Jenny North on women in combat arms
Our friends at Victory Girls Blog published a commentary from Jenny North, a female Marine officer who has spent some time training male and female Marines. She writes about her experiences as company XO at Support Company (Medical Rehabilitation Platoon and Physical Conditioning Platoon);
Support Company was the place where recruits were sent if they were unfortunate enough to have an injury during training, or they needed to improve their physical conditioning in order to keep up with training. Males and females maintained separate platoons and each had their respective same sex drill instructors. At Support Company, males and females frequently trained together and of course all drill instructors, whether female or male had the power to correct, and instruct, any recruit of any sex.
[…]
Something that has always struck me as I remember my female recruits, and my female drill instructors, was how small in general they all were. I often wondered why did the Marines attract all these tiny little girls? It was a question I got a lot myself as I too was only 5’4”, and I was quiet – not a stereotype you would peg to become a Marine.
[…]
These females…took on manly challenges and found ways to be successful, even when they might not have the brute strength to muscle through.
I will agree with Ms. North. I trained women when I taught ROTC at the University of Vermont and as a TAC NCO at Advanced Camp, and although women were physically at a disadvantage when competing with men, they didn’t lack heart. Ms. North continues that women do seem to suffer from physical injuries more than men, mostly because of their “hearts” – they want to succeed with their male peers, but sometimes the simple mechanics of their bodies get in the way. Ms. North advocates fixing the promotion system more than integration of males with females in combat arms, which makes just too much sense. The Social Justice Warriors will never admit that women aren’t the equal of men through no fault of their own. Blame nature, but don’t needlessly put lives on the line.
Category: Big Pentagon
Progtardation at its finest: harping endlessly about the “science” of global cooling…no warming…uh…make it “climate change”, yet they totally disregard biology and physiology when it comes to women in combat arms.
Disregarding the obvious physical disadvantages, females usually lack the “killer instinct” that would allow them to kill at close quarters. Read some Medal of Honor citations to learn what I mean.
I disagree Jumpmaster. Try to get between a momma and her cubs and see what happens. In criminal circles, women are responsible for some of the most vicious crime scenes. I don’t buy the lack of killer instinct argument.
However, I don’t think they have the same physical standards as men. This plays a huge role in allowing the inhuman heroics of MOH recipients.
“Try to get between a momma and her cubs…”
Huh. So, women are gonna be taking their kids to war in the infantry now, too?
People tend to say the most gawd awful stupid shit to defend this completely indefensible idiocy.
Here’s what I advocate on this bit of destructionism:
Keep a list of names. This issue is so obviously going to cause a lot of unnecessary death if it goes live and then to war. There will be a loud and vicious cry for retribution.
In the our old FSC, we had seven women (EM).
Five became pregnant before deployment this were not able to deploy.
So yeah, they cannot take their kids.
Not stating an opinion. But a fact.
The FSC CO now had to backfill (train, integrate and install) five positions on extremely short notice before rolling out.
Uhm, yeah, well, science really doesn’t seem to support your thesis that women lack a “killer instinct.” If anything, the opposite is true. Ask the Israeli Army about that.
Also read up on how the women in many Indian tribes treated prisoners.
Jonn,
Thanks for the link. I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but it is constantly astonishing to me how the administration ignores facts. Aside from the detriment to national security, I fear that this policy will be very damaging to women’s health and by extension the hard earned respect they have gained over the years.
Your comment about and All Female Platoon is a great litmus test. Tell the integraters that the Units will be formed and watch them bend themselves into pretzles making excuses.
Come backs to them will be quite easy. “So you are telling me that in order for Womem to succeed in Combat Units, they have to be paired with Men?”
Jenny,
I wrote a response on the blog, don’t want to rehash it here, but I feel that this policy is going to end up reducing the number of females who join and stay in the military.
Females who do not want to be in combat arms will be reluctant to do so if they have just as much of a chance to end up assigned to the infantry as a male.
