional branches, like the medical corps, Admin, and assorted REMFery. Women make up 15% of force(I think the Army was 11%) but, that means 85% are still made up of men. Even in COED units how many women are actually in these units? In an MP company how many are actually female? A dozen? Two dozen? My understanding of the Lioness/FET program is these women were not purely by themselves, but were part of a larger composite force that included men. “We’re looking at it.” the Marine response, is basically the same that CSA Casey gave awhile ago. That might not mean anything. They may just dismiss this out right. Though I’m not as sure as I was in the past, and that in itself is scary. I also believe the new Commandant of the Marine Corp, is an Aviator. Alot of this nonsense has started from that corner of the military and spread… Read more »
During my Navy career, I’ve only run across a couple of women that could meet the same requirements as the men. That would equate to probably ½% of the women I’ve served with. Hell, as long as the requirements are the SAME, I don’t have a problem with it. Unfortunately, they’re not. So who’s really getting cheated?? The grunt in the field.
I can’t imagine the whining, crying and gnashing of teeth when these women start coming home in body bags due to their inability to meet combat conditions.
Joe food for thought. .5% of the US population serve in the military. at MOST there were perhaps 100 DADT chapters a year. out of 1.5 MILLION SMs, the math really makes DADT as a policy issue ridiculious. Women composed apox 17% of the DOD. Obviously forcing the many to cope with the few DOES NOT WORK in war. Consider this. the Aegis cruisers cost about $1 Billion a pop. Each of them was designed with only male crew in mind. During the Clinton years each one of them had to go through a $.5 Billion overhaul so that they could carry 30 less crew and accommodate females. 30 Sailors on a CG is a BIG DEAL, not to mention the expenditure could well fall under “Fraud Waste and Abuse”, not to mention the nearly instantaneous issues of fraternization which of course were BOUND to happen when you put males and females in such close quarters. Now I will say it again Joe. The average BASIC loadout of an 11B Minus pretty much everything by weapon and ammo is 60 LBS. the average female weighs on the order of 130-145. THAT IS ALMOST HALF HER BODY WEIGHT, and that estimate is actually being generous. That does not include Commo Land Warrior (for those poor souls cursed with it), Pack for extended ops, Aid Bag for medics, etc. My load out, even when I dropped a third of my ammo, was right on about 100 LBS. Most of the 11B’s I know CAN NOT make 20 because the weight literally breaks them before that. On a purley medical front males and females are different. The structure of the hips is actually HUGELY important to how they bare loads, with males hips being favorable to carry weight on their back, Females (for rather obvious reasons) in the front. Ruck Sacks will actually cause serious harm to Female pelvic bones (Illium, Ishium and Pubis) if too heave and worn too often. Medical FACT. So while these generals are off in La La land, in the real world there are actual good ans sound… Read more »
Doc,
What is OBVIOUS to you and me is dangerous, sexist, patriarchal traditionalism to those who choose to think that way.
Your explanation is excellent, tho, for anyone not completely blind to the truth.
Amy
Doc Bailey: Now I will say it again Joe. The average BASIC loadout of an 11B Minus pretty much everything by weapon and ammo is 60 LBS. the average female weighs on the order of 130-145. THAT IS ALMOST HALF HER BODY WEIGHT ——- I’m a tiny infantryman. I usually weigh between 150 (when I was getting broke off during the summer months in afghanistan)-165. I’m not a big guy by any means. When I was at Ft. Campbell as a pathfinder a few years back our weight for R and S training was anywhere from 80 to 125 pounds (RTOs had to hump a tough book, 119,117, spare batters etc). And after we would insert we would hump all night to our objective and after 3 plus days of laying in a hidesite our team sergeant was generally a dick by saying shit like “Oh trucks got hit by an IED we’re walking back” so we’d end up humping 20 miles over the course of the night to get back to the company. That’s just training. PT every morning consisted of either running, a long hump, an IBA run or ruck run from anywhere from 5-7 miles. obviously as we all know jumping combat equipment is a motherfucker. When I got recalled off IRR for Afghanistan last year our load outs varied because we were mostly mounted. If we had to do a regular dismount I had a plate carrier, 12 mags, camelback, MBITR. If we had to do a no shit dismount we had all that gear plus, 100 rounds for the machine gun team (machine gunner either had the MK48 or the 240 with a thousand rounds and the AG had a thousand), extra water, field stripped MRE, grenades, spare radio batteries, and a LAW/AT4/SMAWD. Then our hump to our OPs was always our gear plus an assualt pack. Humping up a mountain with 80 pounds of shit is a motherfucker. So after doing that for the better part of 6 years I have a degenerative disk in my lower back, a bulging disk, bone spurs, bad… Read more »
@ Old Trooper.. Were you Infantry? Or are you just citing some Tom Clancy book you read?
Let me guess Joe, you’re a douchebag lawyer from Northern California who never had the “time” to serve in the military but feel compelled to comment on military sites.
Let’s make a deal I won’t tell you how to lie to your clients and you won’t tell me how the Infantry should be run, deal?
@ObamaGirl how about you go run your suck elsewhere
Bobogirl; I think I have answered that question enough times on this site, so pardon me if I don’t feel like answering that question, once again. If you want to know the answer to that question, please feel free to move about the cabin and read some of the past threads.
Thank you for your interest and support.
How about this, the Marine Corps is the Marine Corps because we have amphibious tractors, “Amtracs”! “You ain’t tracked, You ain’t $h!t”!!! These vehicles are manned by a 3 man crew. At night they become the Marines Corps’ version of an RV. We could strip down to our skivvies and take a spit bath. At 29 Palms, in the summer, we would open the top cargo hatches and sleep in our skivvies. Under these scenarios, adjustments could be made. What happens in cold weather? At Bridgeport we were operating in 3 feet of snow at below freezing temperatures, you’re going to make 2 Marines stand out in the freezing cold so Linda Lu can “freshen up”?
Maybe they can put together an all female regiment? Maybe an all female Amtracs battalion? Then they could man an LST with an all female crew? Hey, how about an all female air wing? Why not just create an all female division?
@39: I’m actually more in favor of separating Men and Women. Kind of hard to get prego on a deployment if there are no males around.
OG: I think you nit picking about who is and is not an 11 Boo is pretty narrow. Are you, or have you ever served in an Infantry Platoon, Company or Battalion? Have you ever had to do half the shit that are “par for the course” for the Infantry? My guess is no.
She never did post a DD214, did she?
Uh…you had to have served to get a real DD-214.
@#5. Good point. On the enlisted side everyone competes for promotion within their MOS, so the whole “lack of combat experience stunts career opportunities” idea is essentially bullshit. On the other hand, there is nothing more dangerous to Marines in a combat zone than a female Marine with something to prove, regardless of occupation. I know I know, some of you might be thinking “well, there’s some male Marines like that too.” Maybe, but the Marines I worked with in country were more concerned with doing their jobs and not doing anything stupid vice trying to impress someone.