Women in the infantry; one Marine speaks
Green thumb sent us a link to an MSNBC article which refers to another in the Marine Corps Gazette by Capt Katie Petronio, a Marine Combat Engineer who seeks to put to rest the fallacy that there is equality among men and women when it comes to being in the infantry. First she asks;
Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS).
…as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in.
Yeah, well, welcome to the world of a military governed by civilians, Captain. The good-intention fairies are numerous out here. It’s just like the idiots who are saying there should be a draft – they’re the same people who won’t be drafted and wont have to deal with the draftees once they’re in uniform. But she recounts her personal experiences when she was deployed to Afghanistan;
By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment.
Oops, you mean women are different than men? Those social engineers aren’t going to like that conclusion.
Then the good captain does her best imitation of me;
Not once was the word “lower” used [in regard to training standards], but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability.
So she says, “What’s the point of it all?”
Which leads one to really wonder, what is the benefit of this potential change? The Marine Corps is not in a shortage of willing and capable young male second lieutenants who would gladly take on the role of infantry officers. In fact we have men fighting to be assigned to the coveted position of 0302.
When I was teaching ROTC, male cadets all held their collective breath hoping for an infantry billet and most were disappointed when they didn’t get it.
She recommends an alternate MOS specifically for female engagement teams officers and for the Marines to dump their plans to integrate women into the infantry;
For those who dictate policy, changing the current restrictions associated with women in the infantry may not seem significant to the way the Marine Corps operates. I vehemently disagree; this potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force.
And a little bit of common sense which if it was written by a man would be censored from politically correct periodicals;
Let’s embrace our differences to further hone in on the Corps’ success instead of dismantling who we are to achieve a political agenda.
A brilliant and brave Marine. What could I possibly add. But you should read the whole thing.
Category: Military issues
The captain is making the same arguments that I made regarding women on submarines (no outcry from female sailors to serve on submarines and no shortage of male volunteers). We all know where those arguments got us. Good luck, USMC.
I read that a few days ago. She brings up many valid points that I’m sure will fall on deaf ears so there really was no point in writing it. Maybe I’m just being pessimistic; can you blame me? I hope I’m wrong and someone from the fucking good idea fairy committee see this and think to themselves “Oh yeah, this article passes the common sense test. Maybe we should rethink our position”…but I doubt it’ll happen
Now that doesn’t mean women shouldn’t be trained as trigger pullers. There probably isn’t any front line anymore. DACOWITS was gnarly 30 years ago, but if you can hack it and meet the requirements, a woman in a combat aircraft is nothing to sneeze at. Not everybody is a stud that can hump a ruck indefinitely given food, water and rest. Plenty of support positions that need filling. Get rid of the contractors, put somebody in that’s cheaper and not looking after the bottom line and profit margin. Not to mention they’ll have your back.
Kudos to Captain Petronio for firmly voicing her opinion. Thank you for presenting her viewpoint…Mr. Lilyea I really enjoy this site, and respect the work you do…and I enjoy a little bit of being contrary from time to time….so I noted a couple of comments I found interesting below along with some thoughts…my apologies if inappropriate due to being off topic…I do appreciate that you are a straightforward speaker and I suspect everyone knows where they stand with you pretty quickly…here’s hoping I don’t stand in a big POS for being contrary… “Yeah, well, welcome to the world of a military governed by civilians, Captain. ” “It’s just like the idiots who are saying there should be a draft” Washington and Jefferson were in agreement that civilian control of the military was an essential part of creating a great nation… Not all in favor of the draft are idiots (George Washington), nor all against it intellectuals (Thomas Jefferson)… “The supremacy of the civil over the military authority I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. “No military commander should be so placed as to have no civil superior.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1801. FE 8:29 “Even when there is a necessity of military power, within the land,…a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful & jealous eye over it.” — Samuel Adams Regarding the draft — George Washington once stated, “…it must be laid down as a primary position and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal service to the defense of it.” Jefferson on the draft was in disagreement with Washington(of course Jefferson was a bit more libertarian)… “In this country, [a draught from the militia] ever was the most unpopular and impracticable thing that could be attempted. Our people, even under the monarchical government, had learnt to consider it as the last of all oppressions.” –Thomas… Read more »
“. . .embrace our differences . . .” —
Oh Boy !! — Those embraces, one thing after another, could lead to . . . (a new generation, so to speak) .
No. 4:
Thomas Jefferson NOT an intellectual ??
You must be joking .
#4; I wrote that not as a criticism of civilian control or to advocate otherwise – it’s just a symptom of the system that soldiers and Marines have to deal with. We could probably all write books of the stupidity that we were dealt from the civilian sector. In the Big Picture, I wouldn’t have it any other way, but that doesn’t mean that we have to like the little picture BS.
