Let’s get something straight: the courage and commitment of women Marines are not an issue.
From helo pilots to up-gunners to crew chiefs to running convoys; Women Marines have participated in more combat in Iraq and Afghanistan than in any American war – and they’ve performed admirably.
But SecDef Panetta’s announcement opens the worlds of infantry, artillery, and armor to women for the first time, and the commentators, blogs, and discussion boards are extremely unhappy; ‘using the military to push social engineering’ is one of the more polite phrases used. Are they correct?
Let’s get something else straight: if this is the law of the land, I have no doubt the Marine Corps will enthusiastically – and properly – lead the way in implementing women in combat arms MOS’s.
However most of the TV and web comments refer to hygiene, sex, and the chivalry of a male Marine putting himself at risk to assist a female Marine. These arguments are non-starters; hygiene’s an issue for every Marine in a Helmand village, a Marine is going to defend either his brother or sister Marine with equal valor, and somehow I don’t think any Marine fighting in Fallujah thought about stopping for a quickie.
But at the same time, the differences in physical strength between men and women are more pronounced when carrying an 80/lb combat load through the fields and canals outside of Marjah, or carrying and ramming 135/lb artillery shells all day and night at an-Nasiriyah; are women able to do so?
Last year the Marine Corps opened the Infantry Officer Course (IOC) to women; two applied-both dropped out. No knock on them; IOC has an approx attrition rate of 25% with male recruits. It’s difficult for a reason; combat is exhausting and difficult and it’s better to discover in Quantico than RC SW who can make it and who cannot.
So long as the standards in boot camp, MCT, and IOC remain unchanged; what is the harm in allowing women to qualify (or not) for combat arms? It’s not ‘social engineering,’ but rather ‘equal opportunity” and that is a huge part of the American way the Marine Corps has been defending since 1775.
But standards are important; in 2009, 2nd Bn, 8th Marines were engaged by Talibs down in the Helmand’s Fishhook where the fighting was hand-to-hand. That’s not the time to find that reducing training standards was a mistake – the Taliban certainly hasn’t cut back on theirs.
We have an all volunteer military. If a woman wants the job, and can qualify for it (has the skills, etc) she should get it. The same goes for men. My twenty-two years in the Army taught me that not all men can do every job either.
ReplyDeleteThe unit I commanded in 1984-1987 (FAD 1, TOE, the Army's highest readiness level, ready to move out in 24 hours) had four women. I saw no difference in performance for our assigned tasks (maintaining five ton trucks, manning generators, working with our mobile computer system, weapons qual, etc.)
I would rather give any person (man or woman) the opportunity to try (for things they are qualified to do) than deny anyone the chance to excel.
This will sort itself out over time.
I don't have a problem with equal opportunity, as long as the standards are not lowered. But equal opportunity needs to be applied to below-average Marines as well as the overachieving women who want to be grunts. We need one PT standard and Marines who can't meet it should be separated, regardless of gender. It's also unfair for female Marines to get cutting score bonuses for PFT scales that are based solely on their gender. This amounts to a system that favors women for promotion based on nothing but their sex. Frankly, I think removing the easier female PT scoring system would go a long way toward eliminating the sexism that still inhabits the military.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, Andrew Lubin gets it ... and explains it in language even a civilian can understand. But if physical test standards stay the same, or are made even more difficult, I don't expect to see a woman Marine infantry officer any time soon.
ReplyDeleteArtillery will probably be one of the first jobs opened for women. Less women will be able to handle the rigors of the gun line, but there's no reason they can't work in the FDC or as scout observers. The Army has female artillery officers already so female Marine artillery officers should be a non-issue.
ReplyDeleteBrett -- I was a Marine artillery Forward Observer in Vietnam. During contact with the enemy my Scout Observer and I were sometimes called upon to do things more arduous than the grunts we were attached to ... an ultimate physical test. The FDC is like Disneyland compared to up-close combat.
DeleteYour evidence is anecdotal and doesn't contribute to the debate.
DeleteWomen should be integrated into combat units, and the process needs to start in boot camp and OCS. end gender separation; have the men and women share the same facilities, barracks, heads, chow halls, training, everything. There might be some sexual tension but we already experience that with our gay Marines. They will live together in the field and they need to train the same way.
ReplyDeleteThe results of gender integration have not been positive with Combat Support units in the other branches. Women have suffered 3 times the injury rate of men. Since this has been implemented in the Army and Air Force sexaul assaults have sky rocketed.
DeleteAll right Mr. Anonymous, where is your proof? Why are you making claims like "Women have suffered 3 times the injury rate of men," with absolutely no link to an article, or research paper that provides proof for this statement that implies an extreme degree of statistical certitude?
DeleteDitto with sexual assault rates. Why should I believe an anecdote from an anonymous source who provides no proof? Everyone wants a rational discussion of this issue, but it will not be achieved with random unfounded assertions.
Why haven't women been held to the same standards from the beginning? Is military service a Civil Right? Is serving in the military covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964? There is a difference between society and the military.
ReplyDeleteBecause men and women are different physically, that's why. And yes, there's a difference between society and the military. So what's your point? It isn't clear.
DeleteWomen have never in any country been held to the same standards. This is about integrity and credibility. So long as the standards are lower for women, and they will stay that way, women will not get the same respect. She will always be suspect. There have been 23 studies conducted by the DOD over the last 30 years. If the male standard had been applied from the beginning the Army would have had only 72 female officers commissioned through ROTC between 1992 and 2011. This is about a quota based on social engineering nothing more. How does having females in the formation IMPROVE combat readiness? That question was not asked on the survey!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI think we'd all appreciate a link to the study that says only 72 female officers commissioned via ROTC between 92' and 11' would have qualified if they were held to the same standard. I don't even think that data is useful simply because if they had been held to the same standard, more than those currently anecdotal 72 would have chosen to train to that standard, affecting the numbers still. Do I believe it would have meant fewer women joining? Yes. Do I believe the number "72" is accurate? Not by a long shot. People adapt to meet existing standards.
I think the whole discussion is a disgrace and a sideshow. The USMC leadership should be focused on the lessons learned over the past decade, maintaining institutional knowledge, asking how COIN fits in the future. Discussing what went wrong, and what was right.
ReplyDeleteAs for the women, there is no way this is going to be fair. It certainly is not what is best for war-readiness. Semper Fi Ladies
The problem is your view doesn't take into consideration real life. With pressure from higher quotas are established and the standards drop, whether on paper or not, they drop. In my enlisted community women were finally allowed in with equal standards on paper, but they continually failed evolutions, passed out while rescuing people and were still pushed through due to quotas. When the same failures occurred in males they were viewed as weak and incompetent to perform the job and got the boot. If the standards are STRICTLY enforced, with no meddling from those with political motivations, then yes, you are correct it is equal opportunity. Unfortunately that hasn't been, and will most likely never be, the case. Unless you can ENSURE that standards are absolutely held in tact, REGARDLESS of sex, then I am in total agreement.
ReplyDeleteS/F
Rip