So, now that women are free to join in on every facet of combat arms, I’m going to wait for the implementation of ChooChoo Joe Biden’s advice that they be armed with double barrel shotguns because M16/M4s are too hard for them to aim.
I’m waiting for someone to challenge the requirement for men to sign up for the draft – but not women.
When the SCOTUS last considered the matter (Rostker v. Goldberg, 1981), the SCOTUS ruled that was allowable – because women were excluded by law and/or policy from combat. Since that’s no longer the case, well, . . . .
So Hondo, let me ask this. According to the instruction some units have been in the wrong for a long time because woman out on Security Patrols and Logistic Convoys have come under fire and have returned fire. I am not supporting woman in direct combat jobs but have seen them preform well in those environments.
I read the instruction for the Navy about combat arms and from what I can tell is my community has been in violation of said instruction since 2001,not sure just what I have been researching.
I wasn’t referring to that aspect, NECCSEABEECOP. But it’s hardly unique. We lost females in Vietnam and the Gulf War (and the GWOT, for that matter) also. Wherever active hostilities are occurring, there is always the risk of “bad place/wrong time/go home in a box”. Incoming IDF doesn’t care about gender or specialty, and neither do stray small-arms rounds. And as we saw with the 507th Maintenance Bn in Iraq, mistakes can put even “non-combat” units in harm’s way quickly. However, previously certain entire specialties and/or types of units were categorically closed to women. In the Army, that included (working from memory) Infantry units below either Brigade or Division HQ; Artillery units below either Bn or Brigade staff; and Armor and ADA units below a certain level (also below either er Bn or Bde staff, as I recall). Combat Engineer units (as opposed to Construction units) may well have had the same ban – can’t remember for sure. Thus, not only were women banned from certain specialties (Inf, Armor, Artillery being the “big 3”). Women were also banned by policy from serving in units deemed to have a high probability of directly engaging in land combat with the enemy. If I’m recalling correctly, a female could not be assigned as a Signal or Medical specialist to fill billets in those units for that reason. The rationale was the then-current policy against women being sent into direct land combat. By policy now ALL specialties are open to both genders; ergo, there is no longer such a ban on women participating in direct ground combat. So the previous rationale – recognized by both the military and Congress, and codified by latter into law – for exempting women from the draft no longer holds. That rationale was that the purpose of the draft was to allow the US to raise combat units and combat arms replacements quickly in the event of a crisis. Since only men could serve in those specialties/units, only men needed to be drafted. I’m certainly going to watch this one closely. I’ll be VERY interested in seeing what the… Read more »
Thank you, I am trying to find it but I saw the Navy instruction for woman on combat ships and combat arms. The big thing is from one of your statements above about woman being in danger for close combat. It said something about use of crew served weapons and chance of taking contact. So when we were assigned to the Marines GCE in 2003 crossing the LOD we were in violation of the instruction and we did take contact with the Marines on a bridge site. I believe that is why the Marine commander was pissed at us.
We lost three all on convoy security teams in Al anbar povince. No one cares about us but are job places us in danger all the time. Harts and minds civil humanitarian missions.
I believe its closer than you think.
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/court-to-hear-whether-women-should-register-for-draft-1.381862
No disrespect, but they have been carrying them in Combat AOR’s for the last 14 YEARS and have had no problem with M16,M4. Now we did make adjustments’ for some so they could carry the M4 due to their height some under 5′ so yes in that case you should adjust. I saw the same adjustment for males. By the way most branches are crossing over to M4 platform..
Sorry A4
Pretty sure Country Singer was being sarcastic above, NECCSEABEECPO – as well as taking a swipe at “Uncle Joe’s” asinine advice.
Got it, see that is why they should not go into Direct Combat Jobs it brings out the big brother/father thing. That is one reason why it should not happen.
My understanding is that’s why – after briefly experimenting with co-ed combat arms units – that the IDF canned the idea. Whenever a woman got hit, the men in the unit were more likely to try and protect/help her than complete the mission at hand.
That may well be BS, because I have only heard that anecdotally vice seeing hard documentation concerning the matter. But to me it’s entirely believable. Men ARE programmed to protect their women, and are almost uniformly willing to fight and kill (or be killed) doing so.
I will agree with you having been down range and had woman with me. Looking back at things now I may have made decisions based on that fact. I am a direct combat support guy so for Combat arms guy’s this will suck. They should ask people who have had to do this down range. No they don’t want the truth.
This may come as a surprise to Drunkle Joe, but a shottie is not a magic death ray that slays all before it. One must actually AIM that sucker.
You misunderstood Joe. He didn’t want anyone actually shot, he just wanted them scared off. That’s why he advised that they should be fired in the air.
Men and women are not physically equal. Period.
Equality in civil rights is not the same thing as physical equality. There are plenty of women who have proven that they can handle a heavy load. That does not make them the same as men.
They don’t seem to like that logic. Never mind that my husband and I have a farm together, which means we do a lot of the same chores; I am by no means petite nor weak, but I cannot lift as much as he can lift, nor can I do physical/manual labor as much/as long as he can.
I can carry two 50-lb sacks of feed, one on either shoulder, and carefully walk across multiple acres and back, which puts me well above ‘average’ for my female friends/acquaintances. He can do it more easily and more quickly and more trips. Same deal for building fences, carrying fenceposts, etc – I do quite well considering the ‘average’ limitations for my sex, but the ‘average’ is scaled differently for men.
HEAR, HEAR! Why they don’t ask those of us who have actually served instead of listening to harpies in ivory towers of academia who have never darkened the door of a recruiter’s office and never will is beyond me.
Are we going to put women in the NFL and NBA? No? Why not? They can’t compete? Really? Well, that makes sense then. I mean, combat is only a matter of life and death and the continued existence of your nation. Not something actually IMPORTANT like pro sports.
Your gonna wake The Lars up.
Ssshhhhhh……it’s been pleasant around here for the past few days!
I think API misses him sometimes.
Lars can fuck himself.
Doubt it.
He is preparing for finals.
He’s probably been grounded by his mom again.
Shhhhh! Don’t bring up uncomfortable facts!
Well there are women in the WNBA but nobody watches because the game is slower and less interesting….
Same with Pro Soccer, yes the women can play but at a slower pace and with a lot less intensity. Which is why the women’s league failed in the US because they didn’t take advantage of their actual market which is families with daughters, not single guys with discretionary income.
Women will do whatever they need to in this combat open era, the question is will they perform at the same level for any true length of time or will their bodies breakdown sooner creating more problems with troop strength due to physical injury.
If women break down sooner the reality is any slot given a female is a slot that will need a replacement before her male counterparts. I’m still not clear on the mechanics of how that makes for a stronger fighting force.
I have the utmost respect and admiration for those women who want to be trigger pullers, but I do think there are some realities that need to be addressed.
Exactly what I’ve said to friends for a while.
The Olympics should mix both genders in EVERY single sport before the military combines them in combat arms.
Even MMA
Think about it….. Hmmmmm
My sons, one of whom is in the military, think women in combat would be just fine as long as they all look like the women in Strike Back 😉
I take exception to the “killer instinct” notion. I could pull the trigger without a problem and I know plenty of other women who could as well. Men and women are both capable of that part of the job.
Unfortunately, pulling the trigger is not the only job in the infantry – there is the getting there and getting back slog stuff. That is where men excel and women breakdown. Until actual physiology is taken into account, this crap is nothing but social experimentation.
Jonn, while I completely agree with your sentiment, the use of the word equal as a synonym for the word same does not support your argument. Women and men may be equal but men and women are not the same. Neither are any two or three people in any randomly selected group.
Equal is one thing. Same is quite another.