@6…yes i think I placed that incorrectly I meant to say that some intellectuals were against it, but that not all who are against the draft can make such a claim…thanks for squaring my sh1t
@7 Point taken, I believe I understood that part…me being a poindexter-like-contrarian at times I couldn’t resist…thank you for your patience!
I remember a letter to the editor I read in the Wall Street Journal nearly 20 years ago from a Marine Captain attending the Marines advance officers course (they didn’t separate them by branch) He described three women in his class that he’d follow anywhere in combat. He described their fitness, tactical and technical proficiency. He ended his letter by stating that there were over 20 female Marines in his class.
I don’t doubt that there are women who can do the job, just as I know for sure that there are men who can’t. Then comes the question, How many women who can want to? And are there enough of them to justify changing the entire logistics system of the military to suit a select few? Until those questions are addressed honestly and vetted with integrity and mission accomplishment in mind then people are just fooling themselves when they say things like “Professionalism and good intentions will trump biology and physics”
One of the sacrifices we make in the military is sometimes, you have to do what’s needed instead of what you want or what you might be best at because that’s what the country needs.
My thoughts (as a former 0311 I think I’m slightly qualified), there are approximately 15,000 female Marines. Statistically 1% (trust me on this, it might be even less) would be able to meet the physical requirements. Do we really need 150 extra infantrypersons that badly?
No. 8:
Right, but I don’t square circles, or anything personal with you .
@5 Lord, doc, don’t give ’em any ideas. They’ll start a breeding program!!
@12 Deal…
“I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment.”
Don’t know about any of y’all, but I found THIS (the infertility she’s now subject to, due to the syndrome) to be the saddest part of all. G_d knows we need many more clear-thinking, truth-speaking, and courageous women like Cpt. Petronio.
Regardless I’m sure the higher ups have already decided to allow females into fully combat MOS’, even if they are not ‘needed’ and whatnot.
It seems like a question of not if, but when.
Ok I am a female-served 8 years active duty in the corps. I was in the best physical shape of my life but never managed to keep up with the guys. I could not even hump an empty ALICE pack a respectable distance. Yes- EMPTY!
I was always at the top physically out of the women, and I gave 120%, but I am aware that in my case – i would be the weakest link in the group.
I weighed maybe 110 at the time – I could run all day long, but could barely lift a radio?
I admire the women that are able to do this, i respect them immensely, but not ALL women fall into that category.
Hate on me for saying this- women are NOT physically equal to men.
There- I said it. Secrets out 🙂
@17
To top it off, the point I took from the Captain’s article is that, even with the few women that CAN make it…for a little while, they will never last long enough to make a career out of it.
Infection is the primary issue and concern.
Nature’s prerogative is what it is.
Too many casualties equals combat ineffectiveness.
DACO-“NIT”-WITS
My two cents: If there are women who WANT to be in the front lines in combat and they can handle the weapons and the stress, then let them. And don’t treat them as anything ‘special’, because no one in combat is ‘special’. They either can handle it, or they can’t. Period.
I only say this because there is a history of women disguising themselves as men in order to participate in combat, most recently in the Civil War. Two of those women were Pauline Cushman and Mary Owens. Both of them were discovered, after the war was over, to be women masquerading as men while they were on the battlefield.
This is not about “equal” this or that, nor is it about political correctness, whatever that is.
It’s just an opinion, from my corner of the room.
The Civil War is not what I would call “quite recently”.
However, you have a very valid point.
Please keep the men and women in separate units, platoons, etc. etc.
They will become combat MOS like infantry, fine, but no co-ed stuff like ‘Starship Troopers’ please.
@21
The Russian Army during WW II employed a few hundred very capable female snipers. Some of the more famous being Roza Shanina, Lyudmila Pavlichenko, Nina Lobkovskaya, Ziba Ganiyeva. Some were certified with several dozen to several hundred confirmed kills.
I’m going to be blunt people that think women should be in the grunts or combat arms if they meet the standard (there’s more to being in the infantry than a stupid PT test) are dellusional. If women going to combat was normal behavior they would’ve been cleaving peoples heads in with an axe 2000 years ago. We’re in the job of killing people. It’s not a social experiment.
After 25 years AD Army, always did good physically. But let’s face it, we do not have the brut and strength necessary to b on the “front line” for days on end. I certainly feel females can be great In support MOS’s. Trust me, I was able to fire a weapon and watch any of my Borthers and Susters backs!
I completed my “Female Marines in Combat MOS” survey, just a few weeks ago.
When given the opportunity to add any further comments, I simply stated, “If you allow women in the Infantry, my retirement cannot come fast enough. I am currently attached to a Combat Logistics Battalion in Afghanistan, and the amount of NJP’s for catching men and women in ‘less than the required uniform’ is staggering.”
