Congressman Demands Navy Secretary's Resignation over Women in Combat. Do you agree or disagree?

2015-09-29T18:15:38-04:00

The way Mabus threw the Corps under the bus leaves a bad taste in my mouth. His priority should be the welfare of the services he runs, and to so blatantly disregard a field study because he didn't like the results is little more than cronyism, imo. So I'm glad to see this, though I doubt anything will come of it. What do you think?

And just to be clear, my angst in this issue has nothing to do with women in combat, and everything to do with a Service Secretary completely ignoring and undermining senior military leadership.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/18/congressman-demands-navy-secretarys-resignation-women-in-combat.html

Congressman Demands Navy Secretary's Resignation over Women in Combat

A Republican congressman is demanding the resignation of the Navy’s secretary for his plans to open Marine Corps infantry positions to women.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 6:18 PM

2015-09-29T18:18:14-04:00

I am not sure how I feel about it right now. I looked into the study and it was done without much oversight. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but bias probably did exist. That said it's also crazy to toss it aside and not at least try to address the issues that were brought up on the report.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Sep 29 at 2015 6:30 PM

2015-09-29T18:30:59-04:00

I am not sure about this at this point SN Greg Wright. I certainly do not support the unbridled opening of all USMC infantry positions to women.
There has been a lot of socialization experiments within the military in the past few years. I am hoping for a more measured and thoughtful approach will be applied - legislated by Congress with input from the military.
Calls for Secretary Mabus to resign may be too early to do any real good. If he chooses to step aside that is another matter.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Sep 29 at 2015 6:35 PM

2015-09-29T18:35:03-04:00

No I have confidence the Commandant and Mr Mabus can resolve this issue..But if not Mr Mabus just might resign on his own... I personally like both of these guys who have done some good things in their careers for the Navy & Marines..

Response by SSG Darian Jones made Sep 29 at 2015 6:44 PM

2015-09-29T18:44:47-04:00

Women a already in combat! May be not in combat arms, but they are in direct action with the enemy at some point in both AO's. We had female medic on our patrol team in 1-125FA in Iraq! Still don't see the big deal. Let the female service just like us males. If they want combat arm let them, but be careful what you ask for!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 7:19 PM

2015-09-29T19:19:10-04:00

The DOD and Scy's are political hacks. It is evident in their priorities. From the very first day. Destroy the services.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 29 at 2015 8:42 PM

2015-09-29T20:42:01-04:00

SecNav spoke badly, and pissed A LOT of people off. He pissed A LOT of Marines off. Marines are very good a evolving. Very good at following direction from above. If SecDef says "All Combat Positions will be opened, unless an exemption is requested" we will follow that to the letter.

And that's exactly what happened.

What we're seeing now is the proverbial moving of the goalposts. It's a betrayal of the Senior/Subordinate relationship. And it's something SecNav doesn't even realize he's done.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 8:47 PM

2015-09-29T20:47:26-04:00

The secretary should have been gone since naming a warship after congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. I have no problem with women in combat as long as it doesn't distract from unit efficiency and combat effectiveness. I actually think it's an inevitably at this point. My issue is with the secretary's judgement. Too many of his initiatives seem politically motivated and not based on what's best for the USN/USMC.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Sep 29 at 2015 8:52 PM

2015-09-29T20:52:03-04:00

that congressman is a noob to his point, he needs to sit down, shut up and learn a few things and take his bigotted attitude and shove it.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Sep 29 at 2015 9:41 PM

2015-09-29T21:41:15-04:00

Yes. Mabus must go.

Response by PO2 Peter Klein made Sep 29 at 2015 9:56 PM

2015-09-29T21:56:26-04:00

Dunkin' Donuts is my local idiot in eastern San Diego County. Second generation stupid. Whatever he backs I know the opposite is the better option.

Response by CPO Greg Frazho made Sep 29 at 2015 10:15 PM

2015-09-29T22:15:50-04:00

Elected or even appointed politicians ignore their uniformed commanders and senior enlisted at their risk. There's a reason the USMC doesn't want women in 0300 MOSs, and it isn't to perpetuate the old boys' club, although that perception is certainly there. No, this is about sacrificing our readiness, specifically the shock troop value of the Marine Corps, on the alter of political correctness and social experimentation. Whether or not that becomes law remains to be seen. But I'll say this: if ALL communities, all MOSs and all ratings are open to women, what say we amend the Constitution and have all women reaching the age of 18 sign up for Selective Service? How many takers do you think there'll be then?

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2015 7:24 AM

2015-09-30T07:24:46-04:00

... all this talk is meaningless ... congress do what congress do ... all our brothers are here to support the constitution. Constitution said they make the rules, so let them make the rules ... although most of the time I disagree ... but hey! if I really want to change that? I would run for congress right?

Response by CPO Sam Gilliland made Sep 30 at 2015 2:57 PM

2015-09-30T14:57:45-04:00

These women in the study were not properly trained. If a female Marine can make it through SOI, they should be given the opportunity to serve with an infantry unit. When I served with a company, there were many Male Marines who should not of been with an Infantry unit. My point is...If you can "toe the line", who cares what sex you are! Women in these billets is going to happen if you like it or not. Let's hurry up and get through the tape.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Oct 14 at 2015 5:33 PM

2015-10-14T17:33:56-04:00

Um, didn't we just get a new one last month? That would mean the one that started all that IS gone.

Response by PFC Daniel Starrett made Apr 15 at 2016 2:23 AM

2016-04-15T02:23:57-04:00

To me, the question is not (and should not be) "whether or not female soldiers can operate on the same level as male soldiers", but "whether or not they can perform the duty that is required to a minimum standard". There will ALWAYS be one person who does better than the next, regardless of their gender. And if you want to base whether or not someone can serve in a specific role based on this, then every single time male soldier X out performs someone else, that someone else should be removed from the military, because they are not as "capable" as soldier X. Our military is already set up on a minimal standard basis, with the sole exception that the military is also biased and discriminatory in regards to letting women serve in combat. There is already a minimum set of standards in order to qualify for each MOS. So if a female can meet those standards, then there is absolutely NO reason to deny her the opportunity to do so.

Now, in specific response to the article, shared: ' The report acknowledged that "female Marines have performed superbly in the combat environments of Iraq and Afghanistan and are fully part of the fabric of a combat-hardened Marine Corps after the longest period of continuous combat operations in the Corps' history." ' This tells me that females are indeed meeting the standards required for the MOS already and in a satisfactory way.

And as for the "report that was ignored"? "...despite a study that found that all-male units outperformed units with females on such tasks". Again, the ones complaining, are not looking at whether the women are performing to standard, but at whether or not they can match the men. And THAT, folks, is the very definition of discrimination.