Nothing but problems…sorry ladies, does this make me sexist? I don’t care.
My job is to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy. I don’t think a woman can keep up with the constant demands. And before someone brings up the FET (Female Engagement Teams) I promise that one FET is not patrolling as much as a regular grunt platoon.
As stated, this is not a social experiment, this is WAR.
#20 Green Thumb
My take: DACOWITS = Dim-O-Wits.
I’m gonna weigh in here and share my experiences with women in combat. In 2004-2005 as a member of 201st FSB, 3BCT, 1ID, I served with over 200 females for 13 months. We drove up from Camp New York, Kuwait, and fell in on FOB Warhorse, Baqubah. Our females ran the gamut of support MOS’s, and many were housed and lived as well as fought side by side with men. They were mechanics, medics, fuelers, and every other imaginable CS/CSS role. I remember at the time reading about how women were not involved in direct combat roles and then looking around me and saying “Bullshit, these girls are here and they are fighting right next to the guys”. Our B CO supply sergeant drove over 10,000 miles that year and was involved in countless engagements during that time. (I married her) With few exceptions, the females I served with then performed admirably and made huge contributions to the war effort. Again in 2007-2008, A Co 1-4 IN, FOB Laghman, Zabul Province, we had females attached to our infantry company and again they worked with the guys with few hiccups. As to the Combat Arms MOS’s allowing women, it is not a matter of if but when. Today, same thing is happening. I personally disagree with an 11B female, but I see both sides of the argument, the value added and the challenges they would bring. There is enough anecdotal evidence to support women in combat, it has been done before, and is being done now out of the public eye.
I’m sooo glad I’m “Old Corps”! This crap was never an issue. If the Cpt’s experience isn’t enough to dissuade the PC brigade, let the sin be on them.
The Islamists have handed us a weapon that will break their fantasy, if we have the wit to use it.
Because they make war against civilians, we no longer have front lines, so women in our service are on the front lines. Because they segregate women in societies they invade, we have integrated them in our fighting units.
Among the many sins of radical Islamists are their attempts to stuff other people’s Muslim women into the kind of life that is only practical for wealthy slavers. Yet the societies where Muslims live are harsh, and require the help of every able bodied adult for the family to survive.
I recall reading an article by an older Saudi woman, griping that this business about wearing veils all the time was just not done back home at the farm, because it was a nuisance.
Those tech-savvy, strong, capable, good-looking women who carry authority like the nobility of other societies, that we put in the uniform of the most powerful nation on earth, and to whom some very formidable men listen — those women are a weapon, if you know how to deploy them.
Chew in that.
Meanwhile, I seriously doubt that the congress critters and other civilians currently pushing social change on our military have the best interests of the military, its men, or its women in mind. It’s going to be up to our military people to slow and shape this hostile nonsense into an advantage.
There is a lot of good discussion here and I don’t feel I can add mucgh to the policy side of this discussion. Since I have seen a misunderstanding in a couple of places, I do, however, want to clarify a medical point. There is a difference between infertility and sterility. Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) causes the ovary to grow cysts. This may cause a range of symptoms including infertility. It does not mean that the CPT will never be able to conceive. (It may or may not). Women with PCOS can and do have children. It just means that she may need medical help in order to conceive and I wish her the best of luck.
@27 I’ve had the “pleasure” of working with FETs. They are not the female Infantry like so many try to make them out to be. Their purpose is to talk to females and search females. They required us grunts to protect them. We mainly just took them out when we were conducting cordon and knocks or cordon and searchs. Very, very, very rarly were they taken on patrols and they damn sure weren’t taken on raids. I’m just expanding on what you said with my experiences.
After 4 years active duty Army as an grunt Soldier with 2 tours in Iraq and with my personal interactions with females who were Soldiers also, this IMO is a BAD idea. I’ve stated this on articles in the past 2 years addressing these potential changes civi’s want to push on the military. It’s a SOCIAL experiment & nothing more. Politics & war do not mix well at all and with just a very small percentage of females ever being able to cope with the rigors of infantry life, it’s not really possible. I mean it is but it’s not a good idea & mixing men with women is even worse. Had met & came across many guy’s in the service who got meddled in with female Soldiers and then it would cause problems with unit’s and fights would happen, etc. It’s a horrible idea & the feminist’s and politico’s can go to hell for it too.
To what Twist said, yes, you are right. The media and news try to make them out to be some bad a@@ female infantry unit but they’re not anything compared to our levels. All of this b.s. is just that, bulls–t. F—–g political a@@hats, they can all go to hell for their brainy ideas and trying to destroy our